v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region V
                                          Water Division
                                          230 South Dearborn Street
                                          Chicago, Illinois 60604
                                           September
905R81107
6189

-------
                              DRAFT


              GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  STATEMENT


                               for


             WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT  IN  RURAL LAKE  AREAS
                            Prepared  by the


             United States  Environmental  Protection Agency


                      Region  V,  Chicago, Illinois
                                   and
                           WAPORA,  Incorporated
                              October 1981
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Street, Room 1670
Cnicago,  IL   60604
Approved  by:

 n
                                                    Valdas V. Adamkus
                                                    Acting Regional  Administrator

-------
                    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

                  WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT IN RURAL LAKE AREAS
                                Prepared by
                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
for further information, contact:

Mr. Jack Kratzmeyer, Project Monitor
Water Division, USEPA
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois  60604
312/353-2157
                               Abstract

This EIS examines the environmental, economic and social costs within Region V
of rural lake wastewater planning especially as funded and managed under the
Clean Water Act.  It reviews and analyzes facilities planning and environmental
review methods for rural lake areas.

It uses seven sample projects of this type to present specific recommendations
about development and management of decentralized small-flow alternatives
to conventional wastewater treatment.  It recommends specific methods to
document project need and water quality impact.  It concludes that wherever
continued operation of a substantial percentage of existing systems is
feasible, a wastewater management program based on optimum operation of
existing systems will result in substantial  savings in capital and present
worth costs.

The EIS offers a complete manual for planning, construction and management
of decentralized rural  lake projects with or without Federal or State
assistance.  Reasonable use of the methods outlined here for construction
grant applications already in hand will result in an estimated savings
exceeding $420 million  in Region V alone.

-------
                                          TABLE OF CONTENTS






     Section                                                                                   Page




Executive Summary                                                                               i




Terminology                                                                                     xv




List of Tables/Figures                                                                          xvii




Chapter I:  WHAT THIS EIS DOES AND WHY (PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION)                         1




     A.  What it is About (Scope)                                                               3




     B.  What does it Wish to Accomplish and How Does it Propose to do it (Proposed Actions)    4




     C.  Why Do These Things Need to be Done (The Need for Action)                              9




Chapter II:  SMALL WASTE FLOWS TECHNOLOGIES                                                    19




     A.  On-Site Systems                                                                       21




     B.  Small-Scale Off-Site Treatment                                                        31




     C.  Needs Documentation Policies                                                          36




     D.  Needs Documentation Methods                                                           38




     E.  Designing the Optimum Operation Alternatives                                          49




     F.  Cost Analysis                                                                         54




     G.  Shortcutting the Construction Grants Process                                          63




     H.  Use of Segments in Planning and Implementation                                        64




Chapter III:  COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT                                                             65




     A.  The Need for Management                                                               67




     B.  Six Community Management Models                                                       69




     C.  Design of Small Waste Flows Management Programs                                       71




     D.  Public Involvement in Agency Design and Operation                                     74




     E.  Use of Variances                                                                      75




     F.  Access Considerations                                                                 77




     G.  Implementing Water Conservation Programs                                              78




     H.  Monitoring Groundwater and Surface Water                                              79




     I.  Recovery of Local Costs                                                               82




     J.  Broader Responsibilities of Public Agencies Related to Rural Wastewater Management    84




     K.  Personnel                                                                             84




     L.  Revising the Management Program                                                       86

-------
                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued


     Section                                                                                   Page

Chapter IV:   FACILITIES PLANNING TECHNIQUES                                                    87

     A.  Planning Area Definition                                                              89

     B.  Demography                                                                            92

     C.  Land Use and Environmental Constraints                                                98

     D.  Water Resources                                                                       101

     E.  Financial Impacts                                                                     106

     F.  Public Participation                                                                  109

Chapter V:  FUNDING AND ADMINISTERING THE OPTIMUM OPERATION ALTERNATIVE—MITIGATING MEASURES   110

     A.  Federal Concerns                                                                      112

     B.  State Concerns                                                                        118

     C.  Training                                                                              122

     D.  Does Anyone Want the Small Waste Flows Approach?                                      123

Chapter VI:   ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION                      125

     A.  Water Quality Impacts                                                                 127

     B.  Environmentally Sensitive Areas                                                       129

     C.  Economic Impact                                                                       131

     D.  Land Use                                                                              133

     E.  Resident Privacy and Inconvenience                                                    134

Chapter VII                                                                                    136

     List of Preparers
     Index
     Bibliography
     Appendices
         Region V Needs Document Guidance                                                      A-l
         Sanitary Survey                                                                       B-l
         Green Lake Limited Action Cost Sheets                                                 C-l
         Otter Tail Limited Action Cost Sheets                                                 D-l

-------
                                         EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY


What This  EIS  Does  and Why (Purpose of  and Need for Action)

                    This EIS  examines  a number  of  Federal  actions,  especially U.S.  EPA review and
                    approval  of facilities plans  in  unsewered rural  lake  communities  or parts of them.

                    Seven earlier  EIS's on rural lake  sewering projects,  comprising  35 lakes in five
                    states,  were  the  case studies for  this  EIS.   They provided the  identification of
                    issues  and  much of  the  analysis and data  used  here.   The  two major findings of
                    these EIS's are:

                    o  that  wastewater management based  on  optimum operation of existing  on-site sys-
                       tems  differs substantially from  either new  centralized facilities  or new small
                       waste  flows facilities,  and

                    o  that  wastewater management based  on  existing  systems  allows  substantial savings
                       in capital  costs  and  operation  and maintenance  expenses,  compared  with cen-
                       tralized facilities.  This occurs wherever  continued  operation of a substantial
                       percentage  of systems  is feasible, while still meeting water  quality objectives.

                    The six projects  recommended  for implementation  in the EIS's  offered present worth
                    savings  of  approximately $44  million or $5,220 per dwelling unit  compared to con-
                    ventional sewering.   If this savings can be achieved for  just  the  80,000 additional
                    unsewered dwellings  in lake  communities,  the  total regional present worth savings
                    for lake  projects  funded  through  1985 could be  as high as $460 million.

                    Savings  from  this recommended wastewater  management  approach,  if applied to that
                    percentage  of  dwellings  in the  Region  that might  otherwise be sewered,  are esti-
                    mated to  be $1.9  billion  or $4,436 per dwelling.   These  430  thousand  dwellings
                    represent  13%  of  the  3.3  million dwellings in  the Region now served by on-site
                    systems.

                    Within  Region V there  are  1,121  applications  for Construction Grants funds on file
                    from communities  under 10,000 population.  Of these communities  an estimated 372
                    include  developed lakeshores.   Based  on  past funding  experience, most  of these
                    communities will  apply for new  collector  sewers to serve areas now using on-site
                    systems.

                    To realize the cost savings of optimum operation  alternatives while achieving water
                    quality  goals  requires adequate  data on the  performance of existing  on-site sys-
                    tems.  This performance data  is  almost  always  lacking.   Surveys conducted indicate
                    a much  lower  failure  rate  than  would  be predicted from site  limitations.  Large
                    sums may  be spent  needlessly if valid  performance data are  lacking, or if site
                    suitability is  wrongly evaluted.  This  demands the collection and objective analy-
                    sis  of performance   data and  corollary  information such  as on-site system design,
                    usage,  maintenance,  soils,  site constraints,  groundwater  hydrology,  and surface
                    drainage.

                    Partly  due  to  the lack of  data,  on-site  systems are  blamed  for problems  they have
                    not, in fact,  caused.  On-site wells are more often  contaminated by surface water
                    entering   them  because of  poor  construction   than  by gross  contamination  of the
                    aquifer  by  on-site  wastewater systems.   Eutrophication of lakes  is also  blamed on
                    on-site   systems yet  precipitation  and  non-point   sources  almost  always  are far
                    larger  sources of limiting  nutrients.

                    This does not  mean that on-site systems  cause no  problems.   Indeed,though  the flows
                    are  small  and the  adverse  impacts  are  limited  in scale and severity, the signi-
                    ficance  of  on-site  malfunctions   is  amplified  by  the very factor  that makes them
                    inexpensive--their  proximity  to  dwellings.  Real  water  quality  and public health
                    problems  with on-site systems need to be revealed and  remedied.

-------
                   A  major  factor in the failure of  on-site  systems  is lack of adequate maintenance.
                   Many  owners  simply neglect the routine preventive measures  required  by their sys-
                   tems.  Few  install or even know about the simple flow reduction devices that could
                   prolong  the  life  of  their systems.   When their systems  fail,  owners  are severely
                   limited  in  the types  of repair, upgrading,  or  replacement  measures they may take.
                   Off-site  alternatives are  either  too expensive or not implementable  by the indi-
                   vidual owners.

                   Public involvement and leadership could resolve many of these problems.  Yet only a
                   limited  tradition of public  management for private on-site  systems  exists beyond
                   initial permitting and inspection of  construction.

                   In response  to  the  opportunties  acd  the  obstacles  associated with  the optimum
                   operation of  existing on-site  systems, this EIS proposes and examines the following
                   actions  for  implementation by Region V  and  state Construction  Grants agencies.

                   1.  Encourage  community supervision of small waste flows facilities.

                   2.  Develop  evaluation  methods for optimum  operation  of  existing on-site systems.

                   3.  Promote  collection  and analysis  of on-site  and  small-scale system performance
                       data.

                   4.  Review eligibility regulations.

                   5.  Encourage  states  to play active roles  in rural wastewater management.

                   6.  Recommend  facilities planning and impact analysis methodologies.

                   7.  Encourage  granteee evaluation and adoption of mitigations measures.

                   8.  Encourage  public  participation.

                   9.  Encourage  grantees'   innovation  with  small  waste  flows  technologies  and com-
                       munity management.
Small Waste Flows Technologies
                    About 3.3 million on-site systems  serve 22% of the population in Region V.  95% of
                    these are septic  tank/soil absorption  systems or  cesspools.

                    Inadequancies  and  failures  of  on-site systems  that  warrant  public  funding for
                    abatement include:

                    o  direct discharges,
                    o  surface malfunctions,
                    o  backups into  the  household,  and
                    o  groundwater contamination at a point of  use.

                    The significance  of  these failures  is  discussed.

                    Groundwater contamination is the failure with  the  greatest possibility for  adverse
                    impacts  on public  health.    Reported failure   rates  seldom  include  groundwater
                    failures.  Generally,  original  sampling  is the  only means of quantifying  ground-
                    water failures.

                    Reported failure rates seldom  specify type.   Also, reports cannot usually  be com-
                    pared or  combined;  data  collection,  interpretation and reporting  methods  typically
                    are unique to each survey.

                    The factors that contribute  to failures can be  controlled to  varying  degrees.   Most
                    amenable to control are  usage  and  maintenance of the  system  and  surface  drainage.
                    Other factors such  as  system  design,  soil  characteristics, and groundwater hydro-
                    logy can be controlled by upgrading or replacement  of the on-site  facilities.   Some
                    factors can only be overcome by transporting wastes off-site.

-------
Many  options  exist  for preventing  and  correcting  failures  of  on-site  systems.
Some,  listed  in  the text,  are  described  more  fully  in the  fact sheets of  the
accompanying Technical Reference Document.

Field  studies  of on-site  system  performance  in the Seven Rural  Lake  EIS's  showed
total failure rates (including groundwater failures in several cases) significantly
lower  than  indicated by the  percent  of systems not complying  with current  design
codes.   The successful  performance  of  many  subcode  systems  suggests  that  code
conformance  is  not  the  best criteria  for  deciding the  fate of existing  on-site
systems.  The intent  of design codes is to prevent water quality and public  health
problems.   If that  is being done by subcode systems, then upgrading, replacing, or
abandoning  the systems is unjustified.

Similarly,  soil type and conventional criteria for soil limitation ratings (slight,
moderate, and severe  limitations) are not suitable  criteria  for  deciding the fate
of existing systems.  Empirical data relating soil  characteristics  to system per-
formance at the local level can be readily obtained during sanitary surveys and are
an integral element of optimum operation alternatives.

The  text  contains  a decision flow diagram of  a  recommended sequential approach to
selecting appropriate technologies for individual existing  systems.   The sequence
is divided  into five steps  including 1)  available data  review  and community sur-
veys,  2)  on-site sanitary  inspection,  3) identification of problem, 4)  detailed
site analysis, and 5) technology  selection.

Any  community  will have  some developed properties where  sewering  is  not economi-
cally feasible, and upgrading or  replacement of the existing soil absorption system
alone  may not solve  failures or  prevent  future  failures.   In  such cases,  consi-
deration  should be  given  to use of  one or  more of the  following technologies:

o  flow reduction,
o  water metering,
o  segregation of waste streams,
o  reuse/recycle,
o  holding  tanks, or
o  effluent plume recovery.

Where local conditions make on-site options infeasible or non-cost-effective, small
scale  off-site  collection and treatment technologies may solve existing problems.
Collection  methods  include  conventional gravity, small-diameter gravity, pressure,
and  vacuum  sewers.   In  lake water sheds where effluent discharges are discouraged,
preferred small scale treatment technologies are subsurface land application (large
drainfields called  cluster systems)  and surface  land application by irrigation or
infiltration  -  percolation.   Where  discharges  to  surface water  are acceptable,
treatment options expand  to include use of recirculating sand filters with surface
discharge,  land  application  by  overland  flow,  wetlands  discharge, lagoons,  fixed
film treatment plants and activated sludge treatment-plants.

All  optimum operation alternatives  will  also include off-site treatment and dis-
posal  of  septage and,  where generated, holding  tank wastes.   General options in-
clude  land  application  (may be   limited  to   stabilized  septage),   treatment  in a
wastewater  plant and treatment in  a separate septage plant.

Aside  from  selecting appropriate on-site technologies,   performance data are also
required to determine the eligibility of collector sewers.  The role of performance
data,  cost-effectiveness,  and "substantial  human habitation" in eligibility deter-
minations for  collector sewers  is illustrated  in a decision  flow diagram  in the
text.   The  decision flow diagram  is  based on  national  policy contained in Program
Requirements Memorandum 78-9.

Region  V's  policy  on performance  data collection  (needs documentation) is based on
national  policy,  experience  gained  during  preparation  of  the  Seven  Rural  Lake
EIS's,  and  input  from states in  the Region.   The  current guidance  is Appendix A of
this EIS.   This  guidance integrates needs documentation activities with the devel-

-------
opraent, costing, selection, and  design  of alternatives.   Also,  decision points  are
identified at  which the results of needs documentation  work can be  reviewed,  and
the scope  of facilities planning  revised appropriately.  A process  diagram  shows
the interaction of these two vital  activities.

The EIS describes new methods  of needs  documentation used in the preparation of  the
Seven Rural  Lake EIS's, some  for  the  first time in Construction Grants  programs.
It explains  limits  to  their utility arid discusses  eligibility  considerations.   The
needs documentation methods include:

o  review of local well and septic  tank permit  records,
o  interviews with local officials  and  contractors,
o  windshield surveys,
o  review of soil maps,
o  preparation of base  maps,
o  aerial photographic  interpretation,
o  septic leachate detection,
o  mailed questionnaires,
o  partial sanitary surveys, and
o  representative sampling of soil  and  groundwater.

Collection  of  this  data  and  later detailed  site  analysis  generates  previously
unavailable information on system performance and on factors affecting performance.
Future utility of this  information  will  depend  on standardizing data collection and
reporting methods,  and providing  efficient means  of storage and  retrieval.   This
EIS recommends that Region V,  Headquarters, the Office of Research and Development,
and other divisions  of U.S. EPA discuss  among  themselves  and  with concerned state
agencies ways to accomplish this.

Coordination of  needs  documentation  work with the  development  and cost analysis of
optimum  operation alternatives  is critical  to the time  and  cost  efficiency of
facilities planning  for unsewered  areas.  Three stages  of alternative development
are described.   The  first  is  based on  technology  assumptions.   Available data and
information  from  community surveys are used to  estimate  the percentage of on-site
systems  requiring  upgrading,  replacement,  or   abandonment.   Assumptions  for  the
technologies  required  are  then  made  and rough  costs are  estimated for comparison
with  sewered alternatives.  Preliminary delineation of  sewered and unsewered ser-
vice areas may be possible.

The second stage is based on system selection.   Partial sanitary surveys and repre-
sentative  sampling  of  soil  and groundwater provide the basis  for  more conclusive
identification  and  quantification of   on-site   system failures.    The  results  are
extrapolated  to  unsurveyed on-site  systems and appropriate systems (including no
action),  are  tentatively selected  for  each developed property  in unsewered service
areas.   This will  normally be  adequate  for   cost-effectiveness  comparisons with
centralized  alternatives  and  for description of facilities plans' proposed action.

The  final  stage  of development  for optimum operation alternatives will normally be
completed  with a Step  2  or Step  2 and  3 grant  because  of the  time and expense
required  for detailed  site analysis.   Also, because eligibility of off-site treat-
ment  facilities may be  dependent on  the  detailed site  analysis  and subsequent
micro-scale  cost-effectiveness analysis,  final  site suitability  studies  and  site
selection may  be delayed beyond Step 1.  The final  stage,  facilities verification,
is  based on  a detailed  site  analysis.  The  analysis  includes  completion of the
sanitary  survey  and, where needed, on-site work to  determine causes  of failure and
appropriate  remedies.   To  avoid repeated  inspection of  systems and owner annoyance
this  step  may commonly be  followed  (in Step 2 and  3 projects) by  the actual  con-
struction needed.

This  EIS  contains   special  cost  curves  developed  for  preliminary  comparison of
on-site,  small  scale off-site,  and centralized  alternatives.   This  level of  analy-
sis  can determine the  alternatives to  consider for a Plan of  Study (Step 1 grant
application)  and estimate  the cost of various  technology assumptions.   It can be
used  for  community-wide cost analysis  or segment-by-segment  within a  community.
Alternatively, present  worth costs can  be  developed  at this stage using  local units
costs  and technology assumptions.

-------
                    After  system  selection,  more  detailed present  worth  calculations  are possible.
                    Comparison  of centralized  alternatives  with optimum operation alternatives should
                    include  items not  common to both.   Also eligible  and  ineligible publicly funded
                    items  as  well as  privately  purchased  items should be  included  for  all alternatives.

                    After  the sanitary survey  and  detailed  site analysis,  facilities verification may
                    depend on micro-scale cost-effectiveness analysis  for individual  lots or groups of
                    lots.   In particular,  comparison of higher risk on-site  systems with holding tanks,
                    cluster  systems or  other  off-site technologies may  require this most detailed level
                    of cost  analysis.

                    Because  the  cash  flow characteristics  of  centralized alternatives differ greatly
                    from optimum operation alternatives,  an average annual  homeowner  cost is described
                    for use  in local  economic  impact analysis.  All  local public  and  private costs
                    committed for the  initial  year  of operation are  divided by the number  of dwelling
                    units  served.
Community Management
                    Governmental  concern with  the use of  on-site  systems  has reflected perceived and
                    actual  inadequacies  of  early systems.   At  present, most governmental  authorities
                    regulate  the installation of  new  systems and  can require  upgrading  and  replacement
                    of failing on-site systems.   However,  few authorities  have accepted the  responsi-
                    bility  for supervising  the  operation  and  maintenance of  on-site  systems.

                    The 1977  Clean Water Act  recognized  the  need  for continuing  supervision of  on-site
                    system  operation  and maintenance.   U.S. EPA  Construction  Grant regulations and
                    program guidance which implement  the  Act require that before a  construction  grant
                    for on-site  systems  may  be  made, the applicant must  meet  several requirements,
                    including:

                    o  certifying that a public  body  will be responsible for the proper installation,
                       operation, and maintenance of  the  funded  systems;

                    o  establishing a  comprehensive  program   for  regulation and inspection of  on-site
                       systems that will include  periodic  testing  of existing potable water wells and,
                       where  a substantial number of  on-site systems exists,  more extensive monitoring
                       of  aquifers; and

                    o  obtaining assurance of  unlimited  access to  each individual  system  at all  rea-
                       sonable times  for inspection,  monitoring,  construction, maintenance operation,
                       rehabilitation,  and  replacement.

                    These  and other  relevant requirements  for the  management  of  funded  on-site  facili-
                    ties are  broadly stated  so that  a wide  range  of management programs is  possible.

                    If on-site systems impacted water  quality and  public health  only for the properties
                    on which they  lie, the  community  would not  be  concerned with anything that  happens
                    on private property.   However, on-site systems  can  have off-site impacts.   Density
                    of  development,  failure rates,   and  sensitivity of  water  resources may lead  to
                    impacts  requiring  community  action.   The  EIS   describes  five   general management
                    models  reflecting different degrees of community authority and involvement.

                    The design of  small  waste  flows  management  programs reflects existing or  projected
                    community characteristics  and potential  consequences of program  design decisions.
                    Specific  factors are  listed in Table  1.

                    The six steps in management program design are:

                    1.  inventorying factors  affecting the design  process,
                    2.  making decisions  on system ownership  and liability,
                    3.  identifying services  to be provided,
                    4.  determining how selected services will be  performed,
                    5.  determining who will  be responsible for  providing services,  and
                    6.  implementing the  management program.

-------
                    Three  of   the  steps  select,  specify procedures,  and  assign  responsibility  for
                    services  to be  provided.   Table  2  lists  potential   services.   They  are  more
                    fully described in the Technical Reference Document,  Chapter VI-A.


TABLE 1.  FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED  IN THE DESIGN OF SMALL WASTE FLOWS MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
     Existing or Projected Community Characteristics

          o  types of wastewater facilities utilized and proposed,
          o  expertise available to the community,
          o  size of the community or management district and number of systems in use,
          o  available regulatory authority,
          o  community jurisdictional setting,
          o  community attitudes toward growth, and
          o  community attitudes toward public management of private wastewater facilities.

     Potential Consequences of Program Design Decisions

          o  costs, including initial costs and economic impact of failures,
          o  environmental impacts, especially impacts on water resources, and
          o  level of risk assumed by various parties.
TABLE 2.  POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SERVICES
     Administrative

          o    Staffing
          o    Financial
          o    Permits
          o    Bonding
          o    Certification programs
          o    Service contract supervision
          o    Accept for public management privately installed facilities
          o    Interagency coordination
          o    Training programs
          o    Public education
          o    Enforcement
          o    Property/access acquisition

     Technical

          o    System design
          o    Plan  review
          o    Soils investigations
          o    System installation
          o    Routine inspection and maintenance
          o    Septage collection and disposal
          o    Pilot studies
          o    Flow  reduction program
          o    Water quality monitoring
      Planning
                Land use planning
                Sewer and water planning

-------
                    A public management agency need  not provide  all  of  the  selected services or even be
                    a  new   agency.   Private  contractors  and  homeowners  could  provide  several  non-
                    regulatory services  under agency supervision.   Existing agencies  could  agree to
                    cooperate in  running the management program  without creating a new  level of govern-
                    ment.

                    Options affecting the way specific services  might be provided include:

                    o  public involvement in agency  design  and operation,
                    o  use  and construction variances,
                    o  gaining access to on-site  systems,
                    o  implementing water conservation programs,
                    o  monitoring groundwater and surface water,
                    o  recovery of local costs,
                    o  personnel, and
                    o  revising the management program.

Facilities Planning Techniques

                    An  early task  in the  Construction  Grants  process is  delineation of facilities
                    planning  area  boundaries.   There  are  several  factors to be  considered  in doing
                    this.    For rural areas  where the optimum  operation alternatives may be  selected,
                    planning  areas  should be large enough to take  advantage of  economics of scale in
                    management program costs.

                    The Cost  Variability  Study prepared  for  this EIS provides environmental and devel-
                    opmental criteria to identify at an early stage  planning  areas where optimum opera-
                    tion may  be  cost-effective.   Table 3 indicates  housing  densities below which  even
                    extensive  (50%)  replacement  of  on-site facilities  will  be cost-effective compared


TABLE 3.  TRADE-OFFS DENSITIES (IN HOMES PER MILE) ABOVE  WHICH OFF-SITE FACILITIES ARE COMPETITIVE.
          BASED ON 50% REPLACEMENT OF ON-SITE SYSTEMS AT  0% AND  50%  GROWTH


                              Collection          Centralized               Land               Cluster
Scenarios                        only	treatment	application	system
                              0%   50%            0%   50%                  0%  50%           0%    50%


1  No constraints             54   <38                 92                  -                   -     -
   8' adc1

2  No constraints              -    123            -      -                  -                   -     -
   16'  adc

3  Steep topography           73    53            -    111                  -     -              -     -
   1 pump

4  Flat; 6' to                 --            --                  --              --
   groundwater; peat2

5  Flat; 6' to                 --            --                  --              --
   groundwater

6  Steep topography;           -    85            -   128                  -                   -     -
   1 pump; 6' to bedrock

7  Flat                      87    72                108                  -                   -     -

8  Steep topography;          87    69            -     95                  -   135              -   130
   2' to bedrock;
   50%  of houses need
   grinder pumps
 1  adc = average depth of cut.
 2  Imported fill needed to replace 1,000' of peat soil.
                                                vii

-------
to off-site technologies.   In general sewering any area developed with on-site  sys-
tems will  not be  cost-effective  if  new transmission and treatment  facilities  are
needed  in  addition  to  new  house and  collector  sewers.   Sewering becomes  cost-
effective at densities below 100 dwellings/mile of collector sewers where construc-
tion problems are minimal,  the area served is near existing  sewers, and capacity is
available  in  the existing sewers  and  treatment  plant.   For most  rural  areas  this
means the  choice between  centralized  and optimum  operation alternatives will  be
based on their  ability  to  remedy water quality  and  public  health problems,  not on
present worth comparisons.

Facilities planning  can be  a frustrating and time-consuming process  for grantees.
Changes  in grants program emphasis,  as reflected in this  EIS,  procedural  changes
and  funding  modifications  contribute  to  the delays  and  revisions  sometimes  en-
countered.   The  conclusions  and  recommendations  this EIS presents will,  hopefully,
lead  to well  designed,  efficient facilities  planning exercises.   Other  specific
suggestions  are made  for  abbreviating  the processes  of  needs  documentation  and
development, costing, selection, and design of alternatives.

Advance  planning by grantees  can also expedite  their  facilities  planning.   Steps
they could take in anticipation of facilities planning include initiation of public
information programs, planning  for recreational  resource development, and defining
community goals and objectives for land use and water resources.

Population  projections  and   economic  impact  analysis  for  rural  communities  are
seriously  limited  by data  availability and applicability.   There  are several  ways
to overcome  these  limitations.   A particular problem in  rural  lake communities is
projection of  seasonal  populations.   In some cases where population projections or
residential  economic impact  are  critical to decision  making,  resident  surveys or
tabulation of local tax or building permit data may be necessary.

Design  codes  for  on-site  systems have served  as de  facto zoning  tools  and  have
protected  some  environmentally  sensitive  areas such as wetlands,  steep  slopes and
flood plains.  They have also occasionally been misused to actually prevent upgrad-
ing  of  existing systems.   Sewers can overcome the  natural constraints  that limit
on-site  systems.  New  small waste  flows  technologies may partially  or  entirely
overcome the same  constraints.  Grantees can anticipate these changes by conducting
environmentally-based land  use planning  before  or  in  conjunction with facilities
planning.   Methods for environmental  constraints evaluation are  recommended that
will  be useful  in land use  evaluations,  population projections and environmental
analysis.

Consideration  of water resources  was consistently one of  the  weakest elements in
the  facilities  plans  that  the  Seven Rural  Lake EIS's evaluated.   Approaches to
evaluating  existing problems and  future  impacts  of alternatives are recommended.

Pathogen contamination of drinking waters and primary contact waters by  septic tank
effluents  is  unacceptable  and,  where detected,  must  be abated.  Systems should be
upgraded,  replaced  or  abandoned  as appropriate,  provided there  is  a reasonable
connection between the  contamination and on-site  failures.   Since  relevant data is
seldom  available,  sampling  of  properly  constructed  wells and selected leachate
plumes  is  recommended.

Abandoning on-site  systems  along  shorelines  will  seldom result  in  significant
change  in  plant productivity within  the main body of lakes.   A  new  graphical analy-
sis  technique  estimates  the concentration  of  total phosphorus  in a  lake  due to
on-site systems.   This  first-approximation  analysis  requires  normally available
data  on the' number of  on-site systems,  lake morphometry and  lake hydrology.  The
results can  guide subsequent decisions whether  to conduct  more intensive modeling
and water  quality  sampling.

While   effects  of on-site  systems  on  the trophic  status  of  an  entire lake will
usually be  minor,  localized impacts  can be more apparent and  of greater public
interest.   Localized impacts include nearshore  plant growth stimulated  by leachate
plumes  at  their point of  emergence  and plant growth stimulated by accumulation of

-------
                    nutrients  in  embayments  or  canals.   Based  on observations  and analysis  during
                    preparation  of the Seven Rural Lake EIS's, preventing nearshore plant growth along
                    open  shorelines  of a lake  is not a sufficient justification for abandoning on-site
                    systems.  However,  abandonment of systems adjacent to particularly sensitive embay-
                    ments  and canals  may be justified  if non-point source  control  measures  also are
                    implemented  prior  to  or along with the construction of off-site facilities.

                    Communities  applying for U.S.  EPA Construction Grants  funds must  demonstrate  in
                    their  facilities  plans  that they have the  necessary  financial resources to insure
                    the adequate construction,  operation and maintenance of proposed facilities.  There
                    are several  ways  to determine municipal fiscal capabilities.

                    For  residential economic impact  analysis,  this EIS recommends use  of a parameter
                    that  accommodates  the very different  cash  flow  characteristics of centralized and
                    optimum  operation  alternatives.  The  "average annual homeowner's cost" amortizes
                    first-year  private and  local public capital  costs  at  appropriate mortgage or bond
                    periods  and rates.  To the annual debt  repayment  are  added annual administrative,
                    operation and maintenance and reserve  fund.   The community total for the first year
                    is  divided  by the  number of  existing  dwelling units.   Comparison of this economic
                    parameter with resident income characteristics provides a useful means of economic
                    impact analysis.

                    Assessment  of economic  impact  might also  include use of locally available equip-
                    ment, material, and labor.  Small waste flows technologies can usually be installed
                    with  local  inputs whereas much of the equipment and  labor for centralized facili-
                    ties will be imported.

                    Planning  for  wastewater  facilities  in  rural and developing  communities  provides
                    opportunities for  public  participation not  available  normally  in  urbanized  set-
                    tings.   In  particular,  the  inspection,  evaluation,  and  construction  of on-site
                    facilities  will result  in  numerous  contacts  between  residents  and  planning  per-
                    sonnel.  These contacts can provide a  personalized forum for explaining the purpose
                    and  methods of the project.  The contacts  can also be a way for citizens to parti-
                    cipate in the planning process.

                    Disputes  between  property owners and  facilities designers will arise over the type
                    of  facilities to be  installed, their  cost  or disruption to the property.  A method
                    for  dealing with such disputes is a  sanitary review board.  Analogous to a zoning
                    board,  a sanitary  review board would  be  made up of citizens  of  the community who
                    would weigh owner's concerns against public concerns about cost, water quality, and
                    public health.

                    To  organize  data  and calculations,  facilitate  service  area delineations,  organize
                    field  work  and allow small scale analysis  of socioeconomic, environmental and land
                    use  characteristics,   facilities  planners may  decide  to  segment planning areas.
                    Planning  areas can be segmented on  the  basis of soils classifications, housing or
                    land  use  patterns,  on-site  system  failure  rates,  housing  occupancy,  or  other
                    locally  relevant  criteria.

Funding and Administering  the Optimum Operation Alternative—Mitigative  Measures

                    Recent analysis of the opportunities  and problems associated with small waste flow
                    management   has  led  to  numerous  clarifications of  the  requirements  of  the  Clean
                    Water  Act   and   its  regulation.   Most  of  these  are   summarized   in  Facilities
                    Planning  1981, the Program  Requirements Memoranda that contributed to it, and other
                    U.S.  EPA  and Regional  Guidance.   Among  the  most  important  items  reviewed  are:

                    o  On-Site  Systems for Seasonal Properties—Duration of residency  is not a determi-
                       nant  of  eligibility where public ownership of on-site systems  or its equivalent
                       are feasible.   For on-site upgrading or  replacement, adequate access, documented
                       need  and  demonstrated  cost-effectiveness  will  allow  efficient distribution of
                       construction grant funds.

-------
o  Use of Ordinances for Access--A local or county ordinance that grants the access
   (at reasonable times) and control over an on-site treatment system is sufficient
   to establish public ownership and thus eligibility.

o  Needs  Documentation  for  Alternative   Sewers--While   alternative  sewers  are
   excepted  from the  various   requirements  specified  in  PRM  78-9,  they  are  not
   exempt from the  general  requirements for demonstrated  need that rest upon every
   fundable action.   Future guidance will emphasize this.

o  Pilot Studies—Program Operations Memorandum  81-3,  issued during preparation of
   this EIS,  authorizes pilot  studies  of  innovative  and  alternative technologies
   under Step 1 facilities  planning.

o  Conventional  Water Use--Facilitating  unrestricted  water  use does  not  justify
   abandoning  on-site  treatment systems  if water use restrictions  and/or  subcode
   sized  drainfield  replacements   can  protect  water  quality  and public  health.

o  Potential  Failures—Upgrading  and  replacement  of  existing  on-site  systems
   identified as potential  failures because of obvious  underdesign or other reasons
   are  eligible  provided  they  are  similar to  systems that have  already  failed.
   Similarity  is measured  by  system  design,  usage,  soil  characteristics,  site
   limitations and groundwater hydrology.

o  Simplified Easements — In areas where a legal description of the properties to be
   served by  an  on-site wastewater management district may already be available, a
   simple  "fill  in  the blanks"  easement  may be adequate  to fulfill  the access
   requirements of 40 CRF 35.918-1(h).

o  Innovative and Alternaive Off-Site Facilities—Facilities such as holding tanks,
   cluster  systems,  sand   filters  with  surface discharge,  or  other  small-scale
   treatment  methods  will  be  eligible only if documented  problems cannot be abated
   by  any combination  or  on-site measures,  or  if  the present worth  of off-site
   facilities  for a  dwelling  or group  of  dwellings  is less than the present worth
   of the appropriate on-site facilities for the same dwelling.

Objections to the  optimum  operation alternative include  the claim that it will not
result in property value increases that often follow installation of sewer systems.
A  theoretical case  can be made  for   including  property  value  changes  in cost-
effectiveness  analysis  since  they would represent monetized social impacts.  How-
ever,  modification  of  current cost-effectiveness  analysis  guidelines to allow
inclusion of  property value changes is not  practical  at  this time since there are
no data  or  experiences with which  to  estimate changes associated with the optimum
operation alternative.   In  addition numerous  cases  exist  where  high sewer  charges
have actually reduced property  values.

Small  contracting  firms with  little experience in  dealing  with U.S. EPA projects
may  be  discouraged  by the   Davis-Bacon Act  requirements from bidding on small waste
flows  projects.   This  would  reduce competition and possibly  increase  the  cost of
projects.   To lessen the   impacts  of  the  Davis-Bacon  Act  on  on-site  facilities
contractors,  U.S.   EPA  can  request that  the U.S.  Department  of  Labor establish
project  wage  determinations  on  individual projects  until enough  data  have been
collected  to establish  general wage guidelines for these types of projects.  The
Department of Labor also should be requested  to change the  classification of small
waste  flows projects  from heavy construction to  commercial or  residential construc-
tion.   In addition,  U.S.  EPA and state Construction  Grants agencies can take the
initiative  to educate  smaller  businesses  on  the  requirements  of  the Davis-Bacon
Act.

For  many  communities,  an  optimum operation  alternative  may require  changes in
existing  state regulatory and institutional  requirements.  This EIS  recommends  that
the  states in Region  V:

o  Review state  policies   regarding  continued  use of  existing  on-site  systems.

-------
                    o   Specify  property  owners'  rights  in  the continued  use  of on-site  systems  and
                       their  responsibilities  for repair, upgrading, or replacement with and without a
                       small  waste  flows  management program.

                    o   Either test  in  court  the implied authority of civil divisions to implement small
                       waste  flows  management programs  or legislate explicit  authority  for this pur-
                       pose .

                    o   Review the regulatory and  institutional powers of civil divisions to gain neces-
                       sary access  to  private wastewater  systems for public management.

                    o   Review the  need  for  modification of  variance  criteria  and  procedures parti-
                       cularly  in regard  to  existing  on-site systems.

                    o   Review state policies toward  the  use of innovative technologies weighing poten-
                       tial risks against economic savings.

                    In addition  to evaluating obstacles to  small  waste  flows  management,  state  and
                    regional  agencies might  provide  planning,  technical  and  grant  or  financial
                    administration  assistance to small  communities.   Some  of  the  possibilities  are
                    summarized  below:

                    o   State  and regional planning agencies could assist communities in defining local
                       development  goals  and wastewater needs.  Where local goals are inconsistent with
                       U.S. EPA goals  for Construction Grants  funding,  the states  may assist  communi-
                       ties   in  finding  alternative  funding  sources  or in  a  reassessment  of goals.

                    o   Planning assistance may be provided in identifying  rural  areas where wastewater
                       improvements are needed and in delineating facilities planning area boundaries.

                    o   States could establish  separate priority lists for small  communities.

                    o   States could provide technical and  grant  administration assistance directly or
                       through  contractors.

                    This  EIS  calls for a higher  level  of community management  than presently  provided
                    where needed to control the  adverse  impacts of  on-site systems.  This will require
                    additional  trained manpower.   Attempts to  quantify  the necessary increase in per-
                    sonnel  have been  unsuccessful because relevant  data  are  not available on  the man-
                    power currently working in this  field  and on  the number of  small waste flows pro-
                    jects that  might  be   implemented.  Training  of  existing and additional personnel
                    could be provided  through   university  degree  programs,  workshops,  research  and
                    demonstration   projects,  on-the-job   training  and preservice  training.   Education
                    programs  should also  be  directed  toward homeowners and  residents.

                    The success of small  waste flows programs and the actual  savings acheived by them
                    will  be  determined in large  part by grantee's  motives  for improving local waste-
                    water facilities.   These motives  include:

                    o   avoiding prosecution,
                    o   malfunctioning  septic tanks,
                    o   residential  and commercial growth, and
                    o   industrial  growth.

Environmental  and  Social Consequences of  the Proposed Actions

                    The proposed actions   will impact groundwater  quality,  lake  water quality,  environ-
                    mentally  sensitive areas,  local  government finances,  present  and future  property
                    owner economic burdens,  operations   of  utility  contractors and  local equipment
                    suppliers,  land use and  resident  privacy and inconvenience.

                    Nitrate  and bacterial contamination  are the  chief  concerns related to  septic tank
                    effluent  discharges  to  groundwater.   At  the  housing densities  and  in the hydro-
                    geologic  settings studied in the Seven Rural  Lake EIS's, contamination  of  wells by
                    septic  tank effluent  was not  shown to be a problem.  The  low density,  linear devel-

-------
opment, and  lack of  fractured  or channeled  bedrock  in the study areas  appear  to
preclude  well  contamination  even  in  areas of  high  groundwater.   Indeed,  high
groundwater  may actually  protect wells since  well screens used  in many  glacial
deposits draw water from levels  deeper than the  effluent plumes.

Contamination of groundwater by  viruses and toxic  substances that may be discharged
with  sewage  are unresolved  concerns.  Nevertheless,  insufficient  data  exists  to
define either the  prevalence  or public health implications of  such  contamination.

Thus, while  this EIS  gives broad support for the  continued use  of  on-site systems,
it  also  recognizes  the need  for better  analysis  of  this  concern  than  is  now
possible.   Therefore,  Region V will work with the  states in the  Region to establish
funding procedures  for analysis  of viruses  and  toxic substances in  wells.   As  an
initital proposal,  this EIS recommends:

o  sampling  of  selected, properly protected  wells previously found  to  exceed bac-
   terial  or nitrate  standards   and  suspected of  contamination by  nearby  on-site
   systems,

o  concurrent sampling of suspected wastewater sources, and

o  because  of  cost,  limitation  of  sampling to  single facilities  planning  areas
   representative of each physiographic province in the region.

In facilities planning areas characterized by linear,  single-  or double-tier devel-
opment  in nonfractured  and  nonchanneled  geology,  description  of groundwater re-
sources based on available well logs  and sampling data augmented by representative
sampling  of  properly  protected  on-site  wells will normally suffice for assessing
impacts of on-site systems  on  groundwater.   In  other settings,  the existence  or
possibility  of  adverse impacts  should be  assessed by  a professional geologist  or
hydrogeologist.

Bacterial  contamination can be identified by available survey and sampling methods.
The most likely routes of bacterial contamination  from existing on-site systems are
direct discharges  and overland  runoff of surface  malfunctions.   Groundwater trans-
port  of bacteria to lakes  is possible but appears  to be rare.   On-site systems in
sandy  or  gravelly   soils and very close  to   lakeshores  are suspect  and  should be
examined  as  sources of bacterial contamination.   On- and off-site  technologies are
available  to remedy bacterial contamination of lakes.

Nutrient  inputs  can increase aquatic  productivity of  a  lake  as a  whole and stimu-
late  local  plant  growth.    Localized stimulation  may be  at   the  point  of  plume
emergence  or in sensitive parts  of lakes such as embayments and canals.

Nutrient  inputs  to most lakes from on-site systems are generally small compared to
total  nutrient  loads.  The  nutrient  of primary concern is phosphorus.  Except in
small  lakes  with  high  lake  surface  area  to watershed area ratios  and with  large
numbers  of nearby  on-site  systems in  sandy soils, the beneficial  impact on lake
trophic  status  will  be  small.   Trophic status  improvements will  seldom be a sup-
portable  reason for abandoning on-site systems.

Accumulation of phosphorus from on-site systems in poorly mixed parts of a lake can
result  in nuisance plant growth  well  in excess  of growth  in the main  body.   Where
it  can be  demonstrated  that 1)  on-site systems  are  substantially contributing to
nuisance  plant  growth,  2)  abandonment of on-site systems is cost-effective, 3) all
other nutrient  control methods have  been   evaluated including  non-point source
control  methods,  and  4)  the community  will commit  to  implementing other methods
that  are  practically  and economically  feasible, then facilities that  allow abandon-
ment  of  on-site  systems  adjacent   to  such sensitive parts  of  a lake  will  be
eligible.

Plant growth at the  point of  effluent emergence  into  the open  waters of a lake
seldom  interferes  with  recreational  or other uses of the water.   Availability of
suitable  substratum,  wave  action, and fluctuations in lake level  normally control

-------
such nearshore  plant growth  naturally  before  it becomes a  nuisance.   On-site  up-
grading  and  replacements  may  incidentially  reduce  this  growth,  and  innovative
techniques  such  as effluent  plume  recovery may eliminate it.  Abandonment  of  on-
site systems  adjacent  to  the main body of lakes solely for the purpose of control-
ling nearshore plant growth will not be eligible.

Development of several  types  of environmentally sensitive areas,  especially flood-
plains,  wetlands,  and  steep slopes,  has  historically  been prevented  by  on-site
sanitary codes and by  the fact that conventional  on-site systems will not operate
in them.  Various  technologies  that may be included in an optimum operation alter-
native,  such  as  cluster systems,  mounds and holding tanks may overcome the natural
constraints and  allow  development in these areas  as  well as in prime agricultural
lands,   habitat   for  rare  and  endangered  species,  and  historic  and  archaeologic
sites.

This EIS  recommends  the use of technologies that overcome natural constraints only
for existing buildings.  Approval of future on-site and small scale technologies is
under state and  local control.  Hopefully, these governments will be cautious about
approving any wastewater systems in environmentally sensitive areas.

Many state  statutes  limit the amount of debt that can be incurred by municipal and
county  governments.    Implementation of  the  optimum  operation  alternative  will
enable  local  governments  to  incur  less  debt  than under  conventional  centralized
alternatives  because of lower capital  costs and local share.  The Seven Rural Lake
EIS's indicated  that publicly financed local costs were reduced between 89% and 98%
under  some  on-site  alternatives.   Local  governments  will  be  able  to  finance
schools, hospitals, and other community facilities rather than needlessly expensive
wastewater facilities.

Operation and maintenance  costs will not be reduced in proportion to ca'pital reduc-
tions but will  generally be lower than with properly maintained conventional faci-
lities.   As  with  conventional centralized facilities,   operation  and  maintenance
costs associated with  the optimum operation alternative  can be passed directly to
users.    County   and  municipal  governments  that  had  previously  required property
owners to bear all the  costs and responsibilities of on-site systems will incur new
administrative  costs.   This  is due  to  the increased role of  local governments in
the  overall management of these  systems under  the optimum  operation alternative.
Because  of the  flexibility  local governments  have  in  the  design of  small flows
management  agencies, they  can  match their  costs to the severity of  local water
quality problems.

In unsewered  communities  where  the optimum operation alternative  is  feasible,  the
economic burden  on present property owners, as a group, will be less then it would
be  if  a conventional  centralized alternative were selected.   The  actual economic
burden  placed on  present property  owners  may vary  from  residence  to residence
depending on  the manner in which capital, operation and maintenance, reserve fund,
and  administrative  costs  are  allocated.   How  these costs  are  distributed  is  a
decision that will have to be made at the local level.

Future property  owners  served by on-site systems will have to pay the full capital
costs of  their  systems unless local governments  wish to subsidize them.  U.S.  EPA
policy  is  not to subsidize future growth  through the Construction Grants program.
Future  capital   costs   for on-site  systems are  deferred over  the  20-year project
period and are unlikely to be funded by local government.

Certain  lots  may require a very expensive on-site technology.  The individual costs
on these lots in the future may equal or exceed the individual shares of subsidized
centralized facilities, if these facilities were available.  In cases where sewered
off-lot  technologies  are  selected  over  on-site alternatives,  the magnitude of
economic impacts on future property owners will be locally determined.

The  implementation of  small waste flows technologies in  rural areas can positively
impact  on  local utility  contractors  and equipment  suppliers.   Most construction
services  and equipment for  on-site and  small-scale technologies can  be locally
supplied.   In contrast to conventional centralized facilities  where  outside firms

-------
are typically  used,  optimum  operation,  alternatives may  Lead  to  the  retention of
more  local,  state,  and Federal  funds   in  the  rural  community.  Competition  for
contracts to construct and provide supplies  for small waste flows systems is likely
to  come  from non-local  firms  that have  established expertise  with  these  techno-
logies.  The  degree  to  which  Construction  Grants funds are retained  locally will
depend on the ability of local contractors to perform work on government contracts.
In some cases, the project workload and  meeting of Federal contracting regulations,
such as  the  Davis-Bacon Act,  may currently  be more than small  rural  area firms can
handle.

Adoption of  optimum  operation alternatives  may  restrain the  amount,  rate,  and
density  of  development in  communities  within a  reasonable commuting distance of
employment  centers.   Often  large lot  size  requirements  are  called  for by  local
sanitary codes to protect the quality of groundwater used as domestic  water supply.
These  lot size  requirements for new dwellings will probably not change as a result
of  adopting  alternative  on-site treatment technologies since water well to treat-
ment  system  separation distances  will  be retained.   The net effect  of such con-
straints on  new development may  be  adverse  or beneficial  depending  on  local com-
munity development objectives.

Cluster  systems  that use  off-site soils circumvent development  controls  based on
sanitary codes and soils limitations.  Cluster systems may thus permit considerably
higher density residential development.   High density development may be counter to
local development objectives.  Cluster systems may permit infilling within existing
development  areas  resulting in loss  of open  space  buffers between existing devel-
opment,  and   into  areas possibly  unsuitable  for residential  development.   Multi-
family  systems  could have  a positive  impact  where planned higher  density devel-
opment permits conservation of open space in contiguous areas.

The predominant  settlement pattern  and housing  type  in  the  Seven Rural  Lake EIS
communities  were  single-family  detached residential  units in  single-tier devel-
opment  around  lakeshore areas.  Other rural areas  depending on on-site technology
are  also single-family  units  in  small subdivisions  or  in dispersed  low  density
patterns.  This pattern has been determined by transportation access to  lots and by
spatial  distribution of  suitable  soils.   If  on-site  technologies continue  to be
used,  this  development pattern may lead to a situation where the future options to
sewer  may be precluded by  the  great  expense  of sewering dispersed homes.  Further
dependence  upon  local  sanitary  codes  may  thus  severly  restrict the  amount and
distribution  of  developable land in  lake areas.   Such restrictions  may be counter
to  local development goals  as  well.

Local  access and control over  on-site systems, although required by both the Clean
Water  Act and common sense,  raise  concerns about  individual privacy and  the sancity
of  private property.  The establishment of on-site permit  requirements a generation
ago raised  similar concerns.  A poorly planned,  designed or funded version of the
optimum  operation alternative might not  offer  benefits  worth the  costs  that it
incurs,  whether  in  money  or privacy    Any  transfer of  authority  to government
reduces  individual  choices,   and  may make  some  residents feel  helpless,  or more
nearly so.   For  this  reason  community  authority should  be  exerted  tactfully and
sparingly, balancing public  health and water quality needs  against any infringement
of  privacy.

For many properties, modification of on- and  off-site  small waste flows wastewater
facilities  will  have  as an incidential  benefit  the removal  of practical  restric-
tions  to  water  use.   New  or upgraded  systems  may  handle  dishwashers,  clothes
washers, garbage grinders,  and additional occupants,  which previously were avoided
or  prohibited.   Some properties will  not  be  so unencumbered, such  as  those  on  small
lots  for which  existing,  subcode, or  innovative facilities will be adequate  with
minimum water usage  and  for which  off-site facilities  are  not  affordable.

-------
                            TERMINOLOGY
During the  preparation of  this  Environmental Impact  Statement,  new and  existing
ideas were  synthesized into  the  concept of  rural wastewater  management  described
here.  To  make  the verbal  presentation meaningful  yet  consistent,  it has  been
necessary to  rely  on  terms  which  are  new  or  have  not  been adequately  defined
elsewhere.   Readers are encouraged to review these terms prior to  reading the text.

Small Waste Flows  - Wastewater streams,  typically of domestic sewage,  generated at
individual housing  units  or small commercial, institutional  and  industrial sites,
and  disposed of  near the  site of generation  with  a  minimum of flow aggregation in
sewers.

Small  Waste Flows   Technologies  -  The   methods   for   transporting,  treating  and
disposing of  small waste flows.   Includes  a  variety of on-  and  off-site  methods.

Small Waste Flows Management - Supervision of all phases in the life cycle of small
waste flows facilities.  Includes provision of specified services  by the Management
Agency,  delegation and oversight of services provided by other organizations and by
homeowners,  and services necessary to maintain the management agency itself.

Small Waste  Flows Facilities  -  Structures and  equipment  installed to  transport,
treat or dispose of small waste flows.

Small Waste Flow  Systems  -  Combinations  of small waste flow facilities  designed to
process individual small waste flows.

On-site  System -  Small waste  flows  facilities  located  on  the  property  where  a
wastewater  stream  is  generated  and  operating together as a  system to transport,
treat  and  dispose  of  that  wastewater stream.  May  also  include  systems  located
nearby but  off-site and  serving only one  building.   Includes non-water consuming
facilities  such  as  compost  toilets,  incinerator toilets,  pit  privies,  chemical
toilets and recycling systems but not other flow reduction devices.

New Construction - Small waste flow systems installed to serve newly constructed or
future buildings.

Replacement - Small waste flows facilities or systems installed to replace existing
facilities  or  systems  that  are  abandoned.   Generally  implies  that  a  new location
will be used for the replacement.

Upgrade - To modify the design of existing small waste flows facilities or systems
in order to improve their operation.

Repair - To  fix  or renovate existing facilities and to replace parts of facilities
such as lengths of pipe, sanitary tees, pumps, etc.

Management  Service  or  Service  -  The  duties  that may  be  included  in  a management
program.   Specifically excluded  from this  definition  are  the  methods by  which
services can  be  delivered.   Also  termed "functions" in the  Seven  Rural  Lake EIS,
Technical Reference Documents supporting this EIS and  other literature concerning
small waste flows management.

Management Agency  - The  organization  (or multiple organizations operating under an
interagency agreement)  responsible for assuring the successful delivery of selected
services.

Management Program - A plan for providing necessary services in a  small waste flows
district.  The plan should  describe  funding, organization of  the management to be
provided, parties who will provide the services, methods by which selected services
will  be  delivered,  and designation of  liability for remedying  future  failures.

-------
Small  Waste  Flows  Project  -  The planning,  technology  selection, system  design,
management agency design and  construction  of an  Optimum Operation  alternative.

Small Waste Flows District  -  The geographic area within which  a management agency
has supervisory responsibilities  for small waste flow systems.

Optimum Operation Approach  -  Wastewater  management in unsewered  communities  that
emphasizes the  optimum operation of  existing on-site systems,  use of  other small
waste flows technologies as  appropriate,  and small waste  flows management.

Optimum Operation Alternative  -  In  facilities planning,  the description  and  cost
estimate of new  or  upgraded small waste  flow  facilities and  associated management
program for a specific small waste flows  district.

Technology Assumptions  -  Estimates,  based  on available data and  community survey
results, of the  number of existing systems that  require upgrading,  replacement or
repair, and the  mix of technologies needed to do so.  Since technology assumptions
are not necessarily  based on on-site sanitary  inspections  or site-specific analy-
sis, they  are  appropriate primarily for describing and costing  preliminary optimum
operation alternatives for comparison with centralized alternatives.

Technology  Selection  -   Identification  of  the upgrading,  replacement or  repair
expected for individual systems  based on available data,  community survey results,
partial  sanitary surveys  and representative  sampling  of  soil,  groundwater  and
surface water.   Technology  selections are tentative and subject  to  change pending
completion  of  sanitary  surveys  and,  where  indicated,   detailed site  analysis.
Technology  selection  is  suitable  for  describing  proposed  action  in facilities
plans.

Facility  Specification -  Confirmed or revised  technology  selection  for individual
systems based on completion of sanitary surveys and, where indicated, detailed site
analysis.  For  commonly used facilities, reference to or incorporation of standard
designs and  specifications  is  part of facility  specification.   For  unique facili-
ties,  facility specification requires individual designs and specifications.

On-site  Sanitary Inspection -  Patterned interview  with  a resident  followed  by a
walk over  inspection of his or her property to collect and record opinions and data
on  the location, age,  condition, design  and use  of  on-site wastewater and water
supply  systems.   Sampling  of  the water  supply,  soil borings,  or other represen-
tative  sampling, may be scheduled concurrently with the on-site sanitary survey but
are not included  in the definition.

Sanitary  Survey  - An inventory of the  location,  age,  condition, design and use of
on-site  systems  in  all or  parts  of a community based on available data and numbers
of  on-site sanitary  inspections.   Random sanitary  surveys  are designed to fairly
estimate  the proportion  of on-site  systems  requiring upgrading,  replacement, or
repairs.   The  design of targeted  sanitary  surveys  relies  on  available  data to
identify  suspected  problem  areas where extra attention is given to identifying the
causes  of  local  on-site system failures,  that is, to analyze worst case conditions.

Detailed  Site  Analysis   -  The sequence  of  investigations and  decisions  taken to
determine  the  causes of problems with existing,  individual on-site  systems and to
develop information for  selecting  appropriate  repairs,  replacements or upgrading.

-------
                                            LIST OF TABLES

                                                                                               Page
1-1.          Estimated Costs of Centralized and Optimum Operation Alternatives -               11
             Seven Rural Lake EISs.

I-C-1.        Estimated Total Small Community Project and Rural Lake Projects                   16
             U.S.  EPA Region V - 1980-1985

II-A-1.       On-site Wastewater Management Options for Specific Limitations or Constraints     27

II-B-1.       Land Treatment Options and Characteristics                                        34

II-B-2.       Types (and Locations of) Wetlands Systems Investigated                            35

II-B-3.       Surface Water Discharge Options for Small Communities                             35

II-F-1.       Factors Varied and Technology Considered in the Cost Variability Study            55

II-F-2.       Trade-off Densities (in homes per mile at the end of the 20-year                  60
             planning period) Above Which Off-Site Facilities are Competitive

III-C-1.     Potential Management Program Services                                             73

IV-A-1.       Factors that Determine Limits of the Small Waste Flows Niche                      91

IV-B-1.       Seven Rural Lake EIS Population Projections (Increase to the Year 2000 and        93
             Seasonal Population Expressed in Percentage)

IV-B-2.       Recreation Demand in the North-Central Region of the United States                94

V-B-1.        Estimates of Personnel Involved in Regulation of On-Site Systems                  121



                                            LIST OF FIGURES


1-1.          Monthly cost of gravity sewers.                                                   10

I-C-1.        Involvement of small communities in the Construction Grants Program.               15

II-A-1.       Decision flow diagram for existing on-site systems.                               28

II-B-1.       Septage treatment and disposal.                                                   32

II-C-1.       Collection sewer eligibility - decision flow diagram based on PRM 78-9.           37

II-C-2.       Detailed site analysis.                                                           39

II-F-1.       Cost-effectiveness curves for on-site small scale and centralized treatment       57
             alternatives for Scenario 1; 50% growth.

II-F-2.       Cost-effectiveness curves for on-site small scale and centralized treatment       58
             alternatives for Scenario 4; 0% growth.

IV-D-1.       Number of septic systems relationship between total phosphorus concentration      103
             and number of septic systems.

IV-D-2.       Relationship between areal water load, Q, and phosphorus retention, R             104
             (Kirchner and Dillon, 1975).
                                              xvii

-------
                         Chapter I

               What This EIS Does And Why

              (Purpose Of And Need For Action)
Failing Absorption Field
                                          I'     iv     _-.-•.. s,-"^,-^ ti  -  •
                                          I      ?*      - •-—' ** -:f

                                          ' !*U,rt sHk*r  — '--SZ? *-'-*\tt  " ''•
                                           ? **   »!» *KS" "™m*^™ «  5?-S

-------
                                             CHAPTER  I

               WHAT THIS EIS DOES AND WHY  (PURPOSE OF AND  NEED  FOR ACTION)


A.   WHAT  IS IT ABOUT (SCOPE)

                    The Federal actions examined  in  this  Environmental  Impact Statement (EIS) are the
                    review and  approval  of  facilities plans  by  U.S.  EPA Region V  for Construction
                    Grants activities  in  unsewered  communities.   The  topics evaluated  here  apply to
                    those rural and  developing  areas where  responsible governments must  solve existing
                    water quality and public  health problems by:

                    o  centralized   approaches--installing   new   sewers   and  centralized  treatment
                       facilities--or

                    o  small  waste   flows  technologies  and  management--optimizing  the  operation of
                       existing on-site systems and  construction of  new small scale treatment facili-
                       ties where appropriate.

EIS I-C-4           This EIS  emphasizes unsewered lake communities  because  of  their  large number and
                    environmental significance  within  the  Region.    Issues,  alternatives,  and methods
TRD X-A.            unique to them are, therefore, given as  much attention  as  topics that are generally
                    applicable to  any unsewered  community.   This  emphasizes, for examples, treatment
                    facilities that  do not  discharge  to  surface  waters,  consideration  of  seasonal
                    users, and lake eutrophication modeling.

                    Many topics discussed  in this EIS  respond to problems and opportunities addressed
                    during preparation of  seven individual EIS's for  rural  lake projects.  This series,
                    "Alternative  Waste  Treatment  Systems  for Rural Lake  Projects," began July 20,  1977
                    with seven Notices  of  Intent.  The projects and  dates  of completion  or most  recent
                    U.S. EPA action include:

                    o  Case  Study Number  1:   Crystal Lake Area  Sewage  Disposal Authority,   Benzie
                       County, Michigan (Final EIS July, 1980);

                    o  Case  Study  Number  2:   Green  Lake  Sanitary  Sewer and Water District, Kandiyohi
                       County, Minnesota (Final EIS December, 1980);

                    o  Case  Study Number  3:   Springvale-Bear Creek Sewage  Disposal  Authority,  Emmet
                       County, Michigan (Final EIS December, 1980);

                    o  Case  Study  Number  4:   Steuben  Lakes Regional Waste  District,  Steuben County,
                       Indiana (Final EIS  January, 1981);

                    o  Case  Study Number  5:   Otter Tail  County  Board of  Commissioners,  Otter  Tail
                       County, Minnesota (Final EIS November, 1980);

                    o  Case  Study  Number  6:   Salem  Utility District No. 2, Kenosha County, Wisconsin
                       (Preliminary  Draft  EIS  serf  to applicant  and the  state,  EIS preparation  ter-
                       minated July 1979); and

                    o  Case  Study Number  7:   Williams  County Commissioners,  Nettle Lake  Area, Williams
                       County, Ohio  (Draft EIS to be  published July 1981).

                    These  Seven  Rural  Lake  EIS's were specifically intended to  evaluate  the  feasi-
                    bility,  cost-effectiveness, and environmental impacts  of  alternative wastewater
                    collection and  treatment systems.   The alternative  systems  were  compared to  cen-
                    tralized  systems  that  had been proposed in Step  1 Facilities  Plans.  Varying modu-
                    lar  combinations  of the  two were  also  considered.   To  date,  Final  EIS's have  been
                    published for the first five case studies.   Each recommended that grantees optimize
                    the  operation of  existing on-site  systems,   replace  or upgrade  failing on-site

-------
                    systems  with  conventional  or alternative  on-site  systems, and,  where  necessary,
                    construct  new  subsurface  land  discharge  systems  for  groups  of  buildings  having
                    problems  with on-site treatment.  The seventh case  study,  soon  to be published in
                    Draft  EIS  form,  is  anticipated to  recommend optimum  operation,  replacement  or
                    upgrading,  and,  where  necessary  in certain  flood prone  areas,  use of  chemical
                    toilets,  composting  toilets,  or  vault privies and export of human excreta off-site.
                    The EIS for  the  sixth case  study was  terminated  at  the  Preliminary  Draft stage
                    because  of a decision to proceed with state funding; the project,  utilizing signi-
                    ficant portions of EIS work,  is  being constructed.

                    One major  finding of the Seven Rural Lake EIS's is that wastewater management based
                    on optimum operation of  existing on-site  systems  differs  substantially from that
                    based  on  either  new centralized facilities or new  small waste  flows (on-site and
                    small-scale)  facilities.   Another finding  is  that  wastewater management  based on
                    existing  systems allows  substantial  capital,  operation,  and maintenance savings
                    compared  to  new  centralized  facilities wherever  continued  use  of  a  substantial
                    percentage of existing  systems  is feasible.  Water quality objectives can still be
                    met while  realizing  this cost savings.

                    Throughout this  document,  cross-reference  notes are  printed   in margins.   These
                    notes  refer  either  to  related  sections  within the document or  to sections  of the
                    separate  Technical  Reference Document.   The Technical Reference Document comprises
                    over 70 new  individual  technical and analytical reports.   The  recommendations of
                    this EIS  come from the experience and data  gained on the seven case studies and the
                    Technical  Reference  Document.

B.   WHAT  DOES  IT WISH TO  ACCOMPLISH  AND HOW DOES IT  PROPOSE TO  DO
     IT  (PROPOSED ACTIONS)

                    This Draft EIS has three objectives:

                    1.  to  encourage  active assessment of water quality and  public  health problems in
                        unsewered areas,

                    2.  to  encourage evaluation  of  the optimum  operation  of  existing  facilities and
                        other low-cost alternatives  to correct  those  problems,  and

                    3.  to  enable  grantees  to  recognize situations in which the optimum operation
                        approach is appropriate.

                    These  objectives  are consistent with  present regulations  implementing the Clean
                    Water Act, especially 40 CFR  35.917-1, which states  in part:

                        Facilities  planning  must  address  each  of  the following  to the  extent
                         considered appropriate by  the Regional Administrator:  . . .  (d) A cost-
                         effectiveness  analysis for the treatment works .  .  .  This  analysis shall
                         include: .  . .  (3) An evaluation of  improved  effluent quality attainable
                         by upgrading  the  operation  and  maintenance and  efficiency  of existing
                         facilities as   an alternative or  supplement  to construction of  new faci-
                         lities.

EIS I-C-2-a         As  will  be seen subsequently  in an analysis of costs,  these  objectives are also
                    consistent  with  present   or  future  limitations   on  Federal  allocations  of
                    Construction Grants  funds.

                    In  regard  to  grantee acceptance,  it is  recognized  that optimum  operation  of  exist-
                    ing on-site  facilities will  not always  satisfy  a common  local objective of provid-
                    ing reserve  capacity for  future growth.  The  costs of reasonable  reserve capacity
                    are presently  eligible for  Construction Grants  funding of conventional sewers and
                    treatment  plants.   However,  provision  of  reserve  capacity is  not an objective of

-------
                      Federal  funding.  The  absence of reserve capacity in optimum operation alternatives
                      will  not be  grounds  for  finding  conventional  alternatives to  be cost-effective.

                      Specific initiatives that  comprise Region V's proposed actions are discussed in the
                      following sections.
1.   ENCOURAGE  COMMUNITY SUPERVISION  OF SMALL WASTE  FLOWS  FACILITIES
  TRD XV-A
  EIS III-A-2
  EIS III


  TRD I

  EIS II-A-2-D&C
Within Region  V,  state and  local laws  require  that most  new  on-site systems be
approved and permitted prior  to  installation.   This  requirement  applies regardless
of  proximity  to  existing  development  or  type  of  water  resources   that  may be
impacted.   Protection of nearby  residents'  health and of water  quality are  sought
through design guidelines that must  be met  as  a  condition of permit issuance.  The
guidelines are,  for most sites,  conservative  enough to protect public health and
water quality  even  if  future  residents use  water liberally  and  fail to provide the
minimum maintenance expected.

Communities  also  provide  enforcement services  when systems fail.  Typically,  this
involves responding to complaints  from owners  or neighbors and  encouraging  owners
to make suitable repairs.

New  construction  requirements and enforcement  services do not  adequately protect
water quality  and public  health  in all areas, however, particularly  where present
housing densities are  high,  malfunction rates  are high, or  groundwater and surface
water  resources  are  sensitive   to  drainfield  leachate.   Communities may require
additional measures to protect their interests.   The  traditional  community response
to the need  for  additional  measures is to  install sewers  and treatment plants, if
possible.   The more direct response,  controlling the  source  of the  problem, may not
be  considered  seriously.   Control may require  community supervision over  one or
more  of  the  factors  that  together determine successful on-site system operation.
These factors  and examples  of means for modifying or controlling them among  exist-
ing systems are:
Factors Determining On-site
    System Performance	

o  system design
                                                                 Example  Control Measures
                      o  system usage
                      o  maintenance
                      o  soil characteristics
expand  drainfield  size;  upgrade   system   with
dosing,  additional  settling  capacity,   aerobic
treatment;  convert  to  alternate  design  such  as
shallow placement, mounds,  evapotranspiration,  or
alternating drainfields

install flow reduction  devices; limit  occupancy;
prohibit  garbage  grinders;  separate black  water
treatment; recycle laundry and bath water; public
education; measure water consumption

renewable permits contingent on proof of periodic
inspection  and  maintenance,  public  provision  of
maintenance  services,  required maintenance  con-
tracts  between  building  occupant  or  owner  and
private firm; public education

change  system  design  and/or usage, move drain-
field; import soil fill
                      o  site constraints
                         (size and shape of
                         lot; relationship
                         to other lots;
                         location of house,
                         well)
                                  evaluate  system  performance  as  it is  affected
                                  by  these  constraints;  evaluate  design  and usage
                                  modifications as means of overcoming site charac-
                                  teristics;  acquire  land off-site  for  wastewater
                                  disposal where necessary

-------
                     o  groundwater hydrology          install  curtain drains, French drains, or drain-
                                                       age ditches;  septic  leachate  recovery for irri-
                                                       gation.

                     o  surface drainage               disconnect  roof  drain  connections  to  waste-
                                                       water  system;  divert  runoff  away  from septic
                                                       tank  and  drainfield,  mound   soil   over  drain-
                                                       field.

                     Many  of  these  control  measures  have not been conclusively tested,  largely because
                     of the  curious  position that local governments  find themselves  in when they try to
                     assess these measures.   First, state and county  governments place certain technical
                     limitations  on  what may  be done,  providing  no  regulatory outlet  for possible
                     successful  exceptions.   Second,  governments  have  historically  been  reluctant to
                     intrude  in  any  way on  private property.   Third, budget constraints  make it easy to
                     justify  doing nothing.

  TRD V-A&B           The  lack of testing has produced a  high degree of  design  conservatism among engi-
                     neering  consultants, the principal source  of professional advice  available  to local
                     governments.  This conservatism is  self-perpetuating;  until the control  measures
                     are  tested,  engineers  will  continue to recommend  traditional wastewater  systems.

                     Because  of  the  new  data and experience discussed  in  this  EIS,  U.S.  EPA Region  V
                     strongly encourages  state governments  in  the  Region  and  those local  governments
                     contemplating new sewer projects  to evaluate their opportunities   for  dealing di-
                     rectly with on-site system problems and to test  the  reasons  typically given for not
                     seizing  those  opportunities.   In particular,  the Region recommends  increased com-
                     munity  supervision of  design, usage, and maintenance for existing  on-site systems
  EIS III-A-2         when  necessary  for the common good.  U.S.  EPA further recommends  that the degree of
                     supervision be  determined  by local housing density, rate and type  ofc failure, and
                     sensitivity of  water resources to failures.

2.   DEVELOP EVALUATION METHODS  FOR OPTIMUM OPERATEON OF EXISTING ON-SITE SYSTEMS

                     This  second Proposed Action has been partially  accomplished in  the preparation of
  TRD II-D-G         this  EIS and the  Seven Rural Lake EIS's.  Two new evaluation  methods,  aerial photo-
                     graphic  surveys and septic leachate detection,  as well as  a  simple, effective form
  EIS II-D           of  sanitary survey  were  given their  first  full-scale  applications  during these
                     studies.  Evaluation of optimum operation of existing on-site  systems is addressed
  EIS II-E           throughout  this  EIS and  the Technical Reference  Document.  Some  of  the topics, such
                     as  Construction Grant  sequences for unsewered areas and eligibility of cost items,
                     are  applicable  only if a community applies for  Construction Grants  funding.  The
                     majority of topics are  relevant apart from any question of  Federal  funding.

                     As   state  and  local  organizations  gain  experience  in applying  these  methods,
                     improvements  and  new  methods  will  doubtless  be developed.  U.S. EPA will help
                     disseminate information  on new and improved evaluation methods  through the  U.S. EPA
                     Small Wastewater Flows  Clearinghouse,  West Virginia University, Morgantown, West
                     Virginia  26506,  and   through  the  Small  Waste  Flows  Coordinator  in Region V's
                     Chicago  offices.

3.   PROMOTE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF ON-SITE  AND SMALL-SCALE  SYSTEM PERFORMANCE DATA

  EIS I-C-5          A nearly universal obstacle to informed decisions for wastewater management  in un-
                      sewered  areas  is lack of  adequate local data on the design,  use, and water quality
                     impacts  of existing conventional  on-site  systems.   The situation  is, of  course,
                     even worse  for  innovative  systems.

  EIS II-C           Some performance data  is necessary  to  support  Construction  Grant  applications for
                      any unsewered  areas.  The need for  performance  data is even greater if the optimum
                      operation approach is  proposed.  If sewers are proposed, the need  for them must  be
                      documented.   This requirement  is  stated  in  Program Requirements  Memorandum  78-9:

-------
                          New  collector  sewers  should be funded only when the systems in use (e.g.
                          septic  tanks  or raw  discharges  from homes) for disposal  of  wastes from
                          the  existing  population are  creating a public  health problem,  contami-
                          nating  groundwater, or  violating the point source discharge requirements
                          of  the  Act.   Specific documentation of the nature  and extent of health,
                          groundwater and  discharge  problems must be provided in the facility plan
                               .   A  community survey of  individual disposal  systems  is  recommended
                          for  this purpose.

                     Additional guidance on documentation of need is provided by Program Require-
                     ments Memorandum 79-8:

                          Facility planning  in  some small communities with unusual or inconsistent
                          geologic features  or  other unusual conditions may require house-to-house
                          investigations  to  provide basic  information  vital  to an  accurate cost-
                          effectiveness  analysis   for  each  particular  problem  area.   One uniform
                          solution  to  all the  water pollution problems in a  planning  area  is not
                          likely  and  may  not  be  desirable.   This  extensive  and  time-consuming
                          engineering work will normally result in higher planning costs, which are
                          expected  to  be justified  by  the  considerable  construction and operation
                          and  maintenance cost  savings  of  small  systems  over conventional collec-
                          tion and treatment works.

                          Though  house-to-house  visits are  necessary  in  some  areas,  sufficient
                          augmenting  information  may be available from the  local sanitarian, geo-
                          logist,  Soil  Conservation  Service   representative  or  other source  to
                          permit  preparation of the  cost-effective analysis.  Other sources include
                          aerial  photography  and  boat-carried  leachate-sensing  equipment which can
                          be  helpful in  locating failing systems.   Detailed engineering  investi-
                          gation,  including  soil profile  examination,  percolation  tests,  etc.,  on
                          each and every  occupied  lot  should  rarely be  necessary  during  facility
                          planning.

                     Applying these  policies during preparation of the Seven Rural Lake EIS's, Region V
  TRD II-C            in  cooperation with states  in the  Region developed  additional  guidance  on the
                     collection  and use of performance  data  titled "Region  V Guidance--Site-Specific
                     Needs  Determination and Alternative Planning for Unsewered Areas."  It  is Appendix
                     A in this EIS.   This guidance  recommends phasing of data collection with decisions
                     on  alternative  development  and  selection,  ensuring timely  data collection and
                     avoiding needless  redundant  work.

                     The  Region  V  Guidance  also emphasizes performance  as  the relevant  criterion for
                     need.  Though this  seems obvious,  facilities plans and state policies often rely on
                     nonconformance  with current  design codes  as the criterion for  need.   Use  of non-
                     conformance  alone  as  a criterion  would  result in  the  abandonment  of  many older
                     systems,  even though  they may have  many more years of use remaining.

                     The  Region V Guidance and this EIS cite several data collection methods.  The data
                     apply  particularly to  local problems  but they also help us to understand  how on-
  EIS II-D-9         site  systems work  and  affect our water resources.   So  that performance data col-
                     lected with  Construction Grants funds  can  thus improve the  state of the  art, Region
                     V will promote  development of standardized on-site data  formats and of data storage
                     and  retrieval systems.  Discussions with Headquarters and other offices  in U.S. EPA
                     and  with state  201  agencies  are planned.

4.   REVIEW ELIGIBILITY REGULATIONS

  EIS V-A-1          This  EIS addresses a number of questions  regarding grant eligibility raised during
                     preparation  of the  Seven  Rural Lake  EIS's.   Proposed  eligibility guidelines are
                     presented.

-------
5.   ENCOURAGE STATES  TO PLAY ACTIVE ROLES  IN RURAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

  TRD XV-A           The  evolution  of  state  regulatory authority over on-site systems has not iacluded
                     explicit means  or  intent  for evaluating and improving on-site system performance.
                     Published  regulations clearly  define  the  design  of new conventional on-site  sys-
                     tems.   However, inadequate  existing  systems  are  usually only  discovered  by the
                     homeowner  or neighbor after total failure.   Repairs  on existing systems are  Limited
                     to  those  that  the  local sanitarian can persuade  owners to make and  usually  consist
                     of  the  same type  of system that has  already failed.   States  have legal and social
                     obligations to  define and  ensure adequate sanitation.  They are also bound by the
                     political  constraint  that  adequate sanitation be  available  at a reasonable cost.
                     With some  exceptions,  the  states  have  not clearly resolved the technical, legal,
                     financial,  and  administrative  problems associated  with  existing on-site systems.
                     The  number of  non-cost-effective proposals  for new  sewer  construction  in rural
                     areas testifies to this.

                     This EIS  does  not  suggest  that ready answers exist  for  every problem.  However, a
                     number  of  possibilities are  discussed,  primarily from local government's  point of
                     view.   Many of the  possibilities  require enabling legislation or  regulations for
  EIS V-B            which states  retain  authority.   This  EIS  encourages the states within Region V to
                     evaluate  comprehensively their  roles  in the management of existing as well as new
                     on-site systems and  to  provide localities with the  necessary  legal  and information
                     resources  to provide their delegated management services.  The states within Region
  TRD XV-A           V  do not  have to look extensively beyond  the  Region to  find  excellent examples of
                     what can be done in this field.

  6.   ENCOURAGE BETTER WAYS  TO PLAN FACILITIES AND ACCESS  THEIR  IMPACTS

  EIS II-E-F         This EIS  and  its  Technical Reference Document use  experience from  the Seven Rural
                     Lake EIS's to  show several different ways to make  planning  decisions for unsewered
  EIS IV             areas.   It can help  in making these decisions  whether  or not  they are  part of a
                     Construction  Grants  facilities plan.   There  are  no mandatory  rural facilities
  TRD X-XIV          planning methods;  grantees  and consultants are free to  choose the  best method for
                     satisfying state and Federal planning requirements.


7.   ENCOURAGE CONSIDERATION AND USE OF MITIGATIVE MEASURES

  EIS I-C-2          No  wastewater facilities  are  completely  free  of potential  adverse impacts.   For
                     rural communities, the most prevalent adverse impact of constructing new sewers and
  EIS IV-C           treatment  facilities will  be economic.   Economic impacts can be avoided by imple-
                     menting less  costly alternatives,  such as the  optimum operation  alternative, where
                     feasible.   Optimum  operation  may itself  have  potential  adverse  impacts, parti-
                     cularly on land use, groundwater quality, lake  water  quality, municipal finances,
                     and homeowner  finances.  These  impacts can be avoided during  facilities planning or
                     mitigated  during  and after construction.   Other  problems,  such as non-point source
                     pollution,  may  not be addressed by any wastewater management  efforts.

  EIS VI             This EIS  will later discuss  potential adverse  impacts  of  the optimum operation
                     alternative and ways  to  limit them.  These  mitigating measures  can often both
                     reduce  impact  and  save money;  either  of these  is  sufficient  to  recommend  their
                     consideration  and use by the grantee.

8.   ENCOURAGE PUBLIC  PARTICIPATION

  EIS III-D, IV-F     Experience shows  the public's  interest in wastewater  control projects is  at  least
                     as  great  in rural lake areas as  in any other type of community.   This high  level of
  TRD XIV-A           interest  is matched by a high level of  awareness  of and appreciation for  local
                     natural and social resources.   We are  recommending  an approach  to  wastewater man-
                      agement that necessarily  involves  residents to  a  greater  degree  than do  conven-
                      tional  sewered approaches.

-------
                     In  one sense this entire  document  is  intended  as an aid to public  participation.
                     Not  just  engineers  and planners,  but local officials and residents  themselves  need
                     to  understand  enough  of  wastewater  planning  so  that  they  can judge  their  own
                     problems and needs.  Intelligent and alert citizens can exercise  a greater  and  more
                     lasting degree  of quality  control than any state or Federal  reviewer.

                     This   document  talks  about  ways  to  use  the  advice  of  an  informed  public  in
                     Construction  Grants  Program  projects,  especially  those using the optimum operation
                     alternative.  By  understanding  the  public's concern, consultants and officials can
                     speed  the  progress  of  a  project.    Sometimes  they may  learn  enough to  improve,
                     revise, or  cancel it.

  9.   ENCOURAGE  CREATIVE USES  OF SMALL  WASTE FLOWS TECHNOLOGY  AND COMMUNITY  MANAGEMENT

                     This  document  is intended to  be a  beginning not  an  end to discussions  of  small
                     waste  flows systems  and community management.  On parts of these  matters, it offers
                     new  ideas  and "state of the art" knowledge.  We intended, however,  to spur debate,
                     analysis,  and  experimentation  concerning  alternative  means  of rural  wastewater
                     management.   Our  greatest  hope  is that within  a  short  time this EIS will  be  obso-
                     lete  because  inventive consultants, demanding local officials,  and  alert  involved
                     citizens  will have  gone  far beyond  even our methods toward protection of public
                     health and water quality at affordable costs.

C.   WHY DO THESE THINGS NEEDS TO  BE DONE  (THE NEED FOR ACTION)

1.    HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

                     Septic tank/soil  absorption systems  were not constructed in really  great numbers
                     until  after World War  II.  Pre-war rural electrification programs set the stage for
                     suburbanization and  rural  development.   Returning  veterans,   Federal  home  loan
                     guarantee  programs,  rapid  economic  growth, and other factors contributed  to  rapid
                     development outside  of sewered urban areas.

                     At  that  time, public  control over  septic  tank  system installation  was nonexistent
                     or  only advisory.  In  response to frequent failures of these post-war systems,  many
                     sewers have been built.   Some  local and state governments sought ways  to prevent
                     failures through standardized design requirements, site evaluations,  and permitting
                     requirements.   By  1957,  the Taft  Research  Institute  of  the  U.S.  Public Health
                     Service  had studied  septic  tank system  failures  and recommended  standard  design
                     requirements   (U.S.  Public Health Service, 1957).  These design  requirements  still
  TRD XV-A           form the basis  for many state regulations.

                     During the  1960s and early 1970s, state and local governments  formulated and  imple-
                     mented procedures  for  preconstruction  approval  of septic tank  systems.   These
                     procedures  and the  standard  design requirements greatly reduce the  occurrence of
                     surface  malfunction and plumbing backups for  new  systems.   However, old and new
                     systems  that are overloaded or  not maintained  continue to fail.  A  third type of
                     failure,   groundwater  contamination,  has  also  been  recognized  as  a potential
                     problem.

                     Relying  on such failures,  municipalities and facilities  planners continue to  pro-
                     pose  new  sewers.   This  is  done  without exhausting means  for  improving  the  per-
                     formance of existing systems.

                     Training  and education programs  in on-site  wastewater  management  have, until the
                     last several years, been  rudimentary.  Those programs  available primarily reached
  TRD V              public health  sanitarians and  system  installers,  not the consulting engineering
                     community  that  now plans facilities  for our rural communities.   U.S. EPA is working
                     to  improve the availability of training  and  education  programs  through technology
                     transfer  seminars,  the Small Waste Flows Clearinghouse, support  of  other organiza-
                     tion programs,  and preparation of this EIS and the seven previously mentioned case
                     studies.

-------
2.   PROBLEMS WITH CONVENTIONAL COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES IN RURAL  AREAS

                     Three main problems with construction of new collection and  treatment facilities in
                     rural  communities  are high cost, uncertain performance, and adverse  environmental
                     impacts.   While  these  obviously will  not rule out  new sewers in  all  rural and
                     developing communities, they must be seriously considered.
a.
      Costs
                      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 of wastewater  facilities  for  newly  sewered  rural areas  is spent for
•^40
m
3
O
                             30
                          
-------
















































en
_
CjQ
1 — 1


fTT

•2
. T

HH

pj

u

^

g

m

i

C/3


1 — I
H

^

W
H

<3

tS
o
1 — 1
H
S
a
CM
o

S
JH
hH
H
t.
O

Q
5
S3

f-3
W
N]
1 — 1
l_^
^

H

CJ
CJ


o


frH
cn
o
o

p
W
H

jH

H
c/l
W



rH
I
r- 1
1
H


rH
CO
4-1
o
f— (


co Ln
so r- co rn
O co r— co

o o -j- o





QJ


rJ
o

rH ,<"]
4-1 O
4-J
QJ

^*




^

•H • d
rH O -H
•H Z M
•P d
P 4-1 O
U U
£ -H W
QJ JH TH
rH 4J ^
CO W
C/J -H





^
QJ

CO
hH1 CO
4-)
rH O
• H M
CO QJ
H d
3
SH -H

i_j
4J
o







cn
QJ

CO <0
hH d
CO
d -H
QJ T3
,0 d
3 rH
QJ
4->
C/J




^
cn
TJ QJ
d .vi
CO CO d
hH1 TO
TJ 00
QJ rH -rl
.X CU XI
O SH CJ
O CU -H

U CJ
• H
OH





*~CS]
CU CO

CO O
hH W
QJ
d d
QJ d
QJ -rH

O


n
QJ

co d
i-l co

rH -H
co .d
4-1 U
M -H
^ JTJ
SH
C_j

















uO in O ~^J" uO ON sCJ


vo vjo>, K » n *v
CO rH ^O rH








CM CM oo r^ r~~ o

•^ o SO ^d" uO uO O CO so CO CO
CO O O ON O> ON O SO rH cj> CM
co in o -•3" r*^ r^- ON oo rH ^
r, ** r. ^ r> r.
rH m  rH
4J 4J CO
SH rH -iH -H
-P O CO d 4J
•H 2t d 3* d 3-nd d
d od-p ogdo o
34-1 'H d W -H g rH -H -rH
C -P < O 4-1 O14J -P
OCtnQJ C13 U CO CJ^-vrHCO CO
d4J« ^ OJ JH OcoJn SH

rH CU JH (U ft cO — QJ ft QJ O -fH ft QJ ft
rH rH P^i NO SH SH / — ' NO ft^ftO NO
QJ (0 /-^ -H CU QJ JH -H I-H (0 *~^ 'H
&> SnO •— l E w > d >> i— 1 S W M-cy>C_j4HO rH g W
P-H coo co P OO^CS111-^. CO 3 00 00s— ' O O CO 3 00
dCUOinSd O-c/J-SnSdd r-IOJHSd
O CJ1 >n 4-1 -H -H O QJ ^^ -P -H -H1 -H SH cO >H - 4J -H >H
COOJ IrH d-P >COS d -P > >>>UfOrH CJ 4-1 >
O\ O-CO-QJ ftcOONO QJ ftcO (0 OQJ-cr>-QJ ftcO
rH CM s— • ' CJ O t/a r- 1 £rj CJOWV3 h-3t>H ^— ' C_3 O C/H




en QJ
CU 4H CJ
'U MO d
QJ d cn co
SH QJ -P QJ 4-1
cu ft w E cn
& X O O -H
QJ QJ CJ W M
w en
oO QJ d «
>> d 4-1 -H
rH -H CO 00
-P -P > en d
d CO -H 4-1 -H
QJ SH SH w "O
M QJ ft O d
QJ ft U -J
S-l O SH <4H
ft O M
O 4H - QJ
JH OO JH 4J
O ON 4-1 QJ CO
4H rH Cl d 4-1
QJ 3 W
>> cn E o
4-J d >» QJ XI
•H rH CO £ 4-1
U ft ft O -H
CO Xi S
ft 4J r-H
CO (0 CO d TJ
U O d -H QJ
u d -p
4-1 d 13 CJ
d 4-J CO QJ d
QJ d *TJ SH
E QJ 4-J d 4-1
4-) £ d r- 1 M
CO QJ QJ U • d
QJ JH rH d cn o
SH -H CO -H ryj U
4J 4-1 > hH
QJ -H 4-> ft] 00
T3 SH d 0 d
C a1 d cu -H
co 4-J QJ XI QJ
X QJ 4-1 X
d QJ d SH
O T3! CO QJ d >>
•H S 'rH i — I
4J O T3 4->
CO OO QJ M d d
4-1 ON -O 4-> CO OJ
•rH i-H TJ C/] JCi CO
rH CO O -U QJ
•H W U SH
j~j - w i-i ft
CO >, -H SH (U
XI 4-1 (U Xl en
OJ -H W 3 00 H
SH d -H QJ -H
d XI cn xl E
SH E -P QJ
QJ E CU QJ 4-1
3 O O M Xi cn
cu u E-H d >,
en o - cn
W X QJ

o d xi cu o QJ
4H O JH . m N
4n co en QJ -H
tn T3 O Xl SH SH r-f
4-1 QJ W CO QJ CO
M SH QJ QJ Xl SH
O O VH 4-1 >, 4-1 4-1
U 4-> CO d d
U Xl QJ O - CU
•"rj to cn E c*o ^ o
OJ 4H QJ co

-J d CO -H O
rH QJ d 4J 4H W
CJ QJ CT1 CU CU
d XI QJ SH 4-» > rH
•H d -H CO
QJ M 4-1 QJ 4-> U
>> CU> -XiCJtO-H
rH >CO QJQJSHd 4-1
d -HXl UTJQJSH CU
O -P d ft QJ Xl
CO W QJ M 4-1 4-1
ft) d^3 TJ-HOOi — f O
CU SH QJ -H ,d "*^-. cO ft
SH QJ JH cn r- t>>
co 4-1 CO QJ 4H I T3 Xl
i — 1 SH O sO QJ
QJ CO TJ N QJ
CJ QJ QJ 4-1 4-J -H SH
•H T3JH ddcOrH CO
> QJ CU O QJ CO
SH N 3 CJ T3 JH QJ
QJ -H QJ M JH -H 4-1 >
W rHM QJQJcOd 'H

TJ SH ^ d CJ CO
CU 4-1 rH rH O CU d
W d-P cjCMSHSH JH
o cu d d QJ o QJ
ft CJQJ -HMH3MH 4-1
O W O rH
SH >> , QJ CO
ft rH SH 4-1 d QJ SH
rH ft W O XI QJ d
MH -J O -H 4-1 X! O
O 4-1 O U 4-» -H
4-1 d 4H d 4-1
c- QJ cn ,a -H 3 co
O Xl QJ - -H O SH
.,_( HrH iHSHWXl QJ
4J Xi QJ 4-> CO W ft
JH co d d O
O • 4-J 3 O /-^ 03

^ rH Xl CU £ d 3
13 d-H e^cud S
QJ O SH O d 3 O *H
JH 4-1 X! d QJ E -P
QJ d 4-> 4H W CO ft
S O CO rH O
QJ -H CO QJ OJ QJ

d C04-J dSndH O
-J E w d QJ o 4H
•HO CO M XI
>. x: o QJ w
rH o cu SH cn cn QJ
4-> SH 00 CO U3 4-i
C ft ' CO (0 hH CO
CU ft W SH X) PL} S
W (0 CO QJ W U -H
QJ QJ >' d d QJ 4-J
JH d*H 
-------
  EIS V-E-2
b.
 Performance
                 ties.  Within Region V, annual residential user charges rarely exceed $200--only 10
                 out  of 687  user  charge systems  approved  as of September  1980  were greater (U.S.
                 EPA,  1980a).   However,  all 10 of these communities and 14 of 17 communities charg-
                 ing  $150-$200  per year have populations of 10,000 or less.  [Only communities that
                 are  building collection sewers and interceptors in the Region are included in this
                 analysis.   The user  charges  do  not include private costs  for  plumbing changes or
                 house  sewer construction (often $1,000 or more) and most user charges have already
                 been minimized  to varying degrees by initial hook-up fees (often $2,000 or more)].

                 Table  1-1 presents  cost  data developed  for  the Seven Rural  Lake  EIS's comparing
                 centralized  alternatives with optimum operation alternatives.   The potential pre-
                 sent worth savings  from optimum operation alternatives  for  the seven communities
                 totaled  $50.9  million  or  $4,943 per  dwelling unit  equivalent.   Not all  of  the
                 potential  present worth savings will be realized.   One community has withdrawn its
                 application  for Construction  Grants funding using only part of the EIS recommenda-
                 tions  in  a state funded project.   Other  communities,  having  seen the actual level
                 of  water   quality  and public  health  problems,  are hesitant to  build all parts of
                 even the  optimum  operation approach.

                 Estimated  reductions due  to  adoption of  optimum  operation approaches  in average
                 annual homeowner  costs  ranged from 58% to 90%, averaging 82% or about $405 per year
                 per  house.  The  estimated  homeowner costs  include  all  local  costs, whether pri-
                 vately  or publicly  financed,  with initial capital  costs,  including house sewers,
                 amortized  over a  30-year  period.  Therefore,  while the average  annual homeowner
                 costs  for  the  centralized alternatives appear extraordinarily high compared to most
                 user charges,  they include real  costs to the homeowner that he or she would usually
                 pay  as hook-up  charges,  frontage fees,  taxes, or direct  payments  to private con-
                 tractors .

                 The  most  dramatic cost  reduction  was  for publicly financed local capital costs, the
                 part of   the  projects  typically  financed by  bonds  or  loans  to  municipalities.
                 Because of lower total capital  costs, limitations  on  collector sewer eligibility,
                 higher  Federal and  state  shares for  alternative  facilities,  and deferred capital
                 for  future on-site systems, local capital was reduced between 89% and 98%.
                      In newly sewered areas,  particularly  around  rural  lakes, only occasionally  is there
                      a realistic quantified assessment  of  the water  quality  impact of  the  on-site treat-
                      ment to  be replaced.   Experience  in the Seven Rural Lake  EIS's  suggests  that the
                      costs and  impacts  of sewering may  sometimes  achieve  no discernible water quality
                      improvement,  or  that  reduction of non-point  source pollution may produce a much
                      greater water quality improvement  at  a  lower cost.

                      It is  conventional  engineering wisdom  that  centralized wastewater treatment faci-
                      lities,  if  properly designed and maintained,  will  provide more reliable  and con-
                      trollable  treatment  than  on-site  or small-scale  facilities.   There certainly are
                      enough decrepit  package aeration  plants, weed-infested  lagoons, and bubbling on-
                      site systems to support this  comparison.  However, statistics on  the  performance  of
                      U.S.  EPA-funded,  recently constructed  central treatment  plants  indicate  that the
                      "properly  designed  and maintained"  assumption  cannot be taken for granted.    An
                      EPA-funded study of treatment plant performance (Energy and Environmental Analysis,
                      Inc., 1978)  found that  53% of the plants were in significant  or serious violation
                      of their National Pollution  Discharge  Elimination System permits during  the spring
                      of 1977.

                      The problems that arise with centralized  and  small  waste  flows  approaches are not
                      the fault of the technologies involved, but  result from the ways  these  technologies
                      are selected, designed,  built, and operated--in a  word, management.   Throwing money
                      into centralized collection  and treatment  facilities does  not  solve  the  problem  of
                      inadequate management.  It only creates a  need for different management procedures.
C.
Environmental  Impact
                      In many  rural and  developing  communities,  installation of sewers will have  minor
                      environmental  impact.   However,  the primary  and secondary  impacts  of sewer  con-
                      struction that might occur could outweigh the benefits of centralization.

                                                    12

-------
EIS VI-B-1          Primary environmental and social  impacts  in rural areas occur as  results  of  sewer
    VI-B-6          construction or of the development supported by sewers.   Examples  are  disruption of
    VI-B-7          archaeologic sites,  development in  floodplains,  destruction of wildlife  habitat,
                    and increased non-point source pollution.

EIS IV-C            Some environmentally  sensitive  areas are  protected  from  development  only by  the
                    fact  that  on-site systems  will not operate in  them.    Sewers   can  overcome  the
EIS VI-B-2          natural constraints  to development  in  such  areas and,  in lieu of  protective laws
    VI-B-5          and  enforcement,   may result  in  permanent environmental  damage.    In  Region  V,
                    possibly  the  most common encroachment  of this  type is  on  fresh  water wetlands.
                    Steep  slopes,  vulnerable to  erosion,  are  common in the  southern  parts  of  Ohio,
                    Indiana,  and  Illinois around many  glacial  lakes  and  in other parts of Region V.

                    Sewers  can  overcome  these  natural  constraints  resulting  in  greatly increased
                    erosion and non-point  source pollution  during  both  sewer  construction  and sub-
                    sequent development in these areas.   Elevated rates of  erosion  and  non-point-source
                    pollution will  continue  for  the life of the development.  In  some  cases this non-
                    point source pollution  can  actually offset water  quality  benefits  associated with
                    sewering.

EIS VI-B-3          Other  valuable natural  resources  may  be  encroached   on  because  of  the  growth-
                    inducement  effects of  sewers.    Installation  of  interceptor  or collector  sewers
                    through sparsely developed or undeveloped tracts provides incentive  to develop that
                    land.  This effect is enhanced when municipalities must actively encourage  devel-
                    opment in  order to pay off  debts incurred  in  financing the  sewers.  Of  particular
                    concern in Region V is such  encroachment on prime agricultural  lands.

TRD XI              While these impacts  are  not unique to sewer construction,  they commonly  are  caused
                    by  it.  Careful planning and implementation of mitigating measures,  including not
                    building  the  sewers,  must  be considered when sensitive or  valuable  resources are
                    present.

3.   POTENTIAL SAVINGS

EIS I-C-4           The  monetary  savings that  can  result  from small waste  flows management were sum-
                    marized above  for  the seven rural lake communities  previously  studied  by  U.S. EPA
                    Region V.   For the  six  projects that  may be  implemented as  recommended, present
                    worth savings totaled approximately $44 million or $5,220 per dwelling unit.   There
                    are, perhaps,  80,000  additional dwellings  in unsewered  lake communities for  which
                    Construction  Grants  activities  are  planned or  in progress  based  on a review of
                    Region  V's project  files.    If  the same  cost savings  can  be  achieved for  these
                    dwellings  as  are   possible  in the six EIS communities,  the  total  regional present
                    worth  savings   for  lake projects  funded  through 1985  could  be  as  high as $460
                    million.

TRD X-A             The  Seven  Rural Lake EIS's  considered  a total  of 10,306 dwelling unit equivalents
                    presently  served by  on-site systems.  There are  approximately 3.3  million on-site
TRD X-E             systems in  Region  V.   Not all of these,  of  course,  require  improved management or
                    upgraded  systems.   Even fewer  are  so  densely located that  sewering would even be
                    considered.  In order to derive an  order-of-magnitude  estimate  for potential sav-
                    ings resulting  from optimum operation, the following five steps were taken:

                    1.  The number  of  residential on-site systems in  the Region was estimated for three
                        categories:

                        o  urban          =    536,300
                        o  rural non-farm =  2,036,600
                        o  rural farm     =    759,300
                                             3,332,200

                    2.  It was  assumed that a negligible part  of  the rural farm systems would require
                        either  optimum  operation  or sewering.   This  leaves  a  total  of  2,572,900
                        systems.


                                                  13

-------
                      3.  For  the  urban  and  rural  non-farm categories,  the  systems were  allocated  to
                         density groups  of  <25,  25-50,  50-75,  75-100,  and 100+ dwellings  per  mile  of
                         potential  collection  sewer.   Depending  on  lot configuration  and development
                         pattern,  average  lot  sizes  would range  from  eight acres  down to one-quarter
                         acre  for  the  range  of densities considered.

                      4.  The  total (urban  plus rural non-farm) number of residences within each density
                         group was partitioned into need classes:

                         o  sewer,
                         o  sewer  or optimum operation,
                         o  optimum operation,
                         o  no action.

                      5.  Present worth costs  for  sewering were compared to the present worth costs  of
                         optimum operation  for  the  second need  class:    sewer  or  optimum operation.

                      The nominal present worth savings within Region V, estimated by this procedure,  is
                      $1.9  billion.   This represents an average  $4,436  savings  per  dwelling for the 430
                      thousand  dwellings  estimated to be in  the "sewer or optimum operation" needs class.
                      This  needs  class, as estimated, is 13% of all on-site  systems in the Region and 17%
                      of non-farm on-site systems.

                      The estimates summarized here are presented  in more detail  in Technical Reference
                      Document  Chapter X-E,  "On-site  Systems in  Region V  and  Potential Cost Avoidance
                      from  Adoption of  Optimum Operation Alternatives."

                      The reader  should recognize that this  estimate is dependent on assumptions in Steps
                      3 through 5,  which  cannot at present be fully verified with hard data.  It is felt,
                      however,  that possible errors in these assumptions will not have as much effect on
                      the estimate  as will external factors, especially  local  and  state initiatives,  or
                      the lack  thereof, to improve rural sanitation.

4.   NUMBER OF  POTENTIAL RURAL AND RURAL LAKE PROJECTS IN REGION V

  TRD X-A             Specific  terms  are applied  to  the  various  sized  communities discussed  in this
                      section.  A "small  community"  as used  here  is any place with a population of 10,000
                      or  less.   A "place" may be  unincorporated  or incorporated.   Unincorporated places
                      are  defined  as   closely  settled  population  centers  that  have  no  corporate boun-
                      daries,  contain  a  population  of at  least 1,000,  and have  a  definite nucleus  of
                      residences  (U.S.  Bureau  of  the Census,  1978).   In Region  V  states,  incorporated
                      places include  cities,  towns,  and villages.

                      The Bureau  of the Census defines "urban population"  as all persons  living in places
                      of  2,500 population or more,  or in specifically defined, urban areas in and sur-
                      rounding  cities of  50,000  or more population.  "Rural  population" is everyone else.

                      Unsewered development   certainly exists in  some urban  places of  over 10,000 popula-
                      tion.   If proposed for Construction  Grants  funding  of collector sewers, such areas
                      will  have  to meet the same  criteria  as  unsewered parts of  smaller  communities.
                      However,  this is  unlikely to be  the major  focus  of  facilities planning in large
                      communities.   When estimating potential numbers of  facilities  plans,  the focus is
                      on  communities of  less than  10,000  since relatively  larger  proportions of their
                      areas will  be unsewered.

                      Figure I-C-1 shows  by  2,500  population  size brackets the  total  number of places
                      less  than  10,000 population in Region V  as of 1977.  Any of these places, plus an
                      unknown  number of  smaller settlements that  do not  qualify  as  places, may benefit
                      from  adoption of  the wastewater management  approach  described here.

                      Figure I-C-1  also shows the  number of approved user  charge systems  and  total number
                      of applications in process or on priority  lists.  User charge  systems  are normally
                      submitted  to U.S.  EPA  near  the  end of Step  3  in the Construction Grants process.


                                                    14

-------
   3,000
2,500
o
u.
o
OL
LJ
m
2,000
    1,500
   1,000
    500
                       3,426
                       1,066
                       291
                                   483
                                   297
                                   96
                                       TOTAL PLACES
                                       PLACES ON 5 YEAR STATE
                                       PRIORTY LISTS, RECEIVING
                                       CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FUNDS
                                       OR SUBSTANTIALLY FINISHED
                                       WITH CONSTRUCTION GRANTS


                                       PLACES SUBSTANTIALLY
                                       FINISHED WITH CONSTRUCTION
                                       GRANTS (USER CHARGE SYSTEM
                                       HAS BEEN APPROVED)
                                           208

                                           143

                                           56
                  140
                  98
                  40
                  0-
                 2,500
                          2,500-
                          5,000
5,000-
7,500
7,500-
10,000
                                POPULATION
      Figure I-C-1.
                          Involvement  of  small communities  in the
                          Construction Grants Program.
                                 15

-------
TABLE I-C-1.   ESTIMATED TOTAL SMALL COMMUNITY PROJECT AND RURAL LAKE  PROJECTS  U.S.  EPA REGION V -
              1980 - 1985*
State	Total projects                             Lake projects
Illinois                                     240                                        48
     0-2,500                                      156
     2,501-5,000                                   48
     5,001-10,000                                  36

Indiana                                      177                                        40
     0-2,500                                      117
     2,501-5,000                                   29
     5,001-10,000                                  31

Michigan                                     122                                        68
     0-2,500                                       66
     2,501-5,000                                   29
     5,001-10,000                                  27

Minnesota                                    276                                       120
     0-2,500                                      232
     2,501-5,000                                   35
     5,001-10,000                                   9

Ohio                                         143                                         8
     0-2,500                                       76
     2,501-5,000                                   36
     5,000-10,000                                  31

Wisconsin                                    163                                        88
     0-2,500                                      128
     2,501-5,000                                   24
     5,001-10,000                                  11

Region V                                     1,121                                     372
     0-2,500                                      775
     2,501-5,000                                  201
     5,001-10,000                                 145
 *   The  table  is based on data from Region V project files.  25% of project files for communities under
    10,000 population were randomly selected to provide data for these estimates.

                    This is a fairly accurate estimate of the number of communities that have completed
                    construction of wastewater facilities.

 TRD X-A            The  next  block  in  each size  bracket includes number of projects  that are on the
                    states' 5-year priority lists  (1980-1985) or are receiving funds for Steps  1, 2, or
                    3.   A  single user charge system or project may cover only a part of a  place or may
                    include  more than  one  place.   The  degree  of overlap  is not  known.   Table I-C-1
                    shows the  number of small community  projects  on  priority lists or receiving Grant
                    funds  by state and by  community  size and shows the estimated  number  of lake pro-
                    jects by state.

                    The  remaining  places may be placed  on state priority lists after  1985.  Potential
                    post-1985  candidates  far outnumber small communities  already  involved in  the Con-
                    struction  Grants process.   The majority, 89%, are  rural  places of less than 2,500
                    population.
                                                   16

-------
                    The number  of  places on  priority  lists or  designated as potential candidates is
                    large but will be  reduced  to  an unknown extent because many communities can manage
                    their wastewater facilities without Federal  grant  assistance.  This  is an ultimate
                    objective of the Construction   Grants  program, and,  to the degree that communities
                    are already managing on  their  own,  the  program will succeed that much more quickly.

                    The number  of  future projects  can be  reduced  further by joint applications from
                    several small communities.  In  addition to  reducing  administration time and costs,
                    this would also provide  desirable  economies  of  scale  in  small waste flows manage-
                    ment and manpower  costs.

5.   LACK  OF  INFORMATION ON SMALL  SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND  COSTS

                    The low amount and  quality of information about  on-site  systems is a reflection of
                    existing management of such systems.   The public interest in adequate performance
                    has traditionally been outweighed  by  the desire  of individuals for  privacy.  As a
                    result, on-site systems  are seldom  inspected  after  construction, and  community-wide
                    surveys are nearly  nonexistent.  Community  surveys generally  are not encouraged or
                    funded  unless  an  epidemic  or  an absolutely  unacceptable   failure rate already
                    exists.  The  result is  a very  bad  reputation  and  a  body of  literature  that is
                    strongly biased toward worst cases.

                    What results  are  obtained when  surveys are  conducted  just to monitor performance
                    and not to  document  situations  that  are already out of  hand?  In many cases, such
                    as Fairfax  County,  Virginia,  Glastonbury,  Connecticut,  and  the Seven  Rural Lake
                    communities, performance has been much better than  is usually  expected.

                    Considerable discrepancy  exists  between perceived  performance and documented per-
                    formance.   Two possible  sources of bias are the  homeowner's perspective and the
                    sanitarian's perspective.   Although homeowners  seldom  err by reporting failures
                    that have  not  occurred,  they  do,  either knowingly  or  out of  ignorance,  fail to
                    report problems during surveys  or  censuses.  The level  of underreporting is never
                    quantified.    In  contrast  to  homeowners,   sanitarians,  engineers   and  municipal
                    officials are professionally  concerned  with  failures  for various  reasons and tend
                    to overemphasize  their  prevalence  and  significance.   Consider,  for instance, the
                    effects on  a  sanitarian's attitude toward  installed  systems  when  he  is asked to
                    inspect only  failing systems.   His negative attitude  toward  the failing systems,
                    the other systems he has  permitted, and all  the  ones he  must  permit  in the future,
                    is amplified by the  personal  hardship  and inconvenience  of the owners, and by the
                    implied  or  open  recriminations  that  owners heap  on  the  sanitarian.   Municipal
                    officials also  do  not hear  about  the  systems that  work; they hear about the few
                    that do  not work.  As evidenced by facilities  plans prepared for the communities
                    studied in  the Seven Rural Lake EIS's, engineers  uncritically accept opinion and
                    fragmentary data regarding on-site  system performance.

EIS II-A-2          On-site system failure rates  undoubtably vary greatly  from community to community.
                    The Seven Rural Lake EIS's showed  that failure rates  are not directly predictable
                    from  site  suitability  criteria  such  as lot size, depth to  groundwater  and soil
                    type.   The  EIS's  showed that lake shores,  a setting  conventionally thought to be
                    very sensitive to  septic tank systems,  do not,  in fact, have unusually high failure
                    rates.

EIS II-A-3-c        Community-wide performance data  is  almost always  lacking  and surveys  that have been
                    conducted indicate a much  lower failure rate than  predicted from site limitations,
                    yet there are suspected  sources  of  bias from the  two  groups closest to the problem;
                    homeowners and  sanitarians.   At the  same  time,  large sums of money may be need-
                    lessly  spent   if  valid  performance  data  is lacking  or  if  site  suitability is
                    erroneously evaluated.   This  situation  demands the collection and objective analy-
                    sis  of performance  data  and corollary information  such as  design, usage,  main-
                    tenance,  soils,  site  constraints, groundwater  hydrology,  and  surface  drainage.

                    Other types of information are also lacking.  Many  technology  and management alter-
                    natives discussed  in this EIS  have  not been extensively applied   and evaluated.


                                                  17

-------
                      Cost  data, while based on a great deal of literature and direct quotes, have rarely
                      been  confirmed  in small waste flows projects on a community scale.

                      If  on-site  systems  are  as hazardous  as  many  responsible  people believe,  and  if
                      appropriate  management  can in many cases control problems  of  on-site systems with
                      sizable  cost  savings,   answering these  questions  about  performance,  costs,  and
                      management  not only would be  justified  in  the name of public  health and welfare,
                      but also could  save billions of dollars;.

6.   IMPACTS OF  ON-SITE  SYSTEMS

  TRD XII              The  high cost  of sewering  requires  that  any decision to  sewer  takes into account
                      the  actual  quantitative  role  of existing  systems  in water  quality problems.   An
                      informed  decision requires evaluation of pollution sources  beside wastewater,  the
                      cost  of reducing  or ending  these  other  sources,  and  the comparative  speed with
                      which wastewater  and other pollution sources  can be  abated.   Existing systems are
                      by no means  the only cause of water pollution.

                      Consider,  for  example, well contamination.  When an on-site well exhibits indicator
                      bacteria,  septic  tanks and drainfields are  the prime suspects.  For  local officials
                      documenting  the need for new wastewater or water supply facilities,  they are often
                      the  only suspects.   But hasty conclusions  can result in expensive measures that do
                      not  solve  the  actual cause  of contamination.   In many cases,  poor  design or poor
                      condition  of the  well itself allows surface runoff into the well.

                      Similarly,  on-site  systems may be suspected of increasing phosphorus  contributions
                      to  lakes,  thus  hastening eutrophication.   There is  evidence  that  septic  leachate
                      can  stimulate  plant growth near  the  point  where  the  leachate plume enters a lake.
                      This  impact can be pronounced on very  small  lakes  or embayments with still waters
                      and  many  shoreline dwellings.   However,  on  larger  bodies of  water, wave  action
                      seems to  control  such  local plant  growth.   Lacking demonstrated  bacterial con-
                      tamination  from  these  plumes ,  the impact of  concern is  phosphorus  loading to the
  TRD XII-G           lake  as  a  whole.   Phosphorus  control  strategies  that include agricultural,  silvi-
                      cultural,  horticultural,  and urban non-point  source controls  may  potentially be
                      more  cost-effective than  elimination  of on-site systems.

  TRD II-A            On-site  systems are not  always  harmless.   Their  very proximity to  human dwellings
                      amplifies  the  importance  of their small flows and limited adverse  impact.  It is
                      most  important,  however,  that  decisions about  their water  quality  and public  health
                      problems be  based on actual performance and not opinion.

7.   TWO  LEVELS  OF  NEED  FOR  ACTION

                      The  environmental and economic  reasons for seriously considering  optimum operation
                      alternatives have been briefly mentioned previously.  More  specific information on
                      the  needs and  methods  to address them are presented in  greater detail in the re-
                      mainder  of this EIS and  in the  supporting Technical Reference Document.

                      The   recommendation  to  evaluate  optimum operation alternatives  generates  secondary
                      needs such as  the need  for improved  data  collection as noted.   Most  of the  proposed
                      actions,  in fact,  respond  to  these  secondary needs,  the  needs  that must be  met to
                      achieve  the environmental and  economic benefits  of  optimum operation:    public
                      participation,  community  supervision,  state  initiatives,   facilities   planning
                      methodologies, and  mitigating measures.
                                                    18

-------
                                           Chapter II

                             Small Waste Flows Technologies
                                                                                   SMALL-TIAMETEP tSEAvlT\
                                                                                   SEFTlCTANk LiaUlf TO •-R
                                                                                    LA^OJW  LAMP APPLIC
                                                                                       (,S|LV [CULTURE*
                                                                                   .rfAJp VP seFTicrANk WITH sum*^ ,
                                                                                  if^*^[ I *ei-l\MRiAl.ri9TEiBUTiONi
                                          SEPTIC TANh CLUSTER
              JEE SEWEKSl.STer\ 6EPriC
              laUIP TO LA^CC-N f LANH
               APPLICATION      I
    00 V  &^
               L A K. E
                                   WATERLESS TOILED 3|Mk5
                                                        I SE-FTfCTANk V\iT* SOIL
                                                              VACUUM 5EWEKS,
                                                               LAi5^OW LANP
                                                                APFLICATION ,
I                                                                                           SEPTIC TANk VMT-H
                                                                                          El APOTRA^SFI CATION
                                                                                              BEP
                                                                              *«£i ^>igr

                                                                                    i
                                                                                  ^
                                                                                  ON

                                                                                ^T^-
                                                       :£NTRAL' SV^TEM*"  I
                                            r-^f-1    :WJV
          ^  '  <^^sr-.^.^1
^^_^__^  \   ^?   .^\>fn      •;^-
           SMALL-riAMETEC 6KAUTV ^EWEKS
           SEPTIC Liauir TJJ ALTERNATING
              COMMUNITY FtELr       ]
                               'i!(A«*.<  ,
                                                   0-^C««T|	1

                                                          HOLrtHG TANK
            &*f~lW<£Zt-''
                        N^-.rl*l»! ,"b"": „ n u T  '   _ -
                    r gc? W
                ,<  •       :/'
^^*-
                                                                        fe^^
                                                                                           SFPTIC TAWk VMfW I
                                                                              -H^
^^=—  ->,«  >"'
-AJJOV.   i1 *>.- •• \
THE SMALL COMMUNITY  AND  TYPICAL USES  OF  ALTERNATIVE
                             WASTEWATER  SYSTEMS

-------
                                            CHAPTER II

                                SMALL WASTE FLOWS TECHNOLOGIES


A.   ON-SITE SYSTEMS

1.   ON-SITE SYSTEMS  IN REGION  V

TRD X-E             In the six  states  of U.S.  EPA Region V, approximately  3.3  million  on-site  waste-
                    water treatment systems were in place in 1979.  These systems served approximately
                    22% of the  population in the  Region,  ranging from 4%  of urban  residents  (places
                    greater than 2500 population),  to 66% of rural non-farm residents, and 99% of farm
                    residents.   The predominant  type of on-site system is the septic tank-soil absorp-
                    tion system.   Cesspools  are  also  common  in this  area but typically  serve  only
                    buildings  that  are  more than 20 years old.  Of all the on-site systems in Region V,
                    3.2 million or  95% are  either  septic  tank-soil absorption  systems  or cesspools.
                    The remaining  systems  are chemical toilets or pit privies.

                    There are great variations  in design,  construction and  quality  of  these systems.
                    These have been caused in part by the early absence of regulatory codes, continuing
                    changes in  them,  and a  frequent  lack  of  enforcement.   Together these  have  made
                    possible  the occasional  treatment atrocity:  direct untreated  discharge of  lakes,
                    55 gallon drums with axe holes,  or  buried automobiles.  More recently installed
                    systems include advanced  treatment technologies, such as mounds, shallow placement,
                    dosing, and  electro-osmosis.

                    When septic  tanks systems were beginning to  replace pit privies, few local  juris-
                    dictions  had standards for siting, designing, installing, and operating septic tank
                    systems.   As knowledge of these systems increased and early systems fai«led,  regula-
                    tory codes were developed.   These codes have  changed  through the years as experi-
                    ence and research have dictated.  As a result, older systems do not satisfy  exist-
                    ing codes.

                    Regardless   of  the  standards in effect  at  the  time  of  construction,  some  septic
                    tank-soil absorption systems will eventually fail.  Factors  that contribute  to the
                    failure of on-site  systems are discussed in the following section.

2.   FAILURES  OF ON-SITE  SYSTEMS

a.   Types of  Failures

                    Failures  of  on-site systems that are significant  enough to  warrant public funding
                    for abatement  include:

                    o  direct discharges,
                    o  surface malfunctions,
                    o  backups  into the household plumbing, and
                    o  contamination of groundwater at an actual or potential point of use.

                    Direct discharge of raw  domestic wastewater or  septic  tank  effluent to the  ground
                    surface,  to  drainage  ditches or to waterways  is  not a  system failure as such, but
                    lack of  a  system,  and not  accepted  practice.  Depending on the source of  waste-
                    water,  direct discharges can pose the most  severe  public health and water quality
                    impacts of  all  types of failure  due  to the  absence  of any treatment  by soil or
                    other  effective  methods.  Because  of the  threat  and difficulties  of monitoring,
                    health authorities generally ban direct  discharges  whether  the discharge contains
                    human waste or just kitchen or laundry waste.  Abatement of  direct discharges by
                    cost-effective   means  will  generally  be  expected   in a  community  receiving
                    Construction Grants aid.  However, individual exceptions may be justified where the
                    wastewater  source  or the  conditions  under  which  it  is discharged  create  minor
                    impacts and  the cost of abatement is unreasonable.


                                                21

-------
                    Surface  malfunctions of  soil  absorption systems  typically are due  to inadequate
                    hydraulic  capacity.   Wastewater  flows  in excess  of  design,  soil  clogging, imper-
                    meable  soils,  and pipe  clogging or collapse can contribute  to this type of  failure.
                    Surface  malfunctions  can range  from seasonal  dampness of  the  ground  to short-
                    circuiting  of  the soil  absorption systems through  channels  eroded  through the soil.
                    Although a  minor malfunction is  often the  precursor  of more severe problems, this
                    is  not  always  the  case.  Intermittent  surface malfunctions  or "weeping"  of mound
                    systems  may occur for  long periods without creating  anything more than a nuisance.
                    Such minor  surface  malfunctions  may be included  in  failure  statistics when esti-
                    mating  facilities  required for optimum  operation  alternatives  in  Step  I facilities
                    planning.   However,  later decisions  to abandon  such  on-site systems  should  be
                    supported  by information regarding the  severity of the  problem and the feasibility
                    of  other remedies.

                    Backups  in household plumbing can be  caused  by any  of  the factors that cause sur-
                    face malfunctions.    In addition, clogging of  the plumbing itself will also cause
                    backups. As contrasted to the other  types of malfunctions, the only way to  quanti-
                    fy  backups  is  by interview with residents.   Residents' descriptions  of the fre-
                    quency   of  backups  may be the basis  for a  preliminary diagnosis.   Non-recurring
                    backups  or  backups  that were remedied  by plumbing maintenance should not be con-
                    sidered as  system  failures.   However, on some sites,  plumbing backups may be  the
                    only evidence  of inadequacy in the on-site system.

EIS V-D-1           Contamination of groundwater is  at once the most  difficult failure on  which to  ob-
    VI-A-1          tain reliable  data,  and the  one with the most severe potential public health  im-
                    pacts.   Virtually all standard soil absorption  systems  and  many alternative on-site
                    technologies  discharge  to groundwater,  thereby  contaminating it  to  some  degree.
                    Whether  the  contamination  is  significant,  however,  depends  on  the use  of  the
                    affected groundwater,  the contaminants discharged,   and  their  concentrations  at
                    points  of use.

                    "Points of  use" include:

                    o  for  unconfined  aquifers,  all locations  around   an  on-site system  beyond  the
                       state's  minimum  separation distance to wells,

                    o  for  confined aquifers, the same except  that perched groundwater tables  with no
                       aquifer potential are not  points of use,

                    o  any existing water supply  well, and

                    o  zones of groundwater  discharge to  primary contact surface  waters or to surface
                       waters used for  drinking water.

                    Where local sampling  indicates  that  drinking water  standards  are exceeded  at dis-
                    tances  greater than states'  mimimum  separation distances,  then locally applicable
                    separation distances should  be  incorporated into  this definition.

                    For aquifers  and wells,  traditional  contaminants  of  concern  are bacterial pathogen
                    indicators  (total or fecal coliform  bacteria)  and  nitrates.  Failures  of  individual
                    wells do not indicate wholesale  contamination of  the  source aquifer.

                    Water  quality  standards  for untreated  drinking  water  are  well established,  but
                    standards  for  groundwater discharges  to surface  waters are not.  Sooner  or later,
                    the states in Region V will  need to  develop such standards.

b.   Frequencies  of  Failures

                    Reliable data  on the various types  of  failures is very scarce.   Most locales  have
                    neither surveys nor  more specific  analysis of on-site  system  performance.   Health
                    department  complaint  and repair  records are usually the only data available.   Such
                    information  would  be  useful,  but it is seldom  compiled, analyzed  or  published.
                                                22

-------
While there  is not  comprehensive  information on  the subject, some  data  exist to
broadly describe  frequencies  of  on-site system failures.  The  failure  most likely
to be  noticed by  residents,  and,  therefore,  the  one most  likely to  be  reported
during a survey, is a plumbing backup.

The 1977 Census of Housing (U.S.  Department of Commerce,  1979) reports that 1.6% of
surveyed  occupants in  the northcentral  United States  served by  on-site systems
reported breakdowns where  the systems were unusable one or more times for six con-
secutive  hours or  longer during  the 90-day period  preceding the survey.   These
breakdowns included not only system failures but also clogged pipes and failures of
the water supplies.

By contrast, occupants served by public sewer reported an 0.8% breakdown rate.  For
on-site systems,  reported  breakdowns  were highest in urban  areas,  2.8°/o,  lowest on
farms, 1.0%,  and  the  same as the overall on-site breakdown rate in rural,  non-farm
dwelling,  1.6%.    (It  is  also interesting  to note that  the water supply failure
rate, 2.5%,  and  the flush toilet failure rate due to problems inside  the building,
1.6%, were  higher than the combined  sewer/on-site  sewage  disposal  failure rate of
1.0%.)

Sanitary surveys  conducted for  the Seven Rural Lake  EISs  indicated that recurrent
backups  were  more  frequent  in  the  five  communities  surveyed  than the  census
region's average  (Peters  and  Krause,  1980).  Rates varied  from 2% to 20%.  In all
five communities  the  recurrent  backup rates were  higher  than the rates of surface
malfunction, which ranged  from 0% to 8%.

Reports on  failures  of on-site  systems seldom  specify  the  type.   It is suspected,
however,  that "failure" most often  refers to  surface malfunctions.   Surface mal-
functions present  the  greatest  nuisance to neighbors, and are usually more identi-
fiable than  direct discharges,  which tend  to be well concealed.   Surface malfunc-
tion  rates  are best  quantified  by aerial  survey or  on-site sanitary inspection.
This  information  is not  yet  widely  available.   The next best source  of  data for
surface  malfunctions   is  probably  public  health  department complaint  and repair
records.

In support  of an  EIS  on  mound  systems, Wisconsin Department  of  Health and Social
Services  (1979)  cites  a 1967  survey of eight lake areas.  The percent of dwellings
with sewage discharges to  the ground surface ranged from 3.7 to 44% with an average
of 14.6%.   It is  not stated to what extent the survey areas were selected based on
previously  recognized  problems.   Combined  with  direct  discharges,  the  total
"failure" rate was 22%.  There is a gross discrepancy between these figures and the
rate of issuance for repair permits.   The EIS states that approximately 2042 repair
permits were  issued in  1975  within  66  of the state's 72 counties.   This is only
0.45% of  the  on-site  systems that the  EIS estimated  to  be  in  place  then.   This
discrepancy strongly suggests that:

o  Failure  rates   vary  widely from  one  locale to  another.   While  the  state or
   regional rates may be low, specific communities or parts of communities may have
   substantially higher than average rates.

o  Many failures  remain undetected and unrepaired.  The traditionally passive role
   that local  health  officials  take  in regard to on-site system performance likely
   results in underestimation of even the easily detectable failures.

o  Depending  on  the  length of time failures  are  allowed to persist,  one-time sur-
   veys probably count more failures than actually start in any given year.  Use of
   survey statistics to  estimate an annual failure rate  is  not,  therefore, justi-
   fied in most instances.  At the same time, the survey statistics probably do not
   reflect  a  cumulative failure rate since some proportion  of past  failures will
   have been  repaired.
                            23

-------
                    Failure  rates  for groundwater contamination by on-site systems are,  and  will con-
                    tinue  to be, uncertain.  However,  in  contrast  to the other types of  failures  for
                    which  little epidemiological evidence exists linking them with actual public health
                    problems,  groundwater contamination by  on-site systems is a  recognized  source  of
                    disease.   Keswick and Gerba  (1980) cite Craun's  data (1979)  that 42% of  the  264
                    outbreaks  of waterborne  disease  between 1946 and 1977 were due  to  "overflow from
                    septic tanks and  cesspools..."   Many  unreported illnesses no doubt  occur  and  are
                    not  investigated  because  too  few  people are involved to  indicate  the  source  of
                    pathogens.   Woodward  et  a^L (1961)  report nitrate  concentrations  in  water wells  in
                    39 Minnesota unsewered villages and metropolitan suburbs.   47.5% (30,000)  of 63,000
                    wells  showed significant  concentrations  of nitrate.   10.6% exceeded  the drinking
                    water  quality  standard  of  10  mg/1  No -N.    Other  studies  document  additional
                    examples of  aquifer contamination by on-site systems.

                    In  most  of  the  groundwater  studies,   however,   the  areas were  densely  developed
                    and/or were  underlain by channeled or fissured bedrock.   Thus, while  it is known
                    that   serious  groundwater  problems can  be caused  by on-site  systems,  there  is
                    usually  no way  to assess  the  potential locally  other than by  sampling  programs.

c.   Causes of  Surface  Failures  and Plumbing Backups

EIS I-B-l           Causes of  surface failures and backup problems for existing systems can be divided
                    into   two  categories:    those  easy  to  control  and  those  more  difficult  (or
                    impossible)  to  control.   Those easy to control include:

                    o system  usage,
                    o maintenance,  and
                    o surface drainage.

                    System usage includes number of  occupants, daily per capita  flow, and use of gar-
                    bage disposals.   These can  be controlled by installing water meters and flow reduc-
                    tion  devices,   limiting  occupancy,  and  prohibiting garbage disposals.  Maintenance
                    problems  can be controlled  by 1)  a  renewable permit system contingent upon proof of
                    periodic  inspection  and  maintenance,  2) public  maintenance  services,  3) required
                    maintenance  contracts,   or  4)  public education.   Surface  drainage problems can be
                    controlled by  diverting  runoff away from  on-site systems,  disconnecting roof and
                    foundations  drains, or mounding soil over soil  absorption systems.

                    Causes of surface failures and plumbing backups  that  are more difficult to control
                    include:

                    o  system design,
                    o  soil  characteristics,
                    o  site  characteristics   (size and  sh.ape  of lot,  relationship  to other lots, rela-
                       tive  location of house and well),
                    o  groundwater  hydrology, and
                    o  system age.

                    Most   of  these  can be  controlled by a  major modification to  the existing  system.
                    Examples of  possible  controls  include:   upgrading or  expanding the system,  changing
                    the  system  design,   using  a  different  area  of  the  lot,  transporting wastewater
                    off-site for treatment,  and installing  artificial drains.

d.   Factors  Contributing  to Failures Resulting in  Groundwater Contamination

                    Groundwater  contamination  from on-site  systems  is usually due to  some  type  of soil
                    or geological  characteristic.   Examples  of  such include very permeable  sand  layers,
                    creviced  limestone,  or  other  formation  that allows partially treated effluent to
                    bypass soil  layers and  enter  the  groundwater.   Controls  for these  types of  failures
                    are limited  to  alternative designs,  such  as mounds, that overcome the  particular
                    limitations  to  on-site  treatment  and  to changing the characteristics  of  wastewater
                    such  as  reducing nitrogen loads  with composting  toilets  or  off-site disposal of
                    toilet wastes.


                                                24

-------
e.   Effects of  Failures

TRD II-A            The  most  important effect  of on-site  system failure  is contamination of  water
                    supplies.   Pollutants  from  failing  on-site systems can enter  surface  waters  from
                    groundwater plumes  or when storm water runoff washes ponded effluent into the  water
                    body.   Detrimental  effects  of  contaminated  surface  waters  include slightly  in-
                    creased  algal  growth and, more important, contamination of drinking water supplies.
                    High levels of bacteria, viruses, and nitrates in drinking water can cause  various
                    types  of disease  and illness.

                    Another  effect is  the  nuisance  that results from effluent ponding.  This  is  more
                    noticeable in  areas of  higher density  or  when the absorption  system  is close  to
                    residences.

3.   AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE ON-SITE OPTIONS

a.   For  Overcoming Site  Limitations

TRD I               Table  II-A-1 lists dozens of  options for on-site facilities that may be considered
                    for  the  specific  site  limitations or constraints given.  These  can be considered
                    for  replacing, upgrading, or repairing failing on-site facilities or for construc-
                    tion of  systems for new buildings.   (U.S. EPA 1980b; U.S. EPA 1980c).

b.   For  Existing Systems  Not  in Compliance with Codes

TRD VII-A           Existing systems  not complying with  current regulatory codes should be investigated
                    to  determine their performance.   The investigation  should determine if any system
EIS III-E           failures such  as  plumbing  backups,  surface  ponding,  or groundwater contamination
    II-D-3          have occurred.   If the  investigation concludes that  no  significant past malfunc-
                    tions  have  occurred  and  the  likelihood  of future system  failure is  small,  the
                    subcode  system should  not  be upgraded  just  to comply  with  the regulations.   The
                    intent of the  code is to prevent groundwater contamination and other public health
                    problems.   If  this intent  is being  met (even with a "sub-standard"  system),  the
                    cost to upgrade the system would not be justified.  Records of such investigations
                    should be made and  stored so that, if and when the systems fail, the upgrade can be
                    designed without  completely  repeating the investigations.

c.   Use  of Soils Data

TRD III-A           Of  the several factors that  determine on-site system performance, soil characteris-
                    tics are  most amenable  to  evaluation prior  to issuance  of  construction permits.
                    Regulatory agencies justifiably consider evaluation of soil characteristics  to be a
                    key  element in on-site system  management.

EIS II-D-1          Soil characteristics  can be used along  with  other  information  to explain the per-
                    formance of existing on-site sewage  disposal systems and to predict the performance
                    of   future  systems.  Explanations  and predictions  may be  based  on either hypothe-
                    tical  or  empirical relationships  between  soil  characteristics  and system  perfor-
                    mance.   An  example of  a hypothetical relationship  is  correlation  of  percolation
                    rates  with surface malfunctions,  e.g., malfunctions can be  expected in soils with
                    rates  greater  than  60 minutes  per inch.  An example of an empirical relationship is
                    the  survey result  that 45 out of 100 on-site systems  in slowly permeable soils are
                    failing, that  the soils  for  40 of the 45 are also poorly drained, and that 4 out of
                    the  5  remaining systems  receive very high seasonal use.

                    Reliance on hypothetical relationships is  appropriate for planning-level decisions
                    and, where  supported by on-site soil inspection,  for  site-specific decisions  on
                    undeveloped properties.   On-site  system design codes and U.S.  Soil  Conservation
                    Service soil limitation ratings are examples of accepted use of hypothetical  rela-
                    tionships.  Design codes  typically  incorporate soil  criteria  such as  percolation
                    rate,  depth to groundwater,  and depth  to  bedrock  to guide  decisions  to allow or
                    reject applications to install on-site systems. U.S. Soil Conservation Service soil
                    limitation  ratings rely  on  a  comprehensive  list  of  hypothetical relationships


                                                25

-------
                    to  classify specific  soils  as having slight, moderate,  or severe limitations for
                    on-site  systems.

                    The  U.S.  Soil Conservation Service is improving  the  use of hypothetical relation-
                    ships  by developing  and  evaluating soil  potential  ratings.   In  contrast to soil
                    limitation  ratings,  soil  potential  ratings  consider  the feasibility  and  cost-
                    effectiveness  of  techniques  that  may  overcome  unfavorable site characteristics.

                    Site-specific  decisions to abandon  or continue to use  existing  on-site systems need
                    not  rely  on  hypothetical relationships.   Performance and  the factors, including
                    soil  characteristics, that  determine  performance can  be directly measured.   This
                    empirical  information may or may  not  confirm accepted hypothetical relationships.
                    It  may  indicate  that  factors other  than soil  characteristics  determine on-site
                    system performance.

                    Collected  at  a sufficient  number of sites  and  analyzed  for  locally  distinctive
                    trends,  data  on performance and the  factors  that affect it will  provide a factual
                    basis  for making  cost-effective decisions  for both  existing and, at  local option,
                    future on-site systems.   The policies and  procedures recommended in this EIS  empha-
                    size  reliance  on empirical information for decisions on  the disposition  of existing
                    on-site  systems.

4.   SITE  ANALYSIS AND TECHNOLOGY SELECTION

TRD II-J            In  communities  served  by on-site  systems, problems with existing systems must  be
                    identified  and  appropriate  remedies  sought.   A  systematic approach  to evaluating
                    individual  on-site   systems,  determining  causes  of  failures, and  selecting the
EIS II-D-1          appropriate technology  to correct failures  is  presented  in  Figure  II-A-1.  The
                    decision flow  diagram  is divided  into  the following  sections:   1) available data
                    review and community surveys, 2)  on-site  sanitary inspection,  3)  identification  of
                    problem, 4) detailed  site analysis, and  5) technology  selection.

                    The  first  step includes reviewing existing or  easily  obtainable  data (for more
                    detail see  description of Phase  I  needs  documentation  studies  in Appendix A,  Region
                    V Guidance--Site-Specific  Needs   Determination  and Alternative  Plannning  for Un-
                    sewered  Areas  and the needs  documentation flow chart,  Figure II-C-2) .  Data for
                    this  step  can usually be  obtained without  going on-site  and  are useful for pre-
                    liminary identification of problems.

                    The  on-site sanitary inspection  involves  talking with individual homeowners  about
                    their on-site  systems and inspecting  their property.   The  information generated  is
                    useful  for identifying problems with individual  systems.  After  specific problems
EIS IV-F            are  identified, the  detailed site analysis  section  of  the decision flow diagram
                    suggests various  tests and  inspections  to determine the source of  the  problem and
                    to provide enough  background information to select  the most appropriate  technology.

                    The decision  flow diagram provides for systems  that  do not meet current codes.  A
                    septic tank slightly smaller  than current requirements need not  be  replaced if  it
                    is in satisfactory condition and working well.

                    The decision flow diagram cannot account for  all  situations that  may be  encountered
                    in the  field  and  should, therefore,  be used as  a  guide along  with common sense  to
                    determine a specific solution for each on-site  wastewater treatment system problem.
                    The intent of  the decision  flow diagram is to  show that specific  evaluation  proce-
                    dures beyond the on-site sanitary inspection  are  not required on  every lot.   Proce-
                    dures, especially expensive ones in the detailed  site  analysis, should be performed
                    only when justified by previous findings.

                    The decision  flow diagram reflects no judgments regarding eligibility  of  specific
                    items  or  their  appropriate  timing  in  the  3-step  Construction Grants process.
                    Generally, "actions  to  take"  will be  eligible  if  adequate justification is  pro-
                    vided.  The process  diagram (Figure  II-C-2)  relates the procedures in the decision
                                                26

-------
TABLE II-A-1.  ON-SITE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS OR CONSTRAINTS
Limitation/constraint
On-site option
     None
     High groundwater or shallow
       depth to bedrock
Conventional septic tank/soil
absorption system

Elevated sand mounds
Shallow placement system
Evapotranspiration system
Artificial drainage
Buried sand filters
     Slowly permeable soil
     Hydraulic, organic, or solids
       overload
     Grease or scum clogging
     Clogging of absorption
       field
     Highly permeable soil
     Sloped site

     Subsurface disposal not
       possible (for example, rock
       outcrops, floodplains,
       steep slopes)
Oversized soil absorption system
Seepage pits
Electro-osmosis
Pressure distribution
Evapotranspiration system

Flow reduction
Waste stream segregation:
  Chemical, biological, or
  incineration toilets
Multiple septic tanks or chambers
Septic solids retainer
Septic tank baffles
Large diameter tubing

Grease trap
Septic tank baffles

Alternating drainfields
HO  treatment
Septic tank baffles
Multiple septic tanks or chambers
Gravity or mechanical dosing

Pressure distribution
Oversized soil absorption systems

Serial distribution

Discharging options:
  fixed film reactors,
  intermittent or recirculating
  sand filters, lagoons, aerobic unit
Disinfection Options:
  Sodium or calcium hypochlorite,
  iodine, ultraviolet light, ozone
                                                27

-------

-------
                                                  NOTES


1.    If,  through  previous  experience, the  cause of the problem  can  be  identified at this point,  the
     detailed site analysis  can be bypassed.

2.    State  standards  for  minimum  setback  distances should be  used  unless a hydrogeologic (or  other)
     reason exists to use  a  larger distance.

3.    In using  contaminated  wells  as  a criterion for  delineating sewer  service areas, only data  from
     protected wells should  be used.

4.    Odors  can come from a properly functioning septic  tank/soil absorption system.   Relocation of  vent
     may solve the problem.

5.    Shoreline scan should be repeated to ensure that plumes are located  properly.

6.    Well samples should be  taken at least twice to  ensure  reliability of conclusions.

7.    If house drains  are  likely to be clogged, snaking drains may solve  problem.   Note:   monitoring of
     water meter is required after installation.

8.    Septic tank and sewer inspection to include:  excavation; pumping;  inspection  for size, structural
     integrity, outlet  and  baffle condition;  rodding house and effluent  sewers; measuring distance and
     direction to SAS using  snake and metal detector.

9.    If septic  tank and/or  sewers (to and from  septic  tank) need replacement and  additional  work on
     drainfield  is  required, follow  "no"  route and investigate other factors  before  replacing septic
     tank and/or  sewers.  This  process will avoid replacement of septic  tank/sewers  when  entire system
     is not functional.

10.  Other tests  may  be substituted if they distinguish between  wastewater and non-wastewater sources
     of well contamination.

11.  This procedure  is limited to digging and  inspecting  test pits  in  the  drainfield, excavation and
     repair  of  distribution boxes  and  broken header  lines,  snaking  distribution  lines  to  remove
     obstructions, and soil  borings through drainfield  laterals, pits or  trenches.
                                                 29

-------
                    flow diagram  to the  requirements of  the  Construction Grants  process,  necessary
                    management  structures, and  needs  documentation guidance.   Timing is discussed in
                    Chapter IV-G.

5.   OPTIONS FOR THE  DIFFICULT  SYSTEM

TRD I               Some on-site  wastewater problems are harder to  solve than others.  An isolated sec-
                    tion of  a  community  with very low density might  have  severe  site limitations re-
EIS VI-E-2          suiting in high failure  rates.  Sewering is not economically feasible and alterna-
    V-A-l-b         tive on-site  options  are limited.  In  such cases, consideration should be given to
                    one  or  more of these  technologies:

                    o  flow reduction,
                    o  water metering,
                    o  segregation of wastes,
                    o  reuse/recycle,
                    o  holding tanks, or
                    o  effluent plume recovery.

a.   Flow Reduction

EIS V-A-l-c         Where the  feasibility  of retaining on-site  systems  depends on substantial reduc-
                    tions in wastewater  flows,  highly effective  and  perhaps  expensive flow reduction
TRD II-L            devices  should  be  considered.  Since  toilet  use, bathing  and  clothes washers are
                    the  greatest  water users in most  residences,  these should be emphasized in achiev-
    IV-D            ing  reductions  in  flow.  Waterless  toilets  (composting,  chemical, incinerating or
                    oil-recycle)  or very low flow  toilets (air  assisted  or  vacuum)  can reduce  total
                    residential wastewater flows  by 30%.   Water  for bathing can be  reduced 90% or more
                    by conversion, where feasible,  to air  assisted showers.  Water  for washing clothes
                    can be  reduced  by  replacing top-loading  with front-loading washing machines.  Use
                    of these  devices  together  can  reduce  residential wastewater  flows by 63% without
                    changes in life style (Baker,  1980).

                    The expense of  this  maximum flow  reduction  approach may be justified when holding
                    tanks are used or when the  need  for  expensive  off-site  facilities  would be avoided.
                    Where need and economics  do  not  justify maximum flow  reduction,  minimum flow reduc-
                    tion, the  use  of relatively inexpensive  flow  reduction devices, can  still save the
                    homeowner money and  possibly  prolong the useful life of his or  her on-site system.

                    Economically, the most attractive  devices are  low  flow  shower heads.  Heating  water
                    is one  of  the  highest utility costs  in most  residences.  The energy  savings due to
                    low  flow shower heads  will  pay  for new shower heads in  a  very short time.   Other
                    inexpensive devices  include toilet  tank  modifications, faucet  aerators,  and  pres-
                    sure reducing values.  The  total flow reduction achievable  with  minimum flow reduc-
                    tion varies.   As an  example,  a combination of a  dual  flush device (a toilet  tank
                    modification) and  a  low  flow  shower  head may  reduce total  water  use  approximately
                    10%  (Cohen and Wallman, 1974).

b.   Water Metering

EIS V-A-l-c         Water  metering  can determine whether  water use is  excessive  and suggest a proper
                    course of action for  hydraulically overloaded  systems.   If  metering indicates  a low
                    to moderate water  usage, other  sources of hydraulic  overloading should be  investi-
                    gated  such as  foundation  or roof drains,  air   conditioner  condensate,  or  storm
                    water.    Where municipalities   assume   liability  for  on-site systems  or  grant re-
                    stricted use  variances,  metering  may be  required  to  insure operability of  systems.

c.   Segregation  of Wastes

                    Depending  on  the  characteristics  of wastewater from individual homes, segregating
                    black  water  (toilet  and  sometimes garbage  disposal  waste)  from  the remaining  waste
                    stream  can eliminate  significant quantities  of  pollutants,  especially nitrates.
                    Waste  segregation  reduces  the hydraulic  and  organic load to the  treatment  system,


                                                30

-------
                    allowing  existing treatment systems to operate  satisfactorily  even  if undersized,
                    subject  to  high groundwater,  or  subject to  some  other site  limitation.   Toilet
                    wastes  can be segregated by composting toilets,  incineration  toilets,  or low flow
                    toilets used with holding tanks.
d.   Reuse/Recycle

                    The  reuse of treated wastewater for other household uses is a relatively new idea.
                    The  options available vary from using  treated  gray  water for toilet flushing to a
                    proprietary system  that  recycles the entire wasteflow for potable reuse.   Depending
                    on the percentage of wastewater recycled, these  systems  could  be used to overcome
                    any  site limitation.  The main problems with recycle systems are the lack of long-
                    term operations  data, the possible  lack of user acceptance, and the relatively high
                    cost of the more effective devices.

e.   Holding Tanks

EIS V-A-l-g         Holding tanks are used  to store wastewater (total waste flow or segregated stream)
                    on-site until it is  pumped and hauled off-site for treatment and disposal.  Because
                    of the massively high cost of pumping, holding tanks are used only 1) when no other
                    option  is  feasible,  2)  in  combination  with waste  stream  segregation,  or  3)  for
                    seasonal residences.  Serious application of flow reduction devices is an economic
                    necessity with any  waste stream that discharges to a holding tank.

f.   Effluent  Plume Recovery

                    Groundwater  plume   recovery  systems  are  constructed by  locating  a  contaminated
                    groundwater  plume  downstream  from the  on-site  system and  pumping the  treated
                    effluent into a  lawn irrigation system.  The wastewater receives further treatment
                    by the soil and also irrigates the  lawn.  This technique has not been field tested.
                    Careful attention must  be given to odors, public health problems, wet seasons, and
                    freezing  of  irrigation  pipes.  A  likely  situation  for  use  would be  for seasonal
                    residences with  adequate land available.  The  chief application of this technique
                    would be  for on-site systems on  lakeshores  where  plumes  are  stimulating aquatic
                    nearshore plant growth.

g.   Limitations

EIS I-B-1           Most of the  options discussed for  difficult systems cannot solve existing failures
                    alone but  must  be  used  in combination with each  other  or  with other technologies
EIS V-A-l-f         for satisfactory results.  For example, water conservation and metering may be used
                    in  conjunction  with flow  segregation and  a  septic  tank/shallow  placement  soil
                    absorption system  in  order  to solve  a  particular on-site  problem satisfactorily.
                    However,  economic  constraints  may prevent  combinations of  several technologies.
                    Costs for overcoming site  limitations may be prohibitive.  Another drawback to some
                    of these  options is the lack of  field data with which to assess their performance
                    and  reliability.   Systems  such  as effluent plume  recovery,  complete recycle, and
                    certain proprietary  services  for   flow  reduction  and waste  segregation  should  be
                    tried on  an experimental  basis for  typical  failing systems  in the community and
                    monitored  for  results.   Communities  can  then choose  the  option  or  options  that
                    appear best suited  to  individual problems.

B.    SMALL-SCALE OFF-SITE TREATMENT

1.   SEPTAGE DISPOSAL

TRD I               Septage from  homes  is  transported either to a treatment system or to an ultimate
                    disposal point  as  shown in  Figure  II-B-1.  The three major categories of treatment
                    and  disposal are (1) direct  land  application,  (2)  treatment at a separate septage
                    facility,  and  (3)  addition  to a sewage  treatment plant.  Application of septage to
                    the  land  is  by  far the  most commonly used means  of  septage disposal.  Of the total
                    septage generated,  it  is  estimated that  60 to  90% is  disposed on land.  Septage
                    disposal on  land can include  surface  spreading,  subsurface injection,  spray irri-


                                                31

-------
                                            -t
z
o

5
o
                                           •o
                                           c
                                           o
                         CL
                         Q.
                         <
                                          0)  C
                                          o  o
                                          o '^
                 in —
                £i O.
                 3 Q.
                co o
                                                                                                               cti
                                                                                                               to
                                                                                                               O
                                                                                                               cx
                                                                                                               en
                                                                                                               •H
                                             c
                                             o

                                          w 'o
                                          3  D.

                                          CO  O
          o
          Z>
          cr
o

I-
0-
LJ
CO
                         I-
                         z
                         LU
                         <
                         LlJ
                         tr
£T
Q.
                                           C
                                           o
                                           CT
                                           LJ
                                o c

                                li-
                                «"5 c
                                o a> o
                                5 -t CL
                                                •O  3

                                                <•«
                                                                         PS
                                                •  "3
                                                •o  cr

                                         co  : o.
 
 o
CO
o
Q.

E
o
CJ
                                                                       u

                                                                     AS
                                                                                      C
                                                                                      03


                                                                                      4-1


                                                                                      0)


                                                                                      4J

                                                                                      Cfl

                                                                                      0)
                                                                                      0)
                                                                                      bO
                                                                                      CO
                                                                                                               PQ
                                                                                                               0)
                                                                                                               M
                                                                                                               3
                                                                                                               00
                                                                                               U
                                                                                               J= X

                                                                                               O 0
                                                                                                 o
                                                                                               "o o


                                                                                               !!
                                                                                               O CX
                                                     32

-------
                    gation,  trench  and  fill,  sanitary  landfills,  and lagooning.   Septage pumped from
                    septic tanks  is either directly  disposed  of on  land  or  is  treated prior to land
                    disposal.

                    Separate  septage  treatment  facilities generally  are  regional facilities in areas
                    with high  densities  of septic tank  systems.   Only a small portion  (approximately
                    1%)  of the total septage  generated nationally is  treated in separate  septage treat-
                    ment facilities.  The process types  currently in operation include  chemical preci-
                    pitation,  high-dosage  chlorine  oxidation,  multistage  aerobic/facultative lagoons,
                    and  composting.

                    Disposal  of septage at wastewater treatment  plants is estimated to  account for up
                    to 25% of the total  septage generated.   In most  cases, the septage  is added to the
                    liquid stream.  In some  instances,  however,  septage is handled as  a  sludge and is
                    processed  either alone or in combination  with sewage treatment plant  sludge  (Cooper
                    and  Rezek, 1977; U.S.  EPA,  1979a) .

2.   COLLECTION SYSTEMS

TRD IV-A            When off-site  treatment is  cost-effective or  when site  constraints prohibit  the use
                    of on-site systems,  consideration  must be given to collection  of wastewater  and its
                    transport  to a  treatment site.  The most common methods  of collection are  conven-
                    tional gravity,  small-diameter  gravity,  pressure, and vacuum sewers.  Topography,
                    depth to  bedrock,  depth to  groundwater  and  housing density  are the major  factors
                    that determine the relative costs  of these methods in a given  setting.

EIS II-F-1          Conventional sewers are usually made  of  clay but can also be  made of plastic, cast
                    iron, concrete,  or asbestos  cement.   A variation of conventional gravity  sewers is
                    small-diameter sewers.  These 4-  or  6-inch diameter sewers can be made of the same
                    material   as conventional  sewers.   Used  with  septic  tanks at  each house  to remove
                    coarse solids,  small-diameter sewers can  be  laid at slighter  grade and  require
                    fewer lift  stations  than  larger  sewers  carrying raw sewage.   Other  advantages of
                    small-diameter  sewers  include  1)  fewer  manholes,  2)  use  of  cleanouts in place of
                    some  manholes,  3) lower  cost  of  the smaller sized  pipe, and 4)  less   chance of
                    clogging.   Use  of small  diameter  gravity sewers  to convey effluent  is a  recognized
                    technology under several  regional  model sanitary  codes.

                    Two   types of pressure sewers  are available:   grinder   pump  pressure  sewers and
                    septic tank  effluent  pump   (STEP)  sewers.   The  grinder  pump does  not   require  a
                    septic tank at  each house  as the  STEP system  does.   Both systems transport waste-
                    water under pressure  to a treatment facility  or to an area where  gravity  sewers are
                    utilized.   Infiltration and inflow common in  conventional  sewers  are  nonexistant in
                    pressure  sewers.  Other advantages  of pressurized sewer systems  include  1)  smaller
                    sized pipes,  2) easier  installation  (a  downhill  grade  is not necessary), 3) and
                    lower costs than  conventional sewers, especially in areas of  steep  slopes or shal-
                    low bedrock.  However, the  lower  cost of the sewers is offset by pumping  units and
                    electricity costs.   Density of   development,  therefore,   is   a  factor in economic
                    comparisons between gravity and  pressure  sewers.

                    Vacuum sewers  have the  same advantages over  conventional   sewers  that pressure
                    sewers have.   The main difference  between vacuum  sewers and pressure  sewers  is that
                    wastewater  is  transported  by  a  central vacuum  pump instead  of  many  individual
                    pressure   pumps   located  at  individual   residences.   Neither  pressure  sewers  nor
                    vacuum sewers  depend on  gravity; therefore,  detrimental impacts  of  disturbing
                    streambeds and  low-lying wetlands during construction can be  more readily avoided.
                    Generally, the  costs  (capital and  operation and maintenance) for pressure sewers
                    are   lower  than  the costs  for  vacuum sewers  (U.S. EPA,  1980b;  U.S. EPA,  1977a).

3.   TREATMENT  METHODS

TRD I               Wastewater treatment  technologies for off-site  treatment can be grouped in three
                    categories according  to method of effluent discharge:  1)  land application (surface
                    and  subsurface), 2)  wetland discharge, and 3) surface water discharge.


                                                33

-------
TRD II-K            Off-site subsurface  disposal  systems for  several buildings  are  known as  cluster
                    systems.  Pretreatment in the  form  of septic tanks is  required for cluster systems
                    and can be  located at individual houses  (prior to collection) or  off-site,  after
                    collection  and transportation.   Cluster  systems  resemble  individual  subsurface
                    disposal systems  in design  and construction but  are  sized for the flow  from more
                    than one household.   To  ensure proper distribution,  cluster  systems usually employ
                    some form of  dosing.   Alternating  drainfields  are often used to provide drainfield
                    resting and an emergency backup.

                    The predominant surface  land  application  processes are shown in Table II-B-1 along
                    with characteristics of each process.

                    When considering  the  type of  land  application process  to  use,  design factors such
                    as those following should be considered (U.S. EPA, 1977b; U.S.  EPA, 1976a):

                    o  wastewater characteristics,
                    o  climatic conditions (water balance),
                    o  soil characteristics,
                    o  land area required,
                    o  existing and surrounding  land use,
                    o  preapplication treatment,
                    o  surface and groundwater hydrology,
                    o  vegetative cover,
                    o  treatment efficiency,  and
                    o  ultimate disposal.

TABLE II-B-1.  LAND TREATMENT OPTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS
     Irrigation
                    o    Predominant land application method
                    o    Indirect or no surface water discharge
                    o    Uses wastewater for production of marketable crops
                    o    Groundwater recharge
                    o    Typical land requirement of 100 to 200 wet acres/mgd
                    o    Moderately slow to moderately rapid soil permeability

     Infiltration-Percolation

                    o    Indirect or no surface water discharge
                    o    After infiltration, renovated effluent can be
                         recovered (underdrains or pumped withdrawal) or
                         allowed to recharge groundwater
                    o    High-rate systems require 3 to 6 wet acres/mgd
                    o    Low-rate systems require 20 to 60 wet acres/mgd
                    o    Rapid soil permeability (sands, loamy sands)

     Overland Flow
                    o    Ultimate disposal of runoff is required
                    o    Land requirements typically range from 25 to 110
                         wet acres/mgd
                    o    Generally does not provide the BOD and SS removals
                         that irrigation and infiltration-percolation do
                    o    Slow soil permeability (clays, silts, and soils with
                         impermeable barriers)
                     Wastewater  treatment can be accomplished by natural or artificial wetlands.   Table
                     II-B-2  lists the  typical  systems  that  have  been  investigated for artificial  and
                     natural  wetlands.    Prior  to selecting  natural  wetland  application as a  treatment


                                                 34

-------
TABLE II-B-2.  TYPES (AND LOCATION OF) WETLAND SYSTEMS INVESTIGATED
     Natural Wetlands:
     Artifical Wetlands
                         o  Peatlands (Michigan, Wisconsin)
                         o  Cattail marshes (Wisconsin)
                         o  Freshwater tidal marsh (New Jersey)
                         o  Lacustrine Marsh (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada)
                         o  Swamplands (Hay River, Canada)
                         o  Wetlands, general (Massachusetts, Florida)
                         o  Cypress domes (Florida)
                         o  Meadow-marsh-pond system (New York)
                         o  Ponds with reeds or rushes (Germany, Holland)
                         o  Peat filled trench systems (Finland)
                         o  Peat filter (Minnesota)
                         o  Marsh pond system (California)
                    alternative, an  inventory  of available wetland sites should be made.  Site charac-
                    teristics  (hydrogeological,  biological,  etc.)  must be  investigated in  detail  if
                    preliminary  planning  stages  indicate  that  wetlands  discharge  is a  competitive
                    option.   Reliable  design  criteria  have  not been developed that  can be  applied  as
                    "rules  of thumb" for  sizing and estimating performance  of wetland treatment sys-
                    tems.   Pilot  scale  testing  should be  conducted to  determine  the  site-specific
                    criteria  (Tchobanoglous  and  Gulp,  1979).  U.S. EPA Region V is preparing a Generic
                    EIS on wetlands discharges.

                    Surface  water  discharges  are  often  not  considered  for  lake  areas  when  such
                    discharges  are  likely  to  add  to the  nutrient  level  of   the  lake.   In  some
                    instances,  however,  surface  water  discharges  are necessary,  such as  when  soils
                    are  unsuitable  either  for  on-site systems  or  for  land  application.    In  these
                    cases,  the  selection   of  treatment  facilities  for  small  communities   should  be
                    governed  by  the  simplicity  of  the  treatment  process  and  low operation  and
                    maintenance  requirements,  in  addition  to  such  usual  constraints  as  required
                    effluent  quality.    Examples  of  simple  treatment systems  for  surface  discharge
                    are listed in Table II-B-3.

TABLE II-B-3.  SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE OPTIONS FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES
     Lagoons
                    o  Facultative
                    o  Aerobic
                    o  Anaerobic
                    o  With or without sand filters
     Fixed Film Reactors
                    o  Rotating biological contactors
                    o  Trickling filters  (various media, various rates)
     Activated Sludge
                    o  Oxidation ditch
                    o  Package type  (complete mix, contact stabilization, extended aeration)
                                                35

-------
C.   NEEDS DOCUMENTATION  POLICIES

1.    NATIONAL
EIS I-B-3
EIS II-F-4
EIS I-B-3
2.   REGION  V
In the  first  years of the  current  Construction  Grants program under P.L.  92-500,
detailed analysis of need  for  facility construction was seldom provided  in Step  1
facilities plans.   There  were enough  obviously  severe water  quality problems to
fill up state  priority  lists.   The  priority  lists  reflected  needs  recognized by  the
states.  Primary treatment, no treatment, and  raw sewage overflows  did  not  require
analysis; they  required  action.   Undoubtedly, many auxiliary facilities,  such as
interceptor and collector  sewers for  which  the need was not  so obvious,  also were
funded.   The  largest  and  most  severe problems  have  now  been  addressed  by  the
Construction Grants program.   Some  have been resolved,  and others  are  well on their
way to resolution.

Projects being  considered  for  initial  Step  1 funding in the middle  1970s, however,
did not display such obvious needs  or  were smaller than earlier projects.  Proposed
auxiliary  facilities  began  to  represent much greater  proportions  of  the total
project.  In  some  projects,  the  costs  of new  sewers represented  more  than  80% of
total project costs.   The  need  for these expenditures was  typically  documented by
about the same level of analysis  as for earlier projects.

U.S. EPA  Headquarters  responded  to  this situation by distributing Program Require-
ments  Memorandum,  PRM  77-8, later  superceded  by PRM 78-9,  which established  cri-
teria  for eligibility  of  collector sewers,  the publicly owned laterals that typi-
cally are the point of  connection for  privately owned house  sewers.   These criteria
and their sequence  of  application  in  eligibility decisions  are presented in Figure
II-C-1  as interpreted  from PRM  78-9.   The  crux  of this decision  flow diagram is
that a need must be documented for  a gravity collector sewer to be eligible. Then,
if the  need is  demonstrated,  it  must  be shown that the sewer  is the cost-effective
means to  satisfy the need.

U.S.  EPA Headquarters  subsequently issued  PRM 79-8,  which provides guidance  for
considering small wastewater systems.   The  important part of this  guidance relevant
to needs  documentation was discussed in Section I.E.3 of this  EIS.   Briefly  stated,
the policy is that field work required to document the actual  type and frequency of
problems  with on-site  systems  is eligible,  but that the field work in Step  1 faci-
lities  planning should  be limited  to  what is   reasonably required  to  prepare  a
cost-effectiveness analysis.
                    Region  V's  policy on  needs  documentation is based on national  policy,  experience
                    gained  during  preparation  of the Seven Rural Lake EIS's,  and  input from states in
                    the  region.    A  copy of the current guidance  is  attached as  Appendix  A.  A  key
                    feature  of  this  guidance  is  integration of  needs  documentation  activities  with
                    alternative  development, costing, selection,  and design.   Also, decision points are
                    identified at  which  the results of needs documentation work  can be reviewed.   The
                    scope of facilities planning can then be adjusted appropriately.

                    The  accompanying  decision  flow chart (II-C-2)  shows the  combined  needs  documenta-
                    tion and  alternatives  development procedures  associated  with construction of an
                    optimum  operation alternative under  the  Clean Water  Act.   The remainder of  this
                    chapter is a step-by-step discussion of the procedures outlined in this chart,  from
                    collection  of  existing data through actual  construction.  Chapters  III-V discuss
                    the  other  two  important aspects of such an alternative:   system management and the
                    mechanics of the  Grant  Program itself.  Taken together, these chapters constitute a
                    road map  for planning  the management and design of optimum operation alternatives.

                    However,  when  followed in  the  sequence  shown on the  flow  chart,  these methods
                    minimize  wasted  time,  effort  and  expense in needs  documentation  and alternative
                    development  regardless  of project potential for Federal funding.
                                                36

-------
f V)
1 v-
i a> t-
( tCc
\ If)




Q
2£



k-
 c
* -a-2
£ 0
c c
|1
= 2
0 C
0 o
a o



a>
>
in
3
o
c
o
o
C;


1







q> in
in "a
o «
£ 2







m \
-2 \
r.? J
V
L



2 j
O
o
^x
>» «
in o
c in
a> >-
Qg.
.£ 0
O
Q. A
^c £
T5 2 >
o a
S.2
_2 >
.c « 2
-if 0 0
03 0 Z

>
'in
3
O
C
o
 Q. Z















i


in
c
o
in
O
a>
L.

C
a>
E
3
U
Q
Q






(V
a>
^3 tn
•5 £
0 fc

in
k_
<0
>
^

^
























i. in
|?
0) '<-
£"S
0 °2
SS°
co-g
S.§S
flj *- o*
k- in i:
Q. «.£




'$ a>
O -Q
~ o =

w o> o — r
0) 3 C CD
S ° ^* t.
>v -^ O ^3
"5 « ® ^
_Q O "tl O
a ^
« Q.S C
H 0-5 °
in O> S'i:

o a) o'x
-Q "O ^ H)




/

1





























1 _c 1
C-t. ^_ ,
o S
— 3 a>-
•5 « c
c£°
o o c
111
•S'f.

« 0 >
~ *^- _
° = l_
o o fe-
•>-•- >>.
 ~
3 « aj
tft '^Z Q
°~ ™
jn o O>
~ "O O
^5^
~ 0 0
~ s °
Oi "• C
'^ O in.
LU o a
cvi
a>
o
r £
111 H-
s§
^co
J
o
z
luman
•ocont

— C
0
•-~ C
c.S
2 c
w .±
J3 j:
c^J


;

u.
a>
a.
o
i>
si
u
in

V
$
a>
CO



parison
E
o
u
tn
O
CJ




ii
* CT
(DOC
J 0 C
5 "E "
E §1
5 - c
— c <
/•^ rt i
J —
°- c
in >>C
O ~ «
a § «
o> °",i
> ^^ C
l-g-l
*> S -
in O (.
^§2
0 CJU
CT3f
|51
c 2a
o a. t
i: a. c
> o c



- >
.-o )
'f J
«y
^

: *
5 c
/ ^—
ii

E "5.
>^
> §
5 al




|
1


OJ
in 0>
i — • 
ll
|1 /T>
<" ^/ »«r^
^l «S~
\ cn "S


1 E
•H 03
H M
•H 00
,n nj
•H -H
00 T3
•H
rH ^ •
Q) O ON
)-i M-i OO
0) r^
& C
0) 0 S
CO -H S
03 PL,
S-l -H
O O C
4J 0) O
O T3
a) -a
iH 1 0)
i — 1 CO
O >-, C3
u 4J ,a
,— i
I
I
M
\—\

OJ
1-1
M
•r-l
PM
37

-------
D.    NEEDS DOCUMENTATION  METHODS
                    As  discussed in Section II.C., participation of the U.S.  EPA in the funding of new
                    wastewater  management  facilities  is  contingent  upon  the  documentation of  their
                    need.   Needs documentation efforts in Region V's unsewered  areas  involve  the col-
                    lection and analysis of available or easily obtainable data (Phase I),  and  on-site
                    investigations  and representative  sampling necessary to define adequately the type
                    and extent  of water  quality and public health problems, determine their causes, and
                    predict remedial measures  (Phase II).,

                    At  each  stage  of  needs  documentation,  individual  sites can  receive  preliminary
                    assignments to  the "need,"  "no-need," or "inconclusive" categories.

                    As  the figure shows, these assignments may  be  reviewed or  revised as data  collec-
                    tion proceeds.    The purposes  of  the Phase  I  and  Phase  II work  are  three-fold:

                    o  To  reliably  estimate  the need for any action,

                    o  To  produce a tentative  system selection for every site at the conclusion of Step
                       1.   Even without  Construction  Grants  funding, this early  estimate  can  greatly
                       reduce public uncertainty about an optimum operation alternative.

                    o  To  effectively organize date acquisition, avoiding  duplication of on-site work
                       and excavations.

                    Recommended methods  by which need may be documented include:

                    o  gathering and analysis  of available data,
                    o  aerial photographic  interpretation,
                    o  septic leachate detection,
                    o  mailed questionnaires,
                    o  eutrophication  modeling
                    o  nearshore plant surveys
                    o  partial  sanitary  surveys, and
                    o  representative  samplings.

                    With the exception of mailed  questionnaires, all of these methods were used during
                    the preparation of Region  V's  Seven Rural Lake EIS's.
1.   PHASE I:   EXISTING DATA AND DATA COLLECTION
                    As outlined in Figure  II-C-2,  Phase  I of needs documentation involves collection of
                    existing data, and development of general areawide data at moderate cost.  Some of
                    the methods of data collection described here may be valuable in more than one part
                    of  the  needs  documentation  and planning  process.   Septic leachate  detection is
                    useful not  only  for lakeshore plume detection but for  detection  of marginal con-
                    tamination of  drinking  water wells as  part of Phase  II representative sampling.
                    Aerial photography is useful  for a  whole  variety  of planning and design purposes.

                    At the end  of  Phase  I it should be  clear whether no action, centralized collection
                    and  treatment  or  some  form  of  the  optimum  operation  alternative  is necessary.
                    Within the  optimum operation alternative,  need or the  lack of  it will already be
                    clear for  many sites.   The information that makes this  possible  is  also vital to
                    the  early  stages  of  alternative  design (alternative  screening,  technology assump-
                    tions, and cost curve  analysis as described  in Section II.E).
a.   Gathering and  Analysis of Available  Data
                    The use of available data can provide  a  rapid  and  inexpensive means of defining the
                    need for  improved wastewater  management  facilities on an areawide basis.  Relevant
                    data assessment efforts include:
                                                38

-------
3
00
                s -g i
                                                           § F o
                                                                                     SgE
                                                                                     Jsi
                                                                                       1
                                                                                                 1 II
                                                                                               II li

-------








RIFICATION









ilT
il"»II



















-*








r
^-T-








1^1
g
^•T-








5
^>«








ll
**+>.








rL
S^.


















1


















pL

S-







pL
s
1
V







r^i
1
>
fi
r
1 0





^
vernied dromfield





'
-
it


r1.
1
i
o
S




»
i -E
\ S.


pL
I
c
o
V







r1!
20Z treatment
SJ







rS
od drainfield lines
V




1
ll
ll


r1.
^
i
S-







^
•o
o
S-







r1!
a
1
E
SJ







r^i
o
&
l
s
S-







r1]
euse /recycle
S-1







1
eplace septic tankorse

li
ll

1 -

a c
ill
S si
j
1
ff-site treatment

TTTTTT
rTTTTTfTTTTTT

-------
                    o   Review  of  local  well  and  septic  tank permit  records maintained by public  health
                       agencies.   Repair permits for septic  tank  systems  can provide valuable  data on
                       the  types,  frequencies,  and causes of  system failures,  as  well as historical
                       solutions  to on-site system problems.   Review of records  containing  information
                       on the  bacteriological  quality of private water  supply systems  can  provide
                       information on the location of  wells  that may have been contaminated by  on-site
                       sewage  treatment systems.

                    o   Interviews with  sanitarians,  soil  scientists,  septic  tank   installers and  haul-
                       ers,  well  drillers,  and zoning officers.   Information   gathered   during   these
                       interviews  can  identify  the location of  on-site  system problems (surface  mal-
                       functions,  sewage backups,illicit  discharges,  etc.)  and pinpoint areas  in  need
                       of further  investigation during Phase  II.   System problems  attributed  to  poor
                       site  conditions  or  inadequate   maintenance  practices  can be identified  through
                       discussion witn  these officials  and contractors.

                    o   Windshield surveys.   An automobile tour of  the entire community in the  company
                       of local   sanitarians,  soil scientists,  or  other knowledgeable  persons   (see
                       interviews above) can  provide first-hand  observation  and  interpretation  of  site
                       conditions  and  on-lot  system  practices.    As a result,  the applicant's  small
                       waste flows  specialist can develop a strategy and  cost  estimate for Phase II
                       field investigations.

TRD III-A           o   Review  of  soil maps.    General and  detailed soil maps may be  available  to  the
EIS II-A-3-c           small waste  flows specialist for  use  as a  guide to planning  needs documentation
                       efforts.   They do not  by themselves  document need.   Soil  surveys are  published
                       by the U.S.  Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in  cooperation
                       with  state  agricultural  experiment  stations.   General soil maps, with  map  units
                       consisting usually of  soil  associations drawn at  a scale  of  1  inch  to the  mile
                       or less,  can be  used for preliminary determinations of the  potential  suitability
                       of on-site  systems  on a  community-wide basis.  Detailed  soil maps,  which de-
                       lineate soil  series,  soil  complexes, and  undifferentiated units at a scale of
                       approximately 4  inches  to  the  mile,  and   soil interpretation  data  enable  the
                       applicant   to estimate  what percentage of  lots can  be expected  to be served
                       satisfactorily by on-site systems.  It  is  emphasized  that  neither detailed  soil
                       maps  nor  soil limitation ratings  contained  in the  soil surveys  provide  a  docu-
                       mentation   of need.   However,   they are particularly  useful  in planning  site-
                       specific field investigations of on-site system suitability.

TRD XI-B            o   Preparation of base  maps.  A recommended final step  in the gathering and analy-
                       sis  of available  data  involves  the preparation of  a  base  map.   This  map  synthe-
EIS 1V-C-1             sizes information collected and  facilitates  its use  in subsequent needs documen-
                       tation  efforts.   Synthesized data  could  include soil  and groundwater  conditions,
                       land  use,  and age  and density  of  housing.   U.S.  Geological Survey 7.5 minute
                       maps  (1:24,000),  Soil  Conservation Service  soil maps (1:15,840), or  local tax
                       maps  can  be used to prepare planning area  base maps  at low  cost.  All of  these
                       available   maps  are  useful  because  they illustrate the  location of individual
                       buildings.  Overlays can be prepared that  delineate:

                       o  developed areas obviously requiring centralized  facilities.
                       o  individual buildings with obvious problems, and
                       o  developed areas with indirect evidence  of problems.

                    o   Review of  Available  Water Quality and  Eutrophication  Modeling.    Existing   data
                       may  include water quality  or eutrophication  modeling from any of a variety of
                       sources such as the National Eutrophication Survey  and  various state  and 208
                       surveys.   These  may  be valuable in making preliminary estimates  about  the  rela-
                       tive  role of on-site  systems and non-point pollution sources, so that  efforts
                       may be concentrated  in those  areas yielding the  greatest  water quality improve-
                       ment.  It is very  important,  however,  to  know  the  assumptions made  in devel-
                       opment of  the model  and how they may be modified  by actual  on-site  system per-
                       formance .
                                                41

-------
b.   Aerial Photographic  Interpretation

TRD II-F            Properly acquired and  interpreted aerial photography  can  provide data on surface
                    malfunctions of  on-site  systems.   With this technique,  a  community survey can be
                    made rapidly  and at  relatively low  cost  without intruding  on  private property.
                    Aerial  photography detection of surface malfunctions is  a  3-step  process involving
                    acquisition of  the  photography,  identification  of  suspected malfunctions  by an
                    experienced photo interpreter,  and field checking  of  the suspected malfunctions.

                    Optimum coverage, resolution, and  signature  recognition  can be achieved using  fine
                    grained color  infrared  film flown  to a scale  of  approximately  1:8000  (1  inch =  1667
                    feet).   Other  image  types can be  acquired in  conjunction  with the color  infrared
                    film,  such as  true color,  thermal  infrared, or thermal  scans.  However,  experienced
                    photo  interpreters  (Evans,  1981)   feel that  color infrared film will be adequate.
                    Both true  color  and color infrared film were  acquired and used  comparatively  for
                    identifying surface  malfunctions during preparation of the Seven Rural Lake EISs.

                    Timing  of  the  flight  is  an  important consideration  in remote sensing of surface
                    malfunctions.   These failures can  best be detected when  groundwater  elevations  are
                    highest and foliage is minimal.   Therefore,  best results for permanent residences
                    are obtained  during  spring  or  late  winter  when  the  ground  is  not snow  covered.
                    Tree cover present during  the  remainder of the  year can  limit detection of surface
                    malfunctions.   In cases  where  aerial photographs  must  be  taken  during  summer
                    months, such as  in  communities  with seasonal populations,  the subsequent interpre-
                    tation  and  field  checking  phases  must be conducted more  cautiously.  Also, flights
                    can be  completed  with substantial  overlap of  photos affording  stereoscopic  analysis
                    of on-lot features.   Interpreters  can  actually  see under  some  taller  trees.

                    Suspected malfunctions should be  identified  from the photography by  an experienced
                    photo  interpreter.  The experience is needed to distinguish  valid signatures  from
                    those  of unrelated phenomena such as  shade,  natural vegetation  and  wet soils,  and
                    artificial  surface  drainage  features.  Surface manifestations of  surface  malfunc-
                    tions  include:

                    o  conspicuously lush vegetation,
                    o  dead vegetation (especially grass),
                    o  standing wastewater or seepage, and
                    o  dark soil indicating excessive  accumulation  of organic matter.

EIS IV-F            The suspected malfunctions should  be field  checked.  The ideal person to do this is
                    the photo interpreter although others  may perform this  task.   By inspection and, if
                    feasible, by interview with the residents,  the  suspected malfunctions are  reclassi-
                    fied as:

                    o  confirmed malfunctions  -  standing  wastewater from  an on-site  system is visible
                       on the land surface,

                    o  marginal malfunctions - accumulation of  excess organic matter or the presence of
                       dead vegetation indicate that wastewater had surfaced in the past, or

                    o  irrelevant signatures  - visible surface or vegetative  features which mimic the
                       visual characteristics of malfunctions but are not  caused by wastewater.

TRD X-B             Aerial photography acquired  for this  purpose can be used for  other purposes  during
    XI-B            facilities planning such as:

                    o  house counts,
                    o  land use, vegetation and wetlands analysis,  and
                    o  layout of wastewater collection and transmission facilities.

                    To  accomplish  the last purpose precision flights are  necessary to overcome resolu-
                    tion problems  that  can result from the normal tilting of the  airplane  during photo
                    missions.   No  special  preflight measures  (establishment of reference points, etc.)


                                                 42

-------
                    are required.  Available  maps can serve as  a  guide on precision flight missions.
                    Precise photo missions enhance the three-dimensional  effect already  characteristic
                    of aerial  photographs,  thereby enabling  facilities planners  to complete detailed
                    design of wastewater collection and transmission facilities.  These data  supplement
                    those  contained  on  USGS topographic  maps.   The  cost  of precision flights can be
                    expected to  be  approximately 50% greater  than normal photographic missions.  The
                    decision to  make a precision  flight  should be  based on  the  likelihood of  large
                    portions  of  the  facilities  planning area  requiring centralized  collection and
                    treatment.   Otherwise the  extra cost  cannot  be  justified.

c.   Septic Leachate Detection

TRD II-D&E          Currently  available  septic  leachate   detectors  can be used  to locate groundwater
                    inflows  or  surface  runoff  conveying  domestic  wastewater  into  lakes.   The  opera-
EIS IV-F            tional theory of the  detector  depends on the assumptions  that  fluorescent  organic
                    materials are present in wastewater and that inorganic chemicals will be  present in
                    wastewater at higher  concentrations than  in ambient groundwater or  surface  water.
                    Detection  of both  increasing  fluorescence  and  increasing  conductivity in  water
                    drawn by pump  from  a  shoreline  provides  tentative  evidence  of  the  presence of
                    domestic wastewater.  Because  of  the  high sensity of  their fluorometers,  currently
                    available  detectors  can rapidly  locate groundwater effluent plumes  and  wastewater
                    in surface runoff where wastewater is otherwise undetectable.   This  tool proved to
                    be invaluable in studies  that addressed the  impacts  of on-site systems on  lakes
                    studied for the  Seven Rural  Lake  EISs.

                    The septic leachate  detector  is  subject to  certain limitations that  must be recog-
                    nized in its use and in interpretation of  the  data it generates.  The most signi-
                    ficant limitation is that  it cannot quantify the strength of wastewater in a sample
                    or body  of water.    The  organic  and  inorganic  parameters that it monitors  can be
                    transported  through  soil  and  water  quite independently  of  other wastewater  con-
                    stituents.   Even the fluorescence and  conductivity are  recorded in relative, not
EIS IV-D-1          quantitative, units.   In  order to quantify the  concentrations of nutrients,  bac-
                    terial,  or other wastewater constituents,  flow through the meter  can be  subsampled
                    or samples can be  collected by conventional means  for later  analysis.   The advan-
                    tage  of  the  detector is  that it permits  collection of samples in demonstrated
                    effluent plumes.

                    Aside from the  limit on quantification,  septic leachate  detector  surveys  are sub-
                    ject  to  false  positives and  false negatives.   Most of these potential  errors are
                    due to  the dynamic  nature  of the natural  systems involved and to  variability in
                    wastewater characteristics.   False positives can be caused by:

                    o  Naturally fluorescent decay products  from dead vegetation.   Swamps, marshes and
                       peat  deposits can  leach  tannins,  lignins and  other compounds  that fluoresce in
                       the detection range  of the fluorometer.   The conductivity  measurements provided
                       by  the detector  are intended to  differentiate such  signals,  but in  practice
                       dilution  may eliminate  detectable  conductivity changes  expected  from  waste-
                       waters, thus  making a  wastewater  plume  appear to  be  the same as natural  decay
                       products.

                    o  Sediment  or  air drawn through  the detector  can cause dramatic  changes  in the
                       monitor readings.   This  is usually noted by  the  operator  and recorded on the
                       recorder tape.

                    o  Eddy  currents  carrying  large wastewater or bog plumes can appear to be  indi-
                       vidual plumes from on-site systems.

                    The more  serious errors  are false negatives  since they  may   indicate   no  problem
                    where actual problems exist.  Notable false negatives  are:

                    o  As  mentioned above, high  dilution  of  wastewater  in  lake or groundwater may
                       reduce  conductivity  differences  to  the  level  of  normal background  variations.
                                                43

-------
                      The  absence  of  conductivity differences will cause the detector to electronicly
                      mask fluorescence signals that are detected.

                   o  Mixing  of lake water  by wind and  waves can disperse leachate  very rapidly so
                      that  normally  strong  effluent plumes  can  be missed  altogether.   The  time it
                      takes  for leachate  to  accumulate along a shoreline to detectable concentrations
                      is dependent on several, so far unstudied, factors.

                   o  Fluctuations  in lake  level  can  slow  or  even reverse normal  groundwater flow,
                      temporarily eliminating leachate emergence at a shoreline.

                   o  Groundwater  recharge by rainfall ,  snowmelt or irrigation will  also affect the
                      dynamics  of leachate movement.

                   o  Seasonal  use of dwellings may result in only periodic emergence of leachate at a
                      shoreline.

                   Many  of these "false negatives" can be minimized through careful use of the equip-
                   ment.   The device  should  not be used during high winds.  Monitoring of groundwater
                   flow  patterns  through  use  of a meter or  other  methods can  clarify groundwater
                   factors.   Information  on  changes in lake level and recent rainfall or snow melt is
                   also  important.

                   Because  of the  possibilities  for error and the many factors influencing the result
                   of  septic leachate detection,  the validity of surveys rests heavily on the experi-
                   ence, knowledge, and judgment of the surveyor.  Until additional evaluation is made
                   of the  factors  influencing survey results, septic leachate surveys will be eligible
                   for Construction Grants funding only when:

                   1)  the  person  in charge  is experienced in operation and maintenance of the detec-
                       tor model being used.  At  least two weeks of field experience  is necessary for
                       assisting someone who is already expert with the model,

                   2)  the  person  in charge  is present during  any shoreline scans that are reported,

                   3)  data  is  interpreted by a person who has a professional background in limnology,
                       and

                   4)  approximate  wind speed and direction are noted during the survey and reported.

                   Septic  leachate detectors  should  prove  to  be valuable  monitoring tools  for  com-
                   munities   managing  shoreline   on-site  systems.   Purchase  of  detectors   will be
                   eligible  for Construction Grants funding.  Grantees  will be required to show  that
                   comparable  instruments  are not available  on a  timely basis  from  other nearby
                   grantees.  Funded  instruments will be made available  to other grantees.
d.   Mailed Questionnaires
                    Mailed questionnaires enable  the applicant  to  exchange  information with the  com-
                    munity that will  be affected by the  results of the needs  documentation  effort.  The
                    objectives of this  method  are  to:

                    o  Inform affected  residents of the

                       - objectives and scope  of facilities planning effort,
                       - importance of  needs documentation to  facilities planning,
                       - needs documentation results to  date,
                       - importance of public response  to the questionnaire  and  how  questionnaire  data
                         will affect  planning  efforts, and
                       - other opportunities available for public participation;
                                                44

-------
                   o  Obtain information on

                      - the  nature  and  extent of  existing  pollution and  public  health problems  as
                        recognized by local residents,
                      - private  wastewater  management systems  including  type,  age,  location  on  pro-
                        perty,  maintenance  records,  proximity to  private water  supply and  surface
                        water bodies,
                      - lot size,
                      - dwelling use (number of bedrooms, permanent or seasonal  status),
                      - private wells including type, construction, location,  depth,  etc.,  and
                      - water use  in the home;

                   o  Determine  willingness of residents to  allow follow-up surveys  and  site investi-
                      gations .

                   Since  the  facilities planner  wants  to minimize intrusion on private property and
                   reduce the number of visits to any particular site, the mailed questionnaire should
                   be sent only  to areas where available data indicate a significant number of  on-site
                   system problems and  preliminary economic  analysis indicates that  sewering  will  be
                   cost-effective.   Use  of  mailed questionnaires is  discouraged where optimum opera-
                   tion  alternatives may  be cost-effective since on-site sanitary inspection would  be
                   required.

                   The  questionnaire should be as general as  possible  and should  be prepared with  an
                   awareness  that  responses are going to be only as good as 1) residents'  knowledge  of
                   their  own property, 2)  their understanding of  the questions being asked,  and  3)
                   their willingness to exchange information.  Because their response to  the question-
                   naire could lead  to replacement or renovation of their systems at significant cost,
                   residents  may feel it is in their best interests  not to divulge information about
                   their  sewage  disposal  systems.   A concise  explanation  of  the  questionnaire's  pur-
                   pose  may  improve public  cooperation  and participation  in  this  impersonal yet com-
                   prehensive survey of community need.
e.   Eutrophication Modeling
                    For developed  lakeshores, needs documentation may include modeling of the impact of
                    on-site  systems on  lake  eutrophication potential.  A preliminary  estimate  can be
                    made with  a  procedure  described in Chapter IV-D-2.  The procedure uses basic hydro-
                    logical  and morphological data for lakes.   Based on the outcome of this estimate,
                    development  of more  detailed nutrient budgets may be  justified,  possibly supple-
                    mented by  collection  of water quality  data to resolve major uncertainties.
f.   Nearshore  Plant  Surveys
                    Septic  tank effluents transported to lakes by  groundwater  can stimulate growth of
                    attached and floating plants along  lakeshores.  Where  natural factors  do not con-
                    trol this  growth and it  prevents  recreational use  of the water,  abandonment  of
                    on-site  systems  might  be  justified.   Surveys  that  determine  the location  and
                    density  of  nearshore plant  growth are  a legitimate  needs  documentation method.
                    Aerial  photography taken during the growing  season  can guide  such surveys.  Near-
                    shore  plant  surveys are  best  conducted  along with septic  leachate  detector  or
                    partial  sanitary  surveys  (see  Chapter II-D-2-a)  since total cost  would be mini-
                    mized.   Results  can  be correlated with known  locations of effluent plumes and other
                    treatment problems.
2.   PHASE II:   Data  Collection and  Comparison
                    The Phase II data  collection  and  subsequent analysis allows needs documentation to
                    proceed further greatly reducing  the number of  "inconclusive"  lots.   It does this
                    by surveys of selected  sites  (both by interview  and representative soil and ground-
                    water sampling) .   Its aim  is  not  necessarily  to do these things for all inconclu-
                    sive sites  but to study enough of  them  that  reasonable conclusions  about systems
                    not studied may be drawn from  those  that  have been.


                                                45

-------
                    Phase II data collection, like  that  of Phase I, affects not only needs documenta-
                    tion but actual alternative design.   It makes possible a preliminary system selec-
                    tion for each dwelling in the  study  area.   As with needs documentation, not every
                    site receives an  interview,  survey and sampling,  but  only those providing suffi-
                    cient conclusions  about  the sites not studied.   This  is  discussed at  length  in
                    Section  II-E.

a.   Partial Santiary Surveys

TRD II-G            Phase I  needs documentation efforts  will have involved the gathering  and  analysis
                    of available or  easily obtainable  data regarding  the type, extent, and  frequency  of
                    on-site  system malfunctions.  Phase I  data will have been used  to categorize devel-
                    oped lots  within the facilities  planning area into  one  of three groups:  those with
                    obvious  problems,  no  problems,  or inconclusive  problems.   Field work in Phase  I
                    will have  been  limited  to  rapid, community-wide  surveys  requiring little  or  no
                    access  to private  property.   In the  absence  of  substantive information relevant  to
                    the performance  of existing  on-site systems,  only hypothetical  statements regarding
                    the  causes  of system failures   and predicted performance of  future  systems can  be
                    made.

                    Partial   sanitary   surveys and   concurrent  representative  samplings  involve  field
                    investigative efforts (Phase II)  to  acquire  the empirical  data necessary  for per-
                    formance explanation or prediction relevant to existing and future systems,  respec-
                    tively.   The primary objectives  of such efforts  are to:

                    o  reclassify developed lots  from  the "inconclusive" category to "obvious problem,"
                       "no problem," or "potential  problem,"3 and

                    o  develop requisite  information  to  predict  appropriate technologies and attendant
                       costs for responding to  community  wastewater  management  problems.

                    Sanitary surveys need  to include  only enough on-site  sanitary inspections  to meet
                    these two objectives.   In general, not more than 30% of all developed properties  in
                    a community should  be inspected in Step  1.   Higher or  lower  coverage may be  appro-
                    priate  for  individual  segments  depending on  the  quality of data available  prior  to
                    design of the survey.

                    Survey design may  be  either  random or targeted.   The  intent of a random survey  is
                    to obtain as accurate an estimate  of  failure  rate as possible with a  limited  number
                    of  on-site  sanitary  inspections.  Random surveys are appropriate  where  Phase  I
                    needs data are incomplete or where most developed lots  remain in the  "inconclusive"
                    category.   Any  bias  in the  selection of properties to be  inspected  must be  noted.
                    Such bias  must  be accounted  for when  projecting survey  results  to uninspected
                    systems   in  the  same  segment  or  community.   As  a rule of  thumb,  random  surveys
                    should  include  at  least 20%  of  properties in each  segment.  (Guidance  that  is
                    statistically more valid should  be  developed by  U.S.  EPA or the  states  after a
                    number  of  small  waste  flow projects are   completed  and  the   correlation between
                    number  of  systems  inspected and  accuracy  of the  survey statistics is  analyzed.)

                    Targeted  surveys   are  indicated where the  types  and  frequencies  of  failures  are
                    adequately  estimated  from  Phase  I  information  but where  evidence of causal  con-
                    nections between  poor performance and site, design,   and usage characteristics  is
                    sought.   With this survey  design, properties are selected for inspection if they
                    have "obvious problems" or if they are suspected of having  problems  based  on age  or
EIS  II-F-1          known site  limitations.  Because statistical accuracy is  not  critical,  targeted
                    surveys may  cover as  few as 10% of developed properties  in a segment or community.
                    Up  to 50%  of those residences   having  obvious problems may be  inspected in Step  1.

                    Within  a  community,  sanitary   surveys  may  be  designed segment-by-segment  to  be
                    random  or  targeted as  appropriate.   It is  emphasized that statistics on  failures
                    and  potential remedies  obtained during random surveys are  not  interchangeable with
 a  Potential problems are systems that do not yet exhibit direct evidence of failure but that can
   reasonably be expected to fail in the future as predicted by the failures of similar systems.
                                                46

-------
                    statistics from targeted survey areas  and vice versa.   Causal  relationships between
                    system performance and  characteristics of  the  site,  system design or  system usage
                    established by surveys may be meaningful community-wide,  however.   Causal relation-
                    ships may be  used  in  conjunction with other  local  data to  expand  survey results to
                    unsurveyed systems.

EIS II-A-4          Formats for on-site sanitary  inspections should  be sufficiently general to be used
                    on either a random or  targeted basis.   At a minimum,  inspections should involve for
                    each building:

                    o  an  interview  with  the resident  to determine  age  of  the  building and sewage
                       disposal system,  design  and location  of the  sewage  disposal  system,  system
                       maintenance, occupancy of  the  building,  water-using appliances,  use  of water
                       conservation devices, and problems  with  the wastewater system;

                    o  an inspection of the property, preferably  in the company of the resident, noting
                       location and  condition  (if possible)   of well,  septic tank,  soil absorption
                       system, pit privies,  and  other sanitary facilities; lot dimensions; slope; roof
                       and  surface drainage;  evidence of past  and  present  malfunctions;  and other
                       relevant information such as algae  growth  in shoreline areas; and

                    o  preliminary conclusions  on maintenance, repairs,  applicable water  conservation
                       methods, and types  and location of replacement  facilities  or upgrading measures
                       for existing wastewater systems.

                    The effectiveness  of  partial  sanitary surveys may  be limited  by the  unavailability
                    of properly  trained personnel.   Optimally,  the  surveyor  should  be  a sanitarian,
                    engineer,  soil scientist,  or other professional  knowledgeable of  on-site systems,
                    their  uses,  and  their  limitations.   In  the absence of  these persons, nonprofes-
                    sional personnel could  be trained in a relatively short period to be  competent in
EIS IV-F            the conduct of sanitary surveys.   It should  be impressed upon these  personnel that
                    straightforwardness with the  public and  objectivity in  survey data  interpretation
                    is just  as important  in sanitary  surveys as  is knowledge of public  health, soil
                    science, and sanitary engineering.

                    An example  of the sanitary survey  used by U.S.  EPA  during its preparation of the
                    Seven Rural Lake EIS's is included in Appendix  B.

b.   Representative Samplings

TRD II-C            Representative samplings  are  intended to  enhance  the conclusiveness  of  Phase II
                    field  investigations.   Representative  sampling  conducted  in support of partial
                    sanitary  surveys  can  identify previously  unrecognized but  documentable water qua-
                    lity and  public health problems, thereby verifying the number of  "obvious problem"
                    lots.  Representative sampling may involve  one  or more  of the  following parameters:

                    o  Seasonally or permanently high water table.    Selected   lots   suspected  during
                       Phase  I  of having  seasonally or permanently high groundwater  elevations should
                       be augered to a depth of five or six feet  to resolve the uncertainty.

                       Where  a  seasonally high  water table  is  suggested  and  sampling has to be con-
                       ducted during dry weather, soil mottling may offer an  indication of  high  ground-
                       water  elevations.   In this case, a soil scientist with  knowledge  of local soils
                       should be involved.

TRD II-H            o  Groundwater flow.   In areas served by  on-site  systems, the  safety of  private
                       well water  supplies,  small springs, and surface waters  may depend on the direc-
                       tion  and velocity of  groundwater  flow.  This  information is  not  likely to be
                       available during Phase I.  Phase II efforts  will generally  be limited to  evalua-
                       tion  of well  logs  and other  available data  and  to  rapid  surveys  in  lakeshore
                       areas.  More intensive work will be conducted  as required.
                                                47

-------
EIS II-A-2-a        o  Well water contamination.   Where  contamination  by on-site  systems  of aquifers
    IV-D-1             used for drinking water is  suspected, sampling  of existing wells is encouraged.
    VI-A-1             Initial sampling efforts  should be  limited  to  a survey  not to  exceed  20% of
                       on-site wells.   Parameters  that  may be analyzed include  nitrates,  chlorides,
                       fecal coliforms, surfactants,  and whiteners.  Samples should only be  taken from
                       wells  that  are properly  protected  from surface  runoff and other  sources un-
                       related to wastewater.  Sampling  must be accompanied by inspection  of the well.

EIS IV-D-1          o  Shallow groundwater  contamination.   Groundwater  pathways to  surface  water bodies
                       and unconfined aquifers may be  sampled  in  areas where drainfield to water table
                       distances  are less than state  standards.

                    o  Soil permeability.   Soil augering  to a depth  of  a  selected number of feet should
                       be conducted by a qualified soil  scientist on  or near  lots  suspected of having
                       very slow  or very  rapid  permeability.   Percolation tests  will  not  usually be
                       necessary.

                    The value of  representative  samplir-gs  data  can be  increased through extrapolation
                    to similar areas  within  the  community.   For example,  well  Logs  and  soil borings
                    contain valuable   information  about soil  materials and  water  table  elevations.
                    Following  interpretation by  soil scientists and hydrogeologists, these data can be
                    related to specific  soil  map  units, thereby providing predictions  for all areas
                    containing the same map units.

TRD XVI-D           The  scope  of representative  sampling  funded  in Phase  II  needs documentation will
                    depend  on the  conclusiveness  of prior  decisions  to adopt  the optimum operation
EIS IV-G            approach.   If  it  is clear prior to Phase II  that this approach will be adopted,
                    sampling  at  a  level equivalent  to detailed  site  analysis (normally  conducted in
                    Step 2) may  be  eligible.   If the decision  has not  been  made, then the  scope should
                    be limited to  sampling that  will evaluate  typical  performance  problems,  not all of
                    the problems  revealed by the  sanitary survey.

3.   RETENTION AND  FUTURE  ANALYSIS  OF NEEDS DOCUMENTATION DATA

                    Data describing the type,  extent,  and  frequency of water quality and public health
                    problems  associated  with on-site  systems  are collected continually at  the  local
                    level by  sanitarians,  soil scientists,  and engineers.   When  augmented  by empirical
                    soils and performance  information,  this needs documentation data base provides an
                    invaluable tool for evaluating  the  cause  of  on-site system failures  and for pre-
                    dicting future system performance.   As  such,  this data  base enables  local officials
                    to make informed decisions  on  technology  selection and system permitting.  Obvi-
                    ously,  this  suggests   that needs documentation data collected  during  Phase I  and
                    Phase  II  should be retained  for  future decision-making.  Available soils and per-
                    formance  data  could be  assessed and tabulated  for inclusion in an empirical data
                    base during  the winter months  when field investigation efforts and  therefore time
                    and personnel constraints are minimal.

EIS II-A-3-c        The  economic  justification for the collection and  use  of empirical  soils and  needs
                    documentation  data  at  the local level should  be  based on  1) a moderate to high
                    level  of  need  based on density of  development,   on-site system failure rate,  and
                    sensitivity  of water  resources  and  2) the  fact  that cost  savings  from optimum
                    operation of existing  systems  far  outweigh the costs associated with  data  collec-
                    tion.   The  optimum  operation approach  is based  upon the  collection and  use  of
                    empirical  information.   It is  frequently more  cost-effective  than  construction  of
                    new  centralized facilities that do  not require this information.

EIS I-B-3           To maximize  the utility of needs documentation and empirical data  for  future  deci-
                    sion-making,  this EIS recommends  a standardized  information  system  be developed
                    that will  facilitate statistical correlation  of soil characteristics,  other  deter-
                    minants of performance (system age,  design,  maintenance,  etc), and  on-site  system
                    performance  itself  for use by local,  regional, and  state  governments  in Region V.
                    The  objectives  of this effort would be two-fold.  First,  retention and  tabulation
                    of  empirical/needs documentation  data  are  essential to the long term success  and


                                                48

-------
                    low cost of optimum operation  alternatives.  A  standardized format and local stor-
                    age of the  data  (by fire numbers,  segments, etc.) could facilitate extrapolation of
                    information from one area  to  another within the  community.  Second, use of the same
                    standardized system by state  governments would enable empirical/needs documentation
                    data to be extrapolated  from  one county or  region to  another.   As  discussed in
                    Section V.C.,  transferability of  needs data would enable state officials to manage
                    information gaps  that  may include small  waste  flows state of  the art,  costs,  and
                    management  techniques.

                    This EIS recommends that Region V, Headquarters, the Office of Research and Devel-
                    opment, and other divisions of  U.S. EPA discuss  among themselves and with concerned
                    state  agencies  in Region V  the   best means  of developing and  utilizing standard
                    formats for the  collection, analysis,  storage, and retrieval of needs documentation
                    data developed with Construction Grants funds.
E.   DESIGNING  AN OPTIMUM  OPERATION  ALTERNATIVE
EIS I-A
1.   Phase I
The several Rural Lake  EIS's  recommended (wholly or in part)  optimum  operation  of
existing on-site  systems,  upgrading or  replacement of failing  systems,  and  con-
struction  of  cluster  systems  where  on-site  remedies  are not  workable  or  cost-
effective.   The  varied range of  project sizes, water  quality problems,  and  site
conditions suggests  that  these methods  should  work well  in the great majority  of
unsewered rural lake areas.   They can usually  offer a substantial savings  in  opera-
tion and  maintenance,  as well  as capital costs, over new  centralized  facilities,
while  normally  providing  comparable  public  health and   water  quality  benefits.

For these  reasons,  Figure  II-C-2  and this section  concentrate  heavily  on  community
development of an optimum  operation alternative.   They  do  not  specifically discuss
the steps  for  development  of  centralized alternatives that may  proceed in concert
with it.   However,   the needs  documentation  and  system   selection  procedures  in
Figure  II-C-2  and the  Region  V Needs Documentation  Guidance  (Appendix  A) will,  if
diligently  followed,  lead just  as  surely to  a conventional  system  or  a modular
combination of  centralized  and small  waste  flow  technologies  if that is what  is
needed, feasible, and cost-effective.

The  sequence  of  data   collection  steps   shown  in  Figure   II-C-2  and  discussed  in
Section II-D was  designed  to  support increasingly detailed steps  in the  screening
and development of optimum operation alternatives.   The  sequence  of data collection
steps and parallel alternatives development steps are:
                              Data Collection

                              Phase I Needs Documentation
                              Phase II Needs Documentation
                              Detailed Site Analysis
                                                  Alternative Development

                                                  Technology Assumption
                                                  System Selection
                                                  Facilities Verification
                    The purpose of  sequencing  these  efforts  is  to build decision  points  into  the plan-
                    ning process.   If at various  points,  "no  action" or centralized alternatives  are
                    demonstrated to be better  than optimum operation, subsequent planning efforts  can
                    be redirected as appropriate.

                    Figure II-C-2 demonstrates  this  approach  as it might be used  in  a three-step Con-
                    struction Grants project.   Even without Federal funding,  however,  the approach will
                    save  time  and  effort.   In  general,   the  development,   costing  and  evaluation  of
                    alternatives proceed  at a  pace  only  slightly behind that of  needs  documentation,
                    and at a comparable level  of detail.

                    The following sections  discuss  the  alternative development tasks  as  they  relate  to
                    the key data collection steps.
                    The areawide  information obtained during  Phase I  of  needs documentation is  also
                                                49

-------
                    instrumental  to the  early phases of  alternative  development.   Before  the  end of
                    Phase I  it  should be  clear:  (1) whether any  action is  needed,  (2)  how segments
                    should be delineated,  (3) whether centralized or small waste  flow approaches are
                    needed,  and  (4) which approach is  likely to cost more.

EIS II-F-3          Phase I  data  should suffice to  make  a general  assumption of  the need,  cost and
    II-F-1          feasibility  of centralized  and  small  waste  flows  approaches.   The  costing tech-
                    niques need  not be  detailed  since on-site technology selection for each residence
                    would not yet take  place.   Decisions  to proceed with development of optimum opera-
                    tion  alternatives will usually be based  on the feasibility  of continued  use of
                    existing systems  since  cost  comparisons at low and moderate housing densities will
                    nearly always  favor  continued use.

a.   Segment Delineation

EIS II-H            After a  review  of existing  data  suggests  need for  some  response  (see II-D), de-
TRD IX-C            lineation of segments  is  the first task of alternative development.  Unless exist-
                    ing data is extremely  limited, this can be  done from available data and community
                    surveys  that  do not  require  access to  individual lots.

                    This task used information such as:

                    o  housing density

                    o  failure rates  (and kinds  of failures) for  existing systems

                    o  soil  types

                    o  groundwater conditions

                    o  types of  systems  in  use

                    and other relevant  information to divide the study area into segments with  similar
                    characteristics.

                    Segmentation begins  alternative  development  by organizing site-specific data.  It
                    should  at  least  divide  existing sewered areas  and  those  that obviously  require
                    sewers  from  those  areas  where  the  performance and density  of  existing  on-site
                    systems  warrant consideration of  the optimum  operation alternative.

b.   Screening Alternatives by  Segment

                    Once  the segments are  defined  and Phase I data  collection (see II-D) is  completed,
                    it becomes possible  to screen  alternatives by  segment.  The intent of  this  task is
                    to:

                    o  exclude from further planning  those segments  with  limited need,  and

                    o  recognize  specific  conditions common  to  individual segments,  such as  housing
                       density,  types of facilities  in use, nature  of water quality problems, and lake
                       trophic conditions  (see  Chapter IV-D-2),  which  require continuing attention as
                       decisions are made.

c.   Technology Assumptions

                    Available data  and  Phase  I  data collection  will   rarely  support accurate  cost-
                    effectiveness analysis.   Nevertheless, this  is  an appropriate  time to  make  a  rough
                    determination of  those segments  that  must  have off-site  treatment, those that re-
                    quire small waste flows  management,  and those  that are  suited  for  "no  action." To
                    do  this,  the least  detailed type of  alternative  description, technology  assump-
                    tions, will  suffice.   For optimum operation  alternatives, technology  assumption is
                    an  informed  estimate  of  the overall  number  and types of replacement  and upgraded
                                                50

-------
                    facilities  by segment  or  by similar  groups  of segments.  This can be  done  by an
                    appropriate  match  of  on-site   technologies  to segment  conditions and  problems.

                    First,  the  overall rate of  replacement  and upgrading is  estimated as indicated by
                    Phase  I data.   Because this  data  is  not detailed, the estimate should be somewhat
                    higher  than actually documented.  Estimates can be made  for individual segments or
                    groups  of segments where some action is  indicated by  the  data.

                    Next,  a mix of replacement  and  upgrade  technologies  is assumed as indicated by the
                    types  of failures documented and  by conditions in the segments.  At this stage the
                    accuracy of the mix  is not  critical  nor is the selection of specific technologies
                    for individual sites.  The  intent of  technology  assumptions  is to prepare a basis
                    for preliminary cost comparisons between sewered  and small  waste  flow approaches.
d.   Cost  Analysis
2.   PHASE II
                    After the technology assumptions are made,  two  different sources of data for cost
                    comparisons  are available:  the cost relationships  developed  in the Cost Variabi-
                    lity Study  (see  Sections  II-F-1 and F-2) or  locally  developed  cost data.   A cost
                    comparison of sewered and  small  waste flows  technologies  will produce a preliminary
                    indication of  which  will  be more  cost-effective,  focus  attention on serious need
                    areas,  and  guide  the planning of  Phase  II  data collection.   Absolute  accuracy of
                    cost analysis at  this point  is not  critical  since any  segment for which sewering is
                    not incontestably  cost-effective  should  be included  in  Phase  II data collection.
                    Phase II  takes  the  project  through  completion  of all  remaining facilities planning,
                    including development of an appropriate  alternative.  If properly developed, Phase
                    II data  will  allow  more precise  selection  and costing of  necessary facilities,
                    especially for  the  optimum  operation  alternative.

                    As Phase II  data acquistion proceeds,  it becomes increasingly possible to estimate
                    both needs and possible  remedies,  until  by the  completion of Step 1 we also have a
                    preliminary  treatment recommmendation  for each  individual  site.   Because of this,
                    Phase II data  collection effort  should seek  information to assess the reasons for
                    existing  system failure  as  well  as  to recommend  appropriate solutions.

a.   Systems Selection

                    After Phase II  needs  documentation  work and the  reclassification of developed lots,
                    the  measures  needed  to  remedy failures  become  increasingly  clear.   After  the
                    partial sanitary survey  and representative sampling  it should  be  possible to (1)
                    understand  the nature  and cause  of  specific  on-site system  problems,  and  (2)
                    generalize from sampled  system  to  unsarapled  systems with similar characteristics.

EIS V-A-l-d         In this task even  indirect  evidence  can play a part.  A specific system parameter
                    (lot size, separation distance  from  well,  etc.) requires  no action by itself; if,
                    however,  the Phase  II data  collection shows that parameter to be closely correlated
                    with one or  another  kind of  failure, it may  be used to tentatively select facili-
                    ties for a similar  site  not surveyed.

                    The aim of  system  selection is  to  allow a tentative  recommendation for each dwel-
                    ling based on at least some on-site data  (even if indirect evidence).

                    Selections are  contingent on detailed site analysis  in Construction Grants, Steps 2
                    or 3.

b.   Alternative Description

                    System selection  is  the  core  of  a  final  optimum  operation  alternative.  Other
                    elements  need to be added:
                                                51

-------
EIS II-B-1          o  Septage  Disposal.   Estimated quantities of septage, feasible treatment methods,
TRD I                  final disposal  sites,  and  collection equipment must be described.

EIS III-C-3         o  Administration,  Operation  and  Maintenance.   The management  services necessary
TRD VI-A               for the  successful long-term performance of selected systems need to be identi-
                       fied on  a  preliminary  basis.

EIS II-F-3          o  Present  Worth.   All  direct costs  for  the  alternative  over  the 20-year design
                       period will be  estimated and converted  to their present worth.

EIS II-F-4          o  Average  Annual  Homeowner Cost.   See Section II-F-4.

EIS III-B-4         o  Detailed Service Area Delineations.  The potential  service  areas delineated on
                       the basis  of Phase I  information  may  be refined to reflect Phase II decisions.
                       If  some services  will be  provided  to some small  waste flow  segments  but not
                       others,  these  differences  may be  described and  shown graphically as different
                       service  areas.

c.   Proposed  Action Description

                    Selection of  one alternative  to  be the  facilities  plan's proposed  action involves
                    environmental  assessment,  public  review,  coordination with grant and regulatory
                    agencies and, finally, a  decision by  the applicant.

                    If  an  optimum operation alternative  is  selected for part  or  all of the planning
                    areas, three  items will be  needed in  addition to  those included at the final alter-
                    native stage:

EIS III             o  Management  Program Outline.   Construction Grants regulations  require a compre-
                       hensive  program for regulation  and inspection of small waste  flows  systems.  A
                       plan  for  this  program must be submitted as part of  a  facilities plan (40 CFR
                       35.918-l(i)).   While   some  specifics may  change after detailed  site analysis and
                       facilities  verification,  most  of  the  decisions can  be made  once  an optimum
                       operation  alternative is  selected.  The  plan  should  describe  how the applicant
                       will  guarantee  access  to  on-site systems.   Chapter  III  discusses management
                       programs in detail.

                    o  Availability of Cluster  System Sites.   If small scale  off-site  treatment appears
                       to  be necessary,  the availability of  potential treatment  sites should be in-
                       vestigated.  Where the need for sites  is  contingent on  detailed site  analysis of
                       existing on-site systems,  availability does not  have  to be conclusively demon-
                       strated at this point.

EIS III-I           o  Proposed  User  Charges.    The  "average  annual homeowner  costs"  estimated for
                       final alternatives include private costs and do not  recognize different  user
TRD VIII-B             classes.   Based  on  decisions made  for the  management  program, the publicly-
                       funded  parts  of the  proposed  action's  average  annual homeowner cost should be
                       allocated as the  applicant desires.   The method  of user charge recovery and the
                       estimated amounts that  users  will  pay will be described in  the final facilities
                       plan.

3.  Facilities Verifications and Design

                    Phases  I and II  are  intended to  identify cost-effective  solutions at the community
                    and  segment levels.  The next accomplishment is verification for  individual systems
                    of the  technology choices made during facilities  planning.   This  is called  "facili-
                    ties  verification."   It includes  the  selection  of type,  location and  significant
                    design  parameters for  all  on-  and  off-site  facilities  required for an optimum
                    operation  alternative.
                                                52

-------
EIS II-D-5          To accomplish this, the  sanitary  survey of developed properties  must  be  completed.
                    For properties having direct  discharges,  documented failures  (surface malfunction,
                    recurrent backups, or groundwater  contamination)  or potential problems (because  of
EIS II-A-4          unacceptable design or similarity  with  failed systems), detailed site anslysis  is
                    also required.  As suggested  in Figure  II-A-1, the  work performed  in the  detailed
                    site analysis depends  on  the type of problem indicated.

EIS II-F-3          Given  the  complete data base  generated  to  this  point,  the  final  level  of  cost
    III-E           analysis needed to select  particular facilities for buildings or groups of  build-
                    ings is possible.  Where on-site  facilities will  be adequate, little  cost  analysis
TRD VII             will be required.  For marginal on-site systems where the  risk of poor performance
                    is expected  to be high,  more intensive  cost analysis may be indicated which  weighs
                    administrative,  monitoring  and  replacement  costs  against  cost  savings resulting
                    from staying with high risk facilities.  In situations  where  the choice  is between
                    a  low  percentage  of  high cost  on-site  facilities  for a group of buildings  and  an
                    off-site  system   for  all the buildings,  appropriate cost  analysis  would  also  be
                    indicated.

                    In practice, most on-site facilities can be verified in the  field at the  conclusion
                    of the  detailed site  analysis.   The site or neighborhood cost-effectiveness  analy-
                    sis step provides  a retrospective on the individual decisions  made in  the field and
                    permits consideration from  the  entire  community's perspective of potential  econo-
                    mies in management services and facilities costs.

                    Design  of  off-site facilities likely will require additional  site  work.   The need
                    for  this   effort  will optimally  have  been  forseen  and the  work  will  have  been
                    initiated  early in Step  2 and,  in particularly obvious  cases, in Step 1.   However,
                    decisions  to  go off-site may well depend on completion of  the detailed site  analy-
                    sis, the neighborhood cost-effectiveness analysis  and, possibly,  management program
                    design decisions.

                    Off-site facilities and  non-standard on-site facilities likely will require  design
                    drawings and  specifications  that  take time for preparation,  review and  regulatory
                    approval.   In  contrast,  conventional   on-site  facilities  can be  described  by
                    standard design packages.  With standard design packages review and  approval  may be
                    accomplished  quickly  through concurrence by  local  health officials.   Particularly
                    where  a large  proportion of  a project  consists  of standard on-site  facilities,
                    grantees and  state grant administrators may wish to establish a separate track for
                    their bid  document preparation and construction.

4.   BID DOCUMENTS  FOR  COMBINED  STEP 2 AND 3 GRANTS

                    Proposed  actions  based   on  the  optimum  operation alternative  will  qualify in many
                    communities  for  single   grants  to  cover both design  and construction costs.   Com-
                    bined  Step 2  and  3 grants are intended to simplify and speed up the grants process
                    for small  communities.

                    Typically,  design,  bid   document  preparation, contract  award  and construction are
                    separate  steps  completed  in this  sequence.   When on-site  facilities  are   to  be
                    constructed,  however,  disruption  of property  and  intrusion  on privacy  might  be
                    minimized  by  following facilities  verification (design) immediately with construc-
                    tion.   This  would also  speed up  abatement  of failures.   To  accomplish this,  bid
                    documentation  preparation  and   contract  award would have  to  precede  facilities
                    verification.  For this  to work, contractors would submit  unit prices and  quantity
                    discounts  for typical  facilities.   Payment to  contractors  would be based  on their
                    quotations.   In addition to the bidders' experience and capabilities, selection of
                    contractors  could be  based on their total estimated price  and unit  price bids, for
                    the mix of facilities included in the optimum operation alternative.

                    This  method of contracting  would be aided  by the  development  of  standard  design
                    packages for a wide range of technologies.
                                                53

-------
5.   BID DOCUMENTS FOR SEPARATE  STEP  2  AND  STEP  3 GRANTS

                    Communities  over  25,000 population or projects with construction costing more than
                    $2  million ($3 in some states) will not qualify for combined grants.  The parts of
                    their projects using the optimum operation alternative will  have to follow tradi-
                    tional grant  and  procurement procedures.  Applicants may be able to speed up abate-
                    ment   of  failures by segmenting  centralized  from small waste  flow portions  of  a
                    project so that  each part may proceed at its own rate.  (The use of the word "seg-
                    menting"  here is different from  its  use  in regard to identifying  parts  of a com-
                    munity for environmental  contraints evaluation, needs documentation and alternative
                    development.)

F.   COST  ANALYSIS

1.   COST  VARIABILITY  STUDY

TRD IV-A            Facilities plans  for  small  communities  will  consider  alternatives  ranging from
                    on-site upgrading and repair to small-scale collection and treatment to centralized
                    collection and treatment.  Many of the technologies  to  be considered are  alterna-
                    tive   or  innovative.  Rules  of thumb  regarding  cost  competitiveness between these
                    technologies   and conventional centralized  technologies  have  not  been  developed
                    because  so  few  cost-effectiveness comparisons  between  them have  been completed.

                    To  provide  facilities  planners  with some  of these  rules  of  thumb,  the present
                    worths of  on-site,   small-scale  and  centralized  approaches  have  been estimated,
                    presented in cost curves  and compared  graphically.  A large number  of present worth
                    estimates were generated reflecting the influence of  key  factors on the cost com-
                    petition  between different  technologies.   The  factors that were  varied  in this
                    exercise  are listed  in Table  II-F-1.  Density  of development,  expressed as number
                    of  residences per mile of potential  collector  sewer,  was  selected  to be the inde-
                    pendent  variable on all  cost curves.   Environmental  factors  were  associated in
                    reasonable combinations in either  scenarios.  The effects  of  growth were studied by
                    preparing all  analyses  at 0%  and 50% growth over a  two-year period.   Results are
                    expressed as present worth per household at  the end of the  20-year design period.

                    The technologies  evaluated are also  listed  in Table II-F-1.   The present worth cost
                    of  each  technology  was  calculated  at each of  four  densities, for  each  of eight
                    scenarios, at 0% growth  and at 50%  growth.  A mix of upgrade and replacement tech-
                    nologies  was  selected  for  on-site  systems  appropriate  to the constraints incor-
                    porated  into each scenario.   On-site  replacement/upgrade  rates  of  10%, 20% and 50%
                    were   costed   separately  for  each  scenario.  The  mixes  incorporate  increasingly
                    elaborate and costly technologies as  the rate of replacement increases, reflecting
                    an  assumed relationship between faiLure rates and environmental  conditions.

                    The per house present worth  costs  are presented  in cost  curve graphs and in tabular
                    format in Technical  Reference  Document Chapter IV-A.  The  cost  curves are presented
                    in  three  combinations:

                    o  technology curves - each sewered  technology  and on-site  technology  mixes are
                       portrayed on a graph with eight curves,  one for each  scenario;

                    o  scenario  curves  - for each scenario, curves  are  included representing the on-
                       site technology mixes and competitive  sewer/treatment combinations;

                    o  cost-effectiveness  curves  -  also  based on scenarios,  only the cost-effective
                       means   of  collection,  centralized  sewering and  treatment, land  application and
                       small-scale sewering, cluster  collection  and treatment,   10% on-site  treatment,
                       20% on-site treatment and 50%  on-site  treatment are shown.
                                                54

-------
TABLE II-F-1.   FACTORS VARIED AND TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED IN THE COST VARIABILITY STUDY
Environmental Factors
Topography
Average Depth of Groundwater


Average Depth of Bedrock



Soil Unstable


Developmental Factors

Growth Rate


Housing Density




Technologies

Collection Only
(assumes collection system
and treatment facilities are
in place nearby)
Centralized Treatment
(transport and treatment costs
derived from engineering studies for
Seven Rural Lake EIS's)

Small-scale Land Application
Cluster Systems
Values

Flat
Optimal (8' average depth of cut)
Rough (16' average depth of cut)
Rough (necessitates one pump and force main)
Rough (necessitates one pump and force main; 50% of houses
  require grinder pumps)

Below deepest sewer
6' below ground surface (with flat topography only)

Below deepest sewer
2' below ground surface
6' feet below ground surface

Not a problem
Imported fill needed to replace 1,000' of peat soil
0% in 20 years
50% in 20 years

25, 50, 75, 100 houses per mile of potential sewer for C
  growth rate
39, 75, 113, 150 houses per mile of potential sewer for
  50% growth rate
Conventional Gravity Sewers
Small Diameter Gravity Sewers
Pressure Sewers with Septic Tank Effluent Pumps
Pressure Sewers with Grinder Pumps
Four sewering methods
Spray Irrigation
Overland Flow
Rapid Infiltration
Four Sewering Methods

Four Sewering Methods
                    The  technology curves  show  the cost consequences  of  environmental constraints on
                    specific  technologies.   Given  local  information  on  the  topography,  groundwater
                    conditions,  depth to  bedrock  and  on-site  system failure  rates,  the  facilities
                    planner can make preliminary judgments on which environmental constraints should be
                    reflected in subsequent cost-effectiveness analysis.

                    The scenario curves and the cost-effectiveness curves can be used to identify cost-
                    effective technologies  given  local  environmental constraints and housing densities
                    and assuming that one of the scenarios fairly represents local constraints.
                                                55

-------
Two of the  cost-effectiveness  curves  are presented in Figures II-F-1 and II-F-2 to
illustrate  the  considerable  effect  that density  growth  rate  and  environmental
constraints cumulatively can have  on  cost competition between the  major technology
options.

Intersections  between  lines  represent trade-off points between  technologies.   The
densities below trade-off points can be referred to as trade-off  densities.

Figure II-F-1 represents conditions favorable to conventional gravity sewers:   high
growth rate,  no  constraints  due  to   groundwater,  bedrock  or unstable  soil,  and
favorable  topography  allowing  a  minimal average  depth  of  excavation.   Several
points can be drawn from this  graph:

o  Small  diameter and conventional gravity sewers are highly competitive throughout
   the density range with conventional gravity sewers becoming cost-effective above
   65 homes/mile.

o  Because  of  economies of scale,  centralized  treatment  is highly  preferable to
   cluster  systems  at  higher   densities  and  still  competitive  at  low densities.
   [However, cluster systems may still be an important element of small waste flows
   alternatives  that  are cost-effective  compared  to  sewering in  a community-wide
   comparison.]

o  Rapid  infiltration,  the  least  expensive  of  the  three  land application methods
   evaluated,  is  still more expensive than cluster  systems  or  centralized treat-
   ment.   Convergance  of  the  rapid infiltration curve with cluster and centralized
   curves at low  density is due to the finding that very small scale land applica-
   tion  systems   (surface  application)  are  impractical at  flows  below  20,000 or
   30,000  gallons per  day.   It  was  assumed  that  a  sufficient number  of nearby
   one-mile  segments  would  discharge  to a  single  land application  gite,  thereby
   providing  economies  of  scale   at  lower densities not  achievable  with  other
   sewered technologies.

o  Only  centralized  treatment/collection and  collection only  are  competitive with
   replacement/upgrading  of on-site  systems at or  below 50%  replacement  levels.

o  Collection  only is  cost-effective compared  to  50% replacement  throughout the
   range  of densities  and  becomes competitive with  20% replacement  of 100 homes/
   mile.   This comparison is biased somewhat in  favor of collection because opera-
   tion  and maintenance costs  for treatment and transport  of the  wastes were not
   included.   The  low costs for collection only are achievable only where the area
   in  question is adjacent  to  existing sewered areas having existing transport and
   treatment capacity for the 20-year design period.

Whereas  Figure  II-F-1 reflects  conditions that  are  favorable  for  sewering, Figure
II-F-2 reflects conditions that are adverse:  no growth, groundwater at 6' depth in
porous soils,  flat topography, and peat  soils  underlying  1,000'  of the one-mile
segment.    This is a  setting  typical of many  lakeshores.   Comparisons with Figure
II-F-1 include:

o  The  cost-effective  sewering method  throughout   the  density  range  is pressure
   sewers.

o  At  no point is sewering competitive  with on-site replacement/upgrading.   (This
   is  also  true  at 50% growth  for  this  scenario although the difference  in present
   worth is  reduced.)

o  The ranking of off-site  treatment methods  is the  same as in Figure  IV-F-1  since
   it  was assumed that conditions  at  the  treatment  sites were unaffected by condi-
   tions in  the  collection area.

Decisions  to  sewer  or not, will  be   determined  utlimately by  two  analyses:   the
feasibility  of abating  failures of  on-site systems by  replacement or upgrading, and


                            56

-------
                                                   COST-EFFECTIVENESS CURVES
                                                   Scenario  1
                                                   50%  Growth
   20,000
    18,000
    16,000
    14,000
en
(T
O
Q
    12,000
c:   10,000
O

I-
LJ
(/)
Ui   8,000
o:
CL
u
O   6,000
    4,000
    2,000
     A - Collector Severs
     fl • Collection/Transmission/Treatment
     C - Collectlon/Tranawission/Land Application @ Rapid Infiltration
     0 " Collection/Transmission/Cluster Systems

          Collection Components of Systems:
          A^...Dx " Conventional Gravity Sewers
          A2--.D2 • Saail Diameter Gravity Severs with Septic Tanks
          AJ...D3 « Pressure Sewers with Septic Tank Effluent Pumps
          A^.-.D^ • Pressure Sewers with Grinder Pumps

     E " On-Site Systems
          £5 - 10Z Replacement Level
          E£ • 20Z Replacement Level
          £7 • 502 Replacement Level

    AJ- Trade-Off Between Collection Components
                          38
                                                          I
      75
113
150
FUTURE
                          25             50             75

                               HOUSES/MILE OF COLLECTOR SEWER
                                      100
                        PRESENT
          Figure  II-F-1.
Cost-effectiveness  curves  for on-site
small  scale  and centralized  treatment
alternatives  for  Scenario  1;  50% growth.
                                            57

-------
                                                  COST-EFFECTIVENESS  CURVES
                                                  Scenario  4
                                                  0%  Growth
   20,000
CO
ct
O
o
    18,000  -
    16,000
    14,000
    12,000
cc   10,000
O
UJ
CO
ui   8,000
c
a.
tr
LJ
CM
    6,000
     4,000
     2,000
                 A » Collector Severs
                 8 « Col lection /Transmission/Treatment
                 C - Collection/Transmission/Land Application
                 D * Collection/Transalssion/Cluater Systems
                                                                           Rapid Infiltration
                      Collection Components of Systems:
                      AI-..DI • Conventional Gravity Severs
                      A2...D2 • Saall Diameter Gravity Severs with Septic Tanks
                      AJ...03 * Pressure Sewers with Septic Tank Effluent Pumps
                      A^...D^ • Pressure Severs with Grinder Pumps

                 £ - On- Site System
                      £5 • 102 Replacenent Level
                      Eft • 20Z Replacement Level
                      £7 - 50X Replacement Level

                Aj- TradB-Off Between Collection Components
                       A3
E7


E6
                                          I
                                   I
                                                                          •E6
                          25             50             75
                               HOUSES/MILE OF COLLECTOR SEWER
                                                  100
          Figure II-F-2.
            Cost-effectiveness  curves  for on-site
            small scale and  centralized  treatment
            alternatives  for Scenario  4;  0%  growth.
                                               58

-------
                    cost-effectiveness  comparisons.  Worst case comparisons favoring sewers can be made
                    by  examining the trade-off densities at which the most costly on-site technologies
                    (50%  replacement)  equal  the  most  cost-effective  sewering  technologies  for each
                    scenario.   Table II-F-2 shows the trade-off  densities  for the eight scenarios and
                    the  several treatment  options considered  in the cost  variability study  at 0% and
                    50% growth.

                    The  trade-off densities  shown in Table II-F-2  for complete collection,  transport
                    and treatment  systems  are high enough that the decision to  sewer may be made on the
                    basis  of  on-site  feasibility as  well  as  cost.  At  lower  growth rates  and lower
                    replacement rates,  on-site  feasibility  will increasingly  become the determining
                    factor  in  this decision.

                    Cost-effectiveness  will  likely  remain the  decisive  factor  in  sewering decisions
                    when  existing sewer systems  are nearby.   Except where constraints to sewering are
                    severe,  the results indicate  that sewering  in this case will be  cheaper than high
                    rates  of on-site replacement  and  upgrading.   The cost preference for sewers, how-
                    ever,  changes rapidly  as  replacement rates  decline.   Even for  the most favorable
                    scenario  for  sewering, on-site  replacement  rates below  15% will  still  be cost-
                    effective  at high housing densities.

                    Broad  conclusions drawn from  the cost variabilility study  include:

                    o  Average depth of cut, depth to groundwater and  depth to bedrock  can be  decisive
                       factors in cost-effectiveness comparisons  between  sewering and  on-site upgrading
                       and  replacement.  Where these  constraints  might be  expected,  cost analysis must
                       include costs of measures  to overcome them.

                    o  Where extension  of  existing  sewer  systems  is being  compared to on-site solu-
                       tions,   costs  to  overcome constraints   to   sewering   become   relatively  more
                       important.   Field  inventories  of these constraints  and determination  of local
                       excavation,  blasting  and  dewatering costs may  be necessary  to preparation  of
                       valid cost-effective analysis.

                    o  Rate of replacement  for   on-site  systems is much  more  significant  to cost-
                       effectiveness than  the  mix of technologies  except  where a large proportion  of
                       very expensive  replacements  are  necessary.   At  low  densities or  where con-
                       straints to sewering exist or  when  expensive replacement systems do not  appear
                       to  be necessary, cost-effectiveness  analysis  will  not depend  on an exact predic-
                       tion of the on-site facilities  required.

                    o  Where existing sewer systems are  not available nearby,  decisions  to sewer  or not
EIS V-A-l-f            will be  based primarily  on the  feasibility  of  abating on-site  system  failures
                       with on-site methods.   Analysis  of  successes of prior  repairs  and pilot studies
                       of  innovative technologies are,  therefore, going  to be more  productive  in faci-
                       lities  planning  than  accurate  determinations of  the  mix of  replacement tech-
                       nologies .

2.   COST CURVE ANALYSIS

                    The relationships   between  environmental  constraints, development  variables  and
                    technologies developed by  the cost  variability  study can be  used qualitatively  or
                    quantitatively in facilities  planning for  unsewered areas.   Some of the qualitative
                    conclusions that can be  drawn from  the cost  curves are listed above. Review of the
                    132 graphs and  accompanying tables  in  Chapter  IV-A  of the Technical Reference
                    Document will suggest numerous other conclusions.

EIS IV-H            The cost  curves  might  also be used to make  preliminary  decisions on what  alterna-
                    tives   to  consider  (in the  Plans  of  Study  accompanying  applications  for Step  I
TRD IX-C            grants) and  on  preliminary  service  area  delineations  (with input from available
                    needs  documentation data and  community surveys). To  do this, the development parts
                    of the facilities planning area  are  segmented.   Segments do not  have to be  one mile
                    in length or have  one mile   of potential  collector sewer.  The  environmental and


                                                59

-------
TABLE II-F-2.   TRADE-OFF DENSITIES (IN HOMES PER MILE)  ABOVE  WHICH OFF-SITE  FACILITIES  ARE  COMPETITIVE.
               BASED ON 50% REPLACEMENT OF ON-SITE SYSTEMS  AT 0% AND 50% GROWTH
Scenarios
Collection
   only
                              0%   50%
                                                  Centralized
                                                   treatment
                    0%   50%
                     Land
                  application
                    0%   50%
 Cluster
 system
0%   50%
1  No constraints
   8' adc1
54   <38
92
2  No constraints
   16' adc
                                   123
3  Steep topography           73    53
   1 pump

4  Flat; 6' to                 -     -
   groundwater; peat2

5  Flat; 6' to                 -
   groundwater

6  Steep topography;           -    85
   1 pump; 6' to bedrock

7  Flat                       87    72

8  Steep topography;          87    69
   2' to bedrock;
   50% of houses need
   grinder pumps
                        111
                        128


                        108

                         95
                                             -  135
                                                                 -  130
   adc = average depth of cut.
   Imported fill needed to replace 1,000' of peat soil.
                    developmental characteristics of  each  segment and proximity to existing collection
                    systems  are  noted.   Depending  on the accuracy of  environmental  and developmental
                    information available and appropriateness of the scenarios to local conditions, the
                    curves can help  make decisions  to sewer or not in cases where cost differences are
                    great  enough that  improved  data  would  not  change the  conclusions.   Use  of the
                    curves can also  indicate what types of data would moat improve subsequent detailed
                    cost-effectiveness analysis.

                    Use  of the cost curves  beyond  very preliminary analysis is not  warranted for the
                    following reasons:

                    o  Unit  costs were based on the best data available.  Some units costs such as cost
                       per house  for detailed site  analysis are based on educated judgment but are not
                       yet backed by experience.   Other unit costs are subject to  local  and regional
                       variability which was not  analyzed for its effect on the results.

                    o  The curves  have  not been  tested yet by applying them to actual situations, then
                       comparing the costs to detailed cost-effectiveness estimates or bid data.

                    o  Not all variables which may significantly affect the outcome of cost comparisons
                       have  been studied.   Most  cost-imposing factors have  been incorporated  in the
                       present worth estimates  (with  the notable  exception  of O&M  for transport and
                       treatment  in  the  "collection only" curves) but only the factors designated have
                       been  varied.
                                                60

-------
3.   COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

                    The main  consideration in performing  a  cost-effectiveness  analysis  for  combinations
                    of centralized  and  small waste  flows  options is  the  inclusion of all costs such
                    that alternatives are comparable.   Costs that are common to all  alternatives  can
                    usually be  omitted  from the  cost analysis  without affecting  the  results.   For
                    example,  in comparing  one centralized  alternative  to another, costs of items such
                    as collection sewers,  transmission lines, and house sewers do not affect  the out-
                    come of  the  analysis  and can therefore be  omitted.   However,  when a small waste
                    flows  alternative  is  incorporated  into  the analysis,  the  omitted  costs are no
                    longer common  to all  alternatives and must, therefore,  be included.  Examples of
                    costs  that  should  not be omitted  from an analysis comparing centralized  to small
                    waste flows alternatives include  the  following:

                    o  Design
                       - detailed  site  analysis  and  facilities  verifications for  optimum operation
                         alternatives
                       - hydrogeologic  studies for cluster  and land application facilities
                       - design and specifications for  conventional facilities
                       - evaluating and permitting future on-site systems

                    o  Installation
                       - flow reduction devices
                       - house sewers and connections
                       - house plumbing modifications
                       - monitoring wells
                       - future on-site systems

                    o  Abandonment
                       - on-site systems
                       - obsolete treatment plants (include any  salvage benefits)

                    o  Operation
                       - monitoring program
                       - on-site system inspection
                       - energy savings from flow reduction program
                       - income from crop production  in land application alternatives

EIS II-D            Several  levels  of  cost-effectiveness  analysis may be useful during  planning  and
                    design of  optimum operation  alternatives.   The first level is  represented by  cost
                    curves such as  those  illustrated in Section  2 above.  Cost curve  information will
                    be useful  in estimating  the  scope of  facilities  planning for  description  in  the
                    applicants  Plan of Study and will  aid the  delineation  of centralized and small
                    waste flows service areas early in Step 1.

                    An  intermediate level  of analysis  would be appropriate, using  local costs  for
                    specific  facilities  and first-cut technology assumptions based on  Phase  I needs
                    documentation.   The accuracy  of  such present worth estimates is to  a large degree
                    dependent  on  the  quality and  comprehensiveness  of  Phase  I data.    However,  the
                    validity at this level of analysis  of present worth comparisons  between centralized
                    and  optimum operation alternatives  is  also   dependent on  the  relative  magnitude of
                    the  costs.   If  the  difference  in cost  is   great,  the  ranking  of alternatives by
                    cost-effectiveness will  probably not  be  altered by additional  data  collection or
                    more  detailed  cost estimation.   An example  of this level of cost analysis  for an
                    optimum operation alternative is  presented in Appendix C.

                    Phase  II  needs  documentation work will provide more detailed  information,  parti-
                    cularly for estimating work  and  costs for the detailed site analysis,  mix  of faci-
                    lities,  and  operation and maintenance requirements.  This level  of  analysis  will
                    suffice for optimum  operation alternatives  recommended in facilities plans as  part
                    or all of Proposed Actions.   System selections made on a  preliminary basis  (subject
                    to detailed site analysis) for each developed lot should  agree with the assumptions
                    of  this  cost analysis.   The  format may  be  similiar to  that of  the  intermediate
                    level  analysis as reflected in the example in Appendix D.

                                                61

-------
EIS III-A-1-g       To this point,  cost analysis  will  generally  apply  to major  service  areas  and  entire
                    communities.   Completion of  the sanitary  survey and detailed  site  analyses will be
                    followed by micro-scale decisions on  exactly  which facilities will be appropriate
                    for individual  lots or groups of lots.   When high  risk  on-site systems are compared
                    to  holding tanks,  cluster  systems  or  other off-site  technologies,  micro-scale
                    cost-effectiveness analysis will sometimes be  necessary.

                    Finally, applications  for  Step 3 construction  funds will  be accompanied by detailed
                    cost  estimates  to  accompany bid  documents.   The expected costs  of  the required
                    management program should  also be  detailed at  this time.

                    Costs  of  wastewater   facilities  for  future   growth   must be  included  in   cost-
                    effectiveness  analyses.   Future  costs  are estimated  from population projections
                    derived for planning  areas.   Centralized  and  optimum operation alternatives  should
                    use these  projections  in  establishing  cost  estimates even  though an optimum  opera-
                    tion alternative may restrict growth  below the projected  level.

                    Although use of  cost  curves  and general costs found in  the literature are usually
                    sufficient for preliminary planning,  local  costs  should  be used for more detailed
                    comparisons when possible.   Construction  costs of on-site  systems  are particularly
                    subject to variations caused  by  geographic price differences, labor and material
                    costs, and varying haul distances  for materials such as stone.  To  achieve accurate
                    cost  estimates  (and hence cost-effectiveness  analyses)  local cost data should be
                    used  when possible.   For alternative  on-site systems that  have  never been  con-
                    structed in a particular  area, local septic system contractors might provide esti-
                    mates if presented with plans and  a  schedule of materials.

4.   AVERAGE ANNUAL HOMEOWNER  COST

                    Conventional centralized alternatives have very different cash flow characteristics
                    from  optimum  operation  alternatives.    Centralized   facilities  involve  a   large
                    capital  outlay  at  the beginning of  a wastewater facilities project.   After  the
                    centralized system  begins operation, new  capital costs  are  minimal and operation
                    and  maintenance  costs rise  slightly  as flows increase  and  the facilities  become
                    older.  In contrast,  optimum  operation alternatives   involve much  smaller initial
                    capital  costs   to  upgrade   or  replace  existing   malfunctioning  on-site  systems.
                    Additional capital  costs  are incurred throughout  the project life  for  construction
                    of new and replacement systems.

EIS IV-E-2          Given  the  diverse  cash flow  characteristics between optimum  operation and  centra-
                    lized  alternatives  and the  need  to  compare their local  costs, a  parameter  termed
                    the  "average annual homeowner cost"  is recommended for use by facilities planners.
                    In essence, all local costs,  both public and private,  in  the initial year of  opera-
                    tion are divided by the number of residences or dwelling  unit equivalents served by
                    an  alternative   in  the initial  year.   The initial year's  costs  should  include:

                    o  local shares of  Step 2 design and Step 3  construction  costs amortized at current
                       municipal bond interest rates;

                    o  total  private  costs  for  flow reduction devices, house sewers,  plumbing changes,
                       etc. amortized at  current mortgage interest rates;

                    o  the  first year's operation, maintenance,  and administration costs,  and

                    o  annual  reserve fund assessment (often calculated  as  10 to  20%  of  annual debt
                       payment on the local share  of public costs).

EIS II-C-1          The  eligibility  of alternatives'  components for U.S.  EPA grants determines in part
    V-A-1           the  magnitude  of  annual  average  local  cost.   The facilities  planner  should make
                    preliminary judgments on the  eligibility  for Federal assistance  of  capital costs
                    for  facilities  in each alternative.   This judgment is based  on a review of current
                    U.S.  EPA  eligibility  guidelines and results of needs documentation studies.
                                                62

-------
EIS I-C-2-a         The average  annual  homeowner cost  for alternatives with  new sewers will be much
                    higher in  many cases  than  user charges  typically  levied,  owing to the  fact that
                    private costs  for house  sewers  and plumbing changes never  appear  in user charges.
                    Nor do the often expensive frontage and hook-up fees charged to  newly sewered users
                    appear.   These  fees   go  to  retire  local  capital  costs,   thereby  lowering user
                    charges.   Private costs  and  initial capital recovery charges are real  costs to  the
                    homeowner and  must  be reasonably  reflected in  economic  impact analysis, even  if
                    they are not included in  actual  user charges.

EIS IV-E-2          The average  annual  homeowner cost  can be compared  to median family income, indi-
                    vidual family income, and expressed willingness to pay in  order  to  address economic
                    impacts of various alternatives  on local residents.

TRD IV-A            The  cost  statistics  for the community's  proposed  alternative  that make up this
                    economic parameter should be presented individually  so that  normative judgments  can
EIS III-I           be made by local decision-makers on the distribution of the  local costs.

G.   SHORTCUTTING THE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROCESS

TRD XVI-D           In  order  to be  eligible  for U.S.  EPA Construction Grant funds,  rural  communities
                    must demonstrate  a  need  for wastewater treatment improvements  in  compliance with
                    Federal guidance  such as PRM 78-9 and  PRM 79-8.  To  clarify  these requirements,
                    U.S. EPA Region  V has prepared  "Region V Guidance — Site  Specific  Needs  Determina-
                    tion and  Alternative  Planning  for  Unsewered Areas" (Region V  Guidance)  (Appendix
                    A).  To  be useful  in as many  planning areas  as possible, the Region  V Guidance
                    assumes  a  "worst  case"  situation.   Four  assumptions implicit in the Region  V
                    Guidance that make it widely applicable are:

                    1.  Very little  data  exist  prior to Step 1 that reliably  define the design, usage,
                        and performance of existing  on-site systems.

                    2.  Service  areas  cannot  readily  be  delineated  for  centralized  collection  and
                        treatment, community supervision of small waste  flows  facilities, or  no action.

                    3.  The severity  of existing and potential problems with  on-site systems justifies
                        active  community  management of  all or a significant fraction of  the systems.

                    4.  Technologies  to  replace  and upgrade existing on-site  systems will  include  sub-
                        stantial  use of  off-site,  innovative, and/or  subcode  designs thereby  neces-
                        sitating  delays  in   facilities  verification  until  all individual  developed
                        sites are  thorougly surveyed and analyzed.

EIS II-B            When communities are not affected by some of the above assumptions,  the needs docu-
                    mentation  and subsequent  Construction Grants  procedures  may  be shortened.   For
                    example, if  sufficient data on  design, usage,  and  performance  of  existing on-site
                    systems exist, preliminary  data gathering  (Phase I) can be shortened  accordingly.
                    Subsequent data gathering (Phase II) can then be targeted  to specific areas result-
                    ing  in less work than would be  required  if  no preliminary data  were  available.

                    Based  on  available  data,  complexity of service  area  delineations,  and severity of
                    on-site problems,  individual communities can  tailor  needs  documentation, alterna-
                    tive   development,  costing,  and  selection  to  suit   their  specific   situations.
                    Examples  of such modifications  and suggestions  for  abbreviating  the  process  are
                    listed below:

                    o  Perform data collection at the proper time of the year  to avoid having to return
                       to  the  field  (for example, sanitary surveys  when  seasonal  residents  are avail-
                       able).

                    o  Collect  data  early or on an on-going basis for existing systems,  failures,  etc.

                    o  Avoid  duplication of   effort  by limiting  the number of  return visits to  indi-
                       vidual sites.


                                                 63

-------
                    o   Separate  areas  requiring  centralized  treatment  from the  remaining areas  to
                       expedite  the  facilities planning process.

                    o   Use  standard  on-site system designs when appropriate.

                    o   Acquaint  local  officials with the Construction Grants process.

                    o   Use  milestones  (preapplication  conference,  plan of  study,  mid-course meeting,
                       and  facilities  final plan) for decision-making and adjusting the scope of faci-
                       lities  planning as necessary.

                    o   Enact  county ordinances and/or state enabling legislation  to provide access to
                       private systems.

                    o   Perform detailed site  analysis  in Step  1  during Phase  II needs documentation
                       work.

                    o   Verify  facilitities,  design non-standard on-site systems, and construct on-site
                       systems with  a  Step  2 and  3 Grant.

H.   USE OF SEGMENTS IN PLANNING AND  IMPLEMENTATION

TRD IX-C            Segmenting a planning area involves systematically  dividing  the area into subsec-
                    tions according to specific  criteria.  Planning areas can be divided into segments
EIS II-F-2           on the  basis of  soils classifications or suitability for on-site treatment; housing
                    and land use patterns or  neighborhoods; on-site  system failure rates;  for housing
                    occupancy  status  (permanent  or  seasonal).  The purpose  of  segmenting an area is:

                    o   to organize  data and calculations  (for  use in developing alternatives),

                    o   to make the  project  more understandable,

                    o   to facilitate and schedule subsequent work such as sanitary  surveys and detailed
                       site analyses,  and

                    o   to evaluate  specifically  differing  socioeconomic, environmental,  and land use
                       characteristics.

                    The use of  segmentation during  facilities planning  allows a more detailed study of
                    individual areas  than  would be possible  by studying the area as  a unit.  Proper
                    segmentation also provides an appropriate  level of data  aggregation when details of
                    house by  house  information  gathering  are not required,  such as during the pre-
                    liminary planning  stages  (alternatives development).  Additionally,  segments ready
                    to  proceed  with  the  design  step would not have to  await  state approval  of the
                    remainder of the  study area.  Contracts can be awarded for  individual  segments or
                    for groups of segments ready for  Construction.  The use  of segments, however,  does
                    not permit the  omission of  the  detailed site work that  must be done  prior to faci-
                    lities verification.  The only  short-cutting advantage  is that individual segments
                    would have to wait for  other  areas  that are  not yet  prepared  to proceed  to the  next
                    step.

-------
      Chapter III
Community Management

-------
                                            CHAPTER III

                                      COMMUNITY  MANAGEMENT
                    "Community  management"  refers to the management of  small waste  flows  systems by a
                    centralized authority.   These may  include on-site  systems,  small  cluster systems
                    with  subsurface  disposal and other small-scale technologies.  They  can  be managed
                    by a  wide variety  of public  or private entities or a combination of these entities.
                    Public  entities  may  include state,  regional,  or  local  agencies and  nonprofit
                    organizations;  private  entities may  include private  homeowner associations  and
                    private contractors.

                    In this  chapter,  the term "management agency"  refers  to the authority responsible
                    for managing the  systems.   A management  agency  need not be  an autonomous agency
                    with  the  single purpose of  managing these systems.  It may in fact be charged with
                    other duties  sharing  systems  management responsibility  through  agreements  with
                    other agencies.   The term "management program" in this chapter refers to the broad
                    range of  services needed to  ensure the  proper  design,  installation, and operation
                    and maintenance of the  small waste flows systems.
A.   THE NEED FOR MANAGEMENT

1.   PAST  AND PRESENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
                    As  discussed in Section I.C.I., governmental  concern  with  the use of on-site sys-
                    tems  has increased in response to  perceived  and actual inadequacies of early sys-
                    tems.   Most governmental authorities now regulate  the installation  of  new systems
                    and can require  upgrading and  replacement of failing on-site systems.  Few authori-
                    ties,   however,  have  accepted  supervisory  responsibility  for operation  and  main-
                    tenance of on-site systems.

                    The value of small waste flows  systems as a long-term  rather than short-term alter-
                    native  to  centralized  collection  treatment began  to  be recognized  in  the 1970's.
                    As  a result, communities preparing  facilities plans after September 30, 1978, were
                    required to provide an analysis of  the use of  innovative and alternative wastewater
                    processes and techniques that  could solve a community's wastewater needs (PRM 78-9,
                    U.S.  EPA,  1978a).  Included  as  alternative  processes are  individual and  other
                    on-site treatment  systems with subsurface disposal  units (drainfields).

                    The 1977 Clean Water Act amendments  recognized  the need for continuing supervision
                    of  the operation  and maintenance of  on-site  systems.   U.S.  EPA Construction Grant
                    Regulations (U.S.  EPA,  1978a; U.S. EPA,  1979b),  which implement that act, require
                    that before  a  construction grant for private wastewater systems  may be  made,  the
                    applicant must meet a number of requirements,  including:

                    o  certifying that a public body will be  responsible  for  the proper installation,
                       operation,  and  maintenance  of the  funded systems;

                    o  establishing  a  comprehensive program for  regulation and  inspection of on-site
                       systems that will include  periodic testing of existing potable water wells and,
                       where a  substantial number  of on-site systems exists, more extensive monitoring
                       of aquifers;  and

                    o  obtaining assurance of  unlimited access to  each individual  system  at all rea-
                       sonable  times  for  inspection,  monitoring,  construction,  maintenance operation,
                       rehabilitation, and  replacement.

                    PRM 79-8 extends these  requirements to grants  for publicly owned systems.
                                                67

-------
2.   COMMUNITIY OBLIGATIONS FOR  MANAGEMENT OF PRIVATE WASTEWATER SYSTEMS

                    Communities have  obligations to protect public health and water resources from the
                    adverse  impacts  of malfunctioning private  wastewater  systems.  Depending  on the
                    type and frequency  of malfunctions, community obligations may outweigh individuals'
                    rights  to  constant  privacy  and  absolute possession of private property.

                    In the most severe cases,  the  community may require abandonment of privately owned
                    systems.   The  economic feasibility of most sanitary district expansion is based on
                    their statutory  authority  to require property owners  to  abandon existing on-site
                    systems  and hookup  to  new  sewers.   Under existing state  and local  law this can
                    often be done  even  without  demonstrating need.

                    For  less  severe  cases,  central community  management is  a way to  minimize this
                    intrusion,  avoiding  higher  costs,  landscaping  damage,  and abandonment  of poten-
                    tially  satisfactory  facilities.   The  degree  of  central  management  needed  is   a
                    reflection of  the problem itself, and the  interference with privacy and property is
                    no greater than that  required for public health by actual conditions.

                    Where the public health and water  quality impacts  of existing on-site systems are
                    acceptable under present management  practices,  no  changes  should  be necessary in
                    management or  in individuals'  privacy or property.  This is  in  stark contrast to
                    sewering,  where all systems  in  a  given  area must connect, whether or not they are
                    working well.

EIS II-C-D          Proper assessment of system  problems  (both type and severity)  is the key to deter-
                    mining community  obligations while minimizing or eliminating intrusion.  Overesti-
                    mation of  systems'  adverse  impacts may lead to overregulatiori, increased community
                    costs and  reduced  community support for  management programs.   Underestimation of
                    the  problems  or  necessary  management may perpetuate problems  to the detriment of
                    the entire community.

EIS I-B-1           The  previous  chapter  discussed  ways  to  measure  the  impacts  of  existing on-site
                    systems.   On-site  system  density,  failure  rate,  and the  vulnerability  of the
                    affected water  resources  can  all affect the  level  of  management  needed.   When
                    houses are far apart,  the  probability  of  a system malfunction harming other  resi-
                    dents may  be  too  low  for  community  concern.   However,  when houses  are closer
                    together,   the potential for  public health and  groundwater impacts is greater.  At
                    high densities, even with  no apparent  system  malfunctions,  impacts on groundwater
                    quality by nitrates and  other  chemical  constituents may be of concern to the com-
                    munity.

                    The  significance of  failures  relates  directly  to  density.  Among denser popula-
                    tions, the potential for adverse  impacts  is  greater.   Even where  the failure rate
                    is  low, densely  developed  communities  have  an  interest in aggressively  preventing
                    future  failures.   Failures  occurring  in  sparsely  settled  areas may pose  only  a
                    marginal  threat  to  the  common good.  Some  individual failures  such as plumbing
                    backups are  of  interest  to  the general public  since disease  contracted  by one
                    individual can spread to affect many.

                    Water  resources  vulnerable  to  on-site  systems include  recreational lakes,  water
                    supply reservoirs,  groundwater aquifers, and other  water bodies.  The  vulnerability
                    of  these  water resources and their usage by the  public will determine  threats to
                    the  community posed by  on-site system problems.   Where  a eutrophic  lake  is re-
                    ceiving a  small  amount of  nutrient input  from on-site  systems, the community  obli-
                    gation to  abate  the  input  may be absent.   However, when  a  lake  is oligotrophic or
                    is  used  as a  water supply,  the  community may have to recognize a greater obliga-
                    tion.

                    Community  involvement with  existing on-site  systems should be  limited  to  assessment
                    of  water  quality and  public health  impacts,  requiring  remedial action where un-
                                                68

-------
                    acceptable impacts exist and  implementing management  programs  to deal with future
                    impacts.   Community obligations  associated with  future wastewater systems should be
                    to regulate their  design,  installation,  and  operation and maintenance, in order to
                    limit their potential to affect  public  health and  the  environment.
B.   SIX  COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT  MODELS
                    The following six models  reflect  increasing  levels  of  community obligation for the
                    management of private wastewater  systems.  When community obligation is low, com-
                    munity management  may be  limited to  initial  installation.   Increasing community
                    obligations may require management of  all  phases  of system life,  including instal-
                    lation,  operation  and  maintenance,  failure,  renovation  and,  ultimately, abandon-
                    ment.   Abandonment  represents  the  maximum intervention  that a  community may take in
                    managing individual systems and should  only be  taken when  community obligations for
                    protecting public health  and  water  resources cannot be satisfied  in  any  other way.
1.   STATUS QUO ALTERNATIVE
                    Where community obligation for  the  regulation of private  systems  is  low because  of
                    a low density  of  systems,  lack of problems with  the  existing  systems, and/or  lack
                    of sensitive water  resources,  a community management  program may  be  minimal.   Such
                    a program is usually  limited  to management agency approval of permits, inspection
                    of system  installations, and  investigation of  complaints  concerning failures  of
                    on-site systems.   Management  programs such  as this  are  currently in general use
                    throughout Region V.

                    Under this  approach,  the homeowner  is  completely liable  for system  operation and
                    maintenance, including  necessary system  repairs.   The  management agency does not
                    conduct routine inspections to  monitor  system performance,  finance system repairs,
                    consider the use  of off-site  treatment,  or permit the use  of  experimental  on-site
                    designs.

                    This   approach  is  normally  adequate  for  rural land  areas  where   scattered  devel-
                    opment,  farms, and  large  tract  subdivisions  predominate.   Construction  Grants
                    funding eligibility, however,  requires both identified community   need and a higher
                    level of community management  than this  alternative offers.
2.   OWNER VOLUNTEER
                    Certain communities may have  limited  areas of high density,  high failure  rates,  or
                    sensitive water  resources,  which may  raise community obligations for the  private
                    systems.   In addition  to the  management  program  outlined under  the status quo
                    model,  the  community  management agency  may  survey the  likely impact  areas  to
                    identify specific problems.   Homeowners would be notified  of necessary repairs for
                    their systems, and the community management agency may offer technical  and possibly
                    financial assistance to facilitate the repairs.

                    If  a  significant enough  problem  area  is  identified, the homeowners could  receive
                    Construction  Grants  funds for  repair  of  their systems.  The  community management
                    agency could apply for and distribute  the  funds to homeowners whose  systems  qualify
                    for assistance.

                    The homeowner would retain both responsibility for system operation  and maintenance
                    and liability for  system  repair.   The community management  agency's role would  be
                    limited to  education  and  technical  assistance.  For Construction Grant recipients,
                    the community management  agency must  also insure proper operation and maintenance
                    of  the  systems.   At a  minimum  this could be  accomplished by  homeowners, periodi-
                    cally providing  proof that the system is  being properly maintained  (that is,  by
                    providing pumping records) or by direct inspection and monitoring by  the management
                    agency.
                                                69

-------
3.   UNIVERSAL  COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT
                    As  system  density,  failure  rate,  and  sensitivity of  water resources  increase,
                    community  obligations  for  managing  private  systems  shift  from voluntary  owner
                    participation   to   universal  community  management.    Under  this  approach,  all
                    wastewater  facilities  in  a  community  or  section of  a  community  would be  in-
                    cluded  in  a   management  program.   Wastewater  facilities  may  include  on-site
                    systems,   cluster   systems,   other  small-scale  facilities,  or  combinations  of
                    these   small   waste  flows  technologies.   Cluster  systems  and  other  off-site
                    facilities  would  only  be  utilized  where  difficulties  in  the use  of  on-site
                    alternatives   require  the   community   to  explore  all   feasible   solutions  to
                    meeting the community wastewater needs.

                    The community  management  agency  would  assume  all  of  the  management  responsi-
                    bilities  common  to the  preceding  two models.   The  management  agency  would also
                    conduct  well   water  sampling  and  appropriate  monitoring  of  water  resources
                    impacted   by   the  wastewater  systems.   Depending  on  the  type  of  wastewater
                    facilities  utilized,  the  level  of  risk assumed  by the  management agency,  and
                    other   factors,  the  management  agency  could  assume  responsibility  for  per-
                    forming system  operation  and maintenance  and liability for system repairs.

                    The  community   management   agency  could  apply  for  and  distribute  Construction
                    Grants funds to property owners  for repair of  qualified  private systems  if the
                    owners  retain   liability.   Alternatively,  the  agency  could   contract  directly
                    with  installation  firms  and  recover the  local share  of  the  construction costs
                    from  owners  immediately  or  as  part  of  periodic  user  charges.   In  any case,
                    owners would  be assessed  periodic   fees  to  cover the costs of  management ser-
                    vices  actually  provided.
4.   COMBINED  MANAGEMENT  APPROACHES
                    Sections  of  a  given  community  may  have  different  wastewater and  management
                    needs  based  on  system  density,   failure  rate,  and  sensitivity  of  water  re-
                    sources.   Centralized  wastewater   facilities  may  be  in  place  or required  in
                    certain  areas,  and  small   waste   flows  systems  may  be  appropriate  for  other
                    areas.   Owing  to  varying  levels   of  community  obligations,  both  voluntary  and
                    universal  management  zones  may  also  be  present.   A  management  agency  should
                    develop  specific approaches  for  each section  of  the  community based  on  both
                    the  projected  types   of wastewater   facilities  and   community   obligations  for
                    regulating  the private  systems.   By  so  doing,  the  agency  can  ensure  that  the
                    program meets each given area's  needs.

                    A  possible objection  to this  approach  is the  diversity  of skills that  may be
                    needed.   However,  there may  be  sufficient   overlap   in  skills  so that  agency
                    staff  can  be maintained at a  reasonable  number.   For instance,  sewage treat-
                    ment  plant operators  may be  able  to  inspect  and repair on-site dosing  pump and
                    STEP  units.    Laboratory  personnel   can   collect  and  analyze   groundwater  and
                    surface  water  samples  as well as  treatment  plant  effluent samples.   The  com-
                    munity  may  group  property  owners by  type  of  wastewater  system and achieve
                    economies  of scale in  providing  services  that would  not be  achieved  by private
                    contractors providing services to  owners individually.

                    Under  a  multizone  management  approach,   homeowners   would   be   responsible  for
                    paying  annual  fees  to  support   the  management   services   received.    Responsi-
                    bility  for  operation  and maintenance  and  liability  for system  failure  may vary
                    within each zone.
 5.   COMPREHENSIVE  WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
                    Where  the sensitivity  of water  resources  is  the paramount  concern, prevention
                    and  control  of water  pollution  need  not  be  restricted to  wastewater  facili-
                    ties.   The management  program in  these communities  would consist  of  universal
                                                70

-------
                   community management  of  the  wastewater facilities  and be expanded to identify and
                   control other sources of water pollution.   Additional  management agency responsibi-
                   lities  may  include pollution  control  assessment and  control  activities  such as:

                   o  non-point source monitoring,

                   o  non-point source control,

                   o  education  of  residents and visitors about  individual  pollution  control prac-
                      tices, costs, and benefits,

                   o  inventory of the biological resources of the lake and its  tributaries,

                   o  research  into  the chemical,  hydrological  and biological  dynamics of the lake,
                      and

                   o  coordination with  other  local,  state,  and Federal  agencies  on  pollution  control
                      activities and funding.

                   Communities  with  such a high  interest in  the control of water pollution are also
                   likely  to assume direct  responsibility for  system operation  and maintenance and
                   liability for correcting system failures.

C.   DESIGN OF  SMALL WASTE  FLOWS MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

TRD VI-H           The process  by which a community develops  a  management program involves six major
                   steps:

                   1.  inventorying  factors affecting the design process,

                   2.  making decisions  on system ownership and liability,

                   3.  identifying services to be provided,

                   4.  determining how selected services will be performed,

                   5.  determining who will be responsible for providing services, and

                   6.  implementing  the  management program.

                   Each  is discussed in  the following sections.

1.   INVENTORYING FACTORS AFFECTING THE DESIGN PROCESS

                   Communities  face many  choices  in  designing  a management  program.   The  factors
                   influencing  the  community decisions  are of two  types.   "First-order  factors" need
                   to be identified  and  considered before program design decisions are made.  They are
                   existing  or  projected  community  characteristics.   First-order   factors include:

                   o  types  of wastewater facilities utilized and proposed,

                   o  expertise available to the  community,

                   o  size  of  the   community  or management  district and  number  of systems   in use,

                   o  available regulatory authority,

                   o  community jurisdictional setting,

                   o  community attitudes toward  growth,  and
                                                71

-------
                    o   community  attitudes toward public management  of  private  wastewater facilities.

                    "Second-order  factors"  are potential  consequences  of  program design  decisions.
                    These  factors  include:

                    o   costs,  including  initial costs and economic impact of failures,

                    o   environmental  impacts, especially impacts on water resources, and

                    o   level  of risk  assumed by various parties.

                    The ultimate success of a management program will be measured by these second-order
                    factors.

                    Most of these  factors will directly or indirectly affect decisions for the remain-
                    ing program design steps.

2.   MAKING DECISIONS ON  SYSTEM  OWNERSHIP AND LIABILITY

TRD VI-B            Wastewater facilities may be owned by the individual user by a community management
                    agency,  or by a  private organization.   User  ownership  of  facilities generally is
                    limited to those  located upon his or her property.  For off-site systems that serve
                    more  than one  homeowner,   community  or  private organization  ownership  is  most
                    likely.

                    Liability involves  acceptance  of  the responsibility  for  consequences of facility
                    failure.   Assumption of   liability  may  involve  making  necessary   repairs  and,
                    possibly,  paying  damages  to parties  injured by facility  failure.   Historically,
                    communities  have  accepted  all liability for  the  failure of  centralized collection
                    and treatment  systems, with the exception of  house connections and plumbing block-
                    ages.   The liability for individual system failures has traditionally remained with
                    the system owner.   With improved management of decentralized systems, there may be
                    advantages to  reassignment  of the liability for  system failure.  The assignment of
                    liability to  either individuals or a  public agency is a matter of  choice for the
                    community and  its residents.

                    A community may  assign ownership and  liability  separately  for the wastewater sys-
                    tems.   For instance,  a management agency may  agree  to replace, upgrade, or repair
                    privately owned  small waste  flows facilities  that  malfunction after Construction
                    Grants projects are  completed.  In return for accepting this liability, the agency
EIS III-I           requires  that  owners  pay a  reserve fund charge along with other user charges.  The
                    reserve fund charge  is,  in  essence, comparable to an insurance premium.

                    A possible objection  to management agencies assuming liability for future malfunc-
                    tions is  that  the economic  incentive for owners to use their systems judiciously is
                    removed.   This   possibility  will  be  weighed against  the   impacts   of  prolonged
                    failures  should owners not be  financially able to make  repairs quickly.  A resolu-
EIS III-E           tion of this  trade-off may be  agency assumption  of liability on condition that use
                    variances are  issued and  complied  with or that  user  charges  are  based on metered
                    water use with rapidly increasing rates above  a predetermined limit.


3.   IDENTIFYING SERVICES TO  BE  PROVIDED

TRD VI-A            The  range of  services  that  a management agency could perform in  managing small
                    waste flows systems  varies greatly within the limitation of state guidelines.  For
                    Construction  Grants  grantees,  Federal  guidelines may  also  influence local discre-
                    tion.  Services  chosen should  be those  needed to fulfill  community obligations
                    without superfluous  regulation, authorities,  manpower,  or investments.  Although  a
                    few services  are  essential  to  all management  programs, many are optional,  and their
                    incorporation  into a management program is  left to community discretion.

                    Table  III-C-1  lists administrative,  technical  and planning  services that a com-
                    munity might select.

                                                72

-------
TABLE III-C-1.   POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SERVICES
Administrative
          o    Staffing
          o    Financial
          o    Permits
          o    Bonding
          o    Certification programs
          o    Service  contract  supervision
          o    Accept for public management privately installed facilities
          o    Interagency coordination
          o    Training programs
          o    Public education
          o    Enforcement
          o    Property/access acquisition
Technical
Planning
          o    System design
          o    Plan review
          o    Soils investigations
          o    System installation
          o    Routine inspection and maintenance
          o    Septage collection and disposal
          o    Pilot studies
          o    Flow reduction program
          o    Water quality monitoring
          o    Land use planning
          o    Sewer and water planning
4.   DETERMINING HOW SELECTED  SERVICES WILL BE  PERFORMED

                    It is an artificial distinction to separate selection of services from the  defini-
                    tion of how they  should be performed and the designation of parties and persons  to
                    perform them.   In practice, these three design steps will be taken in sequence, and
                    perhaps repeated,  each  step directly influencing the others.

                    Taken by itself,  this step defines  specific practices by which the services  will  be
                    provided.   For instance,  for water quality monitoring, the decision must  be made
                    whether to  include non-point  source and surface water monitoring.   Then the  ground-
                    water monitoring  plan,  and  other monitoring  as  decided,  must be  designed.  This
EIS III-I           step would also develop the  user charge system and make decisions on financing the
                    local share.   For plan  review services, specific policies on experimental or innova-
                    tive systems  may  be established or existing standards and procedures  may  be con-
                    firmed.

5.   DETERMINING WHO WILL  BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING SERVICES

                    Generally  there  are  three  groups  who could provide the services selected  and de-
                    tailed in  the  two prior steps:
                                                73

-------
                    o   the  public management agency (includes assistance from regional and state organi-
                       zations) ,

                    o   property owners or occupants, and

                    o   private  organizations  such  as  contractors,  consultants,  development companies,
                       private utilities, and private community associations.

                    Some communities may  control  services by providing them directly,  but others  may
                    provide those services that  only the  designated  regulatory body  can provide  (as
                    permit  issuance and  enforcement),  supervising the services assigned  to  owners or
TKD VI-C            private organizations.   Assignment of  service  responsibilities  should account  for
                    the skills  and regulatory authority needed to  successfully  provide the service as
                    well as the costs for different parties to provide them and the risks attendant on
                    poor performance.

EIS IV-A-3          The public  management  agency  need  not be a  new or  single-purpose organization.
                    Personnel  with  appropriate  expertise  may  already be  available in  agencies  with
                    necessary authority  to provide public management services.  A combination of inter-
                    agency  agreements,  supplemental training of existing personnel  and new hires  will
                    be an adequate  basis  for agency development in many communities.  Other communities
                    may, for various administrative or legal reasons,  find  it  more suitable to estab-
                    lish a  new  operating  agency.

6.   IMPLEMENTING THE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

                    The last step  in the design process is  implementation  of  the management program.
                    The specifics  of  this  step will  vary widely  depending  on decisions  made in the
                    design process.   Examples of'implementation procedures are:

                    o   drafting  and adopting county or municipal ordinances establishing  the agency or
                       providing  it with needed authorities,

EIS III-I           o   hiring new personnel,

                    o   notifying  potential  contractors and  consultants  of  performance  criteria  and
                       contract requirements for operating  within the management district,

                    o   drafting  and adopting interagency agreements,

EIS III-D           o   creating a sanitary review board, and

IV-F                o   informing property owners  about their  responsibilities  for specific services.


D.   PUBLIC  INVOLVEMENT IN  AGENCY DESIGN AND OPERATION

                    Public attitudes toward  community growth  and  public  management of private waste-
                    water facilities must be considered in agency  design decisions.

EIS IV-C-2          The use  of  small   waste   flows   systems   in   some  settings  will directly impact
                    community growth.   Unlike  centralized systems, small  waste flows  systems do not
                    provide impetus for growth.  While  this may be  desirable  in many rural areas, other
                    areas  seek  the  growth  facilitated by  centralized  sewers  for  economic  and other
                    reasons.

EIS VI-B            On  the other hand,  the  use  of  alternative  small waste  flows systems  facilities may
                    permit the  development of  land  formerly considered  undevelopable.   This may lead to
                    scattered  rural development  and/or  the  development  of  enviromentally sensitive
                    property,  which  may be contrary to public desires.   Such  development may be  con-
                    trolled by effective land  use planning if the  problem  is  recognized.
                                                74

-------
                    Community understanding of public management  of  private  wastewater  facilities will
                    be limited  in many  rural  areas.   Where  community management  is  desirable,  the
                    public must be  educated about  its  benefits  if  the program  is  to be  successful.

                    The public will be directly involved in agency design and operation  when individual
                    homeowners are affected by management  agency  policy and  decisions.  Homeowners  may
                    be required  to   perform necessary  maintenance,  to  repair,   replace,  and upgrade
                    failed systems and to  pay  user fees to the management agency.   These  requirements
                    may meet with considerable opposition  unless  an  effective public education program
                    is initiated to  inform homeowners about their  role  in the community  management pro-
                    grams.  Homeowners should be  notified  and kept informed  of their  responsibilities
                    and obligations  to the management agency.

EIS IV-F            To involve  the  public  more  directly  in  agency  design  and  operation, a Sanitary
                    Review Board of  community  residents could be  established.  The  board  would  ensure
                    that the management agency's  technical and economic decisions are  consistent with
                    citizen  interests.   The powers  and  duties  of  the board could be structured  to
                    reflect citizen  interest.   The board might maintain autonomous control  over manage-
                    ment agency decisions  and  personnel,  or it could  serve  as an advisory body  to  the
                    agency.  Where the board is given autonomous authority, it may be desirable for  the
                    administrator of  the management  agency to be  a member of the board to ensure that
                    technical matters are  properly understood  and  considered.  The board could also  act
                    as an  appeals  body to  hear and  decide on objections to agency decisions.  This
                    function is similar to that performed by zoning and other boards.

E.    USE  OF VARIANCES

TRD VII-A-B         Variances  are  granted  where  practical  or physical  constraints prohibit literal
                    compliance with the regulations.  All  states  in Region V currently allow construc-
                    tion variances for the new construction of on-site  systems where  conditions prevent
                    conformity to code.  Variances may also be granted  for  existing systems.

                    In any small waste flows  district with existing on-site systems,  many systems  may
                    not conform to current regulatory standards for site conditions, system design, or
                    distances  from wells  or surface waters.   Some systems  can be upgraded easily  and
                    inexpensively to  conform  with  current  codes.  In  many situations,   however,  up-
                    grading  may  be  unfeasible or  impracticable   because  of  site  limitations  and/or
                    costs.   From  an   economic viewpoint, it would clearly  be  desirable to  continue to
                    utilize  a system for  its  full, useful  life,  as  measured by absence  of adverse
                    public health or water quality impacts rather  than  by conformity to code.

                    Many  study  results have indicated  the viability of existing  on-site  systems,  in-
                    cluding  those  which  may  not  be in conformance with  existing  code  requirements.
                    Data  developed  during  the study of  alternative waste  treatment systems for  the
                    Seven Rural Lake  Projects  indicated that many nonconforming  systems operate  satis-
                    factorily and cause no adverse impacts.  In these seven studies,  although up  to  90%
                    of the  systems  were  nonconforming, failure  rates  represented by  system backups,
                    surface  ponding,  elevated  well nitrate levels and well  coliform levels, combined,
                    ranged from a low of 8% to a high of 27%.   Many of  the  problems identified were  the
                    result  of poor   system  maintenance  and could be  corrected with minimal cost  and
TRD II-D            effort.  Chemical analysis was also performed  on effluent plumes entering the lakes
                    from  groundwater.  This  indicated  that  even when  drainfields  or  dry  wells were
                    actually in groundwater, water quality standards were met at  adjacent  shorelines in
                    nearly  all cases.   Bacteriological and  nutrient   levels at  the  shorelines were
                    comparable to  those found in  the center  of the lake.    The studies indicated  that
                    the  natural assimilative  capacity  of soil/groundwater/surface  water  systems  is
                    greater  than had  previously  been expected, and that actual public health and water
                    quality  problems  caused by on-site  systems were not as  extensive as  nonconformity
                    with sanitary codes might indicate.
                                                75

-------
1.   CONSTRUCTION VARIANCES

TRD XV-A            Region V states currently allow variances  for  new construction of on-site systems
                    where either practical  or physical  constraints  make literal  compliance  with the
                    regulations infeasible.   Presumably, such variances  could also  be  granted where
                    upgrading is necessary  for  existing  systems.   This  type  of  variance may be con-
                    sidered as  a  construction variance  since  it allows  construction which is noncon-
                    forming to  the  regulations.

                    Generally,   existing  nonconforming  systems are  considered "grandfathered" systems
                    and  they  are  permitted  to  operate until  problems  arise.   Correction  is then
                    normally required  to bring  the systems  into  conformance, if possible.   If not,
                    construction variances  may be  required.

2.   USAGE VARIANCES

                    In most  cases,  existing nonconforming  systems  are not  inspected.   The  governing
                    body may have little or  no  knowledge of system  design  or  construction and takes  no
                    liability  for  the system's performance.   Difficulties arise, however,  when non-
                    conforming  systems are  inspected during  a  sanitary survey.  The governing  body then
                    becomes  cognizant  of  the  nonconforming  systems,  and their  liability for  system
                    performance may change.   For example, if the governing  body allows continued  use  of
                    nonconforming systems with no  structural changes,  a court  may  rule, upon subsequent
                    system failure, that the  governing  body was  negligent in  not  requiring these sys-
                    tems  to  be upgraded, since the government was  cognizant of the systems' noncon-
                    formity.   The  inspection and the  lack of  required  upgrading  may  be considered
                    tantamount  to permitting the systems.

EIS III-C-2         To prevent  this  type of  liability problem,  a  second type of  variance,   termed a
                    "usage variance,"  may  be granted.   Usage variances  are  granted to  those  systems
                    considered   to  have  additional  useful  life,  and  which  are not  now causing, and
                    generally  have  a  slight  potential  for causing,  public  health  or  water  quality
                    problems.  By issuing a  usage variance, the  governing body is legally recognizing
                    that  a nonconforming system exists.   At the  same time, the governing body notifies
                    the  system  owner  of  the  system's  nonconformity,  of his or her  liability in case  of
                    system  failure,  and of  maintenance and  flow  reduction  measures that may be re-
                    quired.  This process  results in  a clear record between  the governing body,  system
                    owner, and  other  interested parties concerning  the continued  use of  the system and
                    liability  in  case of  system  failure.  Provided  that the governing body has the
                    power to grant such variances  and  that the justification  for  each variance has been
                    documented, the governing body  would be within  its discretion  in deciding to grant
                    such  variances,  and not  liable  for legal action in  the  case of system failure.

3.   ISSUING  VARIANCES

                    Construction or  usage  variances may be conditional,  requiring periodic monitoring
                    of system  performance  and renewal  of the variances based  upon  satisfactory system
                    performance.  Conditions  could  also limit building occupancy  or  require the  use  of
                    flow  reduction devices.

                    Decisions  to  grant  variances  should  be made  on a  well-documented,  case-by-case
                    basis.   Construction  variances  should be restricted  to  those  situations  where
                    compliance with regulations is impracticable  or unfeasible and where, based on data
                    concerning  similar systems,   soil  conditions,  and other  information,  the proposed
                    construction can  be  reasonably expected to perform adequately and cause no adverse
                    impacts.   Usage  variances  should  be  limited  to situations  where  site-specific
                    performance data can be obtained concerning existing  system performance.

TRD VII-B           The  variances  granted  should  directly  relate to  the  financial  resources  and staff
                    expertise  available  to the governing body.   Where financial  resources allow per-
                    formance monitoring and employment of experienced personnel to minimize errors,  the
                    governing  body  may be  more liberal  in  the types of  variances allowed.  Sufficient
                    financial  resources  to correct  future  failures where variances  have been granted


                                                76

-------
                    for  high  risk  sites would also be desirable.  Where financial resources and experi-
                    enced  staff will be  limited,  more conservative  variance  guidelines may  be  con-
                    sidered.   Although costs may be incurred when  corrections  must be made to systems
                    previously granted variances,  they are expected to be  substantially less than the
                    costs  of  making  unnecessary  system repairs  for  code  conformance  or  of totally
                    abandoning useful systems when no variances are allowed.

                    The  use  of variance procedures may  alter  a community's decisions in designing its
                    management agency.  When variances  are utilized, the  management agency accepts a
                    higher risk of  system  failure  in order to  achieve  a  lower  overall cost  to the
                    community by  allowing  continued  use  of existing  systems.   When it  accepts  this
                    higher level of  risk, the management agency may also elect to assume liability for
                    system repairs.   Assumption  of liability, in turn, affects decisions on user charge
                    systems.

F.    ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS

TRD VIII-E          U.S. EPA  Construction  Grants  regulations  (U.S. EPA,  1978a)  implementing the 1977
                    Clean  Water Act  require in  Section  35.918-l(h)  that  communities seeking funds for
                    individual systems must "obtain assurance  (such as an easement or covenant running
                    with the  land),  before  Step 2  grant award, of unlimited access  to each individual
                    system at  all  reasonable  times for such purposes  as  inspection, monitoring,  con-
                    struction, maintenance,  operation,  rehabilitation, and replacement."  PRM 79-8 also
                    applies   this  to  publicly  owned  on-site  treatment  systems, or  their equivalent.
                    Access is also a consideration during facilities planning surveys and detailed site
                    analysis.

                    When the  individual systems are on  private property, the community must obtain the
                    legal  authority  to  enter  such  property.   The three ways that  a community can le-
                    gally  gain  access to property  for  inspection of an  individual wastewater system
                    are:

                    1.   by gaining the permission of the property owners,

                    2.   by the acquisition of deeded rights, and

                    3.   by a  statutory grant of  authority from  the  state legislation.

                    Each of these  alternatives will be  individually discussed.


1.    BY  OWNER'S PERMISSION

                    The  easiest way to gain access to  private property for purposes of inspection is
                    with  the owner's  permission.   This can  be oral  or  written.   There  are several
                    problems   with  this  approach  if   a community  requires guaranteed  and long-term
                    access.    Bare  permission  by the owner can always be  revoked.   Moreover, when the
                    property  changes hands,  the  permission  granted  by  the previous  owner  is of no  legal
                    standing.  In  some instances, the  property  owners  may be difficult to locate,  and a
                    minority  of property owners  can be  expected to  refuse to grant permission under any
                    circumstances.   For  these  reasons,  a  community  eventually may  need more binding
                    legal  authority  to  enter  property.  Owner's  permission will  usually  suffice for
                    community surveys during facilities  planning, however.


2.    ACQUISITION OF  DEEDED RIGHTS

                    The  acquisition  of deeded rights  may involve the  community  in  obtaining easements,
                    easements  in  gross,  or outright  ownership of the individual  wastewater systems.
                    Easements  confer a  legal  right, formally  conveyed by  deed or other witnessed and
                    notarized writing and filed with  land  records, which conveys to  one  property  owner
                    the  right to  use the land of an  adjacent  property owner  for a  specified purpose.
                    As  applied  to  individual wastewater systems with  no physical connection to agency-
                    owned property,  such a conventional easement  may not  be  possible.   The right to

                                                77

-------
                    enter  the property  of  another,  unrelated  to  the ownership of  adjoining  land,  is
                    sometimes  called  an easement in gross.  However,  easements  in gross are sometimes
                    held to  expire upon  a change of land ownership.

                    Property law relating to easements is highly  formal,  technical, and specific to a
                    given  state.  Communities  needing  to acquire easements  should  consult  first with
                    local  property attorneys and state or county agencies.
3.    STATUTORY  GRANTS OF  AUTHORITY

                    In general,  there are three types of statutes that confer rights of entry on muni-
                    cipal officials  in  connection with wastewater treatment systems:

                    1.  statutes  to  abate  or prevent nuisances,
                    2.  statutes  requiring licenses or permits, and
                    3.  statutes  establishing special wastewater management  districts  for small waste
                        flows  systems.

                    Statutes  that confer the right to enter  and  inspect private property are commonly
                    based on  the  community's  right to prevent and  abate  nuisances.   Since individual
                    wastewater systems  are  traditionally  considered  to be  nuisances  per se  when so
                    constructed  or maintained as to threaten  or  injure  the health of others, communi-
                    ties can  regulate  and take actions  necessary to  assure  compliance  with  their re-
                    quirements for  the construction  and maintenance  of   private  wastewater systems.

                    Statutes  requiring licenses or permits can be utilized to require owners to obtain
                    renewable  permits  for the  continued use of  their  wastewater system.   With such
                    requirements  courts often  imply,  if they do not state  expressly,  that  entry and
                    inspection are necessary prerequisites  for the renewal  of the permits.

                    Statutes   granting  communities  the   right to form  on-site  wastewater  management
                    districts  have also granted communities access  rights  once the management district
                    is  formed.    To  minimize   problems  arising  with  utilization  of   such  blanket
                    authority, the  degree of intrusiveness of any  inspection  program  should be mini-
                    mized consistent with  maintaining the effectiveness of  the district.  Public educa-
                    tion should  be  part of any inspection program, and homeowners should be notified
                    prior to  inspection.

                    Under the U.S.   EPA  Facility  Requirements  Division Memorandum  of  July  8, 1980,
                    access by  statutory grants  is  considered equivalent to  public ownership or easement
                    in satisfying requirements  of  40 CFR  35.918-l(h).  Some state statues  granting this
                    access limit  it only to  certain classes of municipalities.

G.   IMPLEMENTING WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

TRD VIII-D          Rural unsewered areas may be  supplied  with  water  by individual wells or by a com-
                    munity distribution system.  Homeowners supplied  by public  systems  often use more
                    water than  those  with  individual  systems.   The  chances  for  hydraulically over-
                    loading on-site  wastewater  systems  is subsequently greater  for  those served by  a
                    public water  system.   Methods  for  implementing water conservation programs in these
                    areas include:

                    o  rate structure changes  (increases  in price),
                    o  use restrictions,
                    o  changes in plumbing codes,
                    o  public education,  and
                    o  community subsidized distribution  of flow  reduction  devices.

                    For  rural areas  served  by  individual wells,  pricing schemes, use restrictions, and
                    legal limits  on  amount  of  water used are  not usually  feasible.  Water conservation
                    programs  for  unsewered areas  with  individual water  supplies  must therefore  rely on
                    1)  changes  in plumbing codes,  2) public  education,  3) community subsidized water


                                                78

-------
                    conservation  devices,  or  4)  on-site system permits  requiring  the installation of
                    flow  reduction devices.   Combinations  of these methods  should  be considered when
                    planning  a  water  conservation program.

                    Plumbing  codes can  require  that plumbing  fixtures  used  for  new construction and
                    retrofit  applications  be of the  low-flow type.  This method would gradually result
                    in most  residences  using water  conservation  devices.  While  gradual replacement
                    will  achieve  20-year  design  goals with  centralized wastewater  facilities,  more
                    rapid methods  for implementing water conservation programs may be needed to achieve
                    water  quality and public health goals with small waste flows facilities.  Public
                    education can  focus  on the following economic benefits of  flow reduction:

                    o  reduced well water  pumping,
                    o  reduced water  treatment  (where treatment is necessary),
                    o  reduced energy costs  for heating water, and
                    o  prolonged life of on-site wastewater treatment system.

                    Public  education should be used  in conjunction  with other methods of implementing
                    water conservation programs to achieve the maximum benefit of each method.

                    Communities can subsidize the purchase and installation of flow reduction devices.
                    This  practice  provides homeowners  with a readily available means to conserve water
                    and fosters good public  relations  at the same time.  Distribution and installation
                    of water  reduction devices  should be followed up to  determine public acceptance and
                    utility of the devices  in  saving water.   Follow-up  studies can determine the best
                    devices  for  future  distribution.   Another method  includes  a  requirement  in the
                    permit  issued  for  on-site treatment systems  stating that flow reduction devices
                    will be installed.   Such restrictions could be written into permits for new systems
                    as well as those  for upgrading or replacing failed systems.

H.    MONITORING GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER

TRD VIII-C          The success of pollution  control programs  cannot  be taken for  granted.  There are
                    many  causes of  unsatisfactory  performance for  any  facility.   Generally, the more
                    complex the program or  the greater the  number of facilities, the greater the pro-
                    bability  of failure.   Early,  thorough consideration of  the  causes  of failure may
                    prevent many potential  failures.   However, failures may  still occur.  Depending on
                    the value  of impacted resources, long-term monitoring may be necessary  to comple-
                    ment  structural elements of a selected pollution  control  program.  Groundwater and
                    surface water  monitoring approaches are discussed below  as they  would be  applied in
                    small waste flows management.


1.    GROUNDWATER

                    Nearly  all on-site and many small-scale wastewater technologies  discharge effluents
                    to the soil.   Except in rare instances, the  treated effluents then enter ground-
                    water.   Effluent impacts on receiving groundwaters  and  the resulting  impairment of
                    the groundwater's   potential  use  are  not easily predicted.   Consequently,  both
                    facilities planning and  long-term  operational  success  depend on sample  collection
                    and laboratory analysis.

EIS II-D-6          Groundwater  sampling programs for facilities planning  are discussed  in Chapters
                    II.D.6  and IV.D.I.  Information  developed  for planning  will help  define   the  need
    IV-D-1          for and methods of long-term groundwater  monitoring.

                    Three  types  of  groundwater  monitoring  strategies  may  be  needed:   potable well
                    sampling, aquifer sampling, and  shallow groundwater  sampling.
                                                79

-------
a.    Potable Well Sampling
                    Most dwellings served by on-site  systems  in  Region V also have on-site well water
                    supplies.   These wells are usually the point closest to on-site wastewater systems
                    at which  groundwater  quality is  a  concern.   Requirements for  monitoring potable
                    water wells are stated in  40  CFR  35.918-l(i) and PRM 79-8.  PRM 79-8 states that a
                    comprehensive  program for  regulation  and inspection  of Federally funded publicly
                    and privately  owned  small  waste  flows  systems  shall also  include,  at a minimum,
                    testing  of selected  existing potable water wells on an annual basis.

                    This policy allows the selection of wells  tested each year on a case-by-case basis.
                    The following  suggestions  may be useful  in  developing  local monitoring programs.

                    o  On-site wells within 50 feet of drain  fields, within 100 feet and down gradient
                       from  drain  fields  in unconfined aquifers, or penetrating unconfined  fractured or
                       channeled aquifers  could be sampled annually.

                    o  Sand  point wells  and other  shallow wells  down  gradient from drain  fields could
                       be sampled every 2 to 5 years  or when the on-site system  is  inspected every 3
                       years.

                    o  Wells not  at risk need not  be monitored.  Examples  are  properly located wells
                       cased and grouted down to  a known, continuous confining layer; wells known to be
                       substantially upgradient from wastewater disposal  systems;  and wells that have
                       tested satisfactorily over extended periods of time.

                    o  Private wells serving more  than one  dwelling  could be sampled  as suggested for
                       on-site wells except where  water withdrawal may be sufficient  to alter natural
                       groundwater  flow  patterns.  These  could be  sampled annually  unlees  a hydro-
                       geologist demonstrates why more or less frequent sampling is appropriate.

                    o  Public  water  supplies   should be   sampled  as  required  by  state regulatory
                       agencies.

                    At  a  minimum,  sample analysis  should  include  nitrate-nitrogen and fecal coliform
                    bacteria.   Where improperly protected wells  (wells with inadequate seals, casing,
                    or  grouting)   must  be  sampled,  analysis  is  also recommended  for non-naturally
                    occurring constituents of  domestic wastewater, such as  brighteners or  surfactants.
                    This analysis  will help determine  the source of contamination.

                    When  samples  are  positive  for  bacteria  or  show  unexpectedly high nitrate concen-
                    trations,  provisions  should be  made for  confirmatory  sampling within a short time.
b.    Aquifer  Sampling
                    Sampling of  aquifers  will be necessary  in  addition to potable well  sampling  when
                    large numbers of  on-site  systems  are present in a  groundwater  shed  or  when  waste-
                    water from  multiple dwellings or dwelling  unit  equivalents  is land  disposed  at  a
                    single site.

                    Accumulations of  nitrates  in an aquifer  down gradient  from  on-site  systems  are
                    unlikely to  affect  public health  unless a  number  of  systems  are lined up  in the
                    direction of  groundwater  flow.  While  the  boundaries of groundwater  sheds  and  flow
                    vectors within them are difficult  to delineate, it  is safe to assume  that single or
                    double tiers of development will not result in hazardous accumulations of nitrates.
                    Therefore,  strip developments along roads or lakeshores should  seldom be causes for
                    aquifer  monitoring.   On-site well  monitoring  will suffice.   For more  intensive
                    development,  the  need  for  and  design  of  aquifer  monitoring  programs should  be
                    determined on a case-by-case basis by qualified hydrogeologists.
                                                80

-------
                    Monitoring programs  for  cluster  systems,  rapid   infiltration,  or  slow  rate  land
TRD II-K            application should be  developed in   concert  with detailed  design of  the  system
    III-B           itself.   Hydrogeologic studies conducted  for site evaluation and system design will
                    provide  information  required for development of the monitoring program.  A minimum
                    system size  above which aquifer monitoring should be  required  is not recommended
                    here.  State regulatory  agencies are  encouraged  to address this topic.


c.    Shallow  Groundwater Sampling

                    On-site  systems along  stream banks and  lake shores and  larger land disposal systems
                    located  further away may contribute pathogenic organisms and phosphorus by effluent
                    transport  in  groundwater.   Although unacceptable  discharges  of  this  type should
                    have been discovered and remedied during  the Construction Grants process or similar
                    work,  continued surveillance of  suspect systems  may be  advisable.  The need for and
                    design of  a shallow groundwater monitoring program should be based  on results of
                    prior sampling, uses of  the impacted surface  waters,  possible temporal changes in
                    the discharges,  results  of septic leachate  scans,  and  requests  for this service
                    from property owners.

2.    SURFACE  WATERS

                    Two types  of surface  water monitoring may be  advisable  in rural communities that
                    rely  on  the  optimum  operation  approach:   effluent surveys  and  non-point source
                    monitoring.


a.    Effluent Surveys

EIS II-D-l-c        In lake  communities, periodic septic  leachate  surveys would identify  future ground-
                    water failures of on-site  systems and  improve understanding of factors influencing
                    effluent plume  movement.   As with septic leachate surveys  conducted in  Step 1, a
                    capability  for  collecting,  storing,  and  analyzing  selected samples is desirable.

                    Because  the state of the art in  leachate  detection is still developing, and because
                    of  uncertainties  regarding presently  available instrumentation,  shoreline septic
                    leachate  surveys  will  not be required at this  time  in monitoring programs.  Pur-
                    chase of  currently available   instrumentation  will  be  eligible  for Construction
                    Grants funding until superior equipment is developed.   Grantees will  be required to
                    show  that  comparable  instruments are  not  available on  a  timely basis from other
                    nearby  grantees.   Funded  instruments  will be  made available  to other grantees.

                    Where leachates from cluster systems, rapid infiltration  systems,  or  slow rate land
                    application systems  are  expected to  emerge  in  streams  or lakes,  monitoring of the
                    leachate may be  required depending on  proximity of the systems to surface waters,
                    use of  the surface waters,  and results  of  aquifer monitoring.   Appropriate moni-
                    toring methods should  be specified during detailed design of the systems.  The need
                    to  implement some  monitoring  programs may be  conditional on  results  of aquifer
                    monitoring.

b.   Non-point Source  Monitoring

                    Grantees will not be  required  to monitor non-point  sources of pollution.  However,
                    Construction Grants-funded  laboratory  facilities may be  used for sample analysis.
                    In  comparing the  cost-effectiveness  of constructing  a  local laboratory with joint
                    use of other municipal  laboratories, or  contracting with private  laboratories, the
                    projected  number  and  type  of  samples  can include  those generated by a non-point
                    source monitoring program  that  the  grantee  implements  prior to or concurrent with
                    Step  3 of  Construction Grants activities.
                                                81

-------
I.   RECOVERY OF LOCAL COSTS
1.   DEFINITIONS
TRD VIII-B
                    The local costs of  a  project will generally be allocated  to  users  of the system.
                    The local costs  consist  of private capital co'sts, public capital costs (local share
                    of capital), interest on public  debt,  operations  and maintenance,  and the reserve
                    fund.   With  the  exception of  private costs,  communities have a great deal of flexi-
                    bility in determining  how local  costs are allocated and recovered.

                    Private capital  costs  will be borne directly by the users.  That is, the users will
                    contract for or  purchase  items related to  the project.   Examples  of private cost
                    items  include house  sewers,  necessary plumbing  modifications,  and flow reduction
                    devices.  The payment of these  costs  is  agreed upon by the user and  contractor or
                    supplier.    Communities  are   not  involved  in the  payment  and recovery  of private
                    capital costs.

                    The community is involved  directly, however, in  the recovery  of public  capital
                    costs, interest on debt, operation and maintenance  costs, and reserve fund costs.
                    These  costs  are usually recovered through a user  charge system.  U.S. EPA PRM 76-3
                    requires that the facilities plan include the  estimated  monthly charge for opera-
                    tion  and  maintenance,  the  estimated  monthly  debt  service charge,  the estimated
                    connection charge,  and the total  monthly charge to a typical  residential customer.
                    The stated  purpose for  this  is to encourage  the  consideration  of  least costly
                    alternatives and the possible use of public and private facilities.   A user charge
                    system must  be developed by  the  community  and approved by U.S. EPA during Step 3,
                    at the latest,  of the  Construction Grants Program.

                    Capital costs need not  be part  of an  approved user  charge system-  Instead, users
                    may be  required  to pay capital   costs at the  beginning  of the project.  However,
                    most communities do include  capital  costs in  their  user  charge systems.  For cen-
                    tralized facilities and cluster  systems, capital  costs  can be recovered from both
                    present and  future owners.   Public capital  costs  for on-site  systems  are recovered
                    from present users only.  Future users of  on-site systems will not be subsidized,
                    and all their capital  costs will  be private  costs  in  the absence of a  local govern-
                    ment subsidy.

                    Operation and maintenance  costs,   if  the  project receives grant  funds,  must be
                    allocated on the basis of  each user's proportionate use of the system.  For optimum
                    operation alternatives,  proportionate  use  can be measured  by type  of  user  (for
                    example,  residential),  duration  of  use  (seasonal,  permanent), flow,  or  type of
                    technology.   Users  may  also   be  billed directly  for  specific services provided by
                    the management  agency.   In  the  case  of  some  on-site technologies, some operation
                    and maintenance costs may be paid by users  directly  to private  contractors such as
                    septic tank  pumpers and  haulers.

                    A reserve fund is not required but is  encouraged  by U.S. EPA.  The  reserve  fund can
                    provide  for  replacement of  equipment  and  future expansion of  centralized facili-
                    ties.    For  on-site  systems,  the  reserve  fund  can replace  systems  that may fail in
                    the future.   The reserve  fund  reflects  the  liability  a  community  is  willing to
                    assume  for  each type of  system  used.  If  the community assumes no  liability for
                    future  failures of wastewater  systems, a  reserve fund is  not necessary.  Payments
                    into  the  reserve fund generally  are  low when the failure rate  for  systems is  low.
                    Greater  payments  are  required  for  a  relatively  high  failure rate.  Reserve  fund
                    charges can be levied from different  user  groups  at varying rates.
2.   USER CHARGE  STRUCTURES
                    The local public costs can be allocated by user charges in a variety of ways  at the
                    discretion  of  the local  government.   Three  major ways of  allocating  local  public
                    costs are averaging the costs among all users in the project's service  area,  estab-
                    lishing  user  groups,   (that  is,  charging on  the basis of  criteria such  as  flow,
                                                82

-------
                    technology  used,  or location), and  charging  each  user the specific costs of faci-
                    lities  and  services provided  by the  community.   The method  of  allocating costs
                    chosen  by the community may  be based  on  considerations such as the costs of imple-
                    menting the user charge system,  the number and locations of residents benefitting
                    from the  project,  the extent  to which  a mix of  technologies is used, and the consi-
                    deration  of equity and  efficiency.

                    The cost of implementing the  user  charge system may be  high yet  still politically
                    feasible  if all  users  are charged  by the  community for the  specific  costs they
                    impose  on the community.  A  sophisticated  bookkeeping system would be required to
                    allocate  specific  capital,  operation   and  maintenance, and  reserve funds for each
                    user; such  a system may exceed the administrative  capacity of the  local government.
                    Averaging all  costs among all users  would be  the least expensive and time-consuming
                    method  of allocating costs.   A system  based on  user  groups would probably be inter-
                    mediate in  cost.
3.   BASIS  FOR  SELECTION
                    The beneficiaries of the project  are  the initial consideration in  the  design  of  a
                    user charge  system.    In  addition  to  owners  receiving direct  assistance in  the
                    improvment,  replacement or  operation of  their  on-site systems, beneficiaries  may
                    include:

                    o  residents  and non-residents  who use  the water resources being protected,

                    o  where  off-site facilities are  constructed,  land  owners who  could not previously
                       build  but  are thus enabled to,

                    o  businessmen  whose  revenues  depend  on the  attractions of  the  water  resources
                       being  protected,  and

                    o  property owners  do  not require  assistance  at present  but  for whom  the  avail-
                       ability of assistance is  a benefit,

                    o  property owners who  would otherwise  be required  to pay the price of sewers but
                       who  can retain properly  operating  on-site  systems  under  an optimum  operation
                       alternative.

                    If such benefits are well  distributed among  users, the case for averaging all local
                    costs is  good.   However,  the  range of  technologies  that may be  used,  the often
                    localized or  spotty  problems  for  which improvements are necessary,  and the  possi-
                    bility  of use restrictions  can be expected  to present  a  more  complex benefit  dis-
                    tribution.  A useful exercise  for  grantees,  once  the  water quality problems  are
                    defined  and  appropriate  technologies  selected,  would be to  identify   classes  of
                    beneficiaries.

                    Allocating costs  to  classes  of users  is  most  reasonable when a mix  of technologies
                    is  used.    Costs may vary significantly  according to  the  type of technology used.
                    Users with low-cost  systems might  be  reluctant to  subsidize users  with high-cost
                    technologies.  Charging by user class requires  the community  to spend more time and
                    effort  for bookkeeping than it would  to average costs among all users.   However,
                    the  user  group  method  would  be  less  difficult  and expensive than  the individual
                    user/specific cost method.

                    The  final consideration in  choosing a  way to  allocate costs  involves the issues of
                    equity  and efficency.   Equity  in  this  case  refers  to  charging users in proportion
                    to  the  costs they   impose  on  the  management  system.  For  the optimum  operation
                    alternative,  the  most  equitable user  charge system  is the individual user/specific
                    cost method.   For instance,  residents with conventional septic  tank/soil absorption
                    systems on large, well-drained lots would have  very  low costs.   They may be charged
                    only for septic  tank  pumping  and  drainfield  inspection once  every three  years.
                    Residents with dosed systems or residents served by  cluster systems  may  have  to pay
                    larger  charges  and  more  frequently.   Residents using  holding tanks  could  have
                    routine and quite substantial costs.

                                                83

-------
4.   CONSEQUENCES AND TRADE-OFFS
                    User  charge systems can affect the efficiency of the wastewater management system.
                    Charges  that encourage users to abuse their wastewater facilities are inefficient.
                    Charges  that promote efficiency, however, may not be equitable.  Consider owners of
                    holding  tanks:   if  they have to pay the full cost of pumping their wastes, they may
                    occasionally dispose  of the wastes themselves in a  manner  hazardous  to themselves
                    or their  neighbors.   However,  it is  not equitable  for  the management  agency to
                    provide  free pumping  service for them and  to  average the cost to all other users.
                    Clearly  in  this  case,  equity and efficiency  in a  user  charge must  be balanced.
                    Charging substantial  fees  for  water  use that  will not  economically  threaten the
                    holding  tank owners may encourage vigorous conservation and may prevent owners from
                    endangering others with  unsanitary  practices.   A  partial subsidy may otherwise
                    benefit  the community  by  making  holding tanks a feasible  option  so  that everyone
                    does  not have  to  contribute to buying a sewer.

J.   BROADER RESPONSIBILITIES OF PUBLIC AGENCIES  RELATED TO  RURAL  WASTEWATER
     MANAGEMENT

                    Public  agencies  managing  small  waste  flows  systems may  already possess  or may
                    assume  responsibilities  in addition  to  those  related to  wastewater management.
                    Assumption  of  multiple responsibilities  may  be  particularly attractive  in small
                    communities with few  paid  personnel.  In such communities, the  small waste flows
                    systems  alone  may not justify full-time positions, making multiple responsibilities
                    more   efficient.  Examples  of broader  responsibilities  that  may  be   assumed  by  a
                    wastewater management  agency are discussed below.
EIS III-C-1-5

TRD VI-A
    VIII-A

EIS IV-C-2

EIS III-H-1
TRD X-D

EIS IV-A-3

TRD VIII-B
TRD II-C
    XII-G

EIS III-H-2-b
K.   PERSONNEL
TRD VI-D
Many  rural communities  lack  any  form  of   land use planning,  the  only  land  use
restrictions relating to the  suitability of a  given site  for on-site  wastewater
disposal.   These restrictions  may  be  altered through approval of innovative on-site
systems or adoption of performance-based design standards  by  a management agency.
If  this  occurs,  the   community may desire  to  develop  appropriate  land  use
designations.   The management  agency could be  designed to provide  this  service.

The use of  private water systems  is  predominant in rural communities.  In addition
to ensuring adequate  wastewater disposal,  the management  agency  could ensure safe
and adequate water supply.  The agency can accomplish this by routinely inspecting
and monitoring  individual  wells   and/or community water supplies  and by providing
public education related to water supply management.   The  periodic inspection and
monitoring  of   individual  wells   by  a management  agency is  already  mandated  by
Construction Grants Regulations Section 35.918-1(1) for  grants involving individual
systems.

Section 201(f) of  the Clean Water Act of  1977 states that the administrator shall
encourage  waste  treatment  management  that combines  open  space  and  recreational
considerations  with  such management.   A  community  management   agency  could coor-
dinate the use  of wastewater management district properties  for recreational  use,
such as the use  of a community drainfield  for picnic or park land.  The management
agency  could also  manage  recreational  facilities  not  part  of the  management
district.

In  communities  with  particularly  sensitive water  resources,  the management agency
could  investigate  and monitor  sources  of pollution   unrelated  to  the  wastewater
facilities.  In many rural areas,  the management agency  may be the only public body
involved in pollution control; therefore, assumption of  broader responsibilities in
this area could be of great community benefit.
A  broad  range of  skills  and expertise may  be  required by the management agency.
Typical  job  titles that  may be involved  in some aspect of wastewater management
include:
                                                84

-------
                    o   system  designer,                o  small waste flows contractor,

                    o   clerk,                          o  laboratory technician,

                    o   administrator,                  o  water resource  scientist,

                    o   inspector,                      o  soil scientist,

                    o   attorney,                       o  laborer,

                    o   equipment  operator,             o  environmental planner, and

                    o   plumber,                        o  wastewater system operator.

                    Although the  list  of  job  classifications  is long, one person could provide a number
                    of the skills.   It is not  necessary to employ one  person to fill each position.
                    Customary  job titles  such as  engineer  and  sanitarian are not  listed as such,  in
                    order  to  define more  clearly the types  of personnel  needed  and to avoid limiting
                    personnel  to  these disciplines.  Sanitarians  and engineers  could,  however,   fill
                    many of  the job  classifications.

                    The task of defining  and  fulfilling management  agency personnel needs  requires  five
                    steps:

                    1. assess skills  and  skill  levels required by  the management  agency,

                    2. estimate  the  level of effort required by skill,

                    3. inventory available personnel and define their skill  levels,

                    4. select personnel  to  meet management agency  needs and acquire  their services
                       through interagency agreements, hiring, or  contracts,  and

TRD VI-F            5. seek training programs to  fill any  remaining  gaps  in expertise  required by the
                       management agency.

                    A  community  planning  a  management  program  should  consider  hiring key personnel
                    early  in the  process.  These  personnel,  such  as an administrator experienced  with
                    small  waste flows  technologies,  would be invaluable  in assisting the  community in
                    the design  process,   then later  administering operation,  maintenance and repair
                    services.

                    The search for personnel  who may assist  the management  agency  should not  be limited
TRD XV-C            to the local  area. All sources  of potential   assistance should  be evaluated, in-
                    cluding   state, regional  and  other  municipal personnel,  U.S.  Soil   Conservation
EIS V-B-2           Service  personnel, utility  company  workers,  private contractors, and  consultants.
                    State  and  regional agencies  can provide  many types of assistance, including:

                    o  direct  technical assistance,

                    o  assistance to local communities in grant application and administration,

                    o  preparation of community wastewater  needs analysis,

                    o  identifying the  local feasibility of small waste flows technology and manage-
                       ment ,

                    o  review and upgrading of local and  state  regulations,

                    o  dissemination of information on small waste  flows  technology  and  management, and
                                                85

-------
                    o   preparation  of manpower inventories for local small waste flows programs.

                    In  many  rural  communities,  economies of  scale in  management  may be  realized by
                    sharing   personnel  with  other  communities,  or  by a  regional  agency furnishing
                    assistance  on a shared time basis.

                    The community  management agency should ensure that private contractors and consul-
                    tants  hired to perform management agency  services  are  experienced in the utiliza-
                    tion  and management of small  waste flows  systems.  Without experienced assistance,
                    the community may not fully realize the benefits of the optimum operation approach.
L.   REVISING THE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
                    After  the  management program has been implemented, documentation of the performance
                    of the program as a whole  and of each of its component parts is important to long-
                    term success and economy.  Periodic review of this information, and evaluation and
                    revision of the management  program, should be an ongoing process.

                    The initial  implementation  of  a management  program  in a  community  cannot be ex-
                    pected to  result  in  an ideal program.  This is  particularly true since community
                    management of small waste  flows  systems  as  broadly defined  in  this EIS will be a
                    totally new  management  approach  for many  communities.   As  the  program is  imple-
                    mented, unforeseen problems with the system  are  likely  to develop.  Certain seem-
                    ingly  prudent management  practices may appear otherwise in actual operation.

                    The agency  should  encourage feedback on its management program by soliciting and
                    being  receptive to  community and public comments on the program.  The agency  should
                    develop minimum requirements for periodic evaluation of the  successes and problems
                    in the  management  program and of  necessary revisions to  the program  to  make it
                    operate more effectively.

                    Provisions  for  revision of  the  management program  should be  flexible  enough to
                    allow   constructive  improvement  in  the  program  without  altering  the community's
                    original commitment to  the  management of the  small waste flows systems.  Where this
                    commitment  is  questioned,  the  community's   original  analysis  of  the  need  for a
                    management program may  have been wrong.   If Construction  Grants  funds have been
                    received for the individual systems, continuity  in  the  management program must be
                    assured by the community or by state or regional agencies.
                                               86

-------
                                     Chapter IV
                          Facilities Planning Techniques
                                                                                 mi*.  MJKM ««CH
              WALKER
                                      .f.v-*'*^.®/'    \X^\y^  CAMP NOAROS
                               BEAUTY B£ACM
                        LO CAO> RESORT
--J
                                                    Legend
                                                    •  NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE
                                                  D ®  UPGRADING REQUIRtED
                                                    A  SYSTEM REQUIRES NO UPGRADING
                                                    •  BUSINESS OR RESORT

-------
                                            CHAPTER IV

                                FACILITIES PLANNING TECHNIQUES


                    Chapter  II,  sections  D  through F, discusses some of  the  most  important aspects of
                    facilities   planning:    needs  documentation and  alternatives  development.   This
                    chapter  discusses  additional  planning  methods of  importance  to rural wastewater
                    facilities planning.

                    Definition  of planning area,  assessment of water quality impacts, and calculation
                    of current  and  future population and land use impacts,  are sometimes technically
                    difficult  and  even controversial subjects.   If  properly explored,  however, they
                    allow  realistic assessment  of project value and whether  it will  do  more harm than
                    good.   Such  information  is of  great  value  to  the project whatever the Federal or
                    State  role may be.  Indeed it may be of greatest  value for  the community that must
                    plan and  implement  a wastewater system using only its  own  resources.

A.   PLANNING AREA DEFINITION

1.   APPROACHES  FOR DEFINING PLANNING  AREA  BOUNDARIES


TRD IX-B            Current  Construction  Grants   Program guidelines   (40  CFR  35.917-2  and  35.917-4)
                    indicate  the responsibility  for  delineating  facilities planning area boundaries.
                    The  guidelines  require  that  each state  shall  work with local  governments  in de-
                    fining and  mapping  facilities  planning area  boundaries.   Planning  areas  will be
                    large  enough to take  advantage of economies of scale  where  individual systems are
                    likely to  be cost-effective.   If the state does  not  delineate the  boundaries, the
                    U.S.  EPA Regional Administrator may make the  delineation or revise  the boundaries
                    in cooperation  with state or local officials.

                    When applicants decide on facilities planning area boundaries,  several  factors must
                    be evaluated:

                    o  local  growth and development objectives,

                    o  geographic,  geologic  and hydrogelogic conditions

                    o  wastewater treatment  needs,

                    o  housing density and identified public health problems,

                    o  sensitivity  of  local  water resources to on-site system failure,

                    o  availability of  data  (both socioeconomic and natural environment),  and

                    o  cooperation  of  local  municipalities, and other political  constraints.

                    Three  basic  approaches can be taken to delineate planning areas:

                    1.   the  jurisdictional approach,

                    2.   the  environmental  approach, and

                    3.   the  development approach.

                    Each  of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages  for facilities  planning
                    in unsewered areas.

                    The  jurisdictional approach delineates facilities  planning  areas based on  county
                    boundaries,  municipal  boundaries, or  census count boundaries (census  tract  or minor


                                               89

-------
                   civil division).  This approach maximizes the applicability of published population
                   and  economic  data,  including census  data, population  (existing and  projected),
                   income characteristics, employment patterns, and land use plans.   This approach may
                   also  have  possible management advantages in that  existing  governmental structures
                   can handle implementation of the facilities plan proposed action and  can facilitate
                   the  formation of  a  small  waste  flows management  district  to  maintain  facilities.
                   Additionally,  finance mechanisms may be easier to implement at this level.

                   This  approach has drawbacks,  however.   It could  lead to  conflicts  between  juris-
                   dictions resulting from lack of cooperation, which in turn could limit the  range of
                   alternatives  that  could  be implemented.  Environmental impact evaluation may not be
                   comprehensive  at  this  level.  This  approach may exclude small  outlying  problem
                   areas and could preclude evaluation of cost-effective alternatives.

                   Based on  previous  work for the Seven Rural Lake EIS's,  the jurisdictional  approach
                   will  be  difficult  to utilize in some large lake areas in U.S.  EPA Region V because
                   these areas generally traverse several municipal boundaries.

                   The  environmental  approach considers the  watershed  or lake drainage basin  as the
                   principal  unit  of  delineation  for  facilities  planning.     Point   and non-point
                   sources  of  pollution can be comprehensively addressed at this level.  This unit of
                   evaluation  takes into account  the sensitivity  of water resources  to  septic tank
                   failures.  Data  for  natural resources may be more readily available  at this level.
                   Disadvantages  of the approach may include the problem of municipal boundary cross-
                   over.   In addition,   the  approach may not adequately consider local growth objec-
                   tives.  Applicability of published demographic data may also be difficult.

                   The  development approach  to study area delineation would utilize both the  existing
                   development  areas,  which  are designated  for  future residential, commercial,  and
                   industrial  growth, and the undeveloped waterfront areas to establish planning area
                   boundaries.   These development areas  would include growth areas  defined  in local
                   municipal  comprehensive  land  use  plans and zoning ordinances.   This  approach would
                   include  all  areas  that are expected  to  increase in  population during the  planning
                   period.   Formally  adopted growth  objectives would thus  be  adequately addressed in
                   this  approach.  However,  several  problems may arise  with  this approach,  including
                   difficulty  in applying socioeconomic and environmental data.  This approach may not
                   adequately  address  the  major  sources  of  water  quality  problems  or  septic tank
                   failures.

2.  IDENTIFICATION OF  PLANNING  AREA WHERE  OPTIMUM OPERATION ALTERNATIVES  SHOULD  BE
    CONSIDERED

                   The  optimum  operation approach  fills a niche between  sewering  and  doing  nothing.
                   The  niche  can  be  described  in  terms of  development  density, number  of on-site
                   system  failures,  sensitivity  of  water resources,  feasibility of abating  failures
                   on-site  and cost-effectiveness.   Table IV-A-1 relates these  factors to the limits
                   of the optimum operation niche in  a general way.

                   In the  very early  stages  of facilities planning,  that is,  in  defining  facility
                   planning   area boundaries  and preparing   Plans of  Study, conclusive  information
EIS II-F-2         regarding these factors may not be available.  However, preliminary  information can
                   be gathered  from  an inspection of topographic  maps  or  aerial photographs (devel-
                   opment  density),  interviews  with  local health  officials  or  natural resource per-
                   sonnel  (number  of  on-site  system failures,  sensitivity of  water  resources, and
                    feasibility  of  abating  failures  on-site),   and   use   of   cost  curves   (cost-
                   effectiveness) .

                    If delineation  of  facilities  planning area  boundaries or decisions  to  consider
                    optimum  operation  alternatives in  Step  1 have  to be based  on housing density alone,
                    it is  recommended  that  any  unsewered  areas  developed at  10 to  125  houses (or
                    dwelling unit equivalents) per mile  of  road be designated as potential parts of  a
                    small waste  flows  district.   Below  10  houses  per  mile,  water quality and public
                    health  problems caused by  on-site failures  will rarely be  cause for public concern


                                                90

-------
                    (although facilities  planners  should  look  for exceptions during needs documentation
                    work).    Above  125  houses/mile,  sewering  to  either  small-scale  or  centralized
                    off-site  facilities  will  become  increasingly  cost-effective  for  solving water
                    quality or public  health problems.
TABLE IV-A-1.   FACTORS THAT DETERMINE LIMITS  OF  THE  SMALL  WASTE FLOWS NICHE

Development
Density
Number of
On-site System
Failures
Sensitivity of
Water Resources
Feasibility of
Abating Failures
On-site
Cost-
Effectiveness
Do nothing
   vs.
small waste
flows
These three factors together determine a  community's
obligation to improve wastewater management in
unsewered areas.
Small waste
flows
vs.
sewering
    x               x
Primary determinants of cost-
effectiveness comparisons
May preclude
successful use
of the optimum
operation alter-
native in parts
or all of a com-
munity.
Will incor-
porate many
unlisted fac-
tors such as
environmental
constraints
to sewer con-
struction,
mix of on-
site and
small scale
systems re-
quired, local
management
options,
growth rate.
3.   ADVANCE  PLANNING TO SAVE  TIME  AND  EFFORT
TRD XIV-A
     A  number  of advance  steps  may  be  taken to  circumvent  significant conflicts  and
     provide creative  input to  the  facilities planning process.  These  steps  consider
     non-water  quality goals  that nevertheless  have  considerable  influence over  the
     facilities planning process.  These  include  critical aspects  such as initiation of
     public participation  efforts, planning  of  recreational  resource  development,  and
     definition of community development goals and objectives.   Municipal officials  have
     often complained of the length of time required to complete the  facilities  planning
     process.    If  local interests were  to devote  energies  to the resolution  of  these
     issues prior to  Step  1,  considerable time would  likely be saved in the  facilities
     planning process.  While  not  grant-eligible  at this stage, advance  planning  would
     permit a  locality to  deal with  non-water quality issues  in a way  that  would  help
     avoid  controversy,  minimize  the  impacts of  proposed facilities,  and maximize  the
     potential benefits of the planning process.

     Almost every one  of  the  Seven Rural Lake EIS's was prepared in  the midst of signi-
     ficant public  controversy about  the facilities plan.  Because of the complexity of
     the  facilities planning  process, early contact with the citizens  of the area  is a
     necessity.  For  any given  alternative,  some segments of  the population will  feel
     harmed and others helped.  Those that perceive  themselves harmed  may form coali-
     tions and even bring litigation based on only a partial understanding of  a  project.
     A  public  information/education   program  would respond early to  concerns raised by
     the  public and  would  explain what  facilities  planning is,  how it proceeds,  how
     wastewater projects  affect  the  community,  and how  the  public   can provide input.
                                                91

-------
TRD X-D
EIS IV-C
    VI-D

TRD VIII-A
    XI-B
EIS III-C-5
EIS III-C-h
B.   DEMOGRAPHY
The facilities  planning  process offers opportunities  to  analyze the need for  re-
creation  resources  in an  area and  to  maximize recreation  potential.   Under  the
Clean Water  Act,  funding is  available  for  recreation  and open space planning  as
part of  overall planning for  wastewater  treatment  facilities  in Step 1.  Because
only Step  1  monies  are available  for this purpose,  local  efforts should  be made  to
contact park and recreation  experts  on the local, regional, and  state  levels  for  an
inventory  of  existing plans,  acquisition  programs,  and facilities.   A preliminary
study area evaluation of existing  facilities and activities  can be  accomplished  at
little expense with assistance from  local  homeowner  associations, 4-H  clubs,  senior
citizens groups, or others.   Because -grant funds  are not  available  for  recreation
planning  in  the design and  construction phases in  Steps  2 or  3, an  adequate pro-
posal must be  made  in  the plan of  study to allot sufficient  planning  funds in Step
1.  In  the  case of the  optimum operation  alternative,  certain  forms  of  treatment,
especially cluster systems,  may offer some recreational  potential.

New forms  of wastewater  treatment  that overcome unfavorable  site conditions  may
induce residential development in  patterns and densities unanticipated at the local
level.    To  mitigate these  impacts,  land  use  planning  and the  adoption  of  growth
management controls should  be  considered  before beginning facilities  planning.   In
areas without  adopted  plans  and  ordinances, this   type of effort  would  establish
community  development goals and objectives  relating to residential,  recreational,
commercial, and industrial  development.  Formally adopted land  use plans  most often
take into  account  the character of  a community and  its natural resource base,  and
establish both  conservation and development  priorities.  Such  a program  backed  by
an  updated  zoning  ordinance with  environmental performance  standards  will provide
facilities planners with  specific  guidance on the likely amount and spatial distri-
bution  of  growth  for  which  wastewater treatment must be provided.   A comprehensive
plan would also have  undergone public  scrutiny and  taken into account  points  of
public controversy that would otherwise  hinder the  facilities planning process.   An
adopted  comprehensive land  use plan would  thus significantly  expedite  facilities
planning.

Facilities plan applications  are sometimes  made  by local public  work departments
with  little  coordination   with other  functional   departments.   Advance planning
functions  may be carried out by county  or  municipal  planning  departments,  local
recreation  agencies,  and   local  public  health officials.   Frequently,  regional
planning  commissions or  councils  of  government have both  experience  and technical
expertise that  can be utilized in  a  particular study area.  These organizations  may
have conducted 208 plans for the area and  may have public participation mailing
lists and data on  land use and population,  as well as  on  sensitive  environmental
areas.    Thorough  coordination  and  advance planning by these agencies could greatly
expedite the planning process and  prevent  significant controversy.
                    Accurate demoiigraphic information and projections  play an  important role  in deter-
                    mining project need, designing workable  alternatives,  and assessing project impact.
                    Appendix A.8.a.  of the current  Construction Grant Regulations, for  example,  con-
                    tains  a  variety  of population  projection methods,  which should  be used  if  the
                    community  is  seeking  Federal  funding.   Accurate information is just  as  important
                    for the community that must plan and build its facilities alone.
1.   RECREATIONAL DEMAND IN LAKESHORE AREAS
TRD X-C
Recreation  lot sales and  second-home  development have  been a  significant  market
force  in the  United  States  in recent  years.  Rising  levels  of  disposable income,
ready  mobility,  and increased leisure  time have led to an increase in the purchase
of  second homes.   This has  been  true  particularly in areas  near  inland  lakes and
rivers and areas accessible  to major employment centers (Marans and Wellman,  1977).

However,  the future of second-home development is uncertain.  The housing recession
arid  oil  shortage  between  1973  arid  1975  resulted  in a  significant  downturn in
second-home  development  (American Society of Planning Officials,  1976).    If this
                                                92

-------
                    experience is extrapolated to  current  conditions,  the availability of gasoline  for
                    leisure travel and prevailing  interest  rates may curtail this  type of development.

TRD X-B             The late  1960s through  the  mid-1970s,  however, showed a  steady  climb in this  type
                    of development.   Data  from the  Seven  Rural  Lake  EIS project  areas  showed  an  in-
                    crease in dwelling units  between 1970  and 1975 of 12.4%  on Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes,
                    12.5% on Otter Tail  Lake,  and 15% on Crystal Lake.   Table IV-B-1 shows the present
                    increase  in  total population  projected for  each  of  the  Seven  Rural  Lake EIS  com-
                    munities to the year 2000 and  the percentage of the total accounted for by seasonal
                    (second-home) residents.   Population growth ranges run from a low of 1.6% at  Nettle
                    Lake, Ohio,  to a  high  of 33.5% at Crooked/Pickerel Lakes, Michigan.  As these  data
                    show, rural  lake  areas are projected  to  experience fairly  rapid  rates  of growth,
                    comprised to a large extent  of seasonal residents.


TABLE IV-B-1.  SEVEN RURAL LAKE EIS POPULATION PROJECTIONS  (INCREASE TO THE YEAR 2000 AND SEASONAL
               POPULATION EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGE)

Study area
Crooked/Pickerel Lakes, Michigan
Crystal Lake, Michigan
Otter Tail Lake, Minnesota
Nettle Lake, Ohio
Steuben Lakes, Indiana
Green Lake, Minnesota
Salem Utility District, Wisconsin
Population
(% increase)
33.5
31.8
16.0
1.6
27.0
18.0
31.5
Seasonal
(% of total)
47.7
46.0
76.0
88.0
68.0
43.0
27.6

                    The overwhelming  attraction for second-home development is  accessibility  to lakes
                    and rivers and  the  recreation opportunities that they  afford  (Marans  anc( Wellman,
                    1977).   In  Michigan,  55%  of  second homes  are on  inland  lakes, 21%  on  the Great
                    Lakes, and  10%  on rivers or streams; of  the  total, 89%, are within a 5-minute walk
                    of some body of water (ASPO, 1976).

                    Travel distance is a significant factor in the location of second homes.   Data from
                    a  study  conducted  in northern  Michigan  indicate  that  the distance traveled  to
                    recreation  homes  averaged  250 miles  (Marans and  Wellman,  1977).  Other studies
                    state that accessibility is the key factor in second-home development,  with natural
                    amenities second  (ASPO,  1976).   This latter study indicates that most second homes
                    in the United States are within 100 miles of the primary home.

                    However,  lakefront  access  for recreation is deemed a critical factor by recreation
                    home  residents.   The  settlement  pattern in five  of the Seven Rural Lake EIS study
                    areas was single-tier development along the banks of the major surface water bodies
                    with  direct  access  to those resources.   In these study areas,  public access in the
                    form of public beaches or boat ramps is limited.   Nettle Lake has no public facili-
                    ties.   On Crooked/  Pickerel Lakes only 2%  of  the shoreline is available, on Green
                    Lake  2.9%,  and in  the  Salem Utility District only 960 feet are  in public access
                    facilities.   These  limitations  could severely curtail the incidence of second-tier
                    residential development where little or no direct access to lakefront recreation is
                    available.

                    Ragatz (1980) has projected demand for recreation  properties  in the north-central
                    region of the  United  States to the  year  1985.   He cautions that these projections
                    are based upon  scant  data and market statistics  that have varied significantly in
                    recent years.   Table  IV-B-2  shows these projections  for  recreation lots, single-
                    family recreation homes,  and  resort condominiums.  The number of households owning
                    recreational properties  is expected  to increase by 21%,  the  number of  households


                                                93

-------
                    owning  single-family  vacation  homes  will  increase  by 14.2%,  and the  number  of
                    households  owing  resort condorainums will increase by 32%.

                    Based upon  data from  the  1973 to 1975 housing recession, the rate of development in
                    this market is influenced by major  shifts  in  the economy.   Sources agree that the
                    future  of the market will depend on the price and availability of gasoline as well
                    as  the  availability of mortgage money and the prevailing interest rates.  Possible
                    shifts  in  the market  could occur  that would  encourage more  intensive lakeside
                    development in areas  closer  to major employment centers.


TABLE IV-B-2.   RECREATION DEMAND IN THE NORTH-CENTRAL REGION OF THE UNITED STATES


                                                            1980                     1985
Total number of households
Number of households owning recreational properties
Number of households owning single family
vacation homes
Number of households owning resort condominiums
20,500,000
1,827,200

1,107,600
163,200
22,000,000
2,318,400

1,290,200
240,000

2.   PROBLEMS  IN ESTIMATING PERMANENT AND  SEASONAL POPULATIONS  OF SMALL  SERVICE AREAS


TRD X-B             The estimation of population  levels within a proposed wastewater management service
                    area is important in the  design  of a wastewater treatment system and'in the evalua-
                    tion of impacts  induced  by a proposed system.  Relevant data are frequently avail-
                    able  for  permanent  population;  however,  the application  of these  data  to small
                    rural service areas may prove difficult.  The data may be outdated; they most often
                    contain no  information on seasonal population;  analytical methods  to  derive the
                    data  are  often based  on  assumptions  unsuitable  for wastewater treatment planning
                    and  design;  or  the  data base  is  unacceptable  for use  at the  small  area level.
                    Frequently, the  required data are not even available  for small rural service areas
                    where no  formal  planning exists.  In addition,  many  factors that influence rural
                    area population  dynamics, such  as  current dwelling  unit permits, housing occupancy
                    rates, or dwelling unit conversions, are largely  undocumented.

                    A recurring problem  in rural areas that includes some type of natural recreational
                    resource  (that  is,  lakes,  mountains, rivers)  is   the  determination of permanent
                    versus  seasonal  population.   In many  of  the rural service  areas where  such re-
                    sources exist, seasonal residents (normally summer)  comprise  a major  portion of the
                    total population.  Even  though  the annual volume of wastewater that  seasonal resi-
                    dents generate is  less than  for permanent  residents,  the treatment  level and peak
                    flow  capacity of  central  treatment,  plants  are not  reduced.   Consequently,  the
                    determination of  a  permanent versus seasonal  population breakdown is an important
                    consideration  for  calculating  design flows  for conventional  treatment systems.

                    The  U.S.  Department  of  Commerce, Bureau  of the Census,  is the  major  source  of
                    demographic  data.   However,   census  data  have  several  limitations  that restrict
                    their  use  for small  rural planning  areas.   Since  the  census  is taken at 10-year
                    intervals, the data  quickly  become outdated.  The data  are usually reported on the
                    township  level,  and  townships  are  generally considerably  larger than  facilities
                    planning  boundaries.   More  important,  though,   is  the total  lack of information
                    differentiating  seasonal versus  permanent population data.

                    The  amount and  type  of  population information  available  from the  state agencies
                    vary.  Population estimates  at the county and  sometimes  township  level are prepared
                    annually in  conjunction  with the Census Bureau.  Again,  these  types  of information
                    apply  to   larger areas  than are associated  with   many  rural facilities planning
                    areas.

                                                94

-------
                    Regional  planning  or 208 water  quality agencies  are  required to  have data  per-
                    taining to  facilities planning  areas.   These  agencies are  responsible for  dis-
                    aggregating  adopted national and state  population projections  to  the  208 level and
                    the resulting data  are required to  be  used in facilities  planning  and  needs  surveys
                    (40 CFR 35.9, Appendix A).   There  are  a  number  of drawbacks  to using  these  data.
                    Figures from Federal  or statewide projections are often  not  sensitive  to population
                    dynamics  on  the local  level.   In practice,  population projections  assigned  to
                    facilities  planning areas are  seldom  compiled for areas smaller  than  the township
                    level.    They may not, therefore,  contain information  relevant to small facilities
                    planning  areas;  and  they reflect  scant data on seasonal population.   Also,  these
                    data often  do not differentiate  between  the  population to be  served  by  planned
                    facilities  and  the  total population  of the  facilities  planning  area.   Oversized
                    facilities  can be the result.

                    Municipal  and county  planning  departments  or other local government offices may be
                    able to  provide pertinent  data  concerning  rural  area populations.   Tax  rolls,
                    utility connections,   special school censuses,  and building  permits can  be  used to
                    determine  the current number of dwelling units,  permanent and  seasonal  composition,
                    recent  growth  trends, and  other  characteristics of a  given  area.  Such data are
                    usually not  published,  and personal  examination of office  records is  required to
                    gather  information  specific  to  a facilities planning area.

                    State  and  private  universities  represent valuable  sources  for  local  demographic
                    information.   Universities  with programs  in  urban and  regional planning,  urban
                    studies,  geography,   or  similar programs  frequently  conduct  field  studies  that
                    involve small towns  and  rural  areas.   These studies may contain useful data on the
                    size and  characteristics  of  local  population,  but may  be   difficult to  obtain
                    because they  are often not  published.   Contacts with appropriate  university per-
                    sonnel  are  usually  required to determine  if such studies have been performed and
                    are available.

EIS 11-D-l-a        Windshield   surveys  and aerial  photo  interpretation provide  reliable  and  readily
                    available  methods for determining  the number of housing units  in a rural planning
                    area.  Housing unit  data  and  local occupancy rates  can  provide the basis  for cur-
                    rent population  estimates.  In  some  rural areas, the windshield  survey method may
                    prove  inaccurate because not  all  housing  units  are  visible  from public  roads.
                    These  surveys  should be  used  in  conjunction  with  aerial  photos  for  greater
                    accuracy.   It is also difficult to  differentiate seasonal from permanent residences
                    without some primary  evidence  such as a snow-plowed drive.  Further,  these  surveys
                    do not  provide information on vacancy  rates or average  household size.

EIS II-D-3          There  is  no  straightforward  or  easy  method  to determine the percentage  of the
                    population  that  is seasonal.   For  estimates of  the  existing population,  house-by-
                    house  surveys  provide the most reliable  figures but are also expensive  and  time-
                    consuming  to obtain.  However,  if  house-to-house  survey  methods  are  needed for
                    other  purposes  anyway (such as  sanitary  surveys),  then the   incremental cost for
                    population  and occupancy data  would  be negligible.  Local post offices and utili-
                    ties can indicate which  dwelling  units are receiving mail or  using various  utility
                    services  on  a year-round basis.   The use of this  information eliminates the need
                    for house-to-house  surveys  except  for some possible follow-up cross-check surveys.

                    The method most  commonly  used  in the  Seven Rural Lake  EIS's was an analysis of the
                    property tax  rolls.   The  property  tax rolls indicate the home address  of the owner
                    of each residence,  identifying those dwelling units that are owner-occupied.  While
                    it  cannot  be fully  determined  which  units  are  seasonally occupied and which are
                    rented  to  permanent   residents, a  fairly accurate  delineation of  permanent versus
                    seasonal  units  can be made.   Discussions with  local  realtors may  further refine
                    this delineation.  Application  of  permanent and seasonal household size figures to
                    this dwelling unit  delineation will  then  define  the  permanent versus  seasonal
                    population breakdown.
                                                95

-------
3.   POPULATION PROJECTION METHODOLOGIES  FOR SMALL SERVICE AREAS

TRD X-B             Population projection  techniques  normally  rely on one  or  more of  six different
                    types  of models:

                    1.   mathematical,
                    2.   economic-employment,
                    3.   cohort analysis,
                    4.   component,
                    5.   ratio/share,  and
                    6.   land use.

TRD X-B             Beyond these projection models, various disaggregation techniques may also be used
                    to  distribute  the  population totals  to smaller subareas within a study area.  These
                    various projection and  disaggregation techniques each have certain limitations, and
                    some  techniques  are  more  applicable  to smaller  areas.   Often, a  combination of
                    techniques is  required to  develop projections for a  particular area.  Models such
                    as  economic-employment, cohort analysis, or component  methods  are  seldom feasible
                    in  rural areas because they rely  on data from areas much larger than these facili-
                    ties planning  areas.

                    Mathematical projection models assume that  the  components  that characterized past
                    population change  will  continue  for some  period  into the  future.   This extrapo-
                    lation of  historical  trends requires relatively  little  data  and  consequently is
                    simple to  apply.   However, such  projections  do not explain  the  reasons for past
                    growth  nor  do they  account  for  possible   future  changes  that may  affect future
                    growth.  In addition,  they are normally more accurate for  larger  areas since the
                    changes from past  trends are  more likely to average out over a larger area.  As a
                    result, these  types of projections  should only  be used for short-term projections.

                    The ratio/share models use  population projections  available  for a  larger area and
                    allocate a portion of  the  change  to the area under evaluation.  This type of pro-
                    jection  assumes  that  the  population  change in a  particular  area depends  on the
                    amount  of  change  in  the  larger  region.   The  ratio  of  regional growth to local
                    growth may  be  chosen  from  one  point in time  or  as  an  annual average  ratio from
                    several periods.

EIS IV-C-1          Land use  models  project population on  the  basis  of available land and expected
                    population density.  This  type of projection reverses the  process  of   projecting
TRD XI-B            population  growth  first and  then  determining  what  land  area will be required.
                    Instead,  it begins with the amount of  developable  land  available  and then deter-
                    mines how many people  can  be accommodated at full  capacity.  In order to determine
                    the  amount  of developable land,  an  environmental  constraint evaluation  may be
                    performed that incorporates  information on  land use,  environmental  resources, and
                    economic  factors.  This  evaluation  defines  the amount of  developable   land under
                    existing land use  laws  and regulations  and  determines the number and distribution
                    of potential dwelling  units  and population  equivalents.  Facilities  planning, need
                    area,  and  service area boundaries  must be  carefully  delineated so  that only land
                    being  served  is   analyzed   for total  population  to  receive  wastewater treatment
                    service.

                    The  population  projection  methods  discussed previously  are  applicable to small
                    rural planning areas in varying degrees.   Data  requirements,  assumptions,  and the
                    projection outputs may  limit  the  usefulness of  many  of these projection  techniques
                    for  small  rural  planning  areas.   During  the preparation  of  the  Seven  Rural Lake
                    EIS's, several different or a combination  of projection techniques  were utilized.
                    Most  of  these projection  methods  relied  at least in  part  on land use  models and
                    land  holding capacity  analysis.   This  combination seems  to  fit  the requirements of
                    small rural planning areas, given  the  data  normally available  for such  areas.  Only
                    rarely will data  be  available to  use  more  sophisticated  projection techniques that
                    result in somewhat more reliable projections.
                                                96

-------
                    According to  the  cost-effectiveness  guidelines  (40  CFR  35.9,  Appendix A), appli-
                    cants may perform  their own population projections  as long  as their figures cor-
                    respond to recent trends in  the  local  area.   These projections could contain, for
                    example,  information on recent building permit  activity  and/or an analysis of the
                    land holding  capacity  based on  local  codes  and ordinances.   If these projections
                    are performed based on  locally derived data,  considerable unneeded expense may be
                    avoided and  environmental impact  may  be mitigated by  facilities planning.

4.   ESTIMATING ECONOMIC  CHARACTERISTICS  OF RESIDENTS

EIS VI-C-3          The decennial census is the  most comprehensive  available  source of information for
                    population characteristics.   The  Census of Population is  currently conducted at the
                    beginning of  each decade and serves  as the basis  for a  series of related topics.
                    Data typically  presented at the  state,  Standard Metropolitan  Statistical Area,
                    city,  county,  and  township  levels  include  permanent population characteristics,
                    income  levels,  employment  patterns,  and  information on  commercial and industrial
                    trade.   The  data on  household size, population levels,  and vacancy rates are parti-
                    cularly important in wastewater management planning for small,  rural areas.

                    More current  information on population  and  per  capita income  is  found  in the
                    Current  Population   Reports, Series  P-25, Population Estimates and  Projections,
                    which is  issued  annually.   The estimates  are  dated two years  preceding the report
                    date and include estimates  of per  capita income  dated  four  years  preceding the
                    report  date.   These  data do  not describe  characteristics  of the seasonal population
                    and are detailed only to the township or  county  level.

                    Economic  data are  available from the  economic censuses published  by  the Census
                    Bureau  every  five years.  This census  series  is comprised of individual reports on
                    retail  trade,  wholesale trade,  selected service  industries, manufacturers,  agricul-
                    ture, transportation, and mineral  industries.   Each  report includes  information on
                    employment levels,  wages,  sales, size  of firms,  number  of  firms,  and a level of
                    production.   The results are released  in the form of printed  reports and  computer
                    tapes.    Their  use  in  small  rural areas  is  limited  by  the  size of the reporting
                    areas,  which often include  only county, state, and  major  incorporated areas.

                    State  government  agencies   and  departments can  often provide  other data  such as
                    income  levels, retail  sales,  employment  data, and  local  government finances.  The
                    availability and source of  these  data vary from  state to  state.  However, when such
                    data are  available,  they may  often  be more  current and relevant  to  small rural
                    areas than Census Bureau data.

                    Regional  planning  and  development   agencies  are  often  responsible  for preparing
                    demographic  studies, comprehensive plans,  economic studies, and  community  facility
                    reports  for  the small  villages  and  rural settlements within  their jurisdiction.
                    Information  obtained in these types  of reports  can be useful in  establishing base-
                    line economic  conditions  as well  as economic projections.  Many regional  planning
                    agencies  and  councils  of government are  also  designated as  economic development
                    coordinators  for  the regions requiring  that  an Overall  Economic Development Plan
                    (OEDP)  be submitted  annually to the U.S.  Economic Development Administration  (EDA).
                    Ttis plan normally  includes  information on  demography,  economic  base, income
                    levels, and  public works projects.

                    Municipal and county planning departments or  other local government  offices may be
                    able to  provide  economic data  on rural area  populations.  Often  township or county
                    comprehensive land use  plans will  contain information on local per  capita  income,
                    unemployment  rates,  and commercial and industrial  statistics.  Considerable infor-
                    mation  is usually available on  housing  construction, vacancy rates, and  property
                    values.   Local  property tax roles,  already  mentioned as a  source  of population
                    data, may be useful  as  an assessment  of relative housing  values.

                    Housing values taken from property tax roles  may be  the  only economic  data  obtain-
                    able for  seasonal  residents.  If  economic impacts  of wastewater alternatives on
                    seasonal  residents will be  decisive  for  alternative  selection, a special  economic


                                                97

-------
                    survey  may  be  necessary.   Data  requested  could either  be  household income  or a
                    maximum  amount  the respondent is willing to  pay.   Data can be collected by mailed
                    questionnaire  or door-to-door survey, possibly  in  conjunction  with needs documen-
                    tation surveys.

                    Other sources  of information are local real  estate agents, homeowner associations,
                    chambers  of  commerce,  utilities,  and other  community  groups.   Discussions  with
                    local real  estate  agents can yield  information about housing vacancy rates, housing
                    stock, property values,  and second-home construction.  Real estate agents may also
                    be aware of planned  developments  and  future market activity  in the area.   Local
                    homeowner/  community  groups,  on the  other hand, may be able to provide information
                    regarding housing vacancy  rates  and  shifts  from  seasonal to  permanent occupancy.

C.   LAND  USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

1.   NONSEWER DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS


TRD XI-A            One of the major  findings  of the  Seven Rural Lake EIS's  was that significant dif-
                    ferences  in population growth,  land  use conversion, and  environmental impact would
                    result from sewering versus not sewering the rural lake  communities.  The decision
                    of whether or not to  sewer has  significant  implications  for a community's future.
                    However,  many   rural  communities   rely on   limited  planning   tools  that  fail  to
                    recognize  important  environmental  and economic  resources.   They  rely  heavily on
                    general  soil limitations for on-site  systems  to  justify low density land use zones.
                    This has served to limit  the amount  of vacant developable land in these areas.  It
                    is,  therefore,  in the  best  interests  of rural  communities  to  examine  land  use
                    potentials  carefully  as  a  critical element of their decision-making for wastewater
                    treatment facilities.  This is particularly true for rural lake communities because
                    of the high incidence  of environmentally sensitive  resources.

TRD XI-B            An environmental constraints  methodology  uses information on land use, environmen-
                    tal  resources,  and economic factors in the design and  evaluation  of wastewater
                    management alternatives.   The process involves  an.  inventory and  mapping of natural
                    and man-made factors  in the study area, followed by interpretation of the degree of
                    constraint on future development caused by  these  factors.  This will allow compi-
                    lation of  data  into  a form permitting facilities  planners to  view areas where no
                    residential development may  occur, where limited  development  may occur,  and  the
                    amount and spatial distribution of  land where residential development is likely to
                    take place.  Interpretation of development limitations  should  be based upon local
                    zoning and  subdivision ordinances,  on-site  wastewater  sanitary  codes,  state laws,
                    and Federal laws and  regulations.

EIS II-D-l-a        The  process requires preparation of  a base map of the  study  area and overlays of
                    inventory  information at  the same  scale.   The base map should show the planning
                    area boundaries, minor civil divisions, transit systems,  and surface water bodies.
                    The  overlays of inventory factors  that  present constraints  include  such charac-
                    teristics and  resources as physiography, geology,  soils  conditions, water resources
                    (including wetlands  and  floodplain  areas),  sensitive  areas  such  as  historic  and
                    archaeologic sites, existing land  use  patterns  as  well  as future land use informa-
                    tion  derived  from local  comprehensive plans,   zoning  ordinances,  and subdivision
                    regulations.

                    All  of   this  information  is  inventoried  as  part  of  the environmental  assessment
                    process   in planning for wastewater  treatment  facilities.   The information should be
                    compiled in  narrative  and graphic  form  for interpretation of  those factors  that
                    would constrain land development.   For  all factors  examined,  the  statutory or
                    regulatory  basis  for constraining the use  must  be  stated  to  remove  subjective
                    judgments.

                    The  constraints mapping process  should  result  in a single map that  shows portions
                    of  the   study  area where  prohibitive  constraints  allow  no development  to occur,
                    where  restrictive constraints  permit limited  development,  where  qualified  con-


                                                98

-------
                    straints    reflect   policy   recommendations,   and   remaining   areas   of  vacant
                    unrestricted,  developable acreage.   This map  should  next be overlaid with existing
                    zoning maps to determine  the  maximum  number of dwelling units permitted per acre.
TRD IX-B            Planimetric measurement or a  grid cell  overlay of  the amount of developable land in
                    each of these districts  indicates  the  total acreage in each category.  The amount
                    of land being  scrutinized in  a given unit of analysis must be carefully  considered.
                    The  larger  a facilities  planning area,  the  greater the  population that  can be
                    accommodated.   In  the  Seven  Rural Lake  EIS's,  single-tier  development was  the
                    predominant settlement pattern and was  the  basis  of delineation for proposed  ser-
                    vice areas.   The  constraints  evaluation was  thus conducted on land areas within 300
                    feet  of  the  lakeshore.   In  other rural  planning areas, service  area boundaries
                    should be  closely  defined in order  to evaluate  the extent  of an area's  growth
                    potential.   This  may be accomplished by consultation  with local municipal officials
                    or area residents.

EIS VI-D            Once the number  of  dwelling  units  permitted in the area  is calculated,  the average
                    number of persons per  seasonal and permanent dwelling unit derived from census or
                    other  survey  data  may be multiplied  to  determine  the  total  population carrying
                    capacity.   This  calculation should  provide  a basic upper  limit population  figure to
                    compare against  projections  derived  from  other demographic  sources.   This figure
                    will not only aid projection, but  will also  aid  in  understanding area  trends.  An
                    analysis  of  the  environmental   constraints  of an  area  will  facilitate  a  deeper
                    understanding of the  types   of  impacts that  a  wastewater management  system may
                    generate.


2.   THE INTERRELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN  SMALL  WASTE FLOWS  FACILITIES  PLANNING  AND LAND  USE

TRD VIII-A          In rural  and developing areas, the  enforcement of  on-site sanitary codes, beginning
                    anywhere  from 1945  to  the end of the  1960s,  has  served  as a form of land use  con-
                    trol  (Wisconsin  Department of Health  and  Social  Services,  1979; Twichell,  1978).
                    These codes have limited residential development in wetland areas,   on soils with  a
                    seasonal  high water table,  including  floodplain  areas,  on steeply sloping areas,
                    and  in locations with shallow depth  to bedrock because these areas are considered
                    unsuitable  for on-site  wastewater  treatment.   Sanitary codes have thus  served  as  a
                    form  of  de facto zoning,  resulting  in large lot sizes and  a settlement pattern
                    based  on  suitable  soils.  The  codes  have  minimized development in some environ-
                    mentally sensitive areas that would otherwise be unprotected.

                    Please note that this  use of sanitary policy for  land use control can have harmful
                    effects.    In  some  states  where  repair and  upgrading of existing  systems is  con-
                    sidered "new construction,"  codes  have been interpreted  to prohibit any  upgrading
                    or  repair  of existing  systems.    Individual  sanitarians  have  been  unwilling to
                    approve  repairs  or  upgrading,   to avoid  any precedent  that  might allow further
                    lakeshore development.  This not  only  uses  sanitary policy to rule out improvements
                    in  sanitation,  but  forces some  residents to  think of sewering as  the only method
                    that allows community  growth.  Sanitary and land  use  policy interact closely, but
                    it is nearly always  preferable to consider  each openly on its own merits;  codes and
                    standards  in  sanitation  should  not  be used as   a   crutch to  compensate for the
                    absence of goals in  land use planning.

EIS VI-B            The  introduction of  new forms of wastewater treatment technology  that partially or
                    entirely overcomes  unfavorable   site  conditions,  or that takes  advantage of  more
                    favorable off-site  conditions, may enahle  developers to  circumvent  these  controls.
                    These treatment systems could thus  result  in significant  environmental impacts  as  a
                    result of  the encroachment  of  housing development  on sensitive environmental re-
                    sources.   Also,  this  could  permit  a   development  pattern  inconsistent  with local
                    goals  and  objectives.   The use  of  on-site  technology  such as  elevated  sand mounds
                    may  enable  development to occur  in areas  with a seasonal high  water table or shal-
                    low  depth  to bedrock.   Off-site treatment  such as  cluster systems can circumvent
                    on-site  limitations  altogether   and could  thus permit development  in any of these
                    areas.   Impacts  from  the  use of these treatment systems  include  markedly higher
                    density  residential  development  within existing  development  areas, a  development


                                                99

-------
                    pattern inconsistent  with  local goals and  objectives,  loss of open space  buffers
                    between existing  developments,  and  encroachment into  environmentally  sensitive
                    areas.

EIS III-C-5         To anticipate these impacts,  localities  should  consider conducting land  use  plan-
                    ning prior  to  or concurrent  with  wastewater treatment facilities planning.   This
                    would ensure that  the suitability of  the  area  for development would be  analyzed,
                    that community  development  goals would be defined,  and  that  appropriate  performance
                    standards  would be  drafted  to  mitigate impacts of both  wastewater  treatment  facili-
                    ties construction and  associated residential development.

                    The  limited  amount of  literature  available on  the  land  use  effects  of  on-site
                    systems demonstrates  the  use of  sanitary codes  to  enforce large lot  sizes.   For
                    example, Twichell  (1978)  points out  that local  health  officials and  sanitarians
                    have often  become  the permitting  officials for  new  housing development and that
                    stipulation has been  made  for housing densities of .5  to  2  dwelling  units per acre
                    in order to prevent  groundwater pollution.

                    Generalized dwelling unit  per acre  zoning in the Seven  Rural Lake  EIS project  areas
                    requires .5-acre or larger  lots in unsewered areas.  Often  these  lot size require-
                    ments  have  been based  on  the  best  professional  judgment  of sanitarians.    These
                    professionals have  experienced the  need for larger lots because  of site  limitations
                    or  odd  lot lines and have recommended  larger  lots  based  on the need to  protect
                    community health and welfare,  not on  community development goals.

                    Alternative on-site technologies may  impact lot size  requirements.  Elevated sand
                    mounds may require  larger  lots  because of larger  system  areal  requirements.   Grey
                    water/black water  separation  systems reduce the areal  requirements  of the soil
                    absorption system.

                    However, for public health protection,  it  is  unlikely  that well separation dis-
                    tances  will  be reduced, and  thus  lot  size requirements may not  change.   Cluster
                    systems featuring centralized  collection and off-site  treatment  will have the same
                    effect  on  lot  size as  large-scale centralized  collection  and treatment systems.
                    When the public  health  risk from well contamination is  avoided,  smaller  lot  sizes
                    are  permitted  in  local zoning  codes.   For example,  Littlefield Township  in the
                    Crooked/Pickerel Lakes, Michigan,  area  allows 4.5 dwelling units  to the  acre with
                    the provision  of public water and sewer.  In the Otter Tail Lake, Minnesota,  area,
                    provisions for clustered development in the local zoning ordinance allow for 8 to 9
                    dwelling units to the acre where central sewer service  is provided.

                    The predominant  settlement  pattern and housing  type  with standard septic  tank/soil
                    absorption  systems  is reported  as single-family detached  units  in  small subdivi-
                    sions and  dispersed  low density sprawl patterns (Twichell,  1978). This  development
                    pattern has been determined by access to and the spatial distribution of suitable
                    soil.   If  on-site  technologies  continue to be  used,  this  development  pattern may
                    lead  to a  situation where  the  future  option to sewer may  be precluded because of
                    the great  expense  of  constructing sewers between dispersed  houses.  Further depen-
                    dence upon local sanitary codes may thus severely restrict the amount and distribu-
                    tion of developable land in lake areas.  Such restrictions may run counter to local
                    growth plans or subdivision plans of large landholders.

EIS VI-B            One of  the  most consistent impact findings in the Seven Rural Lake EIS's  was that,
                    in  the  absence of  local development controls, centralized collection and treatment
                    systems would induce growth in environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains,
                    wetlands,  and  steeply sloping  areas.   Alternative and  innovative forms  of waste-
                    water treatment may have similar effects, though to a lesser degree.   Historically,
                    sanitary codes have been used as tools to limit  or control growth, and as such have
                    become  a  form  of zoning (Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services,   1979,
                    Twichell,  1978).  Some  sanitary codes do not permit development  of  on-site waste-
                    water   treatment  systems   in  these  marginal  areas.    However,  local  municipal
                    officials  in many  rural lake areas do not  have the  staff or the budget to conduct
                    land  use planning  and zoning and do not have formally adopted land use plans.  Nor


                                                100

-------
                    do they have the tools  to  inventory and analyze their environmental resource base
                    and to formulate performance standards  that  permit  development but prevent signi-
                    ficant impacts.

                    Planning  for wastewater treatment facilities  gives  local municipalities the oppor-
                    tunity to  contract  for the  necessary expertise to  conduct land  use  planning in
                    concurrence with facilities plans.  Because  the  two topics are so closely linked,
                    anticipation of  impacts  prior  to facilities  design and  formulation  of an impact
                    mitigation strategy could save considerable  time and expense.  An  understanding of
                    the environmental resource base,  housing types,  lot sizes,  and existing densities,
                    in  conjunction  with  a  program  that  involves  land use  planning  concurrent with
                    facilities planning,  would lead  to  an environmentally sound wastewater management
                    program.

D.   WATER RESOURCES

TRD II-A            Consideration of water resources  was consistently one  of  the  weakest elements  in
    XII             the facilities plans that  the Seven  Rural Lake EIS's evaluated.    Documentation of
    XIII            the water quality reasons  for  proposing new facilities  was generally based on the
                    conventional wisdom  that  on-site systems should not  be  allowed near lake shores .
                    Where nutrient models had been developed previously by  U.S. EPA,  low estimates of
                    phosphorus inputs from  on-site  systems were  played down  in the facilities plans.
                    Similarly, predictions  of  water  quality impacts  of alternatives,  especially non-
                    sewered alternatives,  were  net  well  founded  on theory or fact.

EIS I-B-3           Early U.S. EPA  facilities planning  guidance  (U.S. EPA, 1975) and administration of
                    Step  1  grants  have  emphasized  the use of  available  data and  have  not provided
                    sufficient guidance  for  needs  documentation.  Administration  of  the Construction
                    Grants Program is thereby  reflected  in the weak consideration of water resources in
                    the original Seven  Rural Lakes and  countless  other  facilities plans.  It is one of
                    the stated  objectives of this EIS  to encourage  more  thorough  assessment of water
                    quality in rural areas.

                    This section emphasizes  U.S.  EPA interests in water  resources, provides  suggestions
                    for analysis of water quality needs  and impacts,  and discusses grant eligibility of
                    water resource investigations.

1.   Bacterial  Contamination

EIS II-A-2          Pathogen contamination of  drinking waters and primary body contact  waters by septic
    VI-A-1          tank  effluents  is  unacceptable  and,  where  detected, must be  abated.   In any  case
                    where  state  standards  for  untreated  drinking water  or primary body  contact are
                    violated and the source is  demonstrated to  be an on-site  system, the system should
                    be upgraded, replaced, or  abandoned  as appropriate provided that:

                    o  the fecal coliform counts  are  above background counts,

                    o  the source is verified  to  be wastewater by other  indicators  such as high
                       nitrogen concentrations,  surfactants or brighteners, and

                    o  there  is  a  probable  hydrologic  connection  between   the  suspected wastewater
                       source and the point of use.

EIS II-A-2-a        The "point of  use"  may  be  an existing well,  a planned well site  that complies  with
                    state  separation distances from  wastewater  facilities,  spring, lake shore, stream
                    bank or other place where  use  of the water resource  may be impaired.

EIS II-D-2-b        Care must be  taken  in applying this policy  to drinking water wells that are unpro-
                    tected against  entry  of  surface  water or shallow (0 to 3 feet)  percolating water.
                    Sampling of unprotected wells  or wells that  cannot be inspected should be avoided
                    during surveys  funded in Step 1  to avoid compounding  the errors  created by false
                    positive results (that  is, tests that indicate the  presence of wastewater when the
                    source of the indicator is  something else).   If few  of the wells  in a community are


                                                101

-------
                    properly protected,  the survey  should  include analysis  of constituents normally
                    found only in domestic  wastewaters,  such  as  surfactants  or brighteners.

                    Inspection and  sampling  of all drinking water wells  may be eligible in  unsewered
                    areas  only  after  the  decision has  been  made  to  pursue  the  optimum  operation
                    approach.   Exceptions can be made  so  that all or most  wells may be  sampled  before
                    this  decision  if the  data  are  shown  to be  necessary  to make  the  decision.   In
                    sampling all wells,  provision should be made for repeat  sampling  of those  that were
                    positive.

EIS II-D-l-c        It  should  not  be necessary to sample for bacteria  in every septic  leachate  plume
                    located during  a shoreline  scan.   An  average of  five  or fewer   fecal coliform
                    samples per mile of  shoreline taken in  leachate plumes will  provide sufficient data
                    for alternative development and  plan selection.  One  or two background  samples per
                    mile, including some center  lake samples, should be  collected  from locations where
                    there is no development or  where  no leachate plumes  are  detected.

EIS II-D-2-b        If  results  are  confused by high background counts  or are otherwise ambiguous,  it
                    may be  necessary  to  sample  groundwater at  the point  of plume  emergence  or  on the
                    shoreline  between that  point  and the  nearest  drainfield.   Shallow  groundwater
                    sampling can be  complicated  by mucky  or  silty sediments, steep  banks,  or man-made
                    structures.  However, small diameter sand points can  be fabricated for  sampling in
                    sandy or gravelly soils and  sediments where  bacterial  movement  would  be  expected to
                    be most severe.

2.    Eutrophication

TRD II-D            Abandoning septic tank/soil absorption systems along  shorelines  will seldom  result
                    in significant change in lake trophic  status.   Shoreline septic leachate surveys on
                    the 35 lakes in the  Seven Rural Lake EIS  study areas  and detailed nutrient analysis
                    of  17  individual leachate  plumes  demonstrated  that  the  limiting nutrient,  phos-
                    phorus, is  normally released  to lakes in small  quantities.  The cumulative phos-
                    phorus  input of shoreline  systems  was  estimated to be  less than 10% of  the total
                    phosphorus load for  most of  the 35 lakes.  Elimination  of  shoreline systems would
                    not have noticeably improved the trophic  status of any of these lakes.

                    This  is not  to  say  that improving  lake trophic status is not a goal  of  the Federal
                    Construction Grants  Program.   However, the  nominal  improvements  expected have not
                    yet been proven to be worth the expense required  for sewering rural lakes.

TRD XII-F           Exceptions no doubt  will be  found. Lakes with small  watersheds, high densities of
                    on-site systems,  or  numbers  of surface malfunctions that run off into the lake may
                    be  substantially  improved  by  abandoning  all on-site systems.   Figure  IV-D-1 has
                    been  prepared to  assist  grantees in recognizing  these sensitive lakes.   This nomo-
                    graph  relates  morphological  characteristics  of  a  lake  and  number of  shoreline
                    (within 300  feet) on-site  systems  to  the phosphorus concentration in the  lake from
                    on-site systems.  This  graph  can be used with a minimum amount of  data  to  make a
                    preliminary  determination  on the  need  for  more detailed  modeling  and field data
                    collection.   Submittal of  this  graph  showing the  position  of local  lakes will
                    assist  in  application for  Construction  Grants  funds to collect  and analyze water
                    samples in  support  of  detailed nutrient  modeling.   As  a  rule  of thumb, lakes that
                    fall below 1.0  pg/1 of phosphorus  will probably  not be  eligible for  sample  collec-
                    tion and analysis.  Between 1.0 and 10.0  (Jg/1, applicants may first propose  to con-
                    struct  nutrient  budgets  based  on empirical  models  and available data,  then  collect
                    confirmatory data  appropriate to  the  major uncertainties  in  the nutrient  budget.
                    Above  10  |Jg/l> applicants  may propose  to  construct  nutrient  budgets  based  on
                    empirical  models  and  available  data,  The  need  for  confirmatory sampling will be
                    evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

                    To  use Figure IV-D-1 the following data are  required:

                    o   number of soil absorption fields within 300 feet of the lakeshore,

                    o   water flow through the lake, Q,  in cubic  meters  per second (ra /s), and

                                                102

-------
     100
5co
  to
  >-
  co
  ui
8°
O
x
0.
CO
O
I
a.
      10
1.0
      0.1
        1.0
                    K =
                        I-R
                    R = Retention coefficient

                    Q =lnflow/0utflow(cfs)

                    m3/s"' = 0.0283 cfs"1
                        10
100
1,000
                       NUMBER OF ON-SITE SYSTEMS WITHIN

                          300 FEET OF LAKE SHORELINE
        Figure IV-D-1.   Lake phosphorus concentration  due to on-site systems.
                                   103

-------
z
UJ
o
u.
u.
UJ
o
o

z
o
\-
z
UJ
I-
uj
or.
(T
O
X
a
CO
o

a.
                R = 0.426exp (-0.271 q) + 0.574 exp (-0.00949 q)
.6  -
.2  -
     0
               40       80        120       160


                     AREAL WATER LOAD, q(m/yr)
                                                200
240
     Figure IV-D-2.  Relationship between areal water load,  q,

                    and phosphorus retention, R.  (Kirchner

                    and Dillon, 1975)
                              104

-------
                                                                  2
                    o   surface  area  of  the  lake  in  square meters  (m  ).

                    These  data  are  then used  in  the following  sequence:

                    o   Areal  water  load,  Q,  is calculated by dividing  flow by  surface area.

                    o   The lake's phosphorus  retention  coefficient,  R,  is estimated  from Figure  IV-D-2.

                    o   The lake's  hydromorphological constant, K  =  (1-R)/Q,  is calculated and  located
                       on  the scaled diagonal in Figure IV-D-1.

                    o   The K  line  is drawn  perpendicular to the  scaled  diagonal  through K.

                    o   The intersection of  the K line with the vertical line passing through  the number
                       of  systems near the  lake  defines  the phosphorus  concentration  resulting  from
                       on-site  systems  as read on the vertical axis.

TRD XII-A-C         If more  detailed modeling  is  justified,  the next level  of  analysis  is based  on
                    available data.  It  includes  estimation  of  phosphorus inputs  from  major  sources
                    such as non-point  runoff, precipitation,  known  point sources and on-site systems.
                    Phosphorus  load  and  lake morphological characteristics  are  then related  to  trophic
                    status using empirical  models such  as that proposed by Dillon  (1975).

                    The preliminary  model  presented here and the  more  detailed  model  are based  on  a
                    number of assumptions that may not  be valid  for  specific lakes.  If choices  between
                    alternatives depend  on eutrophication  impacts  or if assumptions  are  suspected  of
                    being  inappropriate,  field studies  may be  necessary.

EIS II-D-l-c        For on-site systems,  U.S.   EPA's National Eutrophication  Survey assumes that  0.25
                    pounds (0.1 kilograms) per  year of total  phosphorus  enters  lakes  from  every person
                    served by on-site systems within 300 feet  of  lakeshores.   This represents 5% to 10%
                    of the phosphorus  in  raw domestic  wastewater on a per  capita basis.   Based on the
                    modeling  and  field studies   done  for  the Seven Rural  lake  EIS's,  this number  is
                    judged to be a  conservatively  high but  reasonable average  for  systems that do not
                    discharge directly or  by surface malfunction to glacially  formed lakes.  In  fact,
                    many systems will  not  discharge to a lake at all.   Other systems will have higher
                    inputs.   As  a  check on  the  0.25  pounds/capita/year  assumption,  leachate  plume
                    samples  collected  from  open  water  and   during  shallow  groundwater  sampling  for
                    bacterial  analysis  may  also  be  analyzed  for  filterable  total   phosphorus.
                    Generally,  significant numbers  of  open water plume samples  with phosphorus  concen-
                    trations  above  background or of shallow  groundwater samples  above 1 mg/1 of  phos-
                    phorus indicate that  above-average phosphorus  loads  are  entering  the lake  from
                    on-site  systems.   Grantees  must use their  judgment  in deciding whether the  total
                    estimated  input from  on-site   systems  should  be  changed  to reflect  field  data.

TRD XII-B           Where   available streamflow  and nutrient concentration  data adequately describe
                    phosphorus  inputs  from non-point sources,  they  should  be  used in  developing nutri-
TRD XII-D           ent budgets.   Lacking this  information,  reasonable estimates can be developed  using
                    methods based on the universal soil loss  equation or  National  Eutrophication Survey
EIS IV-D-2-b        statistical analysis of  tributary  data.   Long-term sampling and gauging of  streams
                    to determine  non-point source  nutrient  inputs  will normally not be  eligible for
                    Construction Grants  funds.   Exceptions  may  be  made  on a case-by-case  basis  where
                    reasonable estimates are not otherwise  developable and understanding  of non-point
                    sources is critical to facilities planning decisions.

3.    Localized Plant Growth

                    While  on-site  system effects  on the trophic  status  of  an entire lake  are  usually
                    minor, localized  impacts can  be  more  apparent  and of  greater  public interest.
                    Localized impacts  include nearshore plant growth stimulated by leachate plumes  at
                    their  point of  emergence  and plant growth stimulated by  accumulation  of nutrients
                    in embayments  or  canals.   Public  interest  is generally based on the  proximity  of
                    plant  growth to  houses  and  on  residents'  fears that local  growth will become more
                    widespread.

                                                105

-------
TRD II-D            Direct  stimulation   of   aquatic plants,  especially the  filamentous  green  algae
EIS VI-A-2          Cladophora,  was apparent  at plume emergence points studied  in detail during pre-
                    paration of the Seven Rural Lake  EIS's.   The areas covered  by these growths were
                    small but growths were  very  dense.   The most  pronounced  growths  were located on
                    shores underlain by  peat  deposits.  These deposits appear to  acidify and chemically
                    reduce  groundwater,  thereby mobilizing  phosphorus  which  stimulates  the  plant
                    growth.   At  their worst,  the  growths  will make  swimming unpleasant.  Where ground-
                    water is naturally alkaline  and aerobic, none  of the  growths would interfere with
                    recreational use of  the  lakes or  lakeshores.   Except  for  unusually severe cases,
                    preventing these  nearshore plant growths in  the main  body of a lake is not a suf-
                    ficient justification for abandoning  on-site systems.  Some kinds of on-site up-
                    grading, such  as  filter  field relocation, gray water/black  water separation, and
                    plume interception,  may  be useful  in reducing these growths.

                    Embayments  and  canals   surrounded  by  on-site systems  often  have  much  more plant
                    growth  than adjacent lakes.   Lack of  mixing  and  concentrated  non-point source
                    loading, as  well as  septic  tank leachate, contribute to locally accelerated eutro-
                    phication.   Abandonment  of  on-site  systems  adjacent  to  such  sensitive  parts of
                    lakes may be justified  if non-point source  control  measures  are implemented prior
                    to or  along with the construction of off-site  facilities.   These sensitive lake
                    areas are particularly  vulnerable to poor design or  construction of on-site sys-
                    tems; filter field relocation or  reorientation,  gray water/black water separation,
                    or plume  interception,  as well as more  common  on-site  upgrading,  may be  helpful.

E.   FINANCIAL  IMPACTS

1.   ASSESSMENT OF  MUNICIPAL FISCAL CAPABILITIES

EIS VI-C-2          Communities  applying for  U.S. EPA  Construction  Grants funds  are required  to demon-
                    strate in their facilities  plans  that they  have the necessary  financial  resources
                    to insure the  adequate   construction,   operation,  and  maintenance  of the  proposed
                    facilities (U.S. EPA, 1976b).

                    Municipal fiscal  capabilities are determined  by  investigating the  ability  of  a
                    community to pay  for and maintain  wastewater  facilities.  The term  "communities" in
                    PRM  76-3  refers  to   a  city, town, county, or  special  purpose district.    First,  a
                    community must acquire  funds to  meet  the local  share  of  the capital costs attri-
                    buted to the wastewater  facilities. This generally is accomplished through the use
                    of either general obligation  or revenue  bonds.   Second, the  community must be able
                    to bear  the total annual debt  service  costs  (principal  and interest payments on
                    bonds) and  operation and  maintenance  costs.   Indicators of municipal fiscal  capa-
                    bility  include property  values,  median family income,  community growth  charac-
                    teristics,  and the  revenues,  expenditures, assets, and  total outstanding  indebted-
                    ness of the  local  government.

                    The  availability  of and  terms  for bonds depend on supply and demand in  the bond
                    market and  on  the nature and size of the planned wastewater facilities project in
                    comparison  to  the community's  fundamental  fiscal capabilities.  Supply and  demand
                    are  influenced by regional  and national  trends beyond the control of a particular
                    community.  It will be  more difficult for  a  community to  arrange  debt  financing
                    when  funds  are in  short supply.   The community's fundamental  fiscal  capabilities
                    will  affect its  ability to obtain funds and will affect  the interest rates  to be
                    paid on these funds.  If the community's  fiscal  capabilities  are marginal,  interest
                    charges  on  bonds will   likely be higher.   This will  further  reduce the  overall
                    fiscal capabilities  of the community.

                    Communities generally  depend on  two  types   of  bonds  to pay the   capital  costs of
                    wastewater  facilities:   general obligation bonds and  revenue bonds.   General obli-
                    gation  bonds are  backed by the "full  faith  and credit"  of  the community.   That  is,
                    they  are  ultimately  supported  by  the  property tax base  of  the community.   Revenues
                    generated by user charges may be  used  to  pay  the debt  service on general  obligation
                    bonds.  However,  if  the revenues  are  not sufficient to  meet  debt  service  payments,
                    the  community  is  obligated to draw upon property taxes to meet payments.   In some


                                                106

-------
states,  there  are  ceilings on  general  obligation debt,  and many  states  require
voter approval prior  to  a community's  issuing general  obligation  bonds.   Revenue
bonds  are  usually  paid   solely  through  the collection  of user  charges.   Revenue
bonds may  carry  a  higher interest rate than general obligation bonds because there
is a greater risk of payments not being met.

When evaluating  a  community's  ability to  meet  bond  payments,  the  financial  com-
munity (credit-rating firms, investment bankers, and large institutional investors)
evaluates the following factors (Moak and Hillhouse, 1975):

o  net direct and overlapping tax-supported debt per capita,

o  percentage of current property tax delinquency,

o  percentage of debt service  on tax-supported debt to  total revenues of the com-
   munity's operating budget,

o  average  life  of  existing  tax-supported debt  in  terms  of  general  obligation
   bonds,

o  the ratio of projected revenues to the total annual debt service, and

o  the  ratio  of the  depreciated value of  the  community's  revenue  producing faci-
   lities  to  the  outstanding  (remaining)  bonded  indebtedness  of  the facilities.

Other  factors  can also  indicate municipal fiscal  capability.   One  such  factor is
the  diversity  of income-generating  sources in  a  community.   Another  is  the  com-
munity's  past  experience with bonded  indebtedness.   It  is  more difficult  for  a
community  that  has never incurred  such  debts  to  secure  financing  than those  com-
munities whose past performance can be judged.   Dependence on one major industry or
company  may  be a  liability because  of  the possibility of the  plant  closing  or  a
labor  strike.   Favorable growth  prospects  in  terms of  system users  and  income is
viewed  as  a  positive factor.   Finally,  the  degree of public  support  after the
public  is  informed of  the  costs  for the  undertaking  of a  wastewater facilities
project  can serve  as  an  indicator of  users' willingness to pay for the facilities
once they are constructed (Moak and Hillhouse,  1975).

Certain  types of special  purpose districts  face more problems in securing financing
than do  cities,  towns,  and  counties.  Newly established special purpose  districts
that do  not have property  taxing authority will  have  difficulty raising  funds to
meet front-end  costs.  These  types  of  districts  also  will  not be  able  to issue
general  obligation  bonds and will have  to  pay a  higher  rate  of interest  on debt.
New  districts,  whether or  not  they  have taxing authority, will have  no  record to
prove  how reliably  they  discharge  their  debts.   New  districts  are,  therefore,
likely to face higher interest rates.

Both  capital  costs  and  operation  and  maintenance  costs must be  considered in
evaluating  the  community's  ability  to pay  for wastewater facilities.  Wastewater
facilities with  high capital  costs  may  strain the debt-carrying  capacity of the
community  and  may prevent  the community  from using bonds to pay  for other needs
such as  schools and  hospitals.   High operation and maintenance  costs associated
with other alternatives will not strain the community's debt capacity but may place
an excessive burden  on lower income  users  and reduce  their willingness to pay for
the facilities.

Communities should  retain the  services of  a bond  attorney.  Estimates of the local
share  of capital  costs,  operation and maintenance costs,  and administrative costs
should  be  submitted  to  the bond  attorney  as  early as  possible in the facilities
planning process.   Bond  attorneys can assist  communities in assessing their finan-
cial resources and can recommend the types  of  financing available to the community.
                             107

-------
2.   ASSESSMENT  OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR RESIDENTS

EIS VI-C-3          Expensive  wastewater facilities  may  have a  significant  financial  impact on users
    II-F-4          who will pay  the capital and operation and  maintenance  costs  associated with the
                    facilities.   Average annual homeowner costs  measure the  costs  that residents will
                    have to  pay.   These  charges  are calculated as discussed in Section II.F.4.

                    The U.S. EPA has provided  a guide  for judging whether a project will  have an ad-
                    verse effect on  the finances of  users  (U.S.  EPA, Facilities Planning, 1981, March,
                    1981).   Under this guidance U.S. EPA  considers projects expensive when the average
                    annual user charges  (including debt retirement) are:

                    o  1% of median household incomes less than $10,000.

                    o  1.5%  of  median household  incomes between $10,000 and $17,000.

                    o  1.75% of median household incomes greater  than $17,000.

                    A project  having average annual homeowner costs exceeding  these  income  limits is
                    likely to place a burden  on  system users and  may prevent the community from meeting
                    debt  service   obligations.   Communities  proposing  facilities  with higher  user
                    charges  should satisfy  themselves, the potential users, and state or Federal review
                    authorities that all  less expensive alternatives have been rejected for good cause.

EIS IV-B-4          In any community, some  users will pay  a higher percentage of their incomes than the
                    project  price guidelines.  Estimation of the percentage  of  users  thus affected by
                    various  wastewater alternatives provides another useful basis of economic compari-
                    son.  Percentage of users likely to  experience  financial burdens  is determined by
                    comparing   average  annual  homeowner  costs  with the  statistical  distribution of
                    household  income in a  community.  The  financial burden may cause families to alter
                    their spending  patterns   substantially  by  diverting  money from  their  accustomed
                    expenditures.   In the case of low incomes, the burden may be severe enough to cause
                    households  to be displaced,  that is,  move out of the wastewater facilities service
                    area.  A "rule of thumb" was used to  estimate  displacement pressure in the Seven
                    Rural Lake EIS's.  Displacement pressure was considered  to  be placed on residents
                    if  user charges  were  equal to  or  exceeded 5%  of a household's  annual income.
                    Financial  burden  and  displacement  pressure can be estimated  only  on the basis of
                    annual homeowner costs.  Owing to data  limitations,  valid  estimates of  impacts on
                    specific user groups ordinarily  cannot be made.

                    Average  annual homeowner  costs may vary  from the actual  user charges depending on
                    the way in  which private costs  are  to be paid.  House sewers, hook-up fees, front-
                    footage  assessment,  and  flow reduction  devices are private  costs to be  paid by
                    users.   A  community  may require  these  costs to be paid during  the first year of the
                    system's operation  instead  of  having them averaged  in with  user  charges over the
                    life of the project.   If private costs are paid during the first year, then actual
                    first-year  user  charges  will be  higher  and  future  user charges will be  lower  than
                    the average annual user  charges.  Under  this scenario,  the initial year financial
                    burden will be  much  more severe  than it  will be  in  following  years.  The method by
                    which private costs  are paid is  not  a decision made by U.S. EPA.

                    Front footage or benefit-based  assessments  should be  carefully evaluated  for econo-
                    mic effect  on  households and the community.   Seemingly small unit  assessments can
                    result  in  extremely large  total assessments  for  large areas,  such  as  farmland
                    within district boundaries.

3.   BENEFITS  FROM LOCAL PROCUREMENT  OF GOODS AND  SERVICE

EIS VI-C-5          Wastewater  alternatives  utilizing  small waste  flows systems  and  flows  reduction
                    devices  can have a  positive impact  on a community's economy.   The  construction of
                    centralized systems  generally  involves the  use of contractors and equipment  from
                    outside the local  area.   Optimum  operation alternatives,  however,  involve  local
                    contractors,  labor,  and  supplies to a greater  extent and  keep the funds  spent on
                    the  project within  the  community.   For  example,  equipment for centralized waste-

                                                108

-------
                    water facilities must  usually be  obtained  directly from manufacturers and whole-
                    salers  outside of the  local  area,  but  flow  reduction  devices may  be  available  from
                    local hardware  and  department stores  and  septic tank  suppliers, installers,  and
                    pumpers  are found in most  communities.   Local  laborers may be employed  to  construct
                    and operate both centralized  and  small  waste flows alternatives, but  on-site alter-
                    natives  rely  on  local  laborers  to a greater  extent and  require  their work over  a
                    longer  period of time.   On  a  community-wide scale, the use  of  local  goods  and
                    services  associated with  on-site  wastewater alternatives may partially offset  any
                    negative  economic impacts  resulting from growth restrictions  imposed  by minimum lot
                    size restrictions and bans against room additions.

F.   PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

TRD XIV-A           Planning for  wastewater  facilities  in rural  and  developing communities  provides
                    opportunities   for  public  participation  not available normally  in urbanized  set-
                    tings.   In particular, the   inspection,  evaluation,  and  construction of on-site
                    facilities  will  result in numerous  contacts  between individuals  in the  community
                    and planning  personnel.   These contacts  can  provide  a  personalized forum for ex-
                    plaining the  purpose  and  methods  of the project.   The  contacts  can also be a  way
                    for citizens to provide input to  the planning  process.

EIS II-D-l-b&c      The primary opportunities for personal  contact will be during   sanitary  surveys.
    II-D-2-a        The interview  with  which  each on-site  sanitary inspection starts  can  be  partially
                    devoted to discussing  the project as a whole.  Other opportunities  for  discussion
                    will arise  during  field  checking  of aerial photography,  septic  leachate  detector
                    surveys,  and other field work.

                    During  these contacts,  it  would be most helpful if  field  workers  were well-informed
                    about the  project as  well as their  own  task.   While  the contacts are  an excellent
                    means of gathering and spreading  information,  they  can also generate  and  perpetuate
                    misinformation.  If field  workers  are not well briefed,  therefore, they should  have
                    knowledgeable   project  personnel  available  to  respond to citizen's questions  in  a
                    timely  manner.

                    Property owners  will also want to  be  involved in  selection of the  facilities  re-
                    quired  on  their  property.  Their  first opportunity for  this will likely be public
                    hearings on facilities plans.  At this time,   technologies selected  on a  tentative
                    basis should  be reviewed with  interested  owners.   Maps indicating the  tentative
                    selections  should be posted  at  the meetings for this  purpose.  Facilities planners
                    should  be  prepared  to  explain  the  basis  of  selection  and  to discuss  additional
                    steps that will be taken to confirm or  modify the selection.

EIS II-A-4          If the  on-site sanitary inspection or other information  indicate  a need for on-site
                    construction,   the  next step  will  be a detailed site analysis.   The site  analysis
                    may  require   minor  excavation and  other property  disturbances.   Property owners
                    should,  therefore,  be  given  reasonable notice prior  to  the  work  so that  they may
                    attend.   Reasonable  care  in  preserving the property's appearance  at  this  point and
                    during  construction will also help preserve the owner's  cooperation.

EIS III-D           Some property owners may  object to  the  facilities  specified on  the basis of  site
                    analysis.   They  may  have  a  feasible alternative in  mind  which  minimizes  their  cost
                    or  disruption to their property.   On the  other hand they may want the  public to
                    help pay for  a larger  or  more elaborate system  than  is  necessary.  One  method for
                    dealing with  disputes  between property owners and  facility designers is  a sanitary
                    review board.   Analogous  to  a zoning board, a  sanitary  review  board would include
                    citizens of the  community whose  job it would  be to weigh owners' concerns against
                    public  concerns about cost,  water quality,  and public  health.

                    Depending  on  the role the community takes  in operation and maintenance,  the  need
                    for effective  public participation may not end with  Construction  Grants activities.
                    Communities will, no doubt,  find  cooperative and individual  means for  dealing  with
                    their own citizens.
                                                109

-------
                               Chapter V
  Funding  and Administering the  Optimum Operation Alternative-
                          Mitigative Measures
        United States
Environmental Protection Agency
           Region V

-------
                                             CHAPTER V

  FUNDING  AND  ADMINISTERING  THE  OPTIMUM OPERATION  ALTERNATIVE--MITIGATIVE  MEASURES


                    One  important  short-term  impact  of  the  Optimum  Operation  Alternative,  whether
                    implemented with Federal funding or not,  is the way in which it  raises  new adminis-
                    trative questions and requires new local  or even state administrative structures  to
                    work  well.   This  chapter  describes  some  of  the  mitigative  steps taken by the
                    Agency, Region  V,  and  other steps available to the states  to  overcome  this largely
                    psychological  hazard by  answering these  questions--both  in general  and as  they
                    affect the Construction Grants Program.

                    Only  a  limited  number  of optimum operation projects have yet  been build,  operating
                    under  only a limited  range of  conditions,  thus  leaving many  important  questions
                    unanswered.   Similarly  the  legal authority and administrative structure  needed for
                    proper  project  operation  may vary  considerably  among the several  states of the
                    Region or even  within  those states.  Typical  questions  of  this  kind have involved
                    the  legal authority for establishing an  on-site wastewater management  district,
                    available means  of training,  eligibility of particular treatment methods  for  state
                    or Federal funding,  and many others.

                    Some  of   these  questions  have  required U.S.  EPA clarification in Regional  or  even
                    Agency guidance.   Several  states and many municipalities have requested  advice  as
                    to  how  to respond  to  questions of  this  kind,  even  apart  from the  Construction
                    Grants Program.   This   chapter  represents  the  first  time  some of the most  recent
                    clarification and guidance of this type has been brought together in one  place.  It
                    also  offers an update of some questions still being discussed.

A.    FEDERAL CONCERNS

                    The  1977 amendments to the Clean  Water  Act made many kinds of  treatment systems
                    eligible  for Federal funding  that had previously been the sole  responsibility  of
                    their  owners.  This  of course raised many questions, especially about  the eligibi-
                    lity  of  some on-site treatment  systems under  various  special  circumstances.   Many
                    of  these were  resolved in the  subsequent  Program  Requirements  Memoranda (PRM's).

                    On  some questions, however, individual states differed as to the precise  meaning  of
                    the  PRM's,  requiring   regional  guidance,  or  even clarification  by  Agency  head-
                    quarters.  The Regional Guidance on Needs Documentation was one example of this,  as
                    was the July  16, 1980,  memorandum of the Facilities Requirements Division on use  of
                    local  ordinances to  establish access for on-site maintenance.

1.   ELIGIBILITY ISSUES

a.   Seasonal Properties

                    Seasonally occupied dwellings  served by  publicly owned collection and  treatment
                    were  eligible  for  Federal funding  long  before the  1977  amendments  to  the  Clean
                    Water Act.  The text of  the  1977  amendment and the associated regulations (40 CFR
                    35.918  (a) (2)) specifically excluded privately owned "individual systems" serving
                    seasonal  properties from  the  definition of an individual  system.  Although  there
                    are  good  arguments  that  can be  made against may Federal subsidy to  seasonally
                    operated  treatment systems, this would have resulted in a confusing situation with
                    only  the  (usually)  less cost-effective alternatives being fundable.

                    Fortunately,  the existing  text  of the  Clean Water Act and  regulations  offered a
                    reasonable solution to this problem:   public ownership of  single-family on-site
                    systems.   40 CFR  35.918-1  requires that  applicants  for individual  system funding
                    "(d)  certify that public ownership is not  feasible, and (h) obtain assurance  (such
                    as  an easement  or  covenant  running  with the  land)...of  unlimited access to each
                    individual system  at all  reasonable times  for  such purposes as inspection, monitor-


                                                112

-------
                    ing,  construction, maintenance,  operation,  rehabilitation and  replacement."   PRM
                    79-8  specifically relates these two requirements, stating that  access  and control
                    by  an agreement  running  with the land are "tantamount"  to public  ownership.   The
                    July  16,  1980  memorandum from William A. Whittington,  Acting  Facilities Require-
                    ments Division  Director,  extended this equivalence to public ownership to access by
                    local or county ordinance  (see below).

                    Thus  for  seasonally  occupied residences,  access  and  control,   rather  than simple
                    patterns of use,  are  the  determinants of eligibility.  Of course along with access,
                    actual  need and  cost-effectiveness  of any alternative  must  be  demonstrated.   To-
                    gether  they allow  selection of the most  cost-effective and  environmentally sound
                    alternative.

2.   INTERGENCY COORDINATION

a.   Incorporation of  Property Value  Changes in  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

                    Property values can be affected by the adequacy of the wastewater facilities serv-
                    ing the  property.  The value-added concept is  the amount of  value added to a pro-
                    perty as a result  of availability of  utilities such as  roads,  water, electricity,
                    and wastewater  disposal.    The  availability  of  these  utilities  usually  makes  a
                    property  more  valuable.    Centralized  facilities and  public   on-site  wastewater
                    districts can  add  to the value of property by minimizing  failures  and preventing
                    potential public  health hazards and nuisances.  The U.S. Department of Housing and
                    Urban Development  (HUD) uses the value-added concept  when  reviewing a developer's
                    or  community's  application for HUD mortgage insurance.  HUD generally requires that
                    public  facilities  be provided  if the costs do  not  substantially  exceed the value
                    added to the property  by  the facilities.  HUD  appraisers determine the definition
                    of  the  phrase  "substantially exceed" based  on whether  or not  the  cost of public
                    facilities would  cause the project to  be noncompetitive with  surrounding housing
                    costs.   Public  facilities generally are considered to mean centralized facilities.
                    However,   a strong case  can  be  made  for  including  public   on-site  wastewater
                    districts in the  definition of public  facilities.

                    It  is difficult  to assess  the  value  added to property by having public management
                    of  on-site systems.  Because the approach is so new and  data are incomplete, it is
                    impossible to make valid  statements on  its  effects  on property values.  More data
                    are available  for assessing the value  added  to property  values  by centralized
                    facilities.   However,  in  comparing centralized and small waste  flows facilities, a
                    cost-benefit analysis should not be used that  includes  the value added to property
                    by  centralized  facilities  and  neglects  the value  added by  public  management of
                    on-site  systems.

                    Although the net impact would be positive,  two factors may minimize the amount of
                    property value  added by public management of on-site  systems.   The first factor is
                    the stigma  attached  to septic  tanks  by many persons who may place  more value on
                    property served  by centralized  facilities,  regardless of performance.   The second
                    factor relates  to the degree to which  flow reduction measures that affect lifestyle
                    are required.   Water  restrictions such as a ban on room  additions, shorter  showers,
                    etc.,  do decrease  the  way  that property can be used.  Property  with these  restric-
                    tions is less valuable  than property where such restrictions  have been circumvented
                    through  the provision of  centralized facilities.

                    As  a policy, current cost-effectiveness analysis  guidelines  do  not allow inclusion
                    of  property  value changes.   A  theoretical  case can be made  for  including such
                    values as monetized social impacts.  However, since there are no data or experience
                    with  which  to  estimate  the property  value changes  associated with  the optimum
                    operation alternative,  incorporation of values  added is  not practical.
                                                113

-------
b.   Application of  the Davis-Bacon Act to  Small-Scale Construction Projects

TRD XVI-E           The Davis-Bacon Act is a Federal law that regulates the wages paid to laborers and
                    mechanics  under Federally funded construction contracts.  The act requires contrac-
                    tors and  subcontractors  to  pay at  least  the prevailing  wages  paid corresponding
                    classes  of laborers and mechanics working  on projects  of similar character in the
                    area where  the Federally funded construction  is  to be  performed.   All  U.S.  EPA
                    funded  wastewater facilities construction projects are subject  to  the Davis-Bacon
                    Act.

                    The purpose  of  the  act is  to protect  the stability of local area  wage  rates.
                    "Local  area"  is defined by  the act as  the city, town,  village,  or  other  civil
                    subdivision  of  the  state  in which  the  work is  to be performed.  Surveys of pre-
                    vailing  wages  in various trades  and various  types of projects throughout the nation
                    are conducted  by the U.S. Department of labor (DOL).

                    The Davis-Bacon  Act can  cause problems  for communities  trying to  implement  an
                    optimum  operation alternative.   When there  is no project of a similar character in
                    a  rural area,  the  DOL  bases  its  wage determination on  "similar"  projects  in the
                    nearest  urban areas.  "Similar" projects in terms  of  the optimum operation alter-
                    native  can include  large-scale  urban wastewater treatment facilities that currently
                    are classified by DOL as  "heavy construction projects."

                    Most of the companies that would be used to carry out the optimum operation alter-
                    native  are small firms that have had  little or no experience with Federal regula-
                    tions  promulgated under the Davis-Bacon Act.  Firms with few employees may have to
                    pay the  same worker at different rates for different types of jobs performed.   This
                    situation  can create worker dissatisfaction  and bookkeeping confusion.  Contractors
                    are required  to  post specified wage  rates  at the construction  site  and  to  pay at
                    least  once a week the full amount due their  workers according to the wage rates set
                    by the Secretary of Labor.  This requirement can  add  several hours of bookkeeping
                    time each  week for  a small contractor   Small contracting firms with little experi-
                    ence in dealing  with U.S. EPA  projects may  be discouraged from bidding on U.S. EPA
                    funded  projects as  a result of  the Davis-Bacon Act requirements.  This would reduce
                    competition and possibly increase the cost  of projects.

                    U.S. EPA  can  take  steps to  lessen the impacts of the Davis-Bacon Act on on-site
                    facilities  contractors.   The  act  enables  Federal  agencies  funding construction
                    activities to  request DOL to  establish a project wage determination based on indi-
                    vidual  projects until enough data have been collected  by DOL to establish general
                    wage guidelines for these types of projects.  DOL should be requested to change the
                    classification of small waste  flows projects from heavy construction to commercial
                    or  residential.  Finally, U.S. EPA and state Construction Grants agencies can take
                    the initiative to educate smaller businesses on the requirements of the Davis-Bacon
                    Act.

3.   MISCELLANEOUS

a.   Use of Local  Ordinances  for Access

                    As  described  above, 40  CFR 35.918(h) requires  access and  control  at reasonable
                    times   (by means of an easement  or covenant running  with the  land)  for Federal
                    funding of  all  individual  systems.   PRM  79-8  extends  this  to  "publicly owned"
                    single-family  systems occupied by seasonal  residents.  Within a very large on-site
                    wastewater management  district with many  residents, or within a very  small one with
                    particularly  limited administrative  capabilities,  acquisition of individual ease-
                    ments   with  a  detailed  legal  description  may  be  complex,  costly and imprecise,
                    particularly  in those  states  not  surveyed according to the  Township  and Range
                    method, or where a  "meets and  bounds"  legal  description must be  used.

                    Because of these concerns,  U.S. EPA's Facilities Requirements Division, on July 16,
                     1980,   in  a  memorandum  to Mr.  Charles  Sutfin, U.S.  EPA Region V Water Division
                    Director,  stated that  a local or  municipal ordinance  granting access and control


                                                114

-------
                    would also  be  considered  equivalent to public  ownership.   This, along  with the
                    "Fill in  the  blanks" easement form  described  below,  should make organization and
                    management of  on-site wastewater  district considerably easier.  Access by ordinance
                    is also  particularly useful  when  there  is no Federal funding at all.
b.   Needs  Documentation  for Alternative  Sewers
                    The advantages of pressure, vacuum,  and  small  diameter sewers over gravity sewers
                    are largely associated with cost-effectiveness.  These  include the virtual elimina-
                    tion of infiltration  and  inflow,  and much  lower costs  for unusual site conditions.
                    Since they  can  be built  in environmentally  sensitive  areas  that are difficult or
                    impossible  to sewer  conventionally,   some  alternative  sewers  can induce growth on
                    sites otherwise  undevelopable.   Except for  cost-effectiveness  and  feasability of
                    treatment  for  problem areas,  there  is   no special  national  interest  in  pre-
                    ferentially subsidizing alternative sewers.

                    Program Requirements  Memorandum 78-9  established definite standards for eligibility
                    of collector sewers.   Among these were the "two-thirds" rule, the requirement for
                    substantial human habitation of  the  areas  served by a  prescribed date, and a defi-
                    nition  of needs  documentation that  extended  only to actual  violation  of water
                    quality standards  or an  identified  immediate  public   health  hazard.   A later PRM
                    (79-8) specifically exempted alternative  sewers from the entire policy set forth in
                    PRM 78-9.

                    This  exemption  has  sometimes   been misunderstood  as  to exempt  alternative  sewers
                    from any  kind of needs documentation at all.  This is  clearly a misunderstanding,
                    since not only  the  regulation  but the text  of the Clean Water Act itself specifi-
                    cally  requires   documentation  of  need  for  every  action.    Future  U.S.  EPA  and
                    regional guidance will make it clear that  alternative sewers are exempt only from
                    the  two-thirds   and   substantial  human habitation rules  applicable  to  collector
                    sewers.

                    Please  note,  however,  that there are needs  that  may satisfy  the  general needs
                    requirement of  the  text  of the Clean  Water  Act and its regulations  and still not
                    satisfy PRM 78-9.   Certain algal blooms associated with  discharge  of septic tank
                    effluent  through groundwater  to  a   lake  may  seriously  affect  swimmability  and
                    fishability without violation  of  a specific  water quality standard or an immediate
                    publiic  health   hazard.   Grossly inadequate  treatment systems  (55-gallon  drums,
                    buried  automobiles, etc.)  may  not be causing a public  health  hazard, but have such
                    an overwhelming  probability of causing one as  to constitute an  indentifiable need.
c.   Pilot Studies
                    The reliability and  long-term  performance  of many alternative wastewater processes
                    are unknown.  To  develop  performance  data  and determine  the  local  feasibility of a
                    particular wastewater technology, the use  of pilot studies is desirable.  Program
                    Operations Memorandum (POM)  81-3 has  indicated that pilot plant work  for innovative
                    or alternative projects may  be eligible  for Step  1 facilities planning funds.  The
                    POM does  state that  funding  of such  studies during the Step  1 phase  does not imply
                    U.S.  EPA  policy  or  commitment to fund these studies during the  Step  2  or Step 3
                    processes.  Where  long-term  studies  are desirable,  additional sources of funding
                    may be required.
4.   REGIONAL  CONCERNS

b.   Conventional  Water  Use
                    State  201  agencies,  notably  in  Minnesota,  have  stressed  the  need for funded up-
                    graded and  replacement  facilities  to  be designed for conventional design  flows as
                    used  in  designing new  facilities.   The supporting  argument  for this position is
                    that substandard facilities will  fail  in the future.
                                                115

-------
EIS II-A-5          Where where standard  on-site  treatment facilities can be  installed  this  is obvi-
                    ously the preferred  course  of action.  However,  on many  existing developed lots,
                    full-sized  facilities  may not be feasible.  Staying on-site may require flow reduc-
                    tion devices;  limitations  on building additions; prohibitions on garbage grinders,
                    dishwashers,  or clothes washers;  subcode sized drainfields and/or advanced on-site
                    treatment (mounds, sand filters, dosing, etc.)  replacement.   Where these measures
                    have a reasonable chance of remedying  failures,  they  should be implemented and be
                    eligible  for funding unless off-site facilities can be shown to be cost-effective.

EIS VI-E-2          The use  of  flow  reduction devices and  prohibitions on  water-using appliances may
                    sometimes affect homeowner convenience.  However,  this policy places higher priori-
                    ties on  water  quality improvements and cost-effectiveness.  It is  based  on prior
                    findings  that subcode systems can  often perform  adequately and that avoiding off-
                    site facilities  is  the key to  maximizing  cost-effectiveness  in  unsewered areas.
                    The policy relies on  careful site  analysis to assess the causes of malfunction and
                    the operability of the subcode systems.

b.   Potential  Failures

                    Contrasting philosophies have been encountered  in determining  eligibility for the
                    upgrading and  replacement  of  on-site  systems.   Several  state  and local officials
                    currently  favor  an  approach that correlates   eligibility  with  compliance  with
                    current design  codes.   This  philosophy holds that, where  existing systems do not
                    substantially meet key design criteria, they should be abandoned and replaced with
                    funded on- or  off-site  facilities  that  meet the codes.  The assumption behind this
                    approach  is  that nonconforming systems will fail.

                    On the other hand,  some Federal  and  state  officials interpret Construction Grants
                    regulations as prohibiting the funding  of any construction that does not remedy an
                    on-going  water quality or public health problem.   In  recognition of the potential
                    for future failures,  this approach would include  or recommend  the establishment by
                    the grantee of a reserve fund for any  future failures.

                    The Seven Rural  Lake  EIS's, Region V's  Guidance for needs documentation,  and this
                    EIS take an intermediate approach  to  eligibility.   Existing systems identified as
                    potential  failures  because  of  obvious underdesign  and  other  factors  would  be
                    eligible  for  funding  provided  these  systems are  similar  to  systems that have al-
                    ready  failed.   Similarity  is  measured  by  system design,  usage,  soil characteris-
                    tics,  site  limitations, site drainage,  and  groundwater hydrology, as appropriate.

c.   Simplified Easement  Forms

                    The  access  (at reasonable times)  and control required  for individual systems by
                    35.918-1(h) and  extended to publicly  owned  single family  systems by PRM  79-8 does
                    not  need  a new  property  line  survey  of every  individual dwelling, especially in
                    states that  use  the  township  and  range survey  method.   In such states the  exact
                    legal  description of  the property  may commonly  be obtained from  county tax rolls,
                    allowing use of  a simple  "fill  in  the blanks" easement  form.   Figure V.A.I shows  a
                    sample  easement  form  of  this  type  developed   by  residents  of  Benzie  County,
                    Michigan.

d.   Innovative and Alternative  Off-site  Facilities

                    In many  communities that  adopt  the optimum operation approach, some of the devel-
                    oped lots will never  successfully  support  on-site systems.  Innovative and alter-
                    native off-site  facilities such  as holding  tanks, cluster systems,  or other small-
                    scale treatment methods will  be eligible for Federal  funding  if:

                    1.  a  public   health  or water  resource contamination problem is documented that
                        cannot be  abated  by any  combination of on-site conventional,  innovative, sub-
                        code, flow reduction or waste restriction  methods,  or
                                                116

-------
Figure V.A.I


                        SEWER EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY


          (D(WE)                         	
of
respectively,  in  consideration of the prospective benefits to be derived from
a  new or  upgraded sewer  and/or  improved water  quality in  Crystal  Lake,  do
hereby convey  and release to  the 	 an ease-
ment  and right of way  for unlimited access to the  present or future on-site
sewer system  or other systems of sewage disposal, at all reasonable times for
such purposes  as  inspection, monitoring, construction, maintenance, operation,
rehabilitation, and replacement, over, upon and across lands  owned by (me)(us)
and situated  in the  Township  of	   ,  County  of Benzie, State
of Michigan, and  more particularly described as follows:


          In witness, whereof, I have hereto set  my  hand this	
day of	, 19	.                                   ——

WITNESSES:
STATE OF 	) ss.
                          )
COUNTY OF 	)

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 	 day of 	,  19
                                                                  Notary Public

                                       My commission expires:

-------
                    2.   the  life cycle  costs of  off-site treatment  and  disposal for  an  individual
                        building  or group  of buildings  is less than the costs  of appropriate on-site
                        technologies for  the  same buildings.

EIS II-F-3          Innovative  and alternative off-site facilities may be included in optimum operation
                    alternatives  for purposes of cost-effectiveness analysis and environmental assess-
                    ment as indicated by partial sanitary  surveys and representative sampling.  Selec-
                    tion of an off-site  facility as  an  alternative depends, as  always,  on its cost-
                    effectiveness and  environmental  soundness.   However,  unless  needs  documentation
                    conclusively  demonstrates that  on-site methods will not  be  operable,  final eligi-
                    bility determinations for proposed off-site facilities will  be  contingent on com-
                    pletion of on-site sanitary inspections, detailed site analysis (where indicated),
                    and microscale cost-effectiveness analysis.

B.    STATE CONCERNS

1.    ADDRESSING  REGULATORY  AND   INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS  OF  THE  OPTIMUM OPERATION
      ALTERNATIVE

                    The implementation  of the  optimum operation  alternative  may  require  changes  in
                    existing state  regulatory and  institutional  requirements.   Specific  topics that
                    will need  to be addressed include regulatory requirements  pertaining to existing
                    systems; the authority  to manage private  wastewater  systems;  the  authority of a
                    community   to acquire  access  to privately  owned wastewater  systems;  and policies
                    relating to  the  granting of variances for individual systems.   These topics are
                    discussed  in  this  section.

TRD XV-A            The right  to continue to utilize  on-site  systems  constructed prior to adoption of
                    current design standards is an issue  that  has not been  directly addressed  in most
                    states.  Current regulations appear,  by omission of statements  to the contrary, to
                    allow  the  continued  use of these  systems  until such  time  that the systems fail.
                    Once  a system has  failed,  it is  normally required to  be  upgraded  to  code con-
                    formance if possible.   Minnesota statutes,  however, require automatic upgrading for
                    some types of nonconforming systems,  failing  or not.   If local communities are to
                    have  the   option  of  considering  use  of  the optimum operation  alternative, state
                    policies toward the  continued use  of  existing  systems may have  to be reconsidered.
                    Rights  to  the  continued use of  systems should be specified,  as  well as when up-
                    grading will be required.  Requirements for the upgrading  of existing systems may
                    also be made more  flexible  and site-specific  to allow  local  governments  discretion
                    in  requiring upgrading  based  on  local  conditions rather  than a  set  of  uniform
                    standards.

                    Illinois is  the  only Region V state that  has  granted  explicit authority to local
                    governments to manage on-site systems.  Small  waste  flows  management agencies can
                    be  established  in the other Region  V states  under  implicit authority  granted to
                    certain public bodies to manage centralized wastewater  facilities.  The  interpreta-
                    tion  of implied authority will  vary  from  state to state and may be challenged in
                    courts  on  the grounds  that  the authority to run publicly owned  facilities  does not
                    imply  authority to manage privately  owned on-site facilities.   Thus, while small
                    waste  flows  management programs can be operated on the basis of implied  authority,
                    there  is  a need in each state to  test these  implied  authorities  judicially or to
                    grant explicit authority to certain public  agencies.

EIS III-F           Inherent in any community management program for privately owned individual  systems
                    is a means for the management  agency to obtain access to  these  systems.   Methods of
TRD VIII-E          obtaining  access have already  been discussed in Chapter II-F.  Regulatory and insti-
                    tutional powers within  each state  should be reviewed and amended  as  appropriate to
                    provide management agencies with  the necessary access capabilities.

EIS III-E           State  control  over  local variance decisions  may be  desirable in recognition of
                    potential  problems  arising from improper  administration of variance  requirements
                                                118

-------
TRD VII-A           and the  lack  of uniformity  in  granting  variances  throughout the state.  However,
                    flexibility in variance requirements would be  desirable to allow  local  governments
                    to adapt variance requirements  to  local conditions.

                    Innovative technologies used  to  solve existing  problems are characterized by a less
                    certain level  of risk for  system failure  than risks with conventional technologies.
                    However, assumption of  somewhat higher risk may be justifiable by economic savings
                    associated with  the  use of  these technologies.  State policies  toward the use of
                    innovative technologies  should reflect  the  trade-off between  risks  and economic
                    savings and ensure that the systems  do not prove to be future economic  liabilities.

2.    STATE PLANNING ACTIVITIES FOR SMALL  COMMUNITIES

EIS III-K           Small  communities  involved in the management  of small waste  flows  systems can be
                    assisted by various  state  planning  activities.  Many of  these activities normally
TRD XV-C            could  not  be  carried  out  by the local  community because  of  lack of expertise or
                    authority.  U.S. EPA policies  toward the improvement of  wastewater facilities are
                    founded  on  the  goals  of  improving water  quality   and protecting  public health.
                    State and local communities may, however, have  additional goals associated with the
                    improvement of  wastewater facilities,  such as  the promotion  of growth, housing
                    development,  and economic  recovery.  These goals may in  fact be  considered higher
                    priority  in many rural areas.   In this  context,  states  could  assist local com-
                    munities  in defining local goals and wastewater needs.  Where  these goals may be
                    inconsistent with  U.S.  EPA  goals  for  Construction   Grants  funding,  the state may
                    assist the local community in finding alternative funding sources  or  in  a  reassess-
                    ment of goals.

                    Illinois provides a prime  example  of the  type of planning assistance  for wastewater
                    facilities that a  state may  provide for  rural  communities.  In  recognition of the
                    lack of  facilities planning  for  small communities, the Illinois EPA and designated
                    208 agencies prepared  Municipal Needs Analyses (MA) for  communities with popula-
                    tions  over 200.   These  MNA's were less detailed than typical facilities plans, but
                    they did  define  and  project  communities' wastewater  needs  and provide  recommenda-
                    tions  to meet  these needs.   In  a  number  of communities,  these recommendations
                    consisted of the continued use  and upgrading of on-site systems.

EIS IV-A-1&2        State and regional planning assistance may also be utilized in defining  rural areas
                    where  wastewater  improvements  are  needed.   For  rural lake  communities,  use  of
                    Section  314 lake  inventories will identify lakes with major pollution  problems and
                    identify  corrective  measures to  control pollution  sources.   Such corrective mea-
                    sures  may  include the  upgrading  of existing  wastewater  facilities,  including on-
                    site systems.    In  non-lake areas,  regional  and county assistance may  also be uti-
EIS IV-A-1          lized  in  delineating rural areas  with wastewater  needs.   Chapter IV,  Section A.I.
                    has discussed  approaches for  defining planning  area boundaries.

TRD XV-D            State  Construction  Grants  Programs should consider  the  use  of  separate priority
                    lists  for  funding small community projects.    None of the  states  in  Region V cur-
                    rently uses a  separate  priority list.  Small communities with substantial  unsewered
                    development have  wastewater  problems  as  severe  as  problems in larger  communities
                    with centralized  facilities.   However, the  conventional measures of severity such
                    as population  and volume of pollutants are not  appropriate measures for  problems in
EIS III-A-2         unsewered areas.  Comparisons among predominantly unsewered  areas would more equi-
                    tably  be  made  on  the factors that define a community's obligation to  take action:
                    development density,  failure  rates,  and sensitivity of water  resources.

                    Establishment  of a small  community  or  unsewered  areas priority list with separate
                    funding  would  avoid  unrealistic  comparisons of need between urban and rural com-
                    munities.

3.    STATE GRANT AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

                    Small  communities  encounter many problems  in participating  in the  Construction
                    Grants  program.   Lack  of  an effective  administrative and  management structure to


                                                119

-------
                   deal with  the  Construction Grants process and the lack of personnel with expertise
                   in  the  Construction Grants process or wastewater  technology  are  major reasons for
                   these problems.   The  U.S.  EPA (1980d) has identified the major problems small com-
                   munities have with  the Construction Grants process as:

                   o   difficulty in meeting the program's administrative requirements,

                   o   problems with managing  consulting engineers,

                   o   problems in dealing with U.S. EPA, the state, and the Corps of Engineers,

                   o   problems in employing the environmental assessment process, and

                   o   difficulty in meeting the accounting requirements for post-grant audits.

                   o   difficulty   in   structuring   local   share   of   financing   and   determining
                       affordability.

                   To  overcome  some of these problems faced by local communities, a state or regional
                   208 or similar  regional  agency could provide management assistance  to the local
                   communities.   Such  management  assistance  could  range  from  providing technical
                   assistance to assuming full management responsibility for the community's Construc-
                   tion  Grant.   States that  have been  delegated  responsibility  for  administering the
                   Construction  Grants Program have  been authorized  to  use Federal  funds to manage
                   waste treatment  construction grants for small  communities.  This authority is given
                   by  Section 205(g) of the Clean Water Act.

                   U.S. EPA has developed four models describing  potential "third party" assistance to
                   local  communities in managing Construction Grants  and  wastewater facilities (EPA,
                   1980d).   Two  of these models are based on existing state programs in New Hampshire
                   and Maryland.   The  other  two  are  the  circuit  rider model  and  the contractor
                   assistance model.   These four models are discussed below.
a.    New Hampshire Model
                    In this model,  the  state  agency would develop a  staff  to negotiate contracts for
                    all or  some  specified number  of small communities  within the  state.   The  state
                    staff  would  develop a  "prequalified" list  of consultants  to be  submitted  to a
                    community  for selection.   The  community would pick three preferred firms with  which
                    the state  staff  would negotiate.  State  staff involvement  would  be the greatest
                    during Step  1;  the  staff would  monitor the  consultant's  and community's progress
                    during Steps  2 and 3,  but  not  as  actively.

                    This  type of  assistance program  would relieve  local  communities  from the  responsi-
                    bility of  negotiating  and managing  contracts  with  consulting engineers  and  would
                    provide a  centralized  staff for  all small  community wastewater grant  assistance,
                    thus  greatly  streamlining the grants process.   Local communities  may resent the
                    loss  of their  local authority, however, and  local consulting engineers may resent
                    not being able to work  directly  with the  communities.  This  type of program  would
                    tend  to work  best in smaller states where  close contact between  the  communities and
                    the state  staff can  be maintained.
b.    Maryland  Model
                    This management  model  involves the  establishment  of a  non-profit corporation  to
                    provide  assistance  to  small  communities.   The  corporation  could provide a  wide
                    variety of services to  small  communities  dependent  on the  contractual  requirements
                    with an  individual  community.   Services may include the review of facility plans;
                    the  planning,  design,  construction,  and  operation of  treatment facilities;  and
                    acting  as  the  community's  agent in  application for grants  and   negotiating  con-
                    tracts.
                                                120

-------
                    The corporation  may be more  responsive to  community needs and concerns than a state
                    staff since it  relies on  the  communities  for  its existence.  The corporation could
                    also be more flexible than  state  agencies  in  providing and tailoring assistance to
                    a  local  community's  needs.    The  corporation  would have  to  have  a  close working
                    relationship with  the  state  regulatory  administration  to  be  effective.   State
                    subsidy of the corporation may also  be necessary to keep down local costs.
c.    Circuit Rider  Model
                    The state regulatory agency could  also  establish  through direct hiring or contract
                    a series of "circuit riders"  who  would  provide technical assistance consisting of
                    planning,  design  and  construction,  financial  planning,  or  actual  operation and
                    maintenance  of the treatment facilities.

                    The circuit  rider  could provide quick  and efficient service and provide a liaison
                    between the  local  communities  and  the state.   This  approach  is  well-suited to
                    larger states where  several circuit  riders  may be required to maintain close  com-
                    munity contact.   Problems  may  arise from the  lack  of  uniformity of work performance
                    among circuit  riders and their personal ability to  deal  with communities.    This
                    option would be costly  in  a  state  with a large area  and small population, but might
                    be practical for  smaller  areas  such as  those served by a 208 or regional planning
                    agency.
d.    Contractor Assistance Model
                    Under this option, the  state  would  contract  with a  private  firm  to provide  special
                    assistance to  local  communities.   Contractors  would  then  conduct  site  visits to
                    small  communities,  assess  community needs,  and provide  appropriate assistance.

                    This option would allow  the  state  to provide contractor assistance  to those areas
                    of  greatest  need.   The  state would  only pay  for assistance that is actually  uti-
                    lized by the  small communities.   The  cost  for the assistance could be  shared by the
                    local community.   State  management  of  contractor's assistance would be  required.
                    The ability of  the  contractor to  work effectively with the  local community, state
                    personnel, and  a  community's facilities planning consultant will be a  key to the
                    success of this approach.

4.   STATE STAFFING

                    Present manpower  involved  in the  regulation  of on-site  systems  in Region  V is
                    difficult to  quantify.   Sanitarians  are  normally the personnel  involved with the
                    regulation of these systems.   Identification  of the number of sanitarians  in  each
                    state could therefore  provide a measurement  of manpower  levels.   However,  there are
                    problems with this method.   First,  not  all  sanitarians  will be involved  in  on-site
                    regulation because  of the broad range  of  typical sanitarian duties.  Illinois is
                    the only  state  in Region  V requiring sanitarians to be  registered, allowing for an
                    accurate assessment of total  manpower.   Other Region, V states have voluntary regis-
                    tration programs  that make  assessment  of  total manpower difficult.  Furthermore,
                    Wisconsin does not have  a sanitarian  classification  as such  involved  in the  regula-
                    tion of on-site systems.   Wisconsin  requires  on-site  inspectors  to be certified as
                    plumbing  inspectors,  system  installers  to be licensed as master  plumbers, and  soil
                    evaluators to be  certified as soil  testers.   Estimates of  total existing manpower
                    within the limitations discussed are  given in Table  V-B-1.

TRD X-E             There are approximately 3.3.  million on-site systems  in Region  V.   Existing state
                    management of  on-site systems  is primarily  limited to permitting  new systems and
                    repairs,  installation inspections, and  responding to  complaints.  In some areas of
                    Region  V, even these  minimum regulatory  services  are  not provided.   Based on
                    assumptions developed and presented in  the  Technical Reference Document,  Chapter
                    X-E.,
                                                121

-------
TABLE V-B-1.   ESTIMATES OF PERSONNEL INVOLVED  IN  REGULATION  OF ON-SITE  SYSTEMS

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin

1,189
680
550
329
775
3,111

Registered sanitarians
Voluntarily registered
Voluntarily registered
Voluntarily registered
Voluntarily registered

and unregistered sanitarians
and unregistered sanitarians
sanitarians
sanitarians
Certified plumbing inspectors and
3,000 certified soil
testers

TRD VI-D

EIS III-K
C.   TRAINING
perhaps  1.1  million  systems  in  the  region may  eventually be  publicly  managed
through their entire  life-cycle.   To  the extent that greater state and local  roles
in the regulation and management of on-site systems are assumed,  additional  trained
manpower will be required.

Optimum operation  alternatives  will  require  manpower for  initial implementation,
continuing operation  and maintenance.  During  the  implementation  phase,  personnel
will  be  required for planning  (including needs  documentation),  design, and  con-
struction.   These  personnel  may  include  facilities planners specialized  in  small
waste flows  applications,  system  designers,  inspectors,  soil scientists,  laborers,
equipment operators,  environmental  and financial planners,  small  waste  flows  con-
tractors,  and  water  resource   scientists.   Once  the  alternative  is  implemented,
personnel such as  administrators,  clerks,  inspectors,  wastewater system operators,
and  laborers will  be  required  to insure proper operation and maintenance.   Defini-
tive  estimates  on  the  types  and  quantity of  personnel required  are  impractical
because of the wide range of variables affecting both manpower requirements and the
number of potential small waste flows projects.
                    An effective  small  waste  flows management program relies on competent personnel to
                    perform a myriad  of tasks related to small waste  flows  management.   This required
                    competency  is  gained through  experience  and  training.  Because  of  its  widespread
                    use and acceptance,  a  wealth of training and  experience  has been gained  in conven-
                    tional centralized  wastewater  technology.   There is a definite recognized need for
                    improved  training  of  multidisciplinary personnel  to work in  small waste  flows
                    management.

                    Training  programs  of many  types  are offered  throughout Region V by a  variety of
                    sponsors.   Training programs in most states have some excellent aspects,  but no one
                    state appears  to  have  developed a comprehensive training program for all levels of
                    personnel involved  in small waste flows management.

                    Better  training programs  in  small  waste  flows technology  are required  at  many
                    levels.  At the university level, more classroom training should be provided in the
                    use of small waste  flows wastewater technology.  Traditionally, university training
                    in wastewater  treatment  has focused on conventional  technology  and  on large-scale
                    treatment works.   Little  emphasis has been placed on on-site and other alternative
                    wastewater  treatment technology.   Even schools with degree programs in environ-
                    mental health  science,  which are often considered as sanitarian training programs,
                    do not  normally extensively cover the  topic  of small waste flows technology.   Few
                    of these  programs  incorporate  the "hands-on"  training necessary to  train an indi-
                    vidual  fully,  and only one program at Ferris State College in Michigan was identi-
                    fied  as having  an entire  course  devoted to  the  subject.   Classroom training is
                    available  at many  colleges  and universities  in subjects  directly associated with
                    small waste  flows technology,  such as soil science, hydrology, geology, and related
                    subjects.
                                                 122

-------
                    Training  programs for  field  personnel such  as  system  designers,  installers,  and
                    soil  testers  are  continually needed  to keep personnel informed of new developments.
                    These programs  may be offered by universities and state, regional, and local levels
                    of  government,  as well as by trade  associations.   The  Home Sewage Treatment Work-
                    shops sponsored by the University of  Minnesota  Extension  and the Minnesota Pollu-
                    tion  Control Agency,  as well  as  various workshops  offered by  the  University of
                    Wisconsin-Extension,  are excellent examples of  these programs.  Another example of
                    such  a program is the  two  day  course on alternative system design offered by U.S.
                    EPA through  its Small Wastewater Treatment Clearinghouse.

                    Universities  can also  develop  research  and  demonstration projects  in  aspects of
                    small waste  flows management.   Through these projects, universities can develop and
                    disseminate  valuable information  concerning  new technology  and other matters re-
                    lated to  the field.   Two universities in Region V, the  University of Wisconsin and
                    Purdue University,  are  performing research and developing demonstration projects
                    that  further  the  current  knowledge of  small waste flows  technology.  These programs
                    should be  supported,  encouraged, and  fostered at other universities.

                    Improvement  is also  necessary  at the on-the-job or  preservice  training level for
                    regulatory personnel  involved in small waste flows management.   Most states provide
                    no  formal  training for new employees.  Training that is provided depends upon the
                    place of employment.   In  some instances,  this means that new employees will receive
                    inadequate,   incomplete,  and/or incompetent  training.   The  State  of Ohio  has an
                    excellent  voluntary  preservice  training  program that includes 4 weeks of classroom
                    and  12 weeks  of  on-the-job training.  Indiana  also  provides  a  1-week orientation
                    session that includes  about  8  hours of  training in  small waste flows technology.
                    The Ohio program  is  a model for this  type of training program.

                    A final level  of training that  is  often  neglected  involves homeowner education.
                    Homeowners need  to  be  instructed in  the proper maintenance  procedures for their
                    individual on-site  systems.   As the  need for  homeowner maintenance increases with
                    the use of more  technologically complex  systems,  the level of  homeowner education
                    should also  be increased.  Examples  of homeowner education programs include educa-
                    tional brochures describing  on-site systems that have  been  published  by the Uni-
                    versity of  Wisconsin  and  the  University  of Minnesota extension  services.   The
                    University of  Wisconsin  also  offers  a  dial-a-cassette  recording  for receiving
                    information  over  the  telephone  related to on-site systems.  Homeowner education can
                    also  be provided  locally by public meetings, workshops,  and dissemination of infor-
                    mation related  to on-site systems.

D.   DOES  ANYONE WANT  THE  SMALL  WASTE FLOWS  APPROACH?

                    There are  many reasons why small  communities  seek  Construction Grants funding for
TRD XVI-A           improvement   of  local   wastewater  facilities.    U.S.  EPA,   however,  is  limited to
                    granting such funds  to  communities that demonstrate that they will use the funds to
                    limit the discharge  of pollutants and to  improve  local water quality.   Silverman
                    (1980) has   identified  four  common community  concerns associated  with improved
                    wastewater facilities,  each of  which  may  be an important impetus  for a community to
                    improve their wastewater facilities  and to  seek  Construction Grant funds:

                    o  avoiding  prosecution,
                    o  malfunctioning septic  tanks,
                    o  residential  and commercial growth,  and
                    o  industrial growth.

                    How  these  community  concerns  are addressed  by the  use of  the optimum operation
                    alternative  will  determine  in part the desirability of this approach.  These issues
                    are discussed below.

1.    AVOIDING  PROSECUTION

                    A basic reason for communities to improve  their wastewater facilities is to avoid
                    being prosecuted  for  noncompliance  with state  and  Federal  regulations governing


                                               123

-------
                    effluent  discharges and water  quality.   Since most  communities  are  not currently
                    liable  for  individual  systems, this  concern would  be  absent  in  communities  not
                    served  by  a  centralized wastewater system.  Therefore, communities with small waste
                    flows systems  likely have other reasons for improving wastewater facilities.
2.   MALFUNCTIONING SEPTIC  SYSTEMS
                    A major  reason why  communities seek wastewater improvements is to correct problems,
                    real  and perceived, associated with the use  of  oil-site  systems.   As has been dis-
                    cussed   in  this  EIS,  properly operated and  maintained  on-site systems,  and even
                    neglected  systems,  have been found to  be  effective  means  of wastewater treatment.
                    Traditionally, however,  on-site  systems have been looked  upon  as  inferior in com-
                    parison  to  conventional wastewater facilities.  This practice has led to the sewer-
                    ing of areas where on-site  systems could have continued to operate satisfactorily.
                    The use  of the optimum operation alternative will address this concern by insuring
                    that  on-site systems  are properly operated and  maintained and  that problems asso-
                    ciated  with their use, if  they do occur, will be quickly  recognized and corrected.
                    While this  may remedy the  actual  causes for  community concern with on-site system
                    use,  public education may also be required  to  change  traditional  attitudes toward
                    these systems.
3.    RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
                    Many communities  wish to  improve or  expand wastewater  facilities,  particularly
                    collector  sewer  systems,  to promote  residential and  commercial  development  in
                    suburban and rural areas.  When such  sewers  are  paid for in large part by Federal
                    money,  this  development  broadens  the community's  tax  base and  improves  the com-
                    munity's economic  status through  relatively  small local investments.   While the
                    Clean Water  Act  was  clearly  not enacted to promote  rural development,  it must be
                    recognized  that  sewers  funded under  the act have  been  precursors of  rural devel-
                    opment.

                    Where communities wish to use sewer:,  to promott such growth, the use of the optimum
                    operation  alternative  would   not  be  desirable.   However, the  use  of  the optimum
                    operation  alternative  along  with  liberal state arid local policies  for  the use of
                    alternative  systems  may  allow the development  of land previously  considered un-
                    developable.   Where this level of  development still does not satisfy a community's
                    goals for  residential  and commercial development,  alternative sources  of funding
                    for sewers  may be sought.
4.    INDUSTRIAL GROWTH
                    Associated with the use of sewers  tc  promote  residential and commercial development
                    is  their  use  to attract new industry and  to service  existing ones.  Clearly, the
                    use  of  the optimum operation alternative lends  itself only  to  small industrial
                    wastewater flows.   Where  industries,  are  existing  or  desired  within  a community,
                    they  may  have  to  provide  their owa  treatment  capabilities,  or  other  sources of
                    funding to improve wastewater facilities may  be  required.
                                                124

-------
                        Chapter VI
Environmental and Social Consequences Of The Proposed Action

-------
                                            CHAPTER VI

              ENVIRONMENTAL  AND SOCIAL  CONSEQUENCES OF  THE PROPOSED ACTION


                    Widespread  use  of the design and operation method described in Chapters  II  and  III
                    would  produce  its  own impact.   Like  all  other alternatives,  it  entails its  own
                    particular  mix  of  trade-offs.   Like  on-site treatment  in general, it  is  heavily
                    dependent  on intelligent installation and  management.   If this is  available, how-
                    ever,  it can provide water quality improvements closely comparable to  those  of  any
                    other  alternative at  a cost far below that  of any alternative other than  No  Action.
                    For  literally hundreds  of  rural lake projects, the optimum  operation alternative
                    may  offer  the greatest degree of water quality improvement for an affordable level
                    of community expenditure.

                    The  planning, design  and  management  methods of  Chapters II and III  have an even
                    broader  application.  They  can be used  to  isolate portions of  largely  off-site
                    projects where  optimum operation may  be feasible, and  to arrive at a just determi-
                    nation of  the action  needed, of whatever kind.

A.   WATER  QUALITY IMPACTS

1.   GROUNDWATER

a.   Problems and Solutions

                    Any  alternative  involving  improved  operation  of  on-site treatment  systems will
                    result in  continued discharges  to groundwater.  Septic  tanks  will  probably  be  the
                    most common source  of  these.  Implementation of the proposed alternative  will allow
                    identification  and  inventory  of  local  sources and impacts of  these discharges.
                    Continued  reliance  on upgraded  surface  and  subsurface  land  disposal  will  reduce,
                    but  not  eliminate,  impacts of existing discharges to groundwater.

EIS II-A-2-a        Many existing facilities  such  as  cesspools, bottomless  septic tanks,  and  poorly
                    installed  drainfields are  not providing the degree of  treatment possible.   On some
                    sites,  points of groundwater  use  may not  be protectable due  to  unfavorable geo-
                    hydrologic  conditions.  An  objective  of  the optimum  operation alternative is  to
                    detect and eliminate  or upgrade sources of contamination.   Totally unsatisfactory
                    systems  can be  replaced.  Drainfields can  be redesigned,  rebuilt,  or  relocated to
                    minimize groundwater impacts.   Gray water/black water  separation  can  largely eli-
                    minate nitrate  loadings  to groundwater.

EIS III-H-1          The  key  to reducing  impacts of  existing discharges  is  adequate identification  and
                    analysis of problems  followed by selection  of appropriate remedies.  In addition to
                    changes  in  the  wastewater system, remedies may include  reconstruction or  relocation
                    of  the well.  The  long-term success  of either  type of remedy must be monitored by
                    periodic sampling.

EIS III-H-1          Nitrate  and bacterial contamination are the  chief  concerns  related to septic tank
    IV-D-1          effluent discharges  to  groundwater.   At  the housing  densities and in  the  hydro-
                    geologic settings studied  in the Seven Rural Lake EIS's, contamination of wells by
TRD II-A            septic tank effluent  was not shown to be a problem.  The low density, linear devel-
    XIII-A-C        opment,  and  lack of fractured or  channeled bedrock in the  study  areas  appear to
                    preclude well  contamination  even in  areas  of high  groundwater.   Indeed, high
                    groundwater  may  actually  protect wells since  well screens  used  in  many  glacial
                    deposits draw water from levels deeper than the effluent plumes.

b.   Future Work Needed

                    Contamination of  groundwater by viruses and toxic substances that may be  discharged
                    with sewage are unresolved concerns.  Insufficient data exists to define  either  the
                    prevalence  or public health implications  of  such  contamination.   Thus,  while this


                                                127

-------
                   EIS  gives  broad  support  for  the  continued  use  of  on-site  systems,  it  also
                   recognizes  the  need  for  better analysis  of  this  concern  than is now  possible.
                   Therefore,  Region V will  work with  the  states in the Region  to establish funding
                   procedures  for analysis of  viruses  and  toxic  substances in wells.  As  an initial
                   proposal, this EIS recommends:

                   o  sampling  of selected,  properly protected wells previously  found  to  exceed  bac-
                      terial  or nitrate standards  and  suspected of  contamination  by  nearby on-site
                      systems,

                   o  concurrent  sampling  of  suspected wastewater sources, and

                   o  because  of  cost,  limitation  of  sampling  to  single  facilities  planning  areas
                      representative of each  physiographic province in the region.

                   In California  and New York, use of toxic septic tank cleaners (especially trichlo-
                   roethane)  in certain kinds of on-site treatment  systems  (especially cesspools in-
                   stalled  in  very high density) have been implicated in areawide toxic contamination
                   of aquifers.   Limitations on  the  use  of  toxic  cleaners  on a  nationwide  basis
                   (possibly  by the Federal Trade  Commission  or  the  Consumer Products Safety Commis-
                   sion)  deserve  serious considerations.
C.
     Information Needed for Assessment
2.
LAKES
                    In facilities planning areas characterized by linear, single- or double-tier devel-
                    opment in  nonfractured  and nonchanneled  geology,  description of  groundwater re-
                    sources  based  on available well logs and sampling data augmented by representative
                    sampling  of properly protected  on-site wells will  normally  suffice for assessing
                    impacts  of on-site  systems  on groundwater.   In other settings,  the  existence or
                    possibility of  adverse  impacts  should be assessed  by  a  professional  geologist or
                    hydrogeologist.
                    The optimum operation alternative is  likely to impact bacterial and nutrient input
                    to lakes.   The  two chief concerns are  (1) whether  on-site  treatment systems con-
                    tribute a significant share to  lake  loading,  and (2) whether the systems are pro-
                    perly designed or installed.
a.   Bacterial
EIS II-D            Bacterial contamination can be  identified by available survey and sampling methods.
    III-H-2         The most likely routes  of  bacterial  contamination from existing on-site systems are
    IV-D-1          direct discharges and  overland runoff  of surface malfunctions, almost all of which
                    are remediable under the  optimum  operation alternative.   Groundwater transport of
TRD XII             bacteria to lakes is possible  but appears  to be rare.  On-site systems in sandy or
                    gravelly soils and very close  to  lakeshores  are suspect and should be examined as
                    sources of bacterial  contamination.   On- and off-site technologies are available to
                    remedy bacterial  contamination  of  lakes.

b.   Nutrients  - General

                    Impacts  of  wastewater  nutrient inputs  can include increases  in  the aquatic pro-
                    ductivity of  a lake  as a whole and localized  stimulation of plant growth.  Loca-
                    lized  stimulation may  be  at the  point of plume emergence  or in sensitive parts of
                    lakes  such  as  embayments  and canals.   The  optimum operation alternative can, how-
                    ever,  reduce or  eliminate  lake nutrient input  resulting from direct discharges or
                    surface runoff.

EIS IV-D-2          Nutrient  inputs  to  most lakes from on-site  systems  are  generally small when com-
                    pared  to total  nutrient  loads.   The  nutrient of primary concern  is phosphorus.
                    Except in small lakes with high lake surface  area  to watershed  area  ratios and with
                    large  numbers  of nearby on-site  systems in  sandy soils,  the beneficial impact of
                                                128

-------
                    abandoning  the systems  on lake trophic status will  be  small.   Trophic status im-
                    provements  alone will  seldom be a  supportable  reason  for abandoning on-site sys-
                    tems .

                    Facilities  planners  for  rural lakeshore  communities  will be  required  to prepare
                    phosphorus  budgets  for alternatives considered.  This EIS presents a modeling tool
                    to use for making  preliminary estimates of phosphorus inputs from on-site systems.
                    More  rigorous models are  also available  to  analyze lake trophic status.  Eligibi-
                    lity  of  surface  water sampling programs  to  develop  nutrient budgets will be con-
                    sidered on a  case-by-case basis but not  until modeling exercises that can be com-
                    pleted without field data are prepared  and submitted  for review.

c.   Nutrients  - Local

EIS IV-D-3          Accumulation of phosphorus from on-site systems  in  poorly mixed parts of a lake can
                    result in nuisance plant  growth well  in  excess of growth in the main body.  Where
                    it can  be  demonstrated  that  1) on-site  systems are substantially contributing to
                    nuisance plant growth, 2)  abandonment  of  on-site systems  is cost-effective,  3) all
                    other  nutrient  control  methods have  been  evaluated  including  non-point   source
                    control methods, and 4)  the  community will  commit  to  implementing other methods
                    that  are practically and economically feasible, then  facilities that allow aban-
                    donment  of  on-site  systems   adjacent  to  such sensitive parts  of a  lake will be
                    eligible.

                    Plant growth  at  the point  of effluent emergence  into  the open  waters  of a lake
                    seldom interferes  with  recreational or other uses of  the water.  Availability of
                    suitable substratum, wave action,  and  fluctuations in  lake  level normally control
                    such  nearshore plant growth  naturally before it becomes  a  nuisance.  On-site up-
                    grading and replacements  may  incidentally reduce this growth,  and innovative tech-
                    niques such  as effluent  plume  recovery may  eliminate  it.   Abandonment of on-site
                    systems adjacent to the main body  of  lakes  solely for  the  purpose  of controlling
                    nearshore plant growth will not be  eligible.

B.   ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS

EIS IV-C-2          In rural  and developing  communities,  any form of  wastewater treatment technology
                    will   have  some  impact  on  environmentally   sensitive  areas.   Historically,  these
TRD VIII-A          areas were protected by on-site sanitary  code prohibitions and  by the fact that on-
    Xl-B-C          site  systems will not operate in them.  Sewers can  overcome  the natural constraints
                    to development in  such  areas and  result   in  permanent environmental  damage.  These
TRD IX-A            impacts  include  construction  in and development encroachment on floodplains, wet-
                    lands, prime  agricultural  lands, aquifer  recharge  areas,  steep slopes, habitat for
                    rare   and  endangered species,  as well  as historic and  archaeologic sites.  These
                    impacts will  also  occur  with off-site treatment provided by cluster systems, but
                    limitations on  the  size  of  collection and  absorption  systems  will  also  limit the
                    degree of impact.   Innovative on-site  technologies can  circumvent site limitations
                    and may  permit development  in sensitive  areas.  Again,  the degree  of impact will
                    probably be less than with centralized  systems.
1.    FLOODPLAINS
                    Executive Order  11988  on  floodplain management requires  that  U.S.  EPA deny  Federal
                    funding  to  projects that  induce  growth in  floodplain  areas.  In the Seven  Rural
                    Lake EIS's,  no  long-term  impacts  were anticipated  from secondary development  in
                    floodplain  areas because  most areas  had zoning  ordinances  or other development
                    regulations.  Some  short-term  impacts  are  anticipated from construction  of  cluster
                    system  collection  sewers.   However, proper erosion and  sedimentation  control  mea-
                    sures would mitigate these impacts.

                    Some rural  lake areas  such as the Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes Study Area in Michigan
                    have no inventory,  mapping,   or  zoning exclusion  for  floodplain areas.   Cluster
                    systems, shallow placement, or elevated mound systems  may overcome  site limitations
                    in these areas and thus encourage development.


                                                129

-------
2.    WETLANDS
                    Wetlands  are  afforded protection  by Executive  Order  11990  which  calls  for the
                    denial of  Federal funding  for projects  that might  induce  secondary development
                    there.   In general, small waste flows systems  are not anticipated to cause signi-
                    ficant impacts in wetland areas.   Wetland  site conditions  usually will not permit
                    any form  of  on-site  waste  treatment.   Construction of even  small-scale cluster
                    system collection lines in wetland areas,  however, may  require dewatering that can
                    result in  the decomposition of peaty or  organic  substrate and thus  significantly
                    alter  wetland character.   Construction may also alter the  hydrologic  flow patterns
                    in the wetlands.   These  collection  lines  may also  induce development  in or con-
                    tiguous  to  wetland  areas  where no development codes exist.   In a  number  of the
                    Seven  Rural Lake  project areas,  there was no delineation of wetland areas or devel-
                    opment codes  that would  prevent  development.   As a  result,  dredge  and  fill may
                    occur, buffers may be  destroyed, and  housing construction may be induced in wetland
                    areas.

3.   PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS

                    The regulations  established by  the Environmental  Protection Policy Act require
                    identification and evaluation  of   impacts  on  significant  agricultural lands.  The
                    regulations  implementing   U.S.  EPA's   Agricultural  Lands  Protection  under the
                    Construction  Grants  Program state  that no  award  should  be  made  for wastewater
                    collectors in a new sewer  system  "unless the  system  would  not  provide capacity for
                    new habitations... to be located  on environmentally sensitive land  such as wetlands,
                    floodplains,   or   prime    agricultural   lands"   (40  CFR   35.925-13(d)).    Cost-
                    effectiveness guidelines  of  these  regulations, Appendix A, state  that interceptors
                    should not be  extended into  prime agricultural lands unless they are necessary  to
                    eliminate point source discharges  or  to  accommodate  flows from  existing habitation.

                    Small  waste  flows  technology, as  proposed  in  the  Seven  Rural Lake EIS's, was  esti-
                    mated  to have limited  or  no impact on prime agricultural lands  in  rural lake areas.
                    This was  in part due  to the spatial distribution of the   agricultural lands  being
                    removed   from somewhat poorly  drained  lakeshore  soils.   In  some  cases,  steeply
                    sloping   land  contiguous  to  lakeshore areas  also prevented  encroachment  on  prime
                    agricultural lands.

                    However, small waste  flows  systems may potentially impact prime agricultural lands.
                    Because  these  lands are often  relatively  flat, well-drained upland areas, they are
                    also highly suitable  for  septic  tank/soil  absorption systems.   If  sufficient market
                    demand  exists,  prime agricultural  Lands  near  lakeshore  areas  could experience
                    development pressure.

EIS  III-C-5         Because  small  waste flows  result  in more  scattered  low density  residential devel-
                    opment patterns,  this  type  of technology may  result  in more agricultural land  being
                    devoted  to residential uses.   Often,  zoning provisions permit  higher  density devel-
                    opment  in  areas  provided  with centralized wastewater  treatment; thus,  clustered
                    development may occur. As  an example of this,  the Seven Rural  Lake EIS's  estimated
                    that 40% more land would  be required to serve the same  population with small  waste
                    flows systems than with centralized facilities.

4.   AQUIFER  RECHARGE AREAS

                    The impacts  of small  waste flows  systems  on drinking water  aquifers may  stem from
                    bacterial,  organic, suspended solids, and  nitrate-nitrogen  contamination.   In  areas
                    with  soil  texture  finer  than  sand,  bacteria, organics,   and  suspended  solids  in
                    wastewater  are readily removed by downward movement through  3 to 4  feet of  soil.
                    High  concentrations   of  nitrates   in  groundwaters  are  of  concern  because methe-
                    moglobinemia  may  occur  in  infants  who consume  such waters.   At high densities,
                    septic  tank/soil  absorption systems are suspected of causing  groundwater  nitrate-
                    nitrogen  levels  to be in  excess  of  the 10 mg/1  national  drinking water  standard.
                    If this  correlation is established in a  sole  source  drinking water aquifer recharge
                    area, the U.S. EPA administrator may  deny  financing to  projects proposing  addi-
                    tional decentralized  facilities. (40 CFR I49.10(a)).

                                                 130

-------
                    None  of the Seven Rural Lake EIS's  anticipated that small waste flows technologies
                    would have  any significant harmful impact on drinking water aquifers.  This  was  in
                    large part  due  to  the  linear development patterns  that minimize overlapping  of
                    leachate  plumes  and resultant accumulations of nitrates.   In  addition,  some forms
                    of  treatment  (cesspools,  etc.) most likely to  lead  to  aquifer contamination would
                    normally  be  eliminated.   Where hazards to the aquifer are severe,  certain forms  of
                    on-site  treatment  such as gray water/black water  separation or plume interception
                    can greatly reduce  nitrate hazards.
5.   STEEP  SLOPES
                    A common  impact  in  the  Seven Rural Lake EIS's was  encroachment  of  development  on
                    steep  slope  areas.   In those  communities with significant development pressure this
                    would  occur  to  a  lesser  extent with small waste flows systems than with centralized
                    facilities.   Induced development may occur on unstable hillside areas with result-
                    ing  erosion,  sedimentation, and  thus a probable increase in non-point source pollu-
                    tion.
6.   HABITAT FOR RARE  AND  ENDANGERED  SPECIES
                    Because  the rate, amount, and distribution of development dependent on small waste
                    flows  systems  is moderate compared with centralized  facilities,  none  of the Seven
                    Rural  Lake  EIS's anticipated  any impact  on rare  or  endangered species.   It  is
                    conceivable that lower density residential development may be  induced  in or adja-
                    cent to  habitat areas with  resultant human activity.  This activity could have the
                    effect of  altering species diversity or stability.
7.   HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGIC  SITES

                    Impacts  on these resources were difficult to  assess  in the Seven Rural Lake EIS's
                    because  inventories  were largely incomplete.  Much more effort is needed to incor-
                    porate  this  resource  information into facility design.  Anticipated impacts include
                    possible  induced  growth infringement on  or contiguous to  sites on  the  National
                    Register  of Historic  Places.   Facility  construction could also  result  in the  de-
                    struction  of below-ground resources.   As a  result, a Phase 1 archaeological survey
                    may be  required for Federally  funded small  waste  flows systems including proposed
                    on-site  facilities on  private property (36 CFR 800.3).  State Historic Preservation
                    Officers  determine  where archaeological surveys  must  be  conducted  for Federally
                    funded projects.

                    The Phase 1  reconnaisance  survey requires  the specialized knowledge  of a trained
                    archaeologist  who  would be able to inventory the  cultural  resources of an area  and
                    identify  their significance.   The survey would involve  small  scale  field analysis
                    of known and potential  sites as well as an  inventory of sites identified by local,
                    state,  and  Federal  interests.   Documentation would map  and  describe the  local
                    resources  in order to  mitigate  possible  impacts.

                    Please  note, however,  that the  shoreline development requiring wastewater treatment
                    has itself  commonly  led to site disturbance  that reduces  or eliminates potential
                    for further damage  from on-site treatment  repair or  upgrading.   Because not  all
                    systems  may require  upgrading  or replacement, the potential  for direct impacts on
                    undisturbed  sites  is  substantially lower for an on-site treatment approach than  for
                    a sewered  approach.

C.   ECONOMIC IMPACTS

1.   PRESENT WORTH  SAVINGS  IN THE REGION

EIS I-C-2-a         An estimated  137o  of all on-site  systems  in Region  V  could  be  either sewered or
                    publicly managed under an optimum operation  alternative.  For these 430,000 systems
TRD X-E             the estimated  difference in  present worths  between  the  two approaches  is  $1.9
                    billion, an  average  of $4,436 per dwelling.
                                                131

-------
                    Several  assumptions on which these estimates were based cannot at present be veri-
                    fied.   However,  it is felt  that  local and state initiatives to improve rural sani-
                    tation will have more effect on  the ultimate savings than will improvements in the
                    assumptions.

2.   COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL  GOVERNMENTS

EIS IV-E-1          The economic  impacts  of the optimum operation  alternative  will  typically be less
                    severe than the impacts  associated with  conventional  centralized wastewater faci-
                    lities.   The  capital  costs  of small waste  flows technologies  are less expensive
                    than the costs of  centralized facilities.  As a  result, the  local share that county
                    and municipal governments  must pay will  be reduced.   The  local share is reduced
                    further by  the  fact that the  U.S.  EPA  will  fund 85% of  grant  eligible costs of
                    small waste  flows  systems   in  comparison  to the  75%  funding  of conventional cen-
                    tralized facilities.  Depending  on  the  state  matching  grant, the  local share of
                    capital costs  will range   from  6% to  15%  of  the project's  total  capital costs.

                    Many states have statutory  limitations on the  amount  of debt that can be incurred
                    by  municipal  and  county governments.   Implementation of  the  optimum operation
                    alternative will enable  local  governments to incur less debt  than they would under
                    conventional  centralized  alternatives  because  of lower  capital  costs  and local
                    share.  The  Seven  Rural Lake  EIS's  indicated   that publicly  financed local costs
                    were  reduced  between  89% and  98% under  some  on-site  alternatLves.  Local govern-
                    ments will be able  to  use their  credit for  schools, hospitals, and other community
                    facilities rather  than for needlessly expensive  wastewater facilities.

                    Operation and maintenance costs will not  be  reduced in proportion to  capital reduc-
                    tions but will  generally be lower than with properly maintained  conventional faci-
                    lities.    As  with  conventional centralized  facilities, operation  and maintenance
                    costs associated with the optimal operation alternative  can be passed directly to
                    users.  County  and municipal  governments  that had  previously  required property
                    owners  to  bear  all the  costs  and responsibilities of  on-site  systems will incur
                    some administrative costs,  due to the  increased role  of local governments in sys-
                    tems  management under  the  optimum operation  alternative.   Because  of the flexi-
                    bility local  governments have  in the actual design of small flows management agen-
                    cies, they can match their  costs  to the actual  severity of local  water  quality pro-
                    blems .

3.   PRESENT  PROPERTY OWNERS

EIS IV-E-2          In unsewered  communities where the optimum  operation  alternative is feasible, the
                    economic burden on  present  property  owners, as  a  group, will  be  less than  it would
                    be  if a conventional centralized alternative  were selected.   Owners  with funded
                    on-site systems will  receive a combined  Federal and state  subsidy  of 85% to 94% on
                    upgrading, site investigation, and design services  in return for a  6% to  15%  con-
                    tribution  toward  planning.   Other  residents  not receiving  the subsidy may  con-
                    tribute  toward  the local  costs  of planning,  depending  on the  local decision on
                    voluntary  or  compulsory  participation in the small waste  flows management  program.
                    Financial  burdens  and pressure  placed on lower income  residents to move  from  the
                    service area  to avoid  expensive  user charges  (displacement  pressure) will  be rela-
                    tively low.

TRD VIII-B          The  actual economic burden placed on present  property  owners may vary  from resi-
                    dence  to  residence depending  on the manner in which capital, operation  and main-
                    tenance, reserve fund, and  administrative costs are allocated.  How these costs  are
                    distributed  is  a  decision  that will  have to be made  at  the local  level.   Communi-
                    ties  may  decide to spread  all costs evenly among all  users.  Under this scenario,
                    the  severity  of the economic burden  placed on  owners will  be solely a function of
                    each  owner's  income.   If the  community decides to allocate the  costs based  on the
                    actual  costs of serving a  specific  residence,  then economic burden will  vary  de-
                    pending on the  site limitations, type of technology chosen, and the specific  costs
                    for  insuring  proper system  function.   For  some owners such as  those using holding
                    tanks,  these  costs may be higher than the costs associated with  centralized facili-


                                                132

-------
                    ties.   The economic burden may  be severe,  regardless of income,  for  owners having
                    to pay high costs of site limitations.
4.
FUTURE OWNERS
                    Future property owners served  by  on-site  systems  will  have  to pay  the  full  capital
                    cost  of  their new  systems  exactly as  they would without  any  management  system.
                    U.S. EPA policy is  not  to subsidize future growth through  the  Construction Grants
                    program.   Future  capital  costs for on-site  systems  are deferred over the  20-year
                    project period and are unlikely to be  funded by local government.

                    Certain lots may require  a very expensive  on-site  technology.  The  individual  costs
                    on these lots in the future may equal  or exceed the individual shares of  subsidized
                    centralized facilities,  if these facilities were available.   In  cases where  sewered
                    off-lot  technologies  are  selected over   on-site  alternatives, the  magnitude  of
                    economic impacts on future property owners will be locally determined.

5.   UTILITY  CONTRACTORS  AND  LOCAL EQUIPMENT  SUPPLIERS
EIS IV-E-3
D.   LAND USE

EIS IV-C-2

TRD XI-A&B


TRD VIII-A
              Use of small  waste  flows  technologies in rural areas can have  a  positive  impact  on
              local utility contractors  and  equipment  suppliers.   Most construction services and
              equipment  for  on-site and  small-scale  technologies can  be  locally  supplied.   In
              contrast to  conventional  centralized facilities where outside firms  are  typically
              used,  optimum operation  alternatives may  lead  to  the  retention  of more  local,
              state, and Federal  funds  in  the rural  community.   The  conventional  contractors'
              objections to  and unfamiliarity with small waste flows  technologies  may indicate
              their  inability  to  compete successfully  with  local  firms.   Competition  for  con-
              tracts to construct and provide supplies  for small waste flows  systems is  likely  to
              come  from  non-local  firms  that have established expertise with these  technologies.
              The degree to which  Construction Grants  funds  are  retained  locally will  depend  on
              the ability  of  local  contractors to perform work on government contracts.  In some
              cases, the project  workload and the meeting  of Federal  contracting  regulations,
              such  as  the  Davis-Bacon Act,  may be  more  than small rural area firms  can  handle.
              Optimum operation alternatives may  affect  the amount, rate, and  density  of devel-
              opment in communities within a reasonable commuting distance of employment centers.
              Often large lot size requirements are called for by local sanitary codes  to protect
              the quality of  groundwater  used  as  domestic water supply.   These  lot size require-
              ments for new  dwellings  will probably not  change  as  a  result  of  adopting alterna-
              tive  on-site  treatment technologies; water well-treatment system  separation  dis-
              tances will be retained.   The net effect of such constraints on new development may
              be  adverse  or  beneficial  depending on  local  community  development  objectives.

              Cluster  systems  using off-site  soils   circumvent development controls  based  on
              sanitary codes and soils limitations.  Cluster systems may  thus permit considerably
              higher density residential development.   High density development  may be  counter to
              local development objectives.  Cluster systems may permit infilling within existing
              development areas resulting  in  loss of  open  space buffers  between existing devel-
              opment,   and  possibly  into  areas unsuitable  for residential  development.   Multi-
              family  systems  could have  a positive  impact  where  higher density  planned devel-
              opment permits conservation of open  space in contiguous  areas.

              The predominant  settlement  pattern  and housing type  in the Seven Rural  Lake EIS
              communities were  single-family  detached residential units  in  single-tier develop-
              ment around lakeshore areas.  Other  rural areas depending on on-site technology are
              also  single-family  units  in  small  subdivisions or  in  dispersed   low  density  pat-
              terns.  This  pattern has been determined  by transportation access to lots  and by
              spatial distribution  of suitable soils.   If  on-site  technologies continue to  be
              used, this development pattern may  lead to a situation where the  future  options to
              sewer may be precluded because of the great expense incurred in constructing sewers
              between dispersed  homes.   Further  dependence upon local  sanitary codes may  thus
                                                133

-------
                    severely restrict the  amount and distribution of  developable  land  in lake areas.
                    Such restrictions may  be counter to local  development  goals  as well.  Wastewater
EIS III-C-5         treatment planning offers local municipalities an  important chance to save on land
                    planning concurrently  with  preparation  of a  facilities plan.   Because  the  two
                    topics  are  so  closely  linked, anticipation of impacts  prior  to facilities design
                    and formulation of an  impact mitigation  strategy could  save considerable time and
                    expense.   An understanding of the environmental  resource  base,  housing types,  lot
                    sizes,  and  existing  densities, in  conjunction with  a program that involves land use
                    planning concurrent  with  facilities  planning,   would  lead to  an environmentally
                    sound wastewater management program.

E.    RESIDENT  PRIVACY AND  INCONVENIENCE

1.    INTRUSIONS ON  PRIVACY

EIS II1-A-2         Local access and  control  over on-site  systems, although  required by both the Clean
                    Water Act and common sense,  raise  concerns  about  individual privacy and the sancti-
                    ty of private property.   The  establishment  of on-site permit requirements a genera-
                    tion ago raised  similar  concerns.  A poorly planned, designed or funded version of
                    the optimum  operation  alternative might  not offer  benefits worth the  costs that it
                    incurs,  whether in  money or privacy.   Any  transfer  of  authority  to government
                    reduces  individual  choices,   and  may  make  some  residents feel helpless,  or more
                    nearly so.   For this  reason community authority  should  be  exerted tactfully and
                    sparingly,  balancing public health and  water quality needs against any  infringement
                    of privacy.

                    If  something more than  individual initiative  and present management practices is
                    necessary,   what  are the  differences  in  privacy between  sewering  and the optimum
                    operation alternative?   The amount of money that  must be  paid  for wastewater treat-
                    ment could  be considered one measure  of  intrusion  into people's  lives.  On this
                    basis,  the  optimum  operation alternative will  be less  of an  intrusion in any case
                    where  it is cost-effective.   In  another sense,  the  legal  requirement to abandon
                    one's  on-site  system and connect  to  a sewer is  as severe an intrusion on private
                    property as any physical intrusion by  inspectors  or meter  readers.

                    For the  resident whose  on-site system  is  causing  no problems and is meeting current
                    design standards, short-term intrusions  will  include  a  one- or two-hour interview
                    and site inspection during the sanitary survey  and  possibly  a  return visit  for well
                    water  sampling.   Continuing  intrusions would  include periodic (1  to 3 years) site
                    inspections  by  a  surveyor,  routine  septic  tank pumping  every  2  to 5 years  and, for
                    lakeshore  dwellings, possible groundwater  and surface  water monitoring  activities
                    along  their  beaches.   Some  of these  residents may be asked to  allow  well  sampling
                    at  the same  time.  All  these intrusions can be  minimized by  careful advanced notice
                    and mutual agreement on public entry.

                    For  residents whose on-site systems  require  repair,  replacement,  or  upgrading,
                    intrusions  caused by detailed site  analysis and  construction will be  roughly com-
                    parable  to  laying out  and installing  house sewers. Either  could  require modifica-
                    tion of  interior plumbing that  can be disruptive  as well  as  annoying.   Intrusions
                    resulting  from on-site  system construction  will affect  only a  fraction of the total
                    residents  in a  service  area,  whereas all  residents  connecting to sewers will be
                    affected.

                    For certain on-site systems  needing  repair, replacement, or  upgrading,  continuing
                    intrusions  would  also  be greater  than with properly designed  and  operating systems
                    or  with gravity  sewers.  On-site  pumping units  need  inspection and  maintenance
                    perhaps  once or twice  per year.  If water  flows must  be metered  for  hydraulically
                    limited  systems,  meter readers  would  enter the  premises  perhaps once  per  quarter.
                    In  general, continuing  intrusions will  be related to  the complexity  of the  faci-
                    lities  necessary to deal  with  site  limitations;  the more complex the facilities,
                    the more maintenance would be required.
                                                 134

-------
                    Intrusions  will  be  greatest  for residences  required  to  install holding  tanks.
                    Visits  by the pump truck can be  embarrassing as well as disturbing.   This (as well
                    as  nuisances  and costs) can be minimized by constructing holding tanks with hopper
                    bottoms  and riser pipes with quick-lock fittings  and by  installing  flow reduction
                    devices  in  the  house.

2.    REMOVING  RESTRICTIONS TO  WATER  USE

TRD XVI-A           For many properties,  modification of on- and off-site small waste flows facilities
                    will remove  practical  restrictions  to  water  use.   New  or upgraded  systems  may
                    handle  dishwashers,  clothes washers,  garbage  grinders,  and  additional occupants,
                    which previously  were  avoided   or  prohibited.   Some  properties  will  not be  so
                    fortunate,  such as those on small  lots  for  which existing, subcode,  or innovative
                    facilities  will  be adequate with  minimum water usage and for which off-site facili-
                    ties are not  affordable.
                                                135

-------
 Chapter VII
Coordination

-------
                                            CHAPTER VII
                                           COORDINATION
List of those sent copy of Draft EIS.

U.S. SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES

Senator Allan J. Dixon
Senator Charles H. Percy
Senator Richard G. Lugal
Senator Dan Quayle
Senator Carl Levin
Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr.
Senator Rudolph E. Boschivthy
Senator David Durenberger
Senator John Glenn
Senator Howard Metzenbaum
Senator Robert W. Kasten, Jr.
Senator William Proxmire

Illinois

Representative Harold Washington
Representative Gus Savage
Representative Martin A. Russo
Representative Edward J. Derwinski
Representative John G. Fary
Representative Henry J. Hyde
Representative Cardiss Collins
Representative Dan Rostenkowski
Representative Sidney R. Yates
Representative John Edward Porter
Representative Frank Annunzio
Representative Philip M. Crane
Representative Robert McClory
Representative John Erlenborn
Representative Tom Corcoran
Representative Lynn Marten
Representative George O'Brien
Representative Robert H. Michel
Representative Thomas F. Railsback
Representative Paul Findley
Representative Edward R. Madigan
Representative Daniel B. Crane
Representative Melvin Price
Representative Paul Simon

Indiana

Representative Adam Benjamin, Jr.
Representative Floyd J. Fithian
Representative John Hiler
Representative Dan Coats
Representative Elwood Hillis
Representative David W. Evans
Representative John T. Myers
Representative H. Joel Deckard
Representative Lee H. Hamilton
Representative Philip R. Sharp
Representative Andrew Jacobs, Jr.
Representative John  Conyers, Jr.
Representative Carl  D.  Pursell
Representative Howard E.  Wolpe
Representative Dave  A.  Stockman
                                                 138

-------
Michigan--Continued

Representative Harold S. Sawyer
Representative Jim Dunn
Representative Dale E. Kildee
Representative Bob Traxler
Representative Guy Vander Jagt
Representative Donald J. Albosta
Representative Robert W. Davis
Representative David E. Bonior
Representative George Crockett
Representative Dennis Hertel
Representative William D. Ford
Representative John D. Dingell
Representative William M. Brodhead
Representative James J. Blanchard
Representative William S. Broorafield

Minnesota

Representative Arlen Erdahl
Representative Thomas M. Hagedorn
Representative Bill Frenzel
Representative Bruce F. Vento
Representative Martin Olar Sabo
Representative Vin Weber
Representative Arlan Stangeland
Representative James L. Oberstar

Ohio

Representative Willis Gardison
Representative Thomas Luken
Representative Tony Hall
Representative Tennyson Guyer
Representative Delbert Latta
Representative Bob McEwen
Representative Clarence J. Brown
Representative Thomas Kindness
Representative Ed Weber
Representative Clarence Miller
Representative William Stanton
Representative Bob Shamansky
Representative Donald Pease
Representative John Seiberling
Representative Chalmers Wylie
Representative Ralph Regula
Representative John M. Ashbrook
Representative Douglas Applegate
Representative Lyle Williams
Representative Mary Rose Oaker
Representative Louis Stokes
Representative Dennis Eckart
Representative Ron Mottl

Wisconsin

Representative Les Aspin
Representative Robert W. Kastenmeier
Representative Steve Gunderson
Representative Clement J. Zablocki
Representative Henry  S. Reuss
Representative Thomas Petri
Representative David R. Obey
Representative Toby Roth
Representative F. James Sensenbrenner,  Jr.
                                                 139

-------
FEDERAL AGENCIES

Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Agricultural
Department of Commerce
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
U.S. EPA Regional Offices

STATE AGENCIES

Illinois

Office of the Governor
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Institute of Natural Resources
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois Department  of Public Health
Illinois Department  of Agricultural, Division of Natural Resources
Illinois Department  of Conservation
Illinois State  Geological Survey
Illinois State  Water Survey

Indiana

Office of the Governor
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Indiana State Board  of Health
Indiana Stream  Pollution Control Board
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Indiana Geological Survey
Indiana State Soil & Water Conservation Commission
Indiana Department of Agriculture

Michigan

Office of the Governor
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Michigan Department  of Natural  Resources
Michigan Environmental Review Board
Michigan Department  of Public Health
Michigan Department  of Agriculture

Minnesota

Office of the Governor
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Minnesota Pollution  Control Agency
Minnesota Water Resources Board
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota State Planning Agency
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Minnesota Energy  Agency
Minnesota Department of Agriculture

                                                 140

-------
Ohio

Office of the Governor
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio Environmental Board of Review
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Ohio Department of Health
Ohio Biological Survey
Ohio Department of Energy
Ohio Department of Agriculture
Ohio Department of Transportation

Wisconsin

Office of the Governor
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade
  and Consumer Protection
Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Wisconsin Division of Energy
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey

CITIZENS AND GROUPS

This list is available upon request from U.S. EPA.
                                                141

-------
                                        LIST OF  PREPARERS
                    This  Draft Environmenal Impact Statement was prepared under the supervision of Mr.
                    Theodore  Rockwell, Project Officer, U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency - Region
                    V,  EIS  Preparation Section  and Mr. Alfred Krause, Technology Section.

                    The Technical  Reference Documents  on which  this EIS  is based and materials, for the
                    Draft EIS were prepared by the  staff  of WAPORA, Inc.,  Chevy Chase, Maryland.  Mr.
                    Gerald  Peters, Jr.  was WAPORA's  Project Manager.   Mr. Eric  Hediger was WAPORA's
                    Assistant Project  Manager.   WAPORA's  project staff,  their  areas  of expertise and
                    sections  of the  Draft EIS and  Technical  Reference  Documents  for which they were
                    principally responsible are  listed  below.   Four of the Technical Reference Docu-
                    ments were  prepared  by  the   Clean  Water  Fund  under  the direction of  Mr.  Larry
                    Silverman.
Name
Gerald 0.  Peters,  Jr.
Project Manager

Eric M. Hediger
Ass't Project Manager

Edward D.  Hagarty
Environmental Engineer

Wu-Seng Lung
                         Highest Degree

                         M.S.  Environmental  Science
                         Registered Sanitarian
Draft EIS

I-A-c; II-C,E;
III-A,C,H,L
                         M.E.M.  Environmental  Management   II-D,F;  IV-A-2


                         M.S.,  Civil Engineering           II-A,B;  II1-F
                         E.I.T,  Engineer in  Training
                         PhD.,  Environmental  Engineering
Water Resources Engineer Professional Engineer

                         M.S.,  Environmental Health
Stuart D. Wilson
Environmental Health
  Scientist

Richard M.  Loughery
Public Administration
  Specialist

Estelle K.  Schumann
Environmental Health
  Scientist

J. Ross Pilling
Environmental Planner

Roger Moose
Hydrogeolegist

Gerald D. Lennson
Agricultural Engineer

Jerald D. Hitzemann
Demographer

Mirza H. Meghji
Sanitary Engineer
                         M.P.A.,  Environmental Policy



                         M.S.,  Environmental Science



                         M.R.P.,  Regional Planning


                         M.S. ,  Geology


                         M.S.,  Agricultural Engineering


                         M.C.P. ,  City Planning
                         PhD.,  Environmental Engineering
                         Professional Engineer
III-B,D,E,F,J,K;
V-B.C
III-I; IV-E
IV-A,B,C,F,H;
VI-B.D
Technical Reference
	Documents	

II-B, D,E,F,G; VII-C;
1X-A,B; X-E; XV-D; XVI-D

III-A; IV-A
                    I; II-I,J,L; IV-A,B,C,D;
                    VIII-D

                    XII-C,D,E,F,G
VI-A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I;
VII-A.B; XV-C
VIII-B; XV-A,B; XVI-A



II-A; XII-A; XIII-A



VII-A.F; IX-C; X-C.D;
XI-A,B,C; XIV-A; XVI-B.C

II-C,H; XIII-B,C


II-K, III-B


X-A,B


IV-A; XII-B

-------
                                                                              Technical Reference
Name                     Highest Degree                   Draft EIS           	Documents	

Rhoda Granat             M.A.,  Psychology
Librarian

Melissa Wieland          B.A.,  Biology
Graphics Artist

Stephanie Davis          B.A.,  English
Editor

Catherine Skintik        M.A.,  English
Editor

CLEAN WATER FUND                                                              V-A,B; VII-E; XVI-E

Larry J. Silvermand      L.L.D
Task Manager

Susan B. Grandis         B.A. Legal Studies
Legal Researcher

Edward Hopkins           M.A. History and Political Science

-------
                                                 INDEX
access considerations, 77-78
      by acquisition of deeded rights, 77-78
      by owner's permission, 77
      by statutory grants of authority, 78
aerial photographic interpretation, 6, 23, 38, 42-43, 95
agency, 208 plans, 92-94, 119
        201 plans, 113
agricultural lands, impacts of
    proposed action, 130
aquifers, 22
      recharge areas, impacts of
        proposed action, 130-131
      sampling, 80-81
archaeologic and historic sites, 98,
    impacts of proposed action, 131

bacterial contamination, 22, 24, 80-81, 101-102, 127-129, 130-131
    aquifers 22, 80-81, 130-131
    contact waters, 101
    drinking water, 101
    groundwater, 24, 79-81, 127-128
    lake water, 128-129
bids, competitive for on-site
    systems, 53-54
black water, black water/gray water, 5, 30, 100, 106, 127, 131

centralized approaches, defined, 3
certification programs, as  function
  of management agency, 73
Clean Water Act, 4, 36, 67, 77, 84, 91, 114, 119, 123, 134
cluster  systems, 49, 52, 55-56, 70, 81, 82, 92, 99, 100, 116, 133
collection systems  (see off-site treatment; sewers)
  for small scale off-site  treatment,  33
  for sewers, 33
community management, of small waste  flows
  systems, 67-86
    cost, 82-84
    involvement, 74-75
    need for, 67-69
    program design, 71-74
    variances,  75-77
community management models, 69-71
  combined management approaches,  70
  comprehensive water quality management,  70-71
  owner  volunteer,  69
  status quo alternative, 69
  universal community management,  70
Construction Grants:
  administration,  112-124
  and Davis-Bacon Act,  117
  eligibility,  63-64, 112-116
  Federal concerns, 112-117
  State  concerns,  117-121
cost  analysis,  for  small waste  flows  technologies, 54-63
cost  curve analysis,  54, 59-61
cost-effectiveness  analysis for small  waste flows technologies, 61-62
cost variability  study, 54-59
costs:
  of  conventional  collection &  treatment  systems, 10-12
  of  on-site systems, 17-18
  for homeowners,  62-63
  local, defined,  82
  local, recovery,  82-84

-------
Davis-Bacoa Act, 117, 133
  and Construction Grants Program 117
  application of, 117
demography, and facilities planning,  92-98

easements (See access considerations),  77
economic characteristics, of residents, 97-98
economic impacts of facilities planning, 106-109
  for residents, 107-108
economic impacts, of proposed action, 131-133
  on county and municipal governments,  132
  on future owners, 133
  on present owners, 132-133
  on region, 131
  on utility contractors and suppliers, 133
effluent plume, recovery, 31, 45, 75, 79
eligibility, of small waste flows systems, 112-116
  for Contruction Grants, 112-116
  conventional water use, 113
  flow reduction devices, 113-115
  needs documentation for alternative sewers, 115
  off-site facilities, 116
  pilot studies, 115
  potential failures, 115
  seasonal properties, 112
embayments, 105, 106, 128
empirical relationsnips, data, models,  25, 26, 46, 48, 102
enforcement, as management agency function, 67
environmental factors, 55, 129
environmental constraints, and facilities planning, 55-56, 59, 98-101
environmental impacts:
  on collection and treatment facilities, 12-13
  on on-site systems, 18, 21-31
  on proposed action, 127-135
  on sewers, 12-13
eutrophication of lakes, 41, 102-105
evaluation methods, existing on-site systems, 6

facilities planning, 89-109
       area boundaries, 89-90
       demography, 92-98
       economic impacts, 97-98
       environmental approach, 90
       environmental constraints, 98-101
       financial impacts, 106-109
       identification, 90
       jurisdictional approach, 89-90
       and land use, 96, 98-101
       mathematical projections, 96
       and population estimates, 94-97
       public participation, 109
       ratio/snare, 96
       recreational facilities, 92-94
       and second-home development, 92-93
       water resources, 101-106
financial impacts, of facilities planning, 106-109
       local procurement of goods
         and services, 108
       for residents, 107-108
financial responsibilities, of management agency, 82-84
fixed film reactors, 35
floodpiains, impact of proposed action,  129
flow reduction devices, 5,  30, 70-71,  79,  113-115

-------
groundwater, 24, 47-48,  79-82,  127-128,  130-131
      contamination 9,  22,  24,  25,  127,  130-131
      effluents, 31, 45, 75, 79
      future work, 127-128
      hydrology 16, 17,  24
      monitoring, 71-82
      problems & solutions, 127
      proposed action,  consequences, 127-128
      sampling, 47-48,  79-81
      surveys, 81

historic and archaeologic sites, impacts of proposed action, 117
holding tanks, 31, 83,  84,  116, 132, 135
homeowner cost, average annual, for small waste flows techniques,  62-63
hypothetical relationships, 25, 26

impacts, environmental,
      on-site systems 18, 21-31
      proposed action,  127-135
      sewers, 12-13
impacts, financial, of facilities planning, 106-109
industrial  growth, sewers,  124
infiltration, percolation,  34
irrigation, 34

lakes:
      bacterial contamination, 102, 128
      eutrophication, 45, 102-105
      nutrients, 128-129
      plant growth, localized, 105-106
      water quality, impacts of proposed action, 127-129
land  application,  34
land  use:
      and environmental constraints, 98-101
      and facilities planning, 98-101
      impacts of proposed action, 133-134
      planning, 99-101
      treatment, 34-35
leachate, septic:
      detection, 6, 38, 43-44, 81,  102
      plumes, 102, 105, 131

management  agency, 67
management  agency  personnel, 84-86
management  programs:
      design, 71-74
      implementation, 74
      feasibility  for wastewater facilities, 72
      ownership, of wastewater facilities, 72
      public  involvement,  74-75
      responsibility for performance, 73
      responsibility for services,  73-74
      revision, 86
      user  charge  structures, 82-83
maps, 41, 43, 48
monitoring, water  quality,  79-82
municipal fiscal  capabilities, assessment, 106-107

National Eutrophication Survey, 41, 105
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, 12
nearshore plant surveys, 45
needs documentation:
      analysis, 48-49

-------
      and Construction Grants, 115
      data, collection, 38-45
needs documentation methods, 38-49
      aerial photographic interpretation,  42-43
      data collection, 38-49
      eutrophication modeling, 41, 45
      maps, 41
      nearshore plant surveys, 45
      questionnaires, 44-45
      representative samplings, 47-48
      sanitary surveys, partial, 46-47
      septic leachate detection, 43-44
      use of available data, 38-41
      windshield surveys, 41
needs documentation policies, 36-37
      national, 36
      Region V, 36
nitrates,
      contamination, 22, 24, 30, 127, 128, 130
      sampling, 80-81
non-point source, monitoring, 81, 105, 106, 129
nonsewer development constraints, 98-99

off-site treatment, small scale, 31-35
      collection systems, 33
      for Construction Grants Administration, 116
      land treatment options, 34
      septage disposal, 31-33
      surface water discharge options, 35
      treatment methods, 33-34
      wetland systems, 35
on-site systems
      community involvement, 68-69
      costs, 13-14
      evaluation methods, 6
      failures (see on-site system failures)
      history, 9
      impacts, 18
      noncomplying, 25
      options available, 25-26, 27
      options for difficult systems, 30-31
      performance data, 6-7, 10
      in Region V, 21
      site analysis, 26
      soils data, 25-26
      technology selection, 26-30
      types, 21
on-site systems failures, 21-25
      contamination, 24
      causes, 24
      effects, 25
      frequency, 22-24
      survey, sampling, 51
      types, 21-22
optimum operation alternatives, 49-54
      alternative description, 51-52
      bid documents, 53-54
      cost analysis 51
      designing, 52-53
      and proposed action,  52
      segment delineation,  50
      systems selection 51
      technology assumptions, 50-51

-------
performance data for on-site systems, collection, 6-7
performance of on-site systems, 5-6, 12
phosphorus loading to lakes,
photographic studies, aerial, 6, 23, 38, 42-43, 95
pilot studies,
      eligibility for Construction Grants, 115
plumbing backup and codes, 23-24, 78-79
plant growth, localized, 105-106
population estimates, 93, 94-96
      methodologies, 95-95
      permanent & seasonal, 94, 112
present worth savings, proposed action, 131-132
proposed action, consequences, 127-135
      on agricultural land, 130
      on aquifer recharge areas, 130-131
      economic impacts, 131-133
      environmental, 127
      on environmentally sensitive areas, 129-131
      on floodplains, 129
      future work, 127-128
      governments, 132
      on historic & archaeologic sites, 131
      on land use, 133-134
      present and future owners, 132-133
      on rare & endangered species,  131
      on resident privacy, 134-135
      social, 127
      on steep slopes, 131
      suppliers, 133-134
      water quality impacts, 127-129
      on water use restrictions, 135
      on wetlands, 130
prosecution, as reason for improving wastewater  facilities, 123
public participation in facilities planning, 109
public participation in wastewater facilities, 8-9

rare & endangered species, impacts of proposed actions, 131

recreational facilities planning, 92-93
representative sampling, 47-51
resident privacy & inconvenience, impacts of proposed actions, 134-135
residential development, 123
residential economic characteristics, 97
restrictions on water use, 113,  135
reuse/recycle of treated wastewater, 31
rural population, definition,  14

sanitary codes, 99-100, 133
sanitary survey, 23, 46-47, 51
      partial, 38, 45, 46-47,  51
seasonal properties, 94,  112
second-home, development,  92-93
segments,  use of in  facilities planning,  64
septage, disposal, 31-33
septic leachate, 6,  38, 43-44, 81, 109
septic systems, 9, 17, 18, 21, 29, 45,  47, 83, 100,  102, 113, 130
sewers:
      alternative, eligibility for Construction  Grants, 112-117
      costs,  10-12,  13-14
      drawbacks, 10-13
      economic impacts, 13-14
      environmental  impacts, 12-13

-------
      performance,  12
      types,  33,  115
small waste flows:
      approach,  123-124
      facilities,  5-6
      history,  9
      planning  &  land use,  85-86,  99-101
      technologies,  3,  21-64
soils data, 25-26
soils maps, 41
state grant & technical assistance,  Construction Grants  Administration,  119-121
      circuit rider model,  120
      contractor  assistance model,  120-121
      Maryland  model, 120
      New Hampshire model,  120
state planning  activities:
      for Construction Grants Administration,  118-119
      for small communities, 118-119
state staffing,  121
steep slopes, impacts of proposed  action,  131
surface drainage,  6
surface failures,  24, 25
surface waters  discharges,  33, 35
surveys, 46-47,  51
system design,  5
      as management agency function, 71-72
system maintenance,  5
system ownership  & liability, 72
systems selection,  51
system usage, 5

training programs,  as function of  Construction Grants  Agency,  121-123
treatment methods,  small-scale
      off-site  systems, 31-35
      land application, 34
      surface water discharge, 34
      wetland discharge, 34

unincorporated  places, defined, 14
urban population,  defined, 14
user charge systems, 14,-15, 52, 82-83

variances, 75-77

waste stream, segregation of, 30
wastewater management, role of state, 8
      public agencies, 84
wastewater treatment technologies, off-site, 33
water conservation programs, 78-79
water, contamination, 9, 22, 24, 25, 101-104,  105
water quality impacts of proposed  action,  127-129
water resources,  101-106
      bacterial contamination, 101-102
      eutrophication, 102
      localized plant growth, 105-106
water use, 113, 135
wetlands,  impacts of proposed actions, 34
windshield surveys, 41, 95

-------
                         BIBLIOGRAPHY
American City and  County.   1980.   On-site treatment for  low  density  areas,  95(4):
     45-48.

American Society of Planning Officials.   1976.   Subdividing rural America:   Impacts
     of recreational lot  and  second home development.   Government Printing Office,
     Washington D.C,,  139p.

Baker,  Larry K.   1980.   The  Impact  of Water  Conservation on  On-site  Wastewater
     Management.  Weatherby Associates,  Inc., Jackson CA,  38p.

Cohen,  Sheldon  and Harold  Wallman.   1974.   Demonstration  of  waste  flow reduction
     from  households.   NTIS  PB-236  904.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
     National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati OH, 102p.

Cooper, Ivan A.  and J.  W. Rezek.   1977.  Septage Treatment and Disposal.  Prepared
     for the EPA  Technology Transfer  Seminar Program on Small Wastewater Treatment
     Systems.  Rezek,  Henry, Meisenheimer and Gende,  Inc., 43p.

Craun,  G. F.   1979.   Waterborne disease:  A status report emphasizing outbreaks in
     groundwater systems.   Groundwater 17:183.

Dearth, Keith  H.    1977.   Current  costs of  conventional  approaches.   Prepared for
     U.S. EPA National  Conference  on  Less Costly Wastewater  Treatment Systems for
     Small Communities,  April 12-14, 1977.

Dillon, P. J.   1975.  The phosphorous  budget of Cameron Lake,  Ontario:  The
     importance of flushing rate  to  the degree of  eutrophy  in  lakes.  Liminology
     Oceanography, 19.

Energy  and Environmental  Analysis,  Inc.  1978.  Evaluation of municipal Wastewater
     treatment  plant operations.    Referenced  in "Improving compliance of existing
     municipal  Wastewater treatment facilities," a  preliminary  concept  paper pre-
     pared for EPA's 1980 Strategy by Mr. Pete Eagen, September 29, 1980.

Evans,  Barry.   1981.  Personnel communication,  February 1981.

Kesswick, Bruce H.  and  Charles P.  Gerba.  1980.  Viruses in groundwater.  Environ-
     mental Science and Technology 14(11): 1290-1297.

Kirchner, W.  B.  and  P.  J. Dillon.   1975.   An empirical  method of  estimating the
     retention  of  phosphorus  in  lakes.   Water  Resource  Research  11(1)  182-183.

Marans,  Robert W.  and John  D. Wellman.    1977.   The quality  of norunetropolitan
     living:  Evaluation,  behaviors,  and  expectations of  northern  Michigan resi-
     dents.  University of  Michigan,  Institute for  Social  Research,  Ann Arbor MI,
     428p.

Moak,  Lennox L.  and Albert M.  Hillhouse.  1978.  Concepts and  practices  in local
     government  finance.   Municipal Finance Officers  Association of the  U.S. and
     Canada.  Chicago IL, 1975, reprinted 1978, 454p.

Peters,  Gerald  0., Jr.  and Alfred E.  Krause.   1980.   Decentralized  approaches to
     rural  lake  wastewater planning  - seven  case  studies.   In N.I.  McClelland
      (Editor),  Individual  On-site  Wastewater  Systems,   proceedings  of the  Sixth
     National Conference,  1979.  Ann  Arbor Science Publishers,  Inc., Ann Arbor MI,
     522p.

-------
Ragatz, Richard  L.   1980.  Trends in  the  market for privately owned  seasonal  re-
     creational  housing.    Paper  presented  at  the  National  Outdoor  Recreation
     Trends Symposium,  Durham NC, April 20-23, 1980.

Silverman, Larry.   1980.   A practical  guide  to  the  Federal law of  septage  treat-
     ment.  In  Gravity,  Zwick and  Aoki (Editors), Shopping for sewage  treatment:
     How  to  get the best  bargain for  your community or home.  Clean Water Fund,
     Washington B.C.,  323p.

Tchobanoglous,  George and  Gordon L.  Gulp.   1979.  Wetlands systems  for  wastewater
     treatment:  An engineering assessment.  Draft, University  of California, Davis
     CA,  and  Gulp,  Wesner and Gulp, EL Dorado  Hills CA, for U.S. EPA,  Washington
     DC, 43p.

Twichell,   Joseph  H.  1978.  The  effects of the  use  and regulation  of septic tank
     systems upon  land use  in Massachusetts.  Publication No. 96.   University of
     Massachusetts,  Water Resources Research Center.   Amherst  MA, 90p.

U.S. Bureau of  the  Census.  1978.  County  and City  Data Book,  1977.  U.S.  Govern-
     ment Printing Office, Washington,  D.C.

U.S. Department  of Commerce.   1979.   Urban and Rural Housing  Characteristics  for
     the  U.S.  and  Regions,  Annual  Housing Survey:   1977.   Series  H-150-77,  U.S.
     Government Printing Office,  Washington D.C., 177p.

U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1974.   Advisory Council on  Historic Preser-
     vation.  Procedures for the protection of historic and cultural  properties, 36
     CFR 800.3.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.   1975.   Guidance  for  preparing  a  facility
     plan.  EPA-430/9-76-015.  Office  of Water  Program Operations, Washington D.C.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.   I976a.  Land treatment  of  municipal  waste-
     water effluents:   Case histories.   Technology Transfer, 79p.

U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency.    1976b.   Program  Requirements  Memorandum
     #76-3, Government costs.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.   1977.   Regulations  on Review of  Projects
     Affecting  Sole Source Aquifers.   40  CFR 149.10(a),  Project Review  Authority.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.   ]977a.   Alternatives  for  small  wastewater
     treatment  systems.   Vol.  1:  On-sitc disposal/septage treatment and disposal.
     Vol.  2:  Pressure sewers/vacuum sewers.  Vol.  3:  Cost-effectiveness analysis.
     Technology Transfer,  Cincinnati OH, 90, 97, and 30p.

U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency.    1977b.   Process   design  manual  for land
     treatment  of  municipal  wastewater.   EPA-625/1-77-008.   Technology Transfer,
     Cincinnati OH, variously paged.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1977c.   Program  Requirements  Memorandum
     #77-8, Funding of sewage collection  system projects, superceded by PRM #78-9.

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  I978a.  Grant  Regulations.   40  CFR 35.9,
     Grants for Construction of  Treatment  Works - Clean Water Act.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1978b.   Program  Requirements  Memorandum
     #78-9, Funding of sewage  collection system projects.

U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency.   1979a.   Design  seminar   handout  on small
     wastewater   treatment   facilities.    Technology   Transfer,  Cincinnati  OH,
     variously paged.

-------
U.S.   Environmental   Protection  Agency.   1979b.   Program Requirements  Memorandum
     #79-8, Small wastewater systems.

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Region V.   1980a.  File of approved municipal
     revenue  systems (FOAMRS).   Automated  data  printout of  September  22,  1980.

U.S.   Environmental   Protection  Agency.    1980b.   Design manual  on-site  wastewater
     treatment and  disposal systems.    Office  of Water  Programs,  Washington D.C.,
     and Municipal Env.  Res. Lab., Cincinnati OH, 391p.

U.S.   Environmental   Protection  Agency.    1980c.   Innovative  and  alternative  tech-
     nology assessment  manual.   EPA-430/7-78-009.  Office of  Water  Program Opera-
     tions.   U.S.  Government  Printing Office,  Washington B.C.,  variously paged.

U.S.   Environmental  Protection Agency.  1980d.   Options  for  third-party  management
     of Construction Grants for small  communities.  Unpublished concept paper, 20p.

U.S.  General Accounting Office.  1980.  EPA should help small communities cope with
     Federal  pollution  control  requirements.   CED-80-92,  Washington  D.C.,  20p.

U.S.   Public  Health  Service.   1957.   Manual of  Septic-Tank  Practice.   Publication
     No.  526.   U.S.  Department  of  Health, Education and Welfare.   Developed  in
     cooperation with the Joint Commission on Rural Sanitation, 85p.

Wisconsin  Department of  Health and  Social  Services.    1979.   Final  Environmental
      Impact Statement  on mount  systems for private  waste disposal.  Madison  WI ,
     251p.

Woodward,  F.  L.,  F. J.  Kilpatrick,   and P. B.  Johnson.  1961.   Experience with
     groundwater  contamination  in unsewered areas  in  Minnesota.   American Journal
      of Public Health 51(8):1130-1136 .

-------
               APPENDIX A




        EPA REGION V GUIDANCE -




SITE SPECIFIC NEEDS DETERMINATION and




ALTERNATIVE PLANNING FOR UNSEWERED AREAS

-------
                              REGION V GUIDANCE

                             SITE SPECIFIC NEEDS
                     DETERMINATION AND ALTERNATIVE PLANNING
                              FOR UNSEWERED AREAS.
I.   Objective

     The objective of  this  guidance  is to clarify fulfillment of the require-
ments regarding the demonstration of  need for sewage treatment associated with
the  application  of  Program Requirements Memorandum  (PRM)  78-9, "Funding  of
Sewage Collection  System  Projects,"  and PRM 79-8, "Small Wastewater Systems."
This  guidance is  written particularly  with respect to  the  needs  of  small,
rural communities  and  the consideration of individual on-site and small scale
technologies.  It  suggests  procedures  which may be utilized  to  minimize the
time, effort,  and  expense  necessary to demonstrate facilities  needs.   It  is
also intended to provide guidance pertaining to the selection of decentraliza-
tion  alternatives   for a cost-effectiveness  comparison.  It  is intended  to
prevent  indiscriminate  definition of  need  based upon "broad  brush"  use of a
single criterion or on decisions unsupported by fact.

     The procedure recommended herein may not be the optimum procedure for all
projects.  However, compliance with this approach will be prima facie evidence
for  the  acceptability  of  the "needs" portion of a proposed plan of study.  If
another method is proposed for documenting needs for wastewater facilities,  it
is  recommended  that the  grant  applicant discuss  the proposed  approach with
reviewing  authorities  prior to  the  submission  of  the  Plan  of  Study and the
Step 1 grant application.

     This  guidance  is  predicated on  the  premise that  planning expenditures
should be  commensurate with the cost and risk of implementing feasible alter-
natives  for  a specific planning area.   The guidance further  recognizes the
complexity of planning alternative  technology.   It presents  procedures for,
and  rationally  limits,  the  amount of detailed site investigation necessary to
determine  the  suitability of alternative technology for specific areas within
the  community,   and  allows  for a degree  of  risk  inherent  to  limited data
gathering.

II.  Goal

     The  goal of this  process  is to enable  communities to categorize existing
on-site  treatment  systems  into three  groups.   The  groups are  those experi-
encing:    (a)  obvious   sewage   treatment  problems,   (b)   no problem,  and  (c)
potential  problems  representing a planning risk that  requires  resolution by
the  acquisition  of original data.

     The  acquisition  of  original data as  described will  support  not only
documentation of  need but also  development of  appropriate  alternatives  and
their associated costs.
                                    A-l

-------
III.  Criteria for site-specific needs determination

     A.   Direct evidence that demonstrates obvious problems includes:

          1.   Failure by surface (breakout) ponding of filter field discharges
              can be identified  through  direct observations, mailed question-
              naires, and remote imagery.

          2.   Sewage backup  in residences can be  identified through  respones
              to mailed questionnaires, knowledge of local septage haulers, or
              knowledge of local health or zoning officials.

          3.   Flowing  effluent  pipes  detected  by  aerial  photography,  site
              visits, knowledge of local officials, or results of mailed ques-
              tionnnaires.

          4.   Contamination of water  supply  wells (groundwater) by sewage can
              be demonstrated by well inspection and sampling and analyses for
              whiteners,  chlorides,  nitrates,  fecal  coliform  bacteria,  or
              other  indicators,  and  a finding  of  their presence  in  concen-
              trations which significantly exceed background levels in ground-
              waters of  the  area or primary drinking water quality standards.
              Improperly  constructed  wells  or  wells inadequately  protected
              from  surface  runoff  cannot be  used  to demonstrate  an  obvious
              need.  Wells for  which construction and protection are  unknown
              cannot be used to demonstrate an obvious need.

          5.   Samples taken from effluents entering surface water through soil
              that analysis shows to have unacceptable quantities of nutrients
              or bacteria.

     B.    Indirect  evidence  that  indicates potential  problems  due  to  site
          limitations  or  inadequate  design   of  treatment  systems  includes:

          1.   Seasonal  or  year-round  high water  table.   Seasonal or  annual
              water table can be determined by taking transit sightings from a
              known  lake level,  if  the dwelling in question is  adjacent to a
              lake  or  other   surface  waters.   Elsewhere,  Soil  Conservation
              Service maps may indicate depth to groundwater.

          2.   Water  well  isolation  distances  (depending on  depth  of  well and
              presence or absence of impermeable soils).  Isolation distances
              may be addressed  in part by lot  size.   In cases where a commu-
              nity water system  is  instal-led or is concurrently planned, this
              criterion will not be considered.   Lots, including consolidated
              lots,  which  are  less  than 10,000 square feet  in  area,  will be
              assumed  to  have  insufficient   isolation  distances.   However,
              before this criterion may be used as areawide evidence,  a corre-
              lation with  results  of limited representative  sampling which
              substantiate water well contamination must be made.

          3.   Documented groundwater  flow from a filter field  toward  a water
              supply   well   may   override   seemingly  adequate   separation
              distances.
                                    A-2

-------
         4.  Sewage effluent  or  tracer dye in surface water detected by site
             visit  or  various effluent  detection  systems.   Additional tests
             that  indicate  unacceptable quantities  of  nutrients  or bacteria
             in  the effluent  reaching  surface  water will  establish direct
             evidence of need.

         5.  Bedrock proximity  (within three feet of filter  field pipe) can
             be assessed by utilizing existing SCS soils maps.

         6.  Slowly permeable soils with  greater  than  60 minutes/inch perc-
             olation rate.

         7.  Rapidly permeable  soil with less than 0.1 minutes/inch percola-
             tion  rate.  Soil  permeability  may  be  assessed  by evaluating
             existing SCS maps.

         8.  While  holding  tanks,  in certain cases,  can  be a  cost-effective
             alternative, for purposes  of site-specific needs  determination,
             a  residence equipped  with a  holding tank  for  domestic sewage
             should  be  considered  as indirect  evidence  of  need for sewage
             treatment  facilities.  Location of holding tanks will be  identi-
             fied  through  records  of  local  permitting  officials,   septage
             haulers, or results of mailed questionnaires.

         9.  On-site treatment systems which do not conform to  accepted prac-
             tices  or  current  sanitary codes  may be  documented by  owners,
             installers,  or local  permitting officials.  This  category would
             include  cesspools,  inadequately  sized  system  components   (the
             proverbial "55  gallon  drum"  septic tank),  and  systems which
             feature  direct  discharge  of  septic tank effluent  to   surface
             water.

          10. On-site systems:   (a)  incorporating components,  (b)  installed on
             individual lots,  or (c) of an  age, that local data  indicate are
             characterized  by  excessive defect  and failure  rates,  or non-
             cost-effective maintenance  requirements.

          Indirect  evidence  may  not be  used  alone to  document the need for
          either  centralized  or  decentralized   facilities.   Prior  to  field
          investigation, indirect evidence should  be used  to  define the  scope
          and  level of  effort of the  investigations.  When  the  investigations
          are  finalized, indirect evidence and  results  of the  field work can
          be used together to  predict  the type and  number  of on-site and  small
          scale  facilities  needed  in the  community.   Facilities  predictions
          form  the  basis for  alternatives development in  Step  1  facilities
          planning.

IV.   Needs  determination for unsewered communities

     For projects in which the scope of work is  difficult  to  assess during the
Step 1 application, it  is recommended that Step 1 be divided into two phases
to  more  effectively allow  estimation  of the planning  scope  and  associated
costs.    Phase  I  will  consist of a  review of existing  or easily  obtainable
data.  Phase II  will  include  on-site investigations and  representative  sam-
                                    A-3

-------
pling necessary to adequately define water quality and public health problems,
identify causes of the problems and predict measures that remedy the problems.
Phase II will  also  include development of alternatives  and  completion of the
facilities plans.   Both phases should  be  addressed in the Plan  of Study and
grant application.  The phases are discussed in greater detail below.

     A.   Phase I

         The  review of  existing   or  easily obtainable  data may  include the
         following as appropriate:

         1.  Review  of local  well and septic  tank permit  records.   Repair
             permits  for   septic  tank  systems  can  provide  valuable  data  on
             rates and causes of system failures as well as information on the
             repairability of local systems.

         2.  Interviews with  health department  or other officials responsible
             for  existing  systems, with  septic tank  installers  and haulers,
             and with well drillers.

         3.  Review of soils maps

         4.  Calculation of lot sizes

         5.  Estimate depth to water table by reference to lake levels or from
             information in soil maps.

         6.  Aerial  photography  interpreted  to  identify suspected  surface
             malfunctions

         7.  Leachate detection surveys of ground or surface water

         8.  A  mailed  questionnaire  regarding  each  owner's  or  resident's
             knowledge  of  the on-site system and  its  performance.  Mailed
             questionnaires  will  generate useful data  only  if well prepared.
             Generally, mailed questionnaires should be used only where avail-
             able  information indicate very low problem  rates  (to support No
             Action alternatives) or where the  data  indicate very high problem
             rates  (to support central  collection and treatment alternatives).

         This  preliminary  data   will  be  used   to  categorize  developed  lots
         within the planning area into one of three  groups:

         1.  Obvious-problem
         2.  No-problem
         3.  Inconclusive

         The"obvious-problem"  group consists  of those lots where at least one
         criterion  of  direct evidence of a need  (specified  on Page 2 of this
         guidance) is satisfied.

         The  "no-problem" group  consists  of   theose  lots where  there  is  no
         direct  or  indirect  evidence  to indicate  that  the  present system is
         inadequate or malfunctioning.


                                    A-4

-------
    The  "inconclusive"  group  consist  of  developed lots  with  indirect
    evidence of problems.  The size  of  this group  and the types of  in-
    direct evidence associated with  it will  dictate the scope and  level
    of effort of field investigations conducted  during  Phase  II.

    Typically field work in  Phase  I  will  be  limited to rapid,  community-
    wide surveys which require little or  no  entry onto private property.
    Examples are  acquisition and  interpretation  of aerial  photography,
    field checking  of aerial photography interpretations, and shoreline
    effluent scans.   Additionally,  a windshield survey of the community
    in  the  company of  health department officials,  soil scientists  or
    other locally knowledgeable persons will help the  applicants'  repre-
    sentative or  consultant  develop a  strategy  and  cost estimate  for
    Phase II field investigations.

    To facilitate communication of Phase  I  information, preparation of a
    planning area  base  map  at  a  scale sufficient  to  locate  individual
    buildings will  normally be  helpful.   U.S.   Geological   survey  7.5
    minute maps  (1:24,000)  Soil Conservation  Service soil  maps  (1:15,840)
    or local tax maps  can be used   to inexpensively prepare base  maps. At
    the  end  of  Phase I,  base maps  can be  used to  show  developed  areas
    obviously requiring centralized facilities,  individual buildings with
    obvious  problems   and  developed areas  with   indirect  evidence  of
    problems.

    Phase  I  as used  here  applies  principally  to needs documentation
    activi ties.  Obviously,  other  facilities  planning tasks can proceed
    concurrently with Phase I.

B.  Mid-Course Review

    At  the  end  of Phase I,  the results of  the Phase  I effort should be
    presented for  review and concurrence  before proceeding  to Phase II.
    The  Mid-Course  Meeting  facilities plan  review is an appropriate time
    for the presentation and discussion of the  Phase I results.

    The following should be considered  at the Mid-Course Meeting:

    1.   It  may  become apparent during  Phase I  that on-site,  alternative
        technology systems will not be  cost-effective for segments of the
         community that  have obvious  needs.   In this  case, a preliminary
         cost estimate for conventional  collection and treatment should be
         compared  to that for  the  innovative/alternative  treatment solu-
         tion.   If cost estimates and technical analysis indicate  that the
        use  of  alternative  technology   is  clearly not  cost-effective,
         needs documentation  may be terminated  for these segments without
        proceeding to the on-site investigations of Phase II.

    2.   The  number  of lots to be  investiaged  during the on-site evalua-
         tion  should be  reasonably estimated.   If the original estimation
         of  on-site  work  included  in the  Step  1  Grant  Agreement  is found
         to  be  in error  at the end  of the  preliminary evaluation  (Phase
         I),  a  request to  amend  the grant  amount,  if  necessary,  may be
                               A-5

-------
        submitted and a  grant  amendment expeditiously processed provided
        there is concurrence at the Mid-Course Meeting.

C.   Phase II Work

    Field investigations in Phase II have two primary purposes:

    •  reclassification of buildings  from  the "inconclusive" category to
       "obvious problem",  "no  problem"  or  "potential problem" categories
       (defined below)

    •  development of information  needed to predict the technologies and
       their  costs   for   responding   to  the  community's  waste  water
       problems.

    Field investigations  can also  be  designed to accomplish other objec-
    tives such  as public  participation,  socio-economic data collection,
    etc.

    During Phase II previously unrecognised but documentable water quali-
    ty  and   public  health problems  may be  identified,  increasing  the
    number  of  "obvious  problem" buildings.   The  remainder of  buildings
    investigated  will be classified in  the  two  remaining  categories.  In
    order to do  this,   representative  sampling  of site  conditions  and
    water quality in  conjunction  with  partial  santiary  surveys  may  be
    conducted.   Both  "obvious"  and  "inconclusive"  problem  buildings
    should be  included  in the  partial sanitary survey so that reasonable
    correlations  between   site   conditions,   system  usage  and  system
    failures in the  community can be made.

    "Potential  problems"  are  systems  which  do  not yet  exhibit direct
    evidence of  failure  but which can  reasonably be  expected to fail in
    the future.  Justifying this expectation must rely on analysis of the
    causes for failure of  substantially similar systems in the community.
    Similarity will  be  judged  on informaton  for  system usage (number of
    occupants  and types of sanitary  appliances), system design and age,
    and verified  site limitations  (permeability, depth to groundwater or
    bedrock,  slope,  surface drainage,  etc.).   Buildings  in the "inclu-
    sive" category whose systems are  not similar to any documented fail-
    ing system will  be included in the "No Problem" category.

    This  work  should be  proposed  and  conducted  with  the  knowledge that
    adoption of decentralized alternatives will necessitate  complete site
    analysis for  each building later in the Construction Grants process.
    Work  should,  therefore,  be thorough enough  that  augmentation of the
    Phase II work by later studies can be accomplished without duplicat-
    ing  the Phase   II  work.   The  work should  also  seek  the  causes  of
    problem, not  just their existence,  so that typical on-site and small
    scale  technologies   can  be  tentatively identified  and incorporated
    into  community alternatives.

    Representative sampling  of site  conditions  and water  quality should
    be  carefully coordinated  with  partial sanitary  surveys.   While the
    design  of  this work will obviously  have  to  be  tailored to each com-
    munity's unique  situation,  general guidance is provided  here.

                               A-6

-------
1.  Representative Sampling

   a.   Seasonal  or permanent  high  water table.   Soil surveys  and
       comparison with known lake  levels  reviewed in Phase I  may not
       be accurate enough to explain specific  on-site system problems
       or to  carefully  delineate  groups  of  lots  where  high  water
       table is a  serious  site  limitation.  Soil  to a depth of 5 or 6
       feet  on  or adjacent  to  suspect lots can  resolve such uncer-
       tainties.   Where  seasonal  high water  table is  suspected and
       work  has to be  conducted  during dry weather,  a soil scientist
       with  knowledge  of local  soils should be involved.

   b.   Groundwater Flow.   The  safety of on-site  well  water supplies
       arid springs on  small lots  may depend on the rate and direction
       of groundwater  flow.  Estimating the effects  of effluents on
       surface waters  may  also  require  such information.   Methods
       which  indicate  groundwater  flow  characteristics  should  be
       selected and supervised  by qualified professionals.   Generally
       this  work  in  Phase  II  will be limited to  evaluation  of well
       logs  and other  available  data and of rapid surveys  in special
       areas such  as  lakeshores.   Exceptions  for more intensive work
       will  be  considered where uncertainties about  sources  of well
       contamination need  to be  resolved  for  specific lots or groups
       of lots.

   c.   Well  water  contamination.   Where  lot sizes are small or soils
       are  especially  permeable,   collection  and  analysis  of  well
       water  samples   at  residences  included   in  sanitary  surveys
       should  be  considered.   Parameters that  can be  evaluated as
       pollution  indicators  include, but  are not limited to:  chlo-
       rides,  nitrates,  phosphates,  fecal  coliforms,  surfactants,
       whiteners  and  other  readily  detectable  constituents inherent
       to domestic waste  water.   No well samples should be collected
       from wells that are  improperly protected from surface runoff
       or other  non-wastewater  sources.   An inspection report should
       accompany  each well analysis.
   d.  Shallow  grounawater  contamination.   In  areas  with drainfield
       to groundwater separation distances less than state standards,
       shallow  groundwater  at or  near affected water  bodies (lake,
       stream,  unconfined aquifers)  should  be sampled  before aban-
       doning  ori-site  wastewater systems on the basis  of high water
       tables.  Discrete  samples  may  be  collected during  checks of
       high  water tables for analysis  of  conventional  parameters as
       listed  above.   Alternatively,  as  rapid  survey techniques are
       perfected, they may be more appropriate.

   e.  Soil  permeability.   If  very  slow  or  very  rapid  soil  per-
       meability  is suspected  of  contributing to  surface malfunc-
       tions,  backups or  groundwater  contamination, soil  characteris-
       tics  can be  evaluated by augering to  5  or  6 foot depth on or
       adjacent  to  selected . lots.    Usually,  descriptions  of   soil
       horizons by  depth, color,  texture and  presence of mottling,
                           A-7

-------
       water or bedrock will suffice.   Percolation tests for existing
       systems will be necessary only in extraordinary circumstances.

2.  Partial Sanitary Surveys

   It  is  not the  intent  of needs documentation  to  finally identify
   each  and every  wastewater  problem  in  a  community.   It is  not
   cost-effective   to   select   appropriate  technologies   for   each
   property in Step 1.

   Therefore,  Phase II  sanitary surveys  will include  only a  suf-
   ficient number of existing buildings to confirm the level and type
   of need present, and to predict the type and approximate number of
   measures to correct the problems.   Correlation of partial sanitary
   survey  data,  representative  sampling,   and  indirect evidence  of
   system  problems should  be  sufficient  to  meet  these  objectives.

   Sanitary surveys should include for each building:

   •   an  interview with the resident to determine  age  of  the build-
       ing  and sewage  disposal  system,  design and  location of  the
       sewage  disposal system,  system  maintenance,  occupancy of  the
      building,  water using  appliances,   use  of water conservation
       devices, and problems with the wastewater system.

   •   an inspection of the property,  preferably in the company of the
       resident, noting location of well, septic tank, soil  absorption
       system,  pit  privies and other sanitary  facilities;  lot dimen-
       sions;  slope;  roof  and surface drainage; evidence of past  and
      present malfunctions;  and other relevant information such as a
       algae growth in shoreline areas.

   •   any representative sampling that is appropriate to the site and
       that can be scheduled concurrently.

   •   preliminary  conclusions   on maintenance,   repairs,  applicable
       water conservation  methods,  and  types and location of replace-
       ment or upgrading for existing wastewater systems.

   As  a  rule  of  thumb,  the number of  buildings  surveyed  should  not
   exceed  30  percent.  Where  Phase  I  data is very  incomplete,  the
   buildings may be selected on a random  basis  and should include a
   minimum of 20 percent of existing buildings.  Where buildings with
   obvious  problems  and  areas  with indirect evidence of problems are
   well  delineated in Phase  I,  the surveys  can be  better focused,
   perhaps  requiring  fewer buildings  to be surveyed.   From 10  to 50
   percent  of buildings having  obvious problems  should be surveyed.
   In  areas with  indirect  evidence  of problems,  20 to  30 percent
   would  be  sufficient.    Areas with  neither  direct nor indirect
   evidence  may  be  surveyed  where  system  age, unusual  occupancy
   patterns  or especially  severe  consequences of  system  failure so
   indicate.
                           A-8

-------
V.  Planning of Alternatives

     In unsewered,  low housing density  areas,  PRM  78-9,  "Funding of  Sewage
Collection  System  Projects",  puts  the  burden of  proof  for  need and  cost-
effectiveness of sewers  on  the applicant.   The four criteria  outlined  in PRM
78-9 for eligibility of collector  sewers  are:

     •  need
     •  cost-effectiveness
     •  substantial human habitation in 1972
     •  2/3 rule

     Figure 1 portrays  the  relationship  of these criteria  in  a decision flow
diagram.

     Definition of need  by  the approach outlined above will address the first
criterion.   Estimating cost-effectiveness  will  typically  require  two  steps:
determining the feasibility of non-sewered technologies for remedying obvious
and  potential problems,  and  comparing  the present worth  of feasible  non-
sewered technologies with the present worth of sewers.

     The  determination  of  feasibility for  non-sewered technologies should not
be  limited  to standard septic tank/soil absorption systems.  Where lot sites,
site  limitations  or excessive  flows  can  be  overcome  by  alternative techno-
logies, these must  be  considered.   To the  extent that the  needs documentation
results show  that  existing  soil absorption systems  smaller  than  current code
requirements  can  operate  satisfactorily  sub-code  replacements   for obvious
problems  should also be considered  if lot  site or other restrictions preclude
full sized systems.

     The  use  of  needs  documentation results in developing alternatives should
be  guided by methods selected to design the Phase II field investigations.  If
sanitary  surveys and representative sampling were conducted on a random basis,
then the  types  and numbers of  technical remedies  should be projected for the
entire  area  surveyed   without bias.   However,  if efforts  were  focused  on
identified  problem or  inconclusive  segments of a  community,  then predictions
from  the  data  should  be   made for surveyed  segments  only.   Real  but unre-
cognized  problems  in  "no  problem" areas   can be  accounted  for  by assuming
upgrading  or replacement of  existing systems  in  these areas  at frequencies
reasonably lower than surveyed  segments.

     Infeasibility of  remedying individual,  obvious problems on-site will not
be  sufficient justification for proposing  central  sewering  of a  community or
segment of  a  community.   Off-site  treatment  can  be achieved  by pumping and
hauling  and  by  small  scale,  neighborhood collection and  treatment systems.
The choice  between these  approaches  should be based upon  a cost comparison
which includes serious flow reduction measures in conjunction with any holding
tanks.

     Segment  by segment cost-effectiveness comparisons  will  be required only
for those segments where new  facilities for off-site  treatment are  proposed.
Community-wide  cost  estimates for upgrading or replacement of on-site systems
in  decentralized  areas will generally be  adequate  for description of Proposed
Actions pending detailed site  analysis and cost estimates for each building in
Step 2.

                                    A-9

-------
                                                   (M
4>
^
                     (M
                     
-------
     Field work  necessary  to thoroughly evaluate the  condition  of individual
on-site systems  and  to  select technology for necessary  upgrading  or replace-
ment is generally  to be viewed as Step  2  or Step 2 + 3 work.   Typical field
work for  this level  of analysis includes  completion  of  the  sanitary survey
and, as  appropriate  to  each building,  installation and monitoring  of water
meters, inspection of septic tanks,  rodding house sewers  and  effluent lines,
probing or limited excavation of soil absorption systems  for  inspection,  and
other  measures  listed  above  for  representative  sampling.   Construction  of
on-site  replacements and  upgrading  may  proceed  in  tandem  with  this  site
specific analysis provided:

     •  state and local officials concur (their prior concurrence might
        be limited to standard systems),

     •  contract language allows for flexibility in the facilities to
        be constructed,

     •  property owner  concurrence with the selected alterations is obtained,
        and

     •  additional cost-effectiveness analysis to support technology selection
        is not necessary.
     Necessary  state  and local agency approval  of  off-site,  non-standard, or
owner-protested  facilities  or those requiring  additional  cost analysis would
optimally proceed  on  a segment-by-segment basis to minimize  the; time between
technology selection and construction.

     The  establishment  of  a  management  district's  authority  to  accept re-
sponsibility  for the  proper installation, operation  and  maintenance of indi-
vidual systems per 40 CFR 35.918-1(e) and (i) should be completed before award
of  Step  2  or Step 2+3 grants.   Development of a management district's pro-
gram for  regulation  and inspection of systems must be completed before a Step
3 grant award or before  authorization to proceed with construction procurement
is  granted under a Step  2+3  grant.

VI.  Public participation

     The  following comments  are  intended  to  demonstrate how  this guidance
relates  to  the  standard requirements for public participation.  It  is not all
inclusive.

     A.   Although mailed questionnaries have limited utility for needs docu-
         mentation,  they can  serve  as useful  public participation tools.  A
         useful  "mailing  list"  may include  all owners  of  residences within
         unsewered  areas   in  the  planning  area  and  other  interested  and
         affected parties.

         The  requirement for  consulting  with the public  set forth in 40 CFR
         35.917-5(b)(5)  will  be  considered  satisfied if  questionnaires are
         submitted by  individuals on the "mailing list."
                                     A-ll

-------
B.   The  public  meeting required  by 40  CFR 35.917-5(b)(6) provides  an
    opportunity  for  property  owners to  be informed  of whether  or  not
    they have been found to need wastewater treatment facilities.   During
    the  meeting  they  can  respond to  the consultant's  determination  of
    their  need  status.   A  map  with  each  lot  designated as  no-need,
    obvious-problem,  or  inconclusive would be helpful  for  public under-
    standing.  This meeting could be conveniently scheduled at the end of
    Phase I.

C.  Partial  sanitary surveys  conducted during Phase 2  of  needs  documen-
    tation  offer  an  excellent opportunity to gain  public  input  provided
    surveyors  are  adequately  informed about  the  project  or can refer
    difficult  questions to   a  knowledgeable  person  for   immediate  re-
    sponse .

D.  The  final  public hearing  required by 40 CFR 35.917-5 should  be sche-
    duled  at the end  of facilities  planning.   At  this  public hearing a
    map  showing  service  areas  for  grantee  supervised   decentralized
    technologies  will  be displayed.   Within service  areas,  tentatively
    proposed methods  of treatment and  disposal  for individual  developed
    lots will  be available to  the  lot owners.   It  should  made  clear to
    the  public that  site  investigations  conducted  in  Steps  2 or 3  may
    result  in  adjustments  to  the proposed treatment and disposal methods
    for individual lots.
                               A-12

-------
           APPENDIX B




ON-SITE SANITARY INSPECTION FORM

-------
               SANITARY SURVEY FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS APPLICATION
Resident:                                         Study Area:

Owner:                                            Surveyor/Date:

Address of                                        Weather:
  Property:

Lot Location:                                     Approximate Lot Dimensions:

Tax Map Designation:                              	feet by 	feet

Preliminary Resident Interview

Age of Dwelling: 	 years    Age of sewage disposal system:  	years

Type of Sewage Disposal System:
Maintenance: 	years since septic tank pumped.  Reason for pumping:
             	years since sewage system repairs (Describe below)
             Accessibility of septic tank manholes (Describe below)
Dwelling Use:    Number of Bedrooms:	actual, 	potential, 	 Planned
                 Permanent Residents:	adults, 	children
                 Seasonal Residents:	, length of stay	
                 Typical Number of Guests:	, length of stay	
If seasonal only, plan to become permanent residents:	 In how many years?	

Water Using Fixtures (Note "w.c." if designed to conserve water):

    Shower Heads             	Kitchen Lavoratories       	Clothes Washing Machine
	Bathtubs                 	Garbage Grinder            	Water Softener
    Bathroom Lavoratories    	Dishwasher                 	Utility Sink
    Toilets                  	Other Kitchen              	Other Utilities

     Plans for Changes:

Problems Recognized by Resident:
Resident Will Allow Follow-Up Engineering Studies: 	Soil Borings 	Groundwater
                                                   	Well Water Sample

                                            B-l

-------
            SANITARY SURVEY FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS APPLICATION
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:
  	 Fixed Billing Rate $
  	 Metered Rate       $
  Average usage for prior year:
        Drilled Well
        Bored Well
        Dug Well
        Driven Well
Well Depth  (if known):

Well Distance:
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

Water Sample Collected:

                    	 No

                    	 Yes

                    (Attach Analysis Report)
feet to water table

feet to septic tank

feet to surface water
                                    B-2

-------
               SANITARY SURVEY FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS APPLICATION
Surveyor's Visual Observations of Effluent Disposal Site:
Drainage Facilities and Discharge Location:




     Basement Sump




     Footing Drains




     Roof Drains




     Driveway Runoff




     Other









Property and Facility Sketch
                                            B-3

-------
                            APPENDIX C


                 Example of a Cost Analysis for

                an Optimum Operation Alternative

         Appropriate to the First Level of Alternative

            Development, i.e., Technology Assumption
Source:         Appendix E,  Final Environmental Impact Statement -
               Alternative  Waste Treatment Systems for Rural Lake
               Projects.

               Case Study Number 4,  Steuben Lakes Regional Waste
               District,  Steuben County,  Indiana, January, 1981.

-------
                         LIMITED ACTION ALTERNATIVE
                         PRESENT WORTH, USER CHARGES
ASSUMPTIONS

On-Site
 Systems
Capital
 Costs

0 & M
Salvage
 Values

Present
 Worth

User
 Charges
Year 1980 - 4171 EDU's (50% seasonal, 50% permanent)
Year 2000 - 6196 EDU's (50% seasonal, 50% permanent)
50% (4171) septic tanks to be replaced
10% (4171) ST-SAS's to be replaced

$1,877/ST-SAS
$  265/septic tank

$60/ST pumping (50% once/3 years, 50% once/5 years)
$400/H202 treatment (2% of drainfields/year)
$6/well sample (l/well/5 years)
$40/groundwater sample (20 tests, 3 samples/test)
Sanitarian @ $25,000/yr.  - 260 days/yr.
Surveyors @ $12,000/yr. - 130 days/yr. (1980), 200/yr. (2000)
Secretary @ $12,000/yr. - 260 days/yr.
(20% fringe benefits for sanitarian, surveyors, secretary,
soil scientist @ $325/day - 51 days/yr. (% day rentals -
see cost calculations

50 year useful life for ST's; 20 years for all else
6 5/8%, 20 years
Eligibility - 100% of site analysis and replacement system charge
Federal funding - 85% of site analysis; replacements
State funding - 6% of these items
Debt retirement - 6 7/8%, 30 years, 1980 capital
Debt reserve - 20% of debt retirement
Alternative Costs
Existing Systems:
     Replace 2086 ST's
     Replace 417 ST-SAS's
     Pump 1043 ST's/yr.
     H0  83 DF's/yr.
                                    ($
                     Capital
                      Costs

                      552.8
                      782.7
                      -0-
                      -0-
                    1,335.5
 x 1000)
  O&M
 Costs

 -0-
 -0-
62.58/yr.
33.20/yr.
95.78/yr.
                                                                     Salvage
                                                                      Value
Future systems:
     Add 2025 ST-SAS's
                      190.05/yr.
                      190.05/yr.
 1.52/yr./yr.   429.3
 1.52/yr./yr.   429.3
                                        C-l

-------
Alternative Costs  (Continued)

Salaries:
Sanit. - $25,000/yr. - 260 days/yr.     -0-            25.0/yr.           -0-
Surveyors - $12,000/yr. - 130 days/yr.  -0-             6.0/yr.           -0-
            $12,000/yr. - 3% days/yr/yr.-O-             0.16/yr./yr.      -0-
Secretary - $12,000/yr. - 260 days/yr.  -0-            12.0/yr.           -0-
                                                       43.0/yr.
                                                        0.16/yr./yr.
20% fringe benefits                     -0-             8.6/yr.           -0-
                                        	             0.03/yr.          	
                                        -0-            51.6/yr.           -0-
                                                        0.19/yr./yr.

Retainer:
Soil Scientist - $325/day - 51 days/yr. -0-            16.58/yr.          -0-
                                        -0-            16.58/yr.          -0-

Water samples analyses:
Wells - $6/sample - 834/yr.             -0-             5.0/yr.           -0-
Wells - $6/sample - 20/yr./yr.          -0-             0.12/yr./yr.      -0-
Shallow groundwater - $40 x 20 x 3      -0-             2.40/yr.          -0-
                                        -0-             7.40/yr.          -0-
                                                        0.12/yr./yr.

Engineering, Legal, Contingencies:
Site Analysis                           120.2            -0-              -0-
Legal, etc. (9% construction cost)    1,176.6            -0-              -0-
                                      1,296.8            -0-              -0-

Alternative Costs

Total Alternative Costs
     Total 1980 costs                 2,632.3         171.35/yr.         398.0
     Total 1980-2000 costs              190.05/yr.      1.83/yr./yr.     429.8

Present Worths
                                          ($ x 1000)
Total Alternative P.W.  = 2,632.3 + 10.9909 (171.36 + 190.05) + 81.155     U.155
     (1.83) - 0.2772 (398.0 & 429.8) = 6523.7

Local Share (1980)
                                 ($ x 1000)
1980 Local Share = 9% ($2,632.3) = 236.91

User Charge (1980)
                                                                             ($)
Debt Retirement - O.U/958 (9%) ($2,632,300)                                 18,853
Debt Reserve - 20% (above)                                                   3,770
Annual 0 & M                                                               171,360
     Total 1980 annual local cost                                         $193,983

User Charge = $193,983/4171 % $50/residence/year
                                       C-2

-------
                           APPENDIX D


               Example of a Cost Analysis for an

                 Optimum Operation Alternative

        Appropriate for Cost-effectiveness Comparisons of

                      Final Alternatives
Source:         Appendices D and B,  Final Environmental Impact
               Statement, Alternative Waste Treatment  Systems
               for Rural Lake Projects - Case Study Number  5,
               Ottertail County Board of Commissioners,  Otter-
               tail County,  Minnesota.   November,  1980.

-------
                                 APPENDIX D

          Modified Limited Action Present Worth and User Charges -
                        Otter Tail Lakes Project Area
Assumptions

Existing Systems**  938 ST/SAS's        Add 389 access pipes to ST's
                                        Replace 525 ST's
                                        Add 25 flow reductions + dosed SM's

                    176 Cesspools       Replace 71 with ST/SAS's
                                        Replace 35 with ST/shallow DF's
                                        Replace 35 with ST/dosed shallow DF's
                                        Replace 35 with ST/dosed SM's

                    73 HT's             Add 73 flow reductions
                                        Add 8 ST/shallow DF's (greywater)
                                        Add 26 ST/dosed shallow DF's (greywater)
                                        Add 26 ST/dosed SM's (greywater)

                    27 Resort Systems   Join to 13 cluster system DF's (81 EDU)

                    361 ST/SAS's
                    115 ST/dosed shallow DF's
                    114 ST/dosed SM's
                    15 ST's joined to cluster systems (46 EDU)

Labor               Sanitarian to provide administrative, engineering, and
                      planning services - 260 days/yr
                    Surveyors to sample wells and lake shore groundwater during
                      summer - 2 @ 60 days/yr
                    Soil Scientist on retainer to inspect sites of proposed
                      systems - \ day/site - 15 days/yr
                    Secretary - halftime - 130 days/yr

Construction Costs  $  100/ST access pipe
                       450/ST
                     1,010/flow reduction
                     8,400/dosed SM
                     1,270/ST/SAS
                     1,270/ST/shallow DF
                     3,270/ST/dosed shallow DF
                     8,850/ST/dosed SM
                     5,350/EDU for cluster systems (less $265 if ST not needed)
Future Systems*
Operation &
  Maintenance
  (O&M) Costs
                    $
 5/yr/residence for flow reduction devices
60/ST pumping (70% once/5 years, 30% once/3 year)
60/HT pumping (13 x 5 pumpings/yr, 12 x 3 pumpings
  48 x 1 pumping/yr)
* ST -  septic tank, SAS - soil absorption system, SM - sand mound, DF - drainfield,
  EDU - equivalent dwelling unit.
• Includes 1,134 residential, 17 business, and 63 resort systems.
o Includes 572 residential and 33 resort systems.
                                        D-l

-------
Salvage Values
Salaries
Costs
55/yr/dosed DF for electricity and pumping maintenance
55/yr/residence for cluster system DF's (ST separate)
8/well water sample to test for bacteria-nitrate
  (1/5 yr/well except 2/yr/3 wells at clusters)
15/shallow groundwater sample to test for bacteria and
  nutrients (50 tests/yr 3 samples/test)

50 year useful life for ST's, HT's
20 years for dosing pumps, DF's, SM's, flow reduction,
$2,124/residence for cluster systems if existing ST's used,
1965/residence for cluster systems if existing ST's used.
$25,000/yr Sanitarian's
$12,000/yr Secretary's
$12,000/yr surveyor's
$325/day Soil Scientists
                                             Capital
                    Item                      Costs
                                                       +20% fringe benefits
                                 ($ x 1,000)

                                   O&M*
                                   Costs
Salvage
 Value
Existing Systems:

     389 ST/SAS's - Add Hatches               38.9
     524 ST/SAS's - Replace ST's             235.8
     25 ST/SAS's - Add Flow Redl, SM's       235.3
     71 Cesspools - ST/SAS's                  90.2
     35 Cesspools - ST/shallow DF's           44.4
     35 Cesspools - ST/dosed sh. DF's        114.5
     35 Cesspools - ST/dosed SM's            309.8
     13 HT's - Add Flow Reduction             13.1
     8 HT's - Add Flow Reduction +
       ST/Shallow DF                          18.2
     26 HT's - Add Flow Reduction +
       ST/dosed shallow DF                   111.3
     26 HT's - Add Flow Reduction +
       ST/dosed SM                           256.4
     81 EDU ST/Cluster Systems               426.2
                              Subtotal     1,894.1

Future Systems:

     361 ST/SAS's                            22.92/yr
     115 ST/dosed shallow DF's               18.80/yr
     114 ST/dosed SM's                       50.44/yr
     46 EDU ST/Cluster Systems               12.30/yr
                              Subtotal      104.5/yr
5.60/yr
7. 55/yr
1.86/yr
1.02/yr
0.50
2.43/yr
2.43/yr
3.90/yr
23.3
141.5
-0-
19.2
9.4
9.5
9.4
-0-
                                   0.82/yr

                                   4.10/yr

                                   4.10/yr
                                   5.62/yr
                                  39.93/yr
  2.2

  7.0

  7.0
167.8
396.3
                                   0.26/yr/yr
                                   0.40/yr/yr
                                   0.40/yr/yr
                                   0.16/yr/yr
                                   1.22/yr/yr
     130.0
      41.4
      41.0
      97.7
     310.1
*  Operation and Maintenance.
                                    D-2

-------
Salaries:

     Sanitarian @ $25,000/yr x 260 day
     Surveyors @ $12,000/yr x 120 day
     Secretary @ $12,000/yr x 130 day
                              Subtotal
     20% Fringe Benefits
                              Subtotal

Retainer:

     Soil Scientist @ 325/day x 15 day

Water Sample Analysis:

     Wells @ $8/sample x 312/yr
     Wells @ $8/sample x 6/yr/yr
     Shallow Groundwater @ $15 x 3 x 50
                              Subtotal
Rental:
     Office @ $300/mo x 12
     Office supplies, telephone, etc.
     Van lease, gas & oil
     Small motorboat - 4 wks/yr
                              Subtotal
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
25.00/yr
5.54/yr
6.00/yr
36.54/yr
7.31/yr
43.85/yr
-0
-0-
-0
-0
-0-
-0
                     -0-
                     -0-
                     -0-
                     -0-
                     -0-
                     -0-
                     -0-
                     -0-
                     -0-
                     -0-
4.88/yr    -0-
2.50/yr    -0-
0.05/yr/yr -0-
2.25/yr    -0-
4.75.yr    -0-
0.05/yr/yr
3.60/yr
2.00/yr
6.00/yr
0.40/yr
12.00/yr
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
E&A Costs:
     Contingencies - 9% of 1980 costs
     Site Analysis
     Cluster System Design*
                    170.5
                    431.3
                     70.0
                    671.8
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-

-0-
Total - As of 1980
      - Increment 1980 - 2000
Present Worth
                    2565.9
                     104.5/yr
105.4/yr    396.3
1.27/yr/yr  310.1
                                                   ($ x 1,000)
Present Worth Cost = 2565.9 - 10,9099 (209.0) - 81.155 (1.27)
                   = 4763.1 - 0.2772 (706.4)
Assumptions

Number of Units
1,134 Residences
   30 Resorts
   17 Businesses
1,181 Total
   Assuming that several  (~ 5) are designed at the same time.
                                          D-3

-------
Federal Funding          85% of cost of site analysis & capital cost of
                           replacement systems

State Funding            9% of above cost

Debt Retirement          30 year loan @ 6 1/8%
                         1980 capital costs only
                         20% debt reserve

User Charges (as of 1980)
                                                              ($)
Debt Retirement - 0.07958 (6%) ($2,565,900)                 12,252
Debt Reserve - 20% (11,917)                                  2,450
Annual O&M                                                 105,400
     Total annual local cost                              $120,102

User charge = Total annual local cost/number of units
            = $102,102 T 1,181 = $102
                        D-4

-------
               Modified Limited Action Site Analysis and Costs
Description of Work To Be Done

     The first  step  in adopting the Modified Limited  Action  Alternative will
be  a  site analysis  of existing  wastewater  disposal  units  and wells  in  the
Study Area.   This site  analysis  will consist of a  sanitary  survey,  sampling
and metering  of wells,  soil  sampling,  inspection  and excavation  of  on-site
systems, and shallow groundwater sampling near lake shores.

     A  survey  team will  conduct  a  sanitary  survey of each home,  resort,  and
business in the Study Area.   The team will  ask  residents to complete a ques-
tionnaire  regarding  their wastewater  systems  and wells,  will  inspect waste-
water systems  sites  and wells, and  will take samples of  well  water  from all
homes or  businesses  surveyed.  The  well  samples  will be analyzed for fecal
coliform bacteria  and  for nitrates  and the results of the survey will be used
to plan work to be done for the remainder of the site analysis.

     When the survey has been completed, septic tanks reported or likely to be
undersized will be inspected.  The  inspection  team  will locate  tanks to be
inspected, will uncover and pump them, and will inspect them for construction,
size, leaks condition,  and types  of sanitary tees and baffles.   The team will
also rod influent lines (noting roots, other obstructions, and collapsed pipe)
and effluent lines (noting these items plus distances to headers, distribution
boxes, bends,  and obstructions).

     Next, soil samples will be taken for lots with a) past and present sewage
system  malfunctions   not  explained  by  the  sanitary survey  or  septic  tank
inspections, b) substandard soil disposal units and c) soil disposal units for
which there  are  no  records.   The samples will be examined  to  determine soil
texture and  color, depth  to  the seasonal high groundwater  level, and water
table  depths  at  suspected areas of soil disposal  units and  at  alternative
disposal  sites  on or  near the  lots.   The soil  sampling  team also will probe
the suspected part of the soil disposal unit for depth, size, and type.

     After  soil  samples  have  been  taken,  a team  of laborers will   inspect
subsurface disposal units of those on-site systems having  recurrent backups or
past  surface  malfunctions not  explained in prior steps.  The  team will hand
excavate effluent lines, will hand excavate test pits  (to  examine size, depth,
and  type   of  soil disposal  unit),   and will  evaluate soil  hydraulics (soil
crusting,  decomposition  and  silting in  of  aggregate, soil  distribution)  as
reasons for on-site system failures.

     Then  well  water  meters  will be installed to monitor flows  to those on-
site  systems  with limited  hydraulic capacity as  determined by  the  sanitary
survey, soil sampling, and excavation of the soil disposal unit.

     Finally, the impact of wastewater disposal on lake water will be investi-
gated by  examining shoreline groundwater.  The  direction of  groundwater flow
along lake shores will be determined at \ mile intervals  four times over a one
year period.  Also,  emergent plumes from  on-site  systems will  be detected by
                                         D-5

-------
scanning the  lake  shore  with a fluorescent meter; sites having plumes will be
further analyzed  using a  shoreline  transect and  5 samples per  plume (to be
analyzed for bacteria and nutrient levels).

     The results of the site analyses described above will be used to identify
specific measures  that can be taken to correct malfunctioning on-site systems
and polluted wells in the Study Area.
Assumptions

Numbers of
  Systems
Number of
  Problems
1,134
   63
	17
1,214

   25
  806
  176
   73
   27
Step 1--         284
  Sanitary        24
  Survey &       308
   well sampling
Residences (30% permanent, 70% seasonal)
Resort (3 EDU/system, 14% permanent, 86% seasonal)
Businesses (24% permanent, 76% seasonal)
ST/SAS's with limited hydraulic capacity
ST/SAS's which may have undersized tanks*
Cesspools
Holding tanks
Holding tanks or inadequate soil absorption systems
  in 13 resorts

person-days (1,134 residences -r 4/person/day)
person-days (47 businesses and resorts 4- 2/person/day)
person-days (Sanitarian 23, Sr. Engineer 23, sur-
  veyors 205, W.Q. Scientist 21)
Step 2—
  Septic
   tank
   inspection
Additional Costs - well sample test @ $5/sample x 118

  150     person-days (900 systems -r 6/person/day)
  150     person-days (Jr. Engineer 150)
               Additional costs - 3-man crew @ $450/day x 150
                                - waste disposal @ $20/tank x 900
Step 3--
  Soil
  sampling

Step 4--
  Disposal unit
  inspection

Step 5--
  Well water
  Meters
  364
  364
   40
  243
  283

   44

   44
person-days (60% x 1,214 systems -f 4/2 persons/day)
person-days (soil scientist 189, surveyor 175)
person-days (13% x 938 systems -r 3/supervisor/day)
person-days (13% x 938 systems -r \ persons/day)
person-days (Sanitarian 40, laborers 243)
person-days (15% x 1,181 wells
  inspections/person/day)
person-days (Surveyor 44)
x 6 inspections -r 24
   Total number of systems minus number of septic systems (107) certified
   according to the County Office of Land & Water Resource permits minus
   number of other problem systems.
                                   D-6

-------
               Additional costs - Meter installation @ $175/meter x 177
Step 6—
  Shallow
  Groundwater
    Sampling
  20      person-days (10 days x 2 persons for scan)
  80      person-days (80 plumes T 2 plumes/day x 2 persons)
 100      person-days (Sanitarian 25, W.Q. Scientist 50,
            Surveyor 25)

Additional cost - Nutrient analyses @ $15/series x 5/plumes
  x 80 plumes
Step 7--         40
  Shore ground-  40
   water hydro-
   logy survey

Step 8--        260
  Supervision,
  documentation,
  clerical

Labor Summary
Sanitarian
Sr. Engineer
Jr. Engineer
Soil Scientist
W.Q. Scientist
Surveyors
Laborers
Secretary
OTCDLRM* Costs
Salaries
          person-days (5 days/survey x 2 persons x 4 surveys)
          person-days (Sanitarian 20, W.Q. Scientist 5,
            Surveyor 15)
          Work-days (Sanitarian @ 100% including above time,
            Sr. Engineer @ 25% + 20 days to prepare report,
            Secretary @ 100%)
                                        Person-Days Per Step
123
23
23
23 150
13 189
21
205 175


308 150 364
Sanitarian @ $25,000/yr
Surveyors @ $ll,000/yr x
Laborers @ $12,000/yr x
Secretary @ $12,000/yr x

20% fringe benefits

456
40 25



50
44 24
243

283 44 100
x 260 days
464 days
243 days
260 days
Subtotal

Subtotal
7 8 Total
20 152 260
62 85
173
202
5 76
15 464
243
260 260
40 474 1,763
$25,000
19,630
11,215
12,000
67,845
13,569
81,414
Rent
     Office @ $300/mo. x 12 months
$ 3,600
*  Otter Tail County Department of Land and Resource Management.
                                         D-7

-------
OTCDLRM Costs—Continued
Service Contracts
Equipment &
  Sampling
Summary
Consultant Costs
Direct Labor
Other Direct
  Costs
Travel
Summary
Total Costs

OTCDLRM
Consultant
Well sample analysis @ $5/sample x 1,181     $ 5,905
Septic tank inspection - $450/day x 150       67,500
                       - $20/tank x 900       18,000
Well water meters @ $175/meter x 177          30,975
Plume sample analyses @ $15 x 5 x 80           6,000

Fluorescent meter                            $14,000
Groundwater flow meter                         4,000
Field sampling equipment                       2,000

Paper supplies                                 2,000
Cameras & film for documentation               3,000
2 vans @ ($350/mo + $120 gas-oil/mo) x 12     11,280

Salaries                                    $ 81,414
Rent                                           3,600
Contracts                                    128,380
Equipment & Supplies                          36,280
                    Total OTCDLRM           $249,674
Sr. Engineer @ $35,000/yr x 85 days          $11,440
Jr. Engineer @ $20,000/yr x 173 days          13,310
Soil Scientist @ 25,000/yr x 202 days         19,420
W.Q. Scientist @ 25,000/yr x 76 days            7,310
                                             $51,480

Report & Reproduction                             150
Communication                                   1,000
Graphics, report preparation                    1,500
                                              $27650

House rental for office, sleeping x 12 mo's     6,000
Other per diem @ $20/day x 536"               10,720
65 RT x 250 miles x $0.20/mile                  3,250
                                             $19,970
Direct labor x 3.0
Other direct costs x 1.2
Travel x 1.2
                    Total consultant
                                        Total
 154,440
   3,180
  23,964
$181,584
                                              $249,674
                                               181,584
                                              $431,258
*  Assuming that the consultants work 5 days/week.
                                D-8
                                        U.S. Government Printing Office:  1981/752-512

-------