cxEPA
United States Regior
Environmental Protection 230 S
Agency Chicac
905D82101
Water Division
Environmental
Impact Statement
Draft
Indian Lake - Sister Lakes
Wastewater Treatment
System
Berrien, Cass, and
Van Buren Counties,
Michigan
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
INDIAN LAKE - SISTER LAKES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
BERRIEN, CASS AND VAN BUREN COUNTIES, MICHIGAN
Prepared by the
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
and
WAPORA, INCORPORATED
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
August 1982
, •pyO*euv""
«w,«iro«°en i $91-^
|&&gr -
Approval By:
Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
August 1982
-------
SUMMARY
(X) Draft Environmental Impact Statement
( ) Final Environmental Impact Statement
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
1. NAME OF ACTION
Administrative (X)
Legislative ( )
2. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500)
established a uniform, nationwide water pollution control program. Section
201 of the Act established grants for planning, design, and construction for
water pollution control facilities. At the request of lakeshore residents of
Indian Lake, the Cass County Department of Public Works (CCDPW) applied for a
facility planning grant in 1975. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) delineated the facilities planning area to include Indian Lake, the
Sister Lakes, and Pipestone Lake. The CCDPW was designated the lead agency
for the administration of grants.
Concurrent with the facilities planning process, the CCDPW filed an
application with the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) in May 1976 for a
grant and loan to construct sewers around Indian Lake only. The FmHA informed
the CCDPW in August 1976 that the grant and loan application was approved,
with the condition that the facilities planning documents would be approved by
MDNR.
The preliminary draft of the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes Facility Plan was
submitted to MDNR in October 1977 by Gove Associates, Inc., the consulting
engineer. Collector sewers and centralized treatment was proposed for the
lake areas. The Facility Plan was not approved at that time because of ques-
tions regarding the potential Impacts of the proposed sewers, system costs,
and whether innovative/alternative systems might be a feasible alternative.
ii
-------
In August 1978, USEPA issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environ-
mental Impact Statement (EIS). The major considerations were the contribution
of present on-site systems to lake water degradation, the potential for im-
proved treatment by existing systems through upgrading and improving
maintenance, the economic impact of the proposed project alternatives, and the
potential secondary impacts.
This report contains an evaluation of the existing wastewater-related
problems and the treatment needs of the facilities planning area. Central-
ized collection and treatment alternatives were re-evaluated and decentralized
alternatives were developed and analyzed. Considerable emphasis was devoted
to the decentralized alternatives because the potential to reduce costs was
great. The residences not immediately adjacent to the lakes were not included
in the analysis because no need for improved sewage treatment was determined.
3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Eleven wastewater system alternatives were evaluated in detail during
this study. Six alternatives include collection of sewage from the lake areas
and transmission to various treatment sites where different treatment pro-
cesses would occur. The other alternatives include the No Action Alternative
and the various on-site and cluster system (off-site) alternatives. Each
alternative provides service to the residences near the lakes in the study
area (except Keeler Lake).
Alternative 1
The No Action Alternative presumes that neither USEPA nor PmHA would
provide funds to build, upgrade, or expand existing on-site treatment systems,
although local health authorities would continue to have the responsibility
for improving existing systems that cause public health problems. No costs
were calculated for this alternative.
iii
-------
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 proposes construction of septic tank effluent (STE)
pressure collection sewers and separate treatment plants for Indian Lake and
Sister Lakes with discharges to surface waters. The treatment plants would
include waste stabilization ponds with 9.5 months of storage. The Sister
Lakes treatment plant would discharge to Silver Creek and the Indian Lake
treatment plant would discharge to the Indian Lake outlet. The capital cost of
this alternative is $24,106,200 and the annual operation and maintenance costs
are $261,700.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 proposes construction of pressure collection sewers and a
regional treatment plant utilizing application of wastewater effluent to land.
Pretreatment prior to land application would be accomplished by waste stabil-
ization ponds that incorporate 6 months of winter storage. The capital cost
of this alternative is $23,819,600 and the annual operation and maintenance
costs are $285,900.
Alternative 4
This alternative proposes construction of STE pressure collection sewers
and a regional treatment plant utilizing waste stabilization ponds for treat-
ment. The treatment plant is proposed to be located in Section 11 of Silver
Creek Township. It would incorporate 9.5 months of storage and would dis-
charge to Silver Creek. The estimated capital cost is $24,573,700 and the
estimated annual operation and maintenance costs are $252,500.
Alternative 5A
This alternative is similar to Alternative 4, except the regional treat-
ment plant would be located near Indian Lake and would discharge to the Indian
Lake outlet. This alternative has an estimated capital cost of $23,614,200
and estimated annual operation and maintenance costs of $247,000.
IV
-------
Alternative 5B
This alternative is similar to Alternative 5A, except that a conventional
gravity collection sewer system would be utilized rather that the STE pressure
sewer system. This alternative is similar to the alternative recommended in
the Facilities Plan by Gove Associates, Inc. The estimated capital cost is
$29,598,600 and the annual operation and maintenance costs are $278,200.
Alternative 6
Alternative 6 proposes construction of STE pressure collection sewers and
a new treatment plant for the Sister Lakes and utilization of the Dowagiac
treatment plant for Indian Lake wastewater. The Sister Lakes treatment plant
would consist of waste stabilization ponds with 9.5 months of storage capacity
and would discharge to Silver Creek. The Dowagiac treatment plant would not
be expanded to accommodate the flow from the Indian Lake area. The estimated
capital cost for this alternative is $23,487,400 and the annual operation and
maintenance costs, including the treatment charge at the Dowagiac treatment
plant, are $294,000.
Alternative 7
This alternative proposes construction of STE pressure collection sewers
and transmission facilities to the Dowagiac treatment plant. This alternative
has an estimated capital cost of $22,457,200 and annual operation and main-
tenance costs of $466,100.
Alternative 8A
This alternative includes upgrading on-site systems where a subsequent,
detailed inspection uncovers a need for upgrading and collecting STE from
certain critical areas where upgrading on-site systems is not feasible. The
STE would be treated in common cluster drainfields. This alternative utilizes
STE pressure collection sewers for the critical areas. The estimated capital
cost of this alternative is $9,683,800 and the estimated annual operation and
maintenance costs are $280,200.
-------
Alternative 8B
This alternative is similar to Alternative 8A, except STE gravity sewers
and lift stations and force mains would be utilized to convey STE to the
cluster drainfield site. The estimated capital cost of this alternative is
$9,644,200 and the estimated annual operation and maintenance costs are
$265,700.
Alternative 9
This alternative consists of upgrading on-site systems where a subse-
quent, detailed inspection program uncovers a need for upgrading and install-
ing low-flow toilets and blackwater holding tanks for those residences for
which on-site upgrading is not feasible. The graywater would be handled by
the existing or upgraded septic tank and soil absorption system. The
estimated capital cost is $3,710,600 and the estimated annual operation and
maintenance costs are $224,000.
The total present worth costs of the major components of the alternatives
and their ranking are presented in Table 1. These system alternatives can be
grouped into_ three design/cost categories. The centralized comprehensive
sewering alternatives (2, 3, 4, 5A, 5B, 6, and 7) are highest in cost; up-
graded on-site systems with certain critical areas served by cluster drain-
fields (Alternatives 8A and 8B) are intermediate in cost; and upgraded on-site
systems with blackwater holding tanks (Alternative 9) are lowest in cost.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Construction Phase
Major direct impacts from construction activities that would be asso-
ciated with the alternatives would be concentrated along the corridors of the
collection sewers and at the wastewater treatment facilities sites. Fugitive
dust, exhaust emissions from construction equipment, noise, destruction of
vegetation, accelerated erosion, disturbance of wildlife, disturbance of
streambeds and lakebeds, and interruption of traffic flow and patterns would
vi
-------
•( O
3 T3
J 14-4
3 O
0 CO
J "O
0 C
3 BJ
J CO
3 O
0 *
0 to
4J
•4 ffl
j O
d o
-I iH
3 CO
*r> o
r* u-i
o
S
.0
O
« w
SB p*
r*l 1^
to
r-l
O
U
41
CO
•H
cn
u
O
o
CO ^
5 oo
0) j2
* w
fl.'O
•a IH
§ s
sewers
ke areas
C CO
0 -J
•u B
u to
01 ~4
-H B 01
O M *-»
u eg
•B >
V C
u 01 OJ
3 U
CD co eg
£ J S
O.
•a 1 '
c e
« 5
H
In
41
i u
*J CU
* >
41 .H
*•• w
«•"* c
oe =
CU O
M T-i
*J
•tf U
£S
0*
3-B
0)
00 U
B U
U E
-H V)
O X
U CD
4) -4
M CO
I |
4) CO
M «H
n
c
O
u
c
•H
•o
CO
J3
s
«
c
0
00
C 4)
CO 4>
%j
W >
CO 4)
o to
U £
U
0) CO
U -H
3 *T3
to
0) £
1* -H
e
0
4-1
at
CO
c
•H
TJ
to
U
o
^ jj
CU
S 3
S O
i-» 41
SIS
S-3
oo a
41 «
hi -H
•a c
c i-*
CO
o
CO U
u
Ot 4)
3 00
CO S3
C U
O CO
U
4) -=
o s
U
(N
3 T3
CD e
CO CO
01
s
CD
I
•H
U
0)
B
£
8-
-H 01
i §
at
§5
•H B
00 «
01 -H
w -a
c
tJ M
c
sewers a
harge to
u
o •*
0 JS
0
0 ?i
X
4J fj
-H C
>
•a 01 J^
0) 01 01
•H W
ca cn u
U
01 U tt
3 o a>
a, i^
B H cn
o "a
tu B a>
o 01 ta
a> -3 to
U -H
3 e ^3
to ra
CO -H JS
CU ^) 44
1- C -H
O<
*
a
M
•H C
*J O
a u
cu
c
as to
(0
u u
•-* 01
10 CO
-H ^-1
V4 ->
U
•u oo
B
« U
Ig
•o «
00 CO
D. -H -O
3 *-* *-t
SOI
•H
X h*
41
5J U li
•H 4) *J
CO >-4 0)
1 -H 3
O ° "u
CQ
OO
CO
_*:
B
00
e
•o
•a
i
e
00
a.
4)
x
to
4)
CO
s
O
U
3
*M
CO
H
a)
X
CO
41
v4.
CO
e
o
00
B
•H
4J
ta
*H
X
01
00
upgradin
Q
CO
4J
CO
O
CJ
CO
01
1
u
B
ca
01
3
^
CO
V
CO
£-
21
CO CO
u 1
CO C
0 0
(J
XB
hi -H
0 *->
^j cn
(B-H
U X
0 0)
Xl
-2*0
•fl 00
c c
a -H
•o
Q> Cfl
> u
-H DO
*j a.
. C8 3
CO U
e •*-» t-
(U ffl O
U -H MM
CO B
X-H *J
ca B co
*o o
U CD O
41
4J CO CO
CO 4> 01
311
y ^^ t-(
U U
B B
A U
vii
-------
create short-term nuisance conditions and environmental damage along the sewer
and force main routes. The extent and range of impacts is directly related to
the lengths of the proposed sewers. The centralized treatment alternatives
have potential for the greatest number of impacts alternatives, the number and
extent of impacts would be considerably less for the two alternatives with
critical area collection systems and cluster drainfields. Major impacts on
the environment would occur at the new treatment plant sites because each site
would have a waste stabilization lagoon built on it. All the sites are pre-
sently used for agricultural purposes, and the site in Section 29 (near Indian
Lake) is mostly prime agricultural land that would be converted irretrievably
to treatment plant use. The cluster drainfield sites also would be extensive-
ly disturbed for drainfield trenching. The three alternatives with upgraded
on-site systems would involve extensive disturbance on individual lots only.
Alternative 9 would require the smallest commitment of public capital.
The local share of the capital cost is lowest with Alternative 9, even includ-
ing some additional private homeowner cost.
Operational Phase
The operation of the facilities proposed in the alternatives would pro-
duce some significant long-term impacts. All of the alternatives (except the
No Action Alternative) would result in slightly reduced nutrient inputs into
the lakes; the greatest reductions could be expected for the complete sewering
alternatives. The data were inconclusive as to whether the water quality of
the lakes would be noticeably improved under any of the alternatives. Under
the No Action Alternative lake water quality may noticeably decline and
nuisance algal blooms may increase in extent and density. Occasionally fail-
ing on-site systems would cause localized water quality problems, potential
health risks, and malodorous conditions. The soil absorption systems that
would continue to be used and those proposed for construction would affect the
quality of groundwater slightly. Occasional malfunctions and power outages
within the wastewater collection system could cause serious short-term impacts
on lake water quality. The treatment facilities for the centralized alterna-
tives would be capable of meeting the discharge requirements established by
Vlll
-------
MDNR. Water quality in. the receiving streams would be altered, but not
seriously degraded during the annual discharge period. The land application
alternative should result in minimal operating Impacts because the infiltrated
water should be of comparatively high quality.
Septage and holding tank waste hauling would result in minimal adverse
impacts. Some ephemeral odors from the pumping operation would be detected
and truck traffic would be present. Septage disposal would be conducted in an
environmentally compatible way with application to agricultural lands.
5. RECOMMENDED ACTION
The least cost alternative from both an economic and an environmental
perspective is Alternative 9 - on-site system upgrading and blackwater holding
tanks for some critical areas. Because insufficient data have been developed
in the study thus far to conclusively document a need for improved sewage
treatment, USEPA, Region V has decided that additional studies will be con-
ducted during the period between publication of the Draft EIS and the Final
EIS.
These studies may include:
• A sanitary survey of 30% of the residences in the study area
• A septic leachate detector scan of drinking water samples
obtained from each house visited in the sanitary survey for
traces of wastewater effluent
• A near-shore hydrology study to determine the direction of
groundwater flow.
Based on the available information and the additional studies, a more pre-
cisely defined wastewater management system for the study area will be recom-
mended in the Final EIS. An alternative that includes primary reliance on
on-site wastewater management systems is clearly justified for the study area.
The recommended alternative may include holding tanks, blackwater holding
tanks, and cluster drainfields where it is demonstrated that off-site treat-
ment of wastewater is needed.
ix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER SHEET
SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS x
LIST OF APPENDICES xv
LIST OF TABLES xvi
LIST OF FIGURES xlx
1.0. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
1»1. Project Background 1-1
1.2. Legal Basis for Action and Project Need 1-5
1.3. Study Process and Public Participation 1-8
1.4. Issues 1-8
2.0. DISCUSSION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1. Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems ... 2-1
2.1.1. Existing On-site Systems 2-1
2.1.2. Summary of Data on Operation of Existing
Systems 2-3
2.1.2.1. Septic Leachate Survey 2-3
2.1.2.2. Aerial Survey 2-4
2.1.2.3. Mailed Questionnaire 2-5
2.1.2.4. Indian Lake Sanitary Surveys . . . 2-8
2.1.2.5. Pipestone Lake Surveys 2-10
2.1.3. Problems Caused by Existing Systems 2-11
2.1.3.1. Backups 2-12
2.1.3.2. Ponding 2-12
2.1.3.3. Groundwater Contamination 2-12
2.1.3.4. Surface Water Quality Problems . . 2-13
2.1.3.5. Indirect Evidence 2-15
2.1.4. Identification of Problem Areas 2-16
2.1.5. Septage Disposal Practices 2-18
2.2. Identification of Wastewater Treatment System
Options 2-23
2.2.1. Design Factors 2-23
2.2.1.1. Wastewater Load Factors 2-23
2.2.1.2. Effluent Requirements 2-24
2.2.1.3. Economic Factors 2-26
2.2.2. System Components 2-28
2.2.2.1. Flow and Waste Reduction ..... 2-28
2.2.2.2. Collection System 2-35
2.2.2.3. Wastewater Treatment Processes . . 2-41
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
2.2.2.4. Effluent Disposal Methods 2-41
2.2.2.5. Sludge Treatment and Disposal . . . 2-46
2.2.2.6. On-site System 2-47
2.2.2.7. Cluster System 2-51
2.2.2.8. Septage Disposal 2-53
2.2.3. Centralized Collection System Alternatives . 2-53
2.2.4. Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant
Alternatives 2-57
2.3. System Alternatives 2-61
2.3.1. Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative .... 2-63
2.3.2. Alternative 2 - Pressure Collection Sewers
and Separate WWTPs for the Sister Lakes
and Indian Lake Areas with Discharge to
Surface Waters 2-64
2.3.3. Alternative 3 - Pressure Collection
Sewers and Regional Treatment and Land
Treatment System 2-64
2.3.4. Alternative 4 - Pressure Collection Sewers
and Regional WWTP located in Section 11 ... 2-66
2.3.5. Alternative 5A - Pressure Collection Sewers
and a Regional WWTP Located in Sections 29
and 32 2-68
2.3.6. Alternative 5B - Gravity Collection Sewers
and a Regional WWTP Located in Sections
29 and 32 2-68
2.3.7. Alternative 6 - Pressure Collection Sewers
and Existing Dowagiac WWTP"for Indian Lake
and new WWTP for Sister Lakes 2-71
2.3.8. Alternative 7 - Pressure Collection Sewers
and Existing Dowagiac WWTP 2-73
2.3.9. Alternative 8A - On-Slte Systems Upgrading
and Critical Areas Septic Tank Effluent
Collected by Pressure Sewers and Conveyed
to Cluster Drain Fields 2-73
2.3.10. Alternative 8B - On-Slte Systems Upgrading
and Critical Areas Septic Tank Effluent
Collected by Small Diameter Gravity Sewers
and Conveyed to Cluster Drain Fields .... 2-76
2.3.11. Alternative 9 - On-Site Systems Upgrading
and Blackwater Holding Tanks 2-77
2.4. Flexibility and Reliability of System Alternatives . . 2-77
2.4.1. Flexibility 2-77
2.4.2. Reliability 2-78
2.5. Comparison of Alternatives and Selection of the
Recommended Action 2-82
2.5.1. Comparison of Alternatives 2-82
2.5.1.1. Project Costs 2-82
xi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
2.5.1.2. Environmental Impacts 2-84
2.5.1.3. Implementability 2-86
2.5.2. Conclusions 2-91
3.0. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
3.1. Natural Environment ..... 3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-3
3-3
3-3
3-8
3-16
3-16
3-18
3-31
3-38
3-44
3-44
3-45
3-45
3-48
3-48
3-48
3-49
3-51
3-52
3.2. Man-Made Environment 3-53
3-53
3-53
3-56
3-61
3-65
3-65
3-66
3-71
3-72
3-74
Natural
3.1.1.
3.1.2.
3.1.3.
3.1.4.
3.1.5.
3.1.6.
Man-Made
3.2.1.
3.2.2.
3.1.1.1. Climate
3.1.1.2. Air Quality
3.1.1.3. Noise
3.1.1.4. Odor
3.1.2.1. Geology .
3.1.2.2. Soils
3.1.3.1. Rivers and Lakes in the
3.1.3.2. Water Quality of the Major Rivers
and Lakes in the Study Area . . . .
3.1.3.3. Groundwater in the Study Area . . .
3.1.3.4. Nutrient Inputs in Inland Lakes . .
3.1.4.2. Mollusks
3.1.4.3. Fisheries
3.1.5.2. Birds
3.1.5.4. Vegetation
Wetlands .
3.2.1.1. Historic and Current Population . .
3.2.1.2. Service Area Population Estimates .
3.?. 2.1. Local Land Use Trends
3.2.2.2. Study Area Land Use Trends ....
3.2.2.4. Future Land Use
3.2.2.5. Development Potential
xii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
3.2.3. Economics 3-76
3.2.3.1. Regional Employment Trends .... 3-76
3.2.3.2. Income 3-77
3.2.3.3. Unemployment 3-78
3,2.4. Recreation and Tourism Resources 3-80
3.2.4.1. Public Facilities 3-80
3.2.4.2. Private Facilities 3-81
3.2.5. Public Finance 3-83
3.2.5.1. Assessed Valuation and
Market Value 3-83
3.2.5.2. Total Revenues 3-84
3.2.5.3. Debt, Debt Service, and Debt
Limits 3-84
3.2.6. Transportation 3-84
3.2.6.1. Highways 3-84
3.2.6.2. Airport Facilities 3-87
3.2.6.3. Port Facilities 3-87
3.2.7. Energy 3-87
3.2.8. Cultural Resources 3-88
3.2.8.1. Early History 3-88
3.2.8.2. Archaeological Sites 3-90
3.2.8.3. Historic Sites 3-91
4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
4.1. Primary Impacts 4-14
4.1.1. Construction Impacts ... 4-14
4.1.1.1. Atmosphere 4-14
4.1.1.2. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation . . 4-14
4.1.1.3. Surface Water 4-15
4.1.1.4. Groundwater 4-15
4.1.1.5. Terrestrial Biota 4-15
4.1.1.6. Land Use 4-17
4.1.1.7. Demography 4-20
.4.1.1.8. Economics 4-20
4.1.1.9. Recreation and Tourism 4-21
4.1.1.10. Transportation 4-21
4.1.1.11. Energy Resources 4-21
4.1.1.12. Cultural Resources 4-22
4.1.2. Operai ion Impacts 4-22
4.1.2.1. Atmosphere 4-22
4.1.2.2. Soils 4-24
4.1.2.3. Surface Waters 4-28
4.1.2.4. Groundwater 4-33
4.1.2.5. Terrestrial Biota 4-37
4.1.2.6. Land Use Impacts 4-37
4.1.2.7. Demographics 4-37
4.1.2.8. Economics 4-37
4.1.2.9. Recreation and Tourism 4-38
xiii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
4.1.2.10. Transportation 4-38
4.1.2.11. Energy 4-39
4.1.3. Public Finance 4-39
4.2. Secondary Impacts 4-44
4.2.1. Demographics 4-44
4.2.2. Land Use 4-45
4.2.3. Surface Water 4-46
4.2.4. Recreation and Tourism 4-47
4.2.5. Economics 4-47
4.2.6. Threatened and Endangered Species 4-47
4.3. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts ..... 4-48
4.3.1. Mitigation of Construction Impacts 4-48
4.3.2. Mitigation of Operation Impacts 4-52
4.3.3. Mitigation of Secondary Impacts 4-53
4.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4-53
4.5. Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource Commitments . 4-54
5.0. LITERATURE CITED ..... 5-1
6.0. LIST OF PREPARERS 6-1
t>
7.0. GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS 7-1
xiv
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - EXISTING ON-SITE SYSTEMS
APPENDIX B - SEPTIC LEACHATE SURVEY INDIAN LAKE-SISTER LAKES
APPENDIX C - ESTIMATED ON-SITE SYSTEMS TO BE UPGRADED UNDER ALTERNATIVES
8A, 8B, AND 9
APPENDIX D - PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVES
APPENDIX E - INDIAN LAKE-SISTER LAKES AREA COMMUNITY ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX F - CLBLATOLOGICAL AND AIR QUALITY DATA
APPENDIX G - PHOSPHORUS SORPTION AND PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS
APPENDIX H - SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA
APPENDIX I - AQUATIC BIOTA SAMPLING PROGRAM - PHYTOPLANKTON ANALYSIS
APPENDIX J - TERRESTRIAL BIOTA DATA
APPENDIX K - RECREATION PARTICIPATION DATA
APPENDIX L - METHODOLOGY FOR THE COUNTY DEBT TO PER CAPITA INCOME RATIOS
APPENDIX M - RESIDENTIAL FUEL REQUIREMENT DATA
APPENDIX N - ANALYSIS OF GRANT ELIGIBILITY
APPENDIX 0 - PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2-1 Category and number of discernable on-site septic
systems around the lakes in study area 2-6
2-2 Partial results of 1978 sanitary questionnaire as
tabulated by Gove Associates, Inc. for lakeshore
areas in Cass County 2-7
2-3 Results of pollution survey of Indian Lake 2-9
2-4 Description of site limitations and results of
surveys pertinent to on-site systems for each
district 2-19
2-5 Wastewater load factors projected for Sister
Lakes and Indian Lake, Michigan, for the year
2000 2-24
2-6 Service factor 2-27
2-7 Economic cost criteria 2-28
2-8 Summary of all estimated costs of centralized
collection system alternatives 2-60
2-9 Summary of all estimated costs of centralized wastewater
plant (WWTP) alternatives 2-62
2-10 Summary of all estimated costs of alternatives 2-83
3-1 Soils series characteristics and ratings ........ 3-14
3-2 Physical characteristics of major lakes in the study
area 3-18
3-3 Existing and proposed water quality standards for the
State of Michigan 3-20
3-4 Selected watei quality parameters for the rivers in
the study area 3-22
3-5 Selected data by station, for the aquatic biota program
for the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes study area 3-25
3-6 Nygaard's trophic state (NTS) for lakes in the Indian
Lake-Sister Lakes study area 3-27
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
3-7 Palmer's Organic Pollution Indices 3-27
3-8 Results of groundwater survey 3-35
3-9 Mean nutrient export from non-point sources by land use/
cover type * 3-41
3-10 Total phosphorus inputs by source 3-41
3-11 Septic leachate and septic system aerial surveys . . 3-44
3-12 Species of mollusks designated as endangered and
threatened 3-45
3-13 Species of fish designated as endangered and
threatened 3-46
3-14 Species of amphibians and reptiles designated as
endangered and threatened 3-49
3-15 Species of birds designated as endangered and
threatened 3-50
3-16 Species of mammals designated as endangered and
threatened 3-51
3-17 Population growth in the four-township area,
and Michigan between 1950 and 1980 3-54
3-18 Population growth in the four-township area,
1970 to 1980 3-55
3-19 Population growth rates in the four-township area,
three-county area, and Michigan, 1950 - 1980 .... 3-56
3-20 Comparison of counts of residential dwelling units
in the service areas .......... 3-58
3-21 Number of new residences constructed on undeveloped
lots in the service areas 3-59
3-22 Housing units and population by service area, 1980 . 3-60
3-23 Population projections by township 3-61
3-24 Service area permanent population projections . . . 3-63
xvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (concluded)
3-25 Service area total population, based on four methods
for forecasting seasonal population 3-64
3-26 Total acres of land use in the four-township area . . . 3-67
3-27 Acres of land use by watershed 3-69
3-28 Percentage of watersheds covered by each
land use type 3-70
3-29 Land use in the watershed by number of acres and by
percentage of the total acreage 3-71
3-30 Per capital income by county 3-78
3-31 Unemployment rates by county 3-79
3-32 Private recreation facilities in the study area .... 3-82
3-33 Financial characteristics of the three-county area . . 3-85
3-34 County debt measures 3-86
3-35 Energy consumption by fuel type for
residential heating 3-89
4-1 Potential major primary and secondary impacts from
the construction of wastewater treatment facilities
in the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes area 4-2
4-2 Comparison of phosphorus loading rates associated
with the various alternatives to the current
loading rates 4-28
4-3 Annual residential user costs 4-40
4-4 Cass County debt as a percentage of state equalized
assessed valuation under four local share capital
cost scenarios 4-41
4-5 Average annual user charges for the "build" alternatives
expressed as a percentage of median household income for
Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren Counties 4-43
xviii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Location and boundary of the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes
Study Area • 1-2
2-1 Example strategies for management of segregated human wastes . 2-34
2-2 Example strategies for management of residential greywater . . 2-34
2-3 Septic tank effluent gravity sewer layout 2-37
2-4 Pressure sewers vs. water main 2-39
2-5 Types of pressure sewer systems .... 2-40
2-6 Septic tank - soil absorption systems 2-48
2-7 Septic tank - raised drain bed system 2-50
2-8 Layout of gravity collection systems, both conventional
(Cl) and septic tank effluent (C3) 2-58
2-9 Layout of septic tank effluent pressure sewers with some
gravity sewers (C2) 2-59
2-10 Alternative 2 - Pressure collection sewers and separate
WWTPs for the Sister Lakes and Indian Lake areas with
discharge to surface waters . . . 2-65
2-11 Alternative 3 - Pressure collection sewers and regional
treatment and land treatment system 2-67
2-12 Alternative 4 - Pressure collection sewers and regional
WWTP located in Section 11 2-69
2-13 Alternative 5A - Pressure collection sewers and Alternative
5B - Gravity collection sewers and regional WWTP located
in Sections 29 and 32 2-70
2-14 Alternative 6 - Pressure collection sewers and existing
Dowagiac WWTP for Indian Lake and a new WWTP for Sister Lakes . 2-72
2-15 Alternative 7 - Pressure collection sewers and existing
Dowagiac WWTP 2-73
2-16 Alternative 8A - On-site systems upgrading and critical
areas septic tank effluent collected by pressure sewers and
conveyed to cluster drain fields 2-74
xix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (concluded)
3-1 Topography and physiography of the study area 3-4
3-2 Surficial geology of the study area 3-7
3-3 Soil associations in the study area 3-9
3-4 Groundwater contours in the study area 3-33
3-5 Well sampling sites for groundwater survey 3-34
3-6 Surface watersheds in the study area . 3-40
3-7 Population growth, historic and projected, for the four-
township area 3-62
3-8 Spatial distribution of land use/cover 3-68
3-9 Prime farmland in areas where soil mapping is available .... 3-73
4-1 Future phosphorus loading conditions for the centralized
wastewater management alternatives 4-30
xx
-------
1.0. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1. Project Background
The study area, covering an area of approximately 50 square miles in
rural southwestern Michigan includes the southern half of Keeler Township in
Van Buren County, the northern and western portions of Silver Creek Township
in Cass County, a small portion of Pokagon Township in Cass County, and the
southeastern portion of Bainbridge Township in Berrien County (Figure 1-1).
The most dominant geographical features are the six Sister Lakes (Round Lake,
Crooked Lake, Cable Lake, Magician Lake, Pipestone Lake, and Dewey Lake,)
Keeler Lake, and Indian Lake.
On-site systems are the predominant means of wastewater treatment in the
study area; there is no centralized wastewater treatment or collection system.
Water quality problems have been observed in some of these lakes. These
problems may have been influenced by the shoreline development that has
occurred around each lake in the area.
Until the 1960s, public control over septic tank system installation was
nonexistent or only advisory. During the 1960s and 1970s, the State govern-
ment and local health departments formulated and implemented procedures for
preconstruction approval of septic tank systems. These procedures and
standard design requirements have reduced the occurrence of surface malfunc-
tions and plumbing backups for new systems.
A 1970 Cass County Health Department study of Indian Lake concluded that
sewage was entering the lake from on-site systems and that as seasonal dwell-
ings were converted to permanent houses the problem would become worse. Small
lot sizes, high groundwater tables and poor soils were considered to be fac-
tors which contributed to failures and malfunctions of on-site systems. The
study recommended that "an engineering feasibility study should be conducted
to determine the cost and public support for a public sewage system".
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Michigan Water
Resources Commission (MWRC) Staff Report (1971) stated that most residences
around Indian Lake have disposal systems located too close to the normal
groundwater table. The MWRC did not have sufficient data in 1971 to recom-
1-1
-------
Figure 1-1. Location and boundary of Indian Lake-Sister Lakes Study Area.
1-2
-------
mend action to cite Silver Creek Township for allowing unlawful pollution to
exist in the lake area. The MWRC recommended that Silver Creek Township
proceed with a program to provide a central collection and treatment system
for Indian Lake.
Pipestone Lake community-wide programs to ascertain lake water quality
and to upgrade on-site sewage disposal systems in order to gain compliance
with the Berrien County Sewage Disposal Regulations began in the late 1960s.
A 1969 survey conducted by the Berrien County Health Department (1971)
determined that as many as 41% of the total residences on the north side of
the lake and 25% of the residences in the southern region had sewage problems
of some sort, requiring immediate attention and corrective work. In 1970, a
sanitary survey conducted by the MWRC reported direct septic system discharges
on the north side of the lake. Laboratory analysis showed that three dis-
charges were sources of human waste contamination. In 1970 and 1971, MWRC
follow-up studies and Health Department surveys located more direct discharges
and drew attention to the Dacon-Peters Drain which was shown to have high
coliform levels (Berrien County Health Department 1971). A 1972 water pollu-
tion and nutrient source study of Pipestone Lake conducted by the MWRC Water
Quality Division concluded that the lake was adversely affected by local waste
disposal problems (MDNR 1972). The MWRC then recommended construction of a
municipal wastewater collection and treatment system to protect public health
and lake aesthetics.
In 1971, Barger Engineering completed an engineering study for Bainbridge
Township that recommended construction of a sewage collection system and
aerated lagoons. Unavailability of planning and construction grants have
scuttled these plans.
A limnological study of Dewey Lake conducted by Snow (1976) concluded
that Dewey Lake has a natural potential to be mesotrophic (moderately enriched
and productive) and that on-site systems contributed less than 10% of the
phosphorus load to the lake. The study noted that a sewer system would reduce
the nutrient input slightly.
1-3
-------
Michigan DNR delineated the study area in a letter dated 20 February
1976. Pipestone Lake was added to the study area shortly afterward. Cass
County Department of Public Works (DPW) is the lead applicant and the Van
Buren County Road Commission and Berrien County DPW have concurred.
In May 1976, the Cass County Department of Public Works filed an applica-
tion with the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) for a grant and loan to
construct a waste disposal system around Indian Lake. In August 1976, Cass
County was notified by FmHA that a $900,000 grant and a $1,000,000 loan at 5%
for 40 years was set aside for construction of a waste disposal system. In
April 1977, an additional $300,000 in grant monies were set aside by FmHA for
the Indian Lake project.
In October 1977, Cove Associates, Inc. presented to Cass County the
preliminary draft of the Indian Lake - Sister Lakes Area Facility Plan. A
collector system was proposed to serve populated portions of the study area,
and treatment alternatives were evaluated as to costs, environmental effects,
and institutional feasibility. Acceptance of the Facility Plan by MDNR and
USEPA was delayed because of questions regarding the potential impacts of the
proposed new conveyance lines, system cost, and whether innovative/alternative
systems might be feasible.
In August 1978, USEPA issued a Notice of Intent to prepare a Environ-
mental Impact Statement (EIS). WAPORA, Inc. (EIS consultant to USEPA) sub-
mitted an initial plan of study to USEPA in November 1978 which specified that
the EIS would be prepared in two major phases. Phase I was designed as an
initial data collection and evaluation phase. Phase II involved the comple-
tion of the work requirements identified in Phase I, the analysis of waste-
water collection and treatment alternatives, and the production of the EIS
documents. Phase I was completed in July 1979 with the publication of the
Affected Environment Chapter of the Preliminary Draft EIS (WAPORA, Inc. 1979).
Phase II also included a reanalysis and recosting of centralized treatment
alternatives by Cove Associates, Inc. WAPORA would incorporate Gove Asso-
ciates, Inc. work on centralized alternatives and would analyze both cen-
tralized and decentralized alternatives in the preparation of the EIS.
1-4
-------
In January 1980, Gove Associates, Inc. submitted a cost effectiveness
analysis of a proposed centralized treatment system to USEPA. USEPA presented
review comments on the cost effectiveness analysis prepared by Gove Asso-
ciates, Inc. in May 1980. Gove Associates, Inc. submitted their revised cost
effectiveness analysis to USEPA in October 1980.
USEPA directed WAPORA to reanalyze the regional alternatives that were
proposed and costed in the Facility Plan. This reanalysis was necessary
because of deficiencies in the cost effectiveness analysis. WAPORA submitted a
supplemental proposal to USEPA in April 1981 delineating the scope of work
required to perform the reanalysis. Work commenced on the reanalysis and
completion of the EIS in June 1981 by WAPORA.
1.2. Legal Basis for Action and Project Need
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires a Federal
agency to prepare an EIS on "...major Federal actions significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment ...". In addition, the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) published regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) to
guide Federal agencies in determinations of whether Federal funds, such as
those that may be committed to the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes project through
the Construction Grants Program, or Federal, approvals, would result in a
project that would significantly affect the environment. USEPA developed its
own regulations (40 CFR Part 6) for the implementation of the EIS process.
Pursuant to these regulations, USEPA Region V determined that an EIS was
required for the proposed Indian Lake-Sister Lakes project.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA, Public Law
92-500), as amended in 1977 by the Clean Water Act (CWA, Public Law 95-217),
establishes a uniform, nationwide water pollution control program within which
all water quality programs operate. MDNR has been delegated the responsibil-
ity and authority to administer this program in Michigan, subject to the
approval of USEPA.
The dispersal of Federal funds is made to local applicants via the Muni-
cipal Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants Program administered by
USEPA. Prior to the Amentments of 1981, the program consisted of a three-step
grant process: Step 1 included wastewater facilities planning; Step 2 in-
1-5
-------
volved the development of detailed engineering plans and specifications; and
Step 3 covered construction of the pollution control system.
The Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Amendments of 1981
became law (Public Law 97-217) on 29 December 1981, and changed significantly
the procedural and administrative aspects of the municipal construction grants
program. The changes reflected in these amendments have been incorporated
into Construction Grants - 1982 (CG-82) Municipal Wastewater Treatment (Draft
March 1982). Under the 1981 Amendments, separate Federal grants are no longer
provided for facilities planning and design of projects. However, the pre-
vious designation of these activities as Step 1, facilities planning, and Step
2, design, are retained in the CG-82. The term Step 3 grant refers to the
project for which grant assistance will be awarded. The Step 3 grant assis-
tance will include an allowance for the planning (Step 1) and design (Step 2)
activities.
The CG-82 states that projects which received a Step 1 and/or Step 2
grant prior to the enactment of the 1981 amendments should be completed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of their grant agreement. Step 3
grant assistance will include an allowance for design for those projects which
received a Step 1 grant prior to 29 December 1981. A municipality may be
eligible, however, to receive an advance of the allowance for planning and/or
design if the population of the community is under 25,000 and the State review-
ing agency (MDNR) determines the municipality would be unable to complete the
facilities planning and design to qualify for grant assistance (Step 3). The
Indian Lake-Sister Lakes project currently is in Step 1.
The State of Michigan, through the MDNR, administers the Federal Con-
struction Grants Program at the State level. The State also makes a provision
for an additional 5% of the costs for planning, design, and construction,
except where the Federal share is larger than 75%. No monies for this purpose
have been appropriated by the State legislature.
Communities may choose to construct wastewater treatment facilities
without financial support from the USEPA/State Grants Program. In such cases,
the only requirements are that the design be technically sound and that the
MDNR is satisfied that the facility will meet discharge standards.
1-6
-------
If a community chooses to construct a wastewater collection and treatment
system with USEPA grant assistance, the project must meet all requirements of
the Grants Program. The CWA stresses that the most cost-effective alternative
be identified and selected. USEPA defines the cost-effective alternative as
the one that will result in minimum total resource costs over the life of the
project, yet meet Federal, State, and local requirements. However, the cost-
effective alternative is not necessarily the lowest cost proposal. The analy-
sis for choosing the cost-effective alternative is based on both the capital
construction costs and the operation and maintenance costs for a 20-year
period, although only the capital costs are funded. Non-monetary costs also
must be considered, including social and environmental factors.
Federal funding for wastewater treatment projects is provided under
Section 201 of the FWPCA. The USEPA will fund 75% of the grant eligible costs
for conventional sewers and treatment. For alternative collection systems and
treatment systems (e.g., pressure sewers, septic tank effluent sewers, septic
tanks, and soil absorption systems), the funding level increases to 85% of the
eligible costs. The costs for conventional sewers that USEPA will not assist
in funding for are land and easement costs, sewers for which less than two-
thirds of the planned flow originates before 28 October 1972, pipes in the
street or easements for house connections, and building sewers for connection
to the system. The costs for alternative systems that the USEPA will not
assist in funding are easement costs and building sewers for connection to the
septic tank. The grant eligibility of the on-site portions of alternative
systems varies depending on their ownership and management. Publicly and
privately-owned systems constructed after 27 December 1977 are not eligible
for Federal grants.
Michigan was required by the Federal law to establish water quality
standards for lakes and streams and effluent standards for discharge to them.
Federal law stipulates that, at a minimum, discharges must meet secondary
treatment requirements. In some cases, even stricter effluent standards are
subject to USEPA approval and must conform to Federal guidelines.
A new wastewater treatment facility also is subject to the requirements
of Section 402 of the FWPCA, which established the National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Under the NPDES regula-
1-7
-------
tions, all wastewater discharges to surface waters require an NPDES permit and
must meet the effluent standards identified in the permit. The USEPA has
delegated authority to establish effluent standards and to issue discharge
permits to the MDNR. The USEPA, however, maintains review authority. Any
permit proposed for issuance may be subject to a State hearing, if requested
by another agency, the applicant, or other groups and individuals. A hearing
on an NPDES permit provides the public with the opportunity to comment on a
proposed discharge, including the location of the discharge and level of
treatment. Normally the hearing is before a State Hearing Examiner. Findings
and recommendations are subject to review and approval by the Michigan Water
Resources Commission.
1.3. Study Process and Public Participation
The major efforts in the preparation of this Draft EIS occurred during
1979 and 1981. During this period, WAPORA, Inc. submitted various interim
reports to USEPA, including the "Affected Environment, Preliminary Draft
Chapter of the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes Environmental Statement". The
"Affected Environment" report described the existing conditions in the project
area.
Participants in the wastewater planning process during the past four
years have included: USEPA; WAPORA, Inc. (EIS consultant); Gove Associates,
Inc. (Facilities Planner); Cass County (Grantee); Berrien County; Van Buren
County; Southwestern Michigan Regional Planning Commission; Michigan Depart-
ment of National Resources; and other Federal, State, local, and private
agencies and organizations. USEPA will sponsor public meetings to facilitate
public involvement during the preparation of the EIS. Several informational
newsletters also will be prepared during this time and mailed to persons who
express interest in the project.
1.4. Issues
Based on a review of USEPA's Notice of Intent, the Directive of Work, and
the Facility Plan, the following issues have been determined to be significant
and require resolution in the Environmental Statement:
o Extent of the present problems resulting from the use of
on-site wastewater treatment systems
1-8
-------
Contribution made to water pollution by point sources and
nonpoint sources other than on-site wastewater treatment sys-
tems
Future impacts resulting from continued use of on-site systems
Potential for improved treatment of wastewater by existing
systems through improved maintenance and operation
Cost-effectiveness of various methods of wastewater treatment,
including alternative technologies
Potential for wastewater treatment projects to change the rural
character of the area by affecting wetlands and agricultural
lands
Economic impact of the capital and monthly operating costs of
the project on local citizens
Ability of local governments to finance the costs of the
project
Impact of the project on environmentally sensitive areas (e.g.,
endangered and threatened species' habitats, archaeological
resources, and sections of the Dowagiac River nominated as
"natural" by Michigan)
Type and extent of secondary impacts resulting from the project
Examination and analysis of local zoning and subdivision
ordinances, and land use regulations that could mitigate the
negative impacts of the project
Secondary impacts that would result from the implementation of
all treatment alternatives
Commitment of resources including, but not limited to: con-
struction materials, financial resources, and labor and energy
resources.
1-9
-------
2.0. DISCUSSION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
2.1. Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems
The study area is currently served almost exclusively by on-site systems
that include soil absorption of the septic tank effluent. Information on
existing systems was gathered from the health department records in the res-
pective counties. Interviews with health department personnel were also
useful in assessing the environmental conditions and the suitability of septic
tank soil absorption systems for treating wastewater. A septic leachate
detector survey, color infrared aerial photography, and a mailed questionnaire
also were used to assess the effectiveness of the existing treatment systems.
2.1.1. Existing On-site Systems
Septic tanks and soil absorption systems for individual residences are
utilized almost exclusively for wastewater treatment and disposal in the study
area. One noteworthy exception is the Old German Village area on the west
side of Indian Lake. A collection system and community septic tank and drain-
field serves 20 (or 21) residences. While early septic tanks were constructed
of anything that would hold out soil, a very high percentage of the septic
tanks in use are precast concrete. Soil absorption systems consist primarily
of drain beds and dry wells. Prior to 1970, the homeowner and his contractor
could install any system they desired. Since 1970 the health departments havo
regulated the design and installation of on-site systems. The records of the
health departments and additional site limitations are summarized in detail in
Appendix A.
Each county health department utilizes its own standards for soil absorp-
tion systems. The Van Buren County Health Department permits block trench and
precast concrete dry wells for both replacement and new systems. The Cass
County Health Department requires drain beds for new and replacement systems
and will permit dry wells for replacement systems where site limitations pre-
vent installation of drain beds. The Berrien County Health Department employs
standards similar to those utilized by the Cass County Health Department.
Based on homeowner reports, repairs to systems are frequently completed with-
2-1
-------
out health department involvement. In Van Buren County, additionally, dry
wells can be "restoned" when flow rates through the gravel-soil interface
becomes too slow and backups occur. Restoning involves excavation of the
gravel surrounding the dry well and replacement with clean stone.
Less than 10% of the soil absorption systems have been replaced since
1970, according to records of the health departments. These records do not
indicate whether systems are operating satisfactorily or whether nutrient
enriched effluent is being discharged to the lakes.
The systems that were replaced were primarily dry wells that were under-
sized and sited with less than the required distance above the water table.
Lot sizes and shapes and land slopes are the major constraints to installing
soil absorption systems that meet the applicable standards of each county.
Approximately 50% of the replacement systems have been dry wells or block
trenches. Some were installed because lot configurations precluded utiliza-
tion of drain beds in Cass and Berrien counties where they are preferred.
The conventional drain bed accounted for 25% of the replacements and
raised drain beds (sand mounds) accounted for 20%. The majority of the raised
drain beds were located in the Gilmore Beach and Beechwood subdivisions, the
Polk leases, and the Pipestone Lake area. Miscellaneous replacement systems
comprised the remaining 5%. These include systems where only the septic tank
was replaced, those for which no design information was available, and two
holding tank systems.
Regular maintenance, primarily removal of solids from the tankage,
probably is the major factor in the successful operation of on-site systems.
In addition to maintenance, water conservation practices in the homes are
essential for the continued successful operation of many of the on-site
systems that have extreme site limitations. These factors, in conjunction
with seasonal use, probably account for the successful operation of many of
the on-site systems, particularly the older, undersized systems.
2-2
-------
2.1.2. Summary of Data on Operation of Existing Systems
Operating data on the on-site systems must be obtained from individual
homeowners. From an operational viewpoint, homeowners could provide data on
regularity of pumping and overloading of the soil absorption system that
results in surface breakouts of effluent or backups in the residence. Data on
the wastewater treatment capability of the systems are not generally available
except by way of limited well water quality testing performed on samples
submitted by concerned homeowners. Operational data from individual home-
owners on a comprehensive basis have not been collected.
Three surveys for evidence of failures have been conducted: a septic
leachate survey (K-V Associates, Inc. 1980), an aerial survey (USEPA 1979c),
and a questionnaire prepared and tabulated by Gove Associates, Inc. (1978a,
1978b). A failure can be positively identified by evidence of recurring
backups in the dwelling resulting from inadequate seepage from the soil
absorption system, surface breakout of septic tank effluent over the soil
absorption system, or contamination of groundwaters or surface waters from
inadequately treated effluent. These surveys are discussed in the following
sections.
2.1.2.1. Septic Leachate Survey
The septic leachate survey was conducted by K-V Associates, Inc. (1980)
and is reproduced as Appendix B. The components of the survey included the
continuous monitoring of the shoreline by the recording leachate instrument
(Septic Snooper) and water quality analyses of identified stream or ground-
water plume sources for evidence of domestic wastewater breakthrough of exces-
sive nutrients and coliform bacteria. Groundwater plumes are either erupting
plumes (breakthrough of organics and inorganics, principally chlorides,
sodium, and other salts) or dormant plumes (slow release of residual organics
after the inorganic breakthrough has receded). Stream source plumes are those
surface inflows that have the indicator organics present. The methodology and
the results are presented in Appendix B. It should be noted that a total of
12 miles (19 kilometers) of shoreline were not surveyed and that only Keeler
Lake was completely surveyed.
2-3
-------
A summary of the type and number of plume sources is given in Table 3-11.
In general, Dewey, Cable, Lower Crooked, Round, and Keeler lakes have few or
no active, erupting plumes and few dormant plumes. Magician, Indian, Upper
Crooked, and Pipestone lakes have significant numbers of wastewater plumes.
Plumes were tested for water quality parameters and for flow direction
and velocity. Generally, where the groundwater velocity was high in the
direction of the lake, numerous active plumes were identified. These vectors
must be interpreted on an extremely localized basis as conditions existing at
one point in time and must not be interpreted as generalized groundwater flow
vectors.
Water quality samples collected from the plumes were analyzed for ortho-
phosphorus (reported as total phosphorus), ammonia, and nitrate-nitrogen;
other samples were analyzed for fecal coliform. Generally, the only elevated
fecal coliform levels measured were along the north shore of Pipestone Lake
where several pipes discharge into the lake. Elevated nutrient levels were
measured, but in few cases were the levels excessive enough to identify any
strong breakthroughs of nutrients from soil absorption systems.
2.1.2.2. Aerial Survey
The USEPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory acquired aerial
color photography and multispectral scanner imagery of the study area on 16
May and 19 July 1979 (USEPA 1979c). The color photography was stereoscop-
ically examined for apparent on-site septic system malfunctions and for detec-
tion of algal blooms in the lakes of the study area. The photographs also
were used to update a land use/cover survey prepared by the Southwestern
Michigan Regional Planning Commission (SMRPC). The multispectral scanner
imagery was computer-analyzed to assess the relative temperatures of the
lakes.
The technique requires detection of variations in color tones of vegeta-
tion resulting from septic effluent rising to or near the soil surface. The
majority of the deciduous trees and shrubs had fully leafed out, which ob-
scured the aerial view of many of the older residential lots where a greater
2-4
-------
proportion of failures would likely occur. The 16 May photography was used
for detecting septic systems; thus, seasonal residences would likely show no
failure characteristics.
The analysis categorized the discernable on-site septic systems and
identified these systems on enlarged photographs. The category and number of
systems are presented in Table 2-1. Only two systems were identified as
probable failures and 63 systems were discernable systems that may be failing.
During a field inspection, 25 of the identified systems were inspected. Of
these, two had definitely failed and 15 would require further testing and
monitoring.
Surface breakouts of septic tank effluent from permanent residences occur
rarely in the study area as demonstrated by the aerial photography. Those
that do occur are repaired quickly. Since the photography that was analyzed
was obtained in May, the study is much less conclusive concerning surface
breakouts from seasonal residences and from older residences under tree cano-
pies.
2.1.2.3. Mailed Questionnaire
In 1978 Gove Associates, Inc. mailed questionnaires to property owners in
Cass County to gather information concerning on-site systems and concerning
attitudes toward the proposed sewage collection and treatment system. The
questionnaire is included in Appendix E. (A questionnaire was also mailed to
property owners in Van Buren County, but the results were not tabulated.)
Generally, the results showed that less than 15% of the residents on any one
lake returning questionnaires had problems with their on-site systems (Table
2-2). Within the 10 years prior to the questionnaire, as many as 28% of the
residents on Magician L ike indicated that they had replaced part of their
system. Considering that design standards promulgated by the county health
departments had been applied only since the 1970s, it is not surprising that
the percentages are what they are. The questionnaire results also indicated
that apparently many residents repair their on-site systems without the bene-
fit of the design and inspection services of county sanitarians because the
county records do not indicate nearly as high a percentage of replacements.
2-5
-------
a
CO
ja
CO
T3
d
o
M
CO
CO
s
cu
co
u
•H
ex
CU
d
o
•H tO
CO CO
h>* O
a
CO
o —*
O rv
01
a cu
3 Ed
d C/2
T3 **s
cO «
CU
>> U
M oj
O
60 >>
CU TJ
•M 3
CO 4-1
O CO
CO
cu
+J LJ
d -3
a- (N r^
CM cnl
CN
CM
J8
c
CO
. O CU H
cu i-i i—i co
!> 60 4) 4J
2-6
-------
Table 2-2. Partial results of 1978 sanitary questionnaire as tabulated by
Gove Associates, Inc. for lakeshore areas in Cass County (Gove
Associates, Inc. 1978b).
Continuing
Replacement of Suitable Area
Lakeshore Number of
Area Respondents
Dewey
Cable
Crooked
Magician
North- northeast
Northeast-east
East-southeast-
Southeas t-south
South-southwest
South west- west
West-northwest
North wes t-nor th
Summary
Indian
North- northeast
Northeas t-eas t
East-southeast
Southeas t-south
South-southwest
Southwes t- wes t
West-northwest
Northwest-north
Summary
78
66
37
16
20
11
33
40
52
29
43
252
29
9
37
22
22
20
34
47
232
Problems with
System
7.7%
4.5
10.8
6.3
!°
18.2
9
10
19.2
10.3
11.6
12.6
20.7
22.2
18.9
9.1
9.1
15
11.8
14.9
14.5
Part of System
in last 10 years
20.5%
6.1
18.9
25
25
18.2
30
20
34.6
24.1
25.6
28.2
24.1
22.2
35.1
18.2
18.2
45
23.5
12.8
24.6
for Expansion
Available
70.5%
66.7
86.5
75
60
45.5
51
65
53.8
55.2
72.1
58.4
65.5
33.3
51.4
45.4
63.6
70
70.6
53.2
55.2
2-7
-------
For this reason also, it is not surprising that continuing problems are in
evidence. Residents are apparently trying to escape the costlier design
solutions that the sanitarians would propose by conducting repairs independent
of them.
For Magician and Indian lakes, Gove Associates, Inc. tabulated the re-
sults by segments of lakeshore. Residents of the Indian Lake lakeshore re-
ported varying percentages for the different segments (Table 2-2). On
Magician Lake, the southwest-west shoreline exhibited the greatest problems.
On Indian Lake, the southwest-west and the east-southeast shorelines appear to
have more problems than do the other shoreline areas.
2.1.2.4. Indian Lake Sanitary Surveys
The Cass County Health Department (1970) conducted a field survey of
on-site systems around Indian Lake in an effort to determine whether the
systems were operating properly. Approximately 60% of the dwellings were
surveyed and of these 75% were seasonal residences at that time. Results of
the survey are summarized in Table 2-3. Approximately 20% of the respondents
stated that they had discharges to the lake or ground surface, and yet only 4%
claimed to have a problem with their system. - The former statistic must not
imply what it purports to reveal. Responses to questions 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10
indicate that some potential for lake pollution exists, but is not proved.
The 1971 MWRC Staff Report (Gove Associates, Inc. 1977) is a summary of a
field inspection report for Indian Lake. When the field survey was conducted,
most of the septic tank system failures identified the previous year by the
Cass County Health Department had either been corrected or were operating
properly due to changes in the hydrologic conditions. The cluster septic tank
and drainfield of the Old German Village area was still malfunctioning. The
report states that insufficient data were available to cite Silver Creek
Township for pollution of the surface waters of the State. The report did
recommend construction of a central collection and treatment system in the
area.
2-8
-------
Table 2-3. Results of pollution survey of Indian Lake (Cass County Health
Department 1970) .
Item Percent Positive Responses
1. Owner knows size of sewage disposal system 31
2. Sewage discharges to lake or ground surface 20
3. Sewage disposal system is within 25 feet on lakeshore 9
4. Property fronts on lake or channel 85
5. Sewage system is located on lake side of house 30
6. Sewage system is located less than 50 feet from well 69
7. Owner is having trouble with sewage system 4
8. Replacement area for sewage disposal system is available 60
9. Owner has septic tank pumped on schedule 19
10. Drain pipes are close to septic system 4
2-9
-------
2.1.2.5. Pipestone Lake Surveys
An extensive summary of the on-site systems surveys and the actions taken
to upgrade failing systems was prepared by the Berrien County Health Depart-
ment (1971). The first on-site inspection was conducted in 1969 by the Health
Department. The results of the survey are not presented in their report. The
following summer, another survey was conducted and Lake water samples were
collected. Total and fecal coliform counts were very high at two of the five
locations sampled. In September 1970, the MWRC sampled several drainpipes
(Gove Associates, Inc. 1977). Of the four sampled, three had extremely high
total and fecal coliform counts. The following year, 1971, the MWRC sampled
ten locations around the Lake and found that five of the ten locations had
high total and fecal coliform counts (Gove Associates, Inc. 1977). An overall
sampling program for 13 stations was instituted in the autumn of 1971. Phos-
phates, dissolved oxygen, and phosphorus were analyzed in addition to total
and fecal coliform. Pollutant levels in the water samples were elevated to
the point of constituting genuine concern for the public health and water
quality aspects of the Lake.
These conclusions were presented in the Berrien County Health Department
report for Pipestone Lake:
• Nutrients from the Sister Lakes Laundromat formerly signifi-
cantly enriched the Lake with phosphorus
• Drainage from surrounding agricultural lands, particularly,
leachate from the sandy soils, animal wastes, and natural
nutrients from the extensive wetland areas were the primary
contributors to Lake water quality problems
• Septic tank effluent from certain residences were contributing
to the Lake algae problem
• A Lake restoration program consisting of a central collection
and treatment system and application of an algicide to the Lake
should be considered.
The MWRC continued sampling in 1972. These sample results were published
in the Facility Plan (Gove Associates, Inc. 1977). Elevated nutrient and
coliform levels were commonly measured in these water samples. Approximately
one-third of the estimated phosphorus inputs originated from tile outlets or
ditches from residential lots around Pipestone Lake.
2-10
-------
The Berrien County Health Department (Shipman 1977) reviewed and updated
its activities concerning Pipestone Lake. In March 1973, the Health Depart-
ment prepared and sent to residents plans for upgrading on-site systems. The
Sister Lakes Laundromat upgraded its system by abandoning seepage lagoons and
incorporating waste stabilization lagoons. In May 1973, Bainbridge Township
officials conducted a hearing for a final resolution of on-site problems.
Upgrading existing systems was selected as the appropriate interim approach
while an ultimate solution was pursued. In June 1973, the Township building
inspector followed through with upgrading the majority of the systems that
violated the Sewage Disposal Regulations.
A limnological report on Pipestone Lake (Banks 1977) concludes that one
source, the Dakin-Peters Drain contributed considerable amounts of phosphorus
and coliform to the Lake. Animal wastes were primarily responsible for the
contamination. The residential contribution of phosphorus was estimated to be
a very small percentage, although the estimate was not based on testing of
these sources.
2.1.3. Problems Caused by Existing Systems
The on-site systems that fail to function properly result in backups in
household plumbing, ponding of effluent on the ground surface, groundwater
contamination that may affect water supplies, and excessive nutrients and
coliform levels in surface water. Region V has prepared guidance that recom-
mends procedures that should be used to demonstrate project need. Since this
project was initiated prior to distribution of the USEPA Region V guidance,
entitled "Site Specific Needs Determination and Alternative Planning for
Unsewered Areas", that guidance is not being applied to this project. How-
ever, Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM) 78-9 and 79-8 direct that doc-
umented pollution problems be identified and tracked back to the causal
factors. Projects would be funded only where a significant proportion of
residences are documented as having or causing problems. The Region V staff
interpret the regulations to mean that eligibility for USEPA grants be limited
to those systems that have direct evidence of failure such as surface ponding.
However, in recognition of the potential for future failures, eligibility is
extended to existing systems identified as potential failures because of
2-1J
-------
obvious underdesign or other factors, provided these systems are similar to
systems that have already failed. Similarity is measured by system design,
usage, soil characteristics, site limitations, site drainage, and groundwater
hydrology.
2.1.3.1. Backups
Backups of sewage in household plumbing constitutes direct evidence if
they can be related directly to design or site problems. Plugged or broken
pipes or full septic tanks would not constitute an evidence of need. No
information on backups has been collected as yet. The mailed questionnaire
results for Cass County may indirectly indicate that residents may be ex-
periencing backups by responses to the question of how often their system
malfunctions. Less than 10% indicated that their system malfunctioned more
frequently than once every three years. Specific locations of these respon-
dents ware not identified.
2.1.3.2. Ponding
Ponding of effluent above or around the soil absorption system consti-
tutes direct evidence of a system failure. The aerial photography was in-
tended to identify these systems, but problems with the photography limited
its interpretation. The May photographs were examined for ponding, thus
effectively eliminating seasonal residences from the analysis. Also, exten-
sive tree cover prevented interpretation in many older residential areas.
Only one system, located on the west shore of Indian Lake, was identified as
exhibiting ponding. Other sources, though, indicate that the ponding problem
has been more extensive. The 1970 Cass County Health Department survey of
Indian Lake noted numerous discharges to swamps, particularly near the outlet
drain from the Lake and along the north shore. Many of these systems have
been repaired within the last decade. These failures, though, are indicative
of potential problems with neighboring systems because high water tables
prevent proper functioning of the soil absorption systems. Evidence of pond-
ing around other lakes is limited, although from replacement records it could
be inferred that ponding would be the principal factor in replacing soil
absorption systems.
2-12
-------
2.1.3.3. Groundwater Contamination
Contamination of water supply wells constitutes direct evidence where
concentrations of nutrients greatly exceed the background levels of ground-
waters in the area or primary drinking water quality standards. In order for
well sampling data to qualify as direct evidence of failures, specific well
information must be collected, such as the depth of the well, its orientation
with respect to soil absorption systems, the presence or absence of aquitard,
and the degree of protection from surface cotamination. Contaminated ground-
water was identified by the groundwater sampling program in a few locations
(Table 3-8). Most of the wells sampled, though, were associated with per-
manent residences and these are more likely to be of better construction and
deeper than wells for seasonal residences. A number of wells had concentra-
tions of chloride that indicated that septic tank effluent influenced the
groundwater, but levels of phosphorus, nitrates, and ammonia were not
elevated. This indicates that good treatment of effluent is occurring. High
levels of nitrates may originate from other sources, particularly natural
decay of organics and fertilizer. For example, the high nitrates in the two
samples on the north side of Keeler Lake appear to be from other sources.
Other data sources of well water quality indicate that nitrates in some wells
were elevated above background levels, but did not violate drinking water
quality standards. The health departments of each county provide well water
testing services for residents. These results were used in the evaluation as
well as water well testing performed in conjunction with the septic leachate
detector survey.
2.1.3.4. Surface Water Quality Problems
Surface water quality problems directly attributable to on-site systems
must be serious enough to warrant taking action. Problems with public health
implications, that is, high fecal coliform counts, are serious enough to
warrant attention. Nutrient inputs, though, must be analyzed in terms of
their contribution to degradation of water quality and whether water quality
would be significantly improved by a project. A variety of means for evaluat-
ing the contribution of septic tank effluent to water quality problems are
available and have been applied within the study area.
2-13
-------
The septic leachate detector survey (Section 2.1.2.1., Appendix B) was
conducted to locate and quantify the nutrient inputs from septic tank-soil
•
absorption systems. When the septic leachate plumes were located, surface and
groundwater samples were taken at that point. The results (Appendix B) indi-
cate that most plumes of septic leachate had low levels of phosphorus and
nitrate in them compared to the typical levels in unattenuated septic tank
effluent. Open drain pipes found ic, Pipestone Lake had high levels of
nutrients and coliform. Elsewhere, colicorm counts were uniformly low,
indicating that public health problems (disease causing organisms) were of
minimal concern. The results iaaicate that, where the wetlands discharge into
the lakes, considerable nutrients are contributed to the lakes.
Numerous water quality surveys have been conducted to locate failed
septic systems around Pipestone Lake. None of the other lakes have been
analyzed to the same degree. Pipestone Lake has numerous pipe drains emptying
into the lake; these have been sampled frequently by the Berrien County Health
Department and the Michigan Water Resources Commission. Many of these have
been shown to be highly polluted (with high fecal coliform counts). According
to the Health Department (Shipman 1977) , the offending systems have been
repaired and upgraded. Subsequent sampling in conjunction with the septic
leachate detector survey, though, demonstrated that elevated fecal coliform
counts in some drain pipes weca stiU present,
Water quality sampling oa other lakes has been limited in scope. In
general, the analyses have centered ou open water for the purpose of defining
the trophic status of the lake. The results of these studies are presented in
Section 3.1.3. Depending on the sampling time and the classification scheme
utilized, most of the study area lakes, are eutrophic to niesotrophic. Effluent
from septic systems is typically implicated as a nutrient source, though to
what extent it is a sou -ce is a rough approximation. Some specific water
samples have been collected for the purpose of assessing whether public health
problems exist. Where failed systems have been identified by sampling, most
have been repaired.
2-14
-------
Lush growth of macrophytes, algae, and zooplankton serve as indicators of
nutrient enrichment. Landsat data prepared for the SMRPC shows qualitatively
where the greatest enrichment has occurred. The limnological studies of Dewey
Lake (Snow 1976) and Pipestone Lake (Banks 1977) identified heavy weed patches
near shoreline areas. Mapping the aquatic biota provides a general indication
of the level of nutrient availability, but numerous nutrient sources may con-
tribute to productivity. Specific connections between the productive areas
and septic tank effluent must be identified in order to determine the need for
a project. None of the aquatic sampling programs have made those specific
connections.
2.1.3.5. Indirect Evidence
Indirect evidence that correlates with known failures can be used as an
initial screening device for locating areas where failures are probable. Site
limitations that infer failures are:
• Seasonal or permanent high water table
• Lack of isolation distances for water wells (depending on well
depth and presence or absence of hydraulically limiting layers)
• Documented groundwater flow from a soil absorption system to a
water well
• Slowly permeable soils with percolation rates greater than 60
minutes per inch
• Bedrock proximity (within 3 feet of soil absorption system
where bedrock is permeable)
• Rapidly permeable soil with percolation rates less than 0.1
minutes per inch
• Holding tanks, not in itself, but as evidence that site limita-
tions prevent installation of soil absorption systems
• On-site treatment systems that do not conform to accepted
practices or current sanitary codes including, but not limited
to, cesspools, the "55 gallon drum" septic tank, and other
inadequately sized components
• On-site systems in an area where local data indicate excessive
failure rates or excessive maintenance costs.
2-15
-------
These indirect evidences can be utilized to categorize residences as likely
failures or likely to be operating properly. Because this project commenced
before the Region V Guidance was developed, the needs documentation relies
heavily upon the indirect evidences and replacement records for verification.
2.1.4. Identification of Problem Areas
Certain areas around the lakes exhibit a combination of site limitations,
history of replacements, and documented water quality problems that appear to
require off-site treatment. In general, these areas are characterized by a
high water table, usually within 24 inches (61 centimeters) of the ground
surface and soils of peat and marl interbedded with sand. These areas have
narrow lakefront lots on which insufficient area is available for construction
of raised drain beds (mound soil absorption systems). These areas (where the
septic leachate detector survey was conducted) typically show several active,
erupting plumes as evidence of failed systems and have higher percentages of
replacement systems installed in the last 10 years according to the mailed
questionnaire and the records of the health departments. Replacement systems
usually do not meet code requirements for depth to groundwater and isolation
distance from wells. These site conditions predominate around Pipestone Lake.
Also a considerable number of drains that have high coliform counts and other
water quality parameters characteristic of septic tank effluent were found
around Pipestone Lake. None of the other lakes had drains discharging septic
tank effluent.
Another type of area that appears to need off-site treatment are steeply
sloping lots that front on the lake. Usually the lot is narrow, about 40 feet
wide (12 meters) and the house and garage are constructed adjacent to the road
right-of-way. The road elevation may be anywhere from 15 to 40 feet (4.5. to
12 meters) above the lake, and slopes of 18 to 40% between the house and lake
are common. Houses are usually so close together that construction equipment
cannot be moved between them. While soil material and depth to groundwater
are adequate for dry wells near the road, frequently no room is available for
the excavation. Placement of the dry well under the driveway has been a
common "last resort" solution. According to the Indian Lake Sanitary Survey
and replacement records of the county health departments, many of the systems
2-16
-------
on these lots consist of a septic tank on the lake side of the house and a dry
well or drain line at the base of the slope where the depth to the water table
is inadequate. Numerous replacements have been constructed on these types of
lots because the soil absorption system fails due to a high water table.
Nearly all of the problem areas that appear to need off-site treatment
are characterized by one or the other condition or a combination of the two.
Some lots, particularly in the Sister Lakes commercial area, are of such a
size that no area for a replacement dry well is available.
In addition to those areas that appear to need off-site treatment,
numerous on-site systems appear to need upgrading. Direct evidence of
failures is minimal, but considerable indirect evidence is present. The
aerial photographic interpretation analysis identified some possible failing
on-site systems, but the field check of these revealed that further monitoring
would be necessary to establish that they were indeed failing. The ground-
water sampling results show that elevated nitrates are present in some wells,
but the exact source of those nitrates has not been identified. On-site
systems appear to be the most likely source in some locations. The septic
leachate detector survey identified occasional erupting and dormant plumes in
these areas that were verified by water quality analyses. The information
received from the mailed questionnaire for Cass County shows that, irrespec-
tive of location, no lakeshore area is completely free of failure. The ques-
tionnaire, though, does not specifically identify locations of these failures.
The records of replacements and interviews with the county sanitarians
show that systems fail primarily from inadequate construction. For example,
numerous cement block trenches for disposal of effluent that were installed on
the northwest side of Indian Lake are experiencing structural failure. Dry
wells installed within the water table commonly fail. Some existing soil
absorption systems consisting of one short run of draintile have experienced
failure, particularly when usage patterns extend beyond the typical seasonal
usage. The dry well soil absorption systems that predominate in Van Buren
County are subject to frequent failure. The Health Department does not become
involved in "restoning" the dry well when it no longer accepts effluent at a
satisfactory rate. According to unconfirmed reports, many of the restoned dry
wells are within the water table where they would likely fail quickly.
2-17
-------
No lakeshore area has been identified where failures are not probable,
based on records of replacements. The percentage of failures identified by
the health department records is not large, in part because numerous repairs
are not noted on permits. Elevated nitrate levels in some wells and the
contribution of some nutrients to the lakes appear to be related to on-site
systems that fail to perform as intended.
The available information on site limitations and the results of the
various surveys are summarized in a generalized fashion in Table 2-4.
Specific information that has been gathered was too voluminous for presenta-
tion. Generally, the problems indicated are limited to specific areas around
certain lakes or are minimal. The contribution of on-site systems to lake
eutrophication appears to be significant for some lakes, though, and may be
the basis for further action.
The remainder of the study area away from the lakes was not studied in
detail. Conversations with local officials and analysis of preliminary data
indicate that the sewage treatment needs are too minimal to justify expending
further efforts to quantify and to cost feasible alternatives that include the
off-lake areas. Keeler Lake water quality data and shoreline surveys did not
reveal any evidence to require including the lake in any further analyses.
Subsequent analyses within this report, therefore, exclude these areas from
further consideration for sewage treatment.
2.1.5. Septage Disposal Practices
Septic tanks are pumped when homeowners contract with a septage hauler
for service. Numerous septage haulers operate in the area, some of which are
based in Indiana (By telephone, Mr. Lee Maajer, Cass County Health Department,
to WAPORA, Inc. 19 February 1982). The county health departments inspect the
haulers' equipment for licensing. The State code for licensing is the basis
for these actions.
The haulers dispose of septage either at sewage treatment plants or on
land. Most haulers dispose of septage on land, although the Dowagiac waste-
water treatment plant receives some of the septage. Land disposal sites in
2-18
-------
O
4-1
CO
0
CU
4-1
CO
CU
4J
•H
CO
I
c
CD
-S
4J
M
CU
a.
3 00
w i
CN
4-1
O 0)
(-1
en 3
4J 60
r-t -H
3 fa
CO
•H M
4-1 Ct)
cfl
4-1 CO
•H 4J
S y
•H -H
a) en
4J -H
•H n
O 4J
o
C -H
O M
•H 4-1
4J CO
CX iH
•H T3
t-i
y .fi
CO U
CU (t)
O cu
CM
a
H
1
H>
M •<
§ =
^ tf
°g
£°
_3
U <
MS-
i* s»
IHNOUIAHa I
isBHd f
i
o
y
~
S
3
a
rj
2
ee
C
bi
•-
OT
|
B
j
—
M
&"•
B>
^
«<
§
>
§
H-
-<
I
g
Vl
a
&
u?
X
§
a:
El.
fr-
aC
y
<
ui
&n
3
—
i
c.
M
' B
i H
: «
y
-*
•5
0*
W
H
C
V 3
ta c
i -j
« "
- 1
• M
V <~
z <
1
M M
a c
u y
- I ao
••, a) g j}
*4 U -« «
-= c ** a.
O — BB M
— G, «*• ffl
J 4) K X
K EE U W
Exlating
Syatema
>t
s
a.
a
00
C.
c
H
4)
"^
3
TJ B
M Tj
s s
£^
B
a
i
*Zj
<9
13
m «
|
u «
K U
e a
83*
<-» W «
C M
p w q
o o at
§5
— «
<•* 3
ra T
- 3
• 3
e M
K
.
W
U U
s 3
Ji£
^
4F
e M
ai a
AC 41
y M
« — »
— r u
U S M
a 09
— t (•• C
£ C 2
|
M
«
- a
^ 41
•3 B —
— 4) ^
V >
= 5
td
5i
0* «
»• i
- i
flj u
11
J 0 -
M
&
£
Q
O
M
a.
^
j=
a
£
B
S
f -
_ a
7 «
2* ~
"" • (8 B
,.,*J -• U
w a.** >
y 47 0 e
55 a « *"
o
c
x £
a w
*« M
.S "• ~*
*" « B
w & -*
y u o
«a w
w
4J
U «4
S
. B
05 a-*
U u 0
MOW
*j
o.
4)
0
4 U U
^: -i «
M M Q.
— A. 0
<9 4) O
V « C
S * GQ
C.
1) •>•
£ «•*
BO
C.
3
•ff
(SI
B
" B T»
3 D — .0 it
e J a) -i
** J* U 3 C fl W
«UB - 3 —
1 0 4) X C ^3
3 •* ta ta w C K
B
«
o.
O
B
U
a
<
— —
"A IA
A V
M «
SO
«A
^ >
— _0 «
W Z W
M M M
O O O
%T — i »A
>*.
tt e
C B
*< U
u B
§•;«
k I 0
• 3 o
M. AN^
•9 •
« « »
-• W M
"• « «
«l » U
a ii w
" "« O
T3
«
U «
« V
a. u
S 3
« *4
•
yr *.
«
3
a
u
3;
&
3
u
x .;
« wJ
ta B -• e
J4J - ^
•^ — a*
X (D 0]
- ^ c *ol
n c, cy ri
g s' 31
I I 8-
w i — a
B
0)
•e
a
u
«
§*
^*
2
.S
3 ~* M u 3 W
0 W M • 0 I
« «i j •• at M
e x B A i «
5 u .. c * 3 x
B
O
g-
O
B
o •
s
^ —
lA IA
A V
« M
o e
itf *»
J>
s
f* M «>
lA tft O
w *n *»
*^ e
e a
S ii
i- 91
O I H
* Js
— Q."
41
,
9 M
W U B
a v ai § i
J i J s d
B
U
^3
(8
CO
00
. . i
T? 5 x w
3 j « ^ -* a
0 u ..
0) — > — 3 M ••
KB ji o — 5
3 y E « ta 4) ft
Z ^ -» w « » «
at
&
o
^
a
S
— ^
IA IA
A V
M M
ss
-
•9 > •
-• 5 41
W I W
M K M
tA lA O
t*t ** *O
*~\
e
«
u
a
K
O
~
•^ B
• 41 41
— B «
S> W
41 trf
f^* 41 tt
•g
M
g
4) *
C. ••
3 -
B **
B
— • %*
4)
1
C!
z
^
u
09
j<
we •{
si?a- £
i !.= ° i
B U S. B Q,
O 0 0 S
P • W u -0
1 ° S Si
« •* i H u
e
. M
«j
^3 M
s s
W w
OC-3
= 1
££<£
M M M
*A »A O
•H <*4 «
w e
e *
i S
%i»
•« 3 «A
•M a.*-"
41
|
ft)
e
i
c
e
"1
u
.s
s.
c
W
i
^
V '
U 41 U
a • *- — —
»«- — x e k-
1- — £ w
3 S..S 5 C
B C ** — « ^-»
ta 2 M u 91
M y 5 e c »"*
S S 5,522
.
1 1
« 5-
5 «» " ?
v *o
•9 e « ..
C «4 W 0
te ^ «*•).•
SD- £ ~
au c w *B o
3 * O U 41
Q. ta -T3
"**"-, ^ C
0 3 t-
^e r cfl
a
^ 0
41 w t
* i-Si
J! Z . " S . S
« e - e j* «
ta « -i v « a M
•a > B .x 13 4> «
B u C «4 ta X
n x •« •- g jj a
a
V
&
c
B
<
—
IA
V
|
>
a
CQ
I
•0 ^
« «
W U
s a .
i* X
•• OK
o •* a
a. «- S
« J5 S
|
1
•u
U B
41 «
e. w
Si
B —
«
(N SM
«
B
0
S
£1
2Svnma.it' • •
2-19
siimsia
-------
g
y
to
§
01
•u
•r!
co
I
O
o
4-J
•U
cu
u
cu
a.
co
3
ca
S
CO
cu
M
o
•H
+J
CO
4-1
•H
e
cu
•H
CO
c
o
Cu
1-1
o
ca
>
W CA
J3
X
CL
EC
1
v
n
•o as
it
C >
tw «
a
|
o
l^
i
0)
a
w
3 l-i
1/5 ftl
r 03
01
=
§
0
"
o
05
C
o
*J
41 U
u E
Uw UM
3 JS
"O
ai a
c* oi
•552
X a
C "3 3
l
f.
— tt
zli 1
11. — V.
•* K 1
el c '
£ " - i
^ K
K - u I
If u X
"M 2
J 0 -
.
W
C.
—
^
(5
«
"
.-
e
0
e
c
-j i
tt 5)
• •*J i-H 0)
tc a— >
u v o e
03 Q {/5 —
R
C
0
w *••
*a w
"~ • » n
S""t.— >
ft- C C
we « —
CO
c
£ a
e w
"" • a n
•• ^j —t cu
W B t/5 "^
C.
a
•^ a, o
eg ot o
•£
a — ' o
^ «* ft! 01
— U 0.
s s §•
= H OT
U X
C. —
C EC
•* to
J= *H 00
J- « C
(C k. 0
0) Ot JE
S < &>
&
*« U U
J= — C.
w w a.
— & c
rt 01 0
cV CA C
J
T
s-
»
^
u:
>(
S 2
z jl
II
u
c
CO t— *+.
— *S £
a 5 ^!
CL S u
tr ac
I £ =
1
EC £ 1 W
S cp _C ^ jS
« -4 CA 41 K
« C. 09 U 1
>> C • C «
«9 W-5 0 S *
> t- JK -a ce
© tc u t- -- X
•H £ -^ — 89 C
(O
«
fin
0
_
«•>
V
^1
U
w
M
§
U U
at 3
4J (0
•a « u ^
* 5 ^ C «
- u i £ 3 i e a
—4 (C O U O k ftl
3 C C C — <
01
e
o
e
•o
EU
U
— 5 oi
CA Z W
*rt O iA
W ^N
•H S CO
& § K D
3 01 hi 01
^ 5 Q a u
ft) 5 -0 5 ul
Ot
§
c
•o
u a
ftl 0)
c. w
(0 — 1
15
(N w
U
C
0
c
—
r-
w
V.
ft)
£ 4- x
I ?s I
1 h i
CO
01
•e
§•
n
» v
CC M
wee
gj Q ^ j
i-^j:
W i— i 00 ft>
z 03 * a *i
n
o>
c.
CO
K)
Ut M^
A V
ON «<
•B >
0 0)
Z CA
Is
or i*.
-H C B)
a e a co
2 E 0 SM
ftl 3 19 3 O
T V
0) > b
•4 u e
,
u a
01 V
c. *-
D 3
(D
Cl
|
f
<_
» U
w ^
C u
•« K
^ -1 >s
1 «1|
4 n s
cy. c £ a.
c?
Cl
-s
e
=
a:
Of S 4>
g e a «
§*S c e. —
•- n to js
t — 4) W & -« —
I g44i^i
Z » f-t S to > «
X
V
c"
CO
a
u
s
(A 1^1
A V
lA tO
00 -4
CA J CA
Sss
ao <-s
^ C (9
a. co 1 co u
OJ 3 *0 3 O
*-* ^H rs.
• *! «
<-< a 09
S> w
ft) u
P4 01 C
3
u a
a> a>
CU k.
3 •*
a
u
i
i
u
II
— r
i 5
L ff
^ tr £^ * "T Si
J & f 1 5 11
•s i - ° S —
(£ 0 i £, i- O'
(C
ffi
BC
§*
£
a &
C CV
h *rf
y K
e ** •
I' 81
j^7
ca
u
e.
CD
EC
Wi lA
A V
cn irt
w ^
M M
O O
-T vO
CO ~
i s
J *
o
° Ct
c ^
"S 01
— < « tfl
4; > u
3 41 «
— v e
"S
01
u
01 «
c. w
§5
-^
(D -^
tc
ft)
0
-
VIYO -11
szm
2-20
-------
C!
•rl
J-l
§
o
ca
s
0)
ca
2
S
£
^
*
<
Z
£
to
«e
-
M
Ul
J
g
£
|
i
s
<
Z
i
E
M
§
UJ
EC
O
u.
ae
S
,
S
U
u.
I
-
fr
2
t. j
i- (C_
e —
x. <:
L
i 1 K
«» y <2 4
i ~ e i
T cT « >«
OS Eft W V.
Is
Sfr
1-
r
!
e
H
W
u
s
3
T! B
i-S
e >
U C
u —
e
j
i
o *•
CO «
J
"s
B fc-
o n
U 2
s
C
r
e
o *•»
u o
DB
J
f 5
MM tu
V
u «
c M a
*= e at
u 3 *>
tD D
*• M e
C 0 3C
?
.L* ts
£ - *
j*. ~- tr.
•c r !
& e i
K j~ K
T - ° '
it T3 e
C-
c i
£
^
1
R.
J
X
!
1C
£
X |
«-* fl?
J «* -^
*~ . » c
— *J -- ft)
L; t c c
w a w ^
B
e
c
M M
t: ic
CJ 4 M
« *J
. 89 n
S cTls B
W C W -
K
j
—4 IB
S W
""•«>»
tj a* "5 e
W 0 Cft »-
s.
— a. c
a wo
u we
2 - K
O.
fi « OJ
J5 "* S -S
« e &.
OJ "US
r H w
M X
C. «
U &
--- 1
1J C C
« we
V fl! «
= < a.
tu
a
rf U 1-
M -JR.
— c. o
? 5t f
~* w
•t
£
EC
£
=
I*
Cy £.
e
-o
S
§•
,^
_. s
1C w
U C C
ih. -" >
w
fl)
•M
B
g
in wt
A V
» O
— J5 t
to X W
O ^ S
*i C
5 u
I e ce
M 0)
^4 6. >— '
V
C
o
e
•3
U R
V W
O 3
3 —i
Q ^
a
rm «•
ft)
S
i.
t-
u
tk
U! (C
w b U t.
£ HE&
a
c
te
ac
§•
rt
fN
tc
c b a,
» — 0 w
= 2 y « 5
i- o 2 w u
B h> C C Ifi ^Q
Z B ~3 *» 2 <5
*
§•
bl
6
m in
A V
in in
CD *M
•B >
CA X CO
SSR
3 01 4J U
— > EW B e
«-• O 3 U
O — b 1 M
' •£ «lg
m *M m o> «v
^
— " w
$ Jr
— we
• v
u e
v w
co 3
S3
e
CJ
1
A
U
*« C
CJ ™< >.
cc tz •« W U
— U » G. » IB
— e 6 s cj
*s^sls
^4 » -^ ^ fc1'-'
^
-* £> 2
*• (8 «
•M V C
t)
V
u e
ft! V
n 7
• —
ai
e
o
3
.£
C.
^
* S - t r*
* ' i = T =!
tot^scr"£j
» i I i.^ t "c ^1
K
s.
"C
e
r
c
c It
§ - e. « S S
£!i t8^
£ e 3 *• B » v
5
0
m
u
e
w ^
m. *A
A V
>n in
m *c
si£
tni5
•H «
w u
3 CJ
SIS
•4 (N
f^ ft. *f
•e
*« u *
*^ re e
$ is
^ t, e *
i
u m
ft< 41
& b
§ —
B --
ft)
i
e
4
f
U
**•
- !
t feTg
j » . c
J n s.
c
e
«
s"
in
> fc
K c e
— t ftl **- •£ U
»S tTx£
£"?•= ^§
8)
4)
C.
C
C
u
^ • fc
m in
A V
m M
*,m
K £ n
M
MOM
m IT* *n
C
1 j|
p*. &•*-•
v
c
0
C
•o
ft)
u o
41 0)
CV k>
n 3
S 4Pt
a
c
e
sxrancs
V2YC
9-71
-------
•o
01
T3
3
r-l
U
O
a
ca
§
a>
•H
CO
4-1
C
cu
C
•H
CU
P.
ca
>>
cu
)-i
3
ca
o
CO
3
CO
cu
d
CO
ca
g
•H
1-1
fi
a
•H
o
w
i
CN
!
3:
H
• E ?>• '
,|<
\r -
f ~
i «T
' 1".
.
j j
£i
c.
p-
' fc.' '
1 Z.
' $
K-.
to!
I ^
j
Z
1 N
r
i
H
1 OT
I "*
i
£
«,
z,
I
H"
H
X "
ife
1
js
ur
Z
ae
O
L.
s
H
tx
U
u:
in
=!
u
j£
s
c
~
u
C
u
s
t 3r ' »
z A
t
tm -
c ec
c. —
z < I
1
w 4J
e c
z £ !? E
•^ u — E
x e *- t>
*5 — tt —
.= C. — tt
ti t * >•
as at u (&
If 1
^^J
- c
* ^
w w
X
"E.
tu
ec
e
e
H
w
r
>
7 (B
• *6J
C >
%
j
B
^ f
i
_
u
(B
9 k.
W W
IH a
o SE
s
e
•0
§
o
I
1
w
e.
£
^
c
1
"e
—
=
B
|
*> M
a &
u ^ ^
*~ « 0 tO
•* OJ M V
W ft,-^ >
1
* ' 3
R *a
3* ~»
•• M ^ S
o &"o e
W O 10 —
B
e
J5
H ?
a> »* -•
= *J
. c »
fill
cu
*« u *u
— * *> £.
— C. C
0 «< 0
« us e
S - 1C
XJ
01 -^
C v 3
r H W
C. «
C) W*
*£ W
Jl -t ac
w « c
» U C
£ if
a
c *
jj — &;
— o. o
a v o
^ M £
1
Jl
— c
— c —
ir ^ * S-
Z c. .
u £ £
- < jj i
^e ?K ^ (t — 5,
b K C. t w f
•5— t_ - « — f.
fc *i » 1^ ti.fc.c51
u:^_ i — K c j - r ^
1 u I" 1 t E i w w & "*3
"I 1 - S 1 r ilric-'
K&^S. KE £«£ »— 0
1
i
e
e _t .
i i 1
1 1 -
— c a> — v
w V C R •- -« JS
C C - 3 B K 3 R^CC.
z~*e -* &. — *j i •** w t
c — JT j3&ittj:.r o>^««
^ ft O ^ C V ^^ ^ U "^ tl C C S fc* ™jj
tt
B ft! B
& c e.
Q ^ O
** **
« g U
irt m -A in ift wi
A V A V A V
** K el K ^2
•9 >• • ^9 > T3 >
— e « — i 00 -new
w £ w KZtn cozte
^ s M MEM 2 S °
•0 *•. n-» ^*.
- = • * ss
^.•Sea ii ••!£
ff U bl V b V
vl-Sio cc "° * 2
.e'lbN'a.C i£ r> l5
tl « B
i i I
1
t) «e i
V ftl
u v . u B
V « « V
0.1- C. W 1
OS K 9
= — V 3 — i
B -" C B ** >
» M I « *2
a- 41 v
c c c
§ i g
o
b
e.
?
S 2
"5 «
I S
U N
1 *
r 7
S S
to w
sssnos m{
viva d
- -2-22
-------
Cass County must be approved by the sanitarians before septage can be applied.
Approval of a particular site is contingent on whether nuisance conditions
would likely result, either to surface waters or from odors. Most of the
application areas are former agricultural land currently not under cultiva-
tion. Periodically, the hauler is responsible for discing or plowing the land
so that nuisance conditions do not develop. There are no standards concerning
how much septage can be applied to one area. Septage pumped in winter is also
land-applied by certain haulers. It is applied on the snow where it freezes.
As thaws occur the liquid from the septage will infiltrate the ground surface.
2.2. Identification of Wastewater Treatment System Options
2.2.1. Design Factors
Three categories of factors must be considered in the design of a waste-
water treatment system: the present and projected wastewater flows in the
study area, the effluent requirements established by Federal and State autho-
rities, and economic cost criteria (duration of the planning period, interest
rate, service factor, and service life of facilities and equipment). Each of
these factors is discussed in the following sections.
2.2.1.1. Wastewater Load Factors
Wastewater flow projections for the Indian Lake and Sister Lakes proposed
sewer service areas were developed based on a projected year 2000 design
population (Section 3.2.1.3.), an average daily base flow (ADBF) of 65 gallons
per capita per day (gpcd), and design infiltration of 10 gpcd. A determination
of the design flow to the year 2000 is shown in Table 2-5.
The organic loads were projected on the basis of the accepted design
values of 0.17 pounds of BOD per capita per day and 0.20 pounds of suspended
solids (SS) per capita per day. These values were applied to the projected
year 2000 population. The BOD and SS influent wastewater loading and in-
fluent wastewater concentrations are summarized in Table 2-5.
2-23
-------
Table 2-5. Wastewater load factors projected for Sister Lakes and Indian
Lake, Michigan, for the year 2000.
Parameters Units
Sister Lakes Service Area
Design year population —
Average daily base flow (ADBF) gpcd
Design infiltration (based on gpcd
maximum permissible infiltration
rate of 200 gal/inch-diameter/
mile/day)
Average flow per capita per day gal
Average daily design flow mgd
Peak flow (based on a peaking factor mgd
of 3.25)
BOD design loading (based on Ib/d
on50.17 Ib/c/d)
BOD influent concentration mg/1
SS design loading (based on 0.20 (Ib/c/d) Ib/d
SS influent concentration mg/1
Indian Lake Service Area
Design year population
Average flow per capita per day gal
Average daily design flow mgd
Peak flow (based on a peaking mgd
factor of 3.25)
BOD design loading (based on 0.17 Ib/d
Ib7c/d)
BOD influent concentration mg/1
SS design loading (based on Ib/d
0.20 Ib/c/d)
SS influent concentration mg/1
Combined Sister Lakes - Indian
Lake Service Area
Value
Permanent
3,415
65
10
75
0.256
0.832
583.6
271
686.6
319
1,031
75
0.08
0.26
176
264
207
Seasonal
3,470
65
10
75
0.262
0.852
589.7
270
694.0
318
760
75
0.06
0.20
129
258
152
Total
6,885
65
10
75
0.52
1.69
1,173.3
270
1,380.6
318
1,791
75
0.14
0.46
305
261
359
310
304
307
Design year population
Average flow per capita per day
Average daily design flow
Peak flow
BOD design loading
BOD^ influent concentration
SS design loading
SS influent concentration
—
gal
mgd
mgd
Ib/d
mg/1
Ib/d
mg/1
4,446
75
0.336
1.09
759.6
270
893.6
317
4,230
75
0.322
1.05
718.9
268
846.0
315
8,676
75
0.66
2.14
1,478.5
269
1,739.6
316
2-24
-------
2.2.1.2. Effluent Requirements
On 26 February 1980 MDNR issued effluent limits for the Indian Lake-
Sister Lakes study area in a letter to Gove Associates, Inc. (Appendix 0).
Effluent limits were issued for two discharge points to the surface water: at
the Indian Lake outlet in the western half of Section 32 and at Silver Creek
in Section 2. Both locations are in Silver Creek Township.
For the two discharge points, the first recommendation of the Engineering
and Technical Services Section of the MDNR is land application. If this is
not feasible, then the recommendation is as follows:
For the Indian Lake outlet in the western half of Section 32,
Township 5 South, Range 16 West, an annual discharge from 1
March to 15 May which will meet the following effluent limits
is allowed:
Carbonaceous BOD 30 mg/1 as a 30 day average
40 mg/1 as a 7 day average
Total suspended solids 70 mg/1 as a 30 day average
100 mg/1 as a 7 day average
pH 6.0 to 9.0
Dissolved oxygen 5.0 mg/1 daily minimum
Total phosphorus as P At such time that technology
provides an economically
feasible means of -removing
phosphorus from stabiliza-
tion lagoons, it shall be
required at this facility.
During discharge, the ratio of wastewater flow to upstream flow
shall be as foLlows: 1.0 from 1 March to 31 March; 0.4 from 1 April
to 30 April; and 0.1 from 1 May to 15 May.
2-25
-------
For Silver Creek in Section 2 of Silver Creek Township, an
annual discharge from 1 March to 15 May which will meet the
following effluent limits is allowed:
Carbonaceous BOD 30 mg/1 as a 30 day average
5
45 mg/1 as a 7 day average
Total suspended solids 70 mg/1 as a 30 day average
100 mg/1 as a 7 day average
pH 6.0 to 9.0
Dissolved oxygen 5.0 mg/1 daily minimum
Total phosphorus as P At such time that technology
provides an economically
feasible means of removing
phosphorus from stabiliza-
tion lagoons, it shall be
required of this facility.
During discharge, the ratio of wastewater flow to upstream flow
shall be as follows: 1.0 from 1 March to 31 March; 0.4 from 1
April to 30 April; and 0.1 from 1 May to 15 May.
It is assumed in the preparation of this EIS that at the present time
there is no economically feasible means of removing phosphorus from stabiliza-
tion lagoons. Therefore, phosphorus removal facilities are not proposed in
any of the centralized wastewater treatment systems that have an annual dis-
charge to the surface waters.
2.2.1.3. Economic Factors
The economic cost criteria consist of an amortization or planning period
from the present to the year 2000, or approximately 20 years; an interest rate
of 7.625%, and service lives of 20 years for treatment and pumping equipment,
40 years for structures, and 50 years for conveyance facilities. Salvage
values were estimated using straight-line depreciation for items that could be
used at the end of the 20-year planning period. An annual appreciation rate
of 3% over the planning period was used to calculate the salvage value of the
land. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs include labor, materials, and
utilities (power). Costs associated with the treatment works, pumping
stations, solids handling and disposal processes, conveyance facilities, and
2-26
-------
on-site systems are based on prevailing rates. Annual revenue-producing
benefits, such as lease of land application sites for crop production, are
subtracted from O&M costs.
Costs are based on the USEPA STP Construction Cost Index of 416.9, the
USEPA Complete Urban Sewer System (CUSS) Construction Cost Index of 223, and
the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index of 3,560 for the
second quarter of 1981 (June 1981). The total capital cost includes the
initial construction cost plus a service factor. The service factor includes
costs for engineering, contingencies, legal and administrative, and financing.
The service factors used for different alternative components are summarized
in Table 2-6. The economic cost criteria are summarized in Table 2-7.
2.2.2. System Components
2.2.2.1. Flow and Waste Reduction
Economy in the construction and the operation of sewage collection,
treatment, and disposal facilities, is, in many localities, achieveable by
controlling waste flows or the amounts of impurities carried in the sewage.
This economy is generally recognized in the short-term monetary savings that
result from the reduced design capacities of facilities or from the long-term
savings realized when facility expansion or replacement is unnecessary. Other
savings can be achieved throughout the life of the facilities from reduced
a
Table 2-6. Service factor .
Conventional Collection Pressure Sewer, Cluster,
Item and Treatment System and On-site Systems (%)
Contingencies 10 15
Engineering 10 13
Legal & Administrative 3 3
Financing 4 4
Total 27 35
a
A service factor is applied to the construction cost to compute the capital cost.
Interest during construction is not included.
2-27
-------
Table 2-7. Economic cost criteria.
Item
Amortization period
Interest (discount) rate
STP construction cost index - Detroit, June 1981
Sewer (CUSS) construction cost index - Detroit, June 1981
ENR - construction cost index, June 1981
Service life
Equipment years 20
Structures years 40
Conveyance facilities years 50
Land , years permanent
Salvage value
Equipment % 0
Structures % 50
Conveyance structures % 60
Land % 103
operational costs. In addition, mitigation of some of the environmental
impacts may be achieveable through waste reduction measures such as a reduc-
tion in the phosphorus content of laundry detergents.
Methods of flow and waste reduction considered for use in the study area
include water conservation measures, waste segregation, and a detergent phos-
phorus ban.
2.2.2.1.1. Water Conservation Measures
Clean water has for many years often been regarded as one of the nation's
bountiful free goods. Concerns over water supply and wastewater disposal and
an increasing recognition of the benefits that may accrue through water con-
servation are serving to greatly stimulate the development and application of
water conservation practices. The diverse array of water conservation prac-
2-28
-------
tices may, in general, be divided into these major categories:
• Elimination of non-functional water use
• Water-saving devices, fixtures, and appliances
• Wastewater recycle/reuse system.
Elimination of Non-functional Water Use
Non-functional water use is typically the result of the following:
• Wasteful, water-use habits such as using a toilet flush to
dispose of a cigarette butt, allowing the water to run while
brushing teeth or shaving, or operating a clotheswasher or
dishwasher with only a partial load
• Excessive water supply pressure - for most dwellings a water
supply pressure of 40 pounds per square inch (psi) is ade-
quate and a pressure in excess of this can result in un-
necessary water use and wastewater generation, especially
with wasteful water use habits
• Inadequate plumbing and appliance maintenance - unseen or
apparently insignificant leaks from household fixtures and
appliances can waste large volumes of water and generate
similar quantities of wastewater. Most notable in this
regard are leaking toilets and dripping faucets. For ex-
ample, even a pinhole leak which may appear as a dripping
faucet can waste up to 170 gallons per day at a pressure of
40 psi. More severe leaks can generate even more massive
quantities of wastewater.
Water-Saving Devices, Fixtures, and Appliances
The quantity of water traditionally used by household fixtures or
appliances often is considerably greater than actually needed. Typically,
toilet flushing, bathing, and clotheswashing collectively account for more
than more than 70% of tht interior water use and waste flow volume of a house-
hold (Siegrist, Woltanski, and Waldorf 1978). Thus, efforts to accomplish
major reductions in the wastewater flow volume, as well as its pollutant mass,
have been directed toward the toilet flushing, bathing, and clotheswashing
areas. Some selected water conservation/waste load reduction devices and
2-29
-------
systems developed for these household activities include:
• Toilet devices and systems
Toilet tank inserts - such as water filled and weighted
plastic bottles, flexible panels, and/or dams
Dual-flush toilet devices
Shallow-trap toilets
Very low volume flush toilets
Non-water carriage toilets
• Bathing devices and systems
Shower flow control devices
Reduced-flow shower fixtures
• Clotheswashing devices and systems
Waste flow reductions may be accomplished through use
of a clotheswasher with a suds-saver attachment. The
suds-saver feature is included as an optional cycle
setting on several commercially made washers. The
selection of suds-saver cycle when washing provides for
storage of the washwater from the wash cycle for subse-
quent use as the wash water for the next wash load.
The rinse cycle remains unchanged.
Wastewater Recycle/Reuse Systems
These systems provide for the collection and processing of all household
wastewater or the fractions produced by certain activities for subsequent
reuse. A system which has received a majority of development efforts includes
the recycling of bathing and laundry wastewater for flushing water-carriage
toilets and/or outside irrigation.
Other Water Conservation Measures
One possible method for reduction of sewage flow is the adjustment of the
price of water to control consumption. This method normally is used to reduce
water demand in areas with water shortages. It probably would not be effec-
tive in reducing sanitary sewer flows because much of its impact is usually on
luxury water usage, such as lawn sprinkling or car washing. None of the
luxury uses impose a load on a separated sewerage system and on on-site sys-
tems. Therefore, the use of price control probably would not be effective in
significantly reducing wastewater flows.
2-30
-------
Other measures include educational campaigns on water conservation in
everyday living and the installation of pressure-reduction valves in areas
where the water pressure is excessive (greater than 60 pounds per square
inch). Educational campaigns usually take the form of spot television and
radio commercials, and the distribution of leaflets with water and sewer
bills. Water saving devices must continue to be used and maintained for flow
reduction to be effective.
Results of Water Conservation Measures
Wastewater flows on the order of 15 to 30 gpcd can be achieved by in-
stallation of combinations of the following devices and systems:
• Replace standard toilets with dual cycle or other low volume
toilets
• Reduce shower water use by installing thermostatic mixing
valves and flow control shower heads. Use of showers should be
encouraged rather than baths whenever possible
• Replace older clotheswashing machines with those equipped with
water-level controls or with front-loading machines
• Eliminate water-carried toilet wastes by use of in-house com-
posting toilets
• Use recycled bath and laundry wastewaters to sprinkle lawns in
summer
• Recycle bath and laundry wastewaters for toilet flushing.
Filtration and disinfection of bath and laundry wastes for this
purpose has been shown to be feasible and aesthetically accept-
able in pilot studies (Cohen and Wallman 1974; Mclaughlin
1968). This is an alternative to in-house composting toilets
that could achieve the same level of wastewater flow reduction
• Commercially available pressurized toilets and air-assisted
shower heads using a common air compresser of small horsepower
would reduce sewage volume from these two largest household
sources up to 90%.
2-31
-------
Impact of Water Conservation Measures on Wastewater Treatment Systems
Methods that reduce the flow or pollutant loads can provide the following
benefits to a wastewater management program:
• Reduce the sizes and capital costs of new sewage collection and
treatment facilities
• Delay the time when future expansion or replacement facilities
will be needed
• Reduce the operational costs of pumping and treatment
• Mitigate the sludge and effluent disposal impacts
• May extend the life of the existing soil absorption system for
an existing system functioning satisfactorily
• May reduce the wastewater load sufficiently to remedy a failing
soil absorption system in which the effluent is surfacing or
causing backups
• May reduce the size of the soil disposal field in the case of
new on-site systems. However, the pretreatment process of the
on-site systems should be maintained at full-size to provide
the necessary capacity to treat and attenuate peak flows.
2.2.2.1.2. Waste Segregation
Various methods for the treatment and the disposal of domestic wastes
involve separation of toilet wastes from other liquid waste. Several toilet
systems can be used to provide for segregation and separate handling of human
excreta (often referred to as blackwater), and, in some cases, garbage wastes.
Removal of human excreta from the wastewater serves to eliminate significant
quantities of pollutants, particularly suspended solids, nitrogen, and patho-
genic organisms (USEPA 1980a).
Wastewaters generated by fixtures other than toilets are often referred
to collectively as graywater. Characterization studies have demonstrated that
typical graywater contains appreciable quantities of organic matter, suspended
solids, phosphorus, and grease. The organic materials in graywater appear to
degrade at a rate not significantly different from those, in combined residen-
tial water. Microbiological studies have demonstrated that significant con-
centrations of indicator organisms such as total and fecal coliforms, are
typically found in graywater (USEPA 1980a).
2-32
-------
Although residential graywater does contain pollutants and must be
properly managed, graywater may be simpler to manage than total residential
wastewater due to a reduced flow volume. A number of potential strategies for
management of segregated human excreta (blackwater) and graywater are pre-
sented in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2, respectively.
2.2.2.1.3. Michigan Ban on Phosphorus
Phosphorus is frequently the nutrient that controls algal growth in
surface waters and is, therefore, an important influence on lake or stream
eutrophication. Enrichment of the waters with nutrients encourages the growth
of algae and other microscopic plant life. Decay of the plants increases
biochemical oxygen demand and lowers the amount of dissolved oxygen in the
water. The addition of nutrients encourages higher forms of plant life,
thereby hastening the aging process by which a lake evolves into a bog or
marsh. Normally, eutrophication is a natural process that proceeds slowly
over thousands of years. However, human activity can greatly accelerate it.
Phosphorus and other nutrients contributed to surface waters by human wastes,
laundry detergents, and agricultural runoff often result in over-fertiliza-
tion, over-productivity of plant matter, and "choking" of a body of water
within a few years.
In 1971 the Michigan legislature limited the amount of phosphorus in
laundry and cleaning supplies sold in Michigan to 8.7% (Michigan-Public Act
226, Cleaning Agent Act). To reduce phosphorus concentrations in wastewater
further, the MDNR subsequently banned the use and sale of domestic laundry
detergents containing more than 0.5% phosphorus by weight. The ban appears to
have had a positive impact on surface water quality in the Great Lakes Basin,
primarily by reducing phosphorus levels and algae in tributary and near-shore
waters (Hartig and Horvaih 1982). The preliminary assessment of the effects
of the ban concluded that:
• Based on a survey of 58 major wastewater treatment plants in
Michigan, influent and effluent total phosphorus concentrations
decreased by 23% and 25%, respectively
• The phosphorus detergent ban resulted in a 20% reduction in
total phosphorus loadings to the Great Lakes.
2-33
-------
Incinerator
Toilet
Figure 2-1. Example strategies for management of segregated human wastes.
Soil Absorption
Alternatives
Surface
Water
Discharge
Figure 2-2. Example strategies for management of residential greywater.
2-34
-------
There will be no cost savings or cost increases for on-site systems as a
result of the phosphorus ban. It is possible, although not confirmed or
quantified by previous research, that a reduction in phosphorus discharged to
septic tank soil disposal systems will result in a considerable reduction in
the amount of phosphorus transported by groundwater from the soil disposal
system.
2.2.2.1.4. Summary
To reduce the waste loads (flow volume and/or pollutant contributions)
generated by a typical household, an extensive array of techniques, devices,
and systems are available. Because the per capita amount of water utilized
(approximately 65 gpcd) in the study area for the centralized treatment alter-
natives is relatively small, water conservation measures would be marginally
effective in reducing wastewater flows and, thus, are not necessary. Also,
because the efficacy of water conservation is complex and must be determined
on a case-by-case basis, a comprehensive water conservation alternative is not
proposed in this document. However, on-site system alternatives (Alternatives
8A, 8B, and 9 described in Section 2.3) include separate treatment strategies
for the graywater and blackwater. The proposed treatment for blackwater and
graywater is described in Section 2.3.
2.2.2.2. Collection System
Two types of collection and conveyance sewer systems are proposed: a
gravity sewer system and a pressure sewer system. Both types of collection
systems are briefly described in the following sections.
2.2.2.2.1. Gravity Sewer System
The gravity sewer system generally consists of gravity sewers, pumping
stations, and force mains. Usually it will also carry whatever industrial
wastes are produced in the area that it serves. A gravity sanitary sewer
carries wastewater by gravity (downslope) only.
2-35
-------
Apart from pumping facilities sometimes required at sewage treatment
plants, the principal conditions and factors necessitating the use of pumping
stations in the sewage collection system are as follows:
• The elevation of the area to be serviced is too low to be
drained by gravity to existing or proposed trunk sewers
• Service is required for areas that are outside the natural
drainage area, but within the sewage or drainage district
• Omission of pumping, although possible, would require exces-
sive construction costs because of the deep cuts required
for the installation of a trunk sewer to drain the area.
The pumping station pumps wastewater under pressure through a pipeline
known as a force main. For the sake of economy, the force main profiles
generally conform to existing ground elevations.
Gravity sewers that carry raw sewage are called, in this report, conven-
tional gravity sewers. In these sewers, sewage should flow with sufficient
velocity to prevent the settlement of solid matter. The usual practice is to
design the sewers so that the slope is sufficient to ensure a minimum velocity
of 2 feet per second (fps) with flow at one-half full or full depth. Pumping
stations within the conventional gravity sewer system must be designed to
handle the solids in raw sewage, either by 'grinding them or by screening
larger material and passing smaller material through the pump. Force mains
are generally designed with adequate velocity to prevent deposition of solids
at minimum flow. Solids will not settle out at a velocity of 2.0 fps, but
solids that settle out when no flow occurs (pumps are operating discontinuous-
ly) require a velocity of 3.5 fps to resuspend them.
Gravity sewers that carry septic tank effluent are called septic tank
effluent gravity sewers -"n this report (Figure 2-3) . Other terms commonly
applied to them are Australian sewers and small diameter sewers. Because only
clear effluent from septic tanks is carried, a minimum velocity of 1.5 fps
can be designed. Also, a minimum pipe size of 4-inch diameter is sufficient.
Cleanouts, rather than manholes, are recommended so that less dirt enters the
pipes (Otis 1979). Pipes do not need to be laid at a constant slope nor in a
straight line (Simmons and Newman 1979). Pumping equipment does not need
2-36
-------
BuiIding
sewer
Effluent
sewer
Precast septic tank
SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT GRAVITY SEWER LAYOUT
Figure 2-3. Septic tank effluent gravity sewer layout.
2-37
-------
solids handling equipment and force mains have no minimum velocity require-
ments. Because septic tank effluent is odorous, special measures must be
taken to ensure that odors are properly handled and treated.
2.2.2.2.2. Pressure Sewer System
Essentially, a pressure sewer system is the reverse of a water distri-
bution system. The latter employs a single inlet pressurization point and a
number of user outlets, while the pressure sewer embodies a number of press-
urizing inlet points and a single outlet, as shown in Figure 2-4. The pres-
sure main follows a generally direct route to a treatment facility or to a
gravity sewer, depending on the application. The primary purpose of this type
of design is to minimize sewage retention time in the sewer.
There are two major types of pressure sewer systems: the grinder pump
(GP) system and the septic tank effluent pump (STEP) system. As shown in
Figure 2-5, the major differences between the alternative systems are in the
on-site equipment and layout. There are also some subtle differences in the
pressure main design methods and in the treatment systems required to reduce
the pollutants in the collected wastewater to an environmentally acceptable
level. Neither pressure sewer system alternatiye requires the modification of
household plumbing, although neither precludes it if such modifications are
deemed desirable.
The advantages of pressure sewers are primarily related to installation
costs and inherent system characteristics. Because these systems use small-
diameter plastic pipes buried just below the frost penetration depth, their
installation costs can be quite low compared to conventional gravity systems
in low-density areas. Other site conditions that enhance this cost differen-
tial include hilly terrain, rock outcropping, and high water tables. Because
pressure sewers are sealed conduits, there should be no opportunity for infil-
tration. The sewers can be designed to handle only the domestic sewage
generated in the houses serviced, which excludes the infiltration that occurs
in most gravity systems. The high operation and maintenance costs for the use
of mechanical equipment at each point of entry to the system is the major
disadvantage of a pressure sewer system.
2-38
-------
Pressure sewer
Water main
Figure 2-4. Pressure sewer vs. water main.
2-39
-------
Road
Pressure
sewer
Bui 1di ng
sewer
Junction box
and alarm
-High water level alarm
To existing soil absorption system
Bui 1di ng
sewer
controls
Precast septic tank
GRLNDER PUMP LAYOUT
Junction box
and alarm
Road
Pressure
sewer
,=i»-To existing soil absorption system
•H i ghwater
level
vPump ^Level alarm
controls
Precast septic tank
SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT PUMP LAYOUT
Figure 2-5. Types of pressure sewer systems,
2-40
-------
Most of the dwellings in the study area have existing septic tanks.
Therefore, the septic tank effluent pump (STEP) system is proposed for the
collection system alternatives described in this document.
2.2.2.3. Wastewater Treatment Processes
A variety of treatment options were considered in the facilities plan.
In general, wastewater treatment options include conventional physical, bio-
logical, and chemical processes and land treatment. The conventional options
utilize preliminary treatment, primary sedimentation, secondary treatment, and
tertiary treatment (including chemical addition) for phosphorus removal.
These unit processes are followed by disinfection prior to effluent disposal.
Land treatment processes include lagoons, slow-rate infiltration or irriga-
tion, overland flow, and rapid infiltration.
The degree of treatment required is dependent on the effluent disposal
option selected (Section 2.2.2.4.). Where disposal of treated wastewater is
by effluent discharge to surface waters, effluent quality limitations deter-
mined by MDNR establish the required level of treatment (Section 2.2.1.3.).
2.2.2.4. Effluent Disposal Methods
Three effluent disposal options are available: discharge to receiving
waters, disposal on land, and reuse.
2.2.2.4.1. Stream Discharge
MDNR permits effluent discharge to the surface water at only two points:
Indian Lake outlet in the western half of Section 32 and Silver Creek in
Section 2, both in Silver Creek Township. A secondary treatment plant would
be required to meet the effluent limitations (Section 2.2.1.2.) for discharge
into Indian Lake outlet or Silver Creek. The discharge of the effluent at
these two points is only permitted from 1 March to 15 May. Therefore, 9.5
months of effluent storage is provided for all the alternatives that recommend
discharge to the surface waters at the two discharge points.
2-41
-------
2.2.2.4.2. Land Application
Land application or land treatment of wastewater utilizes natural phy-
sical, chemical, and biological processes in vegetation, soils, and underlying
formations to renovate and dispose of domestic wastewater. Land application
methods have been practiced in the United States for more than 100 years and
presently are being used by hundreds of communities throughout the nation
(Pound and Crites 1973).
In addition to wastewater treatment, the benefits of land application may
include nutrient recycling, timely water applications, groundwater recharge,
and soil improvement. These benefits accrue to a greater extent in arid and
semi-arid areas, but are also applicable to humid areas. Secondary benefits
include preservation of open space and summer augmentation of streamflow.
The components of a land application system include a centralized collec-
tion and conveyance system, some level of primary treatment, possible
secondary treatment, possible storage and disinfection, and the land applica-
tion site and equipment. In addition, collection of the treated water may be
included in the system design along with discharge or reuse of the collected
water. The optional components may be necessary to meet state requirements or
to make the system operate properly.
Land application of municipal wastewater for treatment encompasses a wide
variety of possible processes or methods of application. The three principal
processes utilized in land treatment of wastewater are:
• Overland flow
• Slow-rate or crop irrigation
• Rapid infiltration.
In the overland flow process, the wastewater is allowed to flow over a
sloping surface and is collected at the bottom of the slope. This type of
land application requires a stream for final disposal. Overland flow
generally results in an effluent with an average phosphorus concentration of 4
mg/1. Phosphorus removals usually range from 30% to 60% on a concentration
basis (USEPA 1977a).
2-42
-------
In the slow-rate method partially treated wastewater is applied to the
land to enhance the growth of vegetation. The vegetation performs a major
role in removing nutrients through vegetative growth. Water is applied at
rates that may range from 0.5 to 4.0 inches per week. The upper 2 to 4 feet
of soil is where the major removals of organic matter, nutrients, and patho-
gens occur. Some processes involved are straining, chemical precipitation,
and adsorption by the soil. The applied wastewater is either lost to the
atmosphere by evapotranspiration or percolates to the water table. The water
table must be naturally low or be maintained at a reasonable depth by wells or
tile drainage. The surface soil must be kept aerobic for optimum conditions
for removals to occur.
The rapid infiltration method involves high rates (4 to 120 inches per
week) of application to rapidly permeable soils such as sands and loamy sands.
Although vegetative cover may be present, it is not an integral part of the
system. Cleansing of wastewater occurs within the first few feet of soil by
filtering, adsorption, precipitation, and other geochemical reactions. In
most cases, SS, BOD, and fecal coliform are removed almost completely. Phos-
phorus removal can range from 70% to 90%, depending on the physical and chemi-
cal properties of the soils. Nitrogen removal, however, generally is less
significant, unless specific procedures are established to maximize denitri-
fication (USEPA 1977a).
In rapid infiltration systems, there is little or no consumptive use of
wastewater by plants, and only minor evaporation occurs. Because most of the
wastewater infiltrates the soil, groundwater quality may be affected. To
minimize the potential for groundwater contamination, the minimum depth to the
water table should be 10 feet. Due to rapid rates of percolation, the per-
meability of the underlying aquifer must be high to insure that the water
table will not mound significantly and limit the usefulness of the site.
I
Land Suitability
i
i
Land in the study area is generally (suitable for slow-rate irrigation of
effluent. Some areas may be suitable for Srapid infiltration, although concern
about non-degradation of groundwater, especially with the current State atti-
2-43
-------
tude toward permits for discharging to groundwater, may make it difficult to
implement. Overland flow treatment relies on surface flow for treatment and
nearly all the soils of the area have infiltration rates such that the
effluent would infiltrate.
The selection of a slow-rate irrigation area was based on criteria such
as depth to water table greater that 15 feet, large expanse of nearly level to
level soils, minimal orchards and woodlots, and proximity to the Sister Lakes
area. The sections west and south of Dewey Lake (Section 7, 8, 16, and 17)
best meet these criteria. Limited hydrogeological testing would be necessary
in order to establish that these sites are indeed suitable and to design
appropriate groundwater collection facilities, if necessary. MDNR requires a
hydrogeological report approved by the groundwater section that shows that no
degradation of any usable aquifer would result from application of wastewater
effluent to the site. The "rule of thumb" for an acceptable application rate
is approximately 2 inches per week, depending on the site and wastewater
constituents (By telephone, Mr. Thomas Kampinnen, MDNR to WAPORA, Inc., 4 May
1982).
Treatment, of Wastewater by Land Irrigation
Treatment of wastewater by the land irrigation process requires a con-
siderable area of active cropland soils that have a moderately rapid per-
meability. Excellent removals of all pollutants, except highly soluble salts,
can be expected (BOD and SS, 99%; phosphorus 95% to 99%; and nitrogen 70% to
90%). Based on an application rate of 2.0 inches per week, an annual appli--
cation period of 26 weeks, and a flow of 0.996 mgd, an irrigation area cf
128.5 acres would be required. If irrigation were to be limited to compensa-
tion for deficiencies of soil moisture, considerably more land area would be
requi red.
The principal soil characteristic required for an acceptable application
site is a permeability that will allow reasonable drain tile spacing and still
dewater the site. Under these conditions, farm equipment can be operated on
the site within one day of irrigation without traction or compaction problems.
In addition, it is essential that the application site does not have a slope
2-44
-------
that will erode as a result of effluent applications. The acceptable slope
varies according to the existing plant cover and the rate of infiltration.
For example, cropland irrigation would be limited by slopes exceeding 6%,
whereas forest irrigation would be feasible on slopes of up to 20% (Powers
1978).
Artificial drainage may be required on all sites unless the water table
is naturally low. Artificial drainage can be advantageous because it allows
control of the applied effluent. The outlet point can be designed to minimize
any excess seepage.
During the winter it would be necessary to store the effluent. The
storage pond should be located on naturally fine-textured material to minimize
seepage. Soil surveys conducted in the area have not identified any soils
that could function as a natural sealant. A pond constructed in this area
would need to be artificially sealed.
2.2.2.4.3. Wetlands Discharge
Wetlands, which constitute approximately 3% of the land area of the
continental US (USEPA 1977a), are hydrologically intermediate areas. Wetlands
usually have too many plants and too little water to be called lakes, yet have
enough water to prevent most agricultural or forestry uses. The use of wet-
lands to receive and satisfactorily treat wastewater effluent is a relatively
new and experimental concept. In wetland application systems, wastewater is
renovated by soil, plants, and microorganisms as it moves through and over the
soil profile. Wetland systems are somewhat similar to overland flow systems
in* that most of the water flows over a relatively impermeable soil surface and
the renovation action is more dependent on microbial and plant activity than
on soil chemistry. The wetlands application option is not included in the
alternatives considered herein because there are no suitable wetlands in the
proximity of the proposed WWTP sites. Creating a wetlands area to treat
wastewater would require a large amount of land and could be environmentally
unacceptable.
2-45
-------
2.2.2.4.4. Reuse
Wastewater management techniques included under the category of treated
effluent reuse may be identified as:
• Public water supply
• Groundwater recharge
• Industrial process uses or cooling tower makeup
• Energy production
• Recreation and turf irrigation
• Fish and wildlife enhancement.
Reuse of treatment plant effluent as a public water supply or for ground-
water recharge could present potential public health concerns. There are no
major industries in the area that require cooling water. The availability of
good quality surface water and groundwater and the abundant rainfall limit the
demand for the use of treated wastewater for recreational and turf irrigation.
Organic contamination and heavy metal concentrations also are potential
problems. Direct reuse would require very costly advanced wastewater treat-
ment (AWT), and a sufficient economic incentive is not available to justify
the expense. Thus, the reuse of treated effluent currently is not a feasible
management technique for the study area.
2.2.2.5 Sludge Treatment and Disposal
Some of the wastewater treatment processes considered will generate
sludge. The amount of sludge generated will vary considerably, depending on
the process. A typical sludge management program would involve interrelated
processes for reducing the volume of the sludge (which is mostly water) and
final disposal.
Volume reduction depends on the reduction of both the water and the
organic content of the sludge. Organic material can be reduced through the
use of digestion, incineration, or wet-oxidation processes. Moisture reduc-
tion is attainable through concentration, conditioning, dewatering, and/or
drying processes. The mode of final disposal selected determines the pro-
cesses that are required.
2-46
-------
Sludge thickening, sludge digestion, dewatering and/or drying processes
(including filter press, centrifuge, vacuum filtration, sludge drying beds,
and sludge lagoons), and land disposal of liquid or dried sludge are some of
the processes suitable for this project. Based on the processes proposed in
the Facilities Plan, the sludge drying beds process was selected for further
consideration with the secondary biological processes that require sludge
dewatering. The dried sludge would be disposed of by land application on farm
land. In the case of waste stabilization ponds, the sludge would collect in
the bottom of the pond and would undergo anaerobic digestion. Inert solids
that are not biologically decomposed would remain in the pond and may require
cleanout and removal once every 10 to 20 years.
2.2.2.6. On-site Systems
The on-site systems proposed for use in the study area ara those that are
being utilized at the present time. Some modifications of the existing
designs are suggested to improve the operation of on-site systems. The pre-
sently utilized systems are described in detail in Appendix B.
The septic tanks presently being installed in the area are considered
adequate both in terms of construction and capacity. The continued use of
750-gallon tanks for small residences and 1,000- and 1,500-gallon tanks for
larger residences are recommended. Septic tanks should have an exposed man-
hole 'or inspection port to monitor the contents of the tank. If, during
pumpouts and inspections, certain septic tanks are found to be faulty or
seriously undersized, these tanks would then be repaired or replaced. The
number of these would be expected to be rather small because of the design
code imposed on the tank manufacturers since to 1950.
The drain beds and drainfields (Figure 2-6) currently being installed in
the area could have a greater than 20-year design life, if they are installed
according to Code and maintained properly. The 400 square feet of drain bed
should be adequate for most residences, unless the soil material contains
greater than normal quantities of silt and clay. In these soil materials, the
drain bed must be larger or the finer-textured soil material must be removed
and replaced with sand. Similarly, in coarse-textured soils (coarse sand and
2-47
-------
f
•>!
1
a.
•a
o
*J
II ^>~Perfora
-s
*
|
u
c.
a.
a
I
•a
"o
1
c
o
m
o
u
X
u
l*_
o
VI
1
3
LA,
c —
ID u.
u
0.
w
E 3
i ^.
IU
c a
"J z
c
i.
a
2 K.. I /,
z ^!-^'-T:.'-:->.^v»t
(U
-M
to
c:
o
a.
s_
o
JD
"3
O
-------
gravel), the drain bed should be over-excavated and replaced with 18 inches of
fine sand. Without the sand lining, the potential for groundwater pollution
. is high because of inadequate treatment.
The raised or elevated drain bed (Figure 2-7 ) is a variation of the
so-called mound system. Mounds are constructed according to detailed design
standards to overcome limitations of primarily limited soil permeability or
shallow bedrock. The design for raised drain beds is essentially that of the
standard drain bed elevated by fill to achieve the appropriate depth to
groundwater. Thus, the elevation of the raised bed can be highly variable,
from 6 inches to 3 feet. Some utilize gravity distribution systems while
others use pumps and pressure distribution systems. In areas where the soils
are peat and marl, the natural ground is first excavated and replaced with
sand. Water-using appliances are usually kept to a minimum with these sys-
tems in order to keep the volume of sand fill to a minimum. It has been noted
(By interview, Mr. Lee Maajers, Cass County Health Department, to WAPORA,
Inc., 16 December 1981) that the use of proper materials and correct construc-
tion techniques is essential for these systems to operate satisfactorily.
The dry well soil absorption sytem (Figure 2-6) should be used only as a
"last resort" treatment system for existing residences. The Van Buren County
Health Department permits dry wells where the 'depth to the water table is
adequate. Sufficient evidence has been accumulated to demonstrate that dry
wells are more likely to pollute groundwater than drain beds. Dry wells
consist of precast units, either cylinders or hand-laid blocks, that have
perforated sidewalls. The dry well is placed in the ground and the annular
space around it to natural ground is backfilled with clean stone. Stone is
also placed on the bottom of the dry well. The top is covered with a precast
lid and backfilled with topsoil. These units can be connected in series where
necessary so that sufficient sidewall area can be provided.
Based strictly on a planning approach, no new soil absorption systems
should be permitted on the soils that have a water table within 1 foot of the
ground surface or that are formed in organic material. This would exclude the
Adrian, Belleville, Boots (or Napoleon), Edwards, Gilford, Granby, Houghton,
Marsh, Palms, Pella, Sebewa, and Tedrows soils. These soils have high water
2-49
-------
a
UJ
C3
c:
•r—
«3
•a
0)
1/1
a.
OJ
oo
i — .
i
CM
cn
2-50
-------
tables that are due to natural groundwater levels; therefore, they can be
drained with extensive measures that lower the groundwater level of the area.
The soils that have a water table within 1 to 6 feet of the ground sur-
face can have raised drain beds constructed on them. These soils are Brady,
Bronson, Kibbie, Moracco, Selfridge, and Thetford.
Drain beds and drain fields are appropriate for the other soils where
slopes allow construction activities. Dry wells are appropriate only where
the depth to groundwater is adequate.
Blackwater holding tanks do not strictly constitute on-site treatment
because the treatment of the wastes must occur away from the site. Components
of the system include a low-flow toilet (2.5 gallons per flush or less), the
holding tank for toilet wastes only, and the usual septic tank-soil absorption
system for the remainder of the wastes. These systems are appropriate where
an existing residence has a failing on-site system and no appropriate location
for an upgraded system. When the toilet wastes are diverted from the septic
tank-soil absorption system, that system has an opportunity to function pro-
perly and minimal pollution of groundwater and surface water would occur.
Significant reductions of organic loads and 20 to 40% reductions in phosphorus
loadings to the septic tank and soil absorption system occur when toilet
wastes are excluded. The holding! tank would have a 1,000 gallon capacity and
be equipped with a high-level alarpi. Nearly all residences that would require
holding tanks are seasonally occupied, requiring approximately three pumpings
annually. The blackwater holding tank systems are applicable where existing
residences are on lots that have soils unsuitable or too small for raised
drain beds or dry wells.
2.2.2.7. Cluster System
The cluster system designates a common soil absorption system and the
treatment and collection facilities for a group of residences. The common
soil absorption system is used because the individual lots are unsuitable for
on-site soil absorption systems. An area of soils suitable for a common soil
absorption system must be available in order to consider this option. In the
2-51
-------
study area, only a small percentage of the area would be unsuitable for
cluster drain fields. Thus, where off-site treatment is required, cluster
drain fields are typically feasible.
It was assumed that the existing septic tanks, with some replacements,
are adequate. Septic tank effluent could be conveyed by small-diameter
gravity sewers or pressure sewers to the soil absorption system sites. A
cost-effectiveness analysis could establish which collection system to use for
a particular area. A dosing system is typically required on large drain
fields in order to achieve good distribution in the field. Where the collec-
tion system uses pressure sewers, a separate accumulator tank and lift station
is required. The wet well and lift station on the septic tank effluent
gravity sewers can perform that function.
Cluster drain fields are usually designed as three drain fields. Two
would be dosed on a daily basis in the summer and the third would be rested
for an annual period. The drain fields must be designed according to the no
degradation of any usable aquifer policy of MDNR. Preliminary design criteria
indicate that 133 square feet of trench bottom per residence is required for
each drain field. In order to satisfy the non-degradation policy, though,
trench spacing may need to be much greater than the standard 6 feet.
Although the present soils information and topography indicate that
cluster drain fields may be feasible, further field investigations would be
needed before final designs could proceed. The depth of permeable material
must be determined in order to show that groundwater mounding into the drain-
field would not occur. Also, the characteristics of the proposed site soils
must be examined sufficiently enough to verify the soil mapping of the SCS at
a more detailed level than the present mapping.
The operation and maintenance requirements of the system are minimal.
Periodic inspections of the lift stations and the drain fields are essentially
all that is necessary. The septic tanks and the lift station wet wells would
require occasional pumping. Maintenance of the collection piping is expected
to be minimal (Otis 1979) . Once a year the rested drain field would be
rotated back into use and another one rested. Blockages of the collection
2-52
-------
systems should occur only rarely because of the use of clear effluent. Lift
stations are entirely dependent on a reliable power supply; thus, power
outages will affect operation of the system. Since wastewater generation is
also dependent on power for pumping well water, the potential for serious
environmental effects are somewhat mitigated.
2.2.2.8. Septage Disposal
The use of a septic system requires periodic maintenance (3 to 5 years)
that includes pumping out the accumulated scum and sludge, which is called
septage. Approximately 65 to 70 gallons per capita per year of septage could
accumulate in a properly functioning septic system used by permanent residents
(USEPA 1977b). Septage is a highly variable anaerobic slurry that contains
large quantities of grit and grease; a highly offensive odor; the ability to
foam; poor settling and dewatering characteristics; high solids and organic
content; and a minor accumulation of heavy metals.
Septage disposal regulations have been established mainly in states with
areas that have a concentration of septic tanks. Many states, including
Michigan, prohibit certain types of septage disposal, but do not prescribe
acceptable disposal methods. The general methods of septage disposal are:
• Land disposal
• Biological and physical treatment
• Chemical treatment
• Treatment in a wastewater treatment plant.
Land Disposal
The two basic typet; of land disposal are:
• Methods which optimize nutrient recovery such as applica-
tion of septage to cropland and pastures
• Methods of land application in which there is no concern
for the recovery of nutrients in septage such as land-
fills.
2-53
-------
Septage can be considered a form of fertilizer because of its nutrient
value when applied to the soil. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and micronutrients are
contained in septage. The septage application rate is usually dependent upon
the amount of nitrogen available to the crop. The die-off of pathogens in
septage which is surface spread is quicker than that of pathogens in septage
injected into the soil. In septage incorporated into the top 3 inches of the
soil, generally 99% of all pathogens will die off within one month (Brown and
White 1977).
The advantages of direct cropland application of septage are: the re-
cycling of nitrogen and phosphorus; the low technology, maintenance, and cost
of the systems; and the hostile environment which the sun and soil create for
pathogens and parasites.
The surface spreading of septage should occur only in isolated locations
due to potential fly and odor problems. However, both problems can be mini-
mized by applying the septage in a thin, uniform layer, or by soil incorpora-
tion. Septage should not be applied to land that is:
• Used for vegetable crops
• Frozen, snow covered, saturated, or located within a flood-
plain
• Located near dwellings, wells, springs, streams, bodies of
water, or land adjacent to bodies of water where there is a
chance of pollution due to runoff
• Steeper than 8%
• Sandy (due to pathogen transmission to groundwater).
The major problem with direct septage disposal on land is that the
material cannot be applied at all times. Saturated soils generally restrict
field access with disposal equipment. In addition to getting equipment stuck,
soils are compacted and ruts are formed. Septage runoff is a problem if the
waste is applied to frozen soils or steep slopes. Low temperatures and
saturated soil moisture conditions will lengthen the die-off period of patho-
gens.
2-54
-------
Biological and Physical Treatment
Septage may be treated biologically in anaerobic lagoons, aerobic
lagoons, or digesters. Some advantages of aerobic treatment are that it
reduces the offensive odor of the septage, produces a sludge with good de-
watering characteristics, and produces a supernatant with a lower BOD than
anaerobic supernatants. The major disadvantage of aerobic treatment compared
to anaerobic treatment is the higher operation and maintenance cost.
Advantages of anaerobic treatment systems are that the waste undergoes stabil-
ization of organic solids and they have relatively low operating and mainte-
nance costs. A disadvantage of anaerobic treatment is the high BOD of the
effluent and the potential for odor nuisance.
Chemical Treatment
Treatment of septage involving the addition of a chemical is used to
improve the dewaterability, reduce the odor, or kill the pathogens. Chemical
treatment processes include addition of coagulants, rapid chemical oxidation,
or lime stabilization.
Some of the advantages associated with the chemical treatment of septage
are:
• Good reduction of the pollutant concentration can be achieved
• Dewaterability of septage is improved so the waste can be
dewatered on sand beds
• Effective control of the pathogenic organisms is possible.
Disadvantages of chemical treatment of septage are:
• High costs are usually associated with chemical treatment and
in many instances these alternatives are only feasible where
relatively large quantities of septage are produced
• Large quantities of chemicals are needed
• Relatively high level of technology is needed.
2-55
-------
Waatewater Treatment Plant
Septage can be adequately treated at a properly operated WWTP. Both the
activated sludge or the fixed media type plants are used to treat septage.
Septage could be discharged into the liquid stream or sludge stream of a
WWTP. If septage is handled as a slurry, the possible addition points at a
WWTP are the upstream sewer, the bar screen, the grit chamber, the primary
settling tank, or the aeration tank. Discharge into the upstream sewer allows
solids to settle out in the sewer, particularly at periods of low flow.
The septage addition points in the sludge handling processes are the
aerobic or anaerobic digester, the sludge conditioning process, or the sand
drying beds. Septage added to a WWTP at 2% or less of the total flow will
have little impact on the treatment processes.
The advantages of treating septage in a WWTP are that:
• Septage is diluted with wastewater and easily treated
• Few aesthetic problems are associated with this type of
septage handling
• Skilled personnel are present at the plant site.
The disadvantages of septage disposal at a WWTP are that:
• A shock effect can occur in the unit processes of the WWTP
if septage is not properly entered into the wastewater flow
• The waste should undergo separation, degritting, and equili-
zation before treatment, hence requiring additional equip-
ment and facilities.
A detailed cost-effectiveness analysis for septage and holding tank
wastes treatment and disposal was not performed for this study. It is assumed
that the septage would be pumped by commercial haulers under contract to the
central management authority and would be disposed of in a manner consistent
with present disposal practices (Section 2.1.5.). The cost of disposal is
incii-'ided in the operation and maintenance of the septic and holding tanks.
2-56
-------
2.2.3. Centralized Collection System Alternatives
Three centralized collection system alternatives are considered in this
document. They are:
• Alternative Cl - conventional gravity, pumping stations, and
forcemains collection sewer system
• Alternative C2 - septic tank effluent pumps and pressure sewers
with some gravity sewer system
• Alternative C3 - septic tank effluent small diameter gravity
sewer system.
It is assumed in the case of collection system alternatives that Sister
Lakes and Indian Lake areas would be served by separate WWTPs. The general
layout of the sewer system outlined in the Facilities Plan (Gove Associates,
Inc. 1980) was used. The design of the sewers is based on the year-2000
population (Section 3.2.1.3). The layout and sizes of the sewer system are
shown in Figure 2-8 and Figure 2-9 for Alternatives Cl and C2, respectively.
The layout of the sewer system for Alternative C3 is similar to Alternative
Cl.
A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for the three centralized
collection system alternatives. All cost data were based on June 1980 price
levels. The detailed cost estimate for each alternative considered includes
the costs for construction of the sewer system, the estimated salvage value
after 20 years of use, and the estimated average annual operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs. A detailed cost estimate for the various components
of the three alternatives considered is presented in Appendix D. A cost
comparison of the centralized collection sewer system alternatives is pre-
sented in Table 2-8. The total present worth was estimated to be $25,041,400
for Alternative Cl, $19,995,900 for Alternative C2, and $24,321,400 for Alter-
native C3.
Based on the cost-effectiveness analysis presented in Table 2-8, it can
be concluded that a collection sewer system with septic tank effluent pumps
and pressure sewers with some gravity sewers is the most cost-effective alter-
native. Therefore, the septic tank effluent pumps and pressure sewers with
some gravity sewers system alternative (Alternative C2) can be used in all
2-57
-------
^
~
o
CO *
CO «
> I
'H £
*» i.
C
M
01
r-l
CO
i
4-1
cn
^
CO
C
o
"e
,2
*?
CN — • CN
Si ~ ~ ~.
J] (^ 1 ^
cn
u £
Zt
\L
n m —
(M — (M
I CO \«O
J • '
— CN
CO —
—4
•2 s
— o
c
^ r^ f*.
u"i * •
9* r^. -^
•— O lA
CO 00
CM » *
— • —
c
o
1- ^
2 -j
3 -
U, C
S
~i ~*
Q 3
— ^ *j
SI
co y» ^
o* m e*
m \o "^
" * «r
CO ^ 'O
5 ^ N
-ff- 00 -»
u
CO
b X
CO C
-H eg
a E
O 01
•H U
i> c c
> o *•
H >
•< c -o
c O =
- W CO
•4
11 1
•J
c ^
o
ff\
1-1
o
0
2
U
s
CO
*•
1 2
SO
99
C. CU
= E
iS
= f
CU -4
,•4
OJ 01
3
j: o
C CO
CO
U
U 3 B
^^ CO CU
U 0) U
£. eu «
V 1~ X
W £. to
1
^J
CJ
°^
CO
in
cn
2,°
01
3
«
CD
>v
CO
00
C
3
01
y
CO
U S
•M 11
4J 4J
2. D
IV >\
CO CD
1
<1
y
CO
IV
CO
01
CO
J
c
•H
•a
f
•o
e
CO
3
01
0)
00
U
o
w
C_l
I
01
CO
U
CO
a.
CO
5
73
01
CO
a
41
Ui
CO
cu
4J
CO
c
1*
41
^4
c
1^
*•
CO
11
a
w
C
3
0
CJ
CO
•o
CO
m
I
u
a
CO
o
01
o
(N
U
0
3
C.
5
CO
^4
4^
Ul
s
c
CC
cu
U
a-
J
2-60
-------
the system alternatives except Alternative 5B. Alternative 5B includes the
conventional gravity, pumping station, and force mains collection sewer system
(Alternative Cl), so that this alternative is similar to the recommended
alternative in the Facilities Plan (Gove Associates, Inc. 1980).
2.2.4. Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternatives
Different types of wastewater treatment plant alternatives were con-
sidered in the Facilities Plan (Gove Associates, Inc. 1980). The cost-
effectiveness analysis included in the Facilities Plan showed that in most of
the cases studied (regional and/or subregional WWTP) the three most cost-
effective treatment system alternatives are:
• Waste stabilization ponds
• Aerated lagoons with storage ponds
• Oxidation ditch and sludge drying beds with storage ponds.
A screening analysis for these three alternatives was performed for this
study. These three alternatives were compared for three sets of conditions.
They are:
• A separate WWTP for the Indian Lake area
• A separate WWTP for the Sister Lakes area
• A regional WWTP for combined Indian Lake and Sister Lakes area.
The design factors and effluent requirements used in the analysis are given in
Section 2.2.1.
A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed among the three treatment
system alternatives for the three sets of conditions mentioned above. All
cost data were based on June 1980 price levels. A detailed cost estimate for
the various components of the three alternatives considered for the three sets
of conditions is presented in Appendix D. A cost comparison of the centra-
lized WWTP alternatives is presented in Table 2-9. Based on the present worth
analysis, it can be concluded that the waste stabilization ponds WWTP is the
2-61
-------
co
co
>
•H
4J
CO
ti
0)
u
,-H
ta
*~x
CL.
g
^-^
u
£
CO
iH
CX
4J
C
a)
S
4J
0)
n
4J
p
O
3
C
gj
a
9>
u
CU
91
oo
5
CO
S
O
«H
CO
4J
-H
Q.
c5
GO
•H
(fl
JJ
O
-/
cn
4J
CD
«S
rv
CM
»
u
ON
rH
O
fH
m
i4
CN
(-4
CO
CO
•*^
vO
2
en
*n
^o
m
vfl
r*.
CO
iH
S-*
00
t-H
«•*•
-*
S
ON
cn
tH
*H
t-t
CO
fN
-o
CO
4J in o f**
2 «g
3 "3 O
a) o u
ij
CM cn 2
cn
Cfl
3
c
"° -2
co H
M • o jj
•H s-^ 3 «
i-H to £ £
cd M n
M CO g
•U iH u
r*. ^H »*•.
cs r^ cs
Sin *n
r*» o
•
«-t
C iH
co o
O T3
>w IH
O O
CO 0]
u -a
CO C
O cfl
O CO
3
T3 O
a) J=
4J 4J
S (-
•H -H
J-J
CO -
cu co
4J
r-l CO
i-l Q
n) cj
iw O
o oo
o>
>«H
V
23 co
Cfl ^
»
CTi
1 ?
(N -i
CJ g
I— 1 U
-^ 2
ca -H
H <
CM Cu
C ^*
5 S
CD CO
11
o. a. o.
3 00 00
CO 10
•a o o
c u u
O DO 0)
-C i£
C JJ 4J
O -H -H
•H 9 *
IJ
co eo .c
N C U
•H O ^
i-t o ** «
fl -H co-c cy
0) J3 « U
•<; tj o
w *o -H n
iJJ iJJ 4_| HJ
JK: a; o tt j*
rt jj oj 13 co
— 03 \4 -H J
fl) 0) X
C 3 < O u
eg GJ
•Q «_t
•**4 co
C -H
1-4 W
cn co cn
^r r- o
rH
CM cn CM
ssS
• * «
rt »-( CN
0- EU
H H
2 2
0) 0)
•o -a
e c
o o
a. c- a.
5 gj OJ
2 OC QO
eg co
T3 o O
O 01 00
£ £
e u u
O -H -H
•^ * >
u
CO 03 X
N c a
•H O *J
f-4 O ^
•H oo-a
td — i e
u o
to -O -H
9) u
9) 4J tfl
U CO T3
CO U -H
CO 91 X
2 < 0
m iH r».
a? r» rC
-tr 03 cv
r-t
-» i-( fM
*O •* 00
IN CN CS
"
^J
ca
?
^.J
to
CD
o
.a to
CO rH S
u 0
M -O — 1
91 u
u tj ra
ij CO T3
to M -H
CO IJ X
3 < O
V
u
u
AJ
§
0
CJ
CO
•^
•a
>«*
00
•^*
Ml
1
r*»
Q
CO
h
OJ
cu
X
S
u
o
>M
•o
91
3
a.
S
o
CJ
03
•H
f.
u
u
i
4J
c
0)
CO
at
a-
to
2-62
-------
most cost-effective treatment alternatives under all three sets of conditions.
Therefore, waste stabilization ponds WWTP is used in the system alternatives
described in Section 2.3.
2.3. System Alternatives
Feasible and compatible sets of component options were combined into
system alternatives. The system alternatives represent combinations of con-
veyance options for various wastewater flows, different treatment processes,
siting options, effluent disposal options, sludge processing and disposal
options, and on-site system options. The alternatives include no action,
independent treatment systems for Indian Lake and Sister Lakes, regional
treatment systems serving both Indian Lake and Sister Lakes, treatment at the
existing Dowagiac WWTP, and on-site systems. Nine potential wastewater treat-
ment alternatives were developed and evaluated for technical feasibility,
cost-effectiveness, and environmental concerns. These alternatives, including
the No Action Alternative, and costs associated with each one are described in
the following sections. All cost data are based on June 1981 price levels.
2.3.1. Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
The EIS process must evaluate the consequences of not taking action. The
No Action Alternative implies that neither USEPA nor FmHA would provide funds
to build, upgrade, or expand existing wastewater treatment systems. Waste-
water would be treated in existing on-site systems and no new facility would
be built except to replace obviously failed systems. This report assumes,
however, that the county health departments would assume responsibility for
upgrading existing systems that fail.
The need for improved wastewater management around Indian Lake and Sister
Lakes is not well documented. The number of on-site systems experiencing
serious or recurrent malfunctions is small. The impacts of individual on-site
systems on the water quality of lakes are variable, but, taken together, the
systems have not been shown to adversely affect the lakes.
2-63
-------
With the No Action Alternative, health authorities will continue to have
inadequate information with which to design on-site system repairs appropriate
to the problems and their causes. They are unlikely to have the time, per-
sonnel, or monitoring capabilities to be able to specify innovative attempts
to solve the problems. The result will be increasing numbers of holding tanks
on small lots and on lots with high groundwater.
If a No Action Alternative is implemented, existing on-site systems in
the study area would continue to be used in their present conditions. Also,
failure to correct the present situation would represent a disregard of not
only the natural environment, but of the spirit and intent of Public Law
92-500.
2.3.2. Alternative 2 - Pressure Collection Sewers and Separate WWTPs for
the Sister Lakes and Indian Lake Areas with Discharge to Surface
Waters
This alternative consists of a centralized collection sewer system and
separate WWTPs for the Sister Lakes and Indian Lake areas. The cost-effective
collection system alternative (Alternative C2, Section 2.2.'3.) that includes
pressure sewers with some gravity sewers is incorporated into this alternative
(Figure 2-9).
Both the WWTPs would include waste stabilization ponds with storage
lagoons. A storage capacity of 9.5 months at design flow is provided at both
WWTPs. The WWTP for the Sister Lakes area would be located in Section 11 of
Silver Creek Township with discharge to Silver Creek. The WWTP for the Indian
Lake area would be in Sections 29 and 32 of Silver Creek Township with dis-
charge to the Indian Lake Outlet. The approximate locations of the conveyance
sewers (interceptor sewer), WWTPs, and the outfall sewers for the both pro-
posed systems are shown in Figure 2-10.
This alternative has estimated present worth costs of $19,995,900 for the
collection systems, $1,905,400 for conveyance systems, and $3,532,900 for
treatment plants. The total present worth for this alternative was estimated
to be $25,434,200. The detailed cost estimates for the collection sewer
systems, conveyance sewers, and the WWTPs are presented in Appendix D.
2-64
-------
• LIFT STATION
_»_ FORCE MAIN
TRANSMISSION LINE
—>- OUTFALL
Figure 2-10. Alternative 2-Pressure collection sewers and separate WWTPs for
Sister Lakes and Indian Lake areas with discharge to surface waters.
2-65
/
the
-------
2.3.3. Alternative 3 - Pressure Collection Sewers and Regional Treatment and
Land Treatment System
This alternative consists of a centralized collection sewer system with a
regional pretreatment facility and land application site located in Section 8
of Silver Creek Township that would serve both the Indian Lake and Sister
Lakes areas (Figure 2-11). The centralized collection sewer system consists
of pressure sewers with some gravity sewers (Alternative C2, Section 2.2.3),
as shown in Figure 2-9. The wastewater from both the Indian Lake and the
Sister Lakes areas would be pumped through conveyance sewers to the pretreat-
ment facilities. A waste stabilization pond system would be used for pre-
treatment.
The effluent from the waste stabilization ponds would be sprayed on the
land with center pivot systems. At an application rate of 2.0 inches per week
and a 6 months per year application period, approximately 130 acres of land
would be required for the land application site. A total of 255 acres would
be needed for the land application site, the waste stabilization ponds, road-
ways, and a buffer zone» It was assumed that the land application site would
be leased for crop production during the growing season.
The alternative has an estimated present worth cost of $19,995,900 for
the collection systems, $1,667,500 for the conveyance systems, and $3,703,200
for a regional treatment and land application system. The total present worth
for this alternative was estimated to be $25,366,600. The detailed cost
estimates for different components of this alternative are presented in
Appendix D.
2.3.4. Alternative 4 - Presure Collection Sewers and Regional WWTP located in
Section 11
This alternative consists of a centralized collection sewer system and a
regional WWTP serving both the Indian Lake and Sister Lakes area. The cen-
tralized collection sewer system consists of pressure sewers with some gravity
sewers (Alternative C2, Section 2.2.3.), as shown in Figure 2-9. The regional
WWTP would include biological treatment using waste stabilization ponds. The
stabilization ponds and the additional storage lagoons would provide storage
capacity for 2.5 months. The regional WWTP would be located in Section 11 of
the Silver Creek Township. The treated wastewater would be discharged to
2-66
-------
_;••) ;\ ./••. :.j_.>^j^**s^x
:-•"-*«. ^-r^T^P ^j5"^*^;~"*~xTr~7^ ^
_~T,_ <^--, 1 ,» \. -, •- '< '^: _ <-r „._ '^ ..,.
FORCE MAIN
TRANSMISSION LINE
PROPOSED
TREATMENT PLANT
Ffgure 2-11.r Alternative 3-^ressure collection sewers and regional treatment
land treatment system.
2-67
and
-------
Silver Creek from 1 March through 15 May of each year. The approximate loca-
tion of the conveyance sewers, regional WWTP, and the outfall sewer to Silver
Creek is shown in Figure 2-12.
This alternative would have an estimated present worth cost of
$19,995,900 for the collection sewer systems, $2,963,800 for the conveyance
systems, and $2,819,700 for a regional WWTP. The total present worth for this
alternative was estimated to be $25,779,400. The detailed cost estimates for
the collection sewer systems, conveyance sewers, and the regional WWTP are
presented in Appendix D.
2.3.5. Alternative 5A - Pressure Collection Sewers and a Regional WWTP
Located in Sections 29 and 32
This alternative is similiar to Alternative 4 except the regional WWTP
would be located in Sections 29 and 32 of Silver Creek Township and the
treated wastewater would be discharged to the Indian Lake Outlet from 1 March
through 15 May of every year. The approximate locations of the conveyance
sewers, regional WWTP, and the outfall sewer to the Indian Lake Outlet are
shown in Figure 2-13.
This alternative would have an estimated present worth cost of
$19,995,900 for the collection sewer systems, $2,018,500 for the conveyance
systems, and $2,819,700 for a regional WWTP. The total present worth for this
alternative was estimated to be $24,834,100. The detailed cost estimates for
the components of this alternative are presented in Appendix D.
2.3.6. Alternative 5B - Gravity Collection Sewers and a Regional WWTP
Located in Sections 29 and 32
This alternative is similar to Alternative 5A except that a conventional
gravity collection sewer system (Alternative Cl Section 2.2.3.) replaces the
pressure collection sewer system (Alternative C2, Section 2.2.3.). This
alternative resembles the alternative proposed in the Facilities Plan (Gove
Associates, Inc. 1980). The layout of the collection sewer system included in
2-68
-------
..,;.:^
FORCE MAIN
TRANSMISSION LINE
—5— OUTFALL
D PROPOSED
TREATMENT PLANT
. , '; ^ .-. -
Figura"2r-J2. Alternative 4-^ressure collection sewers and regional WWTP
located in Section 1 1.
2-69
-------
I • i " ••"' '>' N t '•'•>, ; • f ' ~ '" '/
2-13. Alternative 5Af-Fressure collection sewers and Alternative SB-Gravity
collection sewers and regional WWTP located in Sections 29 and 32.
2-70
-------
this alternative is shown in Figure 2-8. The approximate locations of the
/
conveyance sewers, regional WWTP, and the outfall sewer to the Indian Lake
Outlet are shown in Figure 2-13.
This alternative would have an estimated present worth cost of
$26,342,600 for the collection sewer systems, $2,018,500 for the conveyance
systems, and $2,819,700 for a. regional WWTP. The total present worth for this
alternative was estimated to be $31,180,800. The detailed cost estimates for
the collection sewer systems, conveyance sewers, and the WWTPs are presented
in Appendix D.
2.3.7. Alternative 6 - Pressure Collection Sewers and Existing Dowagiac WWTP
for Indian Lake and new WWTP for Sister Lakes
This alternative consists of centralized collection sewer systems, con-
struction of a WWTP for the Sister Lakes area in Section 11 of Silver Creek
Township, and treatment of wastewater from Indian Lake area at the existing
Dowagiac WWTP. The centralized collection sewer system consists of pressure
sewers with some gravity sewers (Alternative C2, Section 2.2.3.) as shown in
Figure 2-9. The approximate layout of the conveyance sewers, WWTP for Sister
Lakes and the location of the existing Dowagiac WWTP is shown in Figure 2-14.
The new WWTP in Silver Creek Township would include waste stabilization
ponds, with additional storage lagoons. A total storage capacity of 9.5
months is provided at design flow. The treated effluent would be discharged
to Silver Creek from 1 March to 15 May of each year.
The wastewater from Indian Lake area would be pumped through conveyance
sewers for treatment at the existing Dowagiac WWTP. The user charges and the
other fees for hook ups to the existing Dowagiac WWTP were provided by the
City of Dowagiac in a letter dated 19 January 1982 (Appendix E).
This alternative would have an estimated present worth cost of
$19,995,900 for the collection sewer systems, $2,259,000 for the conveyance
systems, and $2,949,300 for the treatment systems. The total present worth
for this alternative was estimated to be $25,204,200. The detailed cost
estimates for the components of this alternative are presented in Appendix D.
2-71
-------
.
-. jU-' - .'..-- :<± -"- .,-.-
' • • - "--*
i" » FORCE MAIN
TRANSMISSION LINE
—3 OUTFALL
D PROPOSED
TREATMENT PLANT
i""~) TREATMENT PLANT
i_J
-~T"£fi.+,—
. , }.v """••"•
:— [' :v,
• I 1 ' ^ 1 -'
t
• ' -i~ Vf*l
• i - ""• >'-
i '_,,'
i ~
'r'-'.'.-f1 ^ --:;"- ^
^r-i i , . . . ' U
]J>^^^ - - 1 ' """
* * ' _ "*'
r '^' - ' , '*"
i , ' , " "***
Figure-2r-,14. Alternative e-Wessure collection sewers and existing bowaglac WWTP
for Indian Lake and a new WWTP for Sister Lakes. _-,
-------
2.3.8. Alternative 7 - Pressure Collection Sewers and Existing Dowagiac WWTP
This alternative is similar to Alternative 6 except that wastewater from
both the Indian Lake and the Sister Lakes areas would be treated at the exist-
ing Dowagiac WWTP. The layout of the collection system is shown in Figure
2-9. The approximate layout of the conveyance sewers from the Sister Lakes
area to the Indian Lake area and the Indian Lake area to the existing Dowagiac
WWTP and the location of the existing Dowagiac WWTP are shown in Figure 2-15.
This alternative would have an estimated present worth cost of
$19,995,900 for the collection sewer systems, $3,449,600 for the conveyance
system, and $2,676,500 for the treatment system. The total present worth for
this alternative was estimated to be $26,122,000. The detailed cost estimates
for the components of this alternative are presented in Appendix D.
2.3.9. Alternative 8A - On-site Systems Upgrading and Critical Areas Septic
Tank Effluent Collected by Pressure Sewers and Conveyed to Cluster
Drain Fields
Under this alternative collection of septic tank effluent would be
collected from the critical areas by pressure sewers for treatment in cluster
drain fields. All other residences would continue to rely on septic tanks and
soil absorption systems, many of which would be upgraded. The layout of the
collection sewers and the tentative locations of the cluster drain fields are
shown in Figure 2-16. The critical areas that are presumed to need off-site
treatment are subject to redefinition during further field investigations.
The number and type of upgraded on—site systems estimated for this alternative
and the conceptual approach by which they were estimated are presented in
Appendix C.
2-73
-------
••- • ; *-' '"•• -t_a**'< ' S ' -I -» •— ** *t_ ~ " jk_ --•-'---"/--•• r •^ -" • • J % "
- "• f •*- - . ' -* »to"' ' ' -.'- r>^-i r t T "^•j./V1'"^ L.' ' \ -T^ ^d^yo- ~'~^ ..- f -» -—^- ' / -, s
f ' r ."""," *•*"• 'n* ' J .Y**"1" '.f-X ti"** * " '(•*" ''"•' ' "^";. (* ' ^r ••- M "-•*"•"•" =t«\J^*T |^***^'- ' ,„-/.'V* •( " CAS^tty
1 • " '.-*"' s" KiL ^ —'^'^- » •_inri|iVr'J!nl •tttr*li3./'t?^ '--.""--J " K. v ; J ' ,
i ,--- ' .- _ -, , v ,' ^r. L I • *.--,-,' ^ ^ ^.^.^ ,,'r^^i^jS* -v_^,"';''";£jj y ^ M*fl'.°!,y L"h" , - _ ' , .T' - — *•-,*•-.
! " '_ Qi.1" ;/' ^ . -v-'i • vt" "I
V*
;:' t*«(fc«x' *-'« 'r"">
i|5 I*c' '
'-—w*-—^"- v'(t*-».-i .
i \ ;,
i"^^.^"^;^" ."S""
«r-
_ _ !*-.~;"^:. ^ > :--; i
- --f- . - '.-. '* > ^ , v i
t
•*.-.. •;- k j^ i
1* • '— i* -' •• '
—••• -i . . J, -7. < -i_y •'- t
E ., i . {- ; \f-~-;-' d*" ' •• t -A
:," ;. "' " ''^i *".*"" ~" A1""-"" i "">«...
* /! ,'4.^- •. --r '
jj-. "'V . 1^ IT •^^-'
i ."
,ȣ?'"
.v-
^ >
^
^L.
^u._Xf -
' ' - ~l _ -^ ~ .,
I
i -
I
i-^"-.;r
•- I
- • •' 'I
•*• I
LEGEND
• LIFT STATION
» FORCE MAIN
TRANSMISSION LINE
! j TREATMENT PLANT
not to Bolt ^nff
t
I
I' ,
t '
I
I
. I
f
r' ; -•••o--
» ' ^-;-,v^
;; : ' -• i ' .'••
•• Ja,
. ' . ~.! 1<"~"*"'/ ,,'V^
"V*W" " ' •'--?.- ,;, ^-^f-v' - '," -". -" . . '- ' ' • :;:-"
" j;.7"":"" "-"^"" i;"---'\ 'f "-*•'; -' "* • " "^ ' - - • -• /
Figure 2-is. Alternative 7-Pressure collection sewers and existing Dowagiac WWTP.
2-74
-------
The cluster systems would consist of septic tank effluent pumps and
pressure sewers for collection, a dosing pump station (at all but the small
cluster drain fields), and three alternating fields at the cluster drain field
site. Two fields could be used alternately during any one year; the other
field would be rested for a year.
This alternative has an estimated present worth cost of $11,685,000 for
the upgrading of existing on-site systems, future on-site systems, collection
and conveyance of wastewater for critical areas with treatment provided at
cluster drain fields, and $1,075,000 for administration and laboratory analy-
ses. The total present worth for this alternative was estimated to be
$12,760,000. The detailed cost estimates for the components of this alterna-
tive are presented in Appendix D.
2.3.10. Alternative 8B - On-site Systems Upgrading and Critical Areas Septic
Tank Effluent Collected by Small Diameter Gravity Sewers and Conveyed
to Cluster Drain Fields
Under this alternative septic tank effluent would be collected by small-
diameter gravity sewers from the critical areas that are identified in Alter-
native 8A and treated in cluster drain fields. All other residences would
continue to rely on existing and upgraded septic tanks and soil absorption
systems (Appendix C) identical to the systems estimated in Alternative 8A.
The layout of the collection sewers and the tentative locations of the cluster
drain fields are similar to those shown in Figure 2-16. The gravity sewers
require the use of pump stations at the low points in the area served and
force mains to the cluster drain field sites. The critical areas are subject
to change upon further information.
The cluster systems would consist of septic tank effluent gravity sewers,
pump stations and force mains for collection, and alternating valves and three
alternating fields at the cluster drain field site. One field would be rested
for a year while the other two would be used on an alternate basis.
This alternative has an estimated present worth cost of $11,307,500 for
upgrading existing on-site systems, future on-site systems, collection and
conveyance of wastewater from critical areas with treatment provided at clus-
2-76
-------
ter drain fields and $1,075,000 for administration and laboratory analyses.
The total present worth for this alternative was estimated to be $12,382,500.
The detailed cost estimates for the components of this alternative are pre-
sented in Appendix D.
2.3.11. Alternative 9 - On-site Systems Upgrading and Blackwater Holding
Tanks
This alternative consists of selectively upgrading the existing on-site
systems and future on-site systems. For residences where the on-site system
cannot be upgraded because of site limitations, the graywater and blackwater
will be separated. Graywater would continue to be treated in the existing
septic tank and soil absorption system that may be upgraded. The blackwater
components would include a new low-flow toilet and a holding tank. Quantities
and type of initial and future systems to be upgraded are included in Appendix
C. In addition, the conceptual approach by which the systems were estimated
is presented in Appendix C. The numbers and types of upgraded systems are
subject to redefinition after further field investigations.
This alternative has an estimated present worth cost of $5,497,900 for
upgrading of existing on-site systems, future on-si.te systems, and blackwater
holding tanks, and $1,075,000 for administration and laboratory analyses. The
total present worth for this alternative was estimated to be $6,572,900. The
detailed cost estimates for the components of this alternative are presented
in Appendix D.
2.4. Flexibility and Reliability of System Alternatives
2.4.1. Flexibility
Flexibility measures the ability of a system to accommodate future growth
and depends on the ease with which an existing system can be upgraded or modi-
fied. The majority of the system alternatives considered in this report
include centralized collection sewer systems, wastewater treatment plant, the
"cluster" systems, and various on-site systems. Since most of the components
are found in a majority of the alternatives, the following evaluation is
generally applicable to most of the alternatives unless otherwise stated in
the discussion.
2-77
-------
For gravity and pressure sewer systems, the flexibility to handle future
increases in flows greater than the original design flow is generally low.
The interceptor sewers are generally designed for capacity beyond the planning
period. The increase in capacity of collector sewers is a somewhat expensive
process. Also, the layout of the system depends upon the location of the
treatment facility. The expansion of a sewer system is generally easy with
the addition of new sewers, but is expensive.
The ability to expand a conventional WWTP depends largely upon the pro-
cesses being used, the layout of the facilities, and the availability of
additional land for expansion. The expansion or upgrading of most of the
treatment processes considered in the proposed WWTPs is relatively easy. With
proper design of process components of the treatment plant and proper planning
of the facility layout, the cost and effort required for expansion may be
relatively small. Most conventional treatment processes also have good opera-
tional flexibility because operators can, to some extent, vary treatment
parameters.
On-site systems are flexible in that they are generally designed for each
user. As long as spatial and environmental parameters are met, the type of
system can be chosen according to individual, requirements. Existing septic
systems can be expanded by adding tank and drain field capacity, if suitable
land is available. Flow can then be distributed to an added system with
little disturbance of the existing one. In the case of raised drain bed
systems, the future expansion may be difficult or impossible. Cluster systems
treat wastewater from more than one house. The flexibility for design and
expansion of such a system is somewhat less than for a standard septic system.
Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that the majority of
the alternatives considered in this report generally have similar flexibility
for future growth and/or planning.
2.4.2. Reliability
Reliability measures the ability of a system or system components to
operate without failure at its designed level of efficiency. It is parti-
2-78
-------
cularly important to have dependable operation in situations where adverse
environmental or economic impacts may result from failure of the system.
The gravity sewer is highly reliable when designed properly. Such sys-
tems require little maintenance, consume no energy, and have no mechanical
components to malfunction. Gravity sewer problems can include clogged pipes
that result in sewer backups; infiltration/inflow which increases the volume
of flow beyond the design level; and broken or misaligned pipes,, Major con-
tributors to these problems are improperly jointed pipes and damage to man-
holes, especially where they are not located in paved roads. Where large
sewers are used in order to achieve lower pipe slopes, problems with solids
deposition can mean that frequent flushing with large volumes of water will be
necessary.
Pump stations and force mains increase operation and maintenance require-
ments and decrease the system reliability. Backup pumps are installed in
order to provide service in case one pump fails and a backup power source is
usually provided, either dual power lines, or stationary or portable emergency
generators. Force mains are generally reliable; excessive solids deposition
and burst pipes occur rarely. Leaking joints occur more frequently and can
cause environmental damage.
Septic tank effluent pumps and pressure sewers generally are reliable
means of conveying effluent to treatment. Because the solids have been re-
moved in the septic tank, problems associated with solids deposition are
avoided. The pump units themselves have been shown to be reliable; when
failure or power outages do occur, storage of approximately 1.5 day's sewage
volume in the pump chamber and septic tank permits replacements to be made
before backups occur. The pressure sewers themselves should be even more
reliable than force mains because the pumped liquid is clear.
Federal Guidelines for Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Wastewater
Treatment Facilities (Federal Water Quality Administration 1970) require that:
All water pollution control facilities should be planned and
designed so as to provide for maximum reliability at all times.
The facilities should be capable of operating satisfactorily
during power failures, flooding, peak loads, equipment failure,
and maintenance shutdowns.
2-79
-------
The wastewater control system design for the study area will consider the
following types of factors to insure system reliability:
• Duplicate sources of electric power
• Standby power for essential plant elements
• Multiple units and equipment to provide maximum flexibility
in operation
• Replacement parts readily available
• Holding tanks or basins to provide for emergency storage of
overflow and adequate pump-back facilities
• Flexibility of piping and pumping facilities to permit
rerouting of flows under emergency conditions
• Provision for emergency storage or disposal of sludge
• Dual chlorination units
• Automatic controls to regulate and record chlorine residuals
• Automatic alarm systems to warn of high water, power fail-
ure, or equipment malfunction
• No treatment plant bypasses or upstream bypasses
• Design of interceptor sewers to permit emergency storage
without causing backups
• Enforcement of pretreatment regulations to avoid industrial
waste-induced treatment upsets
• Floodproofing of treatment plant
• Plant Operations and Maintenance Manual to have a section on
emergency operation procedures
• Use of qualified plant operators.
The wastewater treatment portion of the centralized collection and treat-
ment alternatives (Alternatives 2-7) would be highly reliable if these
measures were incorporated. The collection systems are less reliable because
so many pump stations are required. If dual power lines from separate sub-
stations can be extended to every pump station (an expensive proposition) , a
reasonable level of reliability can be attained. Supplying auxiliary power
units for each pump station is not feasible. A failure of a pump station
2-80
-------
would likely result In raw sewage or septic tank effluent being discharged
into one of the lakes. Because as many as nine pump stations must operate in
series, a failure of one would likely result in spillage into a lake.
The on-site systems are generally a reliable means of treating and dis-
posing of wastewater. Except with certain systems, they operate with no power
inputs and little attention. When failures do occur, the impact to the en-
vironment is small and diffuse. Total failures rarely occur in which no
treatment at all takes place.
Septic tanks provide reliable treatment when they are properly designed
and maintained. The principal maintenance requirement is periodic pumping of
the tank, usually every 3 to 5 years. The treatment process can be harmed if
large quantities of strong chemicals are flushed into the tank.
Soil absorption systems generally provide excellent treatment if the
design and installation are accomplished properly and the soil conditions are
suitable. Other key factors in the successful operation of soil absorption
systems are proper functioning of the septic tank or other treatment unit and
observance of reasonable water conservation practices consistent with the
design flows. Soil absorption systems can malfunction when extended wet
weather results in saturation of the soil, when solids carryover plugs the
drain bed, and when compaction of the soil surface results In restricted
permeability. Raised drain bed soil absorption systems are more reliable than
drain bed systems where water tables are high because the potential ground-
water problems are minimized. They do require an effluent pump, though, and
rely on a dependable power supply. The septic tank and pump chamber generally
can hold approximately 1.5 days of storage, which is probably longer than the
average power outage. \ malfunctioning pump can be replaced readily if the
units are standardized. The cost of a raised drain bed system is about two
times that of a drain bed system; thus, it would be utilized only where a
drain bed system has failed or has little chance of operating properly. The
average design life of soil absorption systems is greater than 20 years; some
could be expected to fail earlier. Some soil absorption systems could be
expected to last indefinitely, as long as the system is not overloaded with
water or solids.
2-81
-------
Cluster systems serve a group of houses with components similar to a
septic tank-soil absorption system. The individual septic tanks would operate
at similar levels of reliability. The septic tank effluent sewers are exposed
to hazards of breakage and to plugging due to cleanout failure similar to
gravity sewers. Sewage solid accumulations in the sewers does not occur when
the septic tanks are maintained properly. The pump station that doses the
drain fields may not operate properly due to mechanical failure or power
interruption. An effluent spill may occur at that time. The soil absorption
system should be sited on permeable soils that have a water table always
greater than six-foot depth. The operation of the drain field should be more
reliable than an individual on-site soil absorption system because of pressure
distribution by dosing and because of the optimum location.
2.5. Comparison of Alternatives and Selection of the Recommended Action
The selection of the most cost-effective, environmentally acceptable, and
implementable alternative(s) through the EIS process involved the considera-
tion of technical feasibility, reliability, costs, environmental effects,
public desirability, and the ability to comply with the applicable design and
effluent discharge standards for the State of Michigan. Selection of the most
cost-effective alternative also required identification of trade-offs between
costs and other relevant criteria.
2.5.1. Comparison of Alternatives
2.5.1.1. Project Costs
Project costs were categorized into capital expenses, operative and
maintenance (O&M) expenses, and salvage values for the equipment and
structures for each alternative. The costs for the collection, conveyance,
and treatment systems for each alternative were estimated separately. A
summary of the estimated costs of project alternatives are displayed in Table
2-10. Appendix D contains a description of the methodology and assumptions
used in the analyses as well as the detailed costs for each alternative. The
capital cost for the selected alternative would be shared by the Federal
government through the Federal Construction Grant Program (75% of conventional
2-82
-------
SB
U
4> *H
in *c en
ON GC v0
.0
O
00
*H
o
03
rH
O
9 f
•»
I
IM
•s
H
1 1
« §
•"i3
C TJ
0) rH
3 (U
CO
CO
Ui
0
o
CO •*->
CU ,.
5 u
M »*•
J3
"d "3
OJ rH
«-3
O GO
^
of 3
01 0
M -H
•tf CJ
c: u
* ca
cu
3f *O
to
§y
•N.3
y a
01 01
"o x
U CO
V rH
3 CO
CO O
tO Q.
cu to
U iH
Cw -O
CU
flj
y
o
cu
a
Q
00
TJ Jrt
C 01
to cu
0) U
2 cu
tu >
CD rH
•H
C V5
O
•-« o
CJ
01 o>
rH 00
0 CD
U A
U
01 (A
3 TJ
to
CO J=
tx. >
•u
a
g
i— 1 4J
CU
CU rH
i 3
5 o
rH CU
B <5
O -)
00 C
CU (0
•o
15
« 0
tO 4-1
U
3 00
01 k<
.J
c u
0 CO
U "3
y
U £.
S »
CM
3 -a
CO A
CO (0
41
0, CN
•H
0)
(0
y
O u
rH 41
5 o
Ol
C -J
0
ffl
u *a
c
1 0
4J
09
u cu
0> 00
OK (0
to £.
y
§^
•H *O
y J!
0) U
o
y (N
•-H C
> «
CJ OJ
§2
5 cn
u c
00 -O
JCO
y
O
I"
•H (Q
M J
CU
•a a> ji
C *J CU
to tn cu
-4 U
co to U
u,
tu u w
a o 4i
CO rH
O- H
O 3
U T3
41 S 41
^H <0 00
y J* f
09 y
at pj to
U -rd
3 e -o
ca ra
« -H JS
0) -0 w
U C -H
CU rH 3
s
y
to
CO
(8
00
c
•H
CD
-H
OJ
"c
to
to
p
1)
09
%
O
a>
1-1
S
CD
LI
CO
01
u
a-
CO
cu
(J 4-1
••H 0)
U 3
tu y
0)
0
tfl 4-)
U -O
at v
X
11
••H O
U TJ
y c
0
C CO
CO Ui
C 41
-i-t CO
•D
eg oj
00 3
a. ta
3 W
41
§U
0.
0)
09 A
ffl T3
01
CU u
U y
fl 01
tO <-H
y ta
•g 00
e
(Q U
0!
CO *J
C cu
^ to
to — i
U TJ
00 CO
Q.^H -CJ
CB OJ
CC g 09
X )M
CO TJ -3
41
at jj 1-1
•LI y cu
C O r-l
O y u
to
e
a
00
3
a
Q
c
(0
u
00
a
3
to
S
0)
ca
CO
cu
•H
n
i
§
O J-»
4J DO
(Q -H
-H O
•o »
44 01 CO O
U iH «M
CO to B
*•* X «r^ W
3 -H 3 3 <
rH y -H fH
y y y U
= =^.g
2-83
-------
systems or 85% of innovative and alternative wastewater collection and treat-
ment systems) and by local participants. Annual O&M costs would be financed
entirely by the local users of the system.
The system alternatives are grouped into four categories — centralized
collection and treatment systems that will discharge to surface water (Alter-
natives 2, 4, 5A, 5B, 6, and 7), centralized collection and treatment system
with land disposal system (Alternative 3); upgraded on-site systems and ser-
vice of certain critical areas with off-site treatment systems (Alternatives
8A and 8B); and upgraded on-site systems and blackwater holding tanks (Alter-
native 9). Based on total present worth cost, upgraded on-site systems and
blackwater holding tanks (Alternative 9) is the lowest cost alternative.
Alternatives 8A and 8B which include upgraded on-site systems and service of
certain critical areas with off-site treatment systems, are ranked third and
second respectively, on the basis of total present worth. The other alterna-
tives, including the centralized collection and treatment systems, are ranked
fourth through tenth as shown in Table 2-10. Based on total present worth
cost, Alternative 5B which is similar to the recommended alternative of the
Facilities Plan, is the most expensive (tenth ranking). The total present
worth cost ranges from approximately $6.6 million for Alternative 9 to approx-
imately $31.2 million for Alternative 5B.
2.5.1.2. Environmental Impacts
The No Action Alternative, would entail almost no construction impacts.
Construction of any of the "build" alternatives, however, will have primarily
short-term impacts on the local environment (Section 4.1.1.). The implementa-
tion of Alternative 9 would have impacts on those lots where upgraded on-site
systems are necessary. These impacts may be considerable on some lots but
overall they would be of limited extent. The two alternatives (8A and 8B)
that have critical area collection systems and cluster drain fields would
involve construction in some right-of-ways and on the drain field sites in
addition to on-site upgrading. The combined environmental impacts of these
alternatives are not significantly greater than those that would occur under
Alternative 9.
2-84
-------
The centralized collection and treatment alternatives would have con-
siderable impacts on the rights-of-way where sewage facilities are necessary.
Many rights-of-way are narrow and tree-lined, which makes construction within
them difficult. Dewatering for deep sewer excavations and pump stations could
affect wells in the vicinity. The treatment plant sites for waste stabiliza-
tion lagoons, proposed for all centralized treatment alternatives except
Alternative 7, would have a significant effect on the particular site. All
three sites, located in Sections 8, 11, or 29, are presently agricultural
land; Section 29 is mostly prime agricultural land that would be converted
irretrievably to treatment plant use.
The operation of the facilities proposed in the alternatives would pro-
duce some significant long-term impacts at least for some of the lakes
(Section 4.1.2.). Water quality impacts in the lakes would be greatest under
the No Action Alternative because increasing phosphorus loads would increase
the extent and density of nuisance algal blooms. Excessive nitrates in wells
may also increase as a problem. Local perceptions concerning water quality,
especially at Indian Lake and Pipestone Lake, are that current problems
warrant a "build" alternative and that these problems will be exacerbated
unless remedial action is taken. The operation of the three alternatives that
rely primarily on existing and upgraded on-site systems (8A, 8B, and 9) would
somewhat improve the water quality within the lakes. Some degradation of
groundwater quality below the cluster drain field can be anticipated, but the
groundwater is expected to meet the drinking water quality standard.
The centralized collection and treatment alternatives would improve water
quality in the lakes, although the improvements may not be noticeable. Spills
of septic tank effluent or of raw sewage at pump stations could occur if a
malfunction or power failure were to occur. The nutrient load from one spill
could easily equal the average annual nutrient load. Proper maintenance of
the pumps and backup power sources for all the pump stations would reduce the
potential for such an impact. The treatment facilities for the centralized
alternatives would be capable of meeting the discharge requirements es-
tablished by MDNR. Water quality in the receiving streams would be altered,
but not seriously degraded during the discharge period. The land application
alternative should result in minimal operating impacts because the infiltrated
2-85
-------
water should be of comparatively high quality. The alternatives that include
sewage treatment in the Dowagiac WWTP would reduce the capacity for future «
growth in Dowagiac.
2.5.1.3. Implementability
How a wastewater management plan is Implemented depends upon whether the
selected alternative relies primarily upon centralized or decentralized com-
ponents. Because most sanitary districts have in the past been designed
around centralized collection and treatment of wastewater, there is a great
deal of information about the implementation of such systems. Decentralized
collection and treatment, however, is relatively new and there is little
management experience on which to draw.
Decentralized systems 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 agen-
cies and nonprofit organizations; private entities may include private home-
owner associations and private contractors.
In this section the term "management agency" refers to the authority
responsible for managing the systems. A management agency need not be an
autonomous organization devoted solely to the management of these systems. It
may in fact be charged with other duties, and may share systems management
responsibility through agreements with other agencies.
The value of small waste flows systems as a long-term rather than short-
term alternative to centralized collection treatment began to be recognized in
the 1970s. As a result, communities preparing facilities plans after 30
September 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; USEPA 1978a). Included as alternative
processes are individual and other on-site treatment systems with subsurface
disposal units (drain fields).
2-86
-------
The 1977 Clean Water Act amendments recognized the need for continual
supervision of the operation and maintenance of on-site systems. USEPA Con-
struction Grant Regulations (USEPA 1978a; USEPA 1979b) which implement that
act require an applicant to meet a number of preconditions before a construc-
tion grant for private wastewater systems may be made. They include:
• Certifying that a public body will be responsible for the
proper installation, operation, and maintenance of the funded
systems
• Establishing a comprehensive program for the regulation and
inspection of on-site systems that will include periodic test-
ing of existing potable water wells and, where a substantial
number of on-site systems exists, more extensive monitoring of
aquifers
• Obtaining assurance of unlimited access to each individual
system at all reasonable times for inspection, monitoring,
construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement.
PRM 79-8 extends these requirements to grants for publicly owned systems.
Regardless of whether the selected alternative is primarily centralized
or decentralized, four aspects of the implementation program must be
addressed:
• There must be legal authority for a managing agency to exist
and financial authority for it to operate
• The agency must manage construction, ownership, and operation
of the sanitary district
• A choice must be made between the several types of long-term
financing that are generally required in paying for capital
expenditures associated with the project
• A system of user charges to retire capital debts, to cover
expenditures for operation and maintenance, and to provide a
reserve for contingencies must be established.
In the following sections, these requirements are examined first with
respect to centralized systems and then with respect to decentralized systems.
2-87
-------
Centralized Systems
The Indian Lake-Sister Lakes Facility Plan identified the Cass County
Board of Commissioners as the legal authority for implementing the Plan's
Proposed Action. The Cass County Department of Public Works (CCDPW) would be
the operating division that would construct, operate and maintain the cen-
tralized wastewater management system. Under Act 185 of the Michigan Public
Acts of 1957 as amended, the county has the authority to implement this system
and to contract with the villages and townships for services. Cass County
also would have to contract with Berrien County and Van Buren County for
services to the parts of these counties which are included in the study area.
As the management agency, the CCDPW would construct, maintain, and
operate the centralized sewerage facilities proposed in the Alternatives 2-7,
except those parts of Alternatives 6 and 7 that propose utilizing the Dowagiac
WWTP that is operated and maintained by the City of Dowagiac. The managerial
capacity of the CCDPW can be readily expanded to provide managerial services
for the proposed gravity sewers and the WWTPs including the land disposal site
in Alternatives 2-7. There are several options for septic tank effluent pumps
connected to pressure sewers:
• The station may be designed to agency specifications, with the
responsibility for purchase, maintenance, and ownership resid-
ing with the homeowner
• The station may be specified and purchased by the agency, with
the homeowner repurchasing and maintaining it
• The station may be specified and owned by the agency, but
purchased by the homeowner
• The station may be specified, purchased, and owned by the
agency.
Regardless, however, of the option selected, all residences are treated
equally.
Capital expenses associated with a project may be financed by several
techniques which are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.3. User charges are
set at a level that will provide for repayment of long-term debt and cover
2-88
-------
operation and maintenance expenses. The user charges for the different alter-
natives are discussed in Section 4.1.3. In addition, prudent management
agencies frequently add an extra charge to provide a contingency fund for
extraordinary expenses and equipment replacement.
Decentralized Systems
Regulation of on-site sewage systems has evolved to the point where most
new facilities are designed, permitted, and inspected by local health depart-
ments or other agencies. After installation, the local agency has no further
responsibility for these systems until malfunctions become evident. In such
cases the local agency may inspect and issue permits for repair of the sys-
tems. The sole basis for governmental regulation in this field has been its
obligation to protect public health.
Rarely have governmental obligations been interpreted more broadly to
include monitoring and control of other effects of on-site system use or mis-
use. The general absence of information concerning septic system Impacts on
groundwater and surface water quality has been coupled with a lack of knowl-
edge of the operation of on-site systems.
Michigan presently has no legislation which explicitly authorizes govern-
mental entities to manage wastewater facilities other than those connected to
conventional collection systems. However, Michigan Statutes Sections 123.241
et seq. and 232.37 et seq. have been interpreted as providing counties, town-
ships, villages, and cities with sufficient powers to manage decentralized
facilities (Otis and Stewart 1976).
The purpose of a decentralized systems district is to balance the costs
of management with the needs of public health and environmental quality.
Management of such a district implies formation of a management agency and
formulation of policies. The concept of such an agency is new. Community
obligations for management of private wastewater systems and six community
management models are presented in the Draft-Generic Rural Lake Projects EIS
(USEPA 198 la) .
2-89
-------
The cluster systems (Alternative 8A and 8B) could be managed by one of
several agencies. The CCDPW probably is best equipped at this point to assume
responsibility for these systems. While the technologies involved may be
unusual for the CCDPW, no components are involved that are difficult to
manage. The possibilities for management include different authorization for
the health department, a township board, another division of county govern-
ment, a special district, or a public utility commission (USEPA 1979b). The
system itself should be simple to manage. The residential pumping units use
electrical power; thus, power interruptions may result in operational or
environmental problems. Maintenance and repair activities are more critical
for this system than for gravity sewers. Regular cleaning of the septic tanks
is essential for the system to operate properly. The operation of the drain
field must be carefully monitored so that the. treatment aspect of the soil is
not abrogated. The billing of the user charge could be similar to the charge
system set up for the conventional gravity sewers and treatment plant.
The management of on-site systems (Alternatives 8A, 8B and 9) can be
accomplished in many ways (USEPA 1979b; USEPA 1979a). The management struc-
ture will depend primarily on State law and local preference. The USEPA
requires a public agency to serve as grantee and to provide assurances that
the systems be constructed properly and that maintenance be performed to
insure that the environmental laws are not violated. Many different agencies
are presently responsible for on-site systems: health departments, sanitary
districts, homeowners associations, on-site management districts, private
companies, and county government. Management responsibilities range from a
detailed permit process to complete ownership of all facilities. There are
certain advantages with each type of management and ownership option. Com-
plete control by the agency comes closest to guaranteeing that the systems
will be operating at optinal levels, but represents the most costly approach.
The least costly approach would be to keep the homeowner responsible for all
maintenance activities and costs. The homeowner then would be more inclined
to utilize water-saving measures and other methods to minimize maintenance
costs. However, as is currently the case, environmental protection suffers
when the homeowner is responsible for maintenance. Other factors also should
be considered. Systems for residences constructed after 27 December 1977 are
not eligible for Federal grants. Having the homeowner pay for installation
2-90
-------
constitutes a considerable expense for new residences that the community may
wish to employ as a means of discouraging future on-site systems. The USEPA
requires the grantee to certify that public ownership is not implementable, a
policy that may be difficult to show.
The agencies with the most experience with on-site systems in the
study area are the county health departments. They have had no experience in
writing and implementing contracts, because their primary role is issuing
permits and inspecting construction. The CCDPW has the experience with con-
tracts and management of maintenance activities, although it does not have
experience with on-site systems. Experience with on-site systems is crucial
for the personnel responsible for the design, construction, and inspection of
on-site systems. Thus, the consolidation of contracting and billing functions
with the CCDPW would result in an efficient operation. It is anticipated that
the most cost-effective managerial system would be implemented; health depart-
ment personnel will be responsible for the systems and the CCDPW will provide
contractural and billing expertise. The local costs for the construction of
new systems and rehabilitation of existing systems can be assessed to each
user equally by a variety of means or assigned to the respective homeowner.
Operation and maintenance costs also can be handled in the same way, based on
public or private ownership. The billing could be similar to the billing uses
for the centralized system.
2.5.2. Conclusions
The least cost alternative from both an economic and environmental pers-
pective is Alternative 9 — on-site system upgrading and blackwater holding
tanks for some critical areas. There is one exception to this alternative as
stated in Section 2.1. regarding needs documentation. MDNR requires that the
site-specific environmental and engineering data base be developed as part of
a Step 1 grant (By telephone, Dan Pearson, MDNR, to WAPORA, Inc. 5 May 1982).
USEPA Region V Needs Guidance requires that, at most, a representative
sampling (15% to 30%) of site-specific data base need be developed in Step 1.
The remaining sampling should be done in Step 2. Based on the information
presented in Section 2.1., USEPA Region V has decided that additional studies
will be conducted during the period between publication of the Draft EIS and
2-91
-------
the Final EIS. These studies may include:
• A sanitary survey for 30% of the residences in the study area
• A septic leachate detector scan of drinking water samples
obtained from each house visited in the sanitary survey for
traces of wastewater effluent
• A near-shore hydrology study to determine the direction of
ground water flow.
Based on the available information and the results of the data collected from
additional studies, a more precisely defined wastewater management system for
the study area will be recommended in the Final EIS.
This draft EIS clearly shows that some kind of on-site wastewater manage-
ment system is the most cost-effective alternative for the Indian Lake-Sister
Lakes study area. If the local grantee and the State of Michigan concur in
the selection of an on-site system alternative, the following activities
should be undertaken before implementing the proposed alternative:
• Plan an operation and maintenance program established to meet
local, State, and Federal requirements
• Obtain assurance of unlimited access.to each individual system
at all reasonable times for such purposes as inspections,
monitoring, construction, maintenance, operations, rehabilita-
tion, and replacement
• Plan for a comprehensive program of regulation and inspection
for individual systems
• Develop a site-specific environmental and engineering data base
• Design the management organization.
2-92
-------
3.0. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1. Natural Environment
3.1.1. Atmosphere
Elements of the atmospheric environment that are relevent to the consid-
eration of the proposed wastewater treatment alternatives include temperature,
precipitation, wind, odor, and noise levels. Other than the consideration of
potential odor and noise generated by specific treatment processes, air quali-
ty is not expected to be affected significantly and, therefore, is described
briefly.
3.1.1.1. Climate
Meteorological data representative of the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes study
area have been collected at the Michiana Regional Airport, located approx-
imately 25 miles south of the study area at South Bend, Indiana (National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 1977). The temperature and
precipitation data for this location do not vary significantly from similar
data available for Benton Harbor, Michigan, located 10 miles from the study
area.
The study area has a continental-type climate that is modified by Lake
Michigan. This modification is reflected by moderate average daily tempera-
tures resulting in a low number of days with temperatures above 90° fahrenheit
(F) or 32° centigrade (C) in the summer and below 0°F (-17.7°C) in the winter.
Approximately 43% of the annual precipitation occurs during the 5 months of
the growing season (May through September). The average annual mean precipi-
tation in the study ar^a is approximately 36 inches (92.0 centimeters). The
average length of the growing season is 165 days. The latest spring freeze
recorded is 30 May and the earliest freeze recorded in autumn is 18 September.
Snow generally falls from November through March, although snowfall has been
recorded in October and April. During the months of March and April the mean
wind direction is north by northwest; during December, January, and February
it is southwest; and during May through November it is south by southwest.
High winds, excessive precipitation, and electrical storms occur occasionally
3-1
-------
in the area. Additional climatological data are presented in Appendix F,
Table F-l.
Upper air data for the study area indicate the occurrence of elevated
inversions. The mean afternoon mixing heights in the study area range from
approximately 2,400 feet (730 meters) in the winter to 5,217 feet (1,590
meters) in the summer. The mean annual afternoon mixing height is 4,003 feet
(1,220 meters). After calculating the pollution dispersion factor (Edwards
and Wheat 1978), the pollution dispersion conditions for the Indian Lake-
Sister Lakes area generally are good.
3.1.1.2. Air Quality
The Indian Lake-Sister Lakes study area is located in the USEPA South
Bend-Benton Harbor Interstate- Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) and is
regulated by the Air Quality Division (AQD) of the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR). The air quality standards applicable to the study
area are the Michigan Ambient Air Quality Standards. These standards are
identical to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (Appendix F,
Table F-2). The Michigan Air Sampling Network has an air quality monitoring
site in Cass County, located at the Central Fire Station in Dowagiac. The
monitoring site is approximately 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) southwest of the
study area.
Concentrations of total suspended particulates (TSP) in Cass County were
in compliance with both annual and maximum 24-hour primary (health-related)
NAAQS from 1971 through 1976. Although violations of the maximum 24-hour
secondary (welfare-related) NAAQS did occur (MDNR 1977a), the maximum 24-hour
3
TSP value recorded during the 6-year monitoring period was 181 ug/m , well
below the primary standard of 260 ug/m (Appendix F, Table F-3).
Although hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide levels were not monitored in
the study area, concentrations probably are low. Only one significant point
source, an asphalt plant in Silver Creek Township operated by the Klett Con-
struction Company, exists in the study area. The plant emits both parti-
culates (5.4 metric tons per year) and sulfur dioxide (3.6 metric tons per
year) (USEPA 1978a). No significant line sources such as interstate highways
exist in the area. Nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide concentrations also were
3-2
-------
not monitored in the study area, but are expected to be low. The lack of
monitoring stations in Berrien and Van Buren counties indicates that they are
presumed to be in compliance with air quality standards, with the exception of
oxidants (MDNR 1977a).
Photochemical oxidants, especially ozone, are pollutant problems over
much of the US because of the long-distance transport of hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides. Although no information on ozone levels is available for the
study area, it is likely that ozone standards are exceeded, particularity
because of the close proximity of large metropolitan centers. The Lower
Peninsula of Michigan has been designated as a non-attainment area for photo-
chemical oxidants (MDNR 1977a) .
3.1.1.3. Noise
There are no known major noise sources in the study area. Noise
generated by typical automobile and recreational boat traffic and gravel
quarry operations within the study area may affect people who live near these
noise sources.
3.1.1.4. Odor
The Air Quality Division of MDNR has not recieved any complaints of odors
in the study area (By telephone, Mr. Dick Vandebunt, MDNR, to WAPORA, Inc., 16
November 1978). It is presumed that there are no significant odor problems in
the study area. However, there is an asphalt plant located in Silver Creek
Township which may affect people residing near the plant.
3.1.2. Land
3.1.2.1. Geology
3.1.2.1.1. Topography and Physiography
The landscape of the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes study area is characterized
by hummocky, morainic terrain in the northwestern and southwestern parts and
by nearly-level to gently-sloping outwash plains in the central and eastern
parts. Elevations range from 880 feet (268 meters) above mean sea level (msl)
southwest of Round Lake to less than 720 feet (219 meters) msl in the far
western part of the study area (Figure 3-1). Numerous lakes occur within the
3-3
-------
study area. Although most of the major lakes are concentrated in the central
part of the study area, at least a dozen smaller lakes occur in the study
area. The largest lakes include the Sister Lakes (Cable Lake, Crooked Lake,
Dewey Lake, Magician Lake, Pipestone Lake and Round Lake), Keeler Lake, and
Indian Lake. Many vegetated wetlands also occur adjacent to these lakes and
in numerous depressions throughout the study area.
Most of the surface waters of the study area drain into the Dowagiac
River through the Osborn Drain, Silver Creek, an unnamed creek that collects
excess water from Indian Lake, and a few intermittent streams. A small part
of the study area, near Pipestone Lake, drains to the southwest into the St.
Joseph River through Pipestone Creek.
3.1.2.1.2. Bedrock and Surficial Geology
The study area is located in the western portion of a large structural
feature called the Michigan Basin. The bedrock geology is characterized by a
sequence of northeasterly-dipping Paleozoic strata that overlie a Precambrian
basement of crystalline rocks. The Coldwater Formation (Mississippian) forms
the bedrock surface throughout most of the study area. Underlying the Cold-
water Formation is the Ellsworth Formation (Mississippian).
The bedrock surface in the study area and in surrounding areas is highly
irregular and contains numerous bedrock valleys. Due to preglacial and gla-
cial erosion, the thickness of the Coldwater Formation is extremely variable.
Exploratory oil well logs indicate that while the Coldwater Formation may be
absent in bedrock valleys, it can attain thicknesses of up to 105 feet (32
meters) in bedrock uplands. The thicknesses of the Ellsworth Formation ranges
from 282 to 410 feet (86 to 125 meters).
Overlying the bedrock surface are unconsolidated sediments that were
deposited during the Pleistocene Epoch by glaciers and by glacial meltwaters.
The landforms and the surficial deposits of the study area were formed during
the Gary substage of the Wisconsinan stage of glaciation and are associated
with the Lake Michigan lobe of the Wisconsinan glacier (Terwilliger 1954).
3-5
-------
The surficial geology of the study area is shown in Figure 3-2. The
regions outlined in this map are generalized and reflect only the glacial
deposits that exist at the surface. The underlying glacial drift may be very
different. Well records (Michigan Department of Conservation n.d.), topogra-
phic maps (US Geological Survey [USGS] nd), and a report by .Terwilliger (1954)
constitute the data used in the construction of this map. The surficial
glacial deposits of the study area consist predominantly of terminal moraines,
outwash plains, and glacial lakebed deposits. The glacial till of these
terminal moraines contains unsorted mixtures of gravel, sand, silt, and clay.
The northwestern section of the study area is part of the Valparaiso
Moraine (Terwilliger 1954). Well records, topographic information, and soils
data suggest that the glacial geology in the vicinity of Indian Lake also is
characteristic of terminal moraines. However, the morainic system of this
area is not known. The glacial till of these deposits appears to contain
large amounts of sand and gravel and may be very permeable in places. The
stratigraphic and hydrologic characteristics, however, are complex and can
change drastically within a short distance.
Numerous kames (isolated or clustered mounds of sand and gravel) are
associated with the terminal moraines in the study area. These formations
constitute valuable sand and gravel resources.
The lakes in the study area most likely developed from depressions or
kettles that were formed when isolated blocks of ice were buried by glacial
drift. When the ice blocks melted, a depression remained which subsequently
filled with water. Lakes of this derivation usually are classified as kettle
lakes. In the study area, terminal moraines, kettles, and kames often occur
in association with each other, producing a hummocky topography.
The majority of the study area has been identified as an outwash plain.
These outwash deposits consist of beds and lenses of gravel, sand, silt, and
some clay. Since the retreat of the last glacier, the surficial geology of
the area has been modified by subsequent erosion and deposition. Glacial
deposits throughout most of the area are overlain by a mantle of loess (wind
blown deposits of silt and fine sand). Recent deposits also include alluvium
and lacustrine sediments. Undrained depressions, marshes, and lake bottoms
within the area commonly contain muck or peat.
3-6
-------
nnnr end moraine
drainageways
study area
Figure 3-2. Surficial geology of the study area.
3-7
-------
3.1.2.2. Soils
Sewage disposal in rural areas most often depends on soil-based systems.
Whether they function properly or not depends on proper design and construc-
tion of the system and a careful selection of proper design criteria. One
approach to selection of design criteria is to generalize soils into similar
groupings based on pertinent physical characteristics.
The USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) in cooperation with the Michigan
Agricultural Experiment Station recently completed this task in Berrien County
and has published the Soil Survey (SCS 1980b) according to current standards.
Advance field sheets for a soil survey of Van Buren County also were available
and certain areas of Cass County were mapped as part of this EIS. The soils
mapping of both Van Buren County and Cass County was prepared in a manner
consistent with the Soil Survey of Berrien County.
The soils of the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes area will be described first on
an association basis. "Each map unit, or association, on the general soil map
is a unique natural landscape. Typically, an association consists of one or
more major soils and some minor soils. It is named for the major soils." (SCS
1980b). The general soil or association map (Figure 3-3) is to be used for a
general picture of soils of the area; the soils of a specific parcel must be
seen on the detailed soil maps. The associations map of Berrien County was
prepared from the recent soil mapping. The associations maps of Van Buren
County and Cass County were prepared from old reconnaissance soil maps and
have not been updated based on the recent soil mapping.
General and detailed soil maps are useful as a guide to planning needs
documentation efforts. They do not by themselves document need. Soil asso-
ciations can be used for preliminary determinations of the potential suitabil-
ity of on-site systems oa a community-wide basis. Soil interpretation data
should be used in planning site specific field investigations of on-site
system suitability.
The predominant soil association within the Cass County section of the
study area is the Oshtemo-Kalamazoo. It is composed of deep, well-drained,
level to undulating soils found on outwash plains. The texture of these soils
is moderately coarse to coarse. On-site systems on coarse textured soils
3-8
-------
B4 VB3
t-r?
Bl - Spinks, Oakville, Oshtemo
B4 - Riddles, Ockley, Oshtemo
B6 - Pella, Kibble, Lenawee
B8 - Ockley, Oshtemo
VB3 - Riddles, Ockley, Oshtemo
VB6 - Kalamazoo, Oshtemo
VB9 - Spinks, Oakville, Oshtemo
VB11 - Houghton, Adrian, Palms
Cl - Kalamazoo
C4 - Oshtemo, Kalamazc
C6 - Brady, Gilford,
Matherton, Sebewa
C8 - Ockley, Oshtemo
C9 - Kalamazoo, Oshter,
Hillsdale
Figure 3-3. Soil associations in the study area.
3-9
-------
within this association may, because of poor filter characteristics, result in
degradation of groundwater quality.
The Kalamazoo-Oshtemo-Hillsdale soil association surrounds the Sister
Lakes in Cass County. This association is characterized by deep, well-
drained, undulating to rolling soils found on outwash plains and moraines.
These soils are moderately coarse to coarse in texture. Some of the undulat-
ing areas are covered by croplands and orchards, but most of the rolling areas
are covered by permanent pasturelands and forests. Soil absorption systems
can be designed and constructed on the major soils within this association,
except where steep slopes prohibit construction, although there is a hazard of
groundwater degradation because of poor filter characteristics.
The Oshtemo-Spinks-Oakville soil association is located southeast of the
Sister Lakes area and surrounds the Indian Lake area. This association is
composed of deep, well-drained, undulating to rolling soils found on outwash
plains and moraines. These soils have moderately coarse to coarse textures.
Land cover is about equally divided between orchards, croplands, and wood-
lands. Soil-based treatment systems on the major soils of the association
may, because of poor filter characteristics, result in groundwater degrada-
tion.
The Kalamazoo asociation, located south of Indian Lake, is composed of
deep, well-drained, level to undulating soils found on outwash plains. The
soils are moderately fine-textured in the upper part and coarse-textured in
the lower part. Most of this area is covered by croplands, with some orchards
and woodlands. Soil-based treatment systems must be designed and installed
with care because the moderately fine textured surface soil limits downward
percolation. Soil-based treatment systems installed in the coarse-textured
lower part may result in degradation of the groundwater.
The predominant soil association in the Van Buren County section of the
study area is the Oshtemo-Chelsea-Spinks. This association is located on the
uplands west and north of the lakes area. It abuts the Oshtemo-Kalamazoo
association of Cass County. The soils are deep, well-drained, nearly level,
pitted, and are found on outwash plains. The soil texture is coarse to very
coarse. Most of the area of the association is utilized for orchards, with
3-10
-------
smaller areas utilized for croplands. Woodlands and permanent pasturelands
are located on pitted areas. Steep-sided pitted areas limit construction
activities and require somewhat specialized designs for soil absorption
systems. On-site systems in the coarser-textured soil material may degrade
groundwater quality because of poor filter characteristics.
The Kalamazoo-Oshtemo association occurs in the area immediately around
and north of the Sister Lakes in Van Buren County . The adjacent association
in Cass County is the Kalamazoo-Oshtemo-Hillsdale association. The soils of
the Kalamazoo-Oshtemo association are deep, well-drained, and rolling to
hilly. They are located on moraines, outwash plains, and till plains. The
soil textures are moderately coarse. Most of this association is in woodlands
and wetlands, although some is utilized for orchards and croplands. Soil
absorption systems on the major soils of the association may result in degra-
dation of groundwater quality because of poor filter characteristics. Some
moderately fine textured soils require somewhat specialized designs for
successful operation. Steep slopes limit construction activities in some
areas.
The Houghton-Adrian-Palms association is located in the area around the
Osborn Drain, near the northeastern corner of the study area. This associa-
tion is characterized by deep to shallow, very poorly drained, nearly level,
organic soils formed in old lake beds, depressions, and floodplains. This
area is covered by marshes, wetlands and woodlands. This association is not
suitable for soil-based on-site systems except for highly specialized designs.
The Metamora-Metea association occupies a small part of the northwestern
corner of the study area in Van Buren County. The association has deep,
well-drained to poorly drained, level to rolling soils on outwash over till
plains. The predominant soil textures are medium to coarse. Woodlands,
wetlands, and orchards are the predominant land use/cover types on these
soils. Some areas are suitable for soil absorption systems while most of the
association is unsuitable because high water table, somewhat poor permeabil-
ity, and steep slopes preclude installation of soil absorption systems.
3-11
-------
The Riddles-Ockley-Oshtemo soil association occurs at the north end of
the study area in Berrien County. It is bordered by the Metamora-Metea asso-
ciation in Van Buren County. This association also occurs further south in
Berrien County, where it is bordered by the Oshtemo-Kalamazoo association in
Cass County. These soils are well-drained, nearly level to very steep, and
were formed in outwash plains, moraines, and till plains. The predominant
soil textures are loam, sandy clay loam, and sandy loam. Orchards, croplands,
woodlands, and wetlands are the predominant land use/cover types that occur on
this association. Most of the association is satisfactory for soil-based
treatment systems, although somewhat fine soil textures in some areas require
specialized designs. Steep slopes in some areas of the major soils preclude
construction activities.
The Spinks-Oakville-Oshtemo soil association occurs in the vicinity of
Pipestone Lake. It is bordered by the Oshtemo-Chelsea-Spinks association in
Van Buren County. The well-drained, nearly level to steep soils were formed
on moraines, till plains, outwash plains, and beach ridges. The subsoil is
sandy or loamy, and overlies sand and gravelly sand parent material. All of
the soils have rapid permeability and are droughty. Orchards are the predo-
minant land use/cover type occurring on this association, although wetlands
and woodlands also are common. The lakeshore area consists of minor soils
within the association that are unsuitable for soil absorption systems. Soil
absorption systems on the major soils within the association may cause degra-
dation of groundwater quality.
The Pella-Kibbie-Lenawee soil association is located southwest of Pipe-
stone Lake. It occupies only a small portion of the study area. The soils,
formed in glacial lake deposits, are poorly drained and nearly level to very
gently sloping. The subsoil has a loamy or clayey texture, and the underlying
material ranges from loamy sand to silty clay layers. Wetlands and croplands
are the predominant land use/cover types occurring on this association. The
association is generally unsuitable for soil absorption systems because high
water tables and somewhat fine soil textures preclude design of soil absorp-
tion systems.
3-12
-------
The Ockley-Oshtemo association is located in Berrien County adjacent to
Indian Lake. The Oshtemo-Spinks-Oakville and Kalamazoo associations are
adjacent to it in Cass County. These are well-drained, nearly level to steep
soils on outwash plains and moraines. Loessial and loamy drift or sandy
subsoils underlain by sand and gravel predominate. Specialty fruit crops
occur over most of this association in the study area, with croplands and
woodlands occurring over smaller areas. Soil-based treatment systems can be
designed and installed on the major soils of the association, except where
steep slopes limit construction activities, although some hazard of ground-
water degradation exists when soil absorption systems are installed in the
coarse-textured soil material.
The individual soil series are mapped on a scale of 4 inches m 1 mile in
Berrien County and Van Buren County and 1 inch = 1,000 feet in Cass County.
The smallest area mapped is approximately 2.5 acres (1.1 hectares). This
scale is useful for identifying the soil characteristics in a field-sized
unit, but is of limited usefulness for a residential lot on the lakeshore.
Detailed soil maps are not presented in this report,, but are available for
inspection in the respective SCS offices.
Each series represents soils that have similar characteristics, but by no
means are uniform. Thus, considerable variation may be present within one
mapping unit on the detailed soil maps. For example, the depth to the water
table may vary from zero to greater than 6 feet and slope may vary from zero
to 18%. The characteristics of the major soil series that relate to soil-
based sewage disposal are presented in Table 3-1. The SCS has given the soils
of the majority of the watershed area a severe rating for soil absorption
systems.
The primary limitation is "poor filter", that is, coarse textured soil
material. The soils may vary between fine. to medium sands, that have no
limitations, and coarse gravels, that have poor filter characteristics. Where
gravels are encountered, the drainbed area can be overexcavated and backfilled
with sand prior to construction of the gravel bed. Existing soil absorption
systems in coarse textured soils are difficult to evaluate with respect to the
capability of the soil to treat pollutants from the septic tank effluent.
Groundwater pollutants cannot be traced back to a particular on-site system
except with detailed groundwater testing.
3-13
-------
/-^
a
a.
f«4
CO
a
CO
*^^
rn
system!
e
o
•H
a
O
CO
rt
iH
•rH
O
CO
t_j
O
«W
CO
•rl
4J
CO
"c
ctf
co
o
•H
4J
CO
•H
0)
4-1
O
CO
CO
O
co
OJ
'd
QJ
CO
^H
•H
0
CO
r— 1
1
00
QJ
i™H
.C
rrt
fo
H
fN
g
t
s
iH
j^i
rH
-H
c?
_(
|
CO
^
.5
£
CO
rH B
o w
®fc
SB
•H
fro ^ a a a
0 II II II
S 4i oj ai «
K ^-l WWW
1
C
5 *
~ 00
r (N |
0 1 rv.
VO
2
£
Permeabi]
0 .
VD O
^E
0
• o
VO
5 5
n
_ -H
*D tO ^J
C ^ fO
!? 7f K
^ £ uj w fc-J
8
i2
u
3
y to o
3 vS D
Ul e IH ts
01
tn~
C JJ
IS C
U 01
tj
(P'M
a o>
o a
— i —
tN tN (N
1 1 1
O 0 0
CO
c
SJ
— 1
^
^
s
VO O
•n §
C H
^
to c
5l
r» o oo
(N VD ff
-~
§
i
3
£
CO
u
U3
fH
a
j
0)
•H VJ
-H 0
•H *•'
B 0) W
• H »H 4J
S S fl
in m
in u
CD 0)
C C
4J JJ
0) ID
^ £ ,H -H -
aaa iadaaaac.
>>> ^!>^!>!>!>t
QjCJCJ QQAJ^^QQ^
COtOt/) wwujt/jWC/JWuj
R
05
— 0)
PH
OO^O OOOOO
fN(NtOJ(Nrs]
1 1 -H 1 1 1 1 1 1
OOkO OOOOO
rsivc ISvo VOVPVOVOVD
f^> ^ fv ro rn r*i ro PO rn
oooo oooooo
Y £ ;? £ 7 ;? 7 7 7 7 7
ININOfNvOOOOOOO
o in o
nnujJoo
oooinrHfHooooo
^ ,N .H 0 .H ^ VO VD VO VO VO
Ot 10 to U V) 01
** oi & < CTI ni
U)*H tflto-^ to n to in
fc,-(M »U-lO *• - J^ *• »
W --fOW *.30)WK[/j(n
Jj
1 u 01 o
UJy>rH 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1 (N CO
OOOOOOOJfN(N
R
C W T3 ON
Q T? M >i 4J ra
T? C fe £ "g "& i
ft o ^ ^H S P r~j
w U TJ -H ii O fC
ccflHUuxs*; ^ ,
tfi CD CO
W 0! «
C T3 O
B S "S £
in a) ^ o
c to in w CL 01
S a uiuoia cotnaaaaada. mtomatoaaaa
jilt Jiiiiit -ft!>!i!>li!l^!>!> T>!l!it!>!i!»!>!>
^a^g^^^^sISS^^^^^ft^^S^tSJ^S^A1
0 O
. . OOOOO
fNJ (N (N (%J CN r>J (N
(N rsj S\/\S\/\S\
O O S 5 = 6 S
rH fH O
V ^ OOOOO* OO
*— •*- rsirj(NrN(N(N fN»oooo
Illllt lP4fNtNCN(N
CO OOOOOOOOO^ Ollllt
i i /"s/x^s/^v o rsi fN rj (N
00 5555RRRSRS S^o'oo'o
O OO\£>VO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
f^l (M tN "•*• ^*" r^Csir>J(N(NvO'«DVC\^vr'U5(N(N'Nf>jrNr>J(N(NfNfN(N
i it I i i i t i i i i i i i i t i i i i i l i i
O OO^X/\VOOOOOINtN(NIN(NOOOOOOOVOVOVOVDVO
o o o
O
fH(HVOU3VOVD'HVDVOVOVOVOV£>VCVOVP'-*iHVOV£)\DVDi-HfHVCVOVO VD
pH *H iH
0) 01 - O
IM iHrHlOtOIOOl L) n - - . . 10
•HrHUO bMMi-lijijLiUU"' <-H— IrHiHi-lL. -.010)0101
01 01 0)
rH iH *H
ort ooo
CO CO LO CO IT) CO
(N(N CM r- 1 rMi-Hi"O CJ«H^- (Ni-H
PO \£)rHVDrH(NrMVDrHI(Ny5fH) 1 (N fM VD *-< 1 ffNn(Nv£ifHl
) IIIIIlTlfMllItNOOltllC^COltiltrsJ
O tN(,DfHVDOOrsJ^?HOfS\1C''-(r-IOOCN^«— (rHOOOfNy?»H
5 SKSMSSSWfi 2y23r-S3£S£ 3 S&8
< ^D \iD *S" f^ ^ ^N O O O O O
m^H ininLOLO^fNfNtNfN
5
rH
•H QI
> &•
woo in Tf
OC 0>i E CD IB -H M
*Hj_.*HrrJOC' QJ {QfO
-------
«»
IJU !l
i Si a) fi) «i (u
OS w w w w
£
~c
c
O
vc
s
•H
•rl
i
1
£
/-N
0) o>
1 S?s
Ci o iy
Q.4J O
tJ Q S •-»
v-'
CO 2*
M 5^
c - *.g
* lip
M 1< 5 £
S
C S o)
* s! |
(J «
•rl o
*J D-
» £
U Ei
H , c
QJ G> W
w g-2
U -KJ
tO w> —
^i
CO
•g |
CO | tj
3 1 s
^ ? ~
co 5^ S
PI
•w a? tc
o S|
CO 0 >
i— i
I
CO
Q)
r-l
r-t
1
B
m
1
o
1 '
• p^
in
• o
i j
o o o e> o "> o
te >c» w wo -<
to
h
a!
w IH
n n
•H — t
co in
r» ^i m
iN *f "i* - 5?
z S
U "O
! !
tn t-4
( • «-(
si i
(0 0
c fe
6 &• *
m QJ
O-D S
"S S
i*-- 5
(0 *O u)
"us >
>, I »
4J U CO
i— * n* »
•* & 0)
10 n X>
i . 2
^•g |
m (a Q
cl-clay loam,
grs-qravelly s
1-sllght, Mod-m
» * in
u -a
to » a!
--4, ra
B °
^ * i=
>• c S
58 1i
jrJ
~i -J -ii
10 1 U
k* \
o) » n
-I *
2 H
3 4> Q
C n
in-3
SY fe
•^t M »M
4J (U
10 (A
1^' 1
M IB JJ
•8 n
a 5) 'S
ol £
U U^ X)
5 i. =8
K P
8 i »
4J 0 C1
-r s
•H U] 4J
SS fi
3-15
-------
The county sanitarians have identified fine-textured soils as a reason
for the failure of standard design soil absorption systems on certain lots.
These soils were not identified through soil mapping because these areas were
smaller than the standard mapping unit. Soil absorption systems in these
areas require designs somewhat different than the standard design.
Steep slopes are identified as a limitation for soil absorption systems.
Within the mapping units, considerable variation in slope is likely. Building
sites with steep slopes generally have adequate depths to the water table so
that a drywell absorption system can be installed. Construction difficulties
on slopes greater than 18% prevent soil absorption systems from being in-
stalled.
High water table and flooding or ponding are identified as reasons for
severe ratings for soil absorption systems. The high water table is charac-
teristic of some lakeshore areas and is frequently associated with organic
soils. Many soil absorption systems in these areas have been constructed
within or slightly above the water table. Soil absorption systems that are
within the water table are more likely to fail because the organics in the
septic tank effluent decompose slowly, resulting in clogs in the system and
surface breakout or backups.
These ratings indicate the general difficulties in designing, construct-
ing, and maintaining soil absorption systems. The poor filter, slope, wet-
ness, and slow permeability limitations can generally be overcome and opera-
tional systems installed, but the design solutions may be complicated and
expensive. The on-site systems presently installed are described in detail in
Section 2.1.1.
3.1.3. Water Resources
3.1.3.1. Rivers and Lakes in the Study Area
The study area, situated within the St. Joseph River Drainage Basin,
contains eleven lakes, one river, two creeks, and numerous wetlands. With the
exception of Indian Lake, the lakes are located in the northern section of the
study area. The lakes that are particularly significant to this discussion
are Cable Lake, Crooked Lake, Dewey Lake, Indian Lake, Magician Lake, Pipe-
3-16
-------
stone Lake, Keeler Lake and Round Lake. (Brown Lake, Grabemeyer Lake, and
Priest Lake are relatively small and are not discussed herein.)
The flow in the rivers and streams of the study area is determined by
overland runoff from precipitation, by groundwater flow, and, in some cases,
by wastewater discharged to the streams. Stream flow usually is highest
during the late winter and spring because of increased runoff from meltwaters,
and lowest during the late summer and fall when there is little precipitation.
3.1.3.1.1. Dowagiac River
The Dowagiac River, a tributary of the St. Joseph River, flows in a
southwesterly direction along the eastern and southern borders of the study
area. The USGS (1978) measured the flow of the Dowagiac River at Sumnerville,
approximately 4.5 miles (7.2 kilometers) south of the study area. The maximum
flow during the 19-year period of record at the station was 1,267 cubic feet
3
per second (cfs; 36.2 cubic meters per second [m /sj), recorded on 26 June
1968, and the minimum flow was 84 cfs (2.4 m /s) , recorded on 10 September
1964. During the period from October 1976 to September 1977, the maximum,
3 3
minimum, and mean flows were 637 cfs (18.2 m /s) , 112 cfs (3.2 m /s) , and 245
cfs (7.0 m /s), respectively.
3.1.3.1.2. Dowagiac Creek
Dowagiac Creek is not within the boundaries of the study area. However,
a description of the Creek is included because it is the receiving body for
the effluent discharged from the Dowagiac sewage treatment plant (STP).
Dowagiac Creek is the outlet from Mill Pond, located in Cass County. The
Creek flows in a westerly direction through the City of Dowagiac and past the
existing STP, located west of the City. Approximately 1.9 miles (3 kilo-
meters) past the STP, the Dowagiac Creek flows into the Dowagiac River. The
maximum and minimum flows recorded in Dowagiac Creek at State Highway M-62
during a 6-year period from 1969 through 1974 were 137 cfs (3.9 m /s) and 46.6
3
cfs (1.33 m /s) respectively. The mean flow during this period was 66.6 cfs
(1.9m /s) (MDNR 1978c).
3-17 -
-------
3.1.3.1.3. Silver Creek
Silver Creek is the outlet for Magician Lake, The Creek originates at
the northeastern end of Magician Lake and flows south to southeast through the
Dowagiac Swamp, where it enters the Dowagiac River.
3.1,3.1.4. Pipestone Creek
Pipestone Creek is the outlet for Pipestone Lake. This creek flows south
to southwest to its confluence with the St. Joseph River, approximately 8
miles (12.9 kilometers) west of the study area.
3.1.3.1.5. Inland Lakes
Physical characteristics for each of the seven major lakes in the study
are presented in Table 3-2. Indian Lake, located in the southern part of the
study area, has the greatest surface area (481.5 acres or 195 hectares), the
largest watershed (4,148.5 acres or 1,679 hectares) and one of the higher
watershed to lake surface ratios (8.6:1). Dewey Lake .has the highest water-
shed to surface area ratio (9.9:1). Crooked Lake has the greatest recorded
depth (62 feet or 18.8 meters) and the lowest watershed to surface area ratio
(3.1:1). Although Magician Lake has a lake surface area similar in size to
Indian Lake, Magician Lake has nearly twice the shoreline length compared to
Indian Lake.
3.1.3.2. Water Quality of the Major Rivers and Lakes in the Study Area
The Michigan Water Resources Commission of the MDNR has been designated
as the water pollution control agency for the State (Act No. 245 of the Public
Acts of 1929). The applicable standards for the study area and proposed
revisions are shown in Tab_e 3-3. The proposed amendments include raising the
minimum dissolved oxygen level from 4 mg/1 to 5 mg/1 for protection of warm
water fish and the addition of a standard for concentrations of toxic organic
and inorganic substances. The State water quality standards are applied
selectively, according to the type of use that has been designated for a
particular body of water. Designations include domestic and industrial water
supply, total or partial body contact recreation, fish, wildlife and other
aquatic life, agricultural, and navigation.
3-18
-------
C
CO
co
CO
01
i-i
cd
*O
3
4J
CO
CO
01
0)
4-1
CO
•H
c
.3
0)
JC
4J
CO
0)
cd
0
co
CJ
•H
a
co
co
J2
O
CO
O C
•H O
co -u
J= O
PH CQ
CN
CO
01
15
•O
§
£
a
jt
2
<9
!
OJ
s
~4
C
M
a
>
e
'Jj
91
a
6.
n
(D
0
.*
2
e
ID
*•<
O
-*
a
£
10
u
e
o
w
3
a
S
a
0
je
3
c
a
^
•o
c
a
a
a
U
H
e
jf
2
>
a
1
a
a
3
o
a
o
.X
2
•B
O
.*
w
U
o
e
9
3
a
c
>
a
jf
2
a
3
a
U
a
(A
fl
CJ
x
u
•
••4
1")
U
91
p4
91
91
in"
N
O
2
c
ffl
a
^
w
b
e
*H
a
x
91
U
U
V
P4
-^
n
a
u
1
^^
•4
01
N
D
^
^
«
m
91
O
h
0
f*
CO
e
0
—4
<4J
u
o
»
c.
'o
e
to
m
in
n
»
(N
.
m
it
91
«
U
h
9)
>
-^ V
S
s
«,
Q
-
*
w
m
«
»
^
a
±4
u
10
«
01
M
«
0
o
M
0
§ -
£ <<->
fM
•H
e
\o
-------
CO
4_j
CJ
^£
o
•H
1
1 (**>
D
*
LJ""J
*™
330)
tr. u
t? a
o c n
-< 3
01
— 4J £0
x tr c
(C 0) «-<
C« X >
CD -H
CJ cc GJ
u
X OJ OJ
-J -H
cc 01 01
1- U X
tC '•M
C *J O
o
CC C (U
C — J 3
0) ~-< 4_<
E C CO
C K O.1
3 a.
0 X E
a. tn o>
E -H 4J
•H UJ
ft)
C QJ 4-*
CO *J
ro 01
- 1 CC
CC O U
G) U (J
l-( C
4j OO «H
to c
• 4-1 _.
Eft LJ 3
H O O
0* CM >
5
ee;
>
c
CC
(0 **•
-i « 0
05 O -JT
ce c
J5 -H
•^ cc
X Z s»
—! 01
£ U
4J 3 vD
e 4J o m
O TO
CO C- C/5 ^4t>
E
C 0
C 4J CO
* QJ
C 00
C CO 00
K Q
=•
oo n eo
G ~> *O
•*-! X
X <-4
*-i .*; in
E O/ X vC
01
0) 2
4J 00 < m
c
o Z -a
01 <-H
00 -H
•BO CO
01 0>
S X CO
•-> 4J -) r-v
14
b
w a1
ro a;
? o
E 0)
)^ bJ
ffl u
3 C
*-i
00
C T
4J 3
1- 0
0 S
a
e..=
w —i
o
•o
OJ CC
-« O
J> — 1
a
e. 4J
cc eo
0 01
x
-H n
ro 0)
M >
3 ~*
« u
C 01
h<
1 0
OJ C
l-l
£0 -H
CO
•o x
C to
CO
M -H
•H
PC!
c
3
C "—i
a, o
tO <4-J
Tj
X
X
*-> C
CC
tC «•>
CC P
U OI
0) w
cc oi
00
00
C CO
•H O)
> w
0) 4J
O CC
o> u
Iw 0)
c.
0> E
X 0>
tu o
O -M
01 0>
* C
3 O
4^ K
CO
U 00
OJ E
E X
OJ -H
4-> E
0, 0>
X X
Q CO
CC
OJ '—CO
pv.
E
4J r i-
X
c
§o
I in
E
3 0
E U- -T
K
e -> -a
ir
-H
3
o
s
j:
u
•H
.c
3
CC
o
CO
01
.=
tc
01
CJ
u
OJ
o
c
^H
TO
£.
tn
en
01
re
c
CO
c
01
4-1 01
4J 4J
CC
OJ
r >
01 .C
4J CC
CC
A 1C
•w
oo n
C CC
•H .C
>
—* X
u .r
01 »J
u c
0
OJ E
.c
4J CO
U-I C
o o
OJ •
L. 01
3 C
4^ O
eo N
OJ 00
Q. C
E -H
01 K
E
01
X 01
" X
OJ
m w-i
ec O
u 01
u oc
C TJ
•H QJ
^*,
J O
fej
C
OJ ^^
01
u ^
X «
01 -J
W 01
O 4J
e K
CO
01 C
u CO
3
4J X
C_ 01
E 4J
0- ec
4J 0
11 TJ
00 C
CO -rt
01 W
> u
CC ^
s
X "
-J ID
OJ QJ
*r
00 ^
c
— ^ E
o i
*H K
£ I
c^
c^
o
O r^.
O -—
K CC 00
E
< 00 w
c
O E
-) CO 5
e
*H
m c
!-} r^ ^
e
O B
S "-
O D)
OJ
to
O
m • u
fc -ff O 0>
O ro
m 4J y
*TJ «^ "O
0
v£ O
C 01
^~
-J J)
c *J
0
O.U-
C.' O
OJ
•^ rr
00 u
E 5
K
O
4J CJ
^^ ^
••^
E C
T:
in
o
* w
TO i—
O> U
C -H
01 *->
&Q tt
3
c cr
UH
.. o
cr
0> 0>
^ a.
tc x
"U 01
c x
cc *•>
c
00
E
m
u^
C
E
3
E
— i
C
E
tr
tu
re
kj
Qj
*
C
o
i/^
•C t"
O CJ Cv
£ 0- U
0 u i-
u x r
G, c o
X cr
X C 0
(t C — '
E X
«-< ec
c c: — .
x c
o; tc P
tc -o c
4J C U
CC
X CJ hj
4J t" C
3
c -o —
O 0! 3
4J (C OJ
TO C U
w oc
c tc
0) OI CC
c
0 X 0>
U C E
*C "H
"CJ 4-<
OJ O
01 4^ X
u c
X tr> co
OJ 3
o ^
4-» «O CO
O Ui
C cc — <
N -»^.
^5 1°
CC
55
r quality standards
cu
4-1
CO
3
•a
(l)
tn
o
PL
O
^
a
£
Cfl
00
C
•H
j_j
CO
•H
X
w
ro
1
0)
r_|
H
Department of Natur;
(1973)
CO
c "2
CO ro
do "3
•I-I ^
Tl "
JC 4J
O w
2 e
t3 K
C rl
CO [3
4J
CO
PL,
CM
~4
u<
^
1
EX
3
CO
O
01
Xi
et)
a.
ca
L>
CC
3
C
K
i
E
T-i
"C
c
CO
B
E
01
Jk4
tt
to
o>
p>
oc
0>
3
w
OJ
x >
u o
•* X
x ec
u^
e
4J fSj
CC
01 C
X CO
01 0)
> u
o
0> 0)
u LJ
0 TO
c u
-^ CL.
CO QJ
CJ
•H
uj QJ
tfl
01 0)
^ u
co u
3 3
i— [
CJ CD
00
C ••
•H -0
Iw 3
OJ 00
0) X C
K •»-> -H
ec 3
0> *w O
iw O *H
(J ^
C 0> O
-<-* oO**- O
•D O »T
/-s 0> O1
0> *-< CO
P X 2 >T
0 *J C
CO
w cc *-> " o "^
4^ (C W U.
CC fc- 0> • m
oi *- ec c
D. tC OJ i-l
E > u ^ co
oj oo <: vo
4-1 ao w
c to o)
U -H 0> 1- CO
0) > 1- 3 "-J *£>
4J -H 3 4J
? U TO •" CO
-H i- o) a
co ex E
p o1 E cy LO
5 J£ QJ 4J ^ ^
4J 4J 4J
CO X
C U-f O r- 1 «T
O *-* X < IT*
C OJ 01 C
*"' 3 O c £ "tf
cn 4J N
^ « E
X t* 00 3 00
cp ai C E In m
0,-H -H
QJ E X K
le of supporting warmwater
oad which would: a) warm
CO
&• 4J
eo TO
U 01
X
X
^H CO
CC CJ
3 -H
4J 01
CO U
C OJ
Ui
in
E 4-1
co O
01 C
h4
CO ^1
•a j:
C CO
CO
JC
to to
t-l -^
01 ^M
>
.H
of the mixing zone more
ural water temperature
ft) 4J
OC TO
"D C
00
OJ C
.C -H
CO
4J <^
ce K
01
OJ 01
CO 4J
s
OJ
00 >
B O
**H
OJ U.
U ei
^
C
01 TO
Ji £.
K
CD
U
OJ
4J
00
C
^H
•^
01
OJ
0)
4^
UH
O
01
3
4J
CO
ex
E
01
^
*.(
01
CO
ec
OJ
(J
c
^^
c
n
4^
OJ
4J
CO
»
U
00
ID
01
3
4J
CO
OJ
ex
o
01
c
o
00
c
X
E
OJ
fej
o
01
00
OJ
OJ
emperatures (in *F):
S 0 N D
79 68 55 43
in
x < oo
5 in
C -S 00
o
E
sr
E -! 00
E
K r f-
E
00 < ^O
c
* o
_o S m
O O
01
4J 1-5 ^
•o
I
X
u
•H
"5
•o
CO
O
4-1
eC
01
X
0)
•H
0)
o>
o
c
•H
CC
to
K
QJ
^1
-o
C
CC
—4
C
CO
01
I
00
>
•H
0>
0)
M
0)
o
01
3
Ui
0>
0.
E
0>
o>
X
0>
CO
CC
0>
u
c
QJ
i
CO
u,
e
c
eo
f
4^
OJ
w
g
01
c
00
c
•*H
X
~e
01
-C
o
0)
00
01
OJ
OJ
0)
CO
TO
01
u
c
•H
J3
O
U
u
3
CO
u
01
0.
u
OJ
*
ec
3
fC
c
00
c
t-i
n
0.
cu
4->
o>
«
0>
CO
u
3
«
,u
c.
0>
o
Q.
E
0>
c
01 O
t-i Q tA
3
CJ
E" 0
.
4-1
E O
3 «00
•H
te < co
E
X O
-H -s co
X
c: m
0 ^r~
00 O
_c S r-.
0 O
^H ^ vC
0
u-i o
r m
OJ
j:
Cu ^
c
CO
£ m
00
CO
o
r*.
sD
CC
•H
C
3
•o
U
•o
c
c
0
00
c
•o
c
01
15
CC
E
^£
U-l ^^.
E E
3 m
E
C — <
1-1. ec
E ^
CO C
0)
00
en c
CC
OJ
4J If,
tn QJ
a> *j
eC "C
3 C
•O cc
o c
O M
C
o>
00
g
-c
o>
^
ce
0>
4->
dM
0
0)
3
4-1
U
R
U
4-1
-o
CO
OJ
Uw
u
4->
cc
3
cr
CO
o
01
ex
4-J
0>
- daily average and no
in waters naturally
i— t
•*v. ^J
00^.
E oo
E
m
w-i
o c
cc
E X
3 4-t
e
c cc
•H It
CO CO
01
3
•• — 4
CC CO
0!
5— 1
00
c
U -H
o> tc
o
w
2
CO
E
CO
3
00
c
•H
^j
O
a.
a.
3
U-
O
0>
^2
ec
eo
u
at are injurious and
me as a resul t of
4-1 4-1
U) X
c c
o cc
4J 4->
ee cc
4-) fM
C -^
V 00
O E
c
0 0
u in
r-
"D
Oi C
0* CC
U X
X *•>
O)
01
o c
C E
•-I O
"H C
CO
X
in
CO
•D
I
•o
O1
tTj
0)
p
2
w
01
X
cc
-J
u
2
0
0
01
a
E
o
0)
Q
3-20
-------
> o
O —I
•
0)
*o
3
[J
c
0
o
^-^
tc
TD
CO
*^
C
CO
4-J
to
>-,
J_J
•H
i— I
r^
u~
a>
A-J
CO
"O
CD
CO
o
CL
O
)-!
a,
T3
c
CO
60
C
•H
4— J
CO
•H
X
bJ
ro
1
CO
c^
to
•fl
l_l
re
"O
c
tC
T>
0»
CO
O
a-
o
i_i
Cu
m
p>.
a\
^
a
is
LJ
w
•o
c
nj
4J
CO
ao
c
•w
4-»
to
-H
£
verage
tC
X
4_l
C
i
-
*-J
•^
M
E
m
(M
•c
0)
a>
CJ
x
0
0
c
,—1
w
ffi
u:
O1
60
TO
w
C1
>
TO
X
!e
4-1
C
£
1-1
oo
£
m
CN]
— <
•u
QJ
0<
U
X
QJ
O
C
-^
r_l
cc
to
*j
oj
j= c
u
^ 0)
c +•>
QJ [J
> TO
0* .£
C. IM
o
4-> -
•3 00
0! C (C
*J U 0)
— 1 u- (C
E 3
»— ' K *D
JJ CJ
O> C «-•
.D (B ec
— 1 C
^H a OD
It 0 K
X -H GJ
10 *> *U
4J C* -C
c rr -^
01
^ u-; C
i c *•*
i
01
00
to
u
a>
>
ts
>,
»-H
C
E
*H
-^
e
c —
*M . C
^ 01
E .0 -^
0 «
O *J U
O L1 W
-> o ^
IP -H O
E n o i-
H-l 4J ~- C
•H *J
— I >, C 0
o to to o
^H -^ r*>
flS f*^ 0>
U kj O
,2c i"
O X
O M O 0!
o «j c r
15 —I
x: o
*j y
0) ^J
W <5
§01 u
bQ 01
0 I-
CIO
> 0
O 4) OJ *0
0) 00 U
l-i O U
** E ^
u o *^
re o c 01
« 0 £
C — * O
O *""-~ •• O1
U 03 CO 00
E w
X u a; .
O «- C E
2 O
-H O I- O
(C o
H 0
•u
k.
(0
•o
c
cc
^
cc
"C
0)
CO
c
CL
O
u
a.
^
-H
00
E
O
C
TO
£.
Ui
4J
a>
00
o
z:
"oc "ob'oo *oc'ob'ob"oclo*lo"ob^b^oo"ao%bo
OCC OOOtMOOOOOOO
OOC OOOOCC>*JO«NOO
0 —
15 13
3 01
00
I— 1 *J
O *•<
« 1
3 O
c a
•H
CD
*J T3
0) U
01 re
-o
tc c
•o o
re tn
(C O
CO /».
CO
"O \O
o c^
u ^
X
CJ (0
"^
0 C'
C 4^
— J U
CO
to
"oo*oc
o c
O u^
c
c
U £
0) C.
*! S
CO
H
^-^
I
U
OJ
•U
•H
U
O
— (
u
u
o
ex
a:
C ^-v
j: CL,
Q_
-H
^ ro
X 4->
^ 0
0 H
H ^
E
ki
0
-H
-^
O
o
re
u
u
c
o
kw
1— 1
0>
— 1
J>
•_4
£1.
n
00
Ui
0
U K
•H — «
= tc
TO CJ
30 -H
0 *
C ^
3-21
-------
3.1.3.2.1. Dowagiac River and Tributaries
Based on the preceding classification the Dowagiac River has been desig-
nated for agricultural use, navigation, industrial water supplies, and other
aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. In general, the following uses have been
designated for the Dowagiac River by the MDNR Water Resources Commission
(1976):
• Total body contact recreation and support of cold-water fish
populations (from the headwaters to just above its mouth)
• Partial body contact recreation and support of cold-water fish
populations (from just above the mouth of the River to the
confluence with the St. Joseph River).
The Pipestone Creek, Dowagiac Creek, and Osborn Drain have been desig-
nated as trout streams (MDNR 1975).
Selected water quality data for the Dowagiac River, Dowagiac Creek, and
Pipestone Creek (tributary to the St. Joseph River) are compared to state
standards (MDNR 1973) in Table 3-4. Additional physical and chemical charac-
teristics for the three streams are contained in Appendix H, Tables H-l, H-2,
and H-3.
Table 3-4. Selected water quality parameters for the rivers in the study area
(MDNR 1973) .
State Dowagiac Dowagiac Pipestone
Parameter Standard River Creek Creek
Fecal Coliform 200 (total body 1066 2394 574
(MPN/100 ml) contact in re-
creational waters)
1000 (all other
waters)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 6 (minimum for 7.9 7.2 9.0
streams and inland
lakes protected for
cold water fish)
5 (minimum for all
other streams and
inland lakes)
pH 6.7-8.8 8.1 8.1 8.3
_.
-------
The average dissolved oxygen levels in the Dowagiac Creek and River, and
the Pipestone Creek were above the state standard of 5.0 mg/1. The pH of the
three streams fell within the range set by the state standard. Concentrations
of fecal coliform bacteria, however, were higher than the level permitted for
total body recreation. Bacterial contamination of the waters in these streams
is indicated by the fecal coliform data.
3.1.3.2.2. Inland Lakes
All lakes within the study area were designated for total body contact
recreation and were classified, from a fisheries perspective, as warm water
lakes (By telephone, Mr. Don Reynolds, MDNR, Fisheries Division, to WAPORA,
Inc., 18 May 1979). Warm water lakes are typically shallow lakes and do not
become stratified.
A sampling program was implemented to qualitatively characterize the
water quality and trophic status of lakes in the study area. The survey was
completed in two phases to compare early summer conditions with those of late
summer when algal pulses, or blooms, are often evident. Phytoplankton collec-
tions were conducted during the periods of 4-6 June 1979 and 4-6 September
1979. Between five and ten sampling stations were distributed evenly around
each lake. The actual number depended upon the size of the lake. The
sampling station locations are shown in Appendix I, Figure 1-1. The phyto-
plankton analyses including computer printouts summarizing the density, the
percent occurrence of major groups and individual taxa, the number of taxa,
and the Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index for each sample also are shown in
Appendix I. In addition, dissolved oxygen levels, temperature, and Secchi
disc depths were measured at each station on 4-7 September 1979 (Appendix I,
Table 1-2).
In general terms Chrysophyta (yellow-green or golden-brown algae),
followed by Chlorophyta (green algae), were the most abundant algae in most of
the lakes during the June sampling period. During the September sampling
period, Cyanophyta (blue-green algae) was generally the most abundant algae
present. Cable, Crooked, Indian, and Keeler lakes exhibited the greatest
algal density in June.
3-23
-------
During the September sampling period, surface dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions were greater than 8.0 parts per million (ppro) in all of the lakes. The
bottom dissolved oxygen levels, however, were less than 2.0 ppm at one or more
stations on Cable, Crooked, Dewey, Magician, Pipestone, and Round lakes. The
bottom dissolved oxygen levels for Indian and Keeler lakes were similar to the
surface levels (Table 3-5). All of the measurements of surface temperature
for the sampling stations on each lake were greater than 68°F (20°C) during
both sample periods.
The Secchi disc readings obtained in September were greater than 6.6 feet
(2 meters) and often greater than 9.8 feet (3 meters) for most of the sampling
stations. Pipestone Lake, with readings of 3.3 feet (1 meter) was the excep-
tion. Algal concentrations visible to the naked eye were greatest at Indian
Lake in June and at Crooked, Dewey, and Round lakes in September.
Following the collection and the analysis of the samples, general indices
were utilized to determine the trophic status of each lake. Nygaard's Trophic
Status Indices (Table 3-6) are based on ratios of selected taxa present in the
water. The various genera present are rated according to their water pollu-
tion tolerance by Palmer's Organic Pollution Indices (Table 3-7) . The
numerical values assigned to each genus are summed to yield a score that can
be compared with values associated with high or low organic pollution.
The results of the various indices indicate that the lakes of the area
are either in an advanced mesotrophic state or in an eutrophic state. This
conclusion was substantiated further by the existence of moderate to heavy
aquatic vascular plant growth in the lakes and the dissolved oxygen readings
of less than 2.0 ppm in the deeper sections of six of the lakes. The reduced
Secchi disc transparency readings for Pipestone Lake also indicate greater
algal productivity (biomass) and turbidity compared to the other lakes.
Other research on the lakes in this area supports Nygaard's Trophic
Status classification. The remainder of this section will describe the lakes
individually and incorporate results found by other investigators.
3-24
-------
i-H
0)
•i
4J
CX
0)
1
a
o
K
01
CO
QJ
u
to
•H
0)
•o
c
CO
0)
CO
,-J
CO
•r-l
-o
C
M
e
o
>-J
U-j
co lie c tec
Water quality data
i
fi
0)
•H
CO
H
c; *^i s^ cSitsicsicsirsj rsjr\irsirsiCNCsiPs.rsi rsicsifsirxirsirs!CNrsifsj(N CC CC CC CO CO
i- C 1 1 I 1 ! I 1 1 i ! t ! I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 I I
C 3 0)|
c
o
"c -D 2|
u- c u
Cv^WKMKKfa: 33333
= 3 M z 2 z 2 2 w u: w t: u: u: us u: zsszzzzzzz:^ szzzz
c*j -H
c c
UD <-*
— ' JJj **** * **
^* u^ O iTi in lA m OCOOtAOOiA COOOiA O tO u"> O O O O O lA O
U 4j
(J pu
cj S7
to O(
s- ' ol ^H
a
o
cy
^ S
WK< O O O — H CSJ CCCOCCCOCCCOCCCC O^COO^COCOCOCOCOCOO^ COCOCOCOCO
Q W|
O t— 1-Hr- 1 CsJfSifMCSCSICsjrsiCN CslCSJ rs'fslCsjt—CSl rs] CSJCSJ r-i r- (
i CO
^
4-1
CO
Ix
a-
a.
E
OJ
H SI
^ffll Off'O^O oor^^yoor^iricor^ u~iOOCOOO<"")OOO Oi/^iriOf^
t?Z3 C>JP>JtN)fSr*J fMtNC-JCMtsltNtNCM CMrsJrgtNfNfNtNCMtMCM rslcMCNCMrW
3 to]
B. •* A
& to
Q J
O
ua a. a _.a.
a w""~~ w~*""""~ t/5"*"~""""~ w""~"
Ol
z
c
o
re
HI
§
01 ^ OJ
jrf « -o ji OJ
^j a s o ^
'•HO i- eo
CM CC U U
CO CO CO CC CO CO CC
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3333333
Z 2 Z Z 2 2 Z
-K * *
O O O in ir> O C
r*- >x> ^ cO co o o^
co -3" csi co u"i r* o^
r— 1 rH
CSl \£> rH CO i-t CO m
cn cr> a> co c. cc
-------
t1
c -o •-'I
I- C
61 -H IS
C 3 ill
0> Hi
cccooooooo scooc
•O
|
r-l
CJ
C
8
k.
01 13
C C
U 4J
U C.
01 or
to o
o o «n o o
r-» *£> & eo co
CO
•H
C/3
a)
JS
u
•a
C
CO
CD
03
.J
C
Cfl
c
|
X
o
•C
0>
>
o
ffl
CO
•H
°
^
ou
oa
o>
o
tE
tl
3
CO
g
°
r^
rvi CO O O *N
O -H & a* C
•ff CO U*t U~i ^
-------
Table 3-6. Nygaard's Trophic Status (NTS) for lakes in the Indian Lake-Sister
Lakes study area (E = eutrophic, 0 = oligotrophic).
Lake
Cable
Crooked
Dewey
Indian
Keeler
Magician
Pipestone
Round
June
b
Myxophycean
d
1.5(E)
l.O(E)
0.75(E)
1.33(E)
l.O(E)
l.O(E)
1.5(E)
1979
c
Diatom
-
0.375(E)
-
0.429(E)
-
0.4(E)
2.0(E)
0.4(E)
September 1979
Myxophycean
4.0(E)
l.O(E)
>0(E)
• 0(E)
• 0(E)
l.O(E)
Diatom
0.67(E)
l.O(E)
0.75(E)
0.5(E)
0.5(E)
0.25(0)
Morris et al 1977
D
Myxophycean - Myxophyceae 0.0-.4 Oligotrophic
Desmideae 0.1-3.0 Eutrophic
'Diatom = Centric Diatoms 0.-0-0.3 Oligotrophic
Pennate Diatoms 0.0-1.75 Eutrophic
Dashes indicate that taxa necessary to calculate the ratio were not present.
Table 3-7. Palmer's Organic Pollution Indices for lakes in the Indian Lake-
Sister Lakes study area.
Lake
Cable
Crooked
Dewey
Indian
Keeler
Magician
Pipestone
Round
June 1979
15
14
16
25
19
11
13
15
September 1979
21
30
21
21
19
25
25
24
The indices are based on genus. A numerical score of 20 or more is evidence
of high organic pollution. A numerical score of 15-19 is probable evidence
of high organic pollution (Morris and others 1977).
3-27
-------
Pipestone Lake
A limnological study of Pipestone Lake conducted in 1978 (Snow 1978)
classified the lake as mesotrophic to eutrophic on the basis of Bortleson's
water quality index, summer chlorophyll _a concentrations, and mean Secchi disc
depth (Appendix H, Table H-4).
The spring survey (April) data indicated the lake was well-mixed while
the late summer (August) survey found the lake to be strongly stratified (Snow
1978). Clinograde dissolved oxygen-temperature profiles, typical of an eutro-
phic lake, were exhibited in the lake with a maximum oxygen concentration in
the epilimnion due to wind mixing and algal photosynthesis and a minimum in
the hypolimnion due to stratification coupled with bacterial metabolism. A
near shore fecal coliform survey conducted in June 1978 indicated that one
sample out of three exceeded the standard for total body contact. This sample
was taken near the mouth of the Dakin-Peter Drain. A lake survey conducted by
Banks (1977) also found elevated levels of fecal coliform (1185 MPN/100 ml)
and total phosphorus (0.173 mg/1) in the sample collected from the Dakin-Peter
Drain.
Round Lake
Water quality data for Round Lake, which was monitored during 1977 and
1978 (MDNR 1978c), are summarized in Appendix H, Table H-5. The dissolved
oxygen and temperature measurements of June 1978 to a depth of 24 feet (7.3
meters) show clinograde dissolved oxygen - temperature profiles, that are
typical of eutrophic lakes. The temperature varied from 75°F (24°C) at a
depth of 2 feet (0.6 meters) to 59°F (15°C) at a depth of 24 feet. Dissolved
oxygen at the same depths varied from 9 mg/1 to 0.2 mg/1. Limited water
clarity (about 4 feet, Secchi disc depth) and chlorophyll a_ concentrations
also indicated that eutrophic conditions were present during the sampling
period.
Crooked Lake
Water quality data for Crooked Lake, monitored during 1978 (MDNR 1978c),
are summarized in Appendix H, Table H-6. The dissolved oxygen and temperature
measurements of 21 June 1978, taken at 2- to 46-foot (0.6- to 14- meter)
3-28
-------
depths show clinograde profiles that are typical of eutrophic lakes. The
temperature varied from 75°F (24°C) at a 2-foot depth to 45°F (7°C) at a
46-foot depth. Dissolved oxygen at the same depths varied from 9.4 mg/1 to
0.1 mg/1. Similar dissolved oxygen and temperature trends were monitored by
WAPORA during September 1979 (Table 3-5). The temperature and dissolved
oxygen monitored at the surface and at a depth of approximately 41 feet (12
meters) varied from 74.8°F (23.8°C) to 45°F (7°C) and 9.1 mg/1 to 0.0 mg/1,
respectively.
Cable Lake
For the September 1979 sampling date, Cable Lake had a clinograde tem-
perature-oxygen curve at three of the five sampling stations (Table 3-5) .
These conditions, found only at stations with a depth of 16 feet (4.8 meters)
or greater, indicated that Cable Lake stratifies in the deeper regions. Cable
Lake had the highest Secchi disc average (15.5 feet) of the eight lakes
sampled in September 1979. Blue-green algae densities during June and Septem-
ber 1979 were low compared to Pipestone Lake. Between the June and September
sampling dates, there was a dramatic decline in the density of green algae and
a moderate increase in concentration of blue-green algae. This type of algal
succession is typical in temperate North American lakes.
Dewey Lake
Dewey Lake was classified as eutrophic (MDNR 1977b, 1978b, 1979) on the
basis of Secchi depth and chlorophyll a measurements collected through the
Inland Lake Self-Help Program (Appendix H, Table H-7). A limnological study
(Snow 1976) conducted during 1976 measured the seasonal temperature profiles
for the surface water to a 50-foot (15.2-meter) depth. The results indicated
that a large region of the lake remained isothermal and well-mixed until
colder temperatures were reached in the autumn; at that time, the entire lake
was isothermal. A portion of the lake stratified during the summer months
with the hypolimnion developing below 20 feet (6.1 meters). However, most of
the lake area was less than 20 feet deep and did not stratify.
The oxygen profile indicated that the hypolimnion was anoxic. Oxygen
depletion occurred only at depths below 20 feet. Thus only a small volume of
water was oxygen depleted because most of the lake bottom is no deeper than 20
3-29
-------
feet. Oxygen depletion did not occur above 20 feet due to mixing of bottom
water with surface water.
The yearly average unfiltered orthophosphorus concentration for the mixed
water column was 0.021 mg/1 and the nitrate-nitrogen concentration was 0.058
mg/1. Based on nutrient data, the lake was classified as mesotrophic to
eutrophic. The average Secchi disc value for the summer months was 6.2 feet
(1.9 meters). Using Bortleson's classification system, the physical factors
indicated that the lake has a natural potential to be mesotrophic.
Magician Lake
Magician Lake was similar to the other lakes in the study area in that
oxygen depletion occurred in the deeper holes of the lake. Measurements taken
at the three deepest stations sampled during September 1979 showed that the
dissolved oxygen declined to 0.0 ppm (O.Omg/1) at the bottom and the tempera-
ture changed from approximately 75.2°F (24.0°C) to 50°F (10°C). Stations
sampled in less than 10 feet (3 meters) of water did not exhibit any stratifi-
cation (Table 3-5).
The phytoplankton community of Magician Lake in June 1979 was dominated
by diatoms. In September 1979, diatoms and blue-green algae were the two most
abundant algal groups in the lake (Appendix I).
Keeler Lake
Keeler Lake was the smallest lake investigated during the June and Sep-
tember 1979 sampling trips. It is relatively shallow; most of the lake has a
depth of 11 feet (3.3 meters) or less. Dissolved oxygen and temperature
measurements taken from all five sampling sites indicated that Keeler Lake was
well mixed and isothermal in September 1979. Light penetrated to the lake
bottom over most of the lake, (based on Secchi disc measurements, Table 3-5).
Keeler Lake had the lowest algal density of the eight lakes studied during the
September 1979 sampling trip and was one of the few lakes that was not
dominated by blue-green algae (Appendix I).
3-30
-------
Indian Lake
All nine stations for the September 1979 sampling date indicated that
Indian Lake was well-mixed and isothermal. The maximum depth sampled was 15
feet (4.5 meters) at sample site 55 (Table 3-5). Although the maximum depth
is given as 35 feet (10.6 meters), most of the lake is probably less than 15
feet deep and these regions would be expected to have dissolved oxygen concen-
trations greater than 7.0 ppm (7.0 mg/1) throughout the water column.
The phytoplankton community was composed predominantly of a mixture of
green algal species in June. By September, however, blue-green algae
dominated the lake. Anacystis was the dominant blue-green algae in Indian,
Crooked, Dewey, and Magician lakes during September (Appendix I).
3.1.3.3. Groundwater in the Study Area
Water supplies for the study area are obtained from groundwater sources
associated with the glacial - geology. Outwash deposits constitute the most
productive aquifers in the study area. The stratified sands and gravels of
these deposits may be highly permeable, continuous over great distances, and
readily recharged by precipitation. Terminal moraines in the study area
contain layers, or lenses, of sand and gravel that are highly permeable. How-
ever, due to the complex stratigraphy of morainal deposits, productive forma-
tions may be difficult to locate. Ancient lake sediments (generally fine-
grained) as well as bedrock formations (chiefly shale) are poor aquifers and
yield little water to wells in this area (Giroux 1972) .
Water wells in the study area are used predominantly for domestic pur-
poses. They generally consist of 2-inch (5-centimeter) diameter jetted wells
with jet pumps. The maximum capacity of these wells typically is 4-gallons
per minute (gpm; 24 cubic meters per day [m /d]). However, numerous 4-inch
(10-centimeter) diameter wells have been drilled in the study area. These
wells contain submersible pumps. The capacities of these wells may be as high
3 3
as 100 gpm (532 m /d) , but typically are 13.4 mp (73 m /d) . A few 6-inch
(15.2-centimeter) diameter wells also have been drilled in the study area.
These wells also utilize submersible pumps and are capable of producing over
3
100 gpm (532 m /d) .
3-31
-------
One 12-inch (30.5-centimeter) diameter irrigation well is located in
Section 16, Township 55, Range 16 W. The well was drilled to a total depth of
109 feet (33.2 meters) and was installed in medium to coarse sand. A pumping
3
test performed at 134 gpm (7,300 m /d) resulted in a 15 foot (4.6 meter) draw-
down at the well.
The regional water table in the study area is shown in Figure 3-4. This
map was constructed on the basis of information obtained from topographic maps
and water well records. Because stream flow into or away from the lakes is
limited, it is probable that most of the circulation in the lakes is due to
groundwater flow. Based on the available data, it appears that the levels of
the lakes and streams of the study area reflect the level of the water table.
In general, groundwater is probably recharged in the outwash plains and
is discharged to. the Dowagiac River, to Silver Creek, and to the St. Joseph
River. However, because the lakes in this area intercept the unconfined water
table, groundwater probably-constitutes an important part of the hydrologic
budget in these lakes.
A groundwater quality survey of the project area was conducted by WAPORA
during June 1979. A total of sixty residential wells located around the lakes
were selected for sampling (Figure 3-5). The location of these wells repre-
sented suspected "problem areas" for septic tank systems (areas with high
density housing, high water tables, and steep slopes) and "no problem areas"
(areas with low potential for contamination of the well). Results of the
nutrient and coliform analysis of the water samples collected from the repre-
sentative wells are shown in Table 3-8. The nitrate-nitrogen data (Table 3-8)
indicated that the groundwater was contaminated in localized areas. The
majority of wells sampled (75%) had nitrate-nitrogen concentrations of less
than 1 mg/1. Fifteen wells (25% of total wells samples) had concentrations
greater than 1 mg/1; and 5 out of these 15 wells had nitrate-nitrogen concen-
trations greater than the 10 mg/1 criteria for domestic water supply. The
data also indicated that most of the higher nitrate-nitrogen concentrations
are associated with higher concentrations of chlorides. Thus the most likely
source of nitrate contamination of these localized wells appeared to be the
effluent from septic tanks. The total phosphorus concentrations in the well
samples ranged from less than 0.001 to 0.026 mg/1. Pipestone Lake had the
3-32
-------
Figure 3-4. Groundwater contours in the study area.
3-33
-------
- s!K?i i-C7y^ "-r
5u^~}S^£iSrl-rJ'";:
-: ^v^"*tj>J r'-f—•J^—,---"~_- >^>.*^*t^fl-"'1 •'^ lij-^ ~ ^^ U -'e~
^w^i^^s^^^K^^y'"^ ?^^
Figure 3-5. Well sampling sites for the groundwater survey
3-34
-------
cfl
QJ
l-i
CO
(U
U)
00
I
CB
tfl
to
JC
r Sq
C' C|
i-'C| C C — O -r C O — O C -C C-COCCCOC-
5£
C- CCC
»/ i—i
cfl
hJ 0)
c
C 3
CO >~)
•H
'TD LO
C —I
M
T3
0) C
O
P*i 0)
0) OJ
1C r
4. O
C E
i- S
5:
o
H
cococo oooco cooooooo cococcoco occ oooo
vvvv vvvv vv vvv vvvvv v
3 01
£
cd c
5 M
*o
c •
o o2
si o
f\p pL,
evc, Oi
C — O B — It X
c> * AJ -^ re jj c
•c
b
^
3-35
-------
—, occcooccccc
C -r <• r^ r-, — in LI cc r- c- r-
O C C i' OCOtiQCC
^~* i*"> 1/1 L** CC CC LI ^ CNJ r*-« ^"-
TJ
01
"O
D
r-t
U
c
O
O
OC£:<-OC:Ce>— »C
C O O C;
O O D O — C O
(T)
OJ
03
0)
C cJ O— — CCOO
— ttl COCCCOO
—i L.
tr
CC
CC
O o S
o
c
CO %C CO —* —* O "-
§o c o o — c
o c o o o c
—i ocoooooooco
oooo oooocoe
S-l
01
J-l
03
•H
CO
I
0)
13
C
0)
0 O
o o
-HOC OOOOOOOC
V V V V V V
o o o o o o c
V V V V ^
V V V V
V V f< V V —<
3
tn
OJ
u
tfl
3
T)
C
3
O
!-w
00
0)
O
cn
3
re
0)
OS
00
I
tfl
H
— c.
C1 t'
3 el
o co < e < < <-i
&• — z c 2 z oo
E t- -o
CO) «-J
Z T- pi re w 1-1
to rac^ & & G c "i*1
U C"CC7CWtJU^*— 4-0
BC S •-. K u as < 3 os oi w
flj '
^ c
.5 J:
t.
ec
s
LJ
— D
1- 3 £
it ec R
"3 U- U
t-
C
t:
a
•^
&.
-»
j_, ^, y
CJ c to *^
c. — a> u^
^ — n c
u. *^ as c-
~
.5
lj ki w U C
c) a. ^- to ^j p o
S o o u ^i » JJ
c ti C1 I— X O tc
I- -7 E w u; B: ~
-? f,
£ a.
II
e; cc
^i K
L
C
CC
c
o
AJ
CC
u
AJ
£
s
c
u
tn
K
0
14
>T
CJ
o:
V
tt
^
3-36
-------
highest average phosphorus concentration of 0.019 rag/1 (3 samples). There was
no apparent correlation between high phosphorus concentrations and high
nitrate concentrations or between high phosphorus concentrations and high
chloride concentration at the 60 sampling stations. Therefore the slightly
elevated phosphorus concentrations found in wells around Pipestone Lake is not
strictly associated with effluent from septic tank drainfields.
The quality of the groundwater was sampled at Burnette Farms Packing Co.,
Keeler, Michigan in 1963 (USGS 1963). The results are consistent with those
of tests from other samples taken within Van Buren County. The results of
this well sample, shown below, probably are indicative of baseline cation and
anion concentrations found in groundwater associated with the lower aquifers
located in glacial drift in this region:
Calcium (Ca) 56 ppm
Magnesium (Mg) 25 ppm
Sodium (Na) " 3.8 ppm
Potassium (K) 0.7 ppm
Bicarbonate (HCO 262 ppm
Carbonate (CO ) 0 ppm
Sulfate (SO ) 30 ppm
Chloride (Cl) 6.0 ppm
Dissolved solids 263 ppm
(residue on evaporation
Hardness as CaCO
Calcium-magnesium 243 ppm
Noncarbonate 28 ppm
pH 7.6
Specific conductance 465 micromhos at 25°C
3-37
-------
3.1.3.4. Nutrient Inputs into Inland Lakes
Tne major water quality concern for Indian Lake and the Sister Lakes is
the eutrophication process. All the lakes have some degree of eutrophication.
Eutrophic lakes are characterized by high biological productivity, resulting
in an algal cell density that can be high enough to give the water a thick
green appearance. The problem is compounded when blue-green algae dominate.
This form of algae collects together in dense colonies forming floating mats
on the lake surface. This presents an unsightly condition that discourages
water sports and often generates disagreeable odors.
Another problem is the depletion of dissolved oxygen caused by the die-
off of large numbers of phytoplankton and other organisms. When the organisms
in the lake die, they settle to the bottom and the organic matter is decom-
posed by bacteria and other microorganisms. The bacteria and microorganisms
consume oxygen, depleting the oxygen in the bottom waters. Fish and the
other organisms that require oxygen are unable to survive in such waters.
Eutrophication or increased productivity of the lake is generally caused
by an increase in the input of nutrients to the lake. For most freshwater
bodies, phosphorus is the key nutritive element for aquatic plant growth. In
most cases, by restricting the input of phosphorus, productivity of the lakes
can be reduced. One of the water quality benefits associated with centralized
collection systems is the reduction of the phosphorus load entering the lakes.
However, in evaluating the potential benefit of sewers in terms of lake water
quality, it is important to look at all sources of phosphorus entering the
lakes and the significance of the septic tank source in relation to other
sources. It is conceivable that the removal of one source (septic tank
effluents) may not change the water quality of these lakes significantly.
Water quality improvements may require the control of many sources in order to
realize maximum benefits from a reduced phosphorus load.
Estimation of the amount of nutrient loading to Indian Lake and the
Sister Lakes requires measurements of the nutrient inputs from various
sources. In this study, the three major nutrient sources identified were:
nonpoint sources (general sources of pollution, such as surface runoff, not
originating from a single controllable point), direct precipitation, and
septic tank leachate.
3-38
-------
in order to properly estimate the nutrient inputs, direct measurements of
contributions from surface runoff, precipitation, and septic tank leachate
should be made. A comprehensive data base of these direct measurements is
rare for most studies and does not exist for this study. A direct calculation
of the nutrient loading, therefore, cannot be developed. Instead, a "theore-
tical loading" was derived using the available literature values for contribu-
tions from nonpoint sources, precipitation, and septic tank leachate.
Numerous methods have been reported by various researchers (Dillon and
Rigler 1975; Dillon and Kirchner 1975; Omernik 1977; and USEPA 1980b) for
estimating the nutrient export rates from watersheds (Figure 3-6). In the
Indian Lake-Sister Lakes study area, nutrient export coefficients from USEPA
(1980b) were used for nonpoint source inputs. The export rates associated
with the different land use/cover types used in this analysis appear in Table
3-9. The phosphorus loadings from nonpoint sources are given in Table 3-10.
Land use/cover type acreage in each of the seven study area watersheds is
presented in Section 3.2.2.2, Table 3-27.
Nutrient contributions to the lakes from direct precipitation
(Table 3-10) were estimated using 0.13 kilograms (kg) of total phosphorus per
acre of lake surface per year (USEPA 1980b).
Several different estimates of phosphorus loads in septic tank leachate
have been reported: 0.8 kilograms per capita per year (kg/cap/yr) (Dillon and
Rigler 1975); 1.5 kg/cap/yr (Richardson 1974); and 0.8 kg/cap/yr (NES 1974).
For consistency, the NES value of 0.8 kg/cap/yr was utilized as a baseline
concentration. A soil retention coefficient of 88% was used to estimate the
percent of phosphorus removed by soil which is within a range used by USEPA
(1980b) and Jones and Lee (1977). Therefore, the value of 0.1 kg/cap/yr was
used to calculate the phosphorus contributions from septic tanks to lake
waters. The nutrient loadings from septic systems and other sources are
presented in Table 3-10. As indicated, the nonpoint sources contribute a
significant amount of phosphorus to all the lakes.
The sources of nutrient inputs to the lakes are dependent upon the pre-
dominant land use/cover type of the watersheds. Dewey Lake, Indian Lake, and
3-39
-------
No Scale
Figure 3-6. Surface watersheds in the study area.
3-40
-------
Table 3-9. Mean nutrient export from nonpoint sources by land use/cover type
(USEPA 1980b).
Total
Phosphorus
Land Use/Cover Type (Kg/acre/yr)
Agricultural
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Recreational areas
Forest
Wetland
0.26
0.14
0.81
0.30
0.08
0.11
0.06
Table 3-10. Total phosphorus inputs by source.
_ Phosphorus (kg/yr)
Lake
Cable
Crooked
Dewey
Indian
Magician
Pipestone
Round
Nonpoint Source
(Land Cover)
59.4
96.2
392.7
659.6
410.3
493.4
112.6
Septic
System
29.0
103.0
52.0
122.0
160.0
19.0
52.0
""
Precipitation
9.9
29.5
28.5
65.9
58.6
16.5
25.1
Total
98.3
228.7
473.2
847.4
628.9
528.9
189.7
Pipestone Lake watersheds had the highest percentages of phosphorus inputs
from nonpoint sources, and a significant percentage of each watershed was used
for agricultural purposes. The Crooked Lake watershed, with the highest per-
centage of residential land, had the highest percentage of phosphorus loadings
from septic tank leachate.
The nonpoint source load to the lakes does not differentiate the load
contributed by surface runoff and groundwater. Indian Lake and the Sister
Lakes are primarily seepage lakes and do not have any major tributary inlets
or stream linkages between lakes. The lakes are fed primarily by groundwater
3-41
-------
recharge. Water balance estimates and well water chemical analysis for Pipe-
stone Lake indicated that groundwater is the major source of phosphorus to the
lake (National Biocentric Inc. 1978). Similar water balance data for the
other lakes are not available. However, the concentration of total phosphorus
in the groundwater surrounding the lakes, except Pipestone Lake, is relatively
low.
The amount of phosphorus that actually enters the lake from septic tanks
would depend on the ability of drainage field soils to immobilize the phos-
phorus. When subsurface disposal systems are built on proper soil and are
located at proper distances from the receiving water body, there is nearly
100% removal of the phosphorus from septic tank effluent by the soil (Jones
and Lee 1977). However, when the distances between the disposal system and
lake are limited or when the drainage field has failed, a high proportion of
the phosphorus from the system moves into the groundwater or into the lake or
river. The value of 0.1 kg/cap/yr used to calculate the load from septic tank
effluent that has filtered through the drainfield and transversed the distance
through the soil to lake waters. This 0.1 kg/cap/yr value represents about an
88% reduction in phosphorus content of the septic tank leachate by the
drainage field soils and other soils between the on-site system and lake.
To better understand the nutrient contribution of septic tanks to the
lakes, a comprehensive septic leachate survey of Indian Lake and Sister Lakes
shorelines was performed in October 1979 by K-V Associates, Inc. The septic
leachate survey included continuous monitoring of sections of the shoreline of
all the lakes by a recording leachate instrument (Septic Snooper) . Water
quality analysis of identified stream or groundwater plumes detected by the
septic snooper supplied evidence of domestic wastewater'infiltration into the
lakes. The October sampling dates should have detected groundwater plumes
originating from permanent residences because permanent residences would be
continuously contributing sewage to on-site systems. Most seasonal residences
would have been vacated by October, and therefore it is probably that some
seasonal residences that may have been emitting erupting plumes were not
detected at the time of the septic snooper survey. The following conclusions
3-42
-------
were drawn from the survey:
• A total of 47 locations exhibited noticeable erupting effluent
plume characteristics, specifically occurring on Crooked Lake,
Magician Lake, Indian Lake, and Pipestone Lake (Table 3-11).
The other (smaller) lakeshores had fewer potential point source
problem sites and had water quality influenced by the surround-
ing land use
• At least 16 of the plumes were associated with stream inlets,
with 12 such inlets on Pipestone Lake alone. Plume occurrence
was predominantly along northern shores, corresponding quite
well with observed groundwater flow intrusion
• Fecal coliform bacterial contamination had not reached a level
of major concern with the possible exception of levels found in
Pipestone Lake. Of 38 locations sampled around the eight
lakes, only one (a drainpipe on Pipestone Lake) exceeded 75
colonies/100 ml of water
• A total of 115 lake samples were analyzed: 84% of the samples
showed NO values less than 0.100 ppm and 90% of the samples
did not exceed 0.040 ppm of total phosphorus, the maximum being
0.883 ppm
• Consistently high ammonia (greater than 1 "ppm - indicating
reducing conditions) appeared only on Pipestone Lake. Residen-
tial areas showing plume problems and beset with high ground-
water included the north shores of Magician and Pipestone Lakes
and more elevated areas of the southwestern corner of Magician
Lake and the western shore of Indian Lake
• Major pathways of nutrient loading detected by the septic
leachate survey appear to come from surface runoff streams
rather than groundwater plumes.
Another method of detecting malfunctioning septic systems was conducted
by stereoscopic viewing of color aerial photographs taken on 16 May 1979
(USEPA 1979) . The detection capability is contingent upon excessive septic
tank effluent rising to or near the soil surface. Effluent that does not rise
toward the soil surface, but continues to seep laterally or downward through
the lower soil horizon, is not detectable. The detection of a malfunctioning
on-lot septic system by remote sensing is supplemented by a ground survey.
The aerial survey of May 1979 identified 97 on-lot septic systems with indica-
tions of a potential malfunction. Of the 97 septic systems identified, 51
systems were located within 100 meters of the lakeshore (Table 3-11), with the
majority of the sites found around Magician Lake. A field inspection to
verify the suspicious on-lot septic system was made in August 1979. A random
3-43
-------
Table 3-11. Septic leachate and septic system aerial surveys.
a
No. of Active Wastewater Plumes Potentially
Groundwater Stream Source Malfunctioning,
Lake Plume Plume Septic Systems
Dewey Lake 00 4
Cable Lake 00 1
Magician Lake 17 3 26
Pipestone Lake 1 12 4
Indian Lake 7 1 11
Crooked Lake 5 1 4
Round Lake 10 1
a
Septic leachate survey (K-V Associates, Inc. 1980).
b
Aerial survey Indian Lake-Sister Lakes region (USEPA 1979c); Table
includes only those sites within 100 meters of the lakeshore.
review of 25 systems revealed that two septic systems were failing and fifteen
systems would require further testing and monitoring.
In conclusion, the different phosphorus loads to Indian Lake and the
Sister Lakes is an important factor affecting the water quality of the lakes.
A general lake model which predicts the current phosphorus loading rate as
well as the expected changes that may occur with implementation of the various
wastewater alternatives is given in Section 4.1.2.3.
3.1.4. Aquatic Biota
3.1.4.1. Phytoplankton
Information on phytoplankton for the lakes in the study area is discussed
in Section 3.1.5.2.1. Appendix I contains summary tables of the species lists
and densities.
3-44
-------
3.1.4.2. Mollusks
No data are available on the mollusk populations of the Indian Lake-
Sister Lakes study area. However, the naiad mollusks (Class Pelecypoda)
normally inhabit moving waters (rivers and streams), and generally would not
be expected to occur in the lakes. A few species could inhabit the shallow
water in some of the lakes. Freshwater snails (Class Gastropoda) would be
expected to inhabit the lakes. Endangered and threatened species of Mollusks
in Michigan are shown in Table 3-12.
Table 3-12. Species of mollusks designated by the State of Michigan as
endangered and threatened (MDNR 1980). T indicates threatened
and E indicates endangered.
Scientific Name Status
Actinonaias ellipsiformis T
Anodonta subgibbosa ., T
Anguispira kochi T
Cyclonias tuberculata T
Discus patulus T
Dysnomia triquetra T
Elliptic complanatus T
Haplotrema concavum T
Lampsilis fasciola T
Lymnaea megasoma T
Mesodon elevata T
Me sodon Sayana T
Mesomphix cupreus T
Obovaria leibii E
Fontigens (= Paludestrina) nickliniana T
Pleurobema clava T
Pomatiopsis cincinnatiensis T
Simpsoniconcha ambigua E
Triodops.ls denotata T
Zoogenetas harpa T
One other mollusk, the white cat's eye (Epioblasma sulcata delicata), is
listed in the 19 January 1979 Federal Register as endangered in Michigan,
Ohio, and Indiana. However, this record is not recognized by the MDNR.
3-45
-------
3.1.4.3. Fisheries
Warm water lakes are typically shallow and do not become stratified. All
of the lakes in the study area are classified as warm water lakes capable of
support fish such as sunfish (By telephone, Mr. Don Reynolds, MDNR, Fisheries
Division, to WAPORA, Inc., 18 May 1979). No species of fish that have been
designated by the State of Michigan as endangered or threatened are known to
occur in the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes study area (Table 3-13).
Table 3-13. Species of fish designated by the State of Michigan as endan-
gered and threatened (MDNR 1980). T indicates threatened and E
indicates endangered.
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Acipenser fulvescens Lake sturgeon T
Ammocrypta pellucida Eastern sand darter T
Clinostomus elongatus Redside dace T
Coregonus alpenae - Longjaw cisco E
Coregonus artedii Cisco _ T
Coregonus hoyi Bloater • T
Coregonus johannae Deepwater cisco E
Coregonus kiyi Kiyi T
Coregonus nigripinnis Blackfin cisco E
Coregonus reighardi Shortnose cisco E
Coregonus zenithicus Shortjaw cisco E
Moxostoma carinaturn River redhorse T
Notropis photogenis Silver shiner T
No turus stigmosus Northern madtorn T
Stizostedion vitreum glaucum Blue pike E
The general characteristics of of the seven lakes and the species of fish
recorded in each lake are discussed briefly below.
Cable Lake
This small lake has a total surface area of 91.2 acres (36.9 hectares).
The maximum depth is 41 feet (12.5 meters), but 20% of the lake is less than
10 feet (3 meters) in depth. At the time of the last MDNR survey in 1941, the
predominant species of fish were bluegill, perch, and largemouth bass.
3-46
-------
Crooked Lake
This lake has a maximum depth of 62 feet (18.8 meters) and a total sur-
face area of 226.8 acres (92 hectares). The bottom material is composed of
organic debris and sand. During the last MDNR survey, conducted in 1965, the
predominant species of fish were yellow perch, bluegill, crappie, largemouth
bass, pumpkinseed, mud pickerel, bullhead, and sucker.
Dewey Lake
This lake has a total surface area of 189.4 acres (77 hectares) and a
maximum depth of 45 feet (13.7 meters). Ten percent of the lake is less than
6 feet (1.8 meters) deep, 80% ranges from 6 feet to 40 feet (12.2 meters), and
10% is greater than 40 feet deep. At the time of the last MDNR survey in 1963
the predominant species of fish were crappie, pumpkinseed, largemouth bass,
smallmouth bass, and various rough fish.
Indian Lake
Indian Lake has a total surface area of 481.5 acres (195 hectares) and a
maximum depth of 35 feet (10.6 meters). Eighty percent of the lake is deeper
than 6 feet (1.8 meters). At the time of the last MDNR survey in 1964, the
predominant species of fish were bluegill, pumpkinseed, black crappie, large-
mouth bass, bullhead, northern pike, and carp.
Magician Lake
This lake has a total surface area of 468.7 acres (190 hectares) and a
maximum depth of 60 feet (18.2 meters). Ten percent of the lake is less than
6 feet (1.8 meters) deep, 80% ranges from 6 feet to 40 feet (12.2 meters), and
10% is deeper than 40 feet. At the time of the last MDNR survey in 1963, the
predominant species of fish were crappie, pumpkinseed, largemouth bass, small-
mouth bass, and various rough fish.
Pipestone Lake
This lake has a total surface area of 106.0 acres (A3 hectares) and a
maximum depth of 30 feet (9.1 meters). The diversity of fish species is high
in this lake because it is connected to the St. Joseph River by Pipestone
3-47
-------
Creek. The predominant species of fish were bluegill, pumpkinseed, crappie,
yellow perch, and largeraouth bass. Other species present included carp,
chubsucker, warmouth, bullhead, lake chubsucker, spotted sucker, white sucker,
alewife, gizzard shad, chinook salmon, and coho salmon.
Round Lake
Round Lake has a total surface area of 198.7 acres (80 hectares) and a
maximum depth of 35 feet (10.6 meters); 40% of the lake is less than 6 feet
(1.8 meters) in depth and the remaining 60% ranges from 6 feet to 35 feet in
depth. In 1971, Round Lake was chemically treated to kill sunfish and rough
fish and was restocked with hybrid sunfish, rainbow trout, largemouth bass,
and tiger muskie. The most recent fish survey by the MDNR (1977) indicated
that the predominant species of fish were bluegill, tiger muskie, and large-
mouth bass.
3.1.5. Terrestrial Biota
3.1.5.1. Amphibians and Reptiles
There are 41 species of amphibians and reptiles with ranges that include
the study area, including 8 species of turtles, 12 species of snakes and
skinks, 9 species of salamanders, and 11 species of toads and frogs (Conant
1975). Three species of amphibians and 5 species of reptiles have been
designated as endangered or threatened by the State of Michigan (MDNR 1980)
(Table 3-14). Three of these species, the marbled salamander, the black rat
snake, and the eastern box turtle have distribution ranges that include the
study area. No data are available specifically for the study area which
documents the presence and/or absence of any of these species. Habitat pre-
ference for each threatened species is given in Table 3-14. These are
generalized habitat types and not intended to be exclusive for any one spe-
cies .
3.1.5.2. Birds
The diverse habitats that occur within the study area support many spe-
cies of birds and make it a prime waterfowl site. The study area lies within
the migration routes of several species of waterfowl. Mallards, Blue-winged
3-48
-------
Table 3-14. Species of amphibians and reptiles designated as threatened or
endangered by the State of Michigan that have ranges that
include Berrien County, Cass County, and Van Buren County (MDNR
1980). Habitat key: F = Forest; S = Marsh, Swamp, Bog; 0 =
Open or Grassland; A = Aquatic; R = Rocky Terrain. Status key:
T = Threatened; E = Endangered.
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status
Ambystoma opacum Marbled salamander F,S T
Ambystoma texanum Small-mouthed salamander F,0,R T
Siren intermedia netting! Western lesser siren A T
Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta Black rat snake R T
Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta Northern copperbelly S, A T
Clonophis kirtlandi Kirtland's water snake A, R E
Terrapene Carolina Carolina Eastern box turtle F T
Teal, and Wood-ducks inhabit a waterfowl concentration area in northeastern
Van Buren County during the summer months.
A total of 109 species of grassland birds, woodland birds and waterfowl
have been recorded in Cass County (Gove Associates, Inc. 1977). This list
does not include a large number of migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, warblers,
and other species which include Cass County in their migratory range.
Twelve species of birds are considered by the State of Michigan to be
endangered or threatened (Table 3-15). Several of the species listed, in-
cluding the Peregrine Falcon, the Bald Eagle, and Kirtland's Warbler, may
utilize the study area, but sufficient data are not available to document
their presence. Habitat preference is given for each species listed in Table
3-15. Again, these are generalized and represent habitats most used by these
species.
3.1.5.3. Mammals
Within the Great Lakes Region, transitions occur between the boreal
forest, the southern coastal plain, and the western grassland zones. This
diversity of major vegetation zones, and the abundance of lakes have signi-
ficantly influenced the number and distribution of mammals in this region.
3-49
-------
Table 3-15. Species of birds designated by the State of Michigan as en-
dangered and threatened (MDNR 1980). T indicates threatened
and E indicates endangered. Habitat key: F = Forest; W = Near
Water; 0 = Open or Grassland; C = Coniferous Forest.
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat
Accipiter cooper i
Buteo lineatus
Charadrius melodus
Circus cyaneus
Dendroica kirtlandii
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Lanius ludovicianus
Pandion haliaetus
Phalacrocorax auritus
Tympanuchus cupido
Tyto alba
Cooper's Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
Piping Plover
Marsh Hawk
Kirtland's Warbler
Peregrine Falcon
Bald Eagle
Loggerhead Shrike
Osprey
Double-crested Cormorant
Greater Prairie Chicken
Barn Owl
T
T
T
T
E
E
T
T
T
E
T
T
F
F
W
0
C
0
W,0-F
0
W
W
0
0
Seventy-eight species of mammals are known to occur in the Great Lakes Region.
Of these, 61 species have been recorded in the State of Michigan (Burt 1957).
Approximately 42 species of mammals have ranges that include Berrien County,
Cass County, and Van Buren County (Cooley 1979).
Mammal populations within the study area have changed considerably since
the area was settled and developed. The eastern timber wolf, the black bear,
and the elk, once native to the area, have disappeared from southwestern
Michigan while other native species of mammals have increased. Non-native
species such as the Norway rat, the house mouse, and the European hare have
been introduced by man. Specific information on the abundance and distribu-
tion of mammals in the study area is not available (By telephone, Mr. Marvin
Cooley, MDNR to WAPORA, Inc., 12 November 1981).
The State of Michigan has identified 5 species of mammals known to
inhabit the State as endangered or threatened species (Table 3-16). Of these
species, the Indiana bat, the pygmy shrew, and the southern bog lemming, have
ranges that encompass the study area. Data indicating the presence or absence
3-50
-------
Table 3-16. Species of mammals designated by the State of Michigan as
endangered and threatened (MDNR 1980) T indicates threatened
and E indicates endangered. Habitat key: F = Forest; 0 = Open
or Grassland; C - Coniferous Forest; (E) = Edge; Ca = Cave; W =
Near Water.
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat
Canis lupus Gray wolf E F
Martes americana Pine marten T C
Microsorex boyi thompsoni Pygmy shrew T F, 0
Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E Ca, W
Synaptomys cooperi Southern bog lemming T 0
of endangered or threatened species within the study area are not available.
The habitat type in which each listed species is most likely to be found is
indicated on Table 3-16.
3.1.5.4. Vegetation
The presettlement vegetation of Berrien, Cass and Van Buren counties
included beech-maple and oak-hickory forests (Braun 1950; Kenoyer 1930).
Outliers of prairie also were present in the three counties (Transeau 1936).
These prairies consisted of large grasses, such as big bluestem, little blue-
stem, and Indian grass, plus various forbs such as prairie white indigo and
compass plant (Veatch 1928). Wet prairie sites with alkaline water sources,
known as fens, supported an unusual and diverse flora that was distinct from
the flora present in drier prairie sites.
A total of 38 species of plants (mostly native herbaceous) are listed as
endangered or threatened in Berrien County (Appendix J, Table J-l). Six of
these are designated as endangered or threatened at the federal level (Ayensu
and De Filipps 1978). These include white lady's-slipper, prairie fringed
orchid, smaller whorled pogonia, Pitcher's thistle, and rosinweed. The small
whorled pogonia is the rarest orchid in the United States.
A total of 25 species of plants (mostly native herbaceous) are listed as
endangered, threatened, or rare in Cass County (Appendix J, Table J-2). Of
3-51
-------
these, two threatened and one endangered species also are included on the
federal list: the tubercled orchid, ginseng, and rosinweed (Ayensu and De
Filipps 1978).
In Van Buren County, 26 species of plants (mostly native herbaceous) are
classified as endangered or threatened (Appendix J, Table J-3). Included in
this total are three threatened and one endangered species that are on the
federal list: the tubercled orchid, gingseng, Pitcher's thistle, and rosinweed
(Ayensu and De Fillips 1978) .
The location of these species, if known, are kept on file by the Endan-
gered Species Coordinator for the State of Michigan. All plants regarded as
endangered, threatened, or rare are included in a computer list that is
organized by county (Beaman unpublished). This information can be used only
by authorized personnel who agree to not release information on the site-
specific locations of any species.
3.1.6. Wetlands
Wetlands can be defined in general terms as "lands where saturation with
water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and
the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its
surface" (Cowardin and others 1979). Such lands comprise 7% of the four-
township area (Section 3.2.2.2.2, Table 3-26). The majority of the wetlands
are located in Keeler and Silver Creek Townships.
Wetlands in the study area were mapped at a scale of 1:36,000 by the
USEPA, Environmental Monitoring System Laboratory on the basis of aerial
photographs taken in May and July 1979 (USEPA 1979c). These photographs were
used to update a 1978 land use/land cover survey prepared by the Southwestern
Michigan Regional Planning Commission (SMRPC 1978a). Three types of wetlands
were identified :
• Wooded swamp
This includes wetlands dominated by trees. The soil surface is
seasonally flooded with up to one foot of water. Several
levels of vegetation usually are present, including trees,
shrubs, and herbaceous plants. Broad-leaved swamps, coniferous
swamps, and wooded bogs are categorized as forest land rather
than wetlands in this scheme
3-52
-------
• Shrub Swamp
This class applies to wetlands dominated by shrubs where the
soil surface is seasonally or permanently flooded with as much
as twelve inches of water. Characteristic emergent plants
providing cover beneath the shrubs are the sedge and sensitive
fern. Meadow or marsh emergents occupy open areas. Willow-
buttonbush associations are those aquatic shrub swamps with
greater than 50% shrub cover and average water depth of less
than six inches
• Non-Forested (Non-Wooded) Wetlands (Marsh)
Nonforested wetlands are dominated by wetland herbaceous vege-
tation. These wetlands include inland nontidal fresh marshes,
freshwater meadows, wet prairies, and open bogs. Both narrow-
leaved emergents such as cattail, bulrush, sedges, and other
grasses, and broad-leaved emergents such as water lily, pick-
erel weed, arrow arum, and arrowhead typically are found in
fresh water locations. Mosses and sedges grow in wet meadows
and bogs.
These definitions are consistent with the State of Michigan's land use/land
cover classification system.
Most of the wetland areas mapped by the USEPA are located in the northern
half of the study area. Many small wooded and scrub swamps are located
between Magician Lake and Keeler Lake. Large areas of wood swamps also are
located along the shores of Cable and Dewey Lakes and in Bainbridge Township,
north of Pipestone Lake.
Marshes are scattered throughout the study area. Larger marshes are
found along the northern boundary of the study area. Other marshes are
located along drains and creeks and adjacent to the lakes.
3.2. Man-made Environment
3.2.1. Demography
3.2.1.1. Historic and Current Population
Historic and current population trends were analyzed for the four town-
ships (Bainbridge, Keeler, Pokagon, and Silver Creek) and three counties
(Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren) in which the study area is located. The town-
ships are the smallest geographic units for which comprehensive demographic
data are available. Approximately 25% of the permanent population of the four
townships resided in the service area in 1980.
3-53
-------
Each of the four townships has experienced continuous permanent popula-
tion growth since 1950 (Table 3-17). The four townships combined percentage
increase in population during the 30-year period from 1950 to 1980 was 63.4%.
The percentage increase in population during the same period for the three
counties and the State was 57.1% and 45.3%, respectively. The four-township
area has experienced more rapid growth since 1950 than the surrounding area
and the state (Table 3-17). The more rapid rate of growth probably can be
attributed to tourism and recreation-related development, although this indus-
try has not experienced growth in recent years.
Table 3-17. Population growth in the four-township area, three-county area,
and in Michigan between 1950 and 1980 (US Bureau of the Census
1952, 1963, 1973, 1982).
Percent Change
Township 1950 1960 1970 1980 1950-1980
Ba inbr id ge
Keeler
Pokagon
Silver Creek
Total
County
Cass
Van Buren
Berrien
Total
Michigan 6,
2,194
1,414
1,518
1,773
6,899
28,185
39,184
115,702
183,071
371,766
2,503
2,109
1,935
2,108
8,655
36,932
48,395
149,865
235,192
7,823,194
2,784
2,234
2,189
2,886
10,093
43,312
56,173
163,940
263,425
8,881,826
2,879
2,638
2,394
3,361
11,272
49,499
66,814
171,276
287,589
9,258,344
31.2%
86.6
57.7
89.6
63.4
75.6%
70.5
48.0
57.1
45.3
Growth rates for the four townships varied considerably during the 30-
year period. The increases ranged from a low of 31.2% in Bainbridge Township
to 89.6% in Silver Creek Township. The rapid growth in Silver Creek Township
also is noteworthy because of the high proportion of township residents who
live in the study area.
From 1970 to 1980 the population of the four townships increased by 1,179
(US Bureau of the Census 1982). Keeler Township recorded the highest rate of
increase, 18.1%, but Silver Creek Township, which includes a considerable
amount of development around the Sister Lakes, also recorded a high growth
3-54
-------
rate (16.5%). Population data for the four-township area from 1970 to 1980
are summarized in Table 3-18.
Table 3-18. Population growth in the four-township area, 1970 to 1980 (US
Bureau of the Census 1973, 1982).
Population Change
1970 - 1980
Township 1970 1980 No. Percent
Bainbridge
Keeler
Pokagon
Silver Creek
Total
2,784
2,234
2,189
2,886
10,093
2,879
2,638
2,394
3,361
11,272
95
404
205
. 475
1,179
3.4%
18.1
9.4
16.5
11.7
Although the rate of growth in the four-township area generally exceeded
the rate of growth in the three-county area and in the state, the growth rates
have declined over time. Peak population growth rates occurred, in all three
situations, during the 1950s (Table 3-19). The four-township area grew by
25.5% from 1950 to 1960. This rate of increase declined in the last decade to
11.7%. In addition, Bainbridge Township grew at a slower rate from 1970 to
1980, 3.4%, than did the State (4.2%).
In spite of the low rate of growth in Bainbridge Township, the overall
growth rate in the four-township area from 1970 to 1980 exceeded the growth
rate of the three-county area and the State of Michigan. This more rapid
growth parallels trends in rural, non-metropolitan areas nationwide. It also
may reflect the area's economic links to non-manufacturing industries, which
were more stable during the 1970s than manufacturing industries were.
3-55
-------
Table 3-19. Population growth rates in the four-township area, three-
county area, and in Michigan between 1950 and 1980 (US Bureau
of the Census 1952, 1963, 1973, 1982).
Township 1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980 1950-1980
Bainbridge 14.1% 11.2% 3.4% 31.2%
Keeler 49.2 5.9 18.1 86.6
Pokagon 27.5 13.1 9.4 57.7
Silver Creek 13.9 36.9 16.5 89.6
Four Township
Area 25.5 16.6 11.7 63.4
County
Cass
Van Bur en
Berrien
Three-County
Area
Michigan
31,0
23.5
29.5
28.5
22.8
17.3
16.1
9.4
12.0
13.5
14.3
18.9
4.5
9.2
4.2
75.6
70.5
48.0
57.1
45.3
3.2.1.2. Service Area Population Estimates
Gove Associates, Inc. developed service area populations based on a house
count and the 1970 average household size for the four-township area.
Seasonal and permanent population estimates were developed from estimates by
local officials and area residents. In 1979, Gove Associates, Inc. prepared
an updated house count based on revised land use maps (Gove Associates, Inc.
1980). Seasonal and permanent residence identification was based on the
address of the landowner in the tax records.
Subsequent to that count it was recognized that numerous problems were
encountered in differentiating between residences and outbuildings. Also,
numerous seasonal residences were noted as being permanent residences. In
1979, WAPORA. counted dwelling units from updated maps but, in this count, a
larger area than that designated as the service area was included. In 1981,
WAPORA completed another count of the dwelling units within the designated
service area using final inspection records for septic systems and partial
3-56
-------
field checks of the maps. The identification of seasonal and permanent res-
idences was made from addresses on the 1978 tax rolls and on interviews for
the major leaseholds and resorts. Because the 1977 and 1978 tax rolls were
used, the 1981 permanent population probably is underestimated.
A comparison of the results of these house counts is presented in Table
3-20. The major discrepancy between the Gove and WAPORA counts occurs for
Pipestone Lake. These dwelling units were counted from aerial photographs and
problems in distinguishing residences and outbuildings were encountered.
Gove Associates identified on the eligibility maps the residences con-
structed after 1972 with information from building permit records. WAPORA
made some corrections to this count based on septic tank installation records.
The numbers of new dwelling units are given in Table 3-21. According to the
septic tank records examined, the number of residences constructed from 1972
to 1977 may have been underestimated in the Facility Plan by approximately 40
residences. A large number of building permits for residences were granted in
1972 prior to the October cutoff date for grant eligibility determination.
These residences may have been constructed and inhabited in subsequent years;
thus, the final inspection dates on the septic tank records would indicate the
later habitation. These data show that fewer new dwelling units on un-
developed lots are being constructed than during the middle of the decade.
Most of the new dwellings are probably permanent residences although the
addresses of the owners show more seasonal than permanent residences. The
owner's address may reflect his former address rather than his present one.
In order to calculate service area populations, Gove Associates used the
1970 average household size (3.24 persons per dwelling unit) for the four-
township area for both permanent and seasonal dwellings. An evaluation of
1980 Census data indicated that this household size factor is high for perma-
nent residences. According to the 1980 census (By telephone, US Bureau of the
Census, to WAPORA, Inc., 16 November 1981) the average household sizes for
permanent households in the four townships are:
Silver Creek - 2.77 Keeler - 2.97
Bainbridge - 2.86 Pokagon - 3.04
3-57
-------
Table 3-20. Comparison of counts of residential dwelling units within the
Indian Lake-Sister Lakes service areas by Gove Associates, Inc.
(1978a, 1980) and WAPORA, Inc. (1979, 1981).
Service Area Gove 1977 Gove 1979 WAPORA 1979S WAPORA 1981
Indian Lake
Permanent
Seasonal
% Seasonal
Total
Pipestone Lake
Permanent
Seasonal
% seasonal
Total
Sister Lakes
Permanent
Seasonal
% seasonal
Total
Total
Permanent
Seasonal
% seasonal
Total
332
221
40
553
45
30
40
75
949
949
"50
1,898
1,326
1,200
47
2,526
298 221 203
200 299 338
40 57 62
498 520 541
87 65 42
16 22 26
16 25 38
103 87 68
958 816
872 1,064
48 57
1,830 1,«80
1,343 1,102
1,098 1,385
45 56
2,431 2,487
Includes some dwelling units outside the service area.
3-58
-------
Table 3-21. Number of new residences constructed on undeveloped lots in the
Indian Lake-Sister Lakes service areas.
Service Area 1972-1977 1977-1980 1972-1980
Indian Lake
Permanent 28 3 31
Seasonal 11 3 14
Total 39 6 45
Pipestone Lake
Permanent 10 1
Seasonal j_ 0_ j_
Total 20 2
Sister Lakes
Permanent 48 14 . 62
Seasonal 68 15_ 8.3_
Total 116 29 145
Total Service Area
Permanent - 77 17 94
Seasonal . 80 _18_ _98_
Total 157 35" 192
Average per year 31 12 24
Determining the average household size for seasonal residences is more
problematic. No conclusive data are available for this area and no generic
factors have been developed. Also, the average seasonal use probably differs
significantly from the peak one-day seasonal use. For lack of a well-defined
rate, the factor proposed is 3.5 persons per dwelling unit. This factor may
be low in accounting for the one-day peak, but high for the seasonal average.
The 1980 population estimates for the service areas were calculated from
the house count from maps prepared by Gove Associates and updated by WAPORA in
1981. Two methods were employed to calculate current population. One used
the permanent and seasonal determination based on addresses of owners and the
other used the seasonal and permanent percentages recommended by the planning
directors, township supervisors, and realtors. The 1980 service area popula-
tions were then calculated based on the household size factors noted above
(Table 3-22).
3-59
-------
o
oo
a^
i"™' .
D,
•H
f.
V)
g
O
JJ
T3
TO
efl
OJ
M
cfl
0)
o
•H
>
M
01
W
>%
,0
C
O
.^
4-1
OT
, — 1
3
tx
O
a.
c
CO
4J
•H
^
00
C
•H
TO
|
(C *-i
a>
CO
re
g
l-i
c-
o
"5
5
^
(j
QJ
Pi
JD
O
d
£
0)
ID
CS
5
5
K
O
^j
co(s; o L-iOtn cr CC
tc ' *sl r^ sC ON O r** sC ^s^
^| r-v r- ^* f*. *? (N
3J «T ^ " "
M
CC
C
— ' (0
K *-"
= 5
coo "^ fsimO ON O
(si (si -y in o~> fsi
— H
^_J
£
QJ
C
u
a)
Cu
C
0
1*>
n
mr^ C f*-* r*. »c ec CO
f*\ \£ O ^^ u~i O r»* f~*-
t_j [ co cy^ •"* ^i g- m o f*^
<— 1 *-J
vH
£
C
O
•H
rt
1
£
25 S SsS S I
— ' — - (N p-i VD CO
CO
c
1 ^
o c
& ^
«pvj ^5- vO-^C ON r^
in u"i ON •? o\ iA
, , **j
(C
£
03
0)
5
o
iw
O
CD
W
u
I
>1
*o
a
c
T-
E
0
*•
c
c
o
•H
.— <
D
O
a.
\CCO *g- " •— O "*£> CO f"l
\D r^. Csl o fN N^- csl
n rT * CD
cc
c
•H OJ
tC w
3 -H
55
ONfsi -4 CO<--» xo r-
m m O*- O ON IA
— , »
•H
C
O
nj
to
C
o
•H
01
1— 1
1
CM — * fi "^ ON in in cc
•>»»g- oo ONCMO (si o
— « -^ ON (Sj (sj sff
-- _- *- 1 (si »g- in
DO
C
— i to
s s
csiv^ cc \c.^-*o r- in
— • rs1 r*i (simf) o -*
t*} fi in %o cst iA
^T *-T
Jj
c
c
£,
c
o
^
;
£
o
£
cc
c
•H GO
CD *J
3 -H
3 £
--ro ^ OoOsT (si O
(si^. ^ (sir-»\O \c> fsl
in *A "^ o o fsi co
— ^M (SI fS]
O^ O "^ s£ 00 CO O>
— pj m r-i r^ »
1
-
•H
K
S
*
to
^
u
^J
01
>
T-H
C
It
u
Ol
0>
01
fc
re
c
c
tn
CQ
01
10
o
i
a.
j:
m
|
5
•o
•H
lj
C
•t-4
(S
..
tc
d)
«
0>
LJ
U
0)
CD
m
-^
t-i
0)
4-1
X
w
.»
a
c
o
tn
n
0)
0
I
n
CJ
a
CM
CS
a 01
rj* *
C
0 u
6D O1
ffi >
^ <-H
0 M
Cw CO
r_^
ft
O
H
.
to
£
j
u
01
01
w
01 C.
^.2
-H
lJ w
X 0)
C -H
— 01
501
^
01
Ol
Ui
u
!_(
Ill
^
-H
t-
(2
a -o
*J V
o =
H *H
oi n
n o
_i n
c o*
B in
•o »<
e o
tt
3-60
-------
It should be noted, that while there has been virtually no new building
activity around any of the lakes in the last few years, the conversion of
seasonal homes to permanent dwellings continues. It is not possible to
calculate the number of conversions being made, or in which areas, but it can
be theorized that as the proportion of permanent to seasonal homes increases,
the wide range in the population from summer to winter will diminish. Again,
there are no conclusive data available to verify or quantify these apparent
trends. In the absence of such data, it is felt that the opinions of local
residents and businessmen accurately depict the situation.
3.2.1.3. Population Projections
SMRPC developed permanent population projections in 1978 for the four
townships for 1985, 1990 and 2000 (Table 2-23 and Figure 3-7). The SMRPC will
not revise these population projections until more complete census data are
available.
Table 3-23. Population projections, anticipated growth rates, and 1980
Bureau of the Census population by township (SMRPC 1978a; US
Bureau of the Census 1982),
1980 Census
Township
Ba inbr id ge
Keeler
Pokagon
Silver Creek
Population
2,
2,
2,
3,
879
638
394
361
SMRPC
1985
2,650
2,708
2,440
3,228
Projections Anticipated Growth Rate
1990
2
2.
2,
3,
600
884
552
363
2000
2
3,'
2,
3,
500
200
731
601
1970
-10
43
24
24
-
.2%
.2%
.8%
.8%
2000
The expected population decline in Bainbridge Township is related to its
distance from urban centers and lack of recreational facilities. Growth in
the three other townships is occurring more rapidly than expected. SMRPC
projected a 1985 population for Silver Creek Township of 3,228; The 1980
population reported by the US Census however, exceeded the 1985 projection.
In Keeler and Pokagon Townships, current growth trends also indicate that the
projections are probably somewhat low.
3-61
-------
3,500
3,000
2,500
c
•3 2,000
3
O.
o
PM
4J
e 1,500
1,000
500
Silver Creek
Twp.
Keeler Twp.
Pokagon Twp.
Bainbridge Twp.
Data sources:
1950, 1960, 1970, 1980-US Bureau of the Census (1952, 1963,
1973, 1981)
1976 - P-25 Series Current Population Reports (1976)
1985, 1990, 2000 - SMRPC Projections, from 1970 base year,
(1978a)
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
I
2000
Figure 3-7. Population growth, historic and projected, for the four-township area.
3-62
-------
The permanent population projections for the service areas (Table 3-24)
were calculated from the population growth rates (Table 3-23) and the 1980
populations (Table 3-22). The 1980 populations that were calculated from the
house count and the recommended percentages for permanent populations were
used in developing the population projections because locally recommended
percentages would be more acceptable in the area. Although the 1980 census
data indicate that township projected growth rates were exceeded in the past
decade, there has been a considerable slackening in building activity. Within
these townships, much of the increase in permanent population also may be
occurring outside the service areas.
Table 3-24. Service area permanent population projections for 1985, 1990,
and 2000, and estimated 1980 permanent populations.
1980 1985 1990 2000
Indian Lake Service Area
Pokagon Township
Silver Creek Township
Totals
Sister Lakes Service Area
Bainbridge Township
Keeler Township
Silver Creek Township
Totals
Combined Total
33
867
900
117
1,357
1,404
2,878
3,778
34
894
928
117
1,438
1,452
3,007
3,935
36
"931
967
117
1,529
1,508
3,154
4,121
38
993
1,031
117
1,691
1,607
3,415
4,446
Four methods were developed for projecting seasonal population, each
based on a different assumption. Method 1 assumed that the ratio of seasonal
residents to permanent residents would remain constant (i.e., that both compo-
nents would grow at the same rate). Method 2 assumed that the rate of sea-
sonal population growth would be only half that of the permanent population
growth. In Method 3 the seasonal population was held constant for the projec-
tion period (1980-2000) . Method 4 was based on the assumption by Gove Asso-
ciates, Inc. (1977) that the seasonal population, taken to mean residences, as
a percentage of the total population, would decline by 50% by the year 2000.
The results of these four methods were combined with the permanent population
projections and are presented in Table,3-25.
3—o3
-------
u
O
U-J
en
-O
O
,3- eg
O eg
O
O
O
QJ
3
O
c
O
0)
(0
CO
.0
0> ,H
-a- o
o
.c
CD
O
03
O
co
QJ
w
CD
•o
J
c
QJ
c
03
s-l
0)
Q.
c
o
-3- O ^
O e* vo
eg ^H e->
c
o
CO 3
r-1 O.
3 O
Cu D.
O
O< rH
CO
•H C
CO O
O CO
4-) 0)
en
co
QJ M
c
-H
a-J
QJ in
O CO
H O
> QJ
CO
QJ O
-a- m
O &
CN CO
cr
O
CN
I
ro
•«• VO •*
O —* e-J
rsj OO r-4
CO
H
0)
CD
£
5
•H
13
C
"^
Is
u
c
0 >->
00 OJ
^ ^
O -rt
CU CO
c.
3
H
to
ij
o
H
n
01
w
JJ
01
y)
w^
en
00
•e
c
•H
m
03
CL OJ
J U
H O
• J-i Ui
^ QJ QJ
-< (U i-t
QJ -H
S1
H
n
o
H
•O
0)
•H -H
J II
0 0
O H
3-6A
-------
Methods 1 and 2 produced final projections that exceed the assimilative
capacity of the service area, based on the limited amounts of undeveloped
lakeshore, current zoning restrictions and development controls, and recent
declines in tourism. Method 4 yielded a projection that appeared to be unrea-
listically low; it forecasted a seasonal population loss so substantial that
it was not offset by gains in the permanent population. Method 3 provided the
most reasonable projections, indicating a constant seasonal population with an
equilibrium between growth in the seasonal housing stock and the conversion of
existing seasonal units to permanent homes. If the occupancy rates continue
to remain the same, approximately 220 new dwelling units would be required to
house the expanding population. By comparison, septic tank installation
records indicate that about 220 residences were constructed in the 1970s.
3.2.2. Land Use
3.2.2.1. Local Land Use Trends
The four-township area extends over 88,721 acres of land. Agriculture is
the predominant land use/cover type in the four-township area. Cultivated
cropland, pastureland, orchards, bushfruits, vineyards, nurseries, and con-
fined feed lots comprise approximately 66% of the total acreage in the four
townships. Fruit production is an important facet of the local agricultural
economy. The moderating effect of Lake Michigan on the climate produces a
favorable growing season and a temperature range well suited for orchards.
Forests constitute the second largest land use, covering approximately
19% df the four-township area. Deciduous forests, coniferous forests, mixed
deciduous and coniferous forests, active timber harvest areas, and shrub
rangelands are included in this category.
Wetlands cover approximately 7% of the four-township area. Wetland cover
types included wooded swamps, shrub swamps, and marshes. Residential uses
ranked fourth (5%), followed by water (2%). Commercial, industrial, and
transportation uses and open space each accounted for less than 1% of the
four-township area. The small proportion of commercial and industrial land
use in the townships reflects the rural agricultural character of the area.
Most of the commercial and industrial land use in southwestern Michigan is
concentrated in Dowagiac, St. Joseph-Benton Harbor, and Niles.
3-65
-------
The acreage of each land use in each of the four townships is presented
in Table 3-26. The percentage of each land use/cover type in the four-
township area also is given.
3.2.2.2. Study Area Land Use Trends
Land use in the study area is very similar to land use in the surrounding
four-township area. Agricultural land, orchards, deciduous forests, water,
and wooded swamps constitute approximately 87% of the land use/cover. One
significant difference between the four-township area and the study area is
the percentage of residential land use. Approximately 12% or twice the per-
centage of land use in the study area watersheds is residentially developed.
Land use data were collected and analyzed by watershed for each of the
seven major lakes (Cable, Crooked, Dewey, Indian, Magician, Pipestone and
Round) in the study area. In total, these watersheds extend over 13,252 acres
of land and constitute approximately 15% of the surrounding, four-township
area. The spatial distribution of the land use/cover categories in the area
watersheds is presented in Figure 3-8.
Land use/cover types were identified and planimetered for each of the
seven watersheds (Tables 3-27 to 3-29). In 1977, agricultural land consti-
tuted 6,354 acres (2,571 hectares), or approximately 48% of the area and was
the predominant land use/cover type. The Dewey Lake and Pipestone Lake water-
sheds contained 52% of the total agricultural land. Nearly one-third of the
agricultural land (1,999 acres or 809 hectares) was categorized as orchards.
Most of the orchards (69%) were located in the Pipestone Lake and Indian Lake
watersheds.
Forest land was the second largest land/use cover category, constituting
14.% of the total watershed area. The Indian Lake watershed had the greatest
amount of forest, with 16% of the watershed area classified as deciduous
forest. Water was the next largest category (13%), followed by wetland (12%).
The Pipestone Lake watershed included 62% of all of the wetlands in the water-
sheds, primarily wooded swamps.
3-66
-------
01
•o
c
01
3
c
1C
00
Oti
CO
CO
(I)
D.
•H
03
C
O
4-1
I
!~
3
O
o
o
IB
a
VI
c
CJ
a
o
cn
0)
CL
t-l
a>
o
o
01
03
•a
c
CO
CD
0)
o
cfl
o
H
c
0)
•o
•H
II!
CU
K
O
O
CN
I
ri
CO
H
a
cm
•o
01
CL.
3-67
-------
Table 3-27. Acres of each land use/cover type in the seven watersheds
in the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes study area.
Land use/Cover Type
Agricultural
Cultivated crops
Hay
Orchards
Other agricultural
Subtotal
Residential
Single/duplex (low density)
Single/duplex (medium density) 11.8
Rural residential
Subtotal
Commercial
Central business district
Institutional
Subtotal
Industrial
Medium/large industry
Subtotal
Open Space
Outdoor recreation
i
Subtotal
Forest
Deciduous forest
Coniferous forest
Brush land
Subtotal
Wetland
Wooded swamp
Non-forested wetland
Shrub swamp
Subtotal
Water
Water
Subtotal
Cable Lake
67.7
13.7
81.4
22.7
11.8
57.3
91.8
.
57.8
14.6
72.4
93.0
93.0
76.1
76.1
Crooked Lake
62.2
32.9
31.3
126.4
200.7
17.2
67.3
285.2
6.5
6.5
17.2
17.2
97.9
30. P
128.8
9.3
16.9
26.2
133.4
133.4
Dewey Lake
1,011.
101.
170.
1,283.
70.
113.
183.
5.
5.
192.
6.
26.
225.
122.
16.
138.
219.
219.
S
6
5
9
1
4
5
1
1
6
3
7
6
0
9
9
0
0
Indian Lake
1,259.
66.
674.
2,000.
82.
33.
255.
371.
119.
119.
589.
14.
604.
50.
141.
192.
507.
507.
5
1
4
0
6
9
0
5
9
9
7
4
1
7
5
2
4
4
Magician Lake
773.
114.
268.
19.
1,175.
261.
12.
171.
445.
274.
11.
21.
307.
30.
50.
54.
135.
451.
451.
5
1
7
5
8
7
3
7
7
0
8
6
4
4
6
1
1
2
2
Pipes tone Lake
428.
359.
701.
12.
1,501.
15.
15.
~
347.
16.
15.
380.
881.
110.
991.
127.
127.
5
1
3
3
2
1
1
8
9
5
2
3
2
5
4
4
01
3
•o
1
15.5
30.9
139.2
185.6
150.3
150.3
17.2
12.3
29.5
13.5
13.5
122.5
122.5
33.2
4.2
37.4
193.5
193.5
Total
3,618.7
704.7
1,999.1
31.8
6,354.3
637.8
75.2
830.1
1,543.1
22.3
12.3
34.6
20.0
20.0
137.1
137.1
1,682.3
35.0
123.7
1,841.0
1,219.9
319.2
75.2
1,614.3
1,708.0
1,708.0
Total
414.7 723.7 2,056.0 3,795.1 2,515.2 3,015.4 732.3 13,252.4
3-69
-------
Table 3-28. Percentage of the total watershed covered by each land use/cover
type in the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes study area.
Land Use/Cover Type
Agricultural
Cultivated crops
Hay
Orchards
Other agricultural
16
o
JL
9 49
5 5
348
33
2
18
c
m
u
01
IB
31
5
11
0.8
0)
c
0
«i
a
•H
14
12
23
0.4
o
3
•0
C
3
0
2
4
19
Residential
Single/duplex (low density) 5 28
Single/duplex (medium density) 3 2
Rural residential 14 9
2 10
0.9 0.5
7 0.7
0.5 21
Commercial
Central business district
Institutional
0.2
Industrial
Medium/large industry
0.9
Open space
outdoor recreation
Forest
Deciduous forest
Coniferous forest
Brush land
14 1A 9 16 11 12 17
0.3 0.5 0.6
4 4 1 0.4 0.9 0.5
Wetland
Hooded Swamp
Non-forested wetland
Shrub swamn
22 1 6 1 1 29 5
2 424
0.8 2 0.6
Water
Water
18 18 11 13 18 4 26
3-70
-------
Table 3-29. Land use/cover types in the seven watersheds by number of acres
and by percent of the total acreage.
Land Use/Cover Number of Acres Percent of Total Acreage
Agricultural 6,354.3 48
Residential 1,543.1 12
Commercial 34.6 0,3
Industrial 20.0 0.2
Open space 137.1 1.0
Forest 1,841.0 14
Wetland 1,614.3 12
Water . 1,708.0 13
Total 13,252.4 100.0
Rural and low density housing stock dominated the•residential land use
sector. Development was located primarily along the shorelines of the seven
lakes. Nearly 12% of the watershed area was classified as residential.
Magician Lake had the most acres of residential development (445.7 or 180
hectares) and Crooked Lake had the largest percentage of residential develop-
ment (39%). Commercial-institutional uses were concentrated northeast of Round
Lake, and included a school, a church, and a small convenience shopping area.
The only industrial uses were gravel pits, located southwest of Round Lake.
3.2.2.3. Prime and Unique Farmland in the Study Area
In recent years the Federal Government has emphasized the need to protect
lands having the best physical and chemical qualities for production of food,
feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. The national criteria utilized to
define prime farmland are based on a combination of the soil, water, and
3-71
-------
climatic factors that influence productivity. Unique farmland is defined as
land especially suited for the production of certain specialty crops, due to
unique combinations of soil quality, location, length of growing season, and
moisture supply.
Prime farmland in the study area where detailed soil mapping is available
is presented in Figure 3-9. The mapped areas were based on the detailed soils
mapping and the list of prime farmland units in Michigan (SCS 1980a). Unique
farmland is not shown on any map because it has not been identified in a
consistent manner between counties. The areas in orchards and small fruits
comprise much of the unique farmland within the study area.
3.2.2.4. Future Land Use
The rural recreational character of the study area, combined with state
and national economic conditions will affect the patterns of residential,
commercial, and industrial land use that emerge in the study area. Residen-
tial infill and the conversion of seasonal housing to permanent housing along
the lakeshores is expected to continue. Residential land use will not be
affected significantly by this phenomenon because of the limited number of
developable lake front lots. If interest rates decline and the state and
local economies improve, residential development can be expected to expand
into the back lots along the lakes and other areas. The residential develop-
ment which would occur would likely be to provide bedroom communities for
persons working in Dowagiac, Benton Harbor, or Niles who are attracted to the
study area for its rural and recreational amenities.
If residential development does increase, some commercial development
would occur to provide services for new residents in the area. Industrial
development in the area is dependent primarily on state and national economic
conditions. Little expansion of industrial land use is likely to occur until
interest rates decline and the state and national business climates improve.
Future expansion of agricultural land is limited by the availability of till-
able soils.
3-72
-------
• O \4 X. /•
0 i ~^S
fr v\- :~~^~'PIPfSTONE
" I °, LAKE
vU
^0
" '!
j
/ ROUND - — K 1
\o
^
_j ^
LEGEND
inn Boundary of available j
soil mapping
Prime farmland
«•
I
I!
i
| -iiii^i
I «!
1 &*A8£M£YER z
| i/f^-, 1
W' 1
1 *
" "1 ••••••••
':
«
•
^^
CABLE
(1 LAKE /
H'VAN BURgN COUNTY '
"511 CASS"T~COUNTY mjrl
"(IIIIIIIIIKII^IltlTI
miles f
Figure 3-9. Prime farmland in the areas where soil mapping is available.
3-73
-------
3.2.2.5. Development Potential
3.2.2.5.1. Natural Constraints
The three predominant natural constraints on development in the study
area are steep slopes, high water table, and soils that are unsuitable for
building construction and for on-site sewaga treatment systems. These natural
constraints also provide the basis for many of the legal constraints that
attempt to regulate development in sensitive areas characterized by one or
more of the above features. A description of natural constraints is presented
in Section 3.1.2.2.
3.2.2.5.2. Man-made Constraints
The State of Michigan has extended statutory authority to the counties to
establish planning commissions, enact regulations, and regulate land use.
However, Berrien, Cass, and Van Bur en counties have deferred this responsibi-
lity to the townships. Zoning ordinances have been promulgated by each of the
four townships that include the study area. Lot sizes, building setbacks and
heights, planned unit development requirements, and agricultural districts are
among the provisions found in these ordinances. Zoning constraints are not
likely to limit housing growth in the area since the lakeshore is extensively
developed and considerable backlot areas are available.
The health departments of each county have been assigned the responsib-
ility of enforcing sanitary codes under the Michigan State Public Health Act
of 1965. All three counties have adopted sanitary codes which have provisions
governing on-site sewage disposal systems. Enforcement of the sanitary codes
restricts development where lot. characteristics do not permit adequate dis-
tances between drainfields and structures, wells, or natural bodies of water;
where soils have extremely high percolation rates; where tight soils inhibit
infiltration or are saturated; and where soils have a less than acceptable
minimum depth to bedrock or to the water table. Away from the already exten-
sively developed lakeshore, these lot characteristics rarely limit installa-
tion of on-site systems.
3-74
-------
Subdivision and Building Laws and Regulations
The State of Michigan enacted the Subdivision Control Act in 1967. Under
the terms of this act, any land that has been subdivided into five or more
parcels which are 10 acres or less in size, or land that has been divided
successively over a 10-year period, must be surveyed and platted. The plats
are subject to the approval of the County Drain Commissioner, the County
Health Department, and the governing body of the local unit of government that
is affected. Enforcement authority is given to the Attorney General or to the
County Prosecuting Attorney.
The State Construction Code Act of 1972 established regulations for the
construction of buildings. Although counties in Michigan normally are respon-
sible for administration and enforcement of the Act, townships are exempted if
they adopt and enforce a nationally recognized model code. The State, the
three counties (Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren), and Keeler Township have
adopted the Basic Building Code of the Building Officials Conference of
America. Bainbridge Township, Pokagon Township, and Silver Creek Township
have adopted the Uniform Building Code of the International Conference of
Building Officials.
Other Constraints
The Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act of 1974 (Act 116) promotes
the preservation of farmland and open areas through the execution of agree-
ments that reserve the development rights for the public in perpetuity or for
a specified term of not less than 10 years. Subsequent to the agreement,
farmland is taxed only on the basis of the agricultural value of the land
involved, and open space is exempt from ad valorem taxation.
Significant acreages currently are protected ander the Act 116 program in
Bainbridge and Keeler Townships (By telephone, Mr. Leslie Hainey, Soil Con-
servation Service, and Ms. Leslie Poole, Van Buren County Planner to WAPORA,
Inc., 24 February 1982). None of the land in Bainbridge Township, however, is
within the boundaries of the study area. The acreage in the Keeler Township
portion of the study area is not available. There is no significant acreage
protected by Act 116 in Silver Creek Township (By telephone, Mr. John Meacham,
Soil Conservation Service, to WAPORA, Inc. 24 February 1982).
3-75
-------
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, was issued by President
Jimmy Carter on 24 May 1977 (Federal Register 42:26961). The terms of Order
require USEPA and other Federal agencies to avoid adverse affects on wetlands
wherever possible, to minimize destruction of wetlands, and to preserve and
enhance the natural and beneficial values of such areas during the discharge
of the agency's responsibilities related to the construction and improvements
undertaken by, financed by, or assisted by the Federal Government, such as
wastewater treatment facilities. The State of Michigan passed a wetland
protection act (Act No. 203 of the Public Acts of 1979) that became effective
1 October 1980. This act places restrictions on the development or drainage
of wetlands greater than five acres in size.
The Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of 1972 requires that any
earth change activity (a man-made change in the natural cover or topography
other than that resulting from crop production) , that involves one or more
acres or that is within 500 feet from lake or stream, must have a county
permit attesting to compliance with the Act and applicable rules. A permit
will not be granted if the activity would cause significant soil erosion or
water sedimentation. The provisions of this act generally apply to construc-
tion programs and not to long-term operations.
Solid waste disposal is closely regulated by the State. The State Health
Department is the licensing agent. The SMRPC has developed two model or-
dinances that are directed at the regulation and control of nonpoint sources
of water pollution. These ordinances, which could be adopted in the future by
units of government in the study area, focus on the collection and disposal of
surface runoff and on the installation of on-site sewage treatment systems on
lands adjacent to surface waters.
3.2.3. Economics
3.2.3.1. Regional Employment Trends
The early economic history of Cass, Berrien, and Van Buren counties was
dominated by agriculture. As agriculture flourished, the industries asso-
ciated with agriculture prospered. The first industries to develop were
shipbuilding, flour milling, and sawmilling. These industries were followed
by firms that manufactured primary metals, machinery and household appliances.
3-76
-------
By 1970, the area's economy had shifted from agriculture to industry. In
1970, manufacturing comprised nearly half of the total employment and was by
far the largest employment sector. Economic sector analysis, employment
multipliers, and historic data are presented in WAPORA (1979) .
Manufacturing, food processing, and tourism have been identified as
potential growth industries in the three-county area (SMRPC 1978b). The
future growth of agriculture, the dominant land use in the study area, is
limited to the availability of additional tillable land. Even if the pro-
ductivity per acre of agricultural land increases, employment opportunities
probably will not increase because of the expanding capital intensity of
modern farming operations.
The economic future of the study area may be shaped by the increased
conversion of the lake areas into bedroom communities for Dowagiac, Benton
Harbor-St. Joseph, and Niles. Small retail and service businesses would be
expected to appear as this conversion continues.
In summary, no major expansion of economic activity in the study area is
expected in the near future. However, better transportation, increased oppor-
tunities in the nearby major employment centers, and improved community ser-
vices could stimulate some additional local growth.
3.2.3.2. Income
Per capita income levels in Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren counties consis-
tently were below the state level during the 6-year period between 1974 and
1980 (Table 3-30). Growth of per capita income in the three counties during
this same period also was less rapid than the statewide average. Moreover,
per capita income in Cass County decreased from $8,137 in 1979 to $7,169 in
1980. The low levels of income and slow growth of income may reflect the
out-migration of high-income individuals from Berrien and Cass counties during
recent years (By telephone, Mr. Steve Harris, Michigan Municipal Finance
Commission to WAPORA, Inc., 9 October 1981).
3-77
-------
Table 3-30. Per capita personal income in dollars in Berrien, Cass, and Van
Buren counties and the State of Michigan.
Berrien
Cass
Van Buren
Michigan
1974E
5,486
4,961
4,690
5,687
a
1975
5,646
5,230
4,836
6,008
1976E
6,026
5,979
5,334
6,760
1977a
6,751
6,508
5,897
7,603
19783
7,596
7,479
6,764
8,507
a
1979
8,271
8,137
7,499
9,381
1980
9,156*
7,169fe
8,316
10,647°
a By telephone Ms. Jan Hanson, Michigan Employment Security Commission,
to WAPORA, Inc., January 1982.
b By telephone, Mr. Peter Elliott, SMRPC, to WAPORA, Inc., January 1982.
c By telephone, Mr. William Rice, US Department of Labor, to WAPORA Inc.,
January 1982. Average per capita personal income for the State of Michi-
gan was calculated by multiplying Michigan's 1979 per capita income by
the annual average increase of the US Consumer Price Index (CPI) for 1980.
The CPI has historically "been a reliable parameter for calculating income
estimates. The CPI is derived from the rate of- inflation of consumer
goods and services which may differ from real increases or decreases in
personal incomes.
3.2.3.3. Unemployment
Unemployment trends in Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren counties parallel
national cycles of business activity (Table 3-31). During the 1970s, the
highest unemployment rates recorded by the three counties occurred during the
1975 recession. Unemployment rose sharply again during 1980 surpassing, at
the state level, the unemployment figures for 1975. The 1980 unemployment
rate in Van Buren county was 10.3% or 2.3% lower than the state average.
Unemployment rates in Berrien and Cass counties were 13.2% and 13.1%,
respectively. The relatively high unemployment rates in the three counties
for 1980 reflects the problems in the automobile industry and a continuing
loss of industry and jobs to states in the south and southwest (By telephone,
Mr. Stephen Harris, Michigan Municipal Finance Commission to WAPORA, Inc.
9 October 1981).
3-78
-------
o
00
CM
m
0)
c
o
X
Cw
0)
co
oo
CN
oc
PC 00
— 1
c
cfl >-,
00 ^
•H cO
.C 3
u c
s ^
v-i o
O CM
0) -
CO O
+-• c
CO H
0) -
-C
r/\ _
UJ *
V C
i-l o
4-i -H
C CO
3 CO
O -H
u B
0) O
t-l
•H
O) M
-C 3
4J 0
0)
d w
•H
4-1
w c
-o a)
d i
o> >•,
^ o
4-> ,-1
a.
01
a c
00
1 —
O">
1 — 1
1 —
p^
o^
^H
rS
ON
"O
^ ^ CNj
• • • •
ON r*-^ r*"*i oO
vO ON -*
— i co oo o>
1
\o -^ ON m
• • • •
in ^d~ -— ( csj
ro oo oo ^d-
• • « *
r^» r^^ **o r*^
O — i r~ oo
• • • •
^o m m m
~* 00 I~~ O
• • • •
vO u~i \o r*^
oo
vo
oo r-
-D CO C7*\
Cfl C — l
C
cfl C
•H CO
•H
^ *
51
*
_,
1
m
QJ
cfl
H
r-^ in o
>•
>* C
4-> 3
C O
O 4-1
o c e
3 OJ
d O V-l
at o 3
-H PQ
l-l 03
M CO C
CD ctj cc3
P5 O >>
r^x
vo
d
cfl
00
•H
0
ft*
3-79
-------
3.2.4. Recreation and Tourism Resources
Although the contributions of the recreation and tourism industry to
employment and income in the three counties are significant, the importance of
this industry has declined in the study area since the 1930s and 1940s. This
decline can be attributed to outmoded resort facilities, conversion of
seasonal housing units to year-round homes, and the development of other
recreation areas in northern Michigan. An examination of recent trends in-
dicated that vacationers travel longer distances and frequently bypass the
study area (By telephone, Mr. Tom Hufnagel, Michigan Department of Commerce,
to WAPORA, Inc. 26 February 1979).
The recreation and tourism industry in Michigan is expected to continue
to grow at a rate of approximately 12% annually (Michigan Department of
Commerce 1976). In 1974 and 1975, this industry generated 3,738 jobs, or
3.54% of the total employment in the three-county area. Expenditures during
the period amounted to $107,714,976 and accounted for 1.91% of the total
personal income in the three counties (SMRPC 1978b).
The future of the recreation and tourism industry in the study area is
uncertain at this time. While land development proposals that provide recrea-
tional and open space areas are encouraged throughout southwestern Michigan,
open space in the four townships is projected to decrease by 44 acres by the
year 2000 (SMRPC 1978a). Many of the resorts and housekeeping cottages in the
study area have been sold to individuals and the conversion of seasonal homes
to year-round homes is expected to continue. However, high fuel costs and
long-term gasoline shortages could result in increased spending of recreation
and tourism dollars in the study area by residents of nearby Chicago and South
Bend, Indiana.
3.2.4.1. Public Facilities
The SMRPC has identified 316 acres of open space in Bainbridge, Keeler
Pokagon, and Silver Creek townships. This land includes parks, recreational
developments, fairgrounds, outdoor public assembly areas, cemeteries, and
vacant urban land (SMRPC 1978a). This accounted for only 0.4% of the total
land area. Lions Park is the only public park in the study area. It is
located near Crooked Lake in Keeler Township, and has a wide range of play-
3-80
-------
ground facilities and a Go-Kart track. Usage data are not available for this
facility.
Public access is maintained at two lakes in the service area. One is
located on the north side of Magician Lake in Silver Creek Township, and the
other is located on the north side of Round lake in Keeler Township. The
Magician Lake public access area has 10 parking spaces and a paved boat
launch ramp. The Round Lake public access area has 20 parking spaces and a
gravel boat launch ramp. Both public access areas have toilet facilities
only. They are administered by the Waterways Division of MDNR. The MDNR
collected data for these two access areas in 1977. The access site at
Magician Lake was used most often in June, and the greatest number of vehicles
with boats at one time was nine. June also was the busiest month at the Round
Lake access site.
The predominant recreation activity in the study area is power-boating.
While the number of boaters varies from year to year, it has been estimated
that nearly every lakefront housing unit has either a motorboat, a pontoon
boat with an outboard motor, or a rowboat with an outboard motor. On the
basis of recent trends, it appears that sailboats and inboard motorboats are
growing in popularity (By telephone, Ms, Judy Chapman, J&J 5 Mile Marina, to
WAPORA, Inc., 16 May 1979).
3.2.4.2. Private Facilities
The private recreational facilities in the study area serve both the
year-round population and the seasonal population. Most of these facilities
are located at resorts. The resort locations and facilities are presented in
Table 3-32.
There are 135 overnight units at the four resorts and 47 camping and
trailer sites in the service areas. Most of the resort units are housekeeping
cottages. The busiest season occurs during the last 2 weeks in July and the
first 2 weeks in August. Hotel and motel proprietors have indicated that most
of their guests are from the Chicago metropolitan area and usually are fami-
lies with school-age children. The average length of stay has declined in
recent seasons from 2 weeks to 1 week (By telephone, Mr. Tom Light, Beechwood
Resort to WAPORA, Inc., 2 February 1979).
3-81
-------
(0
0)
CO
hJ
o>
4-1
w
i
0)
c
re
01
Xi
4J
CO
0)
•H
•H
O
re
c
o
CO
0)
o
0)
-G
C
CO
CO
CD
•H
4J
•H W
o re
re
^ VJ
cu
CD en
u
re h
> CD
•H &
VJ 01
PL, CO
CM
r">
I
re
H
Predominant
Number of Number of Origin of Tourists
ies Overnight Rooms Campsites and Seasonal Residents
jj
.H
ft
U
a
IK
§
jj
a
u
01
a.
. ' 30 0 Chicago's southern
dlnq' suburbs
and beach
g H X
Xl 3 0
rH
UJ c ..
«H 0 JJ
can
W rs h
•C U -H
C- OJ J
3 w »
U u *
p> o in
>- o JJ
re -c re
S.5J8
c
o
-H
JJ
13
U
3
01
.X
(D
J
•D
C
I
o
JJ
0
in
01
0>
§
z
JJ
kl
0
u
01
e
a
•o
g
3
U
01
03
c
in
o>
3
JJ
0
c
to
0
10
-H
£
U
tO
m
rr
in
U
-H
3
C
-H
to
CO
!
0)
1
£
4J
±4
O
tn
C}
«
to
o
^4
O
£
>,
S
£
LO
g, golf, and southern suburbs
shuffle- Cleveland OH: and
mining, tennis, Valparaiso IN
movies , square
nned recreation
^ -•; -5
jz & tn ^H a,
in c r-t
•HO «• TJ r-l
*M & t) J3 0)
Cn C >, £
•• C 3 C) 4^
JJ .H Q ,-J Q
C> 6, V^ iH
P 0i 0 T
tr - >i > c
O tn 10 to K
U O O* iH * -H
JC iH » 4J
•• U) " (C C »H
tt 0) "C X! -H >
JJ tO KJ *J U *H
(0 -W ro tu C 4J
O 0 0 O fO U
jQ x: XJ w 'D re
g
3
c
re
•H
U
c-.
1C
X
rj
1C
01
XI
•o
c
n
T
C
3
0
cr
ro
CL
CT1
O
0'
3
c
0
0
u
re
01
1C £n
U -H
'S B
U 0
•H £
d,
•c
- c
•D 10
C
3 0>
C C
tH 'H
re »5
IH S
& [A
0>
3
•o
c
3
0
B:
o^
^
• rH
^ ' £r
t— H r^ ro
t*i ^ ^
BJ >i el
3kb
IH t
Xl 3 VD
0) >•! (N
U. XI
01
(N 01
1^ C
(N >
" W °
0 C OJ
* c c
4J E
.e - o
Ol K g
£
r»-
(N
„
K
C
•H
tt
0,
§
u
Q
3
b
•u
c:
3
u
0
01
°
a-
-fH
JJ
O
o
JJ
K
O
in
e
o
1
in
0
a
T3
in
01
10
JJ
8
^1
£
HI
in
a,
E
U
in
Q)
A!
3
b
ti
c
3
H
(
£
fc
0>
C
0
£
01
i-(
01
m
tc
0)
IV)
£
fc
01
c
0
£
0,
0'
fH
V
O
*
CD
r
»
o
c
c
I
01
4J
EC
U
U
£
E
fc
a1
c
0
£
01
rH
01
JJ
e
"D
3-82
-------
Usage data for the private recreation facilities in the study area are
not available. However, recreation participation estimates by activity and by
provider (public/private) have been prepared for 14-State planning and de-
velopment regions in Michigan by the MDNR. In Region 4 (Berrien County, Cass
County, and Van Buren County), the majority of the recreational activities are
provided by private organizations (MDNR 1978a). The most popular regional
recreation activity, in terms of participation, is competitive sports (Appen-
dix K, Table K-l). Additional estimates indicate that 4.8 million recreation
activity participations by Region 4 residents occurred outside of Region 4 and
that 2.3 million recreation activity participations in Region 4 were by non-
residents. The higher number of recreation activity participations that
occurred outside of Region 4 reflects the decline of recreation and tourism in
the study area and in the three counties.
3.2.5. Public Finance
A variety of community services are provided for the residents of
Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren counties. Among them are health and welfare
services, transportation facilities, police protection, recreation facilities,
wastewater collection and treatment, and tax collection. The ability to
maintain and improve these services is dependent on the continued ability of
county residents to finance them. Income and employment levels can be used to
measure a community's ability to support community services. Market value and
assessed valuation of property directly affect tax revenues collected by local
governments and, consequently, their financial capabilities.
3.2.5.1. Assessed Valuation and Market Value
The 1980 state equalized valuations (SEV) of real and personal property
for each county and the market values of property are presented in Table 3-33.
The SEV for Berrien County, the most populated county in southwestern Michi-
gan, was nearly twice the SEV of the remaining counties combined. The ratio
of the state equalized valuation to market value is 0.5 in Michigan.
3.2.5.2. Total Revenues
Intergovernmental transfers, special assessments, taxes, and charges for
services were the primary sources of revenue for the three counties. In 1980,
3-83
-------
Berrien County collected revenues totalling $13,528,818. The combined total
revenues collected by Cass and Van Buren counties for 1980 were 63% of Berrien
County (Table 3-33).
3.2.5.3. Debt, Debt Service, and Debt Limits
The general obligation bonding authority of local governments in Michigan
is limited to 10% of the SEV, Berrien County has a self-imposed debt limit of
65% of the 10% state required debt limit. The general obligation debt limit
and levels of debt and debt service for each county are presented in Table
3-33.
In 1980 Berrien County had a debt level of $57,920,000 or 53% of its debt
limit. Cass County had a debt level of $1,335,000 or 3% of its debt limit.
Van Buren County debt level was $2,045,000 or 4% of its debt limit. The
combined debt of Cass and Van Buren Counties was 6% of Berrien County's total
debt. None of the three counties is near its state or local debt limit.
The three countie's pay debt service primarily -en bonds which support
public works projects. A small percentage of total debt service is paid to
support county-owned housing and land. Berrien County's debt service for 1980
was $6,073,649. Cass and Van Buren Counties combined debt service was 5% of
Berrien County's total debt service.
Criteria for prudent fiscal management have been developed by several
authors. Whether or not a county can incur additional debt safely can be
estimated by applying three common debt measures adapted from Moak and Hill-
house (1975). As shown in Table 3-34, Berrien, Cass and Van Buren Counties
are rated as being below all of the standard upper debt limits and can,
according to these limits, increase their level of debt. None of the three
counties is near the state general obligation debt limit. Berrien County's
total debt has reached only 53% of its self-imposed debt limit.
3.2.6. Transportation
3.2.6.1. Highways
No major highways pass through the study area. Interstate 94, located 15
miles west and 11 miles north of the study area, provides direct access from
3-84
-------
y
3 ^
pa co
. CM
C M
co a> •
> o- y
o c
Cu
^
o
-H QJ
Vj •« M
^ >
Lj
0)
4-1
S
oo
t--
1 —
*£>
*.
00
o
— -1
•co-
C7N
^3-
*J3
f.
C^
1 —
O
•CO-
0
o
o
4->
42
o
CM
ON
r-T
m
•CO-
GS
CO
CO
0)
3
i-H
cfl
^f
m
CO
•>
CM
m
n
r>
•co-
in
^j-
_j-
g
0
•H
4-1
tO
[
CO
>
CO
(U
C!
0)
>
cS
t*H
cfl
4-1
O
H
CM
m
CM
m
co"
^-4
co-
£j
>,
4-J
c
3
3
0)
u
p
0)
RQ
o-i
O
•s
CM
^J-
O
. — 1
rx.
00
0
o
o
m
fO
r->
i-H
f^^
00
in"
01
sr
> •»
i — i
00
CO
CTi
*
sr
*
0
CM
sr
\c
r^
O
«.
CM
O
CT\
ro
CO
to
3
in
in
CT>
m
•>
r-
sT
CM
m
O
^
CM
^f
CM
O
0
o
m
^j-
o
CM
00
O
, — 1
m
CT*
00
*
i — 1
m
o-\
sr
m
-
sr
^
m
sr
^D
i — i
i — i
f.
00
ON
m
«t
sr
C
0)
M
•s
«
C
>
3-85
-------
CO
0)
c
cu
m
c
cB
ro
m
ITl
Q)
CO
3
O
4=
13
C
CO
cfl
O
O
-O
0)
CL
cfl
CD
0)
U
3
0)
CO
0)
43
0)
T3
C
3
O
U
CO
I
d
3
o
U
CO
CD
d
cu
•H
U
u
cu
CN
CN
per Limits
a.
3
T3
Lj
CO
T3
C
CO
4-1
tn
4-1
cu
s^
k-t
cO.
E
rH
CO
4-1
ent market value
i-j
rJ
3
u
UH
O
B*S
o
rH
»-i
H
^-s^
4-1
43
01
Q
CU
3
rH
CO
^
rH
CO
4-1
O
H
*-^.
O>
CJ
•H
>
U
0)
CO
4->
-D
CU
Q
1 revenues
cfl
4-1
O
4->
"4H
0
5^
U~J
CN
CU
3
d
CU
£>
CD
Q5
T3
CU
N
•r-fl
rH C
CO O
3 T-l
C- 4-1
CU cO
0) rH
4->
CO
4->
CD
<4-l
0
*•?
o
1 — 1
T3
0)
K
•H
rH
CO
3
cr
CU
cu
4-1
CO
4J
to
•*^
4-1
43
CU
Q
cfl
>
-o
cu
03
03
0)
CO
CO
cO
c.
o
•r-l
4->
cO
3
rH
CO
>
T3
0)
to
03
0)
03
CO
cfl
S
r^
01
o
o
c
•H
cfl
60
V;
O
jij
c
>,H
03
d
cu
B
cu
7>
o
60
rH
cfl
U
O
rH
LJ_J
0
r^>
4~>
•r-i
M
O
f-1
3
tfl
oo
C •
•r-l >
rrj [jj
C! to
O
4D o1
f-;
d 4-*
O
•H L4_|
4J 0
Ct)
006-S
•H O
— 1 —H
^n
0 0
4-1
rH
cO T3
M 01
CU 4-1
C T-t
CU E
rH
cu
£. to
H -H
H
1
CU
cu
CO
4-1
03
6-S
O
4=
W
MH
0
&^?
Ln
vO
U-1
O
4-1
E
•r-l
r-H
4J
43
CU
T3
-a
01
CO
o
ex
C2
•H
tM
rH
cu
03
CO
CD •
CO 4J
42 -r-j
f
K*^ *r\
4-1 ,__{
d
3 4J
O 42
O CU
•o
c
0) -o
•H o>
^-t U
i-l ^H
0) 3
« cr
CN
O
•H
CO
p
cu
E
O
o
d
•H
rH
CO
•H
CX
CO
O
U
0)
a.
4-1
43
CU
-d
03
CU
•iH
4-1
d
3
0
CJ
cu
4=
4-1
so
d »
•H r-3
£>
•^ X
>-i -iH
0) -V3
13 d
a)
P Qj
0 0,
4H <
«) d
d -H
o
•H rrj;
4J 0)
CO 4J
rH (3
3 0)
O 03
rH 0)
cfl p
0 CX
CU CU
4= M
H cS
01
•
O
f**H.
ON
t— <
d
,_j
n
cu
60
Cfl
p
cu
CO
rH
CO
d
O
•H
i-i
CO
d
cfl
4-J
3
43
4-J
•H
B
•H
rH
J-l
CU
a.
a.
3
d
CO
4-1
0
z
-------
the study area to all major metropolitan areas except South Bend, Indiana.
South Bend is accessible from the study area via 1-33. State routes M-51,
M-62, M-140 and M-152 are located in or adjacent to the study area. Traffic
volumes in the four township area are growing (By letter, Mr. Bill Camburn,
Van Buren County Road Commission, to WAPORA, Inc., March 1979). Amtrack
provides daily passenger train service to Dowagiac and to Niles. Freight
service is provided via Conrail to Benton Harbor, St. Joseph, South Bend, and
Kalamazoo. The nearest intercity bus station serving the study area is
located in Dowagiac. Each of the three counties has a county-wide rural
public transportation system that serves the elderly and the handicapped.
Additional data on roads and transportation facilities are presented in WAPORA
1979.
3.2.6.2. Airport Facilities
Numerous regional, commercial, and general aviation airports are located
within or in proximity to the study area (By letter, Mr. E. Mellman, Michigan
Department of Transportaton to WAPORA, Inc., 2 March 1979). A regional air-
port is located in South Bend and another regional airport is planned for
Kalamazoo. Republic Airlines provides commercial passenger and freight
services from the Twin Cities airport (Foss Field) in Benton Harbor. In
addition, six general aviation airports are located in the three-county area.
3.2.6.3. Port Facilities
The nearest port facility is located in Benton Harbor at the confluence
of the St. Joseph River with Lake Michigan. It provides accessibility to
international waterways via the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System and the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal/Mississippi River System. There also are
recreational port facilities on Lake Michigan at South Harvey and New Buffalo,
Michigan, located southwest of the study area.
3.2.7. Energy
The fuel types available for residential, commercial, and industrial
heating in the three-county area are fuel oil, coal, natural gas, propane,
butane, and electricity. Fuel oil is the predominant energy source for resi-
dential heating within the four-township area followed by natural gas, pro-
3-87
-------
pane, butane, electricity, and coal. Within the service area, natural gas was
the predominant energy source, followed by fuel oil. Wood likely provides a
fuel source for many area residents. Data on the extent of use and availa-
bility of wood are not available. The amount of each fuel type required to
heat a single family home is presented in Appendix M, Table M-l. An estimate
of the total 1977 fuel consumption, for home heating in the four-township area
is presented in Table 3-35.
3.2.8. Cultural Resources
3.2.8.1. Early History
The three counties in the study area were inhabited by Miami and Potta-
watomie Indians at the time of initial French exploration in 1675. In that
year, Father Marquette traveled along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan and
down the River of Miami (St. Joseph River) (Ellis 1880). Four years later,
the French explorer LaSalle established a fort near Niles that served as a
vital military post until the 1760s. Fort Miami, later known as Fort St.
Joseph, passed into Spanish, English, and finally American hands as political
fortunes changed on the early western frontier.
During the period of white settlement, the dominant Potawatomi tribe was
divided into three bands led by Chiefs Pokagon, Weesaw, and Sharehead.
Through a series of treaties executed between 1821 and 1833, they ceded all of
their land to the US and were transported to areas west of the Mississippi
River. However, Chief Pokagon, a prominent local historical figure, refused
to sign or consent to any treaties until his fellow Catholic Indians received
guarantees that they would be allowed to remain in Michigan. Although forced
to leave his native site in Berrien County, he purchased 750 acres of land in
Cass County (Silver Creek Township) and established an Indian settlement
there. In 1838, Chief Pokagon built the first Catholic church in Silver Creek
Township.
The first permanent white settlers were people of French and English
decent. Bartholomew Sharrai and a man named Ruleaux (Ellis 1880) established
initial settlements in Bainbridge Township. Dolphin Morris settled in Van
Buren County in 1829. The first settler in Silver Creek Township, James
McDaniel, arrived in 1834 or 1835 and built the first sawmill in that area.
3-88
-------
O c
c
•H C
a)
eou
C
•H 0)
4-1 .E
Cfl 4J
a)
4: u-i
O
^-1
a 3
•H CB
4J Q)
C ^
0) 3
•O *
•T-I
03 ~S)
c
o
O TO
0)
>•> tn
c 01
CO 3
O*
vD
O
m
oo
00
CSI
a-'
co
oc
X
CSI
rH
O
rH
X
I—
X
o>
CSI
CO
00
VO
o
X
CN
vD
in
tn
c
o
CN
CN
01
I-H tn
ai
3 co
C rJ
O QJ
•H 4-J
j cn •
Q.-H ^v
e co ao
3 I f^-
W (D ^
C^i -1
O cfl
0)
ft.
C
01
CO
01
OA
m
00
o
o
I—
00 CO 0)
QJT3 I
C C O
m
ro
I
rfl
H
0)
a
0)
3
OJ
li-
CO
00
CO
)-l
3
4-J
CO
4-J
•H
U
O
01
Q)
C
CO
CO
a.
o
M
fX,
cfl
o
u
o
H
3-89
-------
Although some lumbering occurred in nearby areas, most of the residents
were engaged in farming. As the population expanded, new trade routes were
established that stimulated further growth. The construction of the "Old
Chicago Road" (US Highway 12), which connected Chicago and Detroit, was de-
creed by an Act of Congress in 1825. The Road passed through Niles and
followed the Sauk and Fox Indian Trail (Glover 1906; Dunbar 1965). The Old
Territorial Road, constructed in 1836 and 1837, is located in the northern
part of the study area in Bainbridge Township and Keeler Township.
3.2.8.2. Archaeological Sites
The Michigan History Division of the Michigan Department of State has a
considerable amount of information on the prehistory of the study area; these
data are unprocessed, however, and not readily available (By letter, Martha M.
Bigelow, Director, Michigan History Division and State Historic Preservation
Officer, to WAPORA, Inc., January 1979). A search of the files of the
Michigan History Division revealed the existence of a registered Indian site
in the study area. This site is located in Section 7 of Silver Creek Township
(T5S, R16W). It is likely that additional, undocumented sites are present on
high ground near streams, lakes, and rivers in the study area (By telephone,
Dr. John Halsey, Michigan Visitors Division, to WAPORA, Inc., April 1979).
The following sections may contain p'rehistorical sites, based on an analysis
of topographic maps:
Bainbridge Township (T4S, 17W) , Section 25
Bainbridge Township, Section 26
Keeler Township (TAS, 15W), Section 31
Keeler Township, Section 32
Silver Creek Township (T4S, R16W) Section 2
Silver Creek Township, Section 3
Silver Creek Township, Section 4
Silver Creek Township, Section 6
Silver Creek Township, Section 30
Silver Creek Township, Section 31
Silver Creek Township, Section 32.
Undocumented archaeological sites also may exist along meandering parts
of Highway M-152 in Bainbridge Township, where the highway follows an old
Indian trail. In addition, a site in Section 14 of Silver Creek Township was
a temporary home for Chief Pokagon's tribe from 1836 to 1838, before their
relocation to Sections 21 and 22, which are adjacent to the study area (Claspy
1966).
3-90
-------
3.2.8.3. Historic Sites
There are no sites in the study area that are listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, However a survey for eligible sites has not been
conducted (By telephone, Mr. Bob Christensen, Michigan History Division to
WAPORA, Inc. 4 January 1982). Three structures in the study area are listed
on the Michigan Register of Historic Sites. The Sacred Heart of Mary Catholic
Church was constructed by Chief Pokagon in 1838 and was been rebuilt twice.
It stands on the grave of Chief Pokagon and is the oldest Catholic church
still in use in southwestern Michigan. The second structure, the Gushing
Corner School, is a one-room schoolhouse that was built in 1873. It has local
historical significance and is one of the few old buildings in the area that
has not been modified. The third structure, the Sprague House, is a simple
clapboard frame house that was built in 1868 on the Old Orchard Farm. The
farmstead has been listed as a "Centennial Farm" by the Michigan History
Division. These are:
WAPORA personnel conducted a brief field survey of the study area during
February 1979 and identified 14 additional sites of "architectural signifi-
cance. These are:
Franz House
Tudor Revival style bungalow
Barn
Italianate style house
Gingerbread style house
Halfert House and Barn
Genung House
Jeru House
Queen Anne style house
House
Keeler United Methodist Church
Silver Creek Methodist Church
Schoolhouse
Indian Lake School.
3-91
-------
4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The potential environmental consequences of the system alternatives that
are described in Section 2.3. are discussed in the following sections. The
impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the alternatives may
be beneficial or adverse, and may vary in duration (either short-term or
long-term) and significance. The significant impacts of each alternative are
summarized in Table 4-1.
Environmental effects are classified as either primary or secondary
impacts. Primary impacts result directly from the construction and/or opera-
tion of the proposed project. Short-term primary impacts generally occur
during construction. Long-term primary impacts occur throughout the life of
the project.
Secondary impacts are indirect effects of the project, such as changes in
demographic and other socioeconomic characteristics. As these changes occur,
associated impacts (e.g., air and water pollution, increased ambient noise
levels, increased consumption of energy and other resources, demand for ex-
panded public infrastructure, increased development pressure on agricultural
lands, woodlands, and other environmentally sensitive areas, decreased wild-
life habitats, increases in employment and business activity, increased pro-
perty values) can result. Secondary impacts also may be either short-term or
long-term. Short-term secondary impacts, for example, can result from disrup-
tion of the environment that occurs during the construction of secondary
development. Long-term secondary impacts can result, for example, from urban
runoff that occurs indefinitely after development of agricultural land or open
space/undeveloped areas.
Possible mitigative measures also are discussed in this chapter. Adverse
impacts can be controlled and many should be of short duration. Possible
mitigative measures include planning activities and construction techniques
that reduce the severity of both primary and secondary adverse impacts. Plans
and specifications, which are to be developed by the County, must include
mitigative measures.
4-1
-------
o
e
o
•H
4J
CO
M
O>
O
-O
C
cfl
e ca
O 01
•H M
w <
o
3 01
VJ Ai
4J cfl
W i-J
C
O 1-i
O 0)
01 W
t! CO
6 a)
o ^
t-4 Cfl
U-l ,-J
w r!
u to
O -H
ex c
E M
•H
0)
cO
^ c
C -H
O
o w
01 0)
Cfl -H
^3 *rH
C rH
(J
>, co
CO
E 4-1
•H C
M 01
pi^ £~
!-J Cfl
O 0)
CO 4-J
g
J-i
iH 0)
CO 4J
•H rt
•W 5
^ Q)
0) -U
4J CO
O CO
p 1 ^
rH
1
-3-
QJ
i — i
cO
H
C^1
a
—
re
c
cv
<
CC
CO
tv
;»
""
c
k.
Cv
<
^
tv
£
re
c
u.
(V
4-
<
v£>
CV
—
cp
L.
<
1
CM
CO
L^
4J
c
Ui
(V
3
cv
^,
re
c
u.
cv
<
c
o
"^
u
<
o
z
g;
cC
.. CO
o *->
*j <;
= en
U CC
K CV
D tH
0
—
c ^
w tf
3 C
»- 0
K
C ft,
•SP
i
.. fsj
C
O —
^<
£ 1C
If, c
e E
o it
CJ W
tr,
1
IN
= •
O 4J
u
3 K
n: a.
c 6
0 TO
U W
0
c
o
c u
0 3
—•< 1-
U K
i; ^
cr
5 .=
CJ> H
•• C
c n
o u
4J u^
3 e
t- CO
*j i-i
10 1C
0 0
u z
a*
*-
2i
"c.
\
•<
L_
a-
i. Q,
U .O
3
j_ ^_
C 5
CO
*-> E •
a. o *-<
O CO —
X X 3
CV K JT
L.
CV >^
CO E Cv
3 C CC
L- L
c — re
ft 3
>•,
Cv tn i—
*^ £ •"•>
tt *- r;
I tr L.
C >, C
owe.
,
U K JZ
~ U "5
cr, —
5 i- a.
o re
^ tC •"
2- U
cv c c
U O CO
X — CC
a. ^ re
u
cv
^- cv cv
tt ^ .C
CO -S
o «-
a, *j
CV C4- -H
0 (- •«
K 3 3
tv 3 ^
cfl
CV CV X
tsC *-* —i
re to -^
cv to re
(0 U
= c
•^oa.
(C 4_> CV
u •"
CO CV
&- ^H —i
1 si
CV tJ
re *j
£ ^~
u u
re -^
CL 4-.
E C
*- re
CCr
Q
—
Q_
•f
^J
a-
i—
re
cv
M
T3
"3
C
X
H
S
.
n
a/
1
a>
t/j
cv
hu,
u.
^
71
w
ftj
"U
>,
4^
10
_J
,r
o
cv
u
c.
"c.
cv
^
c
-a
cv
c
u.
C
o
o
cv
cv
~-
o
E
JC
'
P
*T a o -^
3 O C 3 — i
t5 -£ O (V — i CV u-.
v- u E 5 c o
a- re c. r
> O ~ — CO tc *O
— i 0 r a- to c
ao -^ —co
r >. cv c > c-
U. J Cf O — (T
•• O •- (^ CV l.
• cc r c- re ^ D
rr ^- - re .r:
k- -3 C *-< C W.
tc o rc cc tr t> tt
cv
_^
i— r
o »—*
c
O '-J
— ft
cr — ^
C CO
re re
a. 3
£ S
•f^ C *J •"-!
C C = •" CV 14-
C U CV S (J O
£ C
re » E a. w re *o
0) ^- O —i Cv tP O
l_ W U. 3- -i -^ -H
tO 3 u^ CV ^ 3 Ui
•O — i C OJ
>> m c > a.
•B OJ L, O «-i W
D > 0 -i ^ *J
4-1 -H -O ^ U CV U
K *j O u a *J c
3 3 re x
X 3 C *J C l-
*- u. re OD re u re
CC
^
CO
_J
= <
— K
J- (T
- Cu
t E
c5" «
CC
(V
k,
r— i
re
• • ~-
0 C
*j ^-i
tc tr
u tr
a* ^
C. 0
O 0
m
I
CM
t
j_j
C <
— T CC
4V tO
U CV
CV E
c"co
in
i
tN
.
4J
C <
-H tO
4-1 re
L. CV
CV E
a. re
O tn
CV
tt
re
cu
a>
u
- "1
5 *
4-> •>
to sc
o" 5
CC
E
cv
CC
to
cv
.n
CO
I
c o
—, or
re T"I
U —i
a. to
0 u,
!
«.
E
4_i
t/j
^
CV
£
(0
0
o
tr.
6
o
00
re
c
D.
CV
u
X
cv
CD
D
O
T
a-
3
o
cv
CO
00
c
tr
rc
ft-
tv
w
cv
3
±j
C
o
u
£
-H
»
>^
OD «t
C E
e c
£ =
3
^ "~"
— TJ
Cv -
tt t:
C
-O J=
3 -i
O S
3
•u
- a/
cJ tc
H o
5 °
u tv
o -o
1
cv
4-> tt
C 3
a o
C K
re re
to *"
O >>
CO r-i
O *-•
Cv -^
re *J
•H
lM
1C CV
u ac
*- re
u cv
3 tC
C
cv re
B
0 CV
Wj ot
T5
10 CO
O u
T> 0
0 W
i
i
1
1
>, 1
u
I- '
~ ff) •
£ ^ cr
Cv 0 C
--1 i- C
CJ i-
CV T5 *•
re S -c
cv — c
U tt C
t- E 0 :
•
!
» ;
» "tc i
• K CC X
re t. o *j c/ cv •
i- *o cv S *-* H
X I-M "3 CV 3 *->
"3 CV C 4-1 O CJ
3 > re re 3 *c re
*- CV T! CV -ff
05 r- tO (_, CO 4J &0
cv o a- -i c
tv a K co H E ?
^= C cc cc 3c -v 0
*-* J 00 (C 2 *~" C
1
CX -n
E n T3 -o
3 « — C C Cfl
a. re 3 o T-I v. 03
o • r o o O tc
^xiuu-ua 4->-c •
re i-iocv o fi o w *c
•V *-> > CO 11 3 W*^
oc^c^-oi-i-rew.!
S* >— i 05 3 Ci. CV > CV
^ u *^ c»ucv&.re
to c 3 oo re c co
cuoooc tc rt co
• ocxc;Ci-icv o E «
COn O i^ »-t 4J B -H
O'-WO' I- -tJ RJ C •*-* *J 00
S,»liSr0St;i!S5°
I
•D
cv
u
i
o
c
a-
-D
~
"S
bp
^^
3
to
£
tc
L- tV ~
•• — i- C
x ^~ re •L-
si c cr c.
TT DC — —
C •" L- C
c cc re —
CV O E C
j; 2 T-I ft
c •
C C, T
*• u >- fl.
>, •— n; 4-
t, i- (C
TO C CC C.
•C OO •»-••"
£ cc re i-
t, a. *-
£V O E C
(0 2 i-i ID
^
C
u tv -c
•• -i i. c-
^ u_ re *^
t- 1-1 tC
re c c o.
C TI U O
0 tt (8 --
u a 4-
TV 0 £ C
t^ Z •*- CO
^
tc -
u cv T:
• • 11 U CV
U 1-1 10
re c to a.
C 1-1 Cv 0
O tO TC —
o c- *-"
ai o e c
w z 1-1 re
c
re •
U fti "O
-. 1-1 W CV
>, i*-j aj .*->
t- -^ re
re c tc ex
•C Ml 4J -n
c ^* u c>
o » re *^
CV O E C
co z -*-. re
c
ct
U OJ T>
" -r, I. CV
>>«*- CC «•*
u *i re
re c tc c.
*O 00 j-1 "^^
C •" U Iv
o ED a -F-
U 0. *^
cv o £ c
w Z 1-1 ro
4-2
-------
-a
01
3
>_J
c
o
CJ
7
""^
0)
^Q
ra
H
.
01
^
re
c
CJ
<
cc
*0
<
CO
a-1
4-1
rc
c
i-
c.
s
OJ
•H
4J
rc
c/
t— i
o;
•H
4-1
re
c
w
01
-H
m
rsi
Cfi
0
^_,
«
c
LJ
c
1— J
tu
5
C
O
3
c
o
4-J
V
o
z
c c
C t C! T
«-" — u c
U — C
sew —
*J — C- u
tt tr. cr ••-
C C E C
U Z -H it
1 ff -3 -
en .s o re
s c c >\
cj -c c e. n .*
f* C « O
C w- 0) — J 13 c It
C C — < *J — < *H .C •
— •*- u s r. c
-'i-'CCvOE'CO
L/ ^ — ' — 3 C •— •
5 a, B -j j: e <-
1- E 1- C 1C u c
•^o-^ui-str^
ft, tv «•> C 1
Crc^TatoSec
C —
O> 01 1
c gn
c ^ *^ jz n a) — '
O —< *J 00 ft
•"LJOCO>-C =
o c 5 -j c »J
3 1C — 1 rJ <5 i-l
u >, « *j ^ tt 3 •
4>'&'OW>kl »(J^
tt>*J-O3C^C.
CC3K6"Cl-C
OOCQjtW^DDV-
1
CN
C • V ]
O *J OJ U
•H — i 0) o
w <: o «
u a.
3 0) O C — '
U c ^ -H —
*J B.
en QJ i- c
C E u f- 0
C rc D 3 -i
O W >*- 5 4J
CJ
c u »
c w -< B a
-•< ^ 3 TO -J O
O 01 *-< r. a> w C- 1-
C £TOPtOa)U
"^ Q. 5 *J ^ ^ o. u
CiH'CJ3U;C)*-'(BW r^ •
O ^^*- BO^^D"H"CtCO)
*JU£CO>C1H 33U;
a c S — i —i -Dp^TC
3c — j^-iu cS1^^:
k->%W4Jc:raio«o "o
•*JOJQJ'-->WCK-J(oUu
^>—=03 C. 01 ^ O
C C 3 WE^-O O'O*-*!-'
OCOOI01tCl-c=— 1Mb
^sJPUtJCtCUtttOCOO
„
•• c
C ffi
_0 u 0.' -0
*-J WJ ffi *J
o -H re
3 C K Q.
u to *J «»-(
^ iH U O
to m ffi -^
e c-
OB
D
r
•• *^ ^ w
c u- r, ^
•rt c tr c.
*j ai 4j —
C- C E =
O z — it
4J
cc •
U O "C
.. -1 1_ 0>
= >" r ^
•H C tO C.
(7 -^ o u
u « re —
01 Q. U
g-55 g
c
rc •
(J Q,t «g
— -H l_ 01
6 *-< * rc
•H c en Ch
rc **^ tJ cj
u to re — '
cu c- *-•
a o E c
O 2 *H rc
c
TO
CJ ci f
.. -H U CJ
O — 1 " cC
— ( C OS CX
4-t ftD ^ -H
u co re — *
a. o E c
0 S£ -H cy
c
o
CO ^ 4->
>* c cu cu re
>, ,-H vJ 4J C 4-< CU
re rc 4J o bo
c E -H rc * c ct
— < rc ^~- c *-> IT 41
CJ&.OIOU4JCOC —
•Sc-T-^c^-i^E^o
4-1 c )-* -^ 3 rc _ e
U4-)^^*-"3£_C-J ^J C-
cycn ^.itou xoo
cFsE^ ^ u j= O-M e ^
^
c
cO
CJ 0) "O
•• *^ u cu
o *^ rc
-H C co a.
4-. 00 *J •»-(
rc -^ cj u
U W) R| «H
01 c. *-"
ex. o E c
O 2; -5 rc
rc •
• • —• u &
>-v »*- C *•*
re c u- c.
c — u cj
G V C -^
C,' C- 4J
W O E C
4J
c
CJ 01 T
x«- re *j
t- — re
r c to c_
"C CJJ 4^ ^»
C -H CJ CJ
o » re — '
CJ Q. *-•
o> c E c
w z *H re
c
(C
C CJ -O
.. ^H U CU
LJ -P-I ' re
t*,' C K CL
13 00 4-1 ^-(
C ^H CJ CJ
o K eo **
u a, *^
cu o E c
4-1
C
rc •
CJ OJ *C
*• ^H P a>
>>, UH re 4-*
UJ -H C
re c w a.
•c to *j ^-(
C -H U CJ
O CC (9 -H
CJ C« 4-1
c
rc •
U ft) "C
>, u-( e *J
M -H (C
rc c 05 ex-
-o eo *j -H
C -H CJ CJ
O CO (C -H
0 CX- ^
cu c E c
en Z ^-i rc
^
c
CJ 0) 13
>, (w re *^
u — * re
tr c tr> C.
T3 00 4-> w
C -^ CJ CJ
o w re ^
CJ 0. «•»
*£ J S
4-3
-------
•O
0)
c
c
O
u
I
-3-
cfl
H
+J
tt
•• 1
C Z
O C
~ c
o >
L- IT)
— c
u c
c x
•o L-
1
k.
Cv
3
c
to
O t
— u
CO
c
•9
tc
E
^,
tr.
tc
u
a.
K
3
Cv
C
X
c
. —
O
CC
*J
tt
*o
o
u
c
u
CC
TJ
Cv.
«,
E
*""*
tt
•— i
0
to
K
O
_ ,
t
"r
c •
o c
— c
o *->
k- (C
Cv 4~
E CC
Cv r
4J t
tc •u u
•~ . >, — cr 13 •
z c to r c c
c c o — re c
c *J *-> r: = *-
O
X C
.. _
C U tt
c cr •—
*- ft C
u
t a- a-
=. P ~
o
.. —
tT'
fc.
C
ft.
C
c_
^
0
IT,
K
1_
C
—
a
~
c
^
j
c
TC
Cv
re
~
a-
—
o
>,
e
O
X
0
l_
—
c
z
cc
—
Cv
E
v.
c
^,
T
Cv if
K 0
C. *~
t
,£
c
4-
c
TC
-• ~ u T
?-* w. TC *-
« C tf C.
•c to *- —
0 IT CC —
0- C E C
:/. K T- r.
c
y cv -c
«• f-i — j.
3 ff
o t
— u
i> CC
3 -U
k" tt
<£ —
C E
8 3
^
CO
1
•• esi
0 *->
** <
3 tt
i- re
IT t-
5J5
in
I
rg
.>
0 w
4^ *C
3 to
*J
05
O •"
-^ tc
3 4.
*^ a/
in
t: o,
3 P
W r*
4_J
•• c
C ff
0 t.
3 C
v. &
tfl tC
c
o o
O 2
to
I'D
tt
3
U
•n
TO
^
^
TO
U
*-J
O
c
a.
a-
o
K
|
O
t.
4->
Cv
C
0
Q-
CV
X
Cv
*J
-
«_J
CO
CV
-D
TO
C
&
V-
tc
CD
tc
a
E
*o
*fc
z
c
k.
to
^j
•«
tn
e
a
a.
i^
c
^ C. X C Cv
]
j
CV
a, x .
*J C
u- CO
o o —
C
TJ O 0
Cv f< CC
c en — *
•« c oc
«*-i (0 tc
C C. 3
O K 0
o a.' c
-
•o
1 3 4-1
1 PC CV O tt
o 4- > i a cv
U C -^ — i *J •
E to c tt ev o
1- ^ C C »- t- -r,
0 -C k- -« C- 60 tfl
tn 4M c Cv a- ^
—i — cv tn ^i cu
CO "O < > «-
— « c c >•> c
d • ev -H to
ev c 3 •— ' > on
4J O O TO Q, Cy
o ^ -H en t, K u
>^
c o
o cr
— c.
Qj
L- •-!
ft. CV
Ci.
o
T3 C
C OC
CO TO
O
CV
CV 3
-= C
u, c
o o
4-> *%j
<~> 3
C O
c- >
tc
u tn
i—i
QO—i
C 0
•H CO
3
CV
4-J
C
4^
C
TO
tc
O
cc
c
o
u
cc
o.
£
C
CV
TO
E
O
tD
C
3
0
k«
to
-o
CV
T3
a/
cv
x
ft.
^
cc C
1
c -c -c '
C> Cv Cv I
cot
w o cv
^ K X
C 0. C,
1
•
• CV
C .0
01
tc *-* *-*
3 C
coo,
0 S 3
*^ tn MM
(J •"•' tU
i— < I- >i C
a a •"
(C O TJ 4J
k. CV C
•« -e a
^-J O C Ci,
CD
tv
4J
(0
c
o
•rt
ft.
O
w
"re
^_
•H
O
X
tc •
y cv -c
>^ u-, t; *J
r c rc &.
c ^p L 0
C tt tc -^
t, C. 4-1
a- o E c
W Z -M CD
,
cc
m
1
fsl
4_<
X <
i-
TO DJ
C
o a-
a, tr
CTj LC
CO
1
fM
4-1
>1 <
re tc
c
0 0
0 E
cv CD
to w
c
CJ O
u i-. e
^ C O "" C 4-»
tC «-n k- -C f-1
Cv = o tn
ev *-" tc ft. 4J
W-, J>i r- »-* C C
o re 3 •" c o ev
r- tt C 0 C -T-,
4_> CV tt ^H U.
ix t- «c -CTOfOScn
t-EC^&4JCCCv
rea.OTOttco j«i
c— «*j a/ E +•* t- *— '
'~> >^*-" O*t3*C S 0*
-------
13
01
•H
4J
C
O
o
I
,
k.
t
a
-H
k.
Cb
tf1
*-»
u
ra
f
>^
k-
tr
_E
lw
CM
(C
W
O
re
QJ
c
J
>,
h
C
5
t-i
Cu
CC
4J
CJ
ro
a
E
-3
>>
u
A
J
W
OH.
to
4J
d
a
£
•— 1
>i
to
U
00
*J
u
to
a
j
>,
h
«
U
CU
t-j
0)
re
S
0)
u
CO
kd
3
C/3
..
0
4-1
U
k.
tf.
3
c
u
c
1
0
i£
•"
s
5
3
0
4J
u
k.
4-1
m
c
3
C
0
-H
U
3
U
05
C
•3
3
o
3
cr
c
3
..
c
0
•H
U
3
k.
4_l
n
c
-3
CO
•£,
<
CX
•J
1-4
<
e'-
er
a.'
£
C
V.
\
• 1-1 -z
*-> -D —1
-< 01 3
< Ift C
3
C k-
w c -r
3 cr
v C C
i— «
E m c
•^ 1 0
to csj £
in
1
p-J
.
4_J
<
CC
(C
0}
cr
U3
*A
I
CM
4J
^
<
(C
CO
CU
e
£
E
O
Ui
CO
u- to cu
Ok.cc1
= IT H
3 k.
U -U CJ
OJ C
01 £> -H
CC 3 *C
t. K 3
3 ~< O
£
4-f -^
a i-
c- a
x, >-i
cu .-«
CC
a E
^ K J
«
4J
O
>H
**
CC o
W -H
0) j->
C > CC
kj O T3 3
at ^H es cr
•^ *J CO
en tr cc >>
QJ S -C --1 u
CO rcwCk-cOiM
rc -r-1 *J r-( >-^ -H tHj -H
4-> c re a> *-" tn
Esmo -»ao-occ
*J*J{jtTiL.C CUo
— < C ffl~ ty -^ &s*J-H
•H ET> cc re-F-*-4C.^H
j5-CaJUOt3Co
GC
1
v£
£
•• •— !
c <
-^ c/
*- c
CC
L. OJ
0' E
c. cc
c c/;
CO
•a
cr
o
• • en
r n
o u
k. UJ
Q,1 0
C. ^
C C-
m
i
CM
.
4J
• » — ^
C <
o
•H W
^j CO
03
u a>
Oi E
0. CC
O to
in
i
CM
4J
•* <-^
c 3
o
•H 7)
4-1 CO
(Q
k. 0)
cu e
ex cc
o w
1
0
CO
tn
CO
-o
CC
O
,-H
.. IT
C P
O t-J
-^ o
1C C~
U CO
OJ O
a x
O C"
•c
a>
tJ
a;
c-
x
01
"O
(C
(5
,-4
., cc
C 3
O u.
-H O
*J JT
CC U
Ui CO
Cv o
of,
•n
^-<
c
3
V
o
Jfc
nr
C
OJ
^
a
I
o
.-
•H
3
"O
a>
*j
tt
•H
U
CJ
a
—1
O
t_i
a.
c
•H
a>
tn
CC
a;
u
u
c
•H
0
«J
•c
a1
CO
CC
a.1
i_
u
0
C'
_c
01
-o
T.7
^-<
§*"
K
E
01
m
>,
to
^
01
CO
u
CD
>
•v
O!
to
CD
.*
tt
o-4
CO
0>
u
CO
•c
r
•c ,?>*. o
w ^ .
•<-( •*-* "S O cr
FH c a- c cv
cc cy ^ k. ^
r E u L: cr
cr c1 o1 —
> c~ •
k- C K CJ T
O) k. Q' -H C
*J C- .£3
CC £ 0) CC O
S -1 ^ O Bi
w
C
&>
-^
OJ >,**-<
^ "V oc en •-* vu
.0 e c c o) 01
tt 3 t-f 0 >
U O > E D •* 01
tsi «r-f O 00 *^ N
U QJ k. CO CJ -H
O "B L> **•" ^< D T>
uj C GJ MJ i-t
re k. oj *j ^ K
-o oo c 01 o
cy 13 a; u cu
OJ^tt CC^W-^W
OJ O t CDOC033
c_ o j; u cr w o r-<
Xk.ce ^ -H w _c -J
>. ^
*J CO
w . ft 00
*-« -o »_ c cy
(CO) OJ ^ *-*
3 Jrf 4-> 10 -^
a* o u *•< cc
o • o u t
kJ U CO ^ CO C
0» LJ QJ O
4-> ^ k. C
« - ffl O O &£>
2 *O J M -H C
c *-> --
OO 3 GJ ^ CO 1-*
C O *-4 « C — ' •
•H Oi JD ^H ^< Of CO
4J a) *-» e u_i £
u c (3 e re £
a> *H j) *j c *->
*w T3 *J C O K
w-i C C O O k, >N
tp -H ec a- cj uj tn
3 0)
C C
re c c
E '
w-'M 1-1 cc CD cr «-" ^-<
Ui •*-) CU 4-» O «~(
o -c kw r o
•*4 *-> O V. V>
» c r* cy -^
f"> •*•< 3 -^ C
> O QJ
• -H CJ "3 C.
4-» 01 OJ tf;
i-<4 U U- *J 3
< 01 u-i re 01
k. o >
U. C 4J ^3
O O 3 -i C
u* •*-< K o» cc
•w a)
c T;
O «H
E »
E Oi
cc k.
o a'
u E
o> re
co to
o ai
u E
v re
10 CO
oo o a
ca> k.
u — &. c a
c o .r K -H
1) Q) l
tt Ji!
•H 01 -C O ^
'• K *•> O.
tr **-<
0) uj O
k. O C
u of e
re c
OJ re
EC*-*
•H cr
01 TJ
V. OJ
re c n c.
•O 00 4J f<
C -H u U
0 O O •»<
u a"
&> o E e
CO Z »H ffl
4-5
-------
r c it c.
-" V. (T ^'
C c E r
tc s = w c 01 —'
__ 0. ^ tr c c "
C — E « i u «
— "T T: o 0 r —
*J ~- - ^ (J .c
C 5 — —' X c ~
w tr rc -r our r:
o— c—'-HC.C r
at --
D tr. ^j o; co
^: c o u J R
DC— — Uj OX3
dtA
tt
u r
u c
—(iJUUCU-otyOu 4JfCtOUU
OC.3 US^.-'ICUOrf •-• C
^E-H-Htr; co-c^tnc*^^
trot- r=C3t-^50c>.uc5
c c_ *j
9 c e r
u s -H cc
L C
O 2: -
a) c e c
U3 Z -H HJ
4-6
-------
T>
QJ
3
C
•H
II
O
o
t— t
1
QJ
i— t
cfl
H
C-
o
^
it
c
L.
0<
<
1C
cc
wC
cc
&
>
*j
cc
c
V-
^ l
<
r^.
a/
>
to
c
u
*J
<
\c
Q/
>
±J
tC
C
u
i
<
1
f*sl
K
Cv
tc
C
u
Cv
<
flv>
(t
c
a/
4-J
<
C
c
<
o
Z
£
c
*M
C
tr
c
(C
c
0
c-
~
k.
i_;
C
C'
L?
••
C
0
*-
3
L.
CC
C
8
c
c
*J
L.
3
k.
*J
C
o
u
c
o
*->
3
U
o:
c
eS
C
o
Ifi
u
tr
C
0
o
x
tc
c
I
•£
<
CC
J-.
<
c
E
c
i- C CC
4. *W
ir.
i c re
in u.
"C f
3 C,
4- S
C U *•*
2 o «
m
1
(M
<
K
CC
c
C
w
in
1
fM
^j
<
CO
e
i
CO
•c re
K b b
b re
•c >- x
i re 4v
L. CO
b
3 -2 i
b vZ
C -j O
jj
C
CC
^ I- b
u. re 4v
11 CO
C » C.
CO 4V ^
•r« U U
K re -n
0 E C
^
«
U
^
r;
O
»
^
o
x
a.
E
a-
w
^
,
c
a-
u.
— >s
C *C
— K
tr
o a-
K —
I 0
ED
c
o ^
O •*- *-" C
3 03 (CD
U C >s 0
Uj C ^
D • d" (L
U a- E — C u.
x *D
•O **^ W O (T C
0,0 XJ l_ CO •
*J U ft/ 1C
tc e fc *-i .* w «
O O S »— i- 4» 0>
LJ *J 0? 5 3 tt (0
.
r**
4^
= <
0
-^ »
- (C
CD
t- t
C E
O. 1?
O W
c <
c
*- c
CD
0 £
tfT to
•o */ *
*3 *j 4w c j:
o «c *--
3 c j: *
•« ^ u o
en tc *-> •
•• .£ *o to *• rc
c o QJ (L ^^ tr t
^ to *
L. C (^ X1 •- ^ "V
t> 3 S tt 3
c. o a- *j o a. *-
O Z .0 OJ 3 U CD
lA
1
cv-
^i
C <
o
"i CO
*- to
i I
a to
O v.
— >•,
-r-.fi, OB a.cre>,
*j E w Ct, • ^ W v. C
» t. fc-iEf~rk.cc:;
•MOO^Sfl/ C' O
a. w -^ -D
•D13 OO'WW, >,^H >^3 (U
•nO'CC'OCCS'O*-1^
-• m -t-1 o *^ en i-
ca.t-'— ncuo>"o jc
Ob--,^--Fn.JO^" —
(tC-*-1 totO*-»--n J .
f-CWtDKu ^( »^ E *J O
%
"2
5
t.
&
1/3
^
^
k.
(C
•o
c
0
u
a-
>*
«
0
a>
w
x
u
«
•u
c
0
o
0
w
x
u
re
C
a/
M
x
IH
ro
"C
C
0
o
*_
<
t'.
a
L-
E
et
cr
3
C
00
•u
&
o
c
.
m
I
rw
<
ff,
cc
o
E
tr
1C
IT.
1
CM
tt
4J
<
1C
tc
0
E
to
Cfl
^
»
O
l_
•a
cv
^
c
4_,
c
ro
L>
U«
C
60
to
O
Z
4_
0
x
t>
c:
cc
<
<
ec
•c
c
-M
tr
C-
T-
^
+,
c
c
tr
c
T3
C
a.
^_i
c
CO
4.
0
QJ
U
to
00
c
tc
I
!
.^
b
C k
c re
4. cr.
re b
— V
3 re
C. b
C l.
C. b
•o
CV
4V
X B
in
tt 05
4V
en a>
0 u
b 03
f a.
00 CQ
= -a
"S
4J
CC
a
Cv
«r^
C
CO
~
b b
— 5
C "C
C b C
*- re
b — b
E k
— re *—
—- b O
CO
b
•"
"E
CO
t4-(
0
k.
b
E
3
C
4-7
-------
! S.
g.
Cv
>
4«
z
t.
<
ff
tc
CO
c
z
c
c
Cv
<
r—
(V
1-1
tc
Cy
JV
I—"
*
vt>
tv
•£
CC
C
tv
5
in
(N
tc
CV
h.
^
a>
>
*v
tc
c
u
4J
C
o
4_t
O
2
C E
C "~ u- u
C — 1< ^ -r 1 0 cr.
- r £. 1-1 a, c >,
— — -n 4- C C K
1. 4. >, k. C. t, 0
r c r cr r — o
l_C,El~^^*-4-
4- -r o i- c v —
I". •*- cr c^ £, .». ^ cr
:: y. c. E *- u i-
Cctirc,C:<-c
L.-KS4--,— me
ff
E -
O cr K |
« tu 1. | 0
x c u <_ — . o
to c tc re —
'• C ty
- u *- ~ C: a J5
O Cv -i tc
C E >s U IT C- U
OOt:OOli.v- 1-G,
X
0 E TJ *
c tc
t= C E to >.
O 0 & X *— cC
~ 4V tf) -« 4- C
u u >i u. & o **-
y 2 w re 3 — o
(c K & a. a* to x
C C 3 E -v tv 00
0 0 t O C W *w
U O ID *v T-i D U
m
1
fsl
C •
O 4V
Z <
3 CO
CO GI
c I
O w
C X
0 —
CO *J 0 k.
C ty L. 3 ro co co
i— i O — 13Cvl-C>^
rc •« U 4-J •- 1^113 to O U* CO
c*-a--r-.tc o c-33
^-,TO4V^-i,T?i-i*-E
C3U)-^3 4-> C 0
CC'-OJCD'-^OEC fd
00 *Ji*--3CO>-»^-4-<
t-cccScuc o a, -»-i
3— G.DC«C*U3W3U
i- «U C O EtC^-tbU Ei-
4^ c oo^: 4^ > 4V Q, LJ oo
ca.cn QjEwEccr. *-o
ccvi'it-fc.ccacvo^c^-
•• c
C TC •
•_ ^- k. ij,
O -H ft
3 c co a,
k. oo ~ •«
4V "^^ (J tJ
CC 10 CC -H
c a. 4j
c o e c
CJ> Z >H CC
to
•o
c
3
tc
i_
• • w—
c <
— CC
kl a,
Oi E
5-5
•D
CO *-
(T- C O •
1- £ L. J tfl
c- a/ o o
i_ fcj ^ _— 4v u;
K CD c t- o r
1 3 >i i— 1-1 C/
c — cr, r: jr u_ -^
— t- E 3 u. c
-.iu-^ctt^tS
D I- If. IT O -- *-
i- CL- a t 1-1 a. r
4JC.L.ci-4^u:c
k- I- tc "D QJ — i
^•EC. 3 COO-OT:
m
fSI
.
^
C <
0
•^ CO
U (L
tu E
6"«
I
,
K
C <
o
-^ to
to
U (L
a- E
a c
O to
CD CO &>
3 Or v. cr
C H Cv tC X C
*-i 3 00 60 ri JZ
•03-0 1-1 -v
O C E r- 3 ^ E
O 3 O *v o
Cv (C i- O -D C U
•• tot-u. c:*- c,u^
s to o ^v cc 4V
H U r— tO 4V -O CO
1- tO *-» f-n ft,
rvd/>w»otC y r- -
(&..ca*(i/e.cctv
£ *"*
O 4V QJ
u to u •
**V ^ U, tt
CO Q tV
(D (A
•D -^i a/ -o
O K to C
t- c
- »-< c a* ^1
c o o >
0 -C *v
-H OJ 00 TO C
*-» to c , Cv
1- C E rH tr>
O C Oi CU 3
TJ -r *J to
^•fcJC^CSOtC *O *~^
y c o/ L, c >- tc
tji ft/ E E tU (L 4V
TO;?ccE S.tol? "totD
CC 1-1 C U O O "O
CC 3 a>4V ^ (y -3 u cu 4V
4^1 «CJc/EO"r^*JcJ
C3 C L. " U U, — . >, !— i
r-i coo*Jt*-C'cu aito1*-
> C. U «-"
c, a, j: re r
-3 JD 4- CX —
ft —
-• a- -o 0 u -
X W — ^ Cy
U S 3 CO -C
W *- O T C — i
•r 3 3 cv — i r,
C *-* 4- X 0
o *v ^ u L. -a
Cv C C i« to *~ C
tO < £ ~ o 0 ^
1
C-
0 X 1
T ^ "tc
> a- u — • o/
C O — tc fC 13 k-
15 V2 4-- [^ — ' C
H 4V w O
*• Cy-X> O(J C *~ *-•
>•, k- «— i *v Q,
k, r 3 00 "3 T1 •*•-
ID^C-CC— ' C 3
1333 ftx 1-1 (C fC X
— u_ *^ >-, li ^
O w — k. *- -C ec
t_ >* C £ k. C — n
a-ca-— to"— TT:
in
1
,
*~>
X <
^
fD 03
C
0 E
O C
w w
1
rg
«
4V
•• T-1
X <
tO (0
c
V E
cScj?
o &^
dJ t &/
00 CV
>-, U -- O tC'
2 U^ U k.
O *v 3 (U
t, >» C (^ 3
ty c tu c a»
"D --H
Cv CV »-i «-i
co •-. to -H •
t5 «D «rt it- CL fti
(U tC 4V C W •— i
k. 4v eu c ^-i o -£
(J 3 4V ov X 0)
C ^ T* T5 0- --• »-
•H 0)
CVO3 OXtHtU^
WL>C4VtOttt3CC
4-8
-------
•n
01
c
o
o
.0
rt
H
>
"*"
re
c
i.
c.
<
ec
CO
•*
00
•VI
re
c
a
<
0;
^
(0
C
u
4~>
<
v£>
*~
ir
C
s
c
o
n
3
u
V)
C
5
C
O
u
3
U.
to
c
o
u
"'
y
3
E
5
C
O
*-<
3
to
C
8
VI
•H
E
O
C
0
£
.-
<
re
E
to
i
•
<
IT.
c
E
re
iTl
1
CN
,
*-*
<
to
f?
cv
E
tr
in
I
fN
.
*->
<
tO
C
i
CD
CO
u
&
•o *-
E 0
i— 10
o; U-
tft
re .0
CV E
U 3
*J
tc
O tli
u- re
C 05
to — '
to re
c.
§.*
CO, TJ tV t
>% j *j re .c a-
JS 4-J . rc X)
T3 — i u re 05 -^
•—•^300,133 T5
3 a> t o .c c ^- •
3-^ca- cou— o*-1
O 0* 1-1 9s 3 l. (U E
-5 ^o -c o a< » *^ •« E
^c^^Stc^S
tc tv tc a/u>uti^
x^k_cyu.Ub. 4->re
O-" 0-^.3 30i OUJt
.
"O
QJ
4->
Q.
T"
c
re
..
§
4-1
k.
a.
c"
•-
*-
[^
o
a-
s
o
i_J
re
u
cv
a,
O
O
^J
re
u
a
o
5
L.
fe
D.
C
O
L.
o
-.
<
er
r^
t.
E
re
K
i-
(L>
P- a,
- y,
~ O
tv o
to =
" "^
C. >!
a.
k.
^
K
O
to
&
*s
a/
>•
,
-o
a>
ff
tH
tc
tr
c
—
^^
u
tc
.
re
u
re
>,
3
t~j
EC
a-
f
9s
3
J
4J
4->
•"
CV
j: o
•^i "^ m 3 c ™
K *PI CO ^- ^ *~" >s
>s C £ li O TJ
£ .H *J *J ^ 00-U *J
QJ w c. i to a. 1—1 cv
"• O^-CC (V *" —
..
u
w
"^
c
^,
n
>,
"H
o
u
CV
to
..
re
-o
c
o
*
>,
u
re
c
o
s
•^
u
re
•o
c
o
o
CV
>,
u
re
t)
c
0
u
cy
to
-,
<
CP
CJ
CV
E
tc
1
fN
•
<
u:
re
cv
E
re
y:
u-.
1
CN
.
*-•
<
1C
re
E
re
to
m
i
CN
.
+-J
<
tc
re
(b
E
re
£ "u u "5
4-1 TO O T1
re a. *J E c
3 re o •£
*_i „ o "^ .
cu re 3 3 3 *B
13 tV 1303
•c t- to c t- <-*
tc
cv
(J oO E
c c o
tc T^ u
to ,-< «— K
•^ -^ E re
c c **-< *^ u k-
co to to re
DC Ps 9s U
-o c J= ro w x
cv ^ GJ -c
CO 3 ^ CV "O 3
re c cv 4- *j
&> — , +J -r-f T3 10
w *j re w -^
U C (V 1 = tL1
CO*- C O J=
M u 0 O 3 *->
tc -o
c c
c re
*j C
re o
t- 4-1
u IP>
C L
0 CV CV
to re
3 -H «
a. w tv
cv cy u
u -o n
4-9
-------
.
TJ
OJ
C
•H
1)
C
O
o
¥•— •(
1
0)
r-i
r~i
«J
H
O^
Cv
—
ec
C
L
5
tf
CC
•>£
00
Cv
—
C
a
<
r*.
Cv
w.
*J
CD
c
4J
5
>
T-
CO
C
a-
<
Cu
>
5
z
u
3
a-
CO
C
a/
4V
»-j
c
0
u
•<
o
1 en
CN t3
C O •
= * D 4- -C
C *J k. Cv
4V < 0 — 0
o c Cv —
3 K J* <-
k. ro — — .
*- C.— i.
c = u a.
O rc X k, 0
y tt ft. it *-
1^1
i en
(Nl —
re o
C • 0 *-
C 4- k.
~ < c — —
ty ceo
3 cc .* it
K O C' O
C E L Cv
c tr K k- a,
;_: LC G' tc X
m
1
rg
c •
0 -u
4_J ^
O
3 CD
*- cc
1C ft,
C E
5 J:
?
esi
c •
o *•>
4^ <
U
3 tD
kl tC
to Q/
C E
CJ CO
.
1 E
^ I tr, tft ^. o ^
«- c c y — w
"tBOO'-cOfO
0 *-> C 3 >, 4J *
•« ••-! >^ a- w — e
^ re a- tc u o -H
US 0-Ck.k.cctD
*-* f T U 0 C< 4/
tr, -.— CCCvO-k-OC
s^rrcvOEEuc
o JZ C ^
-i *-- r w o — .
— — i- ft, -c
tc Jri t. •" ac t: o
k. U O TC T3 — •"
cv r a- c. r = i-
££5 t7S L
^
j
CN
4-1
C <
Q
4V tC
U Q,
Q< E
a. cc
O w
?
fS
,
w
C <
0
-n CC
4J tD
to
L- (V
G. CO
O W
X
•H
•c u
ra CD ai o
U k- -r- E C CL
**•* c c. u co JO
•r-i >^ — • OJ Oj P i--i
oeca- cc-»-.>ccc
C8OT3^WE> WCCO,
k. -t-i .-H e es -H^ccTiin
o"^?"r" u C u""o OtH
4J
c
tc
CJ Cv *O
« -H k. CV
O •" W
•^ c co a.
-*-1 00 4J 1-1
tO *^ Cx O
u eo to -^
L o i* e
O Z f-i (C
e
'• C "
• • •" k. a
k. — . " rt
tr = x c.
*C OL *- -^
C — i L. C
0 cc ep —
i c I" c
w z •« c
c
cc •
c I1 "C
>, U- B 4*
U. 1-1 C
re c K C-
"C" EiC 4-» -f
C "- L- C^
c f w —
ftj C E C
t/5 2; f cp
c
tc •
O ft. "D
>-t U- HJ 4V
k, i- CO
tc- C CD O.
•^J 00 4J 1-1
C *^i Cv tJ
O tc cc *i
u &, *->
fv C E C
W Z 1-1 1C
•*"
to »
C Cv T
— 1-1 k. a*
x4*- tc *^
k. 1-1 tc
tc r CD a
"P bD *v i^
C -n U 0
O cc tc i-.
u. a, *v
« Z i-, to
c
CJ 0 TT
k- ^ tC
•C 00 *v 1-1
C -H O O
o tc to -i
CV O E C
t/5 2 i~i to
^
tc •
o ty T3
•• -H k. a/
X *" CO *-*
k. -n Cf
to c tT' a.
•C GC *- fi
O CD CC *-i
lv' D. *"
a- o E c
4-10
-------
= e 10 c.
u eo - -
•" i- U u
c: K tr ~~
5 c r c
KJ 2 f I
1-0 C
T^ C
83 0 4<
..
I
4J
I
01
cfl
H
Cv
—
c
~
k.
0>
4_>
<
Cv
T-
tc
c
k.
o
<
vD
(U
*
tc
u
0*
±J
<
in
I
tn
C
c
4^
3
*J
c
*— )
c
0
4J
o
i
^ rc •
O t, Cx —
*-J 1™ (5 4-J
(^ -*1 rC
3 C K C.
k. oO 4w -^
•^ -^ tv U
cr K a 1-1
c c. *-
o C E c
U Z. T-, to
I **-
r-j to O
c • o e c
O w cc 0 O
*-<£**-*-'
3 K 00 2
K. CC 4V C U
W D. 1-1 *J
U) C Cv K K
c E u ^ rr
p rc K u o
O to Cu tc u
in
1
CN
C •
0 *J
*•> <
t-
3 CD
cr Q,
C E
O C
U CO
•O -H
Cv ~<
c 4- c
o ex ~
i- D k-
ty CL C
k. *- O >-.
•• u C 1-1 rp
Ok. fc*
— a s to
4-* CD -— O >
K Cv "^ U *"
C rc
O u eu -o
O •» cc
3 C tC CX
U CO ** -n
*j «n tv y
CO CD CO i"i
C O- *J
o z - a
e
o E
-H in
tc Tu
k. o
U H
CO Cv
a, JD
c
— ! a> t?
« 3
^P 3 — j
ec to to fc
j: *- -o
U O Cw •«
•o •" > a
4_j C
to o o
1*. *-> Z 4-1 Cv
3 o — . -o a. c
O 3 t- 3 -.
ij k. CO 3 k. r-(
•*-• a/ o u a> »
— i tTi C J 0> k. ^ — •
C to L. n — rc tc
c a* rc ? i- j= ^
O > -n CO O O k.
« c
z c iZ
O E —
"Z £
(C tr
u 1- £
Cv C C
= 2_
i-j
C
tc
c u- rc
O i~
— c cr
— 00 *J
CD 1-1 U
k, 1C CO
a< &.
i
(S
1C
c <
o
•H (C
ff
&i £
o<%
DO
Cv
^
> -o
i- CW
c "?
•—i U
C 3
.. c u
C 0
o •" cy
i-l CO
tc Cu -0
11 1
O
k*
C u
*J W
c cc o
0 E
*- C
15 K —
u I- 1-1
Oi 0 •*
!>,'*/ ti
3 CC ft/ K C
C S k, ft/ "I
6C C.' k. *j ^-i
= E C -^ >
•-i O C >
3 *J -C «*i U
C W •*- *J C5
•^ CO 0 CO C
•D
CV
CC
a.
•P^
rc
k.
C >N "O *
O -O C S3
1-1 k- 3 in
CO 4-* Cv 5 CD ,
re cv a c
E u 0. —
0) fc™ *-* — ^
S 0 -H >
1. O >
0 S 4J *"
>> B U fc
rc o c c
J
>> <
u
31 CC
•U K
C
u e
* w
t
OJ
^_P
>i <
CC CD
"O cc
c
0 Cv
t> e
Cv rc
o- to
m
I
.
4V
>»<
k-
CQ CO
C
o e
&• CQ
in in
tn
(0
CD
OJ
c ^ §
4-1 3 CO CO
« C C3" CC C
>, * a* o
k. (J k. k, ,_<
O C » k.
L. OO X U
CV 1-1 C « ft)
to to ^ e u
cc -o
u oc r
ceo
CO •« >
•2 ^3 E
•c 3 C! ey
c c i*- *j
Ps -O C X. 05
k, O -•
•O fl C Cv *-•
0 ^ 4J CO 0)
C (-> C Cv I
Cv S O *" C
tO »-4 CJ (J O
,
to
fti
u
S
3
c
c
0
*J C
ft * CO •«
Cv 3 Cv n U
J3 CX k- *J CV
§^ PM Ct) s
W tf 10 -W ^
k- CD k* C C C &
u- a, ^ o O ff J*
u "O nj * a
co x ey Cy M *o
u -e co k. w u P-I
*J 5 u w s S
t< 4-1 tr cy c* o o
TJ tn to u. etf 4-» 5
4-11
-------
0)
c
c
o
o
p\
Cv. 1
M
C
U
Cv
<
CC
cc
<;
CO
>
tc
c
Cv
"
r»»
o
tc
c
a.
5
^o
OJ
>
c
c
k.
t'
*
U-l
t
cc
tc
-
Cv
5
Cv
4J
CO
U
c
o
"V
(J
£
,,
c
c
±t
l_
cr.
c
o
o
.,
z
c
3
U.
cr
c
3
c
c
3
i
cc
c
5
• •
c
o
lr-1
L,
s
U
e
c
5
c
0
*^
3
k.
to
J
e
o
s
tw
4_J
CO
c
5
—1
to
-
+.
3
U
t
4-
^-
cc
o
£
1
(M
,
_~
cc
cc
Cv
E
w
1
fsl
*-l
cc
C,
l_ — r
CO 0
C tfi
o cr.
U tc
4-1
c
C »
00 *-
0.
£ J
a-
U
3
o
CO
££
c
a.
E
ff
CV
4V
U,
Cv
'•*
w
i
•c
to
a.
•^<
"D
c
j
1
J
i
I
!
-
4J CD C 4-^ *00
o a- E **- e en -PI
C t- *J O "»^ O Q* "D W Cv E
«— U -«»CCCvCD ^^ 3-ml_(V
Su.^Mutc^tcxij:'-'-^ c cws-c
CC CO- ST'-HCO U-> «^i C -*-i i. Cv S
a.^ cc^f^s-toow*^^^ ^occ ^:o
^, K i- ^, *- K 0 E CC CC ^ U tC Cw U Cw
^0*4^^- cuu^: Cvcc-cre ccco*-u
J?SJ53iSSSi£5 3£§2ii
—
c
U
Ci.
c.
i_
^_
c/
c.
o
o
4J
L.
OJ
U.
•).
c
D
4«J
k.
Cv
c,
o
H
1-<
-*-1
U.
C-
c
c
o
-
fc.
Cv
j;
V
U-
c
cr
c
c
(-
v->
c
tc
*
^
c
(^
c
CO
Ic
*
_
c
a
^^
e
oc
U
=
c
to
W-,
*c
to
en
o
2
c
tc
U
c
Hi
cc
o
5,
ft
(1
K
w
c
i-
cc
c?
^
E
(^
L.
a
cc
tc
c.
e
o/
t.
CO
to
U
cc
ex
E
CO
to
ec
E
CV
to
*->
to
Ci-
E
"3 '
*_ '
r ;
Q.
IT-
*- 1
c t
tr
i
1
i
(
Cv
1-1
U
-n :
4^
s
•u
Cv
to
c*
T-l
to
•a
CV
cc
D.
*n
L-
£
c
CO
(
•o
Cv
^
a.
•"
•"
c
to
•o
CV
cc
•^
r
c
<0
>,
U
tc
c
a.
cr.
•c
o
u;
cc
•u
0
a-
GO
••
U
to
13
c
0
*
l^
"Z
o
Cv
CO
>
U.
tc
t;
o
tc
c
e
l_
c
CK
c
2.
^
c
ec
00
K
c
2
c
cs
U
c
00
cc
£
^
c
{_,
•n
U-,
c
tt
z°
c
cc
L,
u-
"e
OD
to
"
e
o
c
00
(c
£
4, nr
^ Cv
(t *-
r
cr c_
tC n
a 4~
a- t:
u a>
e: 4-
cr
K C.
•- V-
L t.
r: *-
C. •»-
E c
i- C
Cv *C
tc ^
tc
K F-,
«-< T^
c- *-
E C
1-1 a
tLi *C
U Cv
cc *-*
cc
CO C.
O U
CC t-i
df *^
E c
1
a/ -c
CC «w
CO CX
4V 1-1
(C 1-1
E C
1-1 CC
a, «p
U CV
a 4~
cc
tD CL
cc -^
C_ 4^
E C
n tO
4-12
-------
I 5
•
T3
01
•H
C
O
O
si-
ll)
T-H
o
CO
H
0s 1
1
t-
;: i
^_
rc
c
t
*
ec
cc 1
^
cc
fe
„_
tr
c
4,
*
i
r-
&
•v
cc
c
b-
i
<
vC
&
T-
C
c
t-
0-
<
in
1
V.
a/
>
^
c
u
C,
4J
(0
E
U.
4J
<
c
o
t.
jg
c •
c 4. i
- .- 1
4. < j
u c
0- i,
c E
C cc
j
ir, J
1
i_ <
3 £T
i- r >
K C
C E
c c
U I-
in
1
• • CM
c
c 4.
4_ «£
3 10
1- B
0. CV
= 6
O CC
u to
IT!
1
C •
O *^
«J <
3 CO
k- «
C £
O CC
J tc
^
"c.
1 r; a. ex
u — if 3
3 3 r K
t § £„
K o CO •
•• D C -m C Cv
C t, Cv •— =
O E >-, u-
" ' £-q t
3 c- cc en
»J Jt O C O
u1' o c a. R »*-
C 3 0 E E
GUI- Cv t u-
U H *- *-> T5 O
•• C
C CO
o c, a, -o
^ (t« (C ^
u -, cc
3 C K C.
k. 00 <- -1
a K cc —
C c- —
C C E C
U 2 — r
1
1
00
! u
&/
&
C <
*- r
tc
c. i
c. tr
C cr
!
=
•c n
K K ^
cr
s «-, D m
c cr u •- lp
1_ - ^ K tC
a- c- a as 4^
^o. o — o — •
m
i
(N
C < j
c
- £
cc
u Cv
O cy.
1
CM
yw
4-*
C <
^ cc
4^ CC
cc
a E
c- c:
O i^
1
u ^ •
0, u- CO
—• OO
Cv en <
i- K CC
O O
•• E **- •
O to -3 «J
n Cv E —
4J U 0 <
CO 1-
1- 3 >^ C
a- cr *J c
O K "u 4J
c
(0 •
U OJ T!
E •** C3 4-»
*- c en c.
C — 0 0
U. If 1C n
U C. •"
C. C E C
O Z fi C5
C
c: •
I. t -B
• • — u O
>> W CC *v
I- — 1C
r; c 0: c.
C •-- 0 U
C IT r; n
Cv C E C
/: 2 — n
c
cc •
t, a, -c
• • i- I- C
>^ U- 1C AJ
1- — . CC
rc 3 K C.
•C 00 — i-
C 1- C tv
0 cr cc n
C C E" C
K Z — CO
^
c
1C
t »/ -c
.. _ u Cv
X u_ CO 4-1
1C C K (£.
•C fiO *^ -T-i
C n O u
o re cc TH
t. C. *J
c c E c
w Z 11 ec
c
tt
•o cv -e
X •*- CO *^
1C "c CD O.
•0 00 •> i-
C — 0 u
C C. 4^
« z -i ce
c
cc -
i. Cv -B
•• i-« *- a>
u* ^ ^ CO
ec c m o.
•C 00 " 1-
C -i 0 u
O to CQ i~<
U C. 4--
cv c E e
« 2 1-1 c
c
° u *°
>^ >*-* 1C 4->
1C C » C.
C VH (J U
O to 18 i-
4- C E C
4-13
-------
4.1. Primary Impacts
4.1.1. Construction Impacts
Each of the alternatives, excluding the No Action Alternative, involve
some construction initially; thus, these are called "build" alternatives
throughout the impact analyses. The No Action Alternative includes some
construction of new systems and upgraded systems throughout the life of the
project; therefore, this is discussed under operation impacts (Section
4.1.2.). The impacts are addressed in the following subsections for each of
the major categories of the natural and man-made environments.
4.1.1.1. Atmosphere
Construction activities associated with the "build" alternatives cluster
drainfields, and on-site systems will produce short-term adverse impacts to
local air quality. Cleaning, grading, excavating, backfilling, and other
related construction activities will generate fugitive dust, noise, and odors.
Emission of fumes and noise from construction equipment will be a temporary
nuisance to residents living near the construction sites.
4.1.1.2. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation ~ -
Soils exposed during construction will be subjected to accelerated
erosion until the soil surface is protected by revegetation or other means.
Most of the sewers and force mains will be laid within road right-of-ways
where runoff tends to concentrate in roadside drainageways. Most rainfalls do
not result in significant runoff because the sandy soils readily absorb preci-
pitation. Major storms, though, could cause considerable erosion in some
drainageways that have large drainage areas. The alternatives that involve
considerable lengths of sewers and force mains can be expected to result in
the greatest erosion and subsequent sedimentation. Adverse consequences due
to increased sedimentation include excessive phosphorus inputs to lakes and
streams, clogging of road culverts, localized flooding where drainageways are
filled with sediment, and filling of lakes so that a substrate for tnacrophyte
growth is provided.
4-14
-------
4.1.1.3. Surface Water
Wastewater collection system and treatment plant construction activities
(Alternatives 2-7) could produce discharge of turbid waters pumped from ex-
cavations and trenches and turbid surface runoff from disturbed areas result-
ing in increased turbidity and sedimentation in adjacent wetlands, lakes, or
waterways. This sediment transport could result in water quality degradation
and the potential for adverse impacts to aquatic biota. Upgrading on-site
systems (Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 9) and construction of collection systems
for cluster drainfields (Alternatives 8A and 8B) would contribute turbid
runoff to lakes or waterways, but to a lesser extent compared to the con-
struction of the centralized collection and treatment alternatives.
4.1.1.4. Groundwater
Groundwater may be impacted by construction activities in localized
areas. Construction dewatering may cause some shallow wells to fail, es-
pecially where pump stations are to be constructed. A potential change in
water quality would likely occur where organic soils are disturbed either
directly or by altering the watertable. Organics may leach out of these
areas and affect the taste of water in nearby wells. Spilled fuel and other
construction materials could quickly pass through the sandy soils to con-
taminate the groundwater.
4.1.1.5. Terrestrial Biota
Construction activities associated with various components of the pro-
posed alternatives would result in impacts to wildlife and vegetation to
various degrees. Collection sewers (Alternatives 2-7), some cluster drain-
fields (Alternatives 8A and 8B), and upgraded systems (Alternative 9) would be
placed on residential lots; temporary loss of grassed areas and the removal or
death of trees would result from construction of these facilities. Disruption
of backyard vegetation and the presence of construction equipment and noises
would cause temporary displacement of most vertebrate species and mortality of
a few (probably small mammal) species, but replacement of vegetation and
cessation of construction activities would allow re-establishment of the
4-15
-------
animals to the areas. More likely the animals commonly associated with human
habitation (e.g., eastern cottontail rabbits, house sparrows, European
starlings) that would be displaced, would move to suitable neighboring habitat
and induce no density-related stress upon neighboring habitats.
Proposed conveyance lines for Alternatives 2 through 7 generally parallel
and are contiguous to existing road rights-of-way. Approximately 20 feet of
roadside vegetation would be destroyed during construction along county road
right-of-ways and approximately 50 feet would be disrupted for placement of
force mains along M-62.
Agricultural cropland and orchards are the primary land uses along the
proposed lines. Small woodlots border the routes at scattered locations;
second-growth roadside shrubbery would likely be destroyed.
Birds and mobile mammals, reptiles, and amphibians that reside on or near
the proposed routes would migrate from disturbed areas during construction.
Small mammals and reptiles would incur some mortality from construction.
Displacement of most animals would be temporary, however, coinciding with the
duration of construction.
The placement of WWlTs and some cluster drainfields proposed for Alterna-
tives 2-7 and 8A and 8B, respectively, would adversely affect vegetation and
wildlife to varying degrees, during construction, depending upon the proposed
site.
A new WWTP in Section 11 would require 80 (Alternative 2) to 100 acres
(Alternative 4) . Construction activities would disrupt a larger area of
agricultural cropland and possibly adjacent wetlands. Any wetlands construc-
tion involving fill would require a Section 404 permit issued by the US Army
COE or MDNR permits issued by the Division of Land Resources Program.
Construction of the proposed WWTPs at this site would result in the
permanent displacement or mortality of various animals commonly associated
with cultivated fields. This habitat does not support a highly diverse ver-
tebrate population, however, so losses would not be significant. Following
4-16
-------
completion of construction, areas adjacent to the proposed plant would
probably be reoccupied by wildlife communities similar in composition to
preconstruction communities.
Construction activities associated with the proposed WWTP on agricultural
land in Sections 8 (Alternative 3) and 29 and 32 (Alternatives 2 and 5) pro-
bably would not destroy any native vegetation. A larger area (100 acres)
would be required for Alternatives 3 and 5 than would be needed for Alterna-
tive 2 (25 acres). No wetlands would be affected during construction of the
WWTP at either site, but outfall sewers for the proposed plants in Sections 29
and 32 may disrupt a wetland area occurring along the receiving stream. No
significant impacts to terrestrial wildlife would be expected. Disruption of
existing communities would be similar to that expected in Section 11.
Conversion of orchard to agricultural cropland would be necessitated to
accommodate the land application site proposed for Section 8. The area re-
quired would depend upon exact placement of the site. This change in vegeta-
tion would represent a permanent decrease in habitat diversity and result in a
corresponding change in diversity of vertebrate populations.
Placement of cluster drainfields surrounding the lakes (Alternatives 8A
and 8B) would primarily be adjacent to residential areas, and little disrup-
tion of vegetation or wildlife would be expected by construction activities.
Temporary displacement of wildlife in the vicinity of construction is likely
to occur, but no permanent adverse effects would be expected.
The impacts on terrestrial biota that would result from upgrading the
existing systems (Alternative 8A, 8B, and 9) would be insignificant because a
relatively small amount of construction on developed land would be required to
complete the project.
4.1.1.6. Land Use
Construction activities associated with the implementation of any of the
"build" alternatives would require some conversion of land use in the study
area. Under Alternatives 2-5 residential, agriculturals orchard, forests, and
4-17
-------
wetland areas would be affected to varying degrees. The construction of WWTPs
under these alternatives would require the greatest conversion of land, pri-
marily agricultural land. Under Alternative 3 two hundred and fifty-five
acres of cultivated crop land and orchards, located in Section 8 of Silver
Creek Township, would be used as part of a regional treatment and land dis-
posal system. The orchards would be converted to cultivated cropland. Less
than 1% of the agricultural land within the study area would be converted to
lagoons for wastewater treatment purposes. Under Alternatives 2, 4, 5A, and
5B less than 2% of the agricultural land within the study area (less than 1%
of the agricultural land within the four township area) would be used for the
construction and operation of WWTPs. The existing Dowagiac WWTP would be used
under Alternative 6 and 7, eliminating the need for any significant changes in
land use within the study area.
The construction of a sewer system under Alternatives 2-7 would occur
primarily in residential areas, however, certain environmentally sensitive
areas would be affected. Agricultural, wetland, orchard, and forest areas
will be traversed by connector sewers under these alternatives. Following
construction of the sewer systems a 30 to 40 foot easement may be enforced to
insure access to the sewer system for repairs and maintenance. The magnitude
of these impacts is not anticipated to be significant because most of the
sewer system would follow existing rights-of-way, such as those along road-
ways.
Wetlands may be subject to sedimentation during construction of the sewer
collection system. Water circulation patterns within these wetlands may be
permanently modified. Excavation, clearing, grading, and backfilling may
temporarily affect the productivity and aesthetic value of wetland agricul-
tural, orchard, and forest lands during construction of conveyance lines.
The construction of on-site and cluster systems under Alternatives 8A,
8B, and 9 would occur primarily on lots which are already developed for resi-
dential use. Some cluster systems may be built on land designated as being
agricultural or open space which is adjacent to residential areas. An insigni-
ficant amount of these areas would be necessary for the construction of
cluster systems. No significant overall land use impacts would occur under
Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 9.
4-18
-------
Prime Agricultural Land
The amount of prime agricultural farmland, as classified by the SCS,
affected by construction activities is dependent upon the actual location of
the wastewater treatment facilities. No information on prime agricultural
farmland is available for Section 11 (Cass County) of the study area, there-
fore it is impossible at this time to assess impacts under Alternatives 4 and
6. Under Alternatives 2, 3, 5A, and 5B, the affects of construction activi-
ties associated with wastewater treatment are dependent upon the exact loca-
tion of those facilities in Sections 8, 29, and 32. These sections contain
prime agricultural farmland. The irreversible loss of agricultural land to
other land uses is a growing national concern. The Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) issued a memorandum (CEQ 1976) to all Federal agencies request-
ing that efforts be made to insure that prime and unique farmlands (as de-
signated by SCS) are not irreversibly converted to other uses unless other
national interests override the importance or benefits derived from their
protection.
The USEPA has a policy of not allowing the construction of a treatment
plant or the plac-ement of interceptor sewers, funded through the Construction
Grants Program, in prime agricultural lands- unless it is necessary to elimi-
nate existing point discharges and accommodate flows from existing habitation
that violates the requirements of the Clean Water Act (USEPA 1981b). The
policy of USEPA is to protect prime agricultural land from being adversely
affected by primary and secondary impacts. It is considered to be a signifi-
cant impact if 40 or more acres of prime agricultural land are diverted from
production.
Less than 40 acres of prime agricultural land are likely to be affected
under Alternatives 2-6. These lands would be taken out of production for use
as lagoons, treatment facilities, buffer zones, and access roads. The actual
amount of acres of prime agricultural land taken out of production for these
treatment alternatives is dependent upon the precise location and placement of
the treatment sites and interceptor routes.
4-19
-------
Less than 40 acres of prime agricultural land are likely to be converted
for use as cluster system sites under Alternatives 8A and 8B. Therefore, no
significant impacts are expected to occur.
4.1.1.7. Demography
Temporary jobs created by the construction of wastewater collection and
treatment facilities under the "build" alternatives are not likely to attract
any new permanent residents to the study area. These positions would be
filled by workers from the study area and surrounding three-county area. Some
seasonal residents may reduce time spent in their study area home while con-
struction of on-site or sewer systems occurs on their property. No signifi-
cant demographic impacts will occur during construction of wastewater facili-
ties.
4.1.1.8. Economics
The construction of wastewater treatment facilities under the "build"
alternatives would create a limited number of short-term construction jobs.
Masons, pipefitters,- heavy equipment operators, electricians, truck drivers,
plumbers, roofers, painters, and carpenters - would be among the tradesmen
necessary to complete construction of the proposed facilities. Most jobs
would be filled by persons living within the study area or within a reasonable
commuting distance of the study area.
The purchase of construction materials from study area merchants would
benefit the local economy. However, few firms offering materials required for
the construction of wastewater facilities are established within the study
area. Thus, most materials would be imported from outside of the study area.
Purchases made by construction workers within the study area also would bene-
fit the local economy. These purchases would likely be for fuel, food, and
clothing. Patronage may be reduced for some business along sewer lines when
road closings and disruptions occur. No significant economic impacts are
anticipated to occur during the construction of wastewater facilities under
any of the alternatives.
4-20
-------
4.1.1.9. Recreation and Tourism
Any increase or decrease of tourism and the use of recreational facili-
ties, within the study area, attributable to the construction of wastewater
facilities is dependent upon construction activities which detract from study
area recreational amenities. Most recreational activities in the study occur
on or along the perimeter of the lakes. No major air, water, noise, or
traffic impacts are expected to occur near the lakes which would interupt
tourism and recreation activities. Under Alternatives 5A and 5B the construc-
tion of a discharge line into Indian Lake would create a temporary and minor
interruption of use along that shoreline of Indian Lake. Access to recreation
facilities interrupted by construction activities may curtail some recreation
and tourist activities. However, these impacts are not anticipated to be
significant.
4.1.1.10. Transportation
Increased truck and grading equipment traffic during the construction of
wastewater treatment facilities under the "build" alternatives would increase
street congestion. Vehicular traffic would be inconvenienced by excavating,
grading, backfilling, and temporary road closures during construction of con-
veyance lines along roadways under Alternatives 2-7, 8A, and 8B. The incon-
venience experienced during these periods is not anticipated to be signifi-
cant.
4.1.1.11. Energy Resources
Residential, commercial, and industrial energy requirements are not
likely to be affected during the construction of wastewater facilities under
any of the alternatives. Active competition for specific energy sources would
become apparent if a national fuel crisis reoccurred such as the one pre-
cipitated by the oil embargo of 1977. Trucks and construction equipment used
during the construction of wastewater treatment facilities would increase
demand for local supplies of gasoline and diesel fuel. The highest demand
created by trucks and construction equipment would occur under Alternatives 6
and 7. The lowest energy demand created by trucks and construction equipment
4-21
-------
would occur under Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 9. No significant demands on local
energy supplies are anticipated during construction of wastewater facilities
under any of the alternatives.
4.1.1.12. Cultural Resources
Archaeological data for the study area are unprocessed and not readily
available (Section 3.2.8.). Three structures in the study area are listed on
the Michigan Register of Historic Sites. Fourteen additional sites of archi-
tectural significance were identified by WAPORA personnel in 1979 (Section
3.2.8.). Because no research has been completed, it is impossible to assess
adverse impacts attributable to construction activities which may affect
historic, archaeological, and architectural sites (By letter, Martha M.
Bigelow, Director, Michigan History Division and State Historic Preservation
Officer, to WAPORA, Inc., 8 January 1979). Final routings and WWTP sites
should be presented to the SHPO for assessment before construction activities
begin. Construction excavations could uncover significant cultural resources
which otherwise might not be found. To provide adequate consideration of
impacts affecting these resources an archaeological survey of specific sites
should be conducted following the selection of an alternative.
4.1.2. Operation Impacts
Each of the alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, involve
operations that will continue through the project period. Included in the
definition of operations are constructing new septic tank systems for new
structures and upgrading on-site systems that fail under the No Action Alterna-
tive and Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 9. The impacts are addressed for each of
the major categories of the natural and man-made environments.
4.1.2.1. Atmosphere
The potential emissions from the operation of the wastewater management
alternatives include aerosols, hazardous gases, and odors. The emissions
could pose a public health risk or be a nuisance.
4-22
-------
Aerosols are defined as solid or liquid particles, ranging in size from
0.01 to 50 micrometers that are suspended in the air. These particles are
produced at wastewater treatment facilities during various treatment pro-
cesses. Some of the constituents of aerosols could be pathogenic and could
cause respiratory and gastrointestinal infections. Concentrations of bacteria
or viruses in aerosols, however, are generally insignificant (Hickey and Reist
1975). The vast majority of the microorganisms in aerosols are destroyed by
solar radiation, desiccation, and other environmental phenomena. There are no
records of disease outbreaks resulting from pathogens present in aerosols.
Therefore, no adverse impacts are expected from aerosol emissions for any of
the alternatives.
Discharges of hazardous gases could have adverse affects on public health
and the environment. Explosive, toxic, noxious, lachrymose (causing tears),
and asphyxiating gases can be produced at wastewater treatment facilities.
These gases include chlorine, methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur, and phosphorus. The knowledge of the
possibility that such gases can escape from the facilities or into work areas
in dangerous or nuisance concentrations might affect the operation of the
facilities and the adjacent land uses. Gaseous emissions, however, can be
controlled by proper design, operation, and-maintenance procedures.
Odor is a property of a substance that affects the sense of smell.
Organic material that contains sulfur or nitrogen may be partially oxidized
anaerobically and result in the emission of byproducts that may be malodorous.
Common emissions, such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, are often referred to
as sewer gases and have odors of rotten eggs and concentrated urine, respec-
tively. Some organic acids, aldehydes, mercaptans, skatoles, indoles, and
amines also may be odorous, either individually or in combination with other
compounds. Sources of wastewater treatment related odors include:
• Fresh, septic, or incompletely treated wastewater
• Screenings, grit, and skimmings containing septic or putres-
cible matter
• Oil, grease, fats, and soaps from food handling enterprises,
homes, and surface runoff
4-23
-------
• Gaseous emissions from treatment processes, manholes, wet
wells, pumping stations, leaking containers, turbulent flow
areas, and outfall areas
• Raw or incompletely stabilized sludge or septage.
Wastewater stabilization lagoons typically emit considerable odors when the
ice cover goes out in the spring. These odors are likely to be noticeable for
at least one-half mile in the wind direction. Odors from septic tank effluent
sewers may escape from lift stations where turbulent flow occurs unless proper
design steps are taken to minimize odors. Sewage may become septic and
odorous in the lengthy force mains that are part of some alternatives,
especially during the low-flow winter season.
The occasional failure of an on-site system may release some odors.
Septage haulers using inadequate or improperly maintained equipment may create
odor nuisances.
4.1.2.2. Soils
The operation of the land application site and cluster drainfield sites
for wastewater treatment would alter the soils of,these sites over the life of
the project. The potential changes depend -on the existing soil chemical and
hydraulic properties and on the chemical characteristics and application rate
of the effluent. The cropping and tillage practices on the land application
sites will, to some extent, effect the changes in the soil.
The chemical and physical properties of typical soils of the area are
given in Appendix G and a report by Ellis and Erickson (1969). The pH, cation
exchange capacity, and phosphorus retention capacity are adequate to insure
that most constituents in the effluent will be removed effectively at the
proposed irrigation rates.
Organic constituents in the applied water would be oxidized by natural
biological processes within the top few inches of soil (USEPA and others
1977). At Muskegon, Michigan the BOD of renovated water from the under-
drainage system ranged from 1.2 rag/1 to 2.2 mg/1 (Demirjian 1975). Suspended
solids in the applied water also are removed by the soil through filtration.
4-24
-------
The volatile solids are biologically oxidized and inorganic solids become part
of the soil matrix (USEPA and others 1977) .
Phosphorus would be present in the storage pond or septic tank effluent
_2
in an inorganic form as orthophosphate (primarily HPO ), as polyphosphates
(or condensed phosphates), and as organic phosphate compounds. Because the pH
of wastewater is alkaline, the predominant form usually is orthophosphate
(USEPA 1976). Polyphosphate is converted quickly to orthophosphate in con-
ventional wastewater treatment, in soil, or in water. Dissolved organic
phosphorus is converted more slowly (day to weeks) to orthophosphate.
When effluent is applied to soils, dissolved inorganic phosphorus
(orthophosphate) may be adsorbed by the iron, aluminum, and/or calcium com-
pounds, or may be precipitated through with soluble iron, aluminum, and cal-
cium. Because it is difficult to distinguish between adsorption and preci-
pitation reactions, the term "sorption" is utilized to refer to the removal of
phosphorus by both processes (USEPA and others 1977). The degree to which
wastewater phosphorus is sorbed in soil depends on its concentration, soil pH,
temperature, time, total loading, and the concentration of other wastewater
constituents that ..directly react with phosphorus,, or that affect soil pH and
oxidation-reduction reactions (USEPA and others 1977).
The phosphorus in the absorbed phase in soil exists in equilibrium with
the concentration of dissolved soil phosphorus (USEPA and others 1977) . As an
increasing amount of existing adsorptive capacity is used, such as when waste-
water enriched with phosphorus is applied, the dissolved phosphorus concentra-
tion similarly will be increased. This may result in an increased concentra-
tion of phosphorus in the percolate, and thus in the groundwater or in the re-
covered underdrainage water.
Eventually, adsorbed phosphorus is transformed into a crystalline-mineral
state, re-establishing the adsorptive capacity of the soil. This transforma-
tion occurs slowly, requiring from months to years. Work by various re-
searchers indicates that as much as 100% of the original adsorptive capacity
may be recovered in as little as 3 months. However, in some instances it may
take years for the adsorptive capacity to fully recover because the active
4-25
-------
cations may become increasingly bound in the crystalline form. The possible
amount of phosphorus that could precipitate to the crystalline form, based on
a 2% to 4% iron and 5% to 7.5% aluminum soil content, is estimated to be
250,000 pounds of phosphorus per acre-foot of soil (Ellis and Erickson 1969).
Dissolved organic phosphorus in applied wastewater can move quickly
through the soil and enter the groundwater. Adequate retention of the waste-
water in the unsaturated soil zone is necessary to allow enough time for the
organic phosphorus to be hydrolized by microorganisms to the orthophosphate
form. In the orthophosphate form, it then can be adsorbed.
A limited phosphorus sorption test was conducted following the methodo-
logy utilized by Enfield and Bledsoe (1975). The data from this 5-day test
for samples from the study area indicate a range of phosphorus adsorption
values of from 62 mg/kg to 371 mg/kg. The adsorptive capacity of the soils
apparently decreases with depth. This reflects the lower organic matter
content and reduced soil development with increasing depth.
The surface soil of the loamy sands sampled (up to approximately 5 feet)
has an average phosphorus adsorptive capacity of approximately 165 mg/kg. The
underlying material below 5 feet was not extensively sampled, and no samples
were taken from below a depth of 68 inches. Assuming that soil forming pro-
cesses are less and the grain-size is larger at depths in excess of 5 feet, a
conservative estimate of 50 mg/kg for a 5-day test equivalent value appears
reasonable. Enfield and Bledsoe (1975) determined that phosphorus sorption
after a 4-month test period was from 1.5 to 3.0 times the 5-day sorption
value, reflecting a more steady-state approximation. An approximation for
long-term sorption would be greater, a value of 3.5 was used in this study.
Based on similar analyses (Ellis and Erickson 1969) , the study area soils
should have adequate sorption capacity for phosphorus where drain beds of
current design are constructed. The water quality sampling results appear to
verify it. Because dry wells result in a considerably smaller soil mass being
contacted by the percolating effluent as compared to drain beds and drain-
fields, the soil material would become saturated more quickly with phosphorus.
Also, the dry well introduces effluent lower in the soil profile where the
4-26
-------
sorption capacity of soils is generally lower. Ellis and others (1978) recom-
mended that dry wells be discontinued from further application for that
reason. Increases in phosphorus levels in groundwater over time can be ex-
pected, although the specific increases would be highly variable, and minimal
where the residence is occupied seasonally.
The alternative that incorporates land application of lagoon effluent for
treatment would result in increased levels of phosphorus in the soils. Irriga-
tion onto the soil surface utilizes the surface soil for sorption of phos-
phorus. These surface soils have considerably greater sorption capabilities
than the underlying soil (Appendix G).
Nitrogen loadings in the wastewater are of greatest concern. Nitrogen
would be present in applied wastewater principally in the form of ammonium
(NH ), nitrates (NO ) , and organic nitrogen. When wastewater is applied to
soils, the natural supply of soil nitrogen is increased. As in the natural
processes, most added organic nitrogen slowly is converted to ionized ammonia
by microbial action in the soil. This form of nitrogen, and any ionized
ammonia in the effluent, is adsorbed by soil particles.
Plants and soil microbes both utilize ammonium directly. Microbes oxi-
dize ammonium to nitrite (NO ) that is quickly converted to the nitrate (NO )
form through nitrification. Nitrate is highly soluble and is utilized by
plants, or leached from the soil into the groundwater. Under anaerobic condi-
tions (in the absence of oxygen), soil nitrate can be reduced by soil microbes
to gaseous nitrogen forms (denitrification). These gaseous forms move upward
through the soil atmosphere and are dissipated into the air. Denitrification
depends on organic carbon for an energy source; thus, the interface between
natural soil and the gravel fill in a drain bed has both requisite characteris-
tics for denitrification.
Unlike phosphorus, nitrogen is not stored in soils except in organic
matter. Organic matter increases within the soils would result from increased
microbial action and from decreased oxidation. The increased organic matter
improves the soil tilth (workability), water holding capacity, and capability
of retaining plant nutrients.
4-27
-------
4.1.2.3. Surface Waters
Nutrient Loads to Lakes and Rivers of the Study Area
A major water quality concern in the study area is the acceleration of
eutrophication in the lakes. Two important nutrients in the eutrophication
process are nitrogen and phosphorus (Zevenboom and others 1982) with phos-
phorus usually recognized as the most important (Smith and Shapiro 1981). To
evaluate the impact of the alternatives, nutrient loading levels for phos-
phorus were calculated. Changes in phosphorus loadings due to wastewater
management alternatives are presented in Table 4-2. These changes reflect the
percent increase or decrease of phosphoriis loading compared to the current
loading rates estimated in Section 3,1.3.4.
If the No Action Alternative were implemented in the study area the
phosphorus loading to all lakes would increase compared to present conditions
(Table 4-2). The increase is based on future population estimates around
Indian Lake and Sister Lakes. An increased population would use additional
on-site systems, resulting in greater phosphorus loads to the lakes. Alterna-
tives 2-7 offer the largest percent decrease in phosphorus loads to the lakes.
A centralized collection system effectively eliminates phosphorus loads asso-
Table 4-2.
Lake
Cable
Crooked
Dewey
Indian
Magician
Pipestone
Round
Comparison of phosphorus loading
various alternatives to the current
No
Action
5%
8%
2%
2%
4%
1%
5%
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
Alternatives
2-7
29%
45%
11%
14%
25%
5%
27%
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
rates associated
loading rates.
Alternatives
8A & 8B
26%
39%
10%
13%
22%
4%
24%
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
with the
Alternative
9
26%
39%
10%
13%
22%
4%
24%
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
4-28
-------
ciated with on-site systems. Crooked Lake would experience the largest per-
cent decrease. Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 9 are similar to the reduced phos-
phorus loads associated with the alternatives using centralized collection
systems for several reasons. Jones and Lee (1977) demonstrated that a pro-
perly designed and installed septic tank drainfield could remove nearly 100%
of the phosphorus load from the septic effluent. It was assumed for Alterna-
tives 8A, 8B, and 9 that upgrading existing on-site systems and placing cri-
tical areas on a cluster collection system or on holding tanks would result in
a 90% decrease in the phosphorus load from on-site systems compared to present
conditions.
The changes in phosphorus loading imposed by various wastewater alterna-
tives could affect the trophic status and management considerations of some of
the lakes in the study area. Current trophic status is based on secchi disc
readings, chlorophyll a_, and phosphorus concentrations (when available; Sec-
tion 3.1.3.2.2.). Future trophic conditions will be influenced by in-lake
phosphorus concentrations, which are a function of the phosphorus load and
other physical-chemical characteristics of each lake basin. It appears the
"build" alternatives (Alternatives 2-7) would reduce the phosphorus load so
that water quality would be enhanced for three lakes; Cable, Crooked, and
Round. Some improvement in Magician Lake_ may occur, but Dewey Lake, Indian
Lake, and Pipestone Lake would likely remain eutrophic (Figure 4-1). Imple-
mentation of Alternatives 8A, 8B or 9 is predicted to have effects similar to
Alternatives 2-7 (Figure 4-1). The information plotted on Figure 4-1 should
be interpreted with caution. Phosphorus loads and lake response is based on
information currently available. In addition, the management schemes (Figure
4-1) have assumed that lake basins and the biological lake components respond
in similar fashions. This is not always the case. Phosphorus dynamics and
biological production will be greatly affected by unique factors occurring
within each lake basin, which are unquantified at this time.
Some rivers of the study area would be directly impacted by discharge of
wastewater effluents to a receiving stream under Alternatives 2, 4, 5A, 5B, 6,
and 7 which include collection sewers and centralized treatment. Release of
the treated wastewater effluent from the stabilization lagoons would occur
between 1 March and 15 May annually. The release rate during this period is
designed to cause minimum impacts.
4-29
-------
W
O
X
a.
LiJ
o
o
2
LIJ
r
o
o
CO
High Phoa.
Loading
0.55 _
0.45 _
0.35 _
0.25 _
0.20 _
0.19 _
0.18 _
0.17 _
0.16 _
IE 0.15 _
0) 0.14 _
0.13
0.10
0.07
0.06 _
0.05 _
0.04 _
0.03 _
0.02 _
0.01 _
Low Phos.
Loading
C
•»!•
~
Cable .
I
I
A
Legend
• present conditions
O alternatives 8-9
# alternatives 2-7
III!
8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4
Plpestona
i
DDewey-
1 ^
Indian.
Magician t )
( )
Crooked -j -
« Round
*
B
r i
.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 (
~?r
0)
a
lenwelder
"o
3
(Oligotrophic)
(Eutrophic)
A.
B.
C.
Secchi
(meters)
No nutrient abatement steps necessary.
Strong renewal potential; long term benefits may be possible without
extensive nutrient abatement.
Prompt action needed; degradation may be imminent if nutrient abatement
steps are not taken.
D. Problem lakes; renovation desirable but lasting improvement may require
extensive nutrient abatement.
Figure 4-1. Future phosphorus loading conditions for the centralized waste-
water management alternatives (after Vollenweider 1979; Uttormark
and Wall 1975).
4-30
-------
The nutrient loads discharged to Silver Creek or Indian Lake Outlet
coincide with high river flows of this time of year; thus, the nutrient loads
would be assimilated by the streams. Slightly elevated nutrient levels should
not be detrimental to the ecology of the receiving streams. Increased dis-
charges to Dowagiac Creek from the Dowagiac WWTP would occur under Alterna-
tives 6 and 7. The increased continuous discharge would affect Dowagiac Creek
to some extent, although the assimilative capacity of the Creek was calculated
when the effluent limits were set. The Dowagiac River, a cold water stream,
would be affected to some extent by any of the wastewater treatment alterna-
tives that have discharges to surface waters.
Coliform Bacteria Levels in Lakes and Rivers
Data regarding bacterial contamination of the lakes in the study area are
somewhat inconclusive. Bacterial sampling efforts usually have involved one
sample at each station for a single date. Federal Water Quality Regulations
require that violations of standards be based on the geometric mean of a
minimum of five samples.
Continued reliance on existing systems (No Action Alternative) in areas
of high water tables (e.g., Pipestone Lake)" has potential for bacterial con-
tamination. For the "build" alternatives, the wastewater management alterna-
tives should effectively prevent these problems, although bacteria contamina-
tion problems are still a possibility with centralized alternatives in case of
pumping station malfunctions or with upgraded on-site systems in case of
surface ponding of the effluent.
Land application of wastewater (to be considered under Alternative 3) is
an effective way of eliminating or immobilizing sewage-borne pathogens. In
fine-textured soil, bacteria can be filtered out by 1 to 2 meters of soil.
Soils containing clay remove most organisms through adsorption. Sandy soil
removes them through filtration (Lance 1978).
4-31
-------
Suspended Solids and Organic Carbon Levels in Lakes and Rivers
Alternatives implementing on-site systems (Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 9)
should effectively remove suspended solids from the wastewater effluent.
Dissolved organic substances may move with the groundwater into the lakes. In
the study area lakes the septic leachate survey detected groundwater plumes in
each of the lakes. The groundwater plumes contain dissolved organics and
salts as components. Dissolved organics will exert a BOD resulting in the
consumption of dissolved oxygen within a lake. Within a properly maintained
on-site system, BOD movement to lake waters should be insignificant.
Centralized collection and treatment alternatives that use receiving
streams for discharge of treated wastewater effluents (Alternatives 2, 4, 5A,
5B, 6, and 7) have the discharge timed for release during the spring runoff
period. The waste stabilization lagoons are designed to meet State and
Federal discharge standards. Suspended solids and dissolved organics are
expected to exert a BOD in the receiving stream that could depress dissolved
oxygen levels. But most of the residual BOD and ammonia should be oxidized in
the respective streams. Increased effluent discharge from the Dowagiac WWTP
to Dowagiac Creek in Alternatives 6 and 7 would result in increased suspended
solids and dissolved organic loadings. These- should be within the discharge
standards for the stream if the plant is designed and operated properly.
Chlorination of the effluent from the Dowagiac plant may result in chlorinated
organics (e.g., trihalomethanes) that are known to be carcinogenic.
Lake water levels may decline slightly with the centralized collection
alternatives because water would be exported from the basin. Only Pipestone
Lake has a continuous surface water discharge and Indian Lake and Magician
Lakes have intermittent discharges. The groundwater inflow and outflow of the
lakes, which cannot be quantified with present information, does not appear to
be large for any of the lakes; thus, export of lake water could potentially
lower lake levels slightly. Assuming no change in inflows and outflows, a
volume of water equivalent to 2 inches of water would be exported from the
Sister Lakes during the summer. The significance of this export volume
depends on the inflow-outflow relationships, the configuration of the shore-
lines, and the total volume of the lakes. Because the requisite information
4-32
-------
is not available, the impact of these potential water level declines cannot be
assessed.
4.1.2.4. Groundwater
Long-term impacts that could be encountered in the operational phase of
any of the alternatives concern the following types of pollutants: bacteria,
dissolved organics and suspended solids; phosphorus; and nitrate-nitrogen.
Movement to groundwater of other wastewater constituents or of soil chemicals
would occur, but are not expected to significantly affect any of the uses of
the groundwater.
Bacteria and dissolved organics are readily removed by filtration and
adsorption onto soil particles. Two feet of soil material is generally ade-
quate for bacterial removal, except in very coarse-grained, highly permeable
soil material. Contamination of drinking water wells or surface water with
bacteria and dissolved organics in the study area is unlikely under any of the
alternatives.
Phosphorus is significant in groundwater because it can contribute to the
excessive eutrophication of lakes. Section 4.1.2.2. contains a discussion of
phosphorus sorption in soils and supports the conclusion that, except for dry
well soil absorption systems, phosphorus contributions to the groundwater from
any of the alternatives would be minimal.
The ability to predict phosphorus concentrations in percolate waters from
soil treatment systems has not yet been demonstrated (Enfield 1978) . Models
that have been developed for this purpose have not yet been evaluated under
field conditions. Field studies have shown that most soils, even medium
sands, typically remove in excess of 95% of phosphates in relatively short
distances from effluent sources (Jones and Lee 1977) .
One potential source of phosphorus inputs to groundwater are the soil
absorption systems included in the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 8A,
8B, and 9. The groundwater quality analyses performed in conjunction with the
"Septic Snooper" survey (Appendix B) confirm that some phosphorus is reaching
4-33
-------
the lakes by way of the groundwater. The majority of groundwater plumes
sampled, though, had phosphorus concentrations less than 0.02 tag A (25 out of
33 effluent-related plumes). The contribution of phosphorus to the lakes from
on-site systems has not been quantified from the sampling data, but from
theoretical data. Thus, on-site systems are likely stimulating algal growth
in localized areas where effluent plumes emerge, but their contribution to
lake eutrophication is not quantifiable. The greatest quantity of phosphorus
would be contributed to groundwater under the No Action Alternative. A slight
amount cf phosphorus would be contributed to the groundwater under the alter-
natives that continue to rely on on-site systems.
Alternative 3, which incorporates land application of lagoon effluent is
not expected to significantly increase the phosphorus concentration in the
groundwater. Irrigation onto the soil surface results in utilization of the
complete soil profile for sorption in contrast to on-site systems which
utilize only the subsoil. Phosphorus in groundwater under a land application
site is of concern only when surface waters are affected. Groundwater from
the site would likely flow primarily to the west, but partially to the Sister
Lakes.
The wastewater stabilization lagoons which are components of all of the
centralized alternatives, except Alternative 7, may contribute phosphorus to
the groundwater if seepage from the lagoons is considerable. A study of
Minnesota wastewater stabilization lagoons (SA Hickok and Associates 1978)
concluded that none of the ponds (all had natural soil liners) were capable of
meeting the designed and specified seepage rates. Most of the ponds studied
removed phosphorus effectively, although some had seepage rates considerably
higher than the maximum allowable.
Nitrates in groundwater are of concern at concentrations greater than 10
mg/1 as nitrogen because they cause metheraoglobinemia in infants who ingest
liquids prepared with such waters. This limit was set in the National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 141) of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(PL 93-523). A general discussion of nitrogen in soils is presented in
Section 4. 1.2.2.
4-34
-------
The density of soil absorption systems is said to be the most important
parameter influencing pollution levels of nitrates in groundwater (Scalf and
Dunlop 1977). That source also notes, however, that currently available
"information has not been sufficiently definitive nor quantitative to provide
a basis for density criteria." The potential for high nitrate concentrations
in groundwater is greater in areas of multi-tier or grid types of residential
developments than in single tier developments. Depending on the groundwater
flow direction and pumping rates of wells, nitrate contributions from soil
absorption systems may become cumulative in multi-tier developments. Thus,
separation distances are critical for new construction and maximum density
codes are crucial for new subdivisions.
The groundwater sampling results (Section 3.1.3.3.) from wells show that
elevated nitrates (greater than 4 mg/1 as nitrogen) occurred in 11 of the 60
wells that were sampled. Some of these wells appeared to have sources of
nitrates other than soil absorption systems, particularly the wells on Keeler
Lake. Other values (two were greater than 20 mg/1) may indicate direct pollu-
tion from the surface or anomalous sampling error because the wells are 45 and
46 feet deep. None of the wells which were sampled under the auspices of the
Van Buren County Health Department had nitrates present that exceed the limit
(By interview, Linda Surlow, Van Buren County Health Department, to WAPORA,
Inc. 15 July 1981).
These high levels of nitrate would perpetuate under the No Action Alterna-
tive and increased violations of the drinking water quality standard would
occur. The alternatives that include continued use of on-site systems and
cluster systems may not necessarily result in declines in concentrations of
nitrates in the groundwater. Wells that continue to have high nitrate concen-
trations may need to be deepened so that a hydraulically limiting layer is
penetrated.
Cluster drainfields are designed similarly to individual drainfields to
ensure an adequate areal distribution of the effluent for satisfactory re-
movals of phosphorus. Nitrate concentrations within the groundwater below a
cluster drainfield are anticipated to be equivalent to those below an indivi-
dual soil absorption system. Insufficient experimentation has been conducted
4-35
-------
to enable designing for nitrogen removals from septic tank effluent. One
precaution would be to locate the drainfield as far from wells as feasible.
Once nitrates enter the groundwater, dilution is the only practical means of
reducing the concentration.
Lagoon effluent typically contains nitrogen levels of approximately 12
mg/1 (Urie 1979; Urie and others 1978). Nitrates in the groundwater below the
land application sites probably would average considerably less than 10 mg/1,
the drinking water quality standard. Volatilization, crop uptake and removal,
soil storage, and denitrification would account for removal of nitrogen from
the applied effluent. Some increase in nitrate concentration above background
levels is anticipated, but no significant adverse impacts on the environment
or proposed use is anticipated.
Seepage from the wastewater stabilization lagoons could result in ele-
vated nitrate levels in the groundwater below the lagoons. Clay liners are
not impermeable and plastic liners can be punctured or experience deteriora-
tion. Field studies (EA Hickok and Associates 1978) have shown that a seepage
rate of 500 gallons per acre per day is very difficult to achieve even on
in-place, fine-textured soils. On medium- to coarse-textured soils, the
quality of the liner is of utmost concern for protection of groundwater
quality. Monitoring wells are to be installed as part of lagoon construction
and these are to be sampled on a regular basis. The sampling program would
identify problems before neighboring residents are affected.
Changes in groundwater levels would occur with the centralized alterna-
tives. Export of water from the lakeshore areas where it is typically re-
charged to the wastewater treatment system would change the groundwater levels
slightly. The greatest change in groundwater levels would occur in the
vicinity of the land application site. Inadequate data have been assembled to
accurately predict the water table rise. The water table rise would affect
not only the land application site, but also the surrounding area and the
normal outflow areas. Either draintile or recovery wells on the land applica-
tion area would prevent the water table from rising to the surface, if it is
shown to be necessary through further studies.
4-36
-------
4.1.2.5. Terrestrial Biota
The land disposal site proposed in Section 8 under Alternative 3 would
affect the terrestrial biota during plant operation, however, no significant
adverse long-term effects would be expected during normal plant operating
conditions. Wildlife may avoid the area during waste application. Periodic
monitoring should be performed to detect the presence of potentially harmful
concentrations of heavy metals, other toxic susbstances, or micronutrients in
the soil, crops, or other vegetation.
4.1.2.6. Land Use Impacts
The land use conversions discussed in Section 3.2.2. would remain in
effect for the operation of the proposed wastewater treatment facilities under
the "build" alternatives. Land use under the easement of sewage conveyance
lines would be intermittently affected when maintenance or repairs were per-
formed on sections of the lines. Periodic excavating and filling would dis-
turb vegetation and soil along conveyance lines. The release of low level
odors and aerosols from WWTPs and the knowledge that hazardous gases could
potentially be released from those plants may affect land use adjacent to the
plants. Improper maintenance of cluster and on-site systems may create
malodorous conditions which would adversely affect adjacent land uses.
4.1.2.7. Demographics
The operation and maintenance of wastewater facilities proposed under the
"build" alternatives will not have a significant impact on the demography of
the study area. A limited number of long-term jobs created by the operation
and maintenance of these facilities likely will be filled by persons living
within the study area or within commuting distance. No new residents are
expected to be attracted to the study area to fill these positions.
4.1.2.8. Economics
The operation of wastewater facilities under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5A,
5B, and 6 would create a few long-term jobs. These jobs could be filled by
4-37
-------
persons residing in the study area. No new jobs would be created under
Alternative 7. The existing staff at the Dowagiac WWTP is expected to assume
any additional responsibilities as a result of implementing Alternative 7.
No new jobs are anticipated to be created under Alternatives 8A, 8B, and
9. Existing contractors are expected to satisfy local demand for construction
and maintenance services of on-site systems. Contractors and tradesmen in-
volved in the construction and maintenance of on-site systems will suffer a
loss of work opportunities within the study area under Alternatives 2, 3, 4,
5A, 5B, 6, and 7. These contractors and tradesmen are likely to compete for
work opportunities in neighboring areas. No significant economic impacts will
occur during the operation of wastewater treatment facilities under any of the
alternatives.
4.1.2.9. Recreation and Tourism
The operation of wastewater facilities under any of the "build" alterna-
tives could affect tourist and recreational activities in the study area if a
malfunction of those facilities occurred. A failure in the system components
of the WWTPs under Alternatives 2, 4, 5A, 5B, and 6 could cause untreated or
partially treated waste to be discharged into study area surface waters. This
phenomenon would result in short-term water quality degradation and a reduc-
tion in the recreational use of that, body of water. Odors emanating from
malfunctioning on-site systems may curtail outdoor recreational activities in
the near vicinity.
4.1.2.10. Transportation
Impacts arising during the construction of conveyance lines (Section
4.1.1.) would reoccur when maintenance or repairs are made on those lines.
Occasionally some roads may be closed temporarily. Truck traffic to and from
the proposed treatment facilities under Alternatives 2-7 will be associated
with supply deliveries. Truck traffic associated with repairs and sludge
hauling will occur periodically under Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 9.
4-38
-------
4.1.2.11. Energy
The operation of wastewater treatment facilities and pump stations under
the "build" alternatives require the use of electricity and fossil fuels.
Alternatives 6 and 7 would require the greatest amount of these energy
sources, Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 9 would require the least. No significant
demands would be placed on local energy supplies under any of the alterna-
tives.
4.1.3. Public Finance
The total project costs will be apportioned between the USEPA and the
local residents. The apportionment is made on the basis of what costs are
eligible to be funded by USEPA. The costs for each alternative are presented
in Appendix N. The local construction costs and the entire cost of system
operation and maintenance will be borne entirely by the system users. As
discussed in Section 1.2., Federal funding through the National Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants Program will provide funds to
cover 75% of the eligible planning design, and construction costs of conven-
tional wastewater treatment facilities. "Innovative/alternative" components
of the proposed treatment systems, such as pressure sewers, septic tank
effluent sewers, septic tanks, and soil absorption systems are eligible for
85% Federal funding. The annual residential user costs for each alternative
are presented in the Table 4-3. The detailed annual residential user cost
analyses with and without Federal Grant monies are presented in Tables N-ll
and N-12, respectively.
Wastewater treatment facilities can create significant financial impacts
for communities and users who will pay the capital, operation, maintenance,
and debt costs associated with sewage treatment facilities. Two guidelines
for determining the magnitude of these impacts are the State of Michigan 10%
of SEV general obligation bonding authority limit for local governments and
the USEPA average annual user charge to median family income ratio (USEPA
1981b) .
4-39
-------
Table 4-3. Annual residential user costs.
Annual Cost per Residence
Alternative
2
3
4
5A
5B
6
7
8A
8B
9
With Federal Grant
264.77
258.95
265.69
254.18
599.66
271.62
329.30
167.29
161.34
126.21
Without Federal Grant
1,044.93
1,043.29
1,059.58
1,020.00
1,266.02
1,033.69
1,061.16
488.83
481.56
233.32
Cass County would assume the local share of additional debt under any of
the "build" alternatives. Berrien County and Van Buren County residents would
be billed user charges by Cass County under any of the "build" alternatives.
The debt to state equalized assessed valuation ratio for four debt sce-
nerios, which include the high- and low-cost capital shares for sewer and
on-site systems are presented in Table 4-4. Under the highest local capital
cost scenerio, Alternative 5B, Cass County's debt would rise $12,541,000 over
its 1980 debt of $1,335,000 for a total of $13,876,000. Cass County's debt to
state equalized assessed valuation ratio under Alternative 5B would reach 33%
of the state of Michigan's general obligation bonding authority limit for
local governments.
Under the lowest local capital cost scenerio, Alternative 9, Cass
County's debt would rise $968,400 over its 1980 debt for a total of
$2,303,400. Cass County's debt to state equalized assessed valuation ratio
under Alternative 9 would reach 5% of the state of Michigan's general obliga-
tion bonding authority for local governments. Cass County would not approach
its state mandated debt limit under any of the alternatives.
4-40
-------
J-l
o
^4
T3
c
3
C
O
4-1
CO
3
rH
to
^
T)
0)
tn
CO
a)
tn
M
co
T3
0)
N
i-l
cfl
cr
0)
Cl)
4-1
CO
4-1
tn
U-f
O
0)
M
cfl
4J
C
0)
CJ
J^
1)
a.
cfl
to
cfl
4-1
o;
•a
>,
4-1
c
3
0
O
tn
en
cfl
o
e
o
00
-r*
j:
o
*
o
CV
ffl
M
•3
OJ
N
(U
3
tr
H
01
a
C/3
^--
_D
a
C
O X
*J ^4 i—4
ffl Ui (TJ
Z2 5 3 n
O QJ
r-< 00**- SO O O O
[g C — "^ "^ "^ "-
U *H *4 M
c "c "= >
rt) O -pJ Q
O =0 J O
0
cq
5
^-1
n)
>
-o
01
CO
cu
UJ
CO
m PM ^. in
fn -. o O
axo
N c i it n «
,
ca
0
•H
M
1)
C
T3
r*«» r^- r^«-
r*» r>- r*. r*
o" o* o" o"
CN (N fsj CM
.1 . .1 . ., .
a
^
10
1
•1
O O O
0000
*& r-T r-T **•
p^. u~> vn n
ao O O o
•>*>*. (*!")
f*1 U^ CN •
— t CN
«
M
CO
j:
C/3
(0
a
u
^
to
3
~
i B a i
o o o o
o o o o
O CT* ^O -
r>i ro ^H
O
CO
«4
i
OC
c
to
X
o o o o
§000
0 O O
tn en in in
CO CO ^
30 3 —<
•rf S <:
I M —-
o ^ a.
4-1 ^^
Mi
"7
CJ .U U
-J 31
.= 0) C
O E •
cj a> *j
-H £3
*•* CO
•H 3
£. a) -^
ffl 4J 1-4
U -J t»
CO S
3 I 4)
15 c o
4-41
-------
The USEPA considers projects to be expensive and as having an adverse
impact on the finances of users when average annual user charges are:
9 1.0% of median household incomes less than $10,000
• 1.5% of median family incomes between $10,000 and $17,000
« 1.75% of median household incomes greater than $17,000.
Median family incomes for Berrien, Cass and Van Buren Counties are $19,200,
$18,600, and $20,500, respectively. (By telephone, Mr. John Maloney, Economic
Market. Analysis Division, US Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Detroit, MI to WAPORA, Inc. 4 March 1982).
Incomes of system users residing in Van Buren County may be somewhat
lower than $20,500 because Van Buren County is included in the Kalamazoo
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). Wages are likely to be higher
in the Kalamazoo metropolitan area than in Van Buren County. The high wages
paid in Kalamazoo tend to raise the median family income for the SMSA as a
whole.
Average annual user charges expressed as a percentage of median family
income for a household of four are presented in Table 4-5. User fees under
Alternative 5B surpass suggested upper limit user fees for system users in all
three counties. Under Alternative 7, user fees surpass suggested upper limit
user fees for system users in Cass County. Thus, some system users under
these alternatives would be financially adversely affected. Alternative 9
offers the lowest user fees for system users in all three counties. None of
the other alternatives surpass suggested upper limit user fees as a percentage
of median family income, indicating that none of these alternatives would be a
"high cost" system that would pose a significant financial burden on system
users.
The financial stress on low income families and the local share of
capital cost for the proposed wastewater facilities, under any of the "build"
alternatives, may be overstated in Tables 4-4 and 4-5 because of the uncer-
tainty of how available Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) grants and loans
may be applied. Cass County is currently eligible for a $1,200,000 grant and
4-42
-------
Table 4-5. Average annual user charges for the "build" alternatives
expressed as a percentage of median household income for
Berrien, Cass and Van Buren Counties.
Alternative
2
3
4
5A
5B
6
7
8A
County
Berrien
1.38%
1.35%
1.38%
1.32%
b
3.12%
1.41%
1.71%
0.87%
0.84%
0.66%
Cass
1.42%
1.39%
1.43%
1.37%
b
3.22%
1.46%
b
1.77%
0.90%
0.87%
0.68%
Van Buren
1.29%
1.26%
1.30%
1.24%
b
2.93%
1.32%
1.61%
0.82%
0.79%
0.62%
The USEPA considers a project expensive when average annual user charges
exceed 1.75% of median household incomes greater than $17,000.
The costs residents would pay under these alternatives would be considered
expensive according to USEPA guidelines.
4-43
-------
a $1,000,000 loan for 40 years at 5% interest from the FmHA (By telephone, Mr.
Roy O'Breiter, FmHA District Office, Hastings MI to WAPORA, Inc. 2 February
1982) . The grant and loan are set aside for wastewater facilities around
Indian Lake. Cass County could apply for an additional loan to finance waste-
water facilities in other parts of the study area. If FmHA grants and loans
are incorporated into the public financing scheme for implementing any of the
"build" alternatives, the financial stress on study area low income families
and the local share of capital cost for the proposed wastewater facilities
would be reduced.
4.2. Secondary Impacts
Each of the alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, will have
effects that extend beyond primary or direct impacts. These impacts,
secondary impacts, would occur because induced growth may occur or because
changes in lake water quality may occur. The categories that may experience
significant secondary impacts are described in the following sections.
4.2.1. Demographics
Wastewater management facilities historically have been a major factor in
determining the capacity of an area to support population growth and develop-
ment. On-site wastewater treatment facilities, although generally available
to any potential user, limit development to areas with suitable soil and site
characteristics. Sewer systems, while not always available at a specific
location or with adequate capacity, allow development to be more site indepen-
dent, since soil, slope, and drainage become less constraining design para-
meters. Consequently, the construction of sewers in an area usually increases
the inventory of developable land and the density of development, often un-
leashing pent-up demand for or encouraging growth and development.
This phenomenon is not evident in the study area nor is it anticipated to
occur during the planning period. Economic factors discussed in Section
3.2.3. which follow national, state, and regional trends, outweigh the incen-
tive for growth which wastewater facilities provide.
4-44
-------
Population growth in the study area as discussed in Section 3.2.1. is not
likely to be significantly affected by the selection of any of the alterna-
tives. The first tier of sewers away from the lakes proposed under Alterna-
tives 2-7 would provide service to a corridor which is already developed and
where few lots available for development exist. Little population increase is
likely to occur in this corridor. The cost to users under Alternatives 2-7
may create a financial burden for families with low incomes. This could
result in displacement of these families from the service area because they
cannot afford user charges.
The selection of Alternative 8A or 8B would allow for the development of
a limited number of lots which are not suitable for on-site systems. No
significant population increase is anticipated to occur.
Under Alternatives 1 and 9, population growth would occur as discussed in
Section 3.2.1. The projected conversion of seasonal dwellings to permanent
homes would continue. Population increases would be dependant upon the carry-
ing capacity of the land available for development. No significant population
impacts would occur.
4.2.2. Land Use
Economic factors (Section 3.2.3) will have a greater influence than the
provision of wastewater facilities (Section 4.2.) in determining land use for
the study area during the planning period. The location of wastewater treat-
ment facilities and sewer systems under Alternatives 2-7 will affect patterns
of future development. Residential development would be likely to occur along
sewer lines. Because little induced growth is predicted to occur, no signifi-
cant land use impacts will occur.
Under Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 9 future development would be limited to
the carrying capacity of the land. Continued and increased nuisances attri-
butable to failing on-site systems in residential areas would make infill
development of those areas less desirable.
4-45
-------
Prime Agricultural land
Little prime agricultural farmland is likely to be taken out of produc-
tion to accommodate wastewater treatment facilities. This will result in a
minimal net loss of food and fibre which was previously produced on this land.
The lack of induced growth created by implementing any of the alternatives
removes the threat to prime agricultural farmland usually associated with the
construction of wastewater facilities.
4.2.3. Surface Water
Increased housing development along lake shores may increase nutrient and
sediment loads into the lakes as a result of the following:
• increased runoff from construction of impervious surfaces such
as rooftops, parking areas, and paved roads
• increased housing density normally accelerates storm water
runoff thereby increasing not only the amount of runoff, but
also its ability to erode soil and to transport contaminants
• lawn and garden fertilization may create unnaturally high
nutrieat levels in runoff.
Accompanying housing development is the increase in the use of the lake
for recreational and fishing purposes. An increase in fishing pressure may
ultimately result in detrimental water quality effects. When larger pis-
civores are removed by angling, fewer planktivores are consumed, resulting in
greater numbers of planktivores. The planktivore community then exerts high
predation pressure on the zooplankton community. A decrease in the zooplank-
ton community will reduce grazing pressure on phytoplankton resulting in an
increase in the phytoplankton, and greater turbidity.
The installation of a centralized collection system probably would induce
a more rapid development rate compared to alternatives calling for upgraded
on-site systems.
4-46
-------
4.2.4. Recreation and Tourism
Any increase or decrease of tourism and recreational activities within
the study area attributable to the Long-term operation of wastewater facili-
ties under the "build" alternatives would occur when a quantum change in water
quality of area lakes occurs. A significant decline in water quality would
cause fewer tourists to visit the study area. Permanent and seasonal resi-
dents of the study area would likely decrease some of their recreational
activities around area lakes under these conditions.
A significant increase in water quality may contribute to an increase of
recreational activities among local residents and tourists within the study
area. Other factors discussed in Section 3.2.4. would have a greater affect
upon use of the study area by tourists and recreationists. Increased and
continuing nuisances created by failing on-site systems under the No Action
Alternative would detract from the study areas reputation as a desirable
recreational area. Recreation and tourist activities would likely decline.
No significant recreational or tourist impacts are likely to occur under any
of the alternatives.
4.2.5. Economics
It is unlikely that the additional wastewater treatment capacity created
under Alteratives 2-7 would create any population, development, or economic
growth (Section 3.2.3.). Economic development would proceed as discussed in
Section 3.2.3. under Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 9. Increased and continuing
nuisances created by failing on-site systems under the No Action Alternative
would detract from the study areas reputation as a desirable recreational
area. Recreation and tourist activities would likely decline resulting in a
loss of revenues for study area businesses.
4.2.6. Threatened and Endangered Species
No threatened or endangered species have been identified at the proposed
plant sites or sewer lines. The habitats present, however, could be suitable
for a number of endangered and threatened species in the State of Michigan
(Tables 3-14, 3-15, and 3-16).
4-47
-------
The MDNR should be consulted to determine whether any listed species are
actually found in the vicinities of the proposed sites. If so, appropriate
measures must be developed through consultation with Berrien, Cass, and Van
Buren counties, MDNR, and US Fish and Wildlife Service, if appropriate, and
other agencies that may be interested in the proposed action.
4.3. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts
As previously discussed, various adverse impacts would be associated with
the proposed alternatives. Many of these adverse impacts could be reduced
significantly by the application of raitigative measures. These mitigative
measures consist of a variety of legal requirements, planning measures, and
design practices. The extent to which these measures are applied will deter-
mine the ultimate impact of the selected action. Potential measures for
alleviating construction, operation, and secondary effects presented in
Sections 4.1. and 4.2. are discussed in the following sections.
4.3.1. Mitigation of Construction Impacts
The construction oriented impacts presented in Section 4.1. primarily are
short-term effects resulting from construction activities at WWTP sites or
•ilong the route of proposed sewer systems. Proper design should minimize the
potential impacts and the plans and specifications should incorporate mitiga-
tive measures consistent with the following discussion.
Fugitive dust from the excavation and backfilling operations for the
force mains and treatment plants could be minimized by various techniques.
Frequent street sweeping of dirt from construction activities would reduce the
major source of dust. Prompt repaving of roads disturbed by construction also
could reduce dust effectivaly. Construction sites, spoil piles, and unpaved
access roads should be wetted periodically to minimize dust. Soil stockpiles
and backfilled trenches should be seeded with a temporary or permanent seeding
or covered with mulch to reduce susceptibility to wind erosion.
4-48
-------
Street cleaning at sites where trucks and equipment gain access to con-
struction sites and of roads along which a force main would be constructed
would reduce loose dirt that otherwise would generate dust, create unsafe
driving conditions, or be washed into roadside ditches or storm drains.
Trucks transporting spoil material to disposal sites should cover their loads
to eliminate the escape of dust while in transit.
Exhaust emissions and noise from construction equipment could be mini-
mized by proper equipment maintenance. The resident engineer should have, and
should exercise the authority, to ban from the site all poorly maintained
equipment. Soil borings along the proposed force main rights-of-way conducted
during system design, would identify organic soils that have the potential to
release odors when excavated. These areas could be bypassed by rerouting the
force main if, depending on the location, a significant impact might be ex-
pected.
Spoil disposal sites should be identified during the project design stage
to ensure that adequate sites are available and that disposal site impacts are
minimized. Landscaping and restoration of vegetation should be conducted
immediately after disposal is completed to prevent impacts from dust genera-
tion and unsightly conditions.
Lands disturbed by trenching for force main construction should be re-
graded and compacted as necessary to prevent future subsidence. However, too
much compaction will result in conditions unsuitable for vegetation.
Areas disturbed by trenching and grading at the plant site should be
revegetated as soon as possible to prevent erosion and dust generation. Native
plants and grasses should be used. This also will facilitate the re-establish-
ment of wildlife habitat.
Construction-related disruption in the community can be minimized through
considerate contractor scheduling and appropriate public announcements. The
State and County highway departments have regulations concerning roadway
disruptions, which should be rigorously applied. Special care should be taken
to minimize disruption of access to frequently visited establishments.
4-49
-------
Announcements should be published in local newspapers and broadcast from local
radio stations to alert drivers of temporary traffic disruptions on primary
routes. Street closings should be announced by fliers delivered to each
affected household.
Planning of routes for heavy construction equipment and materials should
ensure that surface load restrictions are considered. In this way, damage to
streets and roadways would be avoided. Trucks hauling excavation spoil to
disposal sites or fill material to the WWTP sites should be routed along
primary arteries to minimize the threat to public safety and to reduce dis-
turbance in residential environments.
Erosion and sedimentation must be minimized at all construction sites.
USEPA Program Requirements Memorandum 78-1 establishes requirements for con-
trol of erosion and runoff from construction activities. Adherence to these
requirements would serve to mitigate potential problems:
Construction site selection should consider potential occur-
rence of erosion and sediment losses
The project plan and layout should be designed to fit the local
topography and soil conditions
When appropriate, land grading and excavating should be kept at
a minimum to reduce the possibility of creating runoff and
erosion problems which require extensive control measures
Whenever possible, topsoil should be removed and stockpiled
before grading begins
Land exposure should be minimized in terms of area and time
Exposed areas subject to erosion should be covered as quickly
as possible by means of mulching or vegetation
Natural vegetation should be retained whenever feasible
Appropriate structural or agronomic practices to control runoff
and sedimentation should be provided during and after construc-
tion
Early completion of stabilized drainage system (temporary and
permanent systems) will substantially reduce erosion potential
4-50
-------
• Access roadways should be paved or otherwise stabilized as soon
as feasible
• Clearing and grading should not be started until a firm con-
struction schedule is known and can be effectively coordinated
with the grading and clearing activities.
The Natural Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Executive Order 11593
(1971), The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and the 1973
Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation require that care
must be taken early in the planning process to identify cultural resources and
minimize adverse effects on them. USEPA's final regulations for the prepara-
tion of EISs (40 CFR 1500) also specify that compliance with these regulations
is required when a Federally funded, licensed, or permitted project is under-
taken. The State Historic Preservation Officer must have an opportunity to
determine that the requirements have been satisfied.
Once an alternative is selected and design work begins, a thorough pedes-
trian archaeological survey may be required for those areas affected by the
proposed facility. In addition to the information already collected through a
literature review (WAPORA 1979) and consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Officer and other knowledgeable informants, a controlled surface
collection of discovered sites and minor subsurface testing should be con-
ducted. A similar survey would be required of historic structures, sites,
properties, and objects in and adjacent to the construction areas, if they
might be affected by the construction or operation of the project.
In consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, it would be
determined if any of the resources identified by the surveys appear to be
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Subsequently, an
evaluation would be made of the probable effects of the project on these
resources and what mitigation procedures may be required. Prior to initiation
of the proposed Federally funded project, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation in Washington DC should be notified of the intended undertaking
and be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed project.
4-51
-------
4.3.2. Mitigation of Operation Impacts
The majority of potentially adverse operational impacts of the WWTP
alternatives are related to the discharge of effluent to surface waters. For
the land treatment alternative, the most significant potential adverse effects
are impacts on groundwater and possible health risks. Adverse impacts
associated with the operation of cluster and on-site systems are primarily
related to malodorous conditions which may affect outdoor recreational activi-
ties. Measures to minimize these and other operation phase impacts from all
the alternatives are discussed below.
Adverse impacts related to the operation of the proposed sewer systems
and treatment facilities would be minimal if the facilities are designed,
operated, and maintained properly. Aerosols, gaseous emissions, and odors
from the various treatment processes could be controlled to a large extent.
Above-ground pumps would be enclosed and installed to minimize sound impacts.
Concentrations of the effluent constituents discharged from the WWTPs would be
regulated by the conditions of the NPDES permits. The effluent quality is
specified by the State of Michigan and must be monitored. Proper and regular
maintenance of cluster and on-site systems also would maximize the efficiency
of these systems and minimize odors rele_ased from malfunctioning systems.
Special care to control chlorination and effluent concentrations of
chlorine residuals should be taken to minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic
biota of study area surface waters. Tsai (1973) documented that depressed
numbers of fish and macroinvertebrates were found downstream from outfalls
discharging chlorinated effluent. No fish were found in water with chlorine
residuals greater than 0.37 mg/1, and the species diversity index reached zero
at 0.25 mg/1. A 50% reduction in species diversity index occurred at 0.10
mg/1. Arthur and other? (1975) reported that concentrations of chlorine
residuals lethal to various species of warm water fish range from 0.09 to 0.30
mg/1. Many wastewater treatment plants have effluents with chlorine residual
concentrations of 0.5 to 2.0 mg/1. Furthermore, chlorination of wastewater
can result in the formation of halogenated organic compounds that are poten-
tially carcinogenic (USEPA 1976) . Rapid mixing of chlorine and design of
contact chambers to provide long contact times, however, can achieve the
4-52
-------
desired disinfection and the minimum chlorine residual discharge (USEPA and
others 1977). Chlorination will require especially careful application and
routine monitoring to insure that chlorine residual concentrations are kept to
a minimum.
In the document Federal Guidelines for Design, Operation, and Maintenance
of Wastewater Treatment Facilities (Federal Water Quality Administration
1970), it is required that:
All water pollution control facilities should be planned and de-
signed so as to provide for maximum reliability at all times. The
facilities should be capable of operating satisfactorily during
power failures, flooding, peak loads, equipment failure, and
maintenance shutdowns.
4.3.3. Mitigation of Secondary Impacts
As discussed in Section 4.2., few secondary impacts are expected to occur
during the operation of any of the ten "build" alternatives. Adequate zoning,
health, and water quality regulation and enforcement would minimize these
impacts. Local growth management planning would assist in the regulation of
general location, density, and type of growth.that might occur.
4.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Some impacts associated with the implementation of any of the "build"
alternatives cannot be avoided. The centralized collection and treatment
alternatives would have the following adverse impacts:
• Considerable short-term construction dust, noise, and traffic
nuisance
• Alteration of vegetation and wildlife habitat along the sewer
and force main corridors and at the WWTP sites
• Considerable erosion and siltation during construction
• Discharge of BOD, SS, and phosphorus at greater than ambient
levels to Silver Creek and/or the Indian Lake outlet with the
waste stabilization lagoon alternatives
4-53
-------
• Discharge of increased BOD, SS, phosphorus, and ammonia to
Dowagiac Creek from the Dowagiac WWTP for Alternatives 6 and 7
• Significant odors during spring turnover of waste stabilization
lagoons
• Significant user fees for wastewater treatment services for the
residents within the proposed sewer service areas
• Conversion of agricultural land and, for Section 29 (near
Indian Lake), prime farmland to waste stabilization lagoon use.
The decentralized alternatives that include primarily continued use of
existing and upgraded on-site systems and either cluster systems or blackwater
holding tanks for critical areas would have the following adverse impacts:
• Some short-term construction dust, noise, and traffic nuisance
• Some erosion and siltation during construction
e Alteration and destruction of wildlife habitat at the cluster
drainfield sites
• Discharge of percolate with elevated levels of nitrates and
chlorides from soil absorption systems to the groundwater
• Occasional ephemeral odors associated with pumping septic tanks
and holding tanks and trucking it to disposal sites
• User fees for management and operation of wastewater treatment
services for the residents within the proposed service areas.
4.5. Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource Commitments
The major types and amounts of resources that would be committed through
the implementation of any of the ten "build" alternatives are presented in
Sections 4.1. and 4.2. Each of the alternatives would include some or all of
the following resource commitments:
• Fossil fuel, electrical energy, and human labor for facilities
construction and operation
• Chemicals, especially chlorine, for Dowagiac WWTP operation
• Tax dollars for construction and operation
• Some unsalvageable construction materials.
4-54
-------
For each alternative involving a WWTP, there is a significant consumption
of these resources with no feasible means of recovery. Thus, non-recoverable
resources would be foregone for the provision of the proposed wastewater
control system.
Accidents which could occur from system construction and operation could
cause irreversible bodily damage or death, and damage or destroy equipment and
other resources. Unmitigated Dowagiac WWTP failure potentially could kill
aquatic life in the immediate mixing zone.
The potential accidental destruction of undiscovered archaeological sites
through excavation activities is not reversible. This would represent per-
manent loss of the site.
4-55
-------
5.0. LITERATURE CITED
Arthur, J.W., and others. 1975. Comparative toxicity of sewage -
effluent disinfection to freshwater aquatic life. Water Pollution
Control Research Service, USEPA, Washington DC.
Ayensu, E.S., and R.A. De Filipps. 1978. Endangered and threatened
plants of the United States. Smithsonian Institution, Washington
DC, 403 p.
Banks, John C. 1977. A limnological study of Pipestone Lake, Berrien
County, Michigan. Presented in partial fulfillment of the require-
ments for the course Biology 466, Limnology, Andrews University,
Berrien Springs MI, 19 p.
Beaman, J.H. Unpublished material on threatened and endangered plants in
Michigan.
Berrien County Health Department. 1971. Pipestone Lake report. St.
Joseph MI, unpaginated.
Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner
Press, New York NY, 596 p.
Brown, D.V., and R.K. White. 1977. Septage disposal alternatives in
rural areas.' Research bulletin 1096. Ohio Agricultural Research
and Development Center, Wooster OH, 11 p.
Burt, W.H. 1957. Mammals of the Great Lakes Region. University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor MI, 246 p.
Cass County Health Department. 1970. Indian Lake survey. Cassopolis
MI, 7 p.
Claspy, E. 1966. The Pottowatomi Indians of southwestern Michigan.
Dowagiac MI.
Conant, R. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern
and central North America. Houghton Mifflin Press, Boston MA,
429 p.
Cooley, M.F. 1979. Selected animal distribution maps. Wildlife Divi-
sion, MDNR, Lansing MI, 40 p. mimeo.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifi-
cation of wetlands and deep water habitats of the United States.
FWS/CGS-79/31. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington DC, 103 p.
Demirjian, Y.A. 1975. Muskegon County wastewater management system.
Prepared for Design Seminar for Land Treatment of Municipal Waste-
water Effluents sponsored by USEPA Technology Transfer Program.
Muskegan MI, 91 p.
5-1
-------
Dillon, P.J., and W.B. Kirchner. 1975. The effects of geology and land
use on the export of phosphorus from watersheds. Water Research 9:
135-148.
Dillon, P.J., and F.H. Rigler. 1975. A simple method for predicting the
capacity of a lake for development based on lake trophic status.
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32: 1519-1531.
Dunbar, W.F. 1965. Michigan: A history of the wolverine state. W.B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids MI.
E.A. Hickok and Associates. 1978. Effects of wastewater stabilization
pond seepage on groundwater quality. Prepared for the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. Wayzata MN, variously paged.
Edwards, H.W., and H.G. Wheat. 1978. Seasonal trends in Denver atmos-
pheric lead concentrations. American Chemical Society, Fort
Collins CO.
Ellis, E.G., and A.E. Erickson. 1969. Movement and transformation of
various phosphorus compounds in soils. Soil Science Department,
Michigan State University and Michigan Water Resources Commission,
East Lansing Ml, 35 p.
Ellis, B.C., L.W. Jacobs, J.E. Hook, and D.L. Mokma. 1978. Technical
handbook for septic drainfield installation. Prepared for South-
central Michigan Planning Council. Nazareth MI. Department of
Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI,
27 p.
Enfield, C.G. 1978. Evaluation of phosphorus models for prediction of
percolate water quality in land treatment. In: McKim, Harlan L.
(Coordinator), State of Knowledge in land treatment of wastewater,
vol. 1. US Army COE Cold Regions Research and Engineering Labora-
tory, Hanover NH, 436 p. (p. 153-162).
Enfield, Carl G., and Bert E. Bledsoe. 1975. Kinetic model for ortho-
phosphate reactions in mineral soils. EPA 660/2-75-022. USEPA
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada OK, 61 p.
Federal Water Quality Administration. 1970. Federal guidelines for
design, operation, and maintenance of wastewater treatment facili-
ties. US Department of the Interior, Washington DC, 29 p.
Giroux, P.R., G.E. Headrickson, L.E. Stoimenoff, and G.W. Whetstone.
1972. Water resources of Van Buren County, Michigan. US Geological
Survey Water Investigation 3, 144 p.
Glover, L.H. 1906. A twentieth century history of Cass County,
Michigan. Lewis Publishing Co., Chicago IL.
Gove Associates, Inc. 1977. Facilities Plan for Indian - Sisters Lakes
area. Kalamazoo MI, variously paged.
5-2
-------
Gove Associates, Inc. 1978a. Sanitary survey questionnaire. Kalamazoo
MI, 2 p.
Gove Associates, Inc. 1978b. Sanitary survey questionnaire analysis.
Kalamazoo MI, 1 sheet.
Gove Associates, Inc. 1980. Facilities planning document— Cost-
effectiveness analysis for Indian-Sisters Lakes area. Kalamazoo
MI, variously paged.
Hartig, J. H., and F. J. Horvath. 1982. A preliminary assessment of
Michigan's phosphorus detergent ban. Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation 54(2): 194-197.
Rickey, J.L.S., and P.C. Reist. 1975. Health significance of airborne
microorganisms from wastewater treatment processes. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation, Volume 47.
Jones, R.A., and G.F. Lee. 1977. Septic tank disposal systems as phos-
phorus sources for surface waters. EPA 600/3-77-129. Robert S.
Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada OK.
K-V Associates, Inc. 1980. Septic leachate survey Indian Lake - Sister
Lakes October, 1979. Falmouth MA, 49 p. plus one appendix.
Kenoyer, L.A. 1930. Ecological notes on Kalamazoo County, Michigan,
based on the original land survey. Papers of the Michigan Academy
of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 11:211-218.
Lance, J.C. 1978. Fate of bacteria and viruses in sewage applied to
soils. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers 21:114.
Marsh, W.M., and T. E. Borton. 1974. Michigan inland lakes and their
watersheds - an atlas. Prepared for the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources. Environmental and Urban Planning Services, Ann
Arbor MI, 166 p.
Michigan Department of Commerce. 1976. Summary of the travel product
market analysis. Travel Bureau, Lansing MI, 6 p.
Michigan Department of Commerce. 1978. Fuel demand report. Energy
Administration, Lansing MI, p. 23, 24, 29, 30, 331, 332.
Michigan Department of Conservation. No date. Well records and water
quality records. Geological Survey Division, Lansing MI.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1971. Staff Report - Indian
Lake, Silver Creek Township, Cass County. Water Resources
Commission, Grand Rapids MI, 2 p.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1972. Pipestone Lake survey.
Water Resources Commission, Grand Rapids MI, 5 p.
5-3
-------
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1973. General Rules, Part 4,
water quality standards. Water Resources Commission, Grand Rapids
MI, 17 p.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1975. Designated trout
streams for the State of Michigan. Lansing MI.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1976. Coldwater lakes of
Michigan. Fisheries Division, Lansing MI.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1977a. Air quality report.
Air Quality Division, Lansing MI, 49 p. plus 6 appendixes.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1977b. Inland lake self-help
program annual report, 1976. Inland Lake Management Unit, Land
Resource Programs Division, Lansing MI, 31 p.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1978a. Recreation by Michigan
residents, planning region 4. Lansing MI, 101 p.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1978b. Inland lake self-help
program annual report, 1977. Inland Lake Management Unit, Land
Resource Programs Division, Lansing MI, 34 p.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1978c. STORE! polygon retrie-
val data. Environmental Services Division, Comprehensive Studies
Section, Lansing MI.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1979. Inland lake self-help
program annual report, 1978. Inland Lake Management Unit, Land
Resource Programs Division, Lansing M3, 35 p.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1981. Proposed water quality
standards, to amend Act 245, Part 4 of Michigan Water Resources
Commission Act. Lansing MI.
Moak, L.L., and A.M. Hillhouse. 1975. Concepts and practices in local
government finance. Municipal Finance Officers Association of the
US and Canada, Chicago IL.
National Biocentric, Inc. 1978. Southwestern Michigan inland lake
watershed study. Prepared for the Southwestern Michigan Regional
.Planning Commission. St. Paul MN, variously paged plus appen-
dixes .
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrat»-n (NOAA). 1977. Local
climatological data, South Bend, Indiana, .-shville NC, 4 p.
Omernik, J.M. 1977. Non-point source stream nutrient level relation-
ships: a nationwide survey. EPA 600/3-77-105. national Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Corvalis OR.
5-4
-------
Otis, R.J. 1979. Alternative wastewater facilities for small communi-
ties - a case study. In; Proceedings of a Workshop on Alternative
Wastewater Treatment Systems. UILU-WRC-79-0010. Water Resources
Center and Cooperative Extension Service, University of Illinois -
Urbana, Urbana IL, p. 44-69.
Otis R.J., and D.E. Stewart. 1976. Alternative wastewater facilities
for small unsewered communities in rural America. Annual report to
the Upper Great Lakes Region Commission.
Pound, C.E., and R.W. Crites. 1973. Wastewater treatment and reuse by
land application, volume 1, summary. USEPA Office of Research and
Development, Washington DC, 80 p.
Powers, J.A. 1978. Feasibility study and preliminary site identifica-
tion for land treatment in Middle Tennessee. In: State of know-
ledge in land treatment of wastewater, proceedings of an interna-
tional symposium vol. 2. US Army Corps of Engineers CRREL, August
1978, vol. 2. Hanover NH, 423 p.
Scalf, M.R., and W.J. Dunlap. 1977. Environmental effects of septic
tanks. EPA 600/3-77-096. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Labratory, Ada OK.
Seigrist, R.L., T. Woltanski, and C.E. Waldorf. 1978. Water conservation
and wastewater disposal. In: Proceedings of the second national
home sewage treatment symposium (ASAE Publication 5-77). American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph MI, p. 121-136.
Shipman, W.L. 1977. Letter, Wayne L. Shipman, Berrien County Health
Department to James R. Squire, Gove Associates, Inc., 22 June 1977.
Simmons, J.D., and J. 0. Newman. 1979. On-site liquefaction and
variable gradient transport lines for rural sewage disposal. Paper
No. SER 79-047. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.
Joseph MI, 16 p.
Smith, V.H., and J. Shapiro. 1981. Chlorophyll - phosphorus relations
in individual lakes. Their importance to lake restoration strate-
gies. Environmental Science and Technology 15: 444-451.
Snow, G.E. 1976. A limnological study of Dewey Lake, Cass County,
Michigan. Prepared for: Dewey Lake Owners' Association, Inc.,
Dowagiac MI, 22 p.
Snow, G. E. 1978. Southwestern Michigan inland lakes water quality
study. Prepared by Water Testing Laboratory, Andrews University
for the Southwestern Michigan Regional Planning Commission.
Berrien Springs MI, 35 p.
Soil Conservation Service. 1980a. Prime farmland map units in Michigan.
Prepared by State Soil Survey Staff and cooperating agencies, 15 p.
5-5
-------
Soil Conservation Service. 1980b. Soil survey of Berrien County
Michigan. Prepared in cooperation with the Michigan Agricultural
Experiment Station. US Department of Agriculture.
Southwestern Michigan Regional Planning Commission. 1978a. 208 area-
wide waste treatment management plan. Appendix B. Population and
land use/cover - existing and future conditions. Prepared by SMRPC
in cooperation with Lamson-Fisher Associates and Thomas Sinn and
Associates. St. Joseph MI, variously paged plus attachments.
Southwestern Michigan Regional Planning Commission. 1978b. District
overall economic development plan. Courthouse Printing Department,
St. Joseph MI, variously paged, 385 p.
Terwilliger, F.W. 1954. The glacial geology and groundwater resources
of Van Buren County, Michigan. Michigan Geological Survey Divi-
sion, Michigan Department of Conservation, Lansing MI, 94 p.
Transeau, E.N. 1936. The prairie peninsula. Ecology 16:423-437.
Tsai, C. 1973. Water quality and fish life below sewage outfalls.
Transactions of American Fisheries Society 102 (281).
Urie, Dean H. 1979. Nutrient recycling under forests treated with
sewage effluents "and sludge in Michigan. In: Sopper, William E.
and Sonja 'N. Kerr (Editors), Utilization of municipal sewage
effluent and sludge on forest and disturbed land. The Pennsylvania
State University Press, University Park PA, 537 p. (p.7-17).
Urie, Dean H. , John H. Cooley, and Alfred Ray Harris. 1978. Irrigation
of forest plantations with sewage lagoon effluents. In; McKim,
Harlan L. (Coordinator), State of knowledge in land treatment of
wastewater, vol. 2. US Army COE Cold Regions Research and Engineer-
ing Laboratory, Hanover NH, 423 p. (p.207-213).
US Bureau of the Census. No date. 1970 census fifth count data for zip
codes, counties, and smaller areas. US Government Printing Office,
Washington DC, variously paged.
US Bureau of the Census. 1952. US census of population: 1950, volume
II, part 22, Michigan. US Government Printing Office, Washington
DC, 248 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1963. US census of population: 1960, volume I,
characteristics cf population, part 24, Michigan. US Government
Printing Office, Washington DC, 675 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1973. Census of the population: 1970, volume I,
characteristics of the population, part 24, Michigan. US Government
Printing Office, Washington DC, 1,399 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1982. 1980 Census of Population. Characteris-
tics of the population: number of inhabitants (final report), part
24, Michigan. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 74 p.
5-6
-------
USEPA. 1976. Quality criteria for water. Office of Water and Hazardous
Materials. Washington DC, 255 p.
USEPA. 1977a. Process design manual - wastewater facilities for
sewered small communities. EPA 625/1-77-009. Environmental Re-
search Information Center, Technology Transfer, Cincinnati OH.
USEPA. 1977b. Alternatives for small wastewater treatment systems,
on-site disposal/septage treatment and disposal. EPA 625/4-77-011.
Technology Transfer, Washington DC, 90 p.
USEPA and others. 1977. Process design manual for land treatment of
municipal wastewater. EPA 625/1-77-008. Washington DC, variously
paged.
USEPA. 1978a. Funding of sewage collection system projects. Program
Requirements Memorandum (PRM 78-9). Office of Water and Hazardous
Materials, Washington DC.
USEPA. 1979a. Planning wastewater management facilities for small
communities (Draft). Prepared for USEPA Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, by Urban Systems Research Engineering, Inc.,
Cincinnati OH, 141 p.
USEPA. 1979b. Management of on-site and alternative wastewater systems
(Draft). Prepared for USEPA Environmental Research Information
Center, by Roy F. Weston, Inc., Cincinnati OH, 111 p.
USEPA. 1979c. Aerial survey Indian-Sisters Lake Region, Michigan.
Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas NV.
USEPA. 1980a. Design manual. On-site wastewater treatment and disposal
systems. Office of Research and Development, Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati OH, 391 p.
USEPA. 1980b. Modeling phosphorus loading and lake response under
uncertainty: a manual and compilation of export coefficients. EPA
440/5-80-011. Clean Lakes Section, Washington DC.
USEPA. 198la. Alternative waste treatment systems for rural lake pro-
jects. Draft — generic environmental impact statement. USEPA
Region V, Water Division, Chicago IL, 133 p. plus appendixes.
USEPA. 1981b. Facilities planning 1981. Municipal wastewater treat-
ment. EPA 430/9-81-002. Office of Water Program Operations,
Washington DC, 116 p.
US Geological Survey. 1978. Water resources data for Michigan: water
year 1977. Report MI-77-1.
Uttormark, P.D. , and J.P. Wall. 1975. Lake classification for water
quality management. University of Wisconsin Water Resources
Center.
5-7
-------
Veatch, J.O. 1928. The dry prairies of Michigan. Papers of the Michigan
Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 8:269-278.
Vollenweider, R.A. 1975. Input - output models with special reference
to the phosphorus loading concept in limnology. Schweiz. Z. Hydrol
37:53-83.
WAPORA, Inc. 1979. Affected environment preliminary draft chapter of
the Indian Lake - Sister Lakes environmental statement. Submitted
to USEPA, Region V, Chicago IL, variously paged.
WAPORA, Inc. 1981. Memorandum to Mr. Charles Quinlan, USEPA, Region V.
Revised population projections. Chicago IL.
Zevenboom, W., A.B. deVaate, and L.R. Mur. 1982. Assessment of factors
limiting growth rate of Oscillatoria agardhii in hypertrophic Lake
Wolderwizd, 1978, by use of physiological indicators. Limnology
and Oceanography 27:39-52.
5-8
-------
6.0. LIST OF PREPARERS
The Draft Environmental Statement (DES) was prepared by the Chicago
Regional Office of WAPORA, Inc., under contract to USEPA Region V. USEPA
approved the DES and hereby publishes it as a Draft EIS. The USEPA Project
Officers and the WAPORA staff involved in the preparation of the DES/DEIS
during the past 4 years include:
USEPA
Charles Quinlan III
Kathleen Schaub
WAPORA, Inc.
Robert France
John Johnson
E. Clark Boli
Gerard Kelly
J. P. Singh
Kenneth Dobbs
Gerald Lenssen
Ellen Renzas
Kathleen Brennan
Richard C. McKean
Rosetta Arrigo
William McClain
Anita C. Locke
Gregg Larson
Andrew Freeman
Mirza Meghji
Project Officer
Project Officer (former)
Project Administrator
Project Administrator
Project Administrator
Project Administrator
Project Manager, Environmental Engineer
and Principal Author
Assistant Project Manager and
Principal Author
Project Engineer and Principal Author
Socioeconomist and Editor
Biologist
Biologist
Biologist
Biologist
Botanist
Demographer
Demographer
Sr. Water Quality Scientist
6-1
-------
Steve McComas Water Quality Scientist
Valarie Krejcie Graphics Specialist
Peter Woods Graphics Specialist
Phil Pekron Environmental Scientist
Kent Peterson Geologist
John Rist Engineer
Jan Saper Editor
Mary Bryant Production Specialist
Shirley Zingery Production Specialist
In addition, several subcontractors and others assisted in the prepara-
tion of this document. These, along with their areas of expertise, are listed
below:
• Aerial Survey
Office of Research and Development
US EPA
Las Vegas NV
• Septic Leachate Analysis
K-V Associates
Falmouth MA
• Richard Larson
Soil Scientist
Traverse City MI
6-2
-------
7.0. GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
Activated sludge process. A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
which a suspended microbiological culture is maintained inside an
aerated treatment basin. The microbial organisms oxidize the complex
organic matter in the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and energy.
Advanced secondary treatment. Wastewater treatment more stringent than
secondary treatment but not to advanced waste treatment levels.
Advanced waste treatment. Wastewater treatment to treatment levels that
provide for maximum monthly average BOD and SS concentrations less
than 10 rag/1 and/or total nitrogen removal of greater than 50% (total
nitrogen removal = TKN + nitrite and nitrate).
Aeration. To circulate oxygen through a substance, as in wastewater treat-
ment, where it aids in purification.
Aerobic. Refers to life or processes that occur only in the presence of
oxygen.
Aerosol. A suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas.
Algae. Simple rootless plants that grow in bodies of water in relative
proportion to the amounts of nutrients available. Algal blooms, or
sudden growth spurts, can affect water quality adversely.
Algal bloom. A proliferation of algae on the surface of lakes, streams or
ponds. Algal blooms are stimulated by phosphate enrichment.
Alluvial. Pertaining to material that has been carried by a stream.
Ambient air. Any unconfined portion of the atmosphere: open air.
Ammonia-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of ammonia (NH ) that is produced
in nature when nitrogen-containing organic material is biologically
decomposed.
Anaerobic. Refers to life or processes that occur in the absence of oxygen.
Aquifer. A geologic stratum or unit that contains water and will allow it
to pass through. The water may reside in and travel through innumera-
ble spaces between rock grains in a sand or gravel aquifer, small or
cavernous openings formed by solution in a limestone aquifer, or
fissures, cracks, and rubble in harder rocks such as shale.
Artesian (adj.). Refers to ground water that is under sufficient pressure
to flow to the surface without being pumped.
Artesian well. A well that normally gives a continuous flow because of
hydrostatic pressure, created when the outlet of the well is below the
level of the water source.
7-1
-------
Bar screen. In wastewater treatment, a screen that removes large float-
ing and suspended solids.
Base flow. The rate of movement of water in a stream channel that occurs
typically during rainless periods, when stream flow is maintained
largely or entirely by discharges of groundwater.
Bed Rock. The solid rock beneath the soil and subsoil.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). A bioassay-type procedure in which the
weight of oxygen utilized by microorganisms to oxidize and assimilate
the organic matter present per liter of water is determined. It is
common to note the number of days during which a test was conducted as
a subscript to the abbreviated name. For example, BOD indicates that
the results are based on a five-day long (120-hour) test. The BOD
value is a relative measure of the amount (load) of living and dead
oxidizable organic matter in water. A high demand may deplete the
supply of oxygen in the water, temporarily or for a prolonged time, to
the degree that many or all kinds of aquatic organisms are killed.
Determinations of BOD are useful in the evaluation of the impact of
wastewater on receiving waters.
Biota. The plants and animals of an area.
Chlorination. The application of chlorine to drinking water, sewage or
industrial waste for disinfection or oxidation of undesirable com-
pounds .
Clarifier. A settling tank where solids are mechanically removed from
waste water.
Coliform bacteria. Members of a large group of bacteria that flourish in
the feces and/or intestines of warm-blooded animals, including man.
Fecal coliform bacteria, particularly Escherichia coli (E. coli) ,
enter water mostly in fecal matter, such as sewage or feedlot runnoff.
Coliforms apparently do not cautie serious human diseases, but these
organisms are abundant in polluted waters and they are fairly easy to
detect. The abundance of coliforms in water, therefore, is used as an
index to the probability of the occurrence of such disease-producing
organisms (pathogens) as Salmonella, Shigella, and enteric viruses.
The pathogens are relatively difficult to detect.
Community. The plants and animals in a particular area that are closely
related through food chains and other interactions.
Cultural resources. Fragile and nonrenewable sites, districts, buildings,
structures, or objects representative of our heritage. Cultural
resources are divided into three categories: historical, architec-
tural, or archaeological. Cultural resources of special significance
may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.
7-2
-------
Decibel (dB). A unit of measurement used to express the relative intensity
of sound. For environmental assessment, it is common to use a fre*
quency-rated scale (A scale) on which the units (dBA) are correlated
with responses of the human ear. On the A scale, 0 dBA represents the
average least perceptible sound (rustling leaves, gentle breathing),
and 140 dBA represents the intensity at which the eardrum may rupture
(jet engine at open throttle). Intermediate values generally are: 20
dBA, faint (whisper at 5 feet, classroom, private office); 60 dBA,
loud (average restaurant or living room, playground); 80 DBA, very
loud (impossible to use a telephone, noise made by food blender or
portable standing machine; hearing impairment may result from pro-
longed exposure); 100 dBA, deafening noise (thunder, car horn at 3
feet, loud motorcycle, loud power lawn mower).
Detention time. Average time required to flow through a basin. Also
called retention time.
Digestion. In wastewater treatment a closed tank, sometimes heated to 95°F
where sludge is subjected to intensified bacterial action.
Disinfection. Effective killing by chemical or physical processes of all
organisms capable of causing infectious disease. Chlorination is the
disinfection method commonly employed in sewage treatment processes.
Dissolved oxygen (DO). Oxygen gas (0 ) in water. It is utilized in res-
piration by fish and other aquatic organisms, and those organisms may
be injured or killed when the concentration is low. Because much
oxygen diffuses into water from the air, the concentration of DO is
greater, other conditions being equal, at sea level than at high
elevations, during periods of high atmospheric pressure than during
periods of low pressure, and when the water is turbulent (during
rainfall, in rapids, and waterfalls) rather than when it is placid.
Because cool water can absorb more oxygen than warm water, the con-
centration tends to be greater at low temperatures than at high tem-
peratures. Dissolved oxygen is depleted by the oxidation of organic
matter and of various inorganic chemicals. Should depletion be ex-
treme, the water may become anaerobic and could stagnate and stink.
Drift. Rock material picked up and transported by a glacier and deposited
elsewhere.
Effluent. Wastewater or other liquid, partially or completely treated, or
in its natural state, flowing out of a reservoir, basin, treatment
plant, or industrial treatment plant, or part thereof.
Endangered species. Any species of animal or plant that is in known danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range.
Eutrophication. The process of enrichment of a water body with nutrients.
Fauna. The total animal life of a particular geographic area or habitat.
Fecal coliform bacteria. See coliform bacteria.
7-3
-------
Floodway. The portion of the floodplain which carries moving water during
a flood event.
Flood fringe. The part of the floodplain which serves as a storage area
during a flood event.
Flora. The total plant life of a particular geographic area or habitat.
Flowmeter. A guage that indicates the amount of flow of wastewater moving
through a treatment plant.
Force main. A pipe designed to carry wastewater under pressure.
Gravity system. A system of conduits (open or closed) in which no liquid
pumping is required.
Gravity sewer. A sewer in which wastewater flows naturally down-gradient
by the force of gravity.
Groundwater. All subsurface fresh water, especially that part in the zone
of saturation.
Groundwater Runoff. Groundwater that is discharged into a stream channel
as spring or seepage water.
Holding Tank. Enclosed tank, usually of fiberglass, steel or concrete, for
the storage of wastewater prior to removal or disposal at another
location.
Hypolimnion. Deep, cold and relatively undisturbed water separated from
the surface layer in lakes.
Infiltration. The water entering a sewer system and service connections
from the ground through such means as, but not limited to, defective
pipes, pipe joints, improper connections, or manhole walls. Infiltra-
tion does not include, and is distinguished from, inflow.
Inflow. The water discharged into a wastewater collection system and
service connections from such sources as, but not limited to, roof
leaders, cellars, yard and area drains, foundation drains, cooling
water discharges, drains from springs and swampy areas, manhole
covers, cross-connections from storm sewers and combined sewers, catch
basins, storm waters, surface runoff, street wash waters or drainage.
Inflow does not it elude, and is distinguished from, infiltration.
Influent. Water, wastewater, or other liquid flowing into a reservoir,
basin, or treatment facility, or any unit thereof.
Interceptor sewer. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
series of trunk sewers and to convey it to a sewage treatment plant.
Innovative Technology. A technology whose use has not been widely docu-
mented by experience and is not a variant of conventional biological
or phys.ical/chemical treatment.
7-4
-------
Lagoon. In wastewater treatment, a shallow pond, usually man-made, in
which sunlight, algal and bacterial action and oxygen interact to
restore the wastewater to a reasonable state of purity.
Land Treatment. A method of treatment in which the soil, air, vegetation,
bacteria, and fungi are employed to remove pollutants from wastewater.
In its most simple form, the method includes three steps: (1) pre-
treatment to screen out large solids; (2) secondary treatment and
chlorination; and (3) spraying over cropland, pasture, or natural
vegetation to allow plants and soil microorganisms to remove addi-
tional pollutants. Much of the sprayed water evaporates, and the
remainder may be allowed to percolate to the water table, discharged
through drain tiles, or reclaimed by wells.
Leachate. Solution formed when water percolates through solid wastes, soil
or other materials and extracts soluble or suspendable substances from
material.
Lift station. A facility in a collector sewer system, consisting of a
receiving chamber, pumping equipment, and associated drive and control
devices, that collects wastewater from a low-lying district at some
convenient point, from which it is lifted to another portion of the
collector system.
Limiting Factor. A factor whose absence, or excessive concentration,
exerts some restraining influence upon a population.
Loam. The textural class name for soil having a moderate amount of sand,
silt, and clay. Loam soils contain 7 to 27% of clay, 28 to 50% of
silt, and less than 52% of sand.
Loess. Soil of wind-blown origin, predominantly silt and fine sand.
Macroinvertebrates. Invertebrates that are visible to the unaided eye
(those retained by a standard No. 30 sieve, which has 28 meshes per
inch or 0.595 mm openings); generally connotates bottom-dwelling
aquatic animals (benthos).
Macrophyte. A large (not microscopic) plant, usually in an aquatic
habitat.
Melt Water. Water which is formed from the melting of snow, rime, or ice.
Mesotrophic. Waters wi.h a moderate supply of nutrients and no significant
production of organic matter.
Mesotrophic Lake. Lakes of intermediate characteristics between oligotro-
phic and eutrophic. They contain a moderate supply of nutrients and
plant life.
7-5
-------
Milligram per liter (mg/1). A concentration of 1/1000 gram of a substance
in. 1 liter of water. Because 1 liter of pure water weighs 1,000
grams, the concentration also can be stated as 1 ppm (part per mil-
lion, by weight) . Used to measure and report the concentrations of
most substances that commonly occur in natural and polluted waters.
Moraine. A mound, ridge, or other distinctive accumulation of sediment
deposited by a glacier.
National Register of Historic Places. Official listing of the cultural
resources of the Nation that are worthy of preservation. Listing on
the National Register makes property owners eligible to be considered
for Federal grants-in-aid for historic preservation through state
programs. Listing also provides protection through comment by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on the effect of Federally
financed, assisted, or licensed undertakings on historic properties.
Nitrate-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrate (NO ) . It is the most
oxidized phase in the nitrogen cycle in nature and occurs in high
concentrations in the final stages of biological oxidation. It can
serve as a nutrient for the growth of algae and other aquatic plants.
Nitrite-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrite (NO ). It is an in-
termediate stage in the nitrogen cycle in nature. Nitrite normally is
found in low concentrations and represents a transient stage in the
biological oxidation of organic materials.
Nonpoint source. Any area, in contrast to a pipe or other structure, from
which pollutants flow into a body of water. Common pollutants from
nonpoint sources are sediments from construction sites and fertilizers
and sediments from agricultural soils.-
Nutrients. Elements or compounds essential as raw materials for the growth
and development of an organism; e.g., carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and
phosphorus.
Outwash. Sand and gravel transported away from a glacier by streams of
meltwater and either deposited as a fLoodplain along a preexisting
valley bottom or broadcast over a. preexisting plain in a form similar
to an alluvial fan.
Oligotrophic. Waters with a small supply of nutrients and hence an insig-
nificant production of organic matter.
Oligotrophic Lakes. Deep lakes that have a low supply of nutrients and
thus contain little organic matter. Such .' *.es are characterized by
high water transparency and high dissolved oxygen.
Ordinance. A municipal or county regulation.
Outwash. Drift carried by melt water from a glacier ar,« deposited beyond
the marginal moraine.
7-6
-------
Outwash Plain. A plain formed by material deposited by melt water from a
glacier flowing over a more or less flat surface of large area.
Deposits of this origin are usually distinguishable from odinary river
deposits by the fact that they often grade into moraines and their
constituents bear evidence of glacial origin. Also called frontal
apron.
Oxidation lagoon (pond). A holding area where organic wastes are broken
down by aerobic bacteria.
Percolation. The downward movement of water through pore spaces or larger
voids in soil or rock.
pH. A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a material, liquid or solid.
pH is represented on a scale of 0 to 14 with 7 being a neutral state;
0, most acid; and 14, most alkaline.
Phosphorus. An essential food element that can contribute to the eutrophi-
cation of water bodies.
Photochemical oxidants. Secondary pollutants formed by the action of
sunlight on nitric oxides and hydrocarbons in the air; they are the
primary components of photochemical smog.
Piezometric level. An imaginary point that represents the static head of
groundwater and is defined by the level to which water will rise.
Plankton. Minute plants (phytoplankton) and animals (zooplankton) that
float or swim weakly in rivers, ponds, lakes, estuaries, or seas.
Point source. In regard to water, any pipe, ditch, channel, conduit,
tunnel, well, discrete operation, vessel or other floating craft, or
other confined and discrete conveyance from which a substance con-
sidered to be a pollutant is, or may be, discharged into a body of
water.
Pressure sewer system. A wastewater collection system in which household
wastes are collected in the building drain and conveyed therein to the
pretreatment and/or pressurizatdon facility. The system consists of
two major elements, the on-site or pressurization facility, and the
primary conductor pressurized sewer main.
Primary treatment. The first stage in wastewater treatment, in which
substantially all floating or settleable solids are mechanically
removed by screening and sedimentation.
Prime farmland. Agricultural lands, designated Class I or Class II, having
little or no limitations to profitable crop production.
Pumping station. A facility within a sewer system that pumps sewage/
effluent against the force of gravity.
Runoff. Water from rain, snow melt, or irrigation that flows over the
ground surface and returns to streams. It can collect pollutants from
air or land and carry them to the receiving waters.
7-7
-------
Sanitary sewer. Underground pipes that carry only domestic or commercial
wastewater, not stormwater.
Screening. Use of racks of screens to remove coarse floating and suspended
solids from sewage.
Secondary treatment. The second stage in the treatment of wastewater in
which bacteria are utilized to decompose the organic matter in sewage.
This step is accomplished by introducing the sewage into a trickling
filter or an activated sludge process. Effective secondary treatment
processes remove virtually all floating solids and settleable solids,
as well as 90% of the BOD and suspended solids. USEPA regulations
define secondary treatment as 30 mg/1 BOD, 30 mg/1 SS, or 85% removal
of these substances.
Seepage. Water that flows through the soil.
Seepage cells. Unlined wastewater lagoons designed so that all or part of
wastewater percolates into the underlying soil.
Septic snooper. Trademark for the ENDECO (Environmental Devices Corpora-
tion) Type 2100 Septic Leachate Detector. This instrument consists of
an underwater probe, a water intake system, an analyzer control unit
and a graphic recorder. Water drawn through the instrument is con-
tinuously analyzed for specific fluorescence and conductivity. When
calibrated against typical effluents, the instrument can detect and
profile effluent-like substances and thereby locate septic tank lea-
chate or other sources of domestic sewage entering lakes and streams.
Septic tank. An underground tank used for the collection of domestic
wastes. Bacteria in the wastes decompose the organic matter, and the
sludge settles to the bottom. The effluent flows through drains into
the ground. Sludge is pumped out at regular intervals.
Septic tank effluent pump (STEP). Pump designed to transfer settled waste-
water from a septic tank to a sewer.
Septic tank soil absorption system. A system of wastewater disposal in
which large solids are retained in a tank; fine solids and liquids are
dispersed into the surrounding soil by a system of pipes.
Settling tank. A holding area for wastewater, where heavier particles sink
to the bottom and can be siphoned off.
Sewer, Interceptor. See interceptor Sewer.
Sewer, lateral. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
limited number of individual properties and conduct it to a trunk
sewer. Also known as a street sewer or collecting sewer.
Sewer, sanitary. See Sanitary Sewer.
Sewer, storm. A conduit that collects and transports storm-water runoff.
In many sewerage systems, storm sewers are separate from those carry-
ing sanitary or industrial wastewater.
7-8
-------
Sewer, trunk. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
number of lateral sewers and conduct it to an interceptor sewer or, in
some cases, to a sewage treatment plant.
Shoaling. The bottom effect that influences the height of waves moving
from deep to shallow water.
Sinking fund. A fund established by periodic installments to provide for
the retirement of the principal of term bonds.
Slope. The incline of the surface of the land. It is usually expressed as
a percent (%) of slope that equals the number of feet of fall per 100
feet in horizontal distance.
Sludge. The accumulated solids that have been separated from liquids such
as as wastewater.
Soil association. General term used to describe taxonomic units of soils,
relative proportions, and pattern of occurrence.
Soil textural class. The classification of soil material according to the
proportions of sand, silt, and clay. The principal textural classes
in soil, in increasing order of the amount of silt and clay, are as
follows: sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam, silt loam, sandy clay
loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, and clay.
These class names are modified to indicate the size of the sand frac-
tion or the presence of gravel, sandy loam, gravelly loam, stony clay,
and cobbly loam, and are used on detailed soil maps. These terms
apply only to individual soil horizons or to the surface layer of a
soil type.
State equalized valuation (SEV). A measure employed within a State to
adjust actual assessed valuation upward to approximate true market
value. Thus it is possible to relate debt burden to the full value of
taxable property in each community within that State.
Stratification. The condition of a lake, ocean, or other body of water
when the water column is divided into a relatively cold bottom layer
and a relatively warm surface layer, with a thin boundary layer
(thermocline) between them. Stratification generally occurs during
the summer and during periods of ice cover in the winter. Overturns,
of periods of mixing, occur in the spring and autumn. This condition
is most common in middle latitudes and is related to weather condi-
tions, basin morphology, and altitude.
7-day, 10—day low flow. The lowest average flow that occurs for a consecu-
tive 7-day period at a recurrence interval of 10 years.
Surface water. All bodies of water on the surface of the Earth.
Suspended solids (SS). Small solid particles that contribute to turbidity.
The examination of suspended solids and the BOD test constitute the
two main determinations for water quality that are performed at waste-
water treatment facilities.
7-9
-------
Threatened species. Any species of animal or plant that is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant part of its range.
Till. Unsorted and unstratified drift, consisting of a heterogeneous
mixture of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders, that is deposited by and
underneath a glacier.
Trickling filter process. A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
which the biological growth is attached to a fixed medium, over which
wastewater is sprayed. The filter organisms biochemically oxidize the
complex organic matter in the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and
energy.
Topography. The configuration of a surface area including its relief, or
relative evaluations, and the position of its natural and manmade
features.
Trophic level. Any of the feeding levels through which the passage of
energy through an ecosystem proceeds. In simplest form, trophic
levels are: primary producers (green plants) herbivores, omnivores,
predators, scavengers, and decomposers.
Unique farmland. Land, which is unsuitable for crop production in its
natural state, that has been made productive by drainage, irriga-
tion, or fertilization practices.
Wastewater. Water- carrying dissolved or suspended solids from homes,
farms, businesses, and industries.
Water quality. The relative condition of a body of water, as judged by
a comparison between contemporary values and certain more or less
objective standard values for biological, chemical, and/or physical
parameters. The standard values usually are based on a specific
series of intended uses, and may vary as the intended uses vary.
Water table. The upper level of groundwater that is not confined by an
upper impermeable layer and is under atmospheric pressure. The upper
surface of the substrate that is wholly saturated with groundwater.
Wetlands. Those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a
frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or
would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires
saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and
reproduction.
7-10
-------
APPENDIX A
EXISTING ON-SITE SYSTEMS
-------
NOTES ON EXISTING ON-SITE SYSTEMS MEMORANDUM
1. The memorandum Is dated 1979 and is consequently outdated with respect to
systems that have been upgraded. Also, recent sources have clarified
certain information that was unclear.
2. Updated information concerning upgraded systems indicates that during
1980 and 1981 systems have been upgraded at a lesser rate than was
typical of earlier in the decade. The number of new systems for new
dwellings declined markedly these two years.
3. One unique cluster system has been identified on the west side of Indian
Lake in Segment 3 (Figure 2). The Old German Village group of 20 (or 21)
houses has a sewage collection system, a common septic tank, and common
drain field. The Association maintains the system and, aside from roots
plugging the sewers, it functions without problems.
4. Through a variety of sources, primarily the mailed questionnaire prepared
by Gove Associates, Inc. but also homeowner comments in local interviews
and personal observation, it has been noted that many upgradings do not
go through the permit processes of the "health departments. In Berrien
County permits are rarely filed for an upgrading because none are re-
quired in the health code. Restoning dry wells, surely an indication of
a failed system, are not subject to permits in Van Buren County. Addi-
tionally, many upgradings have reportedly occurred without the direction
of the health departments because the homeowner wished to escape the more
costly systems designed by a sanitarian.
A-l
-------
MEMORANDUM
i o:
Ms. Kathleen Schaub, Project Officer
Date:
29 January 1980
From:
Gregg S. Larson, Project Manager
Ref:
(559-C)
Subject: Summary of Existing Treatment and Disposal
Systems in the Project Area
This memorandum summarizes the results of the field work that was
conducted by Mr. G. Lenssen, Associate Agricultural Engineer, during the
period from 16 to 19 October 1979. Mr. Lenssen visited the Health Depart-
ment in Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren Counties to document wastewater treat-
ment system malfunctions and replacements in the project area. Tables that
summarize structural characteristics and replacement system characteristics
accompany the narrative descriptions of planning segments. Planning seg-
ment maps also are attached. The information regarding the 40 planning
segments in the Indian Lake and Sister Lakes service areas will be utilized
by WAPORA in the development of decentralized alternatives.
EXISTING TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
1.0. Introduction
Septic tanks and soil disposal systems of some kind have been utilized
for sewage treatment and disposal in the Indian Lake/Sister Lakes area
since outdoor toilets were moved indoors. Early systems were "anything
that worked" (i.e., that allowed the sink and toilet to continue to func-
tion) . These generally consisted of cinder block tanks with a short length
of tile. A.S long as ti'e plumbing did not back up, the operation of the
system was considered satisfactory. Some of the alternative systems in-
stalled consisted of precast concrete septic tanks, open-core concrete
block and precast dry wells, drain beds, and hybrid systems of anything
that could eliminate wastewater. Sewage disposal was a private concern;
the public health department became involved only when a complaint was
registered and a distinct public health problem existed. The septic tank
and soil absorption system generally were added as an afterthought after a
A-2
-------
residence was construcced. Thus, they frequently were installed on the
margin of the lakes in a variecy of soil material, and often below the
groundwater table.
In the late 1960s, State law enjoined each county health department to
regulate the installation of septic tanks. Standards for materials and
installation were adopted, and a permit program was established for new
and/or repaired systems. During the early years' of the permit program,
permits usually were granted without an examination of the proposed system
site. The health departments would prepare a crude sketch, based on the
homeowner's verbal property description, and would indicate satisfactory
locations for the septic tank and soil absorption system. The homeowner
could choose the type of construction; the same alternative systems uti-
lized prior to the permit program were available. Because the health
department field inspections were infrequent, actual construction bore
little resemblance to what was described in the permit. In the mid 1970s,
the health departments began to inspect regularly the system installations
to ensure that the regulations were complied with.
Each county health department with jurisdiction in the project area
has developed its own standards for soil absorption systems. The Van Buren
County Health Department permits block trench and precast concrete dry
wells in any location where depth to groundwater is great enough to allow 2
feet of soil below the dry well. Both the Cass County and the Berrien
County Health Departments allow precast concrete dry wells only where depth
to groundwater is satisfactory and where other replacement systems cannot
be installed because prescribed isolation distances are unattainable.
Isolation distances, depth to groundwater, and soil material requirements
are enforced. Raised drain beds (mound systems) are utilized in all three
counties, for new construction and for replacements, on lots where the
depth to water table criteria cannot otherwise be met.
Information concerning existing systems has been extracted from che
permits filed with each county health department. Although general conclu-
sions can be drawn, che information cannot be used co develop a definitive
analysis of existing systems in the project area. Difficulties encountered
A-3
-2-
-------
in evaluating the permit information included revised standards within
individual counties, varying standards between counties, inadequate loca-
tion descriptions, few as-built sketches, limited field inspections during
the early years, and completed repairs without filed permits. The informa-
tion that was obtained during the reviews of health department permits has
been tabulated for each service area by segment in the descriptions and
tables that follow.
2.0. Segment Physical Characteristics, Housing and Wastewater Treatment
Systems
Segment 1. This area is located along the northwestern shoreline of
Indian Lake in Cass County. It consists primarily of four land divisions:
the Tice leases, the Love trailer park development, the Lake View Mobile
Home Estates, and the Oak Grove subdivision. About 70% of the residences
are permanent dwellings, most of which are mobile homes in the Love subdi-
vision. High water table and limited lot sizes are common problems for
wastewater disposal. Soils are sands and in some locations are rather
silty. Most wastewater treatment systems consist of a septic tank and a
dry well, although new and replacement units have included drain beds and
raised drain beds with effluent lift pumps. About 25% of the septic tank/
soil absorption systems (ST/SAS) have been installed since 1972. About 5%
of the total number have been replaced since 1972.
Segment 2. This area is located along the west side of Indian Lake.
The Forest Beach subdivision constitutes most of the area. Also included
are some apartment buildings, the Indian Lake Golf Course Clubhouse, and
some individual parcels. About 50% of the residences are permanent dwell-
ings. The lake margin has a high water table, and the land slopes up
rapidly away from that margin. The soil material consists of sands. Most
of the residences are old; however, only three soil absorption systems have
been replaced in the last 7 years. Drain beds and dry wells have been
utilized for replacement systems. A few lots are too limited for drain bed
replacement systems.
A-4
-------
Segment 3. This araa Is located along che west side of Indian Lake,
south of Segment 2. The Forest Beach subdivision constitutes most of che
area. The "Old German Village" area is contained within chis segment.
About 65Z of the housing is seasonal. The broad lake margin and large
marsh have high water tables. The land slopes up rather abruptly from the
lake margin. Except for the muck soils in the marshy area, the soil ma-
terial is sand. Most of the residences date back numerous years. Five
systems (82) have been replaced in the last 7 years. Drain beds, raised
and conventional, were used for replacement systems. Some lots have re-
stricted areas chac preclude drain bed utilization.
Segment 4. This area is located on the south side of Indian Lake.
Individual lots make up the bulk of the area; the Ridenour Park and the
South Shore subdivisions comprise the remainder. About 65% of the resi-
dences are seasonal. This segment also contains the eight commercial
structures located around Indian Lake. Most of che segment has a narrow
lake margin with a high water table, a steeply sloping strip of land nexz
to the lake margin, and gently sloping land away from che lake. At the
southern tip of the lake, the lake margin is much broader and has some muck
soils. Many of che Iocs are too limited to allow for replacement drain bed
systems. A small proportion (7*) of che systems have been replaced since
1972.
Segment 5. This segment includes all the leased properties on che
east side of Indian Lake and some individual lots on che south side of the
lake. JTearly all of the residences ara occupied seasonally. The area
consiscs of che lake margin, with a high water cable, and gently sloping
land away from che lake. Two exceptions co chis description include che
low-lying land bordering che Indian Lake outlet drain and che scaeply
sloping land at che southern end of che segmenc. Only a small percencage
(7%) of che systems have been replaced since 1972. Limited lot sizes on
the south sida of che lake appear co be che only genuine hindrance co drain
bed replacement syscens. conventional or raised.
Segment 6. This segment Is locaced northeast of Indian Lake. Ic
includes che Loeb's Oakwood and Seachwood subdivisions, as veil as numer-
ous individual Iocs. Abouc 65£ of che residences are seasonally occupied.
A- 5
-4-
-------
A restaurant also Is located within this segment. Some of che residences
are new or have been rebuilt recently. Nearly all of che residences are
located on soils with high water tables. About 12% of the soil absorption
systems have been replaced since 1972, primarily in the Beechwood subdivi-
sion. Raised drain beds have been used extensively for replacements.
Segment 8. This area is located on che south side of Pipestone Lake.
Nearly all the residences are located in the Bass Island Park subdivision.
A tavern also is located within the segment. About 30% of che residences
are occupied seasonally. Nearly all of che residences are located on muck
soils that have a high water cable. About 10% of che systems have been
replaced within the last 8 years. Replacements have been raised drain
beds. The Bass Island Tavern has holding tanks for its wastewater.
Segment 9. This area is located on the north side of Pipestone Lake.
About 20% of che residences are occupied seasonally. The residences in
chis area are located on muck soils with high water tables. Concern about
lake pollution in the late 1960s led many residents to install raised drain
beds. The most recent replacements (since 1972) also have been raised
drain beds. The Berrien County Health Department has denied sepcic tank
permits in che muck soils that surround Pipestone Lake. New housing must
have either off-sice sewage treatment, or the housing must be distant from
the lake.
Segment 10. This area is located along Napier Avenue (M152) northeast
of Pipestone Lake. The segment includes the Sister Lakes laundromat and
some residences. The proposed sewer plans did not include service for
these struccures, alchough a sewage lift station was located there. The
land is steeply sloping and has a depch to che water table greater chan 6
feec. The laundromat recently has installed a small lagoon for waste
washwater treatment.
Segmenc 11. This segment is locaced on che south side of Dewey Lake
and che boat channel. It consists of che Dewey Beach Resort No. 1 and
Sandy Beach Estates subdivisions. Many of che residences are newly con-
structed, and about 50% serve as permanent residences. The land slopes
A-6
-5-
-------
upward from the shoreline toward che south. Since most of the residences
are relatively new, few replacement systems have been installed. Nearly
all of the systems recently installed in this segment have been drain beds.
Segment 12. This segment consists of the land on the south side of
Dewey Lake between che lake and the channel. Most of the residences are
old and about 40% are seasonal. No new residences have been constructed,
and no replacement systems have been installed since 1972. Most of the
soil area has a high water table, especially at the eastern end of the
segment.
Segment 13. This segment consists of western shorelands on Dewey Lake
and a 0.5 mile strip along Dixon Street. It includes the Swisher's Landing,
Dewey Terrace, Dewey Beach, and Plat of Deweymore subdivisions, as well as
numerous individual parcels. About 40% of the residences are occupied
seasonally, including several small resorts with leased units. Generally,
che segment consists of a narrow lake margin with a high water table and
gently sloping land beyond. The southern portion of che segment is steeply
sloping away from the lake. About 7% of the systems have been replaced in
the last 8 years. Some lots especially toward che southern end, are so
limited in size that isolation distances cannot be achieved even wich dry
wells.
Segment 14. This segment lies between Dewey Lake and Magician Lake,
and includes the Dewey Brook, Magician Bay Park, and Supervisor's Plat of
South Bay Park subdivisions and parts of che Midway, Orchard Hills, and
Currans Beach subdivisions. Most of che residences predate 1972, and 70%
arss occupied seasonally. Some multiple family dwellings are present in
this segment. The land has limited lake margins with high water cables.
Most of che land scopes upward away from che l«r--es. Replacements have
been minimal. Limiced lot sizes and slopes preclude conventional drain
beds on many of che Iocs.
Segment 15. This segnenc is locaced on che east side of Dewey Lake
and is comprised of che Sleepy Hollow subdivision and a number of indivi-
dual parcels. About 50% of the rasidences are occupied seasonally. Nearly
A-7 -—
s
-------
all the residences predate 1972. With the exception of a low area with a
high water table at the southern end of the segment, the land slopes
steeply away from che lake. Few replacements have occurred even chough
most of the residences are rather old. The lots are generally narrow but
very long and have adequate replacement area for drain beds.
Segment 16. This area includes a small portion of the west shore of
Magician Lake and a wide area along M152. The segment includes the follow-
ing subdivisions: Magician Lake Park, Lakeview No.l, and portions of
Lakeview and Midway. Some individual parcels and the commercial structures
along M152 also are included in this segment. Most of the land is gently
sloping with a depth to the water table greater than 5 feet. No replace-
ments have been recorded for this segment. Lots in the Magician Lake Park
subdivision are small; siting replacement drain beds on chese lots would be
difficult.
Segment 17. This segment includes virtually all the west and north
shorelands of Magician Lake. The Orchard Hills, Midway, Lakeview, Oak-
lands, Woodlawn, Krohne's Peninsula, and Gregory's Addition to Magician
Lake Woods subdivisions are located in this segment. About 30S of the
residences are occupied permanently. Nearly all of the structures were
built prior to 1972. The lake margin, with a high water table, varies
considerably in width. The land slopes gently away from che shore on the
west shore and abruptly on the north shore. About 10% of che soil absorp-
tion systems have been replaced since 1972. Many of che Iocs on che north
shore have sizes and slopes that preclude replacement systems other than
dry wells. However, isolation distances cannot, be attained even with dry
well installation.
Segment 18. This segment consists of che first tier development on
both sides of M152 and Maple Island Road at their intersection. Part of
Ina Curran's subdivision is located in the segment. The (Ainn Inn also is
located in this segment. About 502 of the residences are v. .cupied season-
ally. The land is sloping, and che depch co che wacer cable is greater
than 10 feet. There has been one replacement system installed in this
segment.
A-8
-7-
-------
Segment 19. This segment includes Maple Island in Magician Lake.
Abour 75% of the residences are occupied seasonally. The island has a
broad lake margin, high water table, and an interior knoll. Maintenance of
isolation distances, even with dry well soil absorption systems, is diffi-
cult because of the lot sizes and shapes. About 15Z of the systems have
been replaced in the last 8 years. Raised drain beds and dry wells have
been used for replacements.
Segment 20. This segment includes most of the lots in the Currans
subdivisions on the south shore of Magician Lake. The segment also in-
cludes part of the Boathouse Addition. Approximately 65% of the residences
are occupied seasonally. The land consists of a narrow to broad lake
margin with a high water table. The land rises steeply beyond this margin.
The lots are generally narrow and some are also very short; isolation
distances are often difficult to attain. Some soil absorption systems have
been constructed opposite the residences on the other side of the road.
Few soil absorption systems have been replaced in the last 8 years.
Segment 21. This segment is located on the south shore of Magician
Lake. The land is owned by the Smith and Polk families and leased for
cottages, most of which are occupied seasonally. The majority of the area
has a high wacer cable and muck soil macerial. About 251 of the systems
have bean replaced in che last 8 years. Nearly all of the new and replace-
ment systems are raised drain beds. Of those, more than half require lift
pumps.
Segment 22. This area is located on the southeast shore of Magician
Lake. The segment includes part of the Rainbow Park subdivision. Most of
the cottages on che shoreline are old, although several have been remo-
deled. The residences sited away from the lake have been constructed
recently. About 60S of the residences ara occupied seasonally. The land
has a narrow lake margin with a high watar cable and rises steeply co che
gently rolling uplands. Some layers of silty soil material ara found in
che sands. About 15Z of che systems have been replaced in che last 3
years. Many of these replacements ara raised drain beds. Land slope and
lot size restrict replacement system options on the shoreline lots.
A-9
-3-
-------
Segment 23. This area is located along the southern shorelands at che
eastern end of Magician Lake. It encompasses land in both Cass and Van
Buren Counties. Parts of che Rainbow Park and Gilmore Beach subdivisions
are included in the segment. About 60% of the residences are occupied
seasonally. The land is flat to rolling; the water table depth for nearly
all of the segment is less than 6 feet. About 202 of che systems have been
replaced in the last 8 years. Most of the new systems and replacement
systems in this segment are raised drain beds. Several permit applications
for septic tanks and soil absorption systems have been denied in this
segment.
Segment 24. This area is located at the northeast end of Magician
Lake. The segment Includes the Neff rental cottages and others on indivi-
dual parcels. Nearly all are occupied seasonally. The land Is steeply
rolling, particularly where the cottages are located. About 20% of the
systems have been replaced in the last 8 years. With the exception of
areas with steep slopes, soil absorption systems appear suitable for most
areas.
Segment 25. The Magician Lake Woods subdivision, on the north side of
Magician Lake, comprises this segment. The Blue Fin Marina also is located
on the shoreline in this segment. Only 10% of the residences are occupied
year-round. The land rises steeply from the lakeshore to the uplands. A
small area at the site of the marina has a high water table. About 10% of
the systems have been replaced In the last 10 years. Some silty soil
material in the segment may limit soil permeability. Inadequately sized
Cry wells appear to be the primary reason for replacements.
Segment 26. This segment consists of the Cable Park Beach subdivision
and some individual parcels on the southwestern shore of Cable Lake. About
65% of the residences are seasonally occupied. The segment is character-
ized by a steep-sided ridge that parallels che south shore of the lake.
The wescern end of che segment is low-lying land with a high water table.
Replacements have been minimal. The steep slopes and narrow lots limit
replacement options.
A-10
-9-
-------
Segment: 27. This segment is located on the southeastern shore of
Cable Lake and includes the Fitch Foundation Camp, individual parcels, and
part of the Wildwood subdivision. About 65% of the residences are occupied
permanently, including che camp cabins. The land slopes gencly toward the
lake. The lake margin, with a high water cable, is narrow. ITo new or
replacement systems have been installed in this segment in che last 8
years.
Segment 28. This area encompasses the eastern shorelands of Cable
Lake, including a portion of the ffildwood subdivision. About 65% of che
residences are occupied seasonally. The land slopes gently away from the
lake; a large area near the lake has depths to the water table less chan 6
feet. About 5% of the systems have been replaced in the last 3 years. The
shallow water table and small lot sizes will preclude standard replacement
systems in some areas.
Segment 29. This segment is located on the northern shore of Cable
Lake. The land includes portions of the Wildwood and Sister-Cable Lake
•Shores subdivisions. About 60% of the residences are occupied seasonally.
The lands within che segment consist of gently rolling uplands and a
steeply sloping shoreline. One small length of shoreline has a wide lake
margin with a high water table. About 7% of the systems have been replaced
in the last 8 years. Most replacement systems are conventional drain beds,
although one raised drain bed was necessary and some dry wells were needed
because of limiced lot sizes. Although che platted lot sizes in the Wild-
wood subdivision are small, adjacent lots usually are owned by che same
individual and available for replacement systems.
Segment 30. This segment is located in Van Buren County on the east-
ern shore of lower Crooked Lake. It includes cha Adam's Sistar Lakes and
Spencer's Sister Lakes subdivisions and several individual parcels. About
50% of the residences are occupied seasonally. The segment consists of
rolling uplands with a steep slope co the lake shore. There have been cwo
replacement systems installed in che last 3 years. Although che Iocs ara
generally narrow and sloping, their length is adequate for raplacament
syscezs.
A-n
-10-
-------
Segment 31. The land between lower Crooked Lake and Cable Lake is
included in this segment. The segment encompasses nearly all of the Sis-
ter-Cable Lake Shores subdivision. About 65% of the residences are occu-
pied permanently. The area is characterized by rolling uplands sloping,
gently to steeply, toward che lake shore. Replacement systems have been
installed for about 107, of the residences. Although some of the residences
are old, many have been constructed recently (40% in the last 8 years).
Lot size and slope prevent installation of drain beds on some lots. Most
lots, however, are large enough for replacement systems.
Segment 32. This segment consists of the southwestern shore of lower
Crooked Lake. The Supervisor's Plat of Sommer's Beach and the Sister-Cable
Lake Shores No. 2 subdivisions in Cass County, in addition to several
individual parcels in both Cass and Van Buren Counties, are included in
this segment. About 50% of the residences are occupied seasonally. The
segment has rolling uplands and a steep slope to the lake shore. About 20%
of the systems have been replaced in the last 8 years. Drain beds, half of
which require lift pumps, have been used for the replacement systems.
Narrow and sloping lots make installation of replacement systems difficult,
although the lot sizes are generally adequate.
Segment 33. This segment is located between Round Lake and upper and
lower Crooked Lake. It includes che oldest residential and resort area,
and the old "downtown" of Sister Lakes. Several small subdivisions are
located in the segment; most residences, however, are sited on individual
parcels. Approximately 10 commercial structures are located in this seg-
ment, as well as several rental cottages. About 50% of the residences are
occupied seasonally. The segment is characterized by rolling uplands with
steep slopes co che lakeshore. The land between Round Lake and upper
Crooked Lake is low-lying and has a shallow water table. Approximately 15%
of the systems have been replaced in the past 8 years. Several raised
drain beds were installed because of the depth co the water cable limita-
tion. Lot sizes and shapes have precluded proper isolati i distances in
several areas.
A-12
-11-
-------
Segment: 34. This segment is located on che northwest side of upper
Crooked Lake. All of Woodland Point subdivision, a portion of the Adam's
Hillcresc Shore subdivision, and several individual parcels are In che
segment. A large rental cottage complex also is included. About 50" of
the residences are seasonally occupied. The point of land on which the
Woodland Point subdivision is located is elevated high above che water
surface and has steep slopes down to che lake. The remainder of che seg-
ment is gently sloping. About 10% of the systems have been replaced in the
last 3 years. Most of chese have been located on che point, and the re-
placements have been dry wells chat receive pumped effluent. The Adam's
Hillcrest Shores subdivision has been platted only recently; systems there
are new.
Segment 35. This segment includes a large area on the northeastern
shore of upper Crooked Lake, chat extends to M152 on che north and east.
The Woodland Beach, Kilburland Park, Crooked Lake Park, and Lakeland Ter-
race subdivisions are in this segment. About 50A of che residences are
occupied seasonally, and che majority of chese ara near che lake. The
segment has gently rolling uplands that slope moderately near the lake
shore. The lake shore margin, with a high water table, is generally nar-
row. About 102 of the systems have been replaced in the last 8 years.
Some lot sizes and slopes preclude maintenance of isolation distances.
Raised drain beds have been required in some areas because of the posicion
of che watar cable. '
Segmenc 36. This segment encompasses che southern shoreland of upper
Crooked Lake. Ic includes che Woodland Park and Hield's Sister Lakes
subdivision. About 50% of the residences ara on individual parcels.
Several of che parcels aie occupied by rental coccages. Three commercial
establishments and che Lion's Park also are located within che sagmenc.
About 65% of the residences are occupied seasonally. The segmenc is char-
acterized by rolling uplands chat slope steeply to che lake shora. Re-
placement systems have been installed for about 10% of che residences in
che lasc 8 years. Host replacement systems have been dry wells. Some
araas have lot sizes and slopes chac preclude standard isolation discancas.
A-13
-12-
-------
Segne_nt_ ,37. This segment is on che south shore of Round Lake. Sev-
eral individual parcels, the Hampton D. Sill's Sister Lakes subdivision and
a cottage rental development are in the segment. Few cottages are occupied
year-round. The eastern part is steeply rolling, while the western part is
flat and low-lying. The western end of the segment consists of filled
land. About 152 of the systems have been replaced within the last 8 years.
Raised drain beds have been utilized extensively for new residences in the
western end of the segment because of the shallow depth to the water table.
Land slopes and narrow lots in the eastern end complicate soil absorption
system installation.
Segment 38. This segment encompasses the Oak Park and Oak Island
subdivisions on the western shore of Round Lake. These subdivisions con-
tain a number of new residences. Seasonally occupied residences constitute
about 452 of the residences. The segment consists of two high ridges; one
is located along the lakeshore (the site of the Oak Island subdivision) and
the other is located in the middle of the Oak Park subdivision. Between
these ridges is marshland designated as Lilly Park. Slopes on these ridges
are steep. One area of silty soil material with moderately limited perme-
ability has been identified in the segment. About 102 of the systems have
been replaced in the last 8 years. Some raised drain beds have been neces-
sary to meet che depth co the water table standard. Part of the segment
has several residences on small lots; a holding tank was the only system
that could meet standards in one instance.
Segment 39. This segment is located on the northern shore of Round
Lake. The Benton Beach and Pitcher's Acres subdivisions, and numerous
individual parcels, are included in this segment. About 202 of the resi-
dences are occupied seasonally. The land in the Benton Beach subdivison
slopes steeply to the lake. Land in the remainder of the segment slopes to
a valley that is oriented north-south. About 102 of the systems have been
replaced in the last 8 years. Most of the residences in the Pitcher's
Acres subdivision were built within the last 15 years. One parcel with
three leased residences has a limited area for replacement systems. Steep
slopes in the segment could result in construction difficulties for re-
placement systems, particularly in che Benton Beach subdivision.
A-14
-13-
-------
Segment 40. This segment is located on the northeastern shore of
Round Lake and extends to the intersection of M152 (Napier Avenue) and
CR690 (Sister Lakes Road). The subdivisions included are: Supervisor's
Plat of Britton Park, Britton Park, Mariner's Beach, Assessor's Replat of
Part of Pitcher's Beach, and Pitcher's Beach. There are also numerous
individual parcels. The primary commercial area of Sister Lakes is located
in this segment at the intersection of M152 and CR690. About 15 commercial
establishments have been identified. The Sister Lakes School also is
located in this segment. Seasonally occupied residences constitute about
552 of the residences, and most of these are located near the lake. The
land is gently rolling, except along the shoreline of Round Lake, where it
is moderately steep. About 10% of the residential and commercial systems
have been replaced. The lots on the shoreline are small and sloping;
replacement systems have been sited with difficulty.
3.0. Summary
Although the physical characteristics of Che planning segments vary
with location, all are primarily residential. There were a total of 2,513
residential structures and 56 commercial structures located in the planning
segments. Approximately 93£ were constructed prior to October .1972.
(Generally, two-thirds of che expected flow from collection systems must be
for wastewacer from residences in existence prior to October 1972 in order
to be eligible for Federal funding.) About 2% of che residences were
constructed after December 1977. (Federal grant regulations for privately-
owned creatmenc works require that che principal residence or small commer-
cial establishment be constructed and inhabited on or before 27 December
1977.)
Less than 10% of che systems have been replaced over che last 3 years.
The numbers and types of replacement systems, however, do not indicate
whether systems are operating satisfactorily or whether nutrient enriched
effluent is being discharged in the lakes.
The systems chat were replaced were primarily dry wells that wera coo
small and siced with less chan che required distance above che watar table.
A-15
-14-
-------
Some replacemencs were necessary because che drain beds or dry wells were
insufficiently sized for silty soil material. Lot sizes and shapes and
land slopes appear to be the major constraint to installing soil absorption
systems chat meet the applicable standards of each county. Muck soils
around Pipestone Lake, and occassionally along che other lakeshorts, are
unacceptable for replacement systems and have resulted in permit denials.
The majority of replacement systems have been dry wells or block
trenches (42%). Some were installed because lot configurations precluded
utilization of drain beds where they were preferred. Dry wells and block
trenches that required lift pumps comprised 8% of the replacement systems
installed. The lift pumps were needed where the soil absorption systems
were installed at higher elevations away from the lake. In Cass County
small, congested lots precluded che use of a drain bed.
The conventional drain bed accounted for 182 of the replacements.
These were installed wherever possible in Cass County and in locations in
Van Buren County where clearance above the water table could not be at-
tained with dry wells. Only a few of che drain bed replacements were
standard drain fields. Drain beds that required lift pumps accounted for
72 of the replacements. They were necessary where che drain bed was in-
stalled at a higher elevation than che residence because of requirements
regarding clearance over the water table, setback from a lake, or lot
configuration. Raised drain beds, co provide clearance over a high water
table, were necessary for 72 of the replacement systems. On level areas,
raised drain beds required lift pumps. Concentrations of raised drain beds
with lift pumps were noted in the Gilmore Beach and Beechwood subdivisions,
the Polk leases, and the Pipestone Lake area (Segments 23, 21, 6, 8, and 9,
respectively), and accounted for 13% of the replacements.
Other replacement systems comprise che remaining 5% of che replace-
mencs. They include systems where only the septic tank was replaced, those
for which no design information was available, and two holding tank
systems.
A-16
-15-
-------
Table L. Structural characteristics, by segment, in the Indian Lake/Sister
Lakes study area (Gove Associates, Inc. 1979).
1
i. v ^u*a.L4w*«i. u utw va
Segiaent • •
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
-9
30
31
32
93
17
19
20
13
27
0
26
37
2
11
21
72
27
13
22
61
3
9
19
3
15
26
5
4
11
13
20
ir
15
31
15
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
6
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
1
1
3
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
n
3
0
*3 ^*-Lg
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Permanent
120
17
19
20
18
27
0
27
'38
2
18
21
72
30
13
25
66
3
9
20
4
13
29
5
6
12
13
20
17
15
34
15
UCQiO*
a
49
13
43
36
102
46
0
13
9
0
9
14
44
70
13
15
136
4
26
43
23
21
44
19
53
20
3
33
13
15
16
12
JU.O-L.
a
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
4
2
0
2
1
0
2
9
0
2
1
tiu ta-a
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'juaft
3
0
1
1
3
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
1-
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Seasonal
57
13
43
37
102
47
0
13
9
0
19
14
45
72
14
15
138
4
26
43
'32
26
46
19
60
21
3
40
27
16
13
13
Tot a.
Housij
177
30
62
57
120
74
0
40
47
2
37
35
117
102
27
40
204
7
35
63
36
44
75
24
66
33
21
50
44
32
52
23
A-17
-------
Table 1. (continued)
Permanent Housing
1
Seasonal Housing"
Segment
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
„
59
25
103
36
4
38
42
19
*
1
2
7
2
0
2
8
2
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Permanent
60
27
110
38
t4
40
50
21
D
62
25
97
56
35
30
10
23
o
1
0
7
16
1
2
2
3
±
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
_ 3
9
1
4
4
0
0
3
15
Total
Seasonal
62
25
105
73
36
32
12
26
Total
Housing^
123
52
215
111
40
72
62
47
Total
1,019
80
1,104 1,321 79 9 56 1,385 2,513
Permanent Housing:
• Building permit issued before October 1972
• Building permit issued after October 1972 and before December 1977
A, Building permit issued after December 1977
Seasonal Housing:
D Building permit issued before October 1972
o Building permit issued after October 1972 and before December 1977
A, Building permit issued after December 1977
* Commercial structure.
A-18
-------
ho ro t— — •—
•— C o CC ««j
o _. c O CC
i- O C *- i—
Of— i— Ou;O»— OOOi— OOOO
tO
10 ro to
OtooO*-OOi— OO'-COOOOi— OOO
O i— C O-e-OOt— OOOOOOOO>— O O O t—
to c=
o
re "«-
•B
C
rt
to t5
SS t"^
re to
to t— to
h- r—• coroOOtoo^'— to ro —
O •— to OOOOOOOt— O O *- O UJ i— Ot— OO
OOOO1— OOOi— OOO»— !OOto*-OOO
OsOOOi— OOOt— OOOt— IOOIOOOOOU>
•— ro u> to
to O to i—
000
•sj O W O O O O
O O O H-
Ul tO
OOOOH- t— t— OO
OOOOUiOO"— i— OOOOOOOi— Ot— OO
OOOOOOOi— OOOt-Oi— OOOOOCO
OOOOCOOt-oOOr-O"— OOOOOOO
u;
Ui
CO US Ui t—" r—
t— NS
r- r- i- O O
Ui
u:
re
T>
to O
t-1 CS
PS r
re j:
•s
c5
0
cs>
Ul
-3 O
o c
rt +
tt f
•O Os
o
rr O
ft
•3
55 r
re
"O
A-19
re
to
^p O O
-J C rt
O 3 fc
re G*.
to
H. re
"* "O
» i
re
5 £
" 65
^M U-
•sj ft
n »
cc
CO CD
O rt
= i
rt CD
re
to CD
c- re
rr ere
re rt
T>
to *—
n 3
rt
3 rt
re rr
3 re
VD a.
vo to
- 3
3 to
a. ?r
re
3 Cft
cr cc
C rt
n re
re n
3
o jr
c re
3 CD
rr
>< 03
rt
— £
re a
to •<
re
O p
re
ri re
rt n
5 >-i
re H-
3 re
rr 3
-------
U> NJ
•g —
0 cs
CS -r
r
ii
u
5s __
B ™
p~* i
CD BJ
re H-
ft. 3
0 CS
n re
t c_
H-
3 4-
cs r1
re r-
ft. rr,
rr
O^ ^fl
O C
s s
J» "•^^
r cs
--» H
cs
H D
li —
" n
II *"<
o a
n re
H*
y" •»*^s
re co
t"^ H^
i— O
n
+ 7T
r 1-3
h* n
m re
rr 3
--» O
CS 3"
H™1
O
n
?r
H
11
re
Q
^^
•f-
fl
^l
Pt
H^
O
cs
*"^.
c
"3
II
—
f^
as
H-
3
cs
re
c.
"^.
a
i-i
Cs
H*
•5
"3
h**
re
ft.
H
O
fi; QOcc-^JC^'^1i*u;N)'— oi«CCC->JC^Wii«CJNJ
1-^
i~*
^* ^- I—1
CTv J^t— i— NJJ^COi— N5LnN>OO"^Ou;OOW^j
.c*.
<-" NJr- ONJNJfoOCNJN>OWH-Ch-.OO*-*NJ
NJ
i— OOO^-OC2OU>LJ>— OOOOOOOOO
H-
O OOO>— OOOtJUJt— OOOOOOOOO
*-
js OOf- ^•OOOOOh"*O^"OOOOOWii-
r-
Ln OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUJN5
OJ
«-J O'~'H— OO^—Or»OOOOOOO>~*OvON3
^* L*i
>- O>-*-OO^-O>— OOOOOOO^ OOONJ
pC
o
•f
r^ N5
Of— h- U) H-
II N3 N5 CO CO N) ^* L*) t™ * ^* N3 **J \J\ \*fl N? C^ t -^ ^j O^ t .^ ' _-'
^ t
B
H"
CO VO ^ H- I—
a. ^" ~ ^" "^ *"" *~
o
rl
D
H-
3 NS
O O O r-* t^ H- * H-. ^* H^ o O OOOOO*— OO O
cs
re
c.
•r f~
CO OOO'-^-'— Jf-'-OOOOOOO'— OOO
r
H^
PTl
rr
h^
*- COuif-^-H-,— OOOi— OOOOOO"— O
i_
NJ OO.C»^->— >— >— OOOi— OOOOOO^-O
^*
CO *—* ^^ ^— *•" N? ^^ NJ f*^ NJ *~* NJ ^"*
J> <3NO-J^O.>--J-0>~<^0-.OOcr,vJDC*!-^
NJ
U> i— NJ i— h-
O ^C^^COO^^-NJWlvJ^JlC^NJU>U>O^-C'^Ul^J1^J
C/5
re
5
5
3
f"^
,_:
2
rr C
19 CS
O
53 IT)
re »—
"C
•^
H
O
f^
s c
I-1 C3
•r
ft * NJ
•a
H
rr
CJ 50
cs
re
-a
H
O
rr H
OS b
I-1 CS
PC f
re *•
-a
H-»
t-3
O
rr O
&J S
CC
pB H
re LH
•o
1— '
>-5 O
o s;
rr -r-
a> r"
i—1 "«^
ca
H
?3 *i"
» r*
H1*
1-^
0
rr O
a> H
h-1 S
H
re
•o
H
O
rr i-3
0) O
55 r"
re
i— '
,_3
B
cr
>^
CI
NJ
•
0
0
rr
3
C
re
c.
\^*
A-20
-------
EEUSH
LAKE
Jigtira i. Seg=aac icca.ci.ons in she Indian Lake sarvica ara^
A-21
-------
a
to
C/3
ts
era
3
O
3
O
n
C
3
CD
D3
pr
re
1-1
to
05
re
-------
APPENDIX B
SEPTIC LEACHATE SUREVY
INDIAN LAKE - SISTER LAKE
-------
SEPTIC LEACHATE SURVEY
INDIAN LAKE - SISTER LAKES
October, 1979
Prepared for
WAPORA,Inc.
Chicago, Illinois
Prepared by
K-V Associates, Inc.
281 Main Street
Faltnouth, Massachusetts 02540
January, 1980
T5-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction. 1
1.1 Effluent Plume Theory 1
1.1.1 Groundwater Plumes 3
1.1.2 Runoff Flumes 5
1.2 Special Survey Technique and Equipment.... 6
2.0 Survey Methodology 9
2.1 Sample Handling 10
2.2 Leachate Detector Calibration 10
2.3 Groundwater Plow Measurements*.,..,. 10
3.0 Plume Locations 12
4.0 Nutrient Analyses 28
5.0 Nutrient Relationships. 34
5.1 Assumed Waste water Characteristics. * 36
5.2 Assumed Background Levels 36
5.3 Attenuation of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Compounds, 37
6.0 Coliform Levels in Surface Waters*. 38
7.0 Groundwater Flow Patterns 41
8.0 Conclusions 46
References 48
Appendix 49
B-2
-------
-3-
recreaticmal attractiveness of the lakeshore often induces temporary
overcrowding of homes leading to hydraulically overloaded septic units.
Rather than a passive release from lakeshore bottoms, groundwater
plumes from nearby on-site treatment units may actively emerge along
shorelines, raising sediment nutrient levels and creating local elevated
concentrations of nutrients. The contribution of nutrients from
subsurface discharges of shoreline septic units has been estimated at
30 to 60 percent of the total nutrient load in certain New Hampshire
lakes, (LRPC, 1977).
The capillary-like structure of sandy, porous soils and horizontal
groundwater movement induces a fairly narrow plume from malfunctioning
septic units. The point of discharge along the shoreline is often
through a small area of lake bottom, commonly forming an oval-shaped
area several meters wide when the septic unit is close to the shoreline.
In denser subdivisions containing several overloaded units, the discharges
may overlap forming a broader increase. (See Figure 2)
1.1.1. Groundwater Plumes
Three different types of groundwater-related wastewater plumes
are commonly encountered during a septic leachate survey: 1) erupting
plumes, 2) passive plumes, and 3) stream source plumes. As the soil
becomes saturated with dissolved solids and organics during the aging
process of a leaching on-lot septic system, a breakthrough of organics
occurs first, followed by inorganic penetration (principally chlorides,
sodium, and other salts). The active emerging of the combined organic
and inorganic residues into the shoreline lake water describes an
5-3
-------
-4-
r- GRGUNCWATS?? • * «•)
" I-a a a «J.
SEP71C LSACHA7H
•i.<;_.aG.«
Figure 2. Excessive loading of sepcic systanis causes the develocmer
of plumes of poorLy-creaCsd effluent which may
1) enter nearby waterways through surface runoff or
which may 2) move Laterally with grou-ndva ter flow and
discharge near the shoreline of aearbv lakes.
B-4
-------
-5-
erupting plume. In seasonal dwellings where wastewater loads vary in
time, a. plume may be apparent during late summer when shoreline cottages
sustain heavy use, but retreat during winter during low flow conditions.
Residual organics from the wastewater often still remain attached to
soil particles in the vicinity of the previous erupting plume, slowly
releasing into the shoreline waters. This dormant plume indicates a
previous breakthrough, but sufficient treatment of the plume exists
under current conditions so that no inorganic discharge is apparent.
Stream source plumes refer to either groundwater leachings or near-
stream septic leaching fields which enter into streams which then
empty into the lake.
1.1.2 Runoff Plumes
Traditional failures of septic systems occur in tight soil
conditions when the rate of inflow into the unit is greater than the
soil percolation can accompdate. Often leakage occurs around the
septic tank or leaching unit covers, creating standing pools of poorly-
treated effluent. If sufficient drainage is present, the effluent
may flow laterally across the surface into nearby waterways. In
addition, rainfall or snow melt may also create an excess of surface
water which can wash the standing effluent into water courses. In
either case, the poorly- treated effluent frequently contains elevated
fecal coliform bacteria, indicative of the presence of pathogenic
bacteria and, if sufficiently high, must be considered a threat to
public health.
B-5
-------
-6-
1.2 Special Survey Technique and Equipment
Wastewater effluent contains a mixture of near-UV fluorescent
organics derived from whiteners, surfactants and natural degradation
products which are persistent under the combined conditions of low
oxygen and limited microbial activity. Figure 3 shows two samples of
sand-filtered effluent from the Otis Air Force Base, Massachusetts,
sewage treatment plant. One was analyzed immediately and the other
after having been held in a darkened bottle for six months at 20°C.
Note that little change in fluorescence was apparent, although during
the aging process some narrowing of the fluorescent region did occur.
The aged effluent percolating through sandy loam soil under anaerobic
conditions reaches a stable ratio between the organic content and
chlorides which are highly mobile anions. It is this stable ratio
(conjoint signal) between fluorescence and conductivity that allows
ready detection of leachate plumes by their conservative tracers.
Such identified plumes are an early warning of potential nutrient
breakthrough or public health problems. The septic leachate detector
instrument utilizes this principal.
Septic surveys for shoreline wastewater discharges are conducted
with a septic leachate detector, ENDECOR Type 2100 "Septic Snooper"™,
TM
and the K-V Associates, Inc. "Dowser" * Groundwater Flow Meter. The
leachate detector unit can be operated out of any small rowboat. It
consists of the subsurface probe (water intake system), the analyzer
control unit, and an analog stripchart recorder. Initially the unit
is calibrated against incremental additions of wastewater effluent of
B-6
-------
30-
70-i
60-
IU
o
2
UJ
UJ
3
u.
UJ
UJ
c:
30-
20-
10-
EXCITAT10N SCA.\'
SAND -iLTERED SECONDARILY-TREATED
WASTE WATER EFFLUENT
NEWLY SAND C1LTERED
OTIS EFFLUENT
AGED
SAND FILTERED
EFFLUENT (6 mo.)
300 400 500
WAVELENGTH (nm)
Figure 3. Sand-filtered effluent produces a stable fluorescent
signature, here shown before and after aging.
O 7
U-/
-------
-8-
the type to be detected to the background lake water. The pump end of
the probe unit is then submerged in the lake water along the near
shoreline. Groundwater seeping through the shoreline bottom is drawn
into the screened intake of the probe and travels upwards to the analyzer
unit. As it passes through the analyzer, separate conductivity and
fluorescence signals are generated. The responses are sent to the
signal processor which registers the separate signals on a strip chart
recorder as the boat moves forward. The analyzed water is continuously
discharged from the unit back into the receiving water. The battery-
powered unit used for field studies can record individual fluorescence
and conductivity or a combination signal. It has also been modified
to operate under the conductivity conditions encountered in the field.
Well-point sampling of groundwater and bacterial sampling of
surface run-off complement the leachate detector scan, surface water
sampling and groundwater flow vector measurements for the complete
survey.
B-8
-------
-9-
2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Continuous leachate scans were performed on all lakes in a
counter-clockwise direction around their shallow periphery (in less
than 1 meter deep water) identifying the location of any plume discharges.
The survey team consisted of two field scientists and lightweight mobile
survey gear. The basic equipment platform was a 12-foot aluminum skiff
with small outboard. Portable equipment included the battery-powered
leachate detector instrument, hand-driven wellpoints and plastic water
sampling and filtration apparatus.
As a routine, the team first surveyed each lake with the leachate
detector gear, taking appropriate center and background discrete water
samples from areas showing no obvious indications of pollution. At
those points along the shore where the instrument recorded a significant
event above background, the crew secured surface and groundwater samples
while charting location and logging any supporting visual observations of
the local surroundings. The team walked or motored the boat around the
lakes within 15 feet of shore in shallow water. Specific conductance of
each sample was measured on the boat as each sample was prefiltered and
bottled. The team usually checked at least two groundwater sampling
depths for each plume in search of a local maximum conductivity level.
Relative fluorescence and conductivity were continuously plotted on
separate strip recorders with positional cross-references to sewer
planning maps of the lakes*
B-9
-------
-10-
After completing the leachate survey of a lake, the team returned
for bacterial sampling of selected plumes and surface flows, and took
ground-water flow data in the beach sand at distributed points around
the lake*
2.1 Sample Handling
Both ground and surface water samples for nutrient analysis were
prefiltered on the boat and later final-filtered through .45 fan membrane
filters. Th« samples were acidified with sulfuric acid (to leas than
pH 2) at the close of each sampling day, following procedures outlined
by EPA Standard Methods.
Berrien County Health Department provided sterile bacteria sampling
bottles and performed the fecal coliform analyses.
2.2 Leachate Detector Calibration
The shoreline scanning work day began with a calibration of the
septic leachate instrument* Two solutions were required: the first,
a blank sample drawn from an unaffected central portion of the lake;
and the second, a sample of Dowagiac Municipal Treatment Plant effluent.
Calibration was by method of additions, a TL. addition of effluent to
center water being scaled to cover AOZ of full meter span for each
channel. Dynamic recirculating flow-through was employed to introduce
solutions to the sensing chamber.
2.3 Groundvater Flow Measurements
The survey team utilized the K-7 Associates, Inc. Model 10 Dowser
groundvater flow meter to obtain flow measurements. The team dug shallow
B-10
-------
-11-
holes to groundwater along sandy shores at spaced Intervals around the
lake. The instrument probe head was inserted about three inches into
the groundwater - saturated loose sand substrate. The battery-powered
unit required about three minutes to give a digital indication of flov
velocity and direction. The unit was calibrated in a simple flov chamber
using local beach sand.
B-ll
-------
-12-
3.0 PLUlffi LOCATIONS
The Indian Lake - Sisters Lake project proposed service area en-
compasses the entire shorelines of aight inland lakes lying within
Berrient Cass and Van Buren counties in the southwestern corner of
Michigan. Vegetated wetlands occur adjacent to each of these lakes which
are fed primarily by groundwater recharge or surface runoff, there being
no major tributary inlets or stream linkages between one lake and another.
Soils that overlie the glacial landforms of the study area vary
from mucks through loams to fine sand. The predominant soil association
surrounding Sister Lakes in Cass County is Oshtemo-Kalamazoo-Hillsdale
association. This association is characterized by deep, well-drained
soils of undulating to rolling topography found on outwash plains and
moraines. These soils are of moderately coarse to coarse textures.
Some of the rolling areas are covered by croplands and orchards, others
by pasture land or forest.
For purposes of evaluation consistent with our historical practice,
a waste-water plume was judged to be a leachate detector signal excursion
of at least 17. effluent equivalent of fluorescence and %7. of conductivity.
Devey Lake
This small lake ir* Cass County has a surface of nearly 190 acres
and a maximum depth of less than 14 meters. While populated around most
of its shoreline, it abuts a wetland to the south. It has previously
B-12
-------
-13-
been classified as eutrophic. No active wastewater plumes were revealed
around the lake perimeter. Several small organic (fluorescence) rises
were detected along the northern shore, but were unaccompanied by any
inorganic (conductivity) changes. Sample #4 is clearly bog as revealed
by its very strong fluorescence with no coincident conductivity rise,
and also by lab analysis showing fluorescent spectral wavelength shift
and high levels of ammonia-nitrogen characteristic of anaerobic reducing
conditions. Sample #3 from a canal leading to wetlands also shows bog
characteristics. No fecal colifonn bacteria contamination was evident,
nor was there any indication of high'nitrate levels in two well water
samples taken, though the Shady Shores well showed high dissolved
solids loading.
Keeler Lake
This very small, outlying lake is to the northeast of the Sisters
Lakes. A single tier of dwellings surrounds its shore, with the exception
of a wetlands expanse to the west. The continuous shoreline survey did
not identify any effluent plume sources* However, each of the sediment
groundwater samples had elevated levels of total phosphorous or ammonia
retained in soft material.
Cable Lake
This scenic little lake, smallest of the group, also lies in Cass
County and has a surface area of 91 acres. Along with Round Lake, Cable
Lake has the smallest watershed (685 acres) of any of the Sister Lakes.
Wooded swamp confronts a small section of the western shore and constitutes
about 227. of the watershed acreage. No erupting effluent plumes were found
B-13
-------
-In-
Nitrate levels in surface and groundwater samples were consistently
very low (<.04 ppm). One routinely sampled background location (#15) did
show a moderately high phosphorous level (.192ppm) in the sediment waters.
Indications of surfactants and whiteners were not apparent on Cable Lake*
Magician Lake
Magician Lake is second in surface area (468 acres) only to Indian
Lake and has over 11 km of well-developed shoreline. Swamps lie to the
south and east* Of three islands on the lake, two are inhabited: Maple
Island, accessible by causeway; and Hemlock Island, reachable only by
boat.
Traces of several wastewater plumes were located in the southwest
corner of Magician Lake which includes two narrow canal extensions.
However, nutrient concentrations were not high. Interestingly, the ground-
water sample of a nominal background location (#25) revealed high con-
ductivity (820 umho/on) and ammonia-nitrogen (31 ppm). This site was
along the southern shore of Maple Island. -The bottom was a mucky bed
of organic debris and the surface water became unnavigable because of
the heavy plant growth. Strong reducing conditions were present.
Elsewhere around the lake, nitrate levels were high in plume samples
drawn along the northern shore. Broad rolling croplands approach the
shorefront residential lots. Owners report numerous springs underly the
soft silty bottom. The plume source is likely a mix of domestic and
agricultural products.
Sample #27 represented fresh, soapy effluent believed to originate
from a shower drain piped directly to the lake's edge. The pipe end was
B-14
-------
-15-
algae covered, and the total phosphorous level was high (.144 ppm).
Pipestone Lake
An irregularly shaped lake, Pipestone has the lowest ratio of
water surface area to wetted shoreline. As the lowest lake in elevation
in the entire study area, its watershed includes the highest percentage
of both orchards (237.) and wooded swamp ('291). The diversity of fish
species is high in this lake as it is connected to the St. Joseph River
by the outflowing Pipestone Creek. Large salmon were running upstream
to spawn during the period of this October survey. For a low-lying
lake surrounded by such extensive wetlands, Pipestone has logically
been classified as mesotrophic, tending towards eutrophic. Plume
discoveries were numerous and included high total phosphorous (.843 ppm)
and ammonia-nitrogen (13 ppm) levels in both surface drainpipe and ground-
water samples. While these stream sources originate from bog areas, the
potential runoff for leachfield wastewater entrainment is very strong,
given the high water table and frequent flooding conditions. The high
fecal coliform bacteria count at code B32 (7,600 colonies/100 ml water)
from a. pipe running through the yard of a permanent resident underscores
the septic leaching implications. The lake bottom was mucky organic
debris and the waterways were often choked with rooted aquatic vegetation.
Indian Lake
Located well to the south of the Sister Lakes, Indian Lake is the
largest in area and most nearly regular in shape. Some wetlands append
Indian Lake along its southern boundary, but over 507. of the watershed area
5-1!
-------
-16-
is under agricultural use. A 1975 Cass County Health Department survey
declared this lake to be experiencing accelerated eutrophication related
to nutrient leakage from on-site sewage systems.
Our septic survey found very fev distinct septic probletns on a
lake of this size. Fewer than 10 plumes were reported; virtually all
were along the northern shore. Of samples taken, all nitrate levels but
one were less than .06 pptn and total phosphorous <.03 ppm. Sample #54
was taken in the vicinity of a very discrete patch of Cladophora capping
some submerged cinder'blocks near a concrete breakwall. Cladophora
occurrences were not widespread but did crop up elsewhere in isolated
patches. Sample #55 corresponds to a large pipe bearing stream drainage
from the northeast shore region. Sample #56 was drawn from a broad plume
source along this same northeastern shore. Autumn leaves collected by
the wind and waves matted the near shore to a depth of about ,3m. The
higher than usual nitrate and conductivity value from the groundwater
sample beneath the leaves suggests a wastewater plume source possibility.
Prevailing groundwater flow was found to be into the lake along this north
shore. Many homes on the north shore are situated no more than 15-20 feet
from their neighbors, and have a set-back of 25-30 feet from the water.
Mucky bottom sediments prevail in proximity to the northwest corner canal
area. A surface sample (557) in the canal showed significant inorganic
breakthrough, though no apparent increase in nominal nutrient levels.
Attempts to pull groundwater from the bottom mucks were unsuccessful.
B-16
-------
-17-
Crooked Lake
A lake in two major sections, Crooked Lake has bottom sediments
composed of organic debris and sand. Crooked Lake is notable in that 507.
of its watershed area is residentially developed, with another 327. under
forestation. Most of the north and south shores of upper Crooked Lake
are hilly, with housing sitting well above the water. At the east end
of the upper basin, houses are located close together ("20 ft.) and only
30 ft. back from water's edge. The terrain at this end is quite level
and has a shallower depth to groundwater. Fourteen plume occurrences
were plotted around the entire lake, half being more of the dormant
type leaching without inorganic breakthrough. Neither total phosphorus nor
total nitrogen was notably-high for any of the sample sites. Ground-
water appeared to flow from the northeast which would be consistent with
the plume patterns developed.
Round Lake
Nested close to Crooked Lake, Round Lake has a lower total 'hardness
(44 ppm) and specific conductance (-100 pmho/cm) typical of the smaller
lakes and streams. Swampland appears on the far western shore. Remarkably,
only one solid plume indication was noted (#76, 1403 Rays Court). This
site showed high conductivity (840 jimho/cni) and highest of otherwise very
low nitrate levels. Bacterial contamination was not a problem from the
four sampling stations examined.
-------
-18-
Figures 4a through 4i. Mapping of Dewey, Keeler, Cable, Magician,
Indian, Pipestone, Crooked, and Round Lakes survey along their
complete shorelines. Sample stations for bacteria, well water and
nutrients are shown, using the following symbols:
O
o
O
D
Mutrient sample station
Bacteria sample station
Well water sample station
Dormant groundwater plume
Dormant stream source plume
Erupting groundwater plume
Erupting stream source plume
B-18
-------
-19-
Figure 4a.
-------
-20
Figure 4b.
B-20
-------
-21-
Figure Ac.
B-21
-------
-22-
Figure 4
B-22
-------
-23-
Figure 4e<
c-;
-------
-24-
Figure-
C-24
-------
-25-
O
O
CO
LU
UJ
•>• O
Figure
B-25
-------
-26-
TO UPPER CROOKED LAKE
CROOKED LAKE
-------
-27-
O
O
CD
UJ
LJ
U.
B-27
Figure 4i.
-------
-23-
4.0 NUTRIENT ANALYSES
Completed analyses of the chemical content of 116 samples taken
from the Indian Lake - Sister Lakes region are presented in Table 1.
The samples are grouped by lake area. The numerical sample codes refer
to the shoreline sampling locations as seen on individual area maps
(Figure Aa through 4i ).
The conductivity of the water samples as specific conductance
(^mho/cm) was generated by a portable Horizon Ecology conductivity meter.
Nutrient analyses for total phosphorus (TP), combined nitrate-nitrite
nitrogen (NO^-NO.-N) and ammonia nitrogen were measured on a spectro-
photometrie auto-analyzer by EPA approved methods. Units of measure
are parts-per-raillion (ppm) or milligram per liter (mg/1).
B-28
-------
-29-
{ "
w^ &\
j:
9 a.
r — H
f
O>
CM
0)
5
c
D
O
C
tl
a
JJ
01
•••*
a.
£
5
.^
«
*
•— ' C7-
§ £
-o
C -
a >-
V
/-v .0
O 0
^ -w
u
l«i o
u
a c
3 a
•o eo
C -4
Or\
w
V -rt
002:
a> at
^ .3
ai
<<-> l-i
0 cy
01
01 •*
U C/3
e
*P '
3 01
cn ji
T! -0
£J 0- PM
«n *J m
ejj — o* ey
CMD !> 3 ^ ^
o o o * o
«5 u •"' eg jz
>- o tn
» >. o
— £ E m >,
CO E *H T3
C « • O «
0 W S S W
o^ m »H
r*~j u
ty> »H »H
V V
in r^~ GI o
CO f* ?**) <{• r*j
*^ PS CO
^^cy^r^vHO^c^omr^inNOO
i1^ *>H CS «H (N rH TH «H vH i^ CO in PS *&
oooooooooooooo
p* ^n co
*
• • • •
w
M
^H ^«1 ^^ ^f s^ »-O r^ oO C^
X S .Z
01
01
a
PS eo
*O CJ^
• *
PS
eo o
• •
V
O m
PS iH
T-l
P*l f*1 n CO P*- f*^ P*»
vH v^ P^ O P^ ^"^ *—!
O O O O O O O
pNh ^ PM *& o r** o^
•j^ ^» *ij* QQ ^^ ff^ O>
O O <>• O <& O ^^ 'rt
O O PS O eo O O
in
000000*0
m >n »n m r~ m »H
•
01
^wwocnowc
O ^H es «n
0^
pt-W
w
til
1%
B-29
-------
-30-
3
C
C
O
U
4)
.2
JZ
00
o z
w
V
u a,
03
£4
*,
O.
g
V)
«
e
0
v
u
e
v
o
IM O
T3 O
C — M T5
3 «J »M C
U g « H £ <8 O
ao 5 u « *> « w
J *j a w ao
C JJ "« aj J O C.
moo? £
-< .a v >> «
4 . _ . _ _ . _
<*>&. OOOOOOOOOO OOOO^»f^'OOT-( oo^O«Ny-Tceo
wL _..:.:_" " ' - - - - • - -
2 "^ •«•«.. .....^ ^
&
OOC'»-t»-»Oi-*»-tOiH O«H»-ti-(CNi-(T^O4»HOOOT-*O'-*^ O O C O
«1 O. OOi-HOOOOOOO OOOQOOGOQOCOOOOr-4 OOOO
c __ ^_.^_ o5P5595.popooppoo pppo
CJ
M
u
a
•^
00 ••••*»« v v
a
jtf
a C < a
»-4*^tn \o ^* ayv* 35O^H i—i <"*J en -*T in *O f^« OOO O
—• tl U U
a. j3
e E j so
81 3 3 »5
^J 2
B-30
-------
•»,,- v\--'-;.i^Vf^^>:r^-,;;\vTrA"4%,''r^^-V^*T^'-fe^?-lv^'i-'---:
•r,^•--f••f-v^•p:-:;:'005->J'^^ici^•:;^^i-^
-v.-.,l-^^li:^^!;0'^-..;:f- 7.=„!^5^^v^^g^.°^,..;. :iM-•'-£ ^£
• „ ° t,' '-v 4.
-7;^v^--Yk-£
v>-v?v--r4 CX°;
c\ ' ; "^ / ( \ '••• .• '-, ..-.fi- °-'- : °.
;•:"."-;.' &J:i)\.r'- *J--"':*•£ - .,-'
•- 'CkJT';/'""" -^""""^.""T.r^r.''
^r;/: -%,! /f\:,^-
"y ' - r""^ -. YTW—r-T"'.'.--^--!;' -%|—\™--~-!^ .- • ,-S«*A - 4-J
^
/•/ *fi~.
^:,
T,
-~r.lS!i\
yfA
•'crr': \
';?-7"''-Tir'^';;L7":;rsi-vvfv^fe5S- 4- ^^^^ ^
»/^V'-K^^ ^°r |i ' ^'-'•.- ^^ ••- *
«: ;^.:4-\H •. C;;-^- ^v./>:' • J!
.-•--v\^ •:>•.^^^7^-^?^.^.-Z/'T^T-
LEGEND
PRESSURE SEWER
GRAVITY SEWER
- FORCE MAIN
• LIFT STATION
\ •• /-' -f""~""."--'-" \j ;"•' .-,1 - •- -•" ,
\ / j •..'<— ,„-.;'' V-.. M~~~"J .'•: , . .,- -'. ,.-; all pipes 6'unless
\ i* *'"'" '' " ~ --X.s ". '" :" "." otherwise specified
YVI J il ' W '^'^ . • -
-------
, /=/iA^~#i^^
* '^ - - -X *„.'•_....'."-
o - ''•',"' «" P'P" «'unless
~,'•:• ,, ".v..'~-^jw','r , otherwise specltled
-------
!3
rtP.
Vv^i /CYx- • "-'
l^.-rM, M ^-'C x- ~Y -JVP/^J"^ S -"..1,^'- - -V .. - < '• g '••
' ' C ( " ^ f\ ^ / ;- ,j~^^ ' !.-/•' l x , ••"'
-' •'' ra?*^\ '• t : ^:- 'rfiS -""-'"' '
k j4J-^-W!>- \L5 \ - V'.iTtfjT. ^ .-..XQ,s;-,, „.. v. < ' ..- .
",' .''.~f ^"^f^^-'/r^^'~^r\,"''-•%-'"%,")"' "••"T" •'.'": " r<;
"" v'"""' j^;-r^,^^ -^^Sfc&kj:; ^:^:c^1 ,
; <^ c^\.,.AJ
O- V'« •T'W..
- f i . ( t™v ^"d *•— V >r^ \
-; • •• 's i T Ip^""- - r 7 %? ^f^1^
Ln^r
' PRESSURE SEWER
A CLUSTER DRAIN FIELD
• LIFT STATION
all pipes 6" unless
otherwise specified
mile
0 1
-------
1-^1 —' •». W. I «*"&- 1 '•»i-' b Z IUJ -r ~ -* . . . ,.
^ jiywv 8, '^'"; •"W'.. J> 1 S^-^CrX^'Q
^ -rT^S^^-^^^ffe^'
,RJI =f r.
^ '.Vj-^
A° » nCdTVIl
T-'-KT,\ *W'-i-^w,-)>-"-• .vsfe-*^ r"*:,-' 'T,'-^ssr1
&>EX-«4«5i:p^^--^v^,^
^^ j"'->"^:^^:^3^k^ -'-.r-ir?' ^-'7.^ -..^ ;r^f-
^j jr;.^j ^;||n^-^>i^^^^i^^ ^^§|L -^~
"" - \ -1® -.• CA^ . 1*5- ^v"^~ "^r • •" ^w)^ - • '•""''"'"' K^^^^'' - ^\ -
'- - ___..- - 1 - " S- T\ J-1 ~ - f , | —- , iDa-^ - "" / ' --—' 1 1 "
"" r-*~ H"?"5"5?fe?,^r-^..z-w^ -•..-4-^Jnv fc^^ _»< ---,- -., ^ h
^' '
,^: .rv -
Figure 3-1 Topography and physiography of the study area.
-------
-31-
^
V
3
C
•H
e
o
o
TH
•1
.0
a
H
K
4J
C
OJ
o
o
!•*
To
3
0 Z
J=
a
0)
w o.
to
^
<
a.
^
°<5
z
o
z
z
tC Ck.
z
D*
^^ c£
•S £
*J CL
•
•o
c
o
u
*J
u
6D
^
sa
4) W
*"' 5
1" e
eo 3
to z
0)
3
O <0
J= w
V O
C .H S
« 3 X
^3 £ & ft)
; c -M a, a
\o «N o *o
0* fM rH
f*S if\ "*•
y ^
WD •* O
fsj CO
^H *-< U^ -or^en
^ ^*- O CO "^ ^** 0s ^ iH ^ TH GO O U"l
O«M CN tH
^•^i^eomui^ojno o» r- ^- «M
3 ^ 2 £ 55 £ * ^ M S oo£S
Cs^^
r-» eo eo f. o m rv N o vo r- CM O oo
O O O C^ r"4 TH O *H O O ^"^ ^5 *^ ^
oooooooooo OOIQO
oooooomooo oooo
co fi tf> f*^ <*^ 10 f^i PO »cr c^i c**i p** irt i/*)
• •
0 £
01
.* (8
ffi ^J
•Jwtflutotflwwcotn totocoto
c "
•*H fO P^ f^ ^> fO <**! ^ f^ 4-J r1^ *3"
a, t, 3
m
f»*
1-1
T-t
«>o.
v^
« rt
o eo
O 0
•rH
^i ^ * r> M W
x> «H to c a is
Cu V
ft> C X- XX
M — < U * 60 6C
O C *J X 60 00
JS W *^ O O O
B5 Q (S CS CO CO
tH r-'
v •*
-
V
rH »-l
O O
o *
v *»
U*> TM
O 0
• *
V
0 0
o ao
»-<
ff. 0 CD T« «M
o TH CM
•y
-------
•S
-32-
81
c
3
00
O 2
M
£
4)
)-> fl-
ea
r-'
zo
= c.
— E
5
Cs. M 31 V
jJ « --.
V
O
E 73 .*
O 4) «)
« O
91 C8
as >
00 «,
in
o
V
o
•»
o
o
00
o
CM
o
V
o
r"l
o o
v v
r-lt-tfMtMtneOmm^r-IOflOr-lOtNi-l I-(T-|
-------
-33-
o
u
Ul
o z
te
0)
w eu
ffl
•o
01
c
o
u
£1
<0
H
o 5.
o a
z
I E
.3- a
— E
to c.
*•> CL
£
•o
c
o
CJ
60
JC
ffi
ai
E c
a 3
w z
•c
c
c
•o
•. 1-
E —
eg c
s *
•!-(
0000
O r* ft rt O
PM O <-< rH •>»
O O © O IN
«o eo
O O <~«J r*
o o o o
O O 1-1 O
^H 1H CX »-(
fn -a- o o o
«s) O O CM «3-
T-I TH n »-i oo
to
O c/5 C5
•c
c
=1
o
K.
C
4)
bj
5-33
-------
5.0 NUTRIENT RELATIONSHIPS
By the use of a few calculations, the characteristics of wastewater
plumes can be described. First, a general background groundwater con-
centration for conductivity and nutrients is determined. The concentration
of nutrients found in a plume is then compared to the background and to
municipal wastewater effluent from the lake region to determine
the percent breakthrough of phosphorus and nitrogen to the lake water.
Because the wellpoint sampler does not always intercept the center of
the plume, the nutrient content of the groundwater plume is always
partially diluted by surrounding ambient background groundwater or
seeping lakewater concentrations. In an attempt to correct for the
sampling uncertainty in pinpointing the peak of the groundwater plume,
the nutrient concentrations of the sampled plume are corrected to a
concentration proportional to adjustment of plume conductivity to the
level of undiluted municipal effluent. (Recall section 1.1.1 explained
that effluent-saturated soils will likely pass 1007. conductivity of any
newly-charged effluent.) The percentage of location-corrected nutrient
concentration to raw municipal effluent nutrient levels is referred to
as "nutrient breakthrough."
B-34
-------
-35-
For the difference between background (C ) and observed (C.) values:
C. - C = AC. conductivity
101 }
TF. - TP = ATP. total phosphorus
10 i K
TN. - TN = ATN. total nitrogen (here, sun of NO.-N and NH.-N)
For attenuation during soil passage:
/AC A ATP.
100 xl"T7— ) = 7. breakthrough of phosphorus
^ i ' ~ ef
/AC A ATN.
100 x(———J -—— = 7. breakthrough of nitrogen
Vi ^ ^ ef
where: C = conductivity of background groundwater (lamho/ctn
C. = conductivity of sampled plume groundwater (pmho/cm)
C , = conductivity of sand-filtered effluent minus the
conductivity of background (well) water (|umho/cm)
TF = total phosphorus in background groundwater (ppn)
TP. = total phosphorus of sampled plume ground (ppm)
TP . = total phosphorus concentration of standard effluent (pptr.)
TN = total nitrogen content of background (well) groundwater,
here calculated as NO -N -1- NH.-N (ppm)
TN. * total nitrogen content of sampled plume groundwater,
1 here calculated as NO -N + NH^-N (ppn)
TN , = total nitrogen content of standard effluent (ppm)
TN and TP are considered insignificantly small compared to TP ,
and TN .
B-35
-------
-36-
5.1 Assumed Vastewater Characteristics
r
Samples of effluent were taken fron the designated "secondary
treatment" sampling station in the new Qovagiac Municipal Sewage Plant.
This plant has tertiary treatment capability and it is important to
mention that phosphorus removal is likely carried out at several stages
in the process: i.e., a sizeable percentage of total phosphorus (T?)
is removed prior to the "secondary" stage and-«-98" of phosphorus is
removed following tertiary treatment. This would be a reasonable
explanation for the low total phosphorus (.385 ppn) found in our
sewage sample. Characteristics of the effluent formed the basis of
comparison for all sampled plunes in the Indian Lake - Sister Lakes
study area. A conductance : total phosphorus : total nitrogen ratio
of 600:3:15 was used. Please note the substitution, for purposes of
comparison, of 3 ppm for TP; this is the expected value of sand-filtered
effluent as opposed to the phosphorus depleted level of .88 ppm in this
case of tertiary-CreaCad affluent.
5.2 Assumed Background Levels
One or more background pair samples were taken from each lake shore.
Background levels of surface water conductivity, total phosphorus and
total nitrogen were derived from lake center samples. Likewise,
background levels of conductivity, total phosphorus and total nitrogen
for grour.dwater were derived judgementa lly from consideration of local
well water and background station samples. The common value chosen was:
conductivity, 360 jumho/cm; T?, .010 ppm; TM, .15 ppm. The 360 jueiho/on
value best fit the four largest lakes (Magician, Crooked, Pipes tone and
Indian), whereas the smaller lakas had 3. much lower background conductivity,
on the order of 5C-100 umho/cm.
B-36
-------
-37-
5.3 Attenuation of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Compounds
Complex soil conditions including marl and muck bottoms typical of
the Indian Lake - Sister Lakes group make evaluation of nutrient break-
through somewhat difficult. Some patterns do emerge. On heavily-vegetated
Pipestone Lake where reducing conditions must certainly exist in the
organic bottom and elevated nutrients in the free water, we find that
8 of 14 (577.) surface samples taken exceed .015 ppm TP, whereas on all
other lakes only 107. of surface samples exceed this value. Also, 21 of
30 cases of elevated groundwater conductivity were not accompanied by
any detectable breakthrough of total phosphorus.
High nitrate (>1.0 ppm) occurred only on Magician Lake, while
high ammonia nitrogen (1-30 ppm) was found more frequently on several
lakes. Major transporters of nutrient loading appear to derive more
from surface runoff streams (such as at Pipestone Lake) than froo the
low frequency of observed groundwater plumes.
B-37
-------
-33-
6.0 COLIFORH LEVELS IN SURFACE WATERS
A series of water samples from around the different lakes was
analyzed for fecal coliform count to confirm the presence of surface
runoff or soil short-circuiting from malfunctioning septic systems. The
membrane filter colifom count indicates the density of coliform
organisms. Since these organisms may be of intestinal origin and are
numerous in sewage, high numbers are indicative of sewage pollution with
its possible hazards to public health through the potential presence of
pathogenic organisms. Here, the fecal coliform count was used as a more
specific test of recent sewage pollution.
Historical bacteria data is limited to Dowagiac River, Pipestone
Creek, and Crooked Lake, the two streams having documented high fecal
counts and Crooked Lake not showing any problem.. In this survey, we
obtained four to seven bacteria samples from each of the six major lakes,
and two from outlying Keeler lake.
We found significant fecal coliform contamination only in Pipestone
Lake. Sample B32 (7600 colonies/100 ml water) was drawn from a 4" drain
pipe flowing into Pipestone Lake from a lot along the cottage-lined
northern lobe of the lake. Sample 333 (<100 colonies/100 ml water), also
taken from a drain pipe in the northern lobe, is only an estimate as it
was too debris-laden for an accurate count. All other sampling stations
at the various lakes registered less than 75 colonies/100 ml water,
B-33
-------
-39-
indicating no particular bacterial problems inside the lake at this
time (autunn) of the year. The canals surrounded by housing units on
Magician, Dewey, Indian, and Crooked Lakes snowed only safe levels
of fecal bacterial activity. See Table 2 for specific values.
Berrien County Health Department laboratory provided the bacterial
analysis.
B-39
-------
-40-
Table 2. Bacterial content of shoreline water samples of Indian
Lake - Sister Lakes, Wisconsin.
Fecal Colifom
Lake Station No/100 ml
Magician Lake
Dewey Lake
Cable Lake
Indian Lake
Round Lake
Crooked Lake
Pipestone Lake
Ke e L e r La ke
31
B2
33
B4
B5
36
B7
B8
B9
BIO
Bll
B12
313
314
B15
B16
B26
B27
328
B29
317
B21
324
B25
318
319
B20
B22
323
330
831
332
333
334
335
B36
337
338
62
22
12
60
19
28
0
6
10
4
4
2
75
25
12
9
0
11
26
0
25
1
0
3
1
8
17
14
47
0
50
7,600
100
3
0
20
4
2
Location
Middle of Canal #1
End of Canal #2
Beginning of Canal #2
Mouth of Big Canal
Middle of north shore
Camp - northeast shore
Pipe - northwest shore
North comer
West shore
Canal - southeast shore
Swamp - southeast comer
Northeast corner
Near swamp - northwest corner
#20 Love Lane
Cove - Highland Drive
Canal - southwest shore
Near #313 Lakeview Ave.
3' stream - Lakeviev Ave.
#33.341 Lakeview Ave.
Near -1-327 Lakeview Ave.
Sister Lakes Rd.
#1319 Mariner Lane
#1403 Rays Court
Madison Ave. - South corner
>>3107 Lakeview Court
#2022 Victory Shore Dr.
#2306 Lakeshore Dr.
Canal - east end of lake
#2215 Lakeshore Dr.
South end Bass Isl. Prk. Dr.
Pipe - 1980 Sass Isl. Prk. Dr.
Pipe - 1st house N. of steimle's
Drain pipe - Tennisson's house
Drain pipe - Potter's house
Drain pipe - 3768 Lakeview
'^8760 Lakeview
Fire Lane - east shore
Swarapy area - west shore
B-40
-------
-41-
7.0 GROUN'DVATEP. FLOT PATTERNS
Precipitation provides the primary supply to groundwater aquifers
in Cass, Van Buren and Berrien Counties surrounding the lakes study
area. Percolation and down-gradient transmission of this groundwater
through the glacial drift provides the basic recharge for Indian Lake
and the Sister Lakes. Only Indian Lake? Magician Lake and Pipestone
Lake have significant surface outflows. Surface inflows for the lake
group are confined to very low volume streamlets and drain tiles.
Saturated wetlands surrounding many of the lakes must also facilitate
groundwater movement through the lake boundaries.
To look for relationships between plume breakout frequency and
TM
localized groundwater flow patterns, we employed the Dowser ', a
groundwater flow instrument (K-V Associates, Inc.). This device is
raost effective in shallow saturated soil of uniform grain and porosity
(fine sands to fine gravel), but can also generate useful directional
indications, if less precise, in coarser, non-homogeneous soils. In
digging our test holes, we encountered a wide variety of difficult
conditions around the eight lake shorelines. While a veneer of uniform
medium beach sand was prevalent around such lakes as Dewey, Indian,
Crooked, Magician and Round, the frequently-encountered underlying coarse
gravel and stone soil composition there added to the variability of
the results. Flow restrictive muck, marl, and clay layers are typically
less easy to interpret vectorally; such tight soils were common around
portions of Magician and Pipestone, yielding several undecipherable
slow flow indications.
B-41
-------
-42-
Figure 5 gives an overview of specific flow determinations around
the various lake perimeters. Groucdwatar direction is generally .
into the lakes along northern and eastern shores, correlating well
with plume densities seen along Indian, Crooked, and Pipestone Lakes.
See Table 3 for details of individual site vectors.
B-42
-------
-43-
KEELER
FIRESTONE
ROUND
N
--2 FPD
INDIAN
Figure 5. Groundvater flow vectors.
B-43
-------
-44-
Table 3. Observed rates of groundwater flow in Indian Lake and Sisters
Lake, Michigan
Station
DEVEY
1
2
3
4
5
Keeler
6
7
8
9
Cable
10
11
12
13
14
Magician
15
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Pipes tone
16
17
18
19
20
21
Location
Shady Shores
£31916
Ashcraft - Hancock
At Point of Noah Shore
South of Sleepy Hollow
ENE Shore
Haskin
S3E Shore
Oak Pts. subdivision-#2
Lawn below wooded hill
S.Z. Shore
44294
£50229 Park Rd.
#32475 Wildwood
£4514 Cable Lake Rd.
S.W. end
£31500 S. Lakeshore Dr.
£31290 Currans Beach
Cobbens
Rainbow Park
£50317 Lake Shore Drive
£31339
East of Blue Fin Marina
East end
East end
£8970 'Hamilton Dr.
£8830
Skibbe Dr.
South end of 3ass Island
Park Drive
£2030
South east end
Flow
Direction
250° W
213° SW
41° NE
233° SW
305° NW
287° W
273° V
218° SW
213° SW
Flow Rate F?D
8.5
3
5
7.5
3.5
6
7.5
5
3
213° SW
244° W
248° W
303° NW
297° W
354° N
165° S
346° M
18° N
59° NE
84° E
-
.
34° NE
342° N
215° SW
262° W
331° N
6
5
5.5
4
5
5.5
5.5
4
10
5
4.5
No Flow
No Flow
2
7.5
5
1
5.5
115° E
75° E
1.5
No Flow
1.5
B-44
-------
-45-
Table 2. (Continued)
Station
Indian
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Upper Crooked
32
33
34
35
Lower Crooked
36
37
38
39
Round
44
45
46
56
57
Location
Flow
Direction
Washington Rd.
Golf Course
South end
South of canal - West
shore
#33203 Lakeviev Ave.
East of Schusters
North shore - east of
road section
Yacht club
Forest Beach Rd.
N of #685 Forest Beach Rd,
R 6 Box 514
Near #2019 Victory Shore Dr.
#2310
#2699
Schroeder
#50077 Sister Lakes Rd.
#32826 Haley Rd.
House, north end of
Wildwood Br.
#1403 Clark
Center of South Shore
130° SE
109° E
207° 5
245° W
290° N
313° N
242° W
318° NW
292° W
245°W
93° E
258° W
323° W
257° W
356° N
282° V
222° SW
280° W
171C
79C
North of swamp - west shore 39
South west corner
North of "The Wharf" 9°
NE
92° E
N
Flow Rate FPD
7
8
3.5
6
3.5
3
5
3.5
3.5
5
2.5
6
5.5
5
6
6
6
4
3.5
4
2.5
4
B-45
-------
-46-
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
A continuous septic leachate survey was conducted in the autumn
of 1979 along the shorelines of Indian Lake, Crooked Lake, Magician
Lake, Dewey Lake, Cable Lake, Keeler Lake, Pipestone Lake and Round
Lake, all located in southwestern Michigan. The following conclusions
were drawn from the shoreline profiles, fluorescence scans, nutrient
and inorganic analyses of surface and groundwater samples, and ground-
water flow measurements:
1) A total of 47 locations exhibited noticeable erupting effluent
plume characteristics, specifically occurring on Crooked Lake, Magician
Lake, Indian Lake and Pipestone Lake. The other (smaller) lakeshores
had far fewer potential point source problem sites and had water quality
more resembling that of wetlands influence.
2) At least 16 of the principal plumes are associated with stream
inlets, with 12 such inputs on Pipestone Lake alone. Plume occurrence
was predominantly along northern shores, corresponding quite well with
observed groundwater flow intrusion.
3) Fecal coliform bacterial contamination has not reached a level
of major concern with the possible exception of levels found in Pipestone
Lake. Of 33 locations sampled around the eight lakes, only one (a
drainpipe on Pipestone Lake) exceeded 75 colonies/100 ml of water.
B-46
-------
-47-
4) Nutrient levels were lower as a group than might be expected for
lakes with anticipated water quality problems. A total of 115 discrete
water samples were analyzed: 84Z of the samples showed KO. values <.100 ppm
(727. of the higher readings occurred at Magician Lake); 907. of the samples
did not exceed .040 ppm TP, the maximum being .883 ppm.
Consistently high ammonia (>1 ppm - reducing conditions) appeared
only on Pipestone Lake. Residential areas showing plume problems and
beset with high groundwater include the north shores of Magician and
Pipestone and more elevated areas of the southwestern corner of Magician
Lake a"nd the western shore of Indian Lake.
B-47
-------
REFERENCES
Larson, G., 1979. Affected environment. Preliminary draft chapter or
the Indian Lake - Sister Lakes environmental statement. WAPORA, Inc.
LRPC, 1977. Discussion of nutrient retention coefficients, Draft Report
6F2 from Phase II Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, Lakes
Region Planning Commission, Meredith, New Hampshire.
B-48
-------
-49-
APP2NDIX
B-49
-------
o
LU
B-50
-------
%
-2
-^:
™
^,
o IQ 20 30 40- ~uo: ""
""" "
r'i
, po-90 — 30
, 5^irv^rt
•- - — ~^~xr-
^
r^
3^i
-£I-C .
•
_____
I
O
B-51
o
44-^>
-r—->-.;
4— d
T-Sl
4^!
-------
l«>^-
*- ^
=5-^C«
'
, r -
t
— o
«
JOO
U i' TV
-------
! I i 'I ' i i I . "* . 1.
i;
-K-C
-c;
-O j
-C i
/
-i i-;
-—fc
t
O
JOO
JOO «-
t
o
B-53
cc*» Do cr i */1"
port 3
-------
,_
, 0 - 10 — 2*i_._30 —
SO — 7C - 80 — 90-100 —
oeq, .
J •
s : =
100 90 80 70 68^50 40 * '-0— 50 10 ~ 0 -_-,
, - . - .-.,- -- _ - ->
.J
15"
,-*
/
»
;. — o
-?=&,
+3
. |!
iO
i
100«
o--
-V
' I
1 ' ' 1 . 1 1
i 1 1 ' 1 i
' 1 •! 1 1 '
i i ' i : •
•iii \ -wi
• : : • • ji •"
: .<•
'•
T-=
\_ „
I
o
-Wil_cS
1 '
i u
B-54
-------
\
5 1 1 "^-«-__, .
1
}
' i
}
)
)
)
, 1
11 — '-'- ". " ' L"^~ ^_-^«~--— ——.—««-.™-
L_ — ; ^ ,_jtrr_ — , — ^
' "^*— • — £-*- • • 1
,..,,-,•...-,.—.—„,-.-, J.^^... .>...!.. —-.-^.^— . 1 , ., |. .
-y*= , — 1
> t
O
1
23232
3o~.to::r3o~ai~io~o
I
O
O
/ ^
1
too
sfrWfit.
r |
-b'
ftl-C
-•:
-«>
t°!T
—«
I—°
-«-o
O
i—o
-ff-0
i <
.400 lOO <=-
OF
-t-Sl-O
4*.;
-4—0.1
. n "
T-t-i-QS
_>^ I
I
O
B-55
-------
\\
\
\
1
CD
LJ
CO
B-56
-------
J >
a • t
10^10
O
•t-C
-------
C- .. 10 2(£— 30 40 50 60 70 SO 90~10C
J '
3 ;
-=
100-90 80-£70 " 60'" 50 ' «C~ 33- 20^^
0 10 20=3So-,-40 $0 "6C 70 'ISO 90 = 100
, - -!! - L — , ----
5£
i
|OO
--*<
.-_. j
~o
-B-"C
- _
pan-
B-58
CO*JDOCTI ^ ITS*
-T-7'C
-O.
» v» i y
-------
J
(0
- - - -- ,
, 0~-10.— !<$ JO '40 '.SO o3 70 20' 90 Z 1 00
s :
a
i
CS
T^'i
4~C:
-aiiC
•a
Cj
T
-^-c
i~V B~59
3
48-0 l
3
-------
t
•8 :
, 0 10 - 2
-------
— ?o — 30 — wioo
3 100^30 3QZ^T^:^3p~£0~.40^l3a™20— tO^^IO
I ~ "~ ,'-'
a -
-d
-t-<2:
c
'
-ji-O
-r—C'
1 '(
«-C
pax-t 5
i
»oo
i TV
B-61
-------
B-62
-------
J
I
=*• - *
.3.
0 ""30 .150 70. 3Q"°"M~IOO — ,
* ZS ](
••=
. =3
— --0 — 30 — 30 —
' — -—
Jb— 10 - !)
-
-i—ca
ifcZ:
(mo
IOO
C
c
~ r\
I'
c-
OJ
B~e:
-------
100 90- 80 7trS^50" 50 40 3C 20 10"" 0 -|
/°V
X..
- _ - . —.---. ,
0 10 20 30 — ).
, HC
1: • ! r I i i i • i . : ;••
100-90 80 — 7o;2D 50 «r~30 20 1C 0
I
o
I
o
6e^
J— Cj
1
100 * -
COMDUC-Ti U i T V
B-64
-------
o—30—20
EiE
3~tQO
^ U.^^====~^.
-i* • ••OfafcCfeQ-'-CK-^Q8--'-
t
O
-•,
c!
•S-C
C:
1 , , I
-Oi
-o.
-r—C
100
i vJ < TV
por-t 3
-------
B-66
-------
J
2.
I L
, 100^90-, — 30^7
~ 10 ' Q
j
, — - .^ - , -
o io~2oc:3Q « ;o so — 70:^30 — so-ioo mm
i
o
t
ICO
i 'i i i. -i i ;:
rf -
]- I.-1. ,..l"-|...| EV|
I I
-«•
jis '• -i j -i rr I [ i
I I ! '! -i " fe'-i.
i • T • i "i i I
• ' _L ••' 11
*
O
fl
i
!J -
'-*
Ccm£XX.T» N/ i TV
part I
B-67
-------
f:
* - '
100" 90"' 80 70" 60 " SO"" 40 '30 ~ 20-
633. .
3 -
c~ ic~ ?o rr 30 ~«p=i&eT56e—7C~ so ~ 90-100
O —
i V-.
- :."-,.-"..fui
. | -|:,:.Mv;!::"n:!;UJ|,:t|lM,C
Udo!
ifo\\
i i .! 1
i«2o
-------
o~io:z203::30~40~jo~M~70~.3Ci—w-100
«
-
,., I!" i. i 'if 4- .>
IM
. ^-M~M^^—w~!a^w^3Q^2o—w^ii _, ' '|' -j- -p _'-y ..."H-/-'
„
O
\/
Jol
100 *-
3^men,t C?
| ;. I l!-Hr|.,'.pn>'Ul Jl
1 ' ' !. '!^ : ':"'ir-.'r» I
,
it"'
(00
i * L.
q—ci
TS-C:
—ci1
_
•• gf
-
0
B-69
-------
100:90— 8i7c~6c:r:5C—.;c:~3c:::::;;:rr-,3rr
-> 100
7
1 'I "tr ('" ^,"1" j U "if'^
I1-.
r*t4
: i i '•!, q_
J V -I-- if.
.
f"i t-.ft;.i'.-i:-'v-u
''•I '! yMM 'b
1 ^si^ 1
L
i i
1) • U
4O3
ICO ^-
ff
i O^T-
E±J F^ *
B-70
-------
. 1wr90—303^70—W—50^*0^30—20—10—0 ,
44 30 SO 70 ^Z SO ~Z TO -100 .
-^p
lOo
par-fc
'«-M » • '*—* > • I
I ' t ' • •! '\ H''
if >
,
^r^^q*'!!^!''^ '1'^rjyU
B-71 too
CO*jCOCTtc?i TV
-------
',0
o~40—so—60—7C—»o—go-loo
100
ID
I I > .. ' 1
i ' i;, ,b
IT" t'V
^O
T& Ji 1
" '
-N*
-i—
i ryr^;i!r^»'U
" -'I''"! ':'l'"'b !'!**f<;- U
.r-'-vt-
•i "i.i .!•'"'-':' /er
ii- j:..;r''i!;^i:H-":i";i.;-i^l:^
I I •iu..iM»t.'ii-Ml 'r'M^u
,j I .
i^l'.,
VU
'(>- -u
CC3»oCXJClT» U i T V
1
o
B-72
-------
100— Maorz7o^ryiz—50^1
s^
i
O
• '
:d
X < .!('
[§•! .i i..i TT
! •! ! kr!"-«Jo
! -.| j r .l-N'-l'l ! ^.-.'L
I _M M^r;*!... I ! I . u
T ! i i' I ' "U, i !•-L^
|'J_1;.J.:^I |H-t;
T I-
frrr-i-'O:
^^0
-u.;^
KDO-*
B-73
— o
iTY
-zi-O
•: .' i "«
i VI .
LiJii
MUR
" '' " '
i
jOO
7
-------
vJ
n
_£
r
. -
0 if 20 3C ^0 "50 .60 "-7 3.': HO WiTl
.ir
* - ...^, - ~. ., IV
— -P5- " P ^:'[":-":: ...~^r^u
-
100 90 80^70 60 50 .40. ~y. -'X-'- «0- 0 -
n inzr?r.5:3ozr*on50i^:6u™7i..r^i&nr wr-ioo
6 —• —— , x
,0
IJ>
jy^ma
<^—^f\
•iyir^gn
-Ub
—»-(0:
—HO!
4-^0
,-^!o:
| »_>>*-' VJ±-t' I i . i"*
i" >,.>r i ••;-••'•
-•• ,
•
•is i
'c~7"
£
'*
-^rnw
i
•e-C
-tO
-o
^
.
c
I!
Is ,
-o
'1 I I i ' • M , i .
LftHE
pcu-t
B-74
-------
-%
Vs
=« : f ''. 'K; !•' L*.<-Ki" {:- -| ".Ca i r
.--» • ifrH—i—i •" ,!•• i. i—t—"TT.'-'S i •.
; i )-:J.. •!•' *" !•• tfr^i /• ''. U- 11
^tts^^Ezz^.
"K i^:'l'"^t
100-9(VS:30 — 70 — 50~30~40~CO—20— 10™3
*[>' > ,
part-
I
O
i <
JOO ICO -fc-
cc«oou
-------
U— *>U >U *U 3£> 20—- 1C—-Q <
% I
IS "
\r
<^"
A>
17
prr 10^20^^30 — 40^:soz:sorrjprzso:r_9oriop cJ
ionror,2:Rn"
\
,
''> , J
y ^ji'"^''-.'^::!' ;V-:i'LP'
—• .5 4- TT i4r • rr-. ».»r
0
IS
•HO|
4oi
•i-w-cf
.A, i'••, ?'
j , ;• ;| ";. .pi-
<,>icj3
i.;' 1 1 1
tr ID
B-76
-------
-JP"
; 100-90 — 30 — 70. — 30 — 10 — M — 30-^=
,~|
**S i
Po 1
%;
H -
t
•nn_anl3»ndTnz^:Rnz^^nn:inrz:*-nzrr3n^;iflZ^ia
I J
-5»iCXD
1 I
Lj-J
!•' I |
Si
•CM
-
,
U
B-77
-------
UJ
0)
cvi
o
UJ
UJ
0)
o
UJ
I/)
UJ
UJ
2
o
H
U)
UJ
Q.
B-78
-------
-W 30 50 "73 30
"
J =
3 ' BE
**• « §£
cd
3 iooz 90 ~3o ~TOnso::z5055*a~30^— zc — to^a
-1 --
4aj
t
0^1^ 'o^n 20 r^: 30 ~ 40 ^TCQIZ 50^: 70:1:30—90 -100
I
o
-:«-«»
«jl:
",';).'.:••::.!-"!]. '» -I-1 i" 1 '"i1 1 1
-4
,K,k.|;f.-t!-jr::-!.: J
;fc-f
ij. i./II»«\U>T.;'!.-"''_ ; • [ tti~ ,
li,.-:f"..i -\""i '"[• 7." ' ""1 H
LftkLH
B-79
-------
.-'OMC
c
•-"---'-''
-io
{....•U-ll'-i.,!.. •••x\».\ •( '! D|
,,,,.,,.-,,,, -
n-C •
I
100
1
O
Cow tX) CTi u»
.;„
'
,-
-o
COIOl>OC.Ti
pcu-t
B-80
-------
riTorrsa—jo—io—30—2o:=ior=:o
I
O
—
J- IT"
-5-O
J „ ,
( I"
i-
m+4-«
Ho
I "' »"'
i . O
par-fc 3
B-81
-------
- .„ ....„
r JJJS-BO — SO — TO — BO 50 «~ : ; • , -'-0
-
- --
-* .— • — — -j
7 -m
- -
or^to 20 30 « so
•• .; m
0 — SO — 7C - 60
too
- '! "i '.I.' • i.l,
- _:,!...,! .'L:.L '
=!l 'l~'hi".| • -1 '
—i—-apj
•'".-^/jcj
1' ''' -b i
s.i - -!
""**"- r
nj t r"i!-iH.'H'..'. •;*'
-TlO -j.-.L —T ."•; , !—;—i—i—r—
UHOJ i^.iM-r^-i-'ZT
•
O
B-82
-------
A
r i
je=
u 100- SD - HO - /O-^oO - 50 -- 40 - 30— 2
<=5
SB
- - - - _ — .
. 0^1^40 20 30 — 40 JO S0~~70 30~"?0-100
^
;
'— o
.,. - . -
7 T T , ~~ , ~). f'
j^KM!::Mi k i' I vt Ki
•T H.'-jn.. H !"/. Mul
te:
; C ri ..•!:• 1 -1 !-!.#!>
'
^egwie/i-t- T
H I LIT I, I I I' <;j^
£' 1. J
i i n
lOCUfc-
'
- 0
i
0
o
soo
B-83
±,r::..!,
'.
O
v; i ry
-------
C 10^20 30 40 50' 60"~7')~ 80 -. SOrl
o jc 20^10 4r BO ~eo 70 - gor~9o:..ioc'
t
O
-^
|O
i i i i \:
• IO
' '
r
-r^-P.
o
! i ; i ; • • •
j_ — J- _u •_
"
'i -1
,, , r-i ,
-
M i
0
'i?t">inM",^4';KJM-'»i*H.r,i.;
Hj.'«^''!"i'i- ii'-l.. "'.::. ;;,
cr V
PfPESTOKJH
LAKH
!HU-5«.... , ].->•: .-I- ./
'" jr''T"!lH |,i. 1 "I ! ..... .' ^
B-84
-------
' •'
^
<3
\r
•••^
/'
\a
• ..,.
a \^ — «=> i-
^=
-9-.?
T *fr • T7
, KU k • I' :i' "l':''m
r1''/ '|...j...':r ,
. 1
" . c
l-.7V?:i :.|..||.-
L.ifcjJ'
fcr'l .XJ i 7
,.r|"r'MH'-|..r
-------
B-86
-------
B-87
-------
j
c
:•£•
JO"
-'! r"'b
•i ^
B-88
-------
' -^
100-90 — 30—70 — 50 — JO-~J^_JO™!0-- '.
*• r'v> ; iji!i:!i'*)i !; i'l'Urt'l^-L
-
::''-'!!"-!'' V-H;.U
ui.jit; ;:, >• f II: '-U
r<3
-fTMC
'40 — jo — ;o — ;a — a
li
-3
t
tOO
•
O
O.r
, Oi-K.
1 '&I
-"Oi
o
! 1
*'Jf>S
;f-iiTH.:M'-i' 'Vi *"" L
.
f
o
CCW DOCTTi »J i TV
fori 3
-------
%
\
100-90 S0^70 60 50 - O 30 20 10 - 0
O
,
1
31
e=>
^3 ;
f-P
•^-l-O
1 1 J f*
•! 1 ( ' i-
-1' i '!* i T"
, -,
< -1 \
li/L
I .i '•'! 'I i '! "! ' V..S
""-.I1
ix i ]
-rO I
'
100<*
I
O
•
one-
I
O
pai-t H
B-90
-------
—'SS—.30 —40 —50-^40—7
^m
•15
., ! ri--1.1 !-;J..-T */
CCWO«JCT i U i
I
o
«
loo
LAK.B
C£3«V> DOCTIW i T^f
B-91
-------
6*
II
10
11
ioor so—sod 7ozz 60:
ii,,H
1 •
'
-IWo
o
'- f"
•—I
-~l _
fCXJTi
•i-ic;
HO'
t
o
<™
iL.
-' .1
i
B-92
-------
B-93
-------
%
100r 50 '" 80:570 60 50 ' • 40 "130- -20--- 10 -0 — j
f
50 — 50T70" — 30 — 30~TOO j
I
o
1
B-94
A/
"
d!
=1
S-3
3'
L5ojnipJe'
/•-
1--
<
o
-------
I
o
9-d -
JOO-* -«-'
COIO CXXL.T1 tf I TV
B-95
100 «6-
part
»
0-
u i -r y
-------
rrzr_rr=3'
£
100 50 Jfc 70 60 50 4iC__3( . -20~~W --- 0 )Cj
. - -~ - - : — ---- -^««-«. w«~
-^««-«.
'
•
O
100
01--;:
-*-~
S-D
O
4*-
~i
O
(upper)
B-96
-------
... _ --
:9az:aflSr7Q—ao—acz^Q^rao—20— lo^nq J3L,
_—i——— .._?=^rr"rr- ; _:—zrT-zrr ^
-00-90—30 0_oO_^.0_iO 0_2a— ,0 0
too
s
•3-
-3.
»» 8-
-ZI-C
/
.— o
COAt DoCTtV IT Y
B-97
-0 •
I
-------
SEG 1
SEG
CROOKED LAKE
(.LOWER)
B-98
-------
:.S.; •-._—?<——-~————--~
._... , —-
prr: 10^2030. MMiior^Torr 3o zzaor ico
I
o
JOO
I
100
T".»»"V r
i
o
part
«
o
B-99
-------
ZIZ60—so—4Q— :ci^io—•,;—-o
rr; 10 in 20 fc 30—*o=se ™. 50.:"»'.. ~,>; ~ 7. j.: ."•_ ^3 r too I5*-1
Of=-
^. j *^
-H— :>'
«-£-;
loo
COWDOCT7 U
part:
B-100
-------
B-101
-------
100^90 8iJ
- . -- = ---- :—:—
iJ^>70 SO 50 40 30 20 10^""
IS
£
C
- 0 10 . , 20>f~3C 40— "M-~SC: TO SO »~100!
O^6wq/M|CS
i • '
£r
100 <
I
O
u i
ouiuD
por-t I
B-102
S 5 d '
100 «r-
1 T «t*
-------
H '
! .!'• !••
i.. i:
'Ii
-U-C
t-C^
-e-c
-d?
-9-a,
j—o?
COM DOCTl v i T S*
^
B-103
•C il
1 (l
i i ; !
T * • i. „
J : i ! 1
ir1 !' i 1
f: ;
1 , J
1 I3,
ill ' \
•i WI
^H~c
-s-C '
-------
APPENDIX C
ESTIMATED ON-SITE SYSTEMS TO BE UPGRADED
UNDER ALTERNATIVES 8A, 88, AND 9
-------
•METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATION OF ON-SITE SYSTEMS TO BE UPGRADED UNDER
ALTERNATIVES 8A, 8B, AND 9
w
1. The number of on-site systems to be upgraded initially was estimated
based on the concept of "probable failure" during the planning period.
These were estimated from similarity of site limitations and system
design to those that have been replaced. Additionally, dry wells would
be replaced by drain beds on those parcels where it is feasible. Systems
that currently do not meet Co.de requirements, particularly distance from
a water body were assumed to be upgraded in a manner consistent with the
Code where it is feasible. The primary site constraints considered were
depth to water table especially because the soils in these areas marl and
organic soil material is often encountered.
2. Another consideration in estimating the number of systems to be upgraded
was that, while conventional, typical systems were designed and costed, a
significant number of unusual systems that are higher cost would be re-
quired. Rather than attempting to design and cost a large number of
unique systems, the number of systems was increased to cover the anti-
cipated additional costs. Typical systems that would result in addi-
tional cost include, but are not limited to the following:
o additional excavation of marl, organic soil or fine-textured soil
and sand backfill for placement of soil absorption systems
• hand labor for construction of system where access for equipment is
limited because of proximity to structures or steep slopes
• pipeline costs for lengths that greatly exceed the estimated lengths
• purchase of property or easements for soil absorption systems where
constructed off-site
• dewatering costs where excavation must take place within the water
table
C-l
-------
• blackwater holding tanks with associated plumbing changes on parcels
that require off-site treatment that are not presently identified
(Alternatives 8A and 8B)
• holding tanks for all household wastewater where site conditions are
severely limiting for a greywater disposal systems
• on-site systems for commercial establishments that have signifi-
cantly greater waste flows than residences do.
3. The number of on-site systems to be upgraded during the planning period
after the initial upgrades was based on probable likelihood of failures.
Where site constraints were greatest, a higher proportion of future
replacements was estimated. Another consideration was the likelihood
that seasonal to permanent occupancy shifts would require more future
replacements. Age of the systems was considered a factor in replacements
also. Those systems that were constructed prior to 1970 were estimated
to have a higher percentage of replacements than those constructed subse-
quent to 1970.
4. Because future upgrades are not grant-eligible, the on-site systems that
may be questionable were assumed to be "replaced in the initial effort.
5. The Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Amendments of 1981
specifies that the design engineer be involved with the project for a
year and certify that the project is operating as designed. For this
reason, it is likely that a design engineer would tend to be conservative
when deciding whether to upgrade a particular system. Accordingly, the
number of system upgrades was estimated conservatively.
2
C-2
-------
|W N-.
i-n^wN*1— -Q^OS-J <7>"~ui -ft" K- M W fs* *» ™
*? ^
•——_
O CJ
iir «r
C*i>k-J'-*xJO3^;O**Juj3SO'— V Vt N)
K-85-saasBsas s=s
W W M — hJH-h-SJMNII— *- ™. M
W ^-NJNJO ON vi w. VI
OOUiQunuiijiQviuiGOC? O<^tn
V»ujViVi-»jmC3*-jv»viv-s)V O vi m
vJlJlVOO03U*WU)V*V"WW* VlOvi
NJ^jC3Qv»v»V*Lnvvit''>>viO w is) Vi
M*
•virvj«wv»OViViViviOwVU> w un '•/"
VVlOVlOvl.nwtVlfsiONIw^W N) C VI
C^ujOOv^^^viOOOi-** C^1-* £*f«JOH
V— t_— »^(™>t»-l NJ !— * t— i n_. |_jj •.
viwiKj-jviavi-*j-*-j vi.^j v» o o o o
viOQwruj SJNJVI
•^JNjOuJVICOO'^'v^VIVlVlWl VlC3V>
OO-iOM^Ul^MUlOW-J >- M «1
LnO^OOv^Jwiu^OLtONJK) Ot^wi
_ _ ~.
^jr>^wv*viviOi^~^OO^'^t^ fv) vi ti"
9
ta
""
J^
n
r»
p,
X
r*
Futur
a
H
s
r
EC
n
c-
s.
1
tp
ft
&
W
to
h-
w
re
o-
^
n
*^
!
?
§
K
2L
03
c^
O
cs
«?
=.
fc
™
S3
ft
e.
s:
JH
?i
*:
CD
Z
H
O
i
1
m »
ft ra
"S "2.
rT ft
?
w.
f! TJ
n tu
a.
"O
a C
rr
a Si
a «
03 i-s
n f
a. J
o
£
+• ^
!
'B S
*7 fD
n- <
o
^
SI
3
f I
h— K
a.
"0
r*
•f
""" M
» -g
ft c
™
•*
r-
rr
"3
3
"3
r-H
^
E
•3
*^
O
a.
c
g
(Tf
c:
•a
c.
ro
35
£.
f
"5
n
^v
3
VI
H
P
cr
fV\
0
1
PT «
=r w
fD rt
P-
*Q 3
L J K
» PT
H ro
3 CL
H*
3 cr
OQ H
ro
•o w
ro ,-v
r-! ft,
H- O
O £
a. 3
i-h O
O m
O
I> 3
h— ' (
rt w
rt> H-
3 (B
is
rr co
uis Vi
p** ^^
< W
fE rr
(B
03 3
> w
03 rt
3 0
a.
cr
oo ro
cs
* c
T)
TO
i-t
O.
ro
a,
c.
c
^
3
00
C-3
-------
C-4
~~ - L*" s
5 c
b i
r- r
fc rt
09
(— w _ « to .» N; Ki — — *— N- K)
S^S.SSSSBKSoeS S=S
*-hJtoi— rs) u. — *- to cJ
OSUnWiOw-»jN)*-OCDLflQ3^jLfiO OC^«^j
N_ t—
0>O^AO*»JKjwGOb>'C£''O«C'*O to, O v
u> *-K)u»i»j'**^-»"'.*-ff'ro»-' K) *»ts)tn
LJ w
OOltCfi^nk/tV^OW^criOONjO O *«J Of
t» M K> M M »• ta* W> *• _ ,_
UnOwiOWCflt"t"N)WlN)L''^'O*~ OONJ
KJ l^ ; i— i fs> K> UJ ^" W K) KJ KJ kpM^^>_<
Mt»«>— KJ^W- — ••' L-J h^
w, Nl fo«J w< 0 u. ^ - u. u. u.0 00 00^
K^rsluiW)UiOO^^rov>ii/i^OMk/i WfOLn
_ _
C
-
X
T
^
I
7
M-
|T
Cft
a»
o
••
^.
re5
^
i
_
ft
*
H
3
CB
D
J*
2L
-
e
(t
c.
CB
ft
C-
o
J
<—
**
CB
R>
£
^-
|
r
re
£
D
3
ce
C
C
ft
£•
CB
c.
c
te
[-.
er
c.
r
i
J
"
-
0.
1
1
1
-
s
r
"
*»
9S
r/
5
^
W 50
"ri "2.
fr ft
re
c
D
3
•fl
J El
fT
•f
C 50
•^ ^
D H-
f- O)
3 re
^ r"
_ ^
it ?+
a" "a
S.E
c
X
£
+ "
I
CA
if C
n
w
a
•c
4§
+
% tv
f- 03
a.
•f r*
~ ^
lj
•=
_
<<
r-
•v
4
_
^
^
"
«
s.
n
•r.
C
n
n
$
X
&
it
D
a.
z
n
C
a
rr
B
t&
Co
cr
t—
K,
|
ho
rr K
3- a
ro rr
H-
&! n
3 ro
3 D.
s cr
ro n
ro
•O CD
ro ?r
i-i a
H- 0
O £
a. 3
Hi 0
O Ml
p^
o
> 3
M 1
rt to
ro H.
i-l rr
3 ro
rt en
H- ^<
< V.
ro rr
vj 3
• CO
O
cr
c
•a
00
^t
(u
a
ro
a.
(X
c
Jl
OQ
-------
APPENDIX D
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVES
-------
COST METHODOLOGY
L. Costs for the conventional gravity sewer system were determined from
published cost data. The general layout of the system outlined in the
Facilities Plan was used. The sizes of the sewers were not changed
because design flows used in this study were not significantly different.
Costs represented were updated to June 1981 price levels.
2. Costs forthe pressure sewer system and on-site system components were
either obtained from the local contractors or from the published cost
data. All costs were updated to June 1981 price levels.
3. Costs for materials, construction, and O&M were updated to June 1981
price levels. Construction costs for treatment units and sewers were
based on USEPA indexes for Detroit of 416.9 (STP) and 223 (CUSS),
respectively. The Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index of
3,560 for June 1981 also was used.
4t Salvage values were determined using straight-line depreciation for a
planning period of 20 years. The service life of land was considered to
appreciate by 3 percent. The service, life of structures, including
buildings, concrete process units, etc., was assumed to be 40 years. The
service life of conveyance pipelines was assumed to be 50 years. The
service life of process and auxiliary equipment such as clarifier
mechanisms, standby generators, pumps, electric mdtors, etc. is assumed
to be 20 years.
5. Capital costs were based on construction costs plus a service factor for
engineering, administration, legal and contingencies (Table ).
6. Present worth of salvage value, O&M costs, and average annual equivalent
costs were determined for 20 years using a discount rate of 7.625%.
7. Present worth of salvage values was determined using a single payment
present worth factor of 0.2300 (Salvage value x 0.2300 = present worth of
salvage).
n-1
-------
8. Present worth of O&M costs were determined using a uniform or equal
payment series factor of 10.0983 (average annual O&M cost x 10.0983 -
present worth of O&M) .
9. Average annual equivalent costs were determined usng a capital recovery
factor of 0.0990 (total present worth x 0.0990 = average annual equiva-
lent cost) .
D-2
-------
References to cost tables
The relation of the various
follows:
Alternative 2
• Collection System -
• Conveyance
• Treatment
Alternative 3
• Collection System
• Conveyance
• Treatment
Alternative 4
• Collection System
• Conveyance
• Treatment
Alternative 5A
• Collection System
• Conveynace
• Treatment
Alternative 5B
• Collection System
cost tables to each alternative is as
Summary - Table D-l
Details of collection
thru D-l9
Table D-58
Tables D-64 and D-67
Summary - Table D-l
Details of collection
thru D-l9
Table D-59
Table D-73
- Tables D-2
- Tables D-2
Summary - Table D-l
Details of collection
D-19
Table D-60
Table D-70
Summary - Table D-l
Details of collection
thru D-19
Table D-61
Table D-70
Summary - Table D-20
Details of collection
thru D-38
- Table D-2 thru
- Tables D-2
- Tables D-21
D-3
-------
• Conveyance
• Trea tment
Alternative 6
• Collection System
• Conveyance
• Treatment
Alternative 7
• Collection system
• Conveyance
• Treatment
Alternative 8A
• Collection system
and clusters
• Oa-site Systems
• Administration and
laboratory
Alternative 8B
• Collection system
and clusters
* On-site systems
• Administration and
laboratory
Alternative 9
• On-Site Systems
• Administration
and laboratory
- Tables D-2
Table D-61
Table D-70
Summary - Table D-l
Details of collection
thru D-l9
Table D-62
Tables D67 and D-75
Summary - Table D-l
Details of collection
thru D-l9
Table D-63
Table D-74
Summary - Table D-76
Details of collection and cluster -
Tables D-77 thru D-92
Tables D-93 thru D-108
Table D-l45
- Tables D-2
Summary - Table D-l09
Details of collecton and
cluster - Tables DUO thru D-125
Tables D-93 thru D-108
Table D-l45
Summary - Table D-l26
Details of on-site system
D-127 thru D-144.
Table D-145
- Tables
D-4
-------
C
a
«i
vO
A
A
»»
CO
CU
•H
4-1
r
CD
r-i
)-i
n
ortion f<
a,
•H
4-1
o
0)
o
o
cu
j_j
o
>f costs
£.
4J
o
>*
C
0)
en
>-,
C
u
3
CO
r-i
1
0)
W
S-l
00
cu
o
en
co
C
«
i
i
(7
>
w
^
J.
iH
&.
(5
^
U
L.
m
»n
f-4
m
CTi
m
n
o
^
<5
e
(3
^
•^
g
ec
m
*r
C-
>c
M-v
r*,
C1
§
^
vT
X
O
*T
g.
s
eo
0\
r2
f^
CN
vO
ri
g
ec
=_
r*.
m
\£
m
C*
n
^
ec
fN
0
m
^
CC
PM
s
iri
0
s
rg
C5
^
CO
(N
rs
r*
CC
f-1
r^ -"• r^j m
in r* j- fs
r",
^ i i t
ec ill
c>
r"
i** III
>C til
-
R ' ' '
a
O III
•tf-
•C1 III
f>j
til
— 111
O
£ K R S
^n ^ CT\ EN
eo r-» m (N
-3- tf*l ^4 f"»
co ec r* —
CM
>c M-.O'~
0"o>^-,Cr-,o-a-'n'nr,
3*;*»SS**S**
sro^.*o-r«N^^»
R
V
•S
11
— *
w
§£^
— —
^ ^2
0= O
— wo
ri 0 «
U*l 1C
-- CD »-
S ° "
S 5 *
£;:£
i:ss
2SS
2^g
ss s
T nj
-------
Table D-2. Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #1 Indian Lake.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2" 3,230
2%" 5,875
3" 2,470
4" 4,350
6" 1,900
Service connections
STE pump 214
Septic tank
upgrade 219
replace 44
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer 18
Septic tank + STE pump 18
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
3,428
143
750
55
4,128
54,910
101,931
44,954
84,825
42,560
733,592
31,317
33,000
1,127,089
394,481
1,521,570
990
74,304
75,294
3,765
$ 32,946
61,158
26,972
50,895
25,536
220,078
18,790
9,900
446,275
—
— —
594
22,291
22,885
—
$ 61
111
47
83
36
13,482
2,190
440
16,450
—
— - •
^— m
1,314
1,314
66
n-6
-------
Table D-3. Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #2 Indian Lake.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
2*5"
3"
4"
Service connections
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + STE pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
700
3,200
2,250
2,650
$
17.
17.
18.
19.
00
35
20
50
$
11,
55,
40,
51,
900
520
950
675
$
7
33
24
31
,140
,312
,570
,005
$
13
61
43
50
92
71
24
3,428
143
750
315,376
10,153
18,000
503,574
176,251
679,825
94,613 5,796
6,092
10,800
710
240
207,532 6,913
22
22
55
4,128
1,210
90,816
92,026
4,601
726
27,245
27,971
—
—
1,606
1,606
80
D-7
-------
Table D-4._ Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #3 Indian Lake. :,
I ten
Quantity Uniti Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
2V
4"
6"
Service connection
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + STE pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
920
3,850
3,660
5,740
$
17.
17.
19.
22.
00
35
50
40
$
15,
66,
71,
128,
640
797
370
576
$
9
40
42
77
,384
,078
,822
,146
$
17
73
69
109
178
134
45
3,428
143
750
610,184
19,162
33,750
945,479
330,918
1,276,397
183,055 11,214
11,497
20,250
1,340
450
384,232 13,272
27
27
55
4,128
1,485
111,456
112,941
5,647
891
33,437
34,328
—
—
1,971
1,971
99
D-8
-------
Table D-5. Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #2 Pipestone Lake.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
3"
Service connections
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
700
7,530
29
$ 17.00 $ 11,900
18.20 137,046
3,428
99,412
$ 7,140 $ 13
82,228 143
29,824 1,827
21
8
143
750
3,003
6,000
257,361
90,076
347,437
1,802
3,600
124,594
— ,
—
210
80
2,273
__
—
D-9
-------
Table D-6. Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #3 Pipestone Lake.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
2V
3"
4"
Lift station
#4 40 gpm TDH-126 ft
Force main, individual trench
3"
Service connections
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
250
450
700
1,900
$
17.
17.
18.
19.
00
35
20
50
$
4,
7,
12,
37,
250
807
740
050
$
2
4
7
22
,550
,684
,644
,230
$
5
8
13
36
6,150
37
14.15
3,428
30,900
87,022
126,836
9,270 1,530
52,213
38,051 2,331
28
10
143
750
4,004
7,500
318,109
111,338
429,447
2,402
4,500
143,544
280
100
4,267
D-10
-------
Table D-7. Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #1 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
2h"
3"
4"
Service connections
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + STE pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connections cost
1
2
3
800
,800
,050
,550
$ 17.
17.
18.
19.
00
35
20
50
$
13,
31,
37,
69,
600
230
310
225
$
8,
18,
22,
41,
160
738
386
535
$
15
34
39
67
108
98
16
21
21
3,428
143
750
55
4,128
370,224
14,014
12,000
547,603
191,661
739,264
1,155
86,688
87,843
4,392
111,067 6,804
8,408
7,200
980
160
217,494 8,099
693
26,006 1,533
26,699 1,533
77
D-ll
-------
Table D-8. Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #4 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
2*5"
3"
STE gravity sewer pipe
4"
6"
8"
Lift station
#6 110 gpm TDH-77 ft
Force main, common trench
4"
Force main, individual trench
4"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Septic tank + STE pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
2,200
2,400
2,200
450
1,500
1,900
1,500
300
48
75
99
24
29
6
23
$ 17.00
17.35
18.20
35.30
37.00
38.90
6.50
14.90
1,577
3,428
143
750
55
2,277
4,128
$ 37,400
41,640
40,040
15,885
55,500
73,910
93,800
9,750
4,470
75,696
257,100
14,157
18,000
737,348
258,072
995,420
1,595
13,662
94,944
110,201
5,510
$ 22,440
24,984
24,024
9,531
33,300
44,346
28,140
5,850
2,682
45,418
77,130
8,494
10,800
337,139
957
8,197
28,483
37,637
$ 42
46
42
17
57
72
2,088
—
—
4,725
990
240
8,319
60
1,679
1,739
87
D-12
-------
Table D-9. Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #5 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
2k"
3"
4"
STE gravity sewer pipe
6"
10"
Lift station
#8 309 gpm TDH-63 ft
Force main, common trench
6"
Force main, individual trench'
6"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Septic tank + STE pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
1,650
2,150
6,920
1,850
1,200
1,450
2,150
1,600
42
207
210
55
21
4
17
$ 17.00
17.35
18.20
19.50
37.00
41.80
8.80
17.75
1,577
3,428
143
750
55
2,277
4,128
$ 28,050
37,302
125,944
36,075
44,400
60,610
189,400
18,920
28,400
66,234
709,596
30,030
41,250
1,416,211
495,674
1,911,885
1,155
9,108
70,176
80,439
4,022
$ 16,830
22,381
75,566
21,645
26,640
36,366
56,820
11,352
17,040
39,740
212,879
18,018
24,750
580,027
693
5,465
21,053
27,211
$ 31
41
131
35
46
55
2,871
__
__
13,041
2,100
5,500
23,851
40
1,241
1,281
64
D-13
-------
Table D-10.
Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #6 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2" 2,950
2*1" 2,500
3" 850
STE gravity sewer pipe
4" 11,150
6" 1,100
8" 1,000
10" 2,000
Lift station
#11 145 gpta TDH-36 ft
#12 510 gpm TDH-53 ft
Force main, common trench
6" 1,050
8" 300
Force main, individual trench
8" 2,850
Service connection
gravity 171
STE pump 61
Septic tank
upgrade 193
replace 44
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer 30
Septic tank + gravity 20
Septic tank + STE pump 10
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
$ 17.00
17.35
18.20
35.30
37.00
38.90
41.80
8.80
12.50
22,10
1,577
3,428
143
750
55
2,277
4,128
$ 50,150
43,375
15,470
393,595
40,700
38,900
83,600
93,800
293,000
9,240
3,750
62,985
269,667
209,108
27,599
33,000
1,667,939
583,779
2,251,718
1,650
45,540
41,280
88,470
4,423
$ 30,090
26,025
9,282
236,157
24,420
23,340
50,160
28,140
87,900
5,544
2,250
37,791
161,800
62,732
16,559
19,800
821,990
990
27,324
12,384
39,708
$ 56
47
16
424
42
38
76
2,004
3,436
—
—
3,843
1,930
440
12,352
200
730
930
46
D-14
-------
Tablfe D-ll.
Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #7 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
3"
4"
3
2
900
,270
,120
$ 17.
18.
19.
00
20
50
$
15,
59,
41,
300
514
340
$
9
36
24
,180
,708
,804
$
17
62
40
Service connection
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + STE pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
82
75
12
3,428
143
750
281,096
10,725
9,000
416,975
145,941
562,916
84,329 5,166
6,435
5,400
750
120
165,856 6,155
10
10
55
4,128
550
41,280
41,830
2,091
330
12,384
12,714
—
—
730
730
36
D-15
-------
Table D-12.
Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District //8 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2" 1,750 $ 17.00
2%" 5,750 17.35
3" 2,270 18.20
4" 2,710 19.50
STE gravity sewer pipe
4" 200 35.30
6" 1,650 37.00
Service connection
gravity 8 1,577
STE pump 140 3,428
Septic tank
upgrade 131 143
replace 17 750
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer . 32 "55
Septic tank + gravity 3 2,277
Septic tank + STE pump 29 4,128
Subtotal"future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
i 29,750
99,762
41,314
52,845
7,060
61,050
12,616
479,920
18,733
12,750
815,800
285,530
1,101,330
1,760
6,831
119,712
128,303
6,415
$ 17,850
59,857
24,788
31,707
4,236
36,630
7,570
143,976
112,398
7,650
446,662
—
— —
1,056
4,099
35,914
41,069
—
$ 33
109
43
52
8
63
„
8,820
1,310
170
10,608
__
— —
„
30
2,117
2,147
107
D-16
-------
Table D-13. Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #9 Sister Lakes.
I Earn
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
surfi sewer
1,800
3,500
5,580
$ 17.35
18.20
19.50
31,230 $ 18,738 $ 34
63,700 38,220 66
108,810 65,286 106
a r, onnccf, ion
192
fjf-.p '::',c tank
?jpgr°da
Subtotal initial cost
SarvJcfi factor (35%)
Pubtotzl :liiif,.-ial capital cost
?u^nr« cr;n.neci:ions cost
Build .lag sewer
Sp.pMs tsr.k + STE pump
f>u:. r.of.al future connection cost
al ruture connection cost
3,428
658,176
197,453 12,096
163
44
27
27
143
750
55
4,128
23,309
33,000
918,225
321,379
1,239,604
1,485
111,456
112,941
5,647
13,985
195800
353,482
—
— •—
891
33,437
34,328
—
1,630
440
14,372
—
"• ***"
«._
1,971
1,971
99
D-17
-------
Table D-14.
Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #10 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2V
3"
4"
Service connection
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + STE pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Snnual future connection cost
1,450
4,300
4,450
$
17.
18.
19.
35
20
50
$
25,
78,
86,
157
260
775
$
15,
46,
52,
094
956
065
$
27
82
84
118
110
33
3,428
143
750
404,504
15,730
24,750
635,176
222,312
857,488
121,351 7,434
9,438
14,850
1,100
330
259,754 9,057
27
27
55
4,128
1,485
111,456
112,941
5,647
891
33,437
34,328
—
—
1,971
1,971
99
D-18
-------
TabIt D-15.
Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #11 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
24"
3"
6"
Service connection
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + STE pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
500
400
1,250
7,100
$ 17.00
17.35
18.20
22.40
$ 8,500
6,940
22,750
159,040
124
108
38
3,428
143
750
425,072
15,444
28,500
666,246
233,186
899,432
9
9
55
4,128
495
37,152
37,647
1,882
5,100
4,164
13,650
95,424
9,266
17,100
297
11,146
11,443
9
8
24
135
127,522 7,812
1,080
380
272,226 9,448
657
657
33
D-19
-------
Table D-16.
Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #12 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
STE pressure sewer pipe
2Ji" 1,850
3" 5,200
4" 100
STE gravity sewer pipe
6" 600
Service connection
gravity 2
STE pump 70
Septic tank
upgrade 60
replace 21
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer 10
Septic tank + gravity 2
Septic tank + STE pump 8
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
$ 17.35
18.20
19.50
37.00
1,577
3,428
143
750
55
2,277
4,128
$ 32,097
94,640
1,950
22,200
3,154
239,960
8,580
15 , 750
418,331
146,416
564,747
550
4,554
33,024
38,128
1,906
$ 19,258
56 , 784
1,170
13,320
1,892
71,988
5,148
9,450
179,010
330
2,732
9,907
12,969
O&M
35
99
2
23
4,410
600
210
5,379
20
584
604
30
D-20
-------
Table D-17.
Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #13 Sister Lakes.
Quality Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
2V
3"
4"
6"
STE gravity sewer pipe
6"
8"
12"
15"
18"
Lift station
#23 270 gpm TDH-25 ft
#25 950 gpm TDH-66 ft
Force main, common trench
6"
8"
Force main, individual trench
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Septic tank -I- STE pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
1,650
2,550
2,830
1,200
2,550
850
2,500
800
700
2,350
750
4,000
$ 17.00
17.35
18.20
19.50
22.40
37.00
38.90
45.00
51.55
60.40
8.80
12.50
$ 28,050
44,242
51,506
23,400
57,120
31,450
97,250
36,000
36,085
141,940
141,000
384,000
6,600
50,000
$ 16,830
26,545
30,904
14,040
34,272
18,870
58,350
21,600
21,651
85,164
42,300
115,200
3,960
30,000
$ 31
48
54
23
48
32
95
30
27
89
2,234
4,704
„
—
800
32
104
112
43
32
6
26
22.10
1,577
3,428
143
750
55
2,277
4,128
17,680
50,464
356,512
16,016
32,250
1,601,565
560,548
2,162,113
1,760
13,662
107,328
122,750
6,137
10,608
30,278
106,954 6,552
9,610 1,120
19,350 430
696,486 15,517
1,056
8,197
32,198
41,451
60
1,898
1,958
98
D-21
-------
Table D-18. Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #14 Sister Lakes.
•*
Item Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2**" 450 $ 17.35 $ 7,807 $ 4,684 $ 9
3" 3,300 18.20 60,060 36,036 63
Service connection
STE pump 30 3,428 102,840 30,852 1,890
Septic tank
' upgrade 27 143 3,861 2,317 270
replace 7 750 5,250 3,150 70
Subtotal initial cost 179,818 77,039 2,302
Service factor (35%) 62,936
Subtotal initial capital cost 242,754
Future connections cost
Building sewer 3 55 165 99
Septic tank + STE pump 3 4,128 12,384 3,715 219
Subtotal future connection cost 12,549 3,814 219
Annual future connection cost 627 — 11
D-22
-------
Table D-19.
Quantities and costs of septic tank effluent pressure sewers for
District #15 Sister Lakes.
Item
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
3"
/.11
STE gravity sewer pipe
18"
Service connection
gravity
STS pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Septic tank + STE pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
1,350
3,000
7,000
3,800
1,000
4
131
148
32
29
1
28
$ 17.00
17.35
18.20
19.50
60.40
1,577
3,428
143
750
55
2,277
4,128
$ 22,950
52,050
127,400
74,100
60,400
6,308
449,068
21,164
24,000
837,440
293,104
1,130,544
1,595
2,277
115,584
119,456
5,973
$ 13,770
31 , 230
76,440
44,460
36,240
3,785
134,720
12,698
14,400
367,743
—
— —
957
1,366
34,675
36,998
—
$ 26
57
133
72
38
„,„,
8,253
1,480
320
10,379
—
_»
r
10
2,044
2,054
103
D-23
-------
-! tr.
— C
b-
ill
Jv.
"ss
^ CD CK
sis
L - "**
K»«
LJ NJ
O C^ w
fei — w
Wl N» Ibfl
1 1 t
1 1 1
W N)
O cri K)
^C kJ VJ
OD -~J
1 1 1
! 1 1
Si —
W OB *
fs; "•
— -HJ *
IS!
r!£! IE !
- L i? E -
L .. |5 r t
r. ir- r.
~ ~ r~ r i° r~ r~ ~ ir. . ~
-.wsu>S?;~-g.Sx. SK_ -g»K.
SgS^SSfeSSggS 2SS S«S£
IsslKsssSSsi Ss§ sis=
•^ V w V \f « U •„, » o a b o '- OB - V V »
SIcSsisSsSSS Is§ SSSt
KJ tsJK)K>K)*-'K)l— £-ta-w-*-
• .V. . • . • II] ..*»
1 1 ( 1 1 1 < 1 1 t 1 1 111 1 1 t 1
1 } 1 I 1 1 i 1 1 1 ( t til 11)1
u; tOhJWW^NS*- £*•>-<*•»»—
ruOvSCDUiLnOsDODsS'^^ c^^w"^
• Ill ....
-»J^)xj(— 'J^^-UJ^WNJO^O f~»^QD^9
1 1 1 t 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 | 1
1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 I t 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1
S S 2£ S *" S S S & £ S ' ' ' wS^K
SioSSSssrgS^S ^S§ S2^S
£S55=SSas*§§ 5SS l*!s
(5
^
tn
t
<
1C
tn
u
w
D
0
*
rr
D)
Cousin
S
w
7
age Annual OUi Constn
r.
p>
s
w
V
<
D
D
O
fr-
IZ
?
to
H
C
rt
01
•5
X
C
•t)
*i
ft
V
ffi
rt
1
s-
>
c
H
o
&>
iT
o
I
ft
t>
•B
re
w
3
rt
?
n
rt
=r
5"
i^
c
fi
0
tr.
rt
?
C
H
n
n
o
n
r.
rt
t*.
O
3
ft
e
K;
C"
t— '
rt
c
i
to
O
Sumina
conve
rt •<
D 3
Eti P
I—1
•B
resent
gravity
worth o
sewers
§o
en
(t rt
CO
vO O
1— '
rt
n =r
o (t
co
rt O
CO O
V^- (-1
• ^
ection p
ortion for Alter
7
rt
H-
(D
CE
1
D-24
-------
Table D-21.
Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #1 Indian Lake.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Sewer pipe
Lift station
in 15 gpm TDH-45 ft
#8 57 gpm TDH-40 ft
#9 115 gpm TDH-47 ft
#10 172 gpm TDH-51 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
4"
6"
Force main, individual trench
2"
4"
6"
Wye
Service connection
House lead
gravity
grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Wye
Service connection
House lead, gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
17,910 $ 44.00 $ 788,040 $472,824 $ 1,343
700
250
700
330
300
1,300
263
263
260
3
4.60
6.50
8.80
13.00
14.90
17.75
205
500
1,160
3,660
12,750
54,000
93,800
93,800
3,220
1,625
6,160
4,290
4,470
23,075
53,915
131,500
301,600
10,980
3,825
16 , 200
28,140
28,140
1,932
975
3,696
2,574
2,682
13,845
32,349
78,900
180,960
3,294
1,767
2,129
2,629
2,716
—
—
—
—
300
263
18
18
18
50
205
500
1,160
13,150
1,596,375
431,021
2,027,396
3,690
9,000
20,880
33,570
1,679
870,336 10,884
2,214
5,400
12,528
20,142
D-25
-------
Table D-22. Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #2 Indian Lake.
•v
Item Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
Sewer pipe
8" 8,700 $ 44.00 $328,800 $197,280 $ 652
Lift station
#6 28 gpm TDH-69 ft 30,900 9,270 1,910
#5 41 gpm TDH-50 ft 30,900 9,270 1,913
#4 77 gpm TDH-75 ft 54,000 16,200 2,219
Force main, common trench
2" 950 4.60 4,370 2,622
3" 1,420 5,75 8,165 4,899
Force main, individual trench
2" .250 13.00 3,250 1,950
Wye 95 - 205 19,475 11,685 —
Service connections 95 500 47,500 28,500
House lead
gravity 90 1,160 104,400 62,640
grinder pump 5 3,660 18,300 5,490 500
Septic tank abandonment 95 "50 4,750
Subtotal initial cost 654,810 349,806 7,194
Service factor (27%) 176,799
Subtotal initial capital cost 831,609
Future connections cost
Wye 12 205 2,460 1,476
Service connection 12 500 6,000 3,600
House lead, gravity 12 1,160 13,920 8,352
Subtotal future connection cost 22,380 13,428 —
Annual future connection cost 1,119 — —
D-26
-------
Ta'ble D-23. Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #3 Indian Lake.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
Sewer pipe
8"
Lift station
#3 126 gpm TDH-80 ft
#2 144 gpm TDH-42 ft
Force main, common trench
4"
Wye
Service connections
House lead
gravity
grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Wye
Service connection
House lead, gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
13,290
$ 44.00 $ 584,760 $350,856 $ 997
1,350
179
179
170
9
179
19
19
19
6.50
205
500
1,160
3,660
50
205
500
1,160
93,800
93,800
8,775
36,695
89,500
197,200
32,940
8,950
1,146,420
309,533
1,455,953
3,895
9,500
22,040
35,435
1,772
56,280
56,280
5,265
22,017
53,700
118,320
9,882
—
672,600
2,337
5,700
13,224
21,261
900
7,292
D-27
-------
Table D-24. Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #2 Pipestone Lake.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Sewer pipe
8"
Lift station
#P3 17 gpm TDH-63 ft
Force main, individual trench
2"
Wye
Service connection
House lead
gravity
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
2,510
5,280
29
29
29
29
$ 44.00 $ 110,440
12,750
13.00
205
500
1,160
50
68,640
5,945
14,500
33,640
1,450
247,365
66,788
. 314,153
$ 66,264 $ 188
3,825 1,778
41,184
3,567
8,700
20,184
143,724 1,966
D-28
-------
Table D-25. Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #3 Pipestone Lake.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Sewer pipe
8"
Lift station
#P2 28 gpm TDH-50 ft
#P1 40 gpm TDH-118 ft
#P4 40 gpm TDH-54 ft
Force main, common trench
3"
Force main, individual trench
3"
Wye
Service connection
House lead
gravity
grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
3,510
1,175
38
$ 44.00 $ 154,440 $ 92,664 $ 263
5.75
50
30,900
30,900
30,900
6,756
1,900
460,808
124,418
585,226
9,270 1,896
9,270 1,981
9,270 1,915
4,054
8
,950
38
38
35
3
14
1,
3,
.15
205
500
160
660
126
7
19
40
10
,642
,790
,000
,600
,980
75
4
11
24
3
,985
,674
,400
,360
,294
300
244,241 6,355
D-29
-------
Table D-26. Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #1 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Sewer pipe
8" 7,810
Lift station
#1 15 gpm TDH-75 ft
#2 15 gpm TDH-45 ft
#3 59 gpm TDH-25 ft
#4 75 gpm TDH-30 ft
#5 86 gpm TDH-25 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
3"
Force main, individual trench
3"
Wye
Service connection
House lead
gravity
grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment 114
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Wye 21
Service connection 21
House lead, gravity 21
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
$44.00 $ .343,640 $206,184 $ 586
1,700
1,950
400
114
114
102
12
4.60
5.75
14.15
205
500
1,160
3,360
12,750
12,750
54,000
54,000
54,000
7,820
11,212
5,660
23,370
57,000
118,320
40,320
3,825
3,825
16,200
16,200
16,200
4,692
6,727
3,396
14,022
34,200
70,992
12,096
1,779
1,767
2,108
2,128
2,125
—
—
—
—
1,200
50
205
500
1,160
5,700
800,542
216,146
1,817,230
4,305
10,500
24,360
39,165
1,958
408,559 11,693
2,583
6,300
14,616
23,499
D-30
-------
Tabl-e D-27. Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #4 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Sewer pipe
8"
Lift station
#7 25 gpm TDH-20 ft
#6 140 gpm TDH-90 ft
#8 20 gpm TDH-20 ft
#9 185 gpm TDH-18 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
4"
Force main, individual trench
2"
Wye
Service connection
House lead
gravity
grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Wye
Service connection
House lead, gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
10,090
$ 44.00 $ 443,960 $266,376 $ 757
700
2,380
150
123
123
117
6
123
29
29
29
4.60
6.50
13.00
205
500
1,160
3,660
50
205
500
1,160
30,900
93,800
12,750
93,800
3,220
15,470
1,950
25,215
61,500
135,720
21,960
6,150
946,395
255,527
1,201,922
5,945
14,500
33,640
54,085
2,704
9,270
28,140
3,825
28,140
1,932
9,282
1,170
15,129
36,900
. 81,432
6,588
__
488,184
3,567
8,700
20 , 184
32,451
1,873
2,814
1 , 760
2,576
—
—
—
600
—
10,380
___
D-3.1
-------
Table D-28.
Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #5 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Sewar pipe
8"
Lift station
#10 12 gpm TDH-15 ft
#11 40 gpm TDH-25 ft
#12 255 gpm TDH-30 ft
#13 315 gpm TDH-35 ft
#15 17 gpm TDH-25 ft
#16 27 gpm TDH-35 ft
#17 370 gpm TDH-20 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
3"
6"
Force main, individual trench
2"
6"
Wye
Service connection
House lead
gravity
grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Wye
Service connection
House lead, gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
14,470
$ 44.00 $ 636,680 $328,008 $ 1,085
1,000
850
1,950
300
500
265
265
•244
21
4.60
5.75
8.80
13.00
17.75
205
500
1,160
3,660
12,750
30 , 900
141,000
189,400
12,750
30 , 900
189,400
4,600
4,887
17,160
3,900
8,875
54,325
132,500
283,040
76,860
3,825
9,270
42,300
56,820
3,825
9,270
56,820
2,760
2,932
10,296
2,340
5,325
32,596
79,500
169,824
23,058
1,755
1,886
2,937
3,444
1,761
1,884
3,350
w_
—
-~ — — —
^
—
—
—
„
2,100
265
21
21
21
50
205
500
1,160
13,250
1,843,177
497,658
2,340,835
4,305
10,500
24,360
39,165
1,958
838,768 20,202
2,583
6,300
14,616
23,499
D-12
-------
Table D-29.
Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #6 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Sewer pipe
8"
10"
Lift station
#18 18 gpm TDE-25 ft
#19 30 gpm TDH-35 ft
#20 70 gpm IDH-30 ft
#21 77 gpm TDH-20 ft
#22 510 gpm TDH-55 ft
Force sain, common trench
2"
4"
6"
Force pain, individual trench •
6"
Wye
Serviea connection
House lead
gravity
grinder puaip
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Wye
Sex-vice connection
House lead, gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
19,400
1,740
1,030
600
300
2,850
237
237
222
15
$ 44.00
47.20
4.60
6.50
8.80
17.75
205
500
1,160
3,660
$ 853,600
82,128
12 , 750
30,900
54,000
54,000
293,000
4,738
3,900
2,640
50,587
48,585
118,500
257,520
54,900
$ 512,160
49,277
3,825
9,270
16 , 200
16,200
87,900
2,843
2,340
1,584
30,352
29,151
71,100
154,512
16,470
$ 1,455
130
1,761
1,887
2,124
2,110
4,372
—
—
—
—
1,500
237
30
30
30
50
205
500
1,160
11,850
1,933,598
522,071
2,455,669
6,150
15,000
34,800
55,950
2,797
1,003,184 15,339
3,690
9,000
20,880
33,570
D-33
-------
table D-30.
Item
8"
Lift stations
12 gpm TDH-37 ft
#24 38 gpm TDH-30 ft
#25 58 gpm IDH-40 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
3'"
Force main, individual trench
in
Service connection
Bouse lead
gravity
grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Wye
Service connection
House lead, gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
44.00 $237,160
$142,296
O&M
404
400
1,250
250
87
87
74
13
87
10
10
10
4.60
5.75
14.15
205
500
1,160
3,660
50
205
500
1,160
12,750
30,900
54,000
1,840
7,188
3,537
17,835
43,500
85,840
47,580
4,350
546,480
147,550
694,030
2,050
5,000
11,600
18,650
932
3,825
9,270
16,200
1,104
4,312
2,122
10,701
26 ,100
51,504
14,274
281,708
1,230
3,000
6,960
11,190
1,761
1,889
2,130
—
VB^B
—
1,300
7,484
—
D-34
-------
Table D-31. Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #8 Sister Lakes.
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Sawer pipe
8" " 14,410
Lift station
114 10 gpm TDH-30 ft
#26 26 gpm TDH-35 ft
#27 130 gpm TDH-35 ft
#29 12 gpm TDH-15 ft
#28 190 gpm TDH-30 ft
Force main, common trench
^n
A
3"
4"
Force main, individual trench
2"
3"
4"
Wye
Service connection
House lead
gravity
grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment 148
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Wye 32
Service connection 32
House lead, gravity 32
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
$ 44.00 $ 634,040 $380,424 $ 1,081
1,650
520
550
150
150
850
148
148
131
17
4.60
5.75
6.50
13.00
14.15
14.90
205
500
1,160
3,660
12,750
30,900
93,800
12,750
93,800
7,590
2,990
3,575
1,950
2,122
12,665
30 , 340
74,000
151,960
62,220
3,825
9,270
28,140
3,825
28,140
4,554
1,794
2,145
1,170
1,273
7,599
18,204
44,400
91,176
18,666
1,758
1,899
2,496
1,755
2,637
«_
.._
™™.
i»«»
w»w-
1,700
50
205
500
1,160
7,400
1,234,852
333,410
1,568,262
6,560
16,000
37,120
59,680
2,984
644,605 13,326
3,936
9,600
22,272
35,808
D-35
-------
Table D-32.
Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #9 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Sewer pipe
8" 11,380
Lift station
#30 14 gpm TDH-25 ft
#31 45 gpm TDK-30 ft
#32 77 gpm TDH-28 ft
#33 86 gpm TDH-25 ft
#34 118 gpm TDH-44 ft
#35 18 gpm TDH-40 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
3"
4"
Force main, individual trench
2"
, 3"
4"
Wye
Service connection
House lead
gravity
grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment 207
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Wye 27
Service connection 27
House lead, gravity 27
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
44.00 $ 500,720 $300,432 $ 853
1,150
640
1,540
550
600
450
207
207
189
18
4.60
5.75
6.50
13.00
14.15
14.90
205
500
1,160
3,660
12,750
30,900
54,000
54,000
93,800
12,750
5,290
3,680
10,010
7,150
8,490
6,705
42,435
103,500
219,240
65,880
3,825
9,270
16,200
16,200
28,140
3,825
3,174
2,208
6,006
4,290
5,094
4,023
25,461
62,100
131,544
19,764
1,789
1,866
2,125
2,125
2,624
1,768
—
—
•MMB
_
1,800
50
205
500
1,160
10,350
1,241,650
335,245
1,576,895
5,535
13,500
31,320
50,355
2,518
641,556 14,950
3,321
8,100
18,792
30,213
D-36
-------
Table D~33.
Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #10 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
Sewer raipe
3"
Lift station
#41 8 gpm TDH-30 ft
#42 16 gpm TDH-25 ft
#43 28 gpm TDH-25 ft
#44 82 gpm TDH-25 ft
#45 102 gpm TDH-20 ft
Force main, cojomon trench
2"
3"
Force teain, individual trench
A.
4"
Wye
Service connection
House lead
gravity
grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Wys
Service connection
House lead, gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
10,400
$ 44.00 $ 457,600 $274,560 $ 780
1,000
1,760
800
200
143
143
130
13
143
27
27
27
4.60
5.75
13.00
14.90
205
500
1,160
3,660
50
205
500
1,160
12,750
12,750
30,900
54,000
93,800
4,600
10,120
10,400
2,980
29,315
71,500
150,800
47,580
7,150
996,245
268,986
1,265,231
5,535
13,500
31,320
50,355
2,518
3,825
3,825
9,270
16,200
28,140
2,760
6,072
6,240
1,788
17,589
42,900
90,480
14,274
—
517,923
3,321
8,100
18,792
30,213
1,756
1,760
1,878
2,123
2,542
—
—
—
—
1,300
—
12,139
—
D--37
-------
Table D-34.
Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #11 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Sewer pipe
8" 8,960
Lift station
#46 125 gpm TDH-35 ft
#47 132 gpm TDH-30 ft
#48 145 gpm TDH-25 ft
#49 17 gpm TDH-35 ft
#50 167 gpm TDH-35 ft
#52 181 gpm TDH-50 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
4"
6"
Force main, individual trench
1 4"
6"
Wye
Service connection
House lead
gravity
grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment 146
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Wye 9
Service connection 9
House lead, gravity 9
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
$ 44.00 $ 394,240 $236,544 $ 672
570
1,810
790
150
240
146
146
110
36
4.60
6.50
3.80
14.90
17.75
205
500
1,160
3,660
93,800
93,800
93,800
12,750
93,800
141,000
2,622
11,765
6,952
2,235
4,260
29,930
73,000
127,600
131,760
28,140
28,140
28,140
3,825
28,140
42,300
1,573
7,059
4,171
1,341
2,556
17,958
43,800
76,560
39,528
2,602
2,592
2,583
1,765
2,640
2,723
—
__
—
—
3,600
50
205
500
1,160
7,300
1,320,614
356,566
1,677,180
1,845
4,500
10,440
16,785
839
589,775 19,177
1,107
2,700
6,264
10,071
D-38
-------
I abler D-35.
Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #12 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Sewer pipe
3" 5,240
Lift station
#51 6 gpm TDH-40 ft
#61 14 gpm TDH-45 ft
#60 21 gpm TDH-25 ft
#59 25 gpm TDH-20 ft
#53 37 gpm TDH-50 ft
#56 49 gpm TDH-20 ft
#57 56 gpm TDH-35 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
3"
Force main, individual trench
2"
3"
Wye
Service connection
House lead
gravity
grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment 81
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Wye 10
Service connection 10
House lead, gravity 10
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
$ 44.00 $230,560
$138,336 $ 393
2,530
730
1,150
600
81
81
63
18
4.60
5.75
13.00
14.15
205
500
1,160
3,660
12,750
12,750
12,750
30 , 900
30,900
30,900
54,000
11,638
4,197
14,950
8,490
16,605
40,500
73,080
65,880
3,825
3,825
3,825
9,270
9,270
9,270
16 , 200
6,983
2,518
8,970
5,094
9,963
24,300
43,848
19,764
1,756
1,766
1,763
1,873
1,908
1,885
2,120
— —
"- *-
w_
—
—
—
«M
1,800
50
205
500
1,160
4,050
654,900
176,823
831,723
2,050
5,000
11,600
18,650
932
315,243 15,264
1,230
3,000
6,960
11,190
D-39
-------
Table D-36.
Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #13 Sister Lakes.
Item
Sewer pipe
8"
12"
15"
Lift station
#54 223 gpm TDH-20 ft
#55 232 gpm TDH-25 ft
#36 160 gpm TDH-40 ft
#37 14 gpm TDH-25'ft
. #38 35 gpm TDH-30 ft
#39 6 gpm TDH-15 ft
#40 950 gpm TDH-25 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
6"
8"
Force main, individual trench
2"
6"
8"
Wye
Service connection
House lead
gravity
grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Wye
Service connection
House lead, gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction
11,100
1,620
2,390
1,710
1,790
640
200
200
800
155
155
147
8
$ 44.00
50.15
56.70
4.60
8.80
12.50
13.00
17.75
22.10
205
500
1,160
3,660
$ 488,400
81,243
135,513
141,000
141,000
93,800
12,750
30,900
12,750
384,000
7,866
15,752
8,000
2,600
3,550
17,680
31,775
77,500
170,520
29,280
$293,040
48,746
81,308
42,300
42,300
28,140
3,825
9,270
3,825
115,200
4,720
9,451
4,800
1,560
2,130
10,608
19,065
46,500
102,312
8,784
WUU.1
$ 832
121
179
2,855
2,889
2,655
1,759
1,887
1,752
4,731
—
—
—
—
800
155
32
32
32
50
205
500
1,160
7,750
1,893,629
511,280
2,404,909
6,560
16,000
37,120
59,680
2,984
877,884 20,460
3,936
9,600
22,272
35,808
D-40
-------
Table D~37, Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #14 Sister Lakes.
Item
Sewer pipe
Lii!t ststioa
#67 7 gpm TDH-15 ft
#CS 11 'gpm TDK-25 ft
#65 22 gpn TDH-50 ft
Force Bain, common trench
Force sain, individual trench
2"
Wye
Quantity Unit Cost^ Construction Salvage
O&M
House lead
gravity
grind >ir pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service* factor (27%)
Suhtot/'il initial capital, cost
Future conrisctioriS co=t:
Vya
Ser'/ice cor.naction
House lead , gravity
Subtotal futtxre connection cost
Annual future connection cost
39070
1,650
600
34
34
27
7
34
3
3
3
$ 44.00
4.60
13.00
205
500
1,160
3,660
50
205
500
1,160
$135,080
12,750
12,750
12,750
7,590
7,800
6,970
17,000
31,320
25,620
1,700
271,330
73,259
344,589
615
1,500
3,480
5,595
280
$ 81,048
3,825
3,825
3,825
4,554
4,680
4,182
10,200
18,792
7,686
__
142,617
—
""""•
369
900
2,088
3,357
—
$ 230
1,753
1,757
1,778
—
—
—
—
__
700
—
6,218
— —
""
«.-*.
—
—
—
—
D-41
-------
Table D-38.
Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for
District #15 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Sewer pipe
8" 13,620
18" 1,940
Lift stations
#63 18 gpm TDH-20 ft
#62 22 gpm TDH-20 ft
#64 45 gpm TDH-40 ft
#65 60 gpm TDH-45 ft
#66 93 gpm TDH-25 ft
#58 1,040 gpm TDH-25 ft
Forca main, common trench
2" 450
3" 2,150
10" 1,150
Force main, individual trench
2" 800
Wye 180
Service connection 180
House lead
gravity 171
grinder pump 9
Septic tank abandonment 180
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Wye 29
Service connection 29
House lead, gravity 29
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
$ 44.00
65.58
4.60
5.75
18.00
13.00
205
500
1,160
3,660
50
205
500
1,160
$ 599,280
127,225
12,750
12,750
30,900
54,000
54,000
512,000
2,070
12,362 '
20,700
10,400
36,900
90,000
198,531
32,940
9,000
1,815,808
490,268
2,306,076
5,945
14,500
33,640
54,085
2,704
$359,568
76,335
3,825
3,825
9,270
16,200
16,200
153,600
1,242
7,417
12,420
6,240
22,140
54,000
119,119
9,882
—
871,283
3,567
8,700
20,184
32,451
$ 1,021
146
1,759
1,761
1,901
2,139
2,130
5,319
—
—
—
—
900
—
17,076
* "^
D-42
-------
?j? s
— C 0
.- ^
t)
5"
fsl — M
bgskssssgbgbbss
"s'ssssssssss^ss*
«SS§SS5S23S§2S
oafowoBaoa*-^^ — M^-^OSO^
NJ »—
Off**- i— ^-u-w.-. Ki—.,—
£SSS«SS£S5iS^S§S
SSSwioSwSSSSoSS
(*4 ^»
OONlJ-^^g* gS"1*"^™
NO g 0 g ~ N0« g *-vo 0 N; vo M
•A* U)
3,^-o-»«e.oB>-o>o»vo->a
0 r .° * .* ." ." r1 r1 .* y r .* P .*
ta* V-*
^jUJ«— *-* *«*(•. k— l_- k^ — •-
u* <«j J> •-• O*ut-c*uJ'wj^^'t(./lO ft- O
£. W
_
OOuj^^ — ySOJmv^— 'Uiv^'^W
Cr>ODi«jG''C3CDOthOh0G3CQ ** O3 ^ CO
rj vO — • — — — —
^QBO — — Vt^v*'fi--VJO^'O-^J
™**^j»»*ti^»^ao'-ji-,uiC^30Kj--'>j
S£22t3£S32!2-3S2S
VI |«9 W i-
; 1 H- s s
T T c* a.
c » C &
— 3 — r*
ft i
7f
I * -"
(S , . .
CO U> LJ k- Is Q3 ^3
33 ^J O -^ O *• •—
O N> OS O ON •— —
Sgc .- H-
S S S ££ Isi S
UJ W G N> XJ CO UJ
III • ~ » -
p- vtf e« \o
^ CO W «O
l—
111 . . J"" .
iw *j cc OD
III U* ^^ ^*
ill CO OS •— *
30 *• NJ K)
•* rJ \jt —
111 ....
111 ** w \o i—
** va 3 ^o
*- UJ IS) O*
M >— *
** "• -sj J1
III ....
OS VJ1 O W
f-J M«
III - -
ff» UJ 1- -
-J rxj ^ O«
UJ C^ U1 NJ
c
^
^
r*
ff
0
U
en
1
i
o
l\
<
•s
•o
Ft
CD
0>
IS
?
1
n-
3-
H|
0
F
' 1
o
§ >
(a S
rr 3
C C
n *—
rr
)—•
§
en
u H
*• 3
-1 sr
1 Incremental
ge Annual O&M Ccmstr
I
w
CJ "9
•M l"l
< 0
n re
n «
?
i
SX —
J^i
i
c
H
i— '
(D
O
1
cw w
n c
Gi 3
l_j, 5
rr in
^ •<
01 05
3
3 « &
5 5-a
1 0 *
ro
s' ^. to
" C* (D
C 3
3 rr
CD
I-1 O
vO 1
CO if
H- 3*
0 O
O Hi
if 0
03 O
^ CO
rr
W
O
(5
n
0
t— >
(— '
o
o
•o
^rtion for septJ
Futuic Conner tt
I
f S
3
(D
i-n
en
h- '
C
rc>
rr
Z L o
D-43
-------
Table D-40.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #1 Indian Lake.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
6"
8"
Lift stations
#7 15 gpm TDH-45 ft
#8 57 gpm TDH-40 ft
#9 115 gpm TDH-47 ft
#10 172 gpm TDH-51 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
4"
6"
Force main, individual trench
2"
4"
6"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
15,510
620
1,780
700
250
700
330
300
1,300
260
3
219
44
18
18
$ 35.30
37.00
38.90
4.60
6.50
8.80
13.00
14.90
17.75
1,577
3,600
143
750
55
2,277
$ 547,503
22,940
69,242
12,750
54,000
93,800
93,800
3,220
1,625
6,160
4,290
4,470
23,075
410,020
10,800
31,317
33,000
1,422,012
497,704
1,919,716
990
40,986
41,976
2,099
$328,502
13,764
41,545
3,825
16,200
28,140
28,140
1,932
975
3,696
2,574
2,682
13,845
246,012
3,240
18,790
19,800
773,662
594
24,592
25,186
$ 589
24
68
1,327
1,609
2,009
2,096
—
—
189
2,190
440
10,541
180
180
9
D-44
-------
Table B-41. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #2 Indian Lake.
Item Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
STE sewer pipe
4" 7,450 $ 35.30 $262,985 $157,791 $ 283
6" 1,250 37.00 46,250 27,750 47
Lift station
#6 23 gpa TDH-69 ft 30,900 9,270 1,450
#5 41 gpm TDH-50 ft 30,900 9,270 1,453
#4 77 gpm TDH-75 ft 54,000 16,200 1,699
Force main, common trench
2" 950 4.60 4,370 2,622
3" 1,420 5.75 8,165 4,899
Force main, individual trench
2" - 250 13.00 3,250 1,950
Service connection
gravity 90 1,577 141,930 85,158
STE purap 5 3,600 18,000 5,400 315
Septic tank
. upgrade 71 143 10,153 6,092 710
replace 24 750 18,000 10,800 240
Subtotal initial cost 628,903 337,202 6,197
Service factor (35%) 220,116
Subtotal initial capital cost 849,019
Future ean,n.ection.s cost
Building sewer 22 55 1,210 726
Septic tank + gravity 22 2,277 50,094 30,056 220
Subtotal future connection cost 51,304 30,782 220
Annual future connection cost 2,565 — 11
D-45
-------
Table D-42.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #3 Indian Lake.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
6"
8"
Lift station
#3 126 gpm TDH-80 ft
#2 144 gpm TDH-42 ft
Force main, common trench
4"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
6,190
1,900
5,200
$ 35.30
37.00
38.90
$
218,507
70,300
202,280
1,350
170
9
134
45
6.50
1,577
3,600
143
750
36
36
55
2,277
93,800
93,800
8,775
268,090
32,400
19,162
33,750
1,040,864
364,302
1,405,166
$131,104 $ 235
42,180 72
121,368 198
28,140
28,140
5,265
160,854
9,720
11,497
20,250
558,518
2,129
2,026
567
1,340
450
7,017
1,980
81,972
83,952
4,198
1,188
49,183
50,371
—
—
360
360
18
D-46
-------
Tabl£ D-43. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #2 Pipestone Lake.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
Lift station
#P3 17 gpm TDH-63 ft
Force main, individual trench
2"
Service connection
gravity
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
2,510 $ 35.30 $ 88,603 $-53,162 $ 95
5,280
29
21
8
13.00
1,577
143
750
12,750
68,640
45,733
3,003
6,000
224,729
78,655
303,384
3,825
41,184
27,440
1,802
3,600
131,013
D-47
-------
Table D-44. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #3 Pipestone Lake.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
Lift station
#P2 28 gpm TDH-50 ft
#P1 40 gpm TDH-118 ft
#P4 40 gpm TDH-54 ft
Force main, common trench
3"
Force main, individual trench
3"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
3,510
1,175
8,950
$ 35.30 $123,903
30,900
30,900
30,900
5.75
14.15
6,756
126,642
$ 74,342
9,270
9,270
9,270
4,054
75,985
133
1,436
1,521
1,439
35
3
28
10
1,577
3,600
143
750
55,195
10,800
4,004
7,500
427,500
149,625
577,125
33,117
3,240
2,402
4,500
225,450
189
280
100
5,098
D-48
-------
Table-D-45. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #1 Sister Lakes.
Item
STE sewer pipe
4"
6"
Lift stations
#1 15 gpm TDH-75 ft
#2 15 gpm TDH-45 ft
#3 59 gpm TDH-25 ft
#4 75 gpm TDH-30 ft
#5 86 gpm TDH-25 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
3"
Force main, individual trench
3"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank •*• gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
6,040
1,770
O&M
1,700
1,950
400
102
12
98
16
21
21
$ 35.30
37.00
4.60
5.75
14.15
1,577
3,600
143
750
55
2,277
$ 213,212
65,490
12,750
12,750
54,000
54,000
54,000
7,820
11,212
5,660
160,854
43,200
14,014
12,000
720,962
252,337
973,299
1,155
47,817
48,972
2,449
$ 127,927
39,294
3,825
3,825
16,200
16,200
16,200
4,692
6,727
3,396
96,512
12,960
8,408
7,200
363,366
693
28,690
29,383
$ 229
67
1,339
1,327
1,588
1,608
1,605
—
—
756
980
160
9,659
210
210
10
D-49
-------
Table D-46. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #4 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
6"
Lift station
#7 25 gpm TDH-20 ft
#6 140 gpm TDH-90 ft
#8 20 gpm TDH-20 ft
#9 185 gpm TDH-18 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
4"
Force main, individual trench
2"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
6,620
1,370
2,100
700
2,380
$ 35.30
37.00
38.90
4.60
6.50
$ 233,686
50,690
81,690
30,900
93,800
12,750
93,800
3,220
15,470
$140,212
30,414
49,014
9,270
28,140
3,825
28,140
1,932
9,282
$ 252
52
80
1,413
2,194
1,320
1,956
—
150
13.00
1,950
1,170
117
6
99
24
29
29
1,577
3,600
143
750
55
2,277
184,509
21,600
14,157
18,000
856,222
299,678
1,155,900
1,595
66,033
67,628
3,381
110,705
6,480
8,494
10,800
506,956
—
— •—
957
39,620
40,577
—
—
378
990
240
8,875
—
_«
• u_
290
290
14
D-50
-------
Table D-47.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #5 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
6"
10"
Lift station
#10 12 gpm TDH-15 ft
#11 40 gpm TDH-25 ft
#12 255 gpm TDH-30 ft
#13 315 gpm TDH-35 ft
#15 17 gpm TDH-25' ft
#16 27 gpm TDH-35 ft
#17 370 gpm TDH-20 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
3"
6"
Force main, individual trench
2"
6"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
11
2
,180
840
,450
$
35.
37.
41.
30
00
80
$
394,
31,
102,
654
080
410
$236
18
61
,972
,648
,446
$
425
32
93
1,000
850
1,950
300
500
244
21
210
55
4.60
5.75
8.80
13.00
17.75
1,577
3,600
143
750
12,750
54,000
141,000
189,400
12,750
30,900
189,400
3,825
16,200
42,300
56,820
3,825
9,270
56,820
1,314
1,426
2,257
2,654
1,321
1,424
2,560
4,600
4,887
17,160
3,900
8,875
384,788
75,600
30,030
41,250
1,729,434
605,302
2,334,736
2,750
2,932
10,296
2,340
5,325
230,873
22,680
18,018
24,750
826,100
1,323
2,100
550
17,479
21
21
55
2,277
1,155
47,817
48,972
2,449
693
28,690
29,383
—
—
210
210
10
D-51
-------
Table D-48.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #6 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
6"
8"
10"
. Lift station
#18 18 gpm TDH-25 ft
#19 30 gpm TDH-35 ft
#20 70 gpm TDH-30 ft
#21 77 gpm TDH-20 ft
#22 510 gpm TDH-55 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
4"
6"
Force main, individual trench
6"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
17
1
1
,750
,020
630
,740
$
35.
37.
38.
41.
30
00
90
80
$
626,
37,
24,
72,
575
740
507
732
$375,
22,
14,
43,
945
644
704
639
$
674
39
24
66
1,030
600
300
2,850
222
15
193
44
30
30
4.
6,
60
50
8.80
17.75
1,577
3,600
143
750
55
2,277
12 , 750
30,900
54,000
54,000
293,000
3,825
9,270
16,200
16,200
87,900
1,321
1,427
1,604
1,590
3,462
4,738
3,900
2,640
50,587
350,094
54,000
27,599
33,000
1,732,762
606,467
2,339,229
1,650
68,310
69,960
3,498
2,843
2,340
1,584
30,352
210,056
16,200
16,559
19,800
990
40,986
41,976
945
1,930
44
890,061 13,126
300
300
15
D-52
-------
Table D-49.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #7 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
STE sewer pipe
A"
Lift station
#23 12 gpm TDH-37 ft
#24 38 gpm TDH-30 ft
' #25 58 gpm TDK-40 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
3"
Force main, individual trench
3"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
4,320
1,070
400
1,250
$ 35.30
37.00
4.60
5.75
$ 152,496
39,590
12,750
30,900
54,000
1,840
7,187
$ 91,498
23,754
3,825
9,270
16,200
1,104
4,312
$ 164
41
1,321
1,429
1,610
—
250
14.15
3,537
2,122
74
13
75
12
10
10
1,577
3,600
143
750
55
2,277
116,698
46,800
10,725
5,400
481,923
168,673
650,596
550
22,770
23,320
1,166
70,019
14,040
6,435
—
242,579
—
™"~
330
13,662
13,992
—
—
819
750
120
6,254
—
"""*""
~._
100
100
5
D-53
-------
Table D-50.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #8 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
6"
8"
Lift station
#14 10 gpm TDK-30 ft
#26 26 gpm TDH-35 ft
#27 130 gpm TDH-35 ft
#29 12 gpm TDH-15 ft
#28 190 gpm TDK-30 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
3"
4"
Force main, individual trench
2"
3"
4"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
11,680
580
2,150
1,650
520
550
150
150
850
131
17
131
17
32
32
$ 35.30
37.00
38.90
4.60
5.75
6.50
13.00
14.15
14.90
1,577
3,600
143
750
55
2,277
$ 412,304
21,406
83,635
12,750
30 , 900
93,800
12,750
93,800
7,590
2,990
3,575
1,950
2,122
12,665
206,587
61,200
18,733
12,750
1,091,507
382,027
1,473,534
1,760
72,864
74,624
3,731
$247,382
12,876
50,181
3,825
9,270
28,140
3,825
28,140
4,554
1,794
2,145
1,170
1,273
7,599
123,952
18,360
11,240
7,650
563,376
1,056
43,718
44,774
$ 444
22
82
1,318
1,423
1,987
1,315
2,017
__
—
1,071
1,310
170
11,159
320
320
16
D-54
-------
Table^ D-51. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #9 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
6"
8"
Lift station
#30 14 gpin TDH-25 ft
#31 45 gpm TDH-30 ft
#32 77 gpm TDH-28 ft
#33 86 gpm TDH-25 ft
#34 118 gpm TDH-44 ft
#35 18 gpm TDH-40 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
3"
4"
Force main, individual trench
2"
3"
4"
7
2
,690
,890
800
$
35.
37.
38.
30
00
90
$
271
106
31
,457
,930
,120
$162
64
18
,874
,158
,672
$
292
110
30
550
600
450
13.00
14.15
14.90
12,750
30 , 900
54,000
54,000
93,800
12,750
3,825
9,270
16,200
16,200
28,140
3,825
1,319
1,435
1,605
1,605
2,004
1,328
" 1,150
640
1,540
4.60
5.75
6.50
5,290
3,680
10,010
3,174
2,208
6,006
7,150
8,490
6,705
4,290
5,094
4,023
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
189
18
163
44
1,577
3,600
143
750
298,053
64,800
23,309
33,000
1,128,194
394,868
1,523,062
178,832
19,440
13,985
19,800
580,016
1,134
1,630
440
12,932
27
27
55
2,277
1,485
61,479
62,964
3,148
891
36,887
37,778
—
—
270
270
13
D-55
-------
Table D-52.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #10 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
6"
8"
Lift station
#41 8 gpm TDH-30 ft
#42 16 gpm TDH-25 ft
#43 28 gpm TDH-25 ft
#44 82 gpm TDH-25 ft
#45 102 gpm TDH-20 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
3"
Force main, individual trench
2"
4"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
7
1
1
,820
,250
,330
$
35.
37.
38.
30
00
90
$
276
46
51
,046
,250
,737
$165
27
31
,628
,750
,042
$
297
47
51
1,000
1,760
800
200
130
13
110
33
4.60
5.75
13.00
14.90
1,577
3,600
143
750
12,750
12,750
30,900
54,000
93,800
4,600
10,120
10,400
2,980
205,010
46,800
15,730
24,750
898,623
314,518
1,213,141
3,825
3,825
9,270
16,200
28,140
2,760
6,072
6,240
1,788
123,006
14,040
9,438
14,850
1,316
1,320
1,418
1,603
1,922
819
1,100
330
463,874 10,223
27
27
55
2,277
1,485
61,479
62,964
3,148
891
36,887
37,778
—
—
270
270
13
D-56
-------
Table D-53.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #11 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
8"
Lift station
#46 125 gpm TDH-35 ft
#47 1'32 gpm TDH-30 ft
#48 145 gpm TDH-25 ft
#49 17 gpm TDH-35 ft
#50 167 gpm TDH-35 ft
#52 181 gpm TDH-50 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
4"
Force main, individual trench
4"
6"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
4,380
4,670
570
1,810
790
150
240
110
36
108
38
9
9
$ 35.30
38.90
4.60
6.50
8.80
14.90
17.75
1,577
3,600
143
750
55
2,277
$ 154,614
181,663
93,800
93,800
93,800
12,750
93,800
141,000
2,622
11,765
6,952
2,235
4,260
173,470
129,600
15,444
28,500
1,240,075
434,026
1,674,101
495
20,493
20,988
1,049
$ 92,768
108,998
28,140
28,140
28,140
3,825
28,140
42,300
1,573
7,059
4,171
1,341
2,556
104,082
38,880
9,266
17,100
546,479
—
^*""
297
12,296
12,593
—
$ 166
177
1,983
1,972
1,963
1,325
2,020
2,103
— —
"
__
"
._
2,268
1,080
380
15,437
—
"
^^
90
90
4
D-57
-------
Table D-54.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #12 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
6"
Lift station
#51 6 gpm TDH-40 ft
#61 14 gpm TDH-45 ft
#60 21 gpm TDH-25 ft
#59 25 gpm TDH-20 ft
#53 37 gpm TDH-50 ft
#56 49 gpm TDH-20 ft
#57 56 gpm TDH-35 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
3"
Force main, individual trench
2"
3"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
4,590
650
2,530
730
1,150
600
63
18
60
21
$ 35.30
37.00
4.60
5.75
13.00
14.15
1,577
3,600
143
750
$ 162,027
24,050
11,638
4,197
14,950
8,490
99,351
64,800
8,580
15,750
598,783
209,574
808,357
$ 97,216
14,430
6,983
2,519
8,970
5,094
56,611
19,440
5,148
9,450
87
12
12,750
12,750
12,750
30 , 900
30,900
30,900
54,000
3,825
3,825
3,825
9,270
9,270
9,270
16,200
1,316
1,326
1,323
1,413
1,448
1,425
1,600
1,134
600
210
281,346 11,894
10
10
55
2,277
550
22,770
23,200
1,166
330
13,662
13,992
—
—
100
100
5
D-58
-------
Table D-55. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #13 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
6"
8"
10"
15"
18"
Lift station
#54 223 gpm TDH-20 ft
#55 232 gpm TDH-25 ft
#36 160 gpm TDH-40 ft
#37 14 gpm TDH-25 ft
#38 35 gpm TDH-30 ft
#39 6 gpm TDH-15 ft
#40 950 gpm TDH-25 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
6"
8"
Force main, individual trench
2"
6"
8"
6,730
640
1,890
1,840
2,660
1,350
$ 35.30
37.00
38.90
41.80
51.55
60.40
$ 237,569
23,680
73,521
76,912
137,123
81,540
$142,541 $
14,208
44,113
46,147
82,274
48,924
256
24
72
70
101
51
141,000
141,000
93,800
12,750
30,900
12,750
384,000
42,300
42,300
28,140
3,825
9,270
3,825
115,200
2,175
2,209
2,035
1,319
1,427
1,312
3,701
1,710
1,790
640
4.60
8.80
12.50
7,866
15,752
8,000
4,720
9,451
4,800
200
200
800
13.00
17.75
22.10
2,600
3,550
17,680
1,560
2,130
10,608
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
147
8
112
43
1,577
3,600
143
750
231,819
28,800
16,016
32,250
1,810,878
633,807
2,444,685
139,091
8,640
9,610
19,350
853,027
504
1,120
430
16,806
32
32
55
2,277
1,760
72,864
74,624
3,731
1,056
43,718
44,774
—
—
320
320
16
D-59
-------
Table D-56. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #14 Sister Lakes.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
Lift station
#67 7 gpm TDH-15 ft
#68 11 gpm TDH-25 ft
#69 22 gpm TDH-50 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
Force main, individual trench
3,070
2"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
1,650
600
$ 35.30 $ 108,371
12,750
12,750
12,750
4.60
13.00
7,590
7,800
$ 65,023 $ 117
3,825
3,825
3,825
4,554
4,680
1,313
1,317
1,338
27
7
27
7
3
3
1,577
3,600
143
750
55
2,277
42,579
25,200
3,861
5,250
238,901
83,615
322,516
165
6,831
6,996
350
25,547
7,560
2,317
3,150
124,306
—
— —
99
4,099
4,198
—
—
441
270
70
4,866
—
— —
30
30
2
D-60
-------
Table D-57.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for
District #15 Sister Lakes.
Item
STE sewer pipe
4"
6"
8"
18"
Lift station
#63 18 gpm TDH-20 ft
#62 22 gpm TDH-20 ft
#64 45 gpm TDH-40 ft
#65 60 gpm TDH-45 ft
#66 93 gpm TDH-25 ft
#58 1,040 gpm TDH-25 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
?"
10"
Force main, individual trench
2"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
10,560
2,590
470
1,940
450
2,150
1,150
800
171
9
148
32
29
29
$ 35.30
37.00
38.90
60.40
4.60
5.75
18.00
13.00
1,577
3,600
143
750
55
2,277
$ 372,768
95,830
18,283
117,176
12,750
12,750
30,900
54,000
54,000
512,000
2,070
12,362
20 , 700
10,400
269,667
32,400
21,164
24,000
1,673,220
585,627
2,258,847
1,595
66,033
67,628
3,381
$223,661
57,498
10,970
70,306
3,825
3,825
9,270
16,200
16,200
153,600
1,242
7,417
12,420
6,240
161,800
9,720
12,698
14,400
791,292
—
— —
957
39,620
40,577
—
401
98
18
74
1,319
1,321
1,596
1,619
1,610
4,159
567
1,480
320
14,582
290
290
14
D-61
-------
Table D-58. Quantities and costs of conveyance portion for
Alternative 2 (June 1981 costs).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Lift station
Sister Lakes 1,040 gpm
TDH-56 ft
Indian Lake 302 gpm
TDH-74 ft
Force main
Sister Lakes 12"
Indian Lake 6"
Total initial cost
Service factor (27%) '
Total initial capital cost
21,900
6,100
$ 33.60
17.75
$ 512,000 $153,600 $ 6,790
189,400 56,820 3,855
735,840
108,275
1,545,515
417,289
1,962,804
441,504
64,965
716,889 10,645
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total present worth
$1,962,804
107,496
(164,884)
$1,905,416
D-62
-------
Table D-59. Quantities and costs of the conveyance portion for
Alternative 3 (June 1981 costs).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Lift station
Sister Lakes 1,040 gpm
TDH-61 ft
Indian Lake 302 gpm
TDH-131 ft
Force main
Sister Lakes 12"
Indian Lake 6"
Total initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Total initial capital cost
$ 512,000 $153,600 $ 6,980
189,400 56,820 4,390
5,600
24,750
$ 33.60
17.75
188,160
439,313
1,328,873
358,796
1,687,669
112,896
263,588
586,904
11,370
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total present worth
$1,687,669
114,818
(134,988)
$1,667,499
D-63
-------
Table D-60. Quantities and costs of the conveyance portion for
Alternative 4 (June 1981 costs).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Lift station
1 Sister Lakes 1,040 gpm
TDH-48 ft
Indian Lake 302 gpm
TDH-U1 ft
Combined 1,273 gpm
TDH-29 ft
Force main
Sister Lakes 12"
Indian Lake 6"
Combined 12"
Total initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Total initial capital cost
5,650
25,120
16,250
$ 33.60
17.75
33.60
$ 512,000 $ 153,600 $ 6,485
189,400 56,820 4,200
512,000 153,600 6,030
189,840
445,880
546,000
2,395,120
646,682
3,041,802
113,904
267,528
327,600
1,073,052 16,715
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total present worth
$3,041,802
168,793
(246,802)
$2,963,793
D-64
-------
Table D-61. Quantities and costs of the conveyance portion for
Alternatives 5A and 5B (June 1981 costs).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Lift station
Sister Lakes 1,040 gpm
IDE-73 ft
Inidan Lake 302 gpm
TDH-74 ft
Force main
Sister Lakes 12"
Indian Lake 6"
Total initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Total initial capital cost
$ 512,000 $153,600 $ 7,440
189,400 56,820 3,855
24,700
6,100
$ 33.60
17.75
829,920
108,275
1,639,595
442,691
2,082,286
497,952
64,965
773,337 11,295
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
$2,082,286
114,060
(177,868)
Total present worth $2,018,478
D-65
-------
Table D-62. Quantities and costs of the conveyance portion for
Alternative 6 (June 1981 costs).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Lift station
Sister Lakes 1,040 gpm
TDH-56 ft
Indian Lake 302 gpm
TDH-61 ft
Force main
Sister Lakes 12"
Indian Lake 6"
Total initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Total initial capital cost
$ 512,000 $153,600 $ 6,790
189,400 56,820 3,734
21,900
23,760
$ 33.60
17.75
735,840
421,740
1,858,980
501,925
2,360,905
441,504
253,044
904,968 10,524
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
$2,360,905
106,275
(208,143)
Total present worth $2,259,037
D-66
-------
Table D-63. Quantities and costs of the conveyance portion for
Alternative 7 (June 1981 costs).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Lift station
Sister Lakes 1,040 gpm
TDH-73 ft
Indian Lake 1,273 gpm
_ TDH-58 ft
Force main
Sister Lakes 12"
Indian Lake 12"
Total initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Total initial capital cost
$ 512,000 $ 153,600 $ 7,440
512,000 153,600 7,410
28,800
23,760
$ 33.60
33.60
967,680
798,336
2,790,016
753,304
3,543,320
580,608
479,002
1,059,610 14,850
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20" years)
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total present worth
$3,543,320
149,960
(243,710)
$3,449,570
D-67
-------
Table D-64. Waste stabilization ponds WWTP for Indian Lake
with discharge to Indian Lake outlet
(Alternative No. 2)
Cost $ (xl.OOQ)
Construction Salvage O&M
Item Cost Value Cost
Flow meter assembly $ 10.0 $ — $2.0
Waste stabilization ponds 323.6 194.1 5.0
Storage lagoons 152.5 91.5 1.0
Chlorination system 35.9 10.7 7.0
Land: 25 acres 50.0 90.3
Site clearing 0.6
Administration & laboratory building 93.0 33.5 7.4
Service roads and fencing 51.5 — 1.1
Monitoring systems, controls, 15.7 — —
and instrumentation
Electrical 26.1
Process piping and outfall 41.8 25.0 —
Total $ 800.7 $ 445.1 $ 23.5
Service factor (27%) 216.2
Total capital cost $ 1,016.9
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost $1,016.9
O&M cost 237.3
Salvage value ' (102.4)
Total Present Worth $1,151.8
D-68
-------
Table D-65. Aerated lagoons with storage ponds WWTP for Indian Lake
with discharge to Indian Lake outlet.
Cost $ (xl.OOO)
Construction Salvage
Item Cost Value
Flow meter assembly $ 10.0 $ — $ 2.0
Aerated lagoons 129.5 21.4 17.3
Storage lagoons 309.1 185.4 2.2
Chlorination system 35.9 10.7 7.0
Land: 25 acres 50.0 90.3
Site clearing 0.6
Administration & laboratory building 93.0 33.5 7.4
Service roads and fencing 51.5 — 1.1
Monitoring systems, controls, 14.5 — —
and instrumentation
Electrical 24.2 — —
Process piping and outfall 38.8 23.2 —
Total - $ 757.1 $ 364.5 $ 37.0
Service factor (27%) . 204.4
Total capital cost $ 961.5
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost $ 961.5
O&M cost 373.6
Salvage value (83.8)
Total Present Worth $1,251.3
D-69
-------
Table D-66. Oxidation ditch with storage ponds WWTP for Indian Lake
with discharge to Indian Lake outlet.
Cost $ (xltOOO)
Construction Salvage
Item Cost Value
Preliminary treatment $ 20.1 $ 6.0 $11.5
Oxidation ditch plant including 305.8 91.7 36.4
oxidation ditch, clarifier
and sludge drying beds
Storage lagoons 365.0 219.0 2.4
Chlorination system 35.9 10.7 7.0
Land: 25 acres 50.0 90.3 —
Site clearing 0.6
Administration & laboratory building 93.0 33.5 7.4
Service roads and fencing 51.5 — —
Monitoring system, controls, 21.8 — —
and instrumentation
Electrical 36.3
Process piping and outfall 72.7 43.6 . —
Total $ 1,052.7 $ 494.8 $ 64.7
Service factor (27%) 284.2
Total capital cost $ 1,336.9
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost $1,336.9
O&M cost 653.4
Salvage value (113.8)
Total Present Worth $1,876.5
D-70
-------
Table D-67. Waste stabilization ponds WWTP for Sister Lakes
with discharge to Silver Creek
(Alternative Nos. 2 and 6).
Cost $ (xl.OOO)
Construction Salvage O&M
Item Cost Value Cost
Flow meter assembly $ 10.0 $ — $ 2.0
Waste stabilization ponds 827.0 496.2 10.0
Storage lagoons 309.1 185.4 2.2
Chlorination system 57.5 17.2 13.0
Land: 80 acres 160.0 289.0
Site clearing 2.0
Administration & laboratory building 99.0 35.6 12.0
Service roads and fencing 85.0 — 2.1
Monitoring system, controls, 36.1 — —
and instrumentation
Electrical 60.2
Process piping and outfall 96.3 57.7 —
Total $1,742.2 $1,081.1 $ 41.3
Service factor (27%) 470.4
Total capital cost $2,212.6
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost $2,212.6
O&M cost 417.1
Salvage value (248.6)
Total Present Worth $2,381.1
D-71
-------
Table D-68. Aerated lagoons with storage ponds WWTP for Sister Lakes
with discharge to Silver Creek.
Cost $ (xl.QOO)
Construction Salvage
Item Cost Value
Flow meter assembly $ 10.0 $ — $ 2.0
Aerated lagoons " 288.0 47.5 38.0
Storage lagoons 906.0 543.6 4.7
Chlorination systems 57.5 17.2 13.0
Land: 80 acres 160.0 289.0
Site clearing 2.0
Administration & laboratory building 99.0 35.6 12.0
Service roads and fencing 85.0 — 2.1
Monitoring system, controls, 37.8
and instrumentation
Electrical 63.0
Process piping and outfall 126.0 75.6 —
Total $1,834.3 $1,008.5 $ 71.8
Service factor (27%) 495.3
Total capital cost $2,329.6
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost $2,329.6
O&M cost 725.0
Salvage value (231.9)
Total Present Worth $2,822.7
D-72
-------
Table D-69. Oxidation ditch with storage ponds WWTP for Sister Lakes
with discharge to Silver Creek.
Cost $ (xl,000)
Construction Salvage O&M
Item Cost Value Cost
Preliminary treatment $ 43.2 $ 12.9 $14.0
Oxidation ditch plant including 553.5 165.0 61.0
oxidation ditch, clarifier
and sludge drying beds
Storage lagoons 1,051.9 631.1 5.8
Chlorination system 57.5 17.2 13.0
Land: 80 acres 160.0 289.0
Site clearing 2.0 —
Administration & laboratory building 99.0 35.6 12.0
Service roads and fencing 85.0 — 2.1
Monitoring system, controls, 51.2
and instrumentation
Electrical . 85.3
Process piping and outfall 170.6 102.4 —
Total $2,359.2 $1,253.2 $ 107.9
Service factor (27%) 637.0
Total capital cost $2,996.2
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost $2,996.2
O&M cost 1,089.6
Salvage value (288.2)
Total Present Worth $3,797.6
D-73
-------
Table D-70. Waste stabilization ponds regional WWTP for Indian Lake
and Sister Lakes (Alternative Nos. 4, 5A, and SB).
Cost $ (xl.OOO)
Construction Salvage
Item Cost Value
Flow meter assembly $ 10.0 $ — $ 2.0
Waste stabilization ponds 1,006.8 604.0 12.0
Storage lagoons 343.5 206.1 2.6
Chlorination system 62.0 18.6 16.0
Land: 100 acres 200.0 361.2
Site clearing 2.5
Administration & laboratory building 106.0 38.2 14.4
Service roads and fencing 103.0 — 2.5
Monitoring system, controls, 42.7
and instrumentation
Electrical 71.1 —
Process piping and outfall 113.8 68.3 __II__
Total $2,061.4 $1,296.4 $ 49.5
Service factor (27%) 556.6
Total capital cost $2,618.0
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost $2,618.0
O&M cost 499.9
Salvage value (298.2)
Total Present Worth $2,819.7
0-74
-------
Table D-71. Aerated lagoons with storage ponds regional WWTP
for Indian Lake and Sister Lakes.
Cost $ (xl.OOO)
Construction Salvage O&M
Item Cost Value Cost
Flow meter assembly $ 10.0 $ — $ 2.2
Aerated lagoons 331.0 54.6 46.0
Storage lagoons 1,095.0 656.9 6.0
Chlorination system 62.0 18.6 16.0
Land: 100 acres 200.0 361.2
Site clearing 2.5
Administration & laboratory building 106.0 38.2 14.4
Service roads and fencing 103.0 — 2.5
Monitoring systems, controls, 44.9
and instrumentation
Electrical 74.9
Process piping and outfall 119.8 71.9 __IZ__
Total $2,149.1 $1,201.4 $ 87.1
Service factor (27%) 580.2
Total capital cost $2,729.3
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20 years)
Capital Cost $2,729.3
O&M cost 879.6
Salvage value (276.3)
Total Present Worth $3,332.6
D-75
-------
Table D-72. Oxidation ditch with storage ponds regional WWTP
for Indian Lake and Sister Lakes.
Cost $ (xl,000)
Construction Salvage
Item Cost Value
Preliminary treatment $ 51.8 $ 15.5 $ 15.8
Oxidation ditch plant including 611.5 183.5 72.8
oxidation ditch, clarifier
and sludge drying beds
Storage lagoons 1,288.0 772.8 6.2
Chlorination system 62.0 18.6 16.0
Land: 100 acres 200.0 361.2
Site clearing 2.5
Administration & laboratory building 106.0 38.2 14.4
Service roads and fencing 103.0 — 2.5
Monitoring system, controls, 60.4 —
and instrumentation
Electrical 100.7
Process piping and outfall 201.3 120.8 —
Total $2,787.2 $1,510.6 $127.7
Service factor (27%) 752.5
Total capital cost $3,539.7
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20 years)
t
Capital cost $3,539.7
O&M cost 1,289.5
Salvage value (347.4)
Total Present Worth $4,481.8
D-76
-------
Table D-73. Waste stabilization ponds regional WWTP with land disposal
site located in Section 8 in Silver Creek Township for
Indian Lake and Sister Lakes (Alternative No. 3).
Cost $ (xl,000)
Construction Salvage
Item Cost Value
Flow meter assembly $ 10.0 $ — $ 2.2
Waste stabilization ponds 1,006.8 60A.O 12.0
Chlorination system 62.0 18.6 16.0
Puaping 234.9 70.5 9.6
Transmission - force main 102.0 61.2 0.3
Land: 255 acres 510.0 921.0
Field preparation 3.9 — —
Distribution- center pivot 131.0 — 25.4
Underdrains 90.2 54.1 8.6
Monitoring wells 12.0 — 1.5
Administration and laboratory building 106.0 38.2 14.4
Service roads and fencing . 184.6 — 4.8
Electrical 50.3
Monitoring system, controls, 30.2 —
and instrumentation
Lease of land crop production — — (6.5)
Total $2,533.9 $1,767.6 $ 88.3
Service factor (27%) 684.1
Total capital cost $3,218.0
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost $3,218.0
O&M cost 891.7
Salvage value (406.5)
Total Present Worth $3,703.2
D-77
-------
Table D-74. Treatment of Indian Lake and Sister Lakes areas
wastewater at the existing Dowagiac WWTP
(Alternative No. 7).
Service Charge » $4.65/month x 12 months - $ 56
User Charge » $0.084/100 gal. x 660,000 x 365 - $202,356
Debt Service Charge - $0.026/100 gal. x 660,000 x 365 - $-62,634
Total Present Worth = $265,046 x 10.0983
= $2,676,500
D-78
Total: $265,046
-------
Table D-75. Treatment of Indian Lake area wastewater
at the existing Dowagiac WWTP
(Alternative No. 6).
Service Charge « $4.65/month x 12 months = $ 56
User Charge » 0.084/100 x 140,000 x 365 = $42,924
Debt Service Charge - 0.026/100 x 140,000 x 365 = $13,286
Total: $56,266
Total Present Worth = $56,266 x 10.0983
= $568,200
D-79
-------
OJ
•Prf
CO
03
CD
h
o.
TJ
g
n
CO
1.
to
4J U
C 03
V O
3 O
rH
»W iH
•H
4J 03
a S
CO
Tl \
<3 O
c
Uj-
>
91
CA
|
3
i
tQ
£
1
oi
n
£
a
3
•3
VI
3
J
Sao ao Q
•4* \O Un
M O •* i**
« S S3
sa -T o? vj
ao
-------
Table D-77.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure
sewers and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #1 Indian Lake (Alternative 8A).
Item
STE pressure sewer pipe
2*5"
3"
4"
Service connections
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Edgewood-Tice
Lift station 51 gpm TDH-20 ft
Oak Grove
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + STE pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
2,400
4,990
1,200
81
63
28
82
2
2
$ 17.35
18.20
19.50
3,428
143
750
1,250
1,250
55
4,128
$ 41,640
90,818
23,400
277,668
9,009
21,000
102,500
54,000
11,250
631,285
220,950
852,235
110
8,256
8,366
418
$ 24,984
54,491
14,040
83,300
5,405
12,600
16,200
211,020
66
2,477
2,543
46
95
23
5,103
630
280
2,080
1,576
2,080
11,913
146
146
7
D-81
-------
Table D-78.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure
sewers and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #2 Indian Lake (Alternative 8A).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
2V
3"
Service connections
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Indian Trail cul de sac
Forest Beach Blk 2,3,4
Lift station 9 gpm TDH-25 ft
Subtotal initial cost
Servcie factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + STE pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
750
650
500
$
17.
17.
18.
00
35
20
$
12
11
9
,750
,277
,100
$
7
6
5
,650
,766
,460
$
14
12
10
18
3,428
61,704
18,511
1,134
20
6
5
15
1
1
143
750
1,250
1,250
55
4,128
2,860
4,500
6,250
18,750
12,750
139,941
48,979
188,920
55
4,128
4,183
291
1,716
2,700
^^
—
3,825
46,628
—
•••"•
33
1,238
1,271
—
200
60
2,080
2,080
1,316
6,906
—
«.«
^
73
73
4
D-82
-------
Table D-79-
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure
sewers and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #3 Indian Lake (Alternative 8A).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2%"
3"
Service connections
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
South lake area
Lift station 35 gpm TDH-20 ft
Indian Lake Club
Lift station 29 gpm TDH-20 ft
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + STE pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
850
6,250
96
74
31
57
48
$ 17.35
18.20
3,428
143
750
1,250
1,250
$ 14,747
113,750
329,088
10,582
23,250
71,250
30,900
60,000
30,900
684,467
239,563
924,030
5
5
55
4,128
275
20,640
20,915
1,046
$ 8,848
68,250
98,726
6,349
13,950
9,270
9,270
165
6,192
6,357
16
119
6,048
740
310
2,080
1,418
2,080
1,415
214,663 14,226
365
365
18
D-83
-------
Table D-80.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure
sewers and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #2 Pipestone Lake (Alternative 8A).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
2*5"
3"
Service connections
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Bass Island Sub.
Lift station 18 gpm TDH-20 ft
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
1
900
,800
600
$
17
17
18
.00
.35
.20
$
15
31
10
,300
,230
,920
$ 9
18
6
,180
,738
,552
$
17
34
11
27
21
8
29
3,428
143
750
1,250
92,556
3,003
6,000
36,250
12,750
208,009
72,803
280,812
27,767
1,801
3,600
3,825
71,463
1,701
210
80
2,080
1,319
5,452
D-84
-------
600
1,680
2,250
$
17
17
18
.00
.35
.20
$
10,
29,
40,
200
148
950
$
6,
17,
24,
120
489
570
$
11
32
43
Table D-81. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure
sewers and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #3 Pipestone Lake (Alternative 8A).
Item Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
2%"
3"
Servica connections
STE pump 38 3,428 130,264 78,158 2,394
Septic tank
upgrade 31 143 4,433 2,660 310
replace 10 750 7,500 4,500 100
Cluster drainfield
North lake area 41 1,250 51,250 — 2,080
Lift station 25 gpm TDH-20 ft " 12,750 3,825 1,413
Subtotal initial cost 286,495 137,502 6,383
Service factor (35%) 100,273
Subtotal initial capital cost 386,768
D-85
-------
Table 13=82. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure
sewers and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #1 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8A).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
Service connections
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Oak Park Sub.
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
1,150 $ 17.00 $ 19,550
150 17.35 2,602
9
4
13
3,428
143
750
1,250
27,424
1,287
3,000
16,250
70,113
24,540
94,653
$11,730 $ 22
1,561 3
8,227
7,722
1,800
504
90
40
2,080
31,040 2,739
D-86
-------
Table D-83. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure
sewers and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #4 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8A).
Item Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2h"
Service connection
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Ronni St. 13 1,250 16,250
Subtotal initial cost 64,704 20,845 653
Service factor (35%) 22,646
Subtotal initial capital cost 87,350
Future connections cost
Building sewer 3 55 165 99
Septic tank + STE pump 3 4,128 12,384 3,715 219
Subtotal future connection cost 12,549 3,814 219
Annual future connection cost 627 — 11
00
8
10
3
$ 17.35
3,428
143
750
$ 17,350
27,424
1,430
2,250
$10,410
8,227
858
1,350
$ 19
504
100
30
D-87
-------
Table D-84.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure
sewers and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #5 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8A).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2" 450
2%" 1,750
3" 4,820
4" 2,450
6" 850
Service connections
STE pump 155
Septic tank
upgrade 146
replace 41
Cluster drainfield
Sister Lake 162
Lift station 124 gpm TDK-20 ft
Woodlawn Park Add'n. 15
Lift station 10 gpia TDH-20 ft
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer 10
Septic tank -f- STE pump 10
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
3,428
143
750
1,250
1,250
55
4,128
7,650
30,362
87,724
47,775
19,040
531,340
20,878
30,750
202,500
93,800
18,750
12,750
1,103,319
386,162
1,489,481
550
41,280
41,830
2,091
$ 4,590
18,217
52,634
28,665
11,424
159,402
12,527
18,450
„
9,270
—
3,825
319,004
—
— —
330
12^384
12,714
—
9,765
1,460
410
2,080
1,934
2,080
1,315
19,241
730
730
36
D-88
-------
Table D-65.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure
sewers and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #6 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8A).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
2h"
3"
4"
Service connections
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
SE shore area
Woodlawn Beach
Lift station 35 gpm TDH-20 ft
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
2
750
700
800
,650
$
17.
17.
18.
19.
00
35
20
50
$
12
12
14
51
,750
,145
,560
,675
$
7
7
8
31
,650
,287
,736
,005
61
44
18
8
56
3,428
143
750
1,250
1,250
209,108
6,292
13,500
10,000
70,000
30,900
430,930
150,825
581,755
62,732
3,775
8,100
9,270
14
13
15
50
3,843
440
180
2,080
2,080'
1,418
138,555 10,133
D-89
-------
Table D-86. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure
sewers and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #8 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8A).
•»
Item Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2V 1,600 $ 17.35 $ 27,760 $16,656 $ 30
Service connections
STE pump 7 3,428 23,996 7,199 441
S'eptic tank
upgrade 4 143 572 343 40
replace 3 750 2,250 1,350 30
Cluster drainfield
Wildwood Sub. 7 1,250 8,750 -- 2,080
Subtotal initial cost 63,328 25,548 2,621
Service factor (35%) 22,165
Subtotal initial capital cost 85,493
Future connections cost
Building sewer 2 55 110 66
Septic tank + STE pump 2 4,128 8,256 2,477 146
Subtotal future connection cost 8,366 2,543 7
Annual fxiture connection cost " 418 — —
D-90
-------
Table D-87.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure
sewers and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #9 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8A).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
2*5"
3"
Service connections
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Magician Lake Woods
Lift station 17 gpm TDH-20 ft
Krohnes & Qaklands
Lift station 27 gpm TDH-20 ft
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + STE pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
450
2,350
3,050
$
17.
17.
18.
00
35
20
$
7,
40,
55,
650
772
510
$
4,
24,
33,
590
463
306
$
i
4J
51
68
3,428
233,104
69,931
4,28^
51
17
26
42
2
2
143
750
1,250
1,250
55
4,128
7,293
12,750
32,500
12,750
52,500
30,900
485,729
170,005
655,734
110
8,256
8,366
418
4,376
7,650
~w
3,825
—
9,270
157,411
—
«.
66
2,477
2,543
--
51C
17C
2.08C
1,315
2,08C
1,414
11.96S
—
""" •
V»l
146
146
7
D-91
-------
Table D-38.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure
sewers and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #10 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8A;.
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2h"
3"
4"
Service connections
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Gilmore & Rainbow Beach
Lift station 39 gpm TDH-20 ft
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + STE pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
1,100
1,550
2,350
$
17.
18.
19.
35
20
50
$
19
28
45
,085
,210
,825
$
11
16
27
,451
,926
,495
$
21
29
45
51
48
17
55
3,428
143
750
1,250
174,828
6,864
12,750
68,750
30,900
387,212
135,524
522,736
52,448 3,213
4,118
7,650
9,270
480
170
2,080
1,420
129,358 7,458
13
13
55
4,128
715
53,664
54,379
2,719
429
16,099
16,528
—
—
949
949
47
D-92
-------
Table D-89.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure
sewers and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #11 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8A).
xtem
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STS pressure sewer pipe
*2"
3"
Service connections
STE pusp
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Folk's Landing-east end
Lift station 10 gpm TDH-20 ft
Folk's Landing- west end
Curran's & Maple Island
Lift station 42 gpm TDH-20 ft
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + STE pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Ar.riuai future connection cost
900
400
4,800
1,400
87
73
16
15
4
70
4
4
$ 17.00
17.35
18.20
19.50
3,428
143
750
1,250
1,250
1,250
55
4,128
$ 15,300
6,940
87,360
27,300
298,236
10,439
12,000
18,750
12,750
5,000
87,500
30,900
612,475
214,366
826,841
220
16,512
16,732
837
$ 9,180
4,164
52,416
16,380
89,471
6,263
7,200
__
3,825
—
—
9,270
198,169
—
*•"•"
132
4,954
5,086
—
17
8
91
27
5,481
730
160
2,080
1,315
2,080
1,422
13,411
292
292
15
D-93
-------
Table D-90.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure
sewers and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #13 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8A).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2V' " 1,350
3" 1,400
Service connections
STE pump 32
Septic tank
upgrade 21
replace 11
Cluster drainfield
Oaklands 10
Magician Bay Park 22
Lift station 14 gpm TDH-20 ft
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer 2
Septic tank + STE pump 2
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
$ 17.35
18.20
3,428
143
750
1,250
1,250
55
4,128
$ 23,422
25,480
109,696
3,003
8,250
12,500
27,500
12,750
222,601
77,910
300,511
$14,053
15,288
32,909
1,802
4,950
3,825
72,827
26
27
2,016
210
110
2,080
2,080
1,317
7,866
110
8,256
8,366
418
66
2,477
2,543
—
—
219
219
11
D-94
-------
Table D-91. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure
, sewers and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #14 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8A).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
Service connections
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Cable Park Beach
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
600 $ 17.35 $ 10,410
10
7
3
10
3,428
143
750
1,250
34,280
1,001
2,250
12,500
60,441
21,154
81,595
$ 6,246 $ 11
10,284
601
1,350
630
70
30
2,080
18,481 2,821
D-95
-------
Table D-92.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure
sewers and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #15 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8A).
.item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2" 100
2V 900
3" 3,250
Service connections
STE pump 27
Septic tank
upgrade 25
replace 9
Cluster drainfield
Swishers & Sandy Beach Resort 34
Lift station 23 gpm TDH-20 ft
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
ruture connections cost
Building sewer 3
Septic tank + STE pump 3
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
$ 17.00
17.35
18.20
3,428
143
750
1,250
55
4,128
$ 1,700
15,615
59,150
92,556
3,575
6,750
42,500
12,750
234,596
82,109
316,705
165
12,384
12,549
627
$ 1,020
9,369
35,490
27,767
2,145
4,050
3,825
83,666
99
3,715
3,814
2
17
62
1,701
250
90
2,080
1,322
5,524
219
219
11
D-96
-------
Table D-93.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for
District //I Indian Lake (Alternatives 8A and 8B) .
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump 4- drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump 4- raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump 4- dry well
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost .
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
Drain bed
Lift pump 4- drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump 4- dry well
Subtotal future costs
Annual future cost
147
25
172
25
5
5
5
5
5
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
$ 21,021
18,750
__
18,850
8,100
7,775
12,105
2,890
7,220
96 , 711
33,849
130,560
$12,613
11,250
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
23,863
—
—
$1,470
250
1,720
—
310
—
310
—
310
4,370
—
—
16
16
16
10
5
5
5
5
5
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
880
11,200
—
7,540
8,100
7,775
12,105
2,890
7,220
57,710
2,885
528
6,720
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
7,248
160
160
310
310
310
1,250
63
D-97
-------
Table D-94.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for
District #2 Indian Lake (Alternatives 8A and 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
Drain bed
Lift pump + drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump + dry well
Subtotal future costs
Annual future costs
60
15
10
12
143
750
1,444
55
8,580
11,250
75
7
10
5
2
5
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
—
5,278
16^.200
7,775
4,842
2,890
14,440
71,255
24,939
96,194
660
12
12
10
10
2
2
2
5
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
8,400
—
7,540
16,200
3,110
4,842
1,156
7,220
49,128
2,456
$ 5,148
6,750
11,898
$ 600
150
750
620
124
620
2,864
396
5,040
5,436
120
120
620
124
310
1,294
65
D-98
-------
Table D-95.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for
District #3 Indian Lake (Alternatives 8A and 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost .
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
Drain bed
Lift pump •+• drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump 4- raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump + dry well
Subtotal future costs
Annual future cost
50
15
65
10
5
10
3
2
2
143
750
- 75.4
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
7,150
11,250
7,540
8,'100
15,550
7,263
1,156
2,888
60,897
21,314
82,211
$ 4,290
6,750
11,040
$ 500
150
650
310
186
124
1,920
14
14
14
10
5
2
1
2
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
' 2,421
578
1,444
770
9,800
«.—
7,540
8,100
3,110
2,421
2,888
34,629
1,731
462
5,880
—_
«••_
_.
-
—
6,342
—
140
140
310
62
124
776
39
D-99
-------
able D-96. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for
District #1 Sister Lakes (Alternatives 8A and 8B).
Item
Q'.iqntity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
ieptic tank
upgrade
replace
oil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
ubtotal initial cost
ervice factor (35%)
ubtotal initial capital cost
uture costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
Drain bed
Lift pump + drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump 4- dry well
Subtotal future costs
Annual future cost
85
16
143
750
12,155
12,000
101
20
5
5
10
3
3
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
—
15,080
8,100
7,775
24,210
1,734
4,332
85,386
29,885
115,271
$ 7,293
7,200
14,493
$ 850
160
1,010
310
620
186
3,136
21
21
21
10
5
3
7
2
2
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,155
14 , 700
—
7,540
8,100
4,665
16,947
1,156
2,888
57,151
2,858
693
8,820
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
9,513
—
210
210
310
434
124
1,288
64
D-100
-------
Table D-97.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for
District #4 Sister Lakes (Alternatives 8A and 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
Septic tank
up grade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump 4- dry well
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic, tank
Soil absorption systems
Drain bed
Lift pump 4- drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump 4- raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump + dry well
Subtotal future costs
Annual future cost
86
24
110
10
7
7
15
5
5
143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
$ 12,298
18,000
7,540
11,340
10,885
36,315
2,890
7,220
106,488
37,271
143,759
$ 7,379
10,800
18,179
26
26
26
15
5
5
5
2
2
55
700
754
1,620 '
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,430
18,200
-_
11,310
8,100
7,775
12,105
1,156
2,880
62,956
3,148
858
10,920
__
—
—
—
—
— .
—
11,778
—
$ 860
240
1,100
434
930
310
3,874
260
260
310
1,264
63
D-101
-------
Table D-98.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for
District #5 Sister Lakes (Alternatives 8A and 8B).
Item
Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump 4- drain bed
raised drain bed
lift PUB? 4- raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump 4- dry well
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
Drain bed
Lift pusap 4- drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump 4- raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump 4- dry well
Subtotal future costs
Annual future cost
58
20
78
10
5
5
2
2
2
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
$ 8,294
15,000
——
7,540
8,100
7,775
4,842
1,156
2,888
55,595
19,458
75,053
$ 4,976
9,000
_ _
—
—
—
—
—
—
13,976
—
—
$ 580
200
780
—
310
—
124
—
124
2,118
—
—
11
11
11
7
5
5
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
605
7,700
5,278
8,100
7,775
—
—
—
363
4,620
__
—
—
—
—
—
110
110
310
29,458
1,473
4,983
530
26
D-102
-------
Tab'ls D-99.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for
District #6 Sister Lakes (Alternatives 8A. and 8B).
It en.
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pu^p 4- dry well
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Sc.il absorption systems
Drain bed
lift pump 4- drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump -*• raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pura? 4- dry well
Subtotal future costs
Annual future cost
147
26
143
750
21,021
19,500
173
15
15
5
5
10
10
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
—
11,310
24 , 300
7,775
12,105
5,780
14,440
116,231
40,681
156,912
$12,613
11,700
24,313
$1,470
260
1,730
930
310
620
5,320
30
30
30
25
5
5
5
5
10
55
700
JZ54
1,620
' 1,555-
2,421
— 578
1/444
1,650
21,000
—
-18,850
8,100
7,775
12,105
2,890
14", 440
86", 810
4 ,340
990
12,600
—
.
_
—
—
—
—
13,590
—
—
300
300
—
310
__
310
—
620
1,840
92
D-103
-------
Table D-100.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for
District #7 Sister Lakes (Alternatives 8A and 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump 4- dry well
Subtotal initial cost
iarvice factor (35%)
iubtotal initial capital cost
'uture costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
Drain bed
Lift pump + drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump 4- raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump -!- dry well
Subtotal future costs
Annual future cost-
75
12
87
5
13
5
5
5
12
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
$ 10,725
9,000
^^
3,770
21,060
7,775
12,105
2,890
17,328
84,653
29,629
114,282
$ 6,435
5,400
._
—
—
__
—
—
—
11,835
—
^^u
$ 750
120
870
806
__
310
__
744
3,600
—
^^ _t
10
10
10
7
3
2
2
7
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
550
7,000
—
5,278
4,860
3,110
4,842
—
10,108
35,748
1,787
330
4,200
_ _
—
__
—
—
__
—
4,530
—
100
100
186
124
434
944
47
D-104
-------
Table D-101.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for
District #8 Sister Lakes (Alternatives 8A and 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump 4- drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump -f- dry well
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
Drain bed
Lift pump + drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump •*• dry well
Subtotal future costs
Annual future cost
126
14
140
20
12
7
5
5
5
143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
18,018
10-,500
15,080
19,440
10,885
12,105
2,890
7,220
96,138
33,648
129,786
30
30
30
17
7
5
5
5
2
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,650
21,000
—
12,818
11,340
7,775
12,105
2,890
2,888
72,466
3,623
$10,811
6,300
17,111
990
$1,260
140
1,400
744
310
310
4,164
13,590
300
300
434
310
124
1,468
73
D-105
-------
Table D-102.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for
District #9 Sister Lakes (Alternatives 8A and 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump -H drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump 4- raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
Drain bed
Lift pump + drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump + dry well
Subtotal future costs
Annual future cost
112
27
139
25
10
15
5
5
15
143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
16,016
20,250
18,850
16,200
23,325
12,105
2,890
21,660
131,296
45,954
177,250
$ 9,610
12,150
21,760
$1,120
270
1,390
620
310
930
4,640
25
25
25
15
10
5
5
5
10
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,375
17,500
—
11,310
16,200
7,775
12,105
2,890
14,440
83,595
4,180
825
10,500
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
11,325
—
250
250
620
310
620
2,050
102
D-106
-------
Table D-103.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for
District #10 Sister Lakes (Alternatives 8A and 8B).
item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump 4- drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
Drain bed
Lift pump + drain bed
P-aised drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump + dry well
Subtotal future costs
Anaual future cost
72
16
88
15
18
5
5
5
5
14
14
14
10
8
5
3
3
5
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
$ 10,296
12,000
__
11,310
29,160
7,775
12,105
2,890
7,220
92,756
32,465
125,221
770
9,800
—
7,540
12,960
7,775
7,263
1,734
7,220
55,062
2,753
$ 6,178
7,200
_«
—
—
—
—
—
—
13,378
—
— —
462
5,880
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6,342
—
$ 720
160
880
—
1,116
—
310
—
310
3,496
—
—
mr^
140
140
—
496
—
186
—
310
1,272
64
D-107
-------
Table D-104.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for
District #11 Sister Lakes (Alternatives 8A and 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain, bed
lift pump •*• drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift purco -I- dry well
subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
i'uture costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
Drain, bed
Lift pump -i- drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump 4- dry well
Subtotal future costs
Annual future cost
51
6
57
5
10
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
5
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
573
1,444
$ 7,293
4,500
— _
3,770
16,200
10,885
12,105
—
7,200
61,973
21,691
83,664
275
3,500
—
3,770
8,100
3,110
4,842
—
7,220
30,817
1,541
$4,376
2,700
__
—
—
— —
—
—
—
7,076
—
— —
165
2,100
—
__
—
__
—
__
—
2,265
__
$ 510
60
570
—
620
— —
310
__
310
2,380
—
— —
50
50
__
310
~.«
124
.._
310
844
42
D-10S
-------
Table D-105.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for
District #12 Sister Lakes (Alternatives 8A and 8B).
Iceni
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
Drain bed
Lift pump -s- drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump •*• raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump 4- dry well
Subtotal future costs
Annual future cost
60
21
143
750
8,580
15,750
81
10
10
5
10
5
10
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
—
7,540
16,200
7,775
24,210
2,890
14,440
97,385
34,085
131,470
$ 5,U8
9,450
14,598
$ 600
210
810
620
620
620
3,480
10
10
10
7
8
3
10
5
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
550
7,000
—
5,278
12,960
4,665
24,210
—
7,220
61,883
3,094
330
4 ,.200
—
—
—
—
—
—
_„
4,530
—
100
100
496
620
310
1,626
81
D-199
-------
Table D-106.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for
District #13 Sister Lakes (Alternatives 8A and 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pimp 4- drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump 4- raised drain bed
dry wall
lift pump + dry well
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer .
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
Drain bed
Lift pisop 4- drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift puisp 4- dry well
Subtotal future costs
Anmial future cost
89
34
123
15
15
5
20
7
15
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
$ 12,727
25,500
__
11,310
24,300
7,775
48,420
4,046
21,660
155,738
54,508
210,246
$ 7,636
15,300
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
22,936
—
—
$ 890
340
1,230
—
930
—
1,240
—
930
5,560
—
—
30
30
30
12
10
10
7
5
13
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,650
21,000
—
9,048
16,200
15,550
16,947
2,890
18,772
102,057
5,103
990
12,600
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
13,590
—
300
300
620
434
806
2,460
123
D-110
-------
Table D-107.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for
District #14 Sister Lakes (Alternatives 8A and 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
Drain bed
Lift pump + drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump + dry well
Subtotal future costs
Annual future cost
20
4
24
5
3
7
2
3
3
3
5
2
143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
2,860
3,000
8,100
4,665
16,947
1,156
36,728
12,855
49,583
165
2,100
3,770
3,240
2,888
12,163
608
$1,716
1,800
3,516
$ 200
40
240
310
434
1,224
99
1,260
1,359
30
30
124
124
308
15
D-lll
-------
Cable D-108.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for
District #15 Sister Lakes (Alternatives 8A and 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump 4- drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
;ubtotal initial cost
•ervice factor (35%)
'>ubtotal initial capital cost
'uture costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
Drain bed
Lift pump + drain bed
Raised drain bed
'Lift pump 4- raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump 4- dry well
Subtotal future costs
Annual future cost
123
23
146
20
17
15
12
7
15
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
$ 17,589
17,250
—
15,080
27,540
23,325
29,052
4,046
21,660
138,292
48,402
186,694
$10,553
10,350
__
—
—
—
— —
—
—
20,903
—
—
$1,230
230
1,460
—
1,054
—
744
__
930
5,648
—
—
26
26
26
15
7
5
10
5
7
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,430
18,200
—
• 11,310
11,340
7,775
24,210
2,890
10,108
87,263
4,363
858
10,920
__
—
—
__
— _
—_ .
—
11,778
—
260
260
434
620
434
2,008
100
D-112
-------
w
u ,
O
3
w|
K
CJ
C,
n!
C
(M
*
c I
Q
•^ - 5
rH i*
*""* c oj
a « w «
7. r. a
03 £ ~
4J JJ w
C 0)
0) O "
3 U § c
— 1 u o
«-i — 1 „ 3
U-l 00 E U
o) o% °| 2
.j 1~l u «
-*• V C
so) |3
rt C o
4J 3 U
-3 «i e r
y ^ usg
w 2 £ * ~
& S " =
qj 0) Si |
0! AJ - -2!
B
' >• -8)
t" e K!
« c -
wo H •;
w «i
W -i
> m
•H I S
JJC ^
OS O — ' u
C 2 £
M TS s -
0) (U ^ S
4J t3 5
M a «
<3 M
00
J_| £X
o s
•o 2
«C 5
JJ 03
CO
OK -
(J **1 ^
i— 1 3
0 -r! c |
55 I
Jj C3
O U
S -0 |j
JJ VH ^F
CO "S
Si 4J „ «
03 CS m
*l
§ 2 1
1 1 I
3 eu '^
w w
» c
1 ' a' «
C5 -J
«! in
f^ L. ®
r* B "S
H =! -
se o — ^ cc t? x
U-- -^ f*' rsi ill
*•* ffv r% sc
o (N rj oc
« iA rs< O
\C r^. C1 A O <^ ill
e\> *_ m \J5
•c (?* r*i oo IIP
- - * * III
r*i ^4 w ac
\e «c -» r* lii
o eo r> M iii
O O i*> O
^ In ^ S iii
• • - * iii
ri rM r* «
f*- O *«r *^ os O °3
So S2 So-
S K eo S S s "
fN
^J in rt G n* *f tf)
oo r** ^ c O *"* fs*
<^* O o» *sf »n r^ p\
o c^ jr^pooo>»c<— 'O
•Mr*~r^!w^CD^r^'C^vflOin^v"~'rK
^. ^_ — _ _ r* m — . in «
**
gS^^SI^^S^^o^SCo
-H — sc«'*'«ci
-------
Table D-110.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers
and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #1 Indian Lake (Alternative 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
' 4"
Lift station
51 gpm TDH-48 ft
6 gpra TDK-25 ft
Force main, cossaon trench
Force main, individual trench
3"
Service connection
gravity
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Edgewood-Tice
Oak Grove
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal Initial capital cost
Future, connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tack -J- gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
5,040
$35.30 $ 177,912 $106,747 $ 192
300
680
820
91
63
28
82
9
2
2
4.60
5.75
14.15
1,577
143
750
1,250
1,250
55
2,277
54,000
12,750
1,380
3,910
11,603
143,507
9,009
21,000
102,500
11,250
548,821
192,087
740,908
110
4,554
4,664
233
16,200
3,825
828
2,346
6,962
86 , 104
5,405
12,600
—
241,017
66
2,732
2,798
1,613
1,314
—
—
—
630
280
2,080
2,080
8,189
20
20
1
D-114
-------
Table D-lll. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers
and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
« District #2 Indian Lake (Alternative 8B).
Itga Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
STE sewer pipe
4" 1,700 $ 35.30 $ 60,010 $36,006 $ 65
Lift station
3 gpm TDH-25 ft 12,750 3,825 1,312
9 gpm TDH-25 ft 12,750 3,825 1,316
Force main, individual trench
2" 750 13.00 9,750 5,850
Service connection
gravity 20 1,577 31,540 18,924
Septic tank
upgrade " 20 143 2,860 1,716 200
replace 6 750 4,500 2,700 60
Cluster drainfield
Indian Trail cul-de-sac 5 1,250 6,250 — 2,080
Forest Beach Blk 2,3,4 15 1,250 3,750 — 2,080
Subtotal initial cost 144,160 72,846 7,113
Service factor (35%) 50,456
Subtotal initial capital cost 194,616
Future connections cost
Building sewer 1 55 55 33
Septic tank + gravity 1 2,277 2,277 1,366
Subtotal future connection cost 2,332 1,399
Annual future connection cost 117 —
D-115
-------
Table D-112.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers
and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #3 Indian Lake (Alternative 8B).
I tan
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STB. sewer oipe
4"
Lift station
15 g?m TDH-35 ft
35 gpm TDH-65 ft
29 gpsu TDH-30 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
Force nain, individual trench
3"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
South lake area
Indian Lake Club
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Sepcic tank -f- gravity
Subcotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
4,900
$ 35.30 $ 172,970 $103,782 $ 186
800
2,350
97
8
74
31
57
48
5
5
4.60
14.15
1,577
3,428
143
750
1,250
1,250
55
2,277
12,750
30 , 900
30 , 900
3,680
33,252
152,969
27,424
10,582
23,250
71,250
60,000
629,927
220,^74
850,401
275
11,385
11,660
583
3,825
9,270
9,270
2,208
19,951
91,781
8,227
6,349
13,950
._
—
268,613
—
— —
165
6,831
6,996
—
1,324
1,459
1,422
—
—
504
740
310
2,080
2,080
10,105
—
—
50
50
3
D-116
-------
Table D-113. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers
and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #2 Pipestone Lake (Alternative 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
Lift station
18 gpm TDH-25 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
Force main, individual trench
2"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
1
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Bass Island Sub.
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
2,150 $ 35.30 $ 75,895 $45,537 $ 8:
150
450
21
8
29
4.60
13.00
29 1,577
1 3,428
143
750
1,250
12,750
690
5,850
3,003
6,000
36,250
3,825 1,32;
414
3,510
45,733 27,440
3,428 1,028 6:
1,802
3,600
21C
8C
2,080
189,599 87,156 3,837
66,360
255,959
D-117
-------
Table D-114. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers
and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #3 Pioestone Lake (Alternative 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
Lift station
16 gpm TDK-35 ft
25 gpm TDH-35 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
Force main, individual trench
2"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
North lake area
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
5,080
950
1,000
41
$ 35.30 $ 179,324 $107,594 $ 193
4.60
13.00
1,250
12,750
12,750
4,370
36
5
31
10
1,577
3,428
143
750
56,772
17,140
4,433
7,500
3,825 1,324
3,825 1,423
2,622
13,000 7,800
34,063
5,142 315
2,660 310
4,500 100
51,250 — 2,080
359,289 172,031 5,745
125,751
485,040
D-118
-------
Table D-115. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers
and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #1 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
Lift station
25 gpm TDH-50 ft
"force main, common trench
2"
Force main, individual trench
2"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Oak Park Sub.
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
1,150 $ 35.30 $ 40,595 $24,357 $ 44
12,750 3,825 1,432
450 4.60 2,070 1,242
150 13.00 1,950 1,170
10 1,577 15,770 9,462
3 3,428 10,284 3,085 189
9 143 1,287 7,722 90
4 750 3,000 1,800 40
13 1,250 16,250 — 2,080
103,956 52,663 3,875
36,385
140,341
D-119
-------
Table D-116.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers
and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #4 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
Lift station
9 gpm TDH-20 ft
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Ronni St.
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
1,000
$ 35.30 $ 35,300 $21,180 $ 38
10
3
10
3
13
1,577
3,428
143
750
1,250
12,750
15,770
10,284
1,430
2,250
16,250
94,034
32,912
126,946
3,825
9,462
3,085
858
1,350
3
3
55
2,277
165
6,831
6,996
350
99
4,099
4,198
—
1,315
189
100
30
39,760 1,672
30
30
1.5
D-120
-------
Table D-117.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers
and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #5 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sawer pipe
4"
6"
Lift station
30 gpm TDH-30 ft
13 gpra TDH-20 ft
29 gpm TDH-30 ft,
124 gpm TDH-55 ft
10 gpm TDH-50 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
4"
Force main, individual trench .
2"
4"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Sister Lake
Woodlawn Park Addition
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
6,850
2,010
2,590
1,750
550
850
171
16
146
41
162
15
10
10
$ 35.30
37.00
4.60
6.50
13.00
14.90
1,577
3,428
143
750
1,250
1,250
55
2,277
$ 241,805
74,370
30 , 900
12,750
30,900
93,800
12,750
11,914
11,375
7,150
12,665
269,667
54,848
20,878
30 , 750
202,500
18,750
1,137,772
398,220
1,535,992
550
22,770
23,320
1,166
$145,083
44,622
9,270
3,825
9,270
28,140
3,825
7,148
6,825
4,290
7,599
161,800
16,454
12,527
18,450
—
479,128
330
6,831
7,161
$ 260
76
1,423
1,317
1,422
2,046
1,323
—
—
1,008
1,460
410
2,080
2,080
14,905
100
100
5
D-121
-------
Table D-118.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers
and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #6 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
Lift station
3,800
5 gpni TBH-30 ft
10 gpm TDH-35 ft
25 gpm TBH-65 ft
35 gpm TBH-4S ft
Force suain, common trench
2"
Force main, individual trench
2"
3"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
up grade
replace
Cluster drainfield
SE shore area
Woodlawn Beach
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
1,600
300
700
50
14
44
18
56
$ 35.30
4.60
13.00
14.15
1,577
3,428
143
750
1,250
1,250
$ 134,140
12,750
12,750
12,750
30,900
7,360
3,900
9,905
78,850
47,992
6,292
13,500
10,000
70,000
451,089
157,881
608,970
$ 80,484
3,825
3,825
3,825
9,270
4,416
2,340
5,943
47,310
14,398
3,775
8,100
144
1,314
1,319
1,442
1,441
882
440
180
2,080
2,080
187,511 11,322
D-122
-------
Table D-119. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers
and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #8 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8B).
*
I ten Quantity Unit Cost Construction .Salvage O&M
STE sewer pipe
4" 500 $ 35.30 $ 17,650 $10,590 $ 19
Lift station
5 gpn TDE-55 ft 12,750 3,825 1,317
Force main, individual trench
2" 1,100 13.00 14,300 8,580
Service connection
gravity 7 1,577 11,039 6,623
Septic tank
upgrade 4 143 572 343 40
replace ' 3 750 2,250 1,350 30
Cluster drainfield
Wildwood Sub. 7 1,250 8,750 — 2,080
Subtotal initial cost 67,311 31,311 3,486
Service factor (35%) 23,559
Subtotal initial capital cost 90,870
Future connections cost
Building sewer 2 55 110 66
Septic tank + gravity 2 2,277 4,554 2,732 20
Subtotal future connection cost 4,664 2,798 20
Annual future connection cost 233 — 1
D-123
-------
Table D-120.
Quantities and coats for septic tank effluent gravity sewers
and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #9 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
Lift station
17 gpm TDH-30 ft
6 gpm TDH-35 ft
14 gpm TDH-40 ft
27 gpm TDH-30 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
Force main, individual trench
2"
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Magician Lake Woods
Krohnes & Oakland
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection csst
Annual future connection cost
3,800
$35.30 $ 134,140 $ 80,484 $ 144
750
2,200
60
8
51
17
26
42
2
2
4.60
13.00
1,577
3,428
143
750
1,250
1,250
55
2,277
12,750
12,750
12,750
30,900
3,450
28,600
94,620
27,424
7,293
12,750
32,500
52,500
462,427
161,849
624,276
110
4,554
4,664
233
3,825
3,825
3,825
9,270
2,070
17,160
56,772
8,227
4,376
7,650
__
197,484
66
2,732
2,798
1,323
1,315
1,324
1,421
—
—
504
510
170
2,080
2,080
10,871
20
20
1
D-124
-------
Table D-121. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers
and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #10 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STB sewer pipe
4"
Lift station
39 gpm TDH-40 ft
Force main, common trench
3"
Force main, individual trench
T
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Gilmore & Rainbow Beach
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + gravity
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
3,150
55
$ 35.30 $ 111,195 $ 66,717 $ 120
1,250
30,900
68,750
9,270 1,440
1,600
1,600
52
3
48
17
5.75
14.15
1,577
3,428
143
750
9,200
22,640
82,004
10,284
6,864
12,750
5,520
13,584
49,202
3,085
4,118
7,650
189
480
170
2,080
354,587 159,146 4,479
124,105
478,692
13
13
55
2,277
715
29,601
30,316
1,516
429
17,761
18,190
—
—
130
130
6
D-125
-------
Table D-122.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers
and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #11 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
sewer pipe
A"
Lift station
10 gpm TDH-35 ft
3 gpta TDH-30 ft
16 gpTa TDH-35 ft
7 gpra TDH-25 ft
42 gpra TDE-50 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
"
Force main,, individual trench
2"
3"
Ser^iea connection
gravity
3TF,
4,430
$ 35.30 $ 156,379
$ 93,827 $ 168
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Folk's Landing-east end
Polk's Landing-west end
Currsn's & Maple Island
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank 4- gravity
Subtotal future* connection cost
Annual future connection cost
820
670
2,150
600
73
16
57
32
15
4
70
4
4
4.60
5.75
13.00
14.15
1,577
3,428
143
750
1,250
1,250
1,250
55
2,277
12,750
12,750
12,750
12,750
30,900
3,772
3,852
27,950
8,490
. 115,121
54,848
8,151
24,000
18,750
5,000
87,500
595,713
208,500
804,213
220
9,108
9,328
466
3,825
3,825
3,825
' 3,825
9,270
2,263
2,311
16,770
5,094
69,073
16,454
4,891
14,400
|1|1 . _|
—
—
249,653
—
—
132
5,465
5,597
—
1,319
1,312
1,324
1,314
1,454
_ m
~~*
„
~~
„
1,008
570
320
2,080
—
2,080
12,949
—
—
40
40
2
D-126
-------
XabJLe D-123.
Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers
and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #13 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4" 2,150
Lift station
7 gpm TDH-30 ft
14 gpm TDH-30 ft
Force main, individual trench
2" 600
Service connection
gravity 29
STE pump 3
Septic tank
upgrade • 21
replace 11
Cluster drainfield
Oaklands 10
Magician Bay Park 22
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer 2
Septic tank + gravity 2
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
$ 35.30 $ 75,895 $45,537 $ 82
12,750 3,825 1,315
12,750 3,825 1,321
13.00
1,577
3,428
143
750
1,250
1,250
55
2,277
7,800 4,680
45,733 27,440
10,284 3,085
3,003
8,250
12,500
27,500
216,465
75,763
292,228
110
4,554
4,664
233
1,802
4,950
95,144
66
2,732
2,798
189
210
110
2,080
2,080
7,387
20
20
1
D-127
-------
Table D-124. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers
and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #14 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8B).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
STE sewer pipe
4"
Lift station
7 gpm TDH-25 ft
Force main, common trench
2"
Force main, individual trench
2"
Service connection
gravity
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Cable Park Beach
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
450 $ 35.30 $ 15,885 $ 9,531 $ 17
450
150
10
7
3
10
4.60
13.00
143
750
12,750
2,070
1,950
1,577 15,770
1,001
2,250
1,250 12,500
64,176
22,462
86,638
3,825 1,314
1,242
1,170
9,462
601
1,350
70
30
2,080
27,181 3,511
D-128
-------
Table D-125. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers
and cluster drainfields serving limited areas for
District #15 Sister Lakes (Alternative 8B).
Item Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage Q&M
STE sewer pipe
4" 1,600 $ 35.30 $ 56,480 $ 33,888 $ 61
Lift station
13 gpm TDH-75 ft 12,750 3,825 1,335
10 gpm TDH-63 ft 12,750 3,825 1,326
Force main, common trench
2" 1,300 4.60 5,980 3,588
Force main, individual trench
2" 2,850 13.00 37,050 22,230
Service connection
gravity - 31 1,577 48,887 29,332
STE pump 3 3,428 10,284 3,085 189
Septic tank
upgrade 25 143 3,575 2,145 250
replace 9 750 6,750 4,050 90
Cluster drainfield
Swishers & Sandy Beach Resort 34 1,250 42,500 — 2,030
Subtotal initial cost 237,006 105,968 5,33i
Service factor (35%) 82,952
Subtotal initial capital cost 319,958
Future connections cost
Building sewer 3 55 165 99
Septic tank + gravity 3 2,277 6,831 4,099 30
Subtotal future connection cost 6,996 4,198 30
Annual future connection :ost 350 — 1.5
D-129
-------
r^^f
.^U^^Ti^'^^'-'T
co
a
*j
so
c
v-l
T3
t-*
O
4J
1-1
3
CO
CO
•H O
±j cj
CO
C i-l
U 00
cu o>
•U i-t
l-l
fl
V3
'
3
1)
a
iC
crt
-
**
•3
•0
•j
-4
U
03
g2SS *-S S SSs;2K5S-5^S3oS
ininoow jsovm -rr~sooo3cNorMvC-r-co — >0
„„ 0 M«« o--.-r-««c0>OU,r,or,^^
^- vO CO
(N <*1
!n7aooo 3 £ « «g^^Sar^2^2c3cno§^o
— « >* 05 wnr^-^ ^^r-tLnm^ocaMco^r^tAgcH
=S?S SSK 2SS55S3SSSSS53S
•SSS "3S *g2SS"SSS°SSSS2
J§5" §2S o S "2 S SS 3 S 3SS S 2 S
~
-------
Table D-127.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #1 Indian Lake (Alternative 9).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
seasonal
permanent
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Drain bed
Lift pump + drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump + dry well
Total future costs
Annual future costs
210
53
32
27
5
143
750
1,413
835
835
30,030
39,750
45,216
22,545
4,175
231
18
10
12
15
5
12
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
—
13,572
16,200
18,660
36,315
2,890
17,328
246,681
86,338
338,019
$18,018
23,850
$ 2,100
530
13,527
2,505
57,900
3,240
1,800
2,310
620
930
744
12,274
18
18
18
12
5
8
12
5
5
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
990
12,600
—
9,048
8,100
12,440
29,052
2,890
7,220
82,340
4,117
594
7,560
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
8,154
408
—
180
180
—
310
—
744
—
310
1,724
86
D-131
-------
Table D-128.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #2 Indian Lake (Alternative 9).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
seasonal
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Drain bed
Lift pump + drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Lift pump + dry well
Total future costs
Annual future costs
80
21
95
7
10
5
7
5
10
143
750
1,413
835
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
11,440
15,750
8,478
5,010
5,278
16,200
7,775
16,947
2,890
14,440
104,208
36,473
140,681
$ 6,864
9,450
$ 800
210
3,006
19,320
720
950
620
434
620
4,354
13
13
13
10
10
2
2
2
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
1,444
715
9,100
—
7,540
16 , 200
3,110
4,842
2,888
44,395
2,220
429
5,460
—
—
—
—
—
—
5,889
294
—
130
130
—
620
—
124
124
1,128
56
D-132
-------
Table D-129.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #3 Indian Lake (Alternative 9).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
seasonal
permanent
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump •+• drain bed
raised drain "bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Initial cost
Sfervice factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Drain bed
Lift pump -f drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump 4- raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump + dry well
Total future costs
Annual future costs
124
46
22
143
750
1,413
17,732
34,500
31,086
$10,639
20,700
$1,240
460
20
2
148
10
7
15
18
2
10
835
835
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
16 , 700
1,670
__
7,540
11,340
23,325
43,578
1,156
14,440
203,067
71,073
274,140
10,020
1,002
__
—
—
—
—
—
— —
42,361
—
—
2,400
720
1,480
—
434
—
1,116
—
620
8,470
—
—
19
19
19
10
5
5
8
3
7
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,045
13,300
—
7,540
8,100
7,775
19,368
1,734
10,108
68,970
3,448
627
7,980
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
8,607
430
__.
190
190
—
310
..„
496
—
434
1,620
81
D-133
-------
Table D-130.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #2 Pipestone Lake (Alternative 9).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
seasonal
permanent
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump •+• drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Soil absorption system
Lift pump -f- drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Total future costs
Annual future costs
21
8
5
4
20
2
1
3
7
2
3
143
750
1,413
835
835
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
1,620
2,421
3,003
6,000
12,717
4,175
3,340
1,508
1,620
4,665
16,947
53,975
18,891
72,866
3,240
7,263
10,503
525
$1,802
3,600
2,505
2,004
9,911
210
80
600
1,440
200
62
434
3,026
124
186
310
15
D-134
-------
Table D-131.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #3 Pipestone Lake (Alternative 9).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
seasonal
permanent
Soil absorption systems
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
lift pump + dry well
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Soil absorption system
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Lift pump -t- dry well
Total future costs
Annual future costs
31
10
17
5
2
143
750
1,413
2,421
1,444
4,433
7,500
24,021
12,105
2,888
14,993
750
$ 2,660
4,500
$ 310
100
7
10
14
2
5
7
1
835
835
1,620
1,555
2,421
1,444
5,845
8,350
__
3,240
7,775
16,947
1,444
79,555
27,844
107,399
3,507
5,010
_ .«_
—
—
—
—
15,677
—
—
840
3,600
140
124
—
434
62
5,610
—
—
310
124
434
22
D-135
-------
Table D-132.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #1 Sister Lakes (Alternative 9).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Low flaw toilet
Blackwater holding tank
seasonal
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future ccsts
Building sewer
Saptic tank
Soil absorption system
Drain bed
Lift, pxssp 4- drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pum? + raised drain bed
Dry wall"
Lift puurp -4- dry well
Total future costs
Annual future costs
94
20
9
9
105
20
5
5
15
3
4
143
750
1,413
835
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
13,442
15,000
12,717
7,515
15,080
8,100
7,775
36,315
1,734
5,776
123,454
43,209
166,663
$ 8,065
9,000
$ 940
200
4,509
21,574
1,080
1,050
310
930
248
4S758
21
21
21
10
5
5
7
2
4
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,155
14 , 700
—
7,540
8,100
7,775
16,947
1,156
5,776
63,149
3,157
693
8,820
—
__
—
—
—
—
—
9,513
476
—
210
210
—
310
—
434
—
248
1,412
71
D-136
-------
Table D-133.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #4 Sister Lakes (Alternative 9).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Lew flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
seasonal
permanent
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Drain bed
Lift pump + drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump + dry well
Total future costs
Annual future costs
96
27
12
143
750
1,413
$ 13,728 $ 8,237
16,956
$ 960
270
8
4
111
10
7
7
15
5
5
835
835
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
6,680
3,340
_—
7,540
11,340
10,885
36,315
2,890
7,220
116,894
40,913
157,807
4,008
2,004
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
14,249
—
—
960
1,440
1,110
—
434
—
930
—
310
6,414
—
—
29
29
29
15
5
5
7
2
2
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,595
20,300
—
11,310
8,100
7,775
16,947
1,156
2,888
70,071
3,504
957
12,180
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
13,137
657
__
290
290
_„
310
—
434
—
124
1,448
72
D-137
-------
Table D-134.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #5 Sister Lakes (Alternative 9).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Lew flow toilet
Blackwatsr holding tank
seasonal
permanent
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift puap + dry well
Initial cost
Service, factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Futures costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Drain bed
Lift pump -f- drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump 4- raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump + dry well
Total future costs
Annual future costs
194
61
35
15
20
143
750
1,413
835
835
27,742
45,750
49,455
12,525
16,700
220
25
15
10
15
5
12
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
—
18,850
24,300
15,550
36 , 315
2,890
17,328
267,405
93,592
360,997
$16,645
27,450
$ 1,940
610
7,515
10,020
61,630
1,800
7,200
2,200
930
930
744
16,354
21
21
21
15
5
7
5
2
5
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,155
14,700
—
11,310
8,100
10,885
12,105
1,156
7,220
66,631
3,332
693
8,820
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
9,513
476
—
210
210
—
310
—
310
—
310
1,350
67
D-138
-------
Table D-135.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #6 Sister Lakes (Alternative 9).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
seasonal
permanent
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump 4- raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump 4- dry well
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Drain bed
Lift pump H- drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump •+• dry well
Total future costs
Annual future costs
193
44
21
143
750
1,413
27,599
33,000
29,673
$16,559
19,800
$ 1,930
440
18
3
216
15
15
18
15
7
15
835
835
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
15,030
2,505
—
11,310
24,300
27,990
36,315
4,046
21,660
233,428
81,700
315,128
9,018
1,503
. —
—
—
—
—
—
—
46,880
—
—
2,160
1,080
2,160
—
930
—
930
—
930
10,560
, —
—
30
30
30
25
5
7
5
5
10
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,650
21,000
—
18,850
8,100
10,885
12,105
2,890
14,440
89,920
4,496
990
12,600
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
13,590
680
—
300
300
—
310
—
310
—
620
1,840
92
D-139
-------
Table D-136.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #7 Sister Lakes (Alternative 9).
I tan
Quantify Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump -fc raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Drain bed
Lift pump •*• drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift puzap -f raised drain bed
Lift PUEO + dry well
Total future costs
Annual future coses
75
12
143
750
10,725
9,000
87
3
5
13
5
5
12
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
—
2,262
8,100
20,215
12,105
2,890
17,328
82,625
28,919
111,544
$ 6,435
5,400
11,835
$ 750
120
870
310
310
744
3,104
10
10
10
7
2
3
2
7
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
1,444
550
7,000
__
5,278
3,240
4,665
4,842
10,108
35,683
1,784
330
4,200
— —
— —
—
—
—
—
4,530
226
__
100
100
__
124
—
124
434
882
44
D-140
-------
Table D-137.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #8 Sister Lakes (Alternative 9).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
seasonal
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump 4- raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Drain bed
Lift pump •*• drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump + dry well
Total future costs
Annual future costs
130
17
143
20
7
12
7
5
5
$ 143
750
1,413
835
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
18,590
12,750
5,652
3,340
15,080
11,340
18,660
16,947
2,890
7,220
112,469
39,364
151,833
$11,154
7,650
$1,300
170
2,004
20,808
480
1,430
434
434
310
4,558
32
32
32
17
7 '
5
7
5
2
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,760
22,400
—
12,818
11,340
7,775
16,947
2,890
2,888
78,818
3,941
1,056
13,440
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
14,496
725
—
320
320
—
434
—
434
—
124
1,632
82
D-141
-------
Table, D-138.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #9 Sister Lakes (Alternative 9).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
seasonal
permanent
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump -f- drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump -*• raised drain bed
dry wall
lift pump -f dry well
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Drain bed
Lift pump + drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift, puarp -r raised drain bed
Dry wall
Lift pusn -f dry well
Total future costs
Annual future costs
163
44
17
143
750
1,413
23,309
33,000
24,021
$13,985
19,800
$ 1,630
440
12
5
190
25
15
12
15
5
15
27
27
27
15
10
7
10
5
10
835
835
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
10,020
4,175
—
18,850
24,300
18,660
36,315
2,890
21,660
217,200
76,020
293,220
1,485
18 , 900
—
11,310
16 , 200
10,885
24,210
2,890
14,440
100,320
5,016
6,012
2,505
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
42,302
—
— —
891
11,340
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
12,231
612
1,440
1,800
1,900
—
930
—
930
—
930
10,000
—
—• ~
«_uv
270
270
—
620
—
620
—
620
2,400
120
D-142
-------
Table D-139.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #10 Sister Lakes (Alternative 9).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
seasonal
permanent
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Drain bed
Lift pump + drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift punsp •<• raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump + dry well
Total future costs
Annual future costs
110
33
7
2
143
750
1,413
835
835
15,730
24,750
12,717
5,845
1,670
134
15
18
10
15
5
5
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
—
11,310
29,160
15,550
36,315
2,890
7,220
163,157
57,105
220,262
$ 9,438
14,850
$1,100
330
3,507
1,002
28,797
840
720
1,340
1,116
930
310
6,686
27
27
27
10
10
7
5
3
5
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,485
18,900
—
7,540
16 , 200
10,885
12,105
1,734
7,220
76,069
3,803
891
11,340
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
12,231
612
— .
270
270
—
620
—
310
—
310
1,780
89
D-143
-------
Table D-140.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #11 Sister Lakes (Alternative 9).
j.t(?ra
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
raplace
Low flaw toilet
Blackwat;er holding tank
seasonal
p^rsiaaent
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump •+• drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump +• dry well
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Se,ptic tank
Soil absorption, system
Drain bed
Lift pump -t- drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump 4- raised drain bed
Lift pimp -!- dry well
Total future costs
Annual future costs
108
38
22
143
750
1,413
15,444
28,500
31,086
$ 9,266
17,100
$ 1,080
380
15
7
124
5
15
15
20
2
15
9
9
9
5
5
5
5
5
835
835
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
,
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
1,444
12,525
5,845
— —
3,770
24,300
23,325
48,420
1,156
21,660
216,031
75,611
291,642
495
6,300
—
3,770
8,100
7,775
12,105
7,220
45,765
2,288
7,515
3,507
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
37,388
—
««•.
297
3,780
—
—
—
—
—
—
4,077
204
1,800
2,520
1,240
—
930
—
1,240
—
930
10,120
—
—
90
90
. —
310
— —
310
310
1,110
55
D-144
-------
Table D-141.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #12 Sister Lakes (Alternative 9).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Drain bed
Lift pump H- drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Lift pump + dry well
Total future costs
Annual future costs
60
21
143
750
$ 8,580
15,750
81
5
10
5
7
2
10
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
— —
3,770
16,200
7,775
16,947
1,156
14,440
84,618
29,616
114,234
$ 5,148
9,450
14,598
$ 600
210
810
620
434
620
3,294
10
10
10
7
5
5
3
55
700
754
1,620
2,421
1,444
550
7,000
—
5,278
8,100
12,105
4,332
37,365
1,868
330
4,200
—
—
—
—
—
4,530
226
100
100
310
310
1,006
D-145
-------
Table D-142.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #13 Sister Lakes (Alternative 9).
item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
seasonal
permanent
Soil absorption systems
drad-a bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift: puap -t- raised drain bed
dry wall
lift pump •*• dry well
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cast
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Drain bad
Lift pump + drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump •*• raised drain bed
Dry well
Lifr. pump + dry well
Total future costs
Annual future costs
110
45
20
15
5
143
750
1,413
835
835
15,730
33,750
28,260
12,525
4,175
135
5
15
10
15
7
15
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
—
3,770
24,300
15,550
36,315
4,046
21,660
200,081
70,028
270,109
$ 9,438
20,250
$1,100
450
7,515
2,505
39,708
1,800
1,800
1,350
930
930
930
9,290
32
32
32
12
5
5
7
3
12
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,760
22,400
—
9,048
8,100
7,775
16,947
1,734
17,328
85,092
4,255
1,056
13,440
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
14,496
725
—
320
320
—
310
—
434
—
744
2,128
106
D-146
-------
Table D-143.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #14 Sister Lakes (Alternative 9).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
seasonal
Soil absorption systems
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Drain bed
Lift pump + drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain bed
Lift pump + dry well
Total future costs
Annual future costs
27
7
143
750
1,413
835
3,861
5,250
7,065
4,175
29
5
3
2
2
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
—
8,100
4,665
4,842
1,156
39,114
13,690
52,804
$2,317
3,150
270
70
2,505
7,972
600
290
310
124
1,664
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
2
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
1,444
165
2,100
—
1,508
3,240
1,555
2,421
2,888
13,877
694
99
1,260
__
—
—
—
—
—
1,359
68
30
30
1.24
62
124
370
19
D-147
-------
Table D-1M.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site
systems and blackwater holding tanks for
District #15 Sister Lakes (Alternative 9).
It as*
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
seasonal
psnaanent
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump H- drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump 4- raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump 4- dry well
Initial cost
Service factor i.jj/«,;
Initial capital cost
(35
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank-
Soil absorption system
Draia bed
Lift pxnap 4- drain bed
Raised drain bed
Lift pump 4- raised drain bed
Dry well
Lift pump 4- dry well
Total future costs
Annual future costs
148
32
14
143
750
1,413
$ 21,164
24,000
19,782
$12,698
14,400
$1,480
320
8
6
166
20 '
17
15
15
7
15
29
29
29
15
7
5
10
5
7
835
835
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
6,680
5,010
__
15,080
27,540
23,325
36,315
4,046
21,660
204,602
71,611
276,213
1,595
20,300
— .
11,310
11,340
7,775
24,210
2,890
10,108
89,528
4,476
4,008
3,006
*._
__
—
—
—
__
—
34,112
—
—
957
12,180
—
__
—
__
__
—
—
13,137
657
960
2,160
1,660
—
1,054
—
930
—
930
9,494
—
—
290
290
__
434
—
620
_ _
434
2,068
103
D-148
-------
Table D-145. Laboratory and administration costs for
Alternatives 8A, SB, and 9.
Cost $(xl,000)
Construction Salvage
Item Cost Value O&M Cost
Administration & laboratory building $ 106.0 $ 38.2 $ 16.0
Administrative services 78.0
Total $ 106.0 $ 38.2 $ 94.0
Service factor (27%) 28.6
Total capital cost 134.6
Present worth cost (@ 7-5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost $ 134.6
O&M cost 949.2
Salvage value . (8.8)
Total present worth $1,075.0
D-149
-------
APPENDIX E
INDIAN LAKE-SISTER LAKES AREA
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
INDIAN LAKE/SISTER LAKES AREA COMMUNITY ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE
As you may know, a public hearing was held regarding the
Indian Lake-Sister Lakes Area Facility Plan on November 22, 1977.
Pollution problems in the lake areas were summarized at that time,
and alternatives were presented for correction of these problems.
Comments by the public were also taken and placed into the official
transcript of the hearing. The next step now is for each of the
Townships involved to determine what, if any, improvements are
desired to reduce the pollution of the lake(s) within their
jurisdiction. The purpose of this questionnaire then is to get
your input to help guide your Township Officials in their
decision making. And to help you better assess the existing
situation, a summary of pollution problems as presented in the
Facility Plan is included with this questionnaire.
1. What area do you reside in? Indian Lake,
Magician Lake, Dewey Lake, Cable Lake
Round Lake, ~ Crooked Lake, Pipestone
2. Are you a year round or seasonal resident?
3. Do you live on a fixed income? yes no
4. How many years have you lived in the area?
5. Number of persons in household? ______
6. Do you own- or rent?
7. Do you feel there are pollution problems on your lake?
none, mild, moderate, severe
8. If so, do you feel some effort should be made to correct these
problems? yes no
9. Have you had any problems with your own septic system?
ye s no
10. Is your property suitable for expansion or replacement of your
septic system, if needed? yes, no, don't know
11. Have you had to replace portions of your septic system in
the last ten years? yes no
12. If you? septic tank Has Been malfunctioning, how often?
13. What is the primary cause of malfunction?
14. Do you think your septic system will last for the next 20
years? ^yes no
15. Would you like to see a sewer system constructed in your area
if grants are available? yes no
16. Would you prefer to see alternate solutions to lake pollution
problems investigated? _________ Continued septic tank
use with Health Department monitoring,
Cluster Systems with several homes connected to one large
septic unit, Composting toilets - no flush
variety, biological reaction
17. If you would like to see one of the preceding methods used to
improve water quality, when would you want implementation?
Take immediate action so construction could begin
by 1979, Take action in 5 to 10 years,
Take action in 10 to 20 years
18. How much would you be willing to pay on an average monthly
basis to improve water quality in your lake?
Less than $12 per month
$12 to $15 per month
$15 to $20 per month ^"'
$20 to $25 oer month
-------
APPENDIX F
CLIMATOLOGICAL AND AIR QUALITY DATA
-------
•
^•s
ON
rH
3
o
z
v-^
1^
ON
r-l
00
:3
o
.e
JJ
rH
•«•
,_{
E
O
^•*
<4-l
„
CO
g
Cfl
•H
C
M
+>
-0
01
PQ
,&
0
4J
4
T)
0)
O
flJ
fH
r-H
O
o
B
4J
CO
tJ
r~H
cd
u
00
o
o
4_>
•H
i-l
W
•
i—H
|
0)
i™H
CO
£
n
"•
c
' (Perce
^<
•c
9
«
>H
n
c
c;
c
re
£
e
c
1
^
K
ID
a
"o
0)
z
c
<5
X
£
a
5
n
^
CL
1
n
s
c
e -c *
u e t
i — (
C
rw
•c —
1 pi
o
0 X.
i:*
c z
.. a,
PH
C
55
c^
p
» 5
*i
i
— < c
c. o ~
•rt 14 E
D JJ D
o) n ~
•4 JJ
c.
0>
l°»
^
flJ O
A
X
£ C
x> IB
1*
X §
"S "c
2
x 5
O K
D a
5
c
£
3SSSI235S i
yxz&cAEACOi; 10 in (/• x U'
IA , U) Z Z U U 10 V.> U3 CO Ul (0 10
iTi««*Hirtn.'--vrvinincDfNj^— oixs-wowac
C£kik* XC*H ^C«JJ> L>C
icaicQdicsPsauoo'ic
"5!>.Z«C£'5'-3 c
X X
PH fV
1! II
•C "C
0 0
c o
0) C)
•4 k
0 O
•2 |
f-M (M
F-l
-------
o
in
0
•U
*?
O
«
CJ
O
XI
fTl CFl
3 3
O O
ft
m
d
en
3
O
O
CO
nj (8
tn u
13 (B
0) 0)
IB
•H
M
a
m
(B
CO
(B
g
•H
ft
tn
(8
en
tn
a
M
(0
g
ft a
tn
m
0)
en
en
en
cu
Xi
ft
0)
£0
ro
•H
g
w
a
M
fl
JJ
RJ
3
CM
•H
fiS
JJ
a
CO
0
•H
JJ
S3
C-J
I
ti
UJ
•H
H
g
•H
P*
Cn en
3 3
m o
r- vo
CN
II
ft ft
O rH
d d
o m
CO VO
—* CH
i ft
ft ft
m
!>g>
o o
I
CN
d
en
3
O
VO
I
fS
o
o
8!| £
C^
10
i-i
0)
I
—i
a
jj
3
SI
o
•H
g.g
0)
c
iB
g
o
•H
JJ
I
JJ
Ij }*J
3 3
? 2
*£ *C
^ ro
3 3
0 0
J3 A
CD rH
«-" CN — CN
IM rt
3
0 Cft
n jJ
(fl
C
a
§
C
C
c
(0
CD
4-1
0)
IB
C
JJ
JJ
r3
g
ca
IB
rH
3
D
JJ
ITS
X
o -»
S o01
|