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""
     ซw,ซiroซฐen   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
ซ   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
ง s
sewers
ke areas
C CO
0 -J

•u B
u to
01 ~4
-H B 01
O M *-ป
u eg
•B >
V C
u 01 OJ
3 U
CD co eg


ฃ J S

O.
•a 1 '

c e
ซ 5

H
In

41

i u
*J CU
* >
41 .H
*•• w

ซ•"* c

oe =
CU O
M T-i
*J
•tf U

ฃS
0*
3-B
0)
00 U
B U


U E

-H V)
O X
U CD
4) -4
M CO
I |

4) CO
M ซH
n
c
O
u



c
•H
•o

CO

J3



s


ซ
c
0
00




C 4)
CO 4>
%j
W >
CO  4)
o to
U ฃ
U
0) CO
U -H
3 *T3
to
0) ฃ

1* -H

e
0
4-1
at
CO

c
•H
TJ

to
U
o
^ jj
CU


S 3
S O

i-ป 41
SIS
S-3
oo a
41 ซ
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


ฃ

8-
-H 01


i ง

at
ง5
•H B
00 ซ
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
ซ U
Ig
•o ซ
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 ฐ "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
ฃ-

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 •*-ป 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
      1ป1.  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  ซ
    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
!ฐ
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 •<
ง =
^ tf
ฐg
ฃฐ
_3
U <
MS-
i* sป
IHNOUIAHa I
isBHd f



i
o
y
~

S
3
a
rj
2
ee
C
bi
•-




OT
|

B
j

—
M
&"•
B>
^
ซ<
ง
>
ง






H-
-<
I
g

Vl
a
&
u?
X
ง
a:
El.
fr-
aC
y

<
ui
&n
3
—
i
c.
M







' B
i H
: ซ
y
-*
•5
0*
W
H
C
V 3
ta c
i -j
ซ "
- 1
• M
V <~
z <
1
M M
a c
u y
- I ao
••, a) g j}
*4 U -ซ ซ
-= c ** a.
O — BB M
— G, ซ*• 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
ฃ^

B
a
i
*Zj
<9
13
m ซ
|
u ซ
K U
e a
83*
<-ป W ซ
C M
p w q
o o at
ง5
— ซ
<•* 3
ra T

- 3
• 3
e M
K
.

W
U U

s 3

Jiฃ

^
4F
e M
ai a
AC 41
y M
ซ — ป
— r u
U S M
a 09
— t (•• C
ฃ C 2

|
M
ซ
- a
^ 41
•3 B —
— 4) ^
V >
= 5
td
5i
0* ซ
ป• i
- i
flj u
11
J 0 -

M
&
ฃ
Q
O


M
a.
^
j=
a
ฃ
B
S
f -
_ a
7 ซ
2* ~
"" • (8 B
,.,*J -• U
w a.** >
y 47 0 e
55 a ซ *"

o
c
x ฃ
a w
*ซ M
.S "• ~*
*" ซ B
w & -*
y u o
ซa w

w
4J
U ซ4
S
. B
05 a-*
U u 0
MOW
*j
o.
4)
0
4 U U
^: -i ซ
M M Q.
— A. 0
<9 4) O
V ซ C
S * GQ

C.
1) •>•
ฃ ซ•*
BO
C.
3
•ff
(SI

B
" B Tป
3 D — .0 it
e J a) -i
** J* U 3 C fl W
ซUB - 3 —
1 0 4) X C ^3
3 •* ta ta w C K

B
ซ
o.
O
B
U
a
<





— —
"A IA
A V
M ซ
SO
ซA



^ >
— _0 ซ
W Z W
M M M
O O O
%T — i ปA
>*.
tt e
C B
*< U
u B
ง•;ซ
k I 0
• 3 o
M. AN^



•9 •
ซ ซ ป
-• W M
"• ซ ซ
ซl ป U
a ii w
" "ซ O
T3
ซ

U ซ
ซ V
a. u
S 3
ซ *4
•
yr *.








ซ
3
a

u
3;
&

3
u
x .;
 ซ 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
ซ
ง*

^*

2
.S
3 ~* M u 3 W
0 W M • 0 I
ซ ซi j •• at M
e x B A i ซ
5 u .. c * 3 x

B
O
g-
O
B
o •
s





^ —
lA IA
A V
ซ M
o e
itf *ป



J>
s
f* M ซ>
lA tft O
w *n *ป

*^ e
e a
S ii
i- 91
O I H
* Js
— Q."






41
,
9 M
W U B
a v ai  ง i
J i J s d

B
U
^3
(8
CO
00


. . i
T? 5 x w
3 j ซ ^ -* a
0 u ..
0) — > — 3 M ••
KB ji o — 5
3 y E ซ ta 4) ft
Z ^ -ป w ซ ป ซ

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
ซ
u
a
K
O
~



•^ B
• 41 41
— B ซ
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- ฃ
i !.= ฐ i
B U S. B Q,
O 0 0 S
P • W u -0
1 ฐ S Si
ซ •* i H u
e
. M
ซj
^3 M
s s
W w
OC-3
= 1

ฃฃ<ฃ
M M M
*A ปA O
•H <*4 ซ

w e
e *
i S
%iป
•ซ 3 ซA
•M a.*-"






41
|





ft)
e
i








c
e
"1

u
.s
s.
c
W
i
^
V '
U 41 U
a • *- — —
ปซ- — x e k-
1- — ฃ w
3 S..S 5 C
B C ** — ซ ^-ป
ta 2 M u 91
M y 5 e c ป"*
S S 5,522
.
1 1
ซ 5-
5 ซป " ?
v *o
•9 e ซ ..
C ซ4 W 0
te ^ ซ*•).•
SD- ฃ ~
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
ซ e - e j* ซ
ta ซ -i v ซ a M
•a > B .x 13 4> ซ
B u C ซ4 ta X
n x •ซ •- g jj a



a
V
&
c
B
<





—
IA
V
|


>
a
CQ
I

•0 ^
ซ ซ
W U
s a .
i* X
•• OK
o •* a
a. ซ- S
ซ J5 S







|
1
•u
U B
41 ซ
e. w
Si
B —
ซ
(N SM








ซ
B
0
S
ฃ1
                                                                     2Svnma.it' • •
                                                                               2-19
siimsia

-------
g
y
to

ง
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 ซ



a
|


o

l^
i
0)
a
w
3 l-i
1/5 ftl

r 03

01
=

ง
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 '
ฃ " - i



^ K
K - u I
If u X
"M 2
J 0 -

.
W
C.

—

^
(5
ซ
"

.-
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

"~ • ป n
S""t.— >
ft- C C
we ซ —

CO
c

ฃ a
e w

"" • a n
•• ^j —t cu
W B t/5 "^

C.
a
•^ a, o
eg ot o



•ฃ

a — ' o
^ ซ* ft! 01


— U 0.
s s ง•
= H OT
U X
C. —
C EC
•* to
J= *H 00
J- ซ C

(C k. 0
0) Ot JE
S < &>

&


*ซ U U
J= — C.
w w a.
— & c
rt 01 0
cV CA C


J
T
s-
ป
^
u:

>(
S 2



z jl
II
u
c
CO t— *+.

— *S ฃ
a 5 ^!

CL S u
tr ac
I ฃ =
1
EC ฃ 1 W
S cp _C ^ jS
ซ -4 CA 41 K
ซ C. 09 U 1
>> C • C ซ
ซ9 W-5 0 S *
> t- JK -a ce
ฉ tc u t- -- X
•H ฃ -^ — 89 C



(O
ซ
fin
0




_

ซ•>

V


^1






U
w
M
ง
U U
at 3
4J (0
•a ซ u ^
* 5 ^ C ซ
- u i ฃ 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
& ง K D
3 01 hi 01
^ 5 Q a u
ft) 5 -0 5 ul








Ot
ง
c
•o
u a
ftl 0)
c. w


(0 — 1
15
(N w






U
C
0
c


—
r-
w
V.






ft)

ฃ 4- x
I ?s I
1 h i


CO
01
•e


ง•
n
ป 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 ซ<






•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
<_
ป U

w ^
C u





•ซ K


^ -1 >s
1 ซ1|
4 n s
cy. c ฃ a.


c?
Cl
-s
e

=
a:
Of S 4>
g e a ซ
ง*S c e. —
•- n to js
t — 4) W & -ซ —
I g44i^i
Z ป f-t S to > ซ

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.




• *! ซ

<-< 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 ฃ^ * "T Si
J & f 1 5 11
•s i - ฐ S —
(ฃ 0 i ฃ, i- O'


(C


ffi
BC
ง*
ฃ
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
ฐ Ct
c ^



"S 01

— < ซ tfl
4; > u
3 41 ซ
— v e
"S
01
u
01 ซ
c. w
ง5
-^
(D -^
tc






ft)
0




























-



























































                                 VIYO     -11
                                                                                    szm
                                                                   2-20

-------
 C!
•rl
J-l

 ง
 o
 ca
 s
 0)
 ca

 
2


S

ฃ
^

*
<
Z
ฃ





to



ซe
-


M
Ul

J
g
ฃ
|

i




s
<
Z
i

E
M
ง
UJ
EC
O
u.
ae
S

,
S


U
u.







I
-



fr


2
t. j

i- (C_
e —
x. <:
L

i 1 K
ซป y <2 4
i ~ e i
T cT ซ >ซ
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 ซ
J
"s
B fc-
o n
U 2

s
C
r
e


o *•ป
u o
DB
J


f 5
MM tu



V
u ซ


c M a
*= e at
u 3 *>
tD D
*• M e
C 0 3C
?
.L* ts

ฃ - *

j*. ~- tr.

•c r !
& e i


K j~ K
T - ฐ '
it T3 e

C-
c i

ฃ
^

1

R.
J
X
!
1C
ฃ
X |
ซ-* fl?
J ซ* -^
*~ . ป c
— *J -- ft)
L; t c c
w a w ^

B
e
c

M M
t: ic
CJ 4 M
ซ *J
. 89 n
S cTls B
W C W -
K
j
—4 IB
S W
""•ซ>ป
tj a* "5 e
W 0 Cft ป-
s.
— a. c
a wo
u we
2 - K



O.
fi ซ OJ
J5 "* S -S

ซ e &.
OJ "US
r H w
M X
C. ซ
U &
--- 1

1J C C
ซ we
V fl! ซ
= < a.

tu
a
rf U 1-

M -JR.
— c. o
? 5t f
~* w
•t
ฃ

EC

ฃ



=
I*
Cy ฃ.
e

-o
S

ง•
,^


_. s
1C w
U C C
ih. -" >

w
fl)
•M
B
g







in wt

A V
ป 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 ซ•






ft)

S
i.
t-
u


tk



U! (C

w b U t.
ฃ HE&
a
c
te
ac
ง•
rt
fN

tc
c b a,
ป — 0 w
= 2 y ซ 5
i- o 2 w u
B h> C C Ifi ^Q
Z B ~3 *ป 2 <5

*
ง•

bl
6







m in

A V
in in
CD *M




•B >
CA X CO
SSR

3 01 4J U
— > EW B e
ซ-• O 3 U
O — b 1 M
' •ฃ ซlg
m *M m o> ซv




^
— " w

$ Jr
— we
• v
u e
v w

co 3
S3
e







CJ

1

A



U



*ซ C
CJ ™< >.
cc tz •ซ  W U
— U ป G. ป IB
— e 6 s cj
*s^sls
^4 ป -^ ^ fc1'-'




^
-* ฃ> 2
*• (8 ซ
•M V C
t)
V
u e
ft! V

n 7
• —








ai
e
o
3

.ฃ
C.



^



* S - t r*
* ' i = T =!

tot^scr"ฃj
ป i I i.^ t "c ^1
K
s.
"C
e

r
c


c It
ง - e. ซ S S
ฃ!i t8^
ฃ e 3 *• B ป v


5
0
m
u
e





w ^
m. *A

A V
>n in
m *c




siฃ
tni5

•H ซ
w u
3 CJ
SIS
•4 (N
f^ ft. *f




•e
*ซ u *
*^ re e
$ is
^ t, e *
i
u m
ft< 41
& b
ง —
B --








ft)
i
e
4
f
U


**•



- !

t feTg
j ป . c
J n s.


c
e
ซ
s"

in
> fc
K c e
— t ftl **- •ฃ U
ปS tTxฃ
ฃ"?•= ^ง


8)
4)
C.
C
C
u






^ • fc
m in

A V
m M
*,m




K ฃ 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

 ง
 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 ซT
' 1".
.
j j

ฃi
c.


p-
' fc.' '
1 Z.
' $
K-.
to!
I ^






j



Z


1 N
r
i
H

1 OT
I "*
i
ฃ

ซ,
z,







I
H"
H
X "
ife
1

js
ur
Z
ae
O
L.
s
H
tx
U
u:
in
=!
u
jฃ





s
c
~

u

C
u
s
t 3r ' ป

z A
t
tm -
c ec
c. —
z < I

1
w 4J
e c
z ฃ !? 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
ง
o

I
1
w
e.
ฃ
^
c


1
"e

—
=
B
|

*> M
a &
u ^ ^
*~ ซ 0 tO
•* OJ M V
W ft,-^ >



1
* ' 3
R *a

3* ~ป
•• M ^ S
o &"o e
W O 10 —
B
e
J5
H ?
a> ป* -•
= *J
. c ป
fill

cu

*ซ u *u
— * *> ฃ.
— C. C
0 ซ< 0
ซ us e
S - 1C


XJ
01 -^
C  v 3
r H W



C. ซ
C) W*
*ฃ W
Jl -t ac
w ซ c
ป U C
ฃ if

a

c *
jj — &;
— o. o
a v o
^ M ฃ
1

Jl
— c

— c —
ir ^ * S-
Z c. .
u ฃ ฃ
- < jj i
^e ?K ^ (t — 5,
b K C. t w f
•5— t_ - ซ — f.
fc *i ป 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 ฃซฃ ป— 0
1
i
e
e _t .
i i 1
1 1 -



— c a> — v
w V C R •- -ซ JS
C C - 3 B K 3 R^CC.
z~*e -* &. — *j i •** w t
c — JT j3&ittj:.r o>^ซซ

^ ft O ^ C V ^^ ^ U "^ tl C C S fc* ™jj



tt
B ft! B
& c e.
Q ^ O
** **
ซ g U





irt m -A in ift wi

A V A V A V

** K el K ^2




•9 >• • ^9 > T3 >
— e ซ — i 00 -new
w ฃ w KZtn cozte
^ s M MEM 2 S ฐ

•0 *•. n-ป ^*.
- = • * ss
^.•Sea ii ••!ฃ
ff U bl V b V
vl-Sio cc "ฐ * 2
.e'lbN'a.C iฃ r> l5





tl ซ B

i i I

1
t) ซe i
V ftl
u v . u B
V ซ ซ V
0.1- C. W 1
OS K 9
= — V 3 — i
B -" C B ** >
ป M I ซ *2





a- 41 v
c c c
ง i g

o
b
e.
?
                                                                                                          S   2
                                                                                                          "5   ซ
                                                                                                          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
                                                ,=iป-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:.'-:->.^vปt
                                                                                   (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—
                                                   ซ3
                                                  •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 ซ
> I

'H ฃ
*ป i.

C
M
01
r-l
CO


i
4-1
cn
^
CO
C
o

"e
,2

 *?
CN — • CN
Si ~ ~ ~.
J] (^ 1 ^
cn

u ฃ
Zt

\L
n m —
(M — (M

I CO \ซO
J • '
— CN
CO —


—4
•2 s
— o
c

^ r^ f*.
u"i * •
9* r^. -^
•— O lA
CO 00
CM ป *
— • —
c
o
1- ^
2 -j
3 -
U, C
S
~i ~*
Q 3
— ^ *j
SI

co yป ^
o* m e*

m \o "^

" * ซr
CO ^ 'O
5 ^ N
-ff- 00 -ป
 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
ฃ. eu ซ
V 1~ X
W ฃ. to

1
^J
CJ



ฐ^

CO





in

cn

2,ฐ











01
3
ซ
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
ฃ
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

ซH
CO
4J
-H
Q.
c5

GO
•H
(fl
JJ
O
-/

cn

4J
CD
ซS
rv
CM




ป

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
ซ•*•

-*

S



ON

cn

tH

*H
t-t
CO

fN



-o
CO

4J in o f**
2 ซg
3 "3 O
a) o u
ij
CM cn 2

cn
Cfl
3
c
"ฐ -2
co H
M • o jj
•H s-^ 3 ซ
i-H to ฃ ฃ
cd M n
M CO g
•U iH u



r*. ^H ป*•.
cs r^ cs
Sin *n
r*ป o
•
ซ-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>
>ซH
V
23 co

Cfl ^




ป
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 iฃ
C JJ 4J
O -H -H
•H 9 *
IJ
co eo .c
N C U
•H O ^
i-t o ** ซ
fl -H co-c cy
0) J3 ซ 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 ซ_t
•**4 co
C -H
1-4 W


cn co cn
^r r- o
rH






CM cn CM
ssS
• * ซ
rt ป-( 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
ฃ ฃ
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 rป.
a? rป rC
-tr 03 cv
r-t






-ป 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
ง
0
CJ
CO
•^
•a
>ซ*
00
•^*
Ml
1
r*ป

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
                                                              _ป_ 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  zoneป  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

:-•"-*ซ. ^-r^T^P ^j5"^*^;~"*~xTr~7^   ^
_~T,_ <^--, 1 ,ป \. -, •- '< '^: _  <-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-'	- .'..-- :<ฑ	-"- .,-.-
                                        '     •  •  - "--*
i"   ป   FORCE MAIN
       TRANSMISSION LINE

  —3	 OUTFALL
D       PROPOSED
       TREATMENT PLANT

   i""~)  TREATMENT PLANT
                                                                   i_J
-~T"ฃfi.+,—
. , }.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 -ป   •— ** *t_  ~ " jk_    --•-'---"/--••        r      •^           -" • •   J    %      "
  - "•   f   •*- -     . ' -* ปto"'   '   '  -.'- r>^-i r t   T    "^•j./V1'"^ L.' ' \ -T^     ^d^yo- ~'~^ ..- f  -ป -—^- '      / -,             s










      f         '     r    ."""," *•*"•  'n* ' J  .Y**"1" '.f-X  ti"**  *  " '(•*" ''"•' '  "^";. (* ' ^r         ••-       M "-•*"•"•" =tซ\J^*T |^***^'- ' ,„-/.'V*          •( "          CAS^tty

      1       •       " '.-*"'   s"      KiL ^   —'^'^- ป	•_inri|iVr'J!nl  •tttr*li3./'t?^ '--.""--J    " K. v           ; J     '     ,
      i   ,---  '	.- _ -,  , v ,' ^r. L     I • *.--,-,'  ^ ^ ^.^.^ ,,'r^^i^jS* -v_^,"';''";ฃjj  y     ^   M*fl'.ฐ!,y L"h"    , - _  '    ,     .T'  - —  *•-,*•-.
       ! " '_   Qi.1" ;/' ^ .  -v-'i • vt" "I
                    V*
                     ;:'     t*ซ(fcซx'  *-'ซ  'r"">
                                 i|5  I*c' '
                          '-—w*-—^"- v'(t*-ป.-i .
                                  i  \ ;,
            i"^^.^"^;^"  ."S""
           ซr-
_   _  !*-.~;"^:.  ^  >    :--; 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  "">ซ...

   *  /!        ,'4.^-    •.  --r   '
                                  jj-.    "'V .   1^ IT   •^^-'
                                  i         ."
                                                                                                ,ปฃ?'"
                                                                                                .v-

                        ^ >

                        ^
                                            ^L.
                                                     ^u._Xf   -
                                                         '  ' -  ~l _ -^ ~ .,
                                                             I
                                                             i -
                                                             I
i-^"-.;r
        •-  I
     -  • •' 'I
    •*•     I
                          LEGEND


                            •   LIFT STATION

                            ป   FORCE MAIN
                                TRANSMISSION LINE


                          !   j  TREATMENT PLANT


                          not to Bolt   ^nff
                                                             t
                                                             I


                                                             I' ,
                                                             t '
                                                             I
                                                             I
                                                            . I


                                                             f
       r'	;	-•••o--

ป   '   ^-;-,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
                                                                                                        •ป
 I
IM
•s
H
                                        1 1
                                         ซ ง
                                        •"i3
                                                                                       C TJ
                                                                                       0) rH
                                                                                       3  (U
CO
CO
Ui
0
o
CO •*->
CU ,.

5 u


M ป*•

J3

"d "3

OJ rH



ซ-3
O GO
^
of 3
01 0
M -H

•tf CJ
c: u
* ca


cu
3f *O
to
งy
•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
•-ซ 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
ซ 0
tO 4-1
U

3 00
01 k<
.J
c u
0 CO
U "3
y
U ฃ.

S ป
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 ฃ.
y
ง^
•H *O

y J!
0) U
o
y (N



•-H C
> ซ

CJ OJ
ง2
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
ซ -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
งU
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
ง
                                                                                                                       O J-ป
                                                                                                                       4J DO
                                                                                                                       (Q -H
                                                                                                                      -H O

                                                                                                                      •o ป
                                                                                                                 44 01  CO O
                                                                                                                    U iH ซM

                                                                                                                  CO to  B
                                                                                                                 *•* X ซr^ 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   ซ
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 90ฐ fahrenheit
(F) or 32ฐ centigrade (C) in the summer and below 0ฐF (-17.7ฐC) 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.
fซ4

CO
a
CO
*^^
rn
system!
e
o
•H
a
O
CO
rt
iH
•rH
O
CO
t_j
O
ซW
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
ฃ












CO

rH B





o w
ฎfc
SB
•H

fro ^ a a a
0 II II II
S 4i oj ai ซ
K ^-l WWW


1
C
5 *
~ 00
r (N |
0 1 rv.
VO
2
ฃ
Permeabi]
0 .
VD O
^E
0
• o
VO 
5 5


n
_ -H
*D tO ^J
C ^ fO
!? 7f K
^ ฃ 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 ง
C H
^
to c
5l

rป o oo
(N VD ff




-~
ง

i


3
ฃ
CO
u
U3
fH
a
j
0)
•H VJ
-H 0
•H *•'
B 0) W
• H ปH 4J
S S fl
in m
in u
CD 0)
C C
4J JJ
0) ID
^ ฃ ,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 ฃ ;? ฃ 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 ปU-lO *• - J^ *• ป
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 ฃ "g "& i
ft o ^ ^H S P r~j
w U TJ -H ii O fC
ccflHUuxs*; ^ ,


tfi CD CO
W 0! ซ
C T3 O
B S "S ฃ
in a) ^ o
c to in w CL 01
S a uiuoia cotnaaaaada. mtomatoaaaa
jilt Jiiiiit -ft!>!i!>li!l^!>!> T>!l!it!>!i!ป!>!>
^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 fNปoooo
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\ฃ>VO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
f^l (M tN "•*• ^*" r^Csir>J(N(NvO'ซDVC\^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'HVDVOVOVOVOVฃ>VCVOVP'-*iHVOVฃ)\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 CJซH^- (Ni-H
PO \ฃ)rHVDrH(NrMVDrHI(Ny5fH) 1 (N fM VD *-< 1 ffNn(NvฃifHl
) IIIIIlTlfMllItNOOltllC^COltiltrsJ
O tN(,DfHVDOOrsJ^?HOfS\1C''-(r-IOOCN^ซ— (rHOOOfNy?ปH




5 SKSMSSSWfi 2y23r-S3ฃSฃ 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
-------
   ซป
 IJU !l
i Si a) fi) ซi (u
 OS w w w w
ฃ
~c
c
O
vc
s
•H
•rl
i
1
ฃ
/-N
0) o>
1 S?s
Ci o iy
Q.4J O

tJ Q S •-ป
v-'

CO 2*
M 5^
c - *.g
* lip
M 1< 5 ฃ
S

C S o)
* s! |
(J ซ
•rl o
*J D-
ป ฃ
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 >cป w wo -<




to
h
a!
w IH


n n
•H — t
co in
rป ^i m

iN *f "i*  - 5?
z S
U "O
! !
tn t-4
( • ซ-(
si i
(0 0
c fe
6 &• *
m QJ
O-D S
"S S
i*-- 5
(0 *O u)
"us >
>, I ป
4J U CO
i— * n* ป
•* & 0)
10 n X>
i . 2
^•g |
m (a Q
cl-clay loam,
grs-qravelly s
1-sllght, Mod-m
ป * in
u -a
to ป a!
--4, ra
B ฐ
^ * i=
>• c S
58 1i
jrJ
~i -J -ii
10 1 U
k* \
o) ป n
-I *
2 H
3 4> Q
C n
in-3
SY fe
•^t M ปM
4J (U
10 (A
1^' 1
M IB JJ
•8 n
a 5) 'S
ol ฃ
U U^ X)
5 i. =8
K P
8 i ป
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
ง
ฃ
a
jt
2

<9
!
OJ
s
~4

C

M

a

>



e

'Jj
91
a

6.
n
(D
0
.*
2

e
ID
*•<
O
-*
a
ฃ
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

^

^
ซ



m
91

O
h
0

f*

CO





e
0
—4
<4J
u
o


ป
c.

'o
e










to
m

in
n

ป
(N

.
m

it
91
ซ

U

h
9)
>
-^ V
S



s

ซ,
Q

-


*

w
m
ซ
ป









^
a

ฑ4
u
10


ซ
01
M
ซ

0
o
M
0
ง -
ฃ <<->

fM

•H
e






\o


-------






CO
4_j

CJ
^ฃ


o
•H
1

1 (**>
D



*

LJ""J
 *™
330)
tr. u
t? a

o c n
-< 3
01
— 4J ฃ0
x tr c
(C 0) ซ-<
Cซ 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 ซH
to c

• 4-1 _.
Eft LJ 3
H O O
0* CM >
5
ee;




>
c

CC


(0 **•
-i ซ 0
05 O -JT
ce c
J5 -H
•^ cc
X Z sป
—! 01
ฃ 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
-ซ O
J> — 1
a
e. 4J
cc eo
0 01

x
-H n

ro 0)
M >
3 ~*
ซ u
C 01
h<

1 0
OJ C
l-l
ฃ0 -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 ซ•>

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
งo
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
ฃ.
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 ปJ
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 ซ
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
ฃ 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 ซ^ "O
0
vฃ 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
ฃ 0- U
0 u i-
u x r
G, c o
X cr

X C 0
(t C — '
E X
ซ-< 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-ป ซO CO
O Ui
C cc — <
N -ป^.
^5 1ฐ
CC
55
r quality standards
cu
4-1
CO
3

•a
(l)
tn
o
PL

O
^
a


ฃ

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 •ป-> -H
ec 3
0> *w O
iw O *H
(J ^
C 0> O
-<-* oO**- O
•D O ปT
/-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 *ฃ>
4J -H 3 4J

? U TO •" CO
-H i- o) a
co ex E
p o1 E cy LO
5 Jฃ QJ 4J ^ ^
4J 4J 4J
CO X
C U-f O r- 1 ซT
O *-* X < IT*

C OJ 01 C

*"' 3 O c ฃ "tf
cn 4J N
^ ซ 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 ฃ.











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
ป
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>
ซ
0>
CO
u
3
ซ
,u
c.
0>
o

Q.
E
0>











c
01 O
t-i Q tA
3
CJ
E" 0
.
4-1
E O
3 ซ00
•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
ฃ m































00
CO

o


r*.

sD

CC
•H
C
3
•o
U
•o
c
c
0
00
c
•o
c
01
15
CC
E
^ฃ

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>
0ป
CO
O
a-
o
i_i
Cu
































m
p>.
a\
^

a
is
LJ
w
•o
c
nj
4J
CO
ao
c
•w
4-ป
to
-H
ฃ















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

ฃ


1-1
oo
ฃ
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* .ฃ

C. IM
o
4-> -

•3 00
0! C (C
*J U 0)
— 1 u- (C
E 3

ป— ' K *D
JJ CJ
O> C ซ-•
.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

>,
ป-H

C
E


*H
-^

e



c —
*M . C
^ 01
E .0 -^
0 ซ
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 ซj c r

15 —I
x: o
*j y

0) ^J
W <5
ง01 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
ซ 0 ฃ
C — * O
O *""-~ •• O1
U 03 CO 00
E w
X u a; .
O ซ- 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
ฃ.


Ui
4J

a>

00

o
z:




"oc "ob'oo *oc'ob'ob"oclo*lo"ob^b^oo"ao%bo


OCC OOOtMOOOOOOO
OOC OOOOCC>*JOซNOO

0 — 

15 13
3 01
00

I— 1 *J
O *•<
ซ 1
3 O
c a
•H
CD
*J T3
0) U
01 re
-o
tc c
•o o
re tn
(C O

CO /ป.
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 ฃ
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

ฃ1.
n
00
Ui
0

U K
•H — ซ
= 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 68ฐF  (20ฐC) 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
ง
01 ^ OJ
jrf ซ -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 \ฃ> 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  ซn o o

                                                         r-ป *ฃ>  & 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
ฐ

^
ou

oa




o>
o
tE
tl
3
CO

g
ฐ
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  75ฐF  (24ฐC)  at a
depth of  2 feet   (0.6 meters) to 59ฐF  (15ฐC) 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 75ฐF  (24ฐC)  at  a  2-foot depth  to 45ฐF  (7ฐC)  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  74.8ฐF  (23.8ฐC)  to 45ฐF (7ฐC) 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 75.2ฐF  (24.0ฐC)  to   50ฐF  (10ฐC).  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^ฃiSrl-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-
                5ฃ
                                                                                                                            C-     CCC
 ป/  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
                  ฃ
 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*-ซ ^"-
TJ
 01
"O
 D
r-t
 U
 c
 O
 O
          OCฃ:<-OC:Ce>— ปC
                                                              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 "-
   งo 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) ซ-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 ฃ
it ec R
"3 U- U







t-
C
t:

a
•^
&.
-ป
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 ป JJ
c ti C1 I— X O tc
I- -7 E w u; B: ~






-? f,
ฃ a.
II
e; cc
^i K
L
C
CC

c
o
AJ
CC
u
AJ
ฃ
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 25ฐC
                                    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,ซ80
                                        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
ฃ

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 ซT ^ " "
M


CC
C
— ' (0
K *-"
= 5

coo "^ fsimO ON O
(si (si -y in o~> fsi
— H



^_J
ฃ
QJ
C


u
a)
Cu



C
0
1*>
n


mr^ C f*-* r*. ปc ec CO
f*\ \ฃ O ^^ u~i O rป* f~*-
t_j [ co cy^ •"* ^i g- m o f*^

<— 1 *-J



vH
ฃ





C
O
•H
rt
1
ฃ



25 S SsS S I
— ' — - (N p-i VD CO
CO
c
1 ^
o c
& ^
ซpvj ^5- vO-^C ON r^
in u"i ON •? o\ iA
	 , 	 , **j



(C
ฃ




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 "*ฃ> 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<--ป xo r-

m m O*- O ON IA
— , ป






•H
C
O
nj

to




C
o
•H
01
1— 1
1




CM — * fi "^ ON in in cc
•>ปปg- oo ONCMO (si o
— ซ -^ ON (Sj (sj sff
-- _- *- 1 (si ปg- 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
ฃ,



c
o


^

;
ฃ
o
ฃ
cc
c
•H GO
CD *J
3 -H
3 ฃ





--ro ^ OoOsT (si O
(si^. ^ (sir-ป\O \c> fsl
in *A "^ o o fsi co
— ^M (SI fS]

O^ O "^ sฃ 00 CO O>
— pj m r-i r^ ป








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)
ซ

0>
LJ

U
0)
CD
m
-^



t-i
0)
4-1
X

w
.ป

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
ฃ

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 ป<
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
                                                                                      •ซ• VO     •*
                                                                                      O —*     e-J
                                                                                      rsj OO     r-4
 CO
H
0)

CD

ฃ
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
ซi
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 ฐ,   LAKE
              vU
                             ^0
" '!
j

/ ROUND - — K 1




                                                       \o
                                                            ^
                                                                              _j	^
  LEGEND

inn Boundary of available j
     soil mapping

     Prime farmland
ซ•
I
I!
i
| -iiii^i
I ซ!
1 &*A8ฃMฃYER z
| i/f^-, 1
W' 1
1 *
" 	 "1 ••••••••
':
ซ
•
^^
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
10,647ฐ
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-
• • ซ *
r^ป 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

ง

jj
a

u
01
a.
. ' 30 0 Chicago's southern
dlnq' suburbs
and beach
g H X
Xl 3 0
rH
UJ c ..
ซH 0 JJ

can
W rs h

•C U -H
C- OJ J
3 w ป
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>
ง
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
ฃ
U
tO
m
rr
in
U
-H
3

C
-H


to
CO

!
0)
1
ฃ
4J
ฑ4
O
tn
C}
ซ

to
o
^4
O
ฃ

>,

S
ฃ
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 ซ• TJ r-l
*M & t) J3 0)
Cn C >, ฃ
•• 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 ป 4J
•• U) " (C C ปH
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 ฃn
U -H

'S B
U 0
•H ฃ
d,
•c
- c
•D 10
C
3 0>
C C
tH 'H
re ป5
IH S
& [A










0>
3

•o
c
3
0
B:










o^

^
• rH
^ ' ฃr
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 ฐ
0 C OJ

* c c
4J E
.e - o
Ol K g

ฃ
rป-
(N
„
K
C

•H
tt
0,
ง
u

Q

3
b

•u
c:
3

u
0


01


ฐ
a-
-fH


JJ
O

o
JJ
K
O
in
e


o

1

in


0
a



T3
in
01

10
JJ
8


^1

ฃ
HI
in
a,
E
U

in
Q)
A!
3
b

ti
c
3
H
(

ฃ
fc
0>
C
0
ฃ
01
i-(
01



m
tc
0)
IV)

ฃ
fc
01
c
0
ฃ
0,
0'
fH
V



O
*
CD

r
ป
o
c
c

I
01
4J


EC
U
U
ฃ


E
fc
a1
c
0
ฃ
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 •ซ M
^ >
Lj
0)


4-1
S
oo
t--
1 —
*ฃ>
*.
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-


ฃj
>,
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
> •ป
i — i
00

CO
CTi
*
sr

*
0
CM
sr





\c
r^
O
ซ.
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
ซt
sr



C
0)
M
•s
ซ

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
















ป-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
ฃ>
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
ฃ. 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
ซ 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 ป
•H r-3
ฃ>
•^ X
>-i -iH
0) -V3
13 d
a)
P Qj
0 0,
4H <

ซ) 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^ ฃ~


!-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
;ป
""

c
k.
Cv

<




^
tv
ฃ
re
c
u.
(V
4-
<



vฃ>

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
ป- 0
K
C ft,
•SP



i
.. fsj
C
O —
^<
ฃ 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—
*^ ฃ •"•>
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 ซ-
a, *j
CV C4- -H
0 (- •ซ
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

ฃ ^~
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 -ฃ 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 ป—*
c
O '-J
— ft
cr — ^
C CO
re re
a. 3
ฃ S
















•f^ C *J •"-!
C C = •" CV 14-
C U CV S (J O
ฃ C
re ป 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 ซ-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" ซ


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,


!























ซ.
E

4_i
t/j
^

CV
ฃ
(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
ฑj
C
o
u

ฃ
-H
ป





























>^
OD ซt
C E

e c
ฃ =
3

^ "~"
— TJ
Cv -
tt t:


C
-O J=
3 -i
O S
3
•u
- a/
cJ tc
H o
5 ฐ


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) •
ฃ ^ cr
Cv 0 C
--1 i- C
CJ i-
CV T5 *•
re S -c
cv — c
U tt C
t- E 0 :
•
!
ป ;
ป "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 ซ — 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 *^ cปucv&.re
to c 3 oo re c co
cuoooc tc rt co
• ocxc;Ci-icv o E ซ
COn O i^ ป-t 4J B -H
O'-WO' I- -tJ RJ C •*-* *J 00
S,ปliSr0St;i!S5ฐ




I
•D
cv
u
i
o
c

a-
-D

~
"S

bp
^^
3
to












ฃ
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 •ป-••"
ฃ cc re i-
t, a. *-
ฃV 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 ฃ 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 ป re *^
CV O E C
co z -*-. re














c
ct
U OJ T>
" -r, I. CV
>>ซ*- CC ซ•*
u *i re
re c tc c.
*O 00 j-1 "^^
C •" U Iv
o ED a -F-
U 0. *^
cv o ฃ 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
^_,
ซ
c
LJ
c

1— J
tu
5
C
O

3
c
o

4-J
V

o
z







c c
C t C! T
ซ-" — 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 ซ 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 ซ•> 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 ปJ
3 1C — 1 rJ <5 i-l
u >, ซ *j ^ tt 3 •
4>'&'OW>kl ป(J^
tt>*J-O3C^C.
CC3K6"Cl-C
OOCQjtW^DDV-
1
CN

C • V ]
O *J OJ U
•H — i 0) o
w <: o ซ
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 ป
c w -< B a
-•< ^ 3 TO -J O
O 01 *-< r. a> w C- 1-
C ฃTOPtOa)U
"^ Q. 5 *J ^ ^ o. u
CiH'CJ3U;C)*-'(BW r^ •
O ^^*- BO^^D"H"CtCO)
*JUฃCO>C1H 33U;
a c S — i —i -Dp^TC
3c — j^-iu cS1^^:
k->%W4Jc:raioซo "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 ซป-(
^ 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 ซ re —
01 Q. U
g-55 g


c
rc •
(J Q,t ซg
— -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 Sฃ -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-)^^*-"3ฃ_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 •ป-(
rc -^ cj u
U W) R| ซH
01 c. *-"
ex. o E c
O 2; -5 rc







rc •

• • —• u &
>-v ป*- C *•*

re c u- c.

c — u cj
G V C -^
C,' C- 4J
W O E C



4J
c

CJ 01 T

xซ- re *j
t- — re
r c to c_
"C CJJ 4^ ^ป
C -H CJ CJ
o ป 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 Cซ 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. ซ•ป
*ฃ 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.

ซ,
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
,ฃ

c
4-



c
TC
-• ~ u T
?-* w. TC *-

ซ C tf C.
•c to *- —

0 IT CC —

0- C E C
:/. K T- r.






c

y cv -c
ซ• f-i — j.
3 ff
o t
— u
i> CC

3 -U
k" tt
<ฃ —
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


-
ซ_J
CO
CV



-D
TO


C













&
V-
tc

CD


tc
a
E




*o

*fc

z
c


k.



to

^j
•ซ
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 — *
•ซ c oc
ซ*-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 ป- t- -r,
0 -C k- -ซ C- 60 tfl

tn 4M c Cv a- ^
—i — cv tn ^i cu
CO "O < > ซ-
— ซ 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.
ฃ


C

CV

TO


E
O
tD


C
3
0
kซ
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


•ซ -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-ป
tC ซ-n k- -C f-1
Cv = o tn
ev *-" tc ft. 4J
W-, J>i r- ป-* C C
o re 3 •" c o ev
r- tt C 0 C -T-,
4_> CV tt ^H U.

ix t- ซc -CTOfOScn
t-EC^&4JCCCv
rea.OTOttco jซi
c— ซ*j a/ E +•* t- *— '

'~> >^*-" O*t3*C S 0*

-------
 13
  01


 •H
 4J
  C
  O
  o
  I
,
k.
t
a
-H
k.
Cb




tf1
*-ป
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
ฃ
•— 1
>i
to
U








00
*J
u
to
a
j
>,
h
ซ
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

iฃ
•"
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
•ฃ,
<
CX

•J
1-4
<

e'-
er

a.'
ฃ
C
V.



\
• 1-1 -z
*-> -D —1
-< 01 3
< Ift C
3
C k-
w c -r
3 cr
v C C

i— ซ
E m c
•^ 1 0
to csj ฃ
in
1
p-J

.
4_J
<

CC
(C

0}
cr
U3
*A
I
CM


4J
^
<
(C
CO

CU
e
ฃ




E
O
Ui

CO
u- to cu
Ok.cc1
= IT H
3 k.
U -U CJ
OJ C
01 ฃ> -H
CC 3 *C
t. K 3
3 ~< O









 ฃ
4-f -^

a i-
c- a
x, >-i
cu .-ซ
CC
a E
^ K J






















ซ
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 -ปao-occ
*J*J{jtTiL.C CUo
— < C ffl~ ty -^ &s*J-H
•H ET> cc re-F-*-4C.^H
j5-CaJUOt3Co




















GC
1
vฃ
ฃ


•• •— !
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
• ป — ^
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
ซJ




























•c
a1
CO
CC
a.1
i_
u
0

C'
_c































01
-o

T.7
^-<
ง*"


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- .ฃ3
CC ฃ 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 ซr-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
*-ซ -o ป_ c cy
(CO) OJ ^ *-*
3 Jrf 4-> 10 -^
a* o u *•< cc
o • o u t
kJ U CO ^ CO C
0ป LJ QJ O
4-> ^ k. C
ซ - ffl O O &ฃ>
2 *O J M -H C
c *-> --
OO 3 GJ ^ CO 1-*
C O *-4 ซ C — ' •
•H Oi JD ^H ^< Of CO
4J a) *-ป e u_i ฃ
u c (3 e re ฃ
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 ซ-" ^-<
                                                                                                                                           Ui      •*-)  CU  4-ป  O ซ~(
                                                                                                                                           o      -c  kw  r      o
                                                                                                                                           •*4          *->  O  V.  V>
  ป  c  r*  cy  -^
f">  •*•<   3  -^  C
     >   O      QJ
  •  -H   CJ  "3  C.
4-ป   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  oป  cc
•w   a)
 c  T;
 O  ซH
 E   ป
 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 •ป<
                        u      a"
                        &>  o  E  e
                        CO Z ปH  ffl
                                                                                                         4-5

-------
r  c   it   c.


-"  V.   (T  ^'

C  c   E   r
    tc   s   =  w      c  01  —'
    __   0.  ^  tr      c  c  "

    C      —  E   ซ  i  u  ซ
   —  "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/
>

ฑJ
tC
C
u
i
<









1
f*sl
K
Cv



tc
C
u
Cv

<
flv>
(t
c
a/
4-J

<
C
c
<
o
Z









ฃ
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

•ฃ
<
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 ซ


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 ป C.
CO 4V ^
•rซ U U
K re -n
0 E C



























^
ซ
U
^
r;



O
ป






































^
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 ซ
O O S ป— i- 4ป 0>
LJ *J 0? 5 3 tt (0


















.
r**

4^

= <
0
-^ ป
- (C
CD
t- t
C E
O. 1?
O W










c <
c

*- c
CD

0 ฃ
tfT to
•o */ *

*3 *j 4w c j:
o ซc *--
3 c j: *
•ซ ^ u o
en tc *-> •
•• .ฃ *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
ป 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*-ป--n J .
f-CWtDKu ^( ป^ E *J O
%


"2

5
t.
&
1/3









^
^
k.
(C
•o
c
0
u
a-









>*
ซ


0

a>
w








x
u
ซ
•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

^
ป
O
l_


•a
cv

^

c



4_,
c
ro
L>
Uซ
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
ซr^
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
>

4ซ

z

t.

<


ff
tc




CO

c

z
c
c
Cv
<




r—

(V
1-1

tc
Cy
JV
I—"
*



vt>
tv
•ฃ

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 ฃ. 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^ ฃ, .ป. ^ cr
:: y. c. E *- u i-
Cctirc,C:<-c
L.-KS4--,— me


ff
E -
O cr K |

ซ 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) -ซ 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 •ซ 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>-ป^-4-<


t-cccScuc o a, -ป-i
3— G.DCซC*U3W3U
i- ซU 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 ~ •ซ
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- ฃ 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"ซ
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 *-ป f-n ft,
rvd/>wปotC y r- -
(&..ca*(i/e.cctv

ฃ *"*

O 4V QJ
u to u •
**V ^ U, tt
CO Q tV
(D (A

•D -^i a/ -o
O K to C
t- c
- ป-< c a* ^1
c o o >
0 -C *v
-H OJ 00 TO C
*-ป 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 ซCJc/EO"r^*JcJ

C3 C L. " U U, — . >, !— i
r-i coo*Jt*-C'cu aito1*-





















> C. U ซ-"
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 iซ to *~ C
tO < ฃ ~ 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- ซ— 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 ฃ k. C — n
a-ca-— to"— TT:

in
1


,
*~>
X <
^
fD 03
C
0 E
O C
w w
1
rg

ซ
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, >ป C (^ 3
ty c tu c aป
"D --H
Cv CV ป-i ซ-i
co •-. to -H •
t5 ซD ซrt it- CL fti
(U tC 4V C W •— i
k. 4v eu c ^-i o -ฃ
(J 3 4V ov X 0)
C ^ T* T5 0- --• ป-
•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~>
<



vฃ>



*~
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
ฃ
.-
<

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.
ง.*
























































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< ป *^ •ซ 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






..
ง

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 ฃ li O TJ
ฃ .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





ฃ "u u "5
4-1 TO O T1
re a. *J E c
3 re o •ฃ
*_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 ,-< ซ— 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 ซ
a. w tv
cv cy u
u -o n






                                                4-9

-------



















































































.
TJ
OJ

C
•H
1)
C
O
o

ฅ•— •(
1

0)
r-i
r~i
ซJ
H


O^

Cv

—

ec
C

L

5

tf
CC

•>ฃ


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
ป-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 ^
ซ- c c y — w
"tBOO'-cOfO
0 *-> C 3 >, 4J *
•ซ ••-! >^ 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-
ฃฃ5 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-ป-.>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
ซ -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 •ซ c







c
cc •
c I1 "C

>, U- B 4*
U. 1-1 C
re c K C-
"C" EiC 4-ป -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 ป
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
ซ 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*
ฑJ
<








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

*-<ฃ**-*-'
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 •ป cc
3 C tC CX
U CO ** -n
*j ซn 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?

ซ 3

^P 3 — j
ec to to fc
j: *- -o
U O Cw •ซ

•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> ป
— i tTi C J 0> k. ^ — •
C to L. n — rc tc
c a* rc ? i- j= ^
O > -n CO O O k.






















ซ c

z c iZ
O E —

"Z ฃ
(C tr
u 1- ฃ
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 ฃ
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 ซ*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
>ป<
k-
CQ CO

C

o e
&• CQ
in in



tn

(0
CD
OJ

c ^ ง


4-1 3 CO CO
ซ C C3" CC C
>, * a* o
k. (J k. k, ,_<
O C ป k.
L. OO X U
CV 1-1 C ซ ft)
to to ^ e u


cc -o

u oc r
ceo
CO •ซ >

•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 ป-4 CJ (J O

















































,
to
fti

u



S
3
c
c
0

*J C
ft * CO •ซ

Cv 3 Cv n U
J3 CX k- *J CV


ง^ 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-ป 5





                                                                    4-11

-------
0)


c
c
o
o

p\

Cv. 1

M

C
U
Cv


<


CC
cc

<;
CO


>


tc
c

Cv

"

rปป

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

ฃ










,,
c
c

ฑt

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
ฃ







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 ป
00 *-
0.
ฃ J


a-
U
3
o
CO

ฃฃ























































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 "ป^ O Q* "D W Cv E

ซ— U -ซปCCCvCD ^^ 3-ml_(V


Su.^Mutc^tcxij:'-'-^ c cws-c

CC CO- ST'-HCO U-> ซ^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?SJ53iSSSiฃ5 3ฃง2ii

























—
c

U
Ci.
c.














i_

^_
c/
c.
o






o

4J
L.
OJ
U.





•).
c
D

4ซJ

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-
ฃ
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

ฃ

^
c

{_,
•n
U-,

c


tt
zฐ






c
cc
L,

u-
"e
OD
to
"

e

o



c
00
(c
ฃ












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. •ป-
E c
i- C



Cv *C

tc ^
tc
K F-,
ซ-< 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 ซw
CO CX
4V 1-1
(C 1-1
E C
1-1 CC



a, ซp
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 ฃT
i- r >

K C
C E
c c
U I-


in
1
• • CM
c
c 4.

4_ ซฃ

3 10
1- B

0. CV
= 6
O CC
u to

IT!
1

C •
O *^
ซJ <
3 CO
k- ซ


C ฃ
O CC
J tc
^
"c.
1 r; a. ex
u — if 3
3 3 r K
t ง ฃ„
K o CO •

•• D C -m C Cv
C t, Cv •— =
O E >-, u-
" ' ฃ-q t

3 c- cc en

ปJ Jt O C O
u1' o c a. R ป*-
C 3 0 E E
GUI- Cv t u-
U H *- *-> T5 O

•• C
C CO
o c, a, -o
^ (tซ (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 ซ-, D m
c cr u •- lp



1_ - ^ K tC
a- c- a as 4^
^o. o — o — •


m
i
(N




C < j
c
- ฃ
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 ซJ
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-ป

*- 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 ป/ -c
.. _ u Cv
X u_ CO 4-1

1C C K (ฃ.
•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^

ซ z -i ce








c
cc -
i. Cv -B
•• i-ซ *- 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
ซ 2 1-1 c

c

ฐ u *ฐ
>^ >*-* 1C 4->

1C C ป 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
•ป!•
~




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 -
ซ 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 ซ




















,
ca
0
•H
M
1)
C

T3
 r*ซป r^- r^ซ-
r*ป 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


ซ
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
ซ4
i
OC
c

to

X



o o o o
ง000
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  ฃ3

*•*  CO
•H    3
ฃ. a) -^
ffl  4J 1-4
U  -J tป
   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
     ซ    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 Administratป-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 95ฐF
     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,ซ  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 65ฃ 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  lซr--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  93ฃ  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*ซi. 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

ฑ
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   ซซj
                                                o   _.   c   O   CC
                                                                i-   O   C   *-   i—
Of—    i—   Ou;Oป—   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  "ซ-
                                                                                                               •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—   OOOป—   !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
                                                                                                                                 ป  i
                  re

                  5  ฃ

                  "  65

                  ^M U-


                  •sj ft





                  n ป


                  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
                  —  ฃ

                  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
Jป "•^^
r cs
--ป H
cs
H D
li —
" n
II *"<

o a
n re
H*
y" •ป*^s
re co
t"^ H^
i— O
n
+ 7T

r 1-3
h* n
m re
rr 3
--ป 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)'— oiซCCC->JC^WiiซCJNJ
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
ซ-J O'~'H— OO^—OrปOOOOOOO>~*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.Cป^->— >— >— 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 ป—
"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-ป


t-3
O
rr O
&J S
CC
pB H
re LH
•o
1— '


>-5 O
o s;
rr -r-
a> r"
i—1 "ซ^
ca
H
?3 *i"
ป 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??   • * ซ•)
"                I-a a a ซJ.
                         SEP71C  LSACHA7H
•i.<;_.aG.ซ
    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 20ฐC.



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.  Thซ 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.
ฃ

5
.^
ซ
*
•— ' C7-

ง ฃ
-o
C -
a >-
V
/-v .0
O 0
^ -w
u
lซi 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
ฃJ 0- PM

ซn *J m
ejj — o* ey
CMD !> 3 ^ ^
o o o * o
ซ5 u •"' eg jz
>- o tn
ป >. o
— ฃ E m >,
CO E *H T3
C ซ • O ซ
0 W S S W



o^ m ปH
r*~j u



ty> ปH ปH
V V

in  r^~ GI o
CO f* ?**) <{• r*j
*^ PS CO

^^cy^r^vHO^c^omr^inNOO
i1^ *>H CS ซH (N rH TH ซH vH i^ CO in PS *&
oooooooooooooo



p* ^n co


*



• • • •



w

M
^H ^ซ1 ^^ ^f s^ ป-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*ป
vH v^ P^ O P^ ^"^ *—!
O O O O O O O



pNh ^ PM *& o r** o^
•j^ ^ป *ij* QQ ^^ ff^ O>
O O <>• O <& O  ^^ 'rt
O O PS O eo O O




in
000000*0
m >n ปn m r~ m ปH


•







01
^wwocnowc
O ^H es ซn

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
           ฃ4


           *,
O.
g


V)
                                                     ซ
                                                     e
                                                     0
                                                         v
                                                         u
                                                                 e
                                                                 v
                                                                o
                                                              IM   O
T3             O
C       —     M       T5
3       ซJ     ปM        C

U  g    ซ     H ฃ  <8  O
ao  5    u     ซ *>  ซ  w
   J          *j  a  w  ao
C JJ    "ซ     aj J  O  C.
moo?        ฃ
-< .a             v  >>  ซ
4       .  _   .       _   _                 .  _
 <*>&.      OOOOOOOOOO    OOOO^ปf^'OOT-(    oo^OซNy-Tceo

 wL      _..:.:_"      "   '          -     -  - -                                •  -  -

 2  "^       	•ซ•ซ..  .....^    ^




 &

            OOC'ป-tป-ปOi-*ป-tOiH    OซHป-ti-(CNi-(T^O4ปHOOOT-*O'-*^    O  O C O
 ซ1  O.      OOi-HOOOOOOO    OOOQOOGOQOCOOOOr-4    OOOO






    c          __        ^_.^_    o5P5595.popooppoo    pppo

    CJ





    M
    u
    a
    •^

    00         ••••*ปซ                             v  v


                                         a



         jtf
          a                              C    <    a
         ป-4*^tn    \o     ^*    ayv*    35O^H    i—i    <"*J    en    -*T    in    *O    f^ซ    OOO    O

 —• tl    U                              U
 a. j3
 e E   j                              so
 81 3    3                              ป5
 ^J 2
                                                   B-30

-------
   •ป,,- 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^.ฐ^,..;. :iM-•'-ฃ ^ฃ
                           • „ ฐ     t,' '-v 4.
                          -7;^v^--Yk-ฃ

                       v>-v?v--r4 CXฐ;
      c\  ' ; "^ / ( \ '•••     .•  '-, ..-.fi- ฐ-'- :  ฐ.
      ;•:"."-;.'  &J:i)\.r'- *J--"':*•ฃ  -  .,-'
       •- 'CkJT';/'""" -^""""^.""T.r^r.''

       ^r;/:  -%,!	/f\:,^-
      "y ' - r""^ -. YTW—r-T"'.'.--^--!;' -%|—\™--~-!^ .- • ,-Sซ*A - 4-J
  ^
/•/ *fi~.
^:,
T,
 -~r.lS!i\

 yfA
                                    •'crr': \
';?-7"''-Tir'^';;L7":;rsi-vvfv^fe5S- 4- ^^^^ ^
ป/^V'-K^^ ^ฐr |i   ' ^'-'•.- ^^ ••- *
ซ: ;^.: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            -    ''•',"'  ซ" P'P" ซ'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'ซ •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 —'  •ป. W. I ซ*"&-  1 '•ปi-' b  Z IUJ -r ~ -* . . . ,.
    ^ jiywv 8, '^'"; •"W'.. J> 1 S^-^CrX^'Q

^ -rT^S^^-^^^ffe^'
,RJI =f r.

^ '.Vj-^
Aฐ ป nCdTVIl
T-'-KT,\ *W'-i-^w,-)>-"-• .vsfe-*^   r"*:,-'  'T,'-^ssr1
&>EX-ซ4ซ5i:p^^--^v^,^
^^ j"'->"^:^^:^3^k^ -'-.r-ir?' ^-'7.^ -..^  ;r^f-
^j jr;.^j ^;||n^-^>i^^^^i^^ ^^ง|L -^~

"" - \ -1ฎ -.• 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^^	  _ป< ---,-  -., ^ 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.
^

ฐ<5
z

o
z
z

tC Ck.
z
D*
^^ cฃ
•S ฃ
*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
ซ 3 X
^3 ฃ & ft)
; c -M a, a

\o ซN 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
OซM CN tH
^•^i^eomui^ojno oป r- ^- ซM
3 ^ 2 ฃ 55 ฃ * ^ M S ooฃS
Cs^^
r-ป 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 ปcr c^i c**i p** irt i/*)

• •


0 ฃ


01
.* (8
ffi ^J
•Jwtflutotflwwcotn totocoto
c "

•*H fO P^ f^ ^> fO <**! ^ f^ 4-J r1^ *3" 
a, t, 3

m


fป*
1-1
T-t

ซ>o.
v^
ซ rt
o eo

O 0
•rH
 ^i ^ * r> M W
x> ซH 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 ป-l
O O
o *
v *ป
U*> TM
O 0
• *
V
0 0
o ao
ป-<
ff. 0 CD Tซ ซM
 o TH CM
•y 
-------
                               •S
                                      -32-
    81


    c
    3
 00


 O  2
 M

ฃ
 4)
 )->  fl-
ea
r-'
    zo
=  c.
—  E
   5
   Cs.      M   31  V
           jJ   ซ  --.
                                                                                                                    V


                                                                                                                    O
                            E  73  .*
                            O   4)  ซ)
                                                                             ซ  O
                                                                             91  C8

                                                                             as  >


                                                                             00   ซ,
                                                                                                     in
                                                                                               o

                                                                                               V
                        o

                        •ป
                                   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
ฃ1
 <0
H
            o 5.
           o  a
           z
            I   E
            .3- a
           —  E
            to  c.
           *•>  CL

           ฃ
              •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 •>ป
                      O O  ฉ O IN
                               ซo eo
                                  
                O  O <~ซJ  r*
                o  o o  o
                      
                O  O 1-1  O
                ^H  1H CX  ป-(
                      fn -a-  o o  o
                      ซs) O  O CM  ซ3-
                      T-I TH  n ป-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-ซ-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
ฃ31916
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
ฃ50229 Park Rd.
#32475 Wildwood
ฃ4514 Cable Lake Rd.


S.W. end
ฃ31500 S. Lakeshore Dr.
ฃ31290 Currans Beach
Cobbens
Rainbow Park
ฃ50317 Lake Shore Drive
ฃ31339
East of Blue  Fin Marina
East end
East end


ฃ8970  'Hamilton Dr.
ฃ8830
Skibbe Dr.
South  end of  3ass Island
Park Drive
ฃ2030

South  east  end
  Flow
Direction


  250ฐ W
  213ฐ SW
   41ฐ NE
  233ฐ SW
  305ฐ NW
  287ฐ W
  273ฐ V
  218ฐ SW
  213ฐ SW
Flow Rate F?D

   8.5
   3
   5
   7.5
   3.5

   6
   7.5
   5
   3
213ฐ SW
244ฐ W
248ฐ W
303ฐ NW
297ฐ W
354ฐ N
165ฐ S
346ฐ M
18ฐ N
59ฐ NE
84ฐ E
-
.
34ฐ NE
342ฐ N
215ฐ SW
262ฐ W
331ฐ 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
   115ฐ  E
    75ฐ  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
   130ฐ SE
   109ฐ E
   207ฐ 5

   245ฐ W
   290ฐ N
   313ฐ N

   242ฐ W
   318ฐ NW
   292ฐ W
   245ฐW
    93ฐ E
   258ฐ W
   323ฐ W
   257ฐ W
   356ฐ N
   282ฐ V
   222ฐ SW
                                             280ฐ W
   171C
     79C
North of  swamp  -  west  shore    39
South west  corner
North of  "The Wharf"            9ฐ
         NE
     92ฐ  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
                                                  -ฃI-C .
                   •
              _____
 I

 O
                             B-51
                                                   o
                                                            44-^>
                                                                       -r—->-.;


                                                                       4— d
                                                                       T-Sl
4^!


-------
lซ>^-
                   *- ^
                =5-^Cซ

                 '
                  , r -


                   t
                — o

                         ซ

                         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 ซ-
t
o
                                   B-53
                                                               cc*ป 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"
                                                        ,-*

                                                         /
                                                           ป
                                                         ;. — o
                                                    -?=&,
                                                      +3
                                                        .  |!
iO
    i
    100ซ
                                                           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 	 "^-ซ-__, 	 .
1
}
' i
}
)
)
)
, 1
11 — '-'- ". " ' L"^~ ^_-^ซ~--— ——.—ซซ-.™-
	 L_ — ; 	 ^ 	 ,_jtrr_ — , — ^
	 ' 	 "^*— 	 • 	 	 — ฃ-*- • 	 • 	 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
                                                                       -•:
                                                                       -ซ>
                                                                    tฐ!T
                                                                      —ซ

                                                                      I—ฐ
                                                                      -ซ-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(ฃ— 30  40   50   60  70  SO   90~10C

   J  '
3    ;
                                              -=
        100-90  80-ฃ70 " 60'" 50 ' ซC~  33- 20^^
        0   10  20=3So-,-40  $0  "6C  70 'ISO  90 = 100
        , - -!! - L — , ----
                     5ฃ
                                             i
                                            |OO
                                                                          --*<
                                                                          .-_.  j


                                                                                                       ~o
                                                                                                       -B-"C
                                                                                                       - _
                                                                                      pan-
   B-58
  CO*JDOCTI ^ ITS*
                                                                                                      -T-7'C
                                                                                                         -O.
                                                                                                 ป vป 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~ฃ0~.40^l3a™20— tO^^IO
  I                   ~           "~    ,'-'
  a	-	
                                                                       -d
                                                                     -t-<2:
                                                                       c

                                                                     '
                   -ji-O
                                                                    -r—C'
                                                                 1    '(
                                                                      ซ-C
           pax-t   5
i
ปoo
                                                                   i TV
                                      B-61

-------
B-62

-------
 J


I
=*• - *
.3.
            0 ""30  .150  70.  3Q"ฐ"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  -|
                   /ฐV

                   X..

  - _     -   .   —.---.     ,

  0   10  20  30 — ).
                                                                        , HC
                                                 1: • !  r I  i  i  i  • i  .  :  ;••
  100-90   80 — 7o;2D   50   ซr~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  ซ  ;o  so — 70:^30 — so-ioo mm
         i
        o
      t

     ICO
                                                    i  'i  i  i.  -i    i   ;:
                               rf -
                                                      ]- I.-1. ,..l"-|...|  EV|
                                    I I
                                   -ซ•
                                                    jis  '• -i  j -i  rr I  [  i
                                                         I  I  !  '! -i  "  fe'-i.
                                                         i • T • i "i  i  I
                                                          •     '   _L ••'    11

*

O
                                                                                                   fl
                                                                                                    i
                                                                                             !J -
                                                                                             '-*
                                                                                 CcmฃXX.Tป N/ i TV
                                  part   I
                                               B-67

-------
 f:
                              * - '
          100" 90"' 80  70" 60  " SO"" 40  '30  ~ 20-
633.  .
 3     -
           c~ ic~ ?o rr 30 ~ซp=i&eT56e—7C~ so ~ 90-100
          O —
                                                                              i   V-.
                                                           -      :."-,.-"..fui
                                                            . | -|:,:.Mv;!::"n:!;UJ|,:t|lM,C
                                                                               Udo!
                                                                       ifo\\
                                                                      i  i  .!  1
                                                         iซ2o
-------
      o~io:z203::30~40~jo~M~70~.3Ci—w-100
                                                                         ซ
                                                                    -
                                                            ,., 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-.'rป     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-
                                                                       EฑJ        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
                                                    'ซ-M ป • '*—* > •   I
                                                    I  '  t ' •  •!  '\ H''
                                                              if >
                                                               ,

                                              ^r^^q*'!!^!''^ '1'^rjyU
                                     B-71    too
                                                CO*jCOCTtc?i TV

-------
              ',0

o~40—so—60—7C—ปo—go-loo
                          100
                       ID
                                                 I  I  > .. '  1
                                                 i  '   i;,  ,b
                                                   IT"  t'V
                                                       ^O
                                                  T&  Ji  1
                                                 " '
                                                       -N*
                                                          -i—
     i ryr^;i!r^ป'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..iMปt.'ii-Ml  'r'M^u
 ,j  I   .


i^l'.,
                                                       VU
                                                       '(>- -u
                                    CC3ปoCXJClTป U i T V
                                                            1
                                                            o
                                B-72

-------
100— Maorz7o^ryiz—50^1
           s^
 i
O
                                                              • '
                                                                :d
                                            X < .!('
                                            [ง•!  .i  i..i    TT
!  •!  !  kr!"-ซJo
                                            ! -.|  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 "ซ
                             i VI .
                             LiJii
                                                                           MUR
                                                                             " ''      "  '
                                                                        i
                                                                       jOO
                                                                                        7

-------
  vJ
 n
_ฃ

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-'-  ซ0-  0 -
        n   inzr?r.5:3ozr*on50i^:6u™7i..r^i&nr wr-ioo
        6 —•	——	,	x
                                                                       ,0
                                                                       IJ>
                                       jy^ma
                                      <^—^f\
                             •iyir^gn

                                              -Ub
                                              —ป-(0:

                                              —HO!

                                              4-^0
                                                                       ,-^!o:
                             | ป_>>*-' VJฑ-t' I   i   . i"*

                             i"  >,.>r i  ••;-••'•
                                                                       -•• ,
                                                                      •
                                                     •is  i
                                                     'c~7"
                                                                           ฃ
                                                                            '*
                                              -^rnw
                                                 i
                                                                                                        •e-C

                                                                                                        -tO

                                                                                                        -o
                                                                               ^
                                                                                                        .
                                                                                                        c
                                                                                    I!

                                                                                   Is  ,
                                                                               -o
                                                                                  '1   I  I  i ' •  M     ,  i   .

                                                                                            LftHE
                                                                                       pcu-t
                                                                               B-74

-------
-%
   Vs
                                             =ซ :   f  ''. 'K; !•' L*.<-Ki" {:- -| ".Ca  i r
                                             .--ป •   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-
                                                    ccซoou
-------
                    U— *>U	>U	*U	3ฃ>	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-.  ป.ปr
                                                                            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_anl3ปndTnz^:Rnz^^nn:inrz:*-nzrr3n^;iflZ^ia
        I                            J
                                  -5ปiCXD
                                                         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
 **•     ซ  งฃ
                                                               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
                                                                                                                                       -:ซ-ซป
                                                                                                                                        ซjl:

                                                                          ",';).'.:••::.!-"!].  'ป -I-1 i"  1  '"i1  1      1
                                                                                                 -4
                                                                             ,K,k.|;f.-t!-jr::-!.:  J
                                                                         ;fc-f

                                                                         ij.  i./IIปซ\U>T.;'!.-"''_ ;   •   [ tti~ ,




                                                                         li,.-:f"..i -\""i '"[•  7." ' ""1      H
                                                                                                                          LftkLH
                                                                  B-79

-------
                   .-'OMC
                       c

      •-"---'-''
                    -io
   {....•U-ll'-i.,!.. •••x\ป.\ •( '! D|
    ,,,,.,,.-,,,,  -
                      n-C •
 I
100
                       1

                       O
     Cow tX) CTi uป
                                              .;„
                                                '
                                                ,-
                                                -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-ซ
Ho
                                               I    "'   	     ป"'

                                                   i	.  O
                     par-fc   3
                            B-81

-------
                   - .„ ....„
     r JJJS-BO — SO — TO — BO  50  ซ~ : ; •  ,  -'-0
                                   -
                                     -  --
                                   -* .— • — — -j

7   -m
                                     - -
       or^to   20  30  ซ   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^
                                                                                 ฃ' 1. J
                                         i  i  n
lOCUfc-
                                                                                               '
                                                                                                       - 0
                                                                                                     i
                                                                                                     0
       o
                                          soo
                                               B-83
                                                                      ฑ,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-'ปi*H.r,i.;
                                                      Hj.'ซ^''!"i'i- ii'-l..  "'.::. ;;,
                                                                                                        cr V
PfPESTOKJH

               LAKH
                                                     !HU-5ซ....  , ].->•: .-I-  ./
                                                     '" jr''T"!lH |,i. 1 "I  ! ..... .' ^
                                                                              B-84

-------
            '  •'
^
  <3
\r

•••^

/'
\a
                   •   ..,.
              a   \^ — ซ=>  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
                          :•ฃ•
                          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 ปJ 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 */
                                                                 CCWOซJCT i U i
I
o
ซ
loo
                                                                       LAK.B
                                         Cฃ3ซV> 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-*	-ซ-'

   COIO CXXL.T1 tf I TV

B-95
                                                                  100 ซ6-
                                                                     part

                                                                                      ป
                                                                                     0-
                                                                                u i -r y

-------
                              rrzr_rr=3'
                                       ฃ
100 50  Jfc   70   60  50  4iC__3( .  -20~~W --- 0 )Cj
. -           -~ - - : — ---- -^ซซ-ซ. wซ~
                                 -^ซซ-ซ.


                                      '
•

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.
                                      ปป     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".ปป"V  r
                                                                     i
                                                                     o
                                                                               part
                                                                                                   ซ
                                                                                                  o
                                                B-99

-------
            ZIZ60—so—4Q— :ci^io—•,;—-o
rr; 10 in 20 fc 30—*o=se ™. 50.:"ป'.. ~,>; ~ 7. j.: ."•_ ^3 r too I5*-1

                                                                                            Of=-
                                                                                                        ^. j *^



                                                                                                        -H— :>'
                                                                                                         ซ-ฃ-;
                                                                                 loo
                                                                                     COWDOCT7 U
                                                                                   part:
                                                 B-100

-------
B-101

-------
 100^90  8iJ
 - . -- = ---- :—:—
iJ^>70   SO  50   40  30  20   10^""
IS
ฃ
C
- 0   10 . , 20>f~3C  40— "M-~SC:  TO   SO  ป~100!
          O^6wq/M|CS
                                                   i    • '
                                                            ฃr
                                               100 <
                                                                      I
                                                                      O
                                                                u i
                                ouiuD


                                      por-t    I



                                            B-102
                                                                                      S 5 d '
                                                                            100 ซr-
                                                                                              1 T ซt*

-------
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* *ป ™
*? ^

•——_
O CJ
iir ซr



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




VปujViVi-ปjmC3*-jvปviv-s)V O vi m



vJlJlVOO03U*WU)V*V"WW* VlOvi





NJ^jC3QvปvปV*Lnvvit''>>viO w is) Vi



M*
•virvjซwvปOViViViviOwVU> w un '•/"


VVlOVlOvl.nwtVlfsiONIw^W N) C VI





C^ujOOv^^^viOOOi-** C^1-* ฃ*fซJOH


V— t_— ป^(™>tป-l NJ !— * t— i n_. |_jj •.
viwiKj-jviavi-*j-*-j vi.^j vป o o o o


viOQwruj SJNJVI








•^JNjOuJVICOO'^'v^VIVlVlWl VlC3V>



OO-iOM^Ul^MUlOW-J >- M ซ1






LnO^OOv^Jwiu^OLtONJK) Ot^wi

_ _ ~.
^jr>^wv*viviOi^~^OO^'^t^ fv) vi ti"


9
ta
""
J^
n
rป
p,
X



r*
Futur
a


H
s
r

EC
n
c-



s.


1
tp
ft
&

W
to
h-
w
re
o-

^
n
*^
!

?




ง
K



2L

03
c^



O

cs



ซ?
=.
fc
™
S3
ft
e.


s:
JH
?i

*:
CD
Z







H
O


i
1


m ป
ft ra
"S "2.
rT ft

?
w.

f! TJ
n tu

a.

"O
a C
rr




a Si
a ซ
03 i-s
n f
a. J

o


ฃ
+• ^
!



'B S
*7 fD
n- <
o

^
SI
3
f I
h— K

a.


"0



r*
•f

""" M
ป -g
ft c




™
•*
r-
rr

"3
3
"3



























r-H
^
E

•3
*^
O
a.




















c
g

(Tf
c:
•a



c.
ro
35
ฃ.
f
"5
n
^v

3
VI







H
P
cr

fV\

0
1




PT ซ
=r w
fD rt
P-
*Q 3
L J K
ป PT
H ro
3 CL
H*
3 cr
OQ H
ro
•o w
ro ,-v
r-! ft,
H- O
O ฃ
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 _ ซ to .ป N; Ki — — *— N- K)

S^S.SSSSBKSoeS S=S



*-hJtoi— rs) u. — *- to cJ




OSUnWiOw-ปjN)*-OCDLflQ3^jLfiO OC^ซ^j




N_ t—
0>O^AO*ปJKjwGOb>'Cฃ''OซC'*O to, O v





u> *-K)uปiปj'**^-ป"'.*-ff'roป-' K) *ปts)tn
LJ w



OOltCfi^nk/tV^OW^criOONjO O *ซJ Of











tป M K> M M ป• ta* W> *• _ ,_






UnOwiOWCflt"t"N)WlN)L''^'O*~ OONJ



KJ l^ ; i— i fs> K> UJ ^" W K) KJ KJ kpM^^>_<

Mtปซ>— KJ^W- — ••' L-J h^
w, Nl foซJ 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
aป
o
••
^.

re5
^
i
_
ft
*


H
3



CB
D

J*
2L
-
e
(t
c.

CB
ft
C-

o
J
<—
**
CB
R>

ฃ
^-
|
r
re
ฃ

D
3

ce

C

C
ft
ฃ•

CB
c.


c

te
[-.
er
c.
r
i

J
"






-
0.
1


1
1
-
s


r
"
*ป
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
ฃ
+ "

I
CA
if C
n
w
a

•c
4ง
+


% tv
f- 03

a.
•f r*

~ ^
lj
•=
_

<<
r-
•v
4
































_
^
^
"
ซ

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 ฃ
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
ซi
vO
A
A
ปป
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
ฃ.
4J
o
>*
C
0)
en
>-,
C
u
3
CO
r-i
1
0)

W
S-l
00
cu
o
en
co

C
ซ
i
i
(7
>
w
^
J.
iH
&.
(5
^
U
L.
m

ปn
f-4
m
CTi
m
n
o
^
<5
e
(3
^
•^

g
ec
m
*r
C-
>c
M-v
r*,
C1
ง
^
vT
X

O
*T
g.
s
eo
0\

r2
f^

CN
vO
ri
g
ec



=_
r*.
m
\ฃ
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

ฃ K R S

^n ^ CT\ EN
eo r-ป m (N
-3- tf*l ^4 f"ป
co ec r* —
CM
>c M-.O'~

0"o>^-,Cr-,o-a-'n'nr,
3*;*ปSS**S**
sro^.*o-rซN^^ป
R
V
•S
11
— *
w

งฃ^
— —
^ ^2


0= O
— wo
ri 0 ซ
U*l 1C
-- CD ป-
S ฐ "
S 5 *

ฃ;:ฃ
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
     ?jpgrฐda
Subtotal initial  cost
SarvJcfi factor  (35%)
Pubtotzl :liiif,.-ial  capital cost

?u^nrซ 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
—
"• ***"
ซ._
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
—
_ป
r
10
2,044
2,054
103
                                                  D-23

-------
-! tr.
— C
b-
ill
Jv.
"ss
^ CD CK
sis
L - "**
Kปซ

LJ NJ
O C^ w
fei — w
Wl Nป 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!ฃ! IE !
- L i? E -
L .. |5 r t
r. ir- r.
~ ~ r~ r iฐ r~ r~ ~ ir. . ~

-.wsu>S?;~-g.Sx. SK_ -gปK.

SgS^SSfeSSggS 2SS SซSฃ
IsslKsssSSsi Ssง sis=
•^ V w V \f ซ U •„, ป o a b o '- OB - V V ป

SIcSsisSsSSS Isง SSSt
KJ tsJK)K>K)*-'K)l— ฃ-ta-w-*-
• .V. . • . • II] ..*ป

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*- ฃ*•>-<*•ปป—
ruOvSCDUiLnOsDODsS'^^ c^^w"^
• 	 	 Ill ....

-ปJ^)xj(— 'J^^-UJ^WNJO^O f~ป^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 2ฃ S *" S S S & ฃ S ' ' ' wS^K

SioSSSssrgS^S ^Sง S2^S
ฃS55=SSas*งง 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

งo
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
ซ_
.._
™™.
iปซป
	
	
	
	
wปw-
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_
—
—
—
ซM
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
— —
""
ซ.-*.
—
—
—
—
                                               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*
ซSSงSS5S23Sง2S
oafowoBaoa*-^^ — M^-^OSO^
NJ ป—
Off**- i— ^-u-w.-. Ki—.,—
ฃSSSซSSฃS5iS^SงS
SSSwioSwSSSSoSS
(*4 ^ป
OONlJ-^^g* gS"1*"^™
NO g 0 g ~ N0ซ g *-vo 0 N; vo M
•A* U)
3,^-o-ปซe.oB>-o>oปvo->a
0 r .ฐ * .* ." ." r1 r1 .* y r .* P .*
ta* V-*
^jUJซ— *-* *ซ*(•. k— l_- k^ — •-
u* <ซj J> •-• O*ut-c*uJ'wj^^'t(./lO ft- O
ฃ. W
_
OOuj^^ — ySOJmv^— 'Uiv^'^W
Cr>ODiซjG''C3CDOthOh0G3CQ ** O3 ^ CO
rj vO — • — — — —
^QBO — — Vt^v*'fi--VJO^'O-^J
™**^jปป*ti^ป^ao'-ji-,uiC^30Kj--'>j
Sฃ22t3ฃS32!2-3S2S
VI |ซ9 W i-
; 1 H- s s
T T c* a.
c ป 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 ฃฃ Isi S

UJ W G N> XJ CO UJ
III • ~ ป -
p- vtf eซ \o
^ CO W ซO
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 Mซ
III - -
ffป UJ 1- -
-J rxj ^ Oซ
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
ง >
(a S
rr 3
C C
n *—
rr
)—•
ง
en
u H
*• 3
-1 sr
1 Incremental
ge Annual O&M Ccmstr
I
w
CJ "9
•M l"l
< 0
n re
n ซ
?
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 ซ &
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

-------
Tablฃ 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
—
_ซ
• 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 ป $4.65/month x 12 months -               $     56


       User Charge ป $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 ซ $4.65/month x 12 months =          $    56


       User Charge ป 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
ปW iH

•H
4J 03
a S
 CO
Tl \
<3 O
c
Uj- 
>
91
CA
|
3
i
tQ
ฃ
1

oi
n
ฃ
a
3
•3
VI
3


J
Sao ao Q
•4* \O Un
M O •* i**

ซ S S3
sa -T o? vj
ao * ซrt
o S 2S
m sr oi"-ป — iซ^<3-r-ป

,,
III .•*..."* 	


2 2 s" a s s s s s a a a" 3 s s s s s
— *

-•-
^25 5 S S 5 S a ฐ S ^ S o S a Sซ
— t "^> ^r ~* "^"H -T^1^ f^ *v|CJCO
-^^z ^^^^^^^s-^a-'r^^
s. s. * "1 ฐ. s. ป - * - ^ s. ^ s. * -. ^ s.
--
2^5 *2^5?,^^5^;^2:^^^
i ป 2 5^^r;2'rvi^f*3^o"3^5
Jฃ • . •
~ 71 — i ^ 3^
— "J
-*
J •• -
n - j 'j —
^ i ^| 	 "is
D-80

-------
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
—
ซ.ซ
^ 	
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).
                                                                                       •ป

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
—
ซ.
66
2,477
2,543
--
51C
17C
2.08C
1,315
2,08C
1,414
11.96S
—
""" •
Vปl
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
ซ.—
7,540
8,100
3,110
2,421
	
2,888
34,629
1,731
462
5,880
—_
ซ••_
_.
	 -
	

—
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
_ซ
—
—
—
—
—
—
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
~.ซ
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 ซ w ซ
7. r. a
03 ฃ ~
4J JJ w
C 0)
0) O "
3 U ง c
— 1 u o
ซ-i — 1 „ 3
U-l 00 E U
o) o% ฐ| 2
.j 1~l u ซ
-*• V C
so) |3
rt C o
4J 3 U
-3 ซi e r
y ^ usg
w 2 ฃ * ~
& S " =
qj 0) Si |
0! AJ - -2!
B
' >• -8)
t" e K!
ซ c -
wo H •;
w ซi
W -i
> m
•H I S
JJC ^
OS O — ' u
C 2 ฃ
M TS s -
0) (U ^ S
4J t3 5
M a ซ
<3 M
00
J_| ฃX
o s
•o 2
ซC 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 „ ซ
03 CS m
*l
ง 2 1
1 1 I
3 eu '^
w w
ป c
1 ' a' ซ
C5 -J
ซ! in
f^ L. ฎ
r* B "S
H =! -
se o — ^ cc t? x
U-- -^ f*'  rsi ill
*•* ffv r% sc
o (N rj oc
ซ iA rs< O
\C r^. C1 A O <^ ill
e\> *_ m \J5
•c (?* r*i oo IIP
- - * * III
r*i ^4 w ac
\e ซc -ป r* lii
o eo r> M iii
O O i*> O
^ In ^ S iii
• • - * iii
ri rM r* ซ
f*- O *ซr *^ os O ฐ3
So S2 So-
S K eo S S s "
fN
^J in rt G n* *f tf)
oo r** ^ c O *"* fs*
<^* O oป *sf ปn r^ p\

o c^ jr^pooo>ปc<— 'O
•Mr*~r^!w^CD^r^'C^vflOin^v"~'rK
^. ^_ — _ _ r* m — . in ซ
**
gS^^SI^^S^^o^SCo
-H — scซ'*'ซci
-------
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
  ซ            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
ฑj 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 Mซซ o--.-r-ซซc0>OU,r,or,^^
^- vO CO
(N <*1
!n7aooo 3 ฃ ซ ซg^^Sar^2^2c3cnoง^o
— ซ >* 05 wnr^-^ ^^r-tLnm^ocaMco^r^tAgcH



=S?S SSK 2SS55S3SSSSS53S
•SSS "3S *g2SS"SSSฐSSSS2
Jง5" ง2S 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
_ .ซ_
—
—
—
—
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
—
—• ~
ซ_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
—
ซซ•.
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/ซ,;
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
•ซ•
,_{
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




ฃ
n
"•

c
' (Perce
^<
•c

9
ซ
>H
n
c
c;
c
re
ฃ




e
c
1


^
K
ID
a
"o
0)

z
c
<5

X






ฃ

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
ป 5
*i




i
— < c
c. o ~
•rt 14 E
D JJ D
o) n ~
•4 JJ
c.




0>
lฐป


^
flJ O
A




X
ฃ C
x> IB
1*



X ง

"S "c
2


x 5
O K
D a





5
c
ฃ

3SSSI235S i
yxz&cAEACOi; 10 in (/• x U'
IA , U) Z Z U U 10 V.> U3 CO Ul (0 10


iTiซซ*Hirtn.'--vrvinincDfNj^— oixs-wowac
Cฃkik* XC*H ^CซJJ> L>C
icaicQdicsPsauoo'ic
"5!>.ZซCฃ'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


ซ

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)
 ฃ0
 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!|     ฃ
              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
    *ฃ *C

    ^ ro
 3  3
 0  0
J3  A

CD  rH
                     ซ-" CN     — CN
 IM  rt
 3
 0  Cft


n  jJ
                      (fl

                      C
                      a
                               ง
                               C
                               C
                                                                       c
                                                                       (0
                                                                       CD
                                                                       4-1
                                                                       0)
                                                  IB


                                                  C
JJ
JJ
 r3
 g

 ca

 IB
rH
 3
 D

JJ

 ITS
                                 X
                               o -ป

                               S  o01