c/EPA
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
            Region V
            230 South Dearborn
            Chicago; 'flinois 604
July, 1979
            Water Division
Environmental
Impact Statement
Draft
Appendices
            Alternative Waste
            Treatment Systems
            For Rural Lake Projects
            Case Study Number 3
            Springvale-Bear Creek
            Sewage Disposal
            Authority
            Emmet County, Michigan

-------
                      VOLUME II APPENDICES



               DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT



 ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR RURAL LAKE PROJECTS



CASE STUDY  No. 3: SPRINGVALE-BEAR CREEK SEWAGE DISPOSAL AUTHORITY



                      EMMET COUNTY, MICHIGAN



                        Prepared by the



          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY



                    REGION V,   CHICAGO, ILLINOIS



                              AND



                       WAPORA, INCORPORATED

                         WASHINGTON, D.C.
                                       Approved by:
                                       Jo%T McGuire"
                                                Administrator
                                       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                                       July, 1979

-------
APPENDIX

A   Soils

    A-l  Soil Factors that Affect On-Site Wastewater Disposal
    A-2  Comparison of Characteristics for Land Treatment Processes

B   Water Quality

    B-l  Michigan Surface Water Classifications
    B-2  Michigan State Water Quality Standards
    B-3  Seasonal Variation of Water Quality Parameters
    B-4  Limnological Features of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes,
         Emmet County, Michigan
    B-5  Simplified Analysis of Lake Eutrophication
    B-6  Investigation of Septic Leachate Discharges into Crooked
         and Pickerel Lakes, Michigan
    B-7  Sanitary Systems of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes, Emmet
         County, Michigan: An On-Site Survey
    B-8  Emmet County Sanitary Code - Design Standards
    B-9  Summary for On-Site Systems with Occasional or Recurring Problems

C   Biota

    C-l  Submerged and Emergent Aquatic Plants
    C-2  Invertebrate Indicator Organisms Found in Crooked and Pickerel Lakes
    C-3  Use of Diversity Indices
    C-4  Fish Species Survey of Pickerel Lakes
    C-5  Fish Species of Crooked Lake
    C-6  Check List of Resident Birds of Michigan (Northwestern Lower
         Peninsula Michigan)
    C-7  Mammals with a Habitat Range in the Study Area
    C-8  Michigan's Rare and Endangered Mammals Whose Habitat Range Includes
         the Study Area
    C-9  Michigan's Threatened Bird Species Whose Habitat Range Includes the
         Study Area
    C-10 Rare and Threatened Plant Species of Michigan Found in the Study Area

D   Methodology for Projecting the Proposed Crooked/Pickerel Lakes Service
    Area Permanent and Seasonal Population, 1978 and 2000

E   Flow Reduction

    E-l  Flow Reduction and Cost Data for Water Saving Devices
    E-2  Consideration of Residential Flow Reduction Measures in Wastewater
         Facilities Planning from the Homeowner's Perspective
    E-3  Flow Reduction for EIS Alternative 4
    E-4  Incremental Capital Costs of Flow Reduction in the Crooked/Pickerel
         Lakes Study Area

F   Financing

    F-l  Cost-Sharing
    F-2  Alternatives for Financing the Local Share of Wastewater Treatment
         Facilities in Emmet County, Michigan
                                      i

-------
G   Management of Small Wastewater Systems

    G-l  Some Management Agencies for Decentralized Facilities
    G-2  Legislation by Stated Authorizing Management of Small Waste
         Flow Districts
    G-3  Management Concepts for Small Waste Flow Districts

H   Engineering

    H-l  Crooked/Pickered Lake Environmental Impact Statement Engineering
         Report
    H-2  Design and Costing Assumptions

I   Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands

J   Ambient Air Quality Summaries in Petoskey,  Michigan

K   Alternative Wastewater Treatment Technology to Mitigate Round Lake Water
    Quality Problems
                                     \ I

-------
APPENDIX A




  SOILS

-------
                                                                           APPENDIX
                                                                              A-l
            SOIL  FACTORS  THAT  AFFECT  ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL

     Evaluation  of  soil  for on-site  wastewater  disposal  requires an understand-
 ing  of  the  various  components of  wastewater and their interaction with soil.
 Wastewater  treatment  involves:  removing  suspended  solids; reducing bacteria
 and  viruses to an acceptable  level;  reducing or removing undesirable chemicals;
 and  disposal of  the treated water.   For soils to be able to treat wastewater
 properly  they must  have  certain characteristics.  How well a septic system
 works depends largely on the  rate at which effluent moves into and through the
 soil, that  is, on soil permeability.   But several other  soil characteristics
 may  also  affect  performance.   Groundwater level, depth of the soil, underlying
 material, slope and proximity  to streams or lakes are among the other charac-
 teristics that need to be  considered when determining the location and size
 of an on-site wastewater disposal system.

     Soil permeability - Soil permeability is that  quality of the soil that
 enables water and air to move through  it.  It is influenced by the amount of
 gravel, sand, silt  and clay in the soil,  the kind of clay, and other factors.
 Water moves faster  through sandy  and gravelly soils than through clayey soils.

     Some clays  expand very little when wet; other  kinds are very plastic and
 expand  so much when wet  that  the  pores of the soil  swell shut.   This slows
 water movement and  reduces the capacity of the  soil to absorb septic tank
 effluent.

     Groundwater level - In some  soils the groundwater level is but a few feet,
 perhaps only one foot, below  the  surface  the year around.  In other soils the
 groundwater level is  high  only in winter and early  in spring.  In still others
 the water level  is  high  during periods of prolonged rainfall.  A sewage absorp-
 tion field  will  not function  properly  under any  of  these conditions.

     If the groundwater  level rises  to the subsurface tile or pipe, the satu-
 rated soil  cannot absorb effluent.   The effluent remains near the surface or
 rises to the surface,  and  the absorption field  becomes a foul-smelling,
 unhealthful bog.

     Depth  to rock, sand or gravel - At least 4  feet of soil material between
 the bottom  of the trenches or seepage bed and any rock formations is necessary
 for absorption,  filtration, and purification of  septic tank effluent.   In areas
where the water  supply comes  from wells and the  underlying rock is limestone,
more than 4 feet of soil may  be needed to prevent unfiltered effluent from
 seeping through  the cracks and crevices that are common in limestone.

     Different kinds  of  soil  - In some places the soil changes within a dis-
tance of a  few feet.   The  presence of different  kinds of soil in an absorption
field is not significant if the different soils  have about the same absorption
capacity, but it may be  significant  if the soils differ greatly.  Where this
is so,   serial distribution of effluent is recommended so that each kind of
soil can absorb  and filter effluent  according to its capability.

     Slope  - Slopes of less than  15% do not usually create serious problems
in either construction or  maintenance of an absorption field provided the
soils are otherwise satisfactory.

-------
                                                                               A-l
     On sloping soils the trenches must be dug on the contour so that the
effluent flows slowly through the tile or pipe and disperses properly over the
absorption field.  Serial distribution is advised for a trench system on
sloping ground.

     On steeper slopes, trench absorption fields are more difficult to lay out
and construct, and seepage beds are not practical.  Furthermore, controlling
the downhill flow of the effluent may be a serious problem.   Improperly fil-
tered effluent may reach the surface at the base of the slope, and wet,
contaminated seepage spots may result.

     If there is a layer of dense clay, rock or other impervious material near
the surface of a steep slope and especially if the soil above the clay or rock
is sandy, the effluent will flow above the impervious layer  to the surface and
run unfiltered down the slope.

     Proximity to streams or other water bodies - Local regulations generally
do not allow absorption fields within at least 50 feet of a  stream, open
ditch, lake, or other watercourse into which unfiltered effluent could escape.

     The floodplain of a stream should not be used for an absorption field.
Occasional flooding will impair the efficiency of the absorption field; fre-
quent flooding will destroy its effectiveness.

     Soil maps show the location of streams,  open ditches, lakes and ponds,
and of alluvial soils that are subject to flooding.   Soil surveys usually give
the probability of flooding for alluvial soils.

     Soil conditions required for proper on-site wastewater  disposal are sum-
marized in the Appendix A-3.
Source:  Bender, William H.   1971.   Soils  and  Septic  Tanks.   Agriculture Infor-
         mation Bulletin 349,  SCS,  USDA.

-------
             COMPARISON OF SITE  CHARACTERISTICS  FOR  LAND  TREATMENT PROCESSES
Characteristics
                                         Principal processes
                                                               Other processes
Slow rate
Rapid  infiltration
Overland flow  Wetlands
             Subsurface
Slope
Soil  permeability
Less  than 20% on culti-
vated land; less than
40% on noncultivated
land

Moderately slow to
moderately rapid
Not critical; excessive  Finish slopes  Usually less  Not critical
slopes require much      2 to 8i       than 51
earthwork
Rapid  (sands, loamy
sands)
Slow (clays,
silts, and
soils with
impermeable
barriers)
Slow to
moderate
Slow to rapid
Depth to
groundwater
Cliratic
restrictions
2 to 3 ft (minimum)
Storage often needed
for cold weather and
precipitation
10 ft (lesser depths
are acceptable where
underdrainage is
provided)
None (possibly modify
operation in cold
weather)
Not critical
Storage often
needed for
cold weather
Not critical
Storage may
be needed
for cold
weather
Hot critical
None
1 ft - 0.305 m
                                               Technology  Transfer Program,  1977.   Process
                                               Design Manual for Land  Treatment  of Municipal
                                               Wasteworks.   EPA.

-------
 APPENDIX B




WATER QUALITY

-------
                                                                             APPENDIX
                                                                               B-l
                  MICHIGAN SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATIONS


     Michigan has established State water quality standards to protect
public health and to preserve quality of the several bodies of water for
their designated uses.  Pertinent Michigan surface water classifications
follow.

          Classification                     Use

              A-I               Public and Municipal Water Supply

              A-II              Industrial Water Supply

              3-1    "          Total Body Contact Recreation

              3-II              Partial Body Contact Recreation

              C-I               Coldwater Fish (trout, salaon, etc.)

              C-II              Wannwater Fish (bass, pike, etc.)

              D                 Agriculture

              £                 Navigation

-------
                               MICHIGAN STATIi WATliK QUALITY STANDARDS
Surlace Water
Class i t:i cat ions

Suspended
solids

Dissolved
solids

chlor ides

PH

Plant
nutrients
Fecal coliform

IK)

Temperatnru
                   A-1
              A-11
                                              II-I
                   II-11
       C-I
                                                                     C-II
                                                                                                  I)
                 No unnatural turbidity, color, oil films, floating solids or deposits in quantities which
                 are or may become injurious to any designated use

                 Shall not exceed concentrations which are or may become injurious to any designated use.


                 < 125 ing/I
                            6.5 - 8.8
                 Nutrients shall be limited to the extent necessary to prevent stimulations of growth of
                 aquatic plants, fungi or bacteria which are or may become injurious to the designated use.
                 Phosphorus from point sources shall be controlled by utilizing best practicable waste
                 treatment technology.  Goal is 1 mg/1 of P
< 1000/100 ml-
-j200/100 m\
< 1000/100 ml
5 mg/1 but not less than 4 mg/1 6 ing/I	
                            5 mg/1 but not less than 4 nig/1
Temperature standards are dependent on location and type of  surface water  and  also the
designated use of the surface water.
                                                State of Michigan Water Quality Requirements,
                                                Part A, undated.
                                                                                                                 fc

-------
                                                                                 APPENDIX
                                                                                   B-3
0.080'
O.CHO'
  3.0
        TOTAL PHOSPHOR.^ (>;5-/;-~,
           r-v:-::"'•. t.- ;•    ©   a^   0
            •' & ,   ,Q  ,~~ -   a'"5"
           Ijj	•* •' - '  '' . '  •	*"
  So --
   '0 T~-~ _£._
          __ —	__ _-m_r71_ _ _   _     — ._ _ ...
                                  - o.     n     3  . .-j     n
3

a
   0
 foo
         •S,tCCHI
           a       3
                             0 3
                                                e
0 3                            ©
                                                  •o-
  ^0     A
  iio ••
 50 -
                  	     _   __	    ^.... __ __
606
  0
        ELECTSICAI. coMt>ycri viry  $ a5° C,
                                                Q0
                            •i'i7H            ,17"

                        WATER  QUAUITV   PARAMETERS

-------
                                                                                 B-3
O.Q8Q-
aofco
ft£WO"
  9,0
  10
   3 --
   0
 fOO
        StCCHI
                                  ©
 60 -•

 40 -'
 30 -•
       EL.ECTRICAU CoKj&UCTiviTy  PJ 55° c
        ©               G
                                          PARAMETERS

-------
na
                                         APPENDIX
THE UMVEKSTIYCF MICHIGAN  ™
              Limnological Features
          of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes,
            Emmet County, Michigan

       Parti: Water Quality and Nutrient Budget
                        by
           JOHN E. GANNON and DANiEL J. MAZUR
          Part It The Suitability of Soils for
            On-Site Wastewater Disposal
                         by
            ARTHUR GOLD and JOHN E, GANNON
                 Technical Report No. 8

-------
                                                                B-4
The University of Michigan Biological Station was established
in 1909 at Douglas Lake near Pellston, Michigan, as a teaching
and research facility.   It occupies a "10,000-acre tract of
semi-wilderness in northern lower Michigan, surrounded by a
remarkable variety of upland and lowland deciduous and coniferous
forests,  meadows,  marshes, bogs, dunes,  lakes and streams.   The
three upper Great Lakes - Michigan, Huron and Superior - are
nearby. " As the largest and one of the most distinguished inland
biological stations in the. world, it serves as an intellectual
meeting place for biologists and students from the United States
and around the world.

The Biological Station is well-equipped for investigations of
the diverse natural environments around it.  In addition to
the modern, winterized Lakeside Laboratory, which was funded
by the National Science Foundation, the Station has 140
buildings, including laboratories,  classrooms, and living
quarters for up to 300 people.   Special facilities include a
library, study collections of plants and animals, a large
fleet of boats, and a full array of modern laboratory and
field equipment.   The Station offers tranquility and harmony
with nature - it is a place where plants and animals can be
studied as they live.
Dr. David M. Gates, Director of the Station since 1971, and
Mark W. Paddock, Assistant to the Director, have promoted
new and exciting fields of research, including problem-
oriented research to help cope with emerging environmental
problems.

The Station is currently undertaking specific investigations
in northern lower Michigan to provide information about the
land,  the water, and the people in the area.  Results are
made available to community leaders for use in long-term land-
use planning.   In addition, many research projects are underway,
geared toward a better understanding of the structure and function
of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

This publication is one of a series of reports that are issued
periodically to disseminate information on research generated
at the Biological Station.  For further information concerning  other
publications in this series or information on the Biological
Station in general, address inquiries to:  The University of
Michigan Biological Station, Pellston, Michigan  49769
616-529-8406).

-------
                                                          B-4
                    LIMNOLOGICAL FEATURES

                              of

                 CROOKED AND PICKEREL LAKES
                   EMMET COUNTY, MICHIGAN
          PART I: WATER QUALITY AND NUTRIENT BUDGET1

                              by

                       John E. Gannon

                             and

                       Daniel J. Mazur
                    TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 8
                      BIOLOGICAL STATION
                  THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
                   PELLSTON, MICHIGAN 49769
                          April 1979
1
  This report is based on research funded by the National Science
  Foundation (Grant No. AEN72-0'3483).  Preparation of the report
  was supported by the Environmental Protection Agency as a sub-
  contract to a prime contract (EPA-No. 08-01-4612) to WAPORA, Inc.

2
  Present address: State University Research Center, Oswego,
  New York 13126

3                     _
  Present address: Missouri' Department of  Natural  Resources,
  Jefferson  City,  Missouri  65101

-------
                                                           B-4
                         CONTENTS


                                                           Page

FIGURES	  iij-
TABLES 	    ^
INTRODUCTION	    1

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA	    2

METHODS		    6
     Watershed Characteristics	    6
     Limnological Characteristics	    6
     Nutrient Loading Determinations	   11

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION	,	   15
     Water Quality: Some basic considerations	   15
     Watershed Characteristics	   17
     Limnological Characteristics	   21
          Morphometry	   21
          Fhysicochemistry: Off-shore conditions	   23
          Chemistry, and Bacteria: Near-shore conditions...   27
          Biology	   31
          Trophic State	   37
          Nutrient Loading	   42

CONCLUSIONS	   51

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	   52

REFERENCES CITED	   53

APPENDIX A. DATA USED IN ESTIMATING NUTRIENT LOADING TO
     CROOKED AND PICKEREL LAKES FROM SEPTIC SYSTEMS	   56
                            11

-------
                                                          B-4
                         FIGURES
Number                                                   Pag<

1.   Location of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes in north-
     western lower Michigan in relation to other major
     inland lakes of the Cheboygan River watershed	   3

2.   Depth contour (morphemetrie) map of Crooked Lake,
     showing location of sampling stations.  Depth con-
     tours are in feet	,	   8

3.   Depth contour (morphometric) map of Pickerel Lake,
     showing location of sampling stations.  Depth con-
     tours are in feet	    9

4.   The watershed boundaries of Crooked and Pickerel
     Lakes.  Since Spring, Mud, Round and Pickerel Lakes
     all drain into Crooked Lake, the total watershed
     area of Crooked Lake includes the drainage basins
     of these neighboring lakes . „	   18

S.   Comparison of total phosphorus concentrations
     (ug/1) between the central station and selected
     near-shore locations in Crooked Lake during Summer,
     1975	   29

6.   Comparison of inorganic nitrogen (NC^-N,  NOj-N and
     NH^-N) concentrations (ug/1) between the  central
     station and selected near-shore locations in Crooked
     Lake during Summer, 1975	   30

7.   Fecal coliform bacteria (number of colonies/100 ml)
     at selected near-shore locations in Crooked Lake
     during July, 1975	   32

8.   Comparison of total phosphorus concentrations
     (ug/1) between the central station and selected
     near-shore locations in Pickerel Lake during Summer,
     1975	. .   33

9.   Comparison of inorganic nitrogen concentrations
     (ug/1) between the central station and selected
     near-shore locations in Pickerel Lake during Summer,
     1975	   34

10.   Fecal coliform bacteria (number of colonies/100 ml)
     at selected near-shore locations in Pickerel Lake
     during July, 1975	   35
                           111

-------
                                                          B-4
Number                                                  Page

11.  Trophic classification of Crooked and Pickerel
     Lakes based on three liranological variables and
     using criteria established by EPA (1974)	   39

12.  Classification of lakes in Cheboygan and Emmet
     Counties, Michigan,  using Carlson's  (1977)  trophic
     state index (TSI) for chlorophyll a.  The positions
     of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes are identified by
     arrows.  The divisions between oligotrophy and
     eutrophy are estimations that appear to be most
     suitable for the study area	   41

13.  Trophic classification of Crooked and Pickerel
     Lakes based on the lake condition index (LCI)  of
     Uttormark and Wall (1975)	   43

14.  Positions of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes on  the
     Vollenweider (1975)  theoretical  phosphorus  loading
     plot based on 1975-1976 data	   48
                           IV

-------
                                                         B-4
                           TABLES
  Number
                                                               Page

  1.  Land-use types in the Crooked and Pickerel Lake
      watersheds based on LANDSAT data (Rogers, 1977)	   19

  2.  Morphometric  features of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes,
      Emmet County, Michigan.  Definitions are according
      to Hutchinson  (1957)	   22

  3.  Color, light, and dissolved oxygen  (D.O.) character-
      istics of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes, Emmet County,
      Michigan.  Data from central deep stations	   25

  4.  Chemical and  chlorophyll a features of Crooked and
      Pickerel Lakes at deep central stations during Summer
      and Winter	   26

  5.  Sources and quantities of total phosphorus (P) for
      Crooked and Pickerel Lakes, 1975-1976.,	   45

  6.  Sources and quantities of total nitrogen (N)  for
      Crooked and Pickerel Lakes, 1975-1976	   46

  7.  Comparison of sources and quantities of total phosphorus
      (P) entering Crooked Lake during- Summer, 1975 and
      Summer, 1977	   50

A-l.  Total phosphorus and nitrogen export (kg/km /yr.)
      from land cover.  Values are means  for the north and
      northeastern United States (Omernik, 1976), and were
      used in the Crooked and Pickerel Lakes nutrient loading
      calculations	   57

A-2.  Estimated phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) inputs from
      septic systems to Crooked Lake's north shore in 1975.
      This portion of the lake has been serviced by a sever
      since 1976	   58

A-3.  Estimated phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) inputs from
      septic systems to the south shore of Crooked Lake,
      including Oden Island, in 1975.  This portion of the
      lake continues to be serviced by septic systems	   59

A-4.  Estimated phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) inputs from
      septic systems to Pickerel Lake in  1975	   61

-------
                                                           B-4
                       INTRODUCTION

     The University of Michigan Biological Station has been
studying 40 inland lakes in Cheboygan and Emmet Counties,
Michigan, since 1972.  This research effort has been designed
to provide ecological and sociological information pertinent
to management of these lakes and their watersheds for the en-
hancement of long-term environmental quality.  Preliminary
results of these investigations are available in Gannon and
Paddock (1974)..  Specific information on geology, hydrology
and groundwater quality was presented in Richardson (1978).
Sociological data on evaluations, behaviors, and expectations
of residents of the study area were reported by Marans and
Wellman (1977).  Instances of utilization of information gen-
erated in this project for water quality and wastewater manage-
ment purposes has been documented by Pelz (1977) and Pelz and
Gannon (1978).  Furthermore, information written especially
for lake-oriented visitors and residents has been prepared in
the Biological Station's Lakeland Report Series, Lake Profile
Series, and other publications (Say et al., 1975; Foster, 1976;
O'Neil, 1977).

     Crooked and Pickerel Lakes have been investigated since
the beginning of this problem-oriented research effort.  The
objective of this report is to provide a summary of salient
limnological features of these two water bodies.  Special
emphasis will be given to the current water quality and trophic

-------
                                                        B-4
status of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes and to an estimate of



nutrient (phosphorus and nitrogen)  sources to these lakes.



Complimentary information on suitability of lakeshore soils



for on-site wastewater disposal is  included as Part II of



this report (Gold and Gannon,  1979).







                   DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA



     Crooked and Pickerel Lakes are located near Little Traverse



Bay of Lake Michigan in northwestern lower Michigan (Fig. 1).



They lie in Emmet County (T35N, R4W) and are bounded by four



townships  (Bear Creek, Little  Traverse, Littlefield, and Spring-



vale).  Typical of most lakes  in this region, they were formed



by melted  ice blocks that were left by the retreating glacier



over 10,000 years ago.  These  lakes are the beginning of the



Inland Water Route, a series of interconnecting lakes and



rivers that eventually empty into Lake Huron through the



Cheboygan  River.







     Crooked and Pickerel Lakes have played an important role



in the human history of northern lower Michigan.  Although



native people were primarily oriented towards the shorelines



of Lakes Michigan and Huron, the Inland Water Route was used



for passage from Lake Michigan to Lake Huron by canoe, thus



avoiding the more hazardous journey around Waugoshance Point



and through the Straits of Mackinac.  The Inland Water Route

-------
                AREA ENLARGED
                                                                                              bd
                                                                                              I
Fig. 1,  Location of Crooked and  Pickerel  Lakes  in  northwestern lower Michigan

         in relation to other major  inland lakes  of the  Cheboygan River watershed

-------
was also used extensively for transportation by European  voy-
agers and settlers.  During the logging era around  the  turn
of the century, millions of board feet of white pine and  other
timber were floated down the Inland Water Route to  sawmills;
two of these mills were located on Crooked Lake at  Oden and
Conway.

     At the same time, the railroad was built in this area
and provided an overland transportation link to the south.
Tourism flourished as vacationers came to Crooked and Pickerel
Lakes by rail and stayed in resort hotels on the lakeshores.
Commercial steamers carried vacationers from Crooked and
Pickerel Lakes to Mullett Lake through the Inland Water Route.
Crooked and Pickerel Lakes have continued to be popular for
water-oriented recreation to the present day.   To facilitate
recreational boating activities, the Crooked River has been
periodically dredged to a depth of 5 ft.  since 1956.  Water
levels in Crooked and Pickerel Lakes were stabilized by con-
struction of a lock and weir on the Crooked River at Alanson
in 1964.

     Crooked Lake ivas the only inland water body in northern
lower Michigan with a railroad traversing a considerable  dis-
tance of its shoreline.  This allowed for earlier resort  devel
opment on Crooked Lake than on  other  1-1'-*»<:  ^ P  ,-u
                                       'xeb  ot  th^  region.   In
addition to resort hotels, cottages were built near the    '

-------
                                                           B-4
along the north  shore,  especially  at Conway  and Oden.  The
north shore of Crooked  Lake was extensively  dotted with
seasonal dwellings  in the early decades of this century while
the south shore  of  the  lake and all of Pickerel Lake's shores
remained essentially undeveloped.  Building  of cottages and
homes along all  shorelines increased especially after World
War II.

     Since the north shore of Crooked Lake was first to be
developed, it also  was  the first area to experience pollution
problems.  Contamination of nearshore water  with human sewage
was discovered along the north shore, especially near Oden,
in the late 1960fs  and  early 1970's.  To alleviate this problem,
a sanitary sewer was constructed to divert human sewage away
from the north shore and into the Harbor Springs sewage lagoon
and spray irrigation wastewater treatment system.  Although
the sewer was completed in Fall of 1975, most lakeshore residences
were not hooked  up  to the sewer system until 1976.  Lakeshore
dwellings on the remainder of Crooked Lake's shoreline and all
of Pickerel Lake continue to be serviced by  conventional septic
systems.

     Human sewage was not the only source of pollution to
Crooked Lake.  A state  fish hatchery has existed on the lake
near Oden since  1920.   The small stream emanating from the
fish hatchery was the major source of ammonia-nitrogen and
total phosphorus to Crooked Lake in 1975 (Gannon and Mazur,
1976).  Further information on  the  fish hatchery and nutrient

-------
                                                        B-4

                                                      6
loading to Crooked Lake is presented in this report.

                        METHODS

Watershed Characteristics
     Immediate watershed area is defined here as the area
bounded by the highest elevation which continually surrounds
a given lake without including other lakes.   Total watershed
area is the immediate watershed of a given lake plus the
immediate watersheds of all other lakes that subsequently
drain into the given lake.  The watershed areas for Crooked
and Pickerel Lakes were traced from U.  S.  Geological Survey
quadrangle maps (1:62, 500 scale)  onto  a blank piece of paper
and cut out with a pair of scissors.   The area was determined
by passing the piece of paper delineating the watershed area
through a Hayashi Deako Automatic Area  Meter, Model AAMS.
Land-use types and their areal coverage were determined from
LANDSAT satellite data (Rogers, 1977).

Limnological Characteristics
     Morphometric features of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes were
determined from hydrographic maps  compiled by the Institute for
Fisheries Research, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
The methods employed basically followed Welch (1948) and are
discussed in Gannon and Paddock (1974).

-------
                                                          B-4
     Physiochemical data were obtained on a quarterly basis



from Fall, 1972 through Winter,  1975  from a central deep



station in both lakes  (Figs. 2 and  3).  Temperature profiles



were recorded at one meter  intervals, using a Whitney resistance



thermometer.  Light transparency was  measured with a standard



Secchi disc.  Light penetration measurements were obtained with



a submarine photometer fitted with  Weston cells during Summer



and Winter.  Percent light  transmission was calculated from the



photometer readings.  Apparent color  of the water was estimated



with a Hach colorimeter (pt-co units).







     Water samples were obtained from three to five depth in-



tervals, depending upon temperature profile characteristics,



with a three-liter capacity Kemmerer  bottle.  Dissolved oxygen



was determined titriometrically with  the azide modification of



the Winkler method (APHA, 1971).  Alkalinity was measured



titriometrically with an indicator  solution of bromocresol-green



and methyl-red (APHA, 1971).  Specific conductance was determined



on an Industrial Instruments Model  RC-16B2 conductivity bridge



and pH was measured potentiometrically on either a Beckman Model



N or Model H-5 pH meter.  All of the  above variables were analyzed



within 18 hours of collection.







     Samples for remaining variables  were filtered and frozen



for later analysis.  These samples  were quick-thawed in a water



bath to room temperature and chemical analyses were completed by



    following methods.  Calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium

-------
                                                           Crooked River
                 4c
Fish  Hatchery




 5
         .3b
         \
        3a
                                                                        \
Round Lake Ck.


    CROOKED  LAKE


    EMMET CO.,MICH
                                                10  Crooked-Pickerel

                                                     ChanneI
/
/
/
\

Mlnnehaha
Ck.
SCALE
FEET
0 20OO
feOJWI 	 \mmtt~
[ 	 S6itSiflJ 	 B
METERS
0 600
l635^^/^*^




4000
_L_|
ssaag
1200
w- — I
Hani


     Fig. 2  Depth contour  (morphometric)  map  of Crooked Lake,  showing location of

             sampling  stations.   Depth  contours  are  in feet.
                                                                                                     w
                                                                                                      i

-------
  Crooked *- Pickerel
    Channel
State  Forest Ck
                14
                                 PICKEREL  LAKE
                                 EMMET CO., MICH.
                                                 SCALE
                                                  FEET
                                              0    BOO
                                                       ISO
                                                 METERS
                                                  300
                                                                                    Cedar Ck.
                                                        600
      Fig.  3   Depth contour (morphometric) map of  Pickerel Lake,  showing  location of
               sampling  stations.  Depth contours are in feet.

-------
                                                      B-4
                                                      10
were determined on a Perkin-Elmer Model 305 atomic absorption

spectrophotometer (EPA, 1974 a). Total phosphorus, soluble-

reactive phosphorus, nitrate-nitrogen, ammonia-nitrogen,  and

silica were determined colorimetrically on a Beckman DB-GT

spectrophotometer.  Total phosphorus and soluble-reactive

phosphorus were measured using a hybrid method of Gales  et  al.

(1966) for digestion and Schmid and Ambuhl (1965) for neutrali-

zation and color development.  Nitrate-nitrogen and ammonia-

nitrogen were determined by the methods of Muller and Widemann

(1955) and Solorazano  (19693, respectively.  Silica was  measurei

using the heteropole blue method (APHA.1971) .  Chloride  was

determined on the Beckman Model'H-5 pH meter fitted with a  salt

bridge and chloride electrode (A'PHA,1971) .



     In the Fall of 1974, the Biological Station's chemistry

laboratory was automated.  A Technicon Autoanalyzer II was

used to analyze September, 1974 and all 1975 samples colori-

metrically (Technicon, 1972-73).  Following the quick-thaw  pro-

cedure, chemical measurements were performed by the following

methods.  Ammonia-nitrogen and nitrate-nitrogen* analyses were.

performed immediately.  Simultaneously, sample aliquots  for

soluble and total phosphorus were poured into test tubes and

placed in a gravity drying oven for several days until  the

sample evaported.  Then the samples were digested with  per-

sulfate (Mentzel and Corwin, 1965), refrigerated overnight  and
   Nitrate-nitrogen analysis also includes nitrite-nitrogen.

-------
                                                               B-4

                                                       11

analyzed the next day.  Silica  (reported as Si) and chloride
analyses were performed on thawed samples that sat at room
temperature for one day.  Phosphorus, ammonia-nitrogen and
silica measurements were determined by automated methods
(Technicon  Industrial Methods 155-7W, 154-71W, and 186-72W),
similar to  the manual methods previously used.  Nitrate-nitrogen
was analyzed by a copper-cadmium reduction method (Technicon
Industrial  Method 158-7W).  Chloride was measured with a mercuric
thiocyanate and ferric ammonium sulfate automated method (EPA, 1974a)

     Collection of plankton samples was made on each survey
date from the central station in both lakes.  A cylinder-cone
plankton net with No. 20 (76 urn) nylon mesh, 0.25-m diameter,
was towed from near bottom to the surface.   Samples were ex-
amined qualitatively for species composition and relative
abundance.

     An Ekman grab  (IS x 15 cm) was used to collect bottom
samples at  the central station  in both lakes only in Summer,
1973.  Samples were sieved with a No. 30 mesh screen and the
invertebrates were identified and enumerated in the laboratory.

Nutrient Loading Determinations
     Sources and quantities of phosphorus and nitrogen to
Crooked and Pickerel Lakes were estimated from data collected
from Summer, 1975 through Spring, 1976.  Nutrient chemistry

-------
                                                        B-4
                                                 12


and other limnological data*,  using previously described

methods, were obtained at the  central station and selected

near-shore stations in both lakes  (Figs.  2 and 3).   Inshore

stations were located at the mouths of inflowing streams,

at the heads of outflows, and  near concentrations of human

development along the shoreline.   Streams were monitored for

discharge using Price, and pygmy current meters and total phosphor^

and inorganic nitrogen samples were obtained on a quarterly

basis during the study period. An estimate of total nitrogen

was obtained by doubling the inorganic nitrogen values since

average inorganic and organic  fractions were nearly equal in

other nearby waters (EPA, 1975; Tierney et al. , 1976).



     Data were obtained on total phosphorus and inorganic

nitrogen contributions from precipitation.  Organic nitrogen

was considered to be negligible.   Precipitation records were

from the nearby Pellston Airport.   Chemical analyses were

performed on precipitation samples collected at 10  sites in

Cheboygan and Emmet counties.   Total loading from precipitation

of 2.5 kg/km2/yr. total phosphorus and 10.6 kg/km2/yr. total

nitrogen  was determined from  these analyses.
     In addition to limnological  data,  inshore stations were
     sampled for coliform bacteria  in Summer,  1975.  Samples
     were collected in 100-ml  glass  containers supplied by a
     county sanitarian and promptly  sent to  the Bureau of
     Laboratories of the Michigan Department of Health for
     analyses.   Although data  on  both total  and fecal coliform
     bacteria were obtained, only fecal coliform results are
     reported here.

-------
                                                              B-4
                                                 13





     A recent study by Omernik  (1976), who determined phos-



phorus and nitrogen export values from various land covers,



appears to contain data most pertinent to the watersheds of



Crooked and Pickerel Lakes.  Watershed land cover data  (Table 1)



and nutrient export values from the north and northeastern



forest and forage region of the United States (Table A-l) were



employed.  Omernik's (1976) "mostly agriculture" category was



chosen instead of his "agriculture" category since our



"agriculture/grassland" grouping contains both active and



fallow farmland.







     Nichols and Richardson (in Gannon and Paddock, 1974)



made some preliminary calculations on nutrient loading from



septic systems to lakes in Cheboygan and Emmet Counties, in-



cluding Crooked and Pickerel Lakes.  Assumptions on numbers



of dwelling units, length of occupancy, and household use of



phosphate-enriched detergents were too high.  Furthermore,



assumptions on nutrient movements from septic systems to the



lakes were not based on local soils data.  Their nutrient



loadings from septic systems appear to be over-estimations.



Consequently, considerable effort was focused on refining



estimates of nutrient loading from septic systems in this



investigation.







     Loading of phosphorus and nitrogen to Crooked and Pickerel



Lakes was calculated using information on household size,



length of occupancy, household usage of septic systems,

-------
                                                           B-4
                                                 14





number of dwelling units on each soil type, and the per-



centage of nutrients that reach the lake from each soil



type from lakeside septic systems.  It was estimated from



the 1970 U. S. census that the average household size in



Emmet County was 3.25 persons per dwelling unit.  The number



of households within 300 ft.  (92m) of the shoreline was ob-



tained from the Emmet County Equalization Department and



year-round and seasonal occupancy was estimated during Winter



(Gold and Gannon, 1978).  From a household survey conducted



on nearby Walloon Lake (Project CLEAR, 1978), it was estimated



that loading of phosphorus to septic systems from dishwater



and laundry wastewater was 0.83 kg/household/yr.  Dishwashing



and laundry habits on Crooked and Pickerel Lakes were assumed



to be the same as on Walloon Lake.







     Estimations of 0.5 kg/person/yr phosphorus and 5.4 kg/



person/yr  nitrogen (Vollenweider, 1963)  were used as the



human waste contribution to the septic system.  Including the



phosphorus contribution from detergents,  total loadings to the



septic system of 2.46 kg/household/yr. phosphorus and



17.55 kg/household/yr  nitrogen were estimated.  The number



and type of residences on specific soil types was used to



calculate the amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen reaching the



lakes.  The type of residence 'was weighted (i.e., l.o for



year-round occupancy,  0.5  for possible year-round occupancy



and 0.25 for seasonal occupancy) and multiplied by the number



of residences on each soil type.  The soils were identified

-------
                                                                B-4
                                                 15
and transcribed from the Emmet County Soil Survey onto the
home location map.  From soil characteristics such as natural
drainage, depth to seasonal high groundwater (Alfred et al.,
1973), and phosphorus adsorption capacity [Schneider and
Erickson, 1972), estimations were made on percentage of phos-
phorus and nitrogen that would reach the lakes through each
soil type from septic systems.  Then septic systems nutrient
loading was calculated from the number and type of residence
on each soil type, the total nutrient input per household
per year, and percentage of nutrients reaching the lake
(Tables A-2 through A-4).

                  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Water quality:  Some basic considerations
     Although inland lakes are individualistic and exhibit
their own unique characteristics, scientists recognize a
relatively simple system of grouping and classifying lakes
into water quality types.  Oligotrophic lakes are nutrient
poor and are low in plant and animal productivity.   Eutrophic
lakes are high in nutrient content which stimulates high pro-
duction of plants and animals.  Lakes exhibiting intermediate
characteristics are termed mesotrophic.

     Lake residents normally equate good water quality with
oligotrophic lakes.  These water bodies exhibit clear waters,
low turbidity from algae, low amounts of weed growths, and
firm bottom sediments.  Eutrophic lakes are normally con-

-------
                                                          B-4
                                                 16





sidered poor in water quality with turbid waters high in algal



content, high amounts of undesirable weeds, and mucky bottom



sediments.   Since eutrophic lakes are more productive, they



often contain higher quantities of fish than oligotrophic



lakes.  Consequently, fishermen may consider water quality



in eutrophic lakes as good.  However, in extreme eutrophic



conditions, desirable fish species such as walleye, yellow



perch, northern pike, and bass are replaced by less desirable



species such as carp, suckers, and bullheads.  In most situations,



water quality in a water body has been determined by its geo-



logical origins and natural features within its  watershed.



It is the challenge of the riparian community to understand



the current water quality status of their lake and to mini-



mize  adverse changes in quality as they use and develop the



lake  and its  watershed.







      Ideally, current water quality data should be compared



with  historical records in order to establish any trends in



water quality changes.  Unfortunately, historical water quality



information on Crooked and Pickerel Lakes is extremely scanty.



Temperature, alkalinity, dissolved oxygen and pH measurements



were  occasionally collected by the Fish Division of the Michigan



Department of Natural Resources during the past several decades.



An examination of these records did not reveal any changes in



water quality in Crooked or Pickerel Lakes beyond normal yearly



variation.  Consequently, current water quality status of these



lakes must be determined by interpreting recent physicochemical

-------
                                                       17    B-4








and biological data and by applying some simple trophic



state models that have been developed in recent years.







Watershed Characteristics



     The watershed areas of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes are



relatively large, encompassing parts of three counties (Fig. 4),



and consist primarily of second growth deciduous and mixed



(deciduous and coniferous} forests (Table 1).  Agriculture and



grassland comprises a larger fraction of land-use in Crooked



Lake's watershed than in Pickerel Lake's drainage basin  (Table 1)



However, most agricultural activity occurs in upland areas away



from the shore of both lakes.  Marshy and swampy wetlands are



an important feature and lie primarily near the north shore of



Crooked Lake and along the south and east shores of Pickerel



Lake.







     Pickerel Lake's watershed is large in comparison to its



lake surface area (Table 1).    The lake is fed mostly by



groundwater seepage since its inflowing streams are small.



The outflow of Pickerel Lake is to Crooked Lake through the



Crooked-Pickerel Channel, although reverse flow can sometimes



occur depending on wind and current conditions.







     Crooked Lake's immediate watershed (11,190 ha) is smaller



than Pickerel Lake's drainage basin (13,660 ha).  However,



Spring, Mud, Round and Pickerel Lakes all flow into Crooked

-------
18
                                                            B-4
   KILOMETERS
 Fig. 4  The watershed boundaries  of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes.
         Since Spring, Mud,  Round  and Pickerel Lakes all drain
         into Crooked Lake,  the total watershed area of Crooked
         Lake includes the drainage  basins of these neighboring
         lakes.

-------
 TABLE 1.  LAND-USE TYPES IN THE CROOKED AND PICKEREL LAKE WATERSHEDS BASED ON LANDSAT

  DATA (ROGERS, 1977).
 Land-Use  Type
     CROOKED LAKE            PICKEREL LAKE

 Acres     km^      $     Acres
                   2     I
 Coniferous Forest  *

 Deciduous Forest

 Mixed Forest

 Sparce Forest **

      TOTAL FOREST

 Agriculture/Grassland ***

 Urban/Bare Ground

 Uncategorized

      TOTAL LAND

 Water

      GRAND TOTAL t
 1,025.3    4.1

 7,579.9   30.3

 4,347.4   17.4

 8,045.1   52.2

20,997.7   84.0

 5,468.1   21.9

   236.4    1.0

   330.7    1.3

27,032.9  108.2

 2,060.7    8.2
 3.5   2,985.0   11.9    8.9

26.0  13,406.0   53.6   39.9

15.0   6,724.6   26.9   20.0

27.7   6,698.0   26.8   19.9

72.2  29,813.6  119.2   88.7

18.8   2,880.7   11.5    8.6

 0.9      73.2    0.3    0.2

 1.1     160.9    0.6    0.4

93.0  32,928.4  131.6   97.9

 7.0     951.0    2.8    2.1
29,093.6  116.4    100.0   33,879.4   134.4   100.0
 *  Includes both upland and swamp forests.

 ** Includes shrubby uplands and wetlands.

*** Includes grassy uplands and marshy wetlands.

 t  Totals from LANDSAT data differ slightly  from  those  determined  with  an  area  meter
    (see Table 2).
                                                          143

-------
                                                       B-4


                                                       20
Lake.  Consequently, Crooked Lake's total watershed  is  much


larger (25,170 ha), encompassing its  immediate watershed


and the drainage areas of these neighboring lakes  (Fig.  4.).


Although groundwater seepage is undoubtedly a significant


source of Crooked Lake water, inflows from Minnehaha Creek


and other streams are important contributors.  The Crooked


River is the only surface outlet for Crooked Lake.





     Information is not available on the numbers of  people


living in the watersheds of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes.   The


region is predominantly rural and sparcely populated.   Over


1,800 year-round residents were reported in adjacent Little-


field and Springvale townships*in 1970.  The number  of  people


living on or near the lakeshores is of particular  interest


for  water quality considerations.  About 400 dwelling units


are  located within  90 m of the Crooked Lake shoreline.   Most


of these dwellings  are located on the north shore  and are


currently serviced  by the wastewater sewer line.  Only  112


dwelling units  are  located on Crooked Lake's south shore and


on Oden  Island.  Pickerel Lake is more sparcely populated


with 134 dwelling units reported on or near its  shoreline


(Gold and Gannon, 1979).
 These  townships  comprise  the  largest land area in  H,*, ,  *    u.*
 of  the  two  lakes.                               n  the watersheds

-------
                                                               B-4
                                                      21
Limnological Characteristics

Morpheme-try

     Crooked Lake  is about twice as large in  surface area as

Pickerel Lake.  Crooked Lake  is aptly named since its  shore-

line is so irregular.  Its  shoreline development factor is

two times higher than Pickerel Lake and  its   shoreline is

three times longer than Pickerel Lake (Table  2).  Consequently,

the potential  for  over-development is considerably greater on

Crooked Lake than  on Pickerel Lake.  Both lakes are moderately

deep with maximum  depths over 18 m.  The average depth of

Pickerel Lake  (3.9 m) is slightly greater than Crooked Lake

(3.0 m) .  Bo-th lakes contain  large expanses of shallow areas

suitable for development of weed beds that provide favorable

habitat for fishes (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Table 2).



      The current  water quality is generally  good in both

Crooked and Pickerel Lakes and the quantity of water flowing

in and out of  them is at least partially responsible.  Water

residence time is  the amount  of time water remains in the

lake's basin before being completely replaced by inflowing

water.  Calculations of water residence  times for these lakes

is somewhat complicated by the hydrology of the Crooked-Pickerel

Channel, since currents alternately flow in and out of the

channel.  However, the net flow is from  Pickerel to Crooked Lake.

Furthermore, because of the geographical locations of the channel

and Oden Island, it appears that water from the channel is dis-

-------
TABLE  2.  MORPHOMETRIC FEATURES OF CROOKED AND PICKEREL  LAKES,  EMMET  COUNTY,  MICHIGAN.
Variabl
zm
Z
1
l>x
b
L
A0
Ad
V
Dl
n
V
AJ/A
CROOKED LAKE PICKEREL LAKE
e * Metric English Metric
18.6 m 61.0 ft. 21.3 m
3.0 m 9.8 ft. 3.9 m
5.58 km 3.5 mi 4.09 km
3.09 km 1.9 mi 1.69 km
1.69 km 1.1 mi 1.09 km
29.63 km 18.4 mi 10.57 km
959.59 ha 2,371 acres 427.06 ha
111.9 x 102ha 27,649 acres 136.6 x 102ha
29,534.7 x 103m3 1,040 x 106ft3 17,176.8 x 103m3
2.7 1.4
0.5 0.5

11.7 32.0
Engl ish
69.8 ft.
12.8 ft.
2.5 mi .
1 . 0 mi
0.7 mi
6.6 mi
1,055 acres
33,750 acres
605 x 106ft3




*  Abbreviations:  Zm,  maximum depth;  Z, meua depth ; 1, maximum length; bx, maximum width;

   6,  mean width;  L,  shoreline length;  A0, lake surface area! A
                                                                                          NJ
   of watershed area to lake surface area.
W

-------
                                                               B-4





                                                 23





charged primarily  through  Crooked  River  and  does not signifi-



cantly mix with  Crooked  Lake  water west  of the  island.  Water



from the Crooked-Pickerel  Channel  comprises  about 393 of the



flow of the Crooked  River, while the  remaining  611 represents



the outflowing waters  of Crooked Lake.   The  water residence



times for Crooked  and  Pickerel Lakes  have been  estimated as



4.2 and 4.7 months,  respectively.  Although  these lakes con-



tain a relatively  large  volume of  water, they both have com-



paratively short water residence times and can  flush out



pollution inputs rather  quickly.   In  contrast, nearby Walloon



Lake has a water residence time of 3.2 years and, therefore,



is more sensitive  to pollution than Crooked  and Pickerel Lakes.







Physicochemistry:  Off-shore  conditions              *



     Crooked  and Pickerel  Lakes are basically similar in most



physicochemical  characteristics.   Both lakes thermally stratify



during Summer.   A  uniformly warm layer,  the epilimnion,' gener-



ally extends  from  the  surface to about 8m.  A  zone of rapid



temperature change, called the thermocline, occurs from 8 m



to 13 m.  The deepest  portion of the  lake from 13 m to the



bottom is uniformly cold and  is known as the hypolimnion.



Wind generated currents  are primarily confined to the epilmnion



during Summer.   Two complete  circulation periods occur in



Spring and Fall  when the lake is mixed from top to bottom.



Slight inverse stratification occurs during Winter under ice



cover when temperatures are slightly warmer near bottom than



they are near the  surface.   The onset and duration of ice cover

-------
                                                      B-4
                                                       24
varies from year to  year,  depending  on  meteorological con-
ditions.   Generally,  ice  cover remains  from mid-December to
early April.  Ice disappears  from Crooked Lake in Spring
earlier than most other lakes of the region, presumably because
of groundwater seepage especially along the north shore.

      Crooked and Pickerel Lakes contain clear,  unstained
waters that allow for excellent light penetration.  Trans-
parency,  as measured by the Secchi disc, was only slightly
greater in Pickerel  Lake  than in Crooked Lake (Table 3) .
Both lakes contain hard water with high concentrations of
alkalinity, specific conductance, and ionic constituents,
especially calcium and magnesium. The  waters are alkaline
with pH generally above 8.0 throughout  the photic zone.
The inorganic nutrients,  phosphorus  and nitrogen, average
slightly higher in Crooked Lake than in Pickerel Lake.  In
contrast, silica concentrations are  slightly higher in Pickerel
Lake (Tables 3 and 4).

      Phosphorus is  considered to be the limiting nutrient for
plant growth in both Crooked  and Pickerel Lakes  because soluble
and total phosphorus concentrations  are extremely low relative
to nitrogen.  The low amount  of phosphorus in the water is at
least partially controlled by chemical  interactions between
the water and bottom sediments.  Both lakes contain abundant

-------
TABLE 3.  COLOR, LIGHT, AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN (D.O.) CHARACTERISTICS OF CROOKED AND

 PICKEREL LAKES, EMMET COUNTY, MICHIGAN.  DATA FROM CENTRAL DEEP STATIONS.	


              Color    Secchi Disc      1% T*      Near Bottom D.O.  Near Bottom D.O,
Lake	(pt-co)  Yearly Range(m)  Summer(m)  Summer (mg/1)	Winter (mg/1)
Crooked Lake
Pickerel Lake
10
20
2.0-5.0
2.5-6.0
8.8
8.5
0
0.1
7.3
6.8
 *  Depth of  light penetration to 14 of surface illumination
                                                                                            in
                                                                                                a

-------
TABLE 4.  CHEMICAL AND CHLOROPHYLL a FEATURES OF CROOKED AND PICKEREL LAKES

 AT DEEP CENTRAL STATIONS DURING SUMMER AND WINTER.*

Variable
T.A. (mg/1)
Sp . Cond. (pmhos/cm)
pH
S-P04 (pfi/1)
T-P04 (pg/1)
NO-j-N (pg/1)
NH3-N (pg/1)
Si02 (pg/1)
CI (mg/1)
Ca (mg/1)
Mg (mg/1)
K (rag/1)
Na (mg/l)
Chi. a (pg/1)
CROOKED
Summer
141.0
289.5
8.4
4.0
11.9
44.2
20.1
2,578.8
12.5**
3^.7
13.9
0.8
2.1
3.3**
LAKE
Winter
158.6
314.9
8.1
7.0
11.3
356.5
40.3
3,475.8
2.5
42.2
12.7
0.8
2.2
2.0
PICKEREL
Summer
136.4
285.0
8.4
5.9
9.8
62.1
18.0
2,665.3
10,9*»
38.4
13.4
0.7
2.2
2.8**
LAKE
Winter
163.8
326.1
8.0
4.0
18.3
320.0
44.3
3,686.8
3.7
48.9
13.1
0.9
2.5
0.7
*  Data are means for the euphotic zone  (> 1% light transmittance) in Summer, 1973 and  1974
    and Winter,1974 and 1975 except where otherwise indicated.  T.A. is total alkalinity  as
    CaCOj and Sp. Cond. is specific conductance corrected to 25C

-------
calcium and inorganic carbon, a situation conducive for marl


deposition.  Marl  is precipitated calcium carbonate (CaCOft)
                                                         «>

or lime, and forms the characteristic grayish-white, clay-like


bottom sediments and coatings on rock and other firm substrates.


Phosphorus ions in the water column adsorb on marl: particles,


settle into the bottom sediments and become unavailable to


stimulate algae and weed growths.






      As long as dissolved oxygen content remains high, co-


precipitation o" phosphorus with marl is an important mechanism


in maintaining high water quality in Crooked and Pickerel Lakes.


However, under anaerobic conditions, phosphorus is released from


the sediments and becomes available for plant growth.   Currently,


anaerobic conditions are confined to the near bottom waters of
                                    *

the deepest portions of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes during the


Summer stratification period.  During the Summers of 1973 and


1974, the bottom 4 m of Crooked Lake and the bottom 2  m of


Pickerel Lake contained less than II saturation of dissolved


oxygen.  Consequently, dissolved oxygen depletion in the hypo-


limnion is slightly greater in Crooked Lake than in Pickerel


Lake.





Chemistry and bacteria:  Near-shore conditions


      Nutrient chemistry and coliform bacteria tests were con-


ducted on near-shore areas and at mouths of inflowing  streams


of- Crooked and Pickerel Lakes in order to locate any "hot spots"

-------
                                                           5-4
'of human wastewater contam nation.








     The highest concentration^ of total phosphorus  occurred




in the stream emanating from trie Oden Fish Hatchery  on




Crooked Lake during all seasons.  Phosphorus below  the fish




hatchery was 15 time^ higher than at the Crooked  Lake  central




station during sumnsr (Fig. 5).  rl gh concentrations in  com-




-p.ar.lson with the central station were also observed  near the




village of Oden and off Oden Island's west side.  Phosphorus



values below a small, private "i^h pond (Station  No.  4c)  did




not differ significantly from central 5ratio" values.








     The jf-eams oelow both the State and private fish




culture facilities were cons s^ently high in inorganic nitrogen



during all seasons.  Values at  these respective locations  were




iy and 2i -times higher i~haa at  the central station ir.  sunnsr




(Fig.  6).  Otner compa-at ivel/  'ugh  inorganic nitrogen con-



centrations weirs noted near the villages of Conwav and Fon



sheivaing and at the mouth  uf Minnehaha Creek (Fig. 5J

-------
                                                                                     N
                                                                                  W-<•;«-E
                                                                  Crooked  River  9     s
                            Fish Hatchery
             13
             \
            6
        14
 Round  Lake  Ck.
        CROOKED  LAKE
        EMMET CO..MICH.

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS   (ug/l)
    SUMMER,1975
               \
                 7 Crooked-Pickerel
                     Channel
0
SCALE
 FEET
 2000
             4000
     METERS
0     600    1200
                                               Minnehaha
                                                    Ck.
                                                               'TflV__ __ PiTg
Fig.  5   Comparison of total phosphorus concentrations  (yg/1)  between the central
         station and selected near-shore locations  in Crooked  lake during summer, 1975.

-------
                                                               Crooked River
                                                                                                o
                  1 ,242
          379

            \
         56
                           Fish Hatchery
                              928
Round Lake Ck.

      CROOKED LAKE
      EMMET  CO..MICH
                                                                             Crooked —Pickerel
                                                                                 Channel
  INORGANIC  NITROGEN

           SUMMER, 1975
                                                    488
                                              Minnehaha
                                                  Ck.
                                                            0
METERS

 600	1200
  gfa^B^^gJ
Fig. 6  Comparison  of inorganic nitrogen  (NO  _N,  N03-N and NH^-N) concentrations  (Pg/1)
        between  the central station and selected  near-shore locations in Crooked  Lake?
                                                                                                 Cd
         dvnr ing  summer ,  1975.

-------
                                                               B-4

                                                          31


     Coliform bacteria data were obtained only in Summer, 1975.

Only the station near Conway was contaminated with fecal coli-

form bacteria (1600 colonies/ml).*  Low bacterial counts were

observed elsewhere along the shores of Crooked Lake (Fig. 7).



     In contrast to Crooked Lake, concentrations of phosphorus

and nitrogen in the near-shore areas of Pickerel Lake were

almost identical with central station values during all seasons

although only Summer data are presented here (Figs. 8 and 9).

A relatively high concentration of inorganic nitrogen was re-

corded only once at Station No. 15 (Fig. 9).  Fecal coliform

bacteria counts in Summer, 1975 were low throughout Pickerel

Lake and did not indicate any sources of human contamination

(Fig- 10).



Biology

     Detailed phytoplankton data are not available for Crooked

and Pickerel Lakes.  Qualitative observations indicate that

both lakes are in a healthy water quality condition.   Although

filamentous blue-green algae are present in both lakes, they

rarely form a predominate component of the algal community.
*  The Michigan Department of Health considers waters with
   fecal coliform bacteria counts greater than 200/ml to be
   polluted and unfit for bodily contact, such as swimming.

-------
                                                             Crooked  River
                                                                                  N
                                                                               W -<»W
                                                                                  "T
                                                                                  s
                   10
                                                               SCALE
                                                                FEET
                                                                20OO   4OOO
                                                                       s*£
Round Lake Ck.
      CROOKED  LAKE
      EMMET CO..MICH.
                                                                           Crooked- P! eke re!
                                                                             Channel
   FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA /100ml
          30  July, 1975
                                                                 METERS
                                                                  600    I200
                                              Mlnnehaha
                                                  Ck.
Fig. 7  Fecal coliform bacteria (number of colonies/100 ml) at  selected  near-shore
        locations  in  Crooked Lake during July, 1975).
                                                                                                  to

-------
      Crooked -Pickerel
      Channel
             7
  State Forest Ck.
                6
                                PICKEREL  LAKE
                                EMMET CO., MICH.
             TOTAL PHOSPHORUS  (iig/l)
                  SUMMER, 1975
SCALE
FEET
800
     I600
                                                      6CO
Pig. 8  Comparison of total  phosphorus concentrations  fug/1) between  the central
        station and selected near-shore locations  in Pickerel Lake  during Summer,  1975

-------
      Crooked-Pickerel
      Channel
         ^•85
                                                                         19
  State  Forest Ck.
               1,356
                                                                                              419
                               PICKEREL LAKE
                               EMMET CO.. MICH.
      INORGANIC  NITROGEN  fjjg/l)

          SUMMER, 1975
    SCALE
    FEET
0   800   I600
                                              METERS
                                          0     300   600
Fig. 9   Comparison of  inorganic nitrogen concentrations  (yg/1) between the central
         station and  selected near-shore locations  in  Pickerel Lake  during Summer,  1975

-------
  Crooked-Pickerel
    Channel
State  Forest  Ck.   -_^__J
                             PICKEREL LAKE
                             EMMET CO., MICH.
  FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA / 100 ml
            30  JULY 1975
    SCALE
    FEET
0   000   I60O
                                            METERS
                                         0     300   600
 Fig.  10  Fecal  coliform bacteria (number of  colonies/100 ml)  at selected  near-shore
          locations in Pickerel  Lake during July,  1975.

-------
                                                          B-4
                                                        36
Substantial algal blooms have not been observed in  Pickerel
Lake.  In contrast, algal blooms, usually consisting  of diatoms
and Dinobyyon, have been.noticeable in Crooked Lake.

      Chlorophyll a, a measure of the quantity of algae,  was
slightly higher in Crooked Lake than in Pickerel Lake  (Table 4).
Although chlorophyll a averaged near 3.0 ug/1 in the  photic
zone during Summer for both lakes, the maximum recorded value
was higher for Crooked Lake (8.9 yg/1 in Fall, 1974)  than for
Pickerel Lake (4.2 pg/1 in Spring, 1974).  Phytoplankton  com-
position and chlorophyll a indicate that the waters of both
Crooked and Pickerel Lakes are oligo-mesotrophic, with Crooked
Lake slightly closer to the eutrophic side of the trophic con-
tinuum.

      Species composition of zooplankton was basically similar
in Crooked and Pickerel Lakes.  There was a general absence of
species indicative of extreme oligotrophic or eutrophic waters
in both lakes and, therefore, zooplankton composition was most
characteristic of mesotrophic conditions.  The greater relative
abundance of the cladoceran, Chydorus spkasricus, in Crooked
Lake indicates that the waters of Crooked Lake are  slightly
more eutrophic than Pickerel Lake (Bricker and Gannon, unpublishi
data).   Crooked Lake contained the oligo-mesotrophic  indicator
rotifers, Nofnoloa. foliacea, N.  miahiganensis, and  Synchaeta
asymmetrica,  as well as the eutrophic indicators, Polyarthra
euryptera and Trichoceroa multiarinis.  Similarly,  the olieo-

-------
                                                             B-4
                                                       37

mesotrophic indicative  rotifers, Conoakiloides natans, and
N. miahiganensis, as well as  the eutrophic  species, P. euryptsra
and T,-mult-ioTi,nis, occurred in  Pickerel Lake  (Stemberger, un-
published data).

      Similarly, the composition of the benthic organisms in
Crooked and Pickerel Lakes were indicative  of water bodies
mesotrophic in  character.  Both lakes contained oligotrophic
indicators such as the  burrowing mayfly nymph, Bexdgenia, and
fingernail clams,Sphaerium.   Likewise, eutrophic indicators such
as the oligochaete worm, Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri, and several
genera of chrionomid midge larvae were observed in both lakes.
The Shannon-Weiner species diversity index  was slightly higher
in Pickerel Lake  (0.57} than  in Crooked Lake  (0.43), and is
indicative of slightly  more oligotrophic conditions in Pickerel
Lake than in Crooked Lake (Weid, unpublished data).

      An examination of Michigan Department of Natural Resources
records reveals that both Crooked and Pickerel Lakes contain
fish populations indicative of healthy water quality conditions.
Desirable species, such as northern pike, walleye, black bass,
yellow perch, and bluegill are prevalent in both lakes.  Growth
rates of these  fishes are near state-wide averages in both
Crooked and Pickerel Lakes.

Trophic State
      It is readily apparent  from the preceding liranological
inventory that  Crooked  and Pickerel Lakes are in good water

-------
                                                          B-4
                                                        38
quality condition.  Physiochemical data and biological  indices
of water quality suggest that both lakes border between oligo-
trophy and mesotrophy (i.e., oligo-mesotrophic) on the  trophic
continuum of lake types, with Crooked Lake somewhat more meso-
trophic than Pickerel Lake.  In other words, Crooked Lake  is
only slightly poorer in water quality than Pickerel Lake.  Better
definition of the trophic status of these lakes can be  obtained
by applying some simple criteria and indices of trophic condition,

      Summer average chlorophyll a, total phosphorus, and  Secchi
disc transparency have frequently been used to establish the
trophic state of lakes.  Although the actual values differenti-
ating trophic levels are somewhat subjective, criteria  established
by EPA (1974b)have been widely used in recent years.  Using EPA
(1974b)criteria, Crooked and .Pickerel Lakes are both oligotrophic
based on chlorophyll a.  Crooked Lake is mesotrophic based on
total phosphorus and Secchi disc transparency, and Pickerel Lake
is oligo-mesotrophic using these variables (Fig. 11").  Chlorophyll
and total phosphorus are probably better than transparency in
assessing the trophic condition in these lakes.  Transparency
is affected by suspension of marl floe as well as by algal turbid-
ity in both lakes.  Therefore, Secchi disc readings are not
sufficiently accurate for predicting trophic conditions in such
lakes.  Nevertheless, all three variables indicate  that Crooked
Lake is slightly closer to the eutrophic end of the trophic
continuum than Pickerel Lake.

-------
                                                             39

                                                             B-4
D>
^
«*•*
O
•
—J
>-
X
a.
o
oc
o
X
o
20,
15-

10-

5~

0

E


M


O

ou-
^ 25-
a>
*-* 2O
CO
=>
C£
o 15-
X
a,
ff\
CO
o 10-
X
a.
5-
A
E



M

i

i
j
O










i

                                    E
                                    O
    EUTROPHIC
                                        —  MESOTROPHIC
— CLIGOTROPHIC
                                        —-  CROOKED  LAKE
                                        —  PICKEREL  LAKE
     o
     CO
     X
     o
     o
     Ul
     CO
Fig.  11  Trophic classification of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes
        based on three  1imnological  variables and using criteria
        established by  EPA (1974b).

-------
                                                           B-4
                                                       40
      Recognizing the relationships of chlorophyll  a,  total
phosphorus and Secchi disc transparency to trophic  condition,
Carlson  (1977) developed a trophic state index  (TSI) based
on  these variables.  Lakes are rated on a scale of  1-100  with
higher numbers representing more eutrophic waters.  Carlson's
index can be computed for the three variables independently
or  a weighted combination of all three can be employed.   Be-
cause Secchi disc readings can be misleading in marl lakes
and because other nutrients besides phosphorus can  sometimes
become limiting to algal growth in Summer, I have chosen  to use
Carlson's index based on chlorophyll a. for Crooked  and Pickerel
Lakes.  Both lakes are classified as oligotrophic using this
method, although Crooked Lake is closer to mesotrophy than
Pickerel Lake.  In comparison with other lakes in Cheboygan
and Emmet Counties, Pickerel and Crooked Lakes rank second  and
fifth highest, respectively, in water quality of 39 lakes
investigated (Fig. 12).

      The above criteria concerns only the near-surface, off-
shore waters of lakes.  Uttermark and Wall (1975) developed
a subjective lake condition index (LCI)  that uses easily de-
tectable measures of eutrophication, many of which  are observable
from the shoreline, including presence or absence of algal  blooms
and excessive weed growths.   Lakes are rated on a scale of  0-23,
higher values indicating poorer (more eutrophic) water quality.
Although the LCI is not  strictly related to trophic states, a

-------
   too
   90
   80
   70 -
CO 60
  50
  40
   30
                           TROPHIC  STATE  INDEX-CHLOROPHYLL-a
           I	i.
                                    EUTROPHY
                         MESOTROPHY
S	rr	mm	*m m»—" ^ —_ ™ —i........^m. Tin mm S iriL.....S... S... mn - nt ..S__.wiL- "H ...fiff. S? ...."TIL wnL _• Si IS ri—am... •U-.ML.JM.-,*!	••„ •!,.«* OTI •»	•*....•• •• ••
                                                                                        1183
                                                                                427
                                                                                154
                                                                                56
                                                                                           O
                                                                                            o
?v
03
X
-
                                                                           T
                                                                           a.
                                                                           O
                                                                           or

                                                                       6.4  g

                                                                           X
                                                                           o
                                                                                2.6
                                                                                        0.94
                                                                                        0.04
        0 0
    Ui O <
    (TOO:
    UJ
    x
    o
               X
               o
               o
               o
i§5
55 cc 5
o o i-
Z (t I- UJ
or ui w tc

^S^
    r> uj
                                           to
                                 Q.
                                 So
   Fig.  12
    Classification of lakes in Cheboygan and Emmet Counties,  Michigan, using

    Carlson's  (1977)  trophic state  index (TSI) for chlorophyll  a.   The positi

    of Crooked  and Pickerel Lakes are  identified by arrows.   The divisions

    between  ol Lgotropiiy and cutrophy are estimations that  appear to be most

    suitable  for  the  study area.
                                                                                        ions

-------
                                                       42  B-4






reasonable comparison between LCI and trophic classification



was obtained  in Wisconsin lakes  (Uttermork and Wall,  1975) .



Crooked and Pickerel Lakes were  determined to have  LCI values



of 7 and 5, respectively.  Consequently, both lakes  are



classified as mesotrophic by this method with Crooked Lake



again being closer to the eutrophic side of the trophic  spectrum



than Pickerel Lake (Fig- 12).







Nutrient loading



     It is important to emphasize that nutrient loading  determin-



ations are relatively new to science and, therefore,  they still



are largely estimations.  The values presented here  are  con-



sidered to be the best estimations with the available data



for Crooked and Pickerel Lakes and information from  the  liter-



ature on nutrient loading.  The greatest uncertainties are in



the nutrient contributions from land cover.  The amount  of



nutrients actually reaching the lakes from forest, agricultural,



and urban,  areas is difficult to predict without better  know-



ledge of run-off and groundwater flow patterns.  Use  of  soils



data has improved our ability to estimate nutrient contributions



from septic systems.   However, important variables such  as,



direction of groundwater flow, slope of land, age and condition



of the septic system, and its distance from the lakeshore, were



not knoivn and, consequently, were not used in the nutrient



loading analysis.   However,  several of these variables are

-------
                                                            43
                                                            B-4
        23

        20
    O
    _J
          0
              E
                                    O
— EUTROPHIC

— MESOTROPHIC

— OLIGOTROPHIC
                                           CROOKED LAKE
                                         — PICKEREL LAKE
Fig.  13  Trophic classification of Crooked and Pickerel  Lakes
        based on the lake  condition index (LCI)  of Uttormark
        and Wall (1975).

-------
                                                   44






considered on the soil suitability maps (Gold and Gannon, 1979).



Estimates of nutrient loading from lakeside lawn fertilization



were not available for the study area, but this nutrient source



is at least partially included in the coefficient for nutrient



export from urban land cover.







     Phosphorus loading was considerably higher to Crooked Lake



than to Pickerel Lake in 1975-76 (Table 5).  The discharge of



nutrient-laden water from the Oden Fish Hatchery constituted



the major man-induced source of phosphorus to Crooked Lake,



representing 14.1% of total phosphorus loading.  Considering



all inflowing creeks, the stream from the fish hatchery con-



tributed 69% of the phosphorus during the year and as high as



80% during Summer.  Septic systems were another major human



source of phosphorus, representing 9.4% of total phosphorus



loading.  In contrast, septic systems only contributed 4.0%  of



total phosphorus loading to Pickerel Lake.  Nutrient loading



was highest from forested lands in both lakes since the greatest



portion of land in both watersheds is wooded.







     Crooked Lake also received higher quantities of nitrogen



than Pickerel Lake (Table 6).  Major sources of nitrogen to



both lakes were from forests and agricultural lands.  Fish



Hatchery and Minnehaha Creeks were also important, sources of



nitrogen to Crooked Lake.  Because of the higher proportion of



nitrogen loading from land cover, the contribution of nitrogen

-------
TABLE 5. SOURCES AND QUANTITIES OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (P) FOR CROOKED AND PICKEREL



 LAKES, 1975-1976
CROOKED LAKE
Sources Kg/yr. %
Creeks
Round
Conway
Crooked
Fish Hatchery
Minnehaha
Precipitation
Septic Systems
Land Cover
Forest
Agriculture
Urban

26.6
7.6
5.0
303.8
97.8
321.7
201.7

748.2
368.4
72.9

1.2
0.4
0.2
14.1
4.6
14.9
9.4

34.7
17.1
3.4
PICKEREL LAKE
Sources Kg/yr. 1
Creeks
Cedar
State Forest

Precipitation
Septic Systems
Land Cover
Forest
Agriculture
Urban

47.4
10.8

143.2
61.9

1,063.0
195.6
31.7

3.1
0.7

9.2
4.0

68.4
12.6
2.0
TOTAL
2,153.7   100.0
TOTAL
1,553.6
100.0
                                                                                            W

-------
TABLE  6. SOURCES AND QUANTITIES OF TOTAL NITROGEN (N) FOR CROOKED AND PICKEREL




 LAKES, 1975-1976
CROOKED LAKE
Sources Kg./yr. \
Creeks
Round
Conway
Crooked
Fish Hatchery'
Minnehaha
Precipitation
Septic Systems
Land Cover
Forest
Agriculture
Urban

1,301.6
445.4
2,320.2
5,056.3
8,533.0
7,973.3
2,357.2

34,539.0
11,865.0
1,538.7

1.7
0.6
3.1
6.7
11.2
10.5
3.1

45.5
15.6
2.0
PICKEREL LAKE
Sources Kg/yr. 1
Creeks
Cedar
State Forest



Precipitation
Septic Systems
Land Cover
Forest
Agriculture
Urban

4,076.0
550.6



3,548.4
494.2

49,069.2
6,300.0
468.3

6.3
0.8



5.5
0.8

76.1
9.8
0.7
TOTAL
75,929.7
100.0
TOTAL
64,506.7
100.0
                                                                                        ON
                                                                                              -P-

-------
                                                       47    B-4






to both lakes from septic systems was relatively minor.  How-



ever,  nitrogen loading from septic systems was five times



higher to Crooked Lake than Pickerel Lake.








     Since phosphorus is the limiting nutrient for plant growth



in Crooked and Pickerel Lakes, phosphorus loading is the most



critical factor to.the present and future water quality of



these lakes.  The importance of lake morphometry, i.e. mean



depth and water residence time, to the susceptibility of lakes



to phosphorus loading has been developed into a simple model



by Vollenweider (1975).  When data for Crooked and Pickerel



Lakes are placed on the Vollenweider phosphorus loading plot,



the trophic state and potential rate of eutrophication can be



assessed (Fig. 14).   Crooked and Pickerel Lakes are both



classified as oligo-mesotrophic by this method, with Crooked



Lake slightly closer to the eutrophic end of the trophic con-



tinuum.  This is in agreement with other methods of trophic



state determinations that were discussed previously.  Both



lakes are below the "permissible" loading level as determined



by Vollenweider, i.e., water quality of both lakes should not



appreciably change given the phosphorus loading levels of



1975-1976.  However, Crooked Lake is nearly exceeding the



"permissible" level  and, therefore,  may decline in water



quality at a slightly faster rate than Pickerel Lake (Fig.14 ).







     Two events have occurred since  1975-1976 that apparently



have reduced phosphorus loading to Crooked Lake from human

-------
                                                                                      GO
     10
 eg
  Qu
   i
  O


  5

  O
CO

Ee O.I
o
X
Q_
CO
o
X
Q_
  0.01
                        Vollenwefder  loading  relationship
                 i  i i 1 1 1
              EUTROPH1C
                                           \   i  IT rr if i     i   i  i  i i i i r





                                                          ^ EXCESSIVE



                                                 ^       ^PERMISSIBLE
                                              PICKEREL LAKE

                                   CROOKED LAKE
                                                      OLIGOTROPH1C
             i  i   t i i  1 1 1      i   i  i i  M i i     i   i  i  i i 1 1 i
         i  i i  i i i i
       ai
                                       10
100
                                          ( m/yr )
1000
Fig.  14  Positions of Crooked and Pickerel  Lakes  on  the  Vollenweider  (1975)
                                                  on  1975-76 data.
                                                                                     w
                                                                                     i

-------
                                                               B-4





                                                       49





sources.   Dwellings on Crooked Lake's north shore have been



serviced by a sewer and central sewage treatment system since



Fall, 1976.  Consequently, nutrients from wastewater that



formerly entered the lake from septic systems have been diverted



out of the watershed.  In addition, the Oden Fish Hatchery,



recognizing its pollution problems, changed its fish culture



operation to reduce nutrient loading to Crooked Lakes.  The



lowermost raceways were converted to settling ponds to act



as nutrient traps and a decision was made to shift the hatchery



from fish production to brood stock maintenance.







     Unfortunately, comprehensive nutrient budget data for



1977 are not available for Crooked Lake and, therefore, the



impact of these changes on water quality improvement cannot



be properly assessed.  However, limited data on phosphorus



loading from the fish hatchery was obtained in Summer, 1977.



If phosphorus contributions from precipitation, other creeks,



and land cover are assumed to be the same in 1975 and 1977,



then an indication of the amount of phosphorus reduction from



elimination of north shore septic systems and changes in fish



hatchery operations can be obtained.  The amount of phosphorus



discharged from the fisn hatchery was nearly three times lower



in 1977 than in 1975.  Similarly, it was estimated that phos-



phorus from septic systems was reduced by a factor of three



(Table 7).







     Another event in 1977 should have had a slight effect  in



reducing phosphorus in Crooked and Pickerel Lakes .  A ban on

-------
TABLE 7. COMPARISON OF SOURCES AND QUANTITIES OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (P)  ENTERING


 CROOKED LAKE DURING SUMMER, 1975 AND SUMMER, 1977*.
1975
Sources
Fish Hatchery Creek
Septic Systems
Other **
Precipitation
Land Cover
Other Creeks
Kg
87
50

131
297
20
•
.6
.4

.8
.4
.8
1
14
8

22
50
3

.9
.6

.4
.6
.5
Kg
33
16

131
297
20
1977
•
.3
.2

.8
.4
.3
1
6.
3.

26.
59.
4.

7
2

4
5
2
TOTAL                  588.0     100.0                499.5      100.0
*   Summer is a three-month period (June, July and August).


**  These data were obtained only in 1975, and phosphorus contributions from these
    sources were assumed to be the same in 1975 and 1977.
                                                                                       ut
                                                                                       o
                                                                                            w
                                                                                            i.

-------
                                                               B-4
                                                          51

phosphates in detergents went into effect throughout  the  State
of Michigan on October 1, 1977.  We estimate that the phosphate
ban should reduce phosphorus loading to septic systems by  about
341.

                            CONCLUSIONS

     The present water quality of Crooked and Pickerel Lake
is good.  Both lakes are classified as oligo-mesotrophic with
water quality slightly better (more oligdtrophic) in Pickerel
Lake than in Crooked Lake.

     Phosphorus is the limiting nutrient to plant growth in
both lakes.  Consequently, the rate of change in water quality
can largely be influenced by controlling phosphorus loading rates.
We have little or no control over nutrient inputs from natural
sources (i.e., precipitation on the lake surface, runoff and
groundwater inflow from the watershed, aquatic birds, leaves,
pollen, etc.).  However, nutrient inputs from cultural sources
(i.e., runoff from residential and agricultural land, lakeshore
lawn fertilization and sewage) can be reduced.  Total phosphorus
loading was within theoretical "permissible" limits for both
lakes in 1975-76.  Indications are that a reduction in phosphorus
loading from north shore dwellings and the Oden Fish Hatchery
has occurred on Crooked Lake since 1975-76.  The ban on phos-
phates in detergents, that took effect in Fall, 1977,
will also reduce phosphorus loading to both lakes.

-------
                                                             B-4
                                                         52
     Further reductions in phosphorus loading should be en-

couraged to protect and maintain water quality in these lakes.

Reduction in lakeshore lawn fertilization and construction of

lakeshore greenbelts are recommended.  Septic systems located

on soils suitable for on-site wastewater treatment should be

properly maintained.  For dwellings located on soils unsuitable

for on-site sewage treatment, the ecological and economic

consequences of any wastewater management alternatives should be

carefully considered.



                        ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


     The entire research staff at the University of Michigan

Biological Station contributed to the field and laboratory
                                   .^
work on Crooked and Pickerel Lakes in numerous ways .  Their

assistance is gratefully acknowledged.  We especially thank

Art Gold for input on the nutrient loading determinations.

Gerald Krausse performed the chemical analyses.  We also

thank Marilyn Hunger for document preparation.

-------
                         REFERENCES CITED
                                                                B-4
Alfred,  S.  D., A. G. Hyde, and R. L. Larson.  1973.  Soil survey
     of Emmet County,  Michigan.   U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Soil
     Conservation Serv., Washington, D. C., 99 p.

American Public Health Association.  1971.  Standard methods for
     the examination of water and wastewaters.  13th ed. , APHA,
     N.  Y., 874 p.
Carlson,  R.  E.   1977.   A trophic state index for lakes.
     Oceanogr.  22:361-369.
                                                         Limnol.
Environmental Protection Agency.  1974a.  Methods for chemical
     analysis of water and wastes.   EPA Nat. Envir. Res. Center,
     Cincinnati, OH, 312 p.

_ .   1974b.  The relationships  of phosphorus and nitrogen to
     "the trophic state of northeast and north-central lakes and
     reservoirs.  Nat. Eutrophication Surv. , Working Paper No. 23,
     28  p. § App.

_ .   1975.  Report on Lake Charleuoizj  Charlevoiz County,
     Michigan.  Nat. Eutrophication Surv.,  Working Paper No. 188,
     14  p."§ App.

Foster,  W. L.  1976.  Profile of the land:   Natural features of
     the Inland Water Route region  of northern lower Michigan.
     Univ. Michigan Biol. Sta/, Info. Report. No. 2, 29 p.

Gales, M. , Jr., E. Julian, and R.  Kroner, 1966.  Method for
     quantitative determination of total phosphorus in water.
     /.  Amer . Waterworks Assoc. 58:1363.

Gannon,  J. E. and M. W. Paddock.  1974.  Investigations into
     ecological and sociological determinants af lane, use
     decisions - A study of inland lake watersheds in northern
     Michigan.  Univ. Michigan Biol. Sta.,  Tech. Report No. 1,
     314 p.

       and D. J. Mazur.  1976.  Sources of nutrients (phosphorus
     and nitrogen)  for Crooked Lake, Emmet County, Michigan.
     Univ.  Michigan Biol. Sta., Unpubl. Report, 14 p.

Gold, A. and J. E.  Gannon.  1979.   The suitability of soils for
     on-site wastewater disposal,  Pickerel and Crooked Lakes,
     Emmet  County,  Michigan.   Univ.  Michigan Biol. Sta., Tech.
     Report No. 8,' Part II, 18 p.

-------
                                                             B-4
                                                         54
Hutchinson, G. E.  1957.  A treatise in limnology.  Vol. I.
     Geography, Physics, and Chemistry.  Wiley, New York, 1015 p.

Marans, R. W. and J. D. Wellman.  1977.  The quality of non-
     metropolitan living:  Evaluations, behaviors, and expectations
     of northern Michigan residents.  Univ. Michigan, Inst. Social
     Res. , 428 p.

Mentzel, D. W. and N. Corwin.,   1965.  The measurement of total
     phosphorus on seawater based on the liberation of organically
     bound fraction by persulfate oxidation.  Limnol. Oaeanogr.
     10:280-288.
Muller, R. and 0. Widemann.  1955.
     Jahrbuch V.  Wasser 22:247-271.
                                    Nitratbestimmung in Seewasser.
Omernik, J. M.  1976.  The influence of land use on stream nutrient
     levels.   Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. EPA-
     600/3-76-014, 106 p.

O'Neil, W.  1977.  This land and man:  An historical look at the
     use of land and natural resources in the Inland Water Route
     region of northern Michigan.   Univ.  Michigan Biol. Sta. ,
     Info. Report No. 3, 21 p.

Pelz, D. C.  1977.  Utilization of environmental knowledge on
     northern Michigan.  Univ.  Michigan,  Inst. Social Res., 174 p.

       and J. E. Gannon.  1978.  Utilization of environmental
     knowledge for watershed management in northern Michigan.
     Envir . Manag . 3 : in press.

Project CLEAR.  1978.  Environmental features of Walloon Lake
     and its ' watersheds (Emmet and Charlevoiz Counties, Michigan),
     with special reference to  nutrient management.  Univ. Michigan
     Biol. Sta., Tech. Report MO.  6, 81 p.

Richardson, C. J.  1978.  Investigations  into ecological and
     sociological determinants  of land-use decisions.  Part II: ~
     Influence of land-use patterns, geology, and precipitation
     chemistry on nutrients in  groundwater and lake water quality.
     Univ. Michigan Biol.  Sta., Tech. Report No. 4, 190 p.

Rogers, R. H.  1977.  Application  of LANDSAT to the surveillance
     of lake eutrophication in  the Great  Lakes basin.  Bendix
     Aerospace Div. , Ann Arbor, MI.

-------
                                                              B-4
                                                      55
Say, E. W., M. W.- Paddock, J. E. Gannon, and W. L. Foster.  1975.
    Inland lake protection in northern Michigan.  Univ. Michigan
    Biol. Sta., Educ. Ser., Publ. No. 1, 40 p.
                     it
Schmid, M. and H. Ambuhl.  1965. Die bestimmung geringster Mengen
    von Gesamtphosuhor in Wasser von Binnenseen.  Schweiz. Z.
    Sydrol. 27:184-192.

Schneider, I. F. and A. E. Erickson.  1972.  Soil limitations for
    disposal of municipal wastewaters.  Michigan State Univ.,
    Agri. Exp. Sta., Res. Report No. 195, 54 p.

Solorzano, L.  1969.  Determination of ammonia in natural waters
    by the phenolhypochlorite method.  Limnol.  Oceanogr.
    14:799-801.

Technicon.  1972-73.  Industrial Methods.  Technicon Instruments
    Corp., Tarrytown, NY.

Tierney, D. P., R. Powers, T. Williams, and S.  C. Hsu.   1976.
    Actinomycete distribution in northern Green Bay and the
    Great Lakes:  Taste and odor relationships  in eutrophication
    of nearshore waters and embayments.   Environmental  Protection
    Agency, Report No. EPA-905/9-74-Q07, 167 p.

Uttormark, P. D. and J. P. Wall.  1975.  Lake slassifieation  -
    A trophic characterization of Wisconsin lakes.   Environmental
    Protection Agency, Report No. EPA-660/3-75-033, 165 p.

Vollenweider, R. A.  1968.  Scientific fundamentals of the
    eutrophication of lakes and flowing waters, with particular
    reference to nitrogen and phosphorus as factors in  eutrophi-
    cation.  Organization Econ. Co-op. Devel.,  Paris, 159 p.
    § 34 figs.

Vollenweider, R. A.  1975.  Input-output models with special
    reference to the phosphorus loading concept in limnology.
    Schweiz. Z. Hydrol. 37:53-84.

Welch, P. S.  1948.  Limnological methods.   Blakiston,  Philadelphia,
    PA, 381 p.

-------
               APPENDIX A



DATA USED IN ESTIMATING NUTRIENT LOADING



   TO CROOKED AND PICKEREL LAKES FROM



             SEPTIC SYSTEMS
                                                      B-4





                                                56

-------
TABLE A-l. TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AND TOTAL NITROGEN EXPORT (kg/kra2/yr.)  FROM LAND COVER.

 VALUES ARE MEANS FOR THE NORTH AND NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES (OMERNIK, 1976), AND

 WERE USED IN THE CROOKED AND PICKEREL LAKES NUTRIENT LOADING CALCULATIONS.
Land Cover

  Forest
  Agriculture (mostly)
  Urban
Phosphorus

    8.6
   16.3
   31-. 7
Nitrogen

   397
   525
   669
                                                                                               -P-

-------
TABLE A-2. ESTIMATED PHOSPHORUS (P) AND NITROGEN (N)  INPUTS FROM SEPTIC SYSTEMS

 TO CROOKED LAKE'S NORTH SHORE.  IN 1975.  THIS PORTION OF THE LAKE HAS BEEN

 SERVICED BY A SEWER SINCE 1976.
Soil Type
        Percent  Reaching  Lake   Number  of  Dwellings   Amt.  Reaching Lake
                                Y-R    PY-R    S        P(kg/yr)  N(kg/yr)
Au Gres
loamy sand
Deford fine
loamy sand
Carbondale
muck (Ca)
Kalkaska
loamy sand

(AuB)

(Df)



(KaB)
Made land (Ma)
Ros common
mucky sand
Rubicon sand

(Re)
(RuB)
Tawas muck (Ta)
Wet alluvial
land (Wt)
TOTAL




35

75

75

25
35

75
25
75

75


65

50

50

65
50

50
65
50

50 *


50

2

0

19
34

1
2
8

0
116

1

0

0

0
0

0
0
0

0
1

84

0

2

16
20

4
4
3

2
135

61

3

0

14
33

3
1
16

0
136

.6

.7

.9

.1
.6

.7
.9
.1

.9
.5

815

17

4

262
342

17
34
76

4
1,575

.6

.5

.4

.4
.2

.6
.2
.8

.4
.1
* Y-R is year
  occupancy.
-round occupancy;  PY-R is possible year-round occupancy;  S is seasonal
                                                                                       tn
                                                                                       oo
                                                                                              w

-------
TABLE A-3. ESTIMATED PHOSPHORUS (P) AND NITROGEN (N) INPUTS FROM SEPTIC SYSTEMS

 TO THE SOUTH SHORE OF CROOKED LAKE, INCLUDING ODEN ISLAND, IN 1975.  THIS

 PORTION OF THE LAKE CONTINUES TO BE SERVICED BY SEPTIC SYSTEMS.
Percent Reaching Lake Number
Soil Type P(|) N(%) Y-R
Au Gres
loamy sand (AuB)
Au Gres sand (ArB)
Blue Lake
loamy sand (BIB)
Blue Lake
loamy sand (B1F)
Brevort mucky
loamy sand (Br)
Bruce fine
sandy loam (fly)
Emmet sandy loam (EmB)
losco loamy
fine sand (I1B)
Johnswood
cobbly loam (JoC)
Kalkaska sand (KaB)
Kalkaska sand (KaC)

35
35

65

65
55

35
25
55

25
25
25

65
65

65

65
50

50
65
65

85
65
65

13
0

1

0
10

2
4
0

9
0
3
of Dwellings
PY-R S

0
0

0

0
0

0
0
1

2
1
0

9
3

1

4
11

0
0
1

9
7
1
Arat. Reaching Lake
P(kg/yr) N(kg/yr)

13.1
0.7

2.0

1.6
17.3

1.7
2.5
0.3

7.5
1.4
2.0

174.0
8.6

14.3

11.4
111.9

17.6
45.6
2.9

182.7
25.7
37.1
                                                                                       01
                                                                                       vo
Continued
                                                                                             w

-------
TABLE A-3 Cont.
Percent Reaching Lake" Number of Dwellings Amt . Reaching Lake
Soil Type
Made land (Ma)
Roscommon
mucky sand (Re)
Sandy lake
beaches (Sb)
Thomas loam (To A)
I'd)
35

75

35
35
N(l)
50

50

65
50
Y-R
2

2

5
3
PY-I
0

0

1
1
S
0

1

0
9
P(kg/yr)
1.7

4.2

4.7
4.5
N(kg/yr)
17.5

19.7

62.7
50.4
TOTAL
65.2    782.1
                                                                                       0\
                                                                                       o
                                                                                               W

-------
TABLE A-4. ESTIMATED PHOSPHORUS (Pj AND NITROGEN (N) INPUTS FROM SEPTIC SYSTEMS



 TO PICKEREL LAKE IN 1975.
Percent Reaching Lake Number of Dwellings
Soil Type P(4) N(%) Y-R PY-R S
Au Gres
loamy sand (ArB)
Carbondale
muck (Ca)
East Lake
loamy sand (EaB)
Kalkaska
loamy sand (KaB)
Ros common
mucky sand (Re)
Saugatuck sand (ScB)
Tawas muck (Ta)
Thomas mucky
loam (Tm)
Thomas loam (To A)
Warners mucky
loam (Win)
TOTAL

35

75

25

25

75
35
75
35
35
75


65

50

65

65

50
50
50
50
65
50


0

0

1

7

5
3
1
0
0
4
21

0

0

0

0

0
0
0
0
0
2
2

7

4

4

20

20
18
12
4
16
9
114
Amt. Reaching Lake
P(kg/yr) N(kg/yr)

1.5

1.8

1.2

7.4

18.4
6.5
7.4
0.9
3.4
13.4
61.9

20.0

8.8

22.8

135.9

87.8
65.8
35.1
8.8
45.6
63.6
494.2
                                                                                             w

-------
                                                                 B-4
                      LIMNOLOGICAL FEATURES

                               OF

                    CROOKED AND PICKEREL LAKES ,
                      EMMET COUNTY, MICHIGAN
               PART II. THE SUITABILITY OF SOILS FOR
                    ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 1
                                by

                            Arthur Gold

                               and

                          John E. Gannon
                      Technical Report No.  S
                        Biological Station
                    The University of Michigan
                     Pellston, Michigan 49769
                           April,  1979
1
   This  report  is  based on  research funded by the  National
   Science Foundation (Grant No.  AEN72-054S3).   Preparation
   of the report was  supported by the Environmental  Protection
   Agency as a  sub-contract to a  prime contract (EPA-No.  08-
   01-4612)  to  WAPORA,  Inc.

2
   Present address:   State  University Research Center.  Oswego,
   NY 13126.

-------
                                                                 B-4
                        CONTENTS



                                                          Page

FIGURES	    ii

BACKGROUND	     1

METHODS	     3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION	     5
  Dwelling Units	     5
  Slope	     6
  Permeability	     6
  Depth to Seasonal High Groundwater	     7.
  Phosphorus Adsorption Capacity	     8

CONCLUSIONS	     8

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	 .    10

REFERENCES CITED	    11

APPENDIX A.  Maps of the Crooked and Pickerel Lakes area,
  depicting variables that influence adequacy of soils
  for on-site wastewater disposal	    13

-------
                                                             B-4
                       FIGURES
Number
A-l  Slope.  Darker shading indicates more severe
     limitations to on-site wastewater disposal on
     Figures A-l through A-5	     14
A-2  Phosphorus adsorption capacity	     15
A-3  Depth to seasonal high groundwater	     16
A-4  Permeability	     17
A-5  A composite map of the four variables that affect
     suitability of soils for on-site wastewater
     disposal	     18
                          11

-------
                                                                  B-4
                       BACKGROUND

     Septic systems rely on the soil to purify domestic waste-
water.  However, soil types vary considerably in their capacity
to effectively treat wastewater.  Septic systems operating in
ill-suited soils can be a threat to public health and can
have adverse effects on water quality of nearby lakes and
streams.  Soil suitability for wastewater disposal is primarily
determined by slope, permeability, depth to seasonal high
groundwater level, and phosphorus adsorption capacity. Depth
to bedrock can also be a factor where overlying soils are ex-
tremely shallow.  One of these variables, or more likely the
integrating influence of a combination of them, may restrict
the use of on-site waste disposal by septic systems.
    Septic systems, if properly designed and carefully installed,
may function adequately on sites with slopes up to 121 (VJarshall,
1976).  Slopes up to 151 grade present moderate limitations
for wastewater disposal if engineering modifications of the
drain field such as serial distribution are employed.   Systems
on severe slopes may experience problems with prematurely
failing drain fields or ponding effluent.   Installation of
septic systems on steep slopes will require additional expense
and attention to eliminate the potential for accelerated
erosion and sedimentation.
    Permeability is the rate  at which water moves through the
soil,  and is a major consideration in on-site inspection for
septic system permits.   Permeability usually changes with

-------
                                                               B-4
 each  soil horizon and various on-site disposal systems  use



 different horizons for vastewater treatment.  Drain  field



 trenches are generally placed two feet below the surface,



 which diminishes the importance of soil permeability above



 that  level.  Mounds and raised drain fields developed in



 Wisconsin rely on the permeability of the surface soil  layers



 (Converse et al., 1976).



    Depth to seasonal high groundwater is a primary  con-



 sideration  in on-site analysis for septic tank permits.  The



 highest levels of purification are achieved when the waste-



 water passes through unsaturated soils.   Effluent moves



 through spaces between soil particles, increasing the contact



 of the effluent with the soil and increasing the time before



 the liquid  reaches groundwater (Baker and Bouma, 1975).  This



 enhances the potential of the soil for phosphorus adsorption



 and for the physical screening of bacteria (McCoy and Ziebell,



 1975).  Under saturated conditions,  wastewater 'flows through



 the largest soil spaces, minimizing contact between  the effluent



 and soil particles.



    Phosphorus adsorption capacity differs with soil types



 and is a major factor in the ability of  a soil to purify



 wastes.   Limnological data indicates that phosphorus is the



 limiting nutrient for aquatic productivity in Crooked and



 Pickerel Lakes (See  Part I of this report).  Septic  systems



are one  source of phosphorus loading to  the lakes.



    A series of overlay maps have been prepared to provide



guidelines  for future wastewater management planning on the



shorelines  of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes, Emmet County,

-------
                                                                   B-4
Michigan.  The maps integrate information on soil suitability

and illustrate the capacity of the land near these lakes to

purify septic system effluent.  An overlay map depicting

depth to bedrock was not constructed since bedrock is not
found close to the surface in the study area.  When presently

existing septic systems need replacing, new septic systems or

other on-site wastewater management alternatives should be

designed to compensate for any site specific soil limitations.
Of course, the use of the overlay maps should not preclude

on-site inspection for suitability of wastewater disposal.


                         METHODS

    Overlay maps for slope, permeability, depth to seasonal
high groundwater, and phosphorus adsorption capacity were
prepared, based on development capability criteria established

by the U.  S.  Soil Conservation Service  (1966) and Schneider

and Erickson  (1972).  The  classification and distribution

of soil  types  in the watersheds of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes

were obtained  from Alfred  et al.  (1973).
    Location of dwelling units in the  study area was acquired
from Williams  and Works  (1976)*.  On 20 February 1978 we
visually surveyed the dwellings within 300 feet of the lake-
shore to estimate the number of permanent and seasonal residences
Over three feet of snow existed on the ground at the time of
the survey.  Criteria used to determine year-round occupancy
* At least eight additional dwellings were built since 1976
  and were included on the man.

-------
                                                               B-4
included recently plowed drives, fresh tire tracks, trash
containers, and chimney smoke.  Indications of occasional
occupancy were recorded as possible seasonal use in winter.
    The phosphorus adsorption capacities depicted on the over-
lay map are as follows (Schneider and Erickson, 1972) :
    Rate Class                 Pounds per acre in^upper three
                                       reet ot soil
      High                              >1,600
      Medium                             1,300 to 1,600
      Low                               <1,300
Phosphorus adsorption data were unavailable for four soil types
in the study area.  The following estimates were provided
by Forrest (personal communication*):
                                        Phosphorus
    Soil Series                     Adsorption Capacity
Dighton Series, fine subsoil variant      High
Saugatuck Series                          High
Johnswood Series                          High
Blue Lake Series                          Low
      The following characteristics  of slope, depth to seasonal
high groundwater,  and permeability are depicted for each
respective soil property (Alfred, et al.  1973):
                   Depth to Seasonal
                                          Permeability
                                        (inches per hour)
                                          6.3 - 20.0
                                          2.0 -  6.3
                                          0.63 - 2.0
                                         <0.63
Slope
(Percent)
0-6
6-12
12-13
High Groundwater
(feet)
>4
2-4
<4
  Forest, Michael, Soil Scientist, U.S. Soil Conservation
  Service, Gaylord, MI 49735.

-------
                                                                 B-4
permeability values represent the lowest rate that occurs in

the upper five to six feet of soil.

     Each variable is depicted on a separate transparency that

lies on two base maps, one showing location of total dwelling

units and the other indicating year-round residences.  Increasing

degrees of shading are employed to indicate greater restriction

imposed by each variable on development and on-site wastewater

disposal.  When all four transparencies are viewed together,

greater restrictions for wastewater disposal are indicated

by the darkest areas.*

     A limited number of booklets (23" X 17") containing the

transparent overlays and base maps were prepared and deposited

at Emmet County governmental offices and at the University of

Michigan Biological Station.  Prints of the overlays on the

base map of year-raund residences  appear  in  Appendix  A.



                  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Dwelling Units

     Based on our visual survey and data from Williams and Works

(1976), we estimate that 112 dwelling units are located within

300 feet of the shore on the south side of Crooked Lake and

on Oden Island and 134 on Pickerel Lake.   Approximately 551

of these dwellings on Crooked Lake indicated year-round occupancy.

In contrast, 21% of the  residences on Pickerel Lake appeared
   Those  soils exhibiting high groundwater and rapid permeability
   may be more limited in their capacity to treat wastewater
   than these overlays actually depict.

-------
                                                                B-4
to be year-round.  Frequency of year-round dwellings was  especially



low  (101 j along the north shore and at botsford Landing.



Slope



     Emmet County's Health Code does not specifically  restrict on-



site disposal systems based on slope characteristics  (Michigan



District Health Department No. 3, 1968).  However, county  sanitarians



consider slope in their inspection ot suitability of a  site  for



septic treatment.



     Gently sloping terrain characterizes most of the  shoreline of



Crooked and Pickerel Lakes and does not limit the functioning of



septic systems in most of the study area.  The only exception is



the  eastern side of Graham Point on Crooked Lake where  slopes



greater than 121 are located.



Permeability



     Permeability of less than 1.0 inch per hour is considered too



slow to allow for adequate treatment (Goldstein and Moberg,  1973).



The  Emmet  County Sanitary Code requires a permeability rate greater



than 2.0 inches per hour by the percolation test (Michigan District



Health Department No,  3, 1968).  No restriction is imposed on soils



with extremely rapid permeability (i.e., greater than 10 inches



per hour).  However, coarse soils with very rapid permeability



can  introduce contaminants to groundwater.



     Approximately one-half of the dwelling units on the south



shore of Crooked Lake  are situated on Au Gres sands and Thomas



loamy sands (Alfred et al.,  1973) which have permeability  too



slow for adequate septic treatment.   Nineteen residences southeast



of Graham Point are located on Johnswood cobbly loam.

-------
                                                                  B-4
The moderately slow permeability of this soil type should be

recognized when considering on-site disposal alternatives.

     Sixty homes bordering Pickerel Lake are underlain by

soils with permeability below all acceptable standards for

septic treatment (Goldstein and Moberg, 1973).  Approximately

one-half of these homes, located on Ellsworth Point, are

situated on Saugatuck sands which have extremely slow per-

meability in the upper horizons.  Kalkaska sands on the south-

east shore of Pickerel Lake exhibit permeability adequate for

septic treatment.

Depth to SeasonalHigh Groundwater

     Sites with high groundwater levels (permanent or seasonal)

are not suitable for septic system use.  The groundwater level

during the wettest season should be at least four feet below

the bottom of the trenches in a subsurface tile absorption

field and four feet below the pit floor in a field using seepage

pits (Goldstein and Moberg, 1973).  Emmet County requires that

finish grade be at least six feet above the known high ground-

water level (District Health Department No. 3, 1968).   The

county allows some filling to obtain this distance.*

     ^founds may be used for safe and effective disposal of

septic tank effluent where depth to seasonal high groundwater

level is greater than two feet from the surface  (Converse et

al.t 1976).  Areas with seasonal high groundwater levels  less
   The soils of Emmet County have been interpreted to a depth
   of five feet (Alfred, et al.,  1973).  However, the depth to
   seasonal high groundwater was  not recorded if the water
   table  was more than four feet  from the surface.  Knowledge
   of soil types and depth of groundwater to at least six feet
   below  the surface would be useful for on-site wastewater
   management decisions.

-------
                                                             B-4
                                                           8

than two feet from the surface are severely limited for on-
site disposal (Goldstein and Mofaerg, 1973).
     Seasonal high groundwater levels occur within two feet
of the surface in most of the lakeside soils of Crooked and
Pickerel Lakes.   Consequently, adequacy of septic treatment
is severely limited during periods of high groundwater for the
majority of riparian dwelling units.  Notable exceptions are
the Emmet sandy loams on Oden Island and the Kalkaska sands
underlying some of the dwelling units on Pickerel Lake's
Ellsworth Point and Botsford Landing.
Phosphorus Adsorption Capacity
     The phosphorus adsorption capacity of most soils around
Crooked Lake is adequate for septic treatment.   However, Blue
Lake loamy sand and Roscommon muck, underlying a few residences
on the south shore, and Emmet sands, under most dwellings on
Oden Island, have low phosphorus adsorption capacities.
     Approximately 301 of the dwellings on Pickerel Lake
are on Warners mucky loam, Tawas muck, or Roscommon mucky
sands which exhibit low phospho-rus adsorption capacities.
However, adjacent inland soils near the south shore consist
of Kalkaska sands with higher phosphorus adsorption capacities.

                        CONCLUSIONS
     Most of the dwelling units on the south shore of Crooked
Lake are located on soils with characteristics severely
limiting their capacity to treat wastewater from conventional
septic systems.   High seasonal groundwater levels are the

-------
                                                                 B-4
major constraint along most of  the shoreline.   In addition,

soils with low permeability rates underly approximately one-

half of the existing dwellings.  Residences on Oden Island

are situated on soils with some limitations but on-site waste

treatment such as mounds or other innovations could be

instituted.  More than 50% o£ the dwellings on the south shore

of Crooked Lake and on Oden Island are year-round.  This factor

should be considered when reviewing wastewater management

alternatives.

     Much of the development surrounding Pickerel Lake is on

soils not capable of effectively treating septic system wastes.

Seasonal high groundwater levels are again the major constraint,

although low permeability and phosphorus adsorption problems

also exist.  Therefore, alternative on-site methods of waste-
                                                  .*
water disposal should be considered.  For example, a large

tract of Kalkaska sands located south of developments at

Botsford Landing and Ellsworth Point are highly suitable for

on-site wastewater treatment.   This method may not be feasible

on the north side since only small, scattered parcels of suit-

able soils are available there.   Holding tanks for pump-out

disposal offer a possible on-site alternative.  Only 21! of

the dwellings around Pickerel  Lake are year-round residences.

This factor may influence the  choice of wastewater management

methods.

     The Crooked-Pickerel Channel area is one  of the largest

and most important  wetlands  in  the watershed of Crooked and

Pickerel Lakes.   Soils  in this  area consist  largely of Tawas

and Carbondale  muck  which exhibit serious limitations to

-------
                                                          B-4
                                                          10
development and on-site wastewater disposal.   The wetland



functions as an important breeding and nursery ground for



game fish and other aquatic organisms, provides habitat for



game birds and animals, and protects the quality of surface



and groundwater resources.   Retainment of the soils and



vegetation of the Crooked-Pickerel Channel area in their



natural condition is ecologically sound and worthy of con-



sideration.







                       ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



     We thank M.  Secrest  and B.  Burley for assistance in



preparing the soil maps,  D.  Mazur for  help on the visual



survey of year-round dwelling units, and M. Hunger for



typing the manuscript.

-------
                                                                B-4
                                                           11
                    REFERENCES CITED

Alfred,  S.  D., A. G. Hyde, and R. L. Larson.  1973.  Soil
     Survey of Emmet County, Michigan.  U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
     in cooperation with Michigan Agricultural Experiment
     Station,  99 p.

Baker, F. G. and J. Bouma.  1975.  Measurment of soil hydraulic
     conductivity and site selection for liquid waste disposal.
     In:  Individual on-site wastevrater systems,  Proc. Nat.
     Conf., National Sanitation Foundation, Ann Arbor, MI.

Converse, J.C., R. J. Otis, J. Bouma, W. Walker, J. Anderson,
     and D. Stewart.  1976.  Design and construction procedures
     for mounds in slowly permeable soils with or without
     seasonally high water tables.  Univ. Wisconsin, Unpubl.
     mimeo., 35 p.

Goldstein,  S. N» and W. J. Moberg, Jr.  1973.  Wastewater
     treatment systems for small corjnunities.  Commission on
     Rural Water, Washington, D.C., 340 p.

McCoy, E. and W. A. Ziebell.  1975.  Effects of effluents on
     groundwater.  In:  Individual on-site wastewater systems,
     Proc.  Nat. Conf., National Sanitation Foundation,  Ann
     Arbor, MI.

Michigan District Health Department No. 3.   1968.  Emmet
     County Sanitary Code,  Ennet County, Michigan, 4 p.

-------
                                                              B-4
                                                          12





Schneider, I. F. and A. E. Erickson.  1972.  Soil limitations



     for disposal of municipal wastewaters.  Michigan State



     University Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing,



     in cooperation with Michigan Water Resources Commission,



     Farm Science Research Report No.  195, 54 p.





U.S. Soil Conservation Service.   1966.   Land-capability



     classification.  Dept.  of Agriculture, Handbook No. 210,



     21 p.





Warshall, P.   1976.  Ssptic  tank  practices.  Mesa Press,



     Bolinas, CA 76 p.





Williams and  Works.  1976.  Little  Traverse Bay  Area Facility



     Plan, Springvale-Bear Creek  area segment for wastewater



     collection and treatment.  Emmet County,  Michigan,



     Williams and Works,  Inc.,  Grand Rapids,  Michigan.

-------
                                                               13
                                                               B-4
                      APPENDIX A
Maps  of  the  Crooked and Pickerel Lakes area, depicting
variables  that  influence adequacy of soils for on-site
wastewater disposal.

-------
      (Pf "iC- NT)
     o • &
              l
             ^—.v


             [WP
           /   I
               I
Hi'i N i ..'V i/
                                                              t'  I'
/'
.(
\ 'l^j.
\
\
\
1
...."•'
^ •"
- ~n
/w
' /I ^
y\i:i
^ \-
• u\
^
                      -*)     -    i
                         ^	?•
                        ;    \.   .<**'
                                         TOTAL DWELLING UNITS
Fig. A-l   Slope.   Darker shading indicates more  severe limitations  to on-site v^astewater
           disposal on Figures  A-l through A-5

-------
 M,VJVArt  SOILS  i,60o,r ' i
   1.300 tol.COQ (7-Z1
     < 1,300 ^
^;;;;.^j|ps&
              LITTLE_T AVERSE-' jjTTLEFIELD  TWP
                                                                                          .        i    •-.
                                                                                          \  „«• I    -  •  ;
                                                                                            '•  "' '\   >,	i_j
                                                                                                     --•f&'A
                                                                                                  '     K  r<-^
                                                                                    rcr"
                                                ";:"'/v^ '•*' -""': '"^r--'';-fe'J',;V.!'' rf¥'^''1'^:1t*Tf'^''^(A'i;l "  / "  \      t! **•*' jJ?1 -.^l^Jt"^
                                                .g;;*-i*ft*rA-*'^^^%.^if5f'V^+^         '/    \     i'   V :"'- "''? V •' .;
                                                     TOTAL DWELLING UNITS
                                  Fig. A-2   Phosphorus adsorption  capacity
                                                                                                          tn

-------
DtPTHTO SEASONAL
 HiRM WATER TABLE
     litol)
   > 4
    —JC—.J
   0-2
                     TOTAL  DWELLING UNITS


    Fig.  A-3   Depth  to  seasonal high groundwater

-------
PERMEABILITY
  (in./hour
MANMAOC  SOILS
SOILS TOO VARIABE
     TO MAP
                                             2-0-6.
                                             0.63-2.0 CT3
                                             <0.63 6ES3 '
               LITTLE TRAVERS   LITTLERELO
                                                         TOTAL DWELLING UNITS


                                              Fig.  A-4   Permeability

-------
   CLOPE (PERCENT)
      0-6 i "
           DEPTHTO SEASONAL
            HIGH WATER TASLE
PHOSPHORUS ADSORPTION
   per ocre in the upper
     3 feat of soil)
     > 1,600 f  '
   1,300
     < 1,300 C
.v.v.;, if  SOILS }
 •'..J "00 VAHiAlfl E
  .,'K- MAP
   ( r—•>
            LITTLE TPAVERbE— L1T7LEFiELO 1 WH
                                                                         v ^^"^
                                ' V
                                to -   /
                                                  TOTAL DWELLING UNITS
   Fig.  A-5  A composite  map  of  the  four variables  that  affect  suitability of  soils  for
               on-site  wastewater  disposal

-------
                                                                       APPENDIX
                                                                         B-5
              SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS OF LAKE EUTROPHICATION
Introduction

     Two basic  approaches to  the  analysis  of  lake eutrophication have
evolved:

     1)   A   complex   lake/reservoir   model   which   simulates   the
          interactions occurring within ecological systems; and

     2)   the more  simplistic nutrient loading model  which relates the
          loading or  concentration  of phosphorus  in a body of water to
          its physical properties.

     From a  scientific standpoint,  the better approach  is the complex
model;  with  adequate  data  such  models  can be   used  to  accurately
represent complex  interactions of  aquatic organisms  and  water quality
constituents.   Practically  speaking, however,  the  ability to represent
these complex interactions is limited because some interactions have not
been  identified and  some  that  are  known cannot be  readily measured.
EPAECO  is an example of a  complex  reservoir model  currently in use.  A
detailed description of  this  model has been given by Water Resources
Engineers (1975).

     In contrast to the complex reservoir models,  the empirical nutrient
budget models for  phosphorus can be simply derived and can be used with
a  minimum  of field measurement.  Nutrient budget models,  first derived
by Vollenweider (1968)  and  later expanded upon by him (1975), by Dillon
(1975a  and  1975b)  and  by Larsen - Mercier  (1975  and 1976), are based
upon the total  phosphorus mass balance.  There has been a proliferation
of  simplistic  models  in  eutrophication  literature   in   recent  years
(Bachmann and  Jones,  1974;  Reckhow, 1978).  The Dillon  model has been
demonstrated to work  reasonably well for  a broad  range  of lakes with
easily obtainable data.  The validity of the model has been demonstrated
by comparing results with data from the  National Eutrophication Survey
(1975).  The models  developed  by  Dillon and by  Larsen  and Mercier fit
the data developed  by the NES for  23 lakes  located in the northeastern
and northcentral United States (Gakstatter et a_l  1975) and  for 66 bodies
of water in the southeastern US (Gakstatter and Allum  1975).  The Dillon
model   (1975b)  has  been  selected  for  estimation  of  eutrophication
potential for Crystal Lake and Betsie Lake in this study.

Historical Development

     Vollenweider  (1968)  made  one  of  the  earliest  efforts to relate
external  nutrient   loads 2to  eutrophication.   He  plotted  annual total
phosphorus  loadings  (g/m /yr) against  lake mean depth  and  empirically
determined   the  transition   between  oligotrophic,   raesotrophic  and
eutrophic loadings.  Vollenweider later modified his simple loading mean
depth  relationship  to include  the  mean residence  time of the water so
that unusually  high  or low flushing  rates  could  be taken  into  account.

-------
                                                                         B-5
Dillon  (1975)  further  modified the  model  to relate  mean depth  to a
factor  that  incorporates  the  effect  of hydraulic  retention  time on
nutrient retention.

     The  resulting  equation,   used  to  develop the  model  for trophic
status,  relates  hydraulic  flushing time,  the phosphorus  loading, the
phosphorus   retention   ratio,   the  mean  depth   and   the  phosphorus
concentration of the water body as follows:
                                    2
where:  L = phosphorus loading (gm/m I jr.}
        R = fraction of phosphorus retained
        p = hydraulic flushing rate (per yr.)
        z = mean depth (m)
        P = phosphorus concentration (mg/1)

     The  graphical solution, shown  in Figure E-4-a,  is  presented as a
log-log plot of L  (1-R) versus z.
                    P

     The  Larsen-Mercier  relationship  incorporates the same variables as
the Dillon relationship.

     In  relating  phosphorus loadings  to the  lake  trophic  condition,
Vollenweider  (1968),  Dillon and Rigler  (1975)  and  Larsen  and Mercier
 (1975,  1976)  examined  many lakes  in  the  United  States,  Canada and
Europe.   They established tolerance limits  of  20/ug/l phosphorus  above
which  a  lake is considered  eutrophic and 10 mg/1 phosphorus above  which
a  lake is considered mesotrophic.

Assumptions and Limitations

     The  Vollenweider-Dillon model  assumes  a steady state,  completely
mixed  system,  implying  that the rate  of supply of  phosphorus and the
flushing  rate  are constant with respect to time.  These  assumptions are
not totally true  for all  lakes.  Some lakes are stratified in the  summer
so that the water  column  is  not mixed during that time.   Complete  steady
state  conditions  are  rarely  realized in  lakes.  Nutrient  inputs are
likely  to be quite different during periods when stream  flow is minimal
or when  non-point source runoff  is  minimal.   In  addition,  incomplete
mixing  of the water may  result  in  localized eutrophication problems in
the vicinity of a  discharge.

     Another  problem  in  the Vollenweider-Dillon model  is the  inherent
uncertainty   when  extrapolating   a   knowledge   of  present   retention
coefficients  to the  study of future loading effects.   That is to say,
due  to chemical  and  biological  interactions,  the retention  coefficient
may itself be dependent on the nutrient loading.

     The  Vollenweider/Dillon model or  simplified plots  of loading rate
versus lake geometry and  flushing rates can be very useful  in describing
the  general  trends  of eutrophication  in lakes  during  the  preliminary

-------
                                         B-5
FIGURE E-A-a
                     >    I   I  I   I I  I
                       !0.0
             MEAN DEPTH (METERS)

L= AREAL PHOSPHORUS INPUT (g/m^yr)
R= PHOSPHORUS RETENTION COEFFICIENT (DIMENSIONLESS)
P= HYDRAULIC FLUSHING RATE (yr"1)
                                     100.0

-------
                                                                         B-5
planning process.  However,  if a significant expenditure of  monies for
nutrient control  is  at stake,  a detailed  analysis  to  calculate  the
expected phytoplankton biomass  must  be performed  to  provide  a  firmer
basis for decision making.

-------
                                                                         B-5


              NON-POINT SOURCE MODELING - OMERNIK'S MODEL


     Because so little  data  was available on non-point source runoff in
the Study Area, which is largely rural, empirical models or statistical
methods  have  been  used  to  derive  nutrient  loadings   from  non-point
sources.  A  review  of the literature led  to  the selection of the model
proposed by Omernik (1977).  Omernik's regression model provides a quick
method of determining nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and loading
based  on  use of  the  land.   The  relationship between  land use  and
nutrient  load was  developed  from data  collected during  the National
Eutrophication  Survey  on a  set  of 928  non-point  source  watersheds.

     Omernik's  data  indicated  that  the  extent  of agricultural  and
residential/urban  land  vs.   forested  land  was  the most  significant
parameter  affecting  the influx of nutrient  from non-point sources.   In
the US,  little or  no correlation  was  found  between nutrient levels and
the percentage of land  in wetlands,  or range  or  cleared unproductive
land.   This  is probably due to the  masking  effects of agricultural and
forested land.

     Use  of  a model  which  relates urban/residential  and agricultural
land use  to nutrient levels seems appropriate where  agricultural and/or
forest make  up the main land-use types.

     The  regression  models  for  the eastern  region of  the US  are as
follows:

     Log P = 1.8364 + 0.00971A + op Log  1.85                     (1)

     Log N = 0.08557 + 0.00716A -  0.00227B + CTN  Lot 1.51         (2)

     where:

     P = Total phosphorus concentration  - mg/1 as P

     N = Total nitrogen concentration -  mg/1 as  N

     A = Percent of watershed with agricultural  plus  urban land use

     B = Percent of watershed with forest  land use

    Op  =  Total  phosphorus  residuals  expressed in  standard deviation
         units from  the log mean  residuals of Equation  (1).  Determined
         from  Omernik  (1977), Figure 25.

    0N  =  Total nitrogen residuals expressed in  standard  deviation units
         from  the  log mean residuals  of Equation (2).  Determined  from
         Omernik (1977), Figure 27.

   1.85 = f,  multiplicative standard  error  for Equation  1.

-------
                                                                         B-5
  1.51 = f, multiplicative standard error for Equation (2).

     The  67% confidence  interval  around  the  estimated phosphorus  or
nitrogen consideration can be calculated as shown below:

     Log PL = Log P + Log 1.85    (3)

     Log NL = Log N + Log 1.51    (4)

     where:

     PT = Upper and lower values of the 67% phosphorus confidence limit -
          mg/1 as P

     The  67%  confidence  limit  around  the  estimated  phosphorus  or
nitrogen  concentrations  indicates  that the  model  should  be  used for
purposes of  gross  estimations  only.  The model does not account for any
macro-watershed* features peculiar to the Study Area.

-------
                                               APPENDIX
                                                B-6
INVESTIGATION 0? S2PTIC LSACEA2S DISCHARGES

                   INTO

 CEQOE3D LAX3 AND PICEER3L LASS, HIGEIGAN

              November, 1978
               Prepared for

               WAPORA, Inc.
             Washington, D. C.
                Prepared by

           K-V Associates, Inc.
          "alsouth,  Massachusetts
               January,  1979

-------
                                                               B-6
                       TABLE 0? CONTENTS

                                                            Page
1.0  Introduction - Flume Types and. Characteristics	   1
2*0  Methodology - Sampling and Analysis...	   8
JeO  Plume Locations	..	  10
4.0  Nutrient Analyses.	  14-
5»0  Nutrient Relationships.	,	  17
     5-1  Assumed Vastewater Characteristics	  18
     5-2  Assumed Background Levels	  19
     5-5  Attenuation of Nitrogen Compounds	  20
     5.4  Attenuation of Phosphorus Compounds	  20
6.0  Colifona Levels in Surface *,;aters	  21
7.0  Relationship of Attached Plant Growth to Plumes	  22
8.0  Conclusions.	  26
References	•	  28
Appendix	  29

-------
                                                                B-6
                         INTRODUCTION



      Septic Leachate Pluses - Types and Characteristics






     In porous soils, groundwatar inflows frequently convey



 •-zistevaters fror: nearshcre septic units through bottom sediments



 a-i ir.to lake waters, causing attached algae growth and algal



 bloods.  The lake shoreline is a particularly sensitive area



 since:  1) the groundwater depth is shallow, encouraging soil



 "water saturation and anaerobic conditions;  2) septic units and



 ler-chir.g fields are  frequently located close to the water's



 e.ija, allowing only  a short distance for bacterial degradation



 cLT-d soil adsorption  of potential contaminants-,  and $) the



 recreational 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 actively  emerge along shorelines, raising



 sediment nutrient levels  and creating local elevated concen-



 trations of nutrients (Eerfoot and Brainard, 1978).  The



 contribution of nutrients from subsurface discharges of shoreline



 Septic units has been estimated at 30 to 60 percent of the total



 nutrient load in certain  New Hampshire lakes (LRPC, 1977).



     Vzstevater effluent  contains a mixture of  near UV fluorescent




 orjanics derived from whiteners,  surfactants and natural




•-«gradation products  which are persistent under the combined
                              -1-

-------
                                                                     B-6
                    '^-SEPTIC TANK
                    X
                 SEPTIC LEACHATE
FIGUR:
Excessive Loading of Septic Systems on Porous
Soils Causes  the Development of Plumes of
Poorly-treated  Effluent Which Move Laterally
with Groundwater Flow and May Discharge Near
the Shoreline of Nearby Lakes.

-------
                              -3-                               B-6









 i	-j_tior.s of low 0x70311 and limited, rricrobial  activity,



 7:-u-e 2 shows two samples of sand-filtered effluent  from the



 C3is Air Force Ease sewage treatment plant.  One  was  analyzed



 -"-mediately and the other after having sat in a darkened  bottle




 for si>: months at 20°G.  Kote that little change  in fluorescence



 v=3 ao-arent, although during the aging process some  narrowing



 ". -  "he fluorescent region, did occur.  The aged  effluent



 percolating through sandy loan soil under anaerobic conditions



 reaches a stable ratio between the organic content and chlorides



 which are highly mobile anions.  The stable ratio (conjoint



 si.cr.al) between fluorescence and conductivity allows  ready



 direction of leachate plumes by their conservative tracers as



 an early warning of potential nutrient breakthroughs  or public



 health pvobletns.



     The Septic Leachate Detector (ENESCO Type 2100 "Septic



 Snooper") consists of the subsurface probe, the water intake



 system, the analyzer control unit, and the graphic recorder



 (.Figure 3)«   Initially the unit is calibrated against stepwise



 increases of waste-water effluent,  of the type to be detected,



 s^csd to the background lake water.   The probe of the unit is



 tnen placed in the lake water along the shoreline.  Groundwater



 seeping through the shoreline bottom is drawn into the sub-



 surface intake of the rrobe and travels upwards to the analyzer



unit.   As  it passes through the analyzer,  separate conductivity




£•"-•-- specific fluorescence signals  are generated and sent to



z signal processor which registers the  separate signals on a

-------
                                                                       B-6
  7'
u
o
Z
LJ
LJ
_
UJ
G:
 20H
  10-
        g.^in_RLl£R.Ep. SECONDARILY-TREATED
        WASTE WATER.EFFLUENT
                                    NEWLY SAND  FILTERED
                                    OTIS EFFLUENT
                             AGED
                             SAND FILTERED
                             EFFLUENT (6mo.)
             300
          FIGURE2 .
        400           £00
      WAVELENGTH (nm)

Sand-filtered Effluent Drcduces a Stable
Fluorescent Signature, Mere Shown Before
	    and After Aging.	

-------
                                                B-6
                                         EFFLUENT

                                          INDEX
    ENDECO" SEPTIC LEACHATE DETECTOR (SEPTiC .SNOOPER1") SYSTEM DIAGRAM
 -•* _-_' _"** 'j^^M^.TT'-qtv^i.SS* .r^'J^--^ ™-~-.~r
l-^S^i^^^M^^^^y^St^^l^;
>'. • •—• -'vi.iS'.r-r^Ssf-^^K*' v^^V"^-^>-<-iKVir^ Hir'• n^r1*'^-^*^



^'•^TB^iiiM^
       ^.  ..".   „  ^ , •  ,  ".;,. .-^ piloted Alcno the Snore! me.
       me bmt is Mounted in a_ooau ,n, Pn« ;o  o        Takefi at
       Here the Probe ,s Shown^n^the -a^, n^:d Analysis.
       rho rn'c<-navno nr TUP in'il.. i >-• •  uGwCi  " -

-------
                             -c-                                B_6


 c-„,',-  ci-art recorder as the boat moves forward.  The  analyzed
 .^.-z.-,,  j_s continuously discharged fron the unit back into  the
 receiving water.

 Type 5  cf ?lu~es
     The capillary-like structure of sandy porous soils and
 horizontal srrounivater movement induces a fairly narrow pluae
 iron malfunctioning septic units.  The point of discharge along
 the  shoreline is often through a SID all area  of lake bottom,
 co~ncnly forming an oval-shaped area several meters wide when
 the  seo~ic unit is close to the shoreline.  In denser subdivisions
 containing several overloaded units the discharges may overlap,
 ferr.ing a broader increase.
     Three different types of groundwater-related wastewater
 plumes sre commonly encountered during a septic leachate survey:
 A) erupting plunes, B) passive plumes, and C) stream source
 piu-es.  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
 ether salts).   The active  emerging of the combined organic and
 inorganic residues into the shoreline lake water describes an
 erupting p?,ume.   In seasonal dwellings where wastewater loads
vary in tine,  a plune cay  be apparent during late summer-when
shoreline cottages sustain heavy use, but retreat during winter
curing low flow conditions.  Residual orgp.nica from the waste-
water often still  reraain attached to  soil particles in the

-------
                             -7-                               B-6


vicinity of the previous erupting oluce, slowly releasing  into
*v,3 q>o-8line waters.  This dormant t>lume indicates  a Drevious
L*j_*C.'-'—*-'~                            ~                  *
b"°3!cthrou§h, but sufficient treatment of the plume  exists
u~ier current conditions so that no inorganic discharge  is
acsarsnt.  Stream source plumes refer to either groundwater
leachiugs of nearstrearn septic leaching fields or direct pipe
discharges into streams which then enpty into the lake.

-------
                             -8-
           2.0  METHODOLOGY - SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS





     Water sampling for nutrient concentrations along the



 shoreline are coordinated with -che septic leachate profiling



 to clearly identify the source of effluent.  The shoreline of



 Crocked/Pickerel Lake consists predominantly of sandy loam soils,



 A profile of the shoreline for emergent plumes was obtained by



 •rsnually towing the septic leachate detector along the lee side



 of the shoreline in a 5 meter fiberglass rowboat.  As water was



 drawn through the probe and through the detector, it was scanned



 for specific organics and inorganics common to septage leachate.



     Whenever elevated concentrations of leachate were indicated



 or. the continual chart recorder, a search was made of the area



 to pinpoint the location of maximum concentration.  At that time



 1) a surface water sample was taken from the discharge of the



 defector for later nutrient analysis, 2) an interstitial



 groundvater sample was taken with a hand-driven well-point



 sampler to a depth of .3 meter and 3) finally a surface water



 S3.~p.le for bacterial content (total and fecal coliform) was



 also taken.   The combination of the triple sampling served to



 :'--i:::iiy che source of effluent.   If the encountered plume



 originated from ground-water seepage,  the concentration of



nutrients  would be  considerably, elevated in the well-point



sanple.  If  the source were surface effluent runoff, a low



nutrient -round-water content would exist with an elevated

-------
                                                                 B-6
bacterial content.  If a stream source occurred, an  isolated

sinsle rslume would not be found during search, but instead  a

broadening Dluae traced back to a surface water inlet.   Ground-

water samples taken in the vicinity of the surface outflow  would

also not show as high a nutrient content as the surface  water

samples ,

     V.ater samples taken in the vicinity of the peak of  plumes

were analysed by SPA Standard Methods for the following  chemical

constituents:

          Conductivity (cond.)
          Atnaonia-nitrogen (NE^-N)
          Nitrate-nitrogen (NOj,-N)
          Total phosphorus (TP?
          Orthophosphate phosphorus (PQ^-P)

A total of 29 water samples were obtained at locations of selected

pluses for analysis.  The samples were placed in polyethylene

containers, chilled, and frozen for transport and storage.

Conductivity was determined by a Becksan (iModel HC-19) conductiv-

ity bridge, ammonium-nitrogen by phenolate method, nitrate-

nitrogen by the brucine sulfate procedure, and orthophosphate-

phosphorus and total phosphorus by the single reagent procedures

following standard methods (EPA, 1975)

     Va^er samples for bacterial analysis were placed in steri-

lized 150 ml glass containers obtained from the Emmet County

health Eepartment and mailed to the Michigan Department  of

Public Health, Bureau of Laboratories at Grand Rapids for

analysis.   Analyses were performed for total coliforra bacteria

and fecal  coliforc by the membrane filter method.

-------
                             -10-
                     3.0  FLUME LOCATIONS





     .Crooked and Pickerel Lakes are shallow recreational lakes



 in the northern tip of Michigan near Little Traverse Bay on



 Lske Kichigar..   Crooked Lake averages 3.05 m in depth and



 Pickerel Lake Eaintains a greater mean depth of 3-96 m.  The



 elevation of both lakes is controlled by the locks of the inland



 •waterway system.  Prior to the period of the survey, November 18



 to 25, the elevation of the lakes was lowered approximately one



 zeter to lessen shoreline winter'ice damage.  Poorly drained,



 nearly level organic and sandy soils dominate the shoreline



 areas of the two lakes.  With the low relief of the shore,  it



 was not unusual to encounter only one meter depths at distances



 over 50 c.eters  cut from shore.



     A total of >1 pluses were observed along the accessible



 southern shore  of Crooked Lake and the Pickerel Lake shoreline



 (Figure 4).   Solid circles indicate erupting pluses, open circles



 are dormant  plumes,  and solid squares represent stream source



 plunes.   A line is drawn from each symbol to the location along



 the shoreline where  the plume was  encountered.   The highest



 pluze concentration  per shoreline  length "was observed in Pickerel



 Laxe  in the  vicinity of Ellsworth  Point and Botsford Landing.



While 11 pluses are  indicated in the Ellsworth  Point region,



tne broader  signals  may represent  composites of leachate from



nearby  fields and not  entirely individual sources.  Many were

-------
                             -11-
 r-e-^rkable by the distance from shore at which they could  still



 be  detected.  Near Botsford  Landing, an individual plume  was



 sfill  detectable 50 m from the shoreline.  Cccassionally doublet



 pluses were observed which may evidence double drainage fields



 oriented parallel to the groundwater flow towards the lake.  One



 such noticeable peak occurred on the approach to Botsford




 Landing.



     Only 7 dormant plunes (organic signal only), often indicative



 of  seasonal loading, were found.   Most of these (5) were found



 on  the north shore of Pickerel Lake.



     A broaa discharge of bog leachate was emitted from an ex-



 tensive region of hardwood forest  on Carbondale muck soils into



 Pickerel Lake (Figure 4).  The outflow of water had occassional



 sufficient upflow through the bottom sediments to fluidize the



 sandy  loaa and create "soft" spots into  which a leg could easily



 sink.   Although fluorescent, the organic discharge was easily



 characterized by its different spectral  emission, its reduced



 conductance of 150 nmhos, and low  nutrient content.



     Beginning with the  Ellsworth  Point  region and continuing



 along  the remaining e:cpanse of shoreline,  particularly en the



 southern and eastern shores, a high ratio  of  plumes to housing



 units  was apparent.   Sanitary surveys of the  southern shore of



 Crcorie'l Lake and periphery of Pickerel Lake have described



 ssv~;?6  roil and groundwater limitations  for septic tank disposal



fields  within 100 meters of the shoreline.  Depth to seasonal



     ground.-:ater is  0 -  2 feet for all lots on Crooked Lake

-------
                             -12-
within the survey area east of segment 19 (Figure 5).  Only 19



Iocs in Pickerel Lake were identified with depth to seasonal



grcunivater greater than 1.3 n (4 ft.).  The soils are poorly



or so-ewhat poorly drained with a seasonal high ground-water table,



rsrid noderate and moderately slow permeability (U3DA, 1973).



     A low density of plumes was observed around the periphery



of Oien Island despite the unsuitable soils condition.  As an



island, the area nay have very low rates of groundwater flow



since recharge would be restricted to rainfall received by the



island area.   The reduction of groundwater drainage rates may



reduce the breakthrough of pluses from the leaching fields.



     Certain shorelines were not included in the continuous



transects due to heavy ice formation during the latter days of



the survey.   Sampling through ice holes placed from 3 to 6 meters



froa shoreline along the Henry-Channel region revealed noticeable



quantities of effluent in the lakswater under the ice (Figure 7)-



Analysis of the nutrient content of all samples showed a



significant correlation between  plume strength and soluble



phosphorus,  clearly indicating that plunie emergence is affecting



the quality of surface water.

-------
©ERUPTING PLUME
O DORMANT PLUME
a STREAM SOURCE PLUME
%ICE COVER
:: BOG DISCHARGE
Figure  4.   Plume locations on  Crooked Lake  and Pickerel Lake.

-------
                                                               B-6
                    4.0  NUTRIENT ANALYSES

     Completed analyses of the chemical content of 28 samples
taken along the Crooked/Pickerel Lakes shoreline are presented
in Table  1.  The sample letters refer to the locations given in
?i,rure 4-.   The symbol HS" refers to surface water sample and
the symbol "G" to groundwater sample.   Freezing temperatures
limited the groundwater samples to only four.   Air temperatures
of 20°~25°F would freeze the .samples in the stainless steel
well-point before the sample could be  transferred to a receiving
flask.
     The  conductivity of the water samples as  conductance
(pmhos/cm) is given in the second column.   The nutrient analyses
for orthophosphorus (PCL-?), total phosphorus  (TP),  ammonium-
nitrogen  (NH.-N), and nitrate-nitrogen (NO^-N) are presented in
the next  four columns in parts-per-million (ppm - mg/1).

-------
 
-------
1,  (coni,inuod )
Samnle Cone en
Number Cond. PO^-P
t rat ion
TP
(ppin -
Break through.
mg/1) Ratio Efficiency
KO,-N G P N P N

Y S 405
32 S 469
33 S 418
34 G 411
35 S 435
Background concentrati
400
Effluent (lagoon)**
167

Local effluent
002
007
003
004
002
on (G)
121


Surface wate-r influence
Corr. coeff. (r)
cond. ao X .64
2 value at 3crz .758*. 75
significance sig.
* bog
** nnr>nrf>ntlv diluted
L hv Tni
.005
.009
.004
.005
.004
.004
1.930


.23
Insig.
nfall
.014
.021
.01G
.018
.019
.014
4.148


.05
inaig
.162
.115
.120
.124
.134-
.010
.267 £
i
+400 +8 +20
NH^-N + N07-N
-.13 .20
insig. inaig.
                                                                                                 cr>

-------
                                                                  B-6
                             -17-
                  5.0  NUTRIENT RELATIONSHIPS



     By the  use of a few calculations, the -characteristics of


the vastewater plunes can be described.  Firstly, a general


background concentration for conductance and nutrients is


de-emined.   'The concentration of nutrients  found in the plume


is then compared to the background and to wastewater effluent


frc.a the lake region to determine the percent breakthrough of


phosphorus and nitrogen to the lake water.  Because the well-


point sampler does not always intercept the  center of the plume,


the nutrient content of the plume is always  partially diluted


by surrounding ambient background groundwater or seeping lake-


water concentrations.   To correct for the uncertainty of location


cf withdrawal of the groundwater pluxe sasple, the nutrient


concentrations above background values found with the groundwater


plurze s re corrected to the assumed undiluted concentration


anticipated  in standard sand-filtered effluent and then divided


by the nutrient content of raw effluent.   Computational formulae


c an b 3 e >rr> r eased:


     fcr the difference between background (CQ) and
     observed (Cj_) values:


          C^ - C  = AC.       conductance


          T'P,  - T?  =. ATP-    total phosphorus


          Si's-  - TN  =«AN.     total nitrogen  (here sum of

                  0     X    NOrN and NH^-N)

-------
                                                                  B-6

                              -16-
      for  attenuation curing  soil passage:

                  A?.    = %  breakthrough of phosphorus
                          a? breakthrough of nitrogen
              C    =• conductance of background groundwater  (umhos/ca)

              C-   =• conductance of observed pluae groundwater
                     (umhos/cm)

              AC f = conductance of sand-filtered effluent minus
                e~   the background conductance of municipal
                     source water Qiahos/cni)

              TP   = total phosphorus in background groundwater
                0    (ppra - mg/1)

              TP.  *= total phosphorus of observed plume ground-
                1    water (ppm - mg/1)

              TN   " total nitrogen content of background ground-
water, here calculated as NOz-N 4- NH^-N
(ppm - Eg/1)
                     (pp

              TN.  = total nitrogen content of observed plume
                     groundwater, here calculated as NO,-N + NEL-K
                     (ppm - mg/1)                      ^

5-1  AssuEed Was te water Characteristics

     Local samples of effluent obtained at the Benzonia County

and E""8t; County sewage treatment plants exhibited a conductance :

tc-al phosphorus : total nitrogen ratio of 700:8:20; subtracting

the background lake water concentration of 300 /mhos/cm gives a

AC:AT?:AT'N ratio of 400:3:20 representing the change in concen-

tration to source water by household use in the Crooked/Pickerel

Lakes region.   Of note, the addition of total dissolved solids

(?s indicated  by AC) tends to be higher than soft water regions

-------
                                                                   B-6
                             -19-
which often show "a" AC:ATP:ATN ratio of 200:8:20 (Kerfoot and
Brainard, 1978;  Kerfoot, et. al., 1976).  The common use of
water softeners  in the hard water areas may be a partial
contributing factor.
5.2  Assumed Background Levels
     Little information exists on background groundwater con-
centrations in the Crooked/Pickerel Lake area.  Generally, the
interstitial, lake  bottom groundwater tended to be slightly higher
in dissolved solids and therefore conductance, than the raw lake
water.  Sample V which was taken away from plume regions exhibited
a conductance of 3^5  pmhos/cm compared to 300 ;imhos/cm for
normal lake water  in  the Pickerel Lake region.  Surface water
samples taken near ice or under ice in Crooked Lake showed a
conductance over 4-00  ^imhos/cm.  All samples exhibited elevated
ammonia nitrogen levels, presumably due to water-logged soils
with organic content  which promotes reducing conditions.  The
total phosphorus content of sample W was low at .OQ4- mg/1, although
             plume
•ill groundwaterAsamples taken had elevated phosphorus levels,
"gain indicative of lessened binding under the more acid soil
substrate and chemically reducing conditions.   Nitrate-nitrogen
values were quite  variable and the average background for
groundwater samples was found to be about .010 ppm.
Table 2«   Background  groundwater levels for chemical constituents
          in  interstitial  water of Crooked/Pickerel Lake sediments.
                           Cond.          Nutrient Cone, (mg/l)
     Constituent         (umhos/cm)     TP     NH^-N     NO^-N
     Value                  400       •- .004-     .014-      .010

-------
                                                                  B-6
                             -20-
5.3  Attenuation of Nitrogen Coapounds
     On the basis of observed ratios of total nitrogen found in
the limited sampled groundwater plumes, breakthrough of nitrogen
content ranged from a high of 32$ to a low of 1% of that expected
from the typical effluent (Table 1).  A mean of 18# penetration
was observed based upon the three samples with sufficiently high
conductance for meaningful analysis.  The dominant nitrogen
species was NIL-N, consistent with water-logged, saturated soils.
5.4  Attenuation of Phosphorus Compounds
     Similarly, analysis of the observed ratios of total phos-
phorus found in groundwater plumes indicated a high of 28$ and
a low of 2.% breakthrough of phosphorus content.  A mean penetration
of 13$ was calculated from the observed groundwater samples.
A regression analysis was performed to indicate if any positive
correlation existed between the strength of plumes, as indicated
by absolute conductance, and the presence of nutrient species.
Correlation coefficients (r) calculated for conductance and
orthophosphorus, total phosphorus, NK^-N, NO^-N and combined
KH^-N and NO^-N were, respectively,  .64-,  .23, .05, -.13, and
.20.   A noticeable correlation between soluble orthophosphorus
(inorganic P)  and plume strength,  significant at the 3tf  level,
                                                       u
indicated that plume emergence was having a detectable effect
on lake surface water phosphorus concentrations.

-------
                                                                 B-6

                             -•21-
            6.0  COLIFOSM LEVELS IN SURPACE WATSHS


     A series of water samples ware analysed for total and fecal

coliform content (Table 3) to determine the contribution of

septic leachate plumes to bacterial content.  Crooked/Pickerel

Lake is considered a recreational lake with surface waters

classified for total body contact recreation.  The Michigan

Water Resources Commission has stated that fecal coliforms shall

not exceed 200 organisms per 100 nil in five or more consecutive

samples.  Although source is indicated, all are surface water samples,



               Table 3,  Bacterial content of plumes.

     Location    Type of Plume    Coliform Content (#/100 ml)
                                      Total        Fecal
E
I
K
L
M
N
0
P

Q
s

T
U
V
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Surface water
(Barry Creek)
Groundwater
Surface water
(Minne Creek)
Groundwater
Groundwater
Background
100 <10
<100 <10
600 <1O
900 
-------
                                                                 B-6
                            -22-
           7.0  RELATIONSHIP OF ATTACHED PLANT
                       GROWTH TO PLUMES

     A Crooked/Pickerel Lakes sanitary survey conducted by
 the University of Michigan Biological Station (UMBS, 1978)
 included a visual observation of the shoreline area for Clado-
 phora, a microscopic, bright green filamentous algae which often
 forms dense patches of growth in the presence of high nutrients.
 The Cladophora study revealed a high correlation between
 Cladoohora growth and residents who use water excessively,
 residents who feed waterfowl and residents who do not maintain
 their septic systems by cleaning them at least every eight years.
     On-site inspections and questions about performance and
 history of the sewage treatment systems established that J3$ of
 those on Pickerel Lake had a history of problems such as ponding
 of effluent, backing up, odor, etc. (UMBS, 1973).  Approximately
 54# of the residences on Crooked/Pickerel Lakes which had
 suitable Cladophora substrates in the beach shoreline area
had algae growth.  On Pickerel Lake, 52% of lots which have
Cladophora growth are closer than the existing 50-foot separation
of distance in the Michigan State Sanitary Code.  No significant
correlation existed between Cladophora. growth and whether the
•residence was year-round or seasonal.
     The relationship between the nutrient loading per shoreline
area, estimated from plume emergence, and that of Cladophora
occurrence is presented in Table 4.  The plume frequency is

-------
                                                                   B-6
                             -23-
divided into different segments along the shoreline shown in
Figure 6.  Plumes were observed associated with a mean of 29#
(1/3) of the shoreline housing units, a rather high percentage.
The nutrient loading per segment was computed using the mean
observed frequency of breakthrough of N and P observed for the
average plume times a per-swelling loading of 9-1 kg/yr N and
3.6 kg/yr P.  In segments 3 through 6, 10 through 12,  14, and
16 where the projected phosphorus loading exceeded 2.4- kg/yr/mi,
a substantial number of lots experienced Cladophora growth.   The
Cladophora patches approached carpet-like thickness in segment
16, indicative of a high rate of nutrient input.   The  limited
groundwater samples taken in the area showed substantially
elevated phosphorus levels with mean concentrations of .088
soluble phosphorus (PO^-P) and .210 total phosphorus (TP).
In addition, a significant correlation existed between plume
strength indicated by conductance recorded by the septic leachate
detector and soluble phosphorus in the overlying  surface waier.
     The poor soil conditions, aided by (a) excessive  water use
which increases flow rate and reduces residence time in the soil
column and (b) the closeness of drainage fields to the shoreline
area, results in the groundwater transport via subsurface plumes
from individual septic units of sufficient nutrient loads to
sustain Cladophora growths along the shoreline where suitable
substrate exists.

-------
Table  4.  Calculated phosphorus loading per shoreline length based upon observed
           frequency of plumes and $ breakthrough of nutrients.
Segment
Housing
Units (H)
// of Ma,1or
Plumes (P)
Nutrient P Loading/ Recorded
Loading Approx. Shoreline Lota with
Frequency Ocg/yr) Shoreline Length Cladopjiora
(#) P N Length (mi) (kg/yr/mi) (Hl-fiTs, T975)

1
2
3
4
6
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
3
3
10
10
23
18
4
5
0
15
14
16
14
:H
3
61
3
4
37
0
2
3
3
+
1
—
—
0
3
4
4
2
9
3
11*
1
1
5
0
67
30
30
?
6
—
—
—
20
29
25
14-
26
100
18
33
25
14
0
.9
1.4
1,4
—
• 5
_
—
0
1*4
1.9
1.9
.9
4.2
1.4
5-2
• 5
• 5
2.4
1.6
3.3
4.9
4.9
_
1.6
—
-
0
4.9
6.6
6.6
3.3
15.8
4.9
18.0
1.6
1.6
8.2
.5 o
i.o .9
.3 4.7i
1.1 1.3
.9 + -
1.0 .5
.7
.4
.7 0
.6 2.3i
.8 2.4]
.6 3.2J
.5 1.8
.5 8.4
.6 2.3
.9 5-7
1.3 .4
.5 1.0
oO 3.0
1?
0

14

5
-
-
-

6

-
4
-
13
0
1?
«•
                                                                                               I
                                                                                               rvj
*some may be composite scans
                                                                                                w

-------
                                                                     SEG. ii  \;L_SEG. 12
                                                                        T
0 ERUPTING PLUME
O DORMANT PLUME
K STREAM SOURCE PLUME
%ICE COVER
;: BOG DISCHARGE
                                                                        SEG. 15
Figure  *?.   Segmentation  of  Crooked Lake and  Pickerel Lake  shorelines for
            nutrient loading.
                                                                                            i
                                                                                            ro
                                                                                            vn

-------
                             -26-
                       8.0  CONCLUSIONS





     A septic leachate survey was conducted along the south shore



of Crocked Lake and the entire shoreline of Pickerel Lake during



November, 1978.  The following observations were obtained from



the shoreline profiles., analyses of groundwater and surface water



samples, evaluation of groundwater flow patterns, and comparison



of attached algae growth with plune location:



     1,  Over 51 groundwater plumes of wastewater origin were



observed along the accessible southern shore of Crooked Lake and



the Pickerel Lake shoreline.



     2.  A high mean frequency of 29^ of the residential units



surveyed exhibited shoreline plunes.   The highest density of



plumes per shoreline length were found in the  regions of Ellsworth



Point, Botsford Landing and Kenry-Channel pLoads.



     3.  A high correlation existed between the location of



emergence of plumes and attached algae growth, particularly



Cladophora.   Gro.undwaters obtained near peak concentrations of



the outflow of the observed plumes contained sufficient nutrients



to support attached algae and aquatic weed growth.



     4.  Poor removal of phosphorus and nitrogen in the waste-



water occurs during passage through the shoreline soils.  An



observed mean breakthrough of phosphorus was \J>% and nitrogen,




principally  in the ammonium fors,  was

-------
                                                                 B-6
                             ~2'7—
     5.  A noticeable correlation between soluble orthophosphorus
(inorganic P) and plume strength, significant at the Jer  level,
indicated that plume emergence was having a detectable effect
on lake surface water phosphorus concentrations.
      6.  No bacterial samples were found in excess of State
standards for recreational use, indicating no apparent surface
overflows of shoreline sectic units.

-------
                             -28-                                   B~6
                          R3F3HSNCE3


EPA, 1975-   Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes.
     Environmental Protection Agency, NSRG, Analytical Control
     Laboratory,  Cincinnati, Ohio ^5263.

Kerfoot, *.  E.,  B. H.  Ketchum, P. Kallio, P. Bowker, A. Mann,
     and C.  Scolieri,  1976.   Cape Cod waste v/ater renovation
     end retrieval system -  a study of water treatment and
     conservation. Technical Report WHO1-76-5, Woods Hole
     Oceanographic Institution, *>oods Hole, MA.

Kerfoot, V.  B.  and E.  C,  Brainard, 1973.   Septic leachate
     detection  -  a technological breakthrough for shoreline
     on-lot  system performance evaluation.  In:  State of
     Knowledge  in Land Treatment of Vastewater, H. L. McKim (ed.)
     International Symposium at the Cold  Eegions Research and
     Engineering  Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire.

LHPC, 1977-   Discussion of nutrient retnetion coefficients,
     Draft Report 6F2  from Phase II_Nonpoint Source Pollution
     Control Program,  Lakes  Hegion Planning Commission,
     Meredith,  New Hampshire.

UHBS, 1978.   Sanitary  systems of Crooked  and Pickerel Lakes,
     Emmet County, Michigan:  an on-site  survey.  Technical
     report  to  the US3PA, Water Division  ptegion V.  Prepared
     by the  Biological Station, University of Michigan,
     Pellston,  Michigan.

USDA, 1973-   Soil survey of  Emmet County, Michigan.  United
     States  Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
     and Michigan Agrecultural Experiment Station.  Soil
     Conservation Service, U.S.D.A.,  Washington, D.C. 20250

-------
                                         B-6
APPENDIX

-------
O ERUPTING PLUME
O DORMANT  PLUME
c STREAM SOURCE PLUME
\\ICE COVER
:: BOG DISCHARGE
 Figure 6.   Sampling tracks.
                                                                                                  to

-------
  Track A
SegEent 16

-------
ifepvf^
M.Y-'i:-I'l.! iV*; 'frte^Wi!!'!tji
niH'^'-'iiiX^ki:'':^^
                                                                         i; a;.
                                                                         !M ! i:
                                                                          tin
• i f
              i  ^ISM^MSfi?
                           i^*!^
                           bVi
                                                                            ! illil;!W

                                                                       Ml i£ CO»i'OI?AnON
                                                                         "ifitii
                                                                        IT
                                                                           a:
                                                                       ME II COftrOHAfH^M
                               ^fffff


                                v!Pv' ' ' hi' i • |'I
                                 , f f'HJ!   'Ml* -i j •,'!. ,M :i 'if ;• j j j;: i <

                                iiSyililNiiiliii^ii!!
                                      I M, NCW HAMI'SltlHC, I


                                      ||P!i||;if|||i;|;i; ;:|!:;
                                                                                           SAU M, t!IW MAMPSIIIRr. II -5.A.    I
           'i'-'Hi?TS4^
            ' '  ' '  ; j^Ji'j! ;!i i.;;|/7^^ii!! !.i;i||i^|jii;l^^
                             • j;;' j 1111 • 11 j j Y \ ', i', |!' ' *: i!
                             ii:iiiii.:::!.^ii^i! 'in
                                            |!;^
                                            iii!-
                            W,i//i!
                            Hi.i* A-r.i
                                                 Vtf?;
                                'f
                                     wrr <.oufCMiAifuN
ii'ii'iii^ii!
~,i<;^ta
   m
   I'J'lilli
                                                     'mm
                                           nii^fS'Atoi1
       ffil
                                              in
                    ;;:|i:i|i:{|]||||:!!i||!|

                    •:   '• .'i !i lii.l.'1:' |i!; nfeLkl^ i -iiyri^1'1
                    -   '.i .!' ;'|i'i'liiif!t7iti!i;l^|,^^T^:' ••' / .^I'lXi
                                                         t'M.I.M, ni'lV IIAMITillinC, U.5.A.
                                                        IMiiffl
                                         SsilillS
                                          1 ' . i• i. • '(•'• • .:
                                                                            mm
                                                                                ^
                                         n
                                          tA
                                         ft
                                          H
                                                         •jAi.rM, in «
                                                                           :^t
/):JS|4:

 *M:1:
                                                                            ¥\n
                                                                            iite:-':i:i'
                                                                            :>l-1.;<7.::^.

-------
Segments 9, 10, 11, 12, 1$,  14,  15

-------
          Ml t. COItrOlfAtlON
,'  V       r~-

-------

J.M L t:OR('Of(#4!OII
                                          £»m.i. i« «
             -                               .-..

                         !

                                           FAt: w, fn w nAMr-'.iimc ti r^ A.
                                                                                                      UJ
                                                                                                       t

-------


-------
.•ymm'^mm
1-:::^
           :'''   '
I'lilMllli'lNilil'll'illiilji!!!!;;!:!;!?^

!/J'^:ijj:;!!j^i::;|:^
 , l;-.;i,:;k-i-..h:k •:!.!'' i*J';:<:!•! ilkt'-'-r:!'!'::'!--!^!
                  i   -A ;'.!:.;i~. :^y^
                                                                                                                                                                 CD
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 cr»

-------

-------

-------
     Track C
Segments 5 and 1?

-------
,   , -  .      ,.   , ^     I .  j,  ,.,. I,    ,   I • •  r''
                                                                                                                                                                                        bd
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                       CTi

-------
Mfem
i"'.:'P  !";-!il!i,ii.iii:.!::;}i!'  i,!
                                                                                                                                                                                                         Ao
                                                                                                                                                                                                          ta

-------
                                                    B-6
          Track D
Segrnenta 1,  2,  3,  4,  18,  19

-------
iiiiiiiiiijliili^llliiiiiliiSifl'rllS
iii'ri"1!!. iili'i IHhM^'i^iJiiiliiNi'Wlilii.iriiPPniM
^-^Wfflfe
      iiiiiitlltiiillifellliiililiil

-------

-------
: ;v ," • r-i'r ..'.-MI"'||:i-j;|i-!iM.|... !'>•';:>•>:•• ni!;|i|;>i'!;-:,';-y..'•1;;>"'1i'!l!IM.'!!|:"l'i|l|!"'I'.''•',[•" !'I;:|!!!;1|' •' : '• ';"rmi
                                 ' ll:- • ' .'•'' '! |'l:; 'ijii'1 i! .T '

 i^iidlilllpi|^*@liiiip;
 : ' M,!-;- \y\'\ .!•:::!:?•;!:•:•:•'^'"!•.';|:;;;H'' :j;i :;:|iiijv;!!'::H""^Ti!^^'RH^;P^!:-:^ht;itr?-i-
                  M;mMm^Mam:-Amm^
-.• •.. |;;- ,.,|; .;.,,;:;r|!i!,ui| ^^liiXj!;!!1':.!! iTjMiihiij'^i'-^ii1^]!^ ;!i;ii;Hi:hr;i!-S':iH! jliiPi;; ^ihi

 ... | •• ::,i; 4 -:;: ;-;^pTi^:!ii:,[,i,; ^i^piii ii!,!;.; iir^'ll^ir'V^'iir! 'r-\\ !!|i'ii'X.l!i!i!:'!i ^1^ ''•$• '|






••'•; i'':::'p!ii;!iM!!i!|ii!;i|!l'!;;:jl:iiiii!n!!OJ
ij^iM^^                              \-l$$?
llil^                                     He!''!*
                   MFF. COIli'fHiAMOU
                                                                 .Iji^iiilij;.  !vl^|;:j,;;ii;'!i:;!!i^i!'!tii|!;iii;:;!iii

-------
     |!!|1^

     SliiiiliiSliSiK
ipw S-pp11:;;i!. w mm-1.!.. :i .-=i Mr pi -1
Sil'iiliiiliiiiiiiM^^

-------
                                                           B-6
EFFLUENT.
                                    BOG  INFLUENCE
SAMPLE  L

BOG LEACHATE
                                    CROOKED/PICKEREL
                                    EFFLUENT 107, IN

                                    DISTILLED H20
           —i	1—i	1	1    ~r~
            250  300  350  400  450 .500
    Figure 7.  Synchronous fluorescent scans of effluent, bog
             leachatre and sencle 35 showing presence of effluent

             leachate in surface water.

-------
                                                APPENDIX
                                                  B-7
       Sanitary Systems of. Crooked and
         Pickerel Lakes, Emmet County
         Michigan:  An On-Site Survey
           Technical Report to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
           Water Division Region  V
                     From
          The University of Michigan
              Biological Station
              Pellston, Michigan
                November 1978

-------
                                                            B-7
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
       Tonic
                                                             Page
Introduction	]_

I.   The Household Survey 	 2

    A.   Survey Form	2
    B.   Survey Process 	 2

II.   Results	5

    A.   Dwelling Units	5
    B.   Sewage Disposal Systems  	 6
    C.   Environmental Features 	 .... 9
        1.   Cladophora Study	,  .  .  9
        2.   Soil Conditions	10

III.  Discussion	11

    A.  The Survey Process	,	11
    B.  The Survey Area	12
    C.  Responses	12
    D.  On-Site Inspections  	   13
    E.  Recommendation for Future Surveys  	   15

IV.   Summary of Survey Results	 ,  . .  .   16

    A.  Crooked Lake	16
    B.  Pickerel Lake	17

V.  Suggestions for Specific Areas 	   17

    A.  Crooked Lake	17
    B.  Pickerel Lake	,	20

VI.   References Cited	23
Appendix A  Survey Forms

Appendix B  Maps  of Lakes and Survey Areas

Appendix C  Soil  Maps of Survey Areas

Appendix D  Press Release and "Flier"

Appendix E  Table of Survey Information

-------
                               -1-

                                                           B-7
                          Introduction


A project to obtain site-specific qualitative and quantitative in-

formation by an approximately 300 home wastewater treatment systems

was conducted in and near Crooked and Pickerel Lakes, Emmet County,

northern lower Michigan.  This rural wastewater planning area of

Springvale and Littlefield townships is being considered for on-site

technology as an alternative approach wastewater treatment — provided

suitable soil and ground water conditions exists.  This project

also tested and evaluated the adequacy of surveys in obtaining and

recording information on sewage disposal adequacy in planning areas.

The sanitary survey compiles area wide data for on-site facility

characterists and identifies individual systems that may be creating

public health and environmental problems through malfunctioning and

that require improvement.

The actual survey took place during the period August 29-September

8, 1978 by Samuel Ehlers, Kevin Hughes, Sharon Mills and Joan Schu-

maker of the Biological Staion.  Mr. Ehlers was manager of the sur-

vey teams.  The project was directed by Mark Paddock.

-------
                               -2-





I.   The  Household Survey                                   B-7



    A.   Survey Form:




     The sanitary survey form used in the Crooked/Pickerel Lakes



planning area is modeled after the "Sanitary Survey for Construction



Grants Application" follwing the procedures and methods set forth by



Wapora,  Inc.   The survey form also includes parts used in other on-



site wastewater evaluations.  These, surveys are the Marshall-Farns-



\vorth Septic  Tank Survey of Bolinas, California and the Wastewater



Management Questionnaire used on Walloon Lakes, Emmet County by the



University of Michigan Biological Station project CLEAR in 1977.



The survey form covers six main topics:



     1.   Location and description of property



     2.   Resident occupancy.  Size of household, duration of



         occupancy, intended use and additions.



     3.   Sewage disposal system descrition



     4.   Service history of the systems



     5.   Use  and description of water facilities



     6.   Site characteristics



     7.   Sketch of property and facility



A copy of the survey form is included in Appendix A.



    B.   Survey Process :



     The location of the dwellings in the survey area were acquired



from Williams and Works' Little Traverse Bay Area-Charlevoix and



Emmet Counties-planning maps (1976) .  A news release announcing the



survey work was submitted to Petoskey newspapers and local radio



stations.   A  "Flier", designed to leave  on a front door when a



resident was  absent.  This flier explained who the surveyor was,



the purpose of the survey and that further attempts would be made to

-------
                              -3-
                                                           B-7

contact the resident.  A sample flier is found in Appendix D.

     Between August 20th and September 3rd surveyors conducted

resident interviews and facility inspections at dwellings on  Crooked/

Pickerel Lake.  Contact was attempted with each owner or resident

three times.  After the first unsuccessful visit, neighbors were con-

tacted to obtain information about the absent resident.  Often

neighbors would know plans of seasonal residents or could tell the

surveyor when to expect the person at home.  Names were taken from

mail boxes and telephone calls were placed in the evening to  schedule

visits.

     Surveyors gave brief introductions similar to those written in

the "flier" (appendix B) and requested to speak with the person most

familiar with the dwelling and facility.  Interviews averaged 20 to

30 minutes in length.  Additional times was required to make  the

on-site inspection and travel between residences.  A surveyor could

expect to complete from 10-12 surveys per day.

     If the residents could not answer questions (this \vas especially

true about septic system construction and history) surveyor recorded

this response as O.K. (don't know).  Or information was sought from

other sources—an absent member of the household, relatives, neigh-

bors, former owners, caretakers, or professional people such  as

septic system cleaners, installers, building contractors, and county

personnel.  When the residents could not be contacted and no  other

source was available to obtain information, it was recorded as N.A.

(not available).

     The survey area encompassed approximately 50 miles of road.  A

team of two surveyors per vehicle covered a given section of  road,

but only one surveyor per resident was needed so the team split up

-------
                               -4-
                                                           B-7
once the area was reached.  Four clusters of dwellings were identified.
     1.   Crooked Lake, south and east shore:  Hency Road, Core and
         Driftwood Drive, Oden Island, Oden Island Drive, Sunset
         Drive, Channel Road, Stanley Court and Oden Island Drive
         (mainland section)
     2.   Crooked Lake, northeast shore:  Burley Road
     3.   Pickerel Lake, south shore:  Ellsworth Point, Artesian Lane,
         Trails End, Ellsworth Road and Rupp Road,  Botsford Landing,
         Botsford Road and Lane, Camp Petosega and Camp Petosega
         Road.
     4.   Pickerel Lake, north shore:  Mission Road, Felder Road, Lake-
         view Road, McCarthy Road.
     Two hundred and thirty four dwellings were located within the
planning area.  The location and lot number of each dwelling is
mapped and the names of the owners is kept on file cards with the
University of Michigan Biological Station (See Appendix C).
     Investigations of dwelling sites were conducted following the
residential interview.  The purpose of the inspection is to  identify
existing or potential public health problems related to sewage dis-
posal.  Both the physical layout of the lot, with distances  noted
between  water sources, the dwelling, sewage disposal system,  adja-
cent lots,  and natural environmental features such as vegetation,
toppgraphy, and drainage were mapped.
     The Crooked/Pickerel Lakes sanitary survey also included
visual observation of the shoreline beach or breakwater area for
locating a  microscopic, bright-green, filamentous algae called
Cladophnra.   This algae grows only in presence of high nutrients or
as patches  near artesian well overflows, it grows only on a suitable

-------
                               ~'                          B-7




rock, concrete, decayed i^ood or metal substrates in the "wash"



area of the shoreline,  A study conducted by Tom Weaver, NortJwest



Michigan Regional Planning and Development Commission  (Traverse



City) indicated a high correlation between "poorly maintained" or



malfunctioning sewage disposal systems, lawn fertilization, or



wildfowl feeding, and algae blooms.  We incorporated a "Cladophora



Survey" into this study to determine if such correlation occurred
                                    V


also on Crooked/Pickerel Lakes.



     Data was later removed from the original survey forms and



placed on tables (appendix F).   Information most pertinent to the



analysis of on-site wastewater treatment is presented in the



Results section or as tables in Appendix E.



II.  Results



    A.  Dwelling Units :



     It was determined that 234 dwellings exist within 300 feet of



Crooked/Pickerel Lakes in the survey area.   Of these, 172 or 73.5?



were sampled only 62 or 26.5% were not available.  Table 1. Dwelling



Occupancy:



     Seasonal occupancy (SEA) if a dwelling occurs when the residents



     are away continuously for a period longer than two months.  Year-



     round occupancy (Y.R.) is  considered when the dwelling is



     occupied for a period longer than ten months.

-------
26
33 . 3
88
56.8
114
49
42
53.8
15
9.7
57
24-
10
12.9
52
33.5
62
27
•** J* W V. '
78
100
155
100
344
100
                               -6-

                            Table 1
                       Dwelling Occupancy
Crooked  Lake            Seasonal    Year-round     Not Available   Total
     Number
      I
Pickerel  Lake
     Number
      %
Total Both Lakes
     Number
      I
     As  may be  assumed,  sumcer is the preferred period for seasonal
residents.  Most  of these homes were occupied for a full three or
four months, but  about  251 of the population stayed on from spring
through  fall.   (.See Tables 2 and 3 Appendix F.)
     A sizeable portion or 19.3% of the seasonal residents indicated
an interest in  becoming percanent residents (See Table 4 Appendix E).
Also, 251 of the  seasonal residents are considering fundamental
changes  in their  dwelling such as additional bedrooms and bathrooms.
These changes also  would effect use of waste water systems in the
future.
    B.   Sewage  Disposal  Systems :
     Sewage disposal systems on Crooked Lake are generally older than
those on  Pickerel Lake:   63.2% of the systems on Crooked Lake are
over 10  years old compared to 48.51 on Pickerel Lake.  (Table 6
Appendix  E.)  On  both lakes about 16.5% of the systems are older
than 20 years of  age.

-------
                                                            B-7
     There is a significant difference between sewage disposal
system design on Crooked and Pickerel Lakes:  nearly 87% of the
systems on Crooked Lake are gravity-fed, dosed or pumped into
adsorption fields; compared to 691 of the systems on Pickerel Lake
which are similarly designed.  This means that nearly one-third of
the systems on Pickerel Lake compared to one-tenth on Crooked Lake
are either dry wells, combined septic tank and dry well, or pit
privy.  (See Table 7, Appendix F.)  Detailed information on sewage
disposal designs is given in Table 8, Appendix E.
     From the inception of the Emmet County Sanitary Code in the
spring of 1968, all construction of dwelling requires by law a
permit issued by the County Sanitarian that approves the design
and construction of a sewage disposal system.   Construction standards
for sewage disposal systems are as follows:
              Minimum Capacities for Septic Tanks
          Number of Bedrooms      Minimum Liquid Capacity (gals,)
          2 or less                            750
          3 or 4                              1000
          Each Additional
          bedroom beyond 4,
          additional                           250
Note:  the capacities in this table provide for a single family
residence including an automatic diswasher, mechanical garbage
grinder and dishwasher.
                    Minimum Distance in Feet
                      Septic Tank          Tile Field      Seepage Pit.
          Well            50                   50               50
          Lake or Stream  50                   50              50
     Sewage disposal systems which were installed prior to this

-------
                               _ 
-------
                              -g.
                                                            B-7
fact that their systems were older than ten years.

     On Pickerel Lake six residences in the Ellsworth  Point area

had "problem" sewage disposal systems due to low  soil  permeability

rates.  Only 2 residences, on Mission-McCarthy Roads,  exhibited

heavy water use and four sewage disposal systems  were  found under-

sized.  None of the systems on Pickerel Lake were poorly maintained.

    C.  Environmental Features:

        1.  Cladophora Study

     The Cladophora study reveals a very strong correlation between

cladophera growth and residents who use water excessively, residents

who feed waterfowl and residents who do not maintain their septic

systems by cleaning them at least every eight years.   (Recommended

cleaning of septic tanks is every 1-3 years depending  on the type

of household, amount of water use, number of residents, etc.)

There does not appear to be any significant correlation between

cladophera growth and whether it is a year-round  or seasonal dwel-

ling.  Approximately 541 of the residences on Crooked/Pickerel

Lakes which had suitable Cladophora substrates in the  beach/shoreline

area, had algae growth.  On Crooked Lake, the algae growth appears

due to excessive water use and waterfowl feeding.  On  Pickerel Lake,

the algae appears to be caused by waterfowl feeding and poorly main-

tained systems.  Other factors which might cause  Cladophora growth

are septic systems sited too close to the lake or one  undersized.

Pickerel Lake has a high percentage of systems which don't comply

with minimum separation distances.  On Pickerel Lake,  521 of the

lots which have Cladophera growth are closer than the  existing 50

foot separation distance in the code, and only 13% are not too close

to the lake.   (Table 10, Appendix E.)

-------
                              -10-
                                                           B-7
        2.   Soil Conditions

     According to Gold and'Gannon overlay maps (1978) and the
Soil Survey of Emmet County, Michigan there are severe soil and <
ground water limitations for septic tank disposal fields within
300 feet of the Crooked/Pickerel Lakes.  Depth to seasonal high
ground water is 0-2 feet for all lots on Crooked Lake within the
survey area.  Only 19 lots in Pickerel lake were identified with
depth to high seasonal ground water greater than 4 feet.  These
were found on Ellsworth Point. (Lots 111-120) and on Botsford
Landing (Lots 144-149, 165, 166-171).
     Criteria for Emmet County Sanitary Code approval specify that
construction of sewage disposal will not be approved "where the
maximum ground water level (or seasonal high ground water) is less
than 6 feet from the ground surface, or in the case of property
adjoining lakes, lagoons, rivers, or similar bodies of water, the
finish grade is less than 6 feet above the known high water mark".
All the lots within the Crooked/Pickerel Lakes survey area have a
slope of 0-6%.   This means that 100 feet in a horizontal direction
will have a 6 foot rise vertically.  Consequently, many of the 18
dwellings on Crooked Lake and 44 on Pickerel Lake that don't comply
with the minimum separation distance between sewage disposal systems
and the lakes,  including others which are between 50' and 100' of
the lake may not have legal depth to high ground water installations
     There  are  few exceptions to the generally severe soil limita-
tions.   The soils are commonly poorly or somewhat poorly drained
with a  high seasonal high ground water table, rapid moderate and
moderately  slow permeability (Table 11, Appendix E).   The poorly

-------
                               -'                          B-7

 drained soils, with moderately slow permeability  are  associated with

 slope  and  ground water  factors:

     Slope          Depth  to  Seasonal           Permeability
       %            High Ground Water             (inches/hr)

       0-6               0-2                         <  0.63

                         2-4                        0.63-2.0

                         > 4                        2.0-6.3,
                                                    6.3-20.0

     The "severe"  limitations  of the soils are either due  to  too

 rapid  permeability, or  too slow permeability when  combined with

 high water tables.  This includes the sands  (AcB,  KaB,  ScB) ,

 loamy  sands  (AuB,  BIB,  EaB) and mucky sands  (Br,Rc), the loams

 (Tin) and mucky and sandy loams (By, EuB, EmB, ToA,  Wr), and  the

 mucks  (Ta).  Table 11,  Appendix E).  The soils listed with "slight"

 limitations  are BIB, EmB,  EaB, and KaB, because the soil classifica-

 tion doesn't acknowledge that  these have high ground water tables.

 However, the  sands have rapid permeability and thus BIB,  EaB,  and

 KaB may cause "possible continuation of shallow water supplies".

 Ill.   Discuss ion

    A.  The  Survey Process:

     In order to facilitate such surveys and make  them  more  efficient

 we suggest the following routine:

     1) Use  township, county  or engineer's planning maps to  record

 the dwelling locations  within  the survey area and  use road maps to

 plan out the survey team's field approach.

     2) Work quickly through  the area initially and attempt to  make

 contact at every dwelling  in  the survey area.

     3) If contact is not  made initially, leave a  flier expressing

 the interest of the survey and some indication of  how the  surveyor

will try to make contact within the survey time period.

-------
                               -12-
                                                           B-7
     4) Seek, information from neighbors as to the name, whereabouts
and plans of the absent owner.  If possible, obtain a phone number
of the residence and call to set up an appointment.
     5) Second and third attempts to make contact with the residence
should involve tactics such as surveying during weekends and weekday
evenings.
     A technique recommended by Robert Marans, ISR, Ann Arbor, is
for the survey team to operate in pairs or groups for the first day.
One member conducts the interview and the others observe.  This
technique encourages standardized approach, language, and recording
of information.
    B.'  The Survey Area:
     The small size of the Crooked/Pickerel Lakes area and the
clusters of dwellings reduced the survey time.  It was therefore
possible to visit dwelling four to five times without serious ineffi-
ciencies.  In these clusters of homes, lots were only 50-75 feet
wide making door to door surveying quite rapid.
     The resort communities were established in the 1940's and 'SO's...
Neighbors often knew each othere well enough to provide information
about an absent neighbor, including, at times, enough information to
actually complete the survey and lead the on-site inspection to
their neighbor's lot.
    C.   Responses:
     Responses to the survey questions by residents were reliable
because they knew their properties, they understood the intent of
the survey,  and they were cooperative.  In general, it seemed resi-
dents either built  their own dwelling or had lived in it more than
ten years'and knew  its history.   Most residents were cooperative
and the majority of these were somewhat familiar with local waste.

-------
                               -13-
                                                             B-7
water  facility planning  and water quality management-primarily
due to earlier studies on  the  lakes by The University  of Michigan
Biological Station.  We  believe  this  awareness  increases the sur-
vey's  reliability.
     We found that professional  resources such  as  septic tank
clearners, installers, building  contractors, county personnel were
not as informative or useful as  we had earlier  believed.   Educated
guesses were normal, records were either incomple  or non-existent.
     For example, information  obtained from District Health  Depart-
ment No. 3 files for dwellings constructed after April  30, 1968
(the effective date, Emmet County Sanitary Code) was incomplete.
The issuance of permits  didn't take full effect until  the  arrival
of a county sanitarian in  1970 or 1971; the records for  the  first
2 years are few and in the years following 1970 or 1971  a  few con-
structed dwellings were  "bootlegged-in" according  to William Henne,
Emmet  County Sanitarian.   Furthermore, the permits that  are
issued specify minimum septic  tank and adsorption  field  sizes  for
the planned dwelling.  For small additional cost,  many  owners
installed larger septic  tanks  (not drainfields).
     These changes do not  show on the records.  Also, permits  give
inadequate descriptions  of lot locations especially lacking  street
addresses.
    D.  On-Site Inspections:
     Relief of the land, soil, water, and regetative characteristics
were mapped during the on-site investigation in an attempt to identify
improper sewage treatment  or public nuisances  (sewage-odors).   Such
problems were invariably due to  insufficient protective  distances
between water sources and  sewage disposal systems, or  undersized

-------
                              -14-
                                                           B-7

systems.

     Unnaturally lush vegetation, called "selective fertility",

may signify that the area over or near an adsorption field re-

ceives higher nutrients fron some source such as a malfunctioning

sewage disposal system.  However, this symptom may be caused by

more reasons than sewage disposal problems and therefore, wasn't

reliable.   For instance, old adsorption fields may develop an

inpermeable mat from scum and suds deposits and cause the effluent

to be pocketed in the upper soil layers, thus promoting greener

growth.  Heavy soils which have a high capacity for adsorbing

nutrients  and exchanging them as plant food, may be causing more

lush vegetation.  The true condition can be determined by inspec-

ting the  soil and the stone in the adsorption field.   A closer in-

spection  on questionable problem sites is advisable.

     Inspections for Cladophora. a bright green filamentous algae

which grows at the shoreline in the presence of high nutrients, is

being proposed as fairly reliable indicator of environmental con-

ditions.   The process needs only short additional recordings such

as the presence of a suitable substrate, existence of artificially

fed waterfowl or indication of the owners' use of lawn fertilizer.

     Sewage disposal systems which are not in compliance with sani-

tary codes need replacement.  However, the sanitary code is only

enforced  for new and recently constructed dwellings.   Hence, the use

of this information is limited by the restricted powers of the code.

     Often respondents didn't know the location of their septic

system.  Careful observation of the dwelling may reveal septic tank

"venting"  in the roof above a ground floor bathroom,  exposed access

covers at  ground level, "breeders", lush vegetation and local

-------
                             , -IS-                          B-7

settling or grading of the area where the adsorption field  is  found.
     Natural vegetation on the lot or adjacent land is an indicator
of the local soil and soil moisture or ground water qualities  of
the site.  Without training and a practiced eye for identifying
woody or herbaceous species that typify soil conditions, the mapping
is not thorough.  "Wet-loving" species such as black ash, red  and
silver maple, weeping willow, white cedar, alder and ninebark  indi-
cate medium to poorly drained, wet, organic or "heavy" soils.
Well drined, dry sites of sand or loamy sand and coarse textured
soil may have natural stands of red oak, red maple, red pine,  stag-
horn sumac, serviceberry and bracken fern.  They survey team did
not follow standard procedures for noting vegetation, so the results
are not a reliable source of data for Crooked/Pickerel Lakes,
    E.  Recommendations for Future Surveys :
     It is recommended that a standardized survey form be established
and that methods for running the sanitary survey and ways of evalua-
ting the data be explicit and well established.  The survey team
should be knowledgeable regarding the EPA's approach and position
for planning and design of rural waste water systems for the area
being surveyed.  The addition of an introductory note on the survey
form explaining the procedures of the US-EPA, plus a straightforward
survey which can be answered without the aid of the surveyor,  is
recommended.  The survey or should expect to field questions regar-
ding current EPA policies and procedures or provide new information,
mailing addresses or forms, dates of public hearings, etc.  This is
a very effective way to solicit public participation.
     On-site inspections of sewage disposal is critical to  the total
sanitary system evaluation and standardized training with established

-------
                                 '                        B-7
methods are needed.   The on-site inspection is not as thorough
enough with only observation of drainage, topography, and location
of facilities and vegetation.   We recommend that the survey  also
includes removal of sod froa the adsorption field to check for
"matting" due to detergents and scum and actual septic tank  in-
spection from access covers to check sludge and water levels, scum
or suds buildup^, general condition and size of septic tanks.   Soil
auguring to determine local soil and ground water characteristics
would also be valuable.  Natural vegetation can also be very help-
ful in determining soil and ground water conditions.
IV.  Summary of Survey Results
    A.  Crooked Lake:
     1.  53.81 of the Crooked Lake dwellings were used year-round  vs.
         33.3% which are seasonal.
     2.  8.8% of the seasonal  residents plan to make their cottages
         into year-round-dwellings.
     3.  65% of all  sewage disposal  systems on the Lake are  older  than
         10 years.
     4.  55% of the  sewage disposal  systems on Crooked Lake  do not
         meet the. Emmet County Sanitary Code.
     5.  Problems were found on 38.2% of the septic systems.
     6.  Problems were caused by:  excessive water use, poor mainte-
         nance,  unsuitable site conditions, old systems or the fact
         that the systems were too small.
     7.  Half of the dwellings had suitable substrate for growth of
         Cladophora  and of these, 57% had CladopllQra present.  Ex-
         cessive water use and/or feeding of water fowl appeared to
         be the  principal causes for padophora growth in front of
         dwellings.

-------
                              -17-

    B.  Pickerel Lake:
     1.  Only 9.71 of the dwellings were used year-round.
     2.  15.5% of the seasonal residents expect to live permanently
         on the lake in the future.
     3.  48.5% of the sewage disposal systems are older than 10
         years of age.
     4.  71% of the septic systems do not meet existing sanitary
         codes.
     5.  Only 15.6% of the dwellings exhibited problems.
     6.  Of the lots with substrates suitable for Cladophora growth
         (44.6%) only 23% showed presence of the algae.  The causes
         appeared to be feeding of water fowl and poor maintenance
         of septic systems.
     7.  Pickerel Lake had 19 lots with good depth to seasonal high
         water table characteristics, i.e., greater than four feet.
V.  Suggestions for Specific Areas
    A.  Crooked Lake:
        Henry Road Area:
     These 3 residences, 2 of them year-round, do not show.general
sewage disposal problems:  only one-has a history of problems.  How-
ever, they are located on unsuitable soils (a mucky sand).and a high
water table.  Together with the 3 residences on Cove Road and Drift-
wood Drive, Henry Road residences should be hooked to a cluster
system and pumped to higher elevation and coarser sands to the south
east.
        Cove Drive and Driftwood Lane:
     Three year-round residences with well maintained fifteen year
old systems, that show no problems, are situated on moderately per-

-------
                              -18-
                                                           B-7
meable soils.  One system is too close to the lake and not in com-
pliance with sanitary codes.  These residences do not need to up-
grade their existing sewage disposal systems.  However, it is recom-
mended that the one in non-compliance be moved and tha a mound be
used for the adsorption field.  An alternative to upgrading existing
on-site systems would be to hook into a cluster system on Henry or
Channel Road.
        Stanley Court, Channel Road, and Oden Island Road (mainland
        section]:
     This part of south Crooked Lake should be hooked on to a main
collector sewer system with a pressure or gravity main and the sew-
age transported to a treatment plant.  The area has poor soils and
a history of problems with existing on-site sewage systems.  The soil
permeability «0.63 in/hr) is extremely low, depth to high seasonal
ground water listed is 0-2 feet, and the soils are mucky loams and
sands.  Seasonal residents comprise only half the number of year-
round residents.  It is known that numerous seasonal residents as
well as the permanent residents commute to nearby Petoskey and
Harbor Springs for jobs and many seasonal residents had winter
homes in either of those two cities and will spend summers or week-
ends on Crooked Lake.  There, the sewage disposal systems are used
heavily.  Not surprisingly, there is high proportion of problem
systems and four of these show "ponding" of effluent.  There are four
old pit privies which may be a serious problem in the high ground
water.  Systems are generally older than elsewhere, many don't comply
with sanitary codes, some are poorly maintained and the density of
dwellings is the highest for Crooked Lake area.
     However, a central sewer system could pose a threat to some
adjacent undeveloped areas.  For instance, the east side of Channel

-------
                               - ±y-
                                                           B-7

Road is currently undeveloped.  Much of  this  land  is  in hardwood

and cedar swamp including the  sensitive  and ecologically valuable

Minnehaha Creek wetlands.  These wetlands are currently undeveloped

primarily due to the high water table and associated  problems with

on-site waste water disposal.  A large collector system may  eliminate

the waste water system restrictions and  encourage  development.

        Oden Island:

     Dwellings on Oden Island  are half seasonal and half year-round.

Four of the six systems which  showed problems were used year-round,

so excessive water use could be the biggest factor.   Lake frontages

average 190 feet, the average  age of the dwellings and  their sewage

disposal systems is 12 years.  Most of the systems were septic tank

and adsorption field type and  all complied with Emmet County Sani-

tary Codes.  The only sign of  problems was Cladophora. growth on

five lots.  Oden Island property owners have an active  Association

and good septic system maintenance records.  We recommend that these

systems be upgraded on site, perhaps with adsorption  fields  mounded,

or a cluster system using the  interior of the sandy island,

        Burley Road:

     Four of the five dwellings have problems with their septic  sys-

tems which are created by the  high ground water and wet loam.  So

suitable site appears to be available for a cluster system disposal

area.  Therefore, we recommend an upgrading of the existing  systems.

^"e do not recommend extending  a centralized sewer  line  from  the

southeast shore of Crocked Lake  across  the Crooked Lake channel to

Burley Road.  The adjacent lands on each side of the  channel are

very sensitive with Carbondale and Warner's mucks  which have severe

building limitations.

-------
                              -20-
                                                           H—7
    B.  Pickerel Lake:
        Ellsworth Point, Artesian Lane, Trails End and Ellsworth Road
     Good soils for parts of Ellsworth Point were identified and no
sewage disposal system exhibited problems nor was there Cladophora
growth in this area of Kalkaska  sand.  The only problem sewage
disposal systems were 6 that appeared to be caused by low permeabi-
lity soils.  There were however, a large number of sewage disposal
systems which don't comply with existing Emmet County Sanitary
Codes for minimum septic system size  (11 systems) and separation
distance from the lake (26 systems).  This may be due to the fact
that a number of them were septic tank-drywell combinations (16).
Cladophora growth is due to waterfowl feeding and poorly maintained
systems found here.
     Because of the close grouping of houses on the Ellsworth  Point
area the average age of sewage systems (15 years old), the poor
record of maintenance among that group of dwellings, and the change
in local soil conditions, it is recommended that the dwellings in
the western half and along Ellsworth Road be connected to a cluster
systems.  The density of the Trails End and Artesian Lane area is
high with the average lake frontage of 88 feet per dwelling.  There
is not enough lot size remaining for upgrading existing on-site
systems.  Suitable soils for an adsorption field may be found near
Pickerel Lake Road in sands at higher elevation, to the east and
west of Ellsworth Road and south of Pickerel Lake Road.
        Ellsworth and Rupp Roads:
     Of the 4 dwellings on Rupp Road, east of Ellsworth Road, 2
are seasonal and are coupled together with a private cluster system.
One of the sewage disposal systems show problems and only one
shows excessive water use.

-------
                               -21-
                                                            B-7

     Although  ground water  is  quite  high and  there  is  lotv permeabili-

 ty,  on-site  sewage  system should  remain as  exists on Rupp Road.  The

 soils  in  this  area  are Warner.-ls muck and are  poor for  home construc-

 tion.   Extension  of a cluster  system from Ellsworth Point or  creation

 of cluster system for Rupp  aoad is not recommended.

        Botsford  Landing:

     Botsford  Landing is approximately 30 years old.   Because of the

 age  of the systems  about half  of  them comply  with Emmet County

 Sanitary  Codes.   Only two systems exhibited "problems", and there are

 less severe  site  limitations.  Several lots are located on Kalkaska

 sand with depth to  high seasonal  ground water of more  than four feet.

 These  soils  have  moderate permeability.  The  only indication  of en-

 vironmental  problems is that 4 out of 5 dwellings had  growth  of Clad-

 ophora.  These were located to the east of  the Landing on lots with

 muck soils.

     Recommendations for the Botsford Landing area  are to improve

 existing on-site  systems or to create a cluster system and pump

 effluent to  the sandy soils to the south of the Landing nearer the

 Pickerel Lake  Road.  Because the  small average lot  size is approxi-

 mately  100 feet wide, improvements of existing on-site systems de-

 pends  on whether  residents will be able to  place adsorption fields

 on back lots south  of Botsford Lane  (currently, 14  back lots  have

 been built on).

        Camp Petosego:

     The owners at  the time of the survey had plans for a cluster

 system  for the 14 vacant buildings in the camp area.   The adsorption

 field for this was planned  for suitable soils east  of  the camp.  The

12 dwellings existing for the  camp owner had  a recently rebuilt

system.  No  improvements are required.

-------
                                 -                         B-7




        Mission,  Lakeview, Feldman and McCarthy Roads:



     There are 6  reported "problem" systems on the north shore of



Pickerel Lake, due to excessive water use and low soil permeabilities.



The soil types are loam and muck.  The average age of sewage dispo-



sal systems is about 13 years and more than two thirds of the systems



don't comply with code.  There is only 1 year-round resident.



     Because of the small  number of year-round residents, it is



recommended that  the most cost effective alternative be considered.



Clustering of systems on Felder Road and of the camp-resort commun-



ity to the west of Lakevie^^r Road with disposal on suitable soils



(sands) at a higher elevation is recommended.  These lots have on the



average 80-100 feet of lake frontage.  The McCarthy Road lots have



an average lake frontage of 260 feet and thus improvement of exis-



ting systems is reconmended.

-------
                              -23-
                                                            B-7
VI.  References Cited
Alfred, S. D., A. G. Hyde and R. L. Larson.  1973.  Soil Survey of

     Emmet County, MI.  U.S. Department of Agriculture in coopera-

     tion with the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.  99 p.



Gold, A. et al.  1978.  Environmental Features of Walloon Lake'and

     its Watershed  (Emmet and Charlevoix Counties, MI.) with


     special reference to Nutrient Management.  The University of

     Michigan Biological Station, Pellston, MI.  An investigation

     supported by the Walloon Lake Association.  81 p.



Gold, A., J. E. Gannon.  197S.  The suitability of Soils for On-Site

     Wastewater Disposal, Pickerel and Crooked Lakes.  The Universi-

     ty of Michigan Biological Station, Pellston, MI.  A study

     supported by the Environmental Protection Agency.  14 p.



Marans, Robert W., J. D. Wellman, S. J. Newman, J. A. Kruse.  1976.

     Waterfront Living:  A Report on Permanent and Seasonal Resi-

     dents in Northern Michigan.  Institute for Social Research,

     Ann Arbor, Ml  23u p.



Michigan District Health Department No. 3.  1968.  Emmet County

     Sanitary Code.  Hmmet County, MI  4 p.



Wapora, Inc.  1978.  A Sanitary Survey Methodology for Use in

     Planning Small Waste Flow Systems.  An unpublished report.



Weaver, T., C. Grant.  1978.  Unpublished Cladophora  study on Lake


     Lelanau,  Leelanau County,  MI.

-------
                                                   B-7
                   APPENDIX A



Crooked/Pickerel Lakes Septic System Survey Form
                  A 1

-------
                                                          B-7
                        OPTIONAL





Resident's Name	





Owner's Name
Mailing Address of Property
Street Address of Property:
Phone Number:

-------
             CROOKED-PICKEREL LAKES SEPTIC SYSTEM SURVEY
                                                               B-7
                                                  Unanswered
Residence  Number:                                  Questions
Survey  or  date:
Township:    Littlefield/Springvale;  Lake: Crooked/Pickerel
Lot Location:   Graham Rd./Channel. Rd./Oden Island
               Ellsworth Pt./Botsford Landing/Lakeview Rd.
               County Rd./Sadler's Landing/Other 	
Lake frontage:   yes/no
Lot size:   	 acres (1 acre = 200x200 sq.  feet)
Was additional  soil used to fill your site when your home was constructed?

I.  Resident/Occupancy
     1. Who is the owner of this property?	
  (If occupant is not owner)
         Can you give the name of the owner and how that person can be
         located?
         Can you provide any information regarding the use of this  house
         and the condition of the septic system?  yes/no

     2.   Are you a year-round resident or a seasonal resident?
                 year-round (10 mos.  or more)	
                 seasonal (less than 10 mos.)	
         If year-round:
         a.  How many residents live here year-round?	
         b.  Does  this number change during the year?  yes/no
         c.  At what time of year?  spring/summer/fall/winter
         d.  For how long?  4-10 months/3-4 months/4-8 weeks/2-4 weeks/
                           1 week/1 weekend
         e.  What  is the peak number of residents at any one time? 	
                                  -1-

-------
      If seasonal:
      a. What time  o£ year do you reside here?  spring/summer/fall/vinter
      b. For how long? 4-10 months/3-4 months/4-8 weeks/2-4 weeks/1 week/
                              weekends
      c. What is the average number of residents residing here during
         this time? 	
      d. What is the peak number of residents at any one time? 	
      e. Do you have plans to move here permanently? yes/no
             If yes, when?  1 year/3-5 years/5-10 years/more than 10 years

   3.   How many bedrooms does this house have? 	
   4.   Do you/owner expect to add on or nodify your home to:
         a- increase its capacity by adding on bedrooms or bathrooms? yes/no
         b. extend  its yearly use? yes/no  (winterization)

II.   Describe System
   1.   What is the  age of your house?  0-5 yrs/5-10 yrs/10+ yrs
   2.   What is the  age of your present septic system? 0-5 yrs/5-10 yrs/10+ yr
   3.   What type of system do you now have?
        septic tank + drainfield/dry well/nound/other 	/Don't know
       a. If "don't know", who would know?	
       b. If it is  a septic tank and drainfield or mound, what type o£
           drainfield is it?
              pumped (to drainfield)/gravity-fed (no pumping of wastewater/
              dosing (different time periods)/ distribution box (different
                sides of drainfield)/ alternate drainfields
                             (CIRCLE ALL APPLICABLE)
       c. What is the size of your septic tank or dry x^rell? 	gallons
       d. What is the size of your drainfield(s) ? 	square  feet
       e. Do you have access covers or risers to the septic tank/drywell?

-------
                                                             B-7
4.  Do you have plans  to  enlarge/improve your system in the next
   5 years?  yes/no    Describe:
.   Service History

1.   Has  the  septic  system ever been inspected?  yes/no/don't know
   If yes, when?  (give  dates)	
2.   Has  the  tank/dry  well ever been pumped?  yes/no/don't know
   If yes, a)  how long  ago:   this year/1-2 years/3-5 years/more than 5 yrs
          b)  how often is tank pumped: every year/1-2 years/every 3-4 year;
                                        other
   If "don't  know"  for 1.)  and 2.)>  who would know more?

           (installer-pumper/caretaker/neighbor/former owner/other)
V   a™  v,ic <•«•».•»•  nf-                           what time   When did it
3.   Any  history  of:            How often?     of year?    last happen?
      Back-ups
      Surfacing
         effluent
      Odors
      Other
4.  Have  you  repaired  your system in the last 1-2 years/3-5 years/
                 5-10  years/10 or more years?
         Describe:

-------
                                 -4-
                                                             B-7
 IV.  Use
    1.  Number  of water using  fixtures:  (note  w.c.  if designed to conser\
      	showers                       	bathtubs
      	toilets                       	garbage disposal
      	s inks                         	
      	clothes washing machine
              softener
                       dishwasher
     2.  Do you  fertilize your  lawn:   yes/no
                         (optional)
           Type of fertilizer?
           How many times/year?_
    3.  How often  do you water your lawn?   3  or more  times/week
                                         1-2  times/week
                                         less than once/\veek
    4.  Drainage  facilities
       a. basement sump
       b. footing drains
       c. roof drains
       d. driveway runoff

    5.  Water supply source
       yes/no/don't know
       yes/no/don't know
       yes/no/don't know
       yes/no/don't know

     community/shared well
     on-lot well
     other (describe) 	
                               don't know
       a. well depth
feet total/don't know
feet to drainfield/don't know
       b. If "don't know" for any of  the above, who  would know more?
Additional Comments:

-------
                         J -S-
                                                          ;B-7
survey continued

V.  ADDITIONAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS

    Slope:   restricted/acceptable

    Depth to seasonal high ground water:  less than 2 feet
                                          2-6 feet
                                          greater than 6 feet

    Pnosphorus retention:  Poor
                           Moderate
                           Good

    Permeability:   Too slow
                   Adequate

    Is home located in high density area:  yes/no

VI:  PROPERTY AND FACILITY SKETCH

         Include:   Surface Water
                   Signs of selective fertility
                   Vegetation present
                   Distance of tank and drainfield
                     from house and lake (feet*)
CLADOPHERA SURVEY

Suitable  substrate present:   yes/no

Cladophera present:   yes/no

Describe  abundance and location:

Do residents  feed ducks:   yes/no

-------
                                                       B-7
We are a group of four researchers from the University of
Michigan Biological Station, on Douglas Lake, in Pellston,
Michigan.  You may have heard of us before, because we all
worked under a National Science Foundation grant this
sunnier, calling ourselves Project CLEAR.  Now that the
Project work has ended, four of us are continuing work in
your area with funds from the Environmental Protection
Agency.

As you may already know, the EPA is in the process of
preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which
will evaluate the environmental, social, and ecomomic effects
of alternatives for sewage collection and/or treatment in
Springvale and Littlefield Townships in the Crooked and
Pickerel Lake planning area.

An information and participation meeting to describe the
alternatives, costs, and other information was scheduled
for Thursday, August 24, 1978 at the Petoskey High School.

Our vork in the next 3 weeks is to survey all the homesites
in the Crooked and Pickerel planning area so that an
assessment of the overall on-site vastewater treatment
systems (ie. septic systems) can be made.  We would appreciate
your help in completing this survey.

Since we have missed you today, we'll try to return a call
or visit and schedule an appointnent time before September
10th.  Or, please call us in the evening at:

-------
                                        B-7
        APPENDIX C



Soil Maps of Survey Areas

-------
..^'M^VxVUU
                                                                                                CO

-------
CROOKED/PICKEREL  LAKES
     SURVEY  AREA

-------
                      \
PICKEREL
                                              cd

-------
r-
 I
        CROOKED
      Hency Rd

-------
CO
-4

-------

       APPENDIX D



Press Release and "Flier"

-------
        t -I?-
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
      BIOLOGICAL STATION
     ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 481O9
         (313) 763-4481
DAVID M. GATES. DIRECTOR
                                                               B-7
                              ADDRESS. JUNE IS TO SEPTEMBER t

                              PELLSTON. MICHIGAN 49769
       August 23, 1978

       FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
                   FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
                   CONTACT:  SAM EHLERS

                             616-539-8406
                             616-539-8408
                                                                   or
                          SEPTIC SYSTEM SURVEY

                   BEGINS ON CROOKED-PICKEREL LAKES
           (Pellston, MI)   Beginning August 21st,  researchers from the

      University of Michigan  Biological  Station will be conducting a

      door-to-door survey  on  Crooked-Pickerel Lakes.

           The  information gathered will be used by the Environmental

      Protection Agency  in the  preparation of an Environmental Impact

      Statement for Crooked-Pickerel Lakes.  The EIS will evaluate the

      environmental,  social and economic effects of alternatives for

      sewage collection  and/or  treatment in Springvale and Littlefield

      Townships.

           Descriptions  of these alternatives, costs and other information

      will  be presented  at a  public hearing on Thursday, August 24th,

      7:30  p.m. in the Cafeteria of Petoskey Senior High School on

      E. Mitchell Road.

           Residents' cooperation is requested to facilitate the completion

      of the survey.  For  further information, contact the Biological

      Station, Pellston, MI 49769 (616)  539-8406.

-------
                                                     B-7
We are a group of four researchers from the University of
Michigan Biological Station, on Douglas Lake, in Pellston,
Michigan.  You may have heard of us before, because we all
worked under a National Science Foundation grant this
summer, calling ourselves Project CLEAR.  Now that the
Project work has ended, four of us are continuing work in
your area with funds from the Environmental Protection
Agency.

As you may already know, the EPA is in the process of
preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which
will evaluate the environmental, social, and ecomomic effects
of alternatives for sewage collection and/or treatment in
Springvale and Littlefield Townships in the Crooked and
Pickerel Lake planning area.

An information and participation meeting to describe the
alternatives, costs, and other information was scheduled
for Thursday, August 24, 1978 at the Petoskey High School.

Our work in the next 3 weeks is to survey all the homesites
in the Crooked and Pickerel planning area so that an
assessment of the overall on-site wastewater treatment
systems (ie. septic systems) can be made.  We would appreciate
your help in completing this survey.

Since we have missed you today, we'll try to return a call
or visit and schedule an appointment time before September
10th.  Or, please call us in the evening at:

-------
                                   B-7
    APPENDIX E



Tables of Results

-------
                                                                B-7
                                TABLE 2
             Seasonal Preferences  By Part-Time Residents
irooked Lake
'ickerel Lake
 TOTAL NUMBER
ercent of Total
Summer Only
12
11
59
i 52%
Two Seasons
-
_7
7
6%
Three Seasons
8
11
27
241
All Seasons
   6
  11
  20

-------
                                                                 B-7
                                  Table  5



             Duration of Occupancy Among Part-Time Residents





                  Weekends   2-4 wks.    4-8 wks.    5-4 mos.   4-10 mos^   N.A



Crooked Lake         9                     2            7          7        i



Pickerel Lake       _7         _9        2]_           2S_         17_        j



  TOTAL NUMBER      16          9        29           32         24        4



Percent of Total    141         8%       25%          28%        211       4$

-------
                                                        B-7
                          TABLE 4



Future Plans of Permanent Occupancy By Part-Time  Residents

Lake
Lake
MBHR
of Total
Yes
6
li
22
19%
No
18
6_7
85
75%
N.A.
2
_5_ .
7
61

-------
                                     20-
                                                                B-7
                                  TABLE 5

  Projected Additions To Dwellings By Permanent and  Seasonal  Residents

                                      Yes      N£    N.A.

Crooked Lake                           8       42     18

Pickerel Lake                         _1_8       83     _2_

  TOTAL NUMBER                        26      125     20

Percent of Total                      15%      78%    12%

-------
                                                                  B-7
                                  TABLE  6



                      Ageof Sewage Disposal  Systems
Crooked Lake



  Hency- Chanel



  Oden Island



  Burley Road



  TOTAL NUMBER



Percent of  Total







Pickerel Lake



  Ellsworth Point



  Botsford-Petosego



  Miss ion-Lake view



  TOTAL NUMBER



Percent of  Total







  TOTAL BOTH LAKES    11



Percent of  Total
0-5 yrs. 5-10 yrs.
I 10
- i
±
1 11
20% 16%
2 10
> 6 3
2 __5
10 18
10% 17%
11 29
6% 18%
> 10 yrs.
25
16
43
63%
20
14
1_6
50
49%
93
54%
£20 yrs.
6

7
10%
11
1
_5
17
16%
24
14%
N.A.
5
1
6
9%
5
1
_2.
8
8%
14
8%

-------
Area
                          TABJLt;

              Design of Sewage Disposal Systems

Septic Tank or Alternatives               Drain Field orAlternatives
 \
 pa
 Crooked Lake

 Hency-Channel

 Oden


 Burley



 Pickerel Lake


 HI Isworth

 Botsford-
   Petosega

 Miss ion-
   Lakcvicw
a*  a^  a3  b   c   d
                                                    g1   g2   g3    h
                                                                 k       1
                       m
34
16

3

23
19

20
4




5


J.
i
I

__..


1
i

1
i
1



(4)
1
i'i'!o


i




16
4
'/• <
4,1
4







0
•
1




.1.

2 '

2







1
32

3
34
21
2.1
3
14

5
I
1
1

13)
1
0
0
2,1,0
2

:3)
1
3
9



2
3
27,3,1
12
(3)
3
(3)
15,1,0
22,1,1
4
3


2

T 	 	
2,1,0
1

(3)
3
2
11

. .._

4
3
                                                 LUGIiND
  al = Single  Septic  Tank                  gl
  a2 = Double  Septic  Tank                  g2
  ;t3 = Tri.plo  Septic  Tank                  g3
  b  = Drywcll or  Grease Trap              h
  c  = Combination Drywcll  and  Septic  Tank i
  d  = Pit' Privy                       -    j
  e  = Pit  Privy and  Drywell               k
  f  = Not  Available                       1
                                           m
                          Single Drain Field
                          Double Drain Field
                          Triple Drain Field
                          Mounded System
                          Without Adsorption Field
                          Gravity Fed Adsorption Field
                          Dosed Effluent to Field
                          Pumped Effluent to Field
                           Not Available
(3)   Two Dwellings Having
     Separate Septic Tanks
     But Common Field.

(4)   A Dwelling Had 5
     Drywells.

-------
                             -23-
                                                         B-7
                            TABLE  8



Sewage  Disposal  System Compliance  With  Emmet  County Sanitary Code
Area
Crooked Lake
Hency-
Channel
Oden-
Burley
TOTAL NUMBER
Percent of
Total
Pickerel Lake
Ellsworth
Botsford-
Petosega
Miss ion-
Lake view
TOTAL NUMBER
Percent of
Total
TOTAL BOTH
LAKES
Percent of
Total
Based
System
Yes
20

11
31
45%

17
10
_9
36
351
67
39%
on Sewage
Size Alone
No
6

_0
6
9%

11
10
_8
29
29%
35
20%
N.A.
21

10
31
45%

20
4
13
37
36%
63
40%
Based on Minimum
Separation Distances
Yes
27

11
41
60%

19
12
11
49
48%
90
53%
No
16

~_
18
26%

26
7
ii
44
43%
62
36%
N.A.
5

_4
9
14%

3
5
.***-.
9
9%
18
11%

-------
                                              TABLE 9
                               Problem Sewage Disposal Systems and
                               Possible Causes for Poor Performance
Lot No.


Crooked
  Lake:
Hency-
Channel

   3

  12

  15


  10

  18

  21

  22

  28

  32

  33


  35'


  M

  47

  50
t
h
m
      n

X c



X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X

\ '"*

X
X


•"" b
X "~
•
X
!"
^ f
X
j r










-;


0

n x <->•
tii h..
O 'v
(D
i-O


/ 8
>10
; >io


>10
12
5-10
5-10

5-10
12

9

>io
36

30

o"l ^
>— I
» 7
ro
r>t

CO


X

X
O/-.
C'X

X
,?x

gx

X
*r

t* Xv.
o u
CIS
jq

;t
^

(C





---t




;*• I



, ,

^r-
^w "
_,





(



















r
| :_,
X
;:x
,never(

x
x
X
X

X


-x :

x


^ X'
v/J I — «
UjX"-'

x
M
13-23
<0.63
<0.63

<0.63
<0.63
<0.63
^0.63
<0.63.

<0.63
^0.63'

;
X
...
x

• /





X

1
1

_





X
X

X

\

x

-------
                                  Problem  Sewage Disposal Systems  and
                                  Possible  Causes for Poor Performance
Lot No.
                a
                            c
f
h
k
                                                                                                  in
                                                                     o
Crooked Lake
!(continued) :
Oden Island
61
62
64
68
70
73
Bur ley
231
232]
233]
234
Pickerel Lake
lillsworth Pt.
85
86
106
124


X


X



X

r
•


X

X



X
X

X
X


X
X


X

X



<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10

25

-------
                                                TABLE  9  (continued)
                                 Problem Sewage  Disposal  Systems  and
                                 Possible Causes for  Poor Performance
 Lot  No.
Pickerel  Lak
(continued):
Ellsworth Pt
(continued)

 127

 128

Botsford-
Petosego

 159

 171

Mission-
Lakcvicw

 200
 212

218

225]
226]-


227
                a
d  c   f
h
                                                                                           in
n   o









X










X'
X
X
V


X




X.
X

X
	 	





5-10
<1U

-------
    TAB I, I! 10

Cladoplioru Study
Suitable
Solid
Substrates
(No.
Crooked Lake:
Ilency-Channel
Oden
Burley
TOTAL NUMBLR
Percent of Total
Pickerel Lake:
El 1 sworth
Hotsford Petosego
Miss ion- Lake view
TOTAL NUMUf-R
Percent of Total
of Lots)

27
7
_l
35
1004

25
5
1_6
46
1004
Presence of
Cladophora
on Lots wFth
Suitable Substrates

14 (5 extensive)
5
JL
20
574

13
4
_6
23
504
Dwellings witli
lixcessive Water-
Using Devices
+ Ratio Y.R. /Season

12 (10/2)
2 (1/1)
_! d/o)
15
754

] (1/0
0
1
2
94
Ratio of
Year -Round to
Seasonal
Residents of
Those witli
Cladophora

12/2
2/3
1/0
15/5
754/254

3/10
0/4
O/Oi
3/20
134/874
                                                            No.of ResidenceC
                                                            with  Cladpphcra
                                                            which Don't
                                         No.  of Residences  Comply with
                                         Whose Septic Tanks limmet County
                      No.  of  Residences were Poorly Main-  Sanitary Code
                      which Feed  Water- tained, i.e., not  Min.  Size fj Sep
                      l;owl at  the Lake   Pumped in the Last
                      	Shore	?"_i
-------
                               TABLE 11

     Soil Classifications For Lots Within Crooked/Pickerel Survey Area
               Soil Classification

Crooked Lake

  Arb - Au Gres Sand

  AuB - Au Gres Loamy Sand

  Br  - Brevort Mucky Loamy Sand


  BIB - Blue Lake Loamy Sand

  By  - Bruce Fine Sandy Loam

  EmB - Emmet Sandy Loam

  Re  - Roscommon Mucky Sand

  Sb  - Sandy Lake Beaches

  Tm  - Thomas Loam, Medium Wet Variant

  TOA - Thomas Mucky Loam


Pickerel Lake

  ArB - Au Gres Sand

  EaB - East Lake Loam Sand

  KaB - Kalkaska Sand

  Re  - Roscommon Mucky Sand


  SuB - Saugatuck Sand

  Ta  - Tawas Muck

  Tm  - Thomas Loam, Medium Wet Variant

  TOA - Thomas Mucky Loam

  Wr  - Warner's  Mucky Loam
Lot Numbers




70-72

23,24,27-40


7-12,15-17,21,22,25,26.
40-43

68,69

4-6

13,14,63-67

1-3

56-62

18-20

43,45,230-235





173-187,206-209

209-215

110-118,140-155,160-167

135-140,158,159, 155-172,
215-219

74-110

204 ,205

188-195

196-200,220-229

118-132,200-203

-------
                                                                                                             APPENDIX
                                                                                                                 B-8
                                                         APPENDIX  B-8

                                EMMET  COUNTY  SANITARY  CODE - DESIGN STANDARDS
                     SECTION  V

CONSTRUCTION  STANDARDS  lor SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

 Tho following  specifications  as shown in  ihe  tables shall  b*
the minimum design criteria and apply in determining the min-
imum SIM  °l lha sewage disposal systems required for houses.
In Ihe COM al  larger houses,  public and semi-public  buildings
such as  apartments, moleis, gas stations,  restaurants, etc.: plans
and  spacifications shall  be submitted  to  the  Health Oliicer.  11
In his judgment the plans are  adequate, a permit will be issued.


ITEM 1  SEPTIC TANKS
         Design, and construction  methods  shall be  approved
       by  Ihe Health  Oificer  prior to construction or installa-
       tion.  In  general  design   specifications  found  in  the
       "Manual  of  Septic-Tank  Practice",  U.S.  Public Health
       Service Publication  No.  526,  as amended will  apply
       as  a  guido.


                       TABLE  I
       MINIMUM  CAPACITIES FOR  SEPTIC  TANKS
 Number of Bedrooms
Minimum Liquid Capacity (gals.)
     2 or less                      750
     3 or 4                      1,000
     Each additional  bedroom
       beyond 4,  add               250
 Note:  The capacities  in  this table  provide  lor  the plumbing
      fixtures and appliances usud in  a single family residence
      including  an  automatic  washer,  mechanical  garbago
      grinder and  dishwasher.


                       TABLE  U
             MINIMUM DISTANCE  IN  FEET

   All distances measured horizontally  from any vertical point
 below qrade.
 FROM
                             TO
                             SEWERS
                  Absorption Cast Iron     Septic Tile Seepage
                        Bed Soil Pipe Oth. Tank Field   Pit
Wells or suction lines
Water Pressure Lines (buned)
Property Line
Foundation Wall
Drop-off
Lake or stream
50
10
10
10
20
50
10
10
2

5
10
50
10
2
5
10
50
50
10
10
5
10
50
50
10
10
10
15
50
50
10
10
20
25
50
 * See Michigan Department of Health "Regulations  for Certain
  Water Supplies" regarding  suction  lines (Section 4.3).
                                                                     TABLE III
                                            Fill'  AND MINIMUM  SPACING  FOR  TILE FIELD  TRENCHES
                                            \V:c'h of Trench at Bottom  Minimum Spacing1 of Trenches Center
                                                     (inches)            |o Center      (feet)
                                                     18 to 24
                                                     24 to 30
                                                     30 to 36
                                         6.5
                                         7.0
                                         7.5—
                        TABLE IV
.V:.N:MUM REQUIRED TRENCH BOTTOM  AREA PER  BEDROOM
                     FOR  TILE FIELDS
Perception  Rale     Type  of  Soil _ Absorption Area
Leii :han 5 rr.inutes Coars* sand & gravel     115 square  feel
5 to 10 minutes     Fine sand  £ sandy  clay  lfis square  lew
10 !o 15 minutes    Sandy  clay              190 square  feet
15 to 30 minutes    Clay                     250 square  feet
Over  30 minutes - unsuitabls

                         TABLE  V
           TILE  FIELD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Its— s                _   Maximum  Minimum

N_mber  ol  Lateral  Trenches
                                      30  In.
                                 6  in./lOO Jt.
Length of Trenches
Width of Trenches
D*p:h of Tile  Lines (bottom)
  below  finuh  grad*
Sizpa of Tile  Lines
Depth of Aggregate
  Under  tile
  Over  tile
  Under  tile  located within
    rco:  aroa  of  trees
Size  of  Aggiegate*
O;..:h cf *rjw or Hay Cover
•Standard  10  A. Ston« Spec.  Acceptable
                                                                                   100  ft
                                                                                   36 In.
                                      1H  in.
                                                                                           18 in.

                                                                                           18 in.
                                                                                            2 in./lOO ft.

                                                                                            6 in.
                                                                                            2 in.

                                                                                           '2 in.
                                                                                             %  in.
                                                                                            3 in.
                                                                      TABLE  VI
                                              M'.Nl.VUM REQUIRED  BOTTOM AREA  PER  BEDROOM FOR
                                                                 ABSORPTION BEDS
                                             Percolation  Rate    'Type of Soil _  Absorption  Area
                                             Less than  5 cunutes Coarse Sand  & Gravel     230 square feet
                                             5 to 10 minutes    Fin«  Sand & sandy day  330 square feel
                                             10  to  15  minutes   Sandy Clay               380 square feet
                                             15 to 30 minutes    Clay                     500 squar. (Ml
                                             Ovt>r 30 minutes - unsuitable

                                                                      TABLE VII
                                                     ABSORPTION  BED CONSTRUCTION  DETAILS
                                             S
-------
SUMMARY FOR ON-SITE SYSTEMS WITH OCCASSIONAL OR RECURRING PROBLEMS
Map
Number
3


12

15

18


21

22


28


32


33


35


38



Location
llency
Road

Stanley
Court
Channel
Road
Channel
Road

Channel
Road
Channel
Road

Oden
Road

Oden
Road

Oden
Road

Oden
Road

Oden
Road

Age
(Years)
R


10

MO

MO


12

5-10


5-10


12


9


MO


MO


Type
System
ST & DF
Dosing

ST f. 1)1'

ST & DF

ST & DF


ST S, LF

ST & DF
& 1)W

2ST
f.
2DF
ST S DF


ST & DF


ST & DF


ST & DF



Probl em
Backup


Odors

Pond In R

Backup
&
Pond Ing
Backup

Backup
&
Pond ing
Pond ing
&
Odors
Pond ing
&
Odors
Ponding
&
Odors
Odors


Backup



Frequency
1x
Summer
78
In 1 In-
past
One
Season
Froquon t
before
repa ir
Slimmer
78
One
Season
77
76


66


74-75


Fvcry
year

Kvery
5 y r ,s .
or so
Svsl em
Under si 7.ed
No


No

DK

No


No

No


No


Yes


No


Yes


No


Site
Limit at ion
Severe


Severe

Severe

Severe


Severe

Seve re


Severe


Severe


Severe


Severe


Severe



Ma hit onanco
None


None

None

New
Drain field
1976
None

Fnl argod
Dra infield
1977
None


F,n 1 arged
Dra Lnf ield
1966
Filled in
low area

C I enned
pipes

None


Pump in;'.
Frequency
3 u r 4 v r .


DK

None

Veai ly


3 to l\ y r s .

DK


DK


3 lo !\ yrs.


5 yrs.


Kvery yr.


5 y r s .


Lasl Time
Pumped
78


78

None

78


78

77


76


73- /r>


73-75


78


DK
















vi












t>
Tl
W
•ZL.
a
M
s>
ST - Septic Tank
DF - Dratnfleld tri
DK - Don ' t know .!-,

-------
Mfip
Number
42
44
47
54
62
6H
70
73
75
86
106
T.ocnt ion
Oclen
Road
O(1<-n
Road
Channel
Road
Clinnnel
Road
Odon
1 si and
Odcn
1 si and
Odcn
Island
Oden
Island
Trails
End
Trn 1 1 s
End
Trails
End
Age
(Years)
1 1
>10
30
13
>10
>10
10
-10
15
14
>10
Type
Syst em
ST & Dosing
&
Mound
ST f. DK
ST 6, OF
ST 6, DF
ST & I)F
ST f,
Mound
ST & I)F
ST & DP
ST & DF
6, DW
ST & DF
f, 11W
ST & DF
Froh lent
Backups
S,
Pond ing
Odors
Backup
Backup
Odors
Ponding
Backups
Pond inp.
Backup
&
Ponding
Ponding
Backup
&
Ponding
Odors
&
Backups
Ponding
Frequency
Spr ing
76
Not
Aval lab It-
Wlien
1t
Rains
Every
year
Once
4 to r)
yrs.
ago
Once
per
year
Ix
1-2x
3 to 4
y rs .
3 to 5
yrs.
ago and
this
Spring
When
it
Rn Ins
SyM em
Under::! x.i'd
Ho
DK
Yes
No
OK
No
No
DK
Yes
Yes
Yos
Sil i-
Limit. it lun
Severe
Severe
f.evere
Severe
Seve re
Severe
SeveiT
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Ma i n! cnnnce
Replaced
Drain Tie Id
67
None
New
Dralnrield
f.3
None
None
None
None
None
None
Added the
stones to
Drnlnf ield
None
Pnnip Ing
l''reqneney
) or 4 vi .
Inf requeue
1 to ? yr.
Isvery yr.
DK
Year I y
2 to 3 yrs.
Infrequent
Onco> more
than S yrs.
ago
Added tile
st ones to
Dra Infield
Once
Last Time
Pumped
76-77
72
7R
76-77
76-77
77
77
3-5
DK
78
73
	 1

-------
Map
Number
124
127
128
171
200
212
225 -
226
227
231
232 -
233
Location
Artesian
Lane
E1 iKworth
Road
Ellsworth
Road
Botsford
Lane
M 1 sson
Rond
McCarthy
Road
Lake vi ow
Road
t.akevlew
Road
Burley
Road
Burley
Road
Age
(Years)
25
DK
5-10
-10
0-5
>10
MO
>10
25
MO
Type
System
ST Si DF
ST & DF
«, DW
ST S OF
ST & DF
&
Dosing
ST & DF
ST «, 11F
I, DW
ST & l)F
& DW
ST & DF
ST 6, DF
ST & DF
P rob 1 cm
Backup
Backup
Backup
&
Pond inf;
Backup
&
Odors
Pond Inc.
&
Odors
Backup
&
Ponding
Backup
Backup
Ponding
Ponding
Frequency
Yearly
DK
Ra in ;
heavy
Use
1 X
Wll-h
II I f,h
Use
F,very
Yea r
1 to 2x
per yr.
Ix
2 yrs.
ago
DK
DK
System
Under.s I ^e
-------
APPENDIX C




  BIOTA

-------
                                                                    APPENDIX
                                                                      C-l
                 SUBMERGED  AND  EMERGENT AQUATIC PLANTS
        Common name

        Waterweed

        Coontail

        Water milfoil

        Bushy pondweed

        Water lily

        Yellow water lily

        Large-leaf pondweed

        Whitestem pondweed

        Sage pondweed

        Flat-stemmed pondweed

        Floating-leaf pondweed

        Arrowhead

        Softstem bulrush

        Bulrush

        Common cattail

        Bladderwort

        Tapegrass or wild celery
Scientific name

Anaahayis eanadensis

Ceratophyllum

Myr-iophyllum

Najas flexilis

Nymphasa odorata

Nuphar advenian

Potamogeton amplifolius

P. pvaelongus

P, peatinatus

P. zosteriformus

P. natans

Sagittaria

Seirpus validis

S, (zneriaanus

Typha latifolia

Utrieular-ia purpitrea

Vall'isneic'-ia spi-ralis
SOURCE:   Michigan DNR.   Variously dated.

-------
                                                                     APPENDIX
                                                                       C-2
Common Name
                      INVERTEBRATE INDICATOR ORGANISMS
                    FOUND IN CROOKED AND PICKEREL LAKES
Scientific Name
       Indication of
Lake   Water Quality
Zooplanktpn_

Cladoceran
 Rotifers
Benthic

Mayfly nymph




Findernail clams

Oligochaete worm

Chrionamid
    Midge larvae
Chydorus spaericus
Conochiloides natans

Notholca foliacea

Northolca michiganensis

Synchaeta asymmetrica

Polyarthra euryptera

Trichochocerca
  multicrinus



Hexagenia




Sphaerium

Limnodrilus hoffmeistesi

Mixed  Sp.
P,C
P

C

P,C

C

P,C

P,C




P,C




P,C

P,C

P,C
Greater abundance
in Crooked Lake
indicates that
waters slightly
lower trophic
status than Pickerel

oligo-mesotrophic
indicators
                                                            Eutrophic Indicators
Oligotrophic
indicators more
common in Pickerel
Lake
 Eutrophic  indicators
 P - Pickerel Lake
 C - Crooked Lake
 Source:  Gannon,  1978.

-------
                                                                    APPENDIX

                                                                       C-3
                         USE OF DIVERSITY INCICES



     Diversity indices are frequently used as a supplement to water



quality data to provide additional information as to whether the waters



under consideration are being degraded.  The Diversity Indices are



dimensionless terms used to express the relative aboundance of selected


indicator organisms.



     The rationale for utilizing the diversity index as a measure of



water quality change is based on the fact that changes in environmental


conditions lead to changes in distribution and abundance of particular


species.  For an individual to be a useful indicator organism it must


have a rather narrow range of suitable environmental conditions and must


respond in a quantitative fashion to the environmental factor(s) under



consideration.


     For this Crooked/Pickerel Lakes S udy performed by Gannon in 1978


the Shannon-Weiner diversity index H was calculated as follows:


         3.3219
     H = —— (N Log10 N - Znl Log1Q ni)



Where:  N = total # of organisms collected


        ni = // of individuals per species


        3.3219 = is a constant used to change base  10 to base 2.

-------
                  FISH SPECIES SURVEY OF PICKEREL LAKE
                                                                    APPENDIX
                                                                       C-4
Common Name



Yellow perch

Northern pike

Rock bass

Smallmouth bass

Walleye

Largemouth bass

Brown trout

Pumpkinseed

Bluegill

Warmouth



White sucker

Yellow Bullhead

Brown bullhead
        Scientific Name

Game fishes

        Perea flavens

        Esox luaius

        Ambloplites rupestris

        Miaropterus dolomieui

        Stizostedion vitreum

        Mieropterus Salmoides

        Salmo tvutta

        Lepomis megalotis

        Lepomis maovoohiTus

        Lepomis gulosus

Coarse  fishes

        Catostomus cormersoni

        Ictaluvus natalis

        Ictalwcus nebulosus
 SOURCE:  Michigan DNR,  1971

-------
                                                                        C-4
Common Name
Alewife




Sand shiner




Common shiner




Bluntnose minnow




Banded Killifish




Logperch




Johnny darter




Iowa darter




Slimy sculpin




Shore minnow




Pearl dace









Longnose gar




Bowfin




Carp
         Scientific Name






Forage fishes




         Alosa pseudohavengus




         Notropis stpa.nri.neus




         Notropis oomutus




         Pimephales notatus




         Fundulus diaphanus




         Pepoina capvodes




         Etheostoma nigvum




         Etheostoma exile




         Cottus oognatus (Cedar Creek)




         Notropi-s deliaiousus




         Semotilus margarita




 Other fishes




         Lepisosteus osseus




         Ami-a oalva




         CypTenus

-------
                     FISH  SPECIES OF CROOKED LAKE
                                                                     APPENDIX
                                                                        C-5
Common Name

Yellow perch

Rock bass

Bluegill

Walleye

Largemouth bass

Smallmouth bass

Northern pike



Common shiner

Bluntnose minnow

Logperch

Spottail shiner

Johnny darter

Mimic shiner

Central mudminnow

Sailfin



Suckers

Brown bullhead

Yellow Bullhead



Longnose gar
Game fishes
  Scientific Name

  Peraa flavens

  Ambloplites rupeetris

  Lepom 's maarochirus

  Stizostedion vitrewn

  Miaropterus salmoides

  Micropterus dolemieui

  Esox lueius

Forage fishes

  Notropis comutus

  Pimephales notatus

  Percina oapvodes

  Notropis hudsonius

  Etheostoma migvum

  No trap-is value ellus

  Umbra  limi



Coarse fishes^

  Cat os tom-Ldae

  Ictalurus nebulasus

  letalurus natalis

Other fishes,

  Lepisosteus osseus
 SOURCE:  Michigan DNR,1954

-------
                                                               APPENDIX
                                                                 C-6
          CHECK LIST OF RESIDENT BIRDS OF MICHIGAN  (NORTHWESTERN


          LOWER PENINSULA MICHIGAN) DURING HEIGHT OF BREEDING


          SEASON (MID JUNE TO END OF FIRST WEEK OF  JULY) WITH


          SUMMER NESTING RECORDS AND SPECIES ABUNDANCE


               by William and Edith Overlease,  Biolity
               Department, West Chester State College,
               West Chester, Pa. 19380, revised July 1978


Breeding records:  nest **, young traveling with adults *
Abundance records:
     **



     **

     **



     **•

     **

     **

     **

      *
  J
     **

     **
**
**
**


**


**


**
**
 *


**
»*
**


**
          A - abundant,
          often present
          R - rare
Common Loon  Q
Pisd-bllled Grebe:  R
Great  Slue Hsran  Q
Gxesn  Haran  C
Least  Bittern-  0
American Bittern  Q
Mute Smart C
Canada Goose  Q
Mallard  F
Slack  Duck 0
Blus—winoad Tsal  0
Uood Duck C
Hooded Merganser R
Ccrnmcn Merganser 0
Turkey Vulture  C
Goshauk  0
Sharp-shinned Hauk Q
Cooper's Hsuk 0
Red-tailed Kauk  0
Red-shouldered Hayk Q
Broad-winged Hauk  C
Bald Eagle D
Harsh  Hauk 0
Csprsy R   ~~
American Kestrel R
Ruffed Grouse F
King Rail R
Virginia Rail 0
Sera 0
Common Gallinule 0
American Ccot Q
Piping Plavsr R
Killdser F
American Uoodcock C
Camrnon Snips R
Upland Plover 0
Spatted Sandpiper C
F - frequent, C - common though
in small numbers,  0 - occasional,

      Short-billed Douitcher  R-
      Herring Gull  F
      Ring-hilled Gull  A-
      Caspiart Tern  0.
   ** Black Terr; 0
   ** oaurning Dave C
      Yellouj-trillecl Cuckoo ff
   ** Slack-trilled Cuckoo Q
      Screech- Oral R-
                   n«.»r ft
                                             Cul 0
      tiihip-aaar-uiill C
   ** Camrnnn Nightteuk C
      Chimney Suift  C
   ** Ruby-throated Hummingbird C
   ** Selted Kingfisher F
   ** Common Flicker F
   ** piieated Ucodpecker C
   ** Red-headed Uocdpscker D
   ** Yellnu-aellied Sapsucker C
   ** Hairy Uoadpecker F
   ** Dowry Woodpecker F
   ** Eastern Kingbird. F
      Western Kingbird R
   ** Great Crested Flycatcher F
   ** Eastern Fhosbe C
      Yellow-bellied Flycatcher R
      Train's Flycatcher C
   ** Least Flycatcher ?
   ** Eastern Ucod Psuss F
   ** Dlive-sidad Flycatcher D
   ** Horned Lark C
   ** Tree Suallnu F
      Bank Suiallou A
      Rough-uinged S
      Barn Suallcu F
                                  **
                                  **
                                     Purpls M§rtirr  F

-------
                                                                   C-6
  «*Hlu2 Jay  F
  "»Cc"^TCn Crcus F
  • •Slack-capped Chickaflae F
  •Tufted Titmouse R
  •Units-breasted Nuthatch C-
  •Rad-breasted iMuthatch  C
  •Ercun Crsspsr d
  *» Metise Wren C
  •Jlntsr Wren C
  •-Lnng-billad Marsh; Uren 0
   Short-trilled Marsh Uran Ct
  "Mockingbird 0
  **Catbird F
  **3raunr-Thrasher F
  **An5rxc3n Robin A
  **Uaad. Thrush F
  »*Hermit Thrush C
  **Su!3inscrtrs Thrush R
  **l/ssry F
  **£3stsrrr Bluebird C
  *Ga!d3rr—crcsiinsci ninglst 0
   Loggerhead Shrike R
  **St3rling F
  *Y"slIau-tfeaatad Uirea  Q
   Solitary" I/iraa R-
 -*nad-2yed Uirao A
   Fhilsdalphla Uiren R
   LJarfaling l/irsct F
 *'Slack and Uhita Uarbler F
 * Goldan-uiinged 'Jarblar  0
** Nashville Uartlar C
   IMartherrr Parula R
** Yeilau bJar&Ier F
   Magnolia Uarbler 0
   Black-throated Blue LJarblar D
   Yeilauj-rumped Uartjlsr 0
** Black-throatad Grssn Warbler F
 * EGLacktrurnian Warbler C
  Chestnut-sided klarhler F
 * Pine  Uarfalsr  F
** Prairie L'arfrlsr C
** Dverrbird A
  Northsm Ulaterthrush- C
  Louisiana  Uaterthrush. R
**Mcurning LJarbler  C
**YallauJt^?raat F
** Canada  Idarbler C
**American Redstart A
**House  Sparrou F
 *Bt3bolink C
** Eastern Meadaulark F
  DBS tern Meadouiark: 0
**Red-winged  Blackbird A
**Baltimore Oriole  (Northern: Driale) F
**3rsusr?s Blackbird R
**Camman Grackle A
**8roun-headed  Caubird F
 *Scar1st Tanager F
**Cardinal C
**Ross-fcrraaated Grxisbaak F
** Indigo Bunting F
  Dickcisssl  0
 *Furpl2 Finch  C
  Pins Siskin R
**American Goldfinch; F
**Red Crossbill R
 *Rufcus-sidad  Touhaa C

  Csrasannppar aparrou C.
  Henslouts 3psrrou 0
**\7espEr Sparrotii F
  Dark-eyed uunco R
**Chipairrg Sp-.rrcu  A

**Uhita-taroated Spsrrou F
  Suarnp  Sparrou. F
**5aag Sparrow  A
**Clay-colored  Sparrou D —_
 The  authors are grateful to the
 fallowing cantributsrs of nesting
 records  far the county:. Carl Fraarnan,
   Harold Gall,  Oarnes Laubach, Alan
   Harbla, Donald McEeathr Lyle Pratt,
   Sergej Fostupalsky, Arvid Tasaker,
   Heith  Uestphal

 Totals - 153 species ,

 Breeding records fcr 111 species

-------
                                                                      APPENDIX
                                                                        C-7
            MAMMALS

White-tail deer

Black bear

Beaver

Botcat

Red fox

Mink

Muskrat

Opossum

Weasel

River otter

Snowshoe hare

Racoon

Red squirrel

Gray squirrel

Fox squirrel

Bats

Woodchuck

Chipmunk

Coyote

Porcupine
WITH A HABITAT RANGE IN THE STUDY AREA

                    Dama virginianus

                    Ursus americanus

                    Castor canadensis

                    Lynx rufus

                    Vulpes fulva

                    mustela vison

                    Ondatra zibethica

                    Didelphis marsupialis

                    Mustela sp.

                    Lutra canadensis

                    Lepus americanus

                    Prycon lotor

                    Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

                    Sciurus carolinensis

                    Sciurus niger

                    Several species

                    Marmota monax

                    Tamias striatus

                    Canis  latrans

                    Erethizon dorsatutn
 Several  species  of small
 rodents  (mice,  shrews,
 pooles)

-------
                                                                     APPENDIX
                                                                       C-8
                 MICHIGAN'S RARE AND ENDANGERED MAMMALS
               WHOSE HABITAT RANGE INCLUDES THE STUDY AREA
Classification

Threatened


Threatened


Rare
Common Name
Pine Vole
Southern bog
Lemming

Water Shrew
Scientific Name
Microtus pinetorum
Synaptomys
cooperi

Sorex palustris
Rare
Peripheral
Rare
Badger
Gray Fox
Thompson ' s
pigmy shrew
Taxidea taxus
Urocyon
cinereoargenteus
Micros or ex
thompsoni
Habitat

Grasses, borders
of woodlands

Moist grasses
Stream and swamp
edges

Grasslands

Woodland and open
open lands

Dry or moist grassy
and forested areas
 SOURCE:  Michigan's Endangered and Threatened Species Program.  DNR.  1976.

-------
                   MICHIGAN'S THREATENED BIRD SPECIES

                WHOSE HABITAT RANGE INCLUDES THE STUDY AREA
                                                                      APPENDIX
                                                                        C-9
Conmon Name

Osprey


Bald eagle


Piping plover

Loggerhead shrike

Marsh hawk
Scientific Name

Pandion haliaetus


Hlaliacetus leucophalus


Charadrius melodius

Lanius ludovicianus

Circus cyaneus
Red-shouldered hawk   Buteu lineatus
Habitat

Range restricted to river
banks and lake edges

Aquatic, along river banks
and lake edges

Lake shores and wetlands

Borders of woodlands

Marshlands, grassy swales
and fields

Lowland woodlands along
rivers and creeks
 SOURCE:  Michigan's Endangered and Threatened Species Program.

-------
                                                                      APPENDIX
                                                                        C-10
                     RARE & THREATENED PLANT SPECIES
                   OF MICHIGAN FOUND IN THE STUDY AREA
Common Name

Blunt-lobed or large woodsia

Bald-rush

Calypso orchid

Ram's-head lady's-slipper

Small round-leaved orchis

Grass

Slough-grass

Grass

Wild Rice



Potamogeton pondweed

Thistle

Goldenrod

Lake Huron tansy

Pine-drops

Butterwort

Queen-of-the-prairie
Scientific Name

Woodsia obtusa

Psilocarya scirpoides

Calypso bulbosa

Cypripediwn arietinum

Orchis rotundifolia

Agropyron dasystaohym

Beakmannia szygachne

Bromus pumpellianus

Zizania aquatioa vax>s

interior and aquatiaa

Potamogeton Eillii

Cirsium Pitoneri

Solidago Eoughtonii

Taniaoetwm huronense

Pterospora andromedea

Pinguiaula vulgaris

Filipendula rubra

-------
                   APPENDIX D

     METHODOLOGY FOR PROJECTING THE PROPOSED
       CROOKED/PICKEREL LAKES SERVICE AREA
PERMANENT AND SEASONAL POPULATION, 1978 AND 2000

-------
                                                                     APPENDIX D
                              APPENDIX D




               Methodology For Projecting the Proposed




                  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes Service Area




           Permanent and Seasonal Population, 1978 and 2000
1978 Population Estimate









     The 1978  population estimate  for  the Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes  Pro-




posed Service Area  was  based on an  analysis  of  1975 aerial photography




and  a  review   of  the  Springvale-Bear Creek Area Segment of the Little




Traverse Bay Area Facility Plan  (Williams  and  Works,  1976)  and  the




Suitability of Soils For On-site Wastewater Disposal, Pickerel and




Crooked Lakes, Emmet County, Michigan  (Gold  and  Gannon,  1978).   The




Proposed  Service  Area   is   located  within  portions  of two  townships




(Littlefield and Springvale), both in Emmet County.  The area was divided




into  eighteen  segments  for  the  purpose  of  projecting  future  popula-




tion.  As  indicated in  Figure D-l,  Littlefield  Township has eight seg-




ments plus  part of a ninth  (Segment 7) and Springvale Township has nine




segments plus part of a tenth.









     The total  population  figure  of 840 for  1978  was derived from the




following information:









     •    Dwelling  unit  count for the Proposed  Service  Area  (Gannon and




          Gold)  and a  dwelling unit  count by  segments (aerial photo-




          graphs);
320 El

-------
FIGURE D-l
CROOKED/PICKEREL LAKES PROPOSED SERVICE
  AREA DWELLING UNITS, 1978
                          1000 0    2000  4000

                              SCALE IN FEET
                                                                                       LEGEND

                                                                                      SEASONAL
                                                                                      PERMANENT

-------
     •     A  count   of  permanent  and  seasonal dwelling  units in  each




          segment (Gannon and Gold);  and









     •     A permanent and  seasonal occupancy rate (persons per dwelling




          unit) based on 1970 Census Data.








As indicated in Table D-l, there were 212 dwelling units in the Proposed




Service Area  consisting of  66 permanent units and  146 seasonal  units.




Gannon  and Gold,  in their  survey  of the  Proposed Service  Area  (see




Figure D-l),  estimated  the number of permanent units  based on recently




plowed  drives,  fresh tire tracks, trash  containers,  and chimney  smoke.




Based  on   this  dwelling  unit  count  and  permanent/  seasonal  occupancy




breakdown, an occupancy rate for permanent units  (3.25 persons per unit)




and  seasonal  units  (4.25 persons per unit) was applied to each dwelling




unit type.   The final  calculation resulted in an estimate of 305 people




in  Littlefield  Township  and  535  people  in  Springvale  Township.   The




Proposed  Service Area had  617 seasonal  residents  (73.5%) with Little-




field  Township having  79.7% (243) and  Springvale Township having 69.9%




(374).








Year 2000  Population Projections








     A  review  of   the  Facility  Plan  population  projections for  the




Crooked/Pickerel Lakes  Proposed  Service Area  found these  projections to




be based  on several assumptions which  served  to  inflate the totals (See




next  section  for  a discussion  of the difference  between  the  EIS  and




Facility  Plan population projections).   Consequently, other population









320 E2





                                    1

-------
                               Table D-l

            EXISTING POPULATION AND DWELLING UNITS FOR THE
             CROOKED/PICKEREL PROPOSED SERVICE AREA (1978)


                                               1978

Municipality
Littlefield Township
5
7 (part)
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
Subtotal
Springvale Township
1
2
3
4
6
7 (part)
14
15
16
18

Total

53
0
20
0
55
60
60
54
3
305

11
10
31
60
89
17
128
7
182
0
Population
Permanent

36
0
7
0
0
13
0
3
3
62

7
10
10
13
59
0
13
7
42
0
Dwelling Units
Seasonal

17
0
13
0
55
47
60
51
0
243

4
0
21
47
30
17
115
0
140
0
Total

15
0
5
0
13
15
14
13
1
76

3
3
8
15
25
4
29
3
46
0
Permanent

11
0
2
0
0
4
0
1
1
19

2
3
3
4
18
0
2
2
13
0
Seasonal

4
0
3
0
13
11
14
12
0
57

1
0
5
11
7
4
27
1
33
0
Subtotal               535      161        374        136        47         89


TOTAL                  840      223        617        212        66        146

-------
                                                                             D
projections which  encompassed the Proposed Service Area were evaluated.

However, none of these projections was made at the Proposed Service Area

level.



     As a result,  independent permanent  and seasonal baseline population

projections were  produced for the year  2000  which considered the three

growth  factors  influencing  future  population  levels  in  the  Proposed

Service Area.   These factors are:   (1)  the rate  of growth or decline of

the  permanent  population;  (2)  the  rate  of  growth  or  decline  of the

seasonal  population;  and (3) the  potential conversion  of  seasonal to

permanent dwelling units.  The best  available  information regarding each

of these  factors  was utilized and resulted in  the following assumptions:



      •    Based  on  discussions  with  local   officials   (Emmet   County

          Planning Department, 208  Planning Agency, Williams and  Works)

          and  an  analysis of recent  growth  trends,  (U.S. Census data,

          building permit records)  it appears  that the Proposed Service

          Area  is  in  the initial  stages of  a  transitional period in

          which it is changing from a primarily seasonal  area to an  area

          which  will  serve  largely  as  a bedroom  community  for  the

          Petoskey area.  Consequently, population projections based on

          past  population trends will not accurately  forecast the  future

          population,  particularly  in  terms  of  permanent and  seasonal

           residents.



      •    All  of  the population projections available for the  Proposed

          Service  Area  or  larger  geographical  areas  were  based on  an

          analysis  of  past  population  growth trends.  While these  pro-

          jections  provided  control totals for  the  rate  of population
320 E3

-------
          growth,  the  projections could not be used  for  the  analysis  of




          wastewater management alternatives.








     •     The  growth dynamics  of the  Proposed  Service Area  (i.e., the




          transition  from a  primarily seasonal  to  a primarily  bedroom




          community area)  dictated that the population projections  based




          on an analysis of past dwelling unit growth trends which more




          accurately depicted  the type of population  growth occurring  in




          the  Proposed  Service Area.








     •     The  analysis of dwelling  unit  growth  found that between 1970




          and  1978, the  Facility Plan Study Area, Springvale Township,




          Littlefield  Township,  and  the  Proposed Service Area  all had




          annual dwelling unit increases of 2.0% to  3.0%.  (U.S. Census




          Bureau,  Emmet  County Planning Department).   In addition,  it




          was  determined  that permanent  dwelling units  in Springvale




          Township were increasing by approximately  4.0% per year while




          Littlefield  Township  was   incurring  a  5.5%  increase  in per-




          manent dwelling units annually.








     •     Based on the  past  pattern  of  seasonal dwelling unit  conver-




          sions,  (Emmet  County  tax  records  1979) it  was assumed that




          existing seasonal  dwelling  units will convert at a  rate  of




          approximately 1.0% per year (15.8% during  the planning period)




          while new seasonal  dwelling units  constructed after 1978 will




          convert to permanent units  at  a  rate  of 1.0%  per  year  (10.6%




          during the  planning period).








320 E4






                                  1

-------
                                                                            D
     •    Based on  the national  trend toward  smaller  family sizes,  it




          was  assumed  that  the  occupancy  rate for  permanent dwelling




          units will  decrease  to  3.0 persons  per unit  and  that  the




          seasonal  dwelling  unit occupancy  rate would  decrease  to  4.0




          persons per unit.









Based on  these  assumptions,  the dwelling unit  projections  for the Pro-




posed Service  Area  by  Township were developed  using  the 1978 estimates




as  a base.    As  indicated  in  Table  D-2,  the population  projections




resulted  in  a  Proposed  Service  Area population  of 1,263  people con-




sisting of  603 permanent  residents (47.7%)  and 660 seasonal residents




(52.3%).  The  total in-summer population for the year 2000 represents a




50.4% increase  over the 1978 figure.  Littlefield Township is projected




to increase  by 167  people (54.8%)  and Springvale  Township is projected




to increase  by 256  people (47.9%).  These  figures  are  in line with the




Northwest Michigan  Regional  Planning Commission's  (208 planning agency)




projected growth  for Littlefield Township  (43.2%)  and  Springvale Town-




ship  (30.4%).   The permanent  population in Littlefield  Township will




increase by nearly  250% while Springvale Township's permanent population




is projected to increase by over  140%.  The increase in  seasonal popula-



           •t
tion is anticipated to be of compartively smaller magnitudes with  only a




5.3%  increase  in  Littlefield Township and a 8.0% increase in Springvale




Township .









     Using the Township  totals  for the  Proposed  Service  Area, the new




dwelling  units and the  conversion of  seasonal  to  permanent dwelling




units were dissaggregated to the eighteen segments  comprising  the
320 E5

-------
                               Table  D-2

            PROJECTED POPULATION AND DWELLING UNITS FOR THE
             CROOKED/PICKEREL PROPOSED SERVICE AREA  (2000)
                                               2000
                            Population                  Dwelling Units
     Municipality     Total  Permanent  Seasonal   Total  Permanent  Seasonal

Littlefield Township
  5                      64       48        16        20       16         4
  7  (part)                00         0         0        0         0
  8                      37       21        16        11        7         4
  9                       000000
10                      93       33        60        26       11        15
11                     103       51        52        30       17        13
12                      90       42        48        26       14        12
13                      82       18        64        22        6        16
17                       330110

Subtotal               472      216       256       136       72        64
Springvale Township
 1                      13        9         4         4        3         1
 2                      12       12         0         4        4         0
 3                      37       21        16        11        7         4
 4                     103       51        52        30       17        13
 6                     159      123        36        50       41         9
 7 (part)               22        6        16         62         4
14                     148       36       112        40       12        28
15                      52       24        28        15        8         7
16                     245      105       140        70       35        35
18                       000000

Subtotal               791      387       404       230      129       101


TOTAL                1,263      603       660       366      201       165

-------
Service  Area.   The  disaggregations  were made  based on  the  amount of




developable  land  available in  each  segment  (areas containing wetlands,




poor  soils,  or  potential  flood hazard  areas  were  not  considered as




developable)  the  desirability  of  the developable  land  for  potential




development  and   the  availability  of  infrastructure.   Second   tier




residential  development  was  also  considered  in those  segments  where




backlot  development was  already occurring.    Based  on these parameters




and the provisions of the  relevant zoning ordinances,  the  disaggregation




by segment was made as  indicated in  Table D-2.








     Areas of major dwelling unit and population growth include Segments




10,  11,  12, and  13  in Littlefield Township  and Segments  4,  6,  14, 15,




and  16  in  Springvale  Township.  These  segments  represent  nearly the




entire  shoreline  around  Pickerel  Lake  and  southeastern  shoreline of




Crooked  Lake.








Comparison of EIS  and Facility  Plan  Population Totals








     The  1978  population  estimates   for  the Proposed Service Area  pre-




pared  for  this  EIS are  equal  to the Facility  Plan  estimates.  However,




the  two estimates are  based  on different  dwelling unit  totals  (259




dwelling units  in the Facility Plan estimate) and different assumptions




regarding seasonal population.   The  EIS estimate assumed  that  there  were




146 seasonal dwelling units while the Facility Plan used  a figure  of 182




seasonal dwelling  units.
320 E6

-------
     In  addition,  the  Facility Plan  assumed that  seasonal households




would  have  the  same occupancy  rate  (3.25  persons/unit)  as  permanent




units.   The  EIS  estimate used  a higher  seasonal occupancy  rate (4.25




persons/units) to  reflect  the  findings of numerous  studies which found




that seasonal units  generally  had  significantly higher occupancy rates.




Although these different assumptions  did  not affect the 1978 population




estimates,  they  did affect  the  difference between  the  EIS and  the




Facility Plan year 2000 projections.









     The EIS  year  2000 projection of 1,263 people  is  nearly  40% lower




than  the Facility  Plan projection  of 2,080 people.   The  difference of




817  people  is in  large measure attributable  to the  assumption  in  the




Facility Plan that wastewater  treatment  service would be  available in




the  Proposed  Service Area  to open to  development previously undevelop-




able land.  Under  this  assumption  and the higher existing dwelling unit




base, the Facility Plan projected a 147.6% increase in population in the




Service Area.  The EIS projection,  based solely on past growth trends in




the Service Area, projected only a  50.4% increase in population which is




more closely  in  line with  the  208  planning agency's (Northwest Michigan




Regional Planning  Commission) projected growth for Littlefield Township




(43.2%) and Springvale Township (30.4%).









     It must  be  recognized  that the  forecasts of future  seasonal popu-




lation growth presented here are highly tentative.  This  is partly the




result of assumptions which must be  made  concerning seasonal population




such  as  occupancy  rate.    In  addition,   seasonal population  change is




likely to respond  much  more to a variety  of social factors influencing
320 E7

-------
the number  of second  homes that  Americans  own.  Most  important among




these volatile  factors are changes in  disposable  personal income which




influence the ability  to afford second  residences  and  changes in gaso-




line availability  and  prices which influence  the  ability of persons to




travel long distances  to second homes.
 320 E8

-------
  APPENDIX E




FLOW REDUCTION

-------
                          ?low Reduction and Cose Data for Water Saving Devices
                                                                                                           APPENDIX
                                                                                                               E-l
     Device

Toilet modifications

Hater displacement
 device—plastic
 bottles,  bricks, etc.

Hater damming device

Dual flush adaptor
   Daily
Conservation
   (gpd)
    10



    30

    23
                                           Daily
                                       Conservation
                                        (hot water)
                                       Useful
            Capital     Installation    Liie_
            _Cost          Cost        (yrs.).
 Shower flow  control
  insert device

 Alternative  shower
   equipment

 Flow control shower, head
 Shower cutoff  valve

 thermostatic mixing
  valve
     19
     19
0

0-
3.25

4.00
                     14
                     14
              2.00




             15.00


              2.00


             62.00
H-0



E-0

H-0
                                                H-0
              H-0 or
              13.30

              3-0
                                                13.30
15



20

10
                                     Average
                                     Annual
                                      O&M
Inaroved ballock
assembly
Alternative toilets
Shallow trap toilet
Dual cycle toilet
Vacuum toilet
Incinerator toilet
Organic waste treatment
system
Recycle toilet
Faucet modifications
Aerator
Flow control device
Alternative faucats
Foow control faucet
Spray tap faucet
Shower modification
20
30
60
90
100
100
100
1
4.3

4.3
7

0-
0-
0-
0-
0
0
0
1
2.4

2.4
3.5

3.00 H-0 10 0
30.00 53.20 20 0
95.00 55.20 • 0




1.50 H-0 15 0
3.00 H-0 15 Q

40.00 20.70 0
56.50 20.70 15 0

  d-0 »  Honsowner-instalied;  cost assumed to be zero.

-------
                                                                      APPENDIX
                                                                         E-2
               CONSIDERATION OF RESIDENTIAL FLOW REDUCTION MEASURES
       IN WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLANNING FROM THE HOMEOWNER'S PERSPECTIVE
     A wastewater management option available for all publicly owned treatment
works (POTW) is reduction of wastewater flow by installation of flow reduction
devices in private residences.  The typical 201 Facilities Plan, however, gives
passing attention to this option, ignores  it altogether, or finds that is it
not implementable and not cost-effective.  It is true that there is little
hard data on implementation and success of municipality-wide flow reduction
programs.  Facilities planners are not disposed to reduce their wastewater
flow projections on the basis of unquantifiables, and so the flow reduction
option is usually eliminated.

     When domestic flow reduction is analyzed for cost-effectiveness, the same
result is obtained.  The calculated costs  of residential flow reduction de-
vices are compared to the cost to treat the increment of wastewater that would
be saved.  Particularly in metropolitan areas, where costs to treat per unit
flow are low, this cost comparison generally favors eliminating the flow re-
duction option from further consideration.  However, this type of analysis is
incomplete.  The benefits of residential flow reduction also include reduced
costs for water supply, energy savings from reduced hot water requirements, and
reduced design sizes of future water supply mains, collector sewers, and
interceptors.  Rigorous estimation of  these cost benefits would require dis-
aggregation of relevant public utility costs to items which are not flow-
dependent  (such as right-of-way easements, fixed operation and maintenance
costs, amortization of prior capitalization) and those which are flow-dependent
(peak hydraulic capacity of water and wastewater treatment plants and pumping
stations, variable operation and maintenance costs).  The effort required to
prepare such an analysis could equal the effort to prepare the remainder of
the  facilities plan.

     As a means of providing a comprehensive cost-effective analysis without
committing  disproportionate effort to it, the homeowner's perspective on the
economics of flow reduction can be assumed.  Six cost estimates are included
in the analysis from the homeowner's perspective:

           cost of wastewater treatment,
           cost of water supply,
           cost of energy for water heating,
           capital cost of the device,
           installation cost of the device, and
          operation and maintenance cost of the device.

Annual savings in wastewater treatment, water supply, and energy  costs  due  to
use  of a device are compared to annualized capital  and  installation  costs plus
annual operation and maintenance  cost.

     Calculation of savings in utility costs requires  that  a baseline  of water
consumption characteristics be assumed.  Relying on analysis by Bailey, et  al.
(1969), total daily household water consumption  for a  family of four  is
generated as shown in Table 1.  Hot water  usage  assumptions  are also  listed.
Except for hot water usage by laundry  and  dishwashing machines, hot water

-------
                                                                             E-2
Table 1.  Average daily household total and hot water usage for a family of
  four by sewage generating source.
Source
Bathing
Lavatory
Kitchen faucet
Utility sink
Laundry
Dishwashing
Toilet

Per capita per day
Annual household
(90% occupancy)
Cold and hot
water usage
(KPd)
80
8
12
5
35
15
1QQ
255
63.75 gpcd
83,800 gallons

Hot water
usage
(*pd)
40
4
6
2
30a
15a
—
97
24.25 gpcd
31,800 gallons

             Author's assumptions.  Remainder of data from Bailey,
             et al. (1969).

-------
                                                                              E-2
estimates are based upon Bailey's assumption that 50% of contact water is

heated.   To calculate annual total and hot water consumption, a 90% occupancy

rate is assumed.  The standard household, therefore, uses approximately 84,000

gallons of water per year, of which approximately 32,000 gallons are heated.



     In regard to the capital, installation, and O&M costs of water conserva-

tion devices, two cases are considered:



     Case I — Installation in new homes or as  a necessary replacement.



     Case II — Retrofitting or replacement of  old equipment or installation

where there is no equivalent standard equipment.



     To formulate the flow reduction analysis,  the general equation is:



          A = C  - C,
               o    d


     where:



          A = annual homeowner savings due to a flow reduction device



          C  = annual costs without device
           o


          C. - annual costs with  the device.
           d


 Annual  costs without the  device are further  defined as:



     Case I:  Installation in new homes  or as necessary  replacement



          C  , =  84 x W
           ol


                + 32 x P


                + 84 x WW



                +  (Capital  + Installation  )(A/P,i,n)
                           s               s


                +  (O&M  )
                      s


     where:



          W  = $/l,000 gallons for water  supply



          P  = $/l,000 gallons for heating water to  140°F



         WW  = $/l,000 gallons for wastewater treatment



    Capital   = cost of standard  device




 Installation =  installation cost of standard device
             s


         O&M =  average  annual  operation and maintenance cost
             s:


 (A/P,  i, n)   =  capital  recovery  factor  at  i percent  interest for useful

                 life of  the  standard  device, n.

-------
     Case II:   Retrofitting or no equivalent standard equipment

               C TT  =  84W + 32P + 84WW
                oil

Annual costs with the device are further defined as:
                                                                              E-2
                              84 -
328 x T
 1,000
W
                              84 -
                                   [328 x Hi
                                   [ 1,000 j
328 x T
 1,000
ww
                       4-     (Capital  + Installation^ (A/P,i,n)

                       +     (O&M,)
                                 d

     where:    W, P, WW as above

               T = Total daily household water saving for a flow reduction

                   device

               H = Hot water daily household water savings for a flow

                   reduction device

     Capital,    = Cost of flow reduction device
            Q

     Installation,  = Installation cost of flow reduction system

     O&M,  =  Average annual operation and maintenance device
      Substituting  these  cost  factors into  the generalized  equation  and  can-
 celling,  the  annual homeowner savings due  to a  flow  reduction  device, A,  for
 the two  cases can  be  calculated  as:
      Case  I:
     A =  (Capital  +  Installation  )(A/P,i,n)
                 s               s

          +  (O&M )
                5

-------
                                                                                 E-2
          +  .328  (T-W + H«P + T«WW)

          -  (Capitald + Installation )(A/P,i,n)

          -  (0&Md)


""CaseTl:

     A =   .328  (T«W + H'P + T-WW)

          -  Capital, + Installation,(A/P,i,n)
                    a               a

          -  (O&M,)
                 a

     All of  the  terms in these last two equations except W, P,  and WW,  are
 specific to  the  flow reduction device under consideration,  or,  in Case  I,
 to  standard  devices having similar functions.  Values found in  the literature
 for the device-specific terms typically show a wide range.   Typical values
 for these terms  are presented in Table 2 for a number of flow reduction
 devices.  No installation cost is assumed where a device can be easily  in-
 stalled by the homeowner.  A labor cost of $13.80 per hour is assumed in
 fable  2 for  devices which would require installation by a licensed plumber.

     The terms W, P, and WW are costs which would be based on local data.
 Appropriate  methods for calculating these costs are described in Table 3.

     If the  annual  homeowner's savings, A, as calculated by this method, is
 positive, then a device can be assumed to be cost-effective on its own merits.
 Other  factors must  be taken into consideration prior to revising waste flow
 projections  in facilities planning.  The most significant factors are method
 of  implementation and effectiveness of a planning area-wide flow reduction
 campaign. For some  devices, public acceptance may also be a significant factor.

     For purposes of facilities planning, it is generally not necessary to
 design a method  of  implementation which will yield short-term water savings.
 The important design factor is per capita flow in the design year.  In most
 planning areas,  this allows 20 years for the flow reduction measures to be
 successfully implemented.  At the least, phasing of wastewater facilities
 would  allow  5 years to achieve the design per capita flow.

-------
                                                                             E-2
Table 3.  Water supply, power, and wastewater treatment costs for cost-effective
  analysis of residential flow reduction devices
Cost of Water Supply - W

• Municipal, Metered Water — Use water billing rate per 1,000 gallons for
    an 80,000 gallons per year user

• Municipal, Fixed Rate — Divide annual billing rate for 84,000 gallon per
    year user by 80.

• Well Supply — Assume that well installation and repair costs are not
    variable according to expected flow reductions.  Flow variable cost is
    only the cost of electricity for pumping from well to storage by the
    equation:

    Total head in feet x c/KWH	   _  .. .  .  ,, Ann   ,,
    	—	TT-.—:—*	_ . og = Cost in c/1,000 gallons
    Overall pump efficiency x 3.185


                  '    *
                .60  x 3.185

Cost of Heating Water - P

• Electric Water Heater — Water heated by 100°F requires 1.0 KWH per
    4 gallons heated.  At 3C/KWH, cost is .750 per gallon or 750C per 1,000
    gallons.

• Natural Gas Water Heater — Not determined.

• IP Gas Water Heater — Not determined.

    (NOTE:  Cost savings for devices which reduce flow in lavatories,
            showers, and kitchen faucets will be very sensitive to
            assumptions about water heating costs.  More work is
            required in this area.)

Cost of Wastewater Treatment —- WW

* For Alternatives Analysis in Facilities Planning — Determination of the
    appropriate cost is at the analyst's discretion.  To maintain the home-
    owner's perspective, the average annual local cost for  transport, treat-
    ment, and disposal of wastewaters for the various alternatives would be
    reduced by  the amortized worth of anticipated footage or connection
    charges, and then divided by the design year, service area flow  (without
    residential flow reduction) in mgd and multiply by 0.365.  A simpler
    effort with a result that will increase the calculated  annual homeowner's
    saving would be to divide the average annual cost of the alternative by
    the design year service area flow and multiply by 0.365.

• Centralized Sewer System, Metered Water Supply — Use sewerage billing
    rate per 1,000 gallons for an 80,000 gallons per year user.

-------
                                                                             E-2
Table 3.   Water supply, power, and wastewater treatment costs for cost-effective
  analysis of residential flow reduction devices  (Concluded).


• On-Lot, Soil-Dependent System — Assume that the useful life of drain field,
    seepage pit, or Indian mound is dependent on  flow.  Divide the estimated
    cost of soil system rehabilitation or replacement by its estimated useful
    life in years times 80:

           6 /-, nr,A   i ,       Cost of replacement  or rehabilitation
           $/l,000 gallons -  	Useful life x 80	

• Holding Tank — Use  cost for  transport and  treatment per  1,000 gallons.
                                           7

-------
                                                                            APPENDIX
                                                                               E-3
                         FLOW REDUCTION FOR EIS ALTERNATIVE 4
a) Alt. Item
Treatment
Collection
Collection
Year
1980
1980
1980-
2000
Capital
761.
2012.
87.
5
85
09
O&M Sal.
15.7
18.61
320,
814.
1.17* 807.
*Gradient
Val.
,5
,16
,95
Capital
PW
761.
2012.
950.
.5
.85
.1
O&M
PW
171.3
203.0
95.0
Sol. Total
Vol. P.W. PW
88.
225.
224.
9
7
0
                                                        3724.4   469.3
                                                                          538.5
         Savings in T.P.W.  = 3775.6 = (Beard Alt. 4) - 3655.2
                           = 120.4
                                                                                   3655.2
        -Costs of Devices
         (see Appendix E-3) -  20.2
                             100,200/301 houses = S333/house in P.W. of wastewater savings

b)  20-year homeowner savings, including water and heating bills.

    Assume family of 4.
    Then total water consumption = 83,800 gallon/yr.
    Then  hot  water consumption = 31,800 gallons/yr.

    W,  = Pumped water costs (125 ft) = 125' x S.03      c  m/,nnn   n
                                      0% eff x 3.185 = S -O2/1000 8allons

    P  = Heated water costs (100°F/$.03/KWH = $7.50/1000 gallons

    WW = Wastewater treatment cost (assume 50% of eligibility of gravity sewage)

       = 0.365 x 230.3 (see p 2/3)
              0.13
= 648.0
Device
dual-cycle
toilet
Shower control
Lavatory faucet
control valve
Total

T(total daily saving)
25
valve 19
4.8
48.8

H(hot water saving) Capital S
0 95
14 15
2.4 40
16.4 150

Installation
55.20
13.80
20.70
89.70
    Annual savings = 0.328  (T.W  + H.P + T. WW)  -  Capital +  Instl. - O&M  (« 0 in all cases)
                   = 0.328  (48.8.0.02 + 7.5.16.4 = 48.8.648.0) -  239.70
                   = 09412.8 - 239.7
                   = 10173
    savings/ user   = 10173/301
                   = 33.8
Treatment (100% eligible) - 827.3
                       (incl. contingency)
Collection pressure
     hookups      =  70.4
     pumps        = 313.3
     pipe         = 338.1
     cleanouts    =39.3
     valves       =   6.4
                   ~767.5+'>5% contg. = 191.9
                  = 959.4 (100% eligible
                                                   Collection-gravity
                                                        pipe        =  324.6
                                                        force  main    313.9
                                                        ARV            8.1
                                                        Tee            3.2
                                                        pump stations  84.0
                                                        hookups        95.8
                                                                     833.6+25%  contg.  -  208.4
                                                                    1042.0  (50% eligible)
    at gravity 50% eligibility,  treatment + collection = 2307.7  (74% of all  coll.  eligible)

    Analyzed Local cost = CRF  (10% of project  cost + Avg. O&M)
                        = 0.0917  (230.8 + 87.3) + 39.1 + 1.2
                        = 29-. 2 +  40.3
                        - 69.5
      Annual Cost/yser  = 69,500
                            301
                        = 230.8 = WW

-------
                                                                         APPENDIX
                                                                            E-4
                 Incremental Capital Costs of Flow Reduction
                   in the Crooked/Pickerel Lake Study Area


Dual cycle toilets:

     $20/toilet x 2 toilets/permanent dwelling x 301 permanent
       dwellings in year 2000                                   = $12,040

     $20/toilet x 1 toilet/seasonal dwelling x 165 seasonal
       dwellings in year 2000                                   =   3,300

     Shower flow control insert device:

       $2/shower x 2 shower/permanent dwelling x 301 permanent
         dwellings in year 2000                                 =   1,204

       $2/shower x 1 shower/seasonal dwelling x 165 seasonal
         dwellings in year 2000                                 =     330

     Faucet flow control insert device:

       $3/faucet x 3 faucets/permanent dwelling x 301 permanent
         dwellings in year 2000                                 =   2,709

       $2/faucet x 2 faucets/seasonal dewlling x 165 seasonal
         dwellings in year 2000                                 =     660

                                                          Total = $20,243
 Note:  The  $20 cost  for dual cycle  toilets is the difference between its
       full purchase price of  $95 and  the price of a standard toilet, $75.

-------
APPENDIX F




FINANCING

-------
                                                               Appendix
                                                                  F-1
                              COST SHARING
     The Federal Water Pollution Coatrol Act of 1972  (Public Law 92-500
Section 202), authorized EPA to award grants for 75%  of the construction
costs of wastewater  management systems.  Passage of  the Clean Water Act
(P. L.  95-217)  authorized increased Federal participation in the costs
of wastewater  management  systems.   The Construction Grants Regulations
(40 CFR Part 35)  have  been modified in accordance  with  the later Act.
Final Rules  and  Regulations for implementing this Act were published in
the Federal Register on September 27, 1978.

     There  follows  a  brief   discussion  of  the  eligibility  of  major
components of wastewater management systems for Federal funds.

Federal Contribution

     In general,  EPA will share in  the costs  of constructing treatment
systems and  in  the cost of land used  as part of the treatment process.
For  land  application systems  the  Federal government will also help to
defray  costs of  storage and ultimate disposal of effluent.  The Federal
share  is  75% of  the cost of  conventional treatment  systems  and 85% of
the  cost  of  systems  using   innovative  or alternative   technologies.
Federal funds  can also  be used to construct collection systems when the
requirements discussed below are met.

     The  increase  in  the Federal  share  to  85%  when   innovative  or
alternative  technologies  are  used is  intended to encourage reclamation
and reuse of water, recycling  of wastewater constituents,  elimination of
pollutant   discharges,    and/or   recovering   of   energy.    Alternative
technologies  are  those  which have  been  proven  and  used in  actual
practice.   These include  land treatment,  aquifer  recharge,  and direct
reuse  for  industrial purposes.  On-site, other small waste systems, and
septage   treatment  facilities  are   also   classified   as  alternative
technologies.   Innovative  technologies are those  which  have  not been
fully proven in full  scale operation.

     To  further  encourage the  adoption  and  use  of  alternative  and
innovative  technologies,  the  Cost Effectiveness  Analysis  Guidelines in
the new regulations  give these technologies a  15% preference (in terms
of present  worth) over  conventional technologies.  This cost preference
does  not apply  to  privately owned,  on-site  or other  privately owned
small waste flow  systems.

     States that  contribute to the 25%  non-Federal share of conventional
projects must  contribute  the   same relative level  of funding to the 15%
non-Federal share of  innovative or alternative projects.

     Individual Systems (Privately or Publicly Owned)

     P.L.  95-217  authorized   EPA  to   participate  in  grants  for con-
structing  privately  owned  treatment  works  serving small  commercial
establishments  or  one  or more  principal residences  inhabited  on or

-------
                                                                       F-l


before   December  27,   1977   (Final  Regulatioas,   40   CFR  35.918,
September 27,  1978).   A public  body must apply  for  the grant, certify
that  the  system will  be properly operated  and  maintained, and collect
user  charges   for   operation  and  maintenance  of  the   system.   All
commercial users must  pay industrial cost recovery on the  Federal share
of the  system.   A  principal residence is  defined as  a voting residence
or  household  of  the  family  during  51%  of  the  year.   Note:   The
"principal  residence"  requirement  does   not  apply  to  publicly  owned
systems.

      Individual   systems,   including   sewers,   that  use  alternative
technologies   may  be   eligible  for  85%  Federal   participation,  but
privately  owned individual systems  are  not eligible for the 115% cost
preference in the cost-effective analysis.  Acquisition of  land on which
a privately owned individual system would be located  is not eligible for
a grant.

      Publicly  owned on-site and cluster systems,  although subject to the
same  regulations as centralized  treatment plants, are  also considered
alternative  technologies  and  therefore   eligible  for  an  85% Federal
share.

      EPA policy on eligibility criteria for small waste flow systems is
still  being   developed.    It  is  clear  that   repair,  renovation  or
replacement  of  on-site  systems  is  eligible  if  they  are  causing
documentable public health, groundwater quality or surface  water quality
problems.  Both privately owned systems servicing year-round residences
(individual  systems)  and  publicly owned  year-round  or  seasonally used
systems  are  eligible  where  there  are  existing problems.  Seasonally
used, privately owned  systems are not eligible.

      Several questions on  eligibility criteria remain to be answered and
are currently  being addressed by EPA:

      •     For   systems  which  do  not  have  existing  problems,  would
           preventive  measures be  eligible  which would  delay  or avoid
           future problems?

      0     Could  problems  with   systems   other  than  public  health,
           groundwater  quality or surface  water quality be  the basis for
           eligibility  of  repair, renovation  or replacement? Examples of
           "other problems", are  odors, limited  hydraulic  capacity, and
           periodic backups.

      *     Is   non-conformance  with  modern  sanitary  codes  suitable
           justification   for  eligibility   of  repair,   renovation  or
           replacement?   Can non-conformance be used  as  a measure of the
           need for preventive measures?

      •     If  a system is  causing  public  health,  groundwater quality  or
           surface  water  quality  problems  but   site limitations would
           prevent  a  new  on-site  system  from satisfying sanitary  codes,
           would a  non-conforming  on-site  replacement be eligible if  it
           would solve  the  existing problems?

-------
                                                                      F-l


     In this EIS  estimates were made  of  the  percent repair, renovation
or replacement  of on-site  systems that  may  be  found  necessary during
detailed site  analyses.   Those estimates are  felt to he conservatively
high and would  prohably be appropriate for generous resolutions of the
above questions.

     Collection Systems

     Construction  Grants  Program  Requirements  Memorandum  (PRM)  78-9,
March  3,  1978, amends  EPA policy on the  funding of sewage collection
systems  in  accordance  with P.L.  95-271.  Collection  sewers  are those
installed primarily to receive wastewaters  from household service lines.
Collection  sewers  may be grant-eligible  if they  are the replacement or
major  rehabilitation  of  an  existing system.   For new  sewers  in an
existing  community  to  be  eligible  for  grant  funds,  the  following
requirements must be met:

     o    Substantial Human Habitation — The bulk  (generally  67%) of
          the  flow design capacity  through the  proposed  sewer system
          must  be  for wastewaters  originating  from homes in  existence on
          October  18,  1972.   Substantial human  habitation  should be
          evaluated  block by  block,  or  where  blocks do not  exist, by
          areas of five  acres  or  less.

     o    Cost-Effectiveness   --   New  collector   sewers  will   only be
          considered  cost-effective when  the  systems in use  (e.g. septic
          tanks)  for  disposal of wastes  from  existing  population are
          creating a   public  health  problem,  violating  point source
          discharge  requirements  of PL 92-500, or contaminating ground-
          water.   Documentation of the   malfunctioning disposal systems
          and  the  extent of  the problem is  required.

          Where population density within  the  area to  be served by the
          collection  system  is   less than 1.7  persons  per  acre  (one
          household  per two acres), a severe  pollution or  public health
          problem must  be  specifically  documented  and  the  collection
           sewers  must be  less costly than on-site alternatives.   Where
          population  density is less  than  10  persons per acre, it  must
          be shown  that  new  gravity collector  sewer construction and
           centralized  treatment   is   more  cost-effective  than  on-site
           alternatives.    The   collection  system  may  not  have  excess
           capacity which  could  induce  development in  environmentally
           sensitive   areas  such   as  wetlands,   floodplains   or  prime
          agricultural   lands.   The proposed  system  must   conform  with
          approved Section  208 plans, air quality plans,  and  Executive
          Orders   and  EPA policy on environmentally  sensitive  areas.

     o   Public  Disclosure  of Costs  --  Estimated    monthly     service
           charges to a  typical residential customer for the system must
          be disclosed to the public  in order for the collection system
           to  be   funded.    A  total   monthly  service  charge  must  be
          presented,  and the portion  of  the charge due to operation and
          maintenance,  debt  service,  and connection to  the system must
           also be disclosed.

-------
                                                                      F-l
     Elements of the substantial human habitation and cost-effectiveness
eligibility  requirements  for  new  collector  sewers  are  portrayed in
Figure  1   in  a  decision flow diagram.  These  requirements would apply
for  any pressure,  vacuum  or  gravity  collector  sewers  except those
serving on-site or small waste flow systems.

Household Service Lines

     Traditionally,   gravity  sewer  lines  built  on  private  property
connecting a house or other building with a public sewer have been built
at the  expense of the owner without local, State or Federal assistance.
Therefore,   in  addition  to  other costs  for hooking up  to a  new sewer
system, owners installing  gravity household service lines  will  have to
pay  about  $1,000, more  or  less  depending on site  and  soil conditions,
distance and other factors.

     Pressure sewer  systems, including the individual pumping units,  the
pressure  line  and   appurtenances  on private  property,  however,  are
considered  as  part  of  the  community  collection  system.   They  are,
therefore,   eligible  for Federal and  State grants  which substantially
reduce  the  homeowner's  private  costs  for  installation  of  household
service lines.

-------
                   FIGURE  J-3-a

Collector Sewer Eligibility - Decision Flow Diagram
                Based on PRM 78-9
1 ,
Sanitary Survey
and Croundwater *
Analysis v"
Sewers
Not
1T1 In -Ilil n /. 	 **"
t-iigiDiev
at 75%
Block 1
of Sub
Habit a

•Js

Documented Groundwater Contamination, Sewers Not
Indeterminate Public Health Hazard or Point Source No s Elleible

Pop. Density
Greater than
10/acre
V
\ j
Community 20-year
Population Incraas
Less than 50% oVer
1972 Population?
Yes
\ '
by Block Determination
atantial Human
tion in 1972
1 No Habitation
Sewers
Not
Eligible
Violation
Yes
No Alternat
(Document Sewers F
Reasons)
*
| Sewer ing
(Cost
,. Sewers j^. 	
e * Cheaper [cost

E
1972
Habitation ^ E


, , . x
Yes Pop. Density less
,V than 10/ar.ra
ive to
ea sible 7
Yes
*
Alternative's
Cost
1
Comparison]
Alternative s
Cheaper
\/
Sewers
Not
ligible
Sewers
ligible
v,
fstate Priority, Certification!
(and Funding I
it
I
j Build Sewers |

-------
                                                                    APPENDIX
                                                                       F-2
             ALTERNATIVES  FOR FINANCING THE  LOCAL  SHARE  OF
      WASTEWATER  TREATMENT FACILITIES IN EMMET COUNTY, MICHIGAN
320 Cl

-------
                                                                             F-2
             ALTERNATIVES FOR FINANCING THE LOCAL SHARE OF
       WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN EMMET COUNTY, MICHIGAN


     The financing  of  wastewater facilities requires a viable strategy.
In exercising  the  authority  delegated to them by  the  state to finance
local activities, local governments need not only expertise in budgeting
and  debt  administration but  also a general knowledge  of  the costs and
benefits of  various complex  financial  tools  and alternative investment
strategies.

     This  section  reviews  several possible ways  to  fund  the  Proposed
Action  or  alternative wastewater  management  systems  in  Emmet County,
Michigan.  It will:

     •    Describe  options  available  for financing both the  capital and
          the operating costs of  the wastewater facilities; and

     •    Discuss  institutional  arrangements  for  financing and examine
          the probable effects  of various organizational arrangements on
          the marketability of  the bond.

                    FINANCING CAPITAL  COSTS: OPTIONS

     The several methods of financing  capital  improvements  include:  (1)
pay-as-you-go  methods;  (2)  special  benefit  assessments;  3)  reserve
funds;  and (4) debt financing.

     The pay-as-you-go method requires  that payments  for capital facili-
ties be made from  current  revenues.   This approach is  more  suitable for
recurring  expenses  such  as  street  paving than  for  one-time long-term
investments.   As the  demand  for public  services  grows,  it becomes in-
creasingly  difficult  for local governments  to finance capital improve-
ments  on a pay-as-you-go basis.

     In situations  where   the  benefits  to  individual  properties from
capital improvements can be assessed,  special  benefit assessments  in the
form of direct fees or taxes  may be used  to apportion costs.

     Sometimes reserve funds  are established to  finance capital improve-
ments.  A part of  current revenues  is  placed in  a  special  fund  each year
and  invested in  order to  accumulate  adequate funds  to  finance  needed
capital improvements.  Although  this method  avoids  the  expense  of
borrowing,  it requires  foresight on  the  part of the  local  government.

     Debt financing of capital  facilities may  take several  forms.   Local
governments  may  issue short-term notes  or  float  one  of several types of
bonds.   Bonds  are  generally  classified by  both   their  guarantee of
security and method of redemption.
320 C2

-------
                                                                           ¥-2
                          GUARANTEE OF SECURITY

General Obligation (G.O.  Bonds)

     Debt  obligations  secured  by  the  full  faith  and  credit  of  the
municipality are  classified as  general obligation bonds.   The borrower
is pledging  the financial  and  economic resources  of the  community to
support  the  debt.   Because  of  the advantages of this  approach to debt
financing, general  obligation bonds  have  funded over 95%  of the water
and sewer projects  in  the State of Michigan.  Following are some of the
advantages:

     •    Interest rates  on  the  debt are usually lower  than on revenue
          or special  assessment bonds.  With  lower  annual  debt service
          charges,  the  cash  flow  position  of  the  jurisdiction  is  im-
          proved.

     •    G.O.   bonds  for  sewerage offer  financial  flexibility  to  the
          municipality  since  funds  to  retire  them can  be  obtained
          through property  taxes,  user charges or combinations of both.

     •    When  G.O.  bonds  are  financed by  ad valorem  property taxes,
          households  have  the   advantage  of  a  deduction from  their
          Federal income taxes.

     •    G.O.   bonds   offer  a  highly  marketable financial  investment
          since  they provide  a  tax-free and relatively low-risk invest-
          ment venture for the lender.

     •    In the  State of Michigan, a municipality may issue G.O. bonds
          without the  consent of  the electorate.  However,  there is a
          bill  in the legislature  that would  require  all  bonds  to be
          subjected to a referendum.

     A  disadvantage to a  general obligation approach is  the State con-
stitutional  restriction  on  the  total  amount  of  debt  outstanding.
Michigan  law  requires  that  a  municipality's  total  indebtedness  not
exceed  10% of  its assessed valuation.  This  restriction  may lead small
rural  areas  like  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes  to  seek  alternative regional
institutional   arrangements  for   financing   the   capital   costs   of
wastewater/treatment systems.

Revenue Bonds

     Revenue bonds differ from G.O. bonds in that they are  not backed by
a  pledge of full  faith  and credit from the municipality and therefore
require  a  higher interest rate.   The  interest  is usually paid, and the
bonds eventually retired, by earnings from the enterprise.

     A major advantage of revenue bonds over general obligation bonds is
that  municipalities  can  circumvent  constitutional  restrictions  on
borrowing.   Although   revenue bonds   have  become  a popular  financial
alternative to  G.O. bonds in financing wastewater facilities,  they  have
traditionally  been  avoided  as   a  financing  mechanism  in  Michigan  for
several reasons.

320 C3                              0

-------
                                                                         F-2
    •    High Interest Rates.   Since  the bonds  are  payable only  from
         the  earnings  of  the enterprise  and are not supported by the
         full faith  and  credit of  the jurisdictions, the  risk of de-
         fault is  greater  than on a general obligation issue.

    •    Margin of Risk".   The bond market requires  earnings to be  some
         multiple   of  total debt  service charges in order to protect
         investors from possible  default.   The current risk margin for
         Michigan  revenue bonds is  50%.   For the Study Area this  high
         margin requirement  may  provide  two scenarios.  First,  since
         60% of the  households in the Study  Area  have  incomes  under
         $10,000,   investors  might consider the  returns on  the  invest-
         ment to  be  less  than  the risks  of possible  default;  should
         this be  the  case,  the  bonds  would be unmarketable.   Alter-
         natively,  if the  bond  be  marketable, then  the  additional
         margin requirements*  would be charged  to  households,  thereby
          increasing  the  cost  burden  imposed  by debt  service  obliga-
         tions.

     •   Administrative Costs.   Issuance  of  a  revenue bond  obligates
         the  municipality  to provide  separate  funding and accounting
         procedures  to  distinguish  the  sewer  charges  from  general
          revenue accounts.

Special Assessment  Bond

     A  special  assessment bond  is payable  only  from the  collection of
special  assessments,  not  from general property taxes.   This type  of
obligation   is  useful  when  direct  benefits  are  easily  identified.
Assessments are  often based  on front footage or area  of  the benefited
property.   This  type  of  assessment may  be very costly  to individual
property owners,  especially  in  rural areas.   Agricultural lands  may
require long  sewer extensions  and thus impose a very high assessment on
one user.   Furthermore, not  only  is the  individual  cost  high, but the
presence of sewer  lines places development  pressures  on the rural  land
and  often  portends   the  transition  of   land   from  agriculture  to
residential/commercial  use.   Because  the  degree of  security is  lower
than  with   G.O.  bonds,  special  assessment bonds  represent a  greater
investment  risk and therefore carry a higher interest rate.

                          METHODS  OF REDEMPTION

     Two types  of  bonds  are  classified  according  to  their method of
retirement  --  (1)  serial  bonds and  (2) term bonds.  Serial bonds mature
in annual installments while term  bonds mature at a fixed point in time.

Serial Bonds

     Serial bonds  provide  a number of  advantages for financing sewerage
facilities.  First, they provide  a straightforward retirement method by
maturing in annual  installments.   Secondly,  since some bonds are retired
each year,  this  method avoids the use of sinking funds."  Third, serial
bonds   are  attractive  to  the  investor  and  offer  wide flexibility in
marketing  and arranging  the  debt  structure of  the  community.   Serial
320 C4

-------
                                                                          F-2
bonds  fall  into  two categories  (1)  straight serials  and  (2)  serial
annuities.

     Straight Serial Bonds  provide  equal  annual payments  of principal
for the  duration  of the bond issue.  Consequently, interest charges are
higher in the  early years and decline over  the life of the bond.  This
has  the  advantage  of  'freeing  up'  surplus  revenues  for future invest-
ment.  The municipality has the option of charging these excess revenues
to a  sinking  or reserve fund or of  lowering the sewer rates imposed on
households.

     Serial Annuities  provide  equal  annual  installment  payments  of
principal and  interest.   Total  debt service charges  in  the early years
of the bond issue  are  thus  equal  to the charges  in later years.   The
advantage to this  method  of debt retirement is  that the total costs of
the  projects  are averaged  across  the entire  life of  the  bond.   Thus,
peak  installment payments  in the early years are avoided, and costs are
more equitably distributed than with straight serial bonds.

     Although  straight  and  annuity  serials are the most common types of
debt  retirement bonds,  methods  of repayment may vary.  Such "irregular"
serial bonds may result in:

     •    Gradually increasing annual debt service charges over the life
          of the issue;

     •    Fluctuating  annual  installments  producing  combinations  of
          rising then declining debt service; or

     •    Large installments  due  on the last years of the issue.  These
          are  called "ballooning" maturity bonds.

     Statutory limitations restrict the use of irregular serial bonds in
the  State  of  Michigan.   According  to the Revenue  Bond  Act,  "all bonds
shall  not  mature  at   one  time,  they  shall  mature  in annual  series
beginning not  more  than two years  from  such probable date of beginning
of operation and ending  as provided  herein above  for  the maturity of
bonds  maturing at one time, and the sum of the principal and interest to
fall  due in  each  year shall  be as  nearly equal as  is practicable."

Term Bonds

     Term bonds differ from serial issues in that term bonds mature at  a
fixed  point in time.   The issuing entity makes  periodic payments (in-
cluding  interest  earned on investments) to a sinking fund which will be
used  to  retire the debt at  maturity.   The major  disadvantage to this
approach to financing  is  management of  the sinking  fund  -- a  complex
operation requiring expertise in national and regional monetary markets
to insure maximum return on investment.  Mismanagement of the fund could
lead to default on  the bond.

     Until recently, term bonds requiring a  sinking fund were illegal  in
the  State   of  Michigan.   In 1977,  the Michigan legislature  passed  a
resolution  allowing the use of term bonds by  requiring annual payments


320 C5                              J

-------
                                                                          F-2
to a sinking fund for use in purchasing or redeeming bonds to retire the
debt.  There is an advantage to this method of debt retirement, particu-
larly  for   revenue-producing  wastewater   treatment  facilities.    If
revenues  or user  charges  from the  facilities  are  estimated  to  vary
widely from year  to year, then the community has the option of retiring
a greater or lesser portion of the debt in any given year.

                             OPERATING COSTS

     In  most  cases,  operating  costs  are  financed  through  service
charges.   Service  charges  are generally  constructed  to  reflect  the
physical use of the system.  For example, charges may be based on one or
a combination of the following  factors:

     •    Volume of wastewater

     •    Pollutional load of wastewater

     •    Number or size  of connections

     •    Type   of   property   serviced   (residential,   commercial,
          industrial).

     Volume  and pollutional  load  are two  of  the primary  methods  for
determining service charges.  Basing service charges on volume of waste-
water  requires  some method for measuring or estimating volume.  Because
metering of wastewater flows is expensive and impractical, many communi-
ties  utilize  existing  water supply  meters  and,  often,  fix wastewater
volume  at a percentage  of water  flows.   When metering  is  not used,  a
flat rate system may be employed, charging a fixed rate for each connec-
tion based  on user  type.

                       INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

     The  townships  and municipalities within the Study Area have avail-
able  a  number  of  organizational  arrangements  in  financing wastewater
facilities.   This  section discusses  these  arrangements  and reviews the
financial  effects  of  various  institutional structures  on  the market-
ability of  the bond.

Organization Structure

     Michigan  Public Act (P.A.) 129  of 1943,  (Michigan Compiled Laws
1970,  Section  123.231-236  and  subsequent amendments)  provides for the
following  institutional  arrangements  to administer  and  finance waste-
water  facilities.

     1.   Municipal Ownership.   Ownership,  operation and administration
are  conducted by  a  single community as  a  service  to  its  residents.
320 C6

-------
                                                                          F-2
     2.    Joint Ownership.   Two  or  more communities  jointly construct,
operate  and own the facilities.   Each government entity retains title to
the facilities in  proportion  to  its share  of capital expenditures.  The
political  subdivisions  may  borrow  money  and  issue  joint revenue  or
general  obligation bonds in the  name of the participating jurisdictions.

     3.    Contracting for Service.   One  entity  provides  sewer  services
to an area  outside its  boundaries  on the  basis  of a contractual agree-
ment.  P.A. 129 of 1943, Section 2  states that "any such contracts shall
be  authorized  by  the  legislative  body of  each  contracting  political
subdivision and shall be  effective  for such term as shall be prescribed
therein not exceeding 50 years."

     4.    Special Purpose District  (Sanitary Districts).   A  number  of
local governments cooperate.   This  arrangement differs from joint owner-
ship in  that a separate governing  body is  established and embodied with
the  power to  administer the  financing and  operation of  the  project.
Debt  is   issued  in the  name  of the  district authority,  but  repayment
obligations are  the responsibility  of all  communities  in the  district.

     5.    Multi-Purpose Districts.    These  are  similar  to the  special
purpose  district,  but,  in contrast,  multi-purpose districts  have more
than one function.  For  example,  a multi-purpose  district may provide
water  services,   sewer  services,  irrigation and  flood  control  for  a
specified area.  In Michigan,  P.A.  40 of 1956, states that a county may,
upon  petition,   establish  a   drainage board,  whose  composition  it
specifies, which  is then  authorized  to create a  drainage district for
draingage, water and sewer facilities.

              FINANCIAL EFFECTS  OF  INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
               FOR THE CROOKED/PICKEREL LAKES STUDY AREA

     Water  quality  problems  and  proposed  solutions  in  the  Crooked/
Pickerel  Lakes area  extend  beyond municipal boundaries.  Of  the five
arrangements listed above,  joint contracts,  special  purpose districts,
and  contractual  agreements would  be  the  most  suitable  for  the Study
Area.   The organization  arrangement  that is  selected  to administer,
finance  and implement the  project  will affect  (1) the marketability of
the bond, and  (2) the administrative costs  of the project.  These alter-
native institutional arrangements are discussed below.

Joint Ownership and Special Purpose Districts

     Both the  joint ownership and  special  district arrangements provide
a  means   for   each  participating township  to  share  in  the  costs and
benefits  provided  by  the  wastewater  management   system but  would  be
acceptable only if the  combined entities can devise  a financial struc-
ture that will  insure  the  marketability  of the  bond  at a  desirable
interest  rate.  For the Study Area, there  are some disadvantages in the
use of these institutional arrangements.
320 C7

-------
                                                                            F-2
Previous bond  issues  for  Littlefield Township  and Springvale Township
have  been  for  small  improvements   in  water   systems,  streets,  and
highways—too small  for Moody's Bond  Record  and Standard and Poor's to
rate.  Therefore,  an investor's ability to evaluate the  community's re-
sources  to  meet periodic  principal and  interest payments is impaired.
In  the  Socioeconomic  Study Area a  large  proportion  of  the population
with incomes below the  poverty  level are elderly or retired with limited
or fixed incomes.  In  1970, the  date of the latest available  statistics,
approximately 20 per of all persons  in  the Study Area were  55 years or
older.   These  characteristics  will  tend to  reduce the  ability  of the
community  to meet debt service charges  under  adverse  economic condi-
tions .

                                CONCLUSIONS

     Alternatives  for  financing a  wastewater management system in the
Study  Area  and  a  range  of  investment strategies for  policymakers to
employ  at  the  local level  were  outlined above.   This  section summarizes
these  options  and  recommends  a  strategy  for   financing  the  Crooked/
Pickerel Lakes system.

Institutional Arrangement

      Municipal ownership,  joint ownership,  and special purpose districts
should  be  avoided  as   an  organizational  approach to   financing the pro-
posed  facilities  in the Study  Area.   The best solution would enable the
county  to  issue the bond, operate  the system  and charge the partici-
pating  political  subdivision for wastewater  services. The major advan-
tage  of this  approach is  that the county  can  issue debt pledging the
full  faith and  credit of  its  economic  resources to   support the issue.
Such  an arrangement would  both  make  possible a   lower interest rate and
would most improve the marketability  of the bond.

Capital  Costs

      The alternative sewerage systems considered in  this EIS are expen-
sive  and per capita costs  are  high.   Pay-as-you-go financing strategies
would clearly be  inappropriate to  finance  the   start-up  costs  for the
facilities.   (However,  pay-as-you-go techniques might  be  used  in the
future   to   finance   capital   improvements.   The future  state  of the
economy, the cash flow position of  the County and  the nature of antici-
pated expenditures  will be  critical variables in determining whether
capital  improvements can be financed  from  current revenues.)

      Reserve  funds are usually  intended to  finance capital  improvements
at  some future date.   Still,  a combination of  capital reserve and pay-
as-you-goapproaches   could   finance  construction  of  new   low-cost
facilities.   However,  unless Emmet  County  has   a reserve  fund  earmarked
for  sewer  and  water  expenditures,   this  method  of  financing  current
capital  costs is presently not  feasible  for  the  Study Area.

      Special  benefit assessments would provide  a viable way to  finance
improvements  to those  households that would benefit  most directly from
sewerage  facilities.   Or,  the  County could finance the  collection com-
ponent  of  these facilities with a  special  assessment tax and fund the
remaining capital  costs through a series of  user charges.
320 C8

-------
                                                                             F-2
      The County should  use  general obligation bonds to finance the local
 share of  system  capital  costs.   This method  will provide  the  lowest
 interest rate among  alternative  forms  of debt financing.   In addition, a
 serial  bond  should  be tied  to  the   general  obligation  bond to  gain
 greater  flexibility  in marketing  and  arranging the County's debt struc-
 ture.
320 C9

-------
                                                                        F-2
                                    Table I
              FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
                   IN THE CROOKED/PICKEREL LAKES STUDY AREA
Emmet1-4-''
County
$202,942,911
4,310,588
4,020,529
3,926,993
93,536
-0-
Littlefieldv '
Township
$10,850,481
449,869
411,628
N/A
N/A
110,000
Springvale^
Township
$6,766,800
240,397
244,834
N/A
N/A
N/A
State Equalized
  Valuations

Total Revenues

Total Expenditures

  Current Expense

  Capital Outlay

Total Long-Term Debt
Notes:   (1)   State of Michigan, Department of Treasury, Michigan County
             Government Financial Report, for the year ended December 31, 1974.

        (2)   Hill, Woodcock and Distel, Certified Public Accounts, Audited
             Financial^Statements - Littlefield Township, March 23, 1976.

        (3)   Hill, Woodcock and Distel, Certified Public Accountants, Audited
             Statements of Cash Receipts and Disbursements, Springvale Township,
             March 22, 1977.

-------
              APPENDIX G




MANAGEMENT OF SMALL WASTEWATER SYSTEMS

-------
                                                                       APPENDIX
                                                                          G-l
             SOME MANAGEMENT AGENCIES FOR DECENTRALIZED FACILITIES


     Central management entities that administer non-central systems with
various degrees of authority have been established in several States.
Although many of these entities are quasi-public, few of them both own and
operate each component of the facility.  The list of small waste flow
management agencies that follows is not comprehensive.  Rather, it presents a
sampling of what is currently being accomplished.  Many of these entities
are located in California, which has been in the vanguard of the movement
away from conventional centralized systems to centrally managed decentralized
systems to serve rural areas (State of California, Office of Appropriate
Technology, 1977).

                  Westboro  (Wisconsin Town Sanitary District)

     Sanitary District No.  1 of the Town of Westboro represents the public
ownership and management of septic tanks located on private property.  In
1974  the unincorporated community of Westboro was selected as a demonstra-
tion site by the Small Scale Waste Management Project  (SSWMP) at the
University of Wisconsin to  determine whether a cost-effective alternative
to central sewage for small communities could be developed utilizing on-site
disposal techniques.  Westboro was thought to be typical of hundreds of
small rural communities in  the Midwest which are~iir need of improved
wastewater treatment and disposal facilities but are unable to afford
conventional sewerage.

     From background environmental data such as  soils  and engineering
studies and groundwater sampling, it was determined that the most economical
alternative would be small  diameter gravity sewers that would collect
effluents from  individual septic tanks and transport them to a common soil
absorption field.  The District assumed responsibility for all operation
and maintenance of the entire facility commencing at the inlet of the septic
tank.  Easements were obtained to allow permanent legal access to properties
for purposes of installation, operation, and maintenance.  Groundwater was
sampled and analyzed during both the construction and  operation phases.
Monthly charges were collected from homeowners.  The system, now in  operation,
will continue to be observed by the SSWMP  to assess the success of  its
mechanical performance and  management capabilities.

                               Washington  State

     Management systems have been mandated  in  certain  situations in the
State of Washington to assist in implementing  the  small waste  flow  manage-
ment concept.   In 1974 the  State's Department  of Social and  Health  Services
established a requirement for the management of  on-site  systems:  an
approved management system  would be responsible  for  the maintenance of
sewage disposal systems when subdivisions  have gross densities greater
than 3.5 housing units or 12 people per acre  (American Society of Agricultural
Engineers 1977).  It is anticipated that  this  concept  will  soon be  applied
to all on-site  systems.

-------
                                                                         G-l
      Georgetown Divide (California) Public Utility District  (GDPUD)

     The GDPUD employs a full-time geologist and registered sanitarian who
manage all the individual wastewater sytems in the District.  Although it
does not own individual systems this district has nearly complete  central
management responsibility for centralized systems.  The Board of Directors
of the GDPUD passed an ordinance forming a special sewer improvement district
within the District to allow the new 1800-lot Auburn Lake  Trails  subdivision
to receive central management services from the GDPUD.  The GDPUD  performs
feasibility studies on lots within the subdivision to evaluate the potential
for the use of individual on-site systems, designs appropriate on-site
systems, monitors their construction and installation, inspects and maintains
them, and monitors water quality to determine their effects upon water leaving
the subdivision.  If a septic tank needs pumping, GDPUD issues a repair order
to the homeowner.  Service charges are collected annually.

     Santa Cruz County (California) Septic Tank Maintenance District

     This district was established in 1973 when the Board of Supervisors
adopted ordinance No.  1927, "Ordinance Amending the Santa Cruz County Code,
Chapter 8.03 Septic Tank System Maintenance District."  Its primary function
is the inspection and pumping of all septic tanks within the District.  To
date 104 residences in two subdivisions are in the district, which collects a
one-time set-up fee plus monthly charges.  Tanks are pumped every  three years
and inspected annually.  The County Board of Supervisors is required to
contract for these services.  In that the District does not have the authority
to own systems, does not perform soil studies on individual sites, or offer
individual designs, its powers are limited.

      Bolinas Community (California) Public Utility District  (BCPUD)

     Bolinas, California is an older community that faced an expensive public
sewer proposal.  Local residents organized to study the feasibility of
retaining many of their on-site systems, and in 1974 the BCPUD Sewage Disposal
and Drainage Ordinance was passed.  The BCPUD serves 400 on-site systems and
operates conventional sewerage facilities for 160 homes.  The District employs
a wastewater treatment plant operator who performs inspections and monitors
water quality.  The County health administration is authorized to  design and
build new septic systems.

                   Kern County (California) Public Works

     In 1973 the Board of Supervisors of Kern County, California,  passed an
ordinance amending the County Code to provide special regulations  for water
quality control.  County Service Area No. 40, including 800 developed lots
of a 2,900-lot subdivision, was the first Kern County Service Area (CSA) to
arrange for management of on-site disposal systems.  Inspections of install-
ations are made by the County Building Department.  Ongoing CSA responsibilities
are handled by the Public Works Department.  System design is provided in an
Operation and Maintenance Manual.

-------
                           Marin County (California)

     In 1971 the Marin County Board of Supervisors adopted a regulation,
"Individual Sewage Disposal Systems," creating an inspection program for
all new installations (Marin County Code Chapter 18.06).  The Department
of Environmental Health is responsible for the inspection program.   The
Department collects a charge from the homeowner and inspects septic tanks
twice a year.  The homeowner is responsible for pumping.  The Department
also inspects new installations and reviews engineered systems.

-------
                                                                           APPENDIX
                                                                              G-2
               LEGISLATION BY STATES AUTHORIZING MANAGEMENT
                      OF SMALL WASTE FLOW DISTRICTS


    In a recent act,  the California legislature noted that then-
existing California law authorized local governments  to construct and maintain
sanitary sewerage  systems but did not authorize  them  to manage small waste
flow systems.   The new act, California Statutes Chapter 1125 of 1977, empowers
certain public agencies to form on-site wastewater disposal zones to collect,
treat, and dispose of wastewater without building sanitary sewers or sewage
systems.  Administrators of such on-site wastewater disposal zones are  to be
responsible for the achievement of water quality objectives set by regional
water quality control boards, protection of existing  and future beneficial
uses, protection of public health, and abatement of nuisances.

    The California act authorizes an assessment by the public agency upon
real property in the zone in addition to other- charges, assessments, or taxes
levied on property in the zone.  The Act assigns the  following functions to
an on-site wastewater disposal zone authority:
    o
         To collect,  treat, reclaim, or dispose of wastewater without
         the use of sanitary sewers or community sewage systems;

    o    To acquire,  design, own, construct, install, operate, monitor,
         inspect, and maintain on-site wastewater disposal systems in a
         manner which will promote water quality, prevent the pollution,
         waste, and contamination of water, and abate nuisances;

    o    To conduct investigations, make analyses, and monitor conditions
         with regard to water quality within the zone; and

    o    To adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations necessary
         to implement the purposes of the zone.

    To monitor compliance with Federal, State and local requirements an
authorized representative of the zone must have the right of entry  to any
premises on which a source of water pollution, waste, or contamination in-
cluding but not limited to septic tanks, is located.  He may inspect the
source and take samples of discharges.

    The State of Illinois recently passed a similar  act.  Public Act 80-1371
approved in 1978 also provides for the creation of municipal on-site waste-
water disposal zones.   The authorities of any municipality (city, village, or
incorporated town) are given the power to form on-site wastewater disposal
zones to "protect the public health, to prevent and abate nuisances, and to
protect existing and further beneficial water use."   Bonds may be issued to
finance the disposal system and be retired by taxation of property  in the
zone.

    A representative of the zone is to be authorized to enter at all reason-
able times any premise in which a source of water pollution, waste, or con-
tamination (e.g., septic tank) is located, for the purposes of inspection,
rehabilitation and maintenance, and to take samples from discharges.  The

-------
                                                                                G-2
municipality is to be responsible for routinely inspecting the entire system
at least once every 3 years.  The municipality must also remove and dispose
of sludge, its designated representatives may enter private property and, if
necessary, respond to emergencies that present a hazard to health.

-------
                                                                      APPENDIX
                                                                        G-3
             MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS FOR SMALL WASTE FLOW DISTRICTS

     Several  authors  have discussed management concepts applicable to
decentralized technologies.   Lenning and Hermason suggested that management
of on-site  systems should provide the necessary controls throughout the
entire lifecycle of a system from site evaluations through system usage.
They stressed that all segments of the cycle should be included to ensure
proper system performance (American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1977).

     Stewart  stated that for on-site systems a three-phase regulatory
program would be necessary (1976).  Such a program would include:  1) a
mechanism to  ensure proper siting and design installation and to ensure
that the location of  the system is known by establishing a filing and
retrieval system; 2)  controls to ensure that each system will be period-
ically inspected and  maintained; and 3) a mechanism to guarantee that
failures will be detected and necessary repair actions taken.

     Winneberger and  Burgel suggested a total management concept, similar
to a sewer utility, in which a centralized management entity is responsible
for design, installation, maintenance, and operation of decentralized systems
(American Society of  Agricultural Engineers 1977).  This responsibility
includes keeping necessary records, monitoring ground and surface water
supplies and  maintaining the financial solvency of the entity.

     Otis and Stewart (1976) have identified various powers and authorities
necessary to  perform the functions of a management entity:

     •    To  acquire  by purchase, gift, grant, lease, or rent both real
          and personal property;

     0    To  enter into contracts, undertake debt obligations either by
          borrowing and/or by issuing bonds, sue and be sued.  These powers
          enable a district to acquire the property, equipment, supplies
          and services necessary to construct and operate small flow
          systems;

     •    To  declare  and abate nuisances;

     •    To  require  correction or private systems;

     •    To  recommend correction procedures;

     •    To  enter onto property, correct malfunctions, and bill the owner
          if  he fails to repair the system;

     •    To  raise revenue by fixing and collecting user charges and
          levying special assessments and taxes;

     •    To  plan and control how and when wastewater facilities will be
          extended to those within its jurisdiction;

     •    To  meet the eligibility requirements for loans and grants from
          the State and Federal government.

-------
                     APPENDIX H

CROOKED/PICKEREL LAKE' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
                 ENGINEERING REPORT

-------
                   APPENDIX
                    H-l
CROOKED/PICKEREL LAKE
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
ENGINEERING REPORT
 nrfhur beard engineers, Inc.
 rONSJLTING  ENGINfcEKS
Revised
JUNE 1979

-------
                                                                      H-l
                   arthur  beard  engineers,  Inc.
                   6900 WISCONSIN AVE, CHEVY CHASE,  MD. 20015 -  301/657-3460
                                      June  18,  1979
WAPORA, Inc.
6900 Wisconsin Avenue
Chevy Chase, MD 20015

Attention:  Mr. Ross Pilling
            Project Manager

Reference:  Task Order No.l
            Contract No.68-01-4612, DOW #4

Gentlemen:

          This will transmit three copies of the revised report
for the Crooked/Pickerel  Lake area of Michigan.  These modified
costs reflect changes in  population numbers and distribution as
received from WAPORA, Inc.  on June 4, 1979.  No problems nor
difficulties were encountered during the preparation of this
report.

          If you have any questions regarding the information
contained in this report, do not hesitate to contact us.

                                     Very truly yours,

                                     ARTHUR BEARD ENGINEERS, INC.
                                                     \


                                     David C. Wohlscheid, P.E.
                                     Project Manager

DCW:net

Enclosure
                             •o-

-------
                                                                         H-l
                   arthur  beard  engineers, Inc.
                   6900 WISCONSIN AVE,  CHEVY CHASE, MD. 20015  - 301/657-3660
                                      June  18,  1979


WAPORA,  Inc.
6900 Wisconsin Avenue
Chevy Chase, MD  20015

Attention:  Mr.  Ross Pilling
            Project Manager

Reference:  Seven  Lakes  Project
            EPA-Contract No.68-01-4612, DOW #4
            Task Order No.l

Gentlemen:

          This letter will transmit for your review and approval
our analysis of  the Springvale/Littlefield area.

          This package is composed of eight specific alternates
followed by the  general  Appendix sections.  Each alternate is sub-
divided in the following manner:  (1) a narrative description with
graphics; and (2)  a cost estimate summary sheet for both treatment
and collection.

          The Appendices includes information used for all the
alternatives investigated, including:  (1) general assumptions and
details; (2) unit  cost data;  (3) the  analysis of the various col-
lection system investigated;   (4) cost backup for each alternate;
and (5) treatment  system cost and backup information.

          The General Assumption section includes population pro-
jections, and assumptions used in the various treatment processes.
The Collection System backup information includes all information
on the proposed collection system, as well as backup data on the
alternate systems  investigated (e.g., cluster systems).

          For your information the following table compares the up-
graded proposed alternates with the six alternates on a total 1980
capital cost basis as well as 0§M and Salvage Values.  This table is
useful as a summary for the information presented in this submittal:

-------
                                                                     H-l
WAPORA, Inc.
PAGE TWO
June 18, 1979
                          TABLE I

                   SPRINGVALE/LITTLEFIELD
                       Costs x $1,000

                           1980      1980
Alternate                 Capital    0$M       Salvage Value

Facility Plan Proposed
     Old Population       $3,938.98  $17.99      $1,919.69
     New Population        3,776.75   17.13       1,888.58
Alternate 1                1,791.94   27.08         727.87

Alternate 2                2,632.15   36.40       1,069.92
Alternate 3                2,662.64   29.97       1,146.48
Alternate 4                2,866.39   34.11       1,193.05

Alternate 5                1,955.68   30.80         806.30
Alternate 6                  858.50   14.93         397.71
          To accurately compare alternative costs an economic
analysis should be performed to obtain the total life cycle cost
of each alternate.

          The facility plan proposed system and WAPORA alternate
number 3 have no costs for treatment since the collected wastewater
will be treated at the existing treatment plant located in Petoskey.
An extra cost has been included for a gravity interceptor sewer,
17,700 feet in length, required for transmission of the wastewater
to the Petoskey Plant.

          The costs presented in this report have been upgraded to
current dollar figures using an EPA SCCT Index of 145 and an ENR
figure of 3000.

          If you have any questions regarding this material do not
hesitate to contact us.

                                      Very truly yours,

                                      ARTHUR BEARD ENGINEERS,  INC.
                                      David C. Wohlscheid,  P.E.
                                      Project Manager

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                      rr -
SECTION 1        DISCUSSION
              A. Cover Letter
              B. Description of Alternatives
                 1.  Facility Plan Proposed System
                 2.  Alternative 1
                 3.  Alternative 2
                 4.  Alternative 3
                 5.  Alternative 4
                 6.  Alternative 5
                 1,  Alternative 6
                 8.  Flow Reduction
                 9.  Seasonal Variation
                                             PAGE NO.


                                              1 - 4
                                              5 - 7
                                              8 - 9
                                             10 - 12
                                             13 - 14
                                             15 - 16
                                             17 - 18
                                             19 - 21
                                             22 - 25
                                             26 - 27
SECTION II
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
                                 Costs of Each Alternative
                                 General Assumptions
                                 Unit Costs
                                 Collection System Backup Information
                                 Treatment System Backup Information
                              r

-------
                                                                        H-l
          The following sections are narrative descriptions of
each alternative analyzed.  Summarized costs for each alternative
are presented in Appendix A.  Each alternate is broken down further
and itemized in Appendices D and E.  The following diagram illus-
trates how the study area was broken down into eighteen segments
to aid in population projections and collection systems design.
The next two figures are the flow diagrams for wastewater treatment
using land application.  The Northern site flow scheme shows
chlorination being required, this is due to the close proximity
of surrounding population.
                              -1-

-------
                                                        LAND   APPLICATION

                                                        SPRAY   IRRIGATION

                                                        NORTHERN  SITE
                                                                   SPRAY

                                                                   IRRIGATION
RAW

WASTE
WATER
FACULTATIVE
   a
STORAGE .
   LAGOON
CHLORINATION

-------
                                                     LAND   APPLICATION
                                                     SPRAY   IRRIGATION
                                                     SOUTHERN  SITE
                                                                      SPRAY
                                                                      IRRIGATION
RAW
WASTE
WATER
PRELIMI-
   NARY
 TREAT-
  MENT
FACULTATIVE
   a
STORAGE
   LAGOON
                                                                                     en
                                                                                     i

-------
                                    SEGMENT  INDEX
                                          MAP
1000 0   gOOO  4000

  SCALE IN FEET

-------
                                                          H-l
FACILITY PLAN PROPOSED ALTERNATE

-------
                                                                      H-l
                    NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION


           The proposed alternate  in the  existing  Facility Plan
for the Springvale/Littlefield  service  area  is  a regional collec-
tion system with centralized treatment.   Regional  collection is
accomplished through a system of gravity  sewers and pump stations
with 29 of the serviced homes being connected to the system by low
pressure sewers.
           The collection system begins on the  south side of
Pickerel Lake and runs east around the  lake.  Each area is collected
by gravity to a central lift station where it is lifted and trans-
ported to the next central area.   Each  area  is  connected in series
by the lift stations which transport the  waste  around Pickerel
Lake to the south shore of Crooked Lake.  The last lift station
pumps the waste to the gravity  interceptor leading to the existing
Petoskey Wastewater Treatment Plant.
           Populations for the  facility Plan Area  have been separated
nto 18 segments supplied by WAPORA and  as shown on the Segment Index
Map.  Each segment has a present and future  population projection as
shown in Tables E-l and E-2 in  the General Assumptions of Appendix B.
           The Proposed Alternate  graphic illustrates the conveyance
system proposed for this alternate.  The  conveyance design is based
on a 20-year growth period for  sizing of  the system.  The 20-year
design figures presented by WAPORA along  with a decrease in the per
capita flow, from 100 gallons per  capita  per day (gpcd) to 60 gpcd,
has resulted in some line size  changes.
           The low pressure sewer  system  used for  costing this
alternate has been changed slightly in order to maintain assumptions
and unit costs used in the other alternates.  The  original design
called for low pressure sewers utilizing  grinder pumps.  This system
has been altered to a septic tank  effluent pump (STEP) system.   Both
                             -5-

-------
                                                                     H-l
systems work equally well and are very cost competitive, however,
to insure that all alternates are cost comparable the STEP system
was used.  It should be emphasized that both systems should be
considered in the final design phase.
           Components  of the proposed system will remain similar in
process, however, sizes and unit costs utilized will be those based
on ABE calculations for both the upgraded facility plan as well as
for the new alternates proposed by WAPORA.
           Two cost estimates have been performed for the proposed
alternate, one using population projections supplied to Arthur
Beard Engineers by WAPORA for the first Crooked/Pickerel Report
of July 1978, the second using the new population projections that
will be used throughout this report.  The change in population
projections are:
                 TOTAL POPULATION     TOTAL DWELLINGS
                 Present  Future      Present  Future
   1978 Report      840     2,080        259      642
   1979 Report      840     1,263        212      366
           The total 1980 capital costs, annual operation and main-
 tenance costs, and the salvage value for the Proposed Alternate are
 summarized below:
                                     Annual
                 Capital Costs      0§M Costs      Salvage Value
 Old Population   $3,938,980         $17,990           $1,919,690
 New Population    3,776,750          17,130            1,888,580
           Detailed cost information for the Proposed Alternate may
 be found in Appendix A and Appendix D.
                               -6-

-------
        LEGEND
     '.- PRESSURE SEWER
     • FORCE MAIN
     -GRAVITY SEWER
     • ON  SITE  & CLUSTER SYSTEMS
     • PUMP STATION
NOTE'.
     ALL GRAVITY LINES ARE
    . 8" DIA. UNLESS NOTED.
1000 0    ZOOO   4000
   "I   '" 1
   SCALE IN FEET

-------
                                                H-l
ALTERNATE  1

-------
                                                                         H-l
                   NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
          The first new alternate for the Springvale/Littlefield
area investigates the feasibility of serving the entire study area
by group cluster systems.  Due to poor soils and a high seasonal
ground water table around the lakes there is no economically feasi-
ble method for individual on-site systems, therefore this alternate
represents a decentralized treatment option.
          Figure 1-1 presents the eleven cluster systems used in
the Crooked/Pickerel Lake area and their locations.
          Each cluster system includes an eight inch gravity line
which conveys each home's sewage to a central pump station.  The
pump station then lifts the sewage and transports it to land outside
the cluster area where soils are more suitable for a drainage field
system.
          Each cluster system has been designed for the year 2000
with the present portion of this cost being based primarily on a
ratio of the present population to the future population.
          The next section indicates the cost estimate for collection
and treatment of the eleven cluster systems.
          Costs include land for the drainage field as well as a
duplicate piece of land which would be used as a standby area in
case the first drainage field becomes overloaded or slugged up.
The estimate does not include the costs for materials and labor to
construct the backup system.
           The total 1980 capital costs, annual operation and main-
tenance costs, and the salvage value for Alternate 1 are summarized
below:
                                  Annual
           Capital Costs         0£M Costs         Salvage Value
             $1,791,940          $27,080              $727,870
           Detailed information for Alternate 1 may be found in
Appendices A and D.
                              -8-

-------
       .LEGEND
	 PRESSURE SEWER
	"FORCE MAIN
	• GRAVITY SEWER
 ==  • DRAIN  FIELDS
   0  - PUMP STATION
NOTE!
     ALL GRAVITY LINES ARE
     8" DIA. UNLESS NOTED.
1000 0    JOOO   4000

   SCALE IN FEET
                                                                                                                P

                                                                                                                 I

-------
                                               H-l
ALTERNATE  2

-------
                                                                         H-l
      NARRATIVE  DESCRIFFION

          The  second alternate for the Springvale/Littlefield
 area combines  two  central  collection systems with remaining
 segments to be incorporated as cluster systems.
          The  Crooked Lake area is comprised of segments 18,  1,
 2, 3, 4 and 6.   A  combination of pressure,  using the STEP system,
 and gravity sewers will  service the area.   Treatment will be  land
 application utilizing a  spray irrigation system.   The service
 area and treatment site  are indicated on Figure  2-1.   In order to
 secure soils suitable for  this method of treatment and remain a
 suitable distance  from existing developments,  it  was  necessary to
 utilize lands within the Hardwood State  Forest boundaries.
 Discussion with  State representatives has not  eliminated the
 feasibility of the alternative and would therefore necessitate
 further investigation should this  prove  to  be  a cost  effective
 method for collection and  treatment.
          The Pickerel Lake  area  is comprised  of  segments  10, 11, 12,
 13, 14, 15 and 16.  A combination  of pressure  and gravity  sewers
 will collect the area for  land treatment utilizing spray irrigation.
 The service area and  treatment  site  are  indicated in  Figure 2-1.
          The remaining  segments are  treated through means of
 various cluster systems.   Poor soils  and high  seasonal ground
 water rule out on-site treatments as  septic tank-soil absorption
 field systems.   Instead effluent wastewater from  the septic tanks
 are collected within each cluster system and pumped to absorption
 fields where  suitable soils exist.
           The total  1980 capital costs,  annual operation and main-
 tenance costs,  and the salvage value for Alternate 2 are  summarized
below:
                            -10-

-------
                                                                         H-l
                                   Annual
           Capital Costs         0§M Costs         Salvage Value

             $2,632,150          $36,400              $1,069,920

           Detailed cost infoimation for Alternate 2 may be found in

Appendices A, D and E.
                              -11-

-------
        J.EGEND
	PRESSURE  SEWER
	-FORCE MAIN
	• GRAVITY  SEWER
 =  - DRAIN FIELDS
  •  • PUMP STATION
NOTE 1
     ALL  GRAVITY LINES  ARE
     8" OIA. UNLESS NOTED.
1000 0    gOOO  4000

   SCALE IS' FEET
                                  TO LAND
                                  APPLICATION

-------
                                            H-l
ALTERNATE  3

-------
                                                                        H-l
      NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION

          The third alternate for the Springvale/Littlefield
area investigates the possibility of reducing  the  total  collection
sewer service area by utilizing cluster systems  for  those  segments
located around Pickerel Lake.  The remaining area  of Crooked Lake
and Oden Island shall be collected for treatment at  the  Petoskey
Plant.  The service area is indicated on  Figure  2-1.
          A combination of gravity and pressure  sewers using the
STEP system will be utilized to accomplish collection in the Crooked
Lake area.
          Soils adjacent to both Pickerel Lakes  are  found  unsuit-
able for on-site treatment due to high seasonal  ground water.
Therefore, it is necessary to employ cluster systems for the areas
where collection is not the chosen alternate.  These systems
collect effluent from individual septic tanks  and  convey it  by
gravity to a pump station.  It is necessary to pump  the  effluent
several thousand feet to soils suitable   for on-site disposal
away from the lakes.  The cluster systems vary in  size and have
been based on segment  groupings.
           The total 1980 capital  costs,  annual operation and main-
tenance costs, and the salvage value for Alternate  3  are  summarized
below:
                                  Annual
           Capital Costs         0§M Costs         Salvage  Value
             $2,662,640          $29,970              $1,146,480
           Detailed cost information for Alternate  3  may be found  in
Appendices A and D.
                             -13-

-------
       .LEGEND
	 PRESSURE  SEWER
	-FORCE MAIN
	• GRAVITY SEWER
 =  - DRAIN FIELDS
   •  • PUMP STATION

NOTE!
    • ALL GRAVITY LINES ARE
     8" DIA. UNLESS NOTED.
1000 0    2000  4000
       =1	
   SCALE IN FEET
                          ^	I

                          TO  PETOSKEY
                                      4"


-------
                                              H-i
ALTERNATE  4

-------
                                                                      H-l
      NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION

          The fourth alternate for the Springvale/Littlefield
area considers collection for the entire service area with a
central }and application site located jus£ north pf Pickerel Lake
as indicated in Figure 4-lf
          A combination of pressure using the STEP system, and
gravity sewers will be utilized in collection.  Treatment is to
be accomplished through spray irrigation.  Surface discharge as
an alternate method of treatment was discarded due tq stringent
state requirements necessitating a sophisticated level of treat-
ment to be obtained if the availability of land for land treatment
was limited, or non-existent.
           The total 1980 capital costs, annual operation and main-
tenance costs, and the salvage value for Alternate 4 are summarized
below:
                                   Annual
           Capital Costs         05M Costs         Salvage Value

             $2,866,390          $34,110              $1,193,050

           Detailed cost information for Alternate 4 may be  found  in
Appendices A,  D and E.
                              -15-

-------
        LEGEND
	PRESSURE SEWER
	-FORCE MAIN
——- • GRAVITY SEWER
V77X ' ON SITE  & CLUSTER SYSTEMS
  • • PUMP STATION
NOTE!
     ALL GRAVITY LINES ARE
  "  . 8" DIA. UNLESS NOTED.
1000 0    2000   4000
   2	 .
   SCALE IN FEET
                                                                                         TO LAND APPLICATION
                                                                                                                 ID
                                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                                 ad
                                                                                                                 i

-------
                                                 H-l
ALTERNATE  5

-------
                                                                        H-l
      NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION

          The fifth alternate for the Springvale/Littlefield
area considers collection for the Crooked Lake area, excluding
Oden Island.   Oden Island and the remaining areas around Pickerel
Lake are to be on cluster systems.
     ..... ;   Collection is to be accomplished through a combination
of pressure, using the STEP system, and gravity sewers.  Land
application.utilizing a spray irrigation system will serve those
areas to be collected.  The service area and land application site
are indicated on Figure 5-1.  In order to secure soils suitable
for this method of treatment and remain a suitable distance from
existing developments, it was -necessary to utilize lands within
the Hardwood State Forest boundaries.  Discussion with State
representatives has not eliminated the feasibility of the
alternative and would therefore necessitate further investigation
should this prove to be a cost effective alternate for both
collection and treatment.
           The total 1980 capital costs,  annual operation and main-
tenance costs, and the salvage value for Alternate  5 are summarized
below:
                                  Annual
           Capital Costs         0§M Costs         Salvage Value

             $1,955,680          $30,800              $806,300

           Detailed cost information for Alternate  5 may be  found
in Appendix A and Appendix D.
                              -17-

-------
        . LEGEND
	 PRESSURE SEWER
	• FORCE MAIN
—-  • GRAVITY SEWER
 ==   • DRAIN FIELDS
  •   - PUMP STATION

NOTE!
    •  ALL GRAVITY LINES ARE
      8" DIA, UNLESS NOTED.
1000 0    3000	 4000

   9CAUE I'M FEET
                                 TO LAND
                                 APPLICATION
                                                                              p
                                                                              en
                                                                               i

-------
                                                  H-l
ALTERNATE  6

-------
                                                                            H-l
                    NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION

          The  sixth alternate for the  Springvale/Littlefield  area
is the "limited  action"  alternate.   For this  alternate all units
remain with some form of on-site  systems and  no  central collection
or central treatment system is proposed.
          Populations for the Facility Plan area have been separated
into 18 segments supplied by WAPORA and as shown on the Segment
Index Map.  Each segment has a present and future population  pro-
jection as shown in Tables E-l and E-2 in the General Assumptions
of Appendix B.
          Two  of the segments for this alternate incorporate  cluster
systems and are  shown on Figure 6-1.   These systems incorporate
portions of segments 14  and 16 and include a  total of 57 homes.
These were chosen by WAPORA for several reasons  including:  (1)
septic snooper studies found active flumes within the area; (2)
housing density  is  high;  and (3)  there is an  unusually thick  amount
of eucaryotic  algae within the area indicating additional nutrient
input.
          The  remainder  of the study area remains with on-site
systems with the exception of four homes  which are placed on  hold-
ing tanks.  It was  assumed for these homes that  waste conservation
devices would  be installed reducing the daily flow to 44 gpcd.
          Of the remaining home systems,  77 would require replace-
ment of drainfields,  42 would need new septic tanks (note that some
homes will have  both septic tank  and drainfields replaced), 25
would require  mound drainfields,  and 21 will  require drainfield
renovation using a  hydrogen peroxide treatment.
          The  total  1980  capital  costs,  annual operation and
maintenance costs,  and the  salvage  value  for  Alternate 6 are
summarized below:
                             -19-

-------
                                                                          H-l
                           ANNUAL
       CAPITAL COSTS      0§M COSTS      SALVAGE VALUE

         $858,500          $14,930         $397,710
          Detailed cost information for Alternate 6 may be found
in Appendix A and Appendix C.
                             -20-

-------
        LEGEND
      FORCE MAIN
      GRAVITY  SEWER
      ON SITE  8 CLUSTER SYSTEMS
      PUMP STATION
NOTE:
     ALL GRAVITY LINES ARE
     8" DIA. UNLESS NOTED.

-------
FLOW REDUCTION

-------
                                                                         H-l
          The  effect of using  conservative  devices  in  each  home
was analyzed on the basis  of  flow  reduction  and  the  monetary savings
that could be realized in  the collectJon  and treatment  of  this
reduced flow.  The flow reduction  figure  obtained  from  WAPORA
amounted to 16 gpcd  for both commercial  and residential areas.
          To determine the capital and operation and maintenance
cost savings for flow reduction an analysis  was conducted  on  an alter-
native which involved centralized  treatment  and collection.   The
altemtive, alternate 4, collects  the entire service area  of  Springvale
and Littlefield Townships  for land application via spray irrigation
to a site located north of Pickerel Lake.  This alternate was
chosen because centralized collection and treatment  is more sensitive
to a per capita flow reduction  than a decentralized  system.
          Treatment capital costs  for both alternates were analyzed
utilizing the new design flow which was reduced from 0.13 MGD to
0.10 MGD.  The following analysis of these alternates is divided in
areas relating to both treatment and collection and  is summarized
with an economic analysis  comparing flow reduction versus non-flow
reduction for these alternates.

COLLECTION
          The collection system can be broken down into three parts:
(1) the home pump station  (STEP, or grinder); (2) the collection
piping (pressure or gravity); (3) the lift stations and force mains.
Each of these will be analyzed separately below.
          The home pump system, whether STEP or grinder, will not
alter in design due to flow reduction.   These are package units which
only alter in the horsepower available.  The cycle time will  change
but this would have no measurable effect on operational maintenance
expenses of the units.
                             -22-

-------
                                                                          H-l
 COLLECTION   (Contd.)

          The  low pressure piping  system is based on probabilities
 of homes  operating their pumping systems at the same time, thus
 resulting in a peak flow contribution.   Flow reduction on a per
 capita basis with the same pump system  does not alter piping sizes
 until a large  number of homes are  on  that system (approximately
 100 homes).  This does not occur for  our alternates  and therefore
 no savings can be accomplished within the low pressure piping
 system using flow reduction.
          For  the gravity sewers,  flow  reduction will  only effect
 the interceptor sewers and their capital  costs.  All other collection
 lines for this project are eight inches  in  diameter, which is  the
 minimum line size allowed and cannot be  reduced.  There has been
 some speculation that the reduced  flow may  cause an increase in the
 required maintenance for the gravity collection! system  due  to
 deposition resulting from low velocities  in the lines.  However,
 this cost is impractical to calculate if  indeed there  is an extra
 cost.
          Lift stations, force mains and gravity interceptor sewers
 are sensitive to flow variations since they are associated primarily
 with large numbers  of dwellings.  The more service connections per
 pump station or interceptor sewer the greater the effect flow
 reduction will have.
          For Springvale and Littlefield Townships the only change
was found in the reduction in size  of one pump station, with a
 capital cost savings  of $12,000.  This is a minimal savings and is
negligible for an economic analysis.   This is not to say that water
conservative devices  are not cost effective  when energy and home
owners expenses are  considered.
                             -23-

-------
TREATMENT

          The treatment process being considered is central land
treatment via spray irrigation.  The capital, 0§M, and Salvage
Costs were calculated with the new flows.  Table 1 summarizes
these costs.
                               -24-

-------
                              TABLE 1
                          CROOKED/PICKEREL
                          COST ESTIMATE
                LAND TREATMENT - SPRAY IRRIGATION
Alternate - Flow Reduction
Costs in 1979 Dollars
      x $1,000
EPA SCCT INDEX = 145
PROCESS
Influent Pump Station
Influent Pipe
Preliminary Treatment
Storage Lagoon
Qnsite Pipe
Land: 50 Acres
Application - Spray
Crop Revenue
TOTAL
CAPITAL COST
22.50
104.60
24.00
71.25
54.00
62.50
240.00
-
$601.90
• 0§M COSTS
1.05
0.10
1.20
0.10
0.10
-
8.10
(-2.15)
$8.55
SALVAGE VALUE
6.75
62.76
10.80
42.75
32.40
112.88
36.00
-
$304.31
 251 Engr. Contingencies included within process costs
                                 -25-

-------
                                                    H-l
SEASONAL VARIATION

-------
                                                                         H-l
          The Springvale and Littiefield Townships  study area has  an
average 591 seasonal population which  for each  alternate results in
a given seasonal variation  in  flow.  The largest  fluctuations in
seasonal population are located around the northern and  eastern
shores of Pickerel Lake.  These areas  have a variation in population
of up-to 88%.  More permanent  areas  are spread  throughout the two
lake shore regions and on Oden Island.
          Cluster systems, when employed around the lake areas, will
see a positive effect resulting from the seasonal variation in flows.
For this type of system the seasonal variation  will enhance treatment
by allowing the distribution field to  rest and  drain.
          For alternates utilizing a comprehensive  collection system
with centralized treatment  at  Petoskey,  the effective percent seasonal
variation in flow is decreased.  The variation  in flow amounts to a
reduction of 55% of the total  seasonal  flow.  However, this total
represents only five percent of the  design flow for the  Petoskey
Plant.  This reduction will therefore have little or no  effect on
plant operation.
          For collection systems, the seasonal  flows will have a
minimal effect on cost.  A  decrease  in  flow of  881  for one pump station
will mean an increase in detention time in the  wet  well.  To  avoid
this problem the lift stations should be  designed for easy adjustment
of the water and level controls in the wet well.  It would then be a
simple operation for the maintenance crew to calibrate the controls
for the two seasonal flows.
          For alternatives employing land treatment, spray irrigation
is used.  The seasonal variation is  ideal  for land  treatment  as the
low flows reduce the capacity needed for winter storage and thus the
capital costs.  This factor has been incorporated in the cost estimates
for this item.
                               -26-

-------
                                                                           H-l
          Seasonal flow will affect the Individual effluent or grinder
systems.  Manufacturers recommend these units be removed during winter
months if use is not anticipated on a periodic basis.  Therefore, a
maintenance program should be established to remove these units from
home systems that would not be occupied during the winter season.
This would also be an ideal time to perform any service that may be
required to the pumps or any other elements contained in the pump
basin.  The costs involved in removing these units would be offset
by the increased operating life experienced by the pumps.
          The conclusion of this evaluation is that by designing
the collection and treatment systems with  seasonal variations  in
mind, in conjunction with a well planned operation and maintenance
program, no difficulties should arise  from seasonal variations in
flow.
                              -27-

-------
                                                H-l
APPENDIX  A

-------
                                                                             H-l
                  CROOKED/PICKEREL -  COLLECTION
                           COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATE -
Proposed
Old Population
Costs in 1979 Dollars
       x $1,000
  ENR INDEX = 3000
SERVICE AREA
                 CAPITAL COST    0$M COSTS
         SALVAGE VALUE
1980
Central
Gravity

251 Engr.

Collection
Interceptor

and Cont.

2,403.
747.
3,151.
787.

89
29
18
80

16
1
17


.65
.34
.99
-

1,151.
448.
1,599.
@ 20% 319.

36
38
74
95
    TOTAL
                    3,938.98
                                                 17.99
            1,919.69
  1980-2000
    Central  Collection
  25% Engr.  and Cont.
                       21.52
                        5.38
                       26.90
                                  Al

-------
                                                                              H-l
                  CROOKED/PICKEREL  -  COLLECTION
                          COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATE - Proposed
            New Population
                        Costs in 1979 Dollars
                               x $1,000
                          ENR INDEX = 3000
SERVICE AREA
CAPITAL COST    0$M COSTS
  SALVAGE VALUE
1980
    Central Collection
    Gravity Interceptor

25% Engr. and Cont.
    TOTAL
  2,274.11
    747.29
  3,021.40
    755.35
  3,776.75
15.79
 1.34
17.13
17.13
   1,125.44
     448.38
   1,573.82
201  314.76
   1,888.58
1980-2000
    Central Collection
    251 Engr. and Cont.
      8.65
      2.16
     10.81
                                A2

-------
                                                                             H-l
ALTERNATE - 1
                  CROOKED/PICKEREL  -  COLLECTION
                          COST ESTIMATE
                       Costs in 1979 Dollars
                              x $1,000
                         ENR INDEX = 3000
SERVICE AREA
CAPITAL COST    0§M COSTS
              SALVAGE VALUE
 1980
   Cluster Systems
 251 Engr.  and Cont.
      Total
  1,433.55
    358.39
  1,791.94
27.08
27.08
     606.56
  20% 121.31
      727.87
 1980-2000
   Cluster Systems
 25% Engr. and Cont.
    52.88*
    15.22
    66.10
 0.53/yr*
                                                0.53/yr*
      405.67
@ 20%  81.14
                   486.81
 *gradient per year over 20-year period
                                  A3

-------
                  CROOKED/PICKEREL -  COLLECTION
                          COST  ESTIMATE
ALTERNATE - 2
                        Costs in 1979 Dollars
                               x $1,000
                          ENR INDEX = 3000
SERVICE AREA
CAPITAL COST    0§M COSTS
SALVAGE VALUE
1980 - Crooked Lake Area
  Segments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6        398.76
       Pickerel Lake Area
  Segments 10-16
  Cluster Systems 3, 5, 11
  Segments 5, 7, 8, 9, 17

25% Engr.
     TOTAL                    1,825.25
                  5.63
845.43
216.01
1,460.20
365.05
10.31
8.76
24.70
                 24.70
    140.61

    310.72

     96.77
    548.10
20% 109.62
    657.72
1980-2000
  Collection
  Cluster
251 Engr.
       TOTAL
23.74/yr*
5 . 39/yr
29.13/yr
7 . 28/yr
36.41/yr
0.44/yr*
0.17/yr
0.61/yr
0.61/yr
114.71
43.86
158.57
@ 201 31.71
190.28
 *gradient per year over a 20-year period
                                A4

-------
                                                                              H-l
                          CROOKED/PICKEREL

                           COST ESTD-1ATE

                 LAND TREATMENT - SPRAY IRRIGATION

                         CROOKED LAKE AREA
Alternate  -  2

Q =  0.023  MGD
Costs in 1979 Dollars
      x $1,000
EPA SCCT INDEX = 145
PROCESS
Influent Pump Station
Influent Pipe
Preliminary Treatment
Storage Lagoon (1.73 MG)
Onsite Pipe
Land: 26 Acres
Application - Spray
Crop Revenue
TOTALS
CAPITAL COST
5.62
71.88
22.50
37.50
19.40
32.50
80.80
-
$270.20
' 0§M COSTS
0.95
0.10
0.35
0.10
0.10
-
2.50
(*0.80)
$3.30
SALVAGE VALUE
1.70
43.13
10.12
22.50
11.64
58.70
12.12
-
$141.30
.  25% Engr. Contingnecies  included within process costs
                                   A5

-------
                                                                            H-l
ALTERNATE -  2
Q = 0.059 MGD
         CROOKED/PICKEREL
          COST ESTIMATE
LAND TREATMENT - SPRAY IRRIGATION
        PICKEREL LAKE AREA
Costs in 1979 Dollars
       x $1,000
  ENR INDEX = 3000
SERVICE AREA
Influent Pump Station
Influent Pipe
Preliminary Treatment
Chlorination
Storage Lagoon (4.83 MG)
Ons ite Pipe
Land @ 40 Acres
Application: Spray
Crop Revenue
TOTALS
CAPITAL COST
45.00
104.60
23.25
17.00
58.75
35.60
50.00
202.50
-
$536.70
OSM COSTS
2.10
0.10
1.00
0.90
0.10
0.20
-
6.00
(1.99)
$8.40
SALVAGE VALUE
13.50
62.76
10.46
6.80
35.25
21.40
90.30
30.40
-
$270.90
 251 Engr. Contingencies included within process costs
                                A6

-------
                                                                          H-l
                  CROOKED/PICKEREL - COLLECTION

                          COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATE - 3
Costs in 1979 Dollars
       x $1,000
  ENR INDEX = 3000
SERVICE .AREA
1980 - Crooked Lake Area
Segments 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ,
6, 17, 18
Clusters 3, 4, 6-10
and Holding Tanks
Segments 7-16
Gravity Interceptor

251 Engr. and Cont.
TOTAL
1980-2000
Crooked Lake
Clusters

251 Engr. and Cont.
TOTAL
CAPITAL COST

570.04
785.78

774.29
2,130.11
532.53
2,662.64

8.36/yr*
33.42/yr
41.78/yr
10.44/yr
52.22/yr
OSM COSTS

8.74
•19.89

1.34
29.97
-
29.97

0 . 24/yr*
0.40/yr
0.64/yr
-
0,64/yr*
SALVAGE VALUE

198.36
308.66

448.38
955.40
@ 201 191.08
1,146.48

41.85
247.42
289.27
6 201 57.85
347.12
 *gradient per year over a 20-year period
                                 A7

-------
                  CROOKED/PICKEREL - COLLECTION

                          COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATE - 4
     TOTAL
                      Costs in 1979 Dollars
                             x $1,000
                        ENR INDEX = 3000
SERVICE AREA
1980
Central Collection
251 Engr. and Cont.
CAPITAL COST 0$M COSTS SALVAGE VALUE

1,809.11 24.36 710.67
452.28 - 6 201 142.13
2,261.39
24.36
    852.80
 1980-2000

   Central  Collection

 251 Engr.  and Cont.

      TOTAL
   21.20/yr*

    5.50/yr

   26.50/yr
 0.51/yr*
 0.51/yr
    188.71

201  37.74

    226.45
 ^gradient per year over a 20-year period
                                A8

-------
                                                                         H-l
                         CROOKED/PICKEREL
                          COST ESTD4ATE
                LAND TREATMENT - SPRAY IRRIGATION
Alternate - 4
Q = 0.084 MGD
Costs in 1979 Dollars
      x $1,000
EPA SCOT INDEX = 145
PROCESS
Influent Pump Station
Influent Pipe
Preliminary Treatment
Storage Lagoon (8.24 MG)
Ons ite Pipe
Land @ 60 Acres
Application: Spray
Crop Revenue
TOTALS
CAPITAL COST
22.50
111.75
25.50
85.00
57.40
75.00
227.85
-
605.00
• 0$M COSTS
1.05
0.10
1.50
0.70
0.20
-
9.00
(-2.80)
9.75
SALVAGE VALUE
6.75
67.00
11.50
51.00
34.40
135.45
34.18

340.25
  25%  Engr.  Contingencies included within process costs
                                   A9

-------
                                                                              H-l
                  CROOKED/PICKEREL -  COLLECTION
                          COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATE - 5
                        Costs in 1979 Dollars
                               x $1,000
                          ENR INDEX = 3000
SERVICE AREA
CAPITAL COST    0§M COSTS
              SALVAGE VALUE
 1980
  Crooked Lake
  Area - Segments 1, 2,
         3, 4, 6
  Cluster Systems 3-10
 25% Engr. and Cont,
     TOTAL
398.76
949.62
1,348.38
337.10
5.63
21.87
27.50
-
140.61
376.53
517.14
@ 20% 129.29
 1,685.48
27.50
646.43
 1980-2000
   Crooked Lake
   Cluster Systems


 25%  Engr. and Cont.
       TOTAL
7.52/yr*
35.98/yr
43.50/yr
10.88/yr
54.38/yr
0.21/yr*
0.41/yr
0.62/yr
0 . 62/yr
75.15
267.92
343.12
@ 201 68.62
411.74
 *gradient per year over a 20-year period
                                A10

-------
                                                                              H-l
                          CROOKED/PICKEREL

                           COST ESTB4ATE

                LAND TREATMENT - SPRAY IRRIGATION

                        CROOKED  LAKE AREA
Alternate - 5
Q = 0.023 MGD
Costs in 1979 Dollars
      x $1,000
EPA SCCT INDEX = 145
PROCESS
Influent Pump Station
Influent Pipe
Preliminary Treatment
Storage Lagoon (1.73 MG)
Ons ite Pipe
Land: 26 Acres
Application: Spray
Crop Revenue
TOTAL
CAPITAL COST
5.62
71.88
22.50
37.50
19.40
32.50
80.80
-
270.20
• 0§M COSTS
0.95
0.10
0.35
0.10
0.10
-
2.50
(-0.80)
3.30
SALVAGE VALUE
1.70
43.13
10.12
22.50
11.64
58.70
12.12
-
159.87
  251 Engr. Contingencies included within process costs
                                  All

-------
                                                                               H-l
                          CROOKED/PICKEREL

                            COST ESTIMATE
Alternate:   6
            Limited Action Alternate
1980
ITEM
Replace Septic Tank
Replace Drain field
Mound Drain field*
Holding Tank
H?0? Renov.
Cluster System
251 Engr. and Cont.
TOTAL
CAPITAL COST
18.9
92.4
218.4
8.4
9.4
339.3
171.7
858.5
0§M COST
1.89
-0-
2.56
5.44
-0-
5.04
_
14.93
DALVAUD
VALUE
11.3
55.4
131.0
5.0
-0-
115.5.-.
79.54
397.71
 * Without Septic Tank

 1980-2000

 Conv. Septic System          8.42/yr          0.23/yr      134.6
 Mound System                13.0/yr           0.15/yr      208.8
 Cluster                      5.4/yr    	0.05/yr       40.1

 251 Engr. and Cont.          6.71	-	76.7

     TOTAL                  33.53/yr          0.43/yr      460.2
                                 A12

-------
                                                  H-l
APPENDIX  B

-------
                                                                           H-l
                   SPRINGVALE/LITTLEFIELD
              General Assumptions Made by ABE  for
                    All New Alternatives

          This section will expand and/or list certain general
assumptions used for all new alternatives investigated during this
phase of the project.  Basic assumptions were broken down into Wo
main categories, treatment and collection.  Each of these categories
will now be addressed separately:
COLLECTION
          1.  All sewer lines are to be placed at or below
          6 feet of depth, due to frost penetration in the
          Springvale/Littlefield area.  Gravity lines are
          assumed to be placed at an average depth of 12
          feet.
          2.  Thirty percent shoring was used for all gravity
          lines.  Ten percent less shoring is required for
          force mains and low pressure sewers due to their
          shallower average depth.
          3.  All pressure sewer lines and force mains 8
          inches in diameter or less will be PVC SDR26, with
          a pressure rating of 160 psi.   Those force mains
          larger than 8 inches in diameter will be constructed
          of ductile iron with mechanical joints.
          4.   A minimum velocity of 2 fps will be  maintained
          in all pressure sewer lines and force mains to
          provide for scouring.
          5.   Cleanouts in the pressure  sewer system will  be
          placed at  the beginning of each line, and one
          every 500  feet of pipe in line.   Cleanout valve
          boxes will  contain shut-off valves to provide for
          isolation  of various sections  of line for maintenance
          and/or repairs.
                              .Bl

-------
                                                                        H-]
COLLECTION  (Contd.)
Page Two
          6.   The pumping units  investigated for the pressure
          sewer  system utilized  effluent  and grinder pumps.
          Both units  include a 2 by  8  foot  basin with dis-
          charge at 6 feet, control  panel,  visual alarm,
          mercury float level controls, valves,  rail system
          for  removal of pump, antifloatation device, and
          the  pump itself.  The grinder pump is  a 2  hp pump
          with a total dynamic head  of 90 feet.   The effluent
          pump is manufactured in a  1, 1^ or 2 hp pump.   For
          the  Springvale/Littlefield area the 1  hp pump proved
          to be  impractical as its total dynamic head is  only
          60 feet, and insufficient  for long runs of pressure
          lines.  The 1% and 2 hp pumps reach a  total dynamic
          head of 80 and 120 feet respectively.
          7.   On-site and effluent pumping units  (STEP)
          require the use of septic tanks.   Due  to undersize
          and  faulty units, a 50 percent replacement of all
          septic tanks was assumed.   All units are to be
          1,000  gallon concrete septic tanks.
          8.  An even distribution of population was  primarily
          assumed along collection lines for all  alternatives
          indicated.
          9.  A peaking factor for design flows  of the various
          systems investigated was based on  the Ten  State
          Standards in concurrence with the  Springvale/Littlefield
          Facility Plan.
          10.  All flows  are based on a 60 gallon  per capital
          day  (gpcd)  design flow for residential  areas.   In-
          filtration for new sewers  is based on  a  rate  of
          200 gallons  per inch -  mile of gravity  sewer lines.
                              B2

-------
                                                                         H-l
COLLECTION   (Contd.)
Page Three	
          11.  The costs presented for each alternate are
          comparable  costs  to each other.  However, the
          costs generated may not reflect actual construction
          costs due to  the  degree of accuracy utilized in
          preparation of these estimates.

TREATMENT
          ligll^^PPliSgii0? > Spray I rrigati on
          1.  Several sites for land application were sug-
          gested by WAPORA.  The two sites chosen by ABE
          were determined to offer the best soil conditions
          with enough area  to accommodate the treatment
          system.
          2.  The application technique is spray irrigation
          for crop production.  Spray irrigation is the only
          treatment technique strongly endorsed by the State
          for lake areas.  With this type of application
          there is an added benefit of income from crop
          revenues which defrays part of the yearly operation
          and maintenance expense.
          3.  An application rate of 1.6 "/wk was determined
          after calculating the nitrogen loading rate limit
          and noting that there would be no need for under-
          drainage at this rate.   Higher loading rates may
          produce poor crop growth.
          4.  Alfalfa was the chosen crop since alfalfa allows
          a  higher application rate and because it is a per-
          ennial crop with its growing season limited solely
          by climatic factors.   In addition, alfalfa has a
          high nitrogen uptake which is a most desirable
          characteristic.
                             B3

-------
                                                                        H-l
TREATMENT
Page Four
          5.   The  storage  period is  based primarily on basic
          guidelines provided by the Michigan Department of
          Natural  Resources.   The State  recommends  6 months
          storage  in the northern half of the state which
          would  include the Springvale/Littlefield  area.
                             B4

-------
                                                                              H-l
Task Order No. 1
Contract No. 68-01-4612, DOW #4


    The following analysis shall be performed by Arthur Beard Engineers, Inc.
(ABE) on the Crooked/Pickerel Lakes portion of the Springvale-Bear Creek Area
Segment Facility Plan.  Items one (1) through five (5) will be submitted to
WAPORA, Inc. within 15 calendar days from notice to proceed on this Task Order,

    1.   Recalculate the proposed facility plan collection and treatment
         alternative upgrade using the new (EIS) population and flow pro-
         jections and distributions to be supplied by WAPORA, Inc.

    2.   Recalculate the proposed facility plan collection and treatment
         alternatives using the population and flow figures presented in
         the ABE Engineering Report of the Springvale/Littlefield area
         dated July 19, 1978 in conjunction with the unit costs and
         methodology as developed by ABE.

    3.   Recalculate EIS alternatives one through five as presented in
         the previously submitted report using the revised population and
         flow projections and distributions.

    4.   Recalculate one alternative (EIS alternative #4) using flow
         reduction methodology with actual flow reduction figures
         determined by WAPORA.

    5.   Recalculate EIS alternative #6 (the "limited action" alternative)
         upon receipt of pertinent design data from WAPORA.

    Using the new population data, will recalculate collection systems
sizings and costs for all alternatives.  In addition, treatment alternatives
will also be recalculated based on revised flow data.  Land application al-
ternatives will be revised to reflect a lesser degree of pretreatment prior
to application on the land to conform to EPA PRM 79-3, dated 15 November
1978.  Decentralized alternatives for segment 7 will be revised to include
the use of holding tanks.

    All information specified above will be submitted to WAPORA in report
form using a format similar to that used for  the Aurora, Illinois report
prepared by ABE.

    All costs will be upgraded to June 1979 costs using an ENR construction
cost figure of 3000,  or an EPA SCCT Index of  145, (estimated from third quar-
ter '78 of 140).
                                   B5

-------
                                                                                 H-l
     Estimated person hours for performance of this task are:
                  Engineering and Drafting          160 person/hours
                  Secretarial and Clerical Support    16 person/hours

          Labor Category                Effort                 Cost

     Engineering and Drafting       160 person/hours       $4,148.80
     Secretarial and Clerical
       Support                       16 person/hours       $  252.64

                  TOTAL TASK ORDER                         $4,401.44
     WAPORA,  Inc.  will supply ABE  with  all maps, regulations,  population
information and flow projections.
William A.  King    )      Gerald  0.  Peters           J/ £oss  Pilling,/H
    orate Secretar^r       Director of Research       Project  Manager
                                   B6

-------
,^1L
          X
,^»°--V^	(^^ WAPORA. In
                                                  H-1 /JX/V^/
                                                 •f   ?•<*• I f
                                                 I/(///{ /  "V,/'_!''•«
                                               -.OF
                                      PREPARED BY
                    Envfronm»ntal/En*rgy/Economic Studiaa
                                      DATE	
                                             /
                                      CHECKED BY	
                                      DATE.
                         r
                                  (Z.
                                              . 00223.
1         5Z          ?/        1&5          - 006/3
                                                o

                                             .0055?

 if        5t          51         A? 3
 n        ^          ^x         f^7

'?        ^^           "
 ^        //Z
                                              . oojrt

16       IHO           /o$         ^         -0^y
I?        O             3           3 v        -^!
I/        C/             -^  B7         - \  —     "—^~r*^^r

-------
                               Table E-l

             EXISTING POPULATION AND DWELLING UNITS  FOR THE
              CROOKED/PICKEREL PROPOSED SERVICE AREA (1978)
                                                                                  H-l
                                               1978
                            Population
Municipality
Littlefield Township
5
7 (part)
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
Subtotal
Springvale Township
1
2
3
4
6
7 (part)
14
15
16
18
Total

53
0
20
0
55
60
60
54
3
305

11
10
31
60
89
17
128
7
182
0
Permanent

36
0
7
0
0
13
0
3
3
62

7
10
10
13
59
0
13
7
42
0
Seasonal

17
0
13
0
55
47
60
51
0
243

4
0
21
47
30
17
115
0
140
0
                                  Dwelling Units
                             Total  Permanent  Seasonal
Subtotal
535
161
374
                                                     15
                                                      0
                                                      5
                                                      b
                                                     13
                                                     15
                                                     14
                                                     13
                                                      1

                                                     76
  3
  3
  8
 15
 25
  4
 29
  3
 46
  0

136
                                        11
                                         0
                                         2
                                         0
                                         0
                                         4
                                         0
                                         1
                                         1

                                        19
 2
 3
 3
 4
18
 0
 2
 2
13
 0

47
                                          4
                                          0
                                          3
                                          0
                                         13
                                         11
                                         14
                                         12
                                          0

                                         57
 1
 0
 5
11
 7
 4
27
 1
33
 0

89
TOTAL
                      840
         223
          617
          212
          66
         146
                                          B8

-------
                              Table E-2

           PROJECTED POPULATION  AND DWELLING UNITS  FOR THE
            CROOKED/PICKEREL  PROPOSED SERVICE AREA  (2000)
                                               2000
                           Population
                                   Dwelling Units
Municipality Total Permanent Seasonal
Total Permanent
Seasonal
Littlefield Township
5
7 (part)
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
64
0
37
0
93
103
90
82
3
48 /
0
21
0
33
51
42
18
3
16
0
16
0
60
52
48
64
0
20
0
11
0
26
30
26.
22
1
16
0
7
0
11
17
14
6
1
4
0
4
0
15
13
12
16
0
Subtotal
  472
                                216
          256
                               136
72
                                                                        64
Springvale Township
 1
 2
 3
 A
 6
 7 (part)
14
15
16
18

Subtotal
13
12
37
103
159
22
148
52
245
0
9
12
21
51
123
6
36
24
105
0
4
0
16
52
36
16
112
28
140
0
4
4
11
30
50
6
40
15
70
0
3
4
7
17
41
2
12
8
35
0
1
0
4
13
9
4
28
7
35
0
  791
387
                     404
                    230
                                        129
         101
TOTAL
1,263
603
                                          660
                               366
                                                             201
                                       165
                                       B9

-------
                                                                              H-l
                          Table 11-10

           PERMANENT AND SEASONAL POPULATION OF  THE
      PROPOSED  CROOKED' PICKEREL LAKES SERVICE AREA  (1978)*
egment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1,1,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Total
11
10
31
60
53
89
17 '
20
0
55
60
60
54
128
7
182
3
0
Pennanent
7
10
10
13
36
59
0
7
0
0
13
0
3
13
7
42
3
0
/
Seasonal
4
0
21
47
17
30
17
13
0
55
47
60
51
115
0
140
0
0
Percent
Permanent
63.6
100.0
32.3
21.7
67.9
66.3
0.0
35-0
0.0-
0.0
21.7
0.0
5.6
10.2
100.0
23.1
100.0
0.0
Percent
Seasonal
36.4
0.0
67.7
78.3
32.1
33.7
100.0
65.0
0.0
100.0
78.3
100.0
94.4
89.8
0.0
76.9
0.0
0.0
TOTAL      840         223            617          26.5          73.5
*The methodology utilized  to  develop  these  population estimates  is  found
 in Appendix D.
                                 BIO

-------
                                                                            H-l
                           Table II-ll

            PERMANENT AND SEASONAL POPULATION OF THE
      PROPOSED CROOKED-PICKEREL LAKES SERVICE AREA  (2000)
Segment
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
• 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Total
13
12
37
103
64
159
22
37
0
93
103
90
82
148
52
245
3
0
Persianent
9
12
21
51
48
123
6
21
0
33
51
42
18
36
24
105
3
0
Seasonal
4
/ 0
16
52
16
36
16
16
0
60
52
48
64
112
28
140
0
0
Percent
Permanent
69.2
100.0
56.8
49.5
75.0
77.4
27.3
56.8
0.0
35.5
49.5
46.7
22.0
24.3
46.2
42.9
100.0
0.0
Percent
Seasonal
30.8
0.0
43.2
50.5
25.0
22.6
72.7
43.2
0.0
64.5
50.5
53.3
78.0
75.7
53.8
57.1
0.0
0.0
TOTAL     1,263          603           660         47.7          52.3
 The methodology utilized to develop these projections is found in
 Appendix D.
                                  Bll

-------
                                                H-l
APPENDIX  C

-------
 6"
  u
 ID
 IX
it"
7."
  6"
  (o"
0-50
Sto
            u
                     IS.K
                     (6-S1
6.co  "
6.so  "
                    10 00  "

                    (l.oo  "
                    IS 'o
                                             7-67
                                             6, is
                                             ^,00
                                             lo, IX
                      c-l

-------
                        l
Q
      c,
f/ccx
 4-"
4"
                           /ceo
                 - /we
      ax
                       (/\/cv)
 iss
 [.So
o.so
        Lf-
                                        e»4
                               Zee
           I
                       0 i
                                                   a 10

-------
                                                   H-l

            /no

                                           /ay?
5
Hp
                                             /co. co
                                           1,9

-------
                                                                             H-
PROJECT.
SUBJECT.
        n
COMP BY
      O ?     ( f
                                          DATE
                              r
                           O
P   Kl
                                         ouj   =
                               I r
                                 x
                  /( *  -27.0 =    3
                                                                 rrs
                                 ineers
                                                                           '

-------
•ROJECT
                                                                     H-l
               - CO  j-f C
             n
                                               PROJ NO. ,




                                               CLIENT _
COMP BY
                         CKDBY
                                      DATE
                                                    SHEET.
                                                          -2-

                             —  /O//OGO  Q
                                                    F^--  1^ d K
                |  £
                                             arthur beard enaineers. Inc.

-------
                                                                          H-l
SUBJECT.
       0
               PROJ NO.
               CLIENT	
COMP
               DATE
                   £//vf?
                           CKD BY
                     SHEET.
 7~1/P   /-VoK£<=  —
       L
                •7,s'~
                         D
           3
tSf
                          4-
                                                                     LONG
                                                                    P € -
                                                          /S~00 FT-
                                                        ( Fo?. S£ir' T)t^G- )
                                                              enaineers, Inc.

-------
                                                                  H-l
PROJECT
      Con,,.
— ' TV-*"
            S
                                             PROJ NO.
                                             CLIENT
COMP BY
             DATE
                         KD BY
                                     DATE
                                                  SHEET.
                                ry
                                                            L
    sTR(
          /7«
6r 9 T /C
v
                          / £-/
             V
 po 1
                   300°°-
                                  C
                                                            5 9,30
                                                             ?, 5S-
                                            o o
                                              S 00,00
                                              / S'S", /#
                                           Fc> R  N dT
                               c-i
                                          ^.rfknr h^nrrl finnineers. 1 nC.

-------
                                                         H-l
PROJECT.
       - £ n O 1C. (-
SUBJECT

               fxS'TV:
                              PROJ NO,


                              CLIENT _
                                             -^ ^ V- P-
            DATE
                     rKDBY
                               "ATE
                                           SHEET
                                                   OF.
     R  '  F •
       l_ 	  — I —
4sx  i  ,     L
 i   ir^—h
        <-i

^^
 PCK^ N
                                                 PUC
                                              FV
              /^7
                 /
             -jr

           \/  -

                            
                                    arthur beard enaineers, Inc

-------
PROJECT  v. t P"-) «-_


SUBJECT
    fV" ^' •  r
              . r-. r
                                              PROJ NO.
                                                         >• o, ./•»
                                                        ^ >  -'
                                                                    H-l
                                              CLIENT   ^ . y *">
COMP BY  l-'^-l   DATE
                 C/s,
                        CKD BY 	 DATE
                                                   SHEET.
                                             W'A\A MTfT'x ^-'*CCS
                                          // //
                                        //?  P^C -
       IF. H/C  ;
COS
                         ?'vT< ry
                            c/
                                                                   f/
                                                  HVC- P
                                                           I 230,00
                                                               02..OO
                                                  \/
                                           arthur beard engineers, Inc.

-------
                             H-
nnnirrT r^Or^r-,-^ ^(crfP-ft-
ppniprr V^ y.t/ic't- 	 2 	 : 	 — ; — 	
<>>/ l/^iC/^ (JtfLuE^,
SUBJtC f 	 >. 1 r — Vi— - — i£-±t 	 '-^ 	
PRO.I MO ^H-'7~cf rr
.M^T (VcJPdRp

COMPBY'2^rl_DATE ^/^£cKDBY DATE 	 SHEET _
A_o,_
1
c-io
         arthur beard ennineers.

-------
PROJECT

 /  i  '  -  •- •-  ' '-
-LJ.-LL^tLjr.
   < >•  ,     /"
                                                           PRO.- i,c..._ _.x..rL' —:	
                  DATE

               D
                   /*-
                   L.-T
                          X
               I
     PMC
                   ! «t-.
                                                                                      	|
                          is, i
                                                                I ChiHCT	. Oi
                   — •    •
                   /v.
                    r  i

-------
                                                   H-l
d£

roKf td
•^Cr£,'i>4
-------
                                                 H-l
APPENDIX  D

-------
                                                                         H-l
            The analysis of the collection system for the Springvale/
 Littlefield area was based on a cost effective study of three systems;
 the  combination gravity/pressure system used in the proposed system of
 the  facility plan,  the combination gravity-pressure system used by ABE,
 and  cluster systems.  The systems were analyzed on an area basis
 utilizing  comparable costs for each.  Included in the analysis were
 capital  costs for collection, hook-up expenses and salvage values.
           The first system analyzed was the facility plan  proposed
 alternate.   This system combines a conventional gravity/force  main
 system with a low pressure sewer system.   The  low pressure sewer
 system utilized grinder pumps and was used for servicing those homes
 that were  below the elevation of the gravity system.   In the facility
 plan, the  low pressure sewer lines were connected directly to  the
 pump station force  mains of the  gravity/force  main system  causing some
 concern  as  to its feasibility as this would be an innovative and as
 yet  untried system.   In upgrading of the proposed plan however, ABE
 decided  to cost out the plan  as shown assuming no problems would
 be encountered.   However,  for all the  other alternatives  a more
 conservative design was developed.   This system will utilize a  dual
 piping system with  the low pressure system not pumping directly into
 the  force main.   ABE recognizes  the potential  for cost savings  if
 the  single  line low pressure system is feasible and suggests more
 detail be given this  consideration during  the  Step  II, or  design
 phase of this  project.   When comparing this  to a system with additional
 pressure collection, ABE replaced the grinder  pumps with effluent
 pumps, utilizing  a  STEP pressure  system for both alternatives.
          The  decision to  utilize  a STEP system as  opposed to a
pressure system sewer  utilizing  grinder pumps  is based solely on an
 assumption of  a 501 replacement  of septic  tanks  within the service
 area.  On this basis,  the  STEP system was  found more cost effective
by a very slight margin.   The cost  between  employing STEP systems
versus grinder pumps are extremely  competitive.  ABE recommends that
both of these  systems  be reviewed by the design  engineer when employing

-------
                             -2-
pressure sewer systems for a specific  service area.   In this way,  the
existing conditions of the service  area,  the  availability of the units,
and the quantity of the units  to be provided,  will produce an accurate
cost evaluation of both systems.
          The third system analyzed was the use of several cluster
systems each serving small groups of homes.  Each home  is  connected
to a gravity line which conveys the wastewater to a pump station.
From here it is pumped to  the nearest available land which is suitable
for on-site treatment using a distribution field.
          A comparison of  cluster systems versus collection to a
central land treatment site was conducted for  the area around
Pickerel Lake,  and the cluster system proved to be more cost effective.
This area was therefore  served by cluster systems for all alternatives.
                              P-x

-------
PROJECT
SUBJECT ,
                     _LIC Kfj
                                                PROJ NO..
                                                                      H-l

 COMPBY
                                       DATE
                                                     1HEET
rr-
5
n
fs/C
           IT MI i
       '
        -u
Coie.b
       k
                              pr
                          - 0
M
                                            4,500
                                            l6,oco
                                                                   i  (
                                                                 fo
                                             arthur beard engineers, Inc.

-------
PROJECT.


SUBJECT.
(t
                                                                   H-l
                                              PRO i
                                                        7?6/T
rnMPRV
             DA"
              7}
                         CKDBY
                                                   SHFFT      OF
        J
   0-50
  50'
                        P-1
                         600
                                               C
                                         OST
                                            •heH.
                                            /Bo/mi/* ,
                                     !<>50
                                     in?
                                    X o-i
                                    tf O-
                                    X fi-i
                                                                150
                                                               l;o6oDlS
                                                              /, 151,35$
                                "D-
                                           arthur beard engineers,

-------
                                                                      H-I
PROJECT	L.



SUBJECT.	
               ^jq   /

                                               PROJ
COMPBY
       DVN
              DATE
                      ij
                                      DATP
                                                    SHFPT
r
fc" F
  ^C

  - 5
  o- 50
      v<\
      h
31,500

•"" O "



  2>
                         -°-

                                             4l-
                                               eo
                                            IS.I5
                                            ll-oo
                                                                ^m/ (csr
                                                                 ~°~
                                                                    '/oo
                                                                 - o —
                                                                   n 1
                                            arthur beard engineers, Inc.

-------
PROJECT

SUBJECT
                                                                         H-
COMP BY
              DATE
m
                     J> II CKDPY
                   "ATP
                                  SHEET      OP
5epfio
                        ^7^0
                          S
                          |
                          fc
                                                   Ni\fil
                          T'/o
                          {050
                          Ml?
                          toj^/t
                                              2,076
                                                lib
                                                                    /(05e>
                                                                   5,66?
 Col/Eel/
                        [fcfc>6t>D
                           0.3
                                              nrthurtaeard enaineers. In

-------
                                                                     H-l
PROJECT




SUBJECT
PROJ NO. .




CLIENT	
COMP BY
               DATE
                           CKD BY
                                        DATE
                                                       SHEET	OF.


                                   X

                                                irthur beard enaineers, Inc.

-------
                                                                       H-
PROJECT.

SUBJECT.

                       PROJ NO. .

                       CLIENT	
COMP BY
       Pvfe
              DATE
CKD BY
             DATE
                            SHEET.
                                                                .OF.
   1
   5
   1
   to
                     fcPu
                         llo
fcl
                                            134.
                                             /o
                                f"
                                        1 5
                                         «tSCO.
                                            nrthur beard enaineers. n

-------

-------
PROJECT.

SUBJECT.
               \i
                                                                 H-l
       PROJ NO. .

       CLIENT 	
DViS
COMP BY  l^ry J . DATE
                          CKDBY
                                       DATE
             SHEET	OF.
HfU
              T
               C4 n\
^
M
MM6-.
                                                            o
                                                       f
                                                    /\
                                                   -t

                           -^ \O

-------
                                                                                  H-l
                        CROOKED/PICKEREL - COLLECTION
                                COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATE:   I
                                 PRESENT
Costs in 1979 Dollars
  ENR INDEX = 3000
   FUTURE
Cluster Segments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 ..
10
11

251

1, 2 5 18
3, 4 § 6
8
10
5 ••§ 17
11
12
13 § 14
15
16
7

Engr. § Const.

Capital
170,196
313,728
43,765
51,259
163,840
125,370
79,632
207,564
36,618
233,174
8,400
1,433,546
358,387
1,791,933
OSM
1,584
3,630
1,339
1,725
1,981
1,885
1,777
3,110
1,253
3,360
5,440
27,084
.
27,084
Salvage
89,152
134,877
17,847
26,852
73,878
56,035
29,000
68,100
19,258
.86,524
5,040 •
606,563
121,312
727,875
Capital
56,732
281,048
52,518
51,259
51,200
125,370
68,256
98,840
146,472
121,656
4,200
1,057,551
264,388
1,321,939
pm
178
2,215
316
625
294
835
593
970
732
1,180
2,720
10,658
-
10,658
Salvage
28,906
108,801
18,395
22,433
22,105
51,073
20,938
28,019
64,410
37,233
3,360
405,673 ,
81,135
486,808

-------
CROOKED/PICKEREL
CLUSTER SYSTEMS
                                                                              H-i
             ARTHUR BEARD ENGINEERS,  INC.
             JOB  448
CLUSTER NO. 1
ITEM
8 in. gravity
Force main
Pump Station
Septic tanks
Trench
4" perforated pipe
Backfill
Gravel fill
Distribution box
4" gravity pipe
Land
Hydrogeologic survey
Monitoring well
  Sub-Total
  Cost/Home
Homeowners Hook-up Cost
  TOTAL

Monitoring wells
Pump Station
Gravity line
Force main
Septic tanks
  TOTAL

Collection
Septic tanks
Pump stations
  TOTAL
SEGMENTS 1, 2 §18
                            CAPITAL COST
PRESENT HOMES:  6
FUTURE  HOMES:  8
QUANTITY
4,665 LF
100 LF
1 ea.
2
1,520 LF
1,520 LF
1,520 LF
169 CY
1 ea.
120 LF
.6 Ac.
L.S.
L.S.


8 ea.
UNIT COST
41.00
8.43
4,500
300
1.74
1.69
0.56
9.67
210
5.17
1,000
9,554
3,035


1,000
TOTAL COST
191,265
843
4,500
600
2,645
2,569
851
1,634
210
620
600
9,554
3,035
$218,926
27,366
8,000
                           $226, 926
1 set
1 ea.
0.88 mi.
-
8

SALVAGE
192,108
600
4,500'
100/yr.
950/yr.
400/mi/yr.
100/mi/yr.
10/yr.


x 0.6
x 0.6
x 0.3
100
950
352
0
80
$1,482

115,265
360
1,350
                                                          $116,974

-------
CROOKED/PICKEREL
CLUSTER SYSTEMS
                                                                              H-l
ARTHUR BEARD ENGINEERS,  INC.
JOB 448
CLUSTER NO. 2
ITEM
8 in. gravity
Force main
Pump Station
Septic tanks
Trench
4" perforated pipe
Backfill
Gravel fill
Distribution box
4" gravity pipe
Land
Hydrogeologic survey
Monitoring well
  Sub-Total
  Cost/Home
Homeowners Hook-up  Cost
  TOTAL

Monitoring wells
Pump  Station
Gravity  line
Force main
Septic tanks
  TOTAL

Collection
Septic tanks
Pump  stations
  TOTAL
SEGMENTS:  3, 4
                             CAPITAL COST
     6  PRESENT HOMES:  48
        FUTURE  HOMES:  91
QUANTITY
8,200 LF
4,000 LF
1 ea.
53 ea.
17,290 LF
17,290 LF
17,290 LF
1,921 CY
1
1,365
6 Ac.
L.S.
L.S.


91
UNIT COST
41.00
8.43
4,500
300
1.74
1.69
0.56
9.67
210
5.17
1,000
9,554
3,035
7

1.000
TOTAL COST
336,200
33,720
4,500
15,900
30,085
29,220
9,682
18,576
210
7,057
6,000
9,554
3,035
$503,739
5,536
91,000
              $594,739
1
I
1.55 mi.
0.8 mi.
91

SALVAGE
369,920
15,900
A Qnn'
100/yr.
950/yr.
400/mi/yr.
100/mi/yr.
10/yr.


x 0.6
x 0.6
x 0.3
100
950
620
80
910
$2,660

221,952
9,540
1,350
               $232,842

-------
 CROOKED/PICKEPEL
 CLUSTER SYSTEMS
             ARTHUR BEARD ENGINEERS,  INC.
             JOB 448
 CLUSTER NO.3
SEGMENTS:  8
                             CAPITAL COST
PRESENT HCMES:   5
FUTURE  HOMES:  11
 ITEM
 8  in. gravity
 Force main
 Pump Station
 Septic tanks
 Trench
 4" perforated pipe
 Backfill
 Gravel fill
 Distribution box
 4" gravity pipe
 Land
 Hydrogeologic survey
 Monitoring well
  Sub-Total
  Cost/Home
 Homeowners Hook-up Cost
  TOTAL

Monitoring wells
 Pump Station
 Gravity line
 Force main
Septic tanks
  TOTAL

Collection
Septic tanks
Pump stations
  TOTAL
QUANTITY
1,000 LF
1,500 LF
1 ea.
7 ea.
2,090 LF
2,090 LF
2,090 LF
232 CY
1 ea.
165 LF
0.8 Ac.
L.S.
L.S.


11

1 set
1 ea.
0.2 mi.
0.3 mi.
11

SALVAGE
53,645
2,100
4,500
UNIT COST
41.00
8.43
4,500
300
1.74
1.69
0.56
9.67
210
5.17
1,000
9,554
3,035


1,000

100/yr.
950/yr.
400/mi/yr.
100/mi/yr.
10/yr.


x 0.6
x 0.6
x 0.3
TOTAL COST
41,000
12,645
4,500
2,100
3,637
3,532
1,170
2,243
210
853
800
9,554
3,035
$85,279
7,753
11,000
$96,279
100
950
80
30
110
$1,270

32,187
1,260
1,350
                          $34,797

-------
 CROOKED/PICKEREL
 CLUSTER SYSTEMS
                                                                              H-l
             ARTHUR BEARD ENGINEERS,  INC.
             JOB 448
 CLUSTER NO.  4
SEGMENTS:  10
                             CAPITAL COST
                                                    PRESENT HOMES: 13
                                                    FUTURE  HOMES: 26
 ITEM
 8  in. gravity
 Force main
 Pump Station
 Septic tanks
 Trench
 4" perforated pipe
 Backfill
 Gravel fill
 Distribution  box
 4" gravity pipe
 Land
 Hydrogeologic survey
 Monitoring well
   Sub-Total
 .  Cost/Home
 Homeowners Hook-up Cost
   TOTAL
Monitoring wells
Pump Station
Gravity line
Force main
Septic tanks
  TOTAL

Collection
Septic tanks
Pump stations
  TOTAL
QUANTITY
1,200 LF
2,500 LF
1 ea.
15 ea.
4,940 LF
4,940 LF
4,940 LF
549 CY
1 ea.
390
1.7 Ac.
L.S.
L.S.


26

om
1 set
1 ea.
0.2 mi.
• 0.5 mi.
26 ea.

SALVAGE
70,275
4,500
4,500"
UNIT COST
41.00
8.43
4,500
300
1.74
1.69
0.56
9.67
210
5.17
1,000
9,554
3,035


1,000


100/yr.
950/yr.
400/mi/yr.
100/mi/yr.
10/yr.


x 0.6
x 0.6
x 0.3
TOTAL COST
49,200
21,075
4,500
4,500
8,596
8,349
2,766
5,309
210
2,016
1,700
9,554
3,035
$76,530
2,943
26,000
$103,473

100
950
80
50
260
$1,440

42,165
2,700
1,350
                           $46,215

-------
 CROOKED/PICKEREL
 CLUSTER SYSTEMS
                                                                              B-l
              ARTHUR BEARD ENGINEERS, INC.
              JOB 448
 CLUSTER NO. 5
 ITEM
 8 in. gravity
 Force main
 Pump Station
 Septic tanks
 Trench
 4" perforated pipe
 Backfill
 Gravel fill
 Distribution box
 4" gravity pipe
 Land
 Hydrogeologic survey
 Monitoring well
   Sub-Total
"'  Cost/Home
 Homeowners Hook-up Cost
   TOTAL

 Monitoring wells
 Pump Station
 Gravity line
 Force  main
 Septic tanks
   TOTAL

 Collection
 Septic  tanks
 Pump stations
   TOTAL
SEGMENTS: 5 § 17
                              CAPITAL COST
PRESENT HOMES:  16
FUTURE  HOMES:  21
JANTITY
3,665 LF
100 LF
1 ea.
8 ea.
3,990 LF
3,990 LF
3,990 LF
443 CY
1 ea.
315 LF
1.4 Ac.
L.S.
L.S.
•71
UNIT COST
41.00
8.43
4,500
300
1.74
1.69
0.56
9.67
210
5.17
1,000
9,554
3,035

TOTAL COST
150,265
843
4,500
2,400
6,943
6,743
2,234
4,284
210
1,629
1,400
9,554
3,035
$194,040
9,240
21,000
           1,000
                            $215,040
1 set
1 ea.
0.7 mi.
-
21

SALVAGE
151,108
2,400
4,500
100/yr.
950/yr.
400/mi/yr.
100/mi/yr.
10/yr.


x 0.6
x 0.6
x 0.3
100
950
280
0
210
$1,540

90,665
1,440
1,350
                             $93,455

-------
 CROOKED/PICKEREL
 CLUSTER SYSTEMS
                                                                               H-l
             ARTHUR BEARD ENGINEERS,  INC.
             JOB 448
 CLUSTER NO.6
 ITEM
 8 in.  gravity
 Force  main
 Pump Station
 Septic tanks
 Trench
 4" perforated pipe
 Backfill
 Gravel fill
 Distribution box
 4" gravity pipe
 Land
 Hydrogeologic survey
 Monitoring well
   Sub-Total
"•  Cost/Home
 Homeowners Hook-up Cost
   TOTAL

 Monitoring wells
 Pump Station
 Gravity line
 Force  main
 Septic tanks
   TOTAL

 Collection
 Septic tanks
 Pump stations
   TOTAL
SEGMENTS :  11
                             CAPITAL COST
PRESENT HOMES: 15
FUTURE  HOMES: 30
JANTITY
4,000 LF
100 LF
1 ea.
18 ea.
5,700 LF
5,700 LF
5,700 LF
633 CY
1 ea.
450 LF
2 AC
L.S
L.S


30
UNIT COST
41.00
8.43
4,500
300
1.74
1.69
0.56
9.67
210
5.17
1,000
9,554
3,035


1.000
TOTAL COST
164,000
843
4,500
5,400
9,918
9,633
3,192
6,121
210
2,327
2,000
9,554
3,035
$220,733
7,358
30,000
                           $250,733
1 set
1 ea.
0.8 mi.
-
30

SALVAGE
164,843
5,400
4,500
100/yr.
950/yr.
400/mi/yr.
100/mi/yr.
10/yr.
• /

x 0.6
x 0.6
x 0.3
100
950
320
0
300
$1,670

98,906
3,240
1,350
                           $103^496

-------
  CROOKED/PICKEREL
  CLUSTER SYSTEMS
              ARTJ-flJR BEARD ENGINEERS, INC.
              JOB 448
 CLUSTER NO. 7
SEGMENTS  12
                              CAPITAL COST
  ITEM
  8 in. gravity
  Force main
  Pump Station
  Septic tanks
  Trench
  4" perforated pipe
 Backfill
 Gravel fill
 Distribution box
 4" gravity pipe
 Land
 Hydrogeologic survey
 Monitoring well
   Sub-Total
   Cost/Home
 Homeowners  Hook-up  Cost
   TOTAL

Monitoring wells
Pump Station
Gravity line
Force main
Septic tanks
  TOTAL

Collection
Septic tanks
Pump stations
  TOTAL
QUANTITY
1,500 LF
1,170 LF
1 ea.
15 ea
4,940 LF
4,940 LF
4,940 LF
549 CY
1 ea.
390 LF
1.7 AC
L.S
L.S
26
1 set
1 ea.
.3
.3
26
SALVAGE
71,363
4,500
4,500
UNIT COST
41.00
8.43
4,500
300
1.74
1.69
0.56
9.67
210
5.17
1,000
9,554
3,035
1,000
100/yr.
950/yr.
400/mi/yr,
100/mi/yr.
10/yx.

x 0.6 .
x 0.6
x 0.3
PRESENT HCMES:  14
FUTURE  HOMES:  26
                           TOTAL COST
                              61,500
                               9,863
                               4,500
                               4,500
                               8,596
                               8,349
                               2,766
                               5,309
                                210
                               2,016
                               1,700
                               9,554
                               3,035
                           $121,898
                               4,688
                              26,000
                           $147,898


                                100
                                950
                                120
                                 30
                                260
                              $1,460


                              42,818
                               2,700
                               1,550
                             $46,868

-------
CROOKED/PICKEREL
CLUSTER SYSTEMS
             ARTHUR BEARD ENGINEERS,  INC.
             JOB 448
                                                                              H-l
CLUSTER NO. 8
SEGMENTS 13 § 14
                             CAPITAL COST
ITEM
8 in. gravity
Force main
Pump Station
Septic tanks
Trench
4" perforated pipe
Backfill
Gravel fill
Distribution box
4" gravity pipe
Land
Hydrogeologic survey
Monitoring well
  Sub-Total
"•Cost/Home
Homeowners Hook-up Cost
  TOTAL

Monitoring wells
Pump Station
Gravity line
Force main
Septic tanks
  TOTAL

Collection
Septic tanks
Pump stations
  TOTAL
QUANTITY
3,333
100
1 ea.
28 ea.
11,780 LF
11,780 LF
11,780 LF
2,618 CY
1 ea.
930 LF
4.1 AC
1
1
62
05M
1 set
1
0.6 mi.
.
62
SALVAGE
137,496
8,400
4,500
UNIT COST
41.00
8.43
4,500
300
1.74
1.69
0.56
9.67
210
5.17
1,000
9,554
3,035
1,000

100/yr.
950/yr.
400/mi/yr
lOO/mi/yr
10/yr.

x 0.6
x 0.6
x 0.3
PRESENT HOMES: 42
FUTURE  HOMES: 62
                          TOTAL COST
                           136,653
                               843
                             4,500
                             8,400
                            20,497
                            19,908
                             6,597
                            25,316
                               210
                             4,808
                             4,100
                             9,554
                             3,035
                           $244,421
                             3,942
                            62,000
                           $306.421

                                100
                                950
                                240
                                 0
                                620
                             $1,910

                             82,498
                              5,040
                              1,550
                            $88,888

-------
  CROOKED/PICKEREL
  CLUSTER SYSTEMS
              ARTHUR BEARD ENGINEERS, INC.
              JOB 448    '
                                                                                 H-
  CLUSTER NO.  9
SEGMENTS  15
PRESENT HOMES:  3
FUTURE  HOMES: 15
                              CAPITAL COST
  ITEM
  8 in. gravity
  Force main
  Pump Station
  Septic tanks
  Trench
  4" perforated pipe
  Backfill
  Gravel fill
 Distribution box
 4" gravity pipe
 Land
 Hydrogeologic survey
 Monitoring well
   Sub-Total
   Cost/Home
 Homeowners Hook-up Cost
   TOTAL

 Monitoring wells
 Pump Station
 Gravity line
 Force main
 Septic tanks
  TOTAL

Collection
Septic tanks
Pump stations
  TOTAL
QUANTITY
3,000 LF
900 LF
1 ea.
12 ea.
2,850 LF
2,850 LF
2,850 LF
317 CY
1 ea.
225 LF
1 Ac.
L.S
L.S


15

1 set
1 ea.
0.6 mi.
0.2 mi.
15

SALVAGE
130,587
3,600
2,500
UNIT COST
41.00
8.43
4,500
300
1.74
1.69
0.56
9.67
210
5.17
1,000
9,554
3,035


1,000

100/yr.
950/yr.
400/mi/yr.
100/mi/yr.
10/yr.


x 0.6
x 0.6
x 0.3
TOTAL COST
123,000
7,587
4,500
3,600
4,959
4,817
1,596
3,065
210
1,163
1,000
9,554
3,035

$168,086
11,206
15,000
$183,086
100
950
240
20
150
$1,460

78,352
2,160
1,350
                            $81,862

-------
  CROOKED/PICKEREL
  CLUSTER SYSTEMS
                                                                             H-l
ARTHUR BEARD ENGINEERS,  INC.
JOB 448
 CLUSTER NO.  10
                                SEGMENTS   16
                              CAPITAL COST
 ITEM
 8 5jn. gravity
 Force main
 Pump Station
 Septic tanks
 Trench
 4" perforated pipe
 Backfill
 Gravel fill
 Distribution box
 4" gravity pipe
 Land
 Hydrogeologic survey
 Monitoring well
   Sub-Total
"'- Cost/Home
 Homeowners Hook-up Cost
   TOTAL

 Monitoring wells
 Pump Station
 Gravity line
 Force main
 Septic  tanks
  TOTAL

 Collection
 Septic tanks
 Pump stations
  TOTAL
QUANTITY
4,150 LF
1,200 LF
1 ea.
33 ea.
13,300 LF
13,300 LF
13,300 LF
1,478 CY
1 ea.
1,050 LF
4.6 Ac.
L.S
L.S
70
1 set
1 ea
0.8
0.2
70
SALVAGE
180,266
9,900
4,500
UNIT COST
41.00
8.43
4,500
300
1.74
1.69
0.56
9.67
210
5.17
1,000
9,554
3,035
1,000
100/yr.
950/yr.
400/mi/yx
100/mi/yr
10/yr.

x 0.6
x 0.6
x 0.3
        PRESENT HOMES: 46
        FUTURE  HOMES: 70
             TOTAL COST
               170,150
                10,116
                4,500
                9,900
                23,142
                22,477
                7,448
                14,292
                   210
                5,428
                4,600
                9,554
                5,035
               284,852
                4,069
                70,000
              $354,852

                   100
                   950
                   320
                    20
                   700
                $2,090
               108,159
                 5,940
               _1,350
              $115,449
                                  "D-;x\

-------
PROJECT.




SUBJECT.
                                                  NO.
CLIENT
COMP BY
             DATE
                        CKD BY
                                     DATE
                                                   SHE ET ___J_ QF_
                                - f
                                           C

                                          nrthur beard ennineers.

-------
PROJECT.

SUBJECT.
                                            PROJ NO. .


                                            CLIENT 	
                                                               H-l
COMP BY
             DATE
                        CKD BY
                                    DATE
                                                 SHEET.
                                                         .OF.
             fo
             16
                   "u
                                LUs
                                3
                                3
                                6
                                IS
                           Will
                                                    H
                                                    5o
                                                    So
                                                    o
                                         arthur beard engineers, Inc.

-------
PROJECT.
  Erfc-KC J 1
   I      I  I
   PROJ NO.




   CLIENT _
                                                                H-l
    BY
kws  DATE um
                       CKD BY
                                   HATF
                                                 SHEET	OF.
 Pvc
                      IXpoo UF


                      £>.ooo Lf
                                   U-4b

                                   a.^o
   Aw,-U

    £:>"  1
 Vc

 Cofb
        i
                       000 LF
                        IO
|2..
-------
PROJECT
SUBJECT
                 /
                                                                   H-l
                                               PROJ NO. .
                                                  */#>*
COMPBY
              DATE
                      7
                          CKD BY 	 DATE
                                                    SHEET      nc
Colled M
 •Fo T^
CO
                            Uf
                         n
                                                               jotPvl C
                                                             OST
                                                                   1,35.0
                                                                 /•/(? fc/X
                                            arthur beard enaineers. Inc.

-------
                                                                              H-
PROJECT A^y-T> N'rr ' '/? ^>*
            D^T Q.  -—
SUBJECT.
                                                     CLIENT
COMP BY
               DATE
                            CKD BY
                                           DATE
                                                           SHEET	i   OF
                            rf
                                             ; 7 /?• C_
                                                  nrthnr hftnrH enninfiRrs. I

-------
PROJECT.
C £(• •-KF di   /
\ I I      i    T
                                                                          H-l
SUBJECT.

                               A&
                                          (t
PROJ NO.


CLIENT _
COMP BY
               DATE
                           CKDBY
                                         DATE
                                                        SHEET.
                                                                  .OF.
                   ,f
               lo
                Ib
                «4
                is
                 ib
                                IS
                                (4
                                /*>
                                                           7.4=
                                                    ^
                                                    (O
                                                arthur beard engineers. Inc.

-------
PROJECT


SUBJECT.
      ^ — f
                   2  '
                        PROJ N(


                        CLIENT
                                                                     H-
COMP BY
      M6
             DATE
                         CKD BY
                                                    SHEET
                                                             . OF.
       rM   6"


       ll"
  m.
 AW
      a"
      B"
      iVv
•^,800

7,500
                         4
                        17
                        17
                         \S
                       77
                                         UMM u&
                                                 T
H.oo

ll-fio
                                               45
                                                                  CXSO
                                                                3V_55
                                           arthur beard engineers, li

-------
                                                                          H-l
PROJECT I fRcoK (****>
                          TI
                          1,000
                                               X o.t,
                                               X o.fe
                                               y: o.b
                                                                         ST
                                                                      770
                                              arthur beard engineers, Inc.

-------
PROJECT


SUBJECT
       C
               t} \ r-4 . f-
  f-oWjL  (fillfcJM

                                                                      H-
COMP BY
DWS    DATE tfllrfi
                         CKDHV
                                      n^TF
                                                    SHEET      flF
     IS
                      £-0, 1 bo
                      So,  | bo
                      41,
                      So.
                                       o
                                       o
                                      ST7S-
                                           8,771
                                                               6(0
                                                               610
                                                               COO
1 SfeO
                                                                bO
                                           arthur beard engineers, In

-------
                                                                    H-l
PROJECT.

SUBJECT.
           Ke
                      3
            PROJ NO. .

            CLIENT 	
COMP BY
      DWS
              DATE
                         CKD BY
                                      DATE
                                                    SHEET.
                                                             . OF.
              I
              2.
              \1
              id
                                 .1976
3
                                   /s
                                   I?
                                   7o
                     /I
                     30
                     2LO
                     SO
                                           arthur beard engineers, Inc.

-------
PROJECT.

SUBJECT-
 Al-kr^
                                               Pnn..Nn
                                                                      H-l
                                                              A
COMP BY
     DATE 0//2J7?   CKDBY 	_ DATE
          f  I  J    '• 	;	
                                                    SHF.ET       flP
CAP/
 pvc
 F-M
 AW
6'
f"
         ih
                           ri
^
                        4s CD
                              LP
                 i/  03,
                fco   cu\
                10   dA
                        bo
                10
                bO
                                       V
                                    ll.oo
                                             767
                                             54
                                            711
                                                      """El/si
                                                                   070
                                     /VIS
                                     ^700
                                                                3^,000
                                                                    too
                                                           *  57o;c.il
                                            arthur beard engineers, Inc

-------
PROJECT.




SUBJECT.
                                                                      H-l
    PROJ NO.




    CLIENT _
       DWS
COMP BY  tsyv-s  DATE ^//-^ f .1. CKD BY 	 DATE
                                                     SHEET	Of.
    fc
e*U
                         foo
                          OOO
                                              M  Ujr          Tom/
X o.
                           r
                                                                5,2.10
                                            arthur beard engineers, Inc.

-------
                                                                       H-l
PROJECT.




SUBJECT.
                                    if: *'T- ,/
PROJ NO.




CLIENT _
COMP BY
                           CKDBY
                                        DATE
                                                        SHEET.
             J-OF-j.
                                          Sccf (^kH^A/T"  ~/7
                                    ^ f
                                           7 /4 c
                               4 =
                                              arthur beard ertnineers. In

-------
PROJECT.


SUBJECT.

                                                                         H-l
A ll£C*/At
                        EJ
                                              PROJ NO. .


                                              CLIENT 	
COMP BY
               DATE
           lL
                   _Lj
                            CKDBY
                                         PATF
                                                        SHEET
                                                                   np
4
6
(o
n
16
    i
    &
    I!

    I?
              60, Ifeo
                 , ^0
                            o
                            o
                           Is-*,
                                       ns
                                                            £3(0
IT-jfcoo

 ^•2-00

^1 . 000

   o
                                                           SLOli
                                                arthur beard engineers, Inc.

-------
PROJECT - ^- f '~~
          /a..^
SUBJECT.
AU

                                                                 H-l
COMPBY
      lT)V>I.->
             DATE
            (5
7j
                        r-KDRY
                             OATF
                                           SHEET
                                                           OF
          oCq yteM
              5"
              (o
              7
              5
              t
              ID
              o
              12.
              15"
              1(3
              17
              (6
                     O
                     e>
                     &
                     e>
                     o
                     o
      o
      o

      II

               6
               b

               3
               o
               o
               O
               D
                            11-
                            O
                            Ci
                                            3.5

                                            6
                                            O

                                            3
                                      o
                                      o
                                      fz.
                                                           lib
                                         arthur beard engineers, In

-------
PROJECT
_UfcoK£d
SUBJECT
     _A (-fa
                   f
                                                                H-l
 COMPBY
       OWS
             DATP
            /JJT?
              J1
                        CKDBV
                                    DATF
                                                          np
fVC  t'i"
      2."
     2-k"
         6'
2."
3"

6"
ARV
   £00 ~~ Soo



         'VitS
      cJ
               5 ,000
               (OjSoo
                      5000
                        50
                             M

                             M

                             /I
                      u
                                         IS. IS"
                                   7^7
                                  2 zoo
                                   3oo
                                                      <\us
                                         arthur beard engineers, Inc.

-------
   /	
1  / Rcf-FHf
                                                          H-l
     A
                                           MO
                                                / TO r\
     DVlS
COMPBY       DATP
         CKDBY _	 DATE
                                SHEET      OP

   So -
                      foo
                                     /o
                           IT?
                           "CrbS
                                                      frjfc-
                                               ,r
i>5b\
                                     arthur beard engineers, l»

-------
                                                                           H-l
PROJECT.


SUBJECT.
                 T~W
                                                   PROI wn
                                                             V'T' O/T
COMP BY
  £ti&   n.TF fe/Wtf"
                           CKDBY
                                         DATE
                                                         RHFET       OF
        ,-f
7
b
1
lo
U
a
e>
4
is
It
i7
(6
                            IbO
                           , V-72-
                                        to
                                      sT5
                                                 153
                                                  £>

                                                  o
                                                                     I
-------
                                             H-l
PRO iFr:T V-^r^Cj^
Arf-f






rriMP BY -I 	 'W.J>

PATF ^1 ^1 lO> CKDBY
/
ppn.i wn ' '(j r\
TMFNT WAPO^?\


r>ATF SHEET OF

1
!o
u
 f           -L
 1—AK-jf^     "+°
ib
  j 54=4
   fe\l_
                                     ^
                    3-//
                             S7S
                                  enaineers, In

-------
                                                                       H-l
PROJECT.




SUBJECT.
PROJ NO..




CLIENT 	
COMP BY
                          CKD BY
                                       DATE
                                                     SHEET
                            "PC{  ^
                                       To 7 /«?-
                                              arthur beard enaineers. Inc.

-------
PROJECT

SUBJECT.
      7
                        5
PROJ NO. .


CLIENT 	
                                                                        H-l,
COMP BY
              DATE
                          CKD BY
                                       DATE
                                                      SHEET.
                                                                .OF.
    3
    f
    b
   7
   6
   1
   («
   n
                       50, (bo
                       £)2>.
                    u
                       S(
                        ib,
                          611
                                               Cs
                                               o
                                               no
                                               ub
                                                                 IS,
                     foS"
                                             orthur beard engineers, Inc

-------
ELLSWORTH POINT

-------
CROOKED/PICKEREL
CLUSTER SYSTEMS
                                                                          H-l
             ARTHUR BEARD ENGINEERS,  INC.
             JOB 448
ALTERNATE - 6
SEGMENTS: 16
                            CAPITAL COST
PRESENT HOMES: 39
FUTURE  HOMES: 45
ITEM
8 in. gravity
Force main
Pump Station
Septic tanks
Trench
4" perforated pipe
Backfill
Gravel fill
Distribution box
4" gravity pipe
Land
Hydrogeologic survey
Monitoring well
  Sub-Total
'  Cost/Home
Homeowners Hook-up Cost
  TOTAL

Monitoring wells
Pump Station
Gravity line
Force main
Septic tanks
  TOTAL

Collection
Septic tanks
Pump stations
  TOTAL
QUANTITY
4,414 LF
0
1 ea.
14 ea.
8,550 LF
8,550 LF
8,550 LF
950 CY
1 ea.
675 LF
3 Ac.
1 ea.
1 ea.



0§M
1 set
1 ea.
.84
0
45

SALVAGE
180,974
4,200
4,500

UNIT COST
4,100
0
4,500
300
1.74
1.69
0.56
9.67
210
5.17
1,000
9,554
3,035




100/yr
950/yr
400/mi/yr
0
10/yr


x 0.6
x 0.6
x 0.3

TOTAL COST
180,974
0
4,500
4,200
14,877
14,450
4,788
9,187
210
3,490
3,000
9,554
3,035
$252,265
5,606
45,000
$297,265
100
950
336
0
450
$1,836

108,584
2,520
1,350
$112,454

-------
                                       H-l .-
-C^J
                          c
                         <^.
                                ^Jr  /
-------
 CROOKED/PICKEREL
 CLUSTER SYSTEMS
              ARTHUR. BEARD ENGINEERS, INC.
              JOB 448
                                                                                H-
 ALTERNATE - 6
SEGMENTS:  14
                             CAPITAL COST
 ITEM
 8 in.  gravity
 Force main
 Pump Station
 Septic tanks
 Trench
 4" perforated pipe
 Backfill
 Gravel fill
 Distribution box
 4" gravity pipe
 Land
 Hydrogeologic survey
 >5onitoring well
   Sub-Total
''.Cost/Home
 Homeowners Hoolc-up Cost
   TOTAL

Monitoring wells
Pump Station
Gravity line
Force main
Septic tanks
  TOTAL

Collection
Septic tanks
Pump stations
  TOTAL
QUANTITY
1,300 LF
500 LF
1 ea.
18 ea.
6,270 LF
6,270 LF
6,270 LF
697 CY
1 ea.
495 LF
2.2 Ac
1
1

1
1
.25
1
35
SALVAGE
57,515
5,400
4,500
UNIT COST
41.00
8.43
4,500
300
1.74
1.69
0.56
9.67
210
5.17
1,000
9,554
3,035
1,000
100/yr.
950/yr.
400/mi/yr
100/mi/yr.
10/yr.

x 0.6 .
x 0.6
x 0.3
PRESENT HOMES:  18
FUTURE  HONES:  33
                           TOTAL COST
                             53,300
                              4,215
                              4,500
                              5,400
                             10.910
                             10,596
                              3,511
                              6,740
                                210
                              2,560
                              2,200
                              9,554
                              3,055
                           $116,731
                              3,537
                             33,000
                           $149,731
                                100
                                950
                                100
                                 10
                                530
                             $1,490
                             34,509
                              5,240
                              1,550
                            $39*099

-------
                                                                       H-l
PROJECT.




SUBJECT.
COMP BY
              DATE
PROJ NO.




CLIENT _
                          CKDBY
                                       DATE
                                                     SHEET   '   OF.
                    -0
         T  2,
       nv
                              33
                                2.1.450
                                             arthur beard engineers, Inc.

-------
                                                                    H-l
PROJECT.




SUBJECT-
                                              r.11PNT
COMP BY
      DWS DATP  bf?-/7?
                         CKDpv        DATE
                                                   SHEET  -2-    np
            r  3
                                BS*
                    I
                               Ifco

            5*





          Vorrvp
                                -S"
                            ^J
           0
           rtWp
                             .3 i 6



                             7, iso
                                           arthur beard engineers, Inc.

-------
                                                                  H-l
PROJFCT
SUBJECT    /"j..^
                                             PROJ NO. .
                                         V%5A
COMPBY
          b
DATE      n CKDBY
                                     HATP
SHFFT 3    ne
             tjfi /C "W/\
                *nrr*
                               if I ',15
           7
                   -0
                                           a
                               rthur beard engineers, Inc.

-------
SUBJECT.
                   44-
                                                            H-l
COMP BY
j>6  DATE (Mi
"•	 •l.l.-S.-MIII*.. I.	 I 	 f I—.—
                      CKDBY 	 DATE
                                             SHPPT   7  OF
                                         7  OF  C?
           7
 /o
                c t,
              '
H
             50 (
-------
                                                                       H-l
PROJECT.




SUBJECT.
                                                PROJ
      J>1
COMP BY         DATE
                          CKD BY        DATE
                                                     SHPFT

                      V,
                                   9
                                5>oo
                                             arthur beard engineers, Inc.

-------
PROJECT.

SUBJECT-
                /'  feKW./
                                                           H-l
                                          Ppn, Nn
COMP BY
7W3  DATE ik/ij
                      CKD BY
                                              SHFFT  V  OF
                          S bc-o
                           2,0 ^
                        4T?fo

                         17. (to
              Corb
                      1,060
                    ^jj '7k-
                           _     __
                           foobo
            n
                            o
            16
                                             b^nrd ^nnineers, Inc.

-------
                                                  H-l
APPENDIX  E

-------
                                     H-l
0
           tooo
MM NO,
i
I
3
4
?
b
?
g
1
10
li
\l
I?
U
!5
Ib
I?
-Jl
SUB
i/i
TOTAL
TDfti. pof.
13
II
3?-
1 03
64
151
2r
M
-0-
^
\o^
^0
&t
•. w
51
1&
3
- 0-
1163
PBiJMAug*T
Wiwieft P&P
^
12
2/
5S
^
123
6
21
-0 -
33
51
4z
IS
%.
24
105
3
- 0-
^3
f
1I7TAL ax*)
O.ODD^g?
0. 0^?o ^2
0. 00221
0,00<°12>
O'OOtyfy
0qs^
0,03 \12
O'Ot^ll
0
0>0t>55%
(2'00b.l&
o>oo^
®,oo^c\^
0.00&Z&
OtiO^\1
0,0(41
O,QOO\$
0
0.0151%
0.0023
OiO^o'b
PSd«*iuEMT
Vyi^TEC. FU?w
O^oo^
®>ooo-\^
0>0& \"Lk
(9-00306
o-ooz.bg
O-OOHZ
0,000 36
£7, 0012^
0
0,oo K]g
OiOO^Qb
&, 00251
O.ooiob
0,0o2.\b
0,0$\44r
0 , 00 (,$
0 • ooo \ &
0
0,nb2~
o,uo&z>
O'O^^g-
' FtoW £ttfvcf>od*#>
TftJAt.
o, 0005^1
OiUOo^L
0 >OO \h1
0,00^3
O.oOZ<£>(
O-OQ^\
0 > 00 0<\b
O.oo Ih2
O
0,004-cq
O.ooq^Z
(?>oo S1fc
O-oo 36^
0-0065]
V.ooZlZ
O>o\OT-%
Otooo i5
O
0.065k
0. oO !>3
O'Ob^
UM^
0.00 05oozii
0.^0541
0,0002(?
0,000^2
O
0, 00 i^
0,002 t4-
otoo\34&
10
44

-------
                                       H-I
j
/
M&n4l
           u
4
ft
                         0,044s-
            1 » 3 ^  x fd?, ^45 AWO) - 6 . ?4
                           4-21


-------
                          t            j >
   D r ^ui

                  1 \ ^

                              N  Ctfv^C£-

  5 -j s   ^.'^ •> t IVTCVL J p



r
                     -  5
             \v»tft
                                                             H-l '
                                                               /
                                          u

-------
                                 FIGURE  3-2

   POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANBPIRATION VERSUS MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION [1]
                                   Inches
   1  in.- 2.54 cm
                                      4-50
                                                                          -5
-(- POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION MORE TH/UI
  MEAN  ANNUAL PRECIPITATION

- POTENTIAL EYAPOTRANSPIRATION LESS THAN
  MEAN  ANNUAL PRECIPITATION

-------
       D"
                                                          H-I
Lw   r   540+  0,1
                               mfr
                                ^jOi /l^^1^^ s  4-^^/-C
                    PRM - ^-3

                            w
Lfti
                      u

-------
                                                                  231

 from domestic usage, from the addition of highly mineralized water
 from private wells and  ground  water, and from industrial  usage.
 Domestic and industrial water softeners also contribute to the observed
 mineral pickup; in some  areas, they may represent the major  source
 of mineral pickup. Occasionally, water added from private wells and
 ground water infiltration will,  because of its high quality, serve to
 dilute the mineral concentration in the wastewater.
 TABLE 7-3  TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF DOMESTIC SEWAGE
 (All values except setlleable solids are expressed in mg/liter)
                                                  Concentration
                Constituent
Strong   Medium   Weak
Solids, total
Dissolved, total
Fixed
Volatile
Suspended, total
Fixed
Volatile
Settleable soMds, (ml/liter)
Biochemical oxygen demand. 5-day, 20°C (BODi-ZO")
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Nitrogen, (total as N)
Organic
Free ammonia
Nitrites
Nitrates
Phosphorus (total as P)
Organic
Inorganic
Chlorides*
Alkalinity (as CaCOj)*
Grease
1,200
850
525
325
350
75
275
20
300
300
1.000
85
35
50
0
0
20
5
15
100
200
150
700
500
300
200
200
50
150
10
200
200
500
| 40 j
15
25
0
0
10
3
7
50
100
100
350
250
145
105
100
30
70
5
100
100
250
20
8
12
0
0
6
2
4
30
50
50
•Values should be increased by amount in carriage water.

     Data on the chemical composition of a typical water supply and
the  resultant wastewater effluent  composition  after  treatment  are
shown in Table 7-4. In this case, the effect of the use of some local well
water and the intensive  use  of water softeners on.the total mineral
pickup  can be assessed by comparing the local  incremental pickup
values reported in col. 2 to the  national average range given in col. 3.
                                                                                      5/
                                             Wastewater Characteristics

-------
            i 0,4-5' U
           . 4-

                                      -5)|Q
w
      3,4?
                   3.4-
    * **tC—
                          u
                                 2-6%


-------
Q=
F  =:    2 ? . 1 f
                                   v~<>
                              rt

-------
                                                                     H-l
                                                            /r*»
                 2?
                                  *  1st?
2,7,

-------
                                                        V
                                                       H-l
L/WO



                            5,T,8,1jo,ll,/Z, 15,14-, is,
         J
                0,003
                         ==?  1*3    ,
                                   
-------
                                     ih /
                                     H-l
   41
@
                           *
,   1/4*'
                          45

-------
                   /I
                   I /

                                                          /  H-,

Q *•
                            1 ,  2, 3 ,  4, lo ,
                                *•    0,
                              =7^

-------

                             |J,5I
                            12.03
4

                 l   (J)



                '    (J

-------
                             H-l
        *4-
                 4.U
a
     4-^2. -'  2?-
5"°
   a

-------
                 H-l
                  7
53.

-------
                                                                        APPENDIX
                                                                          H-2
                        DESIGN AND  COSTING ASSUMPTIONS


Treatment

(1)  Land Application

     •    Facilities for  treatment  and  storage  of wastewaters prior to land
          application are based  on  EPA  design parameters  (EPA, 1977).

     •    Two possible  land  application sites were  identified (see Figure III-3),
          Alternative costs  were developed based on conveying wastewater to
          both  sites.

     •    Design assumptions -

                storage  period -  6 weeks per year
                application rate  - 1.6 inches per week
                application technique -  spray irrigation, alfalfa.

(2)  Cluster Systems

     •    Clusters  costed and designed  separately.

     •    Design assumptions -

                flow - 60  gpcd -  peak flow 45 gpm
                3.5  persons/home  - 3-bedroom home
                20%  of existing septic tanks need to be replaced with new
                 1000-gallon tanks

     •    Collection of wastewaters is  by a gravity sewer to one pump station
          which lifts effluent to the cluster field.

     •    Cluster system  includes the following requirements of the State of
          Michigan.

                monitoring wells
                hydrogeological survey be performed  for the potential area

     •    Pump  Station  (50 gpm)  required for transmission, 60-foot static
          head  assumed  from  pump station to distribution box.

Collection

     •    All sewer lines are to be placed at or below 6 feet of depth to
          allow for frost penetration in the Springvale/Littlefield area.
          Gravity lines are  assumed to  be placed at an average depth of
          12 feet.

     •    Thirty percent  shoring of all gravity collection lines is required,
          due to prevalent high  groundwater as  well as unsuitable soils.

-------
                                                                H-2
A minimum velocity of 2 fps will be maintained in all pressure sewer
lines and force mains to provide for scouring.

Peaking factor used for design flows was based on the Ten States
Standards in concurrence with the Facility Plan.

All pressure sewer lines and force mains 8 inches in diameter or
less will be PVC SDR26, with a pressure rating of 160 psi.  Those
force mains larger than 8 inches in diameter will be constructed
of ductile iron with mechanical joints.

When possible, force mains and pressure sewer collectors will be
placed in a common trench.

Cleanouts in the pressure sewer system will be placed at the
beginning of each line, with one every 500 feet of pipe in line.
Cleanout valve boxes will contain shut-off valves to provide for
isolation of various sections of line for maintenance and/or repairs.

Individual pumping units for the pressure sewer system include a
2- by 8-foot basin with discharge at 6 feet, control panel, visual
alarm, mercury float level controls, valves, rail system for removal
of pump, antif lotation device, and the pump itself (see Figure III-2) ,

Effluent pumps are 1-1/2 and 2 HP pumps which reach a total dynamic
head of 80 and 120 feet respectively.

       Ef_f _ecj:ienes_s
Quoted costs are in 1979 dollars

EPA Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Index of 145 (2nd Quarter 1979)
and Engineering News Record Index of 3000 (July 1979) used for
updating costs.

i, interest rate = 6-5/8%

Planning period = 20 years

Life of facilities, structures - 50 years
Mechanical components - 20 years

Straight line depreciation

Land for land application site valued at $1000/acre

Land surrounding Crooked/Pickerel Lakes for locating cluster
systems valued at $1000/acre.

-------
      APPENDIX I

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990:
PROTECTION OF WETLANDS

-------
                                                          APPENDIX

                                                             I
                        THE P




Executive Order 11990



                PROTECTION  0? KZTLAMDS
                                                 - May 24, 1977
      By virtue  of  the  authority vested in -me  by  the


 Constitution  and statutes  of  the United States of


 America, and  as President of  the United States of


 America, in furtherance. -of- the  National Environmental
                      /

 Policy Act of 1969,  as amended  (42  O.S.C.. 4321 e t  seq . ) ,


 in ordex to avoid  to the extent possible the. long  and  •


 short.- terra adverse- inpacts associated  with., the destruction
                                  S                ' _

 'or modification of. wetlands- and to  avoid direct  or indirect


 support of -new  construction in- wetlands wherever there is


 a practicable alternative, it is hereby ordered  as follows:


  ..;  - Section  l._ (a).  Each  agency shall provide leadership  •


 and shall . take  action  to minimize the  destruction , loss or
  '* S  . I " * "                   .- .            "~

 degradation of.  wetlands, and  to preserve and  enhance the


 natural. an<2 beneficial values of wetlands in  carrying out


"the agency's  responsibilities- for (1)  acguiring, , managing,


 and disposing of federal lands  and  facilities; and (2}


 providing Federally  undertaken,  financed, or  assisted


 construction  and improvements; .and  (3)  conducting  Federal


 activities and  programs affecting land use, including but


 not limited to  water -and related land  resources planning,


 regulating, and licensing  activities.


      -(b)  This  Order does  not apply to  the issuance by


 Federal agencies of  permits ,  licenses , or allocations


 to  private parties for activities involving wetlands on



 non-Federal property.


      Sec. 2.'  (a)  In furtherance of Section 101 (b) (3) of .  ;


 the National  Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42  U.S.C.


 4331 (b}( 3)) to  improve and coordinate Federal* plans ,
                                                                      26&61
          KBWAl BRSISTER, VOL «, NO. 101-WK>NBDAV, MAY 23, 1977

-------
26962.                                 THE PRS51D6NT-




              functions, programs and resources to the end that  the



              Nation may attain tha widest range of beneficial uses-of



              the environment without degradation_ and risk to health



              or safety, each agency, to .the extent permitted by law,



              shall avoid undertaking or providing assistance for new



              construction located in wetlands unless the head of the



              agency finds (1) that there is no practicable alternative



              to such construction, and (2} that the proposed action



              includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to



              wetlands which may result from such use.  In making this



              finding the head of the agency may take onto, account



              economic, environmental and other pertinent factors.



                   (b)  Each agency shall also provide opportunity for



              early public review of any plans or proposals for  new



              construction in wetlands, in accordance with Section 2 (b)



              of Executive Order No. 11514, as amended7 including the



              development of procedures to accomplish this objective



              for Federal actions whose impact is not.significant, enough



              to require the preparation of an environmental impact - '•-



              statement under Section 102(2)(CJ of .the National  Environ-



              mental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.



                   Sec. 3.  Any requests for new authorizations  or



              appropriations transmitted to the Office.of Management,,  •



              and Budget shall indicate, if an action to be proposed



              will be" located in wetlands, whether the proposed  action



              is in accord with this Order.              :'~-  ^



                   Sec. 4.  When Federally-owned wetlands or portions



              of- wetlands are proposed for lease, easement, right-



              of-way or disposal to non-Federal public or private



              parties, the Federal agency shall (a) reference in the



              conveyance those uses that are restricted under identified



              Federal, State or local wetlands regulations; and  (b) attach









                       FEDERAL REGISTER, "VOL 42, HO. 101—WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1977

-------
                        THE PRESIDENT                                 26S63-

                      <•  - -       --,-•-...                           I
other appropriate restrictions to ' the uses" o'f properties "

by the  grantee or purchaser and any successor, except

where prohibited by law;  or (c) withhold such properties

from" disposal.


     Sec.  5.   in carrying out the activities described in

Section 1  of  this Order,  each agency shall consider factors

relevant to a proposal's effect on the survival and quality

of the  wetlands. ^ Among, these factors are:

      (a)   public health,  safety, and welfare, including

water supply, quality,  rechaxga and discharge; pollution j

flood an'd  stors hazards?  and sediment and erosion?

      (b)   maintenance of natural systems, including

conservation  and long term productivity of existing

flora and  fauna, species and habitat diversity and

stability, hydrologic utility, fish, wildlife, timber,

and  food -and fiber resources j and

  ' .  (c)   other uses of wetlands in the public interest,

including  recreational, scientific, and cultural uses.

     Sec.  6.   As allowed by law, -agencies shall issue or

amend their existing procedures in order to comply  with.

this Order.  To the extent possible, existing processes,

such as those of the Council on Environmental Quality and

the  Water  Resources^ Council, shall be utilized to fulfill

the  requirements of this Order.

     Sec.  7-   As used in this Order:      .---•. -

      (a)   The term "agency" shall have the same meaning

as the  term "Executive agency" in Section 105 of Title 5

of the  United States Code and shall include 'the military

departments;  the directives contained in this Order,

however, are  meant to apply only to. those agencies  which

perform the activities described in Section 1 which, are

located in or affecting wetlands.
          HDOAL
                      VOL «. HO. 101-WiDNSSDAY. MAY M, 1*77

-------
                          THE PRESIDENT




      (b)   .The terra "new construction" shall  include



 draining, dredging, channelizing,  filling, diking,  im-



 pounding, and related activities and any structures or



 facilities begun or authorized after the effective  date



 of this Order.



      (c)   The tera "watlands" means those areas  that are



 inundated by surface or ground water with a  frequency



 sufficient to support and under normal circusstances does



 or would support, a prevalence of vegetative -or aquatic



 life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated .soil



 conditions for growth and reproduction.  Watlands generally



 include., swamps f saxshes ,.. bogs , and siailar areas such as



 sloughs ,  po tholes , wet .meadows,, river overflows,' wad flats,



 and natural ponds » -'         .             .    ...         .. " .



      Sec, 8.  This Order does not -apply to projects presently



 under construction, or to projects for which all of the



 funds have been appropriated through Fiscal Year 1977,  or



 to projects and programs for which a draft or final



 environmental impact statement will be filed prior  to



 October 1, 1977.  The provisions of Section 2 of this



.- Order:.; shall. .be -iEplesnentedr by each, agency not., .later:
          -j?..  Nothing:, in. thi's Ordsr- shall . apply' to- '-  ;



.. assistance -provided fat. einergency woi3cr essential  to



 save lives and protect property and. public healtli -and.



-safety, perfornsd- pursuant: to Sections 305 and  306 of



 the Disaster Relief Act of 1974  (88 Stat. 148,  42



 D.S.C. 5145 and 5146).             '



      Sec. 10.  To the extent the provisions of  Sections



 2 and 5 of this Order are applicable to projects covered
                      , YOU 42, NO. 101—WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1977

-------
                         THE PXSSIDINT                               T  26965



by Section 104 (h) of the Housing ana Cozsiunity  Development



Act of  1974,  as amended  (88 Stat.  640,  42  U.S.C.  5304 (h)) ,



the responsibilities tnder those provisions may be assuned



by the  appropriate applicant,  if the applicant  has also



assumed, with respect to such  projects, all of  the



responsibilities for environmental review, decisionnaking,



and action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
                               •»


Act of 1969, as  amended.
 .THE WHITE HOUSE,

    May 24,  1977 _
                   IFR Doc.77-15123 FSkd 5-24-77;! :44 p«]




                                 f
                         42, NO. ,0,-WIDNBSDAr, MAT «,

-------
         APPENDIX J

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY SUMMARIES
    IN PETOSKEY, MICHIGAN

-------
                              AMBIENT AIR QUALITY  SUMMARIES  IN PETOSKEY,  MICHIGAN
  Site Location
                                   Suspended Particulate  Summary (pg/m' )
Standards Exceeded
County, City,
Address
Emmet, Petoskey
Emmet Co. Bldg.
Emmet, Petoskey
Scorrer Home
Year
1975
1976
1975
1976
No . mo .
Sampled
12
12
12
12
No. of
Samples
54
55
55
56
Max.
24-hr.
109
345
181
413
Sulfur Dioxide Summary
Emmet, Petoskey
Emmet Co. Bldg.
Emmet, Petoskey
Scorrer Home
Emmet , P eto skey
Emmet Co. Bldg.
Emmet, Petoskey
Scorrer Home
1975
1976
1975
1976
1975
1976
1975
1976
12
12
12
12
12
5
12
5
55
18
55
21
Nitrogen
55
22
56
20
50
40
40
30
Dixoide Summary
50
40
30
30
2nd High
24-hr.
97
229
156
178
(ug/m )
40
20
30
20
(ug/m )
—
—
Annual
Mean
32G
32G
46G
65G
OA
10A
IDA
IDA
Primar^
y
Ann. 24-hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
0
i
0
0
0
0
Standards
Primary and
20*A
20*A
10*A
10 *A


0
0
0
0
Secondary
24-hr .
0
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
Exceeded ,
Secondary


*The air quality standard was not violated unless the specified  24-hour concentration was exceeded at least two times.

G = Geometric Mean
A = Arithmetic Mean

Source:  Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Air Quality Division.  Air quality reports, 1975 and 1976.
                          fc
                                                                                                                       X

-------
                APPENDIX K

  ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
TO MITIGATE ROUND LAKE WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS

-------
                                                              APPENDIX K

When the Springvale-Littlefield portion (Crooked & Pickerel Lake) of i-h*
springvale-Bear  Creek segment became the subject of an Environmental Impact
^atement,  the grant application for the adjoining Bear Creek interceptor
continued with little interruption.   The removal of Crooked and Pickerel
in larea Illation from its design sizing,  however,  caused some changes
rLni?  r?U^ng *"? S1zmg.  Among those areas losing sewer  service as a
      r°5        changes were the twelve dwellings on the eastern shore of
      Lake, on either side of Hendricks Road.
   a™M    telePh°ne conversations with Round Lake residents (Mrs.
J. Ann  Hazel,  Mr. Keith Hall, and others July 1979)  suggest the presence
of some definite public health problems on individual septic tanks and
niter  fields.  Among the problems reported were surface ponding and back-
ups,  particularly in the spring, and high water tables.   At least some
residents were described as having badly deteriorated septic tanks, and
doubt was expressed as to the existence of filter fields on some other
systems.  At least six of the twelve families affected indicated interest
in possible improvement of their wastewater treatment facilities.

Should  the Springvale-Bear Creek Sewage Disposal Authority wish to do so,
the  twelve Round Lake dwellings could easily be made the subject of the
same  kind of detailed Step 2 design work as on Crooked and Pickerel Lakes.
This  would require the acquisition of the easements required by 40 CFR
35. 918-1 (h), if there is to be any Federal funding.   Once the easements
were  obtained, design work could proceed as an amendment to either the
Bear  Creek Interceptor or the Springvale-Littlefield grant application.
Should  the Step 2 work indicate definite need, repair or replacement of
problem systems could proceed with 90 percent State and Federal funding of
the costs.  Possible responses to the identified problems include actual
repair  of existing on-site systems (including a new septic tank or filter
field)  or installation of such systems where absent.

Where groundwater nitrate contamination problems exist, the combination
of an ultra- low flow toilet  (the "Microphor" type using compressed air
for a two-quart flush) with a holding tank for human wastes only could be
effective.  Human wastes account for 90 percent of the nitrates  in waste-
water,  and between 40 and 70 percent of the phosphorus.  The existing
system, if adequate, could be used for the treatment of the "greywater"
from  shower, sink and laundry.

Any service to the Round Lake area by off-site system such as clusters or
sewers  should be carefully weighed by the Sewage Disposal Authority.  At
least two Round Lake residents have substantial real estate holdings near
the lake.  Provision of off-site service could trigger large-scale growth
in the  vicinity of Round Lake.  The Authority might wish to discuss the
long-term future of Round Lake with local zoning and other officials before
deciding what action to take.
                                               U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 652-243

-------