United States      Region V        June 1979

Environmental Protection   230 South Dearborn

Agency       Chicago, Illinois 60604
Water Division
Environmental     Draft
Impact Statement

Alternative  Waste
Treatment  Systems
for Rural Lake Projects

Case Study Number 2
Green Lake Sanitary
Sewer and Water District
Kandiyohi County
Minnesota
Appendices

-------
                                  VOLUME II

                             APPENDIXES
     SOILS

     A-l  Land Application, Spray Irrigation,  and Cluster System Sites
     A-2  Soil Factors that Affect On-Site Wastewater Disposal Systems
     A-3  Soil Limitation Ratings for Septic Tank Absorption Fields
     CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
     WATER QUALITY AND ON-SITE SYSTEMS

     C-l  Green Lake Well Water Survey
     C-2  Criteria for the Classification of the Intrastate Waters of the
          State and the Establishment of Standards of Quality and Purity
     C-3  Graphs of Surface Water Quality Parameters, 1972 - 1978-
     C-4  Seasonal and Long-Term Changes in Lake Water Quality
     C-5  Lake Eutrophication Model and Non-Point Source Model
     C-6  Investigation of Septic Leachate Discharges, Green and Nest Lakes,
          Minnesota
     C-7  Green Lake Septic System Analysis .
     C-8  Kandiyohi County Sanitary Code
     C-9  Summary of Green Lake Sanitary Survey     P
D    BIOTA
     D-l  Fishes of Green, Nest, and Diamond Lakes, Based on 1971 Minnesota
          DNR Fisheries Survey
     D-2  Mammals of the Green Lake Area
     POPULATION DATA

     E-l  Population Projection Methodology
     E-2  Supplemental Income Data
     FLOW REDUCTION DEVICES AND FINANCING

     F-l  Flow Reduction and Cost Data for Water-Saving Devices
     F-2  Incremental Capital Costs of Flow Reduction in the Green Lake
          Study Area
     F-3  Cluster Systems in Otter Tail County, Minnesota

-------
Appendixes, Cont,
     EFFLUENT LIMITS FOR GREEN LAKE
H    COSTS

     H-l  Design and Costing Methodology
     H-2  Itemized and Total Costs for Each Alternative
     MANAGEMENT OF SMALL WASTEWATER SYSTEMS OR DISTRICTS

     1-1  Some Management Agencies for Decentralized Facilities
     1-2  Legislation by States Authorizing Management of Small Waste Flow
          Districts
     1-3  Management Concepts for Small Waste Flow Districts

-------
                                                                         APPENDIX
                                                                           A-l
 SCS Report on Potential Land Application Sites and Cluster System Sites
                      for the Green Lake Study Area

            Source:  A.G. Giencke and R.O.  Poulson; USDA, SCS
a.   Overview

     At the request of EPA and WAPORA, several potential land application

and cluster system sites were field evaluated by the SCS in October of

1978.  This action was deemed necessary because of the lack of a formal

soil survey by the SCS for Kandiyohi County.  Approximately 25 to 30

percent of the County has presently been mapped by the SCS.  The SCS's

target date for publication of a soil survey is presently set for 1983.


b.   Cluster System Sites

     The following is the SCS field report oh thirteen potential cluster

system sites around Green Lake.  Limitations for on-site septic systems

for these sites are illustrated in Figure 1-4.


     •    Site A&B:  There is generally 3 to 5 feet of glacial till

          capping the creasts of the Lester-Storden-Estherville soil

          areas.  This is underlain by sands and gravely sand.  Some

          of the lower wet depressional soils (Palms and Glencoe soils)

          appear to be perched on top of some more glacial till.


     •    Sites C & D;  This whole area is occupied by deep sandy and

          gravelly soils.  There are several possible areas for a filter

          field.  However, there is a layer of silt loam at about 25 feet

          below the surface in the sandy area to the southwest which also

          may be responsible for the wet spots in the Wadena soil area

-------
                                                                A-l
in Site D.  Excess effluent could cause ponding of soil water




above the silt loam layer and lateral flow to hill side.






Site E:  The best area is the Lester soil area about 600 feet




NW of the farmstead.  It is a well drained loamy soil whose




only serious problems is some stones in the glacial till.




Steepness of slope in the other areas is the limiting factor.









Site j|;  There appears to be a general capping of till over




the sand and gravel on the upper slopes.  Some of the hill




crests are B and C slopes which may be large enough for cluster




filter fields.  The remainder has steep and very steep irregular




shaped slopes.  There is some side hill seepage along the 1200




foot contour where one good flowing spring was seen.  This




seepage line is probably the contact between the sandy deposits




and the buried glacial till.






Sites G & H:  These two sites are in dominantly loamy glacial




till soils which have a few hill crests large enough to handle




cluster filter fields.  The only problem is steepness of slope.




More detailed examinations will locate specific sites for




further testing.






Sites I & J:  These two sites are dominantly loamy Lester soils




which are well drained.  The Lester in site I has small areas




of moderately well drained and poorly drained soils.  Le Sueur




(239) and Cordova have seasonal high water tables of from 1 to




5 feet.

-------
                                                                          A-l
     •    Site K:  This site has the finest textured soils of all the

          sites which were soil mapped.  These soils are in the Kilkenny

          series which have heavy clay loam subsoils.  This results in

          slower infiltration and slower permeability.


     e    Sites L & M;  These are loamy soils in the Lester soil and

          Lester-Storden complex.  The only limiting factor is the slope,

          but there are several level areas available which have B and

          C slopes.


     The potential cluster system sites along with the estimated area

of the sites are shown below in Table 1.



Site     Total Area (Acres)     % Severe*     % Moderate*     % Slight*

  A            270
  B            232
  C            274
  D            306
  E            248
  F            378
  G             82
  H            208
  I            262
  J             74
  K             82
  L            146
  M            170


                             Table 1

   Areas and Soil Limitations of Potential Cluster System Sites

  *Refers to limitations for on-site waste disposal systems
29
30
13
18
16
0
0
11
18
0
100
0
1
71
70
56
82
84
100
30
75
82
100
0
95
94
0
0
31
0
0
0
70
14
0
0
0
5
5

-------
                                                                          A-l
     The soil limitation rating system used by the SCS in ranking soils




for on-site waste disposal use comprises the following:









     •    A rating of variable indicates areas of considerable urban




          development.  The type and amount of soil used for fill and




          for general construction purposes must be examined carefully




          before any development decision can be made.






     •    A rating of slight indicates the soil generally has few




          limitations for the use being considered.






     •    A rating of moderate indicates the soil has limitations that




          require special practices to overcome or correct.






     •    A rating of severe indicates the soil has limitations very




          difficult or expensive to overcome or correct.






     Of the thirteen potential cluster system sites examined by the




SCS, only 1 was found to have no suitable areas for this type of de-




centralized waste disposal alternative.  However, further detailed soil




investigation will be necessary prior to selection of any cluster system




site.






c.   Rapid Infiltration Site




     The SCS mapped and discribed one potential rapid infiltration waste-




water disposal site located northwest of Green Lake.   Total  area within




this site is 1184 acres.  The SCS rates approximately 180 acres as severe,




1004 acres as moderate, and 0 acres as slight.   The SCS soil limitation




for on-site wastewater disposal of this site is shown in Figure 5.

-------
                                                                          A-l
     The soils on this site are primarily comprised of glacial till




with scattered pockets of sand and gravel.  The Solida soil series




is the primary soil in this area and is described by the SCS as sandy




throughout the upper 6 feet, with the water table on A and B slopes




above 15 feet.  The SCS further describes the soils on the site as




being quite deep to water, and would seem to meet the EPA criteria




for a rapid infiltration system.  However, the SCS cautions that further




on-site investigation must be made before any rapid infiltration system




be considered (by letter, Allan Giencke, USDA-SCS, 16 June 1978).




According to the SCS descriptions of the individual soil series,




high water table and steep slopes will be the primary limiting factors




affecting the use of this site for rapid infiltration.






d.   Spray^ Irrigation Site




     The SCS mapped and described one potential spray irrigation site




located north of Green Lake.  Soil limitations for on-site wastewater




disposal within this site is shown in Figure 6.  Total area within




this site is approximately 1606 acres.  Of this amount, the SCS rates




approximately 110 acres as severe, 1326 acres as moderate, and 170 acres




as slight for the limitation of on-site wastewater disposal.






     The following is a basic descritpion of the soil types found




within this site:






     e    The Salida soil series comprises about 85 percent of the site.




          The SCS describes this soil series as excessively drained'coarse




          outwash material comprised of sandy loam, underlain by sand and




          gravel.

-------
                                                                        A-l
     •    Ten percent of the site is made up of soils in the Clarion-




          Estherville group.  These soils are described as deep well




          drained sandy and loamy soils.






     •    The remaining soils on this site fall within the Webster




          soil series and the Tolcot soil series.  These two soils




          are described as poorly drained fine outwash sediments, with




          a shallow depth to water table.






     The major limitation cited by the SCS for the use of these soils




for on-site wastewater disposal was a possible erosion hazard due to




steep slopes and droughtiness.   The SCS recommended that further on-site




investigation be made before the selection of any spray irrigation site.

-------
                                                                     SOIL SUITABILITY FOR ON-SITE  DISPOSAL
                                                                      SYSTEMS FOR  SELECTED  SITES
         "'T'OMl. '  MEW LONDON '
                                                                                    LEGEND

                                                                               SLIGHT LIMITATIONS
                                                                               MODERATE LIMITATIONS

                                                                               SEVERE LIMITATIONS
USDA-SCS
 1978
                                                                                                                  x

-------
                                                                   FIGURE  2
3
a

S
SOIL SUITABILITY FOR ON-SITE DISPOSAL
 SYSTEMS FOR SELECTED SITES
                                                                                             LEGEND

                                                                                        SLIGHT LIMITATIONS
                                                                                 I-;/] MODERATE LIMITATIONS

                                                                                        SEVERE LIMITATIONS
 ^
    Source: USDA-SCS
            1978

-------
                                                                    FIGURE 3     SOIL SUITABILITY FOR ON-SITE DISPOSAL

                                                                                    SYSTEMS FOR SELECTED  SITES
                                                                                                 LEGEND


                                                                                            SLIGHT LIMITATIONS
                                                                                         ^  MODERATE LIMITATIONS


                                                                                            SEVERE LIMITATIONS
Source: USDA-SCS
         1978
                     CARLSON
                     \l_Afff
                                                                                                                           M
                                                                                                                           X

-------
                                      SOIL SUITABILITY FOR ON-SITE DISPOSAL
                                       SYSTEMS  FOR SELECTED  SITES
                                                       LEGEND

                                                 SLIGHT LIMITATIONS
                                            ;..:;';] MODERATE LIMITATIONS

                                                 SEVERE LIMITATIONS
I IN. =2,OOO FT
                                                  | WETWtCM t*NG€ STATE
                                                  •HLOLirr (MMCCHCMT MEA ^- •
                                                                      IN. = 2,000 FT.

-------
                                                                  SOIL LIMITATIONS  FOR POTENTIAL LAND APPLfCATION SITES
                                                                                   SLIGH1 LIMITATIONS

                                                                                   MODERATE  LIMITATIONS

                                                                                   SEVERE LIMITATIONS
Rapid Infiltration
Treatment Site
                                        Spray Irrigation
                                        Treatment Site
 Source: SCS  1978
                                                                                                                 I  IN. = 2,000 FT
                                                                                                                                    3
                                                                                                                                    H

-------
X
w
PL!
5!
                                                            FIGURE 6     SOIL  LIMITATIONS FOR  POTENTIAL  LAND APPLICATION SITES
                         »»rio«uL   rgevv LONDON
                         I I ' ir • Sv-f ,   >  i  -
                                                                                          LEGEND


                                                                                        SLIGHT LIMITATIONS


                                                                                | •  '   'IMODERATE LIMITATIONS
    Rapid Infiltration
    Treatment Site
          I
SEVERE  LIMITATIONS
                                             Spray Irrigation
                                             Treatment Site
                                                       GREEN^^LAKE
     Source:  SCS 1978
                                                                                                                         I  IN.=2,000 FT.

-------
                                                                          APPENDIX
                                                                             A-2
           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 A 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.

-------
     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.

-------
                                                                             APPENDIX
                                                                               A-3
Guide Sheet 3.—Soil limitation ratings  for  septic  tank absorption  fields
Item affecting use
Permeability classi/
Hydraulic conductivity
rate
(Uhland core method)
Q
Perculation rate
(Auger hole method)
Depth to water table
Flooding
Slope
Depth to hard rock,.4./
bedrock, or other
impervious
materials
Stoniness class
Rockiness class-
Degree of soil limitation
Slight
Rapid!/ »
moderately
rapid, and
upper end
of moderate
More than
1 in.hr!'
Faster than
45 min/in.!'
More than
72 in.
None
0-8 pet
tare than
72 in.
0 and 1
0
Moderate
Lower end
of moderate
1-0.6 in./hr
45-60 min/in.
48-72 in.
Rare
8-15 pet
48-72 in.
2
1
Severe
Moderately
slow!/ and
slow
Less than
0.6 in./hr
Slower than
60 min/in.
Less than
48 in.
Occasional
or frequent
More than
15 pet
Less than
48 in.
3, 4, and 5
2, 3, 4,
and 5
  I/  Class limits are the same as  those  suggested  by  the  Work-Planning
Conference of the National Cooperative Soil  Survey.  The limitation  ratings
should be related to the permeability of  soil  layers at and below depth of
the cile line.

  2J  Indicate  by footnote where pollution is  a hazard to  water  supplies.

  2/  In arid or semiarid areas, soils with  moderately slow permeability
nay have a limitation rating of moderate.

  4_/  Based on  the assumption that  tile is at  a depth  of  2 feet.
                                              SCS.  1971.  Guide  for Inter-
                                              preting Engineering Uses of
                                              Soils.  USDA.

-------
      Table 1.
Average temperatures at two locations near the study area (°F)

Station

Willmar State
Hospital,
Kandiyohi
County, MN*
St. Cloud Airport,
Sherburne, MN**

Year


1975

1976
record
mean

n)
1-1

12.8

9.8

9.4

,0
0)
fn

13.0

26.1

13.5
Q>
M p >, C
(y CL, nj 3
S < S 1-3

21.0 37.5 60.9 67.0

29.8 50.2 57.4 70.3

27.0 43.8 56.0.65.5

i-H 00
3 3
•-> <

75.1 70.1

73.8 71.9

71.0 68.6
.
a.
0)
CO

57.9

61.1

59.2

4J
O
o

51.0

43.1

47.3

0
-2

34.1

25.1

30.5

0
cu
o

17.9

10.5

16.2
rH
3
C
<

43.

44.

42.




2

1

3
 *Drainage:  Minnesota
  Latitude:  45°08'
  Longitude: 95°01'
  Elevation:  1128  ft.
  Yrs.  of record:   69

**Drainage:  Mississippi
  Latitude:  45°33'
  Longitude: 94°04'
  Elevation: 1028'
  Yrs.  of record:
    39  record mean
    Sources:  1) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  1975 and
                 1976.   Climatological data, Minnesota:  Annual summaries.
                 Asheville NC.

              2) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  1976.
                 Local climatological data:  Annual summary with comparative
                 data,  St. Cloud, Minnesota.  Asheville NC.
                                                                                                              w w
                                                                                                                •z
                                                                                                                u

-------
      Table 2.
Total precipitation in inches at two locations near the study area

Station

Willmar State
Hospital,
Kandiyohi, MN*
St. Cloud Airport,
Sherburne, MN**

Year

1975

1976
record
mean

CO 0) (0
^ fn S
3.18 .59 2.20

.76 .45 2.76

,77 .70 1.26

M
a.
<
3.73

.71

2.13

CO
S
2.35

.48

3.49

m
c
3
1-1
6,31

3.18

4.37

3

1.09

1.81

3.41

00
3

5.61

.39

3.46
*
o-
OJ
CO
1.19

1.15

2.92

4-1
O
O
1.15

.34

1.95

o

3.62

.12

1.22

o
0)
Q
.20

.27

.65
rH
n)
g
^
31.22

12.53

26.33
 *Drainage:  Minnesota
  Latitude: 45°08'
  Longitude: 95°01'
  Elevation: 1128 ft.
  Yrs.  of record:  69

**Drainage:  Mississippi
  Latitude: 45°08'
  Longitude: 94°04r
  Elevation: 1028 ft.
  Yrs.  of record:
   39 record mean
                    Sources:   1) National  Oceanic  and Atmospheric  Administration.
                                1975  and  1976.  Climatological  data,  Minnesota:
                                Annual  summaries.   Asheville NC.

                              2) National  Oceanic  and Atmospheric  Administration.
                                1976.   Local  climatological data:   Annual  summary
                                with  comparative  data,  St. Cloud, Minnesota.
                                Asheville NC.
                                                                                                                 CO

-------
          Table 3.       Temperature  extremes and  freeze data at Willmar State Hospital,*
                                  Kandiyohi County, Minnesota  (°F)
                                             Last  spring minimum      First  fall minimum
Year
1975

1976

Highest
(date)
98
(7/29)
100
(8/18)
Lowest
(date)
-25
(2/9)
-27
(12/31)
of 32°F or
Date
4/21


5/7
below
Temp.
29


30
of 32°F
Date
10/2


9/21
or below
Temp.
31


30
     *Drainage:   Minnesota
      Latitude:  45°08'
      Longitude: 95°01'
      Elevation: 1128 ft.
      Yrs.  of record: 69
Source:  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.   1975  and  1976.
         Climatological data, Minnesota:   Annual  summaries.   Asheville NC.
                                                                                                               Cd

-------
                         Green Lake well water survey
                                                                  APPENDIX
                                                                     C-l
                                   July 24,  1977
SSU Nbr.     Fire Nbr.
                                      (POA)*          Total        Nitrate*
                                       Ortho-         Colifonn     Nitrogen
                                       Phosphate      (MPN/lOOml)  (N03-N)
6
7
8
9
692
692
518
578
  10
  11
  12
             611A      Kenn Wap.man
                       3719 Chegenne Blvd.
                       Sioux City, Iowa  51104

             615       Alford Peterson
                       Murdock,  MN  56271

             570       Otto Berkdand
                       R.R. f?2
                       Green Lake, UN

             668       Russell W.  Johnson
                       Green Lake, MN

             598       Bert Bertilson
                       R.R. f?2
                       Green Lake, MN
          0. Smith
          Green Lake, MM

          Tim O'Connor
          Green Lake, MM

          P. Imsdahl
          Green Lake, MN

          Randy Cameron
          3285 Hillridge Drive
          Egon, MN  55121

          Community Park
          Green Lake, MN
533       Harold Gambell
          Green Lake,  MN

508       W.  E. Hertel
          Box 336
          Spicer, MN  56288
                                                       0
                                                       0
2.6
                                                         2.2
                          0.60
0
0
0
0
0
0
                          0.13
13

14
895

175
J. S. Wagnild
Green Lake, MN
Lloyd Schwartz
0

0
0

0
0

0
                       Green Lake, MN

-------
                         Green Lake well water survey (Continued)
                                                                      C-l
U Nbr.
15
]6
17
Fire Nbr.
157
145
127

W. Ervin
Green Lake, MN
Jack Moulxon
Green Lake, MN
John Teigland
Ortho-
Phosphate
0
1.0
0
Coll
(MPN
0
- 16
0
18
19
20
          R.R. n
          Spicer, MN  56288

587       Paul Packstad
          Green Lake, MN

169           DeRuyck
          Green Lake, MN

597       Richard 11. Johnson
          Green Lake, MN
                                                                 Total        Nitratt*
                                                                 Collfonn     Nitrogen
                                                                 (MPN/lOOml)  (N03-N)
                                                                               1.90
                                                                               0 .
0.14
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
555
521
115
582
104
544?
594?
562
257
649
W. Gustafson • 	
Green Lake, MN
Dick Rannestad 0
Green Lake, MN
Don Burris 0
602 E. Second Street
Redwood Falls, MN 56283
John Spicer 0
Green Lake, MN
Swarqz 0
Green Lake, UN
Myron D. Johnson 0
R.R. n
Spicer, MN 56288
Alvin C. Iverson 0
R.R. n
Spicer, MN 56288
G. Larson - —
Green Lake, MN
Ken Somody 	
5.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
4.2
0
0
0
0
          Green Lake, MN

614       Jack Russell
          Green Lake, MN

-------
                             Green Lake well water survey (Continued)
                                                                     C-l
SSU Nbr.     Fire Nbr.
  31
  32
  33
  34
  35
632A      Ralph Prokoech
          Box 6
          Morgan, MN  56266

666       Earl Olson
          Green Lake,  MN

680       Ralph VanPeriet
          Green Lake,  MN

698       J.  L. Parsons
          Green Lake,  MN

708       Charles Hendrickson
          Spicer, MN  56288
36

37

38

39

40

41


42

43

44

45
641

273

625



813

230


239

863

212

607
George Stogke
Spicer, KN 56288
Bill'Eckholm
Green Lake, MN
Robert Christensen
Green Lake, MN
L. Halliday
Green Lake, MN
Mrs. K. B. Sorum
Green Lake, MN
Sowles
R.R. n
Spicer, MN 56288
Mrs. R. W. Larson
Oakdale Beach
Bill Schulz
Green Lake, MN
D. Spicer
Green Lake, MN
Mra C. Gordon
0 0

o

0.2 16

5.1

1.7 16

0 0


1.1 0

0 0

0 16

0.1 0
,o

0

0

0.71

0.25

0


0.25

0.20

0

•0
                       R.R.  02
                       Spicer, MN  56288

-------
                            Green Lake well water survey (Continued)
SSU Nbr.


  46


  47




  48




  49 ,


  50




  51




  52




  53




  54


  55




  56




  57


  58




  59
Fire Nbr.


 852


 206



 842



 717


 207



 885



 209



 688



 732


 221



 875



 831


 247



 214
Harold Johnson
Green Lake, UN

Terry Frazec
R.R. n
Spicer, MN  56288

F. Berry
R.R. n
Spicer, MN  56288

Eugene L. Hanson
Green Lake

D. Osland
R.R. n
Spicer, MN  56288

Charles McGuiggan
R.R. )?2
Spicer, MN  56288

E. Hazel
R.R. n
Spicer, MN  56288

Glenn E. Nelson
R.R. n
Spicer, MN  56288

Dan Lundahl
Green Lake, UN

Mark Folkestad
R.R. n
Spicer, MN  56288

G. Fischer
R.R. n
Spicer, MN  56288

J. Putnam
Green Lake, MN

Thomas Torgerson
R.R.02
Willmar, MN  56201

Warren Johnson
R.R. #2
Spicer, MN  56288
Ortho-
Phosphate

   0.2
   0
Total        Nitrate*
Colifora     Nitrogen
(MPH/lOOml)  (N03-N)

   5.1        0
                  0
                 16
                  5.1
                             0.25
             12.0
0
0.5
0.1
0
0
0
0
i
0
0
0
.14
9.0
0
1.10
0

-------
                                  Green Lake well water survey  (Continued)
                                                                                   C-l
SSU Nbr.    Fire Nbr.
    )*         Total        Nitrate*
Orth*p-         Coliform     Nitrogen
Phosphate      (MPN/lOOml)  (NO-j-N)
  60
211       D.  Mossberg
          R.R.  n
          Spicer, MN  56288
    0
>16
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
113 .
109
285
103
112
111
210

250
1A6
555
884
823
689
Agnes Drogosch
Green Lake, MN
Dean Quale
Spicer, MN 56288
McGuiggan
Green Lake, MN
Larry Olson
Green Lake, MN
Don Baker
Green Lake, MN
Vernon Johnson
Green Lake, MN
Halverson
Green Lake, MN

M. Kittelson
Green Lake, MN
Robert Fedor
316 West llth
Willmar, MN 56201
Wally Gustafson
Spicer, MN 56288
Mrs. R. Miller
Green Lake, MN
Mrs. C. Kern
Green Lake, MN
William Lehrke
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
o
0
0
0.6
0
0
0
0
9.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
3.5
0
0
0.45
4.3
0
O
0
0
0
0
48.0
                                                                                 0.25
                       R.R. n
                       Spicer, MN  56288

-------
                              Green Lake well water survey  (Continued)
SSI Nbr.     Fire Nbr.
                                                                    C-l
                                       (PO/,)*         Total        Nitrate*
                                       Ortho-         Coliform     Nitrogen
                                       Phosphate      (MPN/lOOml)  (N03-N)
  75
  77


  78



  79


  80


  61


  82


  83



  84


  85



  86


  87



  88
571       Paul Bcngtson                    0.1
          R.R. $2
          Spicer,  56288

820          Laggitt                       1.7
          Green Lake, UN

885          McGuiggan                     0
          Green Lake, MN

          C.  M. Kcltgcn                    0
          602 N. Swain
          Redwood Falls, MN 56233

233       Leo Halllday                     0.1
          Spicer, MN  56288

570       Otto Berklund                    	
          Spicer, MN  56299

168       Wally Fischer          .          0
          Spicer, MN  56288

211       Doug Moosberg                    0
          Spicer, MN  56288

888       Don Fcrkrud                      0
          719 South Main
          Clara City, MH  56222

211       Doug Kossberg                    0
          Spicer, MN  56288

851       Leo Furr                         0
          Box 310
          Bird Island, MN

813       Mrs. K. B. Sorum                 1.0
          Spicer, MN  56288

624       Bob Habicht                      0.6
          Box 368
          Willniar, MN  56201

          Jack Moulton                     1.1
          1003 Chambers Drive
          Colorado Springs, CO  80901
  2.2
  0
 16
 16
  2.2


  5.1
             0


             0



             1.10


             0.70
7.6
0.20
0.25
1.0

-------
SSU Nbr.    Fire Nbr.
                     Green Lake well water  survey  (Concluded)
                                                                     C-l
                                                      Total        Nitrate*
                                                      Coliform     Nitrogen
                                                      (MPN/lOOuil)  (N03-N)
(POA)*
Ortho-
Phosphate
  89



  90


  91


  92



  93


  94



  95



  96


  97
577       D. V. Anderson
          Box 146
          New London, MN  56273

688       Glen Nelson
          Spicer, MN  56288

717       Eugene Hanson
          Spicer, MM  56288

853       James Martin
          R.R. n
          Spicer, MN  56288

883       Wilfred Clesener
          Spicer, MN  56288

632A      Ralph Prokosch
          Box 6
          Morgan, UK  56266

716       A. E. Nordstrom
          1001 West Fourth
          Willnar, MN  56201

687       Myron Hoffman
          St. James, MN  56081

212       D. Spicer
          Spicer, UN  56288
    0.2
    0
    0.3
                  9.2
16
 5.1
           6.5
                  9.2
  * ing/liter

  	 insufficient amount of sample to test

-------
                                                                        APPENDIX
                                                                           C-2
CHAPTER  FOURTEEN:  WPC  14

CRITERIA  FOR TEE CLASSIFICATION OF THE INTRASTATE WATEUr OF  THE
STATE AXD THE ESTABLISHMENT DF STANDARDS OF QUALITY AND PURITY

WPC 14:   The official policy and purpose of the State of Minnesota in regard
to these matters  is set forth  in the Minnesota Water Pollution Control Statutes
as amended by Minnesota. Laws 1973,  Chapter  374:

Sec. 115.42.  It  is the policy of  the  state to provide for the  prevention,  control
and abatement of pollution of all  waters of the state, so far as feasible and
practical,  in furtherance of conservation of such waters and  protection of the
public health and in furtherance  of the development of the economic welfare of
the state.

  .  . . It is the purpose  of Laws 1963, Chapter 874, to safeguard the  waters of
the state from pollution by:  (a)  preventing any new pollution; and  (b)  abating
pollution existing when Laws 1963. Chapter  874, .become effective, under  a pro-
gram  consistent  vrith  the declaration  of policy  above stated.

Sec. 115.44, Subd. 2.  In order to  attain the  objectives of Laws 1963, Chapter
874, the Agency after proper study,  and after conducting  public hearing  upon
due notice, shall as  soon as practicable, group the designated waters of the
state into  classes and adopt  classifications and  standards of purity and quality
therefor.   Such  classification shall be made  in  accordance  with considerations
of best usage in the interest of the public and  with regard to  the considerations
mentioned in subdivision  3 hereof.

Sec. 115.44, Subd. 8.  If the Agency finds  in  order  to comply with the  federal
water pollution control act or any other federal law or rule or regulation
promulgated  thereunder thut it is impracticable to  comply with the requirements
of this section in classifying waters or adopting standards or in meeting any of
the requirements thereof,  compliance with the requirements of such action are
waived to the extent necessary to enable the agency to comply with federal laws
and rules and regulations  promulgated thereunder.  The agency may  classify
waters and adopt criteria and standards in such form  and based upon such
evidence as it may deem necessary and sufficient for the purposes of meeting
requirements of  such federal laws, notwithstanding any provisions in chapter
115 or any other state law to the contrary.  In the event waters are classified
and criteria  and standards are adopted to meet the requirements of federal law,
the agency shall thereafter proceed  to otherwise comply with the provisions of
this section which were  waived as rapidly as  is practicable.   This  authority
shall  extend to proceedings  pending  before the agency on  May 20,  1973.

-------
                                                                             C-2
 . .  .  Wherever advisable and practicable the agency may establish  standards
for effluent or disposal systems discharging into waters of the state regardless
of whether such '.raters are or are not classified.

Sec.  115.03,  Subd.  5.  Notwithstanding any  other  provisions prescribed in
or pursuant to  chapter 115 and, with respect to  the pollution 01 waters  of
the state, in  chapter 116. or  otherwise, the agency shall  have the authority
to perform any ard  all acts minimally necessary  including,  but not limited
to, the establishment and application of standards, procedures, regulations,
orders, variances,  stipulation agreements, schedules of compliance,  and
permit conditions, consistent  with and,  therefore, not less stringent  than the
provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as  amended, applicable
to the participation by the state of Minnesota in the National Pollutant Discharge •
Elimination System  (NPDES) .  . .

In accordance wi:h  this declaration of policy  and legislative intent, and under
the powers delegated to the Agency, the following  intrastate water use classifi-
cations and corresponding standards of quality and purity are hereby adopted
by the Pollution Control Agency as provided  by law.

   (a)  Introduction

       (1) Scope.   The following classifications, criteria and standards of water
and  effluent quality  and purity as hereby adopted and  established  shall apply
to all intrastate vraters of the state, notwithstanding any other intrastate water
quality or effluent regulations of general or specific application, except that
any  more stringent water quality or  effluent  standards  or prohibitions in the
other applicable regulations are preserved.

       (2) Severability...  All provisions of this  regulation shall be severable
and  the invalidity of any lettered  paragraph  or any subparagraph or subdivision
thereof shall  not void any other lettered paragraph or subparagraph, subdivision
or any part thereof.                             ~                  ;

       (3) Definitions.   The terms "waters of the state"  for the purposes  of
this  regulation  shall be construed to mean intrastate waters as herein below
defined,  and  the  terms "sewage," "industrial  wastes,"  and  "other wastes,"  as
well  as any other terms for which definitions are given in the Water Pollution
Control Statutes,  as used herein have the meanings ascribed to them in Minnesota
Statutes.  Sections  115.01  and 115.41, with the exception that  disposal systems
or treatment works operated under permit of the Agency shall not  be construed
to be "waters of the state" as the term is. used herein.  Interstate  waters are
defined as all rivers, lakes,  and  other  waters that flow across or  from  part
of state boundaries.  All  of the remaining designated waters of the scate which

-------
                                                                              C-2
do not meet the definition  of interstate waters  given  above are to be construed
herein as constituting intrastate  waters.   Other terms and abbreviations used
herein which are not specifically defined  in  applicable federal or state  law shall
be construed in conformance with tb~ context, and in relation to the applicable
section of the statutes, pertaining  .o the matter at hand,  and current professional
usage.

       (4)   Uses of the  Intrastate Waters.   The classifications are  listed
separately  in accordance with  the need  for intrastate water quality  protection,
considerations  of best use  in  the interest of  the public and other considerations,
as indicated in .Minnesota Statutes,  Section 115.44. .  The classification  should
not be construed to be an  order of priority, nor  considered to be  exclusive
or prohibitory  of other beneficial uses.

       (5)   Determination  of Compliance.   In making tests or analyses  of the
intrastate waters of the  state,  sewage, industrial  wastes or other wastes to
determine compliance with  the standards, samples shall be collected in such
manner and place,  and of  such type, number  and frequency  as may be con-
sidered necessary by the Agency from the viewpoint of adequately  reflecting
the condiiton of the intrastate  waters, the composition of  the  effluents,  and
the effects  of the pollutants upon the  specified uses.  Reasonable allowance
will  be made for dilution of the  effluents, which are in compliance  with Section
(c)(6), following discharge into waters of the State.  The Agency by  allowing
dilution may consider the  effect  on  all uses of the intrastate waters into which
the effluents are discharged.   The  extent of dilution allowed  regarding any
specific discharge shall  not violate  the applicable water quality standards.
The  samples shall be preserved  and analyzed  in  accordance with procedures
given in the 1871 edition of Standard Methods  for the Examination  of Water
and  Waste-Water, by the American  Public Health Association, American Water
Works Association,  and  the Water Pollution Control Federation, and any re-
visions or  amendments thereto.  The  Agency may accept  or may develop other .
methods, procedures, guidelines or criteria  for measuring, analyzing  and
collecting samples.

       (6)   Unclassified Intrastate Waters.  Adoption of'specific  classifications
and  standards  for unclassified intrastate waters,  and/or changes in existing
classifications and  standards,  will be done as  soon as  practicable by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for individually designated waters  after
the necessary studies and  public hearings relating to the determination of
present and future  quality, characteristics and uses  have  been completed as
required by law.   In the absence of such official classifications and standards
for any given intrastate  waters,  it  shall be the policy of  the  Agency to con-
sider all unclassified intrastate waters is waters  of  the highest quality con-
sistent with the:^- actual or potential use, and  deserving oi the equivalent

-------
                                                                              C-2
degree of protection from pollution,  until the  same may be affirmed or
altered by adoption of standards or  other official  act of the Agency;  except
that where sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes are being discharged
to unclassified intrastate waters  during such interim period the concentrations
of polluting substances in  such srparate industrial waste or other  waste
effluents shall be  no  higher th?.n tve permissible  concentrations of polluting
substances of a comparable nature in the effluents of municipal sewage treat-
ment works which discharge  into the same intrastate waters, unless  specifically
exempted from this requirement by other effluent  standards or the terms of a
valid  waste disposal permit issued by the Agency.

       (7)  Natural Intrastate V.'ater  Quality.  The intrastate waters may,  in a
state of nature, have some  characteristics or  properties approaching or ex-
ceeding the limits specified in the water quality standards/' The  standards
shall be  construed as limiting the  addition of pollutants of human  activity
to those  of natural origin, where such be present,  so  that in total the speci-
fied limiting concentrations will  not  be exceeded in the intrastate  waters by
reason of such controllable additions.  Where the background level of the
natural origin is reasonably definable and normally is  higher than the specified
standard  the natural  level may be used as the standard for controlling the
addition  of pollutants of human activity which are comparable in nature and
significance with those of natural origin.  The  natural background level may
be used  instead of the  specified  water quality standard as a maximum limit of
the addition of pollutants,  in those instances where the natural level  is lower
than the specified standard and  reasonable justification exists for preserving
the quality  to that found in a state of nature.

In the adoption  of standards for  individual intrastate waters, the  Agency v/ill
be guided by the  standards  set forth herein but may make reasonable modifi-
cations of the sane on  the basis of evidence brought forth at a public hearing
if it is shown to be desirable and in the public interest to do  so  in  order to
encourage the best use of the intrastate  waters  or the  lands  bordering such
intrastate waters.

       (8)  Non-Degradation.  Waters which are of quality better than the
established standards  shall be maintained at high quality unless a determination
is made  by the  Agency that a change is justifiable as  a result of  necessary
economic or social development and  will not preclude appropriate beneficial
present and future uses of the waters.   Any project or development which
would  constitute a source of pollution to waters of the  state shall be required
to provide the best practicable control technology currently available not  later
than July 1. 1977 and the best available technology  economically  achievable
not later  than July 1. 1983, and any other  applicable  treatment standards as
defined by anc  in accordance with the requirements of tha Federal Water

-------
                                                                              C-2
Pollution Control Act,  33 U.S.C.  1251  et . seq.,  as  amended,  in order to
maintain high water quality  and keep water pollution  at a minimum.   In im-
plementing this  policy, the Administrator of the  U.S.  Environmental Protection
Agency  will be  provided with such information  as he  requires to  discharge
    responsibilities under the Federal  Water Pollution Control  Act, as  amended.
       (9)   Variance from Standards .   In any case where,  upon application of
the responsible  person or persons, the Agency finds  that by  reason  of ex-
ceptional circumstances the strict enforcement of any  provision ,of these
standards would cause undue hardship, that  disposal of the sewage, industrial
waste or other waste is necessary for  the public health, safety  or  welfare;
and that strict conformity  with  the standards  would be  unreasonable,  im-
practical or not feasible under  the circumstances;  the Agency in its  discretion
may grant  a  variance  therefrom upon such conditions as it  may prescribe for
prevention, control or  abatement of pollution  in harmony with the general
purposes of these classifications and standards and the  intent of the  applicable
state and federal lav.-s.  The  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will  be
advised of  any permits which may be issued  under this clause  together with
information as to the need therefor.

   (b)  Water Use Classification  - All Intrastate -Waters of the  State.  Based on
considerations of best usage in  the interest of the  public and  in conformance
with the requirements of  the  applicable statutes, the intrastate waters of the
state shall  be grouped  into one  or more of the following classes:

       (1)   Domestic Consumption.  (To include all intrastate waters  which are
or may  be  used as a source of supply  for drinking, culinary  or food processing
use or other domestic purposes , and for which quality  control is or  may be
necessary to protect the public  health,  safety or welfare.)

       (2)   Fisheries  and Recreation.   (To include all  intrastate waters  which
are or may be used for fishing, fish culture,  bathing or any  other recreational
purposes ,  and for which  quality control is or may be necessary to protect
aquatic  or  terrestrial life, or the public health, safety  ?r welfare.)

       (3)   Industrial Consumption.   (To include all  intrastate  waters  which
are or may be used as a source of supply for industrial process or cooling
water, or any other industrial  or  commercial  purposes,  and for which quality
control is or may be necessary  to protect the public health, safety or welfare.)

       (4)   Agriculture and Wildlif---:     (To include all intrastate waters which
are or may be used for any agriculture purposes,  including stock  watering
and irrigation,  or by  waterfowl or other wildlife,  and for which quality  con-
trol is or may be necessary to  protect  terrestrial  life or the public health,
safety or welfare.)

-------
                                                                               C-2
       (5)   Navigation and Waste Disposal.   (To include all intrastate waters
which are or may be used for any form of water transportation or navigation.
disposal  of sewage,  industrial waste or other waste effluents,  or  fire pre-
vention,  and for .which quality  control is  or  may be necessary to protect the
public health, safety or  welfare.)

       (6)   Other Uses.   (To include intrastate waters which  are or  may serve
the above lifted uses or any  other beneficial uses  not listed herein; including
without  limitation any such uses in this or any other stat<=, province,  or
nation of any intrastate waters  flowing through or  originating in. this state,
and for  which quality control is or may be necessary  for the above  declared
purposes, or to conform with the requirements of the  legally constituted state
or national agencies having jurisdiction over such  intrastate waters, or  any
other considerations the  Agency may deem proper.)

   (c)  General Standards .Applicable to All Intrastate  Waters of the State.

       (1)   No untreated sewage shall be discharged into any intrastate waters
of the state.  No treated sewage, or industrial waste  or other wastes containing
viable pathogenic organisms,  shall be  discharged into intrastate  waters of the
state  without effective disinfection.  Effective disinfection of any discharges,
including combined flows of sexvage and storm  water,  will be required where .
necessary to protect the specified uses of the intrastate waters.

       (2)   No sewage,  industrial  waste or other wastes shall be discharged
into  any intrastate waters  of the state so as to cause  any nuisance conditions,
such  as the presence of significant amounts of floating solids, scum,  oil slicks,
excessive suspended solids, material discoloration,  obnoxious odors,  gas
ebullition,  deleterious sludge deposits,  undesirable slimes or fungus  growths,
or other offensive or harmful effects.

       (3)   Existing discharges of inadequately treated sewage,  industrial
waste or other  wastes shall be  abated, treated or controlled so as to comply
with the applicable standards.  Separation of sanitary sexvage  from  natural
run-off  may be required where necessary to ensure continuous effective treat-
ment  of sewage.

       (4)   The highest levels  of water quality, including, but not limited  to,
dissolved oxygen, which are  attainable in the  intrastate  waters by continuous
operation at their maximum capability of all primary and secondary units of
treatment works or their equivalent discharging effluents into the intrastate
waters shall  be maintained in order to enhance conditions for the specified  uses.

-------
                                                                              C-2
       (5)   Means for expediting mixing and dispersion of sewage,  industrial
waste, or other waste effluents in the  receiving intrastate waters are to be
provided so far as practicable when deemed  necessary by the Agency to main-
tain the quality of the receiving intrastate  waters  in  accordance with applicable
standards.  Mixing zones be  est?Mished by the Agency on an individual basis,
with primary consideration  being g'ven to  the following guidelines:   (a)  mixing
zoces in rivers shall permit an acceptable  passagewa}' for the movement  of fish;
(b) the total mixing zone or tones  at any  transect of the stream shall contain
no more than 25% of the crosssectional area and/or volunrc of flow of the stream,
and should  not exrend over more than 50%  of the width; _ (c) mixing zone
characteristics  shall not be lethal to aquatic  organisms; (d) for .contaminants
other than heat, the 95 hour  median tolerance limit for indigenous fish and
fish food organisms should  not be exceeded at  any point in  the mixing zone;
(e) mixing  zones should be as small as possible,  and  not intersect  spawning
or nursery  areas, migratory  routes, water intakes, nor mouths  of rivers; and
(f)  overlapping of mixing zones should be  minimized  and  measures  taken to
prevent adverse synergistic effects.

       (6)  It is herein established that the  Agency  shall require  secondary
treatment  as a  minimum for all municipal sewage and biodegradable  industrial
or other wastes to meet the adopted water  quality standards.  A comparable
high degree of treatment or its equivalent  also shall  be required of all non-
biodegradable industrial or other wastes unless the discharger can  demonstrate
to the  Agency that a  lesser degree of treatment or control will provide for
water quality enhancement  commensurate with present  and proposed future
water uses  and a variance  is  granted under  the provisions of the  variance
clause.  Secondary treatment facilities are  defined as works which will  pro-
vide effective sedimentation biochemical oxidation,  and disinfection,  or the
equivalent,  including effluents conforming  to the following:

Substance or Characteristic         Limiting Concentration or Range*
                                                       !
5-Day  biochemical oxygen  demand   25 milligrams  per liter
Fecal coliforrs  grcup  organisms      200 most probable number per  100 milliliters
Toial suspended solids              30 milligrams  per liter
Pathogenic organisms                None
Oil                                 Essentially free  of visible oil
Phosphorus**                       1 milligram per  liter
Turbidity                           25
pH range             *             6.5-8.5
Unspecified toxic or corrosive                                              .
  substances                        None  at levels acutely toxic to  humans  or
                                      other  animals  or plant life, or directly
                                      damaging to real property.

-------
                                                                             C-2
*The arithmetic mean for concentrations of 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
end  total  suspended solids  shall not exceed the stated values in a period of 30
consecutive days and 45 milligrams per liter in a period of 7  consecutive days.
Disinfection of wastewater effluents to reduce the coliform organisms  levels is
required year  around.   The geometric mean  for the fecal  coliforn organisms
shall not  exceed the stated value in a period of 30 consecutive d.rvs  and 4CO
most probable  number per  100 riilliliters in a period of 7 consecutive days.
The  application o: the coliform and pathogenic organism standards ordinarily
shall be limited to sewage or other effluents  containing  admixtures of sewage
and  shall not  apply  to industrial wastes except where the presence of sewage,
fecal  coliform  organisms or viable pathogenic organisms in such wastes  is known
or reasonably certain.

**V»There the discharge of effluent is directly  to or  affects  a lake or reservoir.
Removal of nutrients from all wastes shall  be provided to the  fullest  practicable
extent wherever sources of nutrients are considered  to be actually or potentially
detrimental to preservation or enhancement of the designated water uses.

In addition to providing secondary  treatment  as defined  above, all dischargers
of sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes  also shall  provide the best
practicable control technology  not later  than  July  1.  1977, and best available
technology economically  achievable  by July 1. 1983,  and any other applicable
treatment standards  as defined by and in  accordance with the requirements
and  schedules  of the Federal  Water Pollution  Control  Act,  33 U.S.C.  1251 eq.
as amended,  and applicable regulations  or rules  promulgated pursuant thereto
by the Administrator of the U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.

        (7)  Dischargers of sewage, industrial waste  or  other waste  effluents
shall be controlled  so  that the water quality  standards will be  maintained at
all stream  flows which are  equal to or exceeded by 90 percent of  the seven
consecutive daily average flows of record  (the lowest weekly flow with a once
in ten year recurrence interval) for the critical month (s).  The period  of
record for determining the  specific flow for the stated recurrence  interval.
where records are available,  shall  include at least .the most recent ten years
of record, including flow records obtained after establishment of  flow regulation
devices, if any.  Such calculations shall not be applied to lakes and their
embayments which have  no comparable flow recurrence  interval.   Where stream
flow  records  are not available, the flow may be estimated on the  basis of
available information on  the watershed characteristics,  precipitation,  run-off
and other relevant data.

Allowance  shall not be made in the design of treatment works for  low stream
flow  augmentation unless  such flow augmentation  of minimum flow  is  dependable
and controlled  undj.r applicable laws or regulations.

-------
                                                                              :C-2
        (8)  In any instance where it is evident that the minimal treatment
'specified  in Section  (c) (6) and dispersion are  not effective in preventing
pollution, or  if at the  applicable flows  it is  evident  that the specified stream
flow ^ inadequate  to protect the specified water  quality standards, the specific
st?:..dards may be interpreted as effluent standards for control purposes.   In
addi'ron,  the  following effluent  standards may be applied without- any allowance
for dilution where  stream flow or other factors are such as to prevent adequate
dilution,  or where it is otherwise necessary to protect the intrastate waters
for the stated uses:
\

Item*                               Limits

5-day biochemical oxygen demand   5  milligrams per  liter
Total suspended solids             5  milligrams per  liter

*The concentrations  specified in section (c)  (6) of this regulation may be  used
in lieu thereof if the discharge of effluent is restricted to  the spring flush or
other high runoff periods when the stream flow rate above  the discharge  point
is sufficiently greater  than the  effluent flow rate to ensure  that the applicable
water quality standards are met during such discharge period.  If treatment
works are designed  and constructed to meet the specified limits (given above
for a continuous discharge, at the discretion of the  Agency the operation of
such works nay allow for the  effluent  quality to  vary between the limits  specified
above and in  section (c) (6) , provided  the water quality standards and  all
other requirements of  the Agency and the U. S.  Environmental Protection  Agency
are  being met.   Such  variability of operation must be based on  adequate
monitoring of the treatment works and  the effluent and receiving waters as
specified  by  the Agency.

        (9)  In any case where,  after a public  hearing,  the Agency finds it
necessary for conformance with Federal requirements, or conservation of the
intrastate waters of the state, or protection  of the public health,  or in furtherance
of the development of the economic  welfare of the state, it may prohibit or
industrial waste, or other waste effluents,  or any component thereof, whether
such effluents are treated or untreated, or existing or new, notwithstanding
any other provisions of classifications or specific standards  stated herein which
may be applicable to such designated intrastate waters.

       (10)  It shall be incumbent upon all  persons responsible for  existing
or  new sources of sewage,  industrial wastes or other wastes which are or
will be discharged to intrastate waters, to  treat or control their wastes so as
to produce effluents having a common level or concentration of pollutants of
comppjable nature or effect as may be necessary :o meet the specified standards

-------
                                                                            C-2
or better,  but  this shall  not be interpreted to  prohibit the Agency  after pro-
vicing an  opportunity for public  hearing  from  accepting  effective loss prevention
and/or water conservation measures or process changes  or  ether waste  control
measures or arrangements as being equivalent to the  waste  treatrne-.t measures
required for compliance with applicable effluent  and/or water qr-iity standards
or load allocations.

      (11)  All sources of sewage, industrial waste,  or  other waste which do
not at present  have  a valid operation and  discharge permit,  or  an  application
for the same pending before the Agency,  shall apply  for the sair-e  within  30
days  of the adoption of this  regulation, or the Agency may  abate the source
forthwith.   The provisions of section (c) (6)  relating  to effluent quality  standards,
and the other provisions of this regulation, are  applicable to existing sewage,
industrial  waste or  other waste disposal facilities and the effluent discharged
therefrom.  Nothing  herein shall  be construed to prevent the Agency subsequently
from  modifying any  existing permits so as to  conform with federal  requirements
and the requirements of this regulation.

      (12)  Liquid substances which  are  not commonly considered  to be sewage
or industrial wastes  but which  could  constitute a pollution hazard shall be
stored in accordance with Regulation  V7PC 4.  and any revision or amendments
thereto.   Other vrastes as defined by law or other substances which  could con-
stitute a  pollution hazard shall  not be deposited  in any manner  such that  the
same  may  be likely  to gain entry  into any intrastate waters of the  state in '
excess of or contrary to  any of the standards herein  adopted, or cause pollution
as defined by law.

      (13)  No sewage, industrial waste or other wastes shall be discharged
into the intrastate waters of the state in such quantity or in such manner alone
or in combination with other substances  as to cause pollution thereof as defined
by law.   In any  case where the intrastate waters of the  state into which sewage,
industrial  wastes or  other waste effluents discharge are  assigned different
standards  than the interstate or intrastate  waters into which such receiving
intTcistJitc waters flow, the standards  applicable  to the intrastate waters into
which such sewage,  industrial  waste  or  other  wastes  discharged shall  be
supplemented by the following:

The quality of  any waters of the  state receiving sewage, industrial waste or
other waste effluents shall be such that no. violation of the standards of any
interstate or intrastate waters of  the state  in any other class shall  occur by
reason of the discharge of such sewage, industrial  waste or other  waste
effluents.

-------
                                                                             C-2
      (14)   Questions concerning the  permissible levels, or changes, in the
same, of a substance,  or combination  of substances,  of  undefined toxicity to
fish or other Biota shall be resolved in accordance with the latest methods
recommended by the U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  The recom-
mendations of the National Technical Advisory Committee appoint"d by the
U.S. Environmemal Protection Agency sha.l be used as official g-idelines
in all aspects where the recc~~eniatio.ns may be applicable.  Toxic substancesi
shall net exceed' I/10 of the £6 hour median tolerance limit  (TLM)  as a we.ter
quality standard except  that other more stringent application factors  shall be
used when justified on  the  basis  of available evidence.

      (15)   All perscns operating or  responsible for sewage, industrial  waste
or other  waste disposal  systems which are adjacent to or which discharge
effluents to these waters or to tributaries which affect the same, shall submit
regularly every month  a report to the Agency on the operation of the disposal
system, the effluent ..flow,  and the characteristics of the effluents and re-
ceiving waters.  Sufficient  data en  measurements,  observations, sampling
and analyses, and other pertinent information shall be  furnished as  may be
required by the Agency to  adequately evaluate the  condition of the disposal
system, the effluent,  and the waters receiving or affected by the effluent.

Fisheries and Recreation

Class B  -  The quality of this class  of the intrastate waters  of the state shall
be such  as to perr-it the propagation  and maintenance of cool or warm water
sport or commercial fishes  and be suitable for aquatic recreation of  all kinds,
including bathing, for  which the waters  may be usable.  Limiting concentrations
or ranges  of substances or characteristics which should not be exceeded in the
intrastate waters are  given below:
Substance or Characteristic
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Ammonia (N)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper  (Cu)
Limit  or Range

Not less than 6 milligrams per liter from
  April 1  through May 31,  and not less
  than 5 milligrams per liter at other times.
5°F above natural in streams and  3°F above
  natural in  lakes, based on monthly average
  of the maximum daily temperature, except
  in no case shall  it exceed the daily average
  temperature of 86°F.
1 milligram  per liter
0.05 milligram per liter
0.01 milligram per liter or not greater than
  1/10 thu 96 hour TLM value.

-------
                                                                             C-2
Substance or Characteristic

Cyanides  (CN)
Oil
pH value
Phenols
Turbidity value
Fecal coliform organisms
Radioactive materials
Industrial Consumption
Limit or Range

0.02 milligram  per liter
0.5 milligram per liter
6.5 - 9.0
0.01 milligram  per liter and none th.it could
  impart odor or taste  to fish flesh  or other
  freshwater edible  products  such a3 crayfish,
  clams, prawns and like creatures.  Where
  it seems probable that  a discharge  may
  result in tainting  of edible  aquatic
  products, bioassays and taste panels  will
  be required to determine whether tainting
  is likely or present.
25
200 most probable number per  100 milliliters
  as a monthly geometric mean based on not
  les than 5 samples per month,  nor  equal
  or exceed 2000 most  probable number per
  100 milliliters in more  than  10% of all
  samples during any month.
Not to  exceed the lowest  concentration per-
  mitted to be discharged to an uncontrolled
  environment as  prescribed by the  appropriate
  authority having control over their use.
Class B - The  quality of this class of the intrastate waters of the  state shall
be such as to permit their use for general industrial purposes,  except for
food  processing,  with only a  moderate degree of treatment.   The quality  shall
be generally  comparable to  Class D intrastate waters used for domestic con-
sumption, except the following:
Substance or Characteristic

Chlorides (Cl)
Hardness
pH value
Fecal coliform organisms
Limit or Range

100 milligrams per liter
250 milligrams per liter
6.0 - 9.0
200 most probable number per  100  milliliters
Class C - The quality of this class of the intrastate waters of the state shall be
such as to permit their use for industrial cooling and materials  transport with-
out a high degree of treatment being necessary to avoid severe  fouling, corrosion,
scaling, or  other unsatisfactory conditions.   The following shall  not be exceeded
in the  intrastate waters:

-------
Substance or Characteristic
Limit or Range
Chlorides (Cl)
Hardness
pH  value
Fecal colifcrni organisms
250 milligrams per liter
500 milligrams per liter
6.0 - 9.0
200 moj'.t probable  number per -100 miLLJiitera
Additions.! selective iiraits  may be: imposed for any specific intrastate waters
as needed.

In addition to the above listed standards, no  sewage, industrial  waste or other
wastes, treated  or untreated, shall  be discharged into or permitted by any person
to gain access to  any intrastate v.r?.'.er5  classified for industrial purposes so as
to cause any material impairment of their use as a source of industrial water
supply.

Agriculture and Wildlife

Class A - The  quality of this class of the intrastate  waters  of the state  shall
be such as to permit their use  for  irrigation  without significant  damage or
adverse effects  upon any crops or  vegetation  usually grown in the waters  or
area, including truck  garden crops.  The following  concentrations or limits
shall be used as a guide in determining the suitability  of the waters for such
uses,  together  with the  recommendations  contained in Handbook  60 published
by the Salinity  Laboratory of the XJ. S. Department of Agriculture,  and any
revisions,  amendments  or supplements thereto:
Substance or Characteristic
Bicarbonates
Boron (B)
pH value
Specific  conductance
Total dissolved salts
Sodium (Na)

Fecal coliform  organisms
Sulfates  (SO4)
Radioactive materials
Limit or Range.

5 milliequivalents per liter
0.5 milligram per liter
6.0 - 8.5
1,000 micromKbs per centimeter   •
700 milligrams per liter
60% of total cations as millicquivalents per
  liter
200 most probable' number per 100 milliliters '
10 milligrams per liter,  applicable to waters
  used  for production of wild rice during
  periods when the rice may  be susceptible
  to damage by high sulfate levels.
Not to  exceed the lowest concentrations per-
  mitted to be discharged to an uncontrolled
  envxronnsnt as j>rescribed by the  appropriate
  authority having control over their use.

-------
                                                                                C-2
 Gass B -  The quality  of this class  of the intrastate waters of the state shall be
 such as to permit their use by livestock and wildlife without inhibition or
 injurious effects.   The limits  or  concentrations of substances or characteristics
 giver, below  shall cot be exceeded ir  the intrastate  waters:
Substance or  Characteristic

pli value
Total salinity
Fecal coliforn organisms
Radioactive materials
Unspecified toxic  substances
 "..irait or  Range

 6.0 -  9.0
 1,000  milligrams per liter
 200 most probable number per  100 railliliters
 Not to  exceed the lowest concentrations  per-
   mitted  to be discharged to  an uncontrolled
   environment as prescribed  by the appropriate
   authority having control over their use.
 None at levels harmful either directly or
   indirectly
Additional selective limits may be imposed  for any specific intrastate waters
as needed.
Navigation and Waste Disposal

The quality of this class of the  intrastate  waters of  the state shall be  such
as to be suitable fcr esthetic enjoyment of scenery and to avoid any inter-
ference with, navigation  or damaging  effects  on property.  The. following  limits
or concentrations  shall not be exceeded in the intrastate  waters:
Substance or  Characteristic

Fecal colifona organisms
pH value
Hydrogen sulfide
.Limit or Range

 200 most probable number per  100  milliliters
 6.0 -  9.0
 0.02 milligrams  per liter
Additional  selective limits may be imposed for any  specific intraetate waters
as needed.

Other Uses

The  uses to be  protected in this class may be under other jurisdictions and in
other areas to which the'intrastate waters of the state are tributary, and may
include any or all  of the uses listed  in  the foregoing categories, plus any other
possible beneficial  uses.  The  Agency therefore reserves  the right to impose
my  standarri.s necessary for  the protect:'en of this class, consistent  with  legal
limitations.

-------
               APPENDIX C-3
Graphs of Surface Water Quality Parameter,
 1972 - 1978 for Green Lake and Nest .Lake

-------
y'  •




•). ~ J
  5.0



 HO
       TOTAL
       CHlOfbPMIU.
  /O





  0
        5ECCH!  t.
 100




 ft




 GO
600
•too
                                    .'10
                           A




                           O
?7(,
                                                 •'.77
                                                                                                     C-3
                                                                  .787
                                                                      5X5

-------
      Term.
 16
      Stem WFTM«>



 3
              0
 a
too
So
So
                             o


                 &       ft
                                u

               3  O       v   O
                                               3 Q
      gtftTRtc/a. eodoocnvrrf C aS*C
  O



          O
 3

O
                                                                                             C-3

-------
                                                                             APPENDIX
                                                                                C-4'
        I.  SEASONAL AND LONG-TERM CHANGES IN LAKE WATER QUALITY
     Seasonal changes of temperature and density in lakes are best described
using as an example a lake in the temperate zone which freezes over in
winter.  When ice coats the surface of a lake, cold water at 0 C lies  in
contact with ice above warmer and denser water between 0  and 4 C.'

     With the coming of spring,  ice melts and the waters are mixed by  wind.
Shortly, the lake is in full circulation, and temperatures are approximately
uniform throughout (close to 4 C).   With further heating from the sun  and
mixing by the wind, the typical pattern of summer stratification develops.
That is, three characteristic layers are present:  (1) a surface layer of
warm water in which temperature is more or less uniform throughout; (2)  an
intermediate layer in which temperature declines rapidly with depth; and
(3) a bottom layer of cold water throughout which temperature is again
more or less uniform.  These three layers are termed  epilimnion, metalim-
nion (or thermocline), and hypolimnion, respectively.  The  thermocline
usually serves as a barrier that eliminates or reduces mixing between the
surface water and the bottom water.

     In late summer and early fall,  as the lake cools in sympathy with its
surroundings, convection currents of cold water formed at night sink  to  find
their appropriate temperature level, mixing with warmer water on their way
down.  With further cooling, and turbulence created by wind, the thermocline
moves deeper and deeper.  The temperature of the epilimnion gradually
approaches that of the hypolimnion.   Finally, the density gradient associated
with the thermocline becomes so weak that it ceases to be an effective barrier
to downward-moving currents.  The lake then becomes uniform in temperature
indicating it is again well mixed.   With still further cooling, ice forms
at the surface to complete the annual cycle.

     The physical phenomenon described above has significant bearing on
biological and chemical activities in lakes on a seasonal basis.  In
general, growth of algae, which are plants, in the epilimnion produces
dissolved oxygen and takes up nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus
during the summer months.  Algal growth in the hypolimnion is limited
mainly because sunlight  is  insufficient.  As  dead  algae settle gradually
from the epilimnion into the hypolimnion, decomposition of dead algae
depletes a significant amount of dissolved oxygen in  the bottom water.  At
the same time, stratification limits oxygen supply from the surface water
to the bottom water.  As a result, the hypolimnion shows a lower level of
dissolved oxygen while accumulating a large amount of nutrients by  the
end of summer.  Then comes the fall overturn to provide a new supply of
dissolved oxygen and to redistribute the nutrients via complete mixing.

     Over each annual cycle, sedimentation builds up  progressively  at the
bottom of the lake.  As a result, this slow process of deposition of
sediments reduces lake depth.  Because major nutrients enter the lake
along with the sediments, nutrient concentrations in  the lake increase
over a long period of time.  This aging process  is a  natural phenomenon
and is measured in hundreds or thousands of years, depending on specific
lake and watershed characteristics.

-------
                                                                               C-4
     Human activities, however,  have accelerated this schedule considerably.
By populating the shoreline, disturbing soils in the watershed, and altering
hydrologic flow patterns, man has increased the rate of nutrient and sediment
loading to lakes.  As a result,  many of our lakes are now characterized by
a state of eutrophication that would not have occurred under  natural
conditions for many generations.  This cultural eutrophication can in some
instances be beneficial, for example by increasing both the rate of growth
of individual fish and overall fishery production.   In most cases,  however,
the effects of this accelerated  process are detrimental to the desired uses
of the lake.

     The eutrophication process  of lakes is classified according to a relative
scale based on parameters such as productivity, nutrient levels, dissolved
oxygen, and turbidity  in the lake water.  Lakes with low nutrient inputs
and low productivity are termed  oligotrophic.   Dissolved oxygen levels in
the hypolimmion of these lakes remain relatively high throughout the year.
Lakes with greater productivity  are termed mesotrophic and 'generally have
larger nutrient inputs than oligotrophic lakes.  Lakes with very high pro-
ductivity are termed eutrophic and usually have high nutrient inputs.
Aquatic plants and algae grow excessively in the latter lakes, and algal
blooms are common.  Dissolved oxygen may be depleted in the hypolimnion of
eutrophic lakes during the summer months.

-------
                                                                          C-5


        I.   LAKE EUTROPHICATION MODEL AND NON-POINT SOURCE MODEL
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  I975b)  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«to  eutrophication.    He  plotted  annual total
phosphorus  loadings  (g/m /yr) against  lake mean depth  and  empirically
determined   the   transition   between  oligotrophic,   mesotrophic  and
eutrophic loadings.  Vollenweider later modified his simple  loading mean
depth  relationship  to  include  the mean residence time of  the water so
that unusually high  or low flushing rates  could  be taken into account.

-------
                                                                          C-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:

     L (1-R) = zP
         P
                                    2
where:  L = phosphorus loading  (gm/m /yr.)
        R = fraction of phosphorus retained
        p = hydraulic flushing  rate (per yr.)
        z = mean depth (m)
        P = phosphorus concentration (mg/1)

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

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

     In  relating  phosphorus loadings  to  the  lake  trophic condition,
Vollenweider  (1968), Dillon and Rigler  (1975)  and  Larsen  a'nd 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

-------
                                                                   C-5
                          FIGURE E-4-a
i.o r
                                          i     i    i   i   i  i  i i
                                100
                       MEAN DEPTH (METERS)

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

-------
                                                                         C-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.

-------
                                                                         C-5


         II.  NON-POINT SOURCE MODELING - OMERNIK'S MODEL


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

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

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

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

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

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

     where:

     P = Total phosphorus concentration -mg/1 as P

     N = Total nitrogen concentration - mg/1 as N

     A = Percent of watershed with agricultural plus urban land use

     B = Percent of watershed with forest land use

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

    ow = 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.

-------
                                                                         C-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 NT = Log N + Log 1.51    (4)
          •w   '                .
     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.                 \J

-------
                                                  APPENDIX
                                                    C-6
INVESTIGATION OP SEPTIC LEACHATE DISCHARGES

      GREEN AND NEST LAKES, MINNESOTA

                MARCH, 1979
               Prepared for

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

           K-V Associates, Inc.
          Falmouth, Massachusetts
                 May, 1979

-------
                                                                 C-6
                       1.0  INTRODUCTION

     In porous soils, groundwater inflows frequently convey
wastewaters from nearshore septic units through bottom sediments
and into lake waters, causing attached algae growth and algal
blooms.  The lake shoreline is a particularly sensitive area
since:  1) the groundwater depth is shallow, encouraging soil
water saturation and.anearobic conditions; 2) septic units and
leaching fields are frequently located close to the water's
edge, allowing only a short distance for bacterial degradation
and soil adsorption of potential contaminants; and 3).the
recreational attractiveness of the lakeshore often induces
temporary overcrowding of homes leading to hydraulically
overloaded septic units.  Rather than a passive release from
lakeshore bottoms, groundwater plumes from nearby en-site
treatment units actively emerge along shorelines, raising
sediment nutrient levels and creating local elevated concen-
trations of nutrients (Kerfoot and Erainard, 1973).  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 (LRPG, 1977).
     Vastewater effluent contains a mixtuer of near UV fluorescent
organics derived from whiteners, surfactants and natural
degradation products which are persistent under the combined
conditions of low oxygen and limited aicrobial activity.

-------
                              -2-
                                                                C-6
                        /-SEPTIC TANK
                                       SURFACE
                                          RUNOFF
t-GROUNDWATER
                    SEPTIC LEACH ATE-^
       Figure 1.
Excessive loading  of septic  systems
causes the development  of  plumes  of
poorly-treated effluent which  may
1) enter nearby waterways  through
surface runoff or  which may  2) move
laterally with groundwater flow and
discharge near the shoreline of
nearby lakes.

-------

 Figure 2 snows  two  samples of  sand-filtered  effluent from the



 Otis Air Force  Base sewage treatment  plant.   One  was analyzed



 immediately  and the other after having  sat in a darkened bottle



 for six months  at 20°C.  Note  that  little.change  in  fluorescence



 was apparent, although during  the aging process some narrowing



 of  the fluorescent  region did  occur.  The aged effluent



 percolating  through sandy loam soil under anaerobic  conditions



 reaches a stable ratio between the  organic content and chlorides



 which are highly mobile anionso  The  stable  ratio (cojoint
                                •


 signal) between fluorescence and conductivity allows ready



 detection of leachate plumes by their conservative tracers as

                                                              4

 an  early warning of potential  nutrient  breakthrough  or public



 health problems.



      Surveys for shoreline wastewater discharges were conducted



 with a modified septic leachate detector and  the K-V Associates,



 Inc<, "Dowser" grcundwater flow meter.   The septic leachate



 detector (ENDECO Type 2100 "Septic  Snooper")  consists of  the



 subsurface probe, the water intake  system, the analyzer  control



 unit, and a  graphic recorder.  Initially the  unit is  calibrated



 against stepwise increases of  wastewater effluent, of the  type



 to  be detected,  added to the background lake water-   The  probe



 of  the unit  is  then placed in  the lake  water  along the shoreline.



.Grcundwater  seeping through the shoreline bottom is drawn  into



 the subsurface  intake of the probe  and travels upwards to  the
i                             ^


 analyzer unit.   As  it passes through  the analyzer, seoarate



 conductivity and specific fluorescence  signals are generated and

-------
                                                                      C-6
        EXCITATION SCAN
        SAND FILTERED SECONDARILY-TREATED
        WASTE  WATER EFFLUENT
  80-1
  70H
                                   NEWLY SAND FILTERED
                                   OTIS EFFLUENT
  60H
UJ
o
z
ui
LU

§


U_

LU
LU
IX
  30H
 20H
  IOH
                            AGED
                            SAND FILTERED
                            EFFLUENT (6mo.)
             300


           FIGURE2 .
        400
      WAVELENGTH (nm)
5OO
Sand-filtered Effluent Produces a  Stable
Fluorescent Signature, Here Shown  Before

-------
                                                                C-6
sent to a signal processor which registers the separate signals
on a strip chart recorder as the boat moves forward.  The
analyzed water is continuously discharged from the unit back
into the receiving water.  A portable unit obtained from'ENDECO
was used during the field studies,  but was modified to operate
under the conductance conditions encountered in the field.
                       1.1  Plume Types
     The capillary-like structure of  sandy porous soils and
horizontal groundwater movement induces a fairly narrow plume
from malfunctioning septic units.  The point of discharge along
the shoreline is often through a small area of lake bottom,
commonly forming an oval-shaped area  several meters wide when
the septic unit is close to the shoreline.  In denser subdivisions
containing several overloaded units the discharges may overlap,
forming a broader increase.
1.1.1  Groundwater Plumes
     Three different types of groundwater-related wastewater
plumes are commonly encountered during a septic leachate survey:
1) erupting plumes, 2) passive plumes, and 3) stream source
plumes.  As the soil becomes saturated with dissolved solids
and organics during the aging orocess of a leaching on-lot
septic system, a breakthrough of organics occurs first,  followed
by inorganic penetration (principally chlorides,  sodium, and
other salts).  The active emerging  of the combined organic and
inorganic residues into the shoreline lake water describes an
erupting plume.  In seasonal dwellings where wastewater  loads

-------
                            -6-
vary in time, a plume may be apparent during late summer when
shoreline cottages sustain heavy use, but retreat during winter
during low flow conditions.  Hesidual organics from the waste-
water often still remain attached to soil particles in the
vicinity of the previous erupting plume, slowly releasing into
the shoreline waters.  This dormant plume indicates a previous
breakthrough, but sufficient treatment of the plume exists
under current conditions so that no inorganic discharge is
apparent.  Stream source plumes refer to either ground water
leachings or nearstream septic leaching fields which enter into
streams which then empty 'into the lake.
1.1.2  Runoff Plumes
     Traditional failures of septic systems occur in tight soil
conditions when the rate of inflow into the unit is greater than
the soil percolation  can accomodate.  Often leakage occurs
around the septic tank or leaching unit covers, creating standing
pools of poorly-treated effluent.  If sufficient drainage is
present, the effluent may flow laterally across the surface into
nearby waterways.  In addition, rainfall or snow melt may also
create an excess of surface water which can wash the standing
effluent into water courses.  In either case, the ooorly-treated
effluent frequently contains elevated fecal coliform bacteria,
indicstive of the presence of pathogenic bacteria and, if
sufficiently high, must be considered a threat to public health.

-------
                             -7-                                C-6
           2.0  METHODOLOGY - SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

     The septic leachate survey covered two principal study areas
in the Green Lake facility planning area of Kaudi Yohi County,
Minnesota.  The first,  and largest water body area examined was
Green Lake, a 4-mile wide unevenly circular glacial depression,
averaging 21 feet in depth, which receives flow from nearby
Nest Lake and discharges to the eastern continuation of Crow
River.  The lake shoreline is 12.3 miles long and ringed by
predominantly seasonal  cottages,  interspersed with 13# year-round
dwellings.  A dam located at the outflow of Nest Lake into Green
Lake controls the inflow into Green Lake, estimated to be 53 cfs.
The study area is composed of surficial outwash composed of fine
to coarse grained sand  and gravel with some silt and clay.
Deposits of highly permeable sand and gravel are found throughout
the area.
     The second study area was Nest Lake to the west.  Nest Lake
is formed from the drowned river basin of the middle fork of the
Crow River.  Opposed to Green Lake, Nest Lake has an irregular
shoreline, 10.5 miles in length.   It is also shallower,  with
65 percent of the lake  area of a depth of 20 feet or less.
     Objectives of this survey were:
     1)  To perform a complete shoreline scan for evidence of
septic leachate (nutrient) intrusion using through-the-ice
techniques for winter conditions.   Forward progress, related

-------
                                                                 C-6
/to prevailing weather conditions, was expected to be at least
one shoreline mile per day.
   ,  2)  To take discrete water samples for subsequent nutrient
analysis only at those locations of alleged effluent plumes
revealed by the leachate detector instrument .
     3)  To take bacteria samples for fecal coliform analysis
from all moving surface tributaries or exceptionally high
shoreline effluent plumes.
     4)  To make visual observations relevant to sources of lake
water degradation.
     This survey was executed during February and March, 1979-
Daytime temperatures ranged from 5° to 35°F-  Ice measured 3 feet
in depth and was very solid.  Snow cover ranged from 6 to 16 inches,
2. 1  Procedure
     Green Lake was surveyed in a continuous counter-clockwise
direction starting and ending at the Nest Lake outlet.  The survey
team consisted of two men and lightweight mobile survey gear.
The basic equipment platform was a 6* x 3* polyethylene sled
(actually a collapsed portable ice house by "Snoboat").  The
septic leachate detector instrument was securely lashed with
shock cords to a large plastic ice chest, 'in turn lashed to the
sled.  A 12 vdc snowmobile battery powered the instrument and
small water pump.  This centrigugal water pump lifted sub-ice
water from a drilled hole and discharged it through the instru-
ment detector chamber and out a flexible plastic tube exhaust
from which retained samples could be taken.

-------
  oq
  c
  4
  (D
  (0
5253
0» ct
CD {B
ct ct
co 3
co g
CO 0)
•  n
  en
  o
  2.
  3
  c*}
  (I)
  M
  0>
  ft
  H-
  O
  3
  CO
  tr
  H-
  en
  0)
  3
                                                       GREEN  LAKE
                   NEST  LAKE
                                                                                      N
                                                                                         feat

                                                                                          4000
                                                                                                        o

-------
                             -10-
                                                                C-6
     The large:ice chest held chilled water samples as well as
supplies and maintenance gear.  Groundwater specimens were drawn
through a rugged stainless steel wellpoint sampler developed by
K-V Associates,  Inc.   This 7-foot long,  3/8 inch bore tube could
easily toe driven by hand up to 18 inches into the porous bottom
sediment.  Groundwater samples were drawn from sandy sediments
of those holes displaying a high relative fluorescence signal.
Interstitial water WQS extracted via simple hand vacuum pump and
large plastic receiving chamber.  All tubes were of large bore to
minimize greezing obstructions.   The captured groundwater could
then be readily decanted apart from entrained sand and bottled
for later analysis.  Such bottom samples accompanied a surface
sample for each significant plume discovery.   In nearly every
case, groundwater samples were withdrawn very easily through
the loose sand bottom.  (See Figure 4,  Table 1 for soils
information.  From WAPORA, 1978)  To gain access to the liquid
water beneath the ice cover, a gasoline  powered "Jiffy" ice auger
equipped with 5" diameter, 3' long drill bit on a 12" shaft
extension was used.
     In summary, the two-man team proceeded on foot in. tandem
around the lake perimeter with self-contained equipment in tow
on lightweight plastic sleds.  Skis or snowshoes were used as
conditions required.   The lead individual bored fresh holes on
approximate 100 foot intervals,  gauging the ice thickness as well
as his free-water clearance to the sand bottom.  He charted a
path which would insure 6 to 10 inches of free water.  The

-------
FIGURE II- 4   GENERAL SOILS HAP OF THE GREF.N
        LAKE FACILITY PLANNING AREA
                     LEGEND

              LESTER-CLARION-SAM DA

         ^...a SALIDA-ESTERVILLE-CLARION

            " ESTERVILI.E-B1SCAY-PEAT

              CLARION-STORDEN-PEAT

              GRAVEL PITS
                             [Source:   Kandlyohl County  (Mn. |
                              Planning Commission 1973;  By
                              telephone,  Al Clenke, Soil Con-
                              servation Service, 2 November
               f3*t£irM- • Vf.- • • • : '. '•• •.••»
               «M^?

-------
        Table II-2.  Description of Mapped Soil* In the Craen Uks Facility Planning Arc*
Soil Type
Alluviuoj
Biscay
Clarion
Dlcksnson
Estervllle
Glencoa
llanel
General Description
Poorly drained nixed
alluvial soils
Poorly drained soils
formed In loaay gla-
cial out wash;
underlain by sand
•nd graval
Well drained loamy
aolla; formed in
calcerous glacial till
under pralria vege-
tation
Well to somewhat
eacesslvely drained)
noderataly coatee
Well drained aandy
and loamy oolls
Deep, very poorly
drained aolla fora
In glacial till in
depressions and awslea
in tha uplands
Deep, poorly drained
soils foraed In loany
glacial till In swales,
rims of depressions,
dra inaguwaya and Toot-
slopes
Clssslflcation
with Depth (In)
Too variable
0-20 (loan)
20-36 (loan)
36-60 (coaraa
sand ft fine
gravtl
0-17 (loom)
17-32 (loan)
32.60 (loan)
0- JO (fine
sandy-loan)
30-50 (loony-
sand)
50-60 (sand)
not available
0-35 (sllty-
clay, clay, lonn)
35-48 (loan,
clay, sllty-clny).
46-60 (loan.
clay)
0-22 (loam, clay)
22-41 (cloys Ions)
41-fif) (loam)
Location in Grain
Laks Facility
Planning Area
Along streaas and
dralnngeways
especially north
of Creen Lake
Scattered In north-
east corner
Scattered north of
Creen Lokq, between
Creen and Wast Lakes
off US Highway 71
Southeaat of Creen
Lake
North and south of
Neat Lakes
Widely distributed
particularly wast
of Green Lake
Observed betuean
Nest and Green LeVaa
near US Highway 71
Scattsrod between
Heat and Green Ijikec
Depth to
seaaonal
Perneablllty high wster
(In/hr) table (ft)
2-4
0.6-2.0 1-3
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
(moderate)
0.6-2.0 >6
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
2.0-6.0 >10
6.0-20.0
6.0->20.0
Hod. Rapid in >6
upper soil
Rapid in lowar
aoll
0.2-2.0 0-3
0.2-2.0
0.2-2.0
0.2-2.0 1-3
0.2-0.6
0.6-2.0
Suitability for
on-site waste-
water; remarks Soil capability class
Severe) flood II W
hazard
Severe; due to II W if 'slops la <2X
high water table
Slight) <5Z slope I t Us if slops <5X
node role) 5-14Z
severe; >I4Z
Slight) <5Z Ilia 6 IVe
Moderate) 9-14Z
slope
Slight ; 0-8Z
nodarata) 8-152
severe; >15X
Several high watar III H doinod
tobla
V U undrnlned
Severe; high water II U drained
table and glow IV W undrained
percolation
lloughton   Very poorly drained
           aolla foraed In thick
           herbaceous organic
           deposits

Lester     Undjlotlng to ateep,
           well drained soils
           foroed In glacial
           till on convex
           upland slopes
0-66 (rauck)
0-9 (clay-loan
or loan)
8-36 (clay luan)
36-60 (In/in)
Scattered northwest
of Neat l-ake
Scattered i lirnuglinut
the atudy aren
0.6-2.0

0.6-2.0
O.ft-2.0
                                                           0-1
<5
                                                                        Severe;  wetnesa
                                                                        and  ponding
                                                                                            III U
             Moderate; 2-12Z     Me <6Z alope

             Soverr; >12Z slope  Illc 6-121 alups
                                                                                                                                     O

-------
poll Typo
Market
General Description
Very poorly drained
oollo Corned In depo-
Blto of organic
material over oantl
ClooalMcntlon
with Depth (In)
0-32 (Buck)
32-60 (eand)
Location In Green
Uke Facility
• PlonnlnH Area
Along ohoreo of
Green Leko
: Perooablllty
20.0
>20.0


0,6-2.0
0.6-2.0




0,6-20

widespread north I weu'n.6-2n
of Neot Lake




6.3 +


Above
water
table
                                                                                             3.0-3.0
                                                                                             0-J
                                                                                             0-1
                                                                                             >6
                                                                                             >6
                                                                                             0-3
                                                                                                          Severe; ponded
             Severe) high water  1
             table
             Severe; alow
             permeability
             High water tablo
III W  0-2X Blopo
             Severe) high wator  III U
             tablo; ponding
             Slight; 1SX
                                                                                                                  
-------
Uadena     Well drained loany
           •oil* underlain by
           calceroua sand 4
           gravel
0-1) (laoci)
11-20 (loan;
aandy loan)
10-60 (sand 4
gravel)
Scattered In north-
eastern corner
2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0

 20
Slight; >6Z         II S 0-21 .lop*
node rata; 6-12X
                                                     aevare) <12Z
                    II* 2-61 alopa
Webster    Deep, poorly drained
           aolla that  forced In
           loany glacial till
           high In Haw carbonatea
0-17(clay-loan or  Scattered north 4      0.6-2.0
allty-clay-loao)  oouth caat of Craen
17-11 (clay-laoa) Lake                   0.6-2.0
11-67 (loan to                           0.6-2.0
clay loan)
                                        1-1
                                                     Several poorly
                                                     drained 4 high
                                                     water table
                                                  II U 0-2Z a lope
                                                                                                                                                                     O

-------
instrument operator,  trailing closely behind,  flushed his pump
line in each new hole and processed a brief but steady stream
of water through the  detector,,  Relative fluorescence, conduc-
tivity, and positional information were recorded in a bound
log book.  A USGS lakeshore map provided sufficient landmark
detail for resonable  annotation of position versus hole number.
2.2  Sample Handling
     Both ground and  surface water samples for nutrient analysis
were retained in 250  ml clean plastic bottles, marked to correspond
with hole numbers.  We preserved these samples at 35° or colder
pending laboratory analysis at a later date.
     Bactaria samples were captured in sterilized 250 ml plastic
bottles andshipped the same day to Environmental Protection
Laboratory in St. Cloud, Minnesota for fecal coliform analysis.
2.3  Calibration
     Each work day began with a calibration of the septic leachate
instrument.  Two solutions were required:   the first, a background
sample drawn from an  assumed unpolluted central portion of the
lake; the second, a 10# dilution in background water of local
New London treated effluent.  Background samples from the centers
of each lake served as reference samples during the survey.  A
liter bottle of lagoon effluent was taken from the treatment
facility in the nearby northern town of New London.  This sample
was filtered to remove suspended solids prior to use.  Injection
t
of these two solutions into the leachate detector instrument,
at ambient outdoor working temperature, allowed the setting of
a reasonable ZERO and SPAN adjustment.

-------
                                                                 c_6
2 o 4  Groundwater Flow Determination
     The direction and rate of inflow of groundwater was
measured at 8 locations aroung Green lake and 4 locations at Nest
Lake.  Snow cover and unsaturated sand cover was removed above
                                                 TM
beach regions and a K-V Associates, Inc. "Dowser"   groundwater
flow meter inserted into the saturated sand sediments.  Conditions
permitting, three separate determinations of flow rate were made,
often with small-scale dye tracings of interstitial flow for
confirmation.  The observed compass direction and rate of flow
was computed and compared with the rates anticipated by the
Darcy equation from known groundwater heights for Green Lake.
2.5  Water Analysis
     Water samples taken in the vicinity of the peak of plumes
were analyzed by EPA Standard Methods for the following chemical
constituents:
          Conductivity (cond.)
          Ammonia-nitrogen (NIL-N)
          Nitrate-nitrogen (NCU-N)
          Total phosphorus (TP^
          Orthophosphate phcxsphorus (PCv-P)
Over 200 small volume (50 ml) water samples were obtained at
locations of sample holes and 60 samples at selected plumes
and background stations for analysis.  The samples were placed
in polyethylene containers, chilled, and frozen for transport  .
and storage.  Conductivity was determined by a Beckman (Model
RC-19) conductivity bridge, ammonium-nitrogen by phenolate
method, nitrate-nitrogen by the brucine sulfate procedure, and
orthophosphate-phosphorus and total phosphorus by the singel
reagent procedures following standard methods (EPA, 1975)i

-------
                                                                  c_6
selected samples synchro nous- scanned for fluorescence to confirm



the organic source.

-------
                             -17"                                C-6

                     3.0  PLUME LOCATIONS

     The Green Lake study area included the entire shoreline
of Green Lake and the northeastern and southern shores of Nest
Lake.  An evaluation of nutrient loading into Green and Nest
Lakes during the National Eutrophication Survey determined that
Nest Lake is eutrophic and Green Lake is meso-eutrophic.
Nest Lake and Green Lake receive municipal discharge from the
Belgrade and New London wastewater treatment plants which
discharge into the middle fork of the Crow River upstream of
the lakes.
     A total of 64 locations exhibited effluent olume character-
istics.  Of these, 26 originated from surface water discharges
and 38 from groundwater leachate.  The largest single source
was the outflow from the Crow River into Nest Lake which
accounted for plumes 1 through 8 and 38 through 44 on Nest Lake
and 539 on Green Lake.  The majority of the groundwater plumes
on Green Lake occurred on the northern shore in the predominant
direction of subsurface flow (section 7.0).
     A second surface source was located within the sewered area
near the southern end of Spicer.  Ice holes drilled in the region
encountered hydrogen sulfide, indicative of anaerobic conditions
and noticeable phosphorus concentrations (sample 106: .133 ppm
total phosphorus).  The source appeared to be surace flow from
a nearby ditch.  Bacterial samples showed low fecal coliform
concentration (20 mpn/100 ml).  Spectral scans showed the
source contained fluorescent surfactants but was not identical
to human wastewater constituents.

-------

     The pattern of plume emergence on Green Lake coincided with
                                                                i,
that expected of a confined lake.   In confined lakes, the
groundwater inflow along one side  is offset by an equivalent
exfiltration along opposing shorelines,  resulting in little net
groundwater flow from the lake.
     The southern and eastern shores of  Green Lake were notable
by their lack of groundwater plumes despite favorable permeable
soil conditions and sizable numbers of permanent (year-round)
residences.  Only at location 168  was a  discharge observed.  Slow
drainage from a marsh occurred near location 192, but it contained
only a small phosphorus load (.015 mg/1  total phosphorus).

-------
                             -19-
                                                                  C-6
         Key to Symbols Used on Sampling  Location Maps

„  ice hole location
54 bacterial sample location
o  dormant groundwater plume
©  eruDting groundwater plume
Q  organic surface water plume without dissolved  solids  load
O  organic surface water plume with dissolved  solids  load

-------
                                   &-I3
GREEN  LAKE

-------
NEST LAKE

-------
                  '•' »\i'
                         v • — r
   GREEN LAKE
SEGMENT LOCATION
      MAP
       N
                                                              ?

-------
                             -23                                 c-6
Table 1.  Relationship between number of observed  plumes  and
          occupancy on shoreline segments  of  Green and
          Nest Lakes, Minnesota.
Segment
Nest Lake
3
4
5
6
7
Canal
8
No. of Plumes

1
5
4
6
2

unsurveyed
Occupancy
Permanent Seasonal

9
7
13
6
2

5

26
97
25
16
3

9
Green Lake
    9                    0                13              3
   10                    0                13              4
   11                    38            13
   12                    37              6
   13                    2                13            61
   14                    7                12            33
   15                    2                10            25
   16                    6                13            69
   17                    0                17              4
   18                    024
   19                    0                 9            44
   20                    0                 6            25
   21                    0                11            25
   22                    0                 6            73
   23                    0                11            38
   24                    1                 8            82
   Spicer                1               254            56

-------
                                                                 c-6
Figure 8.  Shoreline, leachate profiles for Green and Nest Lakes,

-------
GREEN LAKE
          10
20

30
40
50
60
70
                                     80
90
          110
120
130
                                               140
            150
            160
                                                              170
                                                              180
                                     190
o conductance



A fluoreicente
                      220
            230
            240
                                                           250
                        260
                                                                                    270
                                                                          280
                                                                          290
                                                                                                    o

-------
vC
   GREEN LAKE
80
60
40
20
            310
320
330
 340
350
360
370
380
390
80
60
40
20
            410
420
430
 440
450
460
470
480
490
80
60
40
20
             510
 520
530
540

-------
OOi
                                                                                          70           80
              190
o conductance
A fluorescense
                                                                                                                                 n

-------
                             -28-
                                                                 C-6
                    4.0  NUTRIENT ANALYSES

     Completed analyses of the chemical content of samples taken
along the shorelines of Green and Nest Lakes are presented in
Table 2.  The sample letters refer to the locations given in
Figures 6 and ?<>  The symbol "S" refers to surface water sample
and the symbol "G" to groundwater sample.  Most groundwater
samples represent easy vacuum withdrawals from porous bottom
sediments.
     The conductivity of the water samples as conductance
(umhos/cm) is given in the second column.  The nutrient analyses
for orthophosphorus (PO^-P), 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).

-------
               PO^.P
      Total
                                    PPM
                          Ac
AT/0

 £TP
p
*3L
     &
         325
      .027
                001
       .CM
                oof
       •us
         sss
       .DID
                001
       .oil
         SOD
      .D£>l
                rOOl
      .oiz
         140
       -oil
                .003
         aso
.003
                • ooj
      .O
                ,001
               .004
               -002.
                .037
         27^
,001
         350
.002=
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         a.

-------
         CO/U&.
                         P
                                            A-T/


                                             ATP
3£0
      *

••••*_* +^**~z»
.»Attf  a

                  .005
                 .00%
          37o
                 .(502
        •aoi
                  £>&!
                 . GOB
               .Oil
                  06^
                 ,001
                   D6
              .ISI
          375
                . 00 g
   to'
"SHo
0/7
                                                                                                     0

-------
       MV/CH
                     P
                                             A-Tf O
                   PPM  LAC
                                          AtJ
               OH
           034
        MOO
               .015
        Mlo
              ,009
65
S5
     S
               0/3
               009
        M75
     *
S
012,
                    /yy
-------
WPIC
                 fpr*
 P
ppm
                                                      A-T/C
Ac.

     _£

      6
     J.

     6
    Ji

     &
                         ,051
                 .141
                        ,041

-------
                                                                 C-6
                   5.0  NUTRIENT RELATIONSHIPS

     Two types  of  wastewater discharges were observed along the
shoreline of Green and Nest Lakes:  groundwater seepage and
surface water discharges«  The two sources are treated differently
in evaluating their loading contributions.
5-1  Groundwater Plumes
      By the use of a few calculations, the characteristics of
the wastewater plumes can be  described.  Firstly, a general
groundwater background concentration for conductance and nutrients
is determined.   The concentration of nutrients found in the plume
is then compared to the background and to wastewater effluent
from 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
of withdrawal of the groundwater plume sample, the nutrient
concentrations above background values found with the groundwater
plume are corrected to the assumed undiluted concentration
anticipated in local standard sand-filtered effluent (assuming
100# of conductance should pass through) and then divided by the
net nutrient content of raw effluent over municipal water.
Computational formulae can be expressed:

-------
                                                          C-6
for the difference between background (C ) and
observed (C,) values:

     C< - C  a &C.     conductance


     TP. - TP  « ATPj  total phosphorus


     TN. - TN  = ATN.  total nitrogen (here, sum of
       10      i  ""-N and *"*  "N
for attenuation during soil passage:

            AC A ATP
           /AC A ATP
     100 x ( .„  I  =rs —  a % breakthrough of phosphorus
           \AO^ /  ±rQ£
               A
              — )
              ^ /
           /AC
     100 x I r/;; — )  ==j —  = 95 breakthrough of nitrogen
where:  C    = conductance of background groundwater (jimhos/cm)

        Cj    » conductance of observed plume groundwater
               (jumhos/cm)

        AC  _, = conductance of sand-filtered effluent minus
               the background conductance of municipal
               source water (pmhos/cm)

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

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

        TP  - = total phosphorus concentration of standard
         61   effluent

        TN    a total nitrogen content  of background  ground-
          o
               water, here calculated as NO,-K + NH^-N
        TN.   = total nitrogen content of observed  plume
               groundwatero  here calculated as NO,-N + NH^-N
               (ppm - mg/1;

        TN f = total nitrogen content of standard  effluent

-------
                                                                C-6

5.2  Surface Runoff Plumes
     A number of locations were found where surface inflow occurred
the snow entered the shoreline lake waters.  The inflow was
treated similarly to stream inflow carrying wastewater loads.
Each inflow   -      carries a certain dissolved solids load
possessing its own peculiar nutrient concentration of phosphorus
(TP) and nitrogen (TN).   The percent effluent was characterized
in the surface water,  based on a comparison with a Salem effluent
standard.  The fraction  of phosphorus (TP) and nitrogen (TN)
expected in a diluted  sample of effluent with lake water was
then compared to the background-corrected solids load and
observed nutrient concentrations-.  The fraction of phosphorus
and nitrogen accounted for by the observed dilution wastewater
load is given as percent nutrient residual.  If the amount of
effluent-related nutrients is only a small percentage of the
observed loading, other  sources  must be contributing, presumably
due to road runoff,  agricultural runoff, or other non-point
                                 \
sources.
     The computational formulae can be expressed:
     F-g = fluorescent  units observed in water sample
     Fj, = fluorescent  units corresponding to background lake
          surface water
     Fg = fluorescent  units corresponding to 100# standard
          effluent from  nearby treatment plant
          F —F
     £F »  E  B = fraction of effluent observed in shoreline water
           Fs
     100 x &F = % E  = percentage of effluent observed in shoreline
                      water

-------
                                                                C-6
Table 3-  Bacterial content of shoreline samcles.
Water Body    Station
 Fecal Colifonn
Content (#/100 ml)
Comments
Nest Lake
N-l
N-2
N-3
N-4
N-5
Green Lake
G-l
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
G-9
G-10
G-ll
G-12
G-13
G-1A

4
100
3
0
22

20
0
0
0
20
2
4
0
170
60
0
0
80
4

Crow River at Hwy 23
11 " bridge inlet
Sample location #119
.• #125
#173

Olde Mill Inn - Crow R.
Outlet from Green Lake


Stream from unnamed lake
Pipe - town landing
Pipe

15" conduit drain - #527
House on nil! - #504


Creek bed - #398
Pond outflow - #421

-------
                                                                  C-6
     for fraction of nutrients accounted for by effluent  fraction:
                /
                (
          100 x -TS — — m^-   = observed phosphorus as %  of
                         ef    expected effluent fraction  in
                               shoreline water
          100 x -r*	mp-   » observed nitrogen as % of  expected
               ***  '     ef    effluent fraction in shoreline
                               water
5.3  Assumed Vastewater Characteristics
     Local samples of  effluent were  obtained  at the Spicer
sewage treatment  plant adjacent to Green Lake.  A conductance  :
total phosphorus  : total nitrogen ratio of 1190:2.5 was obtained.
Subtracting the background lake water  concentration of 320 umhos/cm
gives a  C : TP:  TN ratio of  870:2.5:,  representing the change
in concentration  to source water by  household use in the Green
Lakes study region.

-------
                                                                C-6
            6.0  COLIFORM LEVELS IN SURFACE WATERS


     Locations with detectable colifonn corresponded with .

previously documented sources.  The inflow of the Crow River

contained the most elevated levels in Nest Lake (100 mpn/100 ml),

but far below previously reported values.   The inlet to Green

Lake showed 20 mpn/100 ml,, although lower  than surface flows

from a conduit pipe (location 52?) and a pond outflow )location
                                . V
421).  No winter samples were found in excess of Minnesota water

quality standards for fecal coliform.

-------
                                                                C-6
Table 3-  Bacterial content of shoreline samples.
Water Body    Station
 Fecal Coliform
Content (#/100 ml)
Comments
Nest Lake
N-l
N-2
N-3
N-4
N-5
Green Lake
G-l
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
G-9
G-10
G-ll
G-12
G-13
G-14

4
100
3
0
22

20
0
0
0
20
2
4
0
170
60
0
0
80
4

Crow River at Hwy 23
" " bridge inlet
Sample location #119
" " #125
#173

Olde Mill Inn - Crow R.
Outlet from Green Lake


Stream from unnamed lake
Pipe - town landing
Pipe

15" conduit drain - #527
House on hill - #504

a
Creek bed - #398
Pond outflow - #421

-------
                                                                          APPENDIX
                                                                             C-7
                     GREEN LAKE SEPTIC SYSTEM ANALYSIS

     An analysis was done in the Green Lake Study Area to identify and locate
individual home sewage disposal systems exhibiting signs of failure utilizing
aerial imagery flown on August 20, 1978.  The two types of film used in the
aerial survey included normal color (Ektachrome 2448) and color infrared
(Ektachrome 2443), flow at a scale of 1:10,000.

     Failure of septic tank systems can usually be attributed to one or more
of the following causes:  1) the soil used in the absorption field has too
slow a percolation rate to allow for adequate assimilation, filtration, and
biodegradation of sewage effluent flowing into it, 2) the septic system is
installed too close to an underlying impervious layer, 3) the soil used in the
absorption field has too high a percolation rate for effective attenuation of
sewage effluent prior to its reaching underlying groundwater, 4) mechanical
malfunctions, or breakage, in the septic tank, distribution box, and/or drain-
age lines have occurred, 5) caustic, toxic, or otherwise harmful substances
which could kill bacteria in the septic tank and/or absorption field, and
cause subsequent clogging, have been flushed into the system, and 6) all or
part of the system has been improperly installed.  Other potential causes for
on-lot disposal system malfunctions which are noticeable on the surface can
be detected on aerial imagery.  Those failures which are related to sewage
backing up into the home, or too rapid transport through the soil into the
groundwater cannot be detected via remote sensing.  In instances where the
latter is occurring, the use of a soil lysimeter or similar apparatus may be
necessary to determine the existence of a problem.

     Based upon work undertaken to date, it has been determined that the pri-
mary surface manifestations associated with failing septic tanks and/or
absorption field are:  1) conspicuously lush vegetation, 2) dead vegetation
(specifically grass), 3) standing wastewater or seepage, and 4) dark soil
where excess organic matter has accumulated.  All of the above are a result
of the upward movement of partially treated or untreated wastewater to the
soil surface, and usually appear either directly above or adjacent to one or
more components of the septic system (i.e. septic tank, distribution box, and/
or absorption field).  More often than not, two or more of these manifestations
will occur simultaneously at any given homesite.  In some cases, depending upon
the soil's makeup of the particular area, the outline of the drainage line(s)
of a properly functioning septic system can be distinguished on aerial photo-
graphy.  This peculiarity points up the need for tailoring "photo interpre-
tation keys" to specific geographical areas.

     Using the above signatures as photo interpretation keys, 47 homesites in
the Study Area were chosen for ground inspection.  Of these, two were deter-
mined to have failing septic tanks or absorption fields at the time of the
inspection, and eight were judged to be marginally failing systems (see
Figure 11-11).  The marginally failing systems were those that exhibited signs
of having failed in the past, or having the potential for malfunctioning dur-
ing periods of excessive use or moderate to heavy rainfall.

     The overestimatibn of suspect sites is attributed primarily to the simi-
larity in signatures of failing septic systems and unrelated ground phenomena.
This problem was especially apparent when analyzing the homesites immediately

-------
                                                                               C-7
adjacent to water in the Study Area.  Most of these homes are situated on
sandy soil which exhibited a wide range of signatures (e.g. varying soil
colors and tones, and "patchy" vegetative cover), thus making it difficult
to discriminate between natural phenomena and septic tank system failures.
Many "suspect" sites were identified around the lake in the photo analysis,
but not many surface-related failures in this area were found in the subse-
quent ground inspection.

     The high percentage of tree cover, particularly near the water, also
presented problems during the photo analysis.  It is possible that some fail-
ures may have been missed because they were obscured by foliage and/or
shadows cast by trees and/or large shrubs.  No additional failures, however,
were uncovered on fairly extensive walks around Green Lake.

     Thus, based upon the photo analysis and the subsequent ground inspection,
it was concluded that most, if not all, of the septic systems in the Study
Area exhibiting surface failures in sandy soils and under vegetation canopies,
it is possible that some malfunctioning systems may not have been detected.
As mentioned above, however, this assumption was not supported by findings
of the ground inspection.
1)  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources,
    Technical Manual for Sewage Enforcement Officers, May 1975.

-------
                             KANDIYOHI COUNTY SANITARY CODE
                                                        APPENDIX
                                                           C-8
 1-408 SEWES AND  WATER
            SYSTEMS

 All sewage and water systems
 hereafter  constructed or main-
 tained  shall conform with  the
 provisions of  this  SUBTITLE
 •and  any  other  ordinances  or
 regulations of Kandiyohi Coun-
 ity and the State of  Minnesota.

 Subdivision 1.  Standards.
 Public sanitary sewers shall be
 installed as required by stand-
 ards and specifications as estab-
 lished  by  the  Board of County
 Commissioners.

 Subdivision 2.  Franchise.
 Where  municipal  public sani-
I tary sewer is not available,  the
I Board of County Commissioners
; may by ordinance  grant  a fran-
• chise for  such sewers to serve
! all properties in the area where
: a complete and adequate com-
; munity sanitary sewer  system
j and  plant are  designed,   and
 complete  plans for the  system
 and plant are  submitted  to  and
 approved by the Board of Coun-
j ry Commissioners  and the Min-
 nesota State  Board  of  Health
I before construction.

| Subdivision 3.  Individual Sewaga
i   Systems.
I Location and installation of in-
| dividual  sewage disposal   sys-
i terns  and each   part  thereof
! shall be such that, with reason-
j able maintenance,  it  will func-
 tion in a  sanitary manner  and
 will not create a nuisance or en-
 danger the safety of any domes-
 tic  water supply.  In determin-
 ing a suitable location  for  the
 system, consideration  shall  be
 given to the  size and shape of
 the  lot.  slope  of  natural   and
: finished  grade, soil  permeabil-
i ity, depth of ground  water, geo-
i logy,  proximity to existing or
 future water  supplies,  accessi-
 bility for  maintenance and pos-
 sible  expansion  of the system.
 The following rules and regula-
 tions  shall apply to  individual
 sewage disposal systems:
   a. No part of the system'shall
      be  located so  that it is
      nearer to any  water.sup-
      ply than outlined herein-
      after, or  so  that  surface
      drainage from its location
      may reach any domestic
      water supply.
   b. Raw sewage, septic tank
      effluent,  or seepage from
      a  soil absorption  system
      shall not be discharged to
      the ground surface, aban-
      doned wells,  or bodies of
      surface water, or into  any
      rock formation  the struc-
      ture of  which is not  con-
      ducive to  purification of
      water by filtration, or in-
      to any well or other exca-
   vation in the ground which ;
   does not comply with  the |
   requirements of the Ordin-
   ance.    This  requirement
   shall not apply to  the  dis-
   posal of sewage in accord- •
   ance with  a  process  ap-'
   proved by the State Board ;
   of Health and The Pollu-
   tion Control Agency.      !
c.  The  system   or   systems i
   shall  be designed to  re-
   ceive all sewage from  the
   dwelling,   building,   or
   other establishment serv-
   ed,   including    laundry
   waste and  basement floor
   drainage.  Footing  or roof
   drainage  shall  not  enter
   any part  of  the  system.
   Where  the  construction of
   additional  bedrooms,  the
   installation of mechanical
   equipment, or other  fac-
   tors likely to  affect  the
   operation   of  the  system
   can be  reasonably antici-
   pated,  the installation of
   a   system  adequate   for
   such anticipated need shall
   be, required.
d. The system  shall  consist
   of a building sewer, a  wa-
   tertight septic tank, and a
   soil absorption unit.  The
   soil absorption unit shall
   consist  of a sub-surface'
   disposal field  of  one or j
   more seepage  pits,  or  a i
   combination  of  the  two. j
   All sewage shall be treat- j
   ed  in the septic tank  and I
   the  septic tank  effluent j
   shall be discharged to the '
   disposal field or  seepage •
   pits. Where  unusual con-
   ditions  exist,  other   sys-
   tems  of disposal  may be
   employed,  provided  that;
   they comply with all other i
   provisions  of this Ordin-1
   ance.                    ;
e. No  buried  or  concealed i
   portion  of  the   building
   sewer, or building  drain or
   branch thereof serving any
   establisment shall  be locat-
   ed  less than  50 feet from
   any water supply well
f. The portions of any buried
   sewer  more  than  50  feet
   from a  well or buried  sue-j
   tion line  shall be of  ade-
   quate size and constructed
   of  cast-iron, vitrified clay.
   cement-asbestos,  concrete
   or  other pipe material ac-
   ceptable to the State Board
   of  Health. Clay pipe  and
   clay pipe fittings shall  con-
   form to R.S.T.M. specifi-
   cations  for   standard
   strength or extra  strength {
   clay pipe  and  clay  pipe
   fittings. No building drain
   or building sewer  shall be
   less than four (4) inches
   in  diameter.  Only  septic i
   tanks meeting the specifi-
   cations  prescribed by  the
   Minnesota  Department of
   Health and Minnesota Pol-
   lution Control Agency may
   be installed  or  construct-
   ed.
g.  The location  of  the septic
   tank shall be such  as to
   provide not  less than  the
   stated  distances from  the
   following:
   (1) Property lines buried
       pipe distributing wat-
       er under pressure  and
       occupied buildings.
                10  feet
   (2) Any source of domes-
       tic  water  supply  or
       buried  water suction
       line.
                50  feet
h.  The  liquid  capacity of  a
   septic tank serving a dwell-
   ing shall be  based on  the
   number of bedrooms  con-
   templated in the dwelling
   served, and  shall in  all
   cases, be of minimum tank
   capacity of  1,000 gallons
   and shall have an addition-
   al tank capacity  of 250 gal-
   lons for each and  every
   bedroom over and  above
   four bedrooms. The liquid
   capacity of a septic tank
   serving an  establishment.
   other  than   a   dwelling:
   shall be sufficient to  pro- j
   vide a  sewage  detentionI
   period of not less than 3 j
   days in the tank, but in no
   instance shall it  be  less
   than 1,000 gallons.
i.  Location  of  the  disposal
   field shall be in an unob-
   structed and  preferably un- j
   shaded  area, and the  dis-
   tance given below shall be
   the  minimum  horizontal j
   separations  between  the
   disposal field and the fol- •
   lowing:
   (1) Any   water   supply
       well,  or buried water!
       suction pipe   SOfeet
   (2) Streams  or  other
       bodies of water.
       50 feet on general de-
       velopment lakes:
       75 feet on recreation-
       al development lakes.
       100 feet  on natural de-
       velopment  lakes.
   (31 Occupied buildings
                     20  feet
   (4) Large trees    10  feet
   (5) Property lines or buri-
       ed  pipe distributing
       water under pressure
                      10  feet
   When  coarse soil forma-
   tions are  encountered, the
   distance specified in items
   (1)  and  (2) shall be in-
   creased appropriately.

-------
                                                                                                   C-8
  j. A modification of the per-
     colation test may be used '
     where the percolation test
     procedure has been prev-
     iously used and knowledge
     is available  on  the  char-
     acter  and  uniformity  of
     the  soil.
     1. Soil absorption systems
     shall not be acceptable for
     disposal, of domestic  sew-
     age  for development under
     the  following conditions.
     (1)  Low swampy areas  or
         areas subject to recur-
         rent flooding; or
     (2)  Areas where the high-
         est known ground wa-
         ter table is within four
         feet of the bottom  of
         the soil absorption sys-
         tem at any time; or
     (3)  Areas of exposed bed-
         rock or  shallow  bed-
         rock within four feet
         of the bottom of a soil
         absorption system  or
         any other geologic for-
         mation which prohibits
         percolation  of the  ef-
         fluent; or
     (4)  Areas of ground slope
         where there is danger
         of seepage of effluent
         onto the surface of the
         ground, in accordance
         with the  following cri-
        . tical slope values:
Percolation           Critical
rate (minutes)         Slope
Less than  3      20% or more
3 to 45            15% or more
45 to 65           .10% or more
     (5) The Zoning Adminis-
         trator shall  determine
         when it  is  physically
         and economically feas-
         ible for  the owner or
         operator of a  lot  ad-
         joining a body  of wat-
         er to locate his septic
         system  on  a  side  of
         the cottage or dwelling
         unit  other  than  the
         side facing  a body of
         water.
     (6) No by-pass  of the sep-
         tic system  that will
         permit a direct  input
         of  water,  sewage  or
         any  effluent  into  a
         body of  water  will be
         permitted.
   k. Servicing  of  septic tanks
     and soil  absorption  units
     shall conform to the Min-
     nesota Department of
     Health and Minnesota Pol-
     lution Control Agency spe-
     cifications.    Disposal  of
     sludge  and scum removed
     from the system shall be:
      (1) Into a municipal sew-
         age  disposal  system
          where practicable.
      (2) In the  absence of a
         public sewer, at a dis-
         posal  site designated
         by  the   Zoning  Ad-
         ministrator.
     (3)  Sludge shall not  be
         discharged   into  any
         lake  or   watercourse,
         nor  on land without
         burial.

 1.  Alternative Systems
     (1)  Alternative   methods
         of   sewage   disposal
         such as holding tanks,
         electric or gas inciner-
         ators  biological  and/
         or tertiary waste treat-
         ment plans,  land dis-
         posal  systems,  nodak
         system,  wherever  re-
         quired or allowed in
         particular  c i r c u in-
         stances,  shall be  sub-
         ject to the  standards,
         criteria,   rules   and
         regulations    of   the
         Minnesota Department
         of  Health and  Pollu-
         tion Control Agency.
 m. A  sanitary privy is  per-
     missible  subject  to  the
     rules  and regulations of
     Minnesota Pollution Con-
     trol Agency  and the Min-
     nesota    Department   of
     Health.
 n.  All  sewage  disposal  sys-
     tems shall be inspected by
     the  Zoning Administrator
     before  backfilled,  or  if
     backfilled prior to such
     inspection thereof, the in-
     staller  of  such  sewage
     disposal system  shall cer-
     tify in the Office of the
     Zoning Administrator, with-
     in ten days of such back-
     filling,  that  the  sewage
     disposal  system was  in-
     stalled  in full  and com-
     plete  compliance with all
     the provisions of the com-
     prehensive zoning  ordin-
     ance  applicable to  said
     system,   such certification
     to be made on the original
     permit  on record  in  the
     Office of Zoning Adminis-
     trator.

Subdivision 4. Agricultural
  Waste  Disposal.
Any agricultural waste disposal
operations  in  shoreland  areas
must conform to the  standards,
criteria,  rules  and  regulations
of the Minnesota Pollution Con-
trol  Agency.

Subdivision 5. Water  Systems.
  a. Public water facilities, in-
      cluding  pipe fittings, hy-
      drants,  etc.,  shall  be in-
      stalled  and  maintained as
      required by standards and
      specifications as establish-
      ed by the Board of County
      Commissioners   and  the
      Minnesota Department of
     Health standards for wa-
     ter quality.
  b. Where public water facili-
     ties  are  not available, the
     Board of County Commis-
     sioners may by  ordinance
     grant a franchise for such
     water  facilities, to serve
     all properties within the
     area where a complete and
     adequate community  wat-
     er distribution  system  is
     designed,   and  complete
     plans  for  the system are
     submitted  to and approved
     by the  Board  of  County
     Commissioners   and  the
     Minnesota   Department  of
     Health.
  c. Individual   wells shall  be
     constructed and maintain-
     ed according to standards
     and regulations approved
     by the  Board  of  County;
     Commissioners   and  the
     Minnesota  Department  of
     Health.
     Private  wells   shall   be
     placed in areas not subject
     to flooding  and upslope
     from  any   source  of  con-
     tamination. Wells  already
     existing in  areas  subject
     to flooding shall be flood
     proofed,   in  accordance
     with procedures establish-
     ed in Statewide  Standards
     and Criteria for the Man-
     agement of  Flood  Plain
     Areas of Minnesota.

Subdivision  7. Permits.
  a. No person,  firm  or corpor-
     ation shall install, alter,  re-
     pair, or extend any  indi-
     vidual   sewage  disposal
     system in the County with-
     out first obtaining  a  per-
     mit from the County  Zon-
     ing  Administrator for the
     specific installation, alter-
     ation, repair  or  extension;
     and, at the time of apply-
     ing for  said  permit, shall
     pay a  fee as  established
     by  the  Board  of County
     Commissioners.  Such per-
     mits shall be valid  for a
     period of  six (6) months
     from date  of issue.
  b.  Application  for  permits
     shall  be made  in writing
     upon  printed  blanks  or
     forms  furnished  by  the
     County  Zoning  Adminis-
     trator and shall be signed
     by the applicant.
  c.  Each application for a per-
     mit shall have thereon the
     correct legal description of
     the property on which the
     proposed   installation,  al-
     teration, repair, or exten-
     sion is  to  take  place, and
     each application for a per-
     mit shall  be accompanied
     by a plot  plan  of the land
     showing  the  location  of

-------
                                                                                         C-8
     any proposed  or existing
     buildings  located  on the
     property with  respect to
     the boundary lines  of the
     property  and   complete
     plans of the proposed sys-
     tem  with  substantiating
     data, if necessary,  attest-
     ing  to  the   compliance
     with  the minimum stand-
     ards  of this Ordinance. A
     complete  plan  shall  in-
     clude the location, size and
     design  of  all  parts  of the
     system to  be  installed, al-
     tered, repaired, or extend-
     ed. The application shall
     also show the present or'
     proposed location  of wat- <
     ter supply facilities  and!
     water  supply  piping, and:
     the name  of  the  person,'
     firm  or corporation who j
     is  to  install  the  system,;
     and shall provide such fur-;
     ther  information as may j
     be required by the County |
     Zoning Administrator.     j
  d.  When an application is fil-1
     ed for  a permit to  install. |
     alter, repair or extend any
     sewage disposal  system as
     provided above, the Zon-
     ing Administrator,  in ad-
     dition to all other require-
     ments,  may require that a
     soil  percolation  test  be
     taken  on the  lot in ques-
     tion  to determine  if the
     lot area is of  sufficient
     size to support the  pro-
     posed sewage system. Such
     test shall be conducted by
     a testing firm or engineer
     as approved by the Coun-
     ty Board  and the  results
     certified by the same and
     filed in the Office of Zon-
     ing Administrator.  Where
     a  lot is deemed of insuf-
     ficient  area according to
     standards   and  specifica-
     tions as established by the
     Board  of County Commis-
     sioners, the  Zoning  Ad-
     ministrator  shall  require
     that a  modified  system or
     increased  lot area be pro-
     vided  in  order  to fully
     comply with  the required
     standards  before any per-
     mit shall be issued.
  e.  This section shall  not ap-
     ply to  an  individual mak-
     ing repairs on his own sys-
     tem.

Subdivision  8. Construction
  Requirements.
Every individual sewage  dispos-
al system installed after the ef-
fective  date  of this Ordinance
and  every alteration, extension
and  repair to any system made
after the date shall conform to
the  standards adopted in Para-
graph 3 of this SUBTITLE. Any
individual sewage  disposal sys-
tem  or pertinent  part  thereof,
irrespective of the date of orig-
inal  installation,  which  is  not
located, constructed or installed
in accordance  with this SUB-
TITLE shall be so relocated, re-
constructed or reinstalled as to
comply  with the standards  of
those items.
     Source:   Zoning Ordinance
                 Kandiyohi County,  MN
                 April  1972.

-------
                                                                           APPENDIX
                                                                             C-9
                   SUMMARY OF GREEN LAKE SANITARY SURVEY


 1.) 12% of the homes in tier I were surveyed (63 of 509).

 2.) 30% of the permanent dwellings and 6% of the seasonal were surveyed.

 3.) The population was up to 8 times greater during summer (3,015) than
     during winter (384).

 4.) Segments 16, 20, 21, and 22 were predominantly seasonal.

 5.) There were no problem areas.

 6.) The most common septic system was septic tank/trench (29%).  Also common
     were septic tank/drainfield and septic tank/leach tank.

 7.) There were problems with 12 of the systems (16%):

         -5 were scheduled for repair
         -4 had very occasional problems
^        -3 could not be explained and may need off-site or waterless treatment.

 8.) The percentage of problems:

         -increased dramatically with age
         -was greater for small tanks

 9.) Much of the east shore was "too close" to groundwater, yet the percentage
     of problems there was no greater than anywhere else on the lake.

10.) Cladophora sp. was not helpful as an indicator of septic problems.

11.) Many residents could have been contributing nutrients to Green Lake without
     experiencing any surface problems.

12.) "The sewer" was a heavy political issue, with strong pro and anti factions.

13.) Most residents did not realize there were alternatives to "the sewer", or
     that many of their fears (pro and anti) had become irrelevant.

14.) All of the residents interviewed agreed on three points:

     -November was a bad time to sruvey
    • -make  a  decision soon
     -include the Crow River in any alternative to be considered.

-------
                                APPENDIX D-l

                  FISHES OF GREEN, NEST, AND DIAMOND LAKES,
                BASED ON 1971 MINNESOTA DNR FISHERIES SURVEY
                                                 Pounds of Fish Caught
Common Name
Scientific Name
Green
Lake
Nest
Lake '
Diamond
Lake
Cisco
Walleye
Northern Pike
Smallmouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Perch
Rock Bass
White Crappie
White Sucker
Bullheads
Bluegill
Pumpkinseed
Carp
Green Sunfish
Black Redhorse
Dogfish
                                                     B
Coregonus artedii             23
Stizostedion vitreum       10.23
Esox lucius                 1.76
Micropterus dolomieui       0.89
Micropterus salmoides       0.41
Perca flavescens           14.33
Ambloplites rupestris      19.56
Pomoxis annularis           0.44
Catostomus commersoni       2.0
Ictalurus sp.              11.0
Lepomis macrochirus        19.26
Lepomis gibbosus           10.13
Cyprinus carplo             1.03
Lepomis cyanellus           6.0
Moxostoma duquesnei
Amia calva
 7.22
.1.42

 0.06
13.90
 4.
 3.
 2.
  .06
  ,38
   57
18.80
 1.7
 0.28
 0.18
 0.16
 0.06
            18.0
             1.27

             0.44
             9.34
  ,25
  .83
15.06
 3.75
 1.81
 1.75
1.
1.
             0.06
             0.44
  Values are based on standardized gill- and trap-net methods and provide an
  indication of the relative abundance of the fish in the lakes.
  The number caught.

-------
                                APPENDIX D-2

                       MAMMALS OF THE GREEN LAKE AREA
Common Name
Scientific Name
Principal Habitat
Arctic Shrew
Masked Shrew
Northern Water Shrew
Pygury Shrew
Short-tailed Shrew
Little Brown Myotis
Keen's Myotis
Silver-haired bat
Big Brown Bat
Red Bat
Hoary Bat
Eastern Cottontail
White-tailed Jackrabbit
Eastern Chipmunk
Woodchuck
Gray Squirrel
Fox Squirrel
Red Squirrel
Southern Flying Squirrel
Plains Pocket Gopher
Plains Pocket Mouse
Beaver
Western Harvest Mouse
White-footed Mouse
Deer Mouse
Southern Red-backed Vole
Meadow Vole
Prairie Vole
Muskrat
Southern Bog Lenning
Norway Rat
House Mouse
Meadow Jumping Mouse
Porcupine
Coyote
Red Fox
Gray Fox
Raccoon
Ermine
Least Weasel
Long-tailed Weasel
Mink
Badger
Eastern Spotted Skunk
Striped Skunk
Sorex articus
Sorex ciriereus
Sorex palustris
Microsorex hoyi
Blarina brevicauda
Myotis lucifugas
Myotis keenii
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Eptesicus fuscus
Lasiurus borealis
Lasiurus cinereus
Sylvilagus floridanus
Lepus townsendi
Tamias striatus
Marnota Monax
Sciurus carolinensis
Sciurus niger
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Glaucomys volans
Geomys bursarius
Perognathus flavescens
Castor Canadensis
Reithrodontomys megalotis
Peromyscus lencopus
Peromyscus maniculatus
Clethrionomys gapperi
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Microtug ochrogaster
Ondatra zibethicus
Synaptomys cooperi
Rattus norvegicus
Mus musculus
Zapus hudsonius
Erethizon dorsatum
Canis latrans
Vulpes vulpes
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Procyon lotor
Mustela enninea
Mustela nivalis
Mustela frenata
Mustela vison
Taxidea taxus
Spiiogale putorius
Mephitj.s mephitis
Wooded swamps
Wide range; moist
Wetlands; Stream Areas
Wide range
Wide range
Summer resident
Summer resident
Summer resident
Summer resident
Simmer resident
Summer resident
Forest edge
Open Grassland
Deciduous forest
Open woods
Deciduous forest
Deciduous forest
Coniferous/mixed forest
Deciduous forest
Grassland
Open Grassland
Edge of water
Grassland
Wooded or brushy areas
Wide range
Woodland
Grassland
Grassland
Marshes
Meadows
In/Near Buildings
In/Near Buildings
Meadows
Woodland
Wide range
Open lands
Woodland
Wide range
Wet Woodland
Wide range
Wide range
Near Water
Grasslands
Woodland
Wide range

-------
                 MAMMALS OF THE GREEN LAKE AREA (Continued)


Common Name                Scientific Name              Principal Habitat


River Otter                Lutra canadensis             Near Water
White-tailed Deer          Odocoileus virginianus       Near forest
SOURCES:  Bart, W.H., and R.P. Grossenheider.  1974.  A field guide to the
          mammals.  Houghton Miffin Co., Boston, 284 pp. (used for distribution
          maps).

          Jones,  J.K., Jr., D.C. Carter, and H.H. Gerroways.  1975.  Revised
          checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico.  Occasional
          papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University, Lubbock No. 28, 14 pp.
          (used for accepted order and current scientific and common names).

          Gernes, C.  New London Fish Hatchery, by telephone, October 24, 1978.

-------
                                                                        APPENDIX
                                                                           E-i
                   POPULATION PROJECTION METHODOLOGY





     WAPORA, Inc.  produced  independent  estimates  of population  in  the


Proposed Service  for 1976  and  an independent projection  of  population


for  the  year 2000.  The  1976 summer population estimate  totaled 6,901


persons  and  consisted  of 2,401  permanent residents and 4,500  seasonal


residents.    The  year 2000  summer  population has  been  projected  to  be


8,407  with  permanent   residents  accounting  for   4,807   and  seasonal


residents accounting for  3,600.   The  population of the proposed Green


Lake  Service Area  is  highest  during  the  summer  months.   The  summer


population   estimate  and   projection   is  used  to  design  wastewater


facilities which will be  able to collect and treat the  peak flows which


occur during summer.





     The principal sources  of   population  data used  by  WAPORA  varied


considerably  in  terms of  the type  of population  included  (permanent,


seasonal, and total  summer) and the level at which population  data  has


been  prepared  for  (county, minor civil  division,  service area).   The


1970  Census  of Population  provides a baseline number for  the permanent


residential  population  by  minor civil  division  and also  provides  the


baseline for the  number  of persons per dwelling unit.   Census cannot be


disaggregated directly below the minor  civil division  level  to provide


information  specific to  the proposed Green Lake Service Area.  An esti-


mate  of  1975 population  by minor  civil  division  is contained in the US


Bureau of  the  Census Current Population Estimates.  These estimates are


based  on records  of vital  statistics  (births and  deaths)  and migration


data.   The  US  Bureau of   the  Census  Estimates also  are  only  for  the
325 Bl

-------
                                                                           E-l
permanent  population and  cannot be  disaggregated  directly below  the




minor  civil  division level.   Considerable  error  in  the  estimate  of



population  can occur  using the US Bureau of Census Estimate methodology



in  areas such  as  the  proposed  Green  Lake  Service  Area which  have  a




relatively  low population.








     The  1976 population  estimate developed by WAPORA was  based  on the



following:








     o    1970 Census of Population;








     o    1975  US  Bureau  of  the  Census   Current  Population  Reports



          (Series P-25);








     o    1976 Green Lake Property Owners' Association Directory;








     o    1976 Green Lake homeowners roster  (computer printout);








     o    Aerial photographs ; and








     o    Field survey.








     A  general  estimate  of the existing population of the townships and



communities containing  the proposed  Study Area  was  determined through



use  of the  1970  Census  of  Population  and the US Bureau of the Census



Current  Population Reports  for  1975 population.  The  1970 Census data



provided  a  baseline  for  both estimates  and projections  of Study Area
325 B2

-------
                                                                           E-l
population.   The Current  Population Reports  provided  an estimate  of




growth  trends  for  the 1970  to  1975  period.   A 22%  increase  in  the




population  of the  Townships  and communities  (minor civil  divisions)




containing  the  proposed  Study  Area  was  indicated  by  the  Current




Population Reports.








     A  precise  estimate  of  1976 Study  Area population  was  determined




through use  of  the  1976  Green Lake Property Owners' Directory and  the




computer printout, 1976, of homeowners in the Green Lake area.  The data




listed  all  residences  and provided  an enumeration of seasonal and per-




manent  residences along Green Lake.   Aerial photographs  and an on-ground




house count  were employed to determine the  number of residences in the




proposed Study Area  but not included in the Green Lake data.   Using the




source  WAPORA  determined the  1976  summer population  (6,901)  of  the




proposed Green Lake Study Area.








     The   1976  population  estimate   and  projections   of   permanent




population   developed   by  the  Minnesota  State  Planning  Agency  for




Kandiyohi County.  The minor civil division populations in the year 2000




were  determined  by  assuming   that  the  local   shares  of  the County's




population in  the year 2000 would be the same as the local shares of the




County's growth  between 1970 and  1975.








     Projected growth  of  the minor civil  division was  allocated to the




proposed Study Area  and added  to the 1976 population estimate  to deter-




mine  the year 2000 population  of the proposed  Study Area.  The propor-




tions  of  projected  minor civil  division  growth assigned  to  the Study




Area were  as  follows:






325 B3

-------
                                                                           E-l
     o    100% of Spicer;




     o    100% of New London Village;




     o    100% of Irving Township;




     o    80%  of New  London Village  (50%  on Green  Lake,  20% on  Nest

          Lake, and 10% in the New London Village vicinity); and




     o    40% of Green Lake Township.




The  allocations  were further  refined  on the  basis  of existing  zoning

regulations  and the  availability of  land  for  lakefront  development.




     The  projection  indicates a  decline  in seasonal  residences  and

population by the year 2000.  It is assumed that  the projected permanent
                   •
population growth  will  consist of some current  seasonal  residents  con-

verting  their residences  into full-year  structures and becoming  per-

manent  residents.    The other component  of  the  permanent  population

increase  consists  of  new  residents migrating into  the proposed  Study

Area.  Overall,  20%  of  seasonal dwellings are expected to  be converted

into  permanent  residences  by the year  2000.   New  seasonal  population

growth will  occur,  however,  it is assumed to  occur  at a  rate below the

rate of conversion from seasonal to permanent.   Population estimates for

1976  and  year 2000  population projects  are listed  in Chapter 2,  Table

II-9.
325 B4

-------
                                                       Retirement__-_ Age ronuljUtpn 1970QJ



                                                                       KnnrUvnM                              Hev l.oiidrm     Brw London             of             Crceit Like                ll.irrlpinn            Irving
                 	UnJ tcd_ .Sta^ea	Mtnnesyto _      	 Coynjjr	 Study Aj^ca     __  1_uwnahtj>      ^MOBf—        	Splcer	TSfPS.''.'?	        	.Tow.nit!t.lp_.       __ fiiwnshlp	  	

                 	JH4*er_	  .P'T"'".!    __ Hunbe^r   Percent   Nw*«£   Percent   Hn   701,2.11.000     lOO.OOn   3,Rn4.Q71    1OO.OOO   TO, 54ft   JOO.OOO   4,618   IOO.OOO     1.166 I (TO. Oil    727    100. OO    M5   inn.OO     'OO          IOO.(M)          719    1OO.W     49T      100.(»0
 ^-^                0,fl79.000        A.->1     177.011      4.A5    1.70*       5.58     2*2      6.11        7f.   ft.%2      14   "7.42      '1     ll.M      *'            *'%6           14      *•'*        ft        '•"


 fio"*'A                «,621.OOO        4.24     155.454      4.OO    1.901       ft.22     791      6. »       69   i.92      *i5     P.94      44      7. H      5*            fc-l!           *rt      *»-fi<*        I0       2.O1


 *5"7*               12.443.000        A.I?     &07.456      10.71    J.32O       7.59     39fl      H.62       B6   7.M      99    13.62      52      ft.46      '7            B.56           16      5.02        4A       V.74


 75 fl«1  n«r          7.5TO.OOO        1.71                         .  1.771       5.80     291      6.3O       91   7.RO      Rl    tl.14      33      S.S7      "            2''!  .





 Source:   IT-S.  Tmntis nt  Pnpulntlnn,  I97O.                   «

          U.S.  CcntK»i of  PnpuUUnn .ind IhnnlnR.   Fifth Cnvrt  Suwiry TflfK-.,  1970.




Hole:   (I)   nirrrrcnrrn  cxlntlnp between reported locwl unit  totnlfl fro« rcmplcte cetmin und  flftli roiml dttt.t arv diw to  «n«ftllnK errnrn lo th*
             f I f th rotnit  tnhut.tt (fits.  Tlirrp  ri ntti .ire n.irtlru|.irly not \r.th\r tttr  liu'nl iml tn with ffipulnt IrmB of leu*  thnn ?V10.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              n
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              to

-------
                                Table 2
                                                                           E-2
                            PER CAPITA INCOME
       State of Minnesota

       Kandiyohi County

       Study Area

       New London Township

       Green Lake Township

       Irving Township

       New London Village

       Spicer

       Harrison Township
                             1969
1974
Percent Change
 (1969-1970)
$3038
2539
2561
2252
2514
1949
3106
2907
3502
$4675
4367
4291
. 4039
4016
2918
5180
4829
5781
53.9
72.0
67.6
79.4
59.7
49.7
66.8
66.1
65.1
Source:  U.S. Census, Population Estimates and Projections (Series
         P-25-), May 1977.

-------
                                                                            E-2
                                 Table 3


                 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY INCOME 1970
       Under $1,000

       $1,000 - 1,999

       $2,000 - 2,999

       $3,000 - 3,999

       $4,000 - 4,999

       $5,000 - 5,999

       $6,000 - 6,999

       $7,000 - 7,999

       $8,000 - 9,999

       $10,000-14,999

       $15,000-24,999

       $25,000-49,999

       $50,000 and over
Sources:  U.S. Census, General Social and Economic
          Characteristics, 1970.

          U.S. Census, Census of Population and Housing
          Fifth County Summary Tapes, 1970.
State of
Minnesota
1.8
2.9
4.3
4.8
4.8
5.2
5.7
6.6
14.4
29.2
15.9
3.6
0.7
Kandiyohi
County
2.5
3.8
5.8
6.3
6.6
8.0
7.5
8.3
13.5
25.2
9.8
2.4
0.1
Study Area
3.5
1.8
6.7
6.6
5.0
9.6
5.8
10.2
15.4
22.2
9.7
3.1
0.5

-------
                                                                             E-2
                                 Table 4
                       POVERTY STATUS-FAMILIES 1970
      Area
   Number of
Families Below
 Poverty Level
  Percent of
Families Below
 Poverty Level
Minnesota
    75,923
      8.2
Kandiyohi County
Study Area
       832
       127
     11.0


     10.8
Green Lake Township
        35
     14.4
Harrison Township
Irving Township
        28
     22.8
New London Township
        45
     13.9
New London Village
Spicer Village
        11
      5.2


      4.4
Sources:  U.S. Census of Population and Housing, Fifth Count Summary
          Tapes, 1970.

          U.S. Census of Population-1970, Supplementary Report issued
          December 1975.

-------
                                                                            E-2
                                Table  5
                POVERTY STATUS-PERSONS  65  YEARS  AND OLDER 1970
      Area


  Minnesota


  Kandiyohi County


  Study Area


  Green Lake Township
   f

  Harrison Township


  Irving Township


  New London Township


  New London Village


  Spicer Village
   Percent of
Total Population
65 Years and Older
   Percent of
Persons 65 Years
     and Older
Below Poverty Level
10.7
13.4
14.9
10.7 .
7.1
20.3
15.2
24.8
13.8
26.8
31.6
22.3
11.5
—
10.0
43.9
23.3
24.7
Source:  U.S. Census of Population and Housing,  Fifth Count Summary
         Tapes,  1970.

         U.S. Census of Population - 1970,  Supplementary Report,  is-
         sued December 1975.

-------
        APPENDIX E-2




Supporting Socioeconomic Data

-------
                                                                       APPENDIX
                                                                         E-2
                                   Table 1

                     MEAN AND MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME 1970


                                           Mean
United States

Minnesota

Kandiyohi

Study Area


New London Township


New London Village


Spicer (City)


Green Lake Township


Harrison Township


Irving Township
Median
$10,999
11,048
9,160
9,285
7,195
10,310
9,154
8,514
14,385
6,626
$9,586
9,928
8,161
Not
Available
Not
Available
Not
Available
Not
Available
Not
Available
Not
Available
Not
Available
              Sources:  U.S. Census of Population and Housing,
                        Fifth Count Summary Tapes, 1970.
                        U.S. Census of Population, 1970.

-------
                          Flow Reduction and Cost  Data for Water  Saving Devices
                                                                                                       APPENDIX
                                                                                                          F-l

Device
Daily
Conservation
(gpd)
Daily
Conservation
(hot water)
(gpd)
Capital
Cost
Installation
Cost
Useful
Life-
Cyrs.).
Average
Annual
06.M
Toilet modifications
Water displacement          10
 device—plastic
 bottles, bricks, etc.

Water damming device        30

Dual flush adaptor          25

Improved ballock
 assembly                   20
Shower flow control
 insert device

Alternative shower
  equipment

Flow control shower, head
Shower cutoff valve

Thermostatic oiixing
 valve
19
19
               0

               0-
              3.25

              4.00


              3.00
14
14
 2.00




15.00


 2.00


62.00
              H-0°



              H-0

              H-0


              H-0
                                          H-0
H-0 or
13.30

H-0
                                                                      13.30
               20

               10


               10
               15
Alternative toilets
Shallow trap toilet
Dual cycle toilet
Vacum toilet
Incinerator toilet
Organic waste treatment
system
Recycle toilet
Faucet modifications
Aerator
Flow control device
Alternative faucets
Foow control faucet
Spray tap faucet
Shower modification
30
60
90
100
100
100
1
4. 3
4.8
7

0- 80.00 55.20
0- 95.00 55.20
0-
0
0
0
1' 1.50 H-0
2.4 3.00 H-0
2.5 40.00 20.70
3.5 56.50 20.70

20 0'
0




15 0
13 0
0
15 0

 rf-0 = Homeowner-ins tailed; cost assumed to be zero.

-------
                                                                          APPENDIX
                                                                             F-2
                  INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COSTS OF FLOW REDUCTION
                       IN THE GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
Dual cycle toilets:

    $20/toilet x 2 toilets/permanent dwelling x 1766 permanent
        dwellings in year 2000                                = $70,640

    $20/toilet x 1 toilet/seasonal dwelling x 602 seasonal
        dwellings in year 2000                                = $12,040

    Shower flow control insert device:

    $2/shower x 2 shower/permanent dwelling x 1766 permanent
        dwellings in year 2000                                = $ 7,064

    $2/shower x 1 shower/seasonal dwelling x 602 seasonal
        dwellings in 2000                                     = $ 1,204

    Faucet flow control insert device:

    $3/faucet x 3 faucets/permanent dwelling x 1766 permanent
        dwellings in year 2000                                = $15,894

    $2/faucet x 2 faucets/seasonal dwelling x 602 seasonal
        dwellings in 2000                                     = $ 2.408

                                                     Total     $109,250
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-3
                    Department of
                                  COUNTY  OF  OTTER   TAIL
                                           Phone 218-739-2271
                                              Court House
                                      Fergus Falls, Minnesota 56537

                                        MALCOLM K. LEE, Administrator
    October  18,  1978

    Ms. Rhoda  Granat,  Librarian
    Wapora,  Inc.
    6900 Wisconsin  Ave.  N.W.
    Washington,  D.C.  20015

    Dear Ms. Granat:

    Enclosed is  some  of  the material we have available on cluster or
    collector  systems.   Otter Tail County now has upwards of twenty
    similar  systems in operation at this time and we are pl< --sed with
    the results  for several reasons.  Our two main concerns are that
    of treatment and  reasonability of cost.  We feel that a properly
    designed,  installed  and maintained septic system meets  both of  these
    criteria.   Based  on  test results provided by Roger Machmeier, Extension
    Agricultural Engineer, University of Minnesota we feel  that adequate
    treatment  is obtained.  Costs of installing a septic system are n
-------
Ms. Rhoda Granat, Librarian               2                 October 18, 1978


the winter months for the 150 or so residents, without pumping additional
water through the system.  The desirability and source of a water supply
for such a purpose might in itself be questionable since lake lavels are
a volatile issue in themselves.

It is our opinion that a number of cluster or collection systems combined
with some independent septic systems meet the needs of adequate treatment
at a reasonable cost.  This opinion is also shared by the University of
Minnesota Extension Engineer and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
While there is evidence of a pollution problem in the project area now we
are also concerned with long range problems and feel that the "Collector
systems" are feasible for many reasons and bear detailed investigation
and study.

Sincerely,
Larry Krohn
Administrative Assistant
Land & Resource Management
 1mb

 cc:  Arnold Hemquist
     John Rist, P.E.

-------
                  SUGGESTED PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR
                   DESIGNING COLLECTOR SEWAGE SYSTEMS
      (For Discussion at the 1978 Home Sewage Treatment Workshops)

                           Roger E.  Machmeier
                     Extension Agricultural Engineer
                         University  of Minnesota
1.  For collector systems serving more than 15 dwellings or 5,000 gallons per
    day, whichever is less, an application for a permit must be submitted to
    the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.  If the Agency does not act within
    10 days upon receipt of the application, no permit shall be required.

2.  A permit likely will be requited by the local unit of government and they
    should be involved in preliminary discussions and design considerations.

3.  Estimating sewage flows:

    A.  Classify each home as type 1, II, III, or IV.  (See table 4, Extension
        Bulletin 304, "Town and Country Sewage Treatment.)

    B.  Determine the number of bedrooms in each home and estimate the indi-
        vidual sewage flows.

    C.  Total the flows to determine the estimated daily sewage flow for the
        collector system.  Add a 3-bedroom type I home for each platted but
        undeveloped Lot.
    D.  For establishments other than residences, determine the average daily
        ^".w.-'.e flow based on water meter readings or estimate the flow based
        on data furnished by the Minnesota Department of Health or Pollution
        Control Agency.  See Workbook pages 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4.

        Note:  Always install a water meter on any establishment other than
               a private residence and maintain a continuous record of the
               flow of sewage.

4.  Whenever possible, transport or pump septic tank affluent over long
    distances rather than raw sewage.

5.  Each residence should have a septic tank so that solids are separated
    and effluent only flows in the collector line.

6.  Size individual septic tanks according to the recommendations of WPC-40
    or local ordinances.

7.  If a common septic tank is used,  the minimum capacity should be at least
    3,000 gallons and compartmented if a single, tank.

8.  The diameter and grade of the collector sewer line should be based on a
    flow equal to 35 percent of the flow quantities in Point 3 occurring in
    a one-hour period.

9.  When raw sewage flows in the collector line, the diameter and grade of
    the sewer pipe must be selected to provide a mean velocity of not less
    than 2 feet per second when flowing full (0.7% for 4-inch and 0.4% for
    6-inch).  The maximum grade on 4-inch should be no more than 1/4-inch
    per foot (2%) to prevent the liquids from flowing away from the solids.

-------
10.  A gravity collector line, whether for raw sewage or sewage tank effluent,
     shall not be less than 4 inches in diameter.

11.  Cleanouts, brought flush with or above finished grade, shall be provided
     wherever an individual sewer linn joins a collector sewer line, or every
     100 feet, whichever is less, unless manhole access is provided.

12.  The pumping tank which collects sewage tank effluent should have a pumpout
     capacity of 10 percent of the estimated daily sewage flow plus a reserve
     storage capacity equal to at least 25 percent of the average daily sewage
     flow.

]J.  The pumping tank should have a vent at least 2^ inches in diameter to allow
     air to enter and leave the tank during filling and pumping operations.

14.  The pumping tank should have manhole access for convenient service to the
     pumps and control mechanisms.

1.5.  The pumping tank must be watertight to the highest known or estimated eleva-
     tion of the groundwater table.  Where the highest elevation of the ground-
     water table is above the top of the pumping tank, buoyant forces shall be
     determined and adequate anchorage provided to prevent tank flotation.

16.  Pumps for sewage tank effluent:

     A.   There should be dual pumps operating on an alternating basis.  The
         elevation of the liquid level controls should be adjustable after
         installation of the pumps in the pumping tank.

     B.   Each pump should be. capable of pumping at least 25 percent of the
         total estimated daily sewage flow in a one-hour period at a head
         adequate to overcome elevation differences and friction losses.

     C.   The pumps should either be cast iron or bronze fitted and have stain-
         less steel screws or be of other durable and corrosion-proof construction.

     D.   A warning device should be installed to warn of the failure of either
         pump.  The warning device should actuate both an audible and visible
         alarm.  The alarm should continue to operate until manually turned
         off.  The alarm should be activated each time either pump does not
         operate as programmed.

     E.   A pump cycle counter (cost approximately $10) should be installed
         to monitor the flow of sewage.  The number of pump cycles multiplied
         by the gallons discharged per dose will provide an accurate measure-
         ment of sewage flow.

17.  Some site conditions may dictate that all or part of the sewage be pumped
     as raw sewage.  The following recommendations should be followed:

     A.   When the raw sewage is pumped from 2 or more residences or from an
         establishment other than a private residence, dual sewage grinder
         pumps should be used.  The pumps should operate on an alternate basis
         and have a visible and audible warning device which should be automatic-
         ally activated in the event of the failure of either pump to operate
         as programmed.

-------
     B.  The pumps should either be cast iron or bronze fitted and have stain-
         less steel screws or be of other durable and corrosion-proof construction.

     C.  To minimize physical agitation of the septic tank into which the raw
         sewage is pumped, a pumping quantity not in excess of 5 percent of
         the Initial liquid volume of the septic tank shall be delivered for
         each pump cycle and a pumping rate not to exceed 25 percent of the
         total estimated daily sewage flow occurring in one hour.

     D.  The diameter of the pressure pipe in which the raw sewage flows shall
         be selected on the basis of a minimum flow velocity of 2.0 feet per
         second.

     E.  The discharge head of the pump shall be adequate to overcome the eleva-
         tion difference and all friction losses.

     F.  The diameter of the pressure pipe for the sewage shall be at least
         as large as the size of sewage solids the pump can deliver.

18.  In some cases a pressure main may be the most feasible method to collect
     septic tank effluent.

     A.  Each residence or other establishment has a septic tank and a pumping
         station.

     B.  The required discharge head of the pump depends upon the pressure in
         the collector main.  The hydraulics of flow and friction loss must be
         carefully calculated.

     C.  The pressure main does not need to be installed on any grade but can
         follow the natural topography at a depth sufficient to provide protec-
         tion against freezing.

     D.  A double checkvalve system should be used at each pumping station.

     E.  A corporation stop should be installed on the individual pressure
         line near the connection to the main pressure line.

     F.  Cleanouts along the pressure main are not required.

     G.  Discharge the pumped septic tank effluent into a settling tank prior
         to flow into the soil treatment system.  The settling tank will serve
         as a stilling chamber and also separate any settleable solids.

19.  Sizing the soil treatment unit:

     A.  Make soil borings in the area proposed for the soil treatment unit at
         least 3 feet deeper than the bottom of the proposed trenches.  Look
         for mottled soil or other evidences of seasonal high water table in
         the soil.

     B.  Make 3 percolation tests in each representative soil present on the
         site.
  'S
     C.  Using the percolation  rate of the soil and the sewage flow estimate
         from point 3,  refer to table III of WPC-40 or table A of Extension
         Bulletin 304,  "Town and  Country Sewage Treatment" to determine the
         total required trench  bottom area.

-------
20.  Lay out the soil treatment unit using trenches with drop box distribu-
     tion of effluent, so only that portion of the trench system which is
     needed will be used.  Drop boxes also provide for automatic resting of
     trenches as sewage flow fluctuates or as soil absorption capacity varies
     with amount of soil moisture;   Trenches can extend 100 feet each way
     from a drop box so that a single box can distribute effluent to  200 feet
     of trench.

-------
                    COSTS OF TREATING HOUSEHOLD WASTEWATER
             (Based on 3-bedroom home and design flow of 450 gpd)
     Primary Treatment:
               Septic Tank (1250 gallon)
                    Cost plus installation - $530
                    Amortization 20 years @ 9%
                    Service - removal of solids
                    Total annual costs
                    Total cost per 1000 gallons
                       (based on 450 gpd)
                                                       $58.00/year
                                                        17.50/year
                                                       $75.50

                                                       $  .46
                                             $1,400 - 2,200
          Aerobic Tank (500 gpd)
               Cost plus installation
               Amortization
                  (a)  10 years @ 9%
                  (b)  20 years @:9%
               Electricity @ 4c/kwhr
               Service
               Average costs per 1000 gallons
                  (based on 450 gpd)
                  Amortization
                       (a)  10 years @ 9%
                       (b)  20 years @ 9%
                  Electricity @ 4c/kwhr
                  Service
               Total costs per 1000 gallons:
                       (a)  10 year amortization
                       (b)  20 year amortization

Final Treatment and Disposal

                 Drainfield Trench Soil Treatment Unit
                                                            $220-345/year
                                                            $155-2,40/year
                                                            $lOO-200/year
                                                            $ 60-100/year
                                                             $1.72
                                                             $1.20
                                                             $ .91
                                                             $ .49

                                                             $3.12
                                                             $2.60
Percolation Rate
Minutes
per
Inch
0.1 to 5
16 to 30
46 to 60
Treatment Area,
Sq. Ft.
per
Bedroom
125
250
330
Area Req'd
for
Home with
3-bedrooms
375
750
990
Soil Treat-
ment Unit
Costs
$700-900
$1300-1500
$1800-2200
Total
Annual
Costs
(20 yrs.
(3 9%)
87.63
153.36
219.08
Cost per
1000 gallons
(450 gpd)
$.53 ';'•:'
$.93
$1.33
Examples:
         Septic tank and percolation rate of 0.1 to 5 MPI
              Cost » $.46 + $.53 = $.99 per 1000  or $.45 per day
         Aerobic tank (20 years) and percolation rate of 0.1 to 5 MPI
              Cost - $2.60 + $.53 » $3,13 per 1000 gallons or $1.41 per day
         Septic tank and percolation rate of 46 to 60 MPI
              Cost = $.46 + $1.33 = $1.79 per 1000 gallons or $.80 per day
         Aerobic tank (10 years) and percolation rate of 46 to 60 MPI
              Cost - $3.12 + $1.33 = $4.45 per 1000 gallons or $2.00 per day

                                                 Roger E. Machmeier
                                                 Extension Agricultural Engineer
                                                                        12/15/76

-------
 SEPTIC
  TAN ic
                                            HOOK-UP
                                         D  SEPTIC TANl'x
                                         D  DUiv^P STA'i'iON
                                            LIFT
                   /
                 6 COLLE-CTIOM Llf-.'i

t / hi IH IhllL
RENTAL
 CAS1NS
                                                           _?:.V COU.ECTiO;!

-------
                                      ] ':"%i i    1  /"•• 1 -T~
                                      UOi I    L/-\Kr.,
                                          (NO. 5S --! r»
     oL.v^ 1 lUix   L; u
                                    DrlAIN FIELD
                                    TV/0-2" FORCE  MAIWS

                                          LEGEND
                             ^ LIFT  STATION   D  SEPTIC TANK

                                         • HOOK-UP


                         PERCOLATION  BATE - I MIN./INCH

                         (.29  LOTS X '6 CEDROO.VIS/LOT)  X 70 SQ.FT./PEDR(
                         6090  SO. FT  OF DRAIN  FIELD

                         DRAIN  FIELD  AREA IS 6l'X IOC)' WITH 20  DISTRIBUTION
                         PIPES  31 o/c

                         NOTE- A  CLEAN OUT IS LOCATED  ON  EACH  LOT  LINi

                         ALL LOTS  HAVE ICO1  LAKE- -FROMTAGF .  .'...   .,  . .....
          » SJ

-------
                    pf YV'I !Q/
                    I \ •.; i i !-..;/ •,
                         CAMP
' " '. ''• * ) '• • '•
                                         >  MOOK--UP


                                         0  SL-PTIC  TANK


                                            LIFT  SmriCiM
                                                               IWSI-ECTIOM

                                                                 FIT
	CCLLECI ION
^
"•-1
3 "3
 1
p
LAKE   I.JDA

-------
                                                           LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
                                                             COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL
                                                         FERGUS FALLS, MINNESOTA  56537
                  Little
McDonald    Lake
(MO. 53 - 323 GD)
0  SEPTIC TANK      •  HOOK-UP
o  CLEAN  OUT       a  LIFT  STATION
PERCOLATION  RATE = 2 MIN./ INCH
(52 BEDROOMS X 85  SO. FT./BEDROOM =
4,420 SO. FT, OF DRAIN FIELD)

INDIVIDUAL  1,000 GAL. SEPTIC  TANKS
FOR  EACH  LOT
LOT  WIDTHS ARE ALL 100'  FRONTAGE
EXCEPT LOT  1(75) G LOT 2(125')
   LOW  WET
      AREA
                            FORCE  MAIN	=
';


"6
o










i


















/i







?







•





























\
15 LATERAL
LINES 3'0/Cl


SECTION
AA/
/
                    ELEVATIONS  AC".:"//[•: TttlZ Y/ATlZil TA3L.fi AT  THil LOCATION  OF
                    Th!E  COLLcCTIOM  LINi-  VARIES  FROM  APPROX.  2.5' TO  3.5'

                    ELEVATION AT  ~i>sr-: LOCATION  OF  THIZ  DRAIM  -FIELD IS
                    APPf^OX.  I?.1 TO ID' A30VK Thi!.7. V/AThR  TAGLE

-------
                     EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATERS IN MINNESOTA
Characteristic
Land Irrigation or Intermittent
Discharge During Periods of
Adequate Flow in Receiving
Waters
Continuous Discharge to
Receiving Waters or Dis-
charge to Intermittent/
Low Flow Streams
                                                                                          Discharge to Lakes
(Treatment Method)
           (i)
       (ii)
5-day Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD,.)
                                 25 mg/1
                                        5 mg/1
                              25 mg/1
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS)
       30 mg/1
     5 mg/1
                                                                                           30 mg/1
Fecal Coliform
Group Organisms
      200 MPN/100 ml
   200 MPN/100 ml
                                                                                          200 MPN/100 ml
Total Phosphorus
                                                                   1 mg/1
SOURCE:  MPCA (1978)
                                                                                                                ~
                                                                                                                O

-------
                                APPENDIX H-l

                       DESIGN AND COSTING ASSUMPTIONS
(1)   Spray Irrigation,  Rapid Infiltration

     o    Pretreatment  for spray irrigation and rapid infiltration includes
          preliminary treatment units (bar screens,  grit removal)  and
          stabilization lagoons.   Storage of this pretreated wastewater
          is provided by conventional (deep) lagoons.

     o    Chlorination  of wastewater is required prior to spray irrigation,
          with chlorination required for recovered .rapid infiltration treated
          wastewaters prior to surface discharge.

     o    Application system capacities are based on an effective  use period
          of 150 days,  based on the 210 .day .storage  required by MPCA.
     o    Application rates:are 2 in/day fpr spray irrigation and 12 in/week
          for rapid infiltration.         *

     o    Spray irrigation application is based on using alfalfa cover crop.

(2)   Conventional Secondary Treatment and'Nutrient (Phosphorus)  Removal at
     Existing Spicer and New London STP's

     a    Assumed that the sites are not land limited and that ,hydraulics
          permit expansion parallel to existing facilities and up-grading
          downstream of existing facilities without intermediate pumping.

     9    Expansion/upgrading costs based on areawide costs for  ;similar
          facilities.

     o    Unit operations description indicates type of treatment that can
          achieve required control objectives.  Most cost-effective unit
          configuration should be determined by detailed engineering.

(3)   Stabilization Lagoon/Mechanical Oxidation Ditch

     o    Pretreatment includes bar screens and grit removal.

     o    Phosphorus removal is not required for Facilities Plan alternative,
          EIS Alternative 1,  or EIS Alternative 2, because discharge is down-
          stream of Green Lake system.

-------
                                                                       H-l
          Filtration (when indicated) is to maintain effluent concentrations
          of 5 mg/1 for BOD and suspended solids.
(4)  Cluster Systems
          The design and costs for wastewater treatment utilizing cluster
          systems were developed based on a "typical" system cost.

          Design assumptions -

          flow - 60 gpcd - peak flow 45 gpm
          3.5 persons/home - 3-bedroom home
          50% of existing septic tanks need to be replaced with new
            1000-gallon tanks

          Collection of wastewaters is by a low-pressure system with two homes
          connected to one simplex pumping unit.

          200-foot transmission (2 to 3 inch force main) to absorption
          field assumed.

          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 8 feet of depth to
          allow for frost penetration in the Green Lake area.  Gravity lines
          are assumed to be placed at an average depth of 15 feet.

          Shoring of gravity collection lines was determined on a segment
          basis.  Ten percent less shoring is required for force mains and
          low pressure sewers due to their shallow average depth.

          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 4.0.

          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.

          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 value boxes will contain shut-off valves to provide for
          isolation of various sections of line for maintenance and/or
          repairs.

-------
                                                                       H-l
     0    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, antifloatation device, and the pump itself.
          (See Figure III-2).

     o    Effluent pumps are 1-1/2 and 2 HP pumps which reach a total
          dynamic head of 80 and 120 feet respectively.

Analysis of Cost Effectiveness
                                            \
                                            \
     Q    Quoted costs are in 1978 dollars  {

     0    EPA Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Index of 135 (4th Quarter 1977)
          and Engineering News Record Index of 2693 (1 March 1978) used for
          updating costs.

     o    i, interest rate = 6-5/8%

     0    Planning period = 20 years

     o    Life of facilities* structures - 50 years
          Mechanical components - 20 years

     o    Straight line depreciation

     0    Land for land application site valued at $2000/a'cre

-------
         APPENDIX H-2
   ITEMIZED AND TOTAL COSTS
     FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE
FACILITIES PLAN PROPOSED ACTION
  LIMITED ACTION ALTERNATIVE
    EIS ALTERNATIVES 1-6

-------
                      FACILITIES PLAN PROPOSED ACTION
                   (STABILIZATION POND) - GRAVITY SEWER
                    COLLECTION SYSTEM WITH REGIONAL STP
                      (STABILIZATION POND) DOWNSTREAM
                               OF GREEN LAKE
     This alternative is shown schematically on Figure H-2a.  A regional

wastewater treatment facility is included to discharge downstream of the

Green Lake-Nest Lake-system, so that-phosphorus removal is-not required.

The collection system consists of gravity sewers, including! the entire

Green Lake area, the Nest Lake area, ; and the Spicer-New London corridor.

The waste treatment facility is a stabilization pond.  There are no areas

proposed for cluster systems.

-------
                      FACILITIES PLAN PROPOSED ACTION
                           (STABILIZATION POND)
                WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY COST ESTIMATE
Q = 0.630 mgd
          PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Stabilization Pond
Chlorination
Lab/Maintenance Building
Mobilization
Site Work, including excavation
Electrical
Yard Piping
HVAC
Controls & Instruments
Land 110 Acres
Monitoring Wells
Effluent Pipe
Administration
Yard Work
   Subtotal
   25% Engr. & Cont.
   Total
CAPITAL
37,000
553,000
37,000
110,000
31,000
109,000
94,000
68,000
19,000
33,000
220,000
5,000
5,000
-
-
1,321,000
330,000
$1,650,000
O&M
3,600
23,300
2,600
3,700
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
400
-
4,000
10,200
47,800
-
$47,800
Costs in 1978 Dollars
             SALVAGE
              17,000
             276,000
              14,000
           .   50,000

              66,000
                0
              41,000
                0
                0
             220,000

               3,000
             687,000
             172,000
            $859,000

-------
                      FACILITIES PLAN PROPOSED ACTION
                           (STABILIZATlbN POND)
COST ELEMENT                CAPITAL

1980 Costs

Collection System

On-Site Systems

Cluster System

   Total

1980 - 2000 (Entire Service Area)

Collection                $   38,000/yr.
        Costs in 1978 Do.llars

O&M           SALVAGE.VALUE
6


$6
•
,480,000 48,300
0 0
0 0
,480,000 $48,300
• , •. - ......
3,320,000
0
0
$3,320,000
....-••
NOTE:  all costs, include a 25% engineering.

-------
                 LIMITED ACTION ALTERNATIVE - NO EXPANSION
                   OF COLLECTION SYSTEM AND UPGRADING OF
                  EXISTING STP'S AT SPICER AND NEW LONDON
                     FOR NUTRIENT (PHOSPHORUS) REMOVAL
     This alternative represents no expansion of the sewered areas in the

vicinity of New London and Spicer.  Existing and future homes in the

unsewered areas will require on-lot systems.  The existing Spicer STP is

upgraded to include nutrient (phosphorus) removal, as is the New London

STP.  However, the capacity of these facilities is increased only to handle

wastewater due to growth in the existing sewered areas.

-------
                         LIMITED ACTION ALTERNATIVE
            WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY COST ESTIMATE - SPICER
Q = 0.12 mgd

            PROCESS                      CAPITAL

Trickling Filter Plant (0.086 mgd):
   Influent Pumping (1)
   Preliminary Treatment (1)
   Primary Sedimentation (1)
   Trickling Filters (1)
   Chemical Addition
   Secondary Sedimentation (1)
   Filtration
   Chlorination
   Sludge Pumping (1)
   Anaerobic Digestion (1)
Prefabricated STP (0.034 mgd):
   Influent Pumping
   Preliminary Treatment
   Prefab Plant
   Chemical Addition
   Filtration
   Chlorination
Common Costs:
   Contract Sludge Handling
   Lab/Maintenance Bldg. & Lab Analyses
   Mobilization
   Site Work, including excavation
   Electrical
   Yard Piping
   HVAC
   Controls & Instruments
   Land
   Administration
   Yard Work

      Subtotal
      25% Engineering  & Contingency

      Total                              $280,000
                                                        Costs in 1978 Dollars

                                                          O&M.       SALVAGE

A
A
i*
; A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
AA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
AA
224,000
56,000


1,
1,
2,
2,

4,

1,


6,
1,

2,
2,
2,
—
_
_
_
_
_
_
1,
1,
34,

500
800
800
900
400
200
600
800
800
200
200
400
000
000 ;
300
100
100
400







200
100
000

.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
AA-
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
AA
67,000
17,000
                                                         $34.000
$84,000
  *Capital cost  estimate includes  allowance  for  these  items  including
   rehabilitation  of  existing units.
 **These items do  not involve a  capital  expense.
(l)These are existing units.

-------
                         LIMITED ACTION ALTERNATIVE
          WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY COST ESTIMATE -  NEW LONDON
 Q = 0.098 mgd
           PROCESS
 Influent Pumping (1)
 Preliminary Treatment  (1)
 Primary Sedimentation  (1)
 Activated Sludge
 Chemical Addition
 Final Clarification
 Filtration
 Chlorination (1)
 Sludge Pumping
 Anaerobic Digestion
 Contract Sludge Hauling
 Lab Analyses
 Mobilization
 Site Work, including excavation
 Electrical
 Yard Piping
 HVAC
 Controls and Instruments
 Land
 Administration
 Yard Work
    Subtotal
    25% Engineering & Contingency
    Total
                  Costs in 1978 Dollars
  CAPITAL
     *
     *
     A
     *
     *
     *
     A
     *
     *
    **
    **
     A
     *
     *
     *
     *
     *
     A
    AA
    **
 329,000
  82,000
$411,000
O&M
700
1,200
1,700
10,000
2,300
2,000
500
700
700
1,000
2,600
2,700
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,400
1,100
28,600
-
$28,600
SALVAGE
A
A
*
*
*
*
*
*
A
A
AA
AA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
AA
99,000
25,000
$124,000

  *Capital cost estimate includes allowance for these items including
   rehabilitation of existing units.
 **These items do not involve a capital expense.
(l)These are existing units.

-------
                        LIMITED ACTION ALTERNATIVE






                                                      Costs .in 1978 Dollars




COST ELEMENT                CAPITAL            O&M            SALVAGE VALUE




1980




Collection                     0                -




On-Site Systems                0                -                    -




Cluster Systems               __9_




   Total                      $0_




1980 - 2000




Collection                    $0




On-Site Systems               $0
NOTE:  all costs include 25% engineering and contingency.

-------
           EIS ALTERNATIVE 1 - PRESSURE SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
              WITH REGIONAL STP STABILIZATION POND DOWNSTREAM
                               OF GREEN LAKE
     This alternative is shown schematically in Figure H-2C.  A regional

wastewater treatment facility is included that discharges downstream of the

Green Lake-Nest Lake system, so that phosphorus removal is not required.

The collection system consists of pressure sewers, including the entire

Green Lake area, the Nest Lake area, and the Spicer-New London corridor.

The waste treatment facility is a stabilization pond.  There are no areas

proposed for cluster systems.

-------
                             EIS ALTERNATIVE 1
               WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY COST ESTIMATES
Q = .59 mgd
          PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Stabilization Pond
Chlorination
Lab/Maintenance Building
Mobilization
Site Work*
Electrical
Yard Piping
HVAC
Controls & Instruments
Land - 110 Acres
Monitoring Wells
Effluent Pipe
Administration
Yard Work (Ref 3, A-42, 43)
   Subtotal
   25% Engineering & Contingencies
   Total
Costs in 1978 Dollars
CAPITAL
35,000
506,000
35,000
40,000
27,000
99,000
90,000
64,000
19,000
31,000
220,000
5,000
5,000
-
-
1,246,000
312,000
$1,560,000
O&M
3,500
23,300
2,600
3,700
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
400
-
4,000
10,200
47,700
-
$47,700
SALVAGE
16,000
304,000
14,000
49,000
-
59,000
-
38,000
-
-
220,000
-
3,000
-
_
703,000
141,000
$844,000

* Capital cost includes rehabilitation of existing, units.

-------
COST ELEMENT
                             EIS ALTERNATIVE 1
CAPITAL
O&M
                                                       Costs in 1978 Dollars
SALVAGE VALUE
1980 Costs
Collection System
On-Site Systems
Cluster Systems
Total
1980 - 2000 (Entire

7,240,000 71,700
150,000 12,800
0 0
$7,390,000 $84,500

Service Area)

2,715,000
15,000
0
$2,730,000


Collection                $   28,500/yr.
NOTE:  all costs include 25% engineering .and contingency.

-------
           EIS ALTERNATIVE 2 - PRESSURE SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
              WITH REGIONAL STP OF MECHANICAL OXIDATION DITCH
     This alternative is shown schematically in Figure H-2D.  A regional

wastewater treatment facility is included that discharges downstream of the

Green Lake-Nest Lake system, so that phosphorus removal is not required.

The collection system consists'of pressure sewers, including the entire

Green Lake area, the Nest Lake area, and the Spicer-New London corridor.

The waste treatment facility is a mechanical oxidation ditch.  There are no

areas proposed for cluster systems.

-------
                             EIS ALTERNATIVE 2
               WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY COST ESTIMATES
Q =  .59 mgd
          PROCESS                     CAPITAL
Preliminary Treatment                   35,000
Oxidation Ditch                        167,000
Final Clarifiers                        72,000
Tertiary Filtration                    127,000
Chlorination                            32,000
Aerobic Digester                        86,000
Contract Sludge Hauling
Lab/Maintenance Building               110,000
Mobilization                            28,000
Site Work*                              99,000
Electrical                              90,000
Yard Piping                             64,000
HVAC                                    19,000
Controls & Instruments                  31,000
Land - 2 Acres                           4,000
Effluent Pipe                            5,000
Administration
Yard Work                          	-
   Subtotal                           969,000
   25% Engineering & Contingencies    241,000
   Total                           $1,210.000
Costs in 1978 Dollars
O&M
3,500 •
8,900
4,100
3,300
3,600
9,000
17,400
3,700
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,000
1,100
58,600
-
$58,600
SALVAGE
16,000
78,000
43,000
38,000
13,000
52,000
-
50,000
59,000
0
38,000
0
0
4,000
3,000
-
_
394,000
98,000
$492,000

* Capital cost includes rehabilitation of existing units.

-------
                             EIS ALTERNATIVE 2
COST ELEMENT
CAPITAL
        Costs in 1978 Dollars




O&M             SALVAGE VALUE
1980 Costs
Collection System
On-Site Systems
Cluster Systems
Total
1980 - 2000 (Entire

7,403,000 71,700
153,000 12,800
0 0
$7,556,000 $84,500

Service Area)

2,756,000
15,000
0
$2,771,000


Collection                $   28,500/yr.
NOTE:  all costs include 25% engineering and contingency.

-------
                 EIS ALTERNATIVE 3 - GRAVITY SEWER OF THE
               NEW LONDON-SPICER CORRIDOR WITH REGIONAL STP
                           (RAPID INFILTRATION)
     This alternative is shown schematically in Figure H-2E.  A regional

wastewater treatment facility is included to serve the sewered areas.  These

include the Nest Lake area and the Spicer-New London corridor.  .All new

sewers are gravity.  The wastewater treatment facility uses a rapid

infiltration process, with the renovated water collected for a surface

discharge.  Phosphorus is removed by the soil.  Cluster systems are

proposed for the Green Lake Area.

-------
                             EIS ALTERNATIVE 3
                    WASTEWATER TREATMENT COST ESTIMATE
Q = 0.38 mgd
          PROCESS
Influent Pipe
Preliminary Treatment
Stabilization/Storage Basin
Rapid Infiltration
Chlorination
Mobilization
Site Work
Electrical
Yard Piping
HVAC
Controls & Instruments
Land
Effluent Pipe
Administration
Lab Analyses
   Subtotal
   25% Engineering & Contingency
   Total


CAPITAL
91,000
21,000
524,000
,407,000
40,000
17,000
61,000
57,000
40,000
,10,000
19,0,00
178,000
48,0,00
-
-
1,513,000
378,250
c
Costs
Q&M
200
2,400
22,300
.18,100
3,800
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
200
2,600
,4,700
54,300
-

in 1978 Dollars
SALVAGE
54,000
9,000
315,000
240,000
16,000
0
37,000
0
24,000
0
0
178,000
29,000
-
-
902,000
225,000
$1,890,000
$54,300
$1,130,000

-------
                              EIS ALTERNATIVE 3

(25% Cluster)
                                             Cost in 1978 Dollars
COST ELEMENT                              CAPITAL      O&M       SALVAGE
1980
Collection                                1,940,000   21,100     560,000
On-Site                                     350,000    6,100      35,000
Cluster                                     621.000   27.200     279.000
   Total                                 $2,911,000  $54,400    $874,000
1980-2000
Collection                               $ 38,900/yr.
Note - All costs include 25% Engineering and Contingency

-------
                           EIS ALTERNATIVE 3
(50% Cluster)
             Cost  in  1978 Dollars
COST ELEMENT




1980




Collection System




On-Site System




Cluster System




   Total




1980-2000




Collection
   CAPITAL
O&M
SALVAGE VALUE
1,940,000
235,000
1,242,000
$3,417,000
21,000
6,100
54,700
$81,500
560,000
24,000
559,000
$1,143,000

$  38,900/yr
Note - All costs include 25% Engineering and Contingency

-------
                 EIS ALTERNATIVE 4 - GRAVITY SEWER OF THE
               NEW LONDON-SPICER CORRIDOR WITH REGIONAL STP
                           (RAPID INFILTRATION)
     This alternative is shown schematically in Figure H-2F.  A regional

wastewater treatment facility is included to serve the sewered areas.  These

include only the Spicer-New London corridor, as well as the existing Spicer-

New London collection systems.  The wastewater treatment facility uses a

rapid infiltration process, with the renovated water collected for a surface

discharge.  Phosphorus is removed by the soil.  Cluster systems are proposed

for the Green Lake area and the Nest Lake area.

-------
                             EIS ALTERNATIVE 4
                WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY COST ESTIMATE
Q = 0.28 mgd
          PROCESS                   CAPITAL
Influent Pipe.                         83,000
Preliminary Treatment                 14,000
Storage/Stabilization Pond           372,000
Rapid Infiltration Basin
  (including recovery and
  monitoring wells and lab)          330,000
Chlorination                          48,000
Mobilization                          12,000
Site Work                             42,000
Electrical                            42,000
Yard Piping                           29,000
HVAC                                   7,000
Controls & Instruments                13,000
Land                                 150,000
Effluent Pipe                         48,000
Administration
Lab Analyses                      	-
   Subtotal                        1,190,000
   25% Engineering & Contingency     298,000
   Total                          $1,490.000
Costs
O&M
200
2,400
14,900
10,000
2,800
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
200
3,000
4,000
37,500
-
$37,500
in 1978 Dollars
SALVAGE
50,000
6,300
223,000
198,000
19,000
0
25,000
0
17,000
0
0
150,000
29,000
-
-
717,300
179,000
$896,000

-------
                           EIS ALTERNATIVE 4









(25% Cluster)                                Cost in 1978 Dollars









COST ELEMENT                       CAPITAL        O&M       SALVAGE VALUE




1980 Costs




Collection Systems                1,071,000     18,700         584,000




25% On-Site Systems                 489,000      8,200          49,000




25% Cluster System                  881,000     18,700         396,000




    Total                        $2,441,000    $45,600      $1,029,000




1980-2000 (entire service area)




Collection                       $ 36,200/yr




On-Site                          $  3,700/yr




   Total                         $ 39,900/yr
Note - All costs include 25% engineering

-------
                           EIS ALTERNATIVE 4
(50% Cluster)                                Costs in 1978 Dollars
COST ELEMENT                       CAPITAL        O&M       SALVAGE VALUE




1980 Cost




Collection System                 1,071,000     18,700        584,000




On-Site System                      327,000      8,200         33,000




Cluster System                    1,761,000     37,500        792,000




   Total                         $3,159,000    $64,400     $1,409,000




1980-2000




Collection                       $ 36,200/yr




On-Site                          $  3,700/yr




Total                            $ 39,900/yr
Note - All costs include 25% Engineering and Contingency

-------
                 EIS ALTERNATIVE 5 - GRAVITY SEWER OF THE
               NEW LONDON-SPICER CORRIDOR WITH REGIONAL STP
                            (SPRAY IRRIGATION)
     This alternative is shown schematically in Figure H-2G.  A regional

wastewater treatment facility is included to serve the sewered areas.  These

include the Spicer-New London corridor, as well as the existing Spicer-

New London collection systems.  The wastewater treatment facility uses a

spray irrigation process, and there is no surface discharge of wastewater.

Cluster systems are proposed for the Green Lake area and the Nest Lake area.

-------
                             EIS ALTERNATIVE 5
                    WASTEWATER1 TREATMENT COST ESTIMATE
Q = 0.28 mgd
          PROCESS
Influent Pipe
Preliminary Treatment
Stabilization/Storage Basin
Chlorination
Spray Irrigation
Mobilization
Site Work
Electrical
Yard Piping
HVAC
Controls & Instruments
Land
Administration
Lab Analyses
Crop Revenue
   Subtotal
   25% Engineering & Contingency
   Total

CAPITAL
34,000
14,000
372,000
57,000
450,000
12,000
42,000
42,000
29,000
7,000
13,000
330,000
-
-
-
1,402,000
350,000
$1,750,000
Costs
O&M
100
2,400
14,900
3,200
15,300
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
3,000
4,000
0
42,900
. -
$42,900
in 1978 Dollars
SALVAGE
20,300
6,300
223,000
22,200
67,500
0
25,000
0
17,000
0
0
330,000
-
-
-
711,300
177,800
$890,000

-------
                           EIS ALTERNATIVE 5
(25% Cluster)
             Cost in 1978 Dollars
COST ELEMENT




1980 Costs




Collection System




On-Site Systems




Cluster System




   Total




1980-2000




Collection




On-Site




Total
   CAPITAL
O&M
SALVAGE VALUE
1,071,000
489,000
881,000
$2,441,000
18,700
8,200
18,700
$45,600
584,000
49,000
396,000
$1,029,000

$  36,200/yr




$   3,700/yr




$  39,900/yr
Note - All costs include 25% Engineering and Contingency

-------
                           EIS ALTERNATIVE 5
(50% Cluster)
             Cost in 1978 Dollars
COST ELEMENT




1980




Collection System




On-Site Systems




Cluster System




   Total




1980-2000




Collection




On-Site




Total
   CAPITAL
O&M
SALVAGE VALUE
1,071,000
327,000
1,761,000
$3,159,000
18,700
8,200
37,500
$64,400
584,000
33,000
792,000
$1,409,000

$  36,200/yr




$   3.700/yr




$  39,900/yr
Note - All costs include 25% Engineering and Contingency

-------
            EIS ALTERNATIVE 6  - GRAVITY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
         WITH UPGRADE EXPANSION OF EXISTING SPICER-NEW LONDON STP'S
                            FOR NUTRIENT REMOVAL
     This alternative is shown schematically in Figure H-2H.   The existing

Spicer and New London wastewater treatment facilities are upgraded and

expanded to serve thexsewered areas.   The collection system includes the

areas served by EIS Alternatives 4 and 5, namely the Spicer-New London

corridor.  Both wastewater treatment  facilities are upgraded for phosphorus

removal, with the Spicer plant expanded to handle the flow from the new

service areas.  Cluster systems are proposed for the Green Lake area and

the Nest Lake area.

-------
                             EIS ALTERNATIVE  6
           WASTEWATER TREATMENT  FACILITY  COST  ESTIMATE  -  SPICER
                            UPGRADE AND EXPAND

 Q  =  0.150 mgd

          PROCESS                   CAPITAL           O&M           SALVAGE

 Trickling Filter Plant  (0.086 mgd);
   Influent  Pumping (1)
   Preliminary  Treatment  (1)
   Primary Sedimentation  (1)
   Trickling Filters (1)
   Chemical  Addition
   Secondary Sedimentation  (1)
   Filtration
   Chlorination
   Sludge Pumping  (1)
   Anaerobic Digestion  (1)

 Prefabricated STP  (0.064  mgd):
   Influent  Pumping
   Preliminary  Treatment
   Prefab Plant
   Chemical  Addition
   Filtration
   Chlorination

 Common Costs:
   Contract  Sludge Hauling
   Lab/Maintenance Bldg.  &  Lab
      Analyses
   Mobilization
   Site Work, including excavation
   Electrical
   Yard Piping
   HVAC
   Controls  & Instruments
   Land
   Administration
   Yard Work

       Subtotal
       25% Engineering & Cont.

       Total


  *Capital cost  estimate includes allowance for these items including
   rehabilitation of existing  units.
 **These items do not involve  a  capital expense.
(l)These are  existing units.
*
A
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A
A
A
A
AA
AA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
AA
323,000
81,000
$404,000
500
800
1,800
1,900
2,400
2,200
600
4,800
800
1,200
400
700
10,000
2,000
600
4,200
4,200
4,700
—
_
_
—
_
_
_
1,400
1,100
46,300
-
$46,300
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
AA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
AA
97,000
24,000
$121,000


-------
                             EIS ALTERNATIVE 6
          WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY COST ESTIMATE - NEW LONDON
                                   UPGRADE
 Q = 0.120 mgd
           PROCESS
 Influent Pumping (1)
 Preliminary Treatment (1)
 Primary Sedimentation (1)
 Activated Sludge
 Chemical Addition
 Final Clarification
 Filtration
 Chlorination (1)
 Sludge Pumping
 Anaerobic Digestion
 Contract Sludge Hauling
 Lab Analyses
 Mobilization
 Site Work, including  excavation
 Electrical
 Yard Piping
 HVAC
 Controls and Instruments
 Land
 Administration
 Yard Work
    Subtotal
    25% Engineering &  Cont.
    Total
  *Capital cost estimate includes allowance for these items including
   rehabilitation of existing units.
 **These items do not involve a capital expense.
(l)These are existing units.
CAPITAL
*
*
A
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
AA
A
*
*
*
*
*
*
AA
**
329,000
82,000
$411,000
O&M
900
1,400
1,900
11,500
2,600
2,300
600
800
800
1,200
3,000
2,700
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,400
1,100
32,200
-
$32,200
SALVAGE
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
AA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
AA
99,000
25,000
$124,000


-------
                           EIS ALTERNATIVE 6
(25% Cluster)
             Cost in 1978 Dollars
COST ELEMENT




1980




Collection System




On-Site Systems




Cluster System




   Total




1980-2000




Collection




On-Site




Total
   CAPITAL
O&M
SALVAGE VALUE



$
619
489
881
1.989
,000
,000
,000
,000
6
8
18
$32
,000
,200
,700
,900
507
49
396
$952
,000
,000
,000
,000

$  36,200/yr




$   3,700/yr




$  39,9QO/yr
Note - All costs include 25% Engineering and Contingency

-------
                           EIS ALTERNATIVE 6
(50% Cluster)
             Cost in 1978 Dollars
COST ELEMENT




1980




Collection System




On-Site Systems




Cluster System




   Total




1980-2000




Collection




On-Site




Total
   CAPITAL
O&M
SALVAGE VALUE



$
619
327
1,761
1,707
,000
,000
,000
,000
6
8
37
$51
,000
,200
,500
,700
507
33
792
$1,332
,000
,000
,000
,000

$  36,200/yr




$   3,700/yr




$  39,900/yr
Note - All costs include 25% Engineering and Contingency

-------
                                                                       APPENDIX
                                                                         1-1
             SOME MANAGEMENT AGENCIES FOR DECENTRALIZED FACILITIES
     Central management entities that administer non-central systems with
various degrees of authority have been established in several States.
Although many of these entities are quasi-public, few of them both own and
operate each component of the facility.  The list of small waste flow         ,
management agencies that follows is not comprehensive.  Rather, it presents a .
sampling of what is currently being accomplished.  Many of these entities
are located in California, which has been in the vanguard of the movement
away from conventional centralized systems to centrally managed decentralized
systems to serve rural areas (State of California, Office of Appropriate
Technology, 1977).

                  Westboro (Wisconsin Town Sanitary District)

     Sanitary District No. 1 of the Town of Westboro represents the public
ownership and management of septic tanks located on private property.  In
1974  the unincorporated community of Westboro was selected as a demonstra-
tion site by the Small Scale Waste Management Project (SSWMP) at the
University of Wisconsin to determine whether a cost-effective alternative
to central sewage for small communities could be developed utilizing on-site
disposal techniques.  Westboro was thought to be typical of hundreds of
small rural communities in the Midwest which are~in need of improved
wastewater treatment and disposal facilities but are unable to afford
conventional sewerage.

     From background environmental data such as soils and engineering
studies and groundwater sampling, it was determined that the most economical
alternative would be small diameter gravity sewers that would collect
effluents from individual septic tanks and transport them to a common soil
absorption field.  The District assumed responsibility for all operation
and maintenance of the entire facility commencing at the inlet of the septic
tank.  Easements were obtained to allow permanent legal access to properties
for purposes of installation, operation, and maintenance.  Groundwater was
sampled and analyzed during both the construction and operation phases.
Monthly charges were collected from homeowners.  The system, now in operation,
will continue to be observed by the SSWMP to assess the success of its
mechanical performance and management capabilities.

                               Washington State

     Management systems have been mandated in certain situations in the
State of Washington to assist in implementing the small waste flow manage-
ment concept.  In 1974 the State's Department of Social and Health Services
established a requirement for the management of on-site systems:  an
approved management system would be responsible for the maintenance of
sewage disposal systems when subdivisions have gross densities greater
than 3.5 housing units or 12 people per acre (American Society of Agricultural
Engineers 1977).  It is anticipated that this concept will soon be applied
to all on-site systems.

-------
                                                                         1-1
      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.

-------
                                                                        1-1
                           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
                                                                               1-2
                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,  arid 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

-------
                                                                                1-2
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
                                                                        1-3
              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:

     o    To acquire by purchase, gift, grant, lease, or rent both real
          and personal property;

     o    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;

     o    To declare and abate nuisances;

     o    To require correction or private systems;

     o    To recommend correction procedures;

     o    To enter onto property, correct malfunctions, and bill the owner
          if he fails to repair the system;

     o    To raise revenue by fixing and collecting user charges and
          levying special assessments and taxes;

     o    To plan and control how and when wastewater facilities will be
          extended to those within its jurisdiction;

     o    To meet the eligibility requirements for loans and grants from
          the State and Federal government.
                                                              GPO 941-905

-------