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 H*ir Percent Huirf»pr PrrrcnC Ntmbvr Percent Kufl*ie£ Pcr<:»nt .1««J*»« I^Lr.'.'rt^ .H.U^'^J. p£:C£:(in.t ^i1?*''? Fn 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
deviceplastic
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
------- |