Sewer Committee Meeting
Saturday, August 20th, 2005
Attendance: Reed, DeSimone, Fallon, VanBelleghem, JGlassi, Flavin, Smaka
(Engineer), Melko (Fish Lake Representative), and county officials from both Marcellus
and Porter Townships
1 of 7
Next Meeting
1. TBD
Action Items
1. Continue to follow-up on grant money for rural development. (RReed)
Action Item Update: The following is an action item update from the previous
meeting
1. Grant money for rural development. (RReed)
a. USDA has a rural development grant program. Wightman has agreed to
investigate this further if the GL sewer project is approved. Alan Smaka
indicated that there is some money available, but it is very limited and he
was not very optimistic about Gravel Lake qualifying (because of State of
Michigan budget cuts).
b. House Bill No. 6030 requires State of Michigan to set money aside for
water quality projects. Wightman has been consulted about this program.
2. E-Mail to Craig DeSimone outlining Diamond Lake water testing parameters
a. Complete
3. Home water testing kit info
a. Complete. Info has been forwarded to Craig DeSimone for presentation at
general meeting
4. Wightman provided RReed with Attachment A. Wightman indicates that the
introduction of sewers to our lake community will not cause any noticeable drop
in lake water level. Wightman reports that we loose more water through
evaporation than we would with a sewer system. Wightman also reports that the
Gravel Lake Aquifer can support the loss of water via evaporation and sewer.
5. Website has been completed. Visit the website at http://gravellake.org/sewercommittee.html.
Sewer Committee Meeting
Saturday, August 20th, 2005
Attendance: Reed, DeSimone, Fallon, VanBelleghem, JGlassi, Flavin, Smaka
(Engineer), Melko (Fish Lake Representative), and county officials from both Marcellus
and Porter Townships
2 of 7
Minutes
This was an informational meeting for county and lake committees. The engineering
company, Wightman, introducted the feasibility study. Below are the key topics covered
in the meeting.
1. Why we need sanitary sewer
a. Septic systems are failing
i. Septic systems treat the waste to some degree and remove solids,
but do not adequately remove nutrients or pathogens. The most
significant of these nutrients are nitrogen and phosphorus. Only
10% of the nitrogen is removed by the soil. The remaining 90%
contaminates ground and surface waters, potentially making them
unsuitable for human consumption. Approximately 75-90% of the
phosphorus in the wastewater is removed by the soils. The
remainder gets into the ground or surface water and can cause
increased weed growth which lowers the dissolved oxygen causing
harm to aquatic animals, and the weeds make the lake undesirable
for recreational purposes.
ii. The pathogens that enter the soil consist of bacteria and viruses.
Bacteria are killed in the soil but can make their way to surface and
ground water in wet or porous soil. Viruses can stay in the soil
indefinitely.
b. In many cases, well and septic setbacks cannot be met creating a situation
where contamination of drinking water is a significant risk. (See
Appendix B)
c. Poor soils provide less treatment of the wastewater and allow more
pollutants to enter the environment, compounding the problems mentioned
above. The USDA soils maps for Van Buren and Cass Counties show
nearly all of the soils around the lakes in the study area as being severe for
septic tank adsorption fields. The reasons include poor filtering, severe
slope, perks slowly, severe wetness, and ponding. The table describing soil
suitability for sanitary facilities is located in Appendix A, with the relevant
classifications underlined. The following is the contact info for the area
health departments.
i. Cass County - Brian Lindt @ (269)-445-5280 X 308
ii. Van Buren County - Mike Laufer @ (269)-621-6143 X 312
d. When a system is not functioning properly due to poor soils, a high water
table, or lack of maintenance, environmental and health problems are
magnified. A properly functioning septic system installed under ideal
conditions has a lifetime of approximately 20 years and begins to deteriorate
Sewer Committee Meeting
Saturday, August 20th, 2005
Attendance: Reed, DeSimone, Fallon, VanBelleghem, JGlassi, Flavin, Smaka
(Engineer), Melko (Fish Lake Representative), and county officials from both Marcellus
and Porter Townships
3 of 7
from day one. Eventually solids clog up the adsorption field and the
wastewater will backup onto the ground. The figures below depict typical
failures.
e. Water usage, due to the advent of dishwashers, washing machines, and
garbage disposals, and due to life style changes and housing conversions
from seasonal to full-time use, has significantly increased over the last 30
to 40 years. Many of the septic systems currently in use were installed
under old codes for less water usage and are not handling flows much
greater than they were designed from, again, adversely impacting the
ground and surface waters.
f. Michigan is the only remaining state without a statewide sanitary code for
septic systems. Governor Granholm has set a goal to establish a statewide
sanitary code as soon as possible and has established a task force for its
development. The proposed code will set uniform requirements for septic
system sizing, setbacks, replacement areas, etc. and will require regular
inspections of all septic systems at the homeowners expense at a
frequency yet to be determined. Many of the septic systems in the service
area will not meet this new code.
2. Population Statistics
a. Growth rate of 15% is assumed. See Appendix C for details
b. Waste water based on 2.6 people per home at 70 gallons per day. See
Appendix D for details.
3. Sewer Options
a. The collection system operation, maintenance and replacement costs
assume the proposed collection systems will be operated as an authority
and the services will be contracted out to a private contractor or adjacent
municipality.
Alternative 1:
Treatment Alternative 1 consists of expanding the existing Village of
Lawton Wastewater Treatment Facility by 0.140 MGD to serve the
potential collection systems at Fish and Gravel Lakes in Marcellus and
Porter Townships. The costs include adding a mechanical screen,
expanding the basins, adding sludge storage, expanding the lab, control
room and filter room, installing the necessary piping and electrical
facilities, replacing the main control panel and installing a sludge waste
meter.
Alternative 2:
Treatment Alternative 2 consists of the Village of Marcellus providing
treatment capacity of 0.140 MGD to serve the potential collection systems
at Fish and Gravel Lakes through construction of two new lagoon cells
Sewer Committee Meeting
Saturday, August 20th, 2005
Attendance: Reed, DeSimone, Fallon, VanBelleghem, JGlassi, Flavin, Smaka
(Engineer), Melko (Fish Lake Representative), and county officials from both Marcellus
and Porter Townships
4 of 7
and upgrading the collection system to collect wastewater from the
proposed service area.
Alternative 3:
Treatment Alternate 3 consists of construction a 0.140 MGD extended
aeration wastewater treatment plant with tertiary treatment to serve the
collection systems around Fish and Gravel Lakes. The new treatment
plant would be constructed in Marcellus Township near the headwaters of
the Rocky River.
4. Timeline. Below is an approximate timeline. These dates are not firm and this
schedule is only for reference. A detailed schedule will be generated if the project
is approved by Gravel Lake residents and Porter Township Commission.
a. Fall 2005
i. Continue work with Wightman on final cost estimate
ii. Continue to provide educational material to Gravel Lake residents,
including final cost estimate and financing options
b. Spring 2006
i. Start petition process
c. Spring 2007
i. Submit petition to Porter Township for final approval
ii. Submit financing paperwork
iii. Start legal paperwork
d. Spring 2008
i. Start breaking ground to install new system
5. Cost of Project
a. Installation cost is estimated at $10,000.00 per household. This is a very
rough estimate and the cost could increase or decrease.
b. Proposed month fee is approximately $40.00/month
i.
Sewer Committee Meeting
Saturday, August 20th, 2005
Attendance: Reed, DeSimone, Fallon, VanBelleghem, JGlassi, Flavin, Smaka
(Engineer), Melko (Fish Lake Representative), and county officials from both Marcellus
and Porter Townships
5 of 7
-
Attachment A
EFFECTS OF REDUCED SEWAGE FLOW ON LAKE LEVELS
AUGUST 23, 2005
Based upon recent house counts, the estimated average sewage flow for Gravel Lake
is approximately 70,000 gpd.

-
gal
ft 3
 9,358.3
day
day
An equivalent drop in the lake level due to lost sewage volume is determined below.

-
Q AVG  70,000
ft 3
1 acre 1 lake
in
in
in
LakeLevel  9,358.3
*
*
*12  0.0086
 3.14
2
day 43,560 ft
300 acres
ft
day
year
However, the above calculation over-estimates the change in lake level for the
following reasons.
1) Historical data from lake communities indicates actual sewage flows, on an
annual basis, are typically 30-60% less than those estimated for design. This
factor alone reduces the above calculation by approximately half.
2) The calculation looks only at the lake area instead of the entire watershed that
drains to the lake. Estimated at approximately 2,000 acres, this factor reduces the
above calculation by 85%.
-
When considering the above factors, the lake level calculation is as follows.

-
LakeLevel  4,679.2
ft 3
1 acre
1 lake
in
in
in
*
*
*12  0.000645
 0.24
2
day 43,560 ft
2000 acres
ft
day
year
Finally, annual precipitation within the Van Buren/Cass County area averages 36 to
38 inches per year based on monitored precipitation totals. The May to October
growing season averages precipitation totals of 18.25 inches with the remainder
occurring as rain or snow in fall, winter and spring. Conversely, evaporation during
the growing season averages approximately 27 inches (up to 1 inch per day on a hot
summer day), creating a negative water budget for surface waters during this season.
To maintain lake levels, watershed runoff and the groundwater aquifer must supply
this difference in the water budget. The above calculated water loss is negligible
given the total water supply and loss of the Gravel Lake watershed and aquifer.
Sewer Committee Meeting
Saturday, August 20th, 2005
Attendance: Reed, DeSimone, Fallon, VanBelleghem, JGlassi, Flavin, Smaka
(Engineer), Melko (Fish Lake Representative), and county officials from both Marcellus
and Porter Townships
6 of 7
Appendix B
Sewer Committee Meeting
Saturday, August 20th, 2005
Attendance: Reed, DeSimone, Fallon, VanBelleghem, JGlassi, Flavin, Smaka
(Engineer), Melko (Fish Lake Representative), and county officials from both Marcellus
and Porter Townships
7 of 7
Appendix C
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Year
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Marcellus Twp
Population
1,814
2,006
2,463
2,569
2,712
3,119
3,587
4,125
10-Year
Growth Rate
10.6%
22.8%
4.3%
5.6%
15.0%
15.0%
15.0%
Porter Twp
Population
1,047
1,360
2,041
2,086
2,406
2,767
3,182
3,659
10-Year
Growth Rate
Combined 10-Year
Growth Rate
29.9%
50.1%
2.2%
15.3%
15.0%
15.0%
15.0%
30.3%
12.5%
3.3%
10.5%
15.0%
15.0%
15.0%
Appendix D
WASTEWATER PROJECTIONS
Service
Area
Area A
Area B
Total
Current
Avg Flow
REU's
(GPD)
202
36,764
381
69,283
583
106,047
REU's
267
503
771
Design
Avg Flow
(GPD)
48,620
91,627
140,247
Peak Flow
(GPM)
135
255
390