905R83106
Region 5
ction 230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Environmental
Impact Statement
Final
Indian Lake - Sister Lakes
Wastewater Treatment
System
Berrien, Cass, and
Van Buren Counties,
Michigan
-------
-------
For further information contact;
Charles A. Quinlan, III, Project Officer
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
Municipal Facilities Branch, Environmental Impact Section
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 886-0244
ABSTRACT
Indian Lake, Sister Lakes, and Pipestone Lake have long been a summer
recreational area for families from South Bend and the Chicago metropolitan
area. Now many of the second homes are becoming permanent residences for
retirees. As a result, people have become concerned about the impact of
on-site systems on the water quality of the lakes. Efforts early in the 1970s
focused on identification and repair of failing on-site systems and then on
pursuing collection and treatment alternatives, particularly for Indian Lake
and Pipestone Lake. The Draft Facility Plan recommended collector sewers and
centralized treatment facilities. Concurrently, the Cass County Board of
Public Works applied for and obtained a commitment for a grant and a loan from
the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) to construct collection system for
Indian Lake with treatment at Dowagiac. The EIS investigated both centralized
alternatives and decentralized alternatives (upgraded on-site and cluster
systems) for the area lakes and concluded that a decentralized alternative was
the most cost-effective and environmentally acceptable. Alternative 10, the
recommended alternative, consists of upgraded on-site systems, blackwater
holding tanks on some parcels, and 10 cluster systems. No USEPA grant assist-
ance is available for this project at the present time. The FmHA has tenta-
tively withdrawn its commitment of assistance because, by interagency agree-
ment, FmHA funds projects that are consistent with an approved Facilities Plan
or EIS.
-------
SUMMARY
( ) Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(X) Final Environmental Impact Statement
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
1. NAME OF ACTION
Administrative (X)
Legislative ( )
2. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500)
established a uniform, nationwide water pollution control program. Section
201 of the Act established grants for planning, design, and construction
for water pollution control facilities. At the request of lakeshore resi-
dents of Indian Lake, the Cass County Department of Public Works (CCDPW)
applied for a facility planning grant in 1975. The Michigan Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR) delineated the facilities planning area to include
Indian Lake, the Sister Lakes, and Pipestone Lake. The CCDPW was desig-
nated the lead agency for the administration of grants.
Concurrent with the facilities planning process, the CCDPW filed an
application with the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) in May 1976 for a
grant and loan to construct sewers around Indian Lake only. The FmHA
informed the CCLPW in August 1976 that the grant and loan application was
approved, with the condition that the facilities planning documents would
be approved by MDNR.
The preliminary draft of the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes Facility Plan
was submitted to MDNR in October 1977 by Gove Associates, Inc., the con-
sulting engineer. Collector sewers and centralized treatment was proposed
for the lake areas. The Facility Plan was not approved at that time be-
cause of questions regarding the potential impacts of the proposed sewers,
system costs, and whether innovative/alternative systems might be a feas-
ible alternative.
ii
-------
In October 1978, USEPA issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement (EIS). The major considerations were the con-
tribution of present on-site systems to lake water degradation, the poten-
tial for improved treatment by existing systems through upgrading and
improving maintenance, the economic impact of the proposed project alter-
natives, and the potential secondary impacts.
The Draft EIS, published in August 1982, contained an evaluation of
the existing wastewater-related problems and the treatment needs of the
facilities planning area. Centralized collection and treatment alterna-
tives were re-evaluated and decentralized alternatives were developed and
analyzed. Considerable emphasis was devoted to the decentralized alterna-
tives because the potential to reduce costs was great. The residences not
immediately adjacent to the lakes were not included in the analysis because
no need for improved sewage treatment was determined.
Subsequent to the issuance of the Draft EIS, a public hearing was
convened at the Sister Lakes School on 28 September 1982. This hearing was
conducted to gather comments on information presented in the Draft EIS.
The comment period was later held open to receive comments by letter. This
Final EIS was prepared to respond to the comments received, to present the
analysis of additional data gathered, and to describe a new wastewater
management alternative developed for the study area.
One of the most significant comments on the Draft was that more data
was required to document the precise nature of water quality and public
health problems and thus the need for improved wastewater management in the
study area. To accomplish this, a supplementary field study was conducted
in October and November 1982. This field work consisted of a limited
sanitary survey in targeted areas, lake water quality and sediment samp-
ling, and a limited sampling of on-site wastewater effluent plumes in
groundwater. As a result of analysis of the collected data, a new EIS
Alternative 10 was developed to meet the needs of identified public health
and water quality problems.
iii
-------
3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Twelve wastewater system alternatives were evaluated in detail during
this study. Six alternatives include collection of sewage from the lake
areas and transmission to various treatment sites where different treatment
processes would occur. The other alternatives include the No Action Alter-
native and the various on-site and cluster system (off-site) alternatives.
Each alternative provides service to the residences near the lakes in the
study area (except Keeler Lake).
Alternative 1
The No Action Alternative presumes that neither USEPA nor FmEA would
provide funds to build, upgrade, or expand existing on-site treatment
systems, although local health authorities would continue to have the
responsibility for improving existing systems that cause public health
problems. No costs were calculated for this alternative.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 proposes construction of septic tank effluent (STE)
pressure collection sewers and separate treatment plants for Indian Lake
and Sister Lakes with discharges to surface waters. The treatment plants
would include waste stabilization ponds with 9.5 months of storage. The
Sister Lakes treatment plant would discharge to Silver Creek and the Indian
Lake treatment plant would discharge to the Indian Lake outlet. The initial
capital cost of this alternative is $24,106,200 and the initial annual
operation and maintenance costs are $261,700.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 proposes construction of pressure collection sewers and
a regional treatment plant utilizing application of wastewater effluent to
land. Pretreatment prior to land application would be accomplished by
waste stabilization ponds that incorporate 6 months of winter storage. The
initial capital cost of this alternative is $23,819,600 and the initial
annual operation and maintenance costs are $285,900.
IV
-------
Alternative 4
This alternative proposes construction of STE pressure collection
sewers and a regional treatment plant utilizing waste stabilization ponds
for treatment. The treatment plant is proposed to be located in Section 11
of Silver Creek Township. It would incorporate 9.5 months of storage and
would discharge to Silver Creek. The estimated initial capital cost is
$24,573,700 and the estimated initial annual operation and maintenance
costs are $252,500.
Alternative 5A
This alternative is similar to Alternative 4, except the regional
treatment plant would be located near Indian Lake and would discharge to
the Indian Lake outlet. This alternative has an estimated initial capital
cost of $23,614,200 and estimated initial annual operation and maintenance
costs of $247,000.
Alternative 5B
This alternative is similar to Alternative 5A, except that a conven-
tional gravity collection sewer system would be utilized rather than the
STE pressure sewer system. This alternative is similar to the alternative
recommended in the Facilities Plan by Gove Associates, Inc. The estimated
initial capital cost is $29,598,600 and the initial annual operation and
maintenance costs are $278,200.
Alternative 6
Alternative 6 proposes construction of STE pressure collection sewers
and a new treatment plant for the Sister Lakes and utilization of the
Dowagiac treatment plant for Indian Lake wastewater. The Sister Lakes
treatment plant would consist of waste stabilization ponds with 9.5 months
of storage capacity and would discharge to Silver Creek. The Dowagiac
treatment plant would not be expanded to accommodate the flow from the
Indian Lake area. The estimated initial capital cost for this alternative
-------
is $23,487,400 and the initial annual operation and maintenance costs,
including the treatment charge at the Dowagiac treatment plant, are
$294,000.
Alternative 7
This alternative proposes construction of STE pressure collection
sewers and transmission facilities to the Dowagiac treatment plant. This
alternative has an estimated initial capital cost of $22,457,200 and init-
ial annual operation and maintenance costs of $466,100.
Alternative 8A
This alternative includes upgrading on-site systems where a subse-
quent, detailed inspection uncovers a need for upgrading and collecting STE
from certain critical areas where upgrading on-site systems is not feas-
ible. The STE would be treated in common cluster drain fields. This
alternative utilizes STE pressure collection sewers for the critical areas.
The estimated initial capital cost of this alternative is $9,683,800 and
the estimated initial annual operation and maintenance costs are $280,200.
Alternative 8B
This alternative is similar to Alternative 8A, except STE gravity
sewers and lift stations and force mains would be utilized to convey STE to
the cluster drain fields. The estimated initial capital cost of this
alternative is $9,644,200 and the estimated initial annual operation and
maintenance costs are $265,700.
Alternative 9
This alternative consists of upgrading on-site systems where a subse-
quent, detailed inspection program uncovers a need for upgrading and in-
stalling low-flow toilets and blackwater holding tanks for those residences
for which on-site upgrading is not feasible. The graywater would be
handled by the existing or upgraded septic tank and soil absorption system.
vi
-------
The estimated initial capital cost is $3,710,600 and the estimated initial
annual operation and maintenance costs are $224,000.
Alternative 10
This alternative consists of elements of Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 9.
Most of the shoreline areas would have their on-site systems upgraded and
low-flow toilets and blackwater holding tanks would be installed on parcels
with severe site limitations. Graywater would be handled by the existing
or upgraded septic tank and soil absorption systems. Of the critical areas
10 shoreline segments have unsuitable site conditions and numbers of resi-
dences so that STE collection systems and cluster drain fields are feas-
ible. The estimated initial capital cost is $5,664,750 and the estimated
initial annual operation and maintenance costs are $228.500.
The total present worth costs of the major components of the alterna-
tives and their ranking are presented in Table 1. These system alterna-
tives can be grouped into three design/cost categories. The centralized
comprehensive sewering alternatives (2, 3, 4, 5A, 5B, 6, and 7) are highest
in cost; upgraded on-site systems with certain critical areas served by
cluster drainfields (Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 10) are intermediate in cost;
and upgraded on-site systems with blackwater holding tanks (Alternative 9)
are lowest in cost.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Construction Phase
Major direct impacts from construction activities that would be asso-
ciated with the alternatives would be concentrated along the corridors of
the collection sewers and at the wastewater treatment facilities sites.
Fugitive dust, exhaust emissions from construction equipment, noise, de-
struction of vegetation, accelerated erosion, disturbance of wildlife,
disturbance of streambeds and lakebeds, and interruption of traffic flow
and patterns would create short-term nuisance conditions and environmental
vii
-------
CO
J-l
cfl
3
CO
o
CO
4J
CO
O
a
oo
ON
0)
C
CO
cu
H
4-1
n)
o ~H
o
a
OT
«
a
M-4
O
CO
O
o
CU
4-1
cd
H
4J
CO
cu
,0
cfl
H
ewers and separate WWTPs for Sister Lakes i
h discharges to Silver Creek and Indian Lai
m **
e'S
0
y cu
&t lj
U)
v>
**
r-t
3
O
ewers and regional land treatment system
o>
CO
e
0 ff
y *-
o
V
vi -a
3 O»
ot y
£3
ewers and regional WWTP located in Section
Stiver Creek
CO
o
e *>
0
4-1 30
y vi
0> W
o w
"O
V
Vi X
3 *
CO >
CU rH
ewers and regional WWTP located in Sectloni
rge to Indian Lake outlet
.c
c y
O M
o __
O 9
3-0
U) 3]
V
U <7\
eu e-J
wers and regional WWTP located in Sections
rge to Indian Lake outlet
O* (0
CO
u
e «
H "O
y x
41 **
3s
y CM
>»
O CN
ewers and existing Do wag lac WWTP for Indlai
ter Lakes located In Section 11 with dis-
co CO
C CA
0
*> o
0)
fH eu
o 3
y >x
01 T)
Vt 2
i M
m 01
P «
cu J
o>
Ol
u
0)
H
w
0
*J
0)
lJ
5
ewers and existing Dowagiac WWTP
CO
c
o
y
01
o
y
V
u
3
CD
01
ding and septic tank effluent col-
wers from critical areas and conveyed
VI (0
00
a. C*
3
S "
o> cu
(0 Q.
to x
CU
** -o
CO *-*
I y
82
to
13
CU
»w
C
T-t
u
CU
to
3
y
o
ding and septic tank effluent collected
vity sewers from critical areas and con-
Vi VI
00 00
3 V<
Ol
CO *->
§i
W >J
CD
*4
01 ~i
0) (0
1
SZ
01
u-«
c
s
v
Vi
Ol
*J
-I
«J
1)
Ol
>
ding and blackwatcr holding tanks on
to
Vi
00
o.
CD
CO r-t
§ S
5,3.
CO
0) a)
** y
0) *-
tS y
ding, blackvater holding tanks on critical
CQ
V*
fi«
3
CO
a>
01
Of
4-t
CO
1
<§
ank effluent collected from critical areas
er drain fields
to
y 3
H <-4
C*
S 2
C Ol
u
to" c
-J 0
y
v< -o
s c
a. o
3 *J *-
e «
V* O V*
OS f
Vlll
-------
damage along the sewer and force main routes. The extent and range of
impacts is directly related to the lengths of the proposed sewers. The
centralized treatment alternatives have potential for the greatest number
of impacts. The number and extent of impacts would be considerably less
for the two alternatives with critical area collection systems and cluster
drainfields. Major impacts on the environment would occur at the new
treatment plant sites because each site would have a waste stabilization
lagoon built on it. All the sites are presently used for agricultural
purposes, and the site in Section 29 (near Indian Lake) is mostly prime
agricultural land that would be converted irretrievably to treatment plant
use. The cluster drainfield sites also would be extensively disturbed for
drainfield trenching. The three alternatives with upgraded on-site systems
would involve extensive disturbance on individual lots only.
Alternative 9 would require the smallest commitment of public capital.
The local share of the capital cost is lowest with Alternative 9, even
including some additional private homeowner cost.
Operational Phase
The operation of the facilities proposed in the alternatives would
produce some significant long-term impacts. All of the alternatives (ex-
cept the No Action Alternative) would result in slightly reduced nutrient
inputs into the lakes; the greatest reductions could be expected for the
complete sewering alternatives. The data were inconclusive as to whether
the water quality of the lakes would be noticeably improved under any of
the alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative lake water quality may
noticeably decline and nuisance algal blooms may increase in extent and
density. Occasionally failing on-site systems would cause localized water
quality problems, potential health risks, and malodorous conditions. The
soil absorption systems that would continue to be used and those proposed
for construction would affect the quality of groundwater slightly. Oc-
casional malfunctions and power outages within the wastewater collection
system could cause serious short-term impacts on lake water quality. The
treatment facilities for the centralized alternatives would be capable of
ix
-------
meeting the discharge requirements established by MDNR. Water quality in
the receiving streams would be altered, but not seriously degraded during
the annual discharge period. The land application alternative should
result in minimal operating impacts because the infiltrated water should be
of comparatively high quality.
Septage and holding tank waste hauling would result in minimal adverse
impacts. Some ephemeral odors from the pumping operation would be detected
and truck traffic would be present. Septage disposal would be conducted in
an environmentally compatible way with application to agricultural lands.
5. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Alternative 10 - upgraded on-site systems and blackwater holding tanks
or cluster systems in critical areas, is the recommended alternative.
Alternative 10 was developed from Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 9 by utilizing
the results of the field work conducted in October and November 1982. The
field studies, particularly the Sanitary Survey, enabled a judgement be-
tween what areas should be on cluster systems and what areas could utilize
upgraded on-site systems with some blackwater holding tanks. Alternative
10 could be implemented on the local level without USEPA or FmHA funding
over an extended period of time. The selection of this alternative was
based on provision of adequate wastewater treatment and cost-effectiveness
with protection of the water quality of the lakes being nearly equal. This
alternative provides for the wastewater treatment needs of the area better
than Alternative 9 because cluster systems rather than blackwater holding
tanks would serve certain critical areas. Alternatives 8A and 8B consist
of cluster systems in more areas than the documentation of needs warranted.
The centralized alternatives, including that for Indian Lake alone, were
not justified considering the high cost of these alternatives and the
adverse impacts to the environment.
The location and the layout of the cluster systems for Alternative 10
are presented in Figure 1. The upgraded on-site systems and blackwater
holding tanks would be distributed throughout the lakeshore areas. The
estimated number of systems to be upgraded initially and over the project
planning period are included in Appendix D.
-------
*£ z
% * z <
°> iii z o cc
m co < ; Q
5 > 2 <
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF APPENDICES
LIST OF TABLES ,
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
i
ii
xii
xvi
xvii
L.O. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
l.L. Project Background 1-1
1.2. Legal Basic for Action and Project Need 1-5
1.3. Study Process and Public Participation 1-9
1.4. Issues 1-8
2.0. DISCUSSION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1. Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems 2-1
2-1
2-3
2-3
2-4
2-6
2-7
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
2-14
2-14
2-15
2-15
2-17
2-18
2-21
2.2. Identification of Wastewater Treatment System Options 2-26
2-26
2-30
2-30
2-31
2-32
2-32
2-34
2-34
2-38
2-39
2-40
2-44
xii
Existing
2.1.1.
2.1.2.
2.1.3.
2.1.4.
2.1.5.
Identifi
2.2.1.
2.2.2.
2.2.3.
2.2.4.
Wastewater Treatment Systems
Existing On site Systems
Summary of Data on Operation of Existing Systems....
2.1.2.1. Septic Leachate Survey
2.1.2.2. Aerial Survey
2.1.2.3. Mailed Questionnaire
2.1.2.4. Indian Lake Sanitary Surveys
2.1.2.5. Pipestone Lake Surveys
2.1.2.6. Targeted Sanitary Survey
2.1.2.7. Shallow Groundwater Study
Problems Caused by Existing Systems
2.1.3.1. Backups.
2.1.3.2. Ponding
2.1.3.3. Groundwater Contaminat ion
2.1.3.4. Surface Water Quality Problems
Identification of Problem Areas
Septage Disposal Practices
cation of Wastewater Treatment System Options
Design Factors
System Components
2.2.2.1. Flow and Waste Reduction
2.2.2.2. Collection System
2.2.2.3. Wastewater Treatment Processes
2.2.2.4. Effluent Disposal Options
2.2.2.5. Sludge Treatment and Disposal
2.2.2.6. On-site System
2.2.2.7. Cluster System
2.2.2.8. Septage Disposal
Centralized Collection System Alternatives
Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternatives.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
2.3. System Alternatives 2-44
2.3.1. Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2-46
2.3.2. Alternative 2 - Pressure Collection Sewers and
Separate WWTPs for the Sister Lakes and Indian Lake
Areas with Discharge to Surface Waters 2-47
2.3.3. Alternative 3 - Pressure Collection Sewers and
Regional Treatment and Land Treatment System 2-47
2.3.4. Alternative 4 - Pressure Collection Sewers and
Regional WWTP located in Section 11 2-51
2.3.5. Alternative 5A - Pressure Collection Sewers and a
Regional WWTP Located in Sections 29 and 32 2-51
2.3.6. Alternative 5B - Gravity Collection Sewers and a
Regional WWTP Located in Sections 29 and 32 2-51
2.3.7. Alternative 6 - Pressure Collection Sewers and
Existing Dowagiac WWTP for Indian Lake and new WWTP
for Sister Lakes 2-54
2.3.8. Alternative 7 - Pressure Collection Sewers and
Existing Dowagiac WWTP 2-54
2.3.9. Alternative 8A - On-Site Systems Upgrading and
Critical Areas Septic Tank Effluent Collected by
Pressure Sewers and Conveyed to Cluster Drain Fields 2-56
2.3.10. Alternative 8B - On-Site Systems Upgrading and
Critical Areas Septic Tank Effluent Collected by
Small Diameter Gravity Sewers and Conveyed to
Cluster Drain Fields 2-56
2.3.11. Alternative 9 - On-Site Systems Upgrading and
Blackwater Holding Tanks 2-59
2.3.12. Alternative 10 - On-Site Systems Upgrading, Black-
water Holding Tanks, and Critical Areas Septic Tank
Effluent Collected by Gravity or Pressure Sewers
and Conveyed to Cluster Drain Fields 2-59
2.4. Flexibility and Reliability of System Alternatives 2-61
2.5. Comparison of Alternatives and Selection of the Recommended
Action 2-62
2.5.1, Comparison of Alternatives 2-62
2.5.1.1. Project Costs 2-62
2.5.1.2. Environmental Impacts 2-63
2.5.1.3. Implementability 2-66
2.5.2. Selection of Recommended Actions 2-71
3.0. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
3.1. Natural Environment 3-1
3.1.1. Atmosphere 3-1
3.1.2. Land 3-2
3.1.2.1. Geology 3-2
3.1.2.2. Soils 3-4
3.1.3. Water Resources 3-8
3.1.3.1. Surface Water 3-8
3.1.3.2. Ground Water 3-21
3.1.4. Aquatic Biota 3-22
3.1.4.1. Phytoplankton 3-22
3.1.4.2. Mollusks 3-27
3.1.4.3. Fisheries 3-27
xiii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.1.5. Terrestrial Biota 3-27
3.1.5.1. Amphibians and Reptiles 3-27
3.1.5.2. Birds 3-29
3.1.5.3. Mammals 3-29
3.1.5.4. Vegetation 3-29
3.1.6. Wetlands 3-30
3.2. Man-Made Environment 3-31
3.2.1. Demography 3-31
3.2.1.1. Historic and Current Population 3-31
3.2.1.2. Service Area Population Estimates 3-33
3.2.1.3. Population Projections 3-35
3.2.2. Land Use 3-42
3.2.2.1. Study Area Land Use Trends 3-42
3.2.2.2. Prime and Unique Farmland 3-45
3.2.2.3. Future Land Use 3-47
3.2.2.4. Development Potential 3-47
3.2.3. Economics 3-49
3.2.3.1. Regional Employment Trends 3-49
3.2.3.2. Income 3-50
3.2.3.3. Unemployment 3-50
3.2.4. Recreation and Tourism Resources 3-51
3.2.4.1. Public Facilities 3-51
3.2.4.2. Private Facilities 3-52
3.2.5. Public Finance 3-52
3.2.5.1. Assessed Valuation and Market Value 3-52
3.2.5.2. Total Revenues 3-54
3.2.5.3. Debt, Debt Service, and Debt Limits 3-54
3.2.6. Transportation 3-56
3.2.7. Energy 3-56
3.2.8. Cultural Resources 3-56
3.2.8.1. Early History 3-56
3.2.8.2. Archaeological Sites 3-57
3.2.8.3. Historic Sites 3-58
4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
4.1. Primary Impacts 4-2
4.1.1. Construction Impacts 4-2
4-2
4-2
4-3
4-3
4-3
4-5
4-7
4-8
4-8
4-9
4-9
4-9
Construct:
4.1.1.1.
4.1.1.2.
4.1.1.3.
4.1.1.4.
4.1.1.5.
4.1.1.6.
4.1.1.7.
4.1.1.8.
4.1.1.9.
4.1.1.10.
4.1.1.11.
4.1.1.12.
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Groundwater
Terrestrial Biota
Recreation and Tourism
Cultural Resources
xiv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (concluded)
4.1.2. Operation Impacts 4-10
4.1.2.1. Atmosphere 4-10
4.1.2.2. Soils 4-12
4.1.2.3. Surface Waters 4-15
4.1.2.4. Groundwater 4-21
4.1.2.5. Terrestrial Biota 4-25
4.1.2.6. Land Use Impacts 4-25
4.1.2.7. Demographics 4-25
4.1.2.8. Economics 4-26
4.1.2.9. Recreation and Tourism 4-26
4.1.2.10. Transportation 4-26
4.1.2.11. Energy 4-27
4.1.3. Public Finance 4-27
4.2. Secondary Impacts 4-31
4.2.1. Demographics 4-32
4.2.2. Land Use 4-33
4.2.3. Surface Water 4-33
4.2.4. Recreation and Tourism 4-34
4.2.5. Economics 4-35
4.2.6. Threatened and Endangered Species 4-35
4. 3. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts 4-35
4.3.1. Mitigation of Construction Impacts 4-36
4.3.2. Mitigation of Operation Impacts 4-39
4.3.3. Mitigation of Secondary Impacts 4-41
4.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4-41
4.5. Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource Commitments.... 4-42
5.0. PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS 5-1
6.0. LITERATURE CITED 6-1
7.0. LIST OF PREPARERS 7-1
8.0. GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS 8-1
9.0. INDEX 9-1
xv
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - SANITARY SURVEY
APPENDIX B - WATER QUALITY SURVEY OF AREA LAKES
APPENDIX C - SHALLOW GROUNDWATER STUDY OF SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEMS
APPENDIX D - PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVE 10
APPENDIX E - LETTERS AND WRITTEN COMMENTS
xv i
-------
LIST OF TABLES
1 Summary of all estimated costs of alternatives viii
2-1 Number of active wastewater plumes and category and number
of discernable on-site septic systems around the lakes in
study area 2-5
2-2 Partial results of 1978 sanitary questionnaire as
tabulated by Gove Associates, Inc. for lakeshore
areas in Cass County 2-8
2-3 Results of pollution survey of Indian Lake 2-9
2-4 Description of site limitations and results of
surveys pertinent to on-site systems for each
district 2-22
2-5 Wastewater load factors projected for Sister
Lakes and Indian Lake, Michigan, for the year
2000 2-27
2-6 The service factor excluding interest during construction,
applied to the construction cost to compute the capital
cost 2-29
2-7 Economic cost criteria 2-29
2-8 Summary of all estimated costs of centralized
collection system alternatives 2-43
2-9 Summary of all estimated costs of centralized wastewater
plant (WWTP) alternatives 2-45
2-10 Summary of all estimated costs of alternatives 2-50
2-11 Summary of estimated costs of Indian Lake alternatives.. 2-64
3-1 Soils series characteristics and ratings 3-9
3-2 Physical characteristics of major lakes in the study
area 3-12
3-3 Summary of dominant algal taxa, average Secchi disk depths,
and stratification conditions from the 1979 sampling
period 3-14
3-4 Mean nutrient export from non-point sources by land use/
cover type 3-18
3-5 Total phosphorus inputs by source 3-18
xvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
3-6 Comparison of water quality indicies and estimated phos-
phorus loads for area lakes 3-22
3-7 Results of groundwater survey 3-25
3-8 Predominant species of fish in each of the study area
lakes surveyed by MDNR 3-28
3-y Population growth in the four-township area, three-county
area, and Michigan between 1950 and 1980 3-32
3-10 Population growth in the four-township area,
1970 to 1980 3-32
3-11 Population growth rates in the four-township area,
three-county area, and Michigan, 1950 - 1980 3-34
3-12 Comparison of counts of residential dwelling units
in the service areas 3-36
3-13 Number of new residences constructed on undeveloped
lots in the service areas 3-37
3-14 Housing units and population by service area and town-
ship, 1980 3-38
3-15 Population projections by township 3-39
3-16 Service area permanent population projections 3-39
3-17 Service area total population, based on four methods
for forecasting seasonal population 3-41
3-18 Acres of each land use/cover type in the seven watersheds
in the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes study area 3-44
3-19 Land use in the watershed by number of acres and by
percentage of the total acreage 3-45
3-2U Per capital personal income by county 3-50
3-21 Selected financial characteristics for Berrien, Cass, and
Van Buren Counties 3-53
3-22 County debt measures 3-55
4-1 Comparison of phosphorus loading rates associated
with the various alternatives to the current
loading rates 4-16
4-2 Annual residential user costs 4-28
xviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (concluded)
4-3 Cass County debt as a percentage of state equalized
assessed valuation under four local share capital
cost scenarios 4-29
4-4 Average annual user charges for the "build" alternatives
expressed as a percentage of median household income for
Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren Counties 4-31
xix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Alternative 10 - On-site systems upgrading, blackwater
holding tanks on critical parcels, and septic tank effluent
collected from critical areas and conveyed to cluster drain
fields xi
1-1 Location and boundary of the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes
Study Area 1-2
2-1 Septic tank - soil absorption systems 2-36
2-2 Septic tank - raised drain bed system 2-37
2-3 Layout of gravity collection systems, both conventional
(Cl) and septic tank effluent (C3) 2-41
2-4 Layout of septic tank effluent pressure sewers with some
gravity sewers (C2) 2-42
2-5 Alternative 2 - Pressure collection sewers and separate
WWTPs for the Sister Lakes and Indian Lake areas with
discharge to surface waters 2-48
2-6 Alternative 3 - Pressure collection sewers and regional
treatment and land treatment system 2-49
2-7 Alternative 4 - Pressure collection sewers and regional
WWTP located in Section 11 2-52
2-8 Alternative 5A - Pressure collection sewers and Alternative
5B - Gravity collection sewers and regional WWTP located
in Sections 29 and 32 2-53
2-9 Alternative 6 - Pressure collection sewers and existing
Dowagiac WWTP for Indian Lake and a new WWTP for Sister Lakes . 2-55
2-10 Alternative 7 - Pressure collection sewers and existing
Dowagiac WWTP 2-57
2-11 Alternative 8A - On-site systems upgrading and critical
areas septic tank effluent collected by pressure sewers and
conveyed to cluster drain fields 2-58
2-12 Alternative 10 - On-site systems upgrading, blackwater holding
tanks on critical parcels, and septic tank effluent collected
from critical areas and conveyed to cluster drain fields. . . . 2-60
3-1 Topography and physiography of the study area 3-3
xx
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (concluded)
Page
3-2 Surficial geology of the study area 3-5
3-3 Soil associations in the study area 3-6
3-4 Comparison of sediment NAI-P with algal density for study area
lakes 3-16
3-5 Surface watersheds in the study area 3-17
3-6 Groundwater contours in the study area 3-23
3-7 Well sampling sites for groundwater survey 3-2A
3-8 Population growth, historic and projected, for the four-
township area 3-40
3-y Spatial distribution of land use/cover 3-43
3-10 Prime farmland in areas where soil mapping is available .... 3-46
4-1 Future phosphorus loading conditions for the centralized
wastewater management alternatives 4-18
xxi
-------
1.0. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1. Project Background
The study area, covering an area of approximately 50 square miles in
rural southwestern Michigan includes the southern half of Keeler Township
in Van Buren County, the northern and western portions of Silver Creek
Township in Cass County, a small portion of Pokagon Township in Cass
County, and the southeastern portion of Bainbridge Township in Berrien
County (Figure 1-1). The most dominant geographical features are the six
Sister Lakes (Round Lake, Crooked Lake, Cable Lake, Magician Lake, Pipe-
stone Lake, and Dewey Lake), Keeler Lake, and Indian Lake.
On-site systems are the predominant means of wastewater treatment in
the study area; there is no centralized wastewater treatment or collection
system. Water quality problems have been observed in some of these lakes.
These problems may have been influenced by the shoreline development that
has occurred around each lake in the area.
Until the 1960s, public control over septic tank system installation
was nonexistent or only advisory. During the 1960s and 1970s, the State
government and local health departments formulated and implemented proce-
dures for preconstruction approval of septic tank systems. These proce-
dures and standard design requirements have reduced the occurrence of
surface malfunctions and plumbing backups for new systems.
A 1970 Cass County Health Department study of Indian Lake concluded
that sewage was entering the lake from on-site systems and that as seasonal
dwellings were converted to permanent houses the problem would become
worse. Small lot sizes, high groundwater tables, and poor soils were con-
sidered to be factors which contributed to failures and malfunctions of
on-site systems. The study recommended that "an engineering feasibility
study should be conducted to determine the cost and public support for a
public sewage system".
1-1
-------
Figure 1-1. Location and boundary of Indian Lake-Sister Lakes Study Area.
1-2
-------
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Michigan Water
Resources Commission (MWRC) Staff Report (1971) stated that most residences
around Indian Lake have disposal systems located too close to the normal
groundwater table. The MWRC did not have sufficient data in 1971 to recom-
mend action to cite Silver Creek Township for allowing unlawful pollution
to exist in the lake area. The MWRC recommended that Silver Creek Township
proceed with a program to provide a central collection and treatment system
for Indian Lake.
Pipestone Lake community-wide programs to ascertain lake water quality
and to upgrade on-site sewage disposal systems in order to gain compliance
with the Berrien County Sewage Disposal Regulations began in the late
1960s. A 1969 survey conducted by the Berrien County Health Department
(1971) determined that as many as 41% of the total residences on the north
side of the lake and 25% of the residences in the southern region had
sewage problems of some sort, requiring immediate attention and corrective
work. In 1970, a sanitary survey conducted by the MWRC reported direct
septic system discharges on the north side of the lake. Laboratory analy-
sis showed that three discharges were sources of human waste contamination.
In 1970 and 1971, MWRC follow-up studies and Health Department surveys
located more direct discharges and drew attention to the Dakin-Peters Drain
which was shown to have high coliform levels (Berrien County Health Depart-
ment 1971). A 1972 water pollution and nutrient source study of Pipestone
Lake conducted by the MWRC Water Quality Division concluded that the lake
was adversely affected by local waste disposal problems (MDNR 1972). The
MWRC then recommended construction of a municipal wastewater collection and
treatment system to protect public health and lake aesthetics.
In 1971, Barger Engineering completed an engineering study for Bain-
bridge Township that recommended construction of a sewage collection system
and aerated lagoons. Unavailability of planning and construction grants
have scuttled these plans.
A limnological study of Dewey Lake conducted by Snow (1976) concluded
that Dewey Lake has a natural potential to be mesotrophic (moderately
enriched and productive) and that on-site systems contributed less than 10%
1-3
-------
of the phosphorus load to the lake. The study noted that a sewer system
would reduce the nutrient input slightly.
Michigan DNR delineated the study area in a letter dated 20 February
1976. Pipestone Lake was added to the study area shortly afterward. Cass
County Department of Public Works (DPW) is the lead applicant and the Van
Buren County Road Commission and Berrien County DPW have concurred.
In May 1976, the Cass County Department of Public Works filed an
application with the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) for a grant and
loan to construct a waste disposal system around Indian Lake. In August
1976, Cass County was notified by FmHA that a $900,000 grant and a
$1,000,000 loan at 5% for 40 years was set aside for the construction of a
waste disposal system. In April 1977, an additional $300,000 in grant
monies were set aside by FmHA for the Indian Lake project.
In October 1977, Gove Associates, Inc. presented to Cass County the
preliminary draft of the Indian Lake - Sister Lakes Area Facility Plan. A
collector system was proposed to serve populated portions of the study
area, and treatment alternatives were evaluated as to costs, environmental
effects, and institutional feasibility. Acceptance of the Facility Plan by
MDNR and USEPA was delayed because of questions regarding the potential
impacts of the proposed new conveyance lines, system cost, and whether
innovative/alternative systems might be feasible.
In August 1978, USEPA issued a Notice of Intent to prepare a Environ-
mental Impact Statement (EIS). WAPORA, Inc. (E1S consultant to USEPA) sub-
mitted an initial plan of study to USEPA in November 1978 which specified
that the EIS would be prepared in two major phases. Phase I was designed
as an initial data collection and evaluation phase. Phase II involved the
completion of the work requirements identified in Phase I, the analysis of
wastewater collection and treatment alternatives, and the production of the
EIS documents. Phase I was completed in July 1979 with the publication of
the Affected Environment Chapter of the Preliminary Draft EIS (WAPORA, Inc.
1979). Phase II also included a reanalysis and recosting of centralized
treatment alternatives by Gove Associates, Inc. WAPORA would incorporate
1-4
-------
Gove Associates, Inc. work on centralized alternatives and would analyze
both centralized and decentralized alternatives in the preparation of the
EIS.
In January 1980, Gove Associates, Inc. submitted a cost effectiveness
analysis of a proposed centralized treatment system to USEPA. USEPA pre-
sented review comments on the cost effectiveness analysis prepared by Gove
Associates, Inc. in May 1980. Gove Associates, Inc. (1980) submitted their
revised cost effectiveness analysis to USEPA in October.
USEPA directed WAPORA to reanalyze the regional alternatives that were
proposed and costed in the revised cost effectiveness analysis. This re-
analysis was necessary because of deficiencies in the cost effectiveness
analysis. WAPORA submitted a supplemental proposal to USEPA in April 1981
delineating the scope of work required to perform the reanalysis. Work
commenced on the reanalysis and completion of the Draft EIS in June 1981 by
WAPORA.
WAPORA, Inc. submitted a preliminary Draft EIS to USEPA in March 1982.
The Draft EIS was subsequently published by USEPA in August. Included in
the Draft were preliminary analyses of cost-effectiveness of various cen-
tralized and decentralized alternatives and a recommendation that further
field work be conducted to better define project need and alternatives. A
public hearing was conducted on 28 September 1982 by USEPA to receive
comments on the Draft. The Supplemental Plan of Study for the additional
fieldwork and analyses was approved in October and the fieldwork was com-
pleted in November. The fieldwork consisted of a limited sanitary survey,
lake water and sediment quality sampling, and a limited sampling of su-
spected effluent plume in groundwater. An additional alternative (Alter-
native 10) combining elements of Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 9 was developed.
Based on the cost-effective alternative in the Draft EIS, FmHA sent a
letter dated 4 November 1982 to the Cass County Board of Public Works
(CCBPW) stating that they were deobligating the commitment to assist in
funding the Indian Lake system. The CCBPW asked for and was granted a
hearing on the termination of the grant. The hearing was held in Paw,
1-5
-------
Michigan on 10 March 1983. As a result of the hearing, FmHA agreed to
extend the commitment of the grant and loan through September 1983, pending
the recommendation of the Final EIS.
1.2. Legal Basis for Action and Project Need
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires a Fed-
eral agency to prepare an EIS on "...major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment ...". In addition, the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published regulations (40 CFR Parts
15GO-150b) to guide Federal agencies in determinations of whether Federal
funds, such as those that may be committed to the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes
project through the Construction Grants Program, or Federal approvals,
would result in a project that would significantly affect the environment.
USEPA developed its own regulations (40 CFR Part 6) for the implementation
of the EIS process. Pursuant to these regulations, USEPA Region V deter-
mined that an EIS was required for the proposed Indian Lake-Sister Lakes
project.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA, Public Law
92-500), as amended in 1977 by the Clean Water Act (CWA, Public Law 95-
217), establishes a uniform, nationwide water pollution control program
within which all water quality programs operate. MDNR has been delegated
the responsibility and authority to administer this program in Michigan,
subject to the approval of USEPA.
The dispersal of Federal funds is made to local applicants via the
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants Program adminis-
tered by USEPA. Prior to the Amendments of 1981, the program consisted of
a three-step grant process: Step 1 included wastewater facilities plan-
ning; Step 2 involved the development of detailed engineering plans and
specifications; and Step 3 covered construction of the pollution control
system.
The Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Amendments of
1981 became law (Public Law 97-217) on 29 December 1981, and changed sig-
1-6
-------
nilicantly the procedural and administrative aspects of the municipal
construction grants program. The changes reflected in these amendments
have been incorporated into Construction Grants - 1982 (CG-82) Municipal
Wastewater Treatment. Under the 1981 Amendments, separate Federal grants
are no longer provided for facilities planning and design of projects.
However, the previous designation of these activities as Step 1, facilities
planning, and Step 2, design, are retained in the CG-82. The term Step 3
grant refers to the project for which grant assistance will be awarded.
The Step 3 grant assistance will include an allowance for the planning
(Step 1) and design (Step 2) activities.
The CG-82 states that projects which received a Step 1 and/or Step 2
grant prior to the enactment of the 1981 amendments should be completed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of their grant agreement. Step 3
grant assistance will include an allowance for design for those projects
which received a Step 1 grant prior to 29 December 1981. A municipality
may be eligible, however, to receive an advance of the allowance for plan-
ning, and/or design if the population of the community is under 25,000 and
the State reviewing agency (MDNR) determines that the municipality would be
unable to complete the facilities planning and design to qualify for grant
assistance (Step 3). The Indian Lake-Sister Lakes project has been in Step
1 since 1976.
The State of Michigan, through the MDNR, administers the Federal Con-
struction Grants Program at the State level. State law also includes pro-
visions for an additional 5% of the costs for planning, design, and con-
struction, except where the Federal share is larger than 75%. No monies
for this purpose have been appropriated by the State legislature.
Communities may choose to construct wastewater treatment facilities
without financial support from the USEPA and State Grants Program. In such
cases, the only requirements are that the design be technically sound and
that the MDNR be satisfied that the facility will meet discharge standards.
If a community chooses to construct a wastewater collection and treat-
ment system with USEPA grant assistance, the project must meet all require-
1-7
-------
merits of the Grants Program. The CWA stresses that the most cost-effective
alternative be identified and selected. USEPA defines the cost-effective
alternative as the one that will result in minimum total resource costs
over the life of the project, yet meet Federal, State, and local require-
ments. However, the cost-effective alternative is not necessarily the
lowest cost proposal. The analysis for choosing the cost-effective alter-
native is based on both the capital construction costs and the operation
and maintenance costs for a 20-year period, although only the capital costs
are funded. Non-monetary costs also must be considered, including social
and environmental factors.
Federal funding for wastewater treatment projects is provided under
Section 201 of the FWPCA. The USEPA will fund 75% of the grant eligible
costs for conventional sewers and treatment. For alternative collection
systems and treatment systems (e.g., pressure sewers, septic tank effluent
sewers, septic tanks, and soil absorption systems), the funding level
increases to 85% of the eligible costs. The costs for conventional sewers
that USEFA will not assist in funding for are land and easement costs,
sewers for which less than two-thirds of the planned flow originates before
28 October 1972, pipes in the street or easements for house connections,
and building sewers for connection to the system. The costs for alterna-
tive systems that the USEPA will not assist in funding are easement costs
and building sewers for connection to the septic tank. The grant eligibil-
ity of the on-site portions of alternative systems varies depending on
their ownership and management. Publicly and privately-owned systems con-
structed after 27 December 1977 are not eligible for Federal grants.
Michigan was required by the Federal law to establish water quality
standards for lakes and streams and effluent standards for discharge to
them. Federal law stipulates that, at a minimum, discharges must meet
secondary treatment requirements. In some cases, even stricter effluent
standards are subject to USEPA approval and must conform to Federal guide-
lines.
A new wastewater treatment facility also is subject to the require-
ments of Section 402 of the FWPCA, which established the National Pollutant
1-8
-------
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Under the NPDES
regulations, all wastewater discharges to surface waters require an NPDES
permit and must meet the effluent standards identified in the permit. The
USLPA has delegated authority to establish effluent standards and to issue
discharge permits to the MDNR. The USEPA, however, maintains review au-
thority. Any permit proposed for issuance may be subject to a State hear-
ing if requested by another agency, the applicant, or other groups and
individuals. The hearing, normally before a State Hearing Examiner, pro-
vides the public with the opportunity to comment on a proposed discharge,
including the location of the discharge and level of treatment. Findings
and recommendations are subject to review and approval by the Michigan
Water Resources Commission.
1.3. Study Process and Public Participation
The major efforts in the preparation of this EIS occurred in the
period between 1979 and 1983. During this period, WAPORA, Inc. submitted
various interim reports to USEPA, including the "Affected Environment,
Preliminary Draft Chapter of the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes Environmental
Statement", and the Draft EIS. Participants in the wastewater planning
process during the past five years have included: USEPA; WAPORA, Inc. (EIS
consultant); Gove Associates, Inc. (Facilities Planner); Cass County (Gran-
tee); Berrien County; Van Buren County; Southwestern Michigan Regional
Planning Commission (now Southwestern Michigan Commission); Michigan De-
partment of Natural Resources; and other Federal, State, local, and private
agencies and organizations. USEPA sponsored 3 public meetings to facili-
tate public involvement during the preparation of the EIS.
1.4. Issues
Based on a review of USEPA's Notice of Intent, the Directive of Work,
and the Facility Plan, the following issues have been determined to be
significant and require resolution in the Environmental Statement:
Extent of the present problems resulting from the use of
on-site wastewater treatment systems
1-9
-------
Contribution made to water pollution by point sources and
nonpoint sources other than on-site wastewater treatment
systems
Future impacts resulting from continued use of on-site
systems
Potential for improved treatment of wastewater by existing
systems through improved maintenance and operation
Cost-effectiveness of various methods of wastewater treat-
ment, including alternative technologies
Potential for wastewater treatment projects to change the
rural character of the area by affecting wetlands and agri-
cultural lands
Economic impact of the capital and monthly operating costs
of the project on local citizens
Ability of local governments to finance the costs of the
project
Impact of the project on environmentally sensitive areas
(e.g., habitats of endangered and threatened species, arch-
aeological resources, and sections of the Dowagiac River
nominated as "natural" by Michigan)
Type and extent of secondary impacts resulting from the
project
Examination and analysis of local zoning and subdivision
ordinances, and land use regulations that could mitigate the
negative impacts of the project
Secondary impacts that would result from the implementation
ot all treatment alternatives
Commitment of resources including, but not limited to: con-
struction materials, financial resources, and labor and
energy resources.
1-10
-------
2.0. DISCUSSION OF WASTLWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
2.1. Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems
The study area is currently served almost exclusively by on-site
systems that include soil absorption of the septic tank effluent. Infor-
mation on existing systems was gathered from the health department records
in the respective counties and was developed from the limited sanitary
survey. Interviews with health department personnel were also useful in
assessing the environmental conditions and the suitability of septic tank
soil absorption systems for treating wastewater. A sanitary survey, septic
leachate detector survey, color infrared aerial photography, a mailed
questionnaire, previous surveys, and a shallow groundwater study also were
used to assess the effectiveness of the existing treatment systems.
2.1.1. Existing On-site Systems
Septic tanks and soil absorption systems for individual residences are
utilized almost exclusively for wastewater treatment and disposal in the
study area. One noteworthy exception is the Old German Village area on the
west side of Indian Lake. A collection system and community septic tank
and drainfield serves 20 (or 21) residences. While early septic tanks were
constructed of anything that would hold out soil, a very high percentage of
the septic tanks in use are precast concrete. Soil absorption systems
consist primarily of drain beds and dry wells. Prior to 1970, the home-
owner and his contractor could install any system they desired. Since 1970
the health departments have regulated the design and installation of on-
site systems. The records of the health departments and additional site
limitations are summarized in detail in Appendix A of the Draft EIS.
Each county health department utilizes its own standards for soil
absorption systems. The Van Buren County Health Department permits block
trench and precast concrete dry wells for both replacement and new systems.
The Cass County Health Department requires drain beds for new and replace-
ment systems and will permit dry wells for replacement systems where site
limitations prevent installation of drain beds. The Berrien County Health
2-1
-------
Department employs standards similar to those utilized by the Cass County
Health Department. Based on homeowner reports, repairs to systems are
frequently completed without health department involvement. In Van Buren
County, additionally, dry wells can be "restoned" when flow rates through
the gravel-soil interface becomes too slow and backups occur. Restoning
involves excavation of the gravel surrounding the dry well and replacement
with clean stone.
Less than 10% of the soil absorption systems have been replaced since
1970, according to records of the health departments. These records do not
indicate whether systems are operating satisfactorily or whether nutrient
enriched effluent is being discharged to the lakes.
The systems that were replaced were primarily dry wells that were
undersized and sited with less than the required distance above the water
table. Lot sizes and shapes and land slopes are the major constraints to
installing soil absorption systems that meet the applicable standards of
each county.
Approximately 50% of the replacement systems have been dry wells or
block trenches. Some were installed because lot configurations precluded
utilisation ot drain beds in Cass and Berrien Counties where they are
preferred.
The conventional drain bed accounted for 25% of the replacements and
raised drain beds (sand mounds) accounted for 20%. The majority of the
raised drain beds were located in the Gilmore Beach and Beechwood subdivis-
ions, the Polk leases, and the Pipestone Lake area. Miscellaneous re-
placement systems comprised the remaining 5%. These include systems where
only the septic tank was replaced, those for which no design information
was available, and two holding tank systems.
Regular maintenance, primarily removal of solids from the tankage,
probably is the major factor in the successful operation of on-site sys-
tems. In addition to maintenance, water conservation practices in the
homes are essential for the continued successful operation of many of the
2-2
-------
on-site systems that have extreme site limitations. These factors, in
conjunction with seasonal use, probably account for the successful opera-
tion of many of the on-site systems, particularly the older, undersized
systems.
2.1.2. Summary of Data on Operation of Existing Systems
Operating data on the on-site systems must be obtained from individual
homeowners. From an operational viewpoint, homeowners could provide some
data on regularity of pumping and overloading of the soil absorption system
that results in surface breakouts of effluent or backups in the residence.
Data on the wastewater treatment capability of the systems are not general-
ly available except by way of limited well water quality testing performed
on samples submitted by concerned homeowners. Operational data from indi-
vidual homeowners have been collected for targeted areas through a limited
sanitary survey.
Four surveys for evidence of failures have been conducted: a septic
leachate survey (K-V Associates, Inc. 1980), an aerial survey (USEPA 1979),
a questionnaire prepared and tabulated by Gove Associates, Inc. (1978a,
1978b), and a targeted sanitary survey (Appendix A). A failure can be
positively identified by evidence of recurring backups in the dwelling
resulting from inadequate seepage from the soil absorption system, surface
breakout of septic tank effluent over the soil absorption system, or con-
tamination of groundwaters or surface waters from inadequately treated
effluent. These surveys are discussed in the following sections.
2.1.2.1. Septic Leachate Survey
The septic leachate survey was conducted by K-V Associates, Inc.
(1980) and is reproduced as Appendix B of the Draft EIS. The components of
the survey included the continuous monitoring of the shoreline by the
recording leachate instrument (ENDECO Type 2100) and water quality analyses
of identified stream or groundwater plume sources for evidence of domestic
wastewater breakthrough of excessive nutrients and coliform bacteria. In
this survey groundwater plumes have been classified as either erupting
2-3
-------
plumes (breakthrough of organics and inorganics, principally chlorides,
sodium, and other salts) or dormant plumes (slow release of residual or-
ganics after the inorganic breakthrough has passed). Stream source plumes
are those surface inflows that have the indicator organics present. The
methodology and the results are presented in Appendix B of the Draft EIS.
It should be noted that a total of 12 miles (19 kilometers) of shoreline
were not surveyed and that only Keeler Lake was completely surveyed.
A summary of the number of active wastewater derived plumes entering
the lakes from groundwater sources is given in Table 2-1. In general,
Dewey, Cable, Lower Crooked, Round, and Keeler lakes have few or no active,
erupting plumes. Magician, Indian, Upper Crooked, and Pipestone lakes have
significant numbers of wastewater plumes.
Plumes were tested for water quality parameters and for flow direction
and velocity. Generally, where the groundwater velocity was high in the
direction of the lake, numerous active plumes were identified. These
vectors must be interpreted on an extremely localized basis as conditions
existing at one point in time and must not be interpreted as generalized
groundwater flow vectors.
Water quality samples collected from the plumes were analyzed for
orthophosphorus (reported as total phosphorus), ammonia, and nitrate-nitro-
gen; other samples were analyzed for fecal coliform. Generally, the only
elevated fecal coliform levels measured were along the north shore of
Pipestone Lake where several pipes discharge into the lake. Elevated
nutrient levels were measured, but in few cases were the levels excessive
enough to identify any strong breakthroughs of nutrients from soil absorp-
tion systems.
2.1.2.2. Aerial Survey
The USLPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory acquired aerial
color photography and multispectral scanner imagery of the study area on 16
May and 19 July 1979 (USEPA 1979). The color photography was stereoscop-
ically examined for apparent on-site septic system malfunctions and for
2-4
-------
4-1
CO
O M
H WH o>
4J O 4J CO
a, co 01
01 P 3 6
CO 01 0) 3
rO 4-1 rH
a; 6 co cu
4-1 3 Cfl
H 23 3-
CO
I
C
O
CU
_)
rQ
CO /*~N
C CT,
u r-~
0) ON
CJ r-l
cfl
~J <
T3 CU
w
U-l U3
0 C3
IJ
CU O
,0 OO
S ON
r-J 1
l-> t~-l
(3
"O O
C C
CO M >i
0>
>> - >
Vl CO VJ
O 0) 3
M 4-> 00
0) CO
cC O CC
O O '^
en u
-a co oi
c i
CO TJ
S 3
O) 4-1
JJ CO
CO
cO C
3 -H
CU CO
.SJ
o
M
a >.
J rl i
n TJ
O
cu pa
&0
n vj
CO 0)
X <-»
O CO
CO &
H
«
T)
H
00 3
C rH
,_J rr.
rn l-H
TD ~~~
C u
CO 01
4-1 4->
00 Cfl
3
,c
CJ
C
1)
rH |J
Cfl H
it.
0) rH
4-1 CO
Ctf CO
J 0
O.
CO
H
Q
ctf
I'
4-> M
C <
41
3 rH
rH CO
<4H CO
4-J O
v co W Qw
O i i CO
CO -H
CU «
O O O O
o|
r-< O O
o o o|
o| rH
OO ro
CN
CSI
X' C
J2 3
5 O
3 U
z: co
i
CNl
J3
CO
H
-------
detection of. algal blooms in the lakes of the study area. The photographs
also were used to update a land use/cover survey prepared by the South-
western Michigan Regional Planning Commission (SMRPC 1978). The multi-
spectral scanner imagery was computer-analyzed to assess the relative
temperatures of the lakes.
The technique requires detection of variations in color tones of
vegetation resulting from septic effluent rising to or near the soil
surface. The majority of the deciduous trees and shrubs had fully leafed
out, which obscured the aerial view of many of the older residential lots
where a greater proportion of failures would likely occur. The 16 May
photography was used for detecting septic systems; thus, seasonal resi-
dences would likely show no failure characteristics.
The analysis categorized the discernable on-site septic systems and
identified these systems on enlarged photographs. The category and number
of systems are presented in Table 2-1. Only two systems were identified as
probable failures and 62 systems were discernable systems that may be
failing. During a field inspection, 25 of the identified systems were
inspected. Of these, two had definitely failed and 15 would require fur-
ther testing and monitoring.
Surface breakouts of septic tank effluent from permanent residences
occur rarely in the study area as demonstrated by the aerial photography.
Those that do occur are repaired quickly. Since the photography that was
analyzed was obtained in May, the study is much less conclusive concerning
surface breakouts from seasonal residences and from older residences under
tree canopies.
2.1.2.3. Mailed Questionnaire
In 1978 Gove Associates, Inc. mailed questionnaires to property owners
in Cass County to gather information concerning on-site systems and con-
cerning attitudes toward the proposed sewage collection and treatment
system. The questionnaire is included in Appendix E of the Draft EIS. (A
questionnaire was also mailed to property owners in Van Buren County, but
2-6
-------
the results were not tabulated.) Generally, the results showed that less
than 15% of the residents on any one lake returning questionnaires had
problems with their on-site systems (Table 2-2). Within the 10 years prior
to the questionnaire, as many as 28% of the residents on Magician Lake
indicated that they had replaced part of their system. Considering that
design standards promulgated by the county health departments had been
applied only since the 1970s, it is not surprising that the percentages are
what they are. The questionnaire results also indicated that apparently
many residents repair their on-site systems without the benefit of the
design and inspection services of county sanitarians because the county
records do not indicate nearly as high a percentage of replacements. For
this reason also, it is not surprising that continuing problems are in
evidence. Residents are apparently trying to escape the costlier design
solutions that the sanitarians would propose by conducting repairs inde-
pendent of them.
For Magician and Indian Lakes, Gove Associates, Inc. tabulated the re-
sults by segments of lakeshore. Residents of the Indian Lake lakeshore re-
ported varying percentages for the different segments (Table 2-2) . On
Magician Lake, the southwest-west shoreline exhibited the greatest prob-
lems. On Indian Lake, the southwest-west and the east-southeast shorelines
appear to have more problems than do the other shoreline areas.
2.1.2.4. Indian Lake Sanitary Surveys
The Cass County Health Department (1970) conducted a field survey of
on-site systems around Indian Lake in an effort to determine whether the
systems were operating properly. Approximately 60% of the dwellings were
surveyed and of these 75% were seasonal residences at that time. Results
of the survey are summarized in Table 2-3. Approximately 20% of the re-
spondents stated that they had discharges to the lake or ground surface,
and yet only 4% claimed to have a problem with their system. The former
statistic must not imply what it purports to reveal. Responses to ques-
tions 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10 indicate that some potential for lake pollution
exists, but is not proved.
2-7
-------
Table 2-2,
Lakeshore
Area
Partial results of 1978 sanitary questionnaire as tabulated by
Gove Associates, Inc. for lakeshore areas in Cass County (Gove
Associates, Inc. 1978b).
Number of
Respondents
Continuing
Problems with
System
Replacement of
Part of System
in last 10 years
Suitable Area
for Expansion
Available
bewey
Cable
Crooked
Magician
North-northeast
Northeast-east
East-southeast
Southeast-south
South-southwest
Southwest-west
We s t- no r thwe s t
Northwest-north
Summary
Indian
North-northeast
Northeast-east
East-southeast
Southeast-south
South-southwest
SoutVi west-west
West-northwest
No r t h we s t- no r t h
Summary
78
66
37
16
20
11
33
40
52
29
43
252
7.7%
4.5
10.8
6.3
10
18.2
9
10
19.2
10.3
11.6
12.6
29
9
37
22
22
20
34
47
232
20.7
22.2
18.9
9.1
9.1
15
11.8
14.9
14. 5
20.5%
6.1
18.9
25
25
18.2
30
20
34.6
24
25.6
28.2
1
24.
22.
35.
18.
18.
45
23.5
12.8
24.6
,1
,2
.1
,2
2
70.5%
66.7
86.5
75
60
45.5
51
65
53.8
55.2
72.1
58.4
65.5
33.3
51.4
45.4
63.6
70
70.6
53.2
55.2
2-1
-------
Table 2-3. Results of pollution survey of Indian Lake (Cass County Health
Department 1970).
Percent
Item Positive Responses
1. Owner knows size of sewage disposal system 31
2. Sewage discharges to lake or ground surface 20
3. Sewage disposal system is within 25 feet on lakeshore 9
4. Property fronts on lake or channel 85
5. Sewage system is located on lake side of house 30
6. Sewage system is located less than 50 feet from well 69
7. Owner is having trouble with sewage system 4
8. Replacement area for sewage disposal system is available 60
9. Owner has septic tank pumped on schedule 19
10. Drain pipes are close to septic system 4
2-9
-------
The 1971 MWRC Staff Report (Gove Associates, Inc. 1977) is a summary
of a field inspection report for Indian Lake. When the field survey was
conducted, most of the septic system failures identified the previous year
by the Cass County Health Department had either been corrected or were
operating properly due to changes in the hydrologic conditions. The clus-
ter septic tank and drainfield of the Old German Village area was still
malfunctioning. The report states that insufficient data were available to
cite Silver Creek Township for pollution of the surface waters of the
State. The report did recommend construction of a central collection and
treatment system in the area.
2.1.2.5. Pipestone Lake Surveys
An extensive summary of the on-site systems surveys and the actions
taken to upgrade failing systems was prepared by the Berrien County Health
Department (1971). The first on-site inspection was conducted in 1969 by
the Health Department. The results of the survey are not presented in
their report. The following summer, another survey was conducted and Lake
water samples were collected. Total and fecal coliform counts were very
high at two of the five locations sampled. In September 1970, the MWRC
sampled several drainpipes (Gove Associates, Inc. 1977). Of the four
sampled, three had extremely high total and fecal coliform counts. The
following year, 1971, the MWRC sampled ten locations around the Lake and
found . that five of the ten locations had high total and fecal coliform
counts (Gove Associates, Inc. 1977). An overall sampling program for 13
stations was instituted in the autumn of 1971. Phosphates, dissolved
oxygen, and phosphorus were analyzed in addition to total and fecal coli-
form. Pollutant levels in the water samples were elevated to the point of
constituting genuine concern for the public health and water quality as-
pects of the Lake.
These conclusions were presented in the Berrien County Health Depart-
ment report for Pipestone Lake:
Nutrients from the Sister Lakes Laundromat formerly signifi-
cantly enriched the Lake with phosphorus
2-10
-------
Drainage from surrounding agricultural lands, particularly,
leachate from the sandy soils, animal wastes, and natural
nutrients from the extensive wetland areas were the primary
contributors to Lake water quality problems
Septic tank effluent from certain residences were contribut-
ing to the Lake algae problem
A Lake restoration program consisting of a central collec-
tion and treatment system and application of an algicide to
the Lake should be considered.
The MWRC continued sampling in 1972. These sample results were pub-
lished in the Facility Plan (Gove Associates, Inc. 1977). Elevated nutri-
ent and coliform levels were commonly measured in these water samples.
Approximately one-third of the estimated phosphorus inputs originated from
tile outlets or ditches from residential lots around Pipestone Lake.
The Berrien County Health Department (Shipman 1977) reviewed and
updated its activities concerning Pipestone Lake. In March 1973, the
Health Department prepared and sent to residents plans for upgrading on-
site systems. The Sister Lakes Laundromat upgraded its system by abandon-
ing seepage lagoons and incorporating waste stabilization lagoons. In May
1973, Bainbridge Township officials conducted a hearing for a final resolu-
tion of on-site problems. Upgrading existing systems was selected as the
appropriate interim approach while an ultimate solution was pursued. In
June 1973, the Township building inspector followed through with upgrading
the majority of the systems that violated the Sewage Disposal Regulations.
A limnological report on Pipestone Lake (Banks 1977) concludes that
one source, the Dakin-Peters Drain contributed considerable amounts of
phosphorus and coliform to the Lake. Animal wastes were primarily respon-
sible for the contamination. The residential contribution of phosphorus
was estimated to be a very small percentage, although the estimate was not
based on testing ot these sources.
2.1.2.6. Targeted Sanitary Survey
A sanitary survey of systems along the shorelines of the lakes in the
project area was conducted between October 28 and November 17, 1982. The
2-11
-------
systems that were surveyed were located within the areas designated as the
service areas for cluster drainfields for Alternatives 8A and 8B. The
survey was conducted when primarily permanent residents were present (83%)
and, therefore, does not reflect accurately the conditions of on-site
systems within the cluster system service areas. However, it indicates the
performance of on-site systems in year-round use and provides data on site
conditions of adjacent parcels. The survey approach and results are pre-
sented in Appendix A.
With the exception of 1 privy, all surveyed residences are served by
septic tank and soil absorption systems. Of the soil absorption systems,
50 were dry wells, 24 were drain beds, 19 were dry wells and drain beds,
and 12 were raised drain beds. Of the 120 surveys, 28 indicated that they
pump their septic tank annually or have pumped it within the last year.
Many of these indicated that they pump annually as a regular maintenance
item. Average time between pumpout is 4 years, well within the normal
range.
The number of respondents who have ongoing problems of seasonal back-
ups or ponding were 15 (9 around Indian Lake of the 23 surveyed). Five
residents experienced seasonally wet ground over the soil absorption sys-
tem. The majority of surveyed residents said that they must severely
restrict water use or backups occur during wet periods.
The well water sampling program conducted in conjunction with the
sanitary survey identified 3 wells, 2 on Upper Crooked Lake and 1 on Lower
Crooked Lake, that had nitrate concentrations greater than 10 mgN/1, the
Federal drinking water standard. Wells that did not penetrate a restrict-
ing layer and had elevated chlorides were more likely to have elevated
nitrates, indicating that the elevated nitrates are likely related to
septic tank effluent.
2.1.2.7. Shallow Groundwater Study
A limited study of the shallow groundwater between five drain beds and
the shoreline was conducted between October 28 and November 17, 1982. The
study is described in detail in Appendix C. One drain bed was located on
2-12
-------
Round Lake and four were located on Indian Lake. No significant dif-
ferences were noted between sample locations. The phosphorus concentra-
tions in the groundwater more than ten feet from the soil absorption system
were uniformly low. Nitrates were not significantly elevated above natural
levels. The sampling was conducted when lake levels were near historic
lows. In addition, the groundwater levels were low because of a relatively
dry autumn. Under these conditions, excellent treatment of the septic tank
effluent can be expected. Louden and Fay (1982) demonstrated that, as long
as the water table remains below the drain bed, good treatment of the
effluent would occur. This data was inconclusive concerning the high water
table situation because that condition was not encountered.
2.1.3. Problems Caused by Existing Systems
The on-site systems that fail to function properly result in backups
in household plumbing, ponding of effluent on the ground surface, ground-
water contamination that may affect water supplies, and excessive nutrients
and coliform levels in surface water. Region V has prepared guidance that
recommends procedures that should be used to demonstrate project need.
Since this project was initiated prior to distribution of the USEPA Region
V guidance, entitled "Site Specific Needs Determination and Alternative
Planning for Unsewered Areas", that guidance is not being applied to this
project. However, Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM) 78-9 and 79-8
direct that documented pollution problems be identified and tracked back to
the causal factors. Projects would be funded only where a significant
proportion of residences are documented as having or causing problems. The
Region V staff interpret the regulations to mean that eligibility for USEPA
grants be limited to those systems that have direct evidence of failure
such as surface ponding. However, in recognition of the potential for
future failures, eligibility is extended to existing systems identified as
potential failures because of obvious underdesign or other factors, pro-
vided these systems are similar to systems that have already failed.
Similarity is measured by system design, usage, soil characteristics, site
limitations, site drainage, and groundwater hydrology.
2-13
-------
2.1.3.1. Backups
Backups of sewage in household plumbing constitutes direct evidence if
the backups can be related directly to design or site problems. Plugged or
broken pipes or full septic tanks would not constitute an evidence of need.
The mailed questionnaire results for Cass County may indirectly indicate
that residents may be experiencing backups by responses to the question of
how often their system malfunctions. Less than 10% indicated that their
system malfunctioned more frequently than once every three years. Specific
locations of these respondents were not identified. The targeted sanitary
survey results Indicate that, of the 120 surveyed, 15 experience seasonal
backups. Most of these systems were located around Indian Lake in the
areas where organic soils and high water tables were identified.
2.1.3.2. Ponding
Ponding ot effluent above or around the soil absorption system consti-
tutes direct evidence of a system failure. The aerial photography was in-
tended to identify these systems, but problems with the photography limited
its interpretation. The May photographs were examined for ponding, thus
ettectively eliminating seasonal residences from the analysis. Also,
extensive tree cover prevented interpretation in many older residential
areas. Only one system, located on the west shore of Indian Lake, was
identified as exhibiting ponding. Other sources, though, indicate that the
ponding problem has been more extensive. The 1970 Cass County Health
Department survey of Indian Lake noted numerous discharges to swamps,
particularly near the outlet drain from the Lake and along the north shore.
Many of these systems have been repaired within the last decade. These
failures, though, are indicative of potential problems with neighboring
systems because high water tables prevent proper functioning of the soil
absorption systems. Lvidence of ponding around other lakes is limited,
although from replacement records it could be inferred that ponding would
be the principal factor in replacing soil absorption systems. The sanitary
survey results Indicate that ponding occurs infrequently within the project
area. Of the 120 residents surveyed, 5 reported seasonally wet ground over
the soil absorption system. A number of others had wet ground over the
2-14
-------
soil absorption system but considered it more a function of the organic
soils and the seasonally high water table than an evidence of a failed soil
absorption system. Most homeowners surveyed were aware of the site con-
straints on their property and did not consider it a problem with the
on-site system, even though it is evidence of a problem.
2.1.3.3. Groundwater Contamination
Contamination of water supply wells constitutes direct evidence where
concentrations of nutrients greatly exceed the background levels of ground-
waters in the area or primary drinking water quality standards. In order
for well sampling data to qualify as direct evidence of failures, specific
well information must be collected, such as the depth of the well, its
orientation with respect to soil absorption systems, the presence or ab-
sence of aquitard, and the degree of protection from surface contamination.
Contaminated groundwater was identified by the groundwater sampling pro-
grams in a few locations (Table 3-10 and Appendix A). Most of the wells
sampled, though, were associated with permanent residences and these are
more likely to be of better construction and deeper than wells for seasonal
residences. A number of wells had concentrations of chloride that indi-
cated that septic tank effluent influenced the groundwater and levels of
phosphorus, nitrates, and ammonia were somewhat elevated. This indicates
that adequate treatment of effluent is occurring. At most locations, high
levels of nitrates may originate from other sources, particularly natural
decay of organics and fertilizer. For example, the high nitrates in the
two samples on the north side of Keeler Lake appear to be from other
sources. Other data sources of well water quality indicate that nitrates
in some wells were elevated above background levels, but did not violate
drinking water quality standards. The health departments of each county
provide well water testing services for residents. These results were used
in the evaluation as well as water well testing performed in conjunction
with the septic leachate detector survey and the targeted sanitary survey.
2.1.3.4. Surface Water Quality Problems
Surface water quality problems directly attributable to on-site sys-
tems must be serious enough to warrant taking action. Problems with public
2-15
-------
health implications, that is, high fecal colifonn counts, are serious
enough to warrant attention. Nutrient inputs, though, must be analyzed in
terms of their contribution to degradation of water quality and whether
water quality would be significantly improved by a project. A variety of
means for evaluating the contribution of septic tank effluent to water
quality problems are available and have been applied within the study area.
The septic leachate detector survey (Section 2.1.2.1. and Appendix B
of the Draft EIS) was conducted to locate and quantify the nutrient inputs
from septic tank-soil absorption systems. When the septic leachate plumes
were located, surface and groundwater samples were taken at that point.
The results (Appendix B of the Draft EIS) indicate that most plumes of
septic leachate had low levels of phosphorus and nitrate in them compared
to the typical levels in unattenuated septic tank effluent. Open drain
pipes found in Pipestone Lake had high levels of nutrients and coliform.
Elsewhere, coliform counts were uniformly low, indicating that public
health problems (disease causing organisms) were of minimal concern. The
results indicate that, where the wetlands discharge into the lakes, con-
siderable nutrients are contributed to the lakes.
Numerous water quality surveys have been conducted to locate failed
septic systems around Pipestone Lake. None of the other lakes have been
analyzed to the same degree. Pipestone Lake has numerous pipe drains
emptying into the lake; these have been sampled frequently by the Berrien
County Health Department and the Michigan Water Resources Commission.
Several of these have been shown to be highly polluted (with high fecal
coliform counts). According to the Health Department (Shipman 1977), the
offending systems have been repaired and upgraded. Subsequent sampling in
conjunction with the septic leachate detector survey, though, demonstrated
that elevated fecal coliform counts in some drain pipes were still present.
The sanitary survey identified 3 residences that had draintile originating
from the clotheswasher or from the drain bed that emptied into the lake.
Others were reported to be present also.
The limited shallow groundwater sampling program (Appendix C) showed
that the on-site systems contributed little phosphorus and nitrates to the
2-16
-------
iakes when the lake level and water table were low, as they were during the
survey period. The limited testing was inadequate to characterize the
contribution to the lakes when lake level and the groundwater table are
high.
Water quality sampling on other lakes has been limited in scope. In
general, the analyses have centered on open water for the purpose of de-
fining the trophic status of the lake. The results of these studies are
presented in Section 3.1.3. Depending on the sampling time and the classi-
fication scheme utilized, most of the study area lakes are eutrophic to
mesotrophic. Effluent from septic systems is typically implicated as a
nutrient source, though to what extent it is a source is a rough approxi-
mation. Some specific water samples have been collected for the purpose of
assessing whether public health problems exist. Where failed systems have
been identified by sampling, most have been repaired.
Lush growth of macrophytes, algae, and zooplankton serve as indicators
of nutrient enrichment. Landsat data prepared for the SMRPC shows quali-
tatively where the greatest enrichment has occurred. The limnological
studies of Dewey Lake (Snow 1976) and Pipestone Lake (Banks 1977) identi-
fied heavy weed patches near shoreline areas. Mapping the aquatic biota
provides a general indication of the level of nutrient availability, but
numerous nutrient sources may contribute to productivity. Specific con-
nections between the productive areas and septic tank effluent must be
identified in order to determine the need for a project. None of the
aquatic sampling programs have made those specific connections.
2.1.3.5. Indirect Evidence
Indirect evidence that correlates with known failures can be used as
an initial screening device for locating areas where failures are probable.
Site limitations that infer failures are:
Seasonal or permanent high water table
Lack of isolation distances for water wells (depending on
well, depth and presence or absence of hydraulically limiting
layers)
2-17
-------
Documented groundwater flow from a soil absorption system to
a water well
Slowly permeable soils with percolation rates greater than
60 minutes per inch
Bedrock proximity (within 3 feet of soil absorption system
where bedrock is permeable)
Rapidly permeable soil with percolation rates less than 0.1
minutes per inch
Holding tanks, not in itself, but as evidence that site
limitations prevent installation of soil absorption systems
On-site treatment systems that do not conform to accepted
practices or current sanitary codes including, but not
limited to, cesspools, the "55 gallon drum" septic tank, and
other inadequately sized components
On-site systems in an area where local data indicate exces-
sive failure rates or excessive maintenance costs.
These indirect evidences can be utilized to categorize residences as likely
failures or likely to be operating properly. Because this project com-
menced before the Region V Guidance was developed, the needs documentation
relies heavily upon the sanitary surveys, indirect evidences, and replace-
ment records for verification.
2.1.4. Identification of Problem Areas
Certain areas around the lakes exhibit a combination of site limita-
tions, history of replacements, and documented water quality problems that
appear to require off-site treatment. In general, these areas are charac-
terized by a high water table, usually within 24 inches (61 centimeters) of
the ground surface and soils of peat and marl interbedded with sand. These
areas have narrow lakefront lots on which insufficient area is available
for construction of raised drain beds (mound soil absorption systems).
These areas (where the septic leachate detector survey was conducted)
typically show several active, erupting plumes as evidence of failed sys-
tems and have higher percentages of replacement systems installed in the
last 10 years according to the mailed questionnaire and the records of the
health departments. Replacement systems usually do not meet code require-
ments for depth to groundwater and isolation distance from wells. These
2-18
-------
site conditions predominate around Pipestone Lake. Also a considerable
number of drains that have high coliform counts and other water quality
parameters characteristic of septic tank effluent were found around Pipe-
stone Lake. None of the other lakes had surface drainage outlets dis-
charging septic tank effluent. The sanitary survey results showed that
these areas had a greater proportion of problems as compared to the other
areas surveyed. The north and south ends of Indian Lake, the Polks' Land-
ing and Gilmore Beach Subdivision areas of Magician Lake, and the southern
peninsula on Dewey Lake exhibited these characteristics. Other smaller
areas on nearly all the lakes had high water tables and organic soils.
Another type of area that appears to need off-site treatment are
steeply sloping lots that front on the lake. Usually the lot is narrow,
about 40 feet wide (12 meters) and the house and garage are constructed
adjacent to the road right-of-way. The road elevation may be anywhere from
15 to 40 feet (4.5. to 12 meters) above the lake, and slopes of 18 to 40%
between the house and lake are common. Houses are usually so close to-
gether that construction equipment cannot be moved between them. While
soil material and depth to groundwater are adequate for dry wells near the
road, frequently no room is available for the excavation. Placement of the
dry well under the driveway has been a common "last resort" solution.
According to the Indian Lake Sanitary Survey, the targeted sanitary survey,
and replacement records of the county health departments, many of the
systems on these lots consist of a septic tank on the lake side of the
house and a dry well or drain line at the base of the slope where the depth
to the water table is inadequate. Numerous replacements have been con-
structed on these types of lots because the soil absorption system fails
due to a high water table. Compared to areas with organic soils and high
water tables, though, fewer of these parcels appear to need off-site treat-
ment.
Nearly all of the problem areas that appear to need off-site treatment
are characterized by one or the other condition or a combination of the
two. Some lots, particularly in the Sister Lakes commercial area and the
Magician Bay Park Subdivision, are of such a size that no area for a re-
placement dry well is available.
2-19
-------
In addition to those areas that appear to need off-site treatment,
numerous on-site systems appear to need upgrading. Direct evidence of
failures is minimal, but considerable indirect evidence is present. The
aerial photographic interpretation analysis identified some possible fail-
ing on-site systems, but the field check of these revealed that further
monitoring would be necessary to establish that they were indeed failing.
The groundwater sampling results show that elevated nitrates are present in
some wells, but the exact source of those nitrates has not been identified.
On-site systems appear to be the most likely source in some locations. The
septic leachate detector survey identified occasional erupting and dormant
plumes in these areas that were verified by water quality analyses. The
information received from the mailed questionnaire for Cass County shows
that, irrespective of location, no lakeshore area is completely free of
failure. The questionnaire, though, does not specifically identify loca-
tions of these failures.
The records of replacements and interviews with the county sanitarians
and the targeted sanitary survey show that systems fail primarily from
inadequate construction. For example, numerous cement block trenches for
disposal of effluent that were installed on the northwest side of Indian
Lake are experiencing structural failure. Dry wells installed within the
water table commonly fail. Some existing soil absorption systems consist-
ing of one short run of draintile have experienced failure, particularly
when usage patterns extend beyond the typical seasonal usage. The dry well
soil absorption systems that predominate in Van Buren County are subject to
frequent failure. The Health Department does not become involved in "re-
stoning" the dry well when it no longer accepts effluent at a satisfactory
rate. According to the targeted sanitary surveys, several of the restoned
dry welIs are within the water table where they would likely fail quickly.
No lakeshore area has been identified where failures are not probable,
based on records of replacements. The percentage of failures identified by
the health department records is not large, in part because numerous re-
pairs are not noted on permits. Elevated nitrate levels in some wells and
the contribution of some nutrients to the lakes appear to be related to
on-site systems that fail to perform as intended.
2-20
-------
The available information on site limitations and the results of the
various surveys (except the targeted sanitary survey) are summarized in a
generalized fashion in Table 2-4. Specific information that has been
gathered was too voluminous for presentation. Generally, the problems
indicated are limited to specific areas around certain lakes or are mini-
mal.
The remainder of the study area away from the lakes was not studied in
detail. Conversations with local officials and analysis of preliminary
data indicate that the sewage treatment needs are too minimal to justify
expending further efforts to quantify and to cost feasible alternatives
that include the off-lake areas. Keeler Lake water quality data and shore-
line surveys did not reveal any evidence to require including the lake in
any further analyses. Subsequent analyses within this report, therefore,
exclude these areas from further consideration for sewage treatment.
2.L.5. Septage Disposal Practices
Septic tanks are pumped when homeowners contract with a septage hauler
for service. Numerous septage haulers operate in the area, some of which
are based in Indiana (By telephone, Mr. Lee Maager, Cass County Health
Department, to WAPORA, Inc. 19 February 1982). The county health depart-
ments inspect the haulers' equipment for licensing. The State code for
licensing is the basis for these actions.
The haulers dispose of septage either at sewage treatment plants or on
land. host haulers dispose of septage on land, although the Dowagiac
wastewater treatment plant receives some of the septage. Land disposal
sites in Cass County must be approved by the sanitarians before septage can
be applied. Approval of a particular site is contingent on whether nuis-
ance conditions would likely result, either to surface waters or from
odors. Most of the application areas are former agricultural land cur-
rently not under cultivation. Periodically, the hauler is responsible for
2-21
-------
H
Si
CO
B ,
0 S
4J CO
CO
H
0)
CO OJ
^ rG
3 oo
CO
CN
M-l
O (1)
SJ
W 3
4-1 00
i-l
CO
CU C
^l O
co b
ca co
O 0)
4-J tS
cd
4-1 CO
rH 4J
B O
H -H
iH M
4-1
01 CO
4-1 -H
H O
CO
O 4J
C -H
4J CO
a -H
H 73
7)
3
-I
g
H
4-1
m
H
I
H-
BC <
1 *
u!
e
U H
£g
[PRESI
ENVIRONMI
en
^
X
3
z
x
.-
en
|
|
r
g
W
z
ac
1
ITATION
s
s
8
§
it.
K
H
U
U
tn
«
i
w
B
£
U
^
0
1-
K
V 2
u C
0)
t oc
g
(c e
M *i
- i oo
ft) C 0-
^ (J -* £
i- C w t
ES « 03 M
j: c. - a
C ft) K X
ae as M w
- e
n
K X
U Eft
^
a
a
ac
c
c-
s
01
i
^ B
is
c
]
s
3 E
O
n ^
|
4J V
R U
e a
*
(C 3 b
** W »
j-sl
i 2
M 3
O -D
-5 5
s
e u
c
3-s
1
0 U
y £
b
3 "
VI Z
^
01
B *J
1 tl
y u
B ffi
C C 3t
£
^ 4
u a
Q) > S
ta. - M
*« a
^ 01 e
IT b a
e c 01
E >
J 0 -
C.
o
B
i
.-
0
"~
09
e
0
o oc
Ji" t
J " S
y Oi O e
en a in »*
B
B
0
*> **
l-i %
B a
» w ^- u
en Q,-< >
09
.= 1
^ S>
. B a
w u
en ^ IN >
u u o c
ME en -
! .
a u b
~ <^ u
.w MB.
a o
a 01 o
« w c
s - w
01 «H
~" ** ft) V
J= a -
« a,
a; o a.
Q g 3
= H tn
JJ X
£ (!
C ki
.Z -^ «
u e o
n u 3
ft) 01
J-
5* s 1
K oT 5
o we
£ - OS
S33H30S
viva
c
^
c
|
u;
r
£ (DC
j; x c o
^113
V kl U)
i U 3
5 l^1?
B
ft>
a
00
s.
3
e
e
* a -B
a e ^- v u
§01 .e «
i Of J
u u e « >
§3 £ &S ei
J3
B
<
in m
A V
O O
in tn
-||
000
IB "e*
c a
-N u
p* a'-'
O B
a v 01
-4 U M
1 jj
0)
U B
0) O>
3
B -^
e
*""
01
§
c
SI
t
"c.
1
t;
c
o^ » *:i
b oi ^ c;
^ 'X'B o,
s .= e ^|
B t, D 5(
c? i!^
n
0)
a
oc
e.
01 0
09 £.5 k- B
3 -t M ft) 9 B
00) 4J » O ft
u * ^ § ^ c i
E X 09 ^ E B
5 k. b c « 3 X
a
c
B
u
<
««
A V
il
c >
M ^ W
tn tn o
««,
" ^
1 ^
-i a-
01
^
v
U U B
U. b ft. b
3 3 JS
K) 0 -^
c e
***"*'"
|
C
«
u
"5.
o
«
^
_ ,
h! .
J° « c>
x « *c o
o "t. 5 m "ft,1
C -O ft) 01
01 b y T5
E y ? 5 q
0 re o b
W G ^ 4- ^
B
01
a
b
oc
c.
3
CD
1 B
B I a
*C 3 X 0)
B oi w x ki e b
itiii::
01 3 3 i t-
E a .0 c - c
5 b B b 0) E
B
u
a.
0
g
<
«"4 Z1!
A V
O O
D >
KK S
""*
'e
u
a
g
B »
OB 01 V
-- o e
S> k.
ju «
«N « C
e
u
ft) 4>
C. k.
3 ^
OS -H
B
-_
0)
i
S
=
~
^
^
|
z
_
1 . .,
J- i si
g fS si
s ft . I!
0 C 01 C|
D i k. U -5
E u u e o
C (T W
« * S H Ui
e
c
B *>
01
a B
£.
e j£
CMC.
1 g7 li i-
0 - . - C! ^
w "c x "a 2 i
09
t)
C
B
W
g
<
««
A V
S2
-|S
RKo
-«
S ?
! S
$!s
0)
e
0)
e
0
c
e
=
s!
u
^.
e
^
^
D
C
01 W.
U C 0) U
B C. JJ **
t s- s- i;
3 EC C- C C
B C *J ft> ^
w 4) u o e c "-*
C k> C b Z ON
e
C 1 1
*j 01 e.
B b 3
0) flO
b ^ >»-
ac « E '
^ C b *9 B
5 0 b V
& b ~
9 ** ^ C
|i-i
a
1 S. ,
* SL3i
C V, t) 09
- a as u JB e
t- oi ^ e; * B ^
*o > n jt & u B
^ 09 k. e *N b x
x -c ^ a *
B
01
e
<
tn
v
1
o
|
I J
r!l
01
i
i
u »
its
§^
B w
a
M IH
01
§
S
(N
§
H
2-22
S33TTI S3ISIE"
-------
(3
O
O
03
tn
Q)
tn
§
o
4-1
g
H
4J
M
01
tx
tn
o
tn
tn
a)
T)
CJ
tn
o
H
4-J
OJ
4-1
fi
O
H
(-1
O
tn
CM
cc <
tr
PRKSKNCB
JVIKONMPNtAI.
u
y;
; 3
i;
z
<
a;
\ w
b' NO 11 VI
Z
M.
c/:
|
t*:
E
EN V IRQ
5
A FOR NEEDS DOCIIMF
FIC USEPA CRITF.Rl
O
tL
CL,
ws
1
[f
t 3
I .*r
V ""
t
r ei
z <
^ L
E cc
- t-5 i
^ c e,
r: r- K i-
- C- "> cr
C, fc K X
C£ c: u; u".
CC
- E
-J QJ
i- tr
x >,
u: v.
b
Topn^rapny
Croimdw^ter
Levels
Soli
Mmttatlona
J
*j 01
C ts
i = n
iJ L'. C.
It!
ContamJnat Ion
of Grotindwater
Surface
Mai f vinct Inns
Discharges
of Untreated
Wastes
L
{T
_ - L
t > =
i=- y
^1
0 J-. -
r £
r ~" L.
L' U (f
= -= >
J = -
£.
£
r:
_t;
4-J
*J
C
=
SCS; He* It h
Dept. &
SOUS
Invest iRat lonq
QJ »*
yT C--i
U fc C
we w
!SCS; Health
Dept. &
Soils
Invest I Rations
jj
c.
*~" »* U U
-I D. C"
R fl. C
fc V. C
C.
£ r cr
*e a t
X 3
*^ ^
' -U e.
« tr c.
^ ** ~
Health Dept.
i
Aerial
Photography
Health Dept .
f,
'Septic
Snoopor '
S2Diinos
YIVQ
| L.
'*' (T,
cr
t r:
C "
', C
tr ^
- o:
; T: C
, c O
1- k.
t ^ (7
e. r v.
c- oc
c e, c.
c k. r
tr.
, jt
K
C O
1 L^i^
tr c. EC u E
>-. C C CJ
> t! J! -C (T
C C U C >,
JZ t) (T f
1
t
c.
c
c
<
(^
£
>
OJ
«
K
ki U
o ~
U 0)
OB 1-
£ * c *j e n
^Ssisse «
-- ft C <- O k« 4)
C «- »-i 0 0) -i C E-^
fc 1- ta- -^ O taj -c 3O
r c K c iff>
a.
c
c
a
m
u
o a-
C. >-i
tr, z:
D
0) *-!
r,J!
3
P- O
C
vJ -r
*j &i
i- -U
re c
C-
C f
V. Z W
^ F^ *»S
in c tn
DC ^--
H e n
JJ R U
!s u i- a*
I- § 0 E K-
!0* 3 -D D m
-I -J (N
none
- - - -
2 suspected
fall ures
(U
c
c
c
a|
t
^
*£ tr
£ - ?-
ec c *
l- C. C. Z
^ tc t t
i C '_ C.
y -_ E c.
CL
t£
C.
~
U
fl.
ff 4-
-j tr r
2^0'
c £ *
t- i &: 4
§ n E C "=
£ tc K 3 *i
OJ
C
CC
u;
o
/> V
« K
8£
C >
£^
»-E fr^
C C
K <"
or "-^
--en
w c u
£ E C E H
QJ 5 -o 3 O
I well
elevated
n It rate
3 suspected
failures
none
SI
t,
"c. -^
»« if
t: c -
L. a t c
- t; C t.
£ £ s £
K S 1 £
tr
w
c
L.
Ci
Cv
OC
(SJ
i I fc
L. C J-
CD- tr. c
2 ^ 3
c a w j;
L. t t c£ a
1 iSi-Si-i
2 B 3 v 3 -
c"
tr
C
U
e
m in
t^ p^i
m in
CO
"C >
j C t,
y: Z y;
e^ >^ i^
O O O
^ fsj ^
.
t v g «, K
u E c E ^e
^^^^s
7 wells
e levated
nl tratc
t\ suspected
failures
01
|
£1
£
t:
i_
£
«
tr
L
k.
t:
c.
t
3 t
C fc
k. *J
w tr
C 3
1 '
C C
y;
t
c.
L:
u*
K
m
e^
y;
j^
O
-c-
I
C.
0
G.
3
1 suspected
none
J~
L.
» T
t T. E t.'
t. c t i. c,
C, t. t r -
L E C. r- y
tr
fc
C
K
in
v
M
£
*-£
O
vC
(0
U
g
(N
elevated
nitrate
fc
b,
"tc
(p,3UOO)
Q S3SV1
-------
T)
QJ
I
4-1
g
O
W
e
0)
4-1
01
0)
4J
g
C
(U
H
4-1
(U
a.
ai
en
o
CO
3
CO
0)
§
CO
c
o
1
1 1
*§
C ?
^
1C ~
i u; <
i £ 5
il
e
>
i *
K
1 & '
_
P
5
c
^
|
z
H
K
i
i
i
§
H
<
H
i
US
w
z
i
F
5
- !
t
T i
&
~
t 5 l
t '
t- tt_
Z < .
1
M *J
£bJ
c. * E
^ C *-' t'
JZ.S ?
t C.' K X
K K W K
?*
C
e
K >>
1
1
O
b
1-
II
e
|
-* ^
Is
j
M &
C ff
11 K
4J tft C
i +>
il
5 g
E 0
C U
It
U =
c S
15
c
0>
B *rf
lls
B B
| |
t
! H
I v
* r
0- C 1
:r.- '
: ** *-
RUE
= i %
n 5 e
f
^
r
i
1
£
c
=
E
e
c
1* 1
"".BE
* *J -- 01
K C. "H >
SJ£^
B
C
* . B B
- iJ < ftl
tft D-- >
uc.cc
W C Ift -«
X I
1-1 B
tC K
L *
""" E B
* *J »N ftl
u £""0 c
K 0 tt *"
a.
e
** u fc.
JS
gRS
^
*j e
|||
M ft,^*
0)
0>
U B
t> 01
y ~-
B -4
I
t.
r.
^
iH
t£ V.
Hit
t tt i t
(Ji t E £.
B C **
! »fr. S
b C C 0> f
ium
Z C S E J= -J
B
c.
c
B
w
i
-
A V
H K
^ >
S?R
S
^ B or _
9 01 B M
0 i-( -^ U I M
b. w M- * 5 i
3 C CO
FM » in fw
fti V
1]|
i-l 6) C
e
w
U E
01 U
?s
B w*
tc
*e *«-
i
±
\
^
^ r
s --
Hsl
E
C
t.
-
ec
B
B 0) t E
-* H
j , *-
e ^ ~ ; i .
iii Ui '
B
I
.
B
in in
A V
M K
in <
sl£
SKS
s
IS e 7
U > &. R «
7il£|«
-s-s »Js
8.
^- B B
s 15
^M 0* C
I
y *
K --
I
L
i
^
«e K i >|
izijijt ]:
liiLlliii
r
t.
r
ec
r*.
K
E C fc
§"*£."§ *
e * fc e c £
k c c, o- t- to t
t, U i £. Oj *
i u r o i x
r tr ** 5 "^ n
z c » « e > -w
B
C
K
5
A V
»n m
in ««
sll
X H
m in ic
to «->.
H B
B- 5 "
vie
e
+4 B fc
-* t- c
|
ft) 01
B -H
C
^
^.
L.
rf r
^_ t
t *- >
tl C *-
u t C. S
t t: c t
= t t |
K t E C.
K
J.
C
t
"
1: s
E c r.
w c. -- _ *^
£"57 «"7 >
R
*»
u
in in
A V
tn K
T >
v. "z m
M
KSK
e
e u
B B
f E
0)
II
a
<« IM
1
rl
CO
g
H
4-1
O
CO
(U
P
-------
T3
111
T)
i-H
a
o
o
CO
e
01
4-1
tn
5?
co
§
0)
H
OJ
CX
01
(-1
CO
14-1
o
CO
4-1
rH
CO
01
1-1
nJ
CO
H
4-1
a)
4-1
H
CO
o
H
t-i
o
ca
(U
n
I
CN
z
t£ <
E <
=
:*: <
2 Z
; ?: Z
' K C
" S
Z
1
L'
> U-
; ;
' b?
. s
<
! l
§
| i
H
r
H-
Ifi
i
a:
1
|
z "
g
£
C
1C
z
0
K
£ '
w
^ I
L.
C
p
X
r 1
i ,?
- *
c,
u -
r at
t
Z <
j
c c
« t C F.
'J E
X C *- t
r c
X &. t;
t t K X
K K. U Ul
II
Ji
"E,
ts
u
L
H
it
i *fc
c >
kd a
U -
1
B
2
U
l«
U
Vi ftl
IcS
C fc
D -J
-^ C
3 £
E 0
c u<
5 0
ff
E
^
0) U
= i
i*
5 (C
to z
B ^
hi U
K JJ 1C
c c at
!
t;.
IT
^_ C
I £ 1
t -
L'.
*« tr
"" ' C
S- L'. -
c ii |
r *" j
r t ir
^ c c.
^ C -
i
r
X
c
E
g
.= -
1- I
"" . C
U C, C
H
= *
B
V. t,
U fr 0
W ft Ift
r
= *
y s- o
tf. A W *
t
~ t* U*U
c.
C ^ s^ L- " ?" ' r 3
*. t "E. "e t"L - t ^- c t 5,
tK-t c c o: c c T >
Ewk.tr. t k- Ewk.crv
XCLt £ t X L . C. > ^
(^tift. t" E (? t 1 £. -: C
I , -i
en w
k. w c:
? ^ £
ec
U k.
t e. x t'
*- tt C C ** X
BC*'3 ffi tr 3 t: X e t.
S C «t..-.j E *** *J t
c x c t u: c x c > or
k- r- KC. at to c u*ju
y ji »c.^<-( UC&Bft.
Z tt tt J ^ t > "w k- S S to > C *C
R
t i. 0
B. C ft.
c -* o
J 1 K
m m m *n in in
A V A V A V
SK SK Is
-"it «2£ - 1 «
KC« KOK 000
vtom iri 01 »A t^r^iv^
c w 'e' 'c' *» c
c a a e te
£. tt 1 tt o K f e »
r t u o u v
*ifll II niE
1 1 1
C C C '
g | :
UK U B
G. £ ft. b> i
K E K 5
s «-. a> s «H
c * c e " i
e c
ffs |M g ^1 IM
i I I
* K
i T
f f
f 7
C «
riva
SiamsiC S3SV1
2-25
-------
discing or plowing the land so that nuisance conditions do not develop.
There are no standards concerning how much septage can be applied to one
area. Septage pumped in winter is also land-applied by certain haulers.
It is applied on the snow where it freezes. As thaws occur the liquid from
the septage will infiltrate the ground surface.
2.2. Identification of Wastewater Treatment System Options
2.2.1. Design Factors
Wastewater flow projections for the Indian Lake and Sister Lakes
proposed sewer service areas were developed based on a projected year 2000
design population (Section 3.2.1.3.), an average daily base flow (ADBF) of
65 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), and design infiltration of 10 gpcd. A
determination of the design flow and organic loading for the year 2000 is
shown in Table 2-5.
MDNR has issued effluent limits for two surface water discharge points
within the study area (By letter, Richard Hinshon, MDNR, to Cove Associ-
ates, Inc., 26 February 1980; Appendix 0 of the Draft EIS) to the Indian
Lake outlet in the western half of Section 32 and to Silver Creek in Sec-
tion 2, Silver Creek Twp. For the two discharge points, the first recom-
mendation of MDNR is land application. If this is not feasible, then the
recommendation is as follows:
For the Indian Lake outlet in the western half of Section
32, Township 5 South, Range 16 West, an annual discharge
from 1 March to 15 May which will meet the following efflu-
ent limits is allowed:
Carbonaceous BOD
Total suspended solids
PH
Dissolved oxygen
30 mg/1 as a 30 day average
45 mg/1 as a 7 day average
70 mg/1 as a 30 day average
100 mg/1 as a 7 day average
6.0 to 9.0
5.0 mg/1 daily minimum
2-26
-------
Table 2-5.
Parameters
Wastewater load factors projected for Sister Lakes and Indian
Lake, Michigan, for the year 2000.
Value
Units Permanent Seasonal Total
gal
mgd
mgd
75
0.256
0.832
75
0.262
0.852
75
0.52
1.69
Sister Lakes Service Area
Design year population 3,415 3,470 6,885
Average daily base flow (ADBF) gpcd 65 65 65
Design infiltration (based on gpcd 10 10 10
maximum permissible infiltration
rate of 200 gal/inch-diameter/
mile/day)
Avtrage flow per capita per day
Average daily design flow
Peak flow (based on a peaking factor
of 3.25)
BOD design loading (based on Ib/d 583.6
on50.17 Ib/c/d)
BOD influent concentration mg/1 271
SS Design loading (based on 0.20 Ib/c/d) Ib/d 686.6
SS influent concentration mg/1 319
Indian Lake Service Area
Design year population
Average flow per capita per day
Average daily design flow
Peak flow (based on a peaking
factor of 3.25)
BOD design loading (based on 0.1.7 Ib/d 176 129 305
lb?c/d)
BOb influent concentration mg/1 264 258 261
SS Design loading (based on Ib/d 207 152 359
0.20 Ib/c/d)
Sb influent concentration mg/1 310 304 307
Combined Sister Lakes - Indian
Lake Service Area
589.7 1,173.3
270 270
694.0 1,380.6
318 318
gal
mgd
mgd
1,031
75
0.08
0.26
760
75
0.06
0.20
1,791
75
0.14
0.46
Design year population
Average flow per capita per day
Average daily design flow
Peak flow
BOD design loading
BUD influent concentration
SS design loading
SS influent concentration
gal
mgd
mgd
Ib/d
mg/1
Ib/d
mg/1
4,446
75
0.336
1.09
759.6
270
893.6
317
4,230
75
0.322
1.05
718.9
268
846.0
315
8,676
75
0.66
2.14
1,478.5
269
1,739.6
316
2-27
-------
Total phosphorus as P
At such time that technology
provides an economically feasible
means of removing phosphorus from
stabilization lagoons, it shall be
required at this facility.
During discharge, the ratio of wastewater flow to upstream flow
shall be as follows: 1.0 from 1 March to 31 March; 0.4 from 1
April to 30 April; and 0.1 from 1 May to 15 May.
For Silver Creek in Section 2 of Silver Creek Township, an annual
discharge from 1 March to 15 May which will meet the following
effluent limits is allowed:
Carbonaceous BODr
Total suspended solids
pH
Dissolved oxygen
Total phosphorus as P
30 mg/1 as a 30 day average
45 mg/1 as a 7 day average
70 mg/1 as a 30 day average
100 mg/1 as a 7 day average
6.0 to 9.0
5.0 mg/1 daily minimum
At such time that technology
provides an economically feasible
means of removing phosphorus from
stabilization lagoons, it shall be
required of this facility.
During discharge, the ratio of wastewater flow to upstream flow shall
be as follows: 1.0 from 1 March to 31 March; 0.4 from 1 April to 30
April; and 0.1 from 1 May to 15 May.
At the present time there is no economically feasible means of re-
moving phosphorus from stabilization lagoons. Therefore, phosphorus re-
moval facilities are not proposed in any of the centralized wastewater
treatment systems that have an annual discharge to the surface waters.
The capital (initial) cost includes the initial construction cost plus
a service factor (Table 2-6). The economic cost criteria (Table 2-7)
includes all the other factors used in preparing the total present worth
costs. The total present worth costs include the initial construction
costs, the service factor, annual operation and maintenance costs, future
construction costs, and an allowance for salvage value at the end of the
planning period.
2-28
-------
Table 2-6. The service factor, excluding interest during construction,
applied to the construction cost to compute the capital cost.
Item
Contingencies
Engineering
Legal & Administrative
Financing
Total
Pressure
Conventional collection sewer, cluster,
Units and treatment system and on-site systems
10
10
3
_4
27
15
13
3
35
Table 2-7. Economic cost criteria.
Item jJnits
Amortization period years
Interest (discount) rate %
STP construction cost index - Detroit,
June 1981
Sewer (CUSS) construction cost index - Detroit,
June 1981
ENR - Construction cost index, June 1981
Service life
Equipment years
Structures years
Conveyance facilities years
Land years
Salvage value
Equipment %
Structures %
Conveyance structures %
Land %
Value
20
7-5/8
416.9
223
3,560
20
40
50
permanent
0
50
60
103
2-29
-------
2.2.2. System Components
2.2.2.1. Flow and Waste Reduction
Flow and waste reduction can be effective in reducing the costs of
operating and constructing sewage treatment and disposal facilities. The
methods of flow and waste reduction considered for use include water con-
servation measures, waste segregation, and a detergent phosphorus ban.
The residents of the area employ many water conservation measures at
present as revealed in the sanitary surveys. Some residents need to employ
drastic water conservation measures during high water table periods or when
backups occur. While water conservation practices are generally employed,
few residences are equipped with water conserving fixtures. The fixtures
that could be utilized include low flow toilets, reduced flow shower heads,
and reduced-volume or recycle washers.
Separation of toilet wastes from the remainder of the waste flows and
separate treatment can reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus loading
on the primary disposal system. In many cases, the hydraulic loading can
be reduced sufficiently to enable the existing onsite system to function
indefinitely. The toilet wastes can be handled by holding tanks and off-
site treatment, incinerator toilet, composting toilet, privy, or closed
loop recycle toilet.
A ban on phosphorus in detergents is currently in effect in Michigan.
Based on a survey of 58 major wastewater treatment plants in Michigan,
influent and effluent total phosphorus concentrations decreased by 23% and
25%, respectively (Rartig and Horvath 1982). It is likely that the phos-
phorus ban has reduced considerably the amount of phosphorus migrating from
the soil absorption systems to the groundwater and subsequent surface
waters, although it has not been confirmed by research.
To reduce the waste loads (flow volume and/or pollutant contributions)
generated by a typical household, an extensive array of techniques, de-
vices, and systems are available. Because the per capita amount of water
2-30
-------
utilized (approximately 65 gpcd) in the study area for the centralized
treatment alternatives is relatively small, water conservation measures
would be marginally effective in reducing wastewater flows for the centra-
lized alternatives. However, on-site system alternatives (Alternatives 8A,
8B, 9, and 10 described in Section 2.3. include separate treatment stra-
tegies for the graywater and blackwater. The proposed treatment for black-
water and graywater is described in Section 2.3.
2.2.2.2. Collection System
The types of collection systems that were evaluated for cost-effec-
tiveness were conventional gravity system, septic tank effluent (STE)
gravity system, and septic tank effluent pump (STEP) and pressure sewers.
A conventional gravity sewer system carries raw sewage and generally
consists of gravity sewers 8-inches diameter or larger, pumping stations,
and force mains.
A STE gravity sewer system carries clear effluent from septic tanks.
Because the liquid has less solids than raw sewage, the minimum gravity
sewer pipe size is 4-inch diameter, the minimum velocity required is less
(1.0 rather than 2.0 feet per sec), fewer access points are required, pump-
ing stations do not require solids handling capability and force mains have
no minimum velocity requirements. Because septic tank effluent is odorous,
special measures must be taken to ensure that odors are properly handled
and treated.
A STEP pressure sewer system consists of a pump at each septic tank or
close group of septic tanks which pumps clear septic tank effluent through
small diameter pipes (l^i-inch diameter minimum) to the treatment facility,
a gravity sewer, or a pumping station, depending on topography and dis-
tance. Because the system operates under pressure rather than by gravity,
downgradient pipe slopes do not need to be maintained and the pressure
sewers can be installed just below the frost line, resulting in construc-
tion cost savings. However, the pumps provided at each residence increase
operation and maintenance costs.
2-31
-------
2.2.2.3. Wastewater Treatment Processes
A variety of treatment options were considered in the facilities plan.
In general, wastewater treatment options include conventional physical,
biological, and chemical processes and land treatment. The conventional
options utilize preliminary treatment, primary sedimentation, secondary
treatment, and tertiary treatment (including chemical addition) for phos-
phorus removal. These unit processes are followed by disinfection prior to
effluent disposal. Land treatment processes include lagoons, slow-rate
infiltration or irrigation, overland flow, and rapid infiltration.
The degree of treatment required is dependent on the effluent disposal
option selected (Section 2.2.2.4.). Where disposal of treated wastewater
is by effluent discharge to surface waters, effluent quality limitations
determined by MDNR establish the required level of treatment (Section
2.2.1.).
2.2.2.4. Effluent Disposal Options
Effluent disposal options evaluted in the Draft EIS were: discharge to
receiving water, disposal on land (overland flow, crop irrigation, rapid
infiltration, and wetland discharge) and reuse. Based on the conditions in
the study area, it was concluded that discharge to receiving waters and
crop irrigation were the most technically feasible options.
jtream Discharge
MDNR issued effluent limits for discharge to surface waters at two
points: Indian Lake outlet in the western half of Section 32 and Silver
Creek in Section 2, both in Silver Creek Township. A secondary treatment
plant would be required to meet the effluent limitations (Section 2.2.1.)
for discharge into Indian Lake outlet or Silver Creek. The discharge of
the effluent at these two points is only permitted from 1 March to 15 May.
Therefore, y.5 months of effluent storage is provided for all the alterna-
tives that recommend discharge to the surface waters at the two discharge
points.
2-32
-------
Crop Irrigation
In the slow-rate method partially treated wastewater is applied to the
land to enhance the growth of vegetation. The vegetation performs a major
role in removing nutrients through vegetative growth. Water is applied at
rates that may range from 0.5 to 4.0 inches per week.
Land in the study area is generally suitable for slow-rate or crop
irrigaton of effluent. The sections west and south of Dewey Lake (Sections
7, 8, 16 and 17) were selected for location of a slow-rate irrigation area.
The selection was based on criteria such as depth to water table greater
that 15 f«et, large expanse of nearly level to level soils, minimal or-
chards and wood lots, and proximity to the Sister Lakes area. MDNR requires
a hydrogeological report approved by the groundwater section that shows
that no degradation of any usable aquifer would result from application of
wastewater effluent to the site. The "rule of thumb" for an acceptable
application rate is approximately 2 inches per week, depending on the site
and wastewater constituents (By telephone, Mr. Thomas Kampinnen, MDNR to
WAPORA, Inc., 4 May 1982).
Treatment of wastewater by the land irrigation process requires a con-
siderable area of active cropland soils that have a moderately rapid per-
meability. Excellent removals of all pollutants, except highly soluble
salts, can be expected (BOD and SS, 99%; phosphorus 95% to 99%; and ni-
trogen 70% to 90%). Based on an application rate of 2.0 inches per week,
an annual application period of 26 weeks, and a flow of 0.996 mgd, an
irrigation area of 128.5 acres would be required.
Artificial drainage may be required on all sites unless the water
table is naturally Low. Artificial drainage can be advantageous because it
allows control of the applied effluent. The outlet point can be designed
to minimize any excess seepage.
During the winter it would be necessary to store the effluent. The
storage pond should be located on naturally fine-textured material to
minimize seepage. Soil surveys conducted in the area have not identified
2-33
-------
any soils that could function as a natural sealant. A pond constructed in
this area would need to be artificially sealed.
2.2.2.5 Sludge Treatment and Disposal
One of the wastewater treatment processes considered (the oxidation
ditch) will generate sludge. Sludge thickening, sludge digestion, de-
watering and/or drying processes (including filter press, centrifuge,
vacuum filtration, sludge drying beds, and sludge lagoons), and land dis-
posal of liquid or dried sludge are some of the processes suitable for this
project. Based on the processes proposed in the Facilities Plan, the
sludge drying beds process was selected for further consideration with the
secondary biological processes that require sludge dewatering. The dried
sludge would be disposed of by land application on farm land. In the case
of waste stabilization ponds, the sludge would collect in the bottom of the
pond and would undergo anaerobic digestion. Inert solids that are not
biologically decomposed would remain in the pond and may require cleanout
and removal once every 10 to 20 years.
2.2.2.6. On-site Systems
The on-site systems proposed for use in the study area are those that
are being utilized at the present time. Some modifications of the existing
designs are suggested to improve the operation of on-site systems. The
presently utilized systems are described in detail in Appendix B of the
Draft EIS.
The septic tanks presently being installed in the area are considered
adequate both in terms of construction and capacity. The continued use of
750-gallon tanks for small residences and 1,000- and 1,500-gallon tanks for
larger residences are recommended. Septic tanks should have an exposed
manhole or inspection port to monitor the contents of the tank. If, during
pumpouts and inspections, certain septic tanks are found to be faulty or
seriously undersized, these tanks would then be repaired or replaced. The
number of these would be expected to be rather small because of the design
code imposed on the tank manufacturers prior to 1950.
2-34
-------
The drain beds and drainfields (Figure 2-1) currently being installed
in the area could have a greater than 20-year design life, if they are
installed according to Code and maintained properly. The 400 square feet
of drain bed should be adequate for most residences that utilize water
conservation practices. Large residences and those that are not equipped
with flow conservation devices or utilize conservation measures may require
larger drain beds. If the soil material contains greater than normal
quantities of silt and clay, the drain bed must be larger or the finer-tex-
tured soil material must be removed and replaced with sand. Similarly, in
coarse-textured soils (coarse sand and gravel), the drain bed should be
over-excavated and replaced with 18 inches of fine sand. Without the sand
lining, the potential for groundwater pollution is high because of inade-
quate treatment.
The raised or elevated drain bed (Figure 2-2) is a variation of the
so-called mound system. Mounds are constructed according to detailed
design standards to overcome limitations of limited soil permeability, high
water table, or shallow bedrock. The design for raised drain beds is
essentially that of the standard drain bed elevated by fill to achieve the
appropriate depth to groundwater. Thus, the elevation of the raised bed
can be highly variable, from 6 inches to 3 feet. Some utilize gravity
distribution systems while others use pumps and pressure distribution
systems. In areas where the soils are peat and marl, the natural ground is
first excavated and replaced with sand. Water-using appliances are usually
kept to a minimum with these systems in order to keep the volume of sand
fill to a minimum. It has been noted (By interview, Mr. Lee Maager, Cass
County Health Department, to WAPORA, Inc., 16 December 1981) that the use
of proper materials and correct construction techniques is essential for
these systems to operate satisfactorily.
The dry well soil absorption system (Figure 2-1) should be used only
as a "last resort" treatment system for existing residences. The Van Buren
County Health Department permits dry wells where the depth to the water
table is adequate. Sufficient evidence has been accumulated to demonstrate
that dry wells are more likely to pollute groundwater than drain beds. Dry
wells consist of precast units that have perforated sidewalls and are
2-35
-------
ai
4->
I/)
>>
to
-p
a.
s-
o
(13
^~
O
I
C
rO
Q.
O)
OO
I
CM
OJ
s_
2-36
-------
ca
c
to
00
<
Oi
OJ
(T3
s_
T3
-a
a>
ra
s_
I
.^i
Q.
OJ
CM
I
CM
O)
i_
3
CD
2-37
-------
backfilled with clean stone. These units can be connected in series where
necessary so that sufficient sidewall area can be provided.
Based strictly on a planning approach, no new soil absorption systems
should be permitted on the soils that have a water table within 1 foot of
the ground surface or that are formed in organic material. This would
exclude the Adrian, Belleville, Boots (or Napoleon), Edwards, Gilford,
Granby, Houghton, marsh, Palms, Pella, Sebewa, and Tedrow soils. The soils
that have a water table within 1 to 6 feet of the ground surface can have
raised drain beds constructed on them. These soils are Brady, Bronson,
Kibbie, Morocco, Selfridge, and Thetford.
Drain beds and drain fields are appropriate for the other soils where
slopes allow construction activities. Dry wells are appropriate only where
the depth to groundwater is adequate.
Blackwater holding tanks do not strictly constitute on-site treatment
because the treatment of the wastes must occur away from the site. Com-
ponents of the system include a low-flow toilet (2.5 gallons per flush or
less), a 1000 gallon holding tank for toilet wastes only or all bathroom
wastes, and the usual septic tank-soil absorption system for the remainder
of the wastes. These systems are appropriate where an existing residence
has a failing on-site system and no appropriate location for an upgraded
system. Most residences that would require holding tanks are seasonally
occupied, requiring approximately three pumpings annually. The blackwater
holding tank systems are applicable where existing residences are on lots
that have soils unsuitable or too small for raised drain beds or dry wells.
2.2.2.7. Cluster System
The cluster system designates a common soil absorption system and the
treatment and collection facilities for a group of residences. In the
study area, only a small percentage of the area would have soils unsuitable
for cluster drain fields. Thus, where individual lots are unsuitable for
on-site systems, cluster drain fields are typically feasible.
2-38
-------
Septic tank effluent could be conveyed by small-diameter gravity
sewers or pressure sewers from existing or replacement septic tanks to the
soil absorption system sites. A dosing system is typically required on
large drain fields in order to achieve good distribution in the field.
Cluster drain fields are usually designed with three drain fields. Two
would be dosed on a daily basis in the summer and the third would be
rested for an annual period. The drain fields must be designed according
to the non-degradation of any usable aquifer policy of MDNR. Preliminary
design criteria indicate that 133 square feet of trench bottom per resi-
dence is required for each drain field. In order to satisfy the non-
degradation policy, though, trench spacing may need to be much greater than
the standard 6 feet. Further field investigations are required by MDNR
before final designs could proceed. The depth of permeable material must
be determined in order to show that groundwater mounding into the drain-
field would not occur.
2.2.2.8. Septage Disposal
The use of a septic system requires periodic maintenance (3 to 5
years) that includes pumping out the accumulated scum and sludge, which is
called septage. Approximately 65 to 70 gallons per capita per year of
septage could accumulate in a properly functioning septic system used by
permanent residents (USEPA 1977). Septage is a highly variable anaerobic
slurry that contains large quantities of grit and grease; a highly offen-
sive odor; the ability to foam; poor settling and dewatering character-
istics; high solids and organic content; and a minor accumulation of heavy
me tals.
Septage disposal regulations have been established mainly in states
with areas that have a concentration of septic tanks. Many states, in-
cluding Michigan, prohibit certain types of septage disposal, but do not
prescribe acceptable disposal methods. The general methods of septage dis-
posal are: land disposal, biological and physical treatment, chemical
treatment and treatment in a wastewater treatment plant.
2-39
-------
A detailed cost-effectiveness analysis for septage and holding tank
waste treatment and disposal was not performed. The advantage and disad-
vantages of these septage disposal methods were presented in the Draft EIS.
Greater control over the disposal of septage on land, especially during the
winter, may be advisable. Storage facilities during inclement weather
would prevent pollution of surface waters from contaminated runoff. Con-
cerns have also been expressed over possible pollution of groundwater from
excessive applications of septage. Records of septage applications should
be required so that the application rates can be monitored. The cost of
disposal is included in the operation and maintenance of the septic and
holding tanks.
2.2.3. Centralized Collection System Alternatives
Three centralized collection system alternatives considered in this
document are:
Alternative Cl - conventional gravity sewers, and pumping
stations and force mains collection system
Alternative C2 - septic tank effluent pumps and pressure
sewers with some gravity sewers collection system
Alternative C3 - septic tank effluent gravity sewers and
pumping stations and force mains collection system.
The general layout of the sewer system outlined in the revised cost
effectiveness analyses (Gove Associates, Inc. 1980) was used. The design
of the sewers is based on the year-2000 population (Section 3.2.1.3). The
layout and sizes of the sewer system are shown in Figure 2-3 and Figure
2-4 for Alternatives Cl and C2, respectively. The layout of the sewer
system for Alternative C3 is similar to Alternative Cl.
A cost comparison of the centralized collection sewer system alterna-
tives is presented in Table 2-8. A detailed cost estimate for the various
components of the three alternatives considered is presented in Appendix D
of the Draft EIS. Based on the cost-effectiveness analysis, a collection
system with septic tank effluent pumps and pressure sewers with some gra-
vity sewers is the most cost-effective alternative. Therefore, the septic
2-40
-------
'>'-
cc
UJ
\y '.s ?' , .^ A'-i '1'!1"': <:; -
ifV y ->i«. I/./:;,. £' {?.' v
f> l^ > "- :" K, ^|" ;'(-N! r;-l, ;; "'/-
r. K^' -^-^ A?" \ '!>''' '
^'vr^r-.-..^r>Ao-- ': ^
SS . 'i -.-' V. ? <-. //_>, S"'- N 1 '\
lii ii
>- 2 £ co
t UJ » .3 g
oc IT
^_ uj
9 ^ S - *»
2 CO"- 2 «
tu o u. 3 si
CD
XI
i^:.;-> -rf,./--^, ^^/xA-fel^^--;^^^ :,2^^
H ' r~~^' IV°'VJ?-^<";/CrHii(x -si-1 v^%4 :-:;' /.^^ ^
- ' / Y ' . '/ *"/;..;?[ i«;>%"j 1*1 <-"''' ' ''"^ \
j '/'j '»,, ' *-'-\ ^-'-p
-^ ,:.^,.
i^-X-^-'^Ko-^ ---^
r j - u3'f. ° , ' 'i'
'£)
o^'rA ° .--'i
"^ ^7"
in * '
-,, ' ^' ^
""ffV,
collection
conventional (CD and
tank efflueift
-------
$ sis" «!
,jj £SSS |-
,, ! I t a «
>-*' -^
"x/ ,! J i'; -:
' o i, i/"- 4f"°v
; ..'V.^. - H^il.-
i-.-^^-V"'^'^-'" tv'L
o'.-'-K,- --"' '. M
s-^-.'.-^;^:
?',K )v-^/'
:^Z>: ''- J^-s^'
^-^ t i, ^,ro-
^»,"i^-"
!>., ^^ * »'/' ' ,
^ * !V, 1 - '. ;v-' ' /
,- : 0~V. '-A'ft>--, -/ (l >
/, , - ! v,«'-1 ^V'^ " - , -
v ^J NL^V'^ \ - A>v~x-~" P T] -is.
*/>'J?l--WS.-'*
^ 'itlV'^r^/.'-C^ ;,-
'<5
£>'
-------
~f
u
o
cfl *
CO *>
S! E
p> tt
H «
*-* -_
Cfl
fi
M
0)
4-1
rH
Cfl
§
4-J
CO
^i
CD
C
o
H
li
u~
01
^ z
f o
ll
"f"
- S
ig
c
o
0, -J
U 4^
w OJ
rs c
xs
-,
ce o
<-< CJ
4-1
O
0)
i 1
rH
o
o
TD
0)
N w
H /-\ «
rH CO -3
CO r-i
rU Cfl "
« rH *
C rH
(DO £
U t3 5
1 , , t L_ ,
O O
co co
z
e
O
c
o
u
3
V
4^
cc
c
5
CO C
O cfl
o co
^3 O
4-1 4J
cO
e c
H -rl
4-)
co -
cu co
4J
rH CO
-H O
Cfl U
«4-l O
O 00
*v> 1
JH
CO QJ
1 §
3 "-}
t/j N«'/
°? S
CM .H
4_J
Qj ?
rH u
_Q OJ
CO ^
H <
~ ~
fM
i cc
1
cc
"^ r^
in,
2 o
£
-^
re ^c
c- m
c o-,
r-, vo
r-l oj
re ~)
a-
C C 0
CJ 14M ^
e 13
c = ^
o re v.
i i
~4 fM
CJ U
^
rsi
*
OJ
^
^
m
cc
"-
tst
ON
(
*
a-
o
rs!
fsj
°;
ro
re
m
IT)
S
-M
£
3
n
>> QJ
^ c?
> CO
re
kw ^i
ac 4J
H
£ cc
CO CO
^3 c
-H O
3 S
rH
CO u-
cu u
3
01 i
CO C
re
U'
3 p U E
CO Si -H Gl
CO w *J W
0) CC O. 01
U. >% 0) >,
=- CO W CO
1
CJ
CO
o
re
41
re
c
re
H
a
c
i i
c
re
OJ
_3
V
CO
»
o
(4^
w
Ci4
H
3
3
ft!
re
u
re
c.
&
c
o
c
01
re
01
re
CO
01
H
4_)
re
c
01
4-1
,4
re
rH
<
cc
cu
4-1
re
u
c
s
o
u
CO
4
O
re
i
r^
re
CO
t-
re
01
0
CN
0
o
01
g
1
u
(0
T-<
_*
W
k.
i
c
01
K
^
C-
j:
2-43
-------
tank effluent pumps and pressure sewers with some gravity sewers system
alternative (Alternative C2) can be used in all the system alternatives
except Alternative 5B. Alternatives 5B includes the conventional gravity
sewers, and pumping stations and force mains collection system (Alternative
Cl) so that this alternative is similar to the recommended alternative in
the Facilities Plan (Gove Associates, Inc. 1980).
2.2.4. Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternatives
Different types of wastewater treatment plant alternatives were con-
sidered in the revised cost effectiveness analysis (Gove Associates, Inc.
1980). The revised cost-effectiveness analysis showed that in most of the
cases studied (regional and/or subregional WWTP) the three most cost-ef-
fective treatment system alternatives are: waste stabilization ponds,
aerated lagoons with storage ponds, and oxidation ditch and sludge drying
beds with storage ponds,
A screening analysis for these three component options compared three
sets of conditions: a separate WWTP for the Indian Lake area, a separate
WWTP for the Sister Lakes area, and a regional WWTP for the combined Indian
Lake and Sister Lakes area. The design factors and effluent requirements
used in the analysis are given in Section 2.2.1.
A cost comparison of the centralized WWTP alternatives is presented in
Table 2-y. A detailed cost estimate for the various components of the
three alternatives considered for the three sets of conditions is presented
in Appendix D of the Draft EIS. Based on the present worth analysis, the
waste stabilization ponds WWTP is the most cost-effective treatment alter-
native under all three sets of conditions. Therefore, waste stabilization
ponds are used in the system alternatives described in Section 2.3.
2.3. System Alternatives
Feasible and compatible sets of component options were combined into
system alternatives. The system alternatives represent combinations of
conveyance options for various wastewater flows, different treatment pro-
2-44
-------
P_J
H
^
4J
c
CO
a
4J
c
S
E
4-1
co
0)
!-i
4->
J-l
a)
4-1
ca
§
4-1
CO
cfl
&
OJ
N
H
iH
CO
!-i
4-1
c
cu
O
MH
O
CO
4-1
to
O
U
a
0)
4-1
CO
£3
H
4-1
CO
CU
iH
i-H
cO
m
O
>.
M
g
3
W
I
CM
0)
j_*4
H
«
.c
4J
b
O
3
4-1
C
W
U
a<
.
x s
CO
^
rd
.H
rH
OJ
00
ra
>
iH
ra
w
CO
iH
CO
4-1
O
H
rH
u-1
"~*
01
3
r-
>
-J-
CN
O
^^
n
^
m
OJ
rH
CO
m
00
"""^
CO \O
X
o
rH
«J
u
H
(X
cO
U
O
13
14-1
O
w S
CO o
13
C
m
CO
3 §
O 2
^ o
^ 2
4->
C g
-H o
u
M
CO
4-1
CO
O
a
o
00
c^
1 1
0)
C
3
>-3
^^
CO
0)
>
H
4-1
CO
g
H
4J
CD
C
(-1
(U
<
p-
1
en
T3
C
o
a.
C
o
H
J-l
CTJ
N
i-H
qj -H
~'
-a-
m
m
CTi
vO
m
<-*
r^
-3-
£>
r^.
tN
0
.1
p^
|
CO
T3
C
O
a
00
M
O
4-1
CO
X
4J
H
>
J2
O
4-*
H rO
T3 CU
i-i
C <
O
H CO
4-> a>
co ^
O CO
-H ,_]
O K
cu
4J
CO
H
W
r-l fv. o
i I CN r^
co CM CT-
n co r^.
CM (N m
\O O CM
00 iH CO
CM CM CM
s"' ''^ """^
FH O \O
F* in C7N
i I (N) CO
-3- r^ O
rH
^O V0 CM
CM cr\ \c
rH CM ^
CM (M CM
r*l CO CTi
3 S o
rH
fM n CM
CM vr o^
!*" CO (*1
rH rH CM
CL, CL,
CO CO
-u *a
C C
0 O
P- a a
H
3 D CU
S oo oo
ra ra
CO U, Ij
TJ O O
(3 *j jj
O CO CO
a
J= J5
C JJ jJ
O -H -H
.H S3
ra w jr
N C U
H O *J
rH O -H
H oo -a
-O CO
CO -H C
U O
CO ~3 -H
OJ *J
0) 4_t crj
CO U -H
CO CO X
3 < 0
r^.
C3^
CO
fM
CN
CO
CM
""-^
a\
o\
5
0
oo
rH
CM
m
Oi
*3-
-31
rH
v£)
O
CM
CO
CO
i-l
cfl
CO
OJ
M
n
i-j
>-i
01
CO
-H
CO
^
M
CO
nJ
C
ra
H
TD
a
TJ
0)
C
H
J2
5
0
U
q
ct)
rH
0-
CO
C
o
H
0(
0)
c<
Cu
1
CO
T3
C
O
a.
c
o
T-l
4J
ra
N
H
iH
H
^3
CO
U
CO
01
U
CO
v£> CO
CM rH
m CO
m
-------
cesses, siting options, effluent disposal options, sludge processing and
disposal options, and on-site system options. The alternatives include no
action, independent treatment systems for Indian Lake and Sister Lakes,
regional treatment systems serving both Indian Lake and Sister Lakes,
treatment at the existing Dowagiac WWTP, and on-site systems. Ten poten-
tial wastewater treatment alternatives were developed and evaluated for
technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and environmental concerns.
These alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, and costs asso-
ciated with each one are described in the following sections. All cost
data are based on June 1981 price levels. Detailed costs for collection,
conveyance, treatment, and disposal components are presented in Appendix D
of the Draft EIS.
2.3.1. Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
The EIS process must evaluate the consequences of not taking action.
The No Action Alternative implies that neither USEPA nor FmHA would provide
funds to build, upgrade, or expand existing wastewater treatment systems.
Wastewater would be treated in existing on-site systems and no new facility
would be built except to replace obviously failed systems. This report
assumes, however, that the county health departments would assume respon-
sibility for upgrading existing systems that fail. The need for improved
wastewater management around Indian Lake and Sister Lakes is not well
documented. The number of on-site systems experiencing serious or recur-
rent malfunctions is small. The impacts of individual on-site systems on
the water quality of lakes are variable, but, taken together, the systems
have not been shown to adversely affect the lakes.
With the No Action Alternative, health authorities will continue to
have inadequate information with which to design on-site system repairs
appropriate to the problems and their causes. They are unlikely to have
the time, personnel, or monitoring capabilities to be able to specify
innovative attempts to solve the problems. The result will be increasing
numbers of holding tanks on small lots and on lots with high groundwater.
If a No Action Alternative is implemented, existing on-site systems in the
study area would continue to be used in their present conditions. Also,
2-46
-------
failure to correct the present situation would represent a disregard of not
only the natural environment, but of the spirit and intent of Public Law
92-500.
2.3.2. Alternative 2 - Pressure Collection Sewers and Separate WWTPs for
the Sister Lakes and Indian Lake Areas with Discharge to Surface
Waters
This alternative consists of a centralized collection sewer system and
separate WWTPs for the Sister Lakes and Indian Lake areas. The cost-ef-
fective collection system alternative (Alternative C2, Section 2.2.3.) that
includes pressure sewers with some gravity sewers (Figure 2-4) is incor-
porated into this alternative. Both the WWTPs would include waste stabi-
lization ponds with storage lagoons. A storage capacity of 9.5 months at
design flow is provided at both WWTPs. The WWTP for the Sister Lakes area
would be located in Section 11 of Silver Creek Township with discharge to
Silver Creek. The WWTP for the Indian Lake area would be in Sections 29
and 32 of Silver Creek Township with discharge to the Indian Lake outlet.
The approximate locations of the conveyance sewers (interceptor sewer),
WWTPs, and the outfall sewers for the both proposed systems are shown in
Figure 2-5. The present worth costs for this alternative are presented in
Table 2-10.
2.3.3. Alternative 3 - Pressure Collection Sewers and Regional Treatment
and Land Treatment System
This alternative consists of a centralized collection sewer system
with a regional pretreatment facility and land application site located in
Section 8 ot Silver Creek Township that would serve both the Indian Lake
and Sister Lakes areas (Figure 2-6). The centralized collection sewer
system consists of pressure sewers with some gravity sewers (Alternative
C2, Section 2.2.3), as shown in Figure 2-4. The wastewater from both the
Indian Lake and the Sister Lakes areas would be pumped through conveyance
sewers to the pretreatment facilities. A waste stabilization pond system
would be used for pretreatment. The effluent from the waste stabilization
ponds would be sprayed on the land with center pivot systems. At an appli-
cation rate of 2.0 inches per week and a 6 months per year application
2-47
-------
LEGEND
LIFT STATION
FORCE MAIN
TRANSMISSION LINE
>- OUTFALL
D
PROPOSED TREATMENT
PLANT
Figure 2-5. Alternative 2-Pressure collection sewers and separate WWTPs for the
Sister Lakes and Indian Lake areas with discharge to surface waters.
2-48
-------
s
LEGEND
D
LIFT STATION
FORCE MAIN
TRANSMISSION LINE
PROPOSED
TREATMENT PLANT
Figure 2-6. Alternative 3-^ressure collection sewers and regional treatment and
land treatment system.
2-49
-------
CO
M
0)
M-l
O
CO
o
C
H
CO
O
O
00
CTi
CU
§
1-1
CO
cu
cfl
C
t-i
cu
£
O
«
10
fl)
at
O
Cfl
4J
CO
O
O
T3
cu
4-1
Cfl
CO
cu
cd
O
en
I
CN
1 a-
sewers and separate WWTPs for Sister Lakt
th discharges to Silver Creek and Indian
1-1
C 3
o
4-* CO
y cu
i rd
3.2
CU H-S
3 C
CO fl)
CO -H
cu ~y
cu
H
S.
cu
4)
i-l
0
V
CO
CO
I
<«
2
d
CO
i-l
CO
d
0
i-i
00
CU
d
CO
01
CO
00
fl
CJ *-»
5«
3d
3 0)
CO W
CO CO
cu y
sewers and regional WWTP located In Sect:
Silver Creek
o
0
4-1 OO
y w
cu a
O CD
y -H
o
V
u .c
3 *-*
CO -H
01
CU ~H
sewers and regional UWTP located in Sect:
arge to Indian Lake outlet
g «
4-1 *O
y
H 4~>
0 3
y
cy m
3 "O
U C!
V
ewers and regional WWTP located In Secti<
arge to Indian Lake outlet
CO .C
C co
H 13
4-1
V J2
01 *-»
o 3
CJ CM
H d
> cd
cO
sewers and existing Dowaglac WWTP for In<
ster Lakes located in Section 11 with dii
ek
T-l CU
C CO U
o cj
4-1 O 1-f
y iw cu
-H a, 5
O 3 t/3
y 3
o
01 T3 4J
u d
3 CO CU
CO 3fl
CO CU M
01 -^ CO
u. to .C
0- J o
3
00
1
00
d
H
Cfl
X
V
1
CO
01
CO
d
o
4-*
y
.
CO
cu a
CO *
8
ading, blackwater holding tanks on crltit
tank effluent collected from critical ar<
ter drain fields
1-1 CO
oo y 3
a. IH IH
a
CO U 3
e « »
co d it
Jl 0)
01 CO fl
*J r-t O
1-1 cu y
CO CJ
\ u ~fl
Scd fl
a. ca
CO
H
2-50
-------
period, approximately 130 acres of land would be required for the land
application site. A total of 255 acres would be needed for the land appli-
cation site, the waste stabilization ponds, roadways, and a buffer zone.
It was assumed that the land application site would be leased for crop
production during the growing season. The present worth costs of this
alternative are presented in Table 2-10.
2.3.4. Alternative 4 - Pressure Collection Sewers and Regional WWTP lo-
cated in Section 11
This alternative consists of a centralized collection sewer system and
a regional WWTP serving both the Indian Lake and Sister Lakes area. The
centralized collection sewer system consists of pressure sewers with some
gravity sewers (Alternative C2, Section 2.2.3.), as shown in Figure 2-4.
The regional WWTP would include biological treatment using waste stabili-
zation ponds. The stabilization ponds and the additional storage lagoons
would provide storage capacity for 9.5 months. The regional WWTP would be
located in Section 11 of the Silver Creek Township. The treated wastewater
would be discharged to Silver Creek from 1 March through 15 May of each
year. The approximate location of the conveyance sewers, regional WWTP,
and the outfall sewer to Silver Creek is shown in Figure 2-7. The present
worth costs of this alternative are presented in Table 2-10.
2.3.5. Alternative 5A - Pressure Collection Sewers and a Regional WWTP
Located in Sections 29 and 32
This alternative is similiar to Alternative 4 except the regional WWTP
would be located in Sections 29 and 32 of Silver Creek Township and the
treated wastewater would be discharged to the Indian Lake outlet from 1
March through 15 May of every year. The approximate locations of the
conveyance sewers, regional WWTP, and the outfall sewer to the Indian Lake
outlet are shown in Figure 2-8. The present worth costs of this alterna-
tive are presented in Table 2-10.
2.3.6. Alternative 5B - Gravity Collection Sewers and a Regional WWTP
Located in Sections 29 and 32
This alternative is similar to Alternative 5A except that a conven-
tional gravity collection sewer system (Alternative Cl, Section 2.2.3.)
2-51
-------
LEGEND
D
LIFT STATION
FORCE MAIN
TRANSMISSION LINE
OUTFALL
PROPOSED
TREATMENT PLANT
Figure; 2t7. Alternative 4-Pressure collection sewers and regional WWTP
located in Section 11. 2_g2
-------
* *
LEGEND
LIFT STATION
FORCE MAIN
TRANSMISSION LINE
OUTFALL
PROPOSED
TREATMENT PLANT
Figure 2-e8. Alternative 5A<-Pressure collection sewers and Alternative SB-Gravity
collection sewers and regional WWTP located in Sections 29 and 32.
2-53
-------
replaces the pressure collection sewer system (Alternative C2, Section
2.2.3.)- This alternative resembles the alternative proposed in the re-
vised cost effectiveness analysis (Gove Associates, Inc. 1980). The layout
of the collection sewer system included in this alternative is shown in
Figure 2-3. The approximate locations of the conveyance sewers, regional
WWTP, and the outfall sewer to the Indian Lake outlet are shown in Figure
2-8. The present worth costs of this alternative are presented in Table
2-10.
2.3.7. Alternative 6 - Pressure Collection Sewers and Existing Dowagiac
WWTP for Indian Lake and new WWTP for Sister Lakes
This alternative consists of centralized collection sewer systems,
construction of a WWTP for the Sister Lakes area in Section 11 of Silver
Creek Township, and treatment of wastewater from Indian Lake area at the
existing Dowagiac WWTP. The centralized collection sewer system consists
of pressure sewers with some gravity sewers (Alternative C2, Section
2.2.3.) as shown in Figure 2-4. The approximate layout of the conveyance
sewers, WWTP for Sister Lakes and the location of the existing Dowagiac
WWTP is shown in Figure 2-9.
The new WWTP in Silver Creek Township would include waste stabili-
zation ponds with additional storage lagoons. A total storage capacity of
9.5 months is provided at design flow. The treated effluent would be
discharged to Silver Creek from 1 March to 15 May of each year.
The wastewater from Indian Lake area would be pumped through con-
veyance sewers for treatment at the existing Dowagiac WWTP. The user
charges and the other fees for hook ups to the existing Dowagiac WWTP were
provided by the City of Dowagiac in a letter dated 19 January 1982 (Appen-
dix D of tVie Draft EIS) . The present worth costs of this alternative are
presented in Table 2-10.
2.3.8. Alternative 7 - Pressure Collection Sewers and Existing Dowagiac
WWTP
This alternative is similar to Alternative 6 except that wastewater
from both the Indian Lake and the Sister Lakes areas would be treated at
2-54
-------
1
LEGEND
LIFT STATION
» FORCE MAIN
TRANSMISSION LINE
D OUTFALL
PROPOSED
TREATMENT PLANT
I 1
LJ
TREATMENT PLANT
L.-J
Figure 2-^9. Alternative e-'Pressure collection sewers and existing Dowagiac WWTP
for Indian Lake and a new WWTP for Sister Lakes.
2-55
-------
the existing Dowagiac WWTP. The Layout of the collection system is shown
in Figure 2-4. The approximate layout of the conveyance sewers from the
Sister Lakes area to the Indian Lake area and the Indian Lake area to the
existing Dowagiac WWTP and the location of the existing Dowagiac WWTP are
shown in Figure 2-10. The present worth costs for this alternative are
presented in Table 2-10.
2.3.9. Alternative 8A - On-site Systems Upgrading and Critical Areas Septic
Tank Effluent Collected by Pressure Sewers and Conveyed to Cluster
Drain Fields
Under this alternative septic tank effluent would be collected from
the critical areas by pressure sewers for treatment in cluster drain
fields. All other residences would continue to rely on septic tanks and
soil absorption systems, many of which would be upgraded. The layout of
the collection sewers and the tentative locations of the cluster drain
fields are shown in Figure 2-11. The number and type of upgraded on-site
systems estimated for this alternative and the conceptual approach by which
they were estimated are presented in Appendix C of the Draft EIS.
The cluster systems would consist of septic tank effluent pumps and
pressure sewers for collection, a dosing pump station (at all but the small
cluster drain fields), and three alternating fields at the cluster drain
field site. Two fields could be used alternately during any one year; the
other field would be rested for a year. The present worth costs of this
alternative are presented in Table 2-10.
2.3.10. Alternative 8B - On-site Systems Upgrading and Critical Areas
Septic Tank Effluent Collected by Small Diameter Gravity Sewers
and Conveyed to Cluster Drain Fields
Under this alternative septic tank effluent would be collected by
small-diameter gravity sewers from the critical areas that are identified
in Alternative 8A and treated in cluster drain fields. All other residences
would continue to rely on existing and upgraded septic tanks and soil
absorption systems identical to the systems estimated in Alternative 8A.
The layout of the collection sewers and the tentative locations of the
cluster drain fields are similar to those shown in Figure 2-11. The grav-
2-56
-------
LEGEND
LIFT STATION
FORCE MAIN
TRANSMISSION LINE
I I TREATMENT PLANT
Figure 2-10. Alternative 7-Pressure collection sewers and existing Dowagiac WWTP.
2-57
-------
o
UJ
oc E
u z
uj < z _
« g 2 «S
UJ ° H- S =
OC OC < CO
3 UJ K- 30
- US* -« *
* It 3 E i S
o J £>
a. §
5f
5FT
1
systems
septic tank
and
-------
ity sewers require the use of pump stations at the low points in the area
served and force mains to the cluster drain field sites.
The cluster systems would consist of septic tank effluent gravity
sewers, pump stations and force mains for collection, and alternating
valves and three alternating fields at the cluster drain field sites. One
field would be rested for a year while the other two would be used on an
alternate basis. The present worth costs of this alternative are presented
in Table 2-10.
2.3.11. Alternative 9 - On-Site Systems Upgrading and Blackwater Holding
Tanks
This alternative consists of selectively upgrading the existing on-
site systems and future on-site systems. For residences where the on-site
system cannot be upgraded because of site limitations, the graywater and
blackwater will be separated. Graywater would continue to be treated in
the existing septic tank and soil absorption system that may be upgraded.
The blackwater components would include a new low-flow (2.5 gallon flush)
toilet and a holding tank. Quantities and type of initial and future
systems to be upgraded are included in Appendix C of the Draft EIS. The
numbers and types of upgraded systems are subject to redefinition after
further field investigations. The present worth costs of this alternative
are presented in Table 2-10.
2.3.12. Alternative 10 - On-site Systems Upgrading, Blackwater Holding
Tanks, and Critical Areas Septic Tank Effluent Collected by Gra-
vity or Pressure Sewers and Conveyed to Cluster Drain Fields
This alternative is a combination of Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 9.
Under this alternative the critical areas, where soil and site conditions
prevent a high percentage of on-site systems from operating properly, would
have either blackwater holding tanks or septic tank effluent collection
systems and cluster drain fields. All other residences would continue to
rely on the existing or upgraded system. The layout and the type of col-
lection sewers and the tentative locations of the cluster drain fields are
shown in Figure 2-12. The cluster systems would have three alternating
fields at the drain field sites. One field would be rested for a year
while the other two would be used on an alternate basis.
2-59
-------
::'-V tf*r^y
;:,^;..,^^ ,* ^.:'L -. 4j>5ffi'^r
\y>:y\f-^ i. '^ty ;^f ^R(;F
!- V_K\^ x ' A---\X"~"" " '" 'JY ',-&(! .''-'-->
X. ^ 'I ^'H ^"l/~\ tSx/'ik >':' ''''/'. , '- '
, «&'? -. >7^ '; -5?V/.^.. ^-^^
1|rt4fsepflc tank ef
parcels.
ent collected from
>hve|y4dfo cluster
-------
Residences for which the on-site system canaot be upgraded and no
cluster system is feasible would have graywater-blackwater separation.
Only the wastes from a very low volume toilet (0.8 gallon flush) would be
routed to the holding tank while the remainder of the water would continue
to the septic tank and soil absorption system. The quantities and costs of
this alternative are included in Appendix D. The present worth costs of
this alternative are presented in Table 2-10.
2.4. Flexibility and Reliability of System Alternatives
Flexibility measures the ability of a system to accommodate future
growth and depends on the ease with which an existing system can be up-
graded or modified. The majority of the alternatives considered in this
report generally have similar flexibility for future growth and/or plan-
n ing.
Reliability measures the ability of a system or system components to
operate without failure at its designed level of efficiency. It is parti-
cularly important to have dependable operation in situations where adverse
environmental or economic impacts may result from failure of the system.
The reliability of individual on-site systems is considerably less
than the reliability of centralized collection and treatment systems. A
failure in the centralized system is more catastrophic because the envi-
ronment is less capable of mitigating the impacts. The blackwater holding
tanks exhibit a considerable measure of unreliability. The high pumping
cost could induce homeowners to cause spills of the wastes in order to
lessen the volume to be pumped. The septic tank and soil absorption system
on those parcels would be marginal systems subject to frequent failure.
The cluster systems would be somewhat less reliable than individual on-site
systems because the pumping units and piping would be subject to equipment
failure and power outages.
2-61
-------
2.5. Comparison of Alternatives and Selection of the Recommended Action
The selection of the most cost-effective, environmentally acceptable,
and implementable alternative(s) through the E1S process involved the
consideration of technical feasibility, reliability, costs, environmental
effects, public desirability, and the ability to comply with the applicable
design and effluent discharge standards for the State of Michigan. Selec-
tion of the most cost-effective alternative also required identification of
trade-offs between costs and other relevant criteria.
2.5.1. Comparison of Alternatives
2.5.1.1. Project Costs
Project costs were categorized into capital expenses, operation and
maintenance (O&M) expenses, and salvage values for the equipment and struc-
tures for each alternative. The costs for the collection, conveyance, and
treatment systems for each alternative were estimated separately. A sum-
mary of the estimated present worth costs of project alternatives are
displayed in Table 2-10. Appendix D of the Draft EIS and Appendix D con-
tain a description of the methodology and assumptions used in the analyses
as well as the detailed costs for each alternative. The capital cost for
the selected alternative may be shared by the Federal government through
the Federal Construction Grants Program (75% of conventional systems or 85%
of innovative and alternative wastewater collection and treatment systems)
and by local participants. Annual O&M costs would be financed entirely by
the local users of the system.
The system alternatives are grouped into four categories centra-
lized collection and treatment systems that will discharge to surface water
(Alternatives 2, 4, 5A, 5B, 6, and 7), centralized collection and treatment
with land disposal system (Alternative 3); upgraded on-site systems and
service of certain critical areas with off-site treatment systems (Al-
ternatives 8A, 8B, and 10); and upgraded on-site systems and blackwater
holding tanks (Alternative 9). Based on total present worth cost, upgraded
on-site systems and blackwater holding tanks (Alternative 9) is the lowest
2-62
-------
cost alternative. Alternative 10 - upgraded on-site systems, blackwater
holding tanks, and critical area collection and drain fields, is the second
lowest in total present worth. Alternatives 8A and 8B, which include
upgraded on-site systems and service of certain critical areas with col-
lection systems and cluster drain fields, are ranked fourth and third
respectively, on the basis of total present worth. The other alternatives,
including the centralized collection and treatment systems, are ranked
fifth through eleventh as shown in Table 2-10. Based on total present
worth cost, Alternative 5B, which is similar to the recommended alternative
of the Facilities Plan, is the most expensive (eleventh ranking). The
total present worth cost ranges from approximately $6.6 million for Alter-
native 9 to approximately $31.2 million for Alternative 5B.
FmHA had approved a financial assistance package for centralized
collection and conveyance and treatment at Dowagiac; therefore, the cost-
effectiveness of Indian Lake alternatives are presented in Table 2-11. The
ranking of these portions of the alternatives are similar to the project
alternatives. Alternative 9 is the lowest cost, followed by Alternative
10, 8B, and 8A. The total present worth cost of the centralized collection
alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 6) are about double the cost of the decen-
tralized alternatives.
2.5.1.2. Environmental Impacts
The No Action Alternative would entail almost no construction impacts.
Construction of any of the "build" alternatives, however, will have pri-
marily short-term impacts on the local environment (Section 4.1.1.). The
implementation of Alternative 9 would have impacts on those lots where
upgraded on-site systems are necessary. These impacts may be considerable
on some lots but overall they would be of limited extent. The three alter-
natives (8A, 8B, and 10) that have critical area collection systems and
cluster drain fields would involve construction in some right-of-ways and
on the drain field sites in addition to on-site upgrading. The combined
environmental impacts of these alternatives are not significantly greater
than those that would occur under Alternative 9.
2-63
-------
c
rl
33
4-1
33
C
O
r-l
00
ON
1-1
0)
r*
-Jj
> }
-*~*
33
01
H
4J
cfl
d
u
0)
4-J
-H
cfl
14-!
o
d
o
H
4-1
M
O
P»
O)
Sf?
cfl
rJ
d
cfl
r-l
-o
d
M
0)
^
4-1
O
33
^J
33
O
CJ
^ ^
T3 33
X1 1-1
4-1 Cfl
CO r-l
E '
T-l O
4-J T3
33
01 UJ
O
1 1
O CO
'O
>. d
M CO
Cfl CO
E 3
e o
3 .e"
C/3 4-1
r 1
r-l
1
CN
01
^_ \
J3
cfl
H
00
d
i-i
y
d
CO
\o in ^~
^j
r-l 33
cfl o
3 O
d
d +
01
Ol rH
OO cC
CO >
lJ T-l
01 3
> a-
oo m VD
^ en i i
m m en
co-
en --d" O
00 00 00
H
cfl
4_1
o
H
rn O ON
in
1-1
O
01
4-1 O
0) cfl
33 >~,
O1 0)
p >
eu e
0
u
ON ^O
OO CM |
oo -i ,fl 1-1 H 004rf 33 r i
11 4-1 CU 0)3 fi CS 33 O
01
i 1
4-1
H
H
"d
C
cfl
^i
0)
a
3
Ol
£>
H
4-1
cfl
d
*-"
4J
, 1
*t
3 -rl ^ 3 S -i-l CO 0)
0)3cC O> T3 4J (j O
33 J 33 CJ cfl Q< 4-1
CU cfl i_j cj
dHd d -H OO'i-IXTS
O3nj o;0 c-*->Jaaj
H 3 TJ -H CO 30) >,
4-> T"J 4-> ^J (IX, rfj ,^J
ocud oo to to cu >
0)^M (3JP S 4->d
"CO r-l 01 Cfl O O
r-l rJ O r-l 30 4-1 -lri c/3
O d O >rJ r*^ Cfl rt T3 T3
Cfl 0) *J 33 O d rH
Ol-r-llO 0)33 i locflO)
J-l -O rJ rJ T-l 0> tO T-l
3CCfl4-> 3X 4J CJ 4J 3) UJ
33MJ3O1 330) r-lT-ld'-'d
33 CJ- 1 33 334-'cU01''~*
llr'C334-l 0*T3 iT-l-J^tfl
(J (± 'rJ 3 1-ld JJJ lj r-l 0> I-l
D-< cfl T3 O D-J cfl O CJ U-l CO T3
B
OO
m
r-
r^l
00
CN
o
m
o
ON
f
CN
CO
0
o
CN
m
1
1
-3"
in
00
m
CN
1 1
T3 ^ I d
d 0) T-l O 33
Cfl T3 O T3
V r-l
oo d i i *d 01
d CO r 1 d '^
rl 4-1 Cfl CO "-<
T3 £ d
Cfl O 33 33 -H
iW T-l i-l Cfl
OO 4-1 ^> Ol ^"1
p, ^, O ^ rrj
30) 01
33 ^ 33 M
33 0) 0)
6 33 4-> >. 4-1
Ol cfl o *-" t/3
4-1 Ol 0) T"l 3
CO r-l r 1 > r-l
33 O I-l
, 1 cj OO O
Ol CO 4-1
4-1 O 4-1 1-1
T-l -H d V T3
03 4J CU 4-1 0)
1 -H 3 CU >~.
C S-l r-J S 01
CD O <4-l Cfl >
B
PC
OO
r f
OO
00
m
i
in
m
o
vC
>
i i
CO
O
O
CM
m
I
I
m
en
00
0
1 1
-o
cfl
50
d
H
-o
cO
*30
Cu
3
CO
5 33
4J ^
03 d
33 4J
cu M
4-> d
fj T-l
33 13
1 rH
C§ °
.
ON
CM
O
0
, 1
CM
CN
O
CM
, 1
*>
CM
CO
O
O
CN
m
I
I
CN
O
O
v£>
t I
r-l
- Cfl 4J
00 O d O
d T-I cu -t-1
H 4J 3
cfl M 4-i cu
V-i O u-i £>^
00 CU 0) 33
fl,-O > -d
3 d .^ d i 1
cfl C^ O CU
03 cfl O 'H
E 4-1 U-l
Ol 33 T3 d
4-) /^ ^J d '"-I
33 d T-l Cfl Cfl
33 4-* p, ^ -O
CU
rH
4-1
CO
p
4-1
33
r-l
C
H
§
-------
The centralized collection and treatment alternatives would have con-
siderable impacts on the right-of-ways where sewage facilities are neces-
sary. Many right-of-ways are narrow and tree-lined, which makes construc-
tion within them difficult. Dewatering for deep sewer excavations and pump
stations could affect wells in the vicinity. The treatment plant sites for
waste stabilization lagoons, proposed for all centralized treatment alter-
natives except Alternative 7, would have a significant effect on the par-
ticular site. All three sites, located in Sections 8, 11, or 29, are
presently agricultural land; Section 29 is mostly prime agricultural land
that would be converted irretrievably to treatment plant use.
The operation of the facilities proposed in the alternatives would
produce some significant long-term impacts at least for some of the lakes
(Section 4.1.2.). Water quality impacts in the lakes would be greatest
under the No Action Alternative because increasing phosphorus loads may
result in increased extent and density of nuisance algal blooms. Excessive
nitrates in wells may also increase as a problem. Local perceptions con-
cerning water quality, especially at Indian Lake and Pipestone Lake, are
that current problems warrant a "build" alternative and that these problems
will be exacerbated unless remedial action is taken. The operation of the
four alternatives that rely primarily on existing and upgraded on-site
systems (8A, 8B, 9, and 10) would somewhat improve the water quality within
the lakes. Some degradation of groundwater quality .below the cluster drain
fields can be anticipated, but the groundwater is expected to meet the
drinking water quality standard.
The centralized collection and treatment alternatives would improve
water quality in the lakes, although the improvements may not be notice-
able. Spills of septic tank effluent or of raw sewage at pump stations
could occur if a malfunction or power failure were to occur. The nutrient
load from one spill could easily equal the current average annual nutrient
load. Proper maintenance of the pumps and backup power sources for all the
pump stations would reduce the potential for such an impact. The treatment
facilities for the centralized alternatives would be capable of meeting the
discharge requirements established by MDNR. Water quality in the receiving
streams would be altered, but not seriously degraded during the discharge
2-65
-------
period. The land application alternative should result in minimal operat-
ing impacts because the infiltrated water should be of comparatively high
quality. The alternatives that include sewage treatment in the Dowagiac
WWTP would reduce the capacity for future growth in Dowagiac.
2.5.1.3. Implementability
Implementation of a wastewater management plan may differ depending
upon whether the selected alternative relies primarily upon centralized or
decentralized components. Because most sanitary districts have in the past
been designed around centralized collection and treatment of wastewater,
there is a great deal of information about the implementation of such
systems. Decentralized collection and treatment, however, is relatively
new and there is little management experience on which to draw.
Decentralized systems may include on-site systems, small cluster
systems with subsurface disposal, and other small-scale technologies. They
can be managed by a wide variety of public or private entities or a combi-
nation of these entities. Public entities may include state, regional, or
local agencies and nonprofit organizations; private entities may include
private homeowner associations and private contractors.
In this section the term "management agency" refers to the authority
responsible for managing the systems. A management agency need not be an
autonomous organization devoted solely to the management of these systems.
It may in fact be charged with other duties, and may share systems manage-
ment responsibility through agreements with other agencies.
USLPA Construction Grants Regulations (USEPA 1982a) which implement
the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Amendments of 1981
require an applicant to meet a number of preconditions before a construc-
tion grant for individual and cluster wastewater systems may be made. They
include:
Certifying that a public body will be responsible for the
proper installation, operation, and maintenance of the
funded systems
2-66
-------
Certifying that such treatment works will be properly oper-
ated and maintained and will comply with all other require-
ments of Section 204 of the Act.
Obtaining assurance of unlimited access to each individual
system at all reasonable times for inspection, monitoring,
construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement.
Regardless of whether the selected alternative is primarily centra-
lized or decentralized, four aspects of the implementation program must be
addressed:
There must be legal authority for a managing agency to exist
and financial authority for it to operate
The agency must manage construction, ownership, and opera-
tion of the sanitary district
A choice must be made between the several types of long-term
financing that are generally required in paying for capital
expenditures associated with the project
A system of user charges to retire capital debts, to cover
expenditures for operation and maintenance, and to provide a
reserve for contingencies must be established.
In the following sections, these requirements are examined first with
respect to centralized systems and then with respect to decentralized
systems.
Centralized Systems
The Indian Lake-Sister Lakes Facility Plan identified the Cass County
Board of Commissioners as the legal authority for implementing the Plan's
Proposed Action. The Cass County Department of Public Works (CCDPW) would
be the operating division that would construct, operate and maintain the
centralized wastewater management system. Under Act 185 of the Michigan
Public Acts of 1957 as amended, the county has the authority to implement
this system and to contract with the villages and townships for services.
Cass County also would have to contract with Berrien County and Van Buren
County for services to the parts of these counties which are included in
the study area.
2-67
-------
As the management agency, the CCDPW would construct, maintain, and
operate the centralized sewerage facilities proposed in the Alternatives
2-7, except those parts ot Alternatives 6 and 7 that propose utilizing the
Dowagiac WWTP that is operated and maintained by the City of Dowagiac. The
managerial capacity of the CCDPW can be readily expanded to provide man-
agerial services for the proposed gravity sewers and the WWTPs including
the land disposal site in Alternatives 2-7. There are several options for
septic tank effluent pumps connected to pressure sewers:
The station may be designed to agency specifications, with
the responsibility for purchase, maintenance, and ownership
residing with the homeowner
The station may be specified and purchased by the agency,
with the homeowner repurchasing and maintaining it
The station may be specified and owned by the agency, but
purchased by the homeowner
The station may be specified, purchased, and owned by the
agency.
Regardless, however, of the option selected, all residences are treated
eqtially.
Capital expenses associated with a project may be financed by several
techniques which are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.3. User charges
are set at a level that will provide for repayment of long-term debt and
cover operation and maintenance expenses. The user charges for the dif-
ferent alternatives are discussed in Section 4.1.3. In addition, prudent
management agencies frequently add an extra charge to provide a contingency
fund for extraordinary expenses and equipment replacement.
Decentralized Systems
Regulation of on-site sewage systems has evolved to the point where
most new facilities are designed, permitted, and inspected by local health
departments or other agencies. After installation, the local agency has no
further responsibility for these systems until malfunctions become evi-
dent. In such cases the local agency may inspect and issue permits for
2-68
-------
repair of the systems. The sole basis for governmental regulation in this
field has been its obligation to protect public health.
Rarely have governmental obligations been interpreted more broadly to
include monitoring and control of other effects of on-site system use or
misuse. The general absence of information concerning septic system im-
pacts on groundwater and surface water quality has been coupled with a lack
of knowledge of the operation of on-site systems.
Michigan presently has no legislation which explicitly authorizes
governmental entities to manage wastewater facilities other than those
connected to conventional collection systems. However, Michigan Statutes
Sections 123.241 et j>eq. and 232.37 et seq. have been interpreted as pro-
viding counties, townships, villages, and cities with sufficient powers to
manage decentralized facilities (Otis and Stewart 1976).
The purpose of a decentralized systems district is to balance the
costs of management with the needs of public health and environmental
quality. Management of such a district implies formation of a management
agency and formulation of policies. The concept of such an agency is new.
Community obligations for management of private wastewater systems and six
community management models are presented in the Final-Generic E1S for
Wastewater Management in Rural Lake Areas (USEPA 1983).
The cluster systems (Alternative 8A, 8B, and 10) could be managed by
one of several agencies. The CCDPW probably is best equipped at this point
to assume responsibility for these systems. While the technologies in-
volved may be unusual for the CCDPW, no components are involved that are
difficult to manage. The possibilities for management include different
authorization for the health department, a township board, another division
of county government, a special district, or a public utility commission
(USEPA 1982b). The system itself should be simple to manage. The resi-
dential pumping units use electrical power; thus, power interruptions may
result in operational or environmental problems. Maintenance and repair
activities are more critical for this system than for gravity sewers.
Regular cleaning of the septic tanks is essential for the system to operate
2-69
-------
properly. The operation of the drain field must be carefully monitored so
that the treatment aspect of the soil is not abrogated. The billing of the
user charge could be similar to the charge system set up for the conven-
tional gravity sewers and treatment plant.
The management of on-site systems (Alternatives 8A, 8B, 9, and 10) can
be accomplished in many ways (USEPA 1980c; USEPA 1982b). The management
structure will depend primarily on State law and local preference. The
USEPA requires a public agency to serve as grantee and to provide assur-
ances that the systems be constructed properly and that maintenance be
performed to insure that the environmental laws are not violated. Many
different agencies are presently responsible for on-site systems: health
departments, sanitary districts, homeowners associations, on-site manage-
ment districts, private companies, and county government. Management
responsibilities range from a detailed permit process to complete ownership
of all facilities. There are certain advantages with each type of manage-
ment and ownership option. Complete control by the agency comes closest to
guaranteeing that the systems will be operating at optimal levels, but
represents the most costly approach. The least costly approach would be to
keep the homeowner responsible for all maintenance activities and costs.
The homeowner then would be more inclined to utilize water-saving measures
and other methods to minimize maintenance costs. However, as is currently
the case, environmental protection suffers when the homeowner is respon-
sible for maintenance. Other factors also should be considered. Systems
for residences constructed after 27 December 1977 are not eligible for
Federal grants. Having the homeowner pay for installation constitutes a
considerable expense for new residences that the community may wish to
employ as a means of discouraging future on-site systems. The USEPA re-
quires the grantee to certify that public ownership is not implementable, a
policy that may be difficult to show.
The agencies with the most experience with on-site systems in the
study area are the county health departments. They have had no experience
in writing and implementing contracts, because their primary role is is-
suing permits and inspecting construction. The CCDPW has the experience
with contracts and management of maintenance activities, although it does
2-70
-------
not have experience with on-site systems. Experience with on-site systems
is crucial for the personnel responsible for the design, construction, and
inspection of on-site systems. Thus, the consolidation of contracting and
billing functions with the CCDPW would result in an efficient operation.
It is anticipated that the most cost-effective managerial system would be
implemented; health department personnel would be responsible for the sys-
tems and the CCDPW would provide contractual and billing expertise. The
local costs for the construction of new systems and rehabilitation of
existing systems can be assessed to each user equally by a variety of means
or assigned to the respective homeowner. Operation and maintenance costs
also can be handled in the same way, based on public or private ownership.
The billing could be similar to the billing used for a centralized system.
2.5.2. Selection of Recommended Action
The selection of the most cost-effective alternative involved the
consideration of effectiveness in eliminating environmental problems and
complying with discharge standards; costs, including the local share of
capital costs and the O&M cost; environmental impacts; and implement-
ability. Selection of the most cost-effective alternative requires identi-
fication of the trade-offs between costs and other relevant criteria.
The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) is not recommended because
it would not resolve existing environmental problems associated with the
on-site systems. This alternative would not resolve the issue of nutrient
inputs to the lakes from marginally failing on-site systems. Also, the
high cost of operating some of the on-site systems would not be mitigated
unless the individual homeowners initiate upgrading. The areas where site
conditions virtually disallow on-site upgrading would have no cluster
system implemented. One of the "build" alternatives must be implemented to
eliminate the suspected environmental problems that are associated with the
No Action Alternative. The centralized alternatives (Alternative 2-7) have
high costs for marginal water quality benefits in the lakes of the area.
The financial impact of these alternatives would have serious consequences
on the budgets of low and fixed income families within the project areas.
2-71
-------
Other impacts, such as construction of sewers, pump stations, force mains,
and treatment plants would disturb considerable areas of natural plant
materials. Thus, these alternatives were not recommended.
Alternatives 8A and 8B - upgraded on-site systems and cluster systems,
are ranked third and fourth in terms of cost alone. These alternatives
differ only in the type of collection system and the method of effluent
distribution in the drain fields. These alternatives are developed with
the approach that areas with high water tables and small, steep lots should
have off-site treatment. These areas were investigated in the sanitary
survey and it was concluded that many of these areas only had a few indi-
vidual residences that required off-site treatment. This alternative
provides a relatively high level of protection of the water quality of the
lake s.
Alternative 9 - upgraded on-site systems and blackwater holding tanks,
has the lowest total present worth cost. This alternative would be mar-
ginally effective in preventing system backups and severely restricted
water use. The systems located in the areas with organic soils and high
water tables would likely require frequent pumping of the septic tank
because groundwater would fill the system and cause backups. The conclu-
sions drawn from the sanitary survey and other sources of information were
that this alternative would not adequately provide for the sewage treatment
needs of the area. The water quality of the lakes would be protected
adequately with this alternative.
Alternative 10 consists of a combination of the most cost-effective
and technically feasible components of Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 9. The
areas where blackwater holding tanks with existing systems would not ade-
quately provide for the sewage treatment needs would be served by cluster
systems in those areas where a large number of these systems are present.
Blackwater holding tanks would be utilized in those areas where too few
systems require off-site treatment to justify construction of a cluster
system. Under this alternative certain residences would require continued
use of water conservation devices and practices for the systems to operate
properly. The total present worth cost of this alternative lies between
Alternative 9 and 8B.
2-72
-------
Based on the costs of the alternatives, relative impacts, and accept-
able trade-offs, Alternative 10 was selected as the recommended wastewater
management plan for the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes study area. The capital
costs of this alternative would be higher than Alternative 9 but better
service would be provided to certain critical areas. Protection of the
water quality of the lakes would be more assured under Alternative 10 than
under Alternative 9. The sanitary survey verified that off-site treatment
was not required for the areas that would be served by cluster systems
under Alternatives 8A or 8B. Considering Indian Lake alone did not alter
any conclusions concerning the most cost-effective alternative.
2-73
-------
3.0. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1. Natural Environment
3.1.1. Atmosphere
Elements of the atmospheric environment that are relevant to the
consideration of the proposed wastewater treatment alternatives include
temperature, precipitation, wind, odor, and noise levels. Other than the
consideration of potential odor and noise generated by specific treatment
processes, air quality is not expected to be affected significantly and is
only described briefly here. For further detail see Section 3.1.1. and
Appendix F, both of the Draft EIS.
The air quality in the study area is generally good. Concentrations
of total suspended particulates (TSP) in Cass County were in compliance
with both annual and maximum 24-hour primary (health-related) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) from 1971 through 1976. Although
violations of the maximum 24-hour secondary (welfare-related) NAAQS did
occur (MDNR 1977a), the maximum 24-hour TSP value recorded during the
2
6-year monitoring period was 181 ug/m , well below the primary standard of
3
260 ug/m (Appendix F of the Draft EIS).
Hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur oxide con-
centrations were not monitored in the study area, but are expected to be
low. Although no information on ozone levels is available for the study
area, it is likely that ozone standards are exceeded, particularily because
of the close proximity of large metropolitan centers. The Lower Peninsula
of Michigan has been designated as a non-attainment area for photochemical
oxidants (MDNR 1977a).
There are no known major noise sources in the study area. Noise
generated by typical automobile and recreational boat traffic and gravel
quarry operations within the study area may affect people who live near
these noise sources.
3-1
-------
The Air Quality Division of MDNR has not recieved any complaints of
odors in the study area (By telephone, Mr. Dick Vandebunt, MDNR, to WAPORA,
Inc., 16 November 1978). There is an asphalt plant located in Silver Creek
Township and reports have been made that people residing near the plant are
being affected.
3.1.2. Land
3.1.2.1. Geology
3.1.2.1.1. Topography and Physiography
The landscape of the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes study area is character-
ized by hummocky, morainic terrain in the northwestern and southwestern
parts and by nearly-level to gently-sloping outwash plains in the central
and eastern parts (See Figure 3-1). Numerous lakes and wetlands occur
within the study area. Although most of the major lakes are concentrated
in the central part of the study area, at least a dozen smaller lakes occur
in the study area. Most of the surface waters of the study area drain into
the Dowagiac River through the Osborn Drain, Silver Creek, an unnamed creek
that collects excess water from Indian Lake, and a few intermittent
streams. A small part of the study area, near Pipestone Lake, drains to
the southwest into the St. Joseph River through Pipestone Creek.
3.1.2.1;2. Bedrock and Surficial Geology
The study area is located in the western portion of a large structural
feature called the Michigan Basin. The bedrock geology is characterized by
a sequence of northeasterly-dipping Paleozoic strata that overlie a Pre-
cambrian basement of crystalline rocks. The Coldwater Formation (Missis-
sippian) forms the bedrock surface throughout most of the study area.
Overlying the bedrock surface are unconsolidated sediments that were
deposited during the Pleistocene Epoch by glaciers and by glacial melt-
waters. The landforms and the surficial deposits of the study area were
formed during the Gary substage of the Wisconsinan stage of glaciation and
3-2
-------
^ v'! *O(''" ,1V ^y/?^^'l' ^Sf^iil."0^''^' -'°! V-';
.,/./ ^i c'^.i'r' . n*\"\\ '.') '^'^^/^^n^rr^ri^^^^
I ; i '- ^-V-
-4^,-V-lM-p-l-V
Figure 3-1. Topography and
nhuoinnronHi. of ^pg study area.
o
-------
are associated with the Lake Michigan lobe of the Wisconsinan glacier
(Terwilliger 1954). The surficial glacial deposits of the study area
(Figure 3-2) consist predominantly of terminal moraines, outwash plains,
and glacial lakebed deposits. The glacial till of these terminal moraines
contains unsorted mixtures of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The strati-
graphic and hydrologic characteristics are complex and can change dras-
tically within a short distance. Numerous kames (isolated or clustered
mounds of sand and gravel) are associated with the terminal moraines in the
study area. These formations constitute valuable sand and gravel re-
sources. The major deposits currently being mined are in Section 31,
Keeler Twp., southwest of Round Lake, and in Section 10, Silver Creek Twp.
The lakes in the study area most likely developed from depressions or
kettles that were formed when isolated blocks of ice were buried by glacial
drift. When the ice blocks melted, a depression remained which subse-
quently filled with water.
The majority of the study area has been identified as an outwash
plain. These outwash deposits consist of beds and lenses of gravel, sand,
silt, and some clay. Glacial deposits throughout most of the area are
overlain by a mantle of loess (wind blown deposits of silt and fine sand).
Undrained depressions, marshes, and lake bottoms within the area commonly
contain muck or peat.
3.1.2.2. Soils
The soils of the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes area are described on an
association basis. "Each map unit, or association, on the general soil map
is a unique natural landscape. Typically, an association consists of one
or more major soils and some minor soils. It is named for the major
soils." (Soil Conservation Service [SCS] 1980b). The general soil or asso-
ciation map (Figure 3-3) is to be used for a general picture of soils of
the area; the soils of a specific parcel must be seen on the detailed
(series level) soil maps.
The soil association surrounding the Sister Lakes in Cass County is
the Kalamazoo-Oshtemo-Hillsdale. This association is characterized by
3-4
-------
nsir^ end moraine
.......... drainageways
study area
Figure 3-2. Surficial geology of the study area.
3-5
-------
B4 VB3
Bl - Spinks, Oakville, Oshtemo
B4 - Riddles, Ockley> Oshtemo
B6 - Pella, Kibble, Lenawee
B8 - Ockley, Oshtemo
VB3 - Riddles, Ockley, Oshtemo
VB6 - Kalamazoo, Oshtemo
VB9 - Spinks, Oakville, Oshtemo
VB11 - Boughton, Adrian, Palms
Cl - Kalamazoo
C4 - Oshtemo, Kalamazoo
C6 - Brady, Gilford,
Matherton, Sebewa
C8 - Oshtemo, Spinks,
Oakville
C9 - Kalamazoo, Oshtemo,
Hillsdale
Figure 3-3. Soil associations in the study area.
3-6
-------
deep, well-drained, undulating to rolling soils found on outwash plains and
moraines. These soils are moderately coarse to coarse in texture. Soil
absorption systems can be designed and constructed on the major soils
within the association, except where steep slopes prohibit construction,
although there is a hazard of groundwater degradation because of poor
filter characteristics.
The soil association surrounding Indian Lake is the Oshtemo-Spinks-
Oakville. This association is composed of deep, well-drained, undulating
to rolling soils found on outwash plains and moraines. These soils have
moderately coarse to coarse textures. Soil-based treatment systems on the
major soils of the association may, because of poor filter characteristics,
result in groundwater degradation.
The area immediately around and north of the Sister Lakes in Van Buren
County is the Kalamazoo-Oshtemo association. The adjacent association in
Cass County is the Kalamazoo-Oshtemo-Hillsdale association. The soils of
the Kalamazoo-Oshtemo association are deep, well-drained, and rolling to
hilly. They are located on moraines, outwash plains, and till plains. The
soil textures are moderately coarse. Soil absorption systems on the major
soils of the association may result in degradation of groundwater quality
because of poor filter characteristics. Some moderately fine textured
soils require somewhat specialized designs for successful operation. Steep
slopes limit construction activities in some areas.
The soil association in the vicinity of Pipestone Lake is the Spinks-
Oakville-Oshtemo. The well-drained, nearly level to steep soils were
formed on moraines, till plains, outwash plains, and beach ridges. The
subsoil is sandy or loamy, and overlies sand and gravelly sand parent
material. All of the soils have rapid permeability and are droughty. The
lakeshore area consists of minor soils within the association that are
unsuitable for soil absorption systems. Soil absorption systems on the
major soils within the association may cause degradation of groundwater
quality.
3-7
-------
Each individual soil series represents soils that have similar charac-
teristics, although considerable variation may be present within one map-
ping unit on the detailed soil maps. The characteristics of the major soil
series that relate to soil-based sewage disposal are presented in Table
3-1. The SCS has given the soils of the majority of the watershed area a
severe rating for soil absorption systems. The various soils, though rated
as severe based on excessive permeability, exhibit considerable variability
in texture, ranging from fine and medium sands, that have no limitations,
to coarse gravels, that have poor filter characteristics.
The Sanitarians have identified fine-textured soils as a reason for
the failure oE standard design soil absorption systems on certain lots.
Steep slopes are also identified as a limitation for soil absorption sys-
tems. Within any mapping unit, considerable variation in slope is likely.
Building sites with steep slopes generally have adequate depths to the
water table so that a drywell absorption system can be installed.
High water table and flooding or ponding are also identified as rea-
sons for severe ratings for soil absorption systems. The high water table
is characteristic of some lakeshore areas and is frequently associated with
organic soils. Many soil absorption systems in these areas have been
constructed within or slightly above the water table. Soil absorption
systems that are within the water table are more likely to fail because the
organics in the septic tank effluent decompose slowly, resulting in clogs
in the system and surface breakout or backups.
3.1.3. Water Resources
3.1.3.1. Surface Water
The study area, situated within the St. Joseph River Drainage Basin,
contains eleven lakes, one river, several creeks, and numerous wetlands.
With the exception of Indian Lake, the lakes are located in the northern
section of the study area. The lakes that are particularly significant to
this discussion are Cable Lake, Upper Crooked Lake, Lower Crooked Lake,
Dewey Lake, Indian Lake, Magician Lake, Pipestone Lake, and Round Lake.
3-i
-------
x v
oo
i i
co
CO
*~*
tn
4-1
CO
tn
C
0
H
P.
r-l
O
C.O
f^
cd
T-l
H
o
}_l
tn
M
4-J
cd
a
rrt
l\J
CO
u
H
4J
tn
H
a)
4-J
O
Cd
td
o
tn
Q)
seri
H
O
CO
1 1
1
QJ
iH
CO
H
rs
B
.c
S
r-i
I
QJ
EH
tH
H
&
rH
§
ft
Cn
I
S
tn
£
sl
O trQ
0 C
4-1 O
CO tH
3
o
(7>-»
C 4-1
ra c
tH 03
0
0) .H
a, a)
o a
rH
w
c
91
-rH
M
tH
0)
0)
0 03 0
E rH g
CM CM CM
il 1
0 0
VO O
CO
"d S
:«
31
r- o oo
CM VO CO
rH
i
§
55
lH
H
f
&i
&
2
01
rH O
H '
S (a 01
-rl rH JJ
3 iSi S
01 01
to in
0) CD
C C
P 4J
0) 01
S S
* *
14H U-j
a a,
n n
> >
0) (U
tfl 03
S
CO
0 0
CM CM
1 1
0 0
CM \&
[h o
CO TT
O 0
\O in
1 1
o o
CN CN
o in
co ro
1 1
o o
rH CM*
rl
to
03
fc rH
03 -
rH 01
4J
S
81 -a -a
' CM CO
1 1
O O
rH
$3
CM CN
£§
nj o
l-t tH
n m
c.
03 **H I4H Ou
* &O, w
T Tl?^
tX W « W
(1)
rH
"ro CM
H 1
tH O
? U3
JM co
W P
E t/3 rH g
CM CM CM CN
1 1 1 1
0000
in o P* m
in CN co
i 1 m l/> CO
rH CSi CM
C
in TJ o
T> & >"S
" H>
*«s*
o
CM'
o
S
o
CM
1
V£>
0
1 1
QJ
W
ii
<8!
o
CM
O
rH
O
CM
1
VD
O
ro_
to
0]
0
£
S
a
CO 03 CO
O O
/N/v
s :
0 0
1 1 1
o o o o
o o o o
vo^o^^
03
03 03 >H 03
& ij> » &
rH rH rH rH
CO
CM rH
CM IO rH 1
1 1 1 CM
O CM vo rH
CM CM CM CM
X
rH
S
o o
o
o2
VOrH
03
^4 01
fH 01
in
ro
1 CO
So
S
no
CN no
1
X
0 0/^^\VD 0 0
o' o o o
rH VD VO 10
Q
'01
rH
» -t-H
01 01 O
rH rH
03 01 01
CN
VD rH ID
1 1 1
CM l£> rH
sss
rH
QJ
rH
rH
"j>
W
X -H ffl
^j 3 ^
3-9
O
U5
rH
'to
rH
&i
rH
0
to
CM
rH
1
IO
VO
0
CO
o o o
rHVOVO
03 03
to ri rji
03 U1 03
14H |H rH
01
CM CM <£>
1 1 1
O O CM
33S
o >
Q QJ
O "H
n o
S O
W U)
QJ W
'D (U
w 5
frj
a "w
W CO P, P! P| p, QJ p , pj. Ul CO CO QJ CO Qi QJ PJ QJ
* !l H Hit H H H S. * !i !, !l H !l H H B.
AdJcl)(p(')(D >XJ
O
O O ON
OOOOOOOrHCM0000rH0000O
iO^OlOVOVOVCin^rHlOtfl kOrHrHVO^O
rH
01
UH rH
O
tool fjrj*i*''*o3
cnrji^^^h^^'os'oi to 03 toln ^rHiMu-ii»H«H
M(n'«'a'«l«l«r-l01l-lrHl-llH'^rH - - » -
rHrH0103l00301UrHOOOO03O03t00303
01 0] 10
rH rH rH
U- >H rl IH
o M ooo
r-i^r- l^^^.rH COtOtntOtO
oo oo 1/1 co m co
CMiH CNrHO-1 CNrHtr tN-H
rHICN^fH) (CNCNvOiHl JCNrOCNi^tHl
IfNI | ICNCOI f 1 IfNCCI 1 1 1 1CN
VDrHOCNVDiH»HOOCNv^, IfHOOOCNVDiH
UQ CQUQU CQCQCJQty < CQUO
i-HrH iHrHtHrH rHi-HiHrHr-j VD rH i 1 rH
^ ffl C_J Q b] CQ O Q *^ CQ U O
^ ^ ^ ^C \>D ^* CN CN CN O O O O O
iTt l/)U"}LO -^j< CNfNfNCS
ft
Q CO T3
E QJ CC -H tO
SJ w ro rH ? IH x
jj e ,_| r^j QJ IM jjj
j^ fH iH *Q JJ rH -H
10 fO Q) -H H) QJ ti
O Clj & 05 CO CO U}
-------
a
c
o
o
60
S
M
Cfl
M
en
o
H
4-1
03
H
w
0)
P
U
tti
03
0)
rl
rH
a)
en
H
o
CO
I
CO
cfl
H
Sin
&
LI
£ S
in .P,
£8
in in
in «
s!
ss
o o o o o
3-10
-------
Rivers and Creeks
The Dowagiac River, a tributary of the St. Joseph River, is the larg-
est stream in the study area and flows in a southwesterly direction along
the eastern and southern borders of the study area. Mean flow recorded at
Sumnerville (approximately 4.5 miles south of the study area) from October
1978 to September 1979 (USGS 1980) was 339 cubic feet per second (cfs) or
3
9.6 cubic meters per second (m /s). Average dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions at M-62 are above the State standard of 6 mg/1 (MDNR 1981), but
concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria were higher than 200 most prob-
able number/100 ml (MDNR 1978b; TenEch Environmental Engineers, Inc. 1980).
The Dowagiac River receives the flow of Dowagiac Creek which is the receiv-
ing stream for the Dowagiac sewage treatment plant.
Three other creeks are outlets to lakes in the area. Pipestone Creek
flows into and is the outlet for Pipestone Lake; then flows south and
southwest to the St. Joseph River, approximately 8 miles (12.9 kilometers)
downstream. Dissolved oxygen concentrations (MDNR 1978b) exceeded State
standard for the stream (6 mg/1). Fecal coliform counts (MDNR 1978b) ex-
ceeded the standard for total body contact recreation. Silver Creek, the
outlet for Magician Lake, originates at the eastern tip of the lake and
flows south to southeast through the Dowagiac Swamp, where it enters the
Dowagiac River. The Indian Lake outlet is an intermittent creek originat-
ing on the east side of the lake and flows easterly to its confluence with
the Dowagiac River. Another creek, Osborn Drain, originates in the large
swamp one mile north of Magician Lake and flows east to the Dowagiac River.
No flow data are available for these creeks. Pipestone Creek, Dowagiac
Creek, and Osborn Drain have been designated as trout streams (MDNR 1975a).
Inland Lakes
Physical characteristics for each of the seven major lakes in the
study are presented in Table 3-2. Indian Lake has the greatest surface
area (481.5 acres), the largest watershed (4,148.5 acres), and one of the
higher watershed to lake surface ratios (8.6:1). Dewey Lake has the high-
est watershed to surface area ratio (9.9:1). Crooked Lake has the greatest
recorded depth (62 feet) and the lowest watershed to surface area ratio
3-11
-------
1
CO
I-l
cfl
cu
3
4-1
CO
CO
CO
H
CO
cfl
rJ
(3
cfl
H
0)
(3
H
CO
co ca
B cu
U
U-t H
CO CO
o
>-i O
01
4-> t3
CJ £3
CO cfl
M
cfl ^-N
43 st
O r^
CTv
rH rH
Cfl
O C3
H O
CO 4->
43 O
D-i PQ
CN
ro
Cfl
H
CU
3
o
(3
3
O
CU
^
a
0)
(3
O
CO
01
o.
iH
Oi
CU
CO
i_J
C
CO
H
O
H
00
5^
cu
cfl
!_3
C
cfl
H
T3-
C
H
.S
rH
^
CU
CU
Q
C
cu
^
PQ
r*
Cfl
(3
0)
H
M
M
01
pa
#>
a
01
IH
3
PQ co
CO
a co
cfl c_>
>
CO
CO
cfl
0
to
CO
01
cfl
T3
CU
o
o
I-l
o
£
J
CU
rH
pQ
ca
o
-
CU
M
3
PQ CO
CO
a cfl
cfl O
CO
CO
5
^
4-1
e
CJ
»
rH
ro
rl f~-
01
i-H 00
CU CT\
CU CN rH
t
m
CN
CU vO
00 ro
d
H -
M in r^
43 CO rH
fi rH
H
Cfl vO
CQ CN
jj
01
CU
* M
ro U
r*^
M rl
0)0) 00
i 1 p> -^ vO
CU rH -*
Ol iH '
US co n
«
CU
M
o m
M rH rH
cu cn oo
^ ^^
r-l
H O
co cn
cu
cu cyv
o -
00
M in
01 CO
> m CN
,!
H -
CN
CO
VO
^^
en
in
l-i V 4^ O
rH > Ol CN
0) rH CU
CU -H M
US CO O
in
01
o>
o
M CN
CU
> rH
rH 0\
CO
§
iH
*M
u
01 (0
CO CU
cfl
a. ^v
H CU CO
43 U CU
CO cfl I-l
§14-1 U
M CO
O 3 **-'
vo r^«
,
O co
rH
rH 00
o*» in
CN CO
00 rH
rH rH
VO rH
O vO
rH
co m
oo «*
rH
00 rH
00 vO
rH
in r^
CN CO
rH
0)
a
^x -H
B rH
v-> D
43 0
+J 43
a. to
0>
"O <4H
0
a
3 43
8 -r"-^
ri g>S
K C T-=6
ctf ^x
32 | i
CN
r-l
00
o
oo
O
CN
m
oo
in
vO
00
m
o\
vO
oo
vO
cfl
CU
M
cfl
"O
0) ^^
,fi CO
CO 0>
(-1 H
Ol U
M CO
<4H
\_x
o
vO
CN
4-1 O
^^ N~^
O O
o
CNI
o o
ca o
m o\
"4-1 MH
O O
O\ 00
CO OO
O
CN
(3
cfl
CO 43
CU J-i
rH O.
CU
cfl <-
CU O
H 13
3-12
-------
(3.1:1). Although Magician Lake has a lake surface area similar in size to
Indian Lake, Magician Lake has nearly twice the shoreline length compared
to Indian Lake.
In the last 3 years, 2 sampling programs have been conducted to char-
acterize the water quality and trophic status of lakes in the study area.
The first sampling program characterized algal conditions in early and late
summer. Phytoplankton collections were conducted during the periods of 4-6
June 1979 and 4-6 September 1979. Five to ten sampling stations were
distributed evenly throughout each lake. The sampling station locations,
and the computer printouts giving algal density and percent occurrence of
major groups are given in Appendix I of the Draft EIS.
A summary of the dominant algal taxa, average Secchi depths, and
stratification conditions are given in Table 3-3. In general terms Cry-
ptophyta (blue-green algae), followed by Chlorophyta (green algae), were
the most abundant algae in most of the lakes during the June sampling
period. During the September sampling period, Cyanophyta (blue-green
algae) was generally the most abundant algae present. Cable, Crooked, and
Indian Lakes exhibited the greatest algal density in June.
The second sampling program that was conducted in October and November
1982 represents new information collected and analyzed since publication of
the Draft EIS. The results (Appendix B) showed that the lakes (except
Pipestone Lake at the early sampling date) had experienced complete mixing
typical with the onset of cooler autumnal weather. Phosphorus, nitrogen,
and chlorophyll a. values were low for all the lakes due to the decline in
algal growth with the transition in weather to autumnal conditions. The
greatest Secchi disk depths were measured in Lower Crooked Lake. The
lowest Secchi disk depths were measured in Indian Lake, Pipestone Lake, and
Dewey Lake.
The analysis of the lake sediments that were collected at the water
sampling locations in November indicated that the lakes have variable but
explicable results (Appendix B) . The samples were analyzed for non-apa-
titic inorganic phosphorus (NAI-P), chlorophyll degradation products,
3-13
-------
x^
+-> M
tO CU
x>
d 8
o cu
i-l 4-1
4-> P.
CO CU
O CO
H ^-"
M-l
H 4-1
4-> M-l
CO
ij m
4-" CN
CO
CU
> d
r-l Ol
O 60
CO ><
co X
i-l O
Q
CO CO (0 CO CO CO
oaicucuocucuai
£5^-1 £M (VH £5 ^ K** ^"*
01
I-l
3
CO
01
p.
B
Ol
H
CO CO CO CO CO
ocuooioaicucu
o
0
M
a
ON
m
m
en
m
o
o
ON
oo
CO
+J CO
P. T)
cu o
-O t-l
M
^i CU
CO Cu
H
T3 00
H
f,
o
o
(1) *
CO CO
eu
CD ON
00 r^
tfl ON
l-i ^H
0)
> 01
n) x:
E
o
M
.H CO
to a
60 O
i-l -H
CO 4J
d a
to o
c o
H
M-l CO
o o
H
to
H
r-l
CO
60
r-l
<^
4->
d
tfl
d
1-1
B
o
o
M-l
0
^1
CU
XI
B
3
M
0)
XI
a
cu
+J
p.
Ol
CO
X \
gsg
^^
41
3
ca
d
0
H
+J
tO
o
o
rJ
60
H
P.
B
in
m
d
cu
01
60
1
cu
3
H
pa
/^
i i
r^
^~s
d
cu
cu
0
ON
m
d
cu
cu
60
Ol
3
iH
pa
^^
ON
>J-
N-MT*
ctf
^
Xi
o.
o
4-1
A
^
M
c_>
in
vO
m
cu
cu
M
60
I
cu
3
pa
^-^
CM
^>
v^
d
0)
0)
S-i
60
CU
3
!-(
pa
00
ON
00
d
cu
CU
60
cu
3
I-l
pa
/ N
CO
m
****
to
4-1
^i
Xi
p.
o
4_)
p.
^
^
u
in
CO
d
cu
01
i-i
60
01
r-l
, ^
CN
^>
Sw*
tfl
KS
XI
p.
o
4-1
p,
^)
CJ
in
m
cfl
4-1
p.
0
4-1
p.
M
o
s-^
m
vO
**~s
d
01
cu
o
m
"3
d
cu
cu
O
/-^
&
m
s_x
d
cu
cu
O
r
CO
§
4-1
to
H
o
^^
o
00
^-/
CO
o
40
to
H
Q
O
rH
B M
3 -P
co co
tO
H
8
CU
d
o
4-1
CO
CU
A
d
I
T3 -B
^ 3
O
O
I-l
o
M
CU
P,
P.
Croo
o
pj
Xi
tfl
11
p
d
co
H
CJ
H
60
I
3-14
-------
organic matter content, calcium carbonate content, and sand content. The
values are highly variable both within and between lakes. The NAI-P is a
measure of the biologically available phosphorus. The chlorophyll degra-
dation products and organic matter are measures of past productivity that
has been subjected to decomposition.
The differences in NAI-P between lakes may be an indicator of lake
trophic status. The sediments of eutrophic lakes may release the NAI-P to
overlying water where it may be available to the phytoplankton. In meso-
trophic lakes the NAI-P may remain relatively immobile in the bottom sedi-
ments. The sediment NAI-P was compared to the average algal densities
measured in each of the lakes during the June and September 1979 sampling
periods (figure 3-4). The figure shows that Indian Lake, Dewey Lake, and
Magician Lake appear to experience different intensities of nutrient cycl-
ing from the sediments as compared to the other lakes. Pipestone Lake is
anomalous probably because of the estimated high external loading of phos-
phorus.
Eutrophication or increased productivity of a lake is generally caused
by an increase in the input of nutrients to a lake. For most freshwater
bodies, phosphorus is the key nutrient for aquatic plant growth. In most
lakes, productivity of the lakes can be reduced. However, the removal of
one source (septic tank effluents) may not change the water quality of
these lakes significantly. Water quality improvements may require the
control of many sources in order to realize maximum benefits from a reduced
phosphorus load.
To estimate the nutrient inputs a "theoretical loading" was derived
using the available literature values for contributions from nonpoint
sources, precipitation, and septic tank leachate. Nutrient export coeffic-
ients from USEPA (1980b) were used for nonpoint source inputs (Table 3-4).
Land use/land cover acreage in the seven study area watersheds (Figure 3-5)
is presented in Section 3.2.2.1., Table 3-18. Total phosphorus contribu-
tions to the lakes from direct precipitation were estimated using 0.13
kg/ac/yr of lake surface (USEPA 1980b).
3-15
-------
4000-
3000-
O)
.*
^»
o>
~ 2000H
Q.
i
1000-
Round Lk
Cable Lk
Pipestone Lk
Up Crooked Lk
Lo Crooked Lk
Indian Lk
"s
Dewey Lk
Magician Lk
1^1^ T 1
1000 2000 3000 4000
ALGAL DENSITY (number/ml)
Figure 3-4. Comparison of sediment NAI-P (Nov. 1982 samples) with algal density
(Jun. and Sept. 1979 sampling times) for study area lakes.
3-16
-------
No Scale
Figure 3-5. Surface watersheds in the study area.
3-17
-------
Table 3-4. Mean nutrient export from nonpoint sources by land use/cover
type (USEPA 1980b).
Total
Phosphorus
Land Use/Cover Type (kg/acre/yr)
Agricultural 0.26
Residential 0.14
Commercial 0.81
Industrial 0.30
Recreational areas 0.08
Forest 0.11
Wetland 0.06
Several different estimates of phosphorus loads in septic tank ef-
fluent have been reported: 0.8 kg per capita per year (kg/cap/yr) (Dillon
and Rigler 1975) and 1.1-1.7 kg/cap/yr (USEPA 1980a). The Dillon and
Rigler value of 0.8 kg/cap/yr was utilized as a baseline loading. A soil
retention coefficient of 88% was used to estimate the percent of phosphorus
removed by soil which is within the range used by USEPA (1980b) and Jones
and Lee (1977). Therefore, the values of 0.1 kg/cap/yr, similar to the NES
value of 0.11 kg/cap/yr (USEPA 1974), was used to calculate the phosphorus
contributions from septic tanks to lake waters. The nutrient loadings from
septic systems and the other sources are presented in Table 3-5. As indi-
cated, the nonpoint sources contribute a significant amount of phosphorus
to all the lakes.
Table 3-5. Total phosphorus inputs by source.
Nonpoint Source Septic Precipitation
Lake (Land Cover) (kg/yr) System (kg/yr) (kg/yr) Total (kg/yr)
Cable
v/rooked
Dewey
Indian
Magician
Pipestone
Round
59.4
96.2
392.7
659.6
410.3
493.4
112.6
29.0
103.0
52.0
122.0
160.0
19.0
52.0
9.9
29.5
28.5
65.9
58.6
16.5
25.1
98.3
228.7
473.2
847.4
628.9
528.9
189.7
3-18
-------
The sources of nutrient inputs to the lakes are dependent upon the
predominant land use/cover type of the watersheds. Dewey Lake, Indian
Lake, and Pipestone Lake watersheds had the highest percentages of phos-
phorus inputs from nonpoint sources, and a significant percentage of each
watershed was used for agricultural purposes. The Crooked Lake watershed,
with the highest percentage of residential land, had the highest percentage
of phosphorus loadings from septic tank leachate.
The nonpoint source load to the lakes does not differentiate the load
contributed by surface runoff and groundwater. Indian Lake and the Sister
Lakes are primarily seepage lakes and do not have any major tributary
inlets or stream linkages between lakes. The lakes are fed primarily by
groundwater recharge. Water balance estimates and well water chemical
analysis for Pipestone Lake indicated that groundwater is the major source
of phosphorus to the lake (National Biocentric Inc. 1978). Similar water
balance data for the other lakes are not available. However, the concen-
tration of total phosphorus in the groundwater surrounding the lakes,
except Pipestone Lake, is relatively low.
The amount of phosphorus that actually enters the lake from septic
tanks would depend on the ability of drain field soils to immobilize the
phosphorus. When subsurface disposal systems are built on proper soil and
are located at proper distances from the receiving water body, nearly 100%
of the phosphorus from septic tank effluent is removed by the soil (Jones
and Lee 1977). However, when the distances between the disposal system and
lake are limited or when the drain field has failed, a higher proportion of
the phosphorus from the system may move into the groundwater. The shallow
groundwater study (Appendix C) attempted to quantify the nutrients contri-
buted to the lake from selected septic tank and soil absorption systems.
The results indicated that, for the systems studies, little phosphorus or
nitrates moved to the lake. That result may be expected because lake
levels and the groundwater table were lower than at any time in recent
history.
3-19
-------
To evaluate the nutrient contribution of septic tanks to the lakes, a
comprehensive septic leachate survey of Indian Lake and Sister Lakes shore-
lines was performed in October 1979 by K-V Associates, Inc. The septic
leachate survey included a continuous scan of sections of the shoreline of
all the lakes by a recording leachate detector instrument (Septic Snooper).
Water quality analyses of identified stream or groundwater plumes detected
by the septic leachate detector supplied evidence of domestic wastewater
infiltration into the lakes. In October groundwater plumes originating
from permanent residences should have been detected. Most seasonal resi-
dences were vacated by October; therefore, some seasonal residences that
may have been emitting erupting plumes were not detected at the time of the
septic leachate detector survey. The following conclusions were drawn from
the survey:
A total of 31 locations exhibited noticeable erupting ground-
water plume characteristics, specifically occurring on
Crooked Lake, Magician Lake, Indian Lake, and Pipestone
Lake. The other lakes had fewer potential point source
problem sites and had water quality influenced by the sur-
rounding land use.
From the 31 erupting groundwater plumes, nearshore ground-
water samples were collected and analyzed from 11 locations.
Only 2 of the samples had nitrate-nitrogen concentrations
greater than 0.1 mg/1 and none of the samples had total
phosphorus concentrations greater than 0.04 mg/1. Maximum
values were 6.8 mg/1 for NO and 0.88 mg/1 for total phos-
phorus.
Only on Pipestone Lake were consistently high ammonia con-
centrations measured (greater than 1 mg/1) which is in-
dicative of anaerobic conditions that favor movement of
phosphorus through groundwater.
In summary, the different phosphorus loads to Indian Lake and the
Sister Lakes is an important factor affecting the water quality of the
lakes. The relationship between theoretical nutrient loading, lake water
quality, and trophic status is shown in Table 3-6. A general lake model
which predicts the current phosphorus loading rate as well as the expected
changes that may occur with implementation of the various wastewater alter-
natives is given in Section 4.1.2.3.
3-20
-------
Table 3-6. Comparison of water quality indices and estimated phosphorus
loads for area lakes.
Lake
Pipestone
Indian
Dewey
Magician
Round
Upper Crooked
Lower Crooked
Cable
Autumn 1982
Sampling
Eutrophic
Eutrophic
Eutrophic
Mesotrophic
to eutrophic
Mesotrophic
Mesotrophic
Mesotrophic
Mesotrophic
Secchi Disk
(MDNR Classification)3
Eutrophic
Eutrophic
Mesotrophic (eutrophic )
Mesotrophic
Mesotrophic
Mesotrophic
Mesotrophic
Oligotrophic
Theoretical
Phosphorus
Loading Rate
(g/m of lake)
1.03
0.41
0.53
0.35
0.24
0.25
0.25
0.28
MDNR classification is based on Secchi disk measurements or chlorophyll 4.6
Chlorophyll
>10 mg/1
4-10
<4
Dewey Lake has been classified as eutrophic based on Secchi disk measure-
ments recorded as part of the Inland Lake Self-Help Program in 1974,
1975, 1976, and 1977 (MDNR 1975b, 1976b, 1977b, 1978a).
The results of the various indices show that the lakes of the area are
either in an advanced mesotrophic state or in a low eutrophic state (Table
3-6). This conclusion was substantiated further by the existence of moder-
ate to heavy aquatic vascular plant growth in the lakes and the dissolved
oxygen readings of less than 2.0 ppm in the deeper sections of six of the
lakes. The reduced Secchi disc transparency readings for Pipestone Lake
also indicate greater algal productivity (biomass) and turbidity compared
to the other lakes.
3.1.3.2. Groundwater in the Study Area
Water supplies in the study area are obtained from groundwater sources
associated with the glacial geology. Outwash deposits constitute the most
3-21
-------
productive aquifers in the study area. The stratified sands and gravels of
these deposits may be highly permeable, continuous over great distances,
and readily recharged by precipitation (Giroux and others 1972).
The regional water table in the study area is shown in Figure 3-6.
This map was constructed on the basis of information obtained from topo-
graphic maps and water well records. In general, groundwater is recharged
in the uplands and is discharged to the Dowagiac River, its tributaries and
to Pipestone Creek. However, because the lakes in this area intercept the
unconfined water table, groundwater constitutes an important and undeter-
mined part of the hydrologic budget in these lakes.
Drinking water quality surveys of the project area have been conducted
by WAPORA in June 1979 and November 1982. A total of sixty residential
wells located around the lakes were selected for sampling in the first
survey (Figure 3-7). The second survey included 48 wells. Results of the
nutrient and coliform analysis of the water samples collected from the
wells are shown in Table 3-7 and in Appendix A. The nitrate-nitrogen data
indicated that the groundwater was contaminated in localized areas. The
majority of wells sampled (74%) had nitrate-nitrogen concentrations of less
than 1 mg/1. Twenty eight wells (26% of total well samples) had concen-
trations greater than 1 mg/1; and 8 out of these 28 wells had nitrate-ni-
trogen concentrations greater than the 10 mg/1 criteria for domestic water
supply. The data also indicated that most of the higher nitrate-nitrogen
concentrations are associated with higher concentrations of chlorides.
Thus one possible source of nitrate contamination of these localized wells
appears to be the effluent from septic tanks.
3.1.4. Aquatic Biota
3.1.4.1. Phytoplankton
Information on phytoplankton for the lakes in the study area is dis-
cussed in Section 3.1. Appendix I of the Draft EIS contains summary tables
of the species lists and densities.
3-22
-------
Figure 3-6. Groundwater contours in the study area.
3-23
-------
-fe.'yr>/'ig-'-'MyA lf" rO /PCI.
Figure 3-7. Well sampling sites for the groundwater survey
3-24
-------
<»l
=!
| O in O O C C OOOOC CCCOCCOO OOCOOOCOO
w
ca
cd
jz
4-1
01
M
o
u z
z oj
sD r^ 00 CM
O O -H O
CM
o
osoc ococococ
ri r^> IN in
o o o -^
Cfl
0)
en
0)
-)
H
TD LO
C -i
01 C
,C CB
4-1
iI
M-l I
O
C
^ 01
01 (U
r> s
S-l 4-1
- 3 00 CM i-l O
f^ tN fM < VD
JS,
4J >,
O T3
01
CO 4J
4-1 U
C
O
O
r~.
I
01
z
H C i- TO
Oj to ''-HE
E£ i- K * m tt J* *
o u ft a c n XEtitc
-jtoioi-H o < q j-> -
oasze>.wH yusuicnK
Z a o! u oi c 3 oi ai oi X
O O
-i oc 10
n
10 -o
10
ec
OC
b
a>
a1
c c
41 -H
10 -H
e -( o
Cl 3 u
"^ OM W
OJ
OC
l-
>i Q)
CI XI
-CEO
rH 1C X
to 4J 01
O w 3
SO U Bi 3 M
OJ
H
u
01
OJ
y
3-25
-------
oocoooocooc
OCOir, COOmO
L1^ cc co in o CM
^ (N
a
c
o
a
C
o
re oo
Qi O
4J l-i
re u
o o o o o o
I
a.
T3
p
en
a)
OJ
4-1
03
H
CO
I
0)
41 ^->
JJ 0)
O 3
.= U
C. O
co ^:
c a
.c n
CM O
u n
O IB
f- ^
O ' l
oo o
OOOp
ooooooo
§-
ooo oooooodo
(NJ < ^H
o o o
coo
\ m OD
O O O C5
§§8§
CO VC 00 < O "
§00000
o o c o o o
o o o d d d o
cfl
H
d
a)
x;
4-J
(U
19 C
u O
H J
-H d d
o o
o o
o
o
0 O
ooo oooo ooooooo
O T-<
lu E
38
o
H
a)
jj
cd
01 V
co
CM
O 00 < O < < f>
cr* i z *c z z oo
C
3
O
M
60
a)
*i i£> o r^-^v
O
en
3
en
0)
r
i
,£>
CO
H
i
re
y
CO
^
0)
o
is
t, t)
0) -H
^ co re ±J i-i
£ s » x >-. x a)
re oi o) 01 a1 re 1-1
XK XC-HT3-* ^UJAJ^i
41-Oca C^T3Ot<^4JO
HCi-irecosi-iuaioc
<- i c
h. Ij IM I- C
01 13 4J 01 \*
O.r-1 01 ^J 3
0 3 Ji i- J
O O U i-f K
o u w s O
^ E 10 w os
en
Of
^
I
re
. Strom
3-26
-------
3.1.4.2. Mollusks
No data are available on mollusk populations in the study area. No
threatened or endangered species are believed to exist locally.
3.1.4.3. Fisheries
Bodies of water that are classified as coldwater lakes by MDNR (1976a)
are deep, thermally stratified, and support or are capable of supporting
one or more coldwater fish species. Indian Lake, Cable Lake, Dewey Lake,
and Magician Lake are so classified. Pipestone Lake is classified as a
trout lake (By telephone, William McClay, MDNR, to WAPORA, Inc. 26 February
1979) and has salmonid fishes within it during the spawning and smolt
periods. Bodies of water classified as warm water lakes are typically
shallow, do not become stratified, and are not capable of supporting cold-
water fisheries. The remaining lakes in the study area are classified as
warm water lakes. No species of fish that have been designated by the
State of Michigan as endangered or threatened are known to occur in the
Indian Lake-Sister Lakes study area. The predominant game fish species in
the study area lakes are presented in Table 3-8.
3.1.5. Terrestrial Biota
3.1.5.1. Amphibians and Reptiles
Three species of amphibians and 5 species of reptiles have been desig-
nated as endangered or threatened by the State of Michigan (MDNR 1980).
Three of these species, the marbled salamander, the black rat snake, and
the eastern box turtle have distribution ranges that include the study
area. No data are available specifically for the study area which docu-
ments the presence and/or absence of any of these species.
3.1.5.2. Birds
The diverse habitats that occur within the study area support many
species of birds and make it a prime waterfowl site. A total of 109 spe-
3-27
-------
Table 3-8. Predominant species of fish in each of the study area lakes
surveyed by MDNR (survey year is in parentheses).
Lake
Cable (1941)
Crooked (1965)
Dewey (1963)
Indian (1964)
Magician (1963)
Pipestone (no
date)
Round (1977)
Common Name
Blue Gill
Perch
Largemouth Bass
Yellow Perch
Blue Gill
Crappie
Largemouth Bass
Pumpkinseed
Mud Pickerel
Bullhead
Sucker
Crappie
Pumpkinseed
Largemouth Bass
Smallmouth Bass
Blue Gill
Pumpkinseed
Black Crappie
Largemouth Bass
Bullhead
Northern Pike
Carp
Crappie
Pumpkinseed
Largemouth Bass
Smallmouth Bass
Blue Gill
Pumpkinseed
Crappie
Yellow Perch
Largemouth Bass
Carp
Chubsucker
Warmouth
Bullhead
Lake Chubsucker
Spotted Sucker
White Sucker
Alewife
Gizzard Shad
Chinook Salmon
Coho Salmon
Hybird Blue Gill Sunfish
Rainbow Trout
Largemouth Bass
Tiger Muskie
jcientific Name
Lepomis macrochirus
Perca fluviatilis
Micropterus salmoides
Perca flavescens
Lepomis macrochirus
Pomoxis sp.
Micropterus salmoides
Lepomis gibbosus
Esox vermiculatus
Ictaluridae sp.
Catastomidae sp.
Pomoxis sp.
Lepomis gibbosus
Micropterus j>almoides
Micropterus dolomieui
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis gibbosus
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Micropterus salmoides
Ictaluridae sp.
Esox lucius L.
Cyprinus carpio
Pomoxis sp.
Lepomis gibbosus
Micropterus salmoides
Micropterus dolomieui
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis gibbosus
Pomoxis sp.
Perca flavescens
Micropterus salmoides
Cyprinus carpio
Cprinidae sp.
Lepomis gulosus
Ictaluridae sp.
Cyprinidae sp.
Minytrema melanops
Catostomus commersoni
Alosa pseudoharengus
Dorosoma cepedianum
Oncorhynchus tschawytscha
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Lepomis macrochirus
Salmo gairdneri
Micropterus salmoides
Esox masguinongy
3-28
-------
cies of grassland birds, woodland birds and waterfowl have been recorded in
Cass County (Gove Associates, Inc. 1977). Twelve species of birds are
considered by the State of Michigan to be endangered or threatened (Table
3-11 of the Draft EIS). Several of the species listed, including the
Peregrine Falcon, the Bald Eagle, and Kirtland's Warbler, may utilize the
study area, but sufficient data are not available to document their pre-
sence.
3.1.5.3. Mammals
Within the Great Lakes Region, transitions occur between the boreal
forest, the southern coastal plain, and the western grassland zones. This
diversity of major vegetation zones, and the abundance of lakes have signi-
ficantly influenced the number and distribution of mammals in this region.
Seventy-eight species of mammals are known to occur in the Great Lakes
Region. Approximately 42 species of mammals have ranges that include
Berrien County, Cass County, and Van Buren County (Cooley 1979).
The State of Michigan has identified 5 species of mammals known to
inhabit the State as endangered or threatened species (Table 3-16 of the
Draft EIS). Of these species, the Indiana bat, the pygmy shrew, and the
southern bog lemming have ranges that encompass the study area. Data
indicating the presence or absence of endangered or threatened species
within the study area are not available.
3.1.5.4. Vegetation
The presettlement vegetation of Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren Counties
included beech-maple and oak-hickory forests (Braun 1950; Kenoyer 1930).
Small areas of prairie also were present in the three counties (Transeau
1936). A total of 38 species of plants (mostly native herbaceous) are
listed as endangered or threatened in Berrien County (Appendix J of the
Draft EIS, Table J-l). Six of these are designated as endangered or threa-
tened at the federal level (Ayensu and De Filipps 1978). These include
white lady's-slipper, prairie fringed orchid, smaller whorled pogonia,
Pitcher's thistle, and rosinweed. The small whorled pogonia is the rarest
orchid in the United States.
3-29
-------
In Cass County, a. total of 25 species of plants (mostly native herba-
ceous) are listed as endangered, threatened, or rare (Appendix J of the
Draft EIS, Table J-2). Of these, two threatened and one endangered species
also are included on the federal list: the tubercled orchid, ginseng, and
rosinweod (Ayensu and De Filipps 1978).
In Van Buren County, 26 species of plants (mostly native herbaceous)
are classified as endangered or threatened (Appendix J of the Draft EIS,
Table J-3). Included in this total are three threatened and one endangered
species that are on the federal list: the tubercled orchid, ginseng, Pit-
cher's thistle, and rosinweed (Ayensu and De Filipps 1978).
3.1.6. Wetlands
Wetlands can be defined in general terms as "lands where saturation
with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil develop-
ment and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and
on its surface" (Cowardin and others 1979). Such lands comprise 7% of the
four-township area. The majority of the wetlands are located in Keeler and
Silver Creek Townships.
Wetlands in the study area were mapped at a scale of 1:36,000 by the
USEPA, Environmental Monitoring System Laboratory (USEPA 1979). Three
types of wetlands were identified:
Wooded swamp
Shrub swamp
Non-forested (non-wooded) wetlands (marsh).
Most of the wetland areas mapped by the USEPA are located in the
northern half of the study area. Many small wooded and shrub swamps are
located between Magician Lake and Keeler Lake. Large areas of wooded
swamps also are located along the shores of Cable and Dewey Lakes and in
Bainbridge Township, north of Pipestone Lake.
3-30
-------
3.2. Man-made Environment
3.2.1. Demography
3.2.1.1. Historic and Current Population
Historic and current population trends were analyzed for the four
townships (Bainbridge, Keeler, Pokagon, and Silver Creek) and three coun-
ties (Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren) in which the study area is located.
The townships are the smallest geographic units for which comprehensive
demographic data are available.
Each of the four townships has experienced continuous permanent popu-
lation growth since 1950 (Table 3-9). The four townships combined per-
centage increase in population during the 30-year period from 1950 to 1980
was 63.4%. The four-township area has experienced more rapid growth since
1950 than the surrounding area and the state (Table 3-9). The more rapid
rate of growth probably can be attributed to tourism and recreation-related
development, although this market segment has not experienced growth in
recent years.
Growth rates for the four townships varied considerably during the
30-year period. The increases ranged from a low of 31.2% in Bainbridge
Township to 89.6% in Silver Creek Township. The rapid growth in Silver
Creek Township also is noteworthy because of the high proportion of town-
ship residents who live in the study area.
From 1970 to 1980 the population of the four townships increased by
1,179 (US Bureau of the Census 1982). Keeler Township recorded the highest
rate of increase, 18.1%, but Silver Creek Township, which includes a con-
siderable amount of development around the Sister Lakes, also recorded a
high growth rate (16.5%). Population data for the four-township area from
1970 to 1980 are summarized in Table 3-10.
3-31
-------
Table 3-9. Population growth in the four-township area, three-county area,
and in Michigan between 1950 and 1980 (US Bureau of the Census
1952, 1963, 1973, 1982).
Township
Bainbridge
Keeler
Pokagon
Silver Creek
Total
County
Cass
Van Buren
Berrien
Total
Michigan
1950
2,194
1,414
1,518
1,773
6,899
28,185
39,184
115,702
183,071
6,371,766
1960
2,503
2,109
1,935
2,108
8,655
36,932
48,395
149,865
235,192
7,823,194
1970
2,784
2,234
2,189
2,886
10,093
43,312
56,173
163,940
263,425
8,881,826
1980
2,879
2,638
2,394
3,361
11,272
49,499
66,814
171,276
287,589
9,258,344
Percent
Change
1950-1980
31.2%
86.6
57.7
89.6
63.4
75.6%
70.5
48.0
57.1
45.3
Table 3-10. Population growth in the four-township area, 1970 to 1980 (US
Bureau of the Census 1973, 1982).
Population Change
1970 - 1980
Township 1970 1980 No. Percent
Bainbridge
Keeler
Pokagon
Silver Creek
Total
2,784
2,234
2,189
2,886
10,093
2,879
2,638
2,394
3,361
11,272
95
404
205
475
1,179
3.4%
18.1
9.4
16.5
11.7
Although the rate of growth in the four-township area generally ex-
ceeded the rate of growth in the three-county area and in the state, the
growth rates have declined over time. Peak population growth rates oc-
curred, in all three situations, during the 1950s (Table 3-11). The four-
township area grew by 25.5% from 1950 to 1960. This rate of increase
declined in the last decade to 11.7%. In addition, Bainbridge Township
grew at a slower rate from 1970 to 1980, 3.4%, than did the State (4.2%).
3-32
-------
Table 3-11. Population growth rates in the four-township area, three-
county area, and in Michigan between 1950 and 1980 (US Bureau
of the Census 1952, 1963, 1973, 1982).
Township 1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980 1950-1980
Bainbridge
Keeler
Pokagon
Silver Creek
Four Township
Area
County
Cass
Van Buren
Berrien
Three-County
Area
Michigan
14.1%
49.2
27.5
18.9
25.5
31.0
23.5
29.5
28.5
22.8
11.2%
5.9
13.1
36.9
16.6
17.3
16.1
9.4
12.0
13.5
3.4%
18.1
9.4
16.5
11.7
14.3
18.9
4.5
9.2
4.2
31.2%
86.6
57.7
89.6
63.4
75.6
70.5
48.0
57.1
45.3
In spite of the low rate of growth in Bainbridge Township, the overall
growth rate in the four-township area from 1970 to 1980 exceeded the growth
rate of the three-county area and the State of Michigan. This more rapid
growth parallels trends in rural, non-metropolitan areas nationwide. It
also may reflect the area's economic links to non-manufacturing industries,
which were more stable during the 1970s than manufacturing industries were.
3.2.1.2. Service Area Population Estimates
Gove Associates, Inc. developed service area populations based on a
house count and the 1970 average household size for the four-township area.
Seasonal and permanent population estimates were developed from estimates
by local officials and area residents. In 1979, Gove Associates, Inc.
prepared an updated house count based on revised land use maps (Gove Asso-
ciates, Inc. 1980). Seasonal and permanent residence identification was
based on the address of the landowner in the tax records.
Subsequent to that count it was recognized that numerous problems were
encountered in differentiating between residences and outbuildings. Also,
3-33
-------
numerous seasonal residences were noted as being permanent residences. In
1979, WAPORA counted dwelling units from updated maps but, in this count, a
larger area than that designated as the service area was included. In
1981, WAPORA completed another count of the dwelling units within the
designated service area using final inspection records for septic systems
and partial field checks of the maps. The identification of seasonal and
permanent residences was made from addresses on the 1978 tax rolls and on
interviews for the major leaseholds and resorts. Because the 1977 and 1978
tax rolls were used, the 1981 permanent population probably is underes-
timated.
A comparison of the results of these house counts is presented in
Table 3-12. The major discrepancy between the Gove and WAPORA counts
occurs for Pipestone Lake. These dwelling units were counted from aerial
photographs and problems in distinguishing residences and outbuildings were
encountered.
Gove Associates identified on the eligibility maps the residences con-
structed after 1972 with information from building permit records. WAPORA
made some corrections to this count based on septic tank installation
records. The numbers of new dwelling units are given in Table 3-13.
According to the septic tank records examined, the number of residences
constructed from 1972 to 1977 may have been underestimated in the Facility
Plan by approximately 40 residences. A large number of building permits
for residences were granted in 1972 prior to the October cutoff date for
grant eligibility determination. These residences may have been construct-
ed and inhabited in subsequent years; thus, the final inspection dates on
the septic tank records would indicate the later habitation. These data
show that fewer new dwelling units on undeveloped lots are being con-
structed than during the middle of the decade. Most of the new dwellings
are probably permanent residences although the addresses of the owners show
more seasonal than permanent residences. The owner's address may reflect
his former address rather than his present one.
Determining the average household size for seasonal residences is more
problematic. No conclusive data are available for this area and no generic
3-34
-------
Table 3-12. Comparison of counts of residential dwelling units within the
Indian Lake-Sister Lakes service areas by Gove Associates,
Inc. (1978a, 1980) and WAPORA, Inc. (1979, 1981).
WAPORA
Service Area Gove 1977 Gove 1979 WAPORA 1979& 1981
Indian Lake
Permanent
Seasonal
% seasonal
Total
Pipestone Lake
Permanent
Seasonal
% seasonal
Total
Sister Lakes
Permanent
Seasonal
% seasonal
Total
Total
Permanent
Seasonal
% seasonal
Total
a
Includes some
332
221
40
553
45
30
40
75
949
949
50
1,898
1,326
1,200
47
2,526
dwelling units outside
298
200
40
498
87
16
16
103
958
872
48
1,830
1,343
1,098
45
2,431
the service
221
299
57
520
65
22
25
87
816
1,064
57
1,880
1,102
1,385
56
2,487
area.
203
338
62
541
42
26
38
68
746
1,180
61
1,926
991
1,544
61
2,535
factors have been developed. Also, the average seasonal use probably
differs significantly from the peak one-day seasonal use. For lack of a
well-defined rate, the factor proposed is 3.5 persons per dwelling unit.
This factor may be low in accounting for the one-day peak, but high for the
seasonal average.
The 1980 population estimates for the service areas were calculated
from the house count from maps prepared by Gove Associates and updated by
WAPORA in 1981. Two methods were employed to calculate current population.
One used the permanent and seasonal determination based on addresses of
owners and the other used the seasonal and permanent percentages recom-
mended by the planning directors, township supervisors, and realtors. The
3-35
-------
Table 3-13. Number of new residences constructed on undeveloped lots in
the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes service areas.
Service Area 1972-1977 1977-1980 1972-1980
Indian Lake
Permanent
Seasonal
Total
Pipestone Lake
Permanent
Seasonal
Total
Sister Lakes
Permanent
Seasonal
Total
Total Service Area
Permanent
Seasonal
Total
Average per year
28
11
39
1
1
2
48
68
116
77
80
157
31
3
3
6
0
0
0
14
15
29
17
18
35
12
31
14
45
1
1
2
62
83
145
94
98
192
24
1980 service area populations based on household size factors were then
calculated by WAPORA (Table 3-14).
It should be noted that while there has been virtually no new building
activity around any of the lakes in the last few years, the conversion of
seasonal homes to permanent dwellings continues. It is not possible to
calculate the number of conversions being made, or in which areas, but it
can be theorized that as the proportion of permanent to seasonal homes in-
creases, the wide range in the population fr""n summer to winter will dimin-
ish. Again, there are no conclusive data available to verify or quantify
these apparent trends.
3-36
-------
m
0
00
o\
r
«l
a
H
rC
M
o
4-1
13
fl
cd
cd
ci>
M
n)
0)
o
H
£
0)
CO
>.
^a
C
o
H
4J
nj
i
3
cx
o
a.
T3
C
rt
CO
4J
H
fl
60
C
H
CO
3
O
W
-3-
i i
i
0)
i i
o
n)
H
ffl rH
01
OC
to
^
01
o
l-l
01
CM
a
0
o
c
0)
6
§
CJ
01
ps
ja
a
o>
e
H
0)
01
°
to
e
o
CO
to
0)
e
4J
(0
co IN o u*i o y^
CM rO vC ON O ?**
(! r^ r"- o r^
9 '
£4 -i-l
0|
Ca|
OC
c
1 CO
CO 4-)
3 -H
o e
a =
oo o '-* CM m o
C4 CM >O ~* O
in u^ ON *tf
*
""
4->
&
u
0)
5
^
MH
0
m
CO
0)
T3
£
o
01
c
TH
E
01
4-1
a
e
o
4J
to
rH
s
£
00
e
H CO
55
as
PO ^ r-N H p«» ON
\O CO -31 ' O "*O
NC f^- CM O CN
-H rH fO «T>
O*> CM ~* CO ^ "^
* 1 CM "^ VC> ^H »«<
in tfS ON o
r-1
C
O
CO
CO
cu
CO
c
o
iH
A
S,
£
CM ^^ CO r-l O> "A
*tf ** OO ON CM O
_t ^ 0^ (M
( ( rH CM
00
c
iHCQ CN\£J 00 tCrHO
03 4J
3 -H
as
--i CM CO CM in f"l
c^ rn in \o
4*
c
01
e
i
t-
a
H
t(
rH
a
£
00
e
H CO
0) 4J
0 -H
33 3
ICM <} vO CM r»« NO
in »A ^H o o
^T -H*
r*" \o f^ CM co "31
rH fsj fO fO
B ,
a* a
IP G- H
£ ^
Cu oj . ty
cfl > 0) (0 0> CX 0)
0) CD H M CU 00 _S M
H ,2 U M -2-cPU
< « C * « M
r-^OU 4-» iJ lj M *-l
S a S5? £ u-SJS "
rltOJirH 01 TH 0) 1
>-HOT-< 4-tOO>-H
kl^C^C/^ (083ri£C/^
oi e -H
CS M to
ON
*
ro
S
ON
00
00
fM
O
O
*>
00
*
ON
ON
CO
N£>
ON
m
(M
CM
"*
r*-
o
CM
» t
CM
CM
00
(0
4J
CO
fN
00
o
CM
*
I
CO
r^
CO
Ov
CN
»
03
O
0
*>
00
In
CVl
CM
03
en
in
CM
OS
o
-a-
in
in
in
J '
v£>
CM
00
C^T
CM
"a
4-1
o
s
£>
i
CO
i
o
H
-------
3.2.1.3. Population Projections
SMRPC developed permanent population projections in 1978 for the four
townships for 1985, 1990 and 2000 (Table 3-15 and Figure 3-8). The SMRPC
will not revise these population projections until more complete census
data are available.
The expected population decline in Bainbridge Township is related to
its distance from urban centers and lack of recreational facilities.
Growth in the three other townships is occurring more rapidly than ex-
pected. SMRPC projected a 1985 population for Silver Creek Township of
3,228; The 1980 population reported by the US Census however, exceeded the
1985 projection. In Keeler and Pokagon Township, current growth trends
also indicate that the projections are probably somewhat low.
The permanent population projections for the service areas (Table
3-16) were calculated from the population growth rates (Table 3-15) and the
1980 populations (Table 3-14). The 1980 populations that were calculated
from the house count and the recommended percentages for permanent popula-
tions were used in developing the population projections. Although the
1980 census data indicate that township projected growth rates were ex-
ceeded in the past decade, there has been a considerable slackening in
building activity. Within these townships, much of the increase in per-
manent population also may be occurring outside the service areas.
Table 3-15. Population projections, anticipated growth rates, and 1980
Bureau of the Census population by township (SMRPC 1978; US
Bureau of the Census 1982).
Anticipated Growth
1980 Census SMRPC Projections Rate
Township Population 1985 1990 2000 1970 - 2000
Bainbridge 2,879 2,650 2,600 2,500 -10.2%
Keeler 2,638 2,708 2,884 3,200 43.2%
Pokagon 2,394 2,440 2,552 2,731 24.8%
Silver Creek 3,361 3,228 3,363 3,601 24.8%
3-38
-------
3,500
3,000
2,50*
c
o
H
o
CM
g
S
0
2,000-
1,500
1,000.
500
* Silver Creek
.'-' Twp.
Keeler Twp.
»ii
"ii
Pokagon Twp.
""Bainbridge Twp,
Data sources:
1950, 1960, 1970, 1980-US Bureau of the Census (1952, 1963,
1973, 1981)
1976 - P-25 Series Current Population Reports (US Bureau of the
Census 1979)
1985, 1990, 2000 - SMRPC Projections, from 1970 base year,
(1978)
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure 3-8. Population growth, historic and projected, for the four-
township area.
3-39
-------
Table 3-16. Service area permanent population projections for 1985, 1990,
and 2000, and estimated 1980 permanent populations.
1980 1985 1990 2000
Indian Lake Service Area
Pokagon Township
Silver Creek Township
Totals
Sister Lakes Service Area
Bainbrid^e Township
Keeler Township
Silver Creek Township
Totals
Combined Total
33
867
900
117
1,357
1,404
2,878
3,778
34
894
928
117
1,438
1,452
3,007
3,935
36
931
967
117
1,529
1,508
3,154
4,121
38
993
1,031
117
1,691
1,607
3,415
4,446
Four methods were developed for projecting seasonal population, each
based on a different assumption. Method 1 assumed that the ratio of sea-
sonal residents to permanent residents would remain constant (i.e., that
both components would grow at the same rate). Method 2 assumed that the
rate of seasonal population growth would be only half that of the permanent
population growth. In Method 3 the seasonal population was held constant
for the projection period (1980-2000). Method 4 was based on the assump-
tion by Gove Associates, Inc. (1977) that the seasonal population, taken to
mean residences, as a percentage of the total population, would decline by
50% by the year 2000. The results of these four methods were combined with
the permanent population projections and are presented in Table 3-17.
Methods 1 and 2 produced final projections that exceed the assimila-
tive capacity of the service area, based on the limited amounts of un-
developed lakeshore, current zoning restrictions and development controls,
and recent declines in tourism. Method 4 yielded a projection that ap-
peared to be unrealistically low; it forecasted a seasonal population loss
so substantial that it was not offset by gains in the permanent population.
3-40
-------
o
CM
o
in
ON
S-j
O
cn
TJ
O
a
o
o
o
o
3-
O CM
QJ
M ^
QJ O
Cfl <4H
-o
o
x
*j
a)
Z
a
o
.e
T3
O
j;
T3
O
J
u
£
a
o
x
u
CU
s
-* O
O r~
CM
VO
ON
^O
VO
00
JS
ON
o
I
01
* vo -a-
O rH CM
CM 00 rH
-
CO
H
3.
a
^
S
"H
TJ
r;
a ai
3 01
H H
u
g u .
GO QJ CU
355
O -H
a- vi
rH
3
o
H
Cfl
01
^
2
M
0)
j_i
'Jl
H
^J
. OJ
a) p> tu
CO [J U
T3 HO
-H
^ U) ^
j3 CX QJ OJ p.
C 3 ' > 3
H H
-------
Method 3 provided the most reasonable projections, indicating a constant
seasonal population with an equilibrium between growth in the seasonal
housing stock and the conversion of existing seasonal units to permanent
homes. If the occupancy rates continue to remain the same, approximately
220 new dwelling units would be required to house the expanding population.
By comparison, septic tank installation records indicate that about 220
residences were constructed in the 1970s.
3.2.2. Land Use
3.2.2.1. Study Area Land Use Trends
Land use in the study area is very similar to land use in the sur-
rounding four-township area. Agricultural land, orchards, deciduous for-
ests, water, and wooded swamps constitute approximately 87% of the land
use/cover. Approximately 12% of land use in the study area watersheds is
residentially developed.
Land use data were collected and analyzed by watershed for each of the
seven major lakes (Cable, Crooked, Dewey, Indian, Magician, Pipestone and
Round) in the study area. In total, these watersheds extend over 13,252
acres of land. The spatial distribution of the land use/cover categories
in the area watersheds is presented in Figure 3-9.
Land use/cover types were identified and planimetered for each of the
seven watersheds (Tables 3-18 and 3-19). In 1977, agricultural land con-
stituted 6,354 acres (2,571 hectares), or approximately 48% of the area and
was the predominant land use/cover type. The Dewey Lake and Pipestone Lake
watersheds contained 52% of the total agricultural land. Nearly one-third
of the agricultural land (1,999 acres or 809 hectares) was categorized as
orchards. Most of the orchards (69%) were located in the Pipestone Lake
and Indian Lake watersheds.
Forest land was the second largest land use/cover category, consti-
tuting 14.% of the total watershed area. The Indian Lake watershed had the
greatest amount of forest, with 16% of the watershed area classified as
3-42
-------
-------
Table 3-1-8 . Acres of each land use/cover type in the seven watersheds
in the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes study area.
Land Use/Cover Type
3
-------
Table 3-19. Land use/cover types in the seven watersheds by number of
acres and by percent of the total acreage.
Percent of Total
Land Use/Cover Number of Acres Acreage
Agricultural
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Open space
Forest
Wetland
Water
Total
6,354.3
1,543.1
34.6
20.0
137.1
1,841.0
1,614.3
1,708.0
13,252.4
48
12
0.3
0.2
1.0
14
12
13
100.0
deciduous forest. Water was the next largest category (13%), followed by
wetland (12%). The Pipestone Lake watershed included 62% of all of the
wetlands in the watersheds, primarily wooded swamps.
Rural and low density housing stock dominated the residential land use
sector. Development was located primarily along the shorelines of the
seven lakes. Nearly 12% of the watershed area was classified as residen-
tial. Magician Lake had the most acres of residential development (445.7
or 180 hectares) and Crooked Lake had the largest percentage of residential
development (39%). Commercial-institutional uses were concentrated north-
east of Round Lake, and included a school, a church, and a small conven-
ience shopping area. The only industrial uses were gravel pits, located
southwest of Round Lake.
3.2.2.2. Prime and Unique Farmland in the Study Area
Prime farmland in the study area where detailed soil mapping is avail-
able is presented in Figure 3-10. The mapped areas were based on the de-
tailed soils mapping and the list of prime farmland units in Michigan (SCS
1980a). Unique farmland is not shown on any map because it has not been
identified in a consistent manner between counties. The areas in orchards
and small fruits comprise much of the unique farmland within the study
area.
3-45
-------
LEGEND
mi Boundary of available j
soil mapping
Figure 3-10. Prime farmland in the areas where soil mapping is available.
3-46
-------
3.2.2.3. Future Land Use
The rural recreational character of the study area, combined with
state and national economic conditions will affect the patterns of land use
that emerge in the study area. Residential infill and the conversion of
seasonal housing to permanent housing along the lakeshores is expected to
continue. The land use pattern will not be affected significantly by this
phenomenon because of the limited number of developable lake front lots.
If interest rates decline and the state and local economies improve, resi-
dential development can be expected to expand into the back lots along the
lakes and other areas. The residential development which would occur would
likely be to provide bedroom communities for persons working in Dowagiac,
Benton harbor, or Niles who are attracted to the study area for its rural
and recreational amenities. If residential development does increase, some
commercial development would occur to provide services for new residents in
the area.
3.2.2.4. Development Potential
3.2.2.4.1. Natural Constraints
The three predominant natural constraints on development in the study
area are steep slopes, high water table, and soils that are unsuitable for
building construction and for on-site sewage treatment systems. These
natural constraints also provide the basis for many of the legal con-
straints that attempt to regulate development in sensitive areas charac-
terized by one or more of the above features. A description of. natural
constraints is presented in Section 3.1.2.2.
3.2.2.4.2. Man-made Constraints
Zoning Ordinances and Sanitary Codes
The State of Michigan has extended statutory authority to the counties
to establish planning commissions, enact regulations, and regulate land
use. However, Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren counties have deferred this
3-47
-------
responsibility to the townships. Zoning ordinances have been promulgated
by each of the four townships that include the study area. Lot sizes,
building setbacks and heights, planned unit development requirements, and
agricultural districts are among the provisions found in these ordinances.
Zoning constraints are not likely to limit housing growth in the area since
the lakeshore is extensively developed and considerable backlot areas are
available.
The health departments of each county have been assigned the responsi-
bility of enforcing sanitary codes under the Michigan State Public Health
Act of 1965. All three counties have adopted sanitary codes which have
provisions governing on-site sewage disposal systems. Enforcement of the
sanitary codes restricts development where lot characteristics do not
permit adequate distances between drainfields and structures, wells, or
natural bodies of water; where soils have extremely high percolation rates;
where tight soils inhibit infiltration or are saturated; and where soils
have a less than acceptable minimum depth to bedrock or to the water table.
Away from the already extensively developed lakeshore, these lot character-
istics rarely limit installation of on-site systems.
Subdivision Regulations
The State of Michigan enacted the Subdivision Control Act in 1967.
Under the terms of this act, any land that has been subdivided into five or
more parcels which are 10 acres or less in size, or land that has been
divided successively over a 10-year period, must be surveyed and platted.
The plats are subject to the approval of the County Drain Commissioner, the
County Health Department, and the governing body of the local unit of
government that is affected. Enforcement authority is given to the At-
torney General or to the County Prosecuting Attorney.
Other Constraints
The Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act of 1974 (Act 116) pro-
motes the preservation of farmland and open areas through the execution of
agreements that reserve the development rights for the public in perpetuity
3-48
-------
or for a specified term of not less than 10 years. However, very little
land in the study area is protected under these covenents.
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, was issued on 24 May
1977 (Federal Register 42:26961). The terras of Order require USEPA and
other Federal agencies to avoid adverse affects on wetlands wherever pos-
sible, to minimize destruction of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the
natural and beneficial values of such areas during the discharge of the
agency's responsibilities related to the construction and improvements
undertaken by, financed by, or assisted by the Federal Government, such as
wastewater treatment facilities. The State of Michigan passed a wetland
protection act (Act No. 203 of the Public Acts of 1979) that became ef-
fective 1 October 1980. This act places restrictions on the development or
drainage of wetlands greater than five acres in size.
3.2.3. Economics
3.2.3.1. Regional Employment Trends
The early economic history of Cass, Berrien, and Van Buren counties
was dominated by agriculture. As agriculture flourished, the industries
associated with agriculture prospered. The first industries to develop
were shipbuilding, flour milling, and sawmilling. These industries were
followed by firms that manufactured primary metals, machinery and household
appliances. By 1970, the area's economy had shifted from agriculture to
industry. In 1970, manufacturing comprised nearly half of the total em-
ployment and was by far the largest employment sector.
The economic future of the study area may be shaped by the increased
conversion of the lake areas into bedroom communities for Dowagiac, Benton
Harbor-St. Joseph, and Niles. Small retail and service businesses would be
expected to appear as this conversion continues. No major expansion of
economic activity in the study area is expected in the near future. How-
ever, better transportation, increased opportunities in the nearby major
employment centers, and improved community services could stimulate some
additional local growth.
3-49
-------
3.2.3.2. Income
Per capita income levels in Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren counties
consistently were below the state level during the 6-year period between
1974 and 1980 (Table 3-20). Growth of per capita income in the three
counties during this same period also was less rapid than the statewide
average. Moreover, per capita income in Cass County decreased from $8,137
in 1979 to $7,169 in 1980. The low levels of income and slow growth of
income may reflect the out-migration of high-income individuals from Ber-
rien and Cass counties during recent years (By telephone, Mr. Steve Harris,
Michigan Municipal Finance Commission to WAPORA, Inc., 9 October 1981).
Table 3-20. Per capita personal income in dollars in Berrien, Cass, and
VanBuren counties and the State of Michigan.
Berrien
Cass
Van Buren
Michigan
19743
5,486
4,961
4,690
5,687
19753
5,646
5,230
4,836
6,008
1976a
6,026
5,979
5,334
6,760
a
1977
6,751
6,508
5,897
7,603
19783
7,596
7,479
6,764
8,507
a
1979
8,271
8,137
7,499
9,381
1980
9'156b
7,169°
8,316
10,647°
a
By telephone, Ms. Jan Hanson, Michigan Employment Security Commission,
to WAPORA, Inc., January 1982.
b
By telephone, Mr. Peter Elliott, SMRPC, to WAPORA, Inc., January 1982.
By telephone, Mr. William Rice, US Department of Labor, to WAPORA Inc.,
January 1982. Average per capita personal income for the State of Michi-
gan was calculated by multiplying Michigan's 1979 per capita income by
the annual average increase of the US Consumer Price Index (CPI) for 1980.
The CPI has historically been a reliable parameter for calculating income
estimates. The CPI is derived from the rate of inflation of consumer
goods and services which may differ from real increases or decreases in
personal incomes.
3.2.3.3. Unemployment
Unemployment trends in Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren counties parallel
national cycles of business activity. During the 1970s, the highest un-
employment rates recorded by the three counties occurred during the 1975
3-50
-------
recession. Unemployment rose sharply again during 1980 surpassing, at the
state, level, the unemployment figures for 1975. The 1980 unemployment rate
in Van Buren County was 10.3% or 2.3% lower than the state average. Un-
employment rates in Berrien and Cass counties were 13.2% and 13.1%, re-
spectively. The relatively high unemployment rates in the three counties
for 1980 reflects the problems in the automobile industry and a continuing
loss of industry and jobs to states in the south and southwest (By telep-
hone, Mr. Stephen Harris, Michigan Municipal Finance Commission to WAPORA,
Inc. 9 October 1981).
3.2.4. Recreation and Tourism Resources
Although the contributions of the recreation and tourism industry to
employment and income in the three counties are significant, the importance
of this industry has declined in the study area since the 1930s and 1940s.
This decline can be attributed to outmoded resort facilities, conversion of
seasonal housing units to year-round homes, and the development of other
recreation areas in northern Michigan. An examination of recent trends in-
dicated that vacationers travel longer distances and frequently bypass the
study area (By telephone, Mr. Tom Hufnagel, Michigan Department of Com-
merce, to ViAPURA, Inc. 26 February 1979).
The future of the recreation and tourism industry in the study area is
uncertain at this time. While land development proposals that provide
recreational and open space areas are encouraged throughout southwestern
Michigan, open space in the four townships is projected to decrease by 44
acres by the year 2000 (SMRPC 1978). Many of the resorts and housekeeping
cottages in the study area have been sold to individuals and the conversion
of seasonal homes to year-round homes is expected to continue. However,
fuel costs and reduced travel time could result in increased spending of
recreation and tourism dollars in the study area by residents of nearby
Chicago and South Bend, Indiana.
3.2.4.1. Public Facilities
The SMRPC has identified 316 acres of open space in Bainbridge, Keeler
Pokagon, and Silver Creek townships. This land includes parks, recrea-
3-51
-------
tional developments, fairgrounds, outdoor public assembly areas, ceme-
teries, and vacant urban land (SMRPC 1978). This accounted for only 0.4%
of the total land area. Public access is maintained at two lakes in the
service area. One is located on the north side of Magician Lake in Silver
Creek Township, and the other is located on the north side of Round Lake in
Keeler Township.
3.2.4.2. Private Facilities
The private recreational facilities in the study area serve both the
year-round population and the seasonal population. There are 135 overnight
units at the four resorts and 47 camping and trailer sites in the service
areas.
3.2.5. Public Finance
A variety of community services are provided for the residents of
Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren counties. Among them are health and welfare
services, transportation facilities, police protection, recreation facil-
ities, wastewater collection and treatment, and tax collection. The abil-
ity to maintain and improve these services is dependent on the continued
ability of county residents to finance them. Income and employment levels
can be used to measure a community's ability to support community services.
Market value and assessed valuation of property directly affect tax reve-
nues collected by local governments and, consequently, their financial
capabilities.
3.2.5.1. Assessed Valuation and Market Value
The 1980 state equalized valuations (SEV) of real and personal pro-
perty for each county and the market values of property are presented in
Table 3-21. The SEV for Berrien County, the most populated county in
southwestern Michigan, was nearly twice the SEV of the remaining counties
combined. The ratio of the state equalized valuation to market value is
0.5 in Michigan.
3-52
-------
Table 3-21. Selected financial characteristics for Berrien, Cass, and Van
Buren Counties (By telephone, Mr. Hark Patzer, Berrien County
Treasurer's Office; Ms. Candy Cooper, Cass County Treasurer's
Office; Mrs. Stephayn, Van Buren County Treasurer's Office, to
WAPURA, Inc. 28 December 1981).
Total revenues
Total state equalized
assessed valuation
Market value
Debt
Debt service
General obligation debt
limit
Berrien
$ 13,525,818
1,676,427,415
3,352,854,830
57,920,000
6,073,649
108,967,781
County
Cass
$ 3,902,076
420,747,938
841,495,876
1,335,000
87,410
42,074,793
Van Buren
$ 4,598,116
475,947,554
951,895,108
2,045,000
242,032
47,594,755
3.2.5.2. Total Revenues
Intergovernmental transfers, special assessments, taxes, and charges
for services were the primary sources of revenue for the three counties.
In 1980, Berrien County collected revenues totalling $13,528,818. The
combined total revenues collected by Cass and Van Buren counties for 1980
were 63% of Berrien County (Table 3-21) .
3.2.5.3. Debt, Debt Service, and Debt Limits
The general obligation bonding authority of local governments in
Michigan is limited to 10% of the SEV. Berrien County has a self-imposed
debt limit of 65% of the 10% state required debt limit. The general obli-
gation debt limit and levels of debt and debt service for each county are
presented in Table 3-21.
3-53
-------
In 1980 Berrien County had a debt level of $57,920,000 or 53% of its
debt limit. Cass County had a debt level of $1,335,000 or 3% of its debt
limit. Van Buren County debt level was $2,045,000 or 4% of its debt limit.
The combined debt of Cass and Van Buren Counties was 6% of Berrien County's
total debt. None of the three counties is near its state or local debt
limit.
The three counties pay debt service primarily on bonds which support
public works projects. A small percentage of total debt service is paid to
support county-owned housing and land. Berrien County's debt service for
1980 was $6,073,649. Cass and Van Buren Counties combined debt service was
5% of Berrien County's total debt service.
Criteria for prudent fiscal management have been developed by several
authors. Whether a county can incur additional debt safely can be esti-
mated by applying three common debt measures adapted from Moak and Hill-
house (1975). As shown in Table 3-22, Berrien, Cass and Van Buren Counties
are rated as being below all of the standard upper debt limits and can,
according to these limits, increase their level of debt. None of the three
counties is near the state general obligation debt limit. Berrien County's
total debt has reached only 53% of its self-imposed debt limit.
3.2.6. Transportation
3.2.6.1. Highways
No major highways pass through the study area. Interstate 94, located
15 miles west and 11 miles north of the study area, provides direct access
from the study area to all major metropolitan areas except South Bend,
Indiana. South Bend is accessible from the study area via 1-33. State
routes M-51, M-62, M-140 and M-152 are located in or adjacent to the study
area. Traffic volumes in the four township area are growing (By letter,
Mr. Bill Camburn, Van Buren County Road Commission, to WAPORA, Inc., March
1979). Amtrack provides daily passenger train service to Dowagiac and to
Niles. The nearest intercity bus station serving the study area is located
in Dowagiac. Each of the three counties has a county-wide rural public
transportation system that serves the elderly and the handicapped.
3-54
-------
Table 3-22. County debt measures (Adapted from Moak and Htllhouse 1975).
Standard Upper _
Limits Berrien Cass Van Buren
Debt/Total market
value 10% of current 1.7% .2% .2%
market value
Debt service/Total
revenue 25% of total 4.5% 2.2% 5.3%
revenues
Debt/State equal- 10% of state equal-
ized assessed ized assessed valu-
valuation ation 3.5% .3% .4%
Debt/Per capita per- 7% 3.7% .4% .4%
so rial income
The general obligation bonding authority of local governments in Michigan
2is listed to 10% of the SEV.
Berrien County has a self imposed debt limit of 65% of the 10% state re-
,.quired debt limit.
The calculations for deriving the counties debt per capital income ratio
-are presented in Appendix L of the Draft EIS.
Not an upper limit but a national average in 1970.
3.2.7. Energy
The fuel types available for residential, commercial, and industrial
heating in the three-county area are fuel oil, coal, natural gas, propane,
butane, and electricity. Fuel oil is the predominant energy source for
residential heating within the four-township area followed by natural gas,
propane, butane, electricity, wood and coal. Within the service area,
natural gas was the predominant energy source, followed by fuel oil.
3.2.8. Cultural Resources
3.2.8.1. Early History
The three counties in the study area were inhabited by Miami and
Pottowatomi Indians at the time of initial French exploration in 1675. In
that year, Father Marquette traveled along the eastern shore of Lake Michi-
gan and down the River of Miami (St. Joseph River) (Ellis 1880). Four years
3-55
-------
later, the French explorer LaSalle established a fort near Niles that
served as a vital military post until the 1760s. Fort Miami, later known
as Fort St. Joseph, passed into Spanish, English, and finally American
hands as political fortunes changed on the early western frontier.
During the period of white settlement, the dominant Pottowatomi tribe
was divided into three bands led by Chiefs Pokagon, Weesaw, and Sharehead.
Through a series of treaties executed between 1821 and 1833, they ceded all
of their land to the US and were transported to areas west of the Missis-
sippi River. However, Chief Pokagon, a prominent local historical figure,
refused to sign or consent to any treaties until his fellow Catholic In-
dians received guarantees that they would be allowed to remain in Michigan.
Although forced to leave his native site in Berrien County, he purchased
750 acres of land in Cass County (Silver Creek Township) and established an
Indian settlement there. In 1838, Chief Pokagon built the first Catholic
church in Silver Creek Township.
3.2.8.2. Archaeological Sites
The Michigan History Division of the Michigan Department of State has
a considerable amount of information on the prehistory of the study area;
these data are unprocessed, however, and not readily available (By letter,
Martha M. Bigelow, Director, Michigan History Division and State Historic
Preservation Officer, to WAPORA, Inc., January 1979). A search of the
files of the Michigan History Division revealed the existence of a regis-
tered Indian site in the study area. This site is located in Section 7 of
Silver Creek Township (T5S, R16W). It is likely that additional, undocu-
mented sites are present on high ground near streams, lakes, and rivers in
the study area (By telephone, Dr. John Halsey, Michigan Visitors Division,
to WAPORA, Inc., April 1979). The following sections may contain prehis-
torical sites, based on an analysis of topographic maps:
Bainbridge Township (T4S, 17W), Section 25
Bainbridge Township, Section 26
Keeler Township (T4S, 16W), Section 31
Keeler Township, Section 32
3-56
-------
Silver Creek Township (T4S, R16W) Section 2
Silver Creek Township, Section 3
Silver Creek Township, Section 4
Silver Creek Township, Section 6
Silver Creek Township, Section 30
Silver Creek Township, Section 31
Silver Creek Township, Section 32.
Undocumented archaeological sites also may exist along meandering
parts of Highway M-152 in Bainbridge Township, where the highway follows an
old Indian trail. In addition, a site in Section 14 of Silver Creek Town-
ship was a temporary home for Chief Pokagon's tribe from 1836 to 1838,
before their relocation to Sections 21 and 22, which are adjacent to the
study area (Claspy 1966) .
3.2.8.3. Historic Sites
There are no sites in the study area that are listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. However a survey for eligible sites has not
been conducted (By telephone, Mr. Bob Christensen, Michigan History Divis-
ion to WAPORA, Inc. 4 January 1982). Three structures in the study area
are listed on the Michigan Register of Historic Sites. The Sacred Heart of
Mary Catholic Church was constructed by Chief Pokagon in 1838 and has been
rebuilt twice. It stands on the grave of Chief Pokagon and is the oldest
Catholic church still in use in southwestern Michigan. The second struc-
ture, the Gushing Corner School, is a one-room schoolhouse that was built
in 1873. It has local historical significance and is one of the few old
buildings in the area that has not been modified. The third structure, the
Sprague House, is a simple clapboard frame house that was built in 1868 on
the Old Orchard Farm. The farmstead has been listed as a "Centennial Farm"
by the Michigan History Division.
WAPORA personnel conducted a brief field survey of the study area
during February 1979 and identified 14 additional sites of architectural
significance. These are:
Franz House
Tudor Revival style bungalow
Barn
3-57
-------
Italianate style house
Gingerbread style house
Halfert House and Barn
Genung House
Jeru House
Queen Anne style house
House
Keeler United Methodist Church
Silver Creek Methodist Church
Schoolhouse
Indian Lake School.
3-58
-------
4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The potential environmental consequences of the system alternatives
that are described in Section 2.3. are discussed in the following sections.
The impacts resulting from the construction and operation of some the
alternatives may be beneficial, some adverse, and some may vary in duration
(either short-term or long-term) and significance. The significant impacts
of each alternative are summarized by topic.
Environmental effects are classified as either primary or secondary
impacts. Primary impacts result directly from the construction and/or
operation of the proposed project. Short-term primary impacts generally
occur during construction. Long-term primary impacts occur throughout the
life of the project.
Secondary impacts are indirect effects of the project, such as changes
in demographic and other socioeconomic characteristics. As these changes
occur, associated impacts (e.g., air and water pollution, demand for ex-
panded public infrastructure, increased development pressure on agri-
cultural lands can result. Secondary impacts also may be either short-term
or long-term. Short-term secondary impacts, for example, can result from
disruption of the environment that occurs during the construction of secon-
dary development. Long-term secondary impacts can result, for example,
from urban runoff that occurs indefinitely after development of agricult-
ural land or other undeveloped areas.
Possible mitigative measures also are discussed in this chapter.
Adverse impacts can be controlled and many should be of short duration.
Possible mitigative measures include planning activities and construction
techniques that reduce the severity of both primary and secondary adverse
impacts. Plans and specifications, which are to be developed by the Coun-
ty, must include mitigative measures.
4-1
-------
4.1. Primary Impacts
4.1.1. Construction Impacts
Each of the alternatives, excluding the No Action Alternative, involve
some construction initially; thus, these are called "build" alternatives
throughout the impact analyses. The No Action Alternative includes some
construction of new on-site systems and upgraded systems throughout the
life of the project and is discussed under operation impacts (Section
4.1.2.). The impacts are addressed in the following subsections for each
of the major categories of the natural and man-made environments.
4.1.1.1. Atmosphere
Construction activities associated with the "build" alternatives,
including cluster drainfields, and on-site systems, will produce short-term
adverse impacts to local air quality. Clearing, grading, excavating,
backfilling, and other related construction activities will generate fugi-
tive dust, noise, and odors. Emission of fumes and noise from construction
equipment will be a temporary nuisance to residents living near the con-
struction sites.
4.1.1.2. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Soils exposed during construction will be subjected to accelerated
erosion until the soil surtace is protected by revegetation or other means.
Most of the sewers and force mains will be laid within road right-of-ways
where runoff tends to concentrate in roadside drainageways. Most rainfall
events do not result in significant runoff because the sandy soils readily
absorb precipitation. Major storms, though, could cause considerable
erosion in some drainageways that have large drainage areas. The alterna-
tives that involve considerable lengths of sewers and force mains (Alter-
natives 2-7) can be expected to result in the greatest erosion and sub-
sequent sedimentation. Adverse consequences due to increased sedimentation
include excessive phosphorus inputs to lakes and streams, clogging of road
culverts, localized flooding where drainageways are filled with sediment,
and filling of lakes so that a substrate for macrophyte growth is provided.
4-2
-------
4.1.1.3. Surface Vvater
Wastewater collection system and treatment plant construction activi-
ties (Alternatives 2-7) could produce discharge of turbid waters pumped
from excavations and trenches and turbid surface runoff from disturbed
areas resulting in increased turbidity and sedimentation in adjacent wet-
lands, lakes, or waterways. This sediment transport could result in water
quality degradation and the potential for adverse impacts to aquatic biota.
Upgrading on-site systems (Alternatives 8A, 8B, 9, and 10) and construction
of collection systems for cluster drainfields (Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 10)
would contribute turbid runoff to lakes or waterways, but to a lesser
extent compared to the construction of the centralized collection and
treatment alternatives.
4.1.1.4. Groundwater
Groundwater may be impacted by construction activities in localized
areas under all build alternatives. Construction dewatering may cause some
shallow wells to fail, especially where pump stations are to be con-
structed. A potential change in water quality would likely occur where
organic soils are disturbed either directly or by altering the water table.
Organics may leach out of these areas and affect the taste of water in
nearby wells. Spilled fuel and other construction materials could quickly
pass through the sandy soils to contaminate the groundwater.
4.1.1.5. Terrestrial Biota
Construction activities associated with various components of the pro-
posed alternatives would result in impacts to wildlife and vegetation to
various degrees. Collection sewers (Alternatives 2-7), some cluster drain-
fields (Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 10), and upgraded systems (Alternatives 9
and 10) would be placed on residential lots; temporary loss of grassed
areas and the removal of trees would result from construction of these
facilities. Disruption of backyard vegetation and the presence of con-
struction equipment and noises would cause temporary displacement of most
vertebrate species and mortality of a few (probably small mammal) species,
4-3
-------
but replacement of vegetation and cessation of construction activities
would allow re-establishment of the animals to the areas. More likely the
animals commonly associated with human habitation (e.g., eastern cottontail
rabbits, house sparrows, European starlings) that would be displaced, would
move to suitable neighboring habitat and induce no density-related stress
upon neighboring habitats.
Proposed conveyance lines for Alternatives 27 generally parallel
and are contiguous to existing road rights-of-way. Approximately 20 feet
of roadside vegetation would be destroyed during construction along county
road right-of-ways and approximately 50 feet would be disrupted for place-
ment of force mains along M-62.
The placement of WWTPs and some cluster drainfields proposed for
Alternatives 2-7, 8A, 8B, and 10 would adversely affect vegetation and
wildlife to varying degrees during construction, depending upon the pro-
posed site.
A aew WWTP in Section 11 would require 80 (Alternative 2) to 100 acres
(Alternative 4). Construction activities would disrupt a larger area of
agricultural cropland and possibly adjacent wetlands. Any wetlands con-
struction involving fill would require a Section 404 permit issued by the
US Army COE or MDNR permits issued by the Division of Land Resources Pro-
gram.
Construction of the proposed WWTPs at this site would result in the
permanent displacement or mortality of various animals commonly associated
with cultivated fields. This habitat does not support a highly diverse
vertebrate population, however, so losses would not be significant.
Construction activities associated with the proposed WWTP on agri-
cultural land in Sections 8 (Alternative 3) and 29 and 32 (Alternatives 2
and 5) probably would not destroy any native vegetation. A larger area
(100 acres) would be required for Alternatives 3 and 5 than would be needed
for Alternative 2 (25 acres). Outfall sewers for the proposed WWTPs in
Sections 29 and 32 may disrupt a wetland area occurring along the receiving
4-4
-------
stream. Disruption of existing wildlife communities would be similar to
that expected in Section 11.
Conversion of orchard to agricultural cropland would be necessitated
to accommodate the land application site proposed for Section 8. The area
required would depend upon exact placement of the site. This change in
vegetation would represent a permanent decrease in habitat diversity and
result in a corresponding change in diversity of vertebrate populations.
Placement of cluster drainfields surrounding the lakes (Alternatives
8A, 8B, and 10) would primarily be adjacent to residential areas, and
little disruption of vegetation or wildlife would be expected by construc-
tion activities. Temporary displacement of wildlife in the vicinity of
construction is likely to occur, but no permanent adverse effects would be
expected.
The impacts on terrestrial biota that would result from upgrading the
existing systems (Alternative 8A, 8B, 9, and 10) would be insignificant
because a relatively small amount of construction on developed land would
be required to complete the project.
4.1.1.6. Land Use
Construction activities associated with the implementation of any of
the "build" alternatives would require some conversion of land use in the
study area. Under Alternatives 2-5 residential, agricultural, orchard,
forests, and wetland areas would be affected to varying degrees. The
construction of WWTPs under these alternatives would require the greatest
conversion of primarily agricultural land. Under Alternative 3 255 acres
of cultivated crop land and orchards, located in Section 8 of Silver Creek
Township, would be used as part of a regional land treatment system. Less
than 1% of the agricultural land within the study area would be converted
to lagoons for wastewater treatment purposes. Under Alternatives 2, 4, 5A,
and 5B less than 2% of the agricultural land within the study area (less
than 1% of the agricultural land within the four township area) would be
used for the construction and operation of WWTPs. The existing Dowagiac
4-5
-------
WWTF would be used under Alternatives 6 and 7, eliminating the need for any
significant changes in land use within the study area.
The construction of a sewer system under Alternatives 2-7 would occur
primarily in residential areas, however, certain environmentally sensitive
areas would be affected. Agricultural, wetland, orchard, and forest areas
will be traversed by collector sewers under these alternatives. The mag-
nitude of these impacts is not anticipated to be significant because most
of the sewer system would follow existing right-of-ways.
Wetlands may be subject to sedimentation during construction of the
sewer collection system. Water circulation patterns within these wetlands
may be permanently modified. Excavation, clearing, grading, and back-
filling may temporarily affect the productivity and aesthetic value of
wetlands.
The construction of on-site and cluster systems under Alternatives 8A,
8B, 9, and 10 would occur primarily on lots which are already developed for
residential use. Some cluster systems may be built on land designated as
being agricultural or open space which is adjacent to residential areas.
An insignificant amount of these areas would be necessary for the construc-
tion of cluster systems. No significant overall land use impacts would
occur under Alternatives 8A, 8B, 9, and 10.
Prime Agricultural Land
The irreversible loss of agricultural land to other land uses is a
growing national concern. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
issued a memorandum in 1976 to all Federal agencies requesting that efforts
be made to insure that prime and unique farmlands (as designated by SCS)
are not irreversibly converted to other uses unless other national inter-
ests override the importance or benefits derived from their protection.
4-6
-------
The USEPA has a policy of not allowing the construction of a treatment
plant or the placement of interceptor sewers, funded through the Construc-
tion Grants Program, in prime agricultural lands unless it is necessary to
eliminate existing point discharges and accommodate flows from existing
habitation that violates the requirements of the Clean Water Act (USEPA
1981). The policy of USEPA is to protect prime agricultural land from
being adversely affected by primary and secondary impacts. It is consid-
ered to be a significant impact if 40 or more acres of prime agricultural
land are diverted from production.
The amount ot prime agricultural farmland, as classified by the SCS,
affected by construction activities is dependent upon the actual location
of the wastewater treatment facilities. No information on prime agricult-
ural farmland is available for Section 11 (Cass County) of the study area,
therefore it is impossible at this time to assess impacts under Alterna-
tives 4 and 6. Under Alternatives 2, 3, 5A, and 5B, the affects of con-
struction activities associated with wastewater treatment are dependent
upon the exact location of those facilities in Sections 8, 29, and 32.
These sections contain prime agricultural farmland.
Less than 40 acres of prime agricultural land are likely to be af-
fected under Alternatives 2-6. These lands would be taken out of produc-
tion for use as lagoons, treatment facilities, buffer zones, and access
roads. The actual acreage of prime agricultural land taken out of produc-
tion for these treatment alternatives is dependent upon the precise loca-
tion and placement of the treatment sites and interceptor routes.
Less than 40 acres of prime agricultural land are likely to be con-
verted for use as cluster system sites under Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 10.
Therefore, no significant impacts are expected to occur.
4.1.1.7. Demography
Temporary jobs created by the construction of wastewater collection
and treatment facilities under the "build" alternatives are not likely to
attract any new permanent residents to the study area. These positions
4-7
-------
would be filled by workers from the study area and surrounding three-county
area. Some seasonal residents may reduce time spent In their study area
home while construction of on-site or sewer systems occurs on their pro-
perty. No significant demographic impacts will occur during construction
of wastewater facilities.
4.1.1.8. Economics
The construction of wastewater treatment facilities under the "build"
alternatives would create a limited number of short-term construction jobs.
Masons, pipefitters, heavy equipment operators, electricians, truck dri-
vers, plumbers, roofers, painters, and carpenters would be among the
tradesmen necessary to complete construction of the proposed facilities.
Most jobs would be filled by persons living within the study area or within
a reasonable commuting distance of the study area.
The purchase of construction materials from study area merchants would
benefit the local economy. However, few firms offering materials required
for the construction of wastewater facilities are established within the
study area. Thus, most materials would be imported from outside of the
study area. Purchases made by construction workers within the study area
also would benefit the local economy. These purchases would likely be for
fuel, food, and clothing. Patronage may be reduced for some business along
sewer lines when road closings and disruptions occur. No significant
economic impacts are anticipated to occur during the construction of waste-
water facilities under any of the alternatives.
4.1.1.9. Recreation and Tourism
Any increase or decrease of tourism and the use of recreational facil-
ities, within the study area, attributable to the construction of waste-
water facilities is dependent upon construction activities which detract
from study area recreational amenities. Most recreational activities in
the study occur on or along the perimeter of the lakes. No major air,
water, noise, or traffic impacts are expected to occur near the lakes which
would interrupt tourism and recreation activities. Access to recreation
4-8
-------
facilities interrupted by construction activities may curtail some recre-
ation and tourist activities. However, these impacts are not anticipated
to be significant.
4.1.1.10. Transportation
Increased truck and grading equipment traffic during the construction
of wastewater treatment facilities under the "build" alternatives would
increase street congestion. Vehicular traffic would be inconvenienced by
excavating, grading, backfilling, and temporary road closures during con-
struction of conveyance lines along roadways under Alternatives 2-7, 8A,
8B, and 10. The inconvenience experienced during these periods is not
anticipated to be significant.
4.1.1.11. Energy Resources
Residential, commercial, and industrial energy requirements are not
likely to be affected during the construction of wastewater facilities
under any of the alternatives. Active competition for specific energy
sources would become apparent if a national fuel crisis reoccurred such as
the one precipitated by the oil embargo of 1977. Trucks and construction
equipment used during the construction of wastewater treatment facilities
would increase demand for local supplies of gasoline and diesel fuel. The
highest demand created by trucks and construction equipment would occur
under Alternatives 6 and 7. The lowest energy demand created by trucks and
construction equipment would occur under Alternatives 8A, 8B, 9, and 10.
No significant demands on local energy supplies are anticipated during con-
struction of wastewater facilities under any of the alternatives.
4.1.1.12. Cultural Resources
Archaeological data for the study area are unprocessed and not readily
available (Section 3.2.8.). Three structures in the study area are listed
on the Michigan Register of Historic Sites. Fourteen additional sites of
architectural significance were identified by WAPORA personnel in 1979
(Section 3.2.8.). Because no research has been completed, it is impossible
4-9
-------
to assess adverse impacts attributable to construction activities which may
affect historic, archaeological, and architectural sites (By letter,
Martha M. Bigelow, Director, Michigan History Division and State Historic
Preservation Officer, to WAPORA, Inc., 8 January 1979). Final routings and
WWTP sites should be presented to the SHPO for assessment before construc-
tion activities begin. Construction excavations could uncover significant
cultural resources which otherwise might not be found. To provide adequate
consideration of impacts affecting these resources an archaeological survey
of specific sites should be conducted following the selection of an alter-
native .
4.1.2. Operation Impacts
Each of the alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, involve
operations that will continue through the project period. Included in the
definition of operations are constructing new septic tank systems for new
structures and upgrading on-site systems that fail under the No Action
Alternative and Alternatives 8A, 8B, 9, and 10. The impacts are addressed
for each of the major categories of the natural and man-made environments.
4.1.2.1. Atmosphere
The potential emissions from the operation of the wastewater manage-
ment alternatives include aerosols, hazardous gases, and odors. The emis-
sions pose the potential of a public health risk or nuisance.
Aerosols are defined as solid or liquid particles, ranging in size
from 0.01 to 50 micrometers that are suspended in the air. These particles
are produced at wastewater treatment facilities during various treatment
processes. Some of the constituents of aerosols could be pathogenic and
could cause respiratory and gastrointestinal infections. Concentrations of
bacteria or viruses in aerosols, however, are generally insignificant
(Hickey and Reist 1975). The vast majority of the microorganisms in aero-
sols ire destroyed by solar radiation, desiccation, and other environmental
phenomena. There are no records of disease outbreaks resulting from path-
ogens present in aerosols. Therefore, no adverse impacts are expected from
aerosol emissions for any of the alternatives.
4-10
-------
Discharges of hazardous gases could have adverse affects on public
health and the environment. Explosive, toxic, noxious, lachrymose (causing
tears), and asphyxiating gases can be produced at wastewater treatment
facilities. These gases include chlorine, methane, ammonia, hydrogen
sulfide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur, and phosphorus. The
knowledge of the possibility that such gases can escape from the facilities
or into work areas in dangerous or nuisance concentrations might affect the
operation of the facilities and the adjacent land uses. Caseous emissions,
however, can be controlled by proper design, operation, and maintenance
procedures.
Odor is a property of a substance that affects the sense of smell.
Organic material that contains sulfur or nitrogen may be partially oxidized
anaerobically and result in the emission of byproducts that may be malo-
dorous. Common emissions, such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, are often
referred to as sewer gases and have odors of rotten eggs and concentrated
urine, respectively. Some organic acids, aldehydes, mercaptans, skatoles,
indoles, and amines also may be odorous, either individually or in combi-
nation with other compounds. Sources of wastewater treatment related odors
include:
Fresh, septic, or incompletely treated wastewater
Screenings, grit, and skimmings containing septic or putres-
cible matter
Oil, grease, fats, and soaps from food handling enterprises,
homes, and surface runoff
Gaseous emissions from treatment processes, manholes, wet
wells, pumping stations, leaking containers, turbulent flow
areas, and outfall areas
Raw or incompletely stabilized sludge or septage.
Wastewater stabilization lagoons typically emit considerable odors when the
ice cover goes out in the spring. These odors are likely to be noticeable
for at least one-half mile in the wind direction. Odors from septic tank
effluent sewers may escape from lift stations where turbulent flow occurs
unless proper design steps are taken to minimize odors. Sewage may become
septic and odorous in the lengthy force mains that are part of some alter-
natives, especially during the low-flow winter season.
4-11
-------
The occasional failure of an on-site system may release some odors.
Septage haulers using inadequate or improperly maintained equipment may
create odor nuisances.
4.1.2.2. Soils
The operation of the land application site and cluster drainfield
sites for wastewater treatment would alter the soils of these sites over
the life of the project. The potential changes depend on the existing soil
chemical and hydraulic properties and on the chemical characteristics and
application rate of the effluent. The cropping and tillage practices on
the land application sites will, to some extent, effect the changes in the
soil.
The chemical and physical properties of typical soils of the area are
given in Appendix G of the Draft EIS and a report by Ellis and Erickson
(1969). The pR, cation exchange capacity, and phosphorus retention capa-
city are adequate to insure that most constituents in the effluent will be
removed effectively at the proposed irrigation rates.
Organic constituents in the applied water would be oxidized by natural
biological processes within the top few inches of soil (USEPA and others
1977). At Muskegon, Michigan the BOD of renovated water from the under-
drainage system ranged from 1.2 mg/1 to 2.2 tng/1 (Demirjian 1975). Sus-
pended solids in the applied water also are removed by the soil through
filtration. The volatile solids are biologically oxidized and inorganic
solids become part of the soil matrix (USEPA and others 1977).
Phosphorus would be present either in a storage pond or septic tank
_2
effluent in an inorganic form as orthophosphate (primarily HPO ), as
polyphosphates (or condensed phosphates), and as organic phosphate com-
pounds. Because the pH of wastewater is alkaline, the predominant form
usually is orthophosphate (USEPA 1976). Polyphosphate is converted quickly
to orthophosphate in conventional wastewater treatment, in soil, or in
water. Dissolved organic phosphorus is converted more slowly (day to
weeks) to orthophosphate.
4-12
-------
When effluent is applied to soils, dissolved inorganic phosphorus
(orthophosphate) may be adsorbed by the iron, aluminum, and/or calcium com-
pounds, or may be precipitated through with soluble iron, aluminum, and
calcium. Because it is difficult to distinguish between adsorption and
precipitation reactions, the term "sorption" is utilized to refer to the
removal of phosphorus by both processes (USEPA and others 1977). The
degree to which wastewater phosphorus is sorbed in soil depends on its
concentration, soil pH, temperature, time, total loading, and the concen-
tration of other wastewater constituents that directly react with phos-
phorus, or that affect soil pH and oxidation-reduction reactions (USEPA and
others 1977).
The phosphorus in the adsorbed phase in soil exists in equilibrium
with the concentration of dissolved soil phosphorus (USEPA and others
1977). As an increasing amount of existing adsorptive capacity is used,
such as when wastewater enriched with phosphorus is applied, the dissolved
phosphorus concentration similarly will be increased. This may result in
an increased concentration of phosphorus in the percolate, and thus in the
groundwatec or in the recovered underdrainage water.
Eventually, adsorbed phosphorus is transformed into a crystal!ine-
mineral state, re-establishing the adsorptive capacity of the soil. This
transformation occurs slowly, requiring from months to years. Work by
various researchers indicates that as much as 100% of the original adsorp-
tive capacity may be recovered in as Little as 3 months. However, in some
instances it may take years for the adsorptive capacity to fully recover
because the active cations may become increasingly bound in the crystalline
form. The possible amount of phosphorus that could precipitate to the
crystalline form, based on a 2% to 4% iron and 5% to 7.5% aluminum soil
content, is estimated to be 250,000 pounds of phosphorus per acre-foot of
soil (Ellis and Erickson 1969).
Dissolved organic phosphorus in applied wastewater can move quickly
through the soil and enter the groundwater. Adequate retention of the
wastewater in the unsaturated soil zone is necessary to allow enough time
for the organic phosphorus to be hydrolized by microorganisms to the ortho-
phosphate form. In the orthophosphate form, it then can be adsorbed.
4-13
-------
A limited phosphorus sorption test was conducted following the method-
ology utilized by Enfield and Bledsoe (1975). The data from this 5-day
test for samples from the study area indicate a range of phosphorus adsorp-
tion values of from 62 rag/kg to 371 mg/kg. The adsorptive capacity of the
soils apparently decreases with depth. This reflects the lower organic
matter content and reduced soil development with increasing depth.
The surface soil of the loamy sands sampled (up to approximately 5
feet) has an average phosphorus adsorptive capacity of approximately 165
mg/kg. The underlying material below 5 feet was not extensively sampled,
and no samples were taken from below a depth of 68 inches. Assuming that
soil forming processes are less and the grain-size is larger at depths in
excess of 5 feet, a conservative estimate of 50 mg/kg for a 5-day test
equivalent value appears reasonable. Enfield and Bledsoe (1975) determined
that phosphorus sorption after a 4-month test period was from 1.5 to 3.0
times the 5-day sorption value, reflecting a more steady-state approxi-
mation. An approximation for long-term sorption would be greater, a value
of 3.5 was used in this study.
Based on similar analyses (Ellis and Erickson 1969), the study area
soils should have adequate sorption capacity for phosphorus where drain
beds of current design are constructed. The water quality sampling results
appear to verify it. Because dry wells result in a considerably smaller
soil mass being contacted by the percolating effluent as compared to drain
beds and drainfields, the soil material would become saturated more quickly
with phosphorus. Also, the dry well introduces effluent lower in the soil
profile where the sorption capacity of soils is generally lower. Ellis and
others (1978) recommended that dry wells be discontinued from further
application for that reason. Increases in phosphorus levels in groundwater
over time can be expected, although the specific increases would be highly
variable, and minimal where the residence is occupied seasonally.
The alternative that incorporates land application of lagoon effluent
for treatment would result in increased levels of phosphorus in the soils.
Irrigation onto the soil surface utilizes the surface soil for sorption of
phosphorus. These surface soils have considerably greater sorption cap-
abilities than the underlying soil (Appendix G of the Draft EIS).
4-14
-------
Nitrogen loadings in the wastewater are of greatest concern. Nitrogen
would be present in applied wastewater principally in the form of ammonium
(NH ), nitrates (NO ), and organic nitrogen. When wastewater is applied to
soils, the natural supply of soil nitrogen is increased. As in the natural
processes, most added organic nitrogen slowly is converted to ionized
ammonia by microbial action in the soil. This form of nitrogen, and any
ionized ammonia in the effluent, is adsorbed by soil particles.
Plants and soil microbes both utilize ammonium directly. Microbes
oxidize ammonium to nitrite (NO ) that is quickly converted to the nitrate
(NO ) form through nitrification. Nitrate is highly soluble and is uti-
lized by plants, or leached from the soil into the groundwater. Under
anaerobic conditions (in the absence of oxygen), soil nitrate can be re-
duced by soil microbes to gaseous nitrogen forms (denitrification). These
gaseous forms move upward through the soil atmosphere and are dissipated
into the air. Denitrification depends on organic carbon for an energy
source; thus, the interface between natural soil and the gravel fill in a
drain bed has both requisite characteristics for denitrification.
Unlike phosphorus, nitrogen is not stored in soils except in organic
matter. Organic matter increases within the soils would result from in-
creased microbial action and from decreased oxidation. The increased
organic matter improves the soil tilth (workability), water holding capac-
ity, and capability of retaining plant nutrients.
4.1.2.3. Surface Waters
Nutrient Loads to Lakes and Rivers of the Study Area
A major water quality concern in the study area is the acceleration of
eutrophication in the lakes. Two important nutrients in the eutrophication
process are nitrogen and phosphorus (Zevenboom and others 1982) with phos-
phorus usually recognized as the most important (Smith and Shapiro 1981).
To evaluate the impact of the alternatives, nutrient loading levels for
phosphorus were calculated. Changes in phosphorus loadings due to waste-
water management alternatives are presented in Table 4-1. These changes
4-15
-------
reflect the percent increase or decrease of phosphorus loading compared to
the current loading rates estimated in Section 3.1.3.1.
If the No Action Alternative were implemented in the study area the
phosphorus loading to all lakes would increase compared to present condi-
tions (Table 4-1). The increase is based on future population estimates
around Indian Lake and Sister Lakes. An increased population would use
additional on-site systems, resulting in greater phosphorus loads to the
lakes. Alternatives 2-7 offer the largest percent decrease in phosphorus
lo'ids to the lakes. There would be a 14% reduction of phosphorus loading
to Indian Lake under these alternatives. A centralized collection system
effectively eliminates phosphorus loads associated with on-site systems.
Crooked Lake would experience the largest percent decrease. Alternatives
8A, 8B, 9, and 10 would produce results similar to the reduced phosphorus
loads associated with the alternaives using centralized collection systems
for several reasons. Jones and Lee (1977) demonstrated that a properly
designed and installed septic tank drainfield could remove nearly 100%
Table 4-1. Comparison of phosphorus loading rates associated with the vari-
ous alternatives to the current loading rates.
Lake
Cable
Crooked
Dewey
Indian
Magician
Pipestone
Round
No
Alternatives
Action
5%
8%
2%
2%
4%
1%
5%
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
2-7
29%
45%
11%
14%
25%
5%
27%
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
Alternatives
8A-10
26%
39%
10%
13%
22%
4%
24%
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
4-16
-------
of the phosphorus load from the septic effluent. It was assumed for Alter-
natives 8A, 8B, 9, and 10 that upgrading existing on-site systems and plac-
ing critical areas on a cluster collection system or on holding tanks would
result in a 90% decrease in the phosphorus load from on-site systems com-
pared to present conditions.
The changes in phosphorus loading imposed by various wastewater alter-
natives could affect the trophic status and management considerations of
some of the lakes in the study area. Current trophic status is based on
secchi disc readings, chlorophyll a, and phosphorus concentrations (when
available; Section 3.1.3.1.). Future trophic conditions will be influenced
by in-lake phosphorus concentrations, which are a function of the phos-
phorus load and other physical-chemical characteristics of each lake basin.
It appears the "build" alternatives (Alternatives 2-7) would reduce the
phosphorus load so that water quality would be enhanced for three lakes;
Cable, Crooked, and Round. Some improvement in Magician Lake may occur.
However, Indian Lake, Dewey Lake, and Pipestone Lake would likely remain
eutrophic (Figure 4-1). Implementation of Alternatives 8A, 8B, 9, or 10 is
predicted to have effects similar to Alternatives 2-7 (Figure 4-1) . The
information plotted on Figure 4-1 should be interpreted with caution.
Phosphorus loads and lake response is based on information currently avail-
able. In addition, the management schemes (Figure 4-1) have assumed that
lake basins and the biological lake components respond in similar fashions.
This is not always the case. Phosphorus dynamics and biological production
will be greatly affected by unique factors occurring within each lake
basin, which are unquantified at this time.
Some rivers of the study area would be directly impacted by discharge
of wastewater effluents to a receiving stream under Alternatives 2, 4, 5A,
5B, 6, and 7 which include collection sewers and centralized treatment.
Release of the treated wastewater effluent from the stabilization lagoons
would occur between 1 March and 15 May annually. The release rate during
this period is designed to cause minimum impacts.
4-17
-------
CO
o
X
0.
Ill
>
o
<
>
-J
o
i
01
r
o
o
High Phos.
Loading
0.55 _
0.45 _
0.35 _
0.25 _
C
-2-»
0.20 _
0.19 _
0.18 _
0.17 _
0.16 _
IE 0.15 _
0» 0.14 _
0.13
0.10
0.07
0.06 _
0.05 _
0.04 _
0.03 _
0.02 _
0.01 _
Low Phos.
Loading
s^
Cable A
1
\
A
Legend
present conditions
O Alternatives 8-10
^Alternatives 2-7
I I I I
Pipestone
DDewey.
*
i,^^
Indian.
Magician i \
Crooked i
Round
i
< ^
_ jp ________
B
i
{T
8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0
(Oligotrophic) Secchi (Eutrophic)
(meters)
A. No nutrient abatement steps necessary.
B. Strong renewal potential; long term benefits may be possible without
extensive nutrient abatement.
C. Prompt action needed; degradation may be imminent if nutrient abatement
steps are not taken.
D. Problem lakes; renovation desirable but lasting improvement may require
extensive nutrient abatement.
Figure 4-1. Future phosphorus loading conditions for the centralized waste-
water management alternatives (Vollenweider 1979; Uttormark and
Wall 1975).
4-18
-------
The nutrient loads discharged to Indian Lake outlet or Silver Creek
coincide with high stream flows of this time of year; thus, the nutrient
loads would be assimilated by the streams. Slightly elevated nutrient
levels should not be detrimental to the ecology of the receiving streams.
Increased discharges to Dowagiac Creek from the Dowagiac WWTP would occur
under Alternatives 6 and 7. The increased continuous discharge would
affect Dowagiac Creek to some extent, although the assimilative capacity of
the Creek was calculated when the effluent limits were set. The Dowagiac
River, a cold water stream, would be affected to some extent by any of the
wastewater treatment alternatives that have discharges to surface waters.
Coliform Bacteria Levels in Lakes and Rivers
Data regarding bacterial contamination of the lakes in the study area
are somewhat inconclusive. Bacterial sampling efforts usually have in-
volved one sample at each station for a single date. Federal Water Quality
Regulations require that violations of standards be based on the geometric
mean of a minimum of five samples.
Continued reliance on existing systems (No Action Alternative) in
areas of high water tables (e.g., Pipestone Lake) has potential for bac-
terial contamination. For the "build" alternatives, the wastewater man-
agement alternatives should effectively prevent these problems, although
bacteria contamination problems are still a possibility with centralized
alternatives in case of pumping station malfunctions or with upgraded
on-site systems in case of surface ponding of the effluent.
Land application of wastewater (to be considered under Alternative 3)
is an effective way of eliminating or immobilizing sewage-borne pathogens.
In fine-textured soil, bacteria can be filtered out by 1 to 2 meters of
soil. Soils containing clay remove most organisms through adsorption.
Sandy soil removes them through filtration (Lance 1978).
Suspended Solids and Organic Carbon Levels in Lakes and Rivers
Alternatives implementing on-site systems (Alternatives 8A, 8B, 9, and
10) should effectively remove suspended solids from the wastewater ef-
4-19
-------
fluent. Dissolved organic substances may move with the groundwater into
the lakes. In the study area lakes the septic leachate survey detected
groundwater plumes in each of the lakes. The groundwater plumes contain
dissolved organics and salts as components. Dissolved organics will exert
a BOD resulting in the consumption of dissolved oxygen within a lake.
Within a properly maintained on-site system, BCD movement to lake waters
should be insignificant.
Centralized collection and treatment alternatives that use receiving
streams for discharge of treated wastewater effluents (Alternatives 2, 4,
5A, 5B, 6, and 7) have the discharge timed for release during the spring
runoff period. The waste stabilization lagoons are designed to meet State
and Federal discharge standards. Suspended solids and dissolved organics
are expected to exert a BOD in the receiving stream that could depress
dissolved oxygen levels. But most of the residual BOD and ammonia should
be oxidized in the respective streams. Increased effluent discharge from
the Dowagiac WWTP to Dowagiac Creek in Alternatives 6 and 7 would result in
increased suspended solids and dissolved organic loadings. These should be
within the discharge standards for the stream if the plant is designed and
operated properly. Chlorination of the effluent from the Dowagiac plant
may result in chlorinated organics (e.g., trihalomethanes) that are known
to be carcinogenic.
Lake water levels may decline slightly with the centralized collection
alternatives because water would be exported from the basin. Only Pipe-
stone Lake has a continuous surface water discharge and Indian Lake and
Magician Lakes have intermittent discharges. The groundwater inflow and
outflow of the lakes, which cannot be quantified with present information,
does not appear to be large for any of the lakes; thus, export of lake
water could potentially lower lake levels slightly. Assuming no change in
inflows and outflows, a volume of water equivalent to 2 inches of water
would be exported from the Sister Lakes during the summer. The signifi-
cance of this export volume depends on the inflow-outflow relationships,
the configuration of the shorelines, and the total volume of the lakes.
Because the requisite information is not available, the impact of these
potential water level declines cannot be assessed.
4-20
-------
4.1.2.4. Groundwater
Long-term impacts that could be encountered in the operational phase
of any of the alternatives concern the following types of pollutants:
bacteria, dissolved organics and suspended solids; phosphorus; and nitrate-
nitrogen. Movement to groundwater of other wastewater constituents or of
soil chemicals would occur, but are not expected to significantly affect
any of the uses of the groundwater.
Bacteria and dissolved organics are readily removed by filtration and
adsorption onto soil particles. Two feet of soil material is generally
adequate for bacterial removal, except in very coarse-grained, highly
permeable soil material. Contamination of drinking water wells or surface
water with bacteria and dissolved organics in the study area is unlikely
under any of the alternatives.
Phosphorus is significant in groundwater because it can contribute to
the excessive eutrophication of lakes. Section 4.1.2.2. contains a dis-
cussion of phosphorus sorption in soils and supports the conclusion that,
except for dry well soil absorption systems, phosphorus contributions to
the groundwater from any oi. the alternatives would be minimal.
The ability to predict phosphorus concentrations in percolate waters
from soil treatment systems has not yet been demonstrated (Enfield 1978).
Models that have been developed for this purpose have not yet been eval-
uated under field conditions. Field studies have shown that most soils,
even medium sands, typically remove in excess of 95% of phosphates in
relatively short distances from effluent sources (Jones and Lee 1977) .
One potential source of phosphorus inputs to groundwater are the soil
absorption systems included in the No Action Alternative and Alternatives
8A, 8B, 9, and 10. The groundwater quality analyses performed in conjunc-
tion with the "Septic Snooper" survey (Appendix B of the Draft EIS) confirm
that some phosphorus is reaching the lakes by way of the groundwater. The
4-21
-------
majority of groundwater plumes sampled, though, had phosphorus concentra-
tions less than 0.02 mg/1 (25 out of 33 effluent-related plumes). The
contribution of phosphorus to the lakes from on-site systems has not been
quantified from the sampling data, but from theoretical data. Thus, on-
site systems are likely stimulating algal growth in localized areas where
effluent plumes emerge, but their contribution to lake eutrophication is
not quantifiable. The greatest quantity of phosphorus would be contributed
to groundwater under the No Action Alternative. A slight amount of phos-
phorus would be contributed to the groundwater under the alternatives that
continue to rely on on-site systems.
Alternative 3, which incorporates land application of lagoon effluent
is not expected to significantly increase the phosphorus concentration in
the groundwater. Irrigation onto the soil surface results in utilization
of the complete soil profile for sorption in contrast to on-site systems
which utilize oaly the subsoil. Phosphorus in groundwatec under a land
application site is of concern only when surface waters are affected.
Groundwater from the site would likely flow primarily to the west, but
partially to the Sister Lakes.
The wastewater stabilization lagoons which are components of all of
the centralized alternatives, except Alternative 7, may contribute phos-
phorus to the groundwater if seepage from the lagoons is considerable. A
study of Minnesota wastewater stabilization lagoons (EA Hickok and Associ-
ates 1978) concluded that none of the ponds (all had natural soil liners)
were capable of meeting the designed and specified seepage rates. Most of
the ponds studied removed phosphorus effectively, although some had seepage
rates considerably higher than the maximum allowable.
Nitrates in groundwater are of concern at concentrations greater than
10 mg/1 as nitrogen because they cause methemoglobineraia in infants who
ingest liquids prepared with such waters. This limit was set in the Na-
tional Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 141) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523). A general discussion of nitrogen in soils
is presented in Section 4.1.2.2.
4-22
-------
The density of soil absorption systems is said to be the most impor-
tant parameter influencing pollution levels of nitrates in groundwater
(Scalf and others 1977). That source also notes, however, that currently
available "information has not been sufficiently definitive nor quantita-
tive to provide a basis for density criteria." The potential for high
nitrate concentrations in groundwater is greater in areas of multi-tier or
grid types of residential developments than in single tier developments.
Depending on the groundwater flow direction and pumping rates of wells,
nitrate contributions from soil absorption systems may become cumulative in
multi-tier developments. Thus, separation distances are critical for new
construction and maximum density codes are crucial for new subdivisions.
The groundwater sampling results (Section 3.1.3.2.) from wells show
that elevated nitrates (greater than 4 mg/1 as nitrogen) occurred in 11 of
the 60 wells that were sampled. Some of these wells appeared to have
sources of nitrates other than soil absorption systems, particularly the
wells on Keeler Lake. Other values (two were greater than 20 mg/1) may
indicate direct pollution from the surface or anomalous sampling error
because the wells are 45 and 46 feet deep. None of the wells which were
sampled under the auspices of the Van Buren County Health Department had
nitrates present that exceed the limit (By interview, Linda Surlow, Van
Buren County Health Department, to WAPORA, Inc. 15 July 1981).
These high levels of nitrate would perpetuate under the No Action
Alternative and increased violations of the drinking water quality standard
would occur. The alternatives that include continued use of on-site sys-
tems and cluster systems may not necessarily result in declines in concen-
trations of nitrates in the groundwater. Wells that continue to have high
nitrate concentrations may need to be deepened so that a hydraulically
limiting layer is penetrated.
Cluster drainfields are designed similarly to individual drainfields
to ensure an adequate areal distribution of the effluent for satisfactory
removals of phosphorus. Nitrate concentrations within the groundwater
below a cluster drainfield are anticipated to be equivalent to those below
an individual soil absorption system. Insufficient experimentation has
been conducted to enable designing for nitrogen removals from septic tank
4-23
-------
effluent. One precaution would be to locate the drainfield as far from
wells as feasible. Once nitrates enter the groundwater, dilution is the
only practical means of reducing the concentration.
Lagoon effluent typically contains nitrogen levels of approximately 12
mg/1 (Urie 1979; Urie and others 1978). Nitrates in the groundwater below
the land application sites probably would average considerably less than 10
mg/1, the drinking water quality standard. Volatilization, crop uptake and
removal, soil storage, and denitrification would account for removal of
nitrogen from the applied effluent. Some increase in nitrate concentration
above background levels is anticipated, but no significant adverse impacts
on the environment or proposed use is anticipated.
Seepage from the wastewater stabilization lagoons could result in ele-
vated nitrate levels in the groundwater below the lagoons. Clay liners are
not impermeable and plastic liners can be punctured or experience deterio-
ration. Field studies (EA hickok and Associates 1978) have shown that a
seepage rate of 500 gallons per acre per day is very difficult to achieve
even on in-place, fine-textured soils. On medium- to coarse-textured
soils, the quality of the liner is of utmost concern for protection of
groundwater quality. Monitoring wells are to be installed as part of
lagoon construction and these are to be sampled on a regular basis. The
sampling program would identify problems before neighboring residents are
affected.
Changes in groundwater levels would occur with the centralized alter-
natives. Export of water from the lakeshore areas where it is typically
recharged to the wastewater treatment system would change the groundwater
levels slightly. The greatest change in groundwater levels would occur in
the vicinity of the land application site. Inadequate data have been
assembled to accurately predict the water table rise. The water table rise
would affect not only the land application site, but also the surrounding
area and the normal outflow areas. Either draintile or recovery wells on
the land application area would prevent the water table from rising to the
surface, if it is shown to be necessary through further studies.
4-24
-------
4.1.2.5. Terrestrial Biota
The land treatment site proposed in Section 8 under Alternative 3
would affect the terrestrial biota during plant operation, however, no
significant adverse long-term effects would be expected during normal plant
operating conditions. Wildlife may avoid the area during waste applica-
tion. Periodic monitoring should be performed to detect the presence of
potentially harmful concentrations of heavy metals, other toxic substances,
or inicronutrients in the soil, crops, or other vegetation.
4.1.2.6. Land Use Impacts
The land use conversions discussed in Section 3.2.2. would remain in
effect for the operation of the proposed wastewater treatment facilities
under the "build" alternatives. Land use under the easement of sewage
conveyance lines would be intermittently affected when maintenance or
repairs were performed on sections of the lines. Periodic excavating and
filling would disturb vegetation and soil along conveyance lines. The
release of low level odors and aerosols from WWTPs and the knowledge that
hazardous gases could potentially be released from those plants may affect
land use adjacent to the plants. Improper maintenance of cluster and
on-site systems may create malodorous conditions which would adversely
affect adjacent land uses.
4.1.2.7. Demographics
The operation and maintenance of wastewater facilities proposed under
the "build" alternatives will not have a significant impact on the demo-
graphy of the study area. A limited number of long-term jobs created by
the operation and maintenance of these facilities likely will be filled by
persons living within the study area or within commuting distance. No new
residents are expected to be attracted to the study area to fill these
positions.
4-25
-------
4.1.2.8. Economics
The operation of wastewater facilities under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5A,
5B, and 6 would create a few long-term jobs. These jobs could be filled by
persons residing in the study area. No new jobs would be created under
Alternative 7. The existing staff at the Dowagiac WWTP is expected to
assume any additional responsibilities as a result of implementing Alter-
native 7.
No new jobs are anticipated to be created under Alternatives 8A, 8B,
9, or 10. Existing contractors are expected to satisfy local demand for
construction and maintenance services of on-site systems. Contractors and
tradesmen involved in the construction and maintenance of on-site systems
will suffer a loss of work opportunities within the study area under Alter-
natives 2, 3, 4, 5A, 5B, 6, and 7. These contractors and tradesmen are
likely to compete for work opportunities in neighboring areas. No signifi-
cant economic impacts will occur during the operation of wastewater treat-
ment facilities under any of the alternatives.
4.1.2.9. Recreation and Tourism
The operation of wastewater facilities under any of the "build" alter-
natives could affect tourist and recreational activities in the study area
if a malfunction of those facilities occurred. A failure in the system
components of the WWTPs under Alternatives 2, 4, 5A, 5B, and 6 could cause
untreated or partially treated waste to be discharged into study area
surface waters. This phenomenon would result in short-term water quality
degradation and a reduction in the recreational use of that body of water.
Odors emanating from malfunctioning on-site systems may curtail outdoor
recreational activities in the near vicinity.
4.1.2.10. Transportation
Impacts arising during the construction of conveyance lines (Section
4.1.1.) would reoccur when maintenance or repairs are made on those lines.
Occasionally some roads may be closed temporarily. Truck traffic to and
4-26
-------
from the proposed treatment facilities under Alternatives 2-7 will be
associated with supply deliveries. Truck traffic associated with repairs
and septage hauling will occur periodically under Alternatives 8A, 8B, 9,
and 10.
4.1.2.11. Energy
The operation of wastewater treatment facilities and pump stations
under the "build" alternatives require the use of electricity and fossil
fuels. Alternatives 6 and 7 would require the greatest amount of these
energy sources, Alternatives 8A, 8B, 9, and 10 would require the least. No
significant demands would be placed on local energy supplies under any of
the alternatives.
4.1.3. Public Finance
The total project costs will be apportioned between the USEPA and the
local residents. The apportionment is made on the basis of what costs are
eligible to be funded by USEPA. These costs for each alternative are
presented in Appendix N of the Draft EIS or Appendix D. The local con-
struction costs and the entire cost of system operation and maintenance
will be borne entirely by the system users. As discussed in Section 1.2.,
Federal funding through the National Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works
Construction Grants Program will provide funds to cover 75% of the eligible
planning design, and construction costs of conventional wastewater treat-
ment facilities. "Innovative/alternative" components of the proposed
treatment systems, such as pressure sewers, septic tank effluent sewers,
septic tanks, and soil absorption systems are eligible for 85% Federal
funding. The annual residential user costs for each alternative are pre-
sented in the Table 4-2. The detailed annual residential user cost analy-
ses with and without Federal Grant monies are presented in Tables N-ll and
N-12, respectively in Appendix N of the Draft EIS and in Table D-l in
Appendix D.
The annual estimated user cost for Indian Lake alone has been calcu-
lated and is shown in Table 4-3. Costs were calculated only for those
4-27
-------
alternatives for which Indian Lake can be independent of the Sister Lakes.
Per residence costs for Indian Lake alone are roughly comparable to the
costs for the total project area.
Wastewater treatment facilities can create significant financial
impacts for communities and users who will pay the capital, operation,
maintenance, and debt costs associated with sewage treatment facilities.
Two guidelines for determining the magnitude of these impacts are the State
of Michigan 10% of SEV general obligation bonding authority limit for local
governments and the USEPA average annual user charge to median family
income ratio (USEPA 1981).
Table 4-2. Annual residential user costs for the entire project area
and for Indian Lake alone.
Annual Cost per Residence
Alternative
2
3
4
5A
5B
6
7
8A
8B
9
10
With
Federal Grant
Project Area Indian Lake
$264.77
258.95
265.69
254.18
599.66
271.62
329.30
167.29
161.34
126.21
134.28
$281.27
313.67
182.21
162.92
120.97
125.62
Without Federal Grant
Project Area
$1,044.93
1,043.29
1,059.58
1,020.00
1,266.02
1,033.69
1,061.16
488.83
481.56
233.32
313.80
Indian Lake
$1,023.41
969.66
544.76
497.38
299.78
322.45
Cass County would assume the local share of additional debt under any
of the "build" alternatives. Berrien County and Van Buren County residents
would be billed user charges by Cass County under any of the "build" alter-
nat ive s.
The debt to state equalized assessed valuation ratio for four debt
scenarios, which include the high- and low-cost capital shares for sewer
and on-site systems are presented in Table 4-3. Under the highest local
capital cost scenario, Alternative 5B, Cass County's debt would rise
4-28
-------
Table 4-3. Cass County debt as a percentage of state equalized assessed
valuation under four local share capital cost scenarios.
High capital Low capital High capital Low capital
cost sewer cost sewer cost on-site cost on-site
scenario scenario scenario scenario
(Alt. 5B) (Alt. 7) (Alt. 8A) (Alt. 9)
$ 1,335,000
12,541,000
13,876,000
$ 1,335,000 $ 1,335,000
3,722,900 1,452,600
5,057,900 2,057,900
$ 1,335,000
968,400
2,303,400
Existing debt 1980
Local capital share
Total debt
Total state equalized
assessed valuation3 420,747,938 420,747,938 420,747,938 420,747,938
Ratio of debt to state
equalized assessed
valuation
State of Michigan
general obligation
bonding authority
limit for local
governments
3.3
1.2
0.7
0.5
10%
10%
10%
10%
By telephone, Ms. Candy Copper, Cass County Treasurer's office, to WAPORA,
Inc., 28 December 1981.
$12,541,000 over its 1980 debt of $1,335,000 for a total of $13,876,000.
Cass County's debt to state equalized assessed valuation ratio under Al-
ternative 5B would reach 33% of the state of Michigan's general obligation
bonding authority limit for local governments.
Under the lowest local capital cost scenario, Alternative 9, Cass
County's debt would rise $968,400 over its 1980 debt for a total of
$2,303,400. Cass County's debt to state equalized assessed valuation ratio
under Alternative 9 would reach 5% of the State of Michigan's general
obligation bonding authority for local governments. Cass County would not
approach its state mandated debt limit under any of the alternatives.
The USLPA considers projects to be expensive and as having an adverse
impact on the finances of users when average annual user charges are:
4-29
-------
1.0% of median household incomes less than $10,000
1.5% of median household incomes between $10,000 and $17,000
1.75% of median household incomes greater than $17,000.
Median family incomes for Berrien, Cass and Van Buren Counties are $19,200,
$18,600, and $20,500, respectively. (By telephone, Mr. John Maloney, Eco-
nomic Market Analysis Division, US Department of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment, Detroit MI to WAPORA, Inc. 4 March 1982).
Incomes of system users residing in Van Buren County may be somewhat
lower than $20,500 because Van Buren County is included in the Kalamazoo
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). Wages are likely to be
higher in the Kalamazoo metropolitan area than in Van Buren County. The
high wages paid in Kalamazoo tend to raise the median family income for the
SMSA as a whole.
Average annual user charges expressed as a percentage of median family
income for a household of four are presented in Table 4-4. User fees under
Alternative 5B surpass suggested upper limit user fees for system users in
all three counties. Under Alternative 7, user fees surpass suggested upper
limit user fees for system users in Cass County. Thus, some system users
under these alternatives would be financially adversely affected. Alter-
native 9 offers the lowest user fees for system users in all three coun-
ties. None of the other alternatives surpass suggested upper limit user
fees as a percentage of median family income, indicating that none of these
alternatives would be a "high cost" system that would pose a significant
financial burden on system users.
The financial stress on low income families and the local share of
capital cost for the proposed wastewater facilities, under any of the
"build" alternatives, may be overstated in Tables 4-3 and 4-4 because of
the uncertainty of how Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) grants and loans
might be applied. Cass County may be eligible for a $1,200,000 grant and a
$1,000,000 loan for 40 years at 5% interest from the FmHA (By telephone,
Mr. Roy Obreiter, FmHA District Office, Hastings MI to WAPORA, Inc. 2
4-30
-------
County
Berrien
1.38%
1.35%
1.38%
1.32%
3.12%
1.41%
1.71%
0.87%
0.84%
0.66%
0.70%
Cass
1.42%
1.39%
1.43%
1.37%fe
3.22%
1.46%,
n
1.77%
0.90%
0.87%
0.68%
0.72%
Van Buren
1 . 29%
1.26%
1 . 30%
1.24%b
2.93%
1.32%
1.61%
0.82%
0.79%
0.62%
0.66%
Table 4-4. Average annual user charges for the "build" alternatives ex-
pressed as a percentage of median household income for Berrien,
Cass and Van Buren Counties.
Alternative
2
3
4
5A
5B
6
/
8A
8B
9
10
a
The USEPA considers a project expensive when average annual user charges
exceed 1.75% of median household incomes greater than $17,000.
The costs residents would pay under these alternatives would be considered
expensive according to USEPA guidelines.
February 1982). The grant and loan were set aside for wastewater facili-
ties around Indian Lake. Current FmHA policy does not allow funding of
individual systems ("private" in their policy) even though they may be
publicly owned (By telephone, Paul Miller, FmHA, to Charles Quinlan, III,
USEPA, 11 April 1983). Also, the policy is interpreted such that cluster
systems, unless they served the entire area, are not eligible for funding.
If FmHA grants and loans could be incorporated into the public financing
scheme for implementing any of the "build" alternatives, the financial
stress on study area low income families and the local share of capital
cost for the proposed wastewater facilities would be reduced.
4.2. Secondary Impacts
Each of the alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, will
have effects that extend beyond primary or direct impacts. These impacts,
4-31
-------
secondary impacts, would occur because growth may occur as a direct result
of new wastewater treatment capacity or because changes in lake water qual-
ity may occur. The categories that may experience significant secondary
impacts are described in the following sections.
4.2.1. Demographics
Wastewater management facilities historically have been a major factor
in determining the capacity of an area to support population growth and
development. On-site wastewater treatment facilities, although generally
available to any potential user, limit development to areas with suitable
soil and site characteristics. Sewer systems, while not always available
at a specific location or with adequate capacity, allow development to be
more site independent, since soil, slope, and drainage become less con-
straining design parameters. Consequently, the construction of sewers in
an area usually increases the inventory of developable land and the density
of development, often unleashing pent-up demand for or encouraging growth
and development.
This phenonmenon is not evident in the study area nor is it antici-
pated to occur during the planning period. Economic factors discussed in
Section 3.2.3. which follow national, state, and regional trends, outweigh
the incentive for growth which wastewater facilities provide.
Population growth in the study area as discussed in Section 3.2.1. is
not likely to be significantly affected by the selection of any of the
alternatives. The first tier of sewers away from the lakes proposed under
Alternatives 2-7 would provide service to a corridor which is already
developed and where few lots available for development exist. Little
population increase is likely to occur in this corridor. The cost to users
under Alternatives 2-7 may create a financial burden for families with low
incomes. This could result in displacement of these families from the
service area because they cannot afford user charges.
The selection of Alternative 8A, 8B, or 10 would allow for the devel-
opment of a limited number of lots which are not suitable for on-site
systems. No signficant population increase is anticipated to occur.
4-32
-------
Under Alternative 1 and 9, population growth would occur as discussed
in Section 3.2.1. The projected conversion of seasonal dwellings to per-
manent homes would continue. Population increases would be dependent upon
the carrying capacity of the land available for development. No signifi-
cant population impacts would occur.
4.2.2. Land Use
Economic factors (Section 3.2.3.) will have a greater influence than
the provision of wastewater facilities (Section 4.2.) in determining land
use for the study area during the planning period. The location of waste-
water treatment facilities and sewer systems under Alternatives 2-7 will
affect patterns of future development. Residential development would be
likely to occur along sewer lines. Because little induced growth is pre-
dicted to occur, no significant land use impacts will occur.
Under Alternatives 8A, 8B, 9, and 10 future development would be limi-
ted to the carrying capacity of the land. Continued and increased nui-
sances attributable to failing on-site systems in residential areas would
make infill development of those areas less desirable.
Prime Agricultural Land
Little prime agricultural farmland is likely to be taken out of pro-
duction to accommodate wastewater treatment facilities. This will result
in a minimal net loss of food and fibre which was previously produced on
this land. The lack of induced growth created by implementing any of the
alternatives removes the threat to prime agricultural farmland usually
associated with the construction of wastewater facilities.
4.2.3. Surface Water
Increased housing development along lake shores may increase nutrient
and sediment loads into the lakes as a result of the following:
increased runoff from construction of impervious surfaces
such as rooftops, parking areas, and paved roads
4-33
-------
increased housing density normally accelerates stonnwater
runoff thereby increasing not only the amount of runoff, but
also its ability to erode soil and to transport contaminants
lawn and garden fertilization may create unnaturally high
nutrient levels in runoff.
Accompanying housing development is the increase in the use of the
lake for recreational and fishing purposes. An increase in fishing pres-
sure may ultimately result in detrimental water quality effects. When
larger piscivores are removed by angling, fewer planktivores are consumed,
resulting in greater numbers of planktivores. The planktivore community
then exerts high predation pressure on the zooplankton community. A de-
crease in the zooplankton community will reduce grazing pressure on phyto-
plankton resulting in an increase in the phytoplankton, and greater tur-
bidity.
The installation of a centralized collection system probably would
induce a more rapid development rate compared to alternatives calling for
upgraded on-site systems.
4.2.4. Recreation and Tourism
Any increase or decrease of tourism ani recreational activities within
the study area attributable to the long-term operation of wastewater facil-
ities under the "build" alternatives would occur when a quantum change in
water quality of area lakes occurs. A significant decline in water quality
would cause fewer tourists to visit the study area. Permanent and seasonal
residents of the study area would likely decrease some of their recre-
ational activities around area lakes under these conditions.
A significant increase in water quality may contribute to an increase
of recreational activities among local residents and tourists within the
study area. Other factors discussed in Section 3.2.4. would have a greater
affect upon use of the study area by tourists and recreationists. In-
creased and continuing nuisances created by failing on-site systems under
the No Action Alternative would detract from the study areas reputation as
a desirable recreational area. Recreation and tourist activities would
4-34
-------
likely decline. No significant recreational or tourist impacts are likely
to occur under any of the alternatives.
4.2.5. Economics
It is unlikely that the additional wastewater treatment capacity
created under Alteratives 2-7 would create any population, development, or
economic growth (Section 3.2.3.). Economic development would proceed as
discussed in Section 3.2.3. under Alternatives 8A, 8B, 9, and 10. In-
creased and continuing nuisances created by failing on-site systems under
the No Action Alternative would detract from the study areas reputation as
a desirable recreational area. Recreation and tourist activities would
likely decline resulting in a loss of revenues for study area businesses.
4.2.6. Threatened and Endangered Species
No threatened or endangered species have been identified at the pro-
posed plant sites or sewer lines. The habitats present, however, could be
suitable for a number of endangered and threatened species in the State of
Michigan (Tables 3-14, 3-15, and 3-16 of the Draft EIS).
The MDNR should be consulted to determine whether any listed species
are actually found in the vicinities of the proposed sites. If so, appro-
priate measures must be developed through consultation with Berrien, Cass,
and Van Buren Counties, MDNR, and US Fish and Wildlife Service, if appro-
priate, and other agencies that may be interested in the proposed action.
4.3. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts
As previously discussed, various adverse impacts would be associated
with the proposed alternatives. Many of these adverse impacts could be
reduced significantly by the application of mitigative measures. These
mitigative measures consist of a variety of legal requirements, planning
measures, and design practices. The extent to which these measures are
applied will determine the ultimate impact of the selected action. Poten-
tial measures for alleviating construction, operation, and secondary ef-
4-35
-------
fects presented in Sections 4.1. and 4.2. are discussed in the following
sections.
4.3.1. Mitigation of Construction Impacts
The construction oriented impacts presented in Section 4.1. primarily
are short-term effects resulting from construction activities at WWTP sites
or along the route of proposed sewer systems. Proper design should mini-
mize the potential impacts and the plans and specifications should incor-
porate mitigative measures consistent with the following discussion.
Fugitive dust from the excavation and backfilling operations for the
force mains and treatment plants could be minimized by various techniques.
Frequent street sweeping of dirt from construction activities would reduce
the major source of dust. Prompt repaving of roads disturbed by construc-
tion also could reduce dust effectively. Construction sites, spoil piles,
and unpaved access roads should be wetted periodically to minimize dust.
Soil stockpiles and backfilled trenches should be seeded with a temporary
or permanent seeding or covered with mulch to reduce susceptibility to wind
erosion.
Street cleaning at sites where trucks and equipment gain access to
construction sites and of roads along which a force main would be con-
structed would reduce loose dirt that otherwise would generate dust, create
unsafe driving conditions, or be washed into roadside ditches or storm
drains.
Exhaust emissions and noise from construction equipment could be mini-
mized by proper equipment maintenance. The resident engineer should have,
and should exercise the authority, to ban from the site all poorly main-
tained equipment. Soil borings along the proposed force main rights-of-way
conducted during system design, would identify organic soils that have the
potential to release odors when excavated. These areas could be bypassed
by rerouting the force main if, depending on the location, a significant
impact might be expected.
4-36
-------
Spoil disposal sites should be identified during the project design
stage to ensure that adequate sites are available and that disposal site
impacts are minimized. Landscaping and restoration of vegetation should be
conducted immediately after disposal is completed to prevent impacts from
dust generation and unsightly conditions.
Lands disturbed by trenching for force main construction should be re-
graded and compacted as necessary to prevent future subsidence. However,
too much compaction will result in conditions unsuitable for vegetation.
Areas disturbed by trenching and grading at the plant site should be
revegetated as soon as possible to prevent erosion and dust generation.
Native plants and grasses should be used. This also will facilitate the
re-establishment of wildlife habitat.
Construction-related disruption in the community can be minimized
through considerate contractor scheduling and appropriate public announce-
ments. The State and County highway departments have regulations con-
cerning roadway disruptions, which should be rigorously applied. Special
care should be taken to minimize disruption of access to frequently visited
establishments. Announcements should be published in local newspapers and
broadcast from local radio stations to alert drivers of temporary traffic
disruptions on primary routes. Street closings should be announced by
fliers delivered to each affected household.
Planning of routes for heavy construction equipment and materials
should ensure that surface load restrictions are considered. In this way,
damage to streets and roadways would be minimized. Trucks hauling exca-
vation spoil to disposal sites or fill material to the WWTP sites should be
routed along primary arteries to minimize the threat to public safety and
to reduce disturbance in residential environments.
Erosion and sedimentation must be minimized at all construction sites.
USEPA Program Requirements Memorandum 78-1 establishes requirements for
control of erosion and runoff from construction activities. Adherence to
these requirements would serve to mitigate potential problems:
4-37
-------
Construction site selection should consider potential occur-
rence of erosion and sediment losses
The project plan and layout should be designed to fit the
local topography and soil conditions
When appropriate, land grading and excavating should be kept
at a minimum to reduce the possibility of creating runoff
and erosion problems which require extensive control mea-
sures
Whenever possible, topsoil should be removed and stockpiled
before grading begins
Land exposure should be minimized in terms of area and time
Exposed areas subject to erosion should be covered as quick-
ly as possible by means of mulching or vegetation
Natural vegetation should be retained whenever feasible
Appropriate structural or agronomic practices to control
runoff and sedimentation should be provided during and after
construction
Early completion of stabilized drainage system (temporary
and permanent systems) will substantially reduce erosion
potential
Access roadways should be paved or otherwise stabilized as
soon as feasible
Clearing and grading should not be started until a firm con-
struction schedule is known and can be effectively coordi-
nated with the grading and clearing activities.
The Natural Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Executive Order 11593
(1971), The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and the
1973 Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation require
that care must be taken early in the planning process to identify cultural
resources and minimize adverse effects on them. USEPA final regulations
for the preparation of EISs (40 CFR 1500) also specify that compliance with
these regulations is required when a Federally funded, licensed, or per-
mitted project is undertaken. The State Historic Preservation Officer must
have an opportunity to determine that the requirements have been satisfied.
Once an alternative is selected and design work begins, a thorough
pedestrian archaeological survey may be required for those areas affected
4-38
-------
by the proposed facility. In addition to the information already collected
through a literature review (WAPORA, Inc. 1979) and consultation with the
State Historic Preservation Officer and other knowledgeable informants, a
controlled surface collection of discovered sites and minor subsurface
testing should be conducted. A similar survey would be required of his-
toric structures, sites, properties, and objects in and adjacent to the
construction areas, if they might be affected by the construction or opera-
tion of the project.
In consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, it would
be determined if any of the resources identified by the surveys appear to
be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Subsequently, an
evaluation would be made of the probable effects of the project on these
resources and what mitigation procedures may be required. Prior to initi-
ation of the proposed Federally funded project, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation in Washington DC should be notified of the intended
undertaking and be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed
project.
4.3.2. Mitigation of Operation Impacts
The majority of potentially adverse operational impacts of the WWTP
alternatives are related to the discharge of effluent to surface waters.
For the land treatment alternative, the most significant potential adverse
effects are impacts on groundwater and possible health risks. Adverse
impacts associated with the operation of cluster and on-site systems are
primarily related to malodorous conditions which may affect outdoor recrea-
tional activities. Measures to minimize these and other operation phase
impacts from all the alternatives are discussed below.
Adverse impacts related to the operation of the proposed sewer systems
and treatment facilities would be minimal if the facilities are designed,
operated, and maintained properly. Aerosols, gaseous emissions, and odors
from the various treatment processes could be controlled to a large extent.
Above-ground pumps would be enclosed and installed to minimize sound im-
pacts. Concentrations of the effluent constituents discharged from the
4-39
-------
WWTPs would be regulated by the conditions o£ the NPDES permits. The
effluent quality is specified by the State of Michigan and must be moni-
tored. Proper and regular maintenance of cluster and on-site systems also
would maximize the efficiency of these systems and minimize odors released
from trial functioning systems.
Special care to control chlorination and effluent concentrations of
chlorine residuals should be taken to minimize adverse impacts to the
aquatic biota of study area surface waters. Tsai (1973) documented that
depressed numbers of fish and macroinvertebrates were found downstream from
outfalls discharging chlorinated effluent. No fish were found in water
with chlorine residuals greater than 0.37 mg/1, and the species diversity
index reached zero at 0.25 mg/1. A 50% reduction in species diversity
index occurred at 0.10 mg/1. Arthur and others (1975) reported that con-
centrations o£ chlorine residuals lethal to various species of warm water
fish range from 0.09 to 0.30 mg/1. Many wastewater treatment plants have
effluents with chlorine residual concentrations of 0.5 to 2.0 mg/1. Fur-
thermore, chlorination of wastewater can result in the formation of halo-
genated organic compounds that are potentially carcinogenic (USEPA 1976).
Rapid mixing of chlorine and design of contact chambers to provide long
contact times, however, can achieve the desired disinfection and the mini-
mum chlorine residual discharge (USEPA and others 1977). Chlorination will
require especially careful application and routine monitoring to insure
that chlorine residual concentrations are kept to a minimum.
In the document Federal Guidelines for Design, Operation, and Main-
tenance of Wastewater Treatment Facilities (Federal Water Quality Adminis-
tration 1970), it is required that:
All water pollution control facilities should be planned and de-
signed so as to provide for maximum reliability at all times.
The facilities should be capable of operating satisfactorily
during power failures, flooding, peak loads, equipment failure,
and maintenance shutdowns.
4-40
-------
4.3.3. Mitigation of Secondary Impacts
As discussed in Section 4.2., few secondary impacts are expected to
occur during the operation of any of the ten "build" alternatives. Ade-
quate zoning, health, and water quality regulation and enforcement would
minimize these impacts. Local growth management planning would assist in
the regulation of general location, density, and type of growth that might
occur.
4.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Some impacts associated with the implementation of any of the "build"
alternatives cannot be avoided. The centralized collection and treatment
alternatives would have the following adverse impacts:
Considerable short-term construction dust, noise, and traf-
fic nuisance
Alteration of vegetation and wildlife habitat along the
sewer and force main corridors and at the WWTP sites
Considerable erosion and siltation during construction
Discharge of BOD, SS, and phosphorus at greater than ambient
levels to Silver Creek and/or the Indian Lake outlet with
the waste stabilization lagoon alternatives
Discharge of increased BOD, SS, phosphorus, ammonia, and
chlorine to Dowagiac Creek, from the Dowagiac WWTP for Alter-
natives 6 and 7
Significant odors during spring turnover of waste stabili-
zation lagoons
Significant user fees for wastewater treatment services for
the residents within the proposed sewer service areas
Conversion of agricultural land and, for Section 29 (near
Indian Lake), prime farmland to waste stabilization lagoon
use.
The decentralized alternatives that include primarily continued use of
existing and upgraded on-site systems and either cluster systems or black-
watetr holding tanks for critical areas would have the following adverse
impacts:
4-41
-------
Some short-term construction dust, noise, and traffic nuis-
ance
Some erosion and siltation during construction
Alteration and destruction of wildlife habitat at the clus-
ter dralnfield sites
Discharge of percolate with elevated levels of nitrates and
chlorides from soil absorption systems to the groundwater
Occasional ephemeral odors associated with pumping septic
tanks and holding tanks and trucking it to disposal sites
User fees for management and operation of wastewater treat-
ment services for the residents within the proposed service
areas.
4.5. Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource Commitments
The major types and amounts of resources that would be committed
through the implementation of any of the ten "build" alternatives are
presented in Sections 4.1. and 4.2. Each of the alternatives would include
some or all of the following resource commitments:
Fossil fuel, electrical energy, and human labor for facili-
ties construction and operation
Chemicals, especially chlorine, for Dowagiac WWTP operation
Tax dollars for construction and operation
Some utisalvageable construction materials.
For each alternative involving a WWTP, there is a significant consump-
tion of these resources with no feasible means of recovery. Thus, non-re-
coverable resources would be foregone for the provision of the proposed
wastewater control system.
Accidents which could occur from system construction and operation
could cause irreversible bodily damage or death, and damage or destroy
equipment and other resources. Unmitigated Dowagiac WWTP failure poten-
tially could kill aquatic life in the immediate mixing zone.
4-42
-------
The potential accidental destruction of undiscovered archaeological
sites through excavation activities is not reversible. This would repre-
sent permanent loss of the site.
4-43
-------
5.0. PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS
Substantive public and agency comments were received on the Draft EIS.
They have been compiled and summarized in this section. Comments offered
through written correspondence, and through testimony at the public hearing
on the Draft EIS (28 September 1982), and that are essential to the EIS
decision-making process, are addressed herein. The comments and appropri-
ate responses are organized by subject areas of the EIS including:
Needs Documentation
Water Quality
Development of Alternatives
Environmental Impacts
Land Use
Economic Impacts
Public Participation
The EIS Process
All written comments on the Draft EIS are included in Appendix E.
Individuals offering substantive written comments on the Draft EIS are
listed below:
Name
Doug las Benton
Daniel J. Dyman
Kathryn B. Eckert
Peter D. Elliott
Jim and Jean Haley
Homer R. Hilner
Dale Hippensteel
Sheila M. Huff
C. M. Hoover
Agency
Resident, Indian Lake
Resident, Crooked Lake
Michigan Department of State
Historic Preservation Office
Southwestern Michigan Commission
Residents, Indian Lake
US Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Cass County
Health Department
Department of Interior
Resident, Indian Lake
Comment Number
8
7
25
1, 28, 29
15
23
4, 12, 13, 14,
19
21, 22, 23, 23,
26
15
5-1
-------
Rosemary Johnstone Resident Magician Lake 27
Charles F. Miller Resident, Indian Lake 16
Donald Oderkirk Berrien County 4, 5, 9, 10, 11
Health Department
Fred and Jan Polmanteer Residents, Round Lake 6
Johnie Rodebush and Southwestern Michigan Regional 30
Robert J. Smith Planning Commission, Environ-
mental Quality Committee
Mrs. Frank Seban Resident, Indian Lake 15
Dr. John Fredrick Smith Cass County Health Department and 4, 8, 12
Resident, Magician Lake
Richard Williams Resident, Indian Lake 4
Robert J. Smith and Southwestern Michigan Commission 1, 19, 28, 29
Francis Sage Planning and Resources Committee
Citizens offering substantive comments on the Draft EIS at the public
hearing are listed below:
jlame Agency Comment Number
Douglas Benton Resident, Indian Lake 29
Peter Elliott Southwestern Michigan 1, 19, 28, 29
Commission
Marie Huft" Resident, Indian Lake 8, 16
Lee Maager Cass County 4, 12, 13, 14,
Health Department 19
Johnie Rodebush Cass County Department of 1, 4, 29
Public Works
Robert Scherer Tri-County Realty 3, 7, 18
Douglas Smith Indian Lake 2, 8, 15, 17
Improvement Association
Dr. John Smith Cass County 8, 20, 29
Water Council
John Steiding Cass County 29
Planning Commission
5-2
-------
Several other people commented informally on the EIS or participated
in the public hearing. This participation and interest is appreciated.
Comments not addressed in this chapter either involved support for one
alternative or another, or reflected differences of opinion between corn-
mentors. While interesting, such comments are not substantive. Copies of
the public hearing transcript can be reviewed at USEPA's office in Chicago,
Illinois.
The comments (C.) and responses to the comments (R.) are presented
below. The cominentors are identified for each comment.
NEEDS DOCUMENTATION
C. Field work to document needs was done at the wrong time of the year
1 and as a result under-estimates the need for sewage improvements. The
septic leachate survey was conducted in October 1979, after the peak
of seasonal occupancy. The aerial photographic survey was conducted
in May 1979 after the leaves had come out on the trees and shrubs.
[Elliott, Rodebush]
R. The documentation of the adequacy and condition of existing on-site
1 systems, and the need for improved wastewater management systems in-
volves analysis of data from a number of sources including data ob-
tained from field work, questionnaires, sanitary surveys, soils, and
official records on existing systems. The quality of data from any
one of these sources varies depending on the local circumstances.
Therefore, the identification of problem areas is a result of analysis
of all data sources recognizing that some may be of lower quality than
others.
The Draft EIS recognized that the value of the aerial survey is limit-
ed because of the leaf cover at that time of year, and that fewer
erupting plumes may have been found in the septic leachate survey than
might have been found on a sampling date earlier in the year. How-
ever, when reviewed with data from other sources, the existing needs
can be assessed with some degree of accuracy.
C. The Draft EIS states that 10 percent of the on-site systems serving
2 Indian Lake residences were replaced between 1970 and 1980. However,
the residents have been aware for five years that planning of waste-
water management improvements has been in progress, and have delayed
upgrading their systems, which in turn has led to an underestimation
of the problems. [D. Smith]
R. The identification of existing onsite systems with problems was accom-
2 plished by utilization of a number of information sources. One of
these sources was the number of on-site system replacements from
health department records. Other sources of information included
5-3
-------
mailed questionnaires and sanitary surveys which identified systems
with problems that had not been replaced. Therefore, the process of
needs documentation takes into account the fact that official records
may underestimate problems.
C. Ten years ago dye tests were performed on on-site systems in several
3 places and the dye showed up in the lake almost immediately. [Scherer]
R. The only dye testing performed on a systematic basis that has been re-
3 ported was conducted around Pipestone Lake in 1972 (Ferris State
College lb>72). The report stated that no direct pipes from toilets to
the lake were found. Other water using fixtures were not tested and
subsequent investigations have identified washers and kitchen sinks as
having direct discharges. However, upgrade of systems with problems
identified by the dye testing is relatively easy. Costs for upgrading
these systems have been included in the on-site upgrade alternatives.
WATER QUALITY
C. A number of comments expressed concern over Michigan state policy of
4 non-degradation of groundwater. This would appear to require "zero-
discharge" to groundwater in cluster systems. [Oderkirk, Hippensteel,
Dr. J. F. Smith, Williams, Maager, Rodebush]
R. It is not clear how MDNR will implement the Michigan policy of nonde-
4 gradation of groundwater with respect to cluster systems. A recent
telephone call to MDNR (Tom Kampinnen, Construction Grants Section,
MDNR, to WAPORA, Inc. 4 May 1982) indicated that the policy is still
being developed. MDNR has indicated that the non-degradation policy
may be interpreted to require a very conservatively designed cluster
drainfield design to ensure that this treatment is absolutely ef-
fective. If the distance between the trenches is increased over the
distance used in the EIS project alternatives, the initial construc-
tion costs would be greater, primarily because the pipe manifolds
serving individual trenches would be longer.
C. Pipestone Creek is a designated trout stream. [Oderkirk]
5
R. Comment noted. The fact has been added to the discussion of the
5 existing conditions of Pipestone Creek in Section 3.1.3.1 of the Final
EIS. None of the project alternatives will have either a beneficial
or adverse impact on water quality in the stream.
C. Sewers should be supported over other wastewater management systems
6 because of their long-term benefit on water quality in Round Lake.
[Polmanteer]
R. The major water quality concern in the lakes is eutrophication and its
6 attendant nuisance algal blooms. Eutrophication is accelerated when
nutrient loadings increase, especially phosphorus, normally the limit-
ing nutrient for algal growth. The phosphorus may be derived from
nonpoint sources (surface runoff), direct precipitation, groundwater,
and inadequately treated septic tank effluent. Groundwater sources
5-4
-------
are roost difficult to assess because flow rates and concentrations are
generally unknown. The other sources of phosphorus and potential
reductions in loading were estimated for each of the alternatives.
The estimated percentages from each source were surface runoff 59%,
on-site systems 27%, and direct precipitation 13% (Table 3-10). Thus,
with complete sewering, a maximum reduction (excluding groundwater) in
loading of 27% may be possible (Table 4-1). With partial sewering and
cluster drainfields and some blackwater holding tanks, the estimated
reduction in loading would be 24% (Table 4-1). USEPA does not support
projects for which the anticipated benefits appear to be this limited.
The commitment of funds for complete sewering are not justified for
the unquantifiable water quality benefits.
C. It has been observed that particulate suspensions in lakes increase
7 with increased boating activity. [Dyman]
R. Comment noted. Other researchers, as Dr. Dyman has previously noted,
7 have concluded that power boating does indeed dramatically affect the
turbidity of nearshore waters. Phosphorus is then released from the
sediments to the water column. Power boating is restricted on Cable
Lake which may, in part, account for the high Secchi disk measurements
even though it is a productive lake.
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
C. A number of commentors suggested that Indian Lake be separated from
8 the plan and sewers proposed for this area only. Farmers Home Admin-
istration (FmHA) funding has been pursued for sewering Indian Lake
since 1976. [Benton, Dr. J. F. Smith, Marie Huff, Dr. J. Smith]
R. In May 1976 the Cass County Department of Public Works received ap-
8 proval from FmHA for funds to construct a sewer system for Indian
Lake. FmHA has set aside the funds; however, it is FmHA policy to fund
projects approved by state agencies and USEPA if the project is in-
cluded in the construction grants process.
MDNR has specified that an approved Facilities Plan be completed
before discharge and construction permits could be issued. The
facilities planning area was designated to include the Sister Lakes
area and Pipestone Lake so that regional treatment could be investi-
gated. When the Final EIS is issued, the grantee may pursue facility
planning for Indian Lake because regional treatment is not the recom-
mended alternative. The project costs for Indian Lake alone are
presented in Section 2.5.1.1. and Alternative 10 is the recommended
action.
C. There has been no mention of composting toilets as an alternative sys-
9 tern. [Oderkirk]
R. Composting toilets (as well as incineration type toilets) are viable
9 alternative forms of wastewater treatment. However, it is likely that
installation would require significant modification to the residence
and to wastewater piping within the residence, both of which would be
5-5
-------
expensive, and most likely not grant eligible. In addition, an on-
site disposal system would still be required for the other wastewater
from the house (sinks, showers, etc.). and the homeowner would have to
maintain and dispose of residuals from both systems.
In some cases, where the installation costs are reasonable and the
owner understands the operation and maintenance requirements of the
system, a composting toilet may be appropriate. For evaluation of a
general alternative to serve the study area, holding tanks for toilet
wastes were considered more appropriate.
C. Cost should be provided for the "no action" alternative. [Oderkirk]
10
R. Costs for the Ko Action Alternative were not developed because the
10 future actions of homeowners were too difficult to predict. Corres-
ponding costs for upgrading and operating and maintaining on-site
systems were not developed for that reason. The county health depart-
ments are not authorized to specify that systems be upgraded unless
specific public health threats are obvious. Therefore, enforcement
actions against numerous homeowners are not anticipated. The No
Action Alternative is likely the least costly, depending on continued,
effective water conservation efforts, but it also provides the least
protection to the water quality of the lakes.
C. The Berrien County Health Department Sanitary Code does not authorize
11 permits for replacement of on-site systems. [Oderkirk]
R. This fact was known during preparation of the EIS. Around Pipestone
11 Lake, the township supervisor has performed numerous inspections and
has verified that upgrades have been made. The particular section of
the Draft EIS to which the comment was directed (3.2.2.5.2.) is in the
context of constraints to new residential development.
C. Presently there are no waste treatment facilities for disposal of
12 holding tank and septic tank wastes. These wastes are presently
disposed of by land application on sites with limited capacity. These
wastes can cause public health problems if not disposed of properly.
Disposal of these wastes in the winter is extremely difficult if not
impractical because of difficulties in getting access to the tanks on
the homeowner's property, and because the soils are frozen at the land
application sites. [Hippensteel, Maager]
What are the public health consequences of collection and disposal of
holding tank wastes? [Dr. J. F. Smith]
R. Current septage disposal practices include land disposal on sites and
12 with methods approved by CCHD sanitarians and disposal at the Dowagiac
WWTP for some septage, as described in Section 2.1.5. of the Draft
EIS. Septage and holding tank wastes can be disposed of on land in a
manner that will not have an adverse impact on public health. Current
winter disposal practices are also discussed in Section 2.1.5. of the
Draft EIS.
5-6
-------
The advantages and disadvantages of disposal of septage and holding
tank wastes by land application, including the public health conse-
quences are discussed in Section 2.2.2.8 of the Draft EIS. The die-
off of pathogens in septage which is surface-spread is quicker than
that of pathogens in septage injected into the soil. In septage
incorporated into the top 3 inches of the soil, generally 99% of all
pathogens will die off within one month (Brown and White 1977).
Land application of septage and blackwater holding tank wastes in the
winter can pose problems as discussed in Section 2.2.2.8. of the Draft
EIS. However, the operation and maintenance of the on-site systems
can be managed to minimize the number of systems that would require
winter pumping. The only systems that absolutely require winter
pumping are the blackwater holding tanks for permanent residents,
which require pumping about once a month (see response to comment 13
for discussion of blackwater holding tank waste volume). Alternative
9 includes an estimated 73 holding tanks for permanent residents.
Alternative 10 includes an estimated 42 holding tanks for permanent
residences. These wastes could be treated at the Dowagiac treatment
plant when land access is not feasible.
C. The 3000 gallon holding tanks proposed for seasonal residents would be
13 inadequate if the residence became permanent. A permanent family of 4
(not including visitors) would have to pump their holding tank every
10 days (3000 gal tank/300 gal/day = 10 days) at a total annual cost
of $7,655 ($70/1000 gal). [Hippensteel, Maager]
R. The holding tanks proposed under the decentralized alternatives are
13 for blackwater (toilet wastes) only. Included in these alternatives
are costs for low-flow toilets (2.5 gal flush in Alternative 9 and 0.8
gal flush in Alternative 10). The estimated average daily flow is 30
gpd for Alternative 9 and 10 gpd for Alternative 10. The holding tank
would require pumping approximately once each month under Alternative
9 and once every 3 months under Alternative 10.
Experience in Westboro, Wisconsin indicates that considerable savings
(less than $20 per pumping) are possible when a central management
agency arranges for a series of tanks to be pumped at once. The costs
utilized in the cost effectiveness analysis were $40 per pumping.
Thus, a reasonable cost of pumping the blackwater holding tanks per
year would be:
Seasonal Occupancy Permanent Occupancy
Alternative 9 $120 $360
Alternative 10 40 120
Research that USEPA has sponsored concluded that the existing septic
tank and soil absorption system has a reasonable chance of operating
satisfactorily when the toilet waste load and volume are removed from
the primary system. In addition, the contribution of phosphorus to
the lake is likely to be reduced by a greater than proportional extent
because the opportunity for adsorption and precipitation reactions are
significantly increased. Severe water conservation efforts are re-
quired with these systems for them to operate satisfactorily.
5-7
-------
The number of blackwater holding tanks estimated for Alternative 9 are
73 and for Alternative 10 are 42. The total annual cost for pumping
and disposing of holding tank wastes under each of the alternatives is
reasonable. The cost to an individual homeowner might be high if the
household size were large and he were to bear the entire cost alone.
C. There are few, if any, 400 sf drain beds that can function for 20
14 years. CCHD experience indicates that 1000 sf drain beds are required
to achieve a 20 year life under optimum site conditions. This fact
could double the construction cost of drain beds for upgrading on-site
systems. [Hippensteel, Maager]
R. Residences that do not implement water conservation practices and have
14 the full complement of water using appliances would likely require a
drain bed larger than 400 sf. New systems should be designed using
the Sanitary Code. For most replacement systems the parcel sizes are
inadequate for full-size systems. Therefore, water conservation would
be required for systems to operate properly. Based on reported fail-
ures, these smaller sized drain beds (400 sf) with water conservation
would continue to function satisfactorily through the project period.
Because the majority of on-site systems would be replacement systems,
the 400 sf drain bed costs were utilized as typical.
Research elsewhere (Hill and Frink 1980; Saxton and Zeneski 1979)
indicates that on-site systems experience failure according to a
typical "half-life" pattern, if the systems survive the initial five-
year period. Initial failures are not particularly numerous within
the project area. The research indicates that a half-life of at least
30 years (one-half would fail within 30 years) is typical for those
systems that survive the initial five-year period. Thus, where water
conservation is practiced and regular maintenance is performed, ap-
proximately two-thirds of systems constructed now would be expected to
function for 20 years.
The final design for any on-site upgrade or new system would include
evaluation of the site conditions and waste flow generation projection
and the system would be designed accordingly.
C. A number of comments were made concerning frustration with the pre-
15 sent limitations on water use necessitated by problems with existing
on-site systems. Water use limitations include limited toilet flush-
ing, shower use, and bath use; and the inability to install washing
machines for clothes or dishes. [Hoover, Haley, D. Smith]
R. An alternative that calls for upgrades of existing on-site systems
15 could be designed to correct deficiencies that result in backups, slow
drainage, and ponding. However, in any design for on-site wastewater
treatment, flow reduction is desirable especially in areas of limited
hydraulic treatment capacity. If the small waste flows management
district were implemented as is recommended in this EIS, on-site
systems would be designed on the basis of the assimilative capacity of
hydrogeologic conditions on a lot by lot basis. This EIS contends
that, if these systems are properly operated and maintained, the
system will not present water pollution or public health problems.
5-1
-------
Homeowners may have to make concessions to local environmental condi-
tions however. Residents may have to forgo some water-using appli-
ances such as top-loading clothes washers or garbage grinders and use
water conserving low flush toilets and front loading washing machines.
These limitations should not preclude a fairly normal water use pat-
tern in the study area residences.
C. Several comments were directed at the inadequacies of the existing on-
16 site systems installed many years ago on very small lots and that up-
grading systems will not meet code requirements. [Miller, Marie Huff]
R. Many of the existing on-site systems were installed prior to the en-
16 actment of sanitary codes which require that adequate lot size and
technology be adhered to. However, significant numbers of these
systems are still operative and causing no apparent problems. Where
problems have been identified, the EIS has recommended 2 different
methods of resolution. Where the number of problems and housing
density indicate a cost-effective approach, wastewater collection and
treatment at a cluster drainfield is the proposed alternative. Where
housing density is low or the incidence of problems are scattered,
residences with severe site limitations can be accommodated by employ-
ing holding tanks for blackwater waste flows and a modified septic
tank soil absorption system for a reduced graywater flow.
While severe site limitations may render compliance with sanitary
codes infeasible in nearly all cases, there is sufficient information
on the condition and effects of the existing systems and the per-
formance of graywater/blackwater separation to predict that the use of
on-site technology will be practicable for many years to come. This
EIS does not propose sub-code technology for new dwelling units.
State and local health authorities may exercise whatever constraints
are legal in order to minimize the somewhat unpredictable public
health problems resulting from onsite systems failure in new systems.
This EIS contends that the risk of employing alternative forms of
technology when weighed against the cost of building sewers is within
acceptable limits and presents a cost-effective environmentally sound
alternative.
C. Presently, some systems around Indian Lake cannot be used on an annual
17 basis because they overflow, even if they are pumped three times
annually. The pumping requirement also means that operation and
maintenance costs for septic tank systems are higher than those used
in development of the decentralized alternatives in the Draft EIS.
The actual cost for these residences is about $200 per year. [D.
Smith]
R. The alternatives proposed in the EIS would improve existing on-site
17 systems or collect wastewater for off-site treatment. No residences
are expected to have septic tanks that would require frequent pumping.
An extensive range of technologies are available for a management
agency to employ in upgrading on-site systems.
Out of 125 sanitary surveys, one resident reported that the septic
tank is pumped seasonally and the average was 3 years, typical for
5-9
-------
permanent residences. Experience elsewhere (Personal interview, Rich-
ard J. Otis, Univ. of Wisconsin to WAPORA, 20 November 1980) indicates
that a management agency can contract septic tank pumping services at
much below the standard rates when a number are pumped at once.
C. Why do we need to build a treatment plant for Dowagiac? [Scherer]
18
R. No additional treatment capacity is proposed for Dowagiac in any of
18 the alternatives presented in the EIS. Two of the alternatives would
utilize existing excess capacity at the Dowagiac WWTP. The costs pre-
sented for treatment for these alternatives are based on user charges
and other fees specified by the City of Dowagiac in a letter dated 19
January 1982 (Appendix 0 of the Draft EIS).
C. There are obvious, logical, and cost-effective solutions to wastewater
19 management problems in the study area not reflected in the Draft EIS.
[Hippensteel, Maager]
Based on our knowledge, Pipestone Lake is well suited to Alternative
8A or 8B, Indian Lake to Alternative 6 and the Sister Lakes to com-
binations of 8A, 8B, and 9 (with no holding tanks). [Smith and Sage,
Elliott]
R. In the Final EIS another alternative (Alternative 10) was developed
19 based on the field work completed since the Draft EIS was published.
This alternative includes upgraded on-site systems in most areas,
blackwater holding tanks for some systems with critical site limita-
tions, and cluster systems for some critical areas. This alternative
is a combination of Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 9. The areas where clus-
ter systems are proposed are shown in Figure 2-18.
The costs of the alternatives that include Indian Lake by itself are
presented in Table 2-11. The ranking of the alternatives for Indian
Lake alone is similar to the ranking for the alternatives for the
entire study area.
C. Many of the procedures suggested for wastewater management in the
20 Draft EIS are against the environmental laws of the State of Michigan.
[Dr. J. Smith]
R. The design approach and regulations utilized in preparing this EIS are
20 those of USEPA and may not be in strict compliance with local codes or
laws of the State of Michigan. For new systems, compliance with all
codes and laws is recommended. Comment 4 contains a discussion of the
non-degradation of groundwater policy of the Michigan Water Resources
Commission. The implementation of decentralized alternatives (includ-
ing cluster systems and on-site upgrades) under Michigan Law are
discussed in Section 2.5.1.3. of the Draft EIS: Michigan Statutes
Section 123.241 et jseq. and 232.73 et seq. have been interpreted as
providing counties, townships, villages, and cities with sufficient
powers to manage decentralized facilities (Otis and Stewart 1976).
5-10
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
C. The Draft E1S does not provide a clear understanding of the environ-
21 mental impacts of each specific alternative so the least damaging
alternative can be identified. [S. M. Huff]
R. The project alternatives are each composed of different combinations
21 of several components including centralized collection, WWTPs, cluster
drainfields, and onsite system upgrades. The environmental impacts of
each component are similar for each project alternative. To simplify
the discussion, the environmental impacts are discussed on a component
basis in Chapter 4. In the Draft EIS, environmental impacts are pre-
sented on a project alternative basis in Table 4-1. Project alter-
natives are grouped together for discussion where the differences
between them are not significant on an environmental impact basis.
C. The EIS should include more information relating to mitigation of wet-
22 land impacts. Detailed information should be provided describing lo-
cation and size of wetlands possibly affected by various alternatives,
and on how Executive Orders 11990 and 11988 will be complied with.
[S.M. Huff]
R. Wetlands in the Indian Lake-Sister Lakes study area are described in
22 Section 3.1.6. based on interpretation of 1979 aerial photography. In
the absence of data from either the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources or the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inven-
tory, this is the best information available. Primary and secondary
impacts are discussed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. Primary impacts could
occur as a result of implementation of a centralized wastewater man-
agement alternative. Detrimental impacts would result from pipeline
construction activities in or bordering on wetlands and concomitant
filling activities. The preferred approach under EIS Alternative 10
would have minimal impacts on areas in proximity to wetlands as on-
site technology for new dwelling units would not be permitted in areas
with a very high water table. Thus, the EIS would severely limit any
Federal action resulting in adverse impacts on wetland areas.
C. The discussion of mitigative measures for erosion presented in the
23 Draft EIS should be considered as general guidelines from which speci-
fic requirements could be derived. If these are, in fact require-
ments, it is recommended that the word must replace the word should in
the discus son. It is also recommended that some mechanism such as a
performance bond be added to assure compliance. [S. M. Huff]
The necessary steps to revegetate areas of potential erosion hazards
exposed during construction should be taken as soon as possible to
control erosion and maintain water quality. [Hilner]
R. The EIS presents general mitigative measures to prevent erosion during
23 construction of any of the project alternatives. The potential for
erosion is greatest for the project alternatives including primarily
centralized collection and treatment because the total excavation is
the greatest for these alternatives. However, site, soil and design
considerations do not warrant special mitigative measures for any one
5-11
-------
alternative. Therefore, the soil erosion regulations required by
USEPA for construction grants projects, and the regulations of the
State of Michigan as adopted and implemented by the counties will be
sufficient to mitigate potential adverse impacts from any project
alternative. The responsibility for implementation of the mitigative
measures lies with the designer and the regulatory agencies.
C. The common name of the mollusk jipioblasma sulcata delicata has been
24 mistakenly referred to as white cat's eye. The correct common name is
white cat's paw. [S. M. Huff]
R. Comment noted. Reference to the mollusk is deleted from the Final EIS
24 because it has not been identified within the study area.
C. More information should be included on the 14 historical structures
25 noted in the EIS. [Eckert]
R. None of the 14 historical structures would be affected by implementa-
25 tion of the alternatives; therefore, no additional information is
deemed necessary to evaluate mitigative measures.
LAND USE
C. Sand and gravel deposits and associated mining are important resources
26 of the study area. This EIS should delineate areas where known de-
posits occur and describe what effects, if any, project implementation
will have on mineral resources. [S. M. Huff]
R. Comment noted. The discussion of sand and gravel resources presented
26 in Section 3.1.2.1.2. of the Draft EIS has been revised in the Final
EIS.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
C. Will user fees be charged on the basis of a percentage of income?
27 User fees can have a greater economic impact on retired persons on a
pension than on an employed person. [Johnstone]
R. User fees will be charged based on the costs to construct and operate
27 the wastewater management system, and will not be based on the income
of the residents (unless special provisions are made by local author-
ities) . One of the impacts evaluated in the EIS was the economic
impact on the residents. The impact was evaluated based on Federal
guidelines concerning the acceptable range of user costs as a percent-
age of household income.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
C. Several comments discussed dissatisfaction with the public participa-
28 tion activity prior to the publication of the Draft EIS. The Citi-
zen's Advisory Committee was organized rather late in the process and
no USEPA staff was available to meet with the group to discuss various
aspects of the study. [Eliott, Smith and Sage]
5-12
-------
R. Several meetings with local planning officials were conducted by both
28 USEPA and the EIS consultant. These were conducted early in the EIS
process and considerable input from local officials was used in pre-
paring the EIS. Preliminary copies of portions of the documents were
also sent to the local officials for their review and comments and
those comments were included in subsequent drafts. While the inten-
tion from the beginning was to assemble a Citizens Advisory Committee,
schedule and budget considerations hindered regular attendance by
UStPA staff.
THE EIS PROCESS
C. A number of commentors expressed concern that the cost of prepara-
29 tion of the EIS was too high and that the facilities planning process,
including preparation of the EIS, took too long. [Elliott, Smith and
Sage, Benton, Rodebush, Dr. J. Smith, Steiding]
R. An EIS is, by regulation, more detailed than a Facilities Plan and,
29 for that reason, is more costly and more time consuming. The process
was complicated by coordination between the Facilities Planner, USEPA,
and the EIS contractor. Reference to the project schedule milestones
are in Chapter 1.
The EIS process is dependent on obtaining as much documented data as
it is feasible to obtain. Therefore, data-gathering efforts dominated
the EIS process. Planning, preparing for, conducting, and analyzing
field work was time-consuming and results from some field work were
inconclusive so that more were required, for example, for lake water
quality analyses. One of the objectives of the EIS was to assemble
sufficient information so that the data and conclusions would have
application beyond the facilities planning area.
5-13
-------
6.0. LITERATURE CITED
Arthur, J.W., and others. 1975. Comparative toxicity of sewage -
effluent disinfection to freshwater aquatic life. Water Pollution
Control Research Service, USEPA, Washington DC.
Ayensu, E.S., and R.A. De Filipps. 1978. Endangered and threatened
plants of the United States. Smithsonian Institution, Washington
DC, 403 p.
Banks, John C. 1977. A limnological study of Pipestone Lake, Berrien
County, Michigan. Presented in partial fulfillment of the require-
ments for the course Biology 466, Limnology, Andrews University,
Berrien Springs MI, 19 p.
Berrien County Health Department. 1971. Pipestone Lake report. St.
Joseph MI, unpaginated.
Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner
Press, New York NY, 596 p.
Brown, D.V., and R.K. White. 1977. Septage disposal alternatives in
rural areas. Research bulletin 1096. Ohio Agricultural Research
and Development Center, Wooster OH, 11 p.
Cass County Health Department. 1970. Indian Lake survey. Cassopolis
MI, 7 p.
Claspy, E. 1966. The Pottowatomi Indians of southwestern Michigan.
Dowagiac MI.
Cooley, M.F. 1979. Selected animal distribution maps. Wildlife Divi-
sion, MDNR, Lansing MI, 40 p. mimeo.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifi-
cation of wetlands and deep water habitats of the United States.
FWS/CGS-79/31. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington DC, 103 p.
Demirjian, Y.A. 1975. Muskegon County wastewater management system.
Prepared for Design Seminar for Land Treatment of Municipal Waste-
water Effluents sponsored by USEPA Technology Transfer Program.
Muskegon MI, 91 p.
Dillon, P.J., and F.H. Rigler. 1975. A simple method for predicting the
capacity of a lake for development based on lake trophic status.
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32: 1519-1531.
E.A. Hickok and Associates. 1978. Effects of wastewater stabilization
pond seepage on groundwater quality. Prepared for the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. Wayzata MN, variously paged.
Ellis, B.C., and A.E. Erickson. 1969. Movement and transformation of
various phosphorus compounds in soils. Soil Science Department,
Michigan State University and Michigan Water Resources Commission,
East Lansing MI, 35 p.
6-1
-------
Ellis, B.C., L.W. Jacobs, J.E. Hook, and D.L. Mokma. 1978. Technical
handbook for septic drainfield installation. Prepared for South-
central Michigan Planning Council. Nazareth Ml. Department of
Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI,
27 p.
Ellis, F. 1880. history of Berrien and Van Buren Counties, Michigan.
D. W. Ensign and Co., Philadelphia PA.
Enfield, C.G. 1978. Evaluation of phosphorus models for prediction of
percolate water quality in land treatment. In; McKim, Harlan L.
(Coordinator), State of Knowledge in land treatment of wastewater,
vol. 1. US Army COE Cold Regions Research and Engineering Labora-
tory, Hanover NH, 436 p. (p. 153-162).
Enfield, Carl G., and Bert E. Bledsoe. 1975. Kinetic model for ortho-
phosphate reactions in mineral soils. EPA 660/2-75-022. USEPA
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada OK, 61 p.
Federal Water Quality Administration. 1970. Federal guidelines for
design, operation, and maintenance of wastewater treatment facili-
ties. US Department of the Interior, Washington DC, 29 p.
Ferris State College. 1972. Pipestone Lake survey as evaluated by
Ferris State College students. Big Rapids MI, unpaginated.
Giroux, P.R., G.E. Hendrickson, L.E. Stoimenoff, and G.W. Whetstone.
1972. Water resources of Van Buren County, Michigan. US Geological
Survey Water Investigation 3, 144 p.
Gove Associates, Inc. 1977. Facilities Plan for Indian - Sisters Lakes
area. Kalamazoo MI, variously paged.
Gove Associates, Inc. 1978a. Sanitary survey questionnaire. Kalamazoo
MI, 2 p.
Gove Associates, Inc. 1978b. Sanitary survey questionnaire analysis.
Kalamazoo MI, 1 sheet.
Gove Associates, Inc. 1980. Facilities planning document Cost-effec-
tiveness analysis for Indian-Sisters Lakes area. Kalamazoo MI,
variously paged.
Hartig, J. H. , and F. J. Horvath. 1982. A preliminary assessment of
Michigan's phosphorus detergent ban. Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation 54(2): 194-197.
Hickey, J.L.S., and P.C. Reist. 1975. Health significance of airborne
microorganisms from wastewater treatment processes. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 47.
Hill, D.E., and C.R. Frink. 1980. Septic system longevity increased by
improved design. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation,
Vol. 52 No. 8 (p. 2199-2203).
6-2
-------
Jones, R.A., and G.F. Lee. 1977. Septic tank disposal systems as phos-
phorus sources for surface waters. EPA 600/3-77-129. Robert S.
Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada OK.
K-V Associates, Inc. 1980. Septic leachate survey Indian Lake - Sister
Lakes, October 1979. Falmouth MA, 49 p. plus one appendix.
Kenoyer, L.A. 1930. Ecological notes on Kalamazoo County, Michigan,
based on the original land survey. Papers of the Michigan Academy
of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 11:211-218.
Lance, J.C. 1978. Fate of bacteria and viruses in sewage applied to
soils. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engi-
neers 21: 114.
Louden, T.L., and Larry Fay. 1982. Water quality from drains around
septic systems. ASAE Paper No. 82-2558. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph MI, 18 p.
Marsh, W.M., and T. E. Borton. 1974. Michigan inland lakes and their
watersheds - an atlas. Prepared for the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources. Environmental and Urban Planning Services, Ann
Arbor MI, 166 p.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1971. Staff Report - Indian
Lake, Silver Creek Township, Cass County. Water Resources Commis-
sion, Grand Rapids MI, 2 p.
Michigan Department ot Natural Resources. 1972. Pipestone Lake survey.
Water Resources Commission, Grand Rapids MI, 5 p.
Michigan Department oE Natural Resources. 1973. General Rules, Part 4,
water quality standards. Water Resources Commission, Grand Rapids
MI, 17 p.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1975a. Designated trout
streams for the State of Michigan. Lansing MI.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1975b. Inland lake self-help
program annual report, 1974. Inland Lake Management Unit, Land
Resource Programs Division, Lansing MI.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1976a. Coldwater lakes of
Michigan. Fisheries Division, Lansing MI. 36 p.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1976b. Inland lake self-help
program annual report, 1975. Inland Lake Management Unit, Land Re-
source Programs Division, Lansing MI.
Michigan Department oE Natural Resources. 1977a. Air quality report.
Air Quality Division, Lansing MI, 49 p. plus 6 appendixes.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1977b. Inland lake self-help
program annual report, 1976. Inland Lake Management Unit, Land
Resource Programs Division, Lansing MI, 31 p.
6-3
-------
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1978a. Inland lake self-help
program annual report, 1977. Inland Lake Management Unit, Land
Resource Programs Division, Lansing MI, 34 p.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1978b. STORE! polygon re-
trieval data - Pipestone Creek at River Rd. , Berrien County, and
Dowagiac River at M-62, 1967-1971, Environmental Services Div.,
Special Studies Section, Lansing MI.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1980. Endangered and
threatened species. Fisheries and Wildlife Divisions, Lansing MI,
8 p.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1981. Proposed water quality
standards, to amend Act 245, Part 4 of Michigan Water Resources
Commission Act. Lansing MI.
Moak, L.L., and A.M. Hillhouse. 1975. Concepts and practices in local
government finance. Municipal Finance Officers Association of the
US and Canada, Chicago IL.
National Biocentric, Inc. 1978. Southwestern Michigan inland lake
watershed study. Prepared for the Southwestern Michigan Regional
Planning Commission. St. Paul MN, variously paged plus appen-
d ixe s.
Otis R.J., and D.E. Stewart. 1976. Alternative wastewater facilities
for small unsewered communities in rural America. Annual report to
the Upper treat Lakes Region Commission.
Saxton, G.B., and J.M. Zeneski. 1979. Prediction of septic system
failures. Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers. EE3 (p. 503-509).
Scalf, M.R., W.J. Dunlap, and J. F. Kriessl. 1977. Environmental ef-
fects of septic tank systems. EPA 600/3-77-096. Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada OK. 35 p.
Shipman, W.L. 1977. Letter, Wayne L. Shipman, Berrien County Health
Department to James R. Squire, Gove Associates, Inc., 22 June 1977.
Smith, V.H., and J. Shapiro. 1981. Chlorophyll - phosphorus relations
in individual lakes. Their importance to lake restoration strate-
gies. Environmental Science and Technology 15: 444-451.
Snow, G.E. 1976. A limnological study of Dewey Lake, Cass County,
Michigan. Prepared for: Dewey Lake Owners' Association, Inc.,
Dowagiac MI, 22 p.
Soil Conservation Service. 1980a. Prime farmland map units in Michigan.
Prepared by State Soil Survey Staff and cooperating agencies, 15 p.
Soil Conservation Service. 1980b. Soil survey of Berrien County Mich-
igan. Prepared in cooperation with the Michigan Agricultural
Experiment Station. US Department of Agriculture.
6-4
-------
Southwestern Michigan Regional Planning Commission. 1978. 208 area-
wide waste treatment management plan. Appendix B. Population and
land use/cover - existing and future conditions. Prepared by SMRPC
in cooperation with Lawson-Fisher Associates and Thomas Sinn and
Associates. St. Joseph MI, variously paged plus attachments.
TenEch Environmental Engineers, Inc. 1980. A stream monitoring survey
of three watersheds located in Cass, Van Buren and Berrien Coun-
ties. Prepared for Southwestern Michigan Regional Planning Commis-
sion. South Bend IN, variously paged.
Terwilliger, F.W. 1954. The glacial geology and groundwater resources
of Van Buren County, Michigan. Michigan Geological Survey Divi-
sion, Michigan Department of Conservation, Lansing MI, 94 p.
Transeau, L.N. 1936. The prairie peninsula. Ecology, Vol. 16 (p.
423 -427).
Tsai, C. 1973. Water quality and fish life below sewage outfalls.
Transactions of American Fisheries Society 102 (281).
Urie, Dean h. 1979. Nutrient recycling under forests treated with
sewage effluents and sludge in Michigan. In; Sopper, William E.
and Sonja N. Kerr (Editors), Utilization of municipal sewage efflu-
ent and sludge on forest and disturbed land. The Pennsylvania
State University Press, University Park PA, 537 p. (p.7-17).
Urie, Dean H., John H. Cooley, and Alfred Ray Harris. 1978. Irrigation
of forest plantations with sewage lagoon effluents. _In_: McKim,
Harlan L. (Coordinator), State of knowledge in land treatment of
wastewater, vol. 2. US Army COE Cold Regions Research and Engi-
neering Laboratory, Hanover NH, 423 p. (p.207-213).
US Bureau of the Census. 1952. US census of population: 1950, volume
II, part 22, Michigan. US Government Printing Office, Washington
DC, 248 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1963. US census of population: 1960, volume I,
characteristics of population, part 24, Michigan. US Government
Printing Office, Washington DC, 675 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1973. Census of the population: 1970, volume I,
characteristics of the population, part 24, Michigan. US Government
Printing Office, Washington DC, 1,399 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1979. 1976 population estimates and 1975 and
revised 1974 per capita income estimates for counties, incorporated
places, and selected minor civil divisions in Michigan. Series
P-25, No. 761. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 39 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1982. 1980 Census of Population. Characteris-
tics of the population: number of inhabitants (final report), part
24, Michigan. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 74 p.
6-5
-------
USEPA. 1974. National Lutrophication Survey, working paper no. 1.
Corvallis OR, variously paged.
USEPA. 1976. Quality criteria for water. Office of Water and Hazardous
Materials. Washington DC, 255 p.
USEPA. 1977. Alternatives for small wastewater treatment systems,
on-site disposal/septage treatment and disposal. EPA 625/4-77-011.
Technology Transfer, Washington DC, 90 p.
USEPA, US Army Corps of Engineers, and US Department of Agriculture.
1977. Process design manual for land treatment of municipal waste-
water. EPA 625/1-77-008. Washington DC, variously paged.
USEPA. 1979. Aerial survey Indian-Sisters Lake Region, Michigan.
Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas NV, 95 p.
USEPA. 1980a. Design manual. On-site wastewater treatment and dis-
posal systems. Office of Research and Development, Municipal Envi-
ronmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati OH, 391 p.
USEPA. 1980b. Modeling phosphorus loading and lake response under
uncertainty: a manual and compilation of export coefficients. EPA
440/5-80-011. Clean Lakes Section, Washington DC.
USEPA. 1980c. Planning wastewater management facilities for small
communities. Prepared for USEPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, by Urban Systems Research Engineering, Inc., EPA 600/
8-80-030, Cincinnati OH, 141 p.
USEPA. 1981. Facilities planning 1981. Municipal wastewater treatment.
EPA 430/9-81-002. Office of Water Program Operations, Washington
DC, 116 p.
USEPA. 1982a. Construction Grants 82 (CG-82). EPA 430/9-81-020. Office
of Water Program Operations, Washington DC, 127 p. + appendicies.
USEPA. 1982b. Management of on-site and small community wastewater
systems. Prepared for USEPA Environmental Research Information
Center by Roy F. Weston, Inc. EPA 600/8-82-009 Cincinnati, OH, 223
P-
USEPA. 1983. Final-generic environmental impact statement for wastewater
management in rural lake areas. USEPA Region V, Water Division,
Chicago, IL, variously paged,.
US Geological Survey. 1980. Water resources data for Michigan: water
year 1979. Report MI-79-1, Lansing MI, 525 p.
Uttormark, P.D., and J.P. Wall. 1975. Lake classification for water
quality management. University of Wisconsin Water Resources Cen-
ter.
6-6
-------
Vollenweider, R.A. 1979. Input - output models with special reference
to the phosphorus loading concept in limnology. Schweiz. Z. Hydrol
37:53-83.
WAPORA, Inc. 1979. Affected environment preliminary draft chapter of
the Indian Lake - Sister Lakes environmental statement. Submitted
to USEPA, Region V, Chicago IL, variously paged.
WAPORA, Inc. 1981. Memorandum to Mr. Charles Quinlan, USEPA, Region V.
Revised population projections. Chicago IL.
Zevenboom, W., A.B. deVaate, and L.R. Mur. 1982. Assessment of factors
limiting growth rate of j)scillatoria agardhii in hypertrophic Lake
Wolderwizd, 1978, by use of physiological indicators. Limnology
and Oceanography 27:39-52.
6-7
-------
7.0. LIST OF PREPARERS
The Draft and Final Environmental Statements (DBS and FES) were pre-
pared by the Chicago Regional Office of WAPORA, Inc., under contract to
USEPA Region V. US EPA approved the DES and published it as the Draft EIS,
and hereby publish the FES as the Final EIS. USEPA, and WAPORA staff
involed in the preparation of the DES/DEIS and FES/FEIS during the past
five years include:
USEPA
Charles Quinlan III
Kathleen Schaub
WAPORA. Inc.
Robert France
Larry Olinger
John Johnson
E. Clark Boli
Gerard Kelly
J. P. Singh
Kenneth Dobbs
Gerald Lenssen
Ellen Renzas
Kathleen Brennan
Richard C. McKean
Rosetta Arrigo
Wlliam McClain
Anita C. Locke
Project Officer
Project Officer (former)
Project Administrator
Project Administrator
Project Administrator
Project Administrator
Project Administrator
Project Manager, Environmental
Engineer and Principal Author
Assistant Project Manager and
Principal Author
Project Engineer and Principal
Author
Socioeconomist and Editor
Biologist
Biologist
Biologist
Biologist
Botanist
7-1
-------
Gregg Larson Demographer
Andrew Freeman Demographer
Mirza Meghji Sr. Water Quality Scientist
Steve McComas Water Quality Scientist
Valerie Krejcie Graphics Specialist
Peter Woods Graphics Specialist
Phil Pekron Environmental Scientist
Kent Peterson Geologist
John Rist Engineer
Jan Saper Editor
Wendy Mouche1 Editor
Mary Bryant Production Specialist
Delores Jackson-Hope Production Specialist
Shirley Zingery Production Specialist
Ross Sweeny, Jr. Engineer
Ross Pilling, II Editor
In addition, several subcontractors and others assisted in the prepa-
ration of this document. These along with their areas of expertise, are
listed below:
Aerial Survey
Office of Research and Development
US EPA
Las Vegas NV
Septic Leachate Analysis
K-V Associates, Inc.
Falmouth MA
Richard Larson
Soil Scientist
Traverse City MI
7-2
-------
8.0. GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
Activated sludge process. A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
which a suspended microbiological culture is maintained inside an
aerated treatment basin. The microbial organisms oxidize the complex
organic matter in the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and energy.
Advanced secondary treatment. Wastewater treatment more stringent than
secondary treatment but not to advanced waste treatment levels.
Advanced waste treatment. Wastewater treatment to treatment levels that
provide for maximum monthly average BOD and SS concentrations less
than 10 ing/1 and/or total nitrogen removal of greater than 50% (total
nitrogen removal = TKN + nitrite and nitrate).
Aerated lagoon. In wastewater treatment, a pond, usually man-made, to
which oxygen is added mechanically for the purpose of decomposing
organic wastes to elemental forms.
Aeration. To circulate oxygen through a substance, as in wastewater treat-
ment, where it aids in purification.
Aerobic. Refers to life or processes that occur only in the presence of
oxygen.
Aerosol. A suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas.
Algae. Simple rootless plants that grow in bodies of water in relative
proportion to the amounts of nutrients available. Algal blooms, or
sudden growth spurts, can affect water quality adversely.
Algal bloom. A proliferation of algae on the surface of lakes, streams or
ponds. Algal blooms are stimulated by phosphate enrichment.
Alluvial. Pertaining to material that has been carried by a stream.
Ambient air. Any unconfined portion of the atmosphere: open air.
Ammonia-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of ammonia (NH ) that is produced
in nature when nitrogen-containing organic material is biologically
decomposed.
Anaerobic. Refers to life or processes that occur in the absence of ele-
mental or free oxygen.
Aquifer. A geologic stratum or unit that contains water and will allow it
to pass through. The water is stored in and travels through spaces
between rock grains in a sand or gravel aquifer, small or cavernous
openings formed by solution in a limestone aquifer, or fissures,
cracks, and rubble in harder rocks such as shale.
Artesian (adj.). Refers to groundwater in a confined aquifer that is under
sufficient pressure to have a piezometric level above the elevation of
the aquifer.
8-1
-------
Artesian well. A well that has a static water level higher than the water
table or free water surface. A well in which the static water level
is higher than the land surface is called a flowing artesian well.
Assessed valuation. The value of all taxable general property as deter-
mined by the municipal assessor of the Wisconsin Department of Reve-
nue .
Average annual equivalent cost. The expression of a non-uniform series of
expenditures as a uniform annual amount to simply calculation of
present worth.
Bar screen. In wastewater treatment, a screen that removes large float-
ing and suspended solids.
Base flow. The water in a stream channel that occurs typically during
rainless periods, when stream flow is maintained largely or entirely
by discharges of groundwater.
Bedrock. The solid rock beneath the soil.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). A bioassay-type procedure in which the
weight of oxygen utilized by microorganisms to oxidize and assimilate
the organic matter present per liter of water is determined. It is
common to note the number of days during which a test was conducted as
a subscript to the abbreviated name. For example, BOD indicates that
the results are based on a five-day long (120-hour) test. The BOD
value is a relative measure of the amount (load) of living and dead
oxidizable organic matter in water. A high demand may deplete the
supply of oxygen in the water, temporarily or for a prolonged time, to
the degree that many or all kinds of aquatic organisms are killed.
Determinations of BOD are useful in the evaluation of the impact of
wastewater on receiving waters.
Biota. The plants and animals of an area.
Chlorination. The application of chlorine to drinking water, sewage or
industrial waste for disinfection or oxidation of undesirable com-
pounds .
Clarifier. A settling tank where solids are mechanically removed from
waste water.
Coliform bacteria. Members of a large group of bacteria that flourish in
the feces and/or intestines of warm-blooded animals, including man.
Fecal coliform bacteria, particularly Escherichia coli (E. coli),
enter water mostly in fecal matter, such as sewage or feedlot runoff.
Coliforms apparently do not cause serious human diseases, but these
organisms are abundant in polluted waters and they are fairly easy to
detect. The abundance of coliforms in water, therefore, is used as an
index to the probability of the occurrence of such disease-producing
organisms (pathogens) as Salmonella, Shigella, and enteric viruses.
These pathogens are relatively difficult to detect.
3-2
-------
Collector sewer. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
limited number of individual properties and conduct it to a trunk
sewe r.
Community. The plants and animals in a particular area that are closely
related through food chains and other interactions.
Cultural resources. Fragile and nonrenewable sites, districts, buildings,
structures, or objects representative of our heritage. Cultural
resources are divided into three categories: historical, architec-
tural, or archaeological. Cultural resources of special significance
may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.
Detention time. The average time required for a volume of water to flow
through a basin.
Digestion. In wastewater treatment a closed tank, sometimes heated to 95°F
where sludge is subjected to intensified bacterial action.
Disinfection. Effective killing by chemical or physical processes of all
organisms capable of causing infectious disease. Chlorination is the
disinfection method commonly employed in sewage treatment processes.
Dissolved oxygen (DO). Oxygen gas (0 ) in water. It is utilized in res-
piration by fish and other aquatic organisms, and those organisms may
be injured or killed when the concentration is low. Because much
oxygen diffuses into water from the air, the concentration of DO is
greater, other conditions being equal, at sea level than at high
elevations, during periods of high atmospheric pressure than during
periods of low pressure, and when the water is turbulent (during
rainfall, in rapids, and waterfalls) rather than when it is placid.
Because cool water can absorb more oxygen than warm water, the con-
centration tends to be greater at low temperatures than at high tem-
peratures. Dissolved oxygen is depleted by the oxidation of organic
matter and of various inorganic chemicals. Should depletion be ex-
treme, the water may become anaerobic.
Effluent. Wastewater or other liquid, partially or completely treated, or
in its natural state, flowing out of a reservoir, basin, treatment
plant, or industrial treatment plant, or part thereof.
Endangered species. Any species of animal or plant that is in known danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range.
Epilimnion. Surface waters of a lake usually separated from the bottom
layers by oxygen levels or temperature stratification.
Eutrophic. Waters with an abundant supply of nutrients and hence a pro-
lific production of organic matter.
Eutrophication. The process of enrichment of a water body with nutrients.
8-3
-------
Eutrophic Lakes. Lakes that contain an abundant supply of nutrients and
plant life typically of nuisance levels.
Fauna. The total animal life of a particular geographic area or habitat.
Fecal coliform bacteria. See colifonn bacteria.
Flora. The total plant life of a particular geographic area or habitat.
Flowmeter. A gauge that indicates the quantity of water moving through a
conveyance conduit.
Force main. A pipe designed to carry wastewater under pressure from a
lift station.
Full equalized value. The value of all taxable general property as deter-
mined by the Michigan Department of Revenue. This value is determined
independently of the assessed value and reflects actual market value.
Glacial drift. Rock and soil material picked up and transported by a
glacier and deposited elsewhere.
Gravity sewer. A sewer in which wastewater flows naturally down-gradient
by gravity.
Gravity sewer system. A layout of below grade pipes in which the liquid
flows by gravity to collection point(s) within the system.
Grinder pump (GP). Pump designed to transfer raw household wastewater to a
higher elevation and distant location through a pressure pipe.
Groundwater. All interstitial water within soils and bedrock, especially
that part in the zone of saturation.
Groundwater runoff. Groundwater that is discharged into a stream channel
as spring or seepage water.
Holding tank. Enclosed tank, usually constructed of fiberglass, steel or
concrete, for the storage of wastewater prior to removal or disposal
at another location.
Hypolimnion. Relatively undisturbed waters of a lake bottom separated from
the surface layer by oxygen levels or temperature stratification.
Infiltration. The water entering a sewer system and service connections
from the ground through such means as, but not limited to, defective
pipes, pipe joints, improper connections, or manhole walls. Infiltra-
tion does not include, and is distinguished from, inflow.
Inflow. The water discharged into a wastewater collection system and
service connections from such sources as, but not limited to, roof
drains, cellars, yard and area drains, foundation drains, cooling
water discharges, drains from springs and swampy areas, manhole co-
vers, cross-connections from storm sewers and combined sewers, catch
8-4
-------
basins, surface runoff, street wash waters or drainage. Inflow does
not include, and is distinguished from, infiltration.
Influent. Water, wastewater, or other liquid flowing into a reservoir,
basin, or treatment facility, or any unit thereof.
Interceptor sewer. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
series of collection sewers and to convey it to a sewage treatment
plant.
Innovative technology. A technology whose use has not been widely tested
by experience and is not a variant of conventional biological or
physical/chemical treatment.
Land treatment. A method of treatment in which the soil, air, vegetation,
bacteria, and fungi are employed to remove pollutants from wastewater.
In its most simple form, the method includes three steps: (1) pre-
treatment to screen out large solids; (2) secondary treatment; (3)
application to cropland, pasture, or natural vegetation to allow
plants and soil microorganisms to remove additional pollutants.
Little of the applied water evaporates, and the remainder either
percolates to the water table, or runs off and is collected. The
water table may be artificially lowered by drain tiles or recovery
wells.
Leachate. Solution formed when water percolates through solid wastes, soil
or other materials and extracts soluble or suspendable substances from
the material.
Lift station. A facility in a collector sewer system, consisting of a
receiving chamber, pumping equipment, and associated drive and control
devices, that collects wastewater from a low-lying district at some
convenient point, from which it is lifted to another portion of the
collector system or to an interceptor sewer.
Limiting factor. A factor whose absence, or excessive concentration,
exerts some restraining influence upon a population.
Loam. The textural class name for soil having a moderate amount of sand,
silt, and clay. Loam soils contain 7 to 27% of clay, 28 to 50% of
silt, and less than 52% of sand.
Loess. Soil of wind-blown origin, predominantly silt and fine sand.
Macroinvertebrates. Invertebrates that are visible to the unaided eye
(those retained by a standard No. 30 sieve, which has 28 meshes per
inch or 0.595 mm openings); generally connotes bottom-dwelling aquatic
animals (benthos).
Macrophyte. A large (not microscopic) plant, usually in an aquatic ha-
bitat. They can be rooted, floating, or submerged plants.
Meltwater. Water that originates from the melting of snow or ice, usually
in association with prehistoric glaciation.
8-5
-------
Mesotrophic. Waters with a moderate supply of nutrients and no significant
production of organic matter.
Mesotrophic lake. Lakes of intermediate characteristics between oligotro-
phic and eutrophic. They contain a moderate supply of nutrients and
plant life.
Methemo&lobinemia. The presence of oxidized hemoglobin in the blood after
poisoning by chlorates, nitrates, ferricyanides, or various other
substances.
Milligram per liter (mg/1). A concentration of 1/1000 gram of a substance
in 1 liter of water. Because 1 liter of pure water weighs 1,000
grams, the concentration also can be stated as 1 ppm (part per mil-
lion, by weight). Used to measure and report the concentrations of
most substances that commonly occur in natural and polluted waters.
Moraine. A mound, ridge, or other distinctive accumulation of sediment
deposited by a glacier.
National Register of Historic Places. Official listing of the cultural
resources of. the Nation that are worthy of preservation. Listing on
the National Register makes property owners eligible to be considered
for Federal grants-in-aid for historic preservation through state
programs. Listing also provides protection through comment by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on the effect of Federally
financed, assisted, or licensed undertakings on historic properties.
Nitrate-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrate (NO ). It is the most
oxidized phase in the nitrogen cycle in nature and occurs in high
concentrations in the final stages of biological oxidation. It can
serve as a nutrient for the growth of algae and other aquatic plants.
Nitrite-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrite (NO ). It is an in-
termediate stage in the nitrogen cycle in nature. Nitrite normally is
found in low concentrations and represents a transient stage in the
biological oxidation of organic materials.
Nonpoint source. Any area, in contrast to a pipe or other structure, from
which pollutants flow into a body of water. Common pollutants from
nonpoint sources are sediments from construction sites and fertilizers
and sediments from agricultural soils.
Nutrients. Elements or compounds essential as raw materials for the growth
and development of an organism; e.g., carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and
phosphorus.
Oligotrophic. Waters with a small supply of nutrients and hence an insig-
nificant production of organic matter.
Oligotrophic lakes. Lakes that have a low supply of nutrients and contain
little organic matter. Such lakes are characterized by high water
transparency and high dissolved oxygen.
8-6
-------
Ordinance. A municipal or county regulation.
Outwash. Soil material carried by melt water from a glacier and deposited
beyond the marginal moraine.
Outwash plain. A plain formed by material deposited by melt water from a
glacier flowing over a more or less flat surface of large area.
Deposits of this origin are usually distinguishable from ordinary
river deposits by the fact that they often grade into moraines and
their constituents bear evidence of glacial origin. Also called
frontal apron.
Percolation. The downward movement of water through pore spaces or larger
voids in soil or rock to the water table.
pH. A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a material, liquid or solid.
pH is represented on a scale of 0 to 14 with 7 being a neutral state;
0, most acid; and 14, most alkaline.
Phosphorus. An essential food element that can contribute to the eutrophi-
cation of water bodies.
Photochemical oxidants. Secondary pollutants formed by the action of
sunlight on nitric oxides and hydrocarbons in the air; they are the
primary components of photochemical smog.
Piezometric level. An imaginary point that represents the static head of
groundwater and is defined by the level to which water will rise.
Plankton. Minute plants (phytoplankton) and animals (zooplankton) that
float or swim weakly in rivers, ponds, lakes, estuaries, or seas.
Point source. In regard to water, any pipe, ditch, channel, conduit,
tunnel, well, discrete operation, vessel or other floating craft, or
other confined and discrete conveyance from which a substance con-
sidered to be a pollutant is, or may be, discharged into a body of
water.
Present Worth. May be thought of as the sum, which if invested now at a
given rate, would provide exactly the funds required to make all
necessary expenditures during the life of the project.
Pressure sewer system. A wastewater collection system in which household
wastes are collected in the building drain and conveyed therein to the
pretreatment and/or pressurization facility. The system consists of
two major elements, the on-site or pressurization facility, and the
pressurized sewer main.
Primary treatment. The first stage in wastewater treatment, in which
substantially all floating or settleable solids are mechanically
removed by screening and sedimentation.
Prime farmland. Agricultural lands, designated Class I or II (occasionally
some Class III), having little or no limitations to profitable crop
production.
8-7
-------
Pumping station. A facility within a sewer system that pumps sewage or
effluent against the force of gravity through an enclosed conduit.
Runoff. Water from rain, snow melt, or irrigation that flows over the
ground surface and returns to streams. It can collect pollutants from
air or land and carry them to the receiving waters.
Sanitary sewer. Buried pipelines that carry only domestic or commercial
wastewater, not stormwater.
Screening. Use of screens to remove coarse floating and suspended solids
from sewage.
Secondary treatment. The second stage in the treatment of wastewater in
which bacteria are utilized to decompose the organic matter in sewage.
Effective secondary treatment processes remove virtually all floating
solids and settleable solids, as well as 90% of the BOD and suspended
solids. USEPA regulations define secondary treatment as 30 mg/1 BOD,
30 mg/1 SS, or 85% removal of these substances.
Seepage cells. Unlined wastewater lagoons designed so that all or part of
wastewater percolates into the underlying soil.
Septic Snooper. Trademark for the ENDECO (Environmental Devices Corpora-
tion) Type 2100 Septic Leachate Detector. This instrument consists of
an underwater probe, a water intake system, an analyzer control unit
and a graphic recorder. Water drawn through the instrument is con-
tinuously analyzed for specific fluorescence and conductivity. When
calibrated against typical effluents, the instrument can detect and
profile effluentlike substances and thereby locate septic tank lea-
chate or other sources of organic decomposition products entering
lakes and streams.
Septic tank. A buried tank used for the collection of domestic wastes.
Bacteria in the wastes decompose the organic matter, and the sludge
settles to the bottom. The effluent flows out to another treatment
and disposal facility. Sludge is pumped out at regular intervals.
Septic tank effluent pump (STEP). Pump designed to transfer settled ef-
fluent from a septic tank to a higher elevation through a pressure
pipe.
Septic tank-soil absorption system. A system of wastewater disposal in
which large solids are retained in a tank; fine solids and liquids are
dispersed into the surrounding soil by a system of pipes.
Settling tank. A holding area for wastewater, where heavier particles sink
to the bottom and the liquid decanted.
Shoaling. The bottom effect that influences the height of waves moving
from deep to shallow water.
Slope. The incline of the surface of the land. It is usually expressed as
a percent (%) of slope that is the elevation difference per 100 feet
of horizontal distance.
8-8
-------
Sludge. The accumulated solids that have been separated from liquids such
as wastewater.
Soil association. A group of soils geographically associated in a charac-
teristic repeating pattern and defined and delineated as a single map-
ping unit.
Soil textural class. The classification of soil material according to the
proportions of sand, silt, and clay. The principal textural classes
in soil, in increasing order of the amount of silt and clay, are as
follows: sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam, silt loam, sandy clay
loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, and clay.
These class names are modified to indicate the size of the sand frac-
tion or the presence of gravel, sandy loam, gravelly loam, stony clay,
and cobbly loam, and are used on detailed soil maps. These terms
apply only to individual soil horizons or to the surface layer of a
so il type.
Storm sewer. A conduit that collects and transports storm water runoff.
In many sewerage systems, storm sewers are separate from those carry-
ing sanitary or industrial wastewater.
Stratification. The condition of a lake, ocean, or other body of water
when the water column is divided into a relatively cold bottom layer
and a relatively warm surface layer, with a thin boundary layer (ther-
mocline) between them. Stratification generally occurs during the
summer and during periods of ice cover in the winter. Overturns, or
periods of mixing, occur in the spring and autumn. This condition is
most common in middle latitudes and is related to weather conditions,
basin morphology, and altitude.
Supernatant. The liquid that remains on the surface after the solids have
settled out in a wastewater treatment process.
Surface water. All waters on the earth's surface such as streams, lakes,
and oceans.
Suspended solids (SS). Small solid particles that contribute to turbidity.
The examination of suspended solids and the BOD test constitute the
two main determinations for water quality that are performed at waste-
water treatment facilities.
Threatened species. Any species of animal or plant that is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant part of its range.
Till,, Unsorted and unstratified drift, consisting of a heterogeneous
mixture of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders, that is deposited by and
underneath a glacier.
Trickling filter process. A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
which the biological growth is attached to a fixed medium, over which
wastewater is sprayed. The filter organisms biochemically oxidize the
complex organic matter in the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and
energy.
8-9
-------
Topography. The configuration of a surface area including its relief, or
relative elevations, and the position of its natural and manraade
features.
Trophic status. A measure of the productivity of a body of water typically
expressed as oligotrophic (least), mesotrophic, and eutrophic (great-
.-st) .
Trunk sewer. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
number of collector sewers and conduct it to an interceptor sewer or,
in some cases, to a sewage treatment plant.
Unique farmland. Land, other than prime farmland, that is used for the
production of specific high value food and fiber crops and that has
the special combination of soil quality, location, growing seasons,
and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high
quality and/or high yields of a specific crop under modern management.
Wastewater. Water carrying dissolved or suspended solids from homes,
farms, businesses, and industries.
Wastewater stabilization lagoon. In wastewater treatment, a shallow pond,
usually man-made, in which sunlight, algal and bacterial action and
oxygen interact to decompose the organics. Oxygen is added to the
water by natural air to water interchange.
Water quality. The relative condition of a body of water, as judged by
a comparison between contemporary values and certain more or less
objective standard values for biological, chemical, and/or physical
parameters. The standard values usually are based on a specific
series of intended uses, and may vary as the intended uses vary.
Water table. The upper level of groundwater that is not confined by an
upper impermeable layer and is under atmospheric pressure. The upper
surface of the substrate that is wholly saturated with groundwater.
Wetlands. Those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a
frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or
would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires
saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and
reproduction.
8-10
-------
9.0. INDEX
Aerial photographic survey, 2-4, 2-6, 2-14, 5-3
Agricultural lands:
conversion of, 2-65
impacts on, 4-4 - 4-5
See also Land uses
Air quality. See Atmosphere
Aquatic biota. _Se_e Wildlife, aquatic; Vegetation, aquatic
Archaeology. See Cultural resources
Architecture. See Cultural resources
Atmosphere:
impacts, 3-1, 4-2, 4-10 - 4-11
odors, 3-2, 4-11 - 4-12
Bainbridge Township, 1-1, 1-3
Berrien County, 1-1
Health Department, 1-3
Cable Lake:
Sanitary questionnaire, 2-7
impacts on, 4-17, 5-5
Cass County, ii, 1-1
Centralized alternatives:
costs, 2-40, 2-43 - 2-44, 2-45, 5-9
impacts of, 2-65 - 2-66, 4-15 - 4-20, 4-22, 4-24, 4-41
in Draft EIS, iii, 1-4 - 1-5
management of, 2-67
recommended action, x - xi, 2-71 - 2-72
summary of, iv - vi, 2-47 - 2-56, 2-57
Chlorination, 4-40
Cluster systems, 2-38 - 2-39
Construction Grants Program. See Funding, federal
Costs, 2-28
cost effectiveness analysis, 1-5
residential user, 4-28 - 4-31
summary for alternatives, vii, 2-50, 2-62 - 2-64
Crooked Lake:
characteristics, 3-11 - 3-12
groundwater near 2-4, 2-12, 3-20
9-1
-------
land use near, 3-45
sanitary questionnaire, 2-7
impacts on, 4-17
Cultural Resources:
archaeological surveys, 3-56 - 3-58
historic sites, 3-57 - 3-58, 4-9, 5-11
impacts on, 4-9, 4-39 - 4-40
Indian tribes, 3-55 - 3-56
Decentralized alternatives:
impacts of, 2-65, 4-15 - 4-20, 4-21
in Draft EIS, iii, 1-5
management of, 2-69 - 2-71
recommended action, x, 2-73, 5-10
summary, vi - vii, 2-56, 2-58 - 2-61
Dewey Lake :
characteristics, 3-11
groundwater plumes, 2-4
impacts on, 4-17
land use, 2-33, 3-42
limnological study, 1-3 - 1-4, 2-17, 3-13 - 3-15
sanitary questionnaire, 2-7
ic leachate, 2-19
Dowagiac Creek, 3-2, 3-11, 4-19
Dowagiac treatment plant, v, vi, 2-21, 3-11, 4-43, 5-9
Economics :
cost criteria, 2-29
impacts on, 4-8, 4-26, 4-28 - 4-32, 4-35, 5-12
also Costs
Employment, 3-49
unemployment, 3-50 - 3-51
impacts on, 4-7 - 4-8, 4-25 - 4-26
Energy:
sources, 3-55, 4-42
impacts on, 4-9, 4-27
Environmental Impact Statement:
issues, 1-9, 1-10
process, 5-12 - 5-L3
required, 1-4, 1-6
Eutcophication. jxee Water quality, trophic status
Facility Plan, 2-67
grant application, i, 5-5
preliminary draft, 1-4
9-2
-------
Farmers Home Administration, i, 2-63, 4-32
Fauna. See Wildlife
Funding:
Federal, 1-6, 1-8, 2-66 - 2-67
local, 1-7
project, 4-27
state, 1-7, 2-13, 2-66 - 2-67
_See_ also Finances
Geology, 3-2 - 3-4, 3-5
Groundwater, 3-21 - 3-22, 3-23
effluent plumes, 2-4 - 2-5
impacts on, 4-3, 4-21 - 4-24
non-degradation policy, 5-4
surveys, 2-12 - 2-13, 2-16 - 2-17, 3-20, 3-24 - 3-26
See also Appendic C
Historical resources. See Cultural resources
Impacts:
adverse, 4-35, 4-41
construction, vi, 2-63, 4-2 - 4-10
operation, viii, 4-10 - 4-27
public finance, 4-27
secondary, 4-31 - 4-35
Income, 3-50
Indian Lake, ii, 1-1 - 1-2
characteristics 3-7, 3-11 - 3-13
construction grants approval, 1-4
discharge permit, 2-32
impacts on, 4-17
limnological study, 3-13 - 3-15
on-site system problems, 2-4, 2-12, 2-14, 2-19, 3-20
sanitary surveys, 1-1, 2-7, 2-10, 2-19
separate system for, 2-73, 5-5
waste water loads, 2-26 - 2-27
Indian tribes. See Cultural resources
Keeler Lake 2-4, 2-15, 2-21
Lakes, 1-1
characteristics, 3-7, 3-12, 3-21, 3-27
water levels, 4-20
phosphorus loadings, 4-16
suspended solids, 5-5
wastewater load projections, 2-26 - 2-27
9-3
-------
Land application, 2-33 - 2-34, 4-4, 4-12 - 4-15
Land use, 3-42 - 3-44
development, 3-47 - 3-48, 5-10
impacts on, 4-5 - 4-6, 4-25, 4-33 - 4-34
Indian lands, 3-55 - 3-56
mining 3-4, 5-12
prime farmland, 3-45 - 3-46, 4-6 - 4-7, 4-33
recreation, 3-51 - 3-52
Magician Lake:
characteristics, 3-12 - 3-13
impacts on, 4-17
land use near, 3-45, 3-52
limnological study, 3-13 - 3-15
on-site system problems, 2-4, 2-7, 2-19, 3-30
Meteorology. See Atmosphere
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, ii, 1-3, 1-4
construction grants program, 1-7
effluent standards, 2-33, 2-39, 3-11, 5-4
effluent permits, 2-26, 2-28, 2-32
No Action Alternatives:
costs, 5-6
evaluation as recommended action, 2-71
impacts, viii, 2-65, 4-16, 4-19, 4-21 - 4-23
nutrient loadings, 4-15 - 4-16
Noise pollution, 3-1, 4-2
Notice of Intent, iii, 1-4
Odors. See Atmosphere
On-site systems, 1-1, 5-5
drainbed, 2-35, 2-37
dry well, 2-35 - 2-26
existing, 2-1 - 2-3
septic tank, 2-34
problems with, 1-1, 2-13 - 2-21, 2-61, 3-8, 3-9 - 3-10, 5-3 - 5-4, 5-9,
5-7, 5-8
septage disposal, 2-21, 2-26, 2-39 - 2-40, 5-6 - 5-7
Phosphorus:
ban on detergent, 2-30
groundwater 4-21 - 4-22
loadings, 3-15, 3-18 - 3-21, 4-16 - 4-17, 4-18
non-apatitic inorganic phosphorus, 3-13, 3-15 - 3-16
Pipestone Lake, 2-10 - 2-11
sorption, 4-13 - 4-14
9-4
-------
Pipestone Lake, ii
characteristics, 3-7, 3-11, 3-12, 3-27
impacts on, 4-17, 4-19
land use near, 3-45
limnological study, 2-17, 3-13 - 3-15
on-site system problems, 2-4, 2-10, 2-16, 2-18 - 2-19,
3-20
service area estimates, 3-33, 3-36
water quality, 1-3, 2-4, 2-10 - 2-11, 3-11, 3-19, 3-20
Population:
growth, 3-31 - 3-33, 3-34, 3-40
impacts on, 4-25, 4-32 - 4-33
projections, 3-38 - 3-42
service area estimates, 3-33 - 3-38
Property values, 3-52 - 3-53
Public hearings, iii, 5-12
Recommended Action, x, 2-73
selection of, 2-62, 2-71 - 2-73
Recreation and tourism, 3-51
impacts on, 4-8 - 4-9, 4-26, 4-34 - 4-35
Round Lake:
groundwater near, 2-4, 2-12, 2-13
land use near, 3-45, 3-52
impacts on, 4-17, 5-4 - 5-5
Sanitary surveys, 2-3, 2-22 - 2-25
aerial, 2-4 - 2-6
mailed questionnaire, 2-6 - 2-7, 2-8
septic leachate, 2-3, 2-16, 3-20
tacgetted, 2-11 - 2-12
See also Appendices A, B and E.
Septic tanks. See Wastewater treatment systems, on-site
Soils:
absorption systems, 2-38, 3-8 - 3-10
associations, 3-4 - 3-7
impacts, 4-2, 4-12 - 4-15, 4-37 - 4-38, 5-11
land application, 4-12
State funding. See Funding, state
Sister Lakes. See Lakes
Terrestrial vegetation. See Vegetation, terrestrial
9-5
-------
Tourism, jee Recreation and tourism
Transportation, 3-56, 4-9, 4-26 - 4-27, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38
Vegetation:
aquatic, 3-13, 3-14, 3-16
terrestrial, 3-29 - 3-30, 4-3 - 4-4, 4-25
threatened or endangered, 3-29 - 3-30, 4-36
Waste reduction, 2-30 - 2-31
Wastewater treatment systems. See On-site systems, Centralized alternatives,
Decentralized alternatives, and No Action alternative
Water quality:
coliform bacteria, 4-19
effluent limits, 1-8 - 1-9, 2-26 - 2-27, 2-32
impacts on, 2-65 - 2-66, 4-3, 4-33 - 4-34
nutrient enrichment, 2-17, 3-15-3-21, 4-15
surface, 2-15 - 2-17, 3-11
suspended solids, 4-19 - 4-20
trophic status, 3-15, 3-21, 4-15, 5-4
See also Groundwater, Phosphorus, and Lakes
Wetlands, 3-30
development contraints, 3-49
impacts on, 4-4 - 4-5, 4-6, 5-10 - 5-11
Wildlife:
aquatic 3-22, 3-27, 3-28, 4-34
terrestrial, 3-27, 3-29, 4-3 - 4-4, 4-25
threatened or endangered, 3-27, 3-29, 4-35
9-6
-------
APPENDIX A
SANITARY SURVEY
-------
Introduction
This survey was carried out upon request from USEPA to better define
project needs and develop more specific project alternatives (Contract No.
68-01-4612, DOW No. 12, Modification No. 80). This task became necessary
because existing data was inadequate to clearly demonstrate that Federal
involvement in a project is justified to mitigate a public health or water
quality problem. This data will supplement existing data so that the
project alternatives can be designed and costed in greater detail. The
field work commenced 28 October and was completed by 17 November 1982. It
was conducted by staff from WAPORA Inc. and USEPA. Well water chemistry
analyses were conducted by WAPORA, Inc. and fecal coliform tests by IHI-
Kemron, Inc.
Description of Survey Areas
The areas to be covered by the sanitary survey included those identi-
fied in the Draft EIS to be served by the cluster systems under Alterna-
tives 8A and 8B. Some surveys were conducted outside of these areas be-
cause too few residents could be located within these areas. The number of
surveys was based on a representative 15% sample of residences located
within the service areas. Problems with the on-site disposal systems were
anticipated, based on discussions with the Sanitarians, the soil maps, and
previous analyses of the project area. The needs documentation section
(Section 2.1. Draft or Final EIS) describes the analysis by which these
areas were selected for off-site treatment by cluster systems.
Survey Form and Procedure
The sanitary survey form used in the Indian Lake and Sister Lakes area
is appended to this document. The survey form requests information on the
folLowing:
Location, description, and ownership of property
Resident occupancy, household size, and duration of use
A-2
-------
Description and service history of onsite waste treatment
system
Description of water use appliances and patterns
Site characteristics and sketch of treatment system property
Description and location of the water well.
The residences were located on property maps prepared by Gove Associ-
ates, Inc. and were verified with the tax property descriptions. The
surveys were conducted between October 28 and November 17, 1982. Contact
was attempted at nearly every residence at least once. Some residences
were revisited if there was a reasonable chance of finding someone at home
at a later time. Generally, these survey areas were characterized by a
high percentage of seasonal residences so that most visits resulted in no
contacts.
Surveyors gave a brief introduction of their task and the survey
itself. Respondents were generally helpful in relating the necessary
information and showing the surveyors the location of the sanitary facil-
ities. Approximately 8 to 10 interviews were conducted per day.
In conjunction with the sanitary survey, well water samples were
collected for analysis of water quality parameters. Samples were analyzed
for coliform bacteria content and chemical constituents. Well water sample
locations were screened from information on the sanitary surveys. The
target wells were those with a depth of less than 40 feet and protected
from surface contamination. Samples were not drawn from systems with a
water softener.
The chemical analyses were conducted according to Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes, USEPA, 1979, Cincinnati OH. The respective
sections from that manual that detail the analyses are chlorine (325.3),
ammonia (350.3), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (351.2), nitrites and ni-
trates (353.3), and total phosphorus (365.3). The analysis for fecal
coliform was conducted according to the membrane filter technique described
in Section 909C of the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, APHA, 1980, Washington DC.
A-3
-------
Results and Discussion
The information from the sanitary surveys is summarized in Table A-l.
The locations of the surveys are shown in Figure A-l. A great deal of in-
formation was unavailable or was obscured by differences in terminology.
In numerous cases, the survey forms were not completely filled out because
the resident was not knowledgeable about the facilities.
Occupancy was noted for each residence. A structure was identified as
permanent if it was occupied more than 6 months of the year and seasonal if
occupied less than 6 months. Of the residences surveyed 99 are permanently
occupied and 20 are seasonally occupied (one was not asked). Based on
observations of the surveyors and discussions with neighbors, approximately
75% of the permanent residences in the target areas were surveyed. Some
areas, such as the leased properties on Indian Lake on the north and east
sides, residences were not surveyed because no one was present. A higher
percentage of residences surveyed around Upper Crooked Lake were seasonal
as compared to the other lakes. No readily apparent reason exists for this
difference.
The types of sewage disposal systems encountered were numerous (Table
A-l). The components encountered were septic tanks, grease traps, privies,
dry wells, block trenches, drain beds, raised drain beds, and tile lines.
These occurred in many combinations also. The most common, septic tank and
dry well, was encountered in 50 situations. The next most common system
was the septic tank and drain bed, found on 24 properties. A common system
encountered (19 systems) was the septic tank and dry well with another soil
absorption system added to it to increase capacity. Raised drain beds,
designed to overcome a high water table site limitations were encountered
in 12 instances, 7 required lift pumps.
Grease traps were common, especially around Pipestone Lake. Most of
these discharged to a soil absorption system independent of the one to
which the septic tank discharged. Separate systems for laundry washwater
were common also. It typically consisted of a tile line with or without a
grease trap. Because of the complexity of the waste disposal facilities,
A-4
-------
CM
OO
i-H
n
V-i
CU
^
O
3
^a
a
cfl
CU
Q
0
4-1
a
o
14-1
o
>,
a)
>
VJ
3
CO
E*.
SJ
n)
4-1
rl
C
rt
tn
0
o
&
<4-l
co
0
0)
4-1
cn
>>
CO
CU
4-1
H
CO
1
c
o
60
c
*pH
c
)-l
cu
0
c
o
o
n)
4-1
cfl
13
>1
J-l
3
CO
1 1
1
U
4-1
a.
0)
w
c
o
H
a
§
d
4-*
i-l
H
M
C
CO
4J
U
H
a
c
CO
*"*
w
a
cu
in
,_^
U-(
01
N
CO
4-1
3
4>
N
T-H
to
OI
N
H
ffi
C
£
o
0
^
t-l
+
a
CO
H
EO
M
-4
.-H
3
>p
+
^
C
«j
U
*H
4-»
OJ
w
c
<0
u
i
a
w
0
0
o
0
X
to
a
3
°
C
E-
C
QJ
>
a
o
.2
c
01
b
o
2
c
^
<0
I-l
T3
TJ
CU
e
n
TJ
o
°
c
H
(0
o
+
^H
AI
ki
TJ
+
0
g
0-
o
f>l
A
0
0
o
0
fM
0
8
s
V
1 (
CO
c
o
CO
«
c
i
Ui
a-
o
^j
CJO
Q
Ji
3
i-(OO m
CO
u
H
o
c
tNCOO'^'in4OOOOOr-(Of-jOCMOr». i-l
CN
4-1
e
i_i
O)
a
4)
j:
^
Ji
c
CO
U
H
*J
a.
4)
(0
CMOO O^H OOOO OOO ^H<-li-(O m
41
f
e
o
kl
U-J
CO
4)
a.
-H a.
c
to
u
13
^
01
^ *^. aj
^'r's cn cg°A ^O^HOO-H^HO"H^rO<- H
CN -H
o
J
o
c
B *C V
4) 3 O
WO --(
(-1 OI 4-1 t-l 00
in -H «j *o o. o> -H
4J 01 » 4) CO C
D. J= -C 3 ki O C
CU 4J CO O 4-1 -H
co co -H -a
C S -< 4t C -^ .*
U i-t O CO CO OJ C
to n c E t-i m to
3 3 *-! 4> OOJ=4J U
U H £ co co XC -i-i
ai 3 x oi -H a.
4) w I 0) CO X 01
00 CO O. CO *- CO to
CM < CO 4> O E 3 D
-i TJ -a o) .e
rtW-l-H-O tO 4-1 -^ 4J
> o to c x: to 01
C -H X^ -O
C 13 "H J^ X tO a)
(DC « C 5
B -H O -W -C -t-1 -H O
MJ4 C CO 4-1 CDCO1
0> X X tu <-i
i i o co e --i u-i
-t 3 0) 4) OJ 4-i
O X -B 4-» *B (0 CO
tO > -H CO -H ^ £
4) 01 -H £ CO 9
J3 T3 ^ O 4J O h
*-* -H a. c c 3
4-> -O O
^H^( rH^^H OC COaOCOtCJ*
CO *Q CO O O. 4-t
H tOJ= COX U5S O
T3 a> cu c c a.
oi o <-> u a) 4-< u -^
i X CdC*Ot3*O4-»i-<
O CU a)4)ft)i^Cl)iH»*-ti3
O 3 CT3-O(OT3X^-t
OJ tj O tOCQCQMCOI-lC
C C 01 0) 0) 01 « 41
O O <£ CO V^UI-iOlt-141'Q
C 4-» -H 0) 4> 4J T-l
to DO -a CD u oio>o>i-io>Mfoco
T3 &«3 X 00 OOoPoM4-»oi
M Cu ad U £ tOJ -G| O| "O | 4)| 4-< | OOJ
A-5
-------
^W rt« i7 RAMP
00 MAGICIAN LAKE
41 ^ & ""
43
Sanitary Survey Conducted
-48 Sanitary Survey & Well
Water Sample Conducted
.
^-~^j>i^V^ r~^j~^f°) r*\ /i >V^ZJt3 \%.JI/^ \vr-"- vio. . t/^*~^5aW! / "--*"-. --'
Figure A-1. Sanitary survey and well water sampling sites (October and November 1982).
A-6
-------
only the primary system was tabulated. Less than one-quarter of the resi-
dents reported the size of the septic tank and an even smaller proportion
reported the size of the soil absorption system (Table A-l).
The age of the system (Table A-2) is tabulated by the age of its
oldest reported part. Of the total of 120, 7 were less than 5 years, 15
were 5 to 10 years old, 29 were 11 to 20 years old, and 53 were greater
than 20 years old. Considering the fact that most shoreline cottages were
constructed prior to 1930, it is not unusual to have a high proportion of
the systems replaced. Also, most of the people surveyed are permanent
residents who have begun to occupy the residence year round only within the
last 15 years. Many of these people had thoroughly remodeled and expanded
their residence at which time the on-site system was replaced or upgraded.
A total of 39 systems have had major repairs of the soil absorption
system out of the 120 systems surveyed (Table A-2). The most common repair
has been the addition of a drain bed or drainfield (20). The next most
common repair has been the addition of 13 dry wells or block trenches.
Restoning of dry wells have been performed on 6 systems. The septic tank
has been replaced for 8 systems and pipes have been replaced or repaired on
16 systems. Many of these repairs appear to coincide with the change from
seasonal to permanent occupancy. Of these repairs, 3 are indicated as
occurring prior to 1970. Health department records indicate only 25 such
repairs. Thus, a number of repairs have been made without the benefit of
the design expertise of the sanitarians and so may be less than adequate.
No area appears to have a greater concentration of repairs than any other.
The survey included an attempt to assess how regularly the resident
pumped the septic tank (Table A-2). The results of this question are some-
what ambiguous because many residents reported when it had last been pumped
and did not indicate what the pumping frequency had been. A number did
report whether they pump regularly and for what reason. The number who
pump annually or have pumped within the last year totaled 28. The overall
average appears to be once every four years, a reasonable rate considering
the numerous 500 and 750 gallon septic tanks. The number of residents who
A-7
-------
IN
00
ON
M
0)
I
o
cfl
01
,0
O
W
O
O
M-l
O
0)
M
to
S*.
i-i
cd
4J
H
CO
S
0) C
u cd
en 60
>s -H
to ,n
a
0) -rl
fi
o
14-1
o
cu
J-J
CO
H
C/3
0) T3
P. C
O nJ
d
o
cd
4-1
cd
cd H
cd
H
>>T3
~> C
-4 3
0) ^H
4-1
« >>
4) tj
B! -O
1 -H ^ fsl O ^H f
e o
3 *J
S. It,
ooo oo
OOO .-*OOO|
ooo ^
OO-HfO OOO CMO.-JOI
OiH^ tS|Or-t,H|
I
O-HO O'NO'Hl
*J O
a. oj
w
o c
tn -H
£>
« r-t
3 1
!
^HO -HOO-
tHOOO|
I
Si
A-8
-------
pump the septic tank on a rotation of 1 to 3 years or had the tank pumped
in the 1979 to 1981 period totalled 41. Twenty residents reported that the
septic tank has not been pumped subsequent to 1977.
A number of residents indicated that they have ongoing problems with
their system (Table A-2). A total of 15 indicated that they have seasonal
backups or sluggish drains. The greatest concentration of these are found
around Indian Lake. Of 23 surveys, 9 indicated that they experience this
problem. Five residents experienced seasonally wet ground over their soil
absorption system.
The well water sampling results are presented in Table A-3 and the
locations are plotted in Figure A-l. The nitrate-nitrogen data indicated
that some groundwater had levels above or near the 10 mgN/1 Federal drink-
ing water standard. The majority of wells sampled (75%) had concentrations
of less than 1 mgN/1. Thirteen wells (25%) had concentrations greater than
1 mgN/1; and 3 out of these 13 wells had concentrations greater than the 10
mgN/1 criteria for domestic water supply. The data also indicated that
many of the higher nitrate-nitrogen concentrations are found in association
with higher concentrations of chlorides. Thus, the most likely source of
nitrates of these wells appeared to be related to wastewater sources. The
total phosphorus concentrations in the well samples showed no apparent
correlation to higher nitrate or high chloride concentrations. (Other
sources of phosphorus are probably the major factors.) The other nitrogen
species tested, ammonia-nitrogen and total Kjeldahl nitrogen, demonstrated
little correlation with nitrate concentrations or with chloride concentra-
tions. (A number of the values are inexplicable and are likely sampling or
laboratory error).
A slight correlation between depth of well and nitrate concentations
appears to exist. Of the 25 wells for which the depth of the well was
known, 4 of 11 less than 50 feet in depth had nitrate-nitrogen concentra-
tions greater than 1 mgN/1. Of those greater than 50 feet, 4 of 14 had
concentrations greater than 1 mgN/1.
A-9
-------
n)
4-)
H
3
co
T3
A 0 CN CM
ss
4-t 4-1
CM 00 i-- O in -
O 00 -H O
f>O'*l«-lOOOOOOOO
O O -H iH O O r*-
4J
.,-4
0
H
4 '
o
d
p!
O
O
r-l
tl
<1)
4J
1-T-J
0
Z
1
t-i
0)
^1
O
4J
U
o
c
r-l
0)
0
O
S-i
ex
CO
y
J3
0)
4-* ~H
2 z"
4-> 01
H E
Z
.
(0
3
0
CO ,
£ 01
0. S
CO
8
c ~^
i u>
*
C
o
11
to
(J
01
1*4
IH
H ^
41 4J
S n
0)
o
e
o
4-1 ^te
«
4J
0)
*
inmminin«HfMinininininin»n
OOOOOfl-HOOOOOOO
OOOOOcNr^oOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO^-liA
oooooooooooo^
V V V V
-^ooooootMomof^in-c'
ooooooo^^-ifOincNOo
-Oi-i o ^
a -H K a -aw 41
-H-HC3CjiOj^T3VJ H
41 -H O 4) O 1> O -O U 0) 4i4-»4>
OO^H W -H C ^C d}^ ffl fin t) 00 O
«-H 4i-H CO O^H 3 ICJ C3 O«
a-»x-s-H
tH
ui-jQa.a-H|-)t-)*-3QctfoS3E::s
inmr^intn CM lAmmmooiA IAO^CM inin»n IAIAIAIA in ^o
OCTiOOO CN^-I OOOO«HOOOOf (CN«tf OOO OOOO O 00
^H ^H t-4
OOOOO OO r-IOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OOOO OO
ooooo oo oooooooooooo ooo oooo oo
coom^cN oo o^fNin^tNOOooooo ino«ff OOO^H oo
OOOF-IO OO (NOO.-IOOOOOOOO OOO OOOO OO
V VV VVVVVVV V VVV VV
-H o <i IA ^ oo o^>n\ofries4Zo>i-*Z
n
hi c
O 0) O
C O>t8 (OQMfWaQ VUX «C Uutt >,-.
C04-IQN COI i-HO>COUCOCQXj= C -H O, 3CO COIOlOl « 41
i-i E 4) E O 01^ <0£WO)0)0)Oi-(tOki003 C0)-i)^ O O 00 00 M C
Ol'OO)'n(B l-l Jj 4> tOlQO MOOI3 30
CQ
_<
i
Q
o
o
o
0
S
0
o
-a*
CO
o-
o
CO
CM
o
0
o
V
o
o
V
V
S
m
1-1
01
Q
o
o
V
o
o
V
0
o
V
V
g
\£>
D.
o
4-1
H
<;
n
4s
oo oo -d- miAinm o\cr>cj\Fom>-t^'- o
cd
H
X) 3 00
S £ 2
A-10
-------
No fecal colitorm could be colonized from any of the well water sam-
ples. Thus, no wells showed bacterial contamination from fecal coliform at
the present time.
Elevated levels of nitrates appear to be occurring in certain areas.
The north shorelands of Upper Crooked Lake have a greater concentration of
wells with nitrate levels above 1 mgN/1. Well logs in the area show that
most of the wells in the area have no aquiclude between the ground surface
and the well screen. This allows nutrients to pass unimpeded into the
water table and toward the wells. Another area where a large proportion of
wells have nitrogen concentrations above 1 mgN/1 was the southwest shore-
lands of Indian Lake. The levels of ammonia and total Kjeldahl nitrogen
were typically elevated above 1 mgN/1 in this area while nitrate concen-
trations and chloride concentrations were low. This indicates that waste-
water is probably not the source for the nutrients. It should be noted
that only 3 out of 49 wells actually showed nitrate levels above the stand-
ard of 10 mgN/1 however, elevated nutrient contents are indicators of po-
tential groundwater pollution areas.
A-ll
-------
SANITARY SURVEY. FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS APPLICATION
Resident: Study Area:
Owner: Surveyor/Date:
Address of Weather:
Property:
Lot Location: Approximate Lot Dimensions:
Tax Map Designation: feet by feet
Preliminary Resident Interview
Age of Dwelling: years Age of sewage disposal system: years
Type of Sewage Disposal System:
Maintenance: years since septic tank pumped. Reason for pumping:_
years since sewage system repairs (Describe below)
Accessibility of septic tank manholes (Describe below)
Dwelling Use: Number of Bedrooms: actual, potential, Planned
Permanent Residents: adults, children
Seasonal Residents: , length of stay
Typical Number of Guests: , length of stay
If seasonal only, plan to become permanent residents: In how many years?
Water Using Fixtures (Note "w.c." if designed to conserve water):
Shower Heads Kitchen Lavoratories Clothes Washing Machine
Bathtubs Garbage Grinder Water Softener
Bathroom Lavoratories Dishwasher Utility Sink
Toilets Other Kitchen Other Utilities
Plans for Changes:
Problems Recognized by Resident:
Resident Will Allow Follow-Up Engineering Studies: Soil Borings Groundwater
Well Water Sample
A-12
-------
SANITARY SURVEY FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS APPLICATION
Water Supply
Water Supply Source (check one)
Public Water Supply
Community or Shared Well
On-Lot Well
Other (Describe)
If public water supply or
community well:
If shared or on-lot well:
Fixed Billing Rate $
Metered Rate $
Average usage for prior year:
Drilled Well
Bored Well
Dug Well
Driven Well
Well Depth (if known):
Well Distance:
feet total
feet to house
feet" to soil disposal area
Visual Inspection: Type of Casing
Integrity of Casing
Grouting Apparent?
Vent Type and Condition
Seal Type and Condition
Water Sample Collected:
No
Yes
(Attach Analysis Report)
feet to water table
feet to septic tank
feet to surface water
A-13
-------
SANITARY SURVEY FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS APPLICATION
Surveyor's Visual Observations of Effluent Disposal Site:
Drainage Facilities and Discharge Location:
Basement Sump
Footing Drains
Roof Drains
Driveway Runoff
Other
Property and Facility Sketch
A-14
-------
APPENDIX B
WATER QUALITY SURVEY
OF AREA LAKES
-------
WATER QUALITY SURVEY OF AREA LAKES
Introduction
This survey was carried out upon request from USEPA (Contract No.
68-01-4612, DOW No. 12, Modification No. 80) to gather additional informa-
tion for defining the trophic status of the lakes of the project area.
This task was undertaken because existing information was inadequate for
drawing comparisons among the lakes and for clarifying whether the lakes
are experiencing water quality problems attributable to the existing on-
site systems. The lake sampling took place during two periods, 27-30
October and 16-20 November 1982, and was conducted by staff from WAPORA,
Inc. Laboratory tests were conducted by WAPORA, Inc. for water chemistry
and by IHI-Kemron, Inc. for fecal coliform counts.
Survey and Laboratory Methods
Lake water samples were collected at two or more stations in each of
the eight lakes. At each of the stations shown in Figure B-l, water qual-
ity samples were taken at two depths: 3 feet below the surface and 3 feet
above the bottom. At each station Secchi disk measurements were taken and
dissolved oxygen and temperature profiles were recorded. During the second
sampling visit (16-20 November), surficial lake sediments were collected at
each station using a ponar grab sampler.
The water samples were tested according to these sections in the
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, (USEPA, 1979, Cincinnati
OH): total phosphorus (356.3), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (351.2), and nitrite
and nitrate nitrogen (353.3)). Chlorophyll
-------
Figure B-1. Lake water quality and sediment sampling stations (October and November 1982).
B-3
-------
1-11]. Chlorophyll degradation products were tested similar to the method
of Vallentyne, J.R. 1954. [Sedimentary Chlorophyll Determination as a
Paleobotanical Method. Canadian J. Botany. 33:304-13], and is reported as
sedimentary pigment degradation units (SPDU) per gm dry weight. Organic
matter content of the surficial lake sediments was determined by the method
in Plumb, R.K., Jr. 1981. Procedures for Handling and Chemical Analysis of
Sediment and Water Samples. [Technical report EPA/CE 81-1, USCOE, Vicks-
burg MS, p.3-73]. Calcium carbonate and particle size analysis of the
sediment samples were performed by the acid digestion method (Procedure
3.2.3.) and the hydrometer method (Procedure 3.4.3.) respectively, des-
cribed by Sobek, A.A., W.A. Schuller, J.R. Freeman, and R.M. Smith. 1978.
[Field and Laboratory Methods Applicable to Overburdens and Minesoils.
USEPA, Cincinnati OH].
Results
The water quality parameters tested in this study (Table B-l) are
generally consistent with previous studies. However, the autumn sampling
time obscures some of the lake characteristics that are of greater concern
to the residents of the area. Specifically, at the end of November no
direct indication can be found of blue-green algal bloom intensity in the
lakes.
The Secchi disk data show that Indian Lake, Pipestone Lake, and Dewey
Lake had similar clarity readings at these sampling dates (approximately 8
feet). Cable Lake, and Magician Lake had slightly greater clarity (9 to 15
feet), and Round Lake, Upper Crooked Lake, Lower Crooked Lake, and Cable
Lake had the highest clarity (12.5 to 22 feet). The trend in clarity
between the two sampling dates was mixed: clarity improved in Round Lake
and Lower Crooked Lake; clarity declined in Cable Lake and Magician Lake;
in the others changes were not significant. All of the lakes had rela-
tively high water clarity.
B-4
-------
CM
oo
O
CM
I
u C
O 1)
H M
OOOOOOOOOOOO-C
OOOOOOOOOOOOt
O O --H .-I O i
o o o o o o <
g
cfl
u CO
H O
ooooooooooooo ooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooo
vvvvvvvvvvvvv
ooooooooooooo
VVVVVVVVVVVVV
ooooooo
ooooooo
v v v v v v v
o o o o o o o
v
0)
g
4J
a
o
o
ro
I
r-^
CM
a
o
to
QJ
00
a
O B
^H 41
qj oo
OOOOOOOOOOOO
0
oooooooooooo
n -3- o oo o m
00 \O O O OO i-H
O O --1 -H O rH
CN
CT'
O
^ \c m vc i < ^c
r*» \o oo r^» oo ^
o o o O O O
a1
t-l
a)
CO
H
CO
0)
^
cd
ooooooooooooo ooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooo
V V
ooooooooooooo
vvvvvvvvvvvvv
ooooooo ooooooo
ooooooo
V
ooooooo
V V V V
«d
-H
T3
C
o
0)
o
u
cfl
4J
cfl
0)
4-1
n)
I
PQ
r-l CN f) -vf U~l
cd
H
a
c
B-5
-------
CN
OO
oo|r-
1)
o o o o
^r-vc^
O O O O
M= OsSKS
O O O O O
oogvcr^
O O i-l O O
n :Sr.n.nK
o o o o o
uo co
-------
CM
00
(-1
CD
I
o
O
CM
I
a
cd
a)
,C
o
4J
o
o
o
m
i
a
o
en
a)
2SSS
^ -H 0 0
1 1
.-1
- CM
co m CM
oo oo r^
CO O CM vD
5 22
is in m
000
co ^ m oo
o o o o
V
co VD ^ -i in
o o o o o
o o o o o o o
o oo o o o o
\c IA
m <-i
! ( I-H
\O CM
O 0
m
rH
^H
r-t O
CO CTi
0 0
O O
m .H
O iH
O
0
O ON
o> m
ft 0
OJ »J
t>l CTv
r-4 O
m ON
(N OO
(M 0
o
m
-I
v£> CM O\
000
vO tH ^0
CO ON Ov
000
M
H
C/D
tfl
01
^
cd
c
CO
H
13
C
§
T)
0)
O
OJ
o
o
cd
'O
s*.
4->
rH ^"^
cd CD
3 13
cr 3
iH
M O
0) C
U O
cd o
oo^ ^-( 3
(0 M
O O O O
o o o o
0 0000
o o o o o
V V V V
0 000000
o o o o o o o
V V V V
o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
V V V V V V V
M
01
Cfl
H
B-7
-------
Chlorophyll a_ concentrations, a measure of the phytoplankton present,
in Dewey Lake were highest of all lakes and averaged 11.8 ug/1. Pipestone
Lake had the next highest, averaging 7.4 ug/1. Cable Lake concentrations
averaged 5.1 ug/1, (largely attributable to high concentrations near the
bottom on the later sampling date). The other lakes had chlorophyll ^
levels between 2.0 and 3.7 ug/1 in descending order: Indian Lake, Magician
Lake, Round Lake, Upper Crooked Lake, and Lower Crooked Lake. In some
lakes the chlorophyll a^ levels were greater at the second sampling date,
but not consistently so. No consistent correlation between the surface and
the near bottom samples was observed.
The total phosphorus concentrations in lake water samples were all low
(Table B-l); most were near or below the detection limit of 0.01 mg/1.
The highest average concentration (0.05 mg/1) was measured at the early
sampling date in Pipestone Lake. The average phosphorus levels at the
early sampling date were above the detection limit in nearly all the lakes
but fell to near or below the detection limit at the later sampling date.
The nitrate-nitrogen concentrations measured in the lakes were near or
below the detection limit (0.05 mgN/1). Only in samples taken from Pipe-
stone Lake at the later date and in Dewey Lake and Magician Lake at both
sampling dates were nitrates measured above detection limits. Total Kjel-
dahl nitrogen (TKN) concentrations were highest in Magician Lake, Dewey
Lake, and Pipestone Lake (1.3, 1.0, 0.9 mgN/1, respectively) and are in the
0.5 to 0.7 mgN/1 range in the other lakes. The TKN concentrations were
greater at the second sampling date for three lakes and lesser for five
lake s.
The sampling results for average temperature and dissolved oxygen
(Table B-2) show that the lakes were similar. All the lakes, except Pipe-
stone Lake at the early sampling date, were completely mixed on both samp-
ling dates. The lake water temperatures declined approximately 6°C between
the two sampling dates. Temperature and dissolved oxygen differences
between lakes were not conclusive. Pipestone Lake was stratified at the
first sampling date in terms of low dissolved oxygen content measured in
the lower portion of the profile. By the second sampling date, the lake was
completely mixed and dissolved oxygen concentrations were near saturation.
B-8
-------
U
o
U-l
CO
cu
r-5
Lt
CU
4-1
CO
rJ
CO
rrj
C
Clj
cu
^
CO
rJ
C!
(0
«r-l
Tj
c
r-l
0
C
cu
60
>?
O
T3
0)
r-l
C
CO
CO
-a
*rj
0
CO
!-l CO
3 CU
4-> 4->
cO aj
&-i ^o
CU
C. 60
§rj
H
a.
cu S
60 CO
T5 CO
p
CU O
S: j->
CM
1
w
01
I
CO
H
CM
C?
i-J
^j
CU
,0
e
cu
o
0
CM
1
^O
rH
CM
OO
r-l
CU
,0
Q
4->
U
o
o
CO
1
CM
s~*
i 1
CU 60
> a
r^j \^^/
CO 0
w cu
H 60
0 >-,
^
Q
^
O
o
x-/
cu
^-)
3
4-1
2
0)
PL,
e
0)
H
fl
13 ~--
0) 60
r^5
^
W S
CO CU
H SO
0 >,
cS
, X
U
0
cu
3
+*
^J
CU
a
B
cu
H
60
C C!
H 0
r-i -H
Oi 4-"
§ *
CO OO
cu
CO
rJ
CMCMi ICMOO OCM-^fU^COCO
CMO-1CMCMCMCM r-|r-IOOOO
r-ltHr-lr-lrHr-l ilr- lr-!r-lr-lr-l
r^ooo^t^DCX) cj\o>OOOO
-^ro r-icocncomvO
!o>ooooo oc^r^iocxDco
II II r-l r-l r-l i 1
ro o* i^ c^> iy\ co r^ r^ r^« r^ ** ^o
r-4 O O ~H O 1 r-l 1 r-l r- 1 ^H O
1 r-J r-l -H r-l r-l ^r-lli Ir-Jr-t
H rJ (-4 S-l >-l >-(
CU CU CU CU CU CU
Cu 15 Cu 15 CU S
r 1 CM CO SJ" LO ^D C-Li O Pi O Oi O
3 -H 3 r-l 3 r-l
rH -H CM CM CO n
CU
d
o
C *->
co co
iH CU
"O a,
C -H
M a.
CM-* IT)00 CTir-1 O** C7"\ CO O C^ 00 00 C7^ CJ^ C7^ CT* O">
rH rH
CO C^ CO C^ rH C^J CO CO |_/^ f*^ ^^ ^". Is**"
rH 1 CM<-sl CMCM CMCM r-H 1 CM-^CM
^J^l rHrH r-l, 1 rHrH -H 1 rHrJrH
rHCM rJCM -HCM rHCM f|CM 1 1 CM CO
C
-0-0 c«
u cu -i-i
T3 t-l^ii-l.iliCU >, O
C ojocyo-i cy -H
3 OuOSo43 3 oJ3
O O.MOUCO CU CO
3i pUrJoo a ^
B-9
-------
The lake sediment sampling data are shown in Table B-3. The data
indicate that some lakes are highly variable in bottom sediment charac-
teristics from station to station (Indian Lake) and others appear to have
relatively consistent characteristics (Pipestone Lake).
The organic matter, sand, and calcium carbonate proportions are highly
variable within and between lakes. Organic matter ranged from 4% in one
sample in Magician Lake to 22% in Cable Lake. The calcium carbonate con-
centrations were highly variable, both within and between lakes. Carbonate
concentrations indicate whether macrophytes and plankton, especially dia-
toms, are present in the lake in considerable numbers. In shallow areas
where macrophytes are present the carbonates precipitate out and become
part of the sediment. In the deeper areas, carbon dioxide from decomposing
organic matter may resolubilize the carbonate precipitate. This would
account for the differences noted in the carbonate contents between the
shallow and deep sediment samples.
In Indian Lake, the carbonate content ranged between 1.1% at a deep
sample and 22% at one of the shallow carbonate samples. Pipestone Lake and
Magician Lake samples have average calcium carbonate contents of 21% and
19% respectively. Both of these lakes have shorelands that have consid-
erable marl (calcium carbonate) deposits associated with macrophytes.
Indian Lake, Round Lake, and Lower Crooked Lake have contents in the 6% to
12% range. The other lakes have sediment carbonate contents of less than
3%. The sand content in Pipestone Lake sediments (after ignition) was 14%,
the lowest of any lake. The sand content of most of the other lakes ranged
from 24% to 34%, with considerable variability within lakes. Indian Lake
and Dewey Lake had sand contents of 46% and 57%, respectively, although a
few unusually sandy samples account for these high averages.
The non-apatitic inorganic phosphorus (NAI-P) is a measure of the
biologically available phosphorus. It does not include the organic-P
fraction and, therefore, is not a measure of algal products. NAI-P can be
of natural origin or may be enhanced by cultural sources such as inorganic
fertilizer, domestic wastewater, or animal wastes. The chlorophyll degra-
dation products are an indication of organic deposition from algal pro-
B-10
-------
O O
CN CS| CO KO
<) ro
00
00|-<1-
CM
CM >£>JCT\
CM rO|CN
CO
in oMr-~
CM oo in
iH -3" OOloO
CM in CM CN
e 4->
H 2
H cJ
0 O
t o
i^n r^J
nj i-i
U Cd
N '
e
o
CO
O rH
1^
OS rH
CO rH
C^J O^ ^lO
C^J i i
CM m
i »vi
^H vN
CM
c\l
mirH
J 1 fsq
O
Os
<7i 00
CM |oo
^ cO
01 M CO
4-> 60 4->
CO 01 O
H 13 3 x^
CO *"^ 0£
rH 0 ^
13 rH >-l P
C >-, p< p
CO 43 Cu
P. S3 CO
0) O O ^
S' Lj '
i C f~* *r1
CO O 4->
rJ rH CO
6T3
CO
H
T)
M rH
B O M
0 -H o 0
H +j .H v-^
4-1 -H p|
4-> Cd CO
'O tO 60 3
oi a. M w
4J cO O O
01 f~* f~*
1 W A-1
01 CMP*
rH O CO
rH a o
0 43
O DJ
CN
to oo
4J 0\
CO i 1 *
(-1 O 4H
>, 0) ~*-s
4-> .D 43
H 0 4-> HI
il 0) P. ^
CO t* O) cO
30 Q hJ
4J O
C CN (3
Ot 1 O
a ^> -ri
H rH 4->
0) £3 4->
WQ W
CO
1
OI
r-H CD
n ^
cfl tO
H tJ
~3- oo r^ oo co VD I-HJ- vD-3~o r» ml i i
oo o CN co t i|r . vDcor^-o VOOOCNON o>oooo COCJCN vocom
CO \ 1 , | CNjCM ini (^3"CO CN i 1 , (i 'i ( CM r^ f^^ CN 00
i-HrHCN CNCNCN CNrHg CN i 1 CO CNCN
tol rtl
rHCNcO-ifinvO rHCMCO rHcNCO rHcN r-HCN rHCN
CD
(3
O 13 T3
C 4-i 0) C (UOOlOrH
T) P. 3 P.O3O42
C iH O P<(-4O>-icO
M PL, ttJ PUi-JUCJ
^o co in CN CN oo|r^
1 1 iH rH rH
P°~~ CO "vT O^ rH t j 1 p^
<}" **D in CO CM ^>1"|\O
CO -3- i-l
CN O -3- l-~ 00
r-4 rH rH CN
V
,0
-a
01
rH CN rH CN CO CD
|5
C3
H
C
C 0
nj -H
H 4-1
>% CJ to
O) -rl 4J
*5 60 O3
Q ^ "rtl
B-ll
-------
duction where the chlorophyll degradation products and the NAI-P are high.
The lowest values were measured in Indian Lake, Dewey Lake, and Magician
Lake. In eutrophic lakes the phosphorus in the sediments is cycled back
into the water column during the summer under certain anoxic (oxygen-deple-
ted) conditions (Armstrong, D.E. 1979. Phosphorus Transport Across the
Sediment-water Interface. In; USEPA Lake Restoration. EPA 440/5-79-01).
Thus, biologically available sediment phosphorus (NAI-P) is recycled to the
water column and converted to organic phosphorus by phytoplankton. There-
fore, the sediment NAI-P would be low. In mesotrophic lakes, the sediments
are a phosphorus sink and NAI-P is high in the sediments. The concentra-
tion of NAI-P in the sediment, if correlated with other lake characteris-
tics, can be used as an indicator of algal productivity. Pipestone Lake is
inconsistent with the trend, possibly because the lake has a suspected
greater external phosphorus loading.
Discussion
The lakes have similar water quality, although some differences are
apparent. The water quality sampling results alone are insufficient to
determine the trophic status of these lakes. Thus, a composite picture of
the lakes is necessary in order to be able to assess lake eutrophy.
The water quality and sediment sampling data were evaluated and the
lakes were rated for overall productivity based on the primary indicators
(Table B-4). Round Lake and Lower Crooked Lake do not display characteris-
tics of high productivity among the primary indicators. In Cable Lake
chlorophyll ji data indicated high algae productivity at these sampling
dates, although the other productivity indicators displayed low produc-
tivity. In Cable Lake and Upper Crooked Lake, the chlorophyll degradation
products are relatively high, indicating high productivity. These lakes
have high Secchi disk measurements and diverse algal communities (Section
3.1.3.2.); therefore, the appearance of the water is acceptable even though
the algal productivity is high.
Indian Lake, Pipestone Lake, Dewey Lake, and Magician Lake exhibit two
or more indicators of high productivity. Dewey Lake exhibits nearly all
B-12
-------
Table B-4. Primary indicators of algal and macrophyte productivity in the Indian
Lake and Sister Lakes as determined by the October and November 1982
sampling dates.
Sediment data
Lake
Water quality data
Secchi " Total
Disk Chlorophyll a Nitrogen
Indian
Pipestone
Round
Upper Crooked
Lower Crooked
Cable
Dewey
Magician
High
High
Non-Apatitic
Inorganic
Phosphorus
High
High
High
High
High
High
Chlorophyll
Degradation
Products
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
B-13
-------
the primary indicators of high productivity. The chlorophyll a_ concentra-
tions were greatest, about 50% greater than the concentration in Pipestone
Lake, the lake with the next greatest value. Indian Lake has a low Secchi
disk depth, and low sediment NAI-P. The chlorophyll a. and total nitrogen
data indicate that the algae may have dropped out of the water column prior
to the sampling dates. Pipestone Lake displays some different character-
istics from the other lakes. The Secchi disk depth, chlorophyll a_, and
total nitrogen values all indicate that it is a highly productive lake. In
addition, the organic matter percentage is high in the sediments and the
sand content is low. The high concentrations of NAI-P and chlorophyll
degradation products in the sediment indicate that the productivity of the
lake has been very high and that principal summer nutrient sources may be
external to the lake (not from the sediments).
Magician Lake data is most difficult to interpret. The open lake
Secchi disk depths and the chlorophyll a_ values are not indicative of high
algal productivity. The total nitrogen concentration is greater in Magi-
cian Lake than in any other lake. The concentrations of NAI-P, chlorophyll
degradation products, and organic matter are lowest of all the lakes, which
may indicate a great deal of nutrient cycling from the sediments or low
productivity in the open water. The Landsat mapping of macrophytes dis-
plays large areas of lakebottom with heavy growth of macrophytes. These
macrophytes are likely competing with the open water algae for the avail-
able nutrients. The rooted macrophytes also trap plankton and cause depo-
sition on the bottom. Marl, a common soil material around Magician Lake
and Pipestone Lake, forms where the lake water is hard and the lake is
shallow and has rooted macrophytes.
The data indicate that Dewey Lake, Pipestone Lake, and Indian Lake are
eutrophic; Magician Lake is mesotrophic to eutrophic; and Round Lake, Upper
Crooked Lake, Lower Crooked Lake, and Cable Lake are mesotrophic. The lake
morphometry, along with external phosphorus inputs, appear to be the pri-
mary factors in trophic status. The lakes that have major inputs of nu-
trients and organic matter from swamp disturbance and drainage, such as
Indian Lake, Pipestone Lake, and Dewey Lake, are eutrophic. These lakes
also have extensive areas where the depths are shallow and are character-
B-14
-------
ized by a volume to surface area ratio that is low. As a result of this
morphometric characteristic, the water temperature warms up more quickly in
the spring, becomes warmer in the summer, and rooted aquatic plants can
readily colonize bottom sediments in these lakes. Magician Lake is similar
to those lakes but appears to have less nutrient input from marshes or
other sources.
The finding of elevated chlorophyll degradation products and elevated
NAI-P, together in Pipestone Lake indicate a high probability that phos-
phorus is available in luxurient amounts during the growing season. As
stated previously, the data also indicate that the principal source of this
excess phosphorus is external. Thus, Pipestone Lake is the only eutrophic
lake studied which appears to be significantly influenced by cultural
factors. Further study would be required to determine if those sources of
phosphorus could be abated in a cost effective manner.
B-15
-------
APPENDIX C
Shallow Groundwater Study of
Soil Absorption Systems
-------
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER STUDY OF SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEMS
INTRODUCTION
This study was carried out upon request from USEPA (Contract No.
68-01-4612, DOW No. 12, Modification No. 80) to gather data on the contri-
bution of septic tank and soil absorption systems to nutrient loading of
the study area lakes. This task was undertaken because considerable dif-
ferences of opinion have been proffered as to the actual impact of these
systems on lake eutrophication. The shallow groundwater sampling took
place in the period of 1-20 November 1982, and was conducted by WAPORA,
Inc. Laboratory tests were conducted for water chemistry and soil analysis
by WAPORA, Inc. and for fecal coliform by IHI-Kemron, Inc.
Sampling Locations and Installation
Five on-site systems were selected for study of the nutrient removal
from the effluent as it passes through the soil to the lake. These sites
(Figure C-l) were selected from the residences whose occupants had been
interviewed for the sanitary survey. The sites were in shallow groundwater
areas where flow direction was toward the lake.
Site 1 was located at the southeast side of Round Lake and was a drain
bed at the Beechwood Resort. It serves 4 cabins, one of which is occupied
year-round. The drain bed was located about 100 feet from the shoreline
and was installed in 1976. The drain bed was constructed in fill sand over
muck over sand.
Site 2 was located at the northeast side of Indian Lake and was a
raised drain bed dosed by a lift pump that was constructed in 1980. The
residence is owned by Thomas McHenry and was occupied by 4 college stu-
dents. The drain bed was located about 60 feet from the shore and was
constructed on mucky sand soil.
C-2
-------
ROUND
LAKE
Site 1
Beechwood Resort
INDIAN
LAKE
.Anderson
Site 4
xV
/''
/ /
' /
,<"&
Site
X
^ //' .-* .-*"'- '"'' >K
Figure C-1. Locations of monitored groundwater near soil absorption systems.
C-3
-------
Site 3 was located at the northeast side of Indian Lake near Site 2.
It was described as a dry well and tile line that was constructed many
years ago. The residence was owned and occupied by Mr. and Mrs. James
Black. The soil material was mucky sand and the system was about 50 feet
from the shoreline.
Site 4 was located on the south side of Indian Lake and was owned and
occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Anderson. The system had a septic tank and dry
well with tile lines running radially from it. The system was constructed
in mucky sand and fill sand approximately 60 years ago and was approxi-
mately 100 feet from the shoreline.
Site 5 was located on the south side of Indian Lake two houses west of
the Anderson residence and was owned and occupied by Mrs. McFadden. The
system had a septic tank, lift pump, and raised drain bed and was con-
structed in 1976. The system was constructed over mucky sand and sand fill
and was approximately 80 feet from the shoreline.
Wellpoints were driven into the soil after a hole had first been
augered to the water table. The first was placed at the end of the soil
absorption system, the second at three feet, and third at 30 feet, and the
fourth in the shallow water. At each of the test sites a background well-
point also was installed. A silver-plated copper rod was inserted in each
wellpoint as an indicator of anaerobic water conditions by tarnish on the
rod.
Seepage meters, constructed of a part of a 55-gal drum with a flexible
sample bag, were driven into the lake bottom to measure groundwater flow
rates into the lakes. These were placed in water about 10 feet offshore in
water less than 3 feet deep.
Sampling and Laboratory Methods
The groundwater levels in the wellpoints were measured with a sur-
veyor's level and a tape. Lake level was the datum for the measurements.
C-4
-------
The wells were pumped when the points were installed then left uncap-
ped overnight. The water samples were collected with a hand-operated
vacuum pump and a sample chamber. The sample chamber was purged with argon
gas before sampling. The sample was filtered under argon gas with a 0.45
micron, 14 cm diameter millipore filter. At 2 sites (10 total samples),
duplicate groudwater samples were collected without argon and field filter-
ing. Filtered and unfiltered samples were acidified (10% H SO ) and stored
at 4°C until analysis.
The groundwater samples were tested according to these sections in the
Methods of Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, [USEPA 1979 Cincinnati
OH]: total phosphorus (356.3), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (351.2), nitrite and
nitrate nitrogen (353.3), ammonia nitrogen (350.3), and dissolved calcium
(215.1). Fecal coliform was analyzed by the membrane filter technique as
described in Section 909C of Standard Methods.
Soil samples were collected by the soil auger from a depth of 1.5 feet
at each soil absorption system, at 4 background locations, and from the
lake bottom from the northeast side of Indian Lake. In the soils, non-
apatitic inorganic phosphorus (NAI-P) was tested similar to the method of
Williams, J.D.H., H. Shear, and R. L. Thomas 1980. [Availability to Scene-
desmus quadricauda of Different Forms of Phosphorus in Sedimentary Mate-
rials from the Great Lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 25(1): 1-11]. Organic
matter content of the soils was determined by the method in Plumb, R.H.,
Jr. 1981. Procedures for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and
Water Samples. [Technical report EPA/CE 81-1, USCOE, Vicksburg MS, p.
3-73]. Calcium carbonate and particle size analysis of the soil samples
were performed by the acid digestion method (Procedure 3.2.3.) and the
hydrometer method (Procedure 3.4.3.) respectively, described by Sobek,
A.A., W.A. Schuller, J.R. Freeman, and R.M. Smith. 1978. [Field and Labora-
tory Methods Applicable to Overburdens and Minesoils. USEPA, Cincinnati
OH].
Results and Discussion
The hydraulic gradient was toward the lake at all but one of the
sampling sites, as indicated by the water level and seepage meter measure-
C-5
-------
ments. The wells at the Round Lake site did not recharge sufficiently
after pumping and the water levels measured in them were below lake level.
During sampling of Sites 2 and 3 (McHenry and Black) and prior to sampling
of Sites 4 and 5 (Anderson and McFadden) approximately 1.5 inches of pre-
cipitation fell. The groundwater levels in the McHenry wells between the
raised drain bed and the lake rose 1.0 feet overnight. The hydraulic
profiles for each of the sampling sites are shown in Figure C-2. The
dramatic rise in the water table can be observed in the water levels of the
McHenry site wells. Because a conservative tracer, for example, chlorine,
was not analyzed, the effect of the precipitation on the sampling results
is unknown. The groundwater flow velocities were measured with the seepage
meters embedded in the shallow littoral zone of the lake at the sites. The
results of the seepage meter measurements are presented in the following
table (no measurements were possible at the Anderson site) :
Beechwood McHenry Black McFadden
No. of measurements 5422
Ave. velocity (ft/day) 3.6 3.3 5.3 14.9
Possibly, a lense of coarse soil material was encountered at the McFadden
site in an area where the shore and lake bottom soils are generally of less
permeable organic sediments. This could account for the relatively high
rate of groundwater discharge at the McFadden site. Wave action may also
account for the high velocity measured.
Total dissolved phosphorus concentrations were below the detection
limit of 0.01 mg/L (except for one sample) for the shallow groundwater
samples. The sample from the wellpoint located 3 feet downgrade from the
drain bed at the Anderson site had a phosphorus concentration of 8.2 mg/L
(Table C-l). This elevated phosphorus concentration was likely due to
sample contamination by sediment as indicated by laboratory filtration.
The primary forms of nitrogen measured were total Kjeldahl nitrogen
and ammonia (Table C-l). Concentrations of nitrates were generally below
detection (0.05 tngN/L). Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) values were typical-
ly higher near the soil absorption system than in the lake groundwater and
background samples. Ammonia concentrations also were typically high in the
C-6
-------
o
i
tn
C
0
H!
-p
£L|
0
in
n)
H
O
M-l
O
>i
3
in
^
0
m
in
r-H
in
0)
s-i
tp
c
H
4J
in
0)
4-)
i 1
rH
0
tn
T!
c
0
? 0
0 Z
rH
r-l CO
td 1-1
w <*
H
1
O
d)
1
H
(fl
4)
H
a
i
w
c
W
01
H
a
M
i
ra
3
T
£
C
e
T
(I
(1
4-
^
fn
T
^
"£
j^
Ul
O
Is
M
a*
e ^
u *
H
§
£T
o
OJ
3 nj
H ^ "
"3 H
O
0
ii!~
3 dSr
I5t
4J
H
d
C
n] 4) -
5 S §
S c -^
_^
,c:
3 c:
QJ CT1 H^
-i o *--
^ B &
Id c
4J
D
E-<
t/1
H O J
fl ^ \.
tj a, a*
g||
g
o
HI
83
H 2
1] OH
U E
4)
tu
H
H
a
s
0)
4J
H
0]
\o ao in co H 0*3*
1-1
V£> CO ^ H 01 01 H
fN in oj ^ co » oi
H H H
(N in OJ O> CN H *T
us r- 01 co co 01 -a-
co r-j in m m co o
in o CN o r-j H us
H CM
H in co r- co o f>
n oj vo in ^ (N (N
H
'£££ cnS^SS
H H H H
inminin -d-inmin^
OOOO fOOOOO
OOOO OOOOO
VVVV VVVV
S m m m in M tN
mHutin HHOHO
OH) rH
H H
o f> CN in
co co o «» m oj cr>
SSnn r-r-oMtN
T O
H
OHOO OOOOO
OCOOO OOOOO
V VV VVVVV
o
ovvv V-HVVV
m
4) 01
QJ CXi
§ §
!3 e
01 Ul
HfNfl§ HCNm^S
1 1 1 O IIIIO
dldlDcD (0 4J4)414)iTj
222PQ h 2222W
U
C-7
-------
2.0 -
1.0 H
0)
o
CO
0>
CO
o>
CD
o
CO
c
o
ffl
j)
LJ
-1.0-
-2.0 -i
3.0 -
BEECHWOOD Site 1
LAKE
100
11/5
r
11/4 .*- "*
^M ^^*
^^ ^^
I ^^^
McHENRY Site 2
1.0 -
« o.o -J
LAKE
3.0-]
BLACK Site 3
ANDERSON Site 4
o.o
LAKE
McFADDEN Site 5
LAKE
03 30 86
Distance from lakeside edge of soil absorption system, ft.
Figure C-2. Hydraulic and ground surface profiles for each site measured
with an engineering level and tape.
C-8
-------
same samples. The highest ammonia nitrogen concentrations were found in
samples from the Beechwood Resort and Anderson sites. The concentrations
found in the Black site samples were also elevated above background levels
hut not as high as those reported for the Beechwood Resort and Anderson
sites. The Black and Anderson systems were "dry well and tile line" sys-
tems and the Beechwood Resort had a standard drain bed (for 1 permanent and
3 seasonal dwellings). The sites with the lowest TKN and ammonia concen-
trations at the soil absorption systems were both raised drain beds that
were dosed by a small lift pump.
Dissolved calcium concentration (Table C-l) in the shallow groundwater
samples ranged from 24 mgCa/L to 196 mgCa/L. Calcium tests were made
because this ion may be responsible for precipitating dissolved phosphate
under oxic conditions. The concentrations of dissolved calcium did not
appear to be correlated with any other parameter.
The silver-plated rods inserted in each well point were ambiguous with
respect to whether the groundwater was aerobic or anaerobic. The rods may
indicate that the well points 30 feet from the soil absorption systems at
the Beechwood Resort and the McFadden sites and the well point 3 feet from
the soil absorption system at the Anderson site had anaerobic waters in
them. However, the sulfate tarnishing reaction may have been slowed under
the groundwater and temperature conditions that resulted from the rains.
A comparison was made between immediate field filtration and labora-
tory filtration for a number of samples. The results show that ammonia and
TKN values are nearly identical (Figure C-3). The field filtered samples
tested for phosphorus had concentrations below detection (0.01 mgP/L) but
the laboratory filtered samples had concentrations between 0.18 and 4.4
mgP/L. The groundwater samples contained considerable particulate that was
immediately filtered out in the field-filtered samples. The laboratory-
filtered samples were agitated considerably and subje'cted to temperature
and pH variations. Under those conditions, phosphorus was likely released
from the particulate matter to solution.
C-9
-------
100.0_
0.01
0.1
1.0 10.0
LABORATORY FILTERED (mg/l)
Figure C-3. Comparison of the results of samples filtered in
the field under argon or in the laboratory.
C-10
-------
The soil samples were taken from near the soil absorption system for 5
sites, from the lake bottom for 2 sites, and from the background well for 4
sites. The particle size analysis showed that the samples were predomin-
antly sand. The least sand in the samples was 45% in the lake sample from
the Black site. Sand typically accounted for about 90% of particulate.
The organic matter contents ranged from 0.2 to 26%. The higher percentages
were found in the soil near the drain bed at the Beechwood Resort, in the
lake at the Black site, and at the background location at the McFadden
site.
The NAI-P concentrations of the soil were variable, ranging from 45 to
793 mgP/kg. No pattern was discernable with respect to organic matter or
particle size. The calcium carbonate content also did not appear to corre-
late with other parameters. Generally, the higher CaCO values were mea-
sured in conjunction with the finer soil particles but not with organic
matter. The higher values were associated with lake bottom and background
samples.
CONCLUSIONS
On-site systems appeared to contribute a minimal amount of phosphorus
to the lakes under late autumn weather conditions. This statement should
be interpreted with caution, however, because several factors lessened the
probability of measuring high phosphorus concentrations. The lakes were at
their lowest levels in many years and the autumn had been relatively dry.
Thus, the soil absorption systems had been operating with aerated soils
under them, the condition under which phosphorus is readily removed from
the dissolved form in groundwater. Another factor was the heavy precipita-
tion during the sampling period that may have diluted the groundwater
samples and increased oxygen levels. However, the high dissolved calcium
measured in the groundwater indicates that the calcium and phosphates would
likely form relatively insoluble compounds (Lee, G.F. 1976 [Review of the
potential water quality benefits from a phosphate built detergent ban in
the State of Michigan. Presented to Michigan Department of Natural Re-
sources Hearing on a Detergent Phosphate Ban, Lansing MI, December 8];
Stumm, W. and J.J. Morgan 1970 [Aquatic chemistry. Wiley - Interscience,
C-ll
-------
New York. 583 p.]). Because the water table had been low, the adsorption
and precipitation reactions were likely preventing phosphorus from moving
through the groundwater to the lake.
The movement of nitrogen compounds to the lake also appears to be
rather minimal during the time of sampling. The conditions were favorable
for denitrification (conversion to nitrogen gas) to occur within the
groundwater. The nitrogen must be in the nitrate form and a carbon source
must be present in an anaerobic environment (Reddy, K.R., P.S.C. Rao, and
R.E. Jessup 1982 [The effect of carbon mineralization on denitrification
kinetics in mineral and organic soils. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, vol. 46 no. 1 pg. 62-68]). The nitrate concentrations are low
even though some high TKN and ammonia concentrations were measured. There-
fore, denitrification is the presumed reason for the low levels of nitrates
measured in the groundwater.
A difference between the types of soil absorption system is apparent.
The raised drain bed systems (McHenry and McFadden sites) had significantly
lower groundwatec nitrogen concentrations than the other systems. This
indicates that more treatment may be occuring within the raised drain bed
itself rather than in the natural ground.
C-12
-------
APPENDIX D
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVE 10
-------
Table D-l. Annual residential user costs with and without USEPA and State
grants.
Item USEPA Grant USEPA + State Grants Without Grants
Local share of
capital costs $1,131,300 $863,800 $5,664,700
Annual equivalent
of local share-7 112,000 85,500 567,000
Annual O&M cost 228,500 228,500 228,500
Annual cost to
local residents 340,500 314,000 795,500
Monthly cost per
residence-7 11.19 10.32 26.15
Annual cost/per
residence-7 134.28 123.84 313.80
a/
Local share amortized at 7 5/8% interest at 20 years (0.09903).
Based on 2535 residences in 1981.
D-2
-------
*TJ
cu
Cfl rH
4-> CO
CO 4-1
H
0) fX
M 03
cO O
CO MH
4-1 O
CO
O CU
O M
^s CO
o "CD
i j
cu
a,1 ao
_,' 4_>
xj c
fl 0)
d o
0) CU
4-1 CX
rH
,
4-) CO
CO -H
O CO
CJ CU
r?
M-j 4-1
o d
cu
f\) cO
IJ CX
cC
4-1
d
CO
o
CU
4-1
CO
C/2
B-S
m
+
<;
Oj
LtJ
CO
^J
rH
CO
O
1-1
^^
B^5
O
rH
^~s
rH
rs!
in
CM
cu
cO
CO
B^S
in
v~/
m
.
OO
CNJ
rH
rH
cfl
l_J
cu
CU
/^^
B-S
in
oo
^ '
CN
.
m
oo
i i
CM
^^
5s?
^
cO
)H
CJ
0,
pj
uC
; i
I 1
cfl
CJ
o
rJ
in
, i
* '
vO
.
m
oo
ro
rH
cO
l-i
0)
"3
CU
Q1
in
00
* '
CM
.
m
oo
i i
^
CM
/_^
B^S
O
rH
^-*
CO
^
^O
C^J
B-«
m
v-'
CM
'M
^O
rH
^-^
B-S
in
00
**-s
O
.
r^.
^>
CM
*
CM
^ ^
B-S
m
-H
N '
m
.
^o
CT*
CO
B^
m
CO
^-^
o
.
r-^
~^-
CM
"
CM
B-S
O
O
rH
- '
m
m
rH
CO
1
1
^
B-S
0
0
rH
* '
in
.
m
rH
CO
1
^_^
B-S
0
CM
^^
O-,
^0
CM
Q
m
^
00
^O
s~*\
O^S
U"!
r*>-
**-S
<3\
O
o
1)
/ N
gsO
LO
> a
o CO Q
cO O
m
CN
CO
d
!LPi
d
e
CU
4-t
CO ^-N
>» CU
CO rH
_c
cu 0,0
4-1 -rJ
CO rJ
D cu
J ^^ y
te systems
gible 2,643.5 92.0
e owner
eligible 315.5
H -H e d
CO rH O T)
I cu ,jd
d
istration
gible) 134.9 94.0
d -H
"H rH
6 cu
13 v-x
m
oo
CM
CM
vO
vO
m
rH
4_)
0
H
-------
"5
*j 3
C O
o o o o
o ft -
co ft O CM
O fM r- O
«-l i-f r^ O
c^ CM -a- vD
O O O O
-a- o -a- oo
-a- 1-- m >£>
O O O O
o 01 m CT>
vO ft O ^
m (N -CT CM
fl CM ft O
O O O O
^ r- -^ O
O CT* r* eo
-31 00 O <"M
00 -3- ft &
o o o o
3-f^oo ro
^Htr- rn\cooii^m^nmtnCTvinr-oo o
vt r*.
oooooooooooooo o
*3-fimt-^-ao P*-
iorgr-)co^Df^toooo m
(it *>*****..*.,.. .
inu^*or^.roin^r^-*,»»*.*,,.* .
^Ooi^.ooocNO-3'COr*">O*OOO^^(NON I
iH i-l rH t-( O «M
III -
i-H CM
oooooooooooooo o
^-IftvOONflOfMvOrslflOvOO'-H o
o^OCT\oirimcMin»a'mofO^D-3- -^
III »-
^)rH,Hr-t rHiHiH ^H iH-7 ^O
M 1*
mpnoo-^-oo^^Ofi'^a.oocT.vDO «M
lit ...r^,rl...... ..
*? in
ooo oooooooooooooo o
\co\o - *£> cs inn^po^iHCTiO'H'NOtirir-tn so
-a-CT^-a- f-Hm^cMr-'H^oofMP'^^ovDr-^- ft
rg>3-so fs|(sip-»ft.HtHfttn-^^H»n ^-m -^
^- \D
ooo oooooooooooooo o
in^OF-i ooOr-omoOftm-3'r"»»-i^r*. oo
r-^.^C«J \O1^rOOCMf*'*3'^OPM(M'H^OO^f>JCT* C^
f*t\OO -i3'»a-ftnof*>«i3'r^.^HONf>CT rg
ooo oooooooooooooo o
mmoo ^foftoorvi^HOtM-Tvo^rf^-j'^ m
O^o*o r-vco^or-oo-a-ON'-'ftoor-^n^H -H
OfHfH ^g-moocM^ey^o^^cMt-ifMin fi
(Mflin flt-^ fn^Hf\|(NOO
^H eM
r-»fto oo-*t fMOoo-*^oo^vor»-fi -a-
noocN cMCT\m-a-OovcOi-Hf>oor»-r-.fMO r*«
oo^f-l o^otNCT>NOrNi\c»i-^-a--3Lm-^rOCTN *
n « O -*-a-ftr-r->£>cNin^if-( OiAOOfMCOOvr^oOO^inr-^ oo
m^crsi mcoo^cM-a'fM'HvccN'Hfnr^miH ^
inco-J' vooofnCT\ 10 -H -J
ca
-------
o o o o
m iH m o
0*1 in m co
&
01
oo m oo
O O> O
I S£5 00 I I VC 00
. CO CO CO CO
CM CM CM CM
CM ON CM ON
co CM m (N
vo \O vO so CM CM ( | CM CM
vo f-"- \c r*» CM ON CM o\
O> CO ON OO CO CM CO CM
6 *>
01 to
*J O
C
o
u
r-l CM i-i CM
«* CM ^ CM CN iH
en & en sg- co CM
in rn in co i-t ii
U1 O m O
O -* O ?
ino*nomo I I mo
,Hi-|tH»HO-d- O-*
V -H
u tn
3 I
n d
w o
-a n
C n
Q 00
O O O O
O r^« O f^-
O O O O O O I
O i-H O rH O ^
CM CO CM CO -3- CM
O O
O rx
H -O
> C
to a
u
u n
a
U r-l
C 0)
UH a)
V )-<
O
J«!
C h
CO V
4J 4J
GO
U 3
H »H
U U
iw a
o
o s
u in
oooooooooo
V- t.
O 00
&
U M-l
D- dj
-------
Table D-5. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #1 Indian
Lake (Alternative 10).
Item Quantity
STE sewer pipe
4" 3,640 If
Lift Station
43 gpm TDH 48 ft
Forcemain, individual trench
3" 1,500 If
Service connection
gravity 69
Septic tank
upgrade 46
replace 23
Cluster drainfield
Edgewood-Tice 70
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer 1
Septic tank & gravity 1
Subtotal future connections
cost
Annual future connections
cost
Unit Cost Construction
$ 35.30 $128,500
30,900
14.15 21,230
1,577 108,800
143 6,580
750 17,250
1,250 87,500
400,760
140,270
541,030
55 60
2,277 2,280
2,340
117
Salvage
$ 77,100
9,270
12,730
65,300
3,960
10,350
178,710
30
1,370
1,400
70
O&M
$ 138
1,362
460
230
2,080
4,270
10
10
0.5
D-6
-------
Table D-6. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #3 Indian
Lake (Alternative 10).
Item Quantity
STE sewer pipe
4" 1,350 If
Lift Station
13 gpm TDK 68 ft
Forcemain, individual trench
3" 1,500 If
Service connection
gravity 20
Septic tank
upgrade 14
replace 6
Cluster drainfield
South Shore Annex 21
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer 1
Septic tank & gravity 1
Future connections cost
Annual future connections cost
Unit Cost
$ 35.30
14.15
1,577
143
750
1,250
55
2,277
Construction
$ 47,700
12,750
21,230
31,530
2,000
4,500
26,250
145,960
51,090
197,050
60
2,280
2,340
117
Salvage
$28,600
3,830
12,730
18,900
1,200
2,700
67,960
30
1,370
1,400
70
O&M
$ 52
1,333
140
60
2,080
3,665
10
10
0.5
D-7
-------
Table D-7. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #2 Pipestone
Lake (Alternative 10).
Item Quantity
STE sewer pipe
4" 2,150
Lift Station
13 gpm TDH 25 ft
Forcemain, common trench
2" 150
Forcemain, individual trench
2" 450
Service connection
gravity 2b>
STE pump I
Septic tank
upgrade 21
replace 8
Cluster drainfield
Bass Island Sub. 29
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Unit Cost
$ 35.30
4.60
13.00
1,577
3,428
143
750
1,250
Construction
$ 75,900
12,750
690
5,850
45,730
3,430
3,000
6,000
36,250
189,600
66,360
255,960
Salvage
$45,540
3,830
410
3,510
27,440
1,030
1,800
3,600
0
87,160
O&M
$ 82
1,322
0
0
0
63
210
80
2,080
3,837
D-8
-------
Table D-8. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #3 Pipestone
Lake (Alternative 10).
Item
STE sewer pipe
4"
Lift Station
16 gpm TI)h 35 ft
25 gpm TDH 35 ft
Forcemain, common trench
2"
Forcemain, individual trench
Service connection
gravity
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
North Lake area
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage 0&M_
5,080 $ 35.30 $179,320 $107,590 $ 193
950 4.60
1,000 13.00
36 1,577
5 3,428
31 143
10 750
41 1,250
12,750
12,750
4,370
13,000
56,770
17,140
4,430
7,500
51,250
359,290
125,750
485,040
3,830
3,830
2,620
7,800
34,060
5,140
2,660
4,500
0
172,030
1,324
1,423
0
0
0
315
310
100
2,080
5,745
D-9
-------
Table D-9. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #5
Sister Lakes (Alternative 10).
Item
STL sewer pipe
4"
Lift Station
31 gpm TDK 57 ft
Forcemain, common trench
3"
Forcemain, individual trench
3"
Service connection
gravity
pressure
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Sister Lake
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank & gravity
Future connections cost
Annual future connections
Quantity
3,000 If
1,700 If
900 If
37
5
31
11
50
3
3
cost
Unit Cost
$ 35.30
5.75
14.15
1,577
3,600
143
750
1,250
55
2,277
Construction
$105,900
30,900
9,780
12,730
58,300
18,000
4,440
8,250
62,500
310,800
108,780
419,580
170
6,830
7,000
350
Salvage^
$ 63,500
9,270
5,870
7,650
35,000
5,400
2,660
4,950
134,300
100
4,100
4,200
210
O&M
$ 114
1,356
315
310
110
2,080
4,285
30
30
L.5
D-10
-------
Quantity
2,300 If
L
200
550
200
350
If
If
If
If
Unit
$ 35
4
5
13
14
Cost
.30
.60
.75
.00
.15
Construction
$ 81,
12,
12,
3,
2,
4,
200
750
750
920
160
600
960
Salvage
$ 48,700
3
3
1
1
2
,830
,830
550
,900
,560
,970
O&M
$ 88
1,326
1,320
Table D-10. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #10
Sister Lakes (Alternative 10).
Item
STh sewer pipe
4"
Lift Station
21 gpm TDH 30 ft
10 gpm TDH 26 ft
Forcemain, common trench
2"
3"
Forcemain, individual trench
2"
3"
Service connection
gravity 45 1,577 70,950 42,550
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Gilmore Beach
Folk's Landing
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank & gravity
Future connections cost
Annual future connections cost
27
18
33
15
3
3
t
143
750
1,250
1,250
55
2,277
3,860
13,500
41,300
18,750
266,700
93,350
360,050
170
6,830
7,000
350
2,320
8,100
__
116,310
100
4,100
4,200
210
270
180
2,080
2,080
7,344
30
30
1.5
D-ll
-------
Table D-ll. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #11
Sister Lakes (Alternative 10).
Item
STL sewer pipe
4"
Lift Station
11 gpm TbH 24 ft
Forcemain, common trench
2"
Forcemain, individual trench
2"
Service connection
gravity
STE pressure
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Maple Island
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank & gravity
Future connections cost
Annual future connections
Quantity
700 If
100 If
50 If
14
2
11
5
17
1
1
cost
Unit Cost
$ 35.30
4.60
13.00
1,577
3,600
143
750
1,250
55
2,277
Construction
$ 24,700
12,750
460
650
22,060
7,200
1,570
3,750
21,250
94,360
33,030
127,390
60
2,280
2,340
117
Salvage
$ 14,820
3,830
280
390
13,250
2,160
950
2,250
37,390
30
1,370
1,400
70
O&M
$ 27
1,317
126
110
50
2,080
3,710
1C
10
0.5
D-12
-------
Table D-12. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #13
Sister Lakes (Alternative 10).
Item
STE sewer pipe
4"
Lift Station
14 gpm TDH 30 ft
Forcemain, individual trench
2"
Service connection
gravity
pressure
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Magician Bay Park
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Quantity
1,700 If
I
300 If
19
3
14
8
22
Unit Cost
$ 35.30
13.00
1,577
3,600
143
750
1,250
Construction
$ 60,000
12,750
3,900
29,930
10,800
2,000
6,000
27,500
152,880
53,510
206,390
Salvage
$ 36,000
3,830
2,340
18,000
3,240
1,200
3,600
68,210
O&M
$ 65
1,321
189
140
80
2,080
3,875
D-13
-------
Table D-13. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #15
Sister Lakes (Alternative 10).
Item Quantity
STE sewer pipe
4" 700 If
Lift Station
13 gpm TDK 65 ft
Forcemain, individual trench
2" 2,300 If
Service connection
gravity 20
Septic tank
upgrade 15
replace 5
Cluster drainfield
Sandy Beach Resort 21
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer 1
Septic tank & gravity 1
Future connections cost
Annual future connections cost
Unit Cost
$ 35.30
13.00
1,577
143
750
1,250
55
2,277
Construction
$ 24,700
12,750
29,900
31,540
2,150
3,750
26,250
131,040
45,860
177,900
60
2,280
2,340
117
Salvage
$ 14,820
3,830
17,940
18,820
1,290
2,250
58,950
30
1,370
1,400
70
O&M
$ 27
1,330
150
50
2,080
3,637
10
10
0.5
D-14
-------
Table D-14. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #1 Indian
Lakes (Alternative 10).
Item
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
STE pressure sewer pipe
2V 950
3" 2,350
4" 1,300
Service connections
STE pump 69
Septic tank
upgrade 46
replace 23
Cluster drainfield
Edgewood-Tice 82
Dosing pump 43 gpm
TDH 20 ft
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal, initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer 1
Septic tank + STE pump 1
Future connections cost
Annual future connections cost
$ 17.35
18.20
19.50
3,428
143
750
1,250
55
4,128
$ 16,470
42,750
25,330
236,500
6,580
17,250
87,500
30,900
463,280
162,150
625,430
60
4,130
4,190
210
9,890
2,570
15,200
3,960
10,350
30
1,240
1,270
64
O&M
18
45
25
70,900 4,350
460
230
2,080
9,270 1,422
122,140 8,630
73
73
4
D-15
-------
Table D-15. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #3 Indian
Lakes (Alternative 10).
Item
STE pressure sewer pipe
2"
3"
4"
Service connections
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
South Shore Annex
Dosing pump 13 gpm
TDH 20 ft
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + STE pump
Future connections cost
Annual future connections cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
350 If
1,990 If
1,500 If
16
$ 17.00
18.20
19.50
3,428
$ 5,950
18,200
29,250
54,900
$ 3,570
10,920
17,550
O&M
7
19
29
16,430 1,009
14
6
21
1
1
t
143 2,000
750 4,500
1,250 26,250
12,750
153,800
53,830
207,630
55 60
4,128 4,130
4,190
210
1,200
2,700
3,830
56,200
30
1,240
1,270
64
140
60
2,080
1,317
4,661
73
73
4
D-16
-------
Table D-L6. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #2 Pipestone
Lakes (Alternative 10).
Item Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2" 900 $ 17.00 $ 15,300 $ 9,180 $ 17
2%" 1,800 17.35 31,230 18,740 34
3" 600 18.20 10,920 6,550 11
Service connections
STE pump 27 3,428 92,560 27,770 1,701
Septic tank
upgrade 21 143 3,000 1,800 210
replace 8 750 6,000 3,600 80
Cluster drainfield
Bass Island Sub. 29 1,250 36,250 0 2,080
Dosing pump 18 gpm
TDH 20 ft 12,750 3,830 1,319
Subtotal initial cost 208,010 71,468 5,452
Service factor (35%) 72,800
Subtotal initial capital cost 280,810
D-17
-------
Table D-17. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #3 Pipestone
Lakes (Alternative 10).
Item Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2" 600 $ 17.00 $ 10,200 $ 6,120 $ 11
2h" 1,680 17.35 29,150 17,490 32
3" 2,250 18.20 40,950 24,570 43
Service connections
STL pump 38 3,428 130,260 78,160 2,394
Septic tank
upgrade 31 143 4,430 2,660 310
replace 10 750 7,500 4,500 100
Cluster drainfield
North lake an>a 41 1,250 51,250 0 2,080
Dosing pump 25 gpm
TbH 20 ft 12,750 3,830 1,413
Subtotal initial cost 286,500 137,500 6,383
Service factor (35%) 100,270
Subtotal initial capital cost 386,770
D-18
-------
Table D-18. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #5 Sister
Lakes (Alternative 10).
Item Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2%" 750 If $ 17.35 $ 13,000 $ 7,800 $ 14
3" 3,200 If 18.20 58,300 34,980 61
Service connections
STE pump 30 3,428 102,800 30,840 1,890
Septic tank
upgrade 31 143 4,440 2,660 310
replace 11 750 8,250 4,950 110
Cluster drainfield
Sister Lakes 50 1,250 62,500 2,080
Dosing pump 31 gpm
TDK 20 ft 30,900 9,270 1,326
Initial cost 280,190 90,500 5,791
Service factor (35%) 98,070
Initial capital cost 378,260
Future connections cost
Building sewer 3 55 170 100
Septic tank + STE pump 3 4,128 12,380 3,710 219
Future connections cost 12,550 3,810 219
Annual future connections cost 628 191 11
D-19
-------
Table D-19. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #10 Sister
Lakes (Alternative 10).
Item Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2V
3"
Service connections
STE pump
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Cluster drainfield
Gilmore Beach
Dosing pump 21 gpm
TDH 20 ft
Folk's Landing
Dosing pump 10 gpm TDH
20 ft
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer
Septic tank + STE pump
Future connections cost
Annual future connections
350 If
2,700 If
35
27
18
33
15
3
3
cost
$ 17.35
18.20
3,428
143
750
1,250
1,250
55
4,128
$ 6,070
49,200
120,000
3,860
13,500
41,300
12,750
18,750
12,750
278,180
97,360
375,540
170
12,380
12,550
628
$ 3,640
29,500
36,000
2,320
8,100
3,830
3,830
87,220
100
3,710
3,810
191
$ 7
52
2,205
270
180
2,080
1,321
2,080
1,315
9,510
219
219
11
D-20
-------
Table D-20. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #11 Sister
Lakes (Alternative 10).
Item Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage 0£M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2 100 If $ 17.00
2h" 600 If 17.35
Service connections
STE pump 12 3,428
Septic tank
upgrade 11 143
replace 5 750
Cluster drainfield
Maple Island 17 1,250
Dosing pump 11 gpm
TDH 20 ft
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future connections cost
Building sewer 1 55
Septic tank + STL pump 1 4,128
Future connections cost
Annual future connections cost
$ 1,700
10,400
41,200
1,570
3,750
21,250
12,750
92,620
32,420
125,040
60
4,130
4,190
210
$ 1,020
6,250
12,330
950
2,250
3,830
26,630
30
1,240
1,270
64
$ 2
11
756
110
50
2,080
1,316
4,325
73
73
4
D-21
-------
Table D-21. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #13 Sister
Lakes (Alternative 10).
Item Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2h" 1,700 If $ 17.35 $ 29,500 $ 17,700 $ 32
3 300 18.20 5,460 3,280 6
Service connections
STE pump 18 3,428 61,700 18,500 1,133
Septic tank
upgrade 14 143 2,000 1,200 140
replace 8 750 6,000 3,600 80
Cluster drainfield
Magician Bay Park 22 1,250 27,500 2,080
Dosing pump 14 gpm
TDH 20 ft 12,750 3,830 1,317
Initial cost 144,910 48,110 4,788
Service factor (35%) 50,720
Initial capital cost 195,630
D-22
-------
Table D-22. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure sewers and
cluster drainfields serving limited areas for District #15 Sister
Lakes (Alternative 10).
Item Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
STE pressure sewer pipe
2" 100 If $ 17.00 $ 1,700 $ 1,020 $ 2
3" 3,050 If 18.20 55,500 33,300 58
Service connections
STE pump 15 3,428 51,400 15,400 945
Septic tank
upgrade 15 143 2,150 1,290 150
replace 5 750 3,750 2,250 50
Cluster drainfield
Sandy Beach Resort 21 1,250 26,250 2,080
Dosing pump 13 gpm
TDH 20 ft 12,750 3,830 1,317
Initial cost 153,500 57,090 4,602
Service factor (35%) 53,730
Initial capital cost 207,230
Future connections cost
Building sewer 1 55 60 30
Septic tank + STE pump 1 4,128 4,130 1,240 73
Future connections cost 4,190 1,270 73
Annual future connections cost 210 64 4
D-23
-------
Table D-23. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for District #1 Indian Lake
(Alternative 10).
Item
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
Lift pump + raised drain
bed
dry well
lift pump + dry welL
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank:
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Future costs
Annual future cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
154
30
184
27
7
7
10
5
12
10
8
2
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
$22,030
22,450
20,330
1L.340
10,890
24,210
2,890
17,340
14,700
6,680
1,670
154,530
54,090
208,620
$13,230
13,500
4,000
1,000
31,730
O&M
$1,540
300
1,840
434
620
744
320
240
6,038
17
17
17
12
7
4
8
3
3
3
1
2
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
940
11,900
9,040
11,340
6,220
19,380
1,730
4,330
4,410
840
1,670
70,800
3,540
560
7,140
500
1,000
9,200
460
170
170
434
496
186
140
240
1,736
868
D-24
-------
Table D-24. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for District //2 Indian Lake
(Alternative 10).
Item
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain
bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Future costs
Annual future cost
Quantity jJnit Cost Construction Salvage
101
21
122
7
10
5
7
5
10
6
0
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
$14,430
15,730
5,280
16,200
7,780
16,970
2,890
14,440
8,820
5,020
107,560
37,650
145,210
13
13
13
10
3
10
2
0
2
3
2
1
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
1,444
1,470
835
835
720
9,100
7,540
4,860
15,550
4,840
2,890
4,410
1,670
840
52,420
2,621
$,8,690
9,450
3,010
21,150
O&M
$1,010
210
1,220
620
434
620
240
4,354
430
5,460 130
130
186
124
124
1,000 80
500 120
7,390 894
370 45
D-25
-------
Table D-25. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for District #3 Indian Lake
(Alternative 10).
Item
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain
bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Future costs
Annual future cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
13
O&M
99
38
137
4
7
9
9
2
6
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
1,555
578
1,444
$14,150
28,470
3,010
11,340
14,000
21,800
1,160
8,670
$ 8,510 $ 990
17,100 380
1,370
434
558
372
1,470
835
835
19,110
6,680
4,180
128,570
45,000
173,570
4,010
2,500
32,110
320
600
5,024
18
18
18
12
7
4
8
3
3
3
1
2
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
990
12,600
9,040
11,340
6,230
19,370
1,730
4,340
4,410
840
1,670
72,560
3,628
590
7,560
500
1,000
9,650
483
180
180
434
496
186
__
40
240
1,756
88
D-26
-------
Table D-26. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for District #1 Sister Lakes
(Alternative 10).
Item
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain
bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Future costs
Annual future cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
9
8
1
O&M
85
20
105
20
5
5
15
3
4
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
$12,130
15,000
15,080
8,100
7,780
36,350
1,730
5,780
$ 7,310 $ 850
9,000 200
1,050
310
930
248
1,470
835
835
13,230
6,680
840
122,700
42,950
165,650
4,000
500
20,810
320
120
4,028
21
21
21
10
5
5
8
2
4
1
1
0
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
1,160
14,700
7,540
8,100
7,780
19,370
1,160
5,780
1,470
840
67,900
3,395
690
8,820
500
--
10,010
501
210
210
310
496
248
40
1,514
76
D-27
-------
Table D-27. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for District M Sister Lakes
(Alternative 10).
Item
Sept:!", tank
up0t ide
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain
bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift putup + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Future costs
Annual future cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
12
8
4
O&M
84
27
111
10
7
7
15
5
5
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
$12,000
20,250
7,540
11,340
10,880
36,350
2,890
7,230
$ 7,200 $ 840
12,130 270
1,110
434
930
310
L.470
835
835
17,640
6,680
3,340
136,140
47,650
183,790
4,000
2,000
25,330
320
480
4,694
29
29
29
20
7
6
5
2
2
3
2
1
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
1,590
20,300
15,080
11,340
9,330
12,120
1 , 160
2,890
4,410
1,670
840
80,730
4,037
960
12,170
1,000
500
14,630
732
290
290
434
310
124
80
120
1,648
83
D-28
-------
Table D-28. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for District #5 Sister Lakes
(Alternative 10).
Item
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain
bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Future costs
Annual future cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
145
50
195
20
12
9
12
5
9
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
$20,720
37,500
15,080
19,440
14,000
29,060
2,890
13,000
$12,470 $1,450
22,500 500
1,950
744
744
558
18
8
10
1,470
835
835
26,460
6,680
8,350
4,000
5,000
320
1,200
193,140
67,600
260,740
43,970
7,466
18
18
18
15
4
4
3
2
5
6
2
4
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
990
12,600
11,300
6,480
6,230
7,270
1,160
7,230
8,820
1,670
3,340
67,090
3,355
590
7,560
1,000
2,000
11,150
558
180
180
248
186
310
80
480
1,664
83
D-29
-------
Table D-29. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for District //6 Sister Lakes
(Alternative 10).
Item
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lii~t pump + raised drain
bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
tank for seasonal residences
tank for permanent residences
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
Permanent residences
Future costs
Annual future cost
Unit Cost Construction
O&M
172
44
216
12
1L
14
15
7
15
21.
18
3
30
30
30
25
5
5
5
4
8
5
3
2
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
L,470
835
835
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
$24,600
33,000
9,050
17,820
21,800
36,300
4,050
21,680
30,870
15,020
2,510
216,700
75,850
292,550
1,650
21,000
18,850
8,100
7,780
12,100
2,310
11,560
7,350
2,510
1,670
94,880
4,744
$14,800
19,800
__
9,020
1,500
45,120
990
12,600
1,500
1,000
16,090
805
$1,720
440
2,160
682
930
930
__
720
360
7,942
__
300
300
310
310
496
240
240
2,076
104
D-30
-------
Table D-30. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for District #7 Sister Lakes
(Alternative 10).
Item
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain
bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Future costs
Annual future cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
75
12
$ 143
750
$10,730
9,000
87
5
13
5
5
5
12
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
3,770
21,060
7,780
12,110
2,890
17,330
84,670
29,630
114,300
$ 6,440
5,400
11,840
O&M
$ 750
120
870
806
310
744
3,600
10
10
10
7
3
2
2
0
7
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
550
7,000
5,280
4,860
3,110
4,840
10,110
35,750
1,788
330
4,200
4,530
267
100
100
186
124
434
944
47
D-31
-------
Table D-31. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for District #8 Sister Lakes
(Alternative 10).
Item
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain
bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Future costs
Annual future cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
125
17
142
17
7
12
7
5
5
5
4
1
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
$17,880
12,750
12,810
11,340
18,670
17,940
2,890
7,230
7,350
3,340
840
113,040
39,560
152,600
$10,760
7,650
2,000
500
20,910
O&M
$1,250
170
1,420
434
434
310
160
120
4,298
32
32
32
17
7
5
7
5
2
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,760
22,400
12,810
11,340
7,780
17,940
2,890
2,890
79,810
3,991
1,060
13,440
14,500
725
320
320
434
434
434
124
1,632
82
D-32
-------
Table D-32. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for District //9 Sister Lakes
(Alternative 10).
Item
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain
bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank system
water conservation devies
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Future costs
Annual future cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
146
44
190
12
12
12
15
5
15
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
$20,860
33,000
9,050
19,430
18,670
36,320
2,890
21,630
$12,560 $1,460
19,800 440
1,900
744
930
930
17
12
5
1,470
835
835
24,990
10,030
4,180
6,000
2,500
480
600
201,050
10,370
241,720
40,860
7,684
27
27
27
15
9
4
10
5
10
4
2
2
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
1,490
18,900
11,320
14,580
6,230
24,210
2,890
14,440
5,880
1,670
1,670
103,280
5,164
890
11,330
1,000
1,000
14,220
711
270
270
558
620
620
80
240
2,654
133
D-33
-------
Table D-33. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for District #10 Sister Lakes
(Alternative 10).
Item Quantlt)
Septic tank
upgrade 72
replace 21
Soil absorption system 93
drain bed 14
lift pump + drain bed 13
raised drain bed 8
lift pump + raised drain
bed 7
dry well 5
lift pump + dry well 5
Unit Cost Construction Salvage
holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank system
water conservation devies
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Future costs
Annual future cost
5
3
2
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
$10,300
15,730
10,550
21,070
12,440
16,950
2,890
7,230
7,350
2,510
1,670
108,690
38,040
146,730
$ 6,190
9,450
1,500
1,000
18,140
O&M
$ 720
210
930
806
434
310
120
240
3,770
24
24
24
12
11
7
6
3
5
1
0
1
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
1,320
16,800
9,050
17,830
10,890
14,530
1,730
7,230
1,470
840
81,690
4,085
790
10,070
500
11,360
568
240
240
682
372
310
120
1,964
98
D-34
-------
Table D-34. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for District #11 Sister Lakes
(Alternative 10).
Item
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain
bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank system
water conservation devies
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Future costs
Annual future cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage
85
29
16
12
4
$ L43
750
1,470
835
835
$12,140
21,750
114
5
15
9
13
2
12
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
24,300
14,000
31,480
1,150
17,340
23,520
10,020
3,340
159,040
55,660
214,700
$ 7,400
13,050
6,000
2,000
28,450
O&M
$ 850
290
1,140
930
806
744
480
480
5,720
8
8
8
5
6
3
4
0
4
2
1
1
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
440
5,600
3,770
9,730
4,670
9,690
5,780
2,940
840
840
44,300
2,215
260
3,760
500
500
5,020
251
80
80
372
248
248
40
120
1,188
59
D-35
-------
Table D-35. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for District #12 Sister Lakes
(Alternative 10).
Item
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain
bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Future costs
Annual future cost
Quantity Unit Cost Construction jalva
0£M
60
21
81
10
10
5
10
5
10
10
10
10
7
8
3
10
0
5
$ 143
750
__
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
$ 8,580
15,750
7,540
16,200
7,780
24,210
2,890
14,440
97,390
34,080
131,470
550
7,000
5,280
12,960
4,660
24,210
_-
7,220
61,880
3,094
$ 5,150
9,450
,
14,600
330
4,200
4,530
$ 600
210
810
620
620
620
3,480
100
100
496
620
310
1,626
81
D-36
-------
Table D-36. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for District #13 Sister Lakes
(Alternative 10).
Item Quantit
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain
bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Future costs
Annual future cost
Unit Cost Construction Salvage
0£M
81
37
118
5
15
10
12
7
12
15
11
4
32
32
32
25
5
5
7
2
4
3
2
1
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
$11,560
27,730
3,770
24,300
15,550
29,050
4,050
17,330
22,050
9,190
3,340
167,920
58,770
226,690
1,760
22,400
18,830
8,100
7,780
16,950
1,160
5,780
4,410
1,670
840
89,680
4,484
$ 6,950
16,630
__
5,500
2,000
31,080
1,060
13,440
^^^
1,000
500
16,000
800
$ 810
370
1,180
930
744
744
__
440
480
5,698
L T mri
320
320
310
434
248
80
120
1,832
92
D-37
-------
Table D-37. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for District #14 Sister Lakes
(Alternative 10).
Item ^SB^itZ Unit Cost Construction Salvage 0 &M
Septic tank
upgrade 22 $ 143 $ 3,150 $ 1,890 $ 220
replace 7 750 5,250 3,150 70
Soil absorption system 29 -- 290
drain bed 0 754
lift pump + drain bed 5 1,620 8,100 310
raised drain bed 3 1,555 4,660
lift pump + raised drain
bed 2 2,421 4,840 124
dry well 1 578 580
lift pump + dry well 1 1,444 1,440 62
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices 5 1,470 7,350
seasonal residences 5 835 4,, 180 2,500 200
Initial cost 39,550 7,540 1,476
Service factor (35%) 13,840
Initial capital cost 53,390
Future costs
Building sewer 3 55 160 100
Septic tank 3 700 2,100 1,260 30
Soil absorption systems 3 30
drain bed 2 754 1,510
lift pump + drain bed 2 1,620 3,240 124
raised drain bed 1 1,555 1,560
lift pump + raised drain bed 1 2,421 2,420 62
lift pump + dry weLl 2 1,444 2,890 124
Future costs 13,880 1,360 370
Annual future cost 694 68 19
D-38
-------
Table B-38. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-site systems
in areas not served by cluster systems for District #15 Sister Lakes
(Alternative 10).
Item
Septic tank
upgrade
replace
Soil absorption system
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain
bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption systems
drain bed
lift pump + drain bed
raised drain bed
lift pump + raised drain bed
dry well
lift pump + dry well
Holding tank systems
water conservation devices
seasonal residences
permanent residences
Future costs
Annual future cost
Quantity IJnit Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
146
27
173
20
15
17
13
7
17
7
5
2
$ 143
750
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
$20,860
20,250
15,080
24,300
26,450
31,500
4,050
24,530
10,290
4,170
1,670
183,150
64,100
247,250
$12,550
12,140
2,500
1,000
28,180
$ 1,460
270
1,730
931
806
1,053
200
240
6,690
28
28
28
15
8
8
12
5
7
3
2
1
55
700
754
1,620
1,555
2,421
578
1,444
1,470
835
835
1,540
19,600
11,310
12,960
12,430
29,100
2,890
10,120
4,410
1,670
840
106,870
5,344
940
11,760
1,000
500
14,200
710
280
280
496
744
434
80
120
2,434
122
D-39
-------
APPENDIX E
Letters and Written Comments
-------
I SOUTHWESTERN
MICHIGAN
COMMISSION
"Serving Business
and Government"
SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN COMMISSION
2907 Division Street, St. Joseph, Ml 49085-3498
616/983-1529-Within 616, 800/442-0762
September 28, 1982
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, 5WFI-12
Chief, Environmental Impact Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
Attached is the Southwestern Michigan Commission's Public Hearing
Statement on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Indian/Sister/Pipestone Lakes Wastewater Treatment System.
This Public Hearing Statement was approved first by the Commission's
Planning and Resources Committee and then by the full Southwestern
Michigan Commission (previously named the Southwestern Michigan
Regional Planning Commission).
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this Statement.
Sincerely,
PLANNING AND RESOURCES
Peter D. Elliott
Program Manager
Attachment
Business Promotion Program Miles and Twin Cities Area Transportation Human Resources Regional Planning
Tourist Council Ridesharing Southwestern Michigan Development Company, Inc. Ph. 616/983-7234
-------
THE
SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN COMMISSION'S
PUBLIC HEARING STATEMENT
ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE
INDIAN / SISTER / FIRESTONE LAKES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
September 28, 1982
The Southwestern Michigan Commission is gravely concerned that
.»
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not addressed
comments previously submitted by our Comniiss'ion. Specifically,
the Commission has expressed concern that Alternative #9, the
recommended wastewater system alternative, is not viable and is
unappropriate based on existing physical conditions and costs.
We believe that a combination of several alternatives may be
appropriate.
These comments were submitted to the U.S. EPA in May of 1982 along
with an invitation to meet with us. There has been no follow-up
on these comments, so the Commission wishes to reiterate them and
to ask that the alternatives be re-evaluated. This re-evaluation
must consider the real local situation, both environmental and
governmental. Based on our knowledge, Pipestone Lake is well suited
to Alternative ;;3A or S3, Indian Lake to Alternative l'-6, anc; the
Sister Lakes to combinations of #8A, 8B, and 9 (with no holding tanks)
Practically all of the data-base collected to date for this Environ-
mental Impact Statement is unacceptable in our minds. The Septic
Leachate Survey was conducted in October of 1979, well after the
seasonal influx of lake residents had departed. The aerial photo-
graphy survey was likewise conducted at the wrong time of the year,
after the trees and shrubs had leafed out in May of 1979. This makes
(more)
-------
Southwestern Michigan Commission
Public Hearing Statement
September 28, 1982
Page 2
the photography practically useless for its intended purpose of
detecting septic system failures. The demographic data is acceptable
to us only because a preliminary review by our County and Regional
staff pointed out gross errors that the EPA has since corrected.
Attached for the Public Hearing Record are three letters from our
Commission to the U.S. EPA over the past three years that have
provided comments and guidance, all of which has been largely ignored.
In August of 1979, the Commission requested significant involvement
in the development of this draft EIS. This has not happened. Although
a Citizen's Advisory Committee v»as organized rather late in the
process, no EPA staff was available to meet with the group to discuss
various aspects of the study.
This EIS project, with an expected final cost of $425,000, has
been so mis-managed by the U.S. EPA that the Southwestern Michigan
Commission cannot support the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and most likely the Final Statement until such time that a major
re-evaluation of the recommended wastewater system alternative
occurs along with extensive involvement of County Planning and
Health Department expertise from our three counties.
IP closing, wa vrish to endorse th? cor'.T.?nt3 of Lho ^erri
and Cass County Health Departments dated May 6, 1982 and September
21, 1982, respectively.
This Public Hearing Statement was
approved at the September 28, 1982
meeting of the:
SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN COMMISSION PLANNING AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE
^-\
^' " / /
<' ///- ^-v; , /'
- N- //_.-^_-~i' -.,'/ A*i
. -- ' ' ' ^-^X-
_
Frances Sage, Chair -; y Robert J. Smith /"Chair
-------
Southwestern Michigan Commission
Public Hearing Statement
September 28, 1982
Page 3
cc: U.S. Senator Donald Riegle, Jr.
U.S. Senator Carl Levin
U.S. Representative Mark D. Siljander
State Senator Harry Cast, Jr.
State Senator John A. Wei born
State Representative Carl F. Gnodtke
State Representative Harmon Cropsey
State Representative Bel a E. Kennedy
State Representative Lad S. Stacey
John C. Hertel, Chairman, Senate Environmental and Agricultural
Affairs Committee
Tom Anderson, Chairman, House Conservation Environment and
Recreation Committee
Raymond Hood, Chairman, House Public Health Committee
James Barcia, Chairman, House Public Works Committee
Valdas Adamcus, U.S. EPA Regional Administrator
Harlan D. Hirt, Chief, Environmental Impact Section, U.S. EPA
Charles A. Quinlan,1 III, U.S. EPA Project Monitor
Howard A. Tanner, Director, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Robert J. Courchaine, Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Johnie A. Rodebush, Chairman, Cass County Department of Public
Works
Mr. & Mrs. Richard A. Meisterheim, Co-Chair, Citizen's Advisory
Committee
-------
Southwestern Michigan Regional Planning Commission
2907 Division Street St. Joseph, Michigan 49085 Telephone 616/983-1529
August 28, 1979
Ms. Kathleen Schaub
EIS Preparation Section
Environmental Engineering Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Ms. Schaub:
>
Re: Indian Lake/Sister Lakes EIS
The Southwestern Michigan Regional Planning Commission's (SMRPC's)
Environmental Quality Committee met to discuss the Indian Lake/
Sister Lakes Study. There was much discussion concerning the role
that local people will play in developing plans for this area.
I would like to pass along a few thoughts and request some information.:
During the development of the 208 Areawide Water Quality Plan, the
SMRPC established a TAC to advise the Commission on water quality
matters. Many of the people that you are organizing into a TAC were
on this former TAC which currently continues in a very much smaller
version. The former TAC established bylaws and reported directly to
the SMRPC. I have enclosed a copy of those bylaws for your reference.
We believe that the first step toward e successful study is for you
to clarify for us the roles that l.be venous loc-?l aQer.oes. advisory
groups, staff, and citizens will play in the conduct of the study.
Especially set out the structure and roles of the TAC that you have
organized, and also the role of the SMRPC, which has received EPA
approval as the Water Quality Board for southwestern Michigan. We
would like to know who the TAC will advise an-d will it be a decision
making group. It is particularly important that the purpose of your
TAC be clearly detailed to the members. Many of the members must
justify time spent at meetings and in reviewing information. Also,
in what manner will local comments receive serious consideration,
and how will conflicts be resolved?
According to the Federal Regulations, the purpose of a Notice of
Intent is to encourage agency and public input into a draft EIS.
We would like, at this point, to specifically request opportunities
for this input, not merely in the form of exchanging data, but with
review and the making of recommendations during the development of
the draft EIS. Perhaps as sections of chapters are written, you could
send~mem"- to the SMRPC for .'distribution to the TAC. . .
-------
Ms. Kathleen Schauh
Page 2
August 28, 1979
The SMRPC is very interested in assisting a well-organized study that
will respond to the needs and financial capabilities of the residents
of our region. The result of any study must, of necessity, be
politically feasible and also workable within the existing local
codes and ordinances. The Environmental Quality Committee and staff
stand ready to coordinate any meetings and distribute any information
and papers for review at the local level that will be necessary.
With your timely response to these questions, we can be prepared to
provide input to this important study.
I look forward to your reply. Please respond to the SMRPC,
Environmental Quality Committee, Mr. Robert Smith, Chairman in
care of Mr. Peter Elliott at the letterhead address.
Sincerely,
SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN REGIONAL
PLANNING COMMISSION
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COMMITTEE
mjo
Enclosure
Robert J. Smith, Chairman
cc: Mr. Gene Wojcik, Chief, EIS Section
Mr. John Piccininni, 208 Project Officer *
Mr. John McGuire, EPA Regional Administrator, Region V
Boards of Commissioners; Berrienj Cass, and Van Buren Counties
Boards of Public Works
Township Supervisors: Bainbridge (Berrten), Keeler (Van Buren),
Silver Creek (Cass), 'Pokagcn
David A, Stockman, f^nbe." of
-------
Southwestern SVlichigan Regional Planning Commission
2907 Division Street St. Joseph, Michigan 49085 Telephone 616/983-1529
January 25, 1980
Ms. Kathleen M. Schaub, Project Officer
EIS Section
Environmental Engineering Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, II 60604
RE: Indian/Sister Lakes EIS
t
Dear Ms. Schaub:
Thank you very much for the information that you recently sent me.
Mr. Tally Richards and I are prepared to call the first advisory
group meeting as soon as there are review materials available.
I feel that review materials should be mailed out in advance of any.
meeting with the meeting notice. This will provide time for thorough
advanced reading so that the meeting can be used for productive
discussion. Please let me know how you think this sort of mailing
can best be accomplished. I do not believe that the SMRPC could
absorb these mailing costs.
As was requested in the SMRPC's August 28, 1979 letter, we expect
input into the draft EIS, not simple review of the draft before the
final EIS. This is very important. For the EIS to be successful in
this region, support rnust bz built from the beginning. This hasn't
bean accomplished thus for. There is a lot of skepticism en tho part
of many local officials and citizens.
Please send chapters or portions of chapters, (such as the Introduction,
Environmental Setting), or data and field reports.(soils, groundwater,
surface water, Septic Snooper, etc.) when they are drafted so that
our local review and input may begin. If local people are initially
provided a draft EIS, similar to what has been done for the Rural Lake
Projects - Case Studies, I believe the reaction will be most unfavorable.
-------
Ms. Kathleen M. Scha
January 25, 1980
Page 2
Please notify Mr. Richards and myself when to expect the first set of
review materials, and a schedule for all future outputs would be
very he!pful.
We await your earliest response. Please call me if this warrants
discussion.
Sincerely,
Peter D. Elliott
Planner
PDE/mz
re; Mr. Gene Wojcik, Chief, EIS Section
Mr. John Piccininni, 208 Project. Officer
-------
Administrators for:
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION and
SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN
BUSINESS PROMOTION PROGRAM
Southwestern Michigan Regional Planning Commission
2907 Division Street St. Joseph, Michigan 49085 616/983-1529 or 800/442-0762
May 18, 1982
Charles A. Quinlan III, Project Monitor
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Attention: 5WFI-12
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. Quinlan:
Environmental Health and Planning Staff from Berrien, Cass and Van
Buren Counties and the SMRPC staff have discussed Chapters I - IV
of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Statement for Indian/Sister
Lakes, Michigan. Based on their cursory examination of the docu-
ments, we must notify you that Chapter 2.0 - DISCUSSIONS OF WASTE-
WATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES is locally unacceptable in its present
form. Alternative #9 is not viable and is unappropriate based on
existing physical conditions and costs. A combination of several
alternatives may be appropriate.
These comments are being submitted to you because local technical
staff in cooperation x^ith the SMRPC's Planning and Resources Com-
mittee, the Cass County Department of Public Works, and the EIS
Citizens Advisory Committee feel they have an obligation to point
out serious problems at the earliest possible time. Specific
solutions to these problems could be offered locally, however,
reimbursement for the time needed for this has not been made
available.
We invite you to meet with us and oar staff to discuss these com-
ments in detail.
Sincerely,
PLANNING AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Robert J. Smith, Chairman
jah
cc: Valdas Adamcus, EPA Regional Administrator.
Johnie Rodebush, Chairman, Cass County Dept. of Public Works
Mr. & Mrs. Meisterheim, Co-Chair, Citizens Advisory Committee
E.vrrisn Cvcr* v,'o.i Buran
-------
BERRIEN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
769 Pipestone, P.O. Box 706 425 West Buffalo Street 1205 North Front Street
Benton Harbor, Michigan 49022 New Buffalo, Michigan 49117 Niles, Michigan 49120
Telephone: 926-7121 Telephone: 469-5220 Telephone: 684-2800
May 6, 1982
Mr. Peter Elliott
Southwestern Michigan Regional Planning Commission
2907 Division Street
St. Joseph, Michigan 49085
Re: Indian/Sister/Pipestone Lakes
Environmental Statement
Dear Mr. Elliott:
Enclosed please find my comments to subject plan with the first
comments being specific and the second set of comments being of a
more general nature. Due to time limitations this quick review is
not intended to be comprehensive and may be only a "bandaide
to a terminally ill project".
A. Specific Comments:
Page 2-18, last paragraph, fourth line - add "and Berrieh" between
Cass and County.
2-35 Summary, sixth line - I object to "are not necessary" since
a limited soil absorption capacity would make water conservation
measures a valuable tool on individual situations.
2-77 - There has been no mention of composting toilets as an
alternative system.
2-83 - I do net ag.'e-a with cojt Snores i'o - C!LC;VV, -;(::. a -.L.T ::.:' °-
and an alternative number 10 ''Do Nothing" should be added
with its associated cost!
2-83 - Alternatives 8 A and 8 B do not mention Michigan's legal
" against cluster systems. *
2-53 - Land Disposal - this section contains many naive statements.
3-17 - Pipestone Creek is a designated trout stream.
3-74 - The Berrien County Health Department Sanitary Code
does not authorize permits for replacement systems.
-------
Mr. Peter Elliott
May 6, 1982
Page 2
3-75 - sixth line "rarely limit installation of on-site systems" is
not accurate.
3-76 - last paragraph is inaccurate.
4-24 - last paragraph - poor comparison as Muskegon's project
uses very heavy dose rates.
»
B. General Comments
1. Pipestone Lake is well suited to alternative 8 A or 8 B and
I'm sure these alternatives for apprimately the 60 structures
around Pipestone Lake could have already been accomplished
with the money spent on 12 years of study!
Sincerely,
Donald Oderkirk, R.S., M.S.
Director of Environmental Health
DO:bm
-------
RECEIVED SEP 2 3 198
Cass County Health Department
24010 HOSPITAL ROAO a CASSOPOUS. MICHIGAN 49031
PHONES
CASSOPOLIS 445-8654
DOWAGIAC 782-2856
September 21, 1982
Val Adamkus
Regional Administrator
Region 5
E.P.A. ,
230 S. Dearborn Street '
Chicago, Illinois 60608
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Indian Lake-Sister
Lakes, Cass, Berrien and Van Buren Counties, Michigan
Dear Mr. Adamkus:
Recently our department received a draft copy of the above-captioned
document. Because of the volume of paper generated in the report
we could not review each page in detail. However, a concerted effort
was made to review those aspects related to the proposed alternative
(attached) . The following comments and questions are meant to be
part of the public record and must be taken into consideration:
Sludge Disposal (pg. 2-46) the region in question does not have
facilities for sludge disposal such as incineration, digestion or
wet - oxidation processes. Presently nearly all septic sludge is
disposed of by surface land application on sites designed to handle
a minimal amount of effluent. Sludge is obviously a hazardous waste
that if improperly handled can degrade the environment and be the
cause of serious disease, (pg. 2-52) Septage is extremely difficult
if not 'impractical to handle in the winter because of access to
homes and frozen disposal sites. Because the plan relies heavily
on (pump and haul) we question the. logic!
The Water Resources Commission is presently corsilering significant
changes in their pump and haul policy that will certainly affect
this alternative depending on the outcome.
(Pg. 2-56) There is no guarantee that any Waste Water Treatment
Plant will accept this material over an extended period of time.
There is a real possibility that pump and haul wastes will not have
an environmentally safe grave.
Pg. 2-47) There are few if any 400 sq. ft. drain beds that function
for 20 years. Our experiences would indicate that 1000 sq. ft. would
be necessary to reach a 20 year life and that would be under optimum
site condition. This could easily double the cost estimate in the
Tables (Sec. D) .
-------
Val Adarnkus Page 2
September 21, 1982
Pg. 2-51) Discusses seasonal or temporary systems. Based on
their estimates of having a tank pumped 3 times a year means
that a family of 4 (no company allowed) can only live 10 days
at their homes. (300 gal. day x 10 days = 3000 gal). This
3000 gallons does not allow for infiltration of the tanks and
cannot prevent the sale of a summer home to a year around premise.
If this should occur a new owner would have an annual cost of
$7,665.00 (300 gals/day x 365 days T 1000 gallon haul capacity x
$70/load) to just maintain a minimal water usage.
Pg. 2-52) Refers to cluster systems. If M.D.N.R. continues to
effectively prevent the discharge of effluent into the ground
water at non-degradable levels (in effect 0-discharge as present-
ly defined by W R.C.) thsre will be no use of cluster systems
that depend on drain fields for final disposal. There is no drain
field that can consistently discharge "distilled" water which is
about as close to 0-discharge as we can determine.
Obviously there are a number of serious problems with the alternative
proposed. These problems will not be resolved by additional studies
as recommended by E.P.A. In fact you can be assured that a serious
waste of your E.P.A. funding is the only "sure thing" of these studies.
It is unfortunate that legitimate local involvement is not solicited
for these projects. We are problem-solving oriented and feel there
are obvious, logical, and cost effective solutions that are not re-
flected in the draft. To assure successful studies in the future, we
would recommend you first determine what expertise is existing and
available in the community and second require that the budgets of these
studies include local reimbursement.
Thank you for your consideration and also enclosed is a copy of a past
letter concerning the project.
Sincerely,
CASS COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Division of Environmental Health
Dale Hippensteel, Director
-------
MDNR. Water quality inx^he "receiving streams^would be altered^" but ySt
seriously degraded during the annual discharge period. The la'nd application
alternative should result in minimal operating impacts because the infiltrated
water should^^e of Comparatively lUgh quality.
S^ptage/and holding ta^k/waste hauling wJuld result in afinimal adverse
imoadts. /Some ephemeralXddors from the mimping operation .xfculd be detected
and trjick traffic wou>^/be present. Sep^age disposal would be cond^itted in an
env.ironmentally coslBaxtible way with application to agricultural/lands.
^^^.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The least cost alternative from both an economic and an environmental
pp.r8iect5.ve is Alternative 9 - on-site system upgrading and blackwater holding
tanks for some critical areas. -Because insufficient data have been--developed
s
in the study thus far to conclusively document a need for improved sewage
treatment, USEPA, Region V has decided that additional studies will be con-
ducted during the period between publication of the Draft EIS and the Final
EIS.
These studies may include:
A sanitary survey of 30% of the residences in the study area
A septic leachate detector scan of drinking water samples
obtained from each house visited in the sanitary survey for
traces of wastewater effluent
A near-shore hydrology study to
ground -ntar flow.
determine -he direction of
, 8ed On the available information and the additional studies, a more pre-
;,,-, " y deflnad waatewater management system for the study area will be recom-
,,...-- -,- - .th* Final EIS- An alternative that includes primary reliance otT]
-W*"*^? ^»t««tar management systems is clearly justified for the study area-J
IE* mcBMBded alternative aay include holding tanks> blackwater holding
tO&JM.- ASd Clu3tar drainfields where it is demonstrated that off-site treat-
of ia«tesratsr ia Deeded.
-------
Cass County Health Department
, 2 H03?ITAl 90*0 » CASSOfOUS. MICHIGAN 400J1
Anril 27 1979 CASSOKJUSMSJS
April ^/ ,ia/y OOWACIAC TW.M
Mr. Kent Peterson
Wapora Inc.
Suite 490
35 E. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, ILL. 60601
RE: Indian Lake and Sisters Lake study.
Dear Mr. Peterson;
This letter is to confirm our April 25, 1979 conversation
concerning your request for the following information:
1) Replacement septic systems installed in the Sisters
Lake area since 1978.
2) Location of any dry-well systems in the area of Sisters
Lakes
3) Location of all the sewage disposal problems of the area.
4) Listing of location and typw of all"alternative"systems
in the area. :
As we discussed it will be impossible to obtain this in-
formation prior to June, 1979 as you requested. We presently
do not have the staff to purge our files in detail to assimilate
this data due to numerous reasons.
However, we would certainly provide any assistance we could
if your company would decide to visit our office and use our
files to gather this information. We recently aided another
engineering company in their research and it took their engineer
approximately three days to accurately gather this type of
information.
We also would presume that if extensive technical assistance
if needed from our Division that your company has included that
reimbursement is available to the County.
Please feel free to contact our office if you have any
further questions. 4
Sincerely,
Don Oberkeik s^CfcSS COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Les Brown ( / ) /7 //
Pete Elliot v<^JC&& tt
Dale Hippenseel,RS.
Environmental Director
DH/bk
-------
September 23, 1982
Environmental Protection Agency
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: Sewer Project for Indian Lake, Cass County, Michigan
As a property owner with 270 front feet on Indian Lake who has installed
new septic systems in compliance with local health requirements. We
believe strongly that the only way to save this lake from continued pollution
is to install a central sewer system.
There are times when we are forced to limit use of toilets. We alleviate
these problems by pumping the tanks annually or when needed.
We favor moving ahead with a system for Indian Lake in a cooperative
program with the city of Dowagiac, which we understand has low utilization
of their system.
C. M. Hoover
Moody Road at Brush Lake Road
Indian Lake
Rt. 2
Eau Claire, Michigan 49111
-------
-L^oaqla^. CPT J3e.n.ton
650 J>. WcitgaU <#
-------
650 Jo. A'-'^pj-'t^ t - -
Des Plaines, 111. 60016
. 22, 1982
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region 5
230 do. Dearborn dt.
Chicago, Illinois 6060^
Attnt Mr. Ciiarles Quinlan
Re i Indian Lake Wastewater Treatment
Sept. 9, 1982 Meeting
Dear Mr. Quinlans
I appreciate and tnenk you for t:ie direct and informative
mode of tne meeting.
£>ome items covered were:
(a) Increasing density and use of septic systems is occurina
at Indian Lake.
( b) 50$ or so of lake frontage lots have septic systems located
witnin 2 feet of lake hi«|h water level.
(c) i'lost existing septic systems do not conform to present
township code. Many lots ar£ inadequate in size to oerm.it
conf ori-nance .
(d) Many septic systems are!"flusned sparingly end pumped annual
ly or more often ot keep useable.
(e) Indian Lake residents took steps toward imorov^d wastewpter
treatment in 1975.
(f) Znese residents feel P long ranae cost effective solution
to wastewater treatment improvement is a hiwn oriority in-
vestment .
(g) Indian La'^e people a^'e interested in resolvinc- tn^> need as
a separate party.
In view of t:ie above items an^ 4~ne 19?^ r^rat't for a o
icant wastewater treatment for Indian Ia'>re, isn1^ positive
action indicated now?
I, and my friends from t;iQ Lake, look forward to tne
2otn
Respectfully,
Doupffass Benton P.2.
-------
724 Ranch Road
Wheaton, Illinois 6018?
September 29, 1982
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Environmental Impact Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
Attn: 5WFI
Dear Mr. Hirt:
We are in favor of a waste water treatment facility for the greater
Sister Lakes area.
Our summer cottage on Round Lake has been a family treasure since
1928. The healthiness of the Lake and its long-term survival
are of vital importance to me.
We strongly support a sewer system and hope the community can over
look the cost in the short term for the long term benefits. The only
other choice will eventually be the destruction of our loved Round Lake.
Sincerely,
Fred and Jan Polmanteer
CO
O
-------
/
This letter is concerning a proposed sewage system for Indian Lake,
Eau Claire, Michigan.
We have recently become greatly concerned about the pollution of
Indian Lake. Various problems with septic tanks around Indian Lake have
made it necessary to take action in order to keep the lake both clean and
safe. We feel that it would be very worthwhile for a sewage system to
be created for the residents of our lake. It would eliminate the pollution
and also the problems and expense incurred yearly to maintain a septic tank»
Problems with our septic tank include.the following:
- septic system does not allow the toilet to be flushed regularly
- shower can only be sued for a very limited time
- laundry facilities cannot be installed or used
- septic must be pumped at least twice a year for it to function
somewhat properly.
A sewage system would also eliminate these problems.
However, we feel that the proposed sewage system should be kept
separate and unique from the Sisters Lake area. The reason being that it
would hold-up the progress of installation, as necessary and timely surveys
must be performed for the Sisters Lake area which have alreday been completed
for Indian Lake. Also, the population of Sisters Lakes is large enough
to warrant a sewage system for that area apart from Indian Lake. Therefore,
it would seem most advantageous to hook-up andfr Indian Lake sewage system
to the nearby waterworks in Dowagic, whose facility would be able to
accomodate it.
In closing, I would like to repeat that it is urgent that we take
immediate action to control the pollution of Indian Lake as all of its
residents are affected by it.
\
Sincerely,
-------
3662 W. 113th St. L35
Chicago, IL 60655 2g fN> -Tl
September 17, 1982 >> oo "
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency r-\
Region V ' §:
230 S. Dearborn St. iS __
Chicago, IL 60604 CC
o <=; C3
Attn: Valdas V. Adamkus ^ c*>
Dear Sir:
I received the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Indian Lake - Sister Lakes Wastewater Treatment Facilities in
Berrien, Cass and Van Buren Counties in Michigan.
I briefly read through it and have a question about the
payment plan that was outlined accordingly to the proposals
that could be adopted.
It states we would be paying a percentage of income in
accordance with the plan that would be selected. I would like
to know if a person retires would the payment be rated to
income if one is on pension? I am working now but in a few
years plan on retiring.
Would appreciate it if you could answer this question for
me.
Sincerely,
Rosemary
Magician tak'e Resident
-------
FRANK
MILLER
6 O/>|UO Main Office & Plant: *f
13831 South Emerald Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60627 Area 312:466-3500
Eftablithcd 1889
"O
October 11, 1982
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency p»
230 S. Dearborn St.
Region 5
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Att: Mr. Charles Quilan
Dear Mr. Quilan:
I am an owner of a summer home on Indian Lake which is
in the Sister Lakes area in Dowagiac, Michigan.
For some time, we have been trying to get sewers placed
in this area because of the congestion and old septic systems that
were put in as far back as fifty years ago and maybe longer.
Some of the homes were built very close to one another
at that time, and should a replacement of a septic system be nec-
essary with the new codes that have been changed, it would be very
difficult for some of these homes to meet. Therefore, the only
solution would be that a sewer system be put in, and the one that
we would like would be Alternative 6. It is our hope that you
would approve of this sewer system.
en
a
Hoping that your decision is favora
I remain
CFM:rk
-------
Richard Williams
PHONE (312)96O-33OO
R.T. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
consulting engineers
34 WEST BURLINGTON STREET WESTMpNT, ILI$JOIS 6Q£59
October 13, [£982 "
Mr. Charles Quinlan "J:"- -^
United States Environmental Protection Agency - ro ~, ,
Region Five *£. r , \
230 South Dearborn O -*= v'-
Chicago, IL 60604 X ^
Dear Mr. Quinlan:
This letter is in response to the upcoming decision
that will be made by your department concerning the
selection of a design concept for the proposed
sewer system serving Indian Lake, Michigan. I have
a residence on Indian Lake and I am personally in
favor of Alternative Six and do not see the
feasibility of Alternate Nine due to the low ground
water conditions. Alternate Nine probably is
economical and nominally applicable to most
situations but considering our lowlands, there will
be problems in the future. Combining this fact and
the costs of maintaining many independent systems
when we are all aware of the excess capacity built
into the Dowagiac system only makes the decision to
annex to the Dowagiac system logical. I hope your
decision is the best one for our community.
Sincerely,
RW/mlm
3590-2
-------
->-x<*_<*-»<_^»
.V5*^^-3*-
^-^
So ^^sC^S^Ca^^s^ '
**s£4^_ v^S >I^i^:^^^Vs^^>,
-------
c*H>s^ ^_a_>v-»-
-------
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Soil
Conservation
Service
1405 South Harrison Road, Room 101
East Lansing, Michigan
48823
November 1, 1982
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Indian Lake -
Sister Lakes Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Berrien, Cass and Van Buren
Counties in Michigan, dated August 1982, was received by this office for review
and comment.
We are pleased to note that soils information for the counties involved was
available and incorporated in the draft report. It was also noted that refer-
ence is made to potential erosion hazards on soils that will be exposed during
construction. We suggest that the necessary steps will be taken to revegetate
the areas involved as soon as possible to control erosion and maintain the
water quality within the water areas affected.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this document.
Sincerely,
Homer R. Hilner
State Conservationist
cc: Peter C. Myers, Chief, SCS, Washington, D.C. 20013
HRH:cms:kp 4831B
The Soil Conservation Service
is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
NORTH CENTRAL REGION
175 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
ER-82/1526 28 October
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Adamkus:
The Department of Interior has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for Indian Lake-Sister Lakes Vastewater Treatment
System, Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren Counties and find the document to
be seriously deficient in not providing a clear understanding of the
environmental impacts of each specific alternative so the least
damaging alternative can be identified. Due to the lack of
information and site specific detail, we found the Draft EIS to be
premature and inadequate.
Ye believe there should be more information relating to mitigation of
wetland impacts, detailed information describing location and size of
wetlands possibly impacted by various alternatives, and information on
how Executive Orders 11990 and 11988 will be complied with. Ye do not
believe that mitigation measures to offset unavoidable losses are
adequately developed in the document in its present form.
Another serious deficiency with the document is the lack of a definite
preferred alternative with subsequent discussion of actual site
specific impacts. Ye strongly recommend that, after additional
studies have been completed and deficiencies corrected, a revised
draft statement be issued. Ye do not believe the Final EIS is the
proper document for a preferred alternative to finally materialize.
If a revised draft statement is not issued, we may pursue a CEQ
Referral.
Ye also have some specific comments concerning the requirements for
control of erosion and runoff from construction activities, pages 4-50
and 4-51 Ye believe these requirements should be considered as
general guidelines from which specific requirements could be derived.
If these are in fact requirements, we recommend using must instead of
should for each statement. Ye also recommend adding some mechanism
such as a performance bond to assure compliance.
-------
-2-
Another specific comment concerns Section 3.1.4*2 Mollusks, page
3-45, which references the mollusk (Epioblasma sulcata delicata) as
the white cat's eye. Please note that the correct common name is the
white cat's paw.
Sand and gravel resources and associated mining are important
characteristics of the study area and have not been included as part
of the discussion of the Affected Environment (Section 3«0).
Extensive resources of sand and gravel occur throughout the area.
Glacial karaes, in particular, are composed of valuable sand and
gravel.
For completeness, the EIS should delineate areas where known deposits
occur and should describe what effects, if any, project implementation
will have on mineral resources.
In summary we would like to state that, based on the limited
information available to us, we agree with the assumption that an
alternative that includes primary reliance on on-site wastewater
management is justified for the study area.
Sincerely yours
heila M. Huff
Regional Environmental Officer
-------
FOR: DR. SMITH
1. What is the cost of proposed new study?
2. Is there implementation money available?
3. How can further studies be stopped?
A. Was funding made available to local agencies to assist?
5. What are the public health consequences of sewage purge and
haul procedures?
6. How dees the Vater Resources Commission position on non-degradation
of ground water affect the use of semi-public sewage systems.
7. Why was the Indian Lake not seperated out since F.H.A. money was
available sometime ago for construction of sewers.
8. Who do you really expect to solve our local problems?
.
sen 73.
c?
-------
Dr. Daniel J. Dyman
50140 Adams Drive
Dowagiac, MI 49047
September 28, 1982
EPA
Region 5
Chicago, IL 60604
Gentlemen:
In my absence from your 9/28/82 meeting, please consider
my following proposal.
Having on occasion studied the water quality of some of
the lakes reviewed in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement Indian Lake - Sister Lakes . . ., I concur
with your findings that "nutrient levels were lower as a
group than might be expected for lakes with anticipated
water quality problems." However, I have observed that
particulate suspension in various lakes increases as
the boating season peaks. These particulates including
plankton limit the depth of the photic zone and thus
limit oxygen availability in the water. Possibily with
restricted boat size, horsepower, and usage, the photic
zone might be extended beyond the themocline. This
would increase the oxygen supply required for normal
decay processes as well as serve as a reserve against
the possibility of summer stagnation which may occur.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Daniel J. Dyman, Ed.D.
-------
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE
RICHARD H. AUSTIN
SECRETARY OF STATE
LANSING
September 17, 1982
Mr. Marian D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
Re:
u
MICHIGAN 48918
MICHIGAN HISTORY DIVISION
ADMINISTRATION, PUBLICATIONS
RESEARCH, AND HISTORIC SITES
208 N. Capitol Avenue
STATE ARCHIVES
3405 N. Logan Street
STATE MUSEUM
208 N. Capitol Avenue
ER-1665
Indian Lake - Sister Lakes
Wastewater Treatment System
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Hirt:
Our staff has reviewed this draft EIS and would like to offer the following com-
ments. Before final plans are approved, we will want an opportunity to review
any structures 50 years old or older that will be demolished, removed or altered
as a result of this project. To do this we will require photographs (keyed to a
map) along with any historic information available on the structures (date of
construction, function, etc.). We also note that the list of 14 structures given
on page 3-91 is basically useless as even the most minimal locational information
is not presented. Information on these sites and photographs of them should
either be included in the final EIS or, preferably, presented to us for our evalu-
ation prior to the preparation of the final EIS.
We concur with recommendations in section 4.1.1.12 concerning archaeological sur-
veys. Any sewer lines not under or immediately adjacent to highway right-of-ways
and all new treatment plant construction should be subjected to archaeological
survey.
Any questions in regard to this letter should be directed to John R. Halsey, State
Archaeologist and Environmental Review Coordinator or Robert 0. Christensen, Re-
gional Preservation Coordinator at (517) 373-0510.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Martha M. Bigelow
Director, Michigan History Division
and
State/Historic Preservation Officer
B. Eckert
State Historic Preservation Officer
MH-69
MMB/KBE/JRH/sl
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1983-655992
-------
-------
------- |