United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Water
Environmental          Final
Impact Statement
Moose Lake-Windemere
Sanitary District
Wastewater Treatment System
Pine and Carlton Counties,
Minnesota

                        \  
-------
   EPA-5-MN-PINE/CARLTON-MOOSE LAKE-SAWS-83
     FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

                    on the

     PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM

                   for the

    MOOSE LAKE-WINDEMERE SANITARY DISTRICT

     PINE and CARLTON COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
               Prepared by the

United States Environmental  Protection Agency

                   Region V

              Chicago, Illinois

                     and

                 WAPORA, Inc.

              Chicago, Illinois



                 October 1983
                                   Approved by:
                                               ALAN LEVIN
                                     ACTING-REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

-------
                   FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
                                  on the

                   Proposed Wastewater Treatment System
                                  for the

                  Moose Lake-Windemere Sanitary District

                   Pine and Carlton Counties, Minnesota


Prepared by US Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
For further information contact:
Charles Quinlan III, Project Officer
USEPA Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL  60604
312/886-0244


                                 ABSTRACT
     The Moose  Lake-Windemere Sanitary District  (MLWSD)  has proposed con-
structing  collection sewers  around  Island  and  Sturgeon Lakes, Windemere
Township, Pine  County,  Minnesota.   The wastewater would  be  treated in the
Moose Lake wastewater treatment plant.  Both lakes currently have surround-
ing residential development served by on on-site treatment systems.  The US
Environmental  Protection Agency  (USEPA)  determined that an Environmental
Impact Statement was  needed  for the proposed project because of the poten-
tial  environmental  impacts associated with  the construction of collection
sewers,  the  possible financial burden resulting  from  the proposed project
on  low and fixed-income  residents,  and  the possibility  for  the proposed
wastewater collection systems  to  induce growth.  The operation of existing
on-site systems was investigated.   Of the 151 on-site systems in use around
Island Lake, 45 were classified as either "definitely" or "probably" fail-
ing.   For  Sturgeon Lake,  13  of  the  143 total  systems  were classified as
probably failing.  Two lake sampling programs were conducted to investigate
the relationship between lake water qualty and nutrient inputs from failing
or inadequately operating on-site systems.  Surface water, groundwater, and
lake  sediment  core  samples  were  obtained  and analysed.   Phytoplankton
species  composition  and  abundance  was  documented.   Historical  land  use
characteristics  within  the lake watersheds  also  were  investigated.  Anal-
ysis  of  the  data   indicated  that  the nutrient  contributions  of  on-site
systems  to  the  lakes were insignificant compared  to  other non-wastewater
sources.    Seven wastewater treatment  alternatives,  including  a no-action
alternative were evaluated for cost-effectiveness and environmental Impact.
Each  action  alternative consisted  of  various  combinations  of design com-
ponents including on-site  systems upgrades,  collection system options, and
treatment plant  options.   The  selected EIS alternative is the full on-site
system upgrade  alternative which  has  an estimated  present worth  cost of
$1.01 million.   In  comparison,  the EIS alternative of constructing collec-
tion  sewers around  Island  and Sturgeon Lakes with treatment provided at an
upgraded Moose  Lake  treatment plant  had a present  worth cost  of  $4.61
million.

-------
                            SUMMARY OF THE EIS
1.0.  PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

     The project area encompasses an area surrounding Island Lake,  Sturgeon
Lake, Rush Lake, and Passenger Lake in Windemere Township,  Pine County, and
in  Moose  Lake  Township,  Carlton County, Minnesota.   This project area  is
located within  a  larger  planning area that includes the City of Moose Lake
and the City of Barnum.

     Wastewater collection  and treatment within the  planning area is pro-
vided by the  two  cities  and by  the  Moose Lake-Windemere  Sanitary  District
(MLWSD).   The  Sanitary  District's  boundaries include  the unincorporated
portion of  Moose  Lake Township  and Windemere Township (Figure 1-1).  The
project area  addressed in  this  report  is  within  the  MLWSD's boundaries.
The residential development  around the four  lakes  within  the project area
(Island, Sturgeon,  Rush,  and Passenger) now  relies exclusively on on-site
systems for wastewater treatment.   Residential growth around these project
area  lakes,  particularly Island  and Sturgeon Lakes,  has  led to increased
recreational  use  of  the  lakes  and,  consequently, increased  concern over
lake water  quality.   Specifically,  area residents have indicated a concern
over water  quality  degradation and blue-green  algae  blooms as a result  of
on-site systems around the lakeshores.

     In 1979,  the MLWSD contracted with Consoer, Townsend  & Associates LTD.
to prepare a "201 Step 1" Facilities Plan for  overall wastewater collection
and  treatment  facilities within  the District.  Funding  for this  planning
effort was shared 75% by  the Federal government (through USEPA), 15% by the
State of Minnesota (through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency  [MPCA]),
and 10% by the District.   Among the wastewater management  component options
considered  were the  construction of collection  sewers around  Island and
Sturgeon Lake;  interceptor  sewers and  pump  stations  to  bring Island Lake
and Sturgeon Lake  into  the  Moose Lake  sewer  system;  a new pump station; a
wet weather overflow pond; and expansion of the existing City of Moose Lake
wastewater treatment facility.

-------
     In  1980,  the  City of Barnum  contracted  with Howard A. Kuusisto Con-
sulting  Engineers  to prepare a "201  Step  1" Facilities Plan for the City.
The City of Barnum  contributed 10%  of the  total cost of the  Facilities Plan
and the  remainder, was shared by  USEPA  and MPCA in the same proportions as
for the MLWSD.  The Barnum Facilities Plan evaluated seven alternatives and
recommended construction of  a stabilization pond  with controlled discharge
to Gillespie Brook  west  of the City of  Barnum.

     USEPA  reviewed the  MLWSD  Facilities Plan  in accordance with Federal
regulations  (40 CFR,  Part  6)  and determined  that the  preparation  of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was warranted because of the:

     •    Possible  impact of  the  project on water  quality
     •    Potential adverse socioeconomic  impacts
     •    Potential for centralized  collection  and treatment systems
          to induce growth with attendant  secondary impacts.

     These  issues  were identified  in the  11  July  1980 Notice of Intent to
prepare  an EIS.    Specifically,   USEPA  determined  that  an  EIS  is  needed
because  there was  inadequate documentation in the Facilities Plan support-
ing the need to provide  sewers around Island Lake and Sturgeon Lake and the
high probability  that  the project  proposed in the Facility  Plan could have
significant adverse socioeconomic impacts  because of the number of families
in the service area with fixed or low incomes.

     In order to expedite the EIS process, USEPA determined that the prepa-
ration of the EIS would  be in two phases.  Phase I culminated in March 1981
with  the publication  of two  reports:   A Current Situation Report  and  a
Regional Alternatives  Analysis.   The Regional Alternatives Analysis Report
examined  the  alternatives  presented in   the  MLWSD and  Barnum Facilities
Plans and  evaluated the cost effectiveness of including  the City of Barnum
and the corridor between the Cities of  Moose Lake and Barnum as a component
of a  regional  collection and treatment alternative.  The Current Situation
Report  described  those  aspects   of the  natural  and  man-made  environment
likely  to  be   affected by  the   various   facilities planning alternatives
proposed in the MLWSD and Barnum  Plans.

-------
     Following  the  completion of  Phase I  of  the EIS  Process,  a Citizens
Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting and a public information meeting were held
to  review the  two  reports.   Area  residents  expressed  concern with the
quality of the published data used to develop the reports, as well as other
issues which  they felt  were not adequately supported  or addressed in the
Phase I reports.

     Phase II  (completion  of the EIS) addresses  these  public concerns and
data deficiencies  which were  identified  in the review of  the  Phase I re-
ports.   Phase  II  includes  the preparation of Draft and Final Environmental
Impact  Statements  (DEIS and FEIS)  on  the proposed  wastewater  management
alternatives  for  the  area  of most critical need  within  the Moose Lake-
Windemere Sanitary District.

2.0.  EXISTING CONDITIONS

Natural Environment

     The  EIS  includes very  detailed information on  the  surface water re-
sources and aquatic biota  of the project  area.   During EIS preparation, a
sampling program was  conducted to provide additional data on water quality
in  the  four  lakes and  to   provide  information  for  evaluating  alternative
wastewater management proposals.   Water  quality  was measured  in  Island,
Sturgeon,  Rush, and Passenger Lakes.

     The water  quality  sampling  data from  the  summer and fall of 1982 and
winter of  1982 were  used  to  evaluate  the existing  fertility  and  trophic
status of the lakes and to  determine the cause of observed blue-green algae
blooms.   Sediment sampling data  were  used to  evaluate  the  historic  fer-
tility and trophic status  of the lakes and to  evaluate whether there is a
historical correlation  between shoreline  development and  the  algae bloom
problems  in Island Lake.  The following conclusions  were drawn  concerning
the water  quality and  trophic status of  Island Lake,  Sturgeon  Lake,  Rush
Lake and Passenger Lake:

     •    Island Lake and  Sturgeon Lake both are eutrophic and may be
          in need of   management to  improve or  to  protect  existing

-------
          water quality.  Rush and Passenger Lakes are mesotrophic and
          do  not  require  management  to  maintain  or  improve  water
          quality.

     •    The  significant  sources  of phosphorus to the four lakes are
          not  associated  with  on-site  wastewater systems.  The amount
          of phosphorus moving into any of the four lakes from failing
          septic  systems  is probably only a small fraction of what is
          being delivered  to those failing systems by domestic waste-
          water.

     •    During  the summer,  Island  Lake was  found  to have signifi-
          cantly  higher phytoplankton  productivity,  more severe blue-
          green algae  blooms,  and  lower hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen
          than  Sturgeon Lake.   It  was concluded that these conditions
          in Island Lake were due to a large nutrient load originating
          from non-wastewater sources in the watershed, and that these
          problems  are amplified by the  Lake's  shallowness and vari-
          able wind fetch.   Biotic interactions resulting from changes
          in  the   population of plankton-eating  fish  in  Island  Lake
          also may have contributed to algal bloom problems.

     Because of public concerns about blue-green algae blooms in the lakes,

and  the  possibility of algal  toxicity, a special  report on phytoplankton
populations was included  in the Phase  I study.   Topics  covered  included

phytoplankton ecology in late summer and early fall, the potential presence

of toxicity producing  blue-green algal species, a description of the loca-
tion of beds  of aquatic macrophytes, and a summary of MDNR fish management

survey data for Island and  Sturgeon Lakes.


     Based on  phytoplankton sampling data collected during  the  lake samp-
ling,  and  a review  of existing public health  data,  the following conclu-

sions were made:

     •    As with all  eutrophic lakes in Minnesota, Island Lake has the
          potential  to  develop a  health hazard associated  with  blooms
          of blue-green  algae.  However,  the  dominant blue-green algae
          in  Island  Lake  in 1982  was Anabaena macrospora,  which  a re-
          view  of the literature  indicates  is not  directly associated
          with toxicity.

     •    Blue-green algae  do  not  appear to pose a  potential  threat to
          public  health  in  Sturgeon,  Passenger,  or Rush  Lakes.   These
          lakes were found  to support lower overall concentrations of blue-

-------
          green  algae and  did  not  experience  blue-green  growth to
          bloom proportions.

     •    Island Lake had  the highest algae density of the four lakes
          and also had the poorest water clarity.  In August non-blue-
          green algae  was dominant.   In early  September,  the concen-
          trations of non-blue-green  algae  species declined while two
          species of blue-green algae increased in number and achieved
          total dominance.

     •    Sturgeon  Lake  had  better  water  clarity than  Island Lake,
          primarily because blue-green  algae  were much less abundant.
          However,  blue-green algae  were  the  dominant phytoplankton
          group in Sturgeon Lake throughout September.

     •    Passenger Lake  had  relatively low volumes  of algae and, in
          particular,  very low volumes of blue-green algae compared to
          both Island and  Sturgeon Lakes.   The relatively low clarity
          of  Passenger  Lake was  attributed  to other  factors such as
          dissolved and suspended organic matter.

     •    Rush Lake had  the lowest abundance of  phytoplankton of the
          four lakes tested and had the greatest water clarity,

     •    Local citizens have not reported  problems with swimmers itch
          in  Sturgeon,  Rush  or  Passenger  Lakes.   One  instance  was
          reported on  Island Lake in 1981.   Health  officers, physic-
          ians, and veterinarians  contacted  reported no public health
          problems related to swimming in or drinking from the project
          area lakes.


Man-made Evironment


     The EIS  presents  information on the man-made environment in the proj-
ect area including  population,  land  use, economics,  public finance, trans-

portation,   energy,  recreation  and tourism,  and cultural  resources.   The

major element  of  the  man-made environment  that will  affect  decisions con-
cerning wastewater management is the  existing and future population for the

project area.


     Existing  (1980) and  historic population and housing data was obtained

from US Bureau of  the  Census.  .Prior to 1960,  population growth in Winde-
mere Township and in Moose Lake Township was erratic.  Since 1960, however,

the number  of  housing  units in the two townships increased steadily, often

at  a  greater rate  than  population growth.   For  example,  between 1960 and

1970 the number of  housing units in Windemere  Township increased by 89.2%

-------
while  the  population increased by only  36.6%.   The  substantial  increase in
the  number of  housing units  is  indicative of  the high  local  demand for
recreational  homes because of  the amenities  associated with the lakefront
property  in the  Township.   Between 1970  and  1980,  the  number of housing
units  in Windemere  Township  increased  by  59.3% while the  population in-
creased  by 79.1%.  This reversal of the preceeding  decade's trend  (1960 to
1970)  appears  to be indicative of the  recent  national trend of net migra-
tion  from  urban  to  rural areas.  Rural areas  were attractive during the
1970s  for  a variety of reasons that have been widely  documented, including
lower  land values,  the  amenities  of  "country  life,"  and an  absence of
"urban" problems.  This current trend of population  increase is expected to
continue in the project area, at similar or somewhat  reduced rates for the
reasons  cited,  and  because  of the area's  perceived quality among retired
people.

     The population projections  for  the project  area were made  based on
1960, 1970, and 1980 census data and were developed  from projections of the
number of  additional housing units that will  be built in the project area
by the year 2000.  A housing  unit projection  methodology was used because
the available  data on housing units are of a similar  quality as the avail-
able data  on  populations  and because fewer extrapolations are  required to
estimate the  future seasonal population than  with a population projection
methodology.  The available  census  data on population within the Townships
is for year-round residents  only.  Thus, estimates  of the peak population
(seasonal  plus  year-round)  were derived by assigning an  average household
size of  seasonal dwellings  to the number of seasonal dwellings and combin-
ing  the  result  with  the projected number  of  year-round  residents.   The
existing (1980)  and  year  2000 projected populations are presented  in Table
1.

     The individual  Island Lake and Sturgeon Lake area population  project-
ions are significantly  lower  than the population  estimates  which  are pre-
sented in  the  Draft  MLWSD  Facilities  Plan.   The "population equivalents"
for the  year  1995 that are presented in the  Facilities Plan are 931.0 for
the Island  Lake vicinity  and  1,382.5 for  the  Sturgeon Lake vicinity.  The
year 2000 population projections used in this report are 579 for the Island

-------
Table 1.  Seasonal and permanent population projections within Census Enu-
          meration District 504-Windemere Township, 1980 to 2000

                              1980                         2000
Island Lake
Sturgeon Lake
Outlying Areas
Total ED 504
a
An additional
Permanent
153
100
76
329
120 seasonal
Seasonal
261
465a
51
777
residents
Total Permanent
414
565
127
1,106
are projected
200
131
98
429
for the
Seasonal
333
6153
63
1,017
YMCA Boys
Total
579
802
174
1,555
Camp.
Lake area and  922 for the Sturgeon Lake area (including the YMCA Boys Camp
summer  population) .   The sources of the  discrepancies  between the Facili-
ties Plan and these projections are thought to be:

     •    The  year 2000  projections  used  in  this  EIS are  based on
          detailed 1980  census data for the  local area not available
          at the time the MLWSD Facilities Plan was prepared.

     •    The assumptions  used to develop the  projections  in the EIS
          reflect a direct assessment of vacant, buildable lots in the
          lakeshore areas  and  interviews  with local real estate sales
          offices.

3.0.  WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES


Needs Documentation


     Wastewater treatment  within  the EIS project area currently is handled

exclusively by on-site  systems.   Information on existing systems was gath-
ered  by a  review  of public  tax  rolls,  USGS topographic maps  and  aerial

photographs; by reference  to  information in the MLWSD Facilities Plan; and
by  two  property owner surveys.  Within the project area there are approxi-

mately  400  existing  on-site  systems.  Septic  tanks with  soil absorption
systems are  the most  common type of  system  in  use (80%), followed by pri-

vies  (10%),  holding  tanks (5%), and  combination or  "hybridized" systems

(2%).

-------
     On-site  systems that  fail  to  function  properly  can cause backups  in
household  plumbing,  ponding of effluent on the ground  surface, groundwater
contamination  that may affect water  supplies,  and excessive nutrients and
coliform  levels  in surface water.  USEPA Guidance requires that documented
pollution  problems be  identified  and traced  back to  the  causal factors.
Projects  may  receive USEPA grants only where  a  significant proportion  of
residences  can be documented  as having  or  causing problems.  Eligibility
for  USEPA grants  is limited  to  those systems  for  which there  is  direct
evidence  that  indicates  they  are causing pollution  or those systems that
are virtually  identical in environmental constraints and in usage patterns
to documented  failing systems.

     USEPA  determined  from  the  Phase I  reports  and  from  review comments
made by MPCA  and the Citizens Advisory  Committee that additional informa-
tion was  required  prior to assessment of  on-site waste treatment systems.
The  sources of  information  used  in  Phase   II  for evaluation  of on-site
systems include:

     •    A soil survey of  the EIS project area.
     •    Information provided in the MLWSD Facilities  Plan and by the
          MLWSD.
     •    Mailed questionnaire responses from property  owners.
     •    A  field  survey  of  septic  leachate  sources to  the  lakes.
     •    A tabulation  of Minnesota Department of Public Health well
          water quality data for critical lakeshore areas.
     •    Two  color-infrared  aerial  photographic  surveys of lakeshore
          areas  designed  to  locate  obvious  septic   leachate  break
          throughs.
     •    Data contained  in the  permit files of the Pine County Sani-
          tarian  on  recent  on-site  system  construction  and  main-
          tenance.
     •    A  follow  up  survey to  answer  questions unanswered  by the
          other surveys,  including  telephone interviews with property
          owners and site visits to assess current land use and devel-
          opment patterns.

-------
     Analysis of  this information  resulted  in the  classification of each
existing on-site system into one of three categories:

     •    "Obvious problem"-Direct  evidence  of  failure including such
          problems as backups,  ponding, or  ground  or  surface  water
          contamination.
     •    "Potential problem"-Indirect evidence indicating that future
          failure  is  probable  including high  water table  and  tight
          soils where failures of older systems are documented.
     •    "No problem."

     A  thorough  analysis  of the available information  indicated  that cer-
tain shoreline areas around the lakes had a commonality of conditions which
resulted  in concentrations  of  systems  with problems.   In  general,  such
areas were  characterized  by a high water table, tight soil, on-site system
backups or  ponding, groundwater moving toward the lake, and permit records
documenting  frequent  system replacements.   The number of  existing onsite
systems  exhibiting obvious  or potential  problems   is  summarized  below:

Area
Island Lake
Sturgeon Lake
Rush and Passenger
Lakes
Wild Acres and
Hogans Acres
1980
Residences
151
198

19

48
Obvious
Problem
18
0

0

0
Potential
Problem
27
13

0

0
No
Problem
106
185

19

48
Wastewater Management Alternatives

     Feasible and compatible  sets  of collection and treatment options were
developed into project alternatives for the proposed EIS project area.  The
project  alternatives  represent  combinations  of  on-site system  options,
centralized collection system options,  and effluent treatment and disposal
options.   Seven  project  alternatives  were  developed  and   evaluated  for
technical  feasibility,  cost-effectiveness,  and  environmental  concerns.
These alternatives  also  include a No-Action Alternative  (Alternative 1) .
Project Alternatives  2 through  7  are consecutively  less  comprehensive in
providing major  on-site  system upgrades and  consecutively more comprehen-
sive in providing hookups of  residences to centralized collection systems.

-------
     The  EIS  process must evaluate  the  consequences  of not taking action.
The No-Action Alternative implies that neither USEPA or MPCA would provide
funds  to  build, upgrade,  or  expand  existing wastewater treatment systems.
If the  No-Action Alternative is  "implemented", existing on-site systems in
the project area  would continue  to be used  in  their present conditions.
Any  changes  or improvements  in  malfunctioning  systems would  be at  the
initiative  and expense of either  the  property owner or a local government.
Under the No-Action Alternative, additional holding tanks would be used on
lots with site  limitations, and  existing problems would continue.

     Alternatives  2  through 7 each consist of one or more component options
including on-site  system  upgrades,  cluster  drainfields  and  centralized
collection  and  treatment.   Alternative  2  consists  solely of  upgrading
on-site  systems for the  entire  service  area,  Alternatives  3 through  6
include  progressively  fewer  on-site  upgrades  and Alternative  7  includes
very few  on-site upgrades.  Alternative 7 is  almost  exclusively a centra-
lized wastewater management alternative.

     The  appropriate  technology  for  upgrading existing on-site systems with
obvious and potential  problems  was  selected  based  on the  best available
information on  soil  characteristics, depth to groundwater, landscape slope,
and lot size.  The  preferred major upgrade, where conditions permit, is the
septic  tank-soil absorption  system  with a  serial-parallel  trench system.
Depending  on  lot  limitations,  the  appropriate alternative  on-site system
would be  selected.   Alternative  on-site systems include septic tank seepage
beds,  septic  tank  mound systems, and  wastewater segregation.  Where waste-
water  segregation  was  recommended,  the  graywater  would  continue to  be
treated with  an existing or upgraded  septic tank  and  soil absorption sys-
tem.   The  blackwater  treatment  components  would  include a  new  low-flow
toilet and a holding  tank.

     Alternatives  3  through  6   include  cluster  drainfields  for  limited
lakeshore  areas.   These  were designed  based  on  soil  conditions and  on
documented  on-site system problems.   Each cluster  collection system would
employ  septic tank  effluent  pumps  and  pressure and/or  gravity sewers  for
collection.   Each  cluster treatment  system would consist  of  a  dosing tank
                                    10

-------
or  pump  station,  and three drain fields  to  allow two of  the  fields  to be
used during the year while the third field was being rested.

     Alternatives 4  through 7 include centralized  collection  and off-site
treatment for: a  portion  of the Island Lake  shoreline  (Alternatives  4 and
5);  the  entire shoreline  of  Island Lake  (Alternative  6);  and the entire
shoreline of both Island Lake and Sturgeon Lake (Alternative 7).

     Conventional gravity,  septic  tank  effluent  gravity and  septic tank
effluent pressure collection  systems  were evaluated, and the most cost-ef-
fective selected for each alternative.  Septic tank effluent gravity sewers
were  the most  cost-effective for  Alternatives  4  and  7, and  septic tank
pressure sewers  were the  cost-effective  for  other alternatives (Alterna-
tives  5  and 6).  Conventional  gravity sewers were not  cost-effective for
any alternative.

     The MLWSD Facility Plan evaluated three centralized treatment alterna-
tives: upgrading  the existing  City of Moose  Lake  WWTP;  construction of a
new activated  sludge  WWTP;  and construction of a new oxidation ditch WWTP.
The  MLWSD  Facility  Plan  concluded  that upgrading  the  existing Moose Lake
WWTP was the most cost-effective alternative.  The  existing Moose Lake WWTP
consists of  seven facultative lagoons: 6 primary  lagoons  (43  acres total)
and  one  secondary   lagoon  (15.2 acres).   The  existing  permitted  design
capacity of the lagoon system is 444,000 gpd.  However,  because the centra-
lized  treatment  proposed  in the  EIS alternatives would  add significant
flows  to the system,  MPCA has indicated that  the maximum calculated capa-
city of  the lagoon  system would have  to  be  reduced to 316,100 gpd to meet
updated  requirements  (By telephone,  Mr.  Zdon, MPCA,  to WAPORA,  Inc.,  15
July 1982).  Costs for the EIS alternatives are based on the revised design
criteria.   There  is adequate additional  land adjacent  to  the  site  for a
major  expansion of the lagoon system.

     Off-site  wastewater  treatment  options considered  in the  EIS alterna-
tives  include  upgrading the  existing  Moose Lake  WWTP  (Alternatives  4, 6,
and 7) •, and a bog treatment system  (Alternative 5).
                                    11

-------
     The  treatment of wastewater by a bog or peatland system is similar in
approach  to  treatment by a cluster  drainfield  in that solids are retained
in  a septic tank  and primary effluent is taken  off-site  and  treated by a
"soil"  absorption  system.  In this case, peat is used rather than soil for
treatment.   Extensive areas  of  peatland are present  in the project area.
Some of these  areas are  in an  unaltered  or relatively "natural" state and
others  have  been  partially  drained in  an  attempt  to move water off sur-
rounding  lands.   The  peat  bog area  considered  in  Alternative  5 has pre-
viously been channelized for other drainage purposes  to a depth of  1 to 2
feet.

     The  estimated  total  present worth costs for  the build  alternatives are
presented  in  Table 2.   Alternative 2,  upgraded on-site  systems,  is  the
least cost alternative.

4.0.    ENVIRONMENTAL  AND  FINANCIAL  IMPACTS  OF  THE  PROJECT  ALTERNATIVES

     The  No-Action  Alternative would entail almost no construction impacts.
The  significant  environmental impacts of the six action alternatives would
primarily be short-term impacts on the local environment  due  to construc-
tion.

     The  implementation  of  the on-site system component of Alternatives 3,
4,  5,   6, and  7 or  the   full on-site  upgrade  alternative   (Alternative 2),
would have direct  impacts on those lots where upgraded on-site systems are
necessary.   Disruption of backyard vegetation and vacation schedules would
be the  primary concern.

     Cluster  drainfield  and  cluster  mounds (Alternatives  3, 4,  5,  and 6)
would involve  construction  on the drainfield sites  of a similar nature to
that of the  onsite  upgrades.

     The  construction  of  centralized collection facilities  (Alternatives 3,
4, 5, 6,  and 7) would have considerable  impacts  on the right-of-way where
the  sewers  are  located.   Dewatering for deep  sewer excavations  and pump
stations  could affect wells  in the  vicinity.   WWTP construction (Alterna-
                                   12

-------
                          Table  2-          Summary  of  the  estimated  costs  for  Project  Alternatives   1   through  7
                                               ia March.  1982  dollars.
                                                                                     Total  Present Worth
U>
Alternative  Number and Name

1   No-ActIon  In EIS service area

2   Upgrade  on-slte systems vith-
    in EIS service area

3   Cluster  dralnfleld for lim-
    ited areas and on-slte sys-
    tem upgrading elsewhere In
    EIS service area

4B  Island Lake-limited area
    collection by STE gravity
    severs and treatment at up-
    graded Moose Lake WWTP; Stur-
    geon Lake-cluster dralnfleld
    for limited area; on-slte
    system upgrading elsewhere
    In EIS service area

SB  Island Lake-limited area col-
    lection  by STE pressure sewers
    and peat bog treatment; Stur-
    geon Lake  - cluster dralnfleld
    for limited area; on-slte sys-
    tem upgrading elsewhere In
    EIS service area

6C  Island Lake entire shore-
    line STE pressure collec-
    tion and treatment at up-
    graded Moose Lake WWTP;
    Sturgeon Lake - cluster
    draInfield for limited
    area; on-slte system up-
    grading  elsewhere In EIS
    service  area

7B  Island Lake and Sturgeon
    Lake shorelines STE gravity
    collection and treatment
    at upgraded Moose Lake
    WWTP; on-slte system up-
    grading  elsewhere in
    EIS service area.
                                                     726,100
                                                     575,000
                                                     400,880
                                                     400,880
                                                     271.010
                                                      89,710
                                                                 Cluster ,
                                                               Dralnfleld
                                                                 985,220
                                                                 498,370
                                                                 498,370
                                                                 498,370
                                                         Centralized
                                                         Collection
                                                                              815,300
                                                                              815,940
1,475,590
                                                                            3,616,080
             Centralized
              Treatment
 Sub
Total
                                                                                                       726,100
                                                                                                     1,560,220
                                                                                            268,340   1,982,890
                                                                                            327,170   2,042,360
                                                                                            394,100   2,639,070
                                                                                            625,080   4,330,870
                                                                                                                   Administrative   Total
                                          286,790
                                          286,790
                                                                                                                      286,790
                                          286,790
                                          286,790
                                                                                                   286,790
                            1,012,890
                                                                                                                                   1,847,010
 Average Annual     Cost
Equivalent  Costs   Ranking
                                                                                                                                                    100,300
                                             182,900
                                                                                                                                   2,269,680
                                                                                                                                   2,329,150
                                                                                                                                   2,925.860
                                                       4,617,660
                                                                                                                                                    224,760
                                                                                                                                                    230.650
                                             289,740
                                             457,270
                     Includes costs for on-site or off-site treatment  of wastewater from existing and future residences  in  the EIS project area to  the year 2000.
                     See Appendix E for a  description of cost development methodology.
                   b
                     Includes STE pressure and gravity collection system

                   'includes upgrading of existing lift station to  Moose Lake WWTP
                   4
                     For comparison, the estimated present worth cost  of conventional gravity collection is $1,705,950 ($2,866,430 subtotal,  $3,153,220 total, $312,250
                     Equiv. Ann.).

                     For comparison, the estimated present worth cost  of conventional gravity collection Is $3,846,980 ($4,561,770 subtotal,  $4,848,560 total, $480,140
                     EquIv. Ann.).

                     Includes annual personnel and overhead costs for  administration and billing.

-------
tives  4,  6,  and 7) would  irretrievably convert prime agricultural lands to
treatment plant use. Construction of a bog treatment system  (Alternative 5)
would  have  significant adverse construction and operational impacts on the
biota of the site.

     Discharges from  the expanded Moose Lake  WWTP  to  the Moos  River
would  be  required  to  meet the effluent  requirements  establish*.,! by MPCA.
Water quality would be altered, but not seriously degraded.

     The  centralized collection,  treatment  and disposal  facilities would
have a limited positive  effect on groundwater  quality by eliminating exist-
ing  failing  on-site systems.   On-site upgrades and  the continuing proper
management  of  on-site systems  would replace  failing  on-site systems with
appropriate new systems  or holding tanks through the 20 year design period.

     Project Alternative 7 is a high  cost  system  that could pose a signi-
ficant  financial   burden on  users  even  if  State  and Federal  grants  are
available.   Project Alternative 2  is the only alternative  that would not
pose a significant financial  burden on users if no  grants  are available.

     Project Alternatives 3  through  7 could  have  a significant secondary
impact on low income familities with residences on the shorelines of Island
and  Sturgeon Lakes.   These families may be displaced from the project area
if they are unable to afford user charges.

     Based  on  a  review  of  historical  population  trends and  current  and
historical  land  use patterns,  induced growth is  not anticipated  to  be a
significant trend with any of the project alternatives.

THE SELECTED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

     The Draft EIS, published March 1983, contained an evaluation of exist-
ing  wastewater management needs.   Centralized  collection and treatment
alternatives  were  re-evaluated.    Several  new  wastewater  collection  and
treatment modes were  developed  in an attempt  to devise cost effective ser-
                                   14

-------
vice for portions of the project area with the greatest need.  Considerable
emphasis was devoted to design and cost estimation for on-site waste manage-
ment options because the potential to reduce costs was great.

     Subsequent to issuance of the Draft EIS, a public hearing was convened
before  USEPA representatives  at  the  Moose  Lake High  School  on 10 June
1983.  The hearing  was held to take comments on the Draft EIS.  Sufficient
time was  available at  the  hearing to answer most of  the questions raised
and  to record  responses.   A public hearing record was taken by USEPA.  The
post-hearing  comment  period was  extended  to  receive  written comments.

     This Final EIS  was prepared in response to the comments received.  It
presents a selected EIS alternative.  Most of the oral and written comments
received called  for additional  explanation of facts used by  USEPA in the
decision making.   Many oral  comments  were  in  regard  to the possibilities
for  funding  the recommended  EIS alternative.   Following consideration of
the  hearing  record and  the written responses  from  citizens and agencies,
USEPA determined the  Final  EIS recommended action would be Alternative #2,
the  full on-site  system upgrade project, with no additional centralized
collection and treatment.

     All  the action  alternatives will  eliminate  any  existing  impact on
the  lakes by eliminating failing on-site  systems.   However,  evaluation of
the  existing data on  the  natural and man-made  environment  in the project
area indicates that water quality impacts due to on-site systems are incon-
sequential in  comparison with  other manageable  and unmanageable nutrient
sources which  influence  the lakes.   Thus, it is concluded that none of the
action alternatives will significantly benefit the  quality of the lakes or
the groundwater.

     The  least cost  alternative from both an economic  and environmental
perspective  is Alternative  #2  -  on-site  system upgrades for  the entire
project area.   The beneficial  environmental impacts of  Alternative 2 in-
clude elimination of any phosphorus loads to the lakes that might be coming
from failing on-site  systems.   Compared with the alternatives that include
                                   15

-------
centralized  collection and treatment,  Alternative #2 is  expected  to have
fewer  construction  impacts  because  extensive  construction  within  road
right-of-ways  is not  required.   Alternative  #2  is  not expected  to have
impacts on  the  groundwater or lakes that are  significantly  different than
the  other  action  alternatives.   Adverse  construction impacts  that  might
result in disturbance  and  erosion on individual lots can be mitigated with
proper construction management practices.  Alt"; aative #2 is recommended as
the  selected project  alternative because  it is  the  least costly means of
achieving the benefits cited.   Alternative #2 has an estimated total present
worth cost of $1,012,890.

     The  MLWSD  Facilities Plan  recommended  gravity  sewers  be constructed
around Island Lake  and Sturgeon Lake with treatment at the Moose Lake WWTP
upgraded  to  meet the additional  demand.  This recommendation is equivalent
to EIS project  option 7A  (not an EIS  project  alternative).   Option 7A was
estimated on an EIS population served basis to have  a total present worth
cost of $4.8 million.

     Another alternative under discussion  by MLWSD is a gravity collection
system for  Island  Lake only, with treatment at the Moose Lake WWTP upgraded
to meet  the additional  demaru...   This  is  equivalent  to  project option 6A
(also not  an EIS  project  alternative).   Option 6A has  an estimated  total
present worth cost  of  $3.2 million  to  serve  the  EIS  population equivalent
for  that  area  only and provide adequate treatment  at the Moose Lake WWTP.
                                   16

-------
        Table of Contents for the Final Environmental Impact Statement


                                                                      Page


TABLE OF CONTENTS	i

LIST OF TABLES	v

LIST OF FIGURES   	viii

LIST OF APPENDICES	xi

1.0.  PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION   	1-1

      1.1.  Project Background  	 1-1
      1.2.  Legal Basis for Action and Project Need	1-5
      1.3.  Study Process and Public Participation  	 1-9
      1.4.  Issues	1-12

2.0.  WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES  	 2-1

      2.1.  Description of the Existing Wastewater Collection and
            Treatment Facilities	2-1
            2.1.1.  Existing Centralized Treatment System
                    Discharge Characteristics 	 2-4
            2.1.2.  Operation and Maintenance of Existing
                    Facilities	2-7
            2.1.3.  Problems Caused by Centralized Treatment
                    Plant Discharges	2-7
            2.1.4.  Existing Wastewater Management  	 2-7
            2.1.5.  Wastewater Management Planning  	 2-10

      2.2.  Description of Existing On-site Waste Treatment Systems  . 2-11
            2.2.1.  Data pertinent to the Assessment of On-Site
                    Waste Treatment Systems 	 2-13
                    2.2.1.1.  Soil Survey of a Portion of
                              Windemere Township  	 2-14
                    2.2.1.2.  Information Contained in the Moose Lake-
                              Windemere Sanitary District Facility
                              Plan	2-17
                    2.2.1.3.  Mailed Questionnaire Survey 	 2-18
                    2.2.1.4.  EMSL Aerial Survey  	 2-24
                    2.2.1.5.  Septic Leachate Survey	2-26
                    2.2.1.6.  Private Water Well Information  .... 2-38
                    2.2.1.7.  Local Permit File Data	2-44
                    2.2.1.8.  Follow-up Survey  	 2-44
            2.2.2.  Problems Caused by Existing On-site Systems . .  . 2-47
                    2.2.2.1.  Backups 	 2-48
                    2.2.2.2.  Ponding or Surface Failure  	 2-49
                    2.2.2.3.  Groundwater Contamination 	 2-49
                    2.2.2.4.  Surface Water Contamination 	 2-50
                    2.2.2.5.  Indirect Evidence of Problems 	 2-61

-------
       2.2.3.  Identification of Problems in Specific Areas  .  . 2-62
               2.2.3.1.  Island Lake Segments I, II & III. . .  . 2-63
               2.2.3.2.  Sturgeon Lake Segments  	 2-68
               2.2.3.3.  Rush and Passenger Lakes  	 2-71
               2.2.3.4.  Hogan's and Wild Acres Subdivisions .  . 2-72
      2.2.4.  Septage Disposal Practices   	 2-72

2.3.  Identification of Wastewater Management System Options .  . 2-74
      2.3.1.  Design Factors 	 2-74
      2.3.2.  System Components	2-74
              2.3.2.1.  Centralized Wastewater Management. . .  . 2-74
              2.3.2.2.  Decentralized Wastewater Management. .  . 2-74
                    2.3.2.2.1.  On-site Wastewater Treatment .  . 2-74
                    2.3.2.2.2.  Cluster System Wastewater
                                Treatment	2-77
                    2.3.2.2.3.  Bog Treatment	2-79
                    2.3.2.2.4.  Septage Disposal Methods  .... 2-81
      2.3.3.  Centralized Collection System Component Options.  . 2-81
      2.3.4.  Centralized Treatment Component Options	2-82

2.4.  Project Alternatives   	 2-88
      2.4.1.  Alternative #1; No-Action  	 2-88
      2.4.2.  Alternative #2; On-site System Upgrades for the En-
              tire Service Area	2-88
      2.4.3.  Alternative #3; Cluster Drainfields for Limited Areas
              and On-Site System Upgrades Elsewhere	2-91
      2.4.4.  Alternative 4; Island Lake:  Limited Centralized
              Collection and Treatment at Moose Lake WWTP, Stur-
              geon Lake:  Cluster Drainfield for Limited Area,
              On-Site System Upgrades Elsewhere 	  2-93

      2.4.5.  Alternative 5; Island Lake:  Limited Centralized
              Collection and Bog Treatment, Sturgeon Lake:  Clus-
              ter Drainfield for Limited Areas, On-Site System  Up-
              grades Elsewhere	2-96

      2.4.5.  Alternative 6; Island Lake; Centralized Collection and
              Treatment at Moose Lake WWTP, Sturgeon Lake; Cluster
              Drainfield for limited service area, On-site system
              Upgrades Elsewhere	2-98

      2.4.7.  Alternative 7; Complete Centralized Collection for
              the Shorelines of Island Lake and of Sturgeon Lake,
              On-site Systems Upgrades Elsewhere	2-101

2.5.  Flexibility and Reliability of the Project Alternatives.   2-104

2.6.  Comparison of Project Alternatives and Selection of
      the Recommended Action  	  2-109
      2.6.1.  Comparison of Alternatives  	  2-110
              2.6.1.1.  Project Costs 	  2-110
                               ii

-------
                   2.6.1.2.  Environmental Impacts 	  2-112
                   2.6.1.3.  Implementability  	  2-114
           2.6.2.  The Recommended Project Alternative 	  2-120

3.0. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT  	  3-1

     3.1.  Natural Environment 	  3-1
           3.1.1.  Atmosphere  	  3-1
           3.1.2.  Land	3-3
                   3.1.2.1.  Geology 	  3-3
                   3.1.2.2.  Soils   	  3-3
           3.1.3.  Water Resources   	  3-4
                   3.1.3.1.  Surface Water Resources 	  3-4
                   3.1.3.2.  Water Quality of Project Area Lakes  .  .  3-6
                   3.1.3.3.  Nutrient Loads to and Trophic
                             Status of Project Area Lakes	3-20
                   3.1.3.4.  Trophic History of Island and
                             Sturgeon Lakes  	  3-31
           3.1.4.  Aquatic Biota   	  3-37
                   3.1.4.1.  Phytoplankton 	  3-38
                   3.1.4.2.  Macrophytes 	  3-40
                   3.1.4.3.  Fish	3-41
           3.1.5.  Terrestrial Biota   	  3-43

     3.2.  Man-Made Environment  	  3-43
                                                                      3-43
                                                                      3-44
                                                                      3-47
                                                                      3-50
                                                                      3-50
                                                                      3-56

                                                                      3-57
                                                                      3-62
                                                                      3-65
                                                                      3-67
                                                                      3-72
                                                                      3-75
                                                                      3-78
                                                                      3-79
                                                                      3-81
                                                                      3-82

4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES  	  4-1

     4.1.  Primary Impacts of the Seven Project Alternatives   .... 4-3
           4.1.1.  Construction Impacts  	  4-3
                   4.1.1.1.  Atmosphere  	  4-3
                   4.1.1.2.  Soil	4-3
                   4.1.1.3.  Surface Water 	  4-4
                   4.1.1.4.  Groundwater   	  4-4
3.2.1.


3.2.2.




3.2.3.
3.2.4.
3.2.5.
3.2.6.
3.2.7.
3.2.8.
Demographics 	 .... 	
3.2.1.1. Historic and Current Population Trends
3.2.1.2. Household Size and Resident Age . . . .
3.2.1.3. Housing Stock Characteristics 	
3.2.1.4. Population Projections 	
Land Use 	
3.2.2.1. Historic Land Use Trends in Pine and
3.2.2.2. Project Area Land Use Trends 	
3.2.2.3. Prime Farmlands 	
3.2.2.4. Development Potential 	
Economics 	 	 	 	

Transportation 	


Cultural Resources 	
                                    iii

-------
                   4.1.1.5.  Biota	4-4
                   4.1.1.6.  Demographics  	  4-5
                   4.1.1.7.  Land Use	4-6
                   4.1.1.8.  Economics	4-8
                   4.1.1.9.  Transportation  	  4-8
                   4.1.1.10. Energy	   4-9
                   4.1.1.11. Recreation and Tourism	   4-9
                   4.1.1.12. Cultural Resources 	   4-9
           4.1.2.  Operational Impacts   	  4-9
                   4.1.2.1.  Atmosphere	4-10
                   4.1.2.2.  Soils	  4-11
                   4.1.2.3.  Surface Water	4-11
                   4.1.2.4.  Groundwater   	  4-14
                   .». 1.2.5.  Biota   	4-17
                   4.1.2.6.  Demographics	4-17
                   4.1.2.7.  Land Use	4-17
                   4.1.2.8.  Economics	4-18
                   4.1.2.9.  Transportation  	  4-18
                   4.1.2.10. Energy	4-18
                   4.1.2.11. Recreation and Tourism	4-19
           4.1.3.  Public Finance    	4-19

      4.2. Secondary Impacts 	  4-25
            4.2.1.   Surface Water	4-26
            4.2.2.   Demographics 	  4-26
            4.2. 3.   Land Use	4-27
            4.2.4.   Economics 	 4-28
            4.2.5.   Recreation and Tourism  	 4-29

      4.3.  Mitigation of Adverse Impacts	4-29

      4.4.  Unavoidable Adverse Impacts   	 4-33

      4.5.  Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource
            Commitments   	4-34

 5.0   RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS

 6.0.   LITERATURE CITED

 7.0.   INDEX

 8.0.   GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS

 9.0.   CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND LIST OF PREPARERS

10.0.   LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO
       WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT WERE SENT

       APPENDICES
                                      iv

-------
                                 LIST OF TABLES

                                                                                Page
2-1      NPDES effluent limitations for the City of Moose Lake
         wastewater lagoon system	2-6

2-2      Water quality in the secondary treatment lagoon of the
         City of Moose Lake wastewater treatment facility	2-8

2-3      Influent wastewater quality to the City of Moose Lake
         wastewater treatment facility	2-8

2-4      Summary of MLWSD lot-by-lot survey findings	2-17

2-5      Groundwater flow velocities and directions as measured
         at "flow stations" established on the shorelines of
         Island, Sturgeon, Rush,  and Passenger Lakes	2-31

2-6      Information on well depth in the portions of the service
         area having permeable,  sandy soils	2-42

2-7      Summary of county permit file data for the period February
         1974 through February 1982 (File of the Zoning Administrator,
         Pine County, Pine City,  MN. )	2-45

2-8      Summary of the analysis  of problems with on-site waste
         treatment systems in the EIS project area	2-64

2-9      Correspondence of on-site system problem classifications
         with soil types	2-65

2-9a     Existing capacity and revised capacity at the existing
         Moose Lake WWTP	2-84

2-10     Estimated population in  the Moose Lake WWTP service area
         Year 2000 (PRC-Consoer Townsend, 1980)	2-85

2-11     Estimated inflow/infiltration in the Moose Lake WWTP
         service area	2-85

2-12     Estimated excess capacity existing Moose Lake WWTP Year 2000	2-86

2-13     Year 1980 residences served by proposed alternatives	2-89

2-14     Summary of estimated costs for Alternatives 1 through 7	2-111

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES (Continued)


3-1      Average chlorophyll a_ concentrations of Island,
         Sturgeon, Rush and Passenger Lakes	3-9

3-2      Average Secchi disk, surface chlorophyll a_, and surface
         biovolume values on Island, Sturgeon, and Rush Lakes	3-12

3-3      A comparison of predicted and observed depth of the
         thermoclines in Island and Sturgeon Lakes, Pine County MN	3-14

3-4      Total phosphorus concentrations in the waters of Island,
         Little Island, and Sturgeon Lakes	3-19

3-5      Analyses of surficial lake sediment grab samples	3-21

3-6      Phosphorus export coefficients and land use in hectares
         within the watersheds of the project area lakes	3-24

3-7      Estimated phosphorus loading to the project area lakes	3-25

3-8      Lake parameters of comparative interest	3-27

3-9      Historic population growth in the jurisdictions within
         and surrounding the project area	3-45

3-10     Percent change in the population in the jurisdictions
         within and surrounding the proj ect area	3-46

3-11     Selected population characteristics in the juridsictions
         within and surrounding the project area in 1980	3-48

3-12     Project area housing summary for 1980	3-52

3-13     Changes in the population and housing stock in
         Windemere and Moose Lake Townships,  1960 to 1980	3-53

3-14     Percentage of Pine and Carlton County population
         residing in Windemere and Moose Lake Townships	3-54

3-15     Permanent population projections within Windemere
         Township, 1980 to 2000	3-54

3-16     Seasonal population projections within Windemere
         Township, 1980 to 2000	3-55

3-17     Combined seasonal and permanent population projections
         within  Windemere Township, 1980 to 2000	3-55

3-18     Estimated percent agricultural land use in county
         versus watershed delineations	3-63

3-19     Per capita income estimates for selected jurisdictions	3-73

                                         vi

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES (Continued)


3-20     Estimated 1981 median family income for selected
         jurisdictions	3-73

3-21     Selected financial characteristics of the project area
         jurisdiction in 1980	3-76

3-22     Values for Moose Lake-Windemere Sanitary District full-
         faith and credit debt analyses during 1980	3-77

3-23     Criteria for local government full-faith and credit debt
         analysis	3-77

3-24     Average cost for residential energy during the period
         from April 1980 to March 1981	3-80

4-1      A summary of significant environmental impacts of Project
         Alternatives	4-2

4-2      Land use conversions for "action" alternatives	4-6

4-3      Estimated average annual residential user costs	4-21

4-4      Average annual user costs expressed as a percentage of
         1980 median household income for Windemere Township	4-23

4-5      Impact of new debt requirements on total debt  per capita
         in the Moose Lake-Windemere Sanitary District	4-24
                                        vii

-------
                                  LIST OF FIGURES

                                                                                Page

1-1      Planning area and project area boundaries.	1-2

2-1      Sewered and developed areas in the MLWSD	2-2

2-2      Plan view of existing wastewater treatment lagoons for the
         City of Moose Lake treatment plant	2-5

2-3      Facilities planning area for the MLWSD	2-9

2-4      The EIS project area	2-12

2-5      Soil survey boundaries and major soil associations	2-15

2-6      Location of groundwater flow monitoring stations, suspected
         septic leachate plumes, stations where groundwater quality
         samples were taken, and stations where overland runoff
         (streams) were detected and sampled in Island Lake	2-32

2-7      Locations of groundwater flow monitoring stations, suspected
         septic leachate plums, stations where groundwater quality
         samples were taken, and stations where overland runoff
         (streams) were detected and sampled in Sturgeon Lake	2-33

2-8      Locations of groundwater flow monitoring stations, suspected
         septic leachate plumes, stations where groundwater quality
         samples were gathered, and locations of stations where overland
         runoff (streams) were detected in Rush Lake	2-34

2-9      Location of groundwater flow monitoring stations, suspected
         septic leachate plumes, stations where groundwater quality
         samples were gathered in Passenger Lake	2-35

2-10     Island Lake segments and locations of on-site systems with
         obvious and potential problems	2-66

2-11     Sturgeon Lake segments and locations of on-site systems with
         obvious and potential problems	2-69

2-12     Layout of septic tank with raised drainfield bed	2-76

2-13     Layout of proposed peatland "bog" wastewater treatment
         system	2-80

2-14     Number of soil absorption fields that will receive major
         upgrades over the 20-year design period	2-90

2-15     Wastewater collection and treatment facilities for
         Alternative 3	2-92

2-16     Wastewater collection and treatment facilities for
         Alternative 4	2-95

                                         viii

-------
                            LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

2-17     Wastewater collection and treatment facilities for
         Alternative 5	2-97

2-18     Wastewater collection and treatment facilities for
         Alternative 6	2-100

2-19     Wastewater collection and treatment facilities for
         Alternative 7	2-103

3-1      Average Secchi disk values with time	3-10

3-2      Average phytoplankton biovolume values with time	3-11

3-3      Stations established for sampling of water column total
         phosphorus, surficial sediment characteristics, and intact
         sediment cores	3-17

3-4      Precentage contribution to the phosphours load by aggregate
         category:  (A) uncontrollable sources, (B) on-site systems,
         and (C) other manageable sources	3-25

3-5      Graphical representation of the modeling of trophic status,
         with and without the "worst case" phosphorus load assumed for
         on-site waste management systems	3-29

3-6      Graphical representation of the need to control phosphorus
         sources affecting lakes	3-30

3-7      Dated stratigraphic profiles of Island Lake sediments	3-34

3-8      Dated stratigraphic profiles of Little Island Lake
         sediments	3-35

3-9      Dated stratigraphic profiles of Sturgeon Lake
         sediments	3-36

3-10     Gillnet and trapnet capture rates with time for
         gamefish and panfish in Island and Sturgeon Lakes,
         Pine County, MN	3-42

3-11     Enumeration districts for census	3-49

3-12     Pine County, MN:  trends in agriculture from 1920 to 1978	3-59

3-13     Carlton County, MN:  trends in agriculture from 1920 to 1978	3-60

3-14     A chronology of 20th. century events and trends in Windemere
         Township, Pine County, MN	3-61

3-15     Generalized watershed areas for Island, Sturgeon, Rush and
         Passenger Lakes	3-64
                                         ix

-------
                            LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)


3-16     Rates of residential development on the shorelines of
         Island and Sturgeon Lakes	3-66

3-17     Prime farmlands in portions of Pine and Carlton Counties	3-68

-------
                            LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C


Appendix D


Appendix E

Appendix F

Appendix G

Appendix H

Appendix I

Appendix J

Appendix K

Appendix L

Appendix M

Appendix N

Appendix 0
Notice of Intent

Soils Survey and Mapping

Leachate Survey, Well Quality Sampling Data, Question-
naire Form

Design Criteria and Component Options for Centralized
Wastewater Management Systems

Cost Effectiveness Analysis

Analysis of Grant Eligibility

Impacts of On-Site Systems on Soils

Report on Algae (Summary)

Methodology for Population Projections

Water Quality Tables and Figures

Letter to Citizens' Advisory Committee

Paleolimnological Investigations

Transportation Data

Energy Data

Letters of Comment
                                    xi

-------
1.0.  PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1.  Project Background

     The  planning  area for  this EIS  involves  three adjacent townships  in
northeastern Minnesota:  Windemere  Township in Pine County, and Moose Lake
and  Barnum Townships  in  Carlton County  (Figure  1-1).   The  City of Moose
Lake (population 1490)  is  situated centrally in  Moose  Lake Township.  The
City of  Barnum  (population 493) is situated to the northeast of Moose Lake
Township.  Windemere Township,  on  the south end  of  the planning area, has
no  incorporated villages  or  cities but encompasses  the greater portion  of
the area's  surface  water  resources.  The Moose River  and the Willow River
flow through  the planning area, carrying  surface  water  to  the southwest
where confluence is  made  with the Kettle River.  Thirteen lakes of greater
than 100 acres  in  size lie  within  the area and  the majority of the resi-
dential development  outside  the Cities of Moose Lake and Barnum is concen-
trated around several  of  these  lakes.  Sewer service currently is provided
to  the  residents of the Cities  of  Moose Lake and Barnum and to residents
living around Moosehead Lake,  Coffee Lake, and Sand Lake.  On-site waste-
water treatment  systems are  utilized by the remainder of the population.

     The  City  of  Barnum was  included  in the planning area  in  order  to
consider regional alternatives  that could increase the overall cost-effec-
tiveness  of  wastewater treatment  in the cities of  Barnum and Moose Lake.
Consideration of regional  collection and treatment alternatives for Barnum
and Moose  Lake  area residents  was  made  initially  in  the facilities plan
completed  in  1979  by  the  Moose Lake-Windernere  Sanitary District (MLWSD).
This EIS  has built  upon  that  initial  review of  regional alternatives  by
evaluating all parts of  the  planning area  where  sanitary service improve-
ments may  be needed and  then developing a wide  range  of alternatives for
serving the  identified needs.   This was done in  two phases  (identified  as
 Phase I  and  Phase II ).

     The  studies conducted  in  Phase I resulted  in  the determination that
the wastewater management  alternative most appropriate  for  Barnum was the
one  that  had already  been identified  in  that  city's  facilities plan.  A
                                   1-1

-------
Figure 1-1. Planning area and project area boundaries,
                                1-2

-------
report on Phase  I was submitted to EPA as a separate document, as detailed
in  Section  1.3.  below.   The  present volume  documents Phase  II,  in which
wastewater  management alternatives  were  examined  for a  limited "project
area" inside the  MLWSD.   This project area encompasses  Island Lake, Stur-
geon Lake,  Rush  Lake,  and Passenger Lake in Windemere Township.  The unin-
corporated  parts  of the  planning  area that are  concentrated around these
four  lakes  have  recently experienced  the  greatest population  growth in
Windemere Township.  This area also is the area defined in the MWLSD facil-
ities  plan  as  having the  greatest  need for  improved  sanitary  service.
Background  information on  the facilities  planning  efforts  for  both the
MLWSD and the  City of Barnum, and further discussion of how this EIS  'pro-
ject area1  (Figure  1-1)  was  selected, are presented in the following para-
graphs.

     The existing  sewage collection  and treatment  system in  the  City of
Moose Lake was completed in 1965.   After completion of that project, signi-
ficant residential  growth took place on unsewered lakeshore lots in Winde-
mere and  Moose Lake  Townships.   Increased growth in  this unsewered lake-
shore community  led to public concern with restrictions in water use where
on-site systems are located  in tight soils.   Public  concern also centered
on  the  presence of  blue-green algae blooms  in  the  lakes.   The perceived
need  to  deal with  these problems  gave  rise  to  the belief  that  improved
means of wastewater management were needed around the lakes.  This resulted
in  the formation  in 1975 of a special  purpose unit  of local government to
plan  for improved  wastewater  treatment.   This  unit  of  government,  the
MLWSD, raised  funds for  the  planning and  design of  collection sewers in
portions of  the lakeshore community within the District through the levy of
special tax assessments.   As  a result of  the  efforts  of the MLWSD, sewers
were constructed  around   Coffee Lake  in  1976  (1.5 miles  southwest of the
City of Moose  Lake),  and by 1979 sewers  also  were constructed around Sand
Lake (approximately 0.5 miles south of Coffee Lake).   Construction of these
lakeshore area sewers, as well as of the  sewers  constructed from the City
of  Moose Lake  to  Interstate  Highway 35 during  1979,  was supported in part
by  Federal  loans  obtained from  the Farmers  Home  Administration (FMHA).
Treatment or the  wastewater  from  these outlying  service  areas is provided
at  the  City  of  Moose  Lake  treatment  plant  through a  service agreement
between the  City and the MLWSD.
                                   1-3

-------
     In  1979,  the  MLWSD contracted with  Consoer,  Townsend  & Associates  Ltd.
 (now  PRC-Consoer  Townsend,  Inc.).  consulting engineers  of Duluth,  Minne-
 sota,  to prepare a "201  Step  1"  Facility Plan for overall wastewater  col-
 lection  and  treatment  facilities  within the  District.   Funding for  this
 planning  effort was shared  75% by  the Federal government (through  USEPA),
 15%  by  the  State  of  Minnesota  (through the Minnesota  Pollution  Control
 Agency iMtUAj),  and 10% by  tae District.  The  Facility  Plan was  prepared  to
 serve  as  the basis for  selecting a  specific wastewater management  project
 from among  various alternatives for detailed  design and construction.  The
 cost of  detailed design  ("Step 2") and  construction ("Step 3")  also  may  be
 shared among USEPA,  MPCA, and the  District.   Because  of the  financial and
 regulatory involvement  by the  tederal  government, USEPA is charged with the
 responsibility   to determine  whether  an  Environmental   Impact Statement
 (EIS), in accordance  with  the National  Environmental  Policy  Act of 1969,
 should be prepared.

     The purpose of the District's Facility Plan, dated March  1980, was to:

     •    Examine  the  adequacy  of  existing wastewater treatment and
          collection facilities.
     •    Assess  existing  water  quality  conditions   and  wastewater
          system needs.
     •    Recommend  future  action  to  protect the  District's  diverse
          water  resources.

 The  Facility  Planning Area  (FPA)  had  included the  Moose Lake-Windemere
 Sanitary  District, the  Cities of Barnum and  Moose  Lake,  and  the corridor
 along  County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 61 between the  Cities  of Barnum and
 Moose  Lake,  encompassing approximately  60 square miles.   Among the  alter-
 natives considered were the  construction  of collection  sewera  around  Island
 and  Sturgeon Lakes,  interceptor  sewers  and pump stations to  bring  Island
 and Sturgeon Lakes into  the Moose Lake  sewer  system, a new pump station, a
 wet-weather  overflow  pond,  and expansion of the  existing wastewater  treat-
ment facility.

     An  infiltration/inflow  (I/I)  analysis was  conducted in  the  City  of
 Moose  Lake  in  the autumn of  1979  by Consoer,  Townsend  and  Associates  as
                                    1-4

-------
part of the Facility Plan.  The cost-effectiveness analysis in the Facility
Plan recommended correction of the excess I/I originating in the collection
system of  the  City of Moose Lake.   The  sewers in the Coffee Lake and Sand
Lake areas  were  not included because they had recently passed infiltration
tests during construction.  In order to define the construction required to
correct the I/I, a  Sewer System  Evaluation  Study  (SSES)  was authorized.
PRC-Consoer  Townsend,  Inc.  currently  is performing  this  task.   Initial
monitoring  was  performed  in the  autumn of  1981.   An interim  report was
issued in  March 1982  identifying areas  of the  system requiring cleaning,
televising, and  smoke  testing.   The final SSES is expected in August 1982.

     The  City  of   Barnum contracted  with Howard  A.  Kuusisto  Consulting
Engineers to prepare a "201 Step 1" Facility Plan for the wastewater system
in  Barnum.   The City  of Barnum  contributed  10% of the  total  cost of the
Facility Plan  and  the remainder  was  shared  by USEPA and MPCA  in the same
proportions as  for  the MLWSD.   The Barnum Facility  Plan,  completed in May
1980, evaluated seven alternatives and recommended construction of a stabi-
lization pond  with controlled  discharge to  Gillespie  Brook, west  of the
City of Barnum.

     A public hearing was held on the MLWSD Facility Plan in March 1980, at
which time public support was expressed for the recommended alternative and
testimony was  presented  showing widespread belief that improved wastewater
treatment around Island Lake would  result in  substantial  improvements in
water quality.

1.2.  Legal Basis for Action and Project Need

     The National  Environmental Policy  Act  of 1969 (NEPA)  requires  a Fe-
deral agency  to  prepare an EIS on "...major  Federal actions significantly
affecting the  quality  of the human environment ..." In addition, the Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has established regulations (40 CFR Part
1500-1508)   to  guide Federal agencies in  determinations .of  whether Federal
funds or  Federal approvals  would result in a project that would signifi-
cantly affect the environment.   USEPA has developed its own regulations (40
                                   1-5

-------
CFR  Part  6)  for  the  implementation  of the  EIS  process.   As noted above,
USEPA  Region V determined  that pursuant to  these  regulations,  an EIS was
required  for the  MLWSD Facility Plan,  and  should include consideration of
the  City  of Barnum Facility  Plan.   Specific  issues were identified in the
11 July 1980 Notice of Intent  to prepare an EIS (Section 1.3).

     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),  and  as amended  in 1981  by the MWW Construction Grants Amendments (PL
97-117) establishes  a  uniform, nationwide  water  pollution control program
according to which all state water quality programs must operate.  MPCA has
been delegated  the responsibility and  authority  to administer this program
in Minnesota, subject  to the approval of USEPA.

     Federal  funding  for wastewater  treatment projects  is  provided under
Section 201 of  the FWPCA.  For projects  initiated  prior to the 1981 FWPCA
Amendments,  USEPA will  fund  75% of  the  grant-eligible costs  for conven-
tional  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 USEPA
will not  assist  in  funding  are land and easement  costs,  sewers for which
less than two-thirds of the planned flow originated before 28 October 1972,
pipes in the street or  easements for house connections, and the building of
sewers  for connection  to  the system.  The  costs  for  alternative systems
that the USEPA will not assist in funding are easement costs and the build-
ing of sewers for connection to septic  tanks.  The grant eligibility of the
on-site portions of alternative systems varies depending on their ownership
and management.  Publicly- and privately-owned systems constructed after 27
December  1977  are not eligible for  Federal  grants.  Presently,  MPCA can
provide grants  of 60% of the  funds required  in excess of the Federal share
for  both  conventional sewers and for alternative collection and treatment
systems.

     The  dispersal  of  Federal funds to  local  applicants is  made via the
Municipal  Wastewater  Treatment Works Construction  Grants  Program adminis-
                                   1-6

-------
tered by  USEPA.   Prior to the amendments of 1981, the program consisted of
a three-step process:  Step 1 included wastewater facilities planning; Step
2  involved  the  preparation  of detailed  engineering plans  and  specifica-
tions; and  Step 3  covered  construction  of  the pollution  control system.

     The  Municipal  Wastewater Treatment  Construction Grants Amendments of
1981 became law  (PL 97-217)  on 29 December 1981, and significantly changed
the  procedural  and  administrative aspects  of  the  municipal  construction
grants program.   The changes reflected in these amendments have been incor-
porated  into  Construction Grants-1982 (CG-82) Municipal Wastewater Treat-
ment  (Draft), (USEPA,  March  1982); and an interim  final rule  implementing
the  1981  Amendments was  issued by USEPA on 12  May  1982 (Federal Register
(4792).  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  is  comprehensive and will  include an allowance for the
planning  (Step 1) and design (Step 2)  activities.

     The  CG-82  states that  projects  which  received  Step 1 and/or Step 2
grants prior to  the enactment of  the 1981 Amendments should be completed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of their grant agreements.  Step 3
grant assistance  will  include an  allowance for design of  those projects
which received Step 1 grants prior to 29 December 1981.   A municipality may
be eligible, however,  to  receive  an advance of  the  allowance  for planning
and/or design if  the population  of the community  is under 25,000, and the
state reviewing  agency (MPCA) determines that  the  municipality otherwise
would be  unable  to  complete  the  facilities  planning  and design to qualify
for  grant assistance.   The MLWSD  and  the City  of Barnum  currently are in
Step 1.

     Communities also  may choose  to  construct  wastewater  treatment faci-
lities without financial  support  from the state or Federal governments.  In
such cases,  the  only requirements are that the design be technically sound
                                   1-7

-------
and  that  the MPCA is  satisfied  that  the facility will meet discharge stan-
dards.

     If a community  chooses  to construct a wastewater collection and treat-
ment system with USEPA grant assistance, the project must meet all require-
ments 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  be environmentally  sound  and result in
minimum total  resource costs over the life of the project, as well as meet
Federal, state, and  local requirements.  However, the cost-effective alter-
native  is not necessarily  the  lowest  cost proposal.   The  analysis  for
choosing  the  cost-effective  alternative is based on both the capital costs
and the operation and  maintenance costs for a 20-year period, although only
the  capital  costs  are eligible  for  funding.  Non-monetary  costs also must
be considered, including social  and environmental factors.

     Minnesota was  required  by  the Federal Clean Water Act (PL 92-500) to
establish water quality standards for lakes and streams, and effluent stan-
dards  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 guidelines.

     Wastewater  treatment  facilities also are  subject  to the requirements
of  Section 402  of  the  FWPCA,  which established  the  National Pollutant
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.
USEPA  has  delegated  the  authority to establish effluent  standards  and to
issue  discharge permits  to  the MPCA.   USEPA,  however,  maintains  review
authority.  Any permit proposed for  issuance is subject to a state hearing
if requested by another agency,  the applicant, or other groups and individ-
uals.   A  hearing on an NPDES  permit provides   the  public  with  the  oppor-
tunity  to comment on a proposed discharge, including  the  location  of the
discharge and  the level of treatment.
                                    1-8

-------
1.3.  Study Process and Public Participation

     Participants  in  wastewater management  planning for  the  project area
during  the past  four years  have  included:   US  Environmental Protection
Agency,  Region V;  Minnesota  Pollution  Control  Agency; WAPORA,  Inc. (EIS
consultant); PRC-Consoer Townsend,  Inc.  and Howard A. Kuuisisto Consulting
Engineers  (facility planners);  Moose Lake-Windemere Sanitary District; the
City of  Moose  Lake,  the  City of Barnum; and other Federal, State and local
agencies and organizations.

     As  previously mentioned,  USEPA reviewed the MLWSD  Facility  Plan  in
accordance with the criteria  established under 40 CFR,  Part  6, and deter-
mined that the preparation of an EIS was warranted because of the project's
impacts in the following areas:

     •    Water quality (40 CFR 6.506
           (a)  (7)).
     •     Socioeconomic factors (40 CFR 6.506 (a)  (4)).
     •     Secondary impacts and induced growth (40 CFR 6.506
           (a)  (1)).

These issues were highlighted in the 11 July 1980 Notice of Intent  (NOI) to
prepare  an EIS (Appendix  A).   Specifically, USEPA  determined  that an EIS
was needed because the Facility Plan did not  adequately document  the need
to  provide sewers around  Island  and  Sturgeon  Lakes,  and  that additional
documentation was needed to determine that the deterioration of the quality
of  the  lakes was  related  to inadequate on-site treatment systems.  USEPA's
decision  to  require an EIS also was  based  on its  finding  that there is a
high probability  that the  proposed project could  have significant adverse
socioeconomic  impacts  on a number of families in  the service area who have
fixed or  low  incomes.  In  the NOI,  USEPA indicated the need  to determine
the  probable   induced   growth  and  the  changes  in  land use which  would  be
caused by the project  and the resultant effects on future demand for public
services.

     In order  to  expedite  the EIS process, USEPA  determined  that  the pre-
paration  of  the EIS  would be  in  two phases.   The  initial phase  involved
reviewing  published and  unpublished  information to determine  its  adequacy
                                   1-9

-------
in  addressing  the  identified  facility  planning  issues  (Section 1.4.).
Additionally,  the initial phase  of  EIS preparation involved consideration
of  regionalized collection  and  treatment alternatives which would  include
service areas  outside the MLWSD:  specifically,  the  City of Barnum  and the
adjacent  Hanging  Horn  Lakes area.   A  Citizen's  Advisory  Committee was
founded during the  initial  phase of  EIS preparation  (July  1980)  to keep
local citizens  informed  and  to obtain  the  benefit of their  critical  review.
Additionally, public meetings were held  on 10 September  1980 and  21  January
1981 to evaluate public  concerns  in regard to the facility  planning.

     Phase  I  culminated  in March  1981  with  the publishing of two reports:
a   Current  Situation Report   and  a  Regional Alternatives Analysis.   The
Current  Situation Report  described  aspects of  the  natural  and man-made
environment likely  to be affected by  the various  Facility Planning alter-
natives proposed  in  the  MLWSD and Barnum  Plans.  The  report also initiated
an  analysis of need for additional wastewater  treatment facilities in the
planning area  and  presented  a brief discussion  of  the question of  whether
the need for sewers around Island  Lake was so great that immediate sewering
of  the  lake   was  justified.   The Regional Alternatives  Analysis  Report
examined  the   alternatives  presented  in  the  MLWSD and  Barnum facilities
plans, and  presented altered costs to determine whether it was cost-effec-
tive to include the City of  Barnum and the  corridor  between the Cities of
Moose Lake  and Barnum as components of a  regional collection and treatment
alternative.   The  report also  addressed  the  possibility  of  including the
Hanging Horn Lakes area adjacent to Barnum in the alternatives.

     The Phase  I Environmental Report  (USEPA 1981) concluded that:

     •    Available  information  was   unreliable  and  insufficient   to
          address the issues  identified  in  the 11  July 1980  NOI and
          therefore  the  second  phase,  completion of the full EIS, was
          recommended.
     •    Separate  consideration  of  the proposed sewering of Island
          Lake  would not  be  made in  this  EIS, since decentralized
          alternatives were  to be evaluated.   A determination of the
          cost-effectiveness of  implementing Island Lake sewers alone
          could be made  later if the centralized collection and treat-
          ment  alternative was  found,  on  completion of the EIS, to  be
          the most cost-effective  approach for the planning area.
                                   1-10

-------
     •    Barnum  should be  excluded  from  further  study  in  the EIS
          since  the  regional   alternative  does  not  provide  a  cost
          advantage over the  separate treatment plant alternative for
          Barnum.

     •    The Hanging Horn  Lake area would not  be  studied further in
          the EIS.   The preliminary  analysis  revealed no categorical
          need for  improved  sewage  treatment in the Hanging Horn Lake
          area.   This area  was  included only for the purpose of eval-
          uating a regional alternative, and did not affect the recom-
          mendation for Barnum.


     Following the  completion  of  Phase I of the EIS  process,  a Citizens'

Advisory  Committee  (CAC)  meeting  was held on  10 April  1981  and a public

information  meeting  was held on  24 April 1981  to  review the two reports.

These  meetings  were  the  culmination  of  the public  participation program

conducted throughout  Phase  I.   At the  CAC meeting  and at the public meet-

ing, area residents  expressed concern about the  quality  of published data

and other issues which they felt were not adequately supported or addressed

in the Phase I reports.   Their major concerns were:


     •    Detailed soil surveys should be made that include the lake-
          shore community  and  the  entire development  corridor around
          the lakes.

     •    More accurate assessment  of land use  in  the lakeshore com-
          munity and development corridor should be made.

     •    The contribution  of septic  tank effluent  to lake pollution
          should be quantified.

     •    Public  health  risks   associated  with  whole-body  contact
          recreation should be studied.

     •    The  trophic  conditions  of  the   lakes  should be  further
          studied.

     •    Public  participation  during  the  second  phase  of  EIS  pre-
          paration  should   include  a  Citizens'  Advisory  Committee,
          which would  provide  comments  on  preliminary and  draft re-
          ports.
     Complete  investigation  of  the public health  concerns  and the trophic

conditions  of  the  lakes is  beyond  the  scope of  most rural  lakes  EISs.

However,  in response  to public  expectations  expressed in  the meetings,

these investigations were performed.
                                   1-11

-------
     Phase  II  (completion of the EIS) addresses public concerns, as above,

and  describes  the  data  gaps and  deficiencies which  were  identified in

reviewing  the  Phase I reports.  Phase II includes the preparation of Draft

and  Final  Environmental Impact Statements  (DEIS and  FEIS)  on the proposed
wastewater  management  alternatives  for the  area of  most  critical  need

within the Moose Lake-Windemere Sanitary District.


1.4.  Issues


     Based  on  a review of USEPA's  Notice  of Intent  to prepare an EIS, the

conclusions of  the  Phase I Reports, and  the MLWSD Facility Plan, the fol-

lowing issues  have  been determined to be  significant and are addressed in

this Environmental  Impact Statement:


     •    Additional  documentation is required to evaluate  the need
          for  sewers  around  Island and Sturgeon Lakes, as proposed in
          the Facility Plan.

     •    An  evaluation of  the  relationship between  documented fail-
          ures  of  septic syptems  and water  quality  in  the lakes was
          not made  in the MLWSD Facility Plan,  and is needed, as is an
          evaluation  of  the  causes  and  effects of  blue-green algal
          blooms.

     •    An evaluation  of  the need for improved wastewater treatment
          for  residences  in  the  Rush and Passenger Lakes area was not
          presented  in  the  Facility  Plan.   Additional  needs documen-
          tation is required for those areas.

     •    The recommended facilities planning alternative (the instal-
          lation of  sewers  around  Island Lake), if implemented, could
          have  significant  adverse socioeconomic  impacts on a number
          of households  in  the  service  area which have  low or fixed
          incomes.

     •    The  MLWSD  facilities  planning  alternative  could  induce
          additional development.

     •    The  existing  wastewater  treatment  facility of  the  City of
          Moose Lake  currently has a limited capacity to accept addi-
          tional wastewater flows.
                                   1-12

-------
2.0.  WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

2.1.   Description  of Existing Wastewater  Collection and Treatment  Facili-
      ties

     The  City  of Moose  Lake owns and  operates  the facilities which  treat
the  wastewater  collected by  the Moose  Lake city  sewer  system and by  the
Moose Lake-Windemere Sanitary District  (MLWSD) sewer system.  Wastewater is
conveyed  from the  City  and Sanitary  District  systems  to a pumping  station
located  immediately northwest  of  the  County  Highway 61  bridge over  the
Moose  River.   From this  point,  the wastewater is  pumped  via a  force main
8,730 feet  southwest  to a lagoon treatment  system  located  in Section  30 of
Moose  Lake  Township.   The  lagoon system  provides  secondary treatment  and
effluent  from  the  lagoon  is discharged  via a  small  channel to the  Moose
River.

Sewage Collection System

     The  areas  served  by the wastewater  collection system described  above
are  shown in Figure 2-1.  The collection  system in the City of  Moose Lake
consists of vitrified clay pipes sized as  follows:

                 Diameter                  Length
                 24" diameter              2,450'
                 21"                       1,350'
                 15"                       4,700'  (State hospital sewer)
                 12"                         200'
                 10"                       2,070'  (State hospital sewer)
                  8"                     21,560'
                  6"                       3,670'

     The  oldest  sewers  were constructed  in 1916  and are located  in  the
downtown business district and  in the southeast  portion  of the  town  along
Moose Lake.

     A substantial amount of extraneous groundwater infiltration  and storm-
water  inflow  (commonly  referred to  as  infiltration  and  inflow,  or I/I)
enters  this wastewater   collection   system.   This  situation necessitates
frequent bypassing of wastewater at the main pumping station  into the  Moose
Horn River.
                                   2-1

-------
                                                                  Unsewered
Figure 2-1.  Sewered and developed areas in the MLWSD
                             2-2.

-------
The  Facility  Plan  (PRO  Consoer Townsend and  Associates Ltd 1980)  reports
that  the  peak monthly wastewater  flow in the  period  from January  1977  to
November 1979  occurred during August  1978, when the -daily average  flow was
877,000 gallons  per -day  (gpd)  (including a  210,000  gpd  base flow).  The
amount of wastewater bypassed into the Moose Horn River  is included  as part
of  the  877,000 gpd,  because flow was determined  from  wastewater  pumping
records.  The  facility planners  have estimated  that  1,330,000 gallons  of
wastewater were bypassed  over a 3-day period -during August 1978.  Further-
more, the facility  planners note that there are other bypasses reported  in
the monthly reports  to  the Minnesota  Pollution Control  Agency (MPCA), and
express  the  suspicion  that other bypasses  occurred  which  were reported.
Because of the  excessive  I/I, the existing Moose  Lake system is incapable
of accepting additional wastewater flow.

Wastewater Pumping Station

     The Moose Lake wastewater pumping station  and  lagoon system were built
in  1965.   Wastewater  entering  the  station  first  passes  through  manually
cleaned bar screens, then enters a wet well.  Screened wastewater is pumped
from  the  well by  three  alternating 585 gallons  per minute (gpm)  capacity
pumps.  The  station was originally  equipped  with  flow measuring equipment
and  recorders.   This  monitoring  equipment is  no  longer  operable.  Flows
through  the  station  currently  are  estimated  by reading  the elapsed-time
meters on the  pumps.   The pumps appear  to  be in good working order.  How-
ever,  peak  wastewater  flows exceed  the current  capacity  of  the  pumping
station and  force main.   During  periods of  peak  flow,  wastewater is by-
passed directly to the Moose Horn River from the station.

     There are  three  bypasses  at   the  main  pumping  station  as -described
below:

     •    A bypass  is located  outside the pumping station in a man-
          hole.  It has a manually operated shear gate which is opened
          when  the  interceptor  sewer  is  sufficiently  surcharged.
     •    The second bypass, located in the pumping station, is always
          open.   There is  no  evidence  that  bypassing  has occurred
          here, because the  bypass  is located  7 feet above  the inter-
          ceptor.
                                   2-3

-------
     •    The  third bypass  also  is  located  outside the pumping sta-
          tion,  in the manhole serving  the  forceraain to the  lagoons.
          This  bypass  is utilized  when  the pumping  station cannot
          accommodate  the wastewater  flow even  when the first bypass
          is opened.

Wastewater Treatment Lagoons

     A  plan  view of the  existing lagoon system  is presented  in Figure 2-2.
Except  for repair work done to one of the lagoon-dikes  in  1981, the system
has remained  essentially unchanged  since its construction  in 1965, when it
replaced a treatment plant which had  been built  in 1935.

     The  10-inch diameter  force  main from  which  the pumping station -dis-
charges, exits into a-distribution hub that  regulates the flow into each of
the six primary  treatment lagoons, which total 43 acres.  Effluent from the
primary lagoons  flows to  a 15.2-acre  secondary treatment lagoon, from which
it  is -discharged  semi-annually  to  the Moose  River.  All  seven  of these
lagoons are  facultative  (containing  both aerobic  and anaerobic zones) and
no mechanical aeration  is provided.   The existing permitted design capacity
of  the  lagoon system  is 444,000 gpd, with  a detention time of 196 days.
However, MPCA  has indicated that if  significant new flows  are connected to
the system,  there  will be  a  requirement  that  the  lagoons be upgraded to
meet newer restrictive  design  criteria (By telephone, Mr. Larry Zdon, MPCA,
to  WAPORA,  Inc.  15 July 1982).   Based  on  the  new  design criteria,  MPCA
calculates the  capacity of  the lagoon system at 316,100 gpd,  with a deten-
tion  time  of  180  days,  based on an  active   storage depth  of 3 feet and a
sludge  storage -depth of  2  feet  (Section 2.3.4).  There is  adequate addi-
tional  land  adjacent  to  the site for a  major expansion of the lagoon sys-
tem.

2.1.1.   Existing  Centralized  Treatment  System  Discharge  Characteristics

     The National  Pollutant Discharge  Elimination System (NPDES) permit for
the City of  Moose Lake lagoon system was  issued on  27 February 1980.  The
effluent limitations  listed  in NPDES  permit  (MN0020699) are  shown in Table
2-1.
                                   2-4

-------
                                              N
o

K
O
u.
O
<
                                                                   EXISTING SYSTEM

                                                                 — —«.	INLET FORCE MAIN
                                                                          8 FLOW TO PONDS
                                                                          FLOW FROM PONDS
                                                                          3 OUTLET
                                                                 \J POND NUMBERS

                                                                     1-6 PRIMARY
                                                                      7  SECONDARY



                                                                 F] POND BOTTOM ELEVATIONS
       Figure 2-2.  Plan view of  existing wastewater treatment lagoons for
                    the City of Moose  Lake treatment plant.
                                          2-5

-------
    Table 2-1.   NPDES effluent limitations for the City of Moose Lake wastewater lagoon system.

                The discharge is limited as specified below using a maximum drawdown rate of 6 inches per day from
                the secondary cell for calculating pounds and kilograms:


                   EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS                          CONTROLLED DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS

                                                                     Average During
                                                                     Discharge Period *                      Notes

                   5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD )                 25 mg/1   513  Ibs/day, 233 kg/day  (1) (3)
                   Total suspended solids (TSS)        5                  30 mg/1   615  Ibs/day, 279 kg/day  (1)
                   Fecal coliform bacteria                               200 MPN/100 ml                       (2)
                   Turbidity                                              25 NTU                              (1)
ro
^   The pH shall not  be less than 6.5 nor greater than 8.5.  These upper and lower limitations are not subject to
    averaging and shall be met at all times.

    There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

    The discharge shall not  contain oil or other  substances  in amounts sufficient to create a visible color film
    on the surface of the receiving waters.
    * In addition,  the seven consecutive  day average shall not exceed  45 mg/1 BOD ,  (923 Ibs day,  419 kg/day),
      45 mg/1 TSS, (923 Ibs/day,  419 kg/day),  and 400 MPN/100 ml fecal coliform bacteria.


    Notes:     (1)  Arithmetic mean (2) Geometric mean (3)  For the average during the discharge  period,  the effluent
              concentration shall not exceed  the stated  value or  15%  of the arithmetic  mean  of  the average value
              for  influent samples collected during the related treatment period (most  restrictive value).

-------
2.1.2.  Operation and Maintenance of Existing Facilities

     Under dry weather conditions,  the existing lagoon treatment system is
capable of adequately  treating  all the wastewater  it  receives.   The water
quality of representative samples taken from the secondary treatment lagoon
is presented  in  Table  2-2.   This information was obtained from the City of
Moose  Lake's  operating records.   No  records exist for the  quality of the
effluent when  it  was being  discharged into the Moose River.  In accordance
with  the  NPDES permit,  the operation  of  the  pond  system, insofar  as is
practical, is  to avoid  effluent discharge to  the  Moose  Horn  River during
low stream flow  periods.  Furthermore, prior approval of  any  discharge is
required  by  MPCA.   The  effluent  discharge velocity  is   limited  to avoid
shock  loads  and  to avoid  disturbing bottom sediments  of the  Moose Horn
River.  The maximum drawdown of secondary cells is 6 inches per day.

     However, past  inspections  by  the MPCA (Compliance Monitoring Surveys)
have  found  that  unauthorized   discharges  were  occurring and  that system
maintenance was inadequate  (excessive vegetation was observed on dikes, in
addition  to  apparent  seepage   through  one of  the  dikes   of  the secondary
cells).   The  MPCA has issued  a Citation  for  Violation.   The  limited in-
fluent wastewater quality data  that are available are listed in Table 2-3.

2.1.3.  Problems Caused By Centralized Treatment Plant Discharges

     Water quality  in  the secondary treatment  lagoon exceeded NPDES limits
on 29  April  1980,  probably  as  a result  of operational problems.  The most
recent  water quality  data   (autumn,   1981)  indicates  that  the  plant  was
capable of achieving 5-day  biochemical oxygen  demand  (BOD )  and suspended
solids  (SS)  treatment which brings effluent quality  below limits  in the
NPDES  permit  for  the facility.   A  compliance schedule   directs  that  the
bypasses/overflows be eliminated or controlled.

2.1.4.  Existing Wastewater  Management

     The MLWSD includes Moose Lake Township in Carlton County and Windemere
Township in Pine County (Figure 2-3).  Although the MLWSD geo-
                                   2-7

-------
Table 2-2.  Water quality in the secondary treatment lagoon of the City of
            Moose Lake wastewater treatment facility.


                                  Suspended         Turbidity
    Date          BOD, (mg/1)     Solids  (mg/1)        (NTU)
    " ~~ " ~  '          "~~ "J

29 April 1980         27              70               17
17 May 1980           11              18                7
15 May 1980           24              22                7
20 May 1980            5              25                8
22 May 1980           15               4                5
08 Sept. 1980         17               7                8
30 Sept. 1980         14               5                6
02 Oct. 1980           746
06 Oct. 1980           576
09 Oct. 1980           326
10 July 1981           436
29 July 1981           796
14 Sept. 1981          523
02 Oct. 1981           433
09 Oct. 1981           624

NPDES Limits          25              30               25
Table 2-3.  Influent wastewater quality to the City of Moose Lake waste-
            water treatment facility
                                         SS
                 Date         mg/j      mg/1      pH

               07-15-81        95        92       6.8

               10-23-80       107       216       7.7

               04-01-80        93       102       7.5
                                   2-8

-------
             MLWSD Facilities Planning Area




Figure 2-3.   Facilities planning area for the MLWSD.
                              2-9

-------
graphical boundaries  include  the City of Moose Lake,  the City  is a separate
political jurisdiction.   The  MLWSD has sewered the areas around Coffee Lake
and Sand Lake.  The wastewater  from  these  lakeshore areas is treated at the
City  of  Moose  Lake  wastewater treatment  lagoon system.   Two areas within
the MLWSD that  have significant populations are  the areas around Island and
Sturgeon  Lakes.   These  areas  both  utilize  on-site  wastewater management
systems.

2.1.5.  Wastewater Management Planning

     A  separate wastewater Treatment  Facility  Plan  has  been prepared for
the MLWSD.   This  wastewater management planning  study was funded under the
201 Construction  Grants  Program.   The Federal  government  (through USEPA)
provided  75% of  the  funding; the State  government  (through the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency [MPCA])  contributed 15%; and each local jurisdic-
tion  paid  for  10%.   The Facility  Plan  recommends  specific  actions  for
design and  construction  to remedy existing problems and to provide adequate
wastewater management for the next 20 years.  However, before USEPA commits
additional  funds   to  implement  these  measures,  it   must  ensure  that  the
recommended  actions  are  cost-effective,  environmentally  sound, and imple-
mentable.   USEPA's  decision to prepare an EIS for the MLWSD reflects these
concerns.

     Consoer, Townsend & Associates  Ltd. prepared the Facility Plan for the
MLWSD.  The  plan  recommended  the following major actions:

     •    Construction of collection sewers around Island and Sturgeon
          Lakes.
     •    Construction  of  interceptor  sewers and wastewater pumping
          stations  to  convey  wastewater  from  the  Island  Lake  and
          Sturgeon  Lake  areas  to  the  existing  Moose Lake wastewater
          collection system.
     •    Modifications  to the existing Moose Lake interceptor sewers.
     •    Removal of  some extraneous flows (infiltration/inflow [I/I]
          corrections  to the Moose  Lake  wastewater  collection system
          in  accordance  with the  recommendations of  a  Sewer System
          Evaluation Survey [SSES]).
                                   2-10

-------
     •    Construction  of  an  overflow pond  for  short-term storage
          (i.e.,  storm  events)  of  the extraneous  flows  (I/I)  that
          cannot  be  removed  economically  from the wastewater convey-
          ance system.
     •    Renovation or  construction of a new main wastewater pumping
          station.
     •    Modification and expansion of the existing Moose Lake lagoon
          wastewater treatment system.

2.2.  Description of Existing On-site Waste Treatment Systems

     Information  on  the  number of  on-site  waste treatment  systems,  the
types of systems in use, and  problems with their design and performance has
been obtained  from eight area-specific sources.   The necessary literature
reviews,  file  searches, and original data  gathering  efforts were made
between August 1981 and May 1982.  This research reflects current published
and unpublished  information  and was done  to  provide  the  background  infor-
mation  on  on-site systems  introduced  in  the following  section (2.2.1.).
Determination  of need for  waste treatment  alternatives  will be  based on
this information.

     Enumeration  of  the on-site systems  in  the  project  area  was  accomp-
lished by the review of public tax rolls,  USGS topographic maps (1979), and
aerial photographs (USEPA  1981);  by reference to  information in the MLWSD
Facility Plan  (Consoer Townsend Associates Ltd. 1980); and by direct  inves-
tigation through the use of  two property owner  survey techniques.  These
information sources also were utilized to  determine the types of systems in
use and problems with those systems.

     An overview of this combined data base,  as identified in the following
eight sections,  reveals  that  currently there are approximately 400 on-site
waste treatment systems in the area surrounding Island, Sturgeon, Rush, and
Passenger Lakes.  The  boundary  of  this land  area, hereafter referred to as
the "project  area",  is  presented  in Figure  2-4.   Available  data indicate
that within  the  service area  septic  tanks are  the  most common  type of
system  in  use (80%),  followed  by  privies (10%), holding  tanks (5%),  and
combination or "hybridized"  systems  (2%).   Existing  information  also in-
                                   2-11

-------
ho
 I
            H-
            OQ


            M
            (D


            Ni
       CL a" H

       M   (D
       E- 3*
       3  0> M
       (D  rt H
       pi  n (A

       rt S:4
       fD  (u *o

            o
            n>
          3 n
       rt  n rt
     i-i
to  s; ro
O  H* P3
M  3 •
H*  Q-
O-  CD
   3 td
(-1  (l> O
          H-
          •a
          to
          (D  O
            (—1.
          i-t
         oo
             to
          W  Cu
          l-(
          fD  H-
          0)  01
          V
             a
             a>
          en
             n>
             PI
             rt
             ro
             a.
                                                                                              iiiiinitiii Project Area

                                                                                                     Boundary  Symbol
                                                          Windemere Township Boundary

-------
dicates that  most on-site  waste  treatment systems  in  use are functioning

properly.   The types of  problems  currently being encountered  and the fre-

quency and severity of  those problems, are discussed in detail in Sections

2.2.2. and  2.2.3.  Additional  data  on the distribution  of  developed lots

within the service area are presented in Section 3.2.1.
2.2.1.  Data Pertinent to the Assessment of On-site Waste Treatment
        Systems
     USEPA determined from  the  the report on Phase I of this EIS, and from

review  comments  made by the  Minnesota  Pollution  Control Agency  and the

Citizens Advisory  Committee that  additional  information  was  required for

preparation of  the balance of  the EIS.   Much of the  requisite effort in-

volved  gathering  new data  pertinent  to  the  assessment  of  on-site waste

treatment systems.   The  new sources of information were:


     •    A soil survey  of  a  portion of  Pine  County inclusive of the
          land  adjacent  to  Island,   Sturgeon,  Rush,  and  Passenger
          Lake s.

     •    Information in the MLWSD Facility Plan and related data pro-
          vided by the MLWSD.

     •    Mailed questionnaire  responses  from  property owners within
          the service area.

     •    A  field  survey  of  septic  leachate  sources to  the lakes.

     •    A tabulation  of well  water quality data  for critical lake-
          shore areas,  based  on  the  well-log  files  of the Minnesota
          Department of  Public Health.

     •    Two color-infared aerial photographic  surveys  of lakeshore
          areas designed to  locate  obvious  septic  leachate  break-
          throughs.

     •    The data  contained  in  the  permit files  of  the Pine County
          Sanitarian on  recent on-site system construction and mainte-
          nance.

     •    A  follow up  survey  to  answer  questions  unanswered  by the
          other surveys, including telephone  interviews with property
          owners and site visits to assess current land use and devel-
          opment patterns.
                                   2-13

-------
     Each  source of information will  be  referred  to  in the analysis of the
need for wastewater management  alternatives.  A complete description of the
available  data  is  provided  in the  following sections.

2.2.1.1.   Soil  Survey of  a  Portion of  Windemere Township

     Accurate soil data are necessary  to assess on-site system performance
and to  assess  the design prerequisites for sewage collection and treatment
facilities.   In  preparation of  this   EIS,  soil  properties  in  areas  with
significant amounts of  unsewered residential development were determined by
making  a  comprehensive soil survey of a portion of Windemere Township, and
by  analyzing  the particle  size  distribution  of  representative  soils.   The
soil  survey encompassed  approximately 7,000 acres  of land around Island,
Sturgeon,  Rush,  and Passenger Lakes, and was conducted during the period of
14  September  to  6 November 1981.   As a result of  the  soil  survey,  soils
were identified and classified, a soils  map  was  prepared,  and  interpreta-
tions of the limitations  of the  soils  were made in regard to on-site waste-
water treatment.

Development of  the Soil Survey

     Prior  to preparation of this EIS, a modern  comprehensive  soil survey
had not been  developed for  Pine County, which includes the surveyed Winde-
mere  Township  area.   To obtain the  needed  soils data,  soil  mapping and
sample collection were done by a certified professional Soil Scientist with
previous  field  experience  in  the region.  USDA  Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) classifications  and terminology  were used in  the development of the
project area  soil survey.   The boundaries of  the  survey  were semi-rectan-
gular in  shape  and were  entirely  within  Windemere Township.   The surveyed
area  (Figure  2-5) was  bounded  by Carlton County  to  the  north, Interstate
Highway 35 on the west,  and non-linear boundaries approximately 0.5  miles
to the east and  south of  the four  lakes.  These boundaries were selected to
include all platted lakeshore  properties and contiguous,  unplatted  areas
within  the drainage  basins  of the  four project  area lakes.   Access  to
private property was  not  obtained on  one parcel  adjacent  to  the northeast
shore of Sturgeon Lake.
                                   2-14

-------
N5
I
                                                                                 Area dominated by soils with
                                                                                 loamy subsoil or substratum
                                                                                 (Duluth-Dusler Association)

                                                                                 Area dominated by sandy soils
                                                                                 and loamy soils with gravelly-sand
                                                                                 or sandy substratum
                                                                                 (Omega-NemadJI Association)

                                                                                 Soil survey boundary
                 Figure  2-5.Soil  survey boundaries and major soil  associations.  Derived from  the  soil survey
                             results  (Finney 1981) and from  the Pine County  General Soil Map  (SCS 1975).

-------
     The soil survey findings are presented in detail in Appendix B of this
EIS.   The  map produced as a  result  of the field survey was  prepared at a
scale  of  approximately 6  inches to the mile.  This  original soil map was
re-photographed  at  approximately the  same scale, in a series  of 12 over-
lapping plates,  and also is included in Appendix B.  A copy of the original
soils map is held by USEPA, Region V.

General Soil Associations

     The surveyed  area includes two  distinct  soil  associations which are
adjacent to each other.  The soils surrounding Island Lake and the northern
and  eastern parts of  Sturgeon  Lake  (Figure  2-5),  were  formed in glacial
till and contain relatively high proportions of silt and clay (e.g., Duluth
series).  The  soils  surrounding Rush  and  Passenger Lakes  and the southern
shores of  Sturgeon Lake  were formed  in glacial  outwash and  are primarily
sandy  in  texture  (e.g.,  Omega  series).   These zones  are  characterized as
soil  associations:  the  Duluth-Dusler  association  to  the north,  and the
Omega-Nemadji association  to  the south (USDA, General Soil Map, Pine Coun-
ty,  1978).

     The soil associations of the surveyed area can be characterized super-
ficially by two types  of  associated  vegetation.   The  soils  of the Omega-
Nemadji association, which were formed in glacial outwash sands, are some-
what acidic as a result of the processes of weathering and leaching.  Field
observations  of the  surveyed  area  and  inspection of  aerial  photographs
indicate that  coniferous  forests dominate on the sandy, more acid soils of
the  southern  association while  deciduous  forests dominate the  more clayey
soils  of  the northern  association.    The  transition  zone  between  the two
soil  associations  has  no  distinct  vegetative  type  that  is  apparent  by
visual  inspection.   However,  the soil survey provided additional infor-
mation on the transition zone between  these two major soil associations.  A
previously  unclassified,  intermediate  soil  series  was identified  in this
transition  zone and was  named  Duluth Variant.   It is  characterized by a
substratum  of  loamy  soils similar  to  the Duluth  series,   overlain  by a
mantle of sandy  soils similar to the Omega series.
                                   2-16

-------
2.2.1.2.  Information Contained in the Moose Lake-Windemere  Sanitary Dis-
          trict Facility Plan

     During preparation of the Facility Plan, the MLWSD conducted a lot-by-
lot survey around Island  and Sturgeon Lakes to determine the problems with
existing on-site  systems.   This survey was conducted  in 1980 by MLWSD staff
and commission  members with  the  help of  interested  local  residents.   The
methodology used  and   the results obtained from this survey were discussed
in detail  in  the Phase I Environmental  Report  (USEPA 1981).  A summary of
the information contained in the Facility Plan which  characterized problems
with on-site systems is presented in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4.  Summary of MLWSD lot-by-lot survey  findings.

                                     Number of  Lots With Problems
	Type of Problem	      Island Lake      Sturgeon Lake
Total lots surveyed                      156               173
Surface failures                         42                 6
Sewer back-up                             0                 5
Tight soil                               154                90
Groundwater table                        71                82
Distance from the lake (75 feet)         54                51
Lot size                                 11                21
Restricted water use                     10                 4
Lot floods                                6                 0
Well isolation                           35               101
Frequent rehabilitation                   2                ND
Holding tanks                            15                17
Privies                                  40                39
ND - not determined.
The MLWSD survey of on-site problems did not encompass  lots  in  the vicinity
of Rush  and Passenger Lakes or  in  the Wild Acres and  Hogan's  Acres  subdi-
visions.  The types of problems enumerated  in the Facility Plan are catego-
rically  not identical  to  those used  by  the  Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and  the  US Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate  the need  for
                                   2-17

-------
improved waste management  in an area.   The  two problem categories evaluated
by  the  MLWSD which are most directly comparable to state and federal needs
documentation  guidelines  and to the questionnaire results cited in  Section
2.2.1.3 are:

     •    Ponding  or  surface failures associated with the leachate
          field and
     •    Sewer backups within the residence.

     The lots cited as having these types of problems during the 1980 MLWSD
survey were  also surveyed  through the questionnaire and followup surveys in
1982.   Comparisons between  these  data sources are made  in Section 2.2.3.

2.2.1.3.  Mailed Questionnaire Survey

     To obtain current information on existing on-site systems, a question-
naire was mailed  to each  property owner in Windemere Township.  The objec-
tive of  the questionnaire was to  determine  the types  of on-site  systems
that are in  use in the project area, the kinds of problems or malfunctions
that residents have  experienced  with  those systems,  and  the frequency of
system maintenance.  The questionnaire was not designed to provide detailed
information  on the design and functioning of every  aspect  of the  on-site
systems.  The survey results were evaluated in conjunction with information
derived  from  Sanitary  District records and  from field  investigations to
identify problems  associated with on-site  systems in specific segments of
the Sanitary District.

Methodology

     In October 1981, a  four-page questionnaire and a cover  letter were
mailed  to  all property  owners in  Windemere  Township.  The  first  mailing
went to property  owners with land on  or  near  the four project area lakes,
and a  subsequent  mailing  was  sent to  property owners  in  subdivisions and
outlying areas.   The mailing  list was developed from County property tax
records for  Windemere Township,  and  contained a  total of  587 names.  To
facilitate responses,  a  self-addressed, stamped envelope was included with
each questionnaire.

                                   2-18

-------
facilitate response.  The cover letter stressed that all responses would be
confidential and would be combined with other responses for the purposes of
analysis.

     Although  the  tax  records documented  587  property owners  within the
township,  31  of the  questionnaires  sent to tax  record  addresses were re-
turned as  undeliverable.   In addition, not all of the properties listed on
the tax  rolls  are  developed.  A building count based on parallel review of
1974  USGS  maps  and November  1980  USEPA Environmental  Monitoring Systems
Laboratory  (EMSL)  remote imagery  indicated a  total  of 475  housing  units
within Windemere Township  (USEPA  1981).   Accordingly,  this  figure can be
used as a basis for determining the Township response rate to the question-
naire.  A total of 249 valid questionnaires were received out of a possible
475,  for an overall  response rate  of approximately  52%.   A copy of the
questionnaire and cover letter are included in Appendix C.

Results of the Questionnaire by Individual Lake or Subdivision

Island Lake
     There  are an  estimated 151  housing units  on the platted  land area
surrounding around Island Lake.   A total of 89 questionnaires were received
from  property  owners in  this area.  Eight  of  those respondents indicated
that their  land  currently is not developed.  The remaining 81 respondents
reported developed lots  with homes or cabins and on-site  systems.   Of the
151 housing units around  Island Lake,  64  are  estimated  to be  used  on a
year-round  (permanent) basis and 87 are used seasonally.  Responses to the
questionnaire  were  received  from  58% of the permanent  households  (37 re-
sponses) and 51% of the seasonal households (44 responses).

     Most of  the Island  Lake area respondents reported septic systems as
the primary method  of   on-site  treatment.   Of   the  81 systems  for  which
questionnaire responses were received, 54 are septic tanks,  15 are privies,
and 12 are holding tanks.  Six of the respondents using septic systems also
indicated  that  secondary  treatment  or  "backup"  systems  also  are  used.
                                   2-19

-------
These  included two  holding  tanks and four  cess  pools used in conjunction
with septic systems.

     Most of  the  on-site systems described  by Island Lake area respondents
discharge to  a seepage field  (41; 66%).  Two respondents have systems that
discharge to  a seepage  field plus  surface  discharge, 4  respondents have
systems  that  discharge  through  a tile  line,  and  15  respondents reported
that discharge is by other means.   (There were  62 responses to  this ques-
tion.)

     Based  on  the  questionnaire responses,  the  on-site  systems  in  use
around  Island Lake range in  age  from 2 years to  more  than 20 years.  Al-
though  27 of  the  71 responses to this question (38%) reported systems less
than 10 years  old, there were 31 responses (44%) indicating systems greater
than  15 years old.  The remaining  13 systems (18%) are  between  10 and 14
years old.

     Problems  with  septic  systems were  reported by  32  of the  54 septic
system  owners.  None  of  the property owners  using privies reported prob-
lems,  but  4  of the  12 property owners using  holding  tanks reported prob-
lems.   The  problems reported  by septic  system  owners included  backup  of
wastes  into the house  (11),  odorous water surfacing at the tile  field (3),
backup  of wastes  and odorous water (15), and 3 other responses that do not
encompass any of  these problems. Most of the reported problems were solved
by  pumping  the  septic  tank,  by fixing  a  broken  pipe,  or by  allowing  a
frozen drainfield to thaw.  Few of the responses indicated chronic problems
requiring  frequent  maintenance.   Of  the 75  responses pertaining  to  the
questions on  system maintenance, 25  reported  that regular maintenance was
performed on  the   system,  26 reported that  the system was maintained only
when a problem occurred,  and 14 reported that maintenance has  never been
undertaken with the on-site system.

Sturgeon Lake

     There are an estimated 197 housing units around Sturgeon Lake. A total
of 98  questionnaires were received from  property  owners  with  lots near or
                                   2-20

-------
adjacent to Sturgeon Lake.  Ten of the property owners indicated that their
land currently  is  not  developed or used.   Two  property  owners provided no
information other  than that their property  is  used  during the year.  Five
property owners  indicated  that  they do not  have  houses  on their property,
but  that  the land  is  used during the year  and on-site  systems, primarily
privies, are  present.   The  remaining 81  respondents  (41%)  reported deve-
loped  lots  with homes  or  cabins  and on-site systems.   Of the 197 housing
units  around  Sturgeon  Lake,  42 are  estimated  to be  used on a year-round
basis  and  155 are  used seasonally.   Responses to  the  questionnaire were
received from 57%  of  the permanent households  (24 responses) and from 37%
of the  seasonal  households (57 responses).  The property  owners who do not
have houses on  their  property,  but do have  on-site  systems,  accounted for
five  responses.   Questionnaire  response  rate  for the  Sturgeon  Lake area
property owners was much less than for the Island Lake area in the seasonal
use category (37% versus 51%, respectively).

     Septic systems used  alone  are the predominant  on-site  system used by
Sturgeon  Lake  area  residents;  42  of the  86  systems (49%)  identified by
Sturgeon Lake respondents are septic systems.  Combination systems also are
used;  18 of  the respondents (21%) indicated that  a  combination of on-site
systems are  used to  treat their wastewater.   Among  the  combinations  re-
ported  by  the   respondents  are  septic  tank-cess  pool   combinations (8),
septic system-privy combinations (2), septic tank-holding  tank combinations
(1), and other combinations of holding tanks, privies, and cess pools.  The
remaining systems  in  use  are privies (13; 15%), holding tanks (9;11%), and
cesspools (4; 5%).

     With few  exceptions,  the  on-site systems of the  Sturgeon  Lake area
survey  respondents discharge   to  a  seepage field  only.  One  respondent
indicated that  the  system  utilizes a seepage field  plus surface discharge
and four respondents  indicated  that surface discharge through  a tile line
is used.

     The on-site systems in use around Sturgeon Lake were  reported to range
in age  from less  than 1  year  to more  than 20 years.   Sixteen  of  the 80
responses (20%)  listed their  systems as  less  than 5 years  old,  39 (49%)
                                   2-21

-------
indicated  systems  between 5  and 10 years old and  25  (31%)  indicated that
their systems are greater than 15 years.

     Problems were  reported  by 25 of  the  respondents  who used septic sys-
tems.  The  problems indicated by septic system owners included: the backup
of wastes  into  the house  (15),  odorous water surfacing  at  the tile field
(2),  backups  and odorous water  surfacing  (4), and  other  problems (4).  In
general  these problems  were  solved by either pumping  the  septic tank,  by
fixing a broken pipe,  or  by allowing a frozen drainfield  to  thaw.   There
were  few  responses  that  indicated   chronic  problems requiring frequent
maintenance.  In many reported cases  (43%), maintenance of on-site systems
was undertaken only after a problem developed.

Rush and Passenger  Lakes

     A total  of  24 questionnaires were received  from  property owners with
lots within the  land area immediately  surrounding Rush and Passenger lakes.
Nine of  the respondents indicated that their  property  is not  developed or
used.  The remaining  15  respondents  have  developed  lots  with homes  or
cabins and on-site  systems.   Of these 15 respondents,  13  indicated that
their property  is  used  on a  seasonal  basis and  2  indicated that they are
permanent residents.

     Privies  and septic systems  were  reported as  the predominant on-site
systems  used  by  the Rush and Passenger lakes respondents; 6 of the 15 sys-
tems identified  are privies  and are 5 septic tanks.  The remaining systems
reported are  either cess pools  (3) or cess  pool-holding  tank  combinations
(1).   The  septic tanks and cess pools all discharge to a seepage field (7)
or to a tile  line (1).

     Most  of  the respondents indicated that systems in use around Rush and
Passenger  Lakes  are less than 10 years old  (6 of the systems are between 5
and 10 years  old).  Four respondents,  though, reported systems  greater than
20 years old,  including one privy  reported as  52 years old  and  another
reported as 45 years old.
                                   2-22

-------
     All of  the  respondents  reported that they had never had problems with
their  on-site  systems,  although  4 of the respondents  reported that main-
tenance  is done on  the system  "after  a  problem  develops."  Most  of the
systems are  maintained  on a regular basis  (8 of  14  responses).   Two re-
spondents indicated that their systems are never maintained.

Wild Acres and Hogan's Subdivisions

     A total of 36 questionnaires were received from property owners in two
adjacent subdivisions just northeast of  Rush and Passenger Lakes.  Fifteen
property owners  indicated  that their lots currently  are undeveloped.   The
remaining  21  respondents  reported  having  developed  lots where  on-site
systems are  present.  All  but 3 of these 21 property owners indicated that
they are seasonal residents.

     The on-site  systems  reported  include 9 septic systems,  6 privies,  3
holding tanks  and   1  cess  pool.  Two combination  systems  also were repor-
ted, both  septic tank-cess  pool  combinations.  All  but 3  of the systems
(excluding the privies and  holding tanks) discharge to seepage fields.   The
other 3 discharge to tile lines.

     Because these are relatively new residential subdivisions, most of the
systems are less than 5 years in age.  Two respondents indicated that their
systems are between 5 and 10 years in age.

     None of  the respondents  reported  having problems  with their on-site
systems.  Most of  the  responses also indicated that  the systems are regu-
larly maintained;  7 of  the 16 responses  to  this  question reported regular
maintenance and 6  reported  that maintenance has never been performed.   One
respondent indicated that maintenance was performed after a problem devel-
ops and 2 reported other maintenance arrangements.

Outlying Properties

     Within  the  service area  there  are  a number of residences not having
riparian access and not  located in the  Hogan's or  Wild Acres subdivisions.
                                   2-23

-------
These rural residences  are principally  farm houses or other permanent local
dwellings  located  on  main  roads.   There are  approximately  50 outlying
residences within  the service area.  Two  questionnaire responses  were re-
ceived  from  these  outlying residences, indicating no problems with on-site
systems.

2.2.1.4.  EMSL Aerial Survey

     The USEPA  Environmental  Monitoring Systems Laboratory acquired remote
sensing  imagery  of  the project area  in  late  1980.   False-color infrared
aerial  photography and multispectral scanner  imagery were collected on 21
October  1980.   Additional color aerial photography  was  collected over the
project  area on   10  November   1980.   The color  and  false-color infrared
aerial  photography were stereoscopically  examined for evidence of apparent
on-site septic system malfunctions, for indications of algal blooms on area
lakes,  and  for  land use/land cover data  in  the project area (USEPA 1981) .
Multispectral  scanner imagery  was  computer-analyzed  to determine relative
surface water  temperature differences  near  the  shorelines  of  the project
area  lakes.   The   temperature  differences  were evaluated  as  a possible
indication of  the  entrance of warm wastewater or septic tank effluent into
a lake.

     The analyses  of on-site septic leachate field malfunctions with remote
sensing imagery requires  detection of variations in color tones of vegeta-
tion  which may  result  from  septic  effluent rising  to  or near  the  soil
surface.  With the use of color infrared photography, vegetation appears in
varying red  tones which  may  represent different plant  species and growth
stages  as well  as  plant vigor.  The  October  fly-over  should have captured
remnants of vegetative  growth that may have  resulted  from drainfield sur-
face failures.

     Results of  the analyses described above  identified  only  seven on-lot
septic  tank-drainfield systems  that appeared to have  vegetative "signa-
tures" which indicated a surface failing on-lot system.  A subsequent field
trip  to the area  for ground truth verification was not  conducted  due to
snow  cover.   The  photo interpretation  indicated  that  three systems around
                                   2-24

-------
Island Lake and  four  systems around Sturgeon Lake were potential failures,
with no indicated failures around Passenger or Rush lakes.  The accuracy of
associating an aerially detected  system failure with ground-truth verified
problems has been marginally successful in other  studies  (Rural Lake Pro-
jects 1-6, USEPA 1978-1981).

     For Island Lake,  the EMSL remote sensing data indicated three probable
system  failures  along the northwest shore  where,  coincidentally, problems
were also  described by the lot-by-lot  survey  and by  the septic leachate
survey.  The aerial photography  did not indicate any probable system fail-
ures along the north  shore of Island Lake, a problem area as determined by
other sources.

     For one isolated  segment  of Sturgeon Lake (Sturgeon Island) there was
a general concurrence  of  information on probable  failing  systems from the
lot-by-lot  survey,  the   septic  leachate  survey,  and  the  remote  sensing
imagery analysis.  The two problems detected by the analysis of the aerial
photography of  the  Sturgeon  Island segment of Sturgeon Lake  were  not as-
sociated with specific problem lots defined by the other surveys, but were
in the  general area of other identified problem lots.  The other two cases
of aerially  detected  probable failures on  Sturgeon  Lake were  not  at all
corroborated by other  information.

     Analysis of  the  Passenger  and Rush Lake aerial  surveys  indicated no
probable system  failures.   This  is consistent with other  collected infor-
mation  indicating few, if any, problems with on-site systems for these two
lakes.

     The discrepancy  between the larger number of problems  indicated from
ground   based surveys  and  the 'relatively  few  problems indicated  from the
combined methods of aerial survey could be attributed to one or several of
the following factors:

     •     Portions of  lots where the septic system is located were ob-
          structed by  shadows  and could not  be  stereoscopically ana-
          lyzed.
                                   2-25

-------
     •    Some  seasonal residences may not have been  in use  for seve-
          ral months  prior to the time of  the fly over, allowing the
          drainfield   to recuperate,  lowering the groundwater level,
          and resulting in a loss of vegetative vigor.
     •    The drainfields  of some residences were obscured by brush or
          other  small  woody bushes  and some  residences  have gardens
          planted  over the  drainfields.   These  gardens  could  mask
          potential drainfield failures.

     Imagery  information  collected  from  this aerial  survey was  used in
other sections  of  this EIS.  For example,  the multi-spectral scanner  ima-
gery gave  evidence for general groundwater flow directions into the  lakes,
and was  utilized to help  resolve differences  found  in the highly specific
groundwater flows measured during the  septic leachate  survey.  Imagery  used
to formulate  lakeshore area land use  maps in  the EMSL survey also was  used
in conjunction with other  data sources to map  land uses in the watershed of
each  lake.   These  maps  were  used  as the  basis for projecting nutrient
export values  from the land.   No algal blooms were  indicated  on the  four
lakes by the false color infrared or by the color photography.

2.2.1.5.  Septic Leachate  Survey of Island, Sturgeon,  Rush, and Passenger
          Lakes

     Interviews  with  lakeshore  residents,  visual inspections,  and  remote
sensing  imagery can  detect  obvious   backups  and surface  malfunctions of
on-site  wastewater treatment  systems.   However,  these techniques  do not
detect poorly  treated  effluents  that may enter  lakes  or  streams via  soil
infiltration  and  groundwater  transport.    Because  of  the  highly variable
nature of the  slopes  and  soils around the  surveyed  lakes, the location of
such below  ground  effluent sources would be  difficult to  predict based on
conventional sanitary  survey techniques.   In the septic  leachate survey,
on-site  waste  treatment system effluent plumes were  located and monitored
directly utilizing  instrumentation  designed specifically for that purpose.

     Potential  effluent plumes entering  Island,  Sturgeon,  Rush,  and  Pas-
senger lakes were located with an ENDECO Type  2100 Septic Leachate Detector
System.  Baseline  or  "ambient"  water quality of the  lakes  was first  mea-
sured in mid-lake to  calibrate the response  of  the  instrument to natural
                                   2-26

-------
conductivity  (a  reflection of  ionized  mineral salts)  and  to dissolved
organic  matter  (fluorescence).   Shorelines were  then surveyed to locate
areas with  relatively  high conductivity and fluoresence, these  being areas
where inadequately treated  wastewater  may be emerging.  Small areas of the
lake  bed where  elevated  amounts  of  organic  matter and  conductivity are
found to be emerging into the water are termed "suspected effluent plumes".
The  9 suspected  wastewater or  effluent  plumes which  appeared  to  be the
strongest  of  the  39  such  plumes  detected  were sampled as  they emerged.
These  samples  were  then analyzed  in  a  laboratory  for the  water quality
parameters of interest.   In addition,  at the nine  plumes  where  instrument
signals of relatively high amplitude were recorded, groundwater  was sampled
at close  intervals  in  a shoreline transect made perpendicular to the esti-
mated direction  of  plume movement.  These  groundwater  samples were tested
with  the  leachate detector to  locate the approximate plume centers through
which leachate moved from the  failing system toward the lake.   The ground-
water was  then  sampled at the plume center for  subsequent laboratory anal-
ysis.

     Sources other than septic tank effluent also can produce strong leach-
ate detector responses which can either mask or  falsely indicate  the detec-
tion  of  septic  leachate plumes where  evaluated  amounts  of natural organic
substances  are  present.   Seven water  quality samples  were collected where
runoff water  or intermittent  streams  entered  the  lakes  to  identify such
potential interference problems.

     A discussion  of  the  methods  employed  and  the results  of the septic
leachate survey are presented in Appendix C of this report.

Conclusions and Observations Based on the Leachate Survey

     The  more  important  conclusions  and  observations  made based  on the
septic leachate survey of Island Lake are that:

     •    The septic leachate  survey of this lake was performed  under
          ideal  conditions  of  calm weather  and insignificant wave
          activity.
                                   2-27

-------
     •    Fifteen suspected wastewater plumes were  identified.  All of
          them were found on the northwest shoreline between  flow sta-
          tions 1 and  13  (Figures 2-6 through 2-9).  The influx of the
          nutrients from  the  four suspected septic plumes sampled for
          phosphorus and nitrates was very low as indicated by the low
          levels  measured at  the point  of  plume  emergence  into the
          lake.

     •    Background fluorescence and conductivity values are signifi-
          cantly  higher  in  the northern  basin  than  in  the southern
          basin.   This may be associated  with  the  fact that sizeable
          tributary streams enter the northern basin only.

     •    Six  distinct stream plumes were located, and four of these
          were in  the  northern basin.  Moderate levels of fecal coli-
          form  bacteria  were  detected  in  five  of   the  streams and
          non-human sources are indicated by them.

     •    No  potential public health  problems  associated  with septic
          sources of fecal coliform organisms in the surface waters of
          Island Lake were indicated.

     •    Both surface water and groundwater were found to be recharg-
          ing  the northern  basin  and  discharging from  the southern
          basin.


     The  more important   conclusions and observations made based  on the
septic leachate survey of Sturgeon Lake are that:


     •    The  survey  of  Sturgeon  Lake was  performed  under less than
          ideal conditions due  to the prevailing wind and wave action
          along  the  downwind  shores.   This may have  resulted  in  an
          underestimation of  the pollutional  significance  of on-site
          systems at seasonally used residences.

     •    Groundwater  was  found to be discharging  from Sturgeon Lake
          along the  southern shoreline  between  flow  stations  35 and
          39,  accounting  for  the  absence of  septic  leachate  plumes
          along this lake segment.

     •    Groundwater  recharges Sturgeon  Lake  along   the  segment be-
          tween  flow  stations  28 and 34.   Six emergent  plumes  were
          detected  in   this  segment,   indicating an area  of possible
          concern with  regard  to  small waste flows management.   Homes
          along this  segment  were observed  to be  closer  generally  to
          the shoreline than at other areas around the lake.  However,
          the  water  quality  samples  taken  in  the two  suspected ef-
          fluent plumes on  this shoreline do not  indicate  a signifi-
          cant influx of nutrients to the lake.  Additionally, no high
          concentrations of fecal coliform organisms were found.
                                   2-28

-------
     •    Homes  along  the shoreline  segment  between  stations  24
          through  26  are  located  very close to the  lake.   No septic
          plumes could  be  identified  there,  however, possibly because
          of high  ambient  interference levels caused  by  two adjacent
          runoff sources.


     The  more  important  conclusions   and  observations made based  on the
septic leachate surveys of Rush and Passenger Lakes are that:


     •    Both Rush and Passenger  Lakes are surrounded by highly per-
          meable,  sandy soils.   These soils are ideal  for  the perco-
          lation of septic tank effluent from the standpoint of waste-
          water  movement,  but would  also  exhibit the  passage  of ef-
          fluent plumes.

     •    Most of  the  homes  near Rush Lake  are  built  on  a sand ridge
          located between flow stations 48 and 51.   Another sand ridge
          extends  from stations 44  to 46.   The northeast  corner of
          this lake is swampland underlain by a mucky peat layer about
          five feet thick.

     •    A total of three suspected plumes were located on Rush Lake,
          and a  total  of  four  suspected  plumes located  on Passenger
          Lake.   In spite  of the high soil  permeability  associated
          with the  sandy  soils  of this area  no  significant nutrient
          influx was detected at emerging plumes and no elevated fecal
          coliform levels were detected.


     During  the  periods  of   11-25 September  1981  and  2-9 October  1981,

groundwater flow velocity  and direction were measured  at points along the
shorelines  of  Sturgeon Lake,  Island  Lake,  Passenger  Lake,  and Rush Lake.

The objective of these measurements was to support the analysis of the lea-
chate  survey by  characterizing shoreline  segments in  terms of groundwater

flow patterns.   By  identifying  subsurface  flow vectors, it  is  possible to
estimate  the direction  of  groundwater effluent plume movement and to iden-

tify  those  shoreline  areas   where failing  septic  systems  can cause  the
greatest impacts on lake water quality.


     A Groundwater  Flowmeter  System  (Model  20)  was  used to  evaluate the

direction and  velocity of groundwater flow at  selected  locations  on the

shorelines of the four project area lakes.   The Flowmeter has a cylindrical

probe with radially projecting thermistor "spikes."  Flow measurements were

obtained  by  inserting  the  probe in saturated soil at or slightly below the

water  table  surface.   Access  to the   water  table  was  achieved by digging
                                   2-29

-------
shallow  holes with  a narrow-nosed shovel,  3-10  feet inland from the  lake
shorelines.   Prior  to measurement  of  flow a minimum of  30  minutes was
allotted  to permit  the water table  and thermistor array to achieve equi-
librium.

     A  standardizing  method  was used  to improve  the correlation between
laboratory  instrument  calibration and collected field  data.  A  large sample
of  sand  was  collected from  a  beach area on Island  Lake.   This sand was
thoroughly  mixed  and placed  in a laminar flow tube of known cross-section
and flow.   In this way the  probe was  calibrated to  local  soil having speci-
fic  average  pore size  and  permeability.   Enough  sand  was  collected to
backfill  the  holes dug at  each  flow station.  Thus,  all flow  measurements
were made in soil matrices  having uniform properties.

     The groundwater  flow vector data collected for the stations  around the
shoreline of each lake are  presented  in  Table  2-5.   Locations of  the ground-
water flow  measurement stations are  presented in Figures 2-6,  2-7, and 2-8
and 2-9.

     During the initial survey in September  1981, groundwater flow measure-
ments around  the four  lakes were  made during  a  period of little  or no
precipitation;  there  had been  no significant rainfall in  the area for 1
month preceeding  the study.  Therefore,  the measured  groundwater flow data
are probably representative of low to average  water table conditions in the
unconfined water  table aquifer.  Nine flow measurement stations were estab-
lished at  the  estimated  plume centers  during a subsequent period (early
October).  The  subsequent  measurements   were  made   after  several  days of
rainfall  and  provide information  about groundwater  flow  when  the water
table is  at  or  above average  height.   Flow conditions  in  the confined
aquifer  systems  (below  the  unconfined water table) were  not  measured.

Conclusions and Observations  Based on the Groundwater  Flow Data

     Groundwater  apparently  discharges  from Island Lake  along the shore-
line, west  of  a  hypothetical line  drawn through  flow stations 15  and  9
(Figure 2-6).   The anomalously high flow velocity recorded at Station 10
                                   2-30

-------
       Table  2-5.  Groundwater flow velocities  and directions  as measured at  "flow stations"  established on  the
                     shorelines  of Island, Sturgeon, Rush, and Passenger Lakes.
I
U>
Island Lake

Station
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
151
16
17
18 1
19
20
21
22
23 l
23a*
Apparent
Velocity
(ft. /day)
1.2
4.1
4.7
1.6
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
3.0
39.4
2.0
2.0
7.4
2.0
6.7
2.0
0.7
0.7
2.0
4.5
1.2
0.7
1.8
2.4
Azimuth
Direction
(degreeu)
321
.200
250
270
1U4
254
300
345
1U8
177
035
249
315
350
009
221
067
230
160
185
218
254
237
231
Sturgeon Lake

Station
C
24
25
26
27
281 .
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Apparent
Velocty
(ft. /day)
1.4
3.2
1.4
1.6
8.0
1.9
1.7
1.2
2.4
2.3
3.2
3.7
6.4
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.8
2.7
1.9
2.3
Azimuth
Direction
(degrees
260
212
170
122
220
355
151
185
233
329
324
173
196
272
230
222
341
248
028
273
Rush Lake

Station
t
44
45 .
45a
46
47
48
49.
50
51


Station
1
52
53
54
55
57
581
59
Apparent
Velocity
(ft. /day)
1.2
2.3
3.1
7.6
3.0
1.2
2.0
11.1
2.4
Passenger
Apparent
Velocity
(ft. /day)
1.9
1.8
2.2
2.2
1.4
3.8
3.5
Azimuth
Direction
(degrees)
235
015
317
147
228
256
147
012
210
Lake
Azimuth
Direction
(degrees)
179
140
223
320
350
145
289
            Measured  during period of above average precipitation (2-9  October, 1981).
            (11-25 September, 1981).
All  other measurements taken during period of  low precipitation

-------
                                                                                 goose
                                                                                 farm
N>


S3
                                                     Figure 2-6.  Locations of: groundwater flow monitoring stations,
                                                                  suspected septic leachate plumes, stations where
                                                                  groundwater quality samples were taken, and stations
                                                                  where overland runoff (streams) were detected and
                                                                  sampled in Island Lake.

-------
Figure  2-7.
                                                                          Locations of: groundwater flow monitoring
                                                                          stations, suspected septic leachate plumes,
                                                                          stations where groundwater quality samples
                                                                          were  taken, and stations  where overland
                                                                          runoff  (streams) were detected and sampled
                                                                          in  Sturgeon Lake.
                                                        *\\'X\
i
UJ
u>
                                                                                                              cattle
                                                                                                         farm on  lake

-------
                                49
to
i
U)
                                                                                   N
                                                                                 NO SCALE
                                                                                          FLOW  RATE  FJ/DAY
                                                                                             I  i i  i i  i   *"~
                                                                                             012345
                                                                                                Groundwater
                                                                                                Flow Station
                                                          \0 Plume

                                                          V  Stream
                      Figure 2-8.
Locations of:  groundwater  flow monitoring stations, suspected septic leachate
plumes, stations  where  groundwater quality samples were gathered,  and locations
of stations where overland runoff(streams) were detected in Rush Lake.

-------
      t
       N
                FLOW RATE  FT/DAY
I
0
    I
    2
I
3
I
4
    NO SCALE
Groundwater
Flow Station

Plume
                                                  52
                        PASSENGER  LAKE
                                                           54
            56
Figure 2-9.  Locations  of:  groundwater flow monitoring stations,  suspected septic
            leachate plumes, stations where groundwater quality  samples were
            gathered.
                               2-35

-------
(40  feet per  day  [ft/day])  was  confirmed  by additional  measurements on
successive days.   This high outflow from Island Lake occurs through a sand
and  cobble  zone at  the base  of a  steep  slope which  overlooks  the beach
area.

     Based on  the  flow vectors measured in September 1981, groundwater re-
charges  Island Lake  along the  shoreline  between  flow stations 8  and 2.
Between  flow  stations 15 and 1, the groundwater  vectors displayed no con-
sistent  trends.  This latter  segment contains the highest concentration of
lakefront homes and  it  is possible that under average water table condi-
tions, volumes  of  water percolating from on-site systems may be sufficient
to affect the overall  flow pattern of groundwater movement due to localized
artificial recharge of the water table by domestic wastewater.

     Based upon the association and  distribution of soils in the region, it
appears  that  the  southern and  southwestern  shores  of Sturgeon  Lake  are
underlain  by  a  glacial  till  which is veneered with  a thick  deposit of
outwash sands.  These  sands comprise a highly permeable, unconfined aquifer
underlain  by  the  glacial  till  aquitard.   The slopes  along  the  southern
shoreline  of  Sturgeon Lake also  are much  less  than  on  the till-covered
landscape  surrounding  the rest of  the Lake.   Geologic  and  topographic
characteristics result in complete groundwater discharge from Sturgeon Lake
along the shoreline between stations 35 and 40.

     Groundwater flows into Sturgeon Lake along the beach area between sta-
tions 31 and  33.   Numerous homes have  been  built around this embayment in
close proximity to the beach.   The lakeward groundwater  flow conditions ob-
served would contribute to the emergence of septic plumes there.

     The highest flow velocity measurement recorded on  Sturgeon Lake was at
station  28  (8  ft/day) .  This flow station is located at the juncture of an
inland  swale  with the shoreline.   A surface water flow does not  normally
exit from the  swale,  but surface waters may  be discharging intermittently
during storm events.   The significance of this depression is that it drains
an  area presently  in use  as  a dairy  farm and  groups of cows were  seen
standing in the water.  The shoreline segment between  flow stations 40 and
                                   2-36

-------
43 is  characterized  by narrow beach  areas  at the base of relatively steep
till  slopes.   Groundwater flow  patterns along  this segment appeared dif-
fuse.  Distinct landward flow was not indicated.

     The topography of the land surrounding Rush Lake indicates that it was
considerably  larger  in recent  geologic history and may  have been part  of
Sturgeon  Lake.   Large swamplands  demarcated by  relict  shorelines occur
northeast  and south of  Rush Lake,  and are  probably  the result of eutro-
phication processes in parts of the former lake.

     Surface  water flowing  from  a broad swampland  enters Rush Lake along
its northeastern  and  eastern shorelines.  Surface water  is discharged from
Rush Lake  through a  single  small culvert to  another broad swampland to the
south.   Under base flow conditions,  groundwater  recharges Rush Lake along
its  northern  and eastern  shores.   Groundwater  is  discharged  along  the
southwest shoreline in a direction analogous  to surface flows.

     Flow  stations 45 and  50 were established  during  the septic leachate
survey which  followed a  period  of rainy weather  (October 1981).  The in-
creased flow  rate at station 45a reflects this.  Normally, increased preci-
pitation can  be  expected  to increase groundwater  flow  toward a  lake. Rush
Lake might not display this property because  the relatively large watershed
area on  the  northeast  may,  under  rainy conditions, introduce  more water
than can be  carried  away by the  single culvert.   Rising lake levels would
then induce  groundwater discharge  along much of  the  remaining  shoreline,
which  would  account  for  the outward flow  recorded at  station  50 and the
deflected flow direction  at  station 45a, relative  to  earlier flow data at
these stations (September 1981).

     Surface  water discharges  from Passenger Lake into Big Slough Lake via
a  small  creek, the  inlet of  which lies approximately  100  feet  south  of
station  54.   No  sources of  surface water  influx to Passenger  Lake  were
observed.  Passenger Lake  is apparently recharged by groundwater along its
northern and  southern shores.   The flows observed  at  station 53 indicate
that  subsurface   flow  toward Big  Slough Lake to  the southeast  may occur
along  the  eastern  shore  of Passenger  Lake.  The measured  easterly  flow
                                   2-37

-------
vector  is  analogous to this  surface water  flow  trend.  Flow station 59 was
established  during the high  water table conditions  in October 1981.  The
measured landward  flow  is probably a result of rising lake levels caused by
rapid groundwater  influx  to  Passenger Lake along other shoreline segments.
The data from station 52 indicate that under average water table conditions
the groundwater  vector  in the vicinity of  station 59 probably  is lakeward.

     The overall regional groundwater flow  direction in the project area is
southerly.   The  effect  of this southerly flux  is  to enhance the emergence
of septic  leachate plumes on the northern  shores  of the lakes and inhibit
emergence  on the  southern  lake  shores  (Septic Leachate  Survey,  Section
2.2.1.5.)   There are isolated exceptions to  this  overall southerly direc-
tion of  groundwater flux,  expecially during periods of high precipitation.

     Of the  four lakes  that were investigated, only Sturgeon and Rush Lakes
were shown to exhibit distinct groundwater  interconnections.  Lake water is
discharged  to  the  outwash sands along the  southern shore of Sturgeon Lake,
and some  of this  water eventually  reaches  Rush Lake by  means  of  a marsh.
Surface  water  and  groundwater  discharged  from  the  southwest  shoreline of
Rush Lake flow in  a south westerly direction, and ultimately drain into the
Willow River.

     Groundwater entering Passenger Lake  from  the  north,  west,  and south
ultimately  flows east  via a  small creek  to Big Slough Lake and then on to
the Willow  River.   Of  the four lakes studied, Passenger Lake has the smal-
lest watershed area and is the most  isolated  in terms of regional ground-
water flow patterns.

2.2.1.6.  Private  Water Well  Information

     The  leachate  survey described  in the  previous  section (2.2.1.5) de-
veloped  a  limited  amount  of water quality data to  characterize  the water
table aquifer  in the vicinity of nine  lakeshore residences.   The results,
labeled as  "background  samples" of groundwater  in the data tables prepared
for the leachate  survey,  indicate no extraordinary  amounts  of nitrate or
fecal coliforms  (Appendix C).  However,  these limited groundwater data are
insufficient for the  purpose of determining whether private wells in lake-
                                   2-38

-------
shore homes  are currently  being contaminated with  pollutants originating
from on-site  waste  treatment systems.  To determine  if well contamination
is a serious problem and that as a result improved wastewater management is
necessary, a series of questions should be addressed such as:

     •    How deep are the wells?
     •    How permeable are the soils around the wells?
     •    Does groundwater  at  the  aquifers being tapped move from the
          leachate field toward wells?
     •    Are naturally dissolved  groundwater constituents already at
          levels which  constitute  a  potential public health problem?
     •    Is  there  documentation  of  private well  contamination from
          wastewater?
     •    Can fertilizer  or animal  waste in feedlots  be  a source of
          groundwater contamination?
     Using the information presented  in this report, a number of deductions
can be made,  a  priori,  to  focus on  lakeshore segments where private water
well  contamination  is  most likely   to  be occurring.   The aforementioned
questions can  then  be  addressed for private wells  in identified critical
lakeshore segments to determine if further investigation is warranted.  For
example,   it  is  assumed that tight soils  which  may  preclude  satisfactory
performance  of   septic  systems  also  generally  preclude  the  recharge  of
groundwater  with septic  leachate  (USEPA 1978,  pc-60).   This  assumption
applies in much  of  the northern portion  of  the  service area,  where Duluth
Series soils predominate.

     The predominance of  Duluth soils around most of  Island Lake and also
around the northern half  of Sturgeon Lake was discussed in the Soil Survey
prepared  as  a  portion of  this EIS.  The testing  of  soil particle size
distributions as documented  in the Soil Survey, indicates  that  the Duluth
soils found  around  Island  and Sturgeon Lakes  are especially clayey  and
that  their  clay  content  tends  to  increase  with  depth.    This  situation
results in very  low  rates of downward permeability  for leachate and makes
contamination of groundwater to a  depth greater than 20 feet extremely un-
likely.
                                   2-39

-------
     The  inverse  situation  is  found  in an  isolated area  of  sandy soils
located  adjacent  to  the  northwest shoreline  of  Island  Lake and  in the
remainder  of  the  service  area wherever  sandy soils predominate.   Shallow
domestic water wells located in sandy soils are the wells most likely to be
contaminated by  septic leachate recharging the water table aquifer  (USEPA,
1978, pc-69).  The shallow "sand point"  wells  which are sometimes  used to
tap  the  water  table or "glacial  drift"  aquifer  often are associated with
older or seasonal residences.   A concentration of  residences with  shallow
wells located  on  lakeshore  segments with  sandy  soils  should  be examined
critically for the potential of well contamination.

     The Omega sandy  loam soil series and  Lake  Beach soils of the  project
area can practicably support seasonal development because of the incidental
ease with  which  well  water  may be withdrawn  from  shallow  wells,  and also
because  of the  ease  with which  septic  leachate percolates  through drain
fields.   This coincidence of favorable leachate percolation characteristics
and  water  table  aquifer  accessibility may be associated with  many  of the
older lakeshore  residences  in  the  area.   Where  water  use  has been dras-
tically  increased  by  year round residence in dwellings which still  rely on
the  original  "sand point" well, this may  increase  the potential  of well
contamination by septic  leachate.   However,  a broad determination  of the
need for better  wastewater management in such situations must be made with
caution.   Older  wells  may also be  experiencing contamination by non-waste-
water sources  such as  surface water  intrusion due  to  improper  well vent
protection or  due to  cracked  well  casings,  or  other  design faults.  Ad-
ditionally, rapid development of a  small  land area where many shallow wells
are being  used could induce upward  movement of groundwater of objectionable
quality.   In the final analysis, the discovery of objectionable well water
quality  or even  of the potential of septic leachate contamination in a few
isolated cases  may more  properly constitute a need  for new, deeper wells
than for another means of waste treatment.

     The mailed  questionnaire  responses,  as described in Section 2.2.1.3.,
provide  information  on well depth  for  one  third to  one half of  the resi-
dences  within  the  service area  (depending on locale).   This information
allows an  analysis to  be made  of  the depths  of wells  at  lakeshore res-
                                   2-40

-------
idences  in  areas with  Omega sandy  loam  soils  or  sandy Lake Beach soils.

Table  2-6 presents  the well  depth  information taken  from questionnaire
responses received from homeowners living in these sandy-soil areas.


     Based on the questionnaire responses on well depth  for the portions of

the service area defined in Table 2-6 as  having sandy soils, the following

observations are made:


     •    Most residences  located  on the sandy soils along the north-
          west shore  of  Island Lake have well  depths  in excess of 40
          feet.  This is perhaps because the accessible  groundwater is
          at or just above the 40-foot level.

     •    A large proportion of wells located on the sandy Lake Beach
          soils near the neck of Sturgeon Island are less than 30 feet
          in  depth.   This indicates  the  need  to  further investigate
          the  potential for  well  contamination by  septic  leachate.

     •    Shallow wells  are  uncommon in the sandy  Omega series soils
          along the south shore of Sturgeon Lake.

     •    A large  proportion of  the residences located on  the sandy
          Omega series soils surrounding Rush and Passenger Lakes have
          wells less  than  30 feet in depth.   This  indicates the need
          for further investigation of the potential for well contami-
          nation by septic leachate.


     •    Few private water  wells  in the Hogan's and Wild Acres deve-
          lopments are  less  than  30 feet in  depth.   The median well
          depth in  this area  is 40 feet, perhaps  because the acces-
          sible groundwater is at or just above this level.


     Based on these observations,  it  appears  that  the  potential  for well

contamination by septic leachate is greatest in the land area just south of
the neck of   Sturgeon  Island and in the land  area  immediately surrounding

Rush and  Passenger  Lakes.   Questionnaires  received from property owners in

these two critical areas were re-examined and a total of 14 residences with

wells of  less  than  the median depth were  identified as suitable for study
in a  follow-up well  sampling  program.   Of the  14  residences thus identi-

fied,  only one  was  in use as  a permanent  dwelling, and  the  other  13 sea-

sonal-use dwellings were  owned by persons not  living  in the project area.

Since the summer  season was  over when this  analysis was performed, it was

assumed  that  additional  well  sampling  would  not  be  feasible until  the
                                   2-41

-------
Table 2-6.  Information on well depth in the portions of the service area
            having permeable, sandy soils.

                       Number of
                     Questionnaire
                      Respondents     Number of
                      Reporting on  Wells >30 ft.
                     Depth of Well    in Depth
Area

Northwest
Shoreline of
Island Lake
(Omega series soils)
Neck of Sturgeon
Island on Southeast
Shore of Sturgeon
Lake (Lake beach soil)

Southern Shore
of Sturgeon Lake
(Omega series soils)

Rush and Passenger
Lakes Area
(Omega series soils)

Hogan's and Wild
Acres Area
(Omega series soils)
  Median       Range of
Well Depth  Depths Reported
                          19
                          13
                          17
                                                      45 ft.
               40-60 ft.
                                                      32 ft.
  57 ft.
  28 ft,
  40 ft.
               20-199 ft.
 7-190 ft.
 8-175 ft.
20-70 ft.
                                   2-42

-------
summer of  1983,  when the seasonal dwellings were  occupied and their wells
functioning.

     Further evaluation  of the  potential  for well  contamination in these
areas  was  attempted  based on  review  of  Minnesota  Department  of  Public
Health well  sampling  data.   In  Minnesota,  well water samples are collected
and  analyzed after  a new  well  has  been drilled.   Data from  the  Health
Department were  obtained  for  60 recently drilled wells (1979-1981) in Pine
and  Carlton  Counties (presented  in  Appendix C).  Eleven  of  the 60 tested
wells  are  in Windemere Township,  Pine  County.   Based on  the  60 well sam-
ples,  the  groundwater quality in the project area appears to be very good.
Most of  the  reported cases of coliform  contamination  in  these samples are
thought  to be  due  to  inadequate disinfection  following well completion
(written communication to WAPORA, Inc. by Mr. Michael Convery, 1982).  Most
of  the tested  wells were greater  than  50  feet in depth,  with the deepest
listed at  538  feet.  The tested wells  are  finished  in  either sand/gravel
deposits or  sandstone  (Minnesota Dept.   of Health  Well  Records 1979-1981).

     Based on the available well sampling  data,  it appears that the deeper
wells  of  the project area  have no water quality  problems.   However, data
from the  recently tested  wells  in the  project area  were insufficient for
the purpose of  analyzing the potential of water table aquifer contamination
by  septic  leachate.   Too  few  shallow  wells  were sampled and  none  in the
critical sandy-sand areas were sampled.

     Woodward and  others  (1961;  as cited in USEPA 1978p.  C-60) reported on
an  extensive survey  of over 63,000  private  water supply  wells  in 39 com-
munities  which  were served  by  individual  septic  tank   systems.   Eleven
percent of  the wells tested  had  total  nitrate  concentrations  which were
greater than the drinking water  quality  standard of 10 mg/l-N.  The results
were attributed  to differences  in soil  characteristics,  well  depth,  popu-
lation density,  and  hydrogeology.  Because  sufficient  groundwater quality
sampling data for shallow wells  were  not available in the  project area, the
water  table  aquifer  quality in  critical lakeshore  areas cannot  be  fully
evaluated  at this time.   The above  referenced study does,  however,  point
out  the  possibility  that  shallow aquifer nitrate  contamination can occur
                                   2-43

-------
under  comparable   circumstances.   Groundwater  quality  is  influenced  by
numerous  independent  variables and a  full  scale  study to outline problems
and  trace their  causes would be  cost prohibitive  even if sufficient time
were available.   Because documented well contamination problems associated
with  septic systems  are not  common  in the  area,  according  to  the State
Department  of Health,   it  is presumed  that no  broad degree  of  need  for
improved  waste treatment  exists  as a result  of  well water  contamination.

2.2.1.7.  Local Permit  File Information

     The  County  Sanitary  Codes  of Minnesota  require that permits  be  ob-
tained by individual  property owners  for replacement or  for  new installa-
tion of  on-site  waste  treatment systems.   The  Pine County Zoning Adminis-
trator maintains a  file of the permit  applications made in  Pine County each
year.   The  file was  reviewed for this EIS  to  determine  which portions of
the  project  area were  being developed with on-site  systems  and to locate
any recent on-site  system upgrades.  In addition, federal grant eligibility
for sewers and for on-site system upgrades  can be  determined according to
the  date of  on-site  system   installation.   A summary of  the information
obtained  from the local permit file is presented in Table 2-7.

     Records of on-site system upgrades in the  Island Lake  area were avail-
able for  the  period of  1974  - 1982.   These upgrades are discussed in more
detail  in Section  2.2.3.1.   For  the  period of  1980 - February 1982,  the
most common type of new system permitted around Island Lake was the holding
tank  (5  installed)  followed  by  the  the  privy (3 installed) .   No septic
systems were  installed  around Island  Lake after February 1980.  The Zoning
Administrator has stated that  septic tanks are  sometimes recommended by his
office  for  persons  planning  to   construct  new homes  in  the  Island Lake
vicinity, but  that  people have usually elected to  apply  for holding tanks
instead  (Personal communication  to WAPORA, Inc. by Mr. Wayne Golly, 1982).

2.2.1.8.  Follow-up Survey

     The  information  described in the preceding sections, when initially
reviewed,  revealed data  gaps  which  required  that a  follow-up  survey be
                                   2-44

-------
   Table 2-7.  Summary of County permit file data for the period February  1974
               through February  1982 (File of  the  Zoning Administrator,  Pine
               County, Pine City, MN.)
                         Permit Applications
                    	1974 through 1980
                                        Rush/
                    Island  Sturgeon  Passenger
                               Permit Applications
                                1981 through  1982	
                                                  Rush/
                              Island  Sturgeon  Passenger
New septic tanks
with soil absorp-
tion systems

New holding tanks

New Privies

Upgrades of soil
absorption systems

 Sub-area totals

 Project area totals
14
17
6
6
14
26
9
0
7
1
6
0
0
5
3
0
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
43
49
14
               106
                                    14
                                      2-45

-------
made.   The follow-up  survey,  conducted in  March-April 1982, consisted of
telephone  contacts  with  property owners  and  a  field  reconnaissance to
inventory  existing structures in  the  Wild  and Hogan's Acres subdivisions.

     The  telephone  survey  was   conducted  to  obtain  additional original
information  from  property owners or to  clarify discrepancies found in the
existing information.  For example, on-site systems which had been reported
to have problems  in the mailed questionnaires or lots which had been quali-
tatively described as having serious site limitations or failing  systems in
the  Facility  Plan were re-evaluated through  this  telephone survey of  own-
ers.   In  the approximately 35 telephone contacts  made, specific questions
were asked about  the cause of and  seriousness of any problems cited.

     Through  the  direct  telephone conversations with  property  owners, it
was  determined that many of the  problems  previously  reported with septic
systems had  been  maintenance-related  instead of design or site  limitation
related.   Normal   maintenance  had, in most instances,  already  solved the
problems.   In  several  cases  the problems  were ongoing  and appeared to
require a  more permanent and extensive  solution.   The details of what was
learned from the  follow-up  telephone survey  are  presented  in  Table  2-10
(Section 2.2.3.)  where problems  in specific lakeshore  or subdivision areas
are identified.

     A  field  visit  was  made  to  the  Wild  and  Hogan's Acres subdivisions
during  February  1982.   The  purpose   of  this  visit  was to  determine the
number  of  lots with  residences  or trailers on-site.   It  was assumed  that
mobile  units on-site  at  that time  of  the  year were  present  year round.
Summer  and early  fall use of the  lots in these subdivisions had  previously
been observed  to  include hard-top and tent  camper  trailers which are  sea-
sonally moved on  and  off-site.    (Late  fall use includes  residence in the
area through  the  hunting season according  to  several  of the questionnaire
respondents).   During  the February visit,  74  lots  with structures inplace
were counted.   The majority  of  these structures  were  mobile homes.   The
total  number  of  privately  owned  lots in  the  two  subdivisions  may exceed
155, based  on  tax records,  but  the actual trailer  occupancy rate in  the
warm   season  is unknown.    It is  assumed, however, that a large  proportion
                                    2-46

-------
of  the  trailers are  not  connected to on-site  systems  because their waste
holding facilities are  self  contained.   The telephone follow-up survey did
not  cover  all owners of  lots  in these subdivisions because  of the afore-
mentioned  uses  of  the  lots and  because no  on-site system  problems  were
reported for  them  in the  questionnaire responses, in the public well water
records, or in  the Zoning Administrator's file.  Additionally, local sept-
age haulers reported no excessive septic tank pumping taking place at homes
within  those  subdivisions (personal  communication to WAPORA,  Inc.  by Mr.
Dale Heaton, April 1982).

2.2.2.  Problems Caused by Existing On-Site Systems

     On-site  waste treatment systems may fail to function  properly for a
variety of  reasons,  including  improper  design and installation, failure of
the owner to perform proper maintenance or unsuitable site characteristics.
The symptoms of on-site treatment system failure may include:

     •    Backups of wastewater in household plumbing;
     •    Ponding  of effluent  on the  ground  surface  (surface fail-
          ures) ;
     •    Groundwater contamination;  and
     •    Surface water contamination.

     In this section, some of the information presented in Section 2.2.1 is
used to define  and quantify  the extent of several symptoms of system fail-
ures found  in the  project area.  Additionally, an overview  is provided of
the  existing  scientific literature and of locally gathered  data regarding
the  potential impact  of such failing on-site systems  on public health and
on  water  quality.    Indirect evidence to be  utilized for anticipation of
future  problems with  on-site   systems  is also defined  in   this  section.
Where the perspective of  this  section is on the entire project area and on
each  lake's  set  of  problems,  the perspective of the  subsequent  section
(2.2.3.) is on  the problems  in particular lakeshore  segments or subdivis-
ions.   This  latter  perspective  provides  a  basis  for the  development of
project alternatives which serve  the  real needs of  the  people owning pro-
perty within the project area.
                                   2-47

-------
     Published  Federal  guidance  directs  that  on-site  system  pollution
problems affecting groundwater or surface water be identified and traced to
the  causal  factors.   Facility planning  projects  will only receive federal
funding where  a  significant proportion  of  residences are so documented as
causing problems.  The Federal documents being utilized  for the analysis of
causal  factors  and   for   quantifying  and  categorizing  failures  include:

     •    USEPA  Region  V; Guidance  on  Site Specific Needs Determina-
          tion and Alternative Planning  for Unsewered Areas.
     •    USEPA Region V,  Guidance and  Program Requirements Memoranda
          78-9 and 79-8.
     •    Minnesota  Pollution  Control  Agency,  Site  Specific  Needs
          Determination  and  Alternative  Planning   for  Unsewered  Areas.

     Additionally, the  USEPA Region V  staff  have  interpreted the regula-
tions  to  mean that  eligibility for  USEPA grants be  limited  to providing
improved  waste treatment  only  for  those  on-site  system which  have been
demonstrated  with direct  evidence  to   be  polluting and  to  those systems
which  have  site  characteristics  and  usage  patterns  identical  to  those
associated with the polluting systems.

2.2.2.1  Backups

     Backup of sewage  in household  plumbing constitutes direct evidence of
need if it  is caused by a design  problem such as an undersized drainfield
or  by  site  limitations  such  as  extremely tight,  clayey soil or  a high
groundwater table  which  results in  the  filling of  the leachate field with
groundwater.   Pipes  or drain  tiles  that  are  clogged  or  broken or septic
tanks  which are  filled  with solids due to a lack  of  normal maintenance
pumping are not  considered evidence of  direct need  for a system upgrade or
replacement.

     The  number  of septic systems  in  the project  area  which have backup
problems  was  determined by  review  of  the MLWSD survey,  of the responses
from the mailed questionnaire survey, and of the  follow-up telephone survey
results.   Initially,  this information  indicated that  fewer  than  20 res-
idences had experienced  problems with backup  of  sewage  into the household.
                                   2-48

-------
Contacts with homeowners made during the follow-up survey documented that 7
of the  20  backup problems reported were chronic and attributable to design
problems or site characteristics.

2.2.2.2.  Ponding or Surface Failure

     The ponding of septic  tank effluent at and  around  a soil absorption
system  constitutes  direct evidence  of need  for  improved waste treatment.
The  impacts  of  ponding  may  include objectionable odors  and public health
risk to  the  property owner and to the neighbors.  If runoff carries ponded
septic  tank  effluent into a lake or stream the pollutional impact of asso-
ciated pathogenic organisms  and  of nutrients may  be  significant.   Soft or
wet  soil above  the  leachate field also provides direct evidence of need if
it occurs regularly.

     The number of  septic systems  which  demonstrated direct  evidence of
surface  failures was determined by  a review of the MLWSD  survey,  of the
mailed questionnaire survey,  of  the EMSL aerial survey, and by the follow-
up  telephone survey.   The  follow-up  survey was  utilized to  contact all
owners reporting ponding  problems  in order to determine whether the drain-
field was  consistently wet  or  had  standing  water over it.   Cumulatively,
fewer than 30 chronic ponding problems were identified  in the project area.
These chronic problems  were  associated principally with systems located on
tight, clayey soils around Island Lake.

     Chronic problems with ponding may be completely exclusive of problems
reported with  sewage backups in the  home.   The exception  is  in  the case
where both occur  simultaneously  due  to natural  flooding of  the  system.

2.2.2.3.  Groundwater Contamination

     This  section   presents  a  summary  of  the  information  regarding  the
impact  of  septic  leachate on  the  groundwater  aquifers  being pumped  by
private  water  wells within  the  project area.   Section 2.2.2.6.  addresses
the  impact  of  nutrients  originating from on-site waste  treatment  systems
moving with the groundwater and discharging into surface waters.
                                   2-49

-------
     Contamination  of groundwater with  septic  leachate,  resulting in ele-
vated  levels  of  nitrite and nitrate  (in excess of 10 mg. per liter) or in
elevated levels of  fecal coliform organisms  (in excess of  100 organisms per
milliliter) in private water wells constitutes direct evidence of the need
for improved waste  management.

     Lakeshore  segments where  sandy  soils  predominate and  where shallow
aquifers are commonly  tapped for drinking water supplies were identified in
Section 2.2.1.6.   Also in that section,  well  sampling and testing records
maintained  by  the  Minnesota  Department of  Public  Health  were  reviewed to
determine  the quality of groundwater  being tapped  by  the wells  in such
areas.  No  problems with well contamination by fecal coliform organisms or
nitrates  were documented  for  any  of  the wells  in  areas having   a high
potential for water well contamination.

     Well drilling  records  for recent drillings  in the  project area indi-
cate  that  a  hydraulically  limiting  horizon  or  "aquitard" is  generally
present within  20  feet  of  depth  from  the  land  surface.   This relatively
impermeable layer would protect most of  the area's wells of greater than 20
foot  depth from  bacterial  intrusion via  the groundwater.   In  addition,
environmental reports on similar rural  lake  facility plans have addressed
groundwater  contamination potential  through broadly  scoped  well sampling
programs.  In comparable settings, septic leachate  intrusion into wells via
the  groundwater  was  not found  to be  a significant  problem  (USEPA 1978,
1979,  1979, 1980,).

2.2.2.4.  Surface Water Contamination

     Surface  water  quality problems  directly  attributable to on-site sys-
tems can be serious enough to warrant system rehabilitation or replacement.
The two categories  of problems for surface  waters  which qualify as direct
evidence of need  are high fecal coliform counts,  which may imply a public
health  risk and  high nutrient  inputs  which  may be  detrimental  to water
quality.
                                    2-50

-------
     The septic leachate  survey  was the primary data source used to deter-
mine  if  there  was direct  surface water  contamination by  fecal coliform
organisms  originating  from septic  tank effluent.   Surface  water "contam-
ination" is  an accurate  description  of  wastewater impact  when used  to
indicate a substantial  public  health risk posed by disease causing (patho-
genic) organisms  originating from human fecal  matter.   Such contamination
should be  a  matter of  concern for  the  riparian property owner and consti-
tutes a need  for  improved waste treatment.  However, demonstration  of the
degree of  health  risk  being posed by a failing on-site system is, unfort-
unately, not  straight forward.

     The conventional laboratory test used to estimate the density of fecal
coliform organisms in  water can  be  used to  indicate  the  probability  of
actual disease  causing bacteria  and  viruses being  present.   However, the
fecal coliform  test can  only be  construed to  indicate a  probability  of
pathogenic contamination if it is also established that the organisms being
counted are  indeed  of  human origin (USEPA  1980,  Goldreich  1965).  This is
difficult to  do in on-site system field studies because wild animals, pets,
and domestic  stock also  can  produce large  numbers  of  fecal  coliforms  in
excreta.  Domestic  pets and waterfowl can easily  obscure  the  meaning of a
coliform count by  introducing  non-human fecal material to surface water or
groundwater.   The  result  is that the probability  of human  pathogens being
present is indicated only when a series of coliform counts are made over a
period of time,  under controlled conditions, and in situations where direct
discharge of  septic effluent  is  being made and where soil/leachate contact
is minimal.   In other  words,  the  fecal  coliform test  alone  can scienti-
fically  prove  that pathogenic  contamination  exists  only  where this  is
already obvious to  the  public  or to public health officials making a sani-
tary  survey.   With the above  as  background,  it  is noted  that  during the
Septic Leachate Survey no  overland flows or  direct discharges  of  septic
tank  effluent were observed on  the shorelines  of any of  the lakes being
surveyed.

     Based on  all the  available  information  sources  listed  in  Section
2.2.1.  it  was  estimated  that fewer  than 30  soil absorption  systems may
currently be experiencing  surface  failure problems  out of  an  an estimated
                                   2-51

-------
total  of  260 soil absorption  systems  in use within the project area  (Sec-
tion  2.2.2.2.)-   Based  on  this, the  potential of  surface  water contami-
nation with disease causing pathogens does  not appear to be widespread or
serious.   However,  under  future  conditions,   with  additional development
taking place on less suitable  lots and  with increases in water use attend-
ant to  further conversions of  seasonal to permanent  residences, the contam-
ination  problem  caused  by surface  failures  could become  more  serious.

     A more positive assessment of the  potential  for  contamination of the
surface water of Island, Sturgeon, Rush, and Passenger Lakes may be gained
from examination of the counts  of fecal coliform made in suspected ground-
water  plumes versus counts made at the  point of groundwater emergence into
the  lake  (Section  2.2.1.5.).   Based on the groundwater  sampling data for
situations  where  fecal  coliform  numbers  in  the groundwater  plumes were
high,  no  emergence  of  fecal  coliforms  through  sub-surface  groundwater
plumes was  found.  Thus, it appears that adequate treatment of pathogens is
taking  place  in  sub-surface   effluent  plumes, even  where  certain  other
dissolved  and colloidally suspended effluent  constituents  may be entering
the  lakes.   This  is supported by the published  literature  on fecal coli-
form-groundwater  transport  which  suggests  that because most  bacteria are
quite  large compared to the colloidal organic  substances  that are located
by  the Septic  Leachate  Detector,  that  they   (the  coliform  bacteria) are
easily filtered out  of the leachate by soils (Jones  and Lee 1977).

     Domestic wastewater may  in some instances contribute a  large load of
nutrients to a lake  or stream.   The impact on water  quality of this kind of
nutrient enrichment  may  range   from favorable to seriously adverse, depend-
ing on  chemical  and biological  factors  in each water body.  For example, a
trout  stream can become far more productive and have a more viable fishery
with the introduction of moderate levels of nutrient enrichment from sewage
treatment plant effluent (WDNR 1975).  On the other  hand, lakes and streams
can become  over-enriched by nutrients from wastewater and can, as a result,
show symptoms of environmental  degradation ranging from partial or complete
loss of  dissolved  oxygen  in  deep water to  becoming choked  with weeds and
covered with mats of blue-green algae.  Where  a  scientific  assessment can
support the notion  that abatement of nutrient  loads  from on-site systems
                                   2-52

-------
will  actually limit  or reverse  the process  of  nutrient enrichment  in a
seriously degraded lake  or  stream,  there is a demonstrated need to provide
some kind of improved wastewater management.

     The assessment  of need  based  on  nutrient  enrichment or "eutrophica-
tion"  is  still more  difficult  and  costly  to make  than  the assessment of
contamination by  pathogenic organisms.   The  reason  for  this is  that for
each lake's eutrophication problem there is no generic assessment of cause.
No two  lakes  are  exactly the same and  very few in a  given  region will be
quite  similar  in  terms of such factors as volume, shape,  types of nutrient
loads, flushing rate and so on.   As a corollary to this, no single nutrient
abatement  step  is universally prescribed to  improve  problem lakes.  Thus,
each lake's management  needs  must be individually assessed to determine if
significant benefit  will accrue  from an expenditure of  public  money for
better management of  failing  on-site systems.  Island, Sturgeon, Rush, and
Passenger  Lakes  each have  unique physical and  biological characteristics
and  illustrate  this  point  well.   The  information  used  to  determine the
appropriate management  strategies for  these  lakes  and  establish the need
for  improved   wastewater  management  will  draw largely  on  data  gathered
during preparation of the Environmental Report.

     Phosphorus loads  to Island,  Sturgeon, Rush  and Passenger  Lakes were
evaluated based on watershed land use and appropriate export rates selected
from the literature.   The impact of the estimated phosphorus nutrient loads
on lake  trophic status  was then modeled in  two  steps (Section 3.1.3.3.).
It was concluded, beginning  with an assumed  worst-case  (total  failure of
all existing,  on-site systems) for residential wastewater  sources along the
lakeshores that:

     •    Island Lake  and Sturgeon  Lake are both eutrophic and may be
          in need  of management  to  improve  water  quality.   Rush and
          Passenger Lakes  are mesotrophic  and  do  not require manage-
          ment to maintain or improve water quality.
     •    On-site  systems  at  their  assumed  worst-case  failure rate
          constitute a  small  proportion (less than 11%) of the annual
          phosphorus load to Island Lake and to Sturgeon Lake.
     •    On-site  systems  at their  assumed  worst-case  failure rate
          constitute a sizable proportion of the annual phosphorus
                                   2-53

-------
          load  to  both Rush  and to  Passenger  Lakes  (30%  and  23%,
          respectively).
     •    The modeling  of trophic status, assuming no phosphorus loads
          from  on-site systems,  projected  no substantial improvement
          in  the  trophic status of Island and Sturgeon Lakes over the
          trophic status modeled with the assumed "worst case" on-site
          system loads.
     The  reason for  the  "no gain"  situation portrayed  by  the  two-step
evaluation of the trophic status of Island and Sturgeon Lakes is related to
the historic  and  existing use of the land in their watersheds as described
in  Section 3.2.2.   Based  on the  land use  data,  agricultural  and other
non-septic system  related phosphorus  sources were estimated to provide the
dominant  historic  and  contemporary  inputs  of  phosphorus  to Island  and
Sturgeon Lakes  Section 3.1.3.4.).  In  terms of model sensitivity then, the
reason that sizeable  improvements were not projected  for  Island  and Stur-
geon  Lake  trophic  status  by removal  of the  on-site  system load  is the
relative insignificance of the phosphorus load from on-site systems even at
the assumed  "worst-case" failure  rate.  The  two-step  modeling  of trophic
status  for Rush  and  Passenger  Lakes  indicated  a  shift toward  improved
trophic  state assuming elimination of  failing  systems  at their worst-case
phosphorus  contribution.   However,   existing  information  indicates  that
on-site  systems around Rush  and Passenger  Lakes  are  already  performing
quite satisfactorily  (Section 2.2.3.3.).   In fact,  for all four lakes, the
assumed  worst case failure  rate for on-site systems  results  in  a serious
over  estimatation  of  phosphorus loads.  This assumption  must  therefore be
modified to develop realistic classifications of  trophic status.  A realis-
tic estimate  of on-site system failure rates, and the implications of this
estimate for  classification of trophic status are discussed in the follow-
ing paragraphs.

     As  indicated  by  the number of reported absorption field surface fail-
ures  (less than   30)   combined  with  the  number  of  suspected  subsurface
groundwater plumes (less  than 10),  it was  estimated  that fewer  than 40
septic systems  out of  the estimated  260  in operation  currently  have the
potential to  adversely affect the surface waters of the project area (Sec-
tion  2.2.1.).   This is an estimated overall maximum numerical failure rate
of about 15%  for  combined surface and  subsurface failures.   The potential
                                    2-54

-------
water quality impact of the 15% overall numerical failure rate is much less

than the  assumed "worst-case"  (100%)  failure  rate.    However,  the impli-

cation of  this  estimated  failure rate for  classification  of trophic state

may be  very different  for  each lake depending on  circumstantial factors.

The water quality impact of failed on-site systems will in each case depend

on the actual number  and  nature of shoreline  lot on-site system failures,
but also  on lake shape and volume and on the proportion of other nutrient

loads as  are related  to land use, agricultural practices, and soils in the
watershed.  These  combined  factors were  determined  to  affect the trophic

state of each lake in the following ways:


     •    The amount  of phosphorus  moving into any of  the four lakes
          from  failing  septic  systems is  probably only  a  small frac-
          tion  of  the  phosphorus  being  delivered  to  those  failing
          systems by domestic wastewater.

     •    Rush and Passenger Lake area residences have on-site systems
          which  all  appear  to  be  adequately  treating  wastes.  These
          two lakes  do  not  have serious  water quality problems prin-
          cipally because agricultural use  of the land  is  so  rare in
          their respective watershed areas.

     •    Under  summer  conditions,  Island  Lake was  documented  as
          having significantly higher phytoplankton productivity, more
          severe blue-green  algae blooms and  lower  hypolimnetic dis-
          solved  oxygen than  Sturgeon Lake.   It was  concluded that
          Island  Lake's problems were  due  to a large  nutrient load
          originating from non-wastewater  sources in the watershed and
          that  these  problems  are  amplified by the Lake's shallowness
          and variable  wind  fetch.   Biotic  interactions stemming from
          changes in  the  plankton  eating fish  populations  of Island
          Lake   are  also  thought to have contributed to  algal  bloom
          problems.

     •    Total phosphorus concentrations in Island and Sturgeon Lake
          waters  were found  to be  similar under winter  conditions.

     •    The  concentration  of  non-apatite  phosphorus   (NAI-P)  was
          measured in 16 surficial sediment  samples taken from Island,
          Little  Island,  and   Sturgeon   Lakes.   The highest  concen-
          tration of  NAI-P was found  in Little Island Lake, a shallow
          water body contiguous to Island  Lake but having no shoreline
          residential development.  This  finding emphasized the signi-
          ficance of non-wastewater phosphorus sources.

     Supporting information  for  the  aforementioned  conclusions are discus-

sed and cited in the following paragraphs.
                                   2-55

-------
     Support  for  the assertion that  little phosphorus moves out of ground-
water  plumes  from  failing  on-site systems and  into  the surface waters of
these  lakes is provided in the  literature.   In other studies, phosphorus
inputs  into lakes  from septic systems have been  found  to represent a low
percentage  of the  total annual  phosphorus  load,  typically less  than 15%
(USEPA  Rural  Lake  Projects  1-6,  1978-1981;  Kerfoot  and  Skinner  1981).
Jones  and  Lee  (1977)  found  that  most phosphorus associated  with septic
leachate is removed  from the leachate by soils within a short distance from
the drainfield.   There is a general  consensus among researchers that soils
having  even a small percent  of  clay with iron and  aluminum present will
remove  most  of  the  phosphorus  from  groundwater   (Viraghavan  and Warnock
1976, Tofflemire  and others 1977, Reneam and Pettry 1975).  These findings
are important because  numerous researchers have  established that phosphorus
is the key to controlling eutrophication (USEPA  1980).

     The results of  the  nutrient  analyses of groundwater plumes found to be
entering the  lake  (Section 2.2.1.5)  indicated no elevated nutrient concen-
trations  were emerging.   One  explanation  of  this finding  is  that  when
groundwater plumes enter a  lake the  high  nutrient levels  rapidly become
diluted  and  thus  undetectable  but  examination of groundwater  and plume
samples, collected onshore  and upgradient  of where  nutrients might enter
the  lake,   also   showed instances  where background  phosphorus  levels  in
groundwater were  just  as  high as plume levels.   The  explanation for high
phosphorus  levels  in  both plume  and  background  groundwater  samples  is
perhaps  related  to  land use.   Agricultural  practices,  application of lawn
fertilizer, or  the  presence of  nearby  bog  areas may  contribute elevated
levels of nutrients to groundwater moving toward  a  lake.   For example, in
the  Rush and  Passenger  Lake vicinity,  dissolved organics originating from
surrounding  bog  areas appeared  to  be  contributing  to  the  overall  high
fluorescence  detected  in  those lakes  by  the  septic  leachate  detector.
Sturgeon Lake appeared  to  have a pattern of  emergent  ground  plumes along
the  northwest shore  originating from bogs in the immediate drainage area
just north of the  shoreline.   Thus, the  field studies indicate that organic
material and  nutrients moving with groundwater  toward lakes may be associ-
ated with sources  other than  on-site  systems  and  that such sources reduce
the significance  of suspected effluent  plumes in  the  context  of the total
amount of nutrients  moving lakeward with groundwater.
                                    2-56

-------
     During March  1982,  a  water quality sampling visit  was made to Island
and Sturgeon Lakes  to  determine the total phosphorus levels present in the
water under winter  conditions,  when no runoff was  carrying nutrients from
the respective  watersheds.   Under  the  ice cover conditions  and with more
than 56  inches of  snow  cover  present,  light penetration  was reduced and
hence biological productivity was  low in both lakes.  Therefore, it can be
hypothesized  that  total  phosphorus  in  the  water  column would  reflect  a
singularly large number  of  on-site system failures  on one  lake versus the
other.

     The detection  limit assigned  to the laboratory method  used for total
phosphorus analysis was 0.01 milligrams per liter.   The average total phos-
phorus concentration in  Island  Lake was 0.04 milligrams  P  per liter.  The
average concentration  in Sturgeon  Lake was 0.02 milligrams P per liter.   A
greater number of on-site systems failures have been reported around Island
Lake than around Sturgeon Lake  (Section 2.2.3.),  but the in-lake phosphorus
data gathered  in March  1982  do not reflect  a strong  influence by on-site
system failures.  This was  corroborated  by the results of additional samp-
ling in February  1982  of NAI-P phosphorus in the  surficial littoral sedi-
ments of  Island and Sturgeon Lakes  (Section 3.1.3.2.).   NAI-P  levels  in
littoral lake  sediments  varied  widely in concentration  in  both Island and
Sturgeon Lakes and  sediment  characteristics  showed no correlation with the
nature  and degree  of  residential  development  on   the  shorelines.   These
findings are in  contrast with elevated phosphorous concentrations reported
for Island Lake and Sturgeon Lake in sampling conducted by the MLWSD (refer-
enced in USEPA 1981c).

     Water  quality  and  biotic  conditions  for  the four  lakes  also  were
observed under warm season conditions.  Explanations for the differences in
water quality and biological characteristics found between all four project
area lakes, as observed in the summer and fall of 1981, are given in detail
in  Sections  3.1.3.  and 3.1.4.  and  in "The Report on Algae"  prepared as  a
technical  support document  for  this EIS (Appendix H).   A compendium of the
warm  season biotic  and  water  quality  characteristics observed  for these
lakes is given in the following paragraphs.
                                   2-57

-------
     Based  on  the literature review and data gathering conducted in prepa-
ration  of  the Report  on  Algae,  it was concluded that  the  three genera of
blue-green  algae most often associated with  mammalian  toxicity were found
in  bloom proportions  in  Island Lake.   However,  the  dominant blue-green
species  found  in Island Lake, Anabaena macrospora,  while  belonging to one
of the toxicity-producing genera, is a species that has not been associated
with  toxic  effects.   Therefore,  while there  is  a  potential  for a public
health  problem associated with  blue-green algae in  Island  Lake,  there is
no  direct   evidence that  toxic  species  of  blue-green algae  are present;
hence,  there appears to be no imminent health  threat to swimmers or other
recreational users.   Sturgeon,  Rush and Passenger Lakes were  not found to
be  supporting  blue-green algae  growth to bloom proportions,  nor were the
genera  of blue-greens  associated with toxicity dominant in  them.   As with
Island  Lake, toxicity  producing  blue-green algae species were not found in
Sturgeon, Rush,  or Passenger Lakes.   Additionally,  State  of Minnesota and
local  health  officers,  physicians, and  veterinarians who  were contacted
reported that  no  health  related or  toxicological  problems were  known to
have developed due to swimming  in or drinking from any of the project area
lakes.   Based  on  this information, it was  concluded  that  existing blue-
green algal populations in the 4 service area lakes do not constitute strong
evidence of need  for improved waste management.

     Overall water clarity,  as  indicated by a series  of  Secchi disk mea-
surements,   was found  to  be  poorest in Island Lake  and best in Rush Lake.
The water clarity measurements  for both  Sturgeon and Passenger Lakes were
greater  than for  Island  Lake,  with Sturgeon  Lake  having  somewhat greater
clarity than Passenger Lake  (Section 3.1.3.2.).

     Mats of floating  blue-green algae were observed on Island Lake in the
late summer  and  early fall of 1981.  The wind blown accumulations of blue-
green algae  observed during  a September sampling visit were greatest along
Island Lake's  south-facing shorelines under the prevailing southerly winds.
These  accumulations would pose  aesthetic problems  to  riparian owners and
recreational users of  Island Lake  (Section 3.1.4.1.).
                                   2-58

-------
     No accumulations of  algae or of emergent or submergent rooted aquatic
plants were  found to be  strongly associated  with areas  having suspected
leachate plumes.

     In the  context  of  the aforementioned findings on the biological char-
acteristics  of  the four  project  area lakes, it was  concluded  that no im-
mediate danger  to public  health  nor unusually  severe nuisance conditions
are  being  caused  by  nutrient enrichment  of any of  the  four  lakes.   The
algae  blooms in  evidence  on  Island  Lake  may be  regarded,  however,  as a
factor contributing  to  the  degradation  of Island  Lake's fishery,  and a
nuisance problem  that reduces  the  recreational quality  of  the lake's wa-
ters.  The nature  of  the  degradation and  nuisance  problem is discussed in
the following paragraphs.

     Water quality surveys conducted  in  mid-September  1981,  and historic
data  from  water quality  surveys  conducted by the  Minnesota  Department of
Natural Resources  (1938,   1954,  1955,  1967, 1969,  1970,  1975 unpublished)
indicate that the  portion of the water column of  Island Lake in excess of
20-foot depth  periodically  experiences severe  oxygen  depletion  (Section
3.1.3.2.).   Absence of oxygen in the deeper (hypolimnetic) waters of Island
Lake  is  thought  to  be  a  transitory  condition  that  occurs  in  periods of
sunny, calm  and warm weather when density  stratification takes place and
algae  blooms  are  severe.   Based  on  the  series  of  oxygen and  temperature
profiles made from the  data obtained in late  summer  of 1981, and based on
calculations of wind  induced  mixing characteristics, Island Lake was clas-
sified  as   "polymictic"   (Section 3.1.3.2.).  This  means  that  the  water
column goes  through  cycles of mixing (stratification and destratification)
more  than  twice a year,  perhaps  several  times each  summer as  the weather
changes repeatedly from warm and calm  to  cool and windy.  A  lack of dis-
solved oxygen at  depth  when chemical  (oxygen) stratification  is prolonged
reduces biological productivity and places fish under stress because of the
reduction   in available  fish  habitat  that  results.   A  periodic  lack of
hypolimnetic  oxygen   may   also  mobilize phosphorus  into  the  upper  water
column after destratification takes place.
                                   2-59

-------
     Based on  a comparable water quality data  base,  Sturgeon Lake appears
to remain  well mixed and  to maintain adequate oxygen levels throughout the
water  column  in  summer.   Oxygen levels  in its  deeper  waters  therefore
remain  adequate for  fish  and aquatic life and  phosphorus is probably not
mobilized  from the  sediment  of  Sturgeon  Lake.   Rush and Passenger  Lakes
stratify thermally  and  experience oxygen depletion below  the 20-foot depth
levels  but are dimictic,  remaining stratified  through  the summer.   Phos-
phorus  cycling to  surface  layers from the  sediments  and from hypolimnetic
waters  probably does not  take place  during  summer  in  Rush and Passenger
Lakes  (Section 3.1.3.2.).

Documentation  of Need for  Improved Wastewater Management

     Based on  the  above referenced information, it  was concluded that of
the four  lakes, Island Lake alone  exhibits  symptoms  of  advanced eutrophi-
cation  and that these symptoms have degraded its quality as a recreational
lake.   These symptoms seem to  indicate  a  need  for management of controll-
able phosphorus sources  to Island Lake.  However, as discussed above and in
Sections 3.1.3.3. and 3.1.3.4., the shift of Island Lake from a mesotrophic
to a  eutrophic state is thought  to have begun  in  the  1930's,  well  before
the  development of  a significant lakeshore residential  community.  Island
Lake's current  problems  are primarily due to a large nutrient load stemming
from non-wastewater sources  within the watershed.  The  fertility of Island
Lake waters  is further  enhanced by phosphorus  cycling  from sediments and
low-lying  waters  to  the upper water layers where  algal blooms take  place
(Section 3.1.3.2.).  The observed late-summer dominance of blue-green algae
in Island  Lake may  also be  partly the result of  recent dominance of zoo-
plankton-eating  fish such as  perch  and  bluegill  in  the  fish  community
(Section 3.1.4.3.).

     Also  based on the above  referenced information, it was concluded that
Sturgeon,  Rush, and Passenger Lakes do not have water  quality problems or
trophic  conditions which  indicate  a serious need  for  improved wastewater
management or   for  other  means  of  nutrient  control  in  their respective
watersheds.    Although  the   paleo-limnological   investigation   (Section
3.1.3.4.)  did  indicate  that  the phosphorus load to  Sturgeon Lake had in-
                                   2-60

-------
creased  substantially  since  1945,  no  parallel  increase in  the  rate  of
eutrophication was indicated by other parameters.   Sturgeon Lake appears to
have remained essentially unchanged in trophic status over the last century
and  no  evidence  was  found  which  indicates  that  serious  eutrophication
problems are imminent for Sturgeon Lake.

Management Opportunities for Island Lake

Improvment of  Island Lake's  quality would call for  an extensive watershed
management program.   Island  Lake  is a shallow and fertile  (nutrient rich)
water body giving,  in  accordance  to its elongate  shape,  changing opportu-
nity  for the  wind  to mix  and aerate  (Section 3.1.3.2.).   Island Lake's
shallowness  and  variable wind mixing characteristics  make  its hypolimnion
subject to periodic  anoxia during  summer.   This enhances the bio-availabil-
ity of  phosphorus.   Increased availability of phosphorus during the summer
months will continue to aggravate  Island Lake's blue-green algae bloom prob-
lem for as long as present levels  of fertility are sustained.  Based on the
annual  watershed  phosphorus  loading regime  (Section 3.1.3.3.)  and on evi-
dence  that  relatively  high  fertility and  productivity levels  have existed
in Island Lake for  over a century  (Section  3.1.3.4.), it appears that the
lake's  blue-green algae blooms will  continue to occur as  long as current
land use characteristics and management practices in the watershed are sus-
tained.  Abatement  of  phosphorus  from a single, small source category such
as on—site  systems  is not  likely  to  result in improved  water quality for
Island  Lake.   Management of  the  game fish populations of  Island Lake may
also be  a prerequisite to reduction of blue-green algal blooms, regardless
of the degree of  phosphorus abatement that could be achieved with a compre-
hensive watershed management program (Section 3.1.4.3.).

2.2.2.5.  Indirect Evidence of Problems

     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;
                                   2-61

-------
     •    Lack  of sufficient  isolation  distance  for water wells  (de-
          pending  on  well  depth and  presence or absence  of hydrau-
          lically  limiting  layers);
     •    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  three  feet  of  soil  absorption
          system where bedrock is permeable);
     •    Rapidly  permeable soil with percolation rates less than 0.1
          minutes  per inch;
     •    Presence of  holding tanks 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;  and
     •    On-site  systems in an area where local data indicate exces-
          sive failure rates or excessive maintenance costs.

     All eight  sources of information discussed in Section 2.2.1 were used
to assess the  indirect evidence  for problems.  The  final classification of
on-site performance  status  used a combination  of direct and indirect evi-
dence.  This classification is given in the next section.
2.2.3.  Identification of Problems in Specific Areas

     One of the principal purposes of collecting information in the project
area was to classify on-site systems into one of three categories: "obvious
problem,"  "potential  problem," or  "no  problem."  In  this  EIS,  an on-site
system  is  classified  as an "obvious problem"  if  at  least one criterion of
direct  evidence  of  need is satisfied.  Examples  of  direct  evidence (given
in  Sections  2.2.2.1.  to  2.2.2.4)  include  problems  such  as backups,  or
ponding, or of  ground or surface water contamination.  "Potential problem"
systems  are  those  systems which  do not yet  exhibit direct  evidence of
failure but which can reasonably be expected to fail in the future.  Justi-
fication of expected future  failures relies  on  detailed analysis  of the
causes  for  failure  of similar systems in the  project area.  The "no prob-

                                   2-62

-------
lem" category  consists of lots where  there is no direct  evidence of need
indicating that the  present  system is  inadequate or malfunctioning.  Sites
may be  categorized as  "no problem" if  older systems operating in identical
soil  or  groundwater  conditions  are  functioning  properly  (USEPA 1981).

     The  analysis  of  the  available  information  indicated that  in certain
shoreline areas  around the  lakes  the  problems  encountered shared similar
characteristics.  In general, such areas were characterized by a high water
table,  tight  soil,  on-site  system backups or  ponding,  groundwater moving
toward  the lake, and system  upgrading.  The number of systems per  lake and
the number  of sites exhibiting  direct evidence of need are  summarized in
Table 2-8.  The onsite systems are classified into one of  the three groups,
obvious  problem,  potential  problem,  or no  problem.    The correlation of
on-site problems with various soil types is presented in Table 2-9.  Speci-
fic lakeshore or subdivision areas are addressed  in  further  detail in the
following sections.

2.2.3.1.  Island Lake  Segments I., II., and III.

     The  information gathered for  Island  Lake  area  on-site  systems indi-
cates some problems  are  present.   Currently, 151 lots with on-site systems
are estimated  to be around  Island Lake.   Of the  total  number  of  systems,
12%  (18 systems)  were classified  as having obvious  problems,  and 17% (27
systems) were classified  as potential problems.  To facilitate a discussion
of the data for on-site systems,  the Island Lake shoreline was divided into
three segments.   The  segments were  delineated based on natural breaks in
shoreline development  patterns or  on  changes  in  shoreline configuration.
Obvious  or  potential  problems with  on-site systems in each  of  the Island
Lake segments are presented in Figure 2-10.

Segment I.,  Island Lake

     Segment  I  includes   the  island  Lake  shoreline perimeter extending
around  the  northern  end  of  Island Lake,  then southward  along  the north-
                                   2-63

-------
             Table 2-8.  Summary of  the  analysis  of problems with on-site waste  treatment  systems  in  the  project area.
                                        Number of
      Analysis of Problems According  to

Specific USEPA Criteria for Needs Documentation
Classification According to
Existing Residences
with On-Site

Island Lake
Segment I
Segment II
Segment III
o
1 Sub-total
>*
Sturgeon Lake
Segment I
Segment II
Segment III
Sub-total
Rush and
Passenger Lakes
Wild Acres and
Uogan's Acres
Seas.

27
38
21
87

45
55
55
155

17

40
Perm.

16
30
ii
64

10
20
11
42

2

8
Systems
Total

(43)
(68)
(40)
(151)

(56)
(74)
(67)
(197)

(19)

(48)
Existing On-Site
Septic
tanks

23
51
2_4
98

36
52
15
143
h
8b

ioc
Holding
tanks

7
3
_9
19

7
10
_9
26
b
1

3C
Systems

Privies

13
15
13
41

15
16
_3
34
b
6

7
Number of
Reported
Backups
Lot-by-lot Quest.

0
0
£
0

1
1
1
5

ND

ND

5
12
	 L
24

0
4
1
9

0

0
Surface Malfunctions
Lot-by-lot Quest.

10
26
10
46

0
3
2
6

ND

ND

8
7
_3
18

1
3
A
8

0

0
Surface Water
Contamination
On-Site System Problem Categories
Obvious
EMSL Aerial Nutrients Conforms Problem

0
2
1
3

0
1
2
4

0

0

0
12
_0
12

11
0
_6
17

7

ND

0
2
.P-
2

0
0
£
0

0

ND

6
8
_4
18

0
0
£
0

0

0
Potential
Problem

5
13
_9
27

3
2
_8
13

0

0
No
Problem

32
47
11
106

53
72
_59
185

19

48
 Some lots have more than one  system

b
 Based on 15 questionnaire responses


 Based on 21 questionnaire responses


ND - No data, Information not  collected

-------
Table 2-9.  Correspondence  of  on-site system  problem classifications with
            soil types.  Soil types for  lots with problem  systems  were
            determined from the soil survey (Section 2.2.1).

    Island Lake              Number of Systems       Number of Systems
Shoreline Lot Soils        With Obvious Problems   With Potential Problems

Duluth loam                        12                       17
Duluth Variant                      4                        4
Blackhoof muck                      0                        3
Omega sandy loam                    2                        3

   Sturgeon Lake
Shoreline Lot Soils

Duluth loam                         0                        8
Duluth variant                      0                        3
Omega sandy loam                    0                        1
Altered soil (fill)                 0                        1

Rush and Passenger Lakes
  Shoreline Lot Soils

Omega sandy loam                    0                        0
Lake Beach soil                     0                        0

Hogan's and Wild Acres
Subdivision Soils

Omega sandy loam                    0                        0
Lake Beach soil                     0                        0
eastern side of  the  lake to Swanson's Point (Figure 2-10).  Out of 43  lots

in  this  segment, 6 lots were  classified as having  obvious problems and 5

lots were classified as having potential problems.  The northern end of the

lake was the area where most of the segment's on-site problems were concen-

trated.  Although the  groundwater  flow direction throughout the segment is

estimated to be toward the lake, no groundwater septic leachate plumes were

detected during  the septic  leachate  survey.  Ponding was the problem re-
ported most frequently, especially during wet weather.


     Permit  records from the  Pine  County  Zoning  Administrator's  Office

indicate that  13  lots  in Segment I have  had new systems  installed or  have

had repairs made  since 1973.  Five of these permits were  issued to upgrade

                                   2-65

-------
                                                      SEG.  I(N)
                  SEG.  II
                                                                  SEG. I(E)
                                             •£   :   Legend
                                          o     :   o Potential Problems
                                                      Obvious Problems
                       SEG.  Ill
Figiare 2-10.  Island Lake segments and locations  of  on-site systems with
             obvious and potential problems.
                                  2-66

-------
existing septic  tank system.   All 5 upgrades  concerned systems installed
prior to 1974.   Of  the 8 new systems installed,  1 was a ST-SAS and 7 were
holding tanks.   Installation  of all but 2 of the new systems was initiated
prior to 1977.

Segment II., Island Lake

     Segment II.  includes  the shoreline area from  the  southern end of the
Sunrise Bay  subdivision northward  to  the northernmost  tip  of  Island Lake
(Figure 2-10).   Including  all forms of survey  information,  Segment II had
the highest proportion of reported problems for the number of residences of
all  Segments.    The  reported problems  were associated  with a  variety of
factors, including  high  groundwater,   lot  flooding caused  by  temporarily
high  lake  levels,  small lot  size,  and  tight  soils.  Out of  a  total of 68
lots  in  Segment II. ,  8 obvious and  13 potential  problem  classifications
were  made.   Most  of  the  problems  were  concentrated  in  three  shoreline
sections of  Segment  II.    Portions  at the  north  end  of Segment  II  were
problem-free, possibly because of sandy soils present.

     Groundwater  in  Segment II. generally flows  toward  the  lake, although
along the northerly  extent .the flow directon is  indeterminate or variable.
Of the  12  suspected  septic leachate plumes located around  Island Lake the
only  2 groundwater   plumes with  fecal coliform counts above  background
levels were found in this segment.

     Permit  records   from  the  Pine County  Zoning  Administrator's Office
indicate that  17 lots in Segment II have had new on-site treatment systems
installed or have  had repairs made since  the  latter part of 1973.  One of
the permits was issued to upgrade  (replace) an existing septic tank system.
In this case, the original ST-SAS, installed in 1975, was replaced by a new
system in  1976.   Of  the new systems installed in Segment II. , 1 is a mound
system, 9 are ST-SAS, 3 are holding tanks, and 4 are privies.  Installation
of all but 4 of these systems was initiated prior to 1977.
                                   2-67

-------
Segment III. , Island Lake

     Segment  III includes the northeast  shoreline  section from just below
Swanson's  Point  south  to the outlet at the southwestern tip of Island Lake
(Figure 2-10).   Segment  III had several areas where problems appeared to be
concentrated.   Four obvious and  9 potential  problem classifications were
made  out  of  a  total of  40 on-site systems  in the  segment.   The general
groundwater  flow direction in  Segment III  is  out of  the lake,  which may
partially  explain  why  no groundwater plumes were  found entering the lake.
Although tight  soils are prevalent in this  segment,  most  problems associ-
ated  with  maintenance problems  described by  the  mailed questionnaire re-
sponses or by the results of the MLWSD lot-by-lot survey had been solved by
fixing broken pipes or by pumping out full septic tanks.

     Permit  records from  the  Pine  County  Zoning  Office  indicate  that  a
number  of  lots  in  Segment  III have had  new  systems  installed or repaired
since the  latter "part  of 1973.  One permit was issued to upgrade an exist-
ing  septic tank-soil absorption  system  (ST-SAS).   Of  the  12  new systems
installed, A  are ST-SAS, 7 are holding tanks, and 1  is a privy.  Installa-
tion of all but  3 of these systems was initiated prior to 1977.

2.2.3.2.   Sturgeon Lake  Segments I., II., and III.

     The information for Sturgeon Lake indicates few problems with on-site
systems other than those associated with the Sturgeon Island area (Segment
I.).   A total  of  197   lots  with on-site  systems were  identified  around
Sturgeon Lake.   Of  the  total number of systems, 6% (13 systems) were clas-
sified  as  having  potential  problems,  and  no  systems were  classified as
having  obvious   problems (Table  2-9).   Problem locations  within Sturgeon
Lake segments are presented in Figure 2-11.

Segment I., Sturgeon Lake

     Segment  I  encompasses most  of the  northern  portion  of  the Sturgeon
Lake  shoreline,  from the YMCA camp on  the  west shore,  north to the public
boat launch site and southward to a point just above  Sturgeon Island on the
                                    2-68

-------
                                                                SEG. I
                                                                  SEG
.  Ill
                                                           Legend
                                                           o  Potential Problems
                                                           •X-  Obvious Problems
                      SEG. II
Figure 2-11.   Sturgeon Lake  segments  and  locations of on-site systems with
              obvious and potential problems.
                                       2-69

-------
east shore  (Figure 2-11).   Segment I contains 56 lots with on-site systems,
3 of which were classified  as having potential problems.  Two of these lots
with problems  were  located on the  northern shoreline  on  soils mapped as
Duluth loam, a very  tight clayey soil.

     No other  on-site systems in Segment I were classified as having prob-
lems, in  spite of the location of  11  suspected plumes  along the northwest
shore  of  the  lake  during the  septic  leachate  survey.   These suspected
plumes  (11)  where characterized by high  fluorescence  and not by high con-
ductivity,  indicating that other  (non-human)  biogenic sources of fluores-
cence were  involved. It  is thought that dissolved organics leaching out of
the  large peat bog  area located immediately behind the  shoreline ridge are
the source of  the fluorescence.  No corroborating evidence of septic leach-
ate movement toward  the lake was provided by the water  quality  sampling or
by  other  survey  information  for  homes  in the  vicinity of these suspected
plumes.  Therefore,  it was  assumed that  the plumes located along the north-
west  shore   do not  represent direct  evidence of  the  entrance of  septic
leachate into  Sturgeon Lake.

     Permits obtained  from  the  Pine  County  Zoning  Administrator's  file
records indicate  that 15  lots in  Segment  1 have had new on-site systems
installed since 1973.   No  upgrades of  ST-SAS  were  reported  in the permit
file  for  this period.   Of  the 15 new systems  installed,  3 are mound sys-
tems,  8 are holding tanks,  and  4  are  privies.   No  ST-SAS  have  been in-
stalled  since  1973.  Installation  of  5 out  of  15 systems  was initiated
prior to 1977.

Segment II. , Sturgeon Lake

     Segment II.  includes approximately the southern half of Sturgeon Lake
(Figure 2-11).   Relatively few problems were  found  in Segment II.  Out of
an  estimated  74  lots,  only   2  lots were  classified  as having potential
problems. The  relatively sandy soils probably  are the main reason for few
backup  or ponding problems in  this  segment.   In  addition, the  groundwater
flow  is out of the  lake in this  area,  which may  explain why no suspected
groundwater  plumes were  located.
                                    2-70

-------
     Permit  records from  the  Pine  County  Zoning Administrator's  Office
records indicate  that  24  lots  have  had new systems  installed  since 1973.
No upgrades  of ST-SAS were  made in  this period.  Of  the  24  new systems
installed, 11  are  ST-SAS,  7  are holding tanks, and 6 are privies.  Instal-
lation of 10 out of 24 systems was initiated prior to 1977.

Segment III, Sturgeon Lake

     Segment III,  which  includes Sturgeon Island, has 67 lots with on-site
systems.  A total of 8 of those systems were classified as having potential
problems.   The majority  of  these problems  occur  at  the  neck  of Sturgeon
Island and  south  of the  point where the  access  road  connects to the main-
land.   This  region is low-lying with  tight  soils and  a high groundwater
table, and portions are susceptible to temporary flooding.  The EMSL aerial
survey  located 3  of the  4 probable  failing systems  in  this segment.  The
septic  leachate survey  located six suspected  groundwater  plumes  in this
segment.  Saturated soils  in drainfields are probably the most significant
factor in causing this area's problems.

     Permit  records from  the  Pine  County  Zoning Administrator's  Office
indicate that  13 parcels  have had new on-site systems installed since 1974.
No ST-SAS systems  were reported as being upgraded since 1973 although some
privies were  replaced  with  holding  tanks.  Of the 13 new on-site systems
installed,  1 is an ST-SAS, 10 are holding tanks, 1 is a privy over a hold-
ing  tank,  and   1  is a chem-toilet.   Installation of  2  out  of  the  13 new
systems was initiated prior to 1977.

2.2.3.3.  Rush and Passenger  Lakes

     The residences surrounding Rush and Passenger Lakes are few and there-
fore  are being considered  together.   Problems  associated with  on-site
systems  around both lakes are  minimal.   No  obvious  or  potential  problem
classifications were made for the 19  on-site systems located around Rush or
Passenger  Lakes.    All  15 questionnaire  responses indicated  no problems.
The  soil  survey found that  the soils were  predominantly  Omega sands with
some  organic  soils in wet areas.   Permit records indicate no repairs or
                                   2-71

-------
upgrades have been needed since 1974.  Local septage haulers indicated that
only  routine  service  calls  have been  made in  the  area.   The EMSL aerial
survey detected no surface failures.

     The  septic  leachate survey  detected  3  potential  leachate plumes en-
tering Rush Lake and 4 potential groundwater plumes in Passenger Lake.  The
exact source of the elevated  fluorescence measured in these plumes, whether
from  septic tanks  or  from wetlands, was not determined, although the water
quality  sampling  indicated negligible movement  of  nutrients lakeward from
these plumes.

2.2.3.4.  Hogan's and  Wild Acres Subdivisions

     These adjacent  subdivisions  are located immediately east of Rush Lake
and  south of Sturgeon Lake.   Lot  owners have  access to  a launch site on
Rush  Lake,  but there  are no waterfront  lakeshore  lots.   No problems have
been reported for the  Hogan's or Wild Acres subdivisions.  Approximately 74
lots  currently  have   some  form  of  existing structures,  typically mobile
homes, many of  which  may have built-in  holding  tanks,  with waste disposal
undertaken by  the owners.   The  number  of  functioning on-site  systems  is
uncertain.  Based  on a review of available information it was assumed that
there are 48 existing on-site systems.  Review of  permit records, inter-
views with local  septage haulers, and mailed questionnaire responses indi-
cate  there  are few  problems,  if  any,  in the area.   The  soil survey shows
the  area  to  be  dominated by  the Omega sandy loam soils.  The Zoning Admin-
istrator  for  Pine  County stated  that  there have  been few  problems with
installation  of on-site  systems  in the area  under his  jurisdiction (by
telephone, W. Golley to WAPORA, May  4, 1982).

2.2.4.  Septage Disposal  Practices

     Septage  is the   residual  solids  generated  in  septic  tanks.   Septic
tanks are pumped when homeowners contract with a  septage hauler for ser-
vice.   Holding tanks  containing  raw  sewage  are also  pumped  by  private
haulers.  The haulers  dispose of septage at  sewage  treatment plants or on
land disposal areas.   For the Moose  Lake  area, the septage is introduced to
                                    2-72

-------
the Moose Lake Treatment system via a manhole (by telephone, Beaton's Sewer
Service,  April  14, 1982).   In the  busiest  time of  the year  (spring and
fall) ,   up  to 4500 gallons per  day of septage and  holding  tank wastes are
introduced to  the Moose  Lake  System. Wastes are collected  from a 40-mile
radius   of  the City of  Moose Lake,  and depending  on seasonal pumping re-
quirements Island  and Sturgeon Lake  area  wastes can make up  a large per-
centage of the load.
                                   2-73

-------
2.3.  Identification of Wastewater Management System Options

2.3.1.  Design Factors

     Three  categories  of factors must  be considered  in the design  of a
wastewater  treatment  system:  the present and projected wastewater flows in
the  study  area,  the effluent requirements established by Federal and State
authorities,  and economic cost  criteria  (duration  of  the planning period,
interest  rate,  service  factor,  and service  life  of  facilities and equip-
ment) .  Each of these factors is discussed in Appendix D.

2.3.2.  System Components

2.3.2.1.  Centralized Wastewater Management

     The overall design of a wastewater management  system [e.g., a "project
alternative"] must  take into account methods for reduction of the flow and
waste  generation   rates  at  residences.    Other   important  considerations
include  methods  for  providing  collection  of wastewater for  transport  to
centralized  off-site treatment,  methods  of  treatment,  effluent disposal,
and  sludge  treatment  and disposal.  The design options for the centralized
collection and treatment  alternatives are presented in Appendix D.

2.3.2.2.  Decentralized Wastewater Management

     Design  of  decentralized alternatives must consider methods of provid-
ing  on-site wastewater treatment, cluster  system  collection and treatment
methods  for  small  outlying  areas,  and  septage  disposal  methods.   These
options for development of decentralized wastewater management alternatives
are presented in the following discussion.

2.3.2.2.1.  On-site Wastewater Treatment

     The on-site  systems  (septic tank/soil absorption systems [ST/SAS] and
ST/mound  systems)   presently  being  installed in  the  area  are  considered
                                   2-74

-------
adequate both  in  terms  of construction and  capacity.   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 drain beds  and  drainfields currently being installed in  the area
could have  a greater than 20-year  design life, if  they  are  installed ac-
cording  to Code and maintained properly.  The 400 square feet of drain bed
should be adequate  for  most residences, unless  the  soil  material contains
greater  than normal  quantities of silt and clay.  In these soil materials,
the  drain  bed  must  be  larger  or the finer-textured 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 re-
placed with 18 inches of fine sand.   Without the sand lining,  the potential
for groundwater pollution is high because of inadequate treatment.

     Mound  systems  (Figure  2-12)  are  constructed  according  to  detailed
design  standards  to  overcome  soil  permeability or  shallow  bedrock limi-
tations.   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 mound  systems  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 needed
to a minimum.   It  is  noted that  the use of proper materials and correct
construction techniques is essential for these systems to operate satisfac-
torily.

     Based  on  design criteria,  no  new  soil  absorption  systems  should be
permitted on soils  that  have  a water  table within  1 foot  of  the ground
surface  or  that  are  formed in organic  material.    This  would include the
Blackhoof and  Newson  soils.   These  soils  have high  water  tables  due to
natural  groundwater  levels and  could only be drained with extensive mea-
sures that  lower  the groundwater level  of  the  area.   The  soils  that have
                                   2-75

-------
K)
I
                    BuiIdlng
                    sewer
                                                                                           Perforated PVC pipe-
                                                                                                                   TopsolI
                                    Septic solids       ^M.evel controls
                                                                                                                   — Perforated pipe
                                 SEPTIC TANK
                                                   PUMPING CHAMBER
                                                                                                     Plan

                                                                                                 RAISED DRAIN BED
                    Figure 2-.12.  Layout  of septic  tank  with  raised drainfield bed.

-------
a  water  table within  1  to  3  feet of  the ground  surface  can have raised
drain beds constructed on them.  These soils are Busier and Nemadji.  Drain
beds  and drain  fields are  appropriate for  the  other soils  where slopes
allow construction activities  (Section 2.2.1.1.)*

     Soils that have permeabilities slower than 1 inch/hour require special
consideration.  Soils  mapped in the service area that are in this category
include  Duluth,  Duluth Variant,  Dusler,  and  Blackhoof.   The size  of the
seepage  bed or  trench  drainfields in these soils  will have to be designed
for  a  larger surface  area  for wastewater  infiltration compared to drain-
fields in  more permeable  soils.   Alternatively, mound systems  may be em-
ployed which  partially treat the wastewater in the mound and then disperse
the  effluent  over  a  large  basal  area.  For  lots with  size limitations,
wastewater  separation  with  blackwater holding  tanks  may  be appropriate.

     Blackwater holding tanks  do  not  strictly constitute on-site treatment
because  the treatment  of  the toilet wastes must  occur away from the site.
Components of the  system  include a low-flow  toilet  (2.5  gallons per flush
or  less),  the holding tank  for  toilet  wastes only,  and  the usual septic
tank-soil absorption system  for the remainder of the wastewater.  When the
toilet wastes are diverted from the septic tank-soil absorption system, the
absorption  system  has an  opportunity  to  function  properly and  minimal
pollution of  groundwater  and  surface water occur.   Significant  reductions
of  organic  loads  and  20  to 40%  reductions in phosphorus  loadings to the
septic tank  and soil  absorption  system occur when toilet  wastes  are ex-
cluded.  The blackwater holding tank would have a 1,000 gallon capacity and
be  equipped  with  a high-level  alarm.  Nearly  all residences  that  would
require  holding  tanks are  seasonally  occupied,  requiring  approximately
three pumpings annually.

2.3.2.2.2.  Cluster System Wastewater Treatment

     The cluster  system employs collection facilities for a group of resi-
dences and a  common soil  absorption system for wastewater  treatment.   The
common soil  absorption  system is  used because  the  individual lots  are
unsuitable for on-site soil  absorption systems.   An area of soils suitable
                                   2-77

-------
for the common soil absorption  system must be available within a reasonable
distance in order to consider this option.

     It is  assumed  that all existing septic tanks, with some replacements,
would  be  adequate  in  their present  condition  for inclusion  in a cluster
system.   Septic  tank effluent  could  be  conveyed  by small-diameter gravity
sewers or  pressure  sewers to the common soil absorption field.  A cost-ef-
fectiveness analysis  would be done to determine which collection system to
use  for  a  particular  area.   A "dosing"  system  is typically  required on
cluster drain fields  in order to  achieve good distribution.    Where the
collection  system  uses pressure sewers,  a  separate accumulator  tank and
lift station  is required.  The wet well and lift station on the septic  tank
effluent gravity sewers  can perform that function.

     Cluster  drain  fields are usually designed with three contiguous drain
fields.  Two  of these would be dosed on  a daily basis, and the third would
be rested  for period of one year.  Design criteria require that 400 square
feet  of  trench  bottom  per  residence  is required  for each  drain field.

     Although the present soils  information and  topography  indicate  that
cluster drain fields may be feasible in certain areas, further field inves-
tigations would be needed  before final designs could be made.  The depth of
permeable  material  must be  determined  in  order   to  show that  excessive
groundwater mounding beneath the drainfield would not occur.

     The  operation  and maintenance  requirements   of  cluster  systems  are
minimal.   Periodic  inspections of  the lift stations  and  the drain fields
are essentially all that would be necessary.  The septic tanks and the  lift
station wet wells would require regular pumping.   Maintenance  of the  col-
lection  piping is  expected  to be  minimal (Otis  1979) .   Once a  year the
rested drain  field would be rotated back into use, and another one would be
rested.   Blockages  of   the  collection  systems  should occur  only rarely,
since  clear effluent  would be used.  Lift  stations are entirely dependent
on a  reliable power  supply;  thus, power  outages  will  affect operation of
the  system.   Since wastewater  generation is also dependent on  power for
pumping  well  water,  the  potential for  serious   environmental  effects is
somewhat mitigated.
                                    2-78

-------
2.3.2.2.3.  Peatland Bog System for Wastewater Treatment

     The  treatment  of wastewater  by a  peatland  system is  similar in ap-
proach to  treatment  by a cluster drainfield in that solids are retained in
a  septic   tank  and  primary  effluent  is taken off-site  and  treated  by a
"soil" absorption  system.   In this case peat  is  used  rather  than  soil for
treatment.  Extensive  areas of  peatland are  present  in  the project area.
Some of these  areas  are in an unaltered or relatively "natural" state and
others have  been partially drained  in  an  attempt to move  water off sur-
rounding lands.

     The  bog  treatment system  proposed for this  project  is modeled after
the ditch  treatment  systems  that have been in use in Finland  for more than
30  years.   Undecomposed  peats,  usually  found in surface  or near-surface
horizons,   have  large pores which permit very rapid water  flow.   Nutrient
removal and sterilization  processes  which take place in peat materials may
be  advanced over those of most other  soils as a result of  the highly re-
ductive chemical environment  of  peat,  although control of  the water table
and of  the oxic condition are required to maintain  these  processes.  In
Finland,  peatland  disposal  areas have  been  drained  to  lower  the water
levels and force waste material through the more decomposed peats  at lower
levels to  achieve  better  treatment (Surakka 1971, Kamppi 1971, and  Surakka
and Kamppi 1971).  Based  on a review of published and unpublished  litera-
ture there is no comparable system operating in the United States.

     The  proposed  ditch  system  for  the Moose  Lake  area  uses  a  shallow
feeder  ditch  to  apply septic  tank effluent  to  a  peat  bog.   The deeper
collector  ditches, spaced  approximately 40  meters apart,  draw the effluent
applied to the shallow feeder ditches through the peat and into a receiving
pond.  The  peat  bog area being considered for  this design,  shown in Figure
2-13,   has previously  been channelized  for other  drainage purposes  to a
depth of 1 to 2 feet.
                                   2-79

-------
            Curtain Drain
                                            Septic Tank Effluent
                                            From Island Lake   -*-
                        Distribution Piping
                  A'
                           Feeder
                        ^Trenches
           Collection
           Trenches
                                                                   To Othe
                                                                   Bog Fiel(
    Cross Section

    A
                  Feeder
                  Trench
A'
Collection
Trench
Figure 2-13.  Layout of proposed peatland "bog" wastewater treatment system.
                            2-80

-------
2.3.2.2.4.  Septage Disposal Methods

     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 and  a highly
offensive odor and has:  the ability to foam;  poor  settling and dewatering
characteristics;  high  solids  and organic  content and;  a minor accumulation
of heavy metals.   The general methods of septage disposal are:

     •    Biological and physical treatment,
     •    Land disposal,
     •    Treatment in a wastewater treatment plant.
Septage in the Moose  Lake area is treated by biological and physical meth-
ods in  anaerobic lagoons.  Advantages  of anaerobic treatment  systems are
that the  waste undergoes stabilization of organic  solids  and lagoons have
relatively low operation  and  maintenance  costs.   A disadvantage of anaero-
bic treatment is  the  high BOD  of  the  effluent  and the potential for odor
nuisance.

     A detailed  cost-effectiveness analysis  for  septage  and  holding tank
wastes  treatment  and  disposal  was not  performed  for  this study.   It is
assumed that the  septage would  continue to be pumped by commercial haulers
and would be  disposed  of  in a manner  consistent with  present  disposal
practices (Section 2.2.4.).   The cost of disposal is included in the opera-
tion and maintenance costs of the septic and  holding tanks.

2.3.3.  Centralized Collection System Component Options

     Three centralized  collection  system component  options  are  considered
in this document.  They are:

     •    Alternative  A: conventional  gravity  sewers, pumping  sta-
          tions,  and force main collection system
                                   2-81

-------
     •    Alternative   B:   septic   tank   effluent   and   small-diameter
          gravity sewer system.
     •    Alternative   C:   septic   tank  effluent  pumps  and  pressure
          sewers, coupled with a gravity  sewer  system.

     Seven  project  alternatives have been developed  for wastewater manage-
ment  in  the  EIS  project   area  (Section 2.4).  No centralized collection
systems  are included  in the first three alternatives  (Alternatives 1, 2,
and  3), a  limited  collection  system is proposed  for  Island  Lake  in two
others  (Alternatives 4  and  5), and  a  full collection  system  is  proposed for
Island Lake in Alternative  6.   A collection system is  proposed to surround
both Island  Lake and Sturgeon Lake in  Alternative 7.   The  location of the
proposed  treatment  facilities varies with the  project alternative,  and is
discussed for  each  in  Section 2.4.   The  costs associated with the collec-
tion  systems,  as  proposed  for each  alternative, also are  presented  in
Section 2.4.

2.3.4.  Centralized Wastewater Treatment  Component  Options

     The  following  centralized  wastewater treatment  component  options were
evaluated in the MLWSD  Facilities Plan:

     •    Upgrading  existing waste  stabilization  lagoons operated by
          the City of Moose Lake;
     •    Construction  of  a new activated sludge wastewater treatment
          plant,  land  disposal  of  sludge,  and  land  application  or
          outfall discharge of effluent;
     •    Construction  of  a  new oxidation ditch wastewater treatment
          plant,  land  disposal  of sludge,  and  land  application  or
          outfall discharge of effluent.

     The  cost  analysis presented in the  MLWSD  Facility  Plan concluded that
upgrading the  existing Moose Lake  lagoons was  the most cost-effective ap-
proach  for  the  regional alternatives considered  as  well as  for the sub-
regional  alternatives  that  did  not include the Barnum service  area.  Based
on  the  Facility Plan  conclusion,  upgrading the Moose  Lake  lagoons  is the
major  treatment  alternative  considered  for  all  of   the EIS   alternatives
which  require centralized  treatment.   For  limited  service  areas  around
                                   2-82

-------
Island  Lake  and Sturgeon Lake,  the  use of cluster drain  fields  and a bog
treatment system are also considered.

     The existing  City  of  Moose Lake lagoon system is described in  Section
2.1.  The permitted  capacity of the existing lagoon system is 444,000 gpd.
The  sufficiency  of that capacity must be re-evaluated because the central-
ized treatment proposed in the EIS alternatives would add significant flows
to  the  system and  MPCA has  indicated  it  will  be required that the  maximum
calculated capacity  of  the  lagoon system be reduced to 316,100 gpd  to meet
updated requirements  (By  telephone Mr. Zdon, MPCA  to  WAPORA, Inc.  15 July
1982).  The  existing  and  revised design critera and  design  capacities are
compared in Table  2-9^2-,

     The  year 2000  loading  from  the  existing WWTP  service area  to the
lagoons has been estimated based on population projections and on corrected
infiltration/inflow estimates  from the Facilities Plan and on an allowance
for  septage  generation.   The estimated year 2000 population equivalent for
the  existing  WWTP  service  area is presented in Table 2-10.  The estimated,
corrected infiltration/inflow is presented in Table 2-11.

     The  estimated excess  capacity  available  in  the existing  lagoons is
presented in  Table 2-12.   If the  existing design  criteria are used in the
evaluation there is an  excess capacity  of  89,400 gpd  available for base
flow and infiltration/inflow from new connections.  However, if the  revised
MPCA design  criteria  are  used in the evaluation, there is a capacity defi-
ciency  of  16,000  gpd  for  the  existing  system, and no  excess capacity to
serve new connections.

     The adequacy of the interceptor sewers and lift stations in the exist-
ing WWTP service area  to  handle the existing  flow (after I/I corrections)
and  to  accommodate additional  flows  from Island Lake and Sturgeon Lake was
evaluated in the MLWSD Facility Plan.  The analysis presented in the Facil-
ity  Plan  was re-evaluated  for this  report based on  the revised  (updated)
year 2000  population assumptions  (Section 3.2.1.3.).   The conclusion made
based on this  re-evaluation was that the existing  sewer lines and  pumping
stations  through  Sand  Lake to  the main lift  station  in Moose  Lake are
adequate to  accommodate  the total year 2000 EIS population from the Island
                                   2-83

-------
Table 2-9ex. Existing capacity and  revised capacity  existing Moose Lake
            WWTP.
                          Existing
                          Design
                          Capacity
Pond Area
  Primary (Ac)
  Secondary (Ac)
  Total (Ac)
  Seconda ry/To t al
Pond Depth
  Bottom Storage  (ft)
  Active (ft)
  Total (ft)
Total Active Vol  (MG)
Active Storage (days)
Capacity (Gal/day)
Primary Pond Area  (Ac)
BOD Loading (lb/day-1000
  SF)
BOD Capacity (Ib/day)
973
               MPCA
          Design Criteria
Revised
Design
Capacity
              1/3

                 2
               3-4
               5-6

               180
                0.5
                               38.8
   0.5
 845
aMPCA, Recommended Design, Criteria for Sewage Stabilization Ponds, 1980

 Required by MPCA if significant additional connections made to  system
 (Mr. Zdon, MPCA, to WAPORA, Inc. 15 July 1982)
c
 Based on MPCA requirement of Secondary Pond Area/total Pond Area = 1/3
                                   2-84

-------
Table 2-10.  Estimated population in the Moose Lake WWTP service area
             Year 2000 (PRC-Consoer Townsend, 1980)
               Area
                  Population Equivilant  (PE)
                           Year 2000
               Moose Lake
               State Hospital
               Mercy Hospital
               Coffee Lake
               Sand Lake
                           1,876
                           1,780
                             210
                             240
                             729
                 Total
                           3,835
Note:    The Facility Plan reported a 1978 base wastewater flow of 210,000.
         The 1978 population is not known, but the 1980 equivalent popula-
         for the above area totaled 3,768.  Therefore, the approximate ADBF
         is 210,000/3,768 = 56 gpcd/60 gpcd is used in this EIS.
Table 2-11.  Estimated inflow/infiltration in the Moose Lake WWTP service
             area
                          Infiltration
                Inflow
             Total I/I
Before Rehabilitation
  Av Flow gpd
  Peak flow gpd

Estimated Correction
 111,000
 772,000

     25%
  72,000
 610,000

     75%
  183,000
1,382,000

      45%
After Rehabilitation
  Av Flow gpd
  Peak flow gpd
 83,000
579,000
 18,000
153,000
  101,000
  732,000
 Calculated assuming Average/Peak ratio is the same before and after rehabil-
 itation.
                                   2-85

-------
Table 2-12.  Estimated  excess capacity existing Moose Lake WWTP Year 2000.
Flow Basis

Capacity (gpd)

Flow from existing service area
  ADBF-(3835 PEb x 60 gpcd)  (gpd)
                               Q
Uncorrected infiltration/inflow
  (gpd)

Septage gpd

          Total

Excess capacity available  (gpd)

Influent Loading Basis

Loading (Ib/day)

Loading from existing service area
Existing
 Design
Capacity

421,500
230,100
    937
Revised
Design  _
        3.
Capacity

316,100
230,100
101,000
1,000
332,100
89,400
101,000
1,000
332,100
-16,000
    854
3835 PE x 0.17 Ib/cd (Ib/day)
o
Septage (Ib/day)
Total
Excess capacity available (Ib/day)
652
42
694
243
652
42
694
160
 Revised capacity based on MPCA Design Criteria  (See Table 2-9).  Total
 pond area: 58.2 Ac, active storage volume: 3 ft, storage period: 180 days.

 Year 2000 population equivalent for existing Moose Lake WWTP service
 area (Facility Plan) (Table 2-10)

'Source:  Facility Plan, SSES in progress.  (Table 2-11)

 Septage volume based on 365 septic tanks pumped per year which is 26.5% of
 the total year 2000 housing units in Windemere  Township (Table 3.16)

'Septage BOD = 5,000 mg/1  (USEPA 1980 a).
                                    2-86

-------
Lake and  Sturgeon Lake  areas.   The only  part of  the  existing collection
system  that  will  require  additional  capacity  is  the  main  lift  station
(pumping to the WWTP)  which  is presently undersized  and cannot handle the
existing or corrected I/I flow from the existing system.


     Based on the above analysis of the existing Moose Lake WWTP and of the
existing collection system, the  following  criteria were used  as  the basis
for development centralized treatment in the project alternatives:
     •    The  design capacity  of  the  existing  lagoons,  and  lagoon
          expansions developed  for  any alternative were based  on the
          MPCA revised design criteria.

     •    All  alternatives   that  include  expansion  of  the  existing
          lagoons include costs for additional pond  area  to accommo-
          date the  existing  16,000 gpd  deficit  in  lagoon  capacity.

     •    Alternatives that  do  not  include expansion  of  the existing
          lagoons do  not include costs to  eliminate the 16,000 gpd
          capacity deficit.   (The 16,000 gpd deficit  can  be accommo-
          dated by operating the ponds  with an active storage depth of
          3.5 feet instead of 3.0 feet.)

     •    Lagoon   expansions  were designed  to increase the  secondary
          pond area  because  the existing ratio of  secondary to total
          capacity does  not  meet MPCA  revised criteria.   However,  if
          the additional  pond area required would not be sufficient to
          meet the  criteria,  the existing configuration would  not  be
          rearranged to do so.

     •    It  was  assumed that  I/I  corrections  will  be  made  to the
          collection system  and to  the main pumping  station.   Costs
          for I/I corrections were  not included  in any  alternatives.
          (The 16,000 gpd deficit can be accommodated by operating the
          ponds with  an  active  storage depth of 3.5  feet  instead  of
          3-0 feet.)   (These costs are  being identified in an on-going
          SSES.)

     •    It was  assumed  that  the additional design capacity required
          for the  main  lift  station  to  adequately  serve  additional
          population will be  identified prior to the I/I  corrections.

     •    The construction cost and  O&M cost for the additional pump-
          ing capacity is an incremental cost.
                                   2-87

-------
2.4.  Project Alternatives

     Feasible and compatible sets of collection and treatment options were
developed  into   project alternatives  for the  project area.   The project
alternatives  developed represent  combinations  of  on-site options, centra-
lized collection system options,  and effluent  treatment and disposal op-
tions.   A  total of seven potential project alternatives were developed and
evaluated  for technical feasibility,  cost-effectiveness,  and environmental
concerns.   These alternatives include a  no-action alternative (Alternative
1).  Project  Alternatives  2 through  6 are consecutively  less comprehensive
in providing major on-site soil absorption system upgrades over the 20-year
design period  (Figure 2-14).  Conversely, Alternatives 2 through 6 provide
consecutively more  hookups  of residences to centralized collection systems
(Table  2-13).   Costs  associated  with each of  these  alternatives are des-
cribed  in  the  following  sections.  All  cost data are  based  on March 1982
price levels and are  comprehensive of direct, operational, maintenence, and
administrative  costs.

2.4.1.  Alternative 1  - No-Action

     The EIS  process  must evaluate the  consequences  of not taking action.
The "No-Action" Alternative  implies that neither USEPA, MPCA, or FHA would
provide  funds  to build,  upgrade,  or  expand  existing wastewater treatment
systems.   If  the No-Action  Alternative  is  "implemented", existing on-site
systems  in the  project area would  continue to be  used  in  their present
conditions and  no new facilities would  be built.   Any changes or improve-
ments in malfunctioning systems would be at  the  initiative and expense of
either  property owners or  a local government.  With  the No-Action Alter-
native,   additional  numbers  of  holding  tanks would  be built  on lots with
site limitations and  documented problems  would continue to exist.

2.4.2.  Alternative 2  - On-Site System Upgrades for the Entire Service Area

     This  alternative consists of  selectively  upgrading the  existing on-
site systems  and future on-site systems.  All  other  residences within the
service area  would  continue to rely  on  their  current on-site system.  All
                                   2-88

-------
Table 2-13.  Year 1980 residences served by proposed alternatives.

                              	 Alternative
Component
               b
On-site upgrade
  Island Lake
  Sturgeon Lake
  Other3
  Total

Cluster system
  Island Lake
  Sturgeon Lake
  Total

Centralized system
  Island Lake
  Sturgeon Lake
  Total

Total residences served       286     301     309     309     335     390

Residences served by exist-
 ing systems without upgrades
  Island Lake                  48      34      26      26      -
  Sturgeon Lake                56      55      55      55      55
  Other3                       25      25      25      25      25      25
  Total                       129     TI4     106     106      80      25

Total project area residences 415     415     415     415     415     415
2
103
141
42
286
mm
-
"
_
-
-
3
87
122
42
25T
30
20
50
_
-
-
4
37
122
42
20T
_
20
20
88
-
88
5
37
122
42
201
_
20
20
88
—
88
6

122
42
164
n r
20
20
151
—
151
7

-
42
~4T
«•
-
~
151
197
348
a
 Includes remainder of EIS project area (Rush Lake, Passenger Lake, Hogans
 Acres, Wild Acres).

 Includes major upgrades (to correct obvious and potential problems) plus
 minor upgrades (addition of observation port to existing septic tanks in
 good operating condition).
                                   2-89

-------
            150
            125 "
2 -o g
CD eo »_
iT ^ fl)
   ^CL
c Q.

•SM
Q. O W
i_ •=, 
-------
septic tanks  in  the service area would be fitted with observation ports  to
facilitate  manual  inspection.   The installation of  an  observation port  is
referred to as  a minor upgrade.   Some  major upgrades also may be required
under  this alternative.   The  preferred  major  upgrade,  where  conditions
permit,  is the  ST/SAS  with a  serial-parallel  trench system (described  in
Section  2.3.2.6.).   Depending  on  lot limitations,  the  appropriate alter-
native  on-site  system would   be  selected.   Alternative  on-site systems
include ST-seepage beds, ST-mound systems, and wastewater  segregation.  The
criteria used  for  determination of the appropriate  on-site system at each
lot requiring a  major upgrade were soil  characteristics,  depth to ground-
water table, landscape slope, and lot size.

     For instance,  where  wastewater  segregation was  recommended, the gray-
water would continue  to be treated with  the existing septic tank and soil
absorption system (which may be upgraded).   The blackwater  components would
include a  new low-flow toilet and a holding tank.  Quantities and types  of
systems to  receive  major  upgrades are presented in Appendix C.  The number
and types  of  upgraded systems are subject to redefinition after final site
evaluation is completed.  The total present worth cost for  this alternative
was estimated  to be  $1,012,890,  including  administrative costs.   The de-
tailed cost estimates  made for the various  components  of  this alternative
are presented in Appendix E.

2.4.3.  Alternative 3 - Cluster Drainfields  for Limited Areas and On-site
                        System Upgrades Elsewhere

     Alternative 3 consists of centralized collection of septic tank efflu-
ent  from  three  areas  with  pressure  and   gravity  sewers  (Figure  2-15).
Treatment  and disposal  are provided  in  two  cluster drainfields  in each
case.   Two of the areas are along the western shoreline of  Island Lake, and
the third  is  on  the eastern shore of  Sturgeon  Lake.  All  other residences
in the project area would continue to rely on their current form of on-site
system or be upgraded as described in the previous alternative (Alternative
2).
                                   2-91

-------
                            ,,v*r*v
                                        4? >*".'!
LEGEND

___ EIS
    Area Boundary
Enisling
—— Gravity Sewer
1 • '  Force Main
 •  Lift Station
Proposed
	 Septic Tank Effluent
    Gravity Sewer
• • •  Force Mail
	  Pressure Sewer
                                                                     Proposed
                                                                      • Lift Station
                                                                      A Cluster Dratnfield
                        >,,;--^---:--;^r
                          •*   ','':':  .  '-> i'  '"':  >     _—--•— —"-——-.
             "'••">' :]	1    '.'••  SAND   V-^V^Yf"   /      y.fc":;l    ^••^7 """ 't-'ri'"* c°\'  '-• r"l' *
             ' ^/y^    •     ^^   £-V      -^25- ^^'\:-^\    -yv*"'-.  r ^  ;
               X—^   ^-•'^'••--    r-      :^,/J-   A^r    «  >'/"'   ;        •   ,--N?  .•-
              x^^- .-r  •,  •    :     ••-.      •—/••    A','-|    jy  "••:     ^        -./"••
             'f:.    /•''*-.   '-—               --* ' WARtBBP^D  It K"  to?    ''.-•-•        '  •
                                  LAKE    _Jf-5 ' *f~Qi>.
                                                    ^^-•' - •:---,•"" ^-^  '•	1 I ~ "^ ^
                                                      '^ L ^^  lv
                                                    •^'..r^ii-J/ii. • '
                                   ./*,-  '/-?£&•&   —v- •    ^ '
                               ^ /  ''
Figure  2-15.  Wastewater collection and  treatment  facilities for  Alternative  3

                                              2-S2

-------
     The three areas identified as needing off-site treatment were selected
based on soil  conditions  and on the documented on-site system problems de-
scribed in  Section  2.2.3.   The number of  residences  served by the cluster
systems, and  the numbers  and  types of  upgraded on-site  systems required
under Alternative 3, are presented in Appendix E.

     Each cluster collection system would employ septic tank effluent pumps
and pressure and/or  gravity sewers for collection.  Each cluster treatment
system  would  consist of  a dosing  tank  or  pump  station,   and  three drain
fields  to  allow  for phased  or  "staggered" use at  the site.   With this
management regime, two of the fields would be in use during the year, while
the third field was being rested.

     Alternative 3 has  an estimated present worth cost of $575,020 for the
upgrading of existing on-site  systems  and for future upgrades and an addi-
tional $985,220 for the three cluster drainfields (including the collection
system).   The  total  present worth  for  Alternative  3  totals $1,847,010,
including administrative costs.  Detailed cost estimates for the components
of this alternative are presented in Appendix E.

2.4.4.  Alternative 4 - Island Lake: Limited Centralized Collection and
                        Treatment at Moose Lake WWTP
                      - Sturgeon Lake:   Cluster Drainfield for Limited Area
                      - On-Site System Upgrades Elsewhere.

     Alternative 4  considers three component options  for  centralized col-
lection (4A,  conventional 'gravity;  4B,  septic tank  effluent  gravity;  and
4C, septic  tank  effluent  pressure,  as described in  Section 2.3.3.).  Cen-
tralized collection would  be  provided   along the north  and west shoreline
of  Island  Lake  (all  of Segment  II  and  part  of  Segment I)  with off-site
treatment  provided at the  Moose Lake WWTP.  On  the  eastern shore of Stur-
geon Lake,  a  centralized  collection  of septic tank  effluent  with cluster
drainfield treatment is proposed.  All other residences in the project area
would continue  to rely on  their  current  form of on-site system  or  be  up-
graded as described  in  Alternative 2.   Criteria for selection of the lake-
shore area  needing  collection  for  off-site treatment  were based on soil
conditions, existing  septic  tank conditions, and the  predominance  of per-
                                   2-93

-------
manent versus seasonal residences.  The number of housing units included in
the collection systems for the cluster, and the number and type of upgraded
on-site systems are presented in Appendix X.

     The  layout  for  Alternative 4A  with  conventional gravity  sewer col-
lection for  the limited Island Lake area is presented in Figure 2-16.  The
layout  for  Alternative  4B  with septic  tank effluent  gravity sewers  is
identical  to 4A.   The lay out for Alternative 4C with pressure sewers also
is identical to 4A except that  the  pressure  sewers discharge to a manhole
at the  top of the hill on Warlow Road near Route 51 and flow by gravity to
the existing sewers around Sand Lake.

     Comparison  of the costs  (see Appendix  E)  associated with  the three
optional  collection  system  components  indicated that the  septic  tank ef-
fluent gravity  sewer  option (Alternative 4B) would be the most cost-effec-
tive, with an estimated total present worth of $815,300 versus $894,080 for
conventional  gravity  sewers  (Alternative 4A) , and $815,300 for septic tank
effluent  gravity  sewers (Alternative 4C).  Based on  this  cost comparison,
Alternatives  4A  and   4C  were  eliminated  from  further consideration  for
selection of a project alternative.

     Alternative  4B would  add  an estimated  year  2000 population  of  310
(seasonal and permanent) to  the Moose Lake WWTP, resulting in an additional
flow of 21,700 gpd and a additional BOD loading of 20 Ib/day.  As discussed
in Section 2.3.4, the treatment plant would be expanded to accommodate this
additional flow,  plus  the 16,000 gpd deficiency  for  a total of 37,700 gpd
capacity.  Based  on the  new (1980)  MPCA  design criteria,  the additional
lagoon area  required  under Alternative 4B would be 5.20 acres of secondary
pond  with a  volume  of 6.79 mg.  The  total  pond area  after construction
would be  43 acres of primary  pond and 20.4 acres of  secondary  pond for a
total of 63.4 acres.

     Alternative  4B also  would require that the existing main lift station
from Moose Lake to the WWTP  be upgraded to accommodate the additional flow.
As  discussed in  Section  2.3.4,  costs  are   included  for  the  incremental
capacity  required to  be added during the expected upgrading of the pumping
station for  infiltration/inflow correction under other contracts.
                                   2-94

-------
v:'r'/: '£:'•>::..•::>•,: '
f ;-'-;.^Frv:;rr'
' • ." ""j."~ y~.:'" <•*
•'' f' >?/"'"'~ .Ar .
	 * ', .. -£v ,,
"••x'r' ( :,'- Gfc v
~SA «o' lOf-*1 ••
/ .. /?' ^P v^
7 VH.. • ':'.
1 •. ^ ' '. •*. ''' , ^'v • '
f. ' „.,. >. ••.•"*>,,-'.'
°:':r:K--;'."^','/;: '
,- . V .' '•-"• ;./ '., •
• \* ' ~* *• . >. '
LEGEND

_-- EIS
Area Boundary
Existing
—•-'-'- Gravity Sower
*•"-*• Force Main
• Lift Station
Proposed
~ Gravity Sewer
• • • Force Main
• Lift Station
,\"\ • •' : -^ ?/,


Proposed
/\ Cluster Drainfield
Owastewater
Treatment Lagoon
jt Upgraded Main
Lift Station
STE Septic Tank Effluent
Gravity Sewer
otherwise specified
>"?"*"t -3; ^"'* "-*•=•- ./
                 >. ;„•>,  I   
-------
     The  cluster drainfield  proposed  to serve  the area  on  Sturgeon Lake
under Alternative  4B consists of septic tank effluent gravity and pressure
sewers, and  community drainfields with a dosing pump station (as described
in Alternative 3).

     Alternative 4B  has estimated total present worth costs of $815,300 for
the  centralized collection  system,  $498,300 for  the  cluster  drainfield
(including  collection  system),  $268,340  for  the centralized  treatment
system  (including  the upgrade of the  existing  lift station),  and $400,880
for the upgrading of on-site  treatment systems.  The total present worth of
Alternative  4C  was  estimated  to  be  $2,269,680,  including administrative
costs.  Detailed cost estimates  for each of the components are presented in
Appendix E.

2.4.5.  Alternative  5 - Island Lake: Limited Centralized Collection and Bog
                        Treatment
                      - Sturgeon Lake: Cluster Drainfield  for Limited Areas
                      - On-Site  System Upgrades Elsewhere.

     Alternative  5  considers two  component  options for  centralized col-
lection of septic  tank effluent (5A, gravity sewers; 5B,  pressure sewers).
Centralized  collection would be  provided along the north and  west shore-
lines of  Island  Lake, with treatment  provided by  a "spaghnum"  or peat bog
system  (described  in Section  2.3),  located  just south  of Island  Lake.
Centralized  collection  and  cluster  drainfield  treatment  also would  be
provided  for  the Island on the  eastern  shore  of Sturgeon Lake.  All other
residences in  the  EIS service area would continue  to rely on their current
form  of  on-site system,  or  be  upgraded as  described in  Alternative  2.

     The developed areas considered for service with centralized collection
and off-site  treatment in Alternative 5 are  the  same  as  those in Alterna-
tive 4.   However,  Alternative 5 utilizes the  bog  treatment of  septic tank
effluent, whereas Alternative 4 proposes centralized treatment at the Moose
Lake WWTP.

     The  layout  for Alternative  5A,  with  septic tank   effluent  gravity
sewer collection for the limited Island Lake area  is shown in Figure 2-17.
                                   2-96

-------
                                     LEGEND

                                     ... EIS
                                         Area Boundary
                                     Existing
                                     	 Gravity Sewer
                                         Force Main
                                       •  Lift Station
                                     Proposed
                                         Septic Tank Effluent
                                                                        Proposed
                                                                          •  Lift Station
                                                                         ^ Cluster Dra infield
                                                                            DBog Treatment
                                                                            Site
                                                         all pipes are 4" unless
                                                         otherwise specified
Figure 2-17.
Wastewater collection and treatment facilities  for Alternative  5
Note:   Sewer  layout shown is  for  Project Option 5A  (STE gravity),
similar for Project Option 5B (STE pressure).
                              2-97

-------
The  layout  of  Alternative  5B,  with pressure  sewers,  is  identical  to 5A
except  that  there  is  only one  lift station located at  a point along the
west lakeshore.

     Comparison of  the costs (see Appendix) associated with the collection
systems  considered  indicated that  septic  tank  effluent  pressure  sewers
(Alternative  5B)  are  the  most cost-effective  for  the  limited Island Lake
service  area, with an  estimated total  present  worth of $815,940  versus
$871,070  for septic tank  effluent gravity sewers (Alternative 5A) .   Based
on this cost comparison, Alternative 5A was  eliminated from further consid-
eration for selection  of a project alternative.

     The cluster drainfield consists of septic tank effluent gravity and/or
pressure  sewers and  three  drainfields  with  one dosing  pump station,  as
described in Alternative 3.

     Alternative 5B  has estimated total present worth costs of $815,940 for
the  centralized collection   system,  $498,370  for  the cluster  drainfield
(including collection system),  $327,170 for the  bog  treatment system, and
$400,880 in  the  remainder of the service  area for the upgrading of on-site
treatment systems.   The total present worth  was estimated  to be $2,329,150,
including administrative costs.  Detailed  cost estimates for each component
are presented in Appendix  E.

2.4.5.  Alternative  6  - Island Lake; Centralized Collection and Treatment
                        at Moose Lake WWTP
                       - Sturgeon  Lake; Cluster  Drainfield for limited ser-
                        vice area
                       - On-Site system Upgrades Elsewhere.

     Alternative  6  considers  three component  options   for  provision  of
centralized collection (6A,  conventional gravity; 6B, STE gravity; 6C, STE
pressure as  described  in  Section 2.3.).   Centralized  collection would be
provided for  the  entire shoreline of Island Lake,  with treatment provided
at the  Moose Lake  WWTP.   Centralized collection also would be provided for
a limited  area   of the eastern shore of  Sturgeon Lake with treatment pro-
vided  at a  cluster  drainfield  system.    All  other  residences  in  the EIS
project area would continue to rely on their current form  of on-site system
or be upgraded as described in Alternative 2.
                                   2-98

-------
     Alternative 6  serves  the entire shoreline of  Island  Lake with a cen-
tralized collection  system.   The service area population  for  this area is
limited  to the  year 2000 projection  (Section 3.2.1.3.).   The collection
system  layout generally  follows  the  June  1980  plans developed  to serve
Island  Lake  (Howard  A. Kuusisto  1980)  except that  the  pipe  and pumping
stations have been sized to serve the EIS population projection.

     The  layout  for  Alternative 6A with  conventional gravity  sewer col-
lection  for the  Island  Lake  area is shown  in Figure 2-18.  The layout for
Alternative 6B with septic tank effluent gravity sewers would be  identical
to  6A.   The  layout  for Alternative 6C with  pressure  sewers  also  would be
identical  to  6A,  except  that  the pressure  sewers wouid discharge  to an
manhole  at the  top  of  the hill on Warlow  Road near Route  51  and flow by
gravity  to the existing sewers around Sand Lake.

     Comparison  of  the  costs  associated with the collection systems consi-
dered indicated  that  septic  tank effluent pressure sewers (Alternative 6C)
would be the  most  cost-effective,  with an estimated total present worth of
$1,475,590  versus  $1,205,950 for  conventional  gravity sewers (Alternative
6A)  and $1,589,360  for septic  tank  effluent gravity  sewers  (Alternative
6B) .  Based on  the cost comparison, Alternatives 6A  and  6B have  been eli-
minated  from  further consideration  for  the  selection  of  a  project alter-
native.

     Alternative  6C would  add  an  estimated year  2000 population  of 579
(seasonal and permanent) to the Moose Lake WWTP, resulting in an additional
flow of  40,530 gpd and  an additional  BOD loading of 34.5 Ib/day.  As dis-
cussed  in  Section  2.3.4,  the Moose Lake treatment  plant  would be expanded
to  accommodate  the additional  flow plus the 16,000 gpd  deficiency for a
total of 56,530 gpd.   Based  on the  new (1980)  MPCA design criteria, the
additional lagoon area  required would be 7.8 acres of secondary pond with a
volume  of  10.18  MG.   The new total pond area would be 43 acres of primary
pond and 23 acres of secondary pond for a total of 66 acres.

     Alternative 6C  also would  require that the existing main lift station
from  Moose Lake  to  the  treatment  plant  be  upgraded to  accommodate the
                                   2-99

-------
                                          LEGEND

                                          ___ EIS
                                             Area Boundary
                                          Existing
                                          Proposed
                                            •  Lift Station
                                           A. Cluster Drainfield
              ' ••' :^° /' st-'^	'
      v—«  /^r/^
                :^i-|\^.: -
                    b^-->^
                    m < • **      *.
Figure  2-18.
Wastewater collection arid treatment facilities for Alternative 6
Note:   Sewer layout shown is for Project Option 6A (conventional
gravity), similar for Project Option 6B (STE gravity)  and
Project Option 6C (STE pressure).
                  2-100

-------
additional flow.  As discussed in Section 2.3.4, costs are included for the
incremental capacity required  to be added during the expected upgrading of
the  pumping  station for  infiltration/inflow correction  under other MLWSD
contracts.

     The  cluster  drainfield  proposed with  Alternative 6C  to  serve  the
limited area  on the east shore of  Sturgeon Lake  consists  of septic tank
effluent  gravity and  pressure sewers, and  three  drainfields  with dosing
pump stations, as described in Alternative 3.

     Alternative 6C  has estimated  total present worth  costs of $1,475,590
for  the centralized  collection system, $498,370 for the cluster drainfield
(including  collection  system),  $394,100  for  the centralized  treatment
system (including the upgrading of the existing lift station), and $271,010
for  the upgrading of on-site treatment systems in the remainder of the ser-
vice area.  The total present worth was estimated to be $2,925,860, includ-
ing  administrative  costs.  Detailed cost estimates for  each component are
presented in Appendix E.
2.4.7.  Alternative 7 - Complete Centralized Collection for the Shorelines
                        of Island Lake and of Sturgeon Lake
                      - On-site System Upgrades Elsewhere.

     Alternative 7  considers three component options  for centralized col-
lection  (7A,  conventional gravity;  7B,  septic tank effluent gravity, STE
pressure, as  described  in Section 2.3) along the shorelines of both Island
Lake  and  Sturgeon  Lake,  with  treatment provided  at  the  Moose Lake WWTP.
All  other residences in  the EIS  service  area would  continue to  rely  on
their current form  of  on-site  system with upgrades as  described in Alter-
native 2.

     Alternative 7  serves  the  entire shoreline of Island  Lake and most of
the shoreline of Sturgeon Lake with a centralized collection system.  The
total service area  population  of Alternative 7 is limited to the year 2000
EIS projection  (Section 3.2.1.3.).   The collection system for Island Lake
generally follows the June 1980 plans presented by the MLWSD to serve that
                                   2-101

-------
area,  and the  collection system  for  Sturgeon Lake  generally  follows the
layout  proposed in the Facility  Plan.  However, the  pipe sizes and pumping
station  capacities  have  been  limited to  serve  the projected  year 2000
population only, at maximum  flow.

     The  layout  proposed  in  Alternative 7A, with conventional gravity  sewer
collection for  Island Lake and Sturgeon Lake  is shown in Figure  2-19.  The
layout  for Alternative  7B with  septic  tank effluent gravity sewers would be
identical to  7A.  The  layout for  Alternative  7C  with pressure sewers also
would  be  identical to  7A, except  that a  lift station would be required in
the area  of  the YMCA camp to  convey a portion of the Sturgeon Lake sewage
to the Island Lake collection system,  and a main lift station at  the south-
ern end of Island Lake would  convey  all of the  sewage  from Sturgeon Lake
and a major portion of  Island Lake  to  the existing sewers around  Sand Lake.
The remainder of the sewage  collected  from Island Lake would discharge from
the pressure sewers at  a  manhole  at the top of the hill on Warlow Road near
Route  51  and flow by  gravity  to  the  existing  Sand Lake  sewers.   In ad-
dition, the island on the eastern  shore of Sturgeon Lake would be partially
served by septic tank effluent gravity sewers and a pump station provided
to connect this  area to the  pressure sewer main.

     Comparison  of the  costs associated with the collection systems consid-
ered  indicates  that  septic  tank  effluent  gravity sewers (Alternative 7B)
would  be  the  most  cost-effective,  with an total estimated present worth of
$3,616,080 versus  $3,846,980 for conventional gravity sewers (Alternative
7A) and $3,641,590 for septic  tank effluent pressure sewers (Alternative 7
C) .  Based on  the  cost comparison,  Alternatives 7A and 7C have been elimi-
nated  from  further  consideration  for the  selection of a  project  alter-
native.

     Alternative 7B  would add  an  estimated  year  2000 population (seasonal
and permanent)  to  the Moose Lake  WWTP as  follows:   Island Lake  579;  Stur-
geon Lake 802;  YMCA camp 120,  for a total of 1,501.  This would result in
an additional  flow of  105,070 gpd and an additional BOD  loading  of 41.6
Ib/day  to the  plant.   As discussed in Section  2.3.4,  the treatment  plant
would  be  expanded to  accommodate  the additional  flow plus  the   16,000 gpd
                                    2-102

-------
<*>/
                                     LEGEND
               .-;-'•'  '/••'•'^~..''-^-"'  -O      --- EIS
     s..     -.''.'   f *%/'*'  '   &'           Area Boundary
       '^^»--'.--.  ^*)&    ct**  •'   E"isiina
                                         Gravity Sewer
                                         Force Main
                                      •  Lift Station
                                     Proposed
                                       — Gravity Sewer
                                         Force Main
                                         Lift Station
                                                                      Proposed
                                                                       £\ Cluster Drainfield
                                                                          OWastewater
                                                                          Treatment Lagoon
                                                                          Upgraded Main
                                                                          Lift Station
                                                                       all pipes are 8" unless
                                                                       otherwise specified
                    ^  ;'  Jl   /"  fA/""       -—-
                    . >':•'•--*:'• jj   >    <*"<  <" '
Figure 2-19.
                     .             ....
Wastewater collection aha treatment' facilities for  Alternative 7
Note:  Sewer  layout  shown for  Project Option  7A  (conventional
gravity),  similar for Project  Option 7B  (STE  gravity) and
Project  Option 7C (STE pressure).
                             2.103

-------
deficiency,  for  a total  of  121,100  gpd.  Based  on the  new (1980) MPCA
design criteria,  the additional  lagoon area required would  be  16.7 acres of
secondary  pond,  with a volume of  21.79  mg.   The new total pond area would
be 43  acres  of primary pond  and 31.9  acres of  secondary pond, for a total
of 74.9 acres.

     Alternative  7B  also  would  require  that the existing main lift station
from  Moose  Lake  to the  plant  be  upgraded  to  accommodate  the additional
flow.  As  discussed in  Section 2.3.4,  costs  are  included  for the incre-
mental capacity  required  to be  added during the expected upgrading of the
pumping  station  for infiltration/inflow correction under other contracts.

     Alternative  7B  has estimated  total  present worth  costs  of $3,616,080
for  the  centralized  collection  system,  $625,080 for the centralized treat-
ment  system  (including the  upgrading    of the  existing  lift  station),  and
$89,710 for  the upgrading of  on-site treatment  systems.  The  total present
worth  of Alternative 7B was estimated to be $4,617,660, including adminis-
trative costs.  Detailed cost  estimates  for each component are presented in
Appendix E.

2.5.  Flexibility and Reliability of the Project Alternatives

2.5.1.  Flexibility

     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.   Six  of  the  seven  project alternatives  considered in
this EIS include  such  components as: centralized collection sewer systems,
upgrades of  the existing Moose  Lake waste stabilization lagoons, a cluster
system, and  various levels  of  upgrades  for project  area on-site systems.
The components are found in a  majority of the alternatives, and the follow-
ing evaluation  is generally applicable  to most  of  the  alternatives unless
otherwise  stated  in  the discussion.  The proposed  bog  treatment system is
discussed  separately due  to considerations of  management  straints  and  the
lack of demonstrated technical feasibility .
                                   2-104

-------
     For both gravity and pressure sewer systems, the flexibility  to handle
future increases  in  flows greater than the  original design flow  generally
is  low.   However, interceptor  sewers generally  are designed for capacity
beyond that  which is projected as a result of population growth to the end
of  the  planning  period.   A subsequent  increase in capacity  of  collector
sewers would be  a  somewhat  expensive process.  Also,  the  layout  of the
system depends  upon  the location of the treatment facility.  The  expansion
of a sewer system is generally easy with the addition of new sewers, but is
expensive.

     The  existing Moose  Lake  waste  stabilization  lagoons  can be expanded
relatively easily.   With  proper  design of the pond expansion the  costs and
effort required for expansion would be relatively small.

     On-site systems are  flexible in that they  are  generally designed for
the constraints of each user.  As long as  spatial  and environmental  para-
meters are met, the  type of systems  can  be  chosen according to individual
requirements.   Existing  septic  systems can be expanded  by  adding tank and
drain field  capacity,  if  suitable land is available.   Flow can usually be
distributed to an added system with little disturbance of the existing one.
In the case  of  mound systems, future  expansion  may be difficult  or impos-
sible.   Cluster systems  treat wastewater from  more than  one  house.   The
flexibility for design and expansion of such a system is somewhat  less than
for a standard septic system.

     No data are available on the variation in bog treatment system perfor-
mance as  a  function of  wastewater load  increases.   The performance  which
would be  associated  with moderate expansions in wastewater load above that
resulting from the year 2000 design population cannot be estimated.  There-
fore, in the bog  treatment systems,  the flexibility  to  handle future in-
creases in flow is highly dependent on the  availability of additional bog
area, contiguous  to  the proposed  treatment  site.   With  proper original
design,  the cost of any needed expansion may be relatively small.

     Based on the above  discussions,  it is  concluded  that  the majority of
the alternatives  considered in  this  report generally  have similar flexi-
bility for future growth and/or planning.
                                   2-105

-------
2.5.2.  Reliability

     Reliability  measures the ability of a  system or of system components
to  operate  without  failure  at  the designed  level of  efficiency.   It is
particularly  important  to have  dependable  operation  in  situations where
adverse  environmental or  economic  impacts may  result  from failure of the
system.

     The  gravity  sewer  is highly  reliable  when  designed  properly.   Such
systems require  little maintenance, consume no  energy,  and have no moving
parts  subject to malfunction.  Gravity  sewer  problems  can include  clogged
pipes that result in sewer backups; infiltration/inflow which increases the
volume  of flow  beyond the design  level;  and broken or misaligned pipes.
Major  contributors  to  these problems  are  improperly  jointed pipes  and
damage  to manholes,  especially where these are  not located in paved roads.
Where large sewers are used in order to achieve  lower pipe  slopes, problems
with solids  deposition can mean  that frequent  flushing with large volumes
of water  will be necessary.

     Pump  stations  and  force mains  increase  operation  and  maintenance
requirements  and decrease system reliability.   Backup  pumps are installed
in order  to  provide service  in case the pump fails.  A backup power source
is usually provided by  means of  either dual power  lines  or stationary or
portable  emergency  generators.   Force mains are generally  reliable; exces-
sive solids  deposition and burst pipes occur rarely.  Leaking joints occur
more frequently and can  cause adverse impacts to the  environment.

     Septic  tank  effluent pumps  and pressure sewers  generally are reliable
means of  conveying effluent to a treatment plant.  Because the solids have
been removed in the septic tank,  problems associated  with solids deposition
are avoided.   The pump  units themselves  have  been  shown  to be reliable;
when failures or power outages do occur, storage of approximately 1.5 day's
sewage  volume  in the pump chamber  and  septic  tank permits replacements to
be made before backups  occur.   The  pressure  sewers themselves  should be
even more reliable than force mains because  the  pumped  liquid is clear.
                                   2-106

-------
     Federal Guidelines for Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Waste-

water Treatment Facilities  (Federal  Water  Quality  Administration  1970)
require that:
     All  water pollution  control  facilities  should  be  planned  and
     designed 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.


     The wastewater  control  system  design for the project  area will con-

sider the following types of  factors to ensure system reliability:


     •    Duplicate sources of electric power

     •    Standby power for essential plant elements

     •    Multiple units and  equipment to provide maximum flexibility
          in operation

     •    Readily available replacement parts

     •    Holding tanks or basins  to provide for emergency storage of
          overflow and adequate pump-back facilities

     •    Flexibility of  piping  and pumping facilities  to permit re-
          routing of flows under emergency conditions

     •    Provision for emergency storage or disposal of sludge

     •    Dual chlorination units

     •    Automatic controls  to regulate and record chlorine residuals

     •    Automatic  alarm  systems  to warn of high  water,  power fail-
          ure, or equipment malfunction

     •    No treatment plant  bypasses or upstream bypasses

     •    Design  of  interceptor  sewers  to  permit  emergency storage
          without causing backups

     •    Enforcement of pretreatment  regulations to avoid industrial
          waste-induced treatment upsets

     •    Flood proofing of treatment plant

     •    Plant Operations and Maintenance Manual to have a section on
          emergency operation procedures
                                   2-107

-------
     •    Use of  qualified  plant  operators.

     The  upgraded Moose Lake WWTP  would  be  highly reliable if  these meas-
ures  were  incorporated.    The  reliability  of  the  proposed bog  treatment
system  under  local  wastewater  load  characteristics  is not  known.   The
collection  systems have reduced  reliability because so many pump stations
are  required.   If  dual power  lines  from separate  substations  can be ex-
tended to every pump  station  (an  expensive proposition),  a reasonable level
of reliability  can be attained.   Supplying  permanent auxiliary  power units
for  each  pump  station is not  feasible.   A failure of  a  pump station would
likely result  in raw sewage  or septic tank effluent being  discharged into
one  of the  lakes.  Because as  many as eleven pump stations  must operate in
series,  a  failure of  one would likely  result  in spillage  into a lake.

     The  on-site  systems are generally a  reliable means of  treating and
disposing of wastewater.  Except  with  certain systems,  they  operate with no
power inputs and  little attention.  When  failures  do  occur, the  impact to
the  environment  is small and diffuse.  Total failures  very  rarely occur in
which no treatment at all takes place.

     Septic tanks provide reliable  treatment when they  are properly design-
ed  and  maintained.   The   principal  maintenance  requirement  is  periodic
pumping of the tank,  usually  every  3 to 5 years.  The treatment  process can
be harmed  if  large  quantities of strong  chemicals are  flushed  into the
tank.

     Soil absorption systems generally provide  excellent treatment if the
design and  installation are accomplished  properly  and  the soil conditions
are  suitable.   Other key  factors  in  the  successful operation of  soil ab-
sorption systems  are: proper  functioning of  the septic  tank  or other treat-
ment unit  and observance  of reasonable  water  conservation practices con-
sistent  with  the design flows.   Soil absorption systems  can malfunction
when extended  wet  weather  results in  total saturation  of  the soil,  when
solids carryover  plugs  the  drain bed,  and when  compaction of  the  soil
surface  results  in restricted  permeability.   Mound  systems can be  more
reliable than drain bed systems where water  tables are  high  because
                                   2-108

-------
potential groundwater  problems  are minimized.  Mound systems do require an
effluent  pump,  though, and  thus rely  on  a  dependable  power supply.  The
septic  tank  and  pump chamber generally can  hold  approximately 1.5 days of
storage,  which  is probably  longer than the  average  power  outage.   A mal-
functioning  pump  can  be  replaced readily  if the units  are standardized.
The cost of a mound system is about three times that of a drain bed system;
thus,  it  would  be utilized only where a drain bed system has failed or has
little  chance of  operating  properly.   The  average  design  life  of soil
absorption systems is greater than 20 years;  some could be expected to fail
earlier.  Some  soil absorption  systems could be expected  to last indefi-
nitely,  as   long  as the  system  is not overloaded  with water  or solids.

     Cluster  systems serve  a group of houses with a set of components that
are  similar  to those  used in individual septic  tank soil  absorption sys-
tems.   The   individual  septic  tanks  would  operate  at  similar  levels  of
reliability.  The septic tank  effluent sewers are  exposed  to  hazards  of
breakage and to plugging due to cleanout failure similar to gravity sewers.
Sewage  solid accumulations  in  the sewers  does  not  occur  when the septic
tanks are maintained properly.   The soil absorption system should be sited
on  permeable soils  that have  a  water table  always greater  than 6-foot
depth.   The   operation  of  the  drain  field has  the  potential to  be more
reliable  than  an  individual  on-site  soil  absorption  system  because  of
pressure  distribution  by  dosing and  because of the  ability to  site  the
drainfields  in  an  optimum  location,  but  there  have  been  few  long-term
studies to evaluate the drainfield reliability.

2.6.   Comparison  of Alternatives  and  Selection  of  the  Recommended Action

     The selection of  the  most  cost-effective, environmentally acceptable,
and  implementable  alternative(s)   through   the  EIS  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 Minnesota.  Selec-
tion of the most cost-effective alternative also required identification of
trade-offs between costs and other relevant criteria.
                                   2-109

-------
2.6.1.  Comparison of Alternatives

2.6.1.1.  Project Costs

     Project  costs  were  categorized  into capital  expenses,  operation and
maintenance (O&M) expenses, administrative expenses, and salvage values for
the  equipment  and  structures  for  each  alternative.    The  costs  for the
collection,  conveyance,  and  treatment  systems for each  alternative were
separately estimated.  A  summary of the estimated costs  of Alternatives 1-7
are  displayed  in  Table  2-14.   Appendix E  contains  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 would  be shared by the
Federal  government  through  the  Federal Construction Grants  Program,  by
state grants  administered by MPCA,  and by local participants.  Until  1984,
funding levels  for conventional systems would be 75% Federal, and 15%  State
for a  total  of 90% of eligible construction costs.  Funding for innovative
and  alternative wastewater collection  and  treatment  systems  would be 85%
Federal and 9%  State for  a total of 93%.  For construction started after 30
September 1984  the  Federal share will be 55%  for  conventional systems and
75% for innovative and alternative systems (Federal Register, Vol 47,  N092,
May  12,  1982;  changes  in regulations  governing   construction  grants for
treatment works).   The  state share after 30 September 1982 is not known at
this time.   Eligibility of construction costs  for  Federal and state grants
is discussed  in Section 4.1.3.  Annual O&M costs would be financed entirely
by the local users of the system.

     Based on total  estimated  present worth cost,  upgraded on-site systems
throughout the  project area (Alternative 2) is  the  lowest cost alternative.
Alternatives  3,  4C,  and  5B,  which  include upgraded on-site  systems and
service  of  certain critical  lakeshore  areas  with  cluster drain  fields
and/or  centralized  collection and  treatment,  are ranked  second  through
fourth,  respectively.    Alternative  6C,  which includes  centralized  col-
lection  and   treatment  for all of  Island Lake,  is ranked fifth  based on
cost.  Based  on total  present worth cost, Alternative 7B, which is similar
                                   2-110

-------
       Table  2-14.   Summary  of  the  estimated  costs  for Project  Alternatives  1  through  7
                           ia March.  1982  dollars.
                                                                 Total Present Worth
                                  On-Site     Cluster .    Centralized   Centralized    Sub                      _               Average Annual     Cost
Alternative  Number and Name        Upgrade   Drainfield    Collection     Treatment    Total       Administrative   Total       Equivalant  Coats    Ranking

1   No-Action  In EIS service area    --              -__               -           -                 -           NA

2   Upgrade  on-slte systems with-
    in EIS service area            726,100       -                                    726,100         286,790      1,012,890         100,300         1

3   Cluster  draln£leld for lim-
    ited areas and on-slte sys-
    tem upgrading elsewhere In
    EIS service area               575,000     985,220          -             -      1,560,220         286,790      1,847,010         182,900         2

4B  Island Lake-limited area
    collection by STE gravity
    sewers and treatment at up-
    graded Moose Lake WWTF; Stur-
    geon Lake-cluster drainfield
    for limited area; on-site
    system upgrading elsewhere
    in EIS service area            400,880     498,370       815,300       268,340   1,982,890         286,790      2,269,680         224,760         3

5B  Island Lake-limited area col-
    lection  by STE pressure sewers
    and peat bog treatment; Stur-
    geon Lake  - cluster drainfield
    for limited area; on-site sys-
    tern upgrading elsewhere In
    EIS service area      •         400,880     498,370       815,940       327,170   2,042,360         286,790      2,329,150         230,650         4

6C  Island Lake entire shore-
    line STE pressure collec-
    tion and treatment at up-
    graded Moose Lake WUTP;
    Sturgeon Lake - cluster
    drainfield for limited
    area; on-slte system up-
    grading  elsewhere in EIS
    service  area                   271,010     498,370     1,475,590       394,100   2,639,070         286,790      2,925,860         289,740         5

7B  Island Lake and Sturgeon
    Lake shorelines STE gravity
    collection and treatment
    at upgraded Moose Lake
    WWTP; on-slte system up-
    grading  elsewhere in
    EIS service area.               89,710       -         3,616,080e      625,080   4,330,870         286,790      4,617,660         457,270         6
 Includes costs for on-slte or off-site treatment of wastewater from existing and future residences in the EIS project area to the year 2000.
 See Appendix E for a description of cost development methodology.
b
 Includes STE pressure and gravity collection system

 Includes upgrading of existing lift station to Moose Lake WWTP
d
 For comparison,  the estimated present worth cost of conventional  gravity collection is $1,705,950 ($2,866,430 subtotal, $3,153,220 total,  $312,250
 Equiv.  Ann.).

 For comparison,  the estimated present worth cost of conventional  gravity collection is $3,846,980 ($4,561,770 subtotal, $4,848,560 total,  $480,140
 EquIv.  Ann.).

 Includes annual  personnel and overhead costs for administration and billing.

-------
to  the recommended  alternative  of the  MLWSD Facility  Plan  that includes
centralized collection and treatment for Island Lake and Sturgeon Lake, is
the  most  expensive  alternative, and  ranks seventh.   The  estimated total
present worth  cost ranges from  $985,220  for  Alternative 2 to $4.6 million
for Alternative 7B.

2.6.1.2  Environmental  and Financial Impacts

     The No-Action Alternative would entail almost no construction impacts.
The significant  environmental impacts of the six action alternatives would
primarily  be short-term impacts  on the  local environment  due to construc-
tion (Section 4.1.1.).

     The implementation of the onsite systems component of Alternatives 3,
4, 5,  6 and 7 or the full onsite upgrade alternative (Alternative 2), would
have direct impacts  on those lots where upgraded onsite systems are neces-
sary.

     Cluster drainfield and  cluster  mounds  (Alternatives 3,  4,  5,  and 6)
would  involve  construction on the drainfield sites  of  a similar nature to
that of the onsite upgrades.

     The construction  of centralized collection facilities (Alternatives 3,
4,  5,  6 and 7)  would  have considerable  impacts on  the right-of-way where
the sewers are located.   Dewatering for deep  sewer excavations  and pump
stations could  affect  wells  in  the vicinity.   Construction  of additional
treatment  capacity of  the Moose Lake WWTP  (Alternatives  4,  6 and 7) would
have a significant  effect  at the site of  treatment.   The  proposed  lagoon
expansion  sites are prime agricultural  land that would  be  irretrievably
converted to treatment  plant use.

     Construction  of  a bog  treatment  system  (Alternative   5)  would have
significant adverse  impacts on the biota of the site.

     The expanded Moose Lake WWTP discharging to the Moose Horn River would
be required to  meet  the effluent requirements established by MPCA.   Water
quality would  be altered,  but not  seriously degraded.  Spills  of  septic
                                   2-112

-------
tank effluent  or  of raw sewage at  pump  stations could occur  if a malfunc-
tion  or power  failure were  to  occur.   The  nutrient  load  from  one pump
station  spill could  easily  equal  the  average  annual nutrient  load from
existing  on-site  systems.   Proper maintenance  of  the  pumps,  and backup
powers  sources for all  the pump stations, would  reduce  the potential  for
such impacts.

     The centralized collection, treatment and disposal facilities, and  the
onsite  upgrading  would have  a  positive  effect  on  groundwater  quality by
eliminating  existing  failing onsite systems.  Onsite upgrades and manage-
ment of  onsite systems would replace failing onsite  systems with appropri-
ate new systems or holding tanks.

     In  general,  there is  no significant difference  in long-term impact on
the natural environment between any of the project alternatives.

     The  financial  impact  on  the system  users  will depend  on the avail-
ability  of  Federal and  State  grants   (Section  4.3.).   Estimated  annual
residential user charges (Table 4-3) range from $104  for Alternative 2 with
Federal and  State  grants  to $1,259 for Alternative  7A with no grants.   The
equivalent annual  user charge  for  Coffee Lake and  Sand  Lake  are $120  and
$145 respectively  (based on assessed  connection charge and  user fee, Sec-
tion 3.2.4.).

     Based  on  USEPA   guidelines  (Section  4.3.)   the average  annual  user
charges  for  Alternatives 6A  and  7A are  considered  "expensive"  for users
even with  Federal  and  State Grants (Table  4-4).   Without grants, Alterna-
tive 2 is the only alternative that is not considered expensive.

     The  increase  in  per   capita  debt within the  Sanitary  District will
exceed standard limits  (Section 4.3.)  for Project Alternative 7,  the most
comprehensive  sewering  proposal,  if no  grants are  available (Table 4-5).
None of the project alternatives exceed the excess debt criteria if Federal
and State grants are available.
                                   2-113

-------
2.6.1.3.  Implementability

     The  Moose Lake-Windemere  Sanitary  District is  the management agency
which would be responsible for  implementing the wastewater management plan.
As described in Section  2.1., the District presently manages collection and
transmission sewers  only.   Transmission to the treatment plant is provided
by the City of Moose Lake.

     The proposed Project Alternatives all require some  level of management
of  combinations  of  "centralized"  and  "decentralized" components.   The
centralized  components  of  Alternatives  3  through  7  include  collection
systems and centralized  treatment.   The decentralized components of Alter-
natives 3 through 6 include  cluster drainfields and on-site systems.

     Because most  sanitary  districts have, in the past, been formed around
the concept of 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 uncommon and
there is  little  comparable management experience on  which  to draw conclu-
sions regarding implementability.

     The  value of  decentralized,  small waste  flows systems began  to be
recognized in  the  1970s  as being important as long-term rather than short-
term alternatives  to centralized  collection and  treatment.  As  a result,
communities preparing facilities  plans after  30  September 1978  were  re-
quired  to provide  an analysis  of  the  use  of innovative  and alternative
wastewater processes  and techniques that could  solve a community's waste-
water needs (PRM 78-9; USEPA  1978a).  Included as alternative processes are
individual and other  on-site  treatment  systems with  subsurface  disposal
units (drain fields).

     The 1977  Clean  Water Act amendments recognized the need for continual
supervision of the  operation and maintenance of decentralized on-site sys-
tems. USEPA Construction Grants Regulations (USEPA 1978a  and 1979b)  which
implement the  Act require  an applicant to meet a number  of preconditions
                                   2-114

-------
before  a  construction grant  for private wastewater  systems may  be made,

The preconditions to be met include:


     •    Certifying  that  a public  body will  be  responsible for the
          proper  installation,  operation,   and  maintenance  of  the
          funded systems;

     •    Establishing a comprehensive  program for the regulation and
          inspection  of  on-site  systems that  will  include periodic
          testing of  existing potable  water  wells and,  where  a sub-
          stantial  number  of  on-site  systems  exists,  more extensive
          monitoring of aquifers;

     •    Obtaining assurance  of unlimited access  to each individual
          system at  all  reasonable  times for inspection, monitoring,
          construction,  maintenance,    rehabilitation,   and  replacement.

PKM 79-8 extends  these requirements to  grants  for  publicly owned systems.
     Regardless of  whether the selected alternative  is  primarily central-

ized or decentralized,  four  aspects of the  implementation  program must be

addressed:


     •    There must  be  legal  authority for  the managing  agency to
          exist and financial authority for it to operate;

     •    The agency  must manage construction,  ownership,  and opera-
          tion of  the facilities;

     •    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 Moose  Lake-Windemere Sanitary District  was  formed  in accordance

with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 116A.   This chapter enables a County Board

or District Court  to create a sewer  district for the purposes of construct-
                                   2-115

-------
ing,  operating,  and maintaining  wastewater  collection and treatment faci-
lities.   Additional powers  include  the power  to  make contracts, to incur
indebtedness,  and ro levy user  charges,  special assessments, and taxation
(Otis and Steward 1976) .

     The  District would  construct,  maintain,  and  operate the centralized
collection  and treatment facilities proposed in Alternatives 3 through 7,
except  those  parts  of Alternatives 4,  6,  and 7 that  propose utilizing the
WWTP operated and maintained by the City of Moose Lake.  These alternatives
require  revisions  of  the agreement  with the  city to  facilitate  the up-
grading of  the lift station and  lagoons  and  provision for distribution of
operation and maintenance costs.

     The  managerial capacity  of  the District  can be  readily  expanded to
provide  for additional centralized collection  systems proposed for Alter-
natives 3-7.  There are several options for septic  tank effluent pumps that
are 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.

     Alternative  5  proposes  a  centralized  peat  bog   treatment  system to
treat  wastewater from  homes  along  a limited  segment of the  Island Lake
shoreline.  This  would  require expansion  of the managerial capacity of the
District  into  the operation  and maintenance of a treatment facility, which
is beyond  its  present scope,  but within its authority and capability.  The
implementability of Alternative 5 faces serious  questions  in the context of
approvals that would be required  from Federal and State of Minnesota grant-
ing and  permiting agencies.    Specifically, the  peat bog  system design has
had no technical feasibility  assessment   made  prior  to  this  level of the
                                   2-116

-------
planning.   As  a result,  the time  that may be  required to  determine the
feasibility of  bog treatment  for  the secondary effluent and  the time re-
quired to  gain  granting  and reviewing agency approval of this alternative,
may eliminate any  present cost advantage by postponing  construction until
the federal funding  level for alternative and innovative treatment systems
falls from the 85% level to 75% of the total cost.

     Capital expenses  associated with a  centralized  project  component 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  different 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 for equipment re-
placement.

Decentralized Systems

     The local agency  presently  responsible for approval and regulation of
on-site systems in the  project area is the office of the Pine County Zoning
Administrator.

     In  general,  regulation  of  on-site  wastewater  treatment  systems has
evolved to the point where most new facilities are designed, permitted, and
inspected  by local  health departments or other  agencies.   After installa-
tion,   the  local  agency   has  no further  responsibility for  these systems
until  malfunctions  become  evident.   In  such cases  the local  agency may
inspect and  issue permits  for 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  quantitative information
concerning  septic  system impacts on  groundwater  and  surface  water quality
has been  coupled  with  a lack  of  knowledge of  the operation  of on-site
systems.   The State  of Minnesota does not presently have legislation which
explicitly authorizes governmental entities to manage wastewater facilities
                                   2-117

-------
that  are not  connected to  conventional  collection system.  However, Min-
nesota  Statutes  Sec. 444.085, Sec. 444.065,  Sec.  444.075 and Chapter 116A
have  been  interpreted as providing cities, villages, counties, and special
purpose  sewer  and water districts, respectively, with sufficient powers to
manage decentralized  facilities  (Otis and  Steward 1976).

      The  purpose of  managing a decentralized  system through the sanitary
district  would  be  to balance  the costs  of  management  with  the  needs of
public  health  and environmental quality.   Management  by the sanitary dis-
trict  for  this  new  purpose implies formation of a new  agency charter and
formulation  of  new  policies.  A  discussion  of community  obligations for
management  of  private  wastewater systems  and  six  community  management
models  can be found  in the  Draft-Generic Rural Lake  Projects  EIS  (USEPA
1981).

      The  cluster systems  proposed in Project Alternatives  3, 4,  5,  and 6
could  be managed by  one of several agencies.  The MLWSD probably is best
equipped at  this point to  assume  responsibility  for these systems.  While
the technologies  involved may be unsual for the District, no components are
involved  that  are especially difficult to manage.   Other possible manage-
ment  agencies  include different authorization for the County Zoning Depart-
ment,  a township board, another  division of county  government,  another,
special  district, or a public utility commission (USEPA 1979).  The  system
itself  should  be simple  to manage.   The residential  pumping units use
electrical  power; thus, power  interruptions  may result in operational or
environmental  problems.   Maintenance and  repair  activities  are  more cri-
tical  for  this  system  than  for gravity  sewers.    Regular  cleaning of the
septic  tanks is  essential  for the system  to  operate properly.  The  opera-
tion  of  the cluster  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 conventional
gravity  sewer  and treatment plant.

      The  management  of  on-site systems  (Alternatives  2-7)  can  be  accom-
plished  in  many  ways (USEPA  1979  and 1979).  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  assurances that the sys-
                                    2-118

-------
terns  be  constructed properly  and  that maintenance  be  performed to ensure
that  environmental  laws are  not  violated.  In other  locations around the
nation many  different  agencies are presently  responsible  for on-site sys-
tems:  health  departments,  sanitary  districts,  homeowners'  associations,
on-site  management  districts,  private companies,  and  county government.
Management responsibilities  range  from a detailed  permit  process  to com-
plete ownership of  all facilities.   There are certain advantages with each
type  of  management  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-sav-
ing  measures and other methods to  minimize  maintenance  costs.   However,
environmental  protection  may  suffer when the homeowner  is  responsible for
maintenance, but appropriate  maintenance  is neglected.  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.   This
funding  requirement would  discourage  future  on-site  systems and  cause
residential  growth   in the  area.   Additionally,  the  USEPA  requires  the
grantee  to  certify  that  public  ownership  is  not  implementable, a demon-
stration that may be difficult to make.

     The agency in  the planning area with the most experience with on-site
systems is the  Pine County  Zoning Department.  However, the Zoning Depart-
ment has no experience in writing and implementing contracts, because their
primary role is issuing permits  and ispecting construction.  The MLWSD has
the  necessary   experience with  contracts  and management of maintenance
activities,  although  it does  not  have management experience with  on-site
systems.    Experience with  on-site  systems  is crucial  for  the personnel
responsible for the  design,  construction, and inspection of these systems.
Thus  it  is  anticipated that the most cost-effective  managerial arrangement
would be  for the Zoning  Administrator to maintain  authority  over  the in-
stallation  and management  of on-site  systems,  and for  the  District  to
perform  the  functions  of contracting,  billing,  administration,  and  main-
tenance.   The  local costs  for the construction  of  new systems and  reha-
                                   2-119

-------
bilitation  of  existing  systems  can be assessed equally to  each  user  by a
variety of  means,  or can be assigned to the respective homeowners.  Opera-
tion  and  maintenance costs also can be handled in the  same way, based on
public or  private  ownership.   The billing system  could  be similar to that
used in the centralized  waste water management system.

2.6.2  The Recommended Project Alternative

     The  recommended action  from both an economic  and  environmental  per-
spective  is  to  implement  Alternative 2 - on-site system  upgrades for the
entire service area.  The  significant beneficial environmental  impact of
Alternative 2 includes elimination of any phosphorus load to the  lakes that
might  now or  in the future  be  due  to  failing  on-site  systems.   Alterna-
tive 2 will  help  prevent  further degradation of  the project  area lakes.

     Alternative 2 has an estimated total present worth cost of $1,012,890.
The MLWSD Facility Plan recommended  alternative was  for conventional  gra-
vity  sewer  installation  around  Island Lake and  Sturgeon Lake,  with treat-
ment at the  Moose Lake  WWTP  upgraded  to  meet the additional demand.   This
is  equivalent  to  Project  Option 7A, presented herein,  which has an  esti-
mated  total  present  worth of  $4.8 million.   Another  alternative  under
discussion by  the  MLWSD is provision of  a  conventional  gravity  collection
system for Island Lake only, with treatment at the Moose Lake WWTP upgraded
to  meet the demand.   This  is  equivalent  to  Project  Option 6A which has an
estimated total  present  worth of $3.2 million.

     Compared  with  alternatives that  include centralized  collection and
treatment,  Alternative  2  is  expected  to have fewer  construction impacts
because extensive  construction  within  road  right-of-ways  is not  required.
Adverse construction impacts  that might  result  in disturbance  and erosion
on  individual  lots  can be  mitigated with  good construction management
practices.   Alternative  2  is  not expected to have  impacts  on  the ground-
water  that are significantly different  than  any  other action alternative.
                                   2-120

-------
      Evaluation of the existing data  on the natural and  man-made  environ-
 ment  in the project area  indicates  that existing water quality impacts due
 to on-site systems are inconsequential  in the context of  other manageable
 and unmanageable nutrient  sources, and that  the recommended action  will not
 significantly  improve  the  quality  of the lakes.

      The  on-site upgrades for Alternative 2 were designed  on  a lot-by-lot
 basis to  correct  the  obvious  and  potential  problems identified  in Section
 2.2.3.   A  summary of  the  total  on-site systems to  be  upgraded  and  the
 components included is  presented  in  Table  2-13.  The appropriate on-site
 upgrades  were  determined  based  on  soil characteristics,  depth  to ground-
 water,  landscape slope,  and lot size.   In addition,  all  septic tanks would
 be fitted  with an  observation  port to  permit inspection.

      For  the entire project  area a total of  58 residences  would have one or
 more  major components upgraded to correct obvious and potential problems,
 and an additional  228 residences spread over 415 existing  lakeshore lots
 would receive  some type of  upgrade  in the  future  (20  year design  period).
 The number and types  of  upgrades are projected subject  to  revision after
 site  inspection during final design.

      The  future management  objectives for residences with on-site systems
 can be met in  a number of ways (Section 2.6.1.3.).   It is anticipated that
 the most   cost-effective managerial  system  would be for  the County  Zoning
 Administrator  to maintain  authority  over the installation  and management of
 the on-site systems  (as   is presently the  case)  and that  the  MLWSD would
 perform the contracting, billing, administration and  maintenance functions.
 If these  on-site system management functions were delegated and accepted by
 the respective  local  units  of government,  Alternative 2  -  on-site  system
 upgrades  for  the entire project area  would  eliminate problems  with on-site
 systems in the most cost  effective  manner,  with a minimum of adverse envi-
'ronmental  and  financial impacts.
                                    2-121

-------
3.0.  AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

     Elements of the natural and man-made environments of the planning area
are described in this chapter.  The contents of this chapter are based upon
a  compendium  of new  information gathered  during  the preparation  of this
Phase  II  Report (the  EIS)  and updated and  corrected  information from the
Existing  Conditions chapter  of  the  Phase  I Environmental  Report  (USEPA
1981).  Corrections and  supplements  to portions of the Phase I Report were
made by  USEPA based  on  public  comments  on  that  document  made  at the 24
April 1981 public meeting and based on comments received from the MPCA, the
MLWSD, and the CAC.

3.1.  Natural Environment

3.1.1.  Atmosphere

     The significant elements of the atmospheric environment are:  climate,
air quality, and noise.  A summary of the characteristics of these elements
follows.

3.1.1.1.  Climate

     Minnesota has a continental climate.  Seasonal average temperatures at
Moose Lake range  from the high 60s (degrees fahrenheit [°F]) in the  summer
to  below freezing  in the  winter,  with  an annual average  temperature of
approximately 40  °F.   Precipitation averages  28.16 inches  annually and is
heaviest  from April  through  September  (National Oceanic  and Atmospheric
Administration  [NOAA]  1979a).  Recorded wind  data from Duluth, Minnesota,
located approximately  35  miles northeast of  the  study area,  indicate that
winds  predominantly  blow out  of the west-northwest,  except  in May, June,
and August, when they originate from the east  (NOAA 1979b).

     Field investigations were conducted in the project area in 1981 during
the  periods  of  24-27 August;  7-15  September;  28-30 September;  and  1-5
October.  During these  sampling  periods,  prevailing  wind  directions were
                                   3-1

-------
easterly;  westerly changing  to  southerly and  then back to northwesterly;
easterly; and widely variable, respectively.

     Peak  daily  air  temperatures  recorded  at  the  Duluth International
Airport  over  the  periods  of field  sampling  are presented  in Appendix J.
The strong  5-day warming trend  indicated  by  increased peak daily tempera-
tures between  9 September and 13  September  preceeded the blue-green algae
bloom  observed  in Island  Lake  on  14 September 1981 (Section 3.1.3.2.).

3.1.1.2.  Air Quality

     Moose  Lake is  located  in  the  Duluth-Superior Interstate Air Quality
Control  Region   (AQCR)  #129.   Air quality parameters for both Carlton and
Pine counties are  below the National Ambient Air Quality  Standards (NAAQS).
Concentrations  of  total suspended  particulates  (TSP),  sulfur dioxide  (SO ) ,
and ozone  (0_)  in Carlton County are better than  the NAAQS.   Carbon mon-
oxide  (CO)  levels  cannot  be classified,  but  are  thought  to  be below the
NAAQS.   In  Pine County, TSP, SO , 0 , and CO concentrations are all  better
than the NAAQS.  The entire  State of Minnesota either cannot be classified
or is better than  the national standard for nitrogen  dioxide (By telephone,
Mr. Jay Bortzer, USEPA  to WAPORA,  Inc., 16 January  1981).

     There  are  no  significant  odor problems in  the  area.   One minor odor
problem  is  associated with the  stabilization pond  at  the Moose Lake  waste-
water treatment plant  (WWTP).   The  spring thaw and normal break-up  of the
pond produces a short-term odor problem  (By telephone, Mr. Pat Mader, MPCA
to  WAPORA, Inc.,   23  March  1981).   Another odor  problem  is  reported by
homeowners  with property  adjacent  to  Island  Lake   associated  with algal
bloom accumulations along the shoreline  (Section 3.1.4.1.).  This problem,
which  results   from wind blowing  floating blue-green algae  shoreward,  is
reported to occur  in Island Lake periodically throughout  the summer months,
but  primarily   in  August  and September  (Personal  communication,  Citizens
Advisory Committee to WAPORA, Inc. October 1981).
                                    3-2

-------
3.1.1.3.  Noise

     The  only  major  source of  noise  in the  planning  area is  the heavy
trucks utilizing Interstate  35,  the major link between Duluth and the Twin
Cities. There  are  no  other significant noise  sources  located in this pre-
dominantly rural area (By telephone, Mr. Al Perez, MPCA to WAPORA, Inc., 20
February 1981).

3.1.2.  Land

3.1.2.1.  Geology

     The  Phase I  Environmental Report  (USEPA  1981)  provided detailed dis-
cussions of topography,  surficial  glacial geology, and bedrock geology for
the  project area.   An  important   geological  consideration  to  wastewater
management  is  that  depth  to  bedrock  in the  project  area  is  usually in
excess of 50 feet.  This means that septic leachate will not  generally have
access  to  fractured bedrock or  to solution channels  in  bedrock and thus,
the potential  for well contamination is reduced.

3.1.2.2.  Soils

     The  Phase I  Environmental  Report (USEPA  1981)  also provided discus-
sions  of  general  soil  associations  and  soil suitability  for  wastewater
treatment in  the  project  area.   However, a  detailed soil  survey was not
available for  Pine County and the generalized data presented  in the Phase I
Report were  insufficient for the purposes of  evaluating  wastewater treat-
ment  systems  in terms  of the soil characteristics of  individual lots in
Windemere Township.  Therefore, a  detailed soil  survey  of  the  portion of
Windemere Township  (Pine County)  immediately surrounding Island, Sturgeon,
Rush,  and  Passenger Lakes  was conducted.  The results of  this  survey are
summarized and evaluated in Section 2.2.1.1.  of this report.  A copy of the
original soil  survey  report and  soil  unit map is presented  in Appendix B.
                                   3-3

-------
3.1.3.  Water Resources

     The Phase  I Environmental Report  (USEPA  1981)  provided a synopsis of
baseline  information  on  the  water resources  of  the  planning  area.   The
topics  covered  included hydrology, water  uses,  water quality and effluent
discharge standards,  and  published water  quality data  on the surface water
of  Pine and  Carlton  Counties.    Groundwater  quality  and  uses  were  also
covered.

     This EIS  focuses  on  a more  limited  geographic setting, covering new
information gathered  on the Windemere  Township  lakes and streams.  Aspects
of  the  new  information utilized for assessing  the need for  improved waste-
water treatment are presented  in the following  sections.

3.1.3.1.  Surface Water Resources

     The residents of  Windemere Township regard  the  project  area  lakes as a
most valuable recreational resource.  The  special attractions of  Island and
Sturgeon Lakes,  in particular, are attested to  by the  concentration of the
Township's  recent  residential  growth along   their   shorelines  (Section
3.2.1.).

     The Windemere  Township lakes encompassed  by the proposed project area
(Figure 2-4) are:

     •    Island Lake,  582 acres;  mean  depth, 11 feet
     •    Sturgeon Lake, 1,456 acres; mean depth, 22.5  feet
     •    Rush Lake, 88 acres; mean depth, 5.6  feet
     •    Passenger Lake, 75 acres; mean depth,  7.1  feet.

Also  in the Township, but outside  the project area,  are  Sand Lake,  Lake
Eleven,  Lake  Twelve,  Dago  Lake,  and Big  Slough Lake.   Sand Lake, already
sewered  by  the MLWSD,  is  575  acres in size with an average depth of 13.9
feet.   The  other  four outlying  lakes  are small (less  than 100 acres) and
less  accessible  to Interstate Highway  35  than  are Sand Lake or  the project
area  lakes.   Of  the four service  area  lakes,  only  Passenger Lake does not

                                    3-4

-------
have a public access available for boat launching.  The launch site on Rush
Lake, while not  strictly  private,  is not immediately accessible via County
highway,  and  appears  to  be  used principally  by nearby  property owners.

Surface Water Movement
     Two small,  continuously  flowing lake outlet streams  are  found in the
project area  portion of  Windemere  Township.  One is  the  outlet of Island
Lake, which drains to the Moose River via Sand and Coffee Lakes.  The other
is  the  outlet of  Passenger Lake which  drains to the  Moose  River  via the
Willow River.  Rush  and Sturgeon Lakes are "seepage lakes" with no defined
inflow streams and no continuously  flowing  surface  outlets.   Island Lake,
according  to  the  USGS  topographic  sheet  (1979),  has  two  unnamed, inter-
mittent tributary  streams entering  on the north shore and two additional
unnamed,  discontinuous  inlets  entering  its  northwest  basin  via Little
Island Lake.   Information on  surface  water discharge  from the  lakes via
groundwater flow is presented in Section 2.2.1.5.

Water Levels

     Water level  fluctuations  in Island Lake have been an important local
issue (Personal communication, Mr. Harold Westholm,  MLWSD to WAPORA, Inc.).
A  few  developed  lots  on Island  Lake  are reported  to experience  standing
water due  to  excessive  lake  levels  for  up to one month each year.  These
problems are  related to  seasonal events  such  as spring  runoff or summer
storms  which  can  result  in 0.5- to 1.0-foot water  level increases  in a
short period  of  time (MDNR records, unpublished).  These flooding  problems
probably are aggravated by a long-term trend in increasing water levels due
to climatic changes affecting all of the lakes in the project area.  All of
the  lakes  in  the  region reached their contemporary  low levels during the
draught years of  the  1930s,  prior  to any  extensive lakeshore residential
development.  Since  that time,  lake levels have increased.   According to
MDNR records  (unpublished),  the annual maximum water  level in Island Lake
has  increased approximately 2.6  feet  since 1941,  and  the  annual  maximum
level In  Sturgeon Lake  has increased approximately  0.7  feet  since 1945.
The  difference  between  these  rates of  increase  may  be  attributable,  in
                                   3-5

-------
part, to  differences in the soils  of  the watersheds of these lakes and in
watershed  size.  The  Island Lake  watershed  is more  than two and  a half
times greater in size  than the Sturgeon Lake  watershed and also has less
permeable  soils,  thus  contributing to increased runoff under conditions of
increased  precipitation.  In addition,  a number of  other  factors may have
combined  to  accelerate  the increases in the annual maximum water levels in
Island  Lake.  Recent siltation of the outlet  of  Island Lake may have de-
creased  it's stormwater outflow capacity.   A  general siltation of clayey
soil  materials  in  the  lake due to recent shoreline  development may also
have  reduced the lake's  overall groundwater  outflow  capacity.   Also, the
groundwater  table  level in the  area has  increased since the  1930's and may
be contributing  to  higher lake  levels (Personal communication, David Ford,
MDNR  hydrologist to WAPORA,  Inc., 2  February 1982).   Increases  in the
acreage  of impervious surfaces, including  roof tops,  roads, parking lots,
and  hard packed  soils  in the  Island  Lake watershed,  coupled with modern
agricultural  drainage  practices in the area,  also may have contributed to
increased  watershed runoff intensity during wet-weather periods.  A permit
to place an  additional culvert at the Island  Lake  outlet  in order to in-
crease  the  stream   outflow  capacity has  been applied for  (Personal com-
munication,  Mr. Harold Westholm, MLWSD to WAPORA, Inc.).  It  is anticipated
that  an  increase   in  lake outflow capacity  will  reduce  the  duration of
flooding  problems.

3.1.3.2.   Water Quality of the  Project Area Lakes

     Representatives of  the  MLWSD have seen the water quality problems of
Island  Lake  as  a primary  impetus  for  facility planning in Windemere Town-
ship. The plan  to  provide sewage  collection  and treatment  around Island
Lake  as a means of  improving water quality and providing a convenience for
residential  users  has  been discussed  frequently  at  public  meetings, re-
ported  on in local  newspapers,  and cited in formal  communications  (Section
1.1.).  Although the MLWSD Facility Plan also  proposes the sewering of most
of the  Sturgeon Lake shoreline, reference  is  not made to the water quality
improvements  that  could result  from sewering  Sturgeon Lake.  Sturgeon Lake
is not  cited in the Facility  Plan as having  severe  algal blooms or poor
water clarity.  Rush and Passenger  Lakes, likewise,  have not  been described
                                    3-6

-------
as  degraded.   The  proximity of  Island  Lake  to  the existing  sewage col-
lection network and  the  local perception that  failing  on-site  systems are
largely responsible for it's blue-green algae blooms and poor water clarity
reinforce the emphasis on serving Island Lake with sewers.

     One objective of this EIS is to provide an up-to-date and quantitative
framework in  which to portray  the  water quality of  all  four service area
lakes.  Future residential growth has been projected on platted lots around
all  four  lakes  (Section 3.2.1.) and  thus, protection of the  quality of
Sturgeon, Rush, and  Passenger Lakes is as important to consider as improv-
ing the quality of Island Lake.

     Water quality  parameters measured in the  lake  waters during 1981 and
1982 field studies included:

     •    Dissolved  oxygen  concentrations and  temperature with depth
          to describe lake stratification.
     •    Chlorophyll ji concentration as an indication  of  overall phy-
          toplankton productivity.
     •    Secchi  disk depth  and phytoplankton biovolume  as measures
          of water clarity and blue-green algae abundance.
     •    Phosphorus concentration as an indication of  lake
          fertility.

Sampling Stations and Schedule

     The  sampling stations  visited  and the sampling program and schedule
carried  out  in  the  late  summer and  fall of  1981  also  are described in
Appendix  J.   Supplemental  sampling  took place in  February 1982 which in-
cluded  the collection of lake water phosphorus samples and surficial lake-
bed  sediment  samples.   The  complete field survey  program and schedule is
summarized in  Appendix  J.   Little Island Lake, a sub-basin of Island Lake,
was included in the February  1982 sampling for comparative purposes because
the land use in its watershed does not include shoreline residential devel-
opment.
                                   3-7

-------
Field Conditions During  Sampling

     The  sampling  dates included both warm and cold weather conditions.  A
blue-green algae bloom,  which produced floating accumulations of algae over
the  surface  of  Island Lake and  algal "mats" on  its  downwind shores, was
observed  during the mid-September  sampling  period.   Weather antecedant to
the  mid-September  sampling  was  unseasonably warm  and sunny (Appendix J),
which resulted in elevated  lake temperatures.  Weather during subsequent
sampling  was  in transition  to cooler  fall weather.   Significant heat loss
from the  lakes and complete water  column mixing had taken place by the 30
September 1981  sampling.

Results of the  Surface Water Sampling

     Historic  dissolved oxygen and  temperature  profile data were obtained
from the MDNR to supplement  the 1981/1982 data.  Summary tables and figures
for contemporary and historic data are discussed below.

     Of the  four lakes sampled,   Island Lake  had the highest average chlo-
rophyll a. concentrations on both 9  and 15 September,  (Table 3-1.)  (Island
Lake chlorophyll a_ was lowest in the samples taken just above the sediment
surface and  significantly  higher at the mid-depth  and surface levels [Ap-
pendix  B].)    Average  chlorophyll «i concentrations  in  Sturgeon  Lake were
roughly one-third  of  the  average Island Lake  concentration on  both Sep-
tember sampling dates.   Rush Lake's  average chlorophyll a^ concentration was
comparable to  Sturgeon Lake's concentration, while chlorophyll a_ levels in
Passenger Lake  were  higher due to a bloom of non-blue-green phytoplankton.

     Phytoplankton biovolume calculations  were made based on plankton cell
size measuresment  and  counts for water samples  taken  from all three depth
levels.   These data describe the overall productivity and give insight into
phytoplankton ecology  in late summer.   The methodology  and  results  of the
phytoplankton  analyses were  explained  in the Report on Algae (Appendix B).
In  order  to  quantify  trophic  status and  relate  phytoplankton  growth  to
water clarity,  graphical  presentations  of  average  Secchi disk  depth and
average phytoplankton  biovolume  in  the surface  samples were made (Figures
                                   3-8

-------
Table 3-1.     Average  chlorophyll a_ concentrations for Island, Sturgeon,
               Rush and Passenger Lakes.  Mathematical averages of analy-
               tical results from surface, mid-depth, and off-bottom samples
               at 6, 4, 1, and 1, stations respectively.
Lake           No of Stations      10 September 1981    15 September 1981
Island
Sturgeon
Rush
Passenger
6
4
1
1
27 ug/liter
09 ug/liter
11 ug/liter
15 ug/liter
26 ug/liter
09 ug/liter
11 ug/liter
23 ug/liter
3-1 and  3-2).   In  these  figures biovolume  was plotted  inversely,  on the
y-axis,  to more  conveniently  show  the  cause-and-effeet  relationship  of
plankton abundance  (as  biovolume)  to water clarity (as Secchi disk depth).
Comparison of these  two parameters  indicates a continuing direct relation-
ship over  the sampling  period between plankton abundance and water clarity
for Island, Sturgeon, and  Rush Lakes.   The anomalously  poor  water clarity
of  Passenger  Lake,  with respect  to the  relatively  low  phytoplankton bio-
volume observed,  is attributable to non-living organic  matter  present  in
the surface  waters, probably  originating from  the  marshlands surrounding
the lake.

     Although chlorophyll a_ data were not taken on all 1981 sampling dates,
the general levels of chlorophyll and all other parameters interrelate in a
logical fashion for  one simultaneous sampling of  the lakes (excepting the
anomalous Passenger Lake).   The relationship of water clarity and biovolume
of  phytoplankton  (especially  of  blue-green algae)  with chlorophyll  a_  is
illustrated by  the  data from the sampling  period of 14 and  15 September
1981 (Table 3-2).   On  these dates,  a severe blue-green  algae bloom was in
progress in Island  Lake.   Blue-green algae also were found to dominate the
phtoplankton populations in Sturgeon and Rush Lakes on these dates, but not
to  "bloom"  proportions.  Passenger  Lake  had only a small portion  of its
phytoplankton population made up of blue-green algae  (Table 3-2).
                                   3-9

-------
OJ
I
   3.80

   3.70

   3.60

   3.50

   3.40

   3.30

   3.20

   3.10

8  3.00
flj
M-t
£  2.90

01  2.80

JS
u  2.70


2  2-60
U-l

2  2<5°
2  2.40

e  2.30

•S  2.20


f  2.1°

-------
o
i4
03
 30 —



 40


 50


 60

 70

 80


100





150



200  .





300



400
o  500

£  600
   800


  1000




  1500



  2000

           "T	
            26 August
                     T	
                      1 September
T
T
9 September   15 September
"T—I	
 30   1 Oct.
 Sept.
                                                   5 Oct.
Figure 3-2.  Average  phytoplankton biovolume values with  time.  Data are  from 1981 field  surveys

              of  Island,  Sturgeon, Rush,  and Passenger  Lakes,  Pine County,  MM.   Plotted values

              are numerical averages  of surface samples only and are plotted inversely to  correl-
              ate with Secchi disk values.

-------
Table 3-2.  Average Secchi disk, surface chlorophyll £, and surface bio-
            volume values on Island, Sturgeon, and Rush Lakes 14-15 Sep-
            tember 1981.
Parameter
Secchi disk
depth in meters
Phytoplankton bio
volume at the surface,
in urn /I water
Chlorophyll a at the
surface in ugl/1

Island
1.29
(lowest)
1851
(highest)
25
(highest)
Lake
Sturgeon
2.58
(intermediate)
163
(intermediate)
9
(intermediate)

Rush
3.63
(highest)
71
(lowest)
5
(lowest)
 All three lakes cited had blue-green algae comprising  in excess of 70%
 of the biovolume estimated in the surface samples; Passenger Lake,
 not represented in the table, had less than 25% of the phytoplankton
 counted as blue-green in the surface samples.
     Based on  the data presented in Table 3-2, it was concluded that blue-
green dominance  at the lake surface had an effect on water clarity propor-
tional  to both total  phytoplankton biovolume  and chlorophyll a^ concentra-
tion of  the  surface in Island,  Sturgeon,  and  Rush Lakes.  Island Lake had
the lowest water clarity and the most  severe  blue-green algae bloom prob-
lems.  Sturgeon and Rush Lakes had less blue-green algae at the surface and
much better water  clarity (Table 3-2).  The relatively low clarity found on
                                                                    3
15  September  in  Passenger  Lake (1.80  meters,  Secchi disk;  112 urn /liter
biovolume at  the surface;  5 ug/1 chlorophyll a_ at the surface) was not due
to  blue-green algae  abundance.  The dominant  species  found  in Passenger
Lake were golden brown and green algae  (Appendix  H).

     Stratification  and  destratification  of  the  lakes  are  of  interest
because  the  stability of  the  water column may affect  the  amount of phos-
phorus which  may be mobilized  from lake  sediments  and low-lying waters to
induce blue-green algal  bloom problems.   Thermal and chemical  lake strati-
                                    3-12

-------
fications are  quantified,  respectively,  by  gradations  in  temperature and
dissolved oxygen concentration  with  depth in the  lake.   A  temperature and
oxygen concentration plot  can  be used to locate the depth range over which
the gradations  are greatest.   In  instances where  the  epilimnion (surface
layer)  of  a  lake   is  considerably  warmer  and more  oxygen rich  than the
underlying hypolimnion, the zone of most rapid gradation is termed "thermo-
cline"  for  temperature and  "chemocline"  for oxygen  gradation.   The depth
ranges  for  these zones of  rapid gradation  in the project  area lakes are
well defined in some of the profiles presented in Appendix J.

     Just as the productivity and clarity of each of the project area lakes
are unique  (Table  3-2), the dissolved oxygen/temperature  profile charac-
teristics are highly individual (Appendix J).  The forces which most strong-
ly  shape the  summer  dissolved  oxygen and  temperature profiles  are lake
shape and volume,  rate of  solar energy influx, and the degree of wind mix-
ing  (circulation).   Ragotzkie  (1978) has  developed  an  empirical formula
which expresses  the  effect  of  wind mixing on  thermocline depth as a func-
tion  of  lake "wind  fetch"  (the distance  over the lake  on  which the wind
blows in an uninterrupted path).  This predictive equation states that:  in
temperate climates, the average depth of the summer thermocline  (in meters)
is  estimated  by four  times  the square  root of  the  wind fetch (in kilo-
meters)  for  lakes with  a  fetch between  1  and  20 kilometers.  Using this
formula  for  the project area  lakes, where  applicable,  the  average summer
thermocline depths were estimated.   These estimates were compared with the
observed thermocline depth ranges  (Table  3-3).   Observed thermocline depth
ranges were estimated based on the profiles in Appendix J.  The thermocline
depth  prediction for  Island Lake's  greatest fetch  is generally  in good
agreement with  the  observed  thermocline ranges and especially good for the
14  September  1981  sampling  date  when the  gradations  of  temperature and
oxygen were strong.  The estimated  thermocline depth for Sturgeon Lake (25
feet maximum) does not  compare well with the profiles.

     The  reason that  no  thermocline  has been  observed in  Sturgeon Lake
profiles (Appendix J)  may  stem from the fact  that  little protective topo-
graphic  relief  exists  on  the south and west shores, increasing the potent-
ial for  wind mixing, and from  the  strong role of  groundwater  in the flow
                                   3-13

-------
Table 3-3.  A comparison of predicted and observed depth of the thermo-
            clines in Island and Sturgeon Lakes, Pine County MN.   Pre-
            dicted depth of thermocline based on the equation of Ragotz-
            kie  (1978).

          Greatest   Predicted   Least      Predicted     Observed
           Fetch    Thermocline  Fetch     Thermocline  Thermoclines
Lake
Island
          1.50 mi.
20 ft.    0.30 mi
Sturgeon  2.28 mi.
                        25 ft.   1.00 mi.
NA       (Aug.  1967) 20'-25'
         (Aug.  1979) 15'-20'
         vAug.  1979) 15'-20'
         (Sept. 1981) 19'-20'

17 ft.    No  thermocline  ob-
         served.  Complete
         mixing  is  assumed.
NA:   Calculation not  appropriate  for  fetch  less  than 1  Km (0.62 miles).



regime  of  the  lake.   Sturgeon  Lake is  principally a  "seepage  lake" and

significant groundwater  influx may be occurring in spring  and early summer

which could prevent  the  formation of a strong  thermocline.  The tendency of

Sturgeon  Lake  to remain homeothermal is  illustrated by the profiles made

from  the  4  August 1955  sampling of Sturgeon Lake (MDNR, unpublished) when

the warmest surface water  temperatures ever  recorded  did  not  result in a

thermal stratification  (Appendix J.).


     Based on the information presented above, the potential  for phosphorus

cycling from the hypolimnions of the project area lakes may be evaluated as
follows:


     •    Island  Lake  is classed  as  "polymictic",  meaning  that it
          mixes more than twice each year.   It  has  an elongate shape
          and,  depending on prevailing  wind  direction,  the depth of
          the summer thermocline may be less than that associated with
          the  greatest   fetch.   Thus,  periodic thermal  stratification
          and/or  development  of an anoxic hypolimnion  is  followed by
          partial  mixing  of  the  understrata  with surface waters.
          This  reasoning is  supported by the  progressive phases of
          Island  Lake's stratification and destratification observed
          to  be  associated  with  weather  changes  in  September  1981
          (Appendix  J).
                                   3-14

-------
     •    Sturgeon  Lake  appears  to  remain  thermally  unstratified
          throughout  most  of  the  summer   (Appendix  J.).   Although
          observations are  limited to five warm  season  profiles,  the
          existing  data  indicate  that  Sturgeon  Lake  is  also  "poly-
          mictic" and  that  oxygen is generally greater  than  1.0 mg/1
          throughout the water column.
     •    Rush  and  Passenger  Lakes are  probably  both  "dimictic",
          meaning that circulation is complete only in spring and fall
          when water  temperatures are  low.   Oxygen was  deficient in
          the hypolimnions of both lakes during September 1981.

     For  each lake,  important  phosphorus  cycling  inferences may  be made
from  the  lake  mixing classifications  (above) and  from  chemical  strati-
fication profiles.  Phosphorus availability  to phytoplankton of the project
area  lakes  is influenced by many physiochemical  factors, but  can  be gen-
erally  represented  as follows.   This bioavailability  of  sedimentary phos-
phorus is advanced  by  conditions which result from very low levels of dis-
solved oxygen and  retarded  under the chemical environment provided by more
oxic  conditions.   A  periodic re-circulation  of  low  lying  (hypolimnetic)
waters that have  become  anoxic  may cycle biologically available phosphorus
to  the  productive upper  water  layers and  thus can  aggravate the symptoms
of eutrophication.

     Based  on the analysis  made in  this  EIS, the  blue-green  algae bloom
problems observed  in Island  Lake  each summer  appear  to  be  aggravated by
phosphorus  being  periodically cycled to the  epilimnion  from  the sediments
and hypolimnetic waters.

     Sturgeon Lake's hypolimnion appears to be a phosphorus "sink" through-
out most of the summer.   Only on one occasion out  of five warm season field
surveys was low dissolved oxygen found in Sturgeon Lake (4 August 1955) and
on  that  sampling  date very  low oxygen was  found  only  below 35  feet of
depth.   It  can  be concluded  that  the waters of  Sturgeon  Lake  probably
remain generally well  oxygenated throughout  most  summers  if  it is assumed
that, as observed,  water  circulation usually extends  to  the  35-foot depth
level.

     Although the water  quality  data base  for  Rush  and  Passenger Lakes is
limited,  the existing  information  suggests  that  their  hypolimnions  are
                                   3-15

-------
generally  summer  phosphorus sinks  which  preclude  phosphorus  cycling to
surface (epilimnetic) waters.

Supplemental Total Phosphorus Sampling and  Sedimentary Studies

     An additional sampling visit  was made  to Island and  Sturgeon Lakes
during  the period of  3-5 February  1982  to  determine  the levels of total
phosphorus  (P  )  in the water column and to measure the chemical character-
istics  of  surficial  lake-bed sediments.   The objective  of  gathering the
supplemental data was  to  improve the  analysis of needs  documentation by
determining if there were high levels of phosphorus enrichment attributable
to on-site system  failures.

     Island and Sturgeon Lakes and Little Island Lake were studied.  Little
Island Lake has a  large watershed area relative to its surface area and the
surface water outflow from  it  is via  road  bed  culvert  which discharges
directly  to Island Lake.   There is  only  one  dwelling unit  in the Little
Island Lake watershed  and no shoreline development (Figure 3-3).  No blue-
green  algal bloom problems  have been documented in Little  Island Lake.

     It was thought  that if, as  presented  by the MLWSD (Section 2.3.1.2.),
a disproportionately large number of septic system surface failures existed
on  the shoreline lots  of  Island Lake,  a  conservative parameter  such as
phosphorus  may reflect  this  in the  water  column  or in near-shore  lake
sediments.  Little Island Lake was studied  for  comparative purposes because
it should  be  influenced only by  non-wastewater phosphorus inputs from its
watershed.   The  sampling  stations visited  for water column  and sediment
grab  sampling  in  these  supplemental studies are  presented  in Figure  3-3.
The 15- and 25-foot depth contours are  included in Figure  3-3 to illustrate
that the  majority of the surficial sediment  grab  samples  taken were above
or slightly below the  15-foot depth contour.

     Over  the  long term, the processes of  sediment delivery, settling, and
resuspension  are  expected  to  "focus"  light  organic  materials  and  clay
particles  into the deeper  (profundal) zones of  these  lakes,  resulting in
                                    3-16

-------
                                                   Surficial sediment
                                                   grab sample
                                                 * Intact 60 centimeter
                                                   sediment core
Figure 3-3.  Stations established for sampling of water  column total
             phosphorus, surficial sediment characteristics,  and intact
             sedimenticores.  All samples  taken  in  February and March
             of 1982.
                              3-17

-------
continued  sediment  deposition in areas of more  than 25-foot depth.   These
processes  scour  unvegetated littoral sediments so that surficially deposi-
ted silt  within the 10-  to  20-foot  depth contours would be expected to be
most  strongly reflective of  any ongoing pollution  from  nearby land uses.
Little Island Lake  is largely a  littoral environment where sediment "focus-
ing"  into  the profundal  zone is not  as  significant.  Sturgeon Lake has an
extensive  profundal zone and Island Lake is intermediate in the proportion
of the bottom area defined as profundal.   Sediment  focusing processes are
more  significant in Island and Sturgeon Lakes.

      The  water  column  samples,  also  taken on 3 and 5  February 1982,  were
tested  for  P   concentrations only.   The P   water  samples were  taken at
stations  2 and  9 in Island Lake, stations 12 and 13 in Little Island Lake,
and stations 14 and 18 in  Sturgeon  Lake  (Figure 3-3).   Only a large scale
failure rate of on-site wastewater treatment systems around Island Lake or
Sturgeon  Lake would be reflected in  these  water  column P  concentrations
because dispersion  rates of  nearshore waters would probably  be  low under
ice cover  conditions.   At the time of  sampling, more than 56 inches of snow
cover was  reported  to  be on the ground, ice cover on the lakes exceeded 24
inches, and  water clarity in all three lakes appeared to be high.   Complete
oxygen depletion was not  observed in the lakes (Table 3-5).  In both Island
and Sturgeon Lakes, water was sampled both below the ice and just above the
bottom.   The resultant  water column P  values are  presented in Table 3-4.
The laboratory detection  limit for the reported P  values is 0.01 mg/liter.

      A special phosphorus form, non-apatitic or inorganic phosphorus, which
is "biologically available" was  tested in the sediment samples by the method
of Williams  and others  (1976).   This phosphorus form was tested because it
best  reflects  the  presence of phosphorus which originates from human waste
and  fertilizer  sources.   The non-apatitic  phosphorus  testing method was
identical  to the method  utilized in  the intact sediment  core analyses as
described  in Section 2.1.3.4.  (a study  of  the trophic  history  of  Island
and Sturgeon Lakes).
                                   3-18

-------
Table 3-4.  Total phosphorus concentrations in the waters of Island, Lit-
            tle Island, and Sturgeon Lakes, 3-5 February 1982  (USEPA
            Method 365.3).
Lake
Island
Island
Island
Island
Little Island
Little Island
Sturgeon
Sturgeon
Sturgeon
Sturgeon
Station
Number
09;
09;
02;
02;
12;
13;
14;
14;
18;
18;
surface
bottom
surface
bottom
surface
bottom
surface
bottom
surface
bottom
P^ (mg/ liter)
0.01
0.07
0.053
0.03a
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.01
" 0.03
0.01
Water Column Average
P^ (mg/ liter)
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
a
 Value is an average of two replicates.
Conclusions Based on the Supplemental Studies
     No significant differences appear to exist in the average water column
P  values  between the three  lakes.   Little Island Lake,  which  has no on-
site  systems  located  on  its  shoreline, had  an average  P  concentration
similar to  Island  Lake  (Table 3-4).  Plankton  growth  under the ice is not
likely to have  made  a large contribution to the reported P  concentrations
owing  to  the  reduced  light  penetration  caused by the  heavy  snow and ice
cover.  The positive difference in average water column  [P  ] between Island
Lake and Sturgeon Lake (0.02 mg/1) probably can be attributed to additional
abiotic phosphorus sources of  phosphorus and to a  slightly higher produc-
tivity  in   Island  Lake.  Nonetheless,  this differential in the  amount of
phosphorus  is  small  considering  that Island Lake has a smaller volume of
water  and   far  more   permanent  residences  around  its shoreline  than does
Sturgeon Lake (Section 2.2.1.3).
                                   3-19

-------
     Results  of  the  analyses  of sediment  samples  are presented  in Table
3-5.  The number of lake sediment samples tested are insufficient for esti-
mation  of  lake-wide  sediment  characteristic averages,  primarily because
there are two few  profundal zone samples.   The  limited  observations made
based on  the sediment sampling data are:

     •    Wide  textural variations were  found in  the samples within
          each  lake,  but  the  shallow samples,  taken where sediment
          scouring  was  probably greatest,  were  classified into cate-
          gories  similar  to  soil  textural  classifications  on  the
          adjacent  shoreline   (Section  2.2.1.1.).    Sample  #7  from
          Island Lake was  classified as sandy loam -  near clay loam,
          reflecting  the adjacent natural  sandy  soils on the upland
          area  of   the  northwest shore of  Island Lake  (Appendix  B).
     •    The  concentration  of non-apatitic phosphorus   measured  in
          The Little Island Lake sediment sample, station #13 (11 feet
          deep), exceeded  that of all  other stations.  This reflects
          the potential significance of non-wastewater nutrient sources
          LO Little Island Lake and to Island Lake.
     •    The second  highest  concentration of non-apatitic phosphorus
          was  found  in  Sturgeon  Lake,  station #15  (10  feet  deep)
          located offshore  from a  steep,  terraced slope previously in
          use as a pasture for dairy cattle.

3.1.3.3.  Nutrient Inputs and Lake Trophic  Status

     The  major  water quality  concern for  the four service  area  lakes .is
eutrophication.  The luxuriant plant growth associated with advanced eutro-
phication is generally caused by an excessive input of nutrients to a lake.
The  importance of  phosphorus  as  the  primary nutrient  stimulating plant
growth  in lakes  is  widely accepted in  the  scientific  community (Smith and
Shapiro  1981a,  Vollenweider  1979,  and Dillon and  Rigler  1975).   By con-
trolling  phosphorus  inputs,  excessive algal growth can be halted or slowed
it the morphometry and  flushing rate of a lake are favorable.  Although the
degree  to which algal  growth will  respond to phosphorus  inputs  has been
controversial  (Lorenzen 1981,  Rast and Lee 1981, Smith and Shapiro 1981b),
work published by Vollenweider  (1979), Schindler (1977), and others suggest
that  the appropriate phosphorus load  reductions will  definitely result in
less  eutrophic conditions  in  certain types  of  lakes.   The  pathways  and
magnitudes  of phosphorus inputs  into the  project  area  lakes  and the po-
                                   3-20

-------
Table  3-5.   Analyses of surficlal  lake  sediment  grab samples.   All sampling  done  3 through 5  February  1982.
Sample
No.
1.
2.
4.
5.
a "
8.
9.
11.
12.
13.
bU'
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
mg/1
Dissolved
Oxygen
at Bottom
5.8 mg/1
6.0
6.8
4.8
4.0
10.2
.1.8
5.6
2.8
0.9
12.8
-
1.6
3.0
9.0
5.6

Depth
24 ft
24 ft
20 ft
16 ft
10 ft
6 ft
28 ft
7 ft
3 ft
11 ft
14 ft
10 ft
5 ft
15 ft
14 ft
28 ft

Lake
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Little Island
Little Island
Sturgeon
Sturgeon
Sturgeon
Sturgeon
Sturgeon
Sturgeon

£H
5.7
6.0
5.8
5.7
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
6.0
6.1
5.9
Mg. NAI-Pfkg
(dry wt)
44.1
54.9
18.8
13.6
18.2
45.4
14.8
21.1
76.4
230.0
55.1
103.0
32.5
22.3
25.5
65.4
Volatile Solids
(Z Organics)
19.0
19.2
22.2
20.0
34.7
35.7
23.9
11.8
38.1
32.8
17.7
25.4
26.0
10.0
11.1
24.9
Z Clay
24.0
38.8
15.0
22.1
8.0
28.9
ND
5.8
ND
ND
14.5
40.5
18.0
7.4
5.8
23.9
Z Silt
51.0
60.8
45.0
31.0
43.9
32.3
ND
55.0
ND
ND
68.7
48.1
35.5
20.4
2.4
76.1
Z Sand
25.0
I
40.0
46.9
48.1.
38.8
ND
39.2
ND
ND
16.8
It. 4
46.5
72.7
91.8
I
Textural ,
Classification
Silt loam-near clay loam
Sllty clay loam
Loam
Loam
Sandy loam-near loam
Clay loam-near loam

Silt loam


Silt loam
Silty clay
Loam
Sandy loam
Sand
Silt loam
1 Non-apatite phosphorus on a dry weight basis.

2 Volatile solids  calculated by  subtracting percent ash  (dry weight basis) from 100; the result is intended to portray the
  organic fraction.

3 Classifications  based on textural triangle  (USDA 1962)

  Station just offshore from domestic goose farm.

  Station Just offshore from dairy farm/ manure pile.

ND - No data due to insufficient sample size  for distribution testing.

-------
tential  for  successful management of the trophic status of these lakes are
discussed in the following two sections.

Estimation of Phosphorus Loads

     One  of  the water quality benefits  typically  associated with improved
wastewater treatment  systems  is  the elimination of a source of phosphorus.
In assessing the need  for new wastewater management systems, USEPA requires
that  the projected  improvements  in lake water quality  which  would  be at-
tributable to  the  proposed systems be documented explicitly.  It is there-
fore  important  to  look at all sources of  phosphorus  that may be affecting
the  service  area lakes and to estimate  the significance of the phosphorus
resulting from  existing  on-site  treatment  systems in relation to the other
phosphorus sources.   It is possible that the removal of a single phosphorus
source  (e.g.,  septic tank effluent) would  not appreciably change the water
quality  of  these  lakes  and  that the control of multiple  sources would be
needed  to reduce  eutrophy.  Other sources  which may  be controlled include
lawn  fertilizers,   construction  erosion,  cropland  erosion,  and livestock
waste.   Some phosphorus  sources  such as dustfall,  forest  land runoff, and
oldfield  runoff are unmanageable.

     Phosphorus  may  enter  a  lake  by  a number  of  quantifiable pathways
including municipal treatment plant effluent, atmospheric fallout, overland
runoff,  groundwater,  resuspension from  the lake  sediments,  or septic tank
leachate.  The   most  precise  method  for  estimating such  phosphorus  inputs
would be to  directly measure the contributions of each source in a waster-
shed.  A comprehensive data base of direct  measurements would be too costly
for  most lakes and was not developed for the service area lakes.  Instead,
a  phosphorus loading  was  calculated using a compendium of published lit-
erature  values  for annual contributions from nonpoint runoff sources, from
precipitation  (USEPA 1980),  and  from a  "worst  case"  estimate of the phos-
phorus load  from on-site waste system leachate.

     Numerous methods have been  reported by researchers  (Dillon and Rigler
1975,  Dillon  and  Kirchner  1975,  Omernik  1977,  and  USEPA  1980)  for es-
timating  the theoretical  nutrient  export  rates  from watersheds.  For the
                                    3-22

-------
project  area  lakes,  export coefficients  from  a recently  published lit-
erature  review  (USEPA 1980) were  used to calculate  annual  phosphorus in-
puts.  Representative phosphorus export coefficients were selected from the
referenced study based on  the  regional location,  land  use,  soil type, and
rainfall.  The phosphorus export coefficients selected for the service area
and  the  land  use acreages  within  the watersheds of  the  four  project area
lakes  are  listed in  Table  3-6.  The land use  classifications were deter-
mined  by inspecting  aerial  photographs and  ISPA landsat  photographs, from
personal communications with a soil scientist who surveyed the area, and by
field  checks by  project  personnel.   The number of hectares associated with
each  land  use  was measured  by planimeter  after the  land uses  had been
plotted on a base map.

     The phosphorus loading associated with on-site waste treatment systems
was  calculated  with  an  occupancy  rate  of  2.8  persons per  dwelling (US
Census Bureau  1980),  the number  of  seasonal or permanent  residences, and
the assumption that  the  per capita phosphorus  contribution  was 0.8 kg/yr,
with  the soil  absorption  system  retaining 25% of  the  phosphorus  (USEPA
1980).   Additionally, it  was  assumed that permanent residents have on-site
systems  that  fail  continuously and  that  seasonal residents  have systems
that  fail  throughout the  summer.   Based on the information  presented  in
Section  2.2.3.,  this  assumption results in  a serious over-estimate of the
pollutional significance of on-site systems.   The resultant phosphorus load
estimate  attributed   to  on-site systems  is also very  high  because soil
absorption systems usually  attenuate much more  than  25%  of  the phosphorus
in septic tank effluent (Section 2.2.2.4).  The estimated annual phosphorus
load  of  each  source was  determined for  nine   separate  source categories
within the  watershed of  each  lake.  The individual  source  load estimates
were  then  aggregated into  three  categories  according to  manageability
potential for phosphorus control (Table 3-7).

     Based on  the estimated nutrient loading  regime (Table  3-7),  it was
concluded that the annual  phosphorus load to Island  and  Sturgeon Lakes is
dominated by manageable sources of  phosphorus which include combined inputs
from  agriculture,  lawns,  livestock, and on-site  systems.   These two lakes
both  have  relatively  small direct  drainage areas,  but the  agricultural
                                   3-23

-------
Table 3-6.  Phosphorus export coefficients  (USEPA 1980) and land use in
            hectares within the watersheds  of the project area lakes.

                     Land Runoff
                  Phosphorus Export
                     Coefficients        Land Use Within Watershed  (ha)
Land Use
Forest
Wetlands
Indirect Drain-
age
Cultivated Land
Pasture
Lawns
TOTAL
(kg/ha/yr)
0.28
0.157
0.08
14.0
a b
3.8, 0.64
2.7
Island
32
24
1,189
16
156
51
1,468
Sturgeon
214
34
88
77
106
36
555
Rush
175
40
0
0
0
0
222
Passenger
84
5
0
0
0
5
94
Additional phosphorus coefficients:

Atmosphere        0.31  kg/ha/yr  (applied to lake surface area only)

Livestock         0.031 kg/day/1,000 Ibs

Poultry           0.28  kg/day/100 Ibs

Septic tanks      0.8   kg/cap/yr
a
 Export coefficient used for Island Lake.  Predominantly clay soils re-
 sults in high overland runoff.

b
 Export coefficient used for Sturgeon Lake.  Sandy soils results in re-
 latively low overland runoff.
                                    3-24

-------
Table 3-7.  Estimated phosphorus loading to the project  area  lakes,
            in kilograms per year.  Pie diagrams below represent the per-
            cent contribution from the three aggregate categories:  uncon-
            trollable sources, on-site systems, and other manageable
            sources
                                              Estimated
                                      Phosphorus Loading (kg/yr)
Phosphorus
  Source

Atmosphere
Wetlands & forests
Indirect tributary drainage

On-site waste treatment
 systems

Agricultural runoff
Lawn runoff
Livestock or poultry
Areal phosphorus loading rate
 in grams per square meter of
 lake surface per year
                                 Island
                                  Lake

                                    65
                                    13
                                    95
                                   141

                                   817
                                   138
                                    46
  Total annual phosphorus load    1315
                     0.62
                             Sturgeon
                               Lake

                                213
                                 65
                                  6
                                179

                               1146
                                 97
                                228

                               1934
0.28
         Rush
         Lake

           10
           55
            0
           39

           27
            0
            0

          131
0.21
       Passenger
         Lake_

            8
           25
            0
           14

            0
           14
            0

           61
                                                              0.09
Figure 3-4.
Percentage contribution to the phosphorus load by aggregate
category: (A) uncontrollable sources,  (B) on-site systems, and
(C) other manageable sources.
         Island Lake
             Sturgeon Lake
                                              Rush Lake
                  Passenger Lake
                             3-25

-------
lands  (pasture,  grass,  and  crops)  and homes with  lawns  within the direct
drainage areas are located either on high  ground  just away from the lakes
or  immediately adjacent to them on clayey  soils with generally steep slop-
es.  As  a  result,  manageable phosphorus sources contribute at least 76% of
the  phosphorus  load  to both Island  Lake  and  Sturgeon  Lake (Figure 3-4) .
The worst-case estimated on-site system phosphorus load comprises about 11%
and  9% respectively  of the  total annual load  to  Island  Lake and Sturgeon
Lakes  (Figure 3-4) .
                                  X
     Although Sturgeon Lake  was estimated  to have  a  greater mass of phos-
phorus entering  it than Island Lake, it has a  lower areal phosphorus load-
                         2
ing rate (grams per meter  per year) than Island Lake because of its great-
er  surface  area.  Lake size and other  parameters  of comparative interest
for  the  service  area  lakes are presented in Table 3-8.  Rush and Passenger
Lakes  receive  smaller  areal  phosphorus  loads  than  do Island  or Sturgeon
Lakes  (Table  3-4).   Rush  and Passenger Lakes  both  have  relatively small
areal  loading rates  because  their watersheds are dominated by wetlands and
forest  cover  with little  agricultural  or  residential  land use.   Although
with  'worst-case1  estimates  the phosphorus  loads  to Rush  and  Passenger
Lakes  from  on-site systems were estimated  to contribute  a high percentage
of  the total phosphorus input  compared to Island or  Sturgeon Lakes,  the
total estimated phosphorus mass presently entering Rush and Passenger Lakes
is actually very small.

Modeling of Trophic Status

     A classification of the trophic status of the four project area lakes
was made based on  the  estimated total annual phosphorus  loading  and on an
empirical model  developed by  Dillon (1975) .   This  model predicts in-lake
concentrations of  phosphorus and classifies the trophic status of a lake by
relating mean depth  to a mathematical equation that  includes the estimated
total  annual  phosphorus loading, a phosphorus retention  coefficient,  and
the estimated hydraulic flushing rate.  The calculated trophic condition or
"classification" of  the four  lakes based  on  the Dillon  model,  using  the
                                   3-26

-------
Table 3-8.   Lake parameters of comparative interest.
                                   Lakes in the  Service Area
  Parameter                  Island      Sturgeon      Rush      Passenger
Lake surface area (ha)       211.0        686.0        35.6         30.4
Mean depth (meters)             3.4          5.9         1.7          2.2
              3     4
Lake volume (m  x 10 )       717.0       4,066.0       60.5         66.9
Q., Hydraulic budget
   3        5 a
 (m /yr x 10 )                26.0          8.4         4.0          2.0
Hydraulic detention time
      b
(yrs)
Length of shoreline
(km)
3.1
10.1
49.0
12.9
1.5
2.4
3.3
2.3
•a
 Calculation based on rainfall and runoff estimates  (USEPA 1980).
b
 Calculation of time required to displace all water  in a lake based
 on the hydraulic budget and on lake volume.
estimated annual phosphorus  loads  (Table 3-7), is presented in Figure 3-5.
The initial calculation  classified both Island Lake  and Sturgeon Lakes as
eutrophic.  Rush  Lake was classified as being  on the  borderline between
eutrophic  and  mesotrophic,  and  Passenger  Lake  was  classified  as  being
mesotrophic.  When  the model  calculations  were  redone  without the "worst
case" phosphorus input assumed to be associated with on-site systems in the
first calculation,  the trophic status classifications of  Island and Stur-
geon Lakes did not change significantly.  However, Rush Lake changed toward
improved trophic status, moving into the mesotrophic class.  Passenger Lake
moved into the oligotrophic class (Figure 3-5).

     When  trophic  status  data for  the  lakes (Section 3.1.3.2.)  and  the
estimated annual phosphorus  loads  (Table 3-7) were applied to an arbitrary
scale (after Uttormark and Wall 1979) that indicates the potential need for
                                   3-27

-------
phosphorus management (Figure 3-6), Island and  Sturgeon  Lakes appeared to
need other extensive  phosphorus load reductions in addition to the control
of on-site waste treatment systems in order to curtail eutrophication.  On
the same  scale,  Rush  and Passenger Lakes  did  not  appear to need extensive
phosphorus management measures  to protect water quality.  It must be noted
that  the  existing  water  quality of  Sturgeon,  Rush, and  Passenger Lakes
appears to be  satisfactory based on water  quality  data  collected for this
project  (Section 2.2.2.4.).   Conversely,  Island  Lake  was  shown  to  have
serious water  quality problems  associated with nutrient enrichment.  Blue-
green algae blooms in Island Lake, were documented as being associated with
its existing  eutrophic  condition and  reflected the  availability of luxu-
riant amounts  of phosphorus.   This documentation is discussed in detail in
Section 3.1.3.2.

Conclusions Based on Phosphorus Loading Estimates and on Trophic Status
Modeling

     On-site waste  treatment  systems  must be considered a relatively minor
source  of phosphorus  to both  Island  Lake and  Sturgeon Lake.   The pros-
pective benefits of curtailing on-site system phosphorus loads appear small
in light  of  this.   Additionally, a paradoxical situation could result from
curtailing  just on-site system  phosphorus  loads  to Island  and Sturgeon
Lakes because  on-site waste management systems are estimated to contribute
a  relatively  minor  fraction  of the  combined  load  from  all  manageable
sources (Figure  3-4).   Important  sources of phosphorus in the direct drain-
ages of Island and  Sturgeon Lakes also include lawn runoff and generalized
erosion from  cleared   land  (Table 3-7).   The paradox would  exist should a
waste  management alternative  such as  sewer  service  be implemented  and
promote enough  new residential  growth around  the lakes  to substantially
increase  the  runoff  of  nutrients  from the land.   The resultant  load of
phosphorus from this   runoff  could conceivably  equal  or exceed  the phos-
phorus  load  originating from  failing septic  systems  prior  to  the  con-
struction of sewers.
                                   3-28

-------
 i.o r
    LO
         IOJO
MEAN DEPTH (METERS)
100.0
                 L=AREAL PHOSPHORUS  INPUT (g/m^yr)
                 R= PHOSPHORUS RETENTION COEFFICIENT
                 P=HYDRAULIC FLUSHING RATE (yr~')
                 • POSITION WITH  WORST CASE ON-SITE SYSTEM LOAD
                 O NO ON-SITE SYSTEM  LOAD
Figure 3-5.  Graphical representation of  the modeling of trophic status,
            with and without the "worst  case" phosphorus load assumed for
            on-site waste  management systems.  Derived from Dillon (1975).
                              3-29

-------
  Eutrophlc  1OO
X
UJ
Q
Z
UJ
t-
co
I
OL
o
CC
CO

Z
o
CO
_l
QC
<
O
8O .
             60 .
             40 .
             20 .
  Ollgotrophic
D indicates management
of phosphorus is desire-
able and that long term
benefits may be acheived
without extensive phos-
phorus control.

F
PASSENGER
. *
f\ indicates no present
danger of eutrophication




I
I

USH
•




!
i

ST
•





"C" indicates that C
management is needed
because serious degra-
dation is imminent.
ISLAND
•
JRGEON
"D" indicates that D
there may be problems
but the management
needs are uncertain.
Renovation desireable
but lasting improve-
ment may require
extensive nutrient
control.

                       o
                       o
                            cu
                            o
                    o
                    d
                         oo
                         o
00
o
CM * ca


ode!
o
CM
                    CM

                    d
co
CM
                                                                        CVI

-------
     The modeling of  trophic  status provided no indication that the abate-
ment of  an assumed  "worst  case" on-site system phosphorus  load  would im-
prove  the  trophic  status of  Island  Lake.   The  modeling results  and the
apparent natural  fertility  of  Island  Lake indicate  that success  in re-
versing Island Lake's  eutrophication  by abating a single phosphorus source
is unlikely.

     The model calculations  presented in this EIS are  not capable of pro-
viding insight into whether specific waste management alternatives can slow
the  eutrophication  of Sturgeon Lake.   The modeling  did indicate initially
that abatement  of "worst  case"  on-site system loads  would  moderately im-
prove the trophic status of Rush and Passenger Lakes (Figure 3-5) .  Because
the initially assumed on-site system load was "worst case" and because that
assumption is a  serious  over estimate  (Section 2.2.2.4.),  the  classifi-
cation of  Rush and  Passenger Lakes made without any  on-site  system phos-
phorus load  (Figure  3-5)  is probably a more realistic depiction of present
quality.   Considering  the more realistic estimate of  on-site  system phos-
phorus  loads,  the abatement  of  on-site  system loads with any  type of im-
proved wastewater  management around  Rush  and Passenger  Lakes  would be of
minimal benefit.

3.1.3.4.  Trophic History of Island Lake and Sturgeon Lake

Background

     Island Lake  and Sturgeon Lake are currently  surrounded  by shoreline
residential development.  The lakeshore community represented by this level
of development began  in the decade of the 1950's, experienced its greatest
rate of  growth in  the  1970's,  and now is  comprised  of  approximately 350
households (Section 3.2.1.).  A primary concern of many of the residents of
this community  has  been  the  notion that the  blue-green  algae  blooms cur-
rently experienced  in  Island  Lake  are  a recent problem  linked  to the ex-
istence of a  large  number of failing on-site wastewater treatment systems.
However, one  long-time resident  of the area  has reported  that  the blue-
green algal blooms in Island Lake represent a problem of much longer stand-
ing, predating any  significant amount of lakeshore development, (Letter of
Mr. Walter Johnson to Mr.  Gregory Evenson, Appendix K.).
                                   3-31

-------
     Information  contained in  the  MLWSD Facility  Plan (Section 2.2.1.2.)
indicates  that a  large  proportion of  the  lakeshore community's permanent
population  is  concentrated  around  Island  Lake and  that  the residences
around  Island Lake  experience  a greater rate  of  surface  failure with on-
site systems  than do the  Sturgeon  Lake residences.   In the context of the
popular conception which holds  that failing septic systems are  the cause of
Island Lake's  problems, a  logical concern for the residents of  the Sturgeon
Lake area is that extensive conversion  of dwellings  to permanent use status
will potentially  result in problems  comparable to  those being experienced
with Island Lake.

     Empirical  observations  which associate symptoms of advanced eutrophi—
cation  only  with  increasing  population levels  in  the lakeshore community
may  ignore other  important  historic events  in a  lake's watershed.   USEPA
determined that a scientific investigation of  the course of eutrophication
in  Island  and  Sturgeon  Lakes  was  needed  to provide  a more comprehensive
understanding  of  events that  have influenced  the  their quality.   The ob-
jective  of the investigation  was to determine  the  historic  trends  of the
eutrophication of these lakes.

The Investigation of Trophic History

     To complete the investigation of trophic history, special  supplemental
data were  gathered  in the late winter  and early spring of 1982.  A chrono-
logy of population  growth and historical events was  first constructed to
document  the   course  of events which  could  have  an  impact  on phosphorus
loads to  the  lakes (Section 3.2.2.2.); and, a  supporting paleolimnological
investigation  was  conducted  by examining the characteristics of lake sedi-
ment with  depth.   A complete report on the paleolimnological investigation
is  presented  in Appendix L.   A summary discussion of the methods and find-
ings of this investigation is presented below.

     Intact 60-centimeter  long  sediment cores were taken from the profundal
sediments of Island, Little Island, and Sturgeon Lakes (Figure  3-3).
                                   3-32

-------
Little  Island  Lake,  a  shallow  water body  contiguous to  Island Lake, was

studied for comparative  purposes  due to its lack of lakeshore development.

Each sediment  core was  sectioned  at even intervals  as it was removed from

the coring device.  The sections were subsequently analyzed for the list of

parameters discussed below.


     In each core section:

     •    Chlorophyll break—down  products were  analyzed  on a concen-
          tration basis for phytoplankton productivity trend analysis.

     •    Calcium carbonate  was analyzed on a  concentration basis to
          allow calculation of  the percent by  weight  of  the sediment
          made up of  CaCO .   This parameter can,  in particular situ-
          ations,  be  a  reflection  of  overall plant  productivity,
          including both phytoplankton and aquatic macrophytes.

     •    The dry weight composition of the sediments in terms of both
          organic and  clastic  matter  was  analyzed to allow presen-
          tation  of  these  parameters  on a percentile basis.   These
          data allow analysis of changes  in overall watershed sediment
          transport  phenomena and lake productivity.

     •    The  activity  of  Cesium  (Cs)  137  isotope was  measured to
          allow  a calculation  of  annual  sedimentation   rates.   The
          presence of Cs  137  is associated with the atmospheric test-
          ing  of  atomic weapons  and provides  a "dateline" for sedi-
          mentation studies.

     •    Three  phosphorus  forms were  measured  on  a  concentration
          basis  to  make   a  trend  analyses of  lake  fertility.   The
          changes  in  ratio  of  organic phosphorus  to  non-apatitic
          phosphorus were to  be   examined  to determine  where strong
          changes in  the  phosphorus  loading  regime  to the lakes had
          taken place (if any).


     Plots  were  made  of these parameters to  characterize sediment strati-
graphy  of  the  lakes.   (The  core segments were "dated"  according  to the

sedimentation  rate  estimates.)   Example plots  of  some  of  the parameters

with  depth/ date  information  for  Island  Lake, Little  Island  Lake,  and

Sturgeon Lake are presented in Figures 3-7 through 3-9.


     The  important conclusions  made  as a result of the paleolimnologic in-
vestigation are that:


     •    Island Lake has been approximately twice as productive as
                                   3-33

-------
             Figure 3-7.   Dated stratigraphic  profiles  of Island Lake  sediments.
u>
 i
Co
.p-
   Depth   30,
   (cm)
          so-
          65
          eoJ
                                                            Island Lake
                                   Organic Matter (percent)



                                   0     10    20     30    40
                                                             •1978


                                                             -1970  H


                                                             -I960 10j
         Chlorophyll a (SPDU/g org. matt.)



        20    40    tO    80    100    120
       0 I      •	I	I	1	1
Total Phosphorus Img/g dry wt.)
•1943  '



-1933



-1921  as-




-1909



-1894  35-



       40-




-1872  45-



       50-




-1848  85-



       60-
                      1-3    1.5   1.7

-------
        Figure  3-8.   Dated  stratigraphic profiles of  Little  Island Lake  sediments,
                                                            Little island Lake
CaCO. (percent)



024
u>
Ln
   Depth
   Icm)
                                    Organic Matter (percent)



                                   0     10     20     30     40
 Chlorophyll a (SPDU/g org. matt.)



20    40   60     tO     100    120
  Total Phosphorus (mg/g dry wt.)



 0.5     0.7    0.9    1.1     13     1.5    1.7
0 '     '     '     '      '     '      '
                                                                     •o-i
                                                                                            1878  30-
                                                                                                              35
                                                                                                              40
                                                                                                              45
                                                                                                              S0<
                                                                                                              55-
                                                                                                              60-

-------
           Figure  3-9.   Dated  stratigraphic profiles  of Sturgeon Lake  sediments.
                                                            Sturgeon Lake
            CaCO-j (percent)

            024
u>
          6-
          10-
          18-
          20'
    Depth 26
    (cm)

          30-
          33-
          40-
          45-
          5O-
          55-
          eo-1
         Organic Matter (percent)

         0     10    20    30    40
 1978

•1970  *-

-1960  10


-1943

-1933  20-


•1921  25

-1909  so
                           1894
                                35
                                40-
 1872 45-
                                50-
                          •1848-;"-
          Chlorophyll a (SPDU/g org. matt.)

         0    40    60    80    100   120
       6OJ
\ % ^
•• ^ ••.
-• ' \ v ^
"• : ^
'-."'•V
1
> f •.'
'











 1978

•1970

-1960  10-


•1943  *

 1933  zo-

-1921  25-

-1909  30-
                                 -1894
                                                                  35-
                                                                  40-
 1872  45-
                                                                  60-
                                 -1848
       8O-J
         Total Phosphorus (mg/g dry wt.)

        0.5     Q.T    Ot9    VI     1.3    1..5    1.7
 1978

 1970  »•

-1960- io.
•1943

 1933-


 1921

 1909


 1894
                                                                                                          15'
                                                                                                          35-
                                                                                                         40-
-1872 45-
                                                                                                          50-
                                         1848-"-
                                                                                                                                            1872
                                         1848

-------
          Sturgeon Lake for  as  far back in the  sedimentary  record as
          the depth of cores allowed estimation.

     •    Significant  change in   the  diatom  community indicating  a
          change in  status  from mesotrophic  to eutrophic  for Island
          Lake was found to be occurring following approximately 1930,
          12 years after  the  Moose Lake fire and  coincident  with the
          onset  of  the  development  of  a  dairy-based  agricultural
          economy.   This  trend  in  the  diatom community did not appear
          to further  accelerate coincident with the  development  of a
          lakeshore residential  community after 1950.

     •    The  organic phosphorus  levels  in  the sediments of Little
          Island Lake  were  found  to be significantly  higher than in
          Island Lake throughout the dated sedimentary record, demons-
          trating  the  overall significance of  non-wastewater sources
          of phosphorus to lake  productivity.

     •    Sturgeon Lake was found to have remained almost unchanged in
          terms  of phytoplankton productivity until  1975.   Increases
          found  in the  concentration  of  phosphorus  deposited  after
          1945 did not result in concommitant increases in phytoplank-
          ton  productivity.   The  origins of the increased  amounts of
          phosphous  found  near the sediment  surface  could  include
          wastewater sources.   However, agriculture and increased use
          of  lawn  fertilizer  may  also  be  significant  phosphorus
          sources  to  Sturgeon Lake.   It is emphasized that regardless
          of increased  phosphous  in recently  deposited sediments, no
          significant  acceleration in  the  rate of eutrophication of
          Sturgeon Lake was indicated by the other parameters.


3.1.4.  Aquatic Biota


     The Phase  I Environmental  Report  (USEPA 1981) contained a broad over-

view description of  the  aquatic biota of the  planning  area's lakes.  This

section focuses  on the aquatic  biota of the project  area lakes only, with

an emphasis on data  useful  in evaluating the  need for  improved wastewater
treatment.  Topics  covered include  phytoplankton ecology in late summer and

early fall,  a special report on  the presence of  toxicity  producing blue-

green algal  species,  a  description of  the  location  of beds of aquatic

macrophytes and a  summary  of  some  MDNR fish  management  survey  data  for

Island and Sturgeon Lakes.
                                   3-37

-------
3.1.4.1.  Phytoplankton  Ecology  and  the  Presence  of  Toxicity Producing
          Blue-Green Algae

     Concerns  have  been expressed  in public  meetings held  in the Moose
Lake,  Minnesota  about  possible health  risks  associated  with  blooms of
blue-greem  algae in  the area's lakes  (Section 1.3.).   These concerns re-
flect  a widespread  perception  that blue-green  algae  blooms pose a health
hazard  to  swimmers and  pets and that pollution  from lakeshore septic tanks
was  a  major factor  in the development of  these blooms.   Because of these
concerns, a Report on  Algae was  prepared  by USEPA to investiage  the  factors
leading  to  the  development  of  blue-green  algae blooms, to  examine docu-
mented  episodes  of algal toxicity, and  to assess the potential health risks
associated  with  blue-green algae  blooms in  the lakes  within the proposed
service  area.   The Report also  describes the information on phytoplankton
populations  and  water  quality obtained from  sampling Rush,   Passenger,
Sturgeon, and  Island Lakes during August,  September,  and October 1981.  A
detailed summary of  the Report on Algae  is  presented  in Appendix H.   Gen-
eral findings  of  that report are  presented  in the  following  paragraphs.

     There  are  approximately  1,500 known  species  of  blue-green algae in
both soil and  aquatic habitats.  Blue-green  algae are  often considered to
be an aquatic  "nuisance  species" though,  because of their ability to remain
in position at the surface and because  the larger cell  colonies  are visible
to  the naked  eye.   Their bouyancy  can also  result  in the  formation of
floating mats  of dead and living blue-green  algae which accumulate on the
downwind side  of a  water body.  As the  algae  decompose, unpleasant odors
and  colors  are produced.  Decomposition  of blue-green  algae can adversely
affect the taste of water.

     Under favorable environmental conditions, algae reproduce at extremely
rapid rates and  form "blooms" in which they  are present in very high  con-
centrations. Excessive growth or blooms of phytoplankton may include one or
several kinds  of algae.   The growth-limiting factors affecting  algae abun-
dance  in lakes  are  nutrients   (primarily  phosphorus   and  nitrogen),   tem-
perature, and  light.   Seasonal variability  in these  factors  are  collec-
tively  responsible  for the occasional  rapid growth and resulting dominance
                                    3-38

-------
of blue-green algae  over  other algae in freshwater lakes.  Often more than
one factor is responsible  for inducing a severe bloom.  In eutrophic lakes
(i.e., waterbodies with high  nutrient content and  the highest algal grow-
th),  blue-green algae typically become dominant in late summer because of a
general  depletion of  dissolved  nitrogen  and silica which  excludes  the
growth  of  other  phytoplankton.   Blue-green  algae alone  are able  to  fix
atmospheric nitrogen into a  useful  nutrient and are  thus  able  to achieve
greater growth than other phytoplankton in late summer.

     In  addition  to  the nuisance characteristics  commonly  associated with
blue-green algal  blooms,  three genera  of  freshwater  blue-green algae  oc-
casionally produce  substances that  can cause a variety  of toxic effects,
and in  some cases, have  caused death in  wildlife  and livestock.  The only
way for  toxic blue-green  algae to cause  death in  animals is from drinking
algae-laden water.  There are documented episodes of toxic blue-green algae
blooms  in  southern Minnesota  which  resulted in livestock mortality.  There
are no documented or  reported  cases  of  human mortality  associated with
toxic  strains  of  fresh-water blue-green  algae.  However,  symptoms associ-
ated  with  ingestion  in humans  such  as itching, nausea,  and diarrhea have
been commonly reported.

     The development of toxic blooms  is unpredictable  and usually occurs in
short-lived pulses.   They usually reoccur in the same  body of water in 2 or
3 year cycles.   The fact that bloom toxicity is so varied and unpredictable
make  any  blue-green  algae bloom  potentially  dangerous and  suspect at  all
times, even though the majority are actually non-toxic.

     To investigate the potential for blue-green algal toxicity in the four
project area lakes,  phytoplankton, water quality and  public health surveys
were  conducted  in  Pine  County   from late August  to early  October 1981.
Although  the  health  officers,   physicians,   and  veterinarians  contacted
reported no  health  related or  toxicological  problems with  swimming or in
drinking from  the four  lakes,  Island  Lake  was found to have a potential
health  hazard associated  with blooms of  blue-green  algae.   This potential
is based  on the  presence in Island  Lake of  algae belonging  to the three
genera shown to be associated with toxicity incidents  with domestic animals
                                   3-39

-------
and  with humans  in other Minnesota  lakes.   The  potential  health problem
with  Island Lake must  not be  exaggerated,  however,  because  the dominant
blue-green  algae  in Island Lake was  found to be Anabaena macrospora, which
was  not  found  to be associated  with toxicity  in a review of literature.
The  other  three  project  area  lakes were  found  to  support  lower concen-
trations  of blue-green  algae  and did not  experience blue-green growth to
bloom proportions.   Because of  this,  blue-green algae  do not appear to pose
a potential threat  to public health  in Sturgeon,  Passenger, or Rush Lakes.

     The survey found that Island Lake had the highest algae density of the
four lakes  and  also  had  the poorest water clarity.   In a pattern common for
eutrophic  lakes,  Island  Lake  was found to be dominated  in late August by
non-blue-green  algae.  Subsequently,  in early September, the concentrations
of non-blue-green algae  species declined in Island Lake  while two species
of blue-green  algae increased in number to achieve  total dominance.  Blue-
green algae increased from 16% to 95% of the total  phytoplankton community
from 26 August  to 9  September.

     Although  phytoplankton  were much less abundant in  Sturgeon Lake than
in Island  Lake, blue-green algae remained the dominant phytoplankton group
in  Sturgeon Lake throughout  September.   Sturgeon  Lake  had  better water
clarity  than Island Lake primarily because blue-green algae were much less
abundant.

     Passenger  Lake  had  relatively low amounts of  algae and, in particular,
very low volumes  of blue-green algae compared to  both Island and Sturgeon
Lakes.   On  each  of  the three  sampling dates  in  September  and October,
non-blue-green  algae were dominant in Passenger Lake.  The relatively low
clarity of  Passenger Lake was attributed to other  factors such as dissolved
and suspended organic matter.  Rush Lake had the lowest abundance of phyto-
plankton  of the  four  lakes  tested  and had  the  greatest  water clarity.

3.1.4.2.  Aquatic Macrophytes

     Emergent  and  submergent  aquatic  plants  encountered  in significant
stands during the 1981 field surveys were noted.    The  objective of locating
                                   3-40

-------
areas of  luxuriant aquatic  plant growth was  to evaluate  their potential
association with  any failing  on-site  systems detected  through the septic
leachate  survey  (Section 2.2.1.5.)-   It  was  anticipated  that  confined
embayments or  shallow areas protected  from the waves by a point  or shoal
could be  experiencing luxuriant  plant  growth  if  adjacent  residences were
contributing significant  amounts of  septic leachate.   No  such conditions
were  documented by  the  field crew; e.g.,  the potential  septic  leachate
plumes  that  were  located  were not  found  to be emerging  in isolated mac-
rophyte beds.

     In  Sturgeon  Lake,  the  observation was made  that  some shallow, sandy
areas along the south and southwest shore appeared to have been cleared of
native  emergent plants,   presumably  to  provide  a  more  attractive swimming
beach for  the  property  owners.  Thus, the potential association of aquatic
plant growth and  residential development was obscured due  to "beach clear-
ing" practices.

3.1.4.3.  Fish

     The fisheries resources of the project area lakes are  relatively good,
according  to  MDNR records dating to 1979.   Gill net and  trap net catches
made  in Island and  Sturgeon  Lakes  were reported  to  be  above  the state
average for walleye, northern pike, perch, and sunfish.

     Some game  fish  and  panfish are found  with  neascus (blackspots on the
fish's  epidermis  caused  by  a  cyst  of  a snail).   This  condition  has been
documented in  MDNR fishery records since the mid-1950s.  The regional fish
manager has reported  that this condition is typical for many lakes in this
part of the state  (Personal communication to WAPORA, Inc.).

     Recently,   a strong  increase  was reported in  the population of yellow
perch and  sunfish  in Island  and  Sturgeon Lakes  (MDNR,  unpublished files).
A  summary  of  the  fishery data indicating recent  increases in the panfish
populations of  Island and Sturgeon Lakes is presented in Figure 3-10.  The
exact cause  of the  reported increases  in  the  number of yellow perch  and
blue-gill sanfish  captured in  these lakes is not known, although it may be
                                   3-41

-------
  100-
ISLAND LAKE




E-i
W
CO
Crf
W
PM
Q
H
PM
°
CO
M
*
O
w
53

90-
80-
70-
60-
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
0
^
j|
I
i§
ii
5 K
B 2
H 2
» 2
S 5
n S
3 %
1§ K
2 i mi H 1 i
• ^i !• 15 Ii IS Hi 1 nil is
1 954 1967 19 70 1975 1979
| Walleye
| Northern Pike
| Yellow Perch
§ Bluegill Sunfish
40-
30-
20-
10-
0
STURGEON LAKE
I
1 2 ^5 ^2
ill Ife 11 -^ II h III it
            1955
                    1967
1975
1979
Figure.3-10.  Gillnet and  trapnet capture rates  with  time for gamefish and
             panfish in Island and Sturgeon Lakes, Pine County, MN.  Data
             are from fish management survey records  (MDNR, unpublished).
                              3-42

-------
speculated  that  increased  fishing  pressure on  predator  fish,  following
extensive residential  development of  the area in  early  1970's,  may have
played a  role  in shaping the fish community.   Removal of a portion of the
walleye or northern pike population due to increased fishing pressure could
have resulted in concommitant increases in the prey species (such as yellow
perch and sunfish). Because perch and sunfish are predators on zooplankton,
an increase  in  these smaller panfish species may have resulted in a signi-
ficant decrease of  the  zooplankton  population.   A  decrease in  the zoo-
plankton  population would  lower  the grazing  pressure  on phytoplankton,
especially green  algae.   As  a result, the reduced  zooplankton grazing can
be expected to have stimulated an increase in the phytoplankton population,
increasing the biological turbidity in Island and Sturgeon Lakes.  In other
Minnesota lakes,  an increase  in phytoplankton has occurred  when the zoo-
plankton  population decreased   (Shapiro  1979).   An  overall increase  in
phytoplankton in the context of late summer successional patterns may favor
the growth of blue-green algae.

3.1.5.  Terrestrial Biota

     The  Phase  I Environmental Report (USEPA 1981)  contained an extensive
overview discussion  of  the  terrestrial biota of Pine and Carlton counties.
Topics covered  in  that  discussion included land cover, significant natural
areas, wetlands, floodplains, and wildlife.

     Additional  information  on   the  extent  of wetland  soils within  the
project area may  be  deduced from the soil survey conducted in a portion of
Windemere Township  for preparation of this  Environmental Impact Statement
(Section  2.2.1.1.).   Further  discussion of  forest  and  agricultural land
cover  extent  in the watershed areas  of  Island and Sturgeon  Lakes is pre-
sented in Section 3.2.2.2.

3.2  Man-Made Environment

3.2.1.  Demographics
                                   3-43

-------
3.2.1.1.  Historic and Current Population Trends

     Two  distinct trends  are  reflected  by  the  population  data  for  the
jurisdictions within  and surrounding the project  area (Windemere and Moose
Lake Townships,  the  City  of Moose  Lake,  and  Pine  and  Carlton Counties).
The  first  trend,  one  of  erratic  growth and  decline,  is evident  in  the
population  data  for  the 40-year  period from 1930 to  1970 (Tables 3-9  and
3-10).   During  this  period Windemere Township and Pine County both experi-
enced population decline.  Moose Lake Township, the City of Moose Lake,  and
Carlton  County  each  experienced  population  growth  during  this period,
however,  the  rate of growth varied widely.  This  population trend reflects
both national trends  and  local aberrations and also  reflects,  to a great
extent, changes  in the  economy of  the area.  The  historic  growth of  the
local  region was based on  the development  of the forestry  industry  and
agricultural  expansion.   After 1940,  however, increased  mechanization in
agricultural  operations and  a general decline  in the  forestry industry
ushered in  a  period  of  erratic growth and population decline.  The popula-
tion trend  experienced by the jurisdictions within the project area between
1940  and  1970  was   indicative  of  the  national  rural-to-urban  migratory
pattern that  resulted,  at least partially,  from a shrinkage  in employment
opportunities in rural areas with natural resource-based economies.

     The  second  population trend  apparent in  the  project  area,  and espec-
ially  in  Windemere Township,  is  the rapid  population growth  that has  oc-
curred  since  1970.   The construction of  seasonal homes  around  Island  and
Sturgeon  Lakes,  a trend that  began in the  1950s,  appears to  have created
much of the impetus   for the population gains.  The number of housing units
in  Windemere  Township increased  by  56% from 1950 to  1960 while  the year-
round population  of the  Township decreased by 4.6% (US Bureau of the Census
1952,  1963).   Although  the  natural resource  segment  of  the  local economy
continued  to decline between  1960  and 1980,  the growth of  the seasonal
population  around the lakes apparently stimulated an  increase  in the ser-
vice sector of  the economy which  resulted  in an  increase in the permanent
population.   Between  1960  and  1980, the number  of housing units in Winde-
mere Township increased  by 200% while the population increased by only 145%
(US Bureau  of the Census 1963, 1973, 1982).  The  increases that took place
                                   3-44

-------
     Table 3-9.  Historic population growth  in  the jurisdictions within and  surrounding  the project area  (US

                 Bureau of the Census 1952,  1963, 1973, 1982).


       Jurisdiction


     Windemere Township


     Moose Lake Township


     City of Mpose Lake


     Pine County


     Carlton County


     Minnesota
1930
528
548
742
20,264
21,232
2,253,953
1940
489
1,063
1,432
21,478
24,212
2,792,300
1950
392
1,206
1,603
18,223
24,584
2,982,483
1960
374
1,577
1,514
17,004
27,932
3,413,864
1970
511
1,170
1,400
16,821
28,072
3,805,069
1980
915
1,237
1,408
19,871
29,936
4,077,148
CO
I
tn

-------
     Table 3-10.  Percent change  in  the population  in  the  jurisdictions  within  and  surrounding

                  the project area from 1930 to  1980  (US Bureau  of  Census  1952,  1963,  1973,  1982)
       Jurisdiction




     Windemere Township



     Moose Lake Township



     City of Moose Lake




     Pine County




     Carlton County
to
i

c*    Minnesota
1930-1940
-7.4
94.0
93.0
6.0
14.0
8.9
1940-1950
-19.8
13.5
11.9
-15.2
1.5
6.8
1950-1960
-4.6
30.8
-5.6
-6.7
13.6
14.5
1960-1970
36.6
-25.8
-7.5
-1.1
0.5
11.5
1970-1980
79.1
5.7
0.6
18.1
6.6
7.1

-------
State and national trends.   Many urban area populations have declined since
1970,  whereas  rural  "amenity"  areas  similar  to  Windemere  Township have
grown.

     The recent trend toward increased development and population growth in
certain areas  of  the upper Midwest,  as epitomized by the  rural lake com-
munity of  the  project area,  is well  documented.   Gustafson  (1973)  found
that rural,  non-farm populations experienced  an  overall  increase between
1960 and  1970  and  that  the rural,  non-farm  areas that  experienced  the
greatest demand for  new  housing were in:   (1)  counties  adjacent to Minne-
apolis-St. Paul;  (2)  in  lake  areas of central Minnesota; and (3) in north-
ern and central Wisconsin.

3.2.1.2.  Household Size  and Resident Age

     Household  sizes  in  the  project area did not change to any significant
extent between  1970 and 1980  (US  Bureau  of the  Census  1973,  1982).  The
maintenance  of  household  sizes at  their  1970 levels is  somewhat incon-
sistent with the  nationwide  trend  toward  increased  numbers of  one-  and
two-person households and  a  consequent decrease in average household size.
The average  number  of persons  per household  in Windemere Township in 1970
was 2.66 (US Bureau of the  Census 1973).  According to the 1980 census,  the
average household  size  in  the  Island  Lake  and Sturgeon  Lake  portions of
Windemere  Township   (ED  504;  Figure  3-11)  was  2.65  and in  the remaining
portion of  the Township (ED  503;  Figure 3-11)  the  average household size
was 2.74.   These household  sizes are slightly lower than the household size
in Pine County  (Table 3-11), which is one indication of a greater number of
households made up of retired individuals.

     Median age is  an index of the overall age structure of the population
being  studied.   The  1980  median  age  in  the  census  enumeration  district
surrounding Island and Sturgeon Lakes in Windemere Township was 37.9.  This
is significantly higher than the median age in  Pine County and in the State
(Table 3-11) and  is attributed  to the  growing  number  of retired residents
who are attracted  by the recreational and  scenic  amenities of  the project
area.
                                   3-47

-------
Table 3-11.  Selected population characteristics in the jurisdictions within and surrounding the project area in 1980
             (US Bureau of the Census 1952, 1963, 1973, 1982).

Jurisdiction
a
Windemere Township
ED 504
ED 503
b
Moose Lake Township
City of Moose Lake
w Pine County
00 Carlton County
Minnesota

Permanent
Population
329
586
934
1,408
19,871
29,936
4,077,148

Year-round
Housing Units

138
269
. 353
571
10,299
11,782
1,613,343
Median Number of
Persons per Occupied
Housing Unit

2.65
2.74
3.04
2.17
2.80
2.87
2.74

Median
Age

37.9
34.0
29.7
43.1
31.1
30.5
29.2
Percent
Under
18 Years

23.7
29.7
33.0
19.4
NA
NA
NA
Percent
Over
65 Years

12.5
15.0
10.9
27.2
NA
NA
NA
 See Figure a for the boundaries of the two EDs within Windemere Township.

 Does not include Moose Lake State Hospital.

NA - Not Applicable.

-------
CO
                        Figure 3-11.   Enumeration districts for census.

-------
3.2.1.3.  Housing Stock Characteristics

     The  housing stock  in  the project area  comprises  both year-round and
seasonal  dwellings.   According to  the 1980  census,  there  are 919 housing
units  in  Windemere  Township;  512 of these are used on a seasonal basis and
407 are occupied year-round or are vacant (Table 3-12).  The percentage of
seasonal units in Moose Lake Township  is significantly less; only 50 of the
403 total housing units are used on a  seasonal basis  (Table 3-12).  Because
Moose  Lake  Township  is  a predominantly rural area with less riparian de-
velopment  and related  amenities  than  Windemere  Township,  its  lower per-
centage of seasonal housing does not appear to be unusual.

3.2.1.4.  Population  Projections

Background

     The  accuracy of population projections is  highly dependent  on two
factors:  the  size  of the base population and the period of time for which
the projections  are made.  The estimation of  population growth generally is
less accurate  for  small populations than for larger  populations when made
over long periods of time.   This  is  because attitudinal or technological
changes  can  significantly  affect  small  communities,  whereas  large  com-
munities can better absorb such changes.

     The  effect  of these  limitations  can be minimized  if  population pro-
jections  are  based  on  observations  derived  from  a thorough  analysis of
historical  trends.    Two  observations   regarding  population trends  in the
project area must be considered  in forecasting  future population trends:

     •    Prior  to 1960, population growth in Windemere and Moose Lake
          Townships was  erratic.   Since 1960, however,  the number of
          housing units in the two townships  increased steadily, often
          at  a  greater  rate  than  population  growth.    For  example,
          between 1960  and  1970 the number of housing units in Winde-
          mere Township  increased by  89.2%  while  the  population in-
          creased  by  only  36.6%  (Table  3-13).   The substantial  in-
          crease in the  number of housing units  is  indicative of the
          high  local  demand  for  recreational homes because  of  the
          amenities associated with the Township's lakefront property.
                                   3-50

-------
          Between 1970 and 1980, the number of housing units in Winde-
          mere Township  increased by  59.3%  while the  population in-
          creased by  79.1% (Table  3-13).   This  reversal  of the pre-
          ceeding decade's  trend (1960  to  1970) appears  to be indi-
          cative of  the recent  national trend  of net  migration from
          urban to rural areas. Rural areas were attractive during the
          1970s for a  variety  of reasons that have  been widely docu-
          mented,  including lower land values, the amenities of "coun-
          try life," and an absence of "urban" problems.  This current
          trend of population  increase is  expected to continue in the
          project  area,  at  similar   or  somewhat  reduced  rates  for
          identical reasons and because of the  area's  perceived qua-
          lity among retired people.

     •    The relationship  between population change in the two pro-
          ject area  Counties  and  the population change  in  the  two
          project area  Townships has not been stable over the period
          from 1950  to 1980 (Table 3-14).  The  increasing percentage
          contribution  of  the  Windemere Township  population  to  the
          Pine County population  is indicative of the area's historic
          growth  potential as  a   result  of  development around  the
          Township's lakes.  The  decreasing  contribution of the Moose
          Lake Township population to the Carlton County population is
          indicative of the lesser development potential of Moose Lake
          Township  (Table  3-14).   Because  of the variations  between
          these two  adjacent  Townships  it does  not appear that  for
          either Pine or  Carlton County there is a strong correlation
          between County and Township growth trends.


     Other factors also will have some impact on future population growth.
                           I
Higher  fuel  costs,  further declines in  employment opportunities,  and/or a

stagnant  regional  economy might directly and  indirectly affect population

growth.  The growth attitudes of existing residents,  local governments, and

commercial interests also could affect future population levels.
Methodology


     The population  projections  for  the  project area  are based  on  1960,
1970 and  1980 data  and  were developed  from projections  of  the  number of
additional housing units that will be built in the project area by the year

2000.  A housing unit projection  methodology was used because the available
data on  housing units are  of a  similar  quality as the  available data on
populations and  because  fewer extrapolations are required  to estimate the
future seasonal population (Appendix I).
                                   3-51

-------
Table 3-12.  Project area housing summary for 1980  (US Bureau of the Census 1982)
Year-round
Jurisdiction Vacant Units
Windemere Township
ED 504
ED 503
a
Moose Lake Township
City of Moose Lake
69
14
55
46
46
Year-round
Occupied
Units
338
124
214
307
525
Total Year-
round Units
407
138
269
353
571
Seasonal
Units
512
259
253
50
16
Total
Units
919
397
522
403
587
 Does not include Moose Lake State Hospital.
                                   3-52

-------
                                                    Table  3-13.
I
Ul
U)
     Changes in the population and housing  stock in Windemere and Moose Lake Townships, 1960 to 1980   (US Bureau  of  the
     Census 1963, 1973, 1982).
                              1960                      1970                           	1980
fercent Change
Jurisdiction
Windemere
Township
Moose Lake
Township
Population
374

1,577

Housing Units

305

224
Population
511

1,170

Housing Units

577

287
1960-1970
36.6
89.2
-25.8
28.1
Population
915

1,237

Percent Change
Housing Units

919

403
1970-1980
79.1
59.3
5.7
40.4

-------
     Table 3-14.  Percentage of Pine and Carlton County population residing in
                  Windemere and Moose Lake Townships in 1950, 1960, 1970 and
                  1980  (US Bureau of the Census 1952, 1963, 1973, 1982).

     Jurisdiction             1950      1960      1970      1980

     Windemere Township       2.2       2.2       3.0       4.6
      (Pine County)
     Moose Lake Township      4.9       5.6       4.2       4.1
      (Carlton County)
          Permanent  and seasonal population  projections  for Windemere Township

     were  developed based  on  the  housing  unit projections  (Tables  3-15  and

     3-16).   The  total  population  for the  year 2000 is  estimated  to be 3,621

     which includes 1,503 (41.5%) permanent residents and 2,118 (58.4%) seasonal

     residents  (Table  3-17).   The  projected increase in  total  population over

     the  planning  period is  47.7%.  The  permanent  population is  projected  to
     increase by 64.3% while the seasonal population is projected to increase by
     37.9%.  The population around  Island Lake is projected to increase by 39.9%
     and  the  population around Sturgeon Lake is projected to increase by 41.9%.

     The  greater  amount of  developable  lakefront  property  around  the  other
     Township lakes  is indicated by the projected population increase in ED 503

     of 53.6%.
Table 3-15.  Permanent population projections within Windemere Township, 1980
             to 2000.

  Location                                  1980           1990         2000

ED 504a                                      329            429          532
  Island Lake                                153            200          246
  Sturgeon Lake                              100            131          172
  Outlying Areas                              76             98          114
ED 503                                       586            764          971
  Windemere Township                         915          1,193        1,503
Q
 Population projections for 1990 and 2000 are based on 2.384 persons per
 household as derived from 1980 census data and include a vacancy factor.

 Population projections for 1980 and 2000 are based on 2.178 persons per house-
 hold as derived from 1980 census data and include a vacancy factor.
                                        3-54

-------
Table 3-16.  Seasonal population projections within Windemere Township,
             1980 to 2000a.

  Location                                   1980      1990      2000

ED 504                                        777      1,017     1,023

  Island Lake                                 261        339       333
  Sturgeon Lake                               465        615       630
  Outlying Areas                               51         63        60

ED 503                                        759        993     1,095

  Windemere Township                        1,536      2,010     2,118
n
 Population  projections  for  1990 and  2000 are  based  on 3.0  persons per
 household.
Table 3-17.  Combined seasonal and permanent population projections within
             Windemere Township, 1980 to 2000  .

                                             1980      1990      2000

ED 504                                       1,106     1,446     1,555

  Island Lake                                  414       539       579
  Sturgeon Lake                                565       746       802
  Outlying Areas                               127       161       174

ED 503                                       1,345     1,757     2,066

  Windemere Township                         2,451     3,203     3,621
a
 An additional 120  seasonal  residents are projected for the YMCA Boys Camp
 on Sturgeon Lake.   This  projection will remain constant to the year 2000.
                                   3-55

-------
     The  individual  Island  Lake  and Sturgeon  Lake area  population pro-
jections  (Table 3-17) are significantly lower than the population estimates
which  were  presented  in the  Draft MLWSD  Facility Plan  (P.R.C.-Consoer
Townsend  1980).   The "population equivalents" for the year 1955 were esti-
mated  in the  Facility  Plan to  be 931.0 for the  Island  Lake vicinity and
1,382.5 for the Sturgeon Lake vicinity.   These numbers are in contrast with
the  year 2UOO population  projections made  in  this report of  579 for the
Island Lake  area  (62%  of the  MLWSD projection) and 802 for the Sturgeon
Lake area (58% of the MLWSD projection).  [An additional  120 residents must
be  added to  the  Sturgeon  Lake  projections to cover  the YMCA  Boys Camp
summer population if sewers are being designed.]   The  sources  of the dis-
crepancies between  the  Facility Plan and these  projections are thought to
be:

     •    the  year  2000 projections that are being used  in this Envi-
          ronmental  Report  are  based on detailed 1980 census data for
          the  local  area that was not available at the time the MLWSD
          Facility Plan was prepared;
     •    the  assumptions  used  to  develop   the  projections  reflect a
          direct  assessment  of available lots in  the  lakeshore areas
          and interviews with local real estate sales offices (Section
          3.2.2.4).

3.2.2.   Land Use

     The  Phase  I  Report on existing  conditions  presented a regional over-
view of  land  use  characteristics.   In that  report, land use data were pre-
sented only  on the  basis of  political  units such  as  by  town and county
area.

     The descriptions presented in this section of historic land use trends
in  Pine  and  Carlton counties  and  of  the  land  use within  specific lake
drainage  areas  or  "watersheds"  are  intended  to  provide a  quantitative
framework  for estimating  the origin and  significance  of  eutrophying nu-
trients  exported  into the area's lakes.  Historic land use indicators such
as population  figures,  cropland production  statistics,  and logging, forest
fire and settlement  dates were used to indicate the variations over time in
active uses of  the  land.  The  existing  land use in individual lake water-
sheds was determined by planimetric measurement to provide a basis for cal-

                                   3-56

-------
culation of annual  phosphorus  loads to each  lake.   Both historic and con-
temporary  land  use  information  provide  a basis  for assessing  the  conse-
quences of specific waste management alternatives.

3.2.2.1.  Historic Land Use Trends in Pine and Carlton Counties

     The settlement of northeastern Minnesota in the nineteenth century was
directly related  to the  area's  rich timber  resources.   "The  story  of the
lumbering  days  is the main  theme  of every community of  the  county  in the
pioneer days"  (Miller  1949).   By 1860, the logging  era was well underway,
with  the  timber industry  providing the  necessary  economic foundation for
the  development of  railroads  and  roads, and  towns  were founded  as the
population grew. This basic infrastructure later provided the basis for the
development of the region's second historical economy, dairying, by provid-
ing a  source  of capital and transport linkages  to  the metropolitan areas.

     Most of the communities in Pine and Carlton counties originated in the
1860s  and  1870s.   The  first road  connecting St.  Paul and Duluth-Superior
was completed  in 1857  and was  followed  by  the  Lake Superior-Mississippi
railroad  in 1870  and  the Great  Northern railroad  in  1887.   The  timber
industry reached its peak in the region between approximately 1870 and 1894
and numerous mills  were built  throughout the area to process the logs.  In
1890, Minnesota ranked first in the country in lumber production.

     "In  1870  a dam  was built  across  the Grindstone  River  by W. H.
     Grant, Sr., who  had arrived the year before from St.  Paul with a
     portable sawmill.   In the fall McKane Bros, built  a larger mill
     and obtained power  from the river.   This mill  was enlarged from
     time to time until in 1894 it employed 400 men.  In  15 years this
     mill cut 300,000,000 feet of lumber."  (Miller 1949).

     Although  the white pine forests were once  regarded as inexhaustable,
by  1900 the  timber  industry  in  this area  of Minnesota  was essentially
finished.   The  transition from  logging  to farming  began  in  much of Pine
County virtually overnight  as  a result of the event of September 1894 when
the  great  Hinckley  fire  devastated  much of the  central  portion  of Pine
County.  Although  the timber  industry was already  on  the decline  at the
                                   3-57

-------
time  of the Hinckley fire (and  forest  slash left from logging operations
probably  contributed greatly  to  the spread  of  the  fire),  Pine County was
never  to have  a  timber  industry  of the  scale  that  had  previously been
present.   "After  this  catastrophe,  the Paul Bunyan aspect  of  the county
changed,  and a  great movement was started by the  railroads and the govern-
ment to bring in the  real  settlers, the  farmers" (Miller 1949).

     The  northern  part of Pine County  (where the  service area is  located)
and the  southern  part of  Carlton County (including  part of the Island Lake
watershed)  were not  burned  over in  the Hinckley  fire and,  thus, logging
continued  there into the early  1900s.   As  the stands of white  pine and
hardwoods  were  depleted,  though,  settlers began  to  move  into  the area to
drain and  clear the  land  for  farming.   Many  of  the  settlers  were recruited
from neighboring states  as well as from  Europe,  with promises of cheap land
and good growing conditions.   The conversion  of  land  from forest to farm in
this  area was  greatly increased by  the "Moose Lake fire" of 1918.  This
fire  burned throughout  much  of  Windemere Township  and  definitely burned
most  of the remaining stand  of  timber  in  the  watershed  of Little Island
Lake  (US Forest Service  Map, unpublished).

     By  1920,   farming was  the predominant  land   use  in  these  watershed
areas.  The  number  of dairy cows  being milked in  Pine  and Carlton counties
continued  to increase until  approximately  1935  (Figures  3-12  and 3-13).
From  1935 to 1950,  the  number of dairy cows in the two counties declined
somewhat, but from  1950  to 1955, a recovery  in the number of  dairy cows was
recorded.   Since  1955,  the  number of  dairy cows  in the  two counties has
steadily  declined,  to  the point where  there are  now  fewer  dairy cows in
Pine  and Carlton counties than there were  in 1920  (US Department of Com-
merce  1929, 1934,  1939,  1949,  1969,  1978).  The amount  of  land  in crop
production  in the two counties has exhibited  a similar  trend; peak acreages
occurred  between  1935  and 1945  followed  by steady declines (Figures 3-12
and 3-13).  A chronology of some of the  more  important  events and trends in
Pine County and Windemere  Township during  the 20th Century  is presented  in
Figure  3-14.
                                    3-58

-------
       4.0 _
       3.5 _
       3.0 _
o
o
o

o"
0)


o
O
o
o
o
o*
o
                      Total Acres in Farmland
    £  2.5 _
to
0
o   fc  2.0 _
1
                                         V
                 Total Number of Dairy Cows Being Milked
       1.5 _
                      Total Acres in Crop Production
                                                   'V
        1.0 _

           1920
                   I

                 1930
  I

1940
  I


1950
1960
  I


1970
  I


1980
        Figure 3-12.
                         Pine County, MN: trends in agriculture from 1920

                         to 1978.  Data are from the U.S. Department of

                         Agriculture, Census of Agriculture.
                                    3-59

-------
      2.5 _
       2.0 _
o

2  °
O  o
o"  o  1.5
*-  o
x  o

S  x
O
O
    CO
    o
2   I
*O   O
w   .0
S   i  1.0
      0.5 _
                           Total Acres in Farmland
               1 Total Number of Dairy Cows Being Milked
                        .***     ******       *'•».
                        Total Acres in Crop Production
               "•"•"•',.
               iduction  **ff
           1920
                    1930
  I

1940
  I

1950
1960
  I

1970
  I

1980
           Figure  3-13.
                          Carlton County, MN: trends in agriculture from  1920

                          to 1978.  Data are from the U.S. Department of

                          Agriculture, Census of Agriculture.
                                      3-60

-------
    Figure  3-14.
A  chronology of  20th century events  and  fends in  Windemere
Township, Pine County, MN.
     Chronology
           Year
Number of Residents
Increase  in  the number of
permanent residences around
Island and Sturgeon Lakes.

Construction of seasonal
residences intensifies around
Island and Sturgeon Lakes.

Onset of steady decline in the
agricultural economy.
Period of peak  agricultural
activity in Pine County
State Hospital Developed in
Moose Lake.
Beginning of organized dairy
economy; first creameries are
established in the  area.
Moose Lake forest  fire (1918) }
 End of the first-cut logging
 era and increase  begins in
 development of agriculture
 Hinckley forest fire  (1894)   J
                                1890
                                             3-61

-------
     In a  study  of the  forest cover of Pine and Carlton counties conducted
by the  US  Forest Service in the period of 1974 to 1978 (Spencer and Ostrum
1979 and Vasilevsky and Hackett 1980)  it  was  reported that 61% of Carlton
County  and  53%  of  Pine County  was  forested.   Carlton  County  also was
reported to  have 87.4 thousand hectares of non-forested land, 51% of which
was combined cropland, pastureland, and idle farmland.  Pine County's 173.0
thousand  hectares  of  non-forested  land  had  67% of  the  acreage  in farm
related uses.   If  the  combined land use  categories of cropland, pasture-
land, and  idle farmland,  as reported by the US Forest  Service, are taken to
define  the total  agricultural  land use,  Carlton County  had approximately
44.6  thousand hectares  of  agricultural  land  and  Pine  County  had  115.9
thousand  hectares  of  agricultural  land.   Based  on these  figures,  it  is
estimated  that  in  1978  a maximum  of 19.7% of Carlton County  and 31.3% of
Pine  County  was  being  used for agricultural  purposes.  These percentages
are compared  with watershed agricultural land use percentages in the fol-
lowing section.

3.2.2.2.   Project  Area Land Use Trends

     An examination of  the  trends in  land use  within the "watersheds" of
the project  area lakes is useful  in  assessing  the past and present causes
of  lake eutrophication.  The generalized watershed  areas  of Island, Stur-
geon,  Rush,  and  Passenger  Lakes are presented  in Figure  3-21.   The gene-
ralized watershed areas  were  determined by  contour interpolation of USGS
topographic maps  (1979).  Field checks were made  to confirm the watershed
boundaries where alterations to the  landscape have  been made  through high-
way and other construction activities.

     The  land uses  within each watershed  area  were determined separately
for  direct drainage areas  and for  indirect  tributary drainages using the
topographic  maps and  aerial  photographs  (USGS  1974)  along with review of
color-infared  remote sensing  imagery (EMSL 1980) and field checks in the
lakeshore  vicinities.   The aerial extent of each land use  in  a watershed's
sub-area was  estimated by planimetry for forest, wetland,  cultivated land,
pasture,  lawn,  and  open water categories  (excluding  the  surface areas of
the lakes  themselves).   These watershed land use tabulations,  summarized in
Section  3.1.3.3.  are  referenced  in Table  3-18 for  comparison  to county
agricultural  land use  percentages.  ,_

-------
     Although the  methodologies were  not identical  for estimating county
and watershed land use, the differences found between the county and water-
shed percentages are  great enough to  indicate  a  significant divergence of
the local (watershed)  from the regional (county) land use pattern.
Table 3-18.  Estimated percent agricultural land use in county versus
             watershed delineations.
                               County Agriculturalfl   Watershed Agricultural
Watershed       County         Land Use Percentage     Land Use Percentage
Island Lake     Carlton/Pine        20%/31%                   42%
Sturgeon Lake   Pine                  31%                     34%
Rush Lake       Pine                  31%                      3%
Passenger Lake  Pine                  31%                      0%
a
 Derivation of County percent agricultural land is explained in Section
 3.2.2.1.  Original data are from the US Forest Service  (Spencer and Ostrum
 1979 and Vasilevsky and Hackett 1980).
b
 By direct estimation from topographic maps and aerial photograph.
     The most striking aspect of the information contained in Table  3-18 is
the  apparent predominance  of  agricultural  land  use  in  the  Island Lake
watershed.   Island Lake  has  the largest total watershed area of any  of the
four  lakes,  and the  percentage of  agricultural  land  in  its watershed is
also  the  highest of  the four.  Additionally,  the  Island  Lake watershed,
which is  bisected  by  the boundary between Carlton and  Pine counties  on the
northern  tip  of  the  lake (Figure 3-15), has a much  greater estimated agri-
cultural  land use percentage  (42%)  than either of  the counties  (20% Pine
County;  31%   Carlton  County).   Conversely,  Rush  Lake and  Passenger Lake
watersheds have little or no land in agricultural use.

     The modern prevalence of agricultural land use  that is apparent  in the
Island  Lake  watershed (Table  3-18)  may have been preceded  by  an equal or
even greater intensity of agricultural use in that area when dairying was a
much  more important   segment  of the local economy   (Section 3.2.2.1).  For
example, there were 116 producing farms in Windemere Township in 1930 which
accounted  for 13,055 acres  of land,  3,395 acres  of which were in crop
                                   3-63

-------
                                                           WATERSHED LAND AREA
                                                              IN HECTARES
Figure 3-15.
Generalized watershed areas for Island,  Sturgeon,  Rush,  and
Passenger Lakes.  Values shown are exclusive of surface  waters.

                    3-64

-------
production (US Department  of  Commerce 1929) .   This represents the level of
agricultural development in the Township which initiated the period of peak
dairying activities  in  the region as reflected by the number of dairy cows
being milked  in  Pine and  Carlton counties between 1935  and  1940 (Figures
3-13 and  3-14).   These  data  suggest that  the Island  Lake watershed his-
torically supported a much larger dairy animal population than it now does.
Much of the  agricultural economy of the Windemere and Moose Lake Townships
area appears  to  be  concentrated in and around the watershed area of Island
Lake and  the  northern portion of the Sturgeon lake watershed.  This may be
due  to  the concentration  of  prime agricultural  land in  these  respective
areas  (Section 3.2.2.3).   Long-time  residents  of the  area have  noted a
concentration  of  productive farms  in the  direct  drainage area  of  Island
Lake and  also have  described  the previous existence of  several barnyards
which  gave domestic  stock direct  access  to its  waters  (by  letter,  Mr.
Walter  C.  Johnson to Mr.  Gregory Dean Evenson, March  1980)  [Appendix K] .

     Another  significant land  use trend pertinent to the assessment of the
causes  of lake  eutrophication  is  the  rate  of  development of  lakeshore
properties for residential use.  In 1954, there were an estimated 35 houses
located adjacent to  Island Lake  but,  by 1967,  110 houses were counted
around  Island Lake  (MDNR n.d.  Fish and Wildlife Division,  lake survey data
sheets, unpublished).  Sturgeon Lake also has experienced an increased rate
of residential development  since the  1950s.  The rates of  shoreline devel-
opment  around Island  and Sturgeon Lakes since  1954 are depicted in Figure
3-16.

3.2.2.3.  Prime Farmlands

     One of  the  increasing concerns in the nation  is the  reduction in the
finite  supply of  prime  farmland.  Prime farmland is  that  land  best suited
for  producing food,  feed,  forage, fiber, and  oilseed crops,  and is avail-
able for these uses.  According to the most recent Council  on Environmental
Quality directive  (11 August  1980), prime and unique farmland is cropland,
pastureland,  rangeland, forest  land,  or  other  land  (excluding built-up
urban  land)  which is  capable  of being used  as prime  and unique farmland
                                   3-65

-------
                200-
                          ISLAND  LAKE

                          shoreline house counts 1954-1980
                           1940
                                   1950
                                           1960
                                    1970
                250-
                200-
               co 150-1
               ui
               co
               o

                100-
                 50-
                          STURGEON  LAKE

                          shoreline house counts 1955-1982
                           1940
                     r
                    1950
                                           1960
                                                   1970
 I
1980
Figure 3-16.
Rates of  residential development on  the  shorelines of
of Island and  Sturgeon Lakes.
                                   3-66

-------
as defined by  the  specific criteria established by  the  USDA.  The primary
criterion used to  characterize  prime farmland is the  capability  class and
subclass  assigned  to soils  and which  show,  in a  general way,  the suit-
ability of soil  capability classes I and II.   Class I soils have few limi-
tations  that  restrict  their use  and  Class  II  soils have  only moderate
limitations that reduce  the  choice of crops or  that require moderate con-
servation practices.   There are no  Class I soils in  Carlton County or in
the Island and  Sturgeon Lakes  area of Pine County (SCS 1978, Finney 1981).

     Capability  subclasses  are soil  groups within one  soil class  that
characterize more  specific limitations such as  erosion,  wetness, shallow-
ness,  or  climatic  limitations  (e.g.,  too dry,  too  cold,  etc.).   The only
soil in the project area that can be characterized as prime farmland is the
Duluth very fine silt  loam with 0 to  6%  slopes (SCS 1978).  This soil has
been assigned a  capability rating  of IIc-1.  This classification indicates
that  the  main  limitations  of  the  soils are  the  cool  climate  and short
growing season.

     Although a  detailed  soil  survey of Pine County has not been prepared,
the soils in the Pine  County portion  of  the  service area were mapped by a
registered  soil  scientist  in  support  of the  preparation  of  this Envi-
ronmental Report (Appendix B).   This soils mapping  indicated that  much of
the service area,  including  Island Lake's direct drainage basin as well as
much  of  the northeastern half  of  the   Sturgeon  Lake watershed,  contain
Duluth very  fine  silt  loam  with less than 4%  slopes  (Figure 3-17) .  (The
Duluth very fine silt loams in Pine County were  delineated either as having
slopes less  than  or greater than  4%.   Therefore, the area  in Pine County
depicted in Figure 3-17 slightly understates the amount  of  prime farmland
because it  does not indicate  those unmappable  areas of  Duluth  very fine
silt  loams  with 4 to 6%  slopes which can be characterized  as prime farm-
land.)

3.2.2.4.   Development Potential
                                   3-67

-------
OJ
I
00

°&V:''j  Prime Farmland
z,-,,,
<=     Additional Farmland
      of  Statewide
      Importance
      Approximate Limits
      of  Urban Growth
                                    Figure 3-17.  Prime farmlands in portions of Pine and Carlton Counties.
                                                  Derived from soil unit maps(SCS 1978, Finney 1981).

-------
Development Controls

     Winclemere Township does not have an overall zoning ordinance in effect
to control  development.   However,  Pine  County has  adopted  zoning regula-
tions as required  by the Minnesota Shoreland Management  Act  of 1969.  The
Act affects  all land  within  1,000 feet  of a  lake,  pond, or  flowage and
within 300  feet of a river or  stream.   In rural area, the Act applies to
all lakes  over 10  hectares  (25 acres)  in area and to rivers  and streams
with drainage areas in excess of 518 hectares (1,280 acres).

     The purpose  of the  Act  and the accompanying local  regulations  is to
control development  alongside lakes,  rivers,  and streams so  that the na-
tural  resource values  of the  water  body  are  maintained to  the  greatest
extent possible.   Public  waters are classified according to the Act in one
of three  categories -   Natural Environment, Recreational  Development, or
General Development.   The  different  classifications  control  the  kind of
intensity of  development  by regulating uses, building and  sewer setbacks,
and minimum lot sizes.  Island, Sturgeon, Rush,  and Passenger Lakes are all
classified  as  Recreational  Development  lakes  (By  telephone, Mr.  Steve
Preston, MDNR  to  WAPORA,  Inc., 26 February 1981).  The minimum development
standards for  unincorporated,  unsewered  areas  around recreational develop-
ment lakes are:
     Lot area:  40,000 ft'
     Water frontage and
     lot width:  150 ft
     Building setback
     from ordinary high water
     mark:  100 ft
     Building setback from
     roads and highways:  30-50 ft
     The minimum development  standards  for sewered areas of municipalities
that are  within the  shoreland  zone of recreational  development lakes are
less stringent.  The  required minimum lot sizes  for  such areas are 20,000
Building elevation above high-
est known water level: 3 ft
On-site waste treatment system
setback from ordinary high
water mark: 75 ft
Septic absorption system
elevation above groundwater
or bedrock:  4 ft
                                   3-69

-------
  2                                  2
ft   for riparian  lots and 15,000 ft   for  other lots within the shoreland
zone.   In addition, the  water  frontage  and  lot width  requirement is 75 feet
and  the minimum building setback  from  the  ordinary high water mark also is
75  feet.   MDNR  has  indicated that  the less  rigorous  minimum development
standards  applied within municipalities may  also be  applied  to sewered,
non-municipal  (i.e.,  unincorporated) lakes (By  telephone,  Mr.  Steve Pres-
tin, MDNR to WAPORA,  Inc., 26  February  1981).

Future  Development Potential

     Although  water-related recreation and similar  amenities  continue to
attract  new residents,  the  focus of  the   demand  generated  by the natural
resource  values  of  the  project  area  lakes  appears  to be  shifting.   Ac-
cording  to  the 1980 census, the population growth rate exceeded the growth
rate for  new housing units during the  1970.  This means that some seasonal
homes  were   converted  to  year-round residences  and  that more  homes  were
built  for permanent  use than for  seasonal,  recreational use.   This  most
recent  trend apparently  is a result  of  retired people moving to the area on
a permanent basis, and the desire of some people  to live in a high amenity,
rural  area  and  commute  long  distances  to  work.  Continued  growth  of the
non-retired  permanent population will  be   significantly  influenced  by se-
veral  external factors including the regional economy,  the  price of gaso-
line, and long-distance  commuting costs.

     Much of  the  lakeshore development activity within the  service  area
over the last  30  years  has  been concentrated  around  Island and Sturgeon
Lakes.   As a result,  there now is a  limited supply of vacant lakefront lots
around  these two  lakes.   Based  on  a  house count and  examination of  plat
maps and tax  records,  it  is estimated that  there are  approximately 50
vacant  lakefront  lots  around Island  Lake and approximately  105  vacant
lakefront lots around Sturgeon  Lake.   This estimate does not  reflect de-
velopment constraints such as  wet soils, steep slopes, lack of road access,
or other natural features.  If current  growth rates are maintained, both of
these lakes will become  "built-out"  during  the planning period.  After this
occurs, it  is  possible that some housing demand will continue in this area
                                   3-70

-------
and will translate into development around the smaller lakes in the service
area  (e.g., Rush  and  Passenger Lakes), in the second-tier or back lots, or
around other small, less desirable lakes in outlying areas.

     Whether* the high growth trends of the 1970's will continue through the
next 20 years is uncertain.  One local realtor that was contacted felt that
the Island-Sturgeon Lake  area  still has a lot of growth potential and that
second-tier lots or homes are in demand, particularly to retirees and young
couples, because  of their lower cost  (By telephone, Ms. Ann Brown, Century
21 Real Estate  to WAPORA, Inc., 12 April  1982).   One subdivision develop-
ment that  exemplifies  the basis of this opinion  is the Wild Acres - Hogan
Acres projects  located  to the southeast of  Sturgeon  Lake  and east of Rush
Lake.   All of  the  92  lots  platted  in the Hogan Acres have  been sold and
more  than  100 of the 136  platted  lots in Wild Acres have been sold.  Al-
though  most  of the lots  have  been sold, many of  the  buyers apparently do
not intend to develop their parcels immediately.  There are an estimated 75
structures permanently  inplace  in  the two subdivisions, including standard
homes, manufactured homes, and campers.  Many of the other lot owners leave
campers on the  property only during the summer  and then spend weekends in
the  area  for recreation.   The developer  intentionally structured the de-
velopment  in  this way and  uses  this  aspect of the project  as a marketing
device.  One  of the developer's brochures states:  "It is not necessary to
build  on   the  lots.  The  use  of  mobile  homes,  travel  trailers, campers,
motor homes, and tents is allowed."

     Other realtors are less optimistic about the  development potental of
the area.  The  most common reasons cited  are  the generally soft local and
regional  economies and  the  absence   of  employment  opportunities,  parti-
cularly for young people  (By telephone, Mr. Bud Fuller, Ken Brown Realty to
WAPORA,  Inc.,  12  April  1982).   Although  all of  the realtors  contacted
indicated  that  demand  for lakefront lots or homes  continues to be strong,
they  also  noted  that  most  of  the prime  lakefront areas are  already de-
veloped. In  spite of the  good  sales  history at Wild Acres  - Hogan Acres,
other  realtors  have not  had good  success  in selling homes  or lots in the
second tier or  in outlying areas.  For this reason, they are are  less opti-
mistic  about  the  development  potential  of  the area  (by  telephone,  Mr.
Clarence Schoen,  Clarence  Schoen  Realty to WAPORA,  Inc.,  12 April 1982).
                                   3-71

-------
3.2.3.  Economics

3.2.3.1.  Income

     Current  data on median  family income  are available  from  the US De-
partment of  Housing  and Urban Development  (HUD) Office of  Economic Affairs
(Data  from  the 1980 Census are  not  yet available) .   These data are avail-
able at the county level only and were  derived  from statistical adjustments
of previous  census  data.  Although  the county  estimates are reasonably ac-
curate, the  use  of  the data for jurisdictions  within a county is tentative
and  their  applicability will  depend on  the  relative  wealth  or poverty of
the area as compared to the county.

     The level of income in the project  area and  Pine and  Carlton counties
as indicated by per capita and median family income data, is relatively low
(Table  3-19  and  Table 3-20).  In  1981  the estimated median family incomes
of $17,000  for Pine County and  $21,100 for Carlton County both were below
the  estimated median family  incomes of  Non-Standard  Metropolitan Statis-
tical  Area  (SMSA)   counties   ($22,850),  the North  Central  Census  Region
($25,600),  and the  US  ($24,400)  (By  telephone HUD).   The relatively low
level  of  income  characteristic  of  the project area  and  Pine and Carlton
counties reflects the  concentration of  employment  in the relatively low-
paying  trade, government,  and  service  industries  and  the high  level of
unemployment  (Section 3.2.3.2. Employment).

     The income  distribution  within the  project  area varies widely.  The
estimated median  family income ranges  from  $16,275  in Moose  Lake Township
to $26,356  for the  City of Moose Lake.   The estimated median family income
for Windemere Township  is $21,132.  This is 24% greater than the estimates
for  Non-SMSA counties,   the  North Central  Census  Region and  the US.  The
estimated median family  income  in the City of Moose  Lake  is greater than
the  estimates for all  of the jurisdictions  for which data were analyzed.
This probably  reflects  the economic  function of the City of Moose Lake as a
primary trade  center  (Section  3.2.3.2.  Employment).
                                    3-72

-------
Table 3-19.  Per capita income estimates for selected jurisdictions (US
      Bureau of the Census 1972, 1980).
                                            Percent Change   Estimated 1981
Jurisdiction          1969 ($)   1977  ($)     1969-1977        Income ($)
Pine County
Windemere Township
Carlton County
Moose Lake Township
City of Moose Lake
State of Minnesota
2,183
2,657
2,513
1,705
3,147
3,038
4,054
5,004
4,731
3,457
5,909
5,778
86%
88%
88%
103%
88%
90%
5,797
7,206
6,813
5,255
8,510
8,378

Table 3-20.  Estimated 1981 median family income for selected jurisdic-
             tions.
                    Jurisdiction               Median Income Estimates ($)
                     Pine County                         $17,000
                     Windemere Township                   21,100
                     Carlton County                       21,100
                     Moose Lake Township                  16,275
                     City of Moose Lake                   26,356
3.2.3.2.  Employment

     The  economic structure  of  the  project  area and  surrounding region
(Northeastern Minnesota:  Aitkin, Carlton, Cook, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake,
and  St.  Louis  counties  [Region 7]  and Pine  County)  contrasts  with the
economic structure  of Minnesota  and  the US  in some  very important ways.
First,  the  dominant  industry  in northeastern  Minnesota is trade  (concen-
trated in the  Moose  Lake and Duluth-Superior areas),  whereas at the State
and  National  level,  manufacturing  is the dominant  industry  (Northeastern
Minnesota Labor  Market  Information  Center  1980).   In 1978, manufacturing
employment  in  northeastern Minnesota  accounted for 13.9%  of the wage and
salary workers  as compared  to  the statewide percentage  of 22.1.   This is
particularily  important because  overall the trade  industry traditionally
has  been  associated  wth  low wages  (especially retail  trade)  and is very
sensitive  to  cyclical  variations  in  the  economy  (e.i.,  when "spending
                                   3-73

-------
money" becomes  tight many of  the  goods  and services available through the
trade  industry  are  not consumed,  thus  levels  of  employment decrease).

     Second, in  1978 the mining  industry was  the  largest  industry  in north-
eastern Minnesota in terms of  wages paid,  but ranked  fifth in total employ-
ment.   This is  not  characteristic of  the State  and  National employment
structures  where the manufacturing  industry is  the  largest  industry in
terms of both employment and total wages paid (Peterson and Gronseth 1980).
This  also  is  important  because  any changes in the level of employment in
the  mining  industry would  quickly affect  other  sectors of  the economy,
especially  port  activity (concentrated in the Duluth-Superior  area), which
also  plays an important role  in the economy of  the  region.   In  1979, the
value of  income  generated by  port  activities  from wages paid  and the pur-
chase of  goods  and services  amounted  to  $239 million  (Northeastern Min-
nesota Labor Market  Review 1980).

     In April  1982, Pine County had an  estimated labor force  of  9,549 and
an unemployment  rate of  10.3%  (By telephone,  Patrick  Connelly,  East Central
Region Development  Commission, to WAPORA, Inc.,  12 July  1982).  During the
same  month,  Carlton  County  had  an estimated labor  force  of  11,900 and an
unemployment rate of  11.4%.   The unemployment rates for the  two counties
compares  to an  unemployment  rate 9.8%  for  Region  7,  13.6% for  Region 3,
7.0%  for  the State  and  9.2% for the US.  The comparatively high  unemploy-
ment rate  for Region 3 is a result of the  weakness  of those national indus-
tries that are most directly  tied  to the  regional  economy.  In April 1982,
less  than  one-half  of  the steel  industry's potential capacity  was being
utilized and this had a  direct  impact on  the need  for taconite produced on
the  Minnesota  Iron  Range and  hence on  local employment levels  (Minnesota
Department of Economic Security  1982).

     The local  economy in Windemere Township differs somewhat  from that of
Pine  County or  the region in that agriculture  and  forestry  are the pre-
dominant   industries.    Not  including  agriculture,  an  employment  survey
counted  54  people   employed in  Windemere Township  (Pine County  Area Re-
development  Organization 1979).   The  greatest potential  for   economic de-
velopment  in Pine  County probably is  in  the tourism-recreation  industry.
                                    3-74

-------
Only 3.5% of  the  County's total gross sales are from the tourist-traveler,
and  Pine  County currently  ranks  53rd out  of 87 counties  in Minnesota in
tourist-travel income.  The  relatively  modest contribution of tourism-rec-
reation to  the county  economy  probably is  not indicative  of the contri-
butions that tourism-recreation make to the more local economy of Windemere
Township (Pine County Area Redevelopment Organization 1979).

     At present there  are approximately 127 business establishments in the
Moose Lake area  (Moose Lake Planning Commission 1980) .  Fifty-three of the
businesses  (42%)  are categorized  as retail  and  wholesale sales establish-
ments.   This  category  includes  grocery stores, clothing stores, and whole-
sale distributors.   In  1977,   there  were  $10,146,312  in retail  sales in
Moose Lake,  and it  is estimated  that  this could  increase  to $12,000,000
annually by 1985.   Moose Lake is considered the primary retail trade center
for a fairly  large  area.   The trade zone of Moose Lake includes the cities
of Moose  Lake, Barnum,  Kettle  River, Sturgeon  Lake,  Denham, and Kerrick,
and the Townships of Moose Lake,  Barnum,  Silver,  Split  Rock, Birch Creek,
Kerrizk, Sturgeon Lake, and Windemere.

3.2.4.   Public Finance

     A  variety of  community services  are  provided  for the residents of
Moose  Lake  and  Windemere  Townships.   Among  them  are health  and welfare
services,  transportation facilities, police and fire protection and, within
the city of  Moose Lake, wastewater collection and  treatment.  The ability
of the townships to maintain and improve these services is dependent on the
continued  ability  of  township  residents  to finance  them.   Income and em-
ployment levels  are one  measure  of a community's  ability  to support com-
munity services.  Additionally,  the assessed valuation of property directly
affects tax revenues collected by local governments, and consequently their
financial  capabilities.   The amount of outstanding indebtedness and annual
debt service  borne  by  a community also affects the communits capability to
finance public works  projects.  The 1980 assessed valuation, property tax,
total revenue,  outstanding indebtedness,  and  debt service  for the juris-
dictions within the project area are presented in Table 3-21.
                                   3-75

-------
Table 3-21. Selected financial characteristics of the project area jurisdictions in 1980 (Carlson 1982a,

            1982b; by telephone, Minnesota Department of Revenue to Wapora, Inc., 4 June 1982; by letter,

            Mr. Harold Westholm, Moose Lake-Windemere Sanitary District to WAPORA, Inc., 2 April 1982).
Assessed
Jurisdiction Valuation ($)
Windemere Township
Moose Lake Township
Moose Lake-Windemere
Sanitary District
Pine County
Carlton County
f Moose Lake
JJ School District
City of Moose Lake
3,310,539
1,701,968

4,552,404
46,876,244
88,981,157
10,529,509
2,608,374
Full Market
Value ($) Debt ($)
11,377,679 -0-
5,812,784 -0-

17,190,463 1,295,551
120,000
750,000
245,000
540,000
Debt . Property
Service ($) Tax ($)
-0-
-0-

82,100
20,000
-
78,807
22,000
32,925
50,037

23,982
2,523,087
3,714,732
545,043
52,305
Total f
Revenue ($)
56,362
27,300

1,381,989
9,699,480
11,332,481
-
363,138
a
 The value of all taxable general property as determined by the municipal assessor.


 The value of all taxable general property as determined by the Minnesota Department of Revenue.  This

 value is determined independently of the assessed value and reflects actual market value.

c
 General obligation bonds, long-term notes, revenue bonds, and installment contracts.

d
 Debt payment = principal + interest.

e
 State, County, local, and school property tax levies.

f
 Total revenues for general operations.

-------
     Criteria for prudent  fiscal  management have been developed by several

authors, and  an adaptation  of  these criteria is  presented  in Table 3-21.

These recommended  standards can  be  compared  with relationships developed

from the previously  discussed  municipal data  (Table  3-22)  to assess local

financial conditions.  Based on these criteria, the  financial condition of

the MLWSD  in 1980 appears to  be  sound.   All of  the values  for the MLWSD

fall below  the limits given in Table 3-23.   However,  the indicators con-

cerning debt  to  full market value and debt to personal income are close to

the standard upper limits.  This appears to be the result of  the relatively

large debts  that  the MLWSD has incurred for  the Sand Lake and Coffee Lake
improvement projects.  If additional large debts are  undertaken in the near

future,   it  is  possible  that some of  the  standard  upper limits  would be

exceeded.  This would  depend,  though,  on  the  retirement  schedule for out-

standing debts  and the amount  of capital  needed for improvement projects.
Table 3-22.  Values for Moose Lake-Windernere Sanitary District  full-faith
             and credit debt analyses during 1980.
   1980
Population

  3,817
 Debt Per
Capita ($)'

    394
   Debt to
Full Value (%)'

     8.7
 Debt Service
to Revenue (%)

    5.9
 Debt to
Income (%)'

   6.0
 Debt includes school and county debt apportioned on the basis of the Sani-
 tary District's percentage of the assessed valuations of the school dis-
 trict and counties.
Table 3-23.  Criteria for local government full-faith and credit debt
             analysis (Adapted from Moak and Hillhouse 1975 and Aron-
             son and Schwartz 1975).
Debt Ratio

Debt per Capita
  Low Inc ome
  Middle Income
  High Income
Debt to Market Value
  Property
Debt Service to Revenue

Debt to Personal Income
                    Standard Upper Limit for Debt
                             $  500
                              1,000
                              5,000

                    10% of current market value
                    25% of the local government's
                     total budget
                    7%
                                   3-7 7~

-------
     Households  in  the  MLWSD  pay a  user fee  of  $4.00 per  month.   This
represents an annual user fee of $48.  The monthly fee includes $3.25/month
for  operation and maintenance,  $0.50/month for  use  of  the  City of Moose
Lake's  waste  treatment plant, and $0.25/month  for  District administrative
costs.  In addition to the user fee, users are assessed a connection charge
payable  over  a  30-year  period.   Users  around  Coffee  Lake  are assessed
$2,150  for  connecting to  the system.  The assessment  is $2,900 for users
around  Sand Lake.  Assuming that a user presently is paying the annual user
fee  and the  assessment,  the typical  total  annual  charge  to users around
Coffee  Lake and Sand Lake is $120 and $145, respectively.

3.2.5.  Transportation

     The  private  automobile  is  the primary mode of  transportation in the
project area.   County  Highway CH10 and CH46 are the major, paved thorough-
fares  in  the project  area.   Interstate  35  (1-35), which  is located just
west of the  proposed service area, is a limited access highway and facili-
tates accessibility  north to Duluth  (approximately 45 miles)  and south to
Minneapolis-St.  Paul and beyond.   There is a  full  traffic interchange on
1-35 at CH 46.  Although most  of  the other roads  in  the project area are
either  sand or  gravel  surfaced, the annual average  daily traffic  (adt) is
equal to  or  greater than the adt  on other roads for which data were avail-
able in most of northwestern Pine  County (Minnesota Department of Transpor-
tation  [MNDOT]  1979);  Appendix M.   The  adt  on  1-35 within Pine County
increases from north to  south indicating heavier traffic away from Duluth.
On State Highway 61, the main thoroughfare to Moose Lake, the  adt increases
from south to north indicating heavier traffic toward Moose Lake.

     The  closest  automatic  traffic  recorder  (atr)   station to the project
area is located 1.5 miles east of  County State Aid Highway  (CSAH) 21, south
of  the  project area  near Sandstone  MN.   Seasonally adjusted monthly adt
indicate  that adt  peaks  in November  (MNDOT 1981; Appendix M).  Data on the
total daily volume indicate that the highest adt occurs on Saturday.  These
phenomena  reflect  the  autumn  season,  hunting-generated traffic  which is
greater than  the summer season, recreation-generated traffic.
                                   3-78

-------
     The other modes  of  transportation available  in  or in close proximity
to the  project area  are:   Senior citizen bus  service,  railroad, and air-
plane.   The  Pine County  Committee on  Aging operates  an  11-passenger bus
five  times  a month  for  medical  services  and  provides transportation ser-
vices  to 12  Senior  Citizen  Centers  located   throughout  Pine  County (By
telephone, Ms. Pearl  Oleson,  President, Pine County  Committee on Aging to
WAPORA,  Inc.,  12  July 1982).   The nearest commercial airport  is  located at
Duluth.  Numerous intermediate  airports are located in the vicinity of the
project  area.  Burlington  Northern,  Inc. and Soo Line own and operate rail
facilities in the vicinity of the project area.

3.2.6.   Energy

     There are  four  types  of energy  available for  space  heating and ap-
pliance  use  in the  project area: fuel oil, liquid  propane  gas (Ip gas),
wood, and electricity.   Natural gas is  not  available in the  service area,
but  is  available in  the  City of Moose Lake.   There  are  no published data
available on consumption patterns  in  the  area and  local  opinion varies.
Wood,  Ip gas, and  fuel  oil  are most  commonly  used  for  space heating (By
telephone Mr.  J.  Sanders,  Carlton-Aitkin-Pine  Cooperative Oil Association;
Mr.  C.  Chmielewski,  Chmielewski Oil Company;  and Roger Davidson, Carlton
County Cooperative  Power  Association to WAPORA, Inc. 14 June  1982).   Elec-
tricity  is not a popular choice  for  space heating unless it  is  used at an
off-peak reduced  rate as  a back-up for wood  (Mr.  Roger Davidson, Carlton
County Cooperative  Power  Association to WAPORA, Inc.,  14  June 1982).  The
use  of  wood  for  space heating  has  increased  in  recent  years.  A back-up
system which requires either  Ip  gas, fuel oil,  or electricity  is  necessary.
Electricity,  followed by  Ip  gas  and  fuel  oil  is most commonly used for
appliances.    There  are no  major commercial,  industrial,  or retail energy
consumers in either the  project  area or the City of Moose Lake.  The  state
hospital in  Moose Lake is the biggest  consumer in the area  (By  telephone,
Mr.  L.  Johnson Moose Lake  Municipal Power  Plant  to  WAPORA,  Inc., 11 June
1982).

     Pine County  is located in  State Planning  Region 7E and Carlton County
is located in State Planning Region  3.   In terms  of the cost for residen-
                                   3-79

-------
tial  energy  these two  regions ranked  approximately  seventh and fourth,
respectively,  out  of  the thirteen  state planning  regions  (Table 3-24.).
The differences  in total cost  reflect both differences  in unit cost and in
degree  heating days.   The  unit cost  for the  various forms  of  energy is
higher  in Region  3 (Carlton County)  than in  Minnesota as  a whole.   This
also is true  in Pine County, except  for natural gas  which is less expensive
than the  state-wide average  (Appendix N.).
Table 3-24.  Average cost for residential energy during the period from April
             1980 to March  1981  (Minnesota Energy Agency 1981).
                                     	Fuel Type	
  Region                  Use        Natural Gas   Electricity   Fuel Oil   LP Gas
3 (Carlton County)   Space heating      $703         $  978       $1,281    $1,107
                     Total energy        988          1,562        1,865     1,640
7E (Pine County)     Space heating       490            994        1,101     1,064
                     Total energy        849          1,585        1,692     1,616
a
 Data are not available for wood.  A full cord of wood is estimated to cost
 approximately $50  (By telephone, Mr. C. Chmielewski, Chmielewski Oil Company
 to WAPORA, Inc. 14 June  1982).
     There  are no  restrictions  foreseen on  natural gas  hook-ups  in the
Moose  Lake  area at  this time (By telephone,  Intercity  Gas Limited  to WA-
PORA,  Inc.,  11 June 1982).   Electrical  energy in the service area is sup-
plied  by  the Carlton County  Cooperative  Power Association.  The Moose Lake
Municipal Power Plant supplies electricity to  the City of Moose Lake.  Both
of these suppliers purchase electricity from United Power Association  (UPA)
of Elk River, Minnesota.   UPA owns a 2-year old generating  station in North
Dakota  which currently  is operating  at 50%  of  its capacity.   There are
currently no foreseen shortages of either Ip gas or fuel oil.
                                   3-80

-------
3.2.7.  Recreation and Tourism

     The tourism-travel industry is not considered a major industry in Pine
County  (East  Central Regional Development  Commission  [ECRDC]  1981).   How-
ever,  there  are indicators  that the  industry  is growing  as  energy costs
inhibit long-distance  travel  and Twin Cities vacationers seek recreational
opportunities closer  to  home.   The 1979 gross sales for the tourism-travel
industry in  Pine County  was  $1,880,000  (By  telephone, Mr.  Igmar Sollin,
Minnesota Department  of  Tourism  to WAPORA, Inc., 14  June  1982).   The es-
timated cost breakdown is shown below:

     $376,000  lodging
      470,000  transportation
      507,000  food and beverage
      414,000  retail and other services
      113,000  amusements and other miscellaneous

     The gross  sales  in  the tourism-travel industry accounted  for 3.5% of
the total gross sales in Pine County during 1979  (By telephone, Mr. Patrick
Connelly, ECRDC  to WAPORA,  Inc.  14 July  1982).   This  figure can be consi-
dered  significant  to  Pine County  where  trade  is the  largest employment
sector.   In  comparison  to tourism-travel  sales statewide, however,  Pine
County  sales are less significant,  accounting for only 0.10% of the state-
wide sales during  1979 (By telephone, Mr.  Igmar  Sollin,  Minnesota Depart-
ment of Tourism to WAPORA, Inc.,  14 June 1982).

     The tourism-travel  industry  in the project area primarily consists of
private development.   There is  a public  access  area on each  of  the four
lakes.  There  are two resorts  in  the  project area, both of  which are on
Sturgeon Lake.   The  Eidelweiss  Campground has six cabins and  60 campsites
(By telephone,  Ms. Sheldine Ion, Eidelweiss Campground to WAPORA, Inc., 14
July 1982).   Ray and Marges Resort has cabins and a bar.  Both resorts rent
small fishing boats.

     Fishing is  the  major recreational activity on the service area lakes,
although pleasure boating is a major recreational activity on Sturgeon Lake
                                   3-81

-------
and Island Lake.  There  are private piers and swimming beaches only.  There
are no  public  parks or  marinas  in  the project  area  (By telephone, Mr. Don
Clausen, Moose Lake Village Clerk to WAPORA, Inc., 14 July 1982).

3.2.8.  Cultural Resources

     Both the  National Register of Historic Places and the Minnesota State
Historic  Preservation Officer  (SHPO)  were consulted  concerning the arch-
aeological and historic  resources within the MLWSD (Appendix  ).  There are
currently no known  resources within the project area that are listed in or
considered  eligible  for inclusion  to the  National Register  of Historic
Places.

3.2.8.1.  Historic Sites

     The  following  sites have been identified by the SHPO as being located
within the boundaries  of the EIS project area:

     •    21 PN  6  - A group of  14  mounds  located near Sturgeon Lake.
          Section 20,  T45 R19, Pine County
     •    21  PN 18  -  Two  mounds  located near Eidelweiss  Resort on
          Sturgeon Lake.  Section 20,  T45 R19, Pine County
     •    21 PN 19 - Historic archaeological site (Charcoal Kilns) lo-
          cated in Section 20, T45 R19, Pine County
     •    Unnumbered  site located in Sections 16 and 21, T45 R19, Pine
          County.
     The  SHPO  has  stated  that  Pine  Cunty has been  surveyed recently for
historic, standing  structures.   While no  structures  were  determined  to be
eligible  for  the National  Register of Historic Places, one  site of local
historic  interest  was  identified  within the proposed  service  area.   This
site is the original YMCA Boys Camp containing the original Camp Miller Log
Cabin structure,  located in the southern half of Section 17, Township 45N
Range  19  W (southwest shore of  Sturgeon  Lake).  This  structure was con-
structed  prior  to  1920 and is  listed  as  being  in good condition according
to the records of the  SHPO.
                                   3-82

-------
3.2.8.2.  Archaeological Sites

     While  few  archaeological  sites  have been  recorded within  the boun-
daries of the project area,  it is the opinion of the SHPO that this absence
is related  to a  lack  of systematic  surveys for  the  area rather  than an
actual  absence  of resources.   The  SHPO has stated  that an archaeological
survey may be necessary for the service area.  Final recommendations on the
necessity of a  survey  will  be withheld pending review of the final project
alternative.
                                   3-83

-------
4.0.  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

     The potential  environmental  consequences of  the  project alternatives
described in  Section 2.4. are  discussed in  the following  sections.   The
impacts  resulting  from  the  construction and  operation  of  the alternatives
may be beneficial or adverse,  and  may vary in duration and significance.  A
summary of the  significant  impacts  of project alternatives is presented in
Table 4-1.

     Environmental effects  are  classified  as either primary  or secondary
impacts.   Primary impacts  result directly  from  the  construction  and/or
operation of the proposed facilities.  Short-term primary impacts generally
occur  during construction.   Long-term  primary  impacts  result from  the
operation of the proposed project.

     Secondary impacts are indirect  effects of the project, such as changes
in  demographic  and other socioeconomic  characteristics.   As these  changes
occur,  other  impacts which may result  include:   air  or  water  pollution,
increased noise  levels,  increased  energy consumption, increased development
pressure, diminished wildlife  habitats,  increased employment or  business
activity, and  increased  property values.   Secondary  impacts also  may be
either  short-term  or  long-term.   An  example  of  a short-term secondary
impact  is  the  disruption of  the  environment that occurs  during  the  con-
struction of  secondary  development.   Long-term  secondary  impacts  can re-
sult, for example,  from urban runoff that  occurs  for  an indefinite period
after development of agricultural  land or undeveloped areas.

     Measures to control  or mitigate adverse impacts are also discussed in
this chapter.   These measures include planning activities and construction
techniques that can  reduce  the  severity  of both  primary and secondary
adverse  impacts.   The  use  of  appropriate  mitigative  measures should be
stipulated as  an  integral  part  of  all  project plans  and specifications
developed by the Sanitary District.
                                    4-1

-------
Table 4-1. A summary of significant environmental impacts of Project Alternatives.
                   ADVERSE IMPACTS
                                                 BENEFICIAL IMPACTS
o
o
*«
0
o
o
      o
      ©
      "2
      Q.
       O
       Q.
      O
          Project Alternatives 4 through 7 could
          cause short-term water quality degrada-
          tion during construction of centralized
          collection and treatment facilities.
          See Section 4.1.1.3.
          Project Alternatives 2 through 7 would
          have short-term impacts on backyard
          vegetation and on vegetation and wild-
          life in sewer corridors and at treat-
          ment sites.   Alternative 5 would have
          significant short-term impacts on
          wildlife due to construction of exclu-
          sionary fence.  See Section 4.1.1.5.
        '  Project Alternative 5 could have long-
          term impacts on the groundwater and
          biota at the site of treatment.  See
          Sections 4.1.2.2. and 4.1.2.5.

          Project Alternative 5 could have long-
          term impacts on the peat soils at the
          treatment site.  See Sect ion .4. .l..:2i 2..
   Project  Alternative  7  is  a high  cost
   system that  could  pose  a significant
   financial  burden on users  even  if State
   and Federal  grants are  available.
   Project Alternative 2 is the  only
   alternative  that would  not pose a
   significant  financial burden  on users
   if no grants are available.   See
   Section 4.1.3.  for details.
   Project Alternatives  2  through  7 may
   have  a significant  secondary  impact
   on  low income  families  with residences
   on  the shorelines of  Island and Sturgeon
   Lakes.  These  families  may be displaced
   from  the project area if  they are unable
   to  afford  user charges.   See  Section
   4.2.2. and Table 4-4  of Section 4.1.3.
                                     4-2

-------
4.1.  Primary Impacts of the Seven Project Alternatives

4.1.1.  Construction Impacts

     Each  of the  alternatives involves  some construction  initially,  in-
cluding the  No-Action Alternative,  which  incorporates some construction of
new  systems  and  upgraded  systems  in  the  course  of  the  20-year  design
period.  Evaluation  of  the impacts associated with  the No-Action Alterna-
tive  is discussed  with  operational  impacts in Section 4.1.2.  Construction
impacts for  Alternatives  2  through 7 (the  "action"  alternatives)  are  ad-
dressed in  the  following subsections  for each of the major elements of the
natural and man-made environments.

4.1.1.1.  Atmosphere

     Construction  activities  for  Alternatives  2  through  7 will  produce
short-term adverse  impacts  to  local air quality.  Cleaning, grading, exca-
vating, backfilling, and other related construction activities will gener-
ate  fugitive dust, noise,  and odors.  Emissions  of fumes  and  noise from
construction  equipment   will be a  temporary nuisance  to  residents living
near  the  sewer  pipe construction  corridor  and  near the  treatment facil-
ities.

4.1.1.2.  Soils

     Soils  exposed during  construction will be subjected  to  accelerated
erosion until the soil surface  is protected by revegetation or other means.
Most of the  force mains will be laid within road rights-of-way where runoff
tends to concentrate in roadside drainageways, but some sewers will be laid
through residential yards.

     Major storms  could  cause  considerable erosion in some drainageways or
on lots on steep slopes.  The alternatives that involve the construction of
considerable lengths of  sewers  and force mains can be expected to result in
the  greatest amount of erosion  and  subsequent  sedimentation.   Adverse
consequences  due  to increased  sedimentation include additional phosphorus
inputs to  lakes and streams, clogging of road culverts, localized flooding
                                    4-3

-------
where drainageways  are filled with sediment,  and  localized filling of the
lake bed so that a  substrate  for aquatic plant growth is provided.

4.1.1.3.  Surface Water

     Wastewater  collection  system  and treatment plant construction activi-
ties  (Alternatives  4 through 7) could produce discharges  of turbid waters
pumped  from  excavations  and  trenches, and  turbid  surface  runoff from dis-
turbed  areas, resulting  in  increased turbidity and sedimentation  in ad-
jacent  wetlands  or  lakes.   This sediment  transport  could result in water
quality degradation,  and  has the potential to result in adverse  impacts to
aquatic  biota.   Upgrading  on-site  systems (Alternatives  2 through 7) and
construction  of  collection  systems for cluster drainfields  (Alternatives 3
through  6)  also  would contribute turbid runoff  to lakes or waterways, but
to  a  lesser  extent compared to the  construction  of  the  centralized col-
lection and treatment  alternatives.

4.1.1.4.  Groundwater

     Groundwater  may  be  impacted  by construction  activities  in localized
areas.   Construction dewatering may cause  some  shallow  wells  to fail, es-
pecially where  pump stations are to be constructed.  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.  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 4 through  7) and upgraded
systems  (Alternatives 2  through  7) would  be  placed on  residential lots;
temporary  loss  of  grassed  areas and  the   removal  or death of trees would
result  from  construction  of  these  facilities.   Disruption  of backyard
                                     4-4

-------
gardens, shrubs, and  lawns,  and the presence of construction equipment and
noises, would  cause  temporary displacement of most  vertebrate  species and
mortality  of  a  few   (probably  small mammal)  species,  but  replacement of
vegetation and  cessation of construction activities  would  allow re-estab-
lishment of  the animals  to  the areas.   More likely  the animals commonly
associated with human habitation (e.g., cottontail rabbits,  house sparrows,
European starlings) that  would  be displaced would move  to  suitable neigh-
boring  habitats but  would not  induce  density-related   stress  upon those
habitats.

     A  bog treatment system  (Alternative 5) , cluster  drainfields  (Alter-
natives  3  through 6), and an upgraded lagoon (Alternatives  4,  6,  and 7,)
would  adversely affect  vegetation  and  wildlife during  construction,  de-
pending  upon  the  proposed  sites.   Establishment  of exclusionary  fences
around the bog treatment site would disrupt feeding and migration habits of
whitetail  deer  and other large mammals.  Placement  of  cluster drainfields
would be somewhat  removed from residential areas, and little disruption of
vegetation or  wildlife would be  expected by  their  construction.   The im-
pacts  on  terrestrial biota  that  would  result from  upgrading the existing
on-site  systems would  be insignificant  because  a relatively  small total
amount  of  construction  on developed land would be required to complete the
project.

4.1.1.6.  Demographics

     Temporary  jobs  created by  the construction  of  wastewater collection
and treatment  facilities  are  not  likely to attract any new permanent resi-
dents  to the  project  area.  These positions would most likely be filled by
workers from the immediate and surrounding areas.  Some permanent residents
may reduce the time  spent in their  homes while  construction of on-site or
sewer  systems  occurs  on their property.   Because many  residents utilize
their  lakeshore property for vacation purposes,  vacation schedules may be
disrupted  by  the  construction  activities.    No significant  demographic
impacts  will  occur  during reconstruction  of wastewater treatment facil-
ities.
                                    4-5

-------
4.1.1.7.  Land Use

     Construction  activities associated with  the implementation of Alter-
natives  3 through  7  would  require  some  conversions  of  land  use  in the
project  area.   Under  Alternatives  3  through 7,  residential, agricultural,
forest,  and  wetland areas would be affected  to  varying degrees.  The con-
struction of  the lagoon expansion at the existing Moose Lake WWTP, the bog
treatment system,  and the cluster  drainfields will  require permanent land
conversion,  as  shown in Table 4-2.  Under any of the Project Alternatives,
less than 0.1%  of the farmland in Pine County would be converted to treat-
ment sites.
Table 4-2. Land use conversions for "action" alternatives.
Project
Alternat ive
#2
#3
#4

#5

#6


Treatment System
On-site
Cluster drainfield
Lagoon upgrade a
Cluster drainfield
Bog treatment
Cluster drainfield
*a
Lagoon upgrade
Cluster drainfield
Acres
Converted
None
16
14
5
20
5
22
5

Existing Land

Use
Residential
Farm.
b
Farm
Farm
Wetland
Farm
b
Farm
Farm







    #7
Lagoon upgrade*1
48
Farm
.Upgrade lagoons at existing Moose Lake WWTP
 Prime farmland
     The construction of sewers under Alternatives 3 through 7 would occur
primarily in residential areas.  However, certain environmentally sensitive
areas would  be affected.  Agricultural, wetland, and  forest  areas will be
traversed  by  connector  sewers  under these  alternatives.   Following con-
struction of  the sewer systems, a  30-  to  40-foot easement may be enforced
to  ensure  access  to  the  sewer system  for repairs and  maintenance.  The
magnitude  of these  impacts  is not  anticipated to be  significant because
most of the sewer system would  follow existing rights-of-way, such as those
along roadways.
                                     4-6

-------
     Wetlands may  be subject  to  sedimentation during  construction of the
sewer collection  system.   As  a  result, water  circulation  patterns within
these wetlands may be permanently modified.  Excavation, clearing, grading,
and backfilling may temporarily affect the productivity and aesthetic value
of wetlands, agricultural, orchard, and forest lands during construction of
conveyance lines.

     The  construction of  on-site  systems under  Alternatives 2  through  6
would occur  primarily on  lots which are already  developed  for residential
use.   Cluster systems  would  be  built  on agricultural  land, but  an in-
significant  amount  of the  total  agricultural area would  be  necessary for
their construction.  The  amount of prime agricultural  farmland affected by
construction activities is dependent upon the actual location of the waste-
water treatment facilities.   The  prime farmland within the project area is
discussed in Section 3.2.2.3.

     The  Council  on  Environmental Quality  (CEQ)  has  issued  a  memorandum
(CEQ  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 interests over-
ride the importance of or benefits derived from their protection.

     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 or to  accommodate  flows that vio-
late the  requirements  of  the Clean Water Act (USEPA 1981b).  The policy of
USEPA is  to protect  prime agricultural land  from being adversely affected
by  both  primary and  secondary impacts.   It  is  considered to be a signi-
ficant impact  if  40  or more acres of  prime  agricultural land are diverted
from production.

     Less  than  40 acres  of prime agricultural  land are  likely to be di-
rectly affected under any of the project alternatives except Alternative 7,
which requires  48 acres  for upgrading  the  existing lagoons  (Table 4-2) .
These lands would be taken out of production and used as lagoons, treatment
                                    4-7

-------
facilities,  buffer  zones,  or  access roads.   The  actual total  amount of
acres  of  prime  agricultural  land which  may  ultimately  be taken  out of
production  for  each  project alternative  is  dependent  upon  the  precise
location  and  placement  of  the treatment  sites and  interceptor routes, as
will  be  determined  in completion of the  facility planning  for the MLWSD.

4.1.1.8.  Economics

     The  construction of wastewater  treatment  facilities  under any of the
project  alternatives  would  create   a  limited  number  of short-term  con-
struction  jobs.  Masons,  pipefitters, heavy  equipment  operators,  electri-
cians, truck  drivers, 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 project
area or within commuting  distance  of  the project area.

     The  purchase of construction  materials  from project  area merchants
would  benefit the  local economy.   However,  few firms  offering materials
required  for  the construction  of wastewater  facilities are  established
within the  project area.  Purchases made by construction workers within the
project area  also would benefit the  local  economy.   These purchases would
likely be  for fuel,   food,  and clothing.   Patronage may be reduced for some
businesses  along  sewer lines when road closings and disruptions occur.  No
significant economic impacts are anticipated to occur during the construc-
tion of wastewater facilities under any of the  alternatives.

4.1.1.9.  Transportation

     Increased truck and grading equipment traffic during the  construction
of  wastewater treatment  components would  increase  road congestion.  Vehi-
cular  traffic would  be inconvenienced by excavating, grading,  backfilling,
and  temporary road closures  during construction of  conveyance  lines along
roadways  under Alternatives 4  through  7.   The inconvenience  experienced
during these periods  is not  anticipated to be significant.
                                     4-8

-------
4.1.1.10.  Energy Resources

     Residential,  commerical,  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 there were a recurrence of a national fuel
crisis 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.  There is  ample  power generation to meet the electrical needs of any
of the construction phase activities.

4.1.1.11.  Recreation and Tourism

     Many  recreational  activities in the project area  are concentrated on
or  along the  perimeter of  lakes.   No significant  air,  water,  noise,  or
traffic  impacts  are  expected to occur near the lakes which would seriously
interfere with tourism  and recreation activities.  Construction activities
may curtail some recreation and tourist activities by interupting access to
recreational facilities.   However, these  impacts  are not anticipated to be
significant.

4.1.1.12.  Cultural Resources

     Final routings of conveyance lines should be presented to the SHPO for
assessment before  construction activities begin.   If construction excava-
tions  uncover  significant  cultural resources, the  SHPO  should be notified
immediately.   To  provide adequate consideration  of  impacts affecting his-
toric  sites,  a survey of  the  Miller cabin on the YMCA  property should be
conducted  preceding  implementation of any alternative  which involves con-
veyance of wastewater to the City of Moose Lake treatment plant.

4.1.2.  Operational Impacts

     Each  of  the  alternatives,  including  the No-Action  Alternative,  in-
volves operations  that  will continue through the project period.  Included
                                    4-9

-------
in the definition of operations are construction of new septic tank systems
for new  structures and  upgrading on-site systems  that  fail.   Impacts are
addressed for  each of the major elements of the natural and man-made envi-
ronments.

4.1.2.1.  Atmosphere

     Potential  emissions from the operation  of  the centralized wastewater
treatment  components   include  aerosols, hazardous  gases,  and  odors.   The
emissions could pose a health risk or be a public nuisance.

     Organic  material that  contains  sulfur  or  nitrogen may  be partially
oxidized anaerobically and result in the emission of byproducts that may be
malodorous.   Common emissions, such  as hydrogen sulfide  and  ammonia, are
often referred to as sewer gases, and have odors reminiscent of rotten eggs
and  concentrated  urine,  respectively.   Some  organic  acids,  aldehydes,
mercaptans,  skatoles,  indoles,   and  amines  also   may  be odorous,  either
individually  or in  combination with other  sewage  compounds.   Sources  of
wastewater related odors  include:

     o    Untreated or incompletely treated wastewater.
     o    Screenings,  grit,  or skimmings  containing  septic  or putre-
          scible matter.
     o    Oil, grease, fats, and soaps  from food-handling enterprises,
          homes, and surface runoff.
     o    Gaseous  emissions from  treatment  processes,  manholes,  wet
          wells, pumping stations,  leaking containers, turbulent flow
          areas, and outfall areas.
     o    Raw or incompletely stabilized sludge or  septage.

Wastewater stabilization lagoons typically emit considerable odors when the
ice cover  melts  in the  spring.  These  odors are likely to be noticeable at
least one-half  mile in  the downwind direction.  Odors from septic tank ef-
fluent  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.   The occasional

                                    4-10

-------
failure of an  on-site  system may release some odors. Septage haulers using
inadequate or  improperly maintained  equipment  may  create  odor nuisances.
None  of  the  Project  Alternatives  are  anticipated  to  cause  significant
public  health  or nuisance  impacts  if proper  mitigative measures  are  em-
ployed.  For example, restrictive zoning for residential development around
the lagoon systems should be implemented.

4.1.2.2.  Soils

     The operation of  the  bog treatment system and cluster drainfields 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 appli-
cation  rate  of  the  septic tank  effluent.   In general  the phosphorus and
nitrogen  content of  the  soils  will  be  affected.  Chemical  and physical
properties  of  the  soils  of  the area are  discussed in  Section 2.2.1.1.
Impacts to the peat  soil under the  bog  treatment  alternative (Alternative
5)  are of some  concern due  to  the  treatment  requirement  that  the water
table  be  artificially maintained at a steady and low level.  Deleterious
impacts to the soils in the  cluster  systems  and onsite upgrades (Alterna-
tives  2 through  7)  are  expected  to be minimal.   The general  nature of
potential  impacts of  all  project  alternatives  on soil  is  described in
Appendix G.

4.1.2.3.  Surface Water

     Operational   impacts  that could  affect surface water  quality through
the 20-year  design period  concern the following types of wastewater pollu-
tants:  coliform  bacteria,  dissolved organics,  suspended solids, and exces-
sive nutrients.  Other wastewater pollutants such as trace metals or chlor-
inated  organics  are  not expected to significantly affect any surface water
uses.

     Measurements of fecal coliform  (bacterial  contamination)  made in the
project  area  lakes  are  inconclusive because  bacterial  sampling  efforts
usually involved  one sample per station for a  single date.  USEPA regula-
                                    4-11

-------
tions require that conclusions as to the violation of standards be based on
the geometric mean of a minimum of five samples.

     Continued  reliance  on  existing   systems  (No-Action  Alternative)  in
areas with a high water table increases the potential for bacterial contam-
ination  of  surface  water.   For  the   other  alternatives,  the  wastewater
management  system  proposed  should  effectively  preclude  these  problems,
although  bacterial  contamination is  still a  possibility with centralized
alternatives  in cases  of pumping station malfunctions, or  with upgraded
on-site systems in cases  of surface ponding of the effluent.

     Treatment of wastewater by soil absorption systems 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 con-
taining clay  remove  most organisms through adsorption.   Sandy soil removes
them through filtration  (Lance 1978).

     On-site  systems  should  effectively  remove suspended  solids from the
septic  tank  effluent and most  dissolved  organic  substances  should  be re-
moved by  soil  adsorption.  The septic  leachate survey, which is  indicative
of dissolved organics or dissolved salts as components of suspected leach-
ate  plumes,  detected a  very  limited  number of such plumes  in  each  of the
lakes.  Dissolved organics will exert a BOD resulting in  the consumption of
dissolved  oxygen  within  a lake.   within a  properly  maintained  on-site
system,  BOD movement  to lake waters should be insignificant.

     Centralized  collection and treatment alternatives  that  use  the Moose
Horn  River  as a  receiving stream for  discharge of  treated wastewater ef-
fluents from  the  treatment lagoons (Alternatives 4, 6, and 7) are operated
with the  discharge  timed for release during the spring runoff period.  The
waste stabilization  lagoons  are  designed to  meet  State and  Federal dis-
charge  standards.   Suspended  solids  and dissolved organics are expected to
exert a BOD in  the  receiving  stream  that could  depress dissolved oxygen
levels.   Most of the  residual BOD and ammonia should be oxidized within the
Moose River  or  Kettle River and not affect the downstream St. Croix River.
                                     4-12

-------
     The input of excessive nutrients to lakes within the project area is a
signficant concern.   Previous discussions presented in  Chapter 2 (Section
2.2.2.4.) and  Chapter 3  (Section  3.1.3) address  in detail  the potential
water quality impacts of proposed wastewater treatment alternatives.  These
are summarized in the following paragraphs.

     If the No-Action Alternative  were selected, the phosphorus loading to
all lakes is likely to increase in comparison with present conditions. This
projected  increase  is  based  on  future population  estimates  around  the
project area lakes,  and  would stem from the generalized nutrient transport
to  the lakes  associated with  residential  development.   For  example,  an
increased  population would  use additional  on-site systems,  possibly  re-
sulting in some additional phosphorus loads to the lakes.

     Centralized  collection systems would  eliminate the  phosphorus loads
associated with  failing on-site systems.  Upgrading  existing on-site sys-
tems and  placing certain  residences in  critical  areas on  a cluster col-
lection system also could result in decreased phosphorus loads to the lakes
compared  to  present conditions.   However,  the  additional  residential de-
velopment  that would ultimately be served  by  the  centralized collection
systems proposed in any of the project alternatives also would generate new
sources of phosphorus to the lakes.  These phosphorus loads would stem from
the  generalized  phosphorus  movement associated  with erosion and lawn fer-
tilization  in  residential  land use.  Additional  phosphorus  loads  to  the
lakes  may  stem from  sewer  exfiltration.  These impacts are  secondary  in
nature, as  discussed in  Section 4.2.3., but  the result is that gains  a-
chieved in abatement of on-site system phosphorus loads through  centralized
collection and treatment is of reduced long-term significance.

     The principal  water  quality benefit that might be anticipated  through
provision of improved wastewater management  for the lakeshore community is
an  improvement in  lake  trophic condition whereby algae blooms would be re-
duced.   This would be a long-term benefit the results of which would not be
seen for many  years if  the hydraulic residence  time of a lake was great or
if other sources of phosphorus predominated.   Based on evaluations of water
quality, nutrient loading regimes, trophic histories, and the aquatic biota
                                    4-13

-------
of  the  project area  lakes it is concluded  that  no significant beneficial
impact on  trophic  status will result from any  of the seven project alter-
natives.  The eutrophic condition of Island Lake would not be changed,  and
blue-green  algae  blooms would  not  be  lessened  in frequency  or severity.
The  existing good  water  quality  of Sturgeon,  Rush, and  Passenger Lakes
would not  be protected  to any greater  degree as  a result  of implementing
any of the proposed project alternatives.

     The fact that none of the proposed project alternatives offers a pros-
pect  of beneficial  water quality  impacts is  a  consequence of  the local
environment, rather  than of  the design of the  alternatives.   All existing
data on  the natural and man-made environment of  the project area indicate
that  impacts of domestic  wastewater on  lakes  are inconsequential  in  the
context of other manageable and unmanageable nutrient sources.

     An  additional  concern of implementing an  alternative  which calls  for
collection  sewers  is  the  effect  of such an alternative  on lake water  le-
vels.   Lake water  levels  may decline  slightly with the  centralized col-
lection  alternatives because water  that formerly  went  to soil adsorption
systems  would   be  exported  from  the basin.    The  groundwater  inflow  and
outflow of  the  lakes are an important component in  their hydrologic budgets
and export  of  groundwater introduced to sewers through wastewater disposal
and  through general  infiltration could  lower  the  lakes'  flushing rates.
Assuming no  long-term  change in average surface water inflows and outflows,
a water  volume  equivalent to between 1 and  2  inches of lake surface would
be  exported from  Island  or  Sturgeon  Lake  during the summer  through  the
collection  sewers exposed  under Alternatives 6 and  7.  Potential impacts of
lowered  lake levels include a decrease in hydraulic residence time for the
lakes and concomitant  changes in phosphorus levels  and algae growth.

4.1.2.4.  Groundwater

     Operational  impacts  that  could  affect  groundwater  in  the  20-year
design  period   concern the following types  of pollutants:   coliform bac-
teria,  dissolved  organics,  and  excessive nutrients.  Movement to ground-
water of other  wastewater constituents or of soil  chemicals would continue
                                     4-14

-------
to  occur  under  the alternatives  employing on-site  systems,  but  are not
expected to significantly affect  any of the uses of the groundwater within
the service area.

     Bacteria and dissolved  organics are readily removed by filtration and
adsorption onto  soil particles.   Two meters of  soil  material  is generally
adequate  for  bacterial removal  (Wilson and others  1982),  except  in very
coarse-grained,  highly permeable  soil material.   Contamination of drinking
water wells  or   surface water  with bacteria and dissolved  organics in the
service area is  unlikely under any of the project alternatives.

     High  phosphorus  concentrations  in groundwater  which discharges  to
lakes can  contribute to  excessive eutrophicatlon.   Section  4.1.2.2. con-
tains  a discussion  of phosphorus movement  in groundwater, and indicates
that phosphorus  inputs to the lakes  will  not be  significantly different
under any  of  the Alternatives.  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).
However,  soil absorption  systems  can be a potential  source  of phosphorus
input to  lakes  when located  very  close  to  the lakeshore and may stimulate
algal growth  in localized areas  where  effluent  plumes emerge;  but  their
contribution  to lake  eutrophication  is not  considered to  be  a  primary
factor  in  the project  area.   The largest contribution of groundwater phos-
phorus  to  the lakes would come from  the No-Action Alternative.  The lowest
groundwater phosphorus  contributions to lakes would  originate from alter-
natives  that  incorporate  increased  centralized  wastewater  collection.

     The wastewater  stabilization  lagoons which  are components of the cen-
tralized  alternatives,  (Alternatives 4, 6, and  7),  may contribute  phos-
phorus  to  the groundwater  if seepage  from the lagoons  is  considerable.   A
study of  Minnesota wastewater  stabilization  lagoons  (E.A. Hickok  and As-
sociates  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.
                                    4-15

-------
     Nitrates  in  groundwater are of concern at concentrations greater than
10 mg/1 as  nitrogen because they may  in  some  circumstances cause methemo-
globinemia  in  infants who ingest liquids prepared  with  such waters.  This
limit was  set in the National  Interim Primary  Drinking Water Regulations
(40 CFR 141) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523).

     The density  of soil absorption systems is said to be the most import-
ant  parameter  influencing  pollution  levels  of  nitrates  in groundwater
(Scalf and  Dunlop 1977).  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 ground-
water flow direction  and pumping rates of wells, nitrate contributions from
soil absorption  systems may become cumulative  in multi-tier developments.
Because extensive areas  of multi-tier development are not projected in the
project area  through  the 20-year design period  (Section 3.2.2.4.), nitrate
contamination  of  wells  is  considered  to have  a low risk  potential.   If
wells were  found  to  have  high nitrate concentrations they  may  need to be
made deeper  so that a hydraulically limiting  layer is penetrated (Section
2.2.2.3.).

     Cluster  drainfields are designed with  criteria similar to individual
drainfields except that  they are applied on a large scale.  Nitrate concen-
trations in  the  groundwater below a cluster drainfield  are anticipated to
be no higher than those below an  individual soil absorption system.  How-
ever, insufficient experimentation has been conducted to enable designing
for  nitrogen  removals from cluster drainfields.   Therefore, a  wise  pre-
caution would  be to  locate  the  cluster drainfield as far from wells as is
feasible.   This  is one reason why cluster drainfields under Alternatives 3
through  6  have  been  designed to  be  sited away  from residential areas in
this project.

     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 and can deteriorate.
Field studies  (EA  Hickok  and Associates  1978)  have  shown  that a seepage
rate of  no  more  than 500  gallons per acre per day  is very difficult to
                                     4-16

-------
maintain even  on in-place, fine-textured  soils.   Nitrate contamination of
groundwater by  seepage from  the  Moose Lake sewage  lagoons  is  not antici-
pated to be a  problem over the operational  period of this project because
groundwater use  for potable  supplies  is  not  common near  the  lagoon,  and
because groundwater discharge  from the vicinity is  probably  to the nearby
stream course.

4.1.2.5.  Biota

     No significant adverse  long-term  effects on  the biota  of  the project
area are expected to occur as a result of the operation of Project Alterna-
tives 1,  2,  3,  4,  6, and  7.  Alternative  5 may  have  significant adverse
impacts on  plants and animals currently  using  the peat  bog area to fill
principal habitat requirements.

4.1.2.6.  Demographics

     The operation  and maintenance of  wastewater  facilities proposed under
the  project  alternatives  will  not have a significant  impact on the demo-
graphy of  the  project area.   A limited number of  long-term jobs created by
the  operation and maintenance of  these facilities  are  likely to be filled
by persons living within the project area or within commuting distance.  No
new  residents  are  expected  to be  attracted to the  project area  to fill
these positions.

4.1.2.7.  Land Use Impacts

     The land use conversion discussed in Section 4.1.1.7. would remain in
effect  for  the operation  of  the  proposed wastewater treatment facilities
under  the  project  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  may affect  land  use
adjacent to the  plants.   Improper maintenance of  cluster and on-site sys-
tems may create malodorous conditions which would  adversely affect adjacent
land use s.
                                    4-17

-------
4.1.2.8.  Economics

     The operation of centralized wastewater treatment facilities under Al-
ternatives  4  through  7  would  create a few long-term  jobs.   The few posi-
tions  required  could be  filled by  persons  residing  in  the project area.
The  existing  staff at the  MLWSD is expected to assume  any  additional re-
sponsibilities as a result of  implementing any of the alternatives.

     Existing  contractors are  expected to satisfy  local demand  for  con-
struction  and maintenance  service  of on-site  systems.  Contractors  and
tradesmen involved  in the construction and maintenance  of  on-site systems
would  suffer  a  loss  of  work  opportunities  within the  project area under
Alternative 1 and  Alternatives 4 through 7.  These contractors and trades-
men  are  likely  to  compete for work opportunities in neighboring areas.  No
significant economic  impacts  will  occur during the operation of wastewater
treatment facilities under any of the alternatives.

4.1.2.9.  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
from the Moose  Lake treatment plant under Alternatives 1 through 7 will be
associated  with  supply deliveries.  Truck  traffic  associated with repairs
and  sludge hauling  also  will  occur  periodically  under   Alternatives  1
through 7.

4.1.2.10  Energy

     The  operation of  wastewater  treatment  facilities and  pump stations
under  Alternatives  3 through  7 require the use of  electricity and  fossil
fuels.   Alternative 7 would  require the greatest  amount of  these  energy
sources,  while  Alternative  3 would  require  the  least.   No  significant
demands  would be placed  on local  energy supplies under  any of the  alter-
natives.
                                    4-18

-------
4.1.2.11.  Recreation and Tourism

     The operation  of  wastewater facilities under  any  of the alternatives
could affect tourist and  recreational activities in the  project  area if a
malfunction of those facilities  occurred.   A failure in the system compon-
ents of  the WWTPs  under alternatives 4, 5,  6,  and 7 could cause untreated
or  partially  treated  waste to  be  discharged  into  project area  surface
waters.  This  would result  in  short-term and  long-term  water  quality de-
gradation and  a  reduction  in the  recreational  use of  that  body  of water.
Odors  emanating  from  malfunctioning on-site  systems  may  locally  curtail
outdoor  recreational activities.  With  proper  operational and maintenance
procedures no  significant adverse  impacts  are anticipated  for any of the
Project Alternatives.

4.1.3.  Public Finance

     The total project  capital costs will be apportioned between the USEPA,
the  State,  and the  local residents.  The  apportionment  is  made based on
what  capital  costs are eligible to  be  funded by the USEPA  and  the state.
The  estimated  initial  capital   costs  and the  capital costs  eligible for
funding for each action alternative are presented in Appendix F.  The  local
construction costs  (capital  costs  not eligible for funding) and the entire
cost  of  systems  operation  and  maintenance  will  be borne entirely by the
system users.

     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 waste-
water treatment facilities.   State grants administered by MPCA will provide
an additional 15% of the project cost for a  total of 90% funding.  "Innova-
tive/alternative"  components of  the proposed  treatment  systems,  such as
pressure sewers,  septic tank effluent sewers, septic tanks, soil absorption
systems,  other on-site  upgrades,   cluster   drainfields  and  bog  treatment
systems  are  eligible for 85%  Federal funding  and 9%  State funding  for a
total of 94%.
                                    4-19

-------
     The  estimated average  annual  residential user  costs  for project op-
tions are presented in Table 4-3.  Detailed average annual residential user
costs  with and  without  Federal  and State  grant  monies are  presented in
Appendix  F.  Average  annual  users  costs  range  from  $152 per  residence
served for  Alternative 2 with  Federal and State Grants to $1,406 for Alter-
native  7A with no  grants.  The equivalent annual user  charges for nearby
Coffee Lake and Sand Lake  (already sewered) are $120 and $145,  respectively
(based on assessed connection  charge and user fee,  Section 3.2.4).

     The  average  annual  user  costs  presented  in  Table 4-3  represent the
cost  of  all  system  components included  in the  alternative.  When  user
charges  are  calculated  for the  constructed  system, each  connection  will
have  to  pay  its fair  share of the treatment system  it  uses:   on-site up-
grade,  cluster  system, or centralized  collection  and  treatment.   For ex-
ample,  typical  annual  user costs  for  the on-site  systems  component  of
Alternatives  2  through 7  would be  on  the order  of  $150 with Federal and
State grants  and  $240 without  grants (from Alternative 2).   Typical annual
user costs  for the centralized  collection and treatment component of alter-
natives  4 through 7 would be  on the order of  $670 for  gravity collection
with  Federal  and  State  grants  ($1,400 without  grants), and  $300 for STE
pressure  or gravity sewers with Federal and  State grants  ($1,300 without
grants for  Alternative 7).

     Wastewater  treatment  facilities  can  create  significant  financial
impacts  for communities and  users  who will pay  the capital,  operational,
maintenance,  and  debt costs associated with  sewage  treatment facilities.
The USEPA guideline  for  determining  the magnitude of the financial impacts
is based  on the ratio of  the  average annual user cost to median household
income  (USEPA 1981b).   The USEPA considers projects to be expensive and to
have  adverse impacts  on  the  finances  of  users  when average  annual  user
costs are:

     •    1.0%  of  1980  median household  incomes less than  $10,000
     •    1.5%  of  1980 median household  incomes  between  $10,000 and
          $17,000
                                     4-20

-------
                                                           a
Table 4-3.  Estimated average annual residential user costs  ($ per year)
Project
Options
_2
_3
4A
M
4C
5A
5B
6A
6B
6C
7A
_7B
7C
Federal and
State Grant
151.68
177.48
372.00
212.64
208.56
220.56
214.92
522.00
234.48
221.76
666.60
297.96
296.76
Federal Grant
Only
160.32
213.24
422.52
266.04
261.00
270.48
262.32
586.80
306.48
288.60
789.60
404.04
398.16
Without
Grants
242.04
551.28
751.68
714.36
702.49
743.04
710.28
976.92
921.36
855.00
1,405.56
1,309.08
1,257.72
a
 Operation and maintenance  costs  plus local share of initial capital costs
 amortized for  20 years at 8 3/8%  (see Appendix  F)   Existing equivalent
 annual user charges  for Coffee  Lake and Sand  Lake are $120 and $145, re-
 spectively (Section 3.2.4).

 Underlined  Project  Options  constitute Project   Alternatives  that  were
 identified on  the  basis   of  net present  worth  and not  on the  basis  of
 having  the  lowest  user  cost.   Other  project  options are  presented for
 purposes of  comparison.  (Option  7A is most  comparable to the MLWSD Facility
 Plan, representing conventional  gravity sewers around Island and Sturgeon
 Lakes, with  treatment at Moose Lake.)
                                    4-21

-------
     •    1.75%  of  1980 median  household  incomes  greater  than  $17,000.

     Estimated  1980 median  household  incomes  for Pine  County,  Windemere
Township, and  Carlton  County  are $12,252,  $15,606,  and $16,420,  respect-
ively  (1980 Census-preliminary  tape data,  by  telephone,  K.  Hoefer,  U.S.
Bureau of The  Census,  Data Users Division, Kansas City, to WAPORA, Inc., 7
December 1982).  The majority of the project area is in Windemere Township,
with a small portion in  Carlton County.

     Average  annual user  costs  for project  options are  expressed  as a
percentage  of  1980 median household income in Table 4-4.   The user fee  for
Project  Options  4A, 6A,  7A,  7B,  and 7C  surpass  the  suggested upper limit
user fee even with  Federal and State grants.  Without grants, Alternative 2
is the only one that does not  surpass  the suggested limit.  Alternative 2
offers the  lowest  user cost for system users.   With  the exception of Pro-
ject Options  4A,  6A, 7A, 7B, and 7C if Federal and State grants are avail-
able,  none  of  the  other  options surpass  the  suggested upper  limit  user
costs as  a  percentage of median household  income,  indicating that none of
them would  be  a "high cost" system that would pose a significant financial
burden on system users.

     The  impact  of the new debt requirements  on the  total debt per capita
in the  Moose Lake  Windemere Sanitary  District  is  presented  in Table 4-5.
The  1980 debt per  capita of $394 was  developed  in Section 3.2.4.  Alter-
native 2  offers  the lowest additional  debt  per  capita  increase and Alter-
native 7  the greatest  increase.   None  of the  project  options exceed  the
standard  upper  limit for the debt per  capita for middle income communities
($1,000  Table 3-28)  if  Federal  and  State grants  are  available.   If no
grants are  available, the total debt per capita will exceed the limit under
6A, 6B, 7A, 7B, and 7C.

     It  should be  noted that the financial stress on  low income families
and  the  local share of capital  cost  for  the  proposed wastewater system,
under any of the action  alternatives, will be affected by the  interest rate
available at the time of financing.  The debt service portion of the annual
                                    4-22

-------
Table 4-4.  Average annual user costs expressed as a percentage of 1980 median
            household income for Windemere Township

                                  Project Funding
Project
Options
2_

JJ

4A
4B

4C
5A

5B

6A

6B

6C

7A

Zi

7C
Federal and
State Grant
0.97%

1.14
b
2.38
1.35

1.34
1.41

1.38
b
3.34

1.50

1.42
b
4.27
b
1.91
b
1.90
Federal Grant
Only
1.03%

1.37
b
2.71
1.70

1.67
1.73

1.68
b
3.76
b
1.96
b
1.85
b
5.06
b
2.59
b
2.55
Without
Grants
1.55
b
3.53
b
4.82
4.59b
b
4.50
4.76b
b
4.55
b
6.25
b
5.90
b
5.49
b
9.01
b
8.39
b
8.06
a
 Estimated 1980 median  household income for Windemere  Township is $15,606
 (Portion of  the project area is in Carlton County,  which has an
 estimated 1980 median household income of $16,420.   (1980 median household
 income  from  1980 census preliminary  tape data, by telephone,  K. Hoefer,
 U.S. Bureau  of the Census,  Data Users Division,  Kansas City, to WAPORA, Inc.,
 7 December 1982).   The USEPA  considers  a project expensive  when average
 annual user charges  exceed  1.75%  of median household  income  greater than
 $17,000.
b
 The costs residents would pay under these alternatives would be considered
 expensive according to USEPA guidelines.
c
 Underlined Project Options  constitute Project  Alternatives that were iden-
 tified on the basis of net  present worth  estimates  and not on the basis of
 the percent  of 1980 median  household income that would be consumed by user
 costs.
                                    4-23

-------
Table 4-5.  Impact of new debt requirements on total debt per capita in the

            Moose Lake-Windemere Sanitary District.
                                   Debt per capita ($)'
b
Project
Options
_2
2
4A
4B
4C
5A
_5JB
6A
6B
6£
7A
.I!
7C
Federal and
State Grant
New
12
22
166
42
42
30
28
302
60
57
472
110
106
Total
406
416
560
436
436
424
422
696
454
451
866
504
500
Federal
Only
New
18
49
206
84
83
68
65
357
121
113
592
213
205
Grant
Total
412
443
599
478
477
462
459
751
515
507
986
607
599
No
New
76
304
460
430
424
434
411
684
636
588
1,193
1,096
1,044
Grant
Total
470
698
854
824
818
828
805
1,078
1,030
982
1,587
1,490
1,438
 New debt  per  capita is local share of construction costs divided by total
 1980 population  of Moose  Lake-Windemere  Sanitary  District  (3,817,  Table
 3-27).   Existing 1980 debt per capita = $394 (Table 3-27).

 Underlined  Project  Options constitute  Project  Alternatives  identified on
 the basis  of  net present worth estimates and not on the basis of new debt
 requirements.
                                    4-24

-------
user charge  has been  calculated based on  a 8 3/8%  interest  rate over 20
years (based on the current FmHA intermediate rate discussed below).

     The Farmers Home  Administration (FmHA) was contacted to determine the
eligibility  of  the project  for  special financing  (By  telephone,  Mr. John
Melbo,  FmHA Regional Office, St.  Paul MN,  to WAPORA,  Inc., 25 August  1982).
The  FmHA  will provide loans to  fund the  local share of  the capital costs
for USEPA-approved  projects  if funding is not available from other sources
at  interest  rates   determined  as "affordable" for  the  community,  based on
median family  income.   The poverty rate is  available to  communities where
the  median  family   income  is less  than $9,000 and  there  is  a  sanitary and
health problem  (no  area in Minnesota qualifies for  the poverty rate at this
time).    The  intermediate  rate  is  available to  communities with   median
family income  less than 85% of  the non-SMSA median  family  income for the
state.   For other communities the market rate is available.  In August 1982
the  poverty  rate was  5%,  the  intermediate  rate was  approximately 8 3/8%,
and the market rate (based on the Bond Buyers Index)  was 11 5/8%.

     The 1981  non-SMSA median  family income  for the  State of Minnesota is
$22,850 (Section 3.21).   The estimated median family income is $21,100 for
Windemere Township  and Carlton County, $17,000 for  Pine County, and $16,275
for  Moose  Lake Township  (Section  3.2.1.  Table  3-25).   The  median  family
income is  less  than 85% of $22,850  ($19,420) in Pine County and Moose Lake
Township,  and greater in Windemere Township and Carlton County.  Therefore,
if  affordable  funding  is  not available elsewhere,  the  District  might qua-
lify for an  intermediate  interest  rate from FmHA.   If not, the market rate
would apply.

4.2.  Secondary Impacts

     Each  of the alternatives,  including  the No-Action  Alternative, will
have effects that extend beyond primary or direct impacts.  These secondary
impacts would  occur,  for  example,  in the form of induced growth or unanti-
cipated- changes in< lake  water  quality.  The -categories  of the natural and
man-made environment that  may  experience  significant secondary impacts are
described in the following sections.
                                    4-25

-------
4.2.1.  Surface Water

     Increased housing developed along the lake shore may increase nutrient
and sediment  loads  into the lakes as  a  result of the following processes:

     o    Construction  of  impervious surfaces such as rooftops, park-
          ing  areas,  paved roads, and hard-packed  soils may increase
          not  only  the amount of surface runoff, but also its ability
          to erode soil and to transport pollutants.
     o    Lawn  and garden fertilization may create  relatively high
          nutrient levels  in runoff.
     o    The Conventional practice  of placing lawn clippings and leaf
          litter  in drainageways  may speed  the process  of nutrient
          transport to the lakes.

     Population  growth will neither be  hindered or  induced significantly
under any of  the action alternatives  (2  through  7).   Lakeshore area popu-
lation  growth and housing stock growth  will proceed at  comparable rates
regardless  of whether  improved  on-site  systems  or  centralized collection
and  treatment are  provided.   No  extraordinarily high  levels  of erosion-
borne  nutrient  loads  are anticipated to  be generated  under  any  single
project  alternative.    Population  growth will  take  place and  erosion and
runoff  will increase  with the No-Act ion Alternative just as  in the other
alternatives.  Over  the long term,  no single alternative  offers an advan-
tage of  reduced  secondary water quality impacts  in terms of decreasing the
rate of eutrophication.

4.2.2.  Demographics

     Wastewater  management facilities historically  have been major  factors
in  determining the capacity  of an  area  to  support  population growth and
development.   On-site  wastewater treatment  facilities,  although   theore-
tically  available to ' any  potential  user,  limit  development to areas with
suitable  soil and site  characteristics.   Sewer  systems remove these site
constraints and  allow development virtually anywhere within hookup distance
of  the  system.   Consequently, the construction of sewers usually causes an
initial  increase in the  inventory  of developable  land  and  subsequent in-
creases  in  the density of development.  This may allow development  on lots
                                     4-26

-------
that otherwise would  be  considered undesirable or  too  small for permanent
use.

     The inducement of growth through sewer service already provided around
nearby Sand Lake  is  not  evident nor is it anticipated to occur with any of
the project alternatives.   Economic factors apparently outweigh any incen-
tive for growth which wastewater facilities might otherwise provide.

     Long-term population growth  trends  in the project area are not likely
to be  changed  by  any of the project alternatives.  The sewers encompassing
portions  of  Island  Lake proposed  under  Alternatives  4  through  7  would
provide service to a corridor which is already heavily developed and where
few other  lakeshore  lots are available  for  development.   Parallel popula-
tion increases would occur in the Sturgeon Lake lakeshore corridor with all
of  the Project Alternatives.   However,  the  cost for users  on both lakes
under  Alternatives 2 through 7 may create a  financial  burden for families
with low  incomes.  This  may result in displacement of  these families from
the project area because they could not afford user charges.

     The selection of any one of Alternatives  4  through 7 would allow for
the development of a very limited number of lots which otherwise would not
be  developed  due to  existing size constraints  for on-site systems.  How-
ever,  no significant housing stock or population  increase is anticipated to
occur as a result of allowing development of those  lots.

     Under any  of the  Project  Alternatives, net population growth in the
service  area  would  occur  to a  parallel degree as discussed  in Section
3.2.1.   The  rate of  conversion of seasonal  dwellings to  permanent homes
would  be  unaffected.  Population  increases will be  dependent solely upon
the carrying  capacity of the land and  aesthetic  factors  influencing de-
velopment choices (Section 3.2.4.).

4.2.3.  Land Use

     Economic factors and the availability of aesthetically desirable lake-
shore  lots  (Section  3.2.3.)  will have a greater influence than the  pro-
                                    4-27

-------
vision of  wastewater facilities (Section 4.2.) in determining land use for
the  study area  during  the planning  period.   The  location  of  wastewater
treatment  facilities  and  sewer  systems  proposed  under Alternatives  4
through  7 will  not significantly  direct patterns  of  future development.
Residential development  will  be concentrated along  lakeshore areas regard-
less of  the  wastewater management techniques implemented.  Because of this
and  because  additional growth will not  be  induced  in the lakeshore corri-
dor, no significant  land use impacts will occur.

     Under Alternatives  1  through 3,  future development within the project
area would be most  limited by  the  carrying capacity  of the land  and by
aesthetic  considerations.   Increased  potential  for nuisances attributable
to failing on-site systems  in lakeshore  residential areas could make infill
development of vacant  lots less desirable. As a result, new development on
back-tier  lots  may  be  increased at the expense  of vacant lake-contiguous
lots which may  remain undeveloped.  This is  not  expected to be a signifi-
cant trend, however, because relatively  few nuisance causing conditions are
projected  for the lakeshore community  (Section 2.2.3).

     Little prime  agricultural  farmland is likely  to  be  taken out of pro-
duction  to accommodate wastewater  treatment  facilities (Table 4-2).  This
will result in a minimal net loss of food and fibre production.

4.2.4.  Economics

     The  additional wastewater  treatment capacity  required  under Alterna-
tives 4 through 7 will not  stimulate any increased population, development,
or  economic  growth  (Section  3.2.3.).   Under Alternatives  1 through  3,
economic  development  also  would  proceed as  discussed  in  Section  3.2.3.
Continuing nuisances created by  failing  on-site systems under the No-Action
Alternative  could  further  detract  from the  area's  economic  development
potential.  However, the existing perception by the public that Island Lake
already has  poor  water quality  will detract to an even greater degree from
the  economic  development" stimu-lus of  water-based recreation.  Under Alter-
natives  2  through 7, no significant improvement of Island Lakes quality is
anticipated.  Therefore, no significant  secondary impact on economics would
occur under any of the Project Alternatives.
                                     4-28

-------
4.2.5.  Recreation and Tourism

     Increased and continuing  nuisances created by failing on-site systems
under the No-Action Alternative could detract from the project area's repu-
tation  as a  desirable recreational  area.   If there  were  obvious  algal
blooms  in Sturgeon Lake,  permanent  and seasonal  residents  of the project
area  would  likely  decrease  their recreational  activities.   However,  an
increased fertility marked  by  blue-green algae blooms also can mean better
fishing  becaused  of  increases  in overall  lake productivity.  Whether the
impact  is then considered in  the balance  to be favorable or adverse is a
value judgement to be made by recreational users.  No evidence exists which
suggests  that  Alternatives 2  through  7 would  preclude  the  development of
blue-green algal  blooms  in Sturgeon, Rush,  or  Passenger Lakes.  Addition-
ally, no evidence exists which suggests Island Lake will be improved by any
of the action alternatives.  Therefore, no significant secondary impacts on
recreation and tourism are anticipated.

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  implementing 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   primary   (construction  &  operation)  and
secondary impacts are presented 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  project  plans and  specifications should
incorporate  mitigative  measures  consistent  with  the following discussion.
                                    4-29

-------
     Fugitive dust from excavation and backfilling operations for the force
mains and treatment plants can be minimized by various techniques. Frequent
street  sweeping  of  dirt from construction activities  can  reduce the major
source  of  dust.   Prompt  repaving of roads  disturbed  by construction also
could  reduce dust effectively.   Construction sites,  spoil  piles,  and un-
paved  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  operations where trucks and  equipment  gain access  to
construction  sites,  and on  roads along  which  a  force  main  would  be con-
structed, will reduce  loose dirt that otherwise would generate dust, create
unsafe  driving   conditions,  or  be  washed into  roadside ditches or storm
drains.  Trucks  transporting  spoil  material  to disposal sites should cover
their loads to eliminate the escape of dust while in transit.

     Exhaust  emissions and noise from construction  equipment  can 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 a significant impact might be expected at a
particular location.

     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 to avoid 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.
                                    4-30

-------
     Areas disturbed by  trenching  and grading at the  treatment  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 scheduling by  the contractor and by appropriate public
announcements.  The  State  and County  highway  departments  have  regulations
concerning roadway disruptions,  which should  be rigorously applied.  Spec-
ial  care  should be  taken  to minimize disruption of  access  to  frequently
visited establishments.

     Announcements should be published in local newspapers and broadcast on
local radio stations to  alert drivers of  temporary  traffic  disruptions on
primary routes.  Street closings should be announced by flyers 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 avoided.  Trucks hauling excavation
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 to residential environments.

     Erosion and sedimentation must be minimized at all construction sites.
USEPA  Program Requirements Memorandum 78-1  establishes the  following re-
quirements for  control  of  erosion and runoff from construction activities.
Adherence to these requirements would mitigate potential problems.

     •    Construction site selection  should consider potential occur-
          ence 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
          to  a  minimum to reduce  the possibility of  creating  runoff
          and  erosion  problems  which require extensive  control  mea-
          sure s.
                                    4-31

-------
     •    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  temporary  and  permanent
          drainage  systems will  substantially reduce  erosion poten-
          tial.
     •    Access  roadways  should be paved  or  qtherwise stabilized as
          soon as feasible.
     •    Clearing  and grading  should not  be  started until  a firm
          construction schedule  is  known  and can be effectively coor-
          dinated 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 be  taken early in  the   planning  process to  identify  cultural
resources and  minimize  adverse effects on them.  USEPA's  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 these  requirements  have been satis-
fied.
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  bog  treatment  and cluster  treatment  designs  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
                                    4-32

-------
affect  outdoor recreational  activities.   Measures  to minimize  these and
other operation phase  impacts  of 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.   Gaseous  emissions and  odors from the
various  treatment  processes can  be  controlled to a  large extent.  Above-
ground  pumps  should be  enclosed and installed to minimize  sound impacts.
Concentrations  of  the  effluent  constituents discharged  from the  City of
Moose Lake  treatment plant  are  regulated by  the conditions  of the NPDES
permits.  The  effluent  quality is specified by the  State of Minnesota and
must be  monitored.   Proper  and regular maintenance of  cluster and on-site
systems  also  would maximize  the efficiency of these  systems and minimize
the amount of odors released.

     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.

4.3.3.  Mitigation of Secondary Impacts

     As  discussed  in Section  4.2.,  few secondary impacts are expected to
occur during the operation of any of the six action alternatives.  Adequate
zoning, health, and water quality regulation and enforcement would minimize
these impacts.  Local  growth management  planning would assist in the regu-
lation 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 action
alternatives cannot  be avoided.   The centralized  collection and treatment
components of Alternatives 4 through 7 would have the following adverse im-
pacts:
                                    4-33

-------
     •    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 site.

     •    Considerable  erosion  and  siltation  during  construction.

     •    Significant  odors during spring  turnover  of waste stabili-
          zation lagoons.

     •    User  costs  for wastewater  treatment services  for the resi-
          dents within  the  proposed sewer service areas.


     The alternatives that  include significant reliance on continued use of

existing and  upgraded  on-site systems and either cluster systems or black-

water  holding tanks for  critical areas  would have  the  following adverse

impacts:


     •    Some  short-term  construction dust,  noise,  and traffic nui-
          sance .

     •    Limited  amounts  of  erosion and  siltation  during construc-
          tion.

     •    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  these wastes to dis-
          posal  sites.

     •    User  costs 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  six action alternatives are pre-

sented  in Section 4.1.  and  4.2.  Each  of the  action  alternatives would

include  some or  all of  the  following resource commitments:


     •    Fossil fuel,  electrical energy, and human  labor  for  facili-
          ties construction and operation.
                                     4-34

-------
     •    Chemicals, especially  chlorine,  for the City  of  Moose Lake
          WWTP operation.
     •    Tax dollars for construction and operation.
     •    Some unsalvageable construction materials.

     For  each  alternative involving  a  WWTP (Alternatives 4, 5,  6  and 7),
there would be  significant  consumption  of these resources with no feasible
means of  recovery.   Thus,  more non-recoverable resources would be foregone
for  the   provision  of  the  proposed  wastewater  control  system  for  these
alternatives than for  alternatives  2 and 3.  However, the total quantities
involved for any of  the alternatives is  small.

     Accidents, which could occur from system construction and operation of
any  alternative,  could  cause  irreversible  bodily  damage  or  death,  and
damage or destroy equipment and other resources.  For alternatives 4, 6 and
7, unmitigated  WWTP failure and by-passing potentially  could  kill  aquatic
life in the mixing zone in the Moose Horn River.

     None of the  alternatives  would have an impact on archaeological sites
known  at this  time.  However,  the  potential accidential  destruction of
undiscovered archaeological  sites  through excavation  activities  for any
alternative would not  be reversible.  This would  represent  permanent loss
of such a site.
                                    4-35

-------
5.0  Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS

     Comments  on  the  Draft  Environmental  Impact  Statement  (DEIS)  were
received at  the  public  hearing held 10 June 1983  in  Moose Lake, Minnesota
and also  were received by  mail.  Comments  and questions  received at the
public hearing  were documented  in a hearing  transcript.   In  some cases,
detailed responses  to comments  were  not made at the public hearing and the
need for more  explanation was evaluated from  the  hearing  transcript.   The
appropriate  responses are presented  in Section 5. 1.   Written  comments on
the DEIS  were  received  from  a  total  of nine public agencies  and seven
private citizens (Appendix 0).  Responses to written comments are presented
in  Sections 5.2,  5.3,  and  5.4.  An  index  to comments  is presented in
Section 5.5.

5.1  Response to Comments from the Public Hearing

Mr. Gregory Dean Evenson;  (hearing transcript,  10 June 1983)

1.)  The DEIS did not provide an evaluation of  the impact that the possible
closure of the Moose Lake State Hospital might have on wastewater treatment
capacity at the City of Moose Lake Treatment Plant.

          Comment  noted.   Closure of the  State Hospital  would reduce
     wastewater  flows   to the  treatment  plant and  also   could  have
     significant economic impact  in  the area:  including changes in
     the fee structure for user-charges.  However,  until the future of
     the Hospital  is decided by the State of Minnesota, the potential
     impacts of closure or of partial closure are non-quantifiable.

Mr. Seth Shepard;  (hearing transcript, 10 June  1983)

2.)  The EIS  gave  no consideration to the beneficial  impacts of sewers on
property values.   An increase  in property value  could be anticipated for
property owners  on Island and  Sturgeon Lakes  if  sewers  were constructed.

          Comment  noted.   Sewers  may  have significant financial im-
     pacts  on  property   owners,   including  an  increase   of  property
     values.  Such impacts are beneficial to those owners who are able
     to  afford  installation,  hook-up,  and  user-fee  costs for the
     duration  of  the  period for  which they  wish to  maintain ownership.
                                   5-1

-------
     The cost  impacts may be adverse  for  those who cannot afford the
     loss  of  disposable  income represented  by sewer charges  of any
     kind  and who  do  not  wish to  sell  their  property  for personal
     reasons or  due  to market considerations.   It was not possible to
     assess  the  increased  property  value related  impacts  in detail
     because  the willingness to  sell is  determined by unpredictable
     market forces.


3.)  The  EIS  made  no  specific  study  of  the  impact  of  on-site  waste

management systems on private water wells.


          Comment  noted.   No well  sampling and  analysis was  done as
     part  of  the EIS.   However,  areas with  coarse soils, where well
     contamination potentials are  highest, are  identified in the EIS.
     The potential  for well contamination  in  these situations  can be
     reduced by  construction of properly designed wells of depth more
     typical of  those serving permanent residences.  Implementation of
     the  EIS  alternative  would  further  protect  wells  by bringing
     on-site systems up to standards of sanitary code.  Therefore, the
     EIS does recognize the potential for  well contamination  in cer-
     tain areas  (page 2-41).


Mr. Bob Eikum;   (hearing transcript,  10 June  1983)


4.)  The EIS contained no reference to the potential for well contamination

by  degreasing or cleaning  agents sold for use in improving septic system

performance.


          Comment noted.   During  preparation of the Draft EIS no work
     was done to investigate this issue.   Following the public hear-
     ing,  an  additional review  of the sanitary  service questionnaires
     (Section  2.2.1.3.  in  the EIS) was made.   Responses  to  the ques-
     tionnaire regarding maintenance of septic  systems gave no indica-
     tion  that  such  chemical  agents were  used.    This  represents  a
     survey  of  more  than  one  hundred  septic  system  owners  in the
     Island and  Sturgeon Lake area.   As noted  at  the public hearing,
     the  proper  method for septic  system maintenance  is removal of
     sludge and  solids by mechanical pump.


5.2  Correspondence from Federal Agencies


US Department  of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service;  (10 June 1983)


5.)  Draft EIS needs no further comment.
                                   5-2

-------
US Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers; (9 June 1983)

6.)  No Department of the Army permit would be required to carry out Alter-
native #2.

     Comment noted.

US Department of Interior, Office of the Secretary; (20 June 1983)

7.)  Both  the  bald  eagle and  the  gray  wolf occur  in the  project area.
However,  considering  the location  and types  of activities proposed, this
project should have no  effect on the above listed species.  This precludes
the need  for  further  action on this project  as  required by the Endangered
Species Act of 1973,  as amended.

     Comment noted.

8.)  The  Final EIS should evidence approval by  the SHPO of compliance with
mandates  pertaining  to  the  identification  and  protection  of  cultural
resources.
          Due to the lack of exact knowledge of the future location of
     all individual on-site waste management systems to be upgraded or
     built,  it  is not  possible  to  identify  potential  impacts  on
     cultural resources.   This evaluation of  compliance  will need to
     be  completed  in  the  development  of  plans  and  specifications.
US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration;    (2 June
1983)

 9.) The  EIS  recommended project  would have no  effect  on the Federal-aid
highway system.

          Comment noted.
                                   5-3

-------
5.3  Correspondence from State and Local Agencies


East Central Regional Development Commission;  (26 May 1983)


10.) The Commission concurs with the Draft EIS recommendation.


          Comment noted.


Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; (21 June 1983)


11.) The DEIS  did  not present costs to  control  all significant sources of

nutrients to the lakes.


          Comment  noted.   It was  concluded  that  the  solution to the
     water  quality problem in  Island  Lake  would  include implementa-
     tion of  practices which abate  all  significant non-point sources
     of  pollution.   And,  certain  in-lake management  practices would
     also be   required  to  curtail  algae  growth.   Estimation  of the
     costs  for  all such practices would have  obscured  the purpose of
     the EIS,  which  was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a number
     of domestic wastewater management alternatives.


Minnesota Pollution Control Agency;  (8 August  1983)


12.) The EIS should state more clearly that available information indicates

no threat to public health as a result of blue-green algae blooms.


               Comment  noted.  Editorial  revisions to   the  sections
     discussing the potential for algal toxicity have been made in the
     Final EIS.


13.) The  statement that  winter phosphorus  levels  in Island  and Sturgeon
Lakes are similar  (page 2-57)  does not appear to be justified based on the

limited number of samples taken.


          Comment  noted.   The samples  taken were  limited in number.
     However,   the  data are useful for evaluating  previous studies as
     referenced in the Phase II Report (USEPA 1981).   (Studies by the
     Moose  Lake Windemere  Sanitary District  had reported water column
     phosphorus (1979-1980) which  were at levels typically associated
     with untreated   domestic wastewater.   The  values  reported  for
     Island Lake were particularly high and the explanation given was
     that this  reflected the  greater  number  of  year-round residents
     living on Island Lake.)  In spite of the high phosphorus detec-
                                   5-4

-------
     tion  limit  for winter  samples  and low number  of samples taken,
     the sediment and water column phosphorus data (USEPA 1983) placed
     the referenced  studies  (USEPA 1981) in perspective and countered
     the assertion  that on—site  waste treatment systems have a signi-
     ficant and  obvious impact  on phosphorus levels.  In summary, the
     issue being addressed was the gross level of accuracy, and not so
     much the precision of phosphorus measurements.


14.) The  land runoff  coefficients  used to  estimate  external  phosphorus

loading appear to be excessive for some land use categories.  (and)  Ground

water  movement   of  phosphorus is  not considered  as a vector  of nutrient

loading.


          Comments  are  noted.   Selection of  'appropriate1  phosphorus
     export coefficients  is  in  large part  a matter  of  professional
     judgment  based  on observation of  cropping practices,  slopes,
     proximity of animal waste  storage facilities to water, and other
     land use characteristics in the direct drainage area.

          It  was assumed  that  the  most cost-efficient  abatement of
     phosphorus transport to the lake could be achieved by focusing on
     land management needs in the direct drainage.  (The intermittent
     and continuous  streams  draining  upland  areas  pass  through peat
     bogs  and ponds  which  are  effective  sedimentation basins  even
     during spring  runoff.   Thus,  Island  lake  would be  most cost-
     effectively  managed  by  controlling   the  critical  phosphorus
     sources  (those most proximate to the shoreline)).  All such cri-
     tical phosphorus  sources were  evaluated  on  a  worst-case basis.
     It  was  felt that  an  objective  approach  to assessing management
     needs must consider both animal waste and domestic waste in equal
     terms.

          Groundwater vectors of nutrient movement were considered for
     the estimate of loading from on-site systems.  This was discussed
     at  length in the  Draft  EIS on page 3-23.   The groundwater vector
     was not  considered as  important for the  export  of  nutrients to
     the  lake from  agricultural  land and  lawns.   Most  lawns,  crop-
     lands, and  barnyards  in the direct drainage area  are on clayey
     soil, on moderate to steep  slopes, where groundwater infiltration
     is  low and  where  the runoff function  was judged  to  be the most
     significant.   Additionally,  groundwater  nutrient  levels  were
     tested in  a number of  locations around the shoreline of Island
     and Sturgeon Lakes and  the results, presented in the Appendix of
     the  Draft  EIS,  were  considered  to  indicate  low  levels  of
     phosphorus in groundwater.
                                   5-5

-------
15.) The Final EIS should make more clear that phosphorus control is always
a desireable  goal  for freshwater lakes.  Wording  in  the Draft EIS created

the impression  that  better control over on-site waste treatment systems is

not  needed  because   other  sources of  phosphorus  to the  lakes are  more
significant but not manageable.


          Comment noted.   The EIS alternative recommends that on-site
     systems  should  be  designed to  function  correctly  within  the
     limitations  of   each  lot and  that  failures  should  be corrected
     through  regular maintenance and by  provision  of  necessary  up-
     grades.   However,   based on the evidence assembled in  the EIS,
     there is a possiblity that  no amount of pollution control in the
     Island Lake watershed would  result in water quality improvements.
     This does not imply that continuing on-site system failures would
     not worsen the  water  quality of Island  Lake or increase eutro-
     phication  of  the   other lakes.    Therefore,   the  basic  goal  of
     implementing the selected alternative is to preserve and protect
     the quality  of  the project  area lakes.  This  is indeed a desire-
     able goal.

16.) The  chosen  alternative  is on-site  upgrades for  the  project  area.

Based on soil descriptions,  there are problem soils  in the area which have

severe  ratings  for  soil absorption systems.   How  was it decided who would

get mounds  and  who  would get drainfields?  There should be a discussion of

this documented.   It may be  that everyone located  on the Duluth soils were

given mounds and those on Omega soils were given drainfields.


          The correlation  between soil  types and on-site systems with
     obvious or potential problems is given in Table  2-9 (p. 2-65) and
     shows  a majority  of  the problems  (68%)  occurred  in Duluth loam
     soils.   In the  System Components section  (p. 2-74 to 2-77), types
     of systems  appropriate  for  various soils in  the project area are
     discussed.   The criteria used  for selection  of on-site systems
     (given  in  Section 2.4.2.,   p. 2-9 and  Section 2.6.2., p. 2-121)
     was based  on  soil  characteristics  as  well   as depth  to  water
     table,  land slope,  and  lot size.   Typically,  lots  with Duluth
     loam soils  were given a mound system.   Lots  with Duluth Variant
     or Omega sandy  loam soils were given drainfields.


17.) Duluth  (loam)  soils have up to 48% clay with  estimated permeabilities
as  low  as  0.06  inches/hr.  which translates  to percolation  rates  greater
than 300 minutes per inch (mpi).  According  to  WPC-40 criteria individual

mounds could not be  constructed on soils with percolation rates slower than
                                   5-6

-------
120 mpi  without a  variance.   This  is  not to  say something  could not be

designed for these  slow  rates,  but it would require a much larger area and
may not be reflected in the costs.   Conversely, Omega soils are very course

and may  have  percolation rates  that  are too fast  as stated  in WPC-40.

Therefore,  trench  liners would  have  to  be  added  to  costs.    If  these
problems have not been considered,  the feasibility and  costing  may not be

truly reflective of actual needs.

          The type  of onsite  system upgrades for  lots  on Duluth loam
     soils was,based on:   the existing obvious or potential problems;
     the  type  of  system  currently in place;  and  information obtained
     in  a  telephone  interview  with  a  majority of  residents  who
     reported problems.   The  Duluth Loam  soils have  some variability
     and  in  some  cases  even  conventional drainfields  would function
     properly.    However,  based  on  all  the  collected  information,
     residences with  the  most  severe  problems  on Duluth  Loam  soils
     were given flow reduction  devices, a blackwater holding tank for
     toilet wastes, and  a mound system for greywater treatment.   When
     properly installed,  the mound system is considered to be adequate
     for treatment  of the reduced  wastewater load which would include
     only greywater flows.

          For the areas  with  Omega  sandy  loam  soils,  the percolation
     rate  may   in   some  cases  exceed  the WPC  criteria.   In  these
     instances, drainfield liners  would be needed  to slow  down the
     percolation  rate.    Only  6 initial upgrades  were  proposed  for
     systems  on  Omega   sandy   loam  soils  and approximately 90  new
     drainfields  were  proposed for  the  20  year  design  period.   The
     cost of the  liners  would be covered by the contingency component
     (included as  part  of the  service factor) and represents 15% of
     the  construction cost   (Appendices,  p. D-2).   The  contingency
     component is  set aside for unforeseen costs.

18.) The EIS alternatives for cluster systems and bog treatment should not
be considered feasible alternatives at this time.


          Comment noted.   The  Draft  and Final EIS concurs with this
     assessment and the  selected   alternative  does  not  incorporate
     either treatment technology.


19.) Where will septage  from  the  on-site systems go?  On p. 2-72, septages

for the Moose Lake area is said to go to the Moose Lake system.  What would
this include?  Is the pond surface area designed for this extra BOD
                                   5-7

-------
loading?  Estimates  were given of up to 4500 gpd of septages introduced to
the system  in  spring and fall.  On  p.  2-81  it  states septage in the Moose
Lake area is  treated in anaerobic lagoons.  What  is the estimate of sept-
ages to be produced for alternative #2?

          Septage  from  onsite  systems will continue to be disposed of
     in  a  manner  consistent  with  the  present  disposal  practice
     (p. 2-81)  which  is  introduction  to  the  Moose  Lake  Treatment
     system via  a manhole  (p.  2-73).   The  septage  would include the
     residential  solids  generated  in  septic  tanks  and raw  sewage
     pumped from  holding tanks with a 40 mile radius, as is currently
     the case  (p.  2-73).   As seasonal residents return or leave their
     cabins  in  spring  and  autumn,  they  have  their  onsite  systems
     pumped out,  resulting  in  short periods when  up  to  4500  gpd of
     septage is introduced to the Moose Lake system.

          Based  on a septage  volume for 365 septic tanks pumped per
     year and septage BOD of 5000 mg/1, there is 160 Ib/day excess BOD
     treatment capacity to  the  year 2000 using  the revised capacity
     with new  MPCA  design  criteria.   Based on  the  existing  lagoon
     design capacity,  there  is 243 Ib/day excess BOD treatment capac-
     ity at the Moose Lake WWTP for the year 2000 (p. 2-86).

20.) How was the conclusion reached that no private water well contamina-
tion problems existed in "critical areas', e.g.  areas with highly permeable
soils which are developed with homes served by shallow wells.

          No final conclusion  was reached on this  topic  in  the Draft
     EIS.  The DEIS  did state  that the Minnesota  State Department of
     Health records  indicated  no  serious  problems  with  private well
     contamination  in  the  area.   Also,  the  questionnaire  responses
     from homeowners in critical areas indicated no problems with well
     contamination.  Therefore, as stated in the DEIS, it was presumed
     that no broad degree  of need for improved waste treatment exists
     (currently)  as  a  result  of private  water well  contamination.
     However,   the DEIS provided  a  lengthy  discussion  which  demon-
     strates the  continuing  potential for such contamination to occur
     in  sandy  soils where  shallow wells are  used.   The  EIS  section
     dealing  with  well water  contamination  also  pointed  out  that
     prevention  of  contamination  problems  can be accomplished through
     construction  of  new wells or upgrading of existing wells.   With-
     out  well  improvements,  the potential  for contamination  would
     continue  to be high  in the  critical  areas regardless of  which
     type of wastewater management is provided.  The  EIS also listed
     a  number  of  potential causes  of well contamination  in  north-
     eastern  Minnesota  and  stated  the types  of  field  studies that
     would  be  needed to determine conclusively which  are most  signi-
     ficant in  the project area.   It was concluded  that  such studies
     would contribute little more to the understanding of future
                                   5-8

-------
     problems  than  already  existed as a  result  of the identification
     of high potential areas and the identification of on-site systems
     (and  wells)  needing  upgrades.    (Even  if  an  extensive  well
     monitoring  program  were undertaken  for the  purpose  of sampling
     wells in  the  summer,  when the largely seasonal residences of the
     critical  areas  are in  use,  it  may  not   provide  an  adequate
     assessment  of  the  future  potential  for  well  contamination.
     Sampling would look at one year's problems, whereas consideration
     of where  the highest  contamination  potential  exists  takes into
     consideration  what  is  likely to happen  throughout the  20 year
     wastewater management planning period.)


21.) Nitrates will  not be  prevented from entering  the groundwater even if
on-site waste treatment systems are properly operating.


          Comment is noted.   Revisions have been made  to the Final EIS
          to correct  the statement to  this effect  on pp. 15  of the
          DEIS.


22.) Were housing unit projections compared to available lakefront lots in

making population projections  and  which rate of housing stock increase was
used to estimate population growth?


          Available   lots    were   evaluated   directly  and   through
     interviews   with   real   estate   agents,   as   explained   in
     Section 3.2.2.5.  of  the Draft EIS.   Explanation  of  the housing
     stock increased rate(s) used for estimating population growth was
     provided in Appendix I of the Draft EIS.


23.) When  the   final  alternative  is   selected,   the  State  Historical

Preservation Officer  (SHPO)  should be contacted to determine whether field
surveys are  necessary and  whether surveys, if any, must be completed prior

to EIS finalization.

          Comment noted.   The Phase II Report (USEPA 1980)  did contain
     a letter of  review  from the SHPO which listed all known sites of
     historical  and  cultural  significance  in  Windemere  Township.
     However,  due  to  the  lack  of  exact  knowledge   of  the  future
     location  of individual  on-site waste treatment  systems  to  be
     upgraded  or built,  it  is not  possible  to  identify  potential
     impacts  on  these   cultural  resources.    This   evaluation  of
     compliance will need to  be made in  the development of plans and
     specifications, during Step 2 of the facilities planning.


24.) Have groundwater  impacts of  the  final alternative been evaluated by

groundwater dispersion modeling techniques?
                                   5-9

-------
          The  final  alternative was  not evaluated  with  a dispersion
     model  to indicate  the  potential  for  water table  elevation or
     gradient  changes.   The  state-of-the-art  in groundwater modeling
     techniques presently is  such that results may not be easily veri-
     fied and calibration to field conditions would be a significant
     expense.  While selection of an alternative calling for community
     drain field or 'cluster  system1 may have justified the additional
     modeling work, such an alternative was not selected and therefore
     modeling was not done.


25.) The planning  area  map on page 2-9  did  not  include the City of Barnum

nor the  corridor  between Moose Lake and Barnum.   It should be noted in the

EIS  that  these  planning  areas were   included  in  Phase  I  of   the  EIS

preparation.


          Comment noted.   These  planning areas were discussed on page
     two of the DEIS Summary  and again on page 1-4.


26.) On  Island Lake,  it  was estimated  that 64  residences  were used on a

permanent basis and on Sturgeon Lake, 42 were used as permanent residences.

How were these estimates made?


          The  fraction  of lakeshore residences being used permanently
     or  seasonally was  determined  by  examination of  three  types of
     information.   First,  questionnaire  respondents  indicated   the
     duration  of  use  and seasons in which  that  use  took place.  This
     data was compared  to the proportion of property owners along  the
     lakeshore   listing   local   versus   non-local   tax  form  mailing
     addresses.   Finally, both  the  above  types  of information were
     compared  to the  breakdown in  seasonal versus permanent  use as
     reported  in the  1980 census data  for  the individual enumeration
     districts  (Table  3-11 of  the  EIS).  The  138 permanent homes in
     Enumeration  District 504 were  then disaggregated  to  either  the
     Island  or  Sturgeon  Lake  vicinity.   This   was compared  to   the
     seasonal/permanent  lakeshore home  breakdown by lake as presented
     in  the MLWSD Facility  Plan.   Further,  adjustments  were made as
     the  EIS design work  progressed  because various sources provided
     information on recent property sales,   use conversions within  the
     preceeding  two  years,  recent  in-migration,  etc.    (The  most
     obvious  bias  resulting  from the  questionnaire  survey techniques
     was  that permanent  residents  tended to  respond  more frequently
     than seasonal  residents to  the mailed  survey  form.   It is felt
     that this bias  was overcome by consideration of all above  listed
     types of  information.)


27.) What  effort was  made  to  assure  that  all  potential  on-site system

failures were  found in the Sturgeon Lake area?
                                   5-10

-------
          All eight  categories of survey information  as presented in
     Section 2.2.1 of  the EIS were co-evaluated  to  determine present
     and  potential   future  failure  rates.    No  attempt  was  made to
     re-survey Sturgeon  Lake  with the Septic  Leachate Detector under
     more ideal conditions.   As  a practical matter,  the onset of  late
     fall weather precluded this option.


28.) The Hogan's Acres area south of Sturgeon Lake did not receive detailed

survey for problems with on-site systems.


          The intensity  of  survey and amount of attention paid to the
     available information  was equal  for all  segments of the project
     area with  two  qualifications.   First,  the MLWSD  did not develop
     detailed  surveys  of  the  Hogan's   Acres  area  and  thus,  the
     Facilities Plan provided  little  indication of need with which to
     compare the  EIS data.   Second,  the questionnaire  response  from
     Hogan's  Acres  property   owners was   low.    Consequently,  the
     follow-up survey (DEIS Section-2.2.1.8.)  was specifically focused
     on  that  area to  obtain  a better understanding  of  the types of
     systems and problems being encountered.


29.) An  average  size  for  on-site  systems  was  used  in the  EIS  for cost

evaluation purposes.   During plan and specification development, individual

Septic  Absorption  Systems  would  need   to  be  sized  according  to  lot

conditions and house size.


          Comment noted.    This  is  correct.  The typical residence in
     the area has  two  bedrooms.   Although  lot conditions  in terms of
     soil type,  slope,  and size were evaluated, the estimated SAS  size
     was based on the average two bedroom home.   Residences with more
     bedrooms will need a larger system than what was  estimated in the
     EIS.   It  was assumed  that  the  total  extra  cost which would be
     incurred for  constructing or upgrading  the  larger systems would
     be picked up  in the contingency component of the service factor
     costs.


30.) The MPCA concurrs with the findings  of  the Draft  EIS.


          Comment noted.
                                   5-11

-------
5.4  Correspondence  from Private  Citizens

Mrs. Margaret  Bowler;  (10 June  1983)

31.) The  Bowler family does not  support any  alternatives which  require  the
construction of sewers.

          Comment noted.

Mr. and Mrs. John C. Thomas;  (21  June  1983)

32.) Sewering  alternatives  appear  unjustified  because of  studies  in  the
DEIS which  indicate that environmental improvements  will  not result from
sewer  installation.  Additionally,  the high  costs  of  sewers would make it
impossible for  ownership  of  the existing property to continue.

          Comments noted.

Mr. George Rapp, Jr.;  (1  June 1983)

33.) The DEIS recommended alternative  (#2) is supported by Mr. Rapp and his
brothers.

          Comment noted.

Mrs. Ethell Spell; (21 June  1983)

34.) Establishment of sewer  is opposed, and upgrading of on-site systems is
supported.

          Comment noted.
                                   5-12

-------
Mrs. Marcia N. Cavanaugh; (13 June 1983)


35.) Sewers  are  not  necessary and  are not  affordable  for  the Cavanaugh
family.


          Comment noted.


Mr. Walter C. and Mrs. Kristi H.  Johnson; (21 June 1983)


36.) Construction  of  a  sewer is  opposed  and  alternatives  which involve
upgrading or replacement of on-site waste management systems are supported.


          Comment noted.


37.) USEPA  failed  to  adequately  communicate  with citizens  of  the area

during the last stages of DEIS preparation and review.


          Comment noted.  Additional  effort will be taken to edit and
     expand the mailing  list  for  persons wishing to receive the final
     EIS.


5.5  Index to Comments

     Person or Agency                   Comment Number      Page Number

     Mr.  Gregory D. Evenson                    1                 5-1

     Mr.  Seth Shepard                          2                 5-1

     Mr.  Seth Shepard                          3                 5-2

     Mr.  Bob Eikum                             4                 5-2

     U.S.  Department of Agriculture            5                 5-2

     U.S.  Department of the Army,

     Corps,  of Engineers                       6                 5-3

     U.S.  Department of the Interior,
     Office of the Secretary                   7                 5-3

     U.S.  Department of the Interior,
     Office of the Secretary                   8                 5-3
                                   5-13

-------
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration            9                 5-3

East Central Regional Development
Commission                               10                 5-4

Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources                                11                 5-4

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       12                 5-4

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       13                 5-4

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       14                 5-5

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       15                 5-6

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       16                 5-6

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       17                 5-6

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       18                 5-7

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       19                 5-7

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       20                 5-8

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       21                 5-9

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       22                 5-9

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       23                 5-9

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       24                 5-9

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       25                 5-10

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       26                 5-10

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       27                 5-10

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       28                 5-11

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       29                 5-11

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency       30                 5-11

Mrs. Margaret Bowler                     31                 5-12

Mr. & Mrs. John C. Thomas                32                 5-12

Mr. George Rapp, Jr.                     33                 5-12
                              5-14

-------
Mrs. Ethel Spell                          34                 5-12

Mrs. Marcia N. Cavanaugh                  35                 5-12

Mrs. Walter C. and
Mrs. Kristie H. Johnson                   36                 5-13

Mrs. Walter C. and
Mrs. Kristie H. Johnson                   37                 5-13
                               5-15

-------
6.0.  LITERATURE CITED
Aronson,  R. ,  and  E.   Schwartz  (Editors).   1975.   Management policies  in
     local  government  finance.   International  City  Managers  Association,
     Washington DC.

Carlson,  A.H.   1980a.   Report of  the State  Auditor of  Minnesota on  the
     revenues, expenditures,  and debt  of the  local  governments in Minne-
     sota. St. Paul MN, 127 p.

Carlson, A.H.  1980b.   Report of the State Auditor of Minnesota on  the  reve-
     nues, expenditures, and  debt  of the towns  in Minnesota.   St.  Paul  MN,
     100 p.

Dillon, P.J. and W.B. Kirchner.  1975.  The effects of geology and  land  use
     on  the  export  of phosphorus  from  watersheds.      Water Research  9:
     135-148.

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. 32:1,519-1,531.

East  Central  Regional Development  Commission.   1981.    Overall  economic
     development program annual  update.   Mora MN, p. 1-7  plus attachments.

Federal Water  Quality Administration.   1970.    Federal  guidelines  for  de-
     sign, operation,  and maintenance  of wastewater treatment  facilities.
     US Department of the Interior, Washington DC, 29 p.

Finney, H.R.   1981.   Soil  survey of part of Windemere Township,  Pine Coun-
     ty, Minnesota.  Completed  under contract to WAPORA,  Inc.  St.  Paul  MN,
     28 p. plus soil map plates.

Gustatson, N.C.   1973.   Recent  trends,  future  prospects, a   look  at upper
     midwest  population  changes.    Federal  Reserve  Bank,   Upper  Midwest
     Council, Minneapolis MN.

Goldreich, E.E.   1965.   Detection and significance  of  fecal   coliform  bac-
     teria in  stream pollution  studies.   Journal Water  Pollution Control
     Federation 37:1722

Howard  A.  Kuusisto.   1980.   Moose Lake-Windemere  Sanitary Sewer District,
     Unit No.  3,  "Island  Lake".   Consulting Engineers,  St.  Paul MN, Plans
     19 sheets, specifications

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.

Kamppi A.   1971.   Studies of water disposal on peatland forest basin infil-
     tration systems which  were in effect in  Findland  in 1970.  Report A4
     National Board of Water,  Helsinki, Finland. (English  Summary).
                                  6-1

-------
Lorenzen, M.W.   1981.   Correspondence.  Environmental  Science & Technology
     15:1508-1509.

Miller,  J.P.  (ed).   1949.  One hundred  years  in Pine  County.  Pine County
     Historical  Society,  reprint  1979.   American Publishing  Co., Askov.
     Minnesota.

Minnesota Department of  Economic  Security.   1982.  Northeastern Minnesota
     labor  market  review,  June  1982.  Regional  Labor Market Information
     Center, Duluth MN  8  p.

Minnesota  Department  of  Energy,  Planning,  and  Development.   1982.   Fact
     Sheet:  BTU contents of  fuel.   St.  Paul MN,  1 sheet.

Minnesota  Department  of  Transportation.   1979.   1979   Traffic  map.   St.
     Paul MN, 1 sheet.

Minnesota Department of Transportation.  1981.  Minnesota automatic traffic
     recorder data  summary.   St. Paul  MN,  591 p.

Minnesota Energy Agency.   1981.   Residential energy  prices in Minnesota.
     Forecasting Division,  St. Paul  MN,  39 p.

Moak,  L.L.,  and  A.M.  Hillhouse.   1975.   Concepts and  practices  in  local
     government  finance.   Municipal  Finance Officers Association of the US
     and Canda, Chicago IL, 454 p.

Moose  Lake  Planning Commission.   1981.  City of  Moose  Lake,  land use  down-
     town development strategies.  Moose Lake MN,  62 p.

MPCA.   1980.   Recommended design criteria for stabilization  ponds  (aerated
     and non-aerated, 34  p.

National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric   Administation.   1979a.    Climatological
     data annual summary,  Minnesota.   National  Climatic Center, Asheville
     NC, 16 p.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  1979b.  Local climatolo-
     gical  data,  annual  summary with  comparative data, Duluth, Minnesota.
     National climatic  Center, Asheville NC, 4 p.

National Oceanic and  Atmospheric  Administration.  1981.  National weather
     service surface weather  observations.  Duluth MN.

Northerneastern  Minnesota Labor Market  Review.    1980.   Labor market data
     summary  for  fiscal  year 1981,  Northeastern Minnesota -  Region 3.
     Minnesota Department of  Economic  Security, Duluth  MN, 43 p.

Omernik,  J.M.   1977.   Non-point  source  stream  nutrient  level  relation-
     ships:   a  nationwide  survey.   EPA  600/3-77-105.   National  Environ-
     mental Research Laboratory, Corvalis  OR.
                                   6-2

-------
Otis  R.J.,  and  D.  E.   Stewart.   1976.   Alternative  wastewater facilities
     for small  unsewered communities  in rural  America.   Annual report to
     the Upper Great Lakes Region Commission.

Otis,  R.J.   1979.   Alternative wastewater  facilities for  small  communi-
     ties -  a case  study.   In;  Proceedings of  a  workshop on alternative
     wastewater  treatment  systems.   UILU-WRC-79-0010.   Water  Resources
     Center  and Cooperative  Extensive  Service,  University of  Illinois -
     Urbana,  Urbana IL, p, 44-40.

Peterson,  J.M.,  and  G.O.  Gronseth.   1980.   Selected  economic  data for
     Duluth and  Northeastern  Minnesota  through 1979.  University of Minne-
     sota,  Duluth, Duluth MN,  68 p.

Pine  County  Area Redevelopment  Organization.   1979.   Pine County overall
     economic development plan.  Pine City MN, 61 p.

Pound,  C.E.,  and R.W.  Crites.   1973.   Wastewater  treatment  and  reuse by
     land application,  Volume  I,  summary.   USEPA  Office  of  Research and
     Development, Washington DC, 80 p.

PRC  Consoer,  Townsend  and  Associates   LTD.  1980.   Moose Lake-Windereme
     Sanitary  Sewer  District facility  plan for  wastewater collection and
     treatment.  Duluth MN.

Ragotzkie,  R.A.   1978.   Heat  budgets  of  lakes.   Chapter I  IN;   Lakes;
     chemistry,  geology,  and physics.  Pub  Springer  and  Verlag, New  York,
     NY 3,062 p.

Rast, W. and  G.  F.  Lee.  1981.  Correspondence.   Environmental Science and
     Technology 15:1509-1510

Reneau, R. B.  Jr. ,  and D. E. Pettry.  1975.  Movement of coliform bacteria
     from septic tank  effluent through selected  coastal  plain  soils of
     Virginia.  Journal of Environmental Quality  4:41-44

Schindler,  D.W.  1977.   Evaluation of phosphorus  limitation  in lakes.   Sci-
     ence 195:260-262

Seigrist, R.  L. , T. Woltanski, and  C.E.  Walforf.   Water conservation and
     wastewater  disposal.   In;  Proceedings  of   the  second national  home
     sewage treatment  symposium (ASAE Publication 5-77).  American Society
     of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph MI, p. 121-136.

Shapiro, J.   1979.  The need for more biology in  lake restoration.  in Lake
     Restoration EPA 440/5-79-001 Washington, D.C.  pp. 161-167

Simmons, J.D.,  and  J.O. Newman.   1979.  On-site liquefaction and variable
     gradient  transport  lines  for rural  sewage disposal.  Paper  No. SER
     79-047.   American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.  Joseph MI, 16
     P-
                                  6-3

-------
 Smith,  V.H. and  J.   Shapiro.   1981.   Chlorohyll  phosphorus  relations in
     individual  lakes.  Their  importance to  lake  restoration strategies.
     Environmental science and  technology  15:444-451.

Soil Conservation  Service.   1978.   Soil  survey  of Carlton County, Minne-
     sota.   US  Department of Agriculture.   In cooperation with the Minne-
     sota Agricultural Experiment Station.   77 p. plus map sheets.

Spencer,  J.S.,  Jr.,  and  A.J.  Ostrom.   1979.   Timber  resources  of Minne-
     sota's aspen-birch unit, 1977.  Resource  Bulletin NC-43, US Department
     of  Agriculture,  Forest  Service,  North  Central Forest Experiment  Sta-
     tion, St. Paul MN, 52 p.

Surakka,  S.   1971.   Some  observations on the possibilities to infiltrate
     wastewater  in peatlands according  to  results  obtained in Kesalahden
     Town, Finland (English  Summary).  Vesitalous 8:26-31.

Surakka,  S.  and A.  Kamppi.   1971.   Infiltration of wastewater  into  peat
     soil (English Summary).  SMO.   22:51:58
Tofflemire,  T.J. and  M.  Chien.
     soils.  Groundwater 15:377.
1977.    Phosphate  removal  by sands  and
US  Bureau of  the  Census.   1952.  US  Census  of population:  1950.  Volume
     II, characteristics of the  population, part 23, Minnesota.  Department
     of  Commerce,   US  Government Printing  Office,  Washington,  DC,  220 p.

US  Bureau  of  the Census.  1963.  US census of  population:   1960,  Volume I,
     Chacteristics  of  the population,  part  25,  Minnesota.  Department of
     Commerce, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

US  Bureau  of  the Census.  1973.  General  social  and economic  characteris-
     tic, Minnesota.  Department of Commerce, US Government Priting Office,
     Washington DC, 495 p. plus  appendixes.

US  Bureau of  the  Census.   1980.   1978 population estimates  and 1977 and
     revised  1976  per capita  income estimates for counties,  incorporated
     places,  and selected minor civil  divisions  — Minnesota.  Department
     of Commerce, Washington DC.

US  Bureau  of  the Census.  1982.  Advance  reports:   Minnesota general pop-
     ulation   characteristics.   Department   of Commerce,   Washington  DC.

US Department  of Agriculture.  1962.  Soil survey manual.   Handbook No. 18.
     Agricultural Research Administration, p. 209.

US  Department  of Commerce.   1929.   State and county data,  Minnesota census
     of agriculture.  Washington DC.

US  Department  of Commerce.   1934.   State and county data,  Minnesota census
     of agriculture.  Washington DC.
                                  6-4

-------
US Department of  Commerce.   1939.   State and county data, Minnesota census
     of agriculture.   Washington DC.

US Department of  Commerce.   1949.   State and county data, Minnesota census
     of agriculture.   Washington DC.

US Department of  Commerce.   1969.   State and county data, Minnesota census
     of Agriculture.   Washington DC.

US Department of  Commerce.   1978.   State and county data, Minnesota census
     of Agriculture.   Washington DC.

US  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1976.   Quality  criteria  for water.
     Office of Water and Hazardous Materials.  Washington DC, 255 p.

US  Environmental  Protection Agency.  1977.   Alternatives for small waste-
     water  treatment  systems,  on-site  disposal/septage treatment and dis-
     posal.   EPA  625/4-77-011.  Technology  Transfer,  Washington  DC,  90 p.

US  Environmental  Protection Agency.   1978.   Funding  of  sewage collection
     system projects.   Program  Requirements Memorandum (PRM  78-9).  Office
     of Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington DC.

US  Environmental   Protection Agency.    1978.   Management  of  small  waste
     flows.  USEPA-600/2-78-173.  Municipal Environmental Research Labora-
     tory.  Cincinnati OH.

US  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1979.   Construction  grants program
     requirements memorandum 79-7.   Washington DC, 2 p.

US Environmental  Protection Agency  1979.  Management of on-site and alter-
     native wastewater  systems  (Draft).   Prepared  for USEPA Environmental
     Research Information Center,  by Roy F.  Weston,  Inc.,  Cincinnati, OH,
     111 p.

US Environmental  Protection Agency.   1979.   Planning wastewater management
     facilities for  small communities (Draft).   Prepared for USEPA Munici-
     pal  Environmental   Research  Laboratory,  by Urban  Systems  Research
     Engineering,  Inc., Cincinnati,  OH,  141 p.

US  Environmental   Protection Agency.    1979.   Region  V,  Water Division,
     Chicago,  IL  Draft environmental  impact  statement.  Alternative waste
     treatment  systems  for rural  lake  projects.   Case study  number  1,
     Crystal Lake area  sewage  disposal authority, Benzie County, Michigan.

US  Environmental   Protection Agency.    1979.   Region  V,  Water Division,
     Chicago,  IL   Draft  environmental  impact statement  alternative waste
     treatment systems for rural lake projects.  Case study number 2, Green
     Lake sanitary sewer  and waster district, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
                                  6-5

-------
US  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1979.   Region  V,  Water Division,
     Chicago,  IL Draft  environmental  impact statement.   Alternative waste
     treatment  systems  for  rural  lake  projects..   Case study  number 3,
     Springvale-Bear  Creek sewage  disposal authority,  Emmet  County, Mic-
     higan.

US  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1979.   Region  V,  Water Division,
     Chicago,  IL Draft  environmental  impact statement.   Alternative waste
     treatment systems  for rural lake projects. Case  study number 4 Steuben
     Lakes Regional Waste District,  Steuben  County, Indiana.

US  Environmental  Protection Agency.   1979.   Region V,  Water Divisions,
     Chicago,  IL   Draft environmental impact statement.  Alternative waste
     treatment  systems  for  rural  lake  projects.    Case study  number 5,
     Ottertail  County  Board  of  Commissioners  Ottertail  County, Minnesota

US Environmental  Protection Agency.  1980.  Design manual.  On-site waste-
     water treatment and disposal systems.   Office of Research and Develop-
     ment, Municipal  Environmental Research Laboratory,  Cincinnati, OH 391
     P-

US Environmental  Protection Agency.  1980.  Modeing  phosphorus  loading and
     lake  response under uncertainty:  a  manual  and  compilation of export
     coefficients.   EPA 440/5-80-011.   Clean  Lake  Section USEPA, Washing-
     ton, DC.

US  Environmental  Protection Agency.   1981.   Alternative  waste treatment
     system  for  rural  lake  projects.   Draft  generic environmental impact
     statement.   USEPA  Region  V,  Water  Division,   Chicago  IL,  133 plus
     appendixes.

US  Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1981.    Facilities Planning  1981.
     Municipal  wastewater  treatment.    EPA 430/9-81-002 office  of  Water
     Program Operations, Washington DC, 116  p.

US Environmental Protection Agency.   1981.   Resource inventory and septic
     system  survey.   Moose Lake  -  Windemere  Sewer  District,  Minnesota.
     Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas NV.

US  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1981.   Region  V,  Water Division,
     Chicago,  IL  Draft environmental impact statement.   Alternative treat-
     ment  systems  for rural lake  projects.  Case study  number 6, Williams
     County Commissioners, Nettle Lake area, Williams County, Ohio.

US Geological  Survey.  1979.  Bruno and  Moose Lake  quadrangles Minnesota.
     15  minute series  (topographic).   Department of Interior, Washington
     DC, 2 sheets  (1:62,500).

Uttormark,  P.O.,  and  J.P.  Wall.   1975.   Lake  classification  for  water
     quality management.   University  of  Wisconsin  Water Resources Center.

Vasilevski,  A.  and  R.L. Hackett.   1980.    Timber resource  of Minnesota's
     central  hardwood  unit,  1977.   US  Department  of  Agriculture  Forest
     Service  Resource  Bulletin  NC-46.    North  Central  Forest Experiment
     Station,  St.  Paul  MN, 65 p.

                                   6-6

-------
Viraraghavan, T. ,  and  R.  G. Warnock.,  1976.   Groundwater quality adjacent
     to a septic  tank  system.   Journal of the American Water Works Associ-
     ation 68:611-614.

Vollenweider, R.A.  1975.   Input -  output  models with  special reference
     to the  phosphorus loading concept in  limnology.   Schweiz.  Z.  Hydrol
     37:53-83.

Williams,  J.D.H.  J-M Jaquet,  and R. L. Thomas.  1976.  Forms of phosphorus
     in the   surficial  sediments of  Lake  Erie.   Journal  Fish Res.  Board
     Can - 33:413-429.

Wisconsin Department of Natural  Resources  Technical  Bulletin  #81,  Influ-
     ence of  organic pollution on the density and production of trout in a
     Wisconsin stream 1975.
                                  6-7

-------
7.0.   INDEX


Aerial photographic survey, 2-24 - 2-26

Agricultural lands:
     conversion of, 3-62 - 3-65
     impacts on, 4-7
     See also Land uses

Air quality.  See Atmosphere

Aquatic biota.   See Wildlife, aquatic; Vegetation, aquatic

Archeology.   See Cultural resources

Architecture.  See Cultural resources

Atmosphere;  3-1 - 3-2
     impacts, 4-3, 4-10 - 4-11
     odors,  3-2

Blue-green algae, 3-38 - 3-40, Appendix H

Centralized  alternatives
     costs,  2-111
     management of, 2-10 - 2-11, 2-14, 2-115 - 2-117, Appendix D and E

Cluster systems, 2-77 - 2-78

Construction Grants Program.  See Funding, Federal

Costs,
     cost effectiveness analysis, 2-110 - 2-111, Appendix E
     residential user, 4-21 - 4-25
     summary for alternatives, 2-111

Cultural resources:
     archaeological surveys, 3-83
     historic sites, 3-82
     impacts on, 4-9

Decentralized alternatives:
     costs,  2-111
     management of, 2-74, 2-117 - 2-120
     recommended action, 2-120 - 2-121

Economics:  regional, 3-72
     cost criteria, Appendix E
     impacts, on, 4-8, 4-18
     See also Costs
                                   7-1

-------
Employment, 3—73
     unemployment, 3-73 - 3-75
     impacts on, 4-5, 4-17

Energy:
     sources, 3-79 - 3-80, Appendix N
     impacts on, 4-9, 4-18

Environmental Impact Statement:
     issues, 1-1 - 1-5, 1-12
     process, 1-5 - 1-12
     required, 1-5 - 1-8

Entrophication.   See Water quality, trophic status

Facility Plan, 1-4 - 1-5, 2-17

Farmers Home Administration, 4-25

Fauna.   See Wildlife

Funding:
     Federal, Appendix F, 2-110
     local, 2-110
     project, Appendix F,
     state, Appendix F,

Geology, 3-3

Groundwater:
     effluent plumes, 2-27 - 2-29,  2-32 - 2-35
     impacts on, 4-4 - 4-5, 4-14 -  4-17, 5-5 - 5-8
     surveys, 2-26 - 2-38

Historical resources.   See cultural resources
Hogan's Subdivision.   See Wild Acres
Impacts:
     adverse, 4-33 - 4-34
     construction, 4-3 - 4-9
     operation,  4-9 - 4-19
     public finance,  4-19 -4-25
     secondary,  4-25
     income, 3-72

Island Lake:
     characteristics, 3-4 - 3-15
     on-site system problems,  2-20, 2-63 - 2-68
     sanitary surveys, 2-19 - 2-20
     sediment core study, 3-32 - 3-37,  Appendix L
                                   7-2

-------
Lake s,
     characteristics,  2-50 - 2-61,  3-4 - 3-6
     phosphorous loadings, 3-20 - 3-31
     modeling, 3-26 - 3-31

Land use, 3-56
     development,  3-57 - 3-65,  3-70 - 3-71
     impacts on, 4-6 - 4-8, 4-17
     prime farmland, 3-65 - 3-67

Meterology.   See Atmosphere

Moose Lake treatment plant, 2-1 - 2-5

Moose Lake—Windemere Sanitary  District, 2-1, 2-115 - 2-116

Moose River, 2-1

Noise pollution, 3-3

Nature of Intent,  1-12

Odors.   See Atmosphere

On-site systems,
     blackwater holding tanks,  5-7
     existing, 2-64
     mounds, 2-75
     problems with, 2-47 - 2-52, 2-64
     septage disposal, 2-72 - 2-73, 2-81
     septic tank,  2-74 - 2-77

Passenger Lake:
     characteristics,  2-55 - 2-60,  3-4 - 3-16
     on-site system problems, 2-22, 2-23, 2-64, 2-71 - 2-72
     phosphorous loads, 2-53 -  2-54, 3-22 - 3-26

Phosphorous:
     groundwater,  2-28
     lake, 3-16 - 3-19
     loadings, 2-53 - 2-60, 3-22 - 3-26
     modeling, 3-26 - 3-3i
     sediments, 3-16 - 3-20, 3-21,  3-32 - 3-37

Population:
     growth, 3-44 - 3-47
     impacts on, 4-5,  4-17
     projections,  3-50 - 3-56,  Appendix I
     service area estimates, 3-52 - 3-55
                                   7-3

-------
Property values, 5-1, 5-2

Public hearing, 1-9 - 1-12

Phytoplankton study, 3-38 - 3-40

Recommended Action, 2-120 - 2-121
     selection of, 2-109, 2-120 - 2-121

Recreation and tourism, 3-81 - 3-82
     impacts on, 4-9, 4-19

Rush Lake:
     characteristics, 2-55 - 2-60, 3-4 - 3-16
     on-site system problems, 2-22, 2-23, 2-64, 2-71 - 2-72
     phosphorous loads, 2-53 - 2-54, 3-22 - 3-26

Selected Alternative, 2-120 - 2-121

Septic Tanks.  See On-site sytems

Soils:
     absorption systems, 2-65
     associations, 2-16, 3-3,
     survey, Appendix B

State funding.  See Funding, state

Sturgeon Lake:
     characteristics, 3-4 - 3-16
     on-site system problems, 2-22, 2-64, 2-68 - 2-71
     sanitary surveys, 2-20 - 2-22
     sediment core study, 3-32 - 3-37, Appendix L

Surveys:
     aerial photographic, 2-24 - 2-26
     mailed questionnaire, 2-18 - 2-24, Appendix C
     septic leachate, 2-26 - 2-38
     See also Appendices

Terrestrial vegetation.  See Vegetation, terrestrial

Tourism.  See Recreation and tourism

Transportation, 3-78 - 3-79, Appendix M

Vegetation:
     acquatic, 3-40 - 3-41

Wastewater treatment systems.  See Centralized alternatives,  decentralized
     alternatives, on-site systems
                                   7-4

-------
Water quality:
     coliform bacteria, 2-50 - 2-51
     drinking water, 2-38 - 2-44 ,
     impacts on, 4-11 - 4-17, 4-26
     nutrient enrichment, 3-20 - 3-26, 3-28 - 3-31
     surface, 3-6 - 3-20, Appendix J
     trophic status, 3-20 - 3-31
     wastewater discharge limitations, 2-6
     See also Groundwater, Phosphorous, and Lakes

Wetlands:
     wastewater treatment using, 2-79 - 2-80

Wild Acres and Hogans Subdivisions,
     on-site system problems, 2-23, 2-72

Wildlife:
     aquatic, 3-41 - 3-43
     terrestrial, 3-43
                                   7-5

-------
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 mg/1 and/or  total  nitrogen removal of greater than 50%  (total
     nitrogen removal = TKN + nitrite and nitrate).

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 one species of algae in lakes, streams or
     ponds to the exclusion of other algal species.

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 oxygen.

Anoxia.   Condition where oxygen is deficient or absent.

Apatite.   Calcium phosphate  with chloride, fluoride or  hydroxyl  Ca(Cl,  F,
     OH)  Ca  (PO ) ;  forms hexagonal  crystals;  earlier  was  often confused
     with fRiorrte3.

Aquifer.  A geologic stratum  or unit that contains  water and will allow it
     to pass through.   The water may reside in and travel through innumera-
     ble  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 that is  under sufficient pressure
     to flow to the surface without being pumped.
                                   8-1

-------
Artesian  well.   A well  that normally  gives a continuous  flow because of
     hydrostatic pressure, created when the outlet of the well is below the
     level of the water source.

Bar  screen.   In wastewater  treatment,  a  screen  that  removes large float-
     ing and suspended solids.

Base flow.   The rate of movement of  water in a stream channel that occurs
     typically  during  rainless  periods,  when stream  flow  is  maintained
     largely or entirely by discharges of  groundwater.

Bed Rock.  The solid rock beneath the soil and subsoil.

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.

Chemocline.   A stratum of  stronger concentration  gradient  of  dissolved
     substances.

Chlorination.  The  application of  chlorine  to  drinking water,  sewage or
     industrial  waste  for  disinfection  or  oxidation of undesirable com-
     pounds.

Circulation  period.   The interval of time in which the density stratifica-
     tion  of a  lake is destroyed by  the  equalization  of temperature, as a
     result  of which the entire water mass becomes mixed.

Clay.  The  smallest  mineral particles in  soil, less than .004 mm in diame-
     ter;  soil  that contains  at least  40%  clay particles,  less than 45%
     sand, and  less than 40% silt.

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 runnoff.
     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
     which are otherwise relatively difficult  to detect.
                                    8-2

-------
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.

Decibel (dB).   A unit of measurement used to express the relative intensity
     of sound.   For environmental  assessment,  it is common  to  use  a fre-
     quency-rated  scale  (A scale)  on which the units  (dBA)  are correlated
     with responses of the human ear.  On the A scale,  0 dBA represents the
     average  least perceptible sound (rustling  leaves,  gentle breathing),
     and  140 dBA represents  the  intensity at which the eardrum may rupture
     (jet engine at  open throttle). Intermediate values generally are:  20
     dBA,   faint (whisper at 5 feet, classroom,  private office); 60 dBA,
     loud  (average restaurant  or  living room,  playground);   80  DBA,  very
     loud  (impossible  to use  a  telephone,  noise  made by  food blender or
     portable  standing  machine;  hearing impairment  may result  from pro-
     longed exposure);  100 dBA, deafening  noise  (thunder,  car horn  at  3
     feet, loud motorcycle, loud power lawn mower).

Demographic.   Pertaining  to  the science  of vital  and  special statistics,
     especially with  regard  to population density  and  capacity for  expan-
     sion or decline.

Detention  time.    Average  time required  to  flow  through  a  basin.   Also
     called retention time.

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 and could  stagnate and  stink.

Drainage  Basin.   A  geographical  area  or  region which is so  sloped and
     contoured  that  surface  runoff  from streams and other  natural  water-
                                   8-3

-------
     courses  is  carried  away  by a single drainage  system  by gravity to a
     common outlet  or  outlets; also referred to as a watershed or drainage
     area.

Drift.  Rock  material  picked up and transported by a glacier and deposited
     elsewhere.

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.   The  turbulent  superficial  layer  of a lake  lying  above the
     metalimnion  which does not  have a  permanent  thermal stratification.
Eutrophication.  The  progressive  enrichment of surface waters particularly
     non-flowing bodies of water  such as  lakes  and ponds,  with dissolved
     nutrients,  such  as phosphorous and  nitrogen compounds,  which accele-
     rate  the  growth  of algae and higher forms of plant life and result in
     the  utilization  of the  useable oxygen  content of the  waters at the
     expense of other aquatic life forms.

Fauna.  The  total  animal life of a  particular geographic  area or habitat.

Fecal coliform bacteria.  See coliform bacteria.

Floodway.   The  portion  of  the floodplain which carries moving water during
     a flood event.

Flood  fringe.   The part of  the floodplain which  serves as  a storage area
     during a flood event.

Flora.  The  total  plant life of a  particular geographic  area or habitat.

Flowmeter.   A  guage  that indicates  the amount of  flow of wastewater moving
     through a treatment plant.

Force main.  A pipe designed to carry wastewater under pressure.

Gravity system.  A system  of conduits  (open  or closed)  in which no liquid
     pumping is required.

Gravity sewer.   A  sewer in which  wastewater  flows naturally down-gradient
     by the force of gravity.

Groundwater.   All  subsurface water,  especially that  part  in  the  zone of
     saturation.

Holding Tank.  Enclosed  tank, usually of  fiberglass, steel or concrete, for
     the  storage  of  wastewater  prior  to  removal or disposal  at another
     location.
                                   8-4

-------
Hypolimnion.  The deep  layer  of  a lake lying  below  the epilimnion and the
     metalimnion and removed from surface influences.
                                                   *
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
     leaders, 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
     basins, storm  waters,  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 trunk  sewers and  to convey it  to  a sewage treatment plant.

Innovative  Technology.   A technology  whose  use has  not been widely  docu-
     mented by experience and is not a variant of  conventional biological
     or physical/chemical treatment.

Lagoon.   In wastewater  treatment,  a  shallow  pond,  usually  man-made,  in
     which  sunlight,  algal  and   bacterial  action and  oxygen  interact  to
     restore the wastewater  to a reasonable state of purity.

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  and
     chlorination;  and   (3)   spraying  over  cropland,  pasture,  or  natural
     vegetation  to  allow plants and  soil  microorganisms  to  remove  addi-
     tional   pollutants.   Much of the  sprayed water evaporates,  and  the
     remainder may  be allowed to percolate to  the water table, discharged
     through drain tiles, or reclaimed by wells.

Leachate.   Solution formed when water percolates through solid wastes,  soil
     or other materials  and  extracts  soluble or suspendable substances from
     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.

Littoral.  The shoreward region of a body of water.

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.
                                   8-5

-------
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  connotates   bottom-dwelling
     aquatic animals  (benthos).

Macrophyte.  A large (not microscopic)  plant,  usually  in  an aquatic habi-
     tat.

Mesotrophic.  Waters with a moderate supply of  nutrients and no significant
     production of organic matter.

Metalimnion.   The  layer  of water  in a lake  between  the  epilimnion and
     hypolimnion  in  which the temperature exhibits the greatest difference
     in a vertical direction.

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.

Outwash.   Sand and  gravel  transported  away from a glacier by streams of
     meltwater  and  either  deposited as a floodplain  along a preexisting
     valley  bottom  or broadcast over a  preexisting plain in a  form similar
     to an alluvial fan.
                                   8-6

-------
Oligotrophic.   Waters with  a  small supply of nutrients and hence an insig-
     nificant  production of organic matter.

Ordinance.  A municipal  or county regulation.

Outwash.   Drift 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 odinary river
     deposits  by  the fact  that  they often  grade  into moraines  and their
     constituents  bear  evidence  of glacial  origin.   Also  called  frontal
     apron.

Oxidation lagoon  (pond).   A  holding  area where organic  wastes are broken
     down by aerobic bacteria.

Percolation.  The  downward  movement of  water through pore spaces or larger
     voids in  soil or rock.

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.

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.

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
     primary conductor 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 Class II, having
     little or no limitations to profitable crop production.

Pumping station.   A  facility within  a sewer system  that  pumps  sewage/
     effluent  against the force of gravity.
                                   8-7

-------
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.   Underground  pipes that carry  only  domestic  or commercial
     wastewater, not stormwater.

Screening.  Use of racks of screens to remove coarse floating and suspended
     solids from sewage.

Secchi Disk.   A disk,  painted in four quadrants  of  alternating black and
     white, which  is  lowered  into a body  of  water.   The measured depth at
     which the  disk  is no longer visible  from  the surface is a measure of
     relative transparency.

Secondary  treatment.   The second  stage  in the  treatment  of  wastewater in
     which bacteria are utilized to decompose the organic matter in sewage.
     This  step  is  accomplished by introducing  the sewage  into a trickling
     filter or  an  activated  sludge process.  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.

Sedimentation.   The  process   of  subsidence  and  deposition  of  suspended
     matter carried by water, sewage,  or other liquids, by gravity.  It is
     usually accomplished  by  reducing  the velocity of the liquid below the
     point where it can transport the suspended material.

Seepage.   Water that flows through the soil.

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 effluent-like substances  and thereby locate  septic tank lea-
     chate or  other  sources  of domestic sewage entering lakes and streams.

Septic tank.    An  underground  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 through drains into
     the ground.  Sludge is pumped out at regular intervals.

Septic tank effluent pump  (STEP).  Pump designed to transfer settled waste-
     water from a septic tank  to a sewer.

Septic tank soil absorption system (STAS).  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.
                                   8-8

-------
 Settling tank.   A holding area for wasteater, where heavier particles sink
     to the bottom and can be siphoned off.

Sewer, Interceptor.  See Interceptor Sewer.

Sewer, lateral.   A sewer  designed  and installed to collect  sewage  from a
     limited  number  of  individual  properties  and conduct  it to a trunk
     sewer.   Also known as a street sewer or collecting sewer.

Sewer, sanitary.   See Sanitary Sewer.

Sewer, storm.  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.

Sewer,  trunk.   A  sewer designed and installed to  collect sewage  from a
     number of lateral sewers and conduct it to an interceptor sewer or, in
     some cases,  to a sewage treatment plant.

Sinking fund.  A  fund  established by  periodic installments  to provide for
     the retirement of the principal of term bonds.

Slope.  The incline of the surface of  the land.   It is usually expressed as
     a percent (%) of  slope that equals the number of feet of fall per 100
     feet in horizontal distance.

Sludge.  The  accumulated  solids  that  have been separated from liquids such
     as as wastewater.

Soil association.  General  term  used  to describe taxonomic units of soils,
     relative proportions, and pattern of occurrence.

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
     soil type.

State  equalized  valuation  (SEV).  A measure employed  within a  State to
     adjust  actual assessed  valuation upward  to  approximate  true  market
     value.   Thus it  is possible to relate debt burden to the full value of
     taxable property in each community within that State.

Stratification.   The  condition of a body of water when the water is divided
     into layers  of differing density.  Climatic changes over the course of
     the  seasons  cause a  lake  to  divide  into  a bottom  layer and surface
     layer,  with a boundary layer (thermocline) between them.  Stratifica-
     tion generally  occurs during  the summer and again during  periods of
     ice cover in  the  winter.   Overturns, or periods of  mixing,  generally
                                   8-9

-------
     occur  once  in the  spring and once  in the  autumn.   This "dimictic"
     condition  is most common  in  lakes  located in middle latitudes. A lake
     which  stratifies  and mixes  more than twice  per year  is  defined  as
     "polymictic".

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.

Topography.   The  configuration of a surface area  including its relief,  or
     relative evaluations, and the position  of  its natural  and manmade
     features.

Unique  farmland.    Land,  which  is unsuitable  for crop production  in its
     natural  state, that has  been made  productive  by  drainage, irriga-
     tion, or fertilization practices.

Wastewater.   Water  carrying  dissolved  or  suspended  solids  from homes,
     farms, businesses, and industries.

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.

Watershed.  The region drained by or  contributing water to a stream, lake,
     or other body of  water.

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.  LIST OF PREPARERS
     The Draft  Environmental Statement  (DBS)  was  prepared  by the Chicago
Regional Office of WAPORA,  Inc.,  under contract to USEPA, Region V.  USEPA
approved the DBS and hereby publishes it as a Draft EIS.  The USEPA Project
Officers and the WAPORA staff involved in  the  preparation of the DES/DEIS
during the past two years include:
USEPA

Charles Quinlan III
James Novak

WAPORA. Inc.

Robert France

Lawrence Olinger

J. P. Singh

John Lauraer

Steven McComas


Ross Sweeney

Gerald Lenssen

Andrew Freeman

Rhoda Grant

Peter Woods

Richard Gill

Thomas Davis

Neil Coleman

Kenneth Dobbs

Richard Kubb

Greg Lindsey

Ellen Renzas

Jan Saper

Delores Jackson-Hope
Project Officer
Project Officer (former)
Project Administrator

Project Administrator

Project Administrator and Senior Engineer

Project  Manager  and  Principal  Author

Environmental  Scientist,  Engineeer, and
Principal Author

Civil   Engineer   and  Principal  Author

Agricultural Engineer

Demographer

Editor

Graphic Specialist

Biologist

Chemist

Geologist

Economist

Biologist

Land Use Planner

Socio-Enconomist

So c io-Economi s t

Production Specialist
                                  9-1

-------
     In addition,  several  subcontractors and others assisted in the prepa-
ration of  this  document.   These, along  with  their  areas of expertise, are
listed below:

     o    Aerial Survey
               Office of Research and Development
               US EPA
               Las Vegas, Nevada

     o    Soil Survey and Mapping
               Mr. Harlan R. Finney
               Professional Soil Scientists
               1828 Draper Drive
               St. Paul, MN  5511.3

     o    Paleolimnological and Lake Management Studies
               Lake Management Consultants, Inc.
               166 Dixon Street
               Madison, Wise.  53704

     o    Field Survey Arrangements and Data Development
               Moose Lake-Windemere Sanitary District
               Moose Lake, MN  55767
                                  9-2

-------
10.0.  LIST OF THOSE SENT COPY OF THE DRAFT EIS

Federal

Senator Rudolph E. Boschwitz
Senator David Durenberger
Representative James Oberstar
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Health, and Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Heritage Conservation & Recreation Service
National Park Service
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Soil Conservation Service
USEPA Regional Offices

State

Senator Florian Chmielewski
Representative Doug Carlson
Office of the Governor
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Water Resources Board
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota State Planning Agency
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Minnesota Energy Agency
Minnesota Department of Agriculture

Local

Mayor, City of Moose Lake
Mayor, City of Barnum  .
Moose Lake-Windernere Sanitary District Board
Township Clerk for Moose Lake Township
Township Clerk for Windemere Township
Chairman, Pine County Board of Commissioners
Chairman, Carlton County Board of Commissioners

Citizens and Groups

This list is available upon request from USEPA.
                                    10-1

-------
                            LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C


Appendix D


Appendix E

Appendix F

Appendix G

Appendix H

Ap pendix I

Appendix J

Appendix K

Appendix L

Appendix M

Appendix N

Appendix 0
Notice of Intent

Soils Survey and Mapping

Leachate Survey, Well Quality Sampling Data, Question-
naire Form

Design Criteria and Component Options for Centralized
Wastewater Management Systems

Cost Effectiveness Analysis

Analysis of Grant Eligibility

Impacts of On-Site Systems on Soils

Report on Algae (Summary)

Methodology for Population Projections

Water Quality Tables and Figures

Letter to Citizens' Advisory Committee

Paleolimnological Investigations

Transportation Data

Energy Data

Letters of Comment

-------
              Appendix  A
A-l.   The  Notice of Intent  (NOI)
                                                                       H
                                                                       25
                                                                       W
                                                                       H
                                                                       25
                                                                       Pn
                                                                       O

                                                                       w
                                                                       X
                                                                       M
                                                                       Q
                                                                       25
                                                                       W
                                                                       PM
                                                                       P-i

-------
                              UNITED STATES
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                 REGION V
                           230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
                           CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
                                                               REPLY TO ATTENTION OF:

                                                                   5WEE/EIS
   jgi, 111980
                            NOTICE OP INTENT
    TO ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS  AND CITIZENS:

In accordance with the procedures foe the preparation of  Environmental
Impact Statements, an Environmental Review has been performed  on  the
proposed action described below.
Name of Applicant:
Planning Area:
Proposed Action:
Moose Lake-Windemere
Sanitary Sewer District
Moose Lake, Minnesota

The Facilities Planning area,  as re-
commended by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA), includes the
Moose Lake-Windemere Sanitary  Sewer
District and the City of Burnum includ-
ing the Northern Pacific Railroad and
the corridor between the Cities of
Moose Lake and Burnum, (see attached
map).  The planning area encompasses
approximately 60 square miles.  The
majority of the District lies  in
central northern Pine County,  but the
majority of the District's year round
population resides in central  southern
Carlton County, Minnesota.  The City of
Moose Lake is the largest incorporated
area of the District having a  1970
population of 1452.  In addition to
the City of Moose Lake, the Moose
Lake-Windemere Sanitary Sewer  District
also serves Windemere Township in
Pine County and Moose Lake Township
in Carlton County.

The District has prepared, with grant
assistance from this Agency, a facili-
ties plan which was completed  in
March 1980.  The selected alternative
of the facilities plan proposes to
construct collection sewers around
Island and Sturgeon Lakes, construct
                          A-l-1

-------
                                 -  2 -

                                         interceptor  sewers  and  pump stations
                                         to being  Island  and Sturgeon Lakes in
                                         the  system,  modify  existing intercep-
                                         tors,  infiltration/inflow correction
                                         in the Moose Lake sewec  system,  rebuild
                                         or construct a new  pump station, con-
                                         struct a  storm water overflow pond and
                                         modify the existing wastewatec treat-
                                         ment facility located in the City of
                                         Moose  Lake.

State and Federal agency review of  the above proposed project identified the
possibility of significant environmental  impacts  involving  the  following
issues.

A.  Impact on Water Quality

There was no documentation supporting the need to sewec  around  Island and
Sturgeon Lakes except that there appears to  be public opinion that  the
increased degradation of these lakes is  caused by failing or poorly designed
on-site treatment systems.

3.  Socioeconomic Impact

The substantial local costs will probably have a  significant impact on the
service area families, particularly those on fixed or lower  incomes in the
Island and Sturgeon Lakes acea, encouraging  or  forcing them to  sell their
property and thus accelerating changes in occupancy  patterns.   As presented
in the March 28, 1980 public hearing, the cost of repairs to the existing
sewec system and construction of new interceptors would  cost all homes in
Sewec District $8.40 a month.  Additionally  the cost of  the collection system
around Island and Strugeon Lakes would cost  those residents another  $22.40
pec month assuming a $3,000.00 assessment and  a 50%  grant fcom  Farmers Home
Administeation, along with low intecest  long-term loans.

C.  Secondary Impact and Induced Growth

The probable development and land use change induced by  the project,  and its
effect on the demand for future services, must be assessed.

Consequently, this Agency has determined  that  the preparation of an Environ-
mental Impact Statement  (EIS) on the above project is warranted.

If you or your organization need additional  information, want to be placed
on the mailing list, and/or wish to participate in the preparation  of the
Draft EIS for the Moose  Lake-Windemece Sanitary Sewer District,  please
contact the EIS Section, (5WEE) at  the letterhead address.
       ly your
       Guire
      al Administrator
Attachment
                          A-l-2

-------
                    Appendix  B
B-l.  Soils Survey of a Portion of Windemere  Township,

      Pine County, Minnesota.


B-2.  Soil Map Plates.


B-3.  Soils Testing Data.


B-4.  Summary and interpretation of  soils  information.
                                                                          c
                                                                          o
                                                                          c
                                                                          •H

                                                                          CO
                                                                          O
                                                                          C/3
                                                                          X
                                                                          M
                                                                          P
                                                                          Z
                                                                          W
                                                                          PLI

-------
            Appendix  B-l.

 SOIL SURVEY OF PART OF WINDEMERE

TOWNSHIP,  PINE COUNTY, MINNESOTA
               BY
        Harlan R. Finney
  Professional Soil Scientist

       1828 Draper Drive
   St. Paul, Minnesota  55113

         November, 1981

-------
                             Contents





                                              Page



Abstract	    1





Description of Soils	    2



     Identification Legend	    L,



     Taxonomic and Mapping Units	    6



          Alluvial Soils	    6



          Altered Soils	    6



          Blackhoof Series	    7



          Duluth Series	    8



          Duluth Variant		   12



          Busier Series	   15



          Lake Beaches	   17



          Organic Soils	   19



          Nemadji Series	   20



          Newson Series	   22



          Omega Series	   2L,





Investigation Procedures	   27

-------
                             ABSTRACT
     A soil survey of about 7,000 acres of land in
Township, Pine County, Minnesota was conducted 14- September
to 6 November 1981.  The survey area comprises lands sur-
rounding Island,  Passenger, Rush, and Sturgeon Lakes.  A
soil survey consists of the following parts:   (1) identi-
fication and classification of soils of the area, (2) a map
showing the location of the different kinds of soil, and
(3) interpretations about the response of the different
kinds of soil to  use and management.

     Ten major kinds of soil were identified and classified
on the basis of properties in the upper 60 inches of soil.
These comprise 3  that formed in loamy glacial till,  3 that
formed in sandy glacial outwash, 1 that formed in a mantle
of glacial outwash and underlying glacial till, organic
soils, alluvial soils and soils.- oh,- lake . beaches .

     The 3 kinds  of soil that formed in till and the 3 kinds
that formed in outwash are distinguished one from another in
the basis of properties associated with degree of wetness.
Soils that formed in till are the well and moderately well
drained Duluth series, the somewhat poorly and poorly drained
Busier series, and the very poorly drained Blackhoof series.
Soils that formed in glacial outwash are the somewhat exces-
sively drained Omega series, the somewhat poorly drained
Nemadji series, and the poorly and very poorly drained Newson
series.  Three phases of both the Duluth and Omega series
are recognized on the basis of slope.

     The three dominant soils in the survey area are the
Duluth and Omega series and organic soils.  The Duluth series
and its wetter associates are on most all land adjacent to
Island Lake and on land adjacent the northern and eastern
parts of Sturgeon Lake.  The Omega series and its wetter
associates are dominant on land adjacent to Passenger and
Rush Lakes and on land adjacent to the southern and south-
western parts of Sturgeon Lake.  Organic soils are in small
to large areas throughout the survey area, but the largest
single area of such soils begins not too far from the central
part of the west shore of Sturgeon Lake.

      The National Cooperative Soil Survey has rated the soils
 in regards to limitations for conventional septic tank
 absorption fields among other uses.   The ratings are slight,
 moderate,  and severe.   The Duluth,  Dusler,  and Blackhoof
 series are rated as severe because of low rates  of  percola-
 tion or the presence  of a seasonal high  water table or both.
 The Omega, Nemadji, and Newson series likewise are  rated as
 severe because of being a poor filter of sewage  effluent or
 for having a seasonal high water table or both.   Organic :
 soils are  rated  as severe because of  a seasonal  high water
 table.

                       B-l-1

-------
                       DESCRIPTION OF SOILS
     Important features of taxonomic and map units are de-
scribed here.  Taxonomic units are the basic kinds of soil
that were identified in the survey area, whereas map units
are bodies of soil that are delineated on the maps.

     The following items are described.

          Taxonomic Units

               Landscape setting and some interpretations
               Associated soils
               Seasonal high water
               Description of a representative pedon
               Range in characteristics

          Map Units

               Setting
               Inclusions

     The permeability class for each taxonomic unit is given
in the first paragraph.  This class is based on the most re-
strictive horizon within a depth of 60 inches.  Estimates of
the permeability of each horizon are in the detailed pedon
description.  Rates and class names follow:

               Inches/hour         Class name

                <0.06               very slow
                 0.06- 0.20         slow
                 0.20- 0.60         moderately slow
                 0.60- 2.00         moderate
                 2.00- 6.00         moderately rapid
                 6.00-20.00         rapid

     The pattern of soils in most of the survey area is very
complex.  Thus, even at the rather large map scale of this
survey, small area of different kinds of soil are included
in many of the delineations of each map unit.

     Soils in this survey area we're identified and mapped on
the basis of properties of the upper 60 inches of the soil.
Statements here, thus, only refer to the nature of the soil
from the surface to a depth of 60 inches.

     If the meaning of some terms used in this report is not
known, refer to the glossary of a modern so.il survey report,
for example, Carlton County, Minnesota.

     An identification legend with the map units arranged
numerically by map symbol is attached to the soil map.  An

                       B-l-2

-------
identification legend with the map units arranged alphabet-
ically follows.
                       B-l-3

-------
                 Identification Legend



                       Map Units



Map Symbol                    Name

 1002          Alluvial soils

 1016          Altered soils

 61^           Blackhoof muck

 504.B          Duluth loan, 1 to 4- percent slopes

 504-C          Duluth loam, 4- to 15 percent slopes

               Duluth loam, 15 to 60 percent slopes
 3350B         Duluth variant loamy fine sand,
               1 to 4- percent slopes

 1350C         Duluth variant loamy fine sand,
               4- to 15 percent slopes

 502           Dusler loam

 1032          Lake beaches

 995           Organic soils

 186           Nemadji loamy sand

 274-           Newson mucky sandy loam

 188B          Omega loamy sand, Oto 5 percent slopes

 188C          Omega loamy sand, 5 to 20 percent slopes

 188E          Omega loamy sand, 20 to 60 percent slopes
                  B-l-4

-------
Conventional and Special Features
     Section corners

     Dams and associated reservior

     Gravel and sand pits

     Perennial drainage way

     Intermittent drainage way

     End of drainage way

     Unnamed lakes and ponds

     Soil delineations and map unit symbols

     Soil sample site

     Small area, 1/8 to 1/2 acre, of poorly
     drained or wetter soils in delineations
     of better drained soils
       B-l-5

-------
                    Taxonomic  and Mapping Units
                          Alluvial Soils
     Alluvial  soils  consist  of  poorly to  moderately well
drained  sandy  and  loamy  soils that formed  in alluvium  on
flood  plains.   They  have  moderately  slow  to rapid  perme-
ability.   These soils typically are  flooded one or more
times  each year.

     Alluvial  soils  are  primarily associated with  soils of
the Duluth and Omega series, which are  on  bluffs adjacent to
the flood  plains.  The Duluth series formed in glacial till
and Omega  soils formed in glacial outwash..  Organic soils are
associated with Alluvial  soils  in a  few places.  No descrip-
tion of  a  pedon of Alluvial  soils is given because of  their
limited  extent, great variability, and  insignificance  to the
purpose  of this soil survey.

     1002  Alluvial soils, mixed.  This  map unit has linear
slopes with gradient of  less than 1  percent on flood plains,
delineations of this unit primarily  are elongate in shape and
are about  2 to 20  acres  in size.  Areas of these soils are in
pasture  or forest.

     Small areas of  organic  soils are included in  some delin-
eations  of this map  unit.
                          Altered  Soils


      Areas where the soils have been altered by cutting and
 filling are the basic components of this unit.  Most areas
 are on glacial moraines.  Thus, most areas resulting from
 cutting consist of loamy material as in the B and C horizons
 of soils such as Duluth.  Further, most areas resulting from
 filling consist of similar material.  The internal drainage
 of these soils mostly ranges from somewhat poor to moderate-
 ly well drained.  Permeability is mostly slow.

     1016 Altered soils.  Only one map unit of altered soils
is used in this survey.  Areas of altered soils along roads,
highways, and around houses and cabins are not included in
this map unit.  Instead they are considered as normal inclu-
sions in other appropriate units where delineations of them
include such cultural features.  This map unit of altered
soils consists mostly of discrete, cut and filled areas away
from those cultural features except in on place where exten-

                       B-l-6

-------
 sive cutting and filling has occurred along a county high-
 way.
                          Blackhoof Series
      The Blackhoof series cons.ists of nearly level, very
 poorly drained,  slowly and very slowly permeable soils that
 formed in a thin mantle of organic soil material and in un-
 derlying loamy glacial till or old local aluvium or both.
 These soils have concave and linear slopes and are in de-
 pressions and drainage ways on glacial moraines.

      The Blackhoof series primarily is associated with the
 Dusler and Duluth series and organic soils.  This series is
 wetter and has colors of low chroma to greater depth than
 the Dusler and Duluth series.  This series has a thinner
 mantle of organic soil material than Organic soils.

      The seasonal high water table in the Blackhoof series
 commonly begins  within one foot of the surface throughout
 most of the year.  Water is on the surface in most of the
 spring and autumn months.

      A description of a representative pedon (S-81-MN-58-9-
 samples 1 to 5)  of the Blackhoof series in the mapping unit
 of Blackhoof muck (map symbol 614-) which is located in the
 upper part of a  drainage way about 530 feet east and 370
 feet south of the northwest corner of the southwest 4 of
 section 10, R. 19 W.,T. 45 N. is in the following paragraphs.
 This pedon was described and sampled 5 November 1981.  It is
 located in a thicket of alder with a ground cover of grasses
 and sedges.  A delineation of Duluth loam, k to 15 percent
 slopes is adjacent to this delineation of Blackhoof muck.
 The water table  was at the surface.

      Oa--8 to 0  inches; black (1OYR 2/1)'broken face and
 rubbed, sapric material (muck); moderate very fine and fine
 granular structure; very friable, slightly sticky; many very
 fine and fine and few medium and coarse roots; pH 5.0;
 moderate permeability; clear smooth boundary.

      A11(A1)* --0 to 5 inches; black (N 2/0) mucky silt loam;
 moderate very fine and fine granular structure; very friable,
 slightly sticky; common very fine and fine roots; pH 5.0;
 moderate permeability; abrupt smooth boundary.

      A12(A2)-- 5 to 8 inches; black (1OYR 2/1) silt loam;
 massive; firm, slightly sticky; few very fine roots; pH 5.0;
 slow permeability; abrupt smooth boundary.

^Recently revised designations for horizons are given in this
 part of descriptions if they differ from former designations.


                        B-l-7

-------
     B21g(Bgwl)--8 to 25 inches; dark gray (5Y 4/1) silty
clay loam; many medium and large olive brown (2. 5Y 4/4)
mottles throughout and common fine prominent dark brown
(7.5YR 4/4-) mottles mostly in the lower part; massive; very
firm, slightly sticky; pH 7.0; very slow permeability; dif-
fuse smooth boundary.

     B22g(Bgw2)-- 25 to 48 inches; gray (5Y 5/1) silt loam
near loam; many fine distinct light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4).
common medium distinct greenish gray (5G 5/1) and few fine
prominent yellowish red.(5YR 4/6) mottles;, massive; firm,
slightly sticky; pH 7.5; slow permeability.

     The 0 horizon ranges from 4 to 16 inches in thickness.
The A horizon is 3 to 9 inches thick, and is loam, silt loam,
clay loam, or silty clay loam.  The B horizon is silt loam,
loam, silty clay loam, or clay loam.

     614 Blackhoof muck.  This map unit is in depressions and
drainageways on glacial moraines.  It has concave and linear
slopes with gradient 0 .to 1 percent.  Delineations of this
soil which encompass drainageways commonly are narrow and
enlongated in shape and.mostly.range from 2 .to 10 acres in
size.  Delineations in depression commonly are circular in
shape and mostly range from 2 to 8 acres in size.  Most areas
of these soils are in pasture or forest.

     Soils included in delineations .of this map unit have
similar interpretations.  .Common included soils are Organic
soils, and soils that are similar to the Blackhoof series
except that they lack the layer of organic soil material.
Also, a few included soils are sandy in so.me to all parts of
the A horizon and B horizon.  Further, small areas of Newson
soils are included in a few delineations.
                          Duluth Series
     The Duluth series consists of gently undulating to very
steep, moderately well and well drained, moderately slow and
slowly permeable soils that formed mostly in loamy calcareous
glacial till on glacial moraines.  They mostly have convex
slopes, but they have linear or concave slopes on the lower
parts of some steep and very steep slopes.

     The Duluth series is primarily associated with the Black-
hoof and Dusler series,..and Organic soils.  The Duluth series
lacks a seasonal high water table within depths of 5 feet,
whereas these associated soils have a seasonal high water
table beginning at depths of 4 feet or less.  Also, the Duluth
series lacks mottles in the B horizon, whereas the Blackhoof
and Dusler series have mottles in the B horizon.  The Duluth
series is similar to Duluth variant.  The Duluth series form-

                      B-l-8

-------
ed either entirely in till or in a thin mantle of outwash and
in underlying till, whereas the Duluth variant formed in a
mantle of sandy outwash that is 20 to 4.0 inches in thickness
and in underlying till.

     The Duluth series typically lacks a seasonal high water
table within depths of 5 feet.  However, some soils of the
Duluth series are saturated in some horizons for short
periods of time during periods of above normal rainfall.

     Since the Duluth series is the dominant soil in the area,
descriptions of two pedons are presented.  The first (S-81-MN-
58-8-samples 1 to 7)  is in a delineation of Duluth loam, 1 to
4. percent slopes (map symbol 504-B) , located about 800 feet
east and 1,050 feet south of the northwest corner of the south-
west i, section 10, R. 19 W., T. 4-5 N.  It has a convex slope
of about 2 percent and is about 100 feet from the boundary
of a delineation of Duluth loam, 15 to 60 percent slopes (map
symbol 504.E) on the bluffs adjacent to Sturgeon Lake.  It is
in an old meadow field.  It was described and sampled 5 Nov-
ember 1981.  It was very moist in the upper 30 inches and
moist below.

     Ap--0 to 6 inches; dark brown ( 7 . 5IR 3/2) loam; moderate
fine and medium granular structure; friable; many very fine
and fine roots; about 2 percent coarse fragments; pH 6.5;
moderate permeability; abrupt smooth boundary.

     A2(E)--6 to 10 inches; brown (7.5YR 5/2) loam; massive
in some parts and weak thick platy structure in other parts;
firm, fractures abruptly under pressure; common very fine and
fine roots; about 2 percent coarse fragments; pH 6.5; slow
permeability; abrupt  wavy boundary.

     B&A(B/E)--10 to  13 inches; B part comprising about 85
percent is reddish brown (2.5YR 4-/4J clay loam; A part com-
prising about 15 percent as tongues and interfingers is brown
t 7 . 5YR 5/2) loam; weak fine and medium prismatic structure
parting to moderate fine and medium subangular blocky; very
firm, slightly sticky; few thin clay films on faces of second-
ary peds ; few very fine and fine roots mostly on faces of
peds ; about 2 percent coarse fragments; pH 5.0; moderately
slow permeability; clear smooth boundary.
     B21t(Bt1 )--13 to 22 inches; reddish brown (2.5YR
clay loam; weak fine and medium prismatic structure parting
to moderate fine and medium angular blocky; firm, sticky;
common thin and medium clay films on faces of peds; common
thin coatings of A2 material on faces of prisms;  few fine
roots; about 2 percent coarse fragments; pH 4- . 5 ;  moderately
slow permeability; diffuse smooth boundary.
     B22t(8t2)--22 to 36 inches; reddish brown (2.5YR
loam near clay loam;  moderate fine angular blocky structure;
firm, sticky; common  thin clay films on faces of peds; few
                          B-l-9

-------
fine.and medium roots; about 2 percent coarse fragment;
pH4.5» moderately slow permeability; diffuse smooth boundary,

     B3t(BCt)--36 to 64 inches; reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4)
loam; moderate fine angular blocky structure; firm, slightly
sticky; few thin clay films on faces of peds; few thin black
coatings on faces of peds; few very fine roots; about 2 per-
cent coarse fragments; pH 7.5; moderately slow permeability;
clear smooth boundary.

     C--64 to 76 inches; reddish brown (5YR 4/3) loam; weak
thin to thick platy structure; firm, slightly sticky; common
very fine and fine masses of CaCCU; about 2 percent coarse
fragments; pH 7.8; slow permeability.

     The second pedon (S-81-MN-58-10-samples 1 to 6) is in a
delineation .of Duluth loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes (map
symbol 504C) located about 330 feet east and 460 feet south
of the northwest corner of section 3, R. 19., T. 45 N.  It
has a convex slope of about 8 percent.  It is about 200 feet
from the boundary of a delineation of Duluth loam, 15 to 60
percent slopes (map symbol 504E) on the bluffs adjacent to
Island Lake.  It is under a plantation of white spruce.  It
was described and sampled 5 November 1981.  It was very
moist in the upper 36 inches, and slightly moist below.

     Ap--0 to 6 inches; dark brown (7.SYR 3/2) to brown (7.5
YR 4/2) loam; moderate medium granular structure; friable;
common very fine and fine and few medium and coarse roots;
about 2 percent coarse fragments; pH 6.5; moderate permeabil-
ity; abrupt smooth boundary.

     B&A(B/E)--6 to 9 inches; B part comprising about 85 per-
cent is reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4) clay loam; A part com-
prising about 15 percent as tongues and interfingers is
reddish brown (5YR 5/3) sandy loam; moderate fine and medium
prismatic structure parting to moderate fine and medium sub-
angular blocky; firm, slightly sticky; few thin clay films
on faces of secondary peds; common fine and medium roots
mostly on faces of peds; about 2 percent coarse fragments;
pH 6.0; moderately slow permeability; clear wavy boundary.

     B21t(Bt1)--9 to 18 inches; reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4)
clay loam; moderate medium prismatic structure parting to
moderate fine and medium angular blocky; firm, slightly
sticky; many thin and medium clay films on faces of peds;
few thin coatings of A2 material on faces of peds; few fine
and medium roots; about 2 percent coarse fragments; pH 5.5;
moderately slow permeability; gradual smooth boundary.

     B22t(Bt2)--18 to 38 inches; reddish brown (5YR 4/4)
light clay loam; moderate medium and coarse angular blocky
structure parting to moderate very fine angular blocky;
firm slightly sticky; common thin clay films on faces of
peds; about 2 percent coarse fragments; pH 5.5; moderately

                           B-l-10

-------
slow permeability; diffuse smooth boundary.

     B3(BC)--38 to 60 inches; reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4)
loam; weak very fine angular blocky structure; firm, slight-
ly sticky; few thin clay films on faces of peds; few thin
black coatings on faces of peds; few fine roots; about 2
percent coarse fragments; pH 7.5; moderately slow perme-
bility; sampled at depths of 38 to 49 and 49 to 60 inches.

     The thickness of solum and depth to free carbonates
ranges from 40 to 80 inches.  The content of coarse frag-
ments ranges from 1 to 8 percent.  The A horizon is fine
sandy loam, sandy loam, loam, or silt loam.  The B horizon
has hue of 2.5YR or 5YR and has 18 to 35 percent clay.  It
is loam or clay loam.  The C horizon is loam or clay loam
and has weak platy or angular blocky structure.

     504B Duluth loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes.  This map
unit mostly has convex slopes and is on glacial moraines.
Delineations of this map unit are variable in size and shape.
They range from as small as one acre to as large as 100 acres
in size.  In some places they are circular and other places
elongated.  This map unit commonly is on the higher parts of
the landscape.  Most areas of these soils are in pasture and
forest, but significant areas of them are used as sites for
homes or cabins.  Duluth soils in this map unit commonly
have thicker sola than they do in the other two map units.

     Small areas of Blackh.oof and Dusler series are included
in some delineations of this map unit.  Most areas of these
kinds of included soils are indicated by the symbol for wet
spots and drainage ways.  Small areas of the Duluth variant
and soils similar to Duluth soils except for having sandy A
horizons, also, are included in some delineations of this map
unit.  Further, soils that are similar to the Duluth series
except for having more clay in the B horizon or C horizon or
both are included in a few delineations of this map unit.
Small areas with slopes steeper than 4 percent are included
in a few places.

     504C Duluth loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes.  This map
unit mostly has convex and linear slopes on glacial moraines.
Linear slopes primarily are on the lower lying parts of de-
lineations of this map unit.  Delineations primarily are
rather narrow and elongated, and commonly range from 2 to 20
acres in size.  They primarily are on slopes adjacent to
lower lying wetter soils.  Most areas of these soils are in
forest or pasture, but significant areas of them are used as
sites for cabins and homes.  Duluth soils in this map unit
commonly have sola that are intermediate in the range of
thickness.

     Small areas of Blackhoof and Dusler series are included
in a few delineations of this map unit.  Most of these in-
clusions are indicated by the symbol for wet spots and drain-
                         B-1-11

-------
age ways.  Small areas of Duluth variant and soils similar
to Duluth except for having sandy A horizons and upper B
horizons or only sandy A horizons are included in a few de-
lineations.  Further, soils that are similar to the Duluth
series except for having more clay in the B horizon or C
horizon or both are included in a few delineations of this
map unit.  Small areas with slopes of less than 4 percent
and more than 15 percent are included in a few places.

     504E Duluth loam, 15 to 60 percent slopes.  This map
unit has convex, linear, and concave slopes.  Linear and con-
cave slopes are on the lower lying parts of delineations of
this map unit.  Delineations primarily are rather narrow and
elongated and commonly range from 5 to 50 acres in size.
This map unit primarily is on bluffs adjacent to Island and
Sturgeon Lakes.  Most areas of these soils are in forest,
but a few are in pasture.  Duluth soils in this map unit
commonly have the shallower range in thickness of sola.

     A few small areas of wetter soils are included in a few
delineations of this unit.  Such soils are mostly in drain-
age ways.  Small areas of the Duluth variant and soils
similar to the Duluth series except for having sandy A hor-
izons and upper B horizons or sandy A horizons only are in-
cluded in a few delineations.  Further, soils that are
similar to the Duluth series except for having more clay in
the B horizon or C horizon or both are included in a few
delineations.  Small areas with slopes of less than 15 per-
cent and more than 60 percent are included in a few places.


                          Duluth Variant
     The Duluth variant soils consist of gently sloping and
sloping, moderately well and well drained, moderately slow
and slowly permeable soils that formed in a 20 to 40-inch
thick mantle of sandy outwash and in underlying loamy cal-
careous glacial till on glacial moraines.  These soils most-
ly have convex and linear slopes.

     Soils here identified as Duluth variant have not yet
been recognized as a named soil series by the Cooperative
Soil Survey of Minnesota.  They have unique properties and
are significant enough in extent to recognize as a discrete
kind of soil in this survey.  They primarily occur in a
transition zone between soils such as the Duluth series
which formed in till in the eastern part of the survey area
and soils such as the Omega series which formed in outwash
in the western part of the survey area.  Duluth variant
soils have sandy horizons extending from the surface to
depths of 20 to 4-0 inches, whereas the Duluth series formed
in glacial till and has loamy upper horizons.  Duluth
variant soils have loamy B horizons beginning within depths
of 20 to 4-0 inches, whereas the Omega series formed in

                         B-l-12

-------
glacial outwash and is sandy throughout.

     The Duluth variant soils typically lack  a seasonal
high water table within depths of 5 feet.  However, some of
the Duluth variant soils are saturated in the lower part of
the sandy mantle or in the upper part, of  the soil in glacial
till for short periods of time during periods of above normal
rainfall.

     A description of a representative pedon (S-81-MN-58-2-
samples 1 to 7) in a large delineation of the mapping unit
Duluth variant loamy fine sand, 1 to 4- percent slopes (map
symbol 1350B)  which is located near the summit of a knoll
with a convex  slope of 2 percent on a glacial moraine about
2,44-0 feet west and 2,380 feet south of the northeast corner
of section 17, R. 19 ¥., T. 45 N. is in the following para-
graph.  The delineation with this pedon primarily is bounded
by Omega soils to the west and Duluth and Dusler soils to
the east.  It  is in an old field on the Y.M.C.A. property.
This pedon was described and sampled 3 November 1981.  It
was moist throughout.

     Ap--0 to  9 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) loamy fine
sand; weak fine and medium granular structure; very friable,
non-sticky; many very fine and fine roots; pH 6.5; rapid
permeability;  abrupt smooth boundary.

     B2l(Bwl)--9 to 20 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4)
loamy fine sand; weak fine subangular blocky structure;
very friable;  common very fine and fine roots; pH 6.0;
rapid permeability; clear smooth boundary.

     B22(Bw2)--20 to 25 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4)
loamy sand; massive; very friable; common very fine and fine
roots; about 5 percent gravel; pH 6.0; rapid permeability;
abrupt smooth  boundary.

     11BSA(2B/E)--25 to 31 inches; B part comprising about
85 percent is  yellowish red (5YR 4/6) clay loam; A part com-
prising about  15 percent as tongues and interfingers is
reddish brown  (5YR 5/3) sandy loam and loamy sand; weak fine
and medium prismatic structure parting to moderate medium
subangular blocky; firm; few fine roots on faces of peds;
about 2 percent coarse fragments; pH 5.5; moderately slow
permeability;  gradual smooth boundary.

     11B21t(2Bt1)--31 to 41 inches; reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4)
clay loam; few fine distinct yellowish red (5YR 5/6) mottles;
weak medium prismatic structure parting to moderate fine and
medium subangular blocky; firm; common thin clay films and
few thin to thick reddish gray (5YR 5/2)  coatings of A2
material on faces of peds; few fine dark colored concretions;
few fine roots mostly on faces of peds; about 5 percent
coarse fragments; pH 5.5; moderately slow permeability;
diffuse boundary.
                        B-l-13

-------
     11B22t(2Bt2)--41 to 52 inches; reddish brown (2.5YR
     clay loam; weak fine and medium angular blocky struc-
ture; firm; few thin clay films on faces of peds; irregular
mass of sandy loam in lower part; about 5 percent coarse
fragments; pH 6.5; moderately slow permeability; diffuse
boundary.

     11B3(2BC)--52 to 60 inches; dark reddish brown (2.5YR
3/4-) clay loam near loam; weak very fine and fine angular
blocky structure; firm; few thin clay films on faces of
peds; about 5 percent coarse fragments; pH 7.0; slow per-
meability .

     The thickness of solum ranges from 50 to 80 inches.
The mantle of outwash is 20 to 4-0 inches thick.  That
mantle lacks or has as much as 20 percent of coarse frag-
ments.  These fragments are more common in the lower part
of the mantle.  Horizons in glacial till have 1 to 10 per-
cent of coarse fragments.  Horizons in the mantle of out-
wash typically have texture of fine sand, sand, loamy fine
sand, or loamy sand.  However, the A horizon in some pedons
is fine sandy loam or sandy loam.  The part of the B hori-
zon in the sandy mantle has hue of 7.5YR or 5IR.  The B and
C horizons in glacial till have hue of 2.5YR or 5YR and are
loam or clay loam.  Those horizons have 18 to 35 percent
clay.

     1350B Duluth variant loamy fine sand, 1 to 4- percent
slopes.  This map unit mostly has convex slopes, but some
parts of it has linear or concave slopes.  This unit is on
glacial moraines.  Most delineations of this unit are elong-
ate in shape and typically ar 4 to 100 acres in size.  Most
areas of these soils are in forest, but few are in pasture
and sites for homes and cabins.  The Duluth variant soils
in this map unit have the full range of properties de-
scribed for that soil.

     Small areas of the Duluth and Omega' series are included
in some delineations.  Also, small areas of soils that are
wetter than Duluth variant soils are in some delineations.
Most areas of such soils are shown by the symbols for wet
spots and drainage ways.  Further, a few small areas of
soils with sandy loam or fine sandy loam texture in the up-
per part of the B horizon are included.  Small areas with
slopes of more than 4 percent are included in a few places.

     1350C Duluth variant loamy fine sand, k to 15 percent
slopes.  This map unit mostly has convex slopes.  However,
some parts of it has linear and concave slopes, and these
kinds of slopes are mostly on the lower lying parts of it.
This map unit is on glacial moraines.  Some delineations
are circular in shape and are on knolls typically ranging
from 2 to 10 acres in size.  Other delineations of it are
elongate and typically range from 5 to 20 acres in size.
Most areas of these soils are in forest or pasture, but a

                         B-l-14

-------
few areas are used as sites for cabins and homes.  The
Duluth variant soils in this map unit have the full range
of properties described for that soil.

     Small areas of the Duluth and Omega series are in-
cluded in a few delineations.  Also, a few small areas of
soils with sandy loam or fine sandy loam texture in the
upper part of the B horizon are included.  Small areas with
slopes of less than 4 percent or more than 15 percent are
included in a few places.
                          Busier Series
     The Busier series consists of nearly level, somewhat
poorly and poorly drained,  slowly permeable soils that form-
ed mostly in loamy calcareous glacial till.  These soils
have slightly convex to slightly concave slopes on glacial
moraines .

      The Busier series primarily is associated with the
Blackhoof and Buluth series and Organic soils.  The Busier
series is wetter than the Buluth series, and it has mottles
in the B horizon which are lacking in the Buluth series.  The
Busier series is not as wet as the Blackhoof series and
Organic soils.

     The seasonal high water table in the Busier series com-
monly begins within depths of 1 to 4 feet during the period
of October to June.  It commonly is at greater depths in
other times of the year.

     A description of a representative pedon (S-81 -MN-58-1 -
samples 1 to 6) of the Busier series in the map unit of Busier
loam (map symbol 502) located on a linear slope of about 0.5
percent 1,520 feet west and 2,380 feet south of the northeast
corner of section 17, R. 19 W., T. 45 N. is in the following
paragraphs.  This pedon is about 500 feet from the shore of
Sturgeon Lake.  The delineation in which this pedon occurs
primarily is bounded by Buluth, Buluth variant, and Organic
soils.  This pedon is in a deciduous-coniferous forest on the
Y.M.C.A. property.  It was described and sampled on 3 November
1981.  Free water began at depths of about 5 inches.

     A1(A)--0 to 6 inches;  very dark gray ( 1 OYR 3/1) loam;
moderate fine and medium granular structure; slightly sticky;
many fine and medium and few large roots; about 2 percent
coarse fragments; pH 6.0; moderate permeability; clear smooth
boundary.
     A2(E)--6 to 12 inches; dark grayish brown ( 1 OYR
loam; few fine prominent yellowish red ( 5YR 4/6) mottles;
moderate medium granular structure; slightly sticky; common
fine and few large roots; about 2 percent coarse fragments;
                             B-l-15

-------
pH 6.0; moderate permeability; clear smooth boundary.

     B&A(B/E)--12 to 17 inches; B part comprising about 80
percent is brown (7.5YR 4/4) heavy loam with common fine
distinct yellowish red 5YR 4/6) mottles; A part comprising
about 20 percent as tongues and interfingers is brown
(7.5YR 5/2) loam with few fine distinct gray (5YR 6/1)
mottles; weak fine and medium prismatic structure parting to
weak medium and coarse subangular blocky; very  firm, sticky;
few thin clay films on faces of secondary peds; common fine
roots mostly on faces of peds; about 2 percent  coarse frag-
ments; horizon not yet saturated; pH 5.5; slow  permeability;
clear wavy boundary.

     B21t(Bt1)--17 to 28 inches; reddish brown  (5YR 4/4) clay
loam; weak fine and medium prismatic structure  parting to
moderate fine and medium subangular blocky; sticky; many thin
and medium reddish gray (5YR 5/2) and dark reddish gray (5YR
4/2) clay films and coatings on faces of peds;  few fine roots
mostly on faces of peds; about 2 percent coarse fragments;
pH 5.0; moderately slow permeability; gradual boundary.

     B22t(Bt2)--28 to 42 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4)
clay loam near loam; weak fine and medium angular blocky
structure; sticky; few thin clay films on faces of peds; few
fine roots mostly on faces of peds; about 2 percent coarse
fragments; p H 6.5; moderately slow permeability; diffuse
boundary.

     B3(BC)--42 to 60 inches; reddish brown (5YR 4/3 heavy
loam; weak very fine and fine angular blocky structure;
slightly sticky; very few fine roots; about 2 percent coarse
fragments; pH 7.5; slow permeability.

     The thickness of solum ranges from 50 to 70 inches. The
content of coarse fragments typically ranges from 1 to 8 per-
cent, but fragments are lacking in the upper part of some
pedons.  The A horizon is sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam,
or silt loam.  The B horizon primarily has a matrix with hue
of 2.5YR or 5YR.  Mottles in the upper part of  the B horizon
range from few to many.  The B horizon has 18 to 35 percent
clay.

     502 Dusler .loam.  This map unit typically  has linear or
concave slopes, but it has slightly convex slopes in a few
places.  Slope gradient ranges from 0 to 2 percent.  These
soils are on  glacial moraines.  Delineations of the map
unit are variable in size and shape.  They range from as
small as about one acre to as large as about 40 acres.  The
range in shape from elongate to circular.  Most areas of
these soils are pasture or forest.  Dusler soils in this map
unit have the full range in properties described here for the
series .
                         B-l-16

-------
      Small areas  of  Blackhoof series  and Organic soils are
 included in some   delineations.   Most of thsee inclusions are
 indicated by the  symbol  for  wet  spots and drainage ways.
 Small areas of  Duluth  soils  are  included in some delineations,
 These are on small low knolls.   Small areas of soils that
 are similar to  Busier  except for having sandy textures in the
 A horizon or upper part  of the  B horizon or both,  also are
 included in a few delineations.   Small areas of Nemadji soils
 are included in a few  delineations.
                            Lake  Beaches
      Lake  beaches  consist  of  nearly level,  very poorly to
 moderately well  drained,  moderately to rapidly permeable
 soils that formed  mostly  in recent  to rather old sandy beach
 deposits  adjacent  to  lakes.   The  deposits  in which these
 soils formed result from  the  action of wind and ice.   The
 higher lying parts of these soils may be a  result of  once
 higher lake levels.


     Lake  beaches are  bounded  by soils of Duluth and Omega
series on  their upslope side.   These soils are on bluffs
around the lakes  among other  places.  They are bounded by
water on their down-slope  side.  The part of these soils that
are adjacent to lakes  have free water beginning at or  near
the surface throughout the year.  Where Lake beaches border
Duluth and Omega  soils, they  have  a water table beginning
within 1 to 3 feet  of  the  surface  during the wetter parts
of the year.

     No soil series have yet  been  defined by the Minnesota
Cooperative Soil  Survey to comprise soils here called  Lake
beaches.  Actually  two or  three soil series would be needed
to adequately define the soils in  Lake beaches in this
survey area.  Since no series  exist for these soils, the
name Lake  beaches is used  for  them in this report.

     An example of  a pedon (S-81-MN-58-5-samples 1 to  6) in
a delineation Lake  beaches (map symbol 1032) located near
the west shore of Passenger Lake about 990 feet east and
2,510 feet north  of the center of  section 32, R. 19 W., T. 45
N. is in the following paragraphs.  This pedon has a concave
slope with gradient of about  £ percent.  It is about 50 feet
east of the beginning  of a delineation of Omega loamy  sand,
20 to 60 percent  slopes, which is  on the bluffs around the
lake.  It  is about  100 feet west of the border of that lake
and is about 3 feet above  the  level of the lake.  A decidu-
ous-coniferous forest  is at the site.  The pedon was describ-
ed and sampled 4  November  1981.  The water table began at

                           B-l-17

-------
about 30 inches.  The soil was moist above that depth.

     Oa--2 to 0 inches; black (5YR 2/1) sapric material
(muck); moderate very fine and fine granular structure; very
friable; many very fine and fine and many medium and coarse
roots; many particles of sand; pH 4-.5; moderate permeability;
abrupt smooth boundary.

     A1(A)--0 to 3 inches; very dark grayish brown (1OYR 3/2)
sandy loamy; weak fine and medium granular structure; very
friable; many very fine and fine and common medium and coars'e
roots; pH 4..5; moderate permeability; clear smooth boundary.

     B2(Bw)--3 to 21 inches; brown (7.5YR 5/2 to 5/4.) sand;
few fine and medium distinct yellowish red (5YR 4-/S) mottles;
single grained; loose; few medium and coarse roots; pH 6.0;
rapid permeability; clear smooth boundary.

     C1--21 to 29 inches; stratified brown (7YR 5/2) and very
dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sand and loamy sand; massive;
friable in some parts and very friable in other parts; few
small masses and strata of black (10YR 2/1) sapric and hemic
materials; pH 6.0; moderately rapid permeability; gradual
smooth boundary.

     C2--29 to 36 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 4/2) sand; few
fine and medium distinct gray (N 5/0) mottles; single grained;
loose; few pebbles in some parts; pH 4-.5; rapid permeability;
clear smooth boundary.

     C3--36 to 60 inches; dark gray (5YR 4-/1) stratified sand,
coarse sand, and gravelly and very gravelly sand and coarse
sand; few fine and medium distinct gray (N 5/0) mottles;
single grained; loose; gravel mostly 0.2 to 1.0 cm; pH 6.0;
rapid permeability.

       The  content  of  gravel  ranges  from 0  to  35 percent.   The
  color  in  these soils  below  the  A horizon  has hue from  5Y  to
  5YR, .value  of  4- to 6  and  chroma of  1  to  4..   The depth  to
  horizons  with  mottles ranges from  0 to 30  inches.   The A  hori-
  zon  ranges  from sands to  sandy  loams  with  or without gravel.
  Textures  below the A  horizon are mostly  sands  or loamy sands
  with  or without gravel.   Textures  commonly are stratified
  within the  limits  of  a  pedon, but  some pedons  lack  such
  stratification.

       1032 Lake beaches.   Delineations of  this  map  unit are
  narrow and  elongated  and  typically range  from  1 to  20  acres
  in  size.   These soils primarily are adjacent to Passenger  and
  Sturgeon  Lakes, but  small areas of them  are  adjacent to Island
  and  Rush  Lakes.  Most areas  of  these  soils are forested or
  have  shruby  and herbaceous, wetland vegetation.  However,
  significant  areas  of  these  soils are  used  as sites  for cabins
  and  homes.
                             B-l-18

-------
     Lake beaches that have glacial till beginning at shallow
depths are included in a few places.  Such inclusions pri-
marily are along Island Lake and along the eastern and north-
ern shore of Sturgeon Lake.
                          Organic Soils
     Organic soils consist of very poorly drained, nearly
level soils with slow to moderately rapid permeability.  They
formed in organic soil material, namely slightly to highly
decomposed remains of a variety of plants.  They primarily
are in small to large depressions on glacial moraines and
outwash plains.  Some of these depressions were formerly
lakes.  These soils are on floodplains in a few places.

     Organic soils primarily are associated both with soils
formed in glacial till, namely the Duluth, Busier, and
Blackhoof series and soils formed in glacial outwash, namely
the Omega, Nemadji, and Newson series.  Of the above named
associated soils, Organic soils are most similar to the
Blackhoof anf Newson series.  However, they differ from those
series by having a thicker layer of organic soil material.

     The water table typically begins within depths of less
than one foot throughout the year.  Further, water commonly
is on the surface during several months of the growing
season.

     Different kinds of Organic soils were not mapped in this
survey because of lack of time to properly identify them and
because interpretive differences among the different kinds
were not important to the purpose of this soil survey.

     A description of a representative pedon (S-81-MN-58-3
samples 1 to 4) of Organic soils in the largest bog in the
survey area is in the following paragraphs.  This pedon is in
the map unit of Organic soils (map symbol 995) and is located
about 800 feet north and 150 feet east of the southwest
corner of section 9, R. 19 W., T. 4-5 N.  This pedon has a
linear slope with gradient of less that i percent.  It is in
a coniferous forest dominated by black spruce and tamarack.
Moss-covered hummocks rise as much as 10 inches above the
common surface.  Mosses are the dominant ground cover.  This
pedon was described and sampled on 3 November 1981.  The
wat.er table began about 10 inches below the surface.  This
bog has been partially drained.

     Oa--0 to 4- inches; very dark brown (1OYR 2/2) broken
face and rubbed sapric material (muck); moderate very fine

                         B-l-19

-------
granular structure; sticky; pH 4.0; moderately permeable;
clear smooth boundary.

     Oe1--4 to 22 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) matrix,
dark yellowish brown (1OYR 4/4) fiber, dark brown (7.5YR 3/2)
rubbed, hemic material (mucky peat); about 60 percent fiber,
about 4-0 percent after rubbing; massive; non sticky; mostly
herbaceous fiber with a trace of woody fragments; pH 4.0;
moderate permeability; gradual boundary.

     Oe2--22 to 65 inches.; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) matrix,
dark yellowish brown (1OYR 4/4) fiber, dark brown (7.5YR 3/2)
rubbed, hemic material (mucky peat); about 40 percent fiber,
about 20 percent after rubbing; massive; slightly sticky;
mostly herbaceous fiber, trace of woody fragments; pH 5.5;
moderate permeability; clear boundary.

     Oe3--65 to 80 inches; very dark grayish brown (1OYR 3/2)
matrix, brown (1OYR 4/3) fiber, dark yellowish brown (1OYR
3/4) rubbed, hemic material (mucky peat); about 60 percent
fiber, about 40 percent after rubbing; massive; non sticky;
herbaceous fiber; pH 6.0; moderate permeability.

     Organic soils in this survey area have a wide range in
properties and several series could have been identified.
The thickness of organic soil material ranges from 16 inches
to more than 6 feet in thickness.  This material is mostly
sapric (muck) and hemic material (mucky peat), but a few have
some fibric material (peat).  This material is mostly derived
from herbaceous plants, but in some it is derived from woody
anc mossy plants.  The mineral soil material underlying the
organic soil material primarily is sandy or loamy.

     995 Organic soils.  This map unit has nearly level
slopes, gradient of less than 1 percent.  Individual deline-
ations of this map unit are variable in shape and size.  Some
are nearly circular in shape and others are narrow and elong-
ated.  They range from about one acre to more than 100 acres
in size.  Most areas of these soils are forested or are dom-
inated by herbaceous plants such as sedges.

     This map unit has few inclusions of other kinds of soil.
Included soils primarily are the Blackhoof and Newson soils,
and these primarily are near the boundary between Organic
soils and other kinds of soil.
                          Nemadji Series


     The Nemadji series consists of nearly level, somewhat
poorly drained, rapidly permeable soils that formed in sandy
glacial outwash.  These soils have slightly convex to slight'
                          B-1-20

-------
ly concave slopes on glacial outwash plains.

     The Nemadji series primarily is associated with Newson
and Omega series and Organic soils.  The Nemadji series has
mottles in the B horizon, but the better drained Omega series
lacks mottles in that horizon.  The Nemadji series has higher
•chroma in the B horizon than does the wetter Newson series.
The Nemadji series lacks or has a thin layer of organic soil
material, whereas Organic soils have thicker layers of
organic soil material and are wetter.

     The seasonal high water table typically begins within
depths of 1.5 to 4 feet during the months of March to June.
It commonly is at greater depths during other parts of the
year except during periods of above normal rainfall.

     A description of a representative pedon (S-81-MN-58-6-
samples 1 to 7) of the Nemadji series in the map unit Nemadji
loamy sand (map symbol 186) located on a.  linear slope of a-
bout 0.5 percent about 2,050 feet west and 1,190 feet north
of the southeast corner of section 21, R. 19 W., T. 45 N. is
in the following paragraphs.  The delineation with this
pedon is bounded by delineations of the Omega and Newson
series and Organic soils.  This pedon is in a coniferous-
deciduous forest.  It was described and sampled 4 November
1981.  Free water began at depths of about 50 inches.  The
soil was moist above that depth.

      0-- 2 to 0 inches; very dark gray (1OYR 3/1) highly
decomposed leaf litter, weak fine and medium granular
structure; very friable; many clean sand grains; many very
fine to medium roots; pH 4 .5; moderate permeability; abrupt
smooth boundary.

      A1(A)--0 to 4 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) loamy sand;
 weak very fine and fine granular structure; very friable;
 common clean sand particles; many very fine and fine and com-
 mon medium and large roots; pH 4.5; moderately rapid per-
 meability; abrupt smooth boundary.

     B21(Bw1)--4 to 11 inches; reddish brown (5YR 4/4) sand;
few medium faint yellowish red (5YR 4/6) mottles; weak very
fine and fine granular structure; very friable; common medium
and large roots; pH 5.5; rapid permeability; clear smooth
boundary.

     B22(Bw2)--11 to 25 inches; yellowish red (5YR 4/8) sand;
many fine and medium in upper part and large in lower part
distinct (5YR 5/3) mottles; massive; very friable; few fine
slightly consolidated masses of dark reddish brown (2.2YR
3/4); few medium and large roots; about 1 percent pebbles;
pH 5.5; rapid permeability; gradual smooth boundary.

     B23(Bw3)--25 to 42 inches; reddish brown (5YR 5/3) sand;
many fine to coarse distinct yellowish red (5YR 4/8) mottles;
single grained; loose; about 1 percent pebbles; few medium
                              B-l-21

-------
and large roots; pH 6.0; rapid permeability; gradual smooth
boundary.

     B3(BC)--42 to 55 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4)
sand; many medium and coarse faint reddish brown (5YR 5/3)
mottles; single grained ;  loose; about 1 percent pebbles;
few very fine roots; pH 6.5; rapid permeability; gradual
smooth boundary.

     C--55 to 60 inches; dark grayish brown (5YR 4/2) sand;
single grained; loose; pH 6.5; rapid permeability.

     The sola range from 40 to 60 inches in thickness.  The
E and C horizons have a matrix with hue of 2.5YR or 5YR.  The
depth to horizons with mottles ranges from 3 to 30  inches.
However, mottles with chroma of 2 or less are lacking within
depths of 40 inches.  The A and B2 horizons are sand, fine
sand, loamy sand or loamy fine sand.  The B3 and C  horizons
are sand or fine sand.

     186 Nemad.li loamy sand.  Delineations of this  map unit
typically are elongated in shape and range from 2 to about 30
acres in size.  Some areas of these soils are in cropland and
pasture and others are in forest.  The Nemadji series in this
map unit have the full range of properties described for the
series here in a previous paragraph.

     Delineations of Nemadji loamy sand located in  sections
4 and 20 have some soils that contain either more coarse sand,
gravel or silt and clay than the Nemadji series.  However,
most interpretations for such soils are similar to  those for
the Nemadji series.
                          Newson Series
     The Newson series consists of nearly level, poorly and
very poorly drained, rapidly permeable soils that formed most-
ly in sandy glacial outwash.  These soils have linear to con-
cave slopes on glacial outwash plains.

     The Newson series primarily is associated with the
Nemadji and Omega series and with Organic soils.  The Newson
series is wetter than the Nemadji and Omega series and has
colors with lower chroma in the B horizon than those soils.
The Newson series lacks or has a thinner layer of organic
soil material than Organic soils.

     The seasonal high water table typically is within depths
of 1 foot during the months of November through June.  The


                        B-l-22

-------
water table typically begins at greater depths during other
parts of the year except during periods of above normal rain-
fall.

     A description of a representative pedon (S-81-MN-58-7-
samples 1 t.o 6) of the Newson series in the map unit of
Newson mucky sand loamy (map symbol 274.) located on a slight-
ly concave slope of about 0.5 percent about 1,390 feet west
and 1,720 feet north of the•southeast corner of section 21,
R. 19 W., T. 4-5 N. is in the following paragraphs.  The de-
lineation with this pedon is bounded by delineations of the
Nemadji series, Duluth variant, and Organic soils.  The
pedon is in a thicket of alder with grasses and sedges dom-
inant in the herbaceous layer.  It was described and sampled
4 November 1981.  Free water began at depths of 8 inches.
The soil was very moist above that depth.

     Oa--4. to 0 inches; black (1OYR 2/1) sapric material
(muck); strong fine and medium granular structure; very
friable; many very fine, fine and medium roots; pH 4-. 5;
moderate permeability; abrupt smooth boundary.

     A1(A)--0 to 4- inches; very dark gray (1OYR 3/1) sandy
loam; massive; firm; breaks into angular fragments under
moderate pressure; few medium and coarse roots; pH -4.5;
moderately permeability; abrupt smooth boundary.

     B21g(Bgw1 )--4. to 12 inches; dark gray (10YR 4/1 ) loamy
sand near sandy loam; few fine distinct dark brown (7.5YR
4/4-) mottles; massive; firm; breaks into angular fragments
under moderate pressure; few medium and coarse roots; pK 4- • 5;
moderate permeability; clear smooth boundary.

     B22g(Bgw2)--12 to 22 inches; grayish brown (1OYR 5/2) -
loamy sand; common medium distinct dark brown (7YR 4-/4-) and
few fine prominent yellowish red (5YR 5/6) mottles; massive;
friable; few very fine to medium roots; pH 5.5; moderately
rapid permeability; gradual smooth boun'dary.

     C1--22 to 4-9 inches; reddish brown (5YR 5/4.) sand;
single grained; loose; pH 6.0; rapid permeability; diffuse
smooth boundary.

     C2--49 to 60 inches; reddish brown (5YR 5/3) sand; few
coarse faint reddish brovm  (5YR 4Y4) mottles; single grained;
loose ;"• pH 6.0; rapid permeability,.

     The sola range from 20 to 4-0 inches in thickness.  The
layer of organic soil material is lacking in some pedons and
is thick as 6 inches in others.  The A horizon is loamy sand
or sandy loam.  It is 3 to  8 inches thick.  The B2 horizon
has a matrix with hue of 10YR to 5Y and chroma of 1 or 2.
It is sand or loamy sand.  The C horizon has a matrix with
hue of 5YR to 10YR.  It is  sand or loamy sand.
                        B-l-23

-------
     274 Newson jnucky sandy loam.  Delineations of this map
unit typically are elongated in shape and range from 3 to 15
acres in size.  Most areas of these soils are in shruby
forest, but some have been cleared and are in pasture.  The
Newson soils in this map unit have the full range in proper-
ties described for the series here in a previous paragraph.

     Delineations of Newson mucky sandy loam in section 4 and
20, have some soils that contain either more coarse sand,
gravel, or silt and clay than the Newson series.  However,
most interpretations for such soils are similar to those for
the Newson series.
                           Omega Series
     The Omega series consists of nearly level to very steep,
somewhat excessively drained, rapidly permeable soils that
formed in sandy glacial outwash.  These soils have convex to
concave slopes on glacial outwash plains and moraines.

     The Omega series primarily is associated with the Nemadji
and Newson series and the Duluth variant and Organic soils.
The Omega series lacks mottles in the B horizon, whereas the
wetter Nemadji and Newson soils have mottles in their B hori-
zon.  The Omega soils are sandy throughout, but the Duluth
variant soils have horizons in loamy glacial till beginning
within depths of 20 to 4-0 inches.  The Omega series is much
better drained than Organic soils.

     Soils of the Omega series lack a seasonal high water
table beginning within depths of 5 feet.

     A description of a representative p'edon (S-81-MN-58-4--
samples 1 to 5) of the Omega series in the map unit Omega
loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (map symbol 188B) located
on a 2 percent convex slope about 600 feet east and 330 feet
south of the center of section 32, R. 19., T 45 N. is in the
following paragraphs.  The delineation in which this pedon
is located extends for many hundreds of feet to the west and
is bounded on the east at a distance of 100 feet by a delin-
eation of Omega loamy sand, 20 to 60 percent slopes, which is
on the bluffs around the west edge of Passenger Lake.  This
pedon is in a deciduous-coniferous forest.  It was described
and sampled k November 1981.  It was moist throughout.

     A1(A)--0 to 3 inches; very dark gray (1OYR 3/1) loamy
sand; weak fine and medium granular structure; very friable;
common clean sand particles; many very fine and fine and
common medium and large roots; pH 4-. 5; moderately rapid per-


                              B-l-24

-------
meability; abrupt smooth boundary.

     B21(Bwl)--3 to 9 inches; dark reddish brown (1OYR 3/4)
sand near loamy sand; weak fine and medium granular  struc-
ture; very friable; many fine and medium and few large roots;
pK 5.5; rapid permeability; gradual smooth boundary.

     B22(Bw2)--9 to 22 inches; reddish brown (5YR 4/4) sand;
weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure;  very
friable; many medium and coarse roots; pH 5.5;  rapid perme-
ability; gradual smooth boundary.

     B3l(BGl)--22 to 38 inches; yellowish red (5YR 4/6) stra-
tified sand and coarse sand; single grained; loose;  few
medium and coarse roots; about 2 percent gravel; pH  6.0;
rapis permeability; gradual smooth boundary.

     B32(B62)--38 to 60 inches; reddish brown (5YR 4/4)
coarsesand; single grained; loose; few coarse roots; about
5 gravel; pH 6.5; rapid permeability.

     The thickness of solum ranges from 20 to more than 60
inches in thickness.  The 10 to 40 inch depth zone lacks or
has as nmch as 10 percent of gravel.  The A1 horizon is 1  to
4 inches in thickness.  It is sand, fine sand,  loamy sand,
or loamy fine sand, sandy loam or fine sandy loam.   The B
horizon has a hue of 2.5YR or 5YR.  It is sand,  fine sand,
loamy.sand, loamy fine sand, sandy loam, or fine sandy loam
in the upper part and coarse sand, sand or fine  sand in the
lower part.

     188B Omega loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes.   This map
unit has convex through concave slopes mostly op glacial out-
wash plains.  It is on glacial moraines in a few places.  De-
lineations of this map unit are variable in size and shape.
They range from about 5 acres to more than 100  acres in size.
They typically are elongate in shape.  -They mostly are on  the
higher lying parts of the landscapes.' Most areas of these
soils are forested, but some areas are use for  pasture, crop-
land, and sites for homes and cabins.  Soils of  the  Omega
series in this unit have sola that comprise the  thicker range
in thickness described in a previous paragraph,  but  they
have the full range described for other properties.

     Most delineations of this map unit have few included
soils.  However, some soils with more gravel, or coarse sand,
or silt and clay are included in this map unit  primarily in
section 4 and 22.  Also, a few soils with layers of  loamy
sand, loamy fine sand or finer textures in the  B horizon are
included in a few places.  Further soils that have mottles
in the lower part of the B horizon or in the upper part of
the C horizon are included in a few places.  Small areas of
poorly drained or wetter soils are included in  a few places,
and most of them are indicated by the symbol for wet spots.

                          B-l-25

-------
A few small areas with steeper slopes are included in a few
places.

     188C Omega loamy sand, 5 to 20 percent slopes.  This map
unit mostly has convex slopes.  However, linear and concave
slopes commonly are on lower lying parts of this map unit.
Most of this unit is on glacial outwash plains, but it is on
glacial moraines in a few places.  Most delineations of this
unit are elongated and rather narrow in shape.  They pri-
marily are on slopes adjacent to lakes, peat bogs, and drain-
age ways.  Thy mostly range from 5 to 30 acres in size.  Most
areas of these soils are forested, but a few areas are in
pasture or sites for homes and cabins.  Soils of the Omega
series in this unit have sola that comprise the intermedi-
ate range in thickness described in a previous paragraph,
but they have the full range described for other properties.

     Most delineations of this map unit have few included
soils.  However, some soils with more coarse sand and gravel
in the solum and C horizon or more silt and clay in the A
horizon are included in a few places.  Such included soils
are mostly in delineations of this map unit in sections 3,
4, and 22.  A few small areas with slopes of less than 5
percent or more than 20 percent are included in some delin-
eations.

     188E Omega loamy sand, 20 to 60 percent slopes.  This
map unit mostly has convex slopes, but it has linear and
concave slopes on the lower lying parts.  Most of this unit
is on glacial outwash plains.  Delineations of it there .are
narrow and elongate and typically 10 to 30 acres in size.
They mostly are on bluffs along lakes and peat bogs.  It is
on hills in glacial moraines in a few places.  Delineations
of it there are elongate to circular in shape and typically
are 3 to 20 acres in size.  Most areas of this unit are in
forest.  Soils of the Omega series in this unit have sola
in the thin range in thickness, but they have the full range
described for other properties.

     Most delineations of this map unit have few included
soils.  However, some soils with more coarse sand and gravel
in the solum and C horizon, or more silt and clay in the A
horizon and upper part of the B horizon are included in a
few places.  Also, small areas of the Duluth series and
Duluth variants°ils are included in a few places.  A few
small areas with slopes of less than 20 percent or more than
60 percent are included in some delineations.

                          B-l-26

-------
                     INVESTIGATION  PROCEDURES

     I began a review of the literature  about  the  soils  and
soil forming factors of the area immediately after WAPORA  made
initial contact with me on 2 September 1981.   The  more  impor-
tant literature that I reviewed follows.

     Clayton, L. and T.F.  Freers (Chief  Ed.'s).  1967
     Glacial geology of the Missouri  Coteau  and  adjacent
     area.   N.D. Geol. Sur. Mis. Series  30.   170 pp.

     Cummins, J.F.  and D.F. Grigal.   1981.   Soils  and  land
     surfaces of Minnesota - 1981.  Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta.
     Soils  Series No.  110, Misc. Pub.  11. 59 pp.  Map.

     Lewis, R.R., P.R.C.  Nyberg, R.O.  Paulson, and J.A.  Sharp.
     1978.   Soil Survey of Carlton  County, Minnesota.  U.S.D.A.
     Soil Cons. Serv.  Gov. Printing Off.  77 pp.  Maps.

     Simmons, C.S.  and A.E. Shearin.   1941.   Soil  Survey of
     Pine County, Minnesota.  U.S.D.A.   Bur.  Plant Ind.
     44 pp.  Maps.

     Soil Survey Staff.  1978.  Soil  survey  laboratory  data
     and descriptions  for some soils  of  Minnesota. U.S.D.A.
     Soil Cons. Serv.  and Minn. Agr.  Exp. Sta.   Soil Sur.
     Invest. Rpt. No.  33.   123 pp.

     Wright, H.E.,  Jr. 1972. Quaternary  history  of Minnesota.
     Pp. 515-548 in Sims,  P.K.  and G.B. Morey (Ed.'s)   Geol-
     ogy of Minnesota  - A centennial  volume.   Minn. Geol.  Sui*.

     Wright, H.E.,  Jr. 1973.  Tunnel  valleys,  glacial  surges,
     and subglacial hydrology of the  Superior  lobe, Minn-
     esota.  Geol.  Soc. Am. Mem. 136:251-276.

     Wright, H.E.,  Jr. and W.A. Watts.   1969  Glacial  and
     vegetational history of northeastern Minnesota.   Minn.
     Geol.  Surv.  SP-11.   59 pp.

     I did  have some knowledge of the  soils  of the area  be-
cause I worked in soil survey in Minnesota from  1965-1979.
During that period, I  was State Soil  Correlator, Assistant
State Soil  Scientist and State Soil Scientist  for  the  Soil
Conservation Service.   I  was involved  in field reviews,
sampling and correlation for the soil  survey of  Carlton
County.

     I received verbal approval of  my  proposal for this  soil
survey on 11 September 1981.  I began  field  work on 14  Sept-
ember 1981, and completed it 5 November  1981.

     My first task enroute to the field  was  to stop at  the
district office of the Soil Conservation Service at Kinckley,

                           B-l-27

-------
Minnesota.  I wanted to inform them about my project, and,
more importantly, to determine if any mapping had been done
in the survey area.  I learned that about 500 acres had been
mapped.  I borrowed aerial photography of 22 April 1957 from
them because it was of excellent quality especially for
stereoptic viewing and it had all previous soil mapping on it

     Procedures used in this soil survey were within the
specifications of both the National and Minnesota Cooperative
Soil Surveys as recorded in the following documents.

     Soil Survey Staff.  1951.  Soil Survey Manual.
     U.S.D.A. Handb. 18, 503 pp.

     Soil Survey Staff.  1974. to present.  National Soils
     Handbook.  (An evolving, working document.)

     Soil Survey Staff.  1975.  Soil taxonomy:   a basic
     system of soil classification for making and inter-
     preting soil surveys.  U.S.D.A. Handb. 4.36,  754- pp.

     Soil Survey Staff.  Various dates.  Soil series
     descriptions and interpretations.

     Soil Survey Staff, Minn.  1979.  Soil survey mapping
     legend, Minnesota.  Minn. Coop. Soil Surv.  4.6 pp.

     Soil as used in the report refers to the upper 60 inches
of the regolith.

     I made a reconniassance of the survey area during my
first few days in the field to develop a trial legend for
mapping. During this period I studied the landscape, geo-
logic materials, and soils of the area.

     I began mapping on 21 September 1981.  I mainly used two
sets of aerial photography while mapping,'namely  the 9 April
1977 photography of Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc. which had
been enlarged to a scale of 1:9,750 and the 22 April 1957
photography that I had borrowed form S.C.S.  The  later was
at a scale of 1:15*84-0 and it was used primarily  for stere-
optic study of the landscape.  The former was used for re-
cording boundaries.  Also, the true color photography of
11 October 1980 at a scale of 1:30,000 and the color infra-
red photography of 20 October 1980 at a scale of  1:7,000
were used to further study the landscape and soil boundaries.
These latter two sets of photography are in the report "EPA-
Resource inventory and septic system survey, Moose Lake-
Windmere Sewer District, Minnesota, October-November 1980'.'.

    ' Tools used in this soil survey include various kinds of
sampling tubes, bucket augers, and shovels for examining the
soil.  A clinometer was used for measuring the inclination
of slopes.  A "Hellige-Truog soil reaction tester kit" was

                          B-U28

-------
used for determing soil pH.   Munsell color charts were used
for measuring soil color.  A "pocket" stereoscope was used
for studying aerial photographs.

     Ten pedons were described and sampled 2-5 November 1981.
Most pedons were exposed by digging a small pit to depths of
30 to 40 inches.  A large bucket auger was subsequently used
to obtain samples from that depth to a depth of 60 inches.
One pedon was described and sampled from road-cut.  The pedon
of an organic soil was exposed with a "Macaulay peat sampler."
Samples of about i pint in size were collected from all soil
horizons in each pedon.  Large samples of about 1 quart in
size were collected from 2 to 4- major horizons of each pedon.
A standard indentifacation symbol was given to each pedon.
For example, in the symbol .S-81-58-1-2,   S signifies sample,
81 is the year 1981, 58 is the number for Pine County, 1 is
the pedon number, and 2 is the second horizon sampled from
that pedon.  In the introduction to pedon descriptions in the
section of this report entitled "Description of Soils" the
last entry in the identification number, 1 to 6 for example,
indicates that 6 horizons were sampled from that pedon.

     A.E. Jacobson, an SCS soil scientist stationed at Duluth,
Minnesota, and I conducted a review and correlation of this soil
survey on 23 October 1981.

     Boundaries between soils along the boundary between
Carlton and Pine Counties do not join some places.  The main
reason for these no-joins is that this survey was mapped at
a larger scale and at higher intensity than was the survey of
Carlton County.
                         B-l-29

-------
  Appendix  B-2.
SOIL MAP PLATES

-------
    SOIL MAP PLATES OF THE LAND AREA




IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING ISLAND, STURGEON,




        RUSH,  AND PASSENGER LAKES
             Pine County  MN
           Scale: 6 inches/mile

-------
            LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES OF SOIL MAP PLATES -  1  through 12

'"! n  ! ',-\-<  I.*S_")>\1 /
tv/° In  fcrn/j
 S^®Arr4sr.f '-%S)&M/
  c-.^ v \ "^-i  s/?z. s!.-?r



  ' ~WL*^ •>' L" %>
-------
                    Soil Map Identification Legend

                               for


I[THE  SOIL SURVEY OF A PORTION OF WINDEMERE TOWNSHIP, PINE COUNTY, MN


                           - Map Units -
Map symbol
                 Name of soil
186 .................. Nemad j i  loamy sand
188B ................. Omega loamy sand, 0  to 5% slopes
188C ................. Omega loamy sand, 5  to 20% slopes
188E .................. Omega loamy sand, 20 to 60% slopes
274 .................. Newson mucky sandy loam
502 .................. Dusler loam
504B ................. Duluth loam, 1  to 4% slopes
504C ................. .tDuluth loam, 4  to 15% slopes
504E ................ ~. Duluth loam, 15  to 60% slopes
6 14 .................. Blackhoof muck
995 .................. Organic  soils
1002 ................. Alluvial soils
1016 ................. Altered  soils
1032 ................ . Lake beaches
1350B  ................ Duluth variant  loamy fine sand,
1350C  ................ Duluth variant  loamy fine sand,
                                                  1 to 4% slopes
                                                  4 to 15% slopes
                - Conventional and Special Features -
              50415046
                                    Section corners

                                    Dams and associated  reservoirs

                                    Gravel or sand pits

                                    Perennial drainage way

                                    Intermittent drainage way

                                    End of drainage way

                                    Unnamed lakes and ponds

                                    Soil delineations and map  unit symbols

                                    Soil sample site

                                    Small area  (1/8 to  1/2 acre) of poorly  drained
                                    or wetter soils in delineations of better
                                    drained soils.
           soil map  for which  this  legend was developed is not rectified
       and thus may  not be  used  to  overlay other rectified maps of the area.

                                 B-2-2

-------







B-2-3
                         Plate

-------
B-2-4

-------
 I
   I
 I
U

-------
CO

-------
00
I
! J
I
 ,
                                                                          Plate

-------
CO
 I
 I
CO

-------

-------

-------
C-2-11

-------
8-2-12

-------
B-2-13

-------
3-2-14

-------
              APPENDIX  B-3
           SOILS TESTING DATA






       Paricle Size Distributions "




For Soil Samples Taken in Windemere TN




             Pine County MN

-------
 BORING(NO.
 SAMPLE*MO.
 DEPTH
                SOIL TESTING SERVICES, INC.

                 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
                B-21T                 STS JOB NO.:
                4                     PROJECT     :
                17.00-28.00 in.       W/C:  —
 CLASSIFICATION: Dusler Loam

SIEVE ANALYSIS-

  SAMPLE WEIGHT:  94.61  GRAMS
                                      LL :  —
                                             DATE:  1-19-82
                                       22561
                                     :  MOOSE LAKE WINDEMERE
                                               SP.GR.:  —
                                     PL  :  —  PI     :  —
SIEVE
SIZE
.375"
#4
no
#16
#40
#60
#140
#200
#325
WEIGHT
RETAINED
0.00
1.07
0.48
0.30
1.55
4.29
7.71
2.39
2.17
PER CENT
RETAINED
0.00
1.13
0.51
0.32
1.64
4.53
8.15
2.53
2.29
PER CENT
PASSING
100.00
98.87
98.36
98.04
96.41
91.87
83.72
81.20
78.91
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-

  SAMPLE WEIGHT:  52.03
  SOIL SPECIFIC GRAVITY:
  ZERO HYDROMETER HEIGHT:
  CORRECTION FACTOR:  5.5
  ELAPSED
   TIME
       25
       50
       00
       00
       00
   0
   0
   1
   5
   8
  15.00
  30.00
  60.00
 134.00
1390.00
          TEMPERATURE
22,
22,
22,
22.
22.
22,
22,
22,
22.
               22.5
GRAMS
10.45
I
ACTUAL
READING
50.00
48.50
46.50
45.00
44.00
42.50
40.50
38.00
35.00
27.00


ADJUST
READING
44.50
43.00
41.00
39.50
38.50
37.00
35.00
32.50
29.50
21.50


GRAIN
SIZE
0.0740
0.0531
0.0383
0.0174
0.0139
0.0103
0.0074
0.0053
0.0037
0.0012


PER CENT
FINER
83.24
80.43
76.69
73.89
72.02
69.21
65.47
60.79
55.18
40.22
                               B-3-1

-------
                          SOIL TESTING SERVICES, INC.
CO
I
CO
ro
          BORING NO.    :
          SAMPLE NO.    :
          DEPTH         :   17.00-28.00 in.
          CLASSIFICATION:   Dusler lloam
     GRAIN SIZE  DISTRIBUTION                  DATE: 1-19-82
    B-21T                STS JOB NO.:   22561
    A                    PROJECT    :   MOOSE  LAKE WINDEMERE
                         W/C:   —             SP.GR.:  —
                         LL  :   —   PL ;   —  PI     :  —
        100 •
        o
                 	U.S.  STANDARD-
                 SIEVE OPENINGS (IN.)
                                   3  1 3
                 SIEVE NUMBERS

                      3
                                                               HYDROMETER
          500

          I    COBBLES
Too   So"
•fc-i
           GRAVEL
             15           11
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
           SAND
  .01   .005

SILT
                                                                                                              O.
                                                                 I CLAY
                                                         I     I
                                             I
                                   I

-------
                  SOIL TESTING SERVICES, INC.
                   GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
                                                 DATE:  1-19-82
BORING NO. :
SAMPLE NO. :
DEPTH
*
II-B3
7
52.00 -60.00
CLASSIFICATION: Duluth variant
fine
sand



in.
loam

STS JOB NO
PROJECT
W/C: —
LL : -P

SIEVE ANALYSIS-
SAMPLE











WEIGHT:
SIEVE
SIZE
.375"
H
#10
#16
MO
#60
#140
#200
#325
72.83 GRAMS
WEIGHT
RETAINED
0.00
0.48
0.36
0.20
1.10
3.36
6.13
1.84
2.17

PER CENT
RETAINED
0.00
0.66
0.49
0.27
1.51
4.61
8.42
2.53
2.98

PER CENT
PASSING
100.00
99.34
98.85
98.57
97.06
92.45
84.03
81.50
78.52
                                                      22561
                                                      MOOSE
                                              -p   PL
                                                 LAKE  WINDEMERE
                                                   SP.GR.:  —
                                              —  PI     :  —
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-
  SAMPLE WEIGHT:  51.61
  SOIL SPECIFIC GRAVITY:
  ZERO HYDROMETER HEIGHT:
  CORRECTION FACTOR:  5.5
  ELAPSED
   TIME

     0.25
     0.50
     1.00
     5.00
     8.00
    15.00
    30.00
    60.00
   120.00
  1425.00
TEMPERATURE
   22,
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.5
GRAMS
10.45
ACTUAL
READING
49.00
47.00
45.50
42.00
40.50
39.00
36.00
33.00
30.00
18.00


ADJUST
READING
43.50
41.50
40.00
36.50
35.00
33.50
30.50
27.50
24.50
12.50


GRAIN
SIZE
0.0737
0.0531
0.0381
0.0176
0.0141
0.0104
0.0076
0.0055
0.0040
0.0012


PER CENT
FINER
81.56
77.81
75.00
68.44
65.63
62.81
57.19
51.56
45.94
23.44
                                 B-3-3

-------
                          SOIL TESTING SERVICES, INC.
oo
CO
I
                  GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION                  DATE:  1-19-82
BORING NO.    :   II-B3                 STS JOB NO.:   22561
SAMPLE NO.    :   7                     PROJECT    :   MOOSE LAKE WINDEMERE

DEPTH         :   52.00-60.00 in.      W/C: —               SP.GR.:  —

CLASSIFICATION:  Duluth variant loam    LL : —     PL :  —   PI    :   —

     fine  sand
        	U.s.  STANDARD	
        SIEVE OPENINGS (IN.)                    SIEVE NUMBERS

                          3   1 3

          6
       inn •
       90
       0
          500
                                                                                       HYDROMETER

432     1A23A.66
M  II   II  I $ I  fe  I
               COBBLES
           GRAVEL
                                                      T5           '.I

                                         GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

                                            I        SAND
SILT
I CLAY
                                                                                                                I

-------
 BORING NO.     :
 SAMPLE NO.     :
 DEPTH         :
 CLASSIFICATION:
SOIL TESTING SERVICES, INC.

 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
B-31                  STS JOB NO.:
4                     PROJECT     :
22.00-38.00  in.       W/C:   —
                    DATE: 1-19-82
              22561
              MOOSE LAKE WINDEMERE
                      SP.GR.:  —
Omega loamy sand
LL
—    PL  :  —   PI
SIEVE ANALYSIS-

  SAMPLE WEIGHT:   147.99  GRAMS
SIEVE WEIGHT PER CENT PER CENT
SIZE RETAINED RETAINED PASSING
.75" 0.00
.5" 3.24
#4 2.87
#10 2.89
#16 4.39
#40 56.83
#60 57.70
#140 12.81
#200 1.26
#325 0.20
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-
SAMPLE WEIGHT: 54.08 GRAMS
SOIL SPECIFIC GRAVITY:
ZERO HYDROMETER HEIGHT: 10.45
CORRECTION FACTOR: 5.5
ELAPSED TEMPERATURE ACTUAL
TIME READING
0.25 22.5 8.00
0.50 22.5 8.00
1.00 22.5 8.00
5.00 22.5 8.00
8.00 22.5 8.00
15.00 22.5 8.00
30.00 22.5 8.00
60.00 22.5 7.50
127.00 22.5 7.00
1390.00 22.5 6.50
0.00
2.19
1.94
1.95
2.97
38.40
38.99
8.66
0.85
0.14





ADJUST
READING
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
100.00
97.81
95.87
93.92
90.95
52.55
13.56
4.91
4.05
3.91





GRAIN
SIZE
0.1043
0.0737
0.0521
0.0233
0.0184
0.0135
0.0095
0.0068
0.0047
0.0014















PER CENT
FINER
4.40
4i 40
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
. 3.52
2.64
1.76
                                 B-3-5

-------
                          SOIL TESTING SERVICES, INC.
CO
i
GO
                  GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION                  DATE: 1-19-82
BORING NO.    :   B-31                  STS JOB NO.:  22561
SAMPLE NO.    :   4                     PROJECT    :  MOOSE LAKE WINDEMERE
DEPTH         :   22.00-38.00  in.       W/C:  —              SP.GR.:  —
CLASSIFICATION:   Omega loamy sand      LL :   —    PL t  —  PI    :   —

        	U.S. STANDARD-
        SIEVE OPENINGS (IN.)
                          313
          6432     1 A  2  fi  3  4
                                                                                       HYDROMETER
                                                    11   I I   I     I   I  II  I  I   I
                                                                .5          .1
                                                  GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
                                                             SAND

-------
                  SOIL TESTING SERVICES, INC.
 BORING NO.    :
 SAMPLE NO.    :
 DEPTH         :
 CLASSIFICATION:

SIEVE ANALYSIS-

  SAMPLE WEIGHT:
       GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
      B-22T                 STS JOB NO.:
      5                     PROJECT    :
      22.00-36.00 in.       W/C:  —
      Duluth Loam #1
      86.79  GRAMS
LL : —
                    DATE: 1-19-82
              22561
              MOOSE LAKE WINDEMERE
                      SP.GR.:  	
PL
—  PI
SIEVE
SIZE
#4
#10
#16
#40
#60
#140
#200
#325
WEIGHT
RETAINED
0.00
0.22
0.23
1.31
4.21
7.64
2.49
2.26
PER CENT
RETAINED
0.00
0.25
0.27
1.51
4.85
8.80
2.87
2.60
PER CENT
PASSING
100.00
99.75
99.48
97.97
93.12
84.32
81.45
18.85
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-

  SAMPLE WEIGHT:  51.66
  SOIL SPECIFIC GRAVITY:
  ZERO HYDROMETER HEIGHT:
  CORRECTION FACTOR:  5.5
  ELAPSED
   TIME

     0.25
     0.50
     1.00
     5.00
     8.00
    15.00
    30.00
    60.00
   120.00
  1405.00
TEMPERATURE
   22.
   22,
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.5
GRAMS
10.45
ACTUAL
READING
49.00
47.50
45.50
42.50
41.50
40.00
38.00
35.50
33.00
25.00


ADJUST
READING
43.50
42.00
40.00
37.00
36.00
34.50
32.50
30.00
27.50
19.50


GRAIN
SIZE
0.0737
0.0529
0.0381
0.0175
0.0140
0.0103
0.0074
0.0054
0.0039
0.0012


PER CENT
FINER
82.23
79.39
75.61
69.94
68.05
65.21
61.43
56.71
51.98
36.86
                                B-3-7

-------
                           SOIL TESTING  SERVICES,  INC.
oo
CO
I
00
                           GRAIN SIZE  DISTRIBUTION                  DATE:  1-19-82
          BORING  NO.     :  B-22T                 STS  JOB NO.:   22561
          SAMPLE  NO.     :  5                      PROJECT    ?   MOOSE  LAKE WINDEMERE
          DEPTH          :  22.00-36.00 in.       W/C:   -^-r-              SP.GR.:   —
          CLASSIFICATION:  Duluth loam #1         LL :   -r   PL :  —   PI     :   —
       100
     f
        0
          500
                 	U.s.  STANDARD	
                 SIEVE OPENINGS (IN.)
                                    3  1 3
                   6432    142834,68
                                   SIEVE NUMBERS
                                     HYDROMETER
                                     8  J UK H  §
[00  50
               COBBLES
          GRAVEL
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
   I        SAND
                                                           II     L
SILT
I CLAY

-------
 BORING NO.
 SAMPLE NO.
 DEPTH
      SOIL TESTING SERVICES, INC.

       GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
      B-22T                 STS JOB.NO.:
      4                     PROJECT     :
      18.00 -38.00 in.      W/C:  —
 CLASSIFICATION: Duluth  Loam #2
SIEVE ANALYSIS-
  SAMPLE WEIGHT:  111.5  GRAMS
                            LL :   —
SIEVE
SIZE
#4
#10
#16
*4Q
#60
#140
#200
#325
WEIGHT
RETAINED
0.00
0.69
0.29
1.27
3.64
6.43
2.05
2.21
PERCENT
RETAINED
0.00
0.62
0.26
1.14
3.26
5.77
1.84
1.98
PER CENT
PASSING
100.00
99.38
99.12
97.98
94.72
88.95
87.11
85.13
         DATE:  1-19-82
   22561
:   MOOSE  LAKE WINDEMERE
           SP.GR.:  —
PL :   —  PI    :  —
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-

  SAMPLE WEIGHT:  51.67
  SOIL SPECIFIC GRAVITY:
  ZERO HYDROMETER HEIGHT:
  CORRECTION FACTOR:  5.5
  ELAPSED
   TIME

     0.25
     0.50
     1.00
     5.00
     8.00
    15.00
    30.00
    63.00
   125.00
  1386.00
TEMPERATURE
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.
   22.5
GRAMS
10.45
ACTUAL
READING
51.50
51.00
50.00
48.00
46.50
45.00
42.50
39.00
35.50
23.50


ADJUST
READING
46.00
45.50
44.50
42.50
41.00
39.50
37.00
33.50
30.00
18.00


GRAIN
SIZE
0.0724
0.0515
0.0368
0.0168
0.0135
0.0100
0.0072
0.0051
0.0037
0.0012


PER CENT
FINER
87.17
86.22
84.32
80.53
77.69
74.85
70.11
63.48
56.85
34.11
                                B-3-9

-------
                           SOIL TESTING  SERVICES, INC.
co
i
CO
                            GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION                  DATE:  1-19-82

          BORING NO.    :   B-22T                STS JOB NO,:  22561

          SAMPLE NO.    :   A                    PROJECT    :  MOOSE LAKE WINDEMERE

          DEPTH         :   18.00 -38.00  in.      W/C:  —              SP.GR.:  —

          CLASSIFICATION:  Duluth Loam #2         LL  :   —   PL :  —  PI    :   —
        100
        90
00
      	U.S.  STANDARD-

      SIEVE OPENINGS (IN.)


                        313

        6  4 3  2    1  I  28  3
        I
tMi   It
SIEVE NUMBERS


  a  3  a
                                                                                       HYDROMETER
TOO   50
           I     COBBLES    |

           I  	-
                                                                .5    '       ".I

                                                  GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
1 GRAVEL
1
1
SAND

1 1 1
SILT

CLAY I
1

-------
                  SOIL TESTING SERVICES,  INC.

                   GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION                  DATE: 1-19-82
 BORING NO.     :   B-3                   STS JOB NO.:   22561
 SAMPLE NO.     :   6                     PROJECT    :   MOOSE LAKE WINDEMERE
 DEPTH         :   49.00-60.00 in.       W/C:  —              SP.GR.:  —
 CLASSIFICATION:  Duluth loam #2         LL :  —    PL :   —  PI    :  —

SIEVE ANALYSIS-

  SAMPLE WEIGHT:   71.43  GRAMS
SIEVE
SIZE
#4
#10
#16
#40
#60
#140
#200
#325
WEIGHT
RETAINED
0.00
0.17
0.15
0.52
1.60
3.15
1.09
1.40
PER CENT
RETAINED
0.00
0.24
0.21
0.73
2.24
4.41
1.53
1.96
PER CENT
PASSING
100.00
99.76
99.55
98.82
96.58
92.17
90.65
88.69
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-
                            y
  SAMPLE WEIGHT:  51  GRAMS
  SOIL SPECIFIC GRAVITY:
  ZERO HYDROMETER HEIGHT:   10.45
  CORRECTION FACTOR:  5.5
ELAPSED
TIME
0.25
0.50
1.00
5.00
8.00
15.00
30.00
60.00
120.00
1410.00
TEMPERATURE

22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
ACTUAL
READING
52.50
51.00
50.00
47.00
46.00
44.00
42.00
38.00
34.00
19.00
ADJUST
READING
47.00
45.50
44.50
41.50
40.50
38.50
36.50
32.50
28.50
13.50
GRAIN
SIZE
0.0710
0.0510
0.0365
0.0168
0.0134
0.0100
0.0072
0.0053
0.0038
0.0012
PER CENT
FINER
90.01
87.13
85.22
79.47
77.56
73.73
69.90
62.24
54.58
25.85
                               B-3-11

-------
                          SOIL TESTING  SERVICES,  INC.
CO
I
CO
                          GRAIN  SIZE DISTRIBUTION                  DATE:  1-19-82
         BORING NO.     :  B-3'                  STS JOB NO.:  22561
         SAMPLE NO.     :  6                     PROJECT     :  MOOSE LAKE WINDEMERE
         DEPTH          :  49.00 -60.00  in.      W/C:  —,              SP.GR.:   —
         CLASSIFICATION:  Duluth  loam #2        LL :  -.    PL  :  —  PI     :  —
       100-
       0
          500
	U.S. STANDARD-
SIEVE OPENINGS (IN.)
                  3  1  3
  643
                                                        SIEVE NUMBERS
                                                                 HYDROMETER
Too   so
                                                 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
"

GRAVEL
1
(SAND
1 1 1 1
SILT

CLAY 1
1

-------
                              Appendix B-4.
             SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATION OF SOILS INFORMATION
     B-4.1.  Soil Types

     Each  soil  association  (Section  2.2.1.)  contains a  number  of soil
types.  A  brief -description  of the eleven  identified  soil types follows,
including a-discussion of the topography,-drainage properties (Figure B-l)»
and other characteristics  of  the area's soils  in  relation  to the suitabi-
lity  for conventional soil absorption systems  (Table B-l ).  No assessment
is made of  the suitability of  the area's  soils for "innovative" or uncon-
ventional on-^ite waste treatment systems.
                               B-4-1

-------
   DRAINAGE   CLASS
                         SOILS  SERIES
• Excessively drained.—Water is removed from the soil very
       rapidly. Excessively drained soils are commonly very
       coarse textured, rocky, or shallow. Some are steep. All
       are free of the mottling related to wetness.
• Somewhat excessively drained.—Water is  removed from
       the soil rapidly.  Many somewhat excessively drained
       soils  are sandy  and  rapidly  pervious.  Some  are
       shallow. Some are so steep  that much of the water
       they  receive  is lost  as  runoff.  All  are free of  the
       mottling related  to wetness.
• Well drained.—Water is removed from  the soil readily,
       but not rapidly.  It is available  to plants throughout
       most of the  growing season, and wetness  does  not
       inhibit  growth of roots for significant periods during
       most growing seasons. Well drained soils are com-
       monly  medium textured. They are mainly free  of
       mottling.
• Moderately  well drained.—Water is removed from the soil
       somewhat slowly during some  periods. Moderately
       well  drained soils are  wet for only  a short  time
       during  the growing season, but periodically for long
       enough that most mesophytic crops are affected. They
       commonly hnvs  a  slov/ly pervious  layer within  or
       directly below the solum, or periodically receive high
       rainfall, or both.
• Somewhat  poorly drained.—Water is  removed slowly
       enough  that  the soil is  wet for significant periods
       during  the growing season. Wetness markedly  re-
       stricts  the growth of mesophytic  crops unless arti-
       ficial drainage is provided. Somewhat poorly drained
       soils commonly have a slowly pervious  layer, a high
       water table,  additional  water from  seepage, nearly
       continuous rainfall, or a combination of these.
• Poorly drained.—Water  is removed so  slowly  that  the
       soil  is  saturated periodically   during  the  growing
       season  or remains  wet for long periods. Free water
       is commonly  at or near  the surface  for long enough
       during the growing season that most mesophytic crops
       cannot be grown  unless the soil is artificially drained.
       The   soil  is  not  continuously  saturated  in layers
       directly below  plow depth. Poor drainage results
       from a high water  table,  a slowly  pervious layer
       within the profile, seepage, nearly continuous rainfall,
       or a combination of  these.
* Very poorly drained.—Water is removed  from the soil
       so slowly that free water remains at or on the sur-
       face during most of  the  growing season. Unless the
       soil  is  artificially  drained,  most  mesophytic  crops
       cannot be grown. Very poorly drained  soils are com-
       monly level or depressed and are frequently ponded.
       Yet, where rainfall  is  high and nearly continuous,
       they can have moderate  or high slope  gradients,  as
       for example in "hillpeats" and  "climatic moors."
  Omega
  loamy
  sand
— Duluth
SZ loam
                                           Duluth
                                           variant
                                           loam
                     Alluvial
                     soils
           — Lake
           S beach
           E soils
Altered
soils
  Dueler
  loam
                                            NemadJI
                                            sand
                                               5  Newson
                                               5  loamy
                                               •5  sand
— Blackhoof
5 muck
Organic   Sj
soils      E
       Figure  s-l-    Drainage  class ranges of  soils  in  a portion of Windemere  Township.
                         Finney  (1981)  and SCS  (1978).
                                                       Derived  from

-------
      Table B-l.    Soil  series characteristics and soil absorption system  ratings for soils in the  surveyed
                     portion of  Windemere  Township  (Finney 1981;  SCS 1978).
Predominant SCS Soil Name and
Substratum Mapping Symbol
Loam
Duluth
b
Duluth Variant
Dusler
Blackhoof
ro Sand or Gravelly Sand
-P»
i, Omega
Nemadji
Newson
b
Lake Beaches
Other
Organic
Alluvial
Altered

504B
50 4C
504E
1350B
1350C
502
614
188B
188C
188E
186
274
1032

995
1002
1016
•Slope Range Surface
(percent) Texture

1-4
4-15
15-60
1-4
0-2
0-1
0-5
5-50
20-60
0-2
0-1
0-2

0-2
0-1

loam
ii
•i
loamy sand
loam
mucky
silt loam
sand
ti
n
sand
loamy sand
sand

mucky peat
mostly loam
Substratum Depth to Permeability Range SCS Rating Soil a
Texture Water Table (inches/hour) Absorption Systems

loam 72"
72"
n 72»
clay loam 72"
ii 72»
clay loam 12"-48"
silt loam 0-12"
coarse sand 72"
72"
72"
sand 18"-48"
12"
coarse sand 12"-36"

mucky peat 12"
- Occasional
flooding
mostly loam variable

0.06-0.20 (13"), 0.20-0.60 (64")
n ii
n n
6.00-20.00 (20"), 0.20-0.60 (52")
n n
0.60-2.00 (12"), 0.20-0.60 (42")
0.06 (5"), 0.06-0.20 (48")
6.00-20.00 (22"), 6.00-20.00 (60")
ii n
ii n
6.00-20.00 (11"), 6.00-20.00 (55")
0.60-0.20 (22"), 6.00-20.00 (65")
6.00-20.00 (21"), 6.00-20.00 (60")

0.60-2.00 (22"), 0.60- 2.00 (65")
variable
mostly 0.06-0.20

Severe; sp
Severe; sp
Severe; si, sp
_
Severe, sp
Severe; shwt
Slight0 c
Severe; slc
Severe; si
Severe; shwt
Severe; shwt


-
—
Ratings abbreviations  for soil  absorption systems are: sp - slow permeability, si - slope, shwt - shallow high water table.

These soils series were identified during the soils survey of the project area, but have not yet been recognized by the Minnesota
Co-operative Soils Survey.

Rapid permeability represents potential hazard to groundwate.r supplies If pollution is present.

-------
Loamy  Soils

     Soils  with loamy  substrata predominate  in  the northern  half  of the
surveyed  area.  The  loamy soils Identified  in  the survey include the Du-
luth,  Duluth Variant, Busier, and Blackhoff  series.

Duluth Loam

     The  Duluth series  consists of gently undulating  to very steep, mode-
rately well and well -drained,   moderately slow  and slowly permeable soils
that  formed  mostly  in  loamy calcareous  glacial  till  on glacial moraines.
They mostly  have  convex  slopes, but they may also have linear or concave
slopes on the  lower parts  of some steep and  very  steep slopes.

     The  SCS  rates  Duluth  soil as  having   "severe"  limitations  to  soil
absorption systems use because of its relatively  slow permeability.  Duluth
soil can  accommodate  a  soil absorption system under certain conditions if
the -design  is  appropriate.   However, on sites with steep slopes,  or with
lot  size  constraints or  with low  soil  permeabilities,  unconventional -de-
signs  for soil absorption systems may have  to be used  to obtain satisfac-
tory performances.

     It  is  estimated that approximately 60%  of  the platted lakeshore lot
area around  Island Lake  is mapped  as Duluth soil.  Most of  the  platted
areas  with Duluth soil are found along the south  shore of the Lake.  Duluth
soil is also  common along the north half of  Sturgeon Lake, covering appro-
ximately  40% of its platted lakeshore lot area.   Duluth  soil was not mapped
in  significant amounts  around   the  platted  shoreline  areas  of Rush  and
Passenger lakes.

Duluth Variant

     Duluth Variant soil consists of gently  sloping  and  sloping, moderately
well and  well-drained, moderately slow and slowly permeable soils that were
formed in a  20- to 40-inch thick mantle  of  sandy glacial outwash material
and in underlying loamy calcareous glacial till on glacial moraines.  These
soils  may have both convex and linear slopes.

                            B-4-4

-------
      As was-discussed in  Section  2.2.1.,  Duluth Variant soils are found in
 the transition area  between the  two  major  soil associations.   The  upper
 horizons of  the Duluth  Variant  soil have  a  rapid  permeability.   Thus,
 septic tank effluent absorption systems  constructed in adequate -depths of
 this upper horizon should  function  satisfactorily.  Duluth Variant has not
 been formally recognized  as a named  soil  series by the  Cooperative Soil
 Survey of Minnesota.  Therefore,  no  SCS  rating  for soil  absorption system
 operation is available.

      Duluth Variant  soil  is primarily  found  at some-distance from the lake-
 shore away  from  existing -development within the  surveyed  area.   Although
 common in the  surveyed area,  Duluth  Variant  soil was mapped on only approx-
 imately 10% of  the  platted lakeshore lot area around Island  Lake,  and on
 approximately  5% of the  platted area  around  Sturgeon Lake.  Duluth Variant
 soil is uncommon  in  the vicinity of  Rush and  Passenger lakes.

 Dusler Loam and  Blackhoof Muck

      Dusler soil  consists  of  nearly level,  somewhat poorly and  poorly
-drained,  slowly  permeable soils that were  formed mostly  in loamy calcareous
 glacial till.   This soil  has slightly convex to slightly  concave slopes on
 glacial moraines.

      Blackhoof soil  consists  of a  nearly level,  very poorly-drained,  slowly
 to  very slowly permeable  soil that  was  formed  in  a  thin  mantle of organic
 soil and in underlying loamy glacial  till or in old aluvium or both.   This
 soil has concave or linear slopes and is  found  in depressions and-drainage
 ways on glacial moraines.

     Dusler and  Blackhoof soils both  have "severe" soil absorption  system
 ratings according to  the  SCS.    Although  Dusler  soil  has a  permeability
 similar to  Duluth soil,   septic systems are  still more-difficult to operate
 in  Dusler soil because Dusler soil is  often poorly-drained.   In addition to
 having  low  permeability,  Blackhoof soil also  has the water  table within one
 foot of the land surface.  Therefore, conventional soil absorption systems
 will not  function properly in Blackhoof soil.
                           B-4-5

-------
      Dusler and Blackhoof soils each are mapped on approximately 3%.percent
 of the platted lakeshore lot area around Island Lake, mostly in areas along
 the northwest  shoreline.   Dusler and Blackhoof soils are uncommon on plat-
 ted  lakeshore lots  around  Sturgeon, Rush,  or Passenger  lakes.   However,
 relatively  large  areas of  these soils  are found adjacent  to  platted lots
 along the northwest shore of Sturgeon Lake.

 Sandy Soils

      Soils with  sandy substrata  predominate  in the  southern half  of  the
 surveyed area.   The sandy  soils  identified in  the survey  are  the Omega,
 Nemadji, and  Newson  series.   A  special  classification termed Lake Beach
 soil was also made in the southern portion of the surveyed  area.

 Omega Loamy Sand

      The Omega series  consists  of nearly level to  very steep,  somewhat ex-
 cessively -drained,  rapidly  permeable  soils  that  were  formed from sandy
 glacial outwash  materials.   These soils  have convex to concave  slopes  on
 glacial outwash plains and  moraines.

      Septic  tank absorption  systems  operate  very  well   in  Omega  soil.
 However,  the  SCS  rates Omega  soil as  having  severe limitations  for soil
 absorbtion  systems   because this  soil   may  occasionally  have   excessive
-drainage (high  permeability).    This rating  is -due  to  the potential  for
 wastewater  to pass  through  Omega  soils  too quickly  for  proper treatment  to
 occur,  thereby causing adjacent wells to  become contaminated.   The chances
 of such contamination  occuring  can be minimized by  not  locating  absorption
 fields  on  Omega  soils -dominated  by  very  coarse  sand or by replacing  the
 coarse  sand by fine  sand  or loam.

      Omega  loamy sand  is the predominant  soil in the southern half of  the
 survey  area.  Around  Island Lake  approximately 8% of  the platted  lakeshore
 lot area is mapped  as Omega soil, while Omega  covers approximately 20%  of
 the platted shore  area of Sturgeon Lake.   The  estimated  proportion of Omega
 soil  mapped on  the  platted  lakeshore  lot  area around  Rush and  Passenger
 lakes is  much  higher; 85% and 50% respectively.

                              B-4-6

-------
 Nemadji Loamy Sand  and  Newson Mucky Sandy Loam

      The Nemadji series consists of  nearly level,  somewhat poorly-drained,
 rapidly permeable  soils  that were  formed in  sandy  glacial  outwash mate-
 rials.   These  soils have  slightly  convex to  slightly  concave  slopes  on
 glacial outwash plains.

      The Newson  series  consists of  nearly level, poorly and  very  poorly
•drained,  rapidly permeable  soils that were formed  mostly  from sandy glacial
 outwash materials.   These  soils have  linear  to concave  slopes located  on
 glacial outwash plains.

      Nemadji  and Newson soils are  rated  by SCS as having "severe" limita-
 tions for the operation of  septic  tank absorption systems  because  of poor
 drainage and  the presence of  a  high  water table.   There  is little that can
 be  done to engineer conventional  absorption  systems  to  work  properly  in
 these two  soils unless  the drainage characteristics of a  site can be physi-
 cally altered .

      Nemadji  and  Newson soils  are mapped  on a  small proportion of the total
 surveyed  area  and  a  small proportion  (approximately 1%)  of  the  platted
 lakeshore  lot area  around Island Lake.  A small proportion of the land area
 with  platted   lots  around  Sturgeon Lake  also  is mapped  as  Nemadji  soil;
 Newson  soil was  not found   near Sturgeon Lake.   Nemadji and  Newson soils
 were  not  mapped  in  significant areas  around  Rush   and  Passenger  lakes.

 Lake  Beach

      Lake  Beach soil consists of a nearly level, very poorly to moderately
 well  -drained,  moderately  to  rapidly permeable  soil  that  was formed  in
 recent  to rather old  sandy deposits adjacent  to  lakes.   The  formation  of
 this  soil resulted   from the action of water and  ice and the  higher  lying
 parts of  this soil  are a result  of  historically higher lake  levels.

      Lake  Beach  soil  has  not  been  formally   recognized  by  the  Minnesota
 Cooperative Soil  Survey, and therefore it  has no SCS  soil  absorption  system
                               B-4-7

-------
 limitation rating.  The characteristics of  Lake Beach soil relative to the
 operation  of  septic tank absorption  systems  may vary considerably from site
 to site.   It  can be  stated  however, that  on Lake  Beach soil with  good
-drainage,  an  absorption system will  probably operate well from  the stand-
 point  of  percolation.   It is estimated that Lake Beach soil is mapped  on
 roughly  20% of the  platted  lakeshore lot  area around Sturgeon Lake, 10%  of
 the  platted area  around Rush Lake,  and  50% around  Passenger Lake.  Lakes
 Beach  soil is  uncommon  along  the  shores of Island  Lake.

 Other  Soils

     Three miscellaneous soil  types also were identified -during  the  soil
 survey.  Organic  soil is the major  type  in   this  category.   Small  areas  of
 Altered  and Alluvial soils also were  Identified.

 Organic  Soil

     Organic  soil  consists of very poorly-drained,  nearly level soil  with
 slow to  moderately rapid permeability.  It  is formed from the  slightly  to
 highly -decomposed  remains  of a variety of plants.  Organic  soil was found
 primarily  in-depressions on glacial  moraines and  outwash plains.   Some  of
 these-depressions  were  formerly small lakes.

     Soil  absorption systems will not operate properly  in  Organic  soil-due
 to poor  -drainage  and the presence of a high  water  table.  Because Organic
 soils  also  possess significant limitations to construction, very  few-dwell-
 ings are located on this soil inside  the surveyed  area.

     Organic  soil  is mapped  on  approximately 20% of  the total  surveyed
 area,  but   is  mapped  on less that  5% of the platted  lakeshore lot  area
 around each of the four lakes.   Large areas  of  Organic soil are  found  in
 the wetlands   to  the northwest  of Sturgeon Lake  (surrounding a  100  to 120
 acre bog),  and in  a  60  acre  wetland  Immediately adjacent  to  the northeast
 shore  of Rush  Lake.
                              B-4-8

-------
 Altered  and  Alluvial  Soils

      Altered soil  was Identified  in the soil survey where natural soils had
 been altered by cutting and  filling.   Most altered  soils  were found adja-
 cent to  the lakeshore in  or near  areas of Duluth  soils,  in  the northern
 portion  of the  surveyed area.   Altered  soils may exhibit a range of absorp-
 tion system performances  -depending on  the -degree  of compaction  and  the
 nature  of the fill materials.  Altered soils are mapped on less than 5% of
 the platted  lakeshore lot area around  both Island and  Sturgeon Lakes.   No
 Altered  soils were  identified around Rush and  Passenger lakes.

      Alluvial  soil consists  of sandy  and  loamy soils  that were  formed  in
 alluvium (material-deposited  by rivers).   Such soil  is usually flooded  one
 or  more  times  each  year,  and  if  this  is  the case  would  not provide  an
 acceptable site medium for soil absorption systems.   Although limited areas
 having Alluvial  soil  were Identified  in the soil survey,  this  soil was  not
 found in significant  amounts on the  platted  lakeshore lot  areas.

      B-4.2.  Soil Texture

      The SCS  Soil Survey of  Carlton  County, Minnesota  (1978)  contains
 particle size-distribution (texture)-data for many soils of  the same series
 found in the surveyed area.  Particle  size-distributions were  measured  for
 six  representative  soils sampled  in the  surveyed  area in order  to  ensure
 that  the textural  classifications were  consistent with the  classifications
made  for Carlton  County.   Any significant differences  in soil  texture will
be  considered  in  the -development  of  wastewater management alternatives.

Testing Methodology

     Soil particles are  the-discrete units  which  make  up the solid  portion
of  soils.  The relative proportions of the -different sized  particles of a
soil  are  relatively  stable  and  can  be used  as  a basis  to -determine  the
agricultural  and engineering  properties of  particular  soils.  When  quanti-
fied, the proportions of  these  particles are termed  'particle  size distri-
butions'  .
                             B-4-9

-------
      Particle size -distributions are commonly  represented  by the relative
 mass proportions  (percentage  by weight)  of soil  particles less  than  or
 equal to a  given  particle -diameter.  The  proportions  are measured by phy-
 sical fractionation  procedures,  usually  in  a  two step  process.   To frac-
 tionate the larger-diameter soil particles, a soil sample is passed through
 a series  of  sieves  with -decreasing mesh sizes, each  sieve successively
 letting soil  particles pass  through the mesh  openings  of  known -diameter.
 The  fractions of  clay  and  silt are then measured by mixing what has passed
 through the smallest sieve  size  with water and  measuring the change in the
•density of  the water  over time as the suspended  particles settle.  The rate
 of change in -density is related to  the size of  the particles  by an empi-
 rical mathematical relationship.

 Comparison  of Sample  Testing Results with Regional Soil Survey Data

      Particle size distributions reported in  the SCS Carlton  County Soil
 Survey  were  compared  to  the  analytical results  for six Pine  County soil
 samples  (Table B-i ) •    The Pine County  soil  samples were found  to  have
 particle size -distributions  which   indicate  a   somewhat finer  texture  of
 soils than  those  reported  for the  same soil types  in the  Carle ton County
 Soil Survey.  In  the loamy  soils examined, the  percent of material passing
 through a number  200 seive  (all the  clay, silt and  part of  the  very fine
 sand) exceeded  the  upper limit of  the estimated  range presented  in  the
 Carlton County survey.  Based  on these results,  it  was  concluded that the
 Duluth  and   Dusler soils in the  project area are more silty  and  clayey  in
 texture than those in  Carlton County, and  thus  could pose greater constra-
 ints to the-design of soil absorption systems.

      The particle size distribution-data  can be further  analyzed to-deter-
 mine whether the  observed fraction  of fine particles would  actually limit
 the  use of   septic  tank absorption  fields in  the surveyed area.   The hydro-
 meter tests  that  were performed  on  the  portion of the  soil  sample which
 passed  through the smallest mesh size can be used  to -distinguish the per-
 cent clay and  the  percent silt of the sample  (by weight).  The remainder  is
 made up of   sand of varying  size-distributions.   The  individual clay, silt,
 and  sand fractions of  each  sample  can then be interrelated  to classify the
                                 B-4-io

-------
         Table  B-2.    Comparison  of particle  size  distribution  data  from  the Carl ton  County  Soil  Survey (SCS 1978)
                         with particle size distribution data obtained  from  testing                soil samples  taken
                         during the  soil  survey  of a  portion of Windemere Township  (Finney 1981).
CO
I
Soil Type
1 Duluth Loam
2 Duluth Loam
Duluth Loam
4 Duluth Variant
^Dusler Loam
°0raega Loamy Sand
Horizon
B22t
B22t
83
IIB3
D21t
B31
Depth
of
sample
22"-36"
18"-38"
49"-60"
52"-60"
17"-28"
22"-38"
Percent of sample
passing 14 sieve (4.7mm)
Carlton Cty. Windemere Tn.
95 -
95 -
95 -
95 -
95 -
100
100
100
100
100
100
100"
100
99
99
96
Percent of sample
passing 110 sieve (2.0mm)
Carlton Cty. Windemere Tn
85
85
85
85
90
- 98
- 98
- 98
- 98
- 100
100
99
100
99
98
94
•Percent of
passing 040
Carlton Cty.
85
85
85
85
70
- 95
- 95
- 95
- 95
- 90
sample Percent of sample
sieve (0.42mm) passing 1200 sieve |
Windemere Tn. Carlton Cty. Hinder]
98
98
99
97
96
S3
55
55
55
55
2
- 75
- 75
- 75
- 75
- 10
81
87
91
82
81
4
                              1Sample taken near north shore of  Island Lake.

                            ^'•'Sample taken near north shore of  Sturgeon Lake.

                            -" ^Sample taken near northwest shore of Sturgeon Lake.  Not recognized as a soil  series in the
                              Carlton County Soil  Survey published by the US  Soil Conservation Service.  Substratum of the
                              Duluth Variant was observed to be similar in texture to Duluth Loam.

                              *Sam(kle taken near northwest shore of Sturgeon Lake.

                              ^Sample taken near west shore of Passenger Lake.

-------
soil.   These -data are  of  interest because silt is  much more hydraulically
conductive  than  clay  and  the  relative  fractions  of  both  must be  known
before  it can be  concluded  that soils are tight enough to pose limitations
for  the use of septic  absorption fields.   In general,  a high clay fraction
indicates poor septic  absorption field  performance regardless of  silt  or
sand  content.   Conversely, a high silt content  indicates good  septic  leac-
hate  field  performance if clay  content is moderate to  low.   Additionally,
the  silt/clay  fractions can be  used  to-determine  whether the clay and  silt
content is  too  low to provide adequate treatment of  septic leachate.

      The  USDA  (1980)  -definition  of  silt  includes those  soil  particles
within  the -diameter  range of 0.002 millimeters  to 0.05 millimeters.  Using
the  particle size -distribution  graphs  (Appendix  B-3 to  interpolate within
these-diameters the  silt weight  fraction  can be-determined.   USDA-defines
clay  as particles of less than  0.002 millimeters in -diameter.   The weight
fraction  of  the material  finer than this-diameter  also  can be-determined  by
interpolating  from  the graphs  in Appendix  A.   The percent  by weight  of
silt,  clay, and   sand  in six soil  samples  were  estimated and  classified
based  on the  above  -definitions  (Table B-3 ).  The  soil textural  classes
presented  in the  soil survey (Appendix A)  characterize only the  surface
horizon.  Samples  from-deeper horizons  must  be  analyzed  and  classified for
the  substratum.   The  six  soil  samples  tested  for this report were  from
horizons  which ranged  from  17  to 60  inches  in  -depth.    These  horizons are
being  classified  because  soil   characteristics  at  that depth  range are
important to  the  performance of  septic absorption fields.  The silt,  clay,
and  sand  fractions  for the  six  samples were plotted  on the Textural  Tri-
angle presented  in Figure B-2 and  the  resultant substratum classifications
were  compared  with  the descriptions of  those horizons which were  made  in
the field (Table B-3 ) .

     Comparison  of  the six  substratum classifications  with -descriptions
made  in the field indicates that  the  soils of the Duluth and Dusler series
which were  mapped  in Windemere  Township had  higher  than  expected  clay  con-
tent at -depth.   Mditionally,  the relatively fine texture of these  sampled
horizons  as compared  to  similar  horizons reported  in  the Carlton County
Soil  Survey appears to be  a  result  of the  high clay  content  and not a
                               B-4-12

-------
             Table B-3    Comparison of textural classifications for soil samples taken during the soil survey
                          of a portion of Windemere Township.
oo
i
                                                                                                2 Textural Classification
                                        Weight Fractions  by  Percent   xDescription of the Sample     of the Sample Based
1
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
Soil Sample
Duluth loam
Duluth loam
Duluth loam
Duluth variant
loamy find sand
Dusler loam
Omega sandy
loam
Horizon
B22t
22"-36"
B22t
18"-38"
B3
49"-60"
IIB3
52"-60"
B21t
17"-28"
B31
22"-38"
Silt
37%
43%
51%
48%
33%
3%
Clay
43%
44%
37%
31%
48%
2%
Sand Based on Field Observation
20% loam, near clay loam
13% loam, near clay loam
12% loam
\
21% clay loam, near loam
19% clay loam
95% sand and coarae sand
on Weight Fraction by %
clay
silty clay
silty clay loam
clay loam
clay
sand
                           1 Samples of the various horizons were examined in the field and the classifications
                            reported on in the soil survey by Finney (1981).
                           n
                           ^Textural classifications were made based on the weight fractions of silt, clay, and sand
                            as determined from particle size distribution data and based on application of the weight
                            fraction data to the Textural Triangle as developed by UBDA (1962).

-------
      Figure B-2.
               Textural triangle of soil particle  fractions  for  the
               classification of soil samples.   Sample locations
               are indicated by an asterix.   Textural triangle is
               from USDA references (1962).
                                90
Sand
Percent Clay
  by Weight
                                                    50
                                Percent  Silt
                                  by Weight
                                                      .60
                                                         70
                                                            80
                                                              90
        90   80
70   60   50    40    30

  Percent Sand by Weight
                                                          10
             Sample  1; Duluth loam, 22"-36", B22t
             Sample  2; Duluth loam, 18"-38", B22t
             Sample  3; Duluth loam, 49"-60", B3
             Sample  A; Duluth variant, 52"-60", IIB3
             Sample  5; Dusler loam; 17"-28", B21t
             Sample  6; Omega loamy sand,  22-38", B31
                                                        See Table B-3
                                                        for classifications
                            B-4-U

-------
result of high  silt  content (except in  the  Duluth Variant loamy fine sand
sample where no comparison is possible).

     The -degree to which  the six substratum  samples  represent all compar-
able horizons on  the  mapped areas of Duluth  and  Dusler soils has not been
established.  It  appears,  however,  that substratum textural limitations to
the use of  septic absorption fields in  the  surveyed  portion of Windermere
Township may  be more restrictive  than  would be  expected  based  on typical
soils classification -definitions.
                                  B-4-15

-------
                  Appendix C
C-l.     Methods and  Results of  the Septic Leachate Survey.


C-2.     Well Testing Data
                                                                                c
                                                                                o
                                                                                to
                                                                                e
                                                                                n
                                                                                o
                                                                               14-1
                                                                                60
                                                                                c
                                                                               •H
                                                                               4-1
                                                                                CO
                                                                                0)
                                                                               H
                                                                               •a
                                                                               c
                                                                               CO
                                                                               ct)
                                                                               XI
                                                                               o
                                                                               CO
                                                                               0)
                                                                               a.
                                                                               a>
                                                                               en
                                                                               PL,

                                                                               51

-------
              Appendix C-l.
METHODS AND RESULTS OF THE SEPTIC LEACHATE SURVEY

-------
            Methods


     The Septic  Leachate Detector System's operational  functions  are out-
lined  in the  following  description,  excerpted  from  the  manufacturer's

operations manual:


     •    The ENDECO  Type 2100  Septic  Leachate Detector  System  is  a
          portable  field  instrument that  monitors  two  parameters;
          fluorescence  (organic  channel)  and  conductivity (inorganic
          channel).   The system  is  based  on  a stable  relationship
          between  fluorescence  and  conductivity in  typical  leachate
          outfalls.   Readings for   each  channel  appear  visually  on
          panel meters  while the information  is recorded on  a self-
          contained strip chart recorder.   Recording modes are  select-
          able between  individual channel outputs  or  a  combined  out-
          put.   The  combined output is  the arithmetic  result of  an
          analog  computer circuit   that  sums  the  two  channels  and
          compares  the   resultant signal  against  the  background  to
          which  the  instrument was  calibrated.  The  resultant output
          is expressed  as a  percentage  of the  background.  Also,  the
          combined recorded  output  is automatically adjusted for slow
          background changes.  The system can be operated from  a small
          boat enabling  an operator  to  continuously scan an expansive
          shoreline at  walking  pace  and,  through  real time  feedback,
          effectively  limit   the  need  for  discrete  grab samples  to
          areas showing high  probability of effluent leaching.   Expen-
          sive  laboratory  time   for detailed   nutrient  analysis  is
          greatly reduced while  survey  accuracy is increased substan-
          tially. ..

     •    The Septic Leachate Detector  System  consists of the  subsur-
          face  probe,   the water intake  system,  the logic analyzer
          control unit,  panel meters and the  strip chart recorder...

     •    The probe/wand is submerged along the shoreline.  Background
          water  plus  groundwater seeping through the  shore  bottom is
          drawn into the  subsurface  intake  of  the  probe and  is lifted
          upwards to the  analyzer unit  by a battery operated,  submer-
          sible pump...

     •    Upon entering  the  analyzer unit  the  solution  first passes
          through the fluorometer's  optical chamber where a continuous
          measurement is  made of the solution's narrow  band response
          to UV excitation.  The  solution then  flows through a  conduc-
          tivity measurement   cell.    An   electrode-type  conductivity/
          thermistor  probe  continuously  determines  the  solution's
          conductivity.    The  solution  exits   the  conductivity  cell
          directly  to   the discharge where  discrete  samples  may  be
          collected  if   indicated by the  response  of   the  leachate
          detector.   Both parameters are  continuously  displayed  on
          separate  panel  meters.    Zero  controls  are  provided  for  both
                               C-l-1

-------
          parameters  (organic and  inorganic)  to enable "dialing out"
          the  background characteristics  to provide maximum sensiti-
          vity,  as well  as  enhancing  the  response caused  by  a sus-
          pected  abnormality.   Span  controls  are also  provided  to
          control  the sensitivity  for  each  parameter separately during
          instrument calibration...
     •    The  signals generated  and displayed on  the panel meters are
          also  sent  to  an arithmetic/comparator analog computer cir-
          cuit designed  to detect  changes in the ratio  of  organics and
          inorganics  typical of septic  leachate.   The  output of this
          circuitry  is  recorded  continuously  on a strip chart and is
          the key  indicator  of a suspected  leachate outfall.  However,
          isolated  increases  in  either  parameter may be  cause for
          concern  and should be  sampled for analysis for  other poten-
          tial forms of  nutrient pollution.

     The magnitude of  the signal  outputs and  of the synthesized "combined
output"  when detecting  an  effluent plume  is  subject  to  many non-instru-
mental  factors related  to  variable dilution  of effluents  in  lake water.
Interference  with the  survey could potentially be caused  by  overland or
sub-surface  flow of  water bearing  large amounts of organic  substances  such
as would be  the case with barnyard  runoff or with water moving out of a bog
or marsh.   Additionally, rapidly  changing  wind conditions may change the
ambient  water quality  of  the lake  by introducing waters from the deeper
zones  of  the lake which also  contain  large amounts of organic substances.
Therefore,  detailed  field  notes  and  subsequent map analysis  of recorded
data  are necessary parts  of  the  survey  design.   Expert  interpretive  ana-
lysis  is  required to deduce  the significance  of an increase in  instrument
signal output under such changing  conditions.

     The  Septic  Leachate Survey  of Island,  Sturgeon,  Rush, and Passenger
lakes  was completed  during  the  period of  2-9  October  1981.   The survey
covered  the  developed shorelines  of  Sturgeon,  Island,  Rush, and Passenger
lakes  and was conducted from  a  12 foot boat with  a 20 horsepower outboard
motor.   The  boat was operated at  its  lowest speed (approximately 0.5  to  1
mph)  as  near as  possible to  the  shore.   An electrically powered trolling
motor  was used  in waters too  shallow  for the outboard motor.  Dense colo-
nies  of   emergent aquatic plants  occasionally prevented  scanning  along  a
course closely parallel  with the  shoreline.   Paths  leading through these
dense  stands to  mooring areas near  houses were  utilized to approach the
shore  for  surveying  such areas.   Sampling  was always performed as close as
                                 C-1.-2

-------
possible  to  the shoreline  to minimize  the effects  of  dilution and wave/
current disruption of emergent effluent plumes.

     During  scans  the  detector's meters  were adjusted  to  maximum sensi-
tivity.   Adjusting  the  meters to maximum sensitivity  requires  a greater
emphasis on operator real-time interpretation  of recorded signals, but also
increases the likelihood of detection of effluent plumes.

     During  most  scans  the  instrument  was set to  record data on the com-
bined  signal  output  mode.   This  setting  provides  automatic  adjustment for
changing  background   levels   of   fluorescence  or  conductivity,  but  still
records  the  short-term  increases indicative  of localized  sources such as
effluent plumes.  It  also  permits the operator to pay greater attention to
observing possible sources and to recording observations.   Prior to scann-
ing  the  shoreline, the instrument was calibrated by  recording fluorescence
along  a  transect  to  mid-lake (no  signal expected  above  background)  and
along  a  developed shoreline  (varying signals  expected) .  These calibration
checks enable the instrument to  be used throughout the  entire lake without
futher adjustment, and  thus  allows relative comparisons to  be made between
plume readings.

     One particularly  useful  feature  of  the  Septic  Leachate Detector for
sample  collection  is   the  nearly  instantaneous  flow-through  and  signal
recording of water samples.   This feature  provides for  precise location of
a  plume's  center  and  recording   of  the  sample's fluorescence  or combined
signal as it is being collected.  After effluent plumes  were  located, water
quality samples were collected from the meter's discharge.   In the labora-
tory these samples were analyzed  for:

     •    Nitrate,  nitrite, and ammonia nitrogen
     •    Total  phosphorus,  pH,  alkalinity, and Methylene Blue Active
          Substances
     •    Fecal  coliform bacteria concentration.

     For most  samples,  analysis of all parameters  except  fecal coliform
bacteria was begun within  24 hours at  the WAPORA,  Inc.  Cincinnati labora-
tory.  One group of  samples  arrived 3 days late at  the lab, exceeding the
                               C-l-3

-------
recommended  holding  time.  Although  the  recommended  time was  exceeded,  this
delay  is not  expected  to have  altered  the  levels of  total nitrogen and
total  phosphorus  measured  in  the  samples.   Analyses of  fecal  coliform
samples  were begun within 6 hours of collection at  ERA Laboratories,  Inc.,
in Duluth, Minnesota.

     Selection  of  suspected  wastewater  plumes for sampling  was a  field
decision  weighed  in favor of the most  concentrated plumes and  intended to
identify  those shoreline  areas  most seriously  affected  by  the influx of
septic leachate.

             Results  of the Septic Leachate  Survey

     Two  sources  of positive instrument  readings  were detected during the
leachate  survey:  streams and suspected wastewater  plumes.  The  locations of
these  sources are  shown  in  Figures 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, and 2-9.     A  positive
instrument  reading was recorded when,   in  the judgement  of  the  operator,
there  was a  significant  and simultaneous  increase in the flouescence and
conductivity readings.

Streams
     A  single runoff  water  source was  found to  be  discharging into Rush
Lake.   No  runoff water sources were found discharging into  Passenger Lake.
The  two tributaries  of  Island Lake produced positive combined signals on
the leachate detector.  Intermittent localized stormwater runoff sources to
Island  Lake  and Sturgeon  Lake also  produced  positive  responses.  These
positive signals were always generated  by  rapid increases  in  fluorescence
accompanied  by  relatively  lessor  increases  in  conductivity.  The highest
such  readings recorded were  generated  by  runoff waters entering  Sturgeon
Lake  from  a  long narrow wetland,  the  mouth of which  is  located between
groundwater  flow stations  24  and  A3.    -            These high  readings
appeared to be caused  by the flourescent products  of vegetative decay which
were  being released  from  the  wetland.   Runoff  or stream  sources of dis-
solved  organic  matter, because of their considerable volume,  are  not as
readily diluted  by  lake water  as are  septic leachate plumes and therefore
                               C-l-4

-------
may cause  interference  problems  in locating nearby septic leachate plumes.
High  flourescence  and conductivity readings resulting  from stream sources
caused  interference  difficulties with effluent plume data along the north
shore  of   Island  Lake  and  near  the  public launch on  the north  shore of
Sturgeon Lake.

     Wave action and currents also may cause localized variations in flour-
escence sometimes  resulting  in a natural pattern resembling closely spaced
septic plumes.  Misinterpretation from this interference source was avoided
by  observing  the  uniformity of  conductivity  measurements and  spacing of
lakeshore development, then disregarding detector readings obviously caused
by wave action patterns.

Suspected Wastewater Sources

     All  non-stream  related  localized  variations  in  fluorescence and/or
conductivity recorded by the leachate detector were initially assumed to be
due to  wastewater  percolating  into the  lake from nearby on-site wastewater
systems.   Typically,  such  signals  were highly localized (brief in duration
and low in magnitude)  compared  to stream plumes.  Along shorelines exposed
to moderate wave action,  the magnitude of these signals was generally  less
because of rapid dispersion by currents.  Under calm conditions, the magni-
tude  and  duration  of the  signals  tended to be greater  because the plumes
were less rapidly dispersed.

     The number of potential effluent plumes identified by this survey  were
not evenly distributed  around the  lakes.  Plume emergence  appeared  to be
strongly controlled  by  factors such as  land use, topography, and lakeshore
groundwater flow patterns (Figures 2-6 through 2-9) >

     A total  of  39 potential septic plumes were detected, which represents
less than  10% of  the residences  along surveyed shorelines.  During identi-
fication of the  17 suspected septic leachate  plumes  around  Sturgeon Lake,
the strengths  of the instrument  signals were lessened by the water currents
created by the high winds prevailing at  the time of the survey.  Therefore,
some additional weak or more transient  plumes may not have been located on
Sturgeon Lake  due to these high winds.
                               C-l-5

-------
     Not  all plumes  located  at  seasonal  residences were  fully emergent
because  the survey  was conducted  during the  first  week of  October when
seasonal  occupancy  was low.   On  the other hand,  a  considerable amount of
precipitation had  preceded the  survey and would  have generally increased
the  lakeward flow of  groundwater.   Thus,  while  this survey  may not have
located the  septic  leachate plumes from all seasonal homes it probably did
detect  all  lakeward  moving  plumes  generated by   permanent  residences.
Permanent  residences  with on-site systems  have  the greatest  potential
pollutional  significance due  to the fact  that  they  contribute waste flows
year round,  whereas  seasonal  residences only do so for parts of the summer
season.

             Results of the Chemical and Bacterial Analyses

     During  the  onshore portion of the  septic  leachate  survey, background
groundwater  quality  samples were gathered  for  comparison with groundwater
samples taken directly from the centers of onshore effluent plumes.  These
data are presented in Tables C-l, C-2,  and C-3.

     One  small discharge of runoff water was found entering into the north
side of  Rush Lake,  but was not  sampled.   Analytical water quality results
of  influent stream  samples collected  near  the  perimeters of  Island  and
Sturgeon  Lakes are  shown  in TableC-l  .   These  data  indicate that incoming
streams  were not  contaminated by  septic  leachate.   The  relatively high
fecal  coliform  counts made  in samples  of the runoff  and streamwater are
probably  associated  with extensive habitat utilization  by resident water-
fowl  in  backwater areas or with  runoff  from  pastures  or barnyards.  The
stream influence  points and pastures or barnyards are shown in Figures "2-6
through  2-9.

     Nitrate levels   in  runoff or  streams were always  found  to  be below
detection limits.  Total phosphorus also was low and ammonia concentrations
were consistent with  those  to  be expected  from wetland areas where decaying
vegetation is present.
                               C-l-6

-------
Table  C-l.  Analytical  results of water quality samples and  leachate  detector readings  for surface water
             runoff entering Island and Sturgeon Lakes.
                                                                                                      Leachate Detector
                                                                                        Fecal           (Relative Scale)
Chemical Sampling
Station V
C62
0 C73
I
^J C60
C61
C72
C77
085
Background Values

Approximate Nitrate Nitrite Ammonia Phosphorus Alkalinity
Location (mg-N/1) (mg-N/1) (mg-N/1) (mg-P/1) pH (mg/1 CaCO )
— 	 — 	 — 	 	 	 — — j
Island l.ake
Near Flow
Station 16 0.05 0.05 0.24 0.01 6.5 38.2
200 yds. South of
Flow Station 22 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.02 6.6 34.2
At Flow
Station 1 0.05 0.05 0.26 0.01 6.2 50
Near NE Corner of
Lake 0.05 0.05 0.22 0.01 6.6 42
Near Flow
Station 21 0.05 0.05 0.16 0.40 6.5 51.4
Sturgeon Lake
At Wetland, W. of
Public Access 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.01 7.1 52.2
At Stream Mouth,
30U yds. South of
Flow Station 32 0.05 0.05 0.16 0.02 7.0 44.0
Island Lake (center)
Sturgeon Lake (center)
Coliforms
(#/ 100ml) Combined
560 30
70 100
10 100
60 100
50 100
10 100
70 85
0
0
Floures-
cense
35
100
100
100
80
100
100
30
30
Condui
tivi
100
100
100
0
100
100
100
30
30
                        Island I.ake data gathered 7 October 1981, Sturgeon Lake data gathered 8 October 1981.

-------
             Table   C-2.  Analytical  results of water quality  samples and  leachate detector readings  for  the Island Lake
                           survey of septic leachate  plumes.
                                                                                                                             Leachate Detector
o
i
oo
Chemical Sampling Approximate
Station It Location/Tyj>e

C74
C75
C76
(collected

C69
C70
C71
(collected

C63
C64
C65
(collected

C66
C67
C6B
(collected
Background
Near



7 October 1981)
Near



7 October 1981)
Near



7 October 1981)
Near



9 October 1981)
— uncontamlnated
Flow Sta. 23:
Background
Plume
Detector

Flow Sta. 20:
Background
Plume
Detector

Flow Sta. 16:
Background
Plume
Detector

Flow Sta. 19:
Background
Plume
Lake Sample

ground-
Nitrate Nitrite
(mg-N/1) (mg-N/1)

0.06
0.05
0.05


0.05
2.10
0.05


0.05
0.05
0.05


0.12
0.61
0.05

Plume —

0.05
0.05
0.05


0.05
0.05
0.05


0.05
0.05
0.05


0.05
0.05
0.05

contaminated
Total Total
Ammonia Phosphorus Alkalinity
(mg-N/1) (mg-P/1) pH (mg/1 CaCOj

0.17
0.22
0.17


0.23
0.12
0.25


0.26
0.24
0.22


0.09
0.12
0.10

groundwater

0.89
0.87
0.01


1.01
0.29
0.01


0.04
0.93
0.06


0.53
0.49
0.03



6.3
6.6
6.4


6.4
6.2
6.6


6.5
6.1
6.5


6.3
5.9
5.9

Detector —
j^
97.0
130
32.4


74.4
42.4
30.2


47.4
106
36.2


83.0
41.4
22.8

lakewater
Fecal (Relative Scale)
MBAS Coll forms Floures- Conduc-
(mg-LAS/1) (tl 100ml) cense tlvity

10
0.010 40
10


10
0.010 50
10


10
0.035 10
20


350
0.016 2300
10

sample collected

248
313
207


532
802
-


230
1000
-


416
2000
213

Lake Sample •

198
2000
206


463
732
-


341
868
-


558 .
862
270

— lakewi
         water collected onshore in vicinity
         of suspected leachate effluent plume.
collected onshore from leachate
effluent plume.
directly from detector discharge
during period of positive reading.
grab   sample   collected
during period of positive
leachate detector reading.

-------
            Table C-3.   Analytical  results ofi water  quality samples and  leachate detector  readings for  the  Sturgeon,
                          Rush,  and Passenger Lake surveys of 'septic leachate plumes.
o
Chemical Sampling Approximate Nitrate Nitrite
Station // Location/Type (mg-N/1) (mg-N/1)

C78
C7a
C80
(collected

C81
C82
C83
(J84
(collected

C8b
C87
C88
(collected

C89
C90
C91
(collected

C92
C93
C94
(collected
Background
Near Flow Sta. 29
Background
Plume
Detector
8 October 1981)
Near Flow Sta. 33
Background (high)
Background (low)
P lume
Lake sample
8 October 1981)
Near Flow Sta. 45
Background
Plume
Detector
8 October 1981)
Near Flow Sta. 50
Background
Plume
Detector
9 October 1981)
Near Flow Sta. 59
Background
Plume
Lake Sample
9 October 1981)

0.05
0.05
0.05


2.41
0.05
0.05
0.48


0.20
0.05
0.05


0.05
0.05
0.05


0.37
0.52
0.05

— uncontamlnated ground- Plume —

0.05
0.05
0.05


0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05


0.05
0.05
0.05


0.05
0.05
0.05


0.05
0.05
0.05

contaminated
Total Total Fecal (Relative Scale)
Ammonia Phosphorus Alkalinity HBAS Collfonns Floures- Conduc-
(rag-N/1) (mg-P/1) pH (rag/I CaCOj (mg-LAS/1) (iK/lOOml) cense tlvity

0.16
0.11
0.27


0.26
0.19
0.10
0.16


0.26
0.12
0.16


0.19
0.12
0.16


0.10
0.10
0.10

groundwater

0.13
0.31
0.01


0.04
0.01
0.06
0.01


0.13
0.26
0.01


1.54
0.26
0.01


0.14
1.00
0.01



7.1
6.7
7.1


6.8
6.9
6.9
7.0


6.8
6.0
6.8


6.3
6.0
6.3


5.5
6.1
6.7

Detector —

63
51
46


53
45
67
44


62
76
68


43
62
49


28
49
68

j^
.0
.6 0.010
.0


.4
.6
.6 0.010
.2


.0 0.031
.0 0.030
.5


.6
.4 0.010
.7


.0 0.010
.6
.0


10
10
10


10
10
10
10


10
10
10


10
10
10


10
10
10

lakewater sample collected

292
815
-


349
152
573
26


183
478
-


135
2000
74


28
773
135

Lake Sample

301
273
-


418
241
320
279


292
336
-


211
281
236


262
420
230

— lakewi
           water collected onshore In vicinity
           of suspected leachate effluent plume.
collected onshore  from suspected
leachate effluent  plume.
directly from detector discharge
during period of positive reading.
grab   sample  collected
during period of positive
detector reading.

-------
     Analyses of samples collected at locations of nine septic plumes which
were strongly detected  are presented in Tables C-2  and  C-3.   These water
quality  or  "chemical"   sampling  locations  are  depicted  in  Figures  2-6
through -2~9.    Three  subsamples  were  obtained  from  each  sampled plume:

     •    Lake water  collected  either by grab sample or directly from
          the detector  overflow while  the  probe  was  held  within an
          emergent  plume.    (Indicated  as  either  "lake  sample"  or
          "detector" respectively in Tables  C-2  and  C-3.
     •    Groundwater  sampled  on  shore  directly  from  the effluent
          plume center using a portable well point
     •    Groundwater background sample collected  onshore  at  a dis-
          tance from the apparent plume; data used for comparison with
          groundwater plume parameters.

     When  a strong  plume  of probably  septic  origin  was  encountered,  a
sample was  collected  directly from the flow-through outlet of the  leachate
detector.   Groundwater  samples  were collected  at 20-foot  intervals  in a
transect made along the shoreline perpendicular to the  plume flow direction
and a  portion  of  each sample was then injected into the detector to deter-
mine relative levels  of fluorescence and conductivity.  The device used to
collect  the samples  was  a  small-diameter  well point, slotted  along  its
pointed  end,  with  a  hand-operated  pump  attached.  After  identifying  the
approximate  groundwater plume  location,  two  samples  were  collected:  one
from the approximate  plume center and one  from  the  interval characterized
by  the lowest  instrument  readings.   The  latter sample  functioned as  a
measure of groundwater background levels.

     All samples  of groundwater and surface water showed measurable levels
of ammonia  nitrogen (mg-N/1)  which in no  case exceeded a value of 0.30 mg
ammonia  -N/l.   No  significant  differences were  noted in  comparisons of
ammonia concentrations  from  stream  influx, lake  water,  or  groundwater in
plumes.  Thus,  either the on-site  systems  which  were  studied are effect-
ively  transforming  ammonia  to  the  oxidized  nitrogen form,  nitrate,  or
ambient ammonia nitrogen levels in surface waters were seasonally  high due
to  the decomposition  of  plant  material  of  the  fall season.   If higher
ammonia levels  had  been detected  in groundwater or  in  plumes emerging into
the  lake  than in  runoff  or streams, this  would  have  indicated rapid off-
                               C-l-10

-------
shore transport  of  incompletely treated leachate.   This  was not the case.
Largely due to  the  probable presence of naturally  elevated ammonia levels
during  the  fall survey,  data are  inconclusive  with  regard to the pollu-
tional significance of ammonia from on-site systems.

     Fecal  coliforms were  detected  at all  four of  the suspected septic
plume water quality  sampling stations on Island Lake.  Measurable coliform
counts also were found  in the onshore groundwater leachate  plumes at samp-
ling stations C67,  C70,  and C75.   The  fecal  coliform count of  2,300 orga-
nisms  per milliliter  (C67)  reported for  the  groundwater  plume   at flow
station 19 could have  indicated the  presence of septic leachate.  However,
the  data  are  insufficient  to preclude the possibility of  non-human fecal
material being the source of the organisms that were found.  Dogs or water-
fowl can  also  introduce  fecal coliform organisms into  the soil  surface and
water table aquifer through their fecal material.  A background  groundwater
sample collected at  a  distance from  the plume  center  (C66) also contained
measurable fecal coliforms, as  did  the sample  (C65)  which was collected
from the detector overflow.  Fecal coliforms in the  latter sample were very
low  in  concentration and  therefore not clearly associated with  the suspec-
ted plume.

     Except for the  stream  sample  (C85)  described earlier, none  of the
Sturgeon Lake  samples contained measurable fecal coliform counts.  No fecal
coliforms  were   found  in  the  groundwater  samples   collected  at  Rush and
Passenger  Lakes.  One  of  the  samples  collected from  Rush  Lake  via the
detector  overflow  had  a  measurable,  but very  small coliform count; thus,
the sample was not clearly associated with the suspected  plume.

     Nitrite concentrations  in  all samples were  below the  limit of detec-
tion  (0.05  mg -N/l).  Nitrites in measurable  quantities could have been
present  in the  samples   collected  on 9 October  1981, but  the acceptable
holding time  for this  group of samples was exceeded by 3 days.  Three days
is  sufficient  time  for  nitrites to  transform  to nitrates  via oxidation.

     Nitrate levels in the samples were consistently low  and of  an order of
magnitude which naturally occurs in  groundwater  not contaminated by human
                                C-l-11

-------
activities.   The highest detected concentration,  2.4 mg -N/l, was  found* in
a groundwater background sample collected hear a  suspected  septic  plume in
Sturgeon Lake.   It  was  evident  that during the time of  the survey,  elevated
concentrations  of  nitrate  were not being introduced to  any of the lakes.

     In  general,  phosphorus concentrations  measured   in  samples  taken in
suspected  on-shore effluent  plumes  were high  (Tables  C-2 and C-3).    Se-
veral  values measured  over  1.0  mg  total dissolved  P  per  liter  with the
highest  value  measured at  1.5 mg  total dissolved  -P  per  liter  in the
groundwater  plume.  The  observed  low  levels  of  this  nutrient  in samples
collected  from  these   plumes at  their  points  of  emergence  into  the  lake
(called  "detector" sample  in Tables C-2 and C-3)    indicates that a  large
percentage of the phosphorus  of human origin was being  removed by the  soil,
precluding  entry to the lake.  The  total -P data indicate  little  signifi-
cant influx  of  phosphorus from the suspected plumes during  the time of the
su rvey.

     The pH range  of all  samples measured  in the laboratory  was 5.5 to 7.1,
with only  three values lower than 6.0.   The highest and lowest total  alka-
linity  values,   130 and 23 mg/1 CaCO  ,  respectively, were found in Island
Lake.

     Methylene  Blue Active  Substances  (MBAS)  are  those organic substances
which form a  quantitative reaction product with methylene blue which can be
measured by a standard  analytical method.  The MBAS of  most  significance to
water quality is linear alkylate sulfonate  (LAS), which is  an anionic sur-
factant  used  to  make  detergents and  other  cleaning products.   High  MBAS
concentrations  are indicative  of  detergent contamination.   Ten  samples,
mostly from suspected wastewater plumes,  were analyzed  for MBAS.  Only four
of the  samples  showed  detectable levels,  and  these  levels do not  indicate
significant detergent contamination.
                              C-l-12

-------
             Appendix C-2.
WELL-WATER QUALITY DATA FOR PINE AND CARLTON
          COUNTIES, MINNESOTA

-------
              Well-water quality  data for Pine and Carlton Counties.   Information
              was obtained  in  1979,  1980 and 1981 (Minnesota Department of Public
              Health, unpublished).
                                       1979
                            Static
Well              Well      Water       Nitrates
Number   County   Depth(ft)   Level(ft)   (mg/1)
Caliform
Bacteria(MPN)
Specific
Conductivity
(Umhos/cm)
Fluoride
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

13
14
15
16
17
"Q
o
C
C
c
p
p
p
c
p
c
c

p
p
p
p
c
94
52
90
117
210
' 145
112
105
62
155
300
175

80
95
66
60
64
42
26
42
6
15
32
28
24
14
21
92
10

45
33
8
8
14
^0.4
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
5.3
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4

<0.4
3.0
< 0.4
< 0.4
< 0.4
<2.2
16.0
9.2
<2.2
<2.2
<2.2
-<2.2
<2.2
<2.2
<1.0
<2.2
>2.0
<2.2
<2.2
<2.2
<2.2
<2.2
<2.2
                                                          resainpled
                                        C-2-T

-------
            Well-water quality data for Pine and Carlton Counties (continued)
                                   1980
                             Static                              Specific
Well                Well     Water                 Caliform      Conductivity  Fluoride
Number   County   Depth(ft)  Level(ft)  Nitrates   Bacteria(MPN)  (vmhos/cm)     mg/1
  18       P        155        36         <0.4        <2.2            190       0.10
  19       P         50        14         <0.4        <2.2            350       0.15
  20       P         95        32         <0.4        <2.2            480       0.14
  21       P         90        16         <0.4        <2.2            330       0.12
  22       P         91        13         <0.4        <2.2            320       0.10
  23       P         80        15         <0.4        <2.2            170       0.12
  24       C        185        25         <0.4        <2.2            300       0.24
  25       C        170        52         <0.4        <2.2            300       0.20
  26       PA        95        50         <0.4        <2.2            370       0.14
  27       P        230        33         <0.4        <2.2            230       0.22
  28       P         43        10         <0.4        <2.2            270       0.14
  29       P         50        11         <0.4        <2.2            320       0.18
  30       P        163        56          0.72       <2.2            370       0.20
  31       P        275        18         <0.4        <2.2            340       0.13
  32       P         50         4         <0.4         2.2            190       0.10
            ^                              	        <2.2 resampled  240       0.10
  33       P        300        66         <0.4        <2.2            300       0.62
  34       P        125       100         <0.4        <2.2            370       0.26
  35       P        110        45         <0.4        <2.2            190       0.13
  36       P        155        24         <0.4        <2.2            	       0.50
  37       P        144         5         <0.4        <2.2            310       0.13
  38       P        126        27         <0.4        <2.2            300       0.24
  39       P        102        17         <0.4         2.2            240       0.14
                                           	        <2.2 resampled  	       	
  40       P         96        41         <0.4        <2.2            390       0.18
  41       P         90        16         <0.4        <2.2            279       0.12
  42       P         45       	          1.4        >2.0            254       0.12
                                        C-2-2

-------
            Well-water quality data for Pine and Carlton Counties (concluded).
                                    1981
Well
Number
County
           Static                              Specific
  Well     Water                Caliform       Conductivity  Fluoride
Depth(ft)  Level(ft)  Nitrates  Bacteria(MPN)  (vmhos/cm)    mg/1
43
44
45

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
P*
P*
P

P*
P
P
P
P
P
c*
P
c*
P*

P*
P
C
C
138
64
176

105
66
50
113
105
181
538
115
78
125
160
165
171
217
43
24
26
50

21
23
13
41
12
49
77
21
32
28
40
42
35
70
30
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4

<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
0.92
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.88
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
<:0.4
1.1
<2.2
<2.2
5.1
<2.2
<2.2
>2.0
>2.0
<2.2
<2.2
<2.2
<2.2
<2.2
<2.2
>2.0
<2.2
<2.2
<2.2
<2.2
<2.2
                                                                      280
                                                                      280
                                                                      146
                                                           resampled  	
                                                                      300
                                                                      250
                                                                      110
                                                                       0.18
                                                                       0.26
                                                                       0.12

                                                                       0.18
                                                                       0.1
                                                                       0.1
P  = Pine County

P  = Carlton County
*  = indicates well was located in Windemere Township
                                       C-2-3

-------
                                                                            en
               Appendix  D                                                  6

                                                                            4-1
                                                                            CO
                                                                            C
                                                                            0)
                                                                            e
                                                                            CD
                                                                            00
                                                                            V-i
                                                                            a)
                                                                            4-1
                                                                            co

                                                                            0)
Design Criteria and Component  Options  for                              ^
Centralized Wastewater  Management Systems
                                                                            13
                                                                            0)
                                                                            to
                                                                            C

                                                                            s
                                                                            t-l
                                                                            O
                                                                            M-l

                                                                            CO
                                                                            C
                                                                            o
                                                                            •H
                                                                            4-J
                                                                             C
                                                                             d)
                                                                             C
                                                                             o

                                                                             I-
                                                                             o
                                                                            *o

                                                                             CO

                                                                             CO
                                                                            •H
                                                                             M
                                                                             0)
                                                                             4-1
                                                                            •H
                                                                             M
                                                                            O


                                                                             oo
                                                                            •H
                                                                             CO
                                                                             0)
                                                                            O

                                                                             I

                                                                             a

                                                                             x
                                                                             M
                                                                             Q
                                                                             3
                                                                             W
                                                                             (^

                                                                             sz

-------
          Wastewater Load Factors

     Wastewater  flow  projections  for  each  project  alternative  for  the
Island Lake  and Sturgeon  Lake areas were  developed based  on a projected
year 2000 design  population (Section 3.2.1.3), an average  daily base flow
(ADBF) of  45  gallons per  capita  per  day  (gpcd)   for  individual  systems
served by  holding tanks and 60  gpcd for all other  services,  and a design
infiltration of  10 gpcd  for gravity sewers  (based  on  maximum permissible
infiltration rate  of  200  (gallons per  inch-diameter  per mile  per  day).

     The  organic loads were projected on the basis  of  the accepted design
values of  0.17 pounds of BOD  per  capita per day and 0.20 pounds  of sus-
pended solids  (SS)  per  capita  per day (ten state standards).  These values
were applied to the projected year 2000 population.

          Effluent Requirements

     The Minnesota  Pollution Control Agency  (MPCA)  issued  effluent limits
for the City of  Moose Lake wastewater treatment  facility,  as presented in
Section 2.1.

          Economic Factors

     The economic cost  criteria consist of  an amortization  or planning
period from  the present  to the  year 2000, or approximately  20 years;  an
interest rate  of 7.625%, and  service lives of 20 years for treatment and
pumping equipment,  40 years for structures, and  50 years  for conveyance
facilities.  Salvage values were estimated using straight-line depreciation
for items that could be used at the end of the 20-year planning period.  An
annual appreciation  rate  of 3% over  the planning period was used to calcu-
late the salvage  value  of the land.  Operation and maintenance (O&M)  costs
include labor,  materials, and utilities (power).  Costs associated with the
treatment works, pumping  stations,  solids handling and disposal processes,
conveyance  facilities,  and  on-site systems are based  on prevailing rates.
                             D-l

-------
        Costs are based  on  the USEPA  STP Construction Cost  Index of 410.9, the
   USEPA  Complete Urban  Sewer  System  (CUSS)  Construction  Cost Index of 193,
   and  the  Engineering News Record  (ENR) Construction Cost  Index of  3,370 for
   the  first quarter  of  1982   (March  1982  for  Minneapolis  MN).   The total
   capital  cost  includes the initial construction cost plus a service  factor.
   The service factor  includes costs  for engineering, contingencies,  legal and
   administrative,  and  financing.   The  service  factors  used  for  different
   alternative  components  are  summarized  in  Table  D-l.     The economic cost
   criteria are summarized  in Table  D-2.

           System Components

           — Flow and  Waste Reduction-

        Economy in the construction and operation of sewage  collection,  treat-
   ment,  and  disposal  facilities,   is,  in  many  localities,  achieveable  by
   controlling waste flows  or the  amounts of  impurities carried in  the  sewage.
   This  economy  is  generally recognized  in the  short-term monetary  savings
   that  result  from the reduced design capacities  of  facilities or from the
   long-term  savings  realized when  facility  expansion  or  replacement is un-
   necessary.  Other savings can be achieved  throughout the  life of the  facil-
   ities  from reduced  operational  costs.

        Methods  of  flow  and  waste reduction  considered for use  in  the study
   area include water  conservation measures and waste segregation.
Table D-l.   Service factor  .
                             Conventional  Collection   Pressure  Sewer, Cluster,
Item                         and  Treatment System  (%)  and  On-site  Systems  (%)
Contingencies                            10                       15
Engineering                              10                       13
Legal & Administrative                    3                        3
Financing                                 4                        4
     Total                               27                       35
a
 A service factor  is  applied  to  the  construction cost  to  compute  the  capital
 cost.  Interest during  construction is not  included.
          .                             __

-------
Table D-2 .   Economic cost criteria.

Item

Amortization period

Interest (discount) rate

STP construction cost index - 1st Quarter 1982

Sewer (CUSS) construction cost index - 1st Quarter
  1982

ENR construction cost index - 1st Quarter 1982

Service  life
     Equipment
     Structures
     Conveyance facilities
     Land

Salvage  value
     Equipment
     Structures
     Conveyance facilities
     Land
                                                    Units
                                                    years
                                                         years
                                                         years
                                                         years
                                                         years
Value

    20

 7-5/8

 410.9


   193

  3730
    20
    40
    50
permanent
                                                                        0
                                                                       50
                                                                       60
                                                                      103
          — Water Conservation Measures —


     Clean  water has  for many  years  often been  regarded  as one  of the

nation's bountiful  free  goods.   Concerns over water  supply  and wastewater
disposal and  an  increasing   recognition  of  the  benefits that may  accrue

through water conservation are serving to greatly stimulate the development
and  application of  water conservation practices.   The diverse  array of

water conservation  practices  may,  in general, be divided  into these major

categories:


     •    Elimination of non-functional water use

     •    Water-saving devices,  fixtures, and appliances

     •    Wastewater recycle/reuse system.
                                   D-3

-------
     Non-functional  water  use  is typically  the  result of  the following:

     •    Wasteful,  water-use  habits  such  as using a toilet flush to
          dispose of a cigarette butt, allowing the water to run while
          brushing  teeth or shaving, or  operating  a clotheswasher or
          dishwasher with only a partial load

     •    Excessive water supply pressure - for most dwellings a water
          supply pressure  of 40 pounds per square  inch  (psi)  is ade-
          quate  and  a pressure  in excess  of this  can  result  in un-
          necessary  water  use  and wastewater  generation,  especially
          with wasteful water-use habits

     •    Inadequate  plumbing and appliance  maintenance -  unseen or
          apparently  insignificant leaks from  household fixtures and
          appliances  can waste large volumes of  water.   Most notable
          in  this regard  are  leaking  toilets and  dripping faucets.
          For  example,   even a pinhole  leak which may  appear as  a
          dripping  faucet can waste  up  to  170 gallons per  day at a
          pressure of 40 psi.  More  severe  leaks can generate larger
          wastewater quantities.
     The  quantity  of  water  traditionally  used  by household  fixtures  or
appliances often  is considerably greater than actually needed.  Typically,

toilet flushing,  bathing,  and clotheswashing collectively account for over
70% of  the  household's interior water use and waste flow volume (Siegrist,

Woltanski, and Waldorf 1978).  Thus, efforts to accomplish major reductions

in  the  wastewater  flow  volume,  as  well as its  pollutant  mass,  have been

directed  toward  the  toilet  flushing,  bathing,  and  clotheswashing  areas.
Some  selected  water conservation/waste  load reduction  devices and systems

developed for these household activities include:


     •    Toilet  devices and  systems
               Toilet tank  inserts - such as water  filled and weighted
               plastic bottles,  flexible panels,  and/or dams
               Dual-flush toilet devices
               Shallow-trap toilets
               Very low volume flush toilets
               Non-water carriage toilets

     •    Bathing devices and systems
               Shower flow  control devices
               Reduced-flow shower fixtures

-------
     •    Clotheswashing devices and systems of a  clotheswasher  with  a
          suds-saver attachment
               The suds-saver feature is included  as an  optional cycle
               setting  on  several  commercially  made  washers.   The
               selection of suds-saver cycle when  washing  provides  for
               storage of the washwater from the wash  cycle  for  subse-
               quent  use  as  the  wash water  for  the  next wash  load.
               The rinse cycle remains unchanged.

Wastewater Recycle/Reuse Systems
     These  systems  provide for the collection and processing  of  all  house-
hold wastewater  or  the fractions produced by certain activities  for  subse-
quent reuse.  A  system which has received a majority of development efforts
includes  the  recycling   of  bathing  and laundry  wastewater  for flushing
water-carriage toilets  and/or outside irrigation.

Other Water Conservation Measures

     One possible method  for reduction of sewage flow is  the  adjustment  of
the price of water to control consumption.  This method normally  is used  to
reduce water demand  in areas with  water shortages.  It probably would not
be effective in  reducing sanitary sewer flows because much of  its impact  is
usually  on luxury  water  usage,  such as  lawn  sprinkling or  car washing.
None of the luxury uses impose a load on a separated sewerage  system  and  on
on-site systems.  Therefore, the use of price control probably would  not  be
effective  in  significantly  reducing wastewater  flows.   More importantly
most of  homes in the  service  area have their own wells  and  therefore are
not charged for water use.

     Other measures  include  educational  campaigns on water  conservation  in
everyday living  and  the  installation of pressure-reduction  valves in areas
where the  water pressure  is excessive (greater than 60  pounds  per  square
inch).   Educational  campaigns  usually take the form of spot television and
radio commercials,  and the  distribution of leaflets with water and sewer
bills.   Water  saving devices  must continue to be used  and  maintained for
flow reduction to be effective.
                                   D--.5

-------
     Wastewater  flows on the order  of  15  to  30 gpcd can be achieved by in-

stallation of combinations of the  following devices and systems:
     •    Replace  standard  toilets with dual  cycle or other  low volume
          toilets

     •    Reduce  shower water  use by  installing  thennostatic mixing
          valves and  flow control shower heads.  Use of showers should
          be encouraged  rather  than baths whenever possible

     •    Replace  older clotheswashing  machines with  those equipped
          with  water-level  controls  or  with  front-loading machines

     •    Eliminate  water-carried toilet  wastes by use  of in-house
          composting  toilets

     •    Use recycled  bath and laundry wastewaters to sprinkle lawns
          in summer

     •    Recycle  bath  and  laundry  wa.stewaters for  toilet flushing.
          Filtration  and disinfection of bath  and  laundry wastes for
          this purpose has been shown  to be feasible and aesthetically
          acceptable  in  pilot studies (Cohen and Wallman  1974; Mclau-
          ghlin  1968).   This is an alternative to in-house  composting
          toilets  that could achieve the same level of wastewater  flow
          reduction

     •    Commercially available pressurized  toilets and  air-assisted
          shower heads  using a  common air  compressor  of  small horse-
          power  would  reduce  sewage  volume from  these  two  largest
          household sources up  to 90%.
     Methods that  reduce the flow or  pollutant  loads can provide the fol-

lowing benefits to a wastewater management program:


     •    Reduce the  sizes  and capital costs of new  sewage collection
          and treatment  facilities

     •    Delay the  time when future  expansion or replacement facili-
          ties will be needed

     •    Reduce the operational costs of pumping and treatment
                                    D-6

-------
      •    Mitigate  the  sludge and  effluent d-isposal  impacts
      •    Extend  the life of the  existing  soil absorption system  for
           an existing system functioning  satisfactorily
      •    Reduce  the wastewater load sufficiently to  remedy a  failing
           soil absorption  system in  which the  effluent is  surfacing or
           causing backups
      •    Reduce  the size  of  the soil disposal  field in the  case  of
           new on-site systems.  However, the  pretreatment process  of
           the on-site  systems  should  be maintained  at  full-size  to
           provide  the necessary capacity to  treat and attenuate peak
           flows.

           —Waste Segregation—

      Various methods for the treatment and the disposal of domestic wastes
involve  separation  of   toilet  wastes  from other liquid  waste.    Several
toilet systems can be used  to provide for segregation  and  separate  handling
of  human excreta  (often referred  to as  blackwater), and,  in some cases,
garbage  wastes.   Removal  of  human  excreta  from  the  wastewater  serves  to
eliminate  significant  quantities  of  pollutants,  particularly  suspended
solids,  nitrogen, and pathogenic organisms (USEPA  1980a).

      Wastewaters generated  by  fixtures  other  than toilets are  often refer-
red  to  collectively as graywater.   Characterization studies  have demon-
strated  that typical graywater contains  appreciable quantities of  organic
matter,  suspended solids, phosphorus, and grease.  The organic  materials  in
graywater  appear  to  degrade at  a  rate  not  significantly  different  from
those  in combined residential water.   Microbiological studies have demon-
strated  that significant  concentrations of  indicator organisms,  such as
total  and  fecal coliforms,  are typically found  in graywater (USEPA 1980).

     Although  residential  graywater does contain pollutants  and  must be
properly managed,  graywater may be simpler to manage than  total residential
wastewater due to a  reduced flow volume.  A number of potential strategies
for management of  segregated human  excreta  (blackwater)  and graywater are
presented in Figure D-l  and Figure  D-2 , respectively.
                                   D-7

-------
Privy
                                 Human Wastes
Comoosc Toilet
            Disinfection
            Soil  Amendment
Very Low-Volume
  Flush Toilet
Closed Looo
                                                              Sewage
                                                            Treatment
                                                              Plant
Incinerator
  Toilet
   Figure D-l.   Example strategies for the management of segregated human wastes.
                                   D-8

-------
   Soil Absorption
    Alternatives
                                  Further
                                 Treatment
                                                          Surface
                                                           Water
                                                         Discharge
Figure  D-2.
Example  strategies for the  management of residential
greywater.
                           0-9

-------
          —Su mma ry	

     To reduce the waste loads (flow volume and/or pollutant contributions)
generated by a  typical household, an extensive array of techniques, devic-
es,  and systems  are  available.   Because the  per  capita amount  of water
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  and,  thus,  are
not necessary.  Also,  because the efficacy of water conservation is complex
and  must  be  determined on  a  case-by-case basis,  a comprehensive  water
conservation alternative  is  not  proposed in  this  document.  However,  on-
site system alternatives  may include separate treatment strategies for the
graywater and blackwater.   The proposed  treatment for blackwater and gray-
water is described in  Section 2.4.

          Collection System

     Two types  of  collection and conveyance sewer  systems  are  proposed:  a
gravity sewer system and a pressure sewer system.  Both types of collection
systems are briefly described in  the following sections.

         —Gravity Sewer System—

     The gravity sewer system generally consists of gravity  sewers, pumping
stations, and force  mains.   A gravity sanitary sewer carries wastewater by
gravity (downslope) only.  Apart  from pumping facilities sometimes required
at  sewage  treatment  plants,  the  principal  conditions  and  factors necessi-
tating  the use  of  pumping stations  in  the  sewage collection system are as
follows:

     •    The elevation of  the area to be serviced is  too  low to be
          drained  by  gravity to  existing or  proposed  trunk  sewers
     •    Service  is   required  for  areas  outside natural drainage
          areas, but within the sewage or drainage district
     •    Omission of  pumping, although possible, would require exces-
          sive  construction costs  because  of  the  deep  cuts required
          for  the  installation  of a trunk  sewer to drain the area.
                              D-10

-------
     The pumping station pumps wastewater under pressure  through a pipeline
known  as  a force main.   For  the sake of economy,  the  force main profiles
generally conform to existing ground elevations.

     Gravity  sewers that  carry  raw sewage  are called,  in  this  report,
conventional  gravity  sewers.   In  these sewers,  sewage  should  flow with
sufficient velocity  to prevent the  settlement of  solid  matter.  The usual
practice is  to design the sewers so that the slope is sufficient to ensure
a minimum velocity of  2 feet per second  (fps) with flow at one-half full or
full depth.   Pumping stations within the conventional gravity  sewer system
must be designed to  handle the  solids  in  raw  sewage,  either by grinding
them or by  screening larger material and  passing  smaller material through
the  pump.   Force mains  are generally designed  with adequate  velocity  to
prevent deposition  of  solids  at minimum flow.   Solids  will not settle out
at  a velocity of 2.0  fps,  but solids that  settle out  when no flow occurs
(pumps  are  operating  discontinuously)   require  a  velocity of 3.5  fps  to
resuspend them.

     Gravity  sewers  that  carry septic tank  effluent are  called septic tank
effluent gravity sewers in this report (Figure D-3).   Other terms commonly
applied to  them are Australian  sewers and  small-diameter sewers.  Because
only clear  effluent from  septic tanks  is   carried, a  minimum velocity  of
1.5  fps can  be designed.  Also, a  minimum pipe  size of  4-inch diameter is
sufficient.   Cleanouts,  rather than manholes, are recommended  so that less
dirt enters   the  pipes (Otis  1979).  Pipes  do  not need  to be  laid  at  a
constant slope  nor  in a straight line  (Simmons  and Newman  1979).  Pumping
equipment does  not  need solids handling equipment  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.

         — Pressure Sewer System	
     Essentially, a pressure sewer system is the reverse of a water distri-
bution system.   The  latter employs a single inlet pressurization point and
a  number  of user  outlets, while  the  pressure  sewer  embodies  a number of
                              D-
                                II

-------
BuiIding
sewer
V dia.  effluent  1ine
                                                                            Effluent
                                                                            sewer
                        Precast septic tank
                          SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT GRAVITY SEWER LAYOUT
 Figure  D-3.    Septic  tank  effluent  gravity  sewer  layout.
                                   D- 12

-------
pressurizing inlet  points and  a  single outlet,  as shown  in  Figure D-4.
The pressure main follows a generally direct route to a treatment facility
or to a  gravity  sewer,  depending on  the application.   The primary purpose
of this  type of  design  is to minimize  sewage  retention time in the sewer.

     There are two  major  types of pressure sewer systems: the grinder pump
(GP) system and  the septic tank effluent  pump  (STEP)  system.   As shown in
Figure D-5 , the major  differences between the alternative  systems are in
the on-site equipment and layout.   There are also  some subtle differences
in the pressure  main design methods and in  the  treatment systems required
to reduce the  pollutants  in the collected  wastewater to an environmentally
acceptable level.   Neither pressure sewer system  alternative  requires the
modification of  household plumbing,  although neither precludes  it  if such
modifications are deemed desirable.

     The advantages  of  pressure sewers are primarily related  to installa-
tion costs and inherent  system characteristics.   Because these systems use
small-diameter plastic pipes buried just below the frost penetration depth,
their installation  costs  can  be quite low compared to conventional gravity
systems in low-density areas.  Other site conditions that enhance this cost
differential  include  hilly  terrain,  rock outcropping,  and  high  water
tables.  Because  pressure sewers  are sealed conduits,  there  should  be no
opportunity for  infiltration.  The  sewers can be designed  to handle only
the domestic  sewage generated  in  the houses serviced,  which  excludes the
infiltration that occurs  in most  gravity systems.   The  high operation and
maintenance costs  for the  use  of mechanical  equipment  at each point of
entry to the system is  the major disadvantage of  a pressure sewer system.

     Most of  the dwellings  in the  proposed  service  area have  existing
septic tanks.  Therefore,  the septic tank effluent  pump (STEP)  system was
considered for the centralized collection system alternatives.

          Wastewater Treatment Processes

     A variety of treatment options were considered in  the Facilities Plan
in development of alternative wastewater management plans including:
                             D-13

-------
       Pressure sewer
    —  Water main (under pressure)
  P )  Pressure sewer pump
 U    Housing unit
Figure D-4.   Pressure sewer layout versus potable water supply layout.

-------
                                                                         ^•-Pressure
                                                                         O  sewer
BuiIdi ng
sewer
Junction box
and alarm
                     High water level alarm
Bui 1di ng
s ewe r
                                               To existing soil absorption system
                    controls
                        Precast septic tank
                                 GRINDER PUMP  LAYOUT
                 Junction  box
                 and  alarm
                                                                                 Road
                                                                            Pressure
                                                                            sewer
                                         •To  existing  soil  absorption  system

                                                  H i ghwater
                                                  1 eve 1
                                         Level     alarm
                                         controls
                        Precast septic tank
                          SEPTIC TANK  EFFLUENT PUMP LAYOUT
    Figure D-5.   Types of pressure sewer systems.
                                    D-15

-------
          •    use of existing lagoons
          •    activated sludge
          •    oxidation ditch.

     The  facilities  planner recommended modification  and expansion of the
City of Moose Lake's existing lagoon system.

          Effluent Disposal Methods

     Three effluent disposal options are available:  stream discharge, land
application, and reuse.
     The Moose  Horn River is the receiving stream  for discharge of treated
wastewater effluent.  The discharge is regulated by  the NPDES permit issued
by MFCA.
                                D-16

-------
     Land application or land treatment of wastewater utilizes natural phy-
sical, chemical, and  biological processes in vegetation, soils, and under-
lying  formations  to  renovate  and  dispose  of domestic  wastewater.  Land
application methods have  been practiced in the United States for more than
100 years and  presently are being used by hundreds of communities through-
out the nation (Pound and Crites 1973) .

     In addition to  wastewater  treatment, the benefits of land application
may include nutrient  recycling, timely water applications, groundwater re-
charge, and soil improvement.  These benefits accrue to a greater extent in
arid and semi-arid areas,  but are also applicable to humid areas.   Second-
ary benefits include  preservation of open space and summer augmentation of
streamflow.

     The components  of  a  land application  system include  a centralized
collection  and  conveyance system, some level of primary treatment, possible
secondary treatment,  possible storage and disinfection, and the land appli-
cation site  and  equipment.   In addition, collection  of  the  treated water
may be included in  the system  design along  with discharge or reuse of the
collected water.  These  optional components may be necessary to meet state
requirements or to make the system operate properly.

     Land application  of municipal wastewater  for  treatment  encompasses a
wide variety of  possible  processes  or methods  of  application.   The three
principal processes  utilized in land treatment of wastewater are:

     •    Overland  flow
     •    Slow-rate  or crop irrigation
     •    Rapid infiltration.

Because there  is an  existing wastewater lagoon  system (City  of Moose Lake
system) the  construction of  a  new land treatment -system  would  forego any •
economic advantages  of utilizing existing  facilities  (which  would  require
some  improvements).   Consequently,  land   treatment  processes  of overland
flow,   slow   rate-irrigation,  and  rapid  infiltration  were  screened  from
consideration as a  centralized wastewater treatment process.
                              D-17

-------
     Wastewater management techniques included under  the category of treat-
ed effluent reuse may be identified as:

     •    Public water supply
     •    Groundwater recharge
     •    Industrial process uses or cooling tower makeup
     c    Energy production
     •    Recreation and turf irrigation
     •    Fish and wildlife enhancement.

     Reuse  of  treatment  plant effluent  as a  public water  supply  or for
groundwater recharge could present potential public health concerns.  There
are no major  industries in the area that require cooling water.  The avail-
ability  of  good  quality  surface  water  and  groundwater and  the abundant
rainfall  limit  the demand  for the use of treated  wastewater for recrea-
tional and  turf irrigation.  Organic contamination  and  heavy metal concen-
trations  also  are  potential  problems.  Direct  reuse would  require  very
costly  advanced  wastewater   treatment   (AWT),  and  a  sufficient  economic
incentive  is not  available   to  justify the  expense.  Thus,  the  reuse of
treated effluent  currently is not a feasible  management  technique for the
study area.

         Sludge Treatment and Disposal

     Some of  the wastewater  treatment processes  considered will generate
sludge.   The  amount of sludge generated  will  vary considerably, depending
on the process.   A typical sludge management  program would involve inter-
related  processes  for reducing  the  volume of  the  sludge  (which is mostly
water) and final disposal.

     Volume  reduction  depends on  the   reduction of both  the water and the
organic content of the sludge.  Organic material can  be reduced through the
use  of  digestion,  incineration,  or   wet-oxidation   processes.   Moisture
reduction  is attainable  through concentration,  conditioning, dewatering,
                               D-18

-------
and/or drying  processes.   The  mode  of  final  disposal selected determines
the processes that are required.  In the case of waste stabilization ponds,
the sludge  would  collect in  the  bottom of the pond  and  would undergo an-
aerobic 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.
                                 D-19

-------
        Appendix E
Cost  Effectiveness Analysis
                                                                CO
                                                                •H
                                                                CO
                                                                tfl
                                                                C
                                                                CO
                                                                CO
                                                                CD
                                                                C
                                                                CD

                                                                •H
                                                                4-1
                                                                a
                                                                a)
                                                                CO
                                                                o
                                                                w
                                                                x
                                                                w
                                                                Ct,
                                                                PL,

-------
Cost Methodology

1.   Costs for  the  conventional  gravity sewer collection alternatives were
     developed  from the  bids received  in  August 1981  for  the  proposed
     sewers to serve Island Lake, and from published cost data.

2.   Costs for  the  septic  tank effluent pressure and gravity sewer collec-
     tion  alternatives  were  developed   from the  August 1981  Island Lake
     bids, costs  from other  project bids localized and  updated,  and pub-
     lished cost data.

3.   Costs for  the  on-site system,  cluster, and bog treatment alternatives
     were developed  from bid  costs  from other  projects  localized and up-
     dated locally quoted prices, and published cost data.

4.   Costs for  upgrading the  City  of  Moose Lake  treatment  plant  were de-
     veloped from published cost data.

5.   Costs for  materials,  construction,  and O&M were  updated  to June 1981
     price levels.  Construction  costs  for  treatment units and sewers were
     based on USEPA indexes  for  Minneapolis of 410.9  (STP) and 193 (CUSS),
     respectively.  The  Engineering  News Record Construction Cost Index of
     '3,730 for March 25, 1982 also was  used.

4.   Salvage values were determined  using straight-line depreciation  for a
     planning period of  20 years.  The land value was considered  to appre-
     ciate by 3 percent per year.  The service life of structures, includ-
     ing  buildings, concrete  process  units,  etc., was  assumed  to  be 50
     years.   The  service life o£ process and  auxiliary  equipment such as
     clarifier mechanisms,  standby generators, pumps, electric motors, etc.
     was assumed to be 20 years.

7.   Capital costs  were  based  on construction costs plus  a  service factor
     for  engineering,  administration,  legal and contingencies  (See   Table
     2-16 and Section 2.3.1.3.)

8.   Present worth  of slavage value,  O&M costs,  and  average  annual  equi-
     valent costs  were  determined  for  20 years  using a discount rate of
     7.625%.

9.   Present worth  of salvage  values was determined using a single payment
     present worth factor of 0.2300  (Salvage value x 0.2300 = present  worth
     of salvage).

10.  Present worth  of O&M  costs  were  determined using  a  uniform  or  equal
     payment series factor  of  10.0983  (average annual O&M cost x  10.0983 =
     present worth of O&M).

11.  Average annual equivalent costs were  determined using a capital re-
     covery factor of 0.0990 (total present worth x 0.0990 = average annual
     equivalent cost).

-------
                               INDEX TO COST TABLES
Summary Tables












Collection system costs - Table E-l
Cluster systems, WWTPs, and administrative costs - Table E-16
On-site upgrade costs - Table E-24
Detail Tables
Component












Alternative

Collection system
Island Lake
Sturgeon Lake
Cluster system
Island Lake
Sturgeon Lake
WWTP
On-slte upgrade
Island Lake
Sturgeon Lake
Other
Administrative

2 3

-
-

E-18
E-17
_ • _

E-25 E-28
E-26 E-29
E-27 E-27
E-23 E-23
4A

E-2
-

-
E-17
E-19

E-30
E-31
E-27
E-23
4B

E-3
-

-
E-17
E-19

E-30
E-31
E-27
E-23
4C

E-4
-

-
E-17
E-19

E-30
E-31
E-27
E-23
5A

E-5
-

-
E-17
E-20

E-30
E-31
E-27
E-23
5B

E-6
-

-
E-17
E-20

E-30
E-31
E-27
E-23
6A

E-7
-

-
E-17
E-21

-
E-32
E-27
E-23
6B

E-8
-

-
E-17
E-21

-
E-32
E-27
E-23
6C

E-9
-

-
E-17
E-21

-
E-32
E-27
E-23
7A

E-ll
E-10

-
-
E-22

-
-
E-27
E-23
7B

E-13
E-12

-
-
E-22

-
-
E-27
E-23
7C

E-15
E-U

-
-
E-22

-
-
E-27
E-23
Includes the remainder of the EIS service area  (Rush Lake, Passenger Lake, Wild Acres and
Hogans Acres)

-------
Table E-l.  Summary of collection system costs.
Item
Alternative 4 (Island Lake)

4A Conventional Gravity
4B STE Gravity
4C STE Pressure

Alternative 5 (Island Lake)

5A STE Gravity
5B STE Pressure

Alternative 6 (Island Lake)

6A Conventional Gravity
6B STE Gravity
6C STE Pressure

Alternative 7

7A Conventional Gravity - IL
                        - SL
                        - Total
7B STE Gravity - IL
               - SL
               - Total
7C STE Pressure - IL
                - SL
                - Total
                                                      Initial Cost
                                                                                                                      Future  ConstrucCion Cost
Present Worth
Capital
892,570
778,700
754,180
833,980
748,760
1,702,890
1,523,310
1,340,670
1,670,350
2,182.010
3,852,360
1,485,420
1.996,020
3,481,440
1,463,950
1,818,610
3,282,560
Salvage
383,500
314,790
261,570
334,430
259,170
737,410
614.840
469.560
733,020
942,570
1.675,590
608,990
805,270
1,414,260
517,650
625,050
1,142.700
O&M
7,567
7,930
6,764
7,976
6,781
14,202
14,692
11,630
14,253
16.629
30,882
14,989
17,388
32.377
14,037
18.856
32.893
Salvage
88,210
72,400
60,160
76,920
59,610
169,600
141,410
108,000
168,590
216,790
385 , 380
140,070
185,210
325,280
119,060
143,760
262,820
O&M
76.410
80,080
68,300
80,540
68.480
143,420
148,360
117,440
143,930
167,920
311,850
151.360
175,590
326,950
141,750
190,410
332,160
Annual
Total Incremental
Total Construction Salvage Ann. O&M
880,770
786 , 380
762,320
837,600
757,630
1,676,710
1,530,260
1,350,110
1,645,590
2,133,140
3.778,830
1,496,710
1,986,400
3,483,110
1,486,640
1,865,260
3.351,900
1,757
3,747
6,220
3,770
6,220
3,931
7,627
13,215
3,931
5,239
9,170
7,624
9.532
17,156
13,215
17,135
30,350
20,230
44,120
51,200
44,120
51,200
47,260
89,840
105,840
47,160
62,860
110,020
89,840
112,700
202,540
105,840
134,270
240,110
3
17
101
77
101
6
38
227
6
6
12
38
49
87
227
306
533
Present Worth
Construction
17,740
37.840
62,810
38,070
62,810
39,700
77.020
133.450
39,700
52,900
92,600
76,990
96,260
173,250
133,450
173,030
306,480
Salvage
4,650
10,150
11,780
10,150
11,780
10,870
20,660
24,340
10,850
14,460
25,310
20.660
25,920
46,580
24,340
30,880
55,220
O&M
220
1,230
7,280
5.550
7,280
430
2,740
16,370
430
430
860
2,740
3,530
6,270
16,370
22,060
38,430
Total
13,310
28,920
58,310
33,470
58.310
29,240
59,100
125,480
29,280
38,870
68.150
59,070
73,870
132,940
125.480
164,210
289,690
Total
Present Worth
894,080
815,300
820,630
871,070
815.940
1,705,950
1,589,360
1,475,590
1,674,970
2,172,010
3.846,980
1.555,780
2,060.270
3.616,050
1,612,120
2,029,470
3,641,590
    IL =  Island  Lake
    SL -  Sturgeon  Lake

-------
Table E-2.   Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers Cor the north and west
            shorelines of Island Lake,  and transmission to existing Sand Lake sewers.
            (Alternative 4A).
Item

Sewer Pipe
  8"

Force main
  common trench
                  Unit
Unit  Quantity    Cost	


 LF     13,900  $ 26.50
Construction  Salvage
                                                                               O&M
                                                       $368,350    $221,010  $1,043
2%"
3"
individual trench
2"
2y
3"
3" Highway Crossing
Lift Station
A 75 gpm, TDH 28 Ft
B 60 gpm, TDH 32 ft
C 40 gpm, TDH 26 ft
D 25 gpm, TDH 19 ft
Auxiliary Power Units
2 Hp
Wye
Service connection
House lead
gravity
grinder pump
Abandon septic tank, privy
or holding tank
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
LF
LF

LF
LF
LF
EA

EA
EA
EA
EA

EA
EA
EA

EA
EA
EA



1,060
1,540

1 , 200
450
2,750
1

1
1
1
1

3
88
88

86
2
88



6.50
7.50

11.50
11.80
12.70







6 , 300
49
140

1,000
2,850
54



Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Wye
Service connection
lious'?leti:l
gravity
grinder pump
Sab total future connection

EA
EA

EA
EA
cost

28
28

27
I


49
140

1,000
2,850

Annual future connection cost
6,890
11,550

13,800
5,310
34,930
36,800

25,400
22,600
22,600
22,600

13,900
4,310
12,320

86,000
5,700
4,750

702,810
189,760
892,570

1,370
3,920

27,000
2,850
35,140
1,757
4,130
6,930

8,280
3,190
20,960
22,080

7,620
6,780
6,780
6,780

5,670
2,590
7 , 390

51,600
1 , 7 10
-

383,500



820
2 , 350

16 , 200
86 0
20,230

-
-

-
-
-
-

1,710
1,700
1,510
1,480

-
-
-

-
124
-

7,567



-
-

-
62
62
3
                                      E-3

-------
Table E-3.  Quantities and costs for STE gravity sewers for the north and  west
            shorelines of Island Lake, and transmission to existing Sand Lake sewers.
            (Alternative 4B).
Item

STE gravity sewer pipe
  4"
  6"
  Manholes
Force main
  common trench

    3"
  individual trench
    2"
    3" Highway Crossing
Lift Station
  A 75 gpm, TDH 28 ft
  B 60 apm, TDH 32 ft
  C 4U gpm, TDH 26 ft
  D 25 spm, TDH 19 ft
Auxiliary Power Units
  2 Hp
Service connection
  STE gravity
  STE pump
Septic tank
  new + abandon privy
  upgrade
  replace
Building s^wer

Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital

Future connection cost
  S'j. rvice connection
    STE gravity
    STE pump
  Septic tank
    new
    replace
  Build in/, sewer
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost

Unit
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
cos t
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA

Quantity
9,530
4,320
3
1,060
1,540
1 , 200
450
2,750
1
1
1
1
I
3
86
2
14
68
6
14

27
1
28
25
28
Unit
Cos t
$ 16.90
18.40
1,160
6.50
7.50
11.50
11.80
12.70





6,300
958
2,790
854
175
854
90

958
2,790
800
854
90
Construction  Salvage
                                                                              O&M
$161,060
79,490
3,480
6,890
11,550
13,800
5,310
34,930
36,800
25,400
22,600
22,600
22,600
18,900
82,390
5,580
11,960
11,900
5,120
1,260
584,220
207,480
778,700
25,870
2,790
22,400
21 , 350
2,520
74,930
3,747
$96,630
47,700
2,090
4,130
6,930
8,280
3,190
20,960
22,000
7,620
6,780
6,780
6,780
5,670
49,430
1,680
7,170
7,140
3,070
760
314,790
15,520
840
13,440
12,810
1,510
44,120
$ 362
164
-
-
1,710
1,700
1,510
1,480
-
124
140
680
60
7,930
62
280
342
17
                                     E-4

-------
Table E-4.  Quantities and costs for STE pressure sewers foe the north and west
            shorelines of Island Lake and transmission to existing Sand Lake sewers.
            (Alternative 4C).
Item

STE pressure sewer pipe
  2"

  3"
  4"
STE gravity sewer pipe
  6"
  6" Highway crossing
  Manhole
Service connection-STE pump EA
Septic tank
  new + abandon privy
  upgrade
  replace
Building sewer

Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
                           Unit  Quantity
                            EA
Future connection cost
  Service connection
    STE pump
  Septic tank
    new
    replace
  Building sewer
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
                                             Unit
                                             Cost
               Construction  Salvage
28
2,790
                                                        78,120
23,440
EA
EA
EA
:ost
5t
28
25
28

800
854
90

22,400
21,350
2,520
124,390
6,220
13,440
12,810
1,510
51,200
                                  O&M
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA


it
1,220
1,830
13,550
600
2,700
1
1
88
14
68
6
14



$10.10
10.50
11.40
15.40
18,40

1..160
2,790
854
175
854
90



$ 12,320
19,220
154,470
9,240
49,680
36,800
1,160
245,520
11,960
11,900
5,120
1,260
558,650
195,530
754,180
$ 7,390
11,530
92,680
5,540
29,810
22,080
700
73,670
7,170
7,170
3,070
760
261,570


$ 23
35
257
11
102
-
-
5,456
140
680
60
—
6,764


1,736

  280
                                                                               2,016
                                                                                 101
                                       E-5

-------
Table E-5.  Quantities and costs for STE gravity sewers for the north and  west
            shorelines of Island Lake, and transmission to Bog Treatment.
            (Alternative 5A)
Item

STE gravity sewer pipe
  4"
  6"
  Manholes
Force main, common trench
  2V
  3"
  4"
Force main, individual trench
  2"
  2h"
  3"
  4"
Lift Station
  A 82 gpm, TDH 88 ft
  B 60 gpm, TDH 32 ft
  C 40 gpm, TDH 26 ft
  D 25 gpm, TDH 19 ft
Auxiliary power units
  3 Hp
  2 Hp
Service connection
  STE gravity
  STE pump
Septic tank
  new + abandon privy
  upgrade
  replace
Building sewer

Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost

Future connection cost
  Service connection
    STE gravity
    STE pump
  Septic tank
    new
    replace
  Building sewer

Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
Unit  Quantity
Unit
Cost
Construction  Salvage
O&M
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
LF
h
. ii
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA


t
9,530
5,520
4
1,060
1,540
1,000
1,200
450
700
4,550
1
1
1
1
2
1
86
2
14
68
6
14



$ 16.90
18.40
1,160
6.50
7.50
8.40
11.50
11.80
12.70
13.70




7,800
6,300
958
2,790
854
175
854
90



$161,060
101,570
4,640
6,890
11,550
8,400
13,800
5,310
8,890
62,340
25,400
22,600
22,600
22,600
15,600
6,300
82,390
5,580
11,960
11,900
5,120
1,260
617,760
216,220
833,980
$96,630
60,940
2,780
4,130
6,930
5,040
8,280
3,190
5,330
37,400
7,620
6,780
6,780
6,780
4,680
1,890
49,430
1,680
7,170
7,140
3,070
760
334,430


$ 362
210
—
_
-
—
_
-
-
-
1,710
1,700
1,510
1,480
_
—
_
124
140
680
60
—
7,976


EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
ost
it
27
1
28
25
28

958
2,790
800
854
90

25,870
2,790
22,400
21,810
2,520
75,390
3,770
15,520
840
13,440
12,810
1,510
44,120
                                                     62

                                                    280
                                                    342
                                                     17
                                       E-6

-------
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA
890
2,740
16,670
1 , 200
1
10.50
11.40
12.50
18.40
1,160
9,350
31,240
208,380
22,080
1 , 160
5,610
18,740
125,030
13,250
700
17
52
317
46
-
Table E-6.  Quantities and costs for STE pressure sewers for  the north and west
            shorelines of Island Lake, and transmission to Bog Treatment.
            (Alternative 5B).

                                             Unit
Item                       Unit  Quantity    Cost    Construction  Salvage     O&M

STE pressure sewer pipe
  2"                        LF      660    $  10.10   $   6,670    $  4,000   $    13
  2h"
  3"
  4"
STE gravity sewer pipe
  6"
  Manhole
Service connection
 STE pump                   EA       88       2,790     245,520      73,670    5,456
Septic tank
  new + abandon privy       EA       14         854      11,960       7,170      140
  upgrade                   EA       68         175      11,900       7,170      680
  replace                   EA        6         854       5,120       3,070       60
Building sewer              EA       14          90       1,260         760

Subtotal initial cost                                   554,640     259,170    6,781
Service factor (-35%)                                    194,120
Subtotal initial capital cost                           748,760

Future connection cost
  Service connection
   STE pump                 EA       28       2,790      78,120      23,440    1,736
  Septic tank
    new                     EA       28         800      22,400      13,400      280
    replace                 EA       25         854      21,350      12,810
  Building sewer            EA       28          90       2,520       1,510

Subtotal future connection cost                         124,390      51,200    2,016
Annual future connection cost                             6,220                  101
                                      E-7

-------
Table E-7.  Quantities  and  costs  for  conventional gravity  sewers  for the entire
            shoreline of  Island Lake, and  transmission to  existing Sand Lake sewers.
            (Alternative  6A).
Item
Unit  Quantity
Sewer Pipe
  8"                        LF
Force main, common trench
  2"                        LF
  2V                       LF
  3"                        LF
  4"                        LF
Force main individual  treiich
    2"                      LF
    3"                      LF
    4"                      LF
    3" Lake Crossing
    4" Highway Crossing
Lift Station
  A 150 gpm, TDH 43 Ft
  B 110 gpm, TDH 31 ft
  C  40 gpm, TDH 21 ft
  D  25 gpm, TDH 19 ft
  E  50 gpm, TDH 33 ft
  F  25 gpm, TDH 10 ft
  G  25 gpm, TDH 34 ft
Auxiliary Power Units
  5 Hp                      EA
  2 Hp                      EA
Wye                         EA
Service connection          EA
House lead
  gravity                   EA
  grinder pump              EA
Abandon septic tank, privy  EA
 or holding tank

Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost

Future connection cost
  Wye
  Service connection
  Houselead
    gravity
    grinder pump

Subtotal future connection  cost
Annual future connection cost
Unit
Cost
Construction  Salvage
       28,290   $  26.50   $ 749,690
        1,710
          700
        2,790
        1,020

        2,660
        1,480
        2,050
            2
            3
          151
          151

          148
            3
          151
  6.20
  6.50
  7.50
  8.40

 11.50
 12.70
 13.80
8,050
6,300
   49
  140

1,000
2,850
   54
    10,600
     4,550
    20,930
     8,570

    30,590
    18,800
    28,290
    40,000
    36,800

    25,400
    25,400
    22,600
    22,600
    22,600
    22,600
    22,600

    16,100
    18,900
     7,400
    2.1,140

   148,000
     8,550
     8,150
                           1,340,860
                             362,030
                           1,702,890
O&M
$449,810
6,360
2,730
12,560
5 , 140
18,350
11,280
16,970
24,000
22,080
7,620
7,620
6,780
6,780
6,780
6,780
6,780
4,830
5,670
4,440
12,680
88,800
2,570
$2,122
_
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
—
2,189
2,081
1,498
1,481
1,677
1,472
1,496
_
-
-
—
_
186
                       737,410  14,202
EA
EA
EA
EA
:ost
it
63
63
61
2

49
140
1,000
2,850

3,090
8,820
61,000
5,700
78,610
3,931
1,850
5,390
36,600
3,420
47,260
                                                     124

                                                     124
                                                       6
                                     E-8

-------
Table E-8.  Quantities and costs for STE gravity sewers for the entire shoreline
            of Island Lake and transmission to existing Sand Lake sewers.
            (Alternative 6B).
Item

STE gravity sewers
  4"
  6"
  8"
  Manholes
Force main, common trench
  2"

  3"
  4"
Force main, individual trench
  2"
  3"
  4"
  3" Lake crossing
  4" Highway Crossing
Lift Stations
  A 150 gpm, TDH 43 ft
  B 110 gpm, TDH 31 ft
  C  40 gpm, TDH 21 ft
  D  25 gpm, TDH 19 ft
  E  50 gpm, TDH 33 ft
  F  25 gpm, TDH 10 ft
  G  25 gpm, TDH 34 ft
Auxiluary power units
  5 Hp
  2 Hp
Service connection
  STE gravity
  STE pump
Septic tank
  new + abandon privy
  upgrade
  replace
Building sewer

Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost

Future connection cost
  Service connection
    STE gravity
    STE pump
  Septic tank
    new
    replace
  Building sewer

  Subtotal future connection cost
  Annual future connection cost
                           Unit  Quantity
Unit
Cost
Construction  Salvage
O&M
LF
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
LF
LF
h
.11
LF
LF
LF









EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA


;t
23,430
3,320
2,260
8
1,710
700
2,790
1,020
2,660
1,480
2,050









2
3
148
3
35
107
9
35



$ 16.90
18.40
24.10
1,160
6.20
6.50
7.50
8.40
11.50
12.70
13.80









8,050
6,300
958
2,790
854
175
854
90



$395,970
61,090
54,470
9,280
10,600
4,550
20,930
8,570
30,590
18,800
28,290
40,000
36,800
25,400
25,400
22,600
22,600
22,600
22,660
22,600
16,100
18,900
141,780
8,370
29,890
18,730
7,690
3,150
1,128,380
394,930
1,523,310
$237,580
36,650
32,680
5,570
6,360
2,730
12,560
5,140
18,350
11,280
16,970
24,000
22,080
7,620
7,620
6,780
6,780
6,780
6,780
6,780
4,830
5,670
85,070
2,510
17,930
11,240
4,610
1,890
614,840


$ 890
126
86
—
1
-
-
—
—
-
-
-
—
2,189
2,081
1,498
1,481
1,677
1,472
1,496
_
—
—
186
350
1,070
90
—
14,692


EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
cost
ost
61
2
63
38
63
E-Q
958
2,790
800
854
90

58,440
5,580
50,400
32,450
5,670
152,540
7,627
35,060
1,670
30,240
19,470
3,400
89,840
                                                                                124

                                                                                630
                                                                                754
                                                                                 38

-------
Table E-9.  Quantities and costs for STE pressure sewers for the entire shoreline
            of Island Lake, and transmission to existing Sand Lake sewers.
            (Alternative 6C).
Item

STE pressure sewers
  2"

  3"
  4"
STE gravity sewers
  8"
  Manholes
  8" Highway crossing
Service connection STE pump EA
Septic tank
  new + abandon privy
  upgrade
  replace
Building sewer

Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial cost

Future connection cost
  Service connection
   STE pump
  Septic tank
    new
    replace
  Building sewer

Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
                           Unit  Quantity
Unit
Cost
Construction  Salvage
O&M
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA.
EA
EA
EA



2,020
2,280
12,900
17,340
2,700
2
1
151
35
107
9
35



$10.10
10.50
11.40
12.50
24.10
1,160

2,790
854
175
854
90



$ 20,400
23,940
147,060
216,750
65,070
2,320
36,800
421,290
29,890
18,730
7,690
3,150
993,090
347,380
1,340,670
$ 12,240
14,360
88,240
130,050
39,040
1,390
22,080
126,390
17,930
11,340
4,610
1,890
469,560


$ 38
43
245
329
103
-
-
9,362
350
11,630
90
—
11,630


EA
EA
EA
EA
ost
it
63
63
38
63


2,790
800
854
90


175,770
50,400
32,450
5,670
264,290
13,215
52,730
30,240
19,470
3,400
105,840

3,906
630
-
—
4,536
227
                                      E-10

-------
Table E-10.  Quantities and costs for conventional gravity  sewers  for  the  entire  shoreline
             of Sturgeon Lake and transmission to new  Island Lake  sewers.
             (Alternative 7A)_.
Item

Sewer Pipe 8"
Force main, common trench
  2"
  4"
  6"
Unit  Quantity
           Unit
           Cost
 LF

 LF
 LF
 LF
Force main, individual trench
  2"                        LF
  2%"                       LF
  3"                        LF
  4"                        LF
  6"                        LF
Lift Stations
  A  25 gpm, TDH  8 ft
  B  60 gpm, TDH 51 ft
  C  90 gpm, TDH 24 ft
  D 110 gpm, TDH 21 ft
  E 190 gpm, TDH 54 ft
  F  35 gpm, TDH 49 ft
  G  25 gpm, TDH 69 ft
  H  25 gpm, TDH 95 ft
Auxiliary Power Units
  5 HP                      EA
  3 HP                      EA
  2 HP                      EA
Wye                         EA
Service connection          EA
House lead
  gravity                   EA
  grinder-pump              EA
Abandon septic tank, privy  EA
 or holding tank

Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost

Future connection cost
  Wye
  Service connection
  Houselead
    gravity
    grinder purap

Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
34,200   $26.50
 1,740
   960
   500

 1,900
 2,610
 3,640
 1,880
 8,900
            2
            4
            4
          197
          197

          193
            4
          197
 6.20
 8.40
11.10

11.50
11.80
12.70
13.80
16.70
          8,050
          7,800
          6,300
             49
            140

          1,000
          2,850
             54
         Construction  Salvage
$906,300

  10,790
   8,060
   5,550

  21,850
  30,800
  46,230
  25,940
 148,630

  22,600
  22,600
  25,400
  25,400
  25,400
  22,600
  22,600
  22,600

  16,100
  31,200
  25,200
   9,650
  27,580

 193,000
  11,400
  10,640
                           1,718,120
                             463,890
                           2,182,010
                        O&M
$543,780
6,470
4,840
3,330
13,110
18,480
27,740
15,570
89,180
6,780
6,780
7,620
7,620
7,620
6,780
6,780
6,780
4,830
9,360
7,560
5,790
16,550
115,800
3,420
$2,567
_
-
—
_
-
-
-
-
1,478
1,745
1,713
2,058
2,234
1,553
1,508
1,525
_
-
-
-
—
—
248
                                  942,570  16,629
EA
EA
EA
EA
ost
t
85
85
83
2

49
140
1,000
2,850

4,170
11,900
83,000
5,700
104,770
5,239
2,500
7,140
49,800
3,420
62,860
                                                     124

                                                     124
                                                       6
 Serving Island Lake and Sturgeon Lake,
                                      E-ll

-------
Table E-ll.  Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for the entire shoreline
             of Island Lake, and transmission of both Island Lake and Sturgeon Lake waste-
             water to existing Sand Lake sewers.  (Alternative 7A).
Item                       Unit

Sewer Pipe
  8"                        LF
 10"                        LF
Force main, common trench
  2%"                       LF
  3"                        LF
  6"                        LF
Force main, individual trench
  2"
  2V
  3"
  6"
  3" Lake crossing
  6" Highway crossing
Lift Stations
  A 280 gpm, TDH 23 ft
  B 110 gpm, TDH 31 ft
  C  40 gpm, TDH 21 ft
     25 gpm, TDH 19 ft
     50 gpm, TDH
                       LF
                       LF
                       LF
                       LF
                       LS
                       LS
            33 ft
25 gpm, TDH 10 ft
40 gpm, TDH 36 ft
  D
  E
  F
  G
Wye
Service connection
House lead
  gravity
  grinder-pump
Abandon septic tank, privy
 or holding tank
                            EA
                            EA

                            EA
                            EA
                            EA
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
  Wye
  Service connection
  House lead
    gravity
    grinder pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
Unit
luantity Cost
27,600
700
2,410
2,790
1,020
1,970
690
1,480
2,050
$26.50
22.20
6.50
7.50
11.10
11.50
11.80
12.70
16.70
                                151
                                151

                                148
                                  3
                                151
   49
  140

1,000
2,850
   54
                                                Construction  Salvage
$731,400
  19,040

  15,670
  20,930
  11,320

  22,660
   8,140
  18,800
  34,240
  40,000
  36,000

  25,400
  25,400
  22,600
  22,600
  22,600
  22,600
  22,600
   7,400
  21,140

 148,000
   8,550
   8,150
                                                1,315,240
                                                  355,110
                                                1,670,350
                                                                               O&M
$438,840
11,420
9,400
12,560
6,790
13,590
4,890
11,280
20,540
24,000
22,080
7,620
7,620
6,780
6,780
6,780
6,780
6,780
4,440
12,680
88,800
2,570
$2,070
53
_
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
2,467
2,081
1,498
1,481
1,677
1,472
1,538
-
—
_
186
                                                                    733,020  14,523
EA
EA
EA
EA
63
63
61
2
49
140
1,000
2,850
3,090
8,820
61,000
5,700
1,850
5,290
36,600
3,420
                                                   78,610
                                                    3,931
                                                                     47,160
                                    124

                                    124
                                      6
                                      E-12

-------
Table E-12. Quantities and costs for STE gravity sewers  for  the  entire  shoreline
            of Sturgeon Lake and transmission to new  Island  Lake  sewers.
            (Alternative 7B).
Item

STE gravity sewer
  4"
  6"
  8"
  Manholes
Force main, common trench
  2"
  4"
  6"
Unit  Quantity
                                             Unit
                                             Cost
                            LF
                            LF
                            LF
                            EA

                            LF
                            LF
                            LF
Force main, individual trench
  2"
                            LF
                            LF
                            LF
                            LF
                            LF
  3"
  4"
  6"
 Lift Stations
  A  25 gpm, TDH  8 ft
  B  60 gpm, TDH 51 ft
  C  90 gpm, TDH 21 ft
  D 110 gpm, TDH 21 ft
  E 190 gpm, TDH 54 ft
  F  35 gpm, TDH 49 ft
  G  25 gpm, TDH 69 ft
  H  25 gpm, TDH 95 ft
Auxiliary Power Units
  5 HP                      EA
  3 HP                      EA
  2 HP                      EA
Service connection
  STE gravity               EA
  STE pump                  EA
Septic tank
  new + abandon privy       EA
  upgrade                   EA
  replace                   EA
Building sewer              EA
25,120
 4,640
 5,920
     4

 1,740
   960
   500

 1,900
 2,610
 3,640
 1,880
 8,900
                                       2
                                       4
                                       4

                                     193
                                       4

                                      30
                                     155
                                      12
                                      30
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost

Future connection cost
  Service connection
    STE gravity
    STE pump
  Septic tank
    new
    replace
Building Sewer

Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost

a
 Serving Island Lake and Sturgeon Lake
$16.90
 18.40
 24.10
 1,160

  6.20
  8.40
 11.10

 11.50
 11.80
 12.70
 13.80
 16.70
          8,050
          7,800
          6,300

            958
          2,790

            854
            175
            854
             90
                   Construction  Salvage
                           $424,530
                             85,380
                            142,670
                              4,640

                             10,790
                              8,060
                              5,550

                             21,850
                             30,800
                             46,230
                             25,940
                            148,630

                             22,600
                             22,600
                             25,400
                             25,400
                             25,400
                             22,600
                             22,600
                             22,600

                             16,100
                             31,200
                             25,200

                            184,890
                             11,160

                             25,630
                             27,130
                             10,250
                              2,700

                          1,478,530
                            517,490
                          1,996,020
                                    O&M
$254,720
51,230
85,600
2,780
6,470
4,840
3,330
13,110
18,480
27,740
15,570
89,180
6,780
6,780
7,620
7,620
7,620
6,780
6,780
6,780
4,830
9,360
7,560
110,940
3,350
15,370
16,280
6,150
1,620
$ 955
176
225
-
_
-
-
_
—
-
—
-
1,478
1,745
1,713
2,058
2,234
1,553
1,508
1,525
—
-
—
—
248
300
1,550
120
-
                                  805,270  17,388
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
ost
;t

83
2
85
35
85



958
2,790
800
854
90



79,510
5,580
68,000
29,890
7,650
190,630
9,532

47,710
1,670
40,800
17,930
4,590
112,700

                                              124

                                              850
                                              974
                                               49
                                       E-13

-------
Table  E-13.
             Quantities  and  costs  for  STE gravity sewers  for  the entire shoreline
             of  Island Lake  and  transmission of  Island Lake and Sturgeon Lake
             wastewater  to existing  Sand Lake sewers.  (Alternative 78).
Item

STE gravity  sewer
  4"
  6"
  8"
  10"
  Manhole
Force main,  common trench
  2J2"
  3"
  6"
                            Unit  Quantity
                            LF
                            LF
                            LF
                            LF
                            EA

                            LF
                            LF
                            LF
Force main, individual trench
  2"
  2h"
  3"
  6"
  3" Lake Crossing
  6" Highway Crossing
Lift Stations
  A 280 gpm, TDH 23 ft
  B 110 gpm, TDH 31 ft
  C  40 gpm, TDH 21 ft
  D  25 gpm, TDH 19 ft
  E  50 gpm, TDH 33 ft
  F  25 gpm, TDH 10 ft
  G  40 gpm, TDH 36 ft
Service connection
  STE gravity
  STE pump
Septic tank
  new + abandon privy
  upgrade
  replace
Building sewer
                            LF
                            LF
                            LF
                            LF
                            EA
                            EA

                            EA
                            EA
                            EA
                            EA
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor  (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost

Future connection cost
  Service connection
    STE gravity
    STE pump
  Septic tank
    new
    replace
  Building sewer

Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
22,020
 3,320
 2,260
   800
    10

 2,410
 2,790
 1,020

 1,970
   690
 1,480
 2,050
   148
     3

    35
   107
     9
    35
           Unit
           Cost
$16.90
 18.40
 24.10
 24.80
 1,160

  6.50
  7.50
 11.10

 11.50
 11.80
 12.70
 16.70
   958
 2,790

   854
   175
   854
    90
          Construction  Salvage
 $372,140
   61,090
   54,470
   19,840
   11,600

   15,670
   20,930
   11,320

   22,660
    8,140
   18,800
   34,240
   40,000
   36,000

   25,400
   25,400
   22,600
   22,600
   22,600
   22,600
   22,600

  141,780
    8,370

   29,890
   18,730
    7,690
    3,150

1,100,310
  385,110
1,485,420
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
:ost
t
61
2
63
38
63

958
2,790
800
854
90

58,440
5,580
50,400
32,450
5,670
152,470
7,624
35,060
1,670
30,240
19,470
3,400
89,840
                          O&M
$223,280
36,650
32,680
11,900
6,960
9,400
12,560
6,790
13,590
4,890
11,280
20,540
24,000
22,080
7,620
7,620
6,780
6,780
6,780
6,780
6,780
85,070
2,510
17,930
11,240
4,610
1,890
$ 837
126
86
30
-
_
-
—
_
-
-
-
-
-
2,467
2,081
1,498
1,481
1,677
1,472
1,538
_
186
350
1,070
90
-
                                                                    608,990  14,989
                                                                                124

                                                                                630
                                                                                754
                                                                                 38
                                      E-14

-------
Table E-14.
           Quantities and costs for STE pressure sewers serving the entire
           shoreline of Sturgeon Lake and transmission to new Island Lake sewers.
           (Alternative 7C) .
Item

STE pressure pipe
  2"
  2h"
  3"
  4"
  6"
STE gravity sewer
  4"
  Manholes
Force main, individual trench

Unit
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA

Quantity
1,300
6,900
15,070
13,880
2,950
1,740
2
Unit
Cost
$10.10
10.50
11.40
12.50
15.40
16.90
1,160

Construction
$ 13,130
72,450
171,800
173,500
45,430
29,410
2,320

Salvage
$ 7,880
43,470
103,080
104,100
27,260
17,640
1,390

O&M
$ 25
131
286
264
56
66
-
6"
                            LF
Lift stations
  B  50 gpm, TDH 99 ft
  C 130 gpm, TDH 18 f£
Auxiliary Power Units
  5 HP
Service connection STE pump EA
Septic tank
  new + abandon privy
  upgrade
  replace
Building sewer

Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost

Future connection cost
  Service connection
   STE pump                 EA
  Septic tank
    new                     EA
    replace                 EA
  Building sewer            EA

Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost
9,650   16.70
                                       85   2,790
                                       85
                                       35
                                       85
                                            800
                                            854
                                             90
161,160


EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA


,t


2
197
30
155
12
30





8,050
2,790
854
175
854
90



22,600
25,400
16,100
549,630
25,620
27,130
10,250
2,700
1,347,120
471,490
1,818,610
                    237,150

                     68,000
                     29,890
                      7,650

                    342,690
                     17,135
 96,690

  6,780   1,784
  7,620   2,060

  4,830
164,890  12,214

 15,370     300
 16,280   1,290
  6,150     120
  1,620

625,050  18,856
             71,150   5,270

             40,800     850
             17,730
              4,590
                                                                    134,270
                                                                            6,120
                                                                              306
 Lift station A is included on Table E-15.

 Serving Island Lake and Sturegon Lake.
                                      E-15

-------
Table E-15.
Quantities and costs for STE pressure sewers for the entire shoreline
of Island Lake and transmission of Island Lake and Sturgeon Lake waste-
water to existing Sand Lake sewers.  (Alternative 1C).
Item

STE pressure pipe
  2"
  2%"
  3"
  4"

STE gravity sewer
  6"
  8"
  Manhole
  8" Highway crossing
Force main, individual trench
  6"
  6" Highway crossing
Force main, common trench
  6"                        LF      720     1L.10
Lift Stations
  A 200 gpm, TDK 34 ft
Service connection-STE pump EA
Septic tank
  new + abandon privy       EA
  upgrade                   EA
  replace                   EA
Building sewer              EA

Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost

Future connection cost
Service connection STE pump EA       63     2,790
  Septic tank
    new                     EA       63       800
    replace                 EA       38       854
  Building sewer            EA       63        90

Subtotal future connection cost
Annual future connection cost

Unit
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
rh
. l_.1 1
LF
EA

Quantity
1,920
2,020
11,260
13,540
2,000
3,270
3
1
2,350
1
Unit
Cost
$10.10
10.50
11.40
12.50
18.40
24.10
1,200

16.70


Construction
$ 19,390
21,210
128,360
169,250
36,800
78,810
3,600
36,800
39,250
36,800

Salvage
$ 11,640
12,730
77,020
101,550
22,080
47,280
2,160
22,080
23,550
22,080

O&M
$ 36
38
214
257
76
124
-
—
_
-
                                           7,990
                                         175,770

                                          50,400
                                          32,450
                                           5,670

                                         264,290
                                          13,215
  4,800

151
35
107
9
35




2,790
854
175
854
90



25,400
421,290
29,890
18,730
7,690
3,150
1,084,410
379,440
1,463,950
7,620
126,390
17,930
11,240
4,610
1,890
517,650


2,420
9,362
350
1,070
90
-
14,037


 52,730

 30,240
 19,470
  3,400

105,840
3,906

  630
4,536
  227
                                      E-16

-------
Table E-16.  Summary of cluster systems* WWTP, and administrative costs.
                                                       Initial Cost
                                                                                                                       Future  Construction Cost
Present Worth
Cluster Systems
Island Lake (Alt. 3)
Sturgeon Lake (Alt. 3,4,5,6)
Total (Alt. 3)
WWTPa
Alt. 4
Alt. S (Bog
Alt. 6
Alt. 7
treatment)
Capital

483,250
453,630
936,880
287.150
244,850
377,190
688,340
Salvage
187,980
153,200
341,180
180,980
67,490
254,320
491,950
O&M

3
6
9
2
9
3
4

,373
,491
,864
,260
,689
,010
,940
Salvage
43
35
78
41
15
58
113
,240
,240
,480
,630
,520
,490
,150
O&M

34,060
65,550
99,610
22,820
97.840
30,400
49,890
Annual Total Incremental Present Worth Total
Total Construction Salvage Ann. O&M

474
483
958
286
327
349
625

,070 1,433 13.010 18
,940 1,472 10,970 29
,010 3,205 23,980 47
,340 -
,170
,100 -
.080 -
Construction Salvage O&M Total Present Worth

14,470 2,990 1.300 12,780 486,850
14,860 2,520 2,090 14,430 498,370
29,330 5,510 3,390 27,210 985,220
- ' - - - 268,340
327,170
349,100
- - - - 625,080
Administrative (All Alts'.)
                                                         28.400
286,790  286,790
                                                                                                                                                                          286,790
 Upgrade existing Moose Lake WWTP  (except for Alt. 5)

-------
Table E-17. Quantities and  costs  for  STE pressure collection  for a limited area on
            the east shore  of  Sturgeon Lake, transmission, and treatment and disposal
            in a Cluster Drainfield.  (Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 6)

                                             Unit
Item                        Unit   Quantity    Cost    Construction  Salvage     Q&M

Collection &  transmission
  STE gravity pipe
    4"                      LF    2,100    $16.90      $35,490     $21,290   $   80
  STE pressure pipe
    3"                      LF    7,850     11.40       89,490      53,690      149
Lift Station
  25 gpm, TDH 66 ft                                     22,600       6,780    1,502
Auxiliary Power
  3 Hp                      EA        1     7,800        7,800       2,340
Service connection
  STE pump                  EA        20     2,790       55,800      16,740    1,240
Septic tank
  new + abandon privy       EA        1       854          850         510       10
  upgrade                   EA        18       175        3,150       1,890      180
  replace                   EA        1       854          850         510       10
Building sewer              EA        1        90           90          50
Cluster Drainfield
  Gravel road               LF      800      7.00        5,600           -      320
  Land                      AC        5     3,000       15,000      27,090
  Fence                     LF    1,900      8.14       15,570           -       95
  Fence gate                EA        1       560          560
  Do s ing chambe r
   (7000 gal)               EA        1     7,500        7,500       4,500
  Dosing pumps (Duplex 250
   gpm, TDH 20 ft)          EA        1    16,000       16,000       4,800    2,180
  6" STE gravity pipe       LF    1,630     13.30       21,680      13,010       62
  Monitoring well & test-
   ing                      EA        2     1,250        2,500           -      240
  Trench drainfield         SF    16,900      2.10       35,490           -      423

Subtotal initial cost                                  336,020     153,200    6,491
Service factor (35%)                                   117,610
Subtotal initial capital cost                          453,630

Future connection cost
  Service connection
    STE pump                EA        8     2,790       22,320       6,700      500
  Septic tank
    new                     EA        8       800        6,400       3,840       80
  Building sewer            EA        8        90          720         430

  Subtotal future connection cost                       29,440      10,970      580
  Annual future connection  cost                          1,472                   29
                                      E- 18

-------
Table E-18.
             Quantities and costs for STE pressure sewers for two areas on the
             western shoreline of Island Lake, transmission, and treatment and
             disposaling cluster drainfield.  (Alternative 3)
Item

STE pressure pipe
  2"
  2V
  3"
Service connection
  STE pump
Septic tank
  new & abandon privy
  upgrade
  replace
Building sewer
Cluster Drainfield
  Land
  Fence
  Fence Gate
  Dosing Chamber
  6" STE gravity
  Monitoring well &
   ing
  Trench drainfield
                           Unit  Quantity
 Unit
 Cost
                    test-
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost

Future connection cost
  Service connection
    STE pump                EA
  Septic tank
    new                     EA
    replace                 EA
  Building Sewer            EA

  Subtotal future connection cost
  Annual future connection cost
                                      5
                                     12
                                      5
                                           $10.10
                                            10.50
                                            11.40

                                            2,790
Construction  Salvage
           $ 7,070
            53,550
            37,050

            83,700
2,790

  800
  854
   90
   13,950

    4,000
   10,250
      450

   28,650
    1,433
              $ 4,240
               32,130
               22,230
 4,190

 2,400
 6,150
   270

13,010
           O&M
             13
             97
             62
               25,110    1,860
EA
EA
EA
EA
AC
LF
EA
EA
LF
EA
SF


t
9
13
8
9
11
2,700
1
1
3,710
2
21,000



854
175
854
90
3,000
8.14
560
7,500
13.30
1,250
2.10



7,690
2,280
6,830
810
33,000
21,980
560
7,500
49,340
2,500
44,100
357,960
125,890
483,250
4,610
1,370
4,100
490
59,600
-
-
4,500
29,600
_
-
187,980


90
130
80
—
_
135
-
-
141
240
525
3,373


310

 50
                                                                                360
                                                                                 18
                                      E-19

-------
Table E-19.  Quantities and costs for upgrading existing Moose Lake WWTP to serve
             North and West shorelines of Island Lake.  (Alternative 4)


                                             Unit
Item                       Unit  Quantity    Cost    Construction  Salvage     O&M

Land                        AC     14       $3,000    $ 42,000     $ 75,860
Lagoon Construction
 & Site Work                LS                         166,300       99,780  $1,000
Bentonite liner             LS                          13,200        3,960
Main Lift Station
  Incremental capacity      LS                           4,600        1,380   1,260

Subtotal                                               226,100      180,980   2,260
Service factor  (27%)                                    61,050
Total initial capital cost                             287,150
                                       E-20

-------
Table E-20.  Quantities and costs for Bog Treatment WWTP to serve north and
             west shorelines of Island Lake.  (Alternative 5)


                                             Unit
Item                       Unit  Quantity    Cost    Construction   Salvage     Q&M

Land                        AC        20   $2,000     $ 40,000      $53,600
Site evaluation             LS                          15,200
Site preparation            LS                           1,600
Trench construction         CY    11,330     4.20       47,590
Curtain drain trench        LF     1,580     6.50       10,270        2,370    $    93
Pumps & chambers            EA         2    3,400        6,800         670    1,487
Dewatering piping           LF       800     4.00        3,200        1,920       305
Flow meter assembly         LS                          10,000        3,000
Distribution Box            LS                           2,000        1,200
Pipe to trenches (Matl.
 only)                      LF     2,625     3.00        7,880        4,730
Monitoring wells            EA         6      100          600
Laboratory analysis         LS                               -           -    7,480
Service Roads               LF       300     7.00        2,100           -       120
Fencing                     LF     4,070     8.14       33,130           -       204
Electrical service          LS                           1,000

Subtotal                                               181,370      67,490    9,689
Service factor (35%)                                    63,480
Total initial capital cost                             244,850
                                      E-21

-------
Table E-21.  Quantities and  costs  for upgrading  existing Moose  Lake WWTP  to  serve
             the entice shoreline  of Island Lake.   (Alternative 6).
Item

Land
Lagoon construction &
 sitework
Bentonite liner
Main lift station
  incremental capacity

Subtotal
Service factor  (27%)
Total initial capital cost
Unit  Quantity
         Unit
         Cost
 AC

 LS
 LS

 LS
22
$3,000
Construction  _S_a_ly_age     O&M

 $ 66,000     $119,200
                   199,600
                    19,800

                    11,600

                   297,000
                    80,190
                   377,190
                         119,760  $1,300
                          11,880

                           3,480   1,710

                         254,320   3,010
                                       E-22

-------
Table E-22.  Quantities and costs for upgrading existing Moose Lake WWTP to
             serve the entire shoreline of Island Lake and Sturgeon Lake.
             (Alternative 7).


                                             Unit
Item                       Unit  Quantity    Cost    Construction  Salvage     O&M

Land                        AC     48      $3,000     $144,000     $260,080
Lagoon construction &
 sitework                   LS                         332,600      199,560  $2,100
Bentonite Liner             LS                          42,300       25,380
Main lift station
  Incremental capacity      LS                          23,100        6,930   2,840

Subtotal                                               542,000      491,950   4,940
Service factor (27%)                                   146,340
Total initial capital cost                             688,340
                                      E-23

-------
Table E-23.  Administrative costs.  (All Alternatives)


                                             Unit
Item                       Unit  Quantity    Cost    Construction  Salvage     Q&M

Office/Garage               LS                                               $ 1,400
Administrative Person-
 nel Services               LS                          -                    27,000

Subtotal initial cost                                   -            -       28,400

-------
      Table E-24.  Summary of on-site upgrade costs.
      Item
                                                            Initial Cost
                                                                                                                             Future  Construction Cost
 I
S3
Alternative 2

Island Lake
Sturgeon Lake
Other1
Total

Alternative 3

Island Lake
Sturgeon Lake
Other
Total

Alternatives 4 & 5

Island Lake
Sturgeon Lake
Other
Total

Alternative 6
      Sturgeon Lake
      Other
      Total
Present Worth
Capital
171,360
105,660
14,510
291,530
156,520
51,650
14,510
222,680
56,250
51.650
14,510
122,410
51,650
14,510
66,160
Salvage
17,140
23,940
6.450
47,530
14,410
17,090
6,450
37,950
6,600
17.090
6,450
30,140
17,090
6,450
23,540
O&M
5,334
4,522
420
10,276
4,349
1,456
420
6,225
1.850
1.456
420
3,726
1.456
420
1,876
Salvage
3,940
5,510
1,480
10,930
3.320
3,930
1.980
8,730
1.520
3,930
1,480
6,930
3,930
1,480
5,410
O&M
53,860
45,670
4,240
103,770
43.920
14,700
4,240
62,860
18,680.
14,700
4,240
37,620
14,700
4.240
18,940
Annual
Total Incremental
Total Construction Salvage Ann. O&M
221,280
145,820
17,270
384,370
197,120
62,420
17.270
276,810
73.410
62,420
17,270
153,100
62,420
17.270
79,690
13,000
13,430
7,590
34,020
10,480
12,240
7,590
30,310
5,640
12,240
7,591
25,471
12,240
7,591
19,831
53,110
65,980
40,920
160,010
44,290
60,640
40,920
145,860
25,350
60,640
40.920
126,910
60,640
40,920
101,560
202
211
72
485
156
128
72
406
74
128
72
274
128
72
200
Present Worth
Construction
131,280
135,620
76,660
343,560
105,830
123,600
76,660
306,090
56,950
123.600
76,660
257,210
123,600
76,660
200,260
Salvage
12,220
15,180
9,410
36,810
10,190
13,950
9,410
33.550
5.830
13,950
9,410
29,190
13,950
9,410
23,360
O&M
14,570
15,220
5,190
34,980
11,250
9,230
5,190
25,670
5,340
9,230-
5,190
19,760
9,230
•5,190
14,420
Total
Total Present Worth
133,630
135.660
72,440
341,730
106,890
118.880
72,440
298,210
56,460
118,880
72.440
247,780
118,800
72,440
191,320
354,910
281,480
89,710
726,100
304,010
181,300
89,710-
575,020
129,870
181,300
89,710
400,880
181,300
89,710
271,010
      Alternative 7

      Other1
                                              14,510
                                                        6.450
                                                                  420
                                                                          1.480    4.240
                                                                                           17,270
                                                                                                         7,591
                                                                                                                   40,920
                                                                                                                               72
                                                                                                                                          76,660
                                                                                                                                               9,410
                                                                                                                                                              5,190  72,440
                                                                                                                                                                          89,710
       Includes the remainder of the EIS service area  (Rush Lake, Passenger Lake,   Hogans  Acres  and  Wild  Acres)

-------
Table E-25. Quantities and  costs  for upgrading and operation of on-site systems
            for Island Lake.   (Alternative 2).
Item
           Unit
Quantity   Cost
Construction   Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
Upgrade (minor)
Upgrade (major)
Soil absorption system
Trench
Seepage bed (400 sq ft)
Mound (400 sq ft incld . pump)
Waste separation
Blackwater HT - Permanent
Blackwater HT - Seasonal
Low flow toilet
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital costs
Future costs
Building sewer
Septic tank, new
Septic tank, upgrade
Trench SAS
Seepage bed SAS
Mound (400 sq ft incld. pump)
Total future costs
Annual future costs

89
9

7
2
32

5
1
6




63
63
38
35
23
43



175
854

1,129
904
2,504

885
885
1,420




90
800
854
1,129
904
2,504



15,575
7,686

7,903
1,808
80,128

4,425
885
8,520
126,930
44,426
171,360

5,670
50,400
32,452
39,515
20,792
107,672
260,001
13,000

9,345
4,612

-
-
-

2,655
531
-
17,140
-
-

3,402
30,240
19,471
-
-
-
53,110
-

890
90

-
-
2,304

1,915
135
-
5,334
-
-

-
630
-
-
-
3,096
4,036
202
HT - holding tank, SAS - soil absorption system
                                      E-26

-------
Table E-26. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operation of on-site  systems
            for Sturgeon Lake.  (Alternative 2).
                                         Unit
                                         Cost



pump)
pump)
it





129
12
2
3
8
5
3
8



175
854
1,129
2,504
2,154
885
885
1,420



22,575
10,248
2,258
7,512
17,232
4,425
2,655
11,360
78,265
27,393
105,660
Item                          Quantity

Septic tank
  Upgrade (minor)
  Upgrade (major)
Soil absorption system
  Trench
  Mound (400 sq ft incld
  Mound (250 sq ft incld
Waste separation
  Blackwater HT - Permanent
  Blackwater HT - Seasonal
  Low flow toilet

Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital costs
Future costs
  Building sewer
  Septic tank, new
  Septic tank, upgrade
  Trench SAS
  Seepage bed SAS
  Mound (400 sq ft incld.
  Mound (250 sq ft incld.
  Pump chamber
  Blackwater HT - Permanent
  Blackwater HT - Seasonal
  Low flow toliet
Total future costs                                   268,682
Annual future costs                                   13,430

HT - Holding tank, SAS - soil absorption system
Construction   Salvage   O&M
                                                                   13,545     1,290
                                                                   6,149       120
                                                                               216
                                                                               576

                                                                    2,655     1,915
                                                                    1,593       405
                                                                   23,940    4,522





pump)
pump)

it


85
85
35
33
68
19
3
6
3
2
5
90
800
854
1,129
904
2,504
2,154
700
885
885
350
7,650
68,000
29,890
37,257
61,472
47,576
6,462
4,200
2,655
1,770
1,750
4,590
40,800
17,934
-
-
~
-
1,593
1,062
-
                                                                              850
                                                                            1,368
                                                                              216
                                                                              372
                                                                            1,149
                                                                              270
                                                                  65,980    4,225
                                                                              211
                                      E-
                                        27

-------
Table E-27. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operation of on-site systems
            for Rush Lake, Passenger Lake, Hogans Acres and Wild Acres.
            (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7).
Item
           Unit
Quantity   Cost
Septic tank
  Upgrade (minor)                 37       175
  Upgrade (major)                  5       854

Initial cost
Service factor  (35%)
Initial capital costs

Future costs
  Building sewer                  68        90
  Septic tank, new                68       800
  Septic tank, upgrade             9       854
  Seepage bed SAS                 70       904
  Mound (400 sq ft incld. pump)    7     2,504
  Pump chamber                     4       700

Total future costs
Annual future costs

SAS- soil absorption system
Construction   Salvage
                        6,475
                        4,270

                       10,745
                        3,761
                       14,506
                        6,120
                       54,400
                        7,686
                       63,280
                        7,528
                        2,800

                      151,814
                        7,591
O&M
                3,885
                2,562

                6,450
                3,672
               32,640
                4,612
               40,924
  370
   50

  420
  680
  504
  248

1,432
   72
                                      E-28

-------
Table E-28. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operation  of  on-site  systems
            for Island Lake.  (Alternative 3).
Item

Septic tank
  Upgrade (minor)
  Upgrade (major)
Soil absorption system
  Trench
  Seepage bed (400 sq ft)
  Mound (400 sq ft incld. pump)
Waste separation
  Blackwater HT - Permanent
  Blackwater HT - Seasonal
  Low flow toilet

Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital costs

Future cost
  Building sewer
  Septic tank, new
  Septic tank, upgrade
  Trench SAS
  Seepage bed SAS
  Mound (400 sq ft. incld. pump)
  Pump chamber

Total future costs
Annual future costs

HT - holding tank, SAS - soil absorption system.

Quantity
68
9
7
2
?) 30
3
2
5



58
58
26
30
23
up) 31
5


Unit
Cost
175
854
1,129
904
2,504
885
885
1,420



90
800
854
1,129
904
2,504
700



Construction
11,900
7,686
7,903
1,808
75,120
2,655
1,770
7,100
115,942
40,580
156,520
5,220
46,400
22,204
33,870
20,792
77,624
3,500
209,610
10,480

Salvage
7,140
4,612
—
-
—
1,593
1,062
—
14,410
-
—
3,132
27,840
13,322
-
-
-
—
44,290
-

O&M
680
90
—
-
2,160
1,149
270
-
4,349
-
~
—
580
-
-
-
2,232
310
3,122
156
                                        E-29

-------
Table E-29. Quantities and  costs  for upgrading and operation of on-site systems
            for  Sturgeon Lake.  (Alternative 3).
Item
Quantity
Unit
Cost
114
10
2
3



175
854
1,129
2,504



19,950
8,540
2,258
7,512
38,260
13,391
51,651
Septic tank
  Upgrade  (minor)
  Upgrade  (major)
Soil absorption system
  Trench
  Mound (400 sq ft incld. pump)

Initial cost
Service factor  (35%)
Initial capital costs

Future costs
  Building sewer
  Septic tank, new
  Septic tank, upgrade
  Trench SAS
  Seepage bed SAS
  Mound (400 sq ft)
  Mound (200 sq ft incld. pump)
 - Pump chamber
  Blackwater HT Permanent
  Blackwater HT Seasonal
  Low flow toliet

Total future costs
Annual future costs
SAS - soil absorption system, HT - holding tank
Construction   Salvage   O&M
                                    11,970   1,140
                                     5,124     100
                                               216

                                    17,094   1,456
76
76
35
33
68
14
2
6
3
1
4


90
800
854
1,129
904
2,504
2,154
700
885
885
350


6,840
60,800
29,890
37,257
61,472
35,056
4,308
4,200
2,655
885
1,400
244,763
12,238
                                     4,104
                                    36,480
                                    17,934
                                    760
                                     1,593
                                       531
                                    60,642
                                    144
                                    372
                                  1,149
                                    135
                                  2,560
                                    129
                                       E-30

-------
Table E-30. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operation of  on-site  systems
            for Island Lake.  (Alternatives 4 and 5).
Item
Quantity
Septic tank
  Upgrade (minor)
  Upgrade (major)
Soil absorption system
  Trench
  Seepage bed (400 Sq Ft)
  Mound (400 sq ft incld. pump)
Waste Separation
  Blackwater HT - Permanent
  Blackwater HT - Seasonal
  Low flow toilet

Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capitol costs

Future costs
  Building sewer
  Septic tank, new
  Septic tank," upgrade
  Trench SAS
  Seepage bed SAS
  Mound (400 sq ft incld. pump)
  Pump chamber

Total future costs
Annual future costs
hT- holding tank, SAS- soil absorption system
Construction   Salvage   O&M
28
3
5
2
7
2
2
4



175
854
1,129
904
2,504
885
885
1,420



4,900
2,562
5,645
1,808
17,528
1,770
1,770
5,680
41,663
14,582
56,250
2,940
1,537
_
-
-
1,062
1,062
—
6,600
-
-
280
30
_
-
504
766
270
-
1,850
-
-
35
35
13
15
19
14
2


90
800
854
1,129
904
2,504
700


3,150
28,000
11,102
16,935
17,176
35,056
1,400
112,820
5,640
1,890
16,800
6,661
-
-
-
—
25,350
-
-
350
-
-
-
1,008
124
1,482
74
                                      i- 31

-------
Table E-31. Quantities and  costs  for upgrading and operation of on-site systems
            for Sturgeon Lake.  (Alternatives 4 and 5).
Item
Quantity
Septic tank
  Upgrade (minor)
  Upgrade (major)
Soil absorption system
  Trench
  Mound (400 sq ft incld. pump)

Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capitol costs

Future costs
  Building sewer
  Septic tank, new
  Septic tank, upgrade
  Trench SAS
  Seepage bed SAS
  Mound (400 sq ft)
  Mound (200 sq ft incld. pump)
  Pump chamber
  Blackwater HT Permanent
  Blackwater HT Seasonal
  Low flow toliet

Total future costs
Annual future costs
SAS - soil absorption system, HT - holding tank
Construction   Salvage   O&M
114
10
2
3

175
854
1,129
2,504

19,950
8,540
2,258
7,512
38,260
13,391
51,650
11,970
5,124
-
17,090
1,140
100
216
1,456
76
76
35
33
68
14
2
6
3
1
4


90
800
854
1,129
904
2,504
2,154
700
885
885
350


6,840
60,800
29,890
37,257
61,472
35,056
4,308
4,200
2,655
885
1,400
244,760
12,240
                                     4,104
                                    36,480
                                    17,934
                           760
                                     1,593
                                       531
                                    60,640
                           144
                           372
                         1,149
                           135
                         2,560
                           128
                                      E-32

-------
Table E-32. Quantities and costs  for upgrading  and  operation of on-site systems
            for Sturgeon Lake.  (Alternative  6).
Item
Quantity
Construction   Salvage   O&M
Septic tank
  Upgrade (minor)
  Upgrade (major)
Soil absorption system
  Trench
  Mound (400 sq ft incld. pump)

Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capitol costs

Future costs
  Building sewer
  Septic tank, new
  Septic tank, upgrade
  Trench SAS
  Seepage bed SAS
  Mound (400 sq ft)
  Mound (200 sq ft incld. pump)
  Pump chamber
  Blackwater HT Permanent
  Blackwater HT Seasonal
  Low flow toliet

Total future costs
Annual future costs
SAS - soil absorption system, HT - holding  tank
114
10
2
3

175
854
1,129
2,504

19,950
8,540
2,258
7,512
38,260
13,391
51,650
11,970
5,124
-
17,090
1,140
100
216
1,456
76
76
35
29
68
14
2
6
3
1
4


90
860
854
1,129
904
2,504
2,154
700
885
885
350


6,840
60,800
29,890
37,257
61,472
35,056
4,308
4,200
2,655
885
1,400
244,760
12,240
                                     4,104
                                    36,480
                                    17,934
                           760
                                      1,593
                                       531
                                    60,640
                           144
                           372
                         1,149
                           135
                         2,560
                           128
                                      E-33

-------
          Appendix  F
Analysis  of Grant  Eligibility
                                                                •H

                                                                60
                                                                •H
                                                                n)
                                                                n
                                                                o
                                                                CO

                                                                •H

                                                                CO
                                                                w
                                                                fx,
                                                                O,

-------
                             GRANT ELIGIBILITY
     The  eligibility  of initial  capital costs for  State  and USEPA grants
are based  on  MPCA policy and USEPA Region V policy which are in turn based
on the  Code of  Federal Regulations, Title 40,  Part 35.  These regulations
are currently being  revised.   Interim Final regulations were issued in the
Federal Register on May 12, 1982, and the Final regulations are expected in
the  immediate future.   Current  MPCA  policy was  used to  determine costs
eligible for grants (Mr. L. Zdon, MPCA, to WAPORA,  Inc., 18 August 1982 and
29 November 1982).

     A project that  is determined to be  innovative  and alternative quali-
fies for  a greater  percentage of grant funding of eligible initial capital
costs than conventional projects.  The percentage is shown below:
                                                                     1
                                   Grant Percentage of Eligible Costs
Innovative and Alternative
Conventional
15%
Total
Grant
  94%
  90%
     The initial capital costs include the following:
          o    Eligible costs  - Initial  capital  costs  eligible  for USEPA
               and state grants.

          o    Ineligible costs  -  Initial  capital  costs not  eligible for
               USEPA and  State grants  (not  including  homeowner ineligible
               costs).

          o    Homeowner inelgible costs  -  Initial  capital costs that must
               be financed by the individual homeowner.

     Operation and maintenance costs are not grant eligible.

     Grant eligibility  in this report was based on the following:

          Collection and Conveyance

               1.   STE gravity  and  STE  pressure  sewers -  All costs were
                    considered  eligible  for  innovative  and  alternative
                    funding,   except  for  building  sewers  which  were con-
                    sidered homeowner ineligible.

               2.   Conventional  gravity  sewers  -  Pump  stations,  force
                    mains, and any gravity  sewers  used only as inteceptors
                    were  considered   eligible  for  conventional  funding.
                    Gravity  collection  sewers were considered  ineligible.
                    House leads  (piping from the  residence  to  the  edge of
                    the sewer easement)  were considered ineligible.
                                      F-l

-------
         Centralized Treatment

              1.   Upgrading  the  Moose  Lake WWTP  - All  costs  were con-
                   sidered  eligible  for  conventional  funding  except for
                   land purchase which was considered ineligible

              2.   Bog  Treatment -  All  costs  (including  land)  were con-
                   sidered   eligible  for   innovative   and  alternative
                   funding.

         Cluster Drainfields

              All costs were considered eligible  for innovative and alter-
              native  funding   (including  STE  gravity  and   STE  pressure
              collection  systems)  except building  sewers which were con-
              sidered homeowner ineligible.

         Upgrading On-Site Systems

              Upgrading on-site systems for  lots  inhabited prior to Decem-
              ber 1977  were  considered eligible  for innovative and alter-
              native  funding.   The  number  of  eligible residences was
              determined  from  permits and questionnaires.   All ineligible
              residences  were  assumed  to   require minor upgrades   only.
              Low-flow  toilets  were  considered  homeowner  ineligible.
For construction started after 30 September 1984 the Federal share will be
55% for  conventional systems and 75%  for  innovative  and alternative sys-
tems (Federal  Register,  Vol  47,  NO 92, May  12,  1982;  Changes in regula-
tions governing construction grants for treatment works).  The state share
after 30 September 1984 is not known at this  time.
                                  F-2

-------
Table F-l.  Governmental grants and local share costs for Alternative 2  (costs stated  In  1000's  of dollars  followed  In parenthesis
            by the percentage share of capital costs).
Total Estimated Annual O&M US EPA Grant USEPA Grant & State Grant
i
00
System Component
On-site Systems
eligible
ineligible
Administrative
ineligible
Total
Capital Cost (Local Cost) Federal Local Federal State
262.7
28.8
291.5
10.3
28.4
38.7
223.3 (85%) 39.4 (15%) 223.3 (85%) 23.6 (9%)
28.8 (100%)
223.3 68.2 223.3 23.6
Local
15.8 (6%)
28.8 (100%)
44.6

-------
Table F-2.  Governmental grants and local share costs for Alternative 3  (costs stated  In 1000'8 of dollars  followed  In  parenthesis
            by the percentage share of capital costs).
System Component

On-Site Systems
  eligible
  Ineligible

Cluster Systems
  eligible
  homeowner Ineligible

Administrative
  ineligible

Total
                            Total Estimated    Annual O&M
                                                                 USEPA Grant
Capital Cost    (Local Cost)   Federal
                                                                                             USEPA  Grant &  State  Grant
                                                                           Local
                                                                                         Federal
                                                                                                        State
  207.0
   15.7
  936.0
    0.9
1,159.6
 6.2



 9.9


28.4

44.5
176.0 (85Z)    31.0 (15Z)   176.0 (85Z)   18.6 (9Z)
               15.7 (100Z)
795.6 (85Z)   140.4 (15Z)   795.6 (85Z)   84.2 (9%)
                0.9 (100Z)
971.6
188.0
971.6
                                                                                                       102.8
                                                                                                                      Local
                                          12.4  (6Z)
                                          15.7  (100Z)
                                          56.2 (61)
                                           0.9 (100Z)
                                                        85.2

-------
 I
en
          Table F-3.  Governmental grants and local share costs for Alternative 4A (costs stated  In  1000's of dollars  followed  In  parenthesis
                      by the percentage share of capital costs).
System Component

On-Slte Systems
  eligible
  Ineligible

Cluster Systems
  eligible
  homeowner Ineligible

Centralized Collection
  eligible
  Ineligible
  homeowner Ineligible

Centralized Treatment
  eligible
  Ineligible

Administrative
  Ineligible

Total
                                      Total Estimated    Annual O&M
                                        Capital Cost    (Local Cost)
                                          109.2
                                           13.2
                                          453.5
                                            0.1
                                          412.3
                                          388.0
                                           91.7
                                          245.2
                                           42.0
                                        1,755.2
 3.7



 6.5



 7.6




 2.3


28.4

48.5
                                                                      USEPA Grant
                                                                                                    USEPA Grant  &  State Grant
                                                                 Federal
                                                                                Local
                                             Federal
                                                                                                            State
                                                                                                                           Local
 92.8 (85%)    16.4 (15Z)    92.8 (851)    9.8 (9%)
               13.2 (100Z)
385.5 (85%)    68.0 (15%)   385.5 (85%)   40.8 (9%)
                0.1 (100Z)
 6.6 (61)
13.2 (100Z)
27.2 (6Z)
 0.1 (100Z)
309.2 (75Z)   103.1 (25Z)   309.2 (75Z)   61.9 (15Z)    41.2 (10%)
              308.0 (100%)     -            -          388.0 (100Z)
               91.7 (100Z)     -            -           91.7 (100%)
183.9 (75Z)    61.3 (25%)   183.9 (75%)   36.8 (75Z)
               42.0 (100Z)
                                                                         971.4
                                                                                       783.8
                                                                                                     971.4
                                                                                                                   149.3
24.5 (10%)
42.0 (100%)
                                                                                                                       634.5

-------
Table F-4.  Governmental grants and local share costs for Alternative 4B (costs stated In  1000's of dollars  followed  In  parenthesis
            by the percentage share of capital costs).
Total Estimated
System Component
On-slte Systems
eligible
Ineligible
Cluster Systems
eligible
homeowner Ineligible
Centralized Collection
eligible
Ineligible
homeowner Ineligible
Centralized Treatment
eligible
Ineligible
Administrative
ineligible
Total
Capital

109
13

453
0

777

1

245
42


1,641
Cost

.2
.2

.5
.1

.4
-
.3

.2
.0

-
.9
Annual O&M USEPA Grant
(Local Cost) Federal

92.8 (85Z) 16
3.7 - 13

385.5 (85Z) 68
6.5 - 0

660.8 (85Z) 116
7.9
1

183.9 (75Z) 61
2.3 - 42

28.4
48.8 1,323.0 318
USEPA Grant & State Grant
Local Federal State

.4
.2

.0
.1

.6
-
.3

.3
.0

-
.9

(15Z) 92.8 (85Z) 9.8 (9Z)
(100Z)

(15Z) 385.5 (85Z) 40.8 (91)
(100Z)

(15Z) 660.8 (85Z) 70.0 (9Z)
-
(100Z)

(25Z) 183.9 (75Z) 36.8 (15Z)
(100Z)

- -
1,323.0 157.4

6
13

27
0

46

1

24
42


161
Local

.6
.2

.2
.1

.6
-
.3

.5
.0

-
.5

(6Z)
(100Z)

(6Z)
(100Z)

(6%)

(100Z)

(10Z)
(100Z)




-------
Table F-5.  Governmental grants and local share costs for Alternative 4C (costs stated In 1000's of dollars  followed  In  parenthesis
            by the percentage share of capital costs).
Total Estimated
System Component
On-site Systems
eligible
Ineligible
Cluster Systems
eligible
homeowner Ineligible
Centralized Collection
eligible
Ineligible
homeowner Ineligible
Centralized Treatment
eligible
Ineligible
Administrative
ineligible
Total
Capital Cost

109
13

453
0

752

1

245
42


1,617

.2
.2

.5
.1

.9
-
.3

.5
.0

-
.4
Annual O&M USEPA Grant
USEPA Grant & State Grant
(Local Cost) Federal Local Federal State

92.8 (85Z) 16.
3.7 - 13.

385.5 (85Z) 68.
6.5 - 0.

640.0 (85Z) 112.
6.8
1.

183.9 (75Z) 61.
2.3 - 42.

28.4
47.7 1,302.2 315.

4
2

0
1

9

3

3
0


2

(15Z) 92.8 (85Z) 9.8 (9Z)
(100Z)

(15Z) 385.5 (85Z) 40.8 (9Z)
(100Z)

(15Z) 640.0 (85Z) 67.8 (9Z)
-
(100Z)

(25Z) 183.9 (75Z) 36.8 (15Z)
(100Z)

-
1,302.2 155.2

6
13

27
0

45

1

24
42


160
Local

.6
.2

.2
.1

.1
-
.3

.5
.0

-
.0

(6Z)
(100Z)

(6Z)
(100Z)

(6Z)

(100Z)

(10Z)
(100Z)




-------
        Table F-6.  Governmental grants and local share costs for Alternative 5A (costs stated  in  1000's  of dollars  followed  In parenthesis
                    by the percentage share of capital costs).
CO
Total Estimated
System Component
On-site Systems
eligible
ineligible
Cluster Systems
eligible
homeowner ineligible
Centralized Collection
eligible
ineligible
homeowner ineligible
Centralized Treatment
eligible
Ineligible
Administrative
ineligible
Total
Capital Cost

109.
13.

453,
0.

832.
-
1.

244.
-

-
1,654.

2
2

5
1

7

3

9



9
Annual O&H US EPA Grant
USEPA Grant & State Grant
(Local Cost) Federal Local Federal State

92.8 (85Z) 16.
3.7 - 13.

6.5 385.5 (85Z) 68.
0.

707.8 (85Z) 124.
8.0
- - 1.

208.2 (85Z) 36.
9.7

28.4
56.3 1,394.3 260.

4
2

0
1

9

3

7



6

(15Z) 92.8 (85Z) 9.8 (9Z)
(100Z)

(151) 385.5 (85Z) 40.8 (9Z)
(100Z)

(15Z) 707.8 (85Z) • 74.9 (9Z)
-
(100Z)

(15Z) 208.2 (85Z) 22.0 (9Z)
• -

-
1,394.3 147.5
Local

6.
13.

27.
0.

50.
-
1.

14.
-

-
113.

6
2

2
1

0

3

7



1

(6Z)
(100Z)

(6Z)
(100Z)

(6Z)

(100Z)

(6Z)





-------
       Table F-7.  Governmental grants and local share costs for Alternative 5B (costs stated In 1000"s of dollars followed In parenthesis
                   by the percentage share of capital costs).
i
10
System Component

On-Site Systems
  eligible
  ineligible

Cluster Systems
  eligible
  homeowner ineligible

Centralized Collection
  eligible
  Ineligible
  homeowner ineligible

Centralized Treatment
  eligible
  ineligible

Administrative
  ineligible

Total
Total Estimated
Capital Cost
109.2
13.2
453.5
0.1
747.5
1.3
244.9
- .
1,569.7
Annual O&M
(Local Cost)
3.7
6.5
6.8
9.7
28.4
55.1
US EPA Grant
. Federal Local
92.8 (85Z) 16.4 (15%)
13.2 (100Z)
385.5 (85%) 68.0 (15Z)
0.1 (100Z)
635.4 (85%) 112.1 (15Z)
1.3 (100Z)
208.2 (85%) 36.7 (15%)
-
1,321.9 247.8
USEPA Grant & State Grant
Federal State Local
92.8 (85Z) 9.8 (9Z) 6.6 (6%)
13.2 (100Z)
385.5 (85Z) 40.8 (9Z) 27.2 (6%)
0.1 (100Z)
635.4 (85Z) 67.3 (9Z) 44.8 (6%)
1.3 (100Z)
208.2 (85Z) 22.0 (9Z) 14.7 (6%)
_
1,321.9 139.9 107.9

-------
Table F-8.  Governmental grants and local share costs for Alternative 6A (costs stated In 1000's of dollars followed In parenthesis
            by the percentage share of capital costs).
System Component

On-Site Systems
  eligible
  ineligible

Cluster Systems
  eligible
  homeowner ineligible

Centralized Collection
  eligible
  ineligible
  homeowner ineligible

Centralized Treatment
  eligible
  ineligible

Administrative
  ineligible

Total
Total Estimated
Capital Cost
66.2
7.0
453.5
0.1
759.9
786. A
156.6
311.2
66.0
Annual O&M US EPA Grant
(Local Cost) Federal
56.3 (85%)
1.9
6.5 385.5 (85Z)
569.9 (75%)
14.2
233.4 (75Z)
3.0
Local
9.9 (153!)
7.0 (100Z)
68.0 (15%)
0.1 (100Z)
190.0 (25%)
786.4 (100%)
156.6 (100Z)
77.8 (25Z)
66.0 (100Z)
US EPA
Federal
56.3 (85Z)
385.5 (85Z)
569.9 (75Z)
233.4 (75Z)
Grant & State Grant
State
6.0 (9Z)
40.8 (91)
114.0 (15Z)
46.7 (15Z)
Local
3.9 (6Z)
7.0 (100Z)
27.2 (6Z)
0.1 (100Z)
76.0 (10%)
786.4 (100%)
156.6 (100%)
31.1 (10%)
66.0 (100%)
                                 2,606.9
28.4

54.0
1,245.1
                         1,361.8
1,245.1
207.5
              1,154.3

-------
Table F-9.  Governmental grants and local share costs for Alternative 6B  (costs stated  In  1000's  of dollars  followed  In parenthesis
            by the percentage share of capital costs).

System Component
On-Site Systems
eligible
Ineligible
Cluster Systems
eligible
homeowner ineligible
Centralized Collection
eligible
ineligible
homeowner ineligible
Centralized Treatment
eligible
ineligible
Administrative
ineligible
Total
Total Estimated
Capital Cost

66.2
7.0

453.5
0.1

1,520.1
.
3.2

311.2
66.0

-
2,427.3
Annual O&M US EPA Grant US EPA
(Local Cost) Federal Local Federal

56.3 (85%) 9.9 (15Z) 56.3 (85%)
1.9 - 7.0 (100%)

6.5 385.5 (85Z) 68.0 (15Z) 385.5 (85Z)
0.1 (100Z)

1,292.1 (85Z) 228.0 (15Z) 1,292.1 (85Z)
14.7 - ' -
3.2 (100Z)

233.4 (75Z) 77.8 (25Z) 233.4 (75Z)
3.0 - 66.0 (100Z)

28.4 -
54.5 1.967.3 460.0 1,967.3
Grant & State Grant
State Local

6.0 (9Z) 3.9 (6Z)
7.0 (100Z)

40.8 (91) 27.2 (6%)
0.1 (100Z)

136.8 (9Z) 91.2 (6Z)
-
3.2 (100%)

46.7 (15%) 31.1 (10%)
66.0 (100Z)

-
230.3 229.7

-------
        Table F-10. Governmental grants and local share costs for Alternative 6C (costs stated In 1000's of dollars followed In parenthesis
                    by the percentage share of capital costs).
 i
ro
System Component

On-Site Systems
  eligible
  ineligible

Cluster Systems
  eligible
  homeowner ineligible

Centralized Collection
  eligible
  ineligible
  homeowner ineligible

Centralized Treatment
  eligible
  ineligible

Administrative
  ineligible

Total
Total Estimated
Capital Cost
66.
7.
453.
0.
1,337.
3.
311.
66.
.
2,244.
2
0
5
1
5
2
2
0

7
Annual O&M US EPA Grant
USEPA Grant & State Grant
(Local Cost) Federal • Local Federal -State
56.3 (85Z) 9.
1.9 - 7.
6.5 385.5 (85Z) 68.
0.
1,136.9 (85*) 200.
11.6
- - 3.
233.4 (75Z) 77.
3.0 - 66.
28.4
51.4 1,812.1 432.
9
0
0
1
6
2
8
0

6
(15Z) 56.3 (85Z) 6.0 (9Z)
(100Z)
(15Z) 385.5 (85Z) 40.8 (9Z)
(100Z)
(15Z) 1,136.9 (85Z) 120.4 (9Z)
(100Z)
(25Z) 233.4 (75Z) 46.7 (15Z)
(100Z)
-
1,812.1 213.9
Local
3.
7.
27.
0.
80.
3.
31.
66.
-
218.
9
0
2
1
2
2
1
0

7
(6Z)
(100Z)
(6Z)
(100Z)
(6Z)
(100Z)
(10Z)
(100Z)



-------
        Table  F-ll.  Governmental  grants and  local  share  costs  for  Alternative  7A (costs  stated  In  1000's  of dollars  followed  In  parenthesis
                    by  the  percentage  share  of  capital costs) .
 I
CO
System Component

On-site Systems
  eligible
  ineligible

Centralized Collection
  eligible
  ineligible
  homeowner Ineligible

Centralized Treatment
  eligible
  ineligible

Administrative
  ineligible

Total
Total Estimated
Capital Cost
9.6
4.9
2,503.9
1,344.9
3.6
544.4
144.0
-
4,555.2
Annual O&M USEPA Grant USEPA
(Local Cost) Federal Local Federal
8.2 (85%) 1.4 (15%) 8.2 (85%)
0.4 - 4.9 (100%)
1,877.9 (75%) 626.0 (25%) 1,879.9 (75%)
30.9 - 1,344.9 (100%)
3.6 (100%)
408.2 (75%) 136.1 (25%) 408.2 (75%)
11.5 - 144.0 (100%)
28.4 - -
71.2 2,294.3 2,260.9 2,294.3
Grant & State Grant
State Local
0.9 (9%) 0.5 (6%)
4.9 (100%)
375.6 (15%) 250.4 (10%)
1,344.9 (100%)
3.6 (100%)
81.6 (15%) 54.5 (10%)
144;0 (100%)
-
458.1 1,802.8

-------
Table F-12.  Governmental grants and local share costs for Alternative 7B (costs stated In  1000's of dollars  followed  In  parenthesis
             by the percentage share of capital costs).
System Component
On-slte Systems
eligible
Ineligible
Centralized Collection
eligible
Ineligible
homeowner Ineligible
Centralized Treatment
eligible
Ineligible
Administrative
ineligible
Total
Total Estimated
Capital Cost
9.6
4.9
3,475.5
5.9
544.3
144.0
4,184.2
Annual O&M
(Local Cost)
0.4
32.4
11.5
28.4
72.4
US EPA Grant
Federal Local
8.2 (85%) 1.4 (15%)
4.9 (100%)
2,954.2 (85%) 521.3 (15%)
5.9 (100%)
408.2 (75%) 136.1 (25Z)
144.0 (100Z)
3,370.6 813.6
USEPA Grant & State Grant
Federal State Local
8.2 (85Z) 0.9 (92) 0.5 (6%)
4.9 (100%)
2,954.2 (85%) 312.8 (9%) 208.5 (6%)
5.9 (100%)
408.2 (75%) 81.6 (15%) 54.5 (10%)
144.0 (100%)
3,370.6 ,395.3 418.3

-------
Table F-13.  Governmental grants and local share costs for Alternative 7C (costs stated In 1000's of dollars followed In parenthesis
             by the percentage share of capital costs).
Total Estimated
System Component
On-slte Systems
eligible
Ineligible
Centralized Collection
eligible
Ineligible
homeowner Ineligible
Centralized Treatment
eligible
Ineligible
Administrative
Ineligible
Total
Capital Cost

9
4

3,276

5

544
144


3,985

.6
.9

.7
-
.9

.3
.0

—
.4
Annual O&M US EPA Grant
(Local Cost) Federal

8.2 (85%) 1
0.4 - 4

2,785.2 (85%) 491
32.9
- 5

408.2 (75%) 136
11.5 - 144

28.4
73.2 3.201.5 783
USEPA Grant & State Grant
Local Federal State

.4
.9

.5
-
.9

.1
.0

—
.9

(15%) 8.2 (85%) 0.9 (9%)
(100%)

(15%) 2,785.2 (85%) 294.9 (9%)
-
(100%)

(25%) 408.2 (75%) 81.6 (15%)
(100%)

— • —
3,201.6 377.4

0
4

196

5

54
144


406
Local

.5
.9

.6
-
.9

.5
.0

—
.4

(6%)
(100%)

(6%)

(100%)

(10%)
(100%)




-------
Table F-14.  Average annual residential user costs with Federal and State grants.


                              Cost ($1.000x)



Alternative
2
3
4A
4B
4C
5A
5B
6A
6B
6C
7A
7B
7C


Capital
costs
291.5
1,159.6
1,755.2
1,641.9
1.617.4
1,654.9
1,569.7
2,606.9
2,427.3
2,244.7
4,555.2
4,184.2
3,985.4


Federal
Share
223.3
971.6
971.4
1,323.0
1,302.2
1,394.3
1,321.9
1,245.1
1,967.3
1,812.1
2,294.3
3,370.6
3,201.5


State
Share
23.6
102.8
149.3
157.4
155.2
147.5
139.9
207.5
230.3
213.9
458.1
395.3
377.4


Local
Share
44.6
85.2
634.5
161.5
160.0
113.1
107.9
1,154.3
229.7
218.7
1,802.8
418.3
406.4
Annual
Equivalent
Of j
Local Share
4.7
8.9
66.4
16.9
16.8
11.8
11.3
120.9
24.1
22.9
189.8
43.8
42.6


Annual
0 & M
38.7
44.5
48.5
48.8
47.7
56.3
55.1
54.0
54.5
51.4
71.2
72.4
73.2

Annual Cost
to Local
Residents
43.4
53.4
114.9
65.7
64.5
68.1
66.4
174.9
78.6
74.3
260.0
116.2
115.8

1980
Residences
Served
286
301
309
309
309
309
309
335
335
335
390
390
390
Average
Annual
Cost per
Residence
12.64
14.79
31.00
17.72
17.38
18.38
17.91
43.50
19.54
18.48
55.55
24.83
24.73
Average
Annual
Cost per
Residence
151.68
177.48
372.00
212.64
208.56
220.56
214.92
522.00
234.48
221.76
666.60
297.96
296.76
 Local share Is amortized at 8 3/8% Interest at 20 years (0.10471)

2
 Includes administrative costs
 See Table 2-22

-------
Table F-15.  Average annual residential user costs with Federal grant only.


                                   Cost ($1.000x)


Alternative
2
3
4A
4B
4C
5A
5B
6A
6B
6C
7A
7B
7C


Capital
costs
291.5
1,159.6
1,755.2
1,641.9
1,617.4
1,654.9
1,569.7
2,609.9
2,427.3
2,244.7
4,555.2
4,184.2
3,985.4


Federal
Share
223.3
971.6
971.4
1,323.0
1,302.2
1,394.3
1,321.9
1,245.1
1,967.3
1,812.1
2,294.3
3,370.6
3,201.5


Local
Share
68.2
188.0
783.8
318.9
315.2
260.6
247.8
1,361.8
460.0
432.6
2,260.9
813.6
783.9
Annual
Equivalent
of l
Local Share
7.1
19.7
82.1
33.4
33.0
27.3
26.0
142.6
48.2
45.3
236.7
85.2
82.1


Annual
0 & M
38.7
44.5
48.5
48.8
47.7
56.3
55.1
54.0
54.5
51.4
71.2
72.4
73.2

Annual Cost
to Local
Residents
45.8
64.2
130.6
82.2
80.7
83.6
81.1
196.6
102.7
96.7
307.9
157.6
155.3

1980
Residences
Served
286
301
309
309
309
309
309
335
335
335
390
390
390
Average
Annual
Cost per
Residence
13.36
17.77
35.21
22.17
21.75
22.54
21.86
48.90
25.54
24.05
65.80
33.67
33.18
Average
Annual
Cost per
Residence
160.32
213.24
422.52
266.04
261.00
270.48
262.32
586.80
306.48
288.60
789.60
404.04
398.16
 Local share Is amortized at 8 3/8% Interest for 20 years (0.10471)

2
 Includes administrative costs

3
 See Table 2-22

-------
           Table F-16.  Average annual residential user costs without any governmental grants.
 i

00



Alternative
2
3
4A
4B
4C
5A
5B
6A
6B
6C
7A
7B
7C


Capital
Costs
291.5
1,159.6
1.755.2
1,641.9
1,617.4
1,654.9
1,569.7
2,609.9
2,427.3
2,244.7
4,555.2
4,184.2
3,985.4
Cost ($l,000x)
Annual
Equivalent ,
of Local Share
30.5
121.4
183.8
171.9
169.4
173.3
164.4
273.3
254.2
235.0
477.0
438.1
417.3


Annual,
0 & M
38.7
44.5
48.5
48.8
47.7
56.3
55.1
54.0
54.5
51.4
71.2
72.4
73.2

Annual Cost
to Local
Residents
69.2
165.9
232.3
220.7
217.1
229.6
219.5
327.3
308.7
286.4
548.2
510.5
490.5

1980
Residences?
Served
286
301
309
309
309
309
309
335
335
335
390
390
390
Average
Monthly
Cost per
Residence
20.17
45.94
62.64
59.53
58.54
61.92
59.19
81.41
76.78
71.25
117.13
109.09
104.81
Average
Annual
Cost per
Residence
242.04
551.28
751.68
714.36
702.49
743.03
710.28
976.92
921.36
855.00
1,405.56
1,309.08
1,257.72
            Local share is amortized at 8 3/8% Interest for 20 years (0.10471).

           2
            Includes administrative costs


           3See Table 2-22.

-------
         Appendix G
                                                                •H
                                                                O
                                                                CO

                                                                C
                                                                o
Impacts of On-site Wastewater                               
-------
                               IMPACTS ON SOILS

     The application of  septic  tank effluent to  soil  in the operation of the
cluster  drainfields  (Alternatives  3 through 6)  and  on-site  systems (alter-
natives  2  through  7)  will  have an  impact  on the  amount  of  prosphorus and
nitrogen in the soil.

     Phosphorus would  be  present in septic tank effluent in an inorganic form
as  orthophosphate  (primarily HPO -2),  as  polyphosphates  (or  condensed phos-
phates), and as  organic  phosphate compounds.  Because the pH 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.

     When septic tank  effluent  is applied to soils, dissolved inorganic phos-
phorus  (orthophosphate) may  be  adsorbed by the iron, aluminum, and/or calcium
compounds,  or  may  be  precipitated  through with  soluble iron,  aluminum,  and
calcium.  Because it is  difficult to distinguish between  adsorption and pre-
cipitation reactions,  the  term  "sorption"  is utilized to refer to the removal
of phosphorus  by both  processes (USEPA and others 1977).  The degree to which
phosphorus is  sorbed in  soil depends on its  concentration,  soil pH, tempera-
ture, time,  total loading,  and  the concentration of  other  wastewater consti-
tuents  that  directly react  with phosphorus,  or that  affect  soil  pH and oxi-
dation-reductions (USEPA and others 1977).

     The phosphorus  in the  absorbed 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 waste-
water enriched with phosphorus is applied,  the dissolved phosphorus concentra-
tion of phosphorus  in the  percolate,  and  thus in the  groundwater  or in the
recovered underdrainage water.

     Eventually,  adsorbed phosphorus is transformed into a crystalline-mineral
state,   re-establishing the  adsorptive  capacity  of the  soil.   This transfor-
mation  may  occur slowly, requiring from months  to years.   However,  work by
various researchers indicate  that  as much as 100%  of  the  original adsorptive
capacity may be  recovered  in as little as 3 months.   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 can  move  quickly through permeable soils.
Adequate retention  of the wastewater in the unsaturated soil zone is necessary
to  allow  enough  time  for  the  organic  phosphorus to  be hydrolized  by micro-
organisms to the  orthophosphate  form.  In the orthophosphate form, it then can
be adsorbed.

     Nitrogen  loadings  in the  septic tank effluent  are of  greatest concern
because of the potential  for well contamination by nitrates.   Nitrogen would
be present in applied wastewater principally in the form of ammonium (NH.) and
organic nitrogen.  When  septic  tank effluent is applied to soils, the natural
                                     G-l

-------
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 oxi-
dize ammonium  to  nitrite (NO ) that is quickly converted to the nitrate (NO )
from  through  nitrification.   Nitrate  is highly  soluble  and  is  utilized  By
plants, or  leached  from the soil  into  the groundwater.   Under anaerobic con-
ditions  (in  the  absence of oxygen), soil  nitrate  can be reduced by soil mic-
robes  to  gaseous  nitrogen  forms  (denitrification).   These  gaseous forms move
upward through the  soil atmosphere and are dissipated into the air.  Denitri-
fication 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 soil  except  in  organic
matter. Organic matter  increases within the  soil  would  result from increased
microbial action  and from  decreased oxidation.  The increased organic matter
improves the soil  tilth (workability), water holding capacity, and capability
of retaining plant nutrients.
                                     6-2

-------
         Appendix  H
Excerpts  from the Report  on Algae
                                                                 
-------
              Excerpts from the Report on Algae  (USEPA  1982).
Excerpts were taken from the Report on Algae to provide summaries and conclusions
regarding the major topical areas covered.  The full Report on Algae was originally
published and distributed by USEPA Region V in January of  1982.  This report was
prepared as a supporting technical reference document for  the Environmental Impact
Statement on the Moose  Lake-Windemere Sanitary District's  proposed wastewater
treatment system.   Complete copies of the Report on Algae  are available from the
Project Monitor.
  2.3.5.   Summary of Blue-Green Algal  Toxicity

       Three  genera of  freshwater blue-green  algae,  Anacystis,  Anabaena  and
  Aphanizomenon,  are  most commonly associated  with  toxin production  and  have
  been reported to produce several  different types of toxins.  The toxicologlcal
  and pharmacological  properties of the toxins as well as their chemical identi-
  ties are  not well understood.   In  addition,  very little  is  currently known
  about the physiological  and/or ecological factors  and  interactions  that  lead
  to toxic episodes.

       There  is  well documented evidence,  however,  that blue-green  algae  can
  produce   toxic  effects  in  animals   and  livestock.   Livestock  and  wildlife
  poisonings occur most frequently  in lakes,  reservoirs, and ponds in temperate
  climates.  Toxic  blooms usually  occur  between late  spring  and  early autumn.
  Toxic effects  in  animals  can occur only  through ingestion  of contaminated
  water.   A variety of  toxic  effects  have been documented in the laboratory and
  from observations  of  livestock  and  wildlife populations  and  include convul-
  sions,  gastrointestinal  disorders,  respiratory disorders,  liver failure,  and
  death.   There are, however,  no documented or reported cases of human mortality
  associated with toxic  strains of  freshwater  blue-green algae.

       Although more than  12  species  belonging to 9 genera of freshwater cyano-
  phytes have been implicated  in cases of  animal poisoning, toxic strains of the
  three most   common  bloom forming  species,   Microcystis aeruginosa,  Anabaena
                                     H-l

-------
flos-aque,  and  Aphanizomenon flos-aque have been  responsible for  the majority
of the documented episodes.   (In the  literature, Anacystis is used synonyraosly
with   the   genus  Microcystis.)   The  poisonings  attributable   to  Anabaena
flos-aque have  been more dramatic in terms of the number of animals affected,
but  toxic  strains  of  Microcystis  aeruginosa appear  to be more  widely dis-
tributed geographically.

     To date, twelve different  toxins have been identified from strains and/or
blooms of the three most common toxigenic species.  The  toxins differ in their
reaction  time  and  their  chemical  structure.  Several  of  the  toxins are very
fast-acting  and are  suspected  of  being  alkaloids.   Some have  a pronounced
latent  period  following ingestion  and are suspected  of being peptides.  The
available  evidence  also  indicates  that  a  single bloom may  contain several
different toxins simultaneously.

     Investigations  into  the  nature  and  occurrence of  toxic  blooms of blue-
green  algae  indicate  that  such blooms  have  a   highly variable and  mosaic
nature.  The development  of toxic blooms is unpredictable  and usually occurs
in short-lived  pulses.   They infrequently recur in the same  body of water in
subsequent years.  The  fact  that bloom toxicity is so varied and unpredictable
makes  any  bloom potentially dangerous  and suspect at  all  times,  even though
the majority are actually nontoxic.

     There  have been  several documented episodes of  toxic blue-green algae
blooms in southern Minnesota.  Toxic blooms are rare,  however,  in the northern
part of the state.
                                 H-2

-------
3.3.  Summary of the Causes of Swimmers' Itch

     Swimmers' itch can be cercarial related or blue-green algae related.  Man
is  not  a  host  or  "carrier"  of  the schistosome  which causes  the  cercarial
dermatitus form of  swimmers  itch.   Therefore human waste  (excrement)  can not
be  responsible  for the presence of this more severe  type  of  swimmers' itch.
However,  the blue-green  algae  blooms  which are 'responsible  for the  less
serious form  of dermatitus  can  in part  be caused by  an  influx of nutrients
from human waste.
                                    H-3

-------
4.0.  PHYTOPLANKTON  COMMUNITY  STRUCTURE AND EVIDENCE OF PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEMS:
      MOOSE  LAKE, MINNESOTA

     Four  lakes  in  the Moose  Lake-Wlndermere Sanitary  District  were  inves-
tigated  to gather baseline  information on phytoplankton community structure
and  on  existing  water quality.  The  objective  of this  investigation  was to
evaluate the  relative abundance of blue-green algae  in  the four lakes and to
assess  potential  problems  associated with  blooms of  blue-green  algae.   A
secondary  purpose was  to determine if cercarial dermititus  (swimmers' itch) is
a problem  in  the Moose Lake  area.  The Moose Lake-Windermere Sanitary District
is  located  in  eastern  Minnesota  between Minneapolis  and Duluth.   The  four
lakes  that  were  studied  are  Island,  Sturgeon,   Rush,  and  Passenger  Lakes
(Figure 4-1).

     The description  and  evaluation of  the  phytoplankton community structure
was  based  on lake  sampling  and water quality data analysis.   Information on
blue-green toxicity  events and  swimmers' itch outbreaks was gathered in inter-
views with local physicians and  veterinarians as  well   as  with state  health
officials.

4.1.  Phytoplankton  Community Structure

4.1.1.  Description  of Phytoplankton Community Structure

     Phytoplankton community structure is  determined  primarily through  inter-
actions    involving    physical-chemical  factors,   zooplankton,   and   fish.
Typically, the  dominance of  a  phytoplankton community by a particular species
will shift during  the course of a year.   That is,  a particular phytoplankton
species  may  form  the  greatest  proportion  of  the  algal community  biomass
(weight of living  matter)  only at certain times of the year when the interac-
tions taking  place  within the  water body favor that particular phytoplankton.
As the  aquatic  ecosystem changes  during the year,  numerous interactions occur
that may,  in sequence, favor other phytoplankton.  For  example,  in eutrophic
lakes diatoms may be the dominant phytoplankton in the spring because they are
favored by high silicate concentrations, high light peneration, and cool water
temperatures  present  at that  time of  the  year.   In early  summer  as silicate
                                  H-4

-------
Figure 4-1. Locations of mid-lake sampling stations
            for phytoplankton,  nutrient, temperature,
            dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll data.
                       H-5

-------
concentrations  decrease,  green algae may become dominant because of  increased
water  temperatures  and increased nutrient availability.  As water  temperature
reaches the late summer peak,  and as dissolved nitrate levels decrease follow-
ing uptake by green algae and by  rooted  aquatic plants, blue-green  algae may
become dominant.  In late summer blue-green algae hold an advantage over other
algal species when  levels of phosphorous are high compared to nitrogen because
blue-greens alone  can fix  atmospheric nitrogen into  a  useful  nutrient form.
In  addition,  blue-green  algae  use  their  unique  gas  vacuoles  to remain in
position at the water  surface  and take advantage of the diminished  sunlight as
well as shade out other algae  found deeper in the water column.

     Algal groups such as blue-greens, diatoms, or greens are characterized as
dominant  based  on  biovolume  measurements  micrometers  cubed  per  railliliter
Gum /ml).  Biovolume  is  a parameter which generally  reflects  biomass.   It is
expressed in  this  Report  as a volume of plankton per unit volume of  water and
is therefore indicative of visible accumulations of living matter.

     Phytoplankton  samples  were collected  from Island  Lake  (6 stations)  and
Sturgeon Lake (4 stations) on  four sampling dates during late summer  and early
autumn.  Passenger  and Rush Lakes were sampled on three dates during the same
period at one  station in the middle of each the lakes.  Phytoplankton samples
were taken in each  instance at one meter below the surface, at mid-depth, and
at one  meter  from  the bottom.  The  sampling station locations  are  shown in
Figure 4-1.  Algal  identification was taken at least to the genus level and to
the species level where possible.  Phytoplankton dimensional measurements were
made of the most numerous phytoplankton species found.  Measurements  for other
less numerous phytoplanktons  were  taken from  unpublished species  lists  for
Minnesota lakes  (by letter,  Nancy Holm, Limnological Research Center, Univer-
sity of Minnesota)  and from Wetzel (1975).   The list of phytoplankton volumes
used to  calculate  biovolumes  in this  investigation  is included  in  Appendix
A-3.   Chlorophyll   ji  samples  were  collected  concurrent  with  phytoplankton
sampling on  two dates at  the  same sample locations  and depths.   Secchi disk
depth was measured at all sample sites and on all sample dates.

Island Lake
     Phytoplankton   biovolume   (abundance)   and   the   percent   composition
(dominance)  of  major  phytoplankton  groups  for  Island  Lake at  the surface,
                                    H-6

-------
mid-depth, and  bottom depths are  depicted in Figure 4-2.   From  26 August to
September  9  there was  an overall  decrease  in algal  density and  a dramatic
shift in  algal  dominance.   The  decrease in algal density was due primarily to
the decline of  the  large dinoflagellate,  Ceratium hirundinella,  which had an
estimated  volume  of  75,000  urn   per organism.   Over this  same  time period a
                                                          3
large blue-green  species,  Anabaena  macrospora  (45,000 jum   per  organism) and
                                                      3
another blue-green,  Aphanizomenon  flos-aquae (2800 Aim  per organism)  grew in
                                                               3
number while a  smaller  blue-green, Phormidium mucicola  (10 jam  per organism)
decreased  in  number.  Thus,  although  the total  blue-green algae cell number
per ml remained relatively  constant from 26 August to 9 September, because of
the shift  from  small blue-green algae species to large-sized blue-green algae
species and declines in other phytoplankton (the dinoflagellates declined from
77%  to  less  than 1% of the phytoplankton  biovolume), blue-green  algae in-
creased from  16%  to 94%  of  the total phytoplankton biovolume.    For  the re-
mainder  of September,  blue-greens  were  dominant  in   Island  Lake, with the
blue-green abundance  reaching a peak  around the  September 14  sampling date
(Table 4-1).

     Throughout the  sampling period  (26  August  to October  5)   Island  Lake
consistently had  the highest phytoplankton  density of the four  lakes inves-
tigated.    High  blue-green algal and other phytoplankton densities in Island
Lake  also contributed  to poor  water  clarity.   Island  Lake had  the lowest
Secchi disk  readings of  the four  lakes.   The changes in  the average Island
Lake Secchi disk  readings  were  followed closely by the changes in phytoplank-
ton abundance (Figure 4-3a and b).

Sturgeon Lake

     Changes in phytoplankton abundance and dominance in the water column for
the  four  Sturgeon Lake  sampling dates  are  shown in  Figure 4-4.   The total
phytoplankton biovolume  in  Sturgeon  Lake  was  lower than  in  Island Lake but
blue-green algae  were still  the dominant phytoplankton  group  throughout the
month  of  September.   The   dominant  blue-green  species was  Anacystis  spp.
Diatoms were an important component of the phytoplankton community in Sturgeon
Lake  on   all  four sampling  dates  and were  found  at  all  depths  but never
accounted for more than 24% of   the  phytoplankton biovolume.  Based on Secchi
disk readings, water clarity was observed to be much greater in Sturgeon Lake
than in Island Lake (Figure 4-3a).
                                     H-7

-------
                                 ISLAND  LAKE
 Oft
 10ft
 20ftJ
 Oft
 9ft-
                 26  AUGUST  1981
            biovolume in jun  x 10
            I  35   79   11 13 15  17  19
                                0
                                  12Z blue-green
                                 25Z blue-green
                                              11
                           12Z blue-green
                             19ft1
                  14  SEPTEMBER 1981
            biovolume in *jm^ x  10^
            1   35   7   9  11  13 15  17  19
                     98Z blue-green
                  98Z blue-
                     green
                                           13ft
18ftJ


Figure  4-2.
                             98Z blue-green
                             22ft1
                                              9 SEPTEMBER 1981

                                       biovolume in urn  x 10
                                       1   35  7   9  11 13  15 17 19
                                                                       94Z blue-green
                                                      95Z blue-green
                                                                 92Z blue-green
                                             30 SEPTEMBER 1981
                                       biovolume in jim^ x  10°
                                       1  35   7   9  11  13 15  17  19
blue-green
                                                   94Z blue green
Abundance and  dominance of major phytoplankton  forms based
on biovolume data.  Derived from plankton counts  made on
samples taken  from Island Lake on  four sampling dates.
Depths of samples are approximately  as shown.
                                         H-8

-------
                                                3      4
Table 4-1.     Blue-green  algal  biovolumes  (jura  x  10 /ml)  of  four  lakes  in
               the Moose Lake area and four lakes from southern Minnesota  (the
               Minneapolis-St. Paul area).  Blue-green algae genera listed  are
               those  most  commonly associated  with incidences  of blue-green
               algae toxicity in North America.
Location/
  Date

Island Lake
 26 August 1981
  9 September 1981
 14 September 1981
 30 September 1981

Sturgeon Lake
 27 August 1981
  9 September 1981
 15 September 1981
  5 October 1981

Passenger Lake
 10 September 1981
 15 September 1981
  1 October 1981

Rush Lake
 10 September 1981
 15 September 1981
  1 October 1981
Anabaena spp.
      61
     671
    1336
      92
      30
      41
      74
      30
       0
      14
       5
      30
      27
       0
Anacystis spp.
    17
     7
    11
     8
    58
   102
    66
    48
    18
    14
     2
     0
    24
     4
Aphani zomenon
  f1os-aquae
     67
    169
    466
    358
      0
      1
      0
      1
      0
      0
      0
      0
      0
      0
Sampling
  Depth
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Cedar Lake,  MN
   9 September 1974      14

Lake Harriet,  MN
 22 July 1974             41

Lake of the  Isles,  MN
  22 July 1974          476

Lake Calhoun,  MN
 26 August 1974         232
                      0
                                        169
                                        297
                                        460
                       544
               2 meters


               2 meters


               Surface


               Surface
                                     H-9

-------
                           WATER  CLARITY
                    (SECCHI  DISK MEASUREMENTS)
          .au
          .10
          .60
          .50
          .to

          .20
          .10
          .00
          .90
          .HO
          .10
          60
          .30
          .40
          .X
          .20

          .00
          .90
          .SO
          .70
          .60
          -JO
          .»
             26 AUI|II*C
                              9 Scpct*b«r  1}
                                                       30  1 Oct   S Oec
                                                      S.PC.
Figure  4-3a. Average  Secchi disk values  for the project area lakes
             versus time.   Data  are  from 1981 field surveys.

                      PHYTOPLANKTON ABUNDANCE
            (BIO-VOLUME  ESTIMATES FROM  CELL  COUNTS)
       so -
       100 -
    2
    2 'oo
    3 5UO
    I 600

      900
      1000

      1)00

      2000
              ••..^
                       """•••.».
                                                      T  f
                                                      10  i net.
Figure 4-3b. Average  phytoplankton biovolumes  for the project area lakes
             versus time.   Plotted data  are  representative of the
             photic zones  of  the  lakes,as  only samples from just below
             the  surface of the water were taken into the averages.
                                      H-10

-------
                              STURGEON   LAKE
 Off
                27  AUGUST
           blovolume  in um  x 10
           1   35   79   U 13 15  17  19
                 76Z blue-green
 9ff
   69Z blue-green
                 73Z blue-green
19ftJ
                                           9  SEPTEMBER
                                      blovolume in jam  x 10
                                       1   35  7   9 11 13  15  17 19
                             Oft
                                                        i	I	|	I	I	j__
                                           7ff
                            15ft-l
                                               84Z blue-green
90Z blue-green
                                             692 blue-green
                 15  SEPTEMBER
           bio volume  in »m^ x 10**
           1   35   7  9  11  13 IS  17  19
                                           5  OCTOBER
                                      biovolume in jra^ x 10
                                       1   35   7   9  11 13 15  17  19
 Oft-
           1	I	*	I	I
                                           Oft
                ;•) 86Z blue—green
13ff
                 83Z blue-green
                                          12ft.
26ftJ
                 75Z blue-green
                            22ftJ
                                        ;&v'/£-.1  74Z blue-green
                                             87Z blue-green
                                             69Z blue-green
Figure  4-4.
Abundance and  dominance  of major  phytoplankton  forms based
on biovolume data.  Derived from  plankton counts  made on
samples taken  from Sturgeon Lake  on four  sampling dates;
Depths of samples are approximately as  shown.
                                       •Hill

-------
Passenger Lake

     Passenger  Lake  had  low  phytoplankton biovolumes  (Figures  4-3b and 4-5)
and low blue-green  algae biovolumes (Table 4-1)  compared  to Island and Stur-
geon Lakes.  Although Passenger Lake had the highest cell count per milliliter
of all four lakes (Appendix A) the phytoplankton that accounted for these high
numbers (Ochromonas spp; 4500 cells/ml) was a small golden-brown algae (40 jura
per organism).    For  the three sampling dates,  two  phytoplankton groups were
dominant,  the  golden-brown  algae  and the  cryptomonads.    Based  on  the  the
findings of lower biovolumes  in Passenger Lake  than  in Sturgeon Lake, deeper
Secchi  disk  readings in Passenger Lake would be expected.   This  was not ob-
served  (Figure  4-3a).   The lower  (shallow) Secchi disk readings in Passenger
Lake may have been due to increased light scattering caused by the high number
of  phytoplankton cells,  by  color due  to dissolved  organics,  by  suspended
solids  brought   into  the  photic   zone  (surface   layer)  from  bottom sediment
resuspension,  or by  sediments carried into  the Lake  from  the  surrounding
watershed.

Rush Lake

     Rush Lake  had  the  lowest phytoplankton abundance  (Appendix A-2), and had
blue-green biovoluraes  similar to  Passenger Lake.   Consequently,  a relatively
small blue—green biovolume  could  dominate the overall phytoplankton community
(Figure 4-6).   Other  groups  that  were  important in terms of the the biovolume
percentages  of   Rush  Lake  included cryptonomads  and  dinoflagellates.   Cell
                                                                        3
sizes  in  the  phytoplankton   samples   were  small  (less  than  1000 jum   per
organism) except for  the dinoflagellate, Ceratlum hirundinella.  Large phyto-
plankton can  have a  significant impact on biomass  concentrations  even at low
densities.  For  example,  in  the 10 September mid-depth sample the total cell
density was 748 cells/ml, and although Ceratium was found at only 5 cells/ml,
it represented 38% of the total phytoplankton biomass (Appendix A-l and Figure
4-5) .  The low  phytoplankton  biovolumes in Rush  Lake  are  associated with the
highest (deepest)  Secchi disk readings of the four lakes investigated.  Based
on  the  survey  data  of  September  1981 it appears Rush  Lake had the greatest
water clarity of  the four studied  lakes (Figure 4-3a).
                                 H-12

-------
                              PASSENGER   LAKE
                                                             10 SEPTEMBER 1981
                                                        bio volume in urn x 10
                                                           3 5
                                                     9  11 13  15  17  19
                                            Oft
                                            16ft •
                                            34ft J
                                                              21Z blue-green

                                                              42Z cryptophyte.
                                                           26Z golden brown
                                                    30% other
                                                         • :•'•.%
                                                         •v'.\l 39Z blue-green
                                                            31Z cryptophyte


                                                            17Z blue-green

                                                             36 Z cryptophyte


                                                            40Z euglenoid
 Oft
14ff
                  15  SEPTEMBER 1981
            bio volume in u<&  x 10"
            1   35   7  9  11  13 15  17  19
                 25Z blue-green

                /.39Z cryptophyte
                 32% golden brown
                                               1 OCTOBER  1981
                                        biovolume in jam^ x  10°
                                        1   35   7   9  11   13 15  17  19
                              Oft
           8Z other
28ftJ
               12Z blue-green
  AAZ cryptophyte
                  36Z golden brown
               27Z euglenoid

                 1AZ blue-green

                  59Z cryptophyte
                                             6ft.
                                              14Z blue-green

                                               42Z cryptophyte


                                            32Z eolden brown
                                      17Z golden brown
                                            17Z blue-green
                                               60Z cryptophyte
                                      15Z other
                                                 blue-green

                                              _42Z cryptophyte:
                             12ftJ /  25Z golden brown
Figure 4-5.
Abundance  and dominance of major phytoplankton  forms  based
on biovolume data.  Derived  from plankton  counts made on
samples  taken from Passenger Lake  on three sampling  dates.
Depths of  samples are  approximately as shown.
                                    H-13

-------
                                    RUSH  LAKE
                                                            10  SEPTEMBER  1981

                                                       bio volume in urn  x 10
                                                       1   35   7  9  11 13  15  17 19
                                            Oft
                                           16ft
                                           34ft J
                                                              692 blue-green
                                      18Z other
                                          t!S.
                                          :£$K 35Z blue-green




                                            A 72 dinoflagellate


                                               blue-green


                                               77Z cryptophyte
                 15  SEPTEMBER 1981
            biovolume in >un^ x 10
            1   35   7   9  11  13  15  17  19
                                               1 OCTOBER  1981
                                         biovolume in jjm x 10
 Oft
                               Oft
                  712 blue-green
         41Z other
14ft •
    59Z blue-green
                               6ft
          16Z other '
28ft J
            n7.x^9Z blue-green
                  75Z cryptophyte
                              12ftH
                                                  7   9  11  13 15  17  19
                                                            12Z blue-green
                                                            49Z dinoflagellate
                                                        39Z other
                                                     22Z other
                                                       iv£v/;:A 50Z blue-green
                                       28Z cryptophyte

                                      312 other
                                                               blue -green
                                                             57Z dinoflagellate
Figure 4-6.
Abundance  and dominance of major  phytoplankton forms  based
on  biovolume data.   Derived from  phytoplankton counts made on
samples  taken from  Rush Lake on three  sampling dates.  Depths
of  samples are approximately as shown.
                                     H-14

-------
     Chlorophyll ji was another  parameter  measured in the four lakes.   Chloro-

phyll ji is a general  indicator of the total  phytoplankton biomass but  does not
differentiate between  specific  groups and  does not always correlate  well  to
water clarity.  Table 4-2 lists  chlorophyll  a_ concentrations for the 8 Septem-
ber and 15 September  sampling dates.   In  general,  chlorophyll  ji concentrations
in Island Lake  samples were  higher than in  Sturgeon,  Rush,  or Passenger Lake
samples.  Higher  chlorophyll a_  concentrations  may also have  resulted  in the
observed green  appearance of  Island  Lake's  water compared  to  the other three
lakes.  This  characteristic  has been  reported  by a number of  lakeside resi-

dents and  may be enhanced by the presence  in  Island Lake of  suspended  clay
matter which  scatters  (back-reflects)  light.  The presence of clayey  soils  in

the watershed of Island Lake  is  discussed  in Section 4.1.2. below.

     Table  4-2. Chlorophyll  a_ concentrations C"g/l)  for Island, Sturgeon,
                 Passenger,  and Rush Lakes.
                      SEPTEMBER 8
              Surface  Mid-depth  Bottom
Island
Is-1
Is-2
Is-3
Is-4
Is -5
Is -6
Sturgeon
St-1
St-2
St-3
St-4
Passenger
Rush

37
28
28
32
32
36

10
3
9
8
11
20

34
26
33
24
28
29

11
9
8
8
6
10

28
19
24
8
14
21

10
11
9
7
28
4
       SEPTEMBER 15
Surface  Mid-depth   Bottom
                                                   19
                                                   30
                                                   39
                                                    9
                                                   26
                                                   29
                                                   10
            45

            33
            32
            40
            20
26
12
28
22
 6
16
8
10
8
9
8
7
8
14
9
13
8
8
                                                             16
                       53
                       13
                                   H-15

-------
4.2.  Physician and Veterinarian Interview Report

     A survey  of  medical practitioners was conducted to determine whether any
human, pet  or livestock health problems had  been diagnosed  in the drainage
areas of  Island,  Sturgeon, Passenger or Rush  Lakes since 1979.  Personal and
                                    H-16

-------
telephone interviews were conducted with local medical and veterinary clinics;
state, county, and  local  health and water agencies; and experts.  All respon-
dents were asked  to consult their records and to poll their staffs on medical
problems that might  be  attributed to water pollution in the study area.  They
were  requested   to   document  cases  involving toxic  effects  attributable  to
blue-green algae, bacterial and viral infections,  and  outbreaks of cercarial
dennatitus (swimmers' itch).   An explanation of symptoms exhibited by humans,
pets and livestock after exposure to toxic strains of blue-green algae, and of
swimmers' itch  was  provided  to all survey participants.  A phone number was
left  with  each  respondant  and  they were encouraged to contact  USEPA if they
wished to provide additional information.

     None of  the  agencies,  clinics, or experts polled  had  records of or were
aware of any medical problems associated with water contaminated by blue-green
algae,  or  due to the presence  of  bacteria  or  virus originating  from human
waste in the study area (Table 4-4).

     The Minnesota  Department of Natural  Resources'  (MDNR)  Water Monitoring
and Control Unit (WMCU)  is responsible for issuing permits for applying copper
sulfate to provide emergency control of cercarial dermatitus (swimmers' itch),
rooted aquatic plants and  phytoplankton growth.  No permits  have  been issued
for copper sulfate  applications on  Island, Sturgeon, Passenger  or Rush Lakes
during the  past  twenty years  (By telephone, Howard  Krosch,  Supervisor WMCU,
MDNR 10 November 1981).

     Instances of animal  illness or death attributed to  blue-green algae are
rare in the northern portion of the  state of Minnesota.   Occasional toxic blue
green  algae  blooms   have  been  recorded  in  southern  and western  Minnesota,
typically reappearing in  two  to three year  intervals  (By  telephone,  Howard
Krosch, WMCU, MDNR  18 November 1981).  There have been no documented domestic
animal deaths attributable  to  blue-green algae in northern Minnesota near the
Moose  Lake  area  (Personal  communication,  Dr.  Clarence  Stowe, Large  Animal
Clinic - University  of Minnesota, 9  November 1981).

     Conversely,   cercarial  dermatitus   (swimmers'  itch)   is  reported to  be
common  in  lakes  throughout  Minnesota (By  telephone,  Gene  Jordan,  Minnesota
State Department of  Health,  5  November 1981).  However,  none  of the state or
                                     H-17

-------
i
os
                      Table  4-4.  Responses to public health  survey  questions.(Based  on  telephone interviews
                                      November, 1981)
                       Respondents

                       Minnesota  Department of Natural
                       Resources  - Water Monitoring
                       and Control Unit
                       St. Paul

                       Howard Knoscli - Supervisor
                       David Zapltlllo - Aquatic Biologist
Minnesota Department  of Health:
Epidemiology Department
Minneapolis

Dr.  Michael Olsterholm
                       Public Water Supply Department
                       Minneapolis

                       Richard Clark, Supervisor
                       Charles Schneider,  Engineer
                       Minnesota Department of Health,  Duluth

                       Gene  Jordan, Supervisor
                       Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
                       Water Quality Division
                       St.  Paul
                                                                            No
                                                     No
                                                     No
                                                     No
                                                                                                                         No
No
No
                                                                                                                        No
                       Larry LI v say, Blologlst-Llmonologlst
                                                     No
                                                                                                                        No

-------
Table 4,-4.    Responses  to public health  survey  questions,1  concluded.


Minnesota Board of  Animal Health
St. Paul

Dr. Keller
Dr. Flint                                              No             	 	  	  	                 Ho

University pf Minnesota
Large Anlnal Clinical  Services
St. Paul

Dr. Clarence M. Stowe                                   No             	                            No

Moose Lake Veterinary  Clinic
Moose Lake

Dr. Frank'J. Skalko                                    No             	 	  	  	                 No

Moose Lake Ulndemere Sanitary District
Moose Lnke

Harold Uestholn,  Director                               Yes            	 	  	 <3*                No

Pine County Department of Hunan Services
Pine City
Janet Schumaker                                        Ho             	                            Ho

Carlton County Board of  Health
 Cloquet

Rachel Pulte, Hurse                                    No             	 	  	  	                 No

Carlton County Zoning  Office
 Cloquet

Bruce Benson                                           Ho             	 	  	  	                 Ho

Pine City Area Clinic
Pine City

Dr. Hock                                               No             	 	  	  	                 No

tllnckley Area Clinic
Illnckley

Mary Marks Clinic Coordinator                           Ho             	 	  	  	                 Ho
Dr. Charles Bloom                                      Ho             	 	  	  	                 No

Mora Medical Clinic
Mora

Lorraine Carlson, Insurance Director                    Ho             	 	  	  	                 No

Gateway Family Health  Clinic
Moose Lake

Dr. Raymond Ctirlstensen                                 Ho             	 	  	  	                 No
Dr. Kenneth Ettermnn                                   Ho                                            No

-------
county agencies surveyed had records of any outbreaks of swimmers' itch in Is-
land,  Sturgeon,  Rush  or  Passenger Lakes  (Table  4-4).   Most patients treated
for  swimmers'  itch  in  the  Moose  Lake  area probably  contracted  it  while
swimming  in Moose  Head  lake (By  telephone,  Doctors Raymond  Christensen and
Kenneth  Etterman,   12  November   1981).   Local  citizens   have  not  reported
occurences  of  swimmers'   itch  on Sturgeon,  Rush or  Passenger  Lakes.   One
instance  of swimmers'  itch  occurring on  4  July  1981 was  reported  by a home
owner  on  the  south  shore  of  Island Lake  (Personal   communication,  Harold
Westholm, November  1981).  No reoccurences have been reported.
                                    H-20

-------
                 Table A-2.
                                Phytoplankton bio-volume data and Secchl disk data for four lakes  In Pine County HN.
                                                         *26, b27 AUGUST 1981
C9, 10 SEPTEMBER 1981
"l4,fl5 SEPTEMBER 1981

30 SEPTEMBER and
 I
ro
                                                                                                                                                     1,  '5  OCTOBER

                                                    Surface  Mid-depth  Bottom    Surface  Mid-depth  Bottom    Surface  Mid-depth  Bottom     Surface  Mid-depth  Bottom
                   «.c,e,g.ISLAH() IMK
Z blue-green algae, bio-volume
Z dlnof lagellate, bio-volume
Z other phytoplankton, bio-volume
urn' (total blovolume) x 10 /ml.
Secchl disk depth (meters)
b.c,f,l.STURGEOH UKB
Z blue-green algae, bio- volume
Z crypt omond, bio-volume
Z diatom, bio-volune
Z other phytoplankton, bio-volume
jim1 (total blovolume) x 10* /ml.
Secchl disk depth (meters)
C>f>h'RUSH LAKE
Z blue-green algae, bio-volume
Z crypt omonad, bio-volume
Z dlnoflagellate, bio-volume
Z euglenold, blo-volune
Z other phytoplankton, blo-volune
urn' (total biovolune) x 10* /ml.
Secchl disk depth (meters)
d>f'h- PASSENGER LAKE
Z blue-green algae, bio-volume
Z cryptomonad, bio-volume
Z golden brown algae, bio-volume
Z euglenoid, bio-volume
Z other phytoplankton, blo-volune
urn9 (total blovolume) x 104/nl.
Secchl disk depth (meters)
h
SAND LAKE
Z blue-green algae, bio-volume
Z diatom, bio-volume
Z golden brown algae, bio-volume
Z cryptomonad, bio-volume
Z other phytoplankton, bio-volume
jim* (total biovolume) x 104/ml.
Secchl disk depth (meters)
12
82
6
1211
1.39
76
14
0
10
116
2.02

^_
—
—
—
—
—
__

_ —
—
~
—
—
_
—


^^^
—
—
— .
—
_
—
25
71
4
1808
—
69
13
13
5
107
—

_
—
—
—
—
_
—

_ _
—
—
—
—
__
—


_
—
—
_
—
—
—
12
81
7
921
—
73
13
0
14
94
—

__
—
—
—
—
—
—


—
—
—
—,
__
—


^ _
_
—
—
—
_
—
94
0
6
899
1.59
84
0
11
5
173
2.16

69
15
0
0
16
60
3.60

21
42
26
0
U
84
1.95


^^
_
—
—
—
__
—
95
0
5
746
—
90
0
0
10
338
—

35
0
47
0
18
80
—

39
31
20
0
10
28
—


	
—
—
_
—
_
—
92
0
8
379
—
69
0
24
7
102
—

10
77
0
0
13
103
—

17
36
0
40
7
25
—


ml^
—
_
_
—
_
—
98
0
2
1851
1.29
86
0
0
14
163
2.58

71
18
0
0
11
71
3.63

25
39
32
0
4
112
1.80


^ ^
—
—
_
—
_
—
98
0
2
1113
—
83
0
0
17
128
—

59
10
24
0
7
102
—

12
44
36
0
8
79
—


_
—
—
_
—
—
—
98
0
2
835
—
75
0
16
9
86
—

9
75
0
15
1
20
—

14
59
0
27
0
12
—


_
—
_
_
—
__
—
93
0
7
491
1.48
74
0
U
15
106
2.93

12
U
49
0
28
32
3.72

14
42
32
0
12
49
2.02


55
15
12
0
18
75
2.05
94
0
6
532
—
87
0
0
13
138
—

50
28
0
0
22
22
—

17
60
23
0
0
52
—


53
19
10
17
1
72
—
94
0
6
484
—
69
0
10
21
107
—

12
22
57
0
9
40
—

18
42
25
0
15
57
—


56
U
16
15
2
79
—
                    Recorded  bio-volume  values  are  based  on  mathematical   averages   of   cell  counts  reported  from  a  number of  sampling  stations  on  Island
                    and  Sturgeon  Lakes  (6  and  4  stations,   respectively).    Rush  and   Passenger  Lake  values  are  singular  as  those  lakes  had  one  sampling
                    station  each.   Total  depths at  sampling   stations  ranged  from  18 to 20  feet  at  Island  Lake,  from  IS  to 26  feet  at  Sturgeon Lake,
                    26 feet at Rush Lake, and to 26 feet at Passenger  Lake.

-------
Table  A-3.       Phytoplankton Measurements
CYANOPHYTA                                          ;jm3
   Ana.ba.ejia. na.cJio&pa*a.                            45,000
   Ana.ba.nna. ApUio-idu                              9,000a
                                                    1,000
   Aphasu.zominon (£04 -aquae.                        2,800
   0&iAA 4p                                   300a
   Pho/uniduum mi.CAC.ota.                                10a
CRYPTOPHYTA
   ChnoomonaA acata.                                   70
   Oujptomontu eAo^a                                1000
CRYSOPHTTA
   ChA.y&oe.oc.cuA &p                                  1100*
   VinobJiyon ip                                      500
                                                      500a
                                                      550a
   Oc/itomonat &pp                                     40
   UnaqLtjna. tp                                       450
PYRRHOPHTA
   CeAaicum fuAtawiotetda                          75,000a
EUGLENOPHYTA
   TViocAelmoruU 4p                                  1400a
BACILLARIOPHTTA
                                                     3200a
                                                     1800
                                                     3000a
                                                     2000a
             App                                      690a
                   cu&uiea.                           2000
                   ^^utta                             840a
CHLOROPHYTA
                                                      250
                                                      300a
                                                      620a
                b^Ljugo.                                150a
   Seen erf t4mo4 quadrUcanria                           650*
               i& 6c.hnjovt.vu.                          500a
 University of  Minnesota aeasurements/unpubllshed
bWetzel, p  319,  1975
                        H-22

-------
               Appendix I
Methodology for Population Projections
                                                                       en

                                                                       o
                                                                       o
                                                                       
-------
 Methodology  for Population Projections

                                       The available census data on popula-
tion within  the Townships  is  for year-round  residents  only.  Thus, esti-
mates  of  the  peak population  (seasonal  plus year-round) are  derived by
assigning an average household size for seasonal dwellings to the number of
seasonal  dwellings  and combining  the result  with  the  projected number of
year-round residents.  Because of the large proportion of seasonal dwellings
in Windemere Township and the documented historic variability in the growth
of  the year-round  population versus  the  growth  in  the total  number of
housing units,  a  population based  projection  would  have  to incorporate
subjective assumptions  concerning the  change  in the ratio  of seasonal to
permanent residents over time.

     Accurate  population  projections  are  essential  for designing  cost
effective wastewater treatment facilities.  Thus, the peak population is of
greatest  importance because  the wastewater  treatment  facilities  must be
designed  to  accommodate the  maximum anticipated  wastewater flow  for  the
                               1-1

-------
 life of the facilities.  A housing unit  based  projection  that  is  developed
 from historic  data yields  a  total  housing  unit projection that can be used
 to  estimate  the  total  population,  i.e.,  year-round as  well  as seasonal
 residents.

      To determine  the population  of an area  when the number of housing
 units is known  requires  two  assumptions:   the average household size and
 the  ratio of seasonal to permanent residents at the end  of the projection
 period.   In this report,  a  slight  decrease in the household size of year-
 round  residents  was  forecasted because  of  the documented  trend  toward
 smaller households and the high median age  in the  project area  which un-
 derscores  the  attraction of the local region  as a retirement area.  Site
 specific  information  on the average  household  size of seasonal dwelling is
 not  readily available.   In one study conducted  by  the University of Wis-
 consin  Recreation Resources  Center,  an average  household size of 3.0 was
 found for seasonal dwellings in a  similar  rural lake  area (University of
 Wisconsin  Recreation  Resources  Center   1979). Accordingly,  the  seasonal
 population  projections assume a household  size of  3.0  during the planning
 period.   A  slight decrease  in the  proportion  of  seasonal dwellings  to
 year-round dwellings also is  assumed  based  on the trend apparent during the
 1970s when the growth  rate  for permanent dwellings exceeded the growth rate
 for  seasonal dwellings.   In spite  of these household size assumptions, and
 their potential  for  error,  the  total projected population, as derived from
 the housing unit  projections,  should  not result in significant error if the
 total housing unit growth rates  occur as projected.  For example,  if in the
 year  2000  the  actual  number of  housing units equals the  total number pro-
 jected,  but  there are fewer permanent residents than expected,   the  pop-
ulation on an annual basis  should not vary significantly because the summer
 season  population will be  larger  than estimated while  the average  winter
 season  population is less.

 Projections for Windemere Township

    . The  housing unit projections  were  made by  the  "growth rate" method,
based  on an  extrapolation  of  past  growth rates.   This  method  was  used
because  it  more  closely  models actual changes than any  of  the  other me-
                               1-2

-------
thods.   The "share"  method  was not  used because  it Is not  suitable for
jurisdictions  in  counties where  there is a  fluctuation in subcounty pop-
ulation  growth rates, i.e.,  if some  places  are growing  while others are
losing.   The  "ratio-trend" method  was not used  because of the historical
variability in the ratio between Windemere Township's  population and Pine
County's  population.   Additionally,  the use  of  the "growth  rate" method
provides  for  several different projections based on different assumptions
concerning  future  growth.   The different projections can  then be comapred
with  other factors  such  as  the  amount of  buildable  land,  land values,
public services  availability, etc.  in determing the most  reasonable pro-
jection for the facility planning or "service area".

     The growth rate method is the only method by which  the increase in the
number of housing units  can  be projected directly.  One  problem with the
growth rate  method,   though,  is that  the projection results  from exponen-
tially applying the  average  annual  growth  rate  to  the  previous  year's
population.  If  the   study area experienced unusually rapid growth in the
last decade, the  exponential  application of the average annual growth rate
can lead  to an unrealistically high projection.  Housing  unit projections
were  initially developed  for Windemere  Township based  on  four  different
assumptions concerning future  growth (Table 1-1 ;  Figure 1-1 ).

Table  1-1.   Housing Unit Projections,  Windemere Township,  1980 to 2000.

           Assumptions                         1980     1990      2000
1. Straight average:   growth  rate for the
   projection period remains  constant at
   the 1960 to  1980 average                    919      1,565     2,673
2. Trend  rate:   growth rate for the pro-
   jection period changes at  the same
   rate as the  1960 to 1980 change             919      1,349     1,883
3. Rate slowdown:   growth rate from 1980 to
   1990 equals  the 1970 to 1980 growth rate
   and rate from 1990 to  2000  is onehalf
   1970 to 1980 growth rate                    919      1,286     1,614
4. Rate change  slowdown:   growth rate from
   1980 to 1990 equals one-half the 1960
   to  1980 growth rate and rate from 1990
   to 2000 equals one-half the 1960 to 1980
   growth rate.     	919	1.201      1.375
                                 1-3

-------
     The  exponential  aspect of the growth rate method is apparent when the
projections are depicted on a graph (Figure  1-1 ).  Assumptions 1 and 2 for
Windemere  Township  result  in growth taking  place  at  a rate exceeding that
experienced  in the Township  in the last  decase.  Assumption  3,  although
termed  a  "rate  slowdown,"  essentially  is  a   straight-line  projection.
Assumption 4  for  Windemere Township was the projection that was determined
to  be  most realistic. This projection assumes that growth will continue in
the Township  from 1980 to 1990 at a rate similar to the growth experienced
from 1960  to 1980.  After 1990, the projection assumes that the growth rate
will decrease as the area approaches "saturation."

     Rural recreational  areas such as  the  Island  Lake and  Sturgeon Lake
portions of Windemere Township are attractive to development because of the
amenities  associated  with lakefront property.  As the  first  tier of lake
contiguous lots becomes fully developed, it is not unusual for growth rates
to  decrease  because property in the second  tier  (backlots)  or on outlying
lots i's  in less demand.  There are a total of 151 homes on the platted land
areas  adjacent to  Island  Lake  at present, and  the  first tier  of these
lakeshore  lots can  accommodate an estimated 185  to  200 homes.   Given this
situation, is  expected that  most of the  available lakefront  lots  around
Island Lake will be developed in the next 10 years while in the second half
of  the planning period  (1990 to 2000)  total growth  around  the  Lake will
level  off  because developable  lots  will only  be available  in the  second
tier  (backlots).   Assumption 4 appears to represent the possibility  that
growth will continue, but not at the extremely high rates that were experi-
enced in the 1960s and 1970s.

     The housing unit  projection  for  Windemere Township was dissaggregated
so that the number of housing units within the subareas could be  projected
(Table  1-2 ).  The  housing unit projection  for the  subareas  within  Winde-
mere Township  assumes that  after 1990, more  of  the  Township  growth will
take place in ED  503 as  the  supply  of  lakefront lots around  Island  and
Sturgeon Lakes becomes depleted.   The  housing unit projections  indicate  a
year 2000  total  of  214  and 282  housing units around  Island  and  Sturgeon
Lakes,  respectively,  and  1,375 housing  units within Windemere  Township.
The housing  unit  projections were further disaggregated according to sea-
sonal  and  permanent units  based  on survey  information obtained  from  the
                                1-4

-------
  2500-
  2000-1
  1500-
0
CO
x 1000-
  500 -
                                                      • straight average
                                                       rate change slowdown
              I
            1960
  I
1970
1980
  I
1990
  I
2000
  Figure i-i.Windemere Township housing units actual growth 1960 to 1980
           and projected growth 1980 to 2000
                                1-5

-------
      MLWSD  and  the  1980  census (Table  1-3).    The seasonal  to permanent pro-

      jections also  assume  that  permanent residences  will  form a  greater pro-

      portion of the  total after 1990 as a result of increased numbers of retired

      residents living  in  the area on a  year-round  basis.   Information from the

      1970 and 1980  census1  support this assumption.  Between 1970 and 1980, the

      number  of  year-round  residents  in  Windemere  Township increased  by  79.1%

      while  the  number  of  housing units  increased  by  56.6%  (US Bureau of the

      Census  1981).   This  is an  indication that some  housing units  that were

      previously used on a seasonal basis are now being occupied on a year-round

      basis.


      Table  1-2.   Housing unit projections within Windemere Township, 1980 to
                   2000  (US Bureau of the Census 1982).

        Location                                   1980      1990      2000

      ED  504                                       397        519       564

        Island Lake                                 151        197       214
        Sturgeon Lake                               197        260       282
        Outlying Areas                               49         62        68

      ED  503                                       522        682       811

        Windemere Township                          919      1,201     1,375
      Note:  The disaggregated projections assume that growth from 1980 to 1990
      is spread evenly between the subareas.  Because the amount of developable
      land in ED 504 is limited, the year 2000 projection assumes that the per-
      centage of the population is ED 504 decreases from 43% to 41% by the year
      2000.
Table 1-3.   Seasonal and permanent housing unit projection within Windemere
             Township, 1980 to 2000.

                             1980                  1990                    2000
  Location           Permanent   Seasonal   Permanent   Seasonal   Permanent   Seasonal

ED 504                  138        259         180        339         223        341

                                                84        113         103        111
                                                55        205          72        210
                                                41         21          48         20

                                               351        331         446        365

                                               531        670         670        705


Note:  The split between seasonal and permanent housing units was determined from MLWSD
       records and 1980 census data.  The 1990 projections assume the same proportion of
       seasonal to permanent residents as in 1980.. The year 2000 projection assume an
       increasing proportion of permanent residents as a result of increased demand by
       retired people for year-round residences and a lower demand for seasonal resi-
       dences.
                                     1-6
Island Lake
Sturgeon Lake
Outlying Areas
ED 503
Windemere Township
64
42
32
269
407
87
155
17
253
512

-------
           Appendix J
Water  Quality Tables and Figures
                                                                    00
                                                                   •O
                                                                    c
                                                                    n)
                                                                    CO
                                                                    cu
                                                                    CO

                                                                   H
                                                                    cd

                                                                   O-

                                                                    S-l
                                                                    cu
                                                                    •u
                                                                   a
                                                                   a

-------
Table J-l.  Sampling program and schedule for surface water  sampling  in
            Island, Little Island, Sturgeon, Rush, and Passenger Lakes,
            Pine County MN.
Little Island

Sturgeon
Rush
Passenger
                Sampling Dates

                26 August    1981
                09 September 1981
                14 September 1981
                30 September 1981
                03 February  1982
27 August    1981
09 September 1981
15 September 1981
05 October   1981
04 February  1982

10 September 1981
15 September 1981
01 October   1981

10 September 1981
15 September 1981
01 October   1981
                       Parameters

                    d/t;  Sd;  b
                    d/t;  Sd;  b;  chl
                    d/t;  Sd;  b;  chl
                    d/t;  Sd;  b
                    d/t;  P^
03 February  1982   d/t;  P
d/t;  Sd;  b
d/t;  Sd;  b;  chl
d/t;  Sd;  b;  chl
d/t;  Sd;  b
d/t;  Pt

d/t;  Sd;  b,  chl
d/t;  Sd;  b;  chl
d/t;  Sd;  b

d/t;  Sd;  b;  chl
d/t;  Sd;  b;  chl
d/t;  Sd;  b
                        Number of
                     Stations Sampled

                             6
                             6
                             6
                             6
                             2
4
4,
4
4
2

1
1
1

1
1
1
 Parameter Key:

d/t  =  Dissolved oxygen and temperature at 2-foot depth
        intervals from the surface

Sd   =  Secchi disk depth at each station

 b   =  biovolume of phytoplankton at surface, mid-depth,
        and above the lake bottom

chl  =  chlorophyll ji (corrected for breakdown products) at
        surface, mid-depth, and above the lake bottom

P    =  Total phosphorus at surface (under the ice) and above  the
        lake bottom
                                J-l

-------
     Field investigations were conducted in the project area in 1981 during
the  periods  of  24-27  August;  7-15  September;   28-30  September;  and  1-5
October.  During  these  sampling  periods,  prevailing wind  directions were

easterly; westerly changing to  southerly  and then back to northwesterly;
easterly; and widely variable, respectively.
Table
Peak daily air temperature and prevailing sky cover as re-
corded at the Duluth International Airport during the four
sampling visits made to the Moose Lake Area (NOAA 1981).
    Date
          Peak Daytime
         Temperature, °F
Prevailing Daytime
    Sky Cover
24 August
25 August
26 August
27 August
07 September
08 September
09 September
10 September
11 September
12 September
13 September
14 September
15 September
28 September
29 September
30 September
01 October
02 October
03 October
04 October
05 October
65
63
68
59
65
67
81
77
77
77
78
65
55
46
44
42
40
48
50
47
48
Overcast
Overcast
Overcast
Overcast
Overcast
Clear
Clear
Overcast
Clear
Clear
Clear
Scattered Clouds
Overcast
Overcast
Overcast
Overcast
Overcast
Clear
Overcast
Overcast
Overcast
                               J-2

-------
                                                         Island Lake (North Basin)
u>
01
4; 10-
t:
c.
** nn
Q 20-
0>
O
30-
40-
26 AU)
10 IS
1 5
1 1
DO

9
10'
<
i
<
i
<
(
<
<
<
 _
i ~"
>
• 10-
I
1 "™
°c
9 ** 20-
30-
40-
9 Sep
10 IS
1 S
DO/ <

t
20 °C
10 [DO]
..i n
I
I _
i
i 10-
t
20-
30 -j
40 -J
14 Sep
10 15
1 S 1
no, --* 4

t
20 °C
8 [00]
r O
i
10-
°C
20-
30-
40-
to
1
i
<
(
i
«
(
(
<
i
(
<
<
<
(
I
<
<
(
°ci!
30 !
15
S
•V 1
1
)
I
•
)
1
>
1
>
>
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
Sept
20 °C
10 [DO]
^

DO
                                                        Island Lake (South Basin)
                        26 Aug
10 15 20 °C
1 S 10 IS [DO]
01 i L-. i


tr

c 10-

**
a
o
O 20-
^ .










DO^ — — "*
I
i

(
!
:

:
I
'
I "^
                                              10-
                                              20-
9 Sept
 15     20 °C
S      10 [DO]
                                                                        10-
                                                                        20-
                                                                                         20 °c
                                                                                        II [DO]
                 20°C
         30 Sept

    10     15
    1    S     10  [DO]
0
10-
20-
(
(
(
<
(
(
(
<
(
(
(
1
)
1
)
1
1
)
1
(
)
>
h t










DO
          Figure J-l.   Dissolved oxygen  and  temperature profiles for the north and  south basins of Island Lake,
                        Pine County, MN.   Data are Irom 1981 field surveys.

-------
                                                Island Lake
            24 Aug 1954
        7 Aug 1967
  14 Sept  1970
4-1

-------
                                                               Sturgeon Lake
                           27 Aug
9 Sept
                         15 Sept
5 Oct
c_
 I
Ui
0


*? 10-
c
*•
a 20-
O
30-
10 15 20°C
1 S 10 15 [oo]
i i i~ i
(
i
<
i
(
i
«
(
(
<
i
i
i
i
i
>
>
i
i
i
i
i
>





DO

                                                    10
                                                    1
 15     20 °C
S     10 [oo]
                                                10-
                                                20-
                                                30-
     <
     <
     <
     <
     <
     <
     <

   "el oo
                          15     20 °C
                         S     10(00]
                                                                         10-
                20-
                30-
                                                                                                   10-
                                                                                                   20-
                                          30-
10 15 20 °C
1 S 1|[DO]
(
(
<
(
(
1
(
1
1
(
1
(
(
(
(
1
1
1
»
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
i C /













DO
                  Figure J-3. Dissolved oxygen and  temperature profiles for Sturgeon  Lake,  Pine County, MN.  Data  are

                              from 1981 field surveys.

-------
                                          Sturgeon Lake
       10 Aug  1938

    50    80    70     «0°F
    8     5    10     lS[oo]
 0  i	'	1   ' Q
      22 Sept 1938
 10-
 20-
 30-
 40 ->
          DO
   so
   •
10-
20-
                                     30-
40-1
60
5
70     SO0"7
10     IStoo]
                                                 ND
                                                  «00
                                  4 Aug 1955
                                                                         10-
                                                                         20-
                                                                        30-
                                                                        40-1
       15 Aug  1967
      14 Aug 1975
 10-
 20 H
30-
40-1
                                    10-
                                    20-i
30-
                                    40
                                                         80 °F
                                                         IS [DO]
  _l  DO
Figure J-4. Dissolved oxygen and  temperature  profiles  for Sturgeon Lake, Pine County, MM.
            Data are from unpublished  files of  the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,

-------
                                    Passenger Lake
           10 Sept
        10     15     20 °C
        1     5     10  [oo]
        15 Sept
    10      15     20 °C
    1     5     10 [oo]
   30 -i
                                  10-
                                  20-
30-I
     1 Oct

10     15      20 °C
1    S      10 [DO]
                                                                   10-
                                                                   20-
                                                                   30-J
                                                                                  DO
                                       Rush Lake
           10 Sept

       10      15     20 °C
       1     5      10 [DO]
       15 Sept
    10      15      20 °C
    1    S     10 [DO]
                                  10-
                                  20-
                                  30-
    1 Oct

10     15      20 °C
1    5     10 [DO]
                                 10-
                                                                  20-
                                 30-
                                                                                   DO
Figure  J-5.  Dissolved oxygen and  temperature  profiles for  Passenger Lake and for Rush
             Lake,  Pine County,  MN.   Data are  from 1981 field surveys.

-------
            Appendix K
Letter  to Citizen's Advisory Committee
                                                                    0)
                                                                    0)
                                                                    o
                                                                    CO
                                                                    •H

                                                                    T3
                                                                    c
                                                                    0)
                                                                    N
                                                                    o

                                                                    o
                                                                    0)
                                                                    4-J
                                                                    4-)

                                                                    (U
                                                                    a
                                                                    PL.

                                                                    Si

-------
             RECEIVEDFEB021982
Rte. 2, Box 140-B
Island Lake
Sturgeon Lake. Mn. 55783
   372-3169
                                           Jan.  25,  1982
Mr. Gregory Dean Even son
Chairman
Citizens Advisory Committee
Moose Lake, Minn.  55767
Dear Mr. Evenson:

You requested Ideas from the Citizens Advisory Committee  on Jan.  7,
1982 at the meeting which concerned  the Draft Report  on Algae..
            Here are my ideas.

First of all and most Importantly I  am open minded  to what this
study is Investigating concerning the 4 lakes of Windernere Town-
ship.  It appears that this study must be  enacted to  satisfy fede-
ral and state regulations.  From what I have gathered by  talking  to
PCA and WAPORA people, from public meetings, and personally obser-
ving Finney doing field work I  feel  that WAP^RA Is  doing  a profess-
ional job.  However, this work  needs to be monitored  by Windesere
Citizens.

The Jewels of Wlndemere Township our lakes must have  truly been
that as observed by the native  American Indians, early  explorers
and the early hardy Scandinavian pioneers.

The logging, fires, and land clearing was  especially  hard on Island
Lake due to the heavy clay soil comprising the bulk of  the water-
shed.  The pioneers knew that the land around Island  Lake would be
many times more productive than the  relatively sterile  Jack pine
outwash plain around Rush Lake.

The heavy farmland clearing around Island  Lake must have  contri-
buted greatly to it's eutrophicatlon.  As  a casual  observer around
Island Lake since the late 1940's I  have noticed contributing factors
to eutrophication.

In the N£^ Section 8, T. 45 R.  18 was located a barnyard  directly
on the lakeshore with pig pens  going right out into the lake. . At
least two other farms in that Quarter Section had barnyards that
drained into the lake.  In Section 4 at the end of  the  present
Twilight Lane Holsteins contently grazed along the  lake following
a fence that went  out into the  lake  to take a drink.  There were
other barnyards in Sec. 3 a^d 4 that contributed runoff,  as in Sec-
tions 9 and 10.
                            K-l

-------
 Hr.  Even son                                          2


.Island  Lake  has walleyes  that  grow  at  2  times the State average.
 As  being a young fishing  partner of Ted  Anderson who learned
 techniques and  spots  from him. and in turn showed him spot s^ I can
 attest  to  having caught almost numerous  quantities of these tasty
 fish  from  6  to  11 pounds.   It  Is my unscientific opinion that the
 land  clearing and barnyard nutrient enrichment has been a factor
 in  good fish growth.

 Fowever, land use around  Island  Lake is  changing or has changed to
 chiefly residential-recreational use.

 I had occassion to observe when  the bulk of the Initial cabin and
 home site development  took place  along  the lake shore.  In Sections
 3,4 & 9 some filling  took place  on  swampy shoreline.  In Sections
 3 and 9 some steep clay banks  were  graded with heavy equipment in
 the Fall.  The  following  Spring  heavy  rainfall washed large amounts
 of  clay into the lake.  For a  time  the water along that shore was
 of  a  reddish-brown opague color  due to clay particles suspended in
 the water.   Each additional developed  lot contributes some erosion
 therefore  affecting nutrient balance In  the lake.

 Of  course, inadequate septic tank drainfield systems have added
 their share  of  pollutants.

 I recall Island Lake  as always having  "dog days" or algae bloom
 in  August  or Sept. in the late 1940* s  and the 1950' s when kids
 such  as myself  were told  not to  go  swimming.  However, it seems
 that  the blooms are more  severe  now and  I don't let my kids go
 swimming in  "gog days".

 A weed  came  into the  lake In the 1950' s  which we called hair weed,
 which I believe Is milfoil.  A truly noxious type of weed as it
 choked  cut less noxious valuable shoreline and submerged weed beds.
 In  1st* Summer  large  matts of  floating "hair weed" would make
 rowing  a boat difficult In shallow  areas.  The weed is still here
 but seems  to get chopped  up by the  large number of power boats on
 the lake today.

 In  summary I think that this Draft  Report ^n Algae is helping to
 bring scientific biological investigation to the factors and core
 problers affecting the eutrophication  of these 4 lakes in Pine
 County, Let us hope  that the  remainder  of the studies will allow
 us  to become better informed citizens  to study the alternatives
 available  for the protection of  our "Jewels" for our children.

                                            Sincerely,
                                            Walter C. Johnson
                               K-2

-------
           Appendix L
Paleolimnological Investigation
                                                                  o
                                                                  n)
                                                                  oo
                                                                  0)



                                                                  I
                                                                  00

                                                                  O
                                                                  rH



                                                                  I
                                                                  o
                                                                  0)

                                                                  cd


                                                                  i



                                                                  H

                                                                  w


                                                                  I

-------
              ONSITE WASTE TREATMENT AND LAKE  EUTROPHICaTION:



                    ANALYSIS WITH DATED LAKE SEDIMENTS
                     1*               If               2                  2
        S. R. McComas  , J. C. Lauraer  , P. J. Garrison  , and D.  R. Knauer  ,
       ,  Inc.,  Suite 490,  35 E. Wacker  Drive,  Chicago,  IL  60601, USA and

2
 Lake  Management Consultants,  Inc., 166  Dixon  Street,  Madison, WI  53704,
USA
Running Head:  Onsite waste treatment and lake enrichment






ABSTRACT:






     Three seepage  lakes  in north eastern Minnesota were studied to evalu-


ate  the  relative impacts  of  onsite waste treatment systems  and other nu-


trient sources on  lake  trophic status.  Island and Sturgeon Lakes have had



extensive shoreline development  in  the last 30 years and are served exclu-


sively with  onsite waste  treatment systems.  A  third  lake (Little Island



Lake)  located adjacent  to Island  Lake has  had no shoreline  residential



development.   Interpretation  of  biological  remains and geochemical data in



lake sediment cores indicated all three lakes had  chlorophyll  degradation


products,  diatom   communities,   and   phosphorus  concentrations   highly



influenced by forestry  and  agricultural  land  use  in their  watersheds.



Eutrophication caused  by  onsite waste treatment  systems  was  not  clearly


established for  the two  lakes with residential  development.   The  present



trophic condition for Island  Lake was probably initiated after the turn of
                                  L-l

-------
the  century  by  conversion of  forest  lands  to  agricultural  use  in the




watershed  and prior  to development of  a significant lakeshore community.




Sturgeon  Lake has  a relatively small watershed  and inorganic and organic




phosphorus  concentrations  in  the  sediment  core  appear  to  have  been




influenced  in  the   last  40 years  by a single  farmstead located  on the




lakeshore.   Little   Island  Lake  (the  lake without residential development)




is  the shallowest  of the three lakes and  also  has  the greatest watershed




area to  lake surface area  ratio.   Little Island Lake also had the highest




chlorophyll and phosphorus  sediment concentrations of the  three lakes.  The




effects of  a forest fire in its watershed  in 1918 had a dramatic impact on




chlorophyll and phosphorus  concentrations but not on the composition of the




diatom  community.   Relatively  minor  changes  in all three  lakes'  trophic




status have occurred  since  the 1950s, the period when lakeshore development




began to increase rapidly around Island and Sturgeon Lakes.
Key Words:  Diatoms, Eutrophication, Lake Sediments, Onsite Systems, Paleo-




            limnology, Phosphorus, Septic Tanks








 ^Present  Address:   Applied  Research  &  Technology,   2021  N.  Seminary,




                    Chicago, IL  60614, USA.









 * Present Address:  2540 N. Orchard St., Chicago, IL  60614, USA.
                                L- 2

-------
INTRODUCTION









     The  effects of wastewater  discharge from  municipal sewage treatment




plants   resulting   in  lake  eutrophication   have   been  well  documented




(Bradbury, 1978; Bradbury & Waddington, 1973; Neel et a^., 1973; Edmondson,




1974;  Shapiro  et^ al.,  1971).   In  the United States and Canada there are




hundreds of lakeside communities that  employ onsite waste treatment systems




on individual lots for wastewater treatment (USEPA, 1983a; Dillon & Rigler,




1975).   The effects  of nutrient inputs from onsite waste treatment systems




on lake eutrophication have not been easily evaluated.









     The use of nutrient export coefficients and lake modeling has been one




approach to evaluate nutrient inputs from onsite systems. Although in rural




watersheds, agricultural  land  use  or  forested acreage might be expected to




dominate  phosphorus  budgets  (Dillon  &  Kirchner,  1975)  lake  modeling




indicates  the  phosphorus  input  from  onsite  systems could  affect  trophic




conditions in some rural  lake  settings (USEPA,  1982). Another study offers




evidence  (USEPA,  1975 cited in  USEPA, 1980)  that phosphorus  inputs from




onsite   systems  may   contribute   a   substantial  fraction  of  the  total




phosphorus budget.




      The  phosphorus  contribution  from  onsite  systems is  typically  a




calculation  based  on  the  concentration  of phosphorus in  septic  tank




effluent (ranging from 10 to 30 mg tot. P 1 ;  Hansel & Machmeier, 1980) the




volume of wastewater  generated   (50 to 150 gal. per  capita  per day; Laak,




1980), and a  soil  retention coefficient.  Soil  retention coefficients may




vary  widely  due to  differing  soil  conditions.   Underdrained  soil  filter
                                L-  3

-------
beds  consisting of  a range  of  particle sizes  from  sands to clayey silts




have been found  to  remove  from 1 to 88%  of dissolved phosphorus  from septic




tank effluent  (Brandes et  al., 1975).




      Nutrient  budget calculations for  a number  of  lake watersheds in the




midwestern  United  States  (28 lakes in 5 states) estimated septic tank/soil




absorption   systems   contribute  generally  less  than  15%  of  the  lakes'




phosphorus  budget with an  average percentage of 10% and a range of 0 to 45%




(USEPA  1979a;  1979b;  1979c; 1979d;  1979e;   1981;  1982).   However  these




calculations also have to  consider a flucuating population as well as what




proportion   of   the   groundwater  is  flowing  toward  the  lake  and  what




proportion  is  flowing away from the lake.  Nutrient  input predictions are




somewhat  subjective  and   USEPA  (1980)   recommends a  range of estimates be




considered  in some cases.




     Another method  for  evaluating nutrient inputs from onsite systems has




been  to  sample  nutrient  levels   in  groundwater   influenced  by  onsite




systems.  Some  studies  indicate  a high  potential  for  septic tank effluent




to  elevate  groundwater  phosphorus concentrations  (Viraraghaven  & Warnock,




1976),  other  studies indicate nearly   all the  phosphorus in  septic  tank




effluent can be  attenuated by soil processes  (Jones & Lee, 1977) with only




a small  fraction of  the dissolved phosphorus  originating  from septic tank




effluent actually entering lakes  (Kerfoot  & Skinner, 1980).  But are soils




a  permanent  phosphorus   sink once dissolved  phosphorus  is  removed  from




septic  tank  effluent?    Most groundwater  studies use  batch sampling  to




monitor  groundwater  quality.  If  a  couple  of  events  a  year result  in




special  conditions   (i.e.  water  logged  soils  and  anaerobicity)  labile




phosphate could  reenter  the groundwater flow field.   Nutrient pulses could




result that  might be missed by batch sampling.   Several studies have dis-




cussed  phosphorus   desorption and movement  under saturated  and anaerobic




                                 L-4

-------
soil  conditions  (Hill  &  Sawhney,  1981;  Louden & Fay,  1982;  Oloya £. Logan




1980).   For  field  studies,  only continuous monitoring  or  fortuitous batch




sampling  would  detect  these  nutrient  pulses  and  these studies  are rare.









     Another method  for evaluating the nutrient input  from onsite systems




might  be through  the  use  of  dated  lake  sediments.  Other  studies have




successfully used  lake sediment cores  to detect  the  impact  of  municipal




wastewater  discharges  on lake  water quality  (Bradbury,  1978;  Shapiro et




al.,  1971).   Chemical  and  biological  parameters  in  lake  sediment cores




should  reflect  the nutrient  input from onsite  systems if  onsite systems




have been significant  nutrient  sources.   An advantage  of using  dated lake




sediments is they  represent  a continuous record  of nutrient contributions




originating  from  all  onsite  systems  within  the  geochemical  watershed.




Some  disadvantages of using  lake sediment cores are  fine-scale  resolution




is  lost  and  intrepretation  of  sediment  dates,  geochemical  data,  and




biological data  have to  be  analyzed with  caution  (Engstrom  &  Wright, in




press).








     In  Northeastern Minnesota, an  appropriate setting was found  to  use




lake sediment cores to evaluate the effects  of onsite systems on lake water




quality.  Out  of  three closely  grouped  lakes  (Fig.  1),  two  have reached




almost total residential  buildout, with  a majority of first tier lakeshore




lots  occupied  by  either seasonally-  or permanently-occupied cabins.  The




increase  in  housing  development around  these 2  lakes   has  been  recorded




since the 1950s.  A  third lake has no residential  development and has had




only  one dwelling  (a  farm)  in its watershed  in the  last 100  years.  No




municipal wastewater treatment plant discharges enter these lakes.  Because
                                L- 5

-------
all  three  lakes are seepage  lakes  (where the water influx  is  dominated  by
groundwater  rather  than  streams)   the  impacts  of nutrients  from onsite
systems  on  lake water quality  should  by  greater than on  drainage lakes,
because  drainage   lakes   have  significant   stream   inputs that  usually
introduce a high proportion of the  nutrient budget  (Lee, 1976).


     The two lakes with residential development  (Island and  Sturgeon Lakes)
are   documented   to  have   blue-green   algae  as   the   dominant  autumn
phytoplankter  (USEPA,  1983b).   The dominant  phytoplankters  in Island Lake
in  the autumn  of  1981  (Sept.  14)  were Anabaena spp.  and Aphanizomenon
                                                                          4
flos-aquae accounting  for 98% of the phytoplankton biovolume of 1266 x 10
  3    "1
mm   ml   (6  stations,  3 depths).   The  dominant phytoplankters in Sturgeon
Lake  for  the  same  time  period  were  Anabaena  spp.  and  Anacystis  spp.
                                                              43-1
accounting for 81% of the phytoplankton  biovolume  of  126 x  10  mm  ml    (4
stations,  3  depths).  Some lakeshore homeowners  are  concerned that onsite
systems  have  been and continue to  be  the  primary  factor  in lake algal
blooms (Citizens Activity Council Meeting, 1981).


     Little  Island Lake is connected to  Island  Lake  by a 1 meter diameter
culvert.   The  water exchange,  if  any,  is  in  the direction  from Little
Island to  Island Lake  (based on lake water levels  in the area; USGS, 1979;
and MDNR observations for Little Island Lake; MNDR, 1967). About 30% of the
water  surface  of Little  Island   Lake  is  covered  by standing  emergent
vegetation  with  Burreed   (Sparganium spp.)  most  abundant  (MDNR,  1967).
Submerged  aquatic  plants are also  abundant  with waterlilies  (Nuphar spp.
and  Nymphea  tuberosa)  and  bladderwort   (Utricularia  spp.)   most  abundant
(MDNR, 1967).   We did not observe any surface algal blooms in Little Island
Lake,  although  they were evident  in Island  Lake.   Phytoplankton samples
                                 L-  6

-------
were not  collected  for Little Island Lake.   Additional lake and watershed




parameters for all three lakes are presented in Table 1.









     For  the  three lakes  in this  study  we analyzed recent  dated  lake




sediment core parameters (organic matter, chlorophyll degradation products,




diatoms,  and phosphorus  fractions)   to  evaluate  changes  in  lake trophic




status  covering  a  time  period  from  settlement  of   the watersheds by




non-indigenous settlers to the present. It was hypothesized that if  onsite




systems  played  a  significant role  in  the eutrophication of  Island and




Sturgeon  Lakes,  an  increase  in  sediment  core parameters  associated  with




nutrient enrichment  should be correlated with an increase  in the number of




onsite  systems  around both these lakes (circa 1950).   Little Island  Lake




would be expected to have relatively unchanged indicators through this  time




period  because  it  has no  onsite systems  in  its direct  drainage  basin.




Alternatively, if nutrient inputs from onsite systems  played  a minor  role




in  the  nutrient enrichment of the  two developed lakes,  the trends of the




sediment core indicators for  all three lakes should be interpretable based




on factors unrelated to onsite systems.
                                L- 7

-------
METHODS








     In  March  1982,  two  cores of  60  cm length  were  taken  from  each of




Island,  Sturgeon and Little  Island Lakes using a plexiglass piston corer




with a  11.25 cm inside diameter.   One  core  was extruded in the field in 2




cm  sections  for  determination of sedimentation  rates using  Cesium-137




dating (Eberline Laboratories,  Inc., West Chicago, IL).  The other core was




sectioned into  3 cm sections for determination of organic  matter,  chloro-




phyll  degradation products,  diatom composition and  phosphorus  fractions.




The samples  were stored in sealed  plastic bags and frozen  until analyzed.









     Percent  moisture was determined by measuring  weight loss of sediment




after  at least  24  hours of  dessication at  105° C.  Organic  matter  was




determined after  weight loss on ignition at  550°  C for one hour.  Pigment




analysis for algal degradation  products was performed on wet sediment using




the  procedure  of  Vallentyne  (1955).   Pigments  were  extracted with  90%




acetone containing 0.5% dimethylanaline as suggested by Manny et^ al. (1978)




and  reported  as  sedimentary  pigment  degradation  unit   (SPDU)/gram  dry




weight.    The  sediment   phosphorus  fractions  of  apatite  phosphorus,




nonapatite phosphorus, and organic  phosphorus were determined following the




methods outlined  by  Williams  e_t^ ai^. (1976a).  All concentrations have been




reported on  a dry sediment basis.   The diatom preparation,  identification,




and  enumeration   was  conducted  following   the  methods  of  Bradbury  &




Waddington (1973).
                                 L-8

-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION









Sedimentation Rates








     Counting  the  activity  of  radioactive  Cesium  (Cesium-137)  in lake




sediments  can  be used  to determine recent  lake  sedimentation rates.  Ce-




sium-137 is  found in lake sediments as a result of nuclear weapons testing




and  subsequent  atmospheric  contamination by  the isotope.   Testing first




began on a small  scale in 1946 but increased in 1957 with the peak activity




occurring  in  1963-1964.  Because  a 6  to  12 month  delay typically occurs




between deposition of Cesium-137 in the watershed and delivery to the lake,




the maximum peak  recorded in lake sediments is assumed to be 1965 (Ritchie




ejt al., 1973).








     The recent sedimentation rate in both Sturgeon Lake and Island Lake is




estimated  to  be  approximately 0.41  cm year     (Fig.  2).  A 1  cm segment




would represent about  2.5 years.   The sedimentation rate  is  not as easily




defined in Little Island Lake, but because of the nature of the increase of




Cesium-137 activity  at  5  cm (Fig. 2),  the sedimentation  rate is estimated




to be 0.29 cm per year (Dr. J. B.  McHenry, personal comm.).  A 1 cm segment




would represent about 3.45 years.   Extrapolating sedimentation rates to the




bottom of  the core  represents a  time period of  around  1832 for Island and




Sturgeon Lakes,  and around 1775 for Little Island Lake.









     Although the sedimentation rate varies  within a lake basin, Davis and




Ford  (1982)  found sediment  arriving  in the deep basin of a  lake  is well




mixed due to resuspension and redeposition and  qualitatively representative
                                L- 9

-------
of much of the basin.  The sediment cores collected in this study were from




the  deepest  part  of the lake  basins.   The  Island and  Little Island Lake




watersheds  are  located  in  clayey  glacial  till.  The  northern  half  of




Sturgeon Lake's watershed is  in the same clayey glacial till association as




Island and Little Island Lakes' watersheds,  while the  southern half is in




glacial  outwash  sand.   The  cores from  Sturgeon Lake  were  taken in  the




clayey glacial till  to stay consistent with the sedimentary characteristics



of the sediment  cores taken  from the other two lakes.  The location of the




lake  sediment cores and  the boundary  of the  glacial outwash  sands  and




clayey glacial till  is shown  in Fig. 1.








Organic Matter and Chlorophyll Degradation Products








     In  the  Sturgeon Lake  core,  organic matter   (Fig.  3)  and sedimentary




chlorophyll degradation product (Fig. 4) profiles  showed little change with



time.  Organic matter ranged  from 19 to 23 percent while chlorophyll ranged




from 6 to 12 SPDU/gram dry weight.  Organic matter was relatively unchanged




in the lower part of the core although there was a slight increase  from the




12-15  cm (1948)  segment up  to  the  3-6  cm segment  (1971).   Chlorophyll



degradation  products increased slightly  above  the 6-9  cm segment (1963).








     In  the  Island  Lake  core,  the %  organic matter ranged from  20 to 30




percent and  tends to decline slightly from  the bottom to the  top of  the




core (Fig. 3).   Since the 1950s  (above 12  cm)  the % organic matter in the




cores from Island and Sturgeon Lakes is similar, although in the surficial




segment  (0-3 cm),  % organic matter  in  Island  Lake  slightly  increased.
                                L- 10

-------
Sedimentary chlorophyll degradation products in the Island Lake core ranged

from  14 to 30  SPDU/gram dry  wt  and  are greater than  levels  found in the

Sturgeon Lake core.  The highest value was at the bottom of the core.  From

30  cm  to  12 cm  (1910-1948)  chlorophyll degradation  products decreased.

Since  about  1948  (12-15 cm  segment)  chlorophyll  degradation products have

increased  (especially  in  the top surficial segment)  but  have  not exceeded

levels  observed  in the middle of the core.



     In the Little Island Lake core,  organic matter  (Fig.  3)  and sedimen-

tary chlorophyll degradation product  (Fig. 4) values are generally greater

than either  Sturgeon or  Island Lakes values.  The organic  matter profile

shows  a declining trend from the bottom  to  the  top of the core and values

range  from 30 to  41 percent.  The  chlorophyll  degradation products  were

unusually  low in the 18-21 cm segment (1910-1920).  In 1918, the Moose Lake

Forest  Fire burned much of the lake's watershed and may have had an impact

on  the chlorophyll values.   Prior to 1918, chlorophyll values were declin-

ing.   The  next core segment after 1918 (15-18 cm) shows chlorophyll values

returning  to  pre-1918  levels.   Chlorophyll  in the surficial  core segment

increased  dramatically  compared to the  underlying 3-6 cm segment,  but is

comparable to values at the bottom of the core.



     Although chlorophyll  degradation product concentrations  increase for

both Sturgeon and  Island  Lakes in the surficial sediments,  the increase is

also found in Little Island Lake.   Because the increase has  occurred in all

three  lakes,  it  can not be attributed entirely to  onsite systems.  Little

Island  Lake has  no onsite systems on  its shoreline.  The increase in chlo-

rophyll degradation product  concentrations  in  the surficial  segment may

represent,  in  addition  to  degradation  products,  relatively  undegraded

chlorophyll from the previous summer season.
                                L- 11

-------
Diatoms








     Changes  in the diatom community  throughout  the length of the sediment




core have been  interpreted  on a  qualitative  basis with indicator species




assigned  to one  of three categories;  eutrophic, mesotrophic,  or "other".




The  "other" category includes species  associated with benthic  habitats or




species  that  have no specific trophic  affiliation.  Assignments to any of




the  categories were made  with the  assumptions and limitations  that have




been expressed by  other  authors  (Bradbury, 1975;  1978;  Kalff  & Knoechel,




1978; Harris  & Vollenweider, 1982).









     In  Sturgeon Lake,  the highest  percentage  of eutrophic indicator dia-




toms  is  found between  1862-1892  (Fig.  5).    Two  increases in  eutrophic




diatoms have occurred since 1915.  The  second increase, starting after 1960




is still  less  than what was found in  segments representing the late 1800s




(Fig.  5). A total  of  97  diatom taxa were  identified  in  the Sturgeon Lake




core.   Melosira ambigua,   a  planktonic diatom  and  a mesotrophic indicator




(Davis  & Larson,  1976),  and  Fragilaria construens v.  venter  ,  a diatom




which  commonly resides in or  near the littoral  zone  of  small  lakes  or in




slightly  deeper  waters  of larger lakes;   Bradbury,  1975),  were dominant




species.  From 60  cm  up  to 37  cm  (1832 - 1890), JF.  construens v. venter




represented  20 to  40  percent  of  the  diatom community.  At  37  cm (1890),




coinciding  with  a decline  in  the  logging  industry  and  an increase  in




farming in the region (Pine County,  1949), _F. construens v. venter strongly




declined  and  M.  ambigua  increased.   This change could indicate  a rise in




water  level or  decrease  in water clarity thus  reducing the size  of the




littoral  zone.




                                 L-12

-------
Between  17 cm and  7 cm  (1940 - 1965)  the  percentage  of littoral species




increased  (especially  Achnanthes spp.,  Eunotia  pectinalis,  and _E. incisa)




while  M.   ambigua  declined.   While   diatoms   indicative  of   eutrophic




conditions  (e.g.  F. Crotonensis, M.  granulata,  and  Cocconeis placentula)




have shown slight  increases starting in the  1960s,  the continued presence




of  Cyclotella bodanica  (a mesotrophic  indicator) and the high  level of




Melosira   ambigua  indicate  the  lake's  trophic  status  has   not changed




drastically during the time period covered by the sediment core.









     In  Island Lake the mesotrophic indicator species  comprise a majority




of the diatom community percentage (Fig. 5).  Of a total of 118 diatom  taxa




identified,  the  dominant  species  (Melosira  ambigua,  M.  italica,  and




Tabelaria  fenestrata)   are representative  of mesotrophic-type conditions




(Davis  &  Larson  1976).   Island  Lake  has  shown  an increase  in  eutrophic




indicators starting in the late 1930s - early 1940s (15-18 cm segment).  At




about  this time  M.  italica dramatically decreases  in  percent composition,




while  three  eutrophic-type  taxa  either  first  appear  or  increase  in




abundance.    The   three   species   were  Cocconeis  placentula,   Melosira




granulata, and  Fragilaria crotonensis.  However,  the  influence  of onsite




systems  effecting  the  diatom  composition  is expected  to  be minor because




onsite systems probably were  not contributing a  significant nutrient  load




in  the early 1940s.  Electricity was  just becoming available  in the area




and  it  was  not  until  the  mid-1940s   that  most  cabins  installed  indoor




plumbing (Don Classen,  City clerk, Moose Lake, MN, pers. comm.).   Until the




1940s,  nearly all lakeshore  residences were seasonal and  used  privies for




waste  treatment.  Because  of  the minimal water use in residences  that have




privies  and  because the  privy pit  is  usually in unsaturated  soils,  there
                                L- 13

-------
was probably  little nutrient  input  from  the  seasonally used privies.   Coin-




ciding  with  the  increase in  eutrophic  indicators for  Island  Lake in  the




late  1930s was a  peak in agricultural  land .use  intensity  (U.S. Depart.




Commerce  Census records) and  a severe drought lasting  several years  which




lowered  both  groundwater levels and  lake  levels  (Mr.  D. Ford, MDNR,  pers.




comm.)   The  effects  of the  drought  would enhance eutrophic conditions in




the lake  whether onsite systems or agricultural  land  use were the impetus




for an  increase in eutrophic  diatom  indicators.   But,  based on literature




values for  phosphorus export  rates  (USEPA, 1980) and on  land use character-




istics  in  the  watersheds, the  agricultural component  would  contribute a




much higher phosphorus load than onsite systems.









     Little Island  Lake has  the most diverse diatom community of  the  three




lakes  (based  on average Shannon-Weiner values  for the  length of  the  sedi-




ment  core).  Although Little  Island Lake  had the highest  percentage of




eutrophic  indicators,  it  also had the  highest percentage of  littoral or




benthic  species  which  are  included  in  the  "other"  category  (Fig.  5).




Although  no  single  species  dominates the  community  like Melosira ambigua




does  in  Island and  Sturgeon Lakes,  Fragilaria  construens v.  venter  and




Melosira binderana  were common.  A  total of  107 diatom taxa were identified




with diatom stratigraphy showing few changes throughout the core.  Starting




at about  20  cm (1913)  there was  a  gradual but  definite  increase  in  the




abundance   of  Achnanthes  lancelata,   Cocconeis   placentula,   Fragilaria




capucina, and Navicula cryptocephala.  All  four species have been found in




eutrophic  lakes or ponds  (Jorgensen,  1948;  Stormer  & Yang,  1970).    The




consistency of  the  eutrophic  indicator species as well  as the benthic  and




littoral  species  in the core  indicates Little Island Lake has been shallow
                                 L- 14

-------
and  productive  for  the  last  200 years,  probably predating  the earliest




sediment core date of 1775.




Phosphorus









     Phosphorus  in the sediment cores was fractioned into three categories;




apatite  phosphorus  (A-P),  nonapatite  inorganic  phosphorus  (NAI-P),  and




organic  phosphorus  (Org-P).   Apatite phosphorus  represents phosphate pre-




sent in the crystal lattices of apatite grains and generally is of detrital




origin (Williams et al., 1976a).  Nonapatitic inorganic phosphorus consists




of phosphorus  not  associated  with A-P or Org-P,  and  originates naturally,




(i.e. by  chemical  weathering  in the watershed) or from anthropogenic sour-




ces  (i.e.  fertilizers,  septic tank drainfields,  etc).   Organic phosphorus




includes  all  phosphorus associated with  organic molecules or more speci-




fically with carbon atoms by  C-O-P or C-P bonds and may be an indicator of




lake productivity.




     In Sturgeon Lake,  apatite-P  levels  are relatively constant throughout




the length of  the  core  except for slight increases  above 45 cm (1870) and




above  30 cm  (1907)   (Fig.  6).   NAI-P  increases  above  15 cm  (1945)  but




decreases at  5  cm  (1970).   Org-P is  also  fairly constant throughout the




length of the core with a slight increase  in the surficial segment.  Of the




3  lakes,  Sturgeon Lake has  the highest total  phosphorus concentration in




surficial sediments.  An  increase in  sedimentary phosphorus concentrations




in Sturgeon  Lake beginning in  the 1950s  coincides with  increased housing




development and the number of  onsite systems.   However, if these phosphorus




trends were related to  onsite  system use, a phosphorus  decline in the top




surficial  segment  of  the  sediment   core   would  not  be  expected.   An




alternative explanation for  the sedimentary  phosphorus

-------
dynamics  may be  related to a  fannsite  located  on the northeast shoreline




which  includes  a  25 ha  pasture  (estimated)  sloping  to  the  lake.   The




current  owner  of  the  property  purchased  the  farm  acreage  in  1947 and




Immediately  expanded dairy and crop operations.   The  owner has stated that




prior  to 1947  there was not  much fanning  activity  on this acreage.  The




owner  retired  in  1970 and  since that  time  there has  been  little active




farming  or  dairying.  The phosphorus  increase and decrease in the sediment




core  correlates with  the  changes  in  this farming operation.   In a small




watershed,  without   other  significant  nutrient  inputs,  this  phosphorus




source could  be important.   In addition, the location of our sediment core




site  is  in  an  area of  the   lake  basin that  would  probably  accumulate




sediments carried in  by overland runoff from this farmsite.  Most of the




phosphorus  increase  in the 15  cm to 3 cm segment  is in the NAI-P fraction.




Since org-P  and chlorophyll degradation products  in this segment (15-3 cm)




did not  show comparable increases  the NAI-P may be agriculturally derived.




This phosphorus input apparently only increased phytoplankton productivity




slightly, as  reflected in the  %  organic matter and chlorophyll degradation




product  increases.   The  percent of eutrophic  diatom indicators  also in-




creased slightly.









     In Island Lake,  total phosphorus was highest at the bottom of the core




and declined until  about  the  42-45  cm segment  (1875)  (Fig.  6).   It was




somewhat steady from 42 cm to  33 cm  and then increased to a peak of about




1.25 mg/g  near the  middle  of  the core, the  27 to  30  cm  segment, (circa




1910).   NAI-P  makes up  the  largest  percentage  of  the three  phosphorus




fractions and starts  the  last  increase above  the 6-9  cm  segment (1963).




The rapid  conversion  of  forested  land  to  agricultural use  in  the Island
                                 L- 16

-------
Lake  watershed  may  have been  responsible  for the  phosphorus  increases




starting  an the 1890s.  The Hinckley Forest  Fire of 1894  which  burned much




of  the  region apparently did  not burn  Island Lake's  watershed, but  did




hasten  the  conversion of the lumbering economy to  aa agricultural economy




in  the  area. Farmlands continued  to extend to the lake until at  least  the




early   1920s,  when   the  land  was  subdivided  for development.   Initial




development  started out slowly but increased  rapidly in  the  1950s  and 1960s




(Table  2).




     A  phosphorus  peak found in the 9-12 cm  segment (circa  1956)  of Island




Lake may  represent the beginning of the housing boom.   A  portion  of the 9-




12  cm  peak  is due to  an increase in the  A-P fraction.  A-P is  sometimes




associated  with sediments arriving  in  the  lake basin  from the  watershed




(Engstrom & Wright, in press). This A-P increase may be  associated with  the




start  of serious  home and  road  construction  around  the  lake  periphery




possibly  resulting in an erosional sediment  influx to the lake  basin.  At




the  start  of  rapid  residential  growth  only  35  lakeside  buildings  were




recorded  (MDNR, 1955) but by the next survey  date (1967) 110 buildings were




recorded  (Table  2).   Assuming  lake and sediment redox  conditions have not




seriously affected sediment  phosphorus  concentrations,   the NAI-P  and Org-P




fractions might  have been expected  to increase because  of  an  increasing




number  of onsite  systems.   But  in  the next segment  (6-9  cm;  1967-1974)




phosphorus concentrations were  lower.  This would not be expected  if onsite




systems were contributing a  significant  phosphorus input.  Although NAI-P




increases in the  top  two segments, the concentrations  are not higher than




what was found in  some of the earlier dated segments.




     A phosphorus increase in the NAI-P and Org-P fractions was recorded in




the surficial  segment  (0-3  cm)  in the Island Lake core.   Three  different
                                L- 17

-------
explanations  for the  increase may be;  phosphorus  migration upward in the




sediments,  phosphorus  influx from  onsite  systems,  or  an  increase  in




planktivorous  fish.  Williams et al.  (1976b)  discussed the possibility of




orthophosphate  migrating  up  the  core from  a reduced  zone  to an oxidized




microzone   layer  found  at   the  sediment-water   interface  resulting  in




artificially  high   phosphorus concentrations.   Although  NAI-P  slightly




increases  in the  surficial segment of  Little  Island  Lake,  a decrease in




NAI-P  is found  in  Sturgeon  Lake  (Fig.  6).   Still it  is  possible upward




migration  and  the   resulting  phosphorus increase  occurred  in Island and




Little Island Lakes, and was not as obvious in Sturgeon Lake.   If the NAI-P




increase  in  Island Lake  was due  to onsite  systems  we might  expect an




increase  in the other  developed  lake,  Sturgeon  Lake,  but  the phosphorus




concentration  decreases.   Alternatively, we would  not expect a phosphorus




increase in the undeveloped lake, Little Island Lake,  but there is a slight




increase.   An  abrupt increase in planktivorous fish could have an indirect




impact on increasing Org-P by  reducing the zooplankton  population, allowing




an  increase in the  phytoplankton population, and resulting in an increase




in Org-P deposition  to the sediments.  In the 1970s,  fishing contests were




held in  both Island and Sturgeon Lakes resulting in heavy fishing pressure




on the  larger game  fish (Mr,  E. Dahlen,  pers.  comm.).  A decrease in game




fish could  result  in  an  increase  in  their prey,  which is often plankti-




vorous fish.   MDNR fishery records show an  increase  in planktivorous fish




in  Island Lake and  a  smaller increase in Sturgeon Lake  in the late 1970s




(Table 3).  Information is not available for Little Island Lake but because




Island  and  Little Island Lakes are  connected,  planktivorous fish probably




pass between both  lakes  and Little Island Lake may  have high planktivore




populations as well.  Hypothetically, the end result would be Org-P
                                 L-J8

-------
Increases  in Island and Little Island Lakes with  only a  slight  increase  in




Sturgeon  Lake.   These  changes  are found  in the  surficial  segments.  But




reasons  for  the NAI-P increase in  the  surficial segment of  Island Lake  is




not clear.




     Little  Island Lake has had historically  high total phosphorus values




in  the  sediments  except for  the  period  of 1910-1920  (18-21  cm segment)




(Fig.  6).   Otherwise  the three phosphorus fractions are  relatively  con-




stant,  increasing  only  slightly since  the  1940s.  The  organic phosphorus




levels  are higher  than the other two lakes  indicating Little Island may  be




more productive.   The  sharp  phosphorus  decline  in the  18-21 cm segment  is




followed  by   a  recovery  in  the very next  segment,  15-18  cm.   A similar




change  in chlorophyll  degradation   products  was  also  observed  in  this




segment.   Extrapolating  from  the   Cesium-137  derived  sedimentation rate,




this segment of lowest phosphorus and  chlorophyll concentration was dated




1910-1920, and  corresponds to  the  time of the  Moose Lake  Fire (1918).  A




1918 U.S.  Forest  Service  map  (cited in   Moose Lake  Gazette,  Moose Lake,




Minnesota,  7  Oct.  1982)  indicated  that  most  of Little   Island  Lake's




watershed  burned,  while  a small portion of Island Lake's watershed burned,




and none  of  Sturgeon Lake's  watershed burned in this fire.  The high total




phosphorus and  high Org-P fractions indicate Little Island Lake has always




been productive.   The  primary  vestibule of  productivity  probably has  been




macrophytes.    The   bottom  sediments through out the core  are of  a  peaty




composition with a high organic matter content.









Addressing the Hypothesis




     Because  the  changes in parameters used as  trophic  indicators in the




sediment core in Sturgeon and  Island Lakes are not readily correlated  with
                                 L-19

-------
an increasing number  of onsite systems  (beginning in the mid-1950s), onsite




systems do not appear to be the predominate cause of nutrient enrichment in




Island  or  Sturgeon  Lakes.   The  results  from the sediment  core analysis




somewhat  support  the alternative hypothesis  that  trends in  the sediment




core  profiles  from all three lakes may be explained  by factors other than




onsite  waste treatment  systems.   All  three  lakes are  limnologically and




morphologically  distinct;  however, trends in all  three  lakes reflect the




Impact  of land  use in the watershed.  If onsite systems  had  an impact on




the lakes through  nutrient enrichment,  the effects were masked by contribu-




tions from other sources.








     Analysis of the  sediment core from Shagawa Lake, Minnesota shows that




distinct  changes  in  trophic status  after onset of  iron ore  mining   and




increased  residential  development  could  be attributable  to  wastewater




discharges  from   a   centralized  wastewater  treatment  operation  in  Ely,




Minnesota  (Bradbury,  1975;  1978).  Our study found changes associated with




forest  fires   and  the  onset  of  farming  and  construction; but  we  did not




find  strong  evidence  for  changes correlated with wastewater  flows  from an




increasing number  of  onsite systems.  In addition, unpublished MDNR fishery




records,  (1938;  1955;  1967;  1970;  1975;  1979)  covering the  period  when




development  was   rapidly  increasing  around   Sturgeon  and  Island  Lakes,




indicate  Secchi  disk  depth readings have  flucuated only  slightly over the




years, and an increasing or decreasing trend is not obvious for either lake




(Table 4).








     In this specific case,  because onsite systems do not appear to be the




causal factor for  lake eutrophication, the effectiveness of implementing an
                                 L-20

-------
alternative  wastewater treatment system to  abate  the nutrient inputs from




onsite   systems   should  be  carefully  evaluated.    For  example,  if  a




centralized  sewer collection system  was installed  to remove the nutrient




input associated  with  onsite systems, the eutrophication process for these




two  developed   lakes   would  not  necessarily  be   reversed.   Additional




extensive nutrient abatement measures would probably have to be implemented




to realize an improvement in lake water quality.








Acknowledgements








     We  thank M.  Brookfield for  performing  the  diatom  analysis  and  E.




Dahlen, R. Kubb,  and R. Wedepohl for field  assistance.   We appreciate the




review and comments made by J. Kratzmeyer and J. Lenssen.  We thank Mrs. D.




Jackson-Hope  for typing  the manuscript  and  P.  Woods  for help  with  the




graphics.  A complete  list  of  diatom species  and percent  composition  is




available upon request  from S.R.M.  This project was  funded by USEPA under




contract II 68-01-5989.
                                 L-21

-------
REFERENCES






Brandes, M., Chowdhry,  N.A.,  & Cheng, W.W.  (1975)  Experimental study on




     removal of pollutants from domestic sewage by underdrained soil filters.




     National Home  Sewage Disposal Symp. American Society of Agricultural




     Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 29-36.




Bradbury J.P. (1975) Diatom stratigraphy and human settlement in




     Minnesota.  U.S. Geol. Surv., Special  Paper 171.




Bradbury J.P. (1978)  A paleolimnological comparison of Burntside




     and Shagawa Lakes, northeastern Minnesota.  EPA Ecol. Res. Series,




     EPA-600/3-78-004.




Bradbury J.P. & Waddington J.C.B. (1973) The impact of European




     settlement on  Shagawa Lake, northeastern Minnesota. In, Quaternary plant




     ecology (Edited by Bisks H.J.B. & West R.G.), pp.289-307.  Blackwells,




     Oxford.




Davis G.E.  & Larsen G.L. (1976) Sediment characteristics and the trophic




     status of four Oregon lakes.  Wat. Resour. Res. Instit. Oregon State




     Univ.  WRRI-46.




Davis M.B.  & Ford M.S.  (1982) Sediment focusing in Mirror Lake, New




     Hampshire.  Limnol. Oceanogr. 27:137-150.




Dillon P.J. & Kirchner  W.B. (1975) The effects of geology and land




     use on the export  of phosphorus from watersheds.  Water Res. 9,




     135-148.




Dillon P.J. & Rigler F.H. (1975) A simple method for predicting the capacity




     of a lake for development based on lake trophic status. J. Fish. Res.




     Bd. Can. 32, 1519-1531.




Edmondson W.T. (1974) The sedimentary record of the eutrophication




     of Lake Washington.  Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 71, 5093-5095.




                                  L- 22

-------
Engstrom D.R. & Wright H.E. Jr. (la press) Chemical stratigraphy of lake




     sediments as a record of environmental change.  In Studies in




     Palaeolimnology and Palaeoecology, Essays in Honour of Winifred




     Pennington   (Edited by Birks, H.J.B. & Haworth E.Y.) University of




     Leicester.




Hansel M.J. & Machmeier R.E. (1980) On-site wastewater treatment on problem




     soils.  J. Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed. 52, 548-558.




Harris G.P. & Vollenweider R.A. (1982) Paleolimnological evidence




     of early eutrophication in Lake Erie.  Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.




     39:618-626.




Hill D.E. & Sawhney B.L. (1981) Removal of phosphorus from waste water




     by soil under aerobic and anaerobic conditions.  J. Environ. Qual. 10,




     401-405.




Jones R.A. & Lee G.F. (1977) Septic tank disposal systems as phosphorus




     sources for surface waters.  EPA 600/3-77-129.  Robert S. Kerr Environ.




     Res. Lab., Ada, Oklahoma.




Jorgensen E.G. (1948) Diatm communities in some Danish lakes and ponds.




     Kangelige Dansk Videnska bernes Selskab, Biologiske Skrifter, Bind V,




     Nr. 2.




Kalff J. & Knoechel R. (1978) Phytoplankton and their dynamics in




     oligotrophic and eutrophic lakes.  Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 9, 475-495.




Kerfoot W.B. & Skinner Jr, S.M. (1981) Septic leachate surveys for




     lakeside sewer needs evaluation.  J. Water Poll.  Cont. Fed. 53,




     1717-1725.




Laak R. (1980) Wastewater engineering design for unsewered areas.  Ann Arbor




     Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
                                   L-23

-------
Lee D.R.  (1976)  The  role  of groundwater  in  eutrophication of a lake




     in glacial  outwash terrain.   Intern. J.  Speleol. 8, 117-126.




Lee D.R.  (1977)  A device  for measuring" seepage  flux  in lakes and




     estuaries.   Limnol.  Oceanogr.  22, 140-147.




Louden T.L.  & Fay L.  (1982) Water  quality from  drains around septic systems




     American Society  of  Agricultural Engineers,  1982 Winter Meeting.  Paper




     No.  82-2558.  Amer.  Soc. Agric. Engin.,  St.  Joseph, Michigan.




Manny B.A., Wetzel R.G.,  & Bailey  R.E. (1978)   Paleolimnological sedimentation




     of organic  carbon, nitrogen,  phosphorus, fossil pigments, pollen, and




     diatoms  in  a hypereutrophic, hardwater lake:  a case history of




     eutrophication.   Pol.  Arch. Hydrobiol. 25, 243-267.




Minnesota Depart. Nat. Resources (1938;  1955; 1967;  1975; 1979)  Fisheries




     lake surveys of  Sturgeon Lake, Pine County,  MN, unpublished.




Minnesota Depart. Nat. Resources (1954;  1967; 1970;  1979)  Fisheries lake




     surveys  of  Island Lake, Pine  County, MN, unpublished.




Minnesota Depart. Nat. Resources (1967) Fisheries lake survey of unnamed




     lake, 58-61, Pine County, MN,  unpublished.




Neel J.K., Peterson S.A., and Smith W.L. (1973) Weed harvest and lake nutrient




     dynamics.   USEPA  Ecol.  Res. Ser., EPA 660/3-73-001.




Oloya T.O. &  Logan T.J. (1980) Phosphate desorption from soils and sediments




     with varying levels  of extractable phosphate.  J. Environ. Qual. 9,




     526-531.




Pine County Historical Society (1949) One hundred years in Pine County.




     Reissued 1977.  (Edited by Mill, J.P)  Pine County Historical Society,




     Sandston, Minnesota.




Ritchie J.C., McHenry  J.R.,  & Gill A.C. (1973) Dating recent reservoir




     sediments.  Limnol.  Oceanogr.  18, 254-263.
                                   L- 24

-------
Shapiro J., Edmondson W.T. & Allison D.E. (L971)  Changes in the




     chemical composition of sediments of Lake Washington, 1958-1970.




     Limnol. Oceanogr. 16, 437-452.




Stormer E.F. & Yang J.J. (1970) Distribution and relative abundance of




     plankton diatoms in Lake Michigan.  Great Lakes Res. Div. Pub. 16, Univ.




     Mich., Ann Arbor, Michigan.




U.S. Depart. Commerce (1929; 1934; 1939; 1949; 1969; 1978) State and county




     data, Minnesota census of agriculture.   Washington, D.C.




U.S. EPA (1975) National eutrophication survey working paper on Higgins Lake.




     USEPA Environ. Res. Lab., Corvallis, Oregon.




U.S. EPA (1979a)  Alternative waste treatment systems for rural lake projects.




     Case study number 1, Crystal Lake area sewage disposal authority, Benzie




     County, Michigan.  Draft Environ. Impact Statement, Chicago, Illinois.




U.S. EPA (1979b) Alternative waste treatment systems for rural lake projects.




     Case study number 2, Green Lake sanitary  sewer and water district,




     Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.  Draft Environ. Impact Statement,




     Chicago, Illinois.




U.S. EPA (1979c)  Alternative waste treatment systems for rural lake projects.




     Case study number 3, Springvale-Bear Creek sewage disposal authority,




     Emmet County, Michigan.  Draft Environ. Impact Statement, Chicago,




     Illinois.




U.S. EPA (1979d) Alternative waste treatment systems for rural lake projects.




     Case study number 4, Steuben Lakes regional waste district, Steuben




     County, Indiana.  Draft Environ. Impact Statement, Chicago, Illinois.




U.S. EPA (1979e) Alternative waste treatment systems for rural lake projects.




     Case study number 5, Ottertail County Board of Commissioners, Ottertail




     County, Minnesota.   Draft Environ. Impact Statement, Chicago, Illinois.
                                   L-25

-------
U.S.  EPA  (1980) Modeling phosphorus  loading  and  lake response under




      uncertainty:  a manual and compilation of export coefficients.




      EPA  440/5-80-011.   Office of water Reg. and Stand., Washington, D.C.




U.S.  EPA  (1981)  Alternative  waste treatment systems for rural lake projects.




      Case study number  6, Williams County Commissioners, Nettle Lake area,




      Williams County, Ohio.   Draft Environ.  Impact Statement, Chicago,  .




      Illinois.




U.S.  EPA  (1982) Indian  Lake/Sisters  Lakes wastewater treatment facilities;




      Berrien, Cass,  and VanBuren Counties, Michigan.  Draft Environ. Impact




      Statement.  Chicago, Illinois.




U.S.  EPA  (1983a) Wastewater management in rural  lake areas. Final Generic




      Environ. Impact Statement.  Chicago, Illinois.




U.S.  EPA  (1983b) Moose  Lake-Windemere sanitary district wastewater treatment




      facilities; Pine and Carlton Counties, Minnesota. Draft Environ. Impact




      Statement, Chicago,  Illinois.




U.S.  Geological Survey  (1979) Bruno  and Moose Lake, Minnesota quadrangles.  15




      minute series  (topographical) Depart, of Interior, Washington, D.C.




Vallentyne J.R. (1955)  Sedimentary chlorophyll determination as a paleobotan-




      ical method.   Can.  J. Bot. 33,  304-313.




Viraraghavan T. & Warnock R.G. (1976)  Groundwater quality adjacent




      to a septic tank system.  J. Am. Water Works Assn. 68, 611-614.




Williams J.D.H., Jaquet J.-M., &  Thomas R.L. (1976a)  Forms of phosphorus




      in the surficial sediments of Lake Erie.  J. Fish. Res. Board Can.




      33, 413-429.




Williams J.D.H., Murphy T.P.  & Mayer T. (1976b)  Rates of




      accumulation of phosphorus forms in Lake Erie sediments.  J. Fish.




      Res. Board Can. 33, 430-439.






                                  L-26

-------
                               Table Headings






Table 1.  Lake and watershed parameters for Sturgeon, Island and Little




          Island Lakes.  Information was obtained from recent lake surveys




          conducted by USEPA (1983b) and MDNR (unpublished).




Table 2.  House counts made by MDNR (unpublished).




Table 3.  Average number of planktivorous fish caught per set by gillnets




          and trapnets.  Planktivorous fish include yellow perch, black and




          white crappie, and bluegill and pumpkinseed sunfish.




Table 4.  Summary of Secchi disk measurements made by MDNR and USEPA (1982




          only)
                                  L-27

-------
TABLE 1.

Number of onsite systems
Length of shoreline (km)
Ratio onsite systems/
km of lake shoreline
Watershed area (ha)
Lake surface area (ha)
Ratio watershed /lake surface
Mean depth (m)
Mean Secchi disk (m)
Chlorophyll a (ug g )
Total phosphorus, winter
values (rag 1 )
Estimated .phosphorus budget
(kg yr )
Estimated phos. contribution
from onsite systems (kg yr )
Estimated phos. contribution
from onsite systems (%)
Current lake trophic status
Sturgeon
197
12.9
15
560
686
0.8
6.9
2.4 (n=16)
8 (n=24)
0.02(n=4)
1934
179
9
meso-eutrop.
Island Little Island
151
10.1
15
1151
211
5.5
3.4
1.4 (n=24)
29 (n=35)
0.04(n=4)
1090
141
13
eutrophic
0
1.7
0
294
17
17.3
1.6
0.9
NA
0.03(n=2)
226
0
0
eutrophic

-------
TABLE 2
House Counts
Date
1979-80
1975
1970
1967
1954-55
Sturgeon
208
170
—
120
81
Island
169
—
128
110
35

-------
TABLE 3
Planktivorous Fish
Date
1979-80
1975
1970
1967
1954-55
Sturgeon
57
18
—
47
30
Island
189
—
20
57
37

-------
TABLE 4
Secchi Disc
Measurement (m)
Date
1982
1979-80
1975
1970
1967
1955
1938
Sturgeon
2.4
2.3
2.4
—
2.9
—
2.4
Island
1.4
1.3
2.0
1.4
1.7
1.1
—

-------
                               Figure Legends






Figure 1.  Sampling site locations.  Topographical watershed boundries are




           outlined by the black line.  Hatched area represents glacial




           outwash  sand.  The remainder of the soils in the lake's watersheds




           are  clayey glacial till.




Figure 2.  Stratigraphic profiles of Cesium-137 radioactivity in lake




           sediment cores.




Figure 3.  Organic matter Stratigraphic profiles.




Figure 4.  Chlorophyll degradation product Stratigraphic profiles.




Figure 5.  Diatom Stratigraphic profiles.  Diatom species have been put into




           one of three categories; eutrophic, mesotrophic, or other based on




           their trophic affiliation.




Figure 6.  Stratigraphic profiles for three phosphorus fractions.

-------
                  FIGURE  1.
                                   Little Island
                                       Lake
                                                0      1km
\\\\\S\\N\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^^

-------
                    FIGURE 2.
          CESIUM-137  (pico Curies/g)
 o
a.
LLJ
Q
UJ
DC
O
o
       01  2  3  4  56  78  9 10 11  12 13 14
Sturgeon

Island

Little Island

-------
3
X
a.
LU
DC

8 46
   60 .
            FIGURE 3
           % ORGANIC  MATTER
10
            1945
            1907
1870
20
                 30
                                     40
                    	V—1930
                                   ~

                    -f
                1879
                     	*	1827
     STURGEON   ISLAND
                                    LITTLE
                                    ISLAND

-------
            FIGURE 4
 £  15
 o
Q_
LU 30
O

LU
DC

8 «
   60 J
1945
1907
1870
                CHLOROPHYLL

               (SPDU/g dry wt.)
               10
        STURGEON
               20
30
                                       40
                               1930
                        ^	1879
                           	y—1827

                            I
                                     i
                                     •

                                     •
                                     I
                ISLAND
                                   LITTLE

                                   ISLAND

-------
E
o
    16
    30
    45
    60
                      FIGURE 5

         STURGEON LAKE
         Eutrophic
            20  40  60   80 %
Mesotrophic
  20  40  60   80 %
                                                                     1832
         ISLAND LAKE
         Eutrophic
            20   40  60   80 %
Mesotrophic
  20   40  60   80 %
Other
  20   40 %
                                                                     1946
                                                                     1907
                                                                     1870
                                                                     1832
         LITTLE ISLAND LAKE
         Eutrophic
           20   40  60  80 %
Mesotrophic
  20   40  60  80  %
Other
  20   40 %
                                                                     1930
                                                                     1879
                                                                     1827
                                                                     1775

-------
            FIGURE 6
        PHOSPHORUS  (mg/g dry wt.)
  Sturgeon
0    0.8    1.6
            1970
      Apatite-P
      NAI-P

      Organic-P
   Island
0    0.8    1.6
            1870   45
 Little Island
0    0.8    1.6
            1970
            1965
                                                        DC
                                                        111
                                1827

-------
                      -Supplemental Information-

       ^Range and means of sediment  parameters from
        sediment cores.
                                                               Little

CaCO
(%)
Organic Matter
%
Chlorophyll
(SPDU/g. org. matt.)
Total Phosphorus
(mg/g dry wt . )
Organic Phosphorus
(mg/g dry wt . )
Inorganic Phosphorus
(mg/g dry wt . )
Apatite Phosphorus
(mg/g dry wt . )
Nonapatite Inorganic P.
(mg/g dry wt . )
Island Lake
0.7-3.3
1.7
20.8-29.4
25.6
57.4-102.0
79.4
0.80-1.72
1.07
0.21-0.52
0.34
0.44-1.20
0.73
0.08-0.24
0.15
0.29-1.05
0.58
Sturgeon Lake
0.7-1.9
1.3
19.0-22.9
20.4
32.6-54.8
40.7
0.80-1.50
0.95
0.15-0.40
0.27
0.39-1.18
0.68
0.22-0.37
0.27
0.15-0.92
0.41
Island
0.8-1.
1.2
29.8-41
36. 8
31.0-11
83.3
0.54-1
1.12
0.26-0
0.51
0.28-0
0.61
0.04-0
O.OS
0.24-C
0.52
Lake
8

.1

2.3

.32

.64

.72

.14

.63

aNote  that chlorophyll breakdown products are presented herein on
 a gram of dry organic matter  basis.

-------
                         Traffic Data
  Figure M-l.   1979  average  annual  daily traffic in northwestern Pine
                County  (MOOT).  Traffic  volume   on the state highway is
                for  1978.
Q
O
                                                                                 0)
                                                                                 p
                                                                                 H
                                                                                 I
                                                                                 s
Figure M-1.
 I
5!
                                     M-l

-------
                                  Energy Data
Figure N-l.Unit price for residental energy during  the  period  from April 1980
           to March 1981 (Minnesota Energy Agency 1981).

                                                        Fuel Type
Location
Region 3
Region 7E
Minnesota
Use
Space heating
Non-space heating
Space heating
Non-space heating
Space heating
Non-space heating
Natural Gas
(per 1,000
cubic feet)
$3.70
4.42
3.33
3.85
3.51
4.10
Electricity
(per Kelo
watt hour)
4.72C
5.46
4.70
5.53
3.64
5.21
Fuel Oil
(per gallon)
$1.22
1.17
1.16
LP Gas
(per gallon)
71. 1C
74.7
69.8
  The basis for heating values of the fuels are:

      Natural gas: 1,000 BTU per cubic feet
      Electricity: 3,412 BTU per KW hour
      Distillate
        Composite (fuel oil): 138,690 BTU per gallon
      Propane: 91,500 BTU per gallon
                                                                                           ctf
                                                                                           Q
                                                                                           bO
                                                                                           Vj
                                                                                           0)
                                                                                           c
                                                                                           w
                                                                                           I
                                                                                           53
                                                                                           w
                                                                                           FU
                                                                                           (X,
                                       N-l

-------
      Appendix 0
Letters  of Comment
                                                                   CO
                                                                   1-1
                                                                   v
                                                                   •u
                                                                   4-1
                                                                   
-------
  United States
ri. Department of
-*•' Agriculture
Soil
Conservation
Service
200 Federal Building
316 North  Robert St.
St. Paul,  MN  55101
                                             June  10,  1983
  Mr. Harlan  D.  Hirt, Chief
  Environmental  Impact Section
  Environmental  Protection Agency
  Regi on V
  230 South Dearborn Street
  Chicago, IL  60604

  Dear Mr. Hirt:

  We have reviewed the draft  appendicies to the  Environmental
  Impact Statement for the Moose Lake - Windemere Sanitary
  District Waste Water Treatment System, Pine  and Carlton
  Counties, Minnesota.

  The material  in the report  is  satisfactorily presented and
  needs no further comment.   We  appreciated the  opportunity to
  review this report.
  Sincerely,
  Donald G.  Ferren
  State Conservationist
  cc:  Peter  C.  Myers, Chief,  SCS,  Washington,  D.C.
                                  0-1
  The Soil Conservation Service
  is an agency of the
  Department of Agriculture
                                                    SCS-AS-1
                                                    10-79

-------
                     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                 ST. PAUL DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                 1135 U. S. POST OFFICE & CUSTOM HOUSE
                       ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 551O1
  REPLY TO                 June 9, 1983
  ATTENTION OF:
Construction-Operations
Regulatory Functions  (C30077)
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois   60604

Dear Mr. Hirt:

     Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the draft
Environmental Impact Statement  (EIS) for the Moose Lake Windemere
Sanitary Wastewater Treatment System (your reference number 5WFI-
12).  After examining the various alternatives discussed, we have
made the following determinations:

     1.  No alternative will affect any existing or planned St.
Paul District project.

     2.  No Department of the Army permit would be required to
carry out alternative 2, which has been recommended as the selected
project alternative.

     3.  If any one of alternatives 3 through 7 were chosen, author-
ization from the Corps might be required under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.  More detailed construction information would be
required to make a definite jurisdictional determination.

     If you have questions, please write or call Mr. Henrik Strandskov
of this office at (612)725-7775.
                                 Sincerely,
                                 Dennis E. Gin
                                 Chief, Regulatory Functions Branch
                                 Construction-Operations Division
                            0-2

-------
        United States Department of the Interior
                     OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
                       NORTH CENTRAL REGION
                     175 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
                       CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

                         June 20,  1983


ER-83/613
Mr. Valdas V. Adankus
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois  60604

Dear Mr. Adamkus:

The Department of Interior has reviewed  the  draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the wastewater treatment  system  for Moose
Lake-Windemere Sanitary District in Pine and Carlton Counties,
Minnesota.  The following  comments  are provided  for  your
consideration.

The alternative selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency recommends on-site  system upgrading for the entire service
area and would only affect residential yards during  construction of
proposed improvements.  In addition, this alternative  eliminates any
phosphorus/nitrate contribution to  adjacent  lakes originating from
falling on-slte systems and will have little or  no impact on fish and
wildlife resources.

Although threatened and endangered  species were  not  identified in the
EIS, both the bald eagle and gray wolf occur in  the  aforementioned
counties.  However, considering the location and types of activities
proposed, this project should have  no effect on  the  above listed
species.  This precludes the need for further action on this project
as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as  amended.
Should new information become available  that indicates listed or
proposed species may be affected, consultation with  the Regional
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building,  Fort
Snelling, Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111,  should be reinitiated.

It is indicated on pages 3-82 and 3-83 of the draft  that preliminary
coordination with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) to identify cultural resources in the proposed  project area
                               0-3

-------
has been accomplished.  The final statement should evidence approval
by the SHPO of completed compliance with mandates pertaining to the
identification and protection of cultural resources.

                                    Sincerely yours,
                                    Sheila Minor Huff
                                    Regional Environmental Officer
                              0-4

-------
                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF  TRANSPORTATION
                        FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
                                   REGION 5
                             18209 DIXIE HIGHWAY
                           HOMEWOOD, ILLINOIS 0O43O

                                 June 2, 1983
                                                    IN REPLY REFER TOi
                                                                    HEP -05
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Mr. Hirt:

The draft environmental impact statement for the Moose Lake-Windmere
Sanitary District Wastewater Treatment System, Pine and Carlton  Counties,
Minnesota has been reviewed.  The recommended project alternative  of
on-site system upgrades would have no effect on the Federal-aid  highway
system.  The discussion of the other alternatives also recognizes  impacts
to the highway system in the' area.  Therefore, we have no  comments to
offer on the draft EIS.
                                      Sincerely yours,
                                        tonel H. Wood, Director
                                      Office of Environmental Programs
cc:  HEV-11
     Sec. Rep.
     P-37
     EPA W/0 (5 copies)
     Minnesota D/0
                                    0-5

-------
East Central Regional Development Commission
     Serving Local Governments in Chisago, Isanti, Kanabec, Mille Lacs and Pine Counties
     May  26,  1983
Full Commission


Chisago County
Sig E. Stene, Sec. Treas.
Sheldon Porter
Loren Jennings
Barry Blomquist

Isanti County
Ray Stoeckel, Vice-Chmn.
Lynn Becklin
Glenn E. Johnson
Laurence Collin
David Dahlquist

Kanabec County
Lucille Schultz
Merlin Smith
Robert H. Anderson
Bill Miller

Mille Lacs County
Gloria Habeck, Chrm.
Phyllis Christiansen
Andrew  Holzemer
Owen Baas

Pine County
James Youngbauer
James Tuttle
Larry Hansen
Wayne White
Chet Erickson

Executive  Director
Michael Sobota
    Environmental  Protection Agency
    Region V
    230 So. Dearborn St.
    Chicago, Illinois 60604

    Dear Sir/Madam:

    The East Central Regional Development Commission reviewed  the
    Moose Lake - Windemere Sanitary Sewer District Wastewater
    Treatment  System Environmental Impact  Statement at its regular
    meeting of May 23,  1983.   Upon reviewing the EIS,  the EC RDC
    concurs with the EIS recommendation that the on-site treatment
    alternative (Alternative #1) is the most cost-effective and is  the
    most feasible treatment alternative for this area.

    In previous  reviews of the Step I grant application  and Step I
    plan,  the EC RDC has  expressed concerns regarding the potential
    serious secondary  growth  impacts to this relatively  undeveloped
    area.   The EC RDC hopes that this recommendation and comment
    are taken into consideration when EPA takes action  on this EIS.

    Sincerely,
     Michael Sobota
     Executive Director

     MS: da
                             0-6
      119 South Lake Street, Mora, Minnesota 55051-1596 (612) 679-4065

-------
                    STATE  OF
                 DEPARTMENT  OF   NATURAL  RESOURCES

              BOX    , CENTENNIAL OFFICE  BUILDING  •  ST.  PAUL. MINNESOTA • 55155

DNR INFORMATION
  (612)296-6157                                      June 21,  1983           FILENO._
     Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
     Environmental Impact Section
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Region V
     230 South Dearborn Street
     Chicago, Illinois 60604

     RE:  Draft EIS for Moose Lake-Hindemere Sanitary
          District Wastewater Treatment System,  Minnesota

     Dear Mr. Hirt:

         The Department of Natural Resources (DNR)  has reviewed the
     above-referenced document and offers the following comments for your
     consideration.

         We foresee no major problems resulting  from the project if the  recommended
     alternative  is selected.

         However, based on the conclusions in the document which state that
     "evaluation  of the existing data on the natural and man-made environment  in
     the project  area indicates that water quality impacts due to onsite systems
     are inconsequential in the context of other manageable and unmanageable
     nutrient sources, and that none of the action alternatives will  significantly
     improve the  quality of the lakes or the groundwater," it seems difficult  to
     justify the  expenditure of over $1 million  to upgrade onsite systems.  From
     the alternatives presented, it would appear prudent only to select  the
     no-action alternative.  However, the data presented in the document seem  to
     indicate that the nutrient loads entering the subject lakes are  from
     non-wastewater sources (agricultural, lawn  fertilization, etc.)  and any
     effective solution would have to address these problems, which were not
     covered in the DEIS.
                          *
         Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

                                                 Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas W. Balcom
                                                 Environmental Review Coordinator
      TWB:pje
      3618E

      cc:  Dick  Carlson
           Earl  Huber
           Ron Harnack
                             AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

-------
                 Minnesota Pollution  Control Agency
 flUB 0 8 1933


Mr. Charles Quinlan
Environmental  Impact  Section
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois  60604

Dear Mr. Quinlan:

Re:  Moose Lake  - V7indemere Sanitary District,  Minnesota
     Draft Environmental Impact  Statement
     EPA Project No.  C271301-01

In follow-up to  our phone  conversation,  the  following  comments
are submitted  on behalf of the Minnesota Pollution  Control
Agency  (MPCA)  review  of the Draft Moose  Lake-Windemere
Environmental  Impact  Statement.

1.   The discussion of algal  toxicity  as related  to Island  Lake
     is confusing  (p. 2-58}.  The distinction between  those
     species associated with  toxic  conditions and other
     non-toxic species of  the same  general is blurred.   The
     statement that "there is a  potential public  health  problem
     associated  with  blue-green  algae  in Island Lake," appears
     to be an  exaggeration which could unintentionally mislead
     the public  on an at times emotional issue.   In our  opinion,
     it should be stated clearly that  available information
     indicates that the algal communities observed  in  Island
     Lake do not pose a threat to public health.

2.   The opinion (p.  2-57) that  average  phosphorus  levels of  .02
     mg/1 and  .04 mg/1 in  Sturgen and  Island Lakes,
     respectively, are similar is not  shared by our technical
     staff.  Further, the  advisability of using the March,  1982
     sampling  results for  Island and Sturgen lakes  to  detect
                         Phone:
            1935 West County Road B2. Roseviile, Minnesota 551 13-2785
             Regional Offices • Duluth'Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Maisha!l;Rochester
                         Equal Opportunity Employer

-------
Mr. Charles Quinlan
Page 2
  AUG 0 8 1983

     system failure must be questioned based on the limited
     number of samples, the lack of analytical sensitivity and
     absence of an adequate scientific rationale for a study of
     this type.

3.   The land runoff phosphorus export coefficients used to
     estimate external phosphorus supplies to the study appear
     to be excessive (cf. Table 3-6, page 3-24).  In general,
     the export values which were used appears to be from
     individual test plots, some as small as .009 mg/1 (roughly,
     30 ft. x 30 ft.), whose applicability to the study area
     watersheds has not been demonstrated.  We are especially
     concerned with the high values used to estimate phosphorus
     export from cultivated land, pasture and lawns.  Ground
     water impacts of nutrients and water have been largely
     ignored.

4.   We are also concerned about what might seem to some readers
     to be a tendency to diminish the overall importance of
     phosphorus control in the "Documentation of Need for
     Improved Wastewater Management" section on pp. 2-60 and
     2-61.  One should not lose site of the fact that phosphorus
     control is a desirable goal and the principal means of
     improving or protecting the water quality of inland fresh
     water lakes.  In this context, all phosphorus sources are
     important and should be considered candidates for control.
     While expensive phosphorus control options  (e.g.,
     collection system or treatment works) may be difficult to
     justify, one should guard against creating the impression
     that better control over on-site waste disposal should not
     be vigorously pursued though other means, particularly in
     light of the possibility that our non-point sources of
     phosphorus may be much more difficult to control.

5.   The chosen alternative is on-site upgrade for all the areas
     involved.  From Dr. Finney's description of the soils,
     there are problem soils in the area all with severe ratings
     for soil absorption systems.  Therefore, how did they
     decide who would get mounds and who would get drainfield?
     There should be a discussion of this documented.  It may be
     that everyone located on the Duluth soils were given mounds
     and those on Omega were given the drainfields.

6.   Was there any further investigation to show that
     conventional and mound systems could be built according to
     WPC-40?  The Duluth soils have up to 48% clay in them with
     estimated permeabilities as low as .06"/hr. which translate
     to >300 mip as a perc rate.  According to WPC-40,

                              0-9

-------
Mr. Charles Quinlan
Page 3


 P.US fl 8 1983

     individual mounds could not be constructed on soils with a
     perc rate slower than 120 mpi without a variance.  This is
     not to say something couldn't be designed on the slow
     rates,'but, it would require a much larger area and may not
     be reflected in the costs.

     On the other end of the spectrum are the Omega soils - very
     coarse.  These soils may perc too fast for conventional
     trench systems, therefore trench liners would have to be
     added to costs.  If these problems have not been
     considered, the feasibility and costing may not be truly
     reflective of actual needs.

7.   Even though they were not chosen, the alternatives for
     cluster systems and the bog system should not be considered
     feasible alternatives at this time.  To say the least,
     extensive soil and hydrological work would have to be done
     for the clusters and peat analysis would have to be done to
     show the bog system would work.

8.   What will happen with the septage from the on-site system?
     On pg. 2-72, septage for the Moose Lake area is said to go
     to the Moose Lake System.  What would this include?  Is the
     pond surface area designed for this extra BOD loading?
     Estimates were given up to 4500 gpd of septage introduced
     to the system in the spring and fall.  On pg. 2-81, it
     states septage in the Moose Lake Area is treated in
     anaerobic lagoons.  What is the estimate of septage to be
     produced for Alt. #2?

9.   There was considerable discussion on ground water
     contamination to wells and the conclusion was (pg. 2-50)
     that no problems were documented for any in areas having a
     high potential for water well contamination.  Since none of
     the wells were samples in the critical areas (p. 2-43) how
     was this conclusion arrived at?

10.  Nitrates will not be eliminated from being introduced to
     the ground water system even if the system is functioning
     properly.  This was alluded to on pg. 15.

11.  Population - Were the housing unit projections compared to
     available lakefront lots (developable ones)?  It is not
     clear what rate of increase was applied to present housing
     stock figures to obtain the projected year - 2000 housing
     stock.  In general, this portion of the EIS might
     appropriately be routed thru State Demographers Office for
     their comment.


                              0-10

-------
Mr. Charles Quinlan
Page 4
12.  Historical sites - unless archaeological survey work is
     completed during the EIS, there is high probability it will
     not be .completed during Step 1.  When the selected
     alternative is arrived at by WAPORA, EPA, the State
     Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO)  be contacted to
     determine location of needed surveys, and that these
     surveys be performed prior to finalization of EIS.
     Alternatively, the SHPO could be contacted to indicate
     which sites need surveys among all the alternatives.

13.  Ground Water Impacts - Have ground water impacts of the
     final alternative been evaluated by ground water dispersion
     modeling techniques.  This recommendation would not
     necessarily apply to individual upgrades, but would
     certainly in the case of group or community drainfields.

14.  The planning map on page 2-9 did not include the City of
     Barnum nor the coridor between.  We realize these two areas
     were dismissed as part of the final evaluation area in the
     Phase 1 EIS report; however, it should be noted they were
     part of the original planning area.

15.  On Island Lake it was estimated that 64 residents were
     permanent and on Sturgen that 42% were permanent.  How were
     these estimates made.

16.  The windy weather during the Sturgen Lake Septic Leachate
     Survey may have caused some minor plumes to be missed.
     What effort went into that area to assure all failures were
     found?

17.  The Hogan Area did not have a lot of detail survey
     information on the Septic System.

18.  Average size of on-site systems were used for cost
     evaluation purpose.  We would like to emphasize that,
     during a plan and specification development, individual SAS
     would be sized according to lot conditions and house size.

In summary we concur with the findings of the report and that
the most cost-effective alternative has been proposed in the
EIS.
                            0-11

-------
Mr. Charles Quinlan
Page 5


 RUS 0 8 1983

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact Lawrence S. Zdon at  (612)296-7733.

Sincerely, .
Gordon E. Wegwart/P.E.
Chief, Technical Review Section
Division of Water Quality

GEW/LSZ:cmc

cc:  Mr. John Laumer, WAPORA, Chicago, Illinois
                            0-12

-------
    Moose  Lake  -  Windemere  Sewer  District
604 West Road       Moose Lake , Minnesota 55767   Phone 218/485-8276
                                        June 21,  1983
            Mr. Charles Quinlan
            U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency
            Region V
            230 South Dearborn St.
            Chicago, Illinois 60604

            Dear Sir:

            As per our phone conversation we will expect to
            receive a transcript from you when ready.

            We have some new members on our board of directors
            and as there is obvious disagreement between the
            District and the study by Wapora and E.P.A. we will
            withhold comments and judgement on the Draft until
            after we have received the transcript.
                                    Sincerely,
                                 Executive Director

            HW/js
                               0-13

-------
                                     1410 Brainerd Avenue
                                     Duluth MN 55811
                                     1 June 83
Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental  Impact Section
USEPA Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago  IL 60604

Dear Sir:

This letter is written as a public comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Moose Lake-tfindemere
Sanitary tfastewater Treatment System for Pine and Carlton
Counties, Minnesota.  It is written on behalf of my three
brothers (Edward, Dale, Burleigh) and myself, owners of
approximately 200 acres on Passenger and Big Slough lakes in
Windemere township.

The draft Environment Impact Statement appears to be well done
and accurate in its assessment.  It is our position that of the
action alternatives, alternative #2, upgrade on-site systems,
is the one that is the most fair, most economically justifiable,
and is fully able to protect the aquatic environment without
unnecessary expenditures.

We are unable to attend the 10 June 83 hearings in Moose Lake
and we desire to be informed if any alternatives other than
numbers  1 or 2 are being seriously considered.

                                     Sincerely,
                                     George Rapp, Jr.
cc: Chairman, Windemere
    Township Counci1
                               0-14

-------
                                     Rte. 2, Box 139-A
                                     Sturgeon Lake, Minnesota
                                                     55783
                                     June 21, 1983
Mr. Harlan D» Hirt
Chief Environmental Impact Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois  cOoOs-


Dear Mr. Hirt:

I am writing concerning the E.I.S. report on sewage disposal
around Island Lake, Windemere Township, Pine County, I.Iinnesota.

I have been a property owner on Island Lake since 19^-6.  The
proposed sewer pipeline would impose a financial hardship on
me as I am retired and live on a small fixed income.  I do not
want the disruption caused by the digging of a pipeline through
my property.

I oppose the establishment of a sewer pipeline and support the
upgrading of on site disposal systems.

                                     Sincerely,
                                     Ethel Spell
                                0-15

-------
                                         Rte. 2, Box 1^-0-B
                                         Sturgeon Lake, Minnesota
                                                         55783
                                         June 21, 1983
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief Environmental Impact Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois  6060^


Dear Llr. Hirt:

We are responding to the E.I.S. on sewage disposal around Island
Lake, Windemere Township, Pine County, Minnesota.  We are pro-
perty owners on Island Lake.

After reviewing the available studies we have come to the con-
clusion that we oppose the construction of a sewer pipe line
around Island Lake.  We favor federal assistance in upgrading or
establishing on site sewage disposal systems.

We favor putting the issue to an official closed ballot held in
the Windemere Town Hall under proper legal voting procedures.

Minnesota and Pine County Shoreline Ordinances if enforced would
have negated the need for these studies and saved the taxpayers
money.

As a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee I was not mailed
copies of the E.I.S., informed of the public hearing, or see any
real intercourse between the Committee and the E.P.A..

We would like to see the Soil Conservation Service and Agricul-
tural Stabilization Conservation Service come up with a project
to reduce barnyard nutrients and soil erosion from entering island
Lake.  This would be similiar to the Red Clay Project in Carltor.
County, with increased rates of cost-sharing to landowners.

Windemere Township lakes are a precious resource to be passed on
to future generations.
                                         Sine
                                                 >(/ Johnson
                                         Kirsti H. Johnson
                              0-16

-------
                                                     8126 Grafton Ave
                                                     Cottage Grove,MN 55016

                                                     June 13, 1983
U. S. E. PA., Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois  60604
To Whom it May Concern:

I am against the proposed construction of sewers around Island and Sturgeon
Lakes.

I own a small  piece of property on Island Lake, which has a small  cabin on it.
Running the sewer line across  the property would force me to sell  out.   With
the spiral ing  cost of living these days and having 2 places to maintain, being
a single parent with 4 dependent children, this increased expense  would wipe
out our being  able to retreat  to this small unpretentious  cabin and the only
pleasures the  .kids and I have.

I cannot understand why it is  needed when there is no threat to the lakes.  I
did not attend the local hearing so I can only go by what I have heard  other
residents conveyed to me, which is hearsay	.1 did read a bit about the
proposal, and  have come to the  conclusion, that it is not necessary to  put the
sewer in this  area.
Sincerely,
Marica N. Cavanaugh
   RECEIVED
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SECTION

     JUN201983


     USEPA
                                      0-17

-------
0-18

-------
                             JL-rftXJCt,
0-19

-------
0-20

-------
/*
     0
                         0-21

-------
                                 Y&^t>

                        V-  >
-------