vvEPA
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
            Region V
            230 South Dearborn
            Chicago. Illinois 6O6O4
July, 1979
            Water Division
Environmental
Impact Statement
Draft
            Alternative Waste
            Treatment Systems
             For Rural Lake Projects
             Case Study Number 3
             Springvale-Bear Creek
             Sewage Disposal
             Authority
             Emmet County, Michigan

-------
                            VOLUME I



               DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT



 ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR RURAL LAKE PROJECTS



CASE STUDY  No, 3: SPRINGVALE-BEAR CREEK SEWAGE DISPOSAL AUTHORITY



                      EMMET COUNTY, MICHIGAN


                        Prepared by the



          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


                    REGION V,   CHICAGO, ILLINOIS



                              AND


                       WAPORA, INCORPORATED

                          WASHINGTON, D.C.
                                       Approved by:
                                            McGuire     x               ^
                                          ional Administrator
                                          . Environmental Protection Agency

                                       July, 1979

-------
                     DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

                CROOKED/PICKEREL LAKES FACILITY PLANNING AREA
                          Emmet County, Michigan
                               Prepared by

               US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,  REGION V
Comments concerning this document are invited and should be received by
      OCT   81979

For further information, contact
Mr. Alfred Krause, Project Monitor
US EPA Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois 60609
312/353-2314
                                 Abstract

     A 201 Facility Plan was prepared for the Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes Facility
Planning Area.  The Facility Plan concluded that extensive sewering would  be
required to correct malfunctioning on-site wastewater  disposal  systems  and to
protect water quality.

     Concern about the high costs of the Facility Plan Proposed Action  prompted
re-examination of the Study Area and led to preparation of this EIS.  This EIS
concludes that complete abandonment of on-site systems in the area is unjusti-
fied.  An alternative to the Facility Plan Proposed Action has  therefore been
presented and is recommended by this Agency.

-------
                              LIST OF PREPARERS

     This Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by WAPORA, Inc. under
 the guidance of Alfred Krause, EPA Region V Project Officer.  Key personnel
 for WAPORA included:

     WAPORA, Inc.
     6900 Wisconsin Avenue
     Chevy Chase, MD  20015
          J. Ross Pilling II         - Project Manager
          Winston Lund, P.E.         - Water Quality Modeler
          Gerald Peters              - Project Advisor
          Michael Goldman            - Project Engineer

     In addition, several subcontractors and others assisted in preparation
 of this document.  These along with their areas of expertise, are listed below:

 Aerial Survey
     Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
     Vint Hill Farms Station
     Warrenton, VA
          Barry Evans

 Septic Leachate Analysis
     K-V Associates
     Falmouth, MA
          William Kerfoot

 Engineering
     Arthur Beard Engineers
     6900 Wisconsin Avenue
     Chevy Chase, MD  20015
          David Wohlscheid, P.E.

 Soils Interpretation
     University of Michigan Biological Station
     Pellstonm MI 49769
          Arthur Gold and John E. Gannon

 Sanitary Survey
     University of Michigan Biological Station
     Pellston, MI 49769
          Samuel Ehlers

Water Quality Study
     University of Michigan Biologic Station
     Pellston, MI  49769
     John E. Gannon and Daniel J. Mazur

-------
                                SUMMARY
CONCLUSIONS

     A large number of on-site systems around Crooked/Pickerel Lakes are
operating satisfactorily.  Approximately  51  septic tank effluent plumes
are found to be entering the Lakes. Eight septic system surface malfunc-
tions were  found in  the Proposed Service Area.   Backup  of  sewage  into
homes is  relatively  infrequent.   On-site systems do not  appear  to  be a
significant  contributor of  nutrients into  the Lakes  — of  the  total
input  of phosphorus  into the  lakes  only 1.3%  is derived  from septic
tanks  in  Crooked Lake  and  1.6% in  Pickerel  Lake.   Where plumes  do
emerge,  they appear  to be  supporting  localized growth  of  Cladophora.

     In the Facility Plan, septic systems were suspected of contributing
to degraded  water quality and public health problems although there was
little  evidence  to support  this suspicion.   Neither  the Facility  Plan
Proposed Action nor the EIS Alternatives are expected to either adverse-
ly  or  beneficially  affect  the  water  quality  of the  open bodies  of
Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes.   The  lack  of  measurable  improvement  in  the
quality of these open waters is due to the mignitude of non-point source
loadings  which would  not be controlled  by any  wastewater management
alternative.  This  loading constitutes an estimated 71.9% and  88.1% of
the  total phosphorus input  to Crooked Lake and Pickerel Lake,  respec-
tively.

     Many of the on-site systems presently in use within the  EIS Service
Area are  poorly  maintained and many are inadequately designed.  Routine
maintenance  for  all  on-site  systems  and  upgrading  of  inadequately
designed systems will substantially reduce the number of problems caused
by  them.   Where  problems  cannot be  solved by routine  maintenance  or
upgrading alone, alternatives to the conventional septic tank subsurface
absorption systems are feasible.

     Future  growth  in the Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes  Study  Area depends  on
the  number  of  new lots that can be developed and the allowable density.
Wastewater  disposal  alternatives  relying on  continued use  of  on-site
systems around the  lakes would restrict both the  number of  new lots as
well  as  their  density.   An effect  of  these  limitations would be  to
preserve the present character of the community.

     Total present worth for the more centralized alternatives (Facility
Plan Proposed  Action, EIS  Alternatives  2,  3,  and 4)  are considerably
higher  than  for  the decentralized alternatives  (EIS Alternatives  1,  5,
and  6).   As  calculated in this EIS the Facility Plan Proposed Action is
1.5  times more  expensive  than EIS  Alternative  1  and  3.3  times  more
expensive than EIS Alternative 6.  Differences in water quality impacts
are  not proportionate  to these large differences  in costs.   Because of
the  high costs  and  limited benefits  to water  quality with  the  more
centralized alternatives (Facility Plan Proposed Action and EIS Alterna-
tive 2,  3,  and  4),  they are not cost-effective and are not recommended.
320 Bl

-------
DRAFT EIS RECOMMENDATIONS

     This EIS recommends the formulation of a  small  waste  flows  district
and  construction  of EIS Alternative  6  at a miminum.  This  alternative
calls for  upgrading on-site  systems  and 2 cluster systems at Ellsworth
Point and  Botsford  Landing.   The  alternative  may vary somewhat  from the
design presented  in Chapter  IV.   This is becuase detailed site by site
design work  needed  to  determine  the  level of  on-site upgrading  for each
house  (see  Section II.E.2.b.)  may  indicate  that particular dwellings
have problems requiring  different technology  than those incorporated in
EIS  Alternative  6.   Where  upgrading  of  existing  conventional  septic
tank-soil  absorption  systems  is  found  to be  impractical  alternative
on-site measures should be evaluated.  These include composting  or other
alternative  toilets,   flow  reduction,  as  well   as  holding  tanks  and
separate greywater/blackwater disposal.

     Cluster  systems  in addition to  those in EIS Alternative  6  may be
eligible for Construction  Grants  funding where site data,  evaluation of
conventional and alternative on-site  systems and  cost-effective  analysis
demonstrate  the practicality of off-site treatment  and disposal.   It is
possible that one  or  more  cluster system could be required by localized
site  conditions notably  in the area of Channel Road or Oden Island.
HISTORY

     In October 1976, the Little Traverse Bay Area  Facility Plan for the
Springvale-Bear Creek Area Segment was  submitted to  EPA Region V by the
Springvale-Bear  Creek  Sewage  Disposal  Authority  as  the applicant  for
funding  under  the Construction  Grants  Program.   The Facility Planning
Area included  the  northern portions  of  Resort and Bear  Creek  Townships
east  and west  of the  city of  Petosky, as  well as  the areas  around
Crooked/Pickerel Lakes in Springvale  and Littlefield  Townships.  The EIS
Study  Area  is  limited to  the  portion  of the Facilities  Planning  Area
around Crooked/Pickerel Lakes  in Springvale  and Little  Field Townships.
The Proposed Service Area,  to  which  this EIS is addressed,  includes the
south  shore of Crooked Lake, Oden Island in  Crooked Lake,  the shore of
Pickerel Lake and the corridor  between the two lakes.

     The Facility Plan recommended centralized collection of wastewaters
in  the Proposed Service Area  with Treatment at the Petosky Plant  (its
alternative) as  the  wastewater  management plan  in  the Springvale-Bear
Creek Area Segment.  It cites cost-effectiveness and  implementability as
reasons for the selection of this alternative.
EIS ISSUES

     Cost-Effectiveness and Financial Impact.   The  per  capita and  per
residence cost of the Facility Plan Proposed Action is very high ($3,100
and  $9,285  respectively),  particularly considering  that  half of  the
population is seasonal  and  that many of the permanent  residents  in the


320 B2

-------
area are of  retirement age.   The acceptability and affordability of the
local share  of  this  cost burden has not been adequately addressed.  The
low housing density and distance from the Petoskey Treatment Plant makes
the cost-effectiveness of sewering the area questionable.  Consequently,
lower cost alternatives have been fully examined in this EIS.

     Secondary Impacts.   The  project  appears  capable  of  generating  a
variety of secondary  impacts,  including development pressure on wetland
areas, increased non-point  runoff from construction of new housing, and
increased demands for roads and other community services.

     Interbasin Transfer.  There  will  be  a limited amount of interbasin
transfer from the  Lake Huron watershed to the  Lake  Michigan watershed,
if wastewater collected  from  around Crooked/Pickerel Lakes is routed to
the treatment plant  at Petoskey.   The impact of diversion of water from
one basin to the other has not previously been addressed.

ENVIRONMENT

     Soils.  Opportunities for suitable treatment of domestic wastewater
using  soils  exist at  selected  sites in much of the  Study Area.   Major
factors  restricting  the use  of some  soils  for on-site  waste  disposal
systems  are  permeability and  a seasonal  high  water table.  The  vari-
ability  of  these  glacial  soils  is  significant  as  it  requires  that
detailed  soils  and  groundwater  investigations be  performed prior  to
construction of soil dependent treatment systems.

     Surface Water Resources.    Crooked  Lake   and  Pickerel  Lake  are
classified as mesotrophic systems.  This means that they are waters with
a moderate supply  of nutrients and, compared to eutrophic waters, have
less production of organic matter.   Because they  fall  in the low range
of this classification they are lakes of good water quality.

     There is  evidence that existing  systems  are  contributing  insigni-
ficant bacterial loads to the  lakes.   Bacterial levels along nearshore
areas were reported  to be lower than State and local standards.  Values
in excess of the standard were found in one station in Crooked Lake near
Conway.   Kerfoot  (1979)  detected very low  levels  of  fecal coliforms
(generally  less than  10  organisms  per  100  ml)  in the  surface  water
located at the discharge of septic leachate plumes.

     Groundwater Resources.  Groundwater serves as the source of drink-
ing  water  for  the  entire  EIS  Service  Area.   Groundwater  quality
information for Springvale and Littlefield Townships is limited.  Avail-
able information indicates that the groundwater is suitable for domestic
use although it is too hard for certain industrial purposes.

     Additional Studies.  During  the preparation  of  this EIS,  EPA pur-
sued three additional studies in order to evaluate the need for improved
wastewater management facilities  in  the  EIS  Service Area.   They are
briefly described as follows:

     1)   A  study  of septic effluent  (leachate) movement into Crooked/
          Pickerel Lakes  was  conducted  in November 1979.  Observations
320 B3                            ill

-------
          were obtained from  shoreline  profiles  and analysis of ground-
          water  and  surface  water  samples.   A  total  of 51  effluent
          plumes were found to  be  entering Crooked/Pickerel Lakes.   The
          highest  concentration of  effluent  plumes  was  found  in  the
          southeast part  of Pickerel Lake in the vicinity of Ellsworth
          Point and Botsford Landing.

     2)   A sanitary  survey was  conducted by  the University of Michigan
          during August and September 1978.   The results  of  the survey
          indicate  that 90% of  the  existing  on-site  systems  have  been
          constructed on sites with severe soils  limitations (as defined
          by SCS).  Several systems  are also  in violation of  the Emmet
          County Sanitary  Code  with  respect  to  lake  setback distances
          and undersized septic  tanks.   Only  9%  of the existing systems
          experience  recurrent problems  with  backups  or surface ponding
          of effluent.

     3)   An  aerial survey was performed by  EPA's  Environmental Photo-
          graphic  Interpretation  Center  (EPIC)  on  August  20,  1978.
          Surface malfunctions were  not found to be widespread; 8 fail-
          ing or  marginally failing  systems  were observed in  the  Pro-
          posed Service Area.

     Existing Population and Land Use.   Approximately  74% of  the  EIS
Service Area  population is seasonal.  The permanent resident population
is characterized by a moderate income that is  above the median for Emmet
County but  lower  than state and national figures.  The moderate income
level is attributable to the agricultural and  tourism orientation of the
local economy and  the large number of retired persons living on limited
or fixed income.

     The predominant  land uses  within  the Study Area  include  agricul-
ture,  open  space,  and  State  forest  land.   Low  density  residential
development  exists  on the  shoreline  areas   serving  largely  seasonal
residents.   Development  is   also  scattered  along major  highways  and
section line  roads.

ALTERNATIVES

     Based  upon  the high  cost of conventional wastewater collection and
treatment  technology, 6  new  alternatives were  developed  in this  EIS.
These  alternatives  evaluated  alternative collection  systems  (pressure
sewers), treatment  techniques  (land  application),  individual and multi-
family septic systems (cluster systems), and water conservation.

     EIS Alternative  1.  This  alternative proposes decentralized collec-
tion  using  low pressure  and  gravity   sewers and treatment  employing
multi-family  cluster  absorption  areas.   Ten cluster systems would serve
the  entire existing  and   future population  with  the exception  of  the
south  shore of the  Crooked/Pickerel channel  which  would  be  served bv
holding tanks.

     EIS Alternative 2.  This  alternative employs central collection and
land  application for  a majority  of the area  around each  lake.   The


320 B4                               lv

-------
remaining segments would be served by cluster systems and holding tanks.
The  central  collection system  would  use  both pressure  and  gravity
sewers.   Treatment  systems  would  include  a  waste  stabilization  or
facultative lagoon  for primary  treatment  and storage followed  by  land
application of wastewater by spray irrigation.

     EIS Alternative 3.  This  alternative  proposes  centralized  collec-
tion for the areas around Crooked Lake and  Oden Island with treatment of
wastewater  at the  Petosky plant.   Cluster  systems  and holding  tanks
would serve the remaining part of the Service Area.

     EIS Alternative 4.  This  alternative  proposes  centralized  collec-
tion of  the entire  Service Area and land application of  wastewater at a
site north  of Pickerel Lake.

     EIS Alternative 5.  This  alternative  is similar to  EIS Alternative
3 in that it proposes centralized collection of wastewater for the south
shore  of  Crooked  Land and land application  near Hardwood  State  Forest.
The remainder of  the area would be served by cluster systems or  holding
tanks.

     EIS Alternative 6.   EIS  Alternative   6  constitutes   a  "limited
action"   alternative.    Most   on-site  systems   would be  upgraded  by
replacing undersized septic tanks, and upgrading existing drainfields or
replacing  them with elevated sand mounds.    Cluster  systems  would serve
limited  areas  in Ellsworth Point and  Botsford Landing.  The  Crooked/
Pickerel  channel  area would be served by holding tanks.

IMPLEMENTATION

     Local  jurisdictions  have the  legal  and  financial capability  of
implementing  small  waste  flows  districts.   Although  the  concept  of
public  management  of  septic  systems has   not  been  legally tested  in
Michigan,  present sanitary codes  have  been  interpreted  as authorizing
such  management  by local  governments.   Some local  jurisdictions  have
experience  in  the   organization and operation  of  small  waste  flows
districts.  California and Illionis provide some specific examples.   New
management  concepts  for implementing  small waste flows  districts  are
discussed.
 IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES

     Five major  categories  of impacts were relevant in the selection of
 an alternative.  These categories included:  surface water, groundwater,
 environmentally  sensitive  areas,  population  and  land use,  and socio-
 economics.

     Surface Water.   No  alternative  is  expected to have  a significant
 impact  on  the  trophic   status  of  Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes.   Non-point
 sources  will  continue to contribute the largest percentage of nutrients
 to  the  lakes.   EIS  Alternative  6  may  enable   localized  growth  of
 Cladophora to continue.
320 B5

-------
      Groundwater.  No significant primary or secondary  impacts on  ground-
 water quality or quantity are anticipated  either  as a result of  short-
 term  construction  activities  or  long-term  operation of  any  of  the
 various  alternatives.

      Environmentally Sensitive Areas.   The  high rate  of induced  growth
 that would occur with the Facility  Plan  Proposed  Action and EIS  Alter-
 natives  2  and 4  would have  a  significant  impact on wetlands,  prime
 agricultural  land, and habitat for endangered species.  EIS Alternatives
 1,  5 and 6 would result in little or no impact.

      Population and Land Use Impacts.  The Facility Plan Proposed  Action
 and EIS  Alternatives 2 and 4 would result in significant induced growth.
 Population growth  would occur up to 100% above the population projected
 for the  year 2000.  This would  result  in an additional 93 to 130 acres
 of  residential development  at high densities.  The decentralized  alter-
 natives,  EIS Alternatives  1  and 5, would  result in  moderate rates of
 growth;  67  to 77%  above  existing  levels.  Residential  acreage  would
 increase 77 to 79 acres in medium density residential  development.   EIS
 Alternative 6 would  hold  population  10%  below  anticipated  year 2000
 levels resulting in an  increase of 38  acres of  scattered low density
 residential development.

      Economic  Impacts.   Annual  user charges  are  higher  for the more
 centralized alternatives than the decentralized alternatives.  The high
 annual user charge of the Facility Plan  Proposed  Action and EIS  Alter-
 natives  2  and  4 would place a significant financial burden on households
 in  the Study Area.  This could  result in displacement pressure of 20 to
 45% of the population.   EIS Alternatives 1, 5  and 6 are not identified
 as  high  cost projects and would  not significantly  influence the composi-
 tion and character of the Crooked/Pickerel Lakes Study Area.
320 B6                             v.

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                        Page
Summary	   i
List of Figures 	  xv
List of Tables 	 xvii
Symbols and Abbreviations 	  xix
I.   INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND ISSUES 	    1

     A.   Project Location and History	    1

          1.   Location	    1
          2.   History of the Construction Grant Application 	    i
          3.   Springvale-Bear Creek Area Segment of the Facility Plan.    5

               a.   Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities 	    g
               b.   Existing Problems with Water Quality and
                    Wastewater Treatment Facilities 	    7
               c.   Proposed Solutions:  Alternatives Addressed in
                    the Facility Plan 	    7
               d.   Facility Plan Proposed Action	    8

     B.   Issues of This EIS 	    8

          1.   Cost-Effectiveness and Financial Impact 	   11
          2.   Secondary Impacts 	   11
          3.   Interbasin Transfer 	   11

     C.   National Perspective of the Rural Sewering Problem 	   11

          1.   Socioeconomics 	   11
          2.   Secondary Impacts 	   14
          3.   The Need for Management of Decentralized Alternative
               Systems 	   14

     D.   Purpose and Approach of the EIS and Criteria for Evaluation
          of Alternatives 	   16

          1.   Purpose 	   16
          2.   Approach 	,	   16

               a.   Review of Available Data 	   16
               b.   Segment Analysis	   16
               c.   Review of Wastewater Design Flows 	   17
               d.   Development of Alternatives	   17
               e.   Estimation of Costs for Alternatives 	   17
               f.   Evaluation of the Alternatives 	   17
               g.   Needs Documentation 	   17
                                     VI1

-------
          3.    Major Criteria for Evaluation of Alternatives
               a.   Cost ..............................................   18
               b.   Significant Environmental and Socioeconomic
                    Impacts ...........................................   19
               c .   Reliability .......................................   19
               d.   Flexibility .......................................   19


II.  ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................  21

     A.    Physical Environment ........................................  21

          1.    Physiography ...........................................  21
          2 .    Geology ................................................  21

               a.   Bedrock Geology ...................................  21
               b .   Surf icial Geology .................................  21

          3.    Soils ..................................................  25

               a.   Soils Suitability for Septic Tank Soil Absorption
                    Systems ...........................................  25
               b .   Soils Suitability for Land Application ............  30
               c .   Prime Agricultural Soils .......... ................  30

          4 .    Atmosphere .............................................  30

               a.   Climate ...........................................  30
               b.   Air Quality .......................................  34

     B.    Water Resources .............................................  34

          1.    Water Quality Management ...............................  34

               a.   Clean Water Act ...................................  34
               b.   Federal Agency Responsibilities for the Study Area
                    Waters ............................................   36
               c.   State Responsibilities in the Crooked /Pickerel
                    Lakes Study Area ..................................   37
               d.   Local Agencies ....................................   38
          2.   Groundwater
                                                                          38
               a.   Hydrology	  3g
               b.   Quality 	  39
               c.   Use 	!!!!* 40
                                     viii

-------
     3.    Surface Water Hydrology 	   40

          a.    Size of Drainage Basin 	   42
          b.    Tributary Flow	   42
          c.    Lake Hydraulic Retention Time 	   42

     4.    Surface Water Use and Classification 	   42
     5.    Surface Water Quality 	   42

          a.    Nutrient Budget 	   45
          b.    Lake Water Quality 	   45
          c.    Trophic Conditions 	   47
          d.    Bacterial Contamination in Shoreline Area	   49

     6.    Flood Hazard Areas 	   49

C.   Existing Systems 	   51

     1.    Summary of Existing Data 	   51

          a.    "Investigation of Septic Tank Leachate Discharges
               into Crooked and Pickerel Lakes, Michigan" 	   51
          b.    "Sanitary Systems of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes,
               Emmet County, Michigan:  An On-Site Survey" 	   51
          c.    EPIC Survey		   52

     2.    Types of Systems 	   52
     3.    Status of Existing Systems	   55

          a.    Public Health Problems Caused by Existing Systems..   57
          b.    Water Quality Problems 	 	   53
          c.    Other Problems 	   58

D.   Biotic Resources 	   59

     1.    Aquatic Biology 	   59
     2.    Wetlands		   60
     3.    Terrestrial Biology 	   61
     4.    Threatened or Endangered Species 	   61

E.   Population and Socioeconomics	   62

     1.    Population 	   62

          a.    Introduction 	   62
          b.    Existing Population 	   62
          c.    Population Projections 	   65
                                 ix

-------
          2,   Characteristics of the Permanent Population ............  65

               a .    Income ............................................  65
               b .    Retirement Age Population .........................  67
               c .    Employment ........................................  67
               d -    Financial Characteristics .........................  75

          3.   Characteristics of the Seasonal Population ... ..........  77
          4.   Housing Characteristics ................ ................  77
          5 .   Land Use ...............................................  80

               a.    Existing Land Use .................................  80
               b .    Future Land Use ...................................  82
               c .    Growth Management .................................  83
               d.    Recreation ........................................  86

          6 .   Historic and Archaeological Resources ..................  86

HI.  DEVELOPMENT  OF ALTERNATIVES . ....................................  89

      A.   Introduction ...............................................  89

           1 .    General Approach ......................................  89
           2.    Comparability of Alternatives:  Design Population .....  91
           3.    Comparability of Alternatives:  Flow and Waste Load
                Projections ...........................................  91

      B.   Components and Options .....................................  92

           1.    Flow and Waste Reduction .................. . ...........  92

                a.   Residential Flow Reduction Devices ...............  92
                b.   Michigan Ban on Phosphorus .......................  95

           2.    Collection ........... . ................................  97
           3.    Wastewater Treatment ............ . ............ . ........  98

                a.   Centralized Treatment — Surface Water Discharge ...  98
                b.   Centralized Treatment — Land Application .......... 100
                c.   Decentralized Treatment and Disposal ............. 103

           4 .    Effluent Disposal ..................................... 105
                a .    Reuse ................................ . ...........
                b .    Discharge to Surface Waters , .......... . .......... 106
                c .    Land Application ........ . ........................ 106

           5.   Sludge Handling and Disposal ........................ . . 106

-------
     C.   Flexibility  of  Components  	  107

          1.   Transmission  and  Conveyance  	  107
          2.   Conventional  Wastewater  Treatment  	  108
          3.   On-Site Septic  Systems  	  109
          4.   Land Application  	  109

     D.   Reliability  of  Components	  110

          1.   Sewers	  110
          2.   Centralized Treatment 	  112
          3.   On-Site Treatment	  112
          4.   Cluster Systems	  113

     E.   Implementation	•»	  113

          1.   Centralized Districts 	  114

               a.   Authority	  114
               b.   Managing Agency	  114
                c.    Financing	  114
                d.    User Charges	  115

           2.    Small Waste Flow Districts	  115

                a.    Authority	  116
                b.    Management . „	  116
                c.    Financing	  119
                d.    User Charges	  119
IV.   EIS ALTEBNATIVES	 121

      A.   Introduction	 121

      B.   Alternatives	 122

           1.   Summary of Major Components 	 122
           2.   Alternatives	 122

                a.   No Action 	 126
                b.   Facility Plan Proposed Action 	 126
                c.   EIS Alternative 1 	 126
                d.   EIS Alternative 2	 130
                e.   EIS Alternative 3 	 130
                f.   EIS Alternative 4	 130
                g.   EIS Alternative 5 	 134
                h.   EIS Alternative 6 	 134
                                     xi

-------
      C .    Flexibility  of Alternatives  ................................ 138
           1.   No  Action
           2.   Facility Plan Proposed Action
           3.   EIS Alternative 1
           4.   EIS Alternative 2 ..... .
           5.   EIS Alternative 3
           6 .   EIS Alternative 4
           7.   EIS Alternative 5
           8.    EIS Alternative 6 .....................................

                                                                        139
      D .    Costs of Alternatives ......................................


V.    IMPACTS [[[ 143
      A.   Water Quality Impacts

           1.   Primary Impacts
                a.   Eutrophication Potential Analysis ................ 143
                b .   Lakeshore Eutrophication ........................ » 144
                c .   Bacterial Contamination .......................... 147
                d.   Non-Point Source Nutrient Loads .................. 147

           2 .   Secondary Impacts ..................................... 147
           3 .   Mitigative Measures ................................... 148

      B.   Groundwater  ................................................ 149

           1 .   Groundwater Quantity Impacts ........ . ................. 149
           2.   Groundwater Quality Impacts ........................... 150
           3 .   Mitigative Measures .......... , ........................ 151

      C.   Population and Land Use Impacts ............................ 151

           1.   Impacts on Population ................................. 152
           2 .   Impacts on Land Use ................................... 154

                a.   Land Use Conversion  .............................. 154
                b.   Land Use Pattern and Intensity Changes  ........... 154

           3 .   Mitigative Measures ................................... 155

      D.   Encroachment on Environmentally Sensitive Areas  ..........   156

           1 .   Wetlands
                a.   Primary Impacts  .......... . ..............           155
                b.   Secondary Impacts  ................................  156

-------
                                                                       Page

           2 .   Prime Agricultural Lands  .............................. 160

                a.   Primary Impacts  .................................. 160
                b .   Secondary Impacts  ................................ 160
                c .   Mitigative Measures  .............................. 160

           3.   Threatened and Endangered Species  .................... . 160

                a .   Primary Impacts  ..... . ............................ 160
                b .   Secondary Impacts  . ...............................
           4 .   Archaeological Sites  .................... . ............. 161

                a.   Primary Impacts  .................................. 161
                b .   Secondary Impacts  ................................ 161
                c .   Mitigative Measures  .............................. 161

      E .   Economic Impacts ................................ • .......... 161

           1 .   Introduction .......................................... 161
           2 .   User Charges .......................................... 161

                a.   Eligibility ...................................... 163
                b.   Calculation of User Charges ....................... 165

           3 .   Local Cost Burden ..................................... 165

                a.   Significant Financial Burden ..................... 165
                b .   Displacement Pressure ............................ 166
                c .   Conversion Pressure  .............................. 168

           4.    Mitigative Measures ................................... 168

      F.         Impact Matrix .......................................... 169
VI.   CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 	 173

      A.   Introduction	 173
      B.   Summary of Evaluation 	 173
      C.   Conclusions	 177
      D.   Draft EIS Recommendations	 179
      E.   Implementation	 180

           1.   Completion of Step 1 (Facility Planning) Require-
                ments for the Small Waste Flows District	 180
           2.   Scope of Step II for the Small Waste Flows District	180
           3.   Compliance with State and Local Standards in
                the Small Waste Flows District	 180
           4.   Ownership of On-Site Systems Serving Seasonal
                Residences.	181
                                     xiii

-------
VII.  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION	 183

      A.   Unavoidable Adverse Impacts	 183
      B.   Conflicts with Federal,  State,  and Local Objectives	 183
      C.   Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term
           Productivity	".	183

           1.   Short-Term Use of the Study Area	 183
           2.   Impacts on Long-Term Productivity	 183

                a.  Commitment of Non-Renewable Resources	 183
                b.  Limitations on  Beneficial Use of the Environment... 184

      D.   Irreversible and Irretrievable  Commitment of  Resources	184

GLOSSARY	 185

BIBLIOGRAPHY	 200
                                     xiv

-------
                      LIST   OF   FIGURES

                                                                     Page

1-1     Locations of the Crooked/Pickerel Study Area	   2

1-2     Base Map of the Facility Plann-ing Area and the Crooked/
        Pickerel Study Area	   3

1-3     Location of Roads and Proposed Sewer Service Area in the
        Crooked/Pickerel Study Area 	   4

1-4     Monthly Cost of Gravity Sewers 	  13

II-l    Topography of the Crooked/Pickerel Study Area 		  22

II-2    Bedrock Geology of the Crooked/Pickerel Study Area 	  23

II-3    Surficial Geology of the Crooked/Pickerel Study Area 	  24

II-4    Soil Suitability for On-Site Wastewater Disposal in the
        Crooked/Pickerel Study Area .....'	  29

II-5    Location of Land Application Sites in the Crooked/Pickerel
        Study Area	  31

II-6    Prime Agricultural Soils Capability Class I and II of the
        Crooked/Pickerel Study Area 	  32

II-7    Surface Water Hydrology of the Crooked/Pickerel Study Area..  41

II-8    Watersheds of Crooked Lake and Pickerel Lake 	  43

II-9    Trophic Status of Crooked Lake and Pickerel Lake Based on
        1975-1976 Data	  50

11-10   Location of Surface Malfunctions Detected by Aerial
        Photographic Survey, 1978. (EPIC) 	  53

11-11   Segment Map	  63

11-12   Existing Land Use of the Crooked/Pickerel Study Area 	  81

11-13   Existing Zoning of the Crooked/Pickerel Study Area 	  84

11-14   Potential Archaeological Site Map of the Crooked/Pickerel
        Study Area 	  88

III-l   Phosphorus Loadings at Michigan Treatment Plants 	  96

III-2   Typical Pump Installation for Pressure Sewer 	  99
                                    xv

-------
List of Figures (Continued)

                                                                      Page

III-3   Land Application Method (Spray Irrigation) Evaluated
        for the Crooked/Pickerel Study Area  	  101

IV-1    Segment Map 	  125

IV-2    Facility Plan Proposed Action 	  127

IV-3    EIS Alternative 1 	  128

IV-4    EIS Alternative 2 	  131

IV-5    Land Application	  132

IV-6    EIS Alternative 3 	  133

IV-7    EIS Alternative 4 	  135

IV-8    EIS Alternative 5 	  136

IV-9    EIS Alternative 6 	  137

V-l     Trophic Status of Crooked Lake and Pickerel Lake 	  146
                                  xvi

-------
                       LIST   OF   TABLES
1-1     Present Worth of Alternatives in the Facility Plan
        for the Springvale-Bear Creek Area Segment 	   9

1-2     Projected Wastewater Flows, 1998	  10

II-l    Major Soil Series in the Crooked/Pickerel Study Area 	  26

II-2    Soil Limitation Ratings for Septic Tank Absorption Fields...  28

II-3    Summary of Climatological Data for Petoskey and Pellston....  33

II-4    Physical Characteristics of Crooked Lake and Pickerel Lake,
        Emmet County, Michigan 	  44

II-5    Phosphorus and Nitrogen Budgets for Crooked Lake and
        Pickerel Lake in 1977 	  46

II-6    Color, Light, and Dissolved Oxygen Characteristics of
        Crooked Lake and Pickerel Lake, Emmet County, Michigan 	  47

II--7    Chemical and Chlorophyll &_ Features of Crooked Lake and
        Pickerel Lake at Deep Central Stations During Summer
        and Winter 	  48

II-8    Distribution of On-Site Treatment Systems 	  54

II-9    Violations of Sanitary Code 	  56

11-10   Permanent and Seasonal Population of the Proposed
        Crooked/Pickerel Lakes Service Area (1978) 	  64

11-11   Permanent and Seasonal Population of the Proposed
        Crooked/Pickerel Lakes Service Area (2000) 	  66

11-12   Mean and Median Family Income 	  68

11-13   Per Capita Income 	  69

11-14   Percent Distribution of Family Income 1970 	  70

11-15   Poverty Status—Persons 65 Years and Older—1970  	  71

11-46   Retirement Age Population 1970 	  72

11-17   Emmet County Distribution of Employment by Industrial
        Sector 1940-1970 	  73

11-18   Economic Impact of Travel—1975	  74
                                 xvii

-------
List of Tables (Continued)
11-19   Financial Characteristics of the Local Governments in
        the Crooked/Pickerel Lakes Study Area 	   76

11-20   Existing and Projected Dwelling Units for the
        Crooked/Pickerel Service Area	   78

11-21   Median Housing Value—1970 	•   79

11-22   Public Access to Lakes Within the Service Area 	   87

III-l   Estimated Savings With Flow Reduction Devices 	   93

III-2   Small Waste Flow Management Functions by Operational
        Component and by Basic Supplemental Usage	 117

IV-1    EIS Alternatives - Summary of Major Components 	 123

IV-2    Population Year 2000 	 124

IV-3    Cluster Design Values 	 129

IV-4    Cost-Effective Analysis of Alternatives 	 141

V-l     Phosphorus Inputs to Crooked Lake and Pickerel Lake by
        Alternative 	 145

V-2     Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Impacts by Alternative.. 157

V-3     Additional Land Developed as a Result of Alternative
        Sewerage Configurations 	 158

V-4     Annual User Charges	 . 162

V-5     Local Share of Costs	 164

V-6     Financial Burden and Displacement Pressure 	 167

VI-1    Alternative Selection Matrix	 174
                                   xviii

-------
                           SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
 P
 u
 V
 0
An asterisk following a word indicates that the term is
defined  in the Glossary at the end of this report.  Used
at the first appearance of the term in this EIS.
less  than
greater  than
Rho
Mu, micro
Nu
Sigma
                            TECHNICAL ABBREVIATIONS
 AWT
 BOD
 DO
 ft2
 fps
 g/m /yr
 GP
 gpcd
 gpm
 I/I
 kg/yr
 kg/cap /yr
 kg/mile
 Ib /cap /day
 mgd
 mg/1
 ml
 msl
 MPN
 N
NQ3-N
NFS
advanced wastewater treatment
biochemical oxygen demand
dissolved oxygen
square  foot
feet per second
grams per square meter per year
grinder pump
gallons per capita per day
gallons per minute
infiltration/inflow
kilograms per year
kilograms per capita per year
kilograms per mile
pounds  per capita per day
million gallons per day
milligrams per litre
millilitre
mean sea level™implies above msl unless otherwise indicated
most probable number
nitrogen
ammonia nitrogen
nitrate nitrogen
non-point source
                                      xix

-------
O&M
P
pH
P°4
ppm
psi
RBC
SS
STEP
STP
ST/SAS
TKN
TP-P
tig/1
EPAECO
operation and maintenance
phosphorus, or "as phosphorus"
measure of acidity or basicity; <7 is acidic; >7 is basic
phosphate
parts per million
pounds per square inch
rotating biological contactor
suspended solids
septic tank effluent pumping
sewage treatment plant
septic tank/soil absorption system
total Kjeldahl nitrogen
total phosphorus as phosphorus
micrograms per liter
name of a mathematical model
                         NON-TECHNICAL ABBREVIATIONS
DNR
EIS
EPA
EPIC
FWS

GT-L-BHD
HUD
NOAA

NES
NPDES
SCS

STORET
USDA
USGS
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Impact Statement
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (of EPA)
Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of
the Interior
Grand Traverse-Leelanau-Benzie District Health Department
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United
States Department of Commerce
National Eutrophication Survey
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture
STOrage and RETrieval (data base system of EPA)
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior
                                       xx

-------
                               CHAPTER I
                INTRODUCTION,  BACKGROUND AND  ISSUES


A.   PROJECT LOCATION AND  HISTORY

1.   LOCATION

     The subject of this Environmental  Impact Statement (EIS) is Federal
funding  of a proposed  wastewater collection facility in  the  Crooked/
Pickerel Lakes  portion  of the  Springvale-Bear  Creek Facility Planning
Area, Emmet  County,  Michigan (see Figure  1-1).   Located just  east  of
Lake Michigan's Little Traverse  Bay in  the upper northwest corner of the
southern peninsula,  the Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes  area comprises approxi-
mately  43,000  acres  of farmlands, woodlands,  and  lowland  lake areas.
The predominant  features  of the area are Crooked Lake and Pickerel Lake
and the residential development  along on their shores.

     The Facility Planning Area  includes the northern portions of Resort
Township and Bear  Creek Township east  and west of the city of Petoskey,
as well as the areas around Crooked Lake and Pickerel Lake in Springvale
Township and Littlefield Township. The Springvale-Bear Creek portion of
the Facility Planning Area  is the EIS  Study Area (see Figure 1-2).  The
predominately residential areas  to be  served by the proposed wastewater
facilities will be collectively  referred to as the Proposed Service Area
(see Figure  1-3).  This area  includes  the  south shore of Crooked Lake,
Oden Island  in  Crooked  Lake,  the shore of Pickerel Lake, and the corri-
dor between the two lakes.

2.   HISTORY OF THE CONSTRUCTION GRANT APPLICATION

     The wastewater management needs  of the Crooked/Pickerel Lakes Study
Area have received substantial consideration prior to the preparation of
this Environmental Impact Statement.   The following  summarizes of these
events:

                      CROOKED/PICKEREL  CHRONOLOGY

1971                     -    Preliminary feasibility study prepared for
                              sewer  service  to  areas  of  Littlefield
                              Township.

1971                     -    Springvale   Township   board   authorized
                              preliminary feasibility study of system to
                              serve the development  on the shorelines of
                              Crooked/Pickerel Lakes.

September 1972           -    Grant  application  filed  by  Littlefield
                              Township   for   Federal  and  State  grant
                              funds.
319A

-------
                 FACILITY PLANNING AREA
                 CROOKED/PICKEREL STUDY
                    AREA
                                          EMMET
                                         COUNTY
FIGURE 1-1   LOCATION OF THE CROOKED/PICKEREL STUDY AREA

-------
                                                                LITTLEFIELD
                                        LITTLE  TRAVERSE
TOWNSHIP BOUNDARIES

FACILITY PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY

CROOKED/PICKEREL STUDY AREA
                                                 BEAR
                                                CREEK
Source:  USGS 1957, 1958
                 FIGURE 1-2   BASE MAP OF THE FACILITY PLANNING AREA AND  THE
                                 CROOKED/PICKEREL STUDY AREA

-------
Source:  USGS 1957, 1958;
Emmet County 4-H Leaders
Association 1977
       Pickerel Lake Rd
          I
            FIGURE 1-3   LOCATION OF ROADS AND PROPOSED  SEWER SERVICE
                      AREA IN THE CROOKED/PICKEREL  STUDY AREA
                                        LEGEND


                                   PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE AREA

                                   EIS STUDY AREA  BOUNDARY

-------
September 1972


September 5, 1975




September 8, 1975




February 23, 1976



June 16, 1976




June 1976




June 1976
October  1976
July 20,  1977
October  1977
December  16,  1977
August 21,  1978
Grant  application   filed  by  Springvale
Township for grant funds.

Notice  of  Intent  to  apply for  Step  I
Facility    Planning   grant    filed    by
Springvale-Bear   Creek   Sewage   Disposal
Authority.

Application filed by Springvale-Bear Creek
Sewage  Disposal  Authority  to  the  U.S.
Environmental  Protection  Agency (EPA) for
Step I Facility Planning Grant.

Step   I   Grant   offer   made   to   the
Springvale-Bear   Creek   Sewage   Disposal
Authority by EPA Region V.

Public   hearing   by  the   Springvale-Bear
Creek  Sewage   Disposal  Authority on  pro-
posed  Facility Plan  for  the  Springvale-
Bear Creek Area.

Review of Step I Facility  Plan completed
by  the Michigan Department  of  Management
and  Budget  Office  of  Intergovernmental
Affairs.

Review  of  the preliminary volume  of the
Facility   Plan  for  the   Springvale-Bear
Creek  Area Segment,  by the  Planning and
Wastewater  Engineering  Section  of  the
Water  Quality  Division  of  the  Michigan
Department of  Natural Resources.

Final  publication of the  Little Traverse
Bay    Area   Facility    Plan    for   the
Springvale-Bear   Creek  Area  Segment  by
Williams  and Works.

Declaration by EPA Region V of Intent to
prepare  an EIS  on  the Facility  Plan for
the  Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes  portion of the
Springvale-Bear Creek Area Segment.

Work begun by WAPORA, Inc.  on the EIS for
the  Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes  portion of the
Springvale-Bear Creek Area Segment.

Public information meeting on the prepara-
tion of  an EIS by EPA Region V and WAPORA,
Inc.

Aerial  Photographic  Survey  conducted by
EPA   EPIC    (Environmental   Photographic
319A

-------
                              Interpretive  Center)  to  locate malfunc-
                              tioning  septic  systems.

August 24, 1978          -     Public  information meeting to present the
                              wastewater  collection and  treatment alter-
                              natives  for  the  Crooked/  Pickerel  Lakes
                              Area.

September 8, 1978        -     Sanitary- Survey of Crooked/Pickerel Lakes
                              on-site  wastewater  disposal  systems con-
                              ducted.

November 18, 1978        -     Septic Snooper  Survey of Crooked/ Pickerel
                              Lakes  area to  detect  failing septic sys-
                              tems.

January 22, 1979         -     Septic   Snooper  Report  finished and  in-
                              corporated  in the EIS.

3.   SPRINGVALE-BEAR CREEK AREA  SEGMENT OF THE FACILITY
     PLAN

     In October  of  1976, Williams  and Works  completed the Facility Plan
for the Springvale-Bear Creek Area.   It evaluated alternative  wastewater
collection  and treatment technologies for the  Crooked/ Pickerel Lakes
Study  Area.   It developed a  plan  for construction  of a new  wastewater
collection  facility which was  subsequently submitted to. EPA Region V by
the  Springvale-Bear  Creek  Sewage Disposal Authority,  the  grant appli-
cant,  for  funding under  the  EPA Construction Grants Program.   As noted
previously, only the  collection  system proposed  for that portion of the
Facility  Planning  Area around  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes in   Springvale
Township  and  Littlefield Township is  the  subject of  this  EIS.  Waste-
water  collection and  treatment  facilities proposed  for  the  remaining
portions  of  the Facility  Planning  Area  have  been  approved by  the
Environmental Protection Agency.

     The  Springvale-Bear Creek Area  Segment of  the Facility Plan used
information then available  on existing wastewater treatment  facilities
in the Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes  Study  Area to  determine the water quality
problems, the need for the  project,  alternative  solutions, and recommend
a course  of action.   This  information is summarized here to  inform the
reader of the key  issues  addressed in the Facility Plan.   Conclusions
reached in  the Facility  Plan are not necessarily those reached in this
EIS.

a.   Existing Wastewater  Treatment  Facilities

     Individual  septic tank  systems  are the main treatment  for waste-
waters  along  the south  shore of Crooked  Lake  and along  the shore  of
Pickerel  Lake.  The   Facility  Plan  did  not specifically  address the
design  and condition  of these  systems.   It did,  however,   state that
existing  septic  tank  systems  in the entire Proposed Service Area  cannot
provide adequate wastewater  treatment.  Reasons cited  for this  include
site limitations including small lot sizes  and  a high  groundwater  table.


319A                               6

-------
     A  wastewater  collection  system  presently   serves  the  city  of
Petoskey.  The City has adopted a Master Sewer Plan for  future additions
and improvements to  the  system.   Wastewaters  are  treated at a complete-
mix activated sludge plant in Petoskey.   Details of the  plant design are
described  in  Chapter 4  of  the Facility Plan.  Operating data indicate
that National Pollution  Discharge  Elimination Standards (NPDES) limita-
tions are being met for BOD5 and suspended solids  but not for phosphorus
removal.

b.    Existing  Problems  with  Water  Quality  and  Wastewater
     Treatment  Facilities

     The Facility  Plan has  identified the following problems associated
with  the  existing  on-site   systems  in  the  Springvale-Bear  Creek Area
Segment:

     •    Many of the existing septic tanks are not capable of providing
           adequate treatment.  In  many  areas,  according to the Plan the
           lots are  so  small that there is not enough room to construct
           an adequate drainfield.  On other lots,  the water table is too
           close  to the surface for the drainfield to operate properly.
           The Plan  considers many  of the septic tanks in the area to be
           a source of pollution and a potential health hazard.

     *    Many of  the  cottages around Crooked Lake were built prior to
           the time when  septic tanks were required for  sewage disposal,
           and  many  existing systems were  installed  before  the  local
           sanitary code went into effect in 1970.

     •    According  to  information sent by the District Health Depart-
           ment No.  3 and cited  in  the  Facility  Plan,  the land around
           Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes  consists  mostly  of   muck,  clay,  and
           calcareous  soils.   These  conditions   have   caused  numerous
           sewage  disposal problems  often resulting in sewage flowing
           into the  lake  directly,  or through  a minimal  amount of soil.

     In  addition,  the  following  conditions  associated with  the  water
quality  of Crooked  Lake  were identified by the University of Michigan
Biological Research Station and were cited in  the  Facility Plan:

     •    According  to  the  Plan,  water  quality  in  Crooked  Lake  has
          noticeably  declined  due  to  human  impact   on  it's  shores.
           Swimming  beaches  have been  intermittently  closed  during the
          past few years due to high coliform  bacteria counts.  The Lake
          has  also  been subject  to  noticeable  phytoplankton blooms.

c.   Proposed Solutions:   Alternatives  Addressed in the
     Facility Plan

     The Facility  Plan divided the  Springvale-Bear Creek Segment  into
three subareas:  the Township areas directly  tributary  to Petoskey; the
Bear Creek Township area east of Petoskey; and the areas around Crooked/
Pickerel Lakes  in Springvale  and  Littlefield Townships (the EIS Study
Area).  It concluded that it would not be practical to serve the subarea
319A

-------
directly adjacent  to  Petoskey other  than to provide  sewer service  by
short extensions of the existing  Petoskey sewers.

     Three  alternatives  were  evaluated  for  serving  the remaining  two
portions of the  Springvale-Bear Creek  Area.   All  three provided  for
centralized  collection of  wastewaters  in  the  Facility  Plan's  entire
Proposed Service  Area.   The three  treatment alternatives evaluated  by
the Facility Plan were the following:

     •    Treatment at the Petoskey plant,

     •    Treatment at a separate plant  south of the Petoskey State  Park
          in  Bear Creek  Township,  discharging to Tannery  Creek,   and

     •    Treatment by land  application  in  Sections 8  and 17 of Spring-
          vale Township,  south of Crooked and Pickerel  Lakes.

     A  detailed  description of  these   alternatives   can be  found  in
Chapter 6 of the Facility Plan.

     The  Facility Plan's  estimated  present worth  of  capital  costs,
present worth of  operation  and maintenance  costs,  and  total  net present
worth are listed in Table 1-1.  An interest  rate of 6 5/8% and  a 20-year
planning  period were  used   in developing the  costs   presented  in  the
table.  It  should  be  noted  that  the costs presented are  for  the collec-
tion and treatment of wastewaters from all three subareas  of  the Springvale-
Bear  Creek  Area Segment.   Costs  for wastewater facilities  serving  the
EIS Study Area were not presented in the  Facility Plan.

     Table  1-2  presents  1998 population  design  flow  used  to  size  the
collection and treatment systems  for the  three alternatives developed in
the Facility Plan.  Assumed loadings were 100 gallons per  capita per day
(gpcd)  for  year-round  residents,  60 gpcd   for seasonal residents  and
tourists, and   100 gpcd  for commercial  users.  Figures   for Springvale
Township and  Littlefield Township  represent  the  contribution  from  the
EIS Study Area.

d.   Facility  Plan  Proposed Action

     The Facility Plan recommended centralized collection of  wastewaters
in  the  Proposed Service Area  with Treatment at  the Petosky Plant  (its
alternative) as  the  wastewater  management  plan  in the  Springvale-Bear
Creek Area Segment.  It cited cost-effectiveness and implementability as
reasons for the  selection  of this alternative.  Chapter  8 of the Facil-
ity Plan presents further design  and cost information.


B-   ISSUES OF THIS  EIS

     The Environmental Protection Agency, reviewing the  proposed waste-
water facilities  for  the Springvale-Bear Creek Area Segment determined
319A

-------
                                                  Table 1-1

                                   PRESENT WORTH OF ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSED
                       IN THE FACILITY PLAN FOR THE SPRINGVALE-BEAR CREEK AREA SEGMENT
Sanitary Sewer

     Total Construction Cost
     Misc. Exp. (Incl. land & easements)
     Estimated Project Cost
     Operation & Maintenance (20 yrs)
     Salvage Value
     Total Net Present Worth
                                                  Treatment at
                                                 Petoskey Plant
7,019,700
1,346.700
8,366,400
  377,400
1,095,600
7,648,200
                      Treatment at
                        RBS Plant
 6,795,300
 1,279.100
 8,074,400
   377,400
 1,069,700
 7,382,100
                    Treatment at
                    Land Disposal
                       System
 8,248,800
 1,504.500
 9,753,300
   377,400
 1,232,700
 8,898,000
Wastewater Treatment

     Total Construction Cost
     Misc. Exp. (Incl. land & easements)
     Estimated Project Cost
     Operation & Maintenance (20 yrs)
     Salvage Value
     Project Present Worth
     Treatment at Petoskey
     Total Net Present Worth

Sewers and Treatment

     Total Construction Cost
     Misc. Exp. (Incl. land & easements)
     Estimated Project Cost
     Operation & Maintenance (20 yrs)
     Salvage Value
     Project Present Worth
     Treatment at  Petosky
     Total Net  Present Worth
Source:  Williams and Works, 1976.
1,577.400
1,577,400
7,019,700
1,346,700
8,366,400
  377,400
1,095,600
7,648,200
1,577,400
9,225,600
 1,853,500
   392,900
 2,246,400
   946,800
   153,200
 3,040,000
   361,000
 3,401,000
 8,648,800
 1,672,000
10,320,800
 1,324,200
 1,222,900
10,422,100
   361,000
10,783,100
 1,949,200
   620,900
 2,570,100
   399,000
   197,600
 2,771,500
   361,000
 3,132,500
10,198,000
 2,125.400
12,323,400
   776,400
 1,430,300
11,669,500
   361,000
12,030,500

-------
                                                  Table 1-2

                                      PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS,  1998
                                     SPRINGVALE-BEAR CREEK AREA SEGMENT
Springvale-Bear Creek Area Segment

1.  Townships Directly Tributary to Petoskey
    Bear Creek
    Resort
       Total
2.  Bear Creek Township East of Petoskey

3.  Springvale Township

4.  Littlefield Township

5.  Total for Segment
Total
Population
Equivalent
P.E.
1,270
600
1,870
4,715
1,150
850
8,585
Peak
Day
Flow
MGD*
.12
.05
.17
.44
.10
.07
.78
Summer
Months
Flow
MGD
.11
.05
.16
.43
.09
.07
.75
Winter
Months
Flow
MGD
.10
.04
.14
.41
.08
.05
.68
Yearly
Average
Flow
MGD
.11
.04
.15
.42
.08
.06
.71
Source:  Williams and Works, 1976
*Million gallons per day.

-------
that  issues  related  to the  eastern portion  of the  proposed  project
warranted an  Environmental  Impact Statement.  To  the Agency,  the pro-
posed  collection  system  around  Crooked/Pickerel   Lakes  could  have
significant  environmental  and  socioeconomic   effects  including  the
following:

1.   COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND FINANCIAL IMPACT

     The  per  capita  and per  residence  cost  of the proposed project is
very  high ($3,100  and $9,285  respectively),  particularly considering
that half of  the population  is seasonal and that many of the permanent
residents  in the  area are  of retirement age.  The  acceptability and
affordability of  the  local share  of  this cost burden has not been ade-
quately  addressed.    The  low  housing  density  and  distance  from the
Petoskey  Treatment  Plant  makes the  cost-effectiveness  of  sewering the
area questionable.  Consequently, lower  cost  alternatives must be fully
examined.

2.   SECONDARY IMPACTS

     The  project appears  capable of  generating  a  variety  of secondary
impacts,  including development  pressure  on  wetland  areas,  increased
non-point runoff from construction of new housing, and increased demands
for roads and other community services.

3.   INTERBASIN TRANSFER

     There will be a limited  amount of interbasin transfer from the Lake
Huron watershed  to the Lake  Michigan watershed,  if wastewater collected
from around  Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes is routed to  the treatment  plant at
Petoskey.  The  impact  of  diversion of water  from one  basin to the other
is not addressed.
C.   NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE RURAL SEWERING  PROBLEM

     Some  EIS  issues listed  above  are  not unique  to the proposed plan
for  wastewater management  in  the  Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes  Study  Area.
They  are  typical  of concerns  raised by a large  number  of wastewater
projects  for  rural and developing communities  that have been submitted
to EPA  for funding.   The scope of the problem  has  grown in the last few
years  as  controversy has  mounted  over the  high costs  and  possible
impacts  of providing conventional  sewerage  facilities  to  small  com-
munities across the country.

1.   SOCIOECONOMICS

     To  assess the  magnitude  of  the   cost burden that  many  proposed
wastewater collection projects would impose on  small  communities and the
reasons  for the high costs, EPA studied over 250  facilities plans from
49 states  for  pending projects for communities under 50,000 population
(Dearth  1977).  EPA  found  that, even with substantial State and Federal
construction grants,  the costs of  conventional  sewering are sometimes
beyond  the means  of  families  in  rural  and semi-rural areas.  This was
319A                               11

-------
particularly  true  for  those  communities  where  the  completely  new
facilities proposed  would result  in  annual user  charges of more  than
$200 per household.

     The Federal government has developed criteria to identify high-cost
wastewater  facilities  projects  (The  White  House  Rural  Development
Initiatives 1978).  Projects  are  considered to place a financial burden
on  rural  community users  when annual user  charges (debt  service  plus
operation and maintenance) would exceed:

     •    1.5% of median household incomes less than $6,000;

     •    2.0%  of  median household incomes between $6,000  and  $10,000;
          or

     •    2.5% of median household incomes over $10,000.

Annual user charges exceeding these criteria would materially affect the
households' standard  of living.   Federal  agencies  involved  in funding
wastewater  facilities will  work with  the  community  to achieve  lower
project costs through a change in the project's scope or design.  If the
project's  scope or design  is not changed, the agencies  will work  with
the  community until  they are assured that the community is aware of the
financial impacts of undertaking the high-cost project.

     It  is  the collection  system that is  chiefly responsible  for  the
high  costs  of  conventional  sewerage  facilities for  small  communities.
Typically,  80% or  more of  the total capital  cost for  newly  serviced
rural  areas is  spent for collection system.  Figure 1-4  indicates  that
the  costs  per  residence  for gravity sewers  increases exponentially as
population  density  decreases.    Primary  factors  contributing   to  this
cost/density relationship were found to be:

     •    greater  length of  sewer pipe  per dwelling in lower-density
          areas;

     •    more  problems  with grade, resulting in more lift stations or
          excessively deep sewers;

     •    regulations or criteria which set eight inches as the smallest
          allowable sewer pipe diameter;  and

     •    inability  of  small communities to spread capital costs among
          larger populations sewered previously.

     In  addition  to  the comparatively high  costs  of sewers,  facilities
were sometimes found to be more expensive than necessary due to:

     •    oversophistication in design, with accompanying high chemical
          usage, large  energy requirements, and  costly  maintenance and
          operator expense, when simpler methods would do.

     •    use  of  expensive  construction  materials  such  as non-locally
          produced brick and  block and terrazzo when a prefab steel and
          concrete building would perform satisfactorily.

319A                                12

-------
                               Figure  I-4
                40
              i
              s

              •S
                30
                20
                1O
             )
Casl !»/monlh) - 43e
                             4     6     8    10    12


                            Population Density, person*/acre


                            Monthly Cost Of Gravity Sewers
                                                         14
Dearth,  K.H.   1977.  In proceedings of EPA national conference on

   less  costly wastewater treatment systems for  small communities,

   April 12-14,  1977, Reston, VA.
                                    13

-------
     •    abandonment   of   existing   treatment  works  without  economic
          justification.

2.   SECONDARY  IMPACTS

     Installation of  centralized collection  and treatment  systems  in
previously unsewered areas  can  have  dramatic effects on development  and,
hence, on the economy, demography and environment of rural communities.
These effects can  be  desirable, or they may substantially offset  com-
munity objectives for water  resource improvement, land use planning and
environmental protection.

     In  broad  terms,   a  community's potential  for  recreational, resi-
dential,  industrial,  commercial  or  institutional development is deter-
mined by economic  factors  such  as  the   availability of  land, capital,
skilled  manpower and   natural  resources.  However, fulfillment  of the
potential can be limited by the unavailability of facilities or services
called infrastructure  elements, such as water supply, sewerage, electric
power  distribution  and  transportation.    If  a  missing  infrastructure
element  is supplied,  development of one  type or another may take place,
depending upon  prevailing  local economic factors.   Such development  is
considered to  be  "induced growth"   and  is  a  secondary impact  of the
provision of the essential  infrastructure element.

     Conflicts  between  induced growth and other types of  existing  or
potential development  are  also termed secondary impacts  as are  induced
growth's  effects on  existing  water resources,  land use,  air quality,
cultural  resources,  aesthetic features  and  environmentally sensitive
areas.

     Secondary  impacts  of  new wastewater  facilities may  be  highly
desirable.   For  example,  diversification of the  local employment  base
may be possible only when sufficient wastewater  collection and treatment
capacity  is  provided  for  commercial or  industrial  development.   On the
other hand,  new commercial  or industrial  development  may  not  be  com-
patible   with   existing   recreational   or  agricultural    interests.
Residential  development  accompanying expansion  of  the employment  base
may take  place  on  prime  agricultural land,  steep slopes or wetlands,  or
may otherwise infringe on valued natural  features.

3.    THE  NEED  FOR MANAGEMENT  OF  DECENTRALIZED  ALTERNATIVE
     SYSTEMS

     A  promising alternative to expensive centralized  sewer  systems  in
rural  areas   is a  decentralized wastewater  management  system.   Both
engineering  and management  are integral  parts  of such a  system, and
"decentralized  alternatives,"  as used   in  this EIS,  incorporate  both
engineering and management elements.

     Briefly, the  engineering  element  consists  of  the use of  existing
and new  on-site  systems,  rehabilitation  or replacement of  those  systems
where necessary, and  construction of small-scale off-site  systems where
existing on-site systems  are not acceptable.
319A

-------
     The management  element consists  of continuing  supervision of the
systems'  installation,   maintenance,   rehabilitation  and  appropriate
monitoring of the systems' environmental impacts.

     While  other  factors  such  as  soil   characteristics,  groundwater
hydrology  and  lot  configurations  are highly  important,  adequate man-
agement may be  critical to the success of  decentralized alternatives in
many  communities.   Similarly,  lack of adequate  management undoubtedly
contributed to  past  failures of many-on-site wastewater facilities and,
therefore,  the lack  of trust  in  which they  are held by  local public
health officials and consulting engineers.

     Historically,  state and local health  officials  were  not empowered
even to  regulate  installation of on-site systems  until  after World War
II.  They  usually acted in only  an  advisory  capacity.   As the conse-
quences  of  unregulated  use  of the septic  tank-soil  adsorption systems
became  apparent in the 1950s and  1960s, health officials were granted
new  authority.   Presently  most  health  officials  have   authority  to
inspect and permit or deny new installations, and  can require renovation
and  replacement of  on-site systems.  However,  their  role  in the opera-
tion and maintenance of on-site systems remains largely advisory.  There
is  seldom either  a  budget or  the authority  to inspect  or  monitor  a
system.

     In  the  1970's,  the  Congress recognized  the need  for continuing
supervision  and monitoring  of  on-site systems  in the  1977 Clean Water
Act.   EPA  regulations  implementing  that  Act  require  that, before  a
construction  grant  for on-site systems may be  made,  the applicant must
meet a number of requirements and must:

     •    Certify  that  it will be  responsible for properly installing,
          operating and maintaining the funded  systems;

     •    Establish  a  comprehensive program for regulation and inspec-
          tion  of  on-site systems that will include periodic testing of
          existing  potable water wells and,  where a  substantial number
          of  on-site   systems  exists,  more   extensive  monitoring  of
          aquifers; and

     •    Obtain assurance of unlimited access  to  each individual system
          at  all  reasonable times for inspection, monitoring, construc-
          tion, maintenance,  operation,  rehabilitation and  replacement.

     In  some  cases, implementation of these requirements  by municipal-
ities  may  be hindered  by lack of  state  enabling legislation for small
waste  flow management districts and by  lack of adequately trained man-
power.  The municipality may have no control over  the former and be at a
disadvantage  because  of the latter.  Other implementation  factors, over
which municipalities should have control, are discussed in  Section III.E
of this EIS.
319A                                15

-------
D.   PURPOSE AND APPROACH  OF THE EIS  AND  CRITERIA FOR
     EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

1.   PURPOSE

     This   EIS   documents   EPA's    review   and   analysis   of   the
application  for  EPA  Step  II  funding  of  the  Facility  Plan Proposed
Action.   Based  upon this  review, the Agency will  take  one of several
actions:

     •    Approve the  grant  application,  possibly with recommendations
          for design changes  and/or measures to mitigate impacts of the
          Facility Plan Proposed Action;

     *    With the  applicant's  and State's concurrence, approve Step II
          funding  for   an  alternative  to  the  Facility  Plan Proposed
          Action;

     •    Return  the  application with  recommendations  for additional
          Step I analysis;  or

     •    Reject the grant  application.

     The  review and analysis focused  on  the issues identified in Section
I.B  and  was  conducted  with an awareness of the  more general considera-
tions  of  rural   sewering  problems   discussed  in  Section  I.C.   Major
emphasis  has been placed on developing and evaluating alternative waste-
water  management approaches  to  be   compared  with  the  Facility  Plan
Proposed  Action.

2.   APPROACH

     The  review  and analysis  reported in this EIS  included  a series of
tasks, which  were undertaken  in  approximately  the  following sequence:

a.   Review of  Available Data

     Data presented in  the  Facility Plan and other sources were reviewed
for  applicability in development and/or evaluation of the Plan Proposed
Action and of the new  alternatives developed for  the  EIS (EIS Alterna-
tives).   Sources of data are listed in this Bibliography.

b.   Segment Analysis

     As  a basis  for revised population  projections  and for  development
of alternatives,  the Proposed  Service  Area was partitioned into a number
of segments.  The number of dwellings in each segment was counted from
black  and white  aerial photographs.   Available information  on  soils
depth to  groundwater, water quality problems, environmentally sensitive
areas and land use  capabilities was  tabulated for  each segment and the
tabulations used to make preliminary  estimates of the need for off-site
wastewater disposal.
319A

-------
c.   Review of  Wastewater  Design Flows

     Available population projections were  revised  on  the  basis  of the
segment house  counts.  New  EPA guidelines  for estimating design waste-
water  flows  were  then used  to revise  the year 2000  wastewater flow
projections.

d.   Development of  Alternatives

     First, technologies that might  potentially reduce project costs or
minimize  adverse  impacts  while still  solving existing problems  were
examined.  Four  categories  of  alternative  technologies  --  flow reduc-
tion,  low-cost sewers, decentralization, and  land  application  — were
considered  according  to  their  functions   in  a  wastewater  management
system.   Next, several specific areawide  alternatives  were  developed,
combining  the alternative  technologies  into  complete  wastewater man-
agement systems  that would  serve the Proposed  Service  Area.   The tech-
nologies  and   the  alternatives  are  described  in Chapter  III and  IV.

e.   Estimation of Costs  for Alternatives

     To assure comparability of costs between the Facility Plan Proposed
Action and EIS alternatives,  all alternatives  were  designed  to  serve a
fixed design year population.   Total  present worth and local user charge
estimates  were based  upon  unit costs listed in a separate engineering
report (Arthur Beard Engineers,  Inc.  1978)

f.   Evaluation of the Alternatives

     The  new  alternatives were  developed with  a  knowledge  of the local
environmental  setting  and  with the understanding  that  they will  be
evaluated under criteria from several disciplines.  The general criteria
for  evaluating  both  the  Facility  Plan Proposed  Action  and the  EIS
alternatives are listed in Section  I.D.3  below.

g.   Needs Documentation

     The  need for  improved wastewater  management  on Crooked/Pickerel
Lakes is  clear and is not at issue  in this  EIS.  However, the effects of
lakeshore  on-site  systems  on Crooked/ Pickerel Lakes,  groundwaters and
public  health had  not been  clearly documented in  the  Facility Plan.
Because  determination  of  eligibility  for Federal  funding  of  a sub-
stantial  portion of  the  Facility Plan Proposed Action  will be based on
the  documentation  of  these effects,  several supplemental  studies were
conducted:

     •    an  aerial  survey of  visible  septic  tank  system malfunctions
          using  low-altitude  color  and  infrared photography  by EPA's
          Environmental  Photographic   Interpretation   Center   (EPIC);

     •    estimation of  the  existing Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes nutrient
          budget and empirical  modeling  of  the lakes' eutrophic  status;
319A                                17

-------
     •    a  sanitary  survey  of  lakeside  residences  conducted  by  the
          University of Michigan  Biological Station to evaluate usage,
          design and condition of  on-site  systems;

     •    a  "Septic  Snooper" survey  to  locate and  sample septic  tank
          leachate  plumes  entering  the   Lakes   from  nearby   on-site
          systems; and

     •    evaluation  by  the  Soil  Conservation  Service of  soil  suit-
          ability for on-site systems.

     The results of these  needs documentation  studies were  not available
when  the  alternatives were  initially developed.  The  results  of  each
study  have  required  continuing  modification  of  the  alternatives  as
initially designed and have  been  the  basis  for necessary refinements in
the determination of  the  eligibility  of  any new sewers around  Crooked/
Pickerel Lakes for Federal funding.

3.   MAJOR CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

     While  the  high  cost of  sewering  rural  communities  is  a  primary
reason  for examining alternative approaches  to wastewater management,
cost is not the only criterion.  Trade-offs  between cost and other  major
impacts will  have  to  be made.  The  various criteria are defined below.

a.   Cost

     With  some  exceptions  for innovative  technologies,  EPA construction
grant regulations allow funding of only  the  most cost-effective  alterna-
tives.  Cost  effectiveness has been measured  here  as the  total  present
worth  of  an alternative,  including  capital costs  for facilities needed
now, capital costs for facilities  required later in the  20-year  planning
period, and operation and maintenance costs for all wastewater  facili-
ties.   Salvage  value  for  facilities expected  to be in  service  after 20
years has  been  deducted.   Analyses  of cost effectiveness do not recog-
nize differences between public and  private  expenditures.

     The  responsible  municipality  or  sanitary district  will  recover
operation,  maintenance and local  debt retirement costs  through  periodic
sewage  bills.   The local  economic  impact  of  new  wastewater  facilities
will be felt largely through associated residential user  charges.   Only
publicly  financed  costs  were  included  in  residential  user  charges.
Salvage value was not factored into  residential user charges.

     No  assumptions  were made  here  about  frontage   fees  or  hook-up
charges that might be levied by the  municipalities.  Therefore,  the user
charges reported here for the alternatives are  not  directly  comparable
to  those  reported in the  Facility Plan, where  each  newly  sewered resi-
dence would pay $1,300 in connection and stub fees.

     Some  homeowners  may incur  costs  that  they would  have  to  pay
directly  to contractors.   Installation  of  gravity house sewers  on pri-
vate  land  and   renovation   or  replacement  of  privately  owned on-lot
systems for seasonally occupied  dwellings  are  not eligible  for Federal
319A                                18

-------
funding and are  seldom financed by municipalities.   These private  costs
are identified for each alternative.

b.    Significant   Environmental  and  Socioeconomic  Impacts

     The  system  selected for  the  Proposed Service Area will impact on
environmental  and  socioeconomic resources within the Study Area.  Fol-
lowing a  comprehensive review of possible impacts of the Facility Plan
Proposed  Action  and  the EIS alternatives, several types of  impacts were
determined  to  warrant  in-depth  evaluation and discussion in this EIS.
These impacts are classified as follows:

     •    Surface Water Quality Impacts,

     •    Groundwater  Impacts,

     •    Population  and  Land  Use Impacts including  Infringement  on
          Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and

     •    Economic Impacts.

c.   Reliability

     Reliability  criteria  for the  alternatives include both ability to
remedy existing water  quality problems and prospects  of  protecting  water
quality in the future.  This first criterion was applied in  the analysis
of  surface and  groundwater  impacts  of  the  alternatives  presented in
Chapter   V.   That analysis  assumed that  the  collection, treatment and
disposal  units  of  each alternative  would operate  effectively  as de-
signed.   The second criterion recognizes that all structural, mechanical
and  electrical  facilities  are subject to  failure.   Types  of possible
failures  and  appropriate remedies  and preventive measures were reviewed
for selected components of the alternatives.

d.   Flexibility

     The  capability  of an alternative to  accommodate increasing waste-
water  flows from  future  development  in  the  Proposed  Service  Area is
referred  to as  its  flexibility.   In order to  demonstrate  the relative
levels  of investment for different alternatives, all were  designed and
costed  to provide service  for the same  population  —  the design year
population projected in Chapter II.  However,  factors such as the amount
of land that  could be developed using on-lot  systems or the ability to
increase  the   capacity of a  treatment plant  might  have a  significant
effect on future development in the Study Area.  The capability of the
alternatives  to  accomodate  increased wastewater  flows is  reviewed in
Chapter IV-  The effects of the alternatives'  flexibility on population
growth are predicted in Chapter V.
319A                                19

-------
20

-------
                              CHAPTER II
                        ENVIRONMENTAL  SETTING
A.   PHYSICAL  ENVIRONMENT

1.   PHYSIOGRAPHY

     Moranic ridges and lowland lakes,  formed  during glacial advance and
retreat,  dominate  the  Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes Study  Area  topography.
Elevation ranges  from 600  feet (183 meters)  above mean sea level (MSL)
on  the lake  plain south  of Crooked/Pickerel Lakes  to  1100  feet (335
meters) in  the southeast  part of  the  Study  Area.  Steep slopes, often
greater than 30% are found in the southeast and southwest corners of the
Study  Area.   In  contrast,  the  Study  Area  north of  Pickerel  Lake  is
generally level.  Figure II-l shows major topographic features.

     Crooked/Pickerel Lakes are the beginning  of the Inland Water Route,
a  series  of interconnecting  lakes  and rivers eventually emptying into
Lake Huron  through the  Cheboygan River.   The  immediate Crooked/Pickerel
Lakes  drainage  area includes 29,631 acres (11,996 hectares)  and 34,013
acres  (13,770 hectares), respectively (Gannon  and  Mazur 1979).

     Approximately  60%  of  the total watershed acreage  lies in the Study
Area.   The  Crooked  Lake  watershed  includes  the  drainage  basin  of
Pickerel Lake as well as Round Lake and Mud Lake west of the Study Area.

2.   GEOLOGY

a.   Bedrock Geology

     The underlying bedrock  is composed  primarily of Traverse limestone
and Antrim  shale.   Figure  II-2 delineates the extent of these deposits.
The bedrock  is  covered  with glacial deposits  to a depth of 100-250 feet
(30-76m) over most of the Study Area.  However,  in the  area southeast of
Crooked Lake,   near the border of  the Springvale-Bear Creek Township,
limestone  deposits are  found at  shallow depths  of  18-30 feet  (5.5  -
9.1m)  below the  surface.   In Littlefield Township, north  of Pickerel
Lake,  the  shallowest  depth  of bedrock is about 60 feet (18.2m)  (MDNR,
Department of Public Health 1977).

b.   Surficial Geology

     The  land  surface  features of  the Study  Area  are the  result  of
depositional processes  of continental glaciation.  These surfaces have
been modified slightly by erosion.   The layer  of glacial drift laid down
by great ice sheets which transported rock debris, gravel, sand and clay
covers the bedrock  (see Figure II-3).
319 Bl                               21

-------
O          I         2
 Source:  USGS 1957, 1958
                       Oden      Ponshewaing
            FIGURE  II-l   TOPOGRAPHY OF THE CROOKED/PICKEREL  STUDY AREA


                                            LEGEND

                                       SLOPES GREATER THAN  15%
                                      22

-------
Source:  Williams and Works,
Inc. 1976


       FIGURE II-2   BEDROCK GEOLOGY OF THE CROOKED/PICKEREL STUDY AREA
                                          LEGEND
                                     TRAVERSE LIMESTONE

                                     ANTRIM SHALE
                                      23

-------
Source:  Williams and Works,
Inc. 1976
       FIGURE II-3   SURFICIAL GEOLOGY OF  THE  CROOKED/PICKEREL STUDY AREA


                                        LEGEND

                                dli?2! OUTWASH

                                       LAKE  PLAIN

                                       MORAINE
                                    24

-------
     •    The  lake  plain deposits  cover  about 65%  of the Study  Area,
          including the entire Proposed Service Area.  They are composed
          of  reworked,  washed  and sorted sands  and gravel with  occa-
          sional clay lenses.

     •    The  hilly moraine  deposits make  up about  25%  of  the  land
          surface  area  mostly  in the southern Study  Area.  These  de-
          posits are made up of sandy and gravelly clay tills.

     •    Outwash  deposits  cover 10% of the land  surface.  These  areas
          include typically level sands  and  gravel with occasional clay
          lenses.

3.   SOILS

     Soils  of  the  glacial  moraines, lake  plains  and outwash plains
exhibit  a  variable permeability  and slope.   Table  II-l  summarizes  the
SCS data for the major soil series within the Study Area.

     This study  used soils  characteristics for an initial evaluation of
soils  suitability  for on-site  septic disposal, spray  irrigation,  agri-
culture  and  residential  development.  The  Emmet  County Soils Survey
(USDA  1973),  the basis of  these evaluations,  is  not the  final word on
soils suitability for the Study Area; on-site investigations most verify
these data.

     Proposed  Service  Area  soils  generally  exhibit  high groundwater
levels  and  low  rates  of  permeability.   Outside of  Ellsworth Point  and
Botsford Landing the seasonal high water table is  found within  4 feet of
the surface.  About half the Service Area residences have  been  construc-
ted on low permeability soils (<2.0 in/hr).

a.   Soils Suitability for  Septic Tank/Soil Absorption
     Systems  (ST/SAS)

     Suitability for ST/SAS  is  based upon SCS criteria  for soils  per-
mability, slope, depth  to  seasonal high water table, phosphorus absorp-
tion capacity and other soils characteristics,  when available.   Appendix
A-l discusses the importance of these characteristics.   Table II-2  shows
range for these factors categorizing soils as having slight, moderate or
severe  limitations  for  ST/SAS.   Figure II-4 shows the  soil suitability
for on-site  and cluster  systems; Crooked and Pickerel Lakes  shoreline
soils are generally unsuitable for ST/SAS.

      Seasonal high  water table and to a lesser extent low permeability
and poor phosphorus adsorption capacity are limiting  factors  (Gold  and
Gannon 1979).  The  seasonal high water table lies within 2 feet  (0.6m)
of the  surface in  most of the  shoreline  soils.   Kerfoot  (1978) further
identified the general unsuitability of shoreline  lots  for septic tanks.
Poorly drained, nearly level organic and sandy soils seemingly  dominated
the shoreline  areas.  With  the low lakeshore relief, it was not unusual
to encounter  depths of  groundwater within 3.3 feet (1m)  at  distances
over 165 feet  (50m) from the shore.
319 B5                              25

-------
                              Table II-l




MAJOR SOIL SERIES IN THE CROOKED/PICKEREL LAKES STUDY AREA (Concluded)

Emmet



Blue Lake


Au Gres



Mancelona





Brimley



Other Minor
Associations
APPROXIMATE
%
DESCRIPTION STUDY AREA
Gently sloping to very
steep, well drained 10
soils formed In loam
till
Nearly level to very
steep, well drained <5
soils
Nearly level to
gently sloping <5
somewhat poorly
drained soils
Nearly level to
gently sloping, 5
well-drained soils



Nearly level to
gently sloping <5
somewhat poorly
drained soils
10

DEPTH TO SEASONAL
HIGH WATER TABLE DEPTH
PERMEABILITY
(ft.) (inches)
>3 0 -
22 -
32 -

>lt 0 -
24 -

22
32
60

24
58

1-2 Variable



>4 0 -
28 -
37 -



1-2 0 -
20 -
28 -





28
37
60



20
28
50


2.0 - 6.3
0.63 - 2.00
2.00 - 6.30

6.3 - 20.0
2.0 - 6.3

6.30 - 20.0
Variable


2.0 - 6.3
2.0 - 6.3
6.3 - 20.0



0.63 - 2.0
0.63 - 2.0
0.63 - 2.0


SOILS LIMITATIONS
FOR ON-SITE
SYSTEMS
Slight where
slope is less
than 12%

Slight where
slope is less
than 12%
Severe ; high
water table


Slight;
possible ^
contamination CNI
of shallow
grotmdwater
supplies
Severe;
seasonal high
water table;




-------
                        Table II-l




MAJOR SOIL SERIES IN THE CROOKED/PICKEREL LAKES STUDY AREA
APPROXIMATE
%
DESCRIPTION STUDY AREA
Carbondale Deep nearly level very
poorly drained organic 20
soils
Kalkaska Nearly level to very
steep well drained 15
soils




Rubicon Nearly level to very
steep, well drained 5
soils formed in sand




Thomas Nearly level, poorly
drained soils formed 5
in silty clay loam

Leelanau Gently sloping to
very steep, well 15
drained soils
formed in loamy
sand
DEPTH TO SEASONAL
HIGH WATER TABLE DEPTH
PERMEABILITY
(ft.) (inches)
0 0
20

>4 0
20





>4 0
16





1-2 0
10
16

>4 0
30


- 26
- 60

- 20
- 60





- 16
- 65





- 10
- 16
- 50

- 30
- 48


2
2

6
6





6
6





0
0
0

2
2


.0 -
.0 -

.3 -
3 —





.3 -
.3 -





.63 -
.2 -
.2 -

.0 -
.0 -


6.3
6.3

20.0
20.0





20.0
20.0





- 2.0
0.63
0.63

6.3
6.3


SOILS LIMITATIONS
FOR ON-SITE
SYSTEMS
Severe; high
groundwater
table
Slight where
slope is less
than 1252;
possible con-
tamination of
shallow ground-
water supplies
Slight where
slope Is less
than 12%;
possible con-
tamination of
shallow ground-
water supplies

Severe ; poorly
drained high
water table

SI ight where
slope is less
than 12%


-------
                                Table II-2

        SOIL LIMITATION RATINGS FOR SEPTIC TANK ABSORPTION FIELDS
Item Affecting Use

Permeability class




Hydraulic conductivity
rate
(Uhland core method)
Percolation rate
(Auger hole method)
Depth to water table

Flooding

Slope

Depth to hard rock,^
bedrock, or other
impervious materials
Stoniness class
Rockiness class^
Degree of Soil Limitation
Slight Moderate
2
Rapid , Lower end
moderately of moderate
rapid , and
upper end
of moderate
More than 1-0.6 in./hr.
1 in./hr2

Faster than 46-60 min./in.
45 min./in.2
More than 48-72 in.
72 in.
None Rare

0-8 pet 8-15 pet

More than 48-72 in.
72 in.

0 and 1 2
0 1
Severe
Moderately
slow and
slow


Less than
0.6 in./hr.

Slower than
60 min./in.
Less than
48 in.
Occasional
or frequent
More than
15 pet
Less than
48 in.

3, 4, and 5
2, 3, 4, and 5
  Class limits are the same as those suggested by the Work-Planning Conference
  of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.   The limitation ratings should be
  related to the permeability of soil layers at and below depth of the tile
  line.

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

3
 In arid or semiarid areas, soils with moderately slow permeability may have
 a limitation rating of moderate.

4
 Based on the assumption that tile is at a  depth of 2 feet.

 For class definitions see Soil Survey Manual, pp.  216-223.


                                      28

-------
    Alfred et.al. 1973
FIGURE II-4   SOIL SUITABILITY FOR ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL IN THE
                         CROOKED/PICKEREL STUDY AREA


                                      LEGEND
                            SEVERE LIMITATIONS FOR ON-SITE
                                  WASTEWATER DISPOSAL

                            SLIGHT TO MODERATE LIMITATIONS
                                  FOR ON-SITE WASTEWATER
                                  DISPOSAL
                              29

-------
     Elevated  sand  mounds  may  offer  safe  and effective  disposal  of
septic tank effluent where  the  seasonal  high water table is at a depth
greater than  26  inches  (2/3m),  but  much of  the shoreline cannot  meet
this criterion (Gold and Gannon  1979).

b.   Soils Suitability for Land  Application

     General  factors   determining  the  suitability of  soils  for  land
application  are  similar, but specific  criteria differ  somewhat  from
those  for  on-site  systems.   Appendix  A-2 summarizes  the criteria  for
soils suitability for  spray  irrigation.   Land application sites meeting
these specific criteria were selected for alternative evaluation through
an  analysis  of available  soils  information.  Figure  II-5  shows their
location.

c.   Prime Agricultural  Soils

     The  Soils Conservation  Service  has  prescribed  guidelines  for a
national inventory  of  "prime and unique" farmlands.  These are defined
as  high quality  lands which can  provide present  and  future  food  and
fiber supplies, with the least use  of energy,  capital and  labor and  with
minimal environmental  impact  (42  F.R.  163,  August 23,  1977).   Emmet
County  soils  have  received no  such  inventory.  However,  the  SCS  has
designated  soils  capability  classes  to  suggest  soils  suitability  for
crops.  Class  I  and II  soils are generally  suitable  for  agriculture.
Figure II-6 shows Study Area soils  of these classes.  Prime  agricultural
soils are  scattered through the  southwest and southeast corners of  the
Study Area.  In general, Study Area soils have low natural fertility and
require conservation measures to avoid  erosion or drainage  to eliminate
wetness.

4.   ATMOSPHERE

a.   Climate

     The presence of the Great  Lakes  dominates the Study Area climate,
moderating temperatures.  The area seldom has experiences prolonged hot
humid weather in the summer or extreme  cold in the winter.

     Climatological data comes from the  climatic monitoring stations of
the  National  Oceanographic and  Atmospheric  Administration  (NOAA)  at
Petoskey and Pellston,  located about  15 miles southwest  and  northeast of
the  Study  Area,  respectively.   Table  II-3   summarizes  data  for these
stations.

     The mean annual  temperature  is  about   43°F  (6.1°C),  the  coldest
being in December (about 25°F (-12.6°C))  and  warmest in  July (about  68°F
(20°C)).   The Study Area  experiences  an average  of  15 days/yr.  with
temperatures below zero.
319 BIO                            30

-------
                         HARDWOOD

                     :  STATE   FOREST
FIGURE II-5    LOCATION  OF LAND APPLICATION SITES IN THE
                  CROOKED/PICKEREL STUDY AREA
                                 LEGEND

                            LAND APPLICATION SITES
                         31

-------
FIGURE II-6    PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS CAPABILITY CLASS I & II
                 OF THE CROOKED/PICKEREL STUDY AREA
                                   LEGEND

                              PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS
                                  (CAPABILITY CLASS I & II)
                          32

-------
                                                                                Table II-3

                                                       SUMMARY OF CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA FOR PETOSKEY* AND PELLSTON+
          STATION
          Petoskey
          Pellston
EAR
75
76
75
76
MEAN
TEMPERATURE
oc (°F)
7.7(45.9)
5.0(41.0)
-
6.2(43.1)
MINIMUM
TEMPERATURE
oc (°F)
- 3.6(25.6)
- 7.5(18.5)
- 5.9(21.3)
-10.1(13.9)
MAXIMUM
TEMPERATURE
21.2(70.2)
19.2(66.6)
20.3(68.6)
18.9(66.1)
MEAN
PRECIPITATION
cm (in)
96.5(38)
62.2(24.5)
91.2(35.9)
68.8(27.1)
MINIMUM
PRECIPITATION
cm (in)
3.2(1.3)0ct
2.7(l.l)Dec
2.7(l.l)0ct
2.9(1.2)Dec
MAXIMUM
PRECIPITATION
era (in)
18. 7 (7. 4) July
11.2(4.4)March
13.1(5.2)July
11.6(4.6)March
u>
u>
Petoskey:
                                      Latitude   45° 22'
                                      Longitude  84° 59'
                                      Elevation  610 ft.
                          *Pellston:  Latitude   45° 34'
                                      Longitude  84° 48'
                                      Elevation  710 ft.
          SOURCE:  National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration 1975 & 1976 Clitnatological Data,  Michigan Annual Summaries,  Ashville,  NC.

-------
     Annual precipitation is about  31  inches  (78.7  cm/yr.).   Precipita-
tion occurs mainly during the  growing  season  about  140  days between May
and October.  Approximately 60%  of  the total  rainfall comes in the  form
of afternoon  showers  and thundershowers.   Snowfall averages   87  inches
(220 cm./yr.).

b.   Air  Quality

     The ambient air quality in Petoskey is  generally good  (see Appendix
B).  Suspended  solids  levels measured  at two locations show  compliance
with both annual  (75  ug/m3)  and  short  term (260  ug/m3  in   24  hours)
primary standards.  Violations of  the  secondary 24-hour  standard  (150
mg/m3)  have  occurred  but such violations are infrequent.  1976  viola-
tions may be attributed to a dust storm which  resulting  from 50 mph  wind
during a severe drought.

     Intermittent sulfur dioxide and nitrogen  dioxide samplers were  also
operated.   Appendix J  data shows  the  levels considerably below  appli-
cable national ambient  primary  and secondary standards.
B.   WATER RESOURCES

1.   WATER QUALITY  MANAGEMENT

     Water resources  management  is  a  complex set of elements, in  which
the Federal government, the State and  the locality all  have  an interest.
Just  naming  such elements — irrigation, municipal water supply,  main-
tenance  of navigable waters and protection of the productivity of  the
soil  --  illustrates  the  broad  range  of activities under this heading.
Among the most important, however,  is  preservation or restoration of  the
quality of US waters.  In the Federal  Water Pollution Control  Act Amend-
ments  (P.L.  92-500,  1972)  and  the Clean  Water  Act that amended  it in
1977  (P.L.  95-217),  Congress  outlined  a  framework  for comprehensive
water  quality management  which  applied  to groundwater as  well   as  to
surface waters.

a.   Clean Water Act

     Water quality  is the responsibility of the United  States Environ-
mental  Protection  Agency (EPA)  in coordination  with the  appropriate
State Agency,  in this case the Michigan Department of  Natural Resources
(DNR).  However,  the  Clean Water Act  instructed  all Federal agencies to
safeguard  water  quality  standards  in  carrying  out  their  respective
missions.  As the lead agency,  EPA coordinates the national  effort, sets
standards, and  reviews  the work  of other  agencies.  In  the  case  of  the
Soil  Conservation Service  (SCS),  these  new responsibilities may  be in
addition to,  or may dovetail with SCS programs  to  reduce  soil erosion,
or to construct headwaters impoundments for flood control.

     In  delineating  the  responsibilities  of  the various  levels  of
government  for water quality,   Congress  recognized the rights of  the
States with  regard  to their waters.  It authorized funding  for State in
319 B14                             34

-------
development of plans  for control of pollution,  and  State water quality
standards  (which  may  be more restrictive  than Federal standards),  plus
research.  If a  state meets certain criteria, it is certified by EPA as
the entity responsible for administration  of  the  activity in question.
The EPA  may  deny certification, and it  retains  power of enforcement of
established standards,   State  or Federal.  The State of Michigan is one
of the states which has been granted certification by EPA.

     Among the goals and deadlines set in the  Clean Water Act are these:

           "it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants
           into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985...

           an  interim  goal of water quality which  provides for the
           protection  and propagation  of fish, shellfish, and wild-
           life and  provides for recreation in and on the water [is
           to] be achieved by July 1, 1983".

     The  legislation  requires  that publicly  owned  treatment works dis-
charging  effluent  to  surface  waters  must  at  least  provide secondary
treatment, i.e., biological oxidation of organic wastes.  Municipalities
must  provide the  "best  practicable  technology"  by  1983  and that  in
appraising their options localities must address both the control of all
major  sources of stream pollution (including combined sewer overflows
and agricultural,  street and other surface runoff)  and the  cost effec-
tiveness  of  various control measures.  The use of alternative and inno-
vative technologies must also be considered.

     The  key provisions on  water  quality  planning  stipulate  that  to
receive  aid a State must provide a continuing  planning process.  Part of
Section  208 requires  the State  to inventory all the sources of pollution
of surface and  ground waters,  both point*  and non-point*, and to estab-
lish priorities for the  correction of substantial water quality problems
within a given  area.   The  208  plans are intended to provide an areawide
and, taken together, a statewide, framework for the more  local decisions
on treatment  facilities.

     Section  201 of the  Act  (under which the Crooked/Pickerel Lakes area
application for funds was made) authorizes EPA to make grants to locali-
ties toward  the  improvement or construction of  facilities for treatment
of existing  water  quality  problems.   EPA  may determine whether an En-
vironmental  Impact Statement   is  required on a proposed project (see
Section  I.B).  Where  the  State has been  certified  and assumes respon-
sibility  for  water  quality, EPA retains  authority  to approve or reject
applications  for construction funds for treatment facilities.

     Local political jurisdiction, traditionally responsible for meeting
the wastewater treatment needs  of the community, now have the benefit of
Federal  and  State  assistance  in meeting  water quality standards and
goals.
319 B16                             35

-------
b.   Federal Agency Responsibilities  for Study  Area  Waters

     The  following  Federal  agencies  are responsible  for ensuring the
maintenance of water quality in the  Study Area:

     •    EPA:

          Administers the  Clean Water Act;

          Sets Federal water quality standards;

     •    EPA Region V:

          Administers  the  grant program described above  for the Great
          Lakes Region;

          Provides  partial  funding for  preparation of  the Springvale
          Bear Creek Area  Segment Facility Plan.  Region V's  general and
          specific  respon  sibilities  in the construction grant program
          are discussed in Section I.B;

     •    US Army Corps of Engineers:

          Grants  or device permits required  for dredging,   filling and
          construction  activities  in  navigable  waters,  their  100-year
          floodplains and adjacent wetlands;

     •    US Department of Agriculture:

          Under the  Rural  Clean Water Program will provide  cost sharing
          for  soil  conservation practices  designed  to  improve  water
          quality.   (This program  will probably  be  assigned  to SCS;
          haowever, it has not yet been  funded;

     •    Soil Conservation Service (SCS):

          Agency's  mission is  to  control  wind  and  water   erosion,  to
          sustain  the  soil  resource  base  and to  reduce deposition  of
          soil and related pollutions  into  the water  system;

          Conducts  soil surveys.   Drew  up  guidelines for  inventorying
          prime or unique agricultural lands;

          Works with  farmers  and other  land users on  erosion and  sedi-
          mentation problems;

          Gathers information  at the  county level as part of program of
          study  and  research  to determine new  methods  of  eliminating
          pollution from agricultural  sources;
319 B17                             36

-------
     •    Fish and Wildlife Service:

          Provides technical  assistance  in  development  of  208 plans;

     *    US Geological Survey:

          Has in  the past monitored  surface water flows  in the Study
          Area but does not do so at present.

c.   State  Responsibilities  in  the   Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes
     Study Area

     The following Michigan laws  affect water quality management in the
Study Area:

     •    Environmental Protection Act (P.A.  127 of 1970).  Provides for
          legal  action by the  Attorney General or any person or legal
          entity  for protection  of  the  air,  water,  and other natural
          resources and the public trust therein;

     •    Natural Rivers Act of 1970 (P.A. 231 of 1972).    Protects  the
          public trust in Michigan inland lakes and streams and protects
          riparian rights.   Is  implemented  at the State level.  For a
          discussion of pertinent provisions, see Section II.E.4;

     •    Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act (P.A.  347 of 1972).
          Providesfor  control  of soil erosion and sedimentation.(See
          Section II.E.5 for discussion of provisions.)  Is administered
          at  the county level.   The Soil Conservation district admini-
          sters the Act in the case of agricultural activities.

     The  following  State  agencies  are  responsible  for water quality
management in Michigan:

     •    Department of Natural Resources (DM):

          Is  responsible for establishing water quality standards for
          the surface waters of the State appropriate  to several classi-
          fications, and  for  regulating discharges of waste  that affect
          (See Appendix B-l for classification of Study Area  streams and
          lakes  and Appendix  B-2  for associated  water quality stan-
          dards. );

          Has  authority to issue  permits to  discharge  pollutants into
          surface  waters  under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
          nation  System  (NPDES).   The  Water  Resources Commission, which
          reports  to  DNR,  sets  permissible  discharge  levels  and may
          approve applications for permits;

          Administers Natural Rivers Act;

          Administers Inland Lakes and Streams Act;
319 B18                             37

-------
     •    Northwest Michigan Regional Planning and Development
          Commission:

          Has prepared  a  water quality  management plan for  Michigan's
          Region  X,  which  includes  the Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes  Study
          Area,  with guidance of EPA and  DM,  pursuant to Section 208  of
          the Clean Water  Act;

          "Clean  Waters  -   A  Water- Management  Plan for   Northwest
          Michigan" has been approved by the State, subject  to  condi-
          tions  centering around  the need  for more work.  Within Emmet
          County,   Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes have been  rated first as  a
          "plan of study area" thus  defining the  area as having degraded
          water quality that  is in  need  of  further study.   The  Commis-
          sion was  named  as Coordinator  for Lake  Management  Activities
          in the  region.   It works  with  lake  associations and develops
          tools to  help them assess  the problems of their lakes.  The
          Commission plans  some  groundwater  assessment and   also  some
          work on non-point sources  of nutrients  -- agricultural,  storm-
          water, duck feeding,  excessive lawn fertilization and on-site
          systems;

     •    Michigan Department of Public Health:

          Has authority to  regulate  on-site sewage disposal systems and
          makes  initial  determinations  on  subdivisions,  campgrounds,
          commercial developments, etc.

d.   Local Agencies

     The  following  local  agencies  regulate water quality in  the Study
Area:

     *    Emmet County Health Department:

          Has authority to regulate  individual residential  on-site waste
          disposal systems.   Has authority delegated by the State Health
          Department to regulate  non-residential  on-site disposal  sys-
          tems;

          See Section II.C.3  for  discussion of sanitary code  applicable
          in the Study Area;

     •    Emmet County:

          May enforce  Soil  Erosion and Sedimentation  Control Act for
          non-agricultural activities.

2.   GROUNDWATER

a.   Hydrology

     Mostly  artesian*   aquifers   are  found   in  the  lake  plain  region
stretching  from  the  western part  of the Crooked  Lake  east  through
Littlefield Township.

319 B19                             3g

-------
     The glacial deposits referred to as drift, are loosely consolidated
at the  surface and  succeeded by alternate  and  discontinuous  layers of
clay or somewhat  consolidated sand and gravel.  In many places the sand
and gravel layers are porous enough to take in water.

     Pickerel Lake.   Near Pickerel Lake  in Littlefield  and  Springvale
Township,  the depth  of  the  first  confining clay  layer is  variable,
ranging from  about 20 feet - 200 feet (Dm, Department of Public Health
1976-1977).   The  confining clay  layer- is  an  important protective bar-
rier, preventing contamination of well water.

     Based  on data  obtained  from  the  Sanitary Survey  (University of
Michigan  1978),  wells located  along  the  north  shore  of  Pickerel Lake
range in  depth from 20 feet  to 200  feet,  averaging 82 feet (University
of Michigan  1978).   South of Pickerel Lake  in Springvale Township,  the
average well  depth for  shoreline homes  is 100  feet but  ranges  from 15
feet to 200 feet.

     Crooked Lake.  Because  of the  shallow depth  to  bedrock  along the
south shore, many of the wells are located in  rock.  Nevertheless, wells
are  generally deep,  averaging 134 feet and ranging from <20 feet to 220
feet (University of Michigan  1978).

     Well  yields  north of  Pickerel  Lake  in Littlefield Township range
from 10-55  gallons per minute (gpm).  In  Springvale  Township  yields of
10-25 gpm are typical  although up to 65  gpm have been reported (DNR,
Department of Public Health 1977).

     Yields  from  wells tapping  the  bedrock  deposits  located  along the
south  shore  of  Crooked  Lake are  generally  lower  than  from  sand and
gravel deposits (Leverette 1907).

     Some  continuity between  groundwater  and  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes is
known to  occur.    Inflowing  surface  streams of  Pickerel  Lake  are small
and the Lake  is mostly fed by groundwater  seepage.  Although groundwater
inflow  is undoubtedly a  significant source of  water  for Crooked Lake,
inflow  from  Minnehaha  Creek  and other  streams is  important  as well
(Gannon & Mazur 1979).

b.   QUALITY

     Groundwater  quality  information  for  Springvale and  Littlefield
Townships  is  very limited.   Available information  has shown  that north
of Crooked  Lake,  in Oden and Conway,  well water has  traces of iron and
sulphates.   Well   tappings  in  these  aquifers  ranged  in hardness from
186-201  parts per  million (ppm) and  showed  an average  of 156  ppm of
carbonates.   Chloride concentrations ranged from 1-5  ppm.  The ground-
water quality is  generally  suitable for  domestic  uses although is too
hard for certain industrial purposes (Leverette  1907).

     The  Emmet  County District  Health   Department  provided  a  single
partial  chemical  analysis   for  Springvale   Township and  the   nearby
Townships  of Little  Traverse  and  Bear  Creek  which   show low nitrate
levels of 0.3, 0.1  and 0.4  milligrams  per  litre  (mg/1), respectively
(Department   of   Public  Health  1977).   Kerfoot  (1978)  reported that
319 B20
                                    39

-------
nitrate levels were quite variable in the interstitial groundwater along
the lake shore,  but  that the highest value observed was only about .016
mg/1.   These  nitrate levels  are  well within  the  10 mg/1  limit estab-
lished as a Public Health drinking water standard for nitrates.

     Ammonia  (NHa-N) has  been the dominant nitrogen form in the inter-
stitial  groundwater  along  the lake  shores:   0.014 mg/1  NHa-N versus
0.010  mg/1  nitrate nitrogen  (N03-N)  (Kerfoot 1978).   The  dominance of
ammonia nitrogen  is  the  result of saturated soils  along  the shoreline.
Under  these  conditions  the  sediments  are reduced and  oxidation to ni-
trates does not occur.   Ammonia is strongly sorbed to soil particles and
should not present a hazard to nearby wells.

c.   Use

     Groundwater supplies water for domestic use  for the entire  Proposed
Service Area.   Most homeowners have  private wells,  although some com-
munity wells  are located along the north  shore  of  Pickerel Lake and in
the Ellsworth  Point  area along the south  shore  (University of  Michigan
1978).

3.   SURFACE  WATER HYDROLOGY

     Crooked  Lake,  Pickerel  Lake,  the  Crooked  River,  Cedar  Creek,
Minnehaha Creek, and local streams are the major  surface water resources
located  in the  Study  Area  (see  Figure  II-7).  The  lakes  are  the be-
ginning of the Inland Water Route, a series of interconnecting lakes and
rivers  that  eventually   empty into  Lake  Huron  through the  Cheboygan
River.  The outflow of Spring, Mud, and Round Lakes via Rock Creek feeds
Crooked Lake  from the  southwest.   Minnehaha Creek enters the Lake, from
the  south.   Pickerel Lake which  is  fed by Cedar Creek,  flows  into the
northern  end  of  Crooked  Lake via the  Crooked-Pickerel Channel.  Water
from Pickerel Lake is then discharged into Crooked River.  Approximately
39% of the Crooked River flow comes from Pickerel Lake while the rest of
the flow  is  from the Crooked Lake drainage basin  proper.   The  water in
the Crooked River eventually reaches Burt Lake.

     The outflow of  Pickerel Lake is primarily  to  Crooked  Lake via the
Crooked-Pickerel Channel, as mentioned above.  However, reverse  flow can
sometimes occur  depending on wind and current conditions.   This is one
rather unique hydrologic characteristic of the Crooked Lake and Pickerel
Lake water system.

     Physical characteristics pertaining to the hydrology of the surface
waters serve  to  describe and differentiate the lakes and streams  in the
Study  Area.   Specific  hydrologic  and morphologic characteristics  of the
lake  or  stream not only form the surface water system in which  chemical
and other  factors operate and interact but are themselves major factors
in  that  interaction.  Characteristics  such as  size of drainage  basin,
tributary  flow,  lake  volume  and  hydraulic retention time   directly
influence the quantity and quality of surface water  resources.
319 B21                              40

-------
          :
  Source:  USGS  1957,  1958
     FIGURE II-7    SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY OF THE CROOKED/PICKEREL STUDY AREA
                                             LEGEND
                                         j WETLANDS

                                           FLOW DIRECTION
                                    41

-------
a.   Size  of Drainage  Basins

     Pickerel Lake's  drainage basin  (34,150  ac.  13,660 ha)  is larger
than Crooked Lake's immediate  drainage  (29,750 ac. 11,900 ha).  However,
the  waters  in  Spring, Mud,  Round  and  Pickerel Lakes  all  flow  into
Crooked Lake.  This means  that  Crooked Lake's total watershed consists
of a much larger  area  (62,925  ac.  25,170 ha), encompassing its immediate
watershed  and  drainages   of  these   lakes.   Watershed  boundaries  of
Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes are  shown in Figure II-8.

b.   Tributary  Flow

     Minnehaha Creek,  Cedar Creek, Fish Hatchery  Creek,  and Round Lake
Creek are  the major tributaries  in the watershed.   The average flow in
these  streams during water  year  1975  can  be  summarized  as  follows
(Gannon  and Mazur  1979):   Minnehaha  Creek  (1.0 cms/35.5  cfs),  Cedar
Creek (0.52  cms/18.5  cfs), Fish Hatchery Creek  (0.27  cms/9.5 cfs),  and
Round Lake  Creek  (0.18 cms/6.4  cfs).   Outflow from the Crooked/Pickerel
Lakes watersheds  into  the  Crooked  River is  4.0  cms/142 cfs  (Gannon and
Mazur 1979).

c.   Lake  Hydraulic Retention  Time

     Assuming complete mixing,  the retention time of a lake is the time
required for natural  processes to  replace  the entire  volume of  its
water.   It  is  calculated  by dividing the  average  lake volume by  the
total inflow.  In most cases, the tributary  flow represents a signifi-
cant portion of the inflow  and is used  in the  calculation.  As a result,
the hydraulic retention times of Crooked Lake and Pickerel Lake are 4.7
months and  4.2 months, respectively,  during the water year 1975 (Gannon
1978).  That is,  on the  average,  the  lake water in both lakes  will be
replaced almost 3 times a year.

     Table  II-4 presents the  drainage  basin  size,  tributary flow,  lake
hydraulic  retention time  along  with  other  physical  characteristics of
Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes.

4.   SURFACE WATER  USE AND CLASSIFICATION

     Crooked  Lake and Pickerel   Lake  are  considered recreational lakes
with  surface waters  classified   for  Total  Body  Contact.  The  state of
Michigan has classified  its  surface  water  resources,  assigning appro-
priate uses  for   each.  State water  quality  standards  have been estab-
lished to  protect public  health  and to preserve  the  quality  of  the
several water bodies  for  their designated uses.  State  water quality
classifications are  listed in  Appendix B-l.  Water  quality standards
listing these classifications  and uses  appear  in Appendix B-2.

5.   SURFACE WATER  QUALITY

     The  water quality  of Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes  will  be considered
herein the  following  order:   nutrient budget,  open water quality, lake
trophic condition, and shoreline  conditions.  The discussion represents
a comprehensive synthesis  of  the available  data  and information on the


319 B23                             42

-------
                                                WATERSHED
                                                BOUNDARY
• SPRIHQ LAKE
\        CROOKED
  '—*\    LAKE
        •mTERSHED
                                                PICKEREL
                                                  LAKE
                                               WATERSHED
             FIGURE II-8   WATERSHEDS OF CROOKED LAKE AND PICKEREL LAKE
                                  43

-------
                               Table II-4

                       PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
                    CROOKED LAKE AND PICKEREL LAKE,
                         EMMET COUNTY, MICHIGAN
Parameter
 Unit

Acres

Ft (m)

Ft (m)
Lake Surface Area

Mean Depth

Maximum Depth

Volume                     Ft (m )

Drainage Area              Acres

Inflowing Streams

  Minnehaha Creek         cfs (cms)

  Fish Hatchery Creek

  Round Lake

  Cedar Creek

Outflowing Streams        cfs  (cms)

  Crooked River

  Pickerel/Crooked Channel

Water Retention Time      Months
Crooked Lake

    2,371

     9.8 (3.0)

    61 (18.6)
Pickerel Lake

    1,055

    12.8 (3.9)

    69.8 (21.3)
                                      1,040 x 106(29.5 x 106) 605 x 106(17.2 x 106)
                                           27,649



                                            35.5 (1.0)

                                             9.5 (0.27)

                                             6.4 (0.18)
                                             142 (3.99)
                                              4.7
                                      33,750
                                                                   10.5 (0.52)
                                        55.6 (1.56)

                                         4.2
                                      44

-------
water  quality of Crooked/Pickerel Lakes.  Most  of  the information pre-
sented is  summarized from two recent  studies  on the lake by Gannon and
Mazur  (1979) and Kerfoot  (1979).

a.   Nutrient Budget

     Nutrient  budgets for Crooked  Lake and  Pickerel  Lake were derived
from the  studies by Gannon and Mazur  (1979)  and Kerfoot  (1978).  Table
II-5 shows the budgets for total phosphorus and nitrogen using data from
these  studies.   Gannon and Mazur's estimates  were  based  on the surveys
conducted  in  1975 and  1976.  Since then a sewer was installed to service
dwellings  on the north  shore  of  Crooked Lake in the  fall of 1976.   In
addition,  Oden  Fish  Hatchery changed  its   fish  culture  operation  to
reduce nutrient  loading  to Crooked Lake.  Gannon and Mazur (1979) esti-
mated  these  changes would  reduce  the  nutrient inputs  from  the  fish
hatchery and  septic  systems by a factor of three.  The ban on phosphates
in  detergents went  into  effect in  Michigan  on October 1, 1977.  Gannon
and Mazur  (1979) estimated that the ban  would reduce  phosphorus inputs
to septic  systems by 34%.  The above events were incorporated into Table
II-5 to represent the  1977 conditions.

     As indicated, the non-point sources contribute a significant amount
of nutrients  into these  two lakes.  In  contrast,  the  septic tanks only
contribute a  small  portion of the  nutrient  into the lakes.  The amount
of phosphorus leaving the lakes via the outlets was calculated based on
the hydraulic flushing rates of the lakes for the  use of assessing the
trophic  status  of   the  lakes.   The  output   from  Pickerel Lake  at  the
Crooked/Pickerel  Channel were not incorporated  as  the  input to Crooked
Lake due  to the fact  that flow from this channel is immediately flushed
out  of Crooked  Lake into the  Crooked River.  As a  result,  this is  not
considered as  a  nutrient  source for Crooked Lake.

b.   Lake Water Quality (Open Water)

     In 1974-76  water quality was surveyed by Gannon  and Mazur (1979).
Data were  collected in the open water (offshore)  areas of Crooked Lake
and Pickerel  Lake.   Parameters of significance to the interpretation of
lake  water  quality  are  total phosphorus,  chlorophyll  a,  Secchi  disc
depth, hypolimnetic  dissolved  oxygen,  alkalinity, and specific conduct-
ance.  Analysis  of these  parameters has revealed water quality similari-
ties  as  well as  differences  between Crooked Lake and  Pickerel Lake.
Results  from  these  investigations  are summarized  in Tables  II-6  and
II-7.  Seasonal  variation of these parameters is  plotted and presented
in Appendix B-3.

     In some respects,  Crooked  Lake  and  Pickerel  Lake  are  similar  in
water  quality characteristics.  Both  lakes  are  alkaline or hard water
with high levels of specific  conductance.   Total phosphorus concentra-
tions  have occurred  in low to moderate levels in water samples taken at
the sampling  stations in both lakes.  Common  to each lake is relatively
low  algal  productivity,  as measured  by  chlorophyll  a;  this  level  of
vegetative growth reflects  low  nutrient concentrations  and  high lake
water  alkalinity.    Corresponding  with  lower  productivity have  been
transparent  waters  with  low  turbidity at the surface and  high Secchi
319 B24                             45

-------
                                  Table II-5

      PHOSPHORUS AND NITROGEN BUDGETS FOR CROOKED LAKE AND PICKEREL LAKE
                       IN 1977—GANNON AND MAZUR (1979)
                                              CROOKED LAKE*
1.
    Non-Point Sources
      (Tributaries)

    Precipitation

    Fish Hatchery

    Septic Tanks
                      Total
2.  Outputs

    Crooked River


3.  Retention
    Non-Point Sources
      (Tributaries)

    Precipitation

    Septic Tanks
                      Total
PHOSPHORUS
KG/YR
1,135.3
321.7
101.3
20.6
1,579.3
710.7
868.6
PHOSPHORUS
KG/YR
1,228.7
143.2
22.2
1,394.1

%
71.9
20.4
6.4
1.3
100
45
55
PICKEREL

1
88.1
10.3
1.6
100
NITROGEN
KG/YR
47,942.7
7,973.3
1,685.3
785.7
58,387.0


LAKE
NITROGEN
KG/YR
55,837.5
3,548.4
494.2
59,880.1

%
82.1
13.7
2.9
1.3
100



%
93.3
5.9
0.8
100
2.  Outputs

    Crooked/Pickerel Channel
655.2
47
3.  Retention
738.9
53
*Reflecting the nutrient loading reduction by sewering the north shore of
 Crooked Lake and additional treatment of the Fish Hatchery Waste in 1977.
                                      46

-------
                                              Table II-6

                     COLOR, LIGHT, AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN (D.O.) CHARACTERISTICS OF
                       CROOKED LAKE AND PICKEREL LAKE, EMMET COUNTY, MICHIGAN.
                                 DATA FROM CENTRAL DEEP STATIONS.
Lake


Crooked Lake

Pickerel Lake
Color
(pt-co)
10
20
Secchi Disc
Yearly Range (m)
2.0-5.0
2.5-6.0
1% T*
Summer (m)
8.8
8.5
Near Bottom D.O.
Summer (mg/1)
0
0.1
Near Bottom D.O.
Winter (mg/1)
      7.3

      6.8
*Depth of light penetration of 1% of surface illuminations.

-------
                                                      Table II-7

                         CHEMICAL AND CHLOROPHYLL _a FEATURES OF CROOKED LAKE AND PICKEREL LAKE
                                AT DEEP CENTRAL STATIONS DURING SUMMER AND WINTER.*
           Variable
           Chi. a. (vg/1)
      Crooked Lake
Summer            Winter
    3.3**
2.0
                    Pickerel Lake
              Summer            Winter
T.A. (mg/1)
Sp. Cond. (pmhos/cm)
PH
S-P04 (yg/1)
T-P04 (yg/1)
NO_-N (yg/1)
j
Si02 (ug/1)
CI (mg/1)
Ca (mg/1)
Mg (mg/1)
K (mg/1)
Na (mg/1)
141.0
289.5
8.4
4.0
11.9
44.2
20.1
2,578.8
12.5**
38.7
13.9
0.8
2.1
158.6
314.9
8.1
7.0
11.3
356.5
40.3
3,475.8
2.5
42.2
12.7
0.8
2.2
136.4
285.0
8.4
5.9
9.8
62.1
18.0
2,665.3
10.9**
38.4
13.4
0.7
2.2
163.8
326.1
8.0
4.0
18.3
320.0
44.3
3,686.8
3.7
48.9
13.1
0.9
2.5
2.8**
0.7
                                                                                                                     00
 Data are means for the euphotic zone ( >1% light transmittance)  in Summer,  1972 and 1974 and Winter 1974 and 1975
 except where otherwise indicated.  T.A. is total alkalinity as CaCOj  and Sp.  Cond.  is specific conductance corrected
 to 25C.
**1974 data only.

-------
disc  depth  readings.   In  the summertime  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes  have
shown  low dissolved  oxygen concentrations in  the deeper  lake  strata.

     In  comparison,  Pickerel Lake  has  exhibited  slightly  better  water
quality  than Crooked Lake.   Summer total phosphorus  concentrations  in
the open waters  have been slightly higher in Crooked Lake.   Consequent-
ly, algal  growth has been more significant and Secchi disc  transparency
can be  read  only at shallower depths.  Maximum chlorophyll  a concentra-
tions were reported to be 8.9 (Jg/1 in-Crooked Lake (Fall, 1974) and only
4.2 M8/1 in Pickerel  Lake  (Spring,  1974)  by Gannon  and Mazur  (1979).
Gannon  and  Mazur (1979)  also  observed that the  lower lake  strata  of
Crooked  Lake were more depleted of dissolved oxygen than Pickerel  Lake.
(See Appendix B-4 for the complete Gannon and Mazur report.)


c.   Trophic  Conditions

     It  is apparent from water quality investigations that  Crooked Lake
and Pickerel Lake exhibit relatively good water  quality.   Having  anal-
yzed  summer  Secchi  disc,   total  phosphorus,  and  chlorophyll a  data,
Gannon  and Mazur (1979) concluded that both lakes border between oligo-
trophy  and mesotrophy,  with Crooked Lake somewhat more mesotrophic than
Pickerel Lake.

     An  evaluation of the  relationship between phosphorus inputs  and the
resulting water  quality is needed  to  predict trophic  responses  which
would  result from phosphorus  loading  scenarios  associated  with  various
wastewater  management   alternatives.   A  detailed description  of  the
procedures  required to   examine  these  relationships  using  Dillon's
computer  model   (1975)  is  presented  in  Appendix  B-5.   By  applying
Dillon's model  to  the  lakes, it was demonstrated  that the analysis  by
Gannon  and Mazur is comparable to  the  model  results  (see Figure II-9).
The model shows  that Pickerel  Lake is currently oligo-mesotrophic,  while
Crooked   Lake  is  mesotrophic.  comparable  to the  model  results  (see
Figure  II-9).    The  model  shows that Pickerel  Lake  is currently oligo-
mesotrophic, while Crooked Lake is mesotrophic.

d.   Bacterial  Contamination in  Shoreline Area

     Gannon  and Mazur  (1979)  surveyed  fecal  coliforms in the nearshore
and  offshore  areas  of  Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes  (July  1975).   Results
indicated insignificant bacterial  contamination,  except for one station
in  Crooked  Lake near  Conway which  registered 1600  colonies/  100 ml.

6.   FLOOD  HAZARD AREAS

     The Department of Housing and Urban Development  is responsible for
mapping  the  100 year floodplain for the purposes of the Flood Insurance
Program.  However,   floodplain maps  are not currently available through
HUD or  the USGS  for  the Study  Area.
319 B25                             49

-------
  i.o r
 o.oi
                                                          100.0
               10.0
       MEAN DEPTH (METERS)

L= AREAL PHOSPHORUS INPUT (q/mZ/yr)
R= PHOSPHORUS RETENTION COEFFICIENT
P*HYDRAULIC FLUSHING RATE (yf1)
FIGURE 0-9  TROPHIC STATUS OF CROOKED LAKE AND PICKEREL LAKE
                   BASED ON 1975-1976 DATA
                             50

-------
C.   EXISTING SYSTEMS

     All of the existing  development within the Study Area is  served by
on-site  wastewater  treatment systems.   At  the  time that the Facility
Plan was drafted,  very limited information was available on the existing
on-site  systems in  the Crooked/ Pickerel Lakes  Service Area.  It was
known with certainty  that many  of  the existing systems were  constructed
on sites with severe  limitations resulting from high groundwater levels
and poor soils permeability.  However, the extent to  which  these limi-
tations  pose  a threat to  public  health or  to  water quality was not
known.

     A  number of  studies were  recently undertaken by EPA to  determine
the extent of these problems.   The results  of these  studies,  discussed
in this section,  are intended to identify problems with existing systems
and  to help provide  a basis for  evaluating  a  range of solutions for
meeting wastewater treatment needs.

1.   SUMMARY OF  EXISTING  DATA

     Studies recently undertaken by EPA  to  evaluate  existing  Lakeshore
systems and problems resulting from these systems include:

a.   "Investigation of Septic  Leachate  Discharges  into
     Crooked  and  Pickerel  Lakes,   Michigan"   (Kerfoot,  1978)

     This study was undertaken  on  November  18 to  23,  1978  to  determine
whether  groundwater plumes from nearby septic tanks  were emerging along
the  lakeshore and causing elevated concentrations of nutrients.  Septic
leachate  plumes  were  detected  with an  instrument  referred to  as the
"Septic  Snooper."  This  instrument  is equipped with analyzers  to detect
both  organics and inorganics  from  domestic wastewater.  This device was
towed  along  the  lakes and  holes  were drilled in ice  covered areas to
obtain  a profile  of septic  leachate  plumes  discharging  to surface
waters.  A total  of 51 planes were observed along the southern shore of
Crooked  Lake and  the  Pickerel Lake shoreline.  Areas  with high numbers
of plumes were found in the  Pickerel Lake vicinity.


b.    "Sanitary  Systems of Crooked  and  Pickerel Lakes,  Emmet
     County,  Michigan:    An  On-Site  Survey"   (University  of
     Michigan,  1978)

     An  on-site sanitary  survey of the  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes area was
conducted during the period  of August 29 through September 8, 1978.  The
survey  provided  information regarding  the types  of  decentralized sys-
tems,  the nature and extent  of non-compliance  with the Emmet County
Sanitary Code and the nature and extent of problems with these systems.
The Sanitary Survey  is included in  Appendix B-7.

     The  results  of  this  survey  indicated that  more  than  90%  of the
existing  on-shore  systems have  been constructed  on sites  with severe
319 B26                            51

-------
site  limitations  (as  defined by  SCS).   Several  systems  are  also  in
violation of  the  existing  code  with respect  to  setback distances  and
undersized septic  tanks.

     These violations vary  along  different  lakeshore areas.  Only 9% of
the existing lakeshore systems experience recurrent problem  with backups
and ponding.  Cladophora  growth  was  found associated with  about  50% of
the homes with  suitable  substrate*.   Cladophora is  a  filamentous green
algae  which is commonly found where, there is a  continuous source  of
nutrients and suitable substrate  for  attached growth.

c.   EPIC  Survey  (EPA, 1978)

     An aerial photographic  survey was  conducted  by EPA's Environmental
Photographic  Interpretation  Center  (EPIC) to determine the  location of
surface malfunctions  within the  Study Area.  This  survey was  conducted
on  August  21,  1978.   Figure  11-10   shows  the results  of   the  survey.
Surface  malfunctions  were  not found  to be  widespread;  8 failing  or
marginally  failing  systems  were  observed in the Proposed Service Area.

2.   TYPES OF  SYSTEMS

     Based  on data obtained  during  the Sanitary Survey  (University of
Michigan,  1978)  and  summarized  in  Table  II-8,  67%  of  the  lakeshore
residences have septic tanks accompanied by a drainfield.   Septic tanks
accompanied by  a  drywell,  as  well as  a drainfield are  also  prevalent
(14%).   This  type  of system is widely  used along  the  south shore  of
Pickerel Lake.  Both drainfields  and  drywells provide final  treatment of
septic tank effluent by filtering out solids and bacteria  and by adsorb-
ing phosphorus.   Drainfields generally  perform a  more adequate  job of
treating septic tank effluent.

     In order to provide  suitable treatment  of wastewater  in those areas
with  severe  site  limitations, 5%  of the residences have elevated sand
mound  systems and  4%  have cluster systems.   Seven  percent  of  the resi-
dences have no  septic tank  at all and are served  only by  pit privies or
drywells.  Pit privies are found mainly along the  south shore of Crooked
Lake (University of Michigan, 1978).

     The Emmet  County Sanitary  Code  was issued in  the spring  of 1968.
The code requires  issuance of a permit before design and construction of
a sewage disposal  system may proceed.  However,  issuance  of permits did
not come  into full effect  until 1971.   The Health Department  has re-
jected about  30 applications for a permit  in  the  Study Area since 1971
and has issued  more than twice the number of preliminary  denials in the
form of property  evaluation reports.   About 40 permits for  repairs have
been  issued by the Health  Department  for  the Study Area   (By  letter,
William  Henne,  Sanitarian,  December  1978).   Under  the Emmet  County
Sanitary Code, the health officer may reject an application  for a permit
on the following bases:

     •    The property to  be  served lacks  sufficient area  for  proper
          isolation from existing water wells or surface waters (minimum
          of 50 feet);
319 B27                             52

-------
FIGURE 11-10   LOCATION OF SURFACE MALFUNCTIONS DETECTED BY AERIAL
                      PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY, 1978
                                  LEGEND

                             o MARGINALLY FAILING

                             • FAILING

-------
                                                                  Table II-8

                                                  DISTRIBUTION OF ON-SITE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
                                                          (Based on Systems Surveyed)
Location
Crooked Lake
South Shore
Oden
Island
Ellsworth Ft.
Artesian Rd.
Trails End
Pickerel Lake
Boltsford
Landing
Pickerel Lake
North Shore
TOTAL
Total i
of Systems
47
16
48
26
35
172
Septic Tanks
&
Drainfield
35
1+
14
25
16
1+
23
115
Septic Tank
Drainfield
&
Drywell
2
0
15
3
3
23
Septic Tank
&
Mound
2
2
2
1
2
9
Septic Tank
&
LeachHeld
1
0
0
0
0
1
Pit
Privy
4
1*
0
1*
0
2
8
Cluster
0
0
2
0
4
6
Drywell
Only
1
0
1
1
0
3
Septic Tank
&
Drywell
0
0
1
2
1
4
Unknown
1
0
1
2
0
3
Fed by dosing rather than by gravity feed
Accompanied by drywell
Source!   Sanitary Systems of Crooked and
         Pickerel Lakes.  Univ. of Mich., 1978.

-------
     •    The percolation rate is less than 30 minutes/inch;

     •    The maximum  groundwater level is less than 6 feet from ground
          surface  or  in the case of  property adjoining lakes, lagoons,
          or  rivers the  finish  grade  is 6  feet  above the  high water
          mark; and/or

     •    Where  an impervious  stratum  is found  within  6 feet  of the
          ground surface.

     The  specifications for minimum design criteria under  the code are
shown in Appendix B-8.

3.   STATUS OF EXISTING SYSTEMS

     Since  many of the on-site systems were  in existence  prior  to en-
forcement of  the Sanitary Code in 1971 and because of severe site limi=
tations throughout much of the Study Area, some of the existing systems
are  known to  be out of compliance with the Sanitary Code.   The Sanitary
Survey  (University of Michigan,  1978)  investigated  the   frequency  of
these violations and a  summary of these data is presented in Table II-9.
The  data  indicate  that a substantial number  of  existing  systems  are in
violation of the code and that the type and frequency of violations vary
depending upon the shoreline  area.   The  residences on Oden  Island are
exceptional in  having  few violations of  the  code;  Oden Island property
owners  have an active association  and good  septic  system maintenance
records  (University of Michigan,  1978).   Major violations of the code
include:

     •    Lake  setback  distance.   With  the  exception of  Oden  Island
          about  20% of the  lakeshore systems violate  the  standard for
          set  back distance  from the  lake.  The setback distance  is
          intended  to  minimize  leaching  of  nutrients from  systems  to
          lake  surface  water.

     *    Well  setback.  A  well setback distance of 50 feet is intended
          to provide  adequate  separation distance for removal  of bac-
          teria and nutrients from water which percolates into the well.
          Oden  Island  and part  of Ellsworth  Point (Ellsworth Road and
          Rupp  Road)  generally comply with this standard.  Most  of the
          violations  of the  well setback  distance are found  on sites
          along  the south  shore  of  Pickerel  Lake;  50% of the systems
          surveyed  in  the  area of Artesian Road and  Trails End and 30%
          of  the  systems  surveyed  in  the  area  of  Botsford's Landing
          violate  the well setback standard.

     •    Septic Tank Size.  Undersized septic tanks can lead to several
          problems  including  house   backups   and  poor solids  removal.
          Poor  solids  removal  may lead to  clogging of  the  soil absorp-
          tion  system, causing  surface ponding.   Survey  data indicate
          that  septic   tanks  along  part  of Ellsworth  Point  (Ellsworth
          Road  and Rupp Road)  and on Oden Island  are  adequately sized.
          In contrast,  50% of the systems  near  Botsford's  Landing, 30%
319 B28                              55

-------
                                                                     Table II-9

                                                          VIOLATIONS OF SANITARY COpE
                                                       (Based on number of homes surveyed)*

South Shore
Crooked Lake
Oden Island
Artesian Road
Trails End
Ellsworth Road
Rupp Road
Botsford
Landing
Camp Petosega
Pickerel Lake
North Shore
Less than
50 Feet
to Lake
8
(18%)
1
( 7%)
9
(24%)
2
(22%)
5
(20%)
8
(23%)
Less than
50 Peet
to Well
11
(25%)
0
( 0%)
18
(50%)
1
(10%)
6
(30%)
4
(12%)
Septic Tank
too Small
5
(18%)
0
( 0%)
9
(35%)
0
( 0%)
11
(50%)
7
(30%)
Site Limitation
Depth to
Groundwater;
Less than
47
(100%)
16
(100%)
29
( 76%)
10
(100%)
16
( 62%)
35
(100%)
Site Limitation
Permeability
Less than
30 min./in.
43
(91%)
(50%)
maximum
29
(76%)
9
(90%)
0
( 0%)
20
(57%)
* In several instances, information regarding violations was not known.

  Soils are highly variable

Source:  Sanitary Systems of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes, Emmet  Co., Univ.  of Mich.,  1978.
         Suitability of Soils for On-Site Waste Disposal,  Pickerel and Crooked Lakes, Emmet Co., Mich., A. Gold and J. Gannon, 1978.
                                                                                                                                                          VO

-------
          of the systems along  the  north shore of Pickerel Lake  and 35%
          of  the  systems   along  Artesian  Road  and  Trails  End   are
          undersized.

     *    Site limitation.   In general the soils around Crooked/Pickerel
          Lakes are not well suited for on-site systems.   As Figure  II-4
          indicates, the areas  with suitable soils are along Botsford's
          Landing (Segment 14) and part of Ellsworth Point (Segment  16).
          (A segments map  is  included, in Chapter IV.)  Based on  survey
          data provided  by Gold  and  Gannon (1979)  there are  30 homes
          located  on suitable  soils  for on-site  systems.   All other
          lakeshore  sites  violate  the  Sanitary Code with respect  to
          soils permeability  and/or depth to groundwater.  Soil  absorp-
          tion systems do  not function properly under these conditions.
          Regardless of  the size  of the drainfield, 78%  of  the  systems
          are in violation of the code as a result of severe site limi-
          tation.   This  percentage assumes  that the few  existing  ele-
          vated sand mound systems  have overcome site limitation and do
          comply with the eixsting code.

a.   Public Health Problems Caused by  Existing Systems

     Generally unsuitable site conditions and numerous violations  of the
Sanitary Code have led to the question of whether existing systems along
the lakeshore  are  causing  public health or water quality problems.   The
distinction  should  be   made  between  water quality  and  public  health
problems on  the  one hand and nuisance or community improvement problems
on the other hand.  On-site systems known to contribute to violations of
water quality standards or changes in  lake trophic status pose water
quality  problems.  Public health  problems may  result   from recurrent
backups, ponding  of effluent  on the soils'  surface  or  contamination of
the groundwater supply in excess of the drinking water standards.

     Backups/Ponding.   Despite  severe  soils  limitations and numerous
violations  of the  Sanitary  Code,  relatively  few systems  pose  public
health problems based  on sanitary survey data.  Appendix B-9 summarizes
the  types  and extent  of  problems associated  with existing  systems.
Although 17% of the systems surveyed have experienced backups or  ponding
of effluent,  the problems  are recurrent with only about half of these
systems.  In  several instances pumping of a poorly maintained system or
replacement  of an  old  drainfield has  alleviated  the  problem.   Systems
with  recurring problems  with  backups and ponding  are  few in number and
are located mainly in that part of Ellsworth Point where a high  seasonal
groundwater level  exists.   Other areas where  a  small  number of  on-site
systems  have  frequent  problems  with  ponding  and backups  include  the
South Shore  of Crooked  Lake,  segment  4  of  Channel Road,  and the North-
western  most part  of  Crooked  Lake (Lakeview/Burley Road).  Soils  are
unsuitable in  all  three locations.   However, it is noteworthy that  only
half  of  14  problem systems have been maintained properly and at least 6
systems  have  undersized septic tanks.   Consequently,  severe site limi-
tations are not necessarily the cause of these problems.

     The EPIC aerial photography (EPIC 1977)  was  also  used to  survey
Study Area  for surface malfunctions.  This  survey detected two  margin-


319 B29                             57

-------
ally failing  systems  and one  currently failing system along the  south
shore of Crooked Lake  (Channel Road).   Along the north shore of  Pickerel
Lake, two failing and  one marginally failing systems  were  observed.   Two
marginally failing  systems  were also  detected in the area  of  Botsford
Landing.

     Groundwater Contamination.   There  is  no  documented  evidence  of
contamination of  drinking water aquifers by on-site  systems.   As  dis-
cussed in Section  II.B.2 the Health Department has reported low ground-
water nitrate levels in the  limited number of samples analyzed.   Most of
the wells located  along  the Crooked Lake shoreline  are deep and a pro-
tective  clay overburden  should prevent  contamination of  the  drinking
water  supply.   In the area of Ellsworth Point and Botsford1s  Landing
some shallow wells  are  found (less than 25  feet).   However, the average
well depth exceeds  80  feet  and no evidence exists  for contamination of
groundwater (see Section II.B.2).

b-   Water Quality Problems

     Nutrient budgets prepared  for Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes indicate that
on-site  systems contribute  a  small  percentage of  the  total  nutrient
loads  to Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes   and  that  water  quality is not  being
significantly  degraded  by  septic  tank  leachate (see Section  II.B.I).
Prior  to enforcement  of  the phosphorus  ban in  1977,  septic tanks  were
estimated to  contribute  9.4%  of  the total phosphorus load to  Crooked
Lake and 4.0% of the total load to Pickerel  Lake.  It was  estimated that
the  phosphorus  loads  from  septic  tanks were  reduced nearly 3  fold by
enforcing the phosphorus ban (Gold and Gannon 1979).   Based on Kerfoot's
(1978)  analysis of nutrient  concentrations  in  septic  leachate plumes,
the  contribution from on-site  systems  is significantly  less than Gold
and Gannon had  estimated.  Even assuming the worst case septic tanks are
not  contributing  significantly to  water quality degradation in  terms of
nutrient load.  Similarly, there is no evidence that on-site systems are
discharging  significant  bacterial  loads.  Both  Gannon and  Mazur (1979)
and  Kerfoot   (1978)  reported  low  counts of  fecal coliform.   Only one
sampling  station,  near Conway,   had  high  bacterial  counts  (1,600
colonies/100ml) (Gannon and Mazur 1979).

c.   Other Problems

     Some  residents  have experienced other problems  related to on-site
systems which do not pose a potential health threat or the potential for
water quality degradation.  Odors from on-site systems may be a  nuisance
to  residents  but they  are not  a health  hazard.   Only 9 residents or 5%
of the total surveyed reported odors associated with their septic tanks.

     Shoreline  Cladophora  growth  may also  be  a  nuisance  since  it is
unsightly and  interferes with some recreational activities  (see Section
II.D).  Cladophora growth was associated with 54% of the residences with
suitable  substrate.   All of  the  homes  surveyed along Crooked  Lake had
suitable solid  substrate for Cladophora, whereas only 46%  of the sites
along  Pickerel Lake had suitable  substrate.   Heaviest  growth  was ob-
served  along Channel  Road  (segments  3-6)   on  the  southeast  shore of
Crooked Lake and Ellsworth Point along the south shore of Pickerel Lake.


319 B30                             58

-------
Kerfoot  (1978)  reported  that  Cladophora  growth  approach carpet-like
thickness along segment  16 in Ellsworth Point.  No information is avail-
able  on the  density  of Cladophora  growth  along  other lakeshore areas.
However, Gannon  and Mazur did not find  filamentous  blue-green algae to
be a  dominant species along most of the lakeshore.  Limited groundwater
samples  taken in  this  area showed  locally elevated soluble phosphorus
levels  of  0.088 mg/1 (PO^-P).   Groundwater transport  of phosphorus via
subsurface  plumes  from  individual septic units probably supplies suffi-
cient nutrient loads  to  sustain  Cladophora  growth in areas with suitable
solid substrate.
D-   BIOTIC  RESOURCES

1.   AQUATIC BIOLOGY

     Qualitative  observations  made  by Gannon  and Mazur  (1979)  on the
biotic  resources  of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes indicate that both lakes
have good water quality.

     Aquatic  Vegetation.   A   1978  water  quality  report  on  Crooked/
Pickerel  Lakes indicated  that filamentous blue-green algae are present
in  both lakes, although they  rarely  form a predominant component of the
algal  community  (Gannon  & Mazur 1979).  Although blooms  of blue-green
algae are often associated with high  organic loads, sparsely distributed
blooms  such as those  observed in  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes are frequently
found  even in clean waters.   Algal  blooms,  consisting largely  of the
diatom,  Dinobryon Sp.  have  been observed in  Crooked Lake only (Gannon
and Mazur 1979).This  species is generally associated with oligotrophic
waters  and  is an  indication of low nutrient loads.

     Appendix C-l  lists   submergent  and emergent  aquatic macrophytes*
(water  plants) found in Pickerel Lake.  While similar plant species can
be  expected  in Crooked Lake,  DNR  survey  information on aquatic macro-
phytes  was  not available for  Crooked  Lake.   Dense growth of submerged
aquatic plants was  observed  along the  northeast shoreline of Pickerel
Lake in a 1971 survey.  Common aquatic vegetation includes whitestem and
sago pondweed, yellow water lily, chara and wild celery.   Various spe-
cies of pondweed  were  found along most of the Pickerel Lake shoreline in
varying densities.   The emergent species, Bullrush, was dense along the
southern shore.   (MDNR variously dated).

     Aquatic  Invertebrates.   Gannon  and Mazur observed a  similar zoo-
plankton  and benthic  invertebrate  population  in  Crooked  Lake  and
Pickerel  Lake  (see Appendix  C-2).   The diversity of  benthic inverte-
brates, when  used as an  indicator  of water  quality,  suggested that the
lakes  were  oligotrophic or mesotrophic  in  trophic status.   The concept
of  using species  diversity as  an aid  in determining water quality status
is  summarized  in Appendix  C-3.   The  Shannon-Weiner species diversity
index*  was  slightly higher in Pickerel Lake (0.57) than in Crooked Lake
(0.43)  and  is interpreted to  indicate slightly more  oligotrophic condi-
tions in Pickerel Lake  than in Crooked Lake.
319 B31                              59

-------
     Fish.  The  Michigan Department of Natural Resources'  (MDNR,  vari-
ously dated)  records showed that  both Crooked Lake  and Pickerel  Lake
contain fish  populations indicative of  good water quality conditions.
Several species of game fish, coarse fish,  and forage  fish are prevalent
in both lakes.   Growth  rates for game fish  are near  statewide averages
and survey data  indicate an excellent warm water game  fish population.
A list of species  caught in a  1971 DM fish survey for Pickerel Lake is
presented in Appendix C-4.   The latest fish survey for Crooked Lake was
conducted in  1954;  a listing of fish.caught  in this  survey is shown in
Appendix C-5.

2.   WETLANDS

     Wetlands  are  highly productive ecosystems which are  inundated by
surface  or groundwater with  a frequency  to  support primarily  semi-
aquatic vegetation.  Figure  II-7  shows  that there are extensive wetland
areas  associated with  the  shallow  bays of  the  lakes and slow-moving
streams of the Study Area.

     Virtually all  of  the  southern shoreline of  Crooked Lake  and the
south and western shorelines of Pickerel Lake are  low-lying areas,  often
wet  woodland.   These  wetlands are  dense mixed  hardwood  -  coniferous
forest  consisting  of   white spruce,  white  cedar,   birch,  alder,  and
willow.  The woodlands are primary habitat for a large number of nesting
birds,  such as  warblers  and  woodpeckers,   and  for  ruffed grouse  and
white-tailed deer, two important game animals in Michigan.

     Cattail  marshes and  wet   woodlands  are  found  on Oden  Island  in
Crooked Lake.   The  shoreline,  with noted macrophytes, including  bull-
rushes, is an important habitat for breeding waterfowl.  Cattail marshes
are also  prevalent  on  the northeastern shore of  Crooked  Lake, and this
shallow embayment has many acres of emergent vegetation,  which together
with the  slow-moving waters of the Crooked River are important feeding
grounds for waterfowl.

     These wetland  areas serve  several  important ecological functions:

     •    They purify  nearby surface water  bodies by  entrapping  sedi-
          ments  and concentrating nutrients which have been washed off
          the landscape.

     •    They store storm  and  flood  waters and  absorb  the  impact of
          flooding,  thereby  reducing  the   erosion   of  adjacent  land.

     •    They  are  prime  natural  recharge  areas   where  surface  and
          groundwater are directly connected.

     *    They are essential habitat for a wide variety of wildlife, and
          support  biological functions  such as nesting,  breeding, and
          feeding areas.

     *    They produce  plant and animal biomass  at all trophic levels;
          except for the comparably productive tropical  rainforest, no
          other  land habitat  is  as  rich  in usable  plant  and animal
          material.

319 B32                             60

-------
     Wetland Protection.  Michigan laws prevent the drainage of wetlands
without  State  review.  The  Inland Lakes and Streams Act  and  the Great
Lakes  Submerged Lands  Act  provide  guidelines  for the protection  and
management  of  wetlands.   An Executive  Order  on wetlands  management
(Exec.  Order  #11990)  prevents  the  development  of  federally  funded
projects in wetlands unless  there is no feasible alternative.

3.   TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY

     The  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes  Study Area  is  largely wooded.   Total
forested  land  is  about  80% of  the total acreage.  Northern hardwood
forests  largely of  hard  maple,  white  ash,  red  oak,  white  birch  and
beach.  The Hardwood State Forest, south of Crooked/Pickerel Lakes makes
up  nearly  15% of the total  acreage  in the Study Area.   Upland and swamp
forests  are  largely  coniferous and  include  white cedar,  balsam,  fir,
tamarock,  black  spruce,  aspen  and  alder.    Wetland  areas  are  more
sparsely forested.

     Study Area wildlife  is typical of species common to northern hard-
wood  forests,  swamp  forests  and marshy  wetlands.  Birds  and  Mammals
whose habitat  range include  the Study Area are shown in Appendix C-6 and
C-7, respectively.

4.   THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES

     No  mammals on the Federal List of Threatened  or Endangered Species
have been documented  in the  Study Area.  However, Emmet County is within
the range of  several  species on the Michigan list of rare and threatened
species.   These are  listed  in  Appendix  C-8.   Specific information  on
habitat  location is not available.   "Rare" and "peripheral" species have
no  legal status under Michigan Endangered Species Act,  only the "threat-
ened"  species.   The Pine Vole and the Southern Bog Lemming are afforded
State protection.

     The  bald eagle, Haliocetus  leucocephalus,  is the  only species  on
the Federal list of Endangered or Threatened Species whose habitat range
is  known to include the Study Area.  Two active bald eagle nesting sites
are known to  exist in the  Study Area.  One pair of  bald eagles are known
to  be  nesting and feeding northeast  of  the  Crooked/Pickerel Channel  in
Littlefield  Township.  The  other pair are found south  of Crooked Lake
near Minnehaha  Creek  (by telephone,  George Kupp, June 4, 1979).

     Michigan's threatened species list includes six birds species whose
habitat  range  extends  through Emmet  County.   Nesting sites  for these
species,  listed in Appendix C-9, have not been documented in the Study
Area.

     Several  species  of plants found in the Study Area have been classi-
fied  as  rare  or  threatened  by  the  Michigan DNR,  (see Appendix C-10).
None  of  these  species   is on  the  Federal  List of  Engangered  and
Threatened Plants.
319 B33                              61

-------
E.   POPULATION AND  SOCIOECOKOMICS

1.   POPULATION

a.   Introduction

     Published  information on  the  population characteristics  of  the
Study Area is  available  for Emmet County and Littlefield  and  Springvale
Townships.  However, the areas  proposed  for sewering  in the Springvale-
Bear Creek Area  Segment  Facility  Plan cover only  a  portion of these  two
Townships.  Since  only limited disaggregation of socioeconomic data  is
available, the published data  do  not precisely describe  the  population
characteristics for the subareas of Springvale and Littlefield Townships
to  be  directly affected  by  the  wastewater management  alternatives.

     As a result,  1975 aerial  photography was analyzed to determine  the
existing  dwelling  unit count and  population levels.   This information
was  supplemented through field  surveys  of the Study Area  as well  as  the
use of reports by Gannon and Gold and the Facility Plan.   For  analytical
purposes, the  Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes Service  Area  was divided into  18
segments  (see  Figure  11-11).    Together,   these  segments define  the
Proposed Service Area.

b.   Existing Population

     The Proposed Service Area had a 1978 total population of  840  people
comprised of 223  (26.5%) permanent residents and  617  seasonal residents
(see Table 11-10).   The  Springvale Township portion of the Service Area
has  the highest  percentage of  the  total  population (63.7%)  and  the
highest  percentage of  permanent   residents  (72.2%).   It  also has  the
largest  population concentrations:  Segment  6  (89  people),   Segment  14
(128  people)   and  Segment   16  (182  people).   Several of the Proposed
Service  Area   segments have  relatively  small population  concentrations
due primarily  to environmental factors limiting development.

     No  data  are  available on  either permanent  or seasonal  population
levels within  the  Proposed Service Area prior to  1978. However,  recent
trends  at the County  and  Study Area  level indicate   that the Proposed
Service Area is  a  part of a rapidly growing portion  of Michigan. From
1970 to  1975,  there was a 12.4% increase in dwelling  units in the Study
Area  (Vilican-Leman &  Associates  1971)  while the  County  and Littlefield
and  Springvale Townships have shown rapid  population  growth  since 1960
(U.S. Bureau of Census 1970).

     The EIS 1978  population  estimate of 840 people,   although equal to
the Facility Plan  estimate,  is  based on a different dwelling  unit count
(212 versus 259  in the Facility Plan) and different assumptions  regard-
ing the  seasonal population.   As  discussed  in Appendix D, the Facility
Plan  estimate  does not  include an  accurate  breakdown of permanent  and
seasonal dwelling  units  nor does  it consider the  larger  household sizes
common to seasonal residences.  As a result, while the two estimates  are
equivalent,   the  different  assumptions  underlying each estimate  may
account  for  significant differences in  the projections  based on each
estimate.

319 B34                             62

-------
        FIGURE 11-11.  SEGMENT MAP
cy.
u>
                                     1000 0     ZOOO   4000


                                         SCALE IN FEET

-------
                          Table 11-10

           PERMANENT AND SEASONAL POPULATION OF THE
     PROPOSED CROOKED PICKEREL LAKES SERVICE AREA (1978)*
igment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Total
11
10
31
60
53
89
17
20
0
55
60
60
54
128
7
182
3
0
Permanent
7
10
10
13
36
59
0
7
0
0
13
0
3
13
7
42
3
0
Seasonal
4
0
21
47
17
30
17
13
0
55
47
60
51
115
0
140
0
0
Percent
Permanent
63.6
100.0
32.3
21.7
67.9
66.3
0.0
35.0
0.0
0.0
21.7
0.0
5.6
10.2
100.0
23.1
100.0
0.0
Percent
Seasonal
36.4
0.0
67.7
78.3
32.1
33.7
100.0
65.0
0.0
100.0
78.3
100.0
94.4
89.8
0.0
76.9
0.0
0.0
TOTAL      840         223           617         26.5          73.5
*The methodology utilized to develop these population estimates is found
 in Appendix D.
                                 64

-------
c.   Population Projections

     The population  projections for  the  Crooked-Pickerel  Lakes  Service
Area must consider three common growth factors:

     •    The  rate of  growth or  decline  of the permanent  population;

     •    The  rate of growth or decline of the seasonal population;  and

     •    The  potential conversion  of seasonal  to permanent dwelling
          units  and  the resultant  effect on  the permanent  population.

Each of  these  represents a potential growth force significantly  affect-
ing  future  total population  levels and  the  distribution  of population
between permanent and seasonal residents.

     Permanent,  seasonal,  and total baseline population projections  for
the Crooked/Pickerel Lakes Facility Planning Area were projected  for  the
year 2000 based on the best  available information regarding  these  three
growth factors  (see Appendix  D).  As indicated in Table 11-11, the  total
in  summer  population  for  the Proposed Service Area is  projected  to be
1,263.  This total population will be comprised of 603 (47.7%) permanent
residents and  660 (52.3%)  seasonal residents.  Springvale Township will
maintain  its  position as  the most  populous portion  of the Proposed
Service  Area with 791 people  (62.6%) in 2000 and the Township will also
have the highest percentage  of permanent residents  (64.4%) and seasonal
residents  (61.2%).   Four of  the five largest  segments  are also  located
in  Springvale  Township including Segment 4 (103 people), Segment 6 (159
people), Segment 14  (148 people) and Segment  16  (245  people).   Segment
11  in  Littlefield Township with 103  people  is the  only segment  in this
Township with  more than 100 people.

     The  population  projection  is nearly 40% lower than the Facility
Plan  projection  of  2,080 people.   As  discussed  in  Appendix  D,  the
Facility  Plan  projection  assumes  a  much higher growth  rate for  the
Proposed  Service  Area based  on  the  anticipation of  future wastewater
management  improvements,  whereas the projections done  for this  EIS  are
based  on an analysis of past  growth trends  in  the  area which do  not
include  the future introduction of a wastewater  management  system.  The
EIS projection,  based solely on past growth trends in the Service  Area,
projected only a 50.4% increase in population which  is more closely in
line with  the  208 planning agency's  (Northwest Michigan Regional  Plan-
ning Commission 1972) projected growth for Littlefield Township  (43.2%)
and Springvale Township  (30.4%).


2.   CHARACTERISTICS OF THE  PERMANENT  POPULATION

a.   Income

     The  Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes  Study Area  can be characterized as  a
moderate income  area.  During 1970, the median family income was  $10,741
and the  per capita income  in 1974 was $4,152.  These figures are higher
319 B35                              65

-------
                           Table 11-11

            PEKMANENT AND SEASONAL POPULATION OF THE     -
      PROPOSED CROOKED-PICKEREL LAKES SERVICE AREA (2000)
Segment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Total
13
12
37
103
64
159
22
37
0
93
103
90
82
148
52
245
3
0
Permanent
9
12
21
51
48
123
6
21
0
33
51
42
18
36
24
105
3
0
Seasonal
4
0
16
52
16
36
16
16
0
60
52
48
64
112
28
140
0
0
Percent
Permanent
69.2
100.0
56.8
49.5
75.0
77 A
27.3
56.8
0.0
35.5
49.5
46.7
22.0
24.3
46.2
42.9
100.0
0.0
Percent
Seasonal
30.8
0.0
43.2
50.5
25.0
22.6
72.7
43.2
0.0
64.5
50.5
53.3
78.0
75.7
53.8
57.1
0.0
0.0
TOTAL     1,263         603           660         47.7          52.3
 The methodology utilized to develop these projections is found in
 Appendix D.
                                  66

-------
than the Emmet  County figures and lower than state and national figures
(see Tables  11-12  and 11-13).  Within the Study Area, Littlefield Town-
ship  reported both  higher  median family  and  per capita  incomes  than
Springvale Township.

     The distribution of family incomes during  1970  indicated  that the
Study  Area  had a higher  percentage  of   families  with incomes  under
$10,000  (57.3%)  than  the State (42.9%), but a lower percentage than the
County  (59.8%).    However,  the Study. Area  had a  lower percentage  of
families below  the Federally established poverty  level  than either the
State or County  (see  Table 11-14).

     The moderate  income levels in the Study Area are partly attribut-
able  to  the  agricultural  and tourism orientation of the  local economy
(providing  relatively low skill/low  wage  employment opportunities) and
to  the  seasonal  fluctuations  in employment  (high  summer  employment
levels,  low  levels  during   off-season).   However,  the large  elderly
population  (age 65  or older)  of  the Study Area  living on  limited  or
fixed  incomes also greatly  contributes  to  the  moderate income levels.
More  than  33%  of  the  elderly population  in Littlefield  Township had
incomes below the  poverty level (see Table  11-15).

b.   Retirement  Age Population

     Over 10% of the  Study Area's  1970 population was 65 years of age or
older.   (see Table 11-16).   The percentage of retirement age population
did not  vary greatly between Littlefield (11.2%)  and Springvale (10.1%)
Townships.   The  Study Area is well suited  for retirement living provid-
ing opportunities  for boating,  swimming, and fishing which allow retired
persons  to  make productive  and   enjoyable  use  of their  leisure  time.
Many  former seasonal residents have  converted  their homes  to permanent
units upon  retirement to take advantage of  these opportunities.

c.   Employment

     Between 1940  and 1970, Emmet County  has  experienced  major changes
in  its  economic structure.   During the 1940's  agriculture  was  the pri-
mary  source  of  employment  accounting for  over 28%  of  the total labor
force.   However, by  1970 agriculture represented  only 3.4% of the total
employment  and  had  been replaced  by services   (33.0%),   retail  trade
(21.4%), and manufacturing (20.7%) as the dominant employment categories
(see Table  11-17).

     While  manufacturing maintained a relatively constant share of total
employment  in the  County during this period,  increases  in retail trade
and  service  activities  resulted from  the increase in  these sectors
nationwide  and from the  growing importance  of tourism in the Upper Great
Lakes  Region (Michigan  Department of Commerce  1975).  As indicated in
Table  11-18,  Emmet  County   experienced  greater  economic  impact  from
travel  and  tourism than either the region or  the State in 1975.  Only
3.6% of  the State's  employment and 9.2%  of the region's employment was
generated  through  travel activities  compared to 33.9% in Emmet County.
In  addition,  a  large percentage of total retail sales in the County can
be  attributed to tourism.   From 1967 to 1972, tourist expenditures as  a
319 B36                              67

-------
                              Table 11-12

                   MEAN. AND MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME




                                                   Mean           Median


»     United States                              $10,999         $ 9,586

•     Michigan                                    12,213          11,029

*     Emmet County                                10,128           8,608

•     Socioeconomic Study Area                    10,741             NA

            Littlefield Township Portion          11,382             NA

            Springvale Township Portion            9,529             NA
SOURCES:  U.S.  Census of Population and Housing,  Fifth Count Summary Tapes,
          1970.

          U.S.  Census of Population, 1970.
                                    68

-------
                               Table 11,13

                           PER CAPITA INCOME


                                                                 Percent Change
                                              1969      1974       (1969-1970)


•     State of Michigan                      $3357     $4751           41.5

•     Emmet County                            2703      3814           41.1

•     Socioeconomic Study Area                2845      4152           45.9

            Littlefield Township Portion      3036      4451           46.6

            Springvale Township Portion       2588      3712           43.4
SOURCE:  U.S. Census, Population Estimates and Projections (Series P-25),
         May 1977.
                                      69

-------
                               Table 11-14
               PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY INCOME 1970
                                State of                        Socloeconomic
                                Michigan      Emmet County       Study Area
  Under    $ 1,000                 1.8            2.1                2.5
$ 1,000  -   1,999                 2.4            2.8                1.1
$ 2,000  -   2,999                 3.3            7.1                5.1
$ 3,000  -   3,999                 3.5            3.7                4.2
$ 4,000  -   4,999                 3.7            6.1                3.8
$ 5,000  -   5,999                 4.1            7.1                4.5
$ 6,000  -   6,999                 4.6            9.1               15.8
$ 7,000  -   7,999                 5.7            7.1                4.2
$ 8,000  -   9,999                13.8           14.7               16.1
$10,000  -  14,999                30.5           23.9               24.1
$15,000  -  24,999                21.4           11.7               13.6
$25,000  -  49,999                 4.5            3.7                3.8
$50,000 and Over                   0.8            1.0                1.1
Percent of Families Below
  Poverty Level                    7.3           10.4                6.5

SOURCES:   U.S.  Census,  General Social and Economic Characteristics,  1970.
          U.S.  Census of Population and Housing,  Fifth Count Summary Tapes,
          1970.
                                     70

-------
                              Table 11-15
            POVERTY STATUS—PERSONS 65 YEARS AND OLDER—1970
                                     Percent of Population    Percent of Persons
                                       65 Years of Age       65 Years and Older
                                     	and Older	    Below Poverty Level
   Michigan                                  12.2                   24.1
   Emmet County                              11.1                   28.8
   Socioeconomic Study Area                  10.7                   25.4
   -  Littlefield Township Portion           11.2                   33.9
   -  Springvale Township Portion            10.1                    8.1
SOURCES:  U.S. Census of Population and Housing, Fifth Count Summary Tapes,
          1970.
          U.S. Census of Population, 1970, Supplementary Report,  Issued
          December 1975.
                                      71

-------
                                Table 11-16

                     RETIREMENT AGE POPULATION 197 O1
                               Socioeconomic     Littlefield      Springvale
              Emmet County      Study Area        Township         Township
             Number  Percent  Number  Percent  Number  Percent   Number   Percent

Total
 Population  18,331  100.00    1,752  100.00    1,136  100.00    616    100.00

55-59           815     .12       96    5.48       54    4.75     42      6.82

60-64           898    4.90      105    5.99       56    4.93     49      7.95

65-74         1,374    7.50      123    7.02       82    7.22     41      6.66

75 and Over     851    4.64      166    3.77       45    3.96     21      3.41
SOURCES:  U.S. Census of Population,  1970.

          U.S. Census of Population and Housing,  Fifth Count  Summary Tapes,
          1970.
                                      72

-------
                              Table 11-17
                EMMET COUNTY DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT
                    BY INDUSTRIAL SECTOR 1940-1970
                                                                  1940-1970
                                                                   Percent
      Industrial Sector            1940    1950    1960    1970    Change

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing     28.2    16.4     7.2     3.4      83.6
Mining                              0.1     0.1      -      0.1     133.3
Construction                        6.3     7.8     9.2     9.0      95.3
Manufacturing                      20.4    23.9    20.4    20.7      39.6
Wholesale Trade                     2.3     2.9     3.9     4.5     174.5
Retail Trade                       15.6    19.5    24.5    21.4      88.7
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate     2.1     2.0     2.4     2.5      60.6
Services                           22.2    23.7    28.7    33.0     103.9
Government                          2.9     3.7     3.7     5.4     160.9
  TOTAL                                                              37•3
SOURCE:  U.S. Department of Commerce,  Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional
         Employment  by  Industry,  1940-1970.
                                     73

-------
                             Table 11-18
                  ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TRAVEL—1975
                                                   Upper Great     Emmet
                                     Michigan     Lakes Region     County
Travel Generated Expenditures     $3,366,766,221  $856,670,668  $98,289,916
Per Capita Expenditures                      368           994        4,615
Travel Generated Personal Income     930,574,184  236,153,772   27,667,333
Percent of Total Personal Income             1.7          6.3        25.32
Travel Generated Employment              124,448       28,602        3,323
Percent of Total Employment                  3.6          9.2         33.9
SOURCE:  Michigan Department of Commerce,  Travel Bureau,  Tourist Industry
         Growth Study,  1975.
                                    74

-------
percentage  of retail  sales grew  from 48% to 64%.  (Northwest Michigan
Regional Planning and Development  Commission 1972).  This unusually high
dependence  of the  local economy  on tourist-related expenditures indi-
cates  in part why  income  levels  in  the  Study  Area and the County are
generally lower than State  and  national levels.  Most tourism and travel
employment  opportunities  are  low  wage  jobs  which  fluctuate  greatly
during  the  time  of the  year.   As  a  result,  the high proportion of tour-
ism  jobs in  comparison to manufacturing and  other  higher wage  jobs
depresses the total income  levels.

d.   Financial Characteristics

     Financial characteristics  of the  local  governments in the Crooked/
Pickerel Lakes Study Area are sketched in  Table  11-19.  This information
is  necessary  in  evaluating the  various  alternatives available  to  the
local   governments  for  financing  wastewater management  improvements.

     In Michigan,  counties,  townships,  and villages  collect  property
taxes.   All  property  owners  in the  county pay property taxes  to  the
county  as  well as to  their township or village of  residence.  Revenues
are  also generated  from Federal  revenue  sharing  and special fees  and
taxes.   From  these revenues,  expenditures  for general  government  and
capital expenditures are made.

     All  local government  units are  enabled by the State  of  Michigan
with the power to take  on  debt in the form of general obligation bonds.
Certain debt  limitations  have  been established based on  the  assessed
valuation  of  real property in  the governmental unit.  The debt limit on
county  general obligation  bonds is  set at 10% of assessed valuations.
Unchartered townships  have no  established debt limit.   Chartered town-
ships,  cities and villages have  a 10% debt limit on bonds; however,  the
following types of  bonds are excluded from this limit:

          Special assessment bonds,
          Revenue bonds,
          Motor vehicle  highway bonds,
          Court ordered  bonds,  and
          Pollution abatement bonds.

     At the end  of fiscal year 1974,  Emmet County had no outstanding
debt.   Littlefield  Township  had an  outstanding  debt  of  $110,000  in
general obligation  bonds.   The bonds  were issued in 1973 to finance the
cost of acquiring and constructing  a fire house and community building.
During  1973,  the Township  of  Littlefield also  entered  into a  contract
with the Harbor  Springs Area  Sewage Disposal Authority to construct a
sewer system  for a  portion  of the  Township.   Although control and owner-
ship of the sewage facilities  belong to the Authority, the Township has
pledged to pay a  share  (53.1%)  of  the bonds issued  by the Authority.
While  it is  expected  that the  Township's share will  be generated from
tap  fees  and  monthly  service charges, the full faith and credit of the
Township  stands behind  the bonds.   Annual payments by the Township are
approximately  $50,000.  The combined financial  capabilities  of  the two
Townships  appear  to be  more than  adequate to finance future wastewater
management  improvements.
319 B37                              75

-------
                              Table 11-19

       FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE
                   CROOKED/PICKEREL LAKES STUDY AREA
State Equalized
  Valuations

Total Revenues

Total Expenditures

  Current Expense

  Capital Outlay

Total Long Term Debt
Emmet v '
County
$202,942,911
4,310,588
4,020,529
3,926,993
93,536
-0-
Littlefieldv '
Township
$10,850,481
449,869
411,628
N/A
N/A
110,000
Springvale
Township
$6,766,800
240,397
244,834
N/A
N/A
N/A
                                                                             (3)
Notes:  (1)  State of Michigan, Department of Treasury,  Michigan County
             Government Financial Report,  for the year ended December 31, 1974.

        (2)  Hill, Woodcock and Distel, Certified Public Accounts, Audited
             Financial Statements - Littlefield Township, March 23, 1976.

        (3)  Hill, Woodcock and Distel, Certified Public Accountants,
             Audited Statements of Cash Receipts and Disbursements,
             S pr ingvale Town ship, March 22, 1977.
                                     76

-------
3.   CHARACTERISTICS OF THE  SEASONAL POPULATION

     No  published  information  on  income,  age,  employment,  or  other
socioeconomic characteristics is available for the seasonal residents of
the  Study Area.   It  can  generally  be assumed  that  the seasonal  popu-
lation has a relatively high mean  family income which allows them to own
and  maintain  a permanent as well as  a seasonal  home.  Past  trends
regarding  seasonal  residents  indicate  that the  majority are  married
couples  with families.   However,  recent indications point  toward more
singles  and married  couples  without  children purchasing second homes,
resulting  in  smaller seasonal  resident occupancy  rates  (persons  per
unit).   In addition,  while seasonal  dwelling units  are generally used
only  25% to 50% of  the  year,  they are more  intensively used  (by more
people per unit) during this period  than permanent residences.

     The higher income level of  seasonal residents typically allows them
to  be relatively  mobile  in  regard to their  choice  of  a  location  for
retirement.   As a  result, it is  difficult  to  ascertain whether  their
seasonal  residence would be their  likely place of retirement.   However,
past  trends  in the Study Area indicate that some conversion of seasonal
to permanent residences  is occurring,  at least a portion of which can be
attributed  to  the permanent use  of previously seasonal  residences  by
retirement age  people.

4.   HOUSING  CHARACTERISTICS

      To  develop an  adequate  data  base  for  the analysis  of  wastewater
management  alternatives,  the  number of existing  dwelling units within
the  Crooked/Pickerel  Service Area  was  determined from 1975 aerial photo-
graphs  and field  surveys.  The total number of dwelling units  for  the
Service  Area in 1978 was  212,  comprised of  66  (31.1%)  permanent  units
and  146  (68.9%) seasonal  units.   None of  the dwellings  has centralized
sewer service.   Most  of  the existing dwelling units can be characterized
as single-family dwellings situated on 1/4 acre to 1/2 acre lots.

      During  the planning period,  it is projected that approximately 154
dwelling  units  will be added.   Of this increase, 94 dwelling units will
be  constructed  in Springvale Township and 60 units in Littlefield Town-
ship.   By the  year 2000,  the  permanent units  in  the  Proposed Service
Area  will  increase to 54.9% of the total housing stock (see Table 11-20)
even  though the number   of seasonal dwelling  units  will also  increase.

      The  median value of  owner-occupied units and the median gross rent
for  rental units  in  the  Crooked and Pickerel Lakes  area were consider-
ably  lower than the  national and state  medians (Table 11-21).   Median
value in  the  Study  Area in  1970  was $14,557,  $3,033  below  the  state
median.

      The  lower  values and  rents  in the  Study Area are  largely attribu-
table to the  rural location of  the area,  the structural condition and
amenities  of the  individual  units, and  large  number of seasonal homes
which are  typically  of  lower  value  than permanent units  (see  Table
11-21).
319 B38                              77

-------
                              Table 11-20


                 EXISTING AND PROJECTED DWELLING UNITS
                 FOR THE CROOKED/PICKEREL SERVICE AREA
Township Comprising    	1978	   	2000	
   Service Area        Total Permanent Seasonal   Total Permanent  Seasonal
   Littlefield           76      19       57         136       72        64

   Springfield          136      47       89         230      129       101


       TOTAL            212      66      146         366      201       165
                                     78

-------
                    Table 11-21
            MEDIAN HOUSING VALUE—-1970
     United States               17,130

     Michigan                    17,590

     Emmet County                14,557
SOURCE:  U.S. Bureau of the Census, County and City
         Data Book, 1972
                           79

-------
     Age characteristcs of  the  permanent housing stock provide an indi-
cation of structural  conditions  and construction trends in the area.  A
substantial portion (21%) of  the units in Springvale Township were con-
structed after  1965,  indicating  a  recent increase  in  residential con-
struction.   On  the other hand, Littlefield Township experienced little
new construction between  1965  and 1970.   It is anticipated that Spring-
vale Township will continue to have significant residential construction
activity during the planning period while Littlefield Township will show
more  substantial  residential  development than  was  evident  during  the
last ten years.

     No  substantive  information  regarding  the characteristics  of sea-
sonal  dwelling  units  is  available.   Seasonal units by their nature as
part-time residences  are  generally  smaller in size,  lower in value,  and
lacking  many  of the  amenities  common to  permanent  units.   Nationally,
more recently constructed seasonal units  have  been found to be of higher
quality,  representing  permanent units  which are  used  on  a  seasonal
basis.   In addition,  there  has  been a continuing conversion of seasonal
units  to permanent residences  by successive  owners.   This has been  a
result  not  only of conversions  by retirement age  people, but  also of
other  second  home  owners  converting their seasonal  home  to a permanent
residence in an effort to move away from larger urban areas.

5.   LAND  USE

a.   Existing  Land  Use

     The predominant  land uses  within the Study Area  include agricul-
ture,  open space  and State  forest land.  No towns or  villages  exist
within  the  Proposed  Service  Area.    Concentrations  of residential  de-
velopment have  occurred adjacent to Crooked/Pickerel Lakes (see Figure
11-12).  Development  is  also  scattered along  major highways and section
line roads.   Most  homes existing along Crooked/ Pickerel Lakes  are  for
seasonal  use.  No major commercial  activities  are located  directly
within the Service Area.

     The project  regions role,  as  one of the major year round resort/
recreation  areas  in  Michigan has  strongly  influenced  the  pattern of
urban  development.   Resources  influencing  development  patterns  and
attracting  tourists   include  fresh water  lakes  and  streams,  excellent
snow-ski resorts,  and hundreds of acres of uninhabited State forests  for
hunting, nature appreciation and snowmobiling.

     The  area is  served by  a  number of transportation  systems, none
designed for  a  large  volume of traffic.   US-131  (a two-lane highway) is
the only major highway which directly connects the Study Area to a large
metropolitan  area.   The  nearest  scheduled   airline  terminal  is  at
Pellston, four miles northeast of the Study Area.  Two railroad systems,
the Penn Central and the Chesapeake & Ohio, serve the area.  In the past
(75 to  100 years  ago),  these railroads transported people to this area.
Presently, they are being used primarily for freight.
319 B39                             80

-------
Source:  Gold and Gannon, 1978;
USGS 1957, 1958
       FIGURE 11-12  EXISTING LAND USE OF THE CROOKED/PICKEREL  STUDY AREA
                                          LEGEND

                                    SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
                                   [MICHIGAN STATE FOREST
                              .   • jWETLAND/VEGETATED AREAS

                                    AGRICULTURAL
                                    81

-------
b.   Future Land Use

     Emmet  Couaty's  Future  Land Use  Plan  designates  Crooked/Pickerel
Lakes' shoreline  acreage  for recreation homes (existing and potential),
water  frontage  with  scenic  and  recreation resource  potential  (the
Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes Channel), and  broad scale  resource  management.
Noting development constraints  imposed by poorly drained soils through-
out  the  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes  area  (particularly along  the shoreline
where  development pressures are  greatest)  the  County  land use  plan
recognizes  the  serious water pollution hazards generated  by overinten-
sive or inappropriate land development patterns.   The following planning
deficiencies were  identifed  by  the  Emmet County Department of Planning:

     •    Carrying capacity of soils and land resources;

     •    Substandard and outmoded development standards;

     *    Inadequate traffic routes to serve local and regional traffic;

     *    Disregard for land use relationships (mixed uses); and

     •    Failure  to  implement  central utility services prior to inten-
          sive use of land.

     Littlefield  Township's  General  Development  Plan  designates  land
adjacent  to the  north shore of Pickerel Lake as  lakeside-resort resi-
dential.  Demand for lakeside property is expected to generate continued
development pressure  for  relatively higher-density residential develop-
ment in this area.  Proposed Township development controls are likely to
be  limited to  those provided  in  the Preliminary  Littlefield Township
Zoning Ordinance.

     Littlefield and Springvale Townships have attempted to obtain fund-
ing under the Kammer Recreational Land Trust Fund Act (Michigan Act 204,
1976)  to  purchase land adjacent to the  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes Channel.
The  Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes Channel constitutes a  connecting  link in an
inland waterway  which extends from Crooked Lake to Lake Huron.  The ob-
jective  of public  land  acquisition  is  "to preserve the  waterway and
adjoining  lands  for  recreation,  wildlife,  environment  and community
character  reasons."   Public acquisition  of channel  acreage has  been
supported by the Emmet County Office of Planning and Zoning.  Efforts to
obtain State funding have been unsuccessful thus far.

     Consistent  with  local  efforts  to protect  acreage  adjoining the
Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes  Channel,  Springvale  Township recently enacted an
amendment to the Township zoning ordinance designed to limit development
along the south shore of the channel.  The establishment of this special
district  imposes  more  rigorous  development restrictions.  The amendment
expressly prohibits mobile homes,  except for temporary occupancy during
construction dislocation (a permit is required for occupancy under these
conditions).  Single-family  dwellings are  restricted to  a  minimum lot
size of 40,000  square feet.   As a result, prospective residential deve-
lopment along  the channel  cannot exceed a  maximum density of approxi-
mately one dwelling unit per acre.


319 B40                             82

-------
c.   Growth Management

r   J'Tr udevel°pment  in  acreage adjacent  to  the  southern  shore  of
Crooked Lake and around Pickerel Lake is subject  to restrictions imposed
by  state,  county,  and local  ordinances.   The following regulatory mea-
sures directly concern the  lakeshore jurisdictions:

     •    Michigan  State  Act 346  (1972):  The  Inland  Lakes  and Streams
          Act;

     •    Michigan  State  Act 347  (1972):  The Soil Erosion and Sedimen-
          tation Control  Act;

     •    Emmet County Zoning Ordinance  (1972); and

     •    Springvale Township Zoning Ordinance.
     The Inland  Lakes  and  Streams Act requires issuance of a permit for
development  activity  in submerged lands (areas lying below the ordinary
high water  mark).   Any dredge  and fill  operations are therefore subject
to  a  public  review process.  Administrative action to  issue  or  deny a
permit  which meets general guidelines  provided  in the  Act  must  expli-
citly  consider  site-specific environmental  constraints  in  reaching  a
final decision.

     The Soil Erosion and Sedimentation  Control Act governs construction
activity  occurring within  500  feet of  the  shore of  a  lake,  river,  or
stream.  The Act established  a permitting process administered by desig-
nated county agencies,  in  this case the Emmet County Community Develop-
ment Department.   It limits  tree  cutting,  removal  of  vegetative  cover,
and  cut and  fill  operations.  Mitigating measures  must be  adopted  to
control runoff from construction sites.

     The Emmet County Zoning  Ordinance regulates  land development within
Littlefield Township, which has not yet  adopted its own ordinance.  Land
adjacent to  the  north shore  of  Pickerel Lake is  zoned RR-1 (Recreation
Residential)  which includes the following permitted uses:  (1) cottages
and  recreation homes;  (2)  single-family  detached  dwellings  (including
mobile  homes);  (3) public parks, playgrounds,  recreation  lands,  and
forests;  (4) historical  restoration  and  renovation projects; and (5)
farms  and  farmlands.   Additional  uses  subject  to  Planning  Commission
approval  include:   (1) utility  and public  service  facilities;  (2) boat
launching  pads  and minor  accessory facilities;  (3)  golf  courses and
country  clubs;  and  (4)  public,  private,  or  semi-private  schools  or
educational programs (see Figure 11-13).

     Dwellings constructed  within  a recreation residential district must
comply with the following restrictions:

     •    Minimum Lot Size  =  22,000 square feet;
     •    Minimum Lot Width = 100';
     •    Maximum Structure Height =30';  and
     •    Maximum Lot Coverage  (All Structures) = 30%.
319 B41                             83

-------
Source: Emmet County Depart-
        ment of Planning and
        Zoning 1972
      FIGURE  11-13  EXISTING ZONING OF THE CROOKED /PICKEREL STUDY AREA


                                       LEGEND

                                  SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

                                  LOCAL-TOURIST BUSINESS

                                  RECREATION RESIDENTIAL
                                   84

-------
Since the minimum lot size permissible  in this  district is approximately
1/2  acre,  a  maximum  residential  density of  2 dwellings  per  acre is
possible.

     Littlefield  Township  is  considering adoption  of  its  own zoning
ordinance, which would  supersede the  Emmet  County Zoning Ordinance if
adopted.   The Preliminary  Littlefield Township Zoning Ordinance desig-
nates  acreage  adjacent to  the  north shore  of Pickerel Lake  as SR-2
(Scenic Resource District).   The purpose  of the scenic resource  district
is  to preserve  natural resources  considered  vital to the  tourism and
recreation sectors  of the  local-regional  economy.

     Permitted  uses  and  conditional  uses subject to approval by the
Township  Planning Commission  are essentially  the same as those  identi-
fied in  the  Emmet  County Zoning  Ordinance  for recreation  residential
districts, although mobile homes  appear  to be  excluded.  More stringent
density  restrictions are  proposed for the scenic resource district.  A
minimum  lot size of 30,000 square feet and minimum  lot width  of  150 feet
would  be required for  residential development  along the  north  shore of
Pickerel Lake.

      The  Preliminary  Littlefield Township Zoning  Ordinance provides  a
subdivision   development  option  allowing  increased  densities for clus-
tered residential  development when integrated  with approved plans for
open space reservation,  natural  resource  conservation, and  recreation.
Both year-round and seasonal  subdivisions are  eligible for planned unit
status under the terms  of this provision.  With an approved open space
subdivision  plan, minimum lot sizes in scenic  resource districts would
be  reduced to  20,000  square  feet without sewer or water utilities (in
which case Health  Department approval is  required); 12,000  square feet
with sewer services;  and  9,600 square feet with  both water and sewer
services.

      Land development  along the south shores  of Crooked/Pickerel Lakes
is  regulated by  the Springvale Township  Zoning Ordinance.   Land within
1,000  feet   of  the  lakeshore  is  designated  District  C   (Lakeshore
District).  The following uses are permitted  in this district:

      •    Single-family dwellings and cottages;

      •    Gardening and  farming  (excluding the raising  of  livestock);

      •    Offices or studios for professional  or service people  residing
           on premises;

      •    Any other structure or use clearly accessory and incidental  to
           a permitted use; and

      •    Parks (subject to discretion of the  Township Board).

      No explicit density restrictions accompany provisions for the Lake-
shore District.  Satisfaction of minimum  lot width (65 feet) and setback
provisions would permit  residential densities  in excess  of 10 dwellings
per acre.


319 B42                             85

-------
d.   Recreation

     The  vacation home  is  an important  economic factor  in  tourism-
recreation.  Because  Emmet  County has  vast areas of  land oriented  to
water resources,  the  vacation  home  is and will continue  to  represent  an
important  factor  in  tourism-recreation.   Because Emmet County  has  vast
areas of land oriented to water resources,  the  vacation home is  and  will
continue to  represent an increasingly important element  of  local  recre-
ation  both  for  working  and  retirement  families.   Other  recreational
activities  such  as  boating,  fishing,  and camping are  related to the
lakes and natural features of the  area.

     Public access to Crooked/Pickerel Lakes is relatively  limited  (see
Table 11-22).  Although there is a total of 21.4 miles  of lake shoreline
in the Study Area, less than 2% is available for public access.

6.   HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL  RESOURCES

     The location of the historic  sites and potentially important  archa-
eological  sites   identified  in the  Springvale-Bear  Creek Area Segment
were  compared  to the  location  of proposed facilities  in the EIS Study
Area.

     There are no historic  sites  within the EIS area  or  in other loca-
tions  which might be affected  by  facilities  proposed   by any of the
alternatives.

     One  potentially important archaeological site is  located in the
Study  Area near  facilities proposed  for the  north  shore of  Pickerel
Lake.  The Section described as potentially important is  shown in  Figure
11-14.  All other potentially important archaeological  sites are outside
the  Study  Area  at locations not affected by proposed collection,  treat-
ment, and disposal of wastewaters  in the EIS Study Area.

     According  to  the  Michigan  State  Historic  Preservation  Officer
(SHPO),  a  potentially important site must be  investigated  for  archaeo-
logical  artifacts prior to  construction of any facilities.  Since the
SHPO  reviewed  only  the proposed  facilities  in  the Facility  Plan for
archaeological importance,  any facilities related to  additional  alter-
natives  developed,  such as  a  land  application  site  or   a  cluster  soil
absorption site would also need to be reviewed.
319 B43                             86

-------
                              Table 11-22

            PUBLIC ACCESS TO LAKES WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA
Municipality

Littlefield
 Township

Springvale
 Township

Springvale
 Township

Littlefield
 Township

Littlefield
 Township
  Lake         Facility-Description


Crooked        Swimming beach,  no
Lake           boating

Crooked        Swimming beach,  small
Lake           boats only

Crooked        Public fishing site,
Lake           boat launching

Pickerel       Public fishing site
Lake

Pickerel       Boat launch—unofficial
Lake           located at end of road
Approximate
Shoreline
Frontage


  300 ft.


  900 ft.


  250 ft.


   66 ft.


Very small
SOURCE:  By telephone, M. Putters, Emmet County Zoning Administration,
         March  14, 1978.
                                     87

-------
Source: Michigan State Historic
        Preservation Officer 1978
                                  HARDWOOD

                               :  STATE   FOREST
            FIGURE 11-14   POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE MAP OF THE
                              CROOKED/PICKEREL STUDY AREA
                                          LEGEND

                                   POTENTIALLY IMPORTANT
                                     ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
                                   88

-------
                              CHAPTER III

                     DEVELOPMENT OF  ALTERNATIVES


A.   INTRODUCTION

1.   GENERAL  APPROACH

     This chapter presents alternative systems for wastewater collection
and  treatment  in  the Proposed  Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes Service  Area.
Chapter  IV,   describes  and  compares  the  alternatives  in  terms   of
cost-effectiveness,  with  the  Proposed Action in the Little Traverse  Bay
Area  Facility  Plan Springvale-Bear  Creek Area  Segment (Williams  and
Works,  et.  al.  1976).   Chapter  V  assesses  the  environmental  and
socioeconomic  impacts  of all these systems.

     EIS  alternative  development  has  focused  on those  aspects  and
implications of the  proposed wastewater management plan for the Proposed
Service Area which  (a) have been  identified as major issues  or concerns,
or  (b)  were not  adequately addressed  in the Facility  Plan.   The high
cost  of the Facility  Plan Proposed Action and the  potential  impact  on
area  residents make  the  cost-effectiveness  of  proposed  facilities a
major concern. Since  the collection system accounts for more  than  80%
of  the  Proposed  Action,  the extent of  servicing  necessary,  along with
alternative  wastewater  treatment  systems   and  the  use   of   newer
technologies for  wastewater collection are investigated in detail.   New
alternatives  were  produced  by  matching  available technologies, both
conventional and  alternative or innovative, to the site conditions, such
as  soil characteristics and housing density in the Proposed EIS Service
Area.

     Chapter I of this EIS emphasized the importance of proving overall
need for the project proposed in  the Facility Plan.  Documenting a clear
need  for  new wastewater  facilities  may,  sometimes, be  difficult,
requiring evidence that the existing on-lot systems are directly related
to  water quality and public  health problems. Such  a  need is clearly
shown when one or more of the following conditions exist:

     •    Standing pools  of septic tank effluent or raw domestic  sewage
          in yards  or public areas where  direct  contact with residents
          is likely.

     •    Sewage  in  basements  from  inoperable  or  sluggish  sewage
          disposal systems.

     •    Contaminated  private  wells  clearly associated  with  sewage
          disposal systems.

     The Proposed Service Area  exhibits some indirect  evidence  of  the
unsuitability  of site  conditions  for on-site soil disposal  systems.   The
evidence includes high groundwater,  slowly permeable  soils,  small  lot
sizes, proximity to  lakeshores and substandard setback distances between


326 Al                              89

-------
wells and private wastewater facilities.  Available information on these
factors  was,  in  fact, used  early  in the preparation  of this  EIS to
develop decentralized alternatives.

     Indirect  evidence  is  insufficient  to  justify  Federal  funding,
especially  for  sewered collection.   Decentralized approaches,  such as
repair  and  upgrading  of  on-site  systems,  also  require the  evidence
described  above  or  documentation of  other  substantial  impacts  on the
swimmability  or   fishability   of  lakes  or  streams.   Federal  water
pollution  control  legislation and  regulations  require documentation of
actual water quality or public health problems.   Section II.C summarizes
the  extensive efforts  mounted during the preparation  of this  EIS to
document   and  quantify  the   need  for  improved   facilities  around
Crooked/Pickerel Lakes.

     The dollar cost of the Facility Plan Proposed Action and its impact
on  area  residents  make cost-effectiveness as serious  an  issue  as needs
documentation.  Since the collection system accounts for the major share
of  the  construction  costs in the  Facility  Plan Proposed Action,  the
extent  of  sewer  lines needed and  the use  of newer technologies  for
wastewater  collection  have been  investigated  in  detail here,  as  have
alternative wastewater treatment systems.  The technologies assessed are
listed below:
             WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMPONENTS AND OPTIONS
Functional Component

Flow and Waste Load
Reduction
Collection of Wastewaters
Wastewater Treatment
Processes
    Options
Effluent Disposal
Sludge Handling
         household water conserva-
         tion measures
         ban on phosphorus

         limited service area
         pressure sewers
         vacuum sewers
         gravity sewers

         Conventional centralized
         treatment plus chemical
         phosphorus concentrations
         land application
         on-site treatment
         cluster systems

         subsurface disposal
         land application
         discharge to surface
         waters

         anaerobic digestion
         dewatering
326 A2
90

-------
Sludge Disposal                         .    land applicati(m
                                             landfilling
                                             composting

     Next,   appropriate  options   were   selected  and   combined   into
alternative  systems  described  in Chapter IV.  The last section of  this
chapter  considers implementation,  administration and financing of the
alternatives.

2.   COMPARABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES:   DESIGN POPULATION

     The  various  alternatives for  wastewater management  in  the Service
Area  must provide equivalent  or comparable levels of  service if their
designs and  costs are to be properly compared.   The design population of
1,263 is that population projected by this EIS to reside in the Proposed
Service Area (see Figure 1-2) in the year 2000.   The  methodology used to
develop  this estimate  is  presented  in Appendix D.   In the following
comparison of alternatives a design population of 1,263 was assumed  (see
Section  II.D.l.c and  Appendix  D).   In  the Facility  Plan  the design
population was  assumed to  be 2,080;  this figure may exceed the actual
carrying  capacity  of  the  area.   Although  the  EIS  alternatives   were
designed  using  the  lower population, the Facility Plan Proposed Action
was designed using both the original and revised figures.

     In the  interests  of comparability,  the same population  projections
have  been incorporated  into design and costing of all alternatives.  In
fact, however,  the  type of sewer service provided, that  is, whether it
is  centralized  or decentralized, may influence  the  actual  design  year
population.   Chapter V discusses  the  importance of  this  factor,  and
presents  likely population and  land  use figures  for  each alternative.

3.   COMPARABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES:   FLOW AND  WASTE
     LOAD PROJECTIONS

     Design  flows  for   centralized treatment  facilities and  for  the
cluster systems are based on a design domestic sewage  flow of 60 gallons
per  capita  per day  (gpcd)  in residential areas  for both permanent and
seasonal  residents.   Infiltration and inflow (I/I) into  gravity sewers
was  added to  the calculated  sewage  flow in appropriate  alternatives.

     The  design  flow used in the Facility Plan  for the  Proposed Action
ranged  from  100  gpcd  for permanent residents,  to 60 gpcd for seasonal
users,  including I/I.   To  compare costs properly in  this  EIS,  flows
developed for the EIS alternatives  were used to  re-calculate flows for
the Proposed Action.

     The  domestic  sewage  generation  rate  depends  upon  the  mix of
residential, commercial, and institutional sources in  the  area.  Studies
on  residential  water usage  (Siegrist,  Witt, and Boyle 1976; Bailey et
al   1969;  Cohen  and  Wallman 1974) reported individual household water
consumptions varying widely between 20 and  100  gpcd    However  average
values  reported  in  those  studies generally ranged between  40-56 gpcd.
For  communities   with populations of less  than 5,000, EPA  regulations
allow design flows   in  the  range of  60  to  70  gpcd  where existing per
capita flow data  is not available.

326 A3                               91

-------
     Water  consumption  by   seasonal   users   varies  much  more  than
consumption by permanent residents.  The actual  consumption rates depend
upon  such factors as  type  of accommodations  in  the area and  type of
recreation  areas  available.   EPA  regulations  (EPA  1978)  suggest that
seasonal population can be converted to equivalent permanent population
by using the following multipliers:

          Day-use visitor     0.1 to 0.2

          Seasonal visitor     0.5 to 0.8

     A  multiplier  of   1.0   was   applied   to  the   projected  seasonal
population  to   account  for  both  day-use   and   seasonal  visitors.
Considering   the  possible   error   in  projecting   future  seasonal
populations,  the  preponderance  of  present   seasonal  visitors  using
well-equipped  private  dwellings   and   the  lack  of data  on  day-use
visitors,  this  multiplier  was thought  conservative,  i.e.,  it probably
overestimates flows to some  degree.

     The  design  flow figure  of 60 gpcd does  not reflect reductions in
flow   from  a  program  of   water  conservation.   Residential  water
conservation devices, discussed in Section  B.I.a, could reduce flows by
16 gpcd.
B.   COMPONENTS AND  OPTIONS

1.   FLOW AND  WASTE  REDUCTION

a.   Residential Flow Reduction Devices

     A variety of devices which reduce water consumption  and  sewage  flow
are  available.   A  list of some of the devices is presented  in Appendix
E-l  with  data  on their water saving potential  and costs.   Most of these
devices will require no change in the user's hygienic  habits and are  as
maintenance-free as standard fixtures.  Others, such as compost toilets,
may  require  changes in hygiene practices and/or increased maintenance.
The  use  of any  of  these  devices  may be justified under certain condi-
tions , as  when  no  other device can provide  adequate sanitation or  when
excessive  flows  cause  malfunctions  of  conventional  on-site  septic
systems.   In most  cases,  however,  the justifications for flow reduction
devices are economic (see Appendix E-2).

     Table  III-l lists  proven flow  reduction devices and  homeowner's
savings  resulting  from  their  use.   Data  on the  devices  listed  in
Appendix  E-l  and local  cost assumptions listed beneath the  table  were
used  to  develop  these  estimates.    The  homeowner's  savings  include
savings  for  water  supply,  water heating  and  wastewater  treatment.   A
combination of  shower  flow  control  insert device, dual cycle toilet and
lavatory  faucet  flow  control  device  could  save approximately $333 per
year (see Appendix E-3).

     If all residences in the Proposed EIS Service  Area  were to  install
these  flow reduction  devices,  they  could not all  save the $7-03/1000
326 A4                              92

-------
                                  Table  III-l

                 ESTIMATED SAVINGS WITH  FLOW REDUCTION DEVICES
Shower flow control insert device
Dual cycle toilet3
Toilet damming device
Shallow trap toileta
Dual flush adapter for toilets
Spray tap faucet
Improved ballcock assembly for toilets
Faucet flow control device
Faucet aerator
First Year
Savings
(or Cost)
$ 71.38
$118.74
$ 66.12
$ 64.37
$ 53.81
$(50.53)
$ 43.35
$ 14.00
$ 4.58
Annual Savings
After First
Year
$ 73.38
$138.74
$ 69.37
$ 69.37
$ 57.81
$ 24.80
$ 46.25
$ 17.00
$ 7.08
 First year expenditure assumed  to be difference in capital cost between
 flow-saving toilet and a  standard toilet costing $75.
Assumptions
Household:
Water Cost:
                 Four  persons  occupying dwelling  328 days per year.  One
                 bathroom in dwelling.

                 Private well  water supply.   Cost of water = $0.02/1000 gallons
                 for electricity to pump against  a 100-foot hydraulic head.

Water Heating    Electric water  heater.   Water  temperature increase = 100°F.
Cost:            Electricity costs  $0.03/kilowatt-hour.  Cost of water
                 heating = $7.50/100 gallons.

Wastewater       Assumed that  water supply  is metered and sewage bill is based
Cost:            on water supply at a constant  rate of  $7.03/1000 gallons.
                 Rate  is based on 1978  Study  Area sewage flow of 005 mgd and
                 local costs of  $129,000 in 1978  for Alternative 4 as estimated
                 in this EIS.
                                      93

-------
gallons in  wastewater  treatment costs (see assumption  in Table III-l)-
This is due to the fact that a substatial portion of this charge goes to
pay off capital,  operation  and maintenance costs which will remain con-
stant  even  if  flow is  reduced.  For  all to  benefit fully  from flow
reduction then wastewater collection,  treatment and disposal facilities
would  have  to be  designed  with flow capacities that  reflect  the lower
sewage flows.  Use  of  the  three types of  devices  cited above would re-
duce per capita sewage flows by approximately 16 gpcd.   To calculate the
cost-effectiveness  of  community-wide flow reduction,  EIS Alternative 4
(see  Section  IV.B.2)  was redesigned and  recosted  using a  design flow
based on 44 gpcd instead of 60 gpcd.

     The  estimated savings  in  project  capital cost  (1980)   would  be
$80,800  and  the  operation  and  maintenance cost  savings would  be  ap-
proximately  $4,800  per  year.   To achieve this savings, approximately
$20,400 worth of flow reduction devices would be necessary (see Appendix
E-4).   The  total  present   worth*  of  savings  over  the  20-year  design
period  would  be  $120,400  or  3% of  the total present  worth  of  EIS
Alternative 4.

     These  economic analyses  of homeowner's  saving and  total present
worth  reduction  assumed  sewering  of  all  dwellings.   However,  for
dwellings which continue to use on-site systems the economic benefits of
flow  reduction devices cannot  be  readily estimated.   State regulatory
agencies  generally  do  not   allow   a  reduction   in   the   design  of
conventional  on-site systems  based upon proposals  to use flow reduction
devices.  However, it is likely that  reduced flows  will prolong the life
of soil absorption systems,  saving money in the long run.

     Some   decentralized  technologies   may   require  substantial  flow
reductions  regardless  of costs.   Holding tanks, soil absorption systems
which  cannot  be  enlarged,  evaporation or evapotranspiration systems and
sand mounds  are  examples  of technologies which  would  operate  with less
risk  of  malfunction if  sewage flows could  be  reduced  to the minimum.
Sewage  flows  on  the  order  of 15  to  30  gpcd   can be  achieved  by
installation of combinations of the following devices:

     •    Reduce  lavatory  water usage by  installing spray tap faucets.

     •    Replace  standard  toilets with dual cycle  or  other low volume
          toilets.

     •    Reduce  shower water  use  by  installing  thermostatic  mixing
          valves  and  flow  control shower heads.  Use  of showers rather
          than baths should be encouraged whenever possible.

     •    Replace  older clothes  washing  machines  with  those equipped
          with  water-level  controls  or  with   front-loading  machines.

     •    Eliminate water-carried toilet wastes by use of in-house com-
          posting toilets.

     •    Recycle  bath  and  laundry wastewaters  for  toilet   flushing.
          Filtering and disinfection of bath and laundry  wastes for this
          purpose has been  shown to be feasible  and  aesthetically

326 A5                              94

-------
          acceptable   in  pilot   studies  (Cohen  and   Wallman  1974;
          Mclaughlin   1968).    This   is   an  alternative  to  in-house
          composting  toilets  that  could  achieve  the   same  level  of
          wastewater flow reduction.

     •    Recycle  bath and laundry  wastewaters for  lawn sprinkling in
          summer.   The  feasibility  of  this  method would  have to  be
          evaluated  on  a  trial  basis in  the  Study Area  because  its
          general  applicability is not  certain.

     •    Commercially  available  pressurized  toilets and  air-assisted
          shower heads using a common air compressor  of small horsepower
          would  reduce sewage volume  from these  two largest household
          sources  up to 90%.

b.   Michigan Ban  on Phosphorus

     Phosphorus  is frequently the nutrient  controlling  algae  growth in
surface  waters  and  is  thus  an  important  influence  on  lake  or stream
eutrophication.  Enrichment  of the waters with  nutrients encourages the
growth  of algae and  other microscopic plant  life;  decay of the plants
increases biochemical  oxygen  demand, decreasing dissolved oxygen in the
water.   Addition  of  nutrients encourages  higher  forms   of  plant  life,
thereby  hastening  the  aging process by which  a lake evolves into a bog
or  marsh.   Normally,  eutrophication  is  a  natural  process  proceeding
slowly  over  thousands  of years.  Human activity however,  can  greatly
accelerate  it.  Phosphorus and other  nutrients, contributed to  surface
waters  by  human  wastes,  laundry detergents  and  agricultural  runoff,
often  result  in over-fertilization,  over-productivity of plant  matter,
and "choking"  of a body of water  within a few years.  Appendixes  B-3 and
B-4  discuss  the   process  and data  pertinent  for the  Crooked/Pickerel
Lakes Study Area.

     In  1971 the  Michigan legislature  limited the amount of phosphorus
in laundry and cleaning supplies  sold  in  Michigan  to  8.7% (MI Public Act
226,  Cleaning Agent  Act).   To  reduce  phosphorus  concentrations  in
wastewater   further,   the   Michigan  Department   of  Natural  Resources
subsequently  banned  statewide the use  and  sale of all  domestic  laundry
detergents containing more than 0.5% phosphorus.   By  May  1978, according
to monitoring data,  influent phosphorus  concentrations at 20 wastewater
treatment plants   had  decreased  from an  average of  6.5  mg/1 before the
ban to  4.3  mg/1 afterward (by telephone, Mr.  Mike Stiffler, DNR,  Water
Quality  Division,  August 1,  1978).  Preliminary analysis indicated that
these figures  corresponded to a 35%  reduction  in phosphorus entering the
plants.  Figure III-l illustrates  these data.

     Treatment plants  and  on-site disposal facilities in the Study Area
could  experience  a  similar  reduction  in  phosphorus  concentration.
However,  such characteristics of the  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes area as the
number  of residential laundry  facilities may  differ from those in the
communities   where  data  were   collected.    Clearly,   the  extent  of
phosphorus reduction could only be determined  by  a more indepth survey
of the characteristics of the Study Area.
326 A6                              95

-------
  17




  16




  15




  14




  13



  12
                LEGEND


          O—O ADRIAN

          •--• EAST LANSING


          A—A GRAND  RAPIDS

          D—D MENOMINEE

          A- -A GRAND  HAVEN

          ®—© PONTIAC

                AVERAGE
I10

en

i 9
O

a.
£ 8
£
O
   •5




   4




   3




   2




   I




   0
        o
        o
O
u
O
m
LU
u.
CH   ffi

-------
2.   COLLECTION

     The collection system proposed in the Facility Plan is estimated to
cost $8.4 million -- 84% of the total cost of the Proposed Action - and
is the  single most expensive portion of the sewerage facilities.  Since
not  all  parts of collection systems are  eligible  for Federal and State
funding, the  costs  of the collection system  impact  the local community
more  than  other  components  of  the  project.    There is,  therefore,
considerable  incentive  at  local, state  and  national  levels  to choose
less expensive alternatives to conventional sewer systems.

     Alternative means of wastewater collection are:

     •    pressure  sewers  (including  grinder pumps  or  STEP systems);

     •    vacuum sewers; and

     •    small diameter gravity  sewers  (Troyan and Norris 1974).

     An  alternative  collection system may economically sewer areas with
site conditions that  increase the  cost of conventional  sewerage, such as
shallow  depth  to  bedrock,  high  groundwater  table,  or  hilly terrain.
Housing  density  also affects  the relative  costs of  conventional and
alternative wastewater collection  techniques.

     The alternative  most  extensively  studied  is   collection  by  a
pressure sewer system.   The principles behind the pressure system and a
water  distribution system are opposite to each other.  The water system
consists of  a  single  point  of  pressurization  and a number  of  user
outlets.  Conversely, the pressure sewer  system has several inlet points
of   pressurization   and  a  single outlet.   Pressurized  wastewater  is
generally  discharged to  the  treatment  facility  or  to  a gravity sewer.

     The two  major types of pressure sewer systems are the grinder pump
 (GP) system  and  the septic tank effluent pumping  (STEP)  system.   The
differences  between the  two  systems are  in the  on-site  equipment and
layout.   The GP  system employs  individual  grinder  pumps to convey raw
wastewater  to the sewer.  In  the STEP  system septic tank effluent from
individual households is pumped  to the pressure main.

     The advantages  of pressure  sewer systems  are:

     •    elimination of infiltration/inflow;
     •    reduction  of  construction cost;  and
     •    use in varied  site and climatic conditions.

The  disadvantages  include  relatively  high  operation and  maintenance
cost,  and the  requirement for  individual  home STEP systems or  grinder
pumps.

     Vacuum  sewers provide  similar advantages.  Their major components
are  vacuum mains,  collection tanks and vacuum pumps,  and individual home
valve  connection systems.  A  recent  review of vacuum  sewer  technology,
326 A7                               97

-------
however, noted significant differences among  design  of  four major  types
of current systems (Cooper and Rezek 1975).

     As  a  third  alternative  to   conventional  gravity  sewers,   small
diameter (4-inch) pipe  can be used if septic  tank effluent, rather than
raw  waste,   is   collected.   Such  pipe may  result  in  lower  costs  of
materials, but  the  systems retain  some  of the disadvantages of larger
sewers.  The need for  deep  excavations and pump  stations  is unaffected.

     The reliability,  site  requirements,  and  costs  of  the alternative
sewer  systems  considered for  the  Crooked/Pickerel Lake area have  been
analyzed in  this  document.  As a result  of that  analysis  the STEP-type
low-pressure sewer system was  determined  to be the most advantageous  of
the  three  alternatives.  A  preliminary  STEP  system serving residents
around  Crooked/Pickerel  Lake  was,  therefore,  designed  in order  to
compare  the differences  in  project  costs   if  the  STEP  system   were
substituted  for  the  gravity  system  specified  by  the  Facility  Plan.
Assumptions  regarding  the design  and cost  of the  low pressure  sewer
system  are  listed  in  Appendix  F-l.   Figure  III-2  illustrates the
arrangement  of  the  STEP  system house pump and  sewer line connection.

3.   WASTEWATER TREATMENT

     Wastewater   treatment    options   comprise   three   categories:
centralized treatment prior to discharge  into  surface water; centralized
treatment prior to land application; and  decentralized treatment.

     Centralized  treatment involves  the  treatment at a  central site  of
wastewater  collected  by a single  system and  transported  to  a central
location.  Centralized  treatment systems  may  serve all  or a part of the
service  area.   Centrally treated effluent may be  discharged to surface
waters or applied to the land; the  method and  site of application affect
the treatment process requirements.

     "Decentralized  treatment"  defines  those   systems   processing   a
relatively  small amount of wastewater.  Decentralized treatment can  be
provided on-site or off-site.   Typically, effluent  disposal occurs  in
close  proximity  to  the  source of sewage  eliminating  the need for costly
transmission of sewage to distant disposal sites.

     A major purpose of this  EIS is to assess  the technical feasibility,
relative costs, environmental impacts, and implementation  problems  asso-
ciated  with  these three  aproaches  to wastewater  treatment in the pro-
posed Crooked/Pickerel Lakes  EIS Service  Area.

a.   Centralized Treatment  —Discharge to  Surface  Water

     The Facility Plan evaluated  four treatment  options  prior to dis-
posal  of wastewaters by  discharge to a  stream.   Sites  considered for
treatment  plant  were  located  along Tannery Creek,  or  near Little
Traverse  Bay  south of Petoskey  State   Park.   However,  discharge  to
Tannery  Creek  was  ruled  out,  by  the  potential  adverse  effect  of
chlorinated  effluent  on migration   and  spawning of anadromous  fish.
326 A8                              98

-------
SEWAGE  PIPING

EXISTING  SEPTIC TANK
                                             CONTROL PANEL
                                               ALARM LIGHT
LEVEL SENSOR
ON OFF LEVEL
                                                                 ,-PRESSURE SEWER/
                                                               —/	.       I COMMON
                                                                               TRENCH
                                                      TANK UNIT
             TYPICAL  PUMP  INSTALLATION FOR PRESSURE  SEWER
                                Figure  111-2
                                        99

-------
     Based on  effluent limitations for  discharge into  Little  Traverse
Bay, a minimum  of  secondary treatment (plus a long,  submerged  outfall)
would be required.   The four types of  processes considered for treatment
were:   activated  sludge;  rotating  biological  contactor  (RBC);  aerated
lagoons; and chemical  precipitation,  filtration,  and carbon adsorption.
Because of  the requirements  for  large  (and costly) areas  of  land,  and
the potential for nuisances to nearby  residences,  the aerated lagoon was
not evaluated further in the Facility  Plan.   Similarly physical-chemical
treatment plus  carbon  adsorption  was  ruled  out due to the high costs of
regenerating the carbon.

     The  two  biological  treatment  processes  were  estimated  to  have
similar capital costs and levels of treatment.   The Facility Plan judged
the RBC system  to  be more stable and lower  in operating cost,  and thus
was chosen over activated sludge.

     In the  RBC system,  settleable  solids  would be  removed  and  waste-
water would  flow through  a series of tanks  containing  rotating plastic
discs that support  the treatment  microorganisms.   Excess sludge removed
in  the  secondary   settling  tank,  would be  recycled  to  the  primary
settling  tank.   Combined  primary  and  secondary sludges would be  pumped
to anaerobic digesters, stabilized, dewatered on sand beds,  and used for
landfill.  Phosphorus would be precipitated  with ferric chloride or alum
and  disposed of as  sludge.   The  effluent would pass through a holding
pond  and  be  chlorinated  prior  to  discharge.   The  system  would  be
expected  to  achieve  90   -   95%  removal  of  BOD and  80%  removal  of
phosphorus.

b.   Centralized Treatment •— Land  Application

     Land treatment  of municipal  wastewater uses  vegetation and soil to
remove  many  constitutents  of  wastewater.   Several   processes  are
available  that  can achieve  many  different  objectives  of  treatment:
water   reuse,   nutrient  recycling  and   crop  production.    The  three
principal types of land application systems  are:

     •    Slow rate  (irrigation);
     •    Rapid infiltration (infiltration-percolation);  and
     *    Overland flow.  (EPA 1977).

     The  irrigation technique   is illustrated  in  Figure  III-3.   The
quality of  effluent required  for land  application in terms of BOD and
suspended  solids   is   not   so  high   as  that  for  stream  discharge.
Preliminary  wastewater treatment  is  needed  to prevent  health  hazards,
maintain  high  treatment efficiency by  the   soil,  reduce  soil  clogging,
and insure reliable operation of the distribution system.  Generally the
equivalent of  secondary treatment prior to  land  applicaton is  required
(Great  Lakes Upper  Mississippi River  Board  of State Sanitary Engineers
1978).

     A recent memorandum  from EPA (PRM 79-3) may alter the requirements
for pretreatment prior to land application.   To encourage land treatment
of wastewater,  EPA has indicated that:
326 A9                              100

-------
                           EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
SPRAY
APPLICATION
   ROOT ZONE
   SUBSOIL

                                                                   VARIABLE
                                                                   SLOPE
                                                                    DEEP
                                                                    PERCOLATION
                            FIGURE III-3

               LAND APPLICATION METHOD (SPRAY IRRIGATION)
             EVALUATED FOR THE CROOKED/PICKEREL STUDY AREA
                                  101

-------
          "A  universal  minimum of  secondary treatment for  direct

          surface discharge...  will not be accepted because  it is

          inconsistent with  the basic concepts of  land  treatment.



          ...the costs  of the  additional  preapplication  increment

          needed to  meet  more stringent  preapplication  treatment

          requirements  [than necessary]  imposed  at  the  State or

          local  level  would be ineligible for Agency funding and

          thus would be  paid for  from State or local funds."  (EPA

          1978)
     The  EPA  policy has  important  ramifications  for land  treatment
alternatives.  By allowing Federal  funding of land used for storage and
by  underwriting  the risk of  failure for  certain  land-related projects
the policy promotes their consideration.

     Land treatment systems  require wastewater storage during periods of
little or no application caused by factors such as unfavorable weather.
In  Michigan,  six  months of  winter  storage  facilities are  necessary.

     The land application system evaluated by the Facility Plan consists
of  two  aerated lagoons  (total  area  1.1  acres)  equipped  with floating
aerators, a  holding  lagoon  (approximately 31 acres) for solids settling
and winter storage (November through April),  pumps to transport effluent
to the irrigation field, and irrigation sprayers.  Flow (0.13 mgd) would
pass  through  a  flow meter  and  comminutor  to  the lagoons,  where the
wastewater would be  mixed and bacterial  decomposition of organic matter
would take  place.   For  seven days  the wastewater would be aerated and
the  overflow would  pass into  a holding  lagoon.   The holding lagoons
would have enough capacity to store sludge over the life of the facility
without  affecting  the  storage  capacity  for wastewater.   The distance
from the lagoons to the nearest dwelling  would be 950 feet.

     The proposed  treatment plant  site,  occupying 540 acres, would be
located  in  Sections 8  and  17 of Springvale Township.  The spray field
iteslf would  occupy  155 acres.   To protect against contamination of the
groundwater,  wells  would be located  such  that  renovated  effluent would
be pumped from the  ground (at a rate of  three times that of the applied
effluent) and discharged to  surface waters.
326 A10                            102

-------
c.   Decentralized Treatment and Disposal

     A number of technologies are available which can provide decentral-
ized  treatment either  on-site  or  at  sites  near  the point of  sewage
generation.  Disposal  of  treatment  wastewaters can be to the air,  soil
or surface  waters  and normally  occurs near the treatment site.   Some  of
the available technologies are:

     •    Alternative toilets:

               Composting toilets

               Toilets  using filtered and  disinfected bath  and  laundry
               wastewater

               Waterless  toilets using oils  to carry and store  wastes

               Incineration  toilets

      •    On-lot treatment and disposal:

               Septic  tank and soil absorption systems (ST/SAS)

               Septic  tank  and  dual,  alternating soil  disposal  system

               Aerobic treatment and soil disposal system

               Septic  tank  or   aerobic  treatment  and sand  filter  with
               effluent discharge to surface waters

               Septic  tank and evapotranspiration system

               Septic  tank and mechanical evaporation system

               Septic  tank and sand mound system

               Rejuvenation   of   soil  disposal  fields  with  hydrogen
               peroxide (H202) treatments

      •     Off-lot  Treatment  and  Disposal:

               Holding tanks

               Cluster systems  (multiple houses served  by a common soil
               disposal system)

               Community   septic tank  or  aerobic  treatment and  sand
               filter with effluent  discharge to  surface water

               Small  scale  lagoon  with seasonal  effluent  discharge  to
               surface waters

               Small  scale   lagoon  with   effluent  discharge at  rapid
               infiltration  land application site
 326 All                            103

-------
               Small  scale  lagoon with  seasonal  effluent discharge  at
               slow rate land application site

               Small  scale,  preconstructed  activated  sludge  (package)
               treatment  plants  with  effluent  discharge  to  surface
               waters.

     Because all of the developed portions of the  Study Area  are located
along lakeshores, decentralized  technologies  which discharge to surface
waters were not further considered here.   All of the remaining technolo-
gies,  used  alone  or  in  combination  with  each  other  or  with  flow
reduction devices,  could  be  useful in individual  situations  within the
Study Area.   It  is  expected  that,   if  the  decentralized approach  to
wastewater  management  is  selected,   technologies  selected  for  each
dwelling will be  appropriate  to the  problem being  remedied  (or lack of
problem) to  the soil  and  groundwater site characteristics,  and  to the
expected use of the systems.

     Lacking necessary information to select appropriate technologies on
a  site-by-site  basis,  this  EIS  assumes  that the  best known  and  most
reliable  decentralized technologies  will  be  used.   Continued use  of
on-site  septic  tanks and  soil  absorption systems  is  the  technology of
choice  where acceptable  public  health  and  environmental impacts  are
attainable with  them.   Where  on-site  systems (including alternatives to
ST/SAS)  are not  economically,   environmentally or  otherwise feasible,
cluster  systems  are  assumed  to  be used.   The assumption that only these
two  technologies  will be used  is  made  here to form the basis  for  cost
and   feasibility  estimates   and  is  not  meant   to  preclude   other
technologies for any site(s).   Estimates  of their frequency of  repair
and construction are conservative to  reflect the possibility that other,
more appropriate technologies may be  more expensive.

     Continued  use  of septic   tank-soil  absorption  systems  for  most
dwellings  in the Proposed EIS Service Area  would perpetuate violations
of  the  Emmet   County  Sanitary  Code as  discussed  in Section II.C.2.
However, the substantial amount of  field  investigation  undertaken for
this  EIS has indicated that  most existing systems are  operating  with
acceptable environmental  and  public  health impacts.  More detailed site
investigations  may  indicate  that renovation  or  replacement of  some
existing on-site  systems  is  necessary.   To estimate the investment this
might  require,   it  is  assumed  that  50%  of on-site  systems will  be
replaced with new septic tanks and soil absorption  systems.

     Detailed   site   evaluations  may  show  that  for  some   dwellings
continued use of on-site  systems is  not  feasible or that repairs for a
number  of  dwellings  is more  expensive  than joint  disposal.   Cluster
systems  are subsurface  absorption   systems  similar  in  operation and
design  to  on-site  soil  absorption  systems  but  are  large  enough to
accommodate  flows  from  a  number  of  (approximately  20)  dwellings.
Because  of  the need  to collect  and  transport wastes,  cluster systems
include  limited  collection  facilities  using pressure   sewers,  small
diameter  sewers  and/or pumps   and   force  mains.   Generally,  existing
septic tanks would continue to be used for  settling and stabilization of
wastewater.
326 A12                            104

-------
                                                                    such
                                        -ass


      The  cost for  cluster systems were  developed  based on individual
 r r^L^v6"8!  T^811^ f°r 8r°PUS °f residen<*s  along the shoreline of
 Crooked/Pickerel Lakes.  The  costs include a 20% replacement of septic
 tanks.   The  total  cost for  cluster  systems to  serve 27%  of existing
 residences was  then based  on the cost per  residence  from the typical
 cluster  system  design.   Design  assumptions  for this  cluster  system
 design appear  in Appendix  F-2.   Design criteria for the  cluster systems
 recommended by the  State of Michigan were considered in  the development
 of the typical cluster  system design.   Presently, there  are a number of
 successfully operating  cluster  systems in Otter Tail County, Minnesota
 (by  letter,  Larry  Krohn,  Department of  Land  and Resource  Management
 Otter Tail County,  October  18,  1978)  and  at  many  other sites throughout
 the country.

 4.   EFFLUENT DISPOSAL

      Three approaches exist for disposal  of  treated wastewater.  Reuse,
 perhaps the most  desirable  of  the  three, implies recycling of the efflu-
 ent by industry, agriculture  or  groundwater  recharge.  Land application
 takes advantage of  the  absorptive  and  renovative  capacities  of soil  to
 improve effluent  quality and reduce the quantity of wastewater requiring
 disposal.  Discharge  to  surface  water  generally implies  the use  of
 streams  or impoundments  for  ultimate disposal  of treated  effluent.

 a.   Reuse

      Industry  Reuse.  There is  no industrial development in  the  Study
 Area, consequently  industrial  reuse does not  seem to be a  feasible  means
 of effluent disposal.

      Agricultural Irrigation.    The  use  of   treated  wastewaters  for
 irrigation is  addressed  in  Section  III.B.3.b.

      Groundwater Recharge.   Groundwater  supplies  all  of  the  potable
 water in  the  EIS Service Area.  The availability of ample quantities  of
 water from sand  and gravel deposits  is  a significant resource of  the
 area.   There  is no  evidence that  these resources  are being  depleted  to
 the extent that supplemental recharge is necessary.  Wastewater reuse  by
 groundwater recharge has therefore not been evaluated.
326 A13                            105

-------
b.    Discharge to Surface Waters

     The  Facility   Plan  evaluated  biological   treatment  and   land
application  after  which  renovated  wastewater   would  be  collected.
Discharge of treated effluent to surface  waters  would  occur  with both  of
these techniques.  The  location selected  for  effluent  discharge from the
RBC plant was  Little Traverse Bay.   The  Facility Plan did  not identify
the  location  of surface water  discharge of renovated wastewaters  from
proposed land  application  systems,  but  it would  likely  be & branch  of
Minnehaha  Creek.   Discharge  to  this tributary  may have detrimental
effects  on  Crooked  Lake   if  satisfactory  treatment  levels are not
maintained but there does not appear to be a  more  favorable  location for
the disposal of treated effluent in  this  part of the Study Area.

     In  the alternatives developed  for  this EIS  discharge to surface
waters  would  only  occur   if  the  Petoskey plant  were  employed for
treatment of  wastes.   In that  case,  Little  Traverse Bay,   the existing
discharge point,  would receive treated  wastes  from  part  of  the  Study
Area.

c.   Land  Application

     Land application methods of wastewater treatment  that are evaluated
for potential  use  in the Study Area have been briefly described in Sec-
tion  III.B.S.b.   The  spray  irrigation method  is illustrated in Figure
III-3.   The locations  of two land  application  sites evaluated in  this
EIS are shown in Figure II-5.

     Soil suitability  for  renovation of  wastewater  at these locations
was determined  on  the  basis  of a soils  survey  of  Emmet County prepared
by the  Soil Conservation Service.   Both  sites  have soils with moderate
permeability  for  the  most  part,  and   have moderate  limitations for
wastewater disposal.

     The proposed  site for  the  land application  system is a 155  acre
tract of open  land  located  on the north  side of  Greenwood  road between
the  branches  of Minnehaha  Creek.   The proposed land  application system
would have  a  maximum  application rate of 1.6 inches  per week over a  26
week period.   The major  considerations  for the  use of land application
were  the favorable soil characteristics  in  the area and the fact  that
treatment  requirements  prior  to  application would be  less costly and
complicated  than those  required  for discharge of  effluent to surface
waters.

     Please note that any serious consideration  given  to  implementing  an
EIS  alternative  involving  spray  irrigation   must   be  preceded  by  a
detailed  field  investigation  of  the   existing  soil  and groundwater
conditions.   The SCS soil  survey is useful  only as a planning tool for
the development of wastewater management  alternatives.

5.   SLUDGE HANDLING AND  DISPOSAL

     Wastewater  treatment  options considered above  would   generate  two
types  of sludges:   chemical/biological   sludges  from the   proposed  RBC


326 AH                            106

-------
plant; and solids pumped from septic tanks.  The residues from treatment
by  lagoons  and  land  application are  grit and  screenings.  In the land
application alternative,  the sludge from  the biological treatment would
settle  in the  holding lagoons.  The  holding  lagoons  would have enough
capacity  to  store  the  sludge   over  the  life  of the  facility without
affecting  the storage  capacity for wastewater.   Eventually the sludge
would  be  removed and disked into  the soil on  the  adjacent irrigation
fields.

     The  additional sludge that would be  produced at the Petoskey plant
would  be  treated and  disposed  of along with existing sludge quantities.
Sludge  produced at the Petoskey treatment plant is buried on a 160 acre
site  approximately 5  miles southeast of  the  city.   The  site has been
approved  by the Department  of  Natural Resources and has enough capacity
to  handle the estimated sludge  quantities  over the life of the treatment
facilities.   Four  monitoring wells are located  approximately one mile
east  of the  disposal  site  to measure  any  change in groundwater quality.

      Sludge   from  the RBC  system  treatment   alternative  would  be
anaerobically digested  and dried  on a  sludge  drying bed.   The  dried
sludge would  then be  disposed of by land filling in a new site or at the
existing  Petoskey sludge disposal site.

      Alternatives  using  residential  septic  tanks for  on-lot systems,
cluster systems or STEP sewer  systems must provide for periodic removal
and disposal  of sludge. For the purposes  of designing and costing these
alternatives, it was  assumed that  pumping would occur every 5 years and
cost  $50 per pumping.   Local septage  haulers are  licensed to operate in
Emmet County; farmlands are typical haul sites.

C.   FLEXIBILITY OF COMPONENTS
      Flexibility measures system ability to  accommodate growth of future
 changes in  requirements.   This  section examines the flexibility of the
 components  within  each  alternative  and  the  operational  restraints  on
 each and  design  of the  facilities.   These are discussed  in  terms  of
 their  impacts  upon  choices  of  systems and decisions of planning and
 design.

 1.   TRANSMISSION AND CONVEYANCE
      For gravity and  pressure  sewer systems,  flexibility is  the ability
 to handle future increases in flow.  The ability to  handle flows greater
 than the  original  design flow  is  generally  low,  and  an increase in
 capacity  is  an expensive  process.   Also,  the  layout  of  the  system
 depends upon  the  location of  the  treatment  facility   Relocation or
 expansion  of   a finished  facility  would  require  costly redesign and
 addition of sewers.
 326 A15                            107

-------
     Both gravity and pressure  sewers  require minimum sewage velocities
to  prevent  deposition  of  solids  which could  cause  blockage.   The
velocity of the  fluid  in gravity sewers depends mainly upon pipe slope.
Contour of the ground  surface  largely  determines pipe  slope  and depth,
and  consequently,  construction  costs.   Pressure  sewers,  however,  can
carry sewage uphill under pressure, not depending upon slope to maintain
the  flow  velocity; they offer the  designer  somewhat  more  flexibility
than gravity flow pipe.

2.   CONVENTIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT

     Ability to expand a conventional wastewater treatment  plant depends
largely  upon  the  process  being  used,  layout of  the  facility,  and
availability of additional land for expansion.   Compared to many systems
for  land  application,  conventional  treatment  processes require  little
land,  thus  increasing the  flexibility  for expansion.   However,  unless
the  layout  of the plant was designed  for future additional  capacity,
expansion may be hindered.  Establishment of  a facility such as a sewage
treatment plant  will  reduce flexibility  for future  planning decisions
within the affected municipalities.

     Because  operators  can, to some extent,  vary  treatment  parameters,
most  conventional  processes  have  good  operational  flexibility.   By
altering  the  amounts   and  types  of chemicals,  flow  rates,  detention
times,  or  even  process  schemes,  the  required  effluent  quality  can
usually be obtained.

     Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC).     The    use    of    rotating
biological  contactors  to  treat  wastewater  is  relatively  new in  the
United  States.   The  RBC  rotates  circular discs covered with  a  film or
aerobic bacteria in a basin through which wastewater flows.  The disc is
usually 40% submerged for aerobic treatment.

     RBC's  are  simple   to  operate.   They  are similar in  theory  to
trickling filters, which have been used in the United States since 1908.
The  RBC units  do not  require  sludge   recycling,  nor maintenance of  a
suspended  microbial   culture  as  in ativated  sludge  treatment.   The
relatively  simple  operation,  therefore,  makes operational  flexibility
high for RBC plants.

     The modular nature  of  RBC reactors makes expansion or upgrading of
the  plant  relatively  easy.  With  proper design of  other  components of
the  treatment plant,  and proper  planning of  the  facility  layout,  the
cost and effort  required for expansion may be  relatively  small.   RBC's
are  therefore well suited for  projects to be constructed in phases over
an extended period.

     RBC's require relatively  shallow  basin  depths  (6-8 feet) which is
another advantage.  Less structural strength is required  for the basin
because water volume per square foot of basin  area  is reduced.  There-
fore,  there  is  more  leeway  in  choosing a   site  because  structural
requirements are lower,  and a  greater  variety  of  soil types and ground
conditions are available from locating  the RBC units.
326 A16                            108

-------
     There  are  several  disadvantages  to the  RBC  reactor    The large
number of discs usually required  in RBC plants  limit design flows to the
range  of  0.1  to  20 mgd.   This  limitation  results  from   the  large
requirements  for land.  The  mechanical  components  have relatively low
salvage value,  and converting the RBC units to another  type process may
be costly if these  components can not be  reused or sold.

3.   ON-SITE  SEPTIC SYSTEMS

     Septic systems are flexible  in that  they can be custom designed for
each user.  As  long as spatial and environmental parameters are met, the
type of system  can  be  chosen according to individual requirements.  This
flexibility  is useful in  some rural  areas  where centralized treatment
would be neither  cost  effective nor desirable.

     Existing   septic  systems  can  be   expanded  by  adding  tank  and
drainfield  capacity,   if  suitable land is available.  Flow can  then be
distributed  to an  added system with  little  disturbance  of the existing
one.

     Cluster  systems   are  septic  systems  treating wastewater  from more
than  one  house,  usually  15  to  24.   The  flexibility  for design  and
expansion  of  such  a system is  somewhat  less than for a standard septic
system.  Sizes of  cluster systems range  from one-quarter to one acre, a
substantial increase  compared to  a standard  septic system (of about 1000
square  feet).   Right-of-way requirements for piping must  be  considered
because  the  system crosses  property boundaries  and may  cross  public
property.   The location  of  other underground  utilities such  as  water,
electricity,  gas, and telephone  must also be considered in the  design.

     An  alternative  system  for  on-site   sewage  treatment,  such  as  an
elevated sand  mound,  is required where siting restrictions prohibit the
use  of standard  septic  system and centralized  collection  of  sewage is
not  available.   In these  cases  future  expansion may  be  difficult  or
impossible.   Stipulations  of the health  codes restrict  the potential of
the alternative systems for alteration or expansion.

4-   LAND APPLICATION

     To  be  flexible,   a  land  application   system  should  operate
efficiently  under changing conditions,  and  should be easily modified or
expanded.   These  factors  depend largely upon  geographical  location.

     The ability to handle changes in treatment requirements  and waste-
water  characteristics is  a  specific measure of  flexibility  for  a land
application  facility.   Furthermore, the  level  of  treatment provided by
the land application  system will  in part  determine whether it can handle
possible increases  in flows in the future.  Wastewater  in the Crooked/
Pickerel  Lakes  Study Area  consists  primarily  of  domestic  sewage and
future changes  in composition of  the wastewater are not  likely to occur.
If industrial  wastewater were added in the  future,  pretreatment  at the
industrial source may  be required.
326 A17                            109

-------
     Expandability  is  an important  element  of flexibility.   Efficient
and economical  land acquisition for future flow increases  depends  upon
the proximity of  the facility to populated areas, design  and  layout of
the  system,  additional  transmission  requirements,  and  the  type  of
application  system  used.    A  number  of  application   mechanisms   are
available — spray,  overland  flow,  or rapid infiltration.   Sites can be
forest land, cropland, or open fields.  Attention  must be paid, however,
to  characteristics  of  the  surrounding  land,  and  to  possible  future
changes  in  land   use.   Also,  requirements  are  strict  concerning  the
hydraulic and geologic  conditions  of the proposed site.   When initially
planning the facility,  all  of the above mentioned conditions  should be
taken into  consideration if  maximum flexibility for  future expansion is
desired.

     Land  itself   accounts  for  much of  the  capital  cost  for a  land
application  facility,  and  greatly affects the possibility  of  expansion
or ease of discontinuing the site.   Because land normally appreciates in
value,  the  final  salvage value of  the  site  may be very high  after the
expected 20-year  design life.   If  the site  is  abandoned, much  of the
initial capital cost of the  facility may be  recovered by  reselling the
land  at the appreciated price.   Note,  however,  that the public  may be
reluctant to use  the land  because of its  former  use; this would depend
largely upon the appearance of the land at the time of resale.

     Finally,  operational  flexibility  of land  application systems  is
highly  dependent  upon  climate.  When heavy rains saturate the  soil or
flooding occurs,  treatment efficiency  is  greatly reduced.  Where  cold
temperatures might make land  application unusable,   storage  facilities
are  required.   Very cold  climates  require up to six months  of storage
capacity.   Rapid   infiltration  is   the  only  land application  technique
used successfully in very cold temperatures.
D.   RELIABILITY OF COMPONENTS

     Reliability measures the ability of a system or system component to
operate  without failure  at its  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.  This section examines the reliability of components used in EIS
alternatives.

1.   SEWERS

     Gravity Sewers.  When possible,  sewer  systems  allow wastewater to
flow  downhill  by  force of gravity.  This  type  of  system, known  as a
gravity  sewer,   is  highly  reliable.   Designed  properly,  such systems
require  little  maintenance.   They  consume  no  energy  and  have  no
mechanical components to malfunction.

     Problems  associated  with   gravity   sewers  include  clogged  pipes,
leading to  sewer backups;  infiltration/inflow, increasing the volume of
flow beyond  the design level;  and broken  or misaligned  pipes.   Major
contributors to these  problems  are  improperly  jointed pipes  and  the


326 A18                            HO

-------
intrusion of  tree roots into  the  sewer, which  tend  to be more prevalent
in older systems.

     Where  ground slope is opposite  to the  direction of sewage flow, it
may  be necessary to  pump the  sewage  through sections of  pipe called
force  mains.   The  pumps  add a  mechanical component  which increases
operation  and maintenance  (O&M) requirements  and  decreases the system
reliability.  To  assure uninterrupted operation of the system, two pumps
are  generally installed,  providing  a backup  in case one malfunctions.
Each  is  usually able  to  handle  at least twice  the peak flow.  A standby
generator  is  usually provided to  ensure  operation  of the  pumps in case
of a power  failure.

     Because  the  flow through force mains  is intermittent, solids may be
deposited  during periods of  no  flow.  In addition,  when the pumps shut
off,  the sudden  cessation of  flow may cause  the  hydraulic conditions
known  as "water  hammer" in the force  main, a phenomenon marked by sudden
sharp  surges  in  water pressure that may result  in burst pipes.  However,
both  deposition  of  solids and  water hammer may be controlled through
proper design procedures.   The reliability of properly designed force
mains  is comparable  to that of gravity sewers.

     Pressure Sewers.  Pressure sewers  transmit  wastewater uphill when
ground topography does not  allow  gravity flow.   Because  the system is
always under pressure  pumping is  required to  force the wastewater into
the  sewer.

      Grinder  Pumps.   Grinder pumps are used primarily to grind and pump
raw  domestic  sewage from  an individual  house  to the collection system
and  occasionally for small  lift  stations.   They  are  either  of  the
semi-positive displacement  or the centrifugal  type, depending upon the
mode  of  operation.   The reliability of both  types is high.

      One problem may  arise  during a  power failure.  Standby power for a
grinder  pump would  not usually  be available at an  individual house and
the  residence would  be without sewage removal.  This is a lesser problem
than   might  be   supposed,   for  a power   failure   would  curtail  many
operations  that  generate wastewater.

      There  were  problems  in  the  operation  of the  first  generation of
grinder  pumps when  pressure  to  pump  wastewater or power to  grind solids
was  insufficient.   Modifications   have  been made  in  their design and
construction, and the second generation  of these pumps is  appreciably
more   reliable.   Periodic  maintenance  is  required  to  clean or replace
parts  of the  grinder pump.

      Septic Tank Effluent (STEP) Pumps.    It  is sometimes  desirable to
pump  wastewater from  an  existing  septic  tank rather than directly  from
the  house,   using   septic  tank effluent  pumps*  (STEP)  rather  than a
grinder pump.  In this way difficulties  associated with  suspended solids
are  largely avoided.   STEP pumps  are relatively  simple modifications of
conventional  sump pumps.
326 A19

-------
     The reliability of STEP pumps  made  by experienced  manufacturers  is
good.  Newer entries into  the  field have not yet accumulated  the  oper-
ating experience  necessary to demonstrate conclusively the  reliability
of their products.  In  the event of failure of a STEP  system,  an  over-
flow  line  may  be provided, which  permits passage of  the septic  tank
effluent to the old drainfield for emergency disposal.

     Pipes.  Pressure sewer pipes  are subject  to the same problems  as
force mains,  discussed  above.   As  with  force mains,  proper design can
prevent clogging  and breaking  of  pipes,  the most common cause  of  sewer
problems.   Because  pressure sewer piping has no mechanical  components,
the reliability is high.

2.   CENTRALIZED TREATMENT

     Conventional.  The  reliability of conventional  wastewater  treatment
has  been  tested by time.   Most unit processes  have been used  for  many
years,  and  there is consequently  much  information  on their design and
operation in nearly all climates.   In general,  the  larger  the  treatment
facility,  the more  reliable its  operation, because  the  large volumes  of
flow  require  multiple  units  per  treatment process.    For instance,  a
large  facility  will  have  several primary clarifiers,  and  if one
malfunctions,    the  remaining   units  can  handle   the   entire   load.
Therefore, difficulties  that  arise as a result of  failure of  a single
unit process,  or of severe weather conditions such as  heavy rain or very
cold  temperatures,  are  less likely to affect operations.  Conventional
wastewater  treatment  plants can  be designed to  handle most  problems.

     Land Application.   Application of  treated sewage  effluent to the
land  is defined by EPA  as an alternative or innovative  technology.  The
use  of  this technology  is growing steadily  and  is gaining acceptance
throughout the  United States.   Local climatic conditions  such  as  heavy
rains or very low temperatures may make the technique  less  suitable in a
particular area.

     Potential problems  with land application include:   groundwater con-
tamination; dispersal of microbial mass  by airborne transport; odors;
surface water  contamination;  accumulation of metals in the vegetation;
and  possible  toxic effects upon  local  animals.  These problems can  be
managed to achieve an  acceptable  level  of  risk  with proper  design,
operation and maintenance.

3.   ON-SITE TREATMENT

     Septic Tanks.  The  design and operation of  modern septic tanks have
benefited  from   long  experience.   Properly  designed  and  maintained,
septic  systems  will provide satisfactory service with minimum mainte-
nance.  Care must be  taken not to  put materials  in the system that may
clog  it.   The  principal maintenance requirement is periodic pumping  of
the tank.
326 A20                            112

-------
     Problems  of  septic  systems  include  heavy  rain saturating  the
ground,  clogged drainfields  caused  by full  septic tanks,  clogged  or
frozen pipes,  and  broken pipes.  Current environmental laws restricting
sites  according  to  such  factors   as   soil  suitability,   depth  to
groundwater  and bedrock,  limit the  cases  where septic systems  can  be
used.

     Sand Mounds.  Elevated sand mounds four or  five feet above original
ground  level,   are  an  alternative   drainage   mechanism  where  siting
restrictions do  not  allow  the use of  standard drainfields.   Because they
do  not always provide  satisfactory  service and are  considerably more
expensive  than conventional drainfields,  they have not been universally
accepted.   However, if  properly designed,  constructed, and  maintained
elevated sand  mounds can provide adequate service.

4.   CLUSTER  SYSTEMS

     Cluster   systems   are  localized  wastewater  disposal  mechanisms
servicing  several  residences.   The reliability  is  similar  to  that of a
septic  system,  except  that a  malfunction  affects  not just  one,  but a
number of  residences.   Because a cluster system requires more piping to
connect  individual  houses  to  the treatment tank than  does a  series  of
individual  systems,  there is  a  greater chance for  pipes to  break  or
clog,  or for  I/I  to occur during heavy  rain.   If  pumping is required,
the  reliability of  the  system  declines because  of the mechanical nature
of the pumps and their  dependence upon electricity for power.
E.   IMPLEMENTATION

     The   method  by  which  a   wastewater  management  plan  is  to  be
implemented   depends  upon  whether  the   selected  alternative  relies
primarily upon  centralized  or  decentralized  components.   Since  most
sanitary  districts  have in  the past been designed  around centralized
collection and  treatment  of  wastewater,  there  is  a  great  deal  of
information  about  the  implementation  of  such  systems.   Decentralized
collection and treatment is,  however, relatively new and there is little
management experience on which  to draw.

     Regardless   of  whether  the  selected  alternative  is  primarily
centralized or decentralized, four aspects  of the implementation program
must be addressed:

     •     There  must be  legal  authority  for  a  managing agency  to exist
           and  financial authority for it  to operate.

     •     The  agency  must  manage construction,  ownership and operation
           of the sanitary district.

     •     A  choice must  be made between  the  several types  of long-term
           financing that are  generally required in  paying for capital
           expenditures associated with  the  project.
326 A21                             113

-------
     •    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  sanitary districts, then  with respect to
decentralized districts.

1.   CENTRALIZED DISTRICTS

a.   Authority

     The  Little   Traverse  Bay   Area  Facility  Plan  identified   the
Springvale-Bear Creek  Sewage  Disposal Authority  as the legal authority
for implementing the Plan's  Proposed Action.   According  to the Plan,  the
Authority would  have  the  legal  and financial  capability  to finance,
construct, operate  and maintain  the proposed wastewater collection  and
treatment system.  Under Act  233  of the Michigan Public Acts of  1975 as
amended,  the  Authority has the power to  implement the Proposed Action
contract with the villages  and townships for services.

b.    Managing  Agency

     The  role  of  the  managing  agency  has been  well   defined   for
centralized  sanitary  districts.   In  general,   the  agency  constructs,
maintains  and  operates  the   sewerage  facilities.   Although in  fact
different contractual relationships  exist  between the agencies and their
service  areas,   for  the  purposes  of this  document ownership  of  the
facilities  may be   assumed  to  reside  with  the agency.   For   gravity
sewers,  such  ownership  has   traditionally  extended   to   the   private
property.   For  STEP  or  grinder  pump  stations   connected  to pressure
sewers several options  exist:

     •    The station may be designed to agency specifications, with  the
          responsibility  for   purchase,    maintenance   and  ownership
          residing with the  homeowner.

     •    The station may be specified and purchased by  the  agency, with
          the homeowner repurchasing and maintaining  it.

     •    The  station  may  be specified  and owned by  the  agency,  but
          purchased by the  homeowner.

     •    The  station  may  be  specified, purchased  and owned  by  the
          agency.    Regardless,  however,  of  the option  selected,  all
          residences are treated equally.

c.   Financing

     Capital  expenses  associated  with a project  may be  financed by
several techniques.   Briefly,  they are:
326 A22                             114

-------
     •    pay-as-you-go methods;
     •    special benefit assessments;
     •    reserve funds; and
     •    debt financing.

     The  Facility  Plan  indicated that  the Proposed  Action would  be
funded in part by Federal and State grants, and recommended that revenue
bonds be issued to pay  the local share.  The Farmers Home Administration
would purchase  the  bonds, which would bear interest of 5% and mature in
40 years.

d.   User Charges

     User charges  are set at a level that will provide for repayment of
long-term  debt  and  cover  operating  and  maintenance  expenses.    In
addition, prudent  management agencies frequently add an extra charge to
provide a contingency fund for extraordinary expenses and replacement of
equipment.

     The  implementation  program  proposed by  the  Facility  Plan is  an
example  of  a  scheme  calling for  an Authority to  recover the  costs  of
wastewater management from the local municipalities.  The municipalities
would,  in  turn,  charge  the  users  of  the  system.   Because  of  the
potential  economic  impacts, the  charges must  be  carefully  allocated
among  various  classes  of  users.   Recognized classes  of users  might
include:

     »    Permanent residents/Seasonal residents;
     •    Presently sewered  users/Newly sewered users; and
     *    Low-   and   fixed-income   residents/Active  income   producers.

     Each class of user imposes different requirements on the design and
cost of each alternative, receives different benefits, and has different
financial  capabilities.  To  illustrate  the allocation  techniques  that
are available,  three  possible user charge schemes have been examined in
Appendix 1-1.

2.   SMALL WASTE FLOW  DISTRICTS

     Regulation  of  on-lot sewage systems has evolved to the point where
most  new  facilities  are designed,  permitted and  inspected by  local
health  departments   or  other  agencies.   After  installation,  local
government  has no further  responsibility for  these systems  until  mal-
functions  become  evident.    In  such  cases  the  local  government  may
inspect and issue permits for repair of the systems.  The sole basis for
government  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-lot  system  use  or misuse.  The lack of knowledge of the operation of
on-site system  has  consequently been coupled with  a general  absence of
information  concerning impacts of septic  systems  on ground  and surface
water quality.
326 A23                             II-5

-------
     Methods  of  identifying  and dealing  with the  adverse effects  of
on-lot systems without building expensive  sewers are being  developed.
Technical  methods  include  both the  wastewater  treatment and  disposal
alternatives discussed in Section III.B and improved monitoring of water
quality.    Managerial  methods  have  already been developed and  are being
applied in various communities as discussed in Appendix G-l.

     As with  any centralized  district,  the issues of legal  and fiscal
authority,  agency  management,  project financing,  and user  charges must
all be resolved by small waste flow districts.

a.   Authority

     Michigan presently  has no  legislation which explicitly  authorizes
governmental  entities  to manage wastewater facilities other  than those
connected   to  conventional  collection   systems.   However,   Michigan
Statutes  Sections 123.241  et  seq.  and 323.37 et  seq.,  and  Chapter 116A
have  been  interpreted  as  providing  cities,  townships,  villages  and
counties, sufficient powers to manage decentralized facilities (Otis and
Stewart 1976).

     California  and  Illinois,  to   resolve  interagency  conflicts  or  to
authorize access to private properties for inspection and maintenance of
wastewater  facilities, have passed  legislation specifically intended to
facilitate  management  of  decentralized  facilities.   These  laws  are
summarized  in Appendix G-2.

b.   Management

     The purpose of  a small waste flow district  is to balance the costs
of management with the needs of public health and  environmental quality.
Management  of such a district implies formation  of a  management agency
and  formulation  of  policies  for  the agency.   The  concept of  such  an
agency  is  relatively new.   Appendix  G-3 discusses  this  concept  in
detail.

     The range of functions a management agency may provide  for adequate
control  and  use  of   decentralized  technologies   is  presented  in Table
III-2.  Because the level of funding for these functions could become an
economic  burden,  their  costs  and  benefits should be  considered in the
development of the management agency.  Major decisions which have to be
made  in  the  development  of  this  agency  relate  to  the  following
questions:
                                               *
     •    Should engineering and operations functions be provided by the
          agency or by private organizations under contract?

     •    Would off-site  facilities require acquisition of property and
          right-of-way?

     •    Would  public  or  private  ownership  of  on-site  wastewater
          facilities be more likely to provide cost savings and  improved
          control of facilities operation?
326 A24                             116

-------
                                    Table III-2

          SMALL WASTE FLOW MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS BY OPERATIONAL COMPONENT
                        AND BY BASIC AND SUPPLEMENTAL USAGE
   Component
       Basic Usage
      Supplemental Usage
Administrative
User charge system
Staffing
Enforcement
Engineering
 Operations
Adopt design  standards*
Review and approval  of plans*
Evaluate Existing  systems/
  design rehabilitation
  measures
Installation  inspection*
On-site soils investigations*
Acceptance for public
  management  of privately
  installed facilities

Routine inspection and
  maintenance
Septage collection and
  disposal
Groundwater monitoring
 Planning
Grants administration
Service contracts supervision
Occupancy/operating permits ,
Interagency coordination
Property and right-of-way
  acquisition
Performance bonding
  requirements

Design and install facilities
  for public ownership
Contractor training
Special designs for alternative
  technologies
Pilot studies of alternative
  technologies
Implementing flow reduction
  techniques
Emergency inspection and
  maintenance
Surface water monitoring
                                   Land use planning
                                   Public education
                                   Designate areas sensitive
                                     to soil-dependent  systems
                                   Establish environmental, land
                                     use and economic criteria
                                     for issuance or non-issuance
                                     of permits
 * Usage normally provided by local governments at present.
                                         117

-------
     •    Are there environmental, land use,  or economic characteristics
          of  the  area   that   would   be  sensitive  to  operation  and
          construction  of  decentralized technologies?   If  so,  would
          special   planning,   education  and  permitting   steps   be
          appropriate?

     Five  steps  are  recommended to  implement an  efficient,  effective
program for the management of wastewater in unsewered areas:

     •    Develop  a  site-specific  environmental  and engineering  data
          base;

     •    Design the management organization;

     •    Agency start-up;

     •    Construction and rehabilitation of facilities;  and

     •    Operation of facilities.

     Site Specific Environmental and Engineering Data Base.    The   data
base  should  include  groundwater  monitoring,  soils  and  engineering
studies,  and  a  survey  of  available  technologies  likely  to  function
adequately  in the  area.   This  baseline information will provide  the
framework for  the  systems and technologies appropriate to the district.

     A  program for  monitoring  groundwater  should include sampling  of
existing  wells and  possibly additional testing  of the  aquifer.   Such
monitoring  should be  instituted early enough to provide  data useful  in
selecting and designing wastewater disposal systems.

     Detailed site analyses may be required to evaluate operation of the
effluent  disposal fields  and to determine the impacts of effluent dis-
posal  upon  local  groundwater.   These  studies  may include probing  the
disposal area; boring soil samples; and installating shallow groundwater
observation  shafts.   Sampling  of the  water  table downhill  from  leach
fields aids  in evaluating the potential for transport of nutrients  and
pathogens  through  the soil.   Soil  classifications near  selected  leach
fields may  improve  correlations between soils and leach field failures.
An examination of the reasons for the inadequate functioning of existing
wastewater  systems  may avoid  such  problems with  the rehabilitation or
construction of new systems.

     Design the Management Organization.  Both the Facilities  Plan  and
the  EIS  have recommended   the  Springvale-Bear  Creek Sewage  Disposal
Authority as the agency best suited to managing wastewater facilities in
both unsewered and  sewered  areas of the Study Area.  An analysis of the
Authority's  technical and  administrative capabilities  as  outlined  in
Table  III-2,  should  proceed  concurrently  with  development  of  the
environmental and engineering data base.  The role of organizations such
as the Department  of Health should be examined with respect to avoiding
interagency conflicts and duplication of effort and staffing.
326 A25                            118

-------
     Determination  of the  basic  and supplementary management functions
to be provided will be influenced by the  technologies appropriate to the
Study  Area.   In  this respect,  the  questions  raised  earlier regarding
formulation of management policies  must be  resolved.

     The product of these analyses  should be  an organizational design in
which  staffing  requirements,  functions,  interagency  agreements,  user
charge systems and procedural  guidelines  are  defined.

     Agency Start-Up.   Once  the  structure and  responsibilities  of the
management agency  have been defined, public  review is advisable.  Addi-
tional  personnel  required  for construction  and/or  operation should be
provided.  If necessary, contractual arrangements with private organiza-
tions  should  be  developed.   Acquisition  of  property  should  also  be
initiated.

     Construction and Rehabilitation of Facilities.  Site data collected
for  the  environmental and  engineering data  base should support selection
and  design of appropriate  technologies for individual residences.  Once
construction  and rehabilitation begin,  site  conditions  may be revealed
that  suggest  technology   or  design   changes.   Since  decentralized
technologies   generally  must be   designed   to  operate  within  site
limitations  instead of overcoming  them,  flexibility should be provided.
Personnel  authorized to revise designs in  the field would provide this
flexibility.

     Operation  of Facilities.   The  administrative planning, engineering,
and  operations  functions listed in Table III-2 are primarily applicable
to   this  phase.   The role of  the  management  agency  would  have  been
determined in the  organizational phase.   Experience gained during agency
start-up and  facilities construction may  indicate that  some  lower or
higher level  of effort will be necessary  to insure  long term  reliability
of the decentralized facilities.

c.   Financing

     The financing  of a  small waste flows district  is similar to that of
a centralized   district.    Such  financing  was discussed   in  Section
III.E.I.e.

d.   User Charges

     Although renovation and replacement  costs for  on-site systems  owned
by   permanent  residents are  eligible  for Federal  funding,  such  costs
incurred by  seasonal residents are not.  The  major  difference in the
financing of  the  two systems  arises  from  the question of  seasonals
ownership of on-site  systems.  With respect  to the Study Area  where  a
significant  proportion  of  the users would be  seasonal,  the absence of
Federal funding would transfer a  large  fraction of the project  costs to
the  local users.  This  would be reflected in  either 1)  capital outlays
by   the  users  for  construction,  2) increased user  charges  covering
increased local costs or 3) both.
 326 A26                            119

-------
     User  charges  and  classes have been discussed in Section III.E.l.d.
The  significance  of  decentralized districts lies in  the  creation of an
additional  class  of users.   Since residents  of  such districts  may be
differentiated  in terms  of  centrally  sewered areas  and decentralized
areas, user  charges  may differ.  As a  result  many  different management
functions are conjoined.  For example, permanent users on septic systems
may  be  charged less  than those  on  central sewers.   Seasonal  users on
pressure  sewers may  have  high annual costs associated with amortization
of  capital  expenses;  permanent  users of pressure sewers  may be charged
less than seasonal users,  because Federal funding reduced their share of
the  capital  costs.  Alternatively, the management agency may choose to
divide all costs equally among all users.  For the analyses in this EIS,
public  ownership   of  permanent  and  seasonal  on-site systems  has been
assumed.

     Problems  such as these  have not been adequately addressed  by the
historical  sources  of management  information.   Development  of  user
charges  by small  waste flows districts will undoubtedly  be complicated
by the absence of  such historical records.  EPA is preparing an analysis
of  equitable means for recovering costs from  users  in small waste flow
districts and combined sewer/small waste flow districts.
326 A27                            120

-------
                              CHAPTER IV

                           EIS  ALTERNATIVES
A.   INTRODUCTION
     The  preceding  chapter  described  options for the  functional  com-
ponents  of waste-water  management  systems for  the  communities  in  the
Study  Area.   This  chapter  examines alternative  wastewater management
plans  --  alternative courses of action  for  the  Study Area, including a
No Action Alternative.

     The  Proposed  Action  developed in  the  Facility  Plan (described
earlier)  provided  for  centralized  collection and treatment  of  waste-
water.   In  response to questions about  the  need for  and expense of  the
Proposed  Action,  the development of EIS alternatives emphasized  decen-
tralized  and  alternative  or innovative technologies:  alternative  col-
lection  systems,  decentralized treatment  and land  disposal  of  waste-
waters.   The  EIS  alternatives would  manage wastewaters  in the  same
Service  Area  as the Facility Plan  Proposed  Action, but  four of the  EIS
alternatives  use decentralized  treatment  to partly  avoid  the  costs of
sewers.

     Analysis  of decentralized  treatment  technologies  and  site  condi-
tions  showed  feasible  alternatives to  sewering  the  entire  Crooked/
Pickerel  Lakes  shoreline.   It would be  possible to combine multi-family
filter  fields  (cluster  systems)   with  rehabilitated  and  new  on-site
treatment systems to meet  the wastewater treatment needs in parts  of  the
Study Area.

     Because  of the high  cost  of collection in the Proposed Action,  the
cost-effectiveness  of pressure  sewers, vacuum sewers,  and small-diameter
gravity  sewers  was compared.  The  Facility  Plan Proposed  a combination
of pressure and gravity sewers and  the choice was generally affirmed  for
decentralized EIS Alternatives.

     Where  site conditions such as  soils  and  topography are favorable,
land  application   of  wastewater  offers  advantages  over  conventional
biological treatment systems that discharge to surface waters:  the  land
acts  as  a natural  treatment  facility;  relatively simple operations  may
reduce operation and maintenance  costs.  Savings  in capital costs  are
also  possible.   Four of  the EIS  Alternatives exploit these advantages
and have incorporated land treatment as  part of the action.

     Appendix H-2 presents the  assumptions used in design and costing of
the  alternatives.   Section  2  lists the major  features  of the Proposed
Action, and the EIS Alternatives.
326 Cl                              121

-------
B.   ALTERNATIVES

1.   SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMPONENTS

     Table  IV-1   summarizes   major  components  of  alternatives,   as
discussed in Chapter  III.   Table  IV-2 lists  flow and  residential  infor-
mation for each segment in the Study Area  (see  Figure  IV-1).

2.   ALTERNATIVES

     Chapter  I   summarized  the  wastewater   management   alternatives
developed  in  the  Facility   Plan.    The Facility  Plan   divided   the
Springvale-Littlefield area into  three  sections.   Sections 1 and 2  are
in  the  western  parts  of  the  region,   and   Section  3  includes   the
Springvale and Littlefield Townships area, around the  shores of  Crooked/
Pickerel  Lakes.   The  Facility Plan proposed regional collection  system
with centralized  treatment.   EPA  approved this plan for Sections 1  and
2,  but  not Section 3.   The need for consideration of alternatives  was
due  primarily  to the  high cost of  the regional  collection/centralized
treatment wastewater management system.  Therefore,  this  EIS concentrate
on  the  decentralized, less expensive approaches to  wastewater manage-
ment.

     The alternatives include a No Action  Alternative, ths  Facility  Plan
Proposed Action,  at two  different flows,  and six new  alternatives based
on  combinations  of  the components and options  discussed  in the  previous
chapter.   The  new alternatives  are based  on  the following  factors:

     •    Increased use of low-pressure sewers.  In rural areas such as
          the Study Area, the collection of wastewater comprises much of
          the  project  cost.    To  reduce  costs,  the use  of  pressure
          sewers,  rather than gravity sewers,   therefore, forms a major
          part  of the  collection facilities  in the  new  alternatives.

     *    Decentralized wastewater treatment  .    The  EIS   alternatives
          include   continued    use   of  on-site  treatment   facilities
          (upgraded  where  necessary),  the  use  of multi-family drain
          fields  (cluster  systems),  and  the  use of  smaller  central
          collection  systems  with  effluent  disposal within the Study
          Area.

     «    Use of  land treatment systems.   If  soil  and  other site  con-
          ditions are  favorable,  treatment of  wastewater by land appli-
          cation  offer  advantages  over centralized  mechanical-type or
          biological  treatment  systems  discharging  plant effluent to
          surface  waters.  Operation may be   simpler  and thus  saving
          money-   Conventional treatment  systems,  on  the  other hand,
          require  less  land,  and may provide  a more  consistent quality
          of effluent.   The EIS alternatives  included the continued use
          of  septic  tanks  with  soil absorption systems  on individual
          lots,  the use of subsurface disposal  systems  for clusters of
          residences,  the use  of  land application by  irrigation after
          pre-treatment,  and   the  use  of the  conventional/  biological
          system  at the Petoskey Treatment Plant.
326 C2                             122

-------
                                                                          Table  IV-1

                                                        EIS  ALTERNATIVES  - SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMPONENTS
    ALTERNATIVE

Facility Plan
Proposed Action
EIS Alternative  1
EIS  Alternative 2
 EIS Alternative 3
 EIS Alternative 4
 EIS Alternative  5
 EIS Alternative  6
   CENTRALIZED
    TREATMENT

Existing Petoskey
Treatment Plant
(0.08 mgd)
  CENTRALIZED
 SERVICE AREA

Total Proposed
Service Area
                               Facultative Lagoon
                               (0.02 mgd)
 Facultative Lagoon
 (0.06 mgd)

 Existing Petoskey
 Treatment Plant
 (0.02 mgd)
                               Facultative Lagoon
                               (0.08 mgd)
 Facultative Lagoon
 (0.02 mgd)
                                     No
                             South Shore
                             Crooked Lake
                                                            Pickerel Lake
South Shore
Crooked Lake
and Oden
Island

Total Proposed
Service Area
South Shore
Crooked Lake
     EFFLUENT
     DISPOSAL

Petoskey Plant
discharges to
Little Traverse
Bay
                          Land Application
                          by spray irrigation
Land Application
by spray irrigation

Petoskey Plant
discharges to
Little Traverse
Bay

Land Application
by spray irrigation
Land Application
by spray irrigation
   ON-SITE &
CLUSTER SYSTEMS
      No
                          Total Proposed
                          Service Area
                          (clusters)

                          Oden Island and
                          corridor between
                          lakes (clusters)
 Pickerel  Lake
 and corridor
 between lakes
 (clusters)

      No
 Oden  Island,
 Pickerel Lake
 and corridor
 between lakes
 (clusters)

 Total Proposed
 Service Area
 (On-site and
 clusters)
ALTERNATIVE CENTRALIZED
   COLLECTION SYSTEM

  Small numbers of
  grinder pumps
  Collection for both
  centralized systems
  by  combination STEP
  pressure  sewers,
  gravity sewers and
  force mains

  Combination STEP
  pressure  sewers,
  gravity sewers and
  force mains

  Combination STEP
  pressure  sewers,
  gravity sewers and
  force mains

  Combination STEP
  pressure  sewers,
  gravity sewers  and
  force mains

-------
     Table IV-2




POPULATION YEAR 2000
SEGMENT
1
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

SEASONAL
4
0
16
52
16
36
16
16
0
60
52
48
64
112
28
140
0
0
TOTAL
PESMANENT
9
12
21
51
48
123
6
21
0
33
51
42
18
36
24
105
3
0

TOTAL
13
12
37
103
64
159
22
37
0
93
103
90
82
148
52
245
3
0
1,263
FLOW (MGD)
.00078
.00072
.00222
.00618
.00384
.00954
.00132
.00222
0
.00558
.00618
.0054
.00456
.00888
.00312
.0147
.00018
0
.07578
          124

-------
       FIGURE IV-1.   SEGMENT MAP
K)
Ul
                                     1000  0     2000    4000

                                          SCALE IN FEET

-------
a.   No Action

     The EIS  process must  always  evaluate the  No Action Alternative.
This would consist of EPA providing no Federal  funds  for  construction of
wastewater collection and treatment  systems in  Section  3 of the  Study
Area.   If  this  course  of  action  were  followed,  all existing  on-site
systems in the Study Area would presumably continue  to be used  in  their
present condition.

b.   Facility Plan Proposed Action

     For the  Springvale/Littlefield area,  the  Facility Plan proposes  a
regional  collection  system,   centralized   treatment at the   existing
Petosky plant, and discharge of treated effluent  to Little Traverse Bay.
A  system of  gravity sewers  and 10  pump  stations would collect  regional
wastewater;  29  additional  homes  would  be connected to  the system  by
pressure sewers.  Figure  IV-2  diagrams the collection system.   The cost
of this action was initially computed based upon  the  flow from a popula-
tion of 2,080 and recomputed  based upon the flow  from the EIS  baseline
figure of 1,263 persons.


c.   EIS  Alternative  1

     EIS Alternative 1  proposes decentralization  using  cluster systems
to serve almost the entire Study Area.  Figure  IV-1 shows the Study Area
divided into  18  segments, which have been  used throughout this  study to
plan the various alternatives.   Figure IV-3 shows the arrangement of the
clusters which have been selected  for evaluation  as EIS Alternative  1.
Table IV-3  shows the number   of dwellings used  in  the design of  the
cluster systems,  indicating the growth  expected  in the various areas.

     Holding  tanks  would be  required  for 4  existing  and  2 future
dwellings  in  Segment 7,  because soils in  that segment are  too  wet for
cluster  systems.    These  holding tanks  could  be  associated with com-
pression  type low  flow  toilets  holding only human  waste and  requiring
pumping  only once  in 6  months; greywater could  be treated by septic
tank/soil  absorption  systems.  Other  innovative  systems,  including
composting  toilets   and  greywater  recycling may be  appropriate if  the
area were  developed,  but these approaches  have not been  investigated in
this EIS.   Within each cluster, septic tanks from individual  homes  would
discharge effluent  into gravity sewers that terminate at  a pump  station;
wastewater would  then be pumped to the  cluster  drainfield.  The drain-
fields  for each  cluster  would occupy twice the  area calculated  to be
necessary  for the number of houses in the  design year,  thus  providing a
safety  factor of  100%.   In addition,  hydro-geologic surveys  would  be
required in the  drainfield  areas to  show  that the soil  and  groundwater
could  assimilate the  amount   of effluent  discharged.   Each drainfield
would  have   three  monitoring  wells  to  detect  any  contamination  of
groundwater.

     The  locations   of  the drainfields  were  selected on the  basis  of
available  soil  and  groundwater  information.   If  this alternative were


326 C3                              126

-------
        LEGEND
      PRESSURE SEWER
      FORCE MAIN
    •  GRAVITY SEWER
      ON SITE  a CLUSTER SYSTEMS
  •   PUMP STATION
NOTE'.
     ALL GRAVITY LINES ARE
     8" DIA. UNLESS NOTED.
1000 0    gOOO   4000

   SCALE IN FEET
                                                                                          4"
           TO
         PETOSKEY
                             FIGURE  IV- 2   FACILITY PLAN PROPOSED ACTION

-------
• • l * • *
       _LEGEND
      PRESSURE SEWER
--  FORCE  MAIN
-  GRAVITY SEWER
 =   DRAIN  FIELDS
   •   PUMP STATION
   #  HOLDING TANKS
 NOTE J
     ALL GRAVITY LINES ARE
     8" DIA, UNLESS NOTED
                                                                                                  00
                                                                                                  CM
                                 FIGURE IV-      EIS ALTERNATIVE 1

-------
                                  Table IV-3

                             CLUSTER DESIGN VALUES

                                                         DWELLING UNITS
CLUSTER                  SEGMENTS                  1978                  2000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1,2,18
3,4,6
8
10
5,17
11
12
13,14
15
16
7
9
6
48
5
13
16
15
14
52
3
46
4
0
8
91
11
26
21
30
26
62
15
70
6
0
                                       129

-------
chosen  for detailed  design study,  more precise  information would  be
necessary  in order  to  determine  the exact locations of  suitable  sites.

     To  make  all   alternatives  comparable,   the  areas  served  by  the
collection systems were chosen so as to cover the area  designated  as the
"20-year service area"  in  the  Facility Plan.  If EIS Alternative  1 were
chosen, it is  possible  that some of the cluster systems  shown might not
be  built  or  could be  modified,   due  to particular  site  conditions.
Cluster systems  are readily adaptable  to the  service of  discontinuous
areas, and are thus suitable for protection of environmentally sensitive
areas.

d.   EIS Alternative 2

     This  alternative  would employ  central  collection and  land  appli-
cation of wastewater for a portion of the area around each  lake.   Figure
IV-4  the  remaining segments that  would be  served by  cluster  systems.
Each central collection system would use both pressure  (STEP system) and
gravity sewers to  serve their  respective areas.  The centralized  treat-
ment  would include a  waste stabilization lagoon  for  primary treatment
and  storage  followed by  land  application of wastewater by  spray irri-
gation, as shown in Figure IV-5.

     The Crooked Lake  central  collection system, serving Segments 1,  2,
3,  4,  and 6,  would contribute a  design flow  of  0.02 mgd.   Finding a
suitable   20-acre   spray   irrigation  site   sufficiently  distant  from
existing  developments,  requires  the  use of  land  in  Hardwood  State
Forest.   State  representatives  did not  eliminate  the  possibility  of
using  these  lands,  but  further  discussions  and  approval  would  be
necessary  if this alternative were selected.

     The Pickerel  Lake collection  system serving Segments  10, 11,  12,
13,  14,  15,  and 16, which  would  contribute  a design flow of  0.05 mgd.
Suitable spray irrigation  site  (35  acres) would apparently be available
within  reasonable   distances.   The   remaining  Segments,  5,  17,  and  8,
would be treated by cluster systems, corresponding to clusters 5 and 3
of  EIS  Alternative 1.  Segment  7 would be served by holding  tanks,  or
other innovative systems as discussed under EIS Alternative 1.

e.   EIS Alternative 3

     For  the  Crooked  Lake  and  Oden  Island  areas,  this  alternative
proposes a centralized collection  system with wastewater  treatment  at
Petoskey.  Cluster systems would serve Pickerel Lake, as  shown in  Figure
IV-6.  A combination  of gravity and pressure sewers  (STEP) collects the
Crooked Lake  area,  in  a  manner somewhat  similar to  the  Facility Plan
Proposed Alternative.   The  Pickerel Lake cluster systems would resemble
those in EIS Alternative 1.  Segment 7 would  be served  by holding  tanks,
or other innovative systems discussed under EIS Alternative 1.

f.   EIS Alternative 4

     This  alternative  proposes  centralized  collection of  the  entire
service area (design flow of 0.08 mgd) and land application, as shown in


326 C4                             130

-------
        _LEGEND
	  PRESSURE SEWER
	FORCE MAIN
	  GRAVITY  SEWER
 ==    DRAIN FIELDS
   •   PUMP STATION
  ^  HOLDING TANKS
NOTE'.
     ALL GRAVITY LINES ARE
      8" DIA. UNLESS NOTED,
       1000 0    2000  4000

           SCALE IN FEET
 TO LAND
APPLICATION
      FIGURE IV-4   EIS ALTERNATIVE 2

-------
                                                                                           SPRAY
                                                                                           IRRIGATION
RAW
WASTE
WATER
                                                                                                                en
                                  FIGURE, iy-5,  LAND APPLICATION

-------
  *
NOTE
  LEGEND
 PRESSURE  SEWER
 FORCE  MAIN
 GRAVITY SEWER
 DRAIN  FIELDS
 PUMP STATION
 HOLDING TANKS

ALL GRAVITY LINES ARE
8" DIA. UNLESS NOTED,
                                 1000 0    2000  4000
                                     f^fgggl^gfg^^g—"•"""•"—'
                                     SCALE IN FEET
                    TO PETOSKEY
                                 FIGURE IV- 6  EIS ALTERNATIVE 3

-------
Figure IV-7.  A  combination  of gravity sewers and pressure sewers using
the STEP  system  would  be used for collection.  As in EIS Alternative 2,
wastewater would be treated  in  a waste  stabilization  lagoon prior to
land  application,  according  to  the  scheme  outlined  in Figure  IV-5.
Suitable  spray  irrigation   areas  (80  acres)  are  available  north  of
Pickerel Lake.

g.   EIS  Alternative 5

     This alternative,  shown in Figure IV-8,  resembles  EIS  Alternative
3,  proposing  centralized  collection  for  the  Crooked  Lake  area  and
cluster  systems   for   the  Pickerel  Lake  area.    The  major  difference
between the two alternatives  is that in EIS Alternative 5, treatment of
the 0.02  mgd  of  flow would be provided by a  waste stabilization lagoon
followed  by  land application  at  a 30-acre  site in the  Hardwood State
Forest.  This site was previously suggested in EIS Alternative 2  and the
comments  regarding  the use  of state forest lands apply  to  this alter-
native as well.   Another difference from EIS Alternative 3 is that Oden
Island  now  would be  served  by  a cluster  system rather  than pressure
sewers.   As   in  EIS Alternative  3,  the  Segment  7  dwellings would be
served by holding tanks.

h.   EIS  Alternative 6

     EIS  Alternative  6 constitutes  the  "limited-action"  alternative.
This  alternative differs considerably  from the Facility  Plan Proposed
Action  and  the  five previous EIS alternatives.   The intention  of this
action  is  to eliminate  all  centralized collection and treatment  by
making  maximal   use  of  existing  on-site systems.   This  Alternative
proposes  upgrading  of most of  the  present  on-site   septic  tank/soil
absorption  systems;  cluster  systems  would  serve  only  those  areas
unsuited  for  on-site   systems on  the basis of  soil  and  groundwater
limitations,  and associated  with the presence  of large  quantities of
shoreline algae  (Cladophora).

     Figure IV-9  shows how,  cluster systems would be provided for parts
of  Ellsworth  Point and  Botsford  Landing.  The  remaining parts  of the
Study  Area  would continue  to use on-site ST-SAS systems,  upgraded as
necessary.  Since the condition  of  each  existing system is not known,
the following assumptions were made as to the replacement and rehabili-
tation that would be necessary for the remaining on-site systems.

Current Residences            Percent             Number of Homes

Replace Septic Tank             20                      42
Replace Drainfield              36                      77
Mound Drainfield  Systems        12                      26
Holding Tanks*                   2                       4
Hydrogen Peroxide Reno-
  vation of Drainfield*         10                      21
Cluster Systems**               27                      57

*Percents were assumed
**Two cluster systems; 1 with 39 homes, 1 with 18 homes


326 C5                             134

-------
UJ
ui
             LEGEND
          .PRESSURE SEWER
          • FORCE MAIN
          " GRAVITY SEWER
          " ON SITE  » CLUSTER SYSTEMS
          • PUMP STATION
     NOTE'.
          ALL GRAVITY LINES ARE
          8" DIA. UNLESS NOTED.
                                                                                        TO LAND APPLICATION
                                       FIGURE IV-7   EIS ALTERNATIVE 4

-------
        .LEGEND
	  PRESSURE SEWER
	FORCE MAIN
——  GRAVITY  SEWER
 =    DRAIN FIELDS
   •   PUMP STATION
   •£  HOLDING TANKS
NOTE1.
      ALL GRAVITY LINES ARE
      8" DIA. UNLESS NOTED.
1000 0    ?000   4000

   3CALE IN FEET
                           TO LAND
                           APPLICATION
                                  FIGURE IV-8   EIS ALTERNATIVE  5

-------
  *
NOTE'
  ..LEGEND.
 PRESSURE  SEWER
 FORCE  MAIN
 GRAVITY SEWER
 DRAIN  FIELDS
 PUMP STATION
 HOLDING TANKS

ALL GRAVITY LINES ARE
8" DIA. UNLESS NOTED
                                 1000 0    ZOOO   4000

                                    3CALE IN FEET
                                  FIGURE IV- 9  EIS ALTERNATIVE 6

-------
               Future Systems                Percent        Number of Homes

Conventional Septic Tank and Drainfield        66                102
Mound System                                  20                 30
Cluster System                                14                 21

     Design and costing assumptions used  in developing EIS Alternative 6
are presented in Appendix H - 2.


C.   FLEXIBILITY OF  ALTERNATIVES

1.   NO ACTION

     The  No Action  Alternative  maintains the  existing  conditions and
places no additional planning  and design  restrictions upon the treatment
of wastewater.  Because  no action is  taken  at present,  the flexibility
for  future  planning  is  high compared  to  an alternative  recommending an
extensive commitment of resources.

2.   FACILITY PLAN PROPOSED ACTION

     Centralized  treatment of  all wastewater  flows within the Proposed
Service Area would reduce the  flexibility for  future wastewater planning
and  design  changes.   This  alternative would  commit the  entire Proposed
Service Area to one treatment  scheme and  involve an extensive dedication
of  resources.   Thus,  with the   entire  Proposed   Service  Area  served,
flexibility is reduced.

3.   EIS  ALTERNATIVE 1

     Since  the  majority  of   the Service  Area  would   be treated  by
localized cluster systems,  the immediate  commitment of resources is less
than  for  the  Proposed  Action  in the  Facility Plan.   The decentralized
nature  of this alternative allows for future expansion and changes in
local  planning.  The  proposed  cluster systems have  some  capacity for
expansion because  drainfields would be oversized by 100% to incorporate
capacity  for  projected  growth.   Using  holding  tanks  or  other decen-
tralized  approaches  for  the dwellings in Segment 7 provides flexibility
for future planning.

4.   EIS  ALTERNATIVE 2

     This   alternative,  more  decentralized  than the  Facility  Plan
Proposed  Action,  has  better  flexibility for future  growth.   However,
since this still proposes sewering a significant portion  of  the Proposed
Service Area  and  constructing  two sites for the land application of
wastewater,  a  significant resources commitment  would  result.   This
decreases the  flexibility for  future planning.
326 C6                             138

-------
5.   EIS  ALTERNATIVE 3

     EIS  Alternative  3  combines  conventional  and land treatment  with
on-site  disposal using  holding  tanks  for  Segment  7 dwellings.   This
alternative provides some  flexibility  for future expansion because of
the many modes of treatment used.  Also, the decentralized  nature of the
alternative permits  flexibility  for  basing  future decisions  concerning
land use  development upon local  conditions.  The flexibility for future
expansion of the Petoskey sewage  treatment plant will depend mainly  upon
the design of the facility  and the availability of land.

6.   EIS  ALTERNATIVE 4

     This alternative  is  similar to the Proposed Action  in the Facility
Plan, except that wastewater would be treated by land application rather
than at  the  Petoskey plant.  The same discussion of flexibility  applies
to both  alternatives.   Expansion of a land application site retains the
flexibility for  future planning as long as sufficient land that  is  con-
veniently close  to the existing facility can be obtained.

7.   EIS  ALTERNATIVE 5

     EIS  Alternative 5 is  similar to EIS  Alternative  3, but  flows  from
the  sewered  segments  around Crooked  Lake would  be  treated  at  a  land
application site.  This alternative provides some flexibility for future
expansion  because  of  the  many  modes  of treatment  used.   Also,  the
decentralized  nature of the alternative permits  flexibility for  basing
future decisions concerning land use development upon local conditions.
Expansion  of  a  land  application site  retains  flexibility for  future
planning  as  long as sufficient land that is available near the existing
facility.

8.   EIS  ALTERNATIVE 6

     In  this  alternative,  existing on-septic systems  would be repaired
and  upgraded,  and cluster  systems or other  collection techniques would
be  employed.   This  alternative  would meet  environmental  requirements,
while still providing  flexibility for future planning and design  changes
within  the  unsewered  sections   of  the  Study  Area.   Cluster systems,
similar  to  those designed  and  costed for EIS  Alternative 1, could be
added according  to  the identified needs of the area.   Should such needs
arise, the necessary additional clusters could be the object of  a phase
II grant application.


D.   COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES

     Project costs were categorized into capital expenses,  operating and
maintenance  expenses,  and  salvage  values  of  the  equipment  for  each
alternative    A  contingency  fund  amounting  to  approximately  25 A ot
capital and salvage  value was included to provide for such expenses as
engineering and  legal fees, acquisition of  rights-of-way,  and adminis-
tration   Appendix H-l describes the methodology and assumptions  used in
the analyses as well as detailed costs for each alternative.


326 C7                             139

-------
     Table  IV-4  summarizes  present and future project costs for each of
the  alternatives.   The  analyses of total present worth and annual equi-
valent  costs  of  each  alternative  are  also  presented  there.   (Debt
service  on financing the  local share is not included.)  Section V.E.2
includes  a  discussion of  Federal/State cost  sharing and remaining local
costs.
326 C8                             140

-------
                                                                        Table IV-4

                                                          COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
                                                                                                                   EIS 4           EIS 5            BIS 6



                                                                                                                  2,866.39        1,955.68           858.50



                                                                                                                     26.50           54.38            33.53


                                                                                                                  3,175.49        2,597.58         1,184.23

Average Annual
  Equivalent Cost
  (x SlOOO/year)              357.31              326.27             230.60          286.71          293.18          291.19          238.20           108.59

Present Project
Capital Cost
(x $1000)
Future Project
Construction Cost
(x $1000/year)
Total Present Worth
• (x $1000)
FACILITY
PROPOSED
(OLD
POPULATION)
3,938.98
26.90
3,896.55
PLAN
ACTION
(NEW
POPULATION)
3,776.75
10.81
3,558.03
EIS 1 EIS 2 EIS 3
1,791.94 2,632.15 2,662.64
66.10 36.41 52.22
2,514.74 3,126.61 3,197.16

-------
142

-------
                                CHAPTER V

                                 IMPACTS


A.   WATER  QUALITY IMPACTS

1.   PRIMARY IMPACT

a.   Eutrophication Potential Analysis

     This  section discusses  the effects of phosphorus loading associated
with the wastewater management alternatives  and their impact on the tro-
phic  status  of  open waters  of Crooked Lake  and  Pickerel  Lake.   Phos-
phorus  is  considered the  limiting  nutrient  for  plant growth in  both
lakes  because soluble and total phosphorus  concentrations  are  very low
relative to  nitrogen (Gannon and Mazur  1979).

     Section II.B identified  the major sources of phosphorus to Crooked
Lake and Pickerel Lake as:

     •     tributaries (including immediate drainage area),
     •     septic tanks,  and
     •     precipitation.

     Other  sources   known  to  contribute  to  nutrient  loading  such as
detritus,  waterfowl and  release from  sediments are less significant  over
the time scales  being considered.

     Future  Load Scenario.   Table  V-l  shows  the  estimated  phosphorus
loads for  each alternative,  as well as for the existing conditions.   The
loading estimates indicate that none of the alternatives is anticipated
to  have a  significant  impact  on  the water quality of  the  open water.
Although complete sewering (EIS Alternative 4 or Facility Plan  Proposed
Action)  around  Crooked  Lake  and  Pickerel Lake would  eliminate septic
leachate discharges, this would reduce the  total nutrient  load by  only
about 2-3%,  compared to  the No Action Alternative.

     Continued  reliance  on  septic   tanks  for  existing and projected
population  throughout  the  planning  period  would increase  phosphorus
loads by  only 4% as compared to existing  conditions and much of  this
increase  would  be from non-point  sources.   The small  contribution by
septic  tanks  can  be explained  by the  fact that non-point  sources  and
tributaries  account  for 77%  and 87%  of  the  total  nutrient load  for
Crooked Lake and Pickerel Lake,  respectively.  A few examples illustrate
the difference between the alternatives.  EIS Alternative  for  an  addi-
tional $1.3  million removes  an  additional 1.7 KG/yr of  phosphorus  from
Crooked Lake and 9.8 KG/yr more from Pickerel Lake than EIS Alternative
6.  The most effective alternatives  (EIS Alternative  4 and  the  Facility
Plan Proposed Action) remove  37.8 KG/yr of phosphorus  from  Crooked  Lake
and 49.6 KG/yr from  Pickerel Lake.  In the case of Crooked Lake, this is
equal to   the increase  in phosphorus  that  will  occur from non-point
sources.   Elimination of the  Oden Fish Hatchery discharge  would result
in phosphorus reductions 2.5  to 3 times those of any  sewer  alternative.

320 Al                              143

-------
     The watershed  of  Crooked Lake  and Pickerel  Lake  is  very  large
relative  to  the  size  of the  lakes and  high  nutrients loadings  are
discharged to the lake  and tributaries  by runoff.  The  small  increases
in nutrient  loads  that  could  result from continued reliance  on septic
tanks  will  have no effect  on the  trophic status of Crooked  Lake  or
Pickerel Lake.  Similarly complete sewering is  not likely to  improve the
trophic status.  Predicted trophic  status  with the various alternatives
is shown in Figure  V-l.

     The  following  assumptions were made  in  determining future  phos-
phorus loadings:

     •    Phosphorus  loadings   from  septic  tanks  were  assumed to  be
          0.25 Ib/cap/yr  based on  EPA  estimates  used in the  National
          Eutrophication Survey.

     »    Phosphorus  loadings  from non-point  source  runoff were  esti-
          mated by  using Omernik's  regression model.   This model,  de-
          tailed in Appendix B-5  approximates  the total phosphorus (and
          nitrogen)  concentration in surface water based upon the influ-
          ence of  agricultural,  forested  and  residential land in  the
          watershed.   Conversion  of  forested  land to   residential  or
          agricultural  uses  increases the  non-point  source load.   Al-
          though future  land use  in the Study  Area is  uncertain, it was
          assumed that  land  for  residential use would double  over the
          planning period.  This seemed  to  be a reasonable approximation
          considering population trends  for the townships of  Springvale,
          Littlefield and Bear Creek (Vilican-Leman & Associates,  Inc.
          1971).

b.   Lakeshore  Eutrophication

     Growth of Cladophora along lake shores requires high nutrient loads
not  generally available  in oligotrophic or mesotrophic waters.   Because
of the need for localized nutrient sources,  it is suspected  that the
colonization  of  Cladophora  along the  Crooked  Lake  and  Pickerel  Lake
results from nutrient influx  from human  activity.

     Under existing conditions  Cladophora  growth is found along certain
shore  areas  where  there  is  a  high  density of  septic leachate plumes.
Continued total  reliance  on  septic  tanks  (No  Action)  may result  in
increased Cladophora growth as the lakeshore becomes more developed.  In
particular,  Cladophora  growth may be  a problem  in the  Ellsworth Point
and  Botsford  Landing  areas,  which already experience  heavy  growth.   It
is suspected  that  poor  soil  conditions,  aided by the  closeness of the
drainfields to  the shoreline,  may result  in  groundwater transport  of
nutrients from  septic tanks  to surface water  in areas  where  there is
suitable solid  substrate to  sustain Cladophora  growth.   Upgrading the
septic  tanks  or  converting  to  mound  systems  may effectively reduce
nutrient loadings from some lakeshore areas.

     However,  along much of  the shoreline area  depth  to  groundwater is
so shallow that mounds cannot overcome the site limitations and off-site
or centralized  systems  may  be needed   to  reduce  nutrient  loading  to


320 A2                             144

-------
                                  Table V-l

                  PHOSPHORUS INPUTS  (KG/YR) TO CROOKED LAKE
                      AND PICKEREL LAKE BY ALTERNATIVE
                                       Crooked Lake            Pickerel Lake

1977 Conditions

   Non-Point Sources  (Tributaries)        1,135.3                 1,228.7
   Precipitation                            321.7                   143.2
   Fish Hatchery                            101.3                   	
   Septic Tanks                              2JK6                    22.2
      Total                               1,579.3                 1,394.1

No Action and Alternative #6
   Non-Point Sources                      1,178.9                 1,247.2
   Precipitation                            321.7                   143.2
   Fish Hatchery                            101.3                   	
   Septic Tanks                              37.8                    49.7
      Total                               1,639.7                 1,440.1

EIS Alternative #4*
   Non-Point Sources                      1,178.9                 1,247.2
   Precipitation                            321.7                   143.2
   Fish Hatchery                            101.3
   Septic Tanks                             	                   __ZZ__
      Total                               1,601.9                 1,390.4

EIS Alternative #1
   Non-Point Sources                      1,178.9                 1,247.2
   Precipitation                            321.7                   143.2
   Fish Hatchery                            101.3
   Septic Tanks                              35.5
      Total                               1,637.4

EIS Alternative #2
   Non-Point Sources                      1,178.9                 1,247.2
   Precipitation                            321.7                   143.2
   Fish Hatchery                            101.3
   Septic Tanks                           	35-.5                 —39"|
      Total                               i'637'4                 1'430'3

EIS Alternatives #3 and  #5                                        „„,-,„
                                          1 1 "7Q Q                 1  su./  /
   Non-Point Sources                        0,1 7                   -7-  -
   Precipitation                            im'^
   Fish Hatchery                            101-3
   Septic Tanks
      Total                               ]
 Phosphorus input is the same as for Facility Plan
  Proposed Action
                                     145

-------
   1.0 C
M
 £
   0.1 h
   0.01
I    I  1   1 I  I  I I
                     CROOKED LAKE
                    I EXISTING CONDITIONS
                    1 ALL ALTERNATIVES
                   J	I	L_L1  I I I
                                             OLJGOTRCPHIC
                            I   III
      1.0                           10.0                          100.0
                         MEAN DEPTH (METERS)

                  L- AREAL PHOSPHORUS INPUT (q/m^yr)
                  RsPHOSPHORUS RETENTION COEFFICIENT
                  P*HYDRAULIC FLUSHING RATE (yr"1)

    FIGURE Y-l   TROPHIC STATUS OF CROOKED LAKE AND PICKEREL LAKE
                        BASED ON 1974-1975 DATA
                                   146

-------
surface  water.   The centralized  alternatives  (EIS  Alternative 4  and
Facility Plan  Proposed  Action) have the greatest potential for reducing
Cladophora growth.   Every  alternative except No Action has the potential
for  substantial  Cladophora reduction in  the  present problem  areas  of
Ellsworth Point and  Botsford Landing.

c.   Bacterial Contamination

     There is  no  evidence  that the  existing on-site systems are contrib-
uting  significant bacterial   loads to  either  Crooked Lake  or  Pickerel
Lake,  and  this situation  is not anticipated to change regardless of the
alternative  selected.  Available data  suggests  that  bacteria  are  being
effectively  removed  by the soils even  though  these  soils  are  generally
poorly permeable  and shallow.   However, continued reliance on undersized
and/or improperly installed systems  (No  Action Alternate)  could result
in  localized contamination of  groundwater  or surface wter.

d.   Non-Point  Source  Nutrient Loads

     The  primary  impacts  on   surface water quality are  related to  con-
struction  and  the replacement of ST/SAS.  Such activities are likely to
result in increased soil  erosion.  Similarly,  installation  of sewers,
especially those  that pass under the many  small drainage ways leading to
the lakes,  will  increase  erosion.    Increased  nutrient loading  will
continue until the soils  are stabilized by new vegetation.

     Compliance with State and local  soil erosion control requirements
could  substantially mitigate   the  erosion problems  and the  subsequent
impact on  water quality.

2.   SECONDARY  IMPACTS

     As  indicated previously  (Section  II.B.S.a),  the Crooked  Lake and
Pickerel Lake  watershed encompasses a very large area.  The watershed(s)
and the  land   use patterns within the  watershed  govern the  flow and
nutrient concentration  in non-point source runoff.  Because the drainage
area  is  so  large, nutrient loads  from  non-point sources very are high,
accounting for about 80%  of the total  nutrient load  to Crooked Lake and
Pickerel  Lake.   Most  of   the  land within the  watershed is  forested.
Conversion of forested land to residential  or agricultural  uses gener-
ally increases both  the volume of  runoff  and the concentration of nutri-
ents and sediment.  However, using  Omernik's model to estimate increases
in  non-point  source runoff,   it is not apparent  that  non-point source
runoff will  increase significantly over  the planning period.  The acre-
age of land in residential use will  still be very small compared to the
amount of  forested land.

     However,   the topography of   the  watershed suggests that certain
areas  may  be  particularly  vulnerable  to  increased  non-point source
runoff.  The lake shoreline is particularly sensitive because it acts as
a  buffer,  trapping  nutrients   from upland areas and retarding erosion.
Upland areas that drain  into  creeks  feeding into  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes
are also sensitive especially  where slopes are  steep.
320 A3

-------
     Continued housing development along lake shores may increase nutri-
ent and sediment loads into the lake as a result of:

     •    increased runoff from construction of impervious surfaces such
          as rooftops and parking areas;

     •    lawn and garden fertilization creating unnaturally high nutri-
          ent levels in the runoff; and

     •    soil  disruption  by human activities  (e.g.,  housing  construc-
          tion, leveling of forested area).

3.   MITIGATIVE MEASURES

     The impact analysis has indicated that non-point source runoff con-
tributes a  large  percentage  of the total nutrient  load  to both Crooked
Lake and Pickerel  Lake.   To  reduce these loads, it is recommended that
the  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes  maintain  their high priority 208  "plan  of
study area" status.  This area should undergo a watershed and floodplain
management study to determine the spatial occurrence of non-point source
pollution.

     This study should include the definition of the 100 year floodplain
for  participation in  the  Department  of  Housing and  Urban Development
National Flood Insurance  Program.   In  many  instances  first  order  or
headwater  stream  areas are  not subject to the  extensive  flooding that
downstream  second  or third  order stream experience.  As  a result they
often are  not included in the floodplain districts.   It is recommended
that the 100 year floodplain and a 100 foot buffer  strip on each bank of
streams outside  floodplain areas  be included in the County or Township
zoning  districts  as an  open space area.   The 50  foot  set  back from a
lakeshore might  also be  included in this district.  These areas should
be  left in a  naturally  vegetated state to provide:   shade to maintain
natural water temperatures,  a  vegetative  means of  controlling erosion
and sedimentation, and a system to help prevent surge flows during storm
events, thus reducing flood potential downstream.

     The Michigan  Erosion  and  Sedimentation Control Act goes far toward
controlling  non-point  source  problems  in  the construction   phase  of
wastewater  collection  and  treatment  facilities   as  well as  in  the
development  of housing  units.   However,  erosion  and  sediment control
measures are  concerned  only  with construction processes.  As impervious
surface cover  is  developed,  hydrologic head in runoff increases, creat-
ing  flows  capable of  eroding  and  carrying  considerably more  sediment.
Structural  storm drains  tend  to  increase  flow velocities  which carry
more  sediment and  create additional  flood  problems  at  the   point  of
discharge.    In  order to  address  these closely  related  problems,  an
overall  runoff control  program  should  be  implemented.   As part  of a
watershed  and  floodplain management  program  consideration  should  be
given to  the  feasibility  of enacting  a  package of  environmental per-
formance   standards  that   would  control   stormwater,   erosion,  and
sedimentation.  This approach would  require that  the amount  of runoff
from any  specific development  not exceed the  carrying  capacity of the
natural drainage system.  This would require runoff from development not
to exceed that which occurs prior to construction.

320 A4                              148

-------
     Consideration  should  be made  of formulating  a County Stormwater
Management  design manual  to detain  a 50  to  100 year  storm  runoff on
site.   Such a design manual  might include recommendation of an artifi-
cial wetland as a non-point  source treatment system.  Incorporation of
an  artificial wetland  into stormwater detention/retention basin design
could  provide  many  benefits.   Such  marshes would  serve the  following
important functions:

     •    Filtration  of  settleable  solids  and  uptake,  adsorption and
          slow  release  of  nutrients,

     •    a vegetated landscape amenity instead  of  the eyesore in which
          many  detention basins  result, and

     •    increase in wildlife habitat diversity.

     Additional Design  Measures.  These should  include vegetative drain-
age swales along contours instead of stormwater conduits.   Where flows
are anticipated to be more excessive  than  can be  accommodated by swales,
gravel  bedding  as well  as  vegetation  can be used.

     Although  septic  tanks  have  been shown  to be a minor  source  of
nutrients,  several  mitigative measures could minimize the nutrient load
from this  source.   Cladophora  growth  along the Crooked/Pickerel Lakes
shoreline  has  been  attributed  to  localized nutrient sources.   Several
measures  are available which   may minimize Cladophora  growth.   These
include upgrading the  existing  on-site systems,  use  of off-site systems
or  alternative  toilets and minimizing the use of phosphorus-containing
fertilizers.

     These  improvements in septic  tanks are intended  to reduce nutrients
for algal  growth  along  the shoreline.   There is  no  guarantee  that
Cladophora   growth  would  be  eliminated by these mitigative  measures,
except  along the problem  areas  of Ellsworth Point and Botsford Landing.
As  a last  resort remaining  Cladophora growth which does  occur  may be
controlled  by adding copper  sulfate  locally-  Used  in properly low con-
centrations,  this chemical will interact  with polypeptides secreted by
the algae.   This will kill the algae  but make the copper unavailable for
uptake  (and toxicity) to other organisms.
B.   GROUNDWATER

1.   GROUNDWATER QUANTITY  IMPACTS

     The  conversion  from  sewage disposal practices based on individual
soil  absorption  systems  to central  collection and  treatment  systems
without land application of effluent can result  in  a loss of 8«undwater
recharge.   The significance of  this loss depends upon its relationship
to  the  recharge from  all  other  sources,  including  downward infiltration
percolation  from  percipitation  and  surface  water bodies  as well  as
320 A5                              149

-------
inflow  from  adjacent  aquifers.   The  precise  quantification  of  this
significance  requires  an  accurate  delineation  of  the aquifer(s)  plus
knowledge of  its  hydrology  (precipitation,  runoff,  evapotranspiration,
discharge, etc.) and hydrualic characteristics (transmissivity*,  storage
coefficients*, etc.).  There are not enough data  to  attempt such  quanti-
fication  for  Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes.   However,  it  is not  anticipated
that  any  wastewater  management alternative  will  impact  groundwater
quantity.

2.   GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACTS

     Human  wastewater  disposal  can impact  the  quality of  groundwater
through  three  main types  of pollutants.   The first type  includes  sus-
pended  solids,  bacteria  and other  forms of  oganic  matter which  are
normally  removed  by downward movement  through approximately 5  feet of
soil  above  the water  table of  aquifers.  These contaminants are  very
unlikely  to present problems in the Study  Area as soil  types  and the
impermeable confining layer provide  more than adequate  barriers to their
entry  into  the  confined  aquifer.   Also  depth to  this  aquifer  is
generally more  than  20 feet, except in those localized areas where thin
layers  of soil are  underlain by clays.  Water levels in  the  surficial
groundwater aquifer are generally near the land surface.

     The  second type of  pollutant requiring consideration  is phosphorus
or  phosphate.   It  is  of  interest  not because  of  its significance  in
groundwater per se,  but because  phosphorus-containing groundwaters are
potential contributors  to the fertilization of lakes.

     Jones  et  al.  (1977),  in a comprehensive review of studies  on this
subject for the Environmental Protection Agency,  concluded:

     "...it is  very  unlikely that under most circumstances,  suffi-
     cient  available phosphate  would  be  transported  from  septic
     tank wastewater disposal systems  to  significantly  contribute
     to  the  excessive  aquatic  plant growth  problems  in  water
     courses recharged  by these waters."

     Field  studies,  they  pointed out,  have shown that most  soils,  even
medium  sandy soils, typically   remove  more than 95%  of  phosphates  in
relatively  short  distances  from  effluent  sources.   Their  review indi-
cated  that  there  are  two  primary factors in the removal  of phosphates
applied to the land.  The first is the tendency of phosphorus to  collect
or  cling onto  small amounts of clay minerals,  iron oxide and  aluminum
oxide  in soil  and  aquifer materials.  The  second  is that  the  calcium
carbonate  in  hard  waters  precipitates  phosphate  as  hydroxyapatite.

     In  the same  review,  Jones  et  al. (1977) noted several studies in
areas  similar to  the  Study Area in  which loamy, clayey  soils  overlie
glacial  moraine and outwash deposits  and where the  soil  has  removed
essentially  all of  the  phosphorus  present  in  septic tank effluents.
They  also  stated  that   in areas  of  hard  water,  the   likelihood  of
significant phosphate transport from septic tank effluent to the surface
waters  is  greatly reduced  because  of  the calcium carbonate present in
the  soil and  subsoil  systems.   While the  Study  Area  has  documented
320 A6                              150

-------
incidences  of phosphorus  transport  to  surface  waters,  the  number  of
plumes does  not  reflect the  severe  limitation rating SCS has given the
soils.   Conservative  estimates  contained  in this  EIS indicate  that
continued use  of on-site systems would result in only a 4% increase of
phosphorus leaching into the  lake from septic  tanks.

     The  soluble nitrates constitue  the  third type of pollutant.   High
concentrations  of nitrates  in groundwaters cause methemoglobinemia*  in
infants who  consume foods prepared with such waters.  A limit of 10 mg/1
of nitrates  expressed as nitrogen  (N03-N)  has been set in the National
Interim  Primary Drinking  Water Regulations (40  CIR 141) in accordance
with the Safe Drinking Water  Act  (P.L.  93-523).

     Under  the  favorable conditions  of moisture, temperature and oxygen
that  exist  in the well  drained soils of  sub-surface disposal sites, the
nitrogen  compounds in human  wastes  are rapidly oxidized at or near land
surface  to  soluble  nitrates.   Nitrates  are not  removed by  passage
through  soils   down  to   groundwaters.  On  entry  into  groundwaters,
nitrates  are transported in  the  direction of  flow; their concentration
is reduced  as a  result of  dilution.

      In the  Study Area,  the  impermeable confining layer above the buried
outwash  aquifer  should  also  serve  as an effective barrier against the
entry  of nitrates into  the  aquifer  by  infiltration.   No impacts  on
groundwater  quality are therefore expected  from any of the alternatives
under  consideration.   The only  potential  exception  to  this would  be
individual   homes  with  unusually  shallow  or  poorly  constructed  wells
which might  allow nitrate  leakage from overlying soil layers.

3.   MITIGATIVE  MEASURES

      Groundwater quality should be  carefully monitoried for all alterna-
tives  involving  the use of  ST/SAS's,  cluster  systems  and land applica-
tion  systems to check that water quality is not being significantly de-
graded and  to  signal  the  existence  of malfunctions, inadequate treatment
or the need  for  corrective action.
C,   POPULATION  AND LAND USE IMPACTS

     The  population  and land  use  impacts associated with  the  various
wastewater  management alternatives evaluated in this EIS are related to
three major factors:

     •    System Configuration:  The physical  design  and  layout of the
          proposed wastewater management  system including the area to be
          served  and  the  routes  of  major  collector  and  interceptor
          lines.

     •    Site-Dependency:   The  type  of wastewater  management system
          proposed whether  it consists  of septic tanks (site-dependent)
          centralized   collection   and  treatment  (site-independent),
          cluster   systems   (non-centralized,   site-independent),  or  a
          combination  of these  systems.


320 A7                              151

-------
     •    System Capacity:   The capability of  the proposed  wastewater
          management system  in  terms  of  the number  of people  it  is
          designed to  serve,  or (for  the No Action  or Limited  Action
          Alternatives) the  natural  assimilative capacity of the land.

These three system-related factors  in conjunction with existing  develop-
ment  pressures,  market  trends,  and  existing natural development  con-
straints such as  soil  suitability  for on-site systems largely determine
the magnitude and types of primary  and secondary impacts  associated with
each proposed alternative.

     The  nine  wastewater  management  plans evaluated  in this EIS  have
been  grouped  into four  categories  for population  and land use  impact
analysis purposes:

     *    No  Action   Alternative:     continued   reliance  upon   on-site
          (septic tank) systems.

     •    Facility  Plan Proposed  Action and EIS Alternative 4:   com-
          pletely centralized collection and treatment systems.

     •    EIS Alternatives 2, 3, and 5:  combined use  of centralized and
          cluster treatment systems.

     •    EIS Alternatives 1  and 6:   completely decentralized (cluster)
          treatment systems.

Based  on these four  groups  of  alternatives  and  the  system-related and
local  factors  discussed previously,  the population and land use impacts
associated  with  the   various  alternatives will  be  evaluated  in  this
section and summarized in an impact matrix in Section V.F.

1.   IMPACTS  ON POPULATION

     The  population   impacts  associated  with  the  various  wastewater
management  alternatives will  be  evaluated  in  regard to  the  baseline
population   projections  presented  in   Chapter   II.    These  baseline
projections  represent  probable  future conditions without  regard  to the
availability  of sewage treatment  capacity or to  existing  natural con-
straints  to development.   As  a result,  the baseline  population pro-
jections  represent a  middle  ground  between the No  Action and other
alternatives.
     The  provision of centralized  and/or  decentralized wastewater man-
agement   facilities  would  induce  population  growth  in the  Crooked/
Pickerel  Lakes  Service  Area  beyond  the  baseline  population (1,263)
projected  for  the  year 2000.   The magnitude  of this induced population
growth  could potentially be  as  high as 100% over  the baseline projec-
tions,  based  on  the  Facility  Plan  Proposed  Action designed  for the
higher population level of 2,080 people.
320 A8                              152

-------
     EIS Alternative 4, which also  consists  of a  completely centralized
system, could  potentially induce population  growth as high as 65% over
the baseline projections.   The  lower  induced growth projected for EIS
Alternative  4  is a  result  of this proposed system  not  serving the north-
ern  half  of Oden  Island  (Segment  17)  or  the  easternmost  segment of
Crooked Lake (Segment  18).   Both the  Facility Plan Proposed Action and
EIS  Alternative 4  would  in effect neutralize  the natural development
constraints  imposed  by poor drainage  and  poor  soil characteristics
effectively  increasing the  inventory  of developable acreage  as well as
the capacity of existing developable acreage.

     EIS  Alternatives  2,  3 and 5, combining  centralized  and cluster
systems,  could also  induce population  growth but at a substantially
lower  level  than the centralized alternatives.   EIS Alternatives 3 and 5
(which differ  only in  their proposed  servicing of Oden Island) have the
potential  for induced  population growth  of  approximately 2.5% to 5.0%
while  EIS  Alternative  2,  which  provides centralized service to all seg-
ments  except  7,  8,  9,  17,   and  18, could induce  population  growth of
approximately  10%  to  15%  over the  baseline projections.   The  major
difference between  these  combined  centralized/cluster system alterna-
tives  and  the totally centralized alternatives  lies in the  proposed
servicing  of Segments 7, 8,  and  9.   The centralized alternatives provide
full  service to these  segments  while  the  combined systems provide hold-
ing  tanks  for Segment  7,  a  cluster system for Segment 8, and no waste-
water  treatment for Segments 9.

     The  No Action Alternative  and EIS Alternative 6 (Limited Action)
are likely to  hold  population growth in the Proposed Service Area 10% to
25%  respectively  below the  baseline level while EIS Alternative 1 would
be  expected  to  allow  population growth  nearly equal to the  baseline
figure.  The fact that EIS  Alternative 6  and the No Action Alternative
would  open  up virtually  no  new land  for development accounts for the
lower  population growth under these  alternatives.

     Under the Facility Plan Proposed  Action and  EIS Alternatives 2, 3,
4,  and 5,  it is  likely  that total system  capacity  will be  exhausted
before the year 2000.   The exact timing of system  exhaustion will depend
on the development pressures in  the service  area  and the rate of popu-
lation growth during  the  planning  period.   Currently, the development
pressures  in  the   Service Area   do  not indicate  an induced  population
growth of 100% during the  planning period.   However, the trend toward
greater demand for permanent  residences  in the  Service Area  and the
introduction of a wastewater management system in  the  Service Area could
substantially  increase  the rate  of growth.

     Areas  of  Springvale  and Littlefield  Townships  lying  outside of the
Proposed Service Area  should not be  significantly  influenced by the type
of  wastewater management  system   implemented  in the   Service  Area.
Currently   residential demand in these outlying segments is relatively
low except for the more urbanized  areas such as Alanson.  For the most
part,   residential  demand   in   the  Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes   area  is
influenced  by visual  and  physical  access to the  lakes.   Consequently,
the  demand  for  residential  development in  non-lakeshore areas  is not
likely to  be  significantly   different  with or without the provision of
centralized  treatment  facilities.

320 A9                              153

-------
2.   IMPACTS ON LAND USE

     The land use impacts associated with the  various  wastewater manage-
ment alternatives  are  primarily related  to the induced population  in-
creases  and  the  resultant  demand  for  residential  land.   While  the
potential for commercial  or  industrial  land uses typically exists when
extensive wastewater  management systems  are introduced  into an  area,
there does  not  appear  to be  any likelihood  of significant  non-resident-
ial development  in the  Proposed Service  Area.

a.   Land Use  Conversion

     The  primary  and  secondary  development pressures generated by  the
provision  of centralized and/or  decentralized  wastewater  management
facilities in the Proposed Service  Area  could  increase developed acreage
by as much as 130 acres over  the existing figure by  the year 2000.  This
would  occur under the  Proposed  Action  and  would result in total  resi-
dential  area  of  nearly  245  acres.    In  comparison,  the  No Action
Alternative would result  in  an increase in  developed  acreage  of only 25
acres  for a total figure of  approximately 140  acres.  The  intermediate
alternatives are  projected to  result in land use increases of  77  acres
for EIS  Alternative 1;  93 acres for EIS Alternative 2; 80  acres for  EIS
Alternative 3;  97 acres for  EIS Alternative 4;   79  acres for  EIS Alter-
native  5; and 38 acres for EIS  Alternative 6.   On  a per capita or  per
dwelling  unit basis,   the less  centralized alternatives  are  more land
consumptive since permitted residential  densities are  only  two units  per
acre for  areas  not  serviced  by a centralized  system whereas centralized
service permits  densities of  approximately four  units  per acre.

b.   Land Use  Pattern and Intensity Changes

     The pattern of land use  development in  the  Proposed Service Area is
not  expected  to be significantly  influenced  by the  type  of  wastewater
management  facilities   proposed.   The  major change  will  result from
centralized  and/or  cluster  systems which  open existing  forest,  agri-
cultural, and other lands to development.  However,  the resulting land
use pattern will  be a  continuation of the existing  residential  develop-
ment at somewhat higher  densities.   The No  Action and Limited Action
(EIS Alternative 6) Alternatives will have limited effects  on  the exist-
ing land  use  pattern while the  remaining alternatives will have a very
similar effects  which  will only vary in magnitude.

     Land  use  intensity  will  change  significantly  under the  various
alternatives  as  a result of  the  different residential densities per-
mitted  with or  without  centralized  treatment.  It  is projected that
residential  densities   could  go as  high as 3  dwelling  units per acre
under the Proposed Action compared  to an existing density  of 1.85 dwell-
ing  units per  acre.    EIS Alternative   4 is  also  projected  to have a
comparatively higher density  of  2.85 dwelling units per acre while  the
remaining alternatives  are all anticipated to have residential densities
under  1.95  dwelling  units per acre.  The  two  centralized alternatives
and  their  associated   higher  densities  are  likely  to  jeopardize  the
area's  rural  character,  while  the  other  alternatives  will result in
lower  density development which should  maintain this  rural  character.

320 A10                            154

-------
     Segments  of  the  Service Area  which are  likely to undergo  major
intensity  changes under  various alternatives include the northern half
of  Oden Island  (Segment 17)  and Segment 18 under the  Proposed Action-
Segments  7 and  9 under EIS Alternative 4 and the Proposed Action- and
the  southern half  of  Oden  Island (Segment 5) under EIS Alternatives 3
and  4  and the Proposed Action.  Other segments proposed for  centralized
treatment  service are also  likely to incur density increases,  but not if
the  same magnitude as Segments 5, 7, 9, 17, and 18.

3.   MITIGATIVE MEASURES

     With  the exception of New  Alternatives  1  and  6 and the No Action
Alternative,  the  introduction of wastewater  management systems  in the
Crooked/  Pickerel  Lakes Proposed Service Area  will induce  population
growth and  associated land  conversion  beyond  that projected  in the
baseline   forecasts   for  the  year  2000.  The  extent  of  this  induced
population growth  varies  from  2.5%  to  nearly  100% over  the baseline
projections.   The associated  land use  conversion results in  respective
increases  of from 25  to  129 acres of  additional  residential  land.  The
maximum extremes of  these  ranges would likely result in a change in the
rural  character of the area and could  result in  environmental degrada-
tion of sensitive areas.

     Measures  available to  the local  governments  of  the service area to
mitigate   these  effects  revolve primarily  around the  development and
effective  implementation of land use  control and environmental protec-
tion ordinances.   Of  particular importance is  the  need to strengthen the
Springvale Township  Zoning  Ordinance  in order to more  closely regulate
the  permitted densities  in the Lakeshore Zoning District (within 1,000
feet of  the lake).    No  density restrictions  currently  exist in the
District,   theoretically  allowing  residential  densities of  over  ten
dwelling units per acre (condominiums  or other multi-family units).   The
Emmet   County  and  Preliminary  Littlefield Township  Zoning  Ordinances
permit residential densities  of approximately one and one-half  to  four
dwelling units per acre depending upon whether centralized sewer service
is  available  and which  zoning  district  the  land lies in.   The  north
shore  of  Pickerel Lake  is  designated as a  Scenic  Resource  District,
designed  to preserve  the natural resources vital  to  the recreation and
aesthetic  qualities  of the  area.  This type  of land use control in the
Springvale Township portions  of  the service  area would likely maintain
the  character  of the  area  without denying necessary  growth and develop-
ment.

     Currently   the Michigan Inland  Lakes and  Streams Act and Michigan's
Soil Erosion and  Sedimentation Control Act represent  the only mechanisms
for  environmental  protection  in  the  Service  Area.   These  acts  are
designed to regulate  development  in submerged lands  and to monitor tree
cutting, cut and  fill operations, and  vegetation removal along the shore
of  a lake,  stream,  or river.   However,  more  stringent local controls
dealing  with wetlands development,  soil suitability   and protection of
scenic  and environmental resources may be needed  to  fully control resi
dential  development.    In  addition,  it  may be necessary for  thc  local
320 All                             155

-------
use and/or preservation.   Such efforts have already been made  to protect
the Crooked-Pickerel Lakes  Channel  and similar efforts may be required
for the  northern half of Oden  Island and other portions  of  the  shore-
line.

     As a final  means  of mitigation,  the  local governments must prepare
for the potential  influx of population associated with the provision  of
wastewater  management   systems.   Needed   efforts   in this  direction
included  the  programming and budgeting of infrastructure improvements
and additions which will be required  by larger service area population.
A  capital  improvement  program designating  the types  of improvements
needed (roads, utility systems, schools),  when they  will  be needed, and
potential  funding sources  should be  initiated concurrently with the
decision to provide a wastewater management system to the  area.

E.   ENCROACHMENT ON ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS

     Construction activities related to the various wastewater treatment
alternatives and secondary  impacts from  induced  growth may  be felt  in
certain  environmentally  sensitive areas.   The Emmet County Future Land
Use Plan  recognizes  development  constraints  imposed by poorly drained
soils  throughout the  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes  area,  and  the  Plan also
recognizes serious water pollution hazards generated  by overintensive  or
inappropriate  land  development  patterns.   Numerous  sensitive   areas,
identified  in Chapter  II, could be affected to different  degrees  by the
alternatives reviewed in this EIS.

1.   WETLANDS

a.   Primary Impacts

     Much  of the shoreline  of  Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes  is   low-lying,
poorly  drained,   and  vegetated with   mixed  hardwood  -  conifer   forest
growing  in  a thin organic  soil  on top of saturated sand.   The  entire
area between the two  lakes  consist of wet woodland  habitat (see  Figure
11-11).   Table   V-2  indicates the  Service Area  segments that contain
wetland areas and  the  alternatives  that would have impact on  these seg-
ments. The  wetland areas may be  subject  to  sedimentation during con-
struction of a sewer  collection system.  Water circulation patterns may
be modified by these  activities.

     The  Facility  Plan Proposed  Action and EIS Alternative   4 have the
greatest potential to disturb wetland  areas.   Much of, this can be  attri-
buted to construction activity which will  be necessary in  segments 7 and
8.  These areas  contain  numerous  wetlands.  The most favorable alterna-
tive  would  be   EIS  Alternative   6  due to its minimal  disturbance  to
wetland areas due to  lack of construction  of centralized sewers.

b.   Secondary  Impacts

     Secondary impacts  to  wetland  areas  would occur  as a  result  of
development induced by the  availability of additional sewerage service.
This  new  development  could impact the wetlands  of  the  Study Area  in
various ways including:
320 A12                            156

-------
                            Table V-2

                  ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
                    AND IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE




SERVICE AREA
SEGMENT #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 South
7 North 1,
8 1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Total Number
of Environmentally
Sensitive Segments
Impacted by
Alternative
g
H
H
y
<3
.-(
o
{Si
2
2
1
0
2
2
1,2
2,3,4
,2,4 1
2,4
0
1
1,2
1
0
0
0
0
1



12
KEY: 0 = No Environmentally
£
H
H
^
W
H
3
2
2
1
0
2
2
0
0
,2,4
0
0
1
1,2
1
0
0
0
0
0



9
>
M
H
<
H
§
2
2
1
0
2
2
0
0
1,2,4
0
0
1
1,2
1
0
0
0
0
0



9
Sensitive Areas
fc
H
<
w
H
3
2
2
1
0
2
2
0
0 1
1,2,4
0
0
1
1,2
1
0
0
0
0
0



9
Impacted
£
H
H
<
W
H
3
2
2
1
0
2
2
1,2
,2,3,4
1,2,4
2,4
0
1
1,2
1
0
0
0
0
0



11

fc
H
<
g
H
5J
2
2
1
0
2
2
0
0
1,2,4
0
0
1
1,2
1
0
0
0
1
0



10

>
l-l
H
<
fa
§
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,2
1
0
0
0
1
0



5

1 = Wetlands Impacted
2 = Prime Agricultural Land Impacted
3 = Bald Eagle Nesting Site Impacted
4 = Archaeological Site Impacted
                                157

-------
     *    Causing sedimentation  and fluctuation  of groundwater  levels
          during construction,  and

     •    Promoting   development   contiguous   to  these   areas   thus
          increasing sedimentation  and  runoff  into the wetlands.

     The differences in magnitude  of impacts  lie  in the degree  of  cen-
tralization of sewers and  the  concomitant  service areas  associated  with
the  alternatives.   Table V-3  indicates  the  amount  of  additional  land
that  is  projected  to be developed as  a  result of the various  sewerage
alternatives.
                               Table V-3
                 ADDITIONAL LAND DEVELOPED AS  A RESULT
                OF ALTERNATIVE SEWERAGE CONFIGURATIONS
                                             Additional  Acreage  Developed
     Alternative                             	in Study Area	

Facility Plan Proposed
 Alternative (without
 modification)                                        130  ac.

Facility Plan Proposed
 Alternative (with flow
 reduction)                                             97  ac.

EIS Alternative 1                                       77  ac.

EIS Alternative 2                                       93  ac.

EIS Alternative 3                                       80  ac.

EIS Alternative 4                                       97  ac.

EIS Alternative 5                                       79  ac.

EIS Alternative 6                                       38  ac.

No Action                                               25  ac.

     The Facility Plan Proposed Action (with and without flow reduction)
would have the greatest potential for secondary impacts  followed closely
by EIS  Alternative  4.   EIS Alternative 6 and  the  No Action Alternative
would have the least potential for disruption to wetlands.

c.   Mitigating Measures

     Emmet  County has  conducted an  inventory  of wetlands within its
boundaries.  However, this information was not available for use in this
320 A13                            158

-------
report.  Examination should be made to determine the need  for  a  100  foot
buffer zone to protect these valuable resource areas from  upland erosion
and sedimentation.   All wetlands  should be mapped for inclusion in  open
space zoning  and  also within the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act.

     Executive  Order 11990  (1977)  requires that Federal agencies should
take all possible actions  to minimize disturbance of Federally sponsored
actions  to wetlands (see  Appendix I).  Specifically, the order states
that  each  agency  shall  provide  leadership  and  shall take  action to
minimize  the destruction,   loss  or  degradation  of wetlands,   and to
preserve  and enhance the  natural  and beneficial values of wetlands in
carrying  out the agencies responsibilities for  (1)  providing Federally
undertaken,  financed, or  assisted construction and improvements; and (2)
conducting  Federal  activities and programs  affecting land  use, including
but not  limited  to  water  and related  land  resources  planning,  regulat-
ing, and  licensing  activities.

     The  Michigan  Inland  Lakes  and  Streams Act requires  issuance  of a
permit  for development activity  in  submerged lands  (areas lying below
the  ordinary high  water   mark).   Any  dredge and  fill  operations  are
therefore  subject to  a public review process.  Administrative action to
issue  or deny  a permit which meets general  guidelines provided in the
Act must explicitly consider site-specific environmental  constraints in
reaching  a  final decision.

     The  Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act governs construction
activity  occurring  within  500  feet  of the  shore  of  lake,  river, or
stream.   Limitations  are  imposed upon tree cutting,  removal of vegeta-
tive  cover,  and  cut  and  fill operations.   Mitigating measures  must be
adopted  to  control  runoff from construction sites.

     Local  zoning  regulations for Littlefield and  Springvale Townships
should  be   revised  to  provide  total protection  for wetland areas.
Ideally,  these  areas  should be zoned for open space.  Development pro-
jected  to  occur  near wetland areas should provide an adequate buffer
zone.

     If  sewer  lines  are  constructed  along the  southeast shoreline of
Crooked  Lake and connected to the interlake stream and southwest shore-
line  of Pickerel Lake,  they  should be constructed  in such  a  way as to
prevent  the  wet woodland  from being broken  into several   "islands",
separated  by corridors which may prevent some species of wildlife  from
using  the  woodland as breeding  habitat.   The adverse  effects  of   con-
struction  on wildlife would be minimized if the interceptor line were to
be  built  along  roadways,  where possible,  or at  the back  of  existing
lakeshore   lots  in those  areas  where  dead end roads lead to the lake.
Furthermore,  the potential  impacts  of construction  can  be  reduced if
such activities were  limited to the period of 15 August through 1 April
or better  still,  to 1 October through 1 March.  Wintertime construction,
although  difficult,  will   reduce  the  potential  impact  on  seasonally
nesting  birds,   such as wood ducks and  other waterfowl   green herons,
mnv kinds  of warblers and sparrows,  colonially-nesting blackbirds, plus
Zy shore  and  wading birds.  In addition,  although the seasonal activi-
Uel of the wetlands'mammals are not as obvious or pronounced, summer is



320 A14                             159

-------
also  the  time when  these animals  require  relatively disturbance-free
conditions.   Consequently,  the  detrimental effects of construction would
be minimized if the wetlands were  ditched and filled during the six cold
months of the year.

2.   PRIME  AGRICULTURAL LANDS

a.   Primary  Impacts

     Class  II  soils, identified  by  the  US Soil  Conservation Service
(SCS), are  located throughout  the  Study  Area  and are  shown in Figure
II-6.  Class  I and II soils  are rated by the  SCS  as  being "prime" for
agricultural usage.

     Table V-2 indicates the Service Area segments that contain signifi-
cant  acreages  of  prime agricultural  lands  and the  alternatives  that
would  be  likely  to  impact these  segments.  The direct loss  of  these
soils  due  to  construction of  sewerage facilities  and establishment of
rights-of-way  from any  of  the  alternatives would be minor.  However, on
a  comparative  basis, the  201  Facility  Plan  Proposed  Action  and  EIS
Alternative 4  would  have the greatest impacts  in this regard while EIS
Alternative 6 would have the least impact.

b.   Secondary  Impacts

     Some prime  agricultural land  is  likely  to be developed regardless
of  the wastewater  management option chosen.  However, the Facility Plan
Proposed Action,  EIS Alternative 2 and EIS  Alternative  4  would have a
greater  potential to  consume  prime  agricultural  areas  contiguous  to
Crooked/  Pickerel  Lakes.   EIS  Alternative  6  would  have  the  least
potential for this type  of  impact.

c.   Mitigating Measures

     Prime agricultural  lands  should be afforded  the greatest protection
from  development  by guiding  and  containing  growth  to protect  these
areas.   The State  of  Michigan  has adopted measures to help preserve
prime  agricultural lands,  open space, and  areas utilized for environ-
mental protection.   The program provides  for restrictive agreements to
limit  use of  lands for  a period of ten years.   It provides for reduced
taxes  during  this period  and  is  instituted as  a  local option.  Emmet
County has  adopted the State  measure but at  this  time no  one in the
Study Area has applied for  participation in the program.

3.   THREATENED OR  ENDANGERED  SPECIES

a.   Primary  Impacts

     The bald  eagle  is the only  species  on  the  Federal list of Endan-
gered  or Threatened  Species whose  habitat range  is known to include the
Study  Area.   A  nesting site  is located  in  the northeast  side of the
Crooked/Pickerel channel (segment  7).  The 201 Facilities  Plan  Proposed
Action and  EIS Alternative 4  could have serious  impacts  on this  site
because of  short term construction activities.   Other alternatives were
rated as having no impact on  the nesting site.

320 A15                            160

-------
b.   Secondary Impacts

     In addition to the site mentioned above, an additional nesting site
exists  1.5  miles  south  of Pickerel Lake.  With the advent of develop-
ment, these  nesting sites may be impacted to some  degree   However  the
exact  degrees of  the  impact and the relative magnitude of impacts im-
posed by the various alternatives is difficult to ascertain.

4-   ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

a.   Primary Impacts

     One  potentially important  archaeological site  is  located  in seg-
ments 7,8,  and 9  on the north shore of Pickerel  Lake.  All the alterna-
tives,  with the  exception of EIS Alternative 6, could have  impacts  on
this  large  archaeological site.   The exact degree  of the impact imposed
by the  alternatives is difficult to ascertain without more precise loca-
tional  information about the archaeological site.

b.   Secondary Impacts

     With the advent of additional residential development projected  to
occur  in the Study Area in  the  future,  this  archaeological site may  be
impacted  to  some degree.   EIS Alternative 6 has the least potential  to
create  this  type of impact.

c.   Mitigating  Measures

     According  to the  Michigan  State  Historic  Preservation  Officer
(SHPO),  the potentially  important  sites  must  be investigated for
archaeological artifacts prior to construction of any facilities.
E.   ECONOMIC IMPACTS

1.   INTRODUCTION

     The  economic  impacts of the proposed wastewater system alternatives
proposed  for  the  Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes area  are  evaluated in  this
section.   These  impacts include:   financial  burden  on  system  users;
financial pressure causing residents  to  move  away from the  Study  Area
(displacement  pressure);  and  financial  pressure to  convert  seasonal
residences to  full-year  residences (conversion  pressure).

2.   USER CHARGES

     User charges  are the costs periodically billed to  customers of the
wastewater  system.  User charges consist of three parts:   debt service
(repayment of  principal and interest), operation and maintenance costs,


                                                                ™
320 A16                             161

-------
                                 Table  V-4

                             ANNUAL USER CHARGES


         ALTERNATIVE                                            USER CHARGES

Facility Plan Proposed Action                                       $650
  (Old Population)


Facility Plan Proposed Action                                       $660
  (New Population)


E1S Alternative #1                                                  $200


EIS Alternative #2                                                  $600


EIS Alternative #3                                                  $330


EIS Alternative #4                                                  $610


EIS Alternative #5                                                  $340
EIS Alternative #6                                                  $  90
  (Limited Action)
                                     162

-------
a.   Eligibility

     Eligibility  refers to  that  portion of wastewater facilities costs
determined  by EPA  to be  eligible  for a  Federal  wastewater facilities
construction  grant.  Capital  costs  of wastewater  facilities are funded
under Section 201 of  the 1972  Federal  Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments  and the Clean  Water Act of 1977.   The  1972  and 1977 Acts enable
  A  VU   *     °f t0tal  eli8ible capital costs of conventional systems
and  85 k>  of  the  eligible  capital  costs  of  innovative  and alternative
systems.   Innovative  and  alternative  systems  considered  in  the  EIS
include  land treatment,  pressure  sewers, cluster systems,  and septic
tank rehabilitation and replacement.   The  State of Michigan funds 5% the
capital costs of both conventional and innovative/alternative wastewater
facilities.   The funding formula  in  Michigan thus requires localities to
pay  20%  of  the capital  costs of conventional  systems  and 10%  of  the
capital  costs of  innovative/alternative  systems.   Operation  and main-
tenance  costs are not funded  by  the Federal government and must be paid
by the users  of the facilities.

     The  percentage  of capital  costs  eligible  for Federal  and State
funding  greatly affects the cost that local users must bear.  Treatment
capital  costs were assumed  to be fully eligible for grant funding while
collection system  capital  costs  were  subject to  the terms  of Program
Requirements  Memorandum  (PRM) 78-9 -   This PRM establishes  three main
conditions  that must  be  satisfied  before collector  sewer  costs may be
declared  eligible:

     •     Systems  in use for  disposal of  wastes from the existing popu-
           lation  are  creating a public  health  problem, contaminating
           groundwater or violating point  source discharge requirements.

     *     Two-thirds  of the design population  (year  2000)  served by a
           sewer must  have  been in residence on 18 October 1972.

     *     Sewers  must  be shown  to  be  cost-effective when compared to
           decentralized or on-site alternatives.

     The   Michigan  Department   of  Natural  Resources  evaluated  the
eligibility of the sewers  proposed  in the Facility  Plan  and the EIS.
The  eligibility  evaluation concluded  that  all innovative/alternative
systems  and  sewers in  segments 5, 6,  8, and  16  are eligible for Federal
funding    All other collection capital costs  are ineligible for Federal
funding.   The local costs  presented  in Table  IV-5 are based  upon the EPA
determination of  eligibility.

     A  final  determination  of grant eligibility will be  prepared by the
Michigan  Department  of  Natural  Resources (MDNR).   MDNR's  determination
will be  based upon Step  2 plans  and  specifications for  the alternative
selected  to be funded.  The MDNR determination may differ  from the EPA
determination in  two  respects:

     «    EPA did  not have detailed plans  and  specifications for all
           alternatives upon which to base  its computation.   Consequently
           a detailed  sewer-by-sewer  determination was  impossible.


320  A17                              163

-------
                                 Table V-5

                            LOCAL SHARE OF COSTS
         ALTERNATIVE

Facility Plan Proposed Action
  (Old Population)
Facility Plan Proposed Action
  (New Population)
EIS Alternative #1
EIS Alternative #2
EIS Alternative #3
EIS Alternative #4
EIS Alternative #5
EIS Alternative #6
LOCAL SHARE

 1,282,200



 1,269,800



   163,400


   960,000


   423,700


   994,000


   431,500


    45,900
                                     164

-------
     •    In  estimating  collector  sewer  eligibilities,  EPA  did  not
          compare  the  alternatives  to one  another in regard  to  cost-
          effectiveness  or   to  their  probable  success  in  satisfying
          documented   public  health,   groundwater  or  point  source
          problems.   Each alternative was  considered on  its  own merits
          and on its  ability  to meet the "two-thirds" rule.   Enforcement
          of the  "need" criteria would further increase the eligibility
          of the centralized  alternatives.

b.   Calculation  of User  Charges

     The  user  charges developed for the Crooked/Pickerel Lakes  alterna-
tive  systems  consist of local capital  costs,  operation and maintenance
costs,  and  a  reserve fund charge.  The  calculation of  debt service was
based  on  local costs being paid  through  the use  of a 30-year bond at  6
7/8%  interest.   The  user  charges in  Table  IV-4  are  presented  on an
annual  charge per household basis.

     The  centralized alternatives  (Facility Plan Proposed  Action,  both
old  and new population,  EIS Alternative 2, and  EIS Alternative 4)  are
the most  costly to  users  in the Crooked/Pickerel Lakes area.   The annual
user  charges  for  the centralized alternatives range from $600  to $650
per  household.  The  relatively  high costs  of the centralized  alterna-
tives  are attributable to the ineligibility of  certain collector  sewer
segments.   Costs  for  these ineligible sewers must be met entirely at the
local  level without Federal and State assistance.

     The  decentralized alternatives  (EIS  Alternatives  1, 3, 5, and 6)
are  less  expensive than the  centralized alternatives and range  from $90
to  $340.   EIS Alternative 6  (Limited Action)  is  the  least  expensive of
all  the  alternatives.   Operation and  Maintenance  costs  are  a  more
significant part  of the annual user charges  for the decentralized alter-
natives than the  centralized alternatives.   Overall, the decentralized
alternatives  involve the  least  amount of  sewering and have  the  lowest
amount of ineligible  costs.

     In addition  to  user  charges,  households  connected  to a  gravity
sewer  would have to  pay the  capital costs  (approximately $1,000)  of the
sewer   connection.  Pressure  sewer connections,   especially for  cluster
systems,  are eligible for Federal  funding and do not represent a private
cost  to'homeowners.  Seasonal homeowners also may  have to pay  the full
price   for  the replacement or  rehabilitation  of their on-site  systems
(septic tanks  and soil  absorption systems)  if  these  systems  are  not
ceded  to  the  local wastewater management  agency,  or  the agency  given
access  by easement  for  repairs and upgrading.  These private costs  would
vary  from household  to household  due to  differences in in  the  distance
to  the gravity  collector sewer  and  the  condition of  on-site  systems.

3.   LOCAL COST BURDEN

a.   Significant  Financial Burden
320 A18                             165

-------
their  spending  patterns  substantially.   The  Federal  government  has
developed criteria to  identify  high-cost  wastewater projects (The White
House Rural  Development  Initiatives  1978).   A project  is  identified as
high-cost when the annual user charges are:

     •    1.5% of median household incomes less  than $6,000
     *    2.0% of  median household  incomes  between $6,000  and $10,000
     •    2.5% of median household incomes greater than $10,000.

     The  1978 median  household  income  for the  service  area  has  been
estimated to be $16,000 for permanent residents.   (No data are available
for seasonal resident income characteristics.)   According to the Federal
criteria,  annual  user  charges  should  not  exceed  2.5%  ($400) of  the
$16,000  median  household income figure.  Any alternative  having annual
user charges exceeding $400 is identified  as a high-cost alternative and
is  likely  to place a financial burden on users  of  the system.   Each of
the centralized alternatives  would be classified as high-cost according
to the Federal criteria.   None of these decentralized alternatives would
be classified as high-cost.

     Significant financial burden is  determined  by comparing annual user
charges with the distribution of household incomes.   Families not facing
a significant financial burden would  be the only families able to afford
the annual wastewater  user charges.   Table IV-6 shows the percentage of
households estimated  to  face a significant  financial burden under each
of  the   alternatives.   The  centralized alternatives imply  annual  user
charges that would place a significant financial burden on 60-80% of the
households in the  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes  area.   Approximately 20-40% of
the  households  in  the  area  would  be  able to  afford  the  annual  user
charges  under  the  centralized  alternatives.    Significant  financial
burden under  the  decentralized  alternatives  ranges  from 5 to 45% of the
households.   The  number  of households able  to afford  the decentralized
alternatives ranges from 55 to 95%.   The Limited Action Alternative (EIS
Alternative  6) would  place the  least financial  burden (5-10%) on house-
holds .

b.   Displacement Pressure

     Displacement pressure  is the stress  placed upon  families to move
away  from  the service area  as a  result  of costly  user  charges.   Dis-
placement  pressure   is   measured by  determining  the  percentage  of
households  having annual user  charges  exceeding  5%  of their  annual
income.   The displacement pressure  induced by each  of  the alternatives
is listed in Table IV-6.

     Displacement pressure is highest under the  centralized alternatives
and ranges from 20  to 45% of the total number  of households.  Displace-
ment pressure is less under the decentralized alternatives, ranging from
1  to  10%.   The Limited Action Alternative (EIS Alternative  6)  would
place the least amount of displacement pressure 1 to 5%, on households.
320 A19                             ,,,
                                    166

-------
                                 Table V-6

                 FINANCIAL BURDEN AND DISPLACEMENT PRESSURE
         ALTERNATIVE

Facility Plan Proposed Action
  (Old Population)
DISPLACEMENT
  PRESSURE

   35-45%
FINANCIAL
 BURDEN

 60-80%
 CAN
AFFORD

20-40%
Facility Plan Proposed Action
  (New Population)
   35-45%
 60-80%
20-40%
EIS Alternative #1
EIS Alternative  #2
EIS Alternative  #3
EIS Alternative  #4
EIS Alternative  #5
EIS Alternative  #6
5-10%
20-35%
5-10%
20-35%
5-10%
1-5%
10-20%
60-80%
35-45%
60-80%
35-45%
5-10%
80-90%
20-40%
55-65%
20-40%
55-65%
90-95%
                                      167

-------
c.   Conversion Pressure

     In  a  seasonal home  area,  the conversion of  seasonal  to  permanent
units  can  be expected  to result  from:   (1)  retirement age  households
permanently relocating to their seasonal residence; (2) local households
converting a  seasonal  residence  to a permanent home;  and (3) previously
seasonal households  converting their  second  home to  a  permanent resi-
dence  in an  effort to move away from metropolitan areas while retaining
access  to  employment opportunities  and  other urban amenities.   In the
Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes  Proposed  Service  Area,   the   introduction  of
centralized and/or decentralized wastewater management  systems is likely
to  accelerate an already  substantial  conversion  rate  of  approximately
1.0%  per  year  by  further encouraging  the  first two  of  these  three
factors.

     Alternatives providing  any form  of  centralized wastewater  manage-
ment service  to  the  existing seasonal units will make  the  conversion of
such homes  by retirement  age  and local  households  more attractive  by
eliminating the problems associated with on-lot systems.  However, since
a  significant  number  of  conversions  are  already  occurring  and  are
projected  to continue  to occur  during the  planning  period, it  would
appear  that  the provision of  wastewater management service would only
increase the conversion rate  by  an additional  .25%  to .50% per year.
This would nearly double the  number of existing seasonal units  converted
during the planning period from 23 to 44.

     Continued  use of  septic  tank  systems may  result  in  the  highest
increase in  the  conversion rate.   Since there is  only a limited amount
of  developable  land available without the provision  of centralized or
decentralized wastewater management facilities, the demand  for permanent
units  by  local households  will   have  to  be  met largely  by  existing
seasonal units.   As the  development pressures for new  permanent units
continue to increase and the  existing environmental constraints  continue
to  limit the amount  of new residential  development,  many  second home
owners may take  advantage of the opportunity to profit from the  sale of
their  relatively costly (in terms of amount of use) seasonal residences.
This stronger conversion pressure could potentially increase the  conver-
sion rate by an additional 1.0% over the baseline rate,  adding 25 to 30
seasonal units  which  would  be  converted  during  the planning  period.

4.   MITIGATIVE MEASURES

     The significant  financial burden and  displacement  pressure  may be
mitigated by  selection  of a  lower cost decentralized  alternative or the
local wastewater management authority may seek to obtain a  loan or grant
from the Farmers Home Administration.  Such a loan would decrease annual
user charges by spreading out the  payment of the local  share  over a
longer period of time  with  a  lower interest rate.  The impacts  of the
high costs  to seasonal users  may be mitigated by not charging for opera-
tion and maintenance  during  the  months  that seasonal residences are
vacant.
320 A20                            16g

-------
F.  IMPACT MATRIX
Surface Water
  Quality
Groundwater
Environmen tally
  Sensitive
  Areas
    RESOURCE

Nutrient Loading
                      Eutrophication
                        Potential
                      Shoreline
                        Eutrophication
                        Cladophora
                        Growth
                      Groundwater
                        quantity
                      Groundwater
                        quality
                      Wetlands
   IMPACT
TYPE & DEGREE

Primary;
  Long-Term
                      Primary;
                        Long-Term
                      Primary;
                        Long-Term
                                                                                    IMPACT DESCRIPTION
                      Primary;
                        Long-Terra
                                           Secondary;
                                             Long-Term
                      Primary;
                        Long-Term
                     Primary;
                       Short-Term
                                           Primary;
                                             Short Term
                                           Secondary;
                                             Long-Term
                                         All Alternatives;
                   None of  the alternatives will have a significant impact on
                   nutrient loadings  to  the lakes.  Less than 21 of the phos-
                   phorus loads to  the lakes come from septic tanks in contrast
                   to the significant loads from non-point sources (80%).

                   All Alternatives:

                   No alternative is anticipated to have a significant impact
                   on open  water quality. Continued reliance on ST/SAS would
                   increase phosphorus loads by only 4%.

                   Alternatives 1.  2. 3. 4. 5 and Facility Plan:

                   These alternatives would have the greatest potential for
                   eliminating localized lakeshore eutrophicatlon by elimi-
                   nating ST/SAS as a source of nutrients for Cladphora growth.

                   Alternative 6 and No Action:

                   Alternative 6 would mitigate the two major Cladophora
                   problems areas however localized blooms would continue.

                   All Alternatives:

                   Failure  to return wastewater flows to groundwater systems
                   will result in negligible loss of groundwater recharge.

                   All Alternatives:

                   Loss of aquifer recharge area as a result  of  possible
                   development of impervious surface coverage will be minimal.

                   No Action:

                   Septic tank phosphorus would continue to leach into the
                   groundwater.

                   Alternative 6:

                   A combination of renovation and  clustering for on-site
                   systems around the lakeshore areas  will  reduce phosphorus
                   levels leaching into  groundwater systems.   Phosphorus would
                   be eliminated within  the two existing Cladophora problem areas.

                   Alternatives  1. 2, 3.  4,  5.  and  Facility Plan:

                   Sewering and  clustering the entire  lakeshore  area  eliminates
                   any possibility of septic systems as  a source of groundwater
                   phosphorus  for localized  algae growth.

                   Alternative 4 and Facility Plan:

                   Construction  impacts  will be unavoidable.   Extent  of  impact
                   will be directly related  to  extent  of  sewerage.  Duration of
                   impact will relate to  the timing of  construction  and  the
                   swiftness of  restoration.

                   Alternatives  1, 2. 3.  5.  and 6:

                   Except for  minimal effects  during construction,  Impacts  will
                   be negligible.

                   Alternative 4 and Facility Plan:

                   The highest rate of induced  growth  would occur with these
                   alternatives  resulting in significant  development  impacts
                   on wetland  areas.

                   Alternatives  1, 2. 3,  and 5:

                   These alternatives would  have comparably moderate  rates  of
                   induced growth.   The  greater the  degree  of centralized
                   service,  the  greater  the  degree  of  impact  on  wetland  areas.

                   Alternative 6 and No Action:

                   This  alternative would have  minimal impact on wetland  areas.
                                                          169

-------
   IMPACT
  CATEGORY
Population
Land Use
Local Economy
                         RESOURCE

                     Prime
                       Agricultural
                       Land
                     Endangered
                       Species
                     Archaeological
                       Sites
Developable
  Acreage:
  Growth
  Patterns
                     Local Cost
                       Burden
                        IMPACT
                     TYPE & DEGREE

                     Primary;
                       Short-Term
                                          Secondary;
                                            Long-Terra
                                                                                IMPACT DESCRIPTION
All Alternatives:
                     Primary:
                       Short-Term
                     Primary
                       Short-Term
                                          Secondary;
                                            Long-Term
Direct  impacts from construction  of wastewater  management
alternatives will be minimal.

Alternatives 2, 4, and Facility Plan:

These alternatives will result in the greatest  amount  of
conversion of prime agricultural  land for  residential  use.

Alternatives 1. 3, and 5:

Some Prime Agricultural Land will be developed  in  shoreline
areas.  As well, acreage will be  consumed  by cluster system
absorption areas.

Alternative 6 and No Action:

This alternative will have rainijaal impact  on Prime Agricul-
tural Lands.

Alternative 4 and Facility Plan:

Construction activities could have a significant impact on
the Bald Eagle nesting site.

Alternatives 1, 2. 3, 5. and No Action;

No impact.

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and Facility Plan:

Potential Impacts exist under these alternatives.

Alternative 6 and No Action:

No impact.

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and Facility Plan:

Growth pressures that would occur with these alternatives
could impact this resource.

Alternative 6 and No Action:
Rate of
Growth
Secondary;
Long-Term
No impact.
Alternatives

4 and Facility Plan

                                          Secondary;
                                            Long-Term
                     Primary;
                       Long-Term
                                                    170
These alternatives would result in significnat induced
growth, 65% to 100% above the baseline projected.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5:

These alternatives would induce a moderately high rate of
growth, 2.5% to 10.0%, above the baseline.

Alternative 1:

Alternative 1 would accommodate the rate of growth projected.

Alternative 6 and No Action:

This alternative would hold population growth to 10% to 25%
below that projected.

Proposed Action:

Residential acreage would increase up to 130 additional
acres.  Higher density development close to the shoreline
would result.

Alternatives I, 2, 3, 4, and 5:

Residential acreage would increase between 77 and 97
additional acres with proportionally high densities.

Alternative 6;

Acreage is anticipated to Increase by 38 acres with scattered
low density development.

No Action:

Acreage would only increase by 25.

Facility Plan;

Average annual user charge would be $662  for the Facility
Plan design flow and $653 for  the EIS design flow.

-------
     IMPACT
    CATEGORY
                         RESOURCE
Economy
                      Conversion
                        Pressure
   IMPACT
TYPE & DEGREE
 Primary;
   Long-Terra
                      Displacement
                        Pressure
  Primary;
   Long-Tern
                    IMPACT DESCRIPTION

Alternatives 2 and 4:

Annual user cost would be $604 and $609, respectively.

Alternatives 3 and 5:

Annual user cost would be $332 and $339, respectively.

Alternatives 1 and 6:

Annual user cost would be $201 and $90, respectively,

All Alternatives:

Recent trends indicate that regardless of the alternative
conversion from seasonal to permanent units will continue
to occur.  The highest rate will occur with Alternative 6
since there will be the least number of housing opportunities.
Under any of the other alternatives, conversion pressure will
be least with the more centralized forms of wastewater
collection and treatment.

Alternatives 2, 4, and 'facilityPlan:

Displacement pressure would be highest under these
alternatives, from 20% to 45%.

Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 6:

These alternatives would result in low displacement pressure
ranging  from 17. to 10%.
                                                             171

-------
172

-------
                               CHAPTER VI

                   CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


A.   INTRODUCTION

     As  discussed in Section  I.D.I,  EPA has  several possible courses of
action  with respect  to the Facility Plan  Proposed Action.   The  Agency
may:                                                               °   J

     •    Approve the  grant  application,  possibly with recommendations
          for  design changes and/or  measures to mitigate impacts  of the
          Facility Plan Proposed  Action;

     •    With the applicant's and  the State's concurrence, approve Step
          II  funding for  an alternative to  the  Facility  Plan  Proposed
          Action.

     •    Return  the   application  with  recommendations  for  additional
          Step 1 analysis;  or

     •    Reject the  grant  application.

The  choice  of one  of the  above options  depends  upon how the EIS  alter-
natives  compare  to the  Facility Plan Proposed Action.
B.   SUMMARY OF  EVALUATION

     Four  primary  criteria  were  used  in  selecting  the  EIS  recom-
mendation;  costs,  impact,  reliability,  and  flexibility.   Within each
category  several  factors  were  compared.   Cost  factors  for  example,
included  present  worth,  user  charges  and total  1980  private  costs.
Impacts  which EPA  considers  to be  decisive  in selection of an  alter-
native  are identified  and  considered.   The reliability of  alternatives
is  measured   against  centralized  collection  and  treatment  as  the
standard.

     A matrix offers a simple way to visualize the relationship between
alternatives  and the criteria used to evaluate them.   By  tabulating the
factors that  influence  the  range of choice  for each alternative, one can
quickly  compare  the effect of each upon that factor.   A matrix  relating
alternatives  to  environmental   impacts  is  presented in  Section V.F.
Table VI-1  presents  a  matrix summarizing  the  relationship between the
alternatives  and  their costs,  environmental impacts, reliability, and
flexibility.

     Table  VI-1   also ranks the  alternatives  according  to their  total
present worth.   This  ranking has two purposes:

     •    Costs  are  easily quantifiable,  perhaps  the least  subjective
          measure of  value.
319 Cl                              173

-------
                                                                            Table VI-1

                                                               ALTERNATIVE  SELECTION  MATRIX
                  COSTS
                                                                       ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
EIS
Alterna-
tive 4
           P« a *—    P u    H CK --•
          3,175.49   610    75.07
EIS
Alterna-
sive 2
          3,126.61   600    104.82
EIS
Alterna-
tive 5
          2,597,58   340
                             24.72

Wastewater
Quality Impacts
Nutrient loads from
septic tank drain-
fields are eliminated

Non-point sources
continue to be a major
source of nutrients

Estimated nutrient
load decreases only
2-3%
Nutrient loads from
septic tank drain-
fields are eliminated

Non-point sources
continue to be a major
source of nutrients




Groundwater
Quality
Impacts
Eliminates
septic
systems
as a
possible
source of
groundwater
pollution



Eliminates
septic
systems
as a
possible
source of
groundwater
pollution




Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
Construction
impacts are
unavoidable

Significant
Impacts will
result from
induced growth



Minimal
impacts during
construction

Moderate rate
of Induced
growth results
in Impacts on
wetlands and
prime agricul-
ture lands

Population
Impacts
Population
will Increase
65% over
baseline
projected






Population
will increase
10-15% above
baseline









Land Use
Residential
acreage would
increase 97
acres

High density
development
would occur



Residential
acreage would
increase 93
acres

Moderately
high density
development
would occur


                                                                                          SOCIOECONOMIC
                                                                                             IMPACTS
Nutrient loads  from
septic tank drain-
fields are eliminated

Non-point sources
continue to be  a major
source of nutrients
Eliminates Minimum
septic impacts
systems
as a
possible
source of
groundwater
pollution
Population
will increase
5-10% above
baseline


Residential
acreage would
increase 79
acres
Medium
density
development
would occur
                                                                                                                               60-30%    20-35%
                                                                                                                               35-45%    5-10%
                                                                                                                               35-45%    5-10%
                                                                                                                                                Flexibility   Reliability
                                                                                                            Reduced
                                                                                                            flexibility
                                                                                                            with a fixed
                                                                                                            collection
                                                                                                            system size.
                                                                                                            Land Applica-
                                                                                                            tion systems
                                                                                                            retains
                                                                                                            flexibility
                                                                                                            limited only
                                                                                                            by available
                                                                                                            land

                                                                                                            Land appli-
                                                                                                            cation sys-
                                                                                                            tems retains
                                                                                                            flexibility
                                                                                                            limited only
                                                                                                            by available
                                                                                                            land

                                                                                                            Provides for
                                                                                                            flexibility
                                                                                                            for future
                                                                                                            expansion
                                                                                                            because of
                                                                                                            different
                                                                                                            treatment
                                                                                                            modes used
                                                                                                                                                Land appli-
                                                                                                                                                cation sys-
                                                                                                                                                tems retains
                                                                                                                                                flexibility
                                                                                                                                                limited only
                                                                                                                                                by available
                                                                                                                                                land

                                                                                                                                                Provides for
                                                                                                                                                flexibility
                                                                                                                                                for future
                                                                                                                                                expansion
                                                                                                                                                because of
                                                                                                                                                different
                                                                                                                                                treatment
                                                                                                                                                modes used
                                                                                                                                                              With proper
                                                                                                                                                              design,  opera-
                                                                                                                                                              tion, and
                                                                                                                                                              maintenance  land
                                                                                                                                                              application  sys-
                                                                                                                                                              tems provide a
                                                                                                                                                              good level of
                                                                                                                                                              reliability
Properly de-
signed and
maintained
cluster sys-
tems will
provide        I
satisfactory
service.

With proper
design, opera-
tion, and
maintenance
land applica-
tion systems
provide a good
level of reli-
ability

Properly de-
signed and
maintained
cluster sys-
tems will
provide
satisfactory
service

With proper
design, opera-
tion, and
maintenance
land applica-
tion systems
provide a good
level of reli-
ability

-------
Table VI-1 - Cont'd.
COSTS

^-v 
wo ^
CO 0)
0) JS O M
(fl t-l 1-( l-t tJ
 «) fl
MOM W J2
CM &O paU
Facility 3,896.55 650
Plan
Proposed
Action
(Old
Design
Flow)





Facility 3 , 558 . 03 660
Plan
Proposed
Action
(EIS
Design
Flow)




EIS 3,197,15 330
Alterna-
tive 3













ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
W
4J
W
0 0
00 U
o> .*-.
rH 0) 0
*J 0
iH tfl O
£! S £> Wastewater
£ £ £ Quality Impacts
250.24 Nutrient loads from
septic tank drain-
fields are eliminated

Non-point sources
continue to be a major
source of nutrients

Estimated nutrient
load decreases only
2-3%

199.10 Nutrient loads from
septic tank drain-
fields are eliminated

Non-point sources
continue to be a major
source of nutrients

Estimated nutrient
load decreases only
2»3%
10.88 Nutrient loads from
septic tank drain-
fields are eliminated

Non-point sources
continue to be a major
source of nutrients
Estimated nutrient
load decreases only
2-3%







Groundwater
Quality
Impacts
Eliminates
septic
systems
as a
possible
source of
groundwater
pollution




Eliminates
septic
systems
as a
possible
source of
groundwater
pollution



Eliminated
septic
systems
as a
possible
source of
groundwater
pollution










Env i r onmen tally
Sensitive Areas
Construction
Impacts are
unavoidable

Significant
impacts will
result from
Induced growth




Construction
impacts are
unavoidable

Significant
Impacts will
result from
induced growth



Minimal
impacts during
construction

Moderate rate
of Induced
growth impacts
prime agricul-
tural lands









Population
Impacts
Population
will increase
100% above
baseline pop-
ulation pro-
jected by this
EIS





Population
will Increase
100% above
baseline pop-
ulation pro-
jected by this
EIS




Population
will Increase
2.5 to 5%
above baseline
projected














Land Use
Residential
acreage would
Increase up
to 130 addi-
tional acrea

High density
development
would occur



Residential
acreage would
increase 97
acres







Residential
acreage would
increase 80
acres

Medium density
development
would occur









SOCIOECONOM1C
IMPACTS
u
ti
at
H o' i
-r* U *^
u a nJ d
c a, ^j 
-------
          Table  VI-1  -  Cont'd.
                                                                        ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS




EIS
Alterna-
tive 1
*J O

(ft W r-t
Q) to 
fc S3 **^-
2,514.74


m
4J
(0
o o
s $ "-.
^ M « O

I* M nJ > «-4
Of « U -rl W
£5 U H fc -^
200




Wastewater
Quality Impacts
Nutrient loads from
septic tanks drain-
fields are eliminated

Groundwater
Quality
Impacts
Eliminated
septic
systems


Envi ronmen tal ly
Sensitive Areas
Minimum
impact



Population
Impacts
Baseline pop-
ulation would
be accommodated



Land Use
Resident:
acreage \
increase
                                    Non-point sources       possible
                                    continue to be a major  source of
                                    source of nutrients     groundwater
                                                           pollution
                                 SOCIOECONOHIC
                                    IMPACTS
5 4)
tfl -O
C V*
•H 3
ft, CO
10-20%






A 5
a-c
VI M
•M 3
C5 EQ
5-10%







Flexibility
High
flexibility
to accommo-
date future
growth



Reliability
Properly de-
signed and
maintained
cluster sys-
tems provide
satisfactory
service
EIS
Alterna-
tive 6
No
Action
          1,184.23
                      90
Phosphorus load to
lake increases by 4%,
No impact on open
water. Near shore
cladaphora growth
may occur
Nutrient loads from
septic tank drain-
fields continue to
leach Into the lakes


Amount of
nutrients
reaching
groundwater
reduced

Leachate
continues
to pose
groundwater
pollution
problems
                                                                          No impact
                                                                          No impact
Population
growth would
be 10% below
baseline
projected
Residential
acreage would
Increase 38
acres in low
density pattern
                                                                                                                               5-10%
                                                                                                                                       1-5
Population      Scattered low
growth would be  density develop-
25% below base-  raent would
line projected   increase only
                25 acres
High
flexibility
for future
design and
planning
changes

High
flexibility
for future
design and
planning
On-site ST/SAS
and cluster
systems provide
satisfactory
service
                                                On-site systems
                                                would continue
                                                to malfunction

-------
*
          EPA  Construction  Grants  regulations require selection of the
          most   cost-effective  alternative,   that  is,  the  alternative
          meeting  project goals with  the least total present worth with
          acceptable  environmental  and socioeconomic  impacts.

     Selection  of  the cost-effective alternative requires  identification
of  trade-offs  between costs  and other criteria.   The evaluation  factors
included with total present worth in Table VI-1 are those  EPA has deter-
mined  to  be most  important in identifying trade-offs for  this project.


C.   CONCLUSIONS

     In  regard  to the existing on-site  systems  around Crooked/Pickerel
Lakes,  information   gathered  during  the preparation  of   this EIS  has
indicated the following:   1) Approximately 51 effluent plumes were found
entering  Crooked/Pickerel  Lakes.   2) Eight  septic system surface mal-
functions*  were confirmed by field verification of  aerial photography.
3)  Sanitary surveys  have  revealed  that periodic sewage backups in some
households  have occurred.   4) Effluent plumes from  septic  systems do not
contribute  significant quantities of nutrients to Crooked/Pickerel Lakes
however  they  do  support  localized  Cladophora  growth.   While  detailed
site-by-site  analysis may  reveal more problems,  field studies conducted
so  far indicate that approximately 36% of the systems arround the lake-
shore  are causing  problems of one type or another.

     Most of the on-site  systems presently in use within the EIS Service
Area are  poorly maintained  and  many are inadequately designed.   Routine
maintenance for all  on-site  systems  and upgrading of inadequately de-
signed systems will  substantially  reduce the number  of problems  caused
by  them.

     Where  problems cannot be solved by routine maintenance or upgrading
alone, alternatives to the conventional  septic tank — subsurface adsorp-
tion  systems  are  feasible  in  the Study  Area which will minimize  or
eliminate the problems.

     Future growth in Crooked/Pickerel Lakes  Service  Area depends  on how
many new lots  can be  developed and the allowable density.  Wastewater
disposal  alternatives  relying on  continued  use of  on-site  systems  as
compared  to extensive sewering  around the  lakes  would restrict both the
number of new lots as well as their density.   An  effect of  these limita-
tions  would be to  preserve  the  present  character  of the  community.

     Total  present worth  for the more  centralized alternatives (Facility
Plan Proposed  Action, EIS  Alternatives  2,  3  and 4) are higher than for
the  decentralized alternatives  (EIS Alternatives  1, 5,  and  6).   As
calculated  in  this EIS, the Facility Plan Proposed Action is 1.5 times
more expensive  than  EIS Alternative  1 and  3.3 times  more expensive than
EIS Alternative 6.   Differences  in water quality impacts  of the  alter-
natives  are  not  proportionate  to these  large  differences in  costs.
Because of  the  high costs  and limited benefits to water quality with the
more  centralized  alternatives  (Facility Plan Proposed Action and  EIS
Alternative 2,  3,  and 4),  they are  not cost-effective  and are not recom-
mended.

319 C2                              I77

-------
     The No Action  alternative  is  not recommended because it would fail
to address identified water  quality and public health problems.   The No
Action alternative would also fail to improve the monitoring and manage-
ment  of  existing  systems.   Improved  surveillance  and regulation  of
on-site systems in  the  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes Service Area would ensure
the  maintenance  of  the unique  scenic and  recreational values  of  the
area.

     The  remaining  alternatives,  EIS Alternatives 1, 5,  and  6,  include
the  use of alternative  on-site  and small scale  off-site systems around
Crooked/ Pickerel Lakes.   Each  alternative  incorporates a different mix
of  technology:   EIS Alternative 6  emphasizes continued use  of  on-site
systems,  EIS  Alternative 1 emphasizes  off-site  treatment using  cluster
systems, and EIS Alternative 5 examines land application for part of the
Proposed  Service  Area.   Comparison  of the  costs and  impacts  for these
three alternatives has led to the following  conclusions:

     •    Continued use of on-site systems,  where environmentally accept-
          able, is  the  cost  effective approach to wastewater management

     •    At low housing densities where on-site systems cannot be used,
          pressure  sewer  collection  and  cluster   system  disposal  of
          wastewater will likely be the cost-effective approach.

     *    When housing  density  exceeds approximately 50 houses per mile
          of  sewer  (assuming  all  houses  require   off-site  treatment)
          gravity  collection  for  cluster   systems  becomes  more  cost
          effective than pressure sewers.

     •    Land  application (surface)  of  wastewater becomes more prac-
          ticable as  the number  of residences and  the  design flow in-
          creases.  The  cost  comparison between surface application and
          subsurface  disposal (cluster systems)  is complicated  by  the
          factors of  site suitability, site  availability and  the local
          availability  of  adequately trained   operations  personnel.

     •    Reliance  on  on-site  systems,  as  in  EIS  Alternative  6 will
          restrict  development  opportunities  compared  to  alternatives
          using  off-site treatment.   This   impact  can  be  mitigated  by
          selective use of cluster or  land  application systems  serving
          areas  that  are  environmentally  suitable  for  development.

     •    Where groundwater flow  rates or soil conditions are conducive
          to   nutrient   transport,   and  substrate*  is  suitable  for
          Cladophora growth,  on-site  systems may stimulate local growth
          of  aquatic  plants.   Off-site treatment may  reduce  the occur-
          rence of these local growths.

     The  final selection  of  appropriate technologies to meet the treat-
ment needs of  the Crooked/Pickerel Lakes Service Area will be dependant
on  the  development of  the site specific environmental and engineering
data base outlined  in Section III.E.2.b.   This data base will determine
which  existing  systems  could  be  upgraded  on-site.   Where  on-site
upgrading is not  feasible,  such a data base would provide the necessary
319 C3
                                    178

-------
 metS   Thif„  1 °Se     ?!Xt  C°St'effeCtiVe  "lotion and treatment
 distant   /nH  th7818-!?1?  depeQd  UPOQ h°usin§ density> transmission
 application          ^ability  of  soils  for  ciuster systems or  land



 D.   DRAFT EIS RECOMMENDATION

      On  a  preliminary basis,  this EIS  recommends  formation  of a  small
 waste flows district and construction of EIS Alternative 6 at a minimum
 There are  four  major reasons  for  this:   1)  water quality impact  of the
 alternatives  varies significantly  only for shoreline  algae  concentra-
 tions; EIS  Alternative  6 provides  off-site  treatment  for  the two  major
 algal problem areas; 2) EIS Alternative 6 is clearly cost effective by a
 margin of  at least 2 to  1  compared to  the other  alternatives; 3)  EIS
 Alternative  6 possesses ample flexibility  for  expansion  or improvement;
 should groups of  individual property owners wish to develop land  in one
 of  the  EIS  Alternative  1 cluster areas, they  could  do   so  by special
 assessment  for  construction  of  a  cluster  system;  should  unforeseen
 on-site  water quality problems arise,  they  could be the object of  a new
 construction  grant application  for  a  cluster  system, blackwater/grey-
 water separation  or other appropriate  approach;  4)  It is  unlikely  that
 the  State  of Michigan  or EPA Region V  would  certify Federal  or  State
 funding  for  a  more  elaborate  alternative in  the absence  of  a  more
 clearly  defined water quality  problem.

      Please  note  that EIS Alternative 6 may vary  from the design  out-
 lined in Chapter  IV.  This is because  the  detailed site  by site  design
 work needed to decide the  level  of  on-site upgrading for each house (see
 section  III.E.2.b)  may indicate that particular dwellings have problems
 requiring different technologies  than those  incorporated in EIS Alterna-
 tive  6.   When   upgrading of existing  conventional   septic  tank-soil
 absorption  systems  is  found to  be  impractical,  alternative on-site
 measures should be  evaluated.  These  include composting or other altern-
 ative  toilets,  flow reduction  as well  as holding tanks  and  separate
 greywater/blackwater disposal.

      Cluster  systems in  addition  to those  in  EIS  Alternative  6 may be
 eligible for  Construction Grants  funding where  site data, evaluation of
 conventional  and  alternative   on-site  systems,   and   cost-effective
 analyses demostrate the practicality  of off-site  treatment and disposal.
 It  is possible  that one or more  cluster  system  could  be required  due to
 localized  site  conditions, notably in  the  area of  Channel Road or Oden
 Island. Addition  of both of these,  if needed, could increase total  pres-
ent worth costs  of Alternative 6 by  as much as 30 percent,  to perhaps
$1.6 million.

      One major  feature of  small  waste flow  district management should be
 a  continuing monitoring program  to detect  lake and groundwater quality
 problems.   Purchase of instruments for this monitoring effort is  grant
 eligible.

      One decision  the  small   waste flows district  will have  to make is
 whether  to operate  its  own pumping  truck   ("honey wagons ) for septage
 from the few holding tanks, or  to contract with local haulers.  Should
 the  district  wish to operate  its own trucks,  purchase of  them would be
 grant elibible  at 85% funding.

 319 C4                              179

-------
E.   IMPLEMENTATION

1.   Completion  of  Step  I  (Facility  Planning)  Requirements
     for the Small Waste Flows District

     Assuming that  the applicant, the local municipalities and the State
concur in  the  Recommended  Action,  Construction Grants regulations for
individual  systems  ("Privately  owned alternative wastewater treatment
works...serving one or more principal residences...)  require the appli-
cant to  take the following action prior  to  award  of a Step II grant.
(40 CFR 35.918):

     •    Certify that  the project  be  constructed  and  an operation
          maintenance  program  be established to  meet local,  State and
          Federal  requirements.   This  would  involve  development  of
          variance  procedures  for upgrading and  continued  use  of non-
          conforming on-site systems.

     •    Obtain assurance  of unlimited access to  each individual system
          at  all reasonable  times  for  such purposes  as   inspections,
          monitoring,  construction, maintenance, operations, rehabilita-
          tion and  replacement.

     »    Plan  for  an  overall  program  for management  of individual
          system including  inspection and maintenance.

     Completion of these steps would allow immediate processing of the
application and prompt disbursal of Step II funds.


2.   Scope  of  Step  II  for  the  Small Waste  Flows District

     A five  step program for wastewater management  in small waste flow
districts was suggested in Section III.E.2.   Three  of these steps would
begin immediately after  receiving Step II funds.  These  are:

     •    Develop a  site-specific environmental  and engineering  data
          base.

     *    Design the Management Organization, and

     »    Agency start-up.

     EPA will assist the applicant in defining specific objectives and
tasks for Step II work.

3.   Compliance with  State and Local Standards in the
     Small Waste  Flows  District

     As discussed in Section II.C. many existing  on-site systems do not
conform to  current  design  standards for site, design or distance from
wells or surface waters.   For some systems, such as those with under-
sized septic  tanks, non-conformance  can be remedied  relatively easily


319 C5                              180

-------
and  inexpensively.   In other  cases the  remedy may be  disruptive  and
expensive    It  is evident  that  renovation  or  replacement  of  on-site
systems should be undertaken only where the need is clearly identified.
Data on the effects of  existing systems  indicate that  many non-confor-
ming  systems  still  may  operate satisfactorily.   In  instances  where
compliance  with design  standards is either  1)  not  feasible,  or exces-
sively expensive to attain or  2)  site  monitoring of ground and surface
waters  shows  that acceptable  impacts  are or  can  be attained, then  a
variance procedure to  allow renovation  and continued use is recommended.
Decisions to  grant variances  should  be  based on  site-specific data  or on
a substantial history  of similar sites  in the area.

     Local  and  state  decisions to  develop  variance procedures  would
likely  be  influenced by  the degree of  authority  vested in  the  small
waste  flows district.    If the  district has sufficient financial backing
to  correct  errors,  and  appropriately trained  personnel to  minimize
errors  in  granting variances,  variance procedures  may  be more  liberal
than  if  fiscal and professional resources  are  limited.   Higher  local
costs,  caused by  unnecessary repairs  or  abandonment of systems is  ex-
pected  to result  from very conservative variance guidelines,  or none at
all.   Conversely,  ill-conceived or  improperly  implemented  variance
procedures  could effect frequent  water quality  problems and demands  for
more expensive off-site technologies.

4.   Ownership of On-Site  Systems  Serving Seasonal Residences

     Construction Grants  regulations allow  Federal  funding for renova-
tion and  replacement of publicly owned  on-site  systems serving principal
or  seasonally occupied residences and of privately owned on-site systems
serving  principal  residences.   Privately owned systems serving season-
ally  occupied residences  are  not eligible for Federally funded renova-
tion and  replacement.

     Depending  on the  extent  and  costs of  renovation  and replacement
necessary  for seasonal  residences,  the municipalities  or a small  waste
flows  district  may elect to  accept ownership  of the  on-site systems.
Rehabilitation  of these  systems would  then  be eligible for  Federal
assistance.  Ownership  of seasonally used systems may create responsi-
bilities  that the agency does not want  or may not leagally be capable of
fulfilling.  Under PRM79-8 however  receipt  of  a binding easement allow-
ing district  access  to a site for repair,  replacement, maintenance or
upgrading  at all  reasonable  times  is considered  tantamount  to public
ownership.
319  C6                               181

-------
182

-------
                             CHAPTER  VII

     ENVIRONMENTAL  CONSEQUENCES  OF   THE  RECOMMENDED  ACTION


A.   UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

     The  implementation  of the Recommended Action is not  expected to
create any significant adverse  impacts.  By upgrading on-site systems or
implementing  small scale  off-site treatment, the  Recommended  Action
would reduce the  occurrence of inadequately treated wastewater reaching
surface  waters or  creating  public health  problems.  The  Recommended
Action would thus  be  an  improvement on the existing situation which has
not created significant adverse impacts.


B.   CONFLICTS WITH FEDERAL,  STATE,  AND  LOCAL OBJECTIVES

     The  Recommended  Action would  have  some  effect on the  number of
existing  ST/SAS's which  currently do not comply with the provisions of
State and local codes  pertaining to minimum lot sizes, setback distances
from  wells,  surface  water bodies, etc.,   and the sizes of  some soil
absorption  fields.   The special studies undertaken for this EIS have
indicated that the  noncompliance with these provisions has not resulted
in significant adverse impacts.  The monitoring and maintenance programs
proposed under the Recommended  Action should, under these circumstances,
prove to  be the  cost-effective solution to the existing noncompliance
with State and local codes.
C.   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN  SHORT-TERM USE AND LONG-TERM
     PRODUCTIVITY

1.   SHORT-TERM USE  OF THE STUDY AREA

     The Crooked/Pickerel Lakes Study Area has been and will continue to
be used  as  a residential and  recreational area.  The  site was initially
disturbed when  construction of houses  first  began.  Disturbance  of  the
Study Area by routine residential/recreational activities will continue.
Implementation of  the  Recommended Action is not expected to alter these
disturbances.

2.   IMPACTS ON LONG-TERM  PRODUCTIVITY

a.   Commitment of Non-Renewable Resources

     Implementation of the Recommended Action would result in a minimal
loss  of terrestrial habitat.   Most future  development  is  expected in
lakeshore  areas  where  a  sufficiency of  land  (excluding terrestrial
habitats) exists.   Unlike the Facility Plan  Proposed Action,  there is
little potential for induced growth.
320 Fl                              183

-------
     Non-renewable  resources  associated  with  the  Recommended  Action
would  include  concrete  for  construction.   Unlike  the Facility  Plan
Proposed Action,  comparatively  little  electric  power  would be required
for pumps.   Some  increase of manpower  above existing  levels  would  be
required for the  construction,  operation, and management of the on-site
systems as well as the water quality monitoring program.

b.   Limitations on  Beneficial Use of  the Environment

     The Recommended Action would not have any significant effect on the
beneficial use  of  the environment.  The  level of public enjoyment of the
lakes, parks and  other scenic features  of the Study Area would be main-
tained.   This  alternative, unlike  the Facility Plan  Proposed Action,
does not have  a potential  for inducing growth that  would overcrowd the
lakes.
D.   IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

     The resources that would be  committed during implementation of the
Recommended Action include those  associated with construction and main-
tenance  of  wastewater  systems.   These  were  discussed  in  Section
VII.C.2.a.

     In  addition,  growth expected  in the  Study  Area would  require  a
commitment of resources  to the construction of new dwellings and commer-
cial establishments,  construction or improvement of roads and facilities
associated with  water  sports.   Besides  construction  materials,  such as
lumber,  steel, concrete and  glass,  electricity  and manpower would also
be committed to new development.

     Human resources would  include  construction personnel and,  perhaps
additional  personnel  to  service added  community  needs  for  services
(schools, hospitals,  roads,  etc.).
320 F2                             184

-------
GLOSSARY
      185

-------
                               GLOSSARY
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 com-
     plex  organic  matter  in the wastewater  to simpler  materials,  and
     energy.

ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT.   Wastewater treatment beyond the secondary or
     biological stage which includes  removal of nutrients such as phos-
     phorus  and  nitrogen  and a  high  percentage  of  suspended solids.
     Advanced waste treatment, also known as tertiary treatment, is the
     "polishing  stage"  of  wastewater  treatment  and  produces a  high
     quality of effluent.

AEROBIC.  Refers to life or processes that occur only in the presence of
     oxygen.

ALGAL  BLOOM.  A  proliferation of algae on the surface of lakes, streams
     or  ponds.   Algal  blooms are  stimulated by phosphate enrichment.

ALKALINE.   Having  the qualities  of a  base,  with a pH of  more than 7.

ALLUVIAL.   Pertaining  to material  that has been  carried by  a stream.

ALTERNATIVE  TECHNOLOGY.   Alternative  waste  treatment  processes  and
     techniques are proven methods  which provide for the reclaiming and
     reuse  of water,  productively  recycle waste water  constituents or
     otherwise eliminate the discharge of pollutants, or recover energy.
     Alternative technologies  may not Be  variants  of conventional bio-
     logical or physical/ chemical treatment.

AMBIENT AIR.  The unconfined portion of the atmosphere; the outside air.

ANAEROBIC.   Refers  to life or processes  that  occur  in  the absence of
     oxygen.

AQUATIC  PLANTS.   Plants  that grow in  water,  either floating  on the
     surface, or rooted emergent or submergent.

AQUIFER.   A geologic  stratum or unit that contains water and will allow
     it  to pass through.   The water  may reside in  and travel through
     innumerable 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  such harder rocks as
     shale.

ARTESIAN AQUIFER.  A  water-filled layer that is sufficiently  compressed
     between  less permeable layers to  cause the water to rise  above the
     top  of the aquifer.   If the  water pressure  is  great, water will
     flow freely from artesian wells.


                                      186     ;

-------
ARTESIAN  WEIL.   A  well in  which flow  is  sustained by the hydrostatic
     pressure of the  aquifer.   See Artesian Aquifer.

BACTERIA.   Any of  a  large  group of microscopic plants living in soil,
     water  or organic matter,  important to  man because  of  their chemical
     effects  as in nitrogen fixation, putrefaction or fermentation, or
     as pathogens.

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 which
     occurs typically during  rainless periods  when stream flow is main-
     tained largely or  entirely by discharges of groundwater.

BASIC  USAGE.   Those  functions that small waste flow districts would be
     required  to  perform in order to comply with EPA Construction Grants
     regulations  governing individual on-site wastewater systems.

BEDROCK.   The  solid rock beneath the soil and subsoil.

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND  (BOD).  A measure of  the  amount  of oxygen
     consumed  in the biological processes  that decompose  organic matter
     in water.  Large  amounts of organic waste use up large  amounts of
     dissolved oxygen;  thus,  the  greater  the degree of  pollution, the
     greater the BOD.

BIOMASS.   The  weight of  living matter in a specified unit of environ-
     ment.   Or,  an expression  of the  total  mass  or weight of a given
     population of plants or animals.

BIOTA.  The plants and animals of an area.

BOD_.   See  "Biochemical Oxygen  Demand."   Standard measurement is made
    5 for 5 days at 20°C.

BOG.    Wet, spongy  land;  usually  poorly  drained,  and  rich  in plant
     residue,  ultimately producing highly acid peat.

CAPITAL  COSTS.   All  costs  associated with installation  (as opposed to
     operation) of a  project.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES.  See Capital Costs.

CHLORINATION.   The application  of chlorine to drinking water,  sewage or
     industrial  waste  for  disinfection  or   oxidation  of  undesirable
      compounds .

COARSE FISH.   See Rough Fish.

COLIFORM BACTERIA.   Members of a large group  of bact eria that  f lourish
          the  feces and/or intestines  of warm-blooded annuals,  ^ludxng
            Fecal   coliform  bacteria,  particularly  Eschenchia coli {E.
           , enter  water mostly in fecal matter, such as sewage or  feed-


                                     187
in
man

-------
     lot  runoff.   Colifonn bacteria  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  coliform
     bacteria in  water,  therefore,  is used  as an  index  to  the proba-
     bility of  the  occurrence  of such  diease-producing bodies  (patho-
     gens) as  Salmonella,  Shigella,  and  enteric  viruses.   These path-
     ogens are relatively difficult to detect.

COLIFORM  ORGANISM.  Any  of a  number of  organisms common to  the intes-
     tinal tract  of man  and animals  whose presence  in  wastewater is an
     indicator  of  pollution   and  of  potentially  dangerous  bacterial
     contamination.

COMMINUTOR.  A machine that breaks up wastewater solids.

CONNECTION FEE.  Fee charged by municipality  to hook up  house connection
     to lateral sewer.

CUBIC FEET PER SECOND (cfs).  A measure  of the amount of water passing a
     given point.

CULTURAL  EUTROPHICATION.  Acceleration  by  man  of the  natural  aging
     process of bodies of water.

DECIDUOUS.  The  term  describing a plant that periodically  loses all of
     its  leaves,  usually in the autumn.   Most broadleaf trees  in North
     America and  a  few conifers, such as  larch and cypress,  are decid-
     uous.

DECOMPOSITION.  Reduction of the net energy level and change in chemical
     composition  of  organic matter  by 'action  of aerobic  or anaerobic
     microorganisms.   The breakdown of  complex  material  into  simpler
     substances by chemical or biological means.

DETENTION TIME.  Average  time  required for  water to  flow through a
     basin.   Also called  retention time.   Or,  the time  required  for
     natural processes to  replace  the  entire volume of a  lake's water,
     assuming complete mixing.

DETRITUS.   (1)  The  heavier mineral  debris moved by  natural watercourses
     (or  in wastewater)  usually in bed-load form.   (2) The sand,  grit,
     and  other coarse material removed by differential sedimentation in
     a  relatively short period of detention.   (3) Debris from the decom-
     position of  plants  and animals.

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).   The oxygen gas  (0.)  dissolved  in water  or sew-
     age.   Adequate  oxygen  is  necessary for  maintenance  of  fish  and
     other  aquatic   organisms.   Low  dissolved  oxygen   concentrations
     sometimes  are  due to presence, in  inadequately treated  wastewater,
     of high levels of organic compounds.

                                         188

-------
DRAINAGE  BASIN   (1) An area  from which surface runoff is  carried away
      I A S,"18.   draiaa«e system.   Also called catchment  area, water-
     shed,  dramage  area.   (2) The  largest natural drainage area sub-
     division of a continent.   The United States has been  divided at one
     time or another, for  various administrative purposes,  into some 12
     to 18 drainage basins.

DRAINAGEWAYS.  Man-made passageways, usually lined with grass or rock,
     that carry runoff of surface water.

DRYWELL.   A device  for  small  installations, comprising one  or more pits
     extending  into porous strata  and  lined  with, open-jointed stone,-
     concrete  block, precast  concrete  or  similar walls,  capped,  and
     provided  with a means  of  access,  such  as  a manhole cover.   It
     serves  to introduce into  the ground, by seepage,  the  partly treated
     effluent of a water-carriage wastewater disposal system.

EFFLUENT.  Wastewater or  other liquid, partially or completely treated,
     or in its  natural  state,  flowing out of a reservoir, basin, treat-
     ment plant, or industrial plant, or part thereof.

EFFLUENT LIMITED.   Any  stream  segment for which it is  known that water
     quality  will meet  applicable  water  quality  standards after com-
     liance with effluent discharge standards.

ELEVATED  MOUND.   A mound,  generally  constructed  of sand,  to  which
     settled  wastewater  is applied.   Usually  used in areas where con-
     ventional on-site treatment is inadequate.

ENDANGERED SPECIES (FEDERAL CLASSIFICATION).  Any  species  of animal or
     plant declared  to  be in known  danger  of  extinction  throughout all
     or  a  significant part of its  range.   Protected under Public Law
     93-205 as amended.

ENDANGERED  SPECIES  (STATE CLASSIFICATION).   Michigan's  list  includes
     those species on the Federal list that are resident for any part of
     their life cycle in Michigan.  Also includes indigenous species the
     State believes are uncommon and in need of study.

ENDECO.   Type  2100 Septic Leachate  Detector.   See  "Septic  Snooper".

ENVIRONMENT.   The  conditions  external  to  a  particular  object,  but
     generally  limited  to those conditions  which have  a direct and
     measurable  effect on the  object.   Usually  considered  to be the
     conditions  which,   surround  and  influence   a  particular  living
     organism,  population,  or   community.   The  physical  environment
     includes  light,  heat,  moisture,  and  other principally  abiotic
      components.   The  components of  the biotic  environment are  other
     living organisms and  their products.

ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT STATEMENT.   A  document required by  the  National
     Environmental  Policy Act  (PL 91-190,  1969)  when a  Federal  action
     would significantly affect  the quality of the human environment.
     Used in  the  decision-making  process to  evaluate  the anticipated
                                        189

-------
     effects (impacts) of  the proposed action on the  human,  biological
     and physical environment.

EPIIIMINION.  The  upper  layer of  generally warm, circulating water in
     lakes.

EROSION.  The process by which an object is eroded,  or worn away, by the
     action  of  wind,  water,  glacial  ice,  or  combinations   of  these
     agents.  Sometimes used  to  refer to results of chemical actions or
     temperature changes.   Erosion may  be accelerated by  human activ-
     ities .

EUTROPHIC.   Waters  with a  high  concentration of nutrients and hence a
     large production  of vegetation and frequent die-offs of plants and
     animals.

EUTROPHIC LAKES.   Shallow  lakes, weed-choked at the edges and very rich
     in  nutrients.   The water is  characterized by  large quantities of
     algae,  low water transparency, low dissolved oxygen and high BOD.

EUTROPHICATIQN.  The normally slow aging process by which a lake evolves
     into a bog or marsh, ultimately  assumes a completely terrestrial
     state  and disappears.  During  eutrophication  the  lake  becomes so
     rich  in nutritive  compounds,  especially nitrogen  and phosphorus,
     that algae and plant  life  become superabundant,  thereby  "choking"
     the lake  and causing it eventually to  dry  up.   Eutrophication may
     be  accelerated by human activities.  In the process, a once oligo-
     trophic lake becomes mesotrophic and then eutrophic.

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION.   A  process  by which water  is  evaporated and/or
     transpired from water, soil, and plant surfaces.

FECAL  COLIFOBM  BACTERIA.  See Coliform Bacteria,

FLOE.  A sheet  of  floating  ice.

FORCE  MAIN.  Pipe  designed  to carry wastewater under pressure.

GLACIAL  DEPOSIT.   A landfonn  of  rock,  soil,  and  earth  material deposited
     by  a melting  glacier.  Such material  was  originally picked up by
     the glacier  and  carried  along  its  path; it  usually  varies in
     texture  from very   fine   rock  flour  to  large boulders.  Named
     according to  their location and  shape.

GLACIAL  DRIFT.  Material  which  has been deposited by  a glacier or in
     , connection with  glacial processes.   It consists   of  rock  flour,
     sand,  pebbles, cobbles,  and boulders.  It may  occur  in  a  heter-
     ogeneous  mass  or be  more or  less well-sorted,  according to  its
     manner of deposition.

GRAVITY  SYSTEM.   A system of  conduits  (open  or   closed)  in  which  no
     liquid pumping is required.
                                    190

-------
GROUNDWATER.  Water that is below the water table.

GROUNDWATER  RUNOFF.   Groundwater  that  is  discharged  into  a  stream
     channel as spring or  seepage water.

HABITAT.   The specific  place or  the  general kind  of site in which  a
     plant  or animal normally  lives  during  all or  part of  its  life
     cycle.   An area in which the requirements  of  a  specific  plant or
     animal are met.

HOLDING TANK.  Enclosed  tank,  usually of  fiberglass or concrete, for the
     storage  of  wastewater  prior to  removal  or disposal at  another.
     location.

HIDROPONIC.   Refers to growth of  plants  in a nutrient solution, perhaps
     with the mechanical support of an inert medium such as sand.

HYPOLIMNION.  Deep,  cold and relatively undisturbed water separated from
     the  surface  layer  in the  lakes  of temperate and  arctic  regions.

IGNEOUS.    Rock  formed   by  the  solidification  of magma  (hot  molten
     material).

INFILTRATION.   The  flow of a fluid  into a  substance  through  pores or
      small  openings.  Commonly used in hydrology to denote the flow of
     water  into  soil material.

INFILTRATION/INFLOW.  Total  quantity of  water entering a sewer system.
      Infiltration means  entry through  such sources  as defective  pipes,
      pipe joints, connections, or manhole walls.  Inflow signifies dis-
      charge into the sewer  system through service connections from such
      sources as area or foundation drainage,  springs  and swamps, storm
      waters,  street wash waters, or sewers.

 INNOVATIVE  TECHNOLOGIES.   Technologies  whose  use has not been  widely
      documented by experience.  They may  not be  variants of conventional
      biological  or  physical/chemical  treatment  but  offer promise as
      methods for  conservation of energy or wastewater constituents, or
      contribute to the elimination of  discharge  of pollutants.

 INTERCEPTOR  SEWERS.   Sewers  used to  collect the flows from  main and
      trunk sewers  and carry  them to  a  central point  for treatment and
      discharge.    In a combined  sewer  system,  where street runoff  from
      rains   is   allowed  to  enter  the  system  along  with  the  sewage,
      interceptor  sewers  allow  some  of  the  sewage to  flow  untreated
      directly into  the  receiving stream to prevent the treatment plant
      from being overloaded.

 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 purxty.



      222?'
                                      191

-------
     wastewater.   In its  simplest form,  the method includes three steps:
     (1) pretreatment to  screen  out large solids;  (2)  secondary treat-
     ment and chlorination;  and (3)  application to cropland, pasture,  or
     natural  vegetation   to  allow  plants  and  soil  microorganisms  to
     remove  additional   pollutants.  Some of  the  applied  wastewater
     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 sub-
     stances from the material.

LIMITING FACTOR.   A factor whose  absence, or  excessive concentration,
     exerts  some  restraining  influence upon  a  population of  plants,
     animals or humans.

LOAM.   The textural  class  name  for  soil having  a moderate  amount  of
     sand, silt, and  clay.   Loam soils  contain  7 to  27% of clay, 28 to
     50% of silt, and less than 52% of sand.

LOESS.   Soil of wind-blown origin, predominantly  silt and  fine sand.

MACROPHXTE.   A  large  (not microscopic)  plant,  usually in  an aquatic
     habitat.

MELT  WATER.   Water which is  formed from the melting of snow,  rime,  or
     ice.

MESOTROFHIC.  Waters  with a moderate supply of nutrients  and, compared
     to  eutrophic  waters,  having  less production  of  organic  matter.

MESOTROPHIC LAKE.   Lakes of characteristics intermediate between oligo-
     trophic  and  eutrophic,  with  a  moderate  supply of  nutrients  and
     plant life.

METHEMOGLOBISEMIA.  The  presence of methemoglobin in the blood.  Methe-
     moglobin  is the oxidized form of  hemoglobin  and  it  is unable to
     combine reversibly with oxygen.

MICROSTRAINER.   A  device for screening  suspended  solids  that  are  not
     removed by sedimentation.

MILLIGRAM  PER LITER  (mg/1).   A concentration  of 1/1000 gram of a sub-
     stance 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  million,  by weight).   Used to measure and  report the  concen-
     trations  of  most  substances  that commonly  occur in natural and
     polluted waters.

MORPHOLOGICAL.  Pertaining to  Morphology.

MORPHOLOGY.  The form or  structure  of a plant or animal, or of a  feature
     of  the  earth, such as a stream,  a  lake,  or  the land in  general.
     Also,  the  science  that  is concerned with the  study  of form and

                                        192

-------
                                 ~-   G-orphology deals with the form

NON-POINT  SOURCE   A general  source  of pollution.   Surface water runoff
     is  an example as it  does not originate from a  single source and is
     not easxly controlled.

NUTRIENT BUDGET.   The amount of nutrients entering and  leaving a body of
     water on an an^i^i  basis.
NUTRIENTS.   Elements  or compounds  essential as  raw  materials  for the
     growth and  development  of organisms,  especially carbon,  oxygen,
     nitrogen and phosphorus.

OLIGOTROPHIC.   Surface  waters with good  water quality, relatively low
     concentrations of  nutrients,  and modest production of vegetation.

OLIGOTROPHIC  LAKES.   Lakes  with  highly  transparent water  of  good
     quality,  high  DO  levels, and modest production of aquatic vegeta-
     tion.

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 ordinary
     river deposits by  the fact that they often grade into moraines and
     their constituents bear evidence of glacial origin.   Also called
     frontal apron.

PARAMETER.   Any of  a  set of  physical properties  whose values determine
     characteristics or behavior.

PERCOLATION.  The  downward  movement of  water through pore spaces or
     larger voids in soil or  rock.

PERMEABILITY. The property or capacity of porous rock, sediment, or soil
     to transmit a  fluid,  usually water, or air;  it is a measure of the
     relative  ease of  flow  under  unequal pressures.  Terms  used to
     describe the  permeability  of  soil  are:  slow,  less than 0.2 inch
     per hour; moderately  slow, 0.2 to 0.63 inch; moderate,  0.63 to 2.0
     inches; moderately rapid.  2.0  to 6.3  inches; and rapid, more than
     6.3 inches per hour.  A very slow class and a very rapid class also
     may be recognized.

PETROGLYPH.  An ancient or prehistoric carving or inscription on a  rock.

PHOSPHORUS LIMITED.   Of all  the primary  nutrients necessary  to support
     algal growth, phosphorus is in the shortest supply.  Phosphorus can
                                      193

-------
     limit additional algal growth,  or if abundant,  can stimulate growth
     of algae.

PHYTOPLANKTON.  Floating  plants,  microsopic in size,  that  supply small
     animals with food  and give polluted water its green  color and bad
     taste.

POINT SOURCE.  A stationary source of a large individual emission.  This
     is  a general  definition;  point  source  is  legally and  precisely
     defined in Federal regulations.

POVERTY  LEVEL.   An index  providing a range  of poverty income cutoffs-
     adjusted by such factors as family size, sex of family head, number
     of  children under  18 years of age,  and farm or non-farm residence.

PREHISTORIC.   A term which describes the  period of  human development
     that   occurred  before  the   advent   of   written  records.   More
     generally,  any period in  geologic time  before written  history.

PRESENT  WORTH.  The sum of money that must be set aside at the beginning
     of  the  planning period in order to amortize the costs of a project
     over  the planning period.

PRESSURE SEWER SYSTEM.   A wastewater collection  system  in which house-
     hold  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  pressuri-
     zation  facility, and the primary conductor pressurized sewer main.

PRIMARY  PRODUCTION.   Growth of green plants resulting from solar energy
     being fixed as sugar  during photosynthesis.

PRIMARY  TREATMENT.   The  first stage  in wastewater  treatment  in which
     nearly  all floating  or settleable  solids are mechanically removed
     by  screening and sedimentation.

RAPID  INFILTRATION.  A  form of land treatment where wastewater  is placed
     into  spreading basins and applied to the  land to percolate  into the
     soil.

RAPID  INFILTRATION BASIN.   Unlined wastewater lagoons designed so that
     all or part of the wastewater percolates  into the underlying soil.

RARE SPECIES.   A species  not Endangered or Threatened but uncommon and
     deserving  of further  study  and monitoring.   Peripheral species, not
     listed  as  threatened, may be  included in this category along with
     those species that were once  "threatened" or "endangered" but now
     have  increasing or protected,  stable populations.  Used as official
     classification by  some states.

RECHARGE.  The  process  by which water  is added to an  aquifer.   Used  also
     to  indicate the water  that  is added.   Natural  recharge occurs  when
     water from rainfall  or a stream enters the ground and  percolates  to
     the water  table.   Artificial recharge  by spreading  water  on absorp-


                                       194

-------
     tive  ground over an aquifer or by injecting water through wells is
     used  to  store water and  to protect groundwater against the intru-
     sion  of  sea water.

RETENTION  TIME.  See  Detention Time.

ROTATING  BIOLOGICAL  CONTACTOR (RBC).  A  device, consisting of plastic
     disks that rotate alternately  through wastewater and air, used for
     secondary treatment of wastewater.

ROUGE FISH.   Those fish species considered to be of low sport value when
     taken on  tackle,  or  of  poor eating  quality;  e.g. gar, suckers..
     Rough fish  are  more  tolerant  of  widely changing  environmental
     conditions than are game fish.   Also called coarse fish.

RUNOFF.    Surface  runoff is the water from rainfall,  melted  snow or
     irrigation water that  flows over the surface of the land.  Ground-
     water runoff, or  seepage  flow from groundwater, is the water that
     enters the ground and  reappears as surface water.   Hydraulic runoff
     is  groundwater runoff  plus the surface runoff that flows to stream
     channels, and represents that part of the precipitation on a drainage
     basin that is discharged from the basin as streamflow.  Runoff can
     pick up pollutants  from the air or the land  and  carry them to the
     receiving waters.

SANITARY  SEWERS.   Sewers  that  transport only  domestic or commercial
     sewage.   Storm water  runoff is carried in  a  separate  system.  See
     sewer.

SANITARY SURVEY.   (1)  A study of conditions  related to  the collection,
     treatment, and  disposal  of liquid,  solid,  or airborne  wastes to
     determine  the  potential hazards contributed  from these sources to
     the  environment.    (2)  A  study of the effect of  wastewater dis-
     charges on sources of  water supply,  on bathing  or other recrea-
     tional  waters,  on  shellfish  culture,  and other related environ-
     ments.

SCENIC EASEMENT.   A  partial  transfer of  land  rights to preserve the
     aesthetic attractiveness of the land by restricting activities such
     as  the  removal of  trees, placement  of billboards,  or development
     incompatible with the scenic qualities of the land.   Just compensa-
     tion is given to owners for rights lost.  The right of legal tres-
     pass is generally not included as part of this easement.

SECCHI DISK.   A round plate, 30  cm  (1 foot) in diameter,  that  is used to
     measure the  transparency  of  water.   The disk is lowered into the
     water until  it  no longer can  be  seen from the surface.  The depth
     at  which  the disk becomes  invisible  is  a  measure of 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  using such processes as  a
     trickling  filter or activated slugde.   Effective secondary  treat-
     mSt presses  remove  virtually all floating solids and  settleable
     s^ids as well as 90% of BOD and suspended  solids.  Disinfection of

                                      195

-------
     the effluent by chlorination  customarily  is the last step  in this
     process.

SEPTIC SNOOPER.   Trademark for the ENDECO (Environmental Devices Corpor-
     ation) Type  2100  Septic Leachate  Detector.  This  instrument con-
     sists of an underwater probe,  a water intake  system,  an analyzer
     control  "titi"- and  a  graphic recorder.   Water  drawn through  the
     instrument is continuously 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  leachate  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
     wastewater from a septic tank to a sewer.

SEPTIC  TANK  SOII  ABSORPTION SYSTEM  (ST/SAS).   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.

SEWER,  COMBINED.   A  sewer, or system of sewers,  that collects and con-
     ducts both sanitary sewage and storm-water runoff.  During rainless
     periods, most or all of the flow in a combined sewer is composed of
     sanitary sewage.  During a storm, runoff  increases the rate of flow
     and  may overload  the  sewage treatment  plant  to which  the sewer
     connects.  At such times,  it is common to divert some of the flow,
     without treatment, into the receiving water.

SEWEE,  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 run-
     off.   In many  sewerage  systems,  storm  sewers  are  separate from
     those carrying 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.

SHOALING.  The  bottom  effect that influences  the  height of  waves moving
     from deep to  shallow  water.
                                     196

-------
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.

SOIL ASSOCIATION.  General term used to describe a pattern of occurrence
     of  soil types in, a geographic area.

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 fraction 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 assessed  valuation upward to approximate  true market value.
      In this way  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 lake, ocean, or other body of water
     when the  water  column  is divided into  a relatively cold bottom
      layer and  a relatively  warm surface  layer,  with  a thin boundary
      layer (thermocline)  between  them.  Stratification  generally occurs
      during the  summer and during periods of ice cover  in  the winter.
      Overturns,  or  periods of mixing, occur in the  spring  and autumn.
      Stratification is most common in middle latitudes and is related to
      weather conditions, basin morphology, and altitude.

STUB FEE.  See Connection Fee.

SUBSTRATE.   (1) The surface on which  organisms may live; generally the
      soil,  the bottom of the  ocean,  of  a  lake,  a stream, or other body
      of water, or  the face of a  rock, piling,  or other natural or man-
      made structure.   (2)  The substances  used  by organisms in  liquid
      suspension.   (3) The  liquor  in which activated  sludge  or other
      matter is kept in suspension.

SUCCESSION.   A gradual sequence of  changes or phases in  vegetation (or
      animals) over  a  period  of time,  even if the climate  remains un-
      altered:  hence  plant succession.   This  will proceed  until some
      situation  of  equilibrium is attained, and  a climax community is
      established.
 SUPPLEMENTAL USAGE.  Those functions that small       .              t
      not required  to perform  in order to  comply  with EPA Construction
      Grants Regulation'   governing  i»"^\ »'-itt ^^/^
      terns.    These  functions  may,  however,  be   necessary  to  achieve
      administrative or environmental objectives.
                                       197

-------
SUSPENDED  SOLIDS  (SS).   Undissolved particles  that  are suspended  in
     water, wastewater or  other liquid,  and that  contribute  to  tur-
     bidity.   The  examination  of suspended  solids  plus  the  BOD  test
     constitute the two main  determinations  for water quality performed
     at wastewater treatment facilities.

TERTIARY TREATMENT.  See Advanced Waste Treatment.

THREATENED  SPECIES (FEDERAL CLASSIFICATION).  Any species of animal or
     plant  that is likely  to become an Endangered  species  within the
     foreseeable  future throughout  all or  a  significant  part  of its
     range.  Protected under Public Law 93-205, as amended.

TILL.   Deposits of  glacial  drift  laid  down in  place as  the glacier
     melts.   These deposits are neither sorted nor  stratified and con-
     sist  of  a heterogeneous  mass of rock flow, sand, pebbles, cobbles,
     and boulders.

TOPOGRAPHY.   The configuration of a surface  area  including  its relief,
     or relative evaluations,  and the position of its  natural and man-
     made  features.

TRICKLING  FILTER PROCESS.  A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
     which biological growth  is  attached to a fixed medium,  such as a
     bed of rocks, over which wastewater is sprayed.  The filter organ-
     isms  biochemically oxidize the complex organic matter in the waste-
     water to  simpler materials and energy.

TROPHIC LEVEL,  Any of the feeding  levels through which the passage of
     energy through  an ecosystem proceeds.   In  simplest form, trophic
     levels are:  primary producers  (green plants)  herbivores, omni—
     vores, predators, scavengers, and decomposers.

TURBIDITY.   (1) A condition in water or wastewater  caused by  the pres-
     ence  of suspended matter, resulting  in the  scattering and absorp-
     tion  of  light  rays.   (2)  A measure of fine  suspended matter in
     liquids.   (3) An analytical quantity usually reported  in  arbitrary
     turbidity units  determined  by measurements  of light  diffraction.

WATER  QUALITY.   The relative  condition of a body of water as  judged by a
     comparison between  contemporary values  and certain more or less
     objective standard values for biological, chemical,  and/or physical
     parameters.   The standard  values  usually are  based on a  specific
     series of intended  uses,  and may  vary as  the  intended uses vary.

WATER  TABLE.   The upper level of groundwater that is not confined  by an
     upper impermeable  layer and  is under  atmospheric pressure.   The
     upper surface of the  substrate  that is  wholly saturated with ground-
     water.   This level  varies  seasonally  with  the amount  of percola-
     tion.  Where it intersects  the ground surface, springs,  seepages,
     marshes  or lakes may  occur.  Also  known as the groundwater  level.

WATERSHED.   The land area drained  by  a stream,  or by an  entire  river
     system.

                                        198

-------
WEIL  106.   A  chronological record of  the soil and rock formations en-
      countered in the  operation of  sinking a well,  with  either their
      thickness or the elevation  of  the top and bottom of each formation
      given.   It also  usually includes  statements about the lithologic
      composition and  water-bearing  characteristics  of each formation,
      static  and pumping water levels, and well yield.

ZONING.  The regulation by governmental action (invested by the State to
      cities, townships, or  counties) of the use  of the land, the height
      of buildings,  and/or the proportion of the land surface that can be
      covered by structures.
                                         199

-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
          200

-------
                             BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arthur Beard Engineers, Inc. 1979.   Correspondence

Bailey, J.R, R.J.  Benoit,  J.L.  Dodson, J.M. Robb, and H. Wallman, 1969,
     A Study of  Flow Reduction and Treatment of  Wastewater  from House-
     holds.  Cincinnati, Ohio; U.S. Government Printing Office.

Cooper, I.A.,  and J.W.  Rezek.   1977.  Septage treatment and disposal.
     For EPA, Technology Transfer.

Dearth, K.H.,  1977.   Current costs  of conventional  approaches.   Data
     presented at US-EPA National Conference on  Less  Costly Wastewater
     Treatment Systems for Small Communities, Reston, Virginia.

Dillon, P.J.   1975.   The application of the  phosphorus  loading concept
     to eutrophication research.   National Research Council of Canada,
     Burlington, Ontario.

Emmet County.  1969.  Emmet County Sanitary Code.

Environmental Prottection Agency.   October 1977.   Process design manual
     for  land  treatment of  municipal  wastewater.   EPA 625/1-77-008.

EPA.    Construction   Grants   Program  Requirements   Memorandum  78-9.
     3 March 1978.

EPA.   Grants  for Construction of Treatment Works  -  Clean Water Act (40
     CFR  35 Part E):   Rules  and Regulations.   43  FR  44022-44099,  27
     September 1978.

EPIC.  1978.  Aerial Photographic  Survey of Crooked and Pickerel Lakes.

Gannon,  John.   December 13,  1978.   Water Quality  Data and Nutrient
     Budgets:  Crooked/Pickerel Lakes Report.

Gannon, John E.,  and Daniel J. Munzar, 1979.  Part I:  Water Quality and
     Nutrient Budget.  Pellston, MI.

Gold,  Arthur, and John E.  Gannon.   1978.   The  suitability of soils for
     on-site  wastewater  disposal, Pickerel  and  Crooked Lakes,  Emmet
     County, Michigan.   A  report  to  WAPORA, Inc.  (Mimeo).   Biological
     Station, University of Michigan, Pellston MI.

Gold,  Arthur  and  John E.  Gannon.   1979.  Limnological  Features  of
     Crooked  and Pickerel  Lakes.   Emmet  County,  Michigan.   Biological
     Station, University of Michigan,  Pellston,   MI.   Technical Report
     #8.

Great  Lakes Upper Mississippi River  Board of State  Sanitary Engineers.
     1978.  Recommended standards  for sewage works.  Albany, NY.
320 Gl                               201

-------
Illinois Environmental  Protection Agency Memorandum,  "Issuance  of Final
     'Illinois  Guidelines  for  the  Preparation  of  Facilities Plans for
     Unsewered Communities'", September  16,  1977.

Jones, R.A.,  and G.F.  Lee.  Septic  Tank Disposal Systems as Phosphorus
     Sources  for Surface Waters.  Robert S. Kerr Environmental  Research
     Lab.  EPA-600/3-77-129.

Kerfoot,  W.    1978.   Investigation  of  Septic  Leachate Discharges into
     Crooked  and  Pickerel Lake,  Michigan, November  1978.  K-V Asso-
     ciates,  Inc., Falmouth, Massachusetts.

Leverett,  Frank.  1907.  Flowing wells  and municipal water supplies in
     the  middle  and  notrhern  portions of the southern  peninsula  of
     Michigan.    Water-Supply   and   Irrigation  Paper   No.   183.    US
     Geological  Survey,  Washington DC.

McLaughlin, E.R.,  1968.  A recycle  system  for  conservation of  water in
     residences.  Water and sewage works 115:4,  pp.   175-176.

Michigan  Cleaning Agents  and  Water Conditioners Act  (Act  226, Public
     Acts  of  1971; Effective July 1,  1972).

Michigan Department  of  Commerce,  Travel  Bureau.   1975.  Tourist Industry
     Growth Study.

Michigan  Department  of  Natural Resources (DNR).  Air Quality Division.
     1975.  Air  quality report,  State of Michigan.  Lansing MI.

Michigan DNR, Air Quality  Division.   1976.   Air quality report,  State of
     Michigan.   Lansing MI.

Michigan DNR, Department of Public  Health.  1976, 1977.  186 water well
     records, 1969-1973, Emmet  County.   Lansing MI.

Michigan  Department  of  Natural Resources.   Variously dated.  Lake  fish
     collections and aquatic vegetation analysis records.  Unpublished.

National   Oceanic   and  Atmospheric   Administration   (NOAA).    1975.
     Climatological  data:  Michigan Annual Summaries.   90(13).   USDC,
     NCC,  Ashville NC.

NOAA.   1976.   Climatological data:   Michigan Annual  Summaries.   91(13).
     USDC, NCC,  Asheville  NC.

Northwest  Michigan Regional Planning and Development Commission.  1972.
     Northwest  Michigan Regional Clean Water  Program Vol.  I  Working
     Papers 1-14.  Traverse city, MI  Variously Paged.

Otis,  R.J.,  and D.E. Steward,  1976.   "Alternative Wastewater Facilities
     for Small Unsewered Communities in  Rural America," Annual Report to
     the Upper Great Lakes Region Commission.
320 G2                              202

-------
Siegrist, R., M.  Witt,  and W.C. Boyle,  1976.   Characteristics of Rural
     Household  Wastewater.   Journal of  the Environmental  Engineering
     Division, ASCE, No. EES, Proc. Paper 12200, pp.  533-548.

Troyan, J.J., and D.P.  Morris, March 1977.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
     of  Alternatives  for  Small  Wastewater  Treatment  Systems.   Paper
     prepared   for  the  Environmental   Protection  Agency  Technology
     Transfer Municipal Design  Seminar  on  Small  Wastewater Treatment
     Systems, Seattle WA.

University of Michigan.  1978.  Sanitary Systems of Crooked and Pickerel
     Lakes, Emmet County,  Michigan:   An On-site Survey.  For EPA Region
     V, Water Division.

US Bureau  of  the Census.   1970.  Summary data.   Department of Commerce,
     Census of Population and Housing, Washington, DC.

USDA  Soil  Conservation  Service,  in cooperation with Michigan Argicul-
     tural  Experiment  Station.   1973.   Soil  survey of Emmet  County,
     Michigan.    Prepared  by  Stanley  D.  Alfred,  Adam G.  Hyde,  and
     Richard L.   Larson.   US Government  Printing  Office, Washington DC.

US Geological Survey.  1957, 1958.  Topographic maps, 7.5 minute series.

Vilican-Leman and Associates,  Inc.   April, 1971.  Future Land Use Plan:
     Emmet  County.   Prepared  for  Emmet County  Planning  Commission.
     Southfield MI.

Williams  and Works.   1976.   Little Traverse  Bay area facility plan,
     Springvale-Bear  Creek area segment,  for wastewater collection and
     treatment.    Grand Rapids MI.
320 G3                              203
                                               * U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979652-243

-------