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
------- |