United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
June 1979
Water Division
4>EPA
Environmental Draft
Impact Statement
Alternative Waste
Treatment Systems
for Rural Lake Projects
Case Study Number 2
Green Lake Sanitary
Sewer and Water District
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
FOR RURAL LAKE PROJECTS
CASE STUDY No. 2: GREEN LAKE
SANITARY SEWER AND WATER DISTRICT
KANDIYOHI COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Prepared by the
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
and
WAPORA, INC.
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Approved by:
ohn McGuire
legional Administrator
June 1979
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
KANDIYOHI COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Prepared by
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
Comments concerning this document are invited and should be received by
August 13, 1979 .
For further information, contact:
Mr. Gregory A. Vanderlaan, Project Monitor
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60609
312/353-2157
Abstract
A 201 Facilities Plan was prepared for the Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and
Water District in 1976. The Facilities Plan concluded that extensive sewering
would be required to correct malfunctioning on-site wastewater disposal systems
and to protect the water quality of Green Lake.
Concern about the high proposed costs of the Facilities Plan Proposed
Action prompted re-examination of the Study Area and led to preparation.of
this EIS. This EIS concludes that existing wastewater treatment plants in
the area may upgraded, and that complete abandonment of on-site systems
is unjustified. Alternatives to the Facilities Plan Proposed Action have
therefore been developed and are recommended by this Agency.
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
This Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by WAPORA, Inc. under
the guidance of Gregory Vanderlaan, EPA Region V Project Monitor. Key
personnel for WAPORA included:
WAPORA, Inc.
6900 Wisconsin Avenue
Chevy Chase, MD 20015
Eric Hediger - Project Manager
David Twedell, Ph.D. - Assistant Project Manager
Gerald Peters - Project Director
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, Virginia
Barry Evans
Engineering
Arthur Beard Engineers
6900 Wisconsin Avenue
Chevy Chase, Maryland
David Wohlscheid, P.E.
David Stewart
Financial
A. T. Kearney Associates
699 Prince Street
Alexandria, Virginia
Charles Saunders
Sanitary Survey
University of Michigan Biological Station
Pellston, Michigan
Mark Hummel
Septic Leachate Analysis
K-V Associates
Falmouth, Massachusetts
William Kerfoot, Ph.D.
Soils Interpretation
USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Willmar, Minnesota
Allan G. Giencke
St. Peter, Minnesota
Richard Paulson
-------
SUMMARY
CONCLUSION
Most on-site systems around Green Lake and Nest Lake are operating
satisfactorily. Approximately 30 septic tank effluent plumes entering
Green Lake and 15 plumes entering Nest Lake have been identified, along
with a few septic system surface malfunctions; Backup of sewage in
these systems is relatively infrequent. On-site systems do not appear
to be a significant contributor of nutrients to Green Lake -- only 8% of
the total phosphorus input to this lake is estimated to come from ef-
fluent plumes. Effluent plumes only constitute an estimated 1% of the
total phosphorus budget of Nest Lake.
In the Facilities Plan, septic systems were suspected of contri-
buting to water quality and potential public health problems although
there was little evidence to support this suspicion. Neither the Facili-
ties Plan Proposed Action nor the EIS Alternatives are expected to
either adversely or beneficially affect the water quality of the open
bodies of Green Lake or Nest Lake. The lack of measurable improvement
in the quality of these open waters suggests the significance of the
non-point source loading associated with the Middle Fork of the Crow
River. This loading constitutes an estimated 73% and 96% of the total
phosphorus input to Green Lake and Nest Lake, respectively. Any im-
provement in the lake water quality associated with wastewater manage-
ment schemes presented in this EIS is likely to be masked by tributary
loads of the above magnitude.
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 de-
signed systems will substantially reduce the number of problems caused
by them. Where problems cannot be solved by routine maintenance or up-
grading alone, alternatives to the conventional septic tank -- sub-
surface absorption systems are feasible in the Study Area which will
minimize or eliminate the problems.
Future growth in the Green Lake Service Area depends on the number
of new lots that can be developed at the allowable density. Wastewater
disposal alternatives relying on continued use of on-site systems around
the lake 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 centralized alternatives (Facilities
Plan Proposed Action, EIS Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) are substantially
higher than for the decentralized alternatives (EIS Alternatives 4, 5,
6, and Limited Action). As calculated in this EIS, the Facilities Plan
Proposed Action is 57% more expensive than EIS Alternative 5 and 191%
more expensive than Limited Action . Differences in water quality im-
pacts of the alternatives are not proportionate to these large dif-
ferences in costs. Because of the high costs and limited benefits to
-------
water quality with the centralized alternatives (Facilities Plan
Proposed Action and EIS Alternatives 1, 2, and 3), they are not cost-
effective and therefore cannot be funded by EPA.
DRAFT EIS RECOMMENDATIONS -- Because EIS Alternatives 4 and 5
(decentralized approaches with land application) and 6 (decentralized
approach with upgrade/expansion of wastewater treatment plants at Spicer
and New London) can all be considered cost-effective, and because they
differ substantially from the Facilities Plan Proposed Action
(centralized approach with stabilization ponds), the recommendation of
this EIS is to return the grant application to the Green Lake Sanitary
Sewer and.Water District (GLSSWD) for additional Step 1 analysis. The
scope of additional analysis will depend on the applicant's own
decisions regarding the feasibility of the small waste flows approach
for Green Lake and Nest Lake and the merits of land application for
wastewaters from Spicer and New London.
Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 differ in the type and location of treat-
ment and disposal facilities for Spicer's and New London's wastewaters.
The GLSSWD will need to conduct additional Step 1 analyses, funded by
EPA, of alternatives to serve Spicer and New London jointly or
separately. EPA encourages the use of land application and will require
evaluation of land application including detailed site analyses. If
GLSSWD chooses Alternative 6, the Step 1 analyses must include the
following:
• Applicant's own analysis of the feasibility and costs of
treatment plant upgrading;
• Engineering, cost and environmental analysis of sludge man-
agement options; and
• Engineering, cost, and environmental analysis of effluent
disinfection options.
EPA will participate in funding additional site specific analyses of
existing on-site systems, their design, usage and environmental impacts.
These additional analyses will address:
• Development of a site-specific environmental and engineering
d^ta base;
• Design of the management organization; and
• Start-up, af;the management district.
The applicant will: need to complete additional Step 1 requirements by
taking the following actions (40 CFR 35.918):
• Certify that construction of the project and operation and
maintenance program will meet local, State and Federal re-
quirements. As a first step, this certification involves a
lot-byrlot investigation of existing septic tank systems and
site suitability for wastewater treatment. If it can be
ii
-------
demonstrated that existing systems do not degrade lake water
quality or promote public health problems, despite the find-
ings of the lot-by-lot investigation, then the GLSSWD may
initiate variance procedures for these systems under the
Minnesota Shoreland Management Act which has been adopted and
amended by Kandiyohi County. The specific variance that would
be negotiated between the GLSSWD and the County involves the
Act's stipulation that there be a 4-foot vertical distance
between the bottom of the septic tank drainfield and the
highest known groundwater elevation.
• Obtain assurance of unlimited access to each individual system
at all reasonable times for such purposes as inspections,
monitoring, construction, maintenance, operations, rehabili-
tation and replacement.
• Plan for a comprehensive program of regulation and inspection
for individual systems.
HISTORY
In November 1975, the Green Lake area Facilities Plan was submitted
to EPA Region V by the Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and Water District
acting as the applicant for funding under the EPA Construction Grants
Program. The GLSSWD Service Area encompasses the City of Spicer, the
Village of New London, and the residential area surrounding Green Lake.
Portions of New London Township, Green Lake Township, Irving Township
and Harrison Township are included in this Service Area. At the time,
the City of Spicer and village had already been sewered and were operat-
ing their own sewerage facilities.
the Facilities Plan identified the following problems associated
with the existing centralized wastewater collection and treatment fa-
cilities :
• The present Spicer and New London sanitary sewer systems are
both subject to potentially excessive infiltration/inflow.
• The Spicer and New London treatment plants do not meet Minne-
sota Pollution Control Agency 1974 discharge requirements.
The following problems associated with existing on-site systems in
the Study Area were also addressed by the facilities planners in 1976:
• An estimated 55% of the on-site wastewater disposal systems
around Green Lake cannot comply with the 4 foot separation
parameter specified in the Minnesota Shoreland Management Act;
• The same 55% of the individual disposal systems cannot be
upgraded to comply with the Shoreland Management Act because
of the small size of the platted lots around Green Lake;
• Individual disposal systems around Green Lake are contributing
to the nutrient loading of this basin (approximately 23%
iii
-------
greater than the total discharge loading from Spicer and New
London); and
• Many of the older individual on-site systems installed
approximately 20 years ago may be cesspools.
The alternative involving centralized collection and treatment by
waste stabilization lagoons was selected as the Facilities Plan Proposed
Action because it proved to be the most cost-effective of the two final
alternatives considered. The Proposed Action is cited to be in con-
currence with the comprehensive water and sewer plan adopted by Kandi-
yohi County in 1973.
EIS ISSUES
1. COST EFFECTIVENESS
The total capital cost for the Facilities Plan Proposed Action was
estimated in the Plan (August, 1976) to be $4.4 million. This repre-
sents an investment of approximately $875 per person and $3,709 per
existing dwelling unit within the Facilities Plan Proposed Service Area.
It is questionable whether total elimination of septic tanks will
have a strong positive impact on overall lake quality.
2. IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY
Although indirect evidence was presented in the Facilities Plan
indicating that there may be a water quality problem attributed to
malfunctioning lakeshore septic systems, the relationship between de-
teriorating water quality and inadequately functioning septic systems
was not documented. With the exception of two isolated cases involving
high nitrate nitrogen levels (greater than 10 milligrams per litre
(mg/1)) in domestic wells along the south shore of Green Lake, claims of
possible hazards to the public health have been unsubstantiated.
3. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The average local share per residence of the total capital costs
for the Facilities Plan Proposed Action is approximately $2,180. The
Plan estimates the ;annual user charge per resident to be $194, which
includes annual debt retirement of the amortized local share of the
project cost and annual O&M costs. The user charge represents approxi-
mately 1.4% of the average annual income for year-round residents.
Seasonal residents, particularly those in smaller, less expensive homes
may come under considerable pressure to sell their property.
4. INDUCED GROWTH AND SECONDARY IMPACTS
Based upon their experience with previous wastewater management
projects in rural lake areas, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has
concluded that sewering of Green Lake may cause the following:
iv
-------
• Increased development of lakeside areas;
• Increased development of adjacent non-lakeside areas; and
• A shift from seasonal to permanent occupancy.
5. PUBLIC CONTROVERSY OVER WATER QUALITY
Residents of Harrison Township and Irving Township have expressed
concern over the Facilities Plan - proposed stabilization pond (i.e.,
lagoon) system and its potentially adverse effects upon local ground-
water quality. Farmers and other citizens who live in the vicinity of
the proposed treatment site focus their concern on the potential for
contamination of domestic water supply wells through lagoon seepage into
sandy soils. This concern exists despite the fact that the Plan recom-
mended installation of an impermeable bentonite liner during lagoon
construction.
ENVIRONMENT
Soils
Opportunities for suitable treatment of domestic wastewater exist
at selected sites throughout the Study Area. Major factors restricting
the use of some soils for on-site waste disposal systems are perme-
ability and a seasonal high water table. The extreme variability of
these glacial soils, in some cases on a lot-by-lot basis along the Green
Lake shoreline, is significant as it requires that detailed soils and
groundwater investigations be performed prior to construction of soil-
dependent treatment systems.
Surface Water Resources
Nest Lake, with an area of 945 acres, is classified as a eutrophic
system. The irregular configuration of its shoreline, which restricts
water circulation patterns, allows for build-up of nutrients and algae
in its many embayments.
Green Lake is the focal point of the Study Area, occupying approxi-
mately 5400 acres; its primary tributary is the Middle Fork of the Crow
River. Green Lake's water quality has remained stable over the past 7
years, and it is classified as a moderately fertile (mesotrophic) sytem.
There is no evidence that existing systems are contributing signi-
ficant bacterial loads to Green Lake. Bacterial levels along nearshore
areas were generally below the Minnesota State Health Department and
MPCA standards for recreational waters. Values in excess of the stand-
ards were found in inlet and outlet streams and these levels could not
be attributed to septic tank leachate. Kerfoot (1979) detected very low
levels of fecal coliforms (generally less than 10 counts/100 ml) in
surface water (Nest Lake and Green Lake) located at the discharge of
septic leachate plumes.
v
-------
Grovmdwater Resources
Groundwater serves as the source of drinking water for the entire
EIS Service Area; it is plentiful and generally of good quality. Local-
ized high nitrate concentrations were found in groundwater during a
sample 97 wells on Green Lake in July 1977. Only two samples showed
nitrate concentrations in excess of the public health drinking water
standard of 10 mg/1. These wells were located on the northeast and
eastern Green Lake shoreline.
Additional Studies
During the preparation of this EIS, EPA pursued 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) An aerial survey was performed by EPA's Environmental Photo-
graphic Interpretation Center (EPIC) during August 1978. Results of the
survey indicate that septic system surface malfunctions are not wide-
spread in the EIS Service Area. Only 3 marginally failing systems were
identified along the Green Lake shoreline. One currently failing and
one marginally failing system were detected on the north shore of Nest
Lake. Examination of these aerial photographs indicated that near-shore
aquatic plant growth is spotty and inconclusive in terms of correlating
it with septic tank malfunctions.
2) A sanitary survey was conducted by the University of Michigan
during November 1978. The results indicate that 11% of the on-lot
systems inspected had problems attributed to site limitations such as
permeability and depth to seasonal high groundwater. Less than 1% of
the systems inspected had repairable problems. The remainder of the
systems surveyed showed no problems. There are relatively few septic
tank systems which pose public health problems as a result of backups or
ponding.
3) A study of septic effluent (leachate) movement into Green Lake
and Nest Lake was conducted during March 1979.
The following, observations were obtained from the shoreline pro-
files, analyses of groundwater and surface water samples, and evaluation
of groundwater flow rates and patterns:
o A total of 64 locations exhibited effluent plume character-
istics. Of these, 26 originated from surface water discharges
and 38 from groundwater leachate.
o The most pronounced source of leachate was inflow from the
Middle Fork of the Crow River into Nest Lake.
o A noticeable undocumented source of phosphorus loading was
observed originating from the discharge stream of an unnamed
lake near the sewered town of Spicer.
vi
-------
• The observed pattern of plumes on Green Lake correlated with
projected groundwater inflow for the surficial deposits. Most
plumes were found on the north and west shorelines with few
observed for the south and east segments.
Existing Population and Land Use
Approximately 65% of the EIS Service Area population is seasonal;
these residents are located primarily in the unsewered area surrounding
Green Lake. The permanent resident population, located throughout the
Service Area, is characterized by a relatively low income that is below
the average income for the State of Minnesota. This can be attributed
to the fact that a large portion of the population is comprised of
elderly people, who are retired and living on fixed incomes. In 1970,
persons 65 years or older accounted for 23% of all persons on poverty
status in the Study Area.
Land use in the Service Area consists of two small urban centers
(Spicer City and New London Village); permanent and seasonal family
residences; agricultural areas; commercial areas; and open land con-
sisting of woodlands and wetlands. The aesthetic appeal and recre-
ational value of the area has resulted in substantial residential
development around Green Lake.
ALTERNATIVES
Based upon the high cost of conventional wastewater collection and
treatment technology and questions concerning the eligibility of the new
sewers, 7 new alternatives were developed in this EIS. These alterna-
tives evaluated alternative collection systems (pressure sewers), treat-
ment techniques (land application), individual and multi-family septic
systems (cluster systems), and water conservation.
EIS ALTERNATIVE 1
Same as the Facilities Plan Proposed Action (centralized collec-
tion; treatment by stabilization pond), except that pressure sewers
would be substituted for gravity sewers.
EIS ALTERNATIVE 2
Same as EIS Alternative 1, except that a mechanical oxidation ditch
plant would be substituted for stabilization ponds.
EIS ALTERNATIVE 3
New London Village, City of Spicer, western shore of Green Lake,
residential/commercial area between New London Village and Nest Lake,
and the eastern half of Nest Lake would discharge their wastewaters to a
rapid infiltration plant located north of Nest Lake. Effluent is re-
covered and discharged to the Middle Fork of the Crow River. The re-
mainder of the EIS Service Area would be served by a combination of
cluster systems and on-site systems suitable to local conditions.
vii
-------
EIS ALTERNATIVE 4
Same as EIS Alternative 3 except that wastewater generated by
residents on eastern half of Nest Lake would be treated by a combination
of on-site systems and cluster systems instead of the rapid infiltration
system.
EIS ALTERNATIVE 5
Same as EIS Alternative 4, except that a spray irrigation system
would be substituted for the rapid infiltration system.
EIS ALTERNATIVE 6
Existing sewage treatment plants at Spicer and New London would be
upgraded to tertiary treatment and expanded where necessary to accom-
modate design flow. Discharge of treated wastewaters does not change
from existing locations. Remainder of EIS Service Area to be served by
a combination of on-site systems and cluster systems.
Limited Action
Same as EIS Alternative 6 except that western shore of Green Lake
and residential/commercial area between New London and Nest Lake to join
the rest of the EIS Service Area on on-site systems. There would be no
cluster systems under this alternative.
Project costs were most directly related to the extent of sewering.
No cost advantage was obtained with the use of pressure sewers.
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
Minnesota, present sanitary codes have been interpreted as authorizing
such management by local governments. Some, but not many local juris-
dictions have experience in the organization and operation of small
waste flows districts. California and Illinois provide some specific
examples.
Impacts of the 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
0
None of the Alternatives is expected to have any significant impact
on the present trophic status of Green Lake or Nest Lake. Both Nest
vi i:
-------
Lake and Green Lake will have only a slight improvement in overall water
quality.
Phosphorus input to Woodcock Lake will decrease dramatically (more
than 50%) under any proposed wastewater management scheme evaluated in
this EIS.
Groundwater
No significant primary or secondary impacts on groundwater quality
are anticipated either as a result of the short-term construction activ-
ities or long-term operation of any of the various alternatives. This
is mainly because all of the water quantitites associated with the
alternative are relatively miniscule in comparison with the estimated
groundwater storage, recharge from all other sources, and available
groundwater yield.
Primary Impacts
No significant short-term impacts on groundwater quality are anti-
cipated to result from the construction activities of any of the alter-
natives. Conclusions with respect to long-term impacts are as follows:
• Impacts on bacterial quality are expected to be insignificant
for all alternatives.
• Continued use of ST/SAS may result in minor impacts associated
with shoreline algal growths.
It is possible that some nitrates from wastewater applied to land
might reach surface waters via overland runoff, lateral interflow* in
soils, or transport in percolating groundwaters. However, application
rates for spray irrigation of effluents would be set to maximize crop
uptake of nitrogen, minimizing its concentrations in groundwater.
Because of the high application rates for rapid infiltration, recovery
of renovated effluent by recover wells or drains may be necessary.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Development on steep slopes around Green Lake and Nest Lake is
possible with any of the alternatives. This would result in erosion,
sedimentation, and transfer of nutrients to the lakes. The Facilities
Plan Proposed Action and EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 may have a somewhat
greater impact in this respect than would the Limited Action or EIS
Alternatives 3, 4, 5, or 6.
Population and Land Use Impacts
• A majority of residences directly contiguous to Green Lake and
Nest Lake and not located within the boundaries of Spicer or
New London are currently utilizing on-site waste disposal
systems. An estimated 30 to 40 additional lakeshore acres are
likely to be developed with provision of centralized sewerage
facilities.
ix
-------
© Some increase in the density of residential development along
the lake is also likely to result from centralized
facilities.
• Population growth of 5 to 10% above levels possible without
centralized facilities may accompany anticipated increases in
residential acreage and intensity.
o Centralized facilities will place severe financial pressure
upon lower- and middle-income families, resulting in the
dislocation of many less affluent residents. In addition,
• these alternatives will accelerate the conversion of occupancy
patterns from seasonal to year-round status. Disruption of
the prevailing community environment will be a possible by-
product of economic and financial pressures associated with
centralization.
e Decentralized wastewater management facilities should only
moderately influence the composition and character of the
Green Lake area.
Economic Impacts
Annual user charges are higher for the centralized alternatives
than the decentralized alternatives with respect to the currently un-
sewered portion of the Study Area. The centralized alternatives place a
significant financial burden and displacement pressure on households in
the unsewered areas. The Limited Action alternative and EIS Alternative
5 and 6 are the only ones not identified as a high-cost project for the
unsewered area. None of the alternatives has been identified as a
high-cost project with respect to New London and Spicer. Significant
financial burden and displacement pressure are much lower in New London
and Spicer as compared to the remainder of the EIS Service Area.
x
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary i
List of Tables xviii
List of Figures xx
Symbols and Abbreviations xxii
I - INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND ISSUES
A. Project History and Description 1
1. Background 1
2. Location. 1
3. History of the Construction Grant Application 5
4. The Green Lake Area Facilities Plan 6
a. Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities 8
b. Existing Problems with Water Quality and
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 12
c. Proposed Solutions: Alternatives Addressed
in the Facilities Plan 13
d. The Facilities Plan Proposed Action 14
B. Issues of this EIS 14
1. Cost Effectiveness . 14
2. Impacts on Water Quality 14
3. Economic Impact 16
4. Induced Growth and Secondary Impacts , 16
5. Public Controversy Over Water Quality 16
C. National Perspective on the Rural Sewering Problem 16
1. Socioeconomics 17
2. Secondary Impacts . .y. . 19
3. The Need for Management of Decentralized Alternative
Systems ; 20
D. Purpose and Approach of the EIS and Criteria for
Evaluation of Alternatives 21
1. Purpose 21
2. Approach 21
a. Review of Available Data 21
b. Segment Analysis 22
c. Review of Wastewater Design Flows 22
d. Development of Alternatives 22
e. Estimation of Costs for Alternatives 22
f. Evaluation of the Alternatives 22
g. Needs Documentation 22
h. Public Participation 23
xi
-------
Page
3. Major Criteria For Evaluation of Alternatives 23
a. Cost 23
b. Significant Environmental and Socioeconomic
Impacts 24
c. Reliability Ik
d. Flexibility 24
II - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. Physical Environment 26
1. Topography 26
2. Geology 28
a. Bedrock Geology 28
b. Surficial Geology 28
3. Soils 28
a. Soil Suitability for Wastewater Treatment 33
b. Prime Agricultural Lands 33
4. Atmosphere. 39
a. Climate 39
b. Air Quality 39
c. Odors 40
d. Noise 40
B. Water Resources 40
1. Water Quality Management 40
a . Clean Water Act 40
b. Federal Agency Responsibilities for
Study Area Waters : 42
c. State Responsibilities in the Green Lake
Study Area 43
d. Local Responsibilities for Water Quality
Management 43
2. Groundwater Hydrology 43
3. Groundwater Quality 45
4. Groundwater Use 46
5. Surface Water Hydrology 46
a. Size of the Drainage Basins 49
b. Tributary Flow 49
c. Lake Hydraulic Retention Time 49
d. Precipitation 49
e. Hydraulic Budget 50
xii
-------
Page
6. Surface Water Use Ami Classification 50
7. Surface Water Quality 50
a. Nutrient Budget... 50
b. Lake Water Quality. 53
c. Phosphorus Loading - Trophic Condition
Relationships 53
d. Bacterial Contamination in Shoreline Areas 53
8. Flood Prone Areas '. . 55
C. Existing Systems 55
1. Summary of Existing Data 55
a. Investigation of Septic Leachate Discharges
into Green Lake. 55
b. Environmental Photographic Interpretation
Center (EPIC) Survey 57
c. Green Lake Construction Grants Sanitary
Survey . . . 57
2. Types of Systems 60
3. Compliance with Sanitary Codes 60
4. Problems with Existing Systems 65
5. Public Health Problems . 65
a. Backups/Ponding 65
b. Groundwater Contamination 66
c. Water Quality Problems 66
d. Other Problems 67
D. Biotic Resources 67
1. Aquatic Biology. 67
a. Aquatic Vegetation '. 67
b. Fishes... 69
c. Waterfowl, Shore and Wading Birds 70
2. Terrestrial Biology 70
a. Forest 70
b. Wildlife 71
3. Wetlands 71
4. Threatened or Endangered Species 72
E. Population and Socioeconomics 72
1. Population : . . . 72
xiii
-------
a. Introduction 72
b. Existing Population 73
c. Population Projections 73
2. Characteristics of the Population 76
a. Income. 76
b. Poverty Levels 77
c. Employment 77
3. Housing Characteristics 82
4. ' Land Use 85
a. Existing Land Use 85
b. Future Land Use 85
c. Growth Management 87
5. Cultural Resources. 91
a. Archaeological Resources 91
b. Historical Resources. . '. . . . : 91
6. Recreation 91
a. Potential 91
b. County Parks 91
c. Wildlife Areas 91
d. Public Access 93
III - DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
A. Introduction 95
1. General Approach 95
2. Comparability of Alternatives: Design Population... 97
3. Comparability of Alternatives: Flow and Waste
Load Projections 97
B. Components and Options 99
1. Flow and Waste Reduction 99
a. Residential Flow Reduction 99
b. Minnesota Ban on Phosphorus 102
c. Rehabilitation of Existing Sewers To Reduce
Infiltration and Inflow 103
2. Collection. : 103
3. Wastewater :Treatment 105
a. Centralized Treatment—Discharge to Surface
Waters. '...-.'.: 106
b. Centralized Treatment—Land Disposal 109
c. Decentralized Treatment and Disposal 112
xiv
-------
4. Effluent Disposal.:'..". ... . 116
a. Reuse.1': .'.'-;"•.";:.;:i'";-.-. .'•.•.•.• ..':•..'.'.... 116
b. Discharge to Surface Water 116
c. Land Application 117
5. Sludge Handling and Disposal 117
C. Reliability of Components 120
1. 'Sewers 120
2. Centralized Treatment 121
3. On-Site Treatment. 122
4. Cluster Systems 122
D. Implementation. . . . . 123
1. Centralized Districts 123
a. Authority 123
b. Managing Agency 124
c. Financing.. . .. 124
d. User Charges 124
2. Small Waste Flow Districts 125
a. Authority 125
b. Management 126
c. Financing 129
d. User Charges 129
IV - ALTERNATIVES
A. Introduction 131
B. Alternatives. . 132
1. No Action 132
2. Facilities Plan Proposed Action 132
3. EIS Alternative 1 135
4. EIS Alternative 2. 135
5. EIS Alternative 3 135
6. EIS Alternative 4 141
7. EIS Alternative 5 141
8. EIS Alternative 6...- 141
9. Limited Action Alternative 144
C. Flexibility of the Alternatives 146
1. Facilities Plan Proposed Action 146
2. EIS Alternative 1. 146
3. EIS Alternative 2 146
xv
-------
4. EIS Alternative 3 146
5. EIS Alternative 4 147
6. EIS Alternative 5 147
7. EIS Alternative 6 147
8. Limited Action Alternative 147
D. Costs of the Alternatives 147
V - IMPACTS
A. Surface Water Quality 149
1. Primary Impacts 149
a. Analysis of Eutrophication Potential 149
b. Bacterial Contamination 151
c. Non-Point Source Loads 154
2. Secondary Impacts 154
B. Impacts on Groundwater 154
1. Groundwater Quantity Impacts 154
2. Groundwater Quality Impacts 155
3. Mitigative Measures 156
C. Population and Land Use Impacts 156
1. Introduction. 158
2. Population," 159
3. Land Use.... 159
4. Changes in Community Composition and Character 159
D. Development of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. 159
1. Floodplains and Shoreline Areas 160
2. Wetlands.. *;...• 160
3. Natural Are^s. 161
4. Archaeological and Historical Sites. 161
5. Steep Slopes.' 162
6. Prime Agricultural Land 162
E. Economic Impac^., 163
1. Introduction.,. 163
2. User Charges. 163
3. Local Cost; Burden 167
4. Mitigative Measures 168
F. Impact Matrix. .-..,• 169
xvi
-------
Page
VI --CONCISIONS;AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Introduction. 172
B. Summary of Evaluation. 172
C. Conclusions. . . . ... . ......... . . ... ... . 175
D. Draft EIS Recommendation 176
1. Small Waste Flows Approach for Green Lake
and Nest Lake. . . ; 176
2. Wastewater Management for Spicer and New London 177
E. Implementation. 178
1. Compliance with State and Local Standards in the
Small Waste Flows District 178
2. Ownership of On-Site Systems Serving
Seasonal Residences 179
VII - THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM
USE AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
A. Short Term Use of the Study Area 180
B. Impacts Upon Long-Term Productivity 180
1. Commitment of Non-Renewable Resources 180
2. Limitations on Beneficial Use of the Environment.... 180
VIII - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 181
IX - PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 182
Glossary . . 183
Bibliography 196
xvii
-------
TABLES
Table
1-1 Projected 1995 Design Flow, Green Lake Facilities
II-l
II-2
II-3
II-4
II-5
II-6
II-7
II-8
II-9
11-10
11-11
11-12
11-13
11-14
11-15
11-16
11-17
11-18
11-19
Plan
Location and Lithologic Characteristics of Surficial
Deposits
Description of Mapped Soils in the Green Lake
Study Area
Physical Characteristics of Green Lake, Nest Lake,
and Woodcock Lake
Water Budget for Nest, Green, and Woodcock Lakes,...
Phosphorus and Nitrogen Budgets for Nest, Green,
and Woodcock Lakes
Types of On-Site Systems Found Along Green Lake
Shoreline
Summary of Data for On-Site Systems.
Results of Sanitary Survey
Population and Dwelling Units (1976-2000) in the
Proposed Service Area
Kandiyohi County Percent Share of Employment by
Industry I960 and 1970
Selected Services - 1972
Retail Trade - 1972
Financial Characteristics of the Local Governments
in the Green Lake Study Area
Housing Characteristics 1970
Housing Value - 1970
Single-Family Residential Development Restrictions
Imposed by Kandiyohi County
Recreational Potential of Lakes Within the
Study Area
Major Wildlife Management Areas Within the
Study Area
Public Access to Lakes in the Green Lake Study
Area
15
31
35
48
51
52
62
64
68
75
78
79
80
81
83
84
90
92
92
94
xviii
-------
Table Page
III-l Green Lake EIS Seryice-'Area Design Population
and Flow (Year 2000) 98
III-2 Estimated Savings with Flow Reduction Devices 101
III-3 Small Waste Flow Management Functions by Operational
Component and by Basic and Supplemental Usage 127
IV-1 Alternative Summary 133
IV-2 Cbst Effectiveness of Alternatives 134
V-l Total Phosphorus Inputs Associated with the
Various Alternatives for Green and Nest Lakes 152
V-2 Comparison of Population and Land Use Impacts....... 157
V-3 Financial Burden and Displacement Pressure 164
V-4 Annual User Charges 165
VI-1 Alternative Selection Matrix 173
xix
-------
FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Location of the Green Lake Study Area 2
1-2 Photographs of Green Lake Study Area 3
1-3 Base Map of the Green Lake Study Area 4
1-4 EIS Study Area 7
1-5 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the
Green Lake Study Area 9
1-6 New London Sewage Treatment Plant 10
1-7 Spicer Sewage Treatment Plant 11
1-8 Monthly Cost of Gravity Sewers 18
II-1 Slopes of Greater Than 15 Percent Within the Green
Lake Study Area 27
II-2 General Geologic Sequence Within the Green
Lake Study Area 29
II-3 Surficial Geology of the Green Lake Study Area 30
II-4 Soil Limitations of the Green Lake Study Area 32
II-5 General Soils Map of the Green Lake Study Area 34
II-6 Hydrogeology of the Green Lake Study Area 44
II-7 Surface Water Hydrology of the Green
Lake Study Area 47
II-8 Trophic Conditions of Nest Lake and Green Lake
(1972-1973) 54
II-9 Flood Hazard Areas of the Green Lake Study Area 56
11-10 Location of Septic Leachate Plumes Around
Green Lake and Nest Lake 58
11-11 Results of Aerial Observation of Septic Tank
System Malfunctions 59
11-12 Results of 1978 EPA Construction Grant Survey 61
11-13 Green Lake Segment Location Map 74
11-14 Existing Land Use of the Green Lake Study Area 86
11-15 Future Land Use; Map of the Green Lake Study Area.... 88
xx
-------
Figure Page
III.-l STEP System 105
III-2 Flow Diagram of Facilities Plan Proposed Action 106
III-3 Flow Diagram of Facilities Plan Proposed Action 107
III-4 New London Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade 108
III-5 Spicer Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade 109
III-6 Flow Diagram -- Spray Irrigation Ill
III-7 Flow Diagram -- Rapid Infiltration Ill
III-8 Flow Diagram -- Rapid Infiltration 112
III-9 Cluster System Sites Investigated During
All Studies 115
111-10 Spray Irrigation; Rapid Infiltration
Illustration 118
III-ll Land Application Sites 119
IV-1 Proposed Facilities Design Process 136
IV-2 Location of Proposed Stabilization Pond and F.P.P.A.. 137
IV-3 EIS Alternative 1 , 138
IV-4 EIS Alternative 2 . 139
IV-5 EIS Alternative 3 Map 140
IV-6 EIS Alternative 4 Map 142
IV-7 EIS Alternative 5 Map 143
IV-8 EIS Alternative 6 Map 145
VI-1 Phosphorus Loadings by Source Contributors 150
VI-2 Tropic Status of Green and Nest Lakes 153
xxi
-------
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
P
V
v
AWT
BOD
cm
DO
ft2
fps
g/m /yr
GP
gpcd
gpm
I/I
kg/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/mile
lb/cap/day
mgd
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
advanced wastewater treatment
biochemical oxygen demand (5 day)
centimeter
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
xxii
-------
mg/1
ml
mph
msl
MPN
N
NH3-N
NO -N
NFS
O&M
P
pH
ppm
psi
SS
STEP
STP
ST/SAS
TKN
TP-P
PS/1
EPAECO
DNR
EIS
milligrams per litre
millilitre
miles per hour
mean sea level—implies above msl unless otherwise
indicated
most probable number
nitrogen
ammonia nitrogen
nitrate nitrogen
non-point source
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
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
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Environmenal Impact Statement
xxiii
-------
EPA
EPIC
FWS
GLSSWD
HUD
MPCA
NOAA
NES
NPDES
RCM
SCS
STORE!
USDA
USGS
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (of EPA)
Fish and Wildlife Service, United Stated Department of
the Interior
Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and Water District
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United
States Department of Commerce
National Eutrophication Survey
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc.
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
xxiv
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
A. PROJECT HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION
I
1. BACKGROUND
Partial Federal aid in funding of municipal wastewater facilities
is authorized by Section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution-Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA), Public Law 92-500. Funding of projects
under Section 201 is subject to the provisions of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Public Law 91-190. Section 102(2)(C)
of NEPA requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement
(EIS) on major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment. Guidance for preparation of this EIS is provided
by the Council on Environmental Quality's "Preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements: Guidelines" August 1, 1973 (40 CFR Chapter V, Part
1500) and the Environmental Protection Agency's "Manual for Preparation
of Environmental Impact Statements for Wastewater Treatment Works,
Facilities Plans, and 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans"
July 1974. Individual provisions of revised Council on Environmental
Quality guidelines issued November 29, 1978 have been followed where
practicable.
Federal funding of proposed wastewater collection and treatment
facilities in the Green Lake Study Area of Kandiyohi County, Minnesota
(see Figure 1-1) has been requested and is the subject of this Environ-
mental Impact Statement (EIS). Construction of the facilities was
recommended in the "Preliminary Feasibility Report-Water Pollution
Control Facilities Green Lake Kandiyohi County, Minnesota", which will
be described later in this Chapter.
2. LOCATION
Located approximately 100 miles west of the Minneapolis-St. Paul
metropolitan area, the Green Lake Study Area comprises about 24 square
miles of rolling fields, farmlands, wetlands, and residential/commerical
lake-side development (see Figure 1-2). It includes parts of New London
Township, Green Lake Township, Irving Township, and Harrison Township,
as illustrated in Figure 1-3. The Facilities Plan Proposed Service
Area1 is also illustrated in Figure 1-3. The combined year-round popu-
lation of the Study Area is estimated to be 2,400, with this figure
swelling to approximately 6,900 during the vacation season.
Also referred to in this EIS as the Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and
Water District (GLSSWD) Service Area.
-------
\
MINNESOTA
GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
HEBf LONDON
SPICER
©WILLBIAR
KANDIYOHI
COUNTY
FIGURE I- 1 LOCATION OF THE GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
-------
FIGURE 1-2
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
•
-------
FIGURE I- 3 BASE MAP OF THE GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
LEGEND
TOWNSHIP BOUNDARIES
EIS STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
FACICITIES PLAN PROPOSED SERVICE AREA
NEW LONDON
TOWNSHIP
IRVING TOWNSHIP
I CHETHICH LANGE SIATE
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA , T
GREEN LAKE
LAKE
TOWNSHIP
HARRISON TOWNSHIP
-------
3. HISTORY OF THE CONSTRUCTION GRANT APPLICATION
A substantial amount of consideration was devoted to the wastewater
management needs of the Study Area before the preparation of the Environ-
mental Impact Statement. A chronology of the actions taken before and
during this study is listed below.
1973
March 21,.1974
5-
November 1974
December 16, 1974
February 21, 1975
April 3, 1975
April 24, 1975
August 28, 1975
November 20, 1975
November 25, 1975
March 2, 1976
August 16, 1976
Petition of the Kandiyohi County Board of County
Commissioners to establish the Green Lake Sanitary
Sewer and Water District (GLSSWD), in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 116A.
Agreement for Engineering Services between Rieke
Carroll Muller Associates, Inc. and the County of
Kandiyohi, Minnesota for a preliminary survey in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes 116A.
National Eutrophication Survey report on Green Lake.
Submittal of Preliminary Feasibility Report on Water
Pollution Control Facilities for Green Lake and
vicinity, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota to Kandiyohi
County Commissioners.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit issued for municipal wastewater
treatment facility at Spicer, Minnesota.
NPDES permit issued for municipal wastewater treat-
ment facility at New London, Minnesota.
Establishment of the GLSSWD by the Kandiyohi County
Board of Commissioners.
Official Application for Construction Grants under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by the
GLSSWD
State "priority" certification of proposed project.
Application for construction grant received by
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Step I Grant offer made by EPA Region V.
Additional Facilities Plan Information for the
GLSWSC submitted to Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA).
September 17j 1976 Cohcerned Property Owners of Green Lake request EPA
to prepare an EIS.
-------
September 18, 1976 Facilities Plan public hearing.
October 29, 1976
Submittal of preliminary feasibility report and
supplemental information to MPCA.
September 28, 1976 MPCA requests Kandiyohi County to expand facilities
plan.
December 17, 1976 Submittal to MPCA for evaluation of additional
July 19, 1977
October 1977
facilities plan alternatives.
Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS
Preparation of EIS begins.
December 21, 1977 First public information meeting to discuss the EIS
process and specific issues related to Green Lake.
May 17, 1978
October 1978
Formation of the Green Lake Citizen's Advisory
Committee.
First Citizen's Advisory Committee meeting to dis-
cuss EIS project scope and issues.
December 20, 1978 Second Citizen's Advisory Committee meeting to
discuss the preliminary EIS alternative report.
4. THE GREEN LAKE AREA FACILITIES PLAN
In November 1975, the Green Lake area Facilities Plan was submitted
to EPA Region V by the Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and Water District
acting as the applicant for funding under the EPA Construction Grants
Program. The GLSSWD Service Area (as distinct from the Proposed EIS
Service Area illustrated in Figure 1-4) encompasses the City of Spicer,
the Village of New London, and the residential area surrounding Green
Lake. The following items together constitute the Facilities Plan for
the proposed GLSSWD Service Area (Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc..,
1976):
® Preliminary Feasibilty Report on Water Pollution Control
Facilities Green Lake Vicinity, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota,
prepared by Noyes Engineering Service and Rieke Carroll Muller
(RCM) Associates, Inc., dated December 16, 1974; and
e Supplemental information submitted to the GLSSWD dated August
16, 1976.
It must be emphasized here that although the Facilities Plan ad-
dressed the implementation of both a centralized wastewater collection
and treatment system and a water supply system to serve Green Lake area
residents, this EIS will only evaluate the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities. The EPA Construction Grants Program
serves to partially fund wastewater collection and treatment systems,
not water distribution systems.
-------
FIGURE 1-4
EIS SERVICE AREA
LEGEND
EIS SERVICE AREA
(METRIC" LAMGF S{ATE
WILOLIFE MANAGEMENT AAE
-------
The following section summarizes the Facilities Plan's descriptions
of existing wastewater treatment facilities, water quality problems, the
need for the project, alternative solutions, and the course of action
proposed. It should be noted that conclusions reached in the Facilities
Plan and reviewed here are not necessarily those reached in this EIS.
a. Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
There are two communities in the Green Lake Study Area that are
each served by independent sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems: New
London Village and the City of Spicer. The location of existing waste-
water treatment facilities serving these communities and their respec-
tive discharge points are illustrated in Figure 1-5. A brief descrip-
tion of these facilities is presented below.
New London Sewage Treatment Plant. The New London plant, con-
structed in 1954, provides primary treatment prior to discharge to the
Middle Fork of the Crow River (see Figure 1-6). The existing plant
consists of a control building which houses a dry well on the lower
level, and controls, office, and laboratory space on the upper level.
The treatment plant contains, in addition to the control building, a
primary clarifier or settling tank (see Figure 1-6) and a separate
anaerobic sludge digester (see Figure 1-6). Sludge drying beds (see
Figure 1-6) are also located on the premises. The treatment plant was
designed for an average daily flow of 129,000 gallons per day (gpd). No
historical operating data are available. However, during preparation of
the Preliminary Feasibility Report in August 1974, wastewater flows were
found to average approximately 104,000 gpd during normal weather and
130,000 gpd during wet weather.
New London initiated planning in 1969 to upgrade its present waste-?
water treatment facility. The plans were completed in 1971. The MPCA,
however, did not approve the plans as submitted because of a question
regarding the handling of chemical sludge produced in the phosphorus
removal process.
Spicer Sewage Treatment Plant. This plant, constructed in 1954, is
a conventional primary plus secondary wastewater treatment plant with
anaerobic sludge digestion. The plant consists of a control building
which houses a primary clarifier on the upper level and a trickling
filter on the lower level (see Figure 1-7). The primary treatment unit
is a "Spiragester" which is a treatment unit combining a primary settl-
- ing tank with an anaerobic sludge digestion tank at two levels similar
to an Imhoff tank. The trickling filter unit is a high rate, tile media
unit with a rotating splash plate type distributor. A small final
clarifier, a chlorine contact chamber, and some deteriorating sand
sludge drying beds are located outside of the control buidling. The
plant was designed for an average daily flow of 86,000 gpd. In August
1974, wastewater flows averaged approximately 112,000 gpd during normal
weather and 116,000 gpd during wet weather. No historical wastewater
flow data are available. The treatment plant discharges to Woodcock
Lake (see Figure 1-7).
-------
FIGURE 1-5
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN
THE GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
LEGEND
A NEW LONDON WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
SPICER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
LONDON
SERVICE AREA
DIETRICH LANGE SJATE
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA .
SPICER
SERVICE
AREA
WOODCOCK^ ^,
LAKE
-------
FIGURE 1-6
NEW LONDON SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
Primary Clarifier
New London Plant Discharge
Anaerobic Sludge Digester
Sludge Drying Beds
10
-------
FIGURE 1-7
SPICER SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
Control Building
Discharge to Woodcock Lake
11
-------
On-Site Systems. Wastewater generated in the remaining parts of
the Green Lake Study Area are generally treated by septic tank-soil
absorption systems (ST-SAS). The actual size and design of these soil-
dependent on-site systems varies considerably according to when the
system was installed and what sanitary codes were in effect at the time
of installation. There are also some summer cottages which supplement
in-house sanitary facilities with outhouses or chemical toilets.
b. Existing Problems with Water Quality and Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
The Facilities Plan has identified the following problems associ-
ated with the existing centralized wastewater collection and treatment
facilities:
• The present Spicer and New London sanitary sewer systems are
both subject to potentially excessive infiltration/inflow. A
Phase II infiltration/inflow survey is recommended for each
community; and
• The Spicer and New London treatment plants do not meet
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1974 discharge require-
ments. In order to meet these requirements additional, more
efficient treatment capability is required in each community.
Plant operation improvements at the existing Spicer-New London
water pollution control facilities do not offer the possi-
bility of raising plant performance to levels required by
MPCA.
The following problems associated with existing on-site systems in
the Study Area were also addressed by the facilities planners in 1976:
• An estimated 55% of the on-site wastewater disposal systems
around Green Lake cannot comply with the 4 foot separation
parameter2 specified in the Minnesota Shoreland Management
Act;
• The same 55% of the individual disposal systems cannot be
upgraded to comply with the Shoreland Management Act because
of the small size of the platted lots around Green Lake;
• Based upon EPA survey data, individual disposal systems around
Green Lake are contributing to the nutrient loading of this
basin. The Facilities Plan indicated that the amount of
The Act stipulates that there be a vertical distance of 4 feet
between the bottom of the septic tank drainfield and the highest
known groundwater elevation.
12
-------
wastewater discharged to Green Lake from septic tank drain-
fields along its shoreline was approximately 23% greater than
the total discharge loading from Spicer and New London (by
letter, William Hendrickson, RCM, to James Roth, MPCA,
December 17, 1976); and
» Many of the older individual on-site systems installed approx-
imately 20 years ago may be cesspools*, which are prohibited
under current sanitation codes.
The Facilities Plan also indicated that Green Lake,. Nest Lake,
Woodcock Lake and the Middle Fork of the Crow River have become increas-
ingly rich in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) because treatment of
municipal wastewater at plants in Belgrade (located 13 miles north of
the Study Area), New London and Spicer is inadequate.
c. Proposed Solutions: Alternatives Addressed in the
Facilities Plan
Given the reported constraints and problems associated with current
wastewater management practices in the Study Area, a comprehensive set
of preliminary alternative wastewater management schemes was considered
in the facilities planning process for the communities of New London and
Spicer as well as residents of Green Lake. These are:
• Centralized wastewater collection and treatment by lagoons and
mechanical facilities;
e Decentralized treatment by individual on-site systems, cluster
systems, and mound systems;
« Combinations of centralized and decentralized collection/
treatment options;
e Land application;
• Direct reuse of treated wastewater;
e Discharge of the District's wastewater to the Willmar treat-
ment facility (9 miles southwest of the Study Area);
• Upgrade or expand existing treatment plants at New London and
Spicer; and
9 Install holding tanks in lots where groundwater is too high
for compliance with the provisions of the Shoreland Management
Act.
Based upon cost-effectiveness analysis and feasibility of com-
pliance with existing local codes, specifically the Shoreland Management
Act, only two alternatives were advanced for evaluation of impact. Each
provides wastewater collection and treatment for the entire GLSSWD.
13
-------
Alternative 1. Centralized collection and treatment by waste sta-
bilization lagoon (180-day storage capacity) with controlled, discharge1
to the Middle Fork of the Crow River east of Green Lake.
Alternative 2. Centralized collection and treatment by mechanical
oxidation ditch with continuous discharge to the Middle Fork of the Crow
River east of Green Lake.
d. The Facilities Plan Proposed Action
The; alternative involving centralized collection and treatment by
waste stabilization lagoons was selected as the Facilities Plan Proposed
Action because it proved to be the most cost-effective* of the two final
alternatives considered. The Proposed Action is cited to be in con-
currence with the comprehensive water and sewer plan adopted by
Kandiyohi County in 1973. This proposed alternative is discussed
further in Chapter III.
The projected (1995) wastewater flows developed in the Facilities
Plan for the Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and Water District are- presented
in Table 1-1.
B. ISSUES OF THIS EIS
The purpose of this EIS is to respond to concerns raised regarding
the Facilities Plan Proposed Action identified by review agencies (es-
pecially the EPA), local officials and the public. These concerns,
involving, the possibility of significant environmental impacts, include
the following:
1. COST EFFECTIVENESS
The total capital cost for the Facilities Plan Proposed Action; was
estimated in the Plan (August, 1976) to be $4.4 million. This repre-
sents an investment of: approximately $875 per person and $3,709 per
existing dwelling unit within the Facilities Plan Proposed Service' Area.
(see Figure 1-3). The considerable disparity of incomes between rural
and urban area residents means that the burden of these costs will fall
most heavily on those people least able to afford them.
It is also questionable whether even total elimination of septic
tanks will have a strong positive impact on overall lake quality/. An
assessment must be made of all the major nutrient* sources, such as
precipitation, point source* discharges, non-point source* run^-off;, as
well as septic tank effluents, before it can be demonstrated that the:
level of commitment of resources for proposed large-scale facilities is
necessary.
2. IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY
Although indirect evidence was presented in the Facilities Plan
indicating that there may be a water quality problem- attributed to
14
-------
TOTAL
Table I- 1
PROJECTED 1995 DESIGN FLOW. GREEN LAKE FACILITIES PLAN
SOURCE
1ST QUARTER
DEC, JAN, FEB
2ND QUARTER
MAR, APR, MAY
3RD QUARTER
JUNE, JULY, AUG
4TH QUARTER
SEPT. OCT. NOV
ANNUAL
AVERAGE
Spicer
Flow, gal/day
New London
Flow, gal/day
Green Lake
Flow, gal/day
Nest Lake
Flow, gal/day
133,000
156,000
60.000
32,000
133.000
156.000
61.000
32,000
H9.600
144,000
216,000
66,400
133,000
156,000
62,000
32,000
137,000
153,000
100,000
41,000
Flow, gal/day
381,000
382.000
576,000
383,000
430,500
-------
malfunctioning lakeshore septic systems, the relationship between
deteriorating water quality and inadequately functioning septic systems
was not documented. With the exception of two isolated cases involving
high nitrate nitrogen levels (greater than 10 milligrams per litre
(mg/1)) in domestic wells along the south shore of Green Lake (by
letter, William Hendrickson, RCM, to James Roth, MPCA, December 17,
1976), claims of possible hazards to the public health have been unsub-
stantiated.
3. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The average local share per residence of the total capital costs
for the Facilities Plan Proposed Action is approximately $2,1,80-^. The
Plan estimates the annual user charge per resident to be $194, which
includes annual debt retirement of the amortized local share of the
project cost and annual O&M costs. The user charge represents approxi^
mately 1.4% of the average annual income for year-round residents.
Seasonal residents, particularly those in smaller, less expensive homes
may come under considerable pressure to sell their property.
4. INDUCED GROWTH AND SECONDARY IMPACTS
Based upon their experience with previous wastewater management
projects in rural lake areas, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has
concluded that sewering of Green Lake may cause the following:
® Increased development of lakeside areas;
o Increased development of adjacent non-lakeside areas; and
t> A shift from seasonal to permanent occupancy.
5. PUBLIC CONTROVERSY OVER WATER QUALITY
Residents of Harrison Township and Irving Township have expressed
concern over the Facilities Plan - proposed stabilization pond (i.e,
lagoon) system and its potentially adverse effects upon local ground^-
water quality. Farmers and other citizens who live in the vicinity .of
the proposed treatment site focus their concern on the potential for
contamination of domestic water supply wells through lagoon seepage into
.sandy soils. This concern exists despite the fact that the Plan
recommended installation of an impermeable bentonite liner during lagoon
construction.
C. NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE RURAL SEWERING PROBLEM
The EIS issues discussed above are not unique to the proposed plan
for wastewater management in the Green Lake Study Area. They are typi-
cal of the concerns raised by a large number of wastewater projects for
rural and developing communities that have been submitted to EPA for
This figure is based on RCM's estimate of local share of project
capital costs (December 17, 1976) and the estimated number of resi-
dences in the Facilities Plan Proposed Service Area in 1976.
16
-------
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 pro-
viding conventional sewerage facilities to small communities.
1. SOCIOECONOMICS
To assess the reasons and magnitude of the cost burden that many
proposed wastewater collection projects would impose on small communi-
ties, EPA studied more than 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 construc-
tion grants, the costs of conventional sewering are sometimes beyond the
means of families in rural and serai-rural areas. This was particularly
true for those communities where the 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 Initi-
atives 1978). Projects are considered to place a financial burden on
rural community users when annual user charges (debt service plus opera-
tion 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;
and
• 2.5% of median household incomes over $10,000.
Annual user charges exceeding these criteria would materially affect the
households' standard of living. Federal agencies involved in funding
wastewater facilities will work with the community to achieve lower
project costs through a change in the project's scope or design. If the
project's scope or design is not changed, the agencies will work with
the community until they are assured that the community is aware of the
financial impacts of undertaking the high-cost project.
It is the collection system that is chiefly responsible for the
high costs of conventional sewerage facilities for small communities.
Typically, 80% or more of the total capital cost for newly serviced
rural areas is spent for the collection system. Figure 1-8 indicates
that the costs per residence for gravity sewers increase exponentially
as population density decreases. Primary factors contributing to this
cost/density relationship were found to be:
• greater length of sewer pipe per dwelling in lower-density
areas;
• more problems with grade, resulting in more lift stations or
excessively deep sewers;
17
-------
FIGURE 1-8
40
CO
I 30
o
a.
Ł
c
o
«o
OT
O
O
10
COST ($/nonth)= 43e
Source1 Dearth 1977
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
POPULATION DENSITY (persons/acre)
MONTHLY COST OF GRAVITY SEWERS
18
-------
0 regulations or criteria which set eight inches as the smallest
allowable sewer pipe diameter; and
0 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:
o Oversophistication in design, large energy requirements, and
costly maintenance and operator expense;
« Use of expensive construction materials such as non-locally
produced brick and block and terrazzo when a prefab steel and
concrete building would do; and
© 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 commun-
ity objectives for water resource improvement, land use planning and
environmental protection.
i i
A community's potential for recreational, residential, industrial,
commercial or institutional development is determined by economic
factors such as the availability of land, capital, skilled manpower and
natural resources. However, fulfillment of this potential can be
limited by the unavailability of facilities or services such as water
supply, sewerage, electric power distribution and transportation. If a
missing community service 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 community service
element. '
Secondary impacts of new wastewater facilities may be highly desir-
able. 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. Resi-
dential 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.
19
-------
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 engi-
neering and management are integral parts of such a system and "decen-
tralized alternatives," as used in this EIS, incorporate both engineer-
ing 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 onsite systems are not acceptable.
The management element consists of continuing supervision for the
systems' installation, maintenance and rehabilitation and of appropriate
monitoring of the systems' environmental impacts.
While other factors such as soil characteristics, groundwater
hydrology and lot configurations are highly important, adequate manage-
ment 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
to regulate installation of on-site systems until after World War II.
They usually acted in only an advisory capacity. As the adverse con-
sequences of unregulated use of the septic tank-soil absorption systems
became apparent in the 1950's and 1960's, they were granted new
authority. Presently more health officials have authority for permitt-
ing and inspecting or denying new installations, and they can require
renovation and replacement of on-site systems. However, their role in
the operation and maintenance of on-site systems remains largely advi-
sory. There is seldom either a budget or the authority to inspect or
monitor a system.
In the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977, Congress recognized the
need for continuing supervision and monitoring of on-site systems. EPA
regulations implementing this Act require that before a construction
grant for on-site systems is awarded, the applicant must meet a number
of requirements such as:
o 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 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.
20
-------
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.D. of this EIS.
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 2 funding of the Facilities 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
Facilities Plan Proposed Action;
• Return the application with recommendations for additional
Step 1 analysis;
• With the applicant's and State's concurrence, approve Step 2
funding for an alternative to the Facilities Plan Proposed
Action, as presented in this EIS; or
• Reject the grant application.
The review and analysis focused on the issues identified in Section
I.E. and was conducted with an awareness of the more general considera-
tions of rural sewering problems discussed in Section I.C. Major empha-
sis has been placed on developing and evaluating alternative wastewater
management approaches to be compared with the Facilities 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 Facilities Plan and other sources were re-
viewed for applicability in development and/or evaluations of the
Facilities Plan Proposed Action and of the new alternatives developed
for the EIS. Documents consulted are listed in the bibliography at the
end of this volume.
21
-------
b. Segment Analysis
As a basis for revised population projections and for development
of alternatives, the EIS 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.
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 pro-
jections.
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.
e. Estimation of Costs for Alternatives
In order to assure comparability of costs between the Facilities
Plan Proposed Action and new alternatives, all alternatives were de-
signed 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 the Facilities Plan Proposed Action and the new alter-
natives are listed in Section I.D.3 below.
g. Needs Documentation
The need for improved treatment of New London's and Spicer's waste-
water is clear and is not an issue in this EIS. However, the effects of
lakeshore septic systems on water quality and public health had not been
clearly documented in the Facilities Plan. Because determination of
22
-------
eligibility for Federal funding of a substantial portion of the
Facilities Plan Proposed Action will be based on the documentation of
these effects, several supplemental studies were conducted:
o 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 Green Lake nutrient budget and
empirical modeling of the lake's eutrophication status;
• a sanitary survey of lakeside residences to evaluate usage,
design and condition of on-site systems;
e a "Septic Snooper" survey to locate and sample septic tank
leachate plumes entering Green Lake and Nest Lake from nearby
on-site systems;
• a hydrologic survey by K-V Associates to determine base
hydrologic data for the Study Area; and
• evaluation and mapping by the Soil Conservation Service of
soils within potential cluster and land application sites.
h. Public Participation
The Green Lake Citizen Advisory Committee was formed to aid EPA in
the development process of alternative treatment and disposal systems
for their community. The committee has convened on two occasions over
the past eight months to discuss EIS scope and issues as well as
preliminary EIS alternatives.
The results of these needs documentation studies were not available
for consideration in the initial development of alternatives. 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 for Federal funding
of any new sewers around Green Lake.
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
23
-------
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 was not factored into residential user charges.
According to the Facilities Plan, the local share of the total pro-
ject cost per residence will be approximately $1,950. In addition, some
homeowners may incur costs that they would directly have to pay to
contractors. Installation of gravity house sewers on private land and
renovation or replacement of privately owned on-lot systems for season-
ally occupied dwellings are not eligible for Federal 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.
Following a comprehensive review of possible impacts of the Facilities
Plan Proposed Action and the new alternatives, several types of impacts
were determined to warrant in-depth evaluation and discussion in this
EIS. These impacts are classified as follows:
o Surface Water Quality Impacts;
o Groundwater Impacts;
o Population and Land Use Impacts;
o Economic Impacts; and
0 Infringement on Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
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 IV. 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.
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
24
-------
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 accommodate increased wastewater flows is reviewed in
Chapter III. The effects of the alternatives' flexibility on population
growth are predicted in Chapter IV.
25
-------
CHAPTER II
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Evaluation of the courses of action open to EPA in the consideration
of improved wastewater management for the Green Lake Study Area must
begin with an analysis of the existing situation. This chapter offers
an inventory of baseline conditions in the natural environment, divided
into such categories as soils, groundwater, surface water and biology.
Social and economic aspects of the man-made environment are discussed,
along with the functioning of wastewater treatment facilities presently
in operation.
Maximum use was made of available information in the analysis of
the Study Area's environmental setting. It was necessary, however, to
undertake additional field work in order to obtain more comprehensive
data that would be utilized to document a need for improved wastewater
management facilities and develop appropriate alternatives to the
Facilities Plan Proposed Action. For example, this information was used
to resolve such key issues as the need to sewer the entire shoreline of
Green Lake and the need to include a portion of Nest Lake in the EIS
Service Area. The new studies included: a sanitary survey; a sampling
of leachate plumes from septic systems; an aerial survey of visible
septic tank malfunctions; a soils survey; estimation of nutrient loads
entering Green Lake; and modeling of the lake's trophic condition. In
general, data given in the tables are not repeated in the text, and
readers wishing more information should use the Appendices for more
complete explanations and details.
A. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
1. TOPOGRAPHY
Topographic relief within the Green Lake Study Area was formed by a
mass of retreating glacial ice between ten and sixty thousand years ago.
Elevations range from 1300 feet above mean sea level (msl) just north of
Green Lake to 1160 feet above msl immediately east of Green Lake. The
Study Area is drained primarily by the Middle Fork of the Crow River.
There are two distinct topographic areas found within the Study
Area. Forested, rolling topography and steep slopes characterize the
area north of Green Lake while the area east and southeast of the Lake
becomes more level and is primarily agricultural. A large wetland is
located east of Green Lake.
Most slopes within the Study Area are gentle (1 to 4%), but some
areas contain slopes greater than 15% (Figure II-l). These latter
locations are considered less suitable for land development.
26
-------
FIGURE II-l SLOPES GREATER THAN 15 PERCENT WITHIN THE
GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
LEGEND
SLOPES GREATER THAN 15%
NOTE: NUMBERS IN LAKES INDICATE
LAKE ELEVATION
Source: USGS
1967; USGS
date unknown , ~^-^j
%
-------
2. GEOLOGY
a. Bedrock Geology
Bedrock underlaying the Study Area is comprised of undifferentiated
Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rock material. The predominant rock
types are gneiss, granites or schists, overlain by a surficial layer of
glacial drift. A general overview of the geologic sequence within the
Study Area is shown in Figure II-2.
b. Surficial Geology
All surficial material within the Study Area was deposited by an
ice advance ten and sixty thousand years ago. The extent and lithologic
characteristics of surficial material within the Study Area are shown in
Figure II-3 and described in Table II-l.
East of Green Lake along the Middle Fork of the Crow River are
deposits of surficial outwash composed of fine to coarse grained sand
and gravel with traces of silt and clay. However, the majority of the
Study Area is made up of undifferentiated glacial till made up of poorly
sorted calcareous* silt (Lindholm et al. 1974). Sand and gravel lenses
of varying thicknesses may be found throughout the Study Area.
3. SOILS
In the Green Lake Study Area, soil suitability determines the
extent to which alternatives to centralized wastewater treatment-surface
water discharge systems may be developed. Following a soil survey, the
US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS) normally
provides soil suitability data, including permeability, depth to
seasonally high groundwater, compaction, and expansion to engineers and
planners for use as a decision making tool in the preliminary selection
of wastewater management alternatives. Alternatives involving soil-
dependent components are discussed in Chapter III. The SCS has
scheduled completion of the Kandiyohi County Soil Survey for 1983, but
limited soil suitability data is available for the Study Area. During
this project, SCS personnel have augmented this limited data base by
mapping an additional 700 acres in the Study Area. This additional data
were used to identify potential land application and cluster system
sites in the vicinity of Green Lake (discussed in Chapters III and IV).
The extent of mapped SCS data, except those areas selected as potential
cluster system sites (see Appendix A-l) is shown in Figure II-4.
Soils in the Green Lake Study Area were developed by weathering and
erosion from the underlying glacial deposits. Vegetative processes have
created a surface layer of rich, dark soils one to three feet thick.
These soils are underlain by glacial till composed of sand and gravel
several hundred feet thick.
The four primary soil groups represented within the Study Area and
their limiting factors are listed below. The term "limiting factors" as
used in these characterizations, refers to a possible deterrent to the
operation of on-site sewage disposal systems (see Appendix A-2). These
28
-------
1300'-
1200'-
1100
1000-
900
800'
700
LEGEND
| I OVERBURDEN
\\\\\1 SAND AND GRAVEL, BURIED;
CONFINED
E'-..'?V?.] UNDIFFERENTIATED DRIFT
UNDIFFERENTIATED IGNEOUS AND
METAMORPHIG ROGKS
't': Linclliolm et.al. 197A
FIGURE 11-2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC SEQUENCE WITHIN THE GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
-------
FIGURE II-3 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY OF THE GREEN
LAKE STUDY AREA
LEGEND
UN1JIFFERENTIATED DRIFT (END MORAINE)
SURFICIAL OUTWASH
UNDIFFERENTIATED DRIFT (TILL ^
Source: Lind-
holm et. al.
1974 , ^
-------
Table II-l
LOCATION AND LITHOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SURFICIAL DEPOSITS
Thickness
(ft.)
Location in
Study Area
% of
Study Area
Lithologic Characteristics
Alluvial
Variable
Streams and
Rivers
Thin deposits of sand, gravel, silt,
or clay.
Surficial
Outwash
0 - 100
(20 - 50
commonly)
East of
Green Lake
Fine to coarse-grained sand and
gravel; some silt and clay, stratified;
commonly moderately to well sorted.
Undifferentiated
Drift (till
plain)
100 - 500
(200 - 500
commonly)
Northeastern
corner of
Study Area
3%
Primarily gray, calcareous, silty till;
unstratified and unsorted, contains
buried sand and gravel lenses of
varying extend and thickness.
Undifferentiated
Drift (end
moraine)
100 - 500
(200 - 500
commonly)
All except
North and
East of
Green Lake
^82%
Primarily gray, calcareous, silty till;
unstratified and unsorted; includes
some ice - contact. Sand and gravel
of largely unknown extent, contains
buried sand gravel lenses of varying
extent and thickness.
-------
FIGURE II-4 SOIL LIMITATIONS OF THE GREEN
LAKE STUDY AREA
LEGEND
SEVERE LIMITATIONS FOR ON SITE
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
SLIGHT TO MODERATE LIMITATIONS
FOR ON-SITE WASTEWATER
DISPOSAL
I AREA NOT YET MAPPED BY THE SOIL
CONSERVATION SERVICE
20OO 4Onn
Source: Soil
Conservation Ser-
ice, Willmar Of-
fice 1977
-------
factors include (1) steepness of slope, (2) stoniness, (3) depth to
bedrock, (4) depth to seasonally high groundwater, and (5) permeability.
However, use of the term, limiting factors, does not eliminate the soil
groups from consideration (see Appendix A-3). The four soil groups are:
• The Lester-Clarion-Salida group is comprised of steep well
drained loam, intermixed with sandy soils. The limiting
factor"" within this group is steep slopes.
• The Salida-Esthervile-Clarion group is comprised of well to
excessively well drained sand and gravel intermixed with loam.
Rapid permeability, steep slopes and high groundwater are
Limiting factors in this group.
• The Esthervile-Biscay-Peat group is comprised of poorly
drained loamy glacial outwash underlain by sand and gravel.
Seasonal high water table is the limiting factor in this
group.
• The Clarion-Storden-Peat group is comprised of well drained to
poorly drained loamy soils with marshes. Permeability and
seasonal high water table are limitations in this soil.
General locations of these soils are shown in Figure II-5; they are
described in greater detail in Table II-2.
a. Soil Suitability for Wastewater Treatment
A generalized map of the Study Area displaying soil limitations for
on-site wastewater disposal systems is shown in Figure II-4. The feasi-
bility of utilizing land application methods for the disposal of waste-
water within the Study Area depends upon the suitability of the soils
present.
Within the Study Area, the major factors restricting the use of
some soils for on-site waste disposal systems are permeability and a
seasonal high water table. In acknowledgement of this problem, thirteen
potential sites for cluster* systems were examined by the SCS at the
request of EPA. Also examined and mapped by SCS was one potential spray
irrigation"1' site, and one potential rapid infiltration* site.
The results of these field investigations and maps of the suit-
ability of these sites for wastewater disposal are located in Appendix
A-l.
b. Prime Agricultural Lands
The SCS has set forth general guidelines for a national program of
inventorying prime and unique farmland (42 F.R., August 23, 1977). Any
action (such as construction of interceptors, highways, buildings) that
tends to impair the productive capacity of American agriculture is of
concern to SCS because such action may reduce the land's capacity for
producing food, fiber, feed, foliage and other crops. SCS in coopera-
tion with other interested state and local agencies is inventorying
these lands to determine the potential effects of construction and
33
-------
FIGURE II-5
GENERAL SOILS MAP OF THE GREEN
LAKE STUDY AREA
LEGEND
LESTER-CLARION-SALIDA GROUP
i-.:ŁM] SALIDA-ESTERVILLE-CLARION GROUP
ESTERVILLE-BISCAY-PEAT GROUP
CLARION-STORDEN-PEAT GROUP
GRAVEL PITS
Source: Kandiyohi County [Mn.]
Planning Commission 1973; By
telephone, Al Gienke, Soil Con-
servation Service, 2 November
-------
Table II-2
DESCRIPTION OF MAPPED SOILS IN THE GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
Soil Type
Description
Depth (In)
Location Within the
Study Area
Depth to
Seasonal
Permeability High Water Suitability for
(in/hr) Table (ft) On-Site Waste Disposal Soil Capability Class**
Alluvium
Poorly drained mixed
alluvial soils
Variable
Biscay Poorly drained soils 0-20
formed in loamy gla- 20-36
cial outwash; under- 36-60
lain by sand and
gravel
Clarion Well drained loamy 0-17
soils; formed in 17-32
calcarous glacial 32-60
till under prairie
vegetation
Dickenson Well to somewhat 0-30
excessively drained; 30-50
moderately coarse 50-60
Esterville Well drained sandy 0-13
and loamy soils 13-18
18-60
Glencoe Deep, very poorly 0-35
drained soils form 35-48
in glacial till in 48-60
depressions and
swales in the
uplands
Along streams and
drainageways
especially north
of Creen Lake
Scattered in north-
east corner of the
Study Area
Scattered north of
Creen Lake, between
Creen and West Lakes
Southeast of Green
Lake
North and south of
Nest Lakes
Widely distributed
particularly west
of Creen Lake
Between Nest and
Creen Lakes
Variable
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
2.0-6.0
6.0-20.0
6.0->20.0
2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0
6.0-20.0
2-4
Severe; flood hazard
2-2.0
2-2.0
0.2-2.0
1-3 Severe; high water
table
>6 Slight; <5% slope
moderate; 5-14%
severe; >14%
>10 Slight; <5%
moderate; 9-14%
severe; permeability
>6 Slight; 0-8%
moderate; 8-15%
severe; >15%
0-3 Severe; high water
table
IIw
II w if slope is <2%
I & lie if slope <5%
Hie & IVe
III w drained
VW undrained
"Capability subclasses are soil groups within one class; they are designated by a small letter which follows the Roman Numeral II. (There
are no subclasses in Class I because these soils have few limitations.) Examples are "e" = risk of erosion is main limitation; "w" = wet
soil; "s" = droughty, shallow, or stony soil. Class I and Ile/w/s soils are the criteria upon which prime agricultural land is identified
In Kandiyohi County.
-------
Table II-2
DESCRIPTION OF MAPPED SOILS IN THE GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA (Continued)
Soil Type
Hamel
Houghton
Description
Deep, poorly drained
soils formed in loamy
glacial till tn
swales, rims of
depressions, drain-
ageways and foot-
slopes
Very poorly drained
soils formed In thick
Depth (in)
0-22
22-41
41-60
0-66
Location Within the
Study Area
Scattered between
Nest and Green taken
Scattered northwest
of Nest Lake
Permeability
(in/hr)
0.2-2.0
0.2-0.6
0.6-2.0
Variable
Depth to
Seasonal
High Water Suitability for
Table (ft) On-Site Waste Disposal Soil Capability Class**
1-3 Severe; high water II w drained
table and slow IV w undrained
percolation
0-1 Severe; wetness III w
and ponding
herbaceous organic
deposits
Lester Undulating to steep, 0-9
well drained soils 8-36
formed In glacial 36-60
till on convex
upland slopes
Harkey Very poorly drained 0-32
soils formed In 32-60
deposits of organic
material over sand
Marsh miscellaneous lands Variable
with shallow lakes,
and sloughs; peaty
muck or a loamy
mineral soil
Nlcollet Deep, moderately 0-17
will to somewhat 17-36
poorly drained soils 36-60
formed under tall
grass prairie in
loamy glacial till
Scattered throughout 0.6-2.0 >5
the Study Area 0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
Along shores of 6.0-10.0 0-1
Green Lake 6.0-20.0
Northeastern corner Variable Above
of Study Area; south water
of Green Lake between table
Woodcock & George
Lake
Widespread distribu- 0.6-2.0 3.0-5.0
tion southeast of 0.6-2.0
Green Lake 0.6-2.0
Moderate; 2-12%
Severe; >12% slope
Severe; high
water table
Severe; ponded
Severe; high water
table
lie <6% slope
Hie 6-12% slope
IV w
-------
Table II-2
DESCRIPTION OF MAPPED SOILS IN THE GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA (Continued)
Soil Type . Description
Okoboji Very poorly drained
soils in saucer-like
depressions or sloughs
in uplands; formed In
local alluvium or
waterworked glacial
sediments under marsh
grass or sedges
'.0
~""*J Palms Very poorly drained
soils in deposits of
organic material
over loamy mineral
deposits
Salida Shallow excessively
drained gravelly
sandy loam
Sandia Excessively drained
soils formed in coarse
outwash materials
under grass prairie
on valley trains and
glacial outwash
plains
Storden Deep, somewhat
excessively drained
soils formed in
Depth (in)
0-32
32-60
0-35
35-60
0-8
8-12
32-60
0-8
0-8
8-12
12-60
0-8
8-60
Location Within the
Study Area
North of Nest and
Green Lakes
North of Green Lake
South of Nest between
George Lake and
Woodcock Lake, North
of Green Lake
Distributed widely
north of Nest Lake
& west part of
Green Lakes between
George & Woodcock
Lakes
Widespread and
scattered north of
Green; between
Permeability
(ln/hr)
0.06-0.2
0.06-0.2
6.0-1.0
0.6-2.0
6.0-2.0
>20.0
>20.0
6.0-20.0
6.0-20.0
>20.0
>20.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
Depth to
Seasonal
High Water Suitability for
Table (ft) On-Site Waste Disposal
0-3 Severe; slow
permeability
High water table
0-1 Severe; high water
table; ponding
>6 Moderate;
permeability ,
slopes
Severe ;
permeability ,
slopes
>6 Slight; <8% slope
moderate; 8-15%
severe; >15%
>6 Slight; <8%
moderate; 8-15%
severe; >15%
Soil Capability Class"
III w 0-2% slope
III w
IV-s to VII-s
He 2-6% slope
Hie 6-12% slope
glacial till
Green and Nest Lakes;
south of Nest Lake;
between Woodcock and
George Lakes.
-------
Table TI-2
DESCRIPTION OF MAPPED SOILS IN THE GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA (Concluded)
Soil Type
Talcot
Wadena
Webster
Description Depth (In)
Very poorly drained
nearly level soils
formed in fine out wash
of Lacustrine sediments
over sand and gravel on
outwash plains
Well drained loamy
soils underlain by
calcarous sand &
gravel
Deep, poorly drained
soils that formed In
loamy glacial till
0-23
23-30
30-60
0-13
13-20
30-60
0-17
17-31
31-67
Location Within the
Study Area
North of Nest and
Green Lakes; also
more widespread
north & west of
Nest Lake
Scattered in north-
eastern corner
Scattered north &
southeast of Green
Lake
Permeability
(in/hr)
0.6-20.0
0.6-20.0
6.3+
2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0
>20.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
Depth to
Seasonal
High Water Suitability for
Table (ft) On-Site Waste Disposal
0-3 Severe; high water
table & rapid
>6 Slight; >6%
moderate; 6-12%
severe; <12%
1-3 Severe; poorly
drained & high
water table
Soil Capability Class**
II w 0-10% slope
II s 0-2% slope
lie 2-6% slope
II w 0-2% slope
high In lime
carbonates
Source: USDA-SCS Soil Series Report
-------
development. Because the Kandiyohi County soil survey by the SCS has
not yet been completed, none of the land in the Green Lake Study Area
has as yet been designated as prime or unique agricultural land.
However, preliminary designation of prime agricultural land has been
made for several soil series within the Study Area. These designations
are listed in Table II-2.
4. ATMOSPHERE
a. Climate
Both the Canadian Arctic and the Gulf of Mexico affect the climate
of the Green Lake Study Area. The region lies, in effect, in a funnel
for the cold air of the far north as well as warm Gulf air, the major
source of precipitation. Consequently, its climate is characterized by
frequent precipitation and marked changes in temperature.
There are normally 5 to 10 winter days with temperatures falling as
low as 20° to 30° below 0°F. Although summer temperatures rarely reach
100°F, they sometimes exceed 90°. The available climatological data for
Willmar and New London is summarized in Appendix B.
More climatological data is available for St. Cloud, about 45 miles
northeast of the Study Area (see Appendix B). There, average annual
precipitation (water equivalent) is 26.8 inches, approximately 60% of
which occurs during the growing season, between May and , September.
Snowfall averages 43.1 inches per year. Relative humidity averages
approximately 82% in the morning and 60% at noon.
The average wind speed is approximately 8 mph (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 1976). Wind is generally from the
south in the summer and from northwest in the winter.
Damaging storms such as tornadoes and freezing rain are infrequent,
and ice storms occur less than once a year on the average. The Study
Area lies slightly north and east of the major storm paths. Neverthe-
less, localized damage from heavy rains, wind, or hail from thunder-
storms is experienced each year (NOAA 1976).
b. Air Quality
The ambient air quality as measured in the City of Willmar is good.
High-volume sampler readings for total suspended particulates show that
in 1976 neiUier the primary (260.00 ug/m at 25°C) nor the secondary
(150.00 ug/m at 25°C) 24-hour State ambient air quality standards were
exceeded (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 1977). No testing
is performed for other air pollutants in the Study Area.
Kandiyohi County is in a Minnesota Prevention of Significant
Degradation (PSD) Class 2 zone. Moderate degradation of air quality is
allowable, but a review is required for 19 major source categories (MPCA
1972).
39
-------
c. Odors
There have been few complaints by residents of the Green Lake Study
Area about objectionable odors associated with on-site septic systems,
the Spicer wastewater treatment plant or the New London wastewater
treatment plant.
d. Noise
The ambient noise level* within the Study Area is estimated at
approximately 40 decibels* (Scale A) which is considered typical of a
quiet outdoor community (US Department of Transportation 1978). High-
ways, motorboats, or aircraft flyovers generate louder sounds, but
otherwise no excessive noise sources have been identified in the Study
Area.
B. WATER RESOURCES
1. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Water resources management is a complex of many elements, in which
the Federal government, the State and the locality all have an interest.
To name just a few of these elements -- irrigation, municipal water
supply, maintenance of navigable waters, and protection of the product-
ivity 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 (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 EPA in coordination with
the appropriate State agency, in this case the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA). However, with passage of the Clean Water Act,
all Federal agencies were instructed to safeguard water quality stan-
dards in carrying out their respective missions. As the lead agency,
EPA coordinates the national effort, sets standards, and reviews the
work of other agencies, some of which are assigned responsibilities in
line with their traditional missions. For example, the Army Corps of
Engineers maintains its jurisdiction over dredging permits in commer-
cially navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands and in coastal
waters but now must also consider water quality. The Coast Guard has
jurisdiction over oil spill cleanup. The Act officially draws certain
other agency activities into the water pollution control effort: for
example, it authorizes Federal cost-sharing in agricultural projects
designed to improve water quality by controlling farm runoff. In the
case of SCS, these new responsibilities may be in addition to, or as the
case may be, may dovetail with SCS programs to reduce soil erosion, or
to construct headwaters impoundments for flood control.
40
-------
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 aid to the States in
funding the development of plans for control of pollution, development
of State water quality standards (which may be more restrictive than
Federal standards), and research. When 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 in all
cases it retains power of enforcement of established standards, State or
Federal. The State of Minnesota 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 propa-
gation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the water (is to) be achieved by July
1, 1983".
This landmark legislation requires that publicly owned treatment
works discharging effluent to surface waters must at least provide
secondary treatment, i.e., biological oxidation of organic wastes. It
directed that municipalities must provide the "best available tech-
nology" 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-effectiveness of various control measures.
The use of innovative and alternative technologies must also be
considered.
The key provisions in water quality planning stipulate that to
receive aid a State must provide a continuing planning process. Part of
Section 208 requires the states to inventory all the sources of pollu-
tion of surface and groundwaters, both point* and non-point*, and to
establish 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.
The Section 303E Basin Plan (Upper Portion Upper Mississippi River
Basin) that includes the Green Lake Study Area was completed in December
1975 by MPCA.
Section 201 of the Act (under which the Green Lake area application
for funds was made) authorizes EPA to make grants to localities toward
the improvement or construction of facilities for treatment of existing
water quality problems. EPA may determine whether an environmental
impact statement is required on a proposed project (see Section I.B).
Where the state has been certified and assumes responsibility for water
quality, EPA retains authority to approve or reject applications for
construction grant funds for treatment facilities.
41
-------
The local political jurisdiction has traditionally been responsible
for meeting the wastewater treatment needs of the community. Local
jurisdictions now have the benefit of Federal and State assistance in
meeting water quality standards and goals.
b. Federal Agency Responsibilities for Study Area Waters
The following Federal agencies are responsible for insuring water
quality in the Study Area:
o EPA:
Administers the Clean Water Act;
S'ets Federal water quality standards;
o EPA Region V:
Administers the grant program described above in Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin;
Provides partial funding for preparation of the Green Lake
Facilities Plan. Region V's responsibilities in the construc-
tion grant program in general and specifically toward the
application made in the Facilities Plan are discussed in
Section I.B;
o US Army Corps of Engineers:
Controls dredging and construction activities in commercially
navigable streams, their 100-year floodplains and adjacent
wetlands through a permit system;
o US Department of Agriculture:
Under the Rural Clean Water Program will provide cost sharing
for soil conservation practices designed to improve water
quality. (The program will probably be assigned to SCS; it
has not been funded by Congress at this time, however);
• Soil Conservation Service (SCS):
Agency's mission is to control wind and water erosion, to sus-
tain the soil resource base and to reduce deposition of soil
and related pollutants into the water system;
Conducts soil surveys. Established guidelines for inven-
torying 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;
42
-------
• Fish and Wildlife Services:
Provides technical assistance in development of 208 plans.
c. State Responsibilities in the Green Lake Study Area
The following entities have responsibilities for water quality
management in Minnesota:
a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA):
Implements water pollution control laws and establishes regu-
lations. This agency has authority to issue permits to dis-
charge pollutants into surface waters under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and to set
discharge levels. MPCA also establishes criteria and stan-
dards applicable to interstate and intrastate waters. The
standards are being revised and are in draft form as of May,
1979. A water quality Management Basin Plan was prepared by
MPCA in December 1975 (MPCA 1975). Although a complete
regional plan, this document has little site specific data on
the Study Area;
e Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR):
Identifies, categorizes and maintains existing natural re-
sources, including surface water bodies. DNR reviews county
actions and submits recommendations on industrial and agri-
cultural permits;
• Department of Health:
Reviews plans on public water and sewer improvements and
regulates on-site sewage disposal systems.
d. Local Responsibilities for Water Quality Management
• Kandiyohi County:
Administers the Shoreland Management Ordinance which estab-
lished criteria for land use "along the shores of lakes,
streams and rivers, and in natural environment areas".
2. GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY
The buried outwash aquifer found in the undifferentiated glacial
drift (see Figure II-6) constitutes the major groundwater aquifer in the
Study Area. The aquifer of sand and gravel is under confined or
artesian* conditions. The underlying igneous and metamorphic rocks do
not constitute significant groundwater aquifers (Lindholm et al. 1974).
The outwash aquifer is on the order of 50 feet in thickness with an
upper surface elevation of approximately 1150 feet above msl (see Figure
II-6). Depth to the top of the aquifer ranges from about 20 feet to 70
43
-------
LEGEND
SAND AND GRAVEL, SURFLC1AL;
UNCON FINED
SAND AND GRAVEL, BURIED;
CONFINED
DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER
MOVEMENT
POTENTTOMETRIC SURFACE OF
AOU1FER
i-
,TOP OF BURIED OUTWASH ZONE
WELL
.'.';!•'»•'I UN DIFFERENTIATED DRIFT
UNDIFFERENTIATED IGNEOUS AND
METAMORPHIC ROCKS
CROW RIVER WATERSHED
BOUNDARY
A
1300'-
Direction of Groundwoter
Movement
Source: Lindholm et.al. 1974
FIGURE II-6 HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
44
-------
feet within the Study Area. The potentiometric or pressure surface of
the water within the outwash aquifer as seen in the cross-section of
Figure II-6 tends to slope southwards through the Study Area. This
southward slope indicates the direction of flow through the aquifer.
Precipitation within the Study Area averages 27.6 inches annually.
Of this amount, 24.2 inches is lost to the atmosphere through evapo-
transpiration and 3.3 inches are accounted for by runoff. The remaining
0.1 inch percolates downward to become groundwater mainly in the shallow
glacial moraines. Discharge from these shallow moraines takes place
principally in the North, South, and Middle Forks of the Crow River.
Indications are that very little of the groundwater recharge reaches the
buried outwash aquifer found in the Study Area.
The specific capacities of wells in the outwash aquifer may be as
high as 50 gallons per minute per foot of drawdown. With available
drawdown ranging from 10 to 80 feet, well yields of several thousand
gallons per minute may be obtained. Lower well yields are found within
the southern portion of the Study Area due to the potentiometric surface
of the aquifer sloping downward in that direction.
3. GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Groundwater in the buried outwash aquifer of the Study Area is of
the calcium magnesium bicarbonate type found throughout most of the Crow
River watershed.
Total hardness* of water in the Study Area is approximately 300 to
350 mg/1. This is very high when compared to a normal of about 100
mg/1. The dissolved solids* content within the Study Area can range up
to 400 mg/1, an amount considered moderate to high when compared to the
recommended State limit of 500 mg/1. The iron content, with a median
value of 0.59 mg/1 generally exceeds the US Public Health Service drink-
ing water standard of 0.3 mg/1 (Lindholm et al. 1974). However, this
high iron content occurs naturally and is not the result of pollution.
The results of a survey of 97 wells surrounding Green Lake near
Spicer sponsored by the Green Lake Property Owners Association and
undertaken by Noyes Engineering Service in -July 1977, are shown in
Appendix C-l. Parameters tested were orthophosphate, total coliforms,
and nitrates reported as nitrate nitrogen (NO_-N).
Nitrate nitrogen was observed in 28 of the 97 wells tested. Of
these, only two exceeded the 10 mg/1 permissible limit with levels of 12
mg/1 and 48 mg/1. Twenty-eight wells were positive for total coliforms,
and nineteen showed the presence of orthophosphates.
Of the total sample of wells, seven were positive for all three
parameters, five for both nitrates and coliforms, five for both coli-
forms and orthophosphates, and two for both nitrates and orthophos-
phates. The data indicate that a number of wells have been contaminated
but are insufficient to implicate human wastes as the source. Infor-
mation on specific well construction and maintenance would be necessary
to implicate human waste as the source of pollution. This information
was not reported with the water sample analysis.
45
-------
The outwash aquifer is confined by an impermeable upper layer which
would indicate that contamination has been entering the specific wells
directly as a result of poor well construction, rather than entering the
aquifer by downward infiltration and percolation through the soil. An
improperly constructed well permits surface runoff to percolate directly
into the groundwater through annular space.* The irregular, spotty
nature of the contamination among the tested wells is also supportive of
this view.
4. GROUNDWATER USE
Groundwater sources provided nearly all of the potable water from
the Study Area. Total water use in the Crow River Basin in 1969
exceeded 8 billion gallons (22 million gallons per day (mgd)) with
municipal and rural domestic water use accounting for approximately
one-half (Lindholm et al. 1974).
The communities of New London and Spicer each have two wells which
serve as the sources of municipal water supply. In 1973, the average
daily consumption was 87,000 and 143,000 gallons per day (gpd) for
Spicer and New London, respectively (RCM, December 16, 1974). It is
estimated that by the year 2000, average water use within the Study Area
will be 0.59 mgd. Lindholm et al. (1974) has indicated that the buried
outwash aquifer within the Study Area will generally yield adequate
water quantities for municipal, industrial, rural domestic and
irrigation uses.
5. SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Green Lake, Nest Lake, and the Middle Fork of the Crow River are
major surface water resources located in the Study Area (see Figure
II-7). Woodcock Lake is one of many small lakes in the Study Area,
located west of Green Lake. It is included as part of the surface water
resources study in this EIS because it receives the effluent from the
Spicer STP. Woodcock Lake is said to occasionally overflow into Green
Lake (EPA 1974). The Middle Fork of the Crow River originates south of
Belgrade, Minnesota and receives the surface water drainage of the
entire Study Area. As it meanders southward past New London and the
nearby New London sewage treatment plant, the river enters Nest Lake
from the north which, in turn, overflows into the eastern end of Green
Lake. The River eventually leaves the Study Area to the east, passing
through the wetlands of the Dietrich State Wildlife Management Areas.
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. Size of drainage basin, tributary flow, lake
volume, hydraulic retention time and precipitation directly influence
the quantity and quality of surface water resources. Table II-3
presents the physical characteristics of the lakes. Additional dis-
cussions on these parameters follow in the next few paragraphs.
46
-------
FIGURE II-7
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY OF THE GREEN
LAKE STUDY AREA
LEGEND
•>-^ WETLANDS
*- DIRECTIO'I OF'FLOW
cfs - CtiUU; FEET PER SECOND
• GAGING STATION
— DAM
-c-
-j
^. MANAGEMENT AREA ,.
Source: USCS
19f7, dnte un-
known
-------
Table II-3
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GREEN LAKE, NEST LAKE,
AND WOODCOCK LAKE (EPA NES SURVEYS, 1974)
Parameter Green Lake Nest Lake Woodcock Lake
Drainage Basin Area (Square miles) 129.6 121.7 1.07
Lake Surface Area (Acres) 5,406 945 125
Lake Mean Depth (Feet) 21 15 2.5
Maximum Depth (Feet) 110 40 8
Inflow (cfs)* 42.4 37.6
Outflow (cfs)* 42.4 37.6
Lake Volume (Acre/Feet) 113,526 14,175 312
Mean Hydraulic Retention Time (Years) 3.7 0.5
* Average flow from October 1972 to October 1973.
48
-------
a. Size of Drainage Basins
The drainage basin sizes of Green Lake, Nest Lake, and Woodcock
Lake are 129.6, 121.7, and 1.07 square miles respectively. The larger
watersheds act as significant catchments of precipitation which is
transferred as runoff to the lakes. Woodcock Lake occupies a larger
portion of its total watershed (drainage basin) than do Green Lake and
Nest Lake. That is, Green Lake's drainage basin-to-lake surface area
ratio is 15:1, Nest Lake's is 82:1, while that of Woodcock Lake is 5:1.
b. Tributary Flow
The Middle Fork of the Crow River is the major tributary in the
Study Area. The U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) has maintained a continuous
recording stream flow gauge on the Middle Fork of the Crow River
approximately 2 miles east of Green Lake (see Figure II-7) since 1949.
For a period of 28 years from 1949-1977, the average flow was 50.6
cubic feet per second (cfs), or 1.43 cms. The maximum flow during this
period was 408 cfs (11.5 cms). Mean annual runoff is estimated to be
3.84 inches/year (USGS 1977); this is a low rate which can be accounted
for by high evaporation and transpiration loss from many lakes, pot-
holes, and partially drained marshes in the region (Rieke Carroll Muller
Associates, Inc. 1976).
Twelve measurements of stream flow were made during National Eutro-
phication Surveys (NES) from October 1972 to October 1973 at the outlet
of Green Lake, in the channel connecting Green Lake and Nest Lake, and
approximately 1 mile above Nest Lake (see Figure II-7). Mean flows at
the upstream station and Green Lake outlet of the Middle Fork of the
Crow River were determined to be 37.6 cfs (1.0 cms) and 42.4 cfs (1.20
cms), respectively during the study period.
Municipal wastewater discharges from the Belgrade and the New
London treatment plants supplement the flow of the Middle Fork of the
Crow River. In 1972, the National Eutrophication Survey estimated the
combined wastewater discharge from these plants to be 0.26 mgd, or 0.40
cfs. This, however, represents only 0.7% of the average discharge of
the Middle Fork of the Crow River. During periods of low flow, this
proportion would substantially increase.
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. Nest Lake has a relatively short retention time of 0.5 years
(NES 1974), while Green Lake has a longer retention time of 3.7 years
(NES 1975). Since inflow and outflow measurements were not taken in
Woodcock Lake, EPA did not estimate a hydraulic retention time.
d. Precipitation
The average precipitation in the Study Area during 1972-1973 was
reported to be 28.1 inches (71.4 cm) by EPA's NES study. The value is
49
-------
slightly higher than the annual average over the recorded period (24.5
inches or 62.2 cm).
e. Hydraulic Budget
A generalized hydraulic budget for a lake includes the hydraulic
inputs such as tributary inflow, precipitation and groundwater and the
outputs such as tributary outflow, evaporation, and groundwater. The
hydraulic budgets of Nest Lake, Green Lake and Woodcock Lake are sum-
marized in Table II-4. Evaporation was determined by the difference
between the total input and total output for each lake. Most of the
information presented is derived from EPA's NES studies (1974, 1975).
6. SURFACE WATER USE AND CLASSIFICATION
Surface waters in the Study Area are popular for many aquatic
activities, including swimming and fishing. They are also used to
assimilate wastewater effluent. These waters are not used for domestic
water supply.
The State of Minnesota has classified uses of its surface waters
and assigned appropriate classification to each body of water. Water
quality standards for the classifications and uses appear in Appendix
C-2. For a lake or stream classified under two or more uses, the more
restrictive standards apply.
The Middle Fork of the Crow River has been classified 2B, Fisheries
and Recreation, to permit the propagation and maintenance of cool or
warm water sport or commercial fishes and be suitable for aquatic
recreation of all kinds, including bathing, for which the waters may be
usable (MPCA, Water Pollution Code (WPC) 14, 1973).
7. SURFACE WATER QUALITY
This section presents the water quality conditions of Nest Lake,
Green Lake, and Woodcock Lake in the following order: nutrient budget,
open water quality, phosphorus loading-trophic condition relationships,
and shoreline conditions. The discussion is intended to put the surface
water quality into perspective by independently presenting the nutrient
budget and lake water quality, and connecting these two aspects by using
the simplified phosphorus loading-trophic condition relationships.
Finally, the shoreline problems in terms of bacteria contamination is
discussed. Most of the information presented is synthesized from
studies conducted by the EPA National Eutrophication Survey in 1972 and
1973 and by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in 1976, 1977, and
1978.
a. Nutrient Budget
Nutrient budgets for Nest Lake, Green Lake, and Woodcock Lake are
shown in Table II-5 in terms of phosphorus and nitrogen using data from
the EPA 1972-1973 surveys. As indicated, the combination of tributary
inflow and wastewater treatment plant discharges contributes a signifi-
cant amount of nutrients into Nest Lake and Green Lake. In contrast,
50
-------
Table II-4
WATER BUDGETS FOR NEST LAKE, GREEN LAKE, AND WOODCOCK LAKE
(1972-73) IN 106 M3/YR — FROM EPA NES (1974)
Nest Lake
Inputs
Middle Fork Crow River
Immediate Drainage
Precipitation
Total
45.2
2.2
2.8
50.2
Outputs
Outlet 48.2
Evaporation (by difference) 2.0
Total 50.2
Green Lake
1. Inputs
Outlet from Nest Lake
Immediate Drainage
Precipitation
Total
48.2
4.4
15.6
68.2
2. Outputs
Outlet to Middle Fork
Crow River
Evaporation (by difference)
Total
55.2
13.0
68.2
Inputs
Immediate Drainage
Precipitation
Spicer Treatment Plant
Total
Woodcock Lake
0.27
0.38
0.14
0.79
Outputs
Evaporation
Overflow into Green Lake
Total
0.38
0.41
0.79
51
-------
Table II-5
PHOSPHORUS AND NITROGEN BUDGETS FOR NEST LAKE, GREEN LAKE AND
WOODCOCK LAKE (1972-73) IN KG/YR - FROM EPA NES (1974) '
1. Inputs
Middle Fork Crow River
Precipitation
Immediate Drainage
Septic tanks
2. Outputs
Outlet to Green Lake
3. Retention
Total
Nest Lake
Phosphorus Nitrogen
4,197.8
73.0
59.1
40.0
4,369.9
1,912.7
2,457,2
82,930.2
4,744.2
1,122.7
1.589.0
90,386.1'
69,956.0
20,430.1
1. Inputs
Outlet from Nest Lake
Precipitation
Immediate Drainage
Septic Tanks
2. Outputs
Outlet
3. Retention
1. Inputs
Tributary Inflow
Precipitation
Immediate Drainage
Septic Tanks
Point Sources
2. Outputs
3. Retention
Total
Total
Green Lake
Phosphorus Nitrogen
1,912.7
437.9
59.1
195.4
2,605.1
.69,956.0
27,151.1
1,109.1
7,336.4
105,552.6
975.2 46,834.1
1,629.9 58,718.5
Woodcock Lake
Phosphorus Nitrogen
3.1
36.3
1.4
523.4
564.2
508.0
526.8
66.7
4,005.6
5,107.2
52
-------
the septic tank systems only contribute a small portion of the nutrient
into these two lakes. Because of the limited data base available for
Woodcock Lake, the nutrient budget derived and presented is considered
to be the best estimation with available data and standard loading
methodologies used by the EPA. See Appendix C-10 for an illustration of
the phosphorus loads, by major nutrient source, into Nest Lake, Green
Lake, and Woodcock Lake, in terms of percentage.
The results in Table II-5 indicate over 50% retention of phosphorus
for both Nest Lake and Green Lake. As to nitrogen, the retention per-
centage differs considerably between the two Lakes. Woodcock Lake is
expected to retain most of the nutrients entering the Lake due to its
landlocked nature.
b. Lake Water Quality
Data collected by EPA and MPCA have been analyzed for Nest Lake,
Green Lake, and Woodcock Lake. The four key water quality parameters
(total phosphorus, chlorophyll Ł, secchi depth, and hypolimnetic dis-
solved oxygen saturation level) are plotted over the period from 1972 to
1978 and presented in Appendix C-3. These graphs are used to assist us
in understanding the open water conditions of the lakes.
The results of the analysis suggest no definite trend as to the
water quality of these lakes during the last 7 years. That is, the
variation of water quality over this period is no more than annual
fluctuations, inherent with the system. The water quality! conditions
seem to have remained relatively steady during the last few years.
According to the simple trophic classification system, Nest Lake and
Woodcock Lake are eutrophic and Green Lake is mesotrophic.
For a general description of lake water quality, see Appendix C-4.
c. Phosphorus Loading-Trophic Condition Relationships
This section examines relationships between phosphorus inputs
(Section II.B.7.a) and the resulting water quality (Section II.B.7.b).
Such relationships are needed to predict trophic responses which would
result from phosphorus loading scenarios associated with various waste-
water management alternatives. A detailed description of the procedures
required to examine these relationships using Dillon's model (1975) is
presented in Appendix C-5. Only the salient features of the results are
included in this discussion. Figure II-8 shows the trophic conditions
for Nest Lake and Green Lake based on the 1972-1973 data by EPA. Con-
current with the results in the previous section, Dillon's model
describes Nest Lake as eutrophic and Green Lake mesotrophic.
d. Bacterial Contamination in Shoreline Areas
Investigations of fecal and total coliforms were made in Green Lake
by Southwest State University (1972-1973, 1975-1977), ;Green Lake
Property Owners Association (1970-1971), and MPCA (1968-1969). Along
the nearshore areas of the Lake bacterial levels were generally below
the Minnesota State Health Department and MPCA standards for swimming
53
-------
0.01
1.0
10.0
MEAN DEPTH (METERS)
L= AREAL PHOSPHORUS INPUT (g/m2/yr)
R= PHOSPHORUS RETENTION COEFFICIENT
PS HYDRAULIC FLUSHING RATE (yf1)
100.0
FIGURE H-8 TROPHIC CONDITIONS OF NEST LAKE AND GREEN
LAKE (1972-1973)
-------
areas. Values in excess of the standards were commonly found in the
Green Lake inlets and outlets, particularly at the Old Mill Outlet.
8. FLOOD PRONE AREAS
The Green Lake Study Area includes areas designated as flood hazard
zones by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Flood
Insurance Program. The zones delineate regions that have a 1% chance of
flooding in any given year. These flood hazard zones include Nest Lake,
Jessie Lake, Lake Calhoun, the Middle Fork of the Crow River and land on
either side of it, and a large area of land located west of the City of
New London. The flood hazard zones are delineated in Figure II-9.
C. EXISTING SYSTEMS
There are two existing wastewater treatment plants within the Green
Lake Study Area. One plant serves the city of Spicer and the other
serves New London. These two are discussed in detail in the Facilities
Plan for the Green Lake vicinity. The rest of the development in the
Study Area is served by on-site systems.
When the Facilities Plan was drafted, information about on-site
systems was very limited. It was assumed, however, that many of the
on-site system did not comply with the newly drafted standards for
septic tanks which are detailed in the Kandiyohi County Zoning Ordinance
(County Planning Commission 1972). This Ordinance is further discussed
in this Section.
Septic tanks were suspected of contributing to public health and
water quality problems although there was little evidence to support
this suspicion. Three studies were recently undertaken by EPA to deter-
mine the extent and distribution of problems with on-site systems. The
results of these studies, discussed in this section, are intended to
identify potential water quality or public health problems. This iden-
tified information will be used to determine grant eligibility for
collector sewers and to provide a basis for predicting the design, costs
and impacts of continued use of on-site systems.
1. SUMMARY OF EXISTING DATA
Three studies were undertaken by EPA to evaluate existing lakeshore
systems and problems resulting from these systems:
a. "Investigation of Septic Leachate Discharges into Green
Lake, Minnesota" (Kerfoot, 1978).
A through-the-ice septic leachate survey was conducted along the
shorelines of Green Lake and Nest Lake in Kandiyohi County, Minnesota
during March, 1979. This study was undertaken to determine whether
groundwater plumes from nearby septic tanks were emerging along the
lakeshore causing elevated concentrations of nutrients. Septic tank
leachate plumes were detected with an instrument referred to as a
"Septic Snooper." The instrument is equipped with analyzers to detect
55
-------
FIGURE 11-9 FLOOD HAZARD AREAS OF THE GREEN
LAKE STUDY AREA
LEGEND
FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
| WETMICH LANCE ST.ATE
WIDLIFE MANAGEMENT AdEA .
GREEN LAKE
Source; HUD
1977
-------
both organic and inorganic chemicals from domestic wastewaters. Surface
and groundwater sampling for nutrient and bacteria (surface water only)
were coordinated with the septic leacliate profile to clearly identify
the source of the leachate.
The following observations were obtained from the shoreline pro-
files, analyses of groundwater and surface water samples, and evaluation
of groundwater flow rates and patterns:
• A total of 64 locations exhibited effluent plume character-
istics. Of these, 26 originated from surface water discharges
and 38 from groundwater leachate. The locations- of these
effluent plumes is shown in Figure 11-10.
• The most pronounced source of leachate was inflow from the
Middle Fork of the Crow River into Nest Lake. The daily
winter loading of phosphorus was estimated at 8.6 kg/day
compared to total loading from all groundwater plumes around
the lake of .15 kg/day.
• A noticeable undocumented source of phosphorus loading was
observed originating from the discharge stream of an unnamed
lake near the sewered town of Spicer.
• The observed pattern of plumes on Green Lake correlated with
projected groundwater inflow for the surficial deposits. Most
plumes were found on the north and west shorelines with few
observed for the south and east segments.
The detailed results of this "Septic Snooper" study is presented in
Appendix C-6.
b. "EPIC Survey" (EPA, 1978)
An aerial photographic survey was conducted by EPA's Environmental
Photographic Interpretation Center in order to detect any surface mal-
functions within the Study Area. The survey was made on August 20,
1978. Results of the survey, shown in Figure 11-11 indicated that
surface malfunctions were not widespread. Only three marginally failing
systems were found along the Green Lake shoreline and two of these
failures were located on the north shore. One currently failing and one
marginally failing system were detected along the north shore of Nest
Lake. A system that gave an indication of previously failing or exhi-
bited potential for failing was considered a marginally failing system.
A brief description of EPIC's Green Lake septic system analysis is
included in Appendix C-7.
c. Green Lake Construction Grants Sanitary Survey (1978)
An on-site sanitary survey of the Green Lake Proposed Service Area
was conducted from November 6 through November 26, 1978. This survey
consisted of a sample 74 (12%) of the residences around Green Lake which
participated survey. This sample is sufficiently large to enable one to
57
-------
FIGURE 11-10 LOCATION OF SEPTIC LEACHATE PLUMES AROUND
GREEN LAKE AND NEST LAKE
LEGEND
• GROUNDWATER PLUME
• STREAM SOURCE PLUME
| 24 | SEGMENTS
oo
i/V
Source: Kerfoot
1978
^O-V-ys^^_i
's^^~"l_
-------
FIGURE II- 11 RESULTS OF AERIAL OBSERVATION OF SEPTIC TANK SYSTEM
MALFUNCTIONS, EPIC 1978
LEGEND
FAILING SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS
MARGINALLY FAILING SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS
Source: EPIC 1978
-------
make some conclusions about the suitability of on-lot systems as per-
ceived by the general public. It is to be noted that those interviewed
during the survey were year-round residents; their septic tank drain-
fields had not been allowed to "rest" during the off-season, as would
likely be the case with drainfields owned by seasonal residents.
The purpose of this study was to identify the extent of violations
of the sanitary code and the extent, nature, and distribution of prob-
lems resulting from on-site systems. The study showed that despite
widespread violations of standards for ST/SAS (septic tank-soil absorp-
tion systems) very few systems experienced recurring backups or ponding.
The condition of the systems surveyed between November 6 and November 29
is described in Figure 11-12.
2. TYPES OF SYSTEMS
The data gathered during the Sanitary Survey indicated that most
on-lot systems within the EIS Proposed Service Area included one or two
septic tanks accompanied by a single or double leachfield* (40%) or by a
trench* (33%) (1978). In some instances, however, it was apparent that
the residents were not quite sure of the type of system. Data in Table
II-6 shows the types of on-site systems along the Green Lake shoreline.
Both leachfields* and trenches* provide final treatment and disposal of
septic tank effluent. A leachfield requires less lawn area than a
trench but has much less sidewall area available for treatment of
sewage.
Data gathered during the Sanitary Survey indicate that the use of
alternative systems such as holding tanks, mounds and outhouses are not
widespread throughout the Service Area. Some residents have made
efforts to overcome severe site limitations by installing mounds, but
this type of system numbers few. The county has recommended conversion
to cluster systems, or multi-family filter fields in some instances
where site limitations are severe but in each instance some of the
residents were too reluctant to accept this type of system (by tele-
phone, Steve Peterson, Kandiyohi County Tax Assessment Office, May
1979).
3. COMPLIANCE WITH SANITARY CODES
Enforcement of the Kandiyohi County Zoning Ordinance, passed in
1972, began in 1973. Prior to that time no standards were enforced.
Under Subtitle 1-408, regulating the construction, repair and upgrading
of individual sewage disposal systems (see Appendix C-8), newly con-
structed ST/SAS should meet the following standards:
• The system should consist of a watertight septic tank and a
soil absorption system. Any alternative methods of sewage
disposal are subject to rules and regulations of the MPCA (6
MCAR; 4.8040).
60
-------
FIGURE 11-12
RESULTS OF 1978 EPA CONSTRUCTION GRANT SURVEY
LEGEND
NO PROBLEM APPARENT
OlJtf) PROBLEM, REPAIRABLE
PROBLEM, WITH SITE LIMITATION
20
(2) V 0(0)
0(0) /X A(0)
A(2) 21
GREEN LAKE
•B.OLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA,
•(9)
0(0)
A(0)
0 20CO 400O
Source: Mark Hummel
November
1978
-------
Table II-6
TYPES OF ON-S1TE SYSTEMS FOUND ALONG GREEN LAKE SHORELINE
(BASED ON SANITARY SURVEY)*
Shoreline
Area
North Shore
West Shore
South Shore
East Shore
Total Shore
Number
Survey
Segments (%)
12-17 33
(13Z)
9, 10, 11 11
(20Z)
22, 23, 24 20
<11Z)
18-21 10
(5Z)
74
(12Z)
Septic Tank
+
Leachfield
19
2
2
2
25
Septic Tank
+
Trench
7
6
3
5
21
Septic Tank ,
Leach Tank,
Leachfield
3
1
2
0
6
Septic Tank ,
Leach Tank,
Trench Outhouse
1 1
0 0
2 1
1 0
4 2
Septic
Tank
Only
0
0
1
1
2
Holding
Tank
1
0
0
0
1
Don't
Knov
1
2
9
1
CM
VD
11
Source: Green Lake Construction Grants Sanitary Survey. H. Hummell, 1978.
* In some instances, the type of system was based on the resident's best guess.
-------
• The set-back distance from a domestic water supply or general
development lakes must be a minimum of 50 feet.
• Distance between the soil absorption system and the depth to
groundwater or bedrock shall be a minimum of 4 feet.
• The size of the septic tank and the soil absorption system
must meet the criteria outlined in Appendix C-7.
The County has indicated that enforcement of the Ordinance is
generally more stringent for sites located along the lakeshore than in
other parts of the county where lots are generally larger. However, a
percolation test is not required prior to septic tank system installa-
tion in any part of the Study Area (by telephone, Steve Peterson, Tax
Assessment Office, May 1979). Many of the on-site system located on
unsuitable sites serve seasonal residences. Several residents are
interested in converting from seasonal to permanent status but hesitate
to upgrade or replace their on-site systems with a more suitable one,
until the issues raised in this EIS are resolved.
Many existing systems do not comply with the Kandiyohi County
Ordinance because the development and enforcement of standards for
on-site systems is recent and because there are limitations on the
enforcement of the standards relating to site limitations. The data
gathered during the sanitary survey provides the best indication of the
types of violations of the standards and the location of non-complying
systems. Table II-7 summarizes available information on violations of
standards for on-site systems. Major violations include:
Well Setback Distance. A setback distance of 50 feet from the well
is intended to provide an adequate setback distance so that bacteria and
nutrients are sufficiently removed (or diluted in the case of nitrates)
as the wastewater percolates through the soils matrix. Table II-7
indicates that 21% of the sites surveyed violated the standard for well
setback distance. Most (50%) of the violations were found along the
east shore, although a significant number of sites along the north (32%)
and south (26%) shores were also in violation of the setback distance
standard.
Lake Setback Distance. Only the north shore of Green Lake had a
significant number of soil absorption units which were located too close
to the Lake (30%). Generally, homes along Green Lake and their accom-
panying ST/SAS are setback a good distance from the shoreline. The
setback distance of 50 feet from the lake is intended to minimize leach-
ing of nutrients from on-site systems into surface waters.
Undersized Septic Tanks. Septic tanks which are too small for the
number of residents using them can lead to several problems including
backups into the house and poor solids removal in the septic tank. Poor
solids removal may lead to clogging of the soil absorption unit.
Records on the size of the septic tanks were not maintained prior
to enforcement of the ordinance; the size of the septic tank in 53% of
the homes surveyed could not be identified. Where information was
63
-------
North Shore
West Shore
South Shore
East Shore
Total
Table II-7
SUMMARY OF DATA ON ON-SITE SYSTEMS
(BASED ON SANITARY SURVEY)
Number
Surveyed
(Z Total)
33
(13%)
11
(20%)
20
(11%)
10
(5%)
74
(12Z)
Number of
Systems
>10 yr.
(% Total)
20
(65%)
4
(36%)
11
(58%)
7
(78%)
42
(56%)
Average
Age
15
11
12
15
13
System Setback
<50 ft.
from Well
10
(32%)
1
(9%)
5
(26%)
5
(50%)
21
(29%)
System Setback
<50 ft.
from Lake
9
(30%)
0
0
1
(11Z)
10
(8%)
House Setback
Range - ft.
(Mean)
31-450
(172)
40-100
(85)
48-225
(84)
50-300
(137)
Septic Tanks
Undersized
21 Don't Know
50Z+
4 Don't Know
14%
10 Don't Know
50%
4 Don't Know
50%
39
Source: Green Lake Constructions Grants Sanitary Survey. M. Hummel, 1978.
based on limited
no. of residents
who knew this
information
-------
available, the survey data indicated that 50% of the sites on the south,
north, and east shores had undersized septic tanks. Only 14% of the
septic tanks found along the western shore were undersized. This shore-
line has the fewest number of ST/SAS which are older than 10 years and
consequently a larger number comply with the standards for septic tank
size.
Site Limitations. Because no percolation test is required for a
permit and because depth to groundwater is shallow throughout much of
the Proposed Service Area, it is suspected that many on-site 'systems
violate the standards with respect to site limitations. MPCA standards
for individual sewage treatment systems (WPC-40) require that the size
of the drainfield be determined by the soils percolation rate. Although
the SCS soils survey has not been completed for the Study Area, avail-
able survey data indicate that the soils are quite variable. Generally,
suitable sandy and sandy loam soils are found along Green Lake, but
impervious clay areas are not uncommon. Some excessively permeable
soils along the west shore, and some impervious soils around Nest Lake
have been noted as having site limitations (by telephone, Steve
Peterson, May 1978).
4. PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING SYSTEMS
Numerous violations of the standards for ST/SAS conditions
throughout some parts of the Study Area 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
trophic status pose water quality problems. Public health problems may
result from ponding of effluent on the soil surface or contamination of
groundwater supply in excess of drinking water standards. Where lakes
are used for contact recreation, violation of the fecal coliform stan-
dard also constitutes a public health hazard. Community improvement
problems include odors, restrictions on water use and restrictions on
building expansion.
5. PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEMS
a. Backups/Ponding
Despite numerous alleged violations of the County's standards for
on-site systems, and an alleged shallow depth to groundwater found
throughout much of the Proposed Service Area, the number of systems
which pose public health problems as a result of backups or ponding is
relatively few. The County has indicated that where problems do occur
they are usually the result of residents converting from seasonal to
permanent status. When this happens, the individual soil absorption
systems may not be large enough to accommodate the extra flow. Con-
version from seasonal to permanent status has been most frequent along
the eastern shore.
The County indicated that the number of failures around Nest Lake
is also low; although impermeable soils are found in some areas, the
65
-------
lots are adequately sized and many of the systems have been upgraded (by
telephone, Steve Peterson, May 1978).
Based on data gathered during the Sanitary Survey only 13% (9
systems) had ever experienced problems with backups or pondings.
Appendix C-9 summarizes data on these systems. At least three of these
problem systems were in need of maintenance which is expected to correct
the problem. Only five ST/SAS or 7% of those surveyed had backups or
ponding on more than one occasion each year. It is not clear that these
problems are the result of site limitations. All of these systems were
more than 10 years old, at least one septic tank was undersized and
three had a poor maintenance record. However, all five systems were
suspected of being in an area where the groundwater level was high (less
than 8 feet). The location of these few systems with recurring problems
was limited to the north and east shores of the lake.
The EPIC aerial photographic survey was flown in August of 1978 to
identify surface malfunctions. As Figure 11-11 shows, only three
marginally failing ST/SAS were detected along the Green Lake shoreline.
The two marginally failing systems observed along the north shore may be
in an area with a high groundwater level. Since many of the systems are
poorly maintained, however, these surface malfunctions cannot be attri-
buted to site limitations without further investigation. One failing
and one marginally failing system were observed along the north shore of
Nest Lake. Some impervious soils are known to exist in this area.
b. Groundwater Contamination
As discussed in Section II.B.2 only localized high nitrate
concentrations in groundwater have been found in the Study Area. Out of
97 water well samples tested in July 1977, only two samples showed
nitrate concentrations in excess of the public health drinking water
standard of 10 mg/1. Their samples were from wells located in the
northeast and east lakeshore areas (see Appendix C-l for well data).
c. Water Quality Problems
Based on data available through the National Eutrophication Survey
and the results of the "Septic Snooper" analysis (see II.B.I) septic
tanks are not significantly contributing to water quality degradation.
It is estimated that septic tanks contribute only 6% of the total phos-
phorus load to Green Lake and that the lake is mesotrophic in status.
Kerfoot (1979) observed that only a small number of septic leachate
plumes were being discharged into Green Lake during a March 1979 survey.
These plumes were associated mainly with sites along the north shore;
the phosphorus loadings at a location adjacent to the plumes were in-
significant compared to the load contributed by the Middle Fork of the
Crow River.
There is no evidence that existing systems are contributing
significant bacterial loads. Bacterial levels along nearshore areas
were generally below the Minnesota State Health Department and MPCA
standards for recreational waters (Green Lake Property Association
1970-1971; MPCA 1968-1968; and SW State University 1975-1977). Values
in excess of the standards were found in inlet and outlet streams and
66
-------
these levels could not be attributed to septic tank leachate. Kerfoot
(1979) detected very low levels., of; fecal, coliform (generally less than
10 counts/100 ml) in surfaced Water; located at the discharge of a septic
leachate plumes.
d. Other Problems
Some residents served by on-site systems have reported localized
algal growth along the Green Lake shoreline. While localized algal
growth may be considered a nuisance since it interferes with recrea-
tional activity and is aesthetically displeasing, it is not necessarily
indicative of a water quality problem.
The sanitary survey investigated the extent of Cladophora growth
along the Green Lake shoreline. Since the natural nutrient level in
Green Lake is low, growth of the filamentous algae, Cladophora is depen-
dent on localized nutrient sources. Table II-8 summarizes the results
of the Cladophora study. The dead Cladophora found washed up on the
north and west shore may not have grown adjacent to those sources.
Green Lake had been lowered prior to the time of the survey and there
were signs of dead Cladophora along the shoreline where no live
Cladophora was found in water.
Dense patches of Cladophora were observed only along the north
shore and at the point of outflow of the Canal on the east shore.
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
Of the 16,700 acres in the Green Lake Study Area, 40% is water, 19%
is forested, 30% is under cultivation, and 4% is developed for residen-
tial and industrial purposes, (including the New London National Fish
Hatchery). The 7% remaining is in open space: wetlands, hay meadows,
fallow land in private ownership, Minnesota wildlife refuges or Federal
waterfowl areas. Scattered throughout the Study Area, the forests and
open lands provide habitat for a variety of wildlife, including amphi-
bians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.
The State of Minnesota regards wildlife as a resource and regulates
the shooting of upland birds and game mammals, as well the taking of
fur-bearing animals in season. A major concern about the Green Lake
project is the maintenance or improvement of the quality of lake and
stream waters in a manner that will conserve valuable wildlife habitat.
1. AQUATIC BIOLOGY
a. Aquatic Vegetation
The production of plant material ultimately determines the number
and kinds of animals that can be supported in a lake or stream. Further-
more, the number of species of aquatic plants and their relative numbers
indicate in a qualitative manner the degree of nutrient pollution of the
water. In the poor quality water of midwestern eutrophic |lakes, the
relatively few species of aquatic vascular plants* are dominated by
67
-------
Table II-8
RESULTS OF SANITARY SURVEY
(# of Homesltes with Cladophora)
Shoreline
North
West
South
East
Total
Homes
Surveyed
33
11
20
10
. 74
Slight to
Moderate
Cladophora
5**
5
9
4
21
Heavy
Cladophora
2
0
0
o***
2
Heavy
Dead*
6
5
0
0
11
* This algae was not necessarily associated with the home adjacent to where
algae was found.
** Only 16 sites were free of ice cover.
*** Heavy Cladophora growth was found near canal.
68
-------
water milfoil. Blue-green algae or late summer algal "blooms" may
produce green-colored water in eiitrophic lakes and foul-smelling piles
of decaying vegetation on the shorelines (Lind and Cottam 1969).
A limited survey of the aquatic plants of Green Lake and Nest Lake
conducted in 1971 by DNR found a mix of semi-aquatic* (shoreline) and
rooted aquatic plants" but no water milfoil. The algal blooms reported
to be heavy at times in the Nest Lake did not appear to significantly
reduce light penetration during critical times of year for the rooted
plants.
The DNR surveyors estimated that only 1% of the surface of Green
Lake was covered with emergent plants (bulrushes, cattails, manna and
other grasses) probably because of its great average depth and the
absence of embayments. Green Lake's exposed shoreline \is regularly
scoured by waves and ice, both detrimental to the production of rooted
aquatic vegetation. In Green Lake, rooted aquatic plants were found to
a depth of 35 feet, indicating very clear water. Rooted vegetation grew
from depths of 30 feet in Nest Lake, 7% of whose surface was estimated
to be covered with emergent plants. i
b. Fishes
Green Lake and Nest Lake are important for recreation; and serve as
habitats and spawning areas for fish and wildlife. Thes;e lakes have
been classified by the Minnesota DNR as follows (by telephone/ Elvin
Tews, October 1978):
Lake Ecological Classification
Green Bass, panfish, walleye
Nest Bass, panfish, walleye
(northern pike)
Management Classification
i
Same Species
Same Species
The fact that the management classification is the same as the ecologi-
cal classification indicates that the composition of the fishery is
consistent with management goals based on the physical parameters of the
lakes.
Woodcock Lake supports populations of only bullheads! and minnows.
The fauna is determined in part by frequent "winterkills", or fish
die-offs, caused by severe reductions in the level of dissolved oxygen.
Winterkills are most common in shallow lakes where a long period of snow
cover can reduce or prevent significant photosynthesis by aquatic
plants. In Woodcock Lake, this problem is aggravated by the high oxygen
demand resulting from the breakdown of organic wastes discharged from
the Spicer wastewater treatment facility. :
The most recent survey of lake fishes was conducted; by Minnesota
DNR in 1971 (by telephone, Elvin Tews, October 1978). A list of the
number of species and their relative densities for Green jLake and Nest
Lake appears in Appendix E-l. Although the densities varied, the
69
-------
similar composition indicates a healthy diversity of sport and rough
fishes in these lakes. Results of the survey are summarized in the
following table which also shows changes since 1954.
Lake 1971 Status
Green Walleyes, perch,
rockbass, green
sunfish, bull-
heads, pumpkin-
seed above State
average; others
average.
Nest Walleyes, perch &
bluegills above.
Change since 1954
survey
Increase in number
of bluegills; de-
crease in cisco.
White crappie
decline in number.
Important as
spawning grounds for
Walleyes, smallmouth
bass, panfish,
cisco
Northern pike
and panfish.
DNR from its surveys concluded that population fluctuations are
common natural occurrences and that the Lakes are supporting large and
diverse fish populations. (The New London Fish Hatchery produces only
Salmon fry and fingerlings for release in Lake Superior).
c. Waterfowl, Shore and Wading Birds
The Study Area provides varied nesting and feeding habitat for
waterfowl and other water birds. It contains five Federal waterfowl
protection areas plus the Dietrich Lange State Wildlife Management Area.
Such marsh birds as great blue heron, black-crowned night heron, little
green heron and American egret feed on fish, crustaceans,* insects and
small vertebrate animals living in shallow water or adjacent wetlands.
Waterfowl, including mallards, American mergansers, and Canada geese
breed and feed on area lakes. Although most birds are summer residents
only, some, such as the small numbers of Canada geese which use the
unfrozen section of the Middle Fork of the Crow River and feed in corn-
fields, remain in the Study Area throughout the winter months.
Kandiyohi County, located near the Mississippi Flyway, and with about 40
State and Federal wildlife and waterfowl areas, attracts migratory birds
(including waterfowl) especially in the autumn.
2. TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY
a. Forest
The major forests in the Study Area are mixed hardwood types,
including many elm and cottonwood trees (Kandiyohi County Economic
Development Plan 1977). Forested areas are confined primarily to river
and stream banks, lakeshores and steep hills; the largest are located
north of Green Lake and Nest Lake. With the soils of the Study Area
continuing to be productive for agricultural crops, neither reforesta-
tion nor growth of the timber or pulp industry is likely in the foresee-
able future there.
70
-------
b. Wildlife
Vertebrate wildlife is found throughout the Study Area wherever,
there is habitat for feeding or nesting. Wildlife is likely to con-
centrate in the state wildlife management areas and Federal waterfowl
protection areas, but undeveloped private lands are probably locally
important as well. Hunters seek ring-necked pheasants in the high
quality habitat provided by small wetlands found on many farms south and
east of Green Lake, and the ruffed grouse and American woodcock in the
forests. Migratory waterfowl are major game birds.
The forests, especially those north of Green Lake, provide im-
portant habitat for the most valuable big game animal, the white-tailed
deer, which although it feeds mostly in open lands and crop lands,
usually spends periods of inactivity in forests. Other hunted species
that may rely heavily or solely on forest habitat are both fox and gray
squirrels, raccoons, and to a lesser extent, red foxes (by telephone,
Charles Gernes, 24 October 1978). Mammalian species in the Study Area
valuable for sport or as food for valuable mammals are listed in
Appendix E-2. Of these, a small mammal, the 2-ounce meadow vole may be
the most numerous; it is a staple food item in the diets of most larger
carnivorous mammals as well as of hawks, owls, and many large snakes.
Meadow voles are numerous in grasslands or cattail marshes, often shar-
ing the latter with their close relative, the muskrat. According to
Charles Gernes, Manager of the New London Fish Hatchery, both the
American bald eagle, classified as endangered by the Federal Government,
and the great horned owl hunt in the Study Area; the owls nest there as
well.
3. WETLANDS
Wetlands deserve particular consideration because of their role in
purifying water, their value to wildlife, their potential susceptibility
to the adverse effects of construction, and their diminishing frequency
of occurrence within the Study Area.
The State of Minnesota recognizes that wetlands are valuable for
preserving and maintaining groundwater levels, as habitat for wildlife,
and as spawning grounds for certain important fishes, including northern
pike. Even lands not available for public use or not connected with any
navigable waterway are considered to be a resource of the State; the
alteration of a wetland larger than 50 acres requires an application by
the landowner and a subsequent hearing. In the event that permission to
drain the wetland is denied, the State must be prepared to purchase the
lands under either the State or Federal waterbank system.
Part of the State's concern about the preservation of wetlands is
the realization that although they can be destroyed, directly or in-
directly, within a short time, wetlands cannot be reconstructed or
restored like terrestrial or water environments. Wetlands are formed
over hundreds or thousands of years by deposition of sediments and
organic debris during natural processes, creating acid, water-logged
soils and a range of other features that cannot be restored after harsh
disturbance. For instance, the lowering of the water table by as little
71
-------
a:; two or three feet can cause the organic matter in the peaty soils to
br lost through oxidation within a short span of months or years (de-
pending partly on whether the soils are burned). The raising of the
water table 5 years later will not restore the conditions that formerly
existed, and in this sense wetlands cannot be restored.
The lack of shallow embayments and coves along Green Lake's sym-
metrical shoreline retards the development of large wetlands areas
there.
Ditching to improve the drainage for agricultural purposes has led
to the loss of much wetland area within the Green Lake Study Area,
decreasing wildlife habitat. Nevertheless, on almost every farm,
patches of land remain, some several acres in extent, which are too
poorly drained to be plowed and planted. (Such moist patches of wetland
may be vegetated by cattails, sedges, willows and alders. Crops are
generally planted right, up to the edge of intermittent streams, drainage
ditches or hay meadows.) In addition to those near agricultural areas,
there are several extensive wetlands near other lakes and streams,
covered by herbaceous growth and dominated by cattails. Many of these
wetland areas have been incorporated into State-run wildlife management
areas and Federally managed waterfowl areas. The total wetland acreage
is estimated to be approximately 7% of the Study Area (see Figure II-7).
Wetlands are vital to the maintenance of wildlife populations.
Alteration of some proportion of wetlands would alter both fish and
wildlife populations and almost certainly reduce the recreational
potential of the Study Area.
4. THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
Kandiyohi County does not lie within the primary or peripheral
range of the gray wolf, nor is it within either the breeding or winter
habitat of the American bald eagle. Both animals have Threatened status
and are protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-205).
Furthermore, none of the two species of butterflies or five species of
plants that have been proposed for special status by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service is known in Kandiyohi County. According to a letter of
iO April 1979 of D.H. Rasmussen, Acting Regional Director, US Fish and
Wildlife Service, no species of plant or animal that is additionally
protected by Minnesota law is known to exist in the Study Area.
E. POPULATION AND SOCIQECONOMICS
1. POPULATION
a. Introduction
Population information for the Green Lake Study Area is derived
from published data and primary field data collected during the prepar-
ation of this EIS. Published information from the US Bureau of the
Census and other sources is available for Kandiyohi County and the minor
civil divisions (villages, cities, and townships) within the County.
72
-------
The Study Area consists of New London Village, Spicer City, and portions
of the New London Township, Green Lake Township, Harrison Township, and
Irving Township. It is not possible to accurately disaggregate existing
published data below the township level for the purpose of describing
the population characteristics of the portions of the townships included
in the Study Area. Thus, published socioeconomic data is presented for
the entirety of each of the minor civil divisions wholly or partially
within the Study Area.
Primary field data was gathered for the Proposed EIS Service Area
(see Figure 1-3). For the purpose of this study, the Propos.ed Service
Area was divided into 25 segments. A map of the segments is contained
in Figure 11-13. Population related data collected through primary
field study include the number of permanent and seasonal dwellings. The
dwelling counts served as the basis for estimates of permanent and
seasonal population within the Proposed Service Area.
b. Existing Population
The Proposed Service Area had an estimated 1976 permanent popula-
tion of 2,400 and a seasonal population of 4,500. The 1976 population
estimates were based on field surveys. Thus, the Proposed Service Area
had a total summer population of 6,900 with seasonal and permanent
residents accounting for 65% and 35% of the total, respectively. New
London Village and Spicer City had the largest number and proportion of
permanent residents, while Green Lake Township, New London Township, and
Irving Township all had large seasonal populations (see Table II-9 for a
detailed breakdown of 1976 permanent and seasonal population by minor
civil divisions). No data specific to the Proposed Service Area are
available on either the permanent or seasonal population prior to 1976.
c. Population Projections
Permanent and seasonal baseline Proposed Service Area populations
were projected for the year 2000. Permanent population projections were
based on projections developed by the Minnesota State Demographer (1978)
and the Kandiyohi County Planning Commission (1977) for the minor civil
divisions containing the Proposed Service Area. These projections were
applied to the 1976 Service Area estimates and adjusted to reflect the
proportion of future population growths in minor civil divisions
expected to occur within the Proposed Service Area.
Seasonal population for the year 2000 was projected on the basis of
1976 estimated seasonal population. Projections of seasonal population
for the year 2000 were estimated for each segment of the Proposed
Service Area. The future ratio of seasonal to permanent population was
revised downward to reflect the assumption that the ratio is declining.
Built into this assumption is the understanding that the conversion of
seasonal residences to permanent residences will outnumber new seasonal
residential construction. A drop of 20% in seasonal population (from
4,500 to 3,600) is projected to occur by the year 2000.
A total summer population was calculated based on seasonal and
permanent population. Permanent, seasonal and total summer populations
73
-------
FIGURE 11-13 GREEN LAKE SEGMENT LOCATION MAP
LEGEND
SEGMENTS
Source: beaiu i9/b
-------
TABLE II-9
Green Lake Township
Irving Township
New London Township
New London Village
Splcer City
TOTAL SERVICE AREA
POPULATION
1976
K
0
B
CO
rH
a
o
958
1,453
2,685
734
1,071
6,901
4-t
S
1
&
73
138
721
734
735
2,401
a
|
1
885
1,315
1,964
0
336
4.500
2000
^
H
B
en
|H .
a
u
Ł
1.024
1.696
3.513
734
1.440
8.407
w '
S
1
Ł
316
646
1,941
734
1.170
4.807
rH
g
1
708
1.050
1.572
0
270
3,600
DWELLING UNITS
1976
M
9j
B
w
•a
Ł
168
265
539
220
310
1,502
4J
g
a
'•• s ••-..
1 .:
91
87
208
563
220
402
1,480
•,"'"! •••*'• '
• ,-. - :-:---' s.
'Sv'--.-
'
- •"-••', -.
lie
175
262
0
45
600
-------
are listed In Table II-9. A detailed explanation of the methodology of
cal uatjag these population projections is provided in Appendix F-l.
fa the year 2000, the total summer population of the Proposed
Ser :.;.;•: Anva is projected to be 8,407, an increase of 18% over the 1976
pop ' • !;.!. on estimate. The largest absolute increase is projected to
occ< in New London Township which is expected to gain 828 residents by
the ,rŁar 2000. The permanent to seasonal population ratio is expected
to :.ncrease. This trend has been incorporated into the population
pro Ltiaa to reflect the tendency for second homes to be converted to
ful Mrae use.
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION
a. Income
The data presented in this section are for the State of Minnesota,
Kan iyohi County, New London Township, Green Lake Township, Harrison
Tow .ship, Irving Township, New London Village, and the City of Spicer.
Characteristics were selected because of their importance in analyzing
the financial effects that the various wastewater management alterna-
tive could have on individual households. The data presented below
represent income figures for permanent residents. No data is available
for population income of seasonal residents.
In. 1970, the mean average family income in the Green Lake Study
Area was $9,285 (see Appendix F-2). Although the Study Area's mean
fam.ily income was slightly greater than the county mean, it was sub-
stantially less than the national and state figures of $10,999 and
$11,048. Significant variation in mean incomes, of the individual com-
munities within the Study Area were evident, ranging from a low of
$6,f26 in Irving Township to a high of $14,385 in Harrison Township.
Thus, it appears that while aggregate figures for the Study Area were
indicative of a moderate income area, pockets of low income households
were present.
Compared to Minnesota, both Kandiyohi County and the Green Lake
Study >Area were characterized by a large proportion of lower income
families (see Appendix F-2). Approximately 50% of the families in
Minnesota had an income in 1970 of less than $10,000, while similar
statistics for the county and the Study Area were 61.3% and 64.6%,
respectively.
The relatively low incomes experienced in the Study Area could have
been the result of a number of factors such as:
© The agricultural and tourism orientation of the local economy
providing relatively low skill/low wage employment opportu-
nities; and
o A large portion of the population was comprised of elderly
people, who were retired and living on fixed incomes.
76
-------
b. Poverty Levels
*
In 1970 there was a slightly higher incidence of poverty among
families in the Study Area and Kandiyohi County than in the State of
Minnesota (see Appendix F-2). The family poverty rate for the Green
Lake Study Area was 10.8% for this period and for the state was 8.2%.
The proportion of families with incomes below the poverty level varied
considerably among communities in the Study Area from a high of 22.8%
in Irving Township to a low 4.4% in Spicer Village.
A large proportion of persons with incomes below the poverty level
are elderly or 'retired and living on fixed incomes. In 1970, persons 65
years or older accounted for 23% of all persons of poverty status in the
Study Area (see Appendix F-2). New London Township had an especially
high number (44%) of people who were 65 years or older and classified as
living in poverty.
c. Employment
In 1970, Kandiyohi County and the State of Minnesota were char-
acterized by similar employment characteristics with the exception of
two sectors: agriculture and manufacturing. Kandiyohi County and the
region were relatively more dependent on agriculture for employment than
the state as a whole. More current information on this trend will not
be available until the 1980 Census. The county's manufacturing employ-
ment was considerably lower than either the region or the State.
Although agricultural activity has been declining since I960, the
service and trade industries have become the primary sources of
employment (see Table 11-10).
Tourism played a significant role in the local economy In 1972. A
comparison of tourism-related services in Minnesota and Kandiyohi County
shows the importance of these activities to the county (see Table
11-11). Hotels, automotive and amusement services accounted for a
larger proportion of services in the county than in the State. Retail
trade statistics reinforce the observation of the importance of tourism
to the local economy (see Table 11-12). Over 20% of all retail trade in
Kandiyohi County in 1972 was related to building material and farm
equipment compared to 7% for Minnesota. This divergence could be attri-
buted to retail sale for farm equipment since the local economy was
largely oriented toward agriculture.
Financial Characteristics. Financial characteristics of the local
governments in Green Lake Study Area are presented in Table 11-13. The
information includes taxable valuation of real property, total revenue
receipts, total current expenses, total capital outlay, and total in-
debtedness. Such information is helpful in evaluating various financing
alternatives available to local governments.
In Minnesota, counties serve as agents for subordinate government
units, acting as the collector and distributor of taxes and grants.
Revenues are generated from three major sources:
77
-------
Table 11-10
KANDIYOHI COUNTY PERCENT SHARE OF
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY 1960 and 1970
Agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation
Wholesale and
Retail Trade
Finance
Public
Administration
Service (.1)
Utilities and
Communication
Mining
State
1960
14.9
5.7
20.1
5.1
20.1
4.2
3.9
22.0
2.4
1.5
1970
7.7
5.7
21.0
4.1
22.0
4.6
3.8
27.6
2.5
1.0
Region 6E
1960
37.4
5.9
10.6
3.2
18.5
2.4
2.5
17.7
1.7
0.1
1970
21.9
6.2
19.4
2.8
20.7
2.6
2.7
21.7
1.9
0.1
Kandiyohi
I960 1970
29.8 '
7.2
8.5
6.4
18.3
3.1
2.8
21.9
1.8
0.2
17.4
6.6
11.1
4.6
24.6
2.7
3.1
27.7
2.1
0.1
(1) Includes business and repair services, personal service workers, en-
tertainment and recreation, professional and related services workers,
Sources: Minnesota Socio-Economic Population
Characteristic-Employment, Volume 2.
Minnesota Analysis and Planning System (MAPS).
78
-------
Table II -11
SELECTED SERVICES - 1972
Minnesota
Kandiyohi County(1)
Receipts Percent of Receipts Percent of
($1.000) Industry Receipts ($1,000) Industry Receipts
Hotels
$ 188,879 10.8
$ 332
14.9
Automotive
Services
185,916 10.7
369
16.6
Amusement
192,008 11.0
326
14.7
Total Services 1,734,051
2,223
(1) Excludes Willinar
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Census of Selected
Services 1972. '
79
-------
Building
Materials .and
Farm Equipment
General
Merchandise
Food Stores
Automotive
Dealers
Gasoline
Service
Station
Apparel Stores
Furniture Stores
Eating and
Drinking Places
Drug Stores
Miscellaneous
Retail Stores
Total
Table 11-12
RETAIL TRADE - 1972
Minnesota
Kandiyohi County(1)
Sales Percent of Sales Percent of
($1.000) all Trade ($1.000) all Trade
$ 601,195 7.1
1, 240,686 14.8
1,583,252 18.9
1,503,205 17.9
710,548 8.5
369,731 4.4
378,425 4.5
659,344 7.8
246,132 2.9
1,059.879 12.7
$8,352,397
$ 4,233 23.0
(D)
2,449 13.3
4,130 22.4
2,722 14.8
(D). —
404 2.2
1,245 6.7
(D)
2,180 11,8
$18,370
(1) Excludes Willmar.
(D) Withheld to avoid disclosure.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Census of Retail
Trade-1972.
80
-------
Table 11-13
FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
Taxable
Valuation
Knndtyohl
Countv
(1)
$79,584,606 .$3.360,24(1
(2)
Creen Lake Harrlson
Township __ ^ Township _ Townshlji Townsh I
New London<2) Hew Condon(2)
Village
$2,567,957 $2.174,262 $3,851,864 $1,110,839
Sptcer Village
$1,567,827
Total
Revenue
Receipts
6,8/i6,234
27,671
24,968
28,461
41,877
108,821
139,862
CD
Total
Current
Expense
Total
Capital
Outlay
Total
Indebtedness
6,271,202
67,894
3,464,780
25,180.
6,714
19,430
15,900
20,933
30,565
103,147
97,589
218,000
Sources: (1) Report of the State Auditor of Minnesota. Revenues, Expenditures and Debt of Local Governments In Minnesota. August 1977.
(2) Report of the State Auditor of Minnesota. Revenues, Expenditures and Debt of the Towns In Minnesota. January 1978.
(3) Report of the State Auditor of Minnesota. Revenues, Expenditures and Debt of the Cities In Minnesota, November 1977.
-------
» General property tax;
e Federal revenue sharing; and
6 State aid to local governments, usually $25-$30 per capita.
From these revenues, expenditures for general government and
capital outlays are made. Counties, townships, and cities all can take
on debt in the form of general obligation bonds. The debt limit on such.
bonds is set at 6-2/3% of the taxable valuation of the government unit.
General obligation bonds require voter approval in Minnesota. In con-
trast, revenue bonds have no set debt limit and do not require a public
referendum.
According to Table 11-13 only the entities of Kandiyohi County and
Spicer Village have outstanding debt. At the end of fiscal year 1975
Kandiyohi County had a total indebtedness of $3,464,780. Of this debt
$1,155,000 were general obligation bonds; $2,109,780 were special
assessment bonds; and $200,000 were other types of bonds. The general
obligation debt amounts to $1,155,000, which was relatively low compared
to a debt limit of $5,252,684. The Village of Spicer's debt was com-
prised of $18,000 in general obligation bonds and $200,000 in special
assessment bonds. Spicer had a debt limit of $104,417 on general
obligation bonds.
3. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
The total dwelling unit count for the Proposed EIS Service Area in
1976 was 1,502 units. Of these, 753 units or 50%, were occupied on a
year-round basis. In 1970, seasonal units accounted for 11.9% of the
housing stock in Kandiyohi County (see Table 11-14).
Age characteristics of the permanent housing stock provide an
indication of construction trends in the area. The distribution of
housing ages for the Study Area closely corresponds to age distribution
for the State and county. However, a wide variation in ages exists
between the communities within the Study Area. Irving Township has a
relatively old stock, with 81.7% of units built before 1939. Both New
London Township and Green Lake Township experienced substantial in-
creases in residential construction between 1965 and 1970, while very
little construction activity was evident in the villages of New London
and Spicer.
The median value of owner-occupied units and the median gross rent
for rental units in the Study Area were considerably lower than the
national and state medians (see Table 11-15). The low values could be
attributed to such factors as:
9 The rural location of the Study Area;
6 The structural conditions and amenities of individual units;
and
9 Second homes and vacation homes are often of lower value than
year-round units.
82
-------
Table 11-14
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 1970
Minnesota
Number Percent
Total Dwelling Units
Permanent
Seasonal
Of Permanent
Occupied
Vacant
Of Occupied
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
Age of Permanent Housing
Oo Built after 1965
•,{J3 Built between 1939-1964
Built before 1939
1,276
1,219
56
1,153
65
824
329
Stock
155
461
602
,082
,591
,491
,946
.645
,634
,312
,478
,590
,523
95.6
4.4
94.6
5.4
71.5
28.5
17.8
37.8
49.4
Kandlyolii
County
Number
11,109
9,791
1,318
9,272
519
7,065
2,207
1,007
3,198
5,504
Percent
83
11
94
5.
76.
23.
10.
32.
57.
.1
.9
.7
.3
.2
.8
.3
.7
.0
Study
Nunher
2,428
1,601
827
1,505
96
1,255
250
197
485
919
Area
Percent
65
34
94
6
.9
.1
.0
.0
83.4
16
12
30
57
.6
.3
.3
.4
Croon l.nko
Township
Number
410
364
186
219
5
229
30
47
78
139
Percent
58,
41 .
90
I,
R8,
11.
17
29.
52.
.7
,3
.1
.9
.4
.6
.8
.5
.7
Harrison
Township
Number
3R6
198
188
193
5
143
50
15
46
137
Percent
51
48
97
2
74
25
7
23
69
.3
.7
.5
.5
.1
.9
.6
.2
.2
I rvinp.
Township
Number
373
175
196
161
14
151
10
19
13
143
Percent
46.9
53.1
92.0
8.0
93. R
6.2
10.9
7.4
81.7
New London
Township
Number
662
450
212
393
52
331
67
94
179
177
Percent
68
32
88
11
63
16
20
39
39
.0
.0
.4
.A
.2
.6
.9
.8
.3
New London
VlUaEe
Number Percent
285
281
4
271
10
219
52
11
81
189
98.6
1 .4
96.4
3.6
80.8
19.2
3.9
28.8
67.3
Splcnr
Village
292
233
39
223
10
182
41
11
88
134
85.7
14.3
95.3
4.3
81 .6
10.4
4.7
37.8
57.5
Sources: U.S. Census of Housing, Summary Date .ind Fifth Count Sumnnry Tnpcs, 1970.
-------
Table II -15
HOUSING VALUE - 1970
Median Value Median
Of Owner Occupied Unit Gross Rent
United States $17,130 $110
Minnesota $18,054 $117
Kandiyohi County $14,779 $ 94
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census,
County and City Data Book - 1972.
84
-------
Little information concerning the characteristics of seasonal
dwelling units in the Study Area is available.1 The 1970 census
provides detailed information on housing age, tenure patterns, vacancy
rates, and other housing characteristics for permanent residences only.
Seasonal units by nature of their use as second homes or vacation re-
treats are likely to differ from year-round homes in terms of size,
value, condition and amenities.
4. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use
Significant land uses in the Study Area include (see Figure 11-14):
• Small urban communities of New London Village and the City of
Spicer with a mix of commercial, residential and institutional
uses;
• Single family residential/recreational development adjacent to
the shoreline of Green Lake and Nest Lake;
• Agricultural lands; and
• Open land consisting mostly of woodlands, wetlands and lakes.
Major transportation routes serving the area include Minnesota
Routes 9 and 23 which run east-west and US 71 which provides north-south
circulation. The Burlington Northern Railroad runs north-south through
the Study Area but does not provide direct service to the area.
The lakes, streams, woods, and hills in the area provide aesthetic
value which, combined with the recreational value of Nest Lake and Green
Lake has resulted in considerable residential development of land
bordering these lakes. A majority of these homes are occupied on a
seasonal basis only.
Other than scattered, tourist-serving commercial functions
throughout the townships, most commercial activities are located in
village centers or the approaches thereto. Industrial land uses con-
stitute a minor percentage of land use activity within the Study Area.
The major industrial activities are gravel pit operations located pri-
marily in the Green Lake Township-New London Township portions of the
Study Area.
b. Future Land Use
A Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Kandiyohi County was prepared
in 1977, and contained a zoning map. This map was reviewed to obtain an
appraisal of future land use patterns. This zoning map is the only
Although specific information is available for permanent units, it
is not reasonable to assume that permanent and seasonal units
exhibit similar characteristics.
85
-------
FIGURE 11-14 EXISTING LAND USE OF THE GREEN
LAKE STUDY AREA
LEGEND
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
AREAS
SINGLE FAMILY RESI-
DENTIAL
WETLANDS /VEGETATED
AREAS
AGRICULTURAL
vffi-^:! COMMERCIAL
A TRAILER PARK
g CAMPGROUND
Source: USGS 1967;
U3GS date unknown;
USGS 1975; Kandiyohi
County Board of Com-
missioners 1971
vD
OO
-------
available information relating to future land use patterns for the Study
Area. A majority of future land uses in the Study Area will be residen-
tial and agricultural (see Figure 11-15). As can be seen from Figure
11-15, future residential land uses were projected to be concentrated
around Green Lake, Nest Lake, Woodcock Lake, New London Village and
Spicer Village.
c. Growth Management
Kandiyohi County's Shoreland Management Ordinance established the
major land development controls affecting acreage adjacent to Green Lake
and Nest Lake. The Minnesota Shoreland Management Act requires counties
throughout the State to adopt regulations which attempt to reconcile
future lakeshore development pressures with the environmental sensitiv-
ities and development capabilities of a lakeshore.
The Kandiyohi County Shoreland Management Ordinance has been inte-
grated with the county zoning ordinance (see Figure 11-15). Shoreland
acreage around Green Lake and Nest Lake has (with minor exceptions) been
zoned R-l Residential: Shoreland Management District. The shoreland
management district is intended to accommodate residential development
"along the shores of lakes, streams and rivers, and in natural environ-
ment areas," while "retain(ing) the physical features of the shoreland
and natural areas."
Permitted uses in the shoreland management district include the
following:
• General agricultural pasture and minimum tillage cropland uses
(drainage of wetland areas without Planning Commission
approval is prohibited);
• Single-family non-farm detached dwellings, included individual
mobile homes, of either a seasonal or permanent nature;
• Parks and other public recreation facilities owned or operated
by county or other governmental agencies;
• Public and private camping and outing areas operated on a
non-profit basis; and
• Historic sites and markers, commemorative public areas.
Conditional uses permitted in the shoreland management district,
subject to public comment and Planning Commission and County Board
review and approval, are:
• Golf clubhouses, country clubs, or public swimming pools;
• Public sewage treatment facilities, and similar essential
public utility and service structures;
• Recreation-oriented commercial establishments;
87
-------
FIGURE 11-15 FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE GREEN
LAKE STUDY AREA
LEGEND
AGRICULTURAL
RKSTDKN'nAL
Source: Kandi-
yohi County Board
of Commissioners
1971
-------
• Churches;
• Recreational vehicle camping (subject to Minnesota health
regulations; and
• Planned residential subdivision developments (subject to
special requirements).
Special provisions for planned residential subdivisions relax
established density restrictions for the purpose of encouraging cluster
development, multiple dwellings and modular unit developments. Minimum
required land area is 20 acres. Public or community water and sewer
systems are required. Maximum permitted residential densities are
doubled, provided that 25% of the land (lakeshore area) is reserved for
public use and 75% of the lakeshore is left in a natural state. County
Planning Commission and County Board review and approval of planned
residential subdivision plot and site plan, together with issuance of a
conditional use permit, are required under terms of the provision.
Additional provisions influencing the development of shoreland
acreage include:
• Restriction of cutting or other disturbance of natural forest
ecology within a 100 foot wide strip paralleling the shore-
line ;
• Prohibition of construction in areas requiring grading or
filling where such activity may impair water quality through
erosion and sedimentation;
• Allowance for clustered residential development, subject to
plan approval by the Commission of Natural Resources and the
County Commissioners, with higher net residential densities
conditional upon provision of central sewage facilities and
preservation of open space through restrictive deed covenants
or public dedication; and
• Establishment of procedures for designation of special
districts in areas of acute environmental sensitivity re-
quiring more stringent protective measures than those other-
wise available.
Minimum lot size, frontage, and setback from the lakeshcre for
single-family residential development in the shoreland management
district vary with a lake's classification (see Table 11-16).
Green Lake and Nest Lake have both been classified as general
development lakes. A maximum density of two dwelling units per acre is
possible for residential development in these shoreland management
districts. Densities of up to four dwellings per acre are possible for
approved planned residential subdivisions or cluster developments.
The zone outside contiguous lake areas are restricted to general
agricultural activities including cash crops and animal husbandry. This
is done to regulate the encroachment of non-farm activities on agricul-
tural lands.
89
-------
Table 11-16
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY KANDIYOHI COUNTY
Minimum . Minimum Minimum Setback
Lake Classification Lot Size Lot Frontage from Lakeshore
Natural Environment
Lake (NE) 80,000 sq.ft. 200 ft. . 200 ft.
Recreational
Development .Lake (RD) 40,000 sq.ft. 150 ft. 100 ft.
General Development
Lake (GD) 20,000 sq.ft. 100 ft. 75 ft.
Source: Kandiyohi County Shoreland Management Ordinance
90
-------
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Archaeological Resources
The Minnesota State Historical Society has indicated the presence
of a number of important archaeological sites within the Study Area. It
is reported that the area immediately to the east of Green Lake was
occupied by a Sioux Indian Village led by Little Crow, a hereditary
chieftain and last of his dynasty. Remnants of a corn storage hole are
still to be seen at this campsite. Lakotah Sioux bands established a
great camp on the north shore of Green Lake. This camp existed for well
over 100 years. The burial mounds for the camp were located just south
of the Green Lake outlet. This is one of the larger Indian mound com-
plexes in the State of Minnesota.
B: Historic Resources
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has identified sites
and buildings of historic significance in the Study Area. However, none
is listed on the National Register of Historic Sites. The Green Lake
Village was homesteaded beginning in 1869, with a number of settlements
as well as a post office, and grist mill. One of the first missionary
sites in the state was located contiguous to the Indian camp on the
north shore of Green Lake.
6. RECREATION
a. Potential
One of the prime attractions of the Green Lake Area is its recrea-
tional potential. Major activities include boating, fishing, camping,
and swimming. Table 11-17 indicates in relative terms how much use each
lake has received and the potential for overuse.
b. County Parks
County Park 4. This park is located on the southwest shore of
Green Lake in the community of Spicer. This park is used only during
the day as a public beach and picnic area. It is 8 acres in size and
contains picnic tables, bathhouse, beach, off-street parking, fireplaces
and a well.
County Park 5. This park is situated on County Road 30 on the
northeast shore of Green Lake. It is a heavily wooded area with camp-
sites, picnic area and paved roads.
c. Wildlife Areas
Several wildlife management areas managed by the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Conservation exist within the Study Area. These are listed in
Table 11-18 and delineated in Figure 11-13. In addition, three Federal
waterfowl protection areas exist near Green Lake.
91
-------
Green
East
Wood
Nest
Table 11-17
RECREATIONAL POTENTIAL OF LAKES
WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Name
:n
: Woodcock
lcock
Acres
5,820
150
170
1,020
Shore
Miles
11.2
2.7
3.7
8.1
Crowding
Potential
Negligible
High
High
Low
Relative
Water
Crowding
High
High
Medium
High
Source: Kandiyohi County Planning Commission, 1971.
Table 11-18
MAJOR WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS
WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Name of Unit
Dietrich Lange
Ringo Nest
Total
Acres
Owned
1,045
452
1,497
Acres
Projected
448
448
Miles From Town
3 E-NE Spicer
2 NW Spicer
Source: Kandiyohi County Planning Commission, 1971.
92
-------
Municipality
Townships of
New London,
Iriving,
Green Lake,
Village of
Spicer
Same as
above
New London
Township
Same as
above
Table 11-19
PUBLIC ACCESS TO LAKES IN THE
GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
Lake
Green Lake
Nest Lake
Shore
Miles
Green Lake 11.2
Same
as
above
8.1
Nest Lake Same
as
above
Facility
Description
County Park No. 5 •
swimming, boating,
rafting, camping
County Park No. 4 -
swimming, boating,
rafting, diving
Wayside Rest
Public access point
Approximate
Shoreline
Frontage
800 ft.
600 ft.
1500 ft.
100 ft,
Source: Telephone interview with T. Peterson, 6E Regional Development
Commission, Willmar, Minnesota, 3/15/78.
93
-------
d. Public Access
Public access to Green Lake and Nest Lake is relatively limited
(see Table 11-19). Although there is a total of approximately 23 miles
of lake shoreline in the Study Area, less than 3% of the lakeshore is
available for public access.
94
-------
CHAPTER III
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
A. INTRODUCTION
1. GENERAL APPROACH
New alternative systems for wastewater collection and treatment in
the Proposed EIS Green Lake Service Area (see Figure 1-4) are. developed
in this chapter. In Chapter IV, the alternatives are described and
compared, in terms of cost-effectiveness, with the Proposed Action in
the Facilities Plan Report: Proposed Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and
Water District (Rieke Carroll Muller Associates 1976). Chapter V
assesses the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of all these
systems.
The development of new alternatives in the EIS focuses on those
aspects and implications of the proposed wastewater management plan for
the Service Area which either have been identified as major issues or
concerns, or were not adequately addressed in the Facilities Plan. The
high cost of the Facilities Plan Proposed Action and the potential
impact on area residents make the cost-effectiveness of proposed facili-
ties a major concern. Since the collection system accounts for approx-
imately 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. The
development of alternative treatment facilities has been undertaken 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 that an important issue is the
overall need for the project proposed in the Facilities Plan.
Documenting a clear need for new wastewater facilities requires evidence
that the existing on-lot systems are directly related to water quality
and public health problems. Such a need is 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.
o Sewage in basements from inoperable or sluggish sewage
disposal systems.
• Contaminated private wells clearly associated with sewage
disposal systems.
The Proposed EIS 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
95
-------
lot sizes, proximity to lakeshores and substandard setback distances
between wells and private wastewater facilities. Available information
on these factors was used early in the preparation of this EIS to
develop the decentralized alternatives designated EIS Alternatives 3, 4
5, and 6.
Indirect evidence is insufficient to justify Federal funding,
however. 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 Green Lake.
The dollar cost of the Facilities Plan Proposed Action and its
impact on area residents make cost effectiveness an issue equally as
important as documentation. Since the collection system accounts for
the major share of the construction costs in the Facilities Plan
Proposed Action, the extent that sewers are needed and the use of other
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
Options
household water conserva-
tion measures
ban on phosphorus
rehabilitation of existing
sewers to reduce
infiltration and inflow
Collection of Wastewaters
Wastewater Treatment
Processes
Effluent Disposal
limited service area
pressure sewers
vacuum sewers
gravity sewers
conventional centralized
treatment plus chemical
treatment to reduce
phosphorus concentrations
land application
on-site treatment
cluster systems
subsurface disposal
land application
discharge to surface
waters
96
-------
Sludge Handling - anaerobic digestion
dewatering
Sludge Disposal - land application
landfilling
composting
contract hauling
Next, appropriate options were selected and combined into the
alternative systems that are described in Chapter IV. The last section
of Chapter III considers implementation, administration and financing of
the alternatives.
2. COMPARABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES: DESIGN POPULATION
The various alternatives for wastewater management in the EIS
Service Area must provide equivalent levels of service if their designs
and costs are to be properly compared. A design population of 8407 has
been assumed (see Section II.E.I) in the following evaluation of
alternatives. The design population is that population projected to
reside in the EIS Service Area in the year 2000. The methodology used
to develop this estimate is presented in Appendix E-l.
The same year 2000 design population has been used as the basis for
all the EIS alternatives and the Facilities Plan Proposed Action in the
interest of equitable comparison; it must be recognized, however, that
each alternative carries its own constraints and that the wastewater
management system chosen may itself be a significant determinent of the
EIS Service Area's actual population in the year 2000.
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.
These data are summarized in Table I1I-1.
The design flow used in the Facilities Plan for the Proposed Action
ranged from 15-190 gpcd, 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 (Witt, Siegrist, and Boyle 1974; Bailey et
al. 1969; Cohen and Wallman 1976) reported individual household water
consumptions varying widely between 20 and 100 gpcd. However, averaged
values reported in those studies generally ranged between 40-56 gpcd.
On a community-wide basis, non-residential domestic (commercial, small
97
-------
Table III-l
GREEN LAKE EIS SERVICE AREA
DESIGN POPULATION AND FLOW (YEAR 2000)
New London Area
Nest Lake Area
(eastern half Nest Lake)
Spicer Area
(Spicer Village, west
shore Green Lake)
Green Lake Area
(remainder Green Lake)
TOTAL
POPULATION
1282
. 1542
1913
3670
WINTER
POPULATION
1116
686
1504
1787
TOTAL
FLOW (MGD)
.077
.092
.114
.221
WINTER
FLOW (MGD)
.067
.041
.091
.108
oo
INFILTRATION
.504
.038
.307
.038
TOTAL
8407
5073
.542
.345
-------
industrial, and institutional) water use increases per capita flows.
The extents of such increases are influenced by:
• the importance of the community as a local or regional trading
center;
• the concentration of such water-intensive institutions as
schools and hospitals; and
• the level of small industrial development.
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. In larger communities, and in
communities within Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, the maximum
allowable flow ranges up to 85 gpcd.
Water consumption by seasonal users varies much more than
consumption by permanent residents. The actual rates of consumption
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 III.B.l.a, could reduce flows
by 16 gpcd. Later in this chapter, to demonstrate probable impacts of
such reduction in flow, the Facilities Plan Proposed Action has been
redesigned and recosted.
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
F-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
99
-------
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 , for instance 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.
Table III-2 presents a list of proven flow reduction devices and
homeowner's savings resulting from their use locally. Data on the
devices listed in Appendix F-2 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. With a combination of shower flow control insert device,
dual cycle toilet and lavatory faucet flow control device the annual
savings would be approximately $80 per year.
If all residences in the Proposed EIS Service Area were to install
these flow reduction devices, they could not all save the $1.40/1000
gallons in wastewater treatment costs (see assumption in Table III-2).
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 everyone 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, the Facilities Plan
Proposed Action (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
$1,245,000 and the operation and maintenance cost savings would be ap-
proximately $8,000 per year. To achieve this savings, approximately
$9,000 worth of flow reduction devices would be necessary. The total
present worth* of savings over the 20-year design period would be
$1,126,000 or 13% of the Facilities Plan Proposed Action.
These economic analyses of homeowner's, saving and total present
worth reduction assumed all dwellings would be sewered. 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 adsorption systems there by saving money in the long run.
With some decentralized technologies, substantial reductions in
flow may be required regardless of costs. Holding tanks, soil
adsorption 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:
100
-------
Table III-2
ESTIMATED SAVINGS WITH FLOW REDUCTION DEVICES
Shower flow control insert device
Dual cycle toilet3
Toilet damming device
Shallow trap toilet8
Dual flush adapter for toilets
Spray tap faucet .
Improved ballcock assembly for toilets
Faucet flow control device
Faucet aerator
First Year
Savings
(or Cost)
$41.29
7.96
10.72
8.97
7.64
(65.33)
4.35
5.14
0.89
Annual Savings
After First
Year
$43.29
2.7 . 96
13.97
13.97
11.64
11.87
7.35
8.14
3.39
o
First year expenditure assumed to be difference in capital cost between
flow-saving toilet and a standard toilet costing $75.
Assumptions
Household: Four persons occupying dwelling 328 days per year. One bathroom
in dwelling.
Water Cost: Private well water supply. Cost of water = $0.02/1000 gallons
for electricity to pump against a 100 foot hydraulic head.
Water Heat- Electric water heater. Water temperature increase = 100 F.
ing 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 on
Cost: water supply at a constant rate of $1.40/1000 gallons. Rate is
based on a 1980 Study Area sewage flow of 0.5 mgd and local costs
of $254,000 in 1980 for the Facilities Plan Proposed Action as
estimated in this EIS.
101
-------
o Reduce lavatory water usage by installing spray tap faucets.
Ł> Replace standard toilets with dual cycle or other low volume
toilets.
o 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.
o Replace older clothes washing machines with those equipped
with water-level controls or with front-loading machines.
o 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
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.
o 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.
e 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. Minnesota Ban on Phosphorus
Phosphorus is frequently the nutrient controlling algae growth in
surface waters and is therefore 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. Appendix C-4
discuss the process and data pertinent for the Green Lake Study Area.
In 1977 the Minnesota legislature limited the amount of phosphorus
in laundry and cleaning supplies sold in the state to 0.5%. Presently,
there is no enforcement of this law because an injunction has been
issued as a result of a lawsuit.
102
-------
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency estimates that for the
Minneapolis-St. Paul area (where a local phosphorus ban is in effect) a
35% reduction in phosphorus loading in raw wastewater effluent has
resulted. The Twin Cities have experienced a 1.1 pound per capita per
year reduction in phosphorus loading from 1971 to 1974 (by telephone,
Craig Affeldt, MPCA, April, 1978).
Treatment plants and on-site disposal facilities in the Study Area
could experience a similar reduction in phosphorus concentration.
However, such characteristics of the Green Lake 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
can only be determined by a survey of the characteristics of the Study
Area. One approach to the reduction of phosphorus is to require that
household detergents be free of phosphates.
Reduction of phosphorus by control of detergents will not achieve
the effluent discharge limits of 1 mg/1 (see Appendix G-l for Effluent
Limits) for discharges to area lakes or their tributaries.
Consequently, facilities for phosphorus removal is required in treatment
plants which discharge to any of the surface water bodies in the Study
Area except for the Middle Fork of the Crow River below Green Lake. A
phosphorus ban would result in an unquantifiable reduction in phsophorus
entering surface waters with septic tank leachate.
c. Rehabilitation of Existing Sewers To Reduce Infiltration
and Inflow
Infiltration/Inflow Analyses conducted in New London and Spicer for
the Facilities Plan revealed that infiltration was substantial in both
sewer systems and that combined sewers in New London receive significant
inflow. Sewer system evaluation surveys (SSES), were recommended in the
Facilities Plan and were performed in May 1978. The costs and projected
flow reduction for the rehabilitation effort are incorporated in all EIS
Alternatives except No Action.
2. COLLECTION
The collection system proposed in the Facilities Plan is estimated
to cost $6.4 million -- 80% 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 can affect 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).
103
-------
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
the gravity flow 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 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:
o elimination of infiltration/inflow;
o reduction of construction cost; and
o 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,
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.
This document analyzed the reliability, site requirements, and
costs of the alternative sewer systems considered for the Green Lake
area. The STEP-type low-pressure sewer system was found the most
advantageous of the three alternatives. A preliminary STEP system
serving residents around .Green Lake was, therefore, developed to
determine the differences in project costs if it were substituted for
the gravity system specified by the Facilities Plan. The arrangement of
the STEP system house pump and sewer line connection is illustrated in
Figure III-l.
104
-------
CONTROL PANEL
8 ALARM LIGHT
LEVEL SENSOR
ON OFF LEVEL
/-PRESSURE SEWER/
L ^^ \ COMMON
TRENCH
FORCE MAIN
EXISTING GRAVITY
SEWVGT PIPING
EXISTING SEPTIC TANK
TANK UNIT
TYPICAL PUMP INSTALLATION FOR PRESSURE SEWER
Figure III-l
3. WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Wastewater treatment options include three categories: centralized
treatment prior to discharge into surface water; centralized treatment
prior to disposal on land; and decentralized treatment.
"Centralized treatment" refers to 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 disposal 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
105
-------
close proximity to the source of sewage elimiating 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 approaches to wastewater treatment in the pro-
posed Green Lake EIS Service Area.
a. Centralized Treatment — Discharge to Surface Waters
The Middle Fork of the Crow River, east of Green Lake, was selected
by the Facilities Plan as the point of disposal for treated wastewater.
The Facilities Plan evaluated two options for centralized treatment:
wastewater stabilization lagoons, which would permit controlled
discharge of treated wastewater; and a mechanical oxidation ditch which
would allow for continual discharge.
Four methods of centralized treatment involving effluent discharge
to surface water were developed for the new alternatives in this EIS,
including a waste stabilization lagoon, a mechanical oxidation ditch, an
extended aeration treatment plant and an activated sludge plant. A
rapid infiltration system, which involves the discharge of recovered
wastewater to the Middle Fork of the Crow River, is discussed in Section
III.3.b. All methods of treatment, which are briefly described below,
were designed to comply with MPCA's current effluent standards listed in
Appendix G-l.
The first centralized treatment scheme for the new alternatives
consists of a 0.59 mgd stabilization lagoon facility with controlled
effluent discharge to the Middle Fork of the Crow River. The facility
involves a dual or parallel system of ponds operating in series which
allow for the shutting down of one side during the low flow winter
months. The ponds will require an area of 75 acres located at a site
east of Green Lake.
The treatment process is identical to that proposed in the
Facilities Plan. A flow diagram of this plant is presented in Figure
III-2. The "preliminary treatment" component shown in the diagram simply
involves the removal of coarse solids.
RAW
WASTEWATER
PRELIMINARY
TREATMENT
STABILIZATION
POND
CKLORINATION
PERIODIC
_ DISCHARGE M|OOLE FO(JK
CROW RIVER
STABILIZATION POND
CONTROLLED DISCHARGE
Figure III-2
106
-------
The second centralized treatment method considered for the EIS
Service Area includes a 0.59 mgd mechanical oxidation ditch plant with
continuous discharge to the Middle Fork of the Crow River east of Green
Lake. The treatment process is identical to that proposed in the
Facilities Plan. Tertiary filtration is included in this process to
provide sufficient removal of organic substances (BOD,, and suspended
solids) in compliance with MPCA effluent quality standards. A flow
diagram of this plant is illustrated in Figure III-3. Again,
preliminary treatment involves the removal of coarse solids.
RAW
PF
T
WASTEWATER
1ELIMINARY
REATMENT
OXIDATION
DITCH
DISCHARGE TO
MIDDLE FORK
CROW RIVER
t
SLUDGE
HAULING
OXIDATION DITCH WITH FILTRATION
Figure III-3
107
-------
The third method of centralized treatment evaluated in the deve-
lopment of new alternatives in this EIS involved the upgrading of the
Village of New London's wastewater treatment plant. The existing plant
has sufficient capacity to meet the design flow but only provides
primary treatment. The upgraded plant (0.10 mgd) will provide tertiary
treatment of wastewater and consists of a conventional activated sludge
process, chemical addition for phosphorus removal and filtration (see
Figure III-4).
RAW
WASTEWATER
CHLORINATION
[DISCHARGE
I TO MIDDLE
1 FORK CROW
RIVER
LEGEND
EXISTING
PROPOSED ADDITIONS
SLUDGE
HAULING
PROPOSED UPGRADE OF
NEW LONDON PLANT
Figure III-4
The fourth method of centralized treatment that was developed as a
component of one of the new alternatives involved the upgrading of
Spicer's secondary treatment plant. The existing plant does not have
sufficient capacity to meet the design flow. Enlargement of the Spicer
plant to design flow capacity required the preliminary design of a
parallel plant. The capacity of the parallet plant (0.054 mgd) is equal
to the difference between the capacity of the existing plant (0.086 mgd)
108
-------
design flow (0.14 mgd). The parallel plant was designed as a prefabri-
cated extended aeration plant with filtration and phosphorus removal
(see Figure III-5).
PRELIMINARY
TREATMENT
j a POLYMER
-~ J
LEGEND
EXISTING
PROPOSED ADDITIONS
FILTRATION
n
CHLORINATION
PREFABRICATED
H EXTENDED AERATION I
PLANT |
L—T '
DISCHARGE TO
WOODCOCK
LAKE
SLUDGE
HAULING
PROPOSED UPGRADE AND ENLARGEMENT
OF SPICER PLANT
Figure III-5
b. Centralized Treatment — Land Disposal
Land treatment of municipal wastewater involves the use of plants
and the soil to remove many wastewater constituents. A wide variety of
processes can be used to achieve many different objectives of treatment,
water reuse, nutrient recycling, and crop production. The three
principal types of land application systems are:
1. Slow rate (irrigation)
2. Rapid infiltration (infiltration-percolation)
3. Overland flow (EPA 1977).
109
-------
The effluent quality required for land application in terms of
organic content (BOD and suspended solids) is not as critical as with
stream discharge options. Pretreatment of wastewaters is necessary,
however, to prevent nuisance conditions, insure a higher level of
constituent removal through the soil, reduce soil clogging, and insure
reliable operation of the distribution system. Generally, the
equivalent of secondary treatment of wastewaters is required prior to
land application. (Great Lakes Upper Mississippi River Board of State
Sanitary Engineers 1971).
Storage of wastewater is necessary with land application systems
for nonoperating periods and periods of reduced application rates
resulting from climatic constraints. In Minnesota land application
systems must have storage facilities for holding wastewaters over the
winter months.
A recent memorandum from EPA may alter the requirements for
pretreatment prior to land application. To encourage both land
treatment and land disposal of wastewater, EPA has indicated that:
"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 pre-application increment
needed to meet more stringent pre-application 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
underwriting the risk of failure for certain land-related projects the
policy promotes their consideration.
The Facilities Plan (August 16, 1976) did not develop a land appli-
cation system for the proposed Service Area. In this EIS, both the
spray irrigation and rapid infiltration methods of land application were
evaluated as treatment options for the EIS Service Area. These are
described below.
Spray irrigation. The 0.24 mgd spray irrigation facility evaluated
in one of the new alternatives for this EIS consists of preliminary
treatment (bar screen, comminator, primary settling basin), a stabiliza-
tion pond, and a chlorination process to disinfect the effluent prior to
its application on cropland. The treatment plant component would
provide secondary treatment prior to spray irrigation as recommended by
the MPCA (MPCA 1972). An application rate of 2 inches per week was
determined after calculating the nitrogen loading rate and found that
there would be no need for tinder-drainage at this rate. Higher loading
rates may produce poor crop growth. Alfalfa was the chosen cover crop
over corn since alfalfa allows a higher application rate with its
growing season limited solely by climatic factors. The pond system
110
-------
shall have a storage period of 210 days.
is illustrated in Figure III-6.
A flow diagram of this plant
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
RAW
WASTE
WATER
NARY
TREAT-
MENT
LAND APPLICATION
SPRAY IRRIGATION
Figure III-6
Rapid Infiltration. The rapid infiltration method of land treat-
ment is evaluated in two of the new wastewater management alternatives
(0.34 mgd and 0.24 mgd). Rapid infiltration of wastewater was selected
for further investigation as a component option, because it usually re-
quires less area for operation as compared to spray irrigation.
Furthermore, as a result of reduced land requirements the site can
usually be located closer to wastewater transportation lines, thus,
reducing capital, operation and maintenance costs of interceptors and/or
force mains.
After land application the renovated wastewater will be drawn from
recovery wells (see Figure III-7) and discharged into the Middle Fork of
RECOVERY OF RENOVATED HATER 8V WELLS
Figure III-7
111
-------
the Crow River above Nest Lake. Consideration in selection of the
method of land application and a potential site are discussed in the
section on disposal options. A flow diagram of this plant is
illustrated in Figure III-8.
RAW .
WASTE
WATER
PRELIMI-
NARY
TREAT-
MENT
•t>
STABILIZATION POND
CHLORINATION
1
RAPID
NFILT
RATIOI
BASINS
1
RECOVERY
OX TO
•a
/ MIDDLE FORK
/r CROW RIVER
"WELLS
LAND APPLICATION
RAPID INFILTRATION
Figure III-8
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:
o Alternative toilets:
Composting toilets
Toilets using filtered and disinfected bath and laundry
wastewater
Waterless toilets using oils to carry and store wastes
Incineration toilets
o 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
112
-------
Septic tank and mechanical evaporation system
Septic tank and sand mound system
Rejuvenation of soil disposal fields with hydrogen
peroxide (H?0~) 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
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 tribu-
tary to lakes, decentralized technologies which discharge to surface
waters are 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, 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.
113
-------
Continued use of septic tank-soil absorption systems for most
dwellings in the Proposed EIS Service Area would perpetuate violations
of Minnesota's Shoreline Management Act as discussed in Section II.C.3.
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 for some dwellings that
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.
An analysis of soil conditions at 13 sites around Green Lake was
conducted in October 1978 by the Soil Conservation Service, St. Peters,
Minnesota. With the exception of one site south of the lake, 50 to 100%
of each site had only slight or moderate limitations for subsurface dis-
posal of septic tank effluent. The size and distribution of apparently
suitable sites is such that any portion of Green Lake shoreline could be
served by cluster systems if necessary. Before use of sites for this
purpose, additional analysis of soils and groundwater would be
necessary. The locations of sites investigated by the SCS as well as
cluster system sites considered in preparation of the Facilities Plan
are illustrated in Figure III-9. The results of the October 1978 SCS
investigations are presented in Appendix A-l.
The exact number and locations of dwellings requiring off-site dis-
posal of wastewater would be determined after detailed evaluation of
existing systems are estimated to be abandoned.
The cost for cluster systems were developed based on the design of
a "typical" cluster system serving approximately 20 residences along the
shoreline of Green Lake and Nest Lake. The costs include a 50% replace-
ment of septic tanks. The total cost for cluster systems to serve 25%
of existing residences was then based on the cost per residence from the
typical cluster system design. Design assumptions for this cluster sys-
tem design appear in Appendix H-l. Design criteria for the cluster
systems recommended by the State of Minnesota was 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.
114
-------
FIGURE III-9
CKHT
"«IO««L | NEW LONDON1 \f^:
MIDDLE FORK
CKO» RIVER
-~™ M&.<~ ,irj/';'-;'
"si »«rc«E»y /•'.'-• lr >1 : "
'": J ^
L
IS'
-'COO 4ry»
''
rJ \LAXE
"~ /
GREEN LAKE
M* WOODCOCK;
_XtxWf
LOCATION OF POTENTIAL CLUSTER SYSTEMS IN THE
GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
LEGEND
LOCATION OF POTENTIAL CLUSTER SYSTEM SITE
IDENTIFIED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE
FACILITIES PLAN
M* POTENTIAL CLUSTER SYSTEM SITE MAPPED BY THF
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE (OCTOBER 1978)
(Source: Attachment No. 1, Green Lake
Sanitary Sewer and Water District, File
No. 741001-2]
H
-------
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
irrigation is addressed in Section III.B.4.6.
wastewaters for
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.
b. Discharge to Surface Waters
i
This EIS evaluates surface water discharge of treated wastewater at
several locations in the Green Lake Study Area, as listed below:
Treatment Method
Waste stabilization pond
Mechanical oxidation ditch
Rapid infiltration, with reno-
vated wastewater collected
Conventional activated sludge
Extended aeration
Potential Location of Surface
Water Discharge
Middle Fork of the Crow River
below Lake Calhoun
Middle Fork of the Crow River
below Lake Calhoun
Middle Fork of the Crow River
above Nest Lake
Middle Fork of the Crow River
above Nest Lake
Woodcock Lake
Effluent quality limitations promulgated by the MPCA and EPA will
govern the feasibility of implementing any of the wastewater treatment
components listed above. Concern over low dissolved oxygen due to
116
-------
organic loading (BOD,, and Total Suspended Solids [TSS]) of streams has
prompted the MPCA to stipulate effluent limitations of 5 mg/1 BOD,, and 5
mg/1 TSS (see Appendix G-l). Concern over the cultural eutrophication*
of lakes in Minnesota has prompted MPCA to stipulate that total
phosphorus levels in effluent be restricted to 1.0 mg/1. The State is
currently reviewing effluent limitation requirements and expect some
revision of the standards in approximately one year. The effluent
quality limitation regarding total phosphorus for discharge to lakes,
however, will remain at 1 mg/1 (by telephone, Lanny Piessig, MPCA, 20
October 1978).
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.D.S.b. These methods, spray irrigation and rapid infiltration,
are illustrated in Figure 111-10. The locations of land application
sites evaluated in this EIS are shown in Figure III-ll.
Soil suitability for renovation of wastewater at these locations
has been determined by SCS on the basis of on-site field investigations
conducted in 1978. Maps illustrating soil suitability of these sites
are included as in Appendix A-l. Both sites have soils with moderate
permeability for the most part, and have moderate limitations for
wastewater disposal.
The rapid infiltration site, located north of Nest Lake, is charac-
terized by gently rolling knolls and side slopes. The sandy and loamy
soils are well drained and deep to groundwater. The depth to the sea-
sonal high water table is estimated to be 10 to 20 feet based upon an
inspection of a nearby abandoned quarry several hundred yards away from
the rapid infiltration site. This site is reported to be representative
of the soil conditions that exist beneath the rapid infiltration site.
(Interview, Al Giencke, Soil Scientist, SCS, Kandiyohi, County, October
24, 1978). There are no streams that traverse the potential land
application area. The sandy-loamy soils at the spray irrigation site
are also well drained.
It is emphasized here that any serious consideration given to
implementing an EIS alternative involving either rapid infiltration or
spray irrigation must be preceded by a detailed field investigation of
the existing soil and groundwater conditions. The detailed soils
mapping of these two sites performed by SCS personnel during the course
of this project is useful only as a planning tool for the development of
wastewater management alternatives.
5. SLUDGE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL
Two types of sludge would be generated by the wastewater treatment
options considered above: chemical/biological sludges from secondary
and terriary treatment processes; and solids pumped from septic tanks.
The residues from treatment by lagoons and land application are grit and
screenings. Since the oxidation ditch was not selected, sludge from
117
-------
FIGURE III- 10
LAND APPLICATION METHODS EVALUATED
FOR THE GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
CROP
SPRAY
APPLICATION
ROOT ZONE
SUBSOIL-
vr.r_^ q- ^ 'v fwl Y ,- i. N
-------
FIGURE III-ll POTENTIAL LAND APPLICATION SITES IN THE
GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
LEGEND
POTENTIAL LAND APPLICATION SITES
I \
Rapid Infiltrotion.
Treatment Site
==• Spray Irrigation
Treatment Site
$ X*»—^»-^^—^^--^—-*"1—^^.^^^s_,-s*.**M
• _*-_*• ,_^- ~^i~^r^^s-^^^f**^s~^^s*^fi+^f~J
DIETRICH LANGE STATE
WLfXlFE UANAGEMENT M, (
GREEN^^LAKE
-------
this source was not considered further by the Facilities Plan. Disposal
of sludge from stabilization ponds was not addressed in detail by the
Facilities Plan.
This EIS has estimated the costs of these alternatives by assuming
that a contract hauler would be responsible for hauling and disposal of
sludge. A cost of $81 per million gallons of sewage was used, based
upon $30/1000 gallons of sludge and 2700 gallons of sludge per million
gallons of sewage. These costs have been incorporated into the
cost-effectiveness analysis presented in Chapter IV.
Alternatives using residential septic tanks for on-lot systems,
cluster systems, or STEP sewer systems must provide for periodic removal
and disposal of the accumulated solids. For the purpose of design and
costing these alternatives, it is assumed that pumping would occur every
3 years and would cost $45 per pumping. Local septage haulers are
licensed to operate in Kandiyohi County. Farm lands are typical septage
disposal sites.
C. RELIABILITY OF COMPONENTS
1. SEWERS
Gravity Sewers. When possible, sewer systems allow wastewater to
flow downhill by force of gravity. This type of system, known as
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
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.
120
-------
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 Pumps* (STEP). It is sometimes desirable to
pump wastewater from an existing septic tank rather than directly from
the house, using 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.
The reliability of STEP made by experienced manufacturers is good.
Newer entries into the field have not yet accumulated the operating
experience necessary to demonstrate conclusively the reliability of
their products. In the event of failure of a STEP system, an overflow
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
121
-------
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.
Advanced Treatment. Advanced treatment serves primarily to remove
toxic substances and nutrients that would stimulate biological activity.
The technology is relatively new; experience in design and operation of
advanced treatment processes is therefore limited. However, when
designed properly, the reliability of these processes is high.
Land Application. Application of treated sewage effluent to the
land is still infrequent in the United States, but its use-is growing
steadily. . Local climatic conditions such as heavy rains or very low
temperatures may make the technique unsuitable 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
minimized with proper design, but there is not yet the extensive
practical experience required to develop advanced design technology.
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, usually every two or three years.
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 soil suitability, depth to groundwater and bedrock,
and other factors are limiting the cases where septic systems can be
used.
Sand Mounds. Elevated sand mounds four or five feet above original
ground level are an alternative treatment system 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.
4. CLUSTER SYSTEMS
Cluster systems are localized wastewater disposal mechanisms
servicing several (approximately 20) 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
122
-------
pipes to break or clog, or for I/I to occur during heavy rain. If pump-
ing is required, the reliability of the system declines because of the
mechanical nature of the pumps and their dependence upon electricity for
power.
The experience with cluster systems in Otter Tail County, Minnesota
is described in Appendix F-3.
D. IMPLEMENTATION
The process 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.
e 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.
e 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 Green Lake Area Facilities Plan identified the proposed Green
Lake Sanitary District as the legal authority for implementing the
Plan's Proposed Action. Under Chapter 176A of the Minnesota statutes,
the District would have the authority to implement this system and to
contract with the villages and townships for services.
123
-------
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:
o The station may be designed to agency specifications, with the
responsibility for purchase, maintenance and ownership
residing with the homeowner.
o The station may be specified and purchased by the agency, with
the homeowner repurchasing and maintaining it.
o The station may be specified and owned by the agency, but
purchased by the homeowner.
o 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:
o pay-as-you-go methods;
© special benefit assessments;
e> reserve funds ; and
a debt financing.
The Facilities Plan indicated that much of the Proposed Action
would not be funded by Federal and State grants, and recommended that
loans be sought from the Farmers Home Administration. The Plan did
indicate that Spicer and New London should seek such construction
grants.
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 a.dd an extra charge to
provide a contingency fund for extraordinary expenses and replacement of
equipment.
The implementation program proposed by the Facilities Plan is an
example of a scheme calling for a County to recover the costs of
wastewater management from the local municipalities. The municipalities
124
-------
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 include:
« Permanent residents/Seasonal residents
9 Residential/Commercial/Industrial users
9 Presently sewered users/Newly sewered users
9 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.
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 arid 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 general absence of information concerning septic system
impacts on ground and surface water quality has been coupled with a lack
of knowledge of the operation of on-site systems.
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 1-1.
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
Minnesota presently has no legislation which explicitly authorizes
governmental entities to manage wastewater facilities other than those
connected to conventional collection systems. However, Minnesota
Statutes Sections 444.085, 444.065 and 444.075, and Chapter 116A have
been interpreted as providing cities, villages, counties, and special
purpose water and sewer districts, respectively, with 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
125
-------
facilitate management of decentralized facilities. These laws are
summarized in Appendix 1-2.
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 1-3 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-3. 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?
o Would public or private ownership of on-site wastewater
facilities be more likely to provide cost savings and improved
control of facilities operation?
o 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:
o Develop a site-specific environmental and engineering data
base;
o Design the management organization;
o Agency start-up;
o Construction and rehabilitation of facilities; and
o Operation of facilities.
Site Specific Environmental and Engineering Data Base. The data
base should include groundwater monitoring, a house-to-house investiga-
tion (sanitary survey), soils and engineering studies, and a survey of
126
-------
Table III-3
SMALL WASTE FLOW MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS BY OPERATIONAL COMPONENT
AND BY BASIC AND SUPPLEMENTAL USAGE
Component
Basic Usage
Supplemental Usage
Administrative
Engineering
Operations
Planning
User charge system
Staffing
Enforcement
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
Roqtine inspection and
maintenance
Septage collection and
disposal
Groundwater monitoring
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,
127
-------
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.
The sanitary survey should include interviews with residents and
inspections of existing systems. A trained surveyor should record
information on lot size and location; age and use of dwelling, location,
age, and type of sewage disposal system; adequacy of the maintenance of
the existing system; water-using fixtures; and problems with the exist-
ing system.
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 the installation of 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 Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and Water
District as the agency best suited to managing.wastewater facilities in
both unsewered and sewered areas of the Study Area. 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. :.
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
128
-------
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-4 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.D.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 seasonals1
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.
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
129
-------
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.
130
-------
CHAPTER IV
EIS ALTERNATIVES
A.. INTRODUCTION
The preceding chapter described options for the functional
components of wastewater management systems for the communities in the
Study Area. This chapter examines alternative wastewater management
plans, or alternative courses of action for the Study Area. A No Action
Alternative and a Limited Action Alternative are also examined.
The Proposed Action developed in the Facilities Plan (described
earlier) provides for centralized collection and treatment of wastewater
generated in the area shown in Figure 1-3. In response to concerns
about the need for and expense of the Proposed Action, the development
of EIS alternatives emphasized decentralized and alternative or
innovative technologies: alternative collection systems, decentralized
treatment and land disposal of wastewaters. The EIS alternatives
provide for management of wastewaters in a slightly larger Service Area
than that proposed in the Facilities Plan. The eastern half of the Nest
Lake shoreline was added to the Facilities Plan Proposed Service Area in
order to examine the water quality impacts each alternative would have
on this eutrophic lake (see Section II.B.7.C.). The data gathered
during the 1979 "Septic Snooper" survey indicated a need for improved
wastewater management facilities on this portion of Nest Lake (see
Figure 11-10). Five of the EIS alternatives, including the Limited
Action Alternative use decentralized treatment to partly avoid the costs
of sewers.
Because the cost of collection in the Proposed Action is high, the
cost effectiveness of pressure sewers, vacuum sewers, and small-diameter
gravity sewers was compared. These sewers were, therefore, incorporated
into the design of two completely centralized systems, one calling for a
stabilization pond (EIS Alternative 1), the other for an oxidation ditch
(EIS Alternative 2). However, pressure sewers did not prove to be a
cost-effective method for collection of wastewater in the Green Lake
Service Area.
Where site conditions such as soils and topography are favorable,
land disposal of wastewater offers advantages over conventional
biological treatment systems that discharge to surface waters: the land
is used as a natural treatment facility system; reduced operation and
maintenance may result from relatively simple operations; and savings in
capital and operating costs are possible.
Analysis of decentralized treatment technologies and site
conditions revealed that there are feasible alternatives to sewering the
entire Green Lake, and part of the Nest Lake shorelines. 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 portions of the Study Area.
131
-------
The assumptions used in design and costing of the alternatives are
presented in Appendix H-l. The major features of the Proposed Action,
the EIS Alternatives, and the Limited Action Alternative are listed in
Table IV-1.
B. ALTERNATIVES
The action proposed by the Facilities Plan has been compared with
the "do-nothing" (no action) alternative, and seven new approaches
developed in this EIS. The alternatives discussed below are summarized
in Table IV-1, and Table IV-2 lists the cost-effectiveness of each.
Detailed cost data for each alternative are provided in Appendix H-2.
To facilitate the development of wastewater management alternatives, the
Proposed EIS Service Area was divided into 24 segments; the location of
these is shown in Figure 11-13.
1. NO ACTION
The EIS process must evaluate the consequences of not taking
action. This "no action" alternative implies that EPA would not provide
funds to support new construction, upgrading, or expansion of existing
wastewater collection and treatment systems. Presumably, no new
facilities would be built; wastewater would still be treated in existing
plants and on-site systems.
If this course of action were taken, additional flows to the
treatment plants at Spicer and New London would be prohibited because
the plants are already overloaded and have difficulty meeting MPCA
effluent discharge standards. Existing on-site systems in the EIS
Service Area would continue to be used in their present conditions. In
the absence of a small waste flows management agency, the Kandiyohi
County Tax Assessors Office would continue to issue permits to build and
repair on-lot systems.
The No Action Alternative is unlikely to be selected. It implies
that the treatment plants at New London and Spicer would continue to
violate NPDES and MPCA discharge conditions. Consequently, new
facilities to adequately treat wastewaters would be needed in the near
future.
2. FACILITIES PLAN PROPOSED ACTION
The Facilities Plan recommended treatment of all wastewaters
generated in the Proposed Service Area in a stabilization pond treating
0.63 mgd. The plant, located east of Green Lake, would retain
wastewater for 210 days and periodically discharge effluent to the
Middle Fork of the Crow River (see Chapter I for a brief description of
the Proposed Action). The design of the proposed facilities is outlined
in detail in Chapter VII of the Green Lake Area Facilities Plan (Rieke
132
-------
Table IV-1
REGIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE EIS SERVICE AREA - SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMPONENTS
Alternative
Facilities Plan
Proposed Action
EIS Alternative III
EIS Alternative 02
EIS Alternative 03
U)
U>
EIS Alternative
EIS Alternative 05
EIS Alternative 06
Limited Action
Centralized
Treatment
Stabilization
Lagoons (0.63 MGD)
Stabilization
Lagoons (0.59 MCD)
Oxidation Ditch
(O.S9 MCD)
Stabilization
Lagoons followed by
rapid infiltration
(0.38 MGD)
Same as EIS Alterna-
tive S3 (0.28 MGD)
Stabilization
Lagoons followed
by spray Irrigation
(0.28 MCD)
Upgrade the existing
New London plant to
meet permit require-
ments (0.12 MGD). Up-
grade and expand the
existing Splcer plant
to meet permit require-
ments (0.15 MCD)
Upgrade the existing
New London plant to
meet permit require-
ments (0.09 MGD). Up-
grade and expand the
existing Splcer plant
to meet permit require-
ments (0.12 MCD)
Centralized
Service Area
All proposed
Service Area
All proposed
Service Area
All proposed
Service Area
All proposed Service
Area except North, East
and South Shores of
Green Lake
New London Village,
Splcer City, and
connecting segments
New London Village,
Splcer City, and
connecting segments
New London Village,
Splcer City, and
connecting segments
New London Village
and Splcer City only
Additional BOD5
and Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) Removal
Not required due
to the detention
time (210 days)
Not required due
to the detention
time (210 days)
Mixed-Media
Filters (sand beds)
Not required because
of the effluent dis-
posal technique
Not required because
of the effluent dis-
posal technique
Not required because
of the effluent dis-
posal technique
Mixed-Media Filters
(sand beds)
Same as EIS Alterna-
tive 06
Effluent
Disposal
Discharge to the
Middle Fork of
the Crow River
Discharge to the
Middle Fork of
the Crow River
Discharge to the
Middle Fork of
the Crow River
Land application by
rapid infiltration-
recovery wells will
withdraw 7SZ of the
effluent and dis-
charge to the Middle
Fork of the Crow River
Same as EIS Alterna-
tive 03
Land Application.by
spray Irrigation.
Revenue crop is
alfalfa.
New London: Middle
Fork of the Crow River
Splcer: Woodcock Lake
Same as Els Alterna-
tive 16
On Lot and
Cluster Systems
No
North, Ease, South
Shores of Green Lake
North, East, South
Shores of Green Lake,
east half of Nest Lake
North, East, South
Shores of Green Lake,
east half of Nest Lake
North, East, South
Shores of Green Lake,
east half of Nest Lake
On-lot: entire Green
Lake Shoreline, except
Splcer City
Cluster: No
Alternative
Collection Method
Conventional (gravity)
collection
Combination (STEP) pressure
sewers and force mains
Combination (STEP) pressure
Conventional (gravity)
collection
Conventional (gravity)
collection
Conventional (gravity)
collection
Conventional (gravity)
collection
Conventional (gravity)
collection
-------
Table IV-2
COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
FACILITIES PLAN EIS 3 EIS 4 EIS 5 EIS 6 LIMITED
PROPOSED ACTION EIS 1 EIS 2 (25% CLUSTER) (25% CLUSTER) (25% CLUSTER) (25% CLUSTER) ACTION
Present Project
Construction
Costs (x$l,000)
8,156.1 8,826.1 8,639.1 4,827.1 3,957.1 A,217.1 2,830.1 1,483.7
Future Project
Construction
Costs (x$l,000/yr)
38.0
28.5 28.5
38.9
39.9
39.9
39.9 24.9
Total Present Worth
(x$l,000)
8,411.3 9,394.2 9,475.5 6.113.7 5,092.6 5,365.5 4,507.5 2,887.2
Average Annual
Equivalent Cost
($)
770.5
860.5 868.0 560.0
466.5
491.5
412.9 264.5
-------
Carroll Muller Associates 1974) and the process is illustrated in Figure
IV-1. As discussed in Chapter III, the Facilities Plan Proposed Action
has been upgraded in this EIS in order that its cost-effectiveness be
compared to that of the EIS Alternatives.
The Proposed Service Area and location of the proposed
stabilization pond are illustrated in Figure IV-2.
3. EIS ALTERNATIVE 1
EIS Alternative 1, with a design flow of 0.59 mgd, is identical to
the Proposed Action involving treatment by stabilization ponds. The
intent of New Alternative 1 was to consider different collection
methods. 'Low pressure sewers and low pressure sewers in combination
with conventional gravity sewers were considered. None of the segments
studied was advantageous for alternate methods of collection. In all
cases the conventional collection system proved to be the most cost
effective method. The area to be served by the system, the treatment
plant location and the transmission line routings are shown in Figure
IV-2.
4. EIS ALTERNATIVE 2
EIS Alternative 2 is a modification of one of the alternatives
examined in the Facilities Plan (August 1976), with pressure sewers
again used in conjunction with gravity services to collect sewage prior
to treatment at an oxidation ditch plant. Discharge of treated
wastewater (0.59 mgd) as in EIS Alternative 1, would be to the Middle
Fork of the Crow River. This alternative is illustrated in Figure IV-4.
5. EIS ALTERNATIVE 3
EIS Alternative 3 is partly decentralized; portions of the Green
Lake EIS Service Area would employ on-site and cluster systems while the
remaining flow would be treated by land application (rapid infiltra-
tion). This alternative is illustrated in Figure IV-5. Approximately
0.38 mgd (from the western part of the area) would be collected and
conveyed to a central treatment facility.
Wastewater would be pretreated in a stabilization pond,
chlorinated, and disposed of by rapid infiltration. Renovated
wastewater would be drawn from recovery wells and discharged to the
Middle Fork of the Crow River.
The remaining portions of the Green Lake shoreline would be served
by a combination of cluster systems and on-site systems suitable to
local soil conditions. The preliminary design, comparison, and
assessment of decentralized systems (in this Alternative as well as EIS
Alternatives 4, 5, and 6) were based upon the following assumptions:
Cluster Systems. Cluster systems would be used for those parts of
the EIS Service Area where rehabilitation and continued use of on-site
systems would result in unacceptable public health or environmental
135
-------
Figure IV-1
RAW
WASTEWATER
PRELIMINARY
TREATMENT
«*- —
STABILIZATION '
POND
CHLORI NATION
PERIODIC
DISCHARGE
.MIDDLE FORK
CROW RIVER
STABILIZATION POND
CONTROLLED DISCHARGE
-------
FIGURE IV-2 FACILITIES PLAN ALTERNATIVE
LEGEND
SEWERED SEGMENTS
PUMP STATIONS
FORCE MAIN
GRAVITY SEWER
WETftlCH LANGE STATE
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA .
0.63mgd
STABILIZATION
LAGOON (POND)
-------
FIGURE IV-3 EIS ALTERNATIVE 1
LEGEND
SEWERED SEGMENTS
• PUMP STATIONS
• - FORCE MAIN
GRAVITY SEWER
oc
en
[o.59n>gdi
STABILIZATION
LAGOON(POND)
-------
FIGURE IV-4 EIS ALTERNATIVE 2
LEGEND
SEWERED SEGMENTS
PUMP STATIONS
FORCE MAIN
GRAVITY SEWER
MECHANICAL
OXIDATION DITCH
\
-------
FIGURE IV-5 EIS ALTERNATIVE 3
LEGEND
SEWERED SEGMENTS
ON-SITE/CLUSTER SYSTEM SEGMENTS
» PUMP STATIONS
- FORCE MAIN
GRAVITY SEWER
0.38mgd
RAPID
INFILTRATION
SITE
GREEN ^_ LAKE
o
Iff
-------
impacts. It was assumed that 25% of those residences utilizing
decentralized systems would be tied into cluster systems; suitable soils
exist at the sites for which these systems are proposed. The costs
developed were based on a "typical" cluster system that would serve 23
residences.
On-lot Systems. Residences not served by sewers or cluster systems
would use on-lot systems. This alternative would include a program of
replacement or rehabilitation of on-lot systems where necessary to
alleviate existing malfunctions.
The specific requirements for upgrading existing on-lot systems
were estimated by analysis of the data presented in the Green Lake
sanitary survey, the "Septic Snooper" investigation, and other environ-
mental data. Based upon these, 50% of the on-lot systems were assumed
to require replacement of both septic tank and drainfield. Site
evaluations and selection of appropriate replacement or rehabilitation
technologies are likely to result in variation from this assumption in
both the number of systems affected and the mix of technologies. The
assumption of 50% replacement results in cost estimates expected to be
conservatively high.
6. EIS ALTERNATIVE 4
EIS Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative 3 except that the
areas surrounding Nest Lake would be added to the areas that were
proposed for on-site treatment in Alternative 3. Consequently, flow
from the sewered area would be reduced by 0.10 mgd to 0.28 mgd. Flows
from the City of Spicer, the Village of New London, and segments 1, 2,
9, 10 and 11 would be collected and treated by land application using
rapid infiltration.
The locations of wastewater facilities and service areas for
Alternative 4 are shown in Figure IV-6.
7. EIS ALTERNATIVE 5
New Alternative 5 is identical to Alternative 4 except that spray
irrigation would be substituted for rapid infiltration. An application
rate of 2 inches/week was used based on the nitrogen loading' rate. The
crop chosen was alfalfa because a high rate of application and because
the plant is a perennial. Storage of wastewater for 15 weeks was used
in design of the facilities (EPA, 1977).
The locations of cluster systems, on-site disposal areas, and the
land application site (0.28 mgd) are shown in Figure IV-7.
8. EIS ALTERNATIVE 6
This alternative would include decentralized treatment for portions
of the EIS Service Area. The area would be divided into two centralized
districts; one for the City of Spicer and segments 9, 10, and 11, and
the other for the Village of New London and segments 1 and 2. All other
areas of Green Lake and Nest Lake would utilize a combination of cluster
systems.
141
-------
FIGURK IV- 6 -.IS ALTERNATIVE 4
LEGEND
SSg^iHSSWSAWSSSiij -«-J>
•«JO»U. <|SNEW3;?LbNDOr*a f=
i| SEWERED SEGMENTS
ON-S1TE/CLUSTER SYSTEM SEGMENTS
PUMP STATIONS
FORCE MAIN
GRAVITY SEWER
0.28mgd
RAPID
INFILTRATION
SITE
GREEN ~ LAKE
-------
?IGURE IV- 7 EIS ALTERNATIVE 5
LEGEND
SEWERED SEGMENTS
ON-SITE/CLUSTER SYSTEM SEGMENTS
• PUMP STATIONS
FORCE MAIN
GRAVITY SEWER
0.28mgd
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
[otŁT«ICM LANGC St*TE
WK.OLIFE MANAGEMENT AAEA .,-
GREEN—LAKE
JESSC LAKE-]
-------
The New London and Spicer treatment plants would be upgraded to
tertiary* (advanced) treatment and their capacity expanded to handle the
design flows. The New London plant has sufficient hydraulic capacity to
meet design flow (0.12 mgd) but provides only primary treatment.
Aeration, alum addition, final clarification, mixed-media filtration and
chlorination would be added in upgrading the plant.
The Spicer plant does not have sufficient hydraulic capacity to
handle the design flows (0.086 mgd) and would be expanded by con-
structing a parallel plant. Upgrading from secondary to advanced treat-
ment would require provision of the following processes: alum and
polymer addition, a prefabricated extended aeration plant and
mixed-media filters.
A map of this alternative is presented in Figure IV-8.
9. LIMITED ACTION
A "limited action" wastewater management alternative for the design
period has been developed and evaluated in this EIS. Under this scheme,
there would be no expansion of presently sewered communities in the
Study Area (i.e., New London and Spicer). The existing sewage treatment
plants at New London and Spicer would both be upgraded to tertiary""
(advanced) treatment with capacity expanded as necessary to handle the
design flows. The capacity of these facilities is increased only to
handle wastewater generated by growth in the existing sewered areas.
The design flow of the New London plant is estimated to be 0.098 mgd;
effluent discharge would be to the Middle Fork of the Crow River above
Nest Lake. The estimated year 2000 flow of the Spicer plant is 0.12
mgd, with effluent discharged to Woodcock Lake.
Existing and future residences in the EIS Service Area outside of
New London and Spicer would be served by on-lot systems. As with EIS
Atlernatives 3, 4, 5, and 6, it is assumed that 50% of the on-lot
systems would require replacement of both septic tank and drainfield
over the design period. No cluster systems are proposed for service in
this alternative.
Implicit in this alternative is the assumption that the designated
wastewater management agency would not be authorized to acquire
easements and rights-of-way or otherwise secure land, given that no land
application systems or cluster systems are proposed.
The configuration of the Limited Action Alternative is very similar
to that for EIS Alternative 6: The former has no cluster systems around
Green Lake and Nest Lake, and segments 1, 2, 9, 10, and 11 are served by
on-site systems, no sewers.
144
-------
FIGURE IV-8 EIS ALTERNATIVE 6
LEGEND
SEWERED SEGMENTS
ON-SITE/CI.USTER SYSTEM SEGMENTS
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
FORCE MAIN
GRAVITY SEWER
NEW LONDON STP UPGRADI
(NO EXPAND)
NEW LONDON COLLECTION
SYSTEM (NEW)
-CITY OF SPICER COLLECTION
EXPAND/UPGRADE
GREENE-LAKE
SPICER STP
UP-GRADE AND EXPAND
„., WOODCOCK
24 LAKE
-------
C. FLEXIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES
The flexibility of the Proposed Action and the EIS Alternatives to
accommodate future growth in the service Area along with their
operational flexibility over the design period is evaluated in this
section.
1. FACILITIES PLAN PROPOSED ACTION
This alternative provides good flexibility for growth since, as
long as land is available, stabilization ponds can be expanded to
accommodate increased flows relatively easily. Flexibility for future
growth is, however, reduced somewhat because the entire proposed Service
Area is to be sewered. More flexibility for future expansion is usually
available for alternatives that require a smaller initial commitment of
resources.
2. EIS ALTERNATIVE 1
Except for the use of pressure sewers for wastewater collection,
this alternative is identical to the Facilities Plan Proposed Action.
Such pressure sewers provide more flexibility for design than do gravity
sewers since pressure sewers do not require suitable ground contours for
economical construction. The flexibility for expansion is the same as
for the Facilities Plan Proposed Action.
3. EIS ALTERNATIVE 2
With the exception of the treatment process, this alternative is
identical to EIS Alternative 1. The treatment scheme in EIS Alternative
2 provides greater flexibility of operation than does the stabilization
pond. The flexibility of expanding an oxidation ditch is dependent upon
the availability of land. Much less land, however, is required for an
oxidation ditch than for a stabilization pond.
4. EIS ALTERNATIVE 3
Unlike the alternatives that propose discharges of effluent to the
Middle Fork of the Crow River, EIS Alternative 3 proposes that effluent
be disposed of by rapid infiltration. The addition of preliminary
treatment and rapid infiltration to the stabilization pond treatment
process reduces operational flexibility over the plain stabilization
pond process. From the standpoint of expansion, rapid infiltration is
less flexible than spray irrigation because siting restrictions are more
severe. However, rapid infiltration requires much less land area than
spray irrigation. Also, the operational flexibility of rapid infiltra-
tion is good since it has a wide range of possible application rates,
and can be used year round, even in cold weather. EIS Alternative 3 is
somewhat more flexible than previous alternatives because only part of
the proposed Service Area would be sewered. This limits the initial
commitment of resources and increases the flexibility for future
planning and design.
146
-------
5. EIS ALTERNATIVE 4
Operational flexibility is the same as for EIS Alternative 3. The
flexibility for future expansion is slightly greater than for EIS
Alternative 3 because the amount of sewered area is slightly less.
6. EIS ALTERNATIVE 5
This alternative is similar to EIS Alternative 4 except that spray
irrigation, rather than rapid infiltration, would be used for effluent
disposal. Spray irrigation is subject to fewer siting restrictions,
therefore has increased flexibility for expansion, but requires much
more land than rapid infiltration. The range of application rates is
more limited for spray irrigation than for rapid infiltration.
Additionally, spray irrigation may not be feasible in very cold weather.
7. EIS ALTERNATIVE 6
Upgrading and expanding an existing facility provides less flexi-
bility than does constructing a new one. When planning and designing a
new treatment plant, factors such as location, treatment process, and
plant configuration can be optimized. When expanding or upgrading an
existing facility, the components that are already in use constrain the
design and reduce flexibility. Upgrading and expanding the existing
Spicer and New London wastewater treatment plants appears to be a
relatively simple operation. Since the improvements will involve only
process additions with little or no interactions between new and
existing components, the main limitation of flexibility will be the
availability of surrounding land for expansion.
8. LIMITED ACTION
The Limited Action Alternative represents the maximum decentralized
approach of all wastewater management schemes evaluated in this EIS.
With no provision of improved collection and treatment facilities for
present and future residents outside currently sewered areas, it also
represents the least flexible of all alternatives in terms of
accommodating future growth in the EIS Service Area.
D. COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Project costs were grouped by capital expenses, operating and
maintenance expenses, and salvage values of the equipment and land
required for each alternative. A contingency fund amounting to
approximately 25% of capital costs was included to provide for such
expenses as engineering and legal fees, acquisition of rights-of-way,
and administration. The methodology and assumptions used in the
analyses are described in Appendix H-l. Detailed costs for each
alternative are also presented in Appendix H-2.
147
-------
The present and future project costs for the upgraded Facilities
Plan Proposed Action, EIS Alternatives and Limited Action are summarized
in Table IV-2. The analyses of total present worth and annual
equivalent costs of each alternative are also presented in this table.
(Debt service on financing and local share is not included.) Discussion
of Federal/State cost sharing and remaining local costs is included in
Section V.E.
148
-------
CHAPTER V
IMPACTS
A. IMPACTS ON SURFACE WATER QUALITY
1. PRIMARY IMPACTS
a; Analysis of Eutrophication Potential
This section discusses the effect of nutrient loading "associated
with different wastewater management alternatives upon the trophic
status of open waters in Nest Lake, Green Lake, and Woodcock Lake. To
evaluate the impact of each alternative, nutrient loading levels for
phosphorus were calculated. The empirical model developed by Dillon was
used to project future trophic conditions associated with different
phosphorus loading scenarios based on the EIS wastewater management
alternatives.
The major sources of phosphorus for Nest Lake, Green Lake, and
Woodcock Lake were identified earlier in the following order of
significance:
• tributaries (Middle Fork of the Crow River to Nest Lake and
from Nest Lake to Green Lake);
• wastewater treatment plants (Belgrade and New London to Middle
Fork Crow River and Spicer to Woodcock Lake);
• septic tank systems; and
• immediate drainage around the lake.
The relative contributions of phosphorus to Nest Lake, Green Lake, and
Woodcock Lake made by these sources under present conditions are
illustrated in Figure V-l. Other sources known to contribute to
nutrient loading such as groundwater, detritus, waterfowl, and .release
from sediments are less significant in the Study Area in terms of the
time scales considered.
Future Phosphorus Loading Scenarios. In this analysis, future
phosphorus loading levels have been projected for the year 2000. The
immediate problem in deriving these loads is the phosphorus loading in
the Middle Fork of the Crow River upstream from Belgrade. This load
varies with the flow in the river from year to year. A normalized load
proportional to the average flow in the river over the record period was
used. Furthermore, this normalized load was assumed to remain the same
'until the year 2000, because future land use changes were uncertain.
Phosphorus output from Nest Lake represents a significant contribution
to Green Lake. In this analysis, the retention coefficient for
phosphorus in Nest Lake observed during 1972-73 (56%) was used. The
septic tank leachate, and wastewater treatment plant discharge loads
were calculated according to each wastewater management alternative
149
-------
4,000
o
3,000
_J
V)
i 2,000
i
1,000
96%
NEST
LAKE
LEGEND
JNON-1'OINT SOURCE (TR I BUTAK I ES)
8%
2%
17%
73%
| NON-POI NT SOURCE ( 1 MMEI) I ATI.
DRAINAGE)
SEPTIC TANKS
POINT SOURCES
PRECIPITATION AND SEPTIC
TANKS (WOODCOCK
LAKE)
GREEN
LAKE
i%
93%
WOODCOCK
LAKE
Figure V-l
COMPARISON OF PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS BY SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR
THE GREEN LAKE STUDY AREA
150
-------
developed. The immediate drainage contribution is usually relatively
insignificant in this case and was assumed to be constant until year
2000 for practical purposes. The .total phosphorus inputs associated
with various alternatives for Nest Lake and Green Lake are presented in
Table V-l. The 1972-73 loading levels are included for comparison.
Future Trophic Conditions. Figure V-2 summarizes the results from
the modeling analysis with respect to various wastewater management
alternatives. Nest Lake is predicted to remain eutrophic for all the
alternatives with slight improvement in water quality. Green Lake will
also maintain its trophic status in the mesotrophic category. This
small improvement in the quality of open waters suggests the signifi-
cance of the non-point source loading associated with the Middle Fork of
the Crow River which is uncontrollable at the present time. In addi-
tion, cautions have to be exercised when interpreting the results be-
cause of the yearly variation of phosphorus inputs existent in the
River. That is, this variation may be so significant that it masks, the
reduction of phosphorus inputs incurred for Green Lake by some
alternatives. -•-••
The modeling analysis described above cannot be used to assess the
trophic status of Woodcock Lake, due to the landlocked nature of this
water body. In any event, phosphorus input to Woodcock Lake will de-
crease dramatically (more than 50%) under any proposed wastewater manage-
ment scheme evaluated in this EIS. This reduction would result from
either the discontinuation of the present Spicer wastewater treatment
plant discharge or from the proposed upgrading of the plant to provide
effluent phosphorus concentrations of 1.0 mg/1.
b. Bacterial Contamination
Lakes in the Study Area have met State standards 'for fecal and
total coliform bacteria. Where human wastes have been implicated as a
contributor to coliform counts in the lakes, it is expected that all of
the wastewater management alternatives should effectively abate such a
problem.
Land application of wastewater is an effective way of eliminating
or immobilizing sewage-borne pathogens particularly if some pretreatment
(stabilization pond) precedes the application (Johnson et al. 1977).
Bacterial pathogens undergo rapid die-off in the soil matrix. Studies
have shown the summer survival rate of fecal coliforra organisms to be
0.001% after a period of 35 days (Miller 1973).
With the centralized alternatives, pumping station malfunctions
could result in substantial bacterial contamination of the lakes.
Rigorous inspection and maintenance of pumping stations, back-up elec-
trical power supplies, standby pumps and an overflow alarm would mini-
mize the possibility of this happening. Similar measures should be
taken with pumping stations for cluster systems.
151
-------
Table V-l
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS INPUTS (KG/YR) TO NEST LAKE AND GREEN LAKE
Alternative Nest Lake Green Lake
1972-73 Conditions 4,329.9 2,605.1
No Action 3,029.2 1,969.1
l'& 2 (Proposed Action) 2,355.8 1,679.6
3 2,707.8 1,827.7
4 2,386.4 1,686.3
5 2,,355.8 1,672.9
6 2,474.0 1,724.9
152
-------
1.0 C
CVJ
E
O.I
0.01
I I
EUTROPHiC
NEST LAKE
1972-1973 CONO. °
NO ACTION O
ALTERNATIVE 3 *
ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 1,2,4,5
'GREEN LAKE
O 1972-1973 COND.
O ALTERNATIVES 1-6, AND NO ACTION
OLIGOTROPHIC
I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I
1.0 10.0 100.0
MEAN DEPTH (METERS)
L=AREAL PHOSPHORUS INPUT (g/m2/yr)
R=PHOSPHORUS RETENTION COEFFICIENT
P-HYDRAULIC FLUSHING RATE (yr"1)
FIGURE V- 2 TROPHIC STATUS OF NEST LAKE AND GREEN LAKE
IN TERMS OF VARIOUS WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
153
-------
c. Non-Point Source Loads
Primary impacts on surface water quality related to the construc-
tion of ST/SAS and the replacement of old systems is 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.
Compliance with state and local soil erosion control requirements
could substantially reduce the erosion problem and the subsequent impact
on water quality.
2. SECONDARY IMPACTS
Increasing housing development along lake shores may increase
nutrient and sediment loads into the lake as a result of
the following:
o increased runoff from construction of impervious surfaces such
as rooftops and parking areas;
» lawn and garden fertilization creating unnaturally high
nutrient levels in the runoff; and
\
e soil disruption by human activities (i.e., housing construc-
tion, leveling of forested area, etc.).
Soil organic debris and dissolved materials mobilized and transported to
temporary runoff channels during storms are settled, filtered and
absorbed on the land or in pools if the runoff channels are long or if
adequate storage areas, such as wetlands, occur. Increasing housing
density normally accelerate storm runoff thereby increasing not only the
amount of runoff but also its ability to erode soil and to transport
contaminants.
B. IMPACTS ON GROUNDWATER
Groundwater impacts fall into two categories, those affecting the
available quantity of the resource, and those affecting its quality.
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 groundwater
recharge. The significance of this loss depends upon its relationship
to the recharge from all other sources, including downward infiltration
and percolation from precipitation and surface water bodies and 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.)
154
-------
and hydraulic characteristics (transmissivity*,. storage coefficients*,
etc.)- There is not enough data to attempt such quantification for
Green Lake.
Because the confining layer above the buried outwash aquifer in the
Study Area is impermeable, essentially no significant recharge of this
aquifer takes place by means of infiltration within the boundary of the
aquifer which includes the entire Study Area. The aquifer is recharged
mainly by underflow from the surficial glacial deposits northwest of the
Study Area, but the extent of recharge is unknown (Lindholm et al.
1974). Because the source of recharge is outside of the Study Area,
none of the alternatives will affect this aquifer. Furthermore, the
estimated domestic water use by the Facilities Plan Proposed Action of
0.63 mgd in the year 2000 is very small and unlikely to significantly
affect quantities of water within the buried outwash aquifer or sur-
ficial groundwater which Lindholm et al., indicated will support addi-
tional development for domestic and irrigation supplies (1974).
2. GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Human wastewater disposal can affect the quality of groundwater
through three main types of pollutants. The first type includes sus-
pended solids, bacteria and other forms of organic 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 reach the buried outwash aquifer because the impermeable
confining layer provides an adequate barrier depth to this aquifer is
generally more than 20 feet.
Groundwaters overlying the buried outwash aquifer are more sus-
ceptible to the influence of wastewaters applied to the soil either by
land application or through soil absorption systems. The surficial
aquifer is apparently unconfined and the water table is near the ground'
surface in many places near lakes. Organic or bacterial contamination
of this surficial aquifer by spray irrigation or rapid infiltration of
wastewaters can be avoided by using only sites where the water table
will remain deeper than 6 feet below ground surface and where soils are
fine enough to filter wastewater efficiently. The most likely source of
contamination to this aquifer is soil absorption systems in low-lying
areas. It was partially on the basis of such contamination that the
applicant applied for grants to build sewers. While there is little
doubt that these contaminants enter the surficial aquifer in some
places, their effects appear from available data to be very localized.
Well data submitted by the applicant shows the presence of total
coliform bacteria in some wells but there is no support to the
implication that their source was soil absorption systems. A more
likely cause of the well contamination is the design and condition of
the wells themselves. Nevertheless, if continued use of soil absorption
systems is recommended, a substantial program of well inspection and
sampling should be undertaken to include location of suspect wells;
inspection of their casing, seal and grouting; identification of all
potential sources of contamination near the wells; sampling of properly
designed wells for fecal coliform bacteria, and nitrates at a minimum;
and measurement of groundwater flow direction and rate in representative
areas around the lake shores.
155
-------
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. The surficial
aquifer is not so protected and is likely receiving nitrates from soil
absorption systems as well as from agricultural sources and lawn fer-
tilization. With the exception of two wells sampled by the applicant,
groundwater have nitrate concentrations below the drinking water stan-
dard of 10 mg/1 as nitrogen. As housing densities increase in areas
dependent on soil absorption systems, nitrate levels will increase
especially if development involves multiple rows of dwellings. A sampl-
ing program to determine the levels and sources of nitrates and other
contaminants in wells is required if alternatives using soil absorption
systems aire funded.
It is possible that some nitrates from wastewater applied to land
might reach surface waters via overland runoff, lateral interflow"' in
soils, or transport in percolating groundwaters. However, application
rates for spray irrigation of effluents would be set to maximize crop
uptake of nitrogen, minimizing its concentrations in groundwater.
Because of the high application rates for rapid infiltration, recovery
of rennovated effluent by recover wells or drains may be necessary.
3. MITIGATIVE MEASURES \
Groundwater quality should be carefully monitored 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
degraded and to signal the existence of malfunctions, inadequate treat-
ment or the need for corrective action.
The potential for groundwater contamination from the sewage lagoons
required in the Facilities Plan Proposed Action and EIS Alternatives 1,
3, 4 and 5 will be low if the lagoons are adequately designed. Existing
engineering and hydrogeologic procedures would prohibit the construction
of these systems directly in the aquifer, and would require an adequate
distance between the lagoon bottom and the groundwater. Also, an imper-
vious layer of soil material such as bentonite clay would be used as a
line for the lagoons' sides and bottom to insure leakage of untreated
wastewater does not occur. As a final protection measure, groundwater
quality monitoring wells would be used to identify any changes in ground-
water quality that may be a result of leakage from a sewage lagoon.
This would insure that corrective action could be taken before any
serious contamination develops.
C. POPULATION AND LAND USE IMPACTS
Population and land use impacts associated with various system
alternatives are evaluated in this section (see Table V-2). These
impacts are summarized below:
156
-------
Table V- 2
COMPARISON DEPOPULATION AND LAND USE IMPACTS
ASSOCIATED WITH MAJOR SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
co
•H C
4J O
C -H
Q) 4-1
to a f
0) i-l 4J
<4-< 3 ?
-i
& 4_i
O to co
H 0) C
d) 4-1 CU
> 4J 4-1
cu n) C
Q PL, H
Increase in lakeshore den-
sities and in extent of
shoreline development.
Continued scattered residential
development, limited by on-
site limitations in lakeshore
areas.
o
u
O O
u u
•H
C
d
o ,c
u u
Accelerated conversion
from seasonal to year-
round occupancy status;
loss of lower-income
population base due to
displacement pressure.
Increase in lakeshore
densities and in extent
of shoreline develop-
ment .
Existing composition influenced
by demographic pressures un-
related to facility provision.
Continued scattered residen-
tial development, limited by
on-site limitations in
lakeshore areas.
157
-------
o A majority of residences directly contiguous to Green Lake and
Nest Lake and not located within the boundaries of Spicer or
New London are currently utilizing on-site waste disposal
systems. An estimated 30 to 40 additional lakeshore acres are
likely to be developed with provision of centralized sewerage
facilities.
« Some increase in the density of residential development along
the lake is also likely to result from centralized facilities.
o Population growth of 5 to 10% above levels possible without
centralized facilities may accompany anticipated increases in
residential acreage and intensity.
« Centralized facilities will place severe financial pressure
upon lower- and middle-income families, resulting in the
dislocation of many less affluent residents. In addition,
these alternatives will accelerate the conversion of occupancy
patterns from seasonal to year-round status. Disruption of
the prevailing community environment will be a possible
by-product of economic and financial pressures associated with
centralization.
o Decentralized wastewater management facilites should only
moderately influence the composition and character of the
Green Lake area.
1. INTRODUCTION
The capacity of an area to support development varies with the
degree to which wastewater facilities are site-related. On-lot waste-
water treatment facilities are site-dependent because they are limited
to sites with suitable soils. Sewers allow development to be much more
independent of site characteristics because the soil permeability, slope
and drainage are not such strong constraining factors. Thus, sewers
increase the inventory of developable land. Sewers also increase the
possible density of development. The amount of additional growth
actually occurring in the area if sewers are provided is dependent not
only upon increases in development potential but also upon demand for
additional residential development in the area. This demand reflects
the residential amenity of the area in comparison to other areas and the
reduction in the cost of residential land when the supply of developable
land is increased.
Population and land use impacts are estimated in this Section for
completely centralized (Proposed Action and EIS Alternatives 1 and 2)
and completely dencentralized (No Action) alternatives. Impacts are
also estimated for EIS Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 6, which incorporate
partial sewering and cluster systems. These alternatives, while
described as decentralized, are actually hybrid or intermediate systems
in terms of population and land use impacts.
158
-------
2. POPULATION
If centralized facilities were provided, minor differences in popu-
lation would occur over levels expected for decentralized facilities.
With centralized facilities, population in the Service. Area would be
anticipated to increase between 5 to 10% above the levels expected for
decentralized wastewater management alternatives. Centralized facili-
ties would concentrate growth within the nearshore segments of the Green
Lake EIS Service Area. With site-dependent, decentralized facilities,
nearshore areas would be developed at a lower density or may not be
developed at all, resulting in more development in areas remote from the
lakeshore.,
3. LAND USE
Implementation of centralized facilities should not significantly
affect future land use except in certain lakeshore segments. Segment-
by-segment analysis of the Green Lake shore yielded an estimated "30 to
40 lakeshore acres likely to be developed only with provision of cen-
tralized facilities.
4. CHANGES IN COMMUNITY COMPOSITION AND CHARACTER
The composition and character of the Green Lake community would be
only slightly influenced by the provision of centralized facilities.
Additional costs of wastewater treatment would displace some lower
income permanent and seasonal residents. These residents would be
replaced by higher income persons able to afford the additional waste-
water treatment costs. Higher costs would also accelerate the current
trend of seasonal to year-round residence because fewer people could
afford to maintain second homes.
The rural character of the area would be diminished only slightly
by the increased amount of land that would be devoted to residential and
associated uses with centralized facilities. Moderate change in the
character of the area could also occur with EIS Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and
6 as population growth and land development would take place in areas
serviced by sewers and the numerous cluster systems.
Adoption of a Limited Action or a No Action Alternative would
encourage preservation of the area's prevailing community character and
composition. There would be very little economic displacement pressure
in the Green Lake area and land use patterns would be unlikely to
change.
D. DEVELOPMENT ON ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
The following areas have been identified as being environmentally
sensitive to building or construction in the Study Area:
159
-------
o Floodplain and shoreline area;
o Wetlands;
e Natural areas;
® Archaeological and historical sites;
e Steep slopes; and
o Prime-agricultural land.
As stated in Section II.E.4, implementation of EIS Alternatives 1
or 2 or the Facilities Plan Proposed Action would probably result in
conversion of approximately 30 to 40 acres from agricultural to resi-
dential use. If no wastewater treatment facilities are provided, no
substantial conversion of agricultural lands is likely.
1. FLOODELAINS AND SHORELINE AREAS
The 100-year floodplain in the Study Area includes a narrow ribbon
of land along the Middle Fork of the Crow River and surrounds the numer-
ous lakes located in the Study Area. The largest individual areas of
floodplain in the Study Area have been incorporated into the New London
Fish Hatchery and the Dietrich Lange Wildlife Management Area and are
consequently under State and Federal protection.
Kandiyohi County has a floodplain management ordinance intended to
provide suitable areas for orderly and aesthetic development which would
retain the natural features of the shoreline and adjacent areas. This
ordinance, which recognizes that control of shoreline development will
assist in the maintenance of good water quality and the prevention of
erosion, is critical to the development of the 22 miles of shoreline
around Green Lake and Nest Lake. Placement and construction of sanitary
and wastewater disposal facilities are governed by the ordinance (Kandi-
yohi County Overall Economic Development Plan 1977). It also requires
that the basement floor of any structure to be used for human habitation
be more than 4 feet above the 100-year flood elevation.
Primary physical impacts on the shorelines would occur with all
alternatives; such impacts are likely to be more severe with the cen-
tralized treatment systems i.e., EIS Alternatives 1 and 2, Facilities
Plan Proposed Action which require construction of sewer lines.
2. WETLANDS
Figure II-7 indicates that wetlands are widespread throughout the
Study Area. More than 1800 acres of wetlands are under Federal and
State management as part of waterfowl protection and wildlife management
areas. Potential impacts of construction on privately owned wetlands
also need to be assessed in view of the importance of wetlands to both
groundwater levels and wildlife and because the agricultural practice of
ditching and draining lands has already reduced certain wetlands to
small areas.
If a centralized alternative is chosen, primary
construction-related impacts on certain wetlands will be unavoidable.
The water table might be lowered, erosion and siltation increased,
streamflow altered and habitat modified. Impacts might be minimized by
excavating during low flow or during the six cold months of the year,
160
-------
and by immediate restoration of the area. However, wetland areas may be
permanently damaged if the water table even drops one or two feet. Some
wetlands may become dried up by a process that may not be reversible.
Wetlands might be permanently altered by EIS Alternatives 1, 3, 4
and 5. Scattered throughout the areas of the selected land treatment
sites, wetlands could be avoided during construction. In selecting a
site, the importance of any wetland to the watershed, its storage
capacity, its habitat type, and the effects of construction on wildlife
should be considered.
There are currently no regulations regarding discharge of municipal
wastewater into wetlands other than the requirement to obtain a
Minnesota Pollution Control Permit (MPCP). Nevertheless, compliance
with effluent limitations for surface water would be required (by tele-
phone, Dale Wikre, MPCA, April 1978).
3. NATURAL AREAS
The existing natural areas within the Study Area have been
delineated in Figure 11-13 and include State wildlife management and
Federal waterfowl protection areas.
In addition, current easements give the Federal government the
right to manage additional acreage of waterfowl habitat in the Study
Area if they so decide (Economic Development Plan 1977). The large size
and low population density of these wetlands means that the direct
impacts on these wetlands resulting from wastewater management alter-
natives should be minimal. However, secondary impacts resulting from
human activities could pose future problems for these areas.' The degree
to which development rates will differ among the alternatives cannot be
determined.
4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SITES
Numerous archaeological sites are believed to be located within the
Proposed Service Area. Several historic sites are located in the Study
Area. Construction of pipelines around Green Lake arid Nest Lake could
have potentially significant impacts on these sites with EIS Alternative
1 and 2 and the Facilities Plan Proposed Action. Those alternatives
which provide increasingly centralized sewerage service would have
greater long-term secondary impacts due to induced growth and develop-
ment near the lakes.
Upon the selection of a final alternative, detailed designs and
specifications will have to be sent to the State Historic Preservation
Officer. At that time, detailed site investigations will be performed
by an archaeologist/historian to resolve potential conflicts with any
archaeological or historic site which could be disturbed by construction
activities.
161
-------
5. STEEP SLOPES
a. Primary Impacts
The difficulties of installing on-lot systems on steep slopes
appear to be a factor historically limiting home construction of lake-
shore and other level of rolling sites. Nonetheless, suitably designed
on-site systems may be constructed on steep slopes, as can sewers.
Adherence to the Sediment and Erosion Control Act of 1972 should mini-
mize the impacts of erosion from construction.
b. Secondary Impacts
The availability of off-lot treatment systems provided for cluster
systems, along with the apparent demand for residential development may
result in construction activity on steep-sloped areas. Accelerated soil
erosion particularly on any steep bluffs surrounding the lakes can
result in additional non-point source runoff in the form of sediment.
c. Mitigative Measures
The municipalities should adopt performance standards with specific
slope-density provisions. Developers would then have to meet the per-
formance standards burden of proof that the sloped areas are not a
hazard to development. Zoning ordinances should limit growth in steep
sloped areas.
If cluster systems or septic tanks are placed in areas with steep
slopes a series of drop boxes should be used. With this method, no
hillside seepage should occur unless the sewage flow exceeds the design
capacity.
6. PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND
Some agricultural land within the Study Area will be used for the
implementation of all potential actions. For areas requiring extensive
sewering (EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 and the Proposed Action), it is
estimated that 30 to 40 acres of land would be used for the construction
of sewer lines and wastewater treatment facilities. The EIS Alterna-
tives that rely on decentralized cluster systems (3, 4, 5 and 6) may
require significant acreage for construction, but these clusters are
concentrated to the north of Green Lake, where sandy-gravelly (non-
prime) agricultural land would be used. No treatment facilities are
proposed for the area of greatest concentration of prime agricultural
land, to the south of Green Lake.
162
-------
E. ECONOMIC IMPACTS
1. INTRODUCTION
The economic impacts of the alternative wastewater systems proposed
for the Proposed Green Lake Service Area are evaluated in this section.
These impacts include: the financial pressure placed on residents to
move away from the Service Area; financial pressure to convert seasonal
residences to year-round residences; and the net benefits of water
quality on the economy of the Green Lake area EIS Service Area."
2. USER CHARGES
User charges represent the costs billed periodically to the waste-
water system customers. Total annual user charges have been developed
for seven alternative wastewater systems. The user charge consists of
three parts: debt service (repayment of principal and interest), opera-
tion and maintenance costs, and a reserve fund equalling 20% of the
capital costs. Annual user charges are presented in Table V-3 and are
expressed in terms of 1) the entire Service Area, 2) the currently
sewered communities of Spicer City and New London Village, and 3) the
currently unsewered portions of the proposed Green Lake EIS Service
Area.
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. Section 201 enables EPA to fund 85% of the total eligible capi-
tal costs of innovative and alternative systems. Innovative and alter-
native systems considered in the EIS Alternative include land treatment,
pressure sewers, cluster systems, and septic tank rehabilitation and
replacement.
The percentage of capital costs that is eligible for Federal and
State funding greatly affects the cost that local users must bear. The
capital costs of treatment, on-site systems, and cluster systems were
assumed to be fully eligible for grant funding. However, collector
system capital costs were subject to Program Requirements Memorandum
(PRM 78-9). This PRM established three main conditions that must be met
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 October 18, 1972; and
• Sewers must be shown to be cost-effective when compared to
decentralized or on-site alternatives.
163
-------
Table V-3
FINANCIAL BURDEN AND DISPLACEMENT PRESSURE
Spicer/New Currently
Alternative Entire System London Village Unsewered Area
Facilities Plan Proposed
Action
a Displacement Pressure 1-5% 1-5% 1-5%
a Financial Burden 10-20 10-20 10-20
o Can Afford 80-90 80-90 80-90
EIS Alternative 1
e Displacement Pressure 5-10% 1-5% 5-10%
o Financial Burden 20-30 10-20 20-30
o Can Afford 70-80 80-90 70-80
EIS Alternative 2
• Displacement Pressure 1-5% 1-5% 5-10%
« Financial Burden 10-20 10-20 20-30
* Can Afford 80-90 80-90 70-80
EIS Alternative 3
• Displacement Pressure 1-5% 1-5% 1-5%
• Financial Burden 10-20 10-20 20-30
e Can Afford 80-90 80-90 70-80
EIS Alternative A
• Displacement Pressure 1-5% 1-5% 1-5%
• Financial Burden 10-20 10-20 10-20
• Can Afford 80-90 80-90 80-90
EIS Alternative 5
0 Displacement Pressure 1-5% 1-5% 1-5%
« Financial Burden 10-20 10-20 10-20
• Can Afford 80-90 80-90 80-90
EIS Alternative 6
• Displacement Pressure 1-5% 1-5% <1%
• Financial Burden 10-20 10-20 10-20
• Can Afford 80-90 80-90 80-90
Limited Action
• Displacement Pressure <1% 1-5% <1%
9 Financial Burden 5-10 10-20 1-5
« Can Afford 90-95 80-90 95-99
164
-------
A determination of the eligibility of wastewater management facili-
ties in the Green Lake Study Area for Federal funding has been made by
the Facilities Planning Branch of EPA, Region V (June 1979). This
determination stipulates that capital costs involved in 95% of the
publicly-owned on-site systems along Green Lake will be eligible for
85% Federal funding. Ninety-five (95) percent of the cluster system
capital costs proposed in the decentralized alternatives are to be
eligible for 85% Federal funding. The State of Minnesota's funding of
these systems will be 60% of the non-Federal eligible capital costs.
Furthermore, gravity collector sewer (not interceptor) capital
costs will- be 80% eligible for 75% Federal funding. Pressure sewer
capital costs will be 80% eligible for 85% Federal funding. State
funding of these systems will be 80% of the non-Federal share of eli-
gible costs. Neither hook-ups for gravity and pressure systems or
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are eligible for funding under the
EPA Construction Grants Program.
b. Calculation of User Charges
User charges are presented in Table V-4. The user charges have
been calculated for two different conditions: 1) the costs of the
system were divided equally among all of the system's users throughout
the currently sewered (Spicer City and New London Village) and the
unsewered areas, and 2) the costs were prorated between the currently
sewered and unsewered portions of the Proposed Service Area. The
Facilities Plan allocated local costs to future residents of the Plan's
Proposed Service Area. The authors of the Facilities Plan assumed the
allocation would be based on each resident's proportionate share of
collection and treatment costs. The allocation method of spreading
Table V-4
ANNUAL USER CHARGES
Alternative
Facilities Plan Proposed Action
E1S Alternative 1
EIS Alternative 2
EIS Alternative 3
. EIS Alternative 4
EIS Alternative 5
EIS Alternative 6
Limited Action
Cost Distributed Evenly
Over Entire System
160
190
210
150
130
120
130
' 80
Spicer City/
New London Village
160
110
100
140
150
150
120
Currently
Unsewered Areas
170
240
240
180
120
110
120
60
All on-lot systems along the lake are assumed to be publicly-owned.
165
-------
costs throughout the entire system is presented for the purpose of
illustration. To be equitable, the costs for areas to be served by
existing sewers have been segregated from those associated with the
unsewered areas. This prevents the situation where the sewered areas of
Spicer City and New London Village subsidize the construction and opera-
tion of sewerage in the currently unsewered areas.
The calculation of the user charges was based on local capital
costs being paid through the use of a 30 year bond at 6-7/8% interest.
Some communities may be eligible for a 40 year loan at 5% interest from
the Farmers Home Administration to reduce the financial burden of local
capital costs. The Facilities Plan used an interest rate of 7% over a
20 year period in the computation of the various alternatives cost.
The centralized alternatives i.e., Facilities Plan Proposed Action,
EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 are the most costly to the unsewered area users
(and all users if costs are spread out over the entire system). Total
annual user charges for each household range from $160 to $210 for the
entire system, $170 to $240 for the unsewered areas, and $110 to $160
for the communities Spicer and New London.
EIS Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 combine centralized and decen-
tralized components and are less costly than the centralized alter-
natives for the total system and the currently unsewered areas. The
costs of these alternatives for Spicer and New London Village are not
significantly different from the costs of the centralized alternatives.
Annual user charges range from $120 to $150 for the entire system, $100
to $150 for Spicer and New London, and $110 to $180 for the currently
unsewered areas.
The Limited Action Alternative offers the lowest user charge over
the entire system and incurrently unsewered areas, while EIS Alternative
3 offers the lowest user charge in Spicer and New London.
The decentralized alternatives involve the least amount of sewering
and the lowest annual user charges for the entire system and residents
in the currently unsewered areas.
In addition to user charges, households in the newly sewered areas
would have to pay the capital costs (approximately $25 to $1,950 for
each connection) of a house sewer on their property to connect to grav-
ity and pressure collector sewers. 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 they do not
cede these systems to the local wastewater management agency. Assuming,
however, a high proportion of public on-site system ownership, EIS
Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 6 would offer a substantial reduction in pri-
vate costs. Overall, private costr, would vary from household to house-
hold due to the differences in the distance to the collection sewer and
the condition of on-site systems.
166
-------
3. LOCAL COST BURDEN
a. Significant Financial Burden
High-cost wastewater facilities may place an excessive financial
burden on users of the system. Excessive burdens may cause families to
alter their spending patterns substantially by diverting money from
their normal expenditure categories. The Federal government has de-
veloped 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;
or
e 2.5% of median household incomes greater than $10,000.
The 1978 median household income for the proposed Green Lake Study
Area has been estimated to be $18,000 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%
($450) of the $18,000 median household income figure. Any alternative
having annual user charges exceeding $450 is identified as a high-cost
alternative and is likely to place a financial burden oh users of the
system. None of alternatives are classified as a high-cost alternative
under the Federal criteria.
Significant financial burden is measured by comparing annual user
charges with the distribution of household incomes. Families not facing
a significant financial burden are the only families able to afford the
annual wastewater user charges. The percentage of households estimated
to face a significant financial burden under each of the alternatives is
listed in Table V-2.
b. Displacement Pressure
Displacement pressure is the determination of the percentage of
families likely to move away from the EIS Service Area as a result of
costly user charges. Displacement is measured by determining the number
of households having annual user charges exceeding 5% of their annual
income. Displacement pressure for each of the alternatives is listed in
Table V-2.
Displacement pressure for the entire system ranges from 1-10% with
the greatest displacement pressure occurring under EIS Alternative 1.
Residents of Spicer City and New London Village would face displacement
pressures of 1-5% under each of the alternatives. Displacement pressure
is greatest under EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 for the currently unsewered
area.
167
-------
c. Conversion Pressure
Costs of providing wastewater facilities are likely to accentuate
the trend of converting seasonal residences to permanent residences
already underway in the area. Capital requirements impose a higher cost
burden on seasonal residences than on permanent residences on the basis
of relative use. Seasonal residences are used only three or four months
during the year are charged capital costs throughout the year. This may
place a financial burden on seasonal residents who are supporting full
year residences in addition to seasonal residences. The higher cost
burden of centralized alternatives will exert more conversion pressure
than the lower cost decentralized alternatives. The averaging of opera-
tion and maintenance costs among permanent and seasonal residents in
addition to capital costs will intensify conversion pressures.
4. MITIGATIVE MEASURES
The significant financial burden and displacement pressure on users
in the currently unsewered areas may be mitigated by the selection of
EIS Alternatives 4, 5 or 6. 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 pay-
ment of the local share over a longer period of time with a lower
interest rate. The impacts of financial burden on seasonal users may be
mitigated by not. charging the seasonal residents for operation and
maintenance during the months that seasonal residences are vacant.
168
-------
IMPACT CATEGORY
SECTION V.F.
COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH MAJOR SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
IMPACT TYPE
RESOURCE & DEGREE . IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Surface Water
Quality
.Nutrient
'loading
Eutrophicatlon
potential
Primary:
long-term
Primary:
long-terra
All Alternatives:
Nutrient loads from septic tank drainfields and municipal'
vastewater treatment plant discharges are reduced with Limited
Action, Proposed Action and EIS Alternatives 1-6, but tributaries
continue to be a major source of phosphorus and nitrogen.
Estimated total phosphorus load (with phosphorus ban)
decreases (relative to existing conditions) as follows:
Green - 27-33*; Nest - 24-27*; Woodcock - 77-921.
All Alternatives:
Green Lake - eutrophlcation potential decreased most sharply
with complete sewering of Service Area (P.A. and EIS Alterna-
tives 1 and 2). EIS Alternative 5 (spray irrigation), and EIS
Alternative 344 (rapid infiltration): Sharpest decrease
in loading •» eutrophication potential is still within the
range imposed by existing conditions.
Nest Lake and Woodcock Lake - eutrophication potential
decreases but lake remains eutrophic (nutrient rich).
Groundwater
Groundwater
quantity
Groundwater
quality
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
Floodplaln
Shoreline
Primary:
long-term
Secondary:
long-term
Primary:
long-term
Secondary:
long-term
Primary:
short-tern
long-term
Secondary:
long-term
Primary:
short- and
long-term
Secondary:
long-term
All Alternatives:
Failure to return vastewater flows to groundwater system
results in negligible loss of groundwater recharge, to outwash
aquifer(s).
All Alternatives:
Losa of aquifer surface recharge area as a result of possible
development of impervious surface cover is minimal. ^^-^'
No Action:
With the continued reliance on septic systems, there Is the
possibility of localized high groundwater nitrate concentra-
tions. Phosphorus from septic systems will continue to
leach in amounts sufficient to support localized algae growth.
EIS Alternatives 1. 2, Proposed Action:
Sewering the entire lakeshore area eliminates any possibility
of septic systems as a source of nitrates for localized
groundwater contamination and phosphorus as a nutrient source
for localized algae growth.
EIS Alternatives 3, 4, 5. and 6: A combination of renovation of
septic systems and cluster system construction around lakeside
areas will significantly reduce nitrate and phosphorus levels
leaching into groundwater systems.
All Alternatives:
Impacts on flood hazard areas are expected to be minimal.
EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3. and Proposed Action:
Construction impacts are unavoidable and directly related to
total length of sewer lines.
Impacts are judged to be minimal.
Development avay from the lake (tiers) may be directly
related to number of miles of sewer lines.
EIS Alternatives 4. 5, 6. and Limited Action:
Construction impacts will be unavoidable. Duration of Impacts
depends on season and method of construction and extent of
restoration.
Development will be variable in Study Areas depending on
proximity to sewer line or suitability for on-lot soil
•disposal system.
169
-------
IMPACT CATEGORY
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
(Continued)
RESOURCE
Wetland
Archaeological/
Historical Sites
Steep Slopes
Prime
Agricultural
Lands
Population
Rate of growth
IMPACT TYPE
& DECREE
Primary:
short- and
long-term
Secondary:
long-term
Primary and
Secondary:
short- and
long-term
Primary:
short-term
long-term
Secondary:
.long-term
Primary:
short-term
Secondary:
long-term
Secondary:
long-term
IMPACT DESCRIPTION
EIS Alternatives 1. 2, 3, and Proposed Action:
Construction Impacts will be unavoidable. Extent of impact
will be directly related to extent of sewerage. Duration of
Impact vlll relate to the timing of construction and the
swiftness of restoration.
EIS Alternatives 4, 5, 6, and Limited Action:
Except for unavoidable effects of construction, impacts will
be minimal.
All Alternatives:
Some development may occur near or in verlands, although leas
so in the centralized treatment plans.
All Alternatives!
Potential Impacts due to construction and Induced growth can
be minimized with proper identification of valued sites.
All Alternatives!
Temporary increaaea in erosion and sedimentation can be
minimized with proper construction methods. Impacts would
be more significant for EIS Alternatives 1, 2, and the
Proposed Action.
EIS Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and Limited Action;
Impacts associated with decentralized alternatives will be
minimal because only systems designed for steep slopes will
be used.
Limited Action;
Development will continue to be minimal, and impacts will be
slight with the use of proper design.
EIS Alternatives 1, 2, and Proposed Action;
Increased development may result with extensive sewerage.
EIS Alternatives 3, &, 5, and 6:
Less induced growth will result compared to EIS Alternative 1,
2, and Proposed Action.
Limited Action:
No significant impact is expected to occur.
EIS Alternatives 1-6 and Propoaed Action:
About 30-40 acres will be used for combinations of sewer
lines, ditches, lagoons, and/or treatment facilities.
Limited Action:
Large lot requirements may result in some loss of prime
agricultural lands.
EIS Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6:
Some prime agricultural lands may be lost to induced growth
near cluster systems.
EIS Alternatives 1, 2, and Proposed Action:
Because induced growth will occur primarily near the lakes,
less prime agricultural land will be lost.
Proposed Action, EIS Altnmatives 1 and 2;
Population growth in projected to Increase between 5 and 101
above that possible without centralized facilities.
EIS Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6; Limited Action:
Growth opportunities will be moderate.
No Action;
Growth opportunities are limited.
170
-------
IMPACT CATEGORY
Land Use
RESOURCE
Developable
acreage
IMPACT TYPE
& DECREE
Secondary:
.long-term:
Local Economy
Development
patterns and
density
Financial Burden
Displacement
Pressure
Secondary:
long-term
Primary:
long-term
Conversion
Pressure
IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Proposed Action, EIS Alternatives 1 and 2;
vProvision of site-Independent facilities. Increased the inventory
of developable acreage. Less than 30 to 40 lakeshore acres were
found which were likely to be developed.
EIS Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6; Limited Action:
Development opportunities are considered to be limited for
these alternatives.
Mo Action:
Development is considered limited.
Proposed Action, EIS Alternatives 1 and 2:
Some increase in the density of residential development along
the lake is likely.
EIS Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6:
Development density vill remain at approximately the same
rate.
Proposed Action, EIS Alternatives 1 and 2:
Displacement pressure (5-30%) and financial burden (30-60Z)
are highest for the residents of currently unsewered areas.
Splcer and New London Village residents would face displace-
ment pressures ranging from 1-10% and a financial burden
ranging from 10-40?.
EIS Alternatives 3. 4. 5, and 6:
Displacement pressure would range from <1-5Z and financial
burden from 5-30Z for residents of the currently unsewered
areas. The residents of Splcer and New London Village would
face displacement pressure ranging from 1-5% and a financial
burden ranging from 10-20%.
All Alternatives:
Conversion pressure in the currently unsewered area would be
highest under the centralized alternatives (Facilities Plan
Proposed Action, EIS Alternatives 1 and 2) and minimal under
the decentralized alternatives (EIS Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and
6). Conversion pressure would be (moderate for the residents
of Splcer and New London Village. Conversion pressure would
be highest under the Facilities Plan Proposed Action and lowest
under EIS Alternative 3.
171
-------
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. INTRODUCTION
As discussed in Section I.D.I, EPA has several possible courses of
act. on in addition to the Facilities Plan Proposed Action. The Agency
may
« Approve the original grant application, possibly with recom-
mendations for design changes and/or measures to mitigate
impacts of the Facilities Plan Proposed Action;
o Return the application with recommendations for additional
Step I analysis;
» With the applicant's and State's concurrence, approve Step II
funding for an alternative to the Facilities Plan Proposed
Action;
o Reject the grant application.
The choice of one of the above options depends upon how the Altern-
atives in the EIS compare to the Facilities Plan Proposed Action.
B. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION
Four primary criteria were used in selecting the EIS Reommendation
costu, impact, reliability, and flexibility. Within each category
several factors were compared. Cost factors for example, included
present worth, user charges for central sewered areas, small waste flow
district user charges, and total 1980 private costs. Impacts which EPA
considers to be decisive in selection of an alternative 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 for
each alternative the factors that influence the range of choice, one can
quickly compare the effect of each alternative 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, reli-
ability, 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.
172
-------
Table Vl-l
ALTERNATIVE SELECTION MATRIX
COSTS
SHALL
SP1CER/ HASTE ONE
NEW FLOW TIME
PRESENT LONDON DISTRICT HOUSE-
WORTH USER USER HOLD
(xl.OOO) CHARGE COSTS CHARGE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
Facilities
Plan
Proposed
Action
8.411.3
160
170 1.950
vj
OJ
EIS
Alternative 9,394.2 110
SI
EIS
Alternative 9.475.5 150
12
240
240
25
25
SURFACE WATER
QUALITY
IMPACTS
o Nutrient loads
from septic
tank drain-
fields and
municipal
wastewater
treatment
plant dis-
charges are
'
• Tributary
continues to
be a major
source of
. nutrients
• Estimated
phosphorus
load de-
creases 27-
33Z for
Green Lake
and 24-27Z
for Neat
Lake
• Eutrophica-
tlon> poten-
tial sharply
decreases
• Neat and
Woodcock
Lakes remain
eutrophic .
Same as
Proposed
Action
Same as
Proposed
Action
CROUNDWATER
QUALITY
IMPACTS
• Elimination of
septic systems
as a source of
any ground-
water pollu-
tion
Same as
Proposed
Action
Same as
Proposed
Action
ENVIRON-
MENTALLY
SENSITIVE
AREAS
o Construction
Impacts are
unavoidable
and direct-
ly related
to the num-
ber of sewer
miles
• Long-term
Impacts are
minimal
• Possible in-
creased
development
away from
the lake may
encroach In
sensitive
areas.
" Same a a
Proposed
Action
Same as
Proposed
Ac t ion
POPULATION
IMPACTS
Population
increase
of 5-10Z
greater
than
expected
Same as ~
Proposed
Action
Same as
Proposed
Ac t ion
LAND
USE
• Increase In
density of
residential
development
around
lake shore
areas is
likely
• Less than
30 to 40
lakeshore
acres are
likely to
be develop-
ed
Same as
Proposed
Action
Same as
Proposed
Action
FINANCIAL DISPLACEMENT
BURDEN Z PRESSURE Z
SMALL SMALL
SPICER/ WASTE- SPICER/ WASTE-
NEW FLOW NEW FLOW
LONDON DISTRICT LONDON DISTRICT
20- 30- 5- 5-
30Z 40Z 10Z 10Z
10- 50- 1- 20-
20Z 60Z 51 30Z
10- 40- 1- 10-
202 50Z 5Z 20Z
FLEXIBILITY
Reduced flexibility
In terms of design
changes; but there
is flexablllty for
added treatment
capacity
Same as Proposed
Action
Same as Proposed
Action
RELIABILITY
High, centralized
collection and
treatment haa been
tested and proven.
Pumps may be subject
to periodic failure.
Higher than Proposed
Action because of
fever pumps subject
to failure.
Same aa Proposed
Action
-------
Table VI-1
ALTERNATIVE SELECTION MATRIX (Continued)
COSTS
SHALL
SPICER/ WASTE ONE
NEW FLOW TIME
PRESENT LONDON DISTRICT HOUSE-
WORTH USER USER HOLD
(xl.OOO) CHARGE COSTS CHARGE
EIS
Alternative 6,113.7 100
03
180
470
EIS
Alternative 5,092.6 140
04
EIS
Alternative 5,365.5 150
15
EIS
Alternative 4,507.5 150
06
Limited 2.887.2 120
Action
Alternative
120
110
120
60
190
190
190
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
SURFACE WATER
QUALITY
IMPACTS
Same as
Proposed
Action except
nutrient load-
Ing from
septic tank
will be re-
duced but not
eliminated
Same as EIS
Alternative 03
Same as EIS
Alternative 03
Same as EIS
Alternative 03
Same as EIS
Alternative 03
CROUNDWATER
QUALITY
rMPACTS
• Significant
reduction of
nitrate and
phosphorus
levels leach-
Ing Into ground-
water systems.
but not
eliminated
Same as EIS
Alternative 03
Same as EIS
Alternative 03
Same as EIS
Alternative 03
Same as EIS
Alternative 03
ENVIRON-
MENTALLY
SENSITIVE
AREAS
Same as
Proposed
Action
Same as
Proposed
Action
Same as
Proposed
Action
Same as
Proposed
Action
Same as
Proposed
Action
POPULATION
IMPACTS
Growth •
opportun-
ities will
be moder-
ate
Same as EIS
Alterna-
tive 03
Same as EIS
Alterna-
tive 03
Same as EIS
Alterna-
tive 03
Same as EIS
Alterna-
tive 03
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
FINANCIAL
BURDEN Z
LAND
USE
Development
opportuni-
ties for
this type of
alternative
is consider-
ed limited
Same as EIS
Alternative
03
Same as EIS
Alternative
03
Same as EIS
Alternative
03
Same as Els
Alternative
03
SPICER/
NEW
LONDON
10-
20Z
10-
20Z
10-
20Z
10-
20Z
10-
20Z
SMALL
WASTE-
FLOW
DISTRICT
20-
30Z
5-
10Z
5-
10Z
10-
20Z
1-
5Z
DISPLACEMENT
PRESSURE Z
SPICER/
NEW
LONDON
1-
51
1-
5Z
1-
5Z
1-
5Z
1-
5Z
SMALL
WASTE-
FLOW
DISTRICT FLEXIBILITY
1- Increased flexibll-
5Z ity for future land
planning because of
the decentralized
nature of the
alternative; good
flexablllty for
adding treatment
capacity
<1Z Same as EIS
Alternative 03
<1Z Same as EIS
Alternative 03
<1Z Same as EIS
Alternative 03
<1Z Same as EIS
Alternative 03
RELIABILITY
Limited: Proper
maintenance of on-8lte
and cluster systems
should Improve reli-
ability of these sys-
tems. Any systems
located In areas of
marginal soils, shal-
low geology or shallow
water will be subject
to failure.
Same as EIS Alterna-
tive 13
Same as EIS Alterna-
tive 03
Same as EIS Alterna-
tive 03
Same as EIS Alterna-
tive 03
-------
o EPA Construction Grants, regulations require selection of the
most cost-effective Jalternative, 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 Green Lake and
Nest Lake, information gathered during the preparation of this EIS has
indicated the following: 1) Approximately 25 effluent plumes were found
entering Green Lake and 12 entering Nest Lake. 2) Five septic system
surface malfunctions* 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
Green Lake or Nest Lake. While detailed site-by-site analysis may
reveal more problems, field studies conducted so far indicate that the
percentage of systems causing problems are small.
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 ad-
sorption systems are feasible in the Study Area which will minimize or
eliminate the problems.
Future growth in the Green Lake watershed 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 lake 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 centralized alternatives (Facilities
Plan Proposed Action, EIS Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) are substantially
higher than for the decentralized alternatives (EIS Alternatives 4, 5,
6, and Limited Action). As calculated in this EIS, the Facilities Plan
Proposed Action is 57% more expensive than EIS Alternative 5 and 91%
more expensive than Limited Action. Differences in water quality im-
pacts of the alternatives are not proportionate to these large dif-
ferences in costs.
Because of the high costs and limited benefits to water quality
with the centralized alternatives (Facilities Plan Proposed Action and
EIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3), they are not cost-effective and are not
recommended.
175
-------
The No Action Alternative was unacceptable for three reasons:
e Existing treatment plants at New London and Spicer do not
comply with effluent requirements and contribute substantially
to high productivity in Nest Lake and Woodcock Lake.
o There are some problems with on-site systems in the remainder
of the Proposed EIS Service Area which should be addressed
through monitoring, improved maintenance of the existing and
future systems, residential water conservation, and renovation
or replacement of existing systems.
o Improved surveillance and regulation of on-site systems in the
Green Lake watershed to insure maintenance of the lake's
unique scenic and recreational values is recommended.
The remaining alternatives, EIS Alternatives 4, 5 and 6, include
the use.1 of alternative on-site and small scale off-site systems around
Green Lake and Nest Lake. They differ in their methods for treating and
disposing of New London's and Spicer's wastewaters: Alternative 4 uses
joint pretreatment and rapid infiltration; Alternative 5 uses joint pre-
treatment and spray irrigation; and Alternative 6 employs separate
tertiary treatment facilities for both communities.
Costs and environmental impacts are similar for these three altern-
atives. . Lack of detailed data on site characteristics creates some
uncertainty in the determination of reliability for the land application
alternatives. In addition the possible unavailability of land appli-
cation sites may prove a potential problem for implementation.
D. DRAFT EIS RECOMMENDATIONS i
Because EIS Alternatives 4 and 5 (decentralizedi approaches with
land application) and 6 (decentralized approach with upgrade/expansion
of wastewater treatment plants at Spicer and New Lont'on) can all be
considered cost-effective, and because they differ sul^stariitally from
the Facilities Plan Proposed Action (centralized < approach with
stabilization ponds), the recommendation of this EIS is to return the
grant application to the Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and Water District
(GLSSWD) for additional Step 1 analysis. The scope; of additional
analysis will depend on the applicant's own decisions, regarding the
feasibility of the small waste flows approach for Greco Lake and Nest
Lake and the merits of land application for wastewaters from Spicer and
New London. :
Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 differ in the type and location of treat-
ment and disposal facilities for Spicer's and New London's wastewaters.
The GLSSWD will need to conduct additional Step 1 analyses, funded by
EPA, of alternatives to serve Spicer and New London jointly or
separately. EPA encourages the use of land application an'd will require
evaluation of land application including detailed site 'analyses. If
GLSSWD chooses Alternative 6, the Step 1 analyses must include the
following: •
176
-------
• Applicant's own analysis of the feasibility and costs of
treatment plant upgrading;
• Engineering, cost and environmental analysis of sludge man-
agement options; and
• Engineering, cost, and environmental analysis of effluent
disinfection options.
EPA will participate in funding additional site specific analyses of
existing on-site systems, their design, usage and environmental impacts.
These additional analyses will address:
• Development of a site-specific environmental and engineering
data base;
• Design of the management organization; and
• Start-up of the management district.
The applicant will need to complete additional Step 1 requirements by
taking the following actions (40 CFR 35.918):
• Certify that construction of the project and operation and
maintenance program will meet local, State and Federal
requirements. As a first step, this certification involves a
lot-by-lot investigation of existing septic tank systems and
site suitability for wastewater treatment. If it can be
demonstrated that existing systems do not degrade lake water
quality or promote public health problems, despite the find-
ings of the lot-by-lot investigation, then the GLSSWD may
initiate variance procedures for these systems under the
Minnesota Shoreland Management Act which has been adopted and
amended by Kandiyohi County. The specific variance that would
be negotiated between the GLSSWD and the County involves the
Act's stipulation that there be a 4-foot vertical distance
between the bottom of the septic tank drainfield and the
highest known groundwater elevation.
• Obtain assurance of unlimited access to each individual system
at all reasonable times for such purposes as inspections,
monitoring, construction, maintenance, operations, rehabili-
tation and replacement.
• Plan for a comprehensive program of regulation and inspection
for individual systems.
E. IMPLEMENTATION
Management of centralized and decentralized wastewater facilities
is discussed in Section III.D. and Appendix 1-3. Two topics which the
District will have to address in regard to small waste flow management
are discussed below.
177
-------
1. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL STANDARDS IN
THE SMALL WASTE FLOWS DISTRICT j
As discussed in Section II.C. many existing on-site systems do not
conform to current design standards for site, design o.r distance from
wells or surface waters. For some systems, such as those with under-
sized septic tanks, non-conformance can be remedied relatively easily
and inexpensively. In other cases the remedy may b-.i disruptive and
expensive and should be undertaken only where the need jis clearly iden-
tified. Data on the effects of existing systems indicate • that many
existing non-conforming systems, and future repairs thiit still may not
conform to design standards, may operate satisfactorily. Where com-
pliance with design, standards is either 1) unfeasible jor too expensive
or 2) site monitoring of ground and surface waters shows that acceptable
ircpacts are attainable, then a variance procedure tojallow renovation
and continued use of non-conforming system is recommended. Decisions to
grant variances should be based on site-specific data Jor on a substan-
tial history of similar sites in the area.
I
Local and state decisions on variance procedures would likely be
influenced by the degree of authority vested in the small waste flows
district. If the district has the authority and sufficient financial
means to correct errors, plus the trained personnel to minimize errors
in granting variances, variance procedures may be more liberal than
where financial and professional resources are limited. Higher local
costs, caused by unnecessary repairs or abandonment of systems would be
expected to result from very conservative or no variance guidelines.
Conversely, ill-conceived or improperly implemented variance procedures
would cause frequent water quality problems and demands for more expen-
sive off-site technologies.
2. 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 permanent
or seasonally occupied residences and of privately owned on-site systems
serving permanent residences. Privately owned systems serving
seasonally occupied residences- are not eligible for Federally funded
renovation 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, and local costs for seasonal residents would be dramatically
reduced. Any decision to accept ownership on a community-wide basis
should await the conclusions of the site-specific environmental and
engineering analyses and preliminary determination of the functions of
the management agency. Ownership of seasonally used systems may create
responsibilities that the agency is not equipped to discharge.
178
-------
CHAPTER VII
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE
AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
A. SHORT-TERM USE OF THE STUDY AREA
The Green Lake Study Area has been, and will continue to be used as
a residential/recreational area. The site was initially disturbed when
construction of houses began approximately 20 years ago.
Disturbance of the site by routine residential/recreational activi-
ties will continue. Implementation of either the action proposed by the
Facilities Plan or recommended in this EIS is not expected to alter
these disturbances.
B. IMPACTS UPON LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
1. COMMITMENT OF NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES
If the Facilities Plan Proposed Action were implemented, an in-
creased potential for development may result in some loss of terrestrial
habitat. Such would be expected to a lesser extent by implementation of
the EIS Recommendations.
Non-renewable resources associated with either action would include
concrete for construction. Consumption of electric power by pumps may
also increase. Manpower would also be committed to the construction,
operation and management of new or rehabilitated facilities.
2. LIMITATIONS OF BENEFICIAL USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Aquatic recreation is one of the major benefits enjoyed by people,
residents and visitors alike, in the Green Lake Study Area. Public
access to this 5400 acre recreational resource has become increasingly
restricted over the past 20 years, with approximately 85% of the Green
Lake shoreline currently supporting year-round and seasonal cottage
development. It is judged that the implementation of any centralized
wastewater management plan, such as the Proposed Action or EIS Alter-
natives 1 and 2, would significantly increase the current level of
recreational activity through induced near-shore development. This
activity may become aesthetically displeasing to current residents, many
of whom come to Green Lake during the vacation season to leave urban
crowds. The implementation of decentralized EIS alternatives (3, 4, 5,
6, and Limited Action) would have a less significant effect on the
recreational benefits of the Green Lake area, because induced growth
would be less dense and more scattered than that afforded by centralized
wastewater management.
179
-------
CHAPTER VIII
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
The resources that would be committed during implementation of any
of the EIS Recommendations include those associated with construction and
maintenance of wastewater systems. These were discussed in Section
VI.B.I.
In addition.! growth expected in the Study Area would -require a
commitment ,of resources to the construction of new dwellings and
commercial 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
infrastructural personnel to service the added community needs.
180
-------
CHAPTER IX
PROBABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
If the action proposed by the Facilities Plan were implemented,
some destruction of terrestrial habitat would result from construction
of new dwellings. Such would be true, but to a lesser extent, if any
EIS Recommendations were implemented.
Construction of sewage lagoons or new sewer lines would disturb the
soil, resulting in sediment runoff. This runoff would cause a temporary
increase in siltation in both streams and offshore areas. This type of
runoff can also be caused by the extensive excavation required during
upgrade or rennovation of on-site septic systems and off-site cluster
systems.
181
-------
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 carbon dioxide, water, and
energy.
ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT. Wastewater treatment beyond the secondary or
biological stage that 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. A technology whose use has been widely sup-
ported by experience, but is not a variant 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.
ANNULAR SPACE. The open space between particles of soil material.
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.
ARTESIAN WELL. A well in which flow is sustained by the hydrostatic
pressure of the aquifer. See Artesian Aquifer.
182
-------
BACTERIA. Any of a large group of microscopic organisms 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. In regard to functions of small waste flow districts,
those which would be required 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 large1 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
for 5 days at 20°C.
BOG. Wet, spongy land; usually poorly drained, and rich in plant
residue, ultimately producing highly acid peat.
CALCASEOUS. Resembling, containing of composed of calcium carbonate.
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 bacteria that flourish
in the feces and/or intestines of warm-blooded animals, including
man. Fecal coliform bacterial, particularly Escherichia coli (E.
coli), enter water mostly in fecal matter, such as sewage or feed-
183
-------
lot runoff. Coliform 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
probability of the occurrence of such diease-producing bodies
(pathogens) as Salmonella, Shigella, and enteric viruses. These
pathogens 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.
CLUSTER SYSTEM. A soil dependent waste disposal system that uses a
common septic drainfield for up to 25 individual residences.
CRUSTACEANS. Zonal growths of algae, masses, lickens, or liverwarts
having variable coverage and thickness of only a few centimeters.
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 to flow through a basin. Also
called retention time.
DETRITUS. (1) The heavier debris moved by natural watercourses, usually
in bed loam form. (2) The sand, grit, and other coarse material
removed by differential sedimentation in a relatively short period
of detention.
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.
184
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO). The oxygen gas (0 ) dissolved in water or
sewage. Adequate oxygen is necessary for maintenance of fish and
other aquatic organisms. Low dissolved oxygen concentrations
generally are due to presence of excessive organic solids having
high BOD in inadequately treated wastewater.
DRAINAGE BASIN. (1) An area from which surface runoff is carried away
by a single drainage system. Also called catchment area, water-
shed, drainage 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.
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 treatment plant, or part thereof.
EFFLUENT LIMITED. Any stream segment for which it is known that water
quality will meet applicable water quality standards after the
application of effluent limitations.
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). Minnesota's list includes
those species on the Federal list that are resident for any part of
their life cycle in Minnesota. It also includes indigenous species J
the State believes are uncommon and in need of study.
i
ENDECO. Type 2100 Septic Leachate Dector. 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) that is used in the
decision-making process to evaluate the effects (impacts) of a
proposed action on the human, biological, and physical environment.
185
-------
EPILIMINION. The upper layer of more or less uniformly warm, circu-
lating, and fairly turbulent water in lakes during the spring
heating season.
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 relatively large concentration of nutrients
and hence 'a large production of organic matter, often shallow, with
periods of oxygen deficiency.
EUTROPHIC LAKES. Shallow lakes, weed-choked at the edges and very rich
in nutrients. The water is characterized by large amounts of
algae, low water transparency, low dissolved oxygen and high BOD.
EUTROPHICATION. 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.
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION. A process by which water is evaporated and/or
transpired from water, soil, and plant surfaces.
FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA. The group of organisms common to the intes-
tinal tracts of man and of animals. The presence of fecal coliform
bacteria in water is an indicator of pollution and of potentially
dangerous bacterial contamination.
FLOE. A sheet of floating ice.
FORCE MAIN. Pipe designed to carry wastewater under pressure.
GLACIAL DEPOSIT. A mass of rock, soil, and earth material deposited by
a melting glacier. Such material was originally picked up and
carried along its path by the glacier, and 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.
GROUNDWATER. Water that is below the water table.
186
-------
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.
HOLDING TANK. Enclosed tank, usually of fiberglass or concrete, for the
storage of wastewater prior to removal or disposal at another
location.
HYDROPONIC. 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 lakes.
IGNEOUS. Rock formed by the solidification of magma (hot molten
material).
INDIAN MOUND SYSTEM. See Elevated Mound.
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.
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 the sewage, interceptor
sewers allow some of the sewage to flow untreated directly into the
receiving stream, to prevent the treatment plant from being over-
loaded.
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY. A technology whose use has not been widely
documented by experience and is not a variant of conventional
biological or physical/chemical treatment.
LAGOON. In wastewater treatment, a shallow pond, usually man-made, in
which sunlight, algal and bacterial action and oxygen interact to
restore the wastewater to a reasonable state of purity.
LAND TREATMENT. A method of treatment in which the soil, air, vegeta-
tion, bacteria, and fungi are employed to remove pollutants from
wastewater. In its most simple form, the method includes three
steps: (1) pretreatment to screen out large solids; (2) secondary
treatment and chlorination; and (3) spraying over cropland, pas-
187
-------
ture, or natural vegetation to allow plants and soil microorganisms
to remove additional pollutants. Much of the sprayed water evapo-
rates, 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.
LEACHFIELD. Soil component of a septic system which removes particulate
matter and nutrients.
LIMITING FACTOR. A factor whose absence, or excessive concentration,
exerts some restraining influence upon a population.
LOAM. The textural class name for soil having a moderate amount of
sand, silt, and clay. Loam soils contain 7 to 27% of clay, 28 to
50% of silt, and less than 52% of sand.
LOESS. Soil of wind-blown origin, predominantly silt and fine sand.
MACROPHYTE. A large (not microscopic) plant, usually in an aquatic
habitat.
MELT WATER. Water which is formed from the melting of snow, rime, or
ice.
MESOTROPHIC. Waters with a moderate supply of nutrients and no signifi-
cant production of organic matter.
MESOTROPHIC LAKE. Lakes of intermediate characteristics between oligo-
trophic and eutrophic. They contain a moderate supply of nutrients
and plant life.
METHEMOGLOBINEMIA. 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 which 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
structure of living organisms. Geomorphology deals with the form
and structure of the earth.
188
-------
NON-POINT SOURCE. A general source of pollution not originating from a
single controllable source. Surface water runoff is an example of
a non-point source that is not easily controlled.
NUTRIENT BUDGET. The amount of nutrients entering and leaving a body of
water on an annual basis.
NUTRIENTS. Elements or compounds essential as raw materials for
organisms growth and development, e.g. carbon, oxygen, nitrogen,
and phosphorus.
OLIGOTROPHIC. Waters with a small supply of nutrients and 'hence an
insignificant production of organic matter.
OLIGOTROPHIC LAKES. Deep lakes that have a low supply of nutrients and
thus contain little organic matter. Such lakes are characterized
by high water transparency and high dissolved oxygen.
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 capactiy 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 and therefore
can limit additional algal growth.
PHYTOPLANKTON. Floating plants, microsopic in size, that both supply
small animals with food and give polluted water its green color and
bad taste.
189
-------
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
substantially 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 undergo percola-
tion into the 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.
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-
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.
ROOTED AQUATIC PLANTS. Aquatic or water borne plants which take root
below water.
190
-------
ROUGH 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. The portion of rainfall, melted snow or irrigation water that
flows across the ground surface and eventually is returned to
streams. Runoff can pick up pollutants from the air or the land
and carry them to the receiving waters.
SANITARY SEWERS. Sewers that transport only sanitary wastewater. Storm
water runoff is carried in a separate system. See sewer.
SANITARY SURVEY. A method used to determine possible sources of water
quality and public health problems and to locate inadequately
functioning wastewater systems by making site-specific investi-
gations of existing lots and systems.
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. Wastewater treatment in which bacteria consume the
organic parts of the wastes. This biochemical action is accom-
plished by use of trickling filters or the activated sludge pro-
cess. Effective secondary treatment may remove approximately 90%
of both BOD- and suspended solids.
SEEPAGE CELLS. Unlined wastewater lagoons designed so that all or part
of wastewater percolates into the underlying soil.
SEMI-AQUATIC. Plants that can exist on both land and in water.
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 unit 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
191
-------
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 SOIL 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 is used to collect
and conduct 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.
SEWER, INTERCEPTOR. See Interceptor Sewer.
SEWER, LATERAL. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
limited number of individual properties and conduct it to a trunk
sewer. Also known as a street sewer or collecting sewer.
SEWER, SANITARY. See Sanitary Sewer.
SEWER, STORM. A conduit that collects and transports storm-water 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.
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 taxonomic units of
soils, relative proportions, and pattern of occurrence.
SOIL LIMITING FACTOR. Any physical characteristic which impedes
the proper renovation of wastewater in soils.
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
192
-------
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 actual assessed valuation upward to approximate true market
value. Thus it is possible to relate debt burden to the full value
of taxable property in each community within that State. •
SPRAY IRRIGATION. Desposing of semi-treated wastewater by spraying upon
the land at slow application rates.
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, of periods of mixing, occur in the spring and autumn.
This condition is most common in middle latitudes and is related to
weather conditions, basin morphology, and altitude.
STUB FEE. See Connection Fee.
SUCCESSION. The ecological process by which terrestrial and aquatic
environments age.
SUPPLEMENTAL USAGE. In regard to functions of small waste flow
districts, those which are not required to comply1 with EPA Con-
struction Grants regulations governing individual, on-site waste-
water systems. May be necessary to achieve administrative or
environmental objectives.
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (SS). Small solid particles that contribute to tur-
bidity. The examination of suspended solids and the BOD test
constitute the two main determinations for water quality performed
at wastewater treatment facilities.
TERTIARTY 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.
193
-------
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 the biological growth is attached to a fixed medium, over
which wastewater is sprayed. The filter organisms biochemically
oxidize the complex organic matter in the wastewater to carbon
dioxide, water, and energy.
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,
omnivores, predators, scavengers, and decomposers.
WATER QUALITY. The relative condition of a body of water as judged by a
comparison between contemporary values and certain more or less
objective standard values for biological, chemical, and/or physical
parameters. The standard values usually are based on a specific
series of intended uses, and may vary as the intended uses vary.
WATER TABLE. The upper level of groundwater that is not confined by an
upper impermeable layer and is under atmospheric pressure. The
upper surface of the substrate that is wholly saturated with
groundwater.
WATERSHED. The area drained by a stream.
WELL LOG. 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.
194
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acroyd, E.A., W.C. Walton, and D.L. Hills. 1967. Groundwater con-
tribution to streamflow and its relation to basin characteristics
in Minnesota. Report of Investigations 6. Minnesota Geological
Survey. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Ames Engineering and Testing Co. 1976. Report and logs of exploratory
soil borings for sanitary sewer, Green Lake MN. Unpublished data.
Ames Engineering and Testing Co. Undated. Report of subsurface investi-
gations for Green Lake sanitary sewer, Spicer MN. (Mimeo) Ames IA.
Arthur Beard Engineers, Inc. 1978. correspondence regarding: 1) unit
prices and collector sewer construction costs; 2) wastewater flow
projections for Green Lake; and 3) "typical" cluster system, Green
Lake. Chevy Chase, MD.
Clean Water Act of 1977. Public Law 95-217. (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.)
Cohen, S. and H. Wallman. 1974. Demonstration of waste flow reduction
from households. Environmental Protection Agency, National Environ-
mental Research Center. Cincinnati, OH.
Cooper, I.A., and J.W. Rezek. 1977. Septage treatment and disposal.
For EPA, Technology Transfer.
I
Council on Environmental Quality. 1973. Preparation of environmental
impact statements: Guidelines. 1 August 1973.
Dearth, K.H. 1979. Current costs of conventional approaches.
Presented at EPA National Conference on Less Costly Wastewater
Treatment Systems for Small Communities. 12-14 April 1977.
Reston, VA.
Dillon, P.J. 1975. The application of the phosphorus-loading concept
to eutrophication research. Scientific Series No. 46. Canada
Centre for Island Waters. Burlington, Ontario.
Endangered species Act of 1973. Public Law 93-205.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Photographic Interpreta-
tion Center. 1978.
EPA. July 1974. Manual for preparation of environmental impact state-
ments for wastewater treatment works, facilities plans, and 208
areawide waste treatment management plans. July 1974.
EPA. June 1975. Cost of wastewater treatment by land application.
EPA. June 1976. Small community wastewater treatment facilities.
195
-------
EPA. October 1977. Process design manual for land treatment for land
treatment of municipal wastewater. EPA 625/1-77-008.
EPA. January 1978a. Construction costs for municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants, 1973-1977. MCD 37.
EPA. May 1978b. Analysis of O&M costs for municipal wastewater treat-
ment systems. MCD 39.
EPA. May 1978c. Construction cost for municipal conveyance systems,
1973-1977. MCD 38.
EPA, National Eutrophication Survey. 1974a. Report on Green Lake,
Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Working Paper No. 101.
EPA, National Eutrophication Survey. 1974b. Report on Nest Lake,
Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Working Paper No. 117.
EPA, National Eutrophication Survey. 1974c. Report on Wagonga Lake,
Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Working Paper No. 133.
EPA, National Eutrophication Survey. 1975. Report on Woodcock Lake,
Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Working Paper No. 141.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law
92-500.
Fisheries Research Unit. 1955. Lake survey report. Diamond Lake,
Kandiyohi County.
Fisheries Research Unit. 1955. Lake survey report. Nest Lake,
Kandiyohi County.
Gates, Larry F. , and Howard F. Krosch. 1975. Water quality monitoring
program on representative fish lakes, 1974. Special Publication
No. 111. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Fish and Wildlife.
Giencke, Allan G. 1978. Various correspondence to WAPORA, Inc.
regarding soil suitability for wastewater treatment in the Green
Lake vicinity.
Great Lakes Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers.
1978. Recommended standards for sewage works. Albany, NY.
Green Lake Property Owners Association. 1970-1971. Bacterial data for
Green Lake.
Green Lake Property Owners Association. 1976. A book of names and
numbers. Directory for Green Lake.
Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and Water District. Attachment No. 1. File
No. 741001-2.
196
-------
Groszyk, Walter. 1977. Septic tank problem analysis: Impact on
groundwater. Information memorandum 77-164. USEPA, Water Planning
Division, Washington DC.
Hummel, Mark. Green Lake construction grants sanitary survey. 1978.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Issuance of final
Illinois guidelines for the preparation of facilities plans for
unsewered communities. Memorandum. 16 September 1977.
Johnson, Elden. 1969. The prehistoric peoples of Minnesota. Minnesota
Historical Society. St. Paul MN.
Jones, R.A. and G.F. Lee. 1977. Septic Tank disposal systems as phos-
phorus sources for surface waters. EPA-600/3-77-129. Robert S.
Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory.
Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioners. July 1977. Kandiyohi County
Overall Economic Development Plan.
Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioners. 1977. Letter, to Paul E.
Davis, MPCA, from Virgil Olsen. Additional information to
facilities plan.
Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioners. 1973. Kandiyohi County Sub-
division regulations. Willmar MN.
Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioners. 1977. Resolution amending
comprehensive zoning ordinance. (Mimeo) Willmar MN.
Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioners. 1971. Zoning ordinance,
Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Willmar MN.
Kandiyohi County Historical Society. Undated. A guide to historical
sites in Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Willmar MN.
Kandiyohi County Planning Commission. 1973. Comprehensive water and
sewer plan for Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
Kandiyohi County Soil and Water Conservation District. Undated. Con-
servation needs for the future: Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
Kandiyohi County Zoning Administrator. Undated. Home sewage treatment
systems, Kandiyohi County. (Mimeo). Willmar MN.
Kerfoot, W. 1979. Investigation of septic leachate discharges into
Green Lake and Nest Lake, MN. K-V Associates, Inc., Falmouth, MA.
Library Reference Service, Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife. 1974.
Minnesota State Index: Fish. Denver CO.
Lindholm, G.F., D.F. Farrell, and J.O. Helgesen. 1974. Water resources
of the Crow River watershed, south-central Minnesota. Hydrologic
investigations atlas HA-528. US Geological Survey, Reston VA.
197
-------
Machmeier, Roger E. 1977a. Get to know your septic tank. Extension
Folder 337. University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension
Service, St. Paul.
Machmeier, Roger E. 1977b. How to run a percolation test. Extension
Folder 261. University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension
Service, St. Paul.
Machmeier, Roger E. 1977c. Town and country sewage treatment. Exten-
sion Bulletin 304. University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension
Service, St. Paul.
Machmeier, Roger E. 1978. Shoreland sewage treatment: Recommendations
for identifying and eliminating nonconforming systems. Extension
Bulletin 394. University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension
Service, St. Paul.
McLaughlin, E.R. 1968. A recycle system for conservation of water in
residences. Wate and Sewage Works 115(4):175-176.
Minnesota Analysis and Planning System, Institute of Agriculture,
University of Minnesota.
Minnesota Bureau of Fisheries. 1959. Lake survey information summary
sheet: Green Lake.
Minnesota Department of Administration. 1976. Minnesota state publi-
cations. St. Paul MN.
Minnesota Department of Conservation. 1970. Rules and regulations.
Chapter 6: Statewide standards and criteria for management shore-
land areas. St. Paul MN.
Minnesota Department of Conservation, Division of Game and Fish. 1964.
Sounding map, Green Lake, Kandiyohi County MN.
Minnesota Department of Convervation, Division of Game and Fish. 1964.
Sounding map, Nest Lake, Kandiyohi County MN.
Minnesota Department of Conservation, Division of Game and Fish. 1964.
Sounding map, Diamond Lake, Kandiyohi County MN.
Minnesota Department of Conservation, Division of Waters. 1959. Hydro-
logic atlas of Minnesota. Bulletin No. 10. St. Paul MN.
Minnesota Department of Manpower Services. Undated. Employment by type
and broad industrial sources 1971-1975, Kandiyohi County.
Unpublished report.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1976. Rules and regula-
tions. Chapter 6: NR 92-84. Standards and criteria for the
management of municipal shoreland areas. St. Paul MN.
Minnesota DNR. 1975. The uncommon ones: Animals and plants which
merit special consideration and management.
198
-------
Minnesota DNR. Undated. Proposed rules NR 5020-5029: Standards and
criteria for granting permits to change the course, current, or
cross section of public waters. (Mimeo).
Minnesota Division of Game and Fish. 1971. Fisheries lake survey;
Green Lake. MN.
Minnesota Division of Game and Fish. 1971. Fisheries lake survey, Nest
Lake.
Minnesota Division of Game and Fish. 1971. Fisheries lake survey,
Diamond Lake.
Minnesota Division of Game and Fish, Bureau of Research and Planning.
1958. Fisheries lake survey report: Green Lake, Kandiyohi County.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1977. Draft program for land
disposal of municipal wastewater sludges. (Mimeo). Roseville MN.
MPCA. 1977. Land application and utilization of septage: Recommended
guidelines. (Mimeo). Roseville MN.
MPCA. 1972. Recommended design criteria for disposal of effluent by
land application. MPCA #566. 9 p.
MPCA. 1972. (WPC2) Rules, regulations, classifications, and water
standards. St. Paul MN.
MPCA. 1972. Rules and regulations. Chapter 1: Ambient air quality
standards.
MPCA. Undated. Proposed rules governing standards for individual
sewage treatment systems. Roseville MN.
MPCA, Division of Solid Waste. 1973. Solid waste disposal regulations.
St. Paul MN.
MPCA, Division of Water Quality. 1975. Recommended design criteria for
sewage stabilization ponds. (Mimeo) Roseville MN.
MPCA, Division of Water Quality. 1975. Upper portion, upper
Mississippi River basin plan. Department of Administration, St.
Paul, variously paged. Vol. 1 and Vol. 2.
MPCA, Division of Water Quality. 1972. Recommended design criteria for
disposal of effluent by land application. (Mimeo) Roseville MN.
MPCA, Division of Water Quality. Undated. Report memorandum on investi-
gation of water quality of Green Lake, Kandiyohi County.
MPCA. 1973. Minnesota State Rules, Regulations, classifications, and
water standards. WPC 14.
Minnesota Socio-Economic Population Characteristic-Employment Volume 2.
199
-------
Minnesota Soil Conservation Service. January 1978. Watershed-river
basin status report.
Minnesota State Planning Agency: Kandiyohi County Population Projec-
tions 1975-2000.
Minnesota State Planning Agency, Water Resources Coordinating Committee.
1969. Background information for framework statewide water and
related land resources planning in Minnesota. Technical Bulletin
No. 2. St. Paul, MN.
Morey, G.B. (Complier). 1976. Geologic map of Minnesota. Miscella-
neous Map Series, Map M-24. Minnesota Geological Survey-University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Nason, Wehrman, Chapman Associates, Inc. July 1971. Kandiyohi County
Comprehensive Plan. Minneapolis MN.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190.
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. 40 CFR 141.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data
Service. 1976. Local climatological data: St. Cloud, MN. Annual
summary with comparative data. USDC National Climatic Center,
Asheville NC.
Noyes Engineering Service. 1977. Green Lake well water survey.
(Mimeo). Willmar MN.
Noyes Engineering Service and Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc.
December 16, 1974. Preliminary feasibility report, water pollution
control facilities, Green Lake vicinity, Kandiyohi County,
Minnesota.
Nupson, H. 2970-1. Reports to Green Lake Property Owners Association.
Work orders 2379, 5375, and 7892. Minnesota Valley Testing Labora-
tories, Inc., New Ulm MN.
Paulson, Richard 0., SCS. 1978. Letter to Eric Hediger. Information
concerning soils for Green Lake area.
Pollution Control Agency. Undated. 6 MCAR. 4.8040 Individual sewage
treatment systems standards.
Public Water and Sewer Systems, Chapter 116A.01.
Report of the State Auditor of Minnesota. Revenues, expenditures, and
debt of the cities in Minnesota. November 1977.
Report of the State Auditor of Minnesota. Revenues, expenditures and
debt of local governments in Minnesota. August 1977.
Report of the State Auditor of Minnesota. Revenues, expenditures, and
debts of the towns in Minnesota. January 1978.
200
-------
Rieke Carroll Muller Associates Inc. 1976. Water pollution control
facilities plan, Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and Water District.
Hopkins UN.
Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc. 1977. Letter to James P. Roth,
MPCA, From William G. Hendrickson. Additional information to
Facilities Plan. July 25, 1977.
Rose, Robert. 1978. Field notes: Green Lake.
Safe Drinking Water Act. Public Law 93-523.
Southwest State University. 1972-1973, 1975-1977. Water quality data
sheets for Green Lake.
State of Minnesota. Undated. [Legislation concerning] Water pollution
control; sanitary districts. Sees. 115.15-115.42.
State of Minnesota. 1975. Outdoor recreation system (Legislation,
Chapter 86A).
STORET. 1977. Printouts on Green Lake, Kandiyohi County, MN.
Swanson, Lester W. 1977. Inventory and evaluation, s'oil and water
resources: Soils and engineering interpretations for New London-
Green Lake-Diamond Lake area. USDA Soil Conservation Service, in
cooperation with Kandiyohi County Soil and Water Conservation
District, Willmar MN.
Troyan, J.J., and D.P. Norris. March 1977. Cost-effectiveness analysis
of alternatives for small wastewater treatment systems. For EPA
Technology Transfer. Municipal Design Seminar on Small Wastewater
Treatment Systems. Seattle WA.
US Bureau of the Census. 1972. County and City Data Book.
US Census of Housing. 1970. Summary Data .and Fifth Count Summary
Tapes.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Proposed rule, prime and unique
farmlands: Important farmland inventory. 42 F.R. 42359, 23 August
1977.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1971. Soil survey interpretations.
Lincoln NE.
USDA Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with MN Agricultural
Experiment Station. 1966. Soil survey laboratory data and
descriptions for some soils of Minnesota. Soil Survey Investi-
gations Report No. 9. 79 p.
US Department of Commerce. 1972. Bureau of Census. Census of Retail
Trade 1972.
201
-------
US Department of Commerce. Bureau of Census. Census of Selected
Services 1972.
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1977. Local
area personal income 1970-1975, Vol. 5: Plains region.
US Department of Interior, National Park Service. 1976. National
Register of Historic Sites. Washington DC.
USGS, Water Resources Division. 1977. Index map of Minnesota showing
availability of flood-prone area maps published by USGS. St. Paul.
Vollenweider, R.A. 1968. The scientific basis of lake and stream
eutrophication, with particular reference to phosphorus and
nitrogen as eutrophication factors. Technical Report OECD. DAS/
CSI/68. 27:1-182. Paris, France.
Walton, William C. 1972. Lists of references and selected books
bearing on water resources in Minnesota. Water Resources Research
Center, University of Minnesota Graduate School, Minneapolis MN.
White House Rural Development Initiatives 1978.
Zappetillo, David B., and Howard F. Krosch. 1976. Water quality
monitoring program on representative fish lakes, 1975. Special
Publication No. 114. Minnesota DNR, Division of Fish and Wildlife.
202
GPO 941 -904
------- |