United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
            Region V
            230 South Dearborn
            Chicago, Illinois 60604
November 1979
oEPA
             Water Division
Environmental         Draft
Impact Statement

Alternative Waste
Treatment Systems
For  Rural Lake Projects
Case Study Number 5
Ottertail County Board
Of Commissioners
Ottertail County,
Minnesota

-------
                            VOLUME I



              DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT



ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR RURAL LAKE PROJECTS



   CASE STUDY No. 5:  OTTER TAIL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS



                   OTTER TAIL COUNTY, MINNESOTA



                         Prepared by the



          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY



                   REGION V, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS




                              AND




                      WAPORA, INCORPORATED

                        WASHINGTON, D.C.
                                       Approved by:
                                          n McGuire
                                          ional Administrator
                                         S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                       November 1979

-------
                     DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
                      OTTER TAIL FACILITY PLANNING AREA
                          OTTER TAIL COUNTY, MINNESOTA
                                 Prepared by
                US Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
Comments concerning this document are invited and should be received by
    DEC 3 1 1979
For further information, contact
Mr. Alfred Krause, Project Monitor
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois  60609
312/353-2157
                                  Abstract

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

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

-------
                                SUMMARY

CONCLUSIONS

     Many of the  on-site  treatment  systems in the Proposed  Service  Area
do not  fully meet the minimum standards set  forth  in  the County  Shore-
land  Management  Ordinance  for depth  to  groundwater,  separation  from
wells  and  surface waters,  and  size of septic tank of  drainfield.   The
extent  and  nature of  problems  resulting  from noncomplying  systems  was
not  fully documented  in  the Facility Plan.  Studies carried out in  this
EIS  suggest that  high groundwater flows may have a much greater  impact
on actual system performance than full compliance with  design standards.

     These  high groundwater flows  (often  10  to  12 feet per day) are  a
major  reason  at  least some  components of  septic  tank effluent  reach
Otter Tail  Lake.   During  a  winter survey  almost  a  one  to one  relation-
ship was observed between the  number of septic leachate plumes in Otter
Tail Lake  and   the  number of permanent  residents.  Although phosphorus
concentrations  from certain plumes might be high enough to sustain local
algae growth along some shoreline segments, no study has yet established
a  correlation   between the  two.   Localized  nitrate  contamination  of
groundwater is  relatively uncommon  and is  not associated with  any  par-
ticular  shoreline area;   identified  problems  of  this kind  have usually
proven correctible by simple well or treatment system  repairs.

     No alternative should affect open water quality in Otter Tail Lake.
Round  Lake  and  Long Lake  may be  affected  by  continued  reliance on  con-
ventional on-site systems throughout the planning period.

     Future development  in  the Otter  Tail Lake  vicinity would be  only
slightly affected by  any  of the EIS alternatives.  Population increases
vary by only 9%  within   the whole  range  of  alternatives.   Second  tier
development is  unlikely with any of them.

     There  are  substantial  differences  in the  present worth  and  user
charges among the alternatives.  User charges increase  in direct propor-
tion  to  the  extent  of   new  sewers  provided.    In  the more  expensive
alternatives high local   user  charges  could  result in  substantial  dis-
placement pressure  for the permanent  population, particularly  those  on
fixed  and lower incomes.   Proportional increases in water quality would
not occur.

DRAFT  EIS  RECOMMENDATIONS

     The Recommended  Action in  this EIS  is  the  Limited Action Altern-
ative.  Selection of this alternative is tentative;  the configuration of
on-site systems may be modified by studies  to be conducted by EPA  during
August and September 1979.  Until completion of these  additional studies
and  the  detailed  Step II  design work described below,  EIS Alternative 1
may  also be retained  as  a contigent  "backup"  alternative.  The Limited
Action Alternative would  provide:

-------
     o     Repair  and  upgrading  of  existing  on-site   systems  such  as
          septic tanks  and  filter fields  along most of the Otter  Tail
          Lake  shoreline.   This  would  include  replacement of  50%  of
          septic tanks or filter fields.

     o     Grey water/Black water  separation along problem  high  ground-
          water  flow  segments  of  Otter  Tail  Lake  and its  satellites.

          For  treating  and  holding  black  water  (human toilet  wastes)
          area residents would have their  choice of:

          A.    Deluxe  low  flow (2 quart  flush),  low noise  (3 decibels
               quieter)  air compressor  toilets, with 2000  gallon  holding
               tanks  for  human wastes  only.   At  such  flow rates  the
               tanks would need pumping only every  six months  for  perm-
               anent  residents or  every  year  for   seasonal  residents.

          B.    A large-tank composting  toilet of the "Clivus Multrum™ ",
               or other recognized type.

          In  both  cases  "grey water11  from  showers,  sinks, or  washing
          machines would be treated by  the existing  on-site systems, re-
          paired as needed.

     o     Planning and  organization  of an On-Site Wastewater Management
          District for the Study Area.

     o     Site-specific environmental and  engineering analyses  of exist-
          ing on-site  systems throughout  the Study Area.

     The Recommended  Action  would result in water  quality improvements
similar to any  of  the other alternatives.   Its present worth, however,
is only about  two  thirds, and its tentative local  costs  only about one
half of those of the Facility Plan Proposed Action.

     State and  local  concurrence  with  the Recommended Action would mean
that three additional  steps  would need to  be  taken with  respect to the
formation of  a  small  waste flow or on-site district.  To  allow quickest
Step II funding, the applicant would:

     o     certify that the project would  be constructed and an operation
          and maintenance program  established  to  meet local, State, and
          Federal  requirements,  including  those  protecting present or
          potential underground potable water sources,

     o     obtain assurance, such as an easement or covenant running with
          the land, of unlimited access to each individual system at all
          reasonable  times for such  purposes as maintenance, operation,
          rehabilitation, and  replacement,  along  with the permission to
          carry out such work.  An option would satisfy this requirement
          if  it  could be exercised no later than the  beginning  of con-
          struction.
323 D2                             ii

-------
          establish a  comprehensive  program for  management  and inspec-
          tion of  individual  systems some time before EPA  approves  the
          plans and specifications.  Planning  for this program could be
          completed as part of  the Facility Plan or  an  initial portion
          of  Step  II  design.    The  program would include as  a minimum,
          periodic testing  of  water  from existing potable wells  in  the
          area.  Where  a substantial  number  of  on-site  systems  are in
          use, occasional monitoring of  the aquifer should  be provided.
HISTORY
     In June  1976,  the  Otter  Tail Facility Plan was  completed  and  was
submitted  to  EPA  Region V  by  Otter  Tail County  acting as  the  Grant
Applicant  for  funding under  the EPA Construction  Grants Program.   The
Plan proposed  construction  of a centralized collection and  land appli-
cation treatment facility was prepared by Ulteig Engineers, Fargo,  North
Dakota.

     With  respect  to the  existing  on-site  systems   in the  Proposed
Service  Area,   the  Facility  Plan  reached  the following  conclusions:

     o    Unsuitable   site   conditions   and   inadequately  constructed
          on-site systems  may be  causing  contamination  of  the  ground-
          water supply.

     o    High  bacterial  counts have been found at  the  outlet of  the
          Otter Tail River.

     o    Many  of the on-site  systems  cannot meet minimum standards  set
          forth in the Shoreland Management Ordinance.

     o    Sanitary sewage should be  collected  by means of a centralized
          collection and treatment system.
EIS ISSUES

     Water Quality.   Although indirect  evidence was  presented  in  the
Facility  Plan  indicating  that  there  may  be  a  water quality  problem
resulting  from  malfunctioning on-site  systems,  the relationship between
deteriorating water quality and inadequately functioning septic tanks is
unsubstantiated.   With  the  exception of well water samples showing high
groundwater nitrate  concentrations,  claims  of  public health hazards  are
not  documented.   Modeling of  Otter Tail Lake  based on  existing water
quality  data,  indicate  that the  on-site  systems  contribute a  small
percent of the total nutrient load.

     Cost Effectiveness.  The collection system proposed in the Facility
Plan  Proposed Action is  estimated to  cost  $8.6 million  or  83%  of  the
total  cost.   Since  MPCA does  not  normally  assign high  grant  funding
priorities  to collector  sewers,  the cost of the  collection  system  can
affect  the local community more  than other  project components.   There-
fore  there was  some  incentive to  consider  alternatives  to centralized
323 D3                            iii

-------
collection and treatment to determine whether wastewater treatment needs
could be met in a more economical way.

ENVIRONMENT

     Soils.    The  Soil  Conservation  Service  (SCS)  has  not  completed  a
soil survey for the entire Study Area.  Specific shoreline data indicate
that  soils  set  back from  Otter Tail Lake  are generally suitable  for
septic  tanks,  spray irrigation and  rapid  infiltration  based  on  SCS
criteria.   Soils  along  the shoreline  of Otter  Tail  Lake  are  largely
limited in suitability for on-site disposal by a high groundwater table,
and high flow rates.

     Surface Water Resources.   Surface  water  resources  of  Otter  Tail
Lake, Lake Blanche, Deer Lake,  Round Lake, Long Lake and Walker Lake are
an  issue in  this  EIS.   Because  of its  size  and attractiveness  as  a
resort Otter  Tail  Lake  is the center of concern.   Otter Tail Lake occu-
pies 14,746 acres within a drainage basin 49 times the area of the lake.
The  Otter Tail  River  is  the  major  tributary  source.   In  addition  to
inflow from the  River,  Otter Tail Lake receives flow from Lake Blanche,
Walker Lake and  Long Lake.  The hydrology of the lakes directly affects
the  water quality.   Non-point sources contribute  a  large  percentage  of
the  nutrient  load  to  all lakes  except  Long Lake  and  Round Lake.   The
alkaline  nature  of  the  lakes may have a  significant  effect  on reducing
the  availability of  nutrients  for  plant uptake.   Otter Tail  Lake  is
apparently mesotrophic  and unlikely  to change  for any alternative.  The
exact  trophic status of  the smaller surrounding  lake  cannot  be deter-
mined because of the lack of long-term data.

     Groundwater Resources.   Groundwater is  the  major source  of water
for  domestic  use  in the Study Area.   Water supply is plentiful although
it is naturally high in iron and manganese.  High nitrate concentrations
have  been observed in  6 out  of 40  wells  sampled  recently.   Nitrate
concentrations  were often  reduced  to acceptable  levels  by  repairing a
malfunctioning on-site  system(s).

     Existing Population and Land Use.  Approximately 83% of the Service
Area  population consists of seasonal and  vacation residents who reside
in  unsewered  areas along  the   shorelines  of  Otter  Tail Lake  and the
smaller  surrounding lakes.  Development  has occurred  in  a  single tier
pattern  throughout  most  of the  Proposed Service Area.   The  permanent
population is characterized  by a  relatively low income that  is below the
average  income  for  Minnesota.   However, the  low income  levels  can  be
explained by  the  fact that  about  40% of the permanent Study Area popu-
lations  is  over  55 and many  are retired and  on a fixed income.  Also
agriculture  and  tourism,  both  low-wage employment, are  the  principle
industries.

ADDITIONAL  STUDIES

     Because  there  were  insufficient  data  to  determine wastewater treat-
ment needs, 2 additional  studies were performed for this EIS.
 323  D4                              iv

-------
     1)    An aerial  photographic survey  was  performed by  the Environ-
          mental  Photographic  Interpretation  Center (EPIC)  during  the
          summer  of  1978.    Few surface malfunctions  resulting  from
          on-site sewage disposal systems were observed.   Suspected beds
          of aquatic  vegetation were  observed on  infrared  photographs
          but were  not  verified.  On Otter Tail  Lake,  dense vegetation
          was observed  between  Walker  Lake and Long Lake and along  the
          south shore adjacent to wetlands.

     2)    A study of septic leachate discharges into Otter Tail Lake  and
          the small  surrounding lakes was performed during  April  1979.
          A  one-to-one  relationship was  observed between the number of
          permanent residences  and  the  number of septic leachate plumes
          along  most  shoreline  segments.   Few  if  any  plumes   were
          detected in Walker  Lake,  Long Lake and Lake  Blanche; this  was
          attributed  to  the  observation that   high  groundwater  flow
          carries  the   septic  tank  leachate  to  Otter  Tail  Lake  rather
          than to the smaller lakes.

Other additional  studies,  including a  partial  sanitary  survey  and  a
summer leachate study are now in progress.

ALTERNATIVES

     Based  upon  the  high cost of conventional technology and the  ques-
tions  concerning  the   eligibility  of  new  sewers  for  funding,   6  new
alternatives were evaluated in  this  ETS  along  with the Facility Plan
Proposed  Action.   These  alternatives  considered individual  and  multi-
family  septic   systems  (cluster systems),  black water  separation,  and
water conservation as well as different configurations  for land applica-
tion and pressure sewers than were considered in the Facility Plan.  The
Facilities  Plan  Proposed  Action  would  have  a  present  worth  cost,
including 20 year of operation arid maintenance of $10.36 million.

     EIS Alternative 1.   A  Jand  application  system  serving  the  south
shore  of Otter  Tail Lake,  between Lake  Blanche and  Otter  Tail  Lake.
Stream  discharge  to Otter  Tail  Lake would be required  if  rapid infil-
tration  were selected,   but  no  stream  discharge  would  be  required with
spray irrigation.  Cluster systems for areas with rapid groundwater flow
rates,  high groundwater levels and high population density.   Repair and
rehabilitation  of remaining on-site  systems.  The  total,  present  worth
cost  of this alternative,  including 2U  years of operation  and mainte-
nance,  is $9.30 million.

     EIS Alternative 2.   Two  land  application systems,  one  serving  the
south shore between Lake Blanche and Otter Tail Lake,  the other serving
the  west/northwest  shore  of  Otter Tail  Lake.   The  remainder of  the
Proposed  Service Area  would  be served  by on-site systems  and cluster
systems  suitable  to local conditions.  Total present worth costs of this
alternative,  including  20  years   of  operation  and maintenance,  were
$10.20  million.

     EIS Alternative 3.  Same  as  EIS  Alternative  2  except  that  the
centralized collection  and treatment system for the west/northwest shore
323 D5                             v

-------
is extended along the entire northeast shore.   Total present worth costs
for this  alternative,  including  20 years of operation  and  maintenance,
were $10.5 million.

     EIS Alternative 4.  Entire Proposed Service Area would  be served by
two land application systems.  The Otter Tail  shoreline from Pelican Bay
south  to  an area just beyond  the  north shore of Lake  Blanche  would be
conveyed  to one  land application site.  The remaining segments  would be
collected and conveyed to a site west of Otter Tail Lake.  Total present
worth  costs  for this  alternative,  including 20 years  of operation and
maintenance, were $11.335 million.

     EIS Alternative 5.  The  entire  Proposed  Service  Area  would  be
served by a  prefabricated contact stabilization plant.  The plant would
incorporate chemical addition for phosphorus removal and would discharge
to  Otter  Tail River.   Total present  worth costs  for this  alternative,
including  20 years  of  operation  and  maintenance   is  $10.245  million.

     Limited Action.  Repair and rehabilitation of existing on-site sys-
tems similar  to  that in EIS Alternative  1, with grey water/black water
separation for problem high  groundwater flow areas.  Total present worth
cost of  this alternative, including  20  years  operation and maintenance
is  $7.14  million.

     Implementation.  Local  jurisdications  have  the legal and financial
capability of implementing small waste  flow districts, although the con-
cept  of  public  management  of  septic systems has not  had a final legal
determination in Minnesota,  present sanitary codes have been interpreted
as  authorizing  such management by local governments.  Similar districts
are already in operation.

IMPACTS  OF  ALTERNATIVES

     Surface Waters.  None  of  the alternatives is anticipated to have a
significant  impact  upon  the  present trophic status of Otter Tail Lake or
the smaller  surrounding lakes  -- Lake  Blanche,  Walter Lake  and Deer
Lake.   Continued reliance upon  conventional  septic  tanks may result in
water  quality degradation  in  Round  Lake  and Long  Lake  as development
increases along  the shorelines.

     Impacts  of septic  tanks  on lakeshore eutrophication which  results
in  algae   growth is the  subject of further study  in July and August of
1979.

     Groundwater.   No   significant  primary  or  secondary  impacts  on
groundwater  quantity are anticipated  with  any of the EIS  Alternatives.

     Conclusions with   respect   to   long  term  impacts  on groundwater
quality are  as  follows:

     o    Bacterial contamination  is  anticipated  to  be  insignificant for
           all alternatives.
 323 D6                            vi

-------
     o    Continued  reliance on  on-site  systems  in problem  areas may
          result  in leaching  of  phosphorus  to  surface water  in con-
          centration sufficient to sustain algae growth.

     o    Centralized  collection  systems would  eliminated  septic tanks
          as a potential source for groundwater nitrate contamination in
          areas  with high housing  density and  high groundwater table.

     o    Cluster systems would minimize the potential for contamination
          of groundwater supplies.

     o    Land application of wastewater is not anticipated to result in
          groundwater  contamination of  nitrates since  design measures
          can be taken to prevent this.

     Environmentally Sensitive Areas.  Wetlands  located  between  Lake
Blanche and  Otter  Tail Lake are likely to be impacted by any of the EIS
Alternatives, except Limited Action.

     Population and Land Use Impact.  A 0% to  9% increase in population
above the baseline  projections  is anticipated for the EIS Alternatives;
the  increase is directly  related to the extent of  sewering.   The land
use  pattern  would  be only slightly modified by  any  of the EIS Alterna-
tives.  Density  of shoreline development would  increase  with  extent of
sewering.   Second  tier development is  unlikely with any of the alterna-
tives.

     Economic Impacts.   Annual user  charges  are  estimated to range from
$165 to $350.   Approximately 60 to 70°/0 of the  households would be able
to afford Limited Action or Alternatives 1.  A financial burden would be
placed on 30 to  40% of the  area's  households  and  displacement pressure
would range  from 15% to 30%.  Burden and displacement pressures for the
centralized alternatives are about double this.
323 D7                            vll

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary                                                                 i
List of Tables                                                        xvi
List of Figures                                                      xvii
Abbreviations                                                       xviii
                  I.  INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND ISSUES               1

A.   Project History and Description                                    1

     1.   Background                                                    1
     2.   Location                                                      1
     3.   History of the Construction Grant Application                 4
     4.   The Otter Tail Lake Area Facility Plan                        5

          a.   Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities                 5
          b.   Existing Problems with Water Quality and
               Wastewater Treatment Facilities
          c.   Proposed Solutions:  Alternative Addressed
               in the Facility Plan                                     6
          d.   The Facility Plan Proposed Action                        9

B.   Issues of this EIS                                                 9

     1.   Cost Effectiveness                                            9
     2.   Impacts on Water Quality                                      9
     3.   Economic Impact                                              10
     4.   Induced Growth and Secondary Impacts                         10

C.   National Perspective on the Rural Sewering Problem                10

     1.   Socioeconomics                                               10
     2.   Secondary Impacts                                            13
     3.   The Need for Management of Decentralized
          Alternative Systems                                          13

D.   Purpose and Approach of the EIS and Criteria for
     Evaluation of Alternatives                                        14

     1.   Purpose                                                      14
     2.   Approach                                                     15

          a.   Review of Available Data                                15
          b.   Segment Analysis                                        15
          c.   Review of Wastewater Design Flows                       15
          d.   Development of Alternatives                             16
          e.   Estimation of Costs for Alternatives                    16
          f.   Evaluation of the Alternatives                          16
          g.   Needs Documentation                                     16
                                     viii

-------
     3.    Major Criteria for Evaluation of: Alternatives

          a.    Cost
          b.    Significant Environmental and Socioeconotnic Impacts
          c.    Reliability
          d.    Flexibility


                         II.  ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING                    19

A.   Physical Setting                                                  19

     1.    Physiography                                                 19
     2.    Geology                                                      19

          a.    Bedrock Geology                                         19
          b.    Surficial Geology                                       22

     3.    Soils                                                        22

          a.    Overview                                                22
          b.   Sol] Series  in the Study Area                           22
          c.   Soil Suitability of an  On-Site Disposal System          29
          d.   Soil Suitability for Land  Application                   31
          e.   Prime Agricultural Lands                                31
      4.   Atmosphere
                                                                        31
           a.    Climate                                                  31
           b.    Odors                                                    32
           c.    Noise                                                    32
           d.    Air  Quality                                              32

 B.    Water Resources                                                    ^3

      1.    Water Quality Management                                     33

           a.    Clean  Water  Act                                         33
           b.    Federal  Agency Responsibilities for Study Area Waters   34
           c.    State  Responsibilities in the Otter Tail Lake
                Study  Area                                              35
           d.    Local  Responsibilities for Water Quality Management     36

      2.    Groundwater Use                                              36
      3.    Groundwater Hydrology                                        ^
      4.    Groundwater Quality
      5.    Surface Water Hydrology                                      ^3

           a.    Size of Drainage Basins
           b.    Tributary Flow                                          43
           c.    Lake Hydraulic Retention Time                           *°
           d.    Precipitation                                           ^"
           e.    Hydraulic Budget                                        46

                                      ix

-------
                                                                      Page
     6.    Surface Water Use and Classification                         48
     7.    Surface Water Quality                                        48

          a.   Streams                                                 48
          b.   Lakes                                                   49

     8.    Flood Hazard Areas                                           57

C.   Existing Systems                                                  57

     1.    Summary of Data                                              58

          a.   EPIC Survey                                             58
          b.   Investigation of Septic Leachate Discharges,
               Otter Tail Lake, Minnesota                              58
          c.   Construction Grant Sanitary Survey for Otter
               Tail Lake                                               62

     2.    Shoreland Management Ordinance                               62
     3.    Problems Caused by Existing Systems                          65

D.   Biotic Resources                                                  68

     1.    Aquatic Biology                                              68

          a.   Fisheries                                               68
          b.   Aquatic Vegetation                                      69
          c.   Waterfowl                                               70

     2.    Wetlands                                                     70

          a.   Overview                                                70
          b.   Study Area                                              70

     3.    Terrestrial Biology                                          72

          a.   Forest Lands                                            72
          b.   Wildlife                                                73

     4.    Threatened or Endangered Species                             73

E.   Population and Socioeconoraics                                     74

     1.    Existing Population                                          74
     2.    Population Projections                                       74
     3.    Characteristics of the Population                            77

          a.   Income                                                  77
          b.   Employment                                              81
          c.   Financial Characteristics                               81

     4.    Housing Characteristics                                      84
     5.    Land Use                                                     84

-------
          a.    Existing Land Use                                       84
          b.    Future Land Use/Growth Management                       87
          c.    Recreation                                              89
          d.    Transportation                                          89

     6.    Cultural Resources                                           92

          a.    Archaeological Resources                                92
          b.    Historical Resources                                    94
                      III.  DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES                95

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 Water Reduction                                     99

          a.   Residential Flow Reduction Devices                      99
          b.   Minnesota Ban on Phosphorus                            102

     2.   Collection                                                  103
     3.   Wastewater Treatment                                        106

          a.   Centralized Treatment                                  106
          b.   Land Disposal                                          107
          c.   Decentralized Treatment and Disposal                   110

     4.   Effluent Disposal                                           113

          a.   Reuse                                                  114
          b.   Discharge to Surface Waters                            114
          c.   Land Application                                       115

     5.   Sludge Handling and Disposal                                115

C.   Reliability                                                      115

     1.   Sewers                                                      115
     2.   Centralized Treatment                                       117
     3.   On-Site Treatment                                           117
     4.   Cluster Systems                                             118

D.   Flexibility                                                      118

     1.   Transmission and Conveyance                                 118
     2.   On-Site Septic Systems                                      119
                                      XI

-------
     3.    Conventional Wastewater Treatment
     4.    Contact Stabilization
     5.    Land Application

E.   Implementation                                                  121

     1.    Centralized Districts                                      121

          a.   Authority                                             121
          b.   Managing Agency                                       122
          c.   Financing                                             122
          d.   User Charges                                          122

     2.    Small Waste Flow Districts                                 123

          a.   Authority                                             123
          b.   Management                                            124
          c.   Financing                                             127
          d.   User Charges                                          127


                             IV.  ALTERNATIVES

A.   Introduction                                                    129

     1.    Approach                                                   129
     2.    Alternatives                                               129

          a.   No Action                                             132
          b.   Facility Plan Proposed Action                         132
          c.   Limited Action Alternative                            136
          d.   EIS Alternative 1                                     136
          e,   EIS Alternative 2                                     139
          f.   EIS Alternative 3                                     141
          g.   EIS Alternative 4                                     141
          h.   EIS Alternative 5                                     144

     3.    Flexibility of Alternatives                                144

          a.   No Action                                             144
          b.   Facility Plan Proposed Action                         144
          c.   Limited Action Alternative                            144
          d.   EIS Alternative 1                                     144
          e.   EIS Alternatives 2, 3 and 4                           146
          f.   EIS Alternative 5                                     146
                           V.  IMPACT EVALUATION                     147

A.   Impacts on Surface Water Quality                                147

     1.   Primary Impacts                                            147

          a.   Analysis of Eutrophication Potential                  147
          b.   Bacterial Contamination                               151
          c.   Non-Point Source Loads                                151

                                      xii

-------
     2.    Secondary Impacts                                           151
     3.    Mitigative Measures                                         152

B.   Impacts on Groundwater                                           153

     1.    Groundwater Quantity Impacts                                153
     2.    Groundwater Quality Impacts                                 153

C.   Impacts on Population and Land Use                               156

     1.    Impacts on Population                                       158
     2.    Land Use                                                    158

          a.   Development Potential                                  158
          b.   Residential Land Use Patterns                          159
          c.   Industrial, Service and Resort Land Use Impacts        159

     3.    Changes in Community Composition and Character              160

D.   Encroachment on Environmentally Sensitive Areas                  160

     1.    Wetlands                                                    160

          a.   Primary Impacts                                        160
          b.   Secondary Impacts                                      161
          c.   Mitigative Measures                                    161

     2.    Flood Plains                                                161

          a.   Primary Impacts                                        161
          b.   Secondary Impacts                                      161
          c.   Mitigative Measures                                    162

     3.   Steep Slopes                                                162

          a.   Primary Impacts                                        162
          b.   Secondary Impacts                                      162
          c.   Mitigative Measures                                    162

     4.   Prime Agricultural Land                                     162
     5.    Forests and Woodlands                                       163

          a.   Primary Impacts                                        163
          b.   Secondary Impacts                                      163

     6    Archaeological and Historical Sites                         163
                                     xiii

-------
                                                                      Page

E.   Economic Impacts                                                 163

     1.   Introduction                                                163
     2.   User Charges                                                163

          a.   Eligibility                                            164
          b.   Calculation of User Charges                            165

     3.   Local Cost Burden                                           165

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

     4.   Mitigative Measures                                         166

F.   Narrative Impact Matrix                                          169


                     VI.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS             177

A.   Introduction                                                     177

B.   Summary of Evaluation                                            177

C.   Conclusions                                                      181

D.   Draft EIS Recommendation                                         183

E.   Implementation                                                   184

     1.   Completion of Step 1  (Facilities Planning) Requirements
          for the Small Waste Flows District                          184
     2.   Scope of Step II for  the Small Waste Flows District         184
     3.   Compliance with State and Local Standards in the
          Small Waste Flows District                                  185
     4.   Ownership of On-Site  Systems Serving Seasonal Residences    185


                VII.  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE
                      AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY                      187

A.   Short-Term Use of the Study Area                                 187

B.   Impact Upon Long-Term Productivity                               187

     1.   Commitment of Non-Renewable Resources                       187
     2.   Limitations on the Beneficial Use of the Environment        187
                     VIII.  IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE
                            COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES                   189
                                     xiv

-------
                                                                      Page




            IX.   PROBABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED     191






Glossary                                                              193




Bibliography                                                          207
                                     xv

-------
                                   TABLES
1-1       Projected 1996 and Full Development Wastewater Flows           7
1-2       Present Worth of Alternatives Addressed in the Otter
            Tail Lake Facility Plan                                      8
II-l      Description of Soil Series with Basic Characteristics         27
II-2      Groundwater Quality Data for Otter Tail Lake Area             41
II-3      Physical Characteristics of Study Area Lakes                  45
II-4      Water Budget for Otter Tail Lake                              47
II-5      Selected Water Quality Parameters                             50
II-6      Phosphorus and Nitrogen Budgets for Otter Tail Lake,
            Deer Lake, Walker Lake, Round Lake, Long Lake and
            Lake Blanche                                                51
II-7      The Relationship Between Number of Species of Fishes,
            Area, and Depth for the Six Lakes in the Study Area         67
II-8      Permanent Population Trends of the Socioeconomic Study
            Area for the Period 1940-1975                               75
II-9      Existing Permanent and Seasonal Population for the
            Service Area (1976)                                         76
11-10     Permanent and Seasonal Population of the Otter Tail
            Lakes Proposed Service Area (2000)                          78
11-11     Mean and Median Family Income 1970, Per Capita Income
            1969 and 1976                                               79
11-12     Income Characteristics of Families, 1970                      80
11-13     Percentage Employment by Major Industry, 1970                 82
11-14     Financial Characteristics of the Local Governments in
            the Otter Tail Lake Study Area                              83
11-15     Existing Dwelling Units in the Otter Tail Proposed
            Service Area                                                85
11-16     Minimum Shoreland Ordinance Standards                         88
11-17     Public Access to Lakes in the Otter Tail Study Area           90
11-18     Private Campgrounds Located in the Otter Tail Lake
            Study Area                                                  91
III-l     Design Flows for EIS Alternatives                             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              125
IV-1      Alternatives - Summary of Major Components                   130
IV-2      Design Population and Flow (2000) for Shoreline Areas        131
IV-3      Cost-effectiveness of Alternatives                           134
V-l       Phosphorus Loads by Alternative and Per Cent Change
            Compared to Existing Conditions                            148
V-2       Comparison of Population and Land Use Impacts Associated
            with Major System Alternatives                             157
V-3       Annual User Charges                                          164
V-4       Financial Burden and Displacement Pressure                   167
VI-1      Alternative Selection Matrix                                 178
                                  xvi

-------
                                  FIGURES
1-1       Location of the Otter Tail Study Area                          2
1-2       Proposed Sewer Service Area,  Otter Tail Study Area             3
1-3       Monthly Costs of Gravity Sewers                               12
II-l      Topography of the Otter Tail Study Area                       20
II-2      Geological Cross-Section Showing the Extent of Major
            Aquifer Systems of the Otter Tail Study Area                21
II-3      Soil Landscapes in the Otter Tail Study Area                  23
II-4      Soil Limitations for On-Site Systems for Selected
            Sites in the Otter Tail Study Area (Sites 1 and 2)          24
II-5      Soil Limitations for On-Site Systems for Selected
            Sites in the Otter Tail Study Area (Sites 3 and 4)          25
II-6      Soil Limitations for On-Site Systems for Selected
            Sites in the Otter Tail Study Area (Sites 5 and 6)          26
II-7      Proposed Location of Land Application Sites Within
          the Otter Tail Study Area                                     30
II-8      Location of Irrigation Fields in the Otter Tail Study
            Area                                                        37
II-9      Areal Extent of Outwash Aquifer                               38
11-10     Groundwater Flow Patterns Surrounding Otter Tail Lake         40
11-11     Location of Well Water Samples                                42
11-12     Otter Tail River Watershed and USGS Sampling Stations         44
11-13     Comparison of Phosphorus Loadings by Source Contribution
            for Lakes in Otter Tail Study Area                          52
11-14     Graphic Conditions for Otter Tail Lake and Round Lake         54
11-15     Flood Hazard Areas in the Otter Tail Study Area               56
11-16     Suspected Beds of Aquatic Vegetation and Locations of
            Surface Malfunctions from On-Site Systems                   59
11-17     Location of Erupting and Stream Source Plumes                 60
11-18     Distribution of Lot Sizes and Percentage of Lots With
            High Groundwater Levels                                     64
11-19     Wetlands of the Otter Tail Study Area                         71
11-20     Existing Land Use in the Otter Tail Study Area                86
11-21     Archaeological and Historical Sites in the Otter Tail
            Study Area                                                  93
III-l     Typical Pump Installation for Pressure Sewer                 105
III-2     Prefabricated Contact Stabilization Plant                    108
III-3     Land Application Spray Irrigation                            109
III-4     Recovery of Renovated Water by Wells                         110
III-5     Land Application Rapid Infiltration                          110
IV-1      Segments Map                                                 133
IV-2      Facility Plan Proposed Action                                135
IV-3      Limited Action Alternative                                   137
IV-4      EIS Alternative 1                                            138
IV-5      EIS Alternative 2                                            140
IV-6      EIS Alternative 3                                            142
IV-7      EIS Alternative 4                                            143
IV-8      EIS Alternative 5                                            145
V-l       Trophic Status of Otter Tail and Round Lakes Under
            Various Alternatives                                       150
                                    xvii

-------
                          SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
P
y
v
a
An asterisk following a word indicates that the term is
defined in the Glossary at the end of this report.  Used
at the first appearance of the term in this EIS.
less than
greater than
Rho
Mu, micro
Nu
Sigma
                           TECHNICAL ABBREVIATIONS
AWT
BOD
DO
ft2
fps
g/m  /yr
GP
gpcd
gpm
I/I
kg/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/mile
lb /cap /day
mgd
mg/1
ml
msl
MPN
N
NO -N
NFS
advanced wastewater treatment
biochemical oxygen demand
dissolved oxygen
square foot
feet per second
grams per square meter per year
grinder pump
gallons per capita per day
gallons per minute
infiltration/inflow
kilograms per year
kilograms per capita per year
kilograms per mile
pounds per capita per day
million gallons per day
milligrams per litre
millilitre
mean sea level—implies above msl unless otherwise indicated
most probable number
nitrogen
ammonia nitrogen
nitrate nitrogen
non-point source
                                    xviii

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

HUD
NOAA

NES
NPDES
SCS

STORE!
USDA
USGS
    NON-TECHNICAL ABBREVIATIONS
Minnesota Department of Natural  Resources
Environmental Impact Statement
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Photographic Interpretation  Center  (of EPA)
Fish and Wildlife Service, United  States Department of
the Interior
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,  United
States Department of Commerce
National Eutrophication Survey
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Soil Conservation Service, United  States Department of
Agriculture
STOrage and RETrieval (data base system of EPA)
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior
                                      xix

-------
                               CHAPTER  I

                INTRODUCTION,  BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
A.   PROJECT HISTORY AND  DESCRIPTION

1.   AUTHORITY

     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.   This  funding  is subject
to  the provisions  of the  National Environmental  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  Envi-
ronmental  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.

2.   LOCATION

     The  subject  of  this  Environmental  Impact  Statement  (EIS)  is the
Federal  funding  of proposed wastewater collection and  treatment  facil-
ities  requested  for  the  Otter  Tail  Lake  area of  Otter Tail County,
Minnesota.   The   Otter Tail  Lake  area Facility Plan  recommended the
construction of the facilities described later in this chapter.

     The  Facility  Planning  (or  the  EIS  Study  Area)  area includes the
four townships of  Girard,  Amor,  Otter  Tail and  Everts.    Together  these
four townships comprise 144 square miles of farmland,  lakes, residential
shoreline development and woodland in tlie  west-central part of the  State
of  Minnesota.   Figure  1-1   shows  the  Study  Area   within  the State  of
Minnesota.  The  residential  areas  to  be  served by  the new  wastewater
facilities, the Proposed Service Area,  covers only a small part of  these
four townships and  includes  the unincorporated village  of Ottertail and
the  developed  shoreline  areas  of  Otter Tail Lake,  Lake  Blanche  (north
shore),  Walker  Lake  (south  shore) ,  Long  Lake  (south shore)  Round Lake
and Deer  Lake.   Figure 1-2 shows the boundaries of  the  Proposed Service
Area.

     The  combined  year-round population of  the Proposed Service Area is
estimated to be 1,094, increasing to about 6,344 in  the  vacation season.
The  projected  (year  2000) population   is  1,805  permanent  residents and
7,555  total residents.

-------
Pelican >
 Rapids
               OTTER  TAIL  COUNTY
   Fergus
     Falls,
                                      Otlertail
                                                Parkers
                                                 Prairie
    FICURF,  I-]    LOCATION OF THE OTTKR 'I'M L STUDY  ARFA
                  2

-------
FIGURE 1-2   PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE AREA, OTTER TAIL STUDY AREA
                           LEGEND
               L_lJ
PROPOSED SEWER  SERVICE AREA
                                                                   MILES

-------
3.   HISTORY OF  THE  CONSTRUCTION GRANT APPLICATION
     Water quality problems and wastewater management  needs  of  the  Study
Area have  for several years  been a  concern  of both area  citizens and
governmental  agencies.   The  following  chronology  lists  actions  taken
before and  during the preparation  of this Environmental Impact State-
ment.
August 1969
February 1969-
March 1976
January 1974


June 1975
July  1975


August 1975


August 28, 1975


November  10, 1975



January 26, 1976

March 10,  1976


June  1976
"Report on the Otter  Tail  River System above  Fergus
Falls," prepared by the  Minnesota  Pollution Control
Agency, Division of Water Quality.

Water  quality  samples taken by  the City  of  Fergus
Falls at the request of the Otter Tail  Lake Property
Owners  Association   to   measure   total   coliform
bacteria.

"Load  Allocation  Study,  Otter Tail River  Segment,"
prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Notification of  intent to apply for Step  1 Facili-
ties   Planning   Grant  received   by   West Central
Regional  Development  Commission  from  Otter  Tail
County.

Final  review  by the  West  Central  Regional Develop-
ment  Commission  in  regard to  above  notifications.

Final  review by  the  Minnesota  State Planning  Agency
of proposal to apply for Step 1 Grant.

Minnesota  Pollution  Control Agency  (MPCA)  receives
Step  1 Grant  application  form  Otter  Tail County.

Step  1 Grant  offer verified by the Minnesota  Pollu-
tion  Control Agency  and  forwarded to Region V of US
Environmental  Protection  Agency  (EPA)  Region  V.

EPA Region V makes Step 1 Grant offer.

Public meeting on development of a sewage facilities
plan  for the Otter Tail Lake area.

Ulteig  Engineers  complete  engineering  study  and
environmental  assessment  of  wastewater  management
alternatives, "Facility  Plan,  Otter Tail Lake Area,
Otter  Tail County, Minnesota."
June  26, 1976
Public  hearing  on the proposed Facility Plan, Otter
Tail Lake Area, Otter Tail County, Minnesota.

-------
July 12, 1976


July 1976



July 20, 1976


January 1977


March 18, 1977


June 1977


July 1977


October 1977
Otter  Tail  County  Board  of Commissioners  approves
Otter Tail Lake Facility Plan.

The  Otter  Tail  Lake  Property  Owners  Association
petitions the  County to establish a  sewer  district
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter  116A.

Minnesota  Pollution  Control  Agency   receives   the
Facility Plan.

Otter  Tail  County applies for additional Grant  for
Needs Documentation.

EPA  Region  V  approves  additional  grant for Needs
Documentation.

MPCA requests EPA  to consider  preparing  an  Environ-
mental Impact Statement.

Declaration  of  intent  to  prepare an  EIS  by  EPA
Region V.

WAPORA,  Inc.,  begins work  on the EIS  for the Otter
Tail Lake area.
August 1978         EIS public information meeting.

4.   THE  OTTER TAIL LAKE  AREA  FACILITY PLAN

     In June  1976 the  Otter Tail  Lake Facility Plan was completed and
subsequently  submitted  to EPA Region  V  by Otter Tail County acting as
the  applicant  for  funding  under the  EPA Construction Grants Program.
The  Plan,  proposing  construction  of  new  wastewater  collection  and
treatment  facilities, was developed  for  the Otter Tail County Board of
Commissioners by Ulteig Engineers,  Inc.,  of Fargo,  North Dakota.

     Centralized collection and treatment by waste  stabilization lagoons
was  selected  as the  Facility Plan  Proposed Action  because it proved the
most cost-effective of the two final alternatives considered.

a.   Existing  Wastewater  Treatment  Facilities

     The  entire  Proposed  Service Area  including the  unincorporated City
of Otter  Tail,  the  developed shores of Otter Tail Lake and the smaller
surrounding lakes (Walker, Long, Blanche, Round and  Deer) are served by
on-site systems.   A thorough investigation of  existing on-site systems
will not be completed until  late  August 1979.  However, it is known that
the types  of on-site systems  include septic tank-soil  absorption systems
(ST/SAS),   holding tanks,  cesspools  and leaching pits, many not meeting
the minimum requirements of  the County's  Shoreland  Management Ordinance.

-------
b.    Existing  Problems   With  Water  Quality   and  Wastewater
     Treatment  Facilities

     As a preliminary  step  in  the  development of wastewater management
alternatives, the Facility Plan cites  the following problems:

     •    Highly permeable sandy soil, small  lot sizes and a seasonally
          high water table may  allow  inadequately treated wastewater to
          reach surface water and groundwater.

     •    At least three times  in the  past, total coliform counts at the
          outlet from  Otter Tail Lake  have been  too  numerous to count.
          Monthly coliform counts at this location indicated a jump from
          zero  colonies  per 100 ml.  in the  winter  to  summer  high of
          400-500 colonies per  100  ml.

     •    High  nitrate concentrations have  been found  locally  in the
          groundwater.

     «    Many septic  tanks  and their drainfields are totally submerged
          in groundwater.

     «    Many  older  on-site   systems  violate  the  Otter  Tail County
          Shoreland  Management Ordinance  for elevation  above  ground-
          water, setback from lakes or absorption areas.

     t    Sanitary  sewage should  be  collected  by  a  sewer system en-
          circling  Otter Tail Lake  and  serving  Lake  Blanche (north
          shore),  Walker  Lake   (south  shore),  Long  Lake  (south shore),
          Round Lake and Deer Lake.

 c.  Proposed Solutions:   Alternatives  Addressed in the
     Facility Plan

     The  Facility  Plan developed  four alternative wastewater management
 plans  to  meet  effluent requirements and alleviate problems  of the exist-
 ing treatment  systems.  Selection  of  the Proposed Action was based  upon
 a comparison  of  costs,  environmental impacts,  reliability, and imple-
 mentability.

     The  facility  planners developed two sets of design flows: one based
 upon population  projections  for 1996; the other upon the  total popula-
 tion resulting if all available land were developed.   Wastewater  flows
 of 65 gallons per capita per  day (gpcd)  included  infiltration/inflow*
 for both  winter and summer.  This represents  an average yearly  flow of
 254,367  gallons  per day and a  peak flow  of  563,420  gal/day.  Table 1-1
 presents  the  projected  wastewater  flows  for  1976,   1996 and   full
 development.

-------
                               Table 1-1
            PROJECTED 1996 AND FULL DEVELOPMENT WASTEWATER
               FLOWS, OTTER TAIL LAKE STUDY,  OTTER TAIL
                        LAKE AREA FACILITY PLAN
Winter Population

Max. Summer Population

Winter Flow


Summer Flow
1976 (Present)

  1,114

  6,288

 72,410 gal/day


408,720 gal/day
  1996

  1,506

  8,500

 97,890
  gal/day

552,500
  gal/day
  Full Development

  1,536

  8,668

 99,840
  gal/day

563,840
  gal/day
     The Facility  Plan  considered the following elements to develop its
alternatives:

     •    Collection systems,
     •    Wastewater treatment and disposal, and
     •    Discharge  standard  of  1 mg/1 phosphorus  for  Otter Tail Lake.

     The  Facility  Plan  considered the advantages and disadvantages of
gravity  and low pressure collector sewers,  concluding  a  combination of
the two would best serve the Proposed Service Area.  It did not consider
sludge disposal options or flow reduction measures in the Facility Plan.

     The  four  wastewater  management  alternatives  developed  by  the
Facility Plan were:

     Alternative No 1.  Septic tank-soil  absorption systems in conjunc-
tion with holding tanks.

     Alternative No. 2.  A  central  collection  system  with  wastewater
treatment   at  an  activated  sludge  treatment  plant  with  phosphorus
removal.

     Alternative No. 3.  A  central  collection system  with treatment by
stabilization  ponds  and a  single land  application site.   The facility
would be located in Amor Township (Section 32) about one-third mile from
Otter Tail  Lake.

     Alternative No. 4.  A   central   collection   system  with  multiple
stabilization ponds and two land application sites.

     Table  1-2  shows  the  Facilty  Plan  estimated  project construction
costs,  operation  and  maintenance costs,  salvage  values  and  the total
present  worth for each  of the four  alternatives.   An  interest rate of

-------
                                 TABLE 1-2

    PRESENT WORTH OF ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSED IN THE OTTER TAIL FACILITY PLAN
PRESENT WORTH

Capital Cost

  Collection
  Treatment

Pumping

Operation &
Maintenance

  Collection
  Treatment

Design & Plans

  Collection
  Treatment

Hook-up

  Collection

Salvage Value
   Alternative
      No.  1

$2,110,683.48
 A,181,383.11
    80,5^1.22
Alternative
   No. 2
Alternative
   No. 3
Alternative
   No. 4
                $3,577,949.72  $3,577,949.72  $3,570,374.20
                   481,000.00     657,390.33     720,752.50
                   355,869.10
                   533.638.00
                355,869.10
                193,018.00
                355,869.10
                193,018,00
                   286,235.98     286,235.98     286,235.98
                    38,480.00      34,442.32      34,442.32
                   600,461.04     600,461.04     600,461.04

    -none-           -none-          -none-        -none-
  TOTAL
$6,372,607.81   $5,873,633.84  $5,705,366.49  $5,761,153.14

-------
6-1/8% and a  20-year  planning  period were used to develop  the  costs  in
the table.

d.    The Facility  Plan Proposed Action

     Alternative No.  3 was  selected  as the most  reasonable  method  of
treatment  and  disposal based on water  quality  objectives,  reliability,
operability  and implementability.    The alternatives  included  a basic
gravity  sewer  collection  system,  augmented by grinder  pumps  and low
pressure  sewers.   The Facility Plan recommended construction of  treat-
ment  capacity  in  three phases  from 1977  through  1982.   The  effluent
would be treated in stabilization ponds  and applied to  the land  by spray
irrigation.  The proposed  site  was  located in  Section 32 of Amor Town-
ship on the west shore of Otter Tail Lake.
B.   ISSUES OF THIS  EIS

     The  Environmental  Protection Agency's review of the Facility  Plan
Proposed  Action  identified  the  following  issues  as  warranting  the prep-
aration of this EIS.

1.   COST EFFECTIVENESS

     The  total  present  worth  for the Facility Plan Proposed Action was
estimated  as  $5.7  million.   This amounts  to an investment of $700 per
person and $2,415 per existing dwelling unit within  the  Proposed  Service
Area.

     The  collection system recommended in the Facility Plan  was esti-
mated  to cost  $4.8 million  -- 84%  of  the  total cost  of the Proposed
Action.   The  impact of  the  cost  of the collection system on  the local
community  may  be  greater  than  the  cost  for other  components  of the
project  since  MPCA does  not  usually assign  fundable  priorities  to
collection  systems.   Although the  use  of ST/SAS and holding  tanks was
considered  as  an  alternative  by  the Facility Plan  Engineers,   this
alternative was  ruled out on the basis of  reliability.

2.   IMPACTS  ON WATER QUALITY

     The  likely water  quality  impacts  of  the  Facility Plan Proposed
Action  and alternatives  were  not  satisfactorily  addressed   in  the
Plan.  Of principal concern to the applicant were further eutrophication
and  bacterial  contamination  of  Otter Tail Lake and impacts on  ground-
water  quality.   Although the Facility Plan  presented indirect evidence
that there may be water quality problems,  claims  of  a  connection  between
deteriorating  water quality  and inadequately functioning septic  systems
have  not been  documented.   In addition,   claims of possible hazards  to
public  health were not  fully substantiated.  Therefore, it is  not yet
clear that the proposed level of resource  commitment would be necessary.

-------
3.   ECONOMIC  IMPACT

     The estimated user  charge for  the  Facility Plan Proposed Action was
$170 per  year for each  residence  or  residential  equivalent  in the new
sewer service area around  Otter  Tail Lake.  This  charge would amount to
1.4% of the permanent residents'  average  annual income.  Otter Tail Lake
Proposed  Sewer  Service  Area  homeowners  would  pay an  initial  $970 for
stub fee* and connection  charge to a  gravity  sewer.   In addition, the
homeowner would  pay  for installation  of a house  sewer  connecting his
household plumbing with  the public  sewer.

     The  effect  of these sewerage  costs  could  be  to encourage seasonal
and fixed income residents  to sell  their  properties or  in some instances
to convert from seasonal use to permanent residency.

4.   INDUCED GROWTH AND SECONDARY IMPACTS

     Shoreline  sewer  availability  could  allow construction of dwelling
units at  slightly higher densities  than is currently feasible.  However,
most  of  the  shoreline   is already developable without  provisions for
centralized  treatment.   Undeveloped lots  along the  shoreline indicate
that there is some potential for increased development.  Although second
tier land is available for  development, this  type  is not likely to  occur
to a significant extent  during the planning period,  while more desire-
able lakeshore lots are  available throughout  the region.

     In particular, increased housing  construction along shoreline  areas
could  accelerate soil erosion which,  in turn, would  increase nutrient
input to  Otter Tail Lake and sewered areas of  the  smaller lakes.
C.   NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE RURAL SEWERING PROBLEM

     These  EIS issues discussed above  are not  unique  to the proposed
plan in  the Otter Tail Lake Study Area.   Similar concerns are  raised by
the  many   wastewater  projects  for  rural  and  developing  communities
recently  submitted  to EPA  for funding.   The  scope  of the problem has
grown  through  several  years of mounting controversy  over  the high  costs
and  possible impacts  of  providing  conventional sewerage  facilities to
small  communities across the country.

1.  SOCIOECONOMICS

     To  assess  the  cost  burden that many proposed wastewater collection
projects would impose  on small communities and the reasons for the high
costs, EPA  studied  over  250 facilities plans  from 49 states  for pending
projects  for  communities  under 50,000  population (Dearth 1977).   EPA
found  that  even with substantial State and Federal construction grants,
the  costs   of  conventional  sewering  are  sometimes  prohibitive for
families in rural and semi-rural areas.   This  was particularly true for
those  communities where  the  new  facilities   proposed  would  result in
annual user charges exceeding $200 per household.
                                   10

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

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

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

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

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

     The collection  system  is chiefly  responsible for the high costs of
conventional sewerage  facilities  for small communities.  Typically, 80%
or  more of the  total  capital  cost for  newly serviced  rural  areas  is
spent for collection.  Figure  1-3 indicates that the costs per residence
for   gravity   sewers   increase  exponentially  as   population  density
decreases.  Primary  factors  contributing to this cost/density relation-
ship were:

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

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

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

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

     Besides  the  comparatively  high  costs of sewers,  facilities were
sometimes found  to be overly expensive  due  to:

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

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

     •    Abandonment   of  existing  treatment  works  witnout  economic
          justification.
                                    11

-------
                               Figure  1-3
                40
              5 30


              1
                10
                            *     6     9    10     12

                           Population 0«M4ty. p«fsom/aer*

                           Monthly Cost Of Gravity S*wars
                                                        14
Dearth,  K.H.  1977.   In proceedings of EPA national conference on
   less  costly wastewater treatment systems  for small communities,
   A-pril 12-14, 1977,  Reston, VA..
                                   12

-------
2.   SECONDARY  IMPACTS

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

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

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

     Secondary impacts of new wastewater facilities  may be  highly 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.

3.    THE  NEED  FOR MANAGEMENT OF  DECENTRALIZED ALTERNATIVE
     SYSTEMS

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

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

     The  management  element  consists  of  continuing  supervision of the
systems'  installation,   maintenance,   rehabilitation  and  appropriate
monitoring of the systems'  environmental  impacts.
                                   13

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

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

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

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

     •    Establish  a  comprehensive  program  to  regulate  and inspect
          on-site  systems,  including   periodic  testing  of  existing
          potable  water  wells  and,  where  numerous   on-site  systems
          exists, more extensive monitoring of  aquifers;  and

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

     In  some  cases, municipal  implementation of these requirements may
be  hindered  by  lack of State enabling  legislation for small waste flow
management districts  and by  lack of adequately trained  manpower.  The
municipality  may have no control over the former and be at a disadvant-
age  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   II  funding  of the  Facility Plan  Proposed
Action.   Based upon  this  review, the  Agency  will take one of several
actions:

                                    14

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

     •     With the applicant's and State's  concurrence, approve Step II
          funding   for  an  alternative  to  the  Facility  Plan  Proposed
          Action,  as presented  in  this  EIS;

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

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

2.   APPROACH

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

a.   Review of  Available  Data

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

b.   Segment Analysis

     As a  basis  for revised population projections and for development
of alternatives, the Proposed Service Area  was partitioned  into a number
of segments.  The  number of dwellings  in each segment was  counted from
aerial  photographs.    Information  on  occupancy  rates  and breakdown of
permanent  and seasonal  residents  for each  segment  was  provided by local
residents.  Available  information  on soils,  depth  to groundwater, water
quality problems, environmentally sensitive areas  and land  use capabili-
ties  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
projections.
                                   15

-------
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
technologies and  the alternatives are  described  in  Chapter  III.   The
alternatives and their costs are  presented  in Chapter  IV.

     Steps  were  taken  to  insure  comparability  of  design  and costs
between  the  new  areawide  alternatives  developed for the EIS  and  the
alternative recommended  by the Facility  Plan.  These steps included some
minor  reworking  of the Facility  Plan's alternative but maintained its
basic  configuration.  The term "Facility Plan  Proposed Action"  as used
in  the  remainder  of  this  EIS  identifies  the  modified  Facility Plan
alternative, not the original proposed.

e.   Estimation of  Costs for Alternatives

     To  assure  cost  comparability  among  the  Facility  Plan Proposed
Action  and EIS  Alternatives,  all alternatives were  designed  to  serve a
fixed design year population.  Total  present worth and local user charge
estimates  were  based  upon  unit  costs listed in  a separate engineering
report  (Arthur  Beard  Engineers,  Inc. 1978). Also to  assure comparabil-
ity, grinder pumps  recommended in  the Facility  Plan were replaced with
effluent  pumps  which  receive  and  pump  septic tank effluent.   Effluent
pumps were used to cost all alternatives.

f.   Evaluation of  the Alternatives

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

g.   Needs Documentation

     Although there is evidence that many on-site  systems  are  improperly
located  and  designed, there  is  no  documentation that  existing  on-site
systems  are  resulting  in  widespread  public  health  or  water   quality
problems.  Because determination of eligibility  for  Federal funding  of a
substantial portion of  the  Facility  Plan Proposed Action would  be based
on  the   documentation  of  these  impacts,   the   following supplemental
studies  were completed or scheduled  for completion by the end  of summer,
1979:

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

                                   16

-------
     •     estimation of  the  existing Otter  Tail  Lake nutrient budget;

     •     a  groundwater  hydrology study to  determine groundwater  flow
          direction with  respect  to  Otter Tail  Lake;

     •     a  "Septic  Snooper" survey  to locate and  sample septic  tank
          leachate  plumes   entering  Service  Area   lakes   from   nearby
          on-site  systems.   A resurvey using  the  "septic snooper"  is
          scheduled for late summer  1979;

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

     •     a  sanitary  survey to  determine  the  types  of  on-site systems
          and   the  nature  and  extent  of  problems  with  these systems;
          scheduled  for  completion  by  the  end of  the  summer  of  1979.

     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 of any new  sewers
around  Otter Tail Lake for  Federal funding.

3.   MAJOR  CRITERIA  FOR  EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

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

a.   Cost

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

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

     No assumptions were made in this EIS  about frontage  fees or hook-up
charges by  the municipalities.   Therefore,  the user  charges reported for
                                   17

-------
the EIS  Alternatives  are not  directly  comparable  to those reported in
the Facility  Plan, where  each  newly sewered  residence  would  pay in
connection and stub fees.

     Some homeowners  may  incur costs payable  directly to  contractors.
Installation of gravity house  sewers  on  private land and renovation or
replacement of  privately  owned  on-lot  systems  for  seasonally occupied
dwellings are not  eligible  for Federal  funding and are seldom financed
by municipalities.  These private  costs  are identified  for  each  altern-
ative.

b.    Significant   Environmental  and  Socioeconomic   Impacts

     The  system selected  for  the  Proposed Service  Area would  impact
environmental  and  socioeconomic   resources  within  the  Study Area.
Following  a comprehensive  review  of possible  impacts  of the Facility
Plan Proposed Action  and  the EIS Alternatives,  several  types  of  impacts
warranted in-depth evaluation and discussion in this  EIS.  These  impacts
are:

     •    Surface Water Quality Impacts,
     •    Groundwater Impacts,
     o    Environmentally Sensitive Areas,  and
     «    Economic Impacts.

They are discussed in Chapter V.

c.   Reliability

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

d.   Flexibility

     Flexibility  allows an  alternative  to  accommodate increasing waste-
water  flows  from future development in  the  Proposed Service  Area. To
demonstrate  the  relative  levels  of  investment for  different  alterna-
tives,  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  developable  using on-lot
systems  or  the  ability  to  increase  treatment  plant  capacity  might
significantly effect  future development  in the Study Area.   Chapter III
discusses  the  capability  of  the  alternatives to accomodate increased
wastewater  flows.   Chapter  V projects the effects of alternative flexi-
bility on population  grcwth.
                                   18

-------
                              CHAPTER II

                        ENVIRONMENTAL  SETTING
A.   PHYSICAL  SETTING

1.   PHYSIOGRAPHY

     The retreat of  the  last  continental glacier over 10,000 years ago
produced the Study Area's  gently  rolling landscape  of lakes  and glacial
outwash* areas.  The  features  of  the Study Area  (see Figure  II-l) have
been modified only slightly by post-glacial erosional* processes.

     The land within the Study Area generally slopes westward toward the
Otter Tail River.  Topographic  elevations  range from 1250 to 1400 feet
above  mean sea  level  (msl).   Highest  elevations  are found  north  of
Walker Lake and west of Lake Blanche.  These smaller lakes, Walker, Long
and  Blanche,  are a  few  feet  higher in elevation than Otter Tail Lake.
The  lakeshore  areas  are  low  lying; the  southwest  shore  of Otter Tail
Lake  contains   an  extensive low-lying  wetland.   The  area  between the
Otter Tail River  inlet on the northeast shore and Walker  Lake is nearly
level  with intermittent patches  of small wetland  areas  (United States
Geological Survey (USGS) 1973).

     Most  Study Area  slopes are less than 5%.  Hilly areas  between the
lakes  approach, but  rarely exceed,  12%.  Steep  slopes over 15%,  con-
sidered  sensitive  to  development  because  they  are  subject to severe
erosion during construction, are uncommon (see Figure II-l).

     The Otter  Tail  River drains  the Study Area, flowing  west through
Otter Tail Lake and  Deer Lake and  eventually  reaching the Red River of
the North.  A small section along the eastern boundary of  the Study Area
is within the Upper Mississippi River drainage basin.

2.   GEOLOGY

a.   Bedrock  Geology

     Bedrock  below  the  Study Area  is  among the oldest  rock known  on
earth.  The  igneous*  basalts,  granites and gabbros  underlying the Study
Area were  formed  between 2.6  and 2.7 billion years  ago.   Metamorphosed*
igneous and sedimentary* rocks of Pre-Cambrian* age  may also  lie beneath
the  Study Area  (Reeder  1972).   Rock  of  Cretaceous* age,  composed  of
sandstone  and  shale  with traces of limestone, clay, and lignite, covers
the  Pre-Cambrian  basement  material  at the northern  edge  of the Study
Area.   A  geologic  cross-section  illustrating  the  position  of bedrock
material  in  relationship to the overlying glacial deposits is shown in
Figure II-2.
                                   19

-------

FIGURE 1T.-1    TOPOCTIAPHY OF THE OTTER TAIL  STUDY AREA
                           LEGEND
                                                                  MILES
                                                      0       I      2



                                                   Source: USGS 1973
                          20

-------
                LOCATION OF CROSS SKCTION WITHIN STUDY AREA
                                 LEGEND


                    SAND AND GRAVEL (OUTWASH AQUIFER)


                    CLAY


                    UNDIFFERENTIATED GLACIAL DRIFT  (LOWER AQUIFER)


                    PRECAMBRIAN CRYSTALLINE ROCKS
                                                                   15OO
        900
        FEET
                         Source: Winter  et.al.  1969
                                                  FEET
FIGURE II-2
GEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION SHOWING THE EXTENT OF MAJOR AQUIFER
        SYSTEMS OF THE OTTER TAIL STUDY AREA
                               21

-------
b.   Surficial  Geology

     The Study Area was  once subject to the depositional and  erosional
processes of continental  glaciation.   The  bedrock is covered by a  layer
of  undifferentiated  glacial  drift* approximately  200  feet thick  laid
down by  great  ice  sheets which transported rock debris, gravel,  sand,
and  clay.   This  ice   sheet  retreated and  melted,  depositing   sand  and
gravel particles.   These stratified outwash* deposits cover the undif-
ferentiated drift at depths of 50 to 100 feet (Winter et  al.  1969).   The
outwash material  is thick and permeable and is the  principal  source of
groundwater within the Otter Tail  River watershed (see Section II.B.2).
Figure II-2  also shows  a cross-section of surficial geology  the  Study
Area.

     Many Minnesota lakes were  also formed by glacial processes.  After
the  glacier retreated,   ice  blocks  deposited  by  the  glacier  melted,
forming basins and  pits,  many later filling with  water.   A  wide variety
of  surface  depressions  was   thus  created, many  them lakes like  those
within the Study Area  (Minnesota Planning Agency 1969).

3.   SOILS

a.   Overview

     Information on soils in the Study Area comes  from two sources.   The
University  of  Minnesota  Department  of  Soil Science published a  Soil
Atlas  of Otter  Tail   County (1969)  containing  information  about  the
major  soil  series  found  in the  Study  Area.  Figure  II-3 shows  this
information.

     The  Soil  Conservation Service of the  US Department  of Agriculture
(SCS) has  compiled  information  on Study Area soils, but  not published a
detailed  soil  survey.   To  obtain  site-specific data for this EIS,  SCS
surveyed  specific  key  sites  within the Proposed Service Area, shown in
Figures II-4 through II-6.

b.   Soil Series  in the Study  Area

     Study  Area  soils were  originally deposited as  layers  of sand and
gravel  (see  Section II.A.2.b).   According to the Soil Atlas, 90% of the
Study Area  contains moderately  excessive  to excessively  drained  sandy
soils.   SCS  concurs  that   in  general  Study Area soils  have  rapid
permeability.

     The  detailed descriptions  of  soil  series in  the  Otter  Tail  Lake
area  presented  in Table  II-l are  based  on the  SCS survey (by letter,
Jerry Neseth,  SCS,  October 1978) and the Soil Atlas  (1969).  The series
can be grouped by location within the Study Area as follows:

     •    The  eastern  section  contains rapidly  permeable,  excessively
          drained, sandy  loam soils underlain by coarse sand and gravel.
          The Salida,  Sioux, and Hubbard soil series are found through-
          out this area  (SCS  1974-1977).
                                   22

-------
                                     •-*"^*»_-—^•^A^'iAAJ'^.* £ ^J^^J^^f^^j^j^J^j^^^^

                                            "
FTCOJRK  11-1    SOI
LANDSCAPES  IN  THE  OTTER TAIL  STUDY AREA
     SALIDA-STOUX-ffUBBARD
       (Sandy over sandy,
       well  drained soils)
     UNNAMED (Sandy over
       sandy, poorly drain-
       ed soils)
     ESTERVILLE-ARVILLA
       (Loamy over sandy,
       well  drained soils)
     MARQUETTE-LENG BY
       (Deep silcy or Loamy,
       well  drained soils)
                     PEAT  (Organic soils)

                     NEBISH-MARQUETTE-TODD
                       (Sandy over sandy,
                       well drained soils)
                     UNNAMED (Loamy over
                       mixed sandy, and
                       loamy, well drained
                       soils)
MILES
                                             Source:   University
                                               of Minnesota 1969
                                  23

-------
FIGURE I1-4   SOLL LIMITATIONS FOR ON-SITE SYSTEMS FOR  SELECTED  SITES
                 IN THE OTTER TAIL STUDY AREA  (SITES  1&2)
                                   LEGEND

                             ! SLIGHT LIMITATIONS

                              MODERATE LIMITATIONS

                              SEVERE LIMITATIONS
            MILES
Source: USDA-SCS
        Undated
                               24

-------
FIGURE II-5   SOIL LIMITATIONS FOR  ON-SITE  SYSTEMS  FOR SELECTED SITES
                 IN THE OTTER TAIL  STUDY  AREA (SITES  3&4)
                                     LEGEND

                             11  SLIGHT LIMITATIONS

                                MODERATE LIMITATIONS

                                SEVERE LIMITATIONS
            MILES
 0       I       2
Source: USDA-SCS
        Undated
                             25

-------
FIGURE 11-6   SOIL LIMITATIONS  FOR ON-SITE SYSTEMS FOR SELECTED SITES
                 IN THE OTTER TAIL STUDY AREA (SITES 5&6)
                           •:••.
     LEGEND

SLIGHT LIMITATIONS

MODERATE LIMITATIONS

SEVERE LIMITATIONS
                                                                        MILES
                                                            Source:  USDA-SCS
                                                                    Undated
                            26

-------
Soil Series
                                                                                          Table  II-l

                                                                     DESCRIPTION OF SOIL SERIES  WITH BASIC CHARACTERISTICS
                                 Description
                                                              Percent  of
                                                              Study  Area
 Depth
(Inches)
Permeability
 Inches/Hr.
   Depth
  to High
Water Table
 (Inches)
      Limltat iontf
      for On-Slce
Waste Disposal Systems
 Depth
  to
Bedrock
(Inches)
Esthetvllle
Arvllla
Salida
Sioux
Hubbard
Due In
Isan
Marsh and
Feat
Lake Beaches
Deep, excessively drained,
sandy loam underlain by
sand and gravel
Well drained, sandy loam
underlain by gray-brown
sand and gravel
Shallow, excessively drained,
gravelly sandy loam
Excessively drained,
loamy sand underlain by
sand and gravel
Excessively drained
loamy sand, underlain
by sand
Poorly drained, loamy
sand underlain by
coarse Sand
Very poorly drained sandy
loam underlain by coarse
sand. High organic
content
Shallow lakes, ponds,
and sloughs which
support aquatic life.
Soil In peaty muck
or loamy mineral soil.
Mixed soil. Mostly
sand and gravel. Poorly
drained.
30X

55Z
10Z
<5X
<5I
0 - 13
13 - 18
18 - 60
0-7
7-16
16 - 60
0-8
8-12
12-60
0-8
8-60
0 - U
14 - 60
0-11
11 - 42
42 - 60
0-16
16 - 22
22 - 60
Variable
0-60
2.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 6.0
6.0 - 2.0
2.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 6.0
>6.0
6.0 - 20
>20
>20
2.0 - 6.0
>6.0
>6.0
>6.0
>6.0
>6.0
>6.0
>6.0
>6.0
>6.0
Variable
Variable
_ 	 __-_ 	 	
>72
>72
'72
>72
>72
24 - 60
0-36
0-4
12 - 48
Slight
Moderate - Slopes
Severe - Slopes, rapid
Permeability
Slight
Moderate - Slope
Severe - Slopes, rapid
Permeabil icy
Slight
Moderate - Slope
Severe - Slopes, rapid
Permeability
Slight
Moderate - Slouco
Severe - Slopes, rapid
Permeability
Slight
Moderate - Slope
Severe - Slope,
Permeability
Moderate - High
Water Table,
Permeabl 1 1 ty
Severe - poor
Drainage, Permeability
Shallow Depth to
Water Table
Severe - High
Water Table
Severe - Shallow
Water Table,
Variable Permeability,
Flooding
>60
>60
>60
>60
>60
>60
>60
Variable

   NJ
   •vj

-------
Foroda

Fordville
Markey
Clontarf
Svcrdrup
Allevlal
Land
Poorly drained sandy
loom underlain by

Well drained loam
underlain by sand
and gravel
Very poorly drained,
muck surface layer
underlain by sand
Well drained sandy
loam underlain by
sand
Excessively drained
sandy loan, underlain
by sand
Mixed poorly cloud
soil material deposited
by rivers and streams
<5Z

<5*
<5Z
<5X
<5I
<5%
0-16
16 - 28
*>8 - 60

0-6
6-24
24 - 60
0-32
32 - 60
0-15
15 - 25
25 - 60
0-12
12 - 24
24 - 60
0-60
2.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 6.0
>6.0

0.6 - 2.0
0.6 - 2.0
>6.0
0.2 - 6.0
>6.0
2.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 6.0
>6.0
2.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 6.0
>6.0
Variable
12 - 72

>72
0-12
36 - 60
>72
12 - 60
Moderate - Permeability
Shallow Water Table,
Severe - Permeability,
High Hater Table
Moderate - Permeability
Severe - High
Water Table,
Penoe ability
Moderate - High
Water Table,
Permeability
Moderate - Slope,
Permeability
Severe - Flooding
High Water Table
>60

>60
>60
>60
>60
>60
Source:  USDA - SCS, 1974-1977
         University of Minnesota, Soil Atals 1969
     fo
     O>

-------
     •    The   western   section   also  is   characterized   by  rapidly
         permeable,  excessively  drained,  sandy loam soils underlain by
         sand  and  gravel.   The  Arvilla  and  Estherville  soil series
         predominate  in  this area  (SCS  1974-1977).

     •    The  low-lying section between  Otter Tail Lake and Lake Blanche
         has  sandy, poorly drained  soils  with a seasonally high water
         table.   The major soil series within this  area have not been
         identified (University  of Minnesota 1969).

     •    The  section bordering Otter Tail  River between  Otter Tail Lake
         and  Deer Lake  has poorly drained,  marshy organic soils.  The
         organic peat series predominate here  (SCS 1977).

     •    Much of the  shore area along  Otter Tail Lake is composed of a
         mixed sandy and gravel  soil.   Seasonal  water table ranges from
          12 inches to 48 inches and the soils are poorly-to-moderately
         well drained.   The  Lake Beaches  soil series  predominates in
          the  shoreline areas  (SCS  1977).

     •    The   south  central section of the shoreline   contains poorly
          drained, loamy  sands  underlain by coarse  sand.  Seasonal water
          table in this  area ranges  from 0 to  60 inches. The Beulm and
          Isan soil series are  present in this  area  (SCS  1977).

     •    Marsh soils  are found  in the  various wetlands south of Otter
          Tail  Lake  between   the   Otter   Tail River  outlet  and  Lake
          Blanche.

     •     Recently deposited materials (alluvial''" soils)  are  found along
          Balmoral  Creek and  the  Otter Tail  River.   These are poorly
          drained silt loams and  clay loams (SCS  1977).

c.   Soil  Suitability for  On-Site  Disposal Systems

     Successful treatment and  disposal of municipal wastewater by septic
tank soil  absorption systems  depends on site  conditions.  A discussion
of  the  importance of  soil  characteristics  for on-site  wastewater dis-
posal systems  is  presented  in  Appendix A-l.  The factors considered in
determining site suitability include:

          Depth to bedrock,
          Depth of water-bearing  strata,
          Elevation of seasonally high water table,
          Rate of permeability of the soils,  and
          Gradient of the terrain.

     Appendix A-2  lists  specific  criteria  used by  SCS  for  each  of these
factors placing  slight,  moderate  or severe limitations on  the use of
on-site systems.  The soils suitability for specific  sites mapped by SCS
is  shown in Figures II-4 through 11-6.   The upland soils,  set back from
the  shoreline, are generally suitable for on-site disposal  systems; they
are  not restricted by the high water table  as are soils  along  the  shore-
line.  Highly permeable  soils  and a high water table  restrict  the use of
                                    29

-------
   NORTHWEST
     SHORE
TREATMENT SITE
                                                SOUTH SHORE
                                              TREATMENT SITE
      FIGURE 11-7
PROPOSED LOCATION OF LAND APPLICATION SITES WITHIN
       THE OTTER TAIL STUDY  AREA
                              sis!
                                        LEGEND

                                  PROPOSED  LAND  APPLICATION SITES
                                                                               MILES
                                                                    0       '      2

                                                              Source: Kerfoot  1979
                                       30

-------
on-site  systems  along  approximately one-half  of the  Otter Tail  Lake
shoreline (by correspondence,  Ulteig Engineers to James  Warner,  MPCA,  14
March 1977).

d.   Soil  Suitability for  Land Application

     While  major  factors determining soil  suitability  for  land  appli-
cation resemble those for on-site systems, the specific  criteria differ.
Appendix  A-3  shows  specific  criteria   for  land  application  by  spray
irrigation  and rapid  infiltration.   Soils  suitability were among  the
criteria used  in  selecting  the suitable land application sites  shown in
Figure II-7.

e.   Prime Agricultural  Lands

     The SCS has established guidelines  for a national program  to  inven-
tory prime  and unique  farmland,  as well as other farmlands of  statewide
or  local  importance  (42 F.R.,  23 August 1977).  Any  action  (such  as
construction  of  interceptor   sewers,  highways,  buildings)  tending  to
impair  the  productivity of   agricultural  land  is  of   concern to  SCS
because  it  may reduce  capacity to produce food, fiber,  feed, forage and
other  crops.   The SCS,  in  cooperation  with  interested  State and  local
agencies,  is inventorying these lands to determine the potential effects
of  construction  and  development.   Because  the  Otter Tail  County  Soil
Survey has  not yet been completed by SCS, no land around Otter  Tail has
been  officially  designated  as prime or  unique agricultural lands  (by
telephone,  Jerry  Nesseth,  SCS, 23 October 1978).  However,  a number  of
farms  in  the  northeast and  western portions  of  Otter Tail Lake  have
historically produced  high  yields of potatoes.  Upon completion  of the
SCS  soil survey,   these  farmlands  should be  designated as  prime  agri-
cultural   land  (by   telephone,   Lawrence  Streif,  County  Agriculture
Extension Agent, 20 October 1978).

4.   ATMOSPHERE

a.   Climate

     The  continental  climate  of  the Otter Tail  Lake  area  is character-
ized  by  relatively   long  cold  winters   and  warm comfortable  summers.
Appendix B-l summarized  climatological data.

     Neither the  United States Department of  Commerce  nor the  National
Oceanic  and Atmospheric Administration  (NOAA)  maintains a weather  sta-
tion in  the Otter  Tail Lake Study Area.   Those nearest to the Study Area
are  in Fergus  Falls  and Wadena  (16 miles southwest and  22 miles east of
Otter  Tail  Lake,  respectively).   Data   from  these  stations have  been
averaged  to approximate climatological  values for the  Otter Tail  Lake
area.  This approach is  reasonable, as the Study Area lies approximately
midway between Fergus  Falls and Wadena,  and  the elevation of  all three
areas  is similar.

     Temperature.  Study Area temperatures  show a wide seasonal  varia-
tion.  The average annual  temperature at the Study Area is 41.5°F,  with
an  average  maximum  temperature  of  73.5°P  during July and an average
                                   31

-------
minimum  temperature  of 9.6°F  during  January.   Cold,  arctic  air masses
occasionally drop  temperatures  to  -30°F (NOAA 1973).  Warm, moist trop-
ical  air masses from  the  Gulf of  Mexico can  cause summer temperature
high  of  115°F  (West  Central  Regional  Development  Commission  1977).

     Precipitation.   The  average   annual  Study  Area precipitation  is
25.94 inches.  Rainfall is greatest during June (4.07 inches), and least
in January  (0.78  inches)  (NOAA 1973).  Most of the  precipitation falls
during  the  138-day  (average)  growing season.   Annual  snowfall  for the
area rarely exceeds 45 inches, but snowfall exceeds 1 inch on an average
of 17 days per year.  The mean annual relative humidity is approximately
69%.

     Wind Speed and Direction.  The  seasonal  prevailing direction  and
mean  wind  speed   (miles per  hour)  in the Study Area are  as  follows:

     •    Winter:  east-southeast—8 miles per hour.

     •    Spring:  southeast—9 miles per hour.

     »    Summer:   southeast  (in  August the prevailing winds are to the
          north)--7 miles per hour.

     t    Fall:  southeast--8 miles per hour.

     The annual  prevailing wind direction is  from the northwest to the
southeast at  8 miles per hour  (US Environmental Data Service 1968).  No
wind  is  detectable during approximately 2% of  the year.

b.   Odors

      Presently, there  are no quantified reports or surveys on odors from
the  Study  Area.   Because  there  is  no  record of letters  or telephone
calls  from  local  residents complaining of nuisance  odors,  it is likely
that  nuisance  odors  are not a serious problem  in  the  Study Area.

c.   Noise

      Apart  from  road  traffic  and motorboat  noise, the Study  Area is
relatively  quiet.   Sounds  of  long duration at annoying levels are not
present  in  the Study Area.

d.   Air Quality

      Otter  Tail  County is in a Minnesota PSD  (Prevention of  Significant
Degradation) Class 2 Zone.  This indicates that the  area currently meets
National Ambient  Air  Quality Standards  (see Appendix  B-2)  and  that
enforcement  of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977  will prevent signi-
ficant   air  quality degradation.    The Study  Area  has  no  air quality
testing  station  at the present time.   However, a high-volume sampler is
located  in  Fergus Falls, where daily readings of suspended particulates
are  made.   Although air  quality  is  generally good,  readings  at this
station  show  that  in  1976  Minnesota  secondary  24-hour  ambient air
quality  standards  for total suspended  particulates  were exceeded twice,
on  15 October  and  2  November.

                                   32

-------
B.   WATER RESOURCES

1.   WATER QUALITY  MANAGEMENT

     The Federal  government,  the  locality and the State are responsible
for  various  aspects  of  water resources  management.   Water  resources
management  includes  municipal  water  supply,  maintenance  of  navigable
waters,  irrigation, and  protection  of the productivity of the  soil.   Of
such activities, preservation or restoration of the quality of  US waters
is among the  most important to the locality, the State, and the Federal
government.  The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500, 1972)
and  its  1977  amendments  (P.L. 95-217) outlined  a  framework for compre-
hensive  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 PCA.   However,
with  passage  of  the   Clean  Water  Act,  all  Federal  agencies  were
instructed  to safeguard  water  quality standards  in  carrying  out their
respective  missions.   As the  lead  agency,  EPA  coordinates  the national
effort,  sets  standards,  and reviews  the work of other agencies, some of
which  are  assigned  responsibilities in   line  with  their traditional
missions.  For example,  the Army Corps of Engineers maintains its juris-
diction  over  dredging permits  in commercially navigable waters and their
adjacent wetlands and  in coastal waters but now must also consider water
quality.  The Coast Guard keeps its 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 the SCS, these new responsibi-
lities may be in addition  to  or may  dovetail with existing SCS programs
to  reduce  soil  erosion,  or  to  construct headwaters  impoundments  for
flood  control.

      In  delineating the  responsibilities of the various levels of govern-
ment 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 plants 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  responsible for  the  administration of  the activity
in   question.   The EPA  may  deny  certification,  but  in  all   cases  it
retains  power of enforcement  of established standards, whether State or
Federal.  (Minnesota  is  one of the  states 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...
                                     33

-------
     "an interim goal of water quality which provides  for  the  protection
     and propagation  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 publicly owned treatment works
discharging effluent to surface waters at  least  provide  secondary  treat-
ment,  i.e.,  biological oxidation of  organic wastes.   It directed  that
municipalities must provide the  "best available technology" by 1983  and
that  in  appraising  their  options  localities   must  address  both  the
control  of all  major sources of  stream  pollution (including  combined
sewer  overflows  and agricultural,  street  and other surface runoff)  and
the  cost-effectiveness  of  various  control measures.   The use  of  uncon-
ventional technologies must also be considered.

     The  key provisions  on water  quality  planning  stipulate that  to
receive aid a state must provide a  continuing planning process.  Part of
Section 208  requires  the  states  to inventory all the sources  of  pollu-
tion of  surface and  ground waters,  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.

     Section 201 of the Act (under  which the Otter Tail  Lake  area  appli-
cation for  funds was  made) authorizes EPA  to make grants to  localities
for  the  improvement of treatment facilities or  other  remedies of  exist-
ing  water  quality  problems.   EPA may determine  whether  an Environmental
Impact Statement is  required  on a proposed project  (see Section I.B),
and  even  where  the  State has  been certified  and assumes  responsibility
for water quality, EPA retains the  authority to  approve  or reject  appli-
cations for funds for the construction of  treatment facilities.

     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

     EPA

          Administers the Clean Water Act
          Sets Federal water quality standards

     EPA Region  V

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

          Provided  partial funding for the preparation of the Otter Tail
          Lake  Area Facility  Plan.  Region  V's  responsibilities  in the
          construction grant  program  in general and specifically  toward
          the  application  made  in the Facility Plan are discussed  in
          Section I.B.

                                    34

-------
     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.

     US Department  of Agriculture

          Under the Rural Clean Water  Program will provide cost-sharing
          money  for  soil  conservation  practices  designed  to  improve
          water  quality.   (This program  will  probably be  assigned to
          SCS.)

     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.   Drew  up  guidelines  for inventorying
          prime or  unique agricultural  lands.

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

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

     Fish and Wildlife  Services

          Provides  technical  assistance in development of  208 plans.

c.   State Responsibilities in  the  Otter Tail Lake Study Area

     The   following entities  have  responsibilities  for  water quality
management in Minnesota:

     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 stand-
          ards  applicable   to   interstate  and  intrastate  waters.   The
          standards are  being  revised and  are in  draft  form as of May
          1979.  MPCA  conducted a  water  quality  investigation  of  the
          Otter Tail River above Fergus Fall in 1969.   The  investigation
          included Otter Tail Lake  and  the  data has been exaimed in this
          EIS.
                                  35

-------
     Department  of Natural Resources  (DNR)

          Identifies,   categorizes   and   maintains   existing   natural
          resources,  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
          enforces drinking water  standards.

d.    Local   Responsibilities   for   Water   Quality  Management

     Land and Resource  Management  Office; Otter Tail County

          Regulates  the use of  on-site  disposal  systems  and other land
          uses  along  shoreline  areas through the  Shoreland Management
          Ordinance.

     Local Zoning Ordinance.   The  townships  of  Otter Tail,  Evert  and
Girard have  local zoning  ordinances  which  enforce  standards imposed by
the Shoreland Management Ordinance.

2.   GROUNDWATER  USE

     Groundwater from  the outwash aquifer  is  the  principal domestic
water  source.  Extraction  is  primarily  by  small  diameter  homeowner
wells.   Currently  about   0.4  mgd  are  withdrawn from the  aquifer  for
domestic  use  within  the  Study  Area.  Usage  will  increase  to  about 0.5
    by the design year 2000.
     Several farmers in the  area  tap  the groundwater aquifers to irri-
gate  their  fields  and  orchards.    Figure  II-8  shows  the  location of
irrigation sites determined from aerial  photographs.

     The outwash aquifer is  being  considered  as  a more extensive source
of  irrigation  water.   Feasibility  studies have  shown  that  streamflow
from the area would not  be  depleted  over a  10  year period  of  1007o ground-
water development if not more  than  6  inches of water per  year were  used
to irrigate the 190 square  miles under study (Reeder  1972).

     There  is  apparently  an abundant supply  of  water  for  foreseeable
uses in the  future.  The  lower sand beneath the outwash  has  been iden-
tified  as  an additional water  supply source  of great future potential
(Reeder 1972).

3.   GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY

     The  surficial  deposits  of glacial  outwash found  throughout  the
Study  Area  are  its  major  groundwater source.   The  glacial  outwash
deposits cover an extensive  area  of some 350  square  miles of  Otter  Tail
County (see Figure II-9).   These outwash aquifers  of  stratified sand and
gravel vary  in  thickness from  50  feet in the east to about  100 feet in
                                  36

-------
FIGURE II-8   LOCATION OF  IRRIGATION  FIELDS IN THE OTTER TAIL STUDY
                   AREA  (BASED  ON  AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS)
                                   LEGEND

                               IRRIGATION FIELDS
                                                                         MILES
                                                            Source:  EPIC 1978
                                   37

-------
    BOUNDARY OF OUTWASH
         AQUIFER
    WATERSHED BOUNDARY
      OTTERTAIL RIVER
         WATERSHED
           Battle Lake.
                      Clitherall
                                         CROW WINS RIVER
                                            WATERSHED
O        5

Source:  Reader 1972
   FIGURE II-9   AERIAL  EXTENT OF OUTWASH  AQUIFER
                           38

-------
the  west  of  the  Study  Area.   Sandy Loam  and  loamy sand  overlie the
outwash aquifer  at the  surface and lenses of silt occur locally (Winter
et al. 1969).  Throughout most of the Study Area the groundwater reserve
is under  water  table  conditions;  the surface of  the  water touches the
overlying zone  of aeration.  Occasionally,  the  groundwater is confined
locally (artesian  conditions).  Figure II-2 shows a cross-section of the
aquifer system found in the Study Area.

     The  depth  to the water  table  varies from 0  to about  70 feet, but
usually  is   5  to  30  feet.   Shallowest   depths  occur in  the northwest
section of the Study Area and in lakeshore areas, and greater depths are
found in  the southeast (Reeder 1972).

     The  aquifer  is  generally  underlain by  clay up  to tens  of  feet
thick,  followed  by other  undifferentiated glacial deposits  ranging in
thickness to about 200  feet.  At  least one  sand  layer aquifer exists
below  the first massive clay  layer (Reeder  1972).   Potentially  large
water supplies have been shown to exist  in the deep sand layer.

     The  primary recharge""  source to the  upper  outwash  aquifer is pre-
cipitation directly onto  the surface.    Precipitation within the Study
Area  is estimated  to  be 24.0  inches per year.   Of this  amount  5  to 6
inches  percolates  into  the groundwater,   about 2.0  inches  is  runoff and
the  remainder is lost through evapotranspiration (McGinness 1964; Reeder
1972;  Winter et  al.  1969).   Recharge  to  the aquifer by  underflow is
considered to  be  small.   This is  because the  sands  located along the
perimeter of the aquifer (see Figure  II-9)  have finer grain sediments,
low  permeable  till,  and a  smaller  saturated  thickness  than the outwash
aquifer.   Although the  Otter  Tail  River  and the small  streams  bring
surface  water into  the  area they  do  not  contribute  signficantly to
groundwater  recharge.   Indeed the River  appears to act  more  as a with-
drawal well  from the aquifer.

     The  groundwater  reservoir discharges water to the  streams and low
lying lakes.  Figure 11-10  shows the  direction of  groundwater flow.  The
small  surrounding lakes  and  terrain, which  are slightly elevated with
respect  to  Otter  Tail Lake,  discharge   groundwater towards  Otter Tail
Lake.   The  hydraulic flow is strongest adjacent  to the  smaller  lakes
because  these  lakes seek  their own  level by  gravity  and discharge the
underflow to Otter Tail Lake  (Kerfoot 1979).  Eventually this net inflow
is discharged  into the Otter Tail  River, where  an estimated 4.5 mgd of
water  leaves the aquifer as  underflow.   This very high groundwater flow
rate (as  high as  10 to  15 feet per day)  is  apparently a major factor
affecting the operation of  on-site  treatment systems.

     The  many lakes in the  area indicate an essentially full  groundwater
reservoir.   The  very large storage  in  the  aquifer sustains  the  lakes
during  dry cycles  (Winter  et  al. 1969).

     Aquifer characteristics indicate  that  wells penetrating  the  full
thickness of the aquifer and developed  to  100%  efficiency can yield up
to  1200  gallons  per minute  (gpm)  for  30 days of  continuous pumping.
However,  yields  vary widely  within  short distances and  yields of less
than 300  gpm  can  be expected  in the area  east  and  southeast of Otter
Tail Lake   (Reeder 1972).

                                    39

-------
FIGURE II-10   GROUNDWATER FLOW PATTERNS SURROUNDING  OTTER TAIL LAKE

                              LEGEND

            	+~  GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTIONS
                         (BASED ON DARCY'S  EQUATION)
                   -*  GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTIONS
                         MEASURED BY THE GROUNDWATER
                         FLOW METER
MILES
             	1325-  APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER ELEVATION

                            40
                                                        Source: Kerfoot  1979

-------
4.   GROUNDWATER QUALITY

     Groundwater  from  the  outwash  aquifer  is   generally  very  hard,
ranging from  200-300  mg/1  (CaCOg).   Hardness does  not  effect  the suit-
ability of well  water for consumption.  Table  II-2 shows  water quality
data for  5 wells within the Otter Tail  Lake area.  MPCA drinking water
standards were exceeded  for iron and manganese in 2 out of 5 and 3 out
of  5  samples, respectively.   Nitrate and  dissolved solids  levels were
acceptable.

                              Table II-2
                     GROUNDWATER QUALITY DATA FOR
                         OTTER TAIL LAKE AREA

                                                                 Dissolved
 Well                    Iron      Manganese      Nitriates       Solids
Depth (ft)     Date      (mg/1)       (mg/1)          (mg/1)         (mg/1)

   54          9/68      0.02        0.07           0.87           218
   71          6/64      0.02        0.01           5.3            356
   55          9/68      0.60        0.13           2.9            188
   24          9/65      0.15        0.06           6.0            254
  200          9/65      1.5          --            0.13           208
Minnesota
Drinking H20
Standard       —        0.3         0.05          10              500
Source:  Reeder  1972
     As  part  of  an  ongoing sanitary  survey (see Section  II.C)  resi-
dential  wells  are  being  sampled for  coliform bacteria  and nitrates.
Results  are  available  for  31  wells  located  along  the  northeast  and
southeast  shores  of  Otter  Tail  Lake.  Figure  11-11  shows the sampling
locations  and the locations of wells containing high nitrate concentra-
tions or fecal  coliform colonies.  One sample, taken near the Otter Tail
River inlet,  contained 13 mg/1  nitrates.  This concentration exceeds the
public  health  drinking  water  standard  of  10 mg/1.   Water containing
nitrates in excess  of the public health  standard  may cause methemoglo-
benimia* in infants who drink  it.  Three samples showed nitrate concen-
trations  of  4.5-8.5  mg/1  and  all  other  samples  sowed  low  levels  of
nitrates  (<3.5 mg/1).  Coliform  bacteria were detected in  4 of  the 31
samples.   Only  1 sample, containing  10  colonies  exceeded  the Interim
Drinking Water Standards which require that  potable  water contain less
than  5  colonies per  100 ml.  Contamination,  however, cannot be verified
on  the  basis of  one  sample  alone,  and  those samples which showed posi-
tive  results  for  coliform bacteria will be  reanalyzed.

      In a  separate  study  the Land Resources Management Office sampled 17
drinking  water  wells from  campgrounds,  resorts and  restaurants.   The
samples were  tested for total coliform bacteria and nitrates.  Counts of
coliform  bacteria  were  low for  all  samples.  Nitrate concentrations
ranged  from  0.2  to  18.0 mg/1.   Three well water  samples, with nitrate
concentrations  of  17  or  18 mg/1,  exceeded  the public  health drinking

-------
FIGURE 11-11
LOCATION OF WELL WATER SAMPLES  (JULY-AUGUST
     1979, SANITARY SURVEY)
                          LEGEND
                      C    COLIFORM
                      N    NITRATES  >4.5mg/l
                      F    FECAL COLIFORM
                                                     MILES
                           42

-------
water  standard.   The  problem  of high  nitrate  concentrations  in  these
three  wells was  alleviated by upgrading  suspected on-site  treatment
systems  (by telephone, Richard Astrup, Land Resources  Office, 29  May
1979).
5.   SURFACE WATER  HYDROLOGY

     Otter Tail  Lake,  Lake  Blanche,  Long Lake, Walker  Lake,  Deer  Lake,
Round  Lake,   and  the Otter  Tail  River  are  the  major surface  water
resources  in  the  Study  Area  (see Figure 11-12).   The  Otter  Tail  River
originates in the  southwest corner of Clearwater County and flows south-
ward through  a  series of lakes until it turns westward, flowing through
Otter  Tail Lake  and  Deer  Lake  toward Fergus Falls   (MPCA  1969).   In
addition  to   discharge  from  the  river, Otter  Tail Lake  receives  both
surface and groundwater  flow  from the smaller surrounding lakes — Long
Lake, Walker  Lake, and Lake Blanche.  A brief stretch  of the  Otter Tail
River  flows  from  the  outlet  of Otter Tail Lake into Deer  Lake.   Round
Lake,  between Otter  Tail  Lake and  Deer  Lake,  is a   landlocked  lake.

     Physical characteristics pertaining to the hydrology of the surface
waters  serve  to  describe and differentiate the lakes and streams in the
Study Area.

     The  balance  of  water in  lakes is expressed  by  the  basic  hydro-
logical relationship  in  which changes in water quantity and quality are
determined by the  inputs from  all sources less the rates of loss.   Each
income and loss varies seasonally and is governed by the characteristics
of  the drainage  basin,   the  lake  basin and  the  climate.   Table  II-3
summarizes the  major physical  characteristics of Otter  Tail,  the  small
surrounding  lakes  and their respective  drainage basins,  which  are dis-
cussed in the next few paragraphs.

a.   Size of Drainage  Basins

     The  drainage  basins of  Otter Tail Lake,  Lake Blanche,  Long  Lake
Walker  Lake,  Deer  Lake,  and Round Lake  are  1140,  176,  3.5, 1.56,  1141,
and  0.5 square  miles,  respectively.  Drainage basin  topography deter-
mines  the  path  the runoff will follow  as  it moves from higher to lower
elevations, as  well  as the concentrations of sediments and nutrients in
that  runoff.   The  larger watersheds  act as  more  significant  catchments
of precipitation which is transferred as runoff to the  lakes.   Long Lake
and  Round  Lake occupy   larger  portions of  their  respective  drainage
basins  than  do  the other lakes.   That  is,  for Long Lake and  Round Lake
the  drainage  basin-to-lake surface  area ratio is  2:1  while  for  Otter
Tail  Lake, Lake  Blanche,  Walker Lake,  and Deer  Lake  it  is  49:1  or
higher.

b.   Tributary Flow

     The Otter Tail River is the major tributary in the Study Area.  Its
flow is regulated  by  many lakes, potholes, partially drained marshes and
by  dam operation  intended to stabilize  water levels in Otter Tail Lake.
The  nearest  USGS  stream gaging stations are  located on the  Otter Tail

-------
                                                            • CLEARWATER
                                                          - \  COUNTY
 FIGURE 11-12
OTTER TALL RIVER WATERSHED -
         AND USCS SAMPLING  STATIONS



              LEGEND

	 — COUNTY BOUNDARIES

 	 . 	 OTTER TAIL RIVER  WATERSHED /

       • USGS SAMPLING  STATIONS
              IN THE OTTER  TAIL
              RIVER WATERSHED
              ABOVE FERGUS  FALLS
                                    LONG LAKE

                               OTTER TAIL COUNTY
                 MILES
   Source: Minn.  Poll—*
   ution Control  Agency,
   Division of Water
   Quality 1969
                                                  l_N«wYork
                                                    Mills
                                      44

-------
                                               TABLE  II-3

                                PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY AREA LAKES
     PARAMETER

Lake Surface Area


Mean Depth


Maximum Depth


Volume


Drainage Area
Lake Surface Area:
Drainage Basin Area

Tributary Inflow
Water Retention Time

UNIT
Acres
Ft.(M)

Ft.(M)

Acre/ ft.)
(m3)
Acres (M2)

Unitless
cf s(cms)

OTTER TAIL
LAKE
14,746
(6.0xl06)
23
(7)
124
(37.8)
339,158o
(4.2xl08)
729,600
(1140)
49:1
145
(4.1)
LAKE
BLANCHE
1,352
(5.5xl06)
11
(3.4)
_

14,872-
(l.SxlO7)
112,640
(176)
83:1
28.5
(0.81)
LONG
LAKE
1,173
(4.7xl06)
5
(1.5)
16
(4.9)
5,865
(7.2xl06)
2,260
(3.5)
2:1
0.58
(0.016)
WALKER
LAKE
694
(2.8xl06)
11.3
(3.4)
29
(8.8)
7,842
(9.7xl06)
99,840
(156)
144:1
17.7
(0.5)
DEER
LAKE
(l.SxlO6)
10.4
(3.2)
25
(7.6)
4,752
(5.9xl06)
730,319
(1141)
1,600:1
193
(5.5)
ROUND
LAKE
162
(655,614)
9
(2.7)
10
(3.0)
1,458
(l.SxlO6)
3,366
(0.5)
2:i
0.04
(0.001)
                          years
2.43
0.7
9.5
0.57
0.03
6.0
 Sources:  1.   Winter,  T.C.,  L.E.  Bidwell,  and  R.W. Macclay,  1969.  Water Resources  of  the  Otter  Tail  River
              Watershed, Westcentral Minnesota.  Hydrologic  Investigations  Atlas  HA-296. U.S.  Geological
              Survey,  Reston, Va.
          2.   MPCA,  Division of Water  Quality,  1969.  Report  on  Otter  Tail River System above  Fergus Falls.
          3.   Minnesota  Department  of  Conservation, Division of Game  and Fish, 1969.   Field Work and  base
              map, Deer  Lake and  East  Lost Lake, Otter Tail  County.
          4.   By telephone,  Minnesota  Department of Natural  Resources,  Fish and Wildlife Division, Fisheries
              Section, April 13,  1978.
          5.   Estimates, by  telephone, Mr. Reedstrom,  Minnesota DNR,  April  28, 1978.

-------
River near  Perham (15  miles  upstream from Otter Tail Lake),  at  German
Church (16 miles downstream from the Lake), below the Pelic.m River near
Fergus Falls  (28 miles  below the Lake),  Orwell Reservoir,  near  Fergus
Falls (30 miles  downstream)  and below Orwell Dam,  near Fergus Falls (32
miles downstream)  (see  Figure 11-12).   All lie outside  t'.   Study Area.

     The  most  complete historic  stream  flow information has  come  from
the  continuously  recording  station  at Orwell Dam (USGS  1977).  At  this
station,  the  drainage  area  spans  1830  square miles.   Over a 47  year
period  average  stream  flow  has been 300  cubic  feet  per second  (cfs).

     Average annual  stream  flows, lake inflows,  and  lake outflows  were
determined  by  Winter,  Bidwell,  and Maclay  (1969)  for basins including
the  Study Area  along the Otter Tail  River .   As  estimated  from the map
illustrating these features,  the  average  flows at  the  inlet and  outlet
of Otter  Tail Lake were 145 cfs and 143 cfs, respectively.   Low and high
flows were  also  computed  (Winter et al.  1969).   The  7-day  10-year low
flow at German Church was 30  cfs and the 7-day 10-year high  flow was 700
cfs.

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.   Long  Lake (9.7 years), Round Lake  (6.0 years), and Otter Tail
Lake (2.4 years)  have much longer  retention times than Lake Banche (0.7
years).   Hydrological  and  morphological  factors  -- total tributary flow
and  volume  —account for the difference.   In addition to these natural
factors  the hydraulic  retention  time of  Otter Tail  Lake is also arti-
ficially  controlled  by  the  operation of a dam at  the Otter Tail River
outlet.

d.   Precipitation

     Mean annual precipitation in  the  Study Area  is 23.7  inches (MPCA
1969).   Most  of  the  precipitation is  returned  to  the atmosphere  by
evapotranspiration;  the remainder  runs  off or enters the   groundwater.

     The  quantity of precipitation  decreases from east to west over the
entire  drainage basin,  causing a  difference of  more than  2 inches  of
runoff  within  the northeastern portion of  the Study Area  and between  1
and  2 inches of runoff  in the southeastern portion  (Winter et al.  1969).

e.   Hydraulic Budget

     A  generalized hydraulic budget  for  a  lake  includes  the hydraulic
inputs  such as  tributary  inflow,  precipitation  and groundwater inflow
and  the  outputs such as tributary  outflow, evaporation, and groundwater
recharge.   The  hydraulic budget  for Otter  Tail  Lake is summarized  in
Table II-4.   Evaporation and groundwater  were determined by the  differ-
ence between  the total input and total output for  the lake.  The infor-
mation  was  derived  from  USGS  Hydrological  Atlas  (Winter et al.  1969).

-------
                             TABLE 11-4

               WATER BUDGET FOR OTTER TAIL LAKE  (1969)
           IN 106 M3/YR—• FROM USGS HYUROLOGIC ATLAS  (1969)
                                                          OTTER  TAIL  LAKE
Otter Tail River                                                129.5
Lake Blanche, Outlet (Balmoral Creek)                            25.9
Walker Lake Outlet                                               17.0
Precipitation                                                    35.8

     TOTAL                                                      208.2
Outputs

Outlet                                                          127.7
Evaporation & Ground-water (by difference)                        80.5

     TOTAL                                                      208. 2
                                  47

-------
6.   SURFACE WATER USE AND CLASSIFICATION

     MPCA  (1969)   reported  that  the Otter  Tail  County  lakes  provide
recreational  opportunities  for fishing,  swimming,  boating,  and  water-
skiing.  Similar opportunities are  found  in the Otter  Tail River, which
also  is  used as a  public  drinking  water  supply for Fergus Falls.  The
Otter  Tail  River,  Otter Tail  Lake,  and Deer Lake have been assigned  a
use  classification by the  MPCA  of  1C, 2A,  2B,  3B  (MPCA 1973).   This
implies that these water bodies must meet  the water quality requirements
intended to protect fish and aquatic life  and support recreation  but not
the  requirements   intended  to  protect  drinking  water.   Their  uses are
regulated under  Minnesota  water  quality  standards (see  Appendix C-l).

7.   SURFACE WATER QUALITY

     This  section  deals with the  quality  of the water  in  Otter  Tail
River, the  local  streams,   and  in Otter  Tail  Lake,  Lake Blanche,  Long
Lake, Walker  Lake,  Deer  Lake,  and Round Lake.   The discussion  considers
streams and  lakes  separately.  First,  water quality data  collected  from
the  Otter  Tail  River and  local streams in  the Study Area are reported
and examined.  Second,  nutrient loading characteristics,  quality  of  open
water,  phosphorus  loading trophic  condition  relationship,   shoreline
conditions,   and bacterial  contamination of  the lakes  are studied.  The
presentation  synthesizes the  limited  available  data on water quality of
the  surface  water  resources  in the  Study  Area.   Most of the information
presented is summarized from investigations  conducted by MPCA  (1969) and
Kerfoot  (1979).   Further water quality analysis of Otter Tail  Lake is
being  conducted during  the  summer of 1979 in conjunction with  a  "septic
snooper" survey.

a.   Streams

     MPCA studied  the  Otter  Tail  River in  July of 1969 and  found the
water  quality good.   At the  inlet  of Otter Tail  Lake  total phosphorus
was  0.02  mg/1.   Concentrations of  nitrogen compounds  were as follows:
Ammonia  nitrogen   (0.07  mg/1),  organic  nitrogen  (0.73  mg/1)  nitrite
nitrogen (0.02 mg/1) and nitrate  nitrogen (0.02 mg/1).   During the  same
period dissolved  oxygen was  8.9  mg/1,  pH  was  9.3,  and  total coliform
group bacteria were measured  to be  80  colonies per 100  ml and 20 fecal
coliforms colonies per  100  ml.  MPCA (1969) also  sampled the  outlet of
the East Lost Lake, which is immediately south of Deer  Lake, outside the
Study  Area,  and  found  comparable  levels:   0.07 mg/1  total phosphorus,
0.04  mg/1  soluble  phosphorus,  0.06  mg/1 ammonia  nitrogen,  0.72  mg/1
organic nitrogen,  0.02  mg/1 nitrite nitrogen, 0.02 mg/1  nitrate  nitro-
gen, 9.3 mg/1 dissolved  oxygen, pH  8.1, and 20  colonies  of fecal coli-
forms per 100 ml.

     In a more recent  survey  conducted during the period from 22 March
through the  end  of April  1979,  Kerfoot  (1979)  sampled the Otter  Tail
River at the  inlets  and outlet of Otter Tail Lake. He found seasonally
lower concentrations of  total  phosphorus  (0.016 mg/1  and 0.018  mg/1 at
the  inlets;  0.011  at  the  outlet),  soluble  phosphorus  (0.002  mg/1 and
0.003 mg/1 at the inlets;  0.001 mg/1 at the  outlet), and fecal  coliforms
(0-2 fecal coliforms/100 ml at the  inlets;  0 fecal coliforms/  100 ml at
the outlet).

                                    48

-------
     The other streams affecting the water quality in Otter Tail Lake --
Long  Lake  Canal  (Long Lake  outlet),  Balmoral  Creek  (outlet of  Lake
Blanche),  and the  outlet of  Walker  Lake  were also  sampled.   Results
showed  a  lower  dissolved  oxygen  concentration  and higher  bacterial
levels  in  Long Lake  Canal  than in  the Otter  Tail  Kiver  or  the other
tributaries.   On the other hand, Walker Lake and Balmoral Creek exhibit-
ed  water quality conditions  similar  to those of  the  Otter Tail  River.

b.   Lakes

     To  date,  the  most extensive field investigation  on  the  Otter Tail
Lakes was  conducted  by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in
the  summer of 1969  (see  Appendix  C-2) .  Table  II-5  summarizes  data on
those parameters analyzed.   Water  quality conditions on Otter Tail Lake
cannot  be  evaluated  conclusively  based  on  one  sample  because  of  the
seasonal variability  in  nutrient loads, and tributary flow.  Subsequent
to  the   1969  sampling, only  the transparency  in  terms  of Secchi  disc
depth has  been measured  regularly  in Otter Tail Lake.   The most  recent
measurements  of  this  parameter  (11.5  ft to 14.5 ft in June 1975 and 7.5
ft  to  10.0 ft in July and August  1975) indicate that the lake is meso-
trophic  to oligotrophic.

     Recently, Kerfoot (1979) conducted a winter study on these lakes in
an  effort  to determine  the  nutrient  contribution from  septic  tanks to
these  lakes   (see Appendix C-3).   He  reported  total  phosphorus  concen-
trations of  0.010 mg/1 and  0.024  mg/1 in the open water  of  Otter Tail
Lake.   However,  neither  MPCA's  investigation nor Kerfoot's  study pro-
vided sufficient information to allow a complete interpretation of water
quality  conditions in the lake.

     Nutrient Loading Characteristics.   Nutrient  loads  to  Otter  Tail
Lake, Lake Blanche, Long Lake, Deer Lake, Walker Lake and Round Lake are
shown  in  Table  II-6  for the  major  nutrient sources including  tribu-
taries,  precipitation, septic tanks and runoff from the immediate water-
shed.   Figure 11-13  shows the  relative distribution  of  phosphorus from
various  sources.   Because phosphorus  is the limiting nutrient controll-
ing  the trophic  status of most temperate lakes and because  it  is more
easily  controlled than nitrogen, it is usually the focus  of attention in
lake water quality management.

     Nutrient loads were determined using the following data and assump-
tions :

     •    MPCA  (1969) water quality data was  used  to determine  the
          tributary load.

     •    Loads from precipitation and septic tanks were developed using
          the  assumptions  derived   from  the  National   Eutrophication
          Survey  (NES).   This survey was an  investigation  on  a  nation-
          wide  basis  of   potential   acceleration  of  eutrophication  to
           fresh water  lakes  and reservoirs.   These values are generali-
          zations and  cannot  account  for site-specific conditions.  The
          NES  estimate  for septic  tank loadings  is  probably conserva-
          tively low  for  Otter  Tail  Lake.  Kerfoot found that the sandy
                                   49

-------
                                                                TABLE II-5

                                                   SELECTED WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Water Qual iLy
 Parameter _

Mean
Total Phosphorus
(mg/1)

Mean
Total Nitrogen
Mean Transparency
(fee:)

Mean
Dissolved  Oxygen
  Survey
   Date
July, 1969
Aug., 1972?
July, 1969

July, 1969
Aug., 1972 .,
Summer 1975"
July,  1969
                                                                       LAKES
Median
Total Colifortns
(MPN/100 ml)
Chlorophyl
(mg/1)

July, 1969
1970-19764
Aug., 1972
Otter Tail
-
0.74
7.3
Walker
0.04
0.035
1.03
4.5
6.0
Ueer
0.035
0.018
0.70
8.7
10.0
Blanche Round
0.05 0.04
0.83 1.30
6.5
Long
.
-
                   10.5
                                        8.8
                                         20
                                                         8.1
                                                          20
                                                                      8.9
                                                                       45
                                                                      8.7
                                                                                     9.0
                                                                                      20
                                                                                                   8.9
                                                                                                    20
                                                                                                                  1100
No t e s;
(1)  Samples  c u 11 uv t ed and analyzed by the Mimu-hOta  Pollution Control Agency in July  of  1969.
(2)  Samples  collected and analyzed by Minnesota  Department of Natural Resources in  August,  1972.
(3)  Samples  collected and analyzed by Otter  Tall  Lake Citizen's group every week from June  through August of 1975.
(4)  Samples  collected and analyzed by Fergus County  Health Department 1970-1976.

-------
                            Table   II-6





Nutrient Budgets for Otter Tail Lake,Deer  lake, Walker  Lake,



                 Round Lake,Long  Lake  and Lake Blanche
Otter Tail Lake
Inpjuc
Precipitation
Septic Tanks
Tributaries
Immediate Drainage

Input
Precipitation
Septic Tanks
Tributaries
Immediate Drainage

Input
Precipitation
Septic Tanks
tributaries
Immediate Drainage

Phosphorus
1,020.0
261.7
6,238.6
60.0
7 , 580 . 3
Deer Lake
Phosphorus
31.4
16.6
10,659.8
1.8
10,709.6
Walker Lake
Phosphorus
47.7
4.6
977.4
19.7
1,049.4
7.
13.5
3.5
32.2
0.8
100
Z
0.3
0.2
99.5
<1
100
7.
4.5
0.4
93.2
1.9
100
Nitrogen
64,451.2
9,839.9
212,629.4
2,327.4
289,247.9
Nitrogen
1 .997.5
624.2
194,539.7
57.3
197,218.7
Nitrogen
3,033.3
173.0
25,417.8
623.5
29,247.6
%
22.3
3.4
73.5
0.8
100
%
1.0
0.3
98.6
<1
100
7.
10.4
0.6
86.9
2. 1
100
Tnpu^t
Precipitation
Septic Tanks
Tributaries
Immediate Drainage
Input
Precipitation
Septic Tanks
Tributaries
Immediate Drainage
Round Lake
Phosphorus
11. i
5.9
1.3
!8.3
Long Lake
Phosphorus
80.7
1.3
23.7
105.7
62
32
7
Too"
73.4
1.2
22.4
100
Nitrogen
708.0
230.1
40.0
978.1
Nitrogen
5,126.6
48-9
678.8
5,354.3
%
72
24
4
100

87.6
0.8
11.6
100
Lake Blanche
Input
Precipitation
Septic Tanks
Tributaries
Immediate Drainage
Phosphorus
93.0
9.4
3,546.0
10.9
3,659.3
2.5
0.4
96.9
3.0
100
Nitrogen
5,909.2
353.4
33,053.3
295.5
39,611.3
%
14.9
0.9
83.4
0.8
100

-------
             1%
10,000



9,000



8,000



7,000
-
o  6,000

2
to
D
fL
O
X
0.
I
a.
5,000
   4,000
H 3,000
O
I-
   2,000
   1,000
            99%
               DEER
               LAKE
                        82%
                                  3%
                                    97%
                                                    LEGEND


                                                 NON-POINT SOURCE
                                                     (TRIBUTARIES)


                                                 NON-POINT SOURCE

                                                     (IMMEDIATE
                                                      DRAINAGE)


                                                 PRECIPITATION


                                                 SEPTIC TANKS


                                                 IMMEDIATE DRAINAGE,
                                                     PRECIPITATION,
                                                     SEPTIC TANKS
                                               7%



                                              93%
                       OTTER TAIL
                          LAKE
                                      LAKE
                                     BLANCHE
WALKER
 LAKE
                                                                              100
                                                                             75
                                                                          Q

                                                                          O
                                                                          _l
                                                                          (0

                                                                          5?  50
                                                                          o
                                                                          x
                                                                          0.

                                                                          o
                                                                          X
                                                                          0.
                                                                               25
                                                                                   77%
                                                                                     22%
LONG
LAKE
                                                                                                  32%
                                                                                                  61%
                                                                                                                   CM
ROUND
 LAKE
                     FIGURE 11-13 COMPARISON OF PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS BY  SOURCE  CONTRIBUTION
                                        FOR LAKES IN OTTER TAIL STUDY AREA

-------
          soils  and  high  rates  of  groundwater  flow  result   in  poor
          adsorption  of  phosphorus  in  the soil  matrix and  finally  in
          high rates  of  septic  discharge  to surface waters.   One condi-
          tion, specific to Otter  Tail  Lake was, however,  accounted for
          in  determining septic  tank  loads.   Kerfoot  (1979)  observed
          that ST/SAS downslope  of Lakr Blanche, Walker Lake,  and  Long
          Lake discharged to Otter Tail  Lake rather than to  the respec-
          tive smaller lakes.   Septic Lank loads were determined assum-
          ing the condition.

     •    Finally, a  model  developed  by  Omernik  (1976) was   used  to
          determine nutrient  loads  from  the immediate  watershed.   The
          relationship  between  land usf categories and  the  total  phos-
          phorus  and   total   nitrogen  export  rates   was  developed  by
          Omernik  using  tributary  data collected  from non-point source
          watersheds  in this  geographic region.   The EPA National Eutro-
          phication survey  has  adopted Omernik's  model as  their  stan-
          dandard  methodology   for   estimating  nutrient   export  from
          immediate watershed areas.  This model is duscussed in detail
          in Appendix  C-7.

     The  results  of  the  nutrient  load  analysis  indicate that tributary
inflow  contributes the  most  significant  nutrient  load to  Otter  Tail
Lake, Walker  Lake, Deer Lake,  and Lake Blanche.   Precipitation is the
major nutrient  source  to Round  Lake  and Long Lake  as well as an signi-
ficant source  to  the  other  lakes.   Septic tanks contribute a relatively
small percentage  of  the total  nutrient load to  all  lakes except Round
Lake.   Round  Lake,  a   landlocked  lake  with  a small  watershed  area
receives a very small  nutrient load from non-point sources.

     The  nutrient  loadings  presented  in  this  section reflect  the  best
available  estimate using the  limited  data  available.  However  a  more
comprehensive  sampling  program  might  result  in  modifications of  the
loading estimates.

     Phosphorus Loading/Trophic Conditions Relationships.  This section
examines  the  relationship between  phosphorus loadings and the resultant
water  quality  and  lake  trophic  status.   Phosphorus  concentrations
generally control  the  standing  crop of algae and  therefore  the trophic
status of most lakes.

     In order to determine  the relationship between phosphorus loads and
water  quality,  an empirical  model  developed  by Dillon  was  used.   A
detailed  discussion of  this  model  is included  in  Appendix C-7.  Essen-
tially the  model  predicts  in-lake  concentrations of phosphorus  and lake
trophic status  as  a  function  of mean depth,  annual  phosphorus  loading,
the hydraulic flushing rate  and a phosphorus retention coefficient.   The
Dillon relationship was  found  to be applicable  to 23 lakes in the east-
ern United  States  which  were  sampled during the National Eutrophication
Survey.

     Figure 11-14 shows  the  trophic condition for Otter Tail  Lake, based
on  the  Dillon model.   The  analysis  indicates  that Otter Tail Lake  is
                                    53

-------
             I      I    I   I  I  I  I I  I
                 ROUND LAKE
                  I    I   I  I  I  I  I I
0.01
                .008
         10.0
MEAN DEPTH(METERS)
                                                               100.0
                 L= AREAL PHOSPHORUS INPUT (g/m7yr)
                 R=PHOSPHORUS RETENTION COEFFICIENT
                 P= HYDRAULIC FLUSHING RATE (yr"1)
        FIGURE 11-14  TROPHIC STATUS OF OTTER TAIL AND ROUND LAKES
                       UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS

-------
mesotrophic,  a  condition  concistent with  the  analysis  of  Secchi disk
data discussed  in  the examination of open water quality.  The model has
not been  used  to  determine the trophic  status  of the small surrounding
lakes, Long Lake, Walker Lake, Deer Lake and Lake Blanche.  Data is very
limited  for these  lakes  and the trophic  status  could not be predicted
with  much confidence.  However, existing  data  suggest that  the trophic
status  is  not  significantly influenced by nutrient  input  from septic
tanks for any of these lakes; ST/SAS located along these  lakeshores dis-
charge  to  Otter  Tail Lake  rather  than  the  small  surrounding lakes.
Because  septic  tanks  represent  a large percentage of  the total nutrient
load  to  Round  Lake, the  determination of  trophic  status was considered
important.  The model indicates that Round Lake currently oligotrophic;
although  septic tanks  contribute  a  large  percentage  of  the  nutrient
load,  the total load is  low relative  to most  of  the Study  Area lakes.

     Nearshore Conditions.   The MPCA  study  (1969)   indicates  that  the
concentrations  of   phosphorus  and  nitrogen in  the  shoreline  areas  of
Otter  Tail  Lake  were slightly  higher than  those  in the  open waters.
Similarly,  Kerfoot (1979)  observed elevated   concentrations  along  the
northeastern  and  southwestern   shoreline.   Although dense  patches  of
aquatic  vegetation  have  been detected in  some  areas  from aerial photo-
graphs using  infrared imagery,  there is no definite  correlation between
the  location  of septic leachate plumes  and dense vegetation.  Prelimi-
nary  results  (August  1979)  of  the  sanitary  survey  indicate  the  algae
growth  along  the  Otter  Tail  shoreline  is  sparse  and  that  most  dense
patches  of  vegetation  are  bullrushes   and  other   rooted  macrophytes
associated with wetland areas.

     The  lakes  in  this particular  geographic  region  are alkaline.  The
condition in  itself may  significantly affect the  lake water quality in
terms of phosphorus concentrations.  Under certain circumstances,  chem-
ical  precipitation   in  a  hardwater  environment  effectively  removes
phosphorus  from the  water  column,  making  it  unavailable to  algae  for
growth.   Algal  growth  may  be  naturally  regulated  by  this mechanism.
Kerfoot's  analysis (1979)  of  groundwater phosphorus  versus nearshore
surface  water phosphorus  concentrations  suggests that  phosphorus con-
centrations may be  reduced by this mechanism of chemical precipitation.
Evaluation  of  the  relationship  between  septic  leachate and  attached
plant  growth  is the  subject of  continuing studies  by  EPA,  to be com-
pleted in August 1979.

     Bacterial Contamination.  Bacterial contamination has been  investi-
gate dT71lPCA~TT969T7TergLis Falls County Health Department  (1969-1976),
and  Kerfoot (1979).  MPCA's (1969)  study  uncovered  relatively  low con-
centrations of fecal  coliforms, determined  from coliform  group organisms
as a Most Probable Number  (MPN) per  100 ml  in the nearshore and offshore
areas  of each  of  the lakes.   Frequently,  less than 20 coliform  group
organisms were  found  during  the month  of June  (1969);  this value  was
well  below  the Minnesota  fecal coLiform  water quality  standard of  200
MPN/100  ml  for  recreational waters.  Results of the  Fergus Falls County
Health  Department   investigations  from  1969  to  1976 indicated varying
concentrations  of  coliform  group  colonies per 100 ml of sample at  the
outlet  of  Otter  Tail Lake,  using  the  Millipore Filtration  Test (see
Appendix  C-4) .    Unfortunately,  these   results cannot  be  analyzed  in
                                   55

-------
                               Q  AHNIE}
                               ^  WrLfl
                                   LAKE }
FIGURE  FT-15   FL(X)I) HAZARD  AREAS  IN THE OTTER TAIL  STUDY AREA
                                     LEGEND
                                 FLOOD PRONE  AREAS
                                                                            MILES
                                                                   Source: HUD
                                                                   1976, 1977
                                56

-------
comparison with  Minnesota  State  fecal  coliform  standards,  because  the
results are not  expressed  in units of MPN per 100 ml, nor was the samp-
ling frequent enough (5 samples per month) to interpret a geometric mean
as required in  the  Minnesota State regulations  (MFC  14  1973).   Kerfoot
(1979) found no  indication  of fecal coliform contamination in the lakes
during the winter period;  concentrations were generally 0-2 MPN/100  ml.

8.   FLOOD HAZARD AREAS

     Figure 11-15  delineates the  boundaries  of  the  flood  hazard areas
which  have  been mapped  for  the  Study Area to date  (HUD  1976-77).   The
boundaries include  the  100  year  floodplain.   A  flood  of  this magnitude
occurs with  a  frequency of  every one hundred (100 years),  although in
actuality  such  a flood  could  occur at  any time.  The US Department of
Housing and Urban  Development (HUD) has  the  overall  responsibility  for
designating flood hazard areas for the National Flood Insurance Program.

     Flood  hazard  areas  mapped   by  HUD  are  used in  determining flood
insurance  rates  for  special properties  in  a   given  area.   Under  the
National  Flood  Insurance Program,  flood insurance is required  in com-
munities  with   identified  flood  hazard   areas.   This program  provides
insurance only for buildings; structures such as bridges,  roads,  or dams
are not insurable.  When federal grants  or loans  are  used  to build  any
structure in these areas, they must be insured.

     The  Otter  Tail  County Shoreland  Management Ordinance  (1973)  has
established minimum standards for lot size, building setback, and sewage
disposal  systems.   The  standards  are  applicable  within  1000 feet from
the normal high  water  mark' of a  lake or pond and 300 feet  from a river
or stream  on the  landward  extent of a flood plain.  These standards  are
designed to protect surface waters and flood prone areas.
C.   EXISTING  SYSTEMS

     All homes  and resorts  in  the Proposed Service Area are  served  by
on-site systems.  At the time that the Facility Plan was drafted,  little
was known about  the types of existing systems, or the nature and  extent
of  problems  with  these  systems.   Such information  was  necessary  to
determine the wastewater  treatment needs for the Proposed  Service Area.
Consequently, EPA undertook two  studies which  have  provided additional
information  on  the nature  and  extent of  these problems and  is  in  the
process of conducting two additional studies.

     The Land and Resources  Management Office, which is responsible  for
enforcing  the County's  Standards for use  and construction on on-site
systems, also provided useful information for this analysis.

     Facility Plan surveys of indirect indicators of system performance,
such as  compliance  with the Shoreline Management Act,  were  helpful  but
not conclusive.
                                    57

-------
1.   SUMMARY OF  DATA

     This discussion briefly  summarizes  the  studies  that were recently
undertaken by EPA  to evaluate  existing  systems.

a..   EPIC  Survey (EPA 1978)

     An aerial photographic   survey was conducted by EPA's Environmental
Photographic Interpretation  Center  (EPIC)  during August  1978 in order to
locate  surface malfunctions within the Study Area.   Only three surface
malfunctions were  detected  within  the  Proposed  Service  Area during the
survey  and  later  confirmed  by field investigation.   Aerial photographs
have also been used to  locate  beds  of aquatic vegetation but this infor-
mation  was  not confirmed  by  on-site  investigation.    The  location of
surface  malfunctions  and   suspected  beds   of  aquatic   vegetation  are
illustrated in Figure 11-16.

b.   Investigation of Septic Leachate  Discharges,  Otter Tail
     Lake,  Minnesota  (Kerfoot  1979)

     This  study was  initially undertaken during  March  22 through April
30,  1979 to  determine  whether  groundwater  plumes  from nearby septic
tanks were  emerging  along  the lakeshore and  causing elevated  concentra-
tions of  nutrients.  A  second septic leachate survey  will begin in  late
summer,  1979,  to  determine  the  effect of  the  seasonal population on
septic  leachate discharges.   Septic leachate  plumes are  detected with an
instrument  referred to  as  the  "Septic  Snooper."   This instrument is
equipped  with analyzers to  detect  both organics  and   inorganics  from
domestic  wastewater.  In  the original  winter  survey  this  device was
towed along the ice-covered lake and holes were  drilled through the ice
at  100   foot  intervals  to  obtain  a profile  of  septic   leachate plumes
discharging to surface  waters.   Along  the southwest  and northeast shore
there  was  nearly  a one  to  one  relationship between  the  location of
groundwater  plumes and  the  number of  permanent residences.   Areas  with
high numbers  of plumes  were found adjacent  to Lake Blanche, Walker  Lake
and  Long  Lake  and at the inflow of  the  Otter Tail River.   The  location
of  plumes and bacterial sampling  points are shown in  Figure 11-17.  A
determination  of   groundwater  flow  patterns  indicated  why plumes  were
more  dense adjacent to  lakeshore  areas.  As Figure  11-10  illustrates,
Otter Tail  Lake acts like  a large withdrawal well  and groundwaters  flow
towards  Otter  Tail  Lake along  all but the  western shoreline.  Flow is
particularly  rapid along those  lakeshore areas  adjacent to  Long Lake,
Walker  Lake and  Lake  Blanche.   These  lakes  seek  their  own level by
gravity and discharge  the  underflow into Otter Tail Lake.   The  summer
sanitary  survey should provide additional information on septic  leachate
discharges,  and   particularly  on  the  nutrient  loads  contributed by
ST/SAS.
                                   58

-------
FIGURE 11-16   SUSPECTED BEDS OF AQUATIC VEGETATION AND LOCATIONS OF
                SURFACE MALFUNCTIONS FROM ON-SITE SYSTEMS
                     (BASED ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS)
                                   LEGEND

                              FAILING SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS
                              AQUATIC VEGETATION

                              DEVELOPED AREAS
Source: EPIC 1978
                               59

-------
FIGURE II- 17   LOCATION OF ERUPTING
    AND STREAM SOURCE PLUMES
                LEGEND

            DORMANT PLUME

            ERUPTING GROUNDWATER PLUME

            ORGANIC SURFACE WATER PLUME WITH
                DISSOLVED SOLIDS LOAD
                                                                                         I           2

                                                                                Source:  Kerfoot  1979

-------
FIGURE 11-17   LOCATION OF ERUPTING AND STREAM SOURCE PLUME  (Cont'd.)
                           LEGEND

                      -o DORMANT PLUME

                      -• ERUPTING GROUNDWATER PLUME

                      -* ORGANIC SURFACE WATER PLUME

                      B3 SAMPLING STATIONS
                h    H
                                                       Source:  Kerfoot 1979
ONLY AREA BETWEEN BARS
    SAMPLED
                                                    12

-------
c.   Construction  Grant Sanitary Survey  for Otter Tail Lake,
     (begun July 22,  1979)

     A house-to-house  sanitary survey of Lakeside systems is currently
being  conducted  to determine  the  types of on-site systems,  the nature
and extent  of  problems  with these systems,  and the extent of violations
of the existing sanitary code.  Approximately 25% of  the  lakeshore homes
will  have  been surveyed  by the end  of the  summer  when this  study is
completed.
2.   SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE

     The Otter Tail County Shoreland Management Ordinance  was  adopted in
May  1973.   The ordinance  provides  minimum standards  for  construction,
location  and maintenance  of  on-site systems within Otter Tail County.
Prior  to  the time that this Ordinance  was  drafted  there  were no  stand-
ards  regulating  the  use  and  construction of  on-site  systems.   Most
systems were constructed prior to the issuance of the ordinance and many
existing  systems  do  not  comply with the standards.   The  Land Resource
Office,  the agency responsibile for  enforcing  the  Shoreline  Management
Ordinance indicated that at the close of 1977 about 185 existing systems
in or near  the  the Study Area were in compliance with the  Sanitary Code.
An  additional  24  holding  tank permits  were  granted in  1978 (by tele-
phone,  R.  Astrup, Land Resources Management Office, May  1979), raising
the  total percentage  of systems which comply with the ordinance to about
15%.   The  County  has been quite successful in  enforcing  the ordinance
for  new  construction;  it  is  estimated that  about  75% of the resorts
constructed over  the  past  5 years comply with the Sanitary Standards  (by
telephone,  R.  Astrup, Land and Resources Management Office,  May  1979).

     Many  non-complying systems constructed prior to  the  time that  the
Ordinance  was  adopted,  continue  to  operate  in  violation of the Ordi-
nance.   Although  the County  has  issued  a number of  abatement  orders
which  have  been complied  with, the  County's policy has been to maintain
the  status  quo  until  the issues addressed in this EIS have been resolved
(by  telephone,  L.  Krohn, Land  and Resources  Management,  May  1979).

     Under  the  provisions  of the Shoreland  Management Ordinance, on-site
systems  must comply  with  the minimum  standards detailed below   and  in
Appendix  D.

     •    A building sewer,  septic  tank and  soil  absorption unit  con-
          sisting of a  subsurface  disposal field  and/or  seepage  pit(s)
          are  required.   (Where unusual  conditions exist,  other disposal
          systems may  be  permitted provided   they  comply with other
          standards.)

     •    A minimum  separation  distance  of 50  feet  between the  soil
          absorption  system  and  the  Otter  Tail  Lake  shoreline.   The
          separation  distance  for  the   smaller  lakes  (Blanche, Walker,
          Long, Deer  and Round) is  75 feet.
                                    62

-------
     •    A minimum  horizontal  separation  distance  of 50  feet between
          the  disposal  field  or  septic  tank  and  any domestic  water
          supply.

     •    Depth to seasonal  high  groundwater or exposed bedrock must be
          a minimum of 4 feet.

     •    The  liquid  capacity  of  the  septic tank  and the  size  of the
          absorption  area  must  conform  to the  standards   outlined  in
          Appendix D.

     Because  there were  no standards for  construction  and  operation of
on-site systems prior  to the Shoreland Management Ordinance and because
many  of  the  lakeshore  lots  are  severely  limited by  a  high groundwater
level, many existing systems do not comply with the minimum standards of
the ordinance.  Violations  of the Ordinance fall into one or more of the
following categories:

     Well Setback Distance.  A minimum  setback  distance of 50 feet from
a drainfield  or  septic tank is intended to provide an adequate distance
for  removal  of bacteria and phosphorus  and  for dilution  of  nitrates.
Since  the  majority of wells in the  area are sand points  less  than 50
feet  deep  this separation  distance is  important  to  avoid  contamination
of well water.  Approximately 40% to 50% of the lots along  the lakeshore
do not meet  minimum  lot  size requirements of 20,000 square feet.   Small
lot  sizes  are most  numerous along  the  west and  northwest shores (see
Figure 11-18).  It is probable that many of these same sites cannot meet
the well setback requirements.

     Lake Setback Distance.  A  setback distance of 50  feet between the
drainfield and the lakeshore  is  intended  to provide adequate distance
for  removal   of  phosphorus  and  bacteria so that  water quality  is  not
degraded.  Of the homes along  the Otter  Tail  Lake  shoreline,  49% are
platted too  close  to  the lake to meet the minimum building setback dis-
tance  (by  letter,  Ken  Skuza,  Utleig  Engineers  to  MPCA,   March  1977).
Many  of  these same  sites  may violate minimum  setback  requirements  for
soil absorption systems.

     Depth to Groundwater.   Figure 11-18 illustrates the extent to which
lakeshore  homes  comply with minimum standard for  depth to  groundwater.
Violations of this standard are most extensive along the southwest shore
and along  shoreline  areas  adjacent to Walker Lake and  Long Lake.   Most
homes  located  along  the  east and southeast shore comply with this stan-
dard.  Violation  of  the  minimum separation distance  could  lead  to poor
soils adsorption and consequently such public health problems as ground-
water contamination and ponding of effluent.

     Sizing of Septic Tanks and Soil Absorption Systems.  No information
is available  on  the  extent of violations  of minimum  size  requirements.
An undersized  septic  tank  may  result in  backup  of  the effluent or poor
solids removal.  The lifetime of the soils treatment unit will be reduc-
ed  if solids  are  not properly removed  in  the  septic tank.  Cesspools,
leaching pits and undersized drainfield may not provide adequate renova-
tion  and  dilution of  wastewater  and would  not be expected  to  last as
long as standard sized drainfields.


                                   63

-------
     FIGURE 11-18
66%
DEER  [...,,
LAKE
                  DISTRIBUTION  OF LOT SIZES AND
                  AND PERCENTAGE OF LOTS WITH
                  HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVELS (LESS
                  THAN 6  FEET TO GROUNDWATER)

                    LEGEND

                LESS THAN 10,000 FT2

                10, 001-20, OOOFT2

                              2
                OVER 20,000 FT
              = PERCENTAGE OF LOTS
                COMPLYING WITH SHORE-
                LAND MANAGEMENT
                ORDINANCE REGARDING
                DEPTH TO GROUND-
                WATER
\WALKER
     LAKSHg ;:5^>
   35%/
                                                                  32%
                                                                     V1
                  73°/<
                                              0'
                                                       31%
                            10%
                                                                                        30%
                                                                                  35%
                                                                                    i
                                                                                    0
                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                         (OTTER
                                                                                                       (i TAn-
                                                                                                       \' RIVER
                                                                                                         79%
                                                                                                             f..  \TfLICAN
                                                                                                    "97%
                                                                                                       MILES
                                                         i
                                                         2
                                                                                    Source: Utleig Eng. Inc.,
                                                                                            to MPCA, March 1977

-------
3.   PROBLEMS  CAUSED BY  EXISTING SYSTEMS

     Since the  County has  indicated  that  only  about 15% to  20%  of  the
on-site  systems comply  with the  standards  outlined  in the Shoreland
Management Ordinance,  the potential  for water quality and public  health
problems  needs  to  be  investigated.    The  distinction  should be made
between nuisance or  community  improvement  problems on the one hand,  and
public  health  or water  quality  problems on  the  other.  Public  health
problems may result  from recurrent backups, ponding of  effluent  on  the
soil surface and  contamination  of drinking water  in excess  of drinking
water  standards.   Bacterial  contamination of  water  used  for contact
recreation may  also  constitute  a  public health  hazard.  Water quality
problems  resulting  from  use of  on-site systems  include discharge  of
nutrients, bacteria or  organics  in excess  of  water quality standards or
in  concentrations  sufficient   to  change   the  lake   trophic status.
Nuisance  or  community  improvement  problems   include  odors,  shoreline
algal growth and limitations on dwelling expansions.

     Ponding.   The  EPIC  aerial  photographic  survey detected only  one
failing system along the Otter Tail Lake shoreline (south shore) and  two
surface  malfunctions  in  the Village  of Otter Tail.   The location  of
these failures  is shown in Figure 11-16.

     Backups.  No information  is  available  on the extent to  which back-
ups are a problem for the Study Area.

     Groundwater Contamination.   Groundwater  nitrate  concentrations,  in
excess  of  the  public  health drinking water standard have been found in
associations  with  improperly  operating on-site  systems.   There   is  no
indication to  date  that this  problem  is  widespread  and the  observed
problems  were  corrected  by upgrading  an  improperly  operating on-site
system(s).

     Water Quality Degradation.   The  impact of septic  tank  leachate  on
the water quality of Otter Tail Lake and the small surrounding lakes  has
not  been  fully clarified.   The  following  discussion summarizes  the
available  information  on water  quality effects of  on-site  systems  and
points  out the  complications  involved in trying to  evaluate  this  prob-
lem.

     Nutrient budget  estimates  for Otter  Tail  Lake and  the  small sur-
rounding lakes  were  discussed  in Section II.B.7.   It  is  estimated that
septic  tanks contribute only about 37o to 4% of the total phosphorus load
to Otter Tail Lake.   Septic tanks account for  a  similarly small percent-
age of  the total  phosphorus load  to  all the  smaller lakes  except Round
Lake (see Figure 11-17).  Round Lake is land locked and consequently  has
no  non-point  source  tributaries.   It is not apparent  from  these  esti-
mates  that septic  tank leachate is contributing  significantly to  water
quality degradation (except in Round Lake).

     Kerfoot (1979)  investigated  the problem of   septic  tanks  leaching
into surface  waters  during  an  April  1979   "Septic Snooper"  Survey (see
II.C.I  and Appendix  C-3).   As  Figure  11-17  illustrates,  septic tank


                                   65

-------
plumes were  particularly dense along  the southwest and northeast shore-
lines.   The frequency  of  plumes  correlated  well with  the  number  of
permanent residences.   The soil  and groundwater conditions around Otter
Tail  Lake  are  such  that septic  tank  leachate  discharges  to Otter Tail
Lake  along   most  of  the  shoreline.   These conditions are  as follows:

     •    Soils are generally  sandy and moderately to rapidly permeable;

     •    Groundwater  flows towards Otter  Tail Lake  along  all but the
          western  shore.  Hydraulic head  is  strongest  along the shore-
          line  areas adjacent  to  Lake  Blanche, Walker Lake and Long Lake
          and an unnamed lake  northwest of  Otter Tail Lake.  These lakes
          are slightly  elevated  with  respect to Otter Tail Lake and the
          underflow  from  these  lakes  discharges  into Otter  Tail Lake
          (see  Figure 11-10).

The  significance  of septic tank  leachate  on  water quality depends upon
the  following:

      1)  How effectively septic tank leachate breaks through to the sur-
face water.  Breakthrough  is  most  efficient  in  areas  where groundwater
flow is  most  rapid.   Under  rapid hydraulic flow conditions, nutrients
from septic tanks are  not adequately  adsorbed  as  they pass through the
soil matrix.   Therefore,  nutrients break  through from the groundwater
discharging into  the  surface  water.

      2)   The fate  of phosphorus  once  it  reaches the surface water.   In
terms  of lake trophic  status  the  availability of phosphorus becomes very
important.   In marl  lakes such  as Otter Tail, phosphate and  essential
micronutrients  (especially iron  and manganese)  may form insoluble com-
pounds which  are essentially lost from the  photosynthetic zone.  The
potential  for eutrophication  in  marl  lakes may  increase rapidly if con-
ditions  become  such that  phosphorus is  no  longer  precipitated (i.e., if
buffering   capacity  and  carbonate  reservoir  are  reduced)  and becomes
unavailable for algae  growth.

      Shoreline  algae  growth.    While growth of algae is not necessarily
indicative  of a water  quality problem  resulting from septic  tanks,  it is
considered   a nuisance  since   it  interferes with recreational  activities
and  may  be  aesthetically displeasing.

      No  investigation  has been  made  to correlate the  extent of  algae
growth along the shoreline of Otter Ta^l  Lake and  the  surrounding  small-
er  lakes  with  septic   tank  leachate.  However,  results  of  an  aerial
photographic survey made during August  1978 have been  used to  locate
suspected  beds  of vegetation.  These results  have  not  yet  been confirmed
by  field   investigation.   Aquatic vegetation  located by  this  method
includes emergent and  submergent plant  species as well as  dense beds of
algae.  Suspected beds  of aquatic vegetation are  shown in Figure  11-16.
Areas of dense vegetations  are  found between Long Lake and Walker Lake,
adjacent to wetlands on the   south  shore and in an  area  along the south
central  shore.   These  locations  do not uniformly  coincide with areas of
high  housing density  or  dense  plume location.  There is  no  indication
                                    66

-------
                      Table II-7

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NUMBER OF SPECIES OF FISHES,
  AREA, AND DEPTH FOR THE 6 LAKES IN THE STUDY AREA
LAKE
Otter Tail
Blanche
Round
Walker
Deer
Long
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF
SPECIES: SPECIES:
GAME FISH FORAGE FISH
16 4
12 0(?)
10 0(?)
7 0(?)
13 12
2 0
NUMBER OF
SPECIES:
ROUGH FISH
3
2
1
2
3
0
YEAR OF
DNR
STUDY
1973
1973
1975
1971
1962
1978
LAKE AREA
IN ACRES
14,746
1,352
162
694
457
1,173
MEAN LAKE
DEPTH IN FEET
23.0
11.0
9.0
11.3
10.4
5.0

-------
that  septic  leachate  is  contributing  nutrients levels  sufficient  to
sustain significant shoreline algae  growth.   Preliminary  results  of  the
Sanitary Survey  indicate  only sparse  algal  growth along densely  popu-
lated  lakeshore  areas.   Conceivably,  nutrients  discharged  from  septic
leachate form  an insoluble precipitate  with iron or manganese and  are
not readily available  for plant  growth.
D.   BIOTIC RESOURCES

1.   AQUATIC BIOLOGY

a.   Fisheries

     The Minnesota DM  has  conducted  surveys to determine the  abundance
and diversity of fishes  in the lakes of the Study Area.   Except for  Long
Lake, the  lakes  support large and varied fish  populations.  The  degree
of species  diversity  and  the  composition of fish populations  in a given
lake can indicate  the water quality of that  lake.   For  example,  a  lake
with  trout,  walleyes,  and  whitefish  indicates  generally  good water
quality.

     Otter  Tail  Lake, Lake  Blanche,  Walker Lake and Long Lake  have  been
classified by the Minnesota DM as follows:
Lake      Management Classification          Ecological Classification

Otter
Tail      Walleye                            Walleye

Blanche   Walleye, largemouth bass,          Walleye, largemouth bass,
          and panfish                        and panfish

Round     Panfish (largemouth bass)          Panfish and largemouth bass

Walker    Panfish and largemouth bass        Panfish and largemouth bass
     The fact that the Lake Management Classification is the same as the
Ecological Classification  indicates  that  the existing conditions in the
lakes will support  populations  of fish species that are consistent with
the DNR's management goals.

     The 6 principal  lakes in the Study Area support a variety of game,
forage, and rough fishes (see Appendix E-l).  Although the lakes vary in
size  and  mean depth  (see  Table  II-7),  all except Long  Lake  support a
diverse  sport  fishery.   In  general,  lake  volume  (area and depth)  are
good  predictors   for  estimating  the  total  number  of species  of  fish.
Lakes  of  large   volume  have  more  diverse  kinds  of  habitat and  the
potential  for  greater numbers  of species.  Despite  the  differences in
the  years  of sampling  and the  apparent  failure to  sample minnows and
other forage  fishes  with equal intensity  in each  lake,  the large lakes
have more  species (see  Appendix E-l).  Long Lake is exceptional because
                                    68

-------
under  certain  winter conditions, its  fish  populations  periodically are
killed  by lack  of oxygen.   According to  Mr.  Don Reedstrom,  the  Area
Fisheries Manager, only bullheads are present in Long Lake in 1979.   The
relationship between lake volume and number of species probably would be
more pronounced  if  the  lakes were physically separated.  At high water,
it is possible for fish from one lake to enter another lake.

     The  most  sought  game  fishes  of  the  Study Area  include  walleye,
northern  pike,  largemouth bass, yellow perch,  bullheads,  bluegills and
other sunfishes.

b.   Aquatic Vegetation

     Rooted aquatic  vascular plants  and algae, present  in  all  lakes of
the Study Area, provide the  food for hundreds of species of plant-eating
animals.   Ultimately,   all   aquatic  organisms  and  many  terrestrial
organisms rely on the  productivity of these  given  plants.   In general,
the  amount  of  vegetation depends  on  lake  morphology,  substrate,  and
surface  water  quality.    In  the Study Area,  rooted aquatic  plants  are
common  along the shores of  the shallow lakes.  In deeper lakes, propor-
tionately less  area is  covered with  aquatic vegetation.   Appendix E-2
lists  the dominant  species   of aquatic  vegetation  for four  lakes  for
which specific information is available.

     In Otter Tail Lake, pockets of emergent vegetation that have formed
in  several  locations along  the shoreline are small and often transient;
such vegetation  is often destroyed by wave action or by the battering of
the shoreline by  ice floes."''•'  Figure 11-16 shows the location and extent
of  emergent  vegetation.   During  a  1969  water  quality  survey  the  MPCA
found  high  counts of  algae, primarily blue-green  algae (Anabaena  sp.,
Microcystis aeruginosa and Gleotrichia sp.)

     In  Lake  Blanche,   a  1973 DNR survey estimated that  3% of  the  lake
had emergent vegetation, especially along the east and south shorelines.
Submerged vegetation was  scattered  throughout the littoral zone.  Algal
blooms were reported (DNR) for  that year.

     Deer Lake  has  a  band  of  submerged  vegetation  which surrounds the
entire Lake at depths of approximately 6-13 feet.  Some emergent vegeta-
tion  is present  on  the west,  south,  and southeast shores.  Blue-green
algae  were  significantly less  common  than  in Otter  Tail Lake,  possibly
the  result  cf  plankton die-off with little  or  no  reproduction in Otter
Tail River  between Otter Tail  Lake and Deer  Lake (DNR 1962; MPCA 1970).

     On  Walker  Lake,  the  emergent vegetation  is widely  distributed,
especially along scattered shoal area (DNR 1962).   Phytoplankton counts
were  high in Walker Lake during  a  1969  survey in  comparison  to other
lakes  in  the Study Area.

     Round Lake  appears to be the only Study  Area lake with algal blooms
(DNR  1975;  by   letter,  Mr.  Donald  Reedstrom,  8  June  1979).   The DNR
survey  estimated that  3% of the lake's  area was  covered with emergent
vegetation,  mostly hardstem  bulrushes  but  also including  cattails and
arrowheads.
                                    69

-------
c.   Waterfowl

     The lakes  and lake marsh  fringe areas  of  the Study Area  provide
habitat for many  species of  nesting  and  migrant  birds.   Resident migra-
tory  birds  known  to  be breeding in  the  area  around  Otter Tail  Lake
include herons, bitterns, teal,  Canada  geese, terns and ducks.   A  list
of waterfowl of the Otter Tail  Lake  Study  Area is  presented  in Appendix
E-3.

2.   WETLANDS

a.   Overview

     Wetlands are inundated  by  surface or groundwater with  a  frequency
sufficient  to  support aquatic  or semi-aquatic  life.  They  perform the
following important functions in the ecological and hydrological cycle:

     •    Purify  nearby surface  water bodies by entrapping sediments and
          concentrating nutrients  which  have been washed off  the land-
          scape.

     •    Provide  storage areas  for  storm  and flood waters,  thereby ab-
          sorbing  the impact of flooding.

     •    Act as  prime natural recharge areas.

     •    Provide  essential  habitat  for a wide diversity  of  wildlife,
          and  support biological  functions  such as nesting,  breeding,
          and feeding.

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

     Wetlands  are sensitive  to  such activities  as the raising or lower-
ing  of  the  water  table or altering drainage patterns.

b.   Study Area

      Wetlands  found  in the  Study Area (see Figure 11-19) are associated
mainly  with the  lakes  and   streams.    Unlike many of  the smaller  lakes
within  the  Study Area, extensive wetland  areas  have  not  been formed
along the Otter Tail  Lake shoreline.

      Otter  Tail Lake.   The   large size and  lack of protective  bays of
Otter   Tail  Lake  operate  against  the  formation  of  extensive  wetland
areas.   The  action   of  waves,   the  battering  of  the shoreline by ice
floes,  and  the  expansive  movement  of  ice  reduce  the  likelihood  that
wetlands will  form on the shorelines of  large lakes, such as Otter  Tail.
Organic matter  that has accumulated  in emergent  vegetation over  a period
of  decades  may  be washed away within a few hours by  the  recurring action
of  rafted  ice  floes.
                                    70

-------
FIGURE I1-19   WETLANDS OF THE OTTER TAIL STUDY AREA
                         LEGEND
                  * -*- .-1 WETLANDS
                                                                  MILES
                                                     Source:   USGS 1973
                         71

-------
     Pockets of marshy areas with emergent vegetation such as bulrushes,
wild rice and arrowhead have formed in several locations along the shore
of Otter  Tail  Lake,  but  these areas  are small.   A few  such  areas  are
found near  the shore by Pelican  Bay  and along the "sand  flats"  of  the
north shore of Otter  Tail  Lake,  where they are mostly small patches  the
size of a  residential building lot.   If areas such as these are able to
grow  and  extend  toward  the  center  of  the  lake,  small wetlands  can
develop.  It is likely,  however,  that these  incipient  wetlands  will be
short-lived.

     Connecting Streams.   There are  extensive areas of emergent vegeta-
tion  (bulrush  and wild rice) along the  connecting  streams  in the Study
Area.  These streams  are  slow moving and tend to collect floating orga-
nic debris, such as fragments of vascular plants and algae.

     Smaller Lakes.   There  are large  areas of  cattail  wetlands associ-
ated with  many of  the smaller lakes  in  the Study Area.  These wetlands
are  dominated  by vegetation such as  cattails,  sedges, arrowheads,  and
grasses.  The  plant community dominated by cattails supports many kinds
of wildlife.   Ducks,  shore  birds, and wading birds  nest here, and feed
both in the wetlands  and in  the adjacent open water.  Colonially-nesting
blackbirds are also seasonal residents in the cattail marshes.  Muskrats
and  meadow  voles   feed  on  the  vegetation  and a  number  of  predators
including  minks  and  raccoon hunt for  food  in  these wetlands.  Cattail
marshes  are found  in  the   following  locations within  the  Study Area:

          North of  Deer Lake,
          Adjacent  to the shallow western bay of Long Lake,
          Around much of the shore of Walker Lake,
          Near the  outlet of the Otter Tail River, and
          In  a low-lying  area west  of Amor  Park on  Otter  Tail Lake.

     This  last wetland area is associated  with Otter Tail Lake, but is
separated  from the  lake  proper  by a  sand  dike upon which cottages  are
built.

      Shrub  wetlands  containing  species  of  alder  and  willow also  are
present  in several  locations  in  the  Study Area.   A large  shrub wetland
of  46.4 acres  is  found between Otter Tail Lake  and Lake Blanche, near
Balmoral  Creek.   The area on  the  south  side  of Highway 78, between  the
Otter Tail River outlet and  Lake  Blanche,  contains many pockets of shrub
wetlands.   One area  of  126.2 acres  is  protected  by a Federal easement
which prevents it from being drained  or  filled.

      The  wetlands  associated  with  the  smaller  lakes  and  connecting
streams,  rather than Otter Tail  Lake  proper,  represent major areas of
environmental  concern within the  Otter Tail Lake Study  Area.

3.   TERRESTRIAL  BIOLOGY

a.   Forest Lands

      Otter  Tail County is located  in  the transition  zone of the Northern
Forest  Region  and  the Central Forest Region  (Society  of American Fore-
sters  1954).  Before settlers came  to  the  Otter  Tail area,  deciduous


                                   72

-------
forests of  maple,  basswood,  and  oak extended  to  the Red River  of  the
North.  Norway and white  pine forests covered much of  the  northeastern
part  of  the Otter Tail  River watershed.   As a result  of logging  and
forest clearance  for  farming, the  deciduous forests were  reduced con-
siderably, and the pine forests were reduced to  scattered stands.  After
forest clearance,  birch  and aspen  became  established  in the  denuded
landscape (Winter, Bidwell, and Macclay 1969).

     The   Study Area  is part prairie and part hardwood  forest  (Winter,
Bidwell,   and  Maclay  1969)  of  the  basswood-maple  type  (by  telephone,
Allan Olson, Minnesota DNR Regional Forester, 5 October 1978).   Associ-
ated with this forest cover type are American elm,  green ash,  birch,  red
and white oak, white  pine, and hackberry (Society  of  American Foresters
1954).

     Appendix E-4  contains  list  of trees  found in the  Otter Tail Lake
Study Area.   Much  of  the  Study Area is not forested and has been signi-
ficantly  influenced  by human activity such  as  agriculture, residential
development, and  road construction.   Farmlands  are currently  the pre-
dominant   lands  of the Study Area,  and  if allowed to  return  to their
natural state,  the prevailing plant species would be typical of  an early
successional* forest community.

b.   Wildlife

     A great diversity of wildlife is supported by the  woodland habitat
of the Study Area.  Mammals include foxes,  deer,  weasels, raccoons, bad-
gers, woodchucks,  squirrels,  gophers,  mice,  lemmings  and voles.   A com-
plete list  of  the  mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians  found in  the
Study Area is contained in Appendix E-5.

4.   THREATENED OR  ENDANGERED SPECIES

     The  bald  eagle   (Haliaeetus  leucocephalus), classified as  "threat-
ened"  by the  US  Fish and  Wildlife  Service,  is   a  regular  migratory
visitor to  the Otter  Tail Lake Study Area  in fall  and  early  spring  (by
telephone, Carl Madson, Minnesota DNR,  2 October 1978).   No nests, how-
ever, have yet been  found in the Study Area.  The  nearest known nesting
site  is  located  thirty miles to  the  north in the Tamarack  Refuge  (by
telephone, Dick Nores, US Department of Interior).   The  habitat  of  the
bald  eagle  consists  of   forested  areas  along the  shores of  lakes  and
rivers.  Trees  provide nesting  habitat,  while  lakes  provide  the eagle
with fish, its principal  food.

     The Arctic peregrine  falcon  (Falco  perigrinus),  classified as "en-
dangered" by  the  US  Fish  and  Wildlife   Service,  has  been  recently
recorded  in parts  of  Minnesota  during the fall  hawk migration (by tele-
phone, Carl Madson, Minnesota DNR, 2 October 1978).  These birds breed
in the far  north  and migrate through  the  general  vicinity  of the Study
Area.  No nesting  sites   for these birds  have  been  identified in  the
Study Area.
                                   73

-------
     Based on the April  30,  1979  list of the US Fish  and Wildlife Ser-
vice, no  other  federally threatened  or endangered species  of plant or
animal is known to occur in  Otter  Tail County.
E.   POPULATION AND  SOCIOECQNOMICS

     Existing  information on  population,  employment,  income, poverty
level  and  housing  has  been published  separately  for  each  municipal
jurisdiction  in  the   Study  Area.   Together  these  data  describe  the
"Socioeconomic  Study  Area."  The  methodology used  to  break down  this
information  for  the Proposed Service  Area is discussed in Appendix F.

1.   EXISTING POPULATION

     Otter Tail County has only recently (1970 to 1975)  begun to experi-
ence  renewed population growth after  30 years  of declining  population
levels  (see  Table II-8).   The  only political  subdivision of  the  County
which did  not experience  population growth during this  period was Otter
Tail Village,  which declined by 8.9% from 1970 to 1975.   The population
increase  was  significant for  Amor  Township  (19.1%),  Evert Township
(22.1%)  and Girard Township  (15.4%)  while Otter Tail  Township experi-
enced a more moderate  rate of growth (6.6%).

     The  population in the  Proposed  Service Area is composed of three
major  elements:   permanent  (year-round  residents);  seasonal  residents
(non-resident  property owners); and vacation visitors  housed in various
resorts,  campgrounds  and  related  tourist facilities.  Summer population
was  estimated using the methods described  in  Appendix F.   As indicated
in  Table II-9,  the total population of  6,344 people consists of 1,094
(17.2%)  permanent  residents and  5,250  (82.8%)  seasonal  and vacation
residents.

     The  existing  population  in  the  Proposed Service  Area  is  concen-
trated  in Otter Tail Village,  the Otter Tail Lake shoreline, the  shore-
line of Blanche,  Long, Walker, Deer, and Round Lakes, and along portions
of   the  Otter Tail River.   Most  seasonal  residents live in  the Amor,
Everts, and  Otter  Tail  subareas; permanent  residents  are  well  distri-
buted  throughout the  Study  Area, except  for  the Girard subarea, where
only 48 people reside.

      The 1976  EIS  population estimate  differs  from the Facility Plan
estimate of 6,288 persons by only 0.9%.   The variation in estimates is  a
result  of the different occupancy rates  (persons per dwelling unit) used
and the slight variations in dwelling unit equivalents assumed to exist
in  each estimate.

2.   POPULATION PROJECTIONS

      Total  and seasonal population was  projected for the year 2000 for
each segment within the Proposed Service Area.   In  estimating the popu-
lation  for  the year 2000, three growth factors were  considered:
                                   74

-------
    LOCAL UNIT

Otter Tall County

Amor Township

F.verts Township

CirnrH Township

Otter T.iii Township

Otter Tall VUl,1Rp
                                                                               Table  II-8
                                             PERMANENT POPIH.ATION  TRF.NnS  OF  THE SOCIOF.CONOMIC STUDY ARFA KOR THE PERIOD 1940-1975
                               1940
                                                           1950
                                                                                             1960
                                                                                                                              1970
                                                                                                                                                                1975
% OF
JPU1.ATION COUNTY
53.192 100.00
357 .67
384 .72
414 .78
206 . 79
POPULATION
51,320
413
348
164
163
1 OF
COUNTY
100.00
.80
.6R
. 70
.31
7.
CHANCE
- 3.
15.
- 9.
-12.
-20.
5
7
/,
1
9
POPULATION
48,960
366
430
296
174
% OF
COWTY
100.00
. 75
.S8
.60
. 35
CHANCE
- 4.6
-11.4
23.6
-18. 7
6. 7
POPULATION
46.097
408
429
345
212
7. OF
COUNTY
ioo.no
.89
.93
.75
.46
7.
CIIAr'GK
- 5.8
11.5
- 0.2
16.6
21.8
'/. OK "•:
POPULATION COUNTY CHANCE
48,695 100. 00 Vi
486 1 .00 19. 1
524 1.08 2:>.l
398 .82 15.4
276 .46 6.6
                            254
                                        .48
                                                   237
                                                               .46    -6.7
                                                                                     164
                                                                                                 .31    -30.R
                                                                                                                      180
                                                                                                                                  . 39
                                                                                                                                           9.8
                                                                                                                                                        164
                                                                                                                                                                    .34    - R.9
Sources:   U.S.  Census of  Population, 1940, 1950, I960, 1970.
          U.S.  Census,  Current Populntlon Reports (Series P-25),  May 1977.

-------
                                  Table II-9

                  EXISTING PERMANENT AND SEASONAL POPULATION
                          FOR THE SERVICE AREA (1976)1
TOWNSHIP OR MUNICIPALITY	POPULATION                  PERCENT
COMPRISING SERVICE AREA
Amor
Everts
Girard
Otter Tail
Otter Tail Village
TOTAL
2,019
2,187
268
1,688
182
PERMANENT
369
222
48
303
152
SEASONAL
1,650
1,965
220
1,385
30
SEASONAL
81.7%
89.8%
82.1%
82.0%
16.5%
  TOTAL SERVICE AREA         6,344       1,094          5,250          82.8%




 The assumptions and methodology utilized to derive these population estimates
 are found in Appendix F.


Source:  WAPORA, Inc., 1978.
                                      76

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

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

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

Each  factor was  considered  as  being significant in  the determination of
future populations and  the  distribution of permanent and seasonal resi-
dents within the  population.   Appendix F gives complete details  on  the
projection methodology used for this analysis.

     As shown  in  Table  11-10  the total population  for  the  year 2000 is
estimated to  be  7,555  consisting  of  1,805  (23.9%)  permanent  residents
and  5,750  (76.1%)  seasonal  residents  and  vacation  visitors.   The
projected increase in total population is 19.0% for  the planning period.
The seasonal population will increase by an estimated 494 people (9.4%),
while  the  permanent  population  will increase  by more than 700  people
(64.9%).  In general,  the  population projections indicate an increasing
proportion  of  year-round  residents  in  previously   seasonally  occupied
districts.

     Of  the five  subareas, only  Otter Tail  Village  will  decline  in
population  during the  planning period, while  the  other four  subareas
will  experience population  growth  ranging  from 18.2% in Everts  Township
to 22.4%  in Girard  Township.   The percentage of seasonal residents will
also  have a decrease in each of these  four  subareas,  i.e.,  proportion-
ately more  residents will be permanent.

3.   CHARACTERISTICS OF  THE  POPULATION

a.   Income

     Based  on  1970  census  data, the mean income for the permanent resi-
dents of the Study Area was $6,048, a figure substantially less  than the
County  ($7,845), State ($11,098) and national ($10,999) figures.  Girard
Township  had  a mean  family income  of  only $3,077   which  significantly
reduced  the mean value  for the Study Area  (see Tabls  11-11).   In com-
parision  to the  State  and  County  figures, the Study Area had  a  larger
percentage  (25.4%)  of families with  incomes below  the  Federally estab-
lished poverty level  (see Table 11-12).  Similar trends were observed in
1974  with  per  capita  mean income  for the Study  Area 4.7% below  the
County and  22.7% below the  State (Table 11-11).

     The relatively low incomes of the permanent population in  the Study
Area  largely  stem from the low wage employment opportunities and to the
large  retired population.   Agriculture and tourism,  both  seasonal in
nature,  are the  principal  industries.   Approximately  40% of  the Study
Area's  1970 population was  over 55 years of age, compared to 20% and 19%
figures  for the  state  and  nation,  respectively.   This relatively high
figure  is  partly due  to  the  area's attraction as  a suitable place  for
retirement.  Many older residents have converted their seasonal  homes to
                                    77

-------
                                  Table II-9

           PERMANENT AND SEASONAL POPULATION OF THE OTTER TAIL LAKES
                         PROPOSED SERVICE AREA (2000)1
     SUBAREA
Amor
Everts
Girard
Otter Tail
Otter Tail Village
  TOTAL SERVICE AREA
POPULATION
PERMANENT
597
442
75
539
152
1,805
SEASONAL
1,844
2,144
252
1,480
30
5,750
TOTAL
2,441
2,586
327
2,019
182
7,555
PERCENT
SEASONAL
  75.5%


  82.9%


  77.1%


  73.3%


  16.5%


  76.1%
 The assumptions and methodology utilized  to derive these population projections
 are presented in Appendix F.
Source:  WAPORA, Inc., 1978.
                                       78

-------
                                  Table 11-11

                      MEAN AND MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME 1970,
                        PER CAPITA INCOME 1969 AND 1974
                                  FAMILY
1970
MEAN
$10,999
$11,098
$ 7,845
$ 6,048
$ 6,203
$ 6,107
$ 3,077
$ 7,419
$ 7,605
1970
MEDIAN
$9,586
$9,928
$6,708
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
                                                             PER CAPITA
United States


Minnesota


Otter Tail County


Study Area


Amor Township


Everts Township


Girard Township


Otter Tail Township


Otter Tail Village

N/A = Not Applicable
Sources:  U.S. Census of Population and Housing, Fifth Count Summary
          Tapes, 1970.

          U.S. Census of Population, 1970.

          U.S. Census, Population Estimates and Projections,  Serias  P-25,
          May 1977.
1969
N/A
$3,038
$2,248
$2,125
$1,960
$2,102
$1,521
$1,954
$1,774
1974
N/A
$4,675
$3,793
$3,615
$3,492
$3,324
$2,384
$3,190
$3,153
                                      79

-------
                                  Table 11-12

                   INCOME CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILIES, 1970
Under $1,000

$1,000 - 1,999

$2,000 - 2,999

$3,000 - 3,999

$4,000 - 4,999

$5,000 - 5,999

$6,000 - 6,999

$7,000 - 7,999

$8,000 - 9,999

$10,000 - 14,999

$15,999 - 24,999

$25,000 - 49,000

$50,000 and over

Percent Below
  Poverty Level
STATE OF
MINNESOTA
1.8
2.9
4.3
4.8
4.8
5.2
5.7
6.6
14.4
29.2
15.9
3.6
0.7
OTTER TAIL
COUNTY
3.6
6.5
8.9
8.8
7.8
0.6
8.2
6.8
13.4
18.0
7.5
1.7
.2
STUDY AREA
6.7
11.0
14.6
9.6
5.8
9.6
13.2
3.4
9.8
10.3
5.9
-0-
-0-
8.2%
16.6%
25.4%
Sources:  U.S. Census, General Social and Economic Characteristics, 1970.

          U.S. Census, Census of Population and Housing, Fifth Count  Summary
          Tapes, 1970.
                                      80

-------
permanent  use  upon  retirement.   Because  elderly and  retired  families
often live on  limited  or fixed incomes, it is not surprising that 42.2%
of all persons of poverty status were 65 years of age or older.

     No  published  statistics  on socioeconomic  characteristics  of  the
seasonal  population  are available  for  either the  Study Area  or Otter
Tail  County.    In  general,  the  seasonal  population  has  a  relatively
higher mean family income  which allows them  to  own  and maintain a per-
manent  as well  as  a  seasonal  home.   Compared  to  the relatively  low
family  incomes  of  permanent  residents  in the Study Area, it is nearly
certain   that   seasonal   residents   have   substantially  higher  family
incomes.

     Past trends regarding seasonal residents indicate that the  majority
are  married  couples  with  families.   However, recent  indications point
toward  more singles and  married couples  without  children  purchasing
second  homes,  resulting  in  smaller  seasonal resident  occupancy rates
(persons per unit).

     Generally,  the  higher incomes  of  seasonal  residents  allow them to
be relatively mobile.  As a result,  it  is difficult to determine whether
their  seasonal  residences  could be  their  likely place of  retirement.
However,  discussions with  local sources  knowledgable  about   the  area
indicate  that  the  permanent population includes many  retirees,  a large
portion  of which converted  their seasonal dwelling  for permanent use.

b.   Employment

     During 1970, nearly three-fourths of all employed Otter  Tail County
residents were engaged  in  agriculture,  services, or trade.  Agriculture
and  services  accounted  for more than  25% each  of  the County's  total
employment, and  trade accounted  for  an additional  21%.  Only  9.2% of
Otter Tail County's  residents were  employed in manufacturing activities
(see Table 11-13).

     Tourism and travel-related  activities  make  up a large part  of  the
County's  retail  trade  and  service activity based on  1970  data.   Hotels
and  amusement  services  accounted for  over  60% of  Otter Tail  County
service  industry receipts  compared  to  only  22%  for Minnesota.   Retail
trade statistics for 1972  reinforce  the observation that travel-related
industries are  important  to  the Otter  Tail County economy.  Sales from
gasoline  service  stations  were  substantially  higher  on  a  percentage
basis than the  figures  for  the State, suggesting a  high  seasonal con-
sumption of gasoline by tourists.

c.   Financial  Characteristics

     Table  11-14  describes  financial  characteristics  for  the  local
governments in  the  Study  Area.   This  information is necessary  for  the
evaluation of  various alternatives  available to the  local  governments
for  financing wastewater management improvements.

     In  Minnesota,  counties  serve as agents  for  subordinate  government
units,  acting  as  the  collector  and distributor  Dt" taxes and  grants.
Revenues are generated by three major sources:

                                   81

-------
                                 Table 11-13

               PERCENTAGE EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR INDUSTRY - 1970
                         STATE
MINNESOTA
 REGION  IV
OTTER TAIL
  COUNTY
Agriculture
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation
Utilities and
Communication
Trade
Finance
Service
Government
7.7%
1.0%
5.7%
21.0%
6.6%
22.0%
4.6%
27.6%
3.8%
100.0%
20.2%
0.1%
6.1%
7.7%
6.6%
22.7%
3.6%
29.4%
3.6%
100.0%
                                                                     25.2%

                                                                      0.1%

                                                                      5.5%

                                                                      9.2%



                                                                      6.7%

                                                                     21.0%

                                                                      2.4%

                                                                     26.8%

                                                                      3.1%

                                                                     100.0%
Source:  U.S.  Department of Commerce,  1970 U.S.  Census of Population,  1970
         Minnesota General Social & Economic Characteristics.
                                      82

-------
                                                      Table 11-14

                                        FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LOCAL
                                     GOVERNMENTS IN THE OTTER TAIL LAKE STUDY AREA
CO
Taxable
Valuation
Total
Revenue
Receipts
Total
Current
Expense
Total
Capital
Outlay
OTTER TAIJ/ '
COUNTY
$103,167,666


7,215,514


5,124,700

2,641,934
AMORV '
TOWNSHIP
$1,877,084


31,519


33,171

5,815
EVERTS k '
TOWNSHIP
$2,263,611


22,825


18,239

25,362
GIRARCT ;
TOWNSHIP
$1,610,968


23,819


19,083

5,435
OTTER TAH/ '
TOWNSHIP
$1,315,048


19,657


10,087

219
OTTER TAIL
TOWNSHIP
$572,345


20,124


11,140

	
                                                                                                              (3)
     Total
      Indebtedness
315,000
     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 of
                    Minnesota, January, 1978.

               (3)  Report of the State Auditor of Minnesota, Revenues, Expenditures and Debt of Cities in
                    Minnesota, November, 1977.

-------
     •    General property tax,
     •    Federal revenue sharing,  and
     •    State aid  to  local governments,  usually  $25-$30 per  capita.

     From these revenues,  expenditures  for  general  government  and  capi-
tal are made.  Counties,  townships  and cities  all can incur 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 governmental unit.   General
obligation  bonds  require  voter approval  in  Minnesota.   In  contrast,
revenue  bonds  have  no  set  debt  limit  and   do  not  require  a public
referendum.

     According to  Table  11-14,  only  Otter Tail  County had  any out-
standing debt  at the end  of fiscal  year  1975,  a $315,000 debt in  the
form  of  revenue  bonds.   As a result,  it  appears that all of  the  local
governments  are  in sound fiscal condition to  finance  future wastewater
management improvements.

4.   HOUSING  CHARACTERISTICS

     Existing  dwelling  units  for  each  segment  within  the   Proposed
Service Area were determined using aerial  photographs and local records.
The  total  number of dwelling unit equivalents  in  1976 was 1440, con-
sisting of  390 (27.1%)  permanent units and 1,050 (72.9%) seasonal  units
(see Table 11-15).  Almost all of the dwellings are  single-family units,
including  the  approximately  160  resort units.   All units are  served by
on-site wastewater disposal systems.

     Age characteristics of the housing stock for 1970 indicate that  the
Study  Area  had  proportionately  fewer  units built  before 1939  (38.2%)
than  either the  State  (49.4%)  or the  County  (61.0%).   In fact, nearly
20%  of the  Study  Area's housing stock was, built after  1965,  including
27.4%  in Amor  Township  and 20.9% in  Girard Township.   Of  the  five sub-
areas,  only Otter Tail  Village  was  characterized  by a relatively  old
housing stock.

     The  1970  median value  of  owner-occupied units  in the  County  and
presumably  in  the Study  Area as well  ($11,987) was  considerably  lower
than  the  State  ($18,054)  and national ($17,130) figures.  This can be
attributed in part to the  large number of seasonal units which  have been
converted  to permanent  homes.   Although no specific information regard-
ing  the characteristics  of  seasonal  dwelling  units  is available,  as
part-time  residences they are  presumably  generally  smaller  in  size,
lower  in  value,  and  lacking many of  the amenities  of permanent units.
Consequently,  when seasonal units are  converted to  permanent  use,  they
depress the value of the permanent housing stock.

5.   LAND USE

a.   Existing Land Use

     The primary land use categories  in the  Study Area  include  agri-
culture, forests,  lakes  and wetlands.  Figure 11-20 shows the extent of
these  land use  categories.   Urban development, mostly  in the  form of

-------
                                   Table  11-15

                             EXISTING DWELLING UNITS
                    IN THE OTTER TAIL PROPOSED SERVICE AREA
 TOWNSHIP OR MUNICIPALITY
 COMPRISING SERVICE AREA           TOTAL          PERMANENT           SEASONAL
Amor                                453              123                 330


Everts                              467              74                 393


Girard                               60              16                  44


Otter Tail                          378              101                 277


Otter Tail Village                	82              76               	6


   TOTAL                          1,440              390               1,050



*Includes Resort facilities


Source:   WAPORA, Inc., 1978.
                                     85

-------
FIGURE TI-20   EXISTJ.NG LAND USE  IN  THE  OTTER TAIL STUDY AREA

                            LEGEND
                J RESIDENTIAL
                ^| FOREST AND WETLAKDS

                   ACRICULTU11AL AND OP UN PASTU11ELAND
                   WILDLIFE MANAGE2-n-NT AND  CAME AREAS
                                                                         MILES
                   ^OT,f COURSE

                      I.TC ACCESS
                                    86
Source:  USGS 1973;
Otter Tail County
Planning Advisory
Comtnission 1968

-------
single family  residential land  use,  has been  confined  to  areas around
the various lakeshores and Otter Tail Village.  Lakeshore development is
in a  single  tier  pattern for the most part.  The most densely populated
lakeshore  areas  include:  most  of  the  Otter  Tail Lake  shoreline,  the
north shore  of Lake  Blanche,  the  south shores of Walker Lake  and Long
Lake, Round  Lake  and  the north shore  of Deer Lake.  Many  of  the lots
around Otter  Lake are  small  with about 40-50% being less  than 20,000
square  feet.   The  extent and  distribution  of lot  sizes  is  shown  in
Figure 11-18.

b.   Future Land Use/Growth  Management

     Otter Tail County  has  no comprehensive land use plan.   The primary
sources  of  growth   management   capabilities  influencing   development
activity within the  Proposed  Service Area are the local  township zoning
ordinances and the Otter Tail County Shoreland Management Ordinance.   Of
the  four  townships  located  in the Study Area, only Amor  Township has  no
zoning  ordinance.   Development  restrictions   imposed  by the  Shoreland
Management   Ordinance   are   incorporated  into   the   local   township
ordinances.  Land  areas  situated within 1,000 feet of  the  normal high
water mark of any  inland lake  (300  feet from a  river  or  stream) have
been  designated  shoreland  management  districts.   Single-family  resi-
dences  and  agriculture are  the   permitted  uses   in   the  shoreland
management  district.   Additional uses  are allowed  upon issuance of  a
special use permit by the Planning Advisory Commission.

     Conditional  uses vary  with lake  classification.   All lakes  have
been  classified as  either "Natural  Environment",  "Recreational  Develop-
ment", or "General Development" areas.   Otter Tail Lake is classified  as
a General Development Lake while the small surrounding lakes are classi-
fied as Recreational Development Lakes.

     The minimum  shoreland  development  standards  for  residential  homes
vary with the lake classification (see Table 11-16).

     Parks  or  resort  facilities are  conditional  uses  permitted  along
Natural Environment or Recreational Development shoreline.   Churches may
obtain special use permits in Recreational or General Development areas.
Industrial development,  if properly  screened  from public rights-of-way,
is conditionally permitted in General Development areas.

     Specific  provisions for sanitation  standards,  shoreland  altera-
tions, non-conforming uses,  cluster  development,  and special exemptions
are established in the Shoreland Management Ordinance.  Detailed regula-
tions governing the development of mobile home parks,  recreational  camp-
grounds, resorts,  and controlled accesses are also provided.

     Cluster developments  and resorts,  subject to official review and
approval,  may  be  developed at one  fourth of the minimum lot sizes and
lake  frontage  required per dwelling unit.  These  special dispensations
depend  upon provision  of central  sewage  facilities  which meet  State
health and pollution control standards  and upon the preservation of open
space.  Dedication of  open  space to  community use  moderates  the overall
                                  37

-------
                                  Table 11-16

                     MINIMUM SHORELAND ORDINANCE STANDARDS
                                              WATER         BUILDING SETBACK
LAKE CLASSIFICATION         LOT AREA         FRONTAGE        FROM SHORELAND
Natural
  Environment (NE)       80,000 sq. ft.      200 ft.             200 ft.

Recreational
  Development (RD)       40,000 sq. ft.      150 ft.             100 ft.

General
  Development (GD)       20,000 sq. ft.      100 ft.              75 ft,
Source:  Otter Tail County Shoreland Management Ordinance, 1973.
                                      88

-------
intensity of site  development,  while allowing developers to take advan-
tage of economies  of  scale in residential construction and provision of
services.   For a given level of development, clustered development often
tends to minimize associated adverse environmental consequences.

     Residential  densities of  up to  two  dwelling  units  per acre  are
possible  for  future development  around  Otter Tail  Lake,  while  maximum
densities are  limited to  one  dwelling per  acre around Blanche,  Long,
Walker, Deer, and Round Lakes.   Clustered residential or resort develop-
ment is possible at densities of up to eight or nine dwellings units  per
acre around Otter Tail Lake and up to four dwellings per acre around  the
other lakes.

c.   Recreation

     A prime attraction of the Otter Tail Lakes area is its recreational
potential.   Major  activities   include  boating,  fishing,  camping,  and
swimming.  No  figures  are  available to indicate  the  relative  amount of
usage  each  water body  in  the Study Area  receives.   However,  the large
number of seasonal  residences  and the many public lake access points in
the  Study  Area  indicate  extensive  recreational usage  of  the  lakes.

     Public Waysides.    There are  several  wayside  rest and  historical
sites  in  the  Study Area maintained by the Minnesota Highway Department.
Generally, the  wayside  rest areas provide picnicking and basic sanitary
facilities  for passing motorists, while  historic areas  are maintained
for  the designation  of a natural  or  man-made point  of  significance.

     Public Lake Access.   Public  access  to the lakes  in the  Study Area
is  provided at  thirteen  locations  as depicted  in Figure  11-23.   The
largest lake  (Otter Tail)  has  a  total of 24.4 miles  of  shoreline with
several areas  available  for public access  (see Table  11-17).  The five
other major  lakes  in  the Study Area have no more than one public access
point.

     Wildlife Areas.  Several wildlife  management areas operated by  the
Minnesota Department  of  Conservation are  located in the Study Area (see
Figure 11-20).

     Campgrounds.  Five  campgrounds  exist around the lakes in the Otter
Tail Lake Study Area.   The major characteristics of these private camp-
grounds are indicated in Table 11-18.

d.   Transportation

     Major  transportation  networks  into the area include  Routes  74  and
108  which  run  east-west  and Route  78  which runs  north-south.   Figure
11-20  shows  the location  of major roads and highways  within  the Study
Area.  Rail  transportation is  provided by both the SOO Railroad  and  the
Burlington Northern Line.
                                    89

-------
                                  Table 11-17

                         PUBLIC ACCESS TO LAKES IN THE
                             OTTER TAIL STUDY AREA
MUNICIPALITY


Townships of
 Amor, Everts,
 Otter Tail

Townships of
 Amor, Everts
 Otter Tail

Townships of
 Amor, Everts
 Otter Tail

Townships of
 Everts and
 Girard

Everts Township

Amor Township

Everts Township

Amor Township

Amor Township

Amor Township
     LAKE


Otter Tail Lake



Otter Tail Lake



Otter Tail Lake



Lake Blanche



Deer Lake

Long Lake

Round Lake

Walker Lake

Brown Lake

Twin Lakes
SHORE MILES


   24.4



   24.4



   24.4



    5.4



    3.8

    9.0

    2.0

    3.7
       FACILITY
5 Public Access Points



4 Wayside Parks



3-Recreation Parks



Public Access Point



Public Access Point

       None

       None

Public Access Point

Public Access Point

Public Access Point
Sources:  Telephone interview with staff of Otter Tail County Department of
          Land and Resource Management, 3/14/78.

          "Minnesota Lake Shore" Summary Report of the Minnesota Development
          Study, 1970.
                                      90

-------
                                  Table 11-18

              PRIVATE CAMPGROUNDS LOCATED IN THE OTTER TAIL LAKE
                                  STUDY AREA
     NAME


Beachwood

Otter Tail Lake

Riverside

Wheel-In

Wildwood

   TOTAL
ACREAGE
TENT SITES
TRAILER SITES
3.0
20.0
4.0
4.5
1.5
33.0
9
40
15
30
4
98
—
9
6
—
4
19
   LOCATION


Battle Lake

Otter Tail Lake

Otter Tail Lake

Battle Lake

Otter Tail Lake
Source:  Otter Tail County Planning Advisory Commission, 1968.
                                     91

-------
5.   CULTURAL RESOURCES

a.   Archaeological  Resources

     During the preparation of  this  EIS,  the  Minnesota  Historical  Soci-
ety and the Otter Tail County  Historical  Society were  contacted  concern-
ing the  location  of  cultural  resources  in the Study Area.   The  Facility
Plan's Proposed  Action has been  reviewed pursuant to  the  responsibil-
ities  given  the  State Historic  Preservation Officer  by the  National
Historic Preservation  Act  of  1966.   Currently,  the  Minnesota  Historical
Society is conducting a comprehensive statewide survey of  archaeological
and historical sites,  but  Otter Tail County has not  yet  been surveyed.
Systematic surveys  conducted  throughout  the  state  have  shown a  high
correlation  between  prehistoric  sites   and   permanent  natural   water
sources, such as  lakes and rivers.   Because of this,  the  Society  recom-
mends that undisturbed or minimally disturbed  areas  within 1,000 feet  of
natural shoreline (which would be affected by  the construction of  sewage
treatment  facilities)  be examined for prehistoric  archaeological  sites
(by  letter,  Russell W. Fridley, State Historic  Preservation  Officer,  3
April 1978).

     The Otter  Tail County Historical Society  identified  artifacts and
eleven burial sites  located  in the Study Area,  six of  which  are  within
the  immediate  Facility Planning  Area.   The precise  locations  of  these
sites  are  confidential.   The  Morrison Mounds  Historical  Site,  which  is
publicly  known,   is  located   just  south  of Otter  Tail Lake  in  Everts
Township at  SW  1/4,  SW 1/4,  Sec. 4,  T133, R40 (see  Figure 11-21).   This
archaeological  site is  listed with  the  National  Register of  Historic
Places.

     Investigations  conducted  by  Dr.  Michael  Michlovic  of  Moorhead
(Minnesota)  State University  at a  site  near the  Dead River  inlet  to
Otter Tail Lake, produced an abundance of prehistoric  artifacts, most  of
which  related  to the  Blackduck culture  dated  to  A.D.  885.  This dis-
covery  is  significant because  it had been thought  that  the Blackduck
people had not extended so far south, but remained in  northern Minnesota
and  Canada.  According to  Dr. Michlovic,  further findings may reinforce
the  hypothesis  that there  was a band of territory across  central  Minne-
sota,  covered with  woodland  and prairie that  was highly contested among
prehistoric  cultures  (Fergus  Falls   Daily  Journal,  28 February  1978).
Dr. Michlovic is of the opinion that the Otter Tail  Lake region  is quite
rich archaeologically,  and that large scale land disturbance  activities
would  certainly  endanger  more  than  a few  valuable  cultural sites  (by
letter,  Dr.  Michael Michlovic, Assistant Professor of  Anthropology,  16
June 1978) (see Appendix G).

     Upon  the  selection  of  a  final  alternative,  detailed designs  and
specifications will  be sent  to the State Historic Preservation Officer.
At  that time,  detailed  site investigations   will  be  performed   by  an
archaeologist  to resolve  potential   conflicts  with  any  archaeological
site which could be disturbed by construction activities.
                                   92

-------
FIGURE 11-21   ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SITES IN
             THE OTTER TAIL STUDY AREA
                    ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
                 A MORRISON HOUNDS
                    HISTORICAL SITES
                 B OLD OTTERTAIL CITY
                 C ST. PAUL HOUSE
                 D CRAIGE GRIST HOUSE
                           93
                                                                 MILES
Source:  By letter, Dick
Lee, Otter Tail County
Historical Society,
 20  June 1978

-------
b.   Historical Resources

     The Minnesota Historical  Society  has listed two sites in the Otter
Tail Lake Study Area as having local historical significance (by letter,
Russell W. Fridley, State Historic  Preservation  Officer,  3 April 1978).
Locations  of  the Craigie Flour  Mill  (NE 1/4, SE 1/4, Sec.  31,  T134N,
R39W) and  the  St.  Paul House  (Lot  4,  Sec.  10, Otter Tail Township) are
shown  in Figure 11-21.   The  Otter  Tail  County  Historical Society has
also  identified  remnants  of the original Ottertail City as a historical
site.   This  boomtown  of  the  late  nineteenth  century was  the  original
county  seat of Otter Tail County until a Mr. Thomas Cathcart refused to
give  a  right-of-way  through his property to the  Northern Pacific Rail-
road  Company.   The   company   consequently  changed  its  routing  plans,
whereupon  the  county  seat  was moved  to  Fergus  Falls.   Ottertail  City
lost  residents until 1885,  when nothing but a farm remained.  The pres-
ent Ottertail  City,  1  mile east of  the original, dates from 1903.

      Upon  the selection of a  final alternative,  designs  and specifica-
tions will be sent to  the  State  Historic Preservation Officer to avoid
any disturbance  of historic sites.
                                    94

-------
                              CHAPTER  III

                    DEVELOPMENT  OF ALTERNATIVES
A.   INTRODUCTION

1.   GENERAL APPROACH

     New alternative  approaches  for  wastewater  collection and  treatment
in  the Proposed  Otter Tail  Lake Service  Area  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  Facility
Plan  Report  (Ulteig   Engineers  Inc.  1976).    Chapter  V  assesses the
environmental and socioeconomic impacts of each alternative.

     New  EIS  alternative  development  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 Facility Plan.   The  high  cost  of
the  Facility Plan  Proposed Action  and  the  potential  impact  on  area
residents  make   the  cost-effectiveness of  proposed  facilities a  major
concern.  Since  the  collection system accounts for approximately 83%  of
the Proposed Action  cost,  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  site  conditions such  as soil characteristics and housing
density in the Proposed Service Area.

     Chapter I of this EIS emphasized the importance of the overall need
for the project proposed in the Facility Plan.  Documenting a clear need
for  new sewered wastewater facilities is difficult,  requiring  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.

     •    Sev-a^e   in   basements   from  inoperable  or sluggish  sewage
          disposal systems.

     •    Contaminated  private  wells  clearly   associated  with  sewage
          disposal systems.

     The  Proposed  Service Area  exhibits  some indirect evidence  of the
unsuitability of site  conditions for  on-site soil disposal systems.  The
evidence  includes  high groundwater,   high groundwater  flow  rates,  small
lot  sizes, proximity to  lakeshores  and substandard  setback  distances
between wells  and  on-site wastewater  facilities.  Available information
                                  95

-------
on  these  factors  was  used  early  in  the  preparation of  this EIS  to
develop the decentralized alternatives designated EIS Alternatives  1,  2,
and 3.

     Indirect  evidence  alone cannot  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 efforts mounted during the  preparation of
this  EIS to  document and quantify  the need  for  improved  facilities
around Otter Tail Lake.

      The dollar cost of the Facility Plan Proposed Action and its impact
on  area residents make cost-effectiveness an issue as important as needs
documentation.  Since the  collection system accounts for the major share
of  the  construction  costs  in  the Facility Plan Proposed  Action,  the
necessity   of   sewers   and  possible  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
 Collection of  Wastewaters
Options
 Wastewater Treatment
 Processes
 Effluent Disposal




 Sludge Handling


 Sludge Disposal
     household water conserva-
     tion measures
     ban on phosphorus

     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

     anaerobic digestion
     dewatering

     land application
     landfilling
     composting
     contract hauling
                                  96

-------
     Next,  appropriate  options  were  selected  and  combined  into the
alternative  systems   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 Proposed
Service Area must provide  equivalent  levels  of service if their designs
and costs are to be  properly compared.   A design population of 7,555 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  Proposed Service  Area in the year 2000.   The methodology
used to develop this estimate is presented in Appendix F.

     For  just  comparison,  all  EIS  alternatives and  the Facility Plan
Proposed  Action are  based  on  the  same year  2000  population;  note
however, that  each alternative  carries  its own constraints and that the
wastewater management  system chosen may  itself significantly shape the
Proposed Service Area's actual year  2000 population.

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.
Table III-l summarizes these data.

     To maintain comparability  of  alternatives for  costing purpose the
following modifications were  made in  the Facility Plan Proposed Action:

     •    The  design  flow  used  in   the Facility  Plan  was  65  gpcd
          including  I/I.   The flows developed  for this EIS were used to
          recalculate  flows  for the  Proposed Action; that  is,  design
          flows were based on 60 gpcd  not including I/I.

     •    The  Facility Plan's population projections differed somewhat
          from  those  developed for   this   EIS.   The  new  population
          projections were used  to recalculate total  flows.

     •    The  Facility Plan  recommended  a   pressure  sewer  collection
          system using  grinder pumps  in  low-lying  areas  .   Effluent
          pumps  for  septic  tank  effluent   replaced  grinder  pumps.
          Section II.B.2 discusses the  advantage of this.

     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 ICC gpcd.   However,  averaged
                                  97

-------
                                  Table III-l

                               EIS ALTERNATIVE 1
Total Flow          = 0.114 ragd
Infiltration/Inflow = 0.009 mgd

                      0.123 mgd
Winter Flow         = 0.017 mgd
Infiltration/Inflow = 0.009 mgd

                      O.Q26 mgd
                               EIS ALTERNATIVE 2
Total Flow          = 0.264 mgd
Infiltration/Inflow = 0.039 mgd

                      0.303 mgd
Winter Flow         = 0.037 mgd
Infiltration/Inflow = 0.039 mgd
                      0.076 mgd
                               EIS ALTERNATIVE 3
Total Flow          = 0.378 mgd
Infiltration/Inflow = 0.036 mgd

                      0.414 mgd
Winter Flow         = 0.066 mgd
Infiltration/Inflow = 0.036 mgd
                      0.102 mgd
                          EIS ALTERNATIVES 4, 5, AND
                         FACILITY PLAN PROPOSED ACTION
Total Flow          = 0.456 mgd
Infiltration/Inflow = 0.047 mgd

                      0.503 mgd
Winter Flow         = 0.085 mgd
Infiltration/Inflow = 0.047 mgd

                      0.132 mgd
                                     98

-------
values  reported  in  those  studies  generally ranged between  40 and 56
gpcd.  On a  community-wide basis,  non-residential domestic  (commercial,
small  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  consumption  rates  depend
upon  such  factors  as  type  of  accommodations and the  recreation  areas
available.  EPA regulations  (EPA  1978) suggest  that seasonal population
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 is  conservative, probably overestimating  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.I.a,  could  reduce  flows
by  16  gpcd.   To  demonstrate  probable impacts of such reduction in  flow,
the  Facility  Plan  Proposed Action  was redesigned and recosted  with flow
reduction measures.
B.   COMPONENTS AND OPTIONS

1.   FLOW AND  WASTE REDUCTION

a.   Residential Flow Reduction Devices

     There are many devices to reduce water consumption and  sewage  flow.
A list  of some  of them is presented  in  Appendix  H-l  with data  on  their
                                 99

-------
water saving potential and costs.  Most of these devices will require no
change  in the  user's habits  and  are  as maintenance-free  as  standard
fixtures.   Others,   such  as  compost  toilets,  may  require  changes  in
hygiene practices and/or increased maintenance.  The use of any of these
devices  may be  justified under certain  conditions,  as when  no other
device  can provide  adequate  sanitation  or  when excessive  flows cause
malfunctions of  conventional  on-site septic systems.  Usually, however,
the justifications for flow reduction devices are economic.

     Table  III-2 list  proven  flow  reduction  devices  and  homeowner's
savings  resulting from  their  use.  These estimates were made using data
on the  devices  listed in Appendix H-2 and local cost assumptions listed
beneath  the  table.    The  homeowner's savings  include  savings for water
supply,  water  heating  and wastewater  treatment.   A  combination  of a
shower flow control insert device, dual cycle toilet and lavatory faucet
flow control device would save approximately $71/household/year.

     Should  all  residences  in  the Proposed  EIS Service  Area install
these devices, not  all  could save  the  $1.40/1000 gallons  in wastewater
treatment  costs unless the facilities were designed for the reduced flow
(see  assumption  in Table  III-2).  This  is because  much of this charge
goes  to  pay  off capital,  operation  and maintenance  costs  which will
remain  constant  even at  reduced flow.   For  all to  benefit fully from
flow reduction, wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities
would  have to be  designed with capacities  reflecting the  lower sewage
flows.   Use  of  the  three types  of  devices cited above would reduce per
capita   sewage  flows  by  approximately   12  gpcd.   To  calculate  the
cost-effectiveness  of community-wide  flow reduction,  the  Facility 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
$758,000  and the operation  and  maintenance  cost savings would  be ap-
proximately  $7,000  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
$738,000   or  approximately  7%  of  the Facility Plan  Proposed Action.

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

     Some   decentralized   technologies   may  need   substantial  flow
reductions regardless of costs.  Holding  tanks,  soil  absorption  systems
which cannot be  enlarged,  evaporation  or  evapotranspiration  systems,  and
sand  mounds  are  examples  of technologies   offering  less  risk  of
malfunction  with minimal sewage  flows.   Flows  on the order  of 15  to 30
gpcd  can  be achieved by  installation  of combinations of the  following
devices:
                                  100

-------
                                  Table II1-2

                 ESTIMATED SAVINGS WITH FLOW REDUCTION DEVICES
Shower flow control insert device
a
Dual cycle toilet
Toilet damming device
Shallow trap toilet3
Dual flush adapter for toilets
Spray tap faucet
Improved ballcock assembly for toilets
Faucet flow control device
Faucet aerator
First Year
Savings
(or Cost)
$32. 44
15.23
14.36
12.61
10.68
(78.59)
8.74
5.72
1.13
Annual Savings
After First
Year
$34.44
35.23
17.61
17.61
14.68
8.61
11.74
8.72
3.63
 First year expenditure assumed to be difference in capital cost between
 flow-saving toilet and a standard toilet costing $ T5

Assumptions

Household:
Water Cost:
Water Heating
Cost:
Wastewater
Cost:
Four persons occupying dwelling 328 days per year.  One
bathroom in dwelling.

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

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

Assumed that water supply is metered and sewage bill is
based on water supply at a constant rate of $1.77/1000
gallons.  Rate is based on a 1980 Study Area sewage flow
of 0.4 tngd and local costs of $46,200 in 1980 for the
Facilities Plan Proposed Action as estimated in this EIS,
                                      101

-------
     •     Spray tap  faucets  to  reduce  lavatory water  usage.

     •     Dual   cycle  or  other low  volume toilets  replacing  standard
          toilets.

     •     Thermostatic  mixing  valves  and flow  control  shower  heads to
          reduce shower  water  use.   Use of showers  rather than baths
          should be  encouraged  whenever  possible.

     •     Front-loading machines  or others with water  level controls to
          replace older clothes washing  machines.

     •     Use  of  in-house composting toilets  to  replace  water-carried
          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  alternative to composting toilets  that
          achieve the  same level of wastewater  flow  reduction.

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

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

     The Microphor pressurized, low  flush toilet  has been considered in
detail  in this  EIS.  The  flushing cycle for the low  flush toilet  is air
operated  and  is activated  by  a   flush  handle.   During  the  flush cycle
waste  material  flows   into  an  evacuation chamber.   Air pressure is
introduced,   discharging  the   waste  into  the  sewer   line.  Whereas
conventional toilets use  from  5  to 7 gallons of water  during a typical
flush cycle, the  low  flush  toilet uses  only 2  quarts.   Substitution of
the  conventional  toilet  for  the  low  flush  toilet  would result  in  a
reduction of total  residential water use by about 40%.   This amounts to
a  savings  in  water  costs   of  $6.30/yr.  The  low  flush  toilet would
require no  changes  in  user's habits and could  be  an important factor in
reducing sewage disposal  problems for the area.  Human  wastes  would be
discharged  from  the   toilet  into  a holding  tank.    The  frequency of
holding tank pumping,  would be significantly  reduced by  the  use  of low
flush toilets.

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.  Nutrient enrichment of the waters encourages the  growth
of algae and other microscopic  plant life; decay of the plants increases
                                  102

-------
biochemical  oxygen demand,  decreasing  dissolved  oxygen in  the water.
Addition  of  nutrients   also  encourages  higher  forms  of  plant  life,
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-5 discusses the process
and data pertinent for the Otter Tail 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.

     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,  reduction  of   phosphorus  by  control  of  detergents  will  not
achieve  the effluent discharge  limits of 1 mg/1  (see Appendix C-6 for
Effluent  Limits)   for  discharges  to  area  lakes or  their  tributaries.
Consequently,   facilities   for  phosphorus  removal   are  required  in
treatment plants  which  discharge to any  of  the  surface  water bodies in
the  Study  Area.   A  phosphorus  ban  would  result in  an unquantifiable
reduction   in  phosphorus  entering  surface  waters  with  septic  tank
leachate.

2.   COLLECTION

     The  collection  system  for the  Facility  Plan Proposed Action is
estimated to  cost $8.6  million or 83% of the total cost.  Since not all
parts  of collection  systems  are eligible for Federal and State funding,
the  collection  system  costs  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).

     An  alternative  collection  system may more 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.

                                    103

-------
     The alternative  collection method receiving the most  attention is
sewage pumping by the use of a low-pressure sewer systems.   The pressure
sewer system  is  the  reverse of a water distribution  system.   The water
system consists  of a  single inlet pressurization point  and  a  number of
user  outlets,   while   the   pressure  sewer  system  has  a  number  of
pressurizing  inlet points and  a single outlet.  Inputs  to  the pressure
main generally  follow  a direct route 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  pressure  sewer.   In  the STEP  system septic  tank
effluent from individual households is pumped to the pressure main.  The
pressure sewer  design  is basically the same  for either  STEP or grinder
pumps.  The advantages of pressure sewer systems are:

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

The disadvantages include higher 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.

     Preliminary design  studies for  otner lake projects suggest that the
use  of  small diameter  gravity sewers  may  become  cost  preferable  to
pressure sewers  at shoreline housing densities greater than 50 homes per
mile.

     A  comparison  of  the  costs of  STEP  and  grinder pump  types of low
pressure   sever   systems  indicated  that  the  STEP  system  would  be
cost-effective  by a  slight  margin.  An  important  assumption  in this
analysis  was that 5070 of  the  existing  septic  tanks would need  to be
replaced for  use in the  STEP system.  STEP low pressure  systems are used
in  the  development  of all EIS  alternatives.  The Facility Plan Proposed
Action  has  also been modified by  the  replacement  of grinder pumps with
STEP  systems.   The  decision in favor of  STEP  systems should be reviewed
during  the  detailed  design  stage  (Step  II of the  construction  grant
process) on the  basis  of a  detailed  field  survey of the  existing on-site
systems.   The arrangement of the STEP  system house pump and  sewer line
connection is illustrated in Figure  III-l.
                                    104

-------
•^3
EXISTING GRAVITY
SEWAGE PIPING
EXISTING  SEPTIC TANK
                                                  CONTROL PANEL
                                                  & ALARM LIGHT
                                                                         PRESSURE SEWER/
                                                                                       COMMON
                                                                                        TRENCH
                                                            OVERFLOW
                                                           LEVEL SENSOR

                                                           ON OFF LEVEL
                                                           SENSOR

                                                           PUMP UNIT

                                                          STORAGE
                                                            TANK UNIT

                                   FIGURE  III-l


              TYPICAL  PUMP  INSTALLATION  FOR  PRESSURE  SEWER

-------
3.   WASTEWATER TREATMENT

     Wastewater   treatment   options   are   discussed   here   in   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  in which wastewater is
collected and  transported to  a  central location where it is  treated and
discharged.   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
proximity  to  the  source  of  sewage  eliminating the  need  for  costly
transmission of  sewage to distant disposal sites.

     A major purpose of this EIS is assessment of technical  feasibility,
relative  costs,  environmental impacts, and implementation problems asso-
ciated with  these three  approaches to wastewater treatment  in  the pro-
posed Otter Tail  Lake EIS Service Area.

a.   Centralized  Treatment

     Alternatives   developed  in  this  EIS  and  in  the Facility  Plan
considered centralized treatment by both land application and mechanical
treatment.    These  alternative   centralized  treatment  methods  are
considered separately.

     Mechanical  Treatment with Stream Discharge.    The   Facility   Plan
evaluated one  option  for  centralized  collection   and  treatment  at  a
mechanical   plant;   secondary   treatment  using  activated   sludge  was
selected.   The plant included provisions for phosphorus removal and was
to be designed  to  comply with MPCA effluent standards.

     This EIS  reevaluated  the  mechanical  treatment  plant  option.  The
proposed  plant would be  a modular  prefabricated contact stabilization
plant,  incorporating  chemical   addition  for  phosphorus removal.   The
advantage of a modular system is  that during off-peak season operation,
when flow will  be reduced, half  of tae biological  train will be shut
down.
                                  106

-------
     In  this  manner the  plant will  be  able to  continue  to operate at
maximum  efficiency.  The  plant was designed to comply with MPCA current
effluent  standards  listed in Appendix C-6.  The  treated effluent would
be discharged  to Otter  Tail River, downstream of  East  Lost Lake,  just
west  of Deer  Lake.  This  treatment  scheme is  illustrated  in  Figure
III-2.

b.   Land Disposal

     Land  treatment of  municipal wastewater involves  the  use of plants
and  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).

     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.

     Storage  of wastewater  is  necessary with  land  application systems
for  non-operating  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 put forth the policy for pretreatment
prior  to  land  application.   To encourage both  land  treatment  and  land
disposal of wastewater, EPA has indicated that:

     "A  universal minimum cf 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 Scate  or local
     -evel would be ineligible  for Agency funding and thus would be
     paid  for  from  State or local funds."  (EPA 1978)

     Other portions of  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 lani-related
projects the policy promotes their consideration.

     The   Facility  Plan  developed  two  centralized  land  application
systems  for  the Proposed Service Area.  One involved  a spray irrigation
facility  to the  west  of Otter Tail  Lake  to  s^rve the  entire  Service
                                107

-------
                                      FIGURE III-2
                 PREFABRICATED  CONTACT  STABILIZATION  PLANT
                                                        ALUM 8 POLYMER
o
oo
       PUMP
        STA.
 RAW
WATER
AERATED
  GRIT
CHAMBER
           FLOW
           MEASURE-
            MENT
                                                       ADDITION
                                                          SLUDGE DRYING
                                                              BEDS
   OE —
CHLORINATION
                                                                                  TO RECEIVING
                                                                                   STREAM

-------
Area.   The other  system involved a smaller spray irrigation facility at
this  same  site  to  serve  a  portion  of  the Service  Area,  along  with
another spray  irrigation  facility south of Otter Tail Lake to serve the
remainder of the  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.   For  the  various alternatives  developed  in  this
EIS, a total of four different (design flow) spray irrigation facilities
were  evaluated for serving all  or  part  of the Service Area, at  one  or
both  of  the  sites selected by  the  Facility  Plan.   Each  of  these
facilities consists of preliminary treatment (bar screen,  comminutor),  a
stabilization pond, and a chlorination process to disinfect the  effluent
prior   to   its   application   on   cropland.    Because  of   the   large
stabilization  pond  required  to meet  MPCA  storage  requirements,  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 chosen based on the nitrogen loading rate.
No  under-drainage would be  needed  at this  rate.   Higher  loading rates
may produce  poor  crop  growth.   Alfalfa was  chosen as the  cover crop;
alfalfa allows a higher nitrogen loading and hydraulic loading than  corn
and  its growing  season  is   limited  solely by  climatic   factors.   The
stabilization  pond will serve the  dual purpose  of providing secondary
treatment  and  210  days  storage.   A  flow  diagram of  this plant  is
illustrated in Figure III-3.

                              Figure III-3
                                                               SPRAY
                                                               IRRIGATION
RAW ^
WASTE
WATER
PRELIMI-
NARY
TREAT-
MENT



STABILIZATION POND 1—

                             LAND  APPLICATION
                             SPRAY IRRIGATION
     Rapid Infiltration.    The  rapid   infiltration  method  of   land
treatment  is  evaluated for  two sites in  the  new  wastewater management
alternatives at  design  flows of 0.18 mgd and 0.12 .ngd.   Rapid infiltra-
tion of wastewater was selected for further investigation as a component
option because  it  usually -requires less area  for  operation  as  compared
to spray irrigation, thus reducing capital costs.
                                    109

-------
     After land application  the  renovated wastewater will be drawn from
receiviag wells (see Figure III-4) and discharged into either Otter Tail
Lake, along the south shore or to the  Otter Tail River below East Lost
Lake, depending upon the facility site location.
                             Figure III-4
                                                           RECOVERED
                                                           WATER
                                           PERCOLATION
                                        (UNSATURATEQ ZONE)

                RECOVERY  OF  RENOVATED WATER  BY  HELLS

      A  flow  diagram of  this  tyt>e  of  plant  is  illustrated in Figure
 III-5.
RAW
WASTE
WATER

PRELIMI-
NARY
TREAT-
MENT

fe.


STABILIZATION POND



1
RAPID
NFILT

RATIOI

8ASINS
1
                                               RECOVERY
                                                 WELLS
                                                      TO OTTER TAIL RIVER
                                                      DOWNSTREAM OF EAST
                                                      LOST LAKE OR TO OTTER
                                                      TAIL LAKE
                     LAND  APPLICATION
                     RAPID  INFILTRATION
                         FIGURE  III-5


 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 waslewaters  can be to  the  air.,  soil
 or surface waters and normally occurs near the  treatment site.  Some of
 the available technologies  are:
                                   110

-------
Alternative toilets:

     Composting toilets

     Toilets  using  filtered and  disinfected  bath and laundry
     wastewater

     Waterless  toilets  "using oils  to carry  and  store wastes

     Incineration toilets

On-lot treatment and disposal:

     Septic tank and soil absorption  systems  (ST/SAS)

     Septic  tank and dual,  alternating soil  disposal system

     Aerobic  treatment and soil disposal system

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

     Septic tank and evapotranspiration system

     Septic tank and mechanical evaporation system

     Septic tank and sand mound system

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

Off-lot Treatment and Disposal:

     Holding  tanks

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

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

     Small  scale lagoon  with  seasonal effluent  discharge  to
     surface  waters

     Small  scale   lagoor.  with  affluent  discharge   at  rapid
     infil ration 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  affluent  discharge  to  surface
     waters.
                         Ill

-------
     Because all  of the developed portions of  the  Study Area discharge
to  lakes  by  runoff,  decentralized  technologies   which discharge  to
surface  waters  are  not further considered here.   All  of the remaining
technologies, 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,  it  the  decentralized approach  to
wastewater  management   is   selected,   technologies  selected  for  each
dwelling will be  appropriate to the  problem  being  remedied  (or lack of
problem),  to  the  soil  and  groundwater  site  characteristics,  and to the
expected use of the systems.

     Information  was not  available  to  select appropriate decentralized
technologies  on  a   site-by-site  basis.  Continued  reliance  on on-site
septic  tank  and  soil  absorption  systems are  recommended where public
health  and the environment are not  adversely impacted.  Where on-site
systems  are  not  economically,   environmentally  or  otherwise   feasible
alternative decentralized  systems  were  considered.   The  assumptions used
in developing decentralized technologies  were made  to form the basis for
cost  and  feasibility  estimates  and are not  meant to  preclude  other
technologies  if detailed  site investigation  indicates  a need for them.

     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.
More  detailed  site  investigations  may  indicate  the   degree  to  which
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 conventional
soil  absorption systems; 5% will  be  replaced with new  septic tanks and
sand  mound soil  absorption system;  25%  will require hydrogen  peroxide
renovation treatment;  and  2% will  be  required to  install  new holding
tanks.

     Derailed   site  investigation   may  show  that continued  use  of
conventional  on-site   septic  tanks  and  soil  absorptions  systems  may
result   in groundwater contamination or  shoreline   eucrophication.   One
method  proposed  to alleviate  these  problems  is  gray water/black water
separation.   Household  wastewater discharged into  septic tanks usually
contains toilet  wastes,  the so  called  "black water"  mixed  with "grey
water"  which includes  discharges  from  sinks, tubs, clothes  washing and
dish  washing.   Under  the  proposed separation scheme grey water  would be
treated  in ST/SAS  and  black water would  be  discharged  to holding tanks.
Characteristics   of effluents   from  grey water  and  blackwater differ
markedly,  especially  when non-phosphorus detergents are used.   The per
capita  nitrogen  and phosphorus load from  black wr.ter  is approximately
12-13  times  the   corresponding  load  from   gray  water.   Therefore by
eliminating   black  water   from  the  subsurface  disposal  system,  the
potential  for  groundwater contamination  or  leaching  of  nutrient to
surface  waters  is greatly reduced. Using  this system, the hydraulic  load
to  the  ST/SAS  would be reduced by  about 40%,  and  the  nitrogen load by
about  90%and the phosphorus load  by about  75% where a  phosphorus ban is
in  effect.  In addition,  the  hydraulic  load to the holding  tanks would
also  be significantly reduced  by using  low flush  toilets (see Section
III.B.I).   Pumping of holding  tanks  woald  be  required  annually  for
seasonal residents  and two times a year fcr  permanent  residents.

                                    112

-------
     Costs  for  grey  water/black  water  separation  were based  upon  the
assumptions that 25%  of  the existing drainfields would need replacement
and that  pumping  for  black water holding tanks would be required once a
year for  seasonal  residents  and  twice a year  for  permanent residents.
Design  assumptions  for grey water/black water  separations  are included
in Appendix 1-1.

     Cluster  systems  were  also  investigated as  a  feasible alternative
where continued use  of on-site systems is not feasible or where repairs
for  a   number of  dwellings  are  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.   As previously  indicated, where  shoreline housing density is
greater  than  50  dwelling units per mile  it may prove cost-effective to
use  small diameter gravity sewers feeding  one  single pump  at the  low
point on  the  gravity line.  Cluster collection systems of this kind are
also capable  of  serving  more than the  25  homes  used in the STEP system
design.

     An  analysis  of  soil conditions at selected  sites around Otter Tail
Lake  was  conducted  by  the  Soil  Conservation Service,  St.  Peters,
Minnesota.   The   results  of  the  SCS   investigations  are  presented  in
Figures  II-3  to  II-6.   The size and distribution  of  suitable sites is
such  that any portion of Otter Tail 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  number  and  locations  of  dwellings  requiring off-site disposal
of  wastewater have  been estimated in  the  new EIS  decentralized alter-
natives.   The exact numbers and locations  however,  would be determined
after a detailed house by house evaluation of existing systems.

     The  cost for  cluster  systems were developed based on the design of
a "typical" cluster system  serving approximately  25 residences along the
shoreline of  Otter  Tail Lake.  The costs  include  a  25% replacement of
septic  tanks. The total cost  for  cluster  systems  to serve those areas
proposed  in  the  various  alternatives  was  then  based on  the  cost  per
residence from the  typical cluster system  design.   Design assumptions
for  this  cluster  system design appear  in Appendix 1-1.  Design criteria
for   cluster   systems  recommended  by  the  State  of  Minnesota  were
considered  in the  development  of the  typical  cluster  system design.
Presently,  there  are a  number  of  successfully operating cluster systems
in  O^.ter Tail County, Minnesota (by letter,  L-irry  Krohn, Department of
Land  and  Resource  Management, Otter  Tail  County,  18  October  1978.)

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 cr groundwater recharge.  Land application

                                   113

-------
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 is not a feasible means  of effluent
disposal.

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

     Groundwater Recharge.   Groundwater  supplies all potable water  in
the EIS Service Area.  Ample quantities of water available from sand and
gravel  deposits  is  a  significant area resource.   There  is  no evidence
that these  resources are being depleted to an extent requiring recharge.
Wastewater   reuse   by   groundwater  recharge  has  therefore  not   been
evaluated.

b.   Discharge to Surface Waters

     This EIS evaluates  surface water discharge of treated wastewater at
two  locations in the Otter Tail Lake Study Area, as  listed below:

                                   Potential Location of Surface
Treatment Method                   	Water Discharge	

Contact  stabilization
activated sludge
      and                          Otter  Tail River downstream
Rapid infiltration,  with          of East Lost Lake  (Just west
renovated wastewater collected     of Deer Like)

Rapid infiltration,  with reno-     Otter  Tail Lake
vated wastewater collected

     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
organic  loading  (BOD,,  and Total  Suspended Solids [TSS])  of  streams has
prompted  the MPCA to  stipulate effluent  limitations of 25 mg/1 BOD_ and
30   mg/1   TSS   (sse   Appendix   C-6).    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
limitation  applies  to  the  Otter Tail  River as well  as to  the  lakes
within  the  Proposed  Service  Area.   The State  is currently  reviewing
effluent   limitation  requirements   and   expects  some  revision  of  the
standards  in approximately  one  year.  The  effluent  quality limitation
regarding  cotal  phosphorus for discharge  to lakes., however,  will remain
at  1 mg/1  (by telephone,  Lanny Piessig, MPCA,  20 October  1978).
                                   114

-------
c.   Land  Application

     Section  III.B.3  briefly  describes   land  application  methods  of
wastewater treatment that  are  evaluated for potential use in  the  Study
Area.   Figure  III-7  shows  the  locations  of  land  application  sites
considered in costing the EIS alternatives.

     Please   note   that  any   actual   construction  of  either   rapid
infiltration  or  spray   irrigation  systems  must  follow a  detailed  field
investigation of the existing soil and groundwater conditions.

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  tertiary treatment  processes; and  solids pumped  from septic  tanks.
The  residues  from treatment by lagoons and land  application are grit and
screenings.

     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,  as well  as holding tanks for all
domestic wastewater  must provide  for  periodic  removal and  disposal  of
the  accumulated  solids.  For  the purpose  of design  and costing  these
alternatives, it is assumed that septic  tank pumping would occur every 3
years  and  would  cost   $45  per  pumping.    Local   septage haulers  are
licensed  to  operate  in Otter  Tail County.   Farm  lands  are typical
septage disposal sites.   Pumping of holding tanks for human  wastes only
(using  air   compression  toilets  to  reduce flow)  might be   required
annually  for seasonal  residents  and  two  times  a year  for  permanent
resident and  would cost  $100 per pumping.
C.   RELIABILITY

1.   SEWERS

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

     Gravity  sewer  problems  can 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.   These  problems are  more  prevalent  in  older
systems.

                                   115

-------
     Where ground  slope  is opposite to the  desired  sewage flow, it may
be  necessary  to pump  the sewage through sections of  pipe called force
mains.   The  pumps add  a mechanical  component  increasing operation and
maintenance  (O&M)  requirements  and decreasing the  system reliability.
To assure uninterrupted operation of the system, two pumps are generally
installed, providing a backup in case of malfunctions.  Each can usually
handle  at  least  twice   the  peak  flow.   A  standby  generator  usually
ensures 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,  with sudden  sharp surges in
water pressure  that may  result in burst pipes.  However,  both deposition
of  solids and  water  hammer  may  be  controlled  through  proper design
procedures.   The  reliability  of  properly  designed  force  mains  is
comparable to that of gravity sewers.

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

     Grinder Pumps.   Grinder  pumps are used primarily to grind  and pump
raw  domestic  sewage  from an individual house  to the collection system
and  occasionally  for  small   lift  stations.   They  are  either  of the
serai-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  vhen 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).  I';  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
difficu?.ties 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  f.'.ilure  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.
                                   116

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

     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  a  steadily  growing  treatment  technology.    Local  climatic
conditions such  as year round hea\n/ rains  c_~  freezing  temperatures aay
make the technique unsuitable in a particular area.

     The  feasibility  of land  application by  spray  irrigation  has been
demonstrated for this geographic location at the Muskegon, Michigan site
which has operated effectively  for 5 years.  The feasibility  of rapid
infiltration has been demonstrated at Lake George, New York, where rapid
infiltration of a  small flow has been practiced over 40 years.

     Potential problems with land application include:   groundwater con-
tamination;  dispersal  of microbial  mass  by airborne  transport; odors;
surface water  contamination;  accumulation  of industrial c.etals  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  tc develop  advanced  design
technology.

3.   ON-SITE  TREATMENT

     Septic Tanks-Soil Absorption Systems.   TUB design and operation of
modern  septic tanks  has  benefited  from  long   experience.   Properly
designed  and  maintained,  septic  systems  will  provide  satisfactory
service  with  minimum  maintenance.   Care  must  be taken   not   to  put
materials in  the  system  that may  clog it.   The  principal  maintenance
requirement  is periodic pumping of the t.ink, usually every two or thi^e
years.

                                    117

-------
     Problems of  septic  tank 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  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  under  special conditions 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 25)   residences.   The  reliability  is
similar  to  that  of  a  septic  tank system,  except that a malfunction
affects  not just  one, but a  number of residences.   Because a cluster
system   requires  more  piping  to   connect  individual  houses  to  the
treatment  tank  than  does a  series of  individual  systems,  there is  a
greater  chance for pipes to break or clog, or for infiltration/inflow to
occur during heavy rain.  If pumping is required, the reliability of  the
system declines because  of the mechanical nature of the pumps and their
dependence  upon electrical power.

     The experience with cluster  systems in Otter Tail County, Minnesota
is  described in Appendix 1-2.
D.   FLEXIBILITY

     Flexibility  is a  measure of the  ability to accommodate growth or
changes  in requirements that may be placed upon  a system in the future.
This  section  examines  the  flexibility of  the  components  within each
alternative  and the  operational  restraints on  each and design  of  the
facilities.   These  aspects  of  flexibility are  discussed   in  terms of
their  impacts  upon choices  of systems  and  decisions  of  planning  and
design.

1.   TRANSMISSION AND  CONVEYANCE

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

     Both gravity  ac.d pressure sewers  require minimum sewage velocities
to  prevent   deposition  of  solids  which  ^ould  cause  blockage.   The
velocity of  the fluid moving  through  gravity  sewers depends mainly upon
                                   118

-------
pipe slope.  Contour  of  the  ground surface is the principal determinant
of  pipe  slope  and  depth,  and  consequently,  of  construction  costs.
Pressure  sewers,   however,  can  carry  sewage  uphill  under  pressure.
Because they do not  depend upon slope to maintain the velocity of flow,
they offer the designer somewhat more flexibility  than does  gravity flow
pipe.

2.   ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS

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

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

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

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

3.   CONVENTIONAL WASTEWATER  TREATMENT

     Ability to expand a conventional wastewater treatment plant depends
largely  upon  the  process  being  used,  layout  of   the facility,  and
availability of additional land for  expansion.  Compared to many systems
for  land application, conventional  treatment processes  require  little
land,  therefore  increasing   the   flexibility  for expansion.   However,
unless  the layout of the plant  were  dasigned  for   future additional
capacity, expansion could be hindered.  Establishment of a facility such
as  a sewage  t-eatuent plant will redu-e flexibility  for future planning
decisions within the  affected mur.icipalities.

     Because  operators  can,  to some extent,  vary treatment parameters,
most   conventional  processes  have  good  operational flexibility.   By
                                   119

-------
altering  the  amounts  and types  of chemicals,  flow rates,  detention
times,  or  even process  schemes,  the required  effluent  can  usually  be
obtained.

4.   CONTACT  STABILIZATION

     If  the  volumes  of  the  contact  and  stabilization  lagoons  are
approximately  equal  in size,  the system can  be  operated  in parallel as
extended  aeration,  or as a  contact stabilization process.  By  adding
more  secondary clarifiers, the  flexibility may be  available to  expand
the facility to conventional activated sludge without increasing reactor
volumes.   This  expansion  depends   largely upon  configuration of  the
basins  and process operability.  Contact stabilization is used generally
for small  facilities, and does not  have  the  flexibility  to be expanded
to large flows.

5.   LAND APPLICATION

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

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

     Expandability is an  important  element of  flexibility.   Being able
to acquire  additional land efficiently and economically as, future flows
increase  depends  upon the proximity of the facility to populated areas,
design  and layout  of the system,  additional  transmisison requirements,
and  the  type  of  application system  used.   A number  of  application
mechanisms are available  — spray, overland flow, or rapid infiltration.
Sites  can be forest  land,  cropland,  or  open  fields.  Attention must be
paid,   however,   to  characteristics   of  the  surrounding  laad,  and  to
possible  future  changes   in  land  use.   Also,   requirements  are  strict
concerning  tae hydraulic  and  geologic conditions  of tho  prcposad site.
When  initially planning  the  facility,  all of tie  above  mentioned con-
ditions shovild be  taken   into  consideration  if  maximum flexibility for
future  expansion  is  desired.

      Cost  of the  land accounts for  ^iuch  of the  capital cost for a land
application  facility, and greatly affects  the  possibility of expansion
or ease of discontinuing  the  site.   Because l»nd normally appreciates in
value,  the  final salvage val:a ^f the site may be  very  high after the
expected 20-year  design life.   If the site  is abandoned, a large portion
of  the  initial   capital  cost  of   tiie  facility  may be  recovered  by
reselling the  land at the appreciated price.  I: should be noted,
                                   120

-------
however, that the public  may  be reluctant because of its  former use to
use the land; this  would  depend largely upon the  appearance  of  the  land
at the time of resale.

     Finally, operational flexibility  of land application  systems is
highly  dependent  upon  climate.  When  heavy  rains saturate the soil or
flooding occurs,  treatment efficiency  is  greatly reduced.  Where  cold
temperatures might  make land  application usable,  storage  facilities are
required.   In very  cold  climates,  up to  six  months  of  storage  capacity
may  be needed.   Rapid   infiltration  is  the only  technique  for  land
application which has  been used successfully in very cold temperatures.
E.   IMPLEMENTATION

     The  process  of  implementing a  wastewater management plan  varies
with  project  reliance  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 less management experience on which to draw.

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

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

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

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

     •    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
for  centralized  sanitary districts,  then  for  decentralized districts.

1.   CENTRALIZED  DISTRICTS

a.   Authority

     The  Otter Tail  Lake  Facility Plan recommended the  formation of a
Sanitary  Sewer District  with members appointed by the County Commission
as  the  legal  authority  for implementing  the  Plan's Proposed Action.
Under  Chapter  :.76A of  the Minnesota  statutes,  the District would have
the authority  to  implement this system and  to contract with the villages
and townships  for services.
                                   121

-------
b.    Managing Agency

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

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

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

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

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

c.   Financing

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

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

     The Facility  Plan suggested debt financing in  the form of bonds but
did not  specify the  type  of  bonds (i.e.,  revenue,  general obligation or
special  obligation).  Alternatively,  the Facility  Plan  also suggested
that  the  proposed   Sanitary  District   contact   the  Farmers'   Home
Administration regarding a possible  construction loan.

     In  Minnesota,  counties,  townships,  and  cities  usually incur 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.

d.   User  Charges

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

                                   122

-------
     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
     •    Residential/Commercial/Industrial users
     •    Presently sewered  users/Newly sewered users
     •    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 and issue permits for repair of the systems.   The sole basis  for
government  regulation  in this field has been  its  obligation  to  protect
public health.

     Rarely have  governmental obligations  been interpreted more  broadly
to  include  monitoring and control of other effects of on-lot  system  use
or  misuse.  The  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  J-l.

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

a.   Authority

     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
                                  123

-------
wastewater  facilities,  have passed legislation specifically intended to
facilitate  management  of  decentralized  facilities.   These  laws  are
summarized  in Appendix J-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  J-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?

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

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

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

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

      •    Design the management organization;

      •    Agency start-up;

      •    Construction and rehabilitation of facilities;  and

      •    Operation of facilities.

      Site Specific Environmental and Engineering Data Base.    The   data
 base should include  groundwater  monitoring, a house-to-house  investiga-
 tion (sanitary survey),  soils and engineering studies, and a survey  of
                                    124

-------
                                   Table III-3

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

Routine inspection and
  maintenance
Septage collection and
  disposal
Groundwater monitoring
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.
                                          125

-------
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.   Concurrent with
the  sampling  of wells,  the design  and  condition  of wells  should be
determined.    Potential  contamination  sources   should  be  identified.

     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.   A  preliminary  sanitary   survey  of Otter Tail  Lake shore
homes began in July  1979.

     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 Facility Plan and the
EIS  have  recommended a  Sanitary  Sewer 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.
                                   126

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

     Operation of Facilities.  The administrative planning, engineering,
and operations  functions listed in Table III-3 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 seasonals'
ownership of  on-site systems.  With respect to  the  Study Area, where a
significant  proportion of  the  users  would be  seasonal,  the absence of
Federal  funding would transfer a large  fraction of the project costs to
the  local users.   This would be  reflected  in  either 1) capital outlays
by  the  users  for  construction,  2)  increased  user  charges  covering
increased local  costs  or  3) both.   The  cost impact  could however be
avoided  by district ownership or easement access and control of on-site
treatment systems for dwellings  occupied  by seasonal residents.  These
would  then be  eligible  for  Federal  funding (EPA,  Program  Requirements
Memorandum  79-8; May 1979).

     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
                                   127

-------
the  capital  costs.   Alternatively,  the management agency  may choose to
divide all costs equally among all users.  For the analyses in this EIS,
public  ownership of  permanent and  seasonal  on-site systems  has  been
assumed.

     Problems  such  as these  have not been  adequately  addressed  by the
historical  sources  of  management  information.   Development  of  user
charges  by small waste flows  districts  will undoubtedly be complicated
by the absence of such historical records.  EPA is preparing an analysis
of equitable  means  for recovering costs  from  users  in  small waste flow
districts and combined sewer/small waste flow districts.
                                   128

-------
                              CHAPTER  IV

                             ALTERNATIVES
A.   INTRODUCTION

1.   APPROACH

     The  preceding  section  described  options  for  the functional  com-
ponents  of  wastewater  management  systems  for the  communities  in  the
Study Area.   This  section examines eight alternative courses of action
(including the Facility  Plan Proposed  Action and  "No Action") for meet-
ing the wastewater management needs of  the Proposed  Service  Area.

     The Facility Plan  Proposed  Action provided for centralized collec-
tion and  treatment  of  wastewater.   In  response to  questions about  need
for  the  expense  of  the  Proposed Action, the development of EIS alter-
natives   emphasizes   decentralized   and   alternative   or  innovative
technologies:  alternative  collection  systems, decentralized treatment
and  land disposal  of  wastewaters.  The  EIS alternatives would manage
wastewaters  in  the  same Service  Area  as  the Facility  Plan Proposed
Action, but  five  of the EIS alternatives use decentralized  treatment to
varying degrees to minimize the costs of sewers.

     Because  of the high cost of collection in the  Proposed Action,  the
cost-effectiveness of pressure sewers,  vacuum sewers, and  small-diameter
gravity  sewers  was  compared.   Pressure  sewers proved to  be  the  most
cost-effective alternative method  for  collection  of wastewater and  were
used.   A combination  of pressure  sewers  and  gravity sewer collector
systems  proved  cost-effective for all  alternatives; this was also  the
conclusion of the Facility Plan.

     Where site conditions  such  as soils and  topography  are favorable,
land disposal of  wastewater  offers advantages  over conventional biolo-
gical 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.  The Facility Plan recommended
land treatment.

     An analysis of site conditions  indicated that  decentralized treat-
ment  technologies   were  a feasible alternative  to  sewering the entire
Otter Tail  Lake  shoreline  for at least  parts of  the  Proposed Service
Area.  The Facility Plan had considered them, but did not have means to
sense the actual contributions of on-site systems.

2.   ALTERNATIVES

     The  action  proposed  by  the  Facility  Plan  is  compared  with  the
"do-nothing"  (No  Action) alternative,  and 6  new  alternatives developed
in this  EIS,  including a limited action alternative.  The alternatives,
discussed below,  are summarized in Table IV-I.  Table IV-2 and a segment
                                      129

-------
                                                                                         Table IV-1

                                                                         ALTERNATIVES - SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMPONENTS
'ALTERNATIVE
Facility Plan
Proposed Action




Limited Action
Alternative




EIS
Alternative 1






EIS
Al t£fn3C i vc 2


CENTRALIZED
TREATMENT
Stabilization Ponds
(0.5 ogd)




Not Applicable





Stabilization Ponds
(0.12 mgd) serving
south shore of Otter
Tall Lake between
Lake Blanche and
Otter Tail Lake and
North shore of Lake
Blanche
Stabilization Ponds
south shore (0.12 mgd)
and west /northwest
TREATMENT PLANT
SITING
Northwest of
Lake In Atnor
(Section 32)



Otter Tail
Township




Not Applicable










South of Otter Tall Lake
In Ottei Tall
(Section 32)





Township






South of Otter Tall Lake
and northwest
Tail Lake in
of Otter
Amor Yownshlp
EFFLUENT
DISPOSAL
Land application by
spray irrigation with
recovery of renovated
wastewater and discharge
to Otter Tail River down-
stream of East Lost Lake
Not Applicable





Land application by:
A. Rapid Infiltration;
collection in recovery
wells; discharge to
Otter Tail Lake

or
B. Spray Irrigation
Land application by:
A Rapid infiltration*
collection in recovery
v-ells; two points of
ON LOT 4
CLUSTER SYSTEMS
No





On-lot systems serving all
residents. Grey water/black
with high groundwater Inflow.
On-site maintenance and up-
grade for the remaining shore-
line areas.
On-lot and cluster systems
serving remaining shoreline
areas





On-lot and cluster systems
and southeast shores

ALTERNATIVE
COLLECTION METHOD

Gravity sewers supplemented
by pressure sewers In low
lying areas



Not Applicable





Combination of gravity
sewers and pr< — tire sewers






Combination of gravity






















O
fl
r-l
                                                                                                Otter  Tail  River  down-
                                                                                                stream of East Lost
                                                                                                Lake and  the  other  to
                                                                                                Otter  Tall  Lake
EIS
Alternative 3
Alternative

-------
           Table IV-2

DESIGN POPULATION AND FLOW  (2000)
       FOR SHORELINE AREAS
       (I/I NOT INCLUDED)
Area
Southwest Shore
West /Northwest
Shore
Northwest Shore
East /Southeast
Segments
21-26
and
part of 20
1-4; 28-34
5-11 and
part of 12
13-19
and
part of 20
Total
Population
1,906
2,817
1,813
745
Winter
Population
396
594
457
188
Total Flow
(mgd)
0.12
0.18
0.11
0.043
Winter Flow
(mgd)
0.024
0.036
0.027
0.011

-------
map  (see Figure  IV-1)  are included to facilitate the explanation of the
alternatives by  showing  the segments included in  the  northeast,  south-
east,  etc.  sections of  Otter  Tail Lake.   Table IV-3  ranks  the  alter-
natives for  cost-effectiveness.   Appendix K-l presents the assumptions
used in design and costing them.

a.   No Action

     As  part of  this  EIS process,  an evaluation must be made  of  the
consequences  of  not taking action.  This No  Action  Alternative implies
that EPA would not provide funds to support new construction,  upgrading,
or  replacement of existing wastewater collection and treatment systems.
Presumably,  then,  no  new facilities would be built and wastewater would
continue to  be  treated by existing on-site systems discussed in Section
II.C.  The Otter Tail County Department of Land and Resources  Management
would  continue  to  regulate  the  use of on-site  systems.   Standards  for
on-site systems,  set  forth in the Shoreland Management Ordinance, would
be  enforced by this agency.

b.   Facility  Plan  Proposed  Action

     The Facility Plan recommended treatment of all wastewater at a land
application  site which would handle 0.56 mgd.  Regional collection would
be  accomplished  through a system  of  gravity sewers  supplemented with
pressure sewers utilizing grinder pumps in some low lying areas.  Waste-
water  would be  conveyed to a site  about one-third mile  west of Otter
Tail   Lake  in  Amor Township  (Section  32).   The  wastewater  would  be
treated by stabilization ponds and chlorination and subsequently applied
to  the land  by spray irrigation.   A center pivot distribution system was
incorporated  into the design and costing of the alternative.

     To  maintain  comparability  of  alternatives  for  purposes of cost
analysis,  the Facility  Plan  Proposed Action  was  slightly modified for
consideration in  this EIS.  The  following changes were  included:

     •   The  design  flow of 65  gpcd  used  in  the Facility  Plan  was
          reduced  to  60 gpcd,  not including infiltration  and inflow;

     •   The population projections for the year 2000  presented in this
          EIS  are  slightly more (0.9%) than  the  Facility Plan projec-
          tions  and total flows were  adjusted to  accomodate  the  change
          in population;

     •   The  net  effect  of  these changes is a  reduction in the total
          flow by  12%  from  0.56  mgd to  0.50 mgd; and

     •   Grinder  pumps  were  replaced with  septic  tank effluent pumps
           (STEP)  because of a slight  cost advantage of the STEP system.

The Facility Plan Proposed  Action  was  also costed with  the  incorporation
 of  flow reduction  devices.  The estimated flow  is 0.38 mgd.  The  Facil-
 ity Plan  Proposed Action  is briefly  described  in Chapter  1 and was
 outlined  in detail in Chapter 3 of the Facility Plan  (Ulteig  Engineers
 1976). Figure IV-2 is a map of  che Proposed  Action.  Appendix  K-2 lists
major  components of  the alternative  and the cost of  these components.

                                   132

-------
  OTTER TAIL LAKE
  SEGMENT  LOCATION
        MAP
OTTER TAIL RIVER
to

-------
                                                            TABLE   IV-3


                                                COST  EFFECTIVE  ANALYSIS  OF  ALTERNATIVES


                       LIMITED      EIS 1          EIS 1          EIS 2           EIS 2
                       ACTION       SPRAY          RAPID          SPRAY           RAPID                                              FACILITY PLAN
                     ALTERNATIVE  IRRIGATION    INFILTRATION    IRRIGATION     INFILTRATION       ElS 3        EIS 4        EIS 5   PROPOSED ACTION
Present Project
Construction
Costs  (x $1,000)       3,253.A      7.144.6        7,141.6        0,411.3         8,446.6        9,027.2      9.931.1      9.689.4     10,146.5


Future Project
Construction
Costs  (x $l,000/yr)      228.3        129.9          129.9          107.9           107.9           85.8         82.7         39.0        39.0


Total Present
Worth  (x $1,000)       7,152.2      9,306.8        9,296.4       10,202.8        10,168.9       10,539.6     11,336.0     10,245.7    10,358.6


Average Annual
Equivalent Costs
($)                      655.9        852.5          851.6          934.6           931.5          965.4      1,038.4        938.5       948.8

-------
                                  N
 LEGEND

= FORCE MAIN

= GRAVITY SEWER

: PUMP  STATION

 NOTE: ALL GRAVITY LINE ARE
       8"DIA. UNLESS NOTED.
NOT TO SCALE
   SPRAY IRRIGATION: NO
      STREAM DISCHARGE
         LAND
      APPLICATION
                   -ROUND LAKE
                                                                                    OTTER TAIL
                                                                                        VILLAGE
                                      FIGURE IV-2   FACILITY PLAN PROPOSED ACTION

-------
c.   Limited Action  Alternative

     This alternative would  include  decentralized  systems for all  parts
of the  Proposed  Service Area.   Gray water/black water  separation  would
be used in  those segments where groundwater  contamination  or shoreline
eutrophication could  result from  subsurface  treatment of  black water.

     Gray water,  generated  from sinks,  tubs, showers, and dishwashing
and  clothes washing would be treated in a conventional septic tank/soil
absorption system.  Black water  or toilet wastes would be discharged to
holding  tanks.   Air  compression,   low  flush toilets  would be used  to
reduce  the  hydraulic  load  to the holding tanks  and  the  frequency  of
pumping.   Pumping  of   holding  tanks  would  be  required  annually  for
seasonal residents and twice a year for permanent residents.  Composting
toilets  may be  installed  as  an  alternative to  the  use of  low  flush
toilets  and  holding tanks.  This  option would  considerably  reduce  the
user charges discussed in Section V.E.

     Residences  not  served  by gray water/black water  separation  would
use  a   single ST/SAS for  both  black waLer and gray  water.   This  alter-
native  would include  a  program  of  replacement  and  rehabilitation  of
on-lot  systems, where necessary,  to alleviate existing water quality and
public  health problems.  This program would be generally similar to that
proposed in EIS Alternative  1.

     Figure  1V-3  shows  the Limited Action Alternative.  Design and cost
assumptions  are  detailed  in  Appendix  K-2.   Please  note that  future
capital costs  for new  dwellings  would be borne  by the owner at time of
construction, just as they are today.

d.   EIS Alternative I

     EIS  Alternative  1 would use  decentralized  treatment of wastewater
for  most of the Proposed  Service Area.  Centralized collection would be
provided for a small area  on the south shore  of Otter Tail Lake, between
Lake Blanche and  Otter Tail Lake.  This area is  characterized by high
groundwater  conditions  and was considered unsuitable for on-site treat-
ment.   A flow of 0.12  mgd  collected from this area would be conveyed by
a combination  pressure and  gravity collection system to  a  suitable site
approximately 2,000 feet  from the  shore of Otter Tail Lake  in Otter Tail
Township.   The wastewater  would  be treated  in  stabilization ponds  and
applied to  the land using either rapid infiltration or spray irrigation.
Effluent which would be disposed of by spray  irrigation would be chlori-
nated  prior to  application for disinfection.   With rapid infiltration
effluent would be collected in recovery  wells and pumped to Otter Tail
Lake.

     The remaining parts of the Service  Area would be served by a com-
bination of  cluster  systems and  on-site systems  depending  upon  local
conditions.   The distribution of  these decentralized systems rests upon
the  following  assumptions:
                                      136

-------
                                       N
H
U>
-J
                       LEGEND

               GRAY  WATER/BLACK WATER
                     SEPARATION
] ON-SITE MAINTENENCE AND
       UPGRADE
                                                                                                 OTTER TAIL RIVER
                                                                                                                    OTTER TAIL
                                                                                                                        VILLAGE
                                                                                         OTTER TAIL TWP_
                                                                                         GIRARO TWP
                        -ROUND LAKE
                                             FIGURE IV-3    LIMITED ACTION ALTERNATIVE

-------
                                        N
          LEGEND


Y//A --  ON  SITE, ST-SAS


      =  CLUSTER SYSTEMS


      -  PRESSURE SEWER




      =  GRAVITY SEWER


      -  PUMP STATION


        NOTE: ALL GRAVITY  LINE ARE
             8"DIA. UNLESS NOTED.
                                                                OTTER TAIL RIVER
NOT TO SCALE
                                                                                   OJTER TAIL

                                                                                       VILLAGE
                                                                                                                                     oo
                                                                                                                                     n
                                                                                                  I.   SHAY WJHiATJON; NO tTflf AM
                                                                                                        WtCMAMi

                                                                                                  l«  RAPID INFILTRATION: Ol
                                                                                                        or MCftow
                                                                                                        TO OTTER TAIL LAKE
                                                                                          OTTER TAIL TWP
                                                                                          GIRARD TWP
                         •ROUND LAKE
                                                    FIGURE IV-4  EIS  ALTERNATIVE  1

-------
     Cluster Systems.   Cluster systems would  be  used for those parts  of
the Proposed Service Area which are unsuitable for on-site treatment for
one or more of the following reasons:

     •    small lot sizes;

     •    shallow depth to groundwater level;  or

     •    location within an area having a high hydraulic head such that
          groundwater  (and  septic leachate)  flow  rapidly towards  Otter
          Tail Lake.

     It is estimated that approximately 670 residences would be provided
with cluster  systems  in  1980 and about 950 residences by the year 2000.
It  was  assumed that  about  25% of the septic  tanks  for  cluster systems
would need replacement.

     On-Lot Systems.  Residences not served by sewers or cluster systems
would use  on-lot  systems.   This alternative would include  a  program  of
replacement  and  rehabilitation  of on-lot systems  where necessary  to
alleviate existing malfunctions.

     The assumption that 50% of the on-site systems need replacement was
based upon  an estimate by the Department  of  Land and Resources Manage-
ment  (L.  Krohn,  Land  and  Resources  Management  Office,  May  1978).
However, a  detailed investigation of  on-site  systems has  not been made
at  this time.  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  following  assumptions  were made  regarding upgrading
and replacement of on-site systems.

     •    80%  of  the  on-site systems  need some type of  work and 2/3 of
          these  systems  need replacement  (L.  Krohn,  Land and Resources
          Management Office).

     •    Therefore,  50% of the  on-site  systems  will be replaced with
          conventional septic tank-soil absorption systems.

     »    5% of the on-site  systems will be replaced with mound systems.

     •    2%  will be  provided with holding tanks  because of unsuitable
          site conditions.

     •    25%  of  the  existing  systems will  be  given hydrogen peroxide
          treatment.

EIS Alternative  1 is  shown  irt Figure  IV-4 and design costs and assump-
tions are derailed  in Appendix K-2.

e.   EIS  Alternative 2

     EIS  Alternative  2  resembles  EIS   Alternative  1  providing  de-
centralized treatment  for much of the Proposed Service Area, but
                                   139

-------
         LEGEND


       ON SITE, ST-SAS

       CLUSTER SYSTEMS


       PRESSURE SEWER


       FORCE MAIN

       GRAVITY SEWER


       PUMP STATION


       NOTE: ALL GRAVITY LINE ARE
             8"DIA. UNLESS NOTED.
                                                                OTTER TAIL RIVER
                                                                                   OTTER TAIL

                                                                                   r^\ VILLAGE
NOT TO SCALE
                                                              1.  smwr'ftttfATION; NO STRUM  !

                                                              2o
                                                                     OK R«NQV«TW WAiTS
                                                                     TO OTTti TAIL LAKI
          LAND APPLICATION
                                                              ./    LAKE

                                                             7    BLANCHE
4.  SPRAY iftWe*Tte«l MO 8THCA*
       D49CMAMK
t«. MP(OH*flkTIUTK>N:OtSCH
       9t RC*0₯ATI0
       DOWNSTREAM OP CAST LONt
       LAKE
                        •ROUND LAKE
                                                    FIGURE IV- 5   EIS ALTERNATIVE  2

-------
centralized collected and  treatment  for the south shore.  However,  the
number of on-site treatment systems  has  been reduced  by  sewering a  small
area  along  the  west/northwest shore  of Otter Tail Lake.  A wastewater
flow  of  0.18  mgd from this area would  be  conveyed by a combination  of
gravity  and pressure  sewers to a site  on  2000  feet  west of Otter  Tail
Lake  in  Amor  Township  (site proposed in the Facility Plan).  The waste-
water from both small  flow areas  would be treated  in  stabilization  ponds
followed by either spray irrigation  (after  disinfection)  or rapid infil-
tration.   If  wastewater  is treated  by  rapid infiltration,  0.12 mgd  of
renovated wastewater  would be recovered and pumped  to Otter Tail  Lake
and 0.18 mgd  would  be recovered  and discharged to the  Otter Tail  River
downstream of  East Lost Lake.

     The  remainder  of  the Area  would  be  served by on-site  treatment
systems  and cluster systems.   The  distribution of  these decentralized
systems  would be  based  upon site limitations for  ST/SAS and the density
of developable lots.  EIS  Alternative 2 is  illustrated in Figure  IV-5.
Appendix K-2  lists  design  and cost  assumptions  used  in developing  this
alternative.

f.   EIS Alternative  3

     As with EIS Alternative 2, wastewater  would be collected for treat-
ment  at  two  separate  land application   sites.  However, the collection
system  proposed  for  the  west/northwest  shore  would  be  extended  to
include  the entire north shore of Otter  Tail Lake  and the south shore of
Walker  Lake and Long Lake.   This  alternative is  illustrated  in Figure
IV-6.   The  land application  sites would be in  the same place,  but the
site  located west of Otter Tail Lake expanded to handle  a design flow of
0.3 mgd.   EIS Alternative  3 uses only spray irrigation  as the  method of
land application.

     The east shore and  part  of the  southeast  shore  of  Otter  Tail Lake
would be served  by  on-site treatment systems or cluster systems.  Homes
along the  east/southeast  shore are  generally on  larger lots well  above
the  groundwater  table and consequently  would need few  cluster  systems.
Appendix K-l  presents  design  and costing assumptions used in developing
this  alternative.   Appendix  K-2  lists  major components  of  the alter-
native and their costs.

q.   EIS Alternative  4

     EIS  Alternative  4  would centralize   collection and  treatment  of
wastewater  for  the  entire  Service  Area using two separate land appli-
cation  treatment  systems.   Figure IV-7  shows how  the Otter Tail shore-
line  from  Pelican Bay South  to  an  area just beyond  the north  shore  of
Lake  Blanche  would  be  collected  and conveyed  to one  land application
site.  The remaining segments would  be collected and  treated at the land
application site west of Otter Tail  Lake.     Both    flows   would   be
treated  in  stabilization  ponds,  chlorinated and applied to the  land  by
spray  irrigation.   The  same   land  application  sites  proposed  for EIS
Alternatives 2 and 3 would be used.
                                   141

-------
                                 N
    LEGEND

=  ON SITE, ST-SAS

-  CLUSTER SYSTEMS

5  PRESSURE SEWER

=  FORCE MAIN

=  GRAVITY SEWER

:  PUMP STATION

  NOTE: ALL GRAVITY LINE ARE
       8"OIA. UNLESS NOTED.
                                                                                              OTTER TAIL RIVER
                             NOT TO SCALE
SPRAY IRRIGATION; NO
   $THEAM
         LAND
      APPLICATION
                                                                                                                 OTTER TAIL
                                                                                                                f^A VILLAGE
                                                                                                                               eg
                                              FIGURE  IV- 6  EIS  ALTERNATIVE  3

-------
  LEGEND

ON SITE, ST-SAS

CLUSTER SYSTEMS

PRESSURE SEWER

FORCE MAIN

GRAVITY SEWER

PUMP  STATION

NOTE: ALL GRAVITY LINE ARE
      8"DIA. UNLESS NOTED.
                                                                                        OTTER TAIL RIVER
                                                                 LONG   \% it
                                                                  LAKE
  SPRAY IRftl6ATlON;MO
         LAND
       APPLICATION
                                                                                     MNMV iftftHMTMW: H«
                                                                                        WHAM Ot*CMMItt
                                                                              OTTER TAIL  TWP
                                 AMOR TWP
                                 EVERTS  TWP
                     OTTER TAIL
                      RIVER
                                                                                                           OTTER TAIL
                                                                                                              VILLAGE
V	/
                 •ROUND LAKE
                                              FIGURE IV-7   EIS ALTERNATIVE  A

-------
     Appendix K-l lists design and  costing  assumptions used in develop-
ing  this  Alternative.   Appendix  K-2  lists  major  components  of  the
alternatives and their costs.

h.   EIS  Alternative 5

     EIS  Alternative   5  would centralize  collection  and  treatment  of
wastewater at a  prefabricated  contact  stabilization plant.  The package
plant,  in Amor  Township west of Otter  Tail  Lake,  would  be  a  modular
system  capable  of  handling  0.5   mgd.   The  plant would incorporate
chemical  addition for  phosphorus  removal  and  would  discharge  to  the
Otter Tail River,  downstream  of  East Lost Lake.   Figure IV-8 shows the
proposed  plant  location.   Appendix  K-2 list the facilities included in
the design of the plant.

3.   FLEXIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES

a.   No  Action

     The  No Action Alternative maintains the existing conditions placing
no additional planning or design restrictions  upon wastewater treatment.
Because   no  action is taken  at present,  the  flexibility  for  future
planning  is  high compared  to an alternative recommending an extensive
commitment of resources.

b.   Facility  Plan  Proposed Action

     A  centralizing  land  treatment for all wastewater flows within the
Proposed  Service Area  reduces the  flexibility for future planning and
design   changes   concerning  wastewater  treatment.    This alternative
commits   the  entire   Proposed  Service  Area  to  one  treatment  scheme
involving an extensive  commitment of resources.   However,  expansion of a
land  application  facility  is relatively simple as  long  as sufficient
environmentally  suitable  land  is  available  adjacent  to  the existing
site.

c.   Limited  Action Alternative

     Under the  Limited Action Alternative,  existing  systems  would be
repaired  and upgraded.  Residences located in areas  with high groundwater
flow rates would be served by gray water/black water separation systems.
The main  benefit of this alternative is that it would meet environmental
requirements  while leaving maximum  flexibility for future planning and
design  changes.

d.   EIS Alternative 1

     Compared to the  more centralized alternatives,  the limited sewering
proposed  in  this  alternative would  result in greater  flexibility for
future  planning and  design changes withir. the unsewered sections of the
Study  Area.   Also,  the decentralized  nature  of tne  alternative would
allow   the  flexibility  to base  future decisions  concerning  land use
development  upon local conditions.
                                   144

-------
                                              N
            LEGEND

     	= FORCE MAIN

     	 = GRAVITY SEWER

       •   = PUMP STATION
                                                                                                           OTTER TAIL RIVER
                                         NOT TO SCALE
            NOTE: ALL GRAVITY LINE ARE
                  8"OIA. UNLESS NOTED.
r'
£-
Ln
    PACKAGE
    PLANT
           NOTE: DISCHARGE OF PLANT EFFLUENT   *i«  l0'
        ~1 TO OTTEH TAIL RIVER DOWNSTREAM     ,0"
         | OF EAST LOST LAKE
 i

t
                               •ROUND LAKE
                                                            FIGURE IV- 8   EIS  ALTERNATIVE  5
                                                                                                                      OTTER TAIL
                                                                                                                          VIL.LAGE

-------
e.   EIS Alternatives 2,  3 and  4

     EIS Alternatives 2, 3  and 4 differ only in  the  amount  of Proposed
Service Area sewering.  EIS  Alternative 2  would have  the  least sewering
and consequently the  greatest flexibility  for future  changes, while EIS
Alternative 4 would have the most sewer and the least flexibility.  For
EIS Alternatives 2  and  3,  not sewering the entire Proposed Service Area
would have a smaller immediate commitment of resources than the Proposed
Action  in  the Facility  Plan.  This  would allow some  ability for  future
expansion  and  changes in  localized  planning.  On  the  other hand, EIS
Alternative  4  would  sewer  the entire  Proposed Service Area, offering
more opportunities for development of additional building  sites.

f.   EIS Alternative  5

     Like  the  Facility  Plan  Proposed Action,  this  alternative would
commit  the  entire Proposed  Service  Area to one treatment  approach.  The
resulting  commitment  of resources and  reduction  in future planning and
design  flexibility would be signficant.  Although EIS  Alternative  4 also
calls for sewering the entire Service Area, EIS Alternative 4 would have
two  separate treatment sites,  with slightly  greater  flexibility for
future  changes than EIS Alternative 5.
                                        146

-------
                               CHAPTER V
                          IMPACT EVALUATION
A.   IMPACTS ON SURFACE WATER QUALITY

1.   PRIMARY IMPACTS

a.   Analysis  of Eutrophication Potential

     This  section  discusses  the  effects  of  the  phosphorus  loadings
associated with the different wastewater management alternatives.   The
discussion centers  on phosphorus  because it is usually the controlling
nutrient in temperate lakes and is more easily  controlled than nitrogen.
The major sources of phosphorus were identified in Chapter II as:

     •    Tributaries and non-point sources;
     •    Precipitation;
     •    Immediate drainage;  and
     •    Septic tanks systems.

     Future Phosphorus Loading Scenario.  The  relative contributions of
the major phosphorus  sources  to Otter Tail Lake  and the small surround-
ing  lakes  were shown in  Table II-6  for  the  existing conditions.   In
this  analysis,   future  phosphorus  loading levels  are  projected  to  the
year 2000 for  each alternative.  These loadings  are shown in Table V-I.
To show the change in phosphorus loads for each alternative, compared to
existing conditions, a  percent change has been calculated.  The results
of  this analysis  indicate that  total phosphorus  loads to  Otter Tail
Lake, Deer Lake, Walker Lake, Long Lake and Lake Blanche would be mini-
mally effected  by any alternative.  This is because the load from septic
tanks is very small compared to that from precipitation and tributaries.
ST/SAS  downslope  of Lake  Blanche,  Long Lake  and Walker  Lake  leach
towards Otter Tail Lake, rather than towards these smaller lakes, there-
by minimizing  the loads.  Although the ST/SAS  do  leach into the surface
waters  of Otter Tail Lake, the total phosphorus  loads  from septic tanks
is still small  compared to other sources; the drainage  area of 1,140 mi2
for Otter Tail  Lake represents a very significant source of uncontroll-
able  nutrient  input  which reaches  Otter Tail  Lake as  runoff through
tributaries.

     Another  factor contributing to the small change  in nutrient loads
for the various alternatives  is that none of the alternatives are anti-
cipated  tc  induce significant growth which would increase the non-point
source  load.

     In  contrast,  the phosphorus load to Round Lake could be increased
by as much  as  100% over the planning period.  Septic tanks contribute  a
large percentage of the  phosphorus load because  non-point sources are
limited  by  the  small watershed areas and by the  land locked nature of
the lake.
                                  147

-------
                                                                                          Table V-l

                                                 PHOSPHORUS LOADS BY ALTERNATIVE (KR/YR)  AND PERCENT CHANCE COMPARED TO EXISTING CONDITIONS

ALTERNATIVE


Existing
Conditions
A
No Action
B
A
Limited Action
B
1 - Rapid
Infiltration

1 - Spray
Irrigation

2 - Rapid
Infiltration

2 - Spray
Irrigation

3

4, 5, Proposed
Action


OTTER TAIL LAKE


KG/YR

7,580
7,525

7,606
7,423

7,606

7,567


7,536


7,434


7,403

7,381

7.329
7,351
(Alt. 4)



CHANGE

-

Increase


Increase



-------
     EIS  Alternatives  2,  3,  4,  5  and  Facility  Plan Proposed  Action
recommend  centralized  treatment   for  Round  Lake.   These  alternatives
would  significantly  decrease  phosphorus  loads.   The  Limited  Action
alternative would eliminate the major nutrient source from septic tanks
by eliminating black water* discharge.

     As  the  surface water  quality discussion  in  Chapter  II indicated,
the  nutrient  load estimates  were  based  on limited but best  available
data.  More  complete sampling  and land use  data  may  modify phosphorus
load estimates, particularly for tributaries.

     Future Trophic Conditions.   Future  trophic conditions  will largely
be determined  by  the in-lake  phosphorus  concentration which is a func-
tion of  the  phosphorus  load as well as of  certain physical characteris-
tics of the lake basin.   It is doubtful that the trophic status of Otter
Tail  Lake, Lake  Blanche,  Walker  Lake,  Long  Lake  and Deer  Lake  will
change  over  the  planning  period  since phosphorus  loads  will  remain
fairly  constant.   The empiric  Dillon model  was  used to  determine  the
trophic  status  of Otter Tail  Lake for each wastewater alternative.   The
model  results,  shown in  Figure V-I indicate  that  Otter Tail  Lake  will
remain mesotrophic throughout the planning period no matter which waste-
water management alternative is implemented.

     The  Dillon model was  also used  to predict the  trophic  status of
Round Lake.  Despite  a  large  increase in phosphorus loads to Round Lake
with the No Action Alternative or EIS Alternative 1, the lake is antici-
pated  to  remain  oligotrophic.   The  physical  characteristics  of Round
Lake allow the  lake to assimilate much larger phosphorus loads without a
significant change in trophic status.

     The conditions of Otter Tail River would probably not be changed by
the  implementation of any of the wastewater management alternatives.   If
effluent guidelines are met satisfactorily, some phosphorus and nitrogen
load would be  added  to the  River,  but  this  amount  would  be  small in
relation to the load already being carried.

     Shoreline  Conditions.  It is not expected  that the shoreline condi-
tions(i.e.,algaegrowth) of  Walker  Lake,  Long  Lake  or Lake Blanche
will  be  significantly   effected  by  any of  the  wastewater management
alternatives.   Since  groundwater  flow is towards Otter  Tail Lake is is
unlikely  that  significant  septic  leachate  would  reach  these smaller
lakes.  However,  the shoreline  conditions of Otter Tail Lake, Round Lake
and  Bser  Lake  may  be  impacted  by  the continued reliance  on on-site
systems.   A high correlation  has been  found between the  location of
septic leachate plumes  and shoreline algae growth in other oligotrophic
and  mesotrophic lakes.   Although algae  growth  is  not  a  serious problem
along the  shoreline  of  Deer Lake, Round Lake and Otter Tail Lake at the
present  time,  this  condition  will  not  necessarily remain  constant
throughout  the planning  period  as  housing  density  and use  of ST/SAS
increase.

     The  centralized alternatives would  eliminate septic  tanks as  a
potential  source  for  shoreline  eutrophication.   The  Limited  Action
Alternative  would eliminate  the  major nutrient  source  by eliminating
                                   149

-------
           EUTROPHIC
                                  OTTEK TAIL LAKE
8                                  NO ACTION
                                  ALTERNATIVE 1.2,S; LIMITED ACTION
                                  ALTERNATIVE 4,8; PROPOSED ACTION
                    ROUND LAKE
                   O NO ACTION
                        OLIGOTROPHIC
                   O ALTERNATIVE I
                   O LIMITED ACTION

                    I    I    I  I  I  1  I I
0.01
                  .006
                    .ALTERNATIVE 2,3,4,5;
                      PftOPOtEO ACTION
          10.0

MEAN DEPTH (METERS)
100.0
                  LS AREAL PHOSPHORUS INPUT (g/m^yr)
                  R=PHOSPHORUS  RETENTION COEFFICIENT
                  P= HYDRAULIC FLUSHING RATE (yr"1)
         FIGURE v-i   TROPHIC STATUS  OF OTTER TAIL AND ROUND LAKES
                         UNDER VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES
                                  150

-------
black water discharge which contains about 90% of the total  nitrate  load
from domestic wastewaters  and  a  majority of the phosphorus  load  where  a
detergent phosphorus ban exists.
b.   Bacterial  Contamination

     Data  indicate insignificant bacterial  contamination  of the  lakes
within the Proposed Service Area under existing conditions  (see  Appendix
C-4).   The probability that  bacteriological contamination would  occur
from  EIS Alternatives  1   through  4,   involving  rapid infiltration  and
discharge of  recovered  wastewater  effluent to Otter Tail Lake  or  spray
irrigation is  expected  to  be low.   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.).   Similarly,  continued reliance on on-site
systems  should  not lead  to bacterial  contaminations,  provided  these
systems  are  maintained.  Kerfoot  found very  low bacterial  levels  even
when  samples were  collected at  the  site of  a  leaching septic  tank.
Bacterial  pathogens undergo  rapid  dieback in  the soil matrix.   Studies
have  shown the  summer survival  rate  of  fecal  coliforms  organisms  to be
0.001% after a period of 35 days (Miller 1973).  Although studies of the
groundwater flow rate have shown that septic tank leachate  may reach the
surface  water  in  a  shorter  time period,  no  evidence of  widespread
bacterial  contamination has  been observed.  The potential  for bacterial
contamination  of  Otter Tail Lake  in the Service  Area  should  be  more
specifically  addressed  following field  sampling of  the  proposed waste-
water effluent.

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  are likely to result
in  temporarily  increased  soil erosion.    Similarly,  installation  of
sewers,  especially  those  passing  under  the  many small  drainageways
leading  to the lakes, would 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

     Growth  in the Proposed Service  Area  is  anticipated to  concentrate
in the near-shore  areas, in a single  tier  development pattern.

     Some  increased  housing  development  is  anticipated  regardless of
which  wastewater management  alternative is selected.   The  centralized
alternatives  may result in slightly higher shoreline development densi-
ties.    Increased  housing  development  along  lake  shores  may  increase
nutrient and  sediment loads  into the lake.  This process may be further
accelerated  with  the  centralized  alternatives.   L'iicre-.sed loads  may
result from:
                                   151

-------
     •    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

     •    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 ab-
sorbed on  the land  or  in pools  if  the  runoff  channels are long or if
adequate storage  areas,  like wetlands,  are present.   Increasing housing
density normally  accelerates storm runoff, thereby increasing  not  only
the amount of runoff but also its ability to erode soil and to  transport
contaminants.

     Although an increase in non-point source runoff is anticipated  with
increased development, this increase would be small in comparison to the
total  non-point   source  load increased development would  occur  in the
immediate watershed which  represents only  a  small  percentage  of the
total  1,140 square  mile watershed  area.   The major  nutrient  source to
Otter Tail Lake would continue to be the Otter Tail River.

3.   MITIGATIVE MEASURES

     The Shoreland  Management  Ordinance  of Otter Tail County,  Minnesota
(1  May 1973)  protects  shoreland  alterations.   The  Ordinance  suggests
several different methods  to control runoff  and  erosion during grading
and  filling operations.  These  measures  will  go  far toward preventing
non-point  sources  of  pollution from  entering  surface water  bodies.
However,  erosion  and  sediment control measures are concerned  only  with
construction processes, and  limited to shoreland.   As  impervious surface
cover  is  developed, hydrologic  head in  runoff will  increase,  creating
flows  capable of eroding  and  carrying considerably  more  sediment.  In
order  to  address  these closely related problems  an overall  runoff  con-
trol program should be  implemented.

     As part of the Shoreland Management Ordinance, consideration should
be  given to  the feasibility  of  enacting a  package of  environmental
performance standards  that would control stormwater,  erosion,  and sedi-
mentation.  This  approach  would require that the  amount of  runoff  from
any  specific  development  does  not exceed  the  carrying of  the natural
drainage  system.    This would  require  runoff  from  development  not to
exceed that which occurs under natural conditions.

     The  results  of  Kerfoot's  study (April  1979)  have shown  that the
density  and intensity  of  septic  leachate  plumes  are  influenced largely
by  the direction of grouiidwater  flow.   Mitigative  measures  to reduce
septic  leachate  discharges  include  use of  flow  reduction devices, and
use  of cluster systems  which are set  back from the shoreline.
                                    152

-------
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

     No significant primary or secondary impacts  on  groundwater quantity
are  anticipated with any  of  the various  alternatives;  the  wastewater
flows associated with the alternatives are  relatively small,  in compari-
son to the estimated groundwater supply and  yield.

     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, and  inflow  from adjacent  aquifers.  The maximum possi-
ble wastewater  recharge  to  the Study Area's aquifers  in the  design year
2000  is  estimated to average 0.46  mgd  for the No Action Alternative.
This  is  insignificant in relation to the estimated average  recharge of
100 mgd  to the  aquifers by precipitation and to  the 160 billion  gallons
stored  within  the  aquifer.    Failure  to return, to the  aquifer ST/SAS
wastewater  flows is therefore not expected  to have  a  significant impact
upon groundwater quantity and availability within the Study Area.

2.   GROUNDWATER QUALITY  IMPACTS

     Primary Impacts.    Sedimentation  and  erosion   may  increase  during
construction  associated with  the various  alternatives.   These  impacts
are anticipated to be short lived and minor.

     Secondary  Impacts.    Long  term impacts  on pollutants  are  mainly
associated  with the  following three types  of pollutants:   1) bacteria,
organics and suspended solids, 2) phosphorus and  3)  nitrogen  in the form
of nitrates.

     Bacteria  and  suspended  organics  are  readily  removed by downward
movement  through approximately 5 feet of soil.  These contaminants are
very unlikely to present problems in those parts  of  the Study Area where
the  aquifer is  overlain  by  loamy  soils and depth  to  the water table
exceeds 5 feet.   In areas where the  water table is  nearer to  the  surface
and  soils  are  very sandy  with high infiltration rates well  water con-
tamination  can  occur  with  continued  reliance  on  on-site systems.
However, available results  from well  water  sampling show that bacterial
contamination is currently very localized.   The  use of grey  water/black
water  separation  proposed  in  the  Limited  Action  Alternative would
eliminate  a  major  source  of  potential   bacterial  contamination  by
eliminating  subsurface   treatment of blackwater.   The use  of  cluster
systems  (EIS Alternative  1   and 2)  would  reduce the potential  for
bacterial  contamination  of well water by locating  the absorption fields
away from high groundwater areas.
                                  153

-------
     The  impact  of  phosphorus  in  groundwater is  considered important
because of  the potential  for this nutrient to leach into surface waters
and cause algal growth.

     Jones  et al.  (1977),  in a comprehensive review of relevant studies
on this subject for the EPA concluded that:

     ...it  is  very unlikely  that under most  circumstances, sufficient
     available phosphate  would be  transported from  septic  tank waste-
     water  disposal systems to significantly contribute to the excessive
     aquatic plant growth problems in water  courses  recharged by these
     waters.

This  review has  indicated that  there are  two  primary  factors  in the
removal of  phosphates applied to  the land.  The first is  the  tendency of
phosphorus  to  adsorb on small amounts of  clay minerals,  iron oxide, and
aluminum  oxide in  soil and aquifer materials.  This reaction may not be
significant in some of the sandy  soils along the lake shore.  The second
is  that  hard  waters precipitate  phosphate,  making  it  unavailable for
plant  uptake.  This  second reaction is probably more significant in the
soils  surrounding Otter Tail Lake.

     Jones  et al.  (1977) have indicated several studies in areas similar
to  the Study Area in which loamy soils overlie glacial outwash deposits
where  the  soil  has  essentially  removed  all phosphorus  in  septic tank
effluents.   They also stated that in  areas with hard water  the "likeli-
hood   of  significant phosphate  transport  from  septic  tank wastewater
disposal  system  effluent  to  the  surface  waters  is  greatly reduced
because   of the  calcium  carbonate  present  in  the  soil   and  subsoil
systems."

     Despite Jones'  finding, Kerfoot  (1979)  observed  a high  frequency of
phosphorus  breakthrough  in areas of  high groundwater  flow.  He  found
that  most  on-site  systems along the  shoreline  of Otter Tail Lake were
leaching  phosphorus  into  the  surface waters.   Complete quantification of
phosphorus  loads were not available  from  this survey and the lake will
be  resurveyed  during the  summer  of  1979 for  this purpose.

     There  is no  evidence that  under the existing  conditions nutrient
levels are sustained in  concentrations   sufficient  to   cause excessive
shoreline algae  growth or lake  eutrophication.

     Phosphorus  leachate  to  surface water  would be substantially  reduced
by  implementing the  Limited Action  Alternative  since black water is  a
major  source  of  phosphorus  from domestic  wastewater.   This  reduction
would  be greatest if  a  local  phosphorus ban were  enacted.   The  central-
 ized  alternatives  would eliminate  septic  leachate as a  source of  phos-
phorus to Otter  Tail Lake, Deer Lake  and Round Lake.

      High  concentrations  of  nitrates in grounowauers   are of  concern
 because methemoglobinertda* occurs in  infants  who  consume foods  prepared
 with  such  waters.   A  limit  of 10 mg/1 of  nitrates expressed as  nitrogen
 (N03-N),  has been  set in the  National Interim Drinking Water Regulations
 (40 CFR 141) of  the Sale Drinking Water Ace P.L.  93-523.
                                   154

-------
     Under  the favorable  moisture,   temperature  and  oxygen  conditions
that exist  in the  well  drained soils, the nitrogen  compounds  of human
wastes are  rapidly  oxidized  at or near land surface to soluble nitrates
which are not removed by passage through soils down to groundwaters.   On
entry into  groundwaters, nitrates are transported in the direction of
flow with consequent reduction in concentration as a result of dilution.

     Where septic tank-soil absorption units are used, their density has
been stated as the most important parameter influencing pollution levels
of nitrates  in groundwater.   However, the same source has further indi-
cated that  currently available  "information  has  not  been sufficiently
definitive  nor quantitative to  provide  a basis  for  density  criteria "
(Scalf et al. 1977).

     The  Shoreland  Management  Ordinance  (1973)  requires location  of
septic tank systems at least 50 feet from any private water supply, such
as a well  or spring.  This distance usually provides enough travel time
for water  within the  aquifer to dilute and  reduce initially excessive
nitrate concentrations (more than 10 mg/1 as NOs-N) to less than 2 mg/1.
Field studies  in  Minnesota by Schroepfer and Polta (1969) have shown a
reduction from  12.6 mg/1 to 1.7 mg/1 within 30 feet of travel at depths
of  less  than  15  feet in  a  water table  aquifer.  Most  sanitary codes
reflect  the general  acceptance of  a 50 foot  separation of  wells  and
septic tank systems.  A minimum lot size of 1/3 acre is usually adequate
to  ensure  the observance of  the  50  foot  separation   of wells  and
ST/SAS's  (EPA  1977).  However,  some existing  lots within the Proposed
Service  Area  are  undersized  and  preliminary  results of  the  sanitary
survey  show that  some  septic tanks  cannot  meet  the minimum  setback
requirements  from wells.  Many  of  these same  systems are poorly main-
tained  and  the potential  exists  for  groundwater contamination under
existing conditions or with the No Action Alternative.

     The partial  use of grey  water/black water separation,  proposed in
the Limited Action Alternative would eliminate about 90% of the nitrogen
from  domestic  wastewater.   This would greatly  reduce  the potential  for
nitrate contamination of well water in areas using  these systems.

     The use  of cluster systems is proposed for certain shoreline areas
to  overcome the  problem,  but  it would  be subject to the  findings  of
detailed studies  to be undertaken during the design  phase of the proj-
ect.

     Cluster system soil absorption fields are designed like septic tank
fields  to   ensure  an  adequate areal  distribution of  the  effluent  and
depth to groundwater for satisfactory treatment.   Nitrate levels enter-
ing groundwater should be equivalent to those of  leachate from ST/SAS's.
Locating  the  soil  absorption  fields  of  cluster  systems  at  greater
distances  from residential developments  (500 feet adopted  for EIS de-
sign) provides  more thai; ample room  for dilution of  nitrate concentra-
tions  below  drinking  water   limits  prior  to  interception by wells.
Cluster  system  alternatives   should  therefore  produce  no  significant
groundwater nitrate impacts.
                                  155

-------
     Land application by spray irrigation can provide "sufficient nitro-
gen  removals  to produce a  soil  percolate below 10 mg/1  of  NOa-N"  (EPA
1977).  If nitrogen  input  does  not greatly exceed crop requirements for
nitrogen,  crop  uptake  can  effect  35  to  60%  removals.  Removals  by
denitrification ranges from 15 to 70% depending upon the soil properties
and  the  application rate.  Appropriate  management of  nitrogen loading
rates  to  minimize crop uptake  and adjustment  of application  rates  to
minimize denitrification,  could possible to maintain groundwater quality
that  meets  drinking water standards for  nitrates.   Land  application  on
suitable loamy  soils  at a slow rate of  2.0  inches per week as proposed
in EIS Alternatives  1,  2,  3,  and 4  should  result in no adverse ground-
water impacts.

     Land application  by  rapid  infiltration  achieves  approximately 50%
nitrogen  removal  under  field  conditions   (EPA  1977).   This  removal
efficiency is obtained by denitrification with low application rates and
appropriate  flooding  and  drying cycles.  The  proposed application  rate
of  12  inches  per  week  should  allow  maximum  denitrification.   Well
recovery  of  the applied  wastewater before it  enters  the aquifer would
further ensure  compliance with the drinking water standard of 10 mg/1 of
NO,.-N.   Alternatives  using this effluent disposal  method should there-
fore  cause no significant adverse impacts on groundwater.
C.   IMPACTS  ON POPULATION AND LAND USE

     Area  capacity  to  support  development  varies  with the  degree to
which  wastewater  treatment  facilities are site-related.  On-lot systems
are  extremely  site-related  and usable only where  the  soil  is suitable.
Sewers  allow development  to be much more independent of site character-
istics  because the soil,  permeability, slope and  drainage  are not such
strong  constraining  factors.    With   centralized  treatment,  the  major
development  constraint  is  treatment  system  capacity.   By  providing
sewers,  the developable land  acreage can be increased as  well as the
density  to  which it can be  developed.   The  amount of additional growth
that will actually  take  place if sewers are provided  depends not only
upon the  development potential but also  upon the  demand for additional
residential  development  in the area.  This  demand reflects the attrac-
tiveness  of the  land  for development  compared to  other  areas and the
reduction in the  cost of residential  land when the supply of developable
land is  increased.

      This  section  evaluates,  and  Table V-2  summarizes,   the probable
impacts  of  the  various  alternatives  on  population and land  use.   For
this purpose,  the alternatives have  been grouped  into four categories,
depending upon the extent of sewering.

      Decentralizec Treatment:  Limited Action Alternative.

      Completely Centralized  Collection and Treatment System:    Facility
Plan Proposed  Action and EIS Alternatives 4 and 5.
                                  156

-------
                                                                              Table V-2

                                                            COMPARISON OF POPULATION AND LAND USE IMPACTS
                                                              ASSOCIATED WITH MAJOR SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
                 Completely Centralized
                 Management Facilities
                 (EIS Alternatives 4, 5
                 and Facility Plan
                 Proposed  Action)
                                           Management Facilities
                                           with an Intermediate
                                         Extent of Centralization
                                         (EIS Alternatives 2 & 3)
                                             Least Centralized
                                            Management Facility
                                            (EIS Alternative 1)
                                       Limited Action
                                        Alternative
3g
S3-
U oJ

-------
     Combination of Centralized, Cluster and On-site Systems;    EIS  Al-
ternatives 2 and 3.

     Limited Centralized Collection and Treatment:    EIS  Alternative  1.

1.   IMPACTS ON POPULATION

     Population  impacts  are evaluated  by  comparing the baseline  popu-
lation  projections for  the year  2000  (see  Section  II.E.I)  with  the
estimated  population  capacity  supported by each wastewater  management
alternative.

     It was  estimated  that  the total population of the Proposed Service
Area would increase by 19% by the year 2000 (baseline projections).  All
but  the Limited Action Alternative provide some sewering and  allow some
increased  growth above  the  baseline projections.   Sewering  eliminates
some natural constraints thereby allowing  for  additional  growth.   How-
ever,  most  land  in the Proposed  Service  Area  is already  considered
developable  and increases are not expected  to be significant.

     The  No  Action Alternative and the Limited Action Alternative  would
result  in population  growth approximately  equal to the baseline popula-
tion projections.   Induced  growth  above baseline  levels would  increase
with  degree of centralization.  If  the least centralized system (EIS
Alternative  1)  were provided, total population in the Service  Area  would
be anticipated  to  increase 3% above the baseline projections by the year
2000.   EIS Alternatives 2  and 3 would result  in  a population  increase
about 6%  above  baseline projections.  The most centralized  alternatives,
the  Facility Plan Proposed  Action and EIS Alternatives A  and  5,  could
induce population  growth up to 9% above the baseline projections.

     Centralized  treatment   and collection  is  not  expected  to  induce
significant  population  growth  outside the Service Area.   Second tier
(backlot)  development  is  unlikely  during  the planning period because
more  desirable  lakeshore areas are  available  in  the Proposed Service
Area and  throughout the  region.  New development activity along current-
ly undeveloped  portions  of  Deer, Round, Blanche, Walker, and  Long Lakes
is  also  unlikely  because  more desirable  building sites  for  seasonal
dwellings are available  on the  larger lakes in the  region.

     However,  total  demand  in  the region  for  seasonal  residences will
ultimately determine  the development  pressure  in  the  Proposed Service
Area  for additional  dwelling  units beyond  the baseline  projections.
Currently,  the  demand  for seasonal units appear  to have  stabilized and
is anticipated  to  decline slightly  during the planning period.

2.   LAND USE

a.   Development Potential

     To accommodate the  population  projected for the year 2000,  approxi-
mately  400 to  500 acres of  land would  be  developed.  Only small incre-
mental  increases  in residential  acreage  are anticipated  regardless of
the  wastewater  management alternative adopted.   EIS Alternative 1 would
                                   158

-------
result in development  of  an additional  15 to 20 acres  above  the  400  to
500 acres required  for the  baseline population.  EIS  Alternatives 2 and
3  would  increase  development  by  25 to  30 acres,  and the  completely
centralized alternatives  are anticipated to increase development by  50
acres.

The construction of  new permanent  dwelling units is expected to  be low
because  the  rural  Service  Area  is distant from employment centers and
urban  amenities.   Most of the additional permanent units projected for
the year 2000 are  expected to result  from the conversion of  seasonal
units.   The  sizeable   increase  in  seasonal units  projected  for the
Service  Area  baseline  population  (276 units) should satisfy  the  demand
for this type of unit.

b.   Residential  Land Use Patterns

     The configuration  of the  wastewater treatment facilities often de-
termines the  pattern of future land use; however,  this  is  probably not
the case for the Proposed Service Area.   It is  expected  that development
will  occur  in the  same general areas (i.e., lakeshore  lots)  regardless
of  which  wastewater  management  alternative  is  adopted.   Only minor
variations  in land  use patterns  are expected  to  occur.  The  Facility
Plan  Proposed Action  and EIS Alternatives  4  and 5  would promote the
filling  in of residential areas along the entire lakeshore  of  Otter Tail
Lake  and the developing  segments  of Blanche,  Round, Deer, Walker, and
Long  Lakes  which are  in  the  Proposed  Service  Area.    The  change would
occur, but to a lesser extent,  with EIS Alternatives  1,  2 and  3,  depend-
ing upon the extent of sewering.

     Residential densities  throughout the Service Area  are anticipated
to remain  relatively low  (1 to 2 dwellings  per  acre) and  uniform.  The
densities in the Service Area will be determined largely by the  lot size
requirements specified in the Shoreland Management  Ordinance.

c.   Industrial,  Service and Resort Land  Use  Impacts

     The  baseline   population  projections  assume   that the  number  of
non-residential facilities (commercial and service  establishments) would
remain  constant during  the planning  period.   The  population  growth
projected,  although  substantial,  is not likely to warrant  the  develop-
ment  of  additional  commercial  and  service establishments in the Service
Area  due to the high percentage of seasonal population. New  commercial
and service establishments   required to  serve this  increased  population
would  probably  develop in the more urbanized areas such as Fergus Falls
where  a  larger  year-round  population exists  to support the business.

     The potential development of nursing homes, campgrounds,  and trail-
er  parks cannot  be predicted at  this  time.    Discussions  with  local
residents and officials of the Study Area indicated that no new  develop-
ment  of  these kinds  is currently planned.  A telephone  survey of resort
owners in  the Service  Area did,  however, reveal a planned increase  of
approximately  100   units  during  the  planning  period, mostly  through
expansion  of  existing  resorts.  The potential provision  of  wastewater
management  facilities  apparently had no bearing on the  expansion plans.
                                  159

-------
3.   CHANGES IN COMMUNITY  COMPOSITION  AND  CHARACTER

     The composition and character of  the Otter  Tail Lake area would be
moderately influenced by the  provision of centralized wastewater facil-
ities.   Additional  costs of  wastewater  treatment would  displace  some
lower income permanent residents.

     It  is  not  likely that  the  conversion from  seasonal  to permanent
residences would  be significantly stimulated  by any wastewater manage-
ment  alternative which  is  adopted,  since  the  Study Area is  not  near
major employment  centers or  the  amenities of  urban areas.  The baseline
projections  assumed  that retirement  age  homeowners  might convert their
residences from  seasonal to permanent use  at a  rate of 0.5% per year.
Centralized  treatment  facilities  may increase this  rate only slightly.

     Land values should not  be significantly influenced  by the provision
of  centralized and/or  clustered wastewater  management facilities.  Most
vacant  land  in the  Proposed  Service Area  is  already developable under
existing  conditions  and  desirable  lakefront lots are available.  As the
Service  Area  approaches  a built-out  condition near the  end of the plan-
ning  period, land  values  may  increase  with  the demand  for seasonal
units.   However,  the EIS Alternatives will impact  land values only to
the extent that they neutralize areas with natural constraints.
D.   ENCROACHMENT  ON ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE  AREAS

1.   WETLANDS

a.   Primary  Impacts

     Construction  of  a  centralized collection  systems  might  increase
sedimentation  loads  to  some wetland  areas and  modify  the water  cir-
culation  patterns in  these  areas  during construction.   Those wetland
areas  include:

Wetland                                      Alternative

Between Otter  Tail River and Lake
Blanche (Segment 27)                         Facility Plan  Proposed  Action

Banks  of  the Otter Tail River near
the  discharge  from Otter Tail Lake           2, 3, 4, 5,  Proposed  Action

Between Otter  Tail Lake and Lake Blanche     1, 2, 3, 4,  5,  Proposed Action

Low  lying areas west of Amor Park-North
Shore                                        2, 3, 4, 5,  Proposed  Action

Along  the shoreline  of Walker Lake           3, 4, 5, Proposed Action

      Impacts   during  construction  may be minimized  by adhering  to  the
 requirements  of the  Shcreland  Management Ordinance  regarding Shoreland
 alterations.

                                   160

-------
b.   Secondary Impacts

     Minnesota  statutes  require  a  permit for the alteration of cattail
wetlands (type  III  or  IV wetland)  of over 10 acres.   The wetlands along
the southern  shore  of  Otter Tail Lake between Otter  Tail Lake and Lake
Blanche are shrub wetlands  and would not have protected status from the
State.   Another adjacent area of  shrub  wetlands,  between  the western
shore of Lake Blanche  and the Otter Tail River outlet is protected by a
Federal  easement  which prevents it  from being drained or filled.  The
remaining  wetland  areas  are  composed  primarily of  cattail wetlands.

     Considering  the  protection afforded  under  the Minnesota statutes
and the  limited induced  development  anticipated  under any of the waste-
water management alternatives  evaluated,  it  appears  that direct impacts
on  wetlands   would  be  very  limited.  Development  pressures  along the
southern  shore of  Otter Tail Lake  would impact the  wetlands  in that
area, but  these development  pressures  would exist under  the No Action
Alternative  as well  as  the  other  wastewater management alternatives
evaluated.

c.   Mitigative Measures

     Construction-related  impacts  can  be  minimized  by  restoring the
wetland  areas  to  their original  configuration  as  soon  as possible.
Sediment  traps such  as  diversions  or  terraces  should be  used where
possible  to  keep  sediment  from   reaching   wetland  areas.    The Land
Resources  Administration  should  strictly  enforce  the  Shoreland Man-
agement Ordinance with respect to shoreland alterations.

2.   FLOODPLAINS

a.   Primary Impacts

     Construction of  a  centralized  collection system  would  temporarily
impact  flood-prone  areas along  the  Otter Tail  River and Pelican Bay.
Construction  would result  in  some  additional  sediment  loading which
would  increase until  new vegetation stabilizes  the  eroding  sediments.
These impacts would be short-lived.

b.   Secondary Impacts

     The  Shoreland  Management Ordinance requires that any structure in
the  100-year  floodplain be  built 3  feet above  the high water mark.
However, most houses  were constructed before the Ordinance was adopted,
and  relatively little remaining land in  the  Proposed Service Area is
undevelopable  as  a  result of  this  restriction.  The  provision for off-
site wastewater management  facilities would  not significantly alter the
amount of developable land in the Proposed Service Area.

     Areas  of  induced  development  along  the shoreline  areas of Lake
Blanche,  Long Lake, Walker  Lake,  and Round  Lake generally  lie  outside
flood-prone areas and would have little impact on the floodplain.
                                   161

-------
c.   Mitigative  Measures

     The provisions of the Shoreland  Management  Ordinance regarding con-
struction in  the  floodplain should  be  strictly enforced.   Where resi-
dences  already  exist  in  flood-prone areas,  drinking wells  should  be
floodproofed according to procedures established in statewide standards
and criteria for Management of  Flood  Plain Areas of Minnesota.

3.   STEEP  SLOPES

a.   Primary Impacts

     Steep slopes are rare along the  developable areas  of the Otter Tail
lakeshore and  increased  erosion and  sedimentation  resulting from con-
struction on  steep  slopes  will be  minimal.  The only  steep-sloped areas
that  may be impacted  by  construction are located  east of  Amor Park on
the north shore and a small area along the southeast shore.

b.   Secondary Impacts

     There  is  at  present only limited  residential development  in the
steep-sloped  areas east  of  Amor  Park on the north  shore  and  along a
small area of the southeast shore.   However,  there  are no local or state
regulations governing development in steep sloped areas, and  residential
development  in  such areas  along Otter  Tail  Lake  is likely to continue
whether  improved  wastewater management  facilities  are provided or not.
The  localized impacts from  development  in steep  slope areas would in-
clude accelerated  soil erosion and the  resultant increases  in turbidity
and non-point nutrient loads (primarily  phosphorus).

c.   Mitigative Measures

     Municipalities  should  adopt  performance  standards  with specific
slope/  density  provisions  and  should limit growth  in  steep  sloped areas
by zoning.  Developers would then have to meet the  performance standards
which bear  proof  that the sloped areas  are not a hazard to  development.

      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.

4.   PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND

     No  designation of prime agricultural lands has been made in Otter
Tail  County  as detailed  soil  mapping  is not  yet  complete.  The only
portions of the Study  Area that are likely candidates  for designation as
prime  farmlands  are  located  northwest  and  west  of   Otter  Tail Lake.
These  areas  lie outside  the Proposed Service Area  and are  not  likely to
be  affected by the construction of  wastewater  management  facilities or
by development  dependent on thsse facilities.
                                    ic2

-------
5.   FORESTS AND WOODLANDS

a.   Primary Impacts

     Coastruction of  centralized  collection  systems  would  disrupt some
forested land but these  impacts are  not  anticipated  to be  significant.

b.   Secondary  Impacts

     Limited amounts  of  forest  and  woodland  acreage  would  be converted
to  developed  land during the planning  period.   Generally,  these areas
are  located  along Pelican Bay, the  southeastern  portion of  Long Lake,
the northern portion of  Round Lake,  and the southern shore of Otter Tail
Lake.   Most  of   this  forested land would  be  converted to  developed
acreage whether  improved wastewater  management facilities were provided
or  not.   However, the more  centralized  wastewater management alterna-
tives  are  likely to  convert 15 to  25  more  acres of  forested  land to
residential use.

6.   ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SITES

     Although the  Minnesota  Historical  Society  is conducting a compre-
hensive statewide  survey of  archaeological  and  historical  sites, Otter
County has not yet been  surveyed.   It is known that artifacts and burial
sites  are  located in the Proposed  Service Area,  but their location is
confidential.  Detailed  site  investigations will be  performed  by an
archaeologist after  design  specifications for the selected alternative
have been  completed.  The Morrison  Mounds Historical Site and the Saint
Paul House are located within the  Proposed Service Area; design specifi-
cations will  be  appropriately  reviewed to  resolve potential conflicts
between preservation  of  these   sites  and  the selected EIS Alternative.
E.   ECONOMIC  IMPACTS

1.   INTRODUCTION

     The economic impacts of the proposed wastewater  system alternatives
proposed  for  the Otter  Tail  Lake area  are  evaluated in this section.
These  impacts  include:   financial burden  on system  users;  financial
pressure causing  residents  to  move away from the Study Area  (displace-
ment pressure); and financial pressure to convert seasonal residences to
full-year residences (conversion pressure).

2.   USER CHARGES

     User charges are  the  costs periodically billed  to customers of the
wastewater  system.   User charges consist of three parts:  debt service
(repayment  of principal  and interest),  operation and maintenance costs,
and a  reserve  fund  allocation assumed to equal  20%  of the debt service
amount.  The reserve fund consists of depositing  and  investing a portion
of  current  revenues  to accumulate  adequate  funds   to  finance  future
needed  capital  improvements.   Estimated user charges for each alterna-
tive are presented in Table V-3.
                                  163

-------
                               Table V-3
                          ANNUAL USER CHARGES

     ALTERNATIVE                        AVERAGE ANNUAL USER CHARGE

Facility Plan Proposed Action                     $350

Limited Action Alternative                        $165

EIS Alternative 1                                 $180
 Spray Irrigation

EIS Alternative 1A                                $175
 Rapid Infiltration

EIS Alternative 2                                 $210
 Spray Irrigation

EIS Alternative 2A                                $210
 Rapid Infiltration

EIS Alternative 3                                 $240
 Spray Irrigation

EIS Alternative 4                                 $260

EIS Alternative 5                                 $375


a.   Eligibility

     Eligibility  refers  to that portion  of  wastewater facilities costs
determined  by EPA  to  be eligible  for  a Federal  wastewater facilities
construction  grant.   Capital costs  of  wastewater  facilities are funded
under Section 201 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments  and the Clean Water  Act  of 1977.  The  1972  and 1977 Acts enable
EPA  to  fund 75% of total eligible capital costs of conventional systems
and  857o  of the  eligible   capital  costs  of  innovative  and alternative
systems.   Innovative  and  alternative  systems  considered  in  the  EIS
include  land treatment,  pressure  sewers,  cluster systems,  and septic
tank  rehabilitation and replacement.  The state of Minnesota funds 15%
of  the  capital  costs  of conventional  treatment  systems and  6% of the
capital cost of innovative/alternative systems.  At the present time the
State does  not  fund collection systems whether they are conventional or
innovative/alternative.  Operation and maintenance  costs  are not funded
by  the  Federal  government and must  be  paid  by the users of the facili-
ties.

     The  percentage of  capital  costs  eligible  for  Federal  and State
funding greatly  affects  the cost that local  users must bear.  Treatment
capital costs were  assumed to be fully eligible for grant  funding while
collection  system capital  costs  were  considered  ineligible.  The final
determination  of grant  eligibility will  be prepared by  the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency.

321  E15                           16A

-------
b.   Calculation of  User  Charges

     The  user  charges  developed  for  the Otter  Tail Lake  alternative
systems consist of local capital costs, operation and maintenance  costs,
and a reserve fund charge.  The calculation of debt service was based on
Local  costs  being paid  through the use  of  a 30-year bond at a  6-7/8%
interest.   The  user  charges in Table V-3 are  presented  on an  annual
charge per household basis.

     Estimated  annual  user  charges for  the  nine alternatives   differ
significantly depending  upon the  extent of sewering.  The user charges
range  from $165  for  the  Limited  Action  Alternative to  $375  for EIS
Alternative 5.

     In  addition  to  user charges,  households  connected  to a gravity
sewer  would  have  to pay the capital  costs (approximately $970)  of the
sewer  connection.   Pressure  sewer  connections are  eligible  for Federal
funding  and  do not  represent  a private  cost to  homeowners.  Seasonal
homeowners  also may have to pay  the full price for  the  replacement or
rehabilitation of  their  on-site systems (septic tanks and soil absorp-
tion  systems)  if  these systems are not made  accessible  to the  local
wastewater management agency.  Similarly residents would  have to pay the
cost of  purchase  and installation of microphor toilets for  the Limited
Action  Alternative.   These  private  costs  would vary from household to
household  due  to  differences  in  the  distance to  the gravity collector
sewer and the condition of on-site systems.  Overall, the Limited  Action
Alternative  and  EIS  Alternative  1  would  eliminate most or  all  of at
least  $1,500,000  in provate  costs.   The user  charges  for the Limited
Action  Alternative  would be  further reduced if  composting  toilet were
used instead of microphor toilet and holding tanks.

3.   LOCAL COST  BURDEN

a.   Significant Financial  Burden

     High-cost wastewater facilities  may  place an  excessive financial
burden on users of the system.  Such burdens may cause families to alter
their  spending  patterns  substantially.   The  Federal  government has
developed  criteria  to  identify high-cost wastewater projects (The White
House  Rural  Development  Initiatives 1978).  A project is  identified as
high-cost when the annual user  charges are:

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

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

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

     The  1978 median household income for the Proposed Service Area has
been  estimated to  be  $12,000  for  permanent  residents.   (No dats. are
available  for  seasonal  resident incc.-ne  characteristics.)  According to
the Federal  criteria,  annual user charges should not exceed  2.5%  ($200)
                                   165

-------
of the  $12,000  median household income figure.  Any  alternative  having
annual user charges  exceeding  $300 is identified as  a  high-cost  alter-
native and is likely to place a financial burden on users of the system.
Both the Facility Plan Proposed Action and EIS Alternative 5 are classi-
fied as high-cost according to the Federal criteria.

     Significant financial burden is determined by comparing annual user
charges with the distribution of household incomes.   Families  not facing
a significant financial burden would be the only families able to afford
the annual wastewater  user charges.  Table V-4 shows the  percentage  of
households estimated to  face a significant financial burden  under each
of  the  alternatives.   The  centralized  alternatives   would  place   a
financial burden on 60 to 70% of households in the Otter Tail  Lake area,
while the Limited  Action Alternative would financially  impact about 35%
of  the  households.  Only  30 to  40% of the  area's households  would  be
able  to  afford  the centralized systems while 62 to 70%  of the residents
could  afford  the  Limited Action  Alternative  and EIS Alternative  1.

b.   Displacement  Pressure

     Displacement  pressure is the  stress  placed upon  families  to move
away  from the  service  area as a  result of  costly user charges.   Dis-
placement pressure is measured by  determining  the percentage of  house-
holds  having  annual  user  charges exceeding  5% of their annual income.
Table  V-4 lists the displacement pressure  induced by each alternative.
The  centralized alternatives  would  be  expected to  place displacement
pressure  on  30  to 40% of  the  households in the Otter  Tail  Lake area.
The  Limited  Action  Alternative  would displace  only 8  to  12%  of the
households and EIS Alternative 1 would displace 10 to 15%.

c.   Conversion  Pressure

     Wastewater  facilities  costs  are likely  to  encourage  the  trend
already  underway of  converting  seasonal residences  to  permanent resi-
dences.   The  requirements  would impose a relatively heavier cost burden
on  seasonal  residences than on permanent  ones.   These  residences would
typically be used  only three or four  months during the year but would  be
charged  for  capital  costs  throughout  the  year.    This  may  place  a
financial burden on seasonal residents who  are maintaining a full-time
residence elsewhere  in addition to  their seasonal residence.  The higher
cost  burden  of  centralized alternatives  will  exert   more  conversion
pressure  than   the   cost   burden   of the  decentralized  alternatives.
Because  of  the apparent  high income  of  seasonal residents  (based  on
visual  inspection of seasonal  residences)  the number  of seasonal-to-
permanent  residential  conversions  as a  result of the  wastewater user
charges  is likely  to be  small in  any case.

4.   MITIGATIVE  MEASURES

      The  significant financial burden and displacement pressure on users
in  the unsewered  areas  may be  mitigated by  selection  of a  lower cost
decentralized  alternative.   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
                                   166

-------
                                   Table V-4

                  FINANCIAL BURDEN AND DISPLACEMENT PRESSURE
                           (BASED ON 0% ELIGIBILITY)
    Alternative
Displacement
  Pressure
Financial
 Burden
 Can
Afford
Facility Plan
Proposed Action
Limited Action
   30-40%
    8-12%
 60-70%


 33-38%
30-40%


62-67%
EIS Alternative #1
  Spray Irrigation
   10-15%
 35-40%
65-70%
EIS Alternative #1A
  Rapid Infiltration
   10-15%
 35-40%
65-70%
EIS Alternative #2
  Spray Irrigation
   10-15%
 40-50%
50-60%
EIS Alternative #2A
  Rapid Infiltration
   10-15%
 40-50%
50-60%
EIS Alternative #3
  Spray Irrigation


EIS Alternative #4


EIS Alternative #5
   20-30%


   20-30%


   30-40%
 50-60%


 50-60%


 60-70%
40-50%
40-50%
30-40%
                                      167

-------
payment of  the local  share  over a  longer period of time with  a  lower
interest rate.  The  impacts  of the high costs  to  seasonal  users may be
mitigated  by  not charging  for  operation and  maintenance  during  the
months that seasonal residences are vacant.  Farmers Home Administration
grants might also be available or installation of ultra-low-flow toilets
as part of the Limited Action Alternative.
                                    168

-------
                                                                                    IMPACT   MATRIX
    IMPACT
   CATEGORY
   IMPACTED
     AREA
Surface Water
  Quality
Nutrient Loads
                                        Non-Point  Source
                                         Runoff
   IMPACT
TYPE & DEGREE
                                          Primary;
                                            Long-Term
                                          Primary;
                                            Short-Term
                                                                                 Secondary;
                                                                                   Long-Term
                                                                                                                                               DESCRIPTION
                                        OTTER LAKE. DEER LAKE, WALKER LAKE. LONG LAKE. AND LAKE BLANCHE

                                        Ml Alternatives:

                                        None of the alternatives will have a significant Impact on
                                        phosphorus loading since a small percentage of the load comes
                                        from on-slte systems as compared to non-point sources and tributaries.
                                        The trophic status of all these lakes is anticipated to remain the
                                        same.

                                        ROUND LAKE

                                        No Action Alternative, Alternative 1:

                                        Phosphorus loads will significantly Increase over the planning
                                        period but the increased load is not anticipated to change the
                                        trophic status of Round Lake since the current nutrient load is
                                        very low.

                                        Limited Action Alternative:

                                        Septic leachate to Round Lake would be minimized by collecting
                                        black uater in holding tanks.  This could eliminate 90t of the
                                        nitrogen load and 75% of the phosphorus load under the phosphorus
                                        ban (40% of the phosphorus load without).

                                        Alternatives 2, 3, 4^_X and Facility Plan Proposed _Actlo_n:

                                        Nutrient load would be substantially reduced by providing
                                        centralized collection and treatment system, but the trophic
                                        status of Round Lake would not change.

                                        No Action Alternative^

                                        This alternative would involve no construction and no corresponding
                                        Increase in erosion and sedimentation.

                                        Limited Action:

                                        This alternative Involves little construction and consequently
                                        Increased  non-point source runoff will be minimal.

                                        Alternatives 1. 2. 3, 4, 5,  and Proposed Action:

                                        A temporary increase in soil erosion and sedimentation may occur
                                        as a result of sewering, with Increased loads being proportional to
                                        the area sewered.

                                        No Action and Limited Action:

                                        Induced growth above the baseline projections is unlikely and
                                        therefore  little increase in non-point source runoff is anticipated.

-------
                                                                                    IMP AC T   MATRIX
                                                                                           (Continued)
    IMPACT
   CATEGORY
IMPACTED
  AREA
   IMPACT
TYPE 4 DEGREE
                                                                                                                                               DESCRIPTION
                                        Shoreline
                                          Eutrophlcation
Groundwater
                                        Groundwatrr
                                          Quantity
                                      Primary;
                                         Long-Tenn
                                      Primary;
                                        Long-Term
                                                                                  Secondary;
                                                                                   Long-Term
                                        Alternatives &, 5, and Facility Plan Proposed Action:

                                        Induced growth Is likely to be greatest with these alternatives
                                        and growth will be concentrated in shoreline areas.  This may
                                        result in Increased non-point source runoff.  The increase would
                                        be small in relation to total non-point source loads from the
                                        entire watershed.

                                        Alternatives 1, 2, and 3:

                                        Increase in non-point source loads are less with less extensive
                                        sewering.

                                        Ho Action:

                                        Although algal growth is currently sparse along most shoreline
                                        areas, growth could potentially increase over the planning period
                                        as use of on-site systems increases.  Algal growth from use of
                                        ST/SAS is a subject of on-going study at Otter Tail Lake.

                                        Limited Action:

                                        The potential for shoreline eutrophicatIon Is substantially
                                        reduced by eliminating black water discharge in areas with a
                                        high groundwater flow rate.

                                        Alternatives 1. 2, and 3:

                                        Would reduce nutrient loads from septic tanks.  However, some
                                        on-site systems would continue to leach nutrients which could
                                        contribute to algae growth (needs further investigation).

                                        Alternatives A, 5. and Facility Plan Proposed Action:

                                        Would have the greatest potential for minimizing lakeshore
                                        eutrophlcatlon by eliminating septic tanks as a nutrient source.

                                        Alternative 5:

                                        Alternative 5 would eliminate groundwater recharge In the
                                        Study Area but failure to return wastewater flows to groundwater
                                        would result In negligible loss.

                                        All Alternatives:

                                        Increased use of aquifer would result In minimal depletion of
                                        yield.

                                        All Alternatives:
                                                                                                                         Loss of aquifer  recharge  areas as  a  result of development of
                                                                                                                         Impervious surface cover would be  minimal.

-------
                                                                                    IMPACT   MATRIX
                                                                                           (Continued)
    IMPACT
   CATEGORY
IMPACTED
  AREA
   IMPACT
TYPE & DECREE
                                        Groundwater
                                          Quality
                                       Primary;
                                         Long-Term
Environmentally
  Sensitive
  Areas
                                        Wetlands
 Primary;
   Short-Term
      or
   Long-Term
                                                                                                                                               DESCRIPTION
                                        No Ac tIon:

                                        This alternative has the greatest potential for groundvater
                                        contamination with nitrates and for leaching of septic tank
                                        nutrients to Otter Tail Lake.
                                                                                                                         Limited Action Alternative:
                                                                              Alternatives  1,  2,  and  3:

                                                                              Continued  leaching  of phosphorus  from  ungewered  areas would  be  a
                                                                              potential  nutrient  source  for  localized  algal  growth.   Potential
                                                                              for  groundwater  contamination  with  nitrates  also exists in unsewered
                                                                              areas.   On-site  maintenance  and upgrade  would  reduce  the potential
                                                                              for  both Impacts.

                                                                              Alternatives  1,  2,  3, and  6:

                                                                              Potential  for groundwater  contamlnnt Inn  Vty nttr.ites  is  minimal  with
                                                                              land application.   Discharge of renovated wastewater  from rapid
                                                                              infiltration  (Alternative  1  and 2 only)  will not significantly
                                                                              Increase nutrient  load  to  Otter Tail Lake, but may  lead to  localized
                                                                              algal growth.

                                                                              Alternative  5:

                                                                              Eliminates potential  for  groundwater contamination  from domestic
                                                                              wastewater.

                                                                              No Action  and Limited Action:

                                                                              No wetland areas would  be  Impacted.

                                                                              Alternative  1:

                                                                              Wetlands along the  south  shore of Otter  Tail Lake between Lake
                                                                              Blanche and  Otter  Tail  Lake  would be  Impacted  by Increased
                                                                              sedimentation and  modified water  circulation patterns during
                                                                              construction  of  sewers.

                                                                              Alternative  2:

                                                                              In addition  to wetlands Impacted  by Alternative 1,  wetland  areas
                                                                              along the  banks of  the  Otter Tall River  and  In low  lying areas
                                                                              of Amor Park  would  be  impacted.

-------
                                                                                I M P A C_T   MATRIX
                                                                                       (ConeInued)
 IOTACT
CATEGORY
IMPACTED
  AREA
    IMPACT
TYPE & DEGREE
                                                                                                                                           DESCRIPTION
                                                                              Secondary;
                                                                                Long-Term
                                     Floodplains
                                                                               Primary;
                                                                                 Short-Term
                                      Steep  Slopes
                                                                               Primary;
                                                                                 Short-Term
                                                                              Alternatives  3, 
-------
                                                                                    IMPACT   MATRIX
                                                                                           (ConeInued)
    IMPACT
   CATEGORY
   IMPACTED
     AREA
   IMPACT
TYPE 4 DECREE
                                                                                                                                               DESCRIPTION
Environmentally
  Sensitive
  Areas (Cont'ct).
Population
Prime Agricultural
  Lands
                                        Forest Land
                                        Rate of Growth
                                                                                  Secondary;
                                                                                    Long-Term
 Primary and
   Secondary
                                                                                  Primary;
                                                                                    Short-Term
                                                                                  Secondary;
                                                                                    Long-Term
                                                                                  Secondary;
                                                                                    Long-Term
All Alternatives:

Development Is likely to continue on steep slopes, but these areas
are rare.

All Alternatives:

No impact on prime agricultural lands-

No Action and Limited Action Alternatives:

No Impact on forest land above that projected for baseline
population.

Alternatives 1, 2, 3. A, 5, and Proposed Action:

Collection systems will be constructed  through forested areas but
these Impacts will be minimal.

No Action and Limited Action Alternatives:

No development of forest land above that projected for baseline
population.

Alternatives 1. 2, and 3:

Minimal development of forested land.

Alternatives <*, 5, and Facility Plan Proposed Action:

About 15 to 25 acres of forest land would be developed in addition
to acreage needed to accomodate the baseline population.

No Action and Limited Action Alternatives:

Growth is anticipated to be similar to  baseline projections.

Alternative 1:

Growth anticipated to Increase 32 above baseline projections.

Alternatives 2 and 3:

Growth anticipated to increase 6% above baseline projections.

Alternatives 6, 5, and Facility Plan Proposed Action:

Anticipated to Induce up to 9Z additional growth above baseline
projec tIons.

-------
                                                                                    IMPACT   MATRIX
                                                                                           (Continued)
    IMPACT
   CATEGORY
IMPACTED
  AREA
   IMPACT
TYPE 4 DEGREE
                                                                                                                                              DESCRIPTION
Land Use
                                        Developable
                                          Acreage, Growth
                                          Patterns
Local Economy
                                        Community Composition
                                          and  Character
                                        Financial Burden
                                       Secondary;
                                        Long-Term
                                      Secondary;
                                        Long-Terra
                                                                                 Secondary;
                                                                                   Long-Tenn
                                        Ho Action and Limited Action Alternatives:

                                        Land development is expected to be similar to that needed to
                                        accomodate the baseline projection.

                                        Alternative 1:

                                        Development of residential land will be increased by 15 to ^9
                                        above that needed to accomodate baseline population.  Development
                                        will continue in single tier pattern along shoreline areas.

                                        Alternatives 2 and 3:

                                        Development would be Increased by 25 to 30 acres.  Higher density
                                        shoreline development would result but little second tier
                                        development is anticipated.

                                        Alternatives 4, 5, and Facility Flan Proposed Action:

                                        Land development would be Increased by about 50 acres.   High density
                                        shoreline development would result in some segments, but little
                                        second tier development is likely.

                                        No Action Alternative:

                                        Community composition will remain as is.

                                        Limited Action, Alternative 1. and 2:

                                        Some loss of lower income population base due to displacement
                                        pressure.

                                        Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5,  and Proposed Action:

                                        Moderate to severe change in community composition by loss of lower
                                        income population.

                                        No Action Alternative:

                                        No increased financial burden for collection and treatment of
                                        wastewater.

                                        Limited Action Alternative, and Alternative 1:

                                        Financial burden would be placed on 30-40% of permanent population.

                                        Alternative 2:

                                        40-50% of the  population  would feel a financial burden  from local
                                        costs.

-------
                                                                                    IMPACT   MATRIX
                                                                                           (Continued)
    IMPACT
   CATEGORY
IMPACTED
  AREA
   IMPACT
TYPE & DEGREE
                                                                                                                                               DESCRIPTION
                                        Displacement
                                          Pressure
Cultural Resources
                                        Archaeological and
                                          Historical  Sites
                                       Secondary;
                                         Long-Term
                                       Primary;
                                         Short-Term
                                         &  Long-Term
                                                                                  Secondary;
                                                                                    Short-Term
                                                                                    & Long-Term
                                        Alternatives 3 and 4;

                                        Financial burden would be placed on 50-60% of the permanent
                                        population.

                                        Alternative 5 and Proposed Action:

                                        The financial burden would impact the largest percentage of the
                                        population with these alternatives.  60-702 of the population
                                        would be financially impacted.

                                        No Action Alternative;

                                        No population would be displaced as a result of wastewater
                                        collection and treatment costs.

                                        Limited Action:

                                        8-121 of the population would face displacement pressures.

                                        Alternatives 1  and 2:

                                        10-152 of the population would  face displacement pressures.

                                        Alternatives 3 and A:

                                        20-302 of population would face displacement pressures.

                                        Alternative 5 and Proposed Action:

                                        30-40% of population may be displaced by  the costs of  these
                                        alternatives.

                                        No Action and Limited Action Alternatives:

                                        These alternatives would not impact archaeological and historical
                                        sites.

                                        Alternatives 1» 2( 3, A, S, and Proposed  Action:

                                        All alternatives could possibly have an impact upon identified and
                                        unidentified archaeological and historical sites.  An  archaeological
                                        survey of the Study Area will take place  upon the selection of the
                                        wastewater management alternative.  At that point, the primary and
                                        secondary impacts of the project on these sites could  be addressed
                                        in more detail.

-------
176

-------
                              CHAPTER VI
                  CONCLUSIONS AND  RECOMMENDATIONS
A.   INTRODUCTION

     As discussed in Section  I.D.I,  EPA has  several possible courses of
action based on  this EIS's  review of the Facility 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 Facility  Plan Proposed Action;

     •    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  Facility  Plan  Proposed
          Action; or

     •    Reject the grant  application.

     The choice  of  one of  the above  options  depends upon how the Alter-
natives  in the  EIS compare  to   the  Facilities  Plan  Proposed Action.

B.   SUMMARY OF EVALUATION

     Four  primary  criteria  were   used  in selecting the EIS Recommenda-
tion: costs, impact, reliability,  and flexibility.  Within each category
several  factors  were   compared;   cost   factors  for  example,  included
present  worth,   user charges, and  total 1980  private  costs.   Impacts
which  EPA  considers to  be  decisive  in selection of an  alternative are
identified and considered.   Alternatives reliability is measured against
centralized collection  and  treatment  as the  standard.

     The relationship  between the  alternatives and the criteria used to
evaluate  them are  easily  visualized  in a  matrix.   A  matrix relating
alternatives  to  environmental  impacts  is  presented  in Section V.F.
Table  VI-1 presents a  matrix summarizing the relationship between al-
ternatives  and  their   costs, environmental  impacts,   reliability and
flexibility.

     Table  VI-1  also  ranks  the   alternatives according  to their  total
present worth.  This ranking has  two  purposes:

     •     Costs  are easily quantifiable, perhaps  the  least subjective
           measure of value.

     •    EPA Construction  Grants regulations require selection of the
          most   cost-effective alternative,  that  is,   the alternative
          meeting project goals with the least total  present worth and
           with   acceptable  environmental  and   socioeconomic  impacts.
                                  177

-------
                                                                             Table VI-]




                                                                    ALTERNATIVE SELECTION MATRIX*
Alternative
EIS
Alternative 4














M
09


















Present
Worth
(xl.OOO)
11,336.0



































User
Charges
260



































One Time
Household
Charge
Gravity
Severs ,
about
S1000/
Household
































Surface
Mater Qual ity
Impacts
• Decreased nutrient
load to Otter Tall
Lake resulting
from elimination
of septic tanks Is
not likely to have
a significant
effect on water
quality;

• Significant de-
crenoe In nutrient
loac to Round Lake
but trophic status
Is not likely to
change;



• Tributaries and
precipitation con-
tinue to be the
most significant
sources of nutri-
ents for all
lakes;
• Potential for
shoreline eutro-
phlcatlon result-
ing In algae
growth Is sharply
decreased;
• Land application
sites may dis-
charge low nutri-
ent loads to
surface waters.
Croundwater
Impacts
• Significant reduction
of nitrate and phos-
phorus levels dis-
charging to surface
waters. Eliminates
septic tanks as a
potential source of
nutrients.





























Environmental ly
Sensitive
Areas
• Construction
impacts on
wetlands are
unavoidable;






• Long- term
impacts are
minimal with
only a slight
increase in
development
of wetland
acreage .



















Populat ion
Impacts
Population
Increase
of 91
above
basel Ine
projec-
tions






























Land
Use
• Increases
developable
acreage by
50 acres
above base-
line pro-
ject ions;



• Slight In-
crease in
density of
shoreline
development






















Financial
Burden
W-60T



































THsplacement
Pressure
20-30*



































Flexibility
High Commitment
limited flexib-
ility because of
existing sever-
ing. Two land
application
sites provide
for more flex-
ibility than
Facility Plar
Proposed Action.

























Reliability
Vse of pressure
the reliability
of this alterna-
tive sonevhat
compared to
Facility Plan
Proposed Action
Reliability
better than
EIS 3-


























*Alten.atlves are listed in order of  present worth.

-------
Table VI-1 (Continued)


Alternative
EIS
Alternative 3











Facility Plan






,_,
-j
SC


EIS
Alternative 5




EIS
Alternative 2

















Present
Worth
(xl.OOO)
10,539.6












10,358.6










10,245.7





10,202.8



















User
Charges
240












350










375





210


















One Time
Household
Charge
Gravity
Sewers,
about
$10007
Household








Gravity

about
S1000/
Household






Gravity

about
S1000/
Household

Gravity
Sewers,
about
SIOOO/
Household














Surface
Water Quality
Impacts
Same as Alternative
4 except the poten-
tial for shoreline
eutrophlcatlon Is
higher because sep-
tic tanks i-tlll
serve southeast
shore. Upgrade and
maintenance of on-
slte systems will
reduce shoreline
eutrophicat Ion
potential.
Similar to EIS 4
wr&nt tYia t rh*> In 1
application sice on
the south shore of
Otter Tail Lake
would be eliminated.
thereby eliminating
this source of
nutrients to Otter
Tail Lake.

Similar to Facility
PI an P n «pH
Ac t ion .



• Continued reliance
on septic tanks on
the northwest and
southwest shores ;



• Septic leachate
will continue to
discharge to Otter
Tall Lake along
these shorelines;
• Increased poten-
tial for shoreline
eutrophlcation as
compared to EIS
Alternatives 3, 4,
5, and Proposed
Action .

Croundwater
Impacts
Greatly minimizes the
potential for ground -
water contamination
with nitrates, and
groundwater discharge
of phosphorus to sur-
face water, but does
not eliminate on-site
systems as a poten-
tial nutrient source.



Similar to EIS Altern-
. i .
wastewater would be
applied to one land
application site only.






Eliminates soil treat-
. , ,
tanks and land appli-
catlon) as a source of
grounduater contamina-
tion.
• Potential exists for
nitrate contamination
of groundwater in un-
sewered areas , but
on-site maintenance &
upgrade will decrease
this potential Impact;
• Groundwater continues
to discharge septic
leachate to Otter Tall
Lake in unsewered
areas .







Environmental ly
Sensic Ive
Areas
Con Ft ruction
impacts are
unavailable
but impact
less acreage
than Alterna-
tive /. .






Similar to EIS
V . . ,
except an addi-
tional wetland
area (Segment
27) would be
impacted.




S a me a s
A 1 * /




Similar to
Alternative 3


















Populat Ion
Impacts
Populat ion
increase
of 6Z
above
basel Ine
projec-
tions.






Same as
. « .,
tlve 4








Same as
Air
tlve 4



Same as
Alterna-
five 3

















I.nnd
Use
25-30 acres
less In-
crease In
shoreland
development
than Alterna-
tive 4.






Same as
. .
tlve 4








Same as
A 1
tlve A



Same as
Alterna-
tlve 3

















Financial
Burden
50-602












60-702










60-70%





40-50Z



















Displacement
Prpssuro
20-30?












30-402










30- /.or.





10-155!




















Flexibility
HJjtJj flexibility
for future
change and
expansion .









Involves an
.
mitment of re-
sources; reduces
flexibility for
future planning;
Innd appl icat ion
site could bo
expanded east Iv
to accommoHa tc
add it lona 1 f low.
Ext ens I ve com-
. .
sources an«?n F.IS ?
and EIS '« bo-
cause of f ntor
mediate use of
central Ized
sewer ing.





Use of gravl ty

this the most
reliable alter?. -
at Ivc. Pump
stations d«?cre is«»
reliability so"'c-
wha t because o?
chance of fni V. re


Same -is Far i 1 1 r y
_
Act ton.



Reliability
Intermediate
between EIS
Alternatives 1
and 3.















-------
Table VI-1 (Continued)

Alternative
EIS
Alternative \

























Limited Actlc-n
Alternative














Present
Worth
(xl ,000)
9,306.8


























7,152.2
















User
Charges
175


























165















One Time
Household
Charge
Gravity
Sewers,
about
S1000/
Household






















	















Surface
Water Quality
Impacts
• Continued dis-
charge of aeptic
leachate along all
but southwest
shore of Otter
Tall;


• Septic leachate
is unJJJteJv to
significantly
impact surface
water quality
since septic
leachate is a
small source of
total nutrient
load:
• Continued dis-
charge o( septic
leachate to Round
Lake will substan-
tially Increase
the total nutrient
load but is not
likely to effect
trophic status.
By collecting black
water In holding
tanks, the major
source of nitrogen
and the major source
of phosphorus (pro-
vided the phosphorus
ban Is In effect)
would be elinlnated
from septic leachate.







Groundwater
Impacts
• Potential exists for
grounivater contam-
ination In unsewered
areas but on-slte
maintenance and up-
grade would sharply
decrease this poten^
tlal;
• Groundwater contin-
ues rp discharge
septic leachate to
Otter Tall Lake,
Bound Lake, and
Deer Lake.













Collecting black water
In holding tanks would
minimize the potential
for groundwater con-
tamination by nitrates
and would minimize
leaching of phosphorus
from septic tanks to
surface water.







Environmentally
Sensitive
Areas
Construction
Impacts only
on wetlands
between Otter
Tall Lake and
Lake Blanche.





















Wetlands would
be minimally
impacted.














Population
Impacts
Population
Increase
of 3Z
above
baseline.






















Population
similar to
hasel Ine
projec-
t ions •












Land
Use
15-20 acres
minim] In-
crease in
development
density.






















Development
similar to
baseline
projections.













Financial
Burden
35-40X


























33-387
















Displacement
Pressure
10-I5X


























8-12*
















Flexibility
High flexibility
for future plan-
ning and design
changes.























High flexibility
for future plan-
ning and design
changes.













Reliability
Extensive use of
cluster systems
and on-slte sys-
tems, together
vlth pressure
sewers gives
this alternative
low reliability.
On-sltc portion
has good reli-
ability In case
of civil or
energy emergency.






o
CO






Complete decen-
tralization
using grey
water/black

t ion and con-
ventional ST/
SAS gives this
alternative lower
reliability than
any of those
listed- Greatest
reliability of
any alternative
or energy
*iraergenc;' -

-------
     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

     Information  gathered  during the  preparation  of this EIS  has  pro-
vided  the  following  insights regarding the  status  of  existing  systems:

     •    There was  nearly a one-to-one  relationship  between permanent
          residences  and  septic  leachate plumes  discharging  to  Otter
          Tail Lake during an April 1979 survey.

     •    Groundwater  and the  septic  tank  leachate  which   it  carries
          discharge  into   Otter  Tail  Lake  along  all  but the  western
          shore.   Groundwater  (and septic tank leachate) flow  is  par-
          ticularly  rapid along  the  Otter  Tail shoreline adjacent  to
          Walker Lake, Long Lake, Lake Blanche and the Otter  Tail River.
          Consequently  nutrient  breakthrough  to the surface waters  is
          strongest along the shorelines of the  small surrounding lakes.

     •    Despite  the  large  number  of  on-site systems  discharging  to
          Otter  Tail Lake,  the  total nutrient contribution from  this
          source  is  small in comparision to nutrient  loads  from tribu-
          taries and precipitation.

     •    Localized well  water contamination has been observed in wells
          sampled  along the  northeast and southeast shores.   Contamina-
          tion  is  neither widespread  nor directly  attributable  to the
          operation  of existing on-site  systems;  it  does not  fit any
          pattern  of system problems or location.

     •    Surface  malfunctions of  three septic  systems were  observed in
          the  Proposed Service  Area  by  field  verification of  aerial
          photographs.

Most of  the on-site  systems  in use within the Proposed Service Area are
poorly maintained  and many are inadequately designed based upon criteria
established by  the Shoreland Management Ordinance for design of on-site
systems.   A  sanitary  survey  is  currently  underway  to  determine the
extent of  non-compliance  with  the  sanitary code and whether  or not such
violations have resulted in problems with on-site systems.

     While  existing  on-site  systems do not degrade water quality of the
whole  lake, localized water quality impacts may  be occurring.  Localized
impacts  of  greatest  concern  are  elevated  nitrate  concentrations  in
groundwater used  for drinking  water anil near-shore aquatic plant growth
stimulated by excessive breakthrough of phosphorus.  Neither the Facili-
ty  Plan  nor field work conducted  to  date for  the EIS have conclusively
documented  the  magnitude or  locations  of  near  shore  aquatic   plant
growth.  Well water samples  taken  to  date  show localized contamination
but  this  survey is not yat  complete.   Final selection of a recommended
                                   181

-------
alternative is,  therefore,  contingent upon the results of field studies
planned for July through September 1979.

     A comparison  of  the impacts of the various alternatives provides a
basis for  the  following conclusions considered in selecting an alterna-
tive.

     The  population in  the  Proposed Service  Area  would increase  by a
maximum  of 9%  with  the most  centralized EIS alternatives.   The  more
centralized wastewater treatment systems  will  allow  for higher density
development along  some shoreline segments but much of the  shoreline is
already considered  developable without provisions for  centralized treat-
ment.   Second  tier development  is not  anticipated  because  more attrac-
tive shoreline sites are available along nearby lakes.

     The  surface water  quality  and trophic status of all  lakes  in the
Proposed  Service  Area is  not  anticipated to  change as the  result of
implementing  any  wastewater  alternative.  Limited  benefits  to  water
quality  result  with  the  centralized alternatives  because  of the small
contribution of  septic tanks to  the  total  nutrient load.

     Centralized wastewater  treatment would eliminate septic tanks as a
source  of u oundwater pollution.  The  extent  to  which existing on-site
systems  are  contributing to groundwater pollution,  is the subject of an
ongoing  survey  which  will be  completed  by September   1979.   Groundwater
contamination  could  be minimized  by  implementing   the  Limited  Action
Alternative as  up  to  90% of  the nitrogen could be eliminated  from sub-
surface disposal under this alternative.

     The  decentralized Limited  Action  Alternative has  a total present
worth  31%  less  than  that  of the  Facility Plan Proposed  Action.   EIS
Alternative  1  which   provides  sewers for only  a small  segment  of the
south  shore, has a total present worth 10% less than the Facility Plan
Proposed  Action.

     The  difference in user charges  between  the  Facility Plan Proposed
Action and the Limited Action or EIS  Alternative  1 is even more signifi-
cant.   EIS Alternative 1 would  have  an annual user  charge half that of
the  Facility  Plan  Proposed Action,  ami  the  Limited  Action Alternative
would  have even lower user charges  (47°/0  of  the  Facility Plan Proposed
Action).   The  significance  of the difference  in  the  annual user charges
can  be easily  understood  by determining  the  financial burden and dis-
placement pressure of the  various  alternatives.   These determinations
are  shown in Table Vl-1.   In  addition both  the Limited Action Alter-
native   and  EIS   Alternative   1 would   totally  or   largely   eliminate
individual private costs  for  sewer hookup.

     The  No Action Alternative  is  not   recommended   for the  following
reasons:

     •     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.

                                   182

-------
     •    Improved surveillance and regulation of on-site systems  in the
          Proposed  Service  Area  is justified  to maintain  its  unique
          scenic and recreational values.

The Limited  Action  Alternative,  as well as the  partially decentralized
EIS  Alternatives 1,  2,  and   3  would  require  that  the problems  with
on-site  systems  be  corrected  through  a program  to  upgrade and  repair
on-site systems.
D.   DRAFT EIS  RECOMMENDATION

     The  Limited  Action Alternative  is  the Recommended Action  of  this
Draft EIS.  The recommendation is tentative and requires verification of
preliminary  findings  by   studies  which  will  be  completed during  the
summer  of  1979.   The  Limited  Action Alternative  was  selected on  the
basis  of  its  cost-effectiveness and  as  the  result of the  following
preliminary findings and assumptions:

     •    Septic  leachate  discharges to  Otter Tail Lake  were observed
          with high frequency in areas with high groundwater flow rates.
          Elimination  of   subsurface  disposal  of  black water  in  these
          areas  would  significantly increase  the  nutrient   load  from
          on-site systems.

     •    On-site systems  are  not  known at this time to be contributing
           to widespread alage  growth,  or well water contamination or to
           lake  eutrophication  and  the  need for  centralized  collection
           and treatment has not been demonstrated.

     Because of  new  or  unforeseen  information that could  be  turned up
during  the additional  water  quality  studies or  the  detailed  Step II
design  work,   EIS  Alternative   1  should  be   retained  as   a  contingent
"backup"  alternative.   Its environmental  impacts,  its  local  costs,  and
its on-site upgrading proposals are virtually identical  with the Limited
Action  Alternative.   It is also important to note that grey water/black
water  separation  achieves  a high phosphorus reduction rate only where a
detergent  phosphorus  ban  is in effect or where washing machines are not
used.

     In  order  to  verify or modify this recommendation,  EPA will conduct
additional  field  studies including:

     •    Resident  interviews,  lot   surveys  and  well inspections  for a
           representative  sample of  dwellings in  the  Proposed Service
          Area.

     •    Resurvey  of  the lakes  for septic  leachate   discharge  using
           continuous scanning techniques under summer conditions.

     •    Detailed  analysis  of nutrient  transport  and  aquatic  plant
           growth  for selected shoreline sites.

Based  on these studies the Limited Action Alternative or some degree of
off-site  treatment  like that included in EIS Alternative 1, may be found
necessary.
                                  183

-------
E.   IMPLEMENTATION

     While  the  additional  studies  are  being  completed  in August timely
action by Otter Tail  County  can ensure quick processing of the Step II
application.  It is recommended  that the  County establish a small waste
flows  district  encompassing   at  least   the  Proposed  Service  Area.
Guidance  for  development  of  this  district  is  included  in  Section
III.E.2.   Specific  aspects  of  implementing  the Draft  EIS  Recommended
Action are discussed below.

1.   COMPLETION OF  STEP  I  (FACILITIES  PLANNING)  REQUIREMENTS
      FOR THE  SMALL  WASTE FLOWS  DISTRICT

     For  timely releast of  Step  2 funds  for  any  decentralized Alter-
native, the applicant would first need  to:

     •    Certify that construction of  the project  and the operation and
          maintenance  program will meet  local,  State  and  Federal re-
          quirements.   Because many existing  systems do not conform with
          the  Shoreland Management Ordinance,  the variance procedures
          outlined  in  the  Ordinance may  have to  be utilized for certain
          systems.  The environmental,  engineering and  economic basis
          L^^  granting variances should be developed  with State input,
          probably  on  an  ad  hoc basis  during Step  II  site analysis and
          design.   In  regard to non-conforming on-site systems, notice
          of  intent to  develop local  guidance  for  granting variances
          will  be  sufficient for Step  I certification  (see also Section
          VI.E.3 below.)

     •    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.

 2.   SCOPE  OF  STEP II  FOR  THE  SMALL  WASTE  FLOWS  DISTRICT

     A  five step program for wastewater management in  small waste  flows
 districts  was  suggested  in Section  III.E.2.   The first  three  would
 appropriately be completed in Step II.   These are:

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

      •    Design  the Management Organization; and

      •     Agency  start-up.

      EPA will assist  the  applicant in  defining  specific  objectives and
 tasks  for Step  II work.
                                   184

-------
3.   COMPLIANCE  WITH  STATE AND LOCAL  STANDARDS  IN THE SMALL
      WASTE FLOWS DISTRICT

     As discussed  in Section II.C.  many  existing on-site systems do not
conform to  current design standards  for site,  design or distance from
wells  or  surface waters.  For  some  systems,  such  as those with under-
sized  septic  tanks,  non-conformance c;m  be  remedied relatively easily
and  inexpensively.   In  other  cases  the remedy may  be  disruptive and
expensive  and  should  be  undertaken  only  where  the need  is  clearly
identified.  Data  on the  effects  of existing systems  indicate that many
existing non-conforming  systems,  and  future  repairs  that still  may not
conform  to design  standards,  may  operate  satisfactorily.   Where com-
pliance with  design standards  is  1)  unfeasible  or too expensive and 2)
site  monitoring  of  ground  and  surface  waters shows  that acceptable
impacts  are  attainable,  then  a variance procedure to allow renovation
and continued use of non-conforming  system is recommended.   Decisions to
grant  variances  should be  based on  site-specific  data or on a  substan-
tial history of similar sites in the area.

     This  does  not mean  that state  or county standards should simply be
discarded.  All  decentralized  alternatives project a substantial  level
of  on-site system repair and upgrading.   The variance procedures  might
be  appropriate  for the  residents of  systems that either (a) cannot be
upgraded  to  compliance with state  or local  standards and  (b)  are not
causing any discernable water quality problems.

     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.

4.   OWNERSHIP OF ON-SITE SYSTEMS SERVING SEASONAL  RESIDENCES

     Construction  Grants  regulations  allow Federal  funding  for  1)  reno-
vation  and   replacement  of  publicly owned  on-site systems  serving
permanent  or  seasonally  occupied  residences, and  2)  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  upon  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.
                                  185

-------
     Under  EPA  Program   Requirements   Memorandum   79-8,   however,   an
easement giving  the District  access  to an  control  of on-site  systems
would be  considered tantamount to public ownership  --without  an actual
transfer of property.
                                   186

-------
                             CHAPTER VII
             THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN  SHORT-TERM USE
                    AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
A.   SHORT-TERM USE OF  THE STUDY AREA

     Otter  Tail Lake  has been and will continue to be used as a
residential/recreational area.  Disturbance of the site by routine
residential/recreational activities will  continue regardless of which
alternative is implemented.
B.   IMPACT UPON  LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

1.   COMMITMENT OF NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES

     The pressure for development in the Proposed Service Area would
increase slightly as the  result of implementing the Facility Plan
Proposed Action, or the other centralized alternatives.  Filling-in of
available shoreline areas would occur to a lesser extent under the
Recommended Alternative of this EIS.

     Non-renewable  resources associated  with any of the wastewater
treatment scenarios would include concrete for construction.  Con-
sumption of electric power by pumps would be associated to varying
degrees with all actions  except the Recommended Alternative of this EIS.
Manpower would  also be  committed to the  construction, operation and
management of new or rehabilitated facilities.

2.   LIMITATIONS  ON THE  BENEFICIAL USE OF THE
     ENVIRONMENT

     Neither the Proposed Action nor the Recommended Action will have
any significant effect  on beneficial use of the environment.  The
implementation  of a centralized wastewater management plan may increase
the current level of recreational activity slightly through induced
near-shore development, but most of the  shoreline would be developable
even under the  No Action  Alternative.
                                  187

-------
188

-------
                             Chapter  VIII

    IRREVERSIBLE  AND  IRRETRIEVABLE  COMMITMENT  OF  RESOURCES
     Those resources  associated  with  construction  and  maintenance of
wastewater systems would be committed.   These were discussed  in Section
VI.B.I.

     In addition the growth expected in the  Study Area would  require a
commitment  of   resources   to   the  construction  of  new   dwellings,
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.
                                  189

-------
190

-------
                             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.   The Recommended Action would not induce significant
development above that projected to accommodate the baseline  population.

     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.
                                  191

-------
192

-------
                               GLOSSARY
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS.  A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
     which  a  suspended microbiological culture  is  maintained inside an
     aerated treatment basin.   The microbial organisms oxidize the com-
     plex  organic matter  in the  wastewater to simpler  materials,  and
     energy.

ADVANCED WASTE  TREATMENT.   Wastewater treatment beyond the secondary or
     biological  stage which includes removal of nutrients such as phos-
     phorus  and  nitrogen  and  a  high  percentage   of  suspended solids.
     Advanced waste  treatment,  also known as tertiary treatment, is the
     "polishing  stage"  of  wastewater  treatment   and  produces a high
     quality of  effluent.

AEROBIC.  Refers  to  life or processes that occur only in the presence of
     oxygen.

ALGAL  BLOOM.   A proliferation of  algae on the surface of lakes, streams
     or  ponds.   Algal  blooms  are stimulated by  phosphate enrichment.

ALKALINE.   Having the qualities  of a  base, with  a pH  of  more than 7.

ALLUVIAL.   Pertaining to  material that has been   carried by  a stream.

ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY.   Alternative  waste  treatment  processes  and
     techniques  are  proven methods which provide for the reclaiming and
     reuse  of water, productively recycle  waste  water constituents or
     otherwise  eliminate the discharge  of pollutants, or recover energy.
     Alternative technologies may  not  be  variants  of conventional bio-
     logical or  physical/  chemical treatment.

AMBIENT AIR.  The unconfined portion of the  atmosphere; the outside air.

ANAEROBIC.   Refers  to life or processes  that occur  in the absence of
     oxygen.

AQUATIC  PLANTS.   Plants   that  grow  in water,  either floating  on the
     surface,  or rooted emergent  or submergent.

AQUIFER.   A geologic stratum or  unit that contains water and will allow
     it  to pass  through.   The water  may reside  in and travel through
     innumerable spaces between cock 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.
                                193

-------
ARTESIAN WELL.   A well  in which,  flow  is sustained  by the hydrostatic
     pressure of the aquifer.  See Artesian Aquifer.

BACTERIA.   Any  of a  large group of microscopic  plants living in soil,
     water or organic matter, important to man because of their chemical
     effects  as  in nitrogen fixation,  putrefaction or fermentation, or
     as pathogens.

BAR SCREEN.   In wastewater treatment, a screen that removes large float-
     ing and  suspended solids.

BASE  FLOW.   The  rate of  movement of water  in  a  stream  channel which
     occurs  typically during rainless periods when stream flow is main-
     tained  largely or entirely by discharges of  groundwater.

BASIC  USAGE.   Those functions that  small  waste  flow districts would be
     required to perform in  order  to comply with  EPA  Construction Grants
     regulations governing individual on-site wastewater systems.

BEDROCK.   The solid rock luneath 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 Wetter.   Large amounts of  organic  waste  use up large  amounts of
     dissolved  oxygen;  thus,  the  greater the  degree of pollution, the
     greater the BOD.

BIOMASS.   The weight  of  living matter in a specified unit of environ-
     ment.  Or, an  expression of the  total mass  or weight of a  given
     population of plants  or animals.

BIOTA.  The plants and animals of  an area.

BOD-.   See  "Biochemical Oxygen Demand."   Standard measurement is  made
      for 5 days at 20°C.

BOG.    Wet,   spongy  land;  usually  poorly drained,  and rich in  plant
      residue, ultimately producing highly acid peat.

CAPITAL COSTS.  All  costs  associated  with installation (as  opposed  to
      operation) of a  project.

 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES.  See Capital Costs.

 CHLORINATION.  The application  of chlorine  to drinking water, sewage  or
      industrial  waste  for  disinfection or  oxidation  of  undesirable
      compounds.

 COARSE FISH.  See Rough Fish.

 COLIFORM  BACTERIA.  Members  of  a  large group of bacteria  that flourish
      in the  feces and/or intestines of  warm-blooded animals, including
      man.   Fecal  coliform  bacteria,  particularly Escherichia coli (E.
      coli),  enter water mostly in  fecal matter, such as sewage or feed-

                                   194

-------
     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 proba-
     bility of  the  occurrence of  such diease-producing  bodies  (patho-
     gens) as  Salmonella,  Shigella, and  enteric  viruses.  These path-
     ogens are relatively difficult to  detect.

COLIFORM  ORGANISM.   Any of  a  number of organisms common to  the intes-
     tinal tract  of  man and animals whose presence  in  wastewater is an
     indicator  of  pollution  and   of  potentially  dangerous  bacterial
     contamination.

CQMMINUTQR.  A. machine that breaks up wastewater solids.

CONNECTION FEE.  Fee charged by municipality to hook up house connection
     to lateral sewer.

CUBIC FEET PER SECOND (cfs).  A measure of the amount of water passing a
     given point.

CULTURAL  EUTROPHICATION.   Acceleration  by  man  of  the natural aging
     process of bodies of water.

DECIDUOUS.  The  term describing a plant  that periodically  loses all of
     its  leaves,  usually in the autumn.  Most broadleaf  trees  in North
     America and  a  few conifers, such as  larch and cypress,  are decid-
     uous.

DECOMPOSITION.  Reduction of the net energy level and change in  chemical
     composition  of   organic matter by 'action of  aerobic  or anaerobic
     microorganisms.   The  breakdown of  complex  material  into  simpler
     substances by chemical  or biological means.

DETENTION TIME.  Average  time  required for water to flow  through a
     basin.   Also called  retention  time.    Or,  the time  required  for
     natural processes  to  replace the entire  volume of a lake's water,
     assuming complete  mixing.

DETRITUS.   (1)  The  heavier mineral  debris  moved by  natural watercourses
     (or  in  wastewater) usually in  bed-load  form.   (2) The sand, grit,
     and  other  coarse material removed by  differential sedimentation in
     a  relatively short period of  detention.   (3) Debris  from the decom-
     position of  plants  and animals.

DISINFECTION.   Effective killing  by chemical  or  physical processes of
     all  organisms  capable of causing  infectious disease.  Chlorination
     is the disinfection  method commonly  employed  in sewage treatment
     processes.

DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO).   The oxygen  gas  (Oj  dissolved in water or  sew-
     age.   Adequate  oxygen is  necessary  for maintenance  of   fish  and
     other  aquatic   organisms.    Low   dissolved  oxygen   concentrations
     sometimes  are  due to  presence,  in  inadequately treated  wastewater,
     of high levels  of  organic compounds.

                                   195

-------
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.

DRYWELL.  A device  for small installations,  comprising  one or more pits
     extending  into  porous  strata  and lined  with  open-jointed stone,
     concrete  block,  precast concrete  or  similar  walls,  capped,  and
     provided  with  a  means  of  access,  such  as  a  manhole  cover.   It
     serves to  introduce into the ground,  by seepage, the partly treated
     effluent  of a water-carriage wastewater disposal system.

EFFLUENT.   Wastewater or other liquid, partially or  completely  treated,
     or in  its natural state, flowing  out of a reservoir, basin, treat-
     ment plant,  or  industrial plant, or  part thereof.

EFFLUENT  LIMITED.   Any stream segment  for which  it is  known  that water
     quality  will  meet applicable  water  quality  standards  after  com-
     liance with effluent  discharge  standards.

ELEVATED  MOUND.   A  mound,  generally  constructed   of  sand,  to which
     settled  wastewater is  applied.  Usually  used  in  areas  where  con-
     ventional on-site treatment is  inadequate.

ENDANGERED  SPECIES  (FEDERAL CLASSIFICATION).  Any species of animal  or
     plant  declared to be  in known danger of  extinction  throughout all
     or a  significant part  of  its range.   Protected  under  Public  Law
     93-205 as amended.

ENDANGERED   SPECIES   (STATE  CLASSIFICATION).   Michigan's  list  includes
      those  species  on the  Federal list that are resident for any part of
      their  life cycle in Michigan.   Also includes indigenous  species the
      State  believes are uncommon and in need of study.

 ENDECO.  Type  2100  Septic  Leachate  Detector.  See "Septic  Snooper".

 ENVIRONMENT.    The  conditions  external  to  a particular  object,   but
      generally  limited to   those  conditions  which  have  a   direct  and
      measurable  effect on  the  object.   Usually  considered to be the
      conditions  which surround   and   influence  a  particular  living
      organism,  population,  or  community.   The  physical  environment
      includes  light,  heat,  moisture,  and  other  principally  abiotic
      components.   The components  of  the biotic environment are  other
      living organisms  and tfoeir products.

 ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  STATEMENT.   A document required by  the  National
      Environmental  Policy Act  (PL  91-190,  1969) when a  Federal action
      would  significantly  affect the  quality  of the human environment.
      Used  in  the  decision-making  process to evaluate the  anticipated

                                  196

-------
     effects  (impacts) of  the proposed action on  the  human,  biological
     and physical environment.

EPILLMINION.  The  upper  layer  of  generally warm,  circulating  water in
     lakes.

EROSION.  The process by which an object is eroded, or worn away, by the
     action  of  wind,  water,  glacial  ice,  or  combinations   of  these
     agents.  Sometimes used  to refer to results of chemical actions or
     temperature  changes.   Erosion may  be accelerated by  human activ-
     ities .

EUTROPHIC.   Waters  with a  high concentration of  nutrients  and hence a
     large  production  of  vegetation and frequent die-offs of plants and
     animals.

EUTROPHIC LAKES.   Shallow lakes,  weed-choked at the edges and  very rich
     in  nutrients.   The water  is  characterized  by large quantities of
     algae,  low water transparency, low dissolved oxygen and high BOD.

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.   In the  process, a once oligo-
     trophic lake becomes  mesotrophic  and  then  eutrophic.

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION.   A  process  by  which water  is  evaporated and/or
     transpired from water, soil, and  pl'ant surfaces.

FECAL  COLIFORM  BACTERIA.   See Coliform Bacteria.

FLOE.   A sheet  of  floating ice.

FORCE  MAIN.   Pipe  designed to carry wastewater  under  pressure.

GLACIAL DEPOSIT.   A landform  of rock,  soil, and earth material  deposited
     by a  melting  glacier.   Such  material was originally picked up by
     the glacier  and  carried  along  its path;  it  usually  varies in
     texture  from  very   fine   rock   flour to  large  boulders.  Named
     according to their  location and  shape.

GLACIAL DRIFT.  Material  which has  been   deposited  by a glacier or in
      connection with  glacial  processes.   It  consists  of  rock  flour,
      sand,   pebbles,  cobbles,  and boulders.   It may  occur  in  a  heter-
      ogeneous  mass  or be more  or less  well-sorted,  according to  its
      manner of deposition.

 GRAVITY  SYSTEM.   A  system of  conduits  (open  or  closed)  in  which  no
      liquid pumping is required.
                                  197

-------
GROUNDWATER.  Water that is below the water table.

GROUNDWATER  RUNOFF.   Groundwater  that  is  discharged  iato  a  stream
     channel as spring or seepage water.

HABITAT.   The specific place  or the  general kind  of  site in  which a
     plant  or animal  normally  lives  during  all or  part of  its  life
     cycle.   An  area  in  which the requirements  of  a  specific plant or
     animal are met.

HOLDING TANK.  Enclosed tank, usually of fiberglass or  concrete, for the
     storage  of  wastewater prior  to  removal  or  disposal at  another
     location.

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 the  lakes  of temperate  and arctic  regions.

IGNEOUS.    Rock   formed   by  the  solidification  of  magma  (hot molten
     material).

INFILTRATION.   The  flow  of a  fluid  into  a  substance  through pores or
     small openings.  Commonly used in hydrology to denote the flow of
     water into  soil material.

INFILTRATION/INFLOW.   Total quantity  of  water entering a sewer system.
     Infiltration means  entry  through such sources as defective pipes,
     pipe  joints, connections, or manhole  walls.  Inflow signifies dis-
     charge into the  sewer system  through  service  connections  from such
     sources  as  area  or  foundation drainage, springs  and swamps, storm
     waters,  street wash  waters,  or sewers.

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES.   Technologies whose  use  has not been widely
     documented  by experience.   They may not be variants  of  conventional
     biological   or  physical/chemical  treatment  but  offer  promise  as
     methods  for  conservation  of energy or wastewater constituents,  or
     contribute  to the elimination  of  discharge of pollutants.

 INTERCEPTOR  SEWERS.   Sewers  used  to  collect the  flows from  main  and
      trunk sewers  and carry them  to  a central  point  for treatment  and
     discharge.   In  a combined  sewer system, where street runoff  from
      rains  is   allowed   to  enter  the  system  along   with  the  sewage,
      interceptor  sewers   allow some  of the  sewage  to   flow  untreated
      directly into  the  receiving stream to prevent the  treatment plant
      from being overloaded.

 LAGOON.   In  wastewater  treatment,  a shallow pond,  usually  man-made,  in
      which sunlight,  algal  and bacterial  action and oxygen interact to
      restore the wastewater to a reasonable state of purity.

 LAND TREATMENT.   A  method of treatment in which soil, air,  vegetation,
      bacteria,  and/or  fungi   are  employed  to  remove  pollutants  from

                                  198

-------
     wastewater.   In its  simplest form,  the method includes three steps:
     (1)  pretreatment to  screen  out large solids;  (2)  secondary treat-
     ment and chlorination;  and (3)  application to cropland,  pasture,  or
     natural  vegetation   to  allow  plants  and  soil microorganisms  to
     remove  additional   pollutants.  Some of  the  applied  wastewater
     evaporates,  and  the  remainder may  be allowed  to  percolate to  the
     water table, discharged through drain tiles, or reclaimed by wells.

LEACHATE.   Solution  formed  when water percolates  through  solid wastes,
     soil  or  other materials  and  extracts soluble  or  suspendable sub-
     stances from the material.

LIMITING FACTOR.   A factor  whose  absence, or  excessive concentration,
     exerts  some  restraining  influence  upon a  population  of  plants,
     animals or humans.

LOAM.  The textural  class  name  for  soil  having  a moderate  amount  of
     sand,  silt, and  clay.   Loam soils contain  7  to 27% of clay, 28 to
     50% of silt, and less than 52% of sand.

LOESS.   Soil of wind-blown origin, predominantly silt and  fine sand.

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,  compared
     to  eutrophic  waters,  having  less  production  of  organic matter.

MESOTROPHIC LAKE.   Lakes  of characteristics  intermediate between oligo-
     trophic  and  eutrophic,  with  a  moderate  supply  of  nutrients  and
     plant life.

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  that  commonly  occur  in  natural and
     polluted  waters.

MORPHOLOGICAL.   Pertaining  to  Morphology.

MORPHOLOGY.  The form or  structure  of a  plant or animal, or  of  a feature
      of  the earth,  such as a stream,  a  lake,  or the land  in  general.
      Also, the  science   that  is concerned with the study  of  form  and

                               199

-------
     structure of  living organisms.  Geomorphology deals  with the form
     and structure of the earth.

NON-POINT SOURCE.  A  general  source of pollution.  Surface water runoff
     is an example as it does not originate from a single source and is
     not 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 the
     growth  and  development  of  organisms,  especially  carbon,  oxygen,
     nitrogen and phosphorus.

OLIGOTROPHIC.   Surface  waters  with good water  quality,  relatively low
     concentrations  of  nutrients,  and  modest production of vegetation.

OLIGOTROPHIC LAKES.   Lakes  with highly   transparent  water of  good
     quality,  high DO levels,  and modest production of aquatic vegeta-
     tion.

ORDINANCE.   A municipal  or county regulation.

OUTWASH.   Drift  carried  by  melt  water from  a glacier  and deposited
     beyond  the marginal moraine.

OUTWASH PLAIN.   A plain  formed by material  deposited by  melt  water from
     a glacier flowing over a  more or less flat surface  of large area.
     Deposits  of  this  origin are usually distinguishable  from  ordinary
      river deposits  by the fact that they often grade  into moraines  and
      their  constituents  bear  evidence  of  glacial  origin.  Also  called
      frontal apron.

 PARAMETER.   Any of a set of  physical properties whose values determine
      characteristics or behavior.

 PERCOLATION.   The  downward  movement of  water  through  pore spaces  or
      larger voids in soil or rock.

 PERMEABILITY.  The property or capacity of porous rock,  sediment,  or soil
      to transmit a  fluid,  usually water, or air; it is a measure of the
      relative  ease   of   flow  under  unequal pressures.   Terms  used  to
      describe  the permeability  of  soil are:   slow, less  than  0.2 inch
      per hour; moderately slow, 0.2 to 0.63 inch;  moderate, 0.63 to 2.0
      inches; moderately  rapid.  2.0 to 6.3  inches; and  rapid, more than
      6.3 inches per hour.  A very slow class and a very rapid class also
      may be recognized.

 PETROGLYPH.  An ancient  or prehistoric carving  or inscription on a rock.

 PHOSPHORUS  LIMITED.  Of all the primary  nutrients  necessary to support
      algal  growth, phosphorus  is in  the shortest supply.  Phosphorus can
                                200

-------
     limit additional algal growth, or if abundant, can stimulate growth.
     of algae.

PHYTOPLANKTON.  Floating  plants,  microsopic in size,  that  supply small
     animals  with food  and give polluted water its  green  color and bad
     taste.

POINT SOURCE.  A stationary source of a large individual emission.  This
     is  a general  definition;  point  source  is   legally  and precisely
     defined  in Federal regulations.

POVERTY  LEVEL.   An  index  providing a  range  of poverty  income cutoffs
     adjusted by such factors as family size, sex of family head, number
     of  children  under  18 years of age, and farm or non-farm residence.

PREHISTORIC.   A  term  which describes  the  period of  human development
     that   occurred  before  the   advent   of   written  records.   More
     generally,  any period in  geologic time  before  written  history.

PRESENT WORTH.  The  sum of money that must be set  aside at the beginning
     of  the  planning period in order to amortize  the  costs of a project
     over  the planning period.

PRESSURE  SEWER SYSTEM.   A wastewater collection  system in which house-
     hold  wastes  are  collected  in  the  building  drain  and  conveyed
     therein to  the pretreatment and/or pressurization  facility.   The
     system   consists of  two major  elements,  the on-site  or pressuri-
     zation  facility,  and the primary  conductor pressurized  sewer main.

PRIMARY  PRODUCTION.   Growth of green plants resulting from solar energy
     being fixed  as  sugar  during photosynthesis.

PRIMARY  TREATMENT.  The  first  stage  in wastewater  treatment  in which
     nearly  all  floating  or  settleable solids are mechanically  removed
     by  screening and sedimentation.

RAPID  INFILTRATION.  A  form of  land treatment where wastewater  is placed
     into spreading basins and  applied  to the  land to  percolate  into the
     soil.

RAPID  INFILTRATION  BASIN.  Unlined wastewater lagoons designed  so that
     all or part of the  wastewater percolates  into  the underlying soil.

RARE SPECIES.  A species  not Endangered or Threatened but uncommon and
     deserving  of further study and monitoring.   Peripheral species, not
     listed  as threatened, may be included  in this  category along with
     those species  that were once "threatened" or "endangered" but now
     have increasing or protected, stable populations. Used  as  official
     classification by  some states.

RECHARGE.  The  process  by which water is added  to an aquifer.   Used  also
      to  indicate the water that  is added.   Natural  recharge  occurs  when
     water from rainfall  or a stream enters  the ground and percolates  to
      the water table.   Artificial recharge  by spreading water on absorp-

                                201

-------
     tive ground over  an aquifer or by injecting water through wells is
     used to store  water and to protect  groundwater  against the intru-
     sion of sea water.

RETENTION TIME.  See Detention Time.

ROTATING  BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR  (RBC).   A device,  consisting of plastic
     disks  that  rotate alternately through wastewater and air, used for
     secondary treatment of wastewater.

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.   Surface  runoff  is  the water   from  rainfall,  melted  snow or
     irrigation  water  that flows over the surface of the land.  Ground-
     water  runoff,  or  seepage flow  from  groundwater, is  the water that
     enters the  ground and reappears as  surface water.  Hydraulic  runoff
     is  groundwater runoff plus the surface  runoff that  flows  to  stream
     channels, and  represents that part  of the precipitation on a  drainage
     basin  that  is discharged from  the  basin as streamflow.   Runoff  can
     pick up  pollutants from the air  or the land and  carry them  to  the
     receiving waters.

 SANITARY SEWERS.   Sewers  that transport  only domestic  or  commercial
     sewage.   Storm water  runoff is  carried in a separate  system.   See
     sewer.

 SANITARY SURVEY.   (1)  A study  of conditions related to  the collection,
      treatment,  and  disposal of  liquid, solid,  or  airborne  wastes  to
      determine  the  potential hazards  contributed from these  sources  to
      the environment.   (2)  A   study  of the  effect  of wastewater  dis-
      charges  on sources of  water  supply, on bathing  or other  recrea-
      tional waters,  on  shellfish   culture,  and other related environ-
      ments .

 SCENIC  EASEMENT.   A  partial transfer   of  land  rights to  preserve  the
      aesthetic attractiveness of the land by restricting activities such
      as  the  removal of  trees,  placement of  billboards,  or development
      incompatible with the scenic qualities of the land.   Just compensa-
      tion  is  given to owners for rights lost.  The right of legal tres-
      pass  is generally not included as part of this easement.

 SECCHI DISK.  A round plate, 30 cm  (1 foot) in diameter, that  is used to
      measure  the  transparency  of  water.  The disk  is lowered into the
      water until  it no longer  can  be seen  from the surface.  The depth
      at  which the disk becomes invisible is  a  measure of  transparency.

 SECONDARY  TREATMENT.  The  second stage  in the treatment of  ..-astewater in
      which bacteria  are  utilized  to decompose  the  organic  matter in
      sewage.   This step  is  accomplished by  using   such processes  as a
      trickling  filter or  activated slugde.   Effective secondary treat-
      ment  processes remove virtually all floating solids and  settleable
      solids as  well as  90% of BOD and suspended solids.  Disinfection of

                                 202

-------
     the effluent by  chlorination  customarily is the last  step  in this
     process.

SEPTIC SNOOPER.  Trademark for the ENDECO (Environmental Devices Corpor-
     ation)  Type  2100 Septic  Leachate  Detector.  This  instrument con-
     sists  of  an underwater  probe,  a water  intake  system,  an analyzer
     control  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
     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 collects and  con-
     ducts both  sanitary  sewage and storm-water  runoff.  During rainless
     periods,  most  or all  of  the flow in  a  combined  sewer  is composed of
     sanitary sewage.  During a storm,  runoff increases  the rate of  flow
     and  may  overload the  sewage treatment plant to  which  the sewer
     connects.  At such times, it  is common  to  divert  some of the flow,
     without treatment, into  the  receiving  water.

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.
                                 203

-------
SINKING FUND.   A fund  established  by periodic  installments  to provide
     for the retirement of the principal of term bonds.

SLOPE.  The incline of the surface of the land.  It is usually expressed
     as a  percent (%) of  slope  that equals the number  of  feet of fall
     per 100 feet in horizontal distance.

SOIL ASSOCIATION.  General term used to describe a pattern of occurrence
     of soil types in a geographic area.

SOIL  TEXTURAL  CLASS.   The classification of  soil  material according to
     the  proportions  of  sand,  silt, and  clay.   The principal textural
     classes  in  soil,  in increasing  order of  the  amount of  silt and
     clay,  are as follows:   sand,   loamy  sand,  sandy loam,  loam, silt
     loam,  sandy clay  loam,  clay   loam,  silty clay loam,  sandy  clay,
     silty  clay,  and  clay.  These class names are modified to indicate
     the  size  of the  sand  fraction or  the presence of gravel,  sandy
      loam,  gravelly  loam, stony clay, and  cobbly  loam,  and are  used on
      detailed  soil maps.   These  terms apply only  to  individual soil
      horizons  or  to the surface  layer of a  soil  type.

 STATE  EQUALIZED VALUATION (SEV).  A measure  employed within a State to
      adjust assessed  valuation upward to approximate true market value.
      In this way it  is possible to  relate  debt  burden to  the  full value
      of taxable property  in  each community  within  that State.

 STRATIFICATION.   The  condition of a lake,  ocean,  or other body of water
      when  the  water  column  is  divided into a relatively cold  bottom
      layer and  a relatively warm  surface  layer, with  a thin boundary
      layer (thermocline)  between them.  Stratification  generally occurs
      during the  summer and during  periods of ice cover in the  winter.
      Overturns,  or periods  of mixing,  occur in the spring and  autumn.
      Stratification  is  most  common  in middle latitudes and is  related to
      weather conditions,  basin morphology,  and altitude.

 STUB FEE.  See Connection Fee.

 SUBSTRATE.   (1)  The  surface  on which organisms may  live;  generally  the
      soil, the bottom  of  the  ocean, of a  lake,  a stream, or other body
      of water, or the  face  of a rock,  piling,  or other natural  or man-
      made  structure.   (2) The  substances used  by organisms  in liquid
      suspension.  (3)  The  liquor   in  which  activated  sludge or other
      matter is kept in suspension.

 SUCCESSION.  A  gradual sequence of changes or  phases in vegetation (or
      animals)  over  a period  of time,  even  if the  climate  remains  un-
      altered;  hence  plant  succession.  This will  proceed  until some
      situation  of  equilibrium  is  attained,  and  a  climax community is
      established.

 SUPPLEMENTAL USAGE.   Those functions that  small waste flow districts are
      not  required  to perform  in order to comply with  EPA Construction
      Grants  regulations   governing  individual, on-site wastewater sys-
      tems.   These   functions  may,  however,  be necessary  to   achieve
      administrative  or environmental objectives.

                                    204

-------
SUSPENDED  SOLIDS  (SS).   Uadissolved particles  that  are  suspended  in
     water,  wastewater  or  other Liquid,  and that  contribute to  tur-
     bidity.   The  examination  of  suspended  solids  plus  the BOD  test
     constitute the two main  determinations  for water quality performed
     at wastewater treatment facilities.

TERTIARY TREATMENT.  See Advanced Waste Treatment.

THREATENED  SPECIES  (FEDERAL CLASSIFICATION).  Any species of animal or
     plant  that  is likely  to  become an  Endangered  species  within the
     foreseeable  future throughout  all   or  a  significant  part  of its
     range.  Protected under Public Law 93-205, as  amended.

TILL.   Deposits  of  glacial drift  laid  down in  place as  the  glacier
     melts.   These deposits are neither  sorted  nor  stratified and con-
     sist  of a heterogeneous  mass of rock flow, sand, pebbles, cobbles,
     and boulders.

TOPOGRAPHY.   The configuration of a surface  area  including  its  relief,
     or  relative evaluations,  and the position  of its  natural and man-
     made  features.

TRICKLING  FILTER PROCESS.  A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
     which biological growth  is  attached to a  fixed  medium,  such as a
     bed of rocks,  over which wastewater is sprayed.  The filter organ-
     isms  biochemically oxidize the complex organic matter in the waste-
     water to  simpler materials and energy.

TROPHIC  LEVEL.   Any of the feeding  levels through which the passage of
     energy through an ecosystem  proceeds.   In simplest  form,  trophic
     levels are:   primary  producers  (green plants)  herbivores,  omni-
     vores, predators,  scavengers, and decomposers.

TURBIDITY.   (1)  A condition in water  or  wastewater  caused by the  pres-
     ence  of suspended matter,  resulting in the scattering and absorp-
     tion   of  light rays.   (2)  A measure of fine  suspended matter in
     liquids.   (3)  An analytical quantity usually reported  in arbitrary
     turbidity units determined  by measurements  of light  diffraction.

WATER  QUALITY.   The relative condition of a  body of water as  judged by a
     comparison  between  contemporary values  and  certain more  or  less
     objective standard values for biological, chemical, and/or physical
     parameters.   The  standard  values  usually  are  based  on a specific
     series of  intended  uses, and may vary as  the  intended uses  vary.

WATER  TABLE.  The upper level of groundwater that is  not confined  by an
     upper  impermeable  layer and  is under  atmospheric pressure.  The
     upper surface of the substrate  that  is  wholly saturated with  ground-
     water.  This  level  varies seasonally  with the amount  of percola-
     tion.  Where  it  intersects  the ground  surface,  springs, seepages,
     marshes or lakes may  occur.  Also  known as the  groundwater  level.

WATERSHED.  The land  area  drained  by a  stream,  or by an  entire  river
     system.

                                    205

-------
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.
                                     206

-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
     207

-------
                             BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arneman,  H.  F.   1969.   Soils of  Minnesota.   University  of  Minnesota.
     Department of Soil Science.

Arthur Beard Engineers,  Inc.   1978.   Seven Lakes Project.  EPA-Contract
     No. 68-01-4612.  Otter Tail Lake, Minnesota.

Bailey, J. R. ,  R.  J.  Benoit, J. L.  Doclson,  J.  M. Robb,  and H.  Wallman.
     1969.   Study of  flow reduction and  treatment of  wastewater  from
     households.  Cincinnati, OH.  US Government Printing Office (GPO).

Cohen, S., and H. Wallman.  1974.  Demonstration of waste flow reduction
     from  households.   Environmental Protection  Agency,  National Envi-
     ronmental Research Center, Cincinnati, OH.

Cooper, I. A.,  and J.  W. Rezek.  1977.   Septage treatment and disposal.
     For EPA, Technology Transfer.

Council on Environmental  Quality.   1973.   Preparation of environmental
     impact statements:  Guidelines.   1 August 1973.

Dearth, K. H.   1979.   Current costs of  conventional  approaches.  Pre-
     sented at  EPA National Conference on Less Costly Wastewater Treat-
     ment  Systems for Small Communities.  12-14 April  1977.  Reston, VA.

Environmental Protection  Agency,  Environmental  Photographic Interpreta-
     tion  Center.  1978.

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  syste,s
     1973-1977.  MCD 38.

EPA.   1977.   National  interim primary drinking water  regulations of the
     Safe  Drinking Water Act.  40 CRF 141.

EPA.   October  1977.   Process design manual  for  land  treatment  for land
     treatment  of minicipal wastewater.  EPA 625/1-77-008.

EPA.   June  1976.   Small  community wastewater  treatment  facilities.

EPA.   June  1975.   Cost  of wastewater  treatment  by  land application.

EPA.   July 1974.   Manual  for preparation of environmental impact state-
     ments for  wastewater treatment works,  facilities  plans,  and 208
     areawide waste treatment management plants.
                                    208

-------
Federal  Water  Pollution  Control  Act Amendments  of  1972,  Public  Law
     9-500.

Fergus Falls Daily Journal.   28 February  1979.

Fergus Falls  Health Department.  1969-1976.   Bacterial Data  from Otter
     Tail Lake Outlet.

Gates, Larry  F. ,  and  Howard  F. Krosch.   1975-   Water quality monitoring
     program  on representative fish  lakes,  1974.    Special  Publication
     No.   111.   Minnesota  Dept. of  Natural Resources, Division  of Fish
     and Wildlife.

Jones, R.  A.  and  G.  F.  Lee.   1977.   Septic  Tank disposal  systems  as
     phosphorus  sources  for  surface  waters.   EPA-600/3-77-129.   Robert
     S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory.

Hickok-RCM   International.    1974.    Load  allocation  study  for  the
     Minnesota  Pollution  Control  Agency:   Otter  Tail  River segment.
     Wayzata MN.

Kerfoot,  W.    1978.   Investigation of  septic  leachate discharges into
     Otter  Tail Lake, Deer  Lake,  Lake Blanche, Walker Lake,  and Round
     Lake.  K-V Associates,  Inc.,  Falmouth, MA.

Krohn, Larry.   1977.  Land and Resource Management County of Otter Tail.
     Fergus Falls Minnesota.

McLaughlin, E.  R.   1968.   A  recycle system for conservation of water in
      residences.  Water and Sewage Works 115(4):175-176.

Minnesota Department  of Natural Resources.  1977.   Ottertail Lake:  Fish
      removed  and fish stocked, 1945-1977.  Unpublished  report St. Paul
     MN.

Minnesota  Division of  Game   and  Fish.   Variously  dated.   Lake  survey
      reports, Otter Tail Lake.

Minnesota PCA.   1972.  Recommended design criteria  for disposal  of eff-
      luent by  land application.  MPCA #556.  9 p.

Minnesota  Pollution  Control  Agency.    1972  (WPC2)  Rules,  regulations,
      classifications, and water standards.  St. Paul MN.

Minnesota Pollution  Control  Agency.   1973.  (WPC14) Rules, regulations,
      classifications, and water standards.  St. Paul MN.

Minnesota Pollution  Control  Agency.   1973.  (WPC34) Rules, regulations,
      classifications, and water standards.  St. Paul MN.

Minnesota Pollution  Control  Agency.   1974.  (WPC36) Rules, regulations,
      classifications, and water standards.  St. Paul MN.
                                    209

-------
Minnesota  Pollution  Control  Agency.    1976.   (WPC37)   Minnesota  State
     Regulations.  St.  Paul MN.

Minnesota  Pollution  Control Agency,  Division of Water  Quality.   1969.
     Report on Otter Tail River system above Fergus Falls.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190.

NOAA, Environmental  Data Service.   1973.   Monthly normals  of tempera-
     ture, precipitation, and heating and cooling degree days 1941-1970.

Otter Tail Board of County  Commissioners.   1973.   Shoreland management
     ordinance, Otter Tail County, Minnesota.

Keeder,  Harold  0.   1912.   Availability  of  groundwater  for irrigation
     from  glacial  outwash in  the Perham area,  Otter Tail  County,  MN.
     Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 2003.  Prepared in cooperation with
     the West-Central MN Resource Conservation and Development Committee
     and the MN Department of Conservation,  Division of Waters, Soils, &
     Minerals.  GPO, Washington DC.

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
     Debt  of the Towns of Minnesota, January, 1978.

Report  of  the  State Auditor  of  Minnesota,  Revenues,  Expenditures  arid
     Debt  of Cities  in Minnesota, November,  1977.

Scalf,  M.  R.,  and W. J. Dunlap.  1977.  Environmental effects of septic
     tanks.   EPA-600/3-77-096.   Robert  S.  Kerr  Environmental Research
     Laboratory, Ada, OK.

Schroepfer, G. J., and R. C. Polta.   1967.  Travel of nitrogen compounds
     in soils.   Sanitary Engineering Report 166-5.  Sanitary Engineering
     Division, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota,
     in cooperation  with US Public Health Service.

Society of American  Foresters.  1954.

Siegrist,  R. , M. Witt, and W.  C.  Boyle.   1976.  Characteristics of rural
     household  wastewater.   Journal  of  the  Environmental  Engineering
     Division, American Society of Civil Engieners, No. EES, Proceedings
     Paper 12200:533-548.

The  White  House Rural  Development Initiatives.   August 1978.   Making
     water and sewer programs  work.

Ulteig   Engineers,  Inc.   1976.  Facility  Plan,  Otter  Tail Lake Area,
     Otter Tail  County, MN.

USDA,  Soil Conservation  Service.  1974-77.  Soil Survey Investigation.
                                    210

-------
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.

University   of  Minnesota,   Agricultural  Experiment   Staton.    1969.
     Minnesota  soil  atlas,  Brainerd  sheet.   Miscellaneous  Report  90.
     St. Paul MN.

US Bureau  of the Census.  1975.  Census  of Population -  1970,  supplement-
     ary report.  Department of Commerce, Washington DC.

US Bureau  of the Census.  1972.  County  and City Data Book.

US Bureau  of  the Census.   1970.  Fifth  county summary data.   Department
     of  Commerce,   Census of  Population and  Housing,  Washington,  DC.

US Bureau  of  the Census.   1970.  General social and economic  character-
     istics.  Department  of Commerce, Washington, DC.

US  Bureau  of  the  Census.   1970.   Regional  employment  by industry:
     1940-1970.   Department of  Commerce,  Bureau of  Economic Analysis,
     Washington, DC.

US Bureau  of  the Census.   1970.  Summary data.  Department of Commerce,
     Census of Population and HOusing, Washington, DC.

US Department  of Housing & Urban Development, Federal Insurance Admini-
     stration.   1976.    Flood   hazard  boundary  map   index, City   of
     Ottertail MN.

US Department  of Housing & Urban Development, Federal Insurance Admini-
     stration.   1977.  Flood hazard boundary map, Otter  Tail  County, MN,
     unincorporated areas.

US  Environmental  Data  Service.    1968.   Weather atlas  of  the  United
     States.   Reprinted  1975.   Gale Research  Co.,  Detroit  MI,  262  p.

USGS.   1973-1977.   Water Resources Data  for  Minnesota.   Water years
     1973,  1974, 1975, 1976, 1977.

West  Central  (MN)  Regional  Development Commission.   1977.   Region  IV
     land  use  policy  plan (Draft).

Winter, T. C., L.  E.  Bidwell,  and  R. W. Maclay.  1969.   Water resoruces
     of the Otter  Tail River watershed, west-central  Minnesota.  Hydro-
     logic investigations atlas  HA-296.  US  Geological  Survey,  Reston
     VA.
                                               ft U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-652-613
                                    211

-------