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

-------
 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
                   on the
         PROPOSED WASTEWATER
           TREATMENT SYSTEM
                   for the
MOOSE LAKE-WINDEMERE SANITARY DISTRICT
  PINE and CARLTON COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
                 Prepared by the
       United States Environmental Protection Agency
                  Region V
                 Chicago, Illinois
                    and
                 WAPORA, Inc.
                 Chicago, Illinois

                  March 1983
                                 Valdas y. Adamkus
                                 Regional Administrator

-------
                   DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  STATEMENT

                                  on the

                   Proposed Wastewater  Treatment  System

                                  for the

                  Moose Lake-Windemere  Sanitary District

                   Pine and Carlton Counties,  Minnesota


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


                                 ABSTRACT
     The  Moose  Lake-Windemere Sanitary District  (MLWSD)  has proposed con-
structing  collection sewers  around  Island and  Sturgeon Lakes, Windemere
Township,  Pine  County,  Minnesota.   The wastewater would  be treated in the
Moose Lake wastewater treatment plant.  Both lakes currently have surround-
ing residential development served by on on-site  treatment  systems.  The US
Environmental  Protection Agency  (USEPA)  determined  that an Environmental
Impact Statement  was  needed for the proposed project because of the poten-
tial  environmental  impacts associated with the construction of collection
sewers,  the  possible  financial burden resulting  from the proposed project
on  low  and  fixed-income  residents,  and  the  possibility  for  the proposed
wastewater collection systems  to  induce growth.  The operation of existing
on-site systems was investigated.  Of the 151 on-site systems in use around
Island Lake,  45 were  classified as either  "definitely" or  "probably" fail-
ing.  For Sturgeon Lake,  13  of  the  1^3 total systems  were classified as
probably failing.  Two lake sampling programs were conducted to investigate
the relationship between lake water qualty  and  nutrient inputs from failing
or inadequately operating on-site systems.  Surface water, groundwater, and
lake  sediment  core   samples  were  obtained  and analysed.   Phytoplankton
species  composition   and  abundance  was  documented.   Historical  land  use
characteristics  within  the lake watersheds also  were investigated.  Anal-
ysis  of   the  data indicated  that  the  nutrient  contributions  of  on-site
systems  to the  lakes were insignificant compared  to other non-wastewater
sources.    Seven wastewater treatment  alternatives,   including  a no-action
alternative were evaluated for cost-effectiveness and environmental impact.
Each action  alternative consisted  of  various  combinations of  design com-
ponents including on-site  systems  upgrades, collection system options, and
treatment  plant options.   The most cost-effective EIS  alternative  was the
full  on-site system  upgrade  alternative   which  had  an  estimated  present
worth cost of  $1.01  million.   In comparison,  the EIS  alternative  of con-
structing  collection sewers around Island and Sturgeon Lakes with treatment
provided at an upgraded Moose Lake treatment plant had a  present worth cost
of $4.61 million.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0.  EXISTING CONDITIONS

Natural^ Enyironment^

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

and the  possibility of algal  toxicity, a special  report  on phytoplankton

populations was  included  in  the Phase  I  study.   Topics  covered  included

phytoplankton ecology  in  late  summer and early fall, the presence of toxi-
city producing blue-green  algal  species, a description  of  the  location of

beds of aquatic  macrophytes,  and a  summary of  MDNR fish management survey

data for Island and Sturgeon Lakes.


     Based on  phytoplankton sampling data collected  during  the  lake samp-

ling,  and  a  review of existing  public health data,  the following conclu-
sions were made:


     •    Island Lake  has  a  potential  health hazard associated with
          blooms  of blue-green  algae.   However,  the  dominant  blue-
          green  algae  in  Island Lake  at the  time  of sampling  was
          Anabaena macrospora, which a  review of the literature indi-
          cates is not directly associated with toxicity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Man-made Evironment


     The EIS  presents  information on the  man-made  environment in the proj-

ect area including population,  land use,  economics,  public finance, trans-

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

major element of the  man-made environment that will  affect  decisions con-

cerning wastewater management is the existing and future population  for the

project area.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              1980                         2000
Island Lake
Sturgeon Lake
Outlying Areas
Total ED 504
3
An additional
Permanent
153
100
76
329
120 seasonal
Seasonal
261
465a
51
111
residents
Total Permanent
414
565
127
1,106
are projected
200
131
98
429
for the
Seasonal
333
615a
63
1,017
YMCA Boys
Total
579
802
174
1,555
Camp.
Lake area  and  922 for the Sturgeon Lake area  (including the YMCA Boys Camp
summer  population).   The sources of  the  discrepancies between the Facili-
ties Plan and these projections are thought to be:

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

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


3.0.  WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES


Needs Documentation


     Wastewater treatment  within  the EIS project area currently is handled

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

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

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

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

(2%) .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19

48
Obvious
Problem
18
0

0

0
Potential
Problem
27
13

0

0
No
Problem
106
185

19

48
Wastewater Management Alternatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.0.   ENVIRONMENTAL AND  FINANCIAL IMPACTS  OF  THE  PROJECT  ALTERNATIVES

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

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

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

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

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

1   No-Action  in EIS service area    --              ___              __                -NA

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

3   Cluster  drainfield for lim-
    ited areas and on-site sys-
    tem upgrading elsewhere in
    EIS service area               575,000     985,220          -            -      1,560,220         286,790      1.847,010         182,900         2

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

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

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

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

 Includes upgrading of existing lift station to  Moose Lake WWTP

 For comparison, the estimated present worth cost  of conventional gravity collection is $1,705,950 ($2,866,430 subtotal, $3,153,220 total, $312,250
 Equ iv. Ann.).

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

 Includes annual personnel and overhead costs for  administration and billing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE SELECTED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

     All  the action  alternatives  will  eliminate  any existing  impact on
groundwater or  the  lakes  by eliminating failing on-site systems.  However,
evaluation  of  the existing  data on the natural and man-made environment in
the project  area  indicates  that water quality impacts  due to on-site sys-
                                   14

-------
terns are  inconsequential in comparison with other manageable and unmanage-
able nutrient  sources which  influence the  lakes.   Thus,  it  is concluded
that none of the action  alternatives will significantly benefit  the quality
of the lakes or the groundwater.

     The  least cost  alternative from  both an  economic  and environmental
perspective  is Alternative  2  - on-site  system upgrades  for  the  entire
project area.   The beneficial  environmental impacts  of  Alternative  2 in-
clude elimination of any phosphorus loads to the lakes that might be coming
from  failing  on-site systems,  and  elimination of  any  possible  nitrate
contribution  to the  groundwater from  the  same possible  cause.  Compared
with the  alternatives that  include centralized collection and treatment,
Alternative 2 is expected to have fewer construction impacts because exten-
sive construction within road right-of-ways is not required.  Alternative 2
is not expected  to  have  impacts on the groundwater  or lakes that are sig-
nificantly different than the other action alternatives.  Adverse construc-
tion impacts  that  might  result in disturbance  and  erosion  on individual
lots  can  be   mitigated  with  proper   construction  management  practices.
Alternative 2 is recommended as the selected project  alternative because it
the least  costly means of achieving the benefits cited.  Alternative 2 has
an estimated total present worth cost of $1,012,890.

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

     Another alternative under  discussion by MLWSD is a gravity collection
system for Island Lake only with treatment at the  Moose Lake WWTP upgraded
to meet  the additional  demand.   This  is  equivalent   to  project option 6A
(also not  an  EIS project  alternative).  Option 6A has an  estimated  total
present worth  cost  of  $3.2 million to  serve  the EIS  population equivalent
for that area  only  and provide adequate  treatment at  the Moose Lake WWTP.
                                   15

-------
        Table of Contents for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE OF CONTENTS	i

LIST OF TABLES	v

LIST OF FIGURES   	viii

LIST OF APPENDICES	xi

1.0.  PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION   	1-1

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

2.0.  WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES  	 2-1

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

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

-------
                                                                 Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
                                                                      Page

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

3.0. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT  	  3-1

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

     3.2.  Man-Made Environment   	  3-43
           3.2.1.  Demographics   	  3-43
                   3.2.1.1.  Historic and Current Population Trends   3-44
                   3.2.1.2.  Household Size and Resident Age ....  3-47
                   3.2.1.3.  Housing Stock Characteristics 	  3-50
                   3.2.1.4.  Population Projections  	  3-50
           3.2.2.  Land Use	3-56
                   3.2.2.1.  Historic Land Use Trends in Pine and
                             Carlto Counties 	  3-57
                   3.2.2.2.  Project Area Land Use Trends	3-62
                   3.2.2.3.  Prime Farmlands 	  3-65
                   3.2.2.4.  Development Potential 	  3-67
           3.2.3.  Economics	3-72
           3.2.4.  Public Finance  	  3-75
           3.2.5.  Transportation  	  3-78
           3.2.6.  Energy  	  3-79
           3.2.7.  Recreation and Tourism  	  3-81
           3.2.8.  Cultural Resources  	  3-82

4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES   	  4-1

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

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

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

     4.3.  Mitigation of Adverse Impacts 	  4-29

     4.4.  Unavoidable Adverse Impacts   	  4-33

     4.5.  Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource
           Commitments   	4-34

5.0.  LITERATURE CITED

6.0.  GLOSSARY OF  ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS

7.0.  CONSULTATION,  COORDINATION, AND  LIST  OF PREPARERS

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

-------
                                 LIST OF TABLES

                                                                                Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3-8      Lake parameters of comparative interest	3-27

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

3-10     Percent change in the population in the jurisdictions
         within and surrounding the project area	: .. 3-46

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                                         vi

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
                                  LIST OF FIGURES

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

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

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

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

2-4      The EIS project area	2-12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2-12     Layout of septic tank with raised drainf ield bed	2-76

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

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

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

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

                                         viii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3-11     Enumeration districts for census	3-49

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

-------
                                LIST OF APPENDICES


Appendix A         Notice of Intent

Appendix B         Soils Survey and Mapping

Appendix C         Leachate Survey and Well Quality Sampling Data

Appendix D         Design Criteria and Component Options for Centralized
                   Wastewater Management Systems

Appendix E         Cost Effectiveness Analysis

Appendix F         Analysis of Grant Eligibility

Appendix G         Impacts of On-Site Systems on Soils

Appendix H         Report on Algae (Summary)

Appendix I         Methodology for Population Projections

Appendix J         Water Quality Tables and Figures

Appendix K         Letter to Citizens' Advisory Committee

Appendix L         Paleolimnological Investigation

Appendix M         Transportation Data

Appendix N         Energy Data

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

1.1.  Project Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     The  purpose or tht Listrict's Facility  Han, dated March  1980,  was to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.2.  Legal Basis for Action and Project Need

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

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

     The  Federal Water Pollution  Control Act  of 1972  (FWPCA,  Public Law
92-500),  as amended  in  1977 by  the Clean Water Act  (CWA,  Public Law 95-
217),  and as amended in 1981 by the MWW Construction Grants Amendments (PL
97-117)  establishes  a uniform, nationwide  water pollution control program
according to which all state water quality programs must operate.  MPCA has
been delegated  the responsibility and authority  to administer this program
in Minnesota, subject to the approval of USEPA.

     Federal  funding  for wastewater  treatment projects  is  provided under
Section 201  of  the FWPCA.   For projects  initiated  prior to the 1981 FWPCA
Amendments,  USEPA will fund  75%  of  the  grant-eligible costs  for conven-
tional  sewers  and treatment.    For  alternative  collection systems  and
treatment  systems  (e.g.,  pressure  sewers,   septic  tank  effluent sewers,
septic tanks, and soil absorption systems), the  funding level increases to
85%  of the  eligible  costs.   The costs for conventional  sewers  that USEPA
will not  assist  in funding  are land and easement  costs,  sewers for which
less than two-thirds of the planned flow originated before 28 October 1972,
pipes in the street or easements for house connections, and the building of
sewers for  connection to  the  system.  The  costs  for  alternative systems
that the USEPA will not assist in funding are easement costs and the build-
ing of sewers for connection to septic tanks.   The grant eligibility of the
on-site portions of alternative systems varies depending on their ownership
and management.   Publicly- and privately-owned systems constructed after 27
December  1977 are not  eligible for  Federal  grants.   Presently,  MPCA can
provide grants  of  60% of  the funds required in excess of the Federal share
for  both  conventional sewers and for alternative collection  and treatment
systems.

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

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

     The  Municipal  Wastewater Treatment  Construction Grants Amendments of
1981 became  law  (PL 97-217) on 29 December 1981, and significantly changed
the  procedural and  administrative  aspects  of  the  municipal  construction
grants program.  The changes reflected in these amendments have been incor-
porated  into  Construction Grants-1982  (CG-82) Municipal Wastewater Treat-
ment  (Draft),  (USEPA,  March 1982); and an interim  final rule  implementing
the  1981  Amendments was  issued  by USEPA on 12  May  1982 (Federal Register
(4792).  Under the  1981  Amendments,  separate  Federal grants are no longer
provided  for  facilities  planning and  design  of  projects.   However,  the
previous  designation of   these  activities as  Step  1, facilities planning,
and  Step  2, design, are  retained  in the CG-82.  The term  "Step 3, grant"
refers to the project for which grant assistance will be awarded.  The Step
3 grant assistance  is  comprehensive and  will  include an allowance for the
planning (Step 1) and design (Step 2) activities.

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

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

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

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

     Minnesota was  required by the Federal Clean Water  Act (PL 92-500) to
establish water quality standards for lakes and streams,  and effluent stan-
dards  for discharge  to  them.   Federal law stipulates that,  at  a minimum,
discharges must  meet secondary treatment requirements.  In some cases, even
stricter  effluent  standards are  subject to USEPA approval and must conform
to Federal guidelines.

     Wastewater  treatment  facilities also are subject to the requirements
of  Section 402  of the  FWPCA,  which  established  the National  Pollutant
Discharge  Elimination  System  (NPDES)  permit  program.    Under  the  NPDES
regulations,  all  wastewater discharges to surface waters  require an NPDES
permit  and must  meet  the  effluent  standards  identified  in the  permit.
USEPA  has  delegated  the  authority to establish effluent  standards  and to
issue  discharge  permits  to  the  MPCA.   USEPA,  however,  maintains  review
authority.  Any permit  proposed  for issuance is subject  to a state hearing
if requested by another agency, the applicant, or other groups and individ-
uals.  A  hearing on  an NPDES permit  provides  the public  with  the  oppor-
tunity  to  comment on  a proposed discharge, including the  location  of  the
discharge and the level of treatment.
                                   1-8

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

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

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

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

These issues were highlighted in  the 11 July 1980 Notice of Intent  (NOI) to
prepare  an  EIS (Appendix  A).   Specifically,  USEPA  determined  that an EIS
was needed because the Facility  Plan did  not  adequately document  the need
to  provide  sewers around  Island  and  Sturgeon Lakes,  and  that additional
documentation was needed to determine that the deterioration of the quality
of  the  lakes  was  related to inadequate on-site  treatment systems.  USEPA1s
decision  to  require an EIS also  was  based on its  finding  that there is a
high probability  that  the proposed project could  have  significant adverse
socioeconomic  impacts  on  a number of families in the service area who have
fixed or  low  incomes.   In  the  NOI,  USEPA indicated the  need to determine
the  probable   induced  growth  and the  changes  in  land  use which  would  be
caused by the  project and the resultant effects on future demand for public
services.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

These  meetings were  the  culmination  of  the  public  participation program

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

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

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

in the Phase I reports.   Their major concerns  were:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

these investigations were performed.
                                   1-11

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

and  describes  the  data gaps  and  deficiencies which  were  identified  in

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

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

within the Moose Lake-Windemere Sanitary District.


1.4.  Issues


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

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

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

this Environmental Impact Statement:


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

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

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

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

     •    The  MLWSD  facilities  planning  alternative  could  induce
          additional development.

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

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

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

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

Sewage Collection System

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wastewater Pumping  Station

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

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

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

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

Wastewater Treatment Lagoons

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

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

2.1.1.    Existing  Centralized  Treatment  System Discharge  Characteristics

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

-------
Q
cr
                          TOWER
RD.
CO
cr
o
u.
u
                                                                   EXISTING SYSTEM

                                                                — ™»	INLET FORCE MAIN
                                                                         8 FLOW TO PONDS
                                                                 	»	 FLOW FROM PONDS
                                                                          8 OUTLET


                                                                 F)  POND NUMBERS

                                                                     1-6 PRIMARY
                                                                      7  SECONDARY



                                                                 2l POND BOTTOM ELEVATIONS
        Figure 2-2.   Plan view of existing wastewater treatment lagoons for

                     the City of Moose Lake treatment plant.
                                          2-5

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

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


               EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS                          CONTROLLED DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS

                                                                 Average During
                                                                 Discharge Period *                      Notes

               5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD )                 25 mg/1   513  Ibs/day, 233 kg/day  (1) (3)
               Total suspended solids (TSS)                           30 mg/1   615  Ibs/day, 279 kg/day  (1)
               Fecal coliform bacteria                               200 MPN/100 ml                       (2)
               Turbidity                                              25 NTU                              (1)

The pH  shall  not  be less than 6.5 nor greater than 8.5.  These upper and lower limitations are not subject to
averaging and shall be met at all times.

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

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


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

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

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

     However, past  inspections by  the  MPCA (Compliance Monitoring Surveys)
have  found  that  unauthorized  discharges were  occurring and  that system
maintenance was inadequate  (excessive  vegetation was observed on dikes, in
addition  to  apparent  seepage  through  one of  the  dikes  of  the secondary
cells).   The  MPCA has  issued  a Citation for  Violation.   The  limited in-
fluent wastewater quality data that are available  are listed in Table 2-31

2.1.3.  Problems Caused By Centralized Treatment Plant Discharges

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

2.1.4.  Existing Wastewater Management

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

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

Date
29 April 1980
17 May 1980
15 May 1980
20 May 1980
22 May 1980
08 Sept. 1980
30 Sept. 1980
02 Oct. 1980
06 Oct. 1980
09 Oct. 1980
10 July 1981
29 July 1981
14 Sept. 1981
02 Oct. 1981
09 Oct. 1981
NPDES Limits

BOD,. (mg/1)
J
27
11
24
5
15
17
14
7
5
3
4
7
5
4
6
25
Suspended
Solids (mg/1)
70
18
22
25
4
7
5
4
7
2
3
9
2
3
2
30
Turbidity
(NTU)
17
7
7
8
5
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
3
4
25
Table 2-3.  Influent wastewater quality to the City of Moose Lake waste-
            water treatment facility
Date
07-15-81
10-23-80
04-01-80
BOD
mg/1
95
107
93
SS
mg/1
92
216
102
£S.
6.8
7.7
7.5
                                   2-8

-------
             MLWSD Facilities Planning Area




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

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

2.1.5.  Wastewater Management Planning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
Figure 2-4.  The EIS project area.  Boundary of the project area is delineated
             by hatched line.  Windemere Townships, the larger area, is
             delineated by the solid line.
                                  2-12

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

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

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

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

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

review  comments made  by the  Minnesota  Pollution  Control Agency  and the

Citizens  Advisory  Committee that  additional information  was  required for

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

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

treatment systems.  The new sources of information were:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.1.1.  Soil Survey of a Portion of Windemere Township

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

Development of the Soil Survey

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

-------
K5
I
                                                                                 Area dominated by soils with
                                                                                 loamy subsoil or substratum
                                                                                 (Duluth-Dusler Association)

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

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

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

General Soil Associations

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

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

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

     During preparation of the Facility  Plan,  the MLWSD conducted a lot-by-
lot  survey  around Island and Sturgeon Lakes to determine the problems with
existing on-site  systems.  This  survey was  conducted  in 1980 by MLWSD staff
and  commission members with  the help of  interested  local  residents.  The
methodology used  and  the results  obtained from this survey were discussed
in detail  in  the Phase I  Environmental  Report (USEPA 1981).  A summary of
the  information contained  in the Facility Plan which  characterized problems
with on-site systems is presented in Table  2-4.
Table 2-4.  Summary of MLWSD lot-by-lot  survey  findings.
                                     Number of Lots With  Problems
	Type of Problem	       Island Lake      Sturgeon Lake
Total lots surveyed                      156               173
Surface failures                         42                 6
Sewer back-up                              0                 5
Tight soil                               154                90
Groundwater table                        71                82
Distance from the lake (75 feet)         54                51
Lot size                                 11                21
Restricted water use                     10                 4
Lot floods                                 6                 0
Well isolation                           35               101
Frequent rehabilitation                    2                ND
Holding tanks                            15                17
Privies                                  40                39
ND - not determined.
The MLWSD survey of on-site problems did not  encompass  lots  in  the  vicinity
of Rush  and Passenger Lakes or  in  the Wild  Acres and  Hogan's  Acres  subdi-
visions.  The types of problems  enumerated  in the  Facility Plan are catego-
rically  not  identical  to  those used  by   the  Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and  the  US Environmental  Protection Agency to evaluate  the  need  for
                                    2-17

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

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

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

2.2.1.3.  Mailed Questionnaire Survey

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

Methodology

     In October  1981, a  four-page questionnaire and a cover  letter were
mailed  to  all property  owners  in Windemere  Township.   The  first  mailing
went to property  owners  with land on  or near  the four project area lakes,
and a  subsequent  mailing was  sent to property owners  in  subdivisions and
outlying areas.   The mailing  list was developed from  County property tax
records for  Windemere Township,  and  contained a  total of  587 names.  To
facilitate responses, a  self-addressed,  stamped envelope was included with
each questionnaire.
                                   2-18

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

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

Results of the Questionnaire by Individual Lake or Subdivision

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sturgeon Lake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rush and Passenger Lakes

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

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

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

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

Wild Acres and Hogan's Subdivisions

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

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

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

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

Outlying Properties

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

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

2.2.1.4.  EMSL Aerial Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions and Observations Based on the Leachate Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


     The  more important   conclusions  and observations made  based  on the

septic leachate survey of Sturgeon Lake are that:


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

groundwater flow velocity  and direction were measured  at  points  along the

shorelines  of Sturgeon Lake,  Island Lake,  Passenger Lake,  and Rush Lake.

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

flow patterns.  By  identifying  subsurface flow vectors, it  is  possible to

estimate  the  direction  of groundwater effluent plume movement and to iden-

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


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

direction and velocity of  groundwater flow at selected  locations  on the
shorelines of the four project area lakes.  The Flowmeter has a cylindrical

probe with radially projecting thermistor "spikes."  Flow measurements were
obtained  by  inserting  the probe in saturated soil at or slightly below the

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions and Observations Based on the Groundwater Flow Data

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

-------
Table   2-5.  Groundwater  flow velocities  and directions as  measured at "flow stations" established on the
              shorelines of  Island,  Sturgeon, Rush,  and Passenger  Lakes.
Island Lake
Station
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 1
19
20
21
22
23
23a
Apparent
Velocity
(ft. /day)
1.2
4.1
4.7
1.6
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
3.0
39.4
2.0
2.0
7.4
2.0
6.7
2.0
0.7
0.7
2.0
4.5
1.2
0.7
1.8
2.4
Azimuth
Direction
(degreea)
321
200
250
270
184
254
300
345
188
177
035
249
315
350
009
221
067
230
160
185
218
254
237
231
Sturgeon Lake

Station
1
24
25
26
27
281
29
30
31
32l
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Apparent
Velocty
(ft. /day)
1.4
3.2
1.4
1.6
8.0
1.9
1.7
1.2
2.4
2.3
3.2
3.7
6.4
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.8
2.7
1.9
2.3
Azimuth
Direction
(degrees
260
212
170
122
220
355
151
185
233
329
324
173
196
272
230
222
341
248
028
273
Rush Lake

Station
*
44
45 1
45a
46
47
48
49
50
51


Station
t
52
53
54
55
57
581
59
Apparent
Velocity
(ft. /day)
1.2
2.3
3.1
7.6
3.0
1.2
2.0
U.I
2.4
Passenger Lake
Apparent
Velocity
(ft. /day)
1.9
1.8
2.2
2.2
1.4
3.8
3.5
Azimuth
Direction
(degrees)
235
015
317
147
228
256
147
012
210

Azimuth
Direction
(degrees)
179
140
223
320
350
145
289
     Measured  during  period  of  above average precipitation (2-9 October, 1981).
     (11-25 September, 1981).
All  other measurements taken during period of  low precipitation

-------
                                                                                 goose
                                                                                 farm
                                       N
N3

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

-------
                                                                Figure 2-7.   Locations  of:  groundwater  flow monitoring
                                                                             stations,  suspected  septic leachate  plumes,
                                                                             stations where groundwater quality samples
                                                                             were  taken,  and stations where overland
                                                                             runoff  (streams) were  detected and sampled
                                                                             in  Sturgeon  Lake.
to
I
U)
u>
                                                                                                             manure
                                                                                                          *  pile/cattle
                                                                                                             farm on lake

-------
          49
                                                                    FLOW  RATE  FT/DAY
                                                                       ill I i  i
                                                                       012345
                                                                          Groundwater
                                                                          Flow Station
                                                          NO SCALE
                                                         \0 Plume

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

-------
                FLOW  RATE  FT/DAY
I
0
                        I
                        2
        I
        3
       N

    NO SCALE
Groundwater
Flow Station

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.1.6.   Private Water Well Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

observations are made:


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Rush and  Passenger  Lakes.  Questionnaires received from property  owners in
these two critical areas  were re-examined and a total of 14 residences with

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Number of
                     Que s t ionna ire
                      Respondents     Number of
                      Reporting on  Wells >30 ft.     Median       Range of
Area                 Depth of Well    in Depth      Well Depth  Depths Reported

Northwest
Shoreline of
Island Lake
(Omega series soils)       8             0            45 ft.       40-60 ft.

Neck of Sturgeon
Island on Southeast
Shore of Sturgeon
Lake (Lake beach soil)     9             4            32 ft.       20-199 ft.

Southern Shore
of Sturgeon Lake
(Omega series soils)      19             4            57 ft.        7-190 ft.

Rush and Passenger
Lakes Area
(Omega series soils)      13             9            28 ft.        8-175 ft.

Hogan's and Wild
Acres Area
(Omega series soils)      17             3            40 ft.       20-70 ft.
                                   2-42

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.1.7.  Local Permit File Information

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

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

2.2.1.8.  Follow-up Survey

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

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

New holding tanks

New Privies

Upgrades of soil
absorption systems

 Sub-area totals

 Project area totals
14
17
6
6
14
26
9
0
7
1
6
0
43
49
14
                               Permit Applications
                                1981 through 1982	
                                                  Rush/
                              Island  Sturgeon  Passenger
0
5
3
0
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
               106
                                   14
                                      2-45

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2.  Problems Caused  by Existing On-Site Systems

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2.1  Backups

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

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

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

2.2.2.2.  Ponding or  Surface Failure

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

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

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

2.2.2.3.  Groundwater Contamination

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

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

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

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

2.2.2.4.  Surface Water Contamination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

than  the  assumed "worst-case"  (100%)  failure  rate.    However,  the impli-
cation of  this  estimated  failure rate for  classification of trophic state

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

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

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

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

state of each lake in the following ways:


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

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

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

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

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

     Supporting information for  the aforementioned conclusions are discus-

sed and cited in the following paragraphs.
                                   2-55

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

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

-------
     During March  1982,  a water quality  sampling  visit was made  to Island
and  Sturgeon  Lakes to determine the total phosphorus levels present in the
lakes  under  winter  conditions  when no  runoff  was carrying nutrients from
the  respective  watersheds.   Under  the ice  cover  conditions  and with more
than 56  inches  of snow cover present,  it was anticipated that  light pene-
tration  would be  reduced  and hence that biological productivity would be
low  in both  lakes.   Therefore  it  is  assumed  that,  to some  degree, total
phosphorus in the  water column could  reflect a singularly large number of
on-site  system failures on one lake versus the  other.   Analysis  of the data
under  this  assumption would  not  address  subtle differences  in levels of
enrichment but  can  be  expected to  reflect  any massive  amounts of septic
leachate as would  be associated with  large  scale  failures of on-site sys-
tems on  one  of  the  lakes.  Considering the  detection limit assigned to the
laboratory method  used  for total phosphorus analysis  (0.01 milligrams per
liter),  the   average total phosphorus  concentration in  Island  Lake (0.04
milligrams P  per  liter)  was similar to  the  average concentration in Stur-
geon  Lake  (0.02  milligrams  P  per  liter).   A greater  number  of on-site
systems  failures have been reported around Island Lake  than around Sturgeon
Lake  (Section 2.2.3.),  but  the in-lake  phosphorus  data  gathered in March
1982 provide  no  evidence that in-lake  concentrations  were strongly influ-
enced  by on-site  system failures.   This  was corroborated by the results of
additional sampling  in  February 1982 of  NAI-P  phosphorus in  the  surficial
littoral zone sediments of  Island  and  Sturgeon Lakes (Section 3.1.3.2.).
NAI-P  levels  in  littoral  zone sediments  varied  widely  in concentration in
both Island and  Sturgeon Lakes but showed no positive  correlation with the
nature and degree of residential development on the shorelines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Documentation of Need for Improved Wastewater Management

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

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

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

Management Opportunities for Island  Lake

Island Lake  is  a shallow and fertile  (nutrient rich)  water body giving,  in
accordance to its  elongate  shape, changing opportunity for the wind to mix
and  aerate  (Section  3.1.3.2.).   The  factors  of  Island Lake's shallowness
and  variable  wind mixing  characteristics make the hypolimnion subject  to
periodic  anoxia  during  summer.   This  enhances  the  bio-availability  of
phosphorus.  Increased availability  of phosphorus during the summer months
will continue to aggravate Island Lake's  blue-green algae bloom problem for
as long  as  present levels of fertility are sustained.  Based on the annual
watershed phosphorus loading regime  (Section 3.1.3.3.) and on evidence that
relatively high  fertility and  productivity levels  have  existed  in Island
Lake  for over  a  century  (Section  3.1.3.4.),  it  appears  that blue-green
algae blooms will  continue  to occur as long as current land use character-
istics and management practices in  the watershed are  sustained.  Abatement
of phosphorus from a single, small  source category such as on-site  systems
is not  likely to  result  in improved  water quality  for  Island Lake.  Man-
agement  of  the  game  fish populations  of  Island Lake  may  also  be a prere-
quisite  to reduction of blue-green  algal blooms,  regardless  of the degree
of phosphorus abatement that could  be achieved with a comprehensive water-
shed management program (Section 3.1.4.3.).

2.2.2.5.  Indirect Evidence of Problems

     Indirect evidence that  correlates with known  failures  can  be used  as
an initial screening device for locating areas where failures are probable.
Site limitations that  infer failures are:

     •    Seasonal or  permanent high water table;
                                   2-61

-------
     •    Lack  of  sufficient isolation distance  for  water wells (de-
          pending  on well  depth and  presence  or absence  of hydrau-
          lically limiting layers);
     •    Documented groundwater flow from a soil absorption system to
          a water well;
     •    Slowly permeable  soils with  percolation  rates greater than
          60 minutes per inch;
     •    Bedrock  proximity  (within  three  feet  of  soil  absorption
          system where bedrock is permeable);
     •    Rapidly permeable  soil with percolation rates less than 0.1
          minutes per inch;
     •    Presence of holding  tanks as evidence that site limitations
          prevent installation of soil absorption systems;
     •    On-site  treatment  systems  that  do  not conform  to accepted
          practices  or  current  sanitary  codes  including,  but  not
          limited to, cesspools, the "55 gallon drum" septic tank, and
          other inadequately sized components;  and
     •    On-site systems  in an area where local data indicate exces-
          sive failure rates or excessive maintenance costs.

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

     One of the principal purposes of collecting information in the project
area was to classify on-site systems into one of three categories: "obvious
problem,"  "potential  problem," or  "no  problem."  In  this  EIS,  an on-site
system is  classified  as  an "obvious problem" if  at  least one criterion of
direct evidence of  need  is satisfied.  Examples of  direct  evidence (given
in  Sections  2.2.2.1.  to  2.2.2.4)  include  problems  such  as backups,  or
ponding, or of  ground or surface water contamination.  "Potential problem"
systems  are  those  systems which  do not yet  exhibit direct evidence of
failure but which can reasonably be expected to fail in the future.  Justi-
fication of  expected future  failures relies on  detailed analysis  of the
causes for failure  of similar systems in the  project area.   The "no prob-
                                   2-62

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

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

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

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

Segment I.,  Island Lake

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

-------
             Table 2-8. Summary of  the  analysis  of  problems with  on-site waste  treatment systems  in  the  project area.
                                         Number of
      Analysis of Problems According to
Specific USEPA Criteria for Needs Documentation
                                                                                                                              Classification According to
Existing Residences
with On-Site

Island Lake
Segment I
Segment II
Segment III
NJ
1 Sub-total
Sturgeon Lake
Segment I
Segment II
Segment III
Sub-total
Rush and
Passenger Lakes
Wild Acres and
Hogan's Acres
Seas.

27
38
11
87

45
55
55
155

17

40
Perm.

16
30
JL8
64

10
20
j.2
42

2

8
Systems
Total

(43)
(68)
(AO)
(151)

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

(19)

(48)
Existing On-Site
Septic
tanks

23
51
14.
98

36
52
li
143
b
8

10C
Holding
tanks

7
3
	 i.
19

7
10
_9
26
b
1

3C
Systems

Privies

13
15
II
41

15
16
_3
34
b
6

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

0
0
£
0

1
1
1
5

ND

ND

5
12
_7
24

0
4
1
9

0

0
Surface Malfunctions
Lot-by-lot Quest.

10
26
IP.
46

0
3
1
6

ND

ND

8
7
_3
18

1
3
A
8

0

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

0
2
1.
3

0
1
1
4

0

0

0
12
_0
12

11
0
-1
17

7

ND

0
2
_0
2

0
0
£
0

0

ND

6
8
_4
18

0
0
0
0

0

0
Potential
Problem

5
13
_9
27

3
2
_8
13

0

0
No
Problem

32
47
12.
106

53
72
59
185

19

48
 Some lots have more than one system

 Based on 15 questionnaire responses

 Based on 21 questionnaire responses

ND - No data, information not collected

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

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

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

   Sturgeon Lake
Shoreline Lot Soils
Duluth loam                         0                        8
Duluth variant                      0                        3
Omega sandy loam                    0                        1
Altered soil (fill)                 0                        1

Rush and Passenger Lakes
  Shoreline Lot Soils

Omega sandy loam                    0                        0
Lake Beach soil                     0                        0

Hogan's and Wild Acres
Subdivision Soils

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

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

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

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

trated.  Although  the  groundwater flow direction throughout the segment is

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

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


     Permit  records  from the  Pine  County  Zoning  Administrator's  Office

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

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

                                   2-65

-------
                                                     SEG.  KM)
                  SEG.'
                                                                 SEG.  KE)
                                                  Legend
                                                  o Potential Problems
                                                  •X- Obvious Problems
                      SEG. Ill
Figure 2-10.  Island Lake segments and locations of on-site systems with
             obvious and potential problems.
                                2-66

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

Segment II. , Island Lake

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

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

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

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

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

     Permit  records  from  the  Pine  County  Zoning  Office  indicate  that  a
number of  lots in Segment  III have had  new  systems  installed or repaired
since the  latter  part  of 1973.  One permit was issued  to upgrade an exist-
ing  septic  tank-soil absorption  system  (ST-SAS).  Of  the  12  new systems
installed,  4  are  ST-SAS, 7 are holding tanks, and 1  is a privy.  Installa-
tion of all but 3 of these  systems was initiated prior  to  1977.

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

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

Segment I., Sturgeon Lake

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

-------
                                                                SEG.  I
                                                                  SEG
HI
                                                           Legend
                                                           o Potential Problems
                                                           •3f Obvious Problems
                      SEG. II
Figure 2-11.   Sturgeon Lake segments  and locations of on-site systems with
              obvious and potential problems.
                                       2-69

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

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

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

Segment II., Sturgeon Lake

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

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

Segment III, Sturgeon Lake

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

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

2.2.3.3.  Rush and Passenger Lakes

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

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

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

2.2.3.4.  Hogan's and Wild Acres Subdivisions

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

2.2.4.  Septage Disposal  Practices

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

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

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

2.3.1.  Design Factors

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

2.3.2.  System Components

2.3.2.1.  Centralized Wastewater Management

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

2.3.2.2.  Decentralized Wastewater Management

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

2.3.2.2.1.  On-site Wastewater Treatment

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

-------
adequate both  in terms of construction  and  capacity.   Septic tanks should
have an  exposed  manhole or inspection port  to monitor the contents of the
tank.  If,  during pumpouts and inspections, certain septic tanks are found
to be faulty or seriously undersized, these tanks would then be repaired or
replaced.

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

     Mound  systems  (Figure  2-12)  are   constructed  according  to  detailed
design standards to  overcome soil  permeability  or shallow  bedrock limi-
tations.    The  design  for  raised  drain beds  is  essentially that  of the
standard  drain  bed  elevated  by fill to achieve the  appropriate  depth to
groundwater.  Thus, the elevation of the raised bed can be highly variable,
from 6 inches  to 3 feet.  Some mound  systems  utilize  gravity distribution
systems while others use pumps and pressure distribution systems.  In areas
where the  soils  are  peat  and marl,  the natural ground  is first excavated
and  replaced with  sand.  Water-using   appliances are usually kept  to  a
minimum with these  systems in order to  keep the volume of sand fill needed
to a minimum.    It  is noted  that  the use of  proper materials and correct
construction techniques is essential for these systems to operate satisfac-
torily.

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

-------
NJ
I
                    Bill Iding
                    sewer
                                                                                          Perforated
                                                                                                                  TopsoiI
                                                                High water alarm switch

                                                                Pump
                                                                                                                  — Perforated pipe
                                 SEPTIC  TANK
                                                   PUMPING CHAMBER
                                                                                                     Plan

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

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

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

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

2.3.2.2.2.  Cluster System Wastewater Treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     The  use  of  a  septic  system  requires periodic  maintenance  (3  to 5
years) that includes  pumping  out the accumulated scum and sludge, which is
called  se.ptage.   Approximately  65 to  70 gallons  per  capita per  year of
septage could  accumulate in  a properly  functioning  septic  system used by
permanent  residents  (USEPA 1977).  Septage  is  a highly variable anaerobic
slurry  that  contains  large  quantities  of  grit and  grease and  a highly
offensive  odor and  has:  the ability  to  foam;  poor  settling and dewatering
characteristics;  high  solids  and organic content and; a minor accumulation
of heavy metals.   The general methods of septage disposal are:

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

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

2.3.3.  Centralized Collection System Component Options

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

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

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

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

2.3.4.  Centralized Wastewater Treatment Component Options

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

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

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

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

     The existing  City  of Moose Lake lagoon system  is described  in  Section
2.1.  The permitted  capacity of the existing lagoon system is 444,000 gpd.
The sufficiency  of that capacity must be re-evaluated because the central-
ized treatment proposed in the EIS alternatives would add significant flows
to  the system and  MPCA has  indicated  it  will be required that  the  maximum
calculated capacity  of  the  lagoon system be reduced to 316,100  gpd  to meet
updated requirements  (By  telephone Mr. Zdon, MPCA  to  WAPORA, Inc.  15 July
1982).  The  existing  and  revised design critera  and design capacities are
compared in Table  2-94-,

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

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

     The adequacy of the interceptor sewers and lift stations in the exist-
ing WWTP service area to  handle the existing  flow (after I/1 corrections)
and to accommodate additional flows from Island Lake and Sturgeon Lake was
evaluated in the MLWSD Facility Plan.  The analysis presented in the Facil-
ity Plan  was re-evaluated  for this report based  on the revised  (updated)
year  2000  population assumptions  (Section 3.2.1.3.).   The conclusion made
based on this re-evaluation was that the existing  sewer lines  and  pumping
stations  through  Sand  Lake  to  the main lift  station  in Moose  Lake are
adequate to  accommodate the total year 2000 EIS population from the Island
                                   2-83

-------
Table 2-9a.. Existing capacity and revised capacity existing Moose Lake
            WWTP.
Existing Revised
Design MPCA Design
Capacity Design Criteria Capacity
Pond Area
Primary (Ac)
Secondary (Ac)
Total (Ac)
Seconda ry / To t al
Pond Depth
Bottom Storage (ft)
Active (ft)
Total (ft)
Total Active Vol (MG)
Active Storage (days)
Capacity (Gal /day) 421
Primary Pond Area (Ac)
BOD Loading (lb/day-1000
SF)
BOD Capacity (Ib/day)
43
15.2
58.2
1/3.8
1
4
5
75.863
180
,500
43
973
43
15.2
58.2
1/3 1/3.8
2 2
3-4 3
5-6 5
56.690
180 180
316,100
38.8°
0.5 0.5
845
 MPCA, Recommended Design Criteria for Sewage Stabilization  Ponds,  1980

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

-------
Table 2-10.  Estimated population in the Moose Lake WWTP service area
             Year 2000 (PRC-Consoer Townsend, 1980)
               Area
   Population Equivilant (PE)
            Year 2000
               Moose Lake
               State Hospital
               Mercy Hospital
               Coffee Lake
               Sand Lake
            1,876
            1,780
              210
              240
              729
                 Total
            3,835
Note:    The Facility Plan reported a 1978 base wastewater  flow of 210,000.
         The 1978 population is not known, but the 1980 equivalent popula-
         for the above area totaled 3,768.  Therefore, the  approximate ADBF
         is 210,000/3,768 = 56 gpcd/60 gpcd is used in this EIS.
Table 2-11.  Estimated inflow/infiltration in the Moose Lake WWTP service
             area
                          Infiltration
 Inflow
Total I/I
Before Rehabilitation
  Av Flow gpd               111,000
  Peak flow gpd             772,000

Estimated Correction            25%
  72,000
 610,000

     75%
  183,000
1,382,000

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

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

Capacity (gpd)

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

Septage gpd

          Total

Excess capacity available  (gpd)

Influent Loading Basis

Loading (Ib/day)

Loading from existing service area
Existing
 Design
Capacity

421,500
230,100
    937
Revised
Design
        a
Capacity

316,100


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

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

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

 Septage volume based on 365 septic tanks pumped per year which  is 26.5%  of
 the total year 2000 housing units in Windemere  Township  (Table  3.16)
:»
"Septage BOD = 5,000 mg/1  (USEPA 1980 a).
                                    2-86

-------
Lake and  Sturgeon Lake  areas.   The  only  part of  the existing collection

system  that  will  require additional capacity  is  the  main  lift  station
(pumping to  the  WWTP)  which is presently  undersized  and cannot handle the

existing or corrected I/I flow from the existing system.


     Based on the above analysis of the existing Moose Lake WWTP and of the

existing collection  system,  the  following criteria were  used  as the basis

for development centralized treatment in the project alternatives:
     •    The  design  capacity  of  the existing  lagoons,  and  lagoon
          expansions developed  for any alternative  were  based  on the
          MPCA revised design criteria.

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

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

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

     •    It  was  assumed  that I/1  corrections will be  made  to the
          collection system  and to the main  pumping station.   Costs
          for  I/I  corrections were not included  in any alternatives.
          (The 16,000 &pd deficit can be accommodated by operating the
          ponds  with  an active  storage depth of 3.5 feet  instead of
          3-0 feet.)  (These costs are being identified in an on-going
          SSES.)

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

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

-------
2.4.  Project Alternatives

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

2.4.1.  Alternative 1 - No-Action

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

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

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

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

                                               Alternative
Component                      2       3       4       5       6       7

               b
On-site upgrade
  Island Lake                 103      87      37      37      -
  Sturgeon Lake               141     122     122     122     122
  Other3                       42      42      42      42      42      42
  Total                       286     251     201     201     164     ~4T

Cluster system
  Island Lake                  -       30      -       -       -       -
  Sturgeon Lake                -       20      20      20      20      -
  Total                        -       50      20      20      20

Centralized system
  Island Lake                  -       -       88      88     151     151
  Sturgeon Lake                -       -       -       -       -      197
  Total                        -       -       88      88     151     348

Total residences served       286     301     309     309     335     390

Residences served by exist-
 ing systems without upgrades
  Island Lake                  48      34      26      26      -
  Sturgeon Lake                56      55      55      55      55
  Other3                       25      25      25      25      25      25
  Total                       129     TT4"     106     106      80      25

Total project area residences 415     415     415     415     415     415
*a
 Includes remainder of EIS project area (Rush Lake, Passenger Lake, Hogans
 Acres, Wild Acres).

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

-------
            150
            125
111
     "
a o w
v_ •=. 0)
o to Q
M 2
•°   ;=
< 0) CO
^ > CD
            100 •
             75
O
CD
  _ CD
             50-
             25 •
                            Numbered Project Alternatives
  Figure 2-14.
              Number of soil  absorbtion fields  that will receive major
              upgrades over the 20-year design  period. Alternative  2 is
              the full-upgrade or most decentralized alternative.
              Alternative 7 is the most centralized alternative.
                                2-90

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

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

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

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

-------
                                                                LEGEND
                                                                                     Proposed

                                                                                       *  Lift Station

                                                                                          Cluster DralnfMd
--_ EIS
     Area Boundary
Existing
—^— Gravity Sewer

• • •  Force Main

  •   Lift Station
Propoeed

	 S*ptic Tank Effluent
     Gravity S«wer

i  ii i  Force Main
                                                                            '". -'  lk^_^r -:-- Li--'-
                                                                              "
Figure 2-15.    Wastewater collection and treatment  facilities  for  Alternative  3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
                        vi-
                                                      LEGEND

                                                      ___ EIS
                                                                       Propoaad
                                                                        A Ckiatar DrakiflaU
                                           ,£? 6      E*is«nfl
                                    ,if    -CT*.<&'  ,    	 QravHy Sewer      /\ Waatawatar
                                    /   ^ \F       —Force Main        VT'
                                                        *  lift Station
                                                      PropoMd
                                                      	 Gravity 3«w«r
                                                          Fores Main
    mtmwrt Lagoon
 * Upgraded Maki
   LNt Station
STE Saptte Tank ENkMM
   Qravlty Sawar
                                                         - Praaaura Sawar     al plpaa ara 8" unlaaa
                                                                        otharwlaa apaclHad
Figure  2-lb.   Wastewater collection  and treatment  facilities  for Alternative 4
                 Note:   Sewer  layout shown is for  Project Option 4A  (conventional
                 gravity),  similar  for  Project Option 7B  (STE gravity) and
                 Project  Option 7C  (STE pressure).

-------
     The  cluster  drainfield proposed  to serve  the area  on  Sturgeon Lake
under Alternative  4B  consists  of septic tank effluent gravity and pressure
sewers, and  community drainfields with a dosing pump station  (as described
in Alternative 3).

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

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

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

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

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

-------
                                                      LEGEND

                                                      ___ EIS
                                                          Area Boundary
                                           ftV  «      E*Mmg
                                     f    /%0  b^  '     	 Gravity Sewe
                                        ^P  V         —-> Force Mam
                                                       •  Lift Station
                                                      Proposed
                                                      	 Septic Tank Effluent
                                                          Gravity Sewer
                                                          Force Main
                                                      	 Pressure Sewer
Proposed
  • Lilt station
 A Cluster Drakilleld
 r~i Boa Treatment
 "-1 Site
  al pipes are 4" unless
  otherwise specified
                                                jHSfc*-   v,^   fr?-Sj/>   *   u
                                   .-•••«>   z
Figure 2-17.   Wastewater  collection and  treatment  facilities  for Alternative  5
                 Note:   Sewer layout shown  is for  Project Option 5A  (STE gravity),
                 similar for Project Option 5B  (STE pressure).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
LEGEND

___ EIS
    Area Boundary
Existing
	 Gravity Sewer
    Force Main
  •  Lift Station
Propoaed
Proposed
  • Lift Station
 A Cluster DraMMd
    Wastewater
    Treatment Lagoon
                                                                         0
                                                                          j. Upgraded Main
                                                                          * Lift Station
                                                                         STE Septic Tank Effluent
                                                                            Gravity Sewer
                                                                          al pipes are a" unleas
                                                                      ^   otfierwiae specified
Figure Z-18.   Wastewater collection and treatment facilities  for Alternative  6
                 Note:   Sewer layout  shown is  for  Project Option 6A  (conventional
                 gravity),  similar  for Project Option 6B (STE gravity)  and
                 Project Option 6C  (STE  pressure).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
                                                     LEGEND

                                                     ___ EIS
                                                          Area Boundary
                                                     Existing
                                                     	 Gravity Sewer
Propoacd
 A Clutter DraMMd
    OWaitewater
    Treatment Lagoon
    Upgraded Ma In
    Lin Station

  al ptpe» are 8" untoaa
  otherwise apacMcd
                                                          Force Mam
                                                       •  Lift Station
                                                     Proposed
                                                     ^— Qravity Svwor
                                                       i •  Force Main
                                                       •  LIN Station
                                                                 "      '              '
                                                                    fa ^,>^^i
Figure 2-19.  Wastewater collection  and treatment facilities  for  Alternative  7
                Note:   Sewer  layout shown for Project Option  7A  (conventional
                gravity), similar  for  Project Option 7B  (STE  gravity) and
                Project Option 7C  (STE pressure).

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

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

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

2.5.  Flexibility and Reliability of the  Project Alternatives

2.5.1.  Flexibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
2.5.2.  Reliability

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

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

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

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

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

water Treatment Facilities  (Federal  Water  Quality  Administration  1970)
require that:
     All  water pollution  control  facilities should  be  planned  and
     designed so as  to  provide for maximum reliability  at all times.
     The  facilities  should  be  capable  of  operating  satisfactorily
     during  power  failures,  flooding, peak  loads,  equipment failure,
     and maintenance shutdowns.


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

sider the following types of  factors to ensure system reliability:


     •    Duplicate sources of electric power

     •    Standby power for essential plant elements

     •    Multiple units and  equipment  to provide maximum flexibility
          in operation

     •    Readily available replacement parts

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

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

     •    Provision for emergency storage or disposal of sludge

     •    Dual chlorination units

     •    Automatic controls  to regulate and record chlorine residuals

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

     •    No treatment plant  bypasses or upstream bypasses

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

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

     •    Flood proofing of treatment plant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.6.   Comparison  of Alternatives  and Selection  of  the  Recommended Action

     The selection of  the most cost-effective, environmentally acceptable,
and  implementable  alternative(s)   through   the  EIS  process  involved  the
consideration of  technical feasibility, reliability,  costs, environmental
effects, public desirability, and the ability to comply with the applicable
design and effluent discharge standards for the State of Minnesota.  Selec-
tion of the most cost-effective alternative also required identification of
trade-offs between costs and other relevant criteria.
                                   2-109

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

2.6.1.1.  Project Costs

     Project  costs  were categorized  into capital  expenses,  operation and
maintenance (O&M) expenses, administrative expenses, and salvage values for
the  equipment and  structures  for  each  alternative.   The  costs  for  the
collection,  conveyance,  and  treatment  systems  for each  alternative were
separately estimated.  A summary of the estimated costs of Alternatives 1-7
are  displayed in  Table 2-14.   Appendix E  contains  a description  of  the
methodology and  assumptions used  in the analyses  as  well as the detailed
costs for each alternative.

     The capital  cost  for  the selected alternative would  be  shared by the
Federal  government   through  the  Federal Construction  Grants  Program,  by
state grants  administered  by MPCA,  and by local participants.  Until 1984,
funding levels for conventional systems would be 75% Federal,  and 15% State
for a  total  of 90%  of eligible construction costs.  Funding for innovative
and alternative  wastewater collection  and  treatment  systems  would be 85%
Federal and 9% State for a total of 93%.  For construction started after 30
September 1984 the  Federal share will be 55%  for  conventional systems and
75% for innovative and alternative systems (Federal Register,  Vol 47, N092,
May  12,  1982;  changes in regulations  governing   construction  grants  for
treatment works).   The  state share after 30 September 1982 is not known at
this time.  Eligibility of construction costs for  Federal and state grants
is discussed in Section 4.1.3.  Annual O&M costs would be  financed entirely
by the local users of the system.

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

-------
                      Table  2-14.    Summary  of  the  estimated  costs  for  Project  Alternatives  1  through  7
                                           in. March  1982  dollars.
               Alternative Number and Name
                   No-Action In  EIS service area
                                                                                 Total Present Worth
On-Site
Upgrade
Cluster ,
Drainfield
Centralized
Collection
Centralized
Treatment
Sub
Total
Administrative
Total
                                                                                                                            Average Annual     Cost
                                                                                                                           Equlvalant  Costs   Ranking
                                                                                                                                                               NA
NJ
 I
               2   Upgrade on-site  systems with-
                   in EIS service area            726,100

               3   Cluster dralnfleld for lim-
                   ited areas and on-site sys-
                   tem upgrading elsewhere in
                   EIS service area
                                                 575,000
               4B  Island Lake-limited area
                   collection by STE gravity
                   sewers and treatment at up-
                   graded Moose Lake WWTP; Stur-
                   geon Lake-cluster drainfield
                   for limited area; on-site
                   system upgrading  elsewhere
                   in EIS service area
                                                 400,880
5B  Island Lake-limited area col-
    lection by STE pressure sewers
    and  peat bog treatment; Stur-
    geon Lake - cluster drainfield
    for  limited area; on-site sys-
    tem  upgrading elsewhere in
    EIS  service area      •         400,880

6C  Island Lake entire shore-
    line STE pressure collec-
    tion and treatment at up-
    graded Moose Lake WVTP;
    Sturgeon Lake - cluster
    drainfield for limited
    area; on-site system up-
    grading elsewhere in EIS
    service area
                                                 271,010
                7B  Island Lake and  Sturgeon
                   Lake shorelines  STE gravity
                   collection and treatment
                   at upgraded Moose  Lake
                   WWTP; on-site system up-
                   grading elsewhere  in
                   EIS service area.
                                                  89,710
                                                            985,220
                                                             498,370
                                                             498,370
                                                             498,370
                                                                          815,300
                                                                          815,940
                                                                        1,475,590
                                                                        3,616,080
                                                                                   726,100
                                                                                                 1,560,220
                                                                                       268,340   1,982,890
                                                                                       327,170   2,042,360
                                                                                       394,100   2,639,070
                                                                                       625,080   4,330,870
                                                                                                   286,790
                                                                                                                  286,790
                                                                                                                  286,790
                                                                                                                  286,790
                                                                                                                  286,790
                                                                                                                  286,790
                                                                                                               1,012,890
                                                                                                                               1,847,010
                                                                                                                               2,269,680
                                                                                                                               2,329,150
                                                                                                                               2,925,860
                                                                                                                               4,617,660
                                                                                                                                 100,300
                                                                                                                                 182,900
                                                                                                                                                224,760
                                                                                                                                                230,650
                                                                                                                                                289,740
                                                                                                                                                457,270
                 Includes costs for on-site or off-site treatment of wastewater from existing and future residences  In the EIS project  area  to the year 2000.
                 See Appendix E for a  description of cost development methodology.
               b
                 Includes STE pressure and gravity collection system

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

                 For comparison,  the estimated present worth  cost of conventional gravity collection is $3,846,980  ($4,561,770 subtotal,  $4,848,560 total, $480,140
                 Equiv. Ann.).
                 Includes annual personnel and overhead costs  for administration and billing.

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

2.6.1.2  Environmental and Financial Impacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
2.6.1.3.  Implementability

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

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

     Because most sanitary  districts have, in the past, been formed around
the concept of centralized collection and treatment of wastewater, there is
a  great  deal  of information  about  the  implementation of such  systems.
Decentralized collection and treatment, however, is relatively uncommon and
there is  little  comparable  management experience on which  to  draw conclu-
sions regarding implementability.

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

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

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

The preconditions to be met include:


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

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

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

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

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

addressed:


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

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

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

     •    A system of  user charges to retire  capital  debts,  to cover
          expenditures for operation and maintenance, and  to provide a
          reserve for contingencies must be established.


     In  the following  sections,  these requirements are examined first with

respect  to centralized   systems  and  then with  respect  to  decentralized

systems.


Centralized Systems


     The  Moose Lake-Windernere Sanitary  District was  formed  in accordance

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

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

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

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

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

     •    The  station  may be designed  to agency  specifications, with
          the  responsibility  for  purchase, maintenance, and ownership
          residing with the homeowner;
     •    The  station  may be  specified and  purchased by the agency,
          with the homeowner repurchasing and maintaining  it;
     •    The  station  may be  specified and owned  by  the agency, but
          purchased by the homeowner;
     •    The  station  may be  specified,  purchased, and owned by the
          agency.

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

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

     Capital  expenses  associated with a  centralized project  component may
be financed  by  several techniques which are discussed in  detail in Section
4.1.3.  User  charges  are set at a level that will provide for repayment of
long-term  debt  and  cover  operation  and  maintenance expenses.   The user
charges for  the  different alternatives are discussed in Section 4.1.3.  In
addition,  prudent management  agencies frequently  add  an extra  charge  to
provide a contingency fund for extraordinary expenses and  for equipment re-
placement.

Decentralized Systems

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

     In  general,  regulation  of  on-site  wastewater  treatment  systems has
evolved to the point where most new facilities are designed, permitted, and
inspected  by local  health departments or  other agencies.   After installa-
tion,  the  local  agency  has  no  further  responsibility for  these systems
until  malfunctions  become  evident.    In  such  cases the  local  agency may
inspect and  issue permits  for  repair of the systems.   The  sole basis for
governmental  regulation in this  field has been  its obligation to protect
public  health.  Rarely have governmental  obligations been  interpreted more
broadly  to  include  monitoring and  control  of other  effects  of  on-site
system  use or  misuse.   The  general  absence  of  quantitative information
concerning septic system impacts on  groundwater  and surface  water quality
                                                 /
has  been  coupled  with a lack  of  knowledge of  the operation  of on-site
systems.  The State  of Minnesota does not presently have  legislation which
explicitly authorizes governmental entities to manage wastewater facilities
                                   2-117

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

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

     The cluster systems  proposed  in Project Alternatives  3, 4,  5,  and 6
could  be managed by one of  several agencies.  The  MLWSD  probably is best
equipped at  this point to assume  responsibility for these systems.  While
the technologies involved may be unsual for the District, no components are
involved that are  especially difficult  to manage.   Other  possible manage-
ment agencies include  different authorization for the County Zoning Depart-
ment,  a  township  board, another  division  of county  government,  another,
special district, or  a public utility commission (USEPA 1979).  The  system
itself  should  be  simple  to  manage.   The  residential  pumping units use
electrical power;  thus,  power  interruptions  may  result  in  operational or
environmental problems.   Maintenance and  repair  activities  are  more cri-
tical  for  this   system  than  for gravity sewers.   Regular  cleaning of the
septic tanks is  essential  for  the  system to  operate properly.  The  opera-
tion  of  the  cluster  drain field  must  be carefully monitored so  that the
treatment  aspect of the soil   is  not  abrogated.   The billing of  the user
charge could  be similar to  the charge system set  up  for  the conventional
gravity sewer and treatment plant.

     The management of  on-site systems  (Alternatives  2-7)   can  be  accom-
plished in many  ways  (USEPA 1979 and 1979).  The management structure will
depend primarily on state  law and  local  preference.   The  USEPA requires a
public agency to  serve as grantee  and  to  provide  assurances  that the sys-
                                    2-118

-------
terns  be  constructed  properly  and that  maintenance  be performed to ensure
that  environmental  laws are  not violated.   In  other locations around the
nation many  different agencies are  presently responsible for on-site sys-
tems:  health  departments, sanitary districts,  homeowners'  associations,
on-site  management  districts,  private  companies,  and  county government.
Management responsibilities  range from  a detailed  permit process to com-
plete ownership  of  all facilities.  There are certain advantages with each
type  of  management  and  ownership option.   Complete  control  by the agency
comes closest to guaranteeing that the systems will be operating at optimal
levels, but represents the most costly approach.  The  least costly approach
would be  to  keep the homeowner  responsible  for all maintenance activities
and costs.  The homeowner  then would be more  inclined  to utilize water-sav-
ing  measures and other methods  to  minimize maintenance  costs.   However,
environmental  protection may  suffer when the homeowner  is responsible for
maintenance,  but appropriate  maintenance is  neglected.  Other factors also
should be considered.  Systems for residences constructed after 27 December
1977  are  not eligible  for Federal  grants.   Having  the  homeowner pay for
installation constitutes  a considerable  expense  for  new residences.   This
funding  requirement  would discourage   future  on-site  systems and  cause
residential  growth   in the  area.   Additionally, the USEPA  requires  the
grantee to  certify  that public ownership  is not implementable,  a demon-
stration that may be difficult to make.

     The agency  in  the planning area with the most experience with on-site.
systems is the  Pine County Zoning Department.  However, the Zoning Depart-
ment has no experience in writing and implementing contracts, because their
primary role is  issuing permits and ispecting construction.  The MLWSD has
the  necessary   experience  with contracts  and  management of  maintenance
activities,   although  it does  not have  management  experience with on-site
systems.   Experience with on-site  systems   is  crucial  for  the personnel
responsible for  the design,  construction, and inspection of these systems.
Thus  it is anticipated that the most cost-effective managerial arrangement
would be  for the Zoning  Administrator to maintain  authority  over the in-
stallation and management  of  on-site  systems,  and  for  the  District  to
perform the  functions of  contracting,  billing,  administration,  and  main-
tenance.   The  local  costs  for the  construction of  new  systems and  reha-
                                   2-119

-------
bilitation of  existing systems  can  be assessed equally to  each  user by a
variety of means,  or  can be assigned to the respective homeowners.  Opera-
tion  and  maintenance costs also  can be handled in the  same way, based on
public or  private  ownership.   The billing system could  be  similar to that
used  in the centralized waste water management system.

2.6.2  The Recommended Project Alternative

     The  least cost  alternative from  both  an economic and environmental
perspective  is Alternative  2 -  on-site  system  upgrades  for the  entire
service area.   The beneficial  environmental impacts  of Alternative  2 in-
clude elimination  of  any  phosphorus  load to the lakes that might be due to
failing on-site systems,  and elimination  of  the  possibility of nitrate
contamination  of   the  groundwater.    For  these  reasons,  Alternative  2 is
recommended to be the selected project.

     Alternative 2 has an estimated total present worth cost of $1,012,890.
The  MLWSD  Facility Plan recommended alternative was  for conventional gra-
vity  sewer installation  around  Island Lake and  Sturgeon Lake,  with treat-
ment  at the  Moose  Lake WWTP upgraded  to  meet  the  additional demand.   This
is  equivalent  to   Project  Option 7A, presented herein, which  has an  esti-
mated  total   present  worth of  $4.8 million.   Another alternative  under
discussion by  the  MLWSD is provision of  a  conventional gravity collection
system for Island Lake only, with treatment at the Moose Lake WWTP upgraded
to meet the  demand.   This  is equivalent  to  Project Option 6A which has an
estimated  total present worth of $3.2 million.

     Compared  with alternatives  that  include  centralized  collection and
treatment, Alternative  2  is  expected  to  have fewer  construction impacts
because extensive  construction within  road  right-of-ways  is not  required.
Adverse construction  impacts  that might result  in  disturbance and erosion
on  individual  lots   can  be  mitigated with  good   construction  management
practices.   Alternative  2  is not expected to have impacts  on the ground-
water  or   lakes  that are   significantly  different  than  any  other  action
alternative.
                                   2-120

-------
     AIL the action alternatives will eliminate any existing adverse impact
of  on-site systems  to  groundwater the  lakes by eliminating  the failing
onsite  systems.   However,  evaluation  of the  existing  data on the natural
and man-made environment in the project  area  indicates that water quality
impacts due  to onsite systems are  inconsequential  in the context of other
manageable and unmanageable nutrient sources, and that  none of the action
alternatives will significantly improve  the  quality  of the  lakes  or the
groundwater.

     The on-site  upgrades for Alternative 2 were designed  on a lot-by-lot
basis to correct  the  obvious and potential  problems  identified in Section
2.2.3.   A  summary  of  the total  on-site systems  to be upgraded  and the
components included  is  presented  in Table  2-13.   The appropriate on-site
upgrades were  determined  based  on soil  characteristics,  depth to ground-
water,  landscape  slope,  and lot size.  In addition, all septic tanks would
be facilitated with an observation port to permit inspection.

     For the entire project area a total of 58 residences would have one or
more  major components upgraded to  correct obvious  and potential problems,
and an  additional 228  residences  spread over 415  existing lakeshore lots
would receive  some  type of upgrade  in  the  future (20 year design period) .
The number and types  of upgrades  are  projected  subject to revision after
site inspection during final design.

     The future  management objectives  for residences with  on-site systems
can be  met in  a  number of ways (Section 2.6.1.3.).   It is anticipated that
the most  cost-effective managerial  system  would be  for the County Zoning
Administrator to maintain authority over the installation and management of
the on-site  systems  (as  is presently  the  case)  and  that  the MLWSD would
perform the contracting, billing, administration and maintenance functions.
If these on-site system management functions were delegated and accepted by
the respective  local  units  of  government,  Alternative  2 - on-site system
upgrades for the  entire project area would eliminate problems with on-site
systems in the most  cost effective manner,  with a minimum of adverse envi-
ronmental and financial impacts.
                                   2-121

-------
3.0.  AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

     Elements of the natural and man-made environments of the planning area
are described in this chapter.  The contents of this chapter are based upon
a  compendium of new  information gathered  during the preparation  of this
Phase  II  Report (the  EIS)  and updated and  corrected  information from the
Existing  Conditions chapter  of  the  Phase  I  Environmental  Report  (USEPA
1981).  Corrections and  supplements to portions of the Phase I Report were
made  by  USEPA based  on public  comments  on  that  document  made  at the 24
April 1981 public meeting and based on comments received from the MPCA, the
MLWSD, and the CAC.

3.1.  Natural Environment

3.1.1.  Atmosphere

     The significant elements of the atmospheric environment are:   climate,
air quality, and noise.  A summary of the characteristics of these  elements
follows.

3.1.1.1.  Climate

     Minnesota has a continental climate.  Seasonal average temperatures at
Moose  Lake  range  from the high 60s (degrees fahrenheit [°F]) in the  summer
to  below freezing  in  the  winter,  with  an annual average  temperature of
approximately  40  °F.   Precipitation averages  28.16  inches  annually and is
heaviest  from April  through  September   (National Oceanic  and Atmospheric
Administration  [NOAA]  1979a).  Recorded  wind  data from Duluth, Minnesota,
located approximately  35 miles northeast of  the  study area,  indicate that
winds  predominantly blow out  of the west-northwest,  except  in May, June,
and August, when they originate from the  east  (NOAA 1979b).

     Field investigations were conducted  in  the project area in 1981 during
the  periods  of  24-27  August;  7-15  September;  28-30 September;  and  1-5
October.  During these  sampling  periods, prevailing  wind  directions were
                                    3-1

-------
easterly; westerly  changing to  southerly and  then back to northwesterly;
easterly; and widely variable, respectively.

     Peak  daily  air  temperatures   recorded  at  the  Duluth International
Airport  over  the periods  of field  sampling  are presented  in Appendix J.
The strong  5-day warming trend indicated by  increased peak daily tempera-
tures between  9  September  and 13 September preceeded  the blue-green algae
bloom  observed  in  Island  Lake  on  14  September 1981 (Section 3.1.3.2.).

3.1.1.2.  Air Quality

     Moose  Lake  is  located  in the  Duluth-Superior Interstate Air Quality
Control  Region  (AQCR) #129.   Air  quality parameters  for both Carlton and
Pine counties are below the National Ambient Air Quality  Standards (NAAQS).
Concentrations of total suspended particulates  (TSP),  sulfur dioxide  (S0_),
and ozone  (0_)  in  Carlton County  are better than  the NAAQS.   Carbon mon-
oxide  (CO)  levels cannot  be classified, but  are  thought  to  be below the
NAAQS.   In  Pine  County,  TSP, SO ,  0 , and CO concentrations are all  better
than the NAAQS.   The entire State of Minnesota either cannot be classified
or is better than the national standard for nitrogen dioxide (By telephone,
Mr. Jay Bortzer, USEPA to WAPORA, Inc., 16 January  1981).

     There  are  no significant  odor problems  in  the area.   One minor odor
problem  is  associated with the stabilization pond  at  the Moose Lake  waste-
water treatment  plant (WWTP).   The  spring thaw and normal break-up  of the
pond produces a  short-term odor problem  (By telephone, Mr. Pat Mader, MPCA
to  WAPORA,  Inc.,  23  March 1981).   Another  odor  problem  is  reported by
homeowners  with property  adjacent   to  Island  Lake  associated  with algal
bloom accumulations  along  the shoreline  (Section 3.1.4.1.).  This problem,
which  results  from  wind blowing  floating  blue-green algae  shoreward,  is
reported to occur in Island Lake periodically throughout  the summer months,
but  primarily  in  August  and  September  (Personal  communication,  Citizens
Advisory Committee to WAPORA, Inc.  October 1981).
                                   3-2

-------
3.1.1.3.  Noise

     The  only major  source  of  noise  in the  planning area  is  the heavy
trucks utilizing  Interstate  35,  the major link between Duluth and the Twin
Cities. There  are no  other significant noise  sources  located in this pre-
dominantly rural area (By telephone, Mr. Al Perez, MPCA to WAPORA, Inc., 20
February 1981).

3.1.2.  Land

3.1.2.1.  Geology

     The  Phase I  Environmental Report  (USEPA  1981)  provided detailed dis-
cussions of  topography,  surficial glacial geology, and bedrock geology for
the  project  area.   An  important  geological  consideration  to  wastewater
management  is that  depth  to bedrock  in the  project  area  is  usually in
excess of 50 feet.  This means that septic leachate will not  generally have
access  to  fractured bedrock  or  to solution channels  in  bedrock and thus,
the potential  for well contamination is reduced.

3.1.2.2.  Soils

     The  Phase I Environmental  Report (USEPA  1981)  also provided discus-
sions  of  general  soil  associations  and  soil suitability  for  wastewater
treatment in the project  area.   However, a  detailed  soil  survey was not
available for  Pine County and the generalized data presented  in the Phase I
Report  were insufficient for the purposes of  evaluating wastewater treat-
ment  systems in  terms  of the soil characteristics of  individual lots in
Windemere Township.  Therefore, a  detailed soil  survey of  the  portion of
Windemere Township  (Pine County)  immediately surrounding Island, Sturgeon,
Rush,  and  Passenger Lakes  was conducted.  The results  of  this  survey are
summarized and evaluated in Section 2.2.1.1. of this report.  A copy of the
original soil  survey  report and soil  unit map is presented  in Appendix B.
                                   3-3

-------
3.1.3.  Water Resources

     The Phase  I  Environmental  Report (USEPA 1981)  provided  a synopsis of
baseline  information  on  the water  resources  of  the planning  area.   The
topics  covered  included  hydrology, water uses,  water quality and effluent
discharge standards, and  published water quality data on the surface water
of  Pine and  Carlton  Counties.   Groundwater  quality and  uses  were  also
covered.

     This EIS  focuses on  a more  limited geographic setting, covering new
information gathered on  the Windemere Township  lakes and streams.  Aspects
of  the  new  information utilized for assessing  the need for improved waste-
water treatment are presented in the following  sections.

3.1.3.1.  Surface Water Resources

     The residents of Windemere Township regard  the  project area  lakes as a
most valuable recreational resource.  The special attractions of  Island and
Sturgeon Lakes,  in  particular,  are attested to  by the concentration of the
Township's  recent  residential  growth  along   their  shorelines  (Section
3.2.1.).

     The Windemere  Township lakes  encompassed  by the proposed project area
(Figure 2-4) are:

     •    Island Lake, 582 acres; mean depth, 11 feet
     •    Sturgeon Lake, 1,456 acres; mean depth, 22.5 feet
     •    Rush Lake, 88 acres; mean depth, 5.6  feet
     •    Passenger Lake, 75 acres; mean depth,  7.1  feet.

Also  in the Township,  but outside  the  project area,  are  Sand Lake,  Lake
Eleven,  Lake  Twelve,  Dago  Lake,  and Big Slough Lake.   Sand Lake, already
sewered  by  the MLWSD,  is  575 acres  in size with an average  depth of 13.9
feet.   The  other four outlying  lakes are small (less  than  100 acres) and
less  accessible  to  Interstate Highway 35 than  are Sand Lake  or the project
area  lakes.  Of  the four service  area »lakes,  only  Passenger Lake does not
                                   3-4

-------
have a public access available for boat launching.  The launch site on Rush
Lake, while not  strictly private, is not immediately accessible via County
highway,  and  appears  to  be  used  principally by nearby  property owners.

Surface Water Movement
     Two small,  continuously flowing lake outlet  streams  are found in the
project area  portion of  Windemere Township.  One  is  the  outlet of Island
Lake, which drains to the Moose River via Sand and  Coffee Lakes.  The other
is  the  outlet of  Passenger Lake  which drains to  the  Moose River via the
Willow River.  Rush  and Sturgeon Lakes are  "seepage lakes" with no defined
inflow streams and no continuously  flowing  surface outlets.  Island Lake,
according  to  the  USGS  topographic  sheet  (1979),  has  two  unnamed, inter-
mittent tributary  streams  entering  on the  north  shore and two additional
unnamed,  discontinuous  inlets  entering  its  northwest  basin  via Little
Island Lake.   Information  on  surface water discharge  from  the  lakes via
groundwater flow is presented  in Section 2.2.1.5.

Water Levels

     Water level  fluctuations  in Island Lake have  been an important local
issue (Personal communication, Mr. Harold Westholm, MLWSD to WAPORA, Inc.).
A  few  developed  lots  on Island  Lake are reported to experience  standing
water due  to excessive  lake  levels  for up  to one  month each year.  These
problems are  related to  seasonal events  such  as  spring  runoff or summer
storms  which  can  result  in 0.5-  to 1.0-foot water  level  increases  in a
short period  of  time (MDNR records, unpublished).  These flooding  problems
probably are aggravated by a long-term trend in increasing water levels due
to climatic changes affecting  all of the lakes in the project area.  All of
the  lakes  in the  region reached their contemporary  low levels during the
draught years of  the  1930s,  prior  to  any  extensive lakeshore residential
development.  Since  that time,  lake levels have  increased.  According to
MDNR records  (unpublished),  the annual maximum water  level in Island Lake
has  increased approximately 2.6  feet since 1941,  and  the  annual maximum
level  in  Sturgeon Lake  has increased  approximately  0.7  feet  since 1945.
The  difference  between  these  rates of  increase  may  be  attributable,  in
                                   3-5

-------
part, to differences  in the soils of  the  watersheds of these lakes and in
watershed  size.   The  Island  Lake watershed  is more  than two and  a half
times greater  in size  than the Sturgeon Lake  watershed and  also has less
permeable soils, thus  contributing to increased runoff under conditions of
increased  precipitation.  In addition,  a number of  other  factors may have
combined to accelerate  the  increases in the annual maximum water levels in
Island Lake.   Recent siltation  of the outlet  of  Island Lake may have de-
creased  it's  stormwater outflow capacity.   A  general siltation of clayey
soil  materials  in  the  lake due  to  recent shoreline  development may also
have  reduced  the lake's  overall groundwater  outflow  capacity.   Also, the
groundwater table level in  the  area has increased since the  1930's and may
be contributing  to  higher  lake  levels (Personal communication, David  Ford,
MDNR  hydrologist to  WAPORA,  Inc.,  2  February 1982).    Increases  in the
acreage  of  impervious surfaces, including  roof tops,  roads,  parking  lots,
and  hard packed soils  in  the  Island  Lake watershed,  coupled with modern
agricultural drainage  practices  in the area,  also may have contributed to
increased watershed runoff  intensity during wet-weather periods.  A permit
to  place an additional culvert  at the Island  Lake  outlet in order to in-
crease  the stream  outflow  capacity has  been applied  for  (Personal com-
munication, Mr. Harold Westholm, MLWSD to WAPORA,  Inc.).   It  is anticipated
that  an increase   in  lake  outflow  capacity  will reduce  the  duration of
flooding problems.

3.1.3.2.  Water Quality of  the Project Area Lakes

      Representatives  of  the MLWSD have seen  the water quality problems of
Island Lake as  a primary impetus  for  facility planning in Windemere  Town-
ship. The  plan  to  provide  sewage  collection  and treatment  around Island
Lake  as  a  means of improving water  quality and providing  a convenience for
residential  users   has  been discussed  frequently  at  public  meetings, re-
ported on  in  local  newspapers,  and  cited in  formal  communications  (Section
1.1.).   Although the MLWSD  Facility  Plan also  proposes the sewering of most
of  the  Sturgeon Lake shoreline, reference  is  not  made to  the water quality
improvements that could result  from sewering  Sturgeon Lake.  Sturgeon Lake
is  not   cited in the Facility  Plan as having  severe  algal blooms or poor
water clarity.   Rush and Passenger Lakes, likewise,  have not  been described
                                    3-6

-------
as  degraded.   The  proximity of  Island Lake  to  the existing  sewage col-
lection network and  the local perception that  failing  on-site  systems are
largely responsible for it's blue-green algae blooms and poor water clarity
reinforce the emphasis on serving Island Lake with sewers.

     One objective of this EIS is to provide an up-to-date and quantitative
framework in  which to  portray  the  water quality of  all  four service area
lakes.  Future residential growth has been projected on platted lots around
all  four  lakes  (Section 3.2.1.) and  thus,  protection of  the  quality  of
Sturgeon, Rush, and  Passenger Lakes is as important to consider as improv-
ing the quality of Island Lake.

     Water quality  parameters measured in the  lake  waters during 1981 and
1982 field studies included:

     •    Dissolved  oxygen  concentrations and  temperature with depth
          to describe lake stratification.
     •    Chlorophyll a_ concentration as an indication  of  overall phy-
          toplankton productivity.
     •    Secchi  disk  depth  and  phytoplankton biovolume  as measures
          of water clarity and blue-green algae abundance.
     •    Phosphorus concentration as an indication of  lake
          fertility.

Sampling Stations and Schedule

     The  sampling  stations  visited  and the  sampling program and schedule
carried  out  in  the  late  summer and  fall of  1981  also  are described  in
Appendix  J.   Supplemental  sampling  took place in  February 1982 which in-
cluded the collection  of lake water phosphorus samples and  surficial lake-
bed  sediment  samples.   The  complete field survey  program and schedule is
summarized in  Appendix  J.   Little Island Lake, a sub-basin  of Island Lake,
was included in the February  1982 sampling for  comparative purposes because
the land use in its watershed does not  include  shoreline residential devel-
opment.
                                    3-7

-------
Field Conditions During Sampling

     The sampling dates  included both warm and cold weather conditions.  A
blue-green algae bloom, which produced floating accumulations of algae over
the  surface  of Island Lake and  algal  "mats" on  its  downwind shores, was
observed during  the mid-September sampling  period.   Weather antecedent to
the  mid-September  sampling was  unseasonably warm  and sunny (Appendix J),
which resulted  in elevated  lake temperatures.  Weather  during subsequent
sampling was  in  transition to cooler fall weather.   Significant heat loss
from the  lakes and  complete water column mixing had taken place by the 30
September 1981 sampling.

Results of the Surface Water Sampling

     Historic  dissolved  oxygen and  temperature  profile  data were obtained
from the MDNR to supplement the 1981/1982 data.  Summary tables and figures
for contemporary and historic data are discussed below.

     Of the  four  lakes sampled,   Island Lake  had  the highest average  chlo-
rophyll ji concentrations  on both 9 and 15 September,  (Table 3-1.)  (Island
Lake chlorophyll  a_  was lowest in the samples taken just above the sediment
surface and  significantly higher at the mid-depth  and surface levels  [Ap-
pendix  B].)   Average  chlorophyll a^ concentrations in Sturgeon  Lake were
roughly one-third  of  the average Island Lake  concentration  on  both Sep-
tember sampling dates.  Rush Lake's average chlorophyll _a concentration was
comparable to  Sturgeon Lake's concentration, while chlorophyll ji levels in
Passenger Lake were  higher due to a bloom of non-blue-green phytoplankton.

     Phytoplankton biovolume  calculations  were made based on plankton cell
size measuresment and  counts for water samples  taken  from all three  depth
levels.  These data describe the  overall productivity  and give insight into
phytoplankton ecology  in  late summer.   The  methodology and  results of the
phytoplankton analyses were explained  in the Report on Algae  (Appendix B).
In  order  to  quantify trophic  status  and  relate  phytoplankton  growth to
water  clarity, graphical presentations of  average Secchi  disk  depth and
average phytoplankton  biovolume  in the surface  samples  were made  (Figures
                                    3-8

-------
Table 3-1.     Average  chlorophyll a_ concentrations for Island, Sturgeon,
               Rush and Passenger Lakes.  Mathematical averages of analy-
               tical results from surface, mid-depth, and off-bottom samples
               at 6, 4, 1, and 1, stations respectively.
Lake           No of Stations      10 September 1981    15 September 1981
Island
Sturgeon
Rush
Passenger
6
4
1
1
27 ug/liter
09 ug/liter
11 ug/liter
15 ug/liter
26 ug/liter
09 ug/liter
11 ug/liter
23 ug/liter
3-1  and  3-2).  In  these figures  biovolume  was plotted  inversely,  on the
y-axis,  to  more  conveniently  show the  cause-and-effeet  relationship  of
plankton abundance  (as  biovolume)  to water clarity (as Secchi disk depth).
Comparison of  these  two parameters indicates a continuing direct relation-
ship over  the sampling  period between plankton abundance and water clarity
for  Island,  Sturgeon, and Rush Lakes.  The anomalously  poor water clarity
of  Passenger Lake,  with  respect  to the  relatively  low phytoplankton bio-
volume observed,  is attributable  to non-living organic  matter present in
the  surface  waters, probably  originating from  the  marshlands surrounding
the  lake.

     Although chlorophyll ji data were not taken on all 1981  sampling dates,
the  general  levels of chlorophyll and all other parameters interrelate in a
logical fashion  for  one simultaneous sampling of  the lakes (excepting the
anomalous Passenger Lake).  The relationship of water clarity and biovolume
of  phytoplankton (especially  of blue-green  algae)  with chlorophyll  a_ is
illustrated  by  the  data  from the  sampling  period of  14 and  15 September
1981 (Table  3-2).   On  these dates,  a  severe  blue-green algae bloom was in
progress in  Island  Lake.   Blue-green algae also were found  to dominate the
phtoplankton populations in Sturgeon and Rush Lakes on these dates, but not
to  "bloom"  proportions.  Passenger  Lake  had  only a small  portion of its
phytoplankton population made up of blue-green algae  (Table  3-2) .
                                    3-9

-------
I
I—"
o
   3.80
   3.70
   3.60
   3.50
   3.40
   3.30
   3.20
   3.10

I  3"°°
"JJ  2.90
"  2.80
o
"  2.70
o  2.60

s  2<5°
«  2.40
B  2.30
°  2.20
f  2.10
a
•°  2.00
"M  1.90
                   o  1.70
                   I  1.60  -|
                      1.50
                      1.40
                      1.30  •
                                                                           RUSH LAKE
                             I
                             26 August
                      1  September
9 September    15 September
 30   1  Oct.   5  Oct.
Sept.
                    Figure 3-1.  Average  Secchi  disk values with time.  Data are  from  1981  field surveys  of
                                   Island,  Sturgeon, Rush,  and  Passenger Lakes, Pine County,  MN.

-------
    30
    40



    50



    60


    70

    80



   100  -
   150  —
•3  20°
>
i
o
   300  H
B
O
u



1  400

»-*


S  500



£  600
   800



  1000







  1500




  2000
            26 August
1 September
9 September  15 September
 I

 30

Sept,
                                                                                    1 Oct.
 \

5 Oct.
Figure  3-2.   Average phytoplankton biovolume values with  time.  Data are  from 1981 field  surveys

              of Island,  Sturgeon, Rush,  and Passenger Lakes,  Pine County,  MN.   Plotted  values

              are numerical averages of surface samples only and are plotted inversely to  correl-

              ate with  Secchi disk values.

-------
Table 3-2.  Average Secchi disk, surface chlorophyll _a, and surface bio-
            volume values on Island, Sturgeon, and Rush Lakes 14-15 Sep-
            tember 1981.
Parameter
Secchi disk
depth in meters
Phytoplankton bio
volume at the surface,
in urn /l water
Chlorophyll a at the
surface in ugl/1

Island
1.29
(lowest)
1851
(highest)
25
(highest)
Lake
Sturgeon
2.58
(intermediate)
163
(intermediate)
9
(intermediate)

Rush
3.63
(highest)
71
(lowest)
5
(lowest)
 All three lakes cited had blue-green algae comprising in excess of 70%
 of the biovolume estimated in the surface samples; Passenger Lake,
 not represented in the table, had less than 25% of the phytoplankton
 counted as blue-green in the surface samples.
     Based on  the  data presented in Table 3-2, it was concluded that blue-
green dominance at  the lake surface had an effect on water clarity propor-
tional  to  both total phytoplankton biovolume  and chlorophyll ji concentra-
tion of  the  surface in Island,  Sturgeon,  and  Rush Lakes.  Island Lake had
the lowest water  clarity and the most  severe  blue-green algae bloom prob-
lems.   Sturgeon and Rush Lakes had less blue-green algae at the surface and
much better water clarity (Table 3-2).  The relatively low clarity found on
                                                                    3
15  September  in Passenger  Lake (1.80  meters,  Secchi disk;  112 urn /liter
biovolume at  the  surface;  5 ug/1 chlorophyll a_ at the surface) was not due
to  blue-green algae  abundance.  The dominant  species  found  in Passenger
Lake were golden brown and green algae  (Appendix  H).

     Stratification  and  destratification of  the  lakes  are  of  interest
because  the  stability of  the  water column may affect  the  amount of phos-
phorus which  may  be mobilized  from lake  sediments  and low-lying waters to
induce blue-green  algal  bloom problems.  Thermal and chemical  lake strati-
                                   3-12

-------
fications  are  quantified, respectively,  by gradations  in temperature and
dissolved  oxygen concentration  with depth in the  lake.   A temperature and
oxygen concentration  plot can be used to locate the depth range over which
the  gradations  are greatest.   In instances where  the epilimnion (surface
layer)  of a  lake   is considerably  warmer  and  more  oxygen  rich  than the
underlying hypolimnion, the zone of most rapid gradation is termed "thermo-
cline"  for temperature and  "chemocline" for oxygen  gradation.  The depth
ranges  for these  zones  of rapid  gradation  in  the project  area lakes are
well defined in some of the profiles presented in Appendix J.

     Just as the productivity and clarity of each of the project area lakes
is  unique (Table  3-2),   the  dissolved  oxygen/temperature  profile charac-
teristics  are  highly  individual  (Appendix  J).   The  forces  which  most
strongly  shape  the  summer dissolved  oxygen  and temperature profiles are
lake shape and  volume, rate of solar energy influx, and the  degree of wind
mixing  (circulation).  Ragotzkie  (1978)  has developed an empirical formula
which expresses the  effect of wind  mixing  on  thermocline depth as a func-
tion  of  lake "wind  fetch" (the  distance over  the lake  on  which the wind
blows in an uninterrupted path).  This predictive equation states that:  in
temperate  climates, the average depth of  the summer thermocline  (in meters)
is  estimated  by four  times the  square  root of the  wind  fetch (in kilo-
meters)  for  lakes  with  a  fetch  between 1  and  20 kilometers.  Using this
formula  for  the project  area lakes,  where applicable,  the  average summer
thermocline depths  were  estimated.  These estimates were compared with the
observed  thermocline  depth ranges (Table 3-3).  Observed thermocline depth
ranges were estimated  based on the profiles in Appendix J.  The  thermocline
depth  prediction   for  Island Lake's greatest  fetch  is  generally  in good
agreement  with  the observed thermocline  ranges  and especially  good for the
14  September  1981  sampling  date when  the  gradations of  temperature and
oxygen were  strong.   The estimated  thermocline  depth  for Sturgeon Lake (25
feet maximum) does not compare well  with  the profiles.

     The  reason that  no  thermocline  has  been  observed  in  Sturgeon Lake
profiles  (Appendix  J)  may stem from the fact  that little protective topo-
graphic  relief  exists on the south  and  west shores, increasing  the potent-
ial  for  wind mixing,  and from  the strong role  of  groundwater in the flow
                                    3-13

-------
Table 3-3.  A comparison of predicted and observed depth of the thermo-
            clines in Island and Sturgeon Lakes, Pine County MN.  Pre-
            dicted depth of thermocline based on the equation of Ragotz-
            kie (1978).
          Greatest   Predicted   Least
Lake       Fetch    Thermocline  Fetch
Island    1.50 mi.
20 ft.   0.30 mi
Sturgeon  2.28 mi.
25 ft.   1.00 mi.
 Predicted     Observed
Thermocline  Thermoclines

    NA       (Aug.  1967) 20'-25'
             (Aug.  1979) 15'-20f
             (Aug.  1979) 15'-20'
             (Sept. 1981) 19'-20'

    17 ft.   No  thermocline  ob-
             served.  Complete
             mixing  is  assumed.
NA:   Calculation not  appropriate  for  fetch  less tha  1 Km  (0.62 miles).


regime  of  the  lake.   Sturgeon  Lake is  principally  a "seepage  lake" and

significant groundwater  influx  may be occurring in spring and early summer

which could prevent the formation of a strong thermocline.  The tendency of

Sturgeon Lake  to remain  homeothermal is  illustrated  by  the  profiles made

from  the 4 August  1955 sampling of  Sturgeon  Lake  (MDNR,  unpublished) when

the warmest  surface water  temperatures  ever recorded did not  result  in a
thermal stratification (Appendix J.).


     Based on the information presented above, the potential for phosphorus

cycling from the hypolimnions of the project area lakes may be evaluated as
follows:


     *    Island  Lake is classed  as "polymictic",  meaning that  it
          mixes  completely  more  than  twice  each year.   It has  an
          elongate shape  and, depending  on prevailing wind direction,
          the  depth  of   the  summer  thermocline  may  vary from  that
          associated  with  the   greatest   fetch.   It  is  likely  that
          thermal stratification and/or development of an anoxic hypo-
          limnion is  followed  by complete mixing  of  this water body,
          periodically, during the summer. This reasoning is supported
          by  the progressive phases of   Island Lake's stratification
          and destratification  observed  to be associated with weather
          changes in September 1981  (Appendix J).
                                   3-14

-------
     •    Sturgeon  Lake  appears  to  remain  thermally  unstratified
          throughout  most  of  the  summer  (Appendix  J.).   Although
          observations  are  limited to five  warm season profiles, the
          existing  data indicate  that  Sturgeon Lake is  also "poly-
          mictic" but  that  oxygen is  generally  greater  than 1.0 mg/1
          throughout the water column.
     •    Rush  and  Passenger  Lakes  are  probably  both  "dimictic",
          meaning that circulation is complete only in spring and fall
          when water  temperatures are  low.   Oxygen was  deficient in
          the hypolimnions of both lakes during  September 1981.

     For  each lake,  important phosphorus  cycling inferences may  be made
from  the  lake  mixing  classifications  (above)  and  from  chemical strati-
fication  profiles.  Phosphorus  availability to phytoplankton of the project
area  lakes  is influenced by many physiochemical  factors,  but  can be gen-
erally  represented  with  the statement  that the  solubility  and bioavail-
ability of  sedimentary phosphorus are advanced  by conditions which result
from  very low levels  of  dissolved oxygen and  retarded  under the chemical
environment provided by more oxic conditions.  A periodic re-circulation of
low lying (hypolimnetic)  waters that have become  anoxic  may cycle biolog-
ically available  phosphorus  to the productive upper water  layers and thus
can aggravate the symptoms of eutrophication.

     Based  on the analysis  made in  this EIS,  the  blue-green algae bloom
problems  observed in  Island  Lake each  summer  appear to  be aggravated by
phosphorus  being  periodically cycled to  the  epilimnion  from the sediments
and hypolimnetic waters.

     Sturgeon Lake's hypolimnion appears  to be a phosphorus "sink" through-
out most  of the summer.  Only on one occasion out  of five warm season field
surveys was low dissolved oxygen found in  Sturgeon Lake (4 August 1955) and
on  that   sampling  date very low oxygen was found  only  below  35  feet of
depth.   It  can  be concluded  that  the   waters  of  Sturgeon  Lake probably
remain generally  well  oxygenated throughout most  summers  if  it is assumed
that, as  observed,  water  circulation usually  extends  to  the 35-foot depth
level.

     Although the water quality data base  for  Rush  and Passenger Lakes is
limited,  the existing information  suggests  that their  hypolimnions  are
                                    3-15

-------
generally  summer  phosphorus  sinks  which preclude  phosphorus  cycling  to
surface (epilimnetic) waters.

Supplemental Total Phosphorus Sampling and Sedimentary Studies

     An additional  sampling visit  was  made  to  Island and  Sturgeon Lakes
during  the  period of  3-5 February  1982  to  determine  the  levels of total
phosphorus  (P )  in  the water column and to measure the chemical character-
istics  of  surficial  lake-bed  sediments.   The  objective of  gathering the
supplemental data  was to  improve  the analysis  of needs  documentation  by
determining if there were high levels of phosphorus enrichment attributable
to on-site system failures.

     Island and Sturgeon Lakes and Little Island Lake were studied.  Little
Island Lake has a large watershed area relative to its surface area and the
surface water  outflow  from it  is via  road  bed  culvert  which discharges
directly  to Island Lake.   There is  only  one dwelling unit  in the Little
Island Lake watershed  and no shoreline development (Figure 3-3).  No blue-
green  algal bloom  problems have  been documented in Little  Island Lake.

     It was thought  that if, as presented by the MLWSD (Section 2.3.1.2.),
a disproportionately large number of septic system surface failures existed
on  the shoreline  lots  of  Island  Lake,  a  conservative parameter  such  as
phosphorus  may  reflect  this  in the  water  column  or in  near-shore  lake
sediments.  Little Island Lake was studied for comparative purposes because
it should be  influenced  only by non-wastewater  phosphorus  inputs from its
watershed.  The  sampling  stations visited  for  water column  and sediment
grab sampling  in these  supplemental studies are  presented  in Figure 3-3.
The 15- and 25-foot depth contours are included in Figure 3-3 to illustrate
that the  majority  of  the surficial  sediment  grab  samples  taken were above
or slightly below the 15-foot depth contour.

     Over the long  term, the processes of sediment delivery, settling, and
resuspension  are  expected  to   "focus"  light organic  materials  and  clay
particles into  the deeper  (profundal)  zones of these  lakes,  resulting  in
                                   3-16

-------
                                                   Surficial sediment
                                                   grab sample
                                                 * Intact 60 centimeter
                                                   sediment core
Figure 3-3.  Stations established  for  sampling  of  water column total
             phosphorus, surficial  sediment  characteristics,  and intact
             sediment cores.  All  samples  taken in February and March
             of 1982.
                              3-17

-------
continued sediment  deposition  in areas of more  than 25-foot depth.  These
processes scour unvegetated  littoral sediments so that surficially deposi-
ted silt within  the 10- to 20-foot  depth contours would be expected to be
most  strongly  reflective of any ongoing pollution  from  nearby land uses.
Little Island Lake is largely a littoral environment where sediment "focus-
ing"  into the  profundal zone is not  as  significant.  Sturgeon Lake has an
extensive profundal  zone and Island Lake is intermediate in the proportion
of the bottom  area  defined as profundal.   Sediment  focusing processes are
more  significant in Island and Sturgeon Lakes.

      Results of  the  analysis  of  sediment  grab  samples are  presented in
Table  3-5.   A  special  phosphorus   form,  non-apatitic or  inorganic phos-
phorus, which  is  "biologically available" was tested  in  the sediment  sam-
ples  by the method of Williams and others (1976).  This phosphorus  form was
tested because it best reflects the  presence of phosphorus which originates
from  human  waste  and   fertilizer   sources.   The non-apatitic phosphorus
testing also  compliments the  methodology utilized  in the  intact  sediment
core  analyses  as  described in  Section 2.1.3.4.  (a study  of  the trophic
history of Island and Sturgeon Lakes).

      The water  column  samples,  also taken on 3 and 5 February 1982,  were
tested  for  P   concentrations  only.   The P   water  samples were  taken at
stations 2 and  9  in Island Lake, stations 12 and  13 in Little  Island Lake,
and stations 14 and 18  in Sturgeon  Lake  (Figure 3-3).  Only a large scale
failure rate of  on-site wastewater  treatment systems around Island Lake or
Sturgeon Lake  would be  reflected  in  these  water  column P  concentrations
because dispersion  rates o£ nearshore waters would probably  be low under
ice cover conditions.  At the time of  sampling, more than 56 inches of  snow
cover was reported  to be on the ground,  ice cover on the lakes exceeded 24
inches, and water clarity in all three lakes appeared to be high.   Complete
oxygen depletion was not observed in the  lakes (Table 3-5).  In both Island
and Sturgeon Lakes, water was sampled  both below the ice and just above the
bottom.  The resultant  water column P  values are presented in Table  3-4.
The laboratory detection limit for the reported P  values is 0.01 rag/liter.
                                   3-18

-------
Table 3-4.  Total phosphorus concentrations in the waters of Island, Lit-
            tle Island, and Sturgeon Lakes, 3-5 February 1982  (USEPA
            Method 365.3).
Lake
Island
Island
Island
Island
Little Island
Little Island
Sturgeon
Sturgeon
Sturgeon
Sturgeon
Station
Number
09;
09;
02;
02;
12;
13;
14;
14;
18;
18;
surface
bottom
surface
bottom
surface
bottom
surface
bottom
surface
bottom
Pt (mg/ liter)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.01
.07
.05a
.03a
.02
.03
.03
.01
.03
.01
Water Column Average
P^ (mg/ liter)
0
0
0
0
0
.04
.04
.03
.02
.02
*J
 Value is an average of two replicates.
Conclusions Based on the Supplemental Studies

     No significant differences appear  to exist  in  the average water column
P   values  between the  three  lakes.  Little Island Lake,  which  has no on-
site  systems  located  on  its shoreline,  had  an average  P  concentration
similar to  Island Lake (Table 3-4).  Plankton  growth under the  ice is not
likely  to  have made  a  large  contribution to the reported  P  concentrations
owing  to  the  reduced  light  penetration  caused by  the  heavy  snow and ice
cover.  The positive difference in  average water column  [P ] between Island
Lake and Sturgeon Lake  (0.02  mg/1)  probably can  be  attributed to  additional
abiotic phosphorus sources of phosphorus and  to a  slightly higher produc-
tivity  in  Island Lake.  Nonetheless,   this  differential  in the  amount of
phosphorus   is small considering that  Island  Lake  has a  smaller volume of
water  and  far more  permanent residences  around   its shoreline  than does
Sturgeon Lake  (Section  2.2.1.3).
                                    3-19

-------
     The number  of  lake sediment samples tested are insufficient for esti-
mation  of  lake-wide  sediment  characteristic  averages,  primarily  because
there  are  two few  profundal zone  samples.  The  limited observations made

based on the sediment sampling data are:


     •    Wide textural variations were  found in  the samples within
          each  lake,  but  the  shallow samples, taken where sediment
          scouring  was  probably greatest,  were classified into cate-
          gories  similar  to  soil  textural  classifications   on  the
          adjacent  shoreline   (Section  2.2.1.1.).    Sample  #7  from
          Island Lake was  classified  as sandy  loam  -  near clay loam,
          reflecting the adjacent  natural  sandy soils isolated on the
          upland area of  the northwest shore of Island Lake (Appendix
          B).

     •    The  concentration  of non-apatitic  phosphorus  measured  in
          Little  Island Lake  sediment, station  #13  (11  feet deep),
          exceeded  that of  all  other stations.   This  reflects  the
          potential significance of non-wastewater nutrient sources to
          Little Island Lake and to Island Lake.

     •    The second highest concentration of non-apatitic phosphorus
          was  found  in  Sturgeon  Lake,  station  #15  (10  feet deep)
          located offshore  from a  steep,  terraced slope previously in
          use as a  pasture for dairy cattle.


3.1.3.3.  Nutrient  Inputs and Lake Trophic Status


     The major  water quality  concern  for  the four service  area  lakes is

eutrophication.  The luxuriant plant growth associated with advanced eutro-
phication is generally caused by an excessive input of nutrients to a lake.

The  importance  of  phosphorus  as   the  primary nutrient  stimulating plant

growth  in  lakes  is  widely accepted in  the  scientific  community (Smith and

Shapiro  1981a,  Vollenweider  1979,  and Dillon  and Rigler  1975).   By con-
trolling phosphorus inputs,  excessive algal growth can be halted or slowed

if the morphometry  and  flushing rate of a lake  are favorable.   Although the

degree  to  which algal  growth will  respond to phosphorus  inputs  has been

controversial  (Lorenzen 1981,  Rast and Lee  1981,  Smith and Shapiro 1981b),

work published by Vollenweider  (1979),  Schindler (1977), and others suggest

that  the appropriate phosphorus load  reductions will  definitely result in

less  eutrophic  conditions  in  certain types  of  lakes.   The  pathways  and

magnitudes  of phosphorus  inputs  into  the  project area  lakes  and  the po-
                                    3-20

-------
        Table  3-5.   Analyses of surficlal  lake  sediment  grab samples.  All  sampling  done  3  through 5  February 1982.
OJ
 I
N3
Sample
No.
I.
2.
4.
5.
7.
V
9.
11.
1.2.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
mg/l
Dissolved
Oxygen
at Bottom
5.8 mg/1
6.0
6.8
4.8
4.0
10.2
1.8
5.6
2.8
0.9
12.8
-
1.6
3.0
9.0
5.6

Depth
24 ft
24 ft
20 ft
16 ft
10 ft
6 ft
28 ft
7 ft
3 ft
11 ft
14 ft
10 ft
5 ft
15 ft
14 ft
28 ft

Lake
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Little Island
Little Island
Sturgeon
Sturgeon
Sturgeon
Sturgeon
Sturgeon
Sturgeon

pH
5.7
6.0
5.8
5.7
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
6.0
6.1
5.9
Mg. NAI-P^kg
(dry wt)
44.1
54.9
18.8
13.6
18.2
45.4
14.8
21.1
76.4
230.0
55.1
103.0
32.5
22.3
25.5
65.4
Volatile Solld.8
(Z Organlcs)
19.0
19.2
22.2
20.0
34.7
35.7
23.9
11.8
38.1
32.8
17.7
25.4
26.0
10. 0
11. 1
24.9
Z Clay
24.0
38.8
15.0
22.1
8.0
28.9
ND
5.8
ND
ND
14.5
40.5
18.0
7.4
5.8
23.9
Z Silt
51.0
60.8
45.0
31.0
43.9
32.3
ND
55.0
ND
ND
68.7
48.1
35.5
20.4
2.4
76.1
Z Sand
25.0
I
40.0
46.9
48.1
38.8
ND
39.2
ND
ND
16.8
11.4
46.5
72.7
91.8
I
Textural -
Classification
Silt loam-near clay loam
Sllty clay loam
Loam
Loam
Sandy loam-near loam
Clay loam-near loam

Silt loam


Silt loam
Sllty clay
Loam
Sandy loam
Sand
Silt loam
        1 Non-apatite phosphorus on a dry weight basis.


        2 Volatile solids calculated by  subtracting  percent ash  (dry weight  basis) from 100; the result Is Intended to portray  the
          organic fraction.


        3 Classifications based on textural triangle (USDA 1962)


          Station just offshore from domestic goose  farm.


          Station just offshore from dairy farm/ manure pile.


        ND - No data due to Insufficient sample size for distribution testing.

-------
tential for successful  management of the trophic status of these lakes are
discussed in the following two sections.

Estimation of Phosphorus Loads

     One  of  the water quality benefits  typically  associated  with improved
wastewater treatment  systems  is  the elimination of a source of phosphorus.
In assessing the need for new wastewater management systems, USEPA requires
that  the  projected improvements  in lake water quality  which  would  be at-
tributable to  the  proposed systems be documented explicitly.  It is there-
fore  important  to  look  at all sources  of  phosphorus  that may be affecting
the service area  lakes  and to estimate  the significance of the phosphorus
resulting from  existing on-site  treatment  systems in relation to the other
phosphorus sources.   It is possible that the removal of a single phosphorus
source  (e.g.,  septic  tank effluent) would  not appreciably change the water
quality  of  these  lakes  and  that the control of multiple sources would be
needed  to reduce  eutrophy.  Other sources  which may  be controlled include
lawn  fertilizers,  construction  erosion,  cropland erosion,  and livestock
waste.  Some phosphorus sources  such as dustfall,  forest land runoff, and
oldfield  runoff are unmanageable.

      Phosphorus  may   enter  a  lake  by  a  number  of  quantifiable pathways
including municipal treatment plant effluent, atmospheric fallout, overland
runoff,  groundwater,  resuspension from  the lake  sediments,  or septic tank
leachate.  The   most  precise  method  for estimating such  phosphorus  inputs
would  be  to  directly  measure the contributions of each source in a waster-
shed.  A  comprehensive data base of direct  measurements would be  too costly
for most  lakes and was not developed for  the service area lakes.  Instead,
a  phosphorus  loading was  calculated using a  compendium of published lit-
erature values  for annual contributions from nonpoint  runoff sources, from
precipitation  (USEPA  1980),  and  from a  "worst  case"  estimate of the phos-
phorus  load from on-site waste system leachate.

      Numerous methods have been  reported by researchers  (Dillon and Rigler
1975,  Dillon  and  Kirchner  1975,   Omernik  1977,   and  USEPA  1980)  for es-
timating  the  theoretical  nutrient  export  rates  from watersheds.  For the
                                    3-22

-------
project  area lakes,  export  coefficients  from  a  recently  published lit-
erature  review  (USEPA 1980)  were used to calculate  annual phosphorus in-
puts.  Representative phosphorus export coefficients were selected from the
referenced study  based  on the regional location,  land  use,  soil type, and
rainfall.  The phosphorus export coefficients selected for the service area.
and  the  land use  acreages  within the watersheds  of  the  four project area
lakes  are  listed  in  Table  3-6.  The  land use  classifications were deter-
mined  by inspecting aerial photographs and  ISPA landsat  photographs, from
personal communications with a soil scientist who  surveyed the area, and by
field  checks by  project  personnel.   The number of hectares associated with
each  land  use  was measured  by  planimeter  after  the  land  uses  had been
plotted on a base map.

     The phosphorus loading associated with on-site waste treatment systems
was  calculated  with  an  occupancy  rate  of  2.8  persons per  dwelling (US
Census  Bureau  1980),  the  number of  seasonal or permanent residences, and
the  assumption that the  per capita phosphorus  contribution  was 0.8 kg/yr,
with  the  soil  absorption  system retaining  25% of  the  phosphorus  (USEPA
1980).   Additionally, it  was  assumed that permanent residents have on-site
systems  that fail  continuously and  that  seasonal residents  have systems
that  fail  throughout  the  summer.  Based  on  the  information  presented in
Section  2.2.3.,  this  assumption results in a serious over-estimate of the
pollutional significance of on-site systems.  The  resultant phosphorus load
estimate  attributed  to  on-site  systems  is  also  very  high  because soil
absorption systems  usually  attenuate much more  than  25%  of the phosphorus
in septic  tank effluent (Section 2.2.2.4).  The estimated annual phosphorus
load  of each  source  was determined  for  nine  separate  source categories
within  the watershed of  each lake.   The  individual  source load estimates
were  then  aggregated  into  three  categories  according  to  manageability
potential  for phosphorus control  (Table 3-7).

     Based on  the  estimated  nutrient loading  regime (Table  3-7),  it was
concluded  that the annual phosphorus load to Island  and Sturgeon Lakes is
dominated by manageable sources of phosphorus which include combined inputs
from  agriculture, lawns,  livestock, and on-site  systems.   These two  lakes
both  have relatively small  direct  drainage areas,  but  the agricultural
                                    3-23

-------
Table 3-6.  Phosphorus export coefficients (USEPA 1980) and  land use in
            hectares within the watersheds of the project area lakes.

                     Land Runoff
                  Phosphorus Export
                     Coefficients        Land Use Within Watershed(ha)
Land Use
Forest
We t lands
Indirect Drain-
age
Cultivated Land
Pasture
Lawns
TOTAL
(kg/ha/yr)
0.28
0.157
0.08
14.0
3.8,a 0.64b
2.7
Island
32
24
1,189
16
156
51
1,468
Sturgeon
214
34
88
77
106
36
555
Rush
L75
40
0
0
0
0
222
Passenger
84
5
0
0
0
5
94
Additional phosphorus coefficients:

Atmosphere        0.31  kg/ha/yr (applied to lake surface area only)

Livestock         0.031 kg/day/1,000 Ibs

Poultry           0.28  kg/day/100 Ibs

Septic tanks      0.8   kg/cap/yr
a
 Export coefficient used for Island Lake.  Predominantly clay soils re-
 sults in high overland runoff.
b
 Export coefficient used for Sturgeon Lake.  Sandy soils results  in re-
 latively low overland runoff.
                                   3-24

-------
Table 3-7.  Estimated phosphorus loading to the project  area  lakes,
            in kilograms per year.  Pie diagrams below represent the per-
            cent contribution from the three aggregate categories:  uncon-
            trollable sources, on-site systems, and other manageable
            sources
                                              Estimated
                                      Phosphorus Loading (kg/yr)
Phosphorus
  Source

Atmosphere
Wetlands & forests
Indirect tributary drainage
       Island
        Lake

          65
          13
          95
Sturgeon
  Lake

   213
    65
     6
Rush
Lake

  10
  55
   0
Passenger
  Lake_

     8
    25
     0
On-site waste treatment
 systems

Agricultural runoff
Lawn runoff
Livestock or poultry
Areal phosphorus loading rate
 in grams per square meter of
 lake surface per year
         141

         817
         138
          46
  Total annual phosphorus load    1315
        0.62
   179

  1146
    97
   228

  1934
  0.28
  39

  27
   0
   0

 131
0.21
    14

     0
    14
     0

    61
  0.09
Figure 3-4.   Percentage contribution to the phosphorus load by aggregate
              category:  (A) uncontrollable sources,  (B) on-site systems, and
              (C) other  manageable sources.
         Island Lake
Sturgeon  Lake
                                              Rush Lake
                    Passenger Lake
                              3-25

-------
lands  (pasture,  grass, and  crops)  and homes with  lawns  within the direct
drainage areas are  located either on high  ground  just away from the. lakes
or immediately adjacent  to them on clayey  soils with generally steep slop-
es.  As a  result,  manageable phosphorus sources contribute at least 76% of
the  phosphorus  load to  both Island  Lake  and  Sturgeon  Lake (Figure 3-4).
The worst-case estimated on-site system phosphorus load comprises about 11%
and  9% respectively of  the  total annual load  to  Island  Lake  and Sturgeon
Lakes  (Figure 3-4).

     Although Sturgeon Lake  was estimated  to have  a greater mass of phos-
phorus entering  it  than  Island Lake, it has a  lower areal phosphorus load-
                         2
ing rate (grams per meter  per year) than Island Lake because of its great-
er surface  area.  Lake  size and other  parameters  of comparative interest
for  the service  area lakes are presented in Table 3-8.  Rush and Passenger
Lakes  receive  smaller areal  phosphorus loads  than  do Island  or  Sturgeon
Lakes  (Table  3-4).   Rush  and Passenger Lakes  both  have  relatively small
areal  loading rates  because  their watersheds are dominated by wetlands and
forest cover  with little  agricultural or  residential  land use.   Although
with  'worst-case1  estimates  the phosphorus  loads  to Rush and  Passenger
Lakes  from  on-site  systems were estimated  to contribute  a high percentage
of the total phosphorus  input  compared to Island  or  Sturgeon Lakes,  the
total  estimated phosphorus mass presently entering Rush and Passenger Lakes
is actually very small.

Modeling of Trophic Status

     A classification  of  the trophic status of the  four project area lakes
was made based on the estimated total  annual phosphorus  loading  and on an
empirical model  developed by  Dillon (1975).   This  model predicts in-lake
concentrations of phosphorus and classifies the trophic status of a lake by
relating mean depth  to a mathematical equation that  includes the estimated
total  annual  phosphorus  loading, a phosphorus retention  coefficient,  and
the estimated hydraulic flushing rate.  The calculated trophic condition or
"classification" of  the  four  lakes based  on  the Dillon  model,  using  the
                                   3-26

-------
Table 3-8.   Lake parameters of comparative interest.
                                   Lakes in the  Service Area
  Parameter                  Island      Sturgeon      Rush      Passenger
Lake surface area (ha)       211.0        686.0        35.6        30.4
Mean depth (meters)             3.4          5.9         1.7         2.2
              3     4
Lake volume (m  x 10 )       717.0       4,066.0       60.5        66.9
Q_ Hydraulic budget
   3        5 a
 (m /yr x 10 )                26.0          8.4         4.0         2.0
Hydraulic detention time
      b
(yrs)
Length of shoreline
(km)
3.1
10.1
49.0
12.9
1.5
2.4
3.3
2.3
a
 Calculation based on rainfall and runoff estimates  (USEPA 1980).
b
 Calculation of time required to displace, all water  in a lake based
 on the hydraulic budget and on lake volume.
estimated annual  phosphorus  loads (Table 3-7), is presented in Figure 3-5.
The initial  calculation classified both Island Lake  and Sturgeon Lakes as
eutrophic.   Rush  Lake  was  classified as being  on the  borderline between
eutrophic  and  mesotrophic,   and  Passenger  Lake  was  classified  as  being
mesotrophic.   When  the model  calculations  were  redone  without the "worst
case" phosphorus input assumed to be associated with on-site systems in the
first calculation,  the trophic status classifications of  Island and Stur-
geon Lakes did not change significantly.  However, Rush  Lake changed toward
improved trophic status, moving into the mesotrophic class.  Passenger Lake
moved into the oligotrophic class (Figure 3-5).

     When  trophic status  data for  the  lakes (Section 3.1.3.2.)  and  the
estimated annual  phosphorus  loads (Table 3-7) were applied to an arbitrary
scale (after Uttormark and Wall 1979) that indicates the potential need for
                                   3-27

-------
phosphorus  management  (Figure 3-6) ,  Island and  Sturgeon Lakes appeared to
need other  extensive  phosphorus load reductions in addition to the control
of on-site  waste  treatment systems in order to curtail  eutrophication.  On
the same  scale,  Rush  and Passenger Lakes  did  not  appear to need extensive
phosphorus  management  measures  to protect water quality.  It must be noted
that  the  existing  water  quality  of  Sturgeon,  Rush, and  Passenger Lakes
appears to  be  satisfactory based on water  quality data collected for this
project  (Section 2.2.2.4.).   Conversely,  Island  Lake  was  shown  to have
serious water  quality  problems  associated with nutrient enrichment.  Blue-
green algae blooms in Island Lake, were documented as being associated with
its existing  eutrophic  condition  and  reflected the  availability of luxu-
riant amounts  of  phosphorus.   This documentation  is discussed in detail in
Section 3.1.3.2.

Conclusions Based on Phosphorus Loading Estimates  and on Trophic Status
Modeling

     On-site waste  treatment  systems  must be considered a relatively minor
source  of  phosphorus  to both  Island  Lake and  Sturgeon Lake.   The pros-
pective benefits of curtailing on-site system phosphorus loads appear small
in light  of this.   Additionally, a paradoxical situation could result from
curtailing  just on-site  system  phosphorus  loads  to Island  and Sturgeon
Lakes because  on-site  waste management systems are estimated to contribute
a  relatively  minor  fraction of  the  combined  load  from  all  manageable
sources (Figure 3-4).   Important sources of phosphorus in the direct drain-
ages of Island and  Sturgeon Lakes also include lawn runoff and generalized
erosion from  cleared   land  (Table 3-7).   The paradox would  exist should a
waste  management alternative  such  as  sewer  service  be implemented  and
promote enough new residential growth around  the lakes  to substantially
increase  the   runoff  of  nutrient  from  the land.   The resultant  load of
phosphorus  from this   runoff  could conceivably  equal  or exceed  the phos-
phorus  load originating  from  failing  septic  systems   prior  to  the con-
struction of sewers.
                                   3-28

-------
                                  100
                         MEAN DEPTH (METERS)
100.0
                 L=AREAL PHOSPHORUS INPUT (g/m^yr)
                 R=PHOSPHORUS RETENTION COEFFICIENT
                 P* HYDRAULIC FLUSHING RATE (yf1)
                 •  POSITION WITH WORST CASE ON-SITE SYSTEM LOAD
                 O  NO ON-SITE SYSTEM LOAD
Figure 3-5.  Graphical  representation of the  modeling of  trophic status,
           with and without the  "worst case" phosphorus load assumed  for
           on-site waste management systems.  Derived from Dillon (1975).
                              3-29

-------
  Eutrophic 100
X
til
Q
Z


lil
co

o
X
Q.
O
cc
eo
z
O
CO
o
  Ollgotrophic
SO .
60 .
40 .

20 .
c
D indicates management
of phosphorus is desire-
able and that long term
benefits may be acheived
without extensive phos-
phorus control.

F
PASSENGER^
A indicates no present
danger of eutrophication





USH
•




1

ST




"C" indicates that C
management is needed
because serious degra-
dation is imminent.
ISLAND
•
JRGEON
"D" indicates that Q
there may be problems
but the management
needs are uncertain.
Renovation desireable
but lasting improve-
ment may require
extensive nutrient
control .
                      o
                      d
                           CM
                           o
o
d
CO
o
          CO
          o
CM TJ- <£>
»•• ^ T~

d d d
o
CM
                        01

                        d
CO
CM
CM
o
CO
CO
                Low

                phosphorus loading
 AREAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING
                                       High

                                       phosphorus loading
                                    TOTAL  PHOSPHORUS

                                    (Biochemically Active)

                                          (g/m2-yr)
  Figure  3-6.  Graphical representation of  the  need to control phosphorus  sources
               affecting lakes.  Based on an  arbitrary scale of phosphorus loading

               and  on a trophic status index, as  presented in Uttormark  and
               Wall (1979).
                                  3-30

-------
     The modeling  of  trophic status provided no indication that the abate-
ment of  an assumed  "worst case" on-site system phosphorus  load would im-
prove  the  trophic  status of  Island Lake.   The  modeling results  and the
apparent natural  fertility  of  Island  Lake  indicate  that success  in re-
versing Island  Lake's  eutrophication by abating a single phosphorus source
is unlikely.

     The model  calculations  presented in this  EIS are not capable of pro-
viding insight into whether specific waste management  alternatives can slow
the  eutrophication of  Sturgeon Lake.  The  modeling  did indicate initially
that abatement  of "worst  case" on-site system loads  would  moderately im-
prove the trophic status of Rush and Passenger  Lakes (Figure 3-5) .  Because
the initially assumed on-site system load was "worst case" and because that
assumption  is  a  serious  over  estimate  (Section 2.2.2.4.),  the classifi-
cation of  Rush and  Passenger Lakes made without any  on-site  system phos-
phorus load  (Figure  3-5)  is probably a more realistic depiction of present
quality.   Considering  the more realistic estimate of  on-site  system phos-
phorus  loads,  the abatement  of on-site  system loads  with any  type of im-
proved wastewater  management around  Rush  and  Passenger  Lakes  would  be of
minimal benefit.

3.1.3.4.  Trophic History  of Island Lake and Sturgeon  Lake

Background

     Island Lake  and  Sturgeon  Lake are currently  surrounded  by shoreline
residential development.   The lakeshore community represented by this level
of development  began  in the decade of the 1950?s, experienced its greatest
rate of  growth in  the 1970's,  and now is  comprised  of  approximately 350
households (Section 3.2.1.).  A primary concern of many of the residents of
this community  has been  the notion that the  blue-green  algae  blooms cur-
rently experienced in  Island  Lake  are a recent problem  linked  to the ex-
istence of a  large number of failing on-site wastewater treatment systems.
However, one  long-time  resident  of the area has reported  that the blue-
green algal blooms in Island Lake represent a problem  of much longer stand-
ing, predating  any significant amount of lakeshore development, (Letter of
Mr. Walter Johnson to Mr.  Gregory Evenson, Appendix K.).
                                    3-31

-------
     Information contained  in the  MLWSD Facility  Plan  (Section 2.2.1.2.)
indicates that  a large  proportion  of  the  lakeshore community's permanent
population  is  concentrated   around  Island  Lake  and  that  the  residences
around  Island  Lake  experience a  greater rate of surface  failure  with on-
site systems  than do  the Sturgeon Lake  residences.   In  the context of the
popular conception which holds that failing septic systems are the cause of
Island Lake's problems, a logical concern for the residents of the Sturgeon
Lake area is that extensive conversion of dwellings to permanent use status
will potentially  result  in problems comparable to  those being experienced
with Island Lake.

     Empirical observations which  associate symptoms of advanced eutrophi-
cation  only  with increasing  population levels in  the  lakeshore community
may  ignore  other important historic events  in a  lake's watershed.   USEPA
determined that a scientific  investigation of the course of eutrophication
in  Island  and Sturgeon  Lakes was  needed  to provide  a  more comprehensive
understanding of  events that  have  influenced the  their quality.   The ob-
jective  of  the investigation  was  to determine the  historic trends  of the
eutrophication of these lakes.

The Investigation of Trophic History

     To complete the investigation of trophic history, special supplemental
data were gathered  in  the late winter and early spring of 1982.  A chrono-
logy of population  growth  and historical  events was  first constructed to
document  the course  of events  which could  have  an impact  on phosphorus
loads  to  the lakes  (Section 3.2.2.2.); and, a supporting paleolimnological
investigation was conducted by examining the characteristics of lake sedi-
ment with depth.  A complete  report on the paleolimnological investigation
is  presented  in  Appendix L.   A summary discussion of the methods and find-
ings of this investigation is presented below.

     Intact 60-centimeter long sediment cores were taken from the profundal
sediments of Island, Little Island, and Sturgeon Lakes (Figure 3-3).
                                   3-32

-------
Little  Island  Lake,  a  shallow water  body  contiguous to  Island Lake, was

studied for comparative  purposes  due to its lack of lakeshore development.

Each sediment  core was  sectioned  at even intervals  as it was removed from

the coring device.  The sections were subsequently analyzed for the list of

parameters discussed below.


     In each core section:

     •    Chlorophyll break-down  products were  analyzed  on a concen-
          tration basis for phytoplankton productivity trend analysis.

     •    Calcium carbonate  was analyzed on a  concentration basis to
          allow calculation  of the percent by  weight  of  the sediment
          made up of  CaCO .   This parameter can,  in particular situ-
          ations,  be  a  reflection  of  overall plant  productivity,
          including both phytoplankton and aquatic macrophytes.

     •    The dry weight composition of the sediments in terms of both
          organic and  clastic  matter  was  analyzed  to  allow presen-
          tation  of  these  parameters  on  a percentile  basis.   These
          data allow analysis of changes in overall watershed sediment
          transport phenomena and lake productivity.

     •    The  activity  of  Cesium  (Cs)  137  isotope was  measured to
          allow  a calculation of  annual  sedimentation  rates.   The
          presence of Cs  137 is associated with the atmospheric test-
          ing  of  atomic weapons  and provides  a "dateline" for sedi-
          mentation studies.

     *    Three  phosphorus  forms  were  measured  on  a  concentration
          basis  to   make   a  trend  analyses of  lake  fertility.   The
          changes  in  ratio  of  organic  phosphorus  to  non-apatitic
          phosphorus were  to  be   examined  to determine  where strong
          changes in  the  phosphorus  loading  regime  to  the lakes had
          taken place (if any) .


     Plots  were  made  of these  parameters  to  characterize sediment strati-
graphy  of  the  lakes.   (The  core segments were "dated" according  to the

sedimentation  rate  estimates.)   Example  plots  of  some  of  the parameters

with  depth/ date  information  for  Island  Lake, Little  Island  Lake,  and

Sturgeon Lake are presented in Figures 3-7 through 3-9.


     The  important conclusions made as a result of  the paleolimnologic in-

vestigation are that:


     •    Island Lake has been approximately twice as productive as
                                   3-33

-------
              Figure 3-7.   Dated stratigraphic  profiles  of  Island Lake  sediments.
                                                               Island Lake
U)


OJ
             CaCO- (percent)



             024
 Organic Matter (percent)



0     10     20     30     40
 Chlorophyll a (SPDU/g org. matt.)



20    40    80    80    100   120
,_l	i	i	i	I	i
Total Phosphorus (mg/g dry wt.)
   Depth

    (cm)
          35-
           SO-
           65
           60-1
                                                                                                                                    1.1     1-3    1.5   1,7
                                                                                                                                                     1848
                                                                                                                60-1

-------
        Figure  3-8.   Dated  stratigraphic profiles  of  Little Island Lake  sediments.
                                                            Little Island Lake
            CaCO-j (percent)
          Organic Matter (percent)


          0      10    20    30    40
          10
         15
UJ

U)        20'
Ui
         25-
   Depth  x.
   (cm)
         35-
         40-
         45-
         50-
         55-
•1977

 1965    s.



-1947   «•


•1930   u



-1913   zo



•1896   »


-1878   so


        35-



        40-



        45-



        50-


        55



        60-1
Chlorophyll a (SPDU/g org. matt.)
                                                                       20    40    60    80    100    120
Total Phosphorus (mg/g dry wt.)
                                                                                                                 0.5     0.7     0.8     1.1     1,3    1.5     1.7
                                                                                                               35
                                                                                                                40-
                                                                                                                45-
                                                                                                                50-
                                                                                                                55-
                                                                                                                60-1

-------
            Figure 3-9.   Dated stratigraphic  profiles of  Sturgeon Lake sediments.
                                                            Sturgeon Lake
             CaCO-j (percent)


            024
U>
 I
OJ
          10-
          1B-
20-
    Depth  2S-

    (cm)

          30-
          35-
          4O-
          45-
          50-
          55-
          eo-i
                         Organic Matter (percent)


                         0     10    20    30    40
 1978


•1970


-1960  10-



-1943  "'

-1933  20-



•1921  z


•1909  30-
                           1894
                                35-
                                40-
                 1872 45-
                                 50-
                          •1848
                                           Chlorophyll a (SPDU/g org. matt.)


                                          0     40    to    to    100   120
 1978


 1970   *•


•1960  10.



•1943  *


 1933  20-


-1921  25-


-1909  30-
                                                  -1894
                                                                  35-
                                                                  40-
                                 •1872  45-
                                                                  50-
                                                  -1848
                                                                   eo-i
                                                 Total Phosphorus (mg/g dry wt.)


                                                      0..7    0*    1.1    1.3    1-5    1.7
                                                                                                     1978
                                                                                    	1970  »-


                                                                                    	1960  10-
1943

1933 20-



1921 2*-


1909 30-
                                                                           1894
                                                                                                          35-
                                                                                                          40-
                                         -1872 45-
                                                                                                          so-
                                                                           1848 -
                                                                                                          so-1
                                                                                                                                             1872
                                                                                 1848

-------
          Sturgeon Lake  for  as far back in  the  sedimentary record as
          the depth of cores allowed estimation.

     •    Significant  change  in  the  diatom  community  indicating  a
          change in  status  from  mesotrophic to  eutrophic  for Island
          Lake was found to be occurring following approximately 1930,
          12 years after  the Moose Lake fire and coincident  with the
          onset  of  the  development  of  a  dairy-based  agricultural
          economy.   This  trend  in the diatom community did not appear
          to  further  accelerate coincident  with  the  development  of a
          lakeshore residential community after 1950.

     •    The phosphorus levels in the sediments  of Little Island Lake
          were  found  to be  significantly  higher  than  in Island Lake
          throughout  the  dated sedimentary  record,  demonstrating the
          overall significance of non-wastewater  sources of phosphorus
          in the absence of any lakeshore development.

     •    Sturgeon Lake was found to have remained almost unchanged in
          terms  of  phytoplankton productivity  until  1975.  Increases
          found  in  the  concentration of  phosphorus  deposited after
          1945 did not result in concommitant increases in phytoplank-
          ton  productivity.   The origins of the  increased amounts of
          phosphous  found  near  the   sediment  surface could   include
          wastewater sources.   However,  agriculture  and increased use
          of  lawn  fertilizer  may  also  be  significant  phosphorus
          sources to  Sturgeon  Lake.   It is emphasized that regardless
          of  increased  phosphous in  recently  deposited sediments, no
          significant  acceleration in the  rate  of  eutrophication of
          Sturgeon Lake was  indicated by the other parameters.


3.1.4.  Aquatic Biota


     The Phase  I  Environmental Report (USEPA 1981) contained a broad over-

view description of  the aquatic biota of  the  planning area's  lakes.  This

section focuses  on  the aquatic biota  of the project  area lakes only, with

an emphasis  on  data  useful  in  evaluating  the  need for improved wastewater

treatment. Topics covered include phytoplankton  ecology in late summer and

early  fall,  a special  report  on the  presence  of toxicity producing blue-

green  algal  species,  a  description  of  the location  of  beds of aquatic

macrophytes  and a  summary  oE  some  MDNR  fish  management  survey  data for

Island and Sturgeon Lakes.
                                   3-37

-------
3.1.4.1.  Phytoplankton  Ecology  and  the  Presence  of  Toxicity  Producing
          Blue-Green Algae

     Concerns  have  been  expressed  in public  meetings  held  in  the Moose
Lake,  Minnesota  about  possible  health  risks associated  with  blooms  of
blue-green algae  in the  area's lakes  (Section 1.3.).   These concerns re-
flect  a  widespread  perception  that  blue-green algae  blooms  pose a health
hazard to swimmers  and  pets and that pollution from lakeshore septic tanks
was  a  major  factor in  the  development of these  blooms.   Because of these
concerns, a Report on Algae was prepared by USEPA to investiage the  factors
leading  to  the development  of  blue-green algae  blooms,  to  examine docu-
mented episodes of algal toxicity, and to assess  the potential health risks
associated with  blue-green algae  blooms  in the  lakes  within the proposed
service  area.   The  Report also describes  the  information on phytoplankton
populations  and  water  quality obtained  from  sampling  Rush,   Passenger,
Sturgeon, and  Island Lakes  during August, September,  and October 1981.   A
detailed summary  of the Report  on Algae  is  presented  in Appendix H.  Gen-
eral  findings  of that  report  are presented  in  the  following paragraphs.

     There are approximately 1,500  known species  of  blue-green algae  in
both soil and  aquatic  habitats.  Blue-green algae  are  often considered to
be an aquatic "nuisance species" though, because of their ability to remain
in position at the surface and  because the larger cell colonies are  visible
to  the naked  eye.   Their  bouyancy  can  also  result  in  the  formation  of
floating mats  of  dead  and living blue-green algae  which accumulate on the
downwind side  of a water body.  As the  algae decompose, unpleasant odors
and  colors are produced.   Decomposition of  blue-green algae can adversely
affect the taste of water.

     Under favorable environmental conditions,  algae reproduce at extremely
rapid  rates and  form  "blooms"   in which they are present in very high con-
centrations.  Excessive growth or blooms of phytoplankton  may  include one or
several kinds  of  algae.   The growth-limit ing  factors affecting algae abun-
dance  in Lakes  are nutrients  (primarily  phosphorus  and  nitrogen),  tem-
perature, and  light.   Seasonal variability in these  factors  are  collec-
tively responsible  for  the  occasional rapid growth and resulting dominance
                                   3-38

-------
of blue-green  algae  over other algae in freshwater lakes.  Often more than
one factor  is  responsible for inducing a severe bloom,  Tn eutrophic lakes
(i.e., waterbodies with  high nutrient content and  the highest algal grow-
th), blue-green algae typically become dominant in late summer because of a
general  depletion of dissolved  nitrogen  and silica which  excludes  the
growth  of  other  phytoplankton.   Blue-green  algae alone  are able  to  fix
atmospheric  nitrogen into a  useful nutrient and are  thus  able  to achieve
greater growth than other phytoplankton in late summer.

     In  addition  to  the  nuisance characteristics  commonly  associated with
blue-green  algal  blooms, three  genera  of  freshwater  blue-green algae  oc-
casionally  produce  substances that  can cause a variety  of toxic effects,
and in  some  cases, have  caused death in  wildlife  and livestock.  The only
way for  toxic  blue-green algae to  cause  death in  animals  is  from drinking
algae-laden water.  There are documented episodes of toxic  blue-green algae
blooms  in  southern Minnesota which resulted in livestock mortality.  There
are no documented  or reported  cases  of  human mortality  associated with
toxic  strains  of fresh-water  blue-green  algae.   However,  symptoms associ-
ated  with  ingestion   in  humans such as itching, nausea,  and diarrhea have
been commonly reported.

     The development of  toxic blooms is unpredictable  and usually occurs in
short-lived pulses.  They usually reoccur in the same  body  of  water in 2 or
3 year cycles.  The fact  that bloom toxicity is so varied and  unpredictable
make  any  blue-green   algae  bloom potentially  dangerous and suspect at  all
times, even though the majority are actually non-toxic.

     To investigate the  potential for blue-green algal toxicity in the four
project area  lakes,  phytoplankton,  water quality and  public health surveys
were  conducted in  Pine   County   from  late  August  to early  October 1981.
Although  the  health  officers,   physicians,   and  veterinarians  contacted
reported no  health related  or toxicological  problems with swimming or in
drinking  from  the four  lakes, Island  Lake  was found to  have a potential
health  hazard  associated with blooms of  blue-green  algae.   This potential
is based  on the presence of algae belonging to the three genera which have
been shown  to  be  associated with toxicity incidents with   domestic animals
                                   3-39

-------
and  with humans  in  other Minnesota  lakes.   The  potential  health problem
with  Island  Lake must  not be  exaggerated,  however,  because  the dominant
blue-green algae  in  Island Lake was  found to be Anabaena macrospora, which
was  not  found to  be associated  with toxicity  in a review of  literature.
The  other three  project  area  lakes were  found  to  support  lower concen-
trations  of  blue-green  algae  and did not  experience blue-green growth to
bloom proportions.  Because of  this,  blue-green algae  do not appear to pose
a potential  threat  to public health  in Sturgeon,  Passenger, or  Rush Lakes.

     The survey found that Island Lake had the highest algae density of  the
four lakes and also had the poorest water clarity.   In a pattern common  for
eutrophic  lakes,  Island  Lake  was found  to be dominated  in late August by
non-blue-green algae.  Subsequently,  in early September, the concentrations
of non-blue-green  algae  species declined in Island Lake  while two species
of blue-green  algae  increased  in number to achieve  total dominance.  Blue-
green algae  increased from 16% to 95% of the total  phytoplankton community
from 26 August to 9 September.

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

     Passenger Lake had relatively low amounts of  algae and, in  particular,
very low volumes  of  blue-green algae compared to  both Island and Sturgeon
Lakes.   On each  of  the  three  sampling dates  in  September  and October,
non-blue-green algae  were dominant in Passenger Lake.  The relatively  low
clarity of Passenger Lake was attributed to other  factors such as dissolved
and suspended organic matter.  Rush Lake had the lowest abundance of phyto-
plankton  of  the  four  lakes  tested  and had  the  greatest  water clarity.

3.1.4.2.   Aquatic Macrophytes

     Emergent  and  submergent   aquatic  plants  encountered  in  significant
stands during the 1981 field surveys were noted.    The  objective of locating
                                   3-40

-------
areas  of  Luxuriant aquatic  plant growth  was  to evaluate  their potential
association  with  any failing  on-site systems  detected  through the septic
leachate  survey  (Section  2.2.1.5.)-    It  was  anticipated  that  confined
embayments or  shallow areas  protected  from the waves by a point  or shoal
could  be  experiencing luxuriant  plant  growth  if  adjacent  residences were
contributing significant  amounts of  septic leachate.   No  such conditions
were  documented by  the  field crew; e.g., the potential  septic  leachate
plumes  that  were  located  were not  found  to be emerging  in isolated mac-
rophyte beds.

     In  Sturgeon  Lake,  the  observation was made  that  some shallow, sandy
areas  along  the south and southwest shore appeared to have been cleared of
native  emergent plants,   presumably  to  provide  a  more  attractive swimming
beach  for  the  property  owners.  Thus, the  potential association of aquatic
plant  growth and  residential development was obscured due  to "beach clear-
ing" practices.

3.1.4.3.  Fish

     The fisheries resources of the project area lakes are  relatively good,
according  to MDNR records  dating to 1979.  Gill net and  trap net catches
made  in Island and  Sturgeon Lakes  were  reported  to  be  above  the state
average for  walleye, northern pike, perch, and  sunfish.

     Some  game  fish  and  panfish are  found  with neascus (blackspots on the
fish's  epidermis  caused  by  a cyst  of  a  snail).   This  condition  has been
documented in  MDNR fishery records since the mid-1950s.  The. regional fish
manager has  reported  that this condition is typical for many lakes in this
part of tiie  state  (Personal communication to WAPORA, Inc.).

     Recently,  a  strong  increase WHS reported  in  the  population of yellow
perch  and  sunfish in Island and  Sturgeon  Lakes (MDNR,  unpublished files).
A  summary  of  the  fishery daf.^ indicating  recent  increases in the panfish
populations  of  Island and Sturgeon Lakes  is presented in Figure 3-10.  The
exact  cause  of the  reported  increases  in the  number  of  yellow perch and
blue-gill  sunfLsh  captured in these  lakes  is not known, although  it may be
                                    3-41

-------





H
W
CO
w
PM
Q
H
PM
U
CO
M
Pn
Pn
0
W
a


100-
90-
80-
70-
60-
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
0
ISLAND LAKE
|
ij
9
S
9
a
J
5
^
& K
^ 2
13
IT
% 2
i 2
* \ !• ! li 13 ffli i ffli ^
1954 1967 1970 1975 1979

| Walleye
| Northern Pike
| Yellow Perch
J Bluegill Sunfish
40-
30-
20-
10-
0
STURGEON LAKE
I
I
1\ ij l\
M ni n!; 111!
1955 1967 1975 1979
Figure 3-10.  Gillnet and  trapnet  capture  rates  with time for gamefish and
             panfish in Island  and  Sturgeon  Lakes,  Pine County,  MN.  Data
             are  from  fish management  survey records (MDNR,  unpublished).
                               3-42

-------
speculated  that  increased  fishing  pressure on  predator  fish,  following
extensive  residential  development of  the area  in  early  1970's,  may have
played a  role  in shaping the  fish community.   Removal of a portion of the
walleye or northern pike population due to increased fishing pressure could
have resulted in concomraitant  increases in the prey species (such as yellow
perch and sunfish). Because perch and sunfish are predators on zooplankton,
an  increase  in  these  smaller  panfish species may have resulted in a signi-
ficant  decrease of  the  zooplankton  population.   A  decrease in  the zoo-
plankton  population would  lower  the grazing  pressure  on  phytoplankton,
especially green  algae.   As  a result, the reduced  zooplankton grazing can
be expected to have stimulated an increase in the phytoplankton population,
increasing the biological turbidity in Island and Sturgeon Lakes.  In other
Minnesota  lakes,  an increase  in phytoplankton has occurred  when the zoo-
plankton  population decreased  (Shapiro  1979).   An  overall increase  in
phytoplankton in the context of  late summer successional patterns may favor
the growth of blue-green algae.

3.1.5.  Terrestrial Biota

     The  Phase  I Environmental Report (USEPA  1981)  contained an extensive
overview discussion of  the  terrestrial biota of Pine and Carlton counties.
Topics covered  in that  discussion included land cover, significant natural
areas, wetlands, floodplains, and wildlife.

     Additional  information  on  the  extent  of wetland  soils within  the
project area may  be deduced from the soil survey conducted in a portion of
Windemere  Township  for preparation of this  Environmental Impact Statement
(Section  2.2.1.1.).   Further  discussion of  forest and  agricultural land
cover  extent  in  the watershed areas  of   Island and Sturgeon  Lakes is pre-
sented in Section 3.2.2.2.

3.2  Man-Made Environment

3.2.1.  Demographics
                                   3-43

-------
3.2.L.L.  Historic and Current Population Trends

     Two  distinct  trends  are  reflected  by  the  population  data  for  the
jurisdictions within  and  surrounding the project area (Windemere and Moose
Lake Townships,  the   City  of  Moose  Lake,  and  Pine  and  Carlton Counties).
The  first trend,  one  of  erratic  growth and  decline,  is evident  in the
population data  for   the 40-year  period from 1930 to  1970  (Tables 3-9 and
3-10).   During this  period Windemere Township and Pine County both experi-
enced population decline.  Moose Lake Township, the City of Moose Lake, and
Carlton  County  each  experienced   population  growth  during  this period,
however,  the  rate  of growth varied widely.  This population trend reflects
both national trends  and  local aberrations and also  reflects,  to a great
extent, changes  in  the  economy of  the area.  The historic  growth of the
local  region was  based on  the development  of the  forestry  industry and
agricultural  expansion.   After 1940,  however, increased  mechanization in
agricultural  operations and  a general decline  in  the  forestry industry
ushered in a  period  of erratic growth and population decline.  The popula-
tion trend experienced by the jurisdictions within the project area between
1940 and   1970  was   indicative of  the  national rural-to-urban  migratory
pattern that  resulted,  at  least partially,  from a  shrinkage  in employment
opportunities In rural areas with natural resource-based economies.

     The  second  population trend  apparent in  the project  area,  and espec-
ially  in  Windemere  Township,  is  the rapid  population growth  that has oc-
curred   since  1970.   The  construction of  seasonal  homes  around  Island and
Sturgeon  Lakes,  a trend that  began in the  1950s,  appears  to have created
mucli of the  impetus  for the population gains.  The number of housing units
in  Windemere  Township  increased  by 56% from 1950 to  1960  while  the year-
round population of  the Township decreased by 4.6% (US Bureau of the Census
1952,  1963).   Although the  natural resource segment  of  the  local economy
continued  to decline between  1960 and 1980,  the  growth of  the seasonal
population around  the lakes apparently stimulated an  increase  in the ser-
vice sector  of  the economy which  resulted  in an increase in the permanent
population.   Between  1960  and  1980, the number of  housing  units in Winde-
mere Township increased by 200% while the population increased by only 145%
(US Bureau of the  Census 1963, 1973, 1982).  The increases that took place
                                   3-44

-------
Table 3-9.  Historic population growth in the jurisdictions within and surrounding  the project  area  (US
            Bureau of the Census 1952, 1963, 1973, 1982).

  Jurisd ic t Ion

Windemere Township

Moo«e Lake Township

City of Moose Lake

Pine County

CarLton County

Minnesota
1930
528
548
742
20,264
21,232
2,253,953
1940
489
1,063
1,432
21,478
24,212
2,792,300
1950
392
1,206
1,603
18,223
24,584
2,982,483
1960
374
1,577
1,514
17,004
27,932
3,413,864
1970
511
1,170
1,400
16,821
28,072
3,805,069
1980
915
1,237
1,408
19,871
29,936
4,077,148

-------
Table 3-10.  Percent change  in  the  population  in  the  jurisdictions  within and  surrounding
             the project area from  1930 to  1980  (US Bureau  of  Census  1952,  1963,  1973,  1982)
  Jurisdict ioji

Windejiere Township

Mooae Lake Township

City of Moose Lake

Piae County

Carlton County

Minnesota
1930-1940
-7.4
94.0
93.0
6.0
14.0
8.9
1940-1950
-19.8
13.5
11.9
-15.2
1.5
6.8
1950-1960
-4.6
30.8
-5.6
-6.7
13.6
14.5
1960-1970
36.6
-25.8
-7.5
-1.1
0.5
11.5
1970-1980
79.1
5.7
0.6
18.1
6.6
7.1

-------
State and national trn.ids.  Many urban area populations have declined since
1970,  whereas  rural  "amenity" areas  similar  to Uindemere  Township have
grown.

     Thr recent trend toward increased development and population growth in
certain areas  of  the upper  Midwest,  as epitomized by  the  rural lake com-
munity  oC  the project  area,  is well  documented.  Gustafson  (1973)  found
that rural,  non-farm populations  experienced an  overall,  increase between
1960 and  1970  and  that  the  rural,  non-farm  areas that  experienced  the
greatest demand for  new housing were in:   (1)  counties adjacent to Minne-
apolis-St. Paul;  (2)  in lake areas of central Minnesota; and  (3) in north-
ern and central Wisconsin.

3.2.1.2.  Household Size and Resident Age

     Household sizes  in the  project area did not change to any  significant
extent  between  1970 and  1980  (US  Bureau  of the Census  1973,  1982).  The
maintenance  of  household  sizes at their  1970   levels is  somewhat incon-
sistent  with the  nationwide  trend toward  increased numbers of  one-  and
two-person households and  a  consequent decrease  in average household size.
The  average  number  of persons  per  household  in  Windemere Township in 1970
was  2.66 (US Bureau of the Census  1973).  According to the 1980  census, the
average household  size  in  the Island  Lake  and  Sturgeon  Lake  portions of
Windemere  Township   (ED  504;  Figure  3-1.1)  was  2.65  and in  the remaining
portion of  the Township  (ED 503;   Figure 3-11)  the  average household size
was  2.74.  These household sizes are slightly lower than the household size
in Pine County (Table 3-11), which  is one indication  of a greater number of
households made up of retired individuals.

     Median  age is  an index of the overall age  structure of the population
being  studied.   The  1980 median   age  in  the census enumeration  district
surrounding Island and Sturgeon Lakes in Windemere Township was  37.9.  This
is significantly higher than the median age in Pine County and in the State
(Table  3-11)  and  is attributed to  the  growing  number of retired residents
who  are attracted  by the recreational  and  scenic amenities of  the project
area.
                                    3-47

-------
Table 3-11.  Selected population characteristics in the jurisdictions within and surrounding the project area in 1980
             (US Bureau of the Census 1952, 1963, 1973, 1982).

Jurisdiction
a
Windemere Township
ED 504
ED 503
Moose Lake Township
City of Moose Lake
Pine County
Carlton County
Minnesota

Permanent
Population

329
586
934
1,408
19,871
29,936
4,077,148

Year-round
Housing Units

138
269
353
571
10,299
11,782
1,613,343
Median Number of
Persons per Occupied
Housing Unit

2.65
2.74
3.04
2.17
2.80
2.87
2.74

Median
Age

37.9
34.0
29.7
43.1
31.1
30.5
29.2
Percent
Under
18 Years

23.7
29.7
33.0
19.4
NA
NA
NA
Percent
Over
65 Years

12.5
L5.0
10.9
27.2
NA
NA
NA
 See Figure a for the boundaries of the two EDs within Windemere Township.

 Does not include Moose Lake State Hospital.

NA - Not Applicable.

-------
u>
I
                       Figure 3-11.  Enumeration  districts  for census.

-------
3.2.1.3.  Housing Stock Characteristics

     The housing  stock in  the project area  comprises  both year-round and
seasonal dwellings.   According to  the 1980 census,  there  are  919 housing
units in Windemere  Township;  512 of these are used on a seasonal basis and
407 are occupied  year-round or are vacant (Table 3-12).  The percentage of
seasonal units in Moose Lake Township is significantly less; only 50 of the
403 total housing units are used on a seasonal basis  (Table 3-12).  Because
Moose Lake  Township is a predominantly rural area with  less riparian de-
velopment and related  amenities  than  Windemere  Township,  its  lower  per-
centage of seasonal housing does not appear to be unusual.

3.2.1.4.  Population Projections

Background

     The accuracy of  population  projections  is  highly  dependent  on two
factors:  the  size  of  the base population and the period of time for which
the projections are made.   The estimation of population growth generally is
less accurate  for small populations than for  larger  populations when  made
over long  periods of  time.   This  is  because  attitudinal or technological
changes  can  significantly  affect  small  communities,  whereas   large  com-
munities can better absorb such changes.

     The effect  of these  limitations  can be  minimized  if  population  pro-
jections are  based  on observations  derived  from a thorough  analysis of
historical  trends.   Two  observations   regarding  population trends  in the
project area must be  considered  in forecasting  future population trends:
          Prior to 1960, population growth in Windemere and Moose Lake
          Townships  was  erratic.  Since 1960, however,  the number of
          housing units in the two townships increased steadily, often
          at  a greater  rate  than population  growth.   For  example,
          between 1960 and  1970 the number of housing units in Winde-
          mere Township  increased by  89.2%  while  the population in-
          creased  by only  36.6%  (Table  3-13).   The  substantial in-
          crease in  the  number of housing units  is indicative  of the
          high  local demand   for  recreational  homes  because  of the
          amenities associated with the Township's  lakefront property.
                                   3-50

-------
          Between 1970 and 1980, the number of housing units in Winde-
          mere  Township  increased by  59.3% while  the  population in-
          creased by  79.1%  (Table  3-13).   This  reversal  of the pre-
          ceeding decade's  trend  (1960  to 1970)  appears  to be indi-
          cative  of  the recent  national  trend  of net  migration from
          urban to rural areas. Rural areas were attractive during the
          1970s for a  variety of reasons  that  have been widely docu-
          mented,  including lower land values, the amenities of "coun-
          try life," and an absence of "urban" problems.  This current
          trend of population increase is expected to continue in the
          project  area,   at   similar   or   somewhat  reduced  rates  for
          identical reasons  and because of the  area's  perceived qua-
          lity among retired  people.

     •    The relationship  between population change in the two pro-
          ject  area  Counties  and  the population  change  in  the  two
          project area Townships has not  been  stable over the period
          from  1950  to 1980  (Table  3-14).  The increasing percentage
          contribution  of  the  Windemere  Township population  to  the
          Pine  County  population is indicative of the area's historic
          growth  potential  as  a   result  of  development around  the
          Township's lakes.   The decreasing contribution of the Moose
          Lake Township population to  the  Carlton County population is
          indicative of the lesser development potential of Moose Lake
          Township  (Table  3-14).   Because of the  variations  between
          these two  adjacent  Townships  it does  not appear  that  for
          either  Pine  or  Carlton County there is a strong correlation
          between County and Township growth trends.


     Other factors also will have some impact on future population growth.

Higher  fuel  costs,  further declines in  employment  opportunities,  and/or a

stagnant  regional economy might directly  and  indirectly affect population

growth.  The growth attitudes of existing residents, local governments, and
commercial interests also could affect future population levels.
Methodology


     The  population  projections for  the project  area  are based  on 1960,

1970 and  1980 data  and  were developed  from projections  of  the number of

additional housing units that will be built in the project area by the year

2000.  A housing unit projection methodology was used because the available
data on  housing units are of  a  similar quality  as  the  available data on
populations and  because  fewer extrapolations are  required to estimate the

future seasonal population (Appendix I).
                                   3-51

-------
Table 3-12.  Project area housing summary for 1980 (US Bureau of the Census 1982)
Year-round
Jurisdiction Vacant Units
Windemere Township
ED 504
ED 503
Q
Moose Lake Township
City of Moose Lake
69
14
55
46
46
Year-round
Occupied
Units
338
124
214
307
525
Total Year-
round Units
407
138
269
353
571
Seasonal
Units
512
259
253
50
16
Total
Units
919
397
522
403
587
 Does not include Moose Lake State Hospital.
                                   3-52

-------
                                               Table 3-13.

Changes in the population and housing stock in Windemere and Moose Lake Townships, 1960 to 1980  (US Bureau of the
Census 1963, 1973, 1982).



             	1960	1970	                	1980	
                                                                   Percent Change ~~" Percent  Change
Jurisdiction  Population  Housing Units  Population Housing Units    1960-1970     Population Housing Units    1970-1980

Windemere        374                         511                          36.6         915                         79.1
  Township                  305                       577                89.2                   919              59.3

Moose Lake     1,577                       1,170                         -25.8      1,237                          5.7
  Township                  224                       287                28.1                   403              40.4

-------
     Table 3-14.  Percentage of Pine and Carlton County population residing in
                  Windemere and Moose Lake Townships in 1950, 1960, 1970 and
                  1980 (US Bureau of the Census 1952, 1963, 1973, 1982).

     Jurisdiction             1950      I960      1970      1980

     Windemere Township       2.2       2.2       3.0       4.6
      (Pine County)
     Moose Lake Township      4.9       5.6       4.2       4.1
      (Carlton County)
          Permanent and  seasonal population  projections  for Windemere Township

     were  developed  based  on the  housing  unit  projections  (Tables  3-15  and

     3-16).   The  total population  for the  year  2000 is  estimated  to be 3,621

     which includes 1,503 (41.5%) permanent residents and 2,118 (58.4%) seasonal

     residents  (Table  3-17).  The  projected increase in  total  population over

     the  planning  period is  47.7%.   The  permanent  population is  projected  to
     increase by 64.3% while the seasonal population is projected to increase by
     37.9%.  The population around Island Lake is projected to increase by 39.9%
     and  the  population  around Sturgeon Lake is projected to increase by 41.9%.

     The  greater   amount  of  developable  lakefront  property  around  the  other
     Township lakes is  indicated by the projected population increase in ED 503

     of 53.6%.
Table 3-15.  Permanent population projections within Windemere Township, 1980
             to 2000.

  Location                                  1980           1990         2000

ED 504a                                      329            429          532
  Island Lake                                153            200          246
  Sturgeon Lake                              100            131          172
  Outlying Areas                              76             98          114
ED 503                                       586            764          971
  Windemere Township                         915          1,193        1,503
a
 Population projections for 1990 and 2000 are based on 2.384 persons per
 household as derived from 1980 census data and include a vacancy factor.

 Population projections for 1980 and 2000 are based on 2.178 persons per house-
 hold as derived from 1980 census data and include a vacancy factor.
                                        3-54

-------
Table 3-16.  Seasonal population projections within Windemere Township,
             1980 to 2000a.

  Location                                   1980      1990      2000
ED 504
Island Lake
Sturgeon Lake
Outlying Areas
ED 503
Windemere Township
777
261
465
51
759
1,536
1,017
339
615
63
993
2,010
1,023
333
630
60
1,095
2,118
*3
 Population  projections  for  1990 and  2000 are  based  on 3.0  persons per
 household.
Table 3-17.  Combined seasonal and permanent population projections within
             Windemere Township, 1980 to 2000 .

                                             1980      1990      2000
ED 504                                       1,106     1,446     1,555

  Island Lake                                  414       539       579
  Sturgeon Lake                                565       746       802
  Outlying Areas                               127       161       174

ED 503                                       1,345     1,757     2,066

  Windemere Township                         2,451     3,203     3,621
a
 An additional  120  seasonal residents are projected for the YMCA Boys Camp
 on Sturgeon  Lake.   This projection will remain constant to the year 2000.
                                   3-55

-------
     The  individual Island  Lake  and  Sturgeon  Lake area  population pro-
jections (Table 3-17) are significantly lower than the population estimates
which  were  presented   in  the  Draft MLWSD  Facility  Plan   (P.R.C.-Consoer
Townsend 1980).   The "population equivalents" for the year  1955 were esti-
mated  in  the Facility  Plan to  be 931.0 for the  Island Lake vicinity and
1,382.5 for the Sturgeon Lake vicinity.  These numbers are in contrast with
the  year  2000 population  projections  made  in  this  report  of  579 for the
Island  Lake  area  (62%  of  the  MLWSD projection) and 802 for the Sturgeon
Lake area (58% of the MLWSD projection).  [An additional  120 residents must
be  added  to  the  Sturgeon  Lake  projections to cover  the  YMCA  Boys Camp
summer  population  if sewers are being designed.]   The  sources  of the dis-
crepancies between  the  Facility Plan and these  projections  are thought to
be:

     •    the year  2000 projections that are being used  in  this Envi-
          ronmental Report  are  based on detailed 1980 census data for
          the local area that  was not available at the  time the MLWSD
          Facility Plan was prepared;
     •    the assumptions  used  to develop  the  projections  reflect a
          direct  assessment  of available lots  in  the lakeshore areas
          and interviews with local real estate sales offices (Section
          3.2.2.5).

3.2.2.  Land Use

     The Phase  I  Report on existing conditions  presented a regional over-
view of land  use  characteristics.  In that report, land  use data were pre-
sented  only  on the  basis  of  political  units such  as by  town and county
area.

     The descriptions presented in this section of historic  land use trends
in  Pine and  Carlton counties  and  of  the  land  use within specific lake
drainage  areas  or "watersheds"  are  intended  to  provide  a  quantitative
framework  for estimating  the  origin and  significance  of  eutrophying nu-
trients exported  into  the  area's  lakes.  Historic land use  indicators such
as population figures,  cropland production  statistics, and  logging, forest
fire and settlement dates were used to indicate the variations over time in
active  uses of  the land.  The  existing  land  use  in  individual lake water-
sheds was determined by planimetric measurement to provide a basis for cal-

                                   3-56

-------
culation of  annual  phosphorus loads to each  lake.   Both historic and con-
temporary  land  use information  provide a  basis  for assessing  the conse-
quences of specific waste management alternatives.

3.2.2.1.  Historic Land Use Trends in Pine and Carlton Counties

     The settlement of northeastern Minnesota in the nineteenth century was
directly related  to the  area's  rich timber resources.   "The  story of the
lumbering  days  is the main  theme  of every community of  the county in the
pioneer days"  (Miller  1949).   By 1860, the  logging  era was well underway,
with  the  timber  industry  providing the  necessary  economic foundation for
the  development  of  railroads and  roads,  and  towns  were  founded  as the
population grew.  This basic infrastructure later provided the basis for the
development of the region's second historical economy, dairying, by provid-
ing a  source of capital and  transport  linkages  to  the metropolitan areas.

     Most of the  communities  in Pine and Carlton counties originated in the
1860s  and  1870s.   The  first road  connecting St.  Paul and  Duluth-Superior
was completed  in 1857  and was  followed  by the  Lake Superior-Mississippi
railroad  in 1870 and  the Great  Northern railroad  in  1887.   The timber
industry reached  its peak in  the region between approximately 1870 and 1894
and numerous mills  were built throughout the area to process the logs.  In
1890, Minnesota ranked first  in the country in lumber production.

     "In  1870  a  dam  was built  across  the Grindstone  River by W. H.
     Grant,  Sr.,  who  had arrived the year before from St.  Paul with a
     portable sawmill.   In the fall McKane Bros, built  a  larger mill
     and obtained power  from the river.  This mill  was enlarged from
     time to time until in 1894 it employed 400 men.  In  15 years this
     mill cut 300,000,000 feet of lumber."  (Miller 1949).

     Although  the white pine forests were  once  regarded as inexhaustable,
by  1900 the  timber  industry in  this area  of Minnesota  was essentially
finished.   The  transition from  logging to  farming  began  in  much of Pine
County virtually  overnight  as a result of the event of September 1894 when
the  great Hinckley  fire  devastated  much of the  central  portion  of Pine
County.  Although the timber industry was  already  on the decline at the
                                   3-57

-------
time  of  the Hinckley  fire (and forest  slash  left  from logging operations
probably contributed  greatly to  the spread of the  fire),  Pine County was
never  to have  a  timber  industry  of the  scale  that had  previously been
present.  "After  this catastrophe,  the Paul  Bunyan aspect  of  the county
changed, and a  great  movement was started by  the railroads and the govern-
ment to bring in the real settlers, the  farmers" (Miller 1949).

     The northern  part  of Pine County  (where  the  service area is  located)
and the  southern  part of Carlton County (including  part of the Island Lake
watershed)  were not  burned  over in  the Hinckley fire  and,  thus, logging
continued there into the early 1900s.   As the stands  of white  pine and
hardwoods were  depleted,  though,  settlers began to  move  into the area to
drain and clear the land for farming.   Many of the  settlers  were recruited
from neighboring states as well as from  Europe, with  promises of cheap land
and good growing conditions.  The conversion of land  from forest to farm in
this  area  was  greatly  increased by  the "Moose Lake fire" of 1918.  This
fire  burned throughout  much of Windemere  Township  and  definitely burned
most  of  the remaining  stand of  timber in  the watershed  of  Little Island
Lake  (US Forest Service Map, unpublished).

     By  1920,   farming  was  the predominant  land  use  in  these  watershed
areas. The  number  of  dairy cows being  milked  in  Pine and  Carlton  counties
continued to increase  until approximately  1935  (Figures  3-12  and 3-13).
From  1935  to 1950, the number  of  dairy cows  in the two counties  declined
somewhat, but from 1950 to 1955, a recovery  in the number of  dairy  cows was
recorded.   Since  1955,  the  number of  dairy cows in the  two counties has
steadily declined,  to the  point where  there  are now  fewer  dairy cows in
Pine  and Carlton counties  than there were  in 1920  (US  Department of Com-
merce  1929, 1934,  1939,  1949,  1969,  1978).  The amount  of  land  in crop
production  in the two counties has exhibited a similar trend; peak  acreages
occurred between  1935 and  1945 followed by steady  declines  (Figures 3-12
and 3-13).  A chronology of some of the  more important events and trends in
Pine County and Windemere Township during the  20th Century  is presented  in
Figure 3-14.
                                   3-58

-------
       4.0 _
       3.5 _
       3.0 _
o
o
o
o"
    o
    o
    o
^   o

x   °  2.5
0)
5   x

f?   «
O   0

>•   O

"5   ^


•S   °  2.0
"•*   flj
i-   ^3
        1.5 _
        1.0 _
                      Total Acres in Farmland
                                         V
                  Total Number of Dairy Cows Being Milked
                           >• 
-------
      2.5 _
      2.0 _
o
o
o
o"
    o

    o 1.5
x   2
o
o
    m
    v         xx
                                                        **
          1920
                      I

                    1930
        I

      1940
  I

1950
  I

1960
  I

1970
  I

1980
           Figure 3-13.
                         Carlton County, MM: trends in agriculture from 1920

                         to 1978.  Data are from the U.S. Department of

                         Agriculture, Census of Agriculture.
                                     3-60

-------
    Figure 3-14
A  chronology of  20th  century  events and fends  in Windemere
Township, Pine County, MN.
     Chronology
           Year
                                           Number of Residents
Increase  in  the number of
permanent residences around
Island and Sturgeon Lakes.

Construction of  seasonal
residences intensifies around
Island and Sturgeon Lakes.

Onset of steady  decline in the
agricultural economy.
Period of peak agricultural
activity in Pine  County
State Hospital Developed in
Moose Lake.
Beginning of organized dairy
economy; first creameries are
established in the  area.
Moose Lake forest fire (1918)  }
 End of the first-cut  logging
 era and increase begins In the
 development of agriculture.
 Hinckley forest fire  (1894)
                                1890
                                             3-61

-------
     In a  study  of the forest cover of Pine and Carlton counties conducted
by the US  Forest Service in the period of 1974 to 1978 (Spencer and Ostrum
1979 and Vasilevsky  and Hackett 1980)  it  was  reported that 61% of Carlton
County and  53%  of   Pine  County  was  forested.   Carlton  County  also was
reported to  have 87.4 thousand hectares of non-forested land, 51% of which
was combined cropland, pastureland, and idle farmland.  Pine County's 173.0
thousand hectares of  non-forested  land  had  67% of  the  acreage  in farm
related uses.   If the  combined land use  categories  of cropland, pasture-
land, and  idle farmland, as reported by the US Forest  Service, are taken to
define the total  agricultural  land use,  Carlton County  had approximately
44.6  thousand  hectares  of agricultural  land  and Pine  County  had  115.9
thousand hectares of  agricultural  land.   Based  on  these  figures,  it  is
estimated  that  in 1978 a  maximum  of 19.7% of Carlton County  and 31.3% of
Pine  County  was  being  used for agricultural  purposes.  These percentages
are  compared with watershed agricultural land use percentages  in the fol-
lowing section.

3.2.2.2.    Project Area Land Use Trends

     An examination  of the  trends in  land use  within the "watersheds" of
the  project  area lakes is useful  in  assessing the past and present causes
of  lake  eutrophication.  The generalized  watershed  areas  of Island, Stur-
geon,  Rush,  and  Passenger  Lakes are presented  in Figure  3-21.   The gene-
ralized watershed areas were  determined by  contour  interpolation of USGS
topographic maps  (1979).   Field checks were made  to  confirm the watershed
boundaries where alterations  to the  landscape have been made through high-
way and other construction activities.

     The land  uses  within  each watershed  area  were determined  separately
for  direct drainage  areas  and for  indirect  tributary drainages using the
topographic  maps and  aerial  photographs  (USGS  1974)  along with review of
color-infared  remote sensing  imagery (EMSL 1980) and field checks in the
lakeshore  vicinities.   The aerial  extent of each  land  use  in a watershed's
sub-area was estimated by planimetry for forest,  wetland,  cultivated land,
pasture, lawn,  and  open  water categories  (excluding  the  surface areas of
the  lakes  themselves).  These watershed land use tabulations, summarized in
Section  3.1.3.3.  are referenced  in Table  3-18  for  comparison  to county
agricultural land  use  percentages.  „  ,„

-------
     Although  the  methodologies were  not identical  for estimating county
and watershed land use, the differences found between the county and water-
shed percentages are  great enough to  indicate  a significant divergence of
the local (watershed) from the regional (county) land use pattern.
Table 3-18.  Estimated percent agricultural land use  in county versus
             watershed delineations.
                               County Agricultural    Watershed Agricultural
Watershed       County         Land Use Percentage     Land Use Percentage
Island Lake     Carlton/Pine        20%/31%                   42%
Sturgeon Lake   Pine                  31%                     34%
Rush Lake       Pine                  31%                      3%
Passenger Lake  Pine                  31%                      0%
«a
 Derivation of County percent agricultural  land is explained in  Section
 3.2.2.1.  Original data are from the US Forest Service  (Spencer and Ostrum
 1979 and Vasilevsky and Hackett 1980).
b
 By direct estimation from topographic maps and aerial photograph.
     The most striking aspect of the information contained in  Table  3-18 is
the  apparent predominance  of  agricultural  land  use  in the  Island Lake
watershed.   Island  Lake  has the largest total watershed  area  of any of the
four  lakes,  and  the  percentage of  agricultural land  in its watershed is
also  the  highest of  the four.  Additionally,  the  Island  Lake watershed,
which  is  bisected by the boundary between  Carlton and  Pine counties on the
northern  tip  of  the lake (Figure 3-15), has  a much  greater estimated agri-
cultural  land use  percentage  (42%)  than either of  the counties  (20% Pine
County;  31%  Carlton  County).   Conversely,  Rush  Lake  and  Passenger Lake
watersheds have little or no land in agricultural use.

     The modern prevalence  of agricultural  land use  that  is apparent in the
Island  Lake watershed  (Table  3-18)  may have been preceded  by an equal or
even greater  intensity of agricultural use  in that area when dairying was a
much  more important  segment  of the  local  economy  (Section 3.2.2.1).  For
example, there were 116 producing farms in  Windemere Township  in 1930 which
accounted  for 13,055 acres  of land,  3,395 acres  of which  were  in crop
                                    3-63

-------
                          mmmmm^
                          :'• -."• •'. • '.'• '.'• -.'• T- •'••'•• CO 'W- • '• • '•'• '•'• 1
                                      ^•••••••••••:--:---s

                                            WATERSHED LAND AREA
                                              IN HECTARES
Figure 3-15.
Generalized watershed areas for Island, Sturgeon, Rush, and
Passenger Lakes. Values shown are exclusive of surface waters,

               3-64

-------
production.  (US  Department  of Commerce 1929).  This represents the level of
agricultural development in the Township which initiated the period of peak
dairying activities  in  the region as reflected by the number of dairy cows
being milked  in Pine and  Carlton counties  between  1935  and 1940 (Figures
3-13 and  3-14).  These  data suggest  that  the Island  Lake watershed his-
torically supported a much larger dairy animal population than it now does.
Much of the agricultural economy of the Windemere and Moose Lake Townships
area appears  to  be  concentrated in and around the watershed area of Island
Lake and  the  northern portion of the Sturgeon lake watershed.  This may be
due  to  the  concentration  of prime  agricultural  land in  these  respective
areas  (Section  3.2.2.3).   Long-time  residents  of  the  area have  noted a
concentration  of productive farms  in the  direct  drainage  area  of  Island
Lake and  also have  described  the previous  existence of  several barnyards
which  gave  domestic  stock  direct  access  to its  waters  (by  letter,  Mr.
Walter  C.  Johnson to Mr.  Gregory Dean Evenson, March  1980) [Appendix K] .

     Another  significant land  use trend pertinent to the assessment of the
causes  of  lake  eutrophication  is  the  rate of  development of  lakeshore
properties for residential use.  In 1954, there were an estimated 35 houses
located adjacent to  Island Lake  but,  by  1967,  110 houses were counted
around  Island  Lake  (MDNR n.d.  Fish and Wildlife Division,  lake survey data
sheets, unpublished).  Sturgeon Lake also has experienced an increased rate
of residential  development since the 1950s.  The rates of  shoreline devel-
opment  around  Island  and Sturgeon Lakes since  1954  are depicted in Figure
3-16.

3.2.2.3.  Prime  Farmlands

     One of  the increasing concerns in the  nation  is the  reduction in the
finite  supply  of prime  farmland.  Prime farmland is that  land  best suited
for  producing  food,  feed,  forage, fiber, and  oilseed crops, and is avail-
able for these uses.  According to the most  recent Council  on Environmental
Quality directive  (11 August 1980), prime and unique farmland is cropland,
pastureland,  rangeland,  forest  land,  or  other  land  (excluding  built-up
urban  land)  which is capable  of being  used as prime  and unique farmland
                                   3-65

-------
                200-
              eo
              u
              CO

              O
                150-
                100-
                 50-
                         ISLAND  LAKE


                         shoreline house counts 1954-1980
                            I

                          1940
1950     1960     1970
1980
                250-
                200-
              co 150H
              u
              co

              O
              I


                100-
                 50-
                         STURGEON  LAKE


                         shoreline house counts 1955-1982
                          1940
 I       I       I       I

1950     1960     1970     1980
Figure 3-16.  Rates  of residential development on the shorelines  of

              of  Island and Sturgeon Lakes.
                                  3-66

-------
as defined by  the specific criteria established  by  the USDA.  The primary
criterion used to characterize prime farmland is  the  capability  class and
subclass  assigned to  soils  and which  show,  in  a general way,  the suit-
ability of soil  capability classes I and II.  Class I soils have few limi-
tations  that restrict  their  use  and  Class  II  soils have  only moderate
limitations  that  reduce  the  choice of crops  or  that require moderate con-
servation practices.   There are no  Class I  soils in  Carlton County or in
the Island and  Sturgeon  Lakes area of Pine County (SCS 1978, Finney 1981).

     Capability  subclasses  are soil  groups within  one  soil class  that
characterize more specific limitations such  as  erosion,  wetness, shallow-
ness,  or  climatic limitations  (e.g.,  too dry,   too  cold,  etc.).   The only
soil in the project area that can be characterized as  prime farmland is the
Duluth very  fine silt  loam with 0 to  6%  slopes  (SCS  1978).  This soil has
been assigned a  capability rating  of IIc-1.  This classification indicates
that  the main  limitations  of the  soils are  the cool climate  and short
growing season.

     Although a  detailed soil survey of Pine County has not been prepared,
the soils in the Pine County  portion  of  the  service  area were mapped by a
registered   soil  scientist  in  support  of  the  preparation  of  this Envi-
ronmental Report  (Appendix B).  This soils mapping  indicated that  much of
the service  area, including Island Lake's direct  drainage basin as well as
much  of  the  northeastern half of  the   Sturgeon Lake watershed,  contain
Duluth very  fine  silt loam  with less than 4%  slopes  (Figure 3-17).   (The
Duluth very fine  silt loams in  Pine County were delineated either as having
slopes less  than  or  greater than  4%.   Therefore, the area  in Pine County
depicted in  Figure 3-17  slightly understates the amount  of  prime farmland
because  it  does  not  indicate  those unmappable  areas  of  Duluth very  fine
silt  loams  with  4 to  6% slopes which can be characterized  as prime farm-
land.)

3.2.2.4.   Development Potential
                                    3-67

-------
OJ
I
a^
00

                                                                                               Additional Farmland

                                                                                               of  Statewide
                                                                                               Importance

                                                                                               Approximate  Limits

                                                                                               of  Urban Growth
                                    Figure 3-17.  Prime farmlands in portions of Pine and Carlton Counties,

                                                  Derived from soil unit maps(SCS 1978, Finney 1981).

-------
Development Controls

     Windemere Township does not have an overall zoning ordinance in effect
to control  development.  However,  Pine County has  adopted zoning regula-
tions as  required  by the Minnesota  Shoreland  Management  Act of 1969.  The
Act affects  all land  within 1,000  feet  of a  lake,  pond,  or  flowage and
within  300  feet of a  river  or  stream.   In rural area, the Act applies to
all lakes  over 10  hectares  (25 acres)  in area and  to rivers  and streams
with drainage areas in excess of 518 hectares  (1,280 acres).

     The  purpose  of the  Act and the accompanying  local  regulations  is to
control development alongside  lakes,  rivers,  and streams  so  that the na-
tural  resource values  of the  water body  are maintained  to  the  greatest
extent  possible.   Public  waters are classified according to the Act in one
of three  categories -   Natural Environment,  Recreational  Development, or
General Development.    The  different classifications control  the  kind of
intensity of  development  by regulating uses,  building  and  sewer setbacks,
and minimum lot sizes.  Island, Sturgeon, Rush, and Passenger Lakes are all
classified  as  Recreational  Development  lakes  (By  telephone, Mr.  Steve
Preston, MDNR to  WAPORA,  Inc., 26 February 1981).  The minimum development
standards for  unincorporated,  unsewered areas around recreational develop-
ment lakes are:
     Lot area:  40,000 ft
     Water frontage and
     lot width:  150 ft
     Building setback
     from ordinary high water
     mark:  100 ft
     Building setback from
     roads and highways:  30-50 ft
     The minimum  development standards for sewered areas of municipalities
that are  within  the  shoreland zone of  recreational  development lakes are
less stringent.   The  required minimum lot  sizes  for  such areas are 20,000
Building elevation above high-
est known water level: 3 ft
On-site waste treatment system
setback from ordinary high
water mark: 75 ft
Septic absorption system
elevation above groundwater
or bedrock:  4 ft
                                   3-69

-------
  2                                  2
ft   for  riparian  lots  and  15,000 ft  for other  lots  within the shoreland
zone.  In addition, the water frontage and lot width requirement is 75 feet
and  the  minimum building setback from the ordinary high water mark also is
75  feet.   MDNR has  indicated that  the  less rigorous  minimum development
standards  applied within municipalities may also  be applied  to sewered,
non-municipal  (i.e.,  unincorporated) lakes  (By telephone,  Mr.  Steve Pres-
tin, MDNR to WAPORA, Inc., 26 February 1981).

Future Development Potential

     Although  water-related recreation  and  similar amenities  continue to
attract  new  residents,  the  focus of the  demand  generated  by the natural
resource  values  of  the project  area lakes  appears  to be  shifting.   Ac-
cording  to the  1980 census, the population growth rate exceeded the growth
rate for  new  housing units  during the 1970.  This means that some seasonal
homes  were converted  to year-round residences  and  that more  homes  were
built  for permanent use  than for  seasonal,  recreational use.   This  most
recent trend apparently is a result of retired people moving to the area on
a permanent basis, and the desire of some people  to live in a high amenity,
rural  area  and commute  long distances  to  work.   Continued  growth  of the
non-retired permanent  population will  be  significantly  influenced  by se-
veral  external  factors  including  the regional economy, the  price of gaso-
line, and long-distance commuting costs.

     Much  of  the  lakeshore development activity within  the  service  area
over the last  30  years has  been concentrated around  Island and Sturgeon
Lakes.  As  a result,  there now is a limited supply of vacant lakefront lots
around these  two  lakes.  Based  on  a  house  count and  examination of plat
maps and tax  records,   it  is estimated that  there are  approximately 50
vacant  lakefront  lots   around  Island  Lake   and  approximately  105  vacant
lakefront  lots  around Sturgeon  Lake.   This  estimate does  not reflect de-
velopment constraints such as wet soils, steep slopes, lack of road access,
or other natural features.  If current growth rates are maintained, both of
these lakes will become "built-out" during the planning period.  After this
occurs, it is  possible  that some housing demand will continue in this area
                                   3-70

-------
and will translate into development around the smaller lakes in the service
area  (e.g., Rush  and Passenger Lakes), in the second-tier or back lots, or
around other small, less desirable lakes in outlying areas.

     Whether the high growth trends of the 1970's will continue through the
next 20 years is uncertain.  One local realtor that was contacted felt that
the Island-Sturgeon  Lake  area  still has a lot of growth potential and that
second-tier lots or homes are in demand, particularly to retirees and young
couples, because  of  their lower cost  (By telephone, Ms. Ann Brown, Century
21 Real  Estate  to WAPORA, Inc., 12  April  1982).  One subdivision develop-
ment that  exemplifies  the basis of  this opinion is the Wild Acres - Hogan
Acres projects  located  to the southeast of  Sturgeon  Lake  and east of Rush
Lake.   All of  the  92  lots  platted  in the Hogan Acres have  been sold and
more  than  100 of the 136  platted  lots in Wild  Acres  have been sold.  Al-
though  most  of the  lots  have  been sold, many of  the  buyers apparently do
not intend to develop their parcels  immediately.  There are an estimated 75
structures permanently  inplace  in  the two subdivisions, including standard
homes, manufactured homes, and campers.  Many of the other lot owners leave
campers  on the  property only during the summer  and then spend weekends in
the  area for recreation.   The developer  intentionally  structured the de-
velopment  in  this way and  uses  this aspect of  the project  as a marketing
device.  One  of the developer's brochures states:  "It is not necessary to
build  on  the  lots.  The  use  of  mobile  homes,  travel  trailers, campers,
motor homes, and tents is allowed."

     Other realtors  are less optimistic about the  development potental of
the area.  The  most common reasons  cited  are  the generally soft local and
regional  economies  and  the  absence  of  employment  opportunities,  parti-
cularly  for young people  (By telephone, Mr. Bud  Fuller, Ken Brown Realty to
WAPORA,  Inc.,  12  April  1982).   Although  all  of  the realtors  contacted
indicated  that  demand  for lakefront lots or homes  continues to be strong,
they  also  noted  that  most  of  the  prime  lakefront areas are  already de-
veloped. In  spite of the  good  sales history at Wild  Acres  - Hogan Acres,
other  realtors  have not  had good  success  in selling homes  or lots in the
second tier or  in outlying areas.  For this reason, they are are  less opti-
mistic  about  the  development  potential  of  the area  (by  telephone,  Mr.
Clarence Schoen,  Clarence  Schoen  Realty to WAPORA,  Inc.,  12 April 1982).
                                   3-71

-------
3.2.3.  Economics

3.2.3.1.  Income

     Current data  on median  family income  are  available  from  the US De-
partment of Housing  and Urban Development (HUD) Office of  Economic Affairs
(Data from  the  1980  Census are not  yet  available) .   These data are avail-
able at the county level only and were derived from statistical adjustments
of previous census data.   Although the county estimates are reasonably ac-
curate, the use  of  the data for jurisdictions within a county is tentative
and  their  applicability will  depend on the relative  wealth  or poverty of
the area as compared to the county.

     The level of  income  in the project area and Pine and  Carlton counties
as indicated by per capita and median family income data, is relatively low
(Table  3-19 and  Table  3-20).   In  1981  the  estimated median family incomes
of $17,000  for  Pine  County and $21,100  for  Carlton  County both were below
the  estimated  median family  incomes of Non-Standard  Metropolitan Statis-
tical  Area  (SMSA)   counties   ($22,850), the North  Central  Census  Region
($25,600),   and  the  US  ($24,400)   (By  telephone  HUD).   The relatively low
level of  income characteristic  of the  project  area and  Pine and Carlton
counties reflects  the  concentration  of employment  in the relatively low-
paying  trade,  government,  and service  industries  and  the high  level of
unemployment (Section 3.2.3.2. Employment).

     The income  distribution  within  the project area  varies widely.  The
estimated median  family income ranges from  $16,275  in Moose Lake Township
to $26,356  for  the  City of Moose Lake.  The estimated median family income
for  Windemere Township  is $21,132.  This is 24% greater than the estimates
for  Non-SMSA  counties,  the  North Central Census  Region and  the US.  The
estimated median family  income  in the City of Moose  Lake  is greater than
the  estimates  for all  of the jurisdictions for which  data were analyzed.
This probably reflects the economic function of the City of Moose Lake as a
primary trade center (Section  3.2.3.2. Employment).
                                   3-72

-------
Table 3-19.  Per capita income estimates for selected jurisdictions  (US
      Bureau of the Census 1972, 1980).
                                            Percent Change   Estimated 1981
Jurisdiction          1969 ($)   1977  ($)     1969-1977        Income ($)
Pine County
Windemere Township
Carlton County
Moose Lake Township
City of Moose Lake
State of Minnesota
2,183
2,657
2,513
1,705
3,147
3,038
4,054
5,004
4,731
3,457
5,909
5,778
86%
88%
88%
103%
88%
90%
5,797
7,206
6,813
5,255
8,510
8,378

Table 3-20.  Estimated 1981 median family income for selected jurisdic-
             tions.
                    Jurisdiction               Median Income Estimates ($)
                     Pine County                         $17,000
                     Windemere Township                   21,100
                     Carlton County                       21,100
                     Moose Lake Township                  16,275
                     City of Moose Lake                   26,356
3.2.3.2.  Employment

     The  economic structure  of  the project  area  and  surrounding region
(Northeastern Minnesota:  Aitkin, Carlton, Cook, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake,
and  St.  Louis  counties  [Region 7]  and  Pine  County)  contrasts  with the
economic structure  of Minnesota  and the  US in some  very important ways.
First,  the  dominant  industry  in northeastern  Minnesota is trade  (concen-
trated in the  Moose  Lake and Duluth-Superior areas),  whereas at the State
and  National  level,   manufacturing  is the  dominant industry  (Northeastern
Minnesota Labor  Market  Information  Center  1980).   In 1978, manufacturing
employment  in  northeastern Minnesota accounted for 13.9% of the wage and
salary workers  as compared  to  the  statewide percentage  of 22.1.   This is
particularily  important because  overall the trade industry  traditionally
has  been  associated  wth low wages  (especially retail  trade)  and is very
sensitive  to  cyclical  variations   in  the  economy (e.i.,  when "spending
                                    3-73

-------
money" becomes  tight  many of the  goods  and services available through the
trade  industry  are  not  consumed,  thus  levels  of  employment decrease).

     Second, in 1978 the mining industry was the largest  industry  in north-
eastern Minnesota in terms of wages paid,  but ranked  fifth in total employ-
ment.   This is  not  characteristic  of  the State  and  National employment
structures  where the  manufacturing  industry  is  the  largest  industry in
terms of both employment and total wages paid (Peterson and Gronseth 1980).
This also  is  important because  any  changes in the level of employment in
the  mining  industry  would  quickly  affect  other   sectors of  the economy,
especially  port  activity  (concentrated in the Duluth-Superior area), which
also plays an important  role  in  the economy of the  region.   In  1979, the
value of  income  generated by port activities from wages paid and the pur-
chase of  goods and  services amounted  to  $239 million (Northeastern Min-
nesota Labor Market Review 1980).

     In April  1982,  Pine  County had an  estimated  labor force of  9,549 and
an unemployment rate of 10.3% (By  telephone, Patrick  Connelly, East Central
Region Development  Commission,  to WAPORA,  Inc., 12 July  1982).  During the
same month, Carlton  County  had  an estimated labor  force  of  11,900 and an
unemployment rate  of  11.4%.   The unemployment rates for the two counties
compares  to an unemployment  rate 9.8%  for  Region  7,  13.6% for  Region 3,
7.0% for  the State and 9.2% for  the US.  The comparatively high  unemploy-
ment rate  for Region 3 is a result of the  weakness  of those national indus-
tries that are most directly tied to the  regional  economy.  In April 1982,
less than  one-half of  the steel  industry's potential capacity  was being
utilized and this  had a direct impact on  the need  for  taconite produced on
the  Minnesota  Iron Range  and  hence on  local  employment levels (Minnesota
Department  of Economic Security 1982).

     The local  economy in Windemere Township differs somewhat from that of
Pine County or the  region in that  agriculture and  forestry  are the pre-
dominant   industries.   Not  including  agriculture,  an  employment  survey
counted  54 people  employed in  Windemere  Township  (Pine County  Area Re-
development  Organization  1979).    The  greatest  potential  for  economic de-
velopment  in Pine  County  probably is  in  the  tourism-recreation  industry.
                                   3-74

-------
Only 3.5% of  the County's total gross sales are from the tourist-traveler,
and  Pine  County currently  ranks 53rd out  of 87  counties  in Minnesota in
tourist-travel  income.   The  relatively modest contribution of tourism-rec-
reation to  the  county  economy probably  is  not indicative  of the contri-
butions that tourism-recreation make to the more local economy of Windemere
Township (Pine County Area Redevelopment Organization 1979).

     At present  there  are approximately 127 business establishments in the
Moose Lake area (Moose Lake Planning Commission 1980).  Fifty-three of the
businesses  (42%)  are categorized as retail  and  wholesale  sales establish-
ments.  This category  includes grocery stores, clothing stores, and whole-
sale  distributors.   In  1977,   there  were $10,146,312  in retail  sales in
Moose Lake,  and it  is estimated  that  this  could  increase  to $12,000,000
annually by 1985.  Moose Lake is considered the primary retail trade center
for a fairly  large  area.  The trade zone of Moose Lake includes the cities
of  Moose  Lake,  Barnum,  Kettle River, Sturgeon  Lake,  Denham, and Kerrick,
and the Townships of Moose Lake, Barnum,  Silver,  Split  Rock, Birch Creek,
Kerrizk, Sturgeon Lake, and Windemere.

3.2.4.  Public Finance

     A  variety  of  community  services  are  provided for the residents of
Moose  Lake  and  Windemere  Townships.   Among  them are health  and welfare
services, transportation facilities, police and fire protection and, within
the city of  Moose Lake, wastewater collection and treatment.  The ability
of  the townships to maintain and improve these services is dependent on the
continued ability  of  township  residents to finance  them.   Income and em-
ployment levels are one  measure of a community's  ability  to support com-
munity services.  Additionally, the assessed valuation of property directly
affects tax revenues collected by local governments, and consequently their
financial capabilities.   The  amount of outstanding indebtedness and annual
debt service borne  by  a community also affects the communits capability to
finance public  works projects.  The 1980 assessed valuation, property tax,
total revenue,  outstanding indebtedness,  and debt  service  for the juris-
dictions within the project area are presented in Table 3-21.
                                   3-75

-------
Table 3-21. Selected financial characteristics of the project area jurisdictions in  1980  (Carlson 1982a,
            1982b; by telephone, Minnesota Department of Revenue to Wapora, Inc., 4  June  1982; by letter,
            Mr. Harold Westholm, Moose Lake-Windemere Sanitary District to WAPORA, Inc.,  2 April 1982).


Jurisdiction

Windemere Township

Moose Lake Township

Moose Lake-Windemere
 Sanitary District

Pine County

Carlton County

Moose Lake
  School District

  City of Moose Lake
Assessed
Valuation ($)
3,310,539
1,701,968
4,552,404
46,876,244
88,981,157
10,529,509
2,608,374
Full Markgt
Value ($)
11,377,679
5,812,784
17,190,463
-
-
-
-
Debt ($)°
-0-
-0-
1,295,551
120,000
750,000
245,000
540,000
Debt d
Service ($)
-0-
-0-
82,100
20,000
-
78,807
22,000
Property
Tax ($)
32,925
50,037
23,982
2,523,087
3,714,732
545,043
52,305
Total f
Revenue ($)
56,362
27,300
1,381,989
9,699,480
11,332,481
-
363,138
a
 The value of all taxable general property as determined by the municipal assessor.

 The value of all taxable general property as determined by the Minnesota Department of Revenue.  This
 value is determined independently of the assessed value and reflects actual market value.
c
 General obligation bonds, long-term notes, revenue bonds, and installment contracts.
d
 Debt payment = principal + interest.
e
 State, County, local, and school property tax levies.
f
 Total revenues for general operations.

-------
     Criteria for  prudent  fiscal management have been developed by several
authors, and  an adaptation  of these criteria  is  presented  in Table 3-21.
These  recommended  standards can be compared  with relationships developed
from the previously  discussed  municipal data  (Table  3-22)  to assess local
financial conditions.   Based on these criteria, the  financial condition of
the MLWSD  in 1980 appears to  be  sound.   All of  the values  for the MLWSD
fall below  the limits  given in Table 3-23.   However,  the indicators con-
cerning debt  to  full market value and debt to personal income are close to
the standard upper limits.  This appears to be the result of  the relatively
large debts  that  the MLWSD has  incurred  for  the Sand Lake and Coffee Lake
improvement projects.  If additional large debts are  undertaken in the near
future,  it  is  possible  that  some  of  the  standard  upper limits  would  be
exceeded.  This would  depend,  though,  on  the  retirement  schedule for out-
standing debts  and the amount of capital  needed for improvement projects.
Table 3-22.  Values for Moose Lake-Windernere Sanitary District full-faith
             and credit debt analyses during 1980.
1980
Population
3,817
Debt Per
Capita ($)
394
Debt to
Full Value (%)
8.7
                                              Debt Service
                                             to Revenue  (%)
                                                 5.9
                              Debt to
                             Income (%)'
                                6.0
 Debt includes school and county debt apportioned on the basis of the Sani-
 tary District's percentage of the assessed valuations of the school dis-
 trict and counties.
Table 3-23.  Criteria for local government full-faith and credit debt
             analysis (Adapted from Moak and Hillhouse 1975 and Aron-
             son and Schwartz 1975) .
Debt Ratio
Debt per Capita
  Low Income
  Middle Income
  High Income
Debt to Market Value
  Property
Debt Service to Revenue
Debt to Personal Income
Standard Upper Limit for Debt
         $  500
          1,000
          5,000
10% of current market value
25% of the local government's
 total budget
7%
                                   3-77

-------
     Households  in the  MLWSD  pay  a  user fee  of  $4.00 per  month.   This
represents an annual user fee of $48.  The monthly fee includes $3.25/month
for  operation  and maintenance,  $0.50/month for  use  of the  City of Moose
Lake's waste  treatment plant, and  $0.25/month  for  District administrative
costs.  In addition to the user fee, users are assessed a connection charge
payable  over  a  30-year period.   Users  around  Coffee  Lake  are assessed
$2,150 for  connecting to  the system.  The assessment  is  $2,900 for users
around Sand Lake.  Assuming that a user presently is paying the annual user
fee  and  the assessment,  the typical  total  annual  charge  to users around
Coffee Lake and Sand Lake is $120 and $145, respectively.

3.2.5.  Transportation

     The  private  automobile  is  the primary mode of  transportation in the
project area.   County  Highway CH10 and CH46 are  the major, paved thorough-
fares  in the project  area.   Interstate  35  (1-35), which  is located just
west of  the  proposed  service area, is a limited  access highway and facili-
tates  accessibility north  to Duluth  (approximately 45  miles)  and south to
Minneapolis-St.  Paul  and beyond.   There is a  full traffic interchange on
1-35 at  CH 46.  Although most  of  the other roads  in  the  project area are
either sand or  gravel surfaced, the  annual average daily  traffic  (adt) is
equal  to  or  greater than the adt on other roads  for which data were avail-
able in most of northwestern Pine County (Minnesota Department of Transpor-
tation  [MNDOT]  1979);  Appendix M.   The  adt   on 1-35 within Pine County
increases from  north  to south indicating heavier traffic away from Duluth.
On State Highway 61, the main thoroughfare to Moose Lake, the  adt increases
from south to north indicating heavier traffic toward Moose Lake.

     The  closest  automatic  traffic  recorder  (atr)  station to the project
area is located 1.5 miles east of County State Aid Highway  (CSAH) 21, south
of  the project area  near Sandstone  MN.   Seasonally adjusted monthly adt
indicate  that  adt  peaks in November  (MNDOT 1981; Appendix M).  Data on the
total daily volume indicate that the highest adt  occurs on Saturday.  These
phenomena  reflect the  autumn  season,  hunting-generated traffic which is
greater than the summer season, recreation-generated traffic.
                                    3-78

-------
     The other modes  of transportation available  in  or in close proximity
to the  project area  are:   Senior citizen bus  service,  railroad,  and air-
plane.   The  Pine County  Committee on  Aging operates  an  11-passenger bus
five  times  a month  for medical services  and  provides transportation ser-
vices  to 12  Senior  Citizen  Centers  located   throughout  Pine  County (By
telephone, Ms. Pearl  Oleson,  President, Pine County  Committee  on  Aging to
WAPORA,  Inc.,  12  July 1982).   The nearest commercial airport is located at
Duluth.  Numerous intermediate  airports are located in the vicinity of the
project  area.  Burlington  Northern,  Inc. and Soo Line own and operate rail
facilities in the vicinity of the project area.

3.2.6.   Energy

     There are  four  types  of energy  available for  space  heating and ap-
pliance  use  in the  project area:  fuel oil, liquid  propane  gas (Ip gas),
wood, and electricity.   Natural gas is  not  available in the service area,
but  is  available in  the City of Moose Lake.   There  are  no published data
available on consumption patterns  in  the  area and  local  opinion varies.
Wood,  Ip gas, and  fuel oil  are most  commonly used  for  space  heating (By
telephone Mr.  J.  Sanders,  Carlton-Aitkin-Pine  Cooperative Oil Association;
Mr.  C.  Chmielewski,  Chmielewski Oil Company;  and Roger Davidson, Carlton
County Cooperative  Power  Association to WAPORA, Inc. 14 June 1982).  Elec-
tricity  is not a popular choice for  space heating unless it is used at an
off-peak reduced  rate  as  a back-up for wood  (Mr. Roger Davidson, Carlton
County Cooperative  Power  Association to WAPORA, Inc.,  14  June  1982).  The
use  of  wood  for  space heating  has  increased  in  recent  years.   A back-up
system which requires either  Ip  gas, fuel oil,  or  electricity is necessary.
Electricity,  followed  by  Ip  gas  and  fuel  oil  is most commonly  used for
appliances.    There  are no  major commercial,  industrial,  or retail energy
consumers in either the project area or the City  of Moose Lake.  The state
hospital in  Moose Lake is the biggest  consumer in the area  (By telephone,
Mr.  L.  Johnson Moose Lake  Municipal Power  Plant  to  WAPORA,  Inc., 11 June
1982).

     Pine County  is located in  State Planning  Region  7E and  Carlton County
is located in State Planning Region  3.   In terms  of the cost for residen-
                                    3-79

-------
tial  energy these  two  regions  ranked  approximately  seventh  and fourth,
respectively,  out of  the thirteen  state  planning regions  (Table 3-24.).
The differences  in  total cost reflect both differences in unit cost and in
degree  heating days.   The  unit cost  for  the  various  forms of  energy is
higher  in  Region 3  (Carlton County)  than in  Minnesota  as  a whole.  This
also is true in Pine County, except for natural gas which is less expensive
than the state-wide average  (Appendix N.).
Table 3-24.  Average cost for residential energy during the period from April
             1980 to March 1981  (Minnesota Energy Agency 1981).
                                     	Fuel Type	
  Region                  Use        Natural Gas   Electricity   Fuel Oil   LP Gas
3 (Carlton County)   Space heating      $703         $  978       $1,281    $1,107
                     Total energy        988          1,562        1,865     1,640
7E (Pine County)     Space heating       490            994        1,101     1,064
                     Total energy        849          1,585        1,692     1,616
a
 Data are not available for wood.  A full cord of wood is estimated to cost
 approximately $50 (By telephone, Mr. C. Chmielewski, Chmielewski Oil Company
 to WAPORA, Inc. 14 June 1982).
     There  are no  restrictions  foreseen on  natural  gas hook-ups  in the
Moose Lake  area at  this  time (By telephone,  Intercity  Gas  Limited  to WA-
PORA, Inc.,  11 June 1982).  Electrical energy in the  service area is sup-
plied by  the  Carlton County Cooperative  Power Association.  The Moose Lake
Municipal Power Plant supplies electricity to  the City of Moose Lake.  Both
of these suppliers purchase electricity from United Power Association  (UPA)
of Elk River, Minnesota.  UPA owns a 2-year old generating station in North
Dakota  which  currently  is operating  at  50%  of  its capacity.   There are
currently no foreseen shortages of either Ip gas or fuel oil.
                                   3-80

-------
3.2.7.  Recreation and Tourism

     The tourism-travel industry is not considered a major industry in Pine
County  (East  Central Regional Development  Commission  [ECRDC]  1981).   How-
ever,  there  are indicators  that the  industry  is growing  as  energy costs
inhibit long-distance  travel  and Twin Cities vacationers seek recreational
opportunities closer  to  home.  The 1979 gross sales for the tourism-travel
industry in  Pine County  was  $1,880,000  (By  telephone, Mr.  Igmar Sollin,
Minnesota  Department  of  Tourism  to WAPORA, Inc., 14  June  1982).   The es-
timated cost breakdown is shown below:

     $376,000  lodging
      470,000  transportation
      507,000  food and beverage
      414,000  retail and other services
      113,000  amusements and other miscellaneous

     The gross  sales  in  the tourism-travel industry accounted  for 3.5% of
the total gross sales in  Pine County during 1979  (By telephone, Mr. Patrick
Connelly, ECRDC  to  WAPORA,  Inc.  14 July  1982).   This  figure can be consi-
dered  significant   to  Pine County  where  trade  is the  largest employment
sector.   In  comparison  to tourism-travel sales  statewide,  however,  Pine
County  sales are less significant,  accounting for only 0.10% of the state-
wide sales during  1979 (By telephone, Mr.  Igmar  Sollin,  Minnesota Depart-
ment of Tourism to WAPORA, Inc., 14 June 1982).

     The tourism-travel  industry  in the project area primarily consists of
private development.   There  is  a public  access  area  on each  of the four
lakes.  There  are  two  resorts  in  the project area,  both  of  which are on
Sturgeon Lake.   The Eidelweiss  Campground has six cabins  and  60 campsites
(By telephone,  Ms.  Sheldine Ion, Eidelweiss Campground to WAPORA, Inc., 14
July 1982).  Ray and Marges Resort has cabins and  a bar.  Both resorts rent
small fishing boats.

     Fishing is  the major recreational activity on the service area lakes,
although pleasure boating is a major recreational  activity on Sturgeon Lake
                                   3-81

-------
and Island Lake.  There are private piers and swimming beaches only.  There
are no  public  parks or marinas in  the  project  area  (By telephone, Mr. Don
Clausen, Moose Lake Village Clerk to WAPORA, Inc., 14 July 1982).

3.2.8.  Cultural Resources

     Both the  National Register of Historic Places and the Minnesota State
Historic  Preservation  Officer  (SHPO)  were consulted  concerning the arch-
aeological and historic resources within the MLWSD (Appendix  ).  There are
currently no known  resources  within the project area that are listed in or
considered  eligible for  inclusion  to  the  National  Register  of Historic
Places.

3.2.8.1.  Historic  Sites

     The  following  sites  have been identified by the SHPO as being located
within the boundaries of the EIS project area:

     •    21 PN  6  - A group of  14  mounds  located near Sturgeon Lake.
          Section 20, T45 R19, Pine County
     •    21 PN 18 -  Two  mounds  located near Eidelweiss  Resort on
          Sturgeon  Lake.  Section 20, T45 R19, Pine County
     •    21 PN 19  - Historic archaeological site (Charcoal Kilns) lo-
          cated in  Section 20, T45 R19, Pine County
     •    Unnumbered site located in Sections 16 and 21, T45 R19, Pine
          County.
     The  SHPO  has  stated  that Pine  Cunty has been  surveyed recently for
historic, standing  structures.   While no  structures  were  determined  to be
eligible  for  the National  Register of Historic Places, one  site of local
historic  interest  was  identified  within the proposed  service  area.   This
site is the original YMCA Boys Camp containing the original Camp Miller Log
Cabin structure,  located  in the southern half of Section 17, Township 45N
Range  19  W (southwest  shore  of  Sturgeon  Lake).   This  structure was con-
structed  prior  to  1920 and is  listed as being  in good condition according
to the records of the SHPO.
                                   3-82

-------
3.2.8.2.  Archaeological Sites

     While  few archaeological  sites have  been  recorded within  the boun-
daries of the project area, it is the opinion of the SHPO that this absence
is  related  to a  lack of  systematic surveys for  the  area  rather  than an
actual  absence  of resources.   The  SHPO has  stated  that an archaeological
survey may be necessary for the service area.  Final recommendations on the
necessity of  a  survey will be withheld pending review of the final project
alternative.
                                    3-83

-------
4.0.  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

     The  potential  environmental consequences  of  the project alternatives
described  in  Section 2.4.  are discussed  in  the  following  sections.   The
impacts  resulting  from  the construction and  operation  of the alternatives
may be beneficial or adverse, and may vary in duration and significance.  A
summary  of  the  significant impacts of project alternatives is presented in
Table 4-1.

     Environmental  effects are classified  as either primary or secondary
impacts.   Primary  impacts result  directly  from  the  construction  and/or
operation of the proposed  facilities.  Short—term  primary impacts generally
occur  during  construction.   Long-term  primary   impacts  result  from  the
operation of the proposed  project.

     Secondary impacts are  indirect effects of the project, such as changes
in  demographic  and other  socioeconomic  characteristics.   As  these changes
occur,  other  impacts which may result  include:   air  or  water pollution,
increased noise levels,  increased energy consumption, increased development
pressure,  diminished wildlife  habitats,  increased employment  or  business
activity,  and  increased  property values.   Secondary impacts also  may be
either  short-term  or  long-term.   An  example of a short-term secondary
impact  is the  disruption  of the environment that occurs  during  the con-
struction  of  secondary  development.   Long-term secondary  impacts  can re-
sult, for  example,  from urban runoff that  occurs  for an indefinite period
after development of agricultural land or undeveloped areas.

     Measures to  control  or mitigate adverse impacts are also discussed in
this chapter.   These measures include planning activities and construction
techniques  that can  reduce  the  severity  of both  primary  and secondary
adverse  impacts.    The  use  of appropriate  mitigative  measures should be
stipulated  as  an  integral  part  of  all project  plans  and  specifications
developed by the Sanitary  District.
                                    4-1

-------
Table 4-1. A summary of significant environmental  impacts of Project Alternatives.
                  ADVERSE IMPACTS
                                             BENEFICIAL IMPACTS
      t
       o
      (X
       o
       0)
       o
      o
      o
      o
      2
      Q.
      O
      o
      a
      O
Project Alternatives 4 through 7 could
cause short-term water quality degrada-
tion during construction of centralized
collection and treatment facilities.
See Section 4,1.1.3.
Project Alternatives 2 through 7 would
have short-term impacts on backyard
vegetation and on vegetation and wild-
life in sewer corridors and at treat-
ment sites.  Alternative 5 would have
significant short-term impacts on
wildlife due to construction of exclu-
sionary fence.  See Section 4.1.1.5.
Project Alternative 5 could have long-
term impacts on the groundwater and
biota at the site of treatment.  See
Sections 4.1.2.2. and 4.1.2.5.

Project Alternative 5 could have long-
term impacts on the peat soils at the
treatment site.  See Section 4.1.2^2.

Project  Alternative 7 is a high cost
system that could pose a significant
financial burden on users even if State
and Federal grants are available.
Project Alternative 2 is the only
alternative that would not pose a
significant financial burden on users
if no grants are available.  See
Section 4.1.3. for details.
Project Alternatives 2 through 7 may
have a significant secondary impact
on low income families with residences
on the shorelines of Island and Sturgeon
Lakes.  These families may be displaced
from the project area if they are unable
to afford user charges.  See Section
4.2.2. and Table 4-4 of Section 4.1.3.
                                    4-2

-------
4.1.  Primary Impacts of the Seven Project Alternatives

4.1.1.  Construction Impacts

     Each  of the  alternatives  involves  some construction  initially,  in-
cluding the  No-Action  Alternative,  which incorporates some construction of
new  systems  and upgraded  systems  in  the  course of  the  20-year  design
period.   Evaluation  of the impacts associated with  the  No-Action Alterna-
tive  is discussed  with operational impacts in Section 4.1.2.  Construction
impacts for  Alternatives  2  through 7  (the  "action"  alternatives)  are ad-
dressed in  the  following subsections for each of the major elements of the
natural and man-made environments.

4.1.1.1.  Atmosphere

     Construction  activities  for  Alternatives  2 through  7 will  produce
short-term adverse  impacts  to  local air quality.  Cleaning, grading, exca-
vating, backfilling, and other related construction activities will gener-
ate  fugitive dust, noise,  and odors.   Emissions of fumes  and  noise from
construction  equipment  will  be a  temporary  nuisance to  residents  living
near  the  sewer pipe construction  corridor and  near the  treatment  facil-
ities.

4.1.1.2.  Soils

     Soils  exposed during  construction will be  subjected  to  accelerated
erosion until the soil surface is protected by revegetation or other means.
Most of the  force mains will be laid within road  rights-of-way where runoff
tends to concentrate in roadside drainageways, but some sewers will be laid
through residential yards.

     Major storms  could  cause  considerable erosion in some drainageways or
on lots on steep slopes.  The alternatives that involve the construction of
considerable lengths of  sewers and force mains can be expected to result in
the  greatest  amount  of erosion  and  subsequent sedimentation.   Adverse
consequences  due to increased  sedimentation  include additional phosphorus
inputs to  lakes  and streams, clogging of road culverts, localized flooding
                                    4-3

-------
where drainageways  are  filled with sediment, and  localized  filling of the
lake bed so that a substrate for aquatic plant growth is provided.

4.1.1.3.  Surface Water

     Wastewater collection  system  and treatment plant construction activi-
ties  (Alternatives  4 through 7) could produce  discharges  of turbid waters
pumped  from  excavations  and trenches, and  turbid  surface  runoff from dis-
turbed  areas,  resulting  in increased turbidity and sedimentation  in ad-
jacent  wetlands  or  lakes.   This sediment  transport  could result in water
quality degradation,  and  has the potential to result in adverse  impacts to
aquatic biota.   Upgrading  on-site  systems  (Alternatives  2  through 7) and
construction of collection  systems for cluster  drainfields  (Alternatives 3
through 6)  also  would contribute turbid runoff  to lakes or waterways, but
to  a lesser extent  compared to the  construction of  the  centralized col-
lection and treatment alternatives.

4.1.1.4.  Groundwater

     Groundwater  may be  impacted  by construction  activities in localized
areas.  Construction dewatering may cause  some  shallow  wells to fail, es-
pecially where  pump stations are to  be constructed.  A potential change in
water quality would likely occur where organic  soils are  disturbed either
directly or  by  altering the water  table.   Organics may leach out of these
areas  and  affect  the taste  of water in  nearby wells.   Spilled fuel and
other construction  materials could quickly  pass through the  sandy soils to
contaminate the groundwater.
4.1.1.5.  Biota

     Construction activities associated with various  components  of the pro-
posed  alternatives  would result  in  impacts  to  wildlife and vegetation to
various degrees.  Collection  sewers (Alternatives  4 through  7) and upgraded
systems  (Alternatives 2  through  7)  would  be placed on  residential lots;
temporary  loss  of  grassed  areas and the   removal  or death of  trees would
result  from  construction  of  these  facilities.   Disruption  of backyard
                                     4-4

-------
gardens, shrubs,  and  lawns,  and the presence of construction equipment and
noises, would  cause temporary displacement of  most  vertebrate  species and
mortality  of a  few  (probably  small  mammal)  species, but  replacement of
vegetation and  cessation of construction  activities would allow re-estab-
lishment of  the  animals  to  the areas.  .More  likely  the animals commonly
associated with human habitation (e.g., cottontail rabbits, house sparrows,
European starlings) that  would  be displaced would move  to suitable neigh-
boring  habitats  but  would  not  induce  density-related   stress  upon those
habitats.

     A  bog treatment system (Alternative 5),  cluster drainfields  (Alter-
natives  3  through  6),  and an upgraded lagoon  (Alternatives  4,  6,  and 7,)
would  adversely  affect  vegetation  and  wildlife during  construction,  de-
pending  upon  the proposed  sites.   Establishment  of exclusionary  fences
around the bog treatment site would disrupt feeding  and migration habits of
whitetail  deer  and other large mammals.   Placement  of cluster  drainfields
would be somewhat removed from residential areas, and little disruption of
vegetation or  wildlife would be  expected by  their  construction.   The im-
pacts  on  terrestrial biota  that  would result  from  upgrading the existing
on-site  systems  would  be insignificant  because  a  relatively  small total
amount  of  construction  on developed land would be required to complete the
project.

4.1.1.6.  Demographics

     Temporary  jobs created by  the construction  of wastewater collection
and treatment  facilities  are not  likely to attract  any new permanent resi-
dents  to the project  area.  These positions would most likely be filled by
workers from the  immediate and surrounding areas.  Some permanent residents
may reduce  the time spent in their  homes while construction of on-site or
sewer  systems occurs  on their property.   Because  many  residents utilize
their  lakeshore property for vacation purposes,  vacation schedules may be
disrupted  by  the  construction  activities.    No significant  demographic
impacts  will  occur during  reconstruction of  wastewater treatment facil-
ities.
                                     4-5

-------
4.1.1.7.  Land Use

     Construction  activities  associated with  the  implementation of Alter-
natives  3 through  7 would  require  some  conversions  of  land  use  in the
project  area.   Under Alternatives 3  through  7,  residential, agricultural,
forest, and wetland  areas  would be affected  to  varying degrees.  The con-
struction of  the  lagoon expansion at the existing Moose Lake WWTP, the bog
treatment system,  and the cluster drainfields will  require permanent land
conversion,  as  shown in Table 4-2.  Under any of the Project Alternatives,
less than 0.1%  of  the farmland in Pine County would be converted to treat-
ment sites.
Table 4-2. Land use conversions for "action" alternatives.
Project
Alternative
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
Treatment System
On-site
Cluster drainfield
Lagoon upgrade a
Cluster drainfield
Bog treatment
Cluster drainfield
•a
Lagoon upgrade
Cluster drainfield
Acres
Converted
None
16
14
5
20
5
22
5
Existing Land
Use
Residential
Farm,
_ b
Farm
Farm
Wetland
Farm
b
Farm
Farm


    #7
Lagoon upgradee
48
                                                      Farm
.Upgrade lagoons at existing Moose Lake WWTP
 Pr ime fa rmlan d
     The construction  of  sewers under Alternatives 3 through 7 would occur
primarily in residential areas.  However, certain environmentally sensitive
areas would  be  affected.   Agricultural,  wetland, and  forest  areas will be
traversed  by connector  sewers under  these alternatives.   Following con-
struction of  the  sewer systems, a 30- to  40-foot easement may be enforced
to  ensure  access  to  the  sewer system  for repairs and  maintenance.  The
magnitude  of these  impacts  is not  anticipated  to be  significant because
most of the sewer system would follow existing rights-of-way, such as those
along roadways.
                                    4-6

-------
     Wetlands may  be subject  to sedimentation during  construction of the
sewer collection  system.  As  a result,  water  circulation patterns within
these wetlands may be permanently modified.  Excavation, clearing, grading,
and backfilling may temporarily affect the productivity and aesthetic value
of wetlands, agricultural, orchard, and forest lands during construction of
conveyance lines.

     The  construction of  on-site systems  under  Alternatives 2  through 6
would occur  primarily on lots which are  already  developed for residential
use.   Cluster systems  would  be built  on agricultural  land, but  an in-
significant  amount  of the  total agricultural area  would  be  necessary for
their construction.  The  amount of prime  agricultural  farmland affected by
construction activities is dependent upon the actual location of the waste-
water treatment  facilities.   The prime farmland within the project area is
discussed in Section 3.2.2.3.

     The  Council on  Environmental Quality  (CEQ)  has  issued  a memorandum
(CEQ  1976)   to  all  Federal  agencies  requesting  that  efforts be  made to
insure  that prime  and  unique  farmlands  (as designated  by  SCS)  are not
irreversibly converted to  other uses unless other national interests over-
ride the Importance of or benefits derived  from their protection.

     The USEPA has a policy of not allowing the construction of a treatment
plant or  the placement  of interceptor  sewers  funded through  the Construc-
tion Grants  Program  in  prime agricultural  lands  unless it is necessary to
eliminate existing point discharges and  or to  accommodate flows that vio-
late the  requirements of the Clean Water Act (USEPA 1981b).  The policy of
USEPA is  to protect  prime agricultural  land  from being adversely affected
by  both primary and  secondary  impacts.   It  is  considered to be a signi-
ficant  impact  if  40  or more  acres  of  prime agricultural  land are diverted
from production.

     Less  than  40 acres  of prime  agricultural  land are  likely to be di-
rectly affected under any of the project  alternatives except Alternative 7,
which  requires  48 acres  for upgrading  the existing lagoons  (Table 4-2).
These lands  would be taken out of production and used as lagoons, treatment
                                     4-7

-------
facilities,  buffer zones,  or access  roads.  The  actual total  amount  of
acres  of  prime  agricultural  land  which  may  ultimately  be taken  out  of
production  for  each  project  alternative  is  dependent  upon  the  precise
location and  placement  of  the treatment sites and  interceptor routes,  as
will  be  determined in  completion of the facility planning  for the MLWSD.

4.1.1.8.  Economics

     The construction of  wastewater treatment facilities  under any of the
project  alternatives  would create  a  limited  number  of short-term  con-
struction  jobs.  Masons,  pipefitters,  heavy equipment  operators,  electri-
cians, truck drivers, plumbers,  roofers, painters, and carpenters would be
among  the  tradesmen  necessary  to  complete  construction of  the proposed
facilities.  Most jobs would be filled by persons living within the project
area or within commuting distance of the project area.

     The purchase  of  construction  materials  from project  area merchants
would  benefit  the  local  economy.   However,  few firms  offering materials
required  for  the  construction  of  wastewater  facilities are  established
within the project area.  Purchases made by construction workers within the
project area also  would benefit  the local  economy.   These purchases would
likely be  for  fuel,  food, and clothing.  Patronage may be reduced for some
businesses along sewer  lines when road closings and disruptions occur.  No
significant economic  impacts are anticipated to occur during the construc-
tion of wastewater facilities under any of the alternatives.

4.1.1.9.  Transportation

     Increased truck and  grading equipment traffic during the  construction
of wastewater  treatment components would  increase  road congestion.  Vehi-
cular  traffic  would be  inconvenienced by excavating, grading,  backfilling,
and  temporary  road closures during construction of  conveyance  lines along
roadways under Alternatives  4  through  7.  The  inconvenience  experienced
during these periods is not anticipated to be significant.
                                    4-8

-------
4.1.1.10.  Energy Resources

     Residential,  commerical,  and  industrial  energy requirements  are not
likely  to  be  affected during  the  construction of  wastewater facilities
under  any  of  the alternatives.   Active  competition for  specific energy
sources would become apparent if there were a recurrence of a national fuel
crisis such as the one precipitated by the oil embargo of 1977.  Trucks and
construction equipment used during the construction of wastewater treatment
facilities would  increase  demand for local supplies of gasoline and diesel
fuel.  There is  ample power generation to meet the electrical needs of any
of the construction phase activities.

4.1.1.11.  Recreation and Tourism

     Many  recreational  activities in the project area  are concentrated on
or  along  the  perimeter of  lakes.   No significant  air,  water,  noise,  or
traffic  impacts  are  expected to occur near the lakes which would seriously
interfere  with tourism  and recreation activities.  Construction activities
may curtail some recreation and tourist activities by interupting access to
recreational facilities.   However,  these  impacts are not anticipated to be
significant.

4.1.1.12.  Cultural Resources

     Final routings of conveyance lines should be presented to the SHPO for
assessment before  construction activities begin.   If construction excava-
tions  uncover  significant  cultural resources, the  SHPO  should be notified
immediately.   To  provide adequate consideration  of  impacts affecting his-
toric  sites,  a survey of  the  Miller cabin on the  YMCA  property should be
conducted  preceding  implementation of any alternative  which involves con-
veyance of wastewater to the City of Moose Lake treatment plant.

4.1.2.  Operational Impacts

     Each  of  the  alternatives,  including  the No-Action  Alternative, in-
volves operations  that  will continue through the project period.  Included
                                    4-9

-------
in the definition of operations are construction of new septic tank systems
for new  structures and  upgrading on-site systems  that  fail.   Impacts are
addressed for each of  the major elements of the natural and man-made envi-
ronments.

4.1.2.1.  Atmosphere

     Potential  emissions  from the operation of  the centralized wastewater
treatment components  include  aerosols, hazardous  gases,  and  odors.   The
emissions could pose a health risk or be a public nuisance.

     Organic  material  that  contains  sulfur or  nitrogen may  be partially
oxidized anaerobically and result in the emission of byproducts that may be
malodorous.    Common emissions,  such  as hydrogen sulfide  and  ammonia, are
often referred to as sewer gases, and have odors reminiscent of rotten eggs
and  concentrated  urine,  respectively.   Some  organic  acids,  aldehydes,
mercaptans,   skatoles,   indoles,   and  amines also   may  be odorous,  either
individually  or in combination  with other  sewage  compounds.   Sources  of
wastewater related odors include:

     o    Untreated or incompletely treated wastewater.
     o    Screenings,  grit,  or skimmings  containing  septic  or putre-
          scible matter.
     o    Oil, grease, fats, and soaps  from food-handling enterprises,
          homes, and surface runoff.
     o    Gaseous  emissions from  treatment processes,  manholes,  wet
          wells, pumping  stations,  leaking containers, turbulent flow
          areas, and outfall areas.
     o    Raw or incompletely stabilized sludge or  septage.

Wastewater stabilization lagoons typically emit considerable odors when the
ice cover melts  in the  spring.  These  odors are likely to be noticeable at
least one-half  mile in  the downwind direction.  Odors from septic tank ef-
fluent sewers  may  escape  from lift  stations  where turbulent  flow occurs
unless proper design  steps are taken to minimize odors.  Sewage may become
septic and odorous in  the lengthy force mains that are part of some alter-
natives  especially during  the   low-flow  winter  season.    The occasional
                                    4-10

-------
failure of an  on-site system may release some odors. Septage haulers using
inadequate or  improperly maintained  equipment may  create  odor nuisances.
None  of  the  Project Alternatives  are anticipated  to  cause  significant
public  health  or nuisance  impacts  if  proper  mitigative measures  are  em-
ployed.  For example, restrictive zoning for residential development around
the lagoon systems should be implemented.

4.1.2.2.  Soils

     The operation of the bog treatment system and cluster drainfields for
wastewater treatment  would  alter the soils of these sites over the life of
the project.   The potential  changes depend on  the  existing soil chemical
and hydraulic  properties  and on the  chemical characteristics  and appli-
cation  rate  of  the  septic tank  effluent.   In general  the phosphorus and
nitrogen  content of  the  soils  will be  affected.  Chemical and physical
properties  of  the  soils  of  the area  are  discussed in  Section 2.2.1.1.
Impacts to the peat  soil under  the  bog treatment alternative (Alternative
5)  are of some  concern  due  to  the  treatment requirement  that  the  water
table  be  artificially maintained at a steady and low level.  Deleterious
impacts to the soils in  the  cluster  systems  and onsite upgrades (Alterna-
tives  2 through 7)   are expected  to be minimal.   The general  nature of
potential  impacts of all  project  alternatives  on soil  is described in
Appendix G.

4.1.2.3.  Surface Water

     Operational  Impacts that could  affect surface water  quality through
the 20-year  design period concern the  following  types of wastewater pollu-
tants:  coliform  bacteria,  dissolved organics, suspended solids, and exces-
sive nutrients.  Other wastewater pollutants such as trace metals or chlor-
inated  organics  are  not expected to significantly affect any surface water
uses.

     Measurements of fecal coliform  (bacterial  contamination)  made in the
project  area  lakes   are  inconclusive  because bacterial  sampling  efforts
usually involved one sample per station for  a single date.  USEPA regula-
                                    4-11

-------
tions require that conclusions as to the violation of standards be based on
the geometric mean of a minimum of five samples.

     Continued  reliance  on  existing  systems  (No-Action  Alternative)  in
areas with a high water table increases the potential for bacterial contam-
ination  of  surface  water.   For  the  other  alternatives,  the  wastewater
management  system proposed  should  effectively  preclude  these  problems,
although  bacterial  contamination is  still a  possibility with centralized
alternatives  in cases  of pumping station malfunctions, or  with upgraded
on-site systems in cases of surface ponding of the effluent.

     Treatment of wastewater by soil absorption systems is an effective way
of  eliminating or immobilizing  sewage-borne  pathogens.   In fine-textured
soil, bacteria  can  be filtered out by  1 to 2 meters of  soil.   Soils con-
taining clay  remove  most organisms through adsorption.   Sandy soil removes
them through filtration  (Lance 1978).

     On-site  systems  should  effectively  remove suspended  solids from the
septic  tank effluent and  most  dissolved  organic  substances should be re-
moved by  soil  adsorption.  The septic leachate survey, which is  indicative
of dissolved  organics  or dissolved salts as components of suspected leach-
ate  plumes,  detected a  very  limited  number of such plumes  in  each of the
lakes.  Dissolved organics will exert a BOD resulting in  the consumption of
dissolved  oxygen within  a  lake.   Within a  properly  maintained  on-site
system, BOD movement to  lake waters should be  insignificant.

     Centralized  collection and treatment alternatives  that use the Moose
Horn  River as  a  receiving stream for discharge of  treated wastewater ef-
fluents from  the  treatment lagoons (Alternatives 4, 6, and  7) are operated
with the  discharge  timed for release during the spring runoff period.  The
waste  stabilization  lagoons  are  designed to  meet State  and  Federal dis-
charge  standards.  Suspended  solids  and dissolved organics are expected to
exert  a BOD  in the  receiving  stream  that could  depress dissolved oxygen
levels.  Most of the residual BOD and ammonia  should be oxidized within the
Moose River or Kettle River  and not affect the downstream St. Croix River.
                                    4-12

-------
     The input of excessive nutrients to lakes within the project area is a
signficant concern.   Previous discussions presented  in  Chapter 2 (Section
2.2.2.4.)  and  Chapter 3  (Section 3.1.3)  address  in detail  the potential
water quality impacts of proposed wastewater treatment alternatives.  These
are summarized in the following paragraphs.

     If the  No-Action  Alternative were selected, the phosphorus loading to
all lakes is likely to increase in comparison with present conditions. This
projected  increase  is based  on  future  population  estimates  around  the
project area lakes,  and  would stem from the generalized nutrient transport
to  the lakes  associated  with  residential  development.   For  example,  an
increased  population would  use  additional  on-site  systems,  possibly  re-
sulting in some additional phosphorus loads to the lakes.

     Centralized  collection systems  would eliminate the  phosphorus loads
associated with  failing on-site  systems.  Upgrading  existing ori-site sys-
tems and  placing certain  residences  in  critical  areas on  a cluster col-
lection system also could result  in decreased phosphorus loads to the lakes
compared  to  present conditions.   However, the  additional  residential de-
velopment  that  would  ultimately be  served  by  the  centralized collection
systems proposed in any of the project alternatives also would generate new
sources of phosphorus to the lakes.   These phosphorus loads would stem from
the  generalized  phosphorus movement  associated  with  erosion and lawn fer-
tilization  in  residential  land  use.  Additional  phosphorus  loads  to  the
lakes  may stem from  sewer exfiltration.  These impacts are  secondary in
nature, as  discussed  in  Section 4.2.3.,  but  the result  is that gains a-
chieved in abatement of on-site system phosphorus loads through  centralized
collection and treatment is of reduced long-term significance.

     The  principal  water  quality benefit  that might be anticipated  through
provision of improved  wastewater management  for the  lakeshore community is
an  improvement  in  lake trophic condition  whereby algae blooms would be re-
duced.  This would be a long-term benefit  the results of which would not be
seen for  many  years if the hydraulic residence  time  of a lake was great or
if other sources of phosphorus predominated.  Based on evaluations of water
quality, nutrient loading regimes, trophic histories, and the aquatic biota
                                     4-13

-------
of  the  project area  lakes it is concluded  that  no significant beneficial
impact on trophic  status  will result from any  of the seven project alter-
natives.  The eutrophic condition of Island Lake would not be changed,  and
blue-green algae  blooms would not  be  lessened  in frequency  or  severity.
The  existing good  water  quality  of Sturgeon,  Rush, and  Passenger Lakes
would not  be protected to  any  greater  degree as  a result  of implementing
any of the proposed project alternatives.

     The fact that none of the proposed project alternatives offers a pros-
pect  of beneficial  water quality  impacts is  a  consequence of  the local
environment,  rather than  of  the  design of the  alternatives.   All existing
data on  the  natural and man-made environment of  the  project area indicate
that  impacts  of domestic  wastewater on  lakes  are inconsequential  in  the
context of other manageable and unmanageable nutrient sources.

     An  additional  concern of implementing an  alternative  which  calls  for
collection sewers  is the  effect  of such an alternative  on lake  water  le-
vels.   Lake  water  levels  may decline  slightly  with  the centralized col-
lection  alternatives  because water  that formerly  went  to  soil adsorption
systems  would  be  exported  from  the basin.   The  groundwater inflow  and
outflow of the lakes are an important component in  their hydrologic budgets
and export of  groundwater introduced to sewers through wastewater disposal
and  through  general  infiltration could  lower  the lakes'  flushing rates.
Assuming no long-term change in average surface water inflows and outflows,
a water  volume  equivalent to between 1  and  2  inches  of lake surface would
be  exported  from  Island or  Sturgeon Lake  during the summer  through  the
collection sewers exposed under Alternatives 6 and  7.   Potential impacts of
lowered  lake levels include  a decrease in hydraulic residence time for the
lakes and concomitant changes in phosphorus levels  and algae growth.

4.1.2.4.  Groundwater

     Operational  impacts  that  could  affect  groundwater  in  the  20-year
design  period  concern  the following types  of  pollutants:   coliform bac-
teria,  dissolved  organics, and excessive nutrients.   Movement  to ground-
water of other  wastewater constituents  or of soil  chemicals would continue
                                    4-14

-------
to  occur under  the alternatives  employing on-site  systems, but  are not
expected to significantly  affect  any of the uses of the groundwater within
the service area.

     Bacteria and dissolved  organics are readily removed by filtration and
adsorption onto  soil particles.   Two meters of  soil  material is generally
adequate  for  bacterial removal  (Wilson and others  1982),  except  in very
coarse-grained, highly permeable  soil material.   Contamination of drinking
water wells  or  surface water with bacteria and  dissolved  organics in the
service area is unlikely under any of the project alternatives.

     High  phosphorus  concentrations  in groundwater  which  discharges  to
lakes can  contribute to  excessive eutrophication.   Section  4.1.2.2. con-
tains  a discussion  of phosphorus movement  in  groundwater,  and indicates
that phosphorus  inputs to  the lakes  will  not  be  significantly different
under any  of  the Alternatives.  Field  studies have  shown that most soils,
even medium sands,  typically remove in  excess of  95% of  phosphates  in
relatively  short distances  from  effluent  sources  (Jones  and  Lee 1977).
However,  soil  absorption   systems  can be a potential  source  of phosphorus
input to  lakes  when located very  close  to  the lakeshore and may stimulate
algal growth  in localized  areas  where  effluent plumes  emerge;  but their
contribution  to lake  eutrophication  is not  considered to  be  a  primary
factor  in  the  project  area.  The largest contribution of groundwater phos-
phorus  to  the  lakes would come from  the No-Action Alternative.  The lowest
groundwater phosphorus  contributions to lakes would  originate from alter-
natives  that  incorporate   increased  centralized  wastewater  collection.

     The wastewater  stabilization  lagoons  which are components of the cen-
tralized  alternatives,  (Alternatives 4, 6, and 7), may contribute phos-
phorus  to  the  groundwater if seepage  from  the  lagoons is considerable.  A
study  of Minnesota wastewater  stabilization  lagoons  (E.A.  Hickok and As-
sociates  1978)   concluded  that none of  the  ponds  (all had  natural soil
liners) were  capable  of  meeting the  designed  and specified seepage rates.
Most of the ponds studied removed phosphorus effectively, although some had
seepage rates considerably higher  than the maximum allowable.
                                     4-15

-------
     Nitrates in groundwater  are of concern at concentrations greater than
10 mg/1 as  nitrogen  because they may in  some  circumstances cause methemo-
globinemia  in infants  who  ingest liquids prepared with  such waters.  This
limit was  set in  the  National  Interim Primary  Drinking Water Regulations
(40 CFR 141) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523).

     The density of  soil  absorption systems is said to be the most import-
ant  parameter  influencing pollution  levels  of  nitrates  in groundwater
(Scalf and  Dunlop  1977).   The potential for high nitrate concentrations in
groundwater is greater in  areas of multi-tier or grid types of residential
developments  than  in  single  tier  developments.   Depending on the ground-
water flow direction and pumping rates of wells, nitrate contributions from
soil absorption  systems may become cumulative  in multi-tier developments.
Because extensive  areas of multi-tier development are not projected in the
project area  through  the  20-year design period  (Section 3.2.2.4.), nitrate
contamination of  wells  is considered  to have  a low risk potential.   If
wells were  found  to have  high nitrate concentrations they  may  need to be
made deeper so  that  a hydraulically limiting  layer  is penetrated (Section
2.2.2.3.).

     Cluster  drainfields  are designed with criteria similar to individual
drainfields except that they are applied on a large scale.  Nitrate concen-
trations in the  groundwater below a cluster drainfield  are anticipated to
be no higher  than  those below an  individual  soil absorption system.  How-
ever, insufficient experimentation has been conducted to enable designing
for  nitrogen  removals from cluster drainfields.   Therefore, a  wise  pre-
caution would be to  locate the  cluster drainfield as far  from wells as is
feasible.   This  is one reason why cluster drainfields under Alternatives 3
through  6  have   been  designed to  be  sited away  from residential areas in
this project.

     Seepage from  the  wastewater stabilization lagoons could result in ele-
vated nitrate levels in the groundwater below the lagoons.  Clay liners are
not  impermeable, and  plastic  liners can  be punctured and can deteriorate.
Field studies  (EA Hickok  and Associates  1978)  have  shown that a seepage
rate of  no more than 500  gallons per acre  per day  is very difficult to
                                     4-16

-------
maintain  even  on in-place, fine-textured  soils.   Nitrate contamination of
groundwater by  seepage from  the Moose Lake sewage  lagoons  is not antici-
pated to  be a  problem over the  operational  period of this project because
groundwater use  for potable  supplies is  not  common near  the lagoon, and
because groundwater  discharge from the vicinity  is  probably  to the nearby
stream course.

4.1.2.5.  Biota

     No significant  adverse  long-term effects on  the biota  of the project
area are expected to occur as a result of the operation of Project Alterna-
tives 1,  2,  3,  4,  6, and 7.  Alternative  5 may have  significant adverse
impacts on  plants and animals currently  using  the peat  bog  area to fill
principal habitat requirements.

4.1.2.6.  Demographics

     The  operation  and maintenance of wastewater  facilities proposed under
the  project  alternatives  will  not have a significant  impact  on the demo-
graphy of  the  project area.   A limited number of  long-term jobs created by
the  operation and maintenance of these facilities are  likely  to be filled
by persons living within the  project area or within commuting distance.  No
new  residents  are  expected  to  be  attracted to  the  project area  to fill
these positions.

4.1.2.7.  Land Use Impacts

     The  land use conversion discussed in Section 4.1.1.7. would remain in
effect  for  the operation  of  the  proposed wastewater treatment facilities
under  the project  alternatives.   Land  use  under the easement  of sewage
conveyance  lines  would  be   intermittently  affected  when maintenance  or
repairs were performed on  sections of the  lines.  Periodic excavating and
filling  would  disturb vegetation  and  soil  along conveyance  lines.   The
release  of low  level  odors  and  aerosols from  WWTPs  may affect  land use
adjacent  to the  plants.   Improper maintenance of cluster and  on-site sys-
tems may  create malodorous conditions which would  adversely affect adjacent
land use s.
                                    4-17

-------
4.1.2.8.  Economics

     The operation of centralized wastewater treatment facilities under Al-
ternatives  4  through 7 would  create  a few long-term jobs.   The few posi-
tions  required  could be  filled by persons  residing in  the project area.
The  existing  staff at the  MLWSD is expected to assume  any  additional re-
sponsibilities as a result of implementing any of the alternatives.

     Existing  contractors are  expected to satisfy  local demand  for con-
struction  and maintenance  service of on-site  systems.  Contractors  and
tradesmen  involved  in the construction and maintenance  of on-site systems
would  suffer  a loss  of  work  opportunities  within  the  project area under
Alternative 1 and  Alternatives 4 through 7.  These contractors and trades-
men  are  likely  to  compete for work opportunities in neighboring areas.  No
significant economic  impacts  will  occur during the operation of wastewater
treatment facilities under any of the alternatives.

4.1.2.9.  Transportation

     Impacts  arising  during the construction of  conveyance  lines (Section
4.1.1.) would reoccur when  maintenance or repairs are made on those lines.
Occasionally  some  roads  may  be closed temporarily.  Truck  traffic  to and
from the Moose  Lake treatment plant under Alternatives 1 through 7 will be
associated  with  supply  deliveries.  Truck  traffic  associated with repairs
and  sludge hauling  also  will  occur  periodically  under  Alternatives  1
through 7.

4.1.2.10  Energy

     The  operation of  wastewater  treatment  facilities and  pump stations
under  Alternatives  3 through  7 require the use of  electricity and  fossil
fuels.   Alternative 7 would  require  the greatest  amount of  these  energy
sources,  while Alternative  3  would  require  the  least.   No  significant
demands  would be  placed  on local  energy supplies under  any of the  alter-
natives.
                                    4-18

-------
4.1.2.11.  Recreation and Tourism

     The  operation  of  wastewater facilities under  any  of the alternatives
could affect  tourist and recreational activities in  the  project area if a
malfunction of  those  facilities occurred.  A failure in the system compon-
ents of  the WWTPs  under alternatives 4,  5,  6,  and 7 could cause untreated
or  partially  treated  waste  to be  discharged   into  project  area  surface
waters.   This would result  in short-term and  long-term  water quality de-
gradation  and a reduction  in the recreational  use of  that  body of water.
Odors  emanating from  malfunctioning on-site  systems may  locally  curtail
outdoor  recreational  activities.  With  proper  operational and maintenance
procedures no significant adverse  impacts are  anticipated  for  any of the
Project Alternatives.

4.1.3.  Public Finance

     The total project capital  costs will be apportioned between the USEPA,
the  State,  and the  local residents.  The  apportionment  is  made  based on
what  capital  costs are  eligible  to  be  funded by the USEPA  and the state.
The  estimated  initial  capital  costs  and  the  capital costs  eligible for
funding for each action alternative are presented in  Appendix  F.  The  local
construction  costs  (capital  costs not eligible  for funding) and the entire
cost  of  systems operation  and maintenance  will be  borne  entirely by the
system users.

     Federal  funding through  the National  Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Works  Construction  Grants Program  will  provide funds to  cover  75% of the
eligible  planning,  design,   and construction costs of  conventional waste-
water treatment facilities.   State grants administered by MPCA will provide
an additional 15% of the project  cost for a  total of  90% funding.  "Innova-
tive/alternative"  components  of  the proposed  treatment  systems,  such as
pressure sewers, septic  tank  effluent sewers, septic  tanks, soil absorption
systems,  other on-site upgrades,  cluster  drainfields  and  bog treatment
systems  are  eligible  for  85%  Federal  funding  and 9%  State funding  for a
total of 94%.
                                     4-19

-------
     The  estimated  average annual  residential user  costs  for project op-
tions are presented in Table 4-3.  Detailed average annual residential user
costs  with and  without Federal  and State  grant  monies are  presented in
Appendix  F.   Average  annual  users  costs  range  from  $152 per  residence
served for Alternative 2 with Federal and State Grants to $1,406 for Alter-
native  7A with no  grants.   The equivalent annual  user  charges  for nearby
Coffee Lake and Sand Lake (already sewered) are $120 and $145, respectively
(based on assessed connection charge and user fee, Section 3.2.4).

     The  average  annual user  costs presented  in  Table 4-3  represent the
cost  of  all  system components  included  in  the  alternative.   When  user
charges  are  calculated  for the  constructed  system, each  connection will
have  to  pay its fair  share of the treatment  system  it  uses:   on-site up-
grade,  cluster  system, or  centralized  collection  and  treatment.  For ex-
ample,  typical  annual  user costs  for  the on-site  systems  component  of
Alternatives 2  through 7  would be  on  the order of  $150 with Federal and
State  grants and  $240  without  grants (from Alternative 2).   Typical annual
user costs for the centralized collection and  treatment component of alter-
natives  4 through 7 would  be  on the order of $670 for gravity collection
with  Federal  and State  grants  ($1,400 without grants), and  $300 for STE
pressure  or  gravity sewers  with Federal and  State grants  ($1,300 without
grants for Alternative 7).

     Wastewater  treatment  facilities  can  create  significant  financial
impacts  for  communities and users who will pay  the capital,  operational,
maintenance, and  debt costs associated with  sewage treatment facilities.
The USEPA guideline  for determining the magnitude of the financial impacts
is based  on  the ratio of the  average  annual user cost to median household
income  (USEPA  1981b).   The USEPA considers projects to be expensive and to
have  adverse impacts  on the  finances  of  users  when average  annual user
costs are:

     •     1.0%  of  1980 median  household  incomes  less than  $10,000
     •     1.5%  of  1980 median  household  incomes between  $10,000 and
           $17,000
                                     4-20

-------
                                                           ej
Table 4-3.  Estimated average annual residential user costs  ($ per year)
Project
Options
2_
_3
4A
4B_
4C
5A
5B
6A
6B
6£
7A
Zi
7C
Federal and
State Grant
151.68
177.48
372.00
212.64
208.56
220.56
214.92
522.00
234.48
221.76
666.60
297.96
296.76
Federal Grant
Only
160.32
213.24
422.52
266.04
261.00
270.48
262.32
586.80
306.48
288.60
789.60
404.04
398.16
Without
Grants
242.04
551.28
751.68
714.36
702.49
743.04
710.28
976.92
921.36
855.00
1,405.56
1,309.08
1,257.72
a
 Operation and maintenance  costs plus local share of initial capital costs
 amortized for  20 years  at 8  3/8%  (see Appendix  F)   Existing equivalent
 annual user  charges  for Coffee Lake and  Sand  Lake are $120 and $145, re-
 spectively (Section 3.2.4).

 Underlined  Project  Options  constitute  Project  Alternatives that  were
 identified  on  the  basis  of  net present  worth and not  on the  basis of
 having  the   lowest  user cost.   Other  project options are  presented for
 purposes of comparison.  (Option 7A is most comparable to the MLWSD Facility
 Plan, representing conventional gravity sewers around Island and Sturgeon
 Lakes, with treatment at Moose Lake.)
                                    4-21

-------
     •    1.75%  of  1980  median  household incomes  greater  than $17,000.

     Estimated  1980 median  household  incomes  for Pine  County,  Windemere
Township, and  Carlton County  are $12,252, $15,606,  and  $16,420, respect-
ively  (1980 Census-preliminary  tape data, by  telephone,  K.  Hoefer,  U.S.
Bureau of The  Census,  Data Users Division, Kansas City, to WAPORA, Inc., 7
December 1982).  The majority of the project area is in Windemere Township,
with a small portion in Carlton County.

     Average  annual user  costs  for project  options are  expressed  as a
percentage of  1980 median  household income in Table 4-4.    The user fee  for
Project  Options  4A, 6A, 7A,  7B,  and 7C  surpass  the  suggested upper limit
user fee even with Federal and State grants.  Without grants, Alternative 2
is the only  one that does not  surpass  the suggested limit.  Alternative 2
offers the  lowest  user  cost for system  users.   With  the  exception of Pro-
ject Options  4A,  6A, 7A,  7B, and 7C if Federal and State grants are avail-
able,  none  of  the  other  options surpass  the  suggested  upper  limit  user
costs as a  percentage of median household  income,  indicating that none of
them would  be  a "high cost" system that would pose a significant financial
burden on system users.

     The impact  of the  new debt requirements  on the  total debt per capita
in the  Moose  Lake  Windemere Sanitary District  is  presented  in Table 4-5.
The  1980 debt per  capita  of $394 was developed  in Section 3.2.4.  Alter-
native 2 offers  the lowest additional debt per  capita  increase and Alter-
native 7  the  greatest  increase.   None  of  the  project options exceed  the
standard upper  limit for  the debt per capita for middle income communities
($1,000  Table 3-28)  if Federal  and  State grants  are available.   If no
grants are available, the total debt per capita will exceed the limit under
6A, 6B, 7A, 7B, and  7C.

     It  should be noted  that the financial stress on  low income families
and  the  local share of  capital  cost  for  the  proposed wastewater system,
under any of the action alternatives, will be affected by the interest rate
available at the time of financing.  The debt service portion of the annual
                                    4-22

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

                                  Project Funding
Project
Options
_2

_3

4A
_4B

4C
5A

5!

6A

6B

6C

7A

_7_B

7C
Federal and
State Grant
0.97%

1.14
b
2.38
1.35

1.34
1.41

1.38
b
3.34

1.50

1.42
b
4.27
b
1.91
b
1.90
Federal Grant
Only
1.03%

1.37
b
2.71
1.70

1.67
1.73

1.68
b
3.76
b
1.96
b
1.85
b
5.06
b
2.59
b
2.55
Without
Grants
1.55
b
3.53
b
4.82
4.59b
b
4.50
4.76b
b
4.55
b
6.25
b
5.90
b
5.49
b
9.01
b
8.39
b
8.06
Q
 Estimated  1980  median household income for Windemere  Township is $15,606
 (Portion of the project area is in Carlton County, which has an
 estimated 1980 median household income of $16,420.  (1980 median household
 income  from  1980 census  preliminary tape data,  by  telephone,  K. Hoefer,
 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Data Users Division, Kansas City, to WAPORA, Inc.,
 7 December 1982).   The USEPA  considers  a project  expensive  when average
 annual user  charges  exceed 1.75% of median household  income  greater than
 $17,000.
b
 The costs residents would pay under these alternatives would be considered
 expensive according to USEPA guidelines.
c
 Underlined Project Options constitute Project Alternatives that were iden-
 tified on the basis of net present worth estimates and not on the basis of
 the percent of 1980 median household income that would be consumed by user
 costs.
                                    4-23

-------
Table 4-5.  Impact of new debt requirements on total debt per capita in the

            Moose Lake-Windemere Sanitary District.
                                   Debt per capita ($)'
b
Project
Options
_2
_3
4A
4B
4C
5A
5B
6A
6B
j>£
7A
7B
7C
Federal and
State Grant
New
12
22
166
42
42
30
28
302
60
57
472
110
106
Total
406
416
560
436
436
424
422
696
454
451
866
504
500
Federal
Only
New
18
49
206
84
83
68
65
357
121
113
592
213
205
Grant
Total
412
443
599
478
477
462
459
751
515
507
986
607
599
No
New
76
304
460
430
424
434
411
684
636
588
1,193
1,096
1,044
Grant
Total
470
698
854
824
818
828
805
1,078
1,030
982
1,587
1,490
1,438
 New debt per  capita is local share of construction costs divided by total
 1980 population  of Moose  Lake-Windemere  Sanitary District  (3,817,  Table
 3-27).   Existing 1980 debt per capita = $394 (Table 3-27).

 Underlined Project  Options constitute Project  Alternatives  identified on
 the basis of  net present worth estimates and not on the basis of new debt
 requirements.
                                    4-24

-------
user  charge  has been  calculated based  on a 8  3/8%  interest rate over 20
years (based on the current FmHA intermediate rate discussed  below).

     The Fanners Home  Administration (FmHA) was contacted to determine the
eligibility  of  the project  for special  financing  (By telephone,  Mr. John
Melbo, FmHA Regional Office, St. Paul MN,  to WAPORA,  Inc., 25 August  1982).
The  FmHA  will provide  loans to fund the  local  share of  the capital costs
for USEPA-approved  projects  if funding  is not available from other sources
at  interest  rates determined  as "affordable" for  the community,  based on
median family  income.   The poverty rate  is  available to communities where
the  median  family income  is less  than $9,000 and  there  is  a sanitary and
health problem (no area in Minnesota qualifies for  the poverty rate at this
time).   The  intermediate rate is  available to  communities with  median
family income  less than  85% of the non-SMSA median  family  income for the
state.  For other communities the market rate is available.   In August 1982
the  poverty  rate was  5%, the   intermediate  rate was  approximately 8 3/8%,
and the market rate (based on the Bond Buyers Index)  was 11  5/8%.

     The 1981  non-SMSA median   family income  for the  State of Minnesota is
$22,850 (Section  3.21).   The  estimated median family income  is $21,100 for
Windemere Township and Carlton  County, $17,000 for  Pine County, and $16,275
for  Moose  Lake Township  (Section 3.2.1.  Table  3-25).  The median  family
income is  less than 85%  of $22,850  ($19,420) in Pine County  and Moose Lake
Township,  and greater in  Windemere Township and  Carlton County.  Therefore,
if  affordable  funding  is not available  elsewhere,  the District  might qua-
lify  for an  intermediate interest rate  from FmHA.  If not,  the market rate
would apply.

4.2.  Secondary Impacts

     Each  of the alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative, will
have effects that extend  beyond primary or direct impacts.   These  secondary
impacts would  occur,  for example, in the  form of induced growth or unanti-
cipated changes  in  lake water   quality.   The  categories  of the natural and
man-made environment  that may   experience  significant secondary impacts are
described in the following sections.
                                     4-25

-------
4.2.1.  Surface Water

     Increased housing developed along the lake shore may increase nutrient
and sediment  loads  into  the lakes as a  result  of the following processes:

     o    Construction of  impervious  surfaces such as rooftops, park-
          ing areas,  paved roads, and hard-packed  soils  may increase
          not only  the amount  of surface runoff, but also its ability
          to erode soil and to transport pollutants.
     o    Lawn  and  garden  fertilization may create  relatively high
          nutrient levels in runoff.
     o    The Conventional practice of placing lawn clippings and leaf
          litter  in drainageways  may speed  the process  of nutrient
          transport to the lakes.

     Population  growth  will neither  be  hindered or  induced significantly
under any of  the action  alternatives (2  through  7).   Lakeshore area popu-
lation  growth and housing  stock growth  will proceed at  comparable rates
regardless  of whether improved  on-site  systems  or  centralized collection
and  treatment are  provided.   No  extraordinarily high levels  of erosion-
borne  nutrient   loads  are  anticipated  to  be generated  under  any  single
project  alternative.   Population  growth will  take  place and  erosion and
runoff  will increase with  the No-Action Alternative just as  in the other
alternatives.  Over  the  long  term, no single alternative  offers an advan-
tage of  reduced  secondary water quality impacts  in terms of decreasing the
rate of eutrophication.

4.2.2.  Demographics

     Wastewater  management  facilities historically  have been major  factors
in  determining  the  capacity  of an area  to  support  population growth and
development.   On-site wastewater treatment  facilities,   although   theore-
tically  available  to ' any  potential  user, limit  development to areas with
suitable  soil and site  characteristics.   Sewer  systems  remove these site
constraints and allow development virtually anywhere within hookup distance
of  the  system.   Consequently,  the construction of sewers usually causes an
initial  increase in the  inventory of developable  land and  subsequent in-
creases  in  the  density  of development.   This may allow development  on lots
                                    4-26

-------
that otherwise would  be considered undesirable or  too  small for permanent
use.

     The inducement of growth through sewer service already provided around
nearby Sand  Lake  is not evident nor is it anticipated to occur with any of
the project  alternatives.   Economic factors apparently outweigh any incen-
tive for growth which wastewater facilities might otherwise provide.

     Long-term population  growth trends in the project area are not likely
to be  changed  by  any of the project alternatives.  The sewers encompassing
portions  of Island  Lake  proposed under  Alternatives  4  through  7  would
provide service to  a  corridor which is already heavily developed and where
few other  lakeshore lots are available  for  development.   Parallel popula-
tion increases would occur in the  Sturgeon Lake lakeshore corridor with all
of  the Project Alternatives.   However, the  cost for users  on both lakes
under  Alternatives  2  through 7 may create a  financial  burden for families
with low  incomes.   This may result in  displacement of  these families from
the project area because they could not afford user charges.

     The selection  of  any one of  Alternatives  4  through 7 would allow for
the development of  a  very limited number of lots which otherwise would not
be  developed due to  existing size constraints  for on-site systems.  How-
ever,  no significant housing stock or population  increase is anticipated to
occur as a result of allowing development of those  lots.

     Under  any  of  the  Project  Alternatives, net population growth in the
service  area would  occur  to a  parallel degree as discussed  in Section
3.2.1.   The  rate of  conversion of seasonal  dwellings to  permanent homes
would  be  unaffected.    Population  increases will be  dependent solely upon
the carrying capacity  of  the land and aesthetic  factors  influencing de-
velopment choices (Section 3.2.4.).

4.2.3.  Land Use

     Economic factors and the availability of aesthetically desirable lake-
shore  lots   (Section 3.2.3.)  will have a greater influence than the  pro-
                                    4-27

-------
vision of wastewater  facilities (Section 4.2.) in determining land use for
the  study  area  during the  planning  period.   The location  of  wastewater
treatment  facilities  and  sewer  systems  proposed  under  Alternatives  4
through  7  will  not  significantly  direct  patterns of  future development.
Residential development will  be concentrated along lakeshore areas regard-
less of  the wastewater management techniques implemented.  Because of this
and because additional growth will not be  induced in  the lakeshore corri-
dor, no significant land use impacts will occur.

     Under Alternatives 1  through 3,  future development within the project
area would  be most  limited  by  the carrying capacity  of the land  and by
aesthetic considerations.   Increased  potential  for  nuisances attributable
to failing on-site systems in lakeshore residential areas could make infill
development of vacant  lots less desirable. As a result, new development on
back-tier lots  may be  increased at the  expense  of  vacant lake-contiguous
lots which may  remain undeveloped.  This  is not  expected to be a signifi-
cant trend,  however, because relatively few nuisance causing conditions are
projected for the lakeshore community  (Section 2.2.3).

     Little prime  agricultural  farmland is likely to  be  taken out of pro-
duction  to  accommodate wastewater  treatment facilities (Table 4-2).  This
will result in a minimal net loss of food and fibre production.

4.2.4.  Economics

     The additional  wastewater  treatment  capacity required under Alterna-
tives 4 through  7 will not stimulate any increased population, development,
or  economic  growth  (Section  3.2.3.).   Under Alternatives  1  through 3,
economic development   also  would  proceed  as  discussed  in  Section 3.2.3.
Continuing nuisances created by failing on-site systems under the No-Action
Alternative  could  further detract  from  the  area's  economic  development
potential.   However, the existing perception by the public that Island Lake
already has poor water quality will detract to an even greater degree from
the economic  development  stimulus of  water-based  recreation.  Under Alter-
natives  2 through 7,  no significant improvement of Island Lakes quality is
anticipated.  Therefore, no significant secondary  impact on economics would
occur under any  of the Project  Alternatives.
                                     4-28

-------
4.2.5.  Recreation and Tourism

     Increased and  continuing  nuisances created by failing on-site systems
under the No-Action Alternative could detract from the project area's repu-
tation  as a  desirable  recreational  area.   If there  were  obvious  algal
blooms  in Sturgeon Lake,  permanent and seasonal  residents  of the project
area  would  likely  decrease  their recreational  activities.   However,  an
increased fertility marked  by  blue-green algae blooms also can mean better
fishing becaused  of increases  in overall  lake productivity.  Whether the
impact  is then considered  in  the balance  to be favorable or adverse  is a
value judgement to be made by recreational users.  No evidence exists which
suggests  that  Alternatives 2  through  7 would  preclude  the  development of
blue-green algal  blooms  in Sturgeon, Rush,  or  Passenger Lakes.  Addition-
ally, no evidence exists which suggests Island Lake will be improved by any
of the action alternatives.  Therefore, no significant secondary impacts on
recreation and tourism are anticipated.

4.3.  Mitigation of Adverse Impacts

     As previously  discussed,  various  adverse  impacts  would be associated
with  the  proposed  alternatives.   Many of  these  adverse impacts  could be
reduced  significantly  by  the  application of  mitigative measures.   These
mitigative measures consist of  implementing legal  requirements,  planning
measures, and  design practices.   The  extent to  which  these measures are
applied will determine  the  ultimate impact of the selected action.  Poten-
tial  measures  for   alleviating   primary   (construction  &   operation)  and
secondary impacts are presented in the  following sections.

4.3.1.  Mitigation of Construction Impacts

     The  construction oriented  impacts presented in Section  4.1. primarily
are short-term effects resulting  from construction activities at WWTP sites
or along  the  route  of  proposed sewer  systems.   Proper  design should mini-
mize  the  potential  impacts,  and  project  plans and  specifications  should
incorporate mitigative  measures  consistent  with  the following discussion.
                                    4-29

-------
     Fugitive dust from excavation and backfilling operations for the force
mains and treatment plants can be minimized by various techniques. Frequent
street sweeping of  dirt from construction activities  can  reduce the major
source of  dust.   Prompt  repaving  of roads disturbed  by construction also
could  reduce  dust effectively.  Construction sites,  spoil  piles,  and un-
paved  access  roads should  be wetted periodically to  minimize  dust.  Soil
stockpiles and  backfilled  trenches  should be  seeded  with a  temporary  or
permanent seeding, or  covered with mulch to  reduce  susceptibility  to wind
erosion.

     Street cleaning  operations  where trucks and  equipment  gain access to
construction  sites,  and on  roads  along which  a  force  main  would  be con-
structed, will reduce loose dirt that otherwise would generate dust, create
unsafe driving  conditions,  or  be  washed into  roadside ditches or storm
drains.  Trucks transporting spoil material  to disposal sites should cover
their loads to eliminate the escape of dust while in transit.

     Exhaust  emissions  and noise from construction  equipment  can be mini-
mized by proper equipment maintenance.   The resident engineer should have,
and  should  exercise,  the  authority  to  ban from the  site  all poorly main-
tained equipment.   Soil borings along the proposed force main rights-of-way
conducted during  system design would identify organic  soils  that have the
potential to  release  odors when excavated.   These areas could  be bypassed
by rerouting  the  force main  if a significant impact might be expected at a
particular location.

     Spoil disposal  sites  should  be identified during the  project design
stage  to  ensure  that  adequate sites are available  and that  disposal site
impacts are minimized.  Landscaping and restoration of vegetation should be
conducted  immediately  after disposal is completed to  prevent  impacts from
dust generation and to avoid unsightly conditions.

     Lands disturbed by trenching for force main construction should be re-
graded and  compacted  as necessary to prevent future subsidence.  However,
too  much  compaction will  result in  conditions  unsuitable for vegetation.
                                    4-30

-------
     Areas disturbed by  trenching  and grading at the  treatment  plant site
should  be  revegetated  as soon  as  possible  to  prevent erosion  and dust
generation.   Native  plants  and grasses  should be  used.   This  also will
facilitate the re-establishment of wildlife habitat.

     Construction-related  disruption  in   the  community  can be  minimized
through considerate scheduling  by  the contractor and by appropriate public
announcements.   The  State and County  highway  departments  have  regulations
concerning roadway disruptions,  which should  be rigorously applied.  Spec-
ial  care  should be taken to minimize disruption of  access  to  frequently
visited establishments.

     Announcements should be published in local newspapers and broadcast on
local radio  stations to  alert drivers of  temporary  traffic  disruptions on
primary routes.  Street closings should be announced by flyers delivered to
each affected household.

     Planning  of  routes  for  heavy  construction  equipment  and  materials
should ensure  that  surface  load restrictions are considered.  In this way,
damage to streets and roadways would be avoided.  Trucks hauling excavation
spoil to disposal sites or fill material to the WWTP sites should be routed
along  primary arteries  to  minimize   the  threat to  public  safety  and to
reduce disturbance to residential environments.

     Erosion and sedimentation must be minimized at all construction  sites.
USEPA  Program Requirements  Memorandum 78-1 establishes the  following re-
quirements for  control  of erosion and runoff from construction activities.
Adherence to these requirements would  mitigate potential problems.

     •    Construction site  selection  should consider potential occur-
          ence of erosion and sediment losses.
     •    The  project  plan  and  layout should be designed  to fit the
          local topography and soil conditions.
     •    When appropriate,  land grading and excavating should be kept
          to  a minimum to  reduce  the  possibility  of  creating  runoff
          and  erosion  problems  which require extensive  control mea-
          sures.
                                    4-31

-------
     •    Whenever possible, topsoil  should  be removed and stockpiled
          before grading begins.
     •    Land exposure should be minimized in terms of area and time.
     •    Exposed areas subject to erosion should be covered as quick-
          ly as possible by means of mulching or vegetation.
     •    Natural  vegetation  should  be  retained whenever  feasible.
     •    Appropriate  structural  or  agronomic  practices  to  control
          runoff and sedimentation should be provided during and after
          construction.
     •    Early  completion  of  stabilized  temporary  and  permanent
          drainage  systems  will  substantially reduce  erosion poten-
          tial.
     •    Access  roadways  should be paved or  otherwise stabilized as
          soon as feasible.
     •    Clearing  and grading  should not  be  started until  a firm
          construction schedule  is  known  and can be effectively coor-
          dinated with the grading and clearing activities.

     The Natural  Historic  Preservation Act of  1966,  Executive Order 11593
(1971), the Archaeological  and Historic Preservation Act  of  1974,  and the
1973  Procedures  of the  Advisory Council  on  Historic Preservation require
that  care  be  taken early  in  the planning  process to  identify  cultural
resources and  minimize  adverse effects on them.  USEPA's  final regulations
for the preparation of EISs (40 CFR 1500) also specify that compliance with
these  regulations is required  when a Federally  funded,  licensed,  or per-
mitted project is undertaken.  The State Historic Preservation Officer must
have an opportunity  to determine that these  requirements  have been satis-
fied.
4.3.2.  Mitigation of Operation Impacts

     The majority  of potentially  adverse operational  impacts  of the WWTP
alternatives are  related to  the  discharge of effluent  to surface waters.
For  the  bog treatment  and  cluster treatment designs  the most significant
potential adverse  effects are  impacts on groundwater  and possible health
risks.   Adverse  impacts associated with the operation  of cluster and on-
site  systems  are  primarily  related  to malodorous  conditions  which  may
                                    4-32

-------
affect  outdoor recreational  activities.   Measures to minimize  these and
other operation phase  impacts of all the alternatives are discussed below.

     Adverse impacts related  to the operation of the proposed sewer systems
and treatment  facilities  would be minimal  if  the  facilities are designed,
operated,  and  maintained properly.   Gaseous emissions and  odors from the
various  treatment  processes  can  be controlled to  a  large extent.  Above-
ground  pumps  should be  enclosed and installed  to  minimize  sound impacts.
Concentrations  of  the  effluent constituents  discharged  from the  City of
Moose Lake treatment plant  are regulated  by  the  conditions  of the NPDES
permits.   The  effluent  quality is specified by the State of Minnesota and
must be  monitored.   Proper  and regular  maintenance of  cluster and on-site
systems  also  would maximize  the efficiency of these  systems and minimize
the amount of odors released.

     In  the  document  Federal Guidelines  for Design, Operation, and Main-
tenance of^Wajstjiwater Treatment Facilities  (Federal Water Quality Adminis-
tration 1970), it is required  that:

     All water  pollution  control facilities should be planned and de-
     signed so  as  to  provide for  maximum  reliability at  all times.
     The  facilities  should  be capable of operating  satisfactorily
     during power  failures,  flooding,  peak loads,  equipment failure,
     and maintenance shutdowns.

4.3.3.  Mitigation of Secondary Impacts

     As  discussed  in Section 4.2., few secondary  impacts are expected to
occur during the operation of any of the six action alternatives.  Adequate
zoning, health, and water quality regulation and enforcement would minimize
these impacts.  Local  growth management planning would assist in the regu-
lation of  general  location,  density, and type  of  growth  that might occur.

4.4.  Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

     Some  impacts  associated with the  implementation of  any of  the action
alternatives cannot  be avoided.  The centralized  collection and treatment
components of Alternatives 4  through 7 would have the following adverse im-
pacts:
                                    4-33

-------
     •    Considerable short-term construction  dust,  noise, and traf-
          fic nuisance.

     •    Alteration  of  vegetation and  wildlife  habitat along  the
          sewer and force main corridors and at the WWTP site.

     *    Considerable  erosion  and  siltation  during  construction.

     •    Significant  odors  during spring  turnover  of  waste  stabili-
          zation lagoons.

     •    User  costs  for wastewater treatment  services  for the resi-
          dents within the proposed sewer service areas.


     The alternatives that include significant reliance on continued use of

existing and  upgraded  on-site systems  and either cluster systems or black-

water holding tanks for  critical  areas  would  have the  following adverse

impacts:


     •    Some  short-term construction dust, noise,  and traffic nui-
          sance .

     •    Limited  amounts of  erosion  and  siltation  during construc-
          tion.

     •    Discharge of  percolate  with  elevated levels of nitrates and
          chlorides  from soil absorption systems  to the groundwater.

     •    Occasional  ephemeral odors  associated with  pumping septic
          tanks and  holding  tanks  and trucking these  wastes to dis-
          posal sites.

     •    User  costs for management and operation of wastewater treat-
          ment  services  for  the  residents within the proposed service
          areas.


4.5.  Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource Commitments
     The  major types  and  amounts  of  resources that  would  be  committed

through  the  implementation of any of  the  six action alternatives are pre-

sented  in Section  4.1. and  4.2.   Each of  the action  alternatives would

include  some or all of  the  following resource commitments:


     •    Fossil  fuel,  electrical  energy,  and human labor for facili-
          ties construction and operation.
                                    4-34

-------
     •    Chemicals, especially  chlorine,  for the City  of  Moose Lake
          WWTP operation.
     •    Tax dollars for construction and operation.
     •    Some unsalvageable construction materials.

     For  each  alternative involving  a WWTP (Alternatives 4,  5,  6  and 7),
there would be  significant  consumption of these resources with no feasible
means of  recovery.   Thus,  more non-recoverable resources would be foregone
for  the   provision  of  the  proposed  wastewater  control  system  for  these
alternatives than  for  alternatives 2 and 3.  However, the total quantities
involved for any of the alternatives is small.

     Accidents, which could occur from system construction and operation of
any  alternative,   could  cause  irreversible  bodily  damage  or  death,  and
damage or destroy equipment and other resources.  For alternatives 4, 6 and
7, unmitigated  WWTP failure and by-passing  potentially  could kill  aquatic
life in the mixing zone in the Moose Horn River.

     None of the  alternatives  would have an impact on archaeological sites
known  at this  time.  However,  the  potential accidential  destruction of
undiscovered  archaeological sites  through  excavation  activities  for any
alternative would  not  be reversible.  This  would  represent permanent loss
of such a site.
                                    4-35

-------
5.0.  LITERATURE CITED
Aronson,  R. ,  and  E.  Schwartz  (Editors).   1975.  Management  policies in
     local  government finance.   International  City  Managers Association,
     Washington DC.

Carlson,  A.H.   1980a.   Report of  the State  Auditor of Minnesota  on the
     revenues,  expenditures,  and debt  of the  local  governments in Minne-
     sota. St. Paul MN, 127 p.

Carlson, A.H.  1980b.  Report of the State Auditor of Minnesota on the reve-
     nues, expenditures,  and  debt  of the towns  in Minnesota.  St. Paul MN,
     100 p.

Dillon, P.J. and W.B. Kirchner.  1975.  The effects of geology and land use
     on  the export  of phosphorus  from  watersheds.     Water  Research 9:
     135-148.

Dillon, P.J. and  F.  H. Rigler.  1975.   A simple method for  predicting the
     capacity  of  a  lake  for development  based on  lake  trophic  status.
     Journal  of  the  Fisheries  Research Board  of  Canada.  32:1,519-1,531.

East  Central  Regional Development  Commission.   1981.  Overall economic
     development  program  annual  update.  Mora MN, p. 1-7 plus attachments.

Federal Water  Quality Administration.   1970.    Federal  guidelines  for de-
     sign,  operation,  and maintenance  of wastewater treatment  facilities.
     US Department of the  Interior, Washington DC, 29 p.

Finney, H.R.   1981.   Soil survey of part of Windemere Township,  Pine Coun-
     ty,  Minnesota.   Completed  under contract to WAPORA, Inc. St. Paul MN,
     28 p. plus soil map  plates.

Gustatson,  N.C.   1973.   Recent  trends,  future  prospects,  a look at upper
     midwest  population   changes.   Federal  Reserve  Bank,  Upper  Midwest
     Council, Minneapolis  MN.

Goldreich,  E.E.   1965.  Detection and  significance  of fecal coliform bac-
     teria  in  stream  pollution  studies.  Journal  Water Pollution Control
     Federation 37:1722

Howard  A. Kuusisto.   1980.   Moose  Lake-Windemere Sanitary Sewer District,
     Unit  No.  3,  "Island  Lake".  Consulting Engineers,  St. Paul MN, Plans
     19 sheets, specifications

Jones,  R.A.,  and  G.  F. Lee.   1977.   Septic tank disposal  systems as phos-
     phorus  sources  for  surface waters.  EPA  600/3-77-129.   Robert S. Kerr
     Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada OK.

Kamppi A.  1971.  Studies  of  water disposal on peatland  forest basin infil-
     tration  systems  which were in effect  in  Findland in  1970.  Report A4
     National Board of Water, Helsinki,  Finland.  (English Summary).
                                   5-1

-------
Lorenzen, M.W.   1981.   Correspondence.   Environmental Science & Technology
     15:1508-1509.

Miller, J.P.  (ed).   1949.   One hundred years  in Pine County.  Pine County
     Historical  Society,  reprint  1979.   American Publishing  Co.,  Askov.
     Minnesota.

Minnesota Department  of Economic  Security.   1982.  Northeastern Minnesota
     labor  market review,  June  1982.   Regional  Labor  Market Information
     Center, Duluth MN 8 p.

Minnesota  Department  of  Energy,  Planning,  and Development.   1982.   Fact
     Sheet:   BTU contents of fuel.  St. Paul MN, 1 sheet.

Minnesota  Department  of  Transportation.    1979.  1979   Traffic  map.   St.
     Paul MN, 1 sheet.

Minnesota Department of Transportation.  1981.   Minnesota automatic traffic
     recorder data summary.  St. Paul MN, 591 p.

Minnesota Energy Agency.   1981.   Residential energy  prices in Minnesota.
     Forecasting Division,  St. Paul MN, 39 p.

Moak,  L.L.,  and A.M.  Hillhouse.  1975.   Concepts and  practices  in local
     government  finance.   Municipal  Finance Officers Association of the US
     and Canda, Chicago IL, 454 p.

Moose  Lake  Planning  Commission.   1981.  City of Moose Lake, land use down-
     town development strategies.  Moose Lake MN,  62 p.

MPCA.   1980.   Recommended  design criteria for stabilization ponds (aerated
     and non-aerated, 34 p.

National  Oceanic  and Atmospheric  Administation.   1979a.   Climatological
     data annual summary,   Minnesota.   National  Climatic Center, Asheville
     NC, 16 p.

National Oceanic  and  Atmospheric Administration.  1979b.  Local climatolo-
     gical  data,  annual summary with  comparative  data,  Duluth, Minnesota.
     National climatic Center, Asheville NC, 4 p.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration.   1981.  National weather
     service surface weather observations.  Duluth MN.

Northerneastern  Minnesota  Labor Market  Review.    1980.   Labor market data
     summary  for  fiscal  year 1981,  Northeastern Minnesota  -  Region  3.
     Minnesota Department of Economic Security,  Duluth MN, 43 p.

Omernik,  J.M.   1977.   Non-point  source  stream nutrient  level relation-
     ships:   a nationwide  survey.   EPA  600/3-77-105.   National Environ-
     mental Research Laboratory, Corvalis OR.
                                  5-2

-------
Otis  R.J.,  and  D.  E.  Stewart.   1976.  Alternative  wastewater facilities
     for  small  unsewered communities  in rural  America.   Annual report to
     the Upper Great Lakes Region Commission.

Otis,  R.J.   1979.   Alternative wastewater  facilities for  small  communi-
     ties -  a case  study.   In;  Proceedings of  a workshop on alternative
     wastewater  treatment  systems.   UILU-WRC-79-0010.   Water  Resources
     Center  and  Cooperative  Extensive  Service,  University of  Illinois -
     Urbana,  Urbana IL, p. 44-40.

Peterson,  J.M.,   and  G.O.  Gronseth.   1980.  Selected  economic  data for
     Duluth and  Northeastern  Minnesota through 1979.  University of Minne-
     sota, Duluth, Duluth MN,  68 p.

Pine  County  Area Redevelopment  Organization.   1979.   Pine County overall
     economic development plan.  Pine City MN, 61 p.

Pound,  C.E.,  and R.W.  Crites.   1973.   Wastewater treatment and  reuse by
     land application, Volume  I,  summary.  USEPA Office  of  Research and
     Development, Washington DC, 80 p.

PRC  Consoer,  Townsend  and Associates   LTD.  1980.   Moose Lake-Windererne
     Sanitary  Sewer  District facility  plan for  wastewater collection and
     treatment.  Duluth MN.

Ragotzkie, R.A.   1978.   Heat  budgets  of  lakes.  Chapter I  IN;   Lakes;
     chemistry,  geology,  and  physics.  Pub  Springer  and  Verlag, New York,
     NY 3,062 p.

Rast, W.  and  G.  F.  Lee.  1981.  Correspondence.  Environmental Science and
     Technology 15:1509-1510

Reneau, R. B.  Jr.,  and D. E. Pettry.  1975.  Movement of coliform bacteria
     from septic tank effluent through selected  coastal  plain  soils of
     Virginia.  Journal of Environmental Quality  4:41-44

Schindler, D.W.  1977.  Evaluation of phosphorus  limitation  in lakes.  Sci-
     ence 195:260-262

Seigrist, R.  L., T.  Woltanski, and  C.E.  Walforf.   Water conservation and
     wastewater  disposal.   In;  Proceedings  of   the  second national  home
     sewage treatment  symposium (ASAE Publication 5-77).   American Society
     of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph MI, p. 121-136.

Shapiro, J.   1979.  The need  for more biology in  lake restoration,  in Lake
     Restoration EPA 440/5-79-001 Washington, D.C.  pp. 161-167

Simmons,  J.D.,  and  J.O. Newman.   1979.   On-site liquefaction and variable
     gradient  transport  lines  for rural  sewage disposal.  Paper  No. SER
      79-047.   American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph MI, 16
     P-
                                  5-3

-------
Smith,  V.H.  and  J.  Shapiro.   1981.   Chlorophyll phosphorus  relations in
     individual  lakes.   Their  importance  to lake  restoration strategies.
     Environmental science and technology 15:444-451.

Soil  Conservation  Service.   1978.   Soil  survey  of  Carlton County, Minne-
     sota.  US  Department of Agriculture.   In  cooperation  with the Minne-
     sota Agricultural Experiment Station.  77 p. plus map sheets.

Spencer,  J.S.,  Jr.,  and  A.J.  Ostrom.  1979.   Timber resources  of Minne-
     sota's aspen-birch unit, 1977.  Resource Bulletin NC-43, US Department
     of  Agriculture,  Forest Service, North  Central  Forest  Experiment Sta-
     tion, St. Paul MN, 52 p.

Surakka,  S.   1971.  Some observations  on the  possibilities to infiltrate
     wastewater  in peatlands according to  results  obtained in Kesalahden
     Town, Finland (English Summary).  Vesitalous 8:26-31.

Surakka,  S.  and A.  Kamppi.   1971.   Infiltration of wastewater  into peat
     soil (English Summary).  SMO.  22:51:58

Tofflemire,  T.J.   and  M.  Chien.   1977.   Phosphate  removal by  sands  and
     soils.  Groundwater 15:377.

US  Bureau of the  Census.   1952.  US Census of population:   1950.  Volume
     II, characteristics of the population, part 23, Minnesota.  Department
     of  Commerce,  US  Government Printing Office,  Washington, DC,  220 p.

US Bureau of  the Census.   1963.  US census of population:   1960, Volume I,
     Chacteristics of  the population,  part  25,  Minnesota.   Department of
     Commerce, US  Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

US Bureau of  the Census.   1973.  General  social and economic characteris-
     tic, Minnesota.  Department of Commerce, US Government  Priting Office,
     Washington DC, 495 p. plus appendixes.

US  Bureau of the  Census.   1980.  1978 population  estimates  and 1977 and
     revised  1976  per capita  income estimates  for  counties, incorporated
     places,  and  selected minor civil  divisions —  Minnesota.  Department
     of Commerce, Washington DC.

US Bureau of  the Census.   1982.  Advance  reports:   Minnesota general pop-
     ulation  characteristics.   Department  of  Commerce,   Washington  DC.

US Department of Agriculture.  1962.  Soil survey manual.  Handbook No. 18.
     Agricultural Research Administration, p. 209.

US Department of  Commerce.   1929.  State and county data, Minnesota census
     of agriculture.  Washington DC.

US Department of  Commerce.   1934.  State and county data, Minnesota census
     of agriculture.  Washington DC.
                                  5-4

-------
US Department  of  Commerce.   1939.  State and county data, Minnesota census
     of agriculture.  Washington DC.

US Department  of  Commerce.   1949.  State and county data, Minnesota census
     of agriculture.  Washington DC.

US Department  of  Commerce.   1969.  State and county data, Minnesota census
     of Agriculture.  Washington DC.

US Department  of  Commerce.   1978.  State and county data, Minnesota census
     of Agriculture.  Washington DC.

US  Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1976.   Quality criteria  for water.
     Office of Water and Hazardous Materials.  Washington DC, 255 p.

US  Environmental  Protection Agency.   1977.   Alternatives for small waste-
     water  treatment  systems, on-site  disposal/septage  treatment and dis-
     posal.   EPA  625/4-77-011. Technology  Transfer,  Washington  DC,  90 p.

US  Environmental  Protection Agency.   1978.   Funding  of sewage collection
     system projects.   Program Requirements Memorandum  (PRM  78-9).  Office
     of Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington DC.

US  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1978.   Management  of  small  waste
     flows.  USEPA-600/2-78-173.   Municipal  Environmental Research Labora-
     tory.  Cincinnati OH.

US  Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1979.   Construction  grants program
     requirements memorandum 79-7.  Washington DC, 2 p.

US  Environmental  Protection Agency 1979.  Management of  on-site and alter-
     native wastewater  systems  (Draft).   Prepared  for USEPA Environmental
     Research  Information Center, by Roy  F.  Weston,  Inc.,  Cincinnati, OH,
     111 p.

US  Environmental  Protection Agency.  1979.   Planning wastewater management
     facilities for  small communities (Draft).  Prepared for USEPA Munici-
     pal  Environmental  Research  Laboratory,  by  Urban Systems  Research
     Engineering, Inc., Cincinnati, OH,  141 p.

US  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1979.   Region  V,  Water Division,
     Chicago,  IL  Draft environmental  impact  statement.   Alternative waste
     treatment  systems  for  rural lake  projects.    Case study  number 1,
     Crystal Lake area  sewage disposal  authority, Benzie County, Michigan.

US  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1979.   Region  V,  Water Division,
     Chicago,  IL  Draft  environmental  impact statement alternative waste
     treatment systems for  rural  lake projects.  Case study number 2, Green
     Lake sanitary  sewer  and waster district, Kandiyohi  County, Minnesota.
                                   5-5

-------
US  Environmental  Protection Agency.   1979.   Region  V,  Water  Division,
     Chicago, IL  Draft environmental  impact  statement.   Alternative waste
     treatment  systems  for  rural  lake  projects.   Case  study  number  3,
     Springvale-Bear  Creek sewage  disposal  authority, Emmet  County,  Mic-
     higan.

US  Environmental  Protection Agency.   1979.   Region  V,  Water  Division,
     Chicago, IL  Draft environmental  impact  statement.   Alternative waste
     treatment systems for rural lake projects. Case study number 4 Steuben
     Lakes Regional Waste District, Steuben County, Indiana.

US  Environmental  Protection Agency.   1979.   Region  V,   Water Divisions,
     Chicago, IL   Draft  environmental  impact statement.  Alternative waste
     treatment  systems  for  rural  lake  projects.   Case  study  number  5,
     Ottertail  County Board  of  Commissioners Ottertail  County,  Minnesota

US Environmental  Protection Agency.  1980.  Design manual.  On-site waste-
     water treatment and disposal systems.  Office of Research and Develop-
     ment, Municipal  Environmental  Research  Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH 391
     P-

US Environmental  Protection Agency.  1980.  Modeing phosphorus loading and
     lake  response under uncertainty:   a  manual  and  compilation  of export
     coefficients.  EPA  440/5-80-011.   Clean  Lake  Section USEPA, Washing-
     ton, DC.

US  Environmental   Protection  Agency.   1981.   Alternative  waste  treatment
     system  for  rural lake  projects.   Draft  generic  environmental impact
     statement.    USEPA  Region  V,  Water  Division,  Chicago  IL,   133  plus
     appendixes.

US  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1981.    Facilities Planning  1981.
     Municipal  wastewater  treatment.   EPA  430/9-81-002  office   of  Water
     Program Operations, Washington DC, 116 p.

US Environmental  Protection Agency.  1981.   Resource  inventory and septic
     system  survey.   Moose Lake  - Windemere  Sewer  District,  Minnesota.
     Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas NV.

US  Environmental  Protection Agency.   1981.   Region  V,  Water  Division,
     Chicago, IL  Draft environmental impact statement.  Alternative treat-
     ment  systems  for rural lake projects.  Case study number 6, Williams
     County Commissioners, Nettle Lake area,  Williams County, Ohio.

US Geological Survey.  1979.  Bruno and  Moose Lake  quadrangles Minnesota.
     15  minute  series  (topographic).   Department of  Interior, Washington
     DC, 2 sheets  (1:62,500).

Uttormark,  P.O.,   and J.P.  Wall.   1975.  Lake  classification  for  water
     quality management.   University of  Wisconsin Water  Resources Center.

Vasilevski,  A.  and R.L.  Hackett.   1980.   Timber resource  of Minnesota's
     central  hardwood unit,  1977.  US  Department  of Agriculture  Forest
     Service  Resource  Bulletin  NC-46.    North  Central  Forest Experiment
     Station, St. Paul MN, 65 p.

                                  5-6

-------
Viraraghavan,  T.,  and R. G. Warnock.,  1976.   Groundwater quality adjacent
     to a  septic  tank system.   Journal of the American Water Works Associ-
     ation 68:611-614.

Vollenweider,  R.A.    1975.   Input -  output  models with  special reference
     to the  phosphorus loading concept in  limnology.   Schweiz.   Z. Hydrol
     37:53-83.

Williams, J.D.H.  J-M Jaquet,  and R. L. Thomas.  1976.  Forms of phosphorus
     in  the   surficial  sediments  of  Lake  Erie.   Journal Fish  Res.  Board
     Can - 33:413-429.

Wisconsin  Department of Natural  Resources  Technical  Bulletin #81,  Influ-
     ence of  organic pollution on the density and production of trout in a
     Wisconsin stream 1975.
                                   5-7

-------
6.0.  GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS

Activated  sludge  process.  A  method of  secondary  wastewater treatment in
     which  a  suspended  microbiological  culture is  maintained  inside  an
     aerated treatment basin.   The microbial organisms oxidize the complex
     organic matter in the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and energy.

Advanced  secondary treatment.   Wastewater  treatment  more  stringent than
     secondary treatment but not to advanced waste treatment levels.

Advanced  waste treatment.  Wastewater  treatment to  treatment levels that
     provide for  maximum monthly  average BOD   and  SS concentrations less
     than  10 mg/1  and/or  total nitrogen removal of greater than 50%  (total
     nitrogen removal = TKN + nitrite and nitrate).

Aeration.  To circulate oxygen through a substance, as in wastewater  treat-
     ment, where it aids in purification.

Aerobic.   Refers  to life or  processes that occur only  in  the presence of
     oxygen.

Aerosol.  A suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas.

Algae.   Simple  rootless  plants  that grow  in  bodies  of  water in relative
     proportion to the amounts  of nutrients  available.   Algal blooms, or
     sudden growth spurts, can affect water quality adversely.

Algal bloom.   A proliferation of one species of algae in lakes, streams or
     ponds to the exclusion of other algal species.

Alluvial.  Pertaining to material that has been carried by a stream.

Ambient air.  Any unconfined portion of the atmosphere:  open air.

Ammonia-nitrogen.  Nitrogen  in the form of ammonia  (NH_)  that is produced
     in  nature when nitrogen-containing  organic material  is biologically
     decomposed.

Anaerobic. Refers to life or processes that occur in the absence of oxygen.

Anoxia.  Condition where oxygen is deficient or absent.

Apatite.   Calcium phosphate with chloride,  fluoride  or  hydroxyl Ca(Cl, F,
     OH)  Ca  (PO )  ;  forms hexagonal  crystals;  earlier  was  often confused
     with  fluorrte5.

Aquifer.   A  geologic  stratum or unit that contains water and will allow it
     to pass through.  The water may reside in and travel through innumera-
     ble  spaces between  rock grains in a  sand or gravel aquifer, small or
     cavernous  openings   formed by  solution  in a  limestone  aquifer,  or
     fissures, cracks, and rubble in harder rocks such as shale.

Artesian  (adj.).   Refers  to groundwater  that  is under sufficient pressure
     to flow to the surface without being pumped.
                                   6-1

-------
Artesian well.   A well  that normally  gives  a continuous  flow because of
     hydrostatic pressure, created when the outlet of the well is below the
     level of the water source.

Bar  screen.   In wastewater  treatment,  a screen  that  removes large float-
     ing and suspended solids.

Base flow.   The rate of movement of water  in a stream channel that occurs
     typically  during  rainless  periods,  when stream  flow  is  maintained
     largely or entirely by discharges of groundwater.

Bed Rock.  The solid rock beneath the soil and subsoil.

Biochemical  oxygen  demand  (BOD).   A bioassay-type  procedure in which the
     weight  of  oxygen  utilized by microorganisms to oxidize and assimilate
     the organic  matter present  per liter of water is  determined.  It is
     common  to note the number of days during which a test was conducted as
     a subscript to the abbreviated name.  For example, BOD  indicates that
     the results  are based  on a five-day  long  (120-hour)5 test.   The BOD
     value  is  a relative measure of the amount  (load)  of  living and dead
     oxidizable organic  matter in  water.   A  high  demand may  deplete the
     supply  of oxygen in the water, temporarily or for a prolonged time, to
     the degree that many  or all  kinds  of aquatic  organisms are killed.
     Determinations  of  BOD  are  useful in the evaluation of the impact of
     wastewater on receiving waters.

Biota.  The  plants and animals of an area.

Chemocline.   A stratum of  stronger concentration  gradient  of  dissolved
     substances.

Chlorination.  The  application of  chlorine  to  drinking water,  sewage or
     industrial  waste  for  disinfection or  oxidation of undesirable com-
     pounds .

Circulation  period.   The  interval of time in which the density stratifica-
     tion of a  lake is destroyed by the  equalization of temperature, as a
     result  of which the entire water mass becomes mixed.

Clay.  The  smallest  mineral particles in soil, less than .004 mm in diame-
     ter;  soil  that contains  at least  40%  clay particles,  less than 45%
     sand, and less than 40% silt.

Coliform bacteria.   Members of a large group  of  bacteria that flourish in
     the feces  and/or  intestines  of warm-blooded animals,  including man.
     Fecal  coliform  bacteria,  particularly   Escherichia  coli  (E.  coli),
     enter water mostly in fecal matter, such as sewage or feedlot runnoff.
     Coliforms  apparently  do  not  cause serious  human  diseases,  but these
     organisms  are  abundant in polluted waters and they are fairly easy to
     detect.  The abundance  of coliforms in water, therefore, is used as an
     index  to  the probability of the  occurrence  of  such disease-producing
     organisms  (pathogens)   as Salmonella,  Shigella,  and  enteric viruses
     which are otherwise relatively difficult  to detect.
                                    6-2

-------
Community.  The plants  and animals  in a particular  area  that are closely
     related through food chains and other interactions.

Cultural resources.  Fragile  and nonrenewable sites, districts, buildings,
     structures,  or  objects  representative  of  our heritage.   Cultural
     resources  are divided  into three categories:   historical,  architec-
     tural, or  archaeological.   Cultural  resources of special significance
     may  be eligible  for  listing  on  the   National  Register  of  Historic
     Places.

Decibel (dB).  A unit of measurement used to express  the relative intensity
     of sound.   For environmental  assessment, it is common  to  use  a fre-
     quency-rated  scale  (A scale)  on which  the  units (dBA)  are correlated
     with responses of the human ear.  On the A  scale, 0 dBA represents the
     average  least perceptible  sound  (rustling  leaves,  gentle breathing),
     and 140 dBA represents  the intensity at which the eardrum may rupture
     (jet engine at open throttle) . Intermediate values generally are:  20
     dBA,   faint (whisper  at 5  feet,  classroom, private office);  60 dBA,
     loud  (average restaurant  or  living room,  playground);  80  DBA, very
     loud  (impossible  to  use  a telephone,   noise  made by  food blender or
     portable  standing  machine;  hearing impairment  may result  from pro-
     longed exposure);  100 dBA, deafening  noise  (thunder,  car horn at  3
     feet, loud motorcycle, loud power lawn mower).

Demographic.   Pertaining  to the science  of vital and special statistics,
     especially with  regard to  population density  and  capacity for  expan-
     sion or decline.

Detention  time.   Average  time  required  to  flow  through  a  basin.   Also
     called retention time.

Digestion.  In wastewater treatment a closed tank, sometimes heated to 95°F
     where sludge is subjected to intensified bacterial action.

Disinfection.   Effective  killing by chemical  or physical  processes  of all
     organisms  capable of  causing  infectious disease.  Chlorination  is the
     disinfection  method  commonly employed  in sewage treatment processes.

Dissolved oxygen  (DO).   Oxygen gas (0 )  in  water.   It is utilized in res-
     piration by fish and other aquatic organisms, and those organisms may
     be injured or  killed  when the  concentration is low.   Because much
     oxygen diffuses  into water from the air,  the  concentration  of DO is
     greater,  other conditions  being  equal,  at  sea level  than at high
     elevations, during  periods of  high  atmospheric  pressure than  during
     periods  of low  pressure,  and  when the  water  is  turbulent  (during
     rainfall,  in  rapids, and  waterfalls)  rather  than when it is placid.
     Because  cool  water can  absorb more oxygen than warm  water,  the con-
     centration tends to  be greater at low  temperatures  than at high tem-
     peratures.  Dissolved oxygen  is depleted by  the oxidation of organic
     matter  and of  various inorganic  chemicals.  Should depletion  be ex-
     treme, the water may  become  anaerobic and could  stagnate and  stink.

Drainage  Basin.   A geographical area or  region  which  is  so  sloped and
     contoured  that surface runoff  from streams  and other  natural  water-
                                   6-3

-------
     courses  is  carried away  by  a single drainage system  by  gravity to a
     common outlet or  outlets;  also referred to as a watershed or drainage
     area.

Drift.  Rock  material  picked up and transported by a glacier and deposited
     elsewhere.

Effluent.  Wastewater  or  other liquid, partially or completely treated, or
     in  its  natural  state,  flowing out  of  a reservoir,  basin,  treatment
     plant, or industrial treatment plant, or part thereof.

Endangered species.  Any species of animal or plant that is in known danger
     of  extinction throughout  all or a  significant  part  of  its  range.

Epilimnion.   The turbulent  superficial  layer  of a  lake  lying  above the
     metalimnion which does not  have  a  permanent  thermal stratification.
Eutrophication.  The progressive  enrichment  of surface waters particularly
     non-flowing bodies  of water  such as lakes  and  ponds,  with dissolved
     nutrients,  such  as  phosphorous and nitrogen compounds,  which accele-
     rate the  growth  of  algae and higher forms of plant life and result in
     the utilization  of  the  useable  oxygen  content  of the  waters  at the
     expense of other aquatic life forms.

Fauna.  The  total  animal life of a particular  geographic  area or habitat.

Fecal coliform bacteria.   See coliform bacteria.

Floodway.  The portion of  the floodplain which carries moving water during
     a flood event.

Flood  fringe.   The part of  the  floodplain which  serves as  a storage area
     during a flood event.

Flora.   The  total  plant  life of a particular  geographic  area or habitat.

Flowmeter.    A  guage  that indicates the amount of  flow of wastewater moving
     through a treatment plant.

Force main.  A pipe designed to carry wastewater under pressure.

Gravity system.  A system  of conduits (open  or  closed)  in which no liquid
     pumping is required.

Gravity  sewer.   A  sewer  in which  wastewater  flows naturally down-gradient
     by the force of gravity.

Groundwater.   All  subsurface water,  especially that  part  in the  zone of
     saturation.

Holding Tank.  Enclosed tank, usually of fiberglass, steel or concrete, for
     the storage  of  wastewater   prior  to removal or disposal  at  another
     location.
                                   6-4

-------
Hypolimnion.  The  deep  layer of a  lake  lying below the epilimnion and the
     metalimnion and removed from surface influences.

Infiltration.   The water entering  a sewer  system and service connections
     from the ground  through such means as,  but  not limited to, defective
     pipes, pipe joints, improper connections, or manhole walls.  Infiltra-
     tion does not include, and is distinguished from, inflow.

Inflow.   The water  discharged  into  a wastewater  collection  system and
     service connections  from such  sources as,  but not limited  to,  roof
     leaders, cellars,  yard  and area  drains, foundation  drains,  cooling
     water  discharges,  drains from  springs and  swampy  areas,  manhole co-
     vers,  cross-connections  from storm sewers and  combined sewers,  catch
     basins, storm waters,  surface  runoff,  street wash waters or drainage.
     Inflow  does  not include,  and is  distinguished  from,  infiltration.

Influent.   Water,  wastewater,  or other liquid  flowing into  a reservoir,
     basin, or treatment facility, or any unit thereof.

Interceptor sewer.  A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
     series of  trunk  sewers and to  convey  it to  a  sewage treatment plant.

Innovative  Technology.   A  technology  whose use has not  been widely docu-
     mented by  experience  and is not a  variant  of conventional biological
     or physical/chemical treatment.

Lagoon.   In wastewater  treatment,   a  shallow  pond, usually  man-made,  in
     which  sunlight,  algal  and  bacterial  action  and oxygen  interact  to
     restore the wastewater to a reasonable state of purity.

Land Treatment.  A method  of treatment in which the soil, air, vegetation,
     bacteria, and fungi are employed to remove pollutants from wastewater.
     In  its most  simple  form,  the  method  includes  three  steps:   (1)  pre-
     treatment  to   screen  out  large solids;  (2) secondary  treatment and
     chlorination;  and  (3)  spraying  over  cropland,  pasture,  or  natural
     vegetation  to allow  plants and  soil  microorganisms to  remove  addi-
     tional  pollutants.   Much  of  the  sprayed water evaporates,  and the
     remainder may be allowed to percolate to  the water table, discharged
     through drain tiles, or reclaimed by wells.

Leachate.   Solution formed when water percolates through solid wastes, soil
     or other materials and extracts soluble or suspendable substances from
     material.

Lift  station.   A  facility in  a collector  sewer system, consisting  of a
     receiving chamber, pumping equipment,  and associated drive and control
     devices, that collects wastewater  from a low-lying  district at some
     convenient  point,  from which  it  is lifted  to  another  portion of the
     collector system.

Littoral.  The shoreward region of a body of water.

Loam.  The  textural class  name for  soil having  a moderate amount of sand,
     silt,  and  clay.   Loam soils contain  7  to 27% of clay,  28 to 50% of
     silt, and less than 52% of sand.


                                   6-5

-------
Macroinvertebrates.   Invertebrates  that  are  visible to  the  unaided  eye
     (those  retained  by a  standard  No.  30 sieve, which has  28 meshes per
     inch  or  0.595  mm  openings);   generally connotates  bottom-dwelling
     aquatic animals (benthos) .

Macrophyte.  A large  (not microscopic) plant, usually  in  an aquatic habi-
     tat.

Mesotrophic.  Waters with a moderate supply of nutrients and no significant
     production of organic matter.

Metalimnion.   The layer  of water  in a  lake  between  the  epilimnion and
     hypolimnion  in which  the temperature exhibits the greatest difference
     in a vertical direction.

Milligram per  liter  (mg/1).  A concentration of 1/1000 gram of a substance
     in  1 liter  of  water.   Because  1  liter of  pure water  weighs 1,000
     grams,  the  concentration also  can  be stated as  1 ppm  (part per mil-
     lion, by  weight).  Used  to  measure and  report  the  concentrations of
     most  substances  that  commonly  occur in  natural and  polluted waters.

Moraine.   A mound, ridge,  or other distinctive accumulation  of sediment
     deposited by a glacier.

National  Register of  Historic  Places.   Official  listing of  the cultural
     resources of  the  Nation that are worthy  of  preservation.   Listing on
     the National  Register  makes  property owners eligible to be considered
     for  Federal  grants-in-aid   for  historic  preservation  through state
     programs.   Listing also  provides  protection  through comment  by the
     Advisory  Council  on Historic Preservation on the  effect of Federally
     financed, assisted,  or licensed  undertakings  on historic properties.

Nitrate-nitrogen.  Nitrogen  in  the form of nitrate  (NO ).   It is the most
     oxidized  phase  in  the nitrogen  cycle  in nature  and occurs  in high
     concentrations in the  final  stages of biological oxidation.   It can
     serve as  a  nutrient for the growth of algae and other aquatic plants.

Nitrite-nitrogen.  Nitrogen in the  form of nitrite  (NO  ).   It  is  an in-
     termediate stage  in the nitrogen  cycle in nature.  Nitrite normally is
     found in  low concentrations  and represents a transient  stage  in the
     biological oxidation of organic materials.

Nonpoint source.   Any  area, in contrast to a pipe or other structure, from
     which pollutants  flow  into  a body of water.   Common pollutants from
     nonpoint sources are sediments from construction sites and fertilizers
     and sediments from agricultural soils.

Nutrients.  Elements or compounds essential as raw materials for the growth
     and  development  of an  organism;  e.g., carbon,  oxygen,  nitrogen, and
     phosphorus.

Outwash.   Sand  and gravel  transported away from  a  glacier  by streams of
     meltwater and either  deposited as a  floodplain along  a preexisting
     valley  bottom or  broadcast  over  a preexisting plain in a  form similar
     to an alluvial fan.
                                   6-6

-------
Oligotrophic.  Waters with  a small supply of nutrients and hence an insig-
     nificant production of organic matter.

Ordinance.  A municipal or county regulation.

Outwash.  Drift carried  by  melt water from  a  glacier and deposited beyond
     the marginal moraine.

Outwash Plain.  A  plain  formed by material  deposited by melt water from a
     glacier  flowing over  a  more or  less  flat surface  of  large  area.
     Deposits of this origin are usually distinguishable from odinary river
     deposits by  the fact  that they often  grade into  moraines  and their
     constituents  bear  evidence  of  glacial origin.  Also  called  frontal
     apron.

Oxidation  lagoon  (pond).  A  holding  area where  organic  wastes are broken
     down by aerobic bacteria.

Percolation.  The  downward  movement of water through pore spaces or larger
     voids in soil or rock.

pH.  A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a material, liquid or solid.
     pH is  represented on a scale of 0 to 14 with 7 being a neutral state;
     0, most acid;  and 14, most alkaline.

Piezometric  level.   An  imaginary  point that represents  the  static  head of
     groundwater and is  defined by  the level  to  which water will rise.

Plankton.   Minute  plants  (phytoplankton)  and  animals  (zooplankton)  that
     float  or swim  weakly  in rivers,  ponds,  lakes, estuaries, or seas.

Point  source.   In  regard  to  water,   any  pipe,  ditch,   channel,  conduit,
     tunnel,  well,  discrete operation,  vessel or other  floating  craft, or
     other  confined  and  discrete  conveyance  from  which a  substance  con-
     sidered  to  be  a pollutant is,  or  may be, discharged  into  a  body of
     water.

Pressure  sewer  system.   A wastewater collection  system  in which household
     wastes are collected in the building drain and conveyed therein to the
     pretreatment  and/or  pressurization facility.   The  system consists of
     two  major  elements, the  on-site or  pressurization  facility,  and the
     primary conductor pressurized sewer main.

Primary  treatment.   The first  stage  in  wastewater  treatment,  in  which
     substantially   all  floating  or  settleable solids  are  mechanically
     removed by screening and sedimentation.

Prime farmland.  Agricultural lands, designated Class I or Class II, having
     little or no limitations to profitable crop production.

Pumping  station.   A facility  within a  sewer  system  that  pumps  sewage/
     effluent against the force of gravity.
                                   6-7

-------
Runoff.   Water  from  rain,  snow  melt,  or  irrigation  that flows  over the
     ground surface and returns to streams.  It can collect pollutants from
     air or land and carry them to the receiving waters.

Sanitary  sewer.   Underground  pipes that carry only  domestic  or commercial
     wastewater, not stormwater.

Screening.  Use of racks of screens to remove coarse floating and suspended
     solids from sewage.

Secchi  Disk.   A disk,  painted in four quadrants  of alternating black and
     white, which  is  lowered  into a body  of  water.   The measured depth at
     which the  disk  is no longer visible  from  the surface is a measure of
     relative transparency.

Secondary  treatment.   The second  stage in the  treatment  of  wastewater in
     which bacteria are utilized to decompose the organic matter in sewage.
     This  step  is  accomplished by introducing the sewage  into a trickling
     filter or  an  activated  sludge process.  Effective secondary treatment
     processes  remove  virtually all floating solids and settleable solids,
     as well  as 90%  of the  BOD  and suspended  solids.  USEPA regulations
     define secondary  treatment as 30 mg/1 BOD, 30 mg/1 SS, or 85% removal
     of these substances.

Sedimentation.   The  process   of   subsidence  and  deposition  of  suspended
     matter carried by water, sewage,  or other liquids, by gravity.   It is
     usually accomplished by  reducing  the velocity  of  the liquid below the
     point where it can transport the suspended material.

Seepage.  Water that flows through the soil.

Seepage cells.  Unlined wastewater lagoons designed so that all or part of
     wastewater percolates into the underlying soil.

Septic  snooper.   Trademark for .the  ENDECO (Environmental Devices Corpora-
     tion) Type 2100 Septic Leachate Detector.  This instrument consists of
     an underwater probe,  a  water intake  system,  an analyzer control unit
     and  a graphic recorder.   Water drawn through  the instrument is con-
     tinuously  analyzed for  specific  fluorescence and conductivity.   When
     calibrated against typical  effluents,  the instrument can detect and
     profile effluent-like  substances and  thereby  locate  septic tank lea-
     chate or other  sources  of domestic sewage entering lakes and streams.

Septic  tank.    An  underground  tank used  for the  collection  of  domestic
     wastes.  Bacteria in the wastes decompose the  organic matter, and the
     sludge settles to the  bottom.  The effluent flows through drains into
     the ground.   Sludge is pumped out at regular intervals.

Septic tank effluent pump (STEP).  Pump designed to  transfer settled waste-
     water from a  septic tank  to a sewer.

Septic tank soil absorption system  (STAS).  A system of wastewater disposal
     in which large  solids  are retained in a tank;  fine solids and liquids
     are dispersed into the surrounding soil by a system of pipes.
                                   6-8

-------
Settling tank.  A holding area for wastewater, where heavier particles sink
     to the bottom and can be siphoned off.

Sewer, Interceptor.  See Interceptor Sewer.

Sewer, lateral.   A sewer  designed  and installed to collect  sewage  from a
     limited  number of  individual   properties  and conduct  it to a trunk
     sewer.  Also known as a street  sewer or collecting sewer.

Sewer, sanitary.  See Sanitary Sewer.

Sewer, storm.   A conduit that collects and  transports storm-water runoff.
     In many  sewerage  systems,  storm sewers are separate from those carry-
     ing sanitary or industrial wastewater.

Sewer,  trunk.  A  sewer designed and installed to  collect sewage  from a
     number of lateral sewers and conduct it to an interceptor sewer or, in
     some cases, to a sewage treatment plant.

Sinking fund.   A fund  established by periodic  installments  to provide for
     the retirement of the principal of term bonds.

Slope.  The incline of the surface of the land.  It is usually expressed as
     a percent  (%)  of  slope that equals the number of feet of fall per 100
     feet in horizontal distance.

Sludge.  The  accumulated  solids  that have been separated from liquids such
     as as wastewater.

Soil association.   General  term  used to describe taxonomic units of soils,
     relative proportions, and pattern of occurrence.

Soil textural class.   The classification of soil material according to the
     proportions of sand,  silt,  and clay.   The principal textural classes
     in  soil,  in increasing order  of  the amount of silt and  clay,  are as
     follows:   sand,  loamy sand, sandy loam,  loam, silt  loam,  sandy clay
     loam,  clay loam,  silty  clay loam, sandy  clay, silty  clay,  and clay.
     These class names  are modified to indicate the size of the sand frac-
     tion or the presence of gravel, sandy loam, gravelly loam, stony clay,
     and  cobbly loam,  and are  used on  detailed  soil maps.   These terms
     apply  only to individual soil horizons or to the  surface  layer of a
     soil type.

State  equalized valuation  (SEV).   A measure  employed  within a  State to
     adjust  actual assessed  valuation upward  to approximate  true  market
     value.  Thus it is possible to relate debt burden to the full value of
     taxable property in each community within  that State.

Stratification.   The condition of a body of water when the water is divided
     into layers of differing density.  Climatic changes over the course of
     the  seasons cause a  lake  to  divide into a  bottom layer and surface
     layer, with a  boundary layer  (thermocline) between them.  Stratifica-
     tion  generally occurs during  the summer  and again during periods of
     ice cover  in  the  winter.   Overturns, or  periods  of mixing,  generally
                                   6-9

-------
     occur  once in  the spring  and once  in  the autumn.   This "dimictic"
     condition  is most  common in lakes located in middle latitudes. A lake
     which  stratifies and  mixes more  than twice  per  year is  defined  as
     "polymictic".

Threatened  species.   Any  species  of  animal  or plant  that  is  likely  to
     become endangered  within the  foreseeable future  throughout  all  or a
     significant part of its range.

Till.   Unsorted  and unstratified  drift,  consisting  of  a heterogeneous
     mixture of  clay, sand,  gravel, and boulders, that is deposited by and
     underneath a glacier.

Trickling  filter process.  A  method  of  secondary  wastewater  treatment  in
     which the  biological  growth is attached to a fixed medium, over which
     wastewater is sprayed.  The filter organisms biochemically oxidize the
     complex organic matter in the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and
     energy.

Topography.  The  configuration of a surface area  including its relief,  or
     relative  evaluations,  and  the position  of  its natural  and manmade
     features.

Unique  farmland.  Land,  which  is  unsuitable  for  crop production  in its
     natural  state,   that  has been made  productive by  drainage, irriga-
     tion, or fertilization practices.

Wastewater.   Water  carrying  dissolved  or  suspended  solids  from homes,
     farms, businesses,  and industries.

Water  quality.   The  relative  condition of a  body  of  water,  as judged  by
     a  comparison between  contemporary  values and  certain  more or  less
     objective  standard values  for biological, chemical,  and/or physical
     parameters.   The  standard   values  usually  are based on  a specific
     series  of  intended  uses,  and may  vary   as  the  intended  uses vary.

Watershed.  The region  drained by or contributing water to  a  stream, lake,
     or other body of water.

Water  table.   The upper  level of  groundwater that  is  not confined by an
     upper impermeable  layer  and is under atmospheric pressure.   The upper
     surface  of the  substrate that is wholly saturated with groundwater.

Wetlands.  Those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a
     frequency  sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or
     would support a  prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life  that requires
     saturated  or  seasonally  saturated   soil  conditions   for  growth and
     reproduction.
                                    6-10

-------
8.0.  LIST OF PREPARERS
     The  Draft  Environmental Statement  (DES)  was  prepared  by the Chicago
Regional  Office of  WAPORA,  Inc., under contract to USEPA, Region V.  USEPA
approved  the DES and hereby publishes it as a Draft EIS.  The USEPA Project
Officers  and the  WAPORA staff involved in  the  preparation of the DES/DEIS
during the past two years include:
USEPA

Charles Quinlan III
James Novak

WAPORA, Inc.

Robert France

Lawrence Olinger

J. P. Singh

John Laumer

Steven Me Comas


Ross Sweeney

Gerald Lenssen

Andrew Freeman

Rhoda Grant

Peter Woods

Richard Gill

Thomas Davis

Neil Coleman

Kenneth Dobbs

Richard Kubb

Greg Lindsey

Ellen Renzas

Jan Saper

Delores Jackson-Hope
Project Officer
Project Officer (former)
Project Administrator

Project Administrator

Project Administrator and Senior Engineer

Project  Manager  and  Principal  Author

Environmental  Scientist,  Engineeer, and
Principal Author

Civil   Engineer   and  Principal  Author

Agricultural Engineer

Demographer

Editor

Graphic Specialist

Biologist

Chemist

Geologist

Economist

Biologist

Land Use Planner

Socio-Enconomist

Socio-Economist

Production Specialist
                                  7-1

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

     o    Aerial Survey
               Office of Research and Development
               USEPA
               Las Vegas, Nevada

     o    Soil Survey and Mapping
               Mr. HarIan R. Finney
               Professional Soil Scientists
               1828 Draper Drive
               St. Paul, MN  55113

     o    Paleolimnological and Lake Management Studies
               Lake Management Consultants, Inc.
               166 Dixon Street
               Madison, Wise.  53704

     o    Field Survey Arrangements and Data Development
               Moose Lake-Windemere Sanitary District
               Moose Lake, MN  55767
                                  7-2

-------
9.0.  LIST OF THOSE SENT COPY OF THE DRAFT EIS

Federal

Senator Rudolph E. Boschwitz
Senator David Durenberger
Representative James Oberstar
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Health, and Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Heritage Conservation & Recreation Service
National Park Service
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Soil Conservation Service
USEPA Regional Offices

State
Senator Florian Chmielewski
Representative Doug Carlson
Office of the Governor
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Water Resources Board
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota State Planning Agency
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Minnesota Energy Agency
Minnesota Department of Agriculture

Local

Mayor, City of Moose Lake
Mayor, City of Barnum
Moose Lake-Windemere Sanitary District Board
Township Clerk for Moose Lake Township
Township Clerk for Windemere Township
Chairman, Pine County Board of Commissioners
Chairman, Carlton County Board of Commissioners

Citizens and Groups

This list is available upon request from USEPA.
                                     8-1

-------