Lyon Township Roscommon County, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Wastewater Collection and Treatment System

March 2020

F&V Project No. 839780

Prepared by :

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE ii

This page is intentionally left blank

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE iii

I. Table of Contents I. Table of Contents ...... iii II. Introduction and Executive Summary ...... 1 III. Project Background ...... 1 A. Project Planning Area ...... 1 1. Location ...... 1 2. Historic Environmental Concerns ...... 3 3. Environmental Resources Present...... 3 4. Growth Areas and Population Trends ...... 4 B. Existing Facilities ...... 5 1. Location Map ...... 5 2. History ...... 5 3. Description ...... 6 4. Condition of Existing Facilities ...... 6 C. Need for Project ...... 7 1. Health, Sanitation, and Security ...... 7 2. Future Environment without Proposed Project ...... 11 D. Public Engagement ...... 11 IV. Collection Alternatives Considered ...... 14 A. No Action ...... 14 B. Optimizing Performance of Existing Systems ...... 14 C. Hybrid & Low Pressure (STEP) Collection ...... 15 D. Low Pressure Collection ...... 17 V. Wastewater Treatment Alternatives ...... 20 A. No Action ...... 20 B. Regional Alternative ...... 20 HLUA WWTP Alternative ...... 25 Markey Township WWTP Alternative ...... 25 Village of Roscommon Alternative ...... 25 C. Centralized Wastewater Treatment Systems ...... 20 VI. Selection of Alternative ...... 28 A. Life Cycle Cost Analysis ...... 28 Collection System ...... 28 Treatment System ...... 29 Non-Monetary Factors ...... 29

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE iv

VII. Proposed Project (Recommended Alternative) ...... 294 A. Collection System ...... 30 B. Wastewater Treatment ...... 31 C. Project Funding Approach ...... 31

List of Appendices

Appendix A – Figures Figure 1 Area Map Figure 2 National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 3. Higgins Lake Area Study Map Figure 4A Preliminary Sewer Collection System – Hybrid Collection System Figure 4B Preliminary Sewer Collection System – Hybrid Collection System, Cont’d. Figure 5A Preliminary Sewer Collection System – Low Pressure System Figure 5B Preliminary Sewer Collection System – Low Pressure System, Cont’d. Figure 6 Regional WWTP Locations Figure 7 Preliminary WWTP Location Map Figure 8 Preliminary WWTP Aerated Lagoon Diagram Figure 9 Preliminary WWTP Mechanical WWTP Diagram

Appendix B – Tables

No. Description 1. Overall Cost Summary 2. Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Cost – Hybrid Gravity/Low Pressure 3. Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Cost – Low Pressure System 4. Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Cost –Aerated Lagoon WWTP 5. Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Cost –Mechanical WWTP 6. Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Cost –East & West Mechanical WWTP 7. Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Cost –Regional + Mechanical WWTP 8. Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Cost –10% Markey Twp. WWTP + Mechanical WWTP 9. Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Cost –50% Markey Twp WWTP Expansion + Mechanical WWTP 10. Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Cost –100% Markey Twp WWTP Expansion

PER Summary Tables 11. Operating Budget 12. Present Worth Analysis & Short-Lived Depreciation – Collection System 13. Present Worth Analysis & Short-Lived Depreciation – WWTP 14. Bond Schedule

Appendix C – Correspondence 1. Letter of Support

Appendix D – Previous Lake Studies and Reports 1. 2019 Higgins Lake Report – Preliminary Draft (MSU, 2019)

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE v

2. Changes in nearshore water quality from 1995 to 2014 and associated linkages to septic systems in Higgins Lake, MI (Higgins Lake Foundation, 2014) 3. Higgins Lake Watershed Management plan; (Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership, 2007) 4. Effects of Residential Development on the Water Quality of Higgins Lake (USGS, 2001) 5. Water Quality Study of Higgins Lake (UofM, Fairchild & Schultz, 1984) 6. Report on Higgins Lake Roscommon County Michigan, EPA Region V, Working Paper No. 195 (US EPA Natural Eutrophication Survey, 1975)

Appendix E – F&V Public Informational Meeting Presentation 1. F&V Presentation

Appendix F – Letters of Support

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE vi

This page is intentionally left blank

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 1

II. Introduction and Executive Summary

The Lyon Township Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) was prepared to fulfill the project planning requirements of the United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Rural Utilities Service – Water and Wastewater Programs. The purpose of this Feasibility Study is to describe the need for a public sewer system and evaluate alternatives for design and construction of a collection system and wastewater treatment facility (WWTP) to serve properties near Higgins Lake. This Feasibility Study represents a joint effort by Lyon Township and Gerrish Township of Roscommon County. Lyon and Gerrish Townships comprise most of the Higgins Lake lakeshore and hold a shared interest in protecting the lake and its water quality, as well as share similar geological and land use challenges.

Lyon Township received a USDA Rural Development SEARCH grant in 2019 to be used to complete preliminary project planning to explore the feasibility of the potential construction of a new sanitary sewer collection and treatment system. This PER describes problems with existing onsite wastewater systems within the service area, onsite wastewater facilities, evaluates the need for a public sewer system to protect water quality and public health and safety, examines alternatives for collection and treatment, and recommends a principal alternative to meet the current and future wastewater collection and treatment needs for the area. It also presents projected user costs for the selected alternative.

III. Project Background

A. Project Planning Area 1. Location Lyon and Gerrish Townships are rural townships in the northwest part of Roscommon County. Figure 1 in Appendix A illustrates the location of Lyon and Gerrish Townships and the Higgins Lake area. 2010 US Census data reports a Median Household Income (MHI) for Lyon Township of $36,548 and $43,274 for Gerrish Township.

Lyon and Gerrish Townships share shoreline on Higgins Lake. Higgins Lake is a 9,900- acre staple of aquatic recreation in , known for its deep and crystal- clear waters. Higgins Lake was named the sixth most beautiful lake in the world by National Geographic.

Further, the surrounding areas offer recreational opportunities beyond the lake including proximity to hiking, snowmobiling, and ORV trails. The Higgins Lake area contains a high number of seasonal residences as a result of the area’s natural resources. Two state parks are also located on Higgins Lake that have annual combined visitor counts averaging near 700,000 in some years. Higgins Lake contains one island, Treasure Island, which has approximately 30 homes.

The residential areas around Higgins Lake primarily consist of areas of dense development on small parcels. The small parcels and high building densities in many areas provide challenges in locating onsite water and wastewater disposal systems. The residential areas are generally located close to Higgins Lake.

There is a very limited amount of commercial use around Higgins Lake, generally catering to tourism and hospitality.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 2

Project Location

Source: Google Maps

Figure 1. Location Map

The planning area, or potential service area, for this project was determined based upon four primary factors that influence both public health and safety and protection of surface water quality of Higgins Lake. Factors used to determine the study area include:

1) Depth to groundwater 2) Soil Type – excessively draining or impervious soils 3) Lot Size (representing ability to achieve separation between wells and septic) 4) Proximity to Higgins Lake

Based on these four factors, a study area was developed which would provide protection of public health and safety and surface water. Public sewer would eliminate separation issues from the high groundwater; isolation distance issues from septic systems to private drinking water wells and surface water; and potential impacts to shallow drinking water wells from septic systems discharging to the same aquifer.

A topographical map of the planning area is shown in Figure 1 . No major elevation changes, floodplains or other natural boundaries or features were identified that would pose a substantial impact to the proposed project. Wetlands appear to be present within the planning area. See Figure 2 for an excerpt of the National Wetland Inventory Map published by the USFW for this area. Impacts to wetlands are not anticipated with project improvements. The study area is generally located within the Higgins Lake watershed. The study area extends from the watershed near the Higgins Lake outlet, the Cut River, where lowland wetlands exist.

The proposed project, consisting of a low-pressure collection system would facilitate a segmented approach to construction. The Effluent Pumping (STEP) system allows for the expansion of the collection system after construction of the treatment facility with minimal disruption to the existing system. Further, the system can be

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 3

expanded in the future in the same manor with planning for future flow requirements in the low-pressure mains.

2. Historic Environmental Concerns Lyon and Gerrish Townships have continued to grow as a residential and recreational area. Residential development continues in close proximity to Higgins Lake. As a result, groundwater and surface water quality concerns have developed that could impact recreation, tourism, property values, and public health and safety. Starting in 1969, nearly 20 water quality and sewer feasibility studies and reports have been conducted for the Higgins Lake area. Without exception, every study has demonstrated decreasing water quality in Higgins Lake. Significant previous lake water quality studies and reports include the following: • 2019 Higgins Lake Report – Preliminary Draft (MSU, 2019)* • Higgins Lake Water Analysis Report #5, Second Year (Raven Analytical, 2019) • Changes in nearshore water quality from 1995 to 2014 and associated linkages to septic systems in Higgins Lake, MI (Higgins Lake Foundation, 2014)* • Higgins Lake Wastewater Collection and Treatment Improvements Project Plan (C2AE, 2014) • Higgins Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant – Feasibility Study to Expand Service Area (C2AE, 2011) • Higgins Lake Groundwater Flow Investigation; (USGS, 2007) • Higgins Lake Watershed Management plan; (Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership, 2007)* • Effects of Residential Development on the Water Quality of Higgins Lake (USGS, 2001)* • Water Quality Study of Higgins Lake (Fairchild & Schultz, 1984)* • Report on Higgins Lake Roscommon County Michigan, EPA Region V, Working Paper No. 195 (US EPA Natural Eutrophication Survey, 1975)* • Maintaining the High-Water Quality of Higgins Lake (Bosserman, 1969) * - Included in Appendix D

Although many factors can impact water quality, many studies indicated that nutrients from onsite septic systems around the lake are negatively impacting water quality. Further discussion regarding need for the project in Section C of this report.

3. Environmental Resources Present Per the RUS Project Planning Guide, an Environmental Review (ER) is required for PER’s associated with funding applications. Because this PER serves as a feasibility study, an ER was not completed for the project at this time but will be conducted at the application stage of the project.

In general, the installation of the sewer collection system is expected to be within existing road rights-of-way, easements, or purchased property and will have limited impact on areas that have not been previously disturbed by construction activities. Directional drilling installation methods will minimize disturbance to nearby land uses, waterbodies or wetlands. Directional drilling also allows pressure sewer services to be available to Treasure Island. Existing land use is primarily residential and include forested land cover with scattered areas of dense residential development and few areas of commercial or industrial development. There is little grassland or agriculture in the area.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 4

The Higgins Lake watershed forms the headwaters for the Muskegon River Watershed eventually flowing into . The lake is fed primarily by groundwater with two small surface water feeds, the Big and Little Creeks. The only outlet from Higgins Lake is the Cut River which is controlled by a low-head dam. The Cut River flows to and then to , the headwaters for the Muskegon River.

Four potential properties were identified for construction of the WWTP. All four sites are owned by the State of Michigan ranging from 90 acres to 700 acres consisting of wooded and open land. The property is not designated as farmland, rangeland, or forestland. Each property is reasonably flat topographically. Although large parcels of land were identified, only a portion of the property will be developed as a WWTP, with the additional area available for future growth or expansion. As discussed in Section VII of the report, the recommended alternative for treatment is a mechanical plant which minimizes the amount of area required to construct a treatment facility. Due to the size and layout of the property, it is expected that construction and operation of the treatment plant will occur with no negative impacts to nearby sensitive environmental features.

4. Growth Areas and Population Trends Population trends for both Lyon and Gerrish Townships have shown population decreases since the 2000 census. This population decline could be contributed to the economic recession. The Gerrish Township, Lyon Township, and Roscommon County master plan are included in Appendix C for reference. Limited population growth in the area is expected due mostly to the area’s growth as a seasonal destination and the purchase and construction of seasonal/vacation homes. This idea is supported with the increase of housing units observed since 2000 and decline in population, illustrated below in Figure 2.

In addition, growth will be limited by the percentage of parcels that already have been built. Based on data provided by Roscommon County, many of the parcels in the study area have been built on already. However, there is another trend to consider as well. Many smaller homes and cabins in the study area are being demolished and replaced by larger homes suited for year-round use, and able to accommodate larger families and groups of people.

Future population estimates are especially difficult to predict in this case with the potential variability of seasonal homes and population trends over the last two decades. An annual growth rate of 1% could be expected based on the growing popularity of the region. This equates to approximately a 10.5% growth rate over 10 years. However, population increases may not reflect residential development in the instance of Lyon and Gerrish Townships.

Table 1. Lyon & Gerrish Twp. Populations

Township Population

Year Lyon Township Gerrish Township 1990 1,037 2,241 2000 1,462 3,072 2010 1,370 2,993 2017(*) 1,163 2,944 2020(**) 1,198 3,033 2030(**) 1,324 3,351

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 5

2040(**) 1,462 3,701 * Estimate from the US Census ** Estimate based on 1% annual growth

Lyon & Gerrish Township Population and Housing Units 4,000 3587 3366 3,500 3,072 2,993 2,944 3,000

2267 2343 2,500 2,241 Lyon Township Population

2,000 Gerrish Township Population 1,462 1,370 Lyon Township Housing Units 1,500 1,163 1,037 Gerrish Township Housing Units 1,000

500

0 1990 2000 2010 2017(est)

Figure 2. Lyon and Gerrish Township Populations and Housing Units

B. Existing Facilities 1. Location Map A map of the feasibility study area and existing nearby collection and treatment facilities is included as Figure 3 in Appendix A.

2. History There are no public sewers or public wastewater treatment systems currently serving the study area and residents rely on private septic systems. Due to the density of the lots on Higgins Lake in the service area, high groundwater, excessively drained soils, and proximity to Higgins Lake, the potential for septic system failure with accompanying lake and groundwater contamination has increasingly become a concern for the Townships.

Water supply is not a problem in the study area; however, highly permeable sandy soils and shallow wells are vulnerable to contamination.

Two prior sewer feasibility studies were completed, one in 1988 and another in 2014. Economic and environmental concerns have revived discussions about a sewer system in the community. The most recent feasibility study was unsuccessful in generating support for construction of a sewer system because of the project cost and the recommended alternative failing to meet the needs of the townships in serving the entire Higgins Lake lakeshore. The 1988 feasibility study proposed a similar sewer service area but was unsuccessful because of the proposed project cost. The Township has authorized a public sewer system study to further evaluate the present-day feasibility of a public sewer system.

Although not included in the study area, there are areas in the Higgins Lake watershed served by public sewer systems. In 2009 the Higgins Lake Utility Authority began operation

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 6

of their low-pressure forcemain and grinder pump collection system and treatment facility which serves 405 residential units in the Camp Curnalia area in the Northwest section of Higgins Lake. This wastewater collection and treatment facility were constructed out of a necessity for disposal in the camp that contains extremely dense residential units very near the lakeshore. Camp Curnalia consists of approximately 64 acres, and the WWTP is a lagoon system located just north of the Roscommon County line in Crawford County. The Utility Authority is comprised of members from both Lyon and Bear Creek Townships.

The North Higgins Lake State Park operates its own wastewater collection and treatment system which was constructed in 1993. South Higgins Lake State Park is connected to the Markey Township Wastewater Treatment Facility operated by the Houghton Lake Sewer Authority.

3. Description The Central Michigan District Health Department (CMDHD) which covers Roscommon County was contacted regarding information on existing septic systems in the study area. The health department indicated a history of aging, undersized and inadequate septic systems in the study area. The local sanitarian provided a letter of support for the project dated December 9, 2019. This letter of support is included in Appendix C.

As indicated by the Health Department, the area has long struggled with onsite and disposal. Many areas are difficult to serve due to lot size, density, high groundwater table and soils. Drywells are often used in lieu of traditional septic systems and do not provide the same level of disposal and treatment as conventional systems. Existing private on-site septic systems vary in age, size, and condition. In general, septic systems are constructed when homes are built and have received little maintenance from homeowners until they experience issues, fail, or homes are upgraded.

The Central Michigan District Health Department (CMDHD) covers Roscommon County and has developed a Sanitary Code. The CMDHD Sanitary Code regulates septic system construction, sizing, and design.

While septic tank systems can be effective in removing solids and providing partial treatment to residential sewage before discharge, drain fields can only provide a limited amount of phosphorous and nitrate treatment, and essentially no advanced treatment.

Much of the soil surrounding Higgins Lake is sandy as described by the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The riparian areas have high groundwater. The combination of the soil’s high hydraulic conductivity and shallow depth to water table do not allow for proper filtration and treatment of septic tank effluent. The NRCS rating of “Very Limited” describe the soils as unfavorable for treatment of septic tank effluent. While the high hydraulic conductivity of the soils promotes efficient drainage of the septic tank effluent and septic system back-ups are not common, the effluent is not well-treated before it mixes with groundwater and finds its way to the surface water of Higgins Lake. 4. Condition of Existing Facilities Many of the existing septic systems have been in place since the original construction of the houses or businesses when the area was mostly seasonal cottages. According to the Health Department, in some isolated instances, failed septic systems have resulted in the replacement. During replacement, maintaining proper setbacks and isolation distances to neighboring properties, wells, and surface water have been issues through permitting. As the area’s popularity grows, small cottages on small lots are being redeveloped into large homes and permanent residences.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 7

Illicit sewage disposal systems consisting of drywells or direct discharge systems have been found in the area. Poor maintenance or ineffective treatment is known to be affecting neighboring properties and the Higgins Lake near-shore surface water.

There is currently no centralized treatment facility for a majority of the homes surrounding Higgins Lake. There are two smaller treatment facilities located at the north and south ends of Higgins Lake.

The Higgins Lake Utility Authority (HLUA) wastewater treatment facility is located at the north end of Higgins Lake, and was designed to serve the 405 homes in the Camp Curnalia neighborhood. The facility was constructed in 2009 and remains in good condition. The existing low-pressure grinder pump collection system has been in place for 10 years and is approaching the end of the service life for many of the grinder pumps.

The Houghton Lake Sewer Authority Markey Township wastewater treatment facility is located at the south end of Higgins Lake and was designed to serve approximately 1,280 connections. The facility was reconstructed in 2016.

5. Financial Status There are no public wastewater collection or treatment systems in the study area, therefore, no existing debts or reserve funds are in place related to wastewater systems.

C. Need for Project 1. Health, Sanitation, and Security Higgins Lake has historically been cherished for its water quality. The area depends on the regional tourism stemming from its natural resources. Unfortunately, the area’s natural qualities are contributing to the decline in quality. Primarily, the area’s high groundwater table, excessively well-drained sandy soil types, and the desire for dense residential development very near to the lakeshore of Higgins Lake promote undesired effects to the groundwater and lake’s water quality through the use of on-site private septic systems for sewage disposal.

On-site private septic systems lack the capacity to effectively treat sewage effluent from the residential and limited commercial uses around the lake due to the excessively drained soils and proximity to the groundwater table. Even properly functioning septic systems will separate solids and drain the effluent as designed with no visible sign of the limited treatment ability of the system and soils. This issue is further exacerbated by the intense seasonal use and density of the systems around the area. The nutrients from septic systems are carried via the effluent into the groundwater. Groundwater, being the lake’s primary source of water, transports these nutrients to the lake which leads to degrading water quality. The high density of residential development impedes the soils treatment ability with the high nutrient loading. Further, these nutrients pose a health and safety issue for shallow private water supply wells located between the lake and any septic systems.

Higgins Lake has a long history of water quality studies for various purposes completed by the following agencies and universities: • United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • United State Geologic Survey (USGS) • Michigan State University (MSU) • University of Michigan (UofM)

A water quality decline has been documented as a result of increased development and continued use of septic systems. The long list of completed lake studies confirm that groundwater, the primary source of water to Higgins Lake, is transporting nutrients such

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 8

as nitrogen and phosphorus from septic system effluent to the lake, even when septic systems are operating as designed. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began documenting nutrient levels in 1975 in the “Report on Higgins Lake Roscommon County Michigan EPA Region V Working Paper No. 195 (see Appendix D for reference). The nutrients in the lake are causing ecology changes in the lake resulting in cultural eutrophication and accelerated aging. The previously mentioned studies have sampled the Higgins Lake surface water and groundwater for various compounds and conducted tests designed to indicate nutrient transport, septic system influence, and water quality such as:

• Phosphorus • Nitrogen • E-coli • Chlorophyll • Boron • Secchi Disk • Specific Conductivity • Dissolved Oxygen

These analytes and tests provide extensive data suggesting that septic system effluent is directly impacting the area groundwater and Higgins Lake water quality.

The 1984 Study by the University of Michigan shows a continued decline in water quality. The study also states that “septic systems may contribute as much as 60% of the total nutrient load to lakes when surrounding soils are poor and Figure 1. Map of 2001 USGS and 2014 MSU densities of nearshore dwellings are sampling locations high.1” Higgins Lake was classified as an oligotrophic lake in 2001 by the United States Geological Survey. A 2001 USGS report also states that “ in addition to land use, phosphorus concentrations appear to be affected by site specific conditions such as soil, location of septic systems relative to the water table 2” The 2001 USGS report analyzes water samples collected around Higgins Lake over six years from 1995 to 2001 with a later sampling of selected sites in 2007. A copy of the 2001 USGS Study is included in Appendix D for reference. Near shore surface water samples collected through the studies demonstrate changes in trophic state index indicators.

A 2014 report completed by MSU presented additional sampling and analysis from locations of the USGS study and new sampling locations. This 2014 study was conducted to continue the study of the ecological changes occurring in Higgins Lake with respect to the data collected in 2001. The 2014 report compared total phosphorus (TP) levels between samples collected at the same sites. The following figures are from the 2014 MSU report and represent the number of samples collected, from each respective sample site, that correspond to phosphorus levels of each trophic state index.

1 Richard Shultz and Winfield Fairchild. “A Water Quality Study of Higgins Lake, Michigan: Technical Report No. 12” (University of Michigan Biological Station, 1984), 37 2 Russel J Minnerick, “Effects of Residential Development on the Water Quality of Higgins Lake, Michigan 1995- 1999” (USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4055, 2001), 20

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 9

Figure 3. 2001 USGS TP sample summary – Trophic state index levels (Figure 9 of 2014 MSU Report)

Figure 2. 2014 MSU TP sample summary - Trophic state index levels (Figure 10 of 2014 MSU report)

The above figures demonstrate that the TP levels of the 2014 samplings are consistently higher and demonstrate concentrations of trophic states beyond the oligotrophic state levels of the 2001 samplings.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 10

Of interest between the 2001 USGS and 2014 MSU studies is the construction of the Camp Curnalia wastewater collection and treatment facilities which was completed in 2009. The 2001 USGS sampling sites 23 and 24 are similar to the 2014 MSU sites 22 and 23, respectively. Comparing the TP levels Figure 4. Site specific average sample results in from these studies and the 2007 USGS the area of Camp Curnalia (Table 5 of 2014 MSU sampling event, the 2014 MSU study report) reports “our results show that phosphorus concentrations in the subsurface of this area have been greatly reduced since the Camp Curnalia Sewer Project came online. 3” In addition, the 2014 MSU reports that overall average TP concentrations at sample locations across the lake increased over the same time period.

Boron, considered an indicator of septic Figure 5. Summary of average surface water (SW) system influence to groundwater and and groundwater (GW) phosphorus concentrations surface water due to its use in (Table 4 of2014 MSU Report) detergents, was also sampled in the 2001 and 2014 studies. The 2014 study reports concentrations decreasing by over 70% at the USGS-24/MSU-23 location and 65% at the USGS-23/MSU-22 site. Overall boron trends across Higgins Lake showed an average decline of 26% which follows the general decline of boric acid in consumer goods. However, the drastic decline of born in the Camp Curnalia locations support the notion that the septic influence has drastically declined since the installation of the sewer collection and treatment system.

In 2018 and 2019 MSU conducted additional sampling as a follow-up to their 2014 study. According to the 2019 Michigan State University update, 2019 samples during peak summer months showed phosphorus levels typical of eutrophic and hypereutrophic lakes. A copy of the Draft 2019 MSU water quality study update is included in Appendix D for reference. While Higgins Lake does not immediately appear or display traits of a eutrophic or hyper eutrophic lake, the data suggests that continued use of private septic systems will continue to supply the nutrients required by plants and algae to develop and change the lakes ecology and biology. Studies have indicated that the eutrophication of the lake is currently nitrogen limited, meaning that other nutrients necessary for plant and algae development are present in sufficient quantities and that only nitrogen is needed to be added to the equation to unlock rapid growth. Since the leading source of nitrogen to the lake is from septic tank effluent, it is clear that reducing that nutrient loading is key to maintaining water quality.

The area has many small or narrow parcels around the lake which has resulted in historic dense residential development. Well records and lot sizes indicate that the isolation distances to private drinking water wells and septic systems are not maintained on existing and historically developed properties. The Health Department is aware of an area on the south east side of Higgins Lake where elevated nitrate levels exist in drinking water wells. Future development will continue to be limited by well and septic spacing.

3 Sherry L Martin, Anthony D Kendall, & David W Hydnman, “Changes in Nearshore Water Quality from 1995 to 2014 and Associated Linkages to Septic Systems in Higgins Lake, MI.” (Michigan State University, 2014), 23

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 11

Further, many of the small seasonal cottages originally built around the lake have been added onto or reconstructed into larger homes supporting more people and year-round occupation. As a result, many of the septic systems located around the lake are undersized, have illicit repairs and are likely beyond their 20-year expected service life. As development and renovation of small, old cottages continues, the water quality, health, and sanitation issues continue to be exacerbated. The 2007 Higgins Lake Watershed Management Plan details concerns and issues with concentrated septic system use. The study states that “the major water quality pollutants from septic effluent are phosphorus, nitrogen and pathogenic bacteria” and “ “approximately only 20% of nitrogen that passes through conventional septic systems is effectively removed 4”. The study also states that highly permeable sandy soils in the Higgins Lake watershed do not have adequate filtering capacity before pollutants reach groundwater or surface water.

The Camp Curnalia sewage collection and treatment facility offers a convenient case study to the effects of a sewer collection system on Higgins Lake. Pre- and post- construction water quality samples demonstrated drastic decreases in nutrient loading and septic system influence indicator analytes in the Camp lakeshore 5. Further, specific conductivity levels were lowest at the Camp lakeshore in the 2014 MSU study by Martin, Kendall, and Hyndman. A copy of the 2014 report is included in Appendix D for reference. This data presents a significant groundwater and surface water quality increase from 2014 compared to 2001 data collected. It would be expected that installation of a sanitary sewer system in other areas around the lake would provide similar results.

2. Future Environment without Proposed Project Without the establishment of proper sewer collection and treatment around Higgins Lake, the area will continue to experience declining water quality in the lake leading to decreased property values and recreation opportunities.

Without sanitary sewage collection and treatment, the area will continue to experience issues with isolation distances to wells, surface waters, and neighboring properties as development continues or existing systems fail and require replacement. As drain fields require replacement and isolation distance cannot be maintained, variances from septic codes will be required, expensive on-site treatment may be required, or development will not be possible. In some cases, failed septic drain fields may not be discovered because of the excessively drained soils. Higgins Lake will continue to suffer from nutrient loading and result in a steady and prolonged decline in water quality. Eventually, this will result in loss of tourism, property values, and economic decline to the area.

3. Public Engagement

Completed Public Outreach Prior to applying for the SEARCH grant, a public joint board meeting was held in October 2018 to discuss the process of studying, identifying costs for, and pursuing a public sewer system. At that meeting, in addition to the two Township boards, there were about 60 members of the public in attendance. At the conclusion of the process overview presentation, questions were answered from the Board and the public.

As a result of the Boards’ commitments to the public at the initial public meeting, and as a result of lessons learned from the prior failed planning efforts, the two Boards committed to conducting their planning process in an open and transparent way.

4 Huron Pines, Inc, “Higgins Lake Watershed Management Plan” (2007), 65 5 Sherry L Martin, Anthony D Kendall, & David W Hydnman, “Changes in Nearshore Water Quality from 1995 to 2014 and Associated Linkages to Septic Systems in Higgins Lake, MI.” (Michigan State University, 2014), 56

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 12

Throughout the project feasibility study planning period, monthly joint meetings were held with Fleis & VandenBrink, representatives from Lyon and Gerrish Townships, and staff from the Central Michigan District Health Department. Representatives in attendance included the Gerrish Township Supervisor, Clerk, Treasurer, the Lyon Township Clerk, and Gerrish and Lyon Township board members. The monthly meetings were open to the public, however Township residents did not attend the meetings. The team discussed major components of the project including need, service area, alternatives, and cost. The Township representatives provided valuable insight and guidance to F&V on major decision points during the process, including: • General Information and History – Throughout the study, the team provided guidance and insight to F&V regarding the need for public sewers around Higgins Lake and history of previous efforts to construct public sewer systems in the area. Valuable information including previous studies, local knowledge of issues, and potential challenges were provided as the feasibility study was developed. • Size of the study area – The team provided insight into locations of known septic and development issues, as well as areas that might be best served by a public sewer system. F&V used mapping tools during the meetings to discuss in detail specific areas and parcels to potentially serve by a system. Initial service districts were revised and refined based on Team input, and a consensus was reached approving the study area included with this PER. • Potential WWTP locations – Potential WWTP sites were presented to the Team for discussion and input regarding availability of property and concerns regarding potential locations was provided to F&V. • Project Alternatives – F&V presented potential alternatives for treatment and collection to the Team early on in the project. Different types of collection systems and treatment facilities were discussed in detail, including the benefits and drawbacks and implications for operations and maintenance for each were presented. An agreement was reached by the team on the selected alternatives presented in this report. • Cost of the Project – Total costs and net present worth calculations were presented to the team for review and discussion. A special meeting was held to discuss the mechanics of moving a project forward, during which a municipal financial advisor (MFA) and bond counsel were present.

Although the public did not attend the monthly project meetings, updates were periodically provided to the public via the Township’s website. Updates provided via the internet can be viewed at http://lyontownship.org/feasibility-study

On October 15, 2019 a presentation was made by F&V to a joint session of the Lyon and Gerrish Township Boards. The meeting was noticed according to Open Meetings Act requirements and several Township residents attended the meeting. F&V presented information from the draft PER including a discussion of need for the project, alternatives considered for collection and treatment, the proposed alternative, project costs, and the overall process of developing a project if it were to move forward. Questions and comments were taken from board members, as well as comments from public in attendance. In general, both boards provided favorable feedback and questions revolved around how to move forward with investigation of funding opportunities. Although a formal vote was not taken, both boards spoke in favor of further pursuing the project. Comments from the public were overwhelmingly positive, with requests for both boards to continue pursuing the project.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 13

Following the presentation to the joint session of the Lyon/Gerrish Township Boards, a public informational meeting was held at the Lyon Township Fire Department on October 28, 2019 to provide the public with the conclusions of the feasibility study and to gather public feedback before finalizing this PER. The meeting was advertised extensively including notices at the Township offices, Township websites, and several Lake Associations were notified of the meeting. The same content used at the joint board meeting was presented to the public, and a comment/question period was included at the end. There was a high level of interest from the public, and over 200 residents attended the standing room only meeting. Comments were positive, and no negative feedback was provided during the meeting. A copy of the Power Point presentation from the public informational meeting was posted to the Lyon Township feasibility study website at the link above.

Future Public Outreach Plan Both Gerrish and Lyon Townships understand the importance of continued public engagement and outreach. Although initial feedback and public input has been overwhelmingly positive, it will be important to further gauge public interest and support of the project as it moves toward funding applications. Prior to submitting funding applications, the Townships are committed to providing additional outreach and information to the public, as well as seeking input after project information is provided. Following is an outline of the public participation plan:

1) Additional Public Informational Meeting – An additional public informational meeting, which was scheduled for the last weekend in May of 2020, will be scheduled as COVID 19 public health regulations allow. The meeting will be held in the high school auditorium to accommodate a large number of people and will take place on a Saturday when seasonal residents are back in the area. The meeting will include a question and answer period, and surveys will be provided to attendees following the meeting to record public comment.

2) Web Based Survey – Lyon and Gerrish Townships will use a web-based survey to gather public comments. The survey will begin after the public informational meeting so that accurate information is provided prior to receiving input. The survey will include locations to indicate name and address to track and verify responses.

3) Mailings and Newsletters – Gerrish and Lyon Townships will send out mailings to update Township residents with news and information. Because mailings can be costly, the Townships anticipate sending sewer updates with assessor change notices and tax bills. Separate mailings will also be considered on an as needed basis.

4) Website Updates • Lyon and Gerrish Township will continue updating the website Township website with news and progress. • After the PER is accepted, it will be uploaded to the Lyon Township website and available for viewing. Existing information including the PowerPoint presentation from the October 2019 public informational meeting will remain available to the public.

Results from the web survey and input gathered at the public informational meeting will be complied, disseminated, and included in an amended PER as part of a funding application.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 14

IV. Collection Alternatives Considered The proposed alternatives were developed and evaluated on their ability to meet the goals of Lyon and Gerrish Townships regarding the health, safety, and the environmental concerns of the region.

Project objectives include: • Protect surface water and environmental resources critical to the area • Develop a solution that is modest in scope and cost and supported by those involved • Provide reliable wastewater service (collection and treatment) to the customers

The Study Area, illustrated in Figure 2 of Appendix A, includes areas that meet the following criteria: • High groundwater as demonstrated by the Higgins Lake water level • Poor soils, either very poor drainage or excessively drained as defined by the NRCS Web Soil Survey • Areas containing high concentrations of development in proximity to Higgins Lake with small (generally less than 1/3 acre) lot sizes where isolation distance conflicts between wells and septic fields are likely to be encountered

Four collection alternatives have been developed for this study. The four alternatives evaluated are listed as follows: A. No Action (required to be evaluated) B. Optimizing Performance of Existing Systems C. Hybrid Low-Pressure/Gravity Collection and Treatment Plant D. Low-Pressure Collection and Treatment Plant

A. No Action The “No Action” alternative will result in a continued decrease in Higgins Lake water quality. Further as the water quality of Higgins Lake decreased its economic value to the region would also decrease resulting in decreased property values and commerce. Concerns regarding septic discharges into aquifers shared with shallow drinking water wells would also not be addressed.

There is a cost associated with the “No Action” alternative, although it is difficult to quantify.

The “No Action” alternative does not meet the project objectives and will not be evaluated further as a principal alternative.

B. Optimizing Performance of Existing Systems The optimization of existing individual septic systems and drain fields is not a feasible alternative. Many parcels within the project do not have land available to accommodate a new, larger, or upgraded septic system and/or drain field. Required isolation distances from water wells further constrains optimization efforts for these systems, especially on small lots. Individual onsite alternative treatment systems are costly and require a licensed operator to operate and maintain the system. Due to the large number of issues experienced with existing systems around Higgins Lake, widespread use of advanced treatment systems would be cost prohibitive. Due to the number of potential users in the study area (over 4,000), a series of smaller cluster systems would also not be feasible.

Due to the failure of meet the project objectives this alternative is not feasible and will not be considered further as a principle alternative.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 15

C. Hybrid Gravity Sewer & Low-Pressure Septic Tank Effluent (STEP) Collection System Description A conventional gravity sewer system utilizes 8-inch diameter and larger to carry wastewater using gravity. The pipes are installed at no less than minimum slope to maintain pipe cleaning velocity. Construction of gravity sewers requires open cut trenching and includes and lateral lines extended to the property lines for individual homes and business to connect to. The gravity sewer system would require pump stations to pump the waste through the system to higher elevations and ultimately to the treatment facility.

A low-pressure collection system is an alternative to gravity sewers in hilly or very flat terrain where multiple pump stations would be required in a service area. Further, low-pressure collection systems are preferred in areas with high groundwater because collection pipes can be installed shallower and often via horizontal directional drilling, which can minimize open trench disturbance and dewatering efforts. The pressure mains can be kept below the frost line and do not require deep bury to maintain gravity flow.

A hybrid of low-pressure and gravity sewer collection systems would consist of a gravity collection system where feasible and a low-pressure collection system where gravity is not feasible. A large number of duplex submersible pumping stations would be required. The goal of a combined low-pressure/gravity collection system would be to minimize the amount of pumping required, thereby also minimizing the operations and maintenance effort. Gravity sewer requires minimal maintenance outside of occasional cleaning, televising, and repair with a long service life. However, gravity sewer is not always feasible because it requires complementing natural topography consisting of natural sloping land. Further, areas with high groundwater encounter construction and infiltration complications.

A low-pressure collection network would provide cost effective sewer service to areas that are not easily serviced through gravity sewers but with more operations and maintenance effort.

Either STEP or grinder pump systems could be utilized for the low-pressure sewer component of the system. In this case, due to the long pumping distances involved, the hydraulic capacities of the STEP system are favorable to the grinder pump system. Fewer costly pump stations will be needed as well. Therefore, the STEP based low pressure system was chosen to be evaluated further.

Low-pressure STEP systems can be installed in relatively shallow groundwater areas with minimal surface disturbances. STEP systems consist of water-tight effluent solid storage tanks with the effluent being pumped to a treatment facility. The low-pressure pump is located in the storage tank and collectively the pumps convey wastewater to the treatment facility. Pumping the effluent without solids reduces the pumping effort required. Solids are required to be pumped from the storage tank, typically, every 7 to 10 years.

In total, the hybrid collection system includes approximately the following:

• 44 miles of gravity sewer • 820 manholes • 36 miles of low pressure forcemain • 2,220 STEP systems • 46 pump stations

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 16

• 17.5 miles of high pressure forcemain

Design Criteria Guidelines established in the Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities were used to design the preliminary wastewater collection system. The collection system was designed so that the maximum flow conditions based on the potential ultimate populations of the Townships would be accommodated.

Map See Figure 4a & 4 b in Appendix A for the preliminary hybrid gravity and low-pressure system layout.

Environmental Impacts/Land Requirements Gravity and low-pressure collection system improvements would be made in existing public road rights-of-way wherever possible. Additional purchased property or easements may be necessary for locating pump stations and sewer mains required to serve the gravity sections of the collection system. Directionally drilling under waterways, wetlands and Higgins Lake would limit environmental impacts.

Potential Construction Problems • Dewatering costs can be unpredictable • Trenching operations with gravity pipe are disruptive and require expensive surface restoration and pavement replacement • Locating existing discharge lines to homes for gravity connection can be difficult especially homes with multiple discharge locations • Locating low-pressure STEP systems on small lots could require removal of existing septic system

Sustainability Conventional gravity pipe is the least complicated form of collection system to operate in the long term. Low-pressure systems require more maintenance, pumping costs and equipment, however systems can be less expensive than constructing a series of larger pump stations.

Cost Estimates Table 2 in Appendix B includes a cost estimate for the hybrid collection system. The cost for the hybrid collection system is estimated at $102 million.

The estimated annual operations, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) costs for this alternative are approximately $933,000 annually.

Advantages • Gravity sewer requires minimal maintenance • Low-pressure systems allow easier and shallower directional drill installation • Ease of operation with a limited utility staff • Contractors are well versed and plentiful for gravity pipe installation

Disadvantages • High dewatering costs and unknown underground impacts

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 17

• Due to the high seasonality of the system, low flows are expected during off season times. Lower flows result in less cycling times of duplex pump stations, and also reduce flushing velocity in gravity sewers. Additional cleaning and maintenance of the pump stations and gravity mains would be expected to prevent plugging and backups in the system. • Terrain limits the ability to run gravity pipe over long distances without intermediate pumping stations • Possibility for infiltration/inflow as gravity sewer ages leading to higher O/M costs • A significant number of submersible duplex pumping stations would be required. stations are expensive and increase O/M costs • Gravity sewer reduces the number of onsite STEP systems, however, increases the number of larger duplex submersible stations. Duplex submersible stations are larger, more expensive to install, replacement parts are more expensive, and they are more difficult to operate and maintain. • Higher risk of odor at submersible pumping stations. Gravity sewers convey solids, which over long travel times produce hydrogen sulfide gases that cause odor and corrosion in the system. It is likely that an odor and corrosion control system would be required, also increasing the operation and maintenance cost of the system.

D. Low Pressure Collection System Description The low-pressure collection system alternative consists of a completely low-pressure STEP collection system. The low-pressure system provides a consistent collection system throughout the system with ease of installation and minimal environmental disruption through either shallow trenching or horizontal directional drilling. This alternative maximizes the collection area, limits the number of large lift stations, and provides a lower initial cost collection system. Eliminating duplex submersible lift stations removes costly and highly critical pumps, and land requirements. The low-pressure collection system option also reduces the effort to treat the effluent as solids are held in the tank, pumped, and processed separately. Because solids are retained in the tanks on each individual property, the low-pressure collection system requires less maintenance as low pressure STEP mains don’t require cleaning as frequently as sewer mains that convey solids. Based on a system wide average of a 7-year pumping frequency of the STEP tanks, the operation and maintenance costs for the STEP system are less than a hybrid low pressure and gravity system.

In total, the low-pressure collection system includes approximately the following:

• 83 miles of low pressure forcemain • 403 forcemain cleanouts • 4,270 STEP systems • 1 pump station

Map See Figure 5a & 5b in Appendix A for the preliminary low-pressure system layout.

Environmental Impacts/Land Requirements Similar to the hybrid low pressure and gravity system, improvements would be made in existing public road rights-of-way wherever possible. Additional purchased property or easements may be necessary for locating pump stations and sewer mains. Because shallower trenching and

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 18

directional drilling creates less of an impact than open cut methods, smaller easements, and less use of existing property would be required. Surface disruption would be much less than what would be required for installation of gravity sewers. Directionally drilling under waterways, wetlands and Higgins Lake would limit environmental impacts.

Potential Construction Problems Locating STEP systems on small lots may be difficult and may require removal of the existing septic system for placement. On-lot construction activities will require coordination with property owners. In locations where lots are very small, existing tanks may need to be removed and new STEP tanks replaced in the same location which may result in disruption of sewer service for a short time.

Due to the high groundwater table, dewatering for STEP tank installations may be required. However, it is estimated that this would be much less of an effort than what would be required to install gravity sewer in high groundwater locations.

STEP systems require an electrical service at the home. In some cases, older cottages may require an electrical upgrade to provide service to the STEP system. Because STEP pumps only require 120v services however, the potential impacts are much less than what would be expected for 240v grinder pumps.

Sustainability Low-pressure STEP systems depend on electrical connections to the existing homes to operate and require more maintenance than gravity pipe. However, because there is no public water system, during a power outage most homes would not be using water. Also, STEP systems provide storage during power outages and because STEP pumps are low horsepower 120v pumps, these systems can be easily run on standby generators. A home that would be able to run their water well using a standby power generator should also be able to run their STEP pump.

Over the long term, STEP systems provide many benefits to a sustainable system, including: • Minimal maintenance of low-pressure mains – because solids are not pumped through the system, there is much less cleaning needed in low-pressure mains. • Although the system would have a large number of individual STEP pump systems, these pumps have a higher life span than grinder pumps or larger submersible pumps. The control panels are basic, and all electrical and pumping components can be replaced relatively easily and inexpensively. • Periodic tank pumping is required to remove accumulated solids. Based on a 7-year pumping frequency 1 to 2 tank pumpings would be required each day. This could easily be accomplished by local septic haulers or dedicated staff and equipment by the sewer authority. The cost of pumping is offset by the lower operations and maintenance effort over a hybrid system with multiple duplex stations.

Cost Estimates Table 3 in Appendix B includes a cost estimate for the low-pressure collection system. The estimated construction cost of the low-pressure STEP collection system is $82.5 million.

The estimated annual operations, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) costs for this alternative are approximately $692,000 annually.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 19

Advantages • STEP pumps have high head capacity, so that only 1 pump station would likely be required to convey wastewater to the WWTP. • Onsite STEP systems are simpler and easier to maintain than larger duplex pumping stations • Low-pressure systems allow for easier and shallower installation via directional drill methods and shallower trenching • Directional drilling reduces dewatering costs and environmental impacts over open trenching methods • A low-pressure system is easily expandable for future needs • Because solids are kept onsite, a low-pressure system is better suited for seasonal applications than gravity or grinder systems where flows fluctuate, and solids can accumulate during low-flow periods • There is less potential for odor and corrosion issues with a STEP system • Maintenance of low pressure main in a STEP system is much less than low pressure mains in a grinder system or gravity collection system as solids are not pumped or conveyed through the sewers • The location of STEP systems on private property is flexible, allowing tanks to be placed in areas to minimize disruption and accommodate future plans of residents • The system can be easily designed to accommodate implementation of the project in segments, which will accommodate funding applications over multiple fiscal years.

Disadvantages • Each service will have an onsite STEP system, which will require maintenance of pumps, controls, and electrical components • Locating STEP system tanks on some lots may be difficult, especially where isolation distances are not currently met • STEP tanks require periodic solids pumping • STEP systems will require an electrical connection, which may require an upgrade in some locations

A summary of the collection alternatives considered is provided below in Table 2.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 20

Table 2. Collection System Alternatives

Alternative Advantages Disadvantages No Action • No initial monetary cost • Does not address environmental • No construction related concerns with Higgins Lake environmental impacts • Does not protect public health and safety • No replacement of failing or underperforming existing septic systems • As systems fail, costly advanced treatment or holding tanks would be required. Optimize • Limited construction related • Limited availability of land on small Performance of environmental impacts parcels Existing • No monitoring or effluent Systems requirements • Increases isolation distance issues Hybrid Gravity • Meets goal of protecting Higgins • High capital cost Sewer & Low- Lake water quality • Higher O&M Costs Pressure • Protects public health & safety • Many duplex pumping stations to Collection • Less onsite pumping systems than a maintain System full low-pressure system • Not as effective in seasonal areas • Most environmentally disruptive • Most initial private party impact Low Pressure • Meets the goal of protecting Higgins • Septic tank pumping required Collection Lake and public health and safety • May require more effort to coordinate System • Less environmental and private land with homeowners impacts than gravity collection • Requires more area to install than • Less capital cost than gravity sewer gravity services • Least overall O&M costs • Electrical connections are needed, • Better suited to serve seasonal areas which may require upgrades

V. Wastewater Treatment Alternatives A. No Action As described above, no wastewater collection system or treatment would be provided as part of the No Action alternative. The service area will continue to depend upon the individual property owners maintaining existing individual septic systems for wastewater disposal.

This alternative does not address any of the potential issues resulting from the area’s permeable soils, limited lot sizes, and discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater due to septic systems reaching the end of their service life. Therefore, the No Action alternative will not be evaluated as a principal alternative since it does not address the project objectives or the Township’s needs.

B. Centralized Wastewater Treatment System A centralized wastewater treatment facility has historically been the approach for similar sized service areas. In a centralized approach, wastewater is collected throughout the Service Area and routed to one central wastewater treatment facility for processing and disposal. Solids from the periodic cleaning of septic tanks can also be treated at a centralized facility. Two types of treatment facilities are typically considered for this size project, including mechanical treatment and lagoon treatment.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 21

Treatment Facility Location There are several properties within or near the proposed service area that are currently owned by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources that could be suitable for the proposed centralized wastewater treatment system. Four potential parcels have been identified for consideration which are shown in Figure 7, Appendix A. Other properties may warrant additional consideration if these properties prove to be unsuitable or cannot be purchased for a reasonable price.

Design Criteria The centralized treatment facility would be designed in accordance with Ten States Standards and constructed in accordance with a Part 41 construction permit issued by EGLE. Design influent parameters and discharge requirements for the service area are given the following tables. Although the population in the service area decreases during the winter months, design parameters were established to treat the projected summertime flow rates shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Preliminary Design Flows (Summer)

Initial Average Wastewater Influent Flow 735,000 gpd Initial Peak Hour Flow 1,530 gpm Design Average Wastewater Influent Flow 982,000 gpd Design Peak Hour Flow 2,050 gpm

Anticipated effluent limits are a function of the type of discharge and specific discharge location selected. Centralized treatment facilities discharge to either surface water source or to the groundwater. A surface water discharge would require a higher degree of treatment, equating to additional equipment and operational complexity. Additionally, the proposed design capacity of the treatment facility and the lack of a large surface water receiving stream near the service area, favor a groundwater discharge. A groundwater discharge was selected as the preferred discharge method for a centralized treatment facility.

Groundwater discharges in Michigan are subject to Michigan Part 22 Rules. A groundwater discharge permit, under Rule 2218, would allow discharge through slow rate land treatment, such as spray irrigation of a cropped field, or rapid infiltration.

The following table presents the anticipated effluent limits for a groundwater discharge.

Table 4. Anticipated Effluent Limits (groundwater discharge)*

30-Day Avg cBOD 5 <10 mg/L 30-Day Avg Total Inorganic Nitrogen <5.0 mg/L 30-Day Avg Total Phosphorus <1.0 mg/L *Actual discharge limits are subject to change until the groundwater discharge permit is finalized during design

Alternative 1: Lagoon WWTP There are two main configurations for lagoon treatment: facultative and aerated. Facultative lagoon treatment relies on natural stabilization of the wastewater. It was determined early on during the planning phase of this project that facultative lagoons are not a technically feasible option given the volume of wastewater to be treated and anticipated effluent limits. Aerated lagoons can be designed to meet more stringent effluent limits.

Description To meet the stringent effluent limits, a high-rate aerated lagoon system with additional treatment for nitrogen removal in cold weather is proposed.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 22

The WWTP would consist of the following components:

• Influent screening • Septage receiving station • Two primary aerated lagoons • Synthetic media nitrification/denitrification reactors • Two secondary/storage lagoons • Influent and effluent flow metering • Chemical feed equipment • Yard piping and transfer structures to allow for various modes of operation • One treatment building and one storage building • Maintenance equipment

All of the lagoons would be constructed in accordance with Part 22 rules, including composite lagoon liners, 1:3 side slopes, and isolation capability.

Residuals management practices for this alternative are typical of other lagoon wastewater treatment system operations, where biosolids accumulate and are digested in the bottom two feet of the lagoons over a number of years. Accumulated biosolids will require removal periodically. Frequency of biosolids removal depends on influent wastewater loading characteristics and reduction of volatile suspended solids in the lagoons. The residuals from the lagoons will have to be removed and land applied as fertilizer on farmland or dewatered and properly disposed of in a landfill. A process flow diagram of this treatment alternative is provided in Figure 8, Appendix A.

Environmental Impacts/Land Requirements The aerated lagoon alternative requires a minimum of 90 acres due to the size of the lagoons, and to allow for additional isolation from nearby properties and future expansion.

Potential Construction Problems There are few construction challenges associated with the construction of the aerated lagoon alternative, properties under consideration would need to be cleared, as some these properties are quite wooded.

The earthwork would need to be scheduled to occur during the summer season to avoid the frozen ground during the winter.

Sustainability Considerations The aerated lagoon treatment alternative would use slightly less electricity than the mechanical treatment alternatives discussed below. Lagoons utilize natural settling and degradation of biosolids over time thereby reducing the electric load needed to provide treatment.

Cost Estimates The preliminary opinion of probable cost for Alternative 1 - Lagoon WWTP is $26.8 million including non-construction project costs such as land purchase, design and construction engineering, permitting, legal and bond counsel. A detailed cost estimate is provided in Table 4 of Appendix B.

The estimated annual operations, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) costs for this alternative are approximately $860,000 annually.

Advantages/Disadvantages A major advantage to the aerated lagoon alternative is a lower OM&R cost than for a mechanical treatment system.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 23

Disadvantages include greater land requirements, reduced treatment performance during cold weather, not as easily expandable, and higher capital cost than the comparable mechanical treatment system.

Alternative 2: Mechanical WWTP Mechanical treatment of wastewater typically consists of an accelerated treatment with the use of biological (e.g., “activated-sludge” or “attached growth”) and chemical processes. These technologies do not depend on natural systems (e.g. wind sorption, diffusion, etc.) for treatment to occur. Mechanical treatment systems have significantly smaller detention time and site size requirements than natural treatment systems.

Several mechanical wastewater treatment technologies exist which would meet the needs for this alternative including oxidation ditch, conventional activated sludge, membrane bioreactor and mixed bed biofilm reactor (MBBR). The oxidation ditch was selected as a representative and preferred biological treatment technology for this project, as it offers some advantages over other treatment technologies, including the ability to handle seasonal flow variations, reliability, and operational simplicity.

The oxidation ditch is a modified activated sludge treatment process. A typical oxidation ditch treatment system consists of a racetrack or oval ring shape tanks with aeration equipment to provide the mixing and oxygen requirements necessary to remove biodegradable organics. Additionally, anaerobic selector tanks and recycle flows aid in nutrient removal.

Description Major components of a mechanical treatment facility include influent screening, septage receiving and grit removal, biological treatment tanks, aeration equipment, and solids separation facilities. Biosolids stabilization, storage and handling facilities would also be necessary.

Wastewater collected at the Main Pump Station would be pumped to the wastewater treatment facility. Influent will be screened, and grit would be removed. Following preliminary treatment, the wastewater will flow through a series of tanks. It is anticipated that two treatment trains will be utilized. Each train would consist of two tanks; the first tank would be biological treatment tank designed for nutrient removal. Effluent from the biological treatment process would be routed to circular clarifiers for solids separation. Final effluent would be discharged to rapid infiltration basins. Biosolids would be stabilized in an aerobic digester and then stored onsite in a holding tank and land applied seasonally. Provisions for solids dewatering have also been included with this alternative to allow for landfill disposal of biosolids if necessary.

The mechanical WWTP with groundwater discharge alternative meets the initial screening criteria for cost-effectiveness, implementability , and reliability in meeting treatment and discharge requirements and is evaluated as a principal alternative. A process flow diagram of this treatment alternative is provided in Figure 9 of Appendix A.

Environmental Impacts/Land Requirements The land requirement for the oxidation ditch with rapid infiltration basins for groundwater discharge is approximately 60 acres. Any of the WWTP site properties under consideration for purchase could accommodate a Mechanical WWTP.

Potential Construction Problems Although site clearing and grading would be required, these activities would be more limited for construction of a mechanical WWTF as the treatment facility would occupy a smaller footprint and require less property for construction.

Sustainability Considerations The Mechanical WWTP treatment system would utilize slightly more electricity than the Lagoon WWTP option.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 24

Cost Estimates The preliminary opinion of probable cost for Alternative 2 - Mechanical WWTP is $23.1 million including non-construction project costs such as land purchase, design and construction engineering, permitting, legal and bond counsel. A detailed cost estimate is provided in Table 5 of Appendix B.

The estimated annual operations, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) cost for this alternative is $980,000 annually.

Advantages/Disadvantages Mechanical treatment plants are typically more complex to operate. This is reflected in the higher OM&R cost.

Although the OM&R costs are slightly higher than a Lagoon WWTP, the lower estimated capital cost and higher salvage value associated with this alternative yield a slightly lower Net Present Worth. Other advantages include the smaller footprint, expandability, and more reliable treatment performance in cold weather. Mechanical WWTPs also excel at handling variations in flow and loadings, as would be expected with a seasonal population.

C. Regional Alternatives Regional alternatives include collecting wastewater from the service area and pumping it to a nearby Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) that would serve as a regional treatment facility.

Alternative 3: East and West Mechanical WWTPs

Description Based on the size and layout of the proposed service area, Alternative 3 involves constructing two new regional facilities that would each provide service to approximately half of the proposed service area.

Major components of each facility would be similar to those described above in Alternative No.2 but sized to handle approximately one half of the total service area design flow. One plant would serve as the main WWTP, handling the laboratory work, septage receiving, and biosolids dewatering.

Environmental Impacts/Land Requirements The land requirement for two facilities is approximately 90 acres. Any of the WWTP site properties under consideration for purchase could accommodate the Mechanical WWTPs.

Potential Construction Problems Two separate parcels would need to be obtained to establish regional treatment facilities.

Sustainability Considerations Two smaller Mechanical WWTPs would utilize more electricity than a single larger WWTP.

Cost Estimates The preliminary opinion of probable cost for Alternative 3 – East & West Mechanical WWTP is $30.6 million including non-construction project costs such as land purchase, design and construction engineering, permitting, legal and bond counsel. A detailed cost estimate is provided in Table 6 of Appendix B.

The estimated annual operations, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) cost for this alternative is $1,390,000 annually.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 25

Advantages/Disadvantages Separate treatment facilities would need to be staffed and maintained, resulting in higher OM&R costs. However, constructing two treatment plants could provide additional flexibility for phasing the construction of the project.

Alternative 4 – 7: Existing Regional WWTPs

Three existing regional facilities were considered for this study, the Higgins Lake Utility Authority (HLUA) WWTP, Markey Township WWTP, and the Village of Roscommon WWTP.

HLUA WWTP The HLUA WWTP is located directly adjacent to the proposed service area, just northwest of Higgins Lake. See Figure 6 in Appendix A for the location of this WWTP.

The HLUA owns and operates a lagoon wastewater treatment plant consisting of two aerated lagoons and two storage lagoons. The WWTP was built in 2009 to provide service to the 405 homes in the Camp Curnalia subdivision. The WWTP was designed to treat an average daily flow of 100,000 gpd during the summer months. The facility operates under a groundwater discharge permit and is authorized to discharge 136,000 gpd and 11.8 million gallons per year.

Based on 2018-2019 influent flow records, the existing WWTP has the capacity to receive flow from approximately 110 additional REU’s or 22,000 gallons per day before expansion of the facility may be required.

Markey Township WWTP The second regional WWTP is located adjacent to the proposed service area, just south of Higgins Lake. The Houghton Lake Sewer Authority owns and operates a lagoon wastewater treatment plant consisting of two aerated lagoons and three storage lagoons. See Figure 6 in Appendix A for the location of this WWTP.

The WWTP underwent a significant improvements project in 2016 to reline the lagoons, replace the aeration system, and expand the spray irrigation area. The WWTP is designed to provide service to approximately 1,280 connections and treat an average daily flow of 268,000 gpd. The facility operates under a groundwater discharge permit and is authorized to discharge 1.5 MGD and 97.8 million gallons per year.

Based on current influent flows, the Markey Township WWTP has the capacity to receive flow from approximately 600 additional REU’s or 100,000 gallons per day from the proposed service area.

Village of Roscommon WWTP The final regional alternative includes conveying wastewater from the proposed service area to the Village of Roscommon WWTP. The Roscommon WWTP is located approximately seven miles east of the proposed service area. See Figure 6 in Appendix A for the location of this alternative.

The Village of Roscommon owns and operates a lagoon wastewater treatment plant consisting of four aerated lagoons and one storage lagoon. The WWTP was reconstructed in 1998 is designed to provide service to approximately 1,500 connections and treat an average daily flow of 300,000 gpd.

Currently, the existing WWTP has the capacity to receive flow from approximately 600 additional REU’s or 100,000 gallons per day.

Each alternative described below assumes the regional facility would be willing to accept additional flows and sell a portion of their remaining treatment capacity.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 26

Alternative 4: All Regional Facilities + Mechanical WWTP

Description This alternative includes utilizing the remaining capacity at each of the regional facilities discussed above, and constructing a new Mechanical WWTP to accommodate the remaining flows from the proposed service area.

A new pump station and force main would be constructed for each regional facility to deliver flow from the proposed service area. This alternative assumes no upgrades to the existing facilities would be necessary to accommodate the additional flows. The new mechanical WWTP would be sized to treat the remaining flow from the proposed service area, approximately 0.758 MGD.

Major components of the Mechanical WWTP and land area requirements would be similar to those described above in Alternative No.2.

Cost Estimates The preliminary opinion of probable cost for Alternative 4 – All Regional Facilities + Mechanical WWTP is $37.7 million including non-construction project costs such as land purchase, capacity purchase, design and construction engineering, permitting, legal and bond counsel. A detailed cost estimate is provided in Table 7 of Appendix B.

The estimated annual operations, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) cost for this alternative is $1,540,000 annually.

Alternative 5: Markey Township WWTP + Mechanical WWTP

Description This alternative includes utilizing the remaining capacity at the Markey Township WWTP, and constructing a new Mechanical WWTP to accommodate the remaining flows from the proposed service area.

A new pump station and force main would be constructed to deliver flow from the proposed service area to Markey Township. With this alternative, approximately 10% of the flow from the proposed service area could be treated by Markey Township with no upgrades to the existing facilities. A new mechanical WWTP would be sized to treat the remaining flow from the proposed service area, 0.880 MGD.

Major components of the Mechanical WWTP and land area requirements would be similar to those described above in Alternative No.2.

Cost Estimates The preliminary opinion of probable cost for Alternative 5 is $25.6 million including non-construction project costs such as land purchase, capacity purchase, design and construction engineering, permitting, legal and bond counsel. A detailed cost estimate is provided in Table 8 of Appendix B.

The estimated annual operations, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) cost for this alternative is $1,120,000 annually.

Alternative 6: Markey Township WWTP Expansion (50%) + Mechanical WWTP

Description This alternative includes expanding the Markey Township WWTP to accommodate 50% of the proposed service area. A new Mechanical WWTP would be constructed to treat the remaining flows from the proposed service area.

A new pump station and force main would be constructed to deliver flow from the proposed service area to Markey Township. Two new lagoons would be constructed at the Markey WWTP to provide

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 27

additional aerated treatment and storage. The Irrigation area would also be expanded to accommodate the increased discharge volumes. Approximately 70 acres of additional property would be required at the Markey WWTP.

The Mechanical WWTP would have similar components as described above and reduced land area of approximately 40 acres.

Cost Estimates The preliminary opinion of probable cost for Alternative 6 is $31.7 million including non-construction project costs such as land purchase, design and construction engineering, permitting, legal and bond counsel. A detailed cost estimate is provided in Table 9 of Appendix B.

The estimated annual operations, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) cost for this alternative is $1,250,000 annually.

Alternative 7: Markey Township WWTP Expansion (100%)

Description This alternative includes expanding the Markey Township WWTP to accommodate 100% of the proposed service area.

A new pump station and force main would be constructed to deliver flow from the proposed service area to Markey Township. Three new lagoons would be constructed at the Markey WWTP to provide additional aerated treatment and storage. The Irrigation area would be significantly expanded to provide for the additional discharge volumes required. Approximately 180 acres of additional property would be required at the Markey WWTP.

Cost Estimates The preliminary opinion of probable cost for Alternative 6 is $39.2 million including non-construction project costs such as land purchase, design and construction engineering, permitting, legal and bond counsel. A detailed cost estimate is provided in Table 10 of Appendix B.

The estimated annual operations, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) cost for this alternative is $990,000 annually.

Regional Alternatives 4-7 Additional Considerations

Environmental Impacts/Land Requirements The land requirement for the regional facilities is greater than a centralized treatment system due to the need for multiple sites, existing facility expansion, and force main construction.

Potential Construction Problems Each of the regional alternatives assumes the regional facilities would be willing to sell a portion of their remaining capacity at their current connection fee rates. There is a potential that a regional facility would not want to participate in an expansion project or except additional flows.

Sustainability Considerations Additional land area and electricity would be utilized as part of the regional alternatives to transport the flow and dispose of the treated effluent.

Advantages/Disadvantages Separate treatment facilities would need to be staffed and maintained, resulting in higher OM&R costs. Additionally, the townships would give up control of their rate structure. The owners of each regional facility would have complete control of the rate structure associated with their respective treatment system, and those rates are subject to change.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 28

VI. Selection of Alternative The selection of an alternative includes the monetary evaluation of the Principal Alternatives. The principal collection system alternatives that meet the project objectives are gravity and pressure systems: . Hybrid Conventional Gravity Sewer and Low-Pressure Force Main/STEP System . Low Pressure Force Main/STEP System

Seven principal treatment alternatives meet the project objectives: . Alternative 1 - Aerated Lagoon with Groundwater Discharge . Alternative 2 - Mechanical WWTP Groundwater Discharge . Regional Alternatives 3-7

A. Life Cycle Cost Analysis The present worth analysis compares life cycle costs for the principal alternatives over a 20-year period. The present worth is the sum which, if invested now at a given interest rate, would provide exactly the same funds required to pay all present and future costs. The total present worth is the sum of the initial capital cost, plus the present worth of operation, maintenance and replacement (OM&R) costs, minus the present worth of the salvage value at the end of the 20-year period. The discount rate used in computing the present worth cost is established by the Office of Management and Budget and is currently set at 1.5%.

The salvage value is calculated at the end of 20 years, and where portions of the project structures or equipment may have salvage value, it is determined using a straight-line depreciation. The present value of the salvage value is computed using the discount rate of 1.5%.

The cost of labor, equipment and materials is not escalated over the 20-year life, assuming that any increases in these costs would apply equally to all alternatives. For the purpose of the present worth analysis, the energy costs between the principal alternatives were assumed to escalate at the same rate over the 20-year period.

To ensure uniformity of the cost comparisons, the following cost comparison details have been specifically addressed and applied in the present worth analysis.

. Capital costs were included for all identified improvements. . Financing costs and capitalized interest are included. . NPW period of 20 years was used. . Operation, maintenance and replacement (OM&R) costs were included in the present worth accumulated over the 20-year period. . Discount rate of 1.5%, as identified by the Office of Management and Budget and required by Rural Development. . Salvage values were included in the present worth cost as a value subtracted from the project cost.

Collection System A summary of the present worth analysis for the collection system is presented in Appendix B, Table 12. This table represents the costs associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of the collection system over a 20-year planning period. This analysis will be further used in conjunction with the treatment plant costs to develop the overall recommendation.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 29

Treatment System A summary of the present worth analysis for the WWTP alternatives, is presented in Appendix B, Table 13.

The aerated lagoon, mechanical treatment plant, and regional alternatives are all technically feasible. However, due to the large land area requirements of lagoon facilities and increased capital costs and operational and maintenance costs associated with operating multiple facilities, the regional alternatives and aerated lagoon WWTPs were ruled out. A single centralized mechanical treatment plant with groundwater discharge option has the lowest net present worth.

Non-Monetary Factors Other considerations, which are addressed and could provide a basis of comparison of the alternatives, include residuals management, industrial waste treatment needs, facility growth capacity/expandability, and reliability. The following summarizes other items considered during the alternative comparison.

Residuals Management Each alternative provides for solids handling to treat the solids generated by the treatment process and solids from the periodic cleaning of septic tanks. Aerated lagoons provide solids storage in the lagoons for approximately 10 years. Therefore, solids disposal would not be needed for approximately 10 years. The Mechanical WWTP would require solids treatment and disposal on a semi-annual basis. The solids would either be stabilized and disposed in a landfill or land applied to a farm field in accordance with EGLE requirements

Industrial Waste Treatment Needs No substantial discharge of non-domestic flows is anticipated from commercial and industrial users. Small commercial businesses are currently located in the project area; however, no major industrial facilities are anticipated to join the project area during the 20-yr design period. Lagoon treatment systems are not typically designed to handle higher strength or non-domestic discharges from industrial facilities. The Mechanical WWTP alternative is more capable of handling industrial wastewater, although some process modifications may be necessary. Alternately, a well-implemented Industrial Pretreatment Program would need to be in place for a wastewater treatment system that accepts wastewater from industrial facilities to ensure compatibility of industrial/commercial discharges with public treatment capabilities.

Facility Growth Capacity/Expandability Each of the alternatives would provide for the anticipated growth over the 20-year planning period. The major difference between the alternatives is the amount of land required. Mechanical treatment systems, such as the Oxidation Ditch alternative, require a substantially smaller footprint than the aerated lagoon alternative.

If the Service Area expands beyond the area currently planned, additional lagoons would likely be required. Mechanical WWTPs can be expanded cost effectively through the installation of additional treatment trains.

Reliability The Mechanical WWTP alternative is more reliable at consistently treating nitrogen in cold northern Michigan climates. A lagoon treatment system with supplemental facilities for nitrogen removal in cold weather, if designed and operated properly, can also meet the anticipated effluent limits.

Annual Operating Budget and Income

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 30

Income There are no existing public sewers in the service area and therefore no existing user rate structure exists. Income is anticipated to be through a combination of special assessment bonds and user charges. Preliminary discussions with MFA and Bond Counsel indicate that the revenue structure would be set so that income from Special Assessments would provide capital to cover expenses incurred prior to sewer connections being made. However, because expenses may be realized prior to having capital available, the Municipal Financial Advisor has recommended a budget amount of $250,000 to cover capitalized interest if required.

The projected income for the first full year of operation (2022) is expected to be $5,839,802.

Annual O&M Costs Operations, Maintenance and Replacement (OM&R) costs are expected to be $1,672,000 for the first full year of operation (2022) including $692,000 for the collection system and $980,000 for the WWTP. Because operating revenue will not be available until a significant number of sewer connections are made, the first full year of O&M costs have been included in the project budget.

Debt Repayments The anticipated debt repayment for loans to pay for capital project costs are approximately $3,788,911 per year.

Reserves As required by USDA-RD, the Township will be required to build a reserve fund of 10% of the total loan debt within the first 10 years of the loan. The annual operating budget includes collection of $378,891 per year to meet that obligation.

Total Project Cost Estimate

A summary of the total project cost is shown in Table 1 of Appendix B.

The total capital cost for the recommended alternative (low pressure collection system and mechanical WWTP) is estimated to be $93,787,000. This includes the estimated construction, land acquisition, and construction contingencies.

The total project cost includes the following additional items: • Operations and Maintenance expenses for the first full year after construction • Survey, Design, & Construction Engineering • Bond Counsel, Financial Advisor, and Legal fees, including: o An allowance of $250,000 for capitalized interest/interim financing o Filing and publication fees o Fees for Township attorneys and legal reviews o Fees for bond counsel and Municipal Financial Advisor • Cost for preparing a USDA funding application

VII. Proposed Project (Recommended Alternative)

A. Collection System The recommended collection system is the complete Low-Pressure STEP collection system. A preliminary collection system layout is included as Figure 4 in Appendix A. The Low-Pressure STEP collection system provides the most protection for the health and safety of the community and Higgins Lake water quality by collecting the most septic system discharge from the Higgins Lake watershed and the best value for the study area. Further, the directional drilling construction methods offer the least amount of environmental and economic disruption to the area.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 31

B. Wastewater Treatment Alternative 2 - Mechanical WWTP is the recommended treatment alternative because it meets the project objectives, has the lowest net present worth, and offers several advantages over the other alternatives evaluated. The mechanical WWTP had the lowest net present worth. In addition to the financial considerations, the mechanical WWTP offers increased reliability and operational flexibility to accommodate the seasonal flow variability.

The recommended treatment facility would include: . Influent screening and grit removal . Septage Receiving . Two Oxidation Ditches . Ferric chloride storage and feed system for phosphorus precipitation . Polymer feed system to aid in biosolids settling . Two clarifiers for solids settling . Two aerobic digesters for biosolids stabilization . Biosolids holding tank . Rapid infiltration basins for groundwater discharge

C. Project Funding and Staging Approach

Due to the large size and significant cost of the project, a staged approach to the design and construction of the project could be feasible. When considering staging of the project, it will be important to consider factors including feasibility of constructing certain components as stand-alone infrastructure, and balancing collection and treatment capacity with the number of users in each stage of construction. In addition, factors such as creation of an anticipated sewer authority, creation of and structure of special assessment districts, and available funding through USDA and other programs will impact project timing and approach. In developing this PER, the Townships have been in contact with bond counsel and a municipal financial advisor and have begun considering these issues as well as potential funding mechanisms and opportunities.

Timing of the project will also be important. While the project needs can technically be approached in segments, subsequent stages of the project will need to follow relatively promptly in part due to time limitations on use of special assessment funds as well as public concern and perception of fairness. Fortunately, because a STEP collection system has been selected as the recommended alternative, constructing the collection system in segments will be relatively straight forward, and easy to partition based on funds available. The collection system can be designed and constructed from the downstream portion of the project near the connection point to the proposed WWTP and expanded outward in segments.

While there is some ability to add capacity to a treatment facility, most of the costs including permitting, purchase of property, clearing, grading sitework, utilities, and redundant treatment facilities will be required under the first stage of the project.

The first stage of the project would include construction of the initial portions of the WWTP and the first portion of the collection system with additional stages of the collection system constructed as funding is available. To balance the amount of treatment capacity created, it would be prudent to construct enough collection system to connect a significant number of users to be able to offset the initial costs. The initial stages of the project are the most critical to fund at a high level in order to create a sizable user base that can sustain the debt retirement and operating costs.

LYON TOWNSHIP – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PAGE 32

Detailed scenarios of staged costs versus user generated revenue will be developed after the available funding levels have been established, but in general, a segmented approach will have a higher total capital cost when compared to a single project due to the economy of scale.

Another funding possibility would be to coordinate with the State of Michigan's Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) to reduce the funding burden on the USDA. One option that could be considered would be to fund the WWTP using the State funds and the collection system using USDA funds. Depending on bonding capacity and the market climate, open market bonding of portions of the project may be possible as well, although for a new system this will be extremely challenging.

Appendix A – Figures

k

h

e

c

e

n

r

a

r

C

B r

e

h

v t

a u

e o

B S

Beaver Creek Beaver Creek South Branch Lyon Gerrish Higgins

h s

s

n

i

i

r

g

r

g

e

i

G

H Y P I D H U S T A S N E

R Y W A T

O I

h E T n L

I s K

o i

r H B

y A

r I

L L S

e

I S S G A R N E R I F E G

G G R / I E H N W Lyon O

Gerrish E Y L Lake Markey S

DRAWN BY DATE IJN 1/6/2020

PROJECT NO. SCALE 839780 1:84,000

FILE LOCATION

SOURCES

y

s

y

e

n

e e

i

k

k k

g

r

r

a g

a

a

i L

M

M H

0 3,000 6,000

SCALE IN FEET

PAGE Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed FIGURE 1 LYON & GERRISH TOWNSHIPS 839780 ROSCOMMON COUNTY NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY

FIGURE 2 F&V PROJECT NO.  

Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Lyon Gerrish

h

n s

i

o r

r

y

e L

G

Lyon Gerrish Lake Markey

y

e e

k k

r

a

a  Legend L M  Study Area

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

FIGURE DRAWN BY DATE IJN 1/6/2020 PROJECT NO. SCALE LYON/GERRISH TOWNSHIP 839780 1:38,400 SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY FILE LOCATION

2 0 1,600 3,200 SOURCES

SCALE IN FEET PROJECT STUDY AREA CAMP WESTMINSTER I-75

BEAVER CREEK TOWNSHIP N. HIGGINS LAKE DR. FM LYON TOWNSHIP GERRISH TOWNSHIP US-127

NORTH HIGGINS LAKE STATE PARK FM FM CAMP CURNALIA

FM FM FM

FM FM

FM SAN FM

FM E. HIGGINS LAKE DR.

SAN FM FM

FM FM

FM SAN PINEWOOD DR.

FM SAN

FM SAN

FM

SAN

SAN

FM

SAN SAN FM SAN

OLD US HWY 27

FM

SAN SAN

LYON TOWNSHIP FM

GERRISH TOWNSHIP

FM FM

N. CUT RD FM

HIGGINS FM SAN

LAKE SAN MAPLEHURST DR. FM FM

SAN

SAN SAN

SAN

SAN SAN BURDELL DR. FM TREASURE ISLAND SAN

FM FM FM FM

SAN

FM FM FM FM FM

FM FM

FM

FM

SAN FM

FM FM

FM FM

FM SAN

SAN

FM FM

FM PINE BLUFFS RD. FM

FM

FM

FM FM FM SAN

FM FM

SAN FM FM FM FM

FM W. HIGGINS LAKE DR. SAN FM

SAN

FM

FM FM FM FM FM FM FM

FM FM FM MATCH LINE - SEE FIGURE 4B

LEGEND LYON & GERRISH TOWNSHIPS 839780 ROSCOMMON COUNTY, MICHIGAN SAN GRAVITY SEWER PIPE NORTH HYBRID COLLECTION SYSTEM SCALE FM SEWER FORCEMAIN (LOW PRESSURE) PROPOSED LIFT STATION FIGURE 4A

STUDY AREA LIMITS F&V PROJECT NO. FM

FM

FM FM

FM MATCH LINE - SEE FIGURE 4A FM FM FM

FM FM FM FM SAN FM

FM N. CUT RD

FM FM

FM

W. HIGGINS LAKE DR. FM

SAN FM SAN

FM FM FM

FM HIGGINS LAKE DR. FM

SAN SAN

FM SAN SAN

SAN SAN

FM FM SAN SAN SAN

SAN

FM FM SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN

SAN SAN SAN

FM FM SAN SAN SAN SAN

SAN FM

W. HIGGINS LAKE DR.

HIGGINS SAN

LOXELY RD. LOXELY

FM FM

LAKE FM

SAN

N. TOWNLINE RD. TOWNLINE N. FM

FM

SAN BIRCH RD. BIRCH RD. SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN SAN

SAN SAN SAN

SAN SAN SAN

E. HIGGINS LAKE DR. MUSKEGON DR. SAN SAN

FM

SAN SAN

FM SAN

PINE RD. SAN SAN

FM W. PINE DR. SAN

FM

SAN SOUTH HIGGINS LAKE STATE PARK

FM

SAN

SAN SAN

SAN

FM SAN FM SAN SAN

LYON TOWNSHIP GERRISH TOWNSHIP SAN E. HIGGINS LAKE DR.

SAN SAN LAKE TOWNSHIP MARKEY TOWNSHIP MARL LAKE DR.

LEGEND LYON & GERRISH TOWNSHIPS 839780 ROSCOMMON COUNTY, MICHIGAN SAN GRAVITY SEWER PIPE NORTH HYBRID COLLECTION SYSTEM SCALE FM SEWER FORCEMAIN (LOW PRESSURE) PROPOSED LIFT STATION FIGURE 4B

STUDY AREA LIMITS F&V PROJECT NO. I-75 CAMP WESTMINSTER

BEAVER CREEK TOWNSHIP FM N. HIGGINS LAKE DR.

FM

FM LYON TOWNSHIP FM GERRISH TOWNSHIP US-127

NORTH HIGGINS LAKE STATE PARK FM FM

FM CAMP CURNALIA

FM

FM

FM FM

FM

FM FM FM

FM E. HIGGINS LAKE DR.

FM FM FM

FM FM

FM FM FM PINEWOOD DR.

FM

FM FM

FM

FM

FM FM

FM FM

FM FM FM

OLD US HWY 27

FM

FM

FM FM

LYON TOWNSHIP FM

GERRISH TOWNSHIP

FM FM

N. CUT RD

FM HIGGINS

FM

MAPLEHURST DR.

LAKE FM FM FM FM FM FM FM

FM FM

FM FM

FM FM FM FM

FM

FM FM FM FM

FM

FM FM BURDELL DR. FM TREASURE ISLAND FM FM FM

FM FM FM FM FM

FM FM FM FM

FM FM

FM

FM

FM FM

FM FM

FM FM

FM FM

FM FM

PINE BLUFFS RD. FM

FM FM

FM

FM FM FM FM FM FM

FM W. HIGGINS LAKE DR. FM FM

FM FM FM

FM FM MATCH LINE - SEE FIGURE 5B

LEGEND LYON & GERRISH TOWNSHIPS 839780

FM SEWER FORCEMAIN (LOW PRESSURE) ROSCOMMON COUNTY, MICHIGAN NORTH STUDY AREA LIMITS LOW PRESSURE STEP SYSTEM SCALE FIGURE 5A F&V PROJECT NO. FM

FM FM MATCH LINE - SEE FIGURE 5A

FM FM

FM FM

FM

FM

FM

FM FM FM

N. CUT RD

FM

W. HIGGINS LAKE DR. FM FM FM

FM HIGGINS LAKE DR. FM

FM

FM FM FM

FM

FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM

FM FM FM

FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM

FM FM FM FM FM

FM

W. HIGGINS LAKE DR. FM

FM HIGGINS LOXELY RD. LOXELY LAKE FM FM

FM

N. TOWNLINE RD. TOWNLINE N.

FM

FM FM

BIRCH RD. BIRCH RD. FM FM

FM

FM

FM FM

FM FM

FM

E. HIGGINS LAKE DR. MUSKEGON DR. FM FM FM FM

FM

FM FM

PINE RD. FM

W. PINE DR. FM FM

FM FM FM

FM SOUTH HIGGINS LAKE STATE PARK

FM FM

FM

FM

FM FM

FM

FM

FM FM FM

FM

FM FM FM

FM FM

FM FM

LYON TOWNSHIP GERRISH TOWNSHIP FM

E. HIGGINS LAKE DR.

FM FM FM FM

FM FM FM FM MARL LAKE DR. LAKE TOWNSHIP MARKEY TOWNSHIP

LEGEND LYON & GERRISH TOWNSHIPS 839780

FM SEWER FORCEMAIN (LOW PRESSURE) ROSCOMMON COUNTY, MICHIGAN NORTH STUDY AREA LIMITS LOW PRESSURE STEP SYSTEM SCALE FIGURE 5B F&V PROJECT NO. LYON & GERRISH TOWNSHIPS 839780 ROSCOMMON COUNTY WWTP REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE

FIGURE 6 F&V PROJECT NO. LYON & GERRISH TOWNSHIPS 839780 ROSCOMMON COUNTY WWTP POTENTIAL LOCATIONS

FIGURE 7 F&V PROJECT NO. RIB 1 POLISHING/STORAGE LAGOON NO. 2A AERATED CELL NO. 1 RIB 2

FROM WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM

NITRIFICATION POST-DENITE RIB 3 MAIN PUMP STATION AERATED REACTOR REACTOR CELL NO. 2 POLISHING/STORAGE LAGOON NO. 2B RIB 4

GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE TO RIBS

LYON & GERRISH TOWNSHIPS 839870 ROSCOMMON COUNTY, MICHIGAN AERATED LAGOON DIAGRAM

FIGURE 8 F&V PROJECT NO. RIB 1

RIB 2 BAR RACK

BYPASS FROM WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM

FINE RIB 3 SCREEN GRIT REMOVAL MAIN PUMP STATION

WASTE SLUDGE PUMPS RIB 4

GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE TO RIBS OXIDATION CLARIFIERS DITCHES

GRIT TO GRIT TO DISPOSAL DISPOSAL

BIOSOLIDS STORAGE AEROBIC TANK DIGESTER

TO FARM FIELDS FOR SLUDGE LAND APPLICATION DEWATERING

SLUDGE TRANSFER PUMPS

LYON & GERRISH TOWNSHIPS 839780 ROSCOMMON COUNTY, MICHIGAN MECHANICAL WWTP DIAGRAM

FIGURE 9 F&V PROJECT NO. Appendix B – Tables Lyon Township Wastewater Sewer Feasibility Study Table 1 - Overall Cost Summary Project #: 839780 Date: January 2020

Item Item Estimated No. Description Total 1 Collection System - Low Pressure Alternative$ 63,997,000 2 WWTP - Mechanical Facility$ 18,350,000 3 Construction Contingencies$ 11,440,000 Construction Subtotal: $ 93,787,000

First Full Year of O, M, & R$ 1,672,000 Survey, Design & Construction Engineering$ 11,902,000 Legal, Bonding, Administration, & Capitalized Interest1 $ 950,000 USDA Funding Application$ 30,000

Total Estimated Project Cost: $ 108,341,000

Notes: Design Professional has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of pricing. Bid prices may vary significantly based on these factors and market conditions at time of bid.

1 Includes fees for MFA, Bond Council, capitalized interest, publication & filing fees, legal counsel, and special assesment proceedings TABLE 2 - Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost Lyon Township Sewer Study Client: Lyon Township Project Wastewater System Feasibility Study Project No. 839780 Date: October 2019

Combined Gravity & Low Pressure System Alternative Estimated Total Item Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost General Construction Costs $ 5,695,000 1 Mobilization, Bonds, and Insurance (5% Max) Ea 1$ 3,582,000 $ 3,582,000 2 Temporary Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ea 1 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 3 Traffic Control Lft 1$ 155,000 $ 155,000 4 Tree Removal/Clearing and Grubbing Ea 1$ 230,000 $ 230,000 5 Dewatering Ea 1$ 1,448,000 $ 1,448,000 Low Pressure Forcemain $ 72,124,000 6 Submersible Pump Station Ea 46$ 225,000 $ 10,350,000 7 Forcemain, Dir Drill Lft 91,980$ 50 $ 4,599,000 8 Low Pressure FM, 8" Lft 0$ 50 $ - 9 Low Pressure FM, 6" Lft 39,510$ 34 $ 1,343,340 10 Low Pressure FM, 4" Lft 64,630$ 22 $ 1,421,860 11 Low Pressure FM, 2" Lft 84,510$ 17 $ 1,436,670 12 Combination Air Vacuum Valve EA 167$ 5,500 $ 918,500 13 Forcemain Cleanout EA 178$ 3,000 $ 534,000 14 Pavement Rem., Restoration SYD 113,400$ 25 $ 2,835,000 15 Gravel Surface Rem., Restoration SYD 447,500$ 9 $ 4,027,500 17 Gravity Sewer, PVC FT 231,205$ 55 $ 12,716,275 17 Sanitary Sewer EA 820$ 3,500 $ 2,870,000 18 Surface Restoration SYD 837,400$ 3 $ 2,512,200 19 Utility Allowance - Pump Station SYD 46$ 10,000 $ 460,000 20 STEP System Service, Tank, Controls, Connection, Restoration EA 2,220$ 8,150 $ 18,093,000 21 STEP System Future Service EA 583$ 800 $ 466,400 22 Gravity Service EA 2,872$ 1,000 $ 2,872,000 On-Site Costs 23 Demo Ex. Septic Tank EA 2,220$ 1,100 $ 2,442,000 24 STEP System Electrical Connection EA 2,220$ 1,000 $ 2,220,000

Subtotal, Construction $ 77,813,000 Engineering, Administration & Legal 12,450,000 Contingency / Undeveloped Details 11,673,000

Total Estimated Project Cost: $ 101,936,000

Notes: This estimate represents a budgetary cost estimate to be used for planning purposes. Further definition of the scope of the project through preliminary and final design will provide details necessary to improve the accuracy of conceptual estimates.

Design Professional has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of pricing. Bid prices may vary significantly based on these factors and market conditions at time of bid. TABLE 3 - Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost Lyon Township Sewer Study Client: Lyon Township Project Wastewater System Feasibility Study Project No. 839780 Date: October 2019 Low Pressure Collection System Alternative Estimated Total Item Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost General Construction Costs 1 Mobilization, Bonds, and Insurance (5% Max) Ea 1$ 2,627,000 $ 2,627,000 2 Temporary Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Lft 1$ 197,500 $ 197,500 3 Traffic Control Lft 1$ 155,000 $ 155,000 4 Tree Removal/Clearing and Grubbing Ea 1$ 86,000 $ 86,000 5 Dewatering Lft 1$ 260,000 $ 260,000 Low Pressure Forcemain 6 Submersible Pump Station Ea 1$ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 7 Booster Station Ea 2$ 250,000 $ 500,000 8 Low Pressure FM, 8" Lft 38,170$ 50 $ 1,908,500 9 Low Pressure FM, 6" Lft 37,510$ 34 $ 1,275,340 10 Low Pressure FM, 4" Lft 62,350$ 22 $ 1,371,700 11 Low Pressure FM, 2" Lft 298,960$ 17 $ 5,082,320 12 Combination Air Vacuum Valve EA 126$ 4,150 $ 522,900 13 Forcemain Cleanout EA 403$ 2,700 $ 1,088,100 14 Pavement Rem., Restoration SYD 79,400$ 25 $ 1,985,000 15 Gravel Surface Rem., Restoration SYD 56,300$ 9 $ 506,700 16 LP Services, Laterals, restoration, STEP system EA 4,270$ 8,150 $ 34,800,500 17 Surface Restoration SYD 46,000$ 3.00 $ 138,000 18 Utility Allowance - Pump Station LS 1$ 20,000 $ 20,000 19 Lateral Stub for Undeveloped Lot EA 1,505$ 1,000 $ 1,505,000 On-Site Costs 20 Demo Ex. Septic Tank EA 4,270$ 1,100 $ 4,697,000 21 STEP System Electrical Connection EA 4,270$ 1,000 $ 4,270,000

Subtotal, Construction: $ 63,997,000 Engineering, Administration & Legal $8,962,000 Contingency / Undeveloped Details $9,600,000

Total Estimated Project Cost $ 82,559,000

Notes: This estimate represents a budgetary cost estimate to be used for planning purposes. Further definition of the scope of the project through preliminary and final design will provide details necessary to improve the accuracy of conceptual estimates.

Design Professional has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of pricing. Bid prices may vary significantly based on these factors and market conditions at time of bid. TABLE 4 - Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost Lyon Township Sewer Study Client: Lyon Township Project Wastewater System Feasibility Study Project No. 839780 Date: October 2019 Alternative 1 - Aerated Lagoon WWTP Alternative Estimated Total Item Item Description Unit Qty Unit Price Cost General Construction Costs $3,896,000 1 Contractors General Conditions and OH&P LS 1 $2,629,000 $2,629,000 2 Equipment LS 1.00 $159,000 $159,000 3 Land Acquisition Costs AC 90 $6,000 $540,000 4 Site Development (clearing, grading, drainage, driveway, and parking) LS 1 $419,000 $419,000 5 Site Piping/Utilities (well, water, sanitary, and process) LS 1 $53,000 $53,000 6 Electrical Service to WWTP Facilities LS 1 $64,000 $64,000 7 Natural Gas Service to WWTP Facilities LS 1 $32,000 $32,000

Buildings $1,039,000 1 Treatment Building SF 2,500 $270 $675,000 2 Chemical/Blower Building SF 1,500 $210 $364,000

Lagoons and Process Equipment $15,781,000 1 Screening LS 1 $286,000 $286,000 2 Septage Receiving Station LS 1 $499,000 $499,000 3 Lagoons LS 1 $10,429,000 $10,429,000 4 Nitrification System LS 1 $2,461,000 $2,461,000 5 Post Denitrification Reactor LS 1 $923,000 $923,000 6 Recycle Lift Station LS 1 $334,000 $334,000 7 Rapid Infiltration Basins LS 1 $849,000 $849,000

Electrical/SCADA $584,000 1 Communication/Telephone/Internet Service to WWTP Facilities LS 1 $21,000 $21,000 2 SCADA System/Remote Monitoring LS 1 $149,000 $149,000 3 Motor Control Centers/Electrical Gear LS 1 $212,000 $212,000 4 Standby Power Generator/Transfer Switch LS 1 $202,000 $202,000

Subtotal, Construction: $21,300,000 Engineering, Administration & Legal Engineering, Administration & Legal: $3,410,000 Contingency Contingency: $2,130,000

Total Estimated Project Cost 2021 Dollars: $26,840,000

Notes: This estimate represents a budgetary cost estimate to be used for planning purposes. Further definition of the scope of the project through preliminary and final design will provide details necessary to improve the accuracy of conceptual estimates.

Design Professional has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of pricing. Bid prices may vary significantly based on these factors and market conditions at time of bid. TABLE 5 - Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost Lyon Township Sewer Study

Client: Lyon Township Project Wastewater System Feasibility Study Project No. 839780 Date: October 2019

Alternative 2 - Mechanical WWTP Estimated Total Item Item Description Unit Qty Unit Price Cost General Construction Costs $3,305,000 1 Contractors General Conditions and OH&P LS 1 $2,140,000 $2,140,000 2 Equipment LS 1.00 $318,000 $300,000 3 Land Acquisition Allowance AC 60 $6,000 $360,000 4 Site Development (clearing, grading, drainage, driveway, and parking) LS 1 $335,000 $335,000 5 Site Piping/Utilities (well, water, sanitary) LS 1 $74,000 $74,000 6 Electrical Service to WWTP Facilities LS 1 $64,000 $64,000 7 Natural Gas Service to WWTP Facilities LS 1 $32,000 $32,000

Buildings $2,858,000 1 Control Building SF 3,350 $270 $905,000 2 Headworks Building SF 1,600 $320 $512,000 3 Chemical Building SF 800 $210 $217,000 4 Maintenance Building SF 3,600 $160 $576,000 5 Biosolids Handling Building SF 2,400 $270 $648,000

Process Equipment/Structures $11,298,000 1 Odor Control LS 1 $424,000 $424,000 2 Septage Receiving Station LS 1 $499,000 $499,000 3 Screening Equipment LS 1 $286,000 $286,000 4 Grit Removal Equipment LS 1 $488,000 $488,000 5 Biological Treatment Facilities - Oxidation Ditch LS 1 $2,546,000 $2,546,000 6 Secondary Clarification LS 1 $2,079,000 $2,079,000 7 Rapid Infiltration Basins LS 1 $849,000 $849,000 8 Biosolids Handling LS 1 $4,127,000 $4,127,000

Electrical/SCADA $890,000 1 Communication/Telephone/Internet Service to WWTP Facilities LS 1 $21,000 $21,000 2 SCADA System/Remote Monitoring LS 1 $265,000 $265,000 3 Motor Control Centers/Electrical Gear LS 1 $339,000 $339,000 4 Standby Power Generator/Transfer Switch LS 1 $265,000 $265,000

Subtotal, Construction: $18,350,000 Engineering, Administration & Legal: $2,940,000 Contingency: $1,840,000

Total Estimated Project Cost 2021 Dollars: $23,130,000

Notes: This estimate represents a budgetary cost estimate to be used for planning purposes. Further definition of the scope of the project through preliminary and final design will provide details necessary to improve the accuracy of conceptual estimates.

Design Professional has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of pricing. Bid prices may vary significantly based on these factors and market conditions at time of bid. TABLE 6 - Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost Lyon Township Sewer Study

Client: Lyon Township Project Wastewater System Feasibility Study Project No. 839780 Date: October 2019

Alternative 3 - EAST-WEST MECHANICAL WWTP Estimated Total Item Item Description Unit Qty Unit Price Cost General Construction Costs $4,504,000 1 Contractors General Conditions and OH&P LS 1 $2,940,000 $2,940,000 2 Equipment LS 1.00 $318,000 $300,000 3 Land Acquisition Allowance AC 90 $6,000 $540,000 4 Site Development (clearing, grading, drainage, driveway, and parking) LS 1 $436,000 $436,000 5 Site Piping/Utilities (well, water, sanitary) LS 1 $97,000 $97,000 6 Electrical Service to WWTP Facilities LS 1 $127,000 $127,000 7 Natural Gas Service to WWTP Facilities LS 1 $64,000 $64,000

EAST PLANT - MAIN PLANT Buildings $2,858,000 1 Control Building SF 3,350 $270 $905,000 2 Headworks Building SF 1,600 $320 $512,000 3 Chemical Building SF 800 $210 $217,000 4 Maintenance Building SF 3,600 $160 $576,000 5 Biosolids Handling Building SF 2,400 $270 $648,000

Process Equipment/Structures $7,901,000 6 Odor Control LS 1 $276,000 $276,000 7 Septage Receiving Station LS 1 $499,000 $499,000 8 Screening Equipment LS 1 $186,000 $186,000 9 Grit Removal Equipment LS 1 $317,000 $317,000 10 Biological Treatment Facilities - Oxidation Ditch LS 1 $2,037,000 $2,037,000 11 Secondary Clarification LS 1 $1,352,000 $1,352,000 12 Rapid Infiltration Basins LS 1 $552,000 $552,000 13 Biosolids Handling LS 1 $2,682,000 $2,682,000

Electrical/SCADA $579,000 14 Communication/Telephone/Internet Service to WWTP Facilities LS 1 $14,000 $14,000 15 SCADA System/Remote Monitoring LS 1 $172,000 $172,000 16 Motor Control Centers/Electrical Gear LS 1 $221,000 $221,000 17 Standby Power Generator/Transfer Switch LS 1 $172,000 $172,000

WEST PLANT Buildings $1,433,000 1 Control Building SF 1,005 $270 $272,000 2 Headworks Building SF 1,600 $320 $512,000 3 Chemical Building SF 800 $210 $217,000 4 Maintenance Building SF 2,700 $160 $432,000

Process Equipment/Structures $6,469,000 1 Odor Control LS 1 $276,000 $276,000 2 Screening Equipment LS 1 $186,000 $186,000 3 Grit Removal Equipment LS 1 $317,000 $317,000 4 Biological Treatment Facilities - Oxidation Ditch LS 1 $1,655,000 $1,655,000 5 Secondary Clarification LS 1 $1,352,000 $1,352,000 6 Rapid Infiltration Basins LS 1 $552,000 $552,000 7 Biosolids Handling LS 1 $2,131,000 $2,131,000

Electrical/SCADA $559,000 8 Communication/Telephone/Internet Service to WWTP Facilities LS 1 $14,000 $14,000 9 SCADA System/Remote Monitoring LS 1 $152,000 $152,000 10 Motor Control Centers/Electrical Gear LS 1 $221,000 $221,000 11 Standby Power Generator/Transfer Switch LS 1 $172,000 $172,000

Subtotal, Construction: $24,303,000 Engineering, Administration & Legal: $3,887,000 Contingency: $2,430,000

Total Estimated Project Cost : $30,620,000

Notes: This estimate represents a budgetary cost estimate to be used for planning purposes. Further definition of the scope of the project through preliminary and final design will provide details necessary to improve the accuracy of conceptual estimates.

Design Professional has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of pricing. Bid prices may vary significantly based on these factors and market conditions at time of bid. TABLE 7 - Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost Lyon Township Sewer Study

Client: Lyon Township Project Wastewater System Feasibility Study Project No. 839780 Date: February 2020

Alternative 4 - All Regional Facilities + Mechanical WWTP Estimated Total Item Item Description Unit Qty Unit Price Cost Regional FM to Markey Twp 1 Regional FM and WWTP Capacity Purchase LS 1 $2,920,000 $2,920,000 Regional FM to Roscommon 1 Regional FM and WWTP Capacity Purchase LS 1 $8,516,000 $8,516,000 Regional FM to HLUA 1 Regional FM and WWTP Capacity Purchase LS 1 $1,457,000 $1,457,000

Site Work $3,045,000 1 Contractors General Conditions and OH&P LS 1 $2,180,000 $2,180,000 2 Land Acquisition Allowance AC 60 $6,000 $360,000 3 Site Development (clearing, grading, drainage, driveway, and parking) LS 1 $335,000 $335,000 4 Site Piping/Utilities (well, water, sanitary) LS 1 $74,000 $74,000 5 Electrical Service to WWTP Facilities LS 1 $64,000 $64,000 6 Natural Gas Service to WWTP Facilities LS 1 $32,000 $32,000

Buildings $2,809,000 1 Control Building SF 3,350 $270 $905,000 2 Headworks Building SF 1,600 $320 $512,000 3 Chemical Building SF 800 $210 $168,000 4 Maintenance Building SF 3,600 $160 $576,000 5 Biosolids Handling Building SF 2,400 $270 $648,000

Process Equipment/Structures $10,296,000 1 Odor Control LS 1 $382,000 $382,000 2 Septage Receiving Station LS 1 $499,000 $499,000 3 Screening Equipment LS 1 $286,000 $286,000 4 Grit Removal Equipment LS 1 $488,000 $488,000 5 Biological Treatment Facilities - Oxidation Ditch LS 1 $2,292,000 $2,292,000 6 Secondary Clarification LS 1 $1,871,000 $1,871,000 7 Rapid Infiltration Basins LS 1 $764,000 $764,000 8 Biosolids Handling LS 1 $3,714,000 $3,714,000

Electrical/SCADA $890,000 1 Communication/Telephone/Internet Service to WWTP Facilities LS 1 $21,000 $21,000 2 SCADA System/Remote Monitoring LS 1 $265,000 $265,000 3 Motor Control Centers/Electrical Gear LS 1 $339,000 $339,000 4 Standby Power Generator/Transfer Switch LS 1 $265,000 $265,000

Subtotal, Construction: $29,930,000 Engineering, Administration & Legal: $4,790,000 Contingency: $2,990,000

Total Estimated Project Cost: $37,710,000

Notes: This estimate represents a budgetary cost estimate to be used for planning purposes. Further definition of the scope of the project through preliminary and final design will provide details necessary to improve the accuracy of conceptual estimates.

Design Professional has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of pricing. Bid prices may vary significantly based on these factors and market conditions at time of bid. TABLE 8 - Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost Lyon Township Sewer Study

Client: Lyon Township Project Wastewater System Feasibility Study Project No. 839780 Date: February 2020

Alternative 5 - Markey Township WWTP + Mechanical WWTP Estimated Total Item Item Description Unit Qty Unit Price Cost Regional FM to Markey 1 Regional FM and WWTP Capacity Purchase LS 1 $2,920,000 $2,920,000

General Costs $2,890,000 1 Contractors General Conditions and OH&P LS 1 $2,170,000 $2,170,000 2 Land Acquisition Allowance AC 120 $6,000 $720,000

Buildings $2,809,000 1 Control Building SF 3,350 $270 $905,000 2 Headworks Building SF 1,600 $320 $512,000 3 Chemical Building SF 800 $210 $168,000 4 Maintenance Building SF 3,600 $160 $576,000 5 Biosolids Handling Building SF 2,400 $270 $648,000

Process Equipment/Structures $10,797,000 1 Odor Control LS 1 $403,000 $403,000 2 Septage Receiving Station LS 1 $499,000 $499,000 3 Screening Equipment LS 1 $286,000 $286,000 4 Grit Removal Equipment LS 1 $488,000 $488,000 5 Biological Treatment Facilities - Oxidation Ditch LS 1 $2,419,000 $2,419,000 6 Secondary Clarification LS 1 $1,975,000 $1,975,000 7 Rapid Infiltration Basins LS 1 $806,000 $806,000 8 Biosolids Handling LS 1 $3,921,000 $3,921,000

Electrical/SCADA $890,000 1 Communication/Telephone/Internet Service to WWTP Facilities LS 1 $21,000 $21,000 2 SCADA System/Remote Monitoring LS 1 $265,000 $265,000 3 Motor Control Centers/Electrical Gear LS 1 $339,000 $339,000 4 Standby Power Generator/Transfer Switch LS 1 $265,000 $265,000

Subtotal, Construction: $20,310,000 Engineering, Administration & Legal: $3,250,000 Contingency: $2,030,000

Total Estimated Project Cost: $25,590,000

Notes: This estimate represents a budgetary cost estimate to be used for planning purposes. Further definition of the scope of the project through preliminary and final design will provide details necessary to improve the accuracy of conceptual estimates.

Design Professional has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of pricing. Bid prices may vary significantly based on these factors and market conditions at time of bid. TABLE 9 - Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost

Client: Lyon Township Project Wastewater System Feasibility Study Project No. 839780 Date: February 2020

Alternative 6 - Markey Township WWTP Expansion (50%) + Mechanical WWTP Estimated Total Item Item Description Unit Qty Unit Price Cost Regional FM to Markey 1 Regional FM and WWTP Capacity Purchase LS 1 $2,920,000 $2,920,000

General Costs $3,480,000 1 Contractors General Conditions and OH&P LS 1 $2,820,000 $2,820,000 2 Land Acquisition Allowance AC 110 $6,000 $660,000

Markey Twp Plant Expansion $7,639,000 1 Aerated Lagoon Expansion LS 1 $3,516,880 $3,517,000 2 Storage Lagoon Expansion LS 1 $3,387,450 $3,387,000 3 Irrigation Facilities Expansion LS 1 $735,200 $735,000

Buildings $2,249,000 1 Control Building SF 2,680 $270 $724,000 2 Headworks Building SF 1,280 $320 $410,000 3 Chemical Building SF 640 $210 $135,000 4 Maintenance Building SF 2,880 $160 $461,000 5 Biosolids Handling Building SF 1,920 $270 $519,000

Process Equipment/Structures $8,180,000 1 Odor Control LS 1 $280,000 $280,000 2 Septage Receiving Station LS 1 $500,000 $500,000 3 Screening Equipment LS 1 $290,000 $290,000 4 Grit Removal Equipment LS 1 $490,000 $490,000 5 Biological Treatment Facilities - Oxidation Ditch LS 1 $2,040,000 $2,040,000 6 Secondary Clarification LS 1 $1,350,000 $1,350,000 7 Rapid Infiltration Basins LS 1 $550,000 $550,000 8 Biosolids Handling LS 1 $2,680,000 $2,680,000

Electrical/SCADA $713,000 1 Communication/Telephone/Internet Service to WWTP Facilities LS 1 $17,000 $17,000 2 SCADA System/Remote Monitoring LS 1 $212,000 $212,000 3 Motor Control Centers/Electrical Gear LS 1 $272,000 $272,000 4 Standby Power Generator/Transfer Switch LS 1 $212,000 $212,000

Subtotal, Construction: $25,180,000 Engineering, Administration & Legal: $4,030,000 Contingency: $2,520,000

Total Estimated Project Cost: $31,730,000

Notes: This estimate represents a budgetary cost estimate to be used for planning purposes. Further definition of the scope of the project through preliminary and final design will provide details necessary to improve the accuracy of conceptual estimates.

Design Professional has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of pricing. Bid prices may vary significantly based on these factors and market conditions at time of bid. TABLE 10 - Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost Lyon Township Sewer Study

Client: Lyon Township Project Wastewater System Feasibility Study Project No. 839780 Date: February 2020

Alternative 7 - Markey Township WWTP Expansion 100% Estimated Total Item Item Description Unit Qty Unit Price Cost Regional FM to Markey 1 Regional FM and WWTP Capacity Purchase LS 1 $2,920,000 $2,920,000

General Costs $4,610,000 1 Contractors General Conditions and OH&P LS 1 $3,530,000 $3,530,000 2 Land Acquisition Allowance AC 180 $6,000 $6,000 $1,080,000

Markey Twp Plant Expansion $22,840,000 1 Screening and Septage Receiving LS 1 $584,000 $620,000 $620,000 2 Aerated Lagoon Expansion LS 1 $6,362,000 $6,750,000 $6,750,000 3 Storage Lagoon Expansion LS 1 $13,116,000 $13,910,000 $13,910,000 4 Irrigation Facilities Expansion LS 1 $1,470,000 $1,560,000 $1,560,000

Buildings $259,000 1 Blower Building Expansion SF 1,000 $200 $210 $259,000

Electrical/SCADA $436,000 1 SCADA System/Remote Monitoring LS 1 $250,000 $100,000 $100,000 2 Motor Control Centers/Electrical Gear LS 1 $320,000 $150,000 $150,000 3 Standby Power Generator/Transfer Switch LS 1 $175,000 $186,000 $186,000

Subtotal, Construction: $31,070,000 Engineering, Administration & Legal: $4,970,000 Contingency: $3,110,000

Total Estimated Project Cost: $39,150,000

Notes: This estimate represents a budgetary cost estimate to be used for planning purposes. Further definition of the scope of the project through preliminary and final design will provide details necessary to improve the accuracy of conceptual estimates.

Design Professional has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of pricing. Bid prices may vary significantly based on these factors and market conditions at time of bid. Table 11 - Operating Budget For First Full Year After Construction (add or delete rows as necessary)

Community Name: Lyon Township County: Roscommon

Address: 7851 W Higgins Lake Dr Roscommon, Michigan 48653

A. Applicant Fiscal Year: From: 1/1/2022 To: 12/31/2022

B. Operating Income: From Water Sales or Sewer Rates & Charges: $5,839,802 Other (e.g. hydrant rentals, etc) $0 Total Operating Income: $5,839,802

C. Operating Expenses: Insurance $25,000 Utilities $203,000 Training $5,000 STEP Pumping & Sewer Cleaning $193,000 Administrative/Office $30,000 Salaries/Benefits $670,000 Chemicals $60,000 Lab Costs $15,000 Vehicles $25,000 Repairs/Maintenance $30,400 Supplies $15,000 Biosolids Removal $60,000 Misc. Supplies/Software & Permits $20,000 Contracted Services $30,000 Total Operating Expenses: $1,356,400 D. Net Operating Income: $4,483,402 E. Non Operating Income: Interest: Other: Total Non Operating Income: $0 F. Net Income $4,483,402

G. Expenditures/Transfers Repair, Replacement & Improvement Fund $315,600 Bond Reserve $378,891 Payment to USDA Loan $3,788,911 Total Expenditures/Transfers: $4,483,402 Excess/(Deficit) over net income: $0

USDA Confidential 2/13/2020 Page 1 Table 12 - Present Worth Analysis & Short Lived Depreciation

Community Name: Lyon Township

Federal Discount Rate for Water Resources Planning (Interest Rate) i = 1.50% Number of Years, n = 20 years

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Gravity & LP Combined Alternative 3: Low Pressure STEP System

Initial Capital Costs = $0 Initial Capital Costs = $101,936,000 Initial Capital Costs = $82,559,000

Annual Operations Annual Operations Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs = $0 & Maintenance Costs = $933,000 & Maintenance Costs = $692,000

Future Salvage Value = $0 Future Salvage Value = $36,721,000 Future Salvage Value = $39,825,700

Present Worth Present Worth Present Worth of 20 years of O & M = $0 of 20 years of O & M = $16,020,000 of 20 years of O & M = $11,880,000

PW = Annual OM * (1+i)^n-1 i*(1+i)^n

Present Worth Present Worth Present Worth of 20 yr Salvage Value = $0 of 20 yr Salvage Value = $36,610,000 of 20 yr Salvage Value = $39,710,000

PW = FSV* 1 (1 + i)^n Alternate 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Total Present Worth = $0 Total Present Worth = $81,346,000 Total Present Worth = $54,729,000

Short Lived Depreciated Assets Alternative 3 Note: Years of Life Number of Replacement Funds to Set This is not intended to Item Expectancy Units Cost Aside Yearly include every piece of STEP Pumps 15 4280 $1,000 $285,300 equipment in the system. Pump Station Pumps 15 2 $40,000 $5,300 It is to itemize the critical Booster Station Pumps 15 4 $20,000 $5,300 equipment or maintenance Total: $295,900 items that money should Table 13 - Present Worth Analysis & Short Lived Depreciation

Community Name: Lyon Township

Federal Discount Rate for Water Resources Planning (Interest Rate) i = 1.50% Number of Years, n = 20 years

No Action Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Lagoon WWTP Mechanical WWTP E &W Mechanical WWTP

Initial Capital Costs = $0 Initial Capital Costs = $26,840,000 Initial Capital Costs = $23,130,000 Initial Capital Costs = $30,620,000

Annual Operations Annual Operations Annual Operations Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs = $0 & Maintenance Costs = $860,000 & Maintenance Costs = $980,000 & Maintenance Costs = $1,390,000

Future Salvage Value = $0 Future Salvage Value = $3,770,000 Future Salvage Value = $5,120,000 Future Salvage Value = $8,080,000

Present Worth Present Worth Present Worth Present Worth of 20 years of O & M = $0 of 20 years of O & M = $14,770,000 of 20 years of O & M = $16,800,000 of 20 years of O & M = $23,900,000

PW = Annual OM *(1+i)^n-1 PW = Annual OM *(1+i)^n-1 PW = Annual OM *(1+i)^n-1 PW = Annual OM *(1+i)^n-1 i*(1+i)^n i*(1+i)^n i*(1+i)^n i*(1+i)^n

Present Worth Present Worth Present Worth Present Worth of 20 yr Salvage Value = $0 of 20 yr Salvage Value = $2,800,000 of 20 yr Salvage Value = $3,800,000 of 20 yr Salvage Value = $6,000,000

PW = PW = PW = PW = FSV* 1 FSV* 1 FSV* 1 FSV* 1 (1 + i)^n (1 + i)^n (1 + i)^n (1 + i)^n Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternate 3 Total Present Worth = $0 Total Present Worth = $38,810,000 Total Present Worth = $36,130,000 Total Present Worth = $48,520,000

Alternative 4: Alternative 5: Alternative 6: Alternative 7: All Regional + Mech. WWTP Markey WWTP + Mech WWTP Markey WWTP Expansion + Mech WWTP Markey WWTP Expansion

Initial Capital Costs = $37,710,000 Initial Capital Costs = $25,590,000 Initial Capital Costs = $31,730,000 Initial Capital Costs = $39,150,000

Annual Operations Annual Operations Annual Operations Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs = $1,540,000 & Maintenance Costs = $1,120,000 & Maintenance Costs = $1,250,000 & Maintenance Costs = $990,000

Future Salvage Value = $9,700,000 Future Salvage Value = $6,140,000 Future Salvage Value = $6,760,000 Future Salvage Value = $5,810,000

Present Worth Present Worth Present Worth Present Worth of 20 years of O & M = $26,440,000 of 20 years of O & M = $19,200,000 of 20 years of O & M = $21,500,000 of 20 years of O & M = $17,000,000

PW = Annual OM *(1+i)^n-1 PW = Annual OM *(1+i)^n-1 PW = Annual OM *(1+i)^n-1 PW = Annual OM *(1+i)^n-1 i*(1+i)^n i*(1+i)^n i*(1+i)^n i*(1+i)^n

Present Worth Present Worth Present Worth Present Worth of 20 yr Salvage Value = $7,202,000 of 20 yr Salvage Value = $4,559,000 of 20 yr Salvage Value = $5,019,000 of 20 yr Salvage Value = $4,315,000

PW = PW = PW = PW = FSV* 1 FSV* 1 FSV* 1 FSV* 1 (1 + i)^n (1 + i)^n (1 + i)^n (1 + i)^n Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Total Present Worth = $56,948,000 Total Present Worth = $40,231,000 Total Present Worth = $48,211,000 Total Present Worth = $51,835,000 Alternative 2 Years of Life Number of Replacement Funds to Set Item Expectancy Units Cost Aside Yearly Note: Screen 10 1 $11,000 $1,100 This is not intended to Grit Chamber 10 1 $5,750 $600 include every piece of Oxidation Ditch 10 1 $10,000 $1,000 equipment in the system. Clarifier 10 1 $1,500 $200 It is to itemize the critical Digester 10 1 $80,000 $8,000 equipment or maintenance Solids Thickening 10 1 $6,000 $600 items that money should Building HVAC, Sampler, & Meters 15 1 $100,000 $6,700 Chemical Feed Pumps 10 3 $5,000 $1,500 Total: $19,700 Table 14 - Bond Schedule Date: 02/13/20

Borrower Name: Lyon Township Type of Bond: Revenue Interest Rate: 1.750% Yrs Deferred Principle 0 Principal: $108,341,000 (round to nearest $1000) Ammort. Factor 0.0350 Ammortized Payment: $3,788,911

1st 2nd Principal Total Year Loan Year Interest Interest Paid Payment Balance 108,341,000 1 947,984 947,984 1,893,000 3,788,968 106,448,000 2 931,420 931,420 1,926,000 3,788,840 104,522,000 3 914,568 914,568 1,960,000 3,789,135 102,562,000 4 897,418 897,418 1,994,000 3,788,835 100,568,000 5 879,970 879,970 2,029,000 3,788,940 98,539,000 6 862,216 862,216 2,064,000 3,788,433 96,475,000 7 844,156 844,156 2,101,000 3,789,313 94,374,000 8 825,773 825,773 2,137,000 3,788,545 92,237,000 9 807,074 807,074 2,175,000 3,789,148 90,062,000 10 788,043 788,043 2,213,000 3,789,085 87,849,000 11 768,679 768,679 2,252,000 3,789,358 85,597,000 12 748,974 748,974 2,291,000 3,788,948 83,306,000 13 728,928 728,928 2,331,000 3,788,855 80,975,000 14 708,531 708,531 2,372,000 3,789,063 78,603,000 15 687,776 687,776 2,413,000 3,788,553 76,190,000 16 666,663 666,663 2,456,000 3,789,325 73,734,000 17 645,173 645,173 2,499,000 3,789,345 71,235,000 18 623,306 623,306 2,542,000 3,788,613 68,693,000 19 601,064 601,064 2,587,000 3,789,128 66,106,000 20 578,428 578,428 2,632,000 3,788,855 63,474,000 21 555,398 555,398 2,678,000 3,788,795 60,796,000 22 531,965 531,965 2,725,000 3,788,930 58,071,000 23 508,121 508,121 2,773,000 3,789,243 55,298,000 24 483,858 483,858 2,821,000 3,788,715 52,477,000 25 459,174 459,174 2,871,000 3,789,348 49,606,000 26 434,053 434,053 2,921,000 3,789,105 46,685,000 27 408,494 408,494 2,972,000 3,788,988 43,713,000 28 382,489 382,489 3,024,000 3,788,978 40,689,000 29 356,029 356,029 3,077,000 3,789,058 37,612,000 30 329,105 329,105 3,131,000 3,789,210 34,481,000 31 301,709 301,709 3,185,000 3,788,418 31,296,000 32 273,840 273,840 3,241,000 3,788,680 28,055,000 33 245,481 245,481 3,298,000 3,788,963 24,757,000 34 216,624 216,624 3,356,000 3,789,248 21,401,000 35 187,259 187,259 3,414,000 3,788,518 17,987,000 36 157,386 157,386 3,474,000 3,788,773 14,513,000 37 126,989 126,989 3,535,000 3,788,978 10,978,000 38 96,058 96,058 3,597,000 3,789,115 7,381,000 39 64,584 64,584 3,660,000 3,789,168 3,721,000 40 32,559 32,559 3,721,000 3,786,118 0 Appendix C – Correspondence

March 12, 2020

Ben Kladder, P.E. Project Manager Fleis & Vandenbrink 603 Bay Street Traverse City MI 49684

RE: Higgins Lake Area Public Sewer Development, Roscommon County, Michigan

Dear Mr. Kladder:

The Central Michigan District Health Department (CMDHD) supports the development and installation of public sewers around Higgins Lake. CMDHD has issued on-site sewage treatment permits in Roscommon County since 1970. In the 50 years this agency has been issuing permits, on average, 50% to 60% of occupied properties have a permit on file; either through new construction or repairs to an existing system. The Higgins Lake area is typical of a development that started well before modern codes were in place that specified minimum criteria necessary to protect human and environmental health.

A record review of all parcels located in three separate subdivisions around Higgins Lake was conducted to provide information on typical conditions in the proposed sewer area. A total of 299 parcels were reviewed to identify if sewage permits are on file, identify soil conditions, and any permit or site conditions that vary from standard sewage treatment system installation. Permit records are on file for approximately 60% of the homes in the studied area, leaving 40% of the homes (120 properties) with unknown sewage treatment system status or construction. An analysis of the approximately 60% permitted systems revealed 46% of the properties do not meet construction requirements for the installation of a conventional sewage treatment system under the CMDHD Sanitary Code. The conditions found to be deficient include:

• Drywells installed instead of dispersal beds due to limited area. Drywells provide less removal of nutrients and bacteria from wastewater before discharge to groundwater. • Systems located with insufficient isolation to seasonally high groundwater based on current code. Inadequate isolation to groundwater reduces the ability of the soil to filter out nutrients and bacteria before it enters the groundwater.

Please visit us at our website www.cmdhd.org • Undersized systems due to lack of area and housing density. Undersized sewage treatment systems fail sooner under normal use and can become hydraulically overloaded; reducing or eliminating the removal of nutrients before the wastewater enters the groundwater. • Systems installed with less than the required 50 foot isolation to drinking water wells due to lack of area. Inadequate horizontal distance between a sewage treatment system and a drinking water well or surface water reduces the ability of the soil to remove nutrients before impacting the water resource.

Once nutrients and bacteria are introduced to groundwater, they can be quickly transported to a discharge point; which in most cases is a lake, river, or stream. Higgins Lake would be the primary discharge point for groundwater in this area. Previous studies of Higgins Lake have identified a relationship between density of on-site sewage disposal systems and elevated near shore levels of both nitrogen and phosphorous.

Including non-permitted or properties without records on file, it would be expected that 68 percent of the 4,300 homes and business in the proposed sewer area would not meet one or more requirements of the current Sanitary Code. CMDHD supports the installation of public sewers in this densely populated area around Higgins Lake to eliminate the impact on-site wastewater discharge has on area groundwater and surface waters.

Sincerely,

Steve King, R.S. Director of Environmental Health Central Michigan District Health Department 2012 E. Preston St Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858 Appendix D – Previous Lake Studies and Reports 2019 Higgins Lake Report - Preliminary Draft Introduction In 2014, the Higgins Lake Foundation provided a grant to MSU to study the nearshore water quality of Higgins Lake. The goals of the study were to better understand how Higgins Lake water quality varies along the shoreline, and to link those changes to sources of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) such as septic systems, agriculture, lawn fertilizers, and wastewater. MSU’s study design called for installing several small subsurface sampling piezometers within the nearshore areas around the perimeter of Higgins Lake. The Higgins Lake Foundation secured permission to install and later sample from these piezometers at 21 sites distributed roughly evenly around the lake.

MSU conducted four sampling campaigns in 2014, one each in June, July, August, and October. This work culminated in a report to the Higgins Lake Foundation that describes how nearshore water quality varies within the lake, over the summer sampling periods, and how it had changed since 1999 when the USGS conducted a similar study. The report showed that (like in the 1999 study) despite the typical characterization of Higgins Lake as oligotrophic, or low nutrient, much of the nearshore waters are of degraded water quality–ranging from mesotrophic and eutrophic all the way to hypereutrophic status. Some key trends were also identified, including generally increasing phosphorus and chloride, indicating that nearshore water quality is experiencing cumulatively greater effects from human activities around the lake. One critical finding of the report was that water quality improved in the northwest portion of the northern basin, along shoreline adjacent to Camp Curnalia, following the installation of a sewage treatment plant serving that neighborhood.

Here, MSU proposed to conduct a follow-up study of groundwater quality to further identify the cause of degraded water quality in Higgins Lake. This effort will leverage the network of sampling locations installed in 2014, reducing the project cost of equipment and installation. This will also allow us to sample from the exact same locations, increasing confidence that any changes seen relative to the prior study are genuine, and not simply the result of variations in site location along the shoreline. We also intend to move beyond the 2014 study by analyzing addional chemicals that provide tracers of contaminant sources. Obejctives of this 2018 study are: 1. Provide follow-up sampling at the 21 lake sites established in 2014 to monitor how water quality is changing in the lake. 2. Better understand the seasonal variability of water quality by sampling in early , prior to return of many of the areas seasonal residents, as well as in the summer to early fall. 3. Analyze emerging contaminant species not measured in 2014. 4. Service and maintain the piezometers installed with the help of the HLF in 2014, therefore insuring their value for this study and other potential future uses.

In this prelimnary report we cover our progress on most tasks outlined in the proposed work and cover some early comparisons of water chemistry. We have a sampling trip scheduled for later this summer (August 20-22) to collect another round of samples as well as for pharmacueicals and personal care products (sometimes referred to as PPCPs). Sample collection for PPCPs is much more invovled, requiring special handling in the field and particular limitations for the field crew collecting the samples. We will provide a full report for this project, including PPCPs, later this fall (by October 1).

Task 1. Site Maintenance Sites were located in the nearshore lake bottom of riparian cooperators. Each site was originally installed with small diameter PVC piezometers, approximately 2ft below the lake bottom. Each PVC piezometer was equipped with a sample extraction tube that extended to sufficient height above the lake bottom and the lake surface level to extract a groundwater sample with no contamination of surface water. These sample extraction tubes were secured below a cement paving stone to protect them from degradation from solar radiation as well as reduce the visual impact of the site.

To ensure accurate measurements of groundwater chemistry, we needed to first visit and maintain each piezometer. Site maintenance occurred in early June 2018. Several sites had been removed prior to our arrival and needed to be re-installed. Efforts were made to re- install these sites as close as possible to where they were previously installed in order to increase accuracy in comparisons to the original sites. Re-installation at some sites required larger diameter piezometers due to unavailability of materials used to make the original piezometers. Approximate site latitude and longitude are listed in the table as well as the status of each site.

Task 2. Field Measurements and Sample Collection

Season Date Piezometers were allowed a recovery period after the disturbance of Season Date maintenance and/or re-installation (prior to the first sampling event) to allow Spring May 21, 2019 for the groundwater at the site to return to groundwater representative of the upgradient system. Care needs to be used when collecting samples of Summer June 25-27,2018 groundwater in this system because the sediments in the area are of high conductivity. Therefore, low-flow sampling techniques were used to ensure July 24-25, 2018 sampling was of groundwater. The spring sampling event is intended to capture water quality prior to the arrival of most seasonal residents of the August 20-21, 2018 Higgins Lake area and is hypothesized to have the lowest concentrations of nutrients. Based on our 2014 results, the summer sampling event can be Fall November 14-16, 2018 conducted between June and August because there was little difference in the water chemistry among the samples collected during those months. Our November trip had to be cut short due to weather conditions. We were only able to get a couple of sites sampled.

Task 3. Chemical Analyses and Data Management We have analyzed the groundwater samples for: 1) major ions, 2) species of nitrogen, and 3) species of phosphorous. We have another trip we are coordinating with collaborators at the University of Michigan to sample for emerging contaminants. We anticipate this last sampling trip to be scheduled for August 20-22, barring any unforseen issues. We will submit a separate report for the samples collected during that trip.

We have plotted phosphorus from all MSU collected groundwater samples in a sinlge figure to show how the overall groundwater chemistry has changed among sites between 2014 and 2018. Overall, groundwater phosphorus is generally similar between 2014 and 2018, with the exception of July. Total dissolved phosphorus in July 2018 is particularly high in comparison to samples collected in other months. Also noteworthy, groundwater phosphorus is lowest in the early spring sample collected in May 2019. This may be due to higher occupancy in peak summer months and low occupancy in spring months, therefore changing the relative input to septic systems around the lake. Site specific trends can be seen in the above figure. Each site exhibits a pattern of it’s own. However, many sites show peak groundwater phosphorus in one or more summer months when compared to concentrations collected during late fall or spring sampling events. Few sites show stable patterns across the 2014 and 2018 sampling events. Specifically, site 5 shows a slightly decreasing trend across all sampling events across 2014 and 2018, with little to no peak event. On the other hand, site 7 also shows a stable groudwater phosphorus concentration but also shows a peak in July 2018.

Further analyses will be reported on in the final report. Changes in nearshore water quality from 1995 to 2014 and associated linkages to septic systems in Higgins Lake, MI Sherry L. Martin, Anthony D. Kendall, and David W. Hyndman

Executive Summary This report presents a new water quality dataset for Higgins Lake, mostly collected in 2014, along with an analysis of these data relative to prior water quality data collected by the USGS, and human wastewater systems around the lake. Samples were collected at 21 sites in the near shore region of the lake, including some sites that overlapped USGS sampling sites collected in the late 1990s. Four sampling events were conducted throughout the summer and early fall of 2014. A single partial early-morning shoreline dissolved oxygen and specific conductivity survey was also conducted. A primary product of this report is a new and more in-depth analysis of data collected by the USGS spanning 1995-2000 (select sites were also sampled in 2007), alongside a similar analysis of newly collected data from this study’s 2014 sampling. This analysis highlights trends in water quality parameters, specifically those related to a major transition in wastewater treatment on the lake: the installation of a community wastewater treatment plant in 2009 for Camp Curnalia in the NW corner of the north basin of the lake. Four datasets are analyzed in detail: total phosphorus (TP), nitrate+nitrite (NO3+NO2), specific conductivity, and boron (B). No significant temporal variations in concentrations were detected within the 2014 sampling period, thereby providing no support to the hypothesis that water quality is negatively impacted near the busy July 4th holiday. Comparing 2014 values to those from the late 1990s dataset showed a significant increase in near-shore surface water TP, which is of particular concern as the average concentration now exceeds the 12 ug/L mesotrophic threshold, where significant ecological changes begin to occur in the nearshore region lake. Specific conductivity values have steadily risen, indicating increased pollutant loads to the lake. Temporal trends and spatial patterns in these data all support the hypothesis that the Camp Curnalia wastewater treatment plant has substantially improved water quality in the adjacent nearshore area, particularly due to groundwater inputs. Near Camp

1 | P a g e

Curnalia at paired USGS/MSU sites, TP concentrations in groundwater have greatly decreased, and NO3+NO2 concentrations dropped below detection limits. B, an indicator of septic system inputs, also exhibited a significant decline in concentration. In addition, specific conductivity in the Camp Curnalia area was the lowest in the partial shoreline survey. Statistical modeling was used to relate sampled concentrations of these and other water quality constituents to measures of septic system density and groundwater influx. These models support that groundwater is a significant source of nutrients to the lake. Groundwater flow velocity into the lake, measured using a point-based seepage velocimeter, was the most significant variable explaining concentration patterns, while combinations of hydraulic gradient (how much slope there is in the water table near the lake) and septic/parcel density were also important.

Contents Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 3 2014 Study Design ...... 4 Sites and sampling ...... 4 Measuring groundwater input ...... 6 Estimating septic system impacts ...... 9 Water Chemistry Results ...... 10 Background - Trophic State Index ...... 11 Phosphorus (TP and TDP) ...... 12 Summer 2014 ...... 12 Temporal Trends ...... 13

Nitrogen (NO3+NO2) ...... 25 Summer 2014 ...... 25 Temporal Trends ...... 26 Specific Conductivity...... 31 Temporal Trends ...... 31 Chloride (Cl) ...... 41 Temporal Trends ...... 41 Boron (B) ...... 46

2 | P a g e

Summer 2014 ...... 46 Temporal Trends ...... 47 Statistical Relationships between Water Quality and Septic Systems ...... 52 Phosphorus ...... 54

Nitrogen (NO3 + NO2) ...... 54

Nitrogen (NH3) ...... 54 Boron (B) ...... 55 Summary and Conclusions ...... 55 References Cited ...... 57

Introduction Higgins Lake is Michigan’s 10th largest inland lake, and one of its deepest. Despite its long history of clean water, Higgins Lake is experiencing ecological changes in water quality, underwater vegetation, invasive species, and Swimmer’s Itch. Many of these changes impact the shallow region near shore, in the area called the shelf. Water quality monitoring programs such as the Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program typically focus on the deeper areas of lakes. Measurements taken in those deeper areas do not always reflect the same character as shallower regions of a lake. This mismatch between deep water and shallow water characteristics can mask undesirable changes in water quality during a critical period when they could otherwise be mitigated. A large shallow shelf, characteristic of Higgins Lake, limits mixing of near-shore waters with deeper basin waters, particular during calm periods. According to a 2001 USGS report (Minnerick, 2001) and work conducted by this team during the summer of 2012, this leads to concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous that are orders of magnitude higher in shelf water than in the deeper basins. Because the majority of the Higgins Lake shoreline is populated by septic-served homes, these septic systems may serve as a major source of nutrient contamination into the nearshore areas, particularly during the summer when seasonal homes are occupied. This study was designed as a follow-on to the 1995-1999 USGS study of nearshore waters to investigate current conditions with reference to shoreline human impacts, specifically septic systems. We: 1) collected water quality samples at 21 sampling locations around the perimeter of Higgins Lake; 2) analyzed this new dataset alongside the complete (and largely unpublished) USGS dataset; 3) characterized

3 | P a g e septic systems around the lake using geographic information systems, high-resolution sampling and tracking chemical markers; and, 4) investigated linkages between septic systems and nutrients as the base of the swimmers-itch food web. We are also particularly interested in quantifying the potential impacts of the Camp Curnalia sewer system installation, which in 2009 rerouted household waste along the NW section of the North Basin out of septic systems and into a single community wastewater treatment system. Results from our study can also be used as a baseline for future work using other chemical fingerprints not typically collected in traditional water quality surveys.

2014 Study Design

Sites and sampling Water quality samples were collected from both the surface and subsurface (groundwater) at 21 established sites around the perimeter of Higgins Lake. These sites were chosen to provide spatial coverage of the entire shoreline, capturing variability in shoreline characteristics. Several of the sites were located near USGS recorded sites (Figure 1).

4 | P a g e

Figure 1. Map of Higgins Lake showing location of MSU and USGS water sampling sites. Ten foot bathymetric contour (light blue line) shows approximate shelf area.

5 | P a g e

Groundwater samples were collected from installed piezometers at each site. Sites were located close to the shoreline in shallow water (2 ft depth), and piezometers were installed to 2 ft below the lake bottom (Figure 2). Installations were completed in June 2014 and allowed to equilibrate several days prior to the first sampling (Table 1). Surface water samples were collected from the lake at each site in conjunction with groundwater sampling. All samples were collected via a peristaltic pump using a low-flow flow cell. Precautions were used to ensure that surface water was not forced into the lake sediments during groundwater sampling (data not shown). Figure 2. Cross-sectional drawing of site showing SW and GW sample locations Dissolved oxygen, temperature, Table 1. Site installation and sample pH, and specific conductivity were collections. measured using an InSitu smarTROLL Activity Date multi-paramater water quality probe. Groundwater and surface water Installation June 5-12, 2014 samples were collected and analyzed 1st Sampling June 25-July 2, 2014 for: Alkalinity, calcium (Ca), chloride 2nd Sampling July 14-16, 2014 (Cl), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), nitrate-nitrite (NO3+NO2), ammonium 3rd Sampling August 26-28, 2014 (NH3), sodium (Na), sulfate (SO4), and 4th Sampling October 15-17, 2014 elemental lithium (Li), boron (B), iron (Fe), zinc, (Zn), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), and lead (Pb).

Measuring groundwater input We measured groundwater inflow to the lake at each of our installed sites using a seepage meter following dye displacement methods (Koopmans & Berg, 2011). This method is a low-cost approach to measuring groundwater input and can be widely used. Briefly, we constructed the seepage meter out of a modified 5-gallon bucket and clear vinyl tubing. The seepage meter was pushed into sediment and allowed to equilibrate after installation for 30 minutes prior to injecting dye. After equilibration, ~5 mL of Rhodamine dye was injected into the tube at a known location. The location of 6 | P a g e the leading edge of the dye was measured at 5, 10, and 15 minutes after dye injection. Figure 3 shows the seepage meter installation and dye injection. Average flow rate was calculated from the 3 time intervals and accounted for seepage meter dimensions. A corrected groundwater velocity is calculated by dividing the seepage rate by the porosity of the lake bottom sediment. This study area is dominated by glacial outwash sand and gravel with a representative porosity of 0.3. Measurements presented below were made in August 2014 (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Underwater photographs showing seepage meter installation (left) and a close-up of Rhodamine dye injection.

7 | P a g e

Figure 4. Map of measured groundwater flow velocities from seepage meters.

All of the sites have high groundwater flow into the lake according to USGS standards, over approximately 1 foot per day (0.3 m/day) (Sustainability of Ground-Water Resources- -Circular 1186). The slowest flow was measured at site 16 at 0.24 m/day. The fastest flows were measured at sites 2 and 4, at >2.5m/day. Most sites had groundwater flow between 0.5 and 1 m/day. All measured velocities were positive, thus none of the sites experienced loss of lakewater to groundwater. These measurements of seepage represent point scale groundwater influx.

8 | P a g e

Estimating septic system impacts We have created a model to estimate septic tank locations across the Lower Peninsula of Michigan (Luscz et al. 2015). To more accurately estimate septic systems at the relatively small scale of Higgins Lake, we used maps of land parcels for the region (courtesy of Roscommon County), making the assumption that each parcel includes one septic system. Using the parcel map and a map of groundwater elevations, we can estimate the number of septic tanks affecting each sampling location. Figure 5 shows the location of each MSU sampling location and the simulated groundwater elevations in the surrounding area (Kendall et. al 2016). Similar in interpretation to topographic maps, the contours (red) show the estimated surface of the groundwater table. Septic tanks within a 100m buffer of the direct upgradient groundwater flowpath (yellow) were summarized over 1000m and 400m along the upgradient flowpath for this analysis. As another measure of groundwater influence, we have used these flowlines and groundwater table elevations estimated from drinking water well records to estimate the hydraulic gradient for each site. While seepage meters measure site-specific groundwater inflow, the calculated hydraulic gradient represents the bulk groundwater influx to the broader area around each sampling location. Using these two measures together provides a more comprehensive view of groundwater inputs to Higgins Lake.

9 | P a g e

Figure 5. Map of model-simulated groundwater table elevations (shading) along with contoured water table elevations (red lines), sampling locations (yellow dots) and upgradient flowpaths (yellow lines).

Water Chemistry Results This section presents five key water chemistry variables: 1) phosphorus, 2) nitrogen, 3) specific conductivity, 4) chloride, and 5) boron. While the first two variables are of key interest because they drive biotic activity in the lake, interpreting their results is complicated by the complex nature of their cycling within the lake. Specific conductivity is a measure of total solutes in water, and can be measured rapidly in the field. Chloride is a pollutant of increasing concern across lakes in the upper midwest associated with sources including road salt, water softeners, and natural brines. Boron is an indicator of human septic influence, which transports easily through groundwater,

10 | P a g e and is only minimally affected by biological activity. Data for all other measured constituents are not explicitly analyzed in this report, and made available in the Appendix.

Background - Trophic State Index Trophic State Index is a classification system based on phosphorus, water transparency as measured by Secchi disk depth, and algal biomass measured by chlorophyll-a. It is used to compare biological productivity among multiple lakes or within an individual lake over time. The three main trophic status categories are Oligotrophic (low nutrient), Mesotrophic (moderate nutrient), and Eutrophic (high nutrient). We have used trophic state based on phosphorus measurements to compare among groundwater and surface water results. See Table 2 for phosphorus ranges for each trophic state classification.

Table 2. Trophic state indicators chlorophyll (Chl), Secchi depth (SD), and total phosphorus (TP). Modified from the North American Lake Management Society (www.secchidipin.org/index.php/monitoring- methods/trophic-state-equations/) Chl (µg/L) SD (m) TP (µg/L) Attributes

< 0.95 > 8 < 6 Oligotrophy: Clear water, oxygen throughout the year in the hypolimnion.

0.95 – 2.6 8 – 4 6 – 12 Hypolimnia of shallower lakes may become anoxic.

2.6 – 7.3 4 – 2 12 – 24 Mesotrophy: Water moderately clear; increasing probability of hypolimnetic anoxia during summer.

7.3 – 20 2 – 1 24 – 48 Eutrophy: Anoxic hypolimnia, macrophyte problems possible.

20 – 56 0.5 – 1 48 – 96 Blue-green algae dominate, algal scums and macrophyte problems.

56 – 155 0.25 – 0.5 96 – 192 Hypereutrophy: (light limited productivity). Dense algae and macrophytes.

> 155 < 0.25 192 – 384 Algal scums, few macrophytes

11 | P a g e

Phosphorus (TP and TDP) In this section we present results for both Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Dissolved Phosphorus (TDP). The difference between these measures is that the TDP samples were first filtered (0.45 um filter) prior to analysis, while TP samples are whole-water. Since phosphorus strongly sorbs (attaches) to particles such as sediment, and can be a significant component of larger particles of biological origin, TDP concentrations are in general lower than TP. The USGS only analyzed for TP. We also included TDP analyses because they can provide a better indicator of biological availability.

Summer 2014 Water quality characteristics from surface water and groundwater samples collected from our study sites varied substantially. Average TDP concentrations in groundwater varied widely, from 0.004 to 0.071 ppm, in comparison to surface water concentrations, which ranged from 0.004 to 0.028 (Table 3). The maximum TDP concentration in groundwater was also higher than the surface water maximum. Groundwater mean TDP concentrations were significantly greater than surface water mean phosphorus concentrations (p<0.05). Specifically, four sites had mean groundwater TDP concentrations >20 ppb higher than surface water concentrations. Three of these sites (8, 10, and 15) all had eutrophic groundwater and oligotrophic surface water, whereas site 5 had eutrophic groundwater and surface water. Only one site had mean surface water TDP concentrations higher than mean groundwater concentrations (site 2). Although this difference was small (12 ppb), it spans the range of a trophic class. Groundwater mean phosphorus concentrations at site 2 are categorized as mesotrophic, whereas surface water mean phosphorus concentrations are categorized as eutrophic.

Table 3. Summary statistics for total dissolved phosphorus per site from groundwater and surface water samples reported in mg/L (equivalent to parts per million, ppm). Convert values to ug/L (equivalent to parts per billion, ppb) by multiplying by 1000. n=number of samples analyzed from site. Max=maximum concentration observed at site. Min=minimum concentration observed at site. Groundwater TDP (mg/L) Surface Water TDP (mg/L) Site n Max Mean Min n Max Mean Min 2 12 0.025 0.017 0.010 12 0.076 0.028 0.006 3 14 0.053 0.010 0.003 14 0.024 0.007 0.002 4 11 0.009 0.004 0.002 11 0.061 0.011 0.002 5 8 0.056 0.049 0.041 8 0.059 0.025 0.014 6 9 0.009 0.004 <0.001 10 0.016 0.005 0.001 7 8 0.014 0.012 0.011 8 0.007 0.004 0.002 8 8 0.374 0.071 0.002 8 0.029 0.011 0.002

12 | P a g e

9 10 0.041 0.017 0.005 10 0.018 0.009 0.004 10 8 0.057 0.025 0.015 8 0.010 0.004 0.001 13 12 0.083 0.011 <0.001 12 0.010 0.004 <0.001 16 8 0.077 0.029 0.010 8 0.012 0.006 0.003 18 8 0.037 0.008 0.002 8 0.010 0.005 0.003 19 8 0.015 0.008 0.005 8 0.026 0.009 0.003 22 10 0.014 0.005 0.002 10 0.015 0.007 0.002 23 12 0.013 0.007 0.004 12 0.019 0.005 0.001

Temporal Trends Deep water samples from both basins of Higgins Lake have been low in Where possible, the results are phosphorus since monitoring of the lake presented as paired graphics showing has been recorded, categorizing this USGS data across all available years lake as Oligotrophic (Figure 6). and comparable data collected by this However, surface water samples from study (labeled MSU). The figures are nearshore areas collected by the USGS intended to show trends over time, and showed that some sites had elevated similarities or differences across a concentrations over a similar time frame range of sites. There are many (Figure 7). Several sites had surface overlapping (and non-uniquely water concentrations in the mesotrophic identified) lines that are not intended for category (3, 10, 12, 22, 23, 24, and 29). site-by-site comparison, except where Looking across all of the USGS individual sites have been labeled. samples, USGS site 24 was the only site that had eutrophic phosphorus results in surface water. Also of note is the upward trend of site 29 into mesotrophic status.

13 | P a g e

Figure 6. Deep-water surface water phosphorus concentrations collected over time by USGS and Citizens Lake Monitoring Program (CLMP).

14 | P a g e

Figure 7. Annual average phosphorus concentrations collected from USGS nearshore surface water sites over time. Color coded sites are shown at the bottom. Trophic categories are shown as horizontal dashed lines. Note time gap where select sites were revisited in 2007.

MSU samples show similar trends, with low surface water phosphorus concentrations (below 10 ug/L) for most samples, but also with a few high samples (Figure 8A and 8B). Site 5 has phosphorus concentrations in the mesotrophic range from each of the four sampling trips, and sites 2 and 3 had single eutrophic samples. There were no substantial differences between the four sampling trips. Notably, our sampling did not show elevated surface water phosphorus concentrations after the July 4th holiday.

15 | P a g e

Figure 8A. Filtered near-shore surface water total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) concentrations collected over summer 2014 by MSU. Trip number is indicated along the x-axis (refer to Table 1 for specific date ranges associated with each sampling trip). Color coded sites are shown at the bottom. Trophic categories are shown as horizontal dashed lines.

16 | P a g e

Figure 8B. Unfiltered near-shore surface water total phosphorus (TP) concentrations collected over summer 2014 by MSU. Trip number is indicated along the x-axis (refer to Table 1 for specific date ranges associated with each sampling trip). Color coded sites are shown at the bottom. Trophic categories are shown as horizontal dashed lines.

The USGS collected multiple samples from each site per year, which are shown as annual averages in Figures 6 and 7. The full dataset can be used to determine the frequency of samples from a site that had elevated phosphorus concentrations, as shown below in Figure 9. Most USGS sites had oligotrophic to mesotrophic concentrations but site 24 had two samples over the course of their sampling program that indicate eutrophic status.

17 | P a g e

Figure 9. Number of surface water samples collected at each site by USGS, indicating the trophic state of each sample, determined by phosphorus concentration.

On the other hand, USGS groundwater samples were predominantly classified as eu- and hypereutrophic (Figure 10). In this analysis, all sites but three (10, 12, and 22) resulted in one or more eutrophic samples. Figure 11 shows the USGS annual average of phosphorus results in the groundwater. These two analyses can be used together to find sites that are experiencing consistently high phosphorus concentrations. There are several sites that have very high annual average phosphorus concentrations but some of those sites experience high concentrations more often than others. For example, USGS site 31 (on the northeast side of Treasure Island) had a very high average concentration in 1998 and is eutrophic the prior year; however, this site was only sampled in those two years. Therefore, additional samples would need to be collected to characterize this site as eutrophic. On the other hand, USGS site 24 is hypereutrophic in 2007 from one sample but has a history of eutrophic and mesotrophic samples. MSU samples show some high groundwater phosphorus values, similar to what was found in the USGS study, but many more low values than during the USGS study (Figure 12A and 12B). There was only a single sample (site 8) that resulted in a hypereutrophic phosphorus value. Sites 2 and 10 had mesotrophic phosphorus concentrations during the summer sampling months but higher eutrophic concentrations

18 | P a g e during the October sampling trip. Site 3 had oligotrophic phosphorus concentrations except during the sampling trip following the July 4th holiday (the 2nd trip). Other sites show mostly oligotrophic phosphorus concentrations. Due to a freezer failure, sample bottles from the 1st and 2nd trip thawed for some period (likely in the range of 7 days) prior to being re-frozen. This caused some concern for sample preservation, as the literature has shown that phosphorus can attach itself to the polyethylene bottles used for sample collection. However, no significant differences were observed between concentrations in the 1st or 2nd trips, indicating that this was likely not a significant issue.

Figure 10. Number of groundwater samples collected at each site by USGS, indicating the trophic state of each sample, determined by phosphorus concentration.

19 | P a g e

Figure 11. Annual average phosphorus concentrations collected from USGS nearshore groundwater sites over time. Color coded sites are shown at the bottom. Trophic categories are shown as horizontal dashed lines.

20 | P a g e

Figure 12A. Filtered near-shore groundwater total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) concentrations collected over summer 2014 by MSU. Trip number is indicated along the x-axis (refer to Table 1 for specific date ranges associated with each sampling trip). Color coded sites are shown at the bottom. Trophic categories are shown as horizontal dashed lines.

21 | P a g e

Figure 12B. Unfiltered near-shore groundwater total phosphorus (TP) concentrations collected over summer 2014 by MSUTrip number is indicated along the x-axis (refer to Table 1 for specific date ranges associated with each sampling trip). Color coded sites are shown at the bottom. Trophic categories are shown as horizontal dashed lines.

Interesting differences emerge between the results of this study and that conducted by the USGS approximately 15 years prior (summarized in Table 4). Overall, we observed a significant increase in TP concentrations in surface water, 12.9 ug/L versus 7.5 ug/L in the USGS study. This indicates that bulk TP concentrations in near shore surface waters have likely increased since that study. The exact amount of that increase is unclear, as this study included a single year of sampling, and the USGS study included annual averages ranging from 4.1 to 9.7 ug/L. Nevertheless, 2014 average nearshore surface water concentrations crossed the threshold into mesotrophic category (Table 2). In contrast, our groundwater TP concentrations were substantially lower than those reported by the USGS. Here, a methodological difference between the two studies may inhibit direct comparison. The USGS sampling involved driving a temporary sampling piezometer into the lake sediments for each site and sampling date. Here, we installed semi-permanent piezometers, allowing them to equilibrate for several days prior to sampling and used low-flow sampling procedures to minimize

22 | P a g e sediment intake. Because phosphorus attaches so readily to sediment (leading to approximately double the phosphorus concentrations between TP and TDP in both groundwater and surface water), this factor may lead to higher TP concentrations in the USGS study, compared to those we observed.

Table 4. Summary of overall nearshore surface water (SW) and groundwater (GW) phosphorus average concentrations between USGS and MSU studies Study Years Location Species Concentration (ug/L)

USGS 1996-2000 SW TP 7.1

USGS 1996-2000 GW TP 47.4

MSU 2014 SW TP 12.9

MSU 2014 GW TP 22.9

MSU 2014 SW TDP 6.5

MSU 2014 GW TDP 12.5

Looking more closely to compare USGS and MSU phosphorus concentrations (Figure 13 and Table 5), USGS site 24 and 29 had multiple samples with meso- and eutrophic concentrations of phosphorus (and in groundwater, hyper-eutrophic). USGS site 23 had lower phosphorus concentrations during the 2 years it was sampled (1997 and 1998). MSU samples from nearby sites 22 and 23 did not show any signs of elevated phosphorus levels in the surface water, with all samples below 10 ug/L. This could be due to different sampling depths between the two studies, slightly different sampling locations relative to the shoreline, a change in processes in the mixing zone between lake and groundwater, or a change in the groundwater phosphorus load over time. Furthermore, concentrations in both the nearshore surface water and groundwater seem to have also shifted from an upward trend in phosphorus concentrations in the mid- to late- 1990’s to a more oligo- to mesotrophic character in summer 2014. The Camp Curnalia Sewer project, completed in 2009, was designed to redirect household waste from 400+ septic-served residences in this area to a sewage treatment facility. Our results show that phosphorus concentrations in the subsurface of this area have been greatly reduced since the Camp Curnalia Sewer project came online. Critically, groundwater TP values decreased by a factor of 4-5x in 2014 relative to late 1990s data--greatly exceeding the uncertainties due to different sampling methods in the two studies. Importantly, the surface water TP concentrations also declined by approximately 2-3 ug/L from the USGS to the MSU study, whereas lake-wide concentrations increased over the same period (Table 4).

23 | P a g e

Table 5. Comparison of average TP values from the USGS and MSU studies in the Camp Curnalia area along with periods averaged for each. Site Period Averaged Surface water Groundwater Number TP (ug/L) TP (ug/L)

USGS-23 1997-1998 12.0 21.0

USGS-24 1996-2000, 2007 11.6, 15.2 24.3, 250

USGS-29 1997-2000, 2007 11.0, 12.3 32.8, 58.7

MSU-22 2014 10.3 4.2

MSU-23 2014 8.5 8.7

Figure 13. Close-up map of north-west corner of Higgins Lake, highlighting MSU sites 23 and 22 and USGS sites 23, 24, and 29. Many cottages in this area have been converted from onsite septic systems to sewage treatment through the Camp Curnalia Sewer project.

24 | P a g e

Nitrogen (NO3+NO2)

Summer 2014

Nitrogen, measured as N in nitrate-nitrite (NO3+NO2), was well below the EPA drinking water limit (10 ppm) during all 2014 sampling events (Table 6). All but two sites had very low average concentrations of NO3+NO2, below 1 ppm, in both surface and groundwater samples. Sites 12 and 15 had higher measured average concentrations, at 1.9 and 7.5 ppm. Both of these sites also had a narrow range of concentrations, varying between 1.1 and 2.4 at site 12 and 6.9 and 9.3 at site 15. This result means that the source of NO3+NO2 is consistent across our sampling events at these sites. At most sites, groundwater was enriched in NO3+NO2 when compared with surface water. However, the concentrations at the majority of the sites were still low enough not to cause concern. For example, although site 2 had 40x higher NO3+NO2 concentrations in groundwater than surface water, these concentrations were all still below 1 ppm. On the other hand, site 15 had groundwater concentrations 750x and 2 orders of magnitude above the surface water. Surface water at both sites 2 and 15 were quite low in NO3+NO2 concentrations, but groundwater NO3+NO2 concentrations at site 15 were much higher than all other sites. Continued monitoring of groundwater NO3+NO2 at site 15 would be prudent to preserve water quality.

Table 6. Summary statistics for nitrate-nitrite (NO3+NO2) per site from groundwater and surface water samples reported in mg/L (equivalent to ppm). n=number of samples analyzed from site. Max=maximum concentration observed at site. Min=minimum concentration observed at site. Groundwater NO3+NO2 (mg/L) Surface Water NO3+NO2 (mg/L)

Site n Max Mean Min n Max Mean Min 2 7 0.431 0.404 0.281 7 0.046 0.010 <0.001 3 10 0.279 0.270 0.263 10 0.020 0.013 <0.001 4 5 0.111 0.102 0.089 5 0.082 0.036 0.001 5 4 0.012 <0.001 <0.001 4 0.054 0.016 0.001 6 4 0.087 0.078 0.063 5 0.012 0.005 0.001 7 4 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 4 0.006 0.002 <0.001 8 4 0.007 <0.001 <0.001 4 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 9 7 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 7 0.383 0.115 0.001 10 4 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 4 0.010 0.008 0.004 12 4 2.450 1.865 1.190 4 0.074 0.033 0.014 13 7 0.218 0.182 0.147 7 0.039 0.010 <0.001 14 2 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 3 0.010 0.007 <0.001 15 8 9.280 7.526 6.920 7 0.021 0.010 0.004 16 3 0.012 <0.001 <0.001 4 0.036 0.011 0.001 17 7 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 7 0.025 0.009 0.001

25 | P a g e

18 4 0.526 0.502 0.470 4 0.527 0.149 0.009 19 4 0.219 0.163 0.133 4 0.035 0.012 0.002 20 3 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 3 0.008 0.006 0.004 21 5 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 7 0.044 0.018 0.002 22 7 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 7 0.216 0.054 0.012 23 7 0.042 <0.001 <0.001 7 0.014 0.004 0.001

Temporal Trends

Surface water NO3+NO2 concentrations have been low in Higgins Lake throughout the the late 1990’s (USGS data, Figure 14) and into 2014 (MSU data, Figure 15), with all values below 1 mg/L. USGS site 30 had a relatively higher annual average NO3+NO2 concentration in 1997, but fell to very low levels for the remaining years. Similarly, MSU sites 18, 22, and 9 all had single samples with relatively higher NO3+NO2 concentrations. However, these peak values were still relatively low in concentration. Groundwater NO3+NO2 concentrations were much more variable in the late 1990’s (USGS data, Figure 16) than in 2014 (MSU data, Figure 17). Maximum annual average groundwater NO3+NO2 concentration collected during the USGS study was 6.1 mg/L at site 3 in 1998. Concentrations dropped at this site in subsequent years. USGS site 28 also had higher values in 1997 and 1999 but dropped to near the detection limit for the other sampled years. All other USGS sites had annual average groundwater NO3+NO2 concentrations below 3 mg/L. Groundwater NO3+NO2 concentrations collected during the MSU study showed stability throughout the summer with concentrations below 1 mg/L for most sites (Figure 17). However, two MSU sites had groundwater NO3+NO2 concentrations above 1mg/L: MSU site 12 concentrations ranged narrowly between 2.5 and 1.2 mg/L; and, MSU site 15 concentrations ranged between 9.3 and 7.0. Evaluating the shifts in concentration between each sampling event in the MSU study for these two sites, there is no apparent temporal pattern in these data. It is likely that these sites are responding to site specific phenomena rather than regional climate or other larger scale drivers.

26 | P a g e

Figure 14. Average annual nitrate-nitrite (NO3+NO2) values collected by USGS from surface water at their shoreline study sites.

27 | P a g e

Figure 15. Nitrate-nitrite (NO3+NO2) values collected by MSU from surface water at our shoreline study sites.

28 | P a g e

Figure 16. Average annual nitrate-nitrite (NO3+NO2) values collected by USGS from groundwater at their shoreline study sites.

29 | P a g e

Figure 17. Nitrate-nitrite (NO3+NO2) values collected by MSU from surface water at our shoreline study sites.

Shown in Table 7 is a comparison of nitrate-nitrite values between the USGS and MSU studies for the Camp Curnalia sites, indicating a substantial decline in groundwater concentrations to below the detection limit for most samples. Surface water concentrations appeared largely unaffected; it should be noted, however, that there are a large variety of N inputs to surface water including nitrogen deposition from the atmosphere that could mask the signal of reduced nitrogen loading from groundwater at these low concentrations. This supports the hypothesis that the Camp Curnalia sewer system has reduced nitrogen loading to the lake.

Table 7. Comparison of average nitrate-nitrite (NO3+NO2) values from the USGS and MSU studies in the Camp Curnalia area along with periods averaged for each. Site Period Averaged Surface water Groundwater Number (mg/L) (mg/L)

USGS-23 1997-1998 0.017 0.0045

USGS-24 1996-2000 0.024 0.877

30 | P a g e

USGS-29 1997-2000 0.013 0.508

MSU-22 2014 0.070 <0.001

MSU-23 2014 0.006 <0.001

Specific Conductivity

Temporal Trends Specific conductivity measures the electrical conductance of a substance and is related to the concentration of inorganic dissolved solids in water, such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions (negatively charged ions) or sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum cations (positively charged ions). Higher conductivity in freshwater systems is indicative of higher concentration of solutes in the water, often times due to pollution. Michigan lakes high in their watersheds typically have conductivity values between 200-300 uS/cm, with values increasing in lakes further down the drainage system (Martin & Soranno 2006). Surface water specific conductivity values collected over the 5+ years from the 16 USGS shoreline sites show that conductivity varied little around 250 uS/cm (Figure 18, data available for download from http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/). A notable exception includes USGS sites 24 and 29 (Camp Curnalia sites) which are elevated compared with the other sites. Linear regression analysis shows that conductivity values are increasing over this short time period by approximately 3 uS/cm each year. Surface water specific conductivity at the MSU near-shore sites showed a similar but wider range than the USGS sampling events, varying between 234 and 316 (Figure 19). There was little difference among our sites within a single sampling event. The first and fourth sampling events were similar (average 279 and 277 uS/cm respectively). However, the second and third sampling events were distinct from other events (average 253 and 306 uS/cm, respectively). The overall average of 2014 samples at the MSU sites (278 uS/cm) further indicates a continued increase in surface water specific conductivity.

31 | P a g e

Figure 18. Average annual specific conductivity values collected by USGS from surface water at their shoreline study sites. Overall average from all sites per year are shown with black triangles. Linear regression trendline is shown (dotted) with associated equation and fit statistic.

32 | P a g e

Figure 19. Specific conductivity values collected by MSU from surface water at our shoreline study sites.

The range of groundwater specific conductivity values from both the USGS and the MSU sampling events is much wider in comparison to the surface water values. USGS report groundwater specific conductivity values ranging from a minimum of 166 and a maximum of 1585 (Figure 20). USGS site 30 was particularly high in 1997 and 1998, dropping to within range of all other sites in the following years. On the other hand, some sites (10, 11, and 23) had groundwater conductivity values in the 270-300 uS/cm range, similar to surface water values. Most sites had an average specific conductivity value in the 500-650 uS/cm range. The increasing trend observed in the USGS surface water samples was not observed in the corresponding groundwater samples, which show more consistent values over time. Groundwater specific conductivity ranged more narrowly during the MSU study than during the USGS study, with a minimum of 246 and a maximum of 877 uS/cm (Figure 21). However, most sites had conductivity values between 300 and 600 uS/cm. Exceptions include site 2, 8, 9, and 10: Site 8 had groundwater conductivity values at or below 300 uS/cm across the four 2014 sampling events, whereas sites 2, 9, and 10 stand out as having much higher groundwater conductivity across all sampling events.

33 | P a g e

The average groundwater specific conductivity across MSU sites and sampling events was 474 uS/cm, showing no change in groundwater conductivity values over time relative to the earlier USGS study. Sites associated with the Camp Curnalia area (Figure 13) do not show a marked decrease in groundwater specific conductivity values (Table 8), as might be expected as a result of rerouting household waste away from on-site septic systems. Between 1997 and 2000, the average groundwater specific conductivity value at USGS site 24 was 423 uS/cm; whereas the average groundwater specific conductivity value at the associated MSU site 23 was 464 in 2014. There seems to be an increasing trend at USGS 23/MSU 22 as well, increasing from an average of 268 to 433 uS/cm between the two studies. However due to the many sources that contribute to groundwater specific conductivity the effects of the sewer system transition might not be evident in this temporal analysis.

Table 8. Comparison of average specific conductivity values from the USGS and MSU studies in the Camp Curnalia area along with periods averaged for each. Site Period Averaged Surface water Groundwater Number (uS/cm) (uS/cm)

USGS-23 1997-1998 260.3 268.0

USGS-24 1997-2000 269.0 423.7

USGS-29 1997-2000 273.3 451.8

MSU-22 2014 289.3 433.0

MSU-23 2014 291.2 464.0

34 | P a g e

Figure 20. Average annual specific conductivity values collected by USGS from groundwater at their shoreline study sites. Overall average from all sites per year are shown with black triangles. Linear regression trendline is shown (dotted).

35 | P a g e

Figure 21. Specific conductivity values collected by MSU from groundwater at our shoreline study sites.

The USGS also collected specific conductivity data from the north and south basin of Higgins Lake between 1995 and 2000. Average monthly values for conductivity show a slightly increasing trend over their study timeline (Figure 22). Comparing the surface water data from the USGS shoreline sites to their deep basin values, conductivity in the deep basin is slightly lower than at the shoreline sites (Figures 12 and 16). This is likely due to the relatively greater influence groundwater has in the nearshore area in comparison to the deep basins.

36 | P a g e

Figure 22. Average monthly specific conductivity values collected by USGS at North Basin (USGS site 25) and South Basin (USGS site 26) deep water locations between 1995 and 2000. Linear regression trendline is shown (dotted) with associated equations and fit statistics.

We also conducted an early morning shoreline survey on July 18, 2013. During this survey, we affixed our InSitu SmarTROLL multiparameter data sonde to our boat and collected measurements every 10 seconds recording dissolved oxygen and specific conductivity from the surface water along our boat path (Figure 23). An early morning survey was conducted to record values of dissolved oxygen prior to daytime photosynthesis, giving a better indication of total biotic oxygen demand. This high-resolution spatial data shows that within the narrow range of specific conductivity values (approximately 255-278 uS/cm), typical of Michigan inland lakes (Martin & Soranno 2006), there are areas where specific conductivity abruptly shifts to higher concentrations (Figure 24). For instance, there seems to be a sudden increase in surface water specific conductivity between USGS site 4 and MSU site 19. Importantly, these shifts from low to high conductivity are not random, and remain high (or low) for a significant length of the boat track. In another example, when we turned into deeper water to go around Treasure Island, the specific conductivity of the surface water

37 | P a g e quickly dropped to lower levels. Then, as we approached the shoreline of the island, the specific conductivity levels rose again. These fluctuations of specific conductivity also coincided inversely (r = -0.74) with decreases and increases in dissolved oxygen (Figure 25). This supports the hypothesis that higher specific conductivity values are at least partly sourced by septic system discharge into the lake, which also provides nutrients to support increased biological activity and thus reduces dissolved oxygen via respiration. Further supporting this hypothesis, the portion of this survey with the lowest observed specific conductivity values is along the shoreline of Camp Curnalia, where wastewater is managed via a sewer system rather than via individual septic tanks. No other section of the shoreline showed such consistently low conductivity values--with correspondingly high dissolved oxygen values.

38 | P a g e

Figure 23. Photographs taken in the field during the early morning shoreline specific conductivity and dissolved oxygen survey. A) shows attachment of multi-parameter data sonde to boat. B) shows below water sonde set-up.

39 | P a g e

Figure 24. Map of measured surface water specific conductivity on July 18, 2013. Color bar represents 10 quantile groups.Top panel shows complete dataset. Bottom panel shows close-up of USGS/MSU site 4/19 area and boat path away from shoreline out towards Treasure Island. Sampling sites are numbered and shown as in Figure 1: USGS as triangles and MSU as circles.

40 | P a g e

Figure 25. Dual-axis plot comparing specific conductivity and dissolved oxygen measured during early morning shoreline survey July 18, 2013. Location of MSU installed sites are indicated with vertical dashed grey lines. Note, the survey started at the North State Park and finished at the South State Park.

Chloride (Cl)

Temporal Trends Increasing chloride concentrations are of concern in lakes globally (Dugan et al. 2017), and Higgins Lake is no exception. In general, Cl concentrations in Higgins Lake surface water have not reached levels of ecological concern, but do indicate a general increase over time. Particularly affected are sites 24 and 29, in the 1995-2000 USGS surface water dataset (Figure 26), which also had the highest specific conductivity values. The paired MSU sites (22 and 23) are similarly high in the 2014 data, along with site 21 and site 2 (Figure 27). These sites are both located in highly developed areas. Sources of Cl to freshwaters of this region include salts for road de-icing and water softener salt. Groundwater is a primary delivery mechanism for both of these Cl sources, as evidenced by the fact that Cl concentrations in groundwater greatly exceed 41 | P a g e those of surface water (Figures 28 and 29). Road salt would be expected to be used most prominently on major roads, such as US-127 and those that circumnavigate the lake. This is the case for MSU sites 20-23, and to a lesser degree sites 19, and 2-5. Most of those sites do have high Cl concentrations, in both surface and groundwater.

Figure 26. Average annual chloride values collected by USGS from surface water at their shoreline study sites.

42 | P a g e

Figure 27. Chloride values collected by MSU from surface water at our shoreline study sites.

43 | P a g e

Figure 28. Average annual chloride values collected by USGS from groundwater at their shoreline study sites.

44 | P a g e

Figure 29. Chloride values collected by MSU from groundwater at our shoreline study sites.

Overall Cl concentrations in SW increased from 8.3 to 13.2 ug/L from the late 1990’s to 2014, but decreased in GW over this same time span (Table 9). The change in near shore surface water concentrations is likely robust, reflecting comparable methods and analytical procedures between the two studies. Again due to sampling methodology differences, interpreting the decrease in groundwater Cl concentration may include artifacts from different sample collection techniques.

Table 9. Summary of overall near shore surface water (SW) and groundwater (GW) chloride average concentrations between USGS and MSU studies Study Years Location Concentration (ug/L)

USGS 1997-2000 SW 8.25

USGS 1997-2000 GW 40.3

MSU 2014 SW 13.2

MSU 2014 GW 23.8

45 | P a g e

Similarly to specific conductivity, and in contrast to B (discussed below), NO3+NO2, and TP, Cl concentrations in the Camp Curnalia nearshore have not responded as strongly to the wastewater treatment system (Table 10). This could be because Cl inputs are dominated by road salt use--however this study did not attempt to test this hypothesis.

Table 10 Comparison of average chloride values from the USGS and MSU studies in the Camp Curnalia area along with periods averaged for each. Site Period Averaged Surface water Groundwater Number (mg/L) (mg/L)

USGS-23 1997-1998 10.4 8.7

USGS-24 1997-2000 15.3 59.3

USGS-29 1997-2000 12.4 64.3

MSU-22 2014 17.6 34.6

MSU-23 2014 17.0 50.7

Boron (B)

Summer 2014 Boron is a common component in agricultural fertilizers, for its role as a micronutrient and a pesticide, as well as in laundry soaps and detergents as a whitening agent. Boron has been used as a tracer to locate areas receiving effluent from these anthropogenic sources through surface water and groundwater pathways. The EPA removal action limit (RAL) is 900 ug/L in drinking water, above which adverse health effects are associated. Boron concentrations observed during the 2014 MSU study and summarized in Table 11 were low in comparison to concentrations found in septic tank effluent (35-318 ug/L, Richards et al. 2016) and those observed at sites influenced by septic systems in a 2004 study by USGS in Northern Indiana (84-387 ug/L, Buszka et al. 2007). All samples taken during the MSU study were well below the EPA RAL. Average boron concentrations were very similar in groundwater and surface water samples during the 2014 MSU study, with an overall mean of 18 ug/L and 11 ug/L, respectively. However, average boron concentrations in groundwater were elevated at sites 5, 9, 12, and 15 relative to surface water samples by between 19 to 69 ug/L. Site 3 had the highest observed boron concentrations (92 ug/L), but site 12 had 46 | P a g e the highest average groundwater concentration (80 ug/L) and site 2 had the highest average surface water concentration (16 ug/L). Site 14 had the lowest boron concentrations in groundwater and surface water, 3.8 and 7.6 ug/L, respectively.

Table 11. Summary statistics for Boron (B) per site from groundwater samples. Units vary by constituent, reported as ug/L (equivalent to parts per billion, ppb). n=number of samples analyzed from site. Max=maximum concentration observed at site. Min=minimum concentration observed at site. Groundwater B (ug/L) Surface Water B (ug/L)

Site n Max Mean Min n Max Mean Min 2 5 18 12 5.9 5 22 16 12 3 6 92 19 11 6 41 14 10 4 5 6.4 5.7 5.2 5 13 11 11 5 4 49 37 19 4 8.8 8.6 8.3 6 4 8.5 8.0 7.6 5 11 11 10 7 4 23 21 18 4 12 12 11 8 4 11 10 8.7 4 17 13 11 9 5 72 67 64 5 12 11 11 10 4 15 13 12 4 8.4 8.1 7.8 12 4 87 80 73 4 12 11 11 13 5 12 11 10 5 12 10 7.9 14 2 4.0 3.8 3.5 3 7.8 7.6 7.2 15 6 33 30 28 5 12 11 11 16 3 8.8 8.0 7.1 4 11 11 10 17 5 12 10 9.8 5 11 11 11 18 4 9.5 9.3 9.2 4 12 11 10 19 4 17 10 6.2 4 12 9.2 7.4 20 3 7.8 7.1 6.2 3 8.7 8.4 8.1 21 5 8.1 6.6 4.2 5 8.1 8.0 7.8 22 5 8.9 8.1 7.4 5 12 11 10 23 5 6.3 6.0 5.8 5 10 10 9.9

Temporal Trends Overall, surface water boron concentrations around the lake have changed very little since the mid-1990s. The USGS collected boron samples at their sites intermittently from surface water between 1995 and 2000 and during summer months from groundwater between 1997 and 2000. Average annual boron concentrations across this time period varied narrowly between 7 and 22 ug/L (Figure 30), with all sites showing similar trends. MSU surface water samples collected during the summer of 2014 show little change in boron concentration, varying between 7 and 22 ug/L, except for a higher value collected at site 3 after the 4th of July holiday (Figure 31).

47 | P a g e

Boron concentrations in groundwater varied more widely than surface water concentrations. All samples from MSU sites were below 100 ug/L (Figure 33); however, USGS sites 3, 21, and 27 had occasions with annual average concentrations above 100 ug/L (Figure 32). MSU sites 9 and 5 are closely located with USGS sites 21 and 27, respectively, and were among the few sites from the MSU study that had higher boron concentrations. MSU site 9 shows that groundwater boron concentrations have dropped to between 65-70 ug/L, about half of what they were in 2000 in the same area. USGS site 27 had been showing an increasing boron concentration in the late-1990s but then dropped to a low concentration in 2000. MSU site 5 shows that boron concentrations in the groundwater of this area have remained low. However, due to the highly heterogeneous nature of groundwater flowpaths, it is possible that concentrations taken from another nearby location could reflect a very different character.

Figure 30. Average annual boron values collected by USGS from surface water at their shoreline study sites.

48 | P a g e

Figure 31. Boron values collected by MSU from surface water at our shoreline study sites.

49 | P a g e

Figure 32. Average annual boron values collected by USGS from groundwater at their shoreline study sites.

50 | P a g e

Figure 33. Boron values collected by MSU from groundwater at our shoreline study sites.

Lake-wide average concentrations of near-shore surface water concentrations of boron have declined approximately 26% since the late 1990s (Table 12). This may reflect the change in overall use human patterns of boron, i.e. a decline a boric acid use in consumer products. Notably the difference between USGS and MSU-sampled groundwater B concentrations is much greater than surface water, with a decline of 38% since the late 1990s. This could reflect the aforementioned differences in groundwater sampling procedures and human uses, or it may simply indicate a greater proportional decline in B sources via groundwater relative to whole-lake concentrations due to in-lake cycling and residence time of water in Higgins Lake (roughly 5 years).

Table 12. Summary of overall near shore surface water (SW) and groundwater (GW) boron average concentrations between USGS and MSU studies Study Years Location Concentration (ug/L)

USGS 1995-2000 SW 14.9

USGS 1997-2000 GW 47.9

51 | P a g e

MSU 2014 SW 11.0

MSU 2014 GW 19.8

Concentrations of boron in groundwater near Camp Curnalia have declined much more substantially, while surface water concentrations closely follow whole-lake patterns (Table 13). For the USGS-23/MSU-22 pairing (Figure 13), B concentrations declined by 30% relative to USGS values in the late 1990s. Concentrations declined by 71% for the USGS-24/MSU-23 pairing. This supports the hypothesis that B inputs sourced from septic systems have decreased due to the sewer system installed in 2009 in that area of the lake.

Table 13. Comparison of average boron values from the USGS and MSU studies in the Camp Curnalia area along with periods averaged for each. Site Period Averaged Surface water Groundwater Number (ug/L) (ug/L)

USGS-23 1997-1998 16.0 12.0

USGS-24 1997-2000 15.4 20.6

USGS-29 1997-2000 16.8 51.3

MSU-22 2014 11.3 8.4

MSU-23 2014 10.1 6.0

Statistical Relationships between Water Quality and Septic Systems We analyzed the relationship between water chemistry parameters and measures of septic tank influence using simple and multiple linear regressions. Parameters included in the regression models are: ● Groundwater flow velocity is a direct measure of groundwater inflow at each sampling site. These values are calculated from seepage meter measurements taken in August 2014. ● Hydraulic gradient is a measure of change in groundwater elevation between two points. We used our groundwater elevation map (Figure 5) to calculate the hydraulic gradient 400m and 1000m upgradient from our sampling

52 | P a g e

piezometers. This helps estimate the strength of subsurface transport through groundwater flowpaths. ● Septic count is an estimate of the number of septic systems in the upgradient flowpath taken from our statewide model of septic systems (Luscz et al. 2015). ● Septic flux takes hydraulic gradient multiplied by septic count to estimate septic system contributions from the specified flowpath length (400m or 1000m). ● Parcel count and parcel flux are calculated identically to septic count and flux but uses the number of upgradient land parcels (provided by Roscommon County). Because our statewide septic map is based on remotely sensed data and US Census data to use over larger spatial extents, we expect parcels to more accurately reflect septic contributions for the Higgins Lake area.

Table 14. Results from simple linear regression analyses. Significance level from p-values indicated by asterisk: *** p-value<0.001, ** p-value<0.01, * p-value<0.05, “ns” not significant. Total phosphorus (TP), nitrate + nitrite (NO3 + NO2), ammonia (NH3) and boron (B) are included in this analysis.

TP NO3+NO2 NH3 B GW SW GW SW GW SW GW SW

Groundwater ns *** ns * *** * ** *** Velocity

Hydraulic 400 *** ** ns ns ns ** ns ns Gradient 1000 ** ** ns ns ns * ns **

Septic 400 ns *** ns ns *** * ns ns Count 1000 ns *** ns ns *** * ns ns

Parcel 400 ns ns ns ns *** * * ns Count 1000 ns ns ns ns * * ** ns

Parcel 400 ** ** ns * ns ** ns ns Flux 1000 * ns ns ns ns * ns ns

Septic 400 *** *** ns ns ns *** ns ns Flux 1000 *** *** ns ns ns * ** ns *** p-value<0.001 ** p-value<0.01 * p-value<0.05 “ns” not significant

53 | P a g e

Phosphorus Groundwater phosphorus concentrations were significantly related to hydraulic gradient and both flux parameters, but were not significantly related to either septic count or parcel count. The flux parameters are calculated using both septic or parcel counts (as appropriate) and hydraulic gradient. Therefore, it is likely that hydraulic gradient is driving the relationship with the flux parameters. Hydraulic gradient 400m had the highest explanatory power at 14%. Surface water phosphorus concentrations were significantly related to septic counts and both measures of subsurface input (hydraulic gradient and groundwater flow velocity). Septic flux was also significantly related to surface water phosphorus, with explanatory power of 21% at the 400m distance and 11% at the 1000m distance. We investigated these simple regression results further using multiple linear regression, which includes multiple parameters to explain variations in the water chemistry parameter. Both groundwater and surface water phosphorus concentrations had highly significant models (p<0.001) when subsurface transport was coupled with estimates of septic or parcel inputs and higher explanatory power: 24% for groundwater and 27% for surface water. Based on this analysis, we conclude that both groundwater and surface water phosphorus concentrations are related to septic sources and subsurface transport mechanisms, explaining ~30% of the variation in the data.

Nitrogen (NO3 + NO2)

Groundwater nitrate-nitrite (NO3+NO2) concentrations were not significantly related to any of the parameters tested in simple regressions. Multiple linear regression analyses of NO3+NO2 did not result in significant models either. Surface water NO3+NO2 concentrations were related to groundwater flow velocity and parcel flux at low significance levels (p<0.05), explaining only 7% of the variation in the data. Multiple linear regression approach did not produce any significant models. Thus, nitrate-nitrite appear to have little relation to septic sources and subsurface transport.

Nitrogen (NH3)

We include analysis of ammonia (NH3) as an additional measure of nitrogen. This form of nitrogen resulted in more significant relationships in the regression models. Groundwater flow velocity was significantly related to groundwater and surface water NH3 concentrations. However, the other measure of subsurface transport (hydraulic gradient) was only significantly related to surface water NH3 concentrations. Septic count and parcel count over both distances were significantly related to groundwater

54 | P a g e and surface water NH3. The flux parameters were only significantly related to surface water NH3 concentrations. Parcel count at 400m had the highest explanatory power at 12% for groundwater NH3 concentrations. Looking into the multiple regression results, groundwater NH3 concentrations were significantly related to hydraulic gradient and parcel count at 400m, explaining 23% of the variation in the NH3 data. Multiple regression models for surface water NH3 were less strong, explaining only about 10% of the variation. We conclude that ammonia had significant relationships with septic sources and subsurface transport, explaining ~20% of the variation in the data.

Boron (B) Boron concentrations in both surface water and groundwater were significantly related to groundwater flow velocity. Explanatory power for this regression model was low for groundwater concentrations (9%) but increased to 20% for surface water concentrations. Other significant results from simple linear regression models for boron had low explanatory power, approximately 5%. Multiple regression analyses for groundwater boron concentrations did not reveal any models with higher explanatory power. However, boron concentrations in surface water had a significant relationship with groundwater flow velocity and septic count, explaining 23% of the variance in the data. Based on this analysis, we conclude that groundwater flow velocity and septic count had a significant relationships with boron concentrations in surface water, explaining just over 20% of the variation in the data. Groundwater boron concentrations did not show strong relationships with the parameters we tested.

Summary and Conclusions We developed a new water quality dataset for Higgins Lake, significantly updating and expanding from a USGS late 1990s study. These data provide a basis for several important conclusions, and can continue to serve as a baseline for future needs. The project also serves as an opportunity to leverage other research interests and projects such as the paired use of drone imagery with fiber optic distributed temperature sensing and electrical resistivity measurements. We attempted to conduct a snail population survey for comparison to water quality and septic system data, however not enough snails were observed in the marked transects, so this aspect of the project was abandoned. Since the late 1990s, lake water chemistry has changed dramatically for all of the major water chemistry variables, with the partial exception of NO3+NO2. Average TP

55 | P a g e concentrations in the nearshore surface waters has increased such that, on average, this part of Higgins Lake has shifted from oligotrophic conditions in the late 1990s to mesotrophic in 2014--with the attendant ecological consequences. Specific conductivity and Cl concentrations are increasing in surface water, reflecting a continued and increasing load from sources such as road-salt. Boron concentrations are declining in both surface water and groundwaters, potentially reflecting changes use habits of B containing compounds, along with apparent reductions due to the Camp Curnalia sewer project. The camp Curnalia sewer system installation appears to have dramatically decreased groundwater TP and NO3+NO2 concentrations and thus the inputs to the lake. In the case of TP, this resulted in lower surface water concentrations, and preserved the oligotrophic status of that section of the near shore. As might be expected, B concentrations in groundwater also declined, indicating a decline in septic system inputs to that portion of the lake. In a partial early morning dissolved oxygen and specific conductivity survey, the Camp Curnalia area had the highest DO and lowest specific conductivity, indicating higher water quality. Differences in groundwater sampling techniques and locations limit some interpretation of changes through time. This study relied on semi-permanently installed and equilibrated piezometers, that were sampled using specific techniques to reduce sediment contamination and lake water draw-down. The prior USGS study used temporary piezometers, which disturb the sediment and may have been pumped before fully equilibrating with the subsurface. Septic systems significantly influence NH3 concentrations (loading ammonia to the nearshore) and B concentrations, as expected of a septic indicator. Septic fluxes (or the combination of septic systems and high groundwater) control groundwater TP inputs. Surface water concentrations of both TP and NH3 are correlated to both groundwater inputs and septic counts. The variable most commonly related to water chemistry in both surface and groundwater is seepage rate. We make three specific recommendations for future work: 1) keep the installed network of piezometers in place, these will provide an invaluable chance to sample the same groundwater input locations in the future, 2) continue to sample, even infrequently, at a specific set of times throughout the year, and 3) conduct early morning shoreline conductivity surveys, perhaps once per year in a similar set of conditions. This could be used to help identify failed septic systems or those in need of maintenance.

56 | P a g e

References Cited Buszka, P.M., J. Fitzpatrick, L.R. Watson, and R.T. Kay. 2007. Evaluation of Ground-Water and Boron Sources by Use of Boron Stable-Isotope Ratios, Tritium, and Selected Water-Chemistry Constituents near Beverly Shores, Northwestern Indiana, 2004. USGS Scientific Investigations Report Series 2007–5166. Dugan, H.A., Bartlett, S.L., Burke, S.M., Doubek, J.P., Krivak-Tetley, F.E., Skaff, N.K., Summers, J.C., Farrell, K.J., McCullough, I.M., Morales-Williams, A.M. and Roberts, D.C., 2017. Salting our freshwater lakes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(17), pp.4453-4458. Kendall, A.D., B.M. Budd, and D.W. Hyndman. 2016. Final Report to the Muskegon River Watershed Assembly: Ecohydrologic Evaluation of Removing the Higgins Lake-Level Control Structure. Koopmans, D., and P. Berg. 2011. An alternative to traditional seepage meters: Dye displacement. Water Resources Research 47: W01506 doi:10.1029/2010WR009113. Luscz, E.C., A.D. Kendall, and D.W. Hyndman. 2015. High resolution spatially explicit nutrient source models for the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes Research 41:618-629. Martin, S.L. and P.A. Soranno. 2006. Defining lake landscape position: relationships to hydrologic connectivity and landscape features. Limnology and Oceanography 51: 801-814. Minnerick, R.J. 2001. Effects of residential development on the water quality of Higgins Lake, Michigan 1995-99. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01- 4055.

57 | P a g e

Higgins Lake Watershed Management Plan

Updated September 2007 Photo courtesy of Tom Barnard Tom courtesyPhoto of

Photo courtesy of the Higgins Lake Foundation

Prepared by Funding Provided by

Huron Pines, Inc Michigan Department of Environmental Quality TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.…………………………………………………………………………...... 1

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE HIGGINS LAKE WATERSHED…………………………………………… 2 A. Geography…………………………………………………………………...……………………. 2 B. History of the Region……………………………………………………………………………... 2 C. Higgins Lake……………………………………………………………………………………… 3 D. Geology…………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 E. Hydrology…………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 F. Water Quality……………………………………………………………………………………… 4 G. Trophic Status…………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 H. Soil Types……………………………………………………………………………………… 10 I. Land Use / Land Cover…………………………………………………………………………….11 J. Community Profile………………………………………………………………………………. 16 K. Land Ownership…………………………………………………………………………………. 17 L. Precipitation Characteristics………………………………………………………………………18 M. Natural Features…………………………………………………………………………………. 18 N. Recreation………………………………………………………………………………………... 19 O. Fisheries Resources of Higgins Lake…………………………………………………………… 19

III. WATERSHED STAKEHOLDERS…………………………………………………………………... 21 A. Groups and Organizations………………………………………………………………………. 21 B. Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership……………………………………………………………. 22 C. Additional Public Input………………………………………………………………………….. 22 1. Watershed Management Plan Survey………………………………………………………………. 22 2. Public Hearing……………………………………………………………………………………… 23

IV. PREVIOUS RESOURCE STUDIES…………………………………………………………………. 24

V. DESIGNATED AND DESIRED USES………………………………………………………………. 27 A. Designated Uses………………………………………………………………………………… 27 B. Desired Uses…………………………………………………………………………………….. 28

VI. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTANTS……………………………………………………………... 29 A. Priority Method…………………………………………………………………………………. 29 B. Known and Suspected Pollutants in the Higgins Lake Watershed……………………………… 30 C. Sources of Pollutants in the Higgins Lake Watershed………………………………………….. 31

VII. CRITICAL AREA…………………………………………………………………………………… 33

VIII. WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS……………………………………………………………... 34 A. Analysis of Local Planning and Zoning Efforts………………………………………………… 34 B. Recommendations for Effectively Using Planning and Zoning Policies for Water Resource Protection……………………………………………………………………………………….. 37 C. Zoning…………………………………………………………………………………………… 40 D. Build Out Analysis of the Higgins Lake Watershed……………………………………………. 41 E. Future Land Use………………………………………………………………………………… 42 F. Impervious Surface……………………………………………………………………………… 43

i

IX. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTANT INVENTORIES…………………………………………….. 44 A. Shoreline Inventory……………………………………………………………………………... 44 1. Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44 2. Results………………………………………………………………………………………………. 45 B. Road/Stream Crossing Inventory……………………………………………………………….. 46 1. Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46 2. Results……………………………………………………………………………………………… 47 C. Road End Erosion Inventory……………………………………………………………………. 47 1. Prior Inventory……………………………………………………………………………………… 47 2. Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 48 3. Results……………………………………………………………………………………………… 49 D. Storm Sewers and Drains……………………………………………………………………….. 49 1. County Road 202 Storm Sewer…………………………………………………………………….. 49 2. Battin Drain………………………………………………………………………………………… 50 3. Kennedy Drain……………………………………………………………………………………… 50 E. Septic Systems…………………………………………………………………………………… 51 F. Wells and Contaminates…………………………………………………………………………. 52 G. Eurasian Watermilfoil Survey…………………………………………………………………... 52

X. POLLUTANT LOADING and LOAD REDUCTION……………………………………………….. 54 A. Total Watershed Runoff and Pollutant Loading Based on Land Use…………………………... 54 B. Shoreline Erosion……………………………………………………………………………….. 56 C. Road/Stream Crossing Erosion…………………………………………………………………. 57 D. Road End Erosion………………………………………………………………………………. 58 E. Septic Systems………………………………………………………………………………….. 59 F. Fertilizer Usage………………………………………………………………………………….. 62 G. New Construction………………………………………………………………………………. 63 H. Total Pollutant Loading and Reduction………………………………………………………… 64

XI. WATERSHED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES……………………………………………………….. 65 A. Priority Method…………………………………………………………………………………. 65 B. Goals and Objectives……………………………………………………………………………. 66 1. Reduce the amount of nutrients and contaminants from sources within the critical areas of the watershed………………………………………………………………………………………….. 66 2. Institute responsible land use practices within the watershed……………………………………… 70 3. Protect habitat diversity within the watershed by monitoring and reducing aquatic nuisance species……………………………………………………………………………………………… 73 4. Protect shoreline habitats by reducing erosion……………………………………………………… 74 5. Work to ensure the availability of high-quality recreational activities within the watershed and that they are conducted in such a way so as to not degrade the integrity of the watershed……………. 76 6. Facilitate continued efforts by the Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership to review and update Plan progress and coordinate funding proposals………………………………………………………… 78 C. Implementation Schedule……………………………………………………………………….. 79

XII. INFORMATION AND EDUCATION STRATEGY……………………………………………….. 81 A. Community Education…………………………………………………………………………… 81 B. Recent Outreach Activities……………………………………………………………………… 84

XIII. EVALUATION PROCESS………………………………………………………………………… 85 A. Monitoring Effectiveness of Implementation Activities…………………………...…………… 86

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Water Quality Sampling results………………………………………………………6 Table 2 Cooperate Lakes Monitoring Program Results…………………………………...... 9 Table 3 Higgins Lake Watershed Land Use Classification……………………………….…12 Table 4 Land Use Change Comparison…………………………………………………….. 15 Table 5 Yearly Park/Camp Visitors………………………………………………………… 16 Table 6 Trout and Salmon Stocking in Higgins Lake, 1978-2004…………………………. 20 Table 7 Known and Suspected Pollutants to Designated Uses…………………………….. 30 Table 8 Known and Suspected Pollutants to Desired Uses………………………………… 30 Table 9 Sources of Pollutants in the Higgins Lake Watershed…………………………….. 31 Table 10 Planning and Zoning Jurisdictional Units within the Higgins Lake Watershed…… 35 Table 11 Assessment of Water Quality Regulations within the Higgins Lake Watershed….. 37 Table 12 General Zoning District Acreage………………………………………………….. 40 Table 13 Higgins Lake Watershed Build Out Analysis……………………………………… 41 Table 14 Impervious Surface Area Based on Current Land Use…………………………….. 43 Table 15 Impervious Surface Area Based on Future Land Use……………………………… 43 Table 16 Shoreline Inventory Results……………………………………………………….. 45 Table 17 Road/Stream Crossing Locations………………………………………………….. 46 Table 18 Road End Erosion Ranking………………………………………………………… 49 Table 19 Average Annual Runoff Results…………………………………………………… 54 Table 20 Estimate of phosphorus (P) loading to water bodies (lbs/year)……………………. 55 Table 21 Estimate of nitrogen (N) loading to water bodies (lbs/year)………………………. 55 Table 22 Estimate of sediment loading to water bodies (lbs/year)…………………………... 56 Table 23 Shoreline Erosion Pollutant Loading………………………………………………. 56 Table 24 Shoreline Erosion Pollutant Load Reductions……………………………………... 57 Table 25 Road/Stream Crossing Pollutant Reductions………………………………………. 58 Table 26 Road End Erosion Sites……………………………………………………………. 59 Table 27 Characteristics of Domestic Septic Tank Effluent………………………………… 60 Table 28 Septic System Pollutant Load Estimates-Residential Conventional System………. 61 Table 29 Conventional and Selected Alternative Septic System Effectiveness……………… 61 Table 30 Septic Effluent Load Reduction……………………………………………………. 62 Table 31 Higgins Lake Watershed Pollutant Loading Estimates……………………………. 63 Table 32 Higgins Lake Watershed Pollutant Load Reduction Estimates……………………. 64 Table 33 Costs by Implementation Method………………………………………………….. 78 Table 34 Potential Systems of BMPs and Estimated Costs by Objective……………………. 79 Table 35 Estimated Costs, Potential Funding Source, and Implementation Timeline………..80 Table 36 Information and Education Strategy……………………………………………….. 82 Table 37 Historical Total Phosphorous Comparison (mg/L)………………………………… 86 Table 38 Water Quality Monitoring Protocol…………………………………………………88

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Higgins Lake Watershed Boundary………………………………………… 2 Figure 2 Bathymetric map of Higgins Lake, Michigan……………………………… 3 Figure 3 Average Water Budget for Higgins Lake…………………………………... 4 Figure 4 Carlson’s Trophic State Index……………………………………………… 9 Figure 5 Higgins Lake Watershed Land Use/Land Cover, circa 1800……………….11 Figure 6 Higgins Lake Watershed Land Use/Land Cover, 1978 MIRIS…………… 13 Figure 7 Higgins Lake Watershed Land Use/Land Cover, 1998…………………… 14 Figure 8 Higgins Lake Watershed Land Use/Land Cover Change, 1998………….. 15 Figure 9 Higgins Lake Watershed Township Boundaries………………………….. 16 Figure 10 Higgins Lake Watershed State Land Ownership…………………………. 17 Figure 11 Higgins Lake Watershed Critical Area…………………………………… 33 Figure 12 General Zoning Districts within the Higgins Lake Watershed…………… 40 Figure 13 Higgins Lake Watershed Build Out Analysis…………………………….. 41 Figure 14 Shoreline Inventory Parcel Locations…………………………………….. 44 Figure 15 Road/Stream Crossing Location Sites……………………………………. 47 Figure 16 Road End Erosion Site Locations………………………………………… 48 Figure 17 Higgins Lake Watershed Well and Contaminate Sites, 1995-1998……… 52

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

LITERATURE CITED

OTHER RELEVANT LITERATURE

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership Agreement APPENDIX B: Watershed Survey Form APPENDIX C: Typical Nonpoint Source Pollutants Impacting Michigan Waters APPENDIX D: Example Pumping Log APPENDIX E: Minnerick, Russel J., Effects of Residential Development on the Water Quality of Higgins Lake, Michigan 1995-1999. U.S. Geological Survey. Lansing, Michigan. 2001.

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS REFERENCE A: Shoreline Inventory REFERENCE B: Road/Stream Crossing Inventory REFERENCE C: Road End Erosion Inventory REFERENCE D: Eurasian watermilfoil Survey

iv

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Higgins Lake Watershed covers nearly 29,000 acres in central northern Michigan and forms the headwaters for the Muskegon River Watershed. Although much of the watershed remains forested with pockets of rural development scattered throughout, intensive development has occurred around the lake. Research has documented that this development has a negative impact on the high water quality of Higgins Lake (Minnerick, 2001). The US Census indicates that growth in the region is continuing rapidly, thus pressures on the resource will continue to increase. As nearly every activity on the land has the potential to affect water quality, watershed management is vital to any water quality protection effort.

The Higgins Lake Watershed is well known for camping, fishing, hiking, hunting, skiing, swimming, boating, SCUBA diving, and other water activities and has been identified as one of the fastest growing areas in Michigan. Due to the extensive demands on the resources of the watershed, it is vital that protective land and water management policies are in place to ensure the quality of the environment within the watershed is maintained. The drainage basin for the watershed, Higgins Lake, has a long hydrologic retention time, estimated at 12.4 years (Minnerick, 2001). Thus, once a pollutant enters the lake it takes a very long time to be flushed out, which also contributes to the need for sound watershed management policies. Pollutant sources for the Higgins Lake Watershed include: • Septic Systems • Runoff • Shoreline Erosion • Fertilizer Use • Lakeshore Development • Invasive Exotic Species

In August of 2000 the Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership launched a ten-year initiative to improve the ecological integrity of the watershed. The first priority of the Partnership was to develop a Watershed Management Plan, which was initially completed in 2002. This Management Plan was updated in 2006 to meet the new requirements set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency. By utilizing this management tool, efforts to implement water quality protection have been better coordinated and more effective and apply the appropriate skills of the many stakeholders within the Higgins Lake Watershed. The Management Plan will be reviewed every two years to allow the partners to evaluate their role, address changing conditions, and assess progress in meeting their mission and goals.

The Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership acts as a Steering Committee of watershed stakeholders to assess watershed concerns and provide input into the overall watershed planning effort. Steering Committee members include local governmental officials, conservation groups, environmental organizations, property owners, regional planning agencies, health departments, area businesspersons, concerned citizens and other stakeholders.

The stakeholders in the watershed recognize the need for sound watershed management practices in order to maintain the integrity of this high quality resource. The following goals were established to address this need as well as respond to the concerns about threats to water quality: 1) Reduce the amount of nutrients and contaminants from sources within the critical areas of the watershed. 2) Institute responsible land use practices within the watershed. 3) Protect habitat diversity within the watershed by monitoring and reducing aquatic nuisance species. 4) Protect shoreline habitats by reducing erosion. 5) Work to ensure the availability of high-quality recreational activities within the watershed and that these activities are conducted in such a way as to not degrade the integrity of the watershed. 6) Facilitate continued efforts to ensure implementation of the Plan and coordination of funding proposals. Watershed planning brings together stakeholders to consider the desired uses of the watershed, threats and impairments to those uses, and specific nonpoint source pollutants that are contributing to the identified problems. A coordinated effort is necessary to develop a Watershed Management Plan that builds upon the strengths of existing programs and resources and addresses the water quality concerns in an integrated, cost-effective manner, regardless of existing political boundaries. This Plan should be updated every few years to ensure that it adjusts to the changing needs and problems within the watershed. As threats to water quality change, the focus of watershed management efforts will change with them. 1

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE HIGGINS LAKE WATERSHED

A. Geography

The Higgins Lake Watershed is situated in northern Michigan’s central highland region of the Lower Peninsula almost exactly on the surface divide between the and Lake Michigan drainage basins. Lake waters flow to Lake Michigan via the Cut River, Houghton Lake and the Muskegon River. Only one mile north of the lake is Beaver Creek, which flows into the Au Sable River and thence into Lake Huron.

The Higgins Lake Watershed is located in Roscommon and Crawford counties with minor acreage in Kalkaska and Missaukee counties. The area comprising the Higgins Lake Watershed is a highly popular tourist destination due to its clear water, natural setting, wildlife habitats, and proximity to two major highway corridors, I-75 and US-127 (See Figure 1). Visitors from southern portions of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula can reach the lake within a few hours traveling time making it conveniently located for tourist activity. The Higgins Lake Watershed is also home to two state parks that bring an estimated 673,000 visitors per year to the area.

Figure 1: Higgins Lake Watershed Boundary

The watershed covers a geographic area of 28,738 acres (Grand Valley State University, 1998) and forms the headwaters for the Muskegon River Watershed eventually flowing to Lake Michigan. The distance between the watershed boundaries (from east to west) is slightly over 11.3 miles while the north to south width is about 6.5 miles at its widest point. The lowest elevation occurs at the surface of Higgins Lake, which is 1,154 feet above sea level, with the highest elevations forming the watershed perimeter at roughly 1,300 feet above sea level.

B. History of the Region

The shores of Higgins Lake hosted Native American encampments according to early survey parties in the region. The Chippewa’s called it Majinabeesh, “sparkling water.” In 1839, John Brink of the State Geological Survey mapped and named it Forginson Lake. It was renamed Higgins Lake in honor of Sylvester Higgins, a state cartographer, following an 1852 survey by William A. Burt. It is not known whether Higgins ever saw the lake that bears his name (Higgins Lake A*Syst, 1998).

2

In the early nineteenth century some of the best stands of white pine forests in Michigan were located in Roscommon and Crawford counties. Logging near Higgins Lake and the area streams and rivers began around 1875 (Jones, 1991). As pine supplies dwindled, several Saginaw lumber barons built camps on Higgins Lake, and in the summer, brought their families to live there also. The transportation of timber from the region began in Higgins Lake and flowed down the waterways to Muskegon. By 1900, the pines around Higgins had been depleted and the “green gold rush” in the region was over.

The abundance of huckleberries, which grew in the pine needles under the white pine trees, was an interesting offshoot of the lumber days. Pickers were plentiful in the region sending hundreds of bushels of berries to city markets each week during the season (Jones, 1991). Once the timber was removed from the area, farmers followed. However, the soils in the area were poor and farmers soon found they were only able to produce a subsistence existence from farming in the region (Jones, 1991).

The first half of the twentieth century was marked by steady but unspectacular growth of private vacation cottages, as highways leading north were hard surfaced. In response to improved access from population centers, the South State Park was established in 1927 followed by the establishment of the North State Park in 1963. By the 1960s, forests of oak, maple and pine had regenerated and many species of fish and wildlife were thriving. Both land and water proved to be irresistible, all-season attractions for outdoor activities. The completion of expressways US-127 in 1969 and I-75 in 1971 brought an unprecedented influx of new property owners and visitors.

C. Higgins Lake

The drainage basin for the watershed is Higgins Lake. Higgins Lake is one of Michigan’s larger and more spectacular lakes, with a surface area of 10,198 acres (Grand Valley State University, 1998) and a volume of nearly 20 billion cubic feet (Jones, 1991). Higgins Lake has a long hydrologic retention time, estimated at 12.4 years (Minnerick, 2001) and is a clear water lake that ranks tenth in size in the State of Michigan and fifth in depth.

The shoreline of Higgins Lake covers 21.8 miles (Grand Valley State University, 1998). The mean depth of the lake is 44.3 feet with about one-third of Higgins Lake being shoal (0-20 ft.) and about one-half of the lake exceeding depths of 50 feet (Schultz & Fairchild, 1984). There are two deep basins in the lake. The north basin is 135 feet deep and the south basin is 100 feet deep. (See Figure 2).

A dam located at the Cut River outlet regulates the level of Higgins Lake. A summer legal lake level was established in 1926. In 1982 a Roscommon County Circuit Court order confirmed the summer legal lake level at 1154.11 feet elevation above sea level and a winter legal lake level of 1153.61 feet above sea level (Higgins Lake A*Syst, 1998). The Roscommon County Board of Commissioners is vested with the authority and responsibility for maintaining the legal levels of Higgins Lake through management of the Cut River Dam. Daily lake stage records for Higgins Lake are Figure 2: Bathymetric map available via the Internet at of Higgins Lake, Michigan http://mi.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/current or by (Schultz and Fairchild, 1984) phone at 989-821-3313.

3

D. Geology

The origin of Higgins Lake is of Pleistocene glacial ice block underlain by Mississippian Period bedrock (Dorr & Eschman, 1977). Lakes of this nature are formed as a result of melting ice blocks left behind in an area scoured out by the glacier as it retreated (Goldman & Horne, 1983).

The watershed represents a glacial outwash plain known as the Grayling Outwash plain. This is a broad outwash plain including sandy ice-disintegration ridges, jack pine barrens, some white pine-red pine forests, and northern hardwood forests. There is no exposed bedrock; glacial drift is 250 to 800 feet thick, some of the thickest in the State (Albert, 1995). Landscape features are intermorainic, probably originating 11,000 years ago. Hills near the north and south shores of Higgins Lake are marginal moraines. (Limno-Tech, 1992).

E. Hydrology

Higgins Lake is limited in supply of surface fed water. There are only two small feeder streams, Big and Little Creeks. Inflows from these creeks are estimated to respectively contribute 4.3% and 1.4% of the water volume of Higgins Lake (1.7 and .43 ft3/s respectively). The only outlet is Cut River which is controlled by a low-head dam with removable boards. A USGS gaging station was in place on Cut River from 1942 and 1950, at that time the average flow was 44.2 ft3/s (Minnerick, 2001). An additional 51.3% comes from groundwater with the remaining 43% derived from direct rainfall (Limno-Tech, 1992). Higgins Lake volume is 1.99 x 1010 cubic feet (Schultz, 1984). The flushing rate of Higgins Lake is less than 10% of the lake’s volume per year with a hydrologic residence time of 12.4 years.

Groundwater flows are influenced by the marginal moraines and generally follow the surface contours. When standing in the lake one can feel upflowing cold “springs” that represent groundwater flow into the lake.

This average water budget for Higgins Lake is noted in Figure 3 below.

PRECIPITATION EVAPORATION (43%) (43.2%)

SURFACE CUT RIVER INFLOW OUTFLOW GROUNDWATER (5.7%) (56.8%) (51.3%)

Figure 3: Average Water Budget for Higgins Lake

F. Water Quality

A lake’s condition is influenced by many factors, such as the amount of recreational use it receives, shoreline development and water quality. Lake water quality is a general term covering many aspects of lake chemistry and biology. The health of a lake is determined by its water quality.

Increasing productivity can impact water quality and result in problems such as excessive weed growth, algal blooms and mucky bottom sediments. Productivity refers to the amount of plant and animal life that can be produced within the lake. 4

Plant nutrients are a major factor in the increase of lake productivity. In most Michigan lakes, phosphorus is the nutrient most responsible for increasing lake productivity (Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program, 2003).

Table 1 is a list of water quality surveys which have taken place over the last 20 years at Higgins Lake. According to the various results it is determined the Higgins Lake is an oligotrophic lake and currently exhibits high water quality. However, there are indicators that increased development and associated impacts including septic systems, impervious surface, access issues, fertilizer use, etc. are starting to show their impacts on water quality. Higher concentrations of E. coli bacteria and nutrients have been found in near-shore ground water as a result of on-site septic systems. Since over 50% of Higgins Lake water budget comes from ground water the effects of these higher concentrations can lead to decreased water quality. In addition, studies indicate that Higgins Lake is just starting to accumulate organic material in bottom sediment.

5

Table 1: Water Quality Sampling Results Water Quality Study Parameters Tested Results A Water Quality Study of Total Nitrogen 163 ug/l (NB) 214 ug/l ( SB) Winter sampling Higgins Lake 1984 85 ug/l (NB) 245 (SB) Summer sampling Ammonia 11-21 ug/l (NB) 12-36 ug/l (SB) Winter sampling 6-52 ug/l (NB) 18-66 ug/l (SB) Summer sampling Phosphorous 5.3 ug/l (NB) 6.2 ug/l (SB) Winter sampling (little variation in depth) 11.3 ug/l (NB) 183 ug/l (SB) Summer sampling Chlorophyll a 2.3 ug/l (NB ) 2.4 ug/l (SB) (indicative of oligotrophic conditions) Temperature 39-50 degrees Fahrenheit (Summer temperature for hypolimnion) Higgins Lake Diagnostic and Watershed Phosphorous loading 3,974 lbs/year Feasibility Study 1992 Road end sediment/phosphorous loading 246.5 tons/year sediment; 1,470 P lbs/year phosphorous loading 0.3 to 1.01 mg/l (average based on 4 grab samples at 4 storm drains) Dissolved oxygen 12.0-12.4 mg/l (NB) and 11.2-11.9 (SB) Spring sampling 8.2-8.5 (surface for both basins) August sampling 3.8 mg/l (NB) 5.8 mg/l (SB) August sampling— hypolimnion Phosphorous .003 to .006 mg/l (Spring and summer surface sampling averages) .008 to .023 mg/l (Spring and summer deep sampling averages) pH 8.5 to 7.9 (Summer levels) Secchi disk 41 feet (NB) 32.5 feet (SB) Higgins Lake Storm Water, Road end and drain erosion sediment load 507 tons/year Sedimentation and Road End Erosion Inventory 1993 Higgins Lake Septic System Nitrogen concentrations in groundwater 4.5 to 43 mg/L (the Michigan drinking water standard is 10 mg/L) and Lawn Fertilizer Phosphorous concentration is groundwater 2.1-9.9 mg/L (compared to .1.3 to 3.7 mg/L in mid-lake surface water) Management Zones 1994 Water Quality and Bottom Surface phosphorous concentrations 5-6 ug/L Sediments Study 1998 Surface nitrogen concentrations 6-32 ug/L Alkalinity 102-105 mg/L Secchi Disk 28-33 feet spring averages 20-25 feet summer averages Chlorophyll a >1 ug/L (six surface stations) Lake Water Quality Index 96 (excellent lake water quality) Mineral content in bottom sediment 83% average (indicates the lake is just starting to accumulate organic material)

6

Effect of Residential Chloride 7.2 mg/L (Epilimnion) 7.1 mg/L (Hypolimnion) NB Development on the Water Nitrogen .005 mg/L (Epilimnion) .005 mg/L (Hypolimnion) NB Quality of Higgins Lake 2001 Total phosphorous .004 mg/L (Epilimnion) .006 mg/L (Hypolimnion) NB Chloride 7.4 mg/L (Epilimnion) 7.0 mg/L (Hypolimnion) SB Nitrogen .005 mg/L (Epilimnion) .005 mg/L (Hypolimnion) SB Total phosphorous .003 mg/L (Epilimnion) .006 mg/L (Hypolimnion) SB Nitrogen (ground water sample) 0.20 mg/L (23 times higher in ground water than in near-shore lake water) Phosphorous (ground water sample) 0.023 mg/L (3 times higher in ground water than in near-shore lake water) Secchi disk 24.3 feet average (NB) 20.3 feet average (SB) Chlorophyll a .43 ug/L (NB) .34 ug/L (SB) E. coli 375/100 mL (Upstream Big Creek) 425/100mL (Mouth of Big Creek) (E. coli bacteria were found in ground water at sites where building density exceeded 0.40 building/acre, indicating that effluent from septic systems is leaching to ground water which eventually flows into the lake.) Note: NB=North Basin, SB=South Basin Epilimnion=Top layer of a thermally stratified lake Hypolimnion=Bottom layer in a thermally stratified lake

7

G. Trophic Status

Over time, all lakes undergo a natural aging process where they begin to fill in with sediment and nutrient materials. This process, called natural eutrophication, is complex, exceptionally slow (on a geological time scale), and generally irreversible. Lakes undergoing natural eutrophication often have good water quality and exhibit a diverse biological community throughout their existence.

This process differs from what is called cultural eutrophication. Cultural eutrophication is an accelerated input of plant nutrients and sediment that promotes excessive plant growth and results in diminished or detrimental changes in water quality. The process is almost always associated with activities of people in the watershed. Cultural eutrophication can be reversed and a lake can return to its original state, but this means only a return to pre-human conditions.

Some of the ecological consequences of cultural eutrophication include rapid plant growth, particularly the promotion of undesirable plants such as blue-green algae or nonindigenous plants such as Eurasian watermilfoil. Other symptoms include anoxic conditions in the bottom waters, fish stunting and fish kills, increased biochemical oxygen demand, and rapid shifts in species composition. Human related consequences include a decrease in aesthetics of the lake, interference with recreational activities, increased odors and sometimes decreased property values.

A lake’s ability to support plant and animal life defines its level of productivity, or trophic state. Lakes are commonly classified based on their productivity. Low productive oligotrophic lakes are generally deep and clear with little aquatic plant growth. These lakes maintain sufficient dissolved oxygen in cool, deep-bottom waters during late summer to support cold water fish, such as trout and whitefish. By contrast, high productive eutrophic lakes are generally shallow and turbid and support abundant aquatic plant growth. In deep areas of eutrophic lakes, the cool bottom waters usually contain little or no dissolved oxygen. Therefore, these lakes can only support warm water fish, such as bass and pike. Lakes that fall between these two classifications are called mesotrophic lakes.

One method of describing the productivity of a lake is to use a numerical index that can be calculated directly from water quality data. Carlson’s Trophic-State Index (TSI) is widely used. Carlson’s TSI was developed to compare lake data on water clarity, as measured by a Secchi disk, chlorophyll a, and total phosphorus (see Figure 4). These parameters are good indirect measures of a lake’s productivity. The TSI expresses lake productivity on a continuous numerical scale from 0 to 100, with increasing numbers indicating more eutrophic conditions (Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program, 2003).

8

Figure 4: Carlson’s Trophic State Index (Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program, 2003)

Carlson developed mathematical relationships for calculating the TSI from measurements of Secchi depth transparency (TSISD), chlorophyll a (TSICHL), and total phosphorus (TSITP) in lakes during the summer season. The computer TSI values for an individual lake can be used to compare with other lakes, to evaluate changes within the lake over time and to estimate other water quality parameters within the lake.

Lakes with index values less than 40 are classified as oligotrophic (low productivity). Table 2 indicates 2005 TSI results for several northern Michigan lakes participating in the Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program.

Higgins Lake has traditionally been classified as oligotrophic, with crystal clear water and low numbers of aquatic plants and algae growth. In recent years the water quality of Higgins Lake has edged closer to the less desirable category of mesotrophic, which can be recognized by larger weed beds, algae covered rocks, a murkier bottom and cloudier water. Such changes in water quality can be linked to the large increase in development within the watershed area and are particularly noticeable in the near-shore area of Higgins Lake (Minnerick, 2001).

Table 2: Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program Results

Lake County TSISD TSICHL TSITP Long Grand Traverse 28 39 30 Higgins Roscommon 25 31 36 Hubbard Alcona 35 38 42 Silver Grand Traverse 30 36 32 Mullett Cheboygan 36 31 34 Houghton Lake Roscommon 47 44 49 Pentwater Oceana ** 52 55 ** Data unavailable.

9

H. Soil Types

The soils in the Higgins Lake Watershed are glacial deposits of dominantly sandy soils. Soils within the watershed are generally classified by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service as Udipsamments, Glossudalfs, Haplosaprists, Humaquepts, Haplorthods and Endoaquods (Kroell, 2002). The dominant soils within the watershed are list below:

Graycalm Grayling Landform: Outwash plains, lake plains, moraines Landform: Outwash plains, lake plains, moraines Slope range: 0 to 45 percent Slope range: 0 to 45 percent Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Drainage class: Excessively drained Position on landform: Flats, knolls, ridges Position on landform: Flats, knolls, ridges Parent material: Sandy sediments Surface textural class: Sand Slope: Nearly level to steep Slope: Nearly level to steep

Klacking Tawas Landform: Outwash plains, lake plains, moraines Landform: Lake plains, outwash plains, moraines Slope range: 0 to 45 percent Slope range: 0 to 2 percent Drainage class: Well drained Drainage class: Very poorly drained Position on landform: Flats, knolls, ridges Position on landform: Low flats, depressions, drainageways Parent material: Sandy and loamy sediments Parent material: Organic material over sandy sediments Surface textural class: Sand Surface textural class: Muck Slope: Nearly level to steep Slope: Nearly level

Lupton Croswell Landform: Lake plains, outwash plains, moraines Landform: Lake plains, outwash plains, moraines Slope range: 0 to 2 percent Slope range: 0 to 6 percent Drainage class: Very poorly drained Drainage class: Moderately well drained Position on landform: Low flats, depressions, drainageways Position on landform: Flats, knolls Parent material: Organic material Parent material: Sandy sediments Surface textural class: Muck Surface textural class: Sand Slope: Nearly level Slope: Nearly level, undulating

Au Gres Perecheney Landform: Lake plains, outwash plains, moraines Landform: Outwash plains, lake plains, moraines Slope range: 0 to 3 percent Slope range: 0 to 45 percent Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Drainage class: Moderately well drained Position on landform: Low flats, low knolls, swales Position on landform: Flats, knolls, ridges Parent material: Sandy sediments Parent material: Sandy and loamy sediments Surface textural class: Sand Surface textural class: Sand Slope: Nearly level, undulating Slope: Nearly level to gently rolling

Rubicon Montcalm Landform: Outwash plains, till plains and moraines Landform: Outwash plains, till plains and moraines. Slope range: 0 to 30 percent Slope range: 0 to 30 percent Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Drainage class: Well drained Position on landform: Flats, knolls, ridges Position on landform: Flats, knolls, ridges Parent material: Sandy sediments Parent material: Sandy and loamy sediments Surface textural class: Sand Surface textural class: Loamy sand Slope: Nearly level to steep Slope: Nearly level to steep

10

I. Land Use / Land Cover

The Michigan Natural Features Inventory, land use circa 1800 (see Figure 5) is a statewide database for Michigan based on tree data and description of the vegetation and land between 1816 and 1856 by original surveyors from the General Land Office (GLO). During the pre-settlement period forests covered 58% of the Higgins Lake Watershed region, wetlands occupied 6% and surface water 36%.

Land Cover, circa 1800, for the Higgins Lake Watershed

Aspen-Birch Forest 633 acres Hemlock-White Pine Forest 669 acres Jack Pine-Red Pine Forest 2,944 acres White Pine-Red Pine Forest 4,708 acres Mixed Pine-Oak Forest 7,726 acres Forest Cover 16,680 acres

Shrub Swamp/Emergent Marsh 110 acres Mixed Conifer Swamps 1,714 acres Wetland Cover 1,824 acres

Surface Water Cover 10,227 acres

TOTAL COVER 28,731 acres

Figure 5: Higgins Lake Watershed Land11 Use/Land Cover, circa 1800

Pre-settlement vegetation within the watershed consisted mostly of northern hardwood forests as well as forests of white pine and red pine. Where clay deposits were near the surface, shallow peatlands commonly occupied large areas. The small ice-block depressions on the outwash plains typically contained shrub swamps or sphagnum bogs, probably the result of commonly recurring fires and wet soil. The dominant shrub was usually leatherleaf (Albert, 1995).

The 1978 Michigan Resource Information System (MIRIS) constitutes the most complete land use/land cover classification database for Michigan since the GLO surveys. This data demonstrates a significant change in land use over the pre-settlement status (see Table 3, Figure 6). MIRIS data indicates forested areas within the Higgins Lake Watershed reduced to 50% (14,429 acres). Wetland areas also decreased to 2% (659 acres) of the watershed. The introduction of commercial/residential areas and agricultural land constituted 9% with a total of 2,718 acres. The addition of rangeland/barren area totals 3% (737 acres). Surface water remained consistent at 36% of the watershed.

In 1983 another land use/land cover analysis was completed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). This data was not as refined as the 1978 MIRIS data, but did cover relatively the same land use/land cover classifications. The 1983 data indicates little change in land use for the Higgins Lake Watershed region. Forested areas remain the dominate cover in the region constituting 51% (14,743 acres). Wetland areas slightly increased comprising 3% (792 acres), Commercial/residential and agricultural land also increased slightly consisting of 9% and 1% of the watershed respectively (2,954 acres). Rangeland/barren area slightly decreased to 2% (517 acres). Surface water decreased to 34% of the watershed, which is most likely due to differing mapping techniques.

Table 3: Higgins Lake Watershed Land Use Classification

Land Use Type 1800 1978 1983 1998

Commercial/Residential 0 (0%) 2,631 (9%) 2,643 (9%) 3,629 (13%) Surface Water 10,227 (36%) 10,188 (36%) 9,725 (34%) 10,198 (36%) Wetland 1,824 (6%) 659 (2%) 792 (3%) 690 (2%) Agricultural Land 0 (0%) 87 (<1%) 311 (1%) 53 (<1%) Rangeland/Barren 0 (0%) 737 (3%) 517 (2%) 384 (1%) Forest Land 16,680 (58%) 14,429 (50%) 14,743 (51%) 13,777 (48%) Total Acreage 28,731 28,731 28,731 28,731

12

Figure 6: Higgins Lake Watershed Land Use/Land Cover, 1978 MIRIS

13

Another land use classification was completed for the watershed area utilizing 1998 aerial photography. This classification was produced by Grand Valley State University, Annis Water Resources Institute (see Figure 7). The classification for this land use analysis was patterned after the MIRIS data from 1978 so as to utilize both sets of data for a precise land use comparison. The 1998 land use data indicates a decrease in forest land within the watershed covering 48% (13,777 acres). Commercial/Residential land represents an increase constituting 13% of the watershed (3,629 acres). Agricultural land and wetland area show very little change at <1% (53 acres) and 2% (690 acres) respectively. Rangeland/barren area shows a slight decrease comprising 1% of the region (384 acres).

NOTE: 1983 land use watershed area acreage totals 374 acres more than Grand Valley State University 1998 data. This could be due to differing mapping techniques.

Figure 7: Higgins Lake Watershed Land Use/Land Cover, 1998 Grand Valley State University, Annis Water Resources

The most significant change in land use from 1978 to 1998 is the loss of forest land, wetlands, and open space to commercial and residential environments (see Table 4 and Figure 8). This represents a trend for the Higgins Lake Watershed indicating that residential and urban growth comes at a price of forest reduction. With the dramatic increases in population in the Higgins Lake Watershed region, the need for structured land use planning and protection becomes evident.

Avoidance of further forest reduction within the Higgins Lake Watershed will be dependent upon land use decisions at the local level. If the community wishes to protect natural resources and the environment through local land use regulations, then it must have a basis for these regulations in the comprehensive master plan and adopt zoning and related regulations consistent with the plan. The master plan provides the legal foundation for the local land use regulations (Ardizone & Wyckoff, 2003).

14

Table 4: Land Use Change Comparison Land Use Classification Year 1978 1998 % of Change Commercial/Residential 2,631 (9%) 3,629 (13%) +4% Surface Water 10,188 (36%) 10,198 (36%) 0% Wetland 659 (2%) 690 (2%) 0% Agricultural Land 87 (<1%) 53 (<1%) 0% Rangeland/Barren 737 (3%) 384 (1%) -2% Forest Land 14,429 (50%) 13,777 (48%) -2%

Indicates land use converted to Commercial and Residential use in 1998 from a different use in 1978. This represents nearly 1000 acres.

Figure 8: Higgins Lake Watershed Land Use/Land Cover Change, 1998 Grand Valley State University, Annis Water Resources Institute

15

J. Community Profile

Roscommon County’s Gerrish and Lyon townships comprise the vast majority of residential areas within the watershed (see Figure 9). The population of these townships has shown a dramatic increase over the last several decades. The U.S. Census Bureau indicated 607 permanent residents in Gerrish Township and 453 in Lyon Township in 1960. The 2000 Census report indicated an increase of 506% in the permanent residential population for Gerrish Township bringing the total to 3072 permanent residents. Lyon Township also demonstrated a substantial increase of 323%, with a total of 1462 permanent residents in 2000.

Figure 9: Higgins Lake Watershed Township Boundaries

The majority of the residents within these townships, however, are seasonal. An estimated summer residential population for Gerrish and Lyon townships combined is 23,000 (Boyle, 2002). This has given rise to rapidly expanding development of seasonal dwellings over the past 30 years. With this increased development, much of the native vegetation has been replaced by lawns and roads. As there are no public water or sewer systems within the watershed, each household and business has its own water well and septic tank with drain field, dry well, or holding tank. Resort and residential uses dominate the economic structure of the area. There is a small amount of commercial development, but virtually no industrial development.

Table 5: Yearly Park/Camp Visitors Ralph A. MacMullen Conference Center 12,527 persons Camp Westminster 2,000 persons North Higgins Lake State Park 104,408 persons South Higgins Lake State Park 306,890 persons MDNR Public Access (West Boat Launch) 10,000 vehicles Total Visitors 435,825 (persons/vehicles)

In addition to the seasonal and permanent residential population, the Higgins Lake Watershed hosts a vast number of visitors throughout the year (see Table 5). In 2004, the Ralph A. MacMullen Conference Center and Camp Westminster, both of which are located on the north shore of Higgins Lake, hosted 12,527 guests and 2,000 campers, respectively. There are also two State Parks located on the shores of Higgins Lake. The North Higgins Lake State Park hosted 104,408 visitors from October, 2003 through September, 2004 and the South Higgins Lake State Park hosted 306,890 visitors during that same time period. The South State Park opened in 1927, just six years after the State Park System was established. It consists of a mile of shoreline, has eight boat 16 launching ramps, and is Michigan’s second largest State Park Campground. Additionally, the Department of Natural Resources’ public access site recorded use by approximately 10,000 vehicles in 2000. Summer visitor numbers fluctuate greatly based on factors such as the economy and weather conditions. Summer visitor totals in previous years average closer to 700,000.

K. Land Ownership

The State of Michigan owns large tracts of land in the Higgins Lake Watershed. Much of this land is forested and is managed for periodic logging, but some is utilized for mineral resources as well. State ownership categorizations vary, including mineral rights, surface rights, mixed ownership, and/or a combination of ownership categories (see Figure 10). The State of Michigan owns a total of 11,095 acres of land within the watershed in some form, representing 39% of the watershed region.

Figure 10: Higgins Lake Watershed State Land Ownership (Michigan DNR, Spatial Data Library)

17

L. Precipitation Characteristics

The average precipitation for the Higgins Lake Watershed is 28.43 inches per year. This information was obtained from the National Weather Service station in Houghton Lake, Michigan based on data collected from 1971 through 2000. The year 1991 had the greatest amount of precipitation with 37.45 inches while 1998 had the least amount of precipitation with 23.73 inches. The breakdown of seasonal averages for this time period is as follows:

Spring Season (Mar-Apr-May) 6.91 inches Summer Season (Jun-Jul-Aug) 9.40 inches Fall Season (Sep-Oct-Nov) 7.51 inches Winter Season (Dec-Jan-Feb) 4.61 inches YEARLY AVERAGE 28.43 inches

To verify the consistency of precipitation for the Houghton Lake weather station and the Higgins Lake Watershed area, local precipitation records were compared. The Roscommon County Road Commission precipitation records for snowfall at Higgins Lake were reviewed. Their recorded average snowfall for the winter seasons (December through February) of 1994/1995 to 2001/2002 was 4.52 inches. This is within 0.09 inches of the National Weather Service station recorded average for the winter season. Unfortunately, rainfall records for Higgins Lake were not available.

M. Natural Features

The Higgins Lake Watershed is home to American Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has documented a productive eagle’s nest in the Heidemann Marsh. This area provides crucial habitat for this threatened species. As indicated in the Roscommon County Herald News on March 17, 2002, “Roscommon County eagle spotters noted twenty-five bald eagles, while twenty-six of the birds were reported in Crawford County during the Department of Natural Resources’ annual winter bald eagle survey.” As reported in the 2005 Midwest Eagle Survey, Roscommon County has 17 nesting pairs of eagles (Dale, 2005).

The Appalachia arcana is a rare species of secretive locust residing in the southern central wetlands area of the watershed. This region is known as Battin Swamp and is considered to be a Leatherleaf Jack Pine Bog. The Michigan Nature Association has designated a 40-acre area of this bog as a permanent nature preserve due to its population of the Appalacia arcana. This locust is found only in Michigan and prior to its discovery in the Higgins Lake Watershed in 1989 had not been seen since 1962.

The Houghton Lake Watershed, located just south of the Higgins Lake Watershed, has a large wetland area that serves as home for a variety of wetland birds and osprey. Currently, osprey (Pandion haliaetus) do not nest in the Higgins Lake Watershed, but according to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division there is potential for these birds to expand into the wetland regions of the Higgins Lake Watershed. Protection of these wetlands is necessary to allow for the possible expansion of territory for wetland birds and osprey.

The Kirtland’s Warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii) is one of the more rare members of the wood warbler (Parulidae) family. Even though it is a bird of unusual interest from many facets, this yellow-breasted songster’s fame is largely due to its rarity. The Kirtland’s Warbler has drawn more official interest and created more controversy than any other songbird in history. The entire breeding population of the Kirtland’s Warbler, a federally endangered species, is found in the Jack Pine forest regions surrounding the Higgins Lake Watershed (Albert, 1995). Kirtland’s Warblers do not currently reside within the watershed boundaries. However, as forest fires within the Jack Pine forest areas of the watershed occur, habitat could be more inviting and Kirtland’s Warblers may 18 return. Management of the warbler consists of clearcutting, burning and replanting thousands of acres on a set rotation plan.

Loons have long been considered by many North Americans as beautiful and special, symbolizing wilderness and solitude. Many cottage-goers, campers, and vacationers feel their trip is complete after viewing a loon or listening to its haunting call. A pair of Common Loon (Gavia immer) have returned to the Higgins Lake Watershed for several years. Loons build their nests close to water, with the best sites being completely surrounded by water, such as on an island, muskrat house, half submerged log or sedge mat. Loon nesting sites are susceptible to the effects of pollution, development and disturbance. Physical interference with nests or young and increased boat wake on lakes, which may swamp or destroy nests, also cause loons to abandon nesting sites.

N. Recreation

The Higgins Lake Watershed supports a variety of outdoor recreational activities and has been a prime recreation and resort area since the early 1900s. Some of the most popular activities include: cross country skiing, snowmobiling, fishing, power boating, swimming, SCUBA diving, camping, sailing, trail exploration, birding and canoeing/kayaking.

Each of the three townships bordering the Higgins Lake shoreline maintains public parks. Gerrish Township offers a beach park located on the northeast shore of Higgins Lake and a park and recreation area located behind their township office building off County Road 100. Beaver Creek Township offers a park and recreation area directly behind their township office building located on Grayling Road. Lyon Township offers a beach park (Phoenix Park) located on the western shore of Higgins Lake as well as a park and recreation area along Old US-27 in the northern area of the township. Lyon Township also hosts an additional beach park in the Sam-O-Set subdivision area near the southern reaches of the township.

The MDNR Civilian Conservation Corps Museum located just north of Higgins Lake hosts many walking trails frequented by visitors and residents alike. North and South State Parks, the MacMullen Conference Center, and Camp Westminster also provide a variety of recreation opportunities for visitors in the region.

Many conflicts have arisen in past years due to the increasing recreational activities within the watershed. Most notable are the ongoing legal battles regarding the permitted uses of roads ending at Higgins Lake. These roads are often utilized for launching, mooring and docking boats with much controversy regarding these and other uses. Additional conflicts have arisen regarding the boat carrying capacity of Higgins Lake, ice fishing debris, snowmobile access, lake level maintenance and parasailing activities over the waters of Higgins Lake.

O. Fisheries Resources of Higgins Lake

Higgins Lake is one of the largest inland lakes in Michigan. It is just over 10,000 acres in size with a maximum depth of 135 feet. It is considered oligotrophic in trophic classification. Because it is deep and cold by nature, it is considered a two-story trout lake and is being managed as such by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

The fish community of Higgins Lake is composed of predominantly coldwater and coolwater species. Primary sport fish include rainbow smelt, yellow perch, rainbow trout, brown trout and lake trout. Lake whitefish, lake herring, northern pike and smallmouth bass also provide moderate fisheries.

19

Table 6: Trout and Salmon Stocking in Higgins Lake, 1978-2004 (Michigan DNR, 2004) Year Brown Rainbow Lake Trout Splake Atlantic All Species Trout Trout Salmon 1978 25,000 35,000 60,000 1979 17,000 50,000 67,000 1980 25,000 50,000 75,000 1981 25,000 25,000 22,000 72,000 1982 20,000 25,000 25,000 1,629 71,629 1983 26,900 25,000 25,000 76,900 1984 50,000 100,798 25,000 175,798 1985 20,330 25,000 50,000 95,330 1986 25,000 8,000 23,400 56,400 1987 23,274 21,880 34,975 80,129 1988 35,010 17,651 150,000 23,000 225,661 1989 35,000 83,727 600 119,327 1990 10,000 10,000 29,500 30,000 40,007 119,507 1991 65,000 33,000 98,000 1992 34,299 10,150 34,900 79,349 1993 34,700 10,000 34,900 79,600 1994 10,000 27,700 19,994 57,694 1995 34,981 116,624 151,605 1996 92,890 82,494 35,000 210,384 1997 33,602 138,979 28,448 201,029 1998 55,742 34,605 34,500 124,847 1999 34,980 34,780 35,000 104,760 2000 35,000 34,905 30,402 100,307 2001 35,000 30,750 35,000 100,750 2002 14,973 25,000 35,000 74,973 2003 15,000 25,001 35,000 75,001 2004 15,000 26,936 35,001 76,937

Angler use of the lake is substantial. The Department of Natural Resources performed a creel census between January 13 and March 31, 2001 and concluded that 34,906 angler trips were spent during this period. If the six- month open water fishery could be considered similar, this lake would receive over 100,000 angler trips annually. Anglers from nearly every county in Michigan and many nearby mid-western states fish on Higgins Lake every year.

In recent years the yellow perch, lake trout and lake whitefish catch has improved. The rainbow trout fishery has remained consistently good. Brown trout fishing seems to have declined in recent years. Rainbow smelt are very cyclic in nature with frequent upswings and downturns consistent with good and poor year-class fluctuations. Smelt fishing was excellent during the winter of 2002.

Lake trout have been stocked almost annually in Higgins Lake since 1941. Rainbow trout have been stocked consistently since then also. Brown trout have been regularly stocked since 1978. Splake were planted between 1981 and 1994 and Atlantic Salmon were stocked in 1982 and 1990. Kokanee Salmon were stocked on an experimental basis in the 1960s. (See Table 6 for trout and salmon stocking information.)

Higgins Lake continues to be one of the best fishing lakes in Michigan. The continuation of this condition depends upon suitable natural habitat. Human development activities along the shoreline of lakes directly influence natural habitat and tend to degrade it over time. For this reason, appropriate watershed management is necessary to sustain healthy biological communities, including fish, aquatic invertebrates, amphibians,

20

reptiles, birds and aquatic mammals. Important measures would include protecting water quality (particularly nutrient control), preservation of natural shorelines, natural vegetation, bottom contours and woody debris within the lake (Smith, 2002).

III. WATERSHED STAKEHOLDERS

Anyone who may have a stake in the Higgins Lake Watershed is encouraged to participate in watershed management, share their concerns and offer suggestions for possible solutions. By involving stakeholders in the initial stages of project development, we hope to ensure long-term success.

Updates to the Watershed Management Plan occurred in 2005 with input and approval of the Steering Committee.

A. Groups and Organizations

The following groups and organizations agree that maintaining the quality of life within the Higgins Lake Watershed is a major goal worth striving to accomplish. A thumbnail sketch for each group and their mission as an organization is listed below. Much of this information was printed in the 1992 issue of the Higgins Lake Foundation News.

The Higgins Lake Advisory Committee (HLAC) was organized in 1989 to provide a forum where its committee members could identify, discuss, recommend and coordinate action on issues regarding the quality of Higgins Lake and its watershed. Membership consisted of representatives from elected county and township boards, civic groups and appointed citizens. Meetings were open to the public and were often attended by interested citizens. Since the committee did not have legislative authority or funds, it operated in mutual cooperation with county and township boards, other groups and individuals in an effort to influence laws, ordinances and regulations pertinent to the lake and its watershed. In 2003 the HLAC elected to take a hiatus to reevaluate the mission of the group.

The Higgins Lake Civic Association (HLCA) is comprised of non-riparian property owners around the lake. The organization consists of several hundred families interested in protecting their right to use the lake for recreation purposes. The organization’s major goal is to keep members informed of and in direct compliance with road end, boat and dock ordinances of the townships. The group monitors monthly governmental meetings and supports all local governmental agencies in an effort to promote equitable access to Higgins Lake by all area residents.

The Higgins Lake Foundation (HLF) was established in 1989 as a nonprofit corporation in response to a perceived need for leadership and coordination in assessing and protecting the quality of the lake. The mission of the Higgins Lake Foundation is to preserve the natural beauty of Higgins Lake and to enhance the quality of the lake and its watershed. The foundation sponsors a Higgins Lake Awareness Day each year and publishes a newsletter twice a year, in which details of lake studies and restoration projects are outlined.

The Higgins Lake Property Owners Association (HLPOA) was established in 1935 by a concerned group of lakefront property owners. The goal of the HLPOA is the preservation and improvement of the quality of Higgins Lake and its watershed. They participate with other community and governmental organizations and support an array of lake improvement activities. Members of the HLPOA are committed to safety on the lake, water quality, controlled and well planned development in the watershed, and preserving the integrity of the Higgins Lake ecological system. The HLPOA also publishes a newsletter three times annually.

In 2002 the Roscommon County Community Foundation (RCCF) became an independent community foundation serving Roscommon County. RCCF’s mission is to enhance the quality of life for all citizens of Roscommon County, now and for generations to come, by attracting and holding permanent endowment funds from a wide variety of donors, by addressing community needs through awarding grants from the income of these endowment funds, and by providing leadership on key community issues.

21

The Crawford-Roscommon Conservation District is a locally-elected entity of state government whose purpose is to improve the quality of life in Crawford and Roscommon counties by conserving and improving our natural resources for the benefit of present and future residents and visitors. The conservation district provides services such as forestry assistance, a recycling program, agricultural programs, natural resource educational materials, and hosting of an annual tree sale program.

Huron Pines is a nonprofit organization working to conserve the forests, lakes and streams of Northeast Michigan. Since 1973 Huron Pines has worked closely with conservation groups, local, state and federal governments, and river and lake groups to identify resource concerns and implement strategies for these resources. Huron Pines continues to work closely with Higgins Lake organizations to promote watershed stewardship, control exotic species, reestablish greenbelts, and provide assistance to property owners and local officials.

B. Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership

The Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership (HLWP) is a community-based, voluntary initiative dedicated to preserving, protecting and improving the water quality of Higgins Lake. The HLWP was established in 2000 with a primary mission to provide a comprehensive watershed plan for reducing current and future nonpoint source pollution impacts in the Higgins Lake Watershed by thoroughly evaluating the physical, chemical and biological integrity for long-term protection and enhancement of the watershed. The partnership is a ten-year initiative to improve the ecological integrity of the Higgins Lake Watershed and will be renewed every two years to allow the partners to evaluate their role, address changing conditions, and assess progress in meeting their mission and goals. The members of the Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership have signed a partnership agreement (see Appendix A) as well as letters of commitment to the watershed management planning project.

The Steering Committee for the Higgins Lake Watershed Plan is comprised of the partners of the Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership and many concerned citizens. The Steering Committee meets on a bimonthly basis. During the years of 2000 and 2001 the Steering Committee focused its efforts largely on providing input for the overall planning efforts in the development of the Higgins Lake Watershed Plan.

During the years of 2004 and 2005 the Steering Committee worked closely with Huron Pines to complete the tasks defined in the Higgins Lake Watershed Transition/Implementation Project grant received through the Department of Environmental Quality 319 program. The main tasks included 1) update the Higgins Lake Watershed Management Plan to meet the criteria for the EPA 9 Elements, 2) conduct an Information and Education Program, and, 3) install greenbelt demonstration sites, utilizing native vegetation around Higgins Lake. In addition, partners have worked hard to control the spread of Eurasian watermilfoil and implement water treatment at the lake’s highest-density developed area.

All meetings are open to the public and public participation is greatly encouraged.

C. Additional Public Input

1. Watershed Management Plan Survey

From July 2001 through September 2001 a Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership survey form was distributed to watershed stakeholders, residents, visitors and property owners to help determine their interests and concerns regarding watershed management. Methods of distribution ranged from annual organization meetings, township meetings, mailings and personal distribution. The survey questions were formatted after a similar survey developed by the Muskegon River Watershed Assembly.

A total of 124 survey forms were returned and compiled into a database to organize the responses. The survey form (see Appendix B) consisted of questions relating to watershed management priorities,

22 pollutant concerns, threats to designated uses, preferences for education tactics, uses of the watershed and obstacles and/or barriers to achieving improvements.

2. Public Hearing

The Higgins Lake Watershed Management Plan draft was reviewed at the August 13, 2002 Steering Committee Meeting held at the Beaver Creek Township Hall. The recommendations from that meeting were considered and revisions were made to the draft Plan. Members present were given a draft Plan to take with them for further review and instructed to return comments to the watershed planner by the end of the month.

On September 4, 2002 a public forum meeting was held at the Gerrish Township Hall to review the draft Watershed Management Plan. This meeting was publicized in the local newspapers including the Houghton Lake Resorter and the Roscommon County Herald News. Flyers for the public forum were placed throughout the watershed to inform residents and concerned citizens of this event. Additional publicity included a mass e-mail announcement to over 100 residents and local organizations. A meeting notice was also mailed to all Steering Committee members and watershed partners.

A summary of the Higgins Lake Watershed Management Plan was given to each participant including the Plan goals and objectives and copies of the complete draft Plan were also made available during the meeting. After a review of the watershed management planning process and explanation of expected implementation efforts, comments regarding the Plan were accepted and considered for final revisions. Particular comments included catastrophic event protocols and littoral drift in Higgins Lake. To address these comments the attendees were informed that each township within the watershed has a contingency plan that they will follow in the case of catastrophic events. Attendees were also informed that while littoral drift is a process occurring in all lakes, it does not contribute nonpoint source pollutants to the waterbody. Sediment that is introduced into a lake may then be relocated by this process, but the process itself does not cause sediment loading. It was generally agreed that study of the movement of sand in the lake may make for an interesting future project.

23

IV. PREVIOUS RESOURCE STUDIES

The Higgins Lake Watershed has many involved citizens and organizations that have sponsored multiple studies and have carried out water quality testing for over 30 years. Many efforts have been made previously to educate the community regarding watershed issues and concerns, direct policies toward prevention measures to protect land and water quality and to implement Best Management Practices regarding erosion, runoff, nutrient loading, etc.

Maintaining the High Water Quality of Higgins Lake was produced in 1969 by Willard E. Bosserman, County Extension Director for Roscommon and Crawford counties. The study focused on nonpoint source pollutant loading from drains into the lake and roads terminating at the lake. Best Management Practices to reduce nutrient loading were recommended. A follow-up to this study was completed ten years later entitled Higgins Lake Water Quality – Plus 10, in which the author addressed implementation of recommendations from the first study that had taken place as well as additional recommendations for further improvements.

Groundwater and surface water testing were completed by the Student Water Publications Club at Michigan State University in 1971 and 1972. Testing included E. coli bacteria, Chloride, Phosphate, and Nitrate. This testing was conducted to assist with the long-term, water-quality monitoring program for Higgins Lake.

Dr. G. Winfield Fairchild of the University of Michigan Biological Station and Richard Schultz of the Biology Department at Central Michigan University completed a Water Quality Study of Higgins Lake, Michigan in 1984. This was a very comprehensive study that includes physical characteristics of the lake and watershed, historical information regarding the area, biological characteristics of the lake and watershed, extensive limnological information, and land use patterns for the watershed. The main concentration of this study was to determine the sources of nutrient loading into Higgins Lake. The study indicated “nearshore areas of Higgins Lake have consistently high concentrations of phosphorus, and heavy accumulations of both marl and filamentous green alga.” It is estimated that 9% of the phosphorus loading is attributed to residential land use and up to 28% is contributed from on-site septic systems. Based on the results of the study, water quality management alternatives were suggested to reduce human sources of nutrient loading including banning fertilizer use within 100 yards of the lakeshore, increasing natural vegetation, and discussing septic system alternatives. In addition, the study recommends addressing residential development within the riparian zone and watershed to prevent future nutrient loading and continuing lake water quality monitoring programs.

Gosling-Czubak Associates, an engineering firm in Traverse City, conducted a Higgins Lake Sewer Study in 1988. This study provided recommendations for the implementation of a wastewater treatment and disposal system in the lakeshore area. It covers the types of systems that would be most productive as well as estimated costs for installation and maintenance. It also suggests potential funding options to assist with implementation costs.

Higgins Lake: Past-Present-Future was prepared by Terry E. Jones in cooperation with the Biology Department at Central Michigan University. This study has sections regarding the land, the water, the people, and the ecology of Higgins Lake and its watershed. Many recommendations are made in this publication as to Best Management Practices to improve water quality based on the data collected and sampling performed. While only some of these practices have been implemented, this publication does serve as an excellent reference source for the physical and economical structure of the watershed and its community.

In 1992 a Higgins Lake Diagnostic and Feasibility Study was conducted by Limno-Tech, Inc. of Ann Arbor, Michigan. This study included physical and demographic information for the entire watershed, historical land use information, land use change, limnological data and nonpoint source pollutant loading statistics. Studies determined that urban lands, while comprising only 12.6% of the land use, contributed an estimated 56% of all phosphorus from watershed runoff. Many Best Management Practices were recommended and include mitigating nutrient loading from on-site septic systems, reducing the amount of impervious surfaces, reducing erosion at road end sites, and encouraging landowners to reduce fertilizer use and maintain riparian vegetation. Many recommendations from this study were implemented; these include road end structural improvements, homeowner education and an ongoing water-quality monitoring program.

24

Septic System Phosphorus Loadings to Higgins Lake was another study conducted by Limno-Tech, Inc. in 1992. Modeling and household surveys were the means of data collection for this study. The outcome was a recommendation for a coordinated septic system management plan to significantly reduce phosphorus loading. Suggestions for the management plan included inspecting older systems to determine if they are of appropriate design and working efficiently, increasing the required minimum distance between septic systems and the lakeshore for all new and rebuilt septic systems, proper siting of new systems and homeowner education regarding phosphorus reduction practices. The first three recommendations from this study have proven to be an ongoing political challenge. However, the fourth recommendation has been addressed by the creation of the Higgins Lake A*Syst Manual for homeowners within the watershed.

Limno-Tech, Inc. also prepared a Higgins Lake Clean Lakes Program Pollution Control Plan in 1992. This plan estimated that 1208 pounds of phosphorus reaches Higgins Lake annually from near-lake septic systems. As a result of that, recommendations were prepared including inspection of older systems, increasing septic setback distances, installation of a sewer system for near-lake residences, practices to control phosphorus runoff from road ends, a lawn fertilizer program, lake level management and beaver dam management.

The Higgins Lake Stormwater, Sedimentation, and Road End Erosion Inventory was published in 1993 by Huron Pines through the Roscommon County Resource Conservation and Development Committee. This inventory provides a wealth of information regarding existing damage at roads terminating at Higgins Lake. Best Management Practices are identified to restore these sites and minimize further damage and pollutant loading. The resource committee identified 78 road end sites adding an estimated 507.2 tons of sediment to the lake annually. Since the inventory was completed at least 16 sites have been repaired, reducing the amount of sediment entering the lake annually by an estimated 297.5 tons. It also provides information regarding the major drains to the lake and proposed treatment options for these drainage systems.

Limno-Tech, Inc. was contracted in 1994 to complete a study entitled Higgins Lake Septic System and Lawn Fertilizer Management Zones. Field studies included an examination of the behavior of septic system effluent plumes in groundwater at two sites and an examination of nutrient concentrations in shallow groundwater as it flows into Higgins Lake downgradient from septic systems and fertilized lawns at numerous sites around the lake. The study indicated that concentrations of both nitrogen and phosphorus were significantly higher than background levels downgradient of septic systems absorption fields. Specific recommendations were made for both septic system management and fertilizer management practices, some of which were included in the Higgins Lake A*Syst Manual for homeowners.

Consulting Limnologists Wallace and Bene Fusilier completed a Water Quality and Bottom Sediments Study of Higgins Lake in 1998. Sampling of surface water and bottom sediment was completed and a lake water quality index value was averaged at 96 indicating very high water quality.

Numerous shoreline Cladophora surveys have been conducted by either consultants or volunteers throughout the last decade. Since 1990, there have been approximately six Cladophora surveys completed. The data collected is used to document locations of growth over an extended period of time and documents the trends of Cladophora presence in Higgins Lake.

The Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program (CLMP) is an ongoing Citizen Volunteer Program in Michigan to help citizen volunteers monitor indicators of water quality in their lakes and document changes in lake quality over time. The CLMP provides sampling methods, training workshops, technical support, quality control and laboratory assistance for volunteers to monitor their lake for the basic indicators of lake productivity. Annual Summary Reports are printed consisting of the results of each indicator for all participating lakes. Results from the 2005 study indicate that Higgins Lake remains a very high quality oligotrophic lake. Some of the most recent reports can be viewed on the Internet at http://www.michigan.gov/deq.

The Higgins Lake A*Syst Manual was developed as a joint effort by Michigan State University Extension, Higgins Lake Foundation, Kirtland Community College and the Higgins Lake Advisory Council to provide property owners with a resource to help preserve and protect the quality and beauty of the lake and watershed. This manual is available at the Crawford-Roscommon Conservation District office and the Roscommon Michigan State University Extension 25 office, and is distributed to new riparian property owners through the Higgins Lake Property Owners Association as part of the ongoing riparian property owner education process within the Higgins Lake Watershed.

The most recent water quality data gathered and analyzed for the Higgins Lake Watershed was carried out from 1995- 1999 by the United States Geological Survey. The results of the sampling were compiled into a report entitled Effects of Residential Development on the Water Quality of Higgins Lake, Michigan (See Appendix E). This study provided consistency of data due to the long-term data collection period that is most useful when making comparisons and tracking trends in water quality. Though replication of this study within the next 10 years is proposed as a method to better quantify the water quality changes happening in Higgins Lake there is clear correlation between increased development and declining water quality.

Some conclusions from the 1995-1999 USGS study include:

About 19 percent of the near-shore surface area of the lake is less than 4 ft. in depth. It is in this shallow zone that subtle changes in water quality are starting to occur. The concentration of most measured constituents in lake and ground water near shore increased with the increase of residential development. The dissolved chloride and turbidity in the lake water increase as building density becomes greater than 0.50 building per acre. The phosphorus concentration in near-shore lake water averaged about 1.5 times the concentration found in the deep basins. Nitrogen concentration in lake water off shore from areas where the building density was about 0.50 building per acre or greater was about twice as high as in water in the deep basins. Concentration of most constituents in near-shore lake water at site 20, with no residential development, generally was lower than at other near-shore sites with residential development.

Throughout the years, a definite degradation of water quality has been documented and the stakeholders are eager to respond to this degradation by implementing further Best Management Practices to reduce this trend.

26

V. DESIGNATED AND DESIRED USES

A. Designated Uses

Pursuant to the Water Resources Commission Act (P.A. 451 of 1994, part 31, R323.1100 of Part 4), all surface waters of the State of Michigan are designated for and shall be protected for all of the following uses: 1. Agriculture 2. Navigation 3. Industrial water supply 4. Public water supply at the point of water intake 5. Warmwater fishery 6. Other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife 7. Partial body contact recreation 8. Total body contact recreation between May 1 and October 31 9. Coldwater fishery, if designated as such a waterbody 10. Fish consumption

1. Agriculture Surface waters must consistently be a safe source for cropland irrigation and livestock watering. The watershed consists of mainly very well drained soils and irrigation could be necessary in certain types of agriculture. Producers rely on water free of harmful pathogens to keep their livestock healthy. Traditional agriculture is not a very extensive land use in the planning area. The tilled cropland is planted with potatoes and the remaining majority of agricultural land is pasture, fruit orchards, or Christmas tree plantations. 2. Navigation Waterways that are large enough for canoes or kayaks must maintain navigable conditions. Obstructions that might prohibit passage or impede navigation are not permissible and may limit this designated use. An increasing problem in many area lakes is the invasion of exotic species, which could lead to impaired navigation. 3. Industrial Water Supply Industrial water supplies must have cool temperatures and low turbidity for optimal use. No surface water intakes for industrial water supplies exist within the planning area. 4. Public Water Supply at the Point of Intake Municipal water supplies must meet water quality standards and be safe for use in adequate amounts. There are no surface water intakes for public water supply in the planning area. 5. Warmwater Fishery A warmwater fishery is generally considered to have summer temperatures between 60 and 70 degrees Fahrenheit and is capable of supporting warmwater aquatic species year-round. The watershed contains numerous lakes supporting a warmwater fishery. 6. Other Indigenous Aquatic Life and Wildlife Aquatic life and other terrestrial wildlife in the ecosystem should be considered in all management strategies. Keeping individual components of the ecosystem healthy is paramount to keeping the entire ecosystem healthy. 7. Partial Body Contact Recreation Partial Body Contact Recreation includes boating and other activities where the person’s body is not totally submerged in the water but may come into contact with the water. Canoeing and kayaking are major activities in the watershed and are important factors to consider when planning for ecosystem health. 8. Total Body Contact Recreation Total Body Contact Recreation includes swimming and other activities where a person’s body comes into direct contact with the water. It is important to maintain water quality standards to avoid the absorption of pollutants through the skin or accidental ingestion. 9. Coldwater Fishery A coldwater fishery is considered to have summer temperatures below 60 degrees Fahrenheit and to be able to support natural or stocked populations of brook trout. Healthy riparian and in-stream habitat is essential to provide the necessary requirements of a coldwater fishery.

27

10. Fish Consumption Fish is recommended as part of a healthy diet, and consuming fish caught in Michigan’s waters is common. The Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) issues regular advisories on which sizes and species may have unsafe levels of chemicals like PCBs, mercury, and others. Eating fish with these chemicals too often can cause them to build up in the body, resulting in illness.

Designated uses which apply to Higgins Lake include: • Agriculture • Navigation • Industrial water supply • Other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife • Partial body contact recreation • Total body contact recreation between May 1 and October 31 • Coldwater fishery • Fish consumption There are currently no water bodies listed on the 303 (d) list in the Higgins Lake Watershed. (However, all of the inland lakes in the State of Michigan are part of the mercury fish consumption advisory including Higgins Lake.)

B. Desired Uses

Desired uses are those that, in addition to the above-mentioned uses, are important to the watershed community. They help guide watershed restoration and protection efforts that go beyond the state list of designated uses. The desired uses listed below have been identified by the watershed Steering Committee as applicable for this watershed based upon the unique circumstances and conditions within the Higgins Lake Watershed. The Steering Committee would like to see the following desired uses:

1) More areas of natural shoreline to protect habitat and water quality 2) Protection of environmentally sensitive and undeveloped areas 3) Protection of high quality recreation opportunities

28

VI. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTANTS

A. Priority Method

As previously mentioned, the Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership conducted a survey of residents and property owners to determine the ways they used the watershed as well as their concerns regarding water quality. The survey also consisted of questions designed to determine the watershed management activities that would most likely be welcomed.

The survey form (see Appendix B) was distributed to members of the Higgins Lake Property Owners Association and Civic Association, which are the only property owner organizations within the watershed. The survey form was also distributed at township meetings throughout the watershed as well as many other meetings and activities attended by residents and property owners. In addition, many members of the Steering Committee randomly distributed survey forms to their neighbors and acquaintances. Approximately 500 survey forms were distributed in all.

A total of 124 survey forms were returned and the information from these forms was compiled into database format. Survey results along with results of field inventories and past water quality sampling were utilized in the compilation and prioritization process of the concerns and threats for the Higgins Lake Watershed. The survey results indicated a ranking of 1-10 with one indicating high priority and ten indicating low priority.

Based on the survey results and additional input by Steering Committee members, a prioritized listing of concerns and threats for the Higgins Lake Watershed was created. Those concerns and threats ranked as 1-5 by the survey participants were considered to receive one vote in the priority process. In addition, Steering Committee members were also given the opportunity to indicate five concerns or threats that they considered warranting priority. Each of the Steering Committee member’s five priority threats and concerns received one vote as well. Thus the number of ‘votes’ each concern or threat received established its priority level.

Updates to the nonpoint source pollutant threats and concerns were conducted in 2005 with input and approval from the Steering Committee.

29

B. Known and Suspected Pollutants in the Higgins Lake Watershed

Nutrients, sediments, invasive exotic species, pathogens, oils & greases, salts, pesticides, metals, and debris were identified by the Steering Committee as main pollutants of concern that threaten the designated and desired uses of Higgins Lake. Below is a list of known and suspected pollutants (Tables 7 & 8).

Table 7: Known and Suspected Pollutants to Designated Uses Threatened Use Pollutants Navigation Invasive exotic species (K) Sediment (S) Other indigenous aquatic Nutrients (S) life and wildlife Sediment (S) Invasive exotic species (K) Pathogens (S) Oils & Greases (S) Salts (S) Pesticides (S) Metals (S) Debris (S) Coldwater Fisheries Sediment (S) Invasive exotic species (S) Pathogens (S) Oils & Greases (S) Salts (S) Pesticides (S) Metals (S) Debris (S) Partial and total body Invasive exotic species (K) contact recreation Pathogens (S) Debris (S)

Table 8: Known and Suspected Pollutants to Desired Uses Threatened Use Pollutants More areas of natural Sediment (S) shoreline to protect Pesticides (S) habitat and water quality Metals (S) Protection of Nutrients (S) environmentally sensitive Sediment (S) and undeveloped areas Invasive exotic species (S) Pathogens (S) Oils & Greases (S) Salts (S) Pesticides (S) Metals (S) Debris (S) Protection of high quality Nutrients (S) recreation opportunities Invasive exotic species (K) Pathogens (S) Debris (S) Known (K) and Suspected (S)

30

C. Sources of Pollutants in the Higgins Lake Watershed

Land uses range from large tracts of state forest land to densely packed resort communities. To address pollutants within the watershed, it is important to understand their underlying causes. In some cases a cause such as large waves cannot be stopped. In other cases, however, a pollutant may be minimized.

The main sources of nonpoint source pollution identified for each primary pollutant of concern within the Higgins Lake Watershed are described in Table 9. The pollutants listed below were prioritized based on their potential to threaten and/or impair the designated uses of Higgins Lake. For a complete listing of typical nonpoint source pollutants please see Appendix C.

Table 9: Sources of Pollutants in the Higgins Lake Watershed Pollutant Source Cause Nutrients Septic Systems Lack of maintenance Poorly sited Undersized Density Age of System Shoreline practices by Lack of shoreline vegetation landowners Lack of education Excessive development Poor shoreline setbacks Yard waste dumped in lake Stormwater Lack of vegetation for roads/road end areas Excessive development Impervious surfaces Wetland loss Fertilizer use Near shore fertilizer High phosphorus content Overuse Poor timing of application Sediment Shoreline erosion Lack of shoreline vegetation Ice Natural waves Lack of adequate setbacks Seawalls Large boats High lake levels New construction Lack of enforcement Parcel fragmentation Lack of effective regulation Lack of shoreline vegetation Poorly designated access Road end erosion Lack of shoreline vegetation Poorly designed access Road/Stream Crossing Poor design Lack of maintenance Stormwater Wetland loss Impervious surface Lack of shoreline vegetation

31

Table 10: Sources of Pollutants in the Higgins Lake Watershed (cont.) Pollutant Source Cause Invasive Exotic Recreational boats and Lack of education Species personal watercraft Apathy Waterfowl Transportation of exotics Pathogens Septic Systems Lack of maintenance Poorly sited Undersized Density Age of systems Stormwater Lack of shoreline vegetation Wetland loss Poorly sites roads Impervious surfaces Human Waste Lack of sanitary facilities for recreational users Lack of education Oils and Stormwater Lack of shoreline vegetation Greases Wetland loss Road maintenance Watercraft engines Fuel & oil spills Inefficient or poorly maintained watercraft motors Salts Stormwater Lack of shoreline vegetation Wetland loss Poorly sites roads Pesticides and Homeowner practices Lack of proper methods for use and disposal Herbicides Lack of facilities for disposal Lack of education Metals Airborne particles Deposition from industry Paints Painting of boats, docks, hoists, and seawalls Stormwater Lack of shoreline vegetation Debris Recreational users Lack of education Lack of disposal facilities Apathy

32

VII. CRITICAL AREA

A critical area is that portion of the watershed that is most sensitive to environmental impacts and has the greatest likelihood to affect water quality and aquatic habitat (See Figure 11). The critical area is defined to narrow the geographic scope in order to focus on areas that may be impacted from nonpoint sources of pollution.

Due to the dense residential development along the shoreline of Higgins Lake and its tributaries, the area within 1000 feet of surface water and/or wetland regions within the Higgins Lake Watershed were determined to be critical. The defined critical area encompasses the residential zoned land that is adjacent to the lakeshore, its tributaries and wetland regions. Management in the critical area is crucial due to the increasing development pressures within the watershed. (Road end priority sites are show with a red dot )

Road End Priority sites

Figure 11: Higgins Lake Watershed Critical Area

33

VIII. WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS

Implementation of land use policies and regulations can be an important strategy used by local, state and federal units of government for protecting water quality. In addition to their benefits for aquatic resources, planning and zoning are tools used for ensuring the conservation of wildlife habitat, providing sustainable development, protecting property values and maintaining community character.

In the State of Michigan, planning and zoning are implemented at the township, municipal or county level. The enabling legislation for land use planning can be found under four State acts:

Public Act 285 of 1931 – Municipal Planning Act Public Act 168 0f 1959 – Township Planning Act Public Act 282 of 1945 – County Planning Act Public Act 281 of 1945 –Regional Planning Act

The State also has three legislative zoning acts that enable local units of government to control land uses through regulation of activities on the land:

Public Act 184 of 1943 – the Township Rural Zoning Act Public Act 183 of 1943 – the County Zoning Act Public Act 207 of 1921 – the City and Village Zoning Act

In addition to planning and zoning standards, there are State regulations intended to help conserve natural resources. Relevant state laws for water resource protection include (this is only a brief summary, please see the respective law or contact MDEQ for more information):

Act 451, Part 91, Soil Erosion Control and Sedimentation Act (for earth changes within 500 feet of the shoreline)

Act 451, Part 303, Wetland Protection (covers the dredging, draining, or filling of regulated wetlands; however, non-contiguous wetlands in rural counties are generally not regulated wetlands)

Act 451, Part 301, Inland Lakes & Streams Act (covers almost all work done below the ordinary high water mark)

Public Act 368 (1978), Aquatic Nuisance Control

This following review of local land use regulations is not intended to be the sole basis for determining the effectiveness of policies regarding water resource management although it may provide insight into how effective a local unit of government can be at protecting aquatic resources. For some resource issues, such as wetlands and soil erosion and sedimentation, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has the lead role in regulation and local government units have generally avoided addressing the issue. (It should be noted that legislation does give them the right to also handle those issues, should they choose to do so.) Likewise, regulations for septic systems are generally handled through the District Health Department, although a local government unit can enact certain policies within their own ordinance.

A. Analysis of Local Planning and Zoning Efforts

Townships located in a county with zoning have the option of having the county manage the entire planning and zoning program or administering their own. Roscommon and Crawford counties represent the majority of land in the Higgins Lake Watershed. Within Roscommon County, Lyon and Gerrish townships administer their own planning/zoning program. In Crawford County, Beaver Creek Township also administers its own planning/zoning program. 34

A small portion of the watershed is located in the southeast corner of Kalkaska County (Garfield Township) and the northeast corner of Missaukee County (Norwich Township). Considering that land within this minor area is owned by the State of Michigan, township policies were not analyzed for these areas.

Table 10: Planning and Zoning Jurisdictional Units Within the Higgins Lake Watershed

Zoning Ordinance Comprehensive Master Plan Township/City Last Date of Revision or Last Date of Revision or Adoption Adoption Beaver Creek Township 2003 2003

Gerrish Township 2000 2004

Lyon Township 2006 2002

To help determine the adequacy of regulatory coverage for aquatic resources within the Higgins Lake Watershed, local zoning ordinances were reviewed to evaluate what, if any, “environmental provisions” were in place. The ordinances were specifically reviewed for the following:

• Vegetative buffer zones (Greenbelts): With regard to minimizing the impact of residential development along the waterfront, ensuring that vegetation is left along the shoreline is generally the most important action that can be taken. Greenbelts help to filter nutrients, reduce erosion and provide habitat. Much research has been done through the years to determine the effectiveness of different types of buffers (e.g., greenbelts 100 feet wide have been found to reduce runoff by more than 90%). Difficulties with having a “greenbelt ordinance” are that it can be hard to enforce, many local officials and residents are unaware of what an effective greenbelt consists of, historic patterns of development have already degraded the water in many areas (and these may be “grandfathered” in), zoning language is often poorly worded for proper enforcement, and citizens are often unaware that there is an ordinance in place. Even with the negatives, however, maintaining a greenbelt is essential to protecting water resources – even a 25-foot greenbelt is better than nothing. A mowed lawn to the water’s edge is not a greenbelt.

• Setbacks of structures along the waterfront are an important means of reducing the amount of impervious surface near the water, helping to ensure that a greenbelt can be maintained and reducing the potential for serious resource problems. A structure that is setback only 30 or 40 feet is more likely to be associated with negative impacts to water resources than a structure 75 or 100 feet away from the water’s edge. Unfortunately, many local units of government that do have an effective setback for homes will make many exceptions for large decks and boathouses. Such exemptions defeat the intent of the setback, as impervious surface cover will still be present near the water’s edge. Furthermore, while many local units of government may have a greenbelt requirement of 50 or 75 feet width, they allow the structure setback to be less than the greenbelt restriction. Such a scenario significantly reduces the effectiveness of the greenbelt requirement. In addition, during the construction period, a structure being built less than 50 feet from the water will typically have a construction site that runs right down to the water. This leads to the unavoidable problem of the destruction of the greenbelt during construction. Maintaining the natural greenbelt in the first place is much easier than restoring a greenbelt. Setback requirements should be regarded as a key element for water resource protection.

• Minimum lot width is important for waterbodies because it ultimately determines the number of homes that will be built on the water. The more homes, the more septic systems, user conflicts, degraded shorelines, and the more impervious cover – all of which contribute to water resource problems. For most developed lakes, a 100+ foot width is necessary. Minnerick (2001) notes in the Effects of Residential Development on

35

the Water Quality of Higgins Lake, Michigan, that a decline in water quality can be linked to density of development.

• Open space preservation is used in communities to protect their rural character, as well as maintain prime recreational, farm or forest land. Unfortunately, most zoning ordinances, even if implemented correctly, are not written in such a way as to accomplish those goals. Many local units of government that have open space guidelines in this watershed typically state something to the effect of, “At least 40% of the total gross project shall be left as open space.” Some require only 25%, which is not a way to accomplish their community goals.

An improvement to the open space section of their ordinances would be to require the developer to increase the amount of open space to 50 or 60% and also make sure that some of the set aside acreage is from the developable portion of the site. Steep slopes, surface water, wetlands, etc., should be excluded from this calculation; otherwise only the most undesirable areas will be set aside as open space. Ordinance language should be something such as, “A minimum of 60% of the parent parcel’s gross acreage shall be set aside as permanently protected open space. This area shall include at least half of the parcel’s buildable land area.”

• Septic systems are under the jurisdiction of the District Health Department. Typically, only severe problems are addressed, departments are understaffed, and there are poor/incomplete records of septic systems. Some local units of government have begun to adopt policies to initiate their own programs for inspections, maintenance or replacement requirements in cooperation with the health department.

• Wetland protection is handled through the state Department of Environmental Quality. For rural northern Michigan, the law generally does not regulate isolated wetlands. Some communities have addressed this oversight by adopting their own wetland regulatory program, which is authorized through the state wetland act.

• Stormwater management is recognized as critical for keeping oils, greases, organic debris, and trash from running directly into a waterbody. While stormwater control measures are often taken during construction, the post-construction runoff of stormwater is a problem that is often overlooked. Proper management should require that new developments handle their own stormwater on site, rather than get it off their site as quickly as possible (which has been the historic management practice).

• Seawalls, used for erosion control on the lake, are not often addressed by local units of government, although they are regulated in this watershed for both Gerrish and Lyon townships. The interface between land and water is an important transition zone; a vertical wall between these areas typically eliminates this zone.

36

Table 11: Assessment of Water Quality Regulations Within the Higgins Lake Watershed

Water Quality Local Government Unit Regulations Beaver Creek Gerrish Township Lyon Township Township (Crawford County) Vegetative Buffer Regulations for Not addressed 25 feet from Zones (greenbelts) “environmentally ordinary high water sensitive areas” (i.e., mark for new within 500 ft of buildings. surface water)

Not more than 40% of tree coverage may be removed Shoreline Setbacks 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet

Minimum Lot Width 150 feet 65 feet 100 feet for Riparian Parcels Open Space 30% of lot must be 75% of lot must be 50% of lot must be left undeveloped for left undeveloped for left undeveloped low density residential (R1) for residential; no residential areas; 25% district; 25% Planned Unit requirement for requirement for Development or Planned Unit Planned Unit clustering options Development Development Septic Systems Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Wetland Protection Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Stormwater Not addressed Not addressed Mentioned, but not Management effectively regulated Seawalls Not addressed Regulates seawalls Regulates seawalls & has specific & has specific design criteria design criteria

B. Recommendations for Effectively Using Planning and Zoning Policies for Water Resource Protection

Township Specific Recommendations:

Beaver Creek Township Beaver Creek Township updated their master plan in 2003. The plan incorporates socio-economic and natural resource information and makes specific recommendations for future land use management.

The current zoning regulations that are applicable for water resources generally fall under their “Environmental Conservation Provisions” section. While this section does make numerous references to applicable state laws, there is little specific zoning language that will ensure water resource protection at the local level. The ordinance does not adequately define the Environmentally Sensitive Areas.

37

One example of an area of confusion is the following statement for greenbelts. The ordinance prohibits more than 40% removal of trees in environmentally sensitive areas unless the approval of a forester is obtained. The 40% standard could certainly be taken to apply to areas along the waterfront (a sort of de facto greenbelt ordinance) but leaves a lot of loopholes. Does 40% mean that such an amount can be removed at one time and that a property owner could come back next year (or next month) and remove 40% more? If 40% is cleared and the property sold, can the next property owner clear 40%? Can all other vegetation (besides trees) be removed?

The minimum lot size for the waterfront is 150 feet and the setback requirement is 50 feet.

Gerrish Township An update to the master plan was completed in 2004. The plan needs more background information and more concrete statements about what township residents want to have happen in the future.

Perhaps the most glaring weakness in the zoning ordinance is that there is no section on maintaining a vegetative buffer strip (greenbelt). It is extremely rare for a township with its own zoning and a high quality water resource to lack such a standard. Local organizations should push for the adoption of a greenbelt standard.

Minimum lot width is quite narrow (65 feet). While it may be too late to increase this, the township should never allow splits to occur that create lots less than this amount. Setbacks for the lake are only 50 feet; this could be increased. Even though much of the shoreline is developed, the next decade will see the trend of development of many of the small resort cabins. These will be torn down and much larger homes built on the same site.

Many township residents have stated they would like to maintain the rural character of their community. One of the sections of the zoning ordinance that would address this issue is in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section. Unfortunately, adhering to the zoning ordinance would not accomplish the above goal. The wording states that 25% of the total PUD area must be left undeveloped. As mentioned earlier under the description of open space zoning, communities should require at least 50% of the developable portion of the property be left as open space. Such a provision will not reduce the total density (or profit) of the project, but will ensure that open space is preserved, infrastructure costs are less and, hopefully, a better plan is produced.

Gerrish Township could help improve the water quality of Higgins Lake by adopting (or working with the county to adopt) a septic system inspection/maintenance ordinance. Other counties, and in rare cases townships, have successfully accomplished this.

Lyon Township Lyon Township recently adopted new zoning ordinances in 2006. Two new provisions were addressed that directly affect Higgins Lake. The first is the establishment of a Shoreline Protection Overlay (SPO) District that extends 500 feet from the ordinary high water mark and applies to all future development. As part of the overlay district, new development is required to maintain a 25 foot wide greenbelt that must be included as part of the site plan and provisions are set to limit the amount of impervious surfaces within 25 feet of the high water mark.

In addition to the SPO the building setback was increased to 50 feet, the minimum parcel width increased to 100 feet and new development sites are required to maintain at least 50% open space. Though these are improvements to the previous ordinances there is always room for further protection such as adopting a septic system inspection/maintenance ordinance.

General Recommendations:

• Data from the Michigan Society of Planning indicates that the average amount of time that a Planning Commissioner remains on a board is less than three years. Thus it is necessary to sponsor regular training

38

workshops for these officials. The Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership should ensure that these training workshops are made available (either freely or at a low cost) at least every other year.

• In the rural counties of northern Michigan (less than 100,000 people), the state wetland law does not regulate activities in wetlands that are non-contiguous, although the state law does provide for local government units to do so. It may be worthwhile for the Partnership to analyze past impacts on isolated wetlands and assess whether an ordinance is necessary.

• Recent changes in the State of Michigan’s planning and zoning enabling legislation, such as requirements for open space and conservation planning, mandatory review of plans every five years, and involving adjacent units of government in planning process, should be incorporated by local government units. Local units of government may not be aware of these changes or how to incorporate them.

• Because local communities have different goals, resources and socio-economic status, local communities often differ in the types of regulations they utilize. Generally, within a given watershed (and within the Higgins Lake Watershed in particular) there are enough similarities that the same standards could be used throughout the watershed. Where one unit of government works to manage resources wisely and the adjoining unit does not, resources impacts cross the line on the map. Beaver Creek, Gerrish, and Lyon townships should all work to coordinate efforts on such items as shoreline setbacks, greenbelts, minimum lot size, etc.

• On-site management of post-construction stormwater runoff is generally accepted as the best means of handling stormwater and new development projects are in a good position to incorporate such design standards. The Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership should work with all local government units to adopt a single standard.

Even once local government units have “good” land use policies in place, there is still work that needs to be done – the governing body must make decisions regarding infrastructure and zoning in accordance with their up-to-date master plan.

The master plan should be reviewed every few years (and updated if necessary) to ensure that the plan reflects the evolving needs of the community. Zoning standards and decisions must be made with the guidelines of the comprehensive master plan in mind. Changes to the plan or decisions that are in conflict with the plan or zoning ordinance should not be made without the greatest of caution. In addition, zoning regulations need to be enforced and followed up. Without enforcement, the majority that make the effort to follow land use regulations are, in effect, penalized, as they have gone to greater effort and expense than those not following regulations. Such systems will eventually break down for local units of government – either most everyone will eventually give up on trying to follow the rules or the court system will not hold up the regulations.

It is important to note that an effective program of land use planning is only a tool of watershed protection. Even the best policies must be used in conjunction with educational outreach programs, land protection for critical habitat areas, and on-the-ground implementation of Best Management Practices.

39

C. Zoning

The estimated acreage for each zoning district within the watershed is listed in Table 13. It is important to keep in mind, however, that zoning district definitions often vary throughout the watershed by county or township. The restrictions of a residential district for one governmental unit can be quite different from the restrictions for the same district type in another governmental unit.

Table 12: General Zoning District Acreage

District Acreage Residential 9,315 Military 1,478 State Land 6,565 Commercial 459 Recreation 491 Agriculture 117 Utilities 108

Figure 12: Higgins Lake Watershed General Zoning Districts

40

D. Build Out Analysis of the Higgins Lake Watershed

Local governments often use a build out analysis to test existing regulations and to estimate what the future might bring when all land is developed to the maximum extent allowed. A build out analysis can help jurisdictions see the future although the time frame for the future may be guesswork. A build out analysis helps to evaluate possible future development patterns.

The goals of a build out analysis is to estimate how much development potential a region has, given existing land use laws and regulations. A build out analysis will show where growth can occur on undeveloped land as well as on developed land that may not be developed to its fullest potential.

Within the Higgins Lake Watershed there are 18,533 acres of land. The zoning classifications for the Higgins Lake Watershed area include 9,882 acres for potential commercial and residential development (See Figure 13 and Table 13).

Figure 13: Higgins Lake Watershed Build Out Analysis

Table 13: Higgins Lake Watershed Build Out Analysis Land Use Classification Year 1998 Future % of Change Commercial/Residential 3,629 (13%) 9,882 (34%) +21%

Surface Water 10,198 (36%) 10,198 (36%) 0%

Wetland 690 (2%) 0 (0%) -2%

Agricultural Land 53 (<1%) 117 (<1%) 0%

Rangeland/Barren 384 (1%) 0 (0%) -1%

Forest Land (Includes military, recreation, 13,777 (48%) 8,534 (30%) -18% and state land zoning classes)

This represents a trend for the Higgins Lake Watershed that indicates residential and commercial growth comes at the price of forest reduction. With increases in population in the Higgins Lake Watershed region, the need for structured land use planning and protection becomes evident.

41

E. Future Land Use

A future land use plan sets forth the desired pattern of land uses in the community for the next 20-30 years. It shows where agricultural and forest land should be retained and where new residences, commercial and industrial areas should be constructed. It creates the basis for planning for new roads, sewer and water infrastructure to meet the needs of the land uses displayed on the map. Future land use can work with natural landscape, or against it. Communities can plan to keep development out of floodplains and densities low along waterbodies. They can plan to preserve greenbelts for wildlife and vegetation along waterbodies to help filter stormwater runoff and provided space for trees to shade streams, keeping them cold enough for sportfish like trout. By planning with nature, they can preserve the characteristics that immeasurably add to our quality of life.

Following is a list of key strategies that communities can follow in the development of local future land use plans to help protect the environment and natural resources for use and enjoyment by both present and future generations.

• Prepare local future land use plans based on a comprehensive inventory of natural resources. • Coordinate planning with adjoining jurisdictions. • Keep density and intensity of land low near and along watercourses. • Avoid developing in sensitive areas like floodplains, wetlands, environmental areas, and high risk erosion areas. • Plan for greenbelts and buffers along watercourses. • Provide for links between natural areas so wildlife have safe corridors to move within. • Protect renewable natural resources like farm and forest land in large blocks. • Set forth the specific zoning and other land use regulations that should be adopted to promote wise natural resource management and environmental protection.

The future land use plan provides the legal foundation for local land use regulations. If the community wishes to protect natural resources and the environment through local land use regulations, then it must have a basis for these regulations in the future land use plan and then adopt zoning and related regulations consistent with the plan (Ardizone & Wyckoff, 2003).

42

F. Impervious Surface

Impervious surfaces are mainly constructed surfaces – rooftops, sidewalks, roads, and parking lots – covered by impenetrable materials such as asphalt, concrete, brick and stone. These materials seal surfaces, repel water and prevent precipitation and melt water from infiltrating soils. Soils compacted by urban development are also highly impervious.

Impervious surfaces allow nonpoint source pollutants to accumulate upon them. Many of these pollutants are subsequently washed into water bodies by stormwater runoff, severely degrading water quality. Water quality problems increase with increased imperviousness and intensity of land use.

The environmental effects of impervious surfaces are varied and interconnected. These include impacts upon: • Water Quality • Water Quantity • Habitat Degradation, Loss, and Fragmentation • Water and Landscape Aesthetics

The Higgins Lake Watershed currently has a low percentage of impervious surfaces. Based on land use classification an estimated 0.3% of the watershed consists of impervious surfaces (see Table 14). However, utilizing the future land use predictions derived from the build out analysis of the Higgins Lake Watershed an estimated 7% (see Table 15) of the watershed could consist of impervious surfaces based on local zoning regulations.

Table 14: Higgins Lake Watershed Impervious Surface Area Based on Current Land Use Percentage of *Calculation Impervious Impervious Land Use Acreage Factor Area (Acres) Surface Residential 3,556 15.4% 548 1.9 Commercial 73 72.2% 53 0.2 Barren/Open Land 384 1.9% 7 0.0 Agriculture 53 1.9% 1 0.0 Forest 13,777 1.9% 262 0.9 Wetland 690 0 0 0.0 Surface Water 10,198 0 0 0.0 Total 28,731 871 0.3% *Indicates percentage of imperviousness based on land use (Cappiella & Brown, 2001)

Table 15: Higgins Lake Watershed Impervious Surface Area Based on Future Land Use Percentage of *Calculation Impervious Impervious Land Use Acreage Factor Area (Acres) Surface Residential 9,315 15.4% 1,435 5.0 Commercial 567 72.2% 409 1.4 Barren/Open Land 0 1.9% 0 0.0 Agriculture 117 1.9% 2 0.0 Forest 8,534 1.9% 162 0.6 Wetland 0 0 0 0.0 Surface Water 10,198 0 0 0.0 Total 28,731 2,006 7.0% *Indicates percentage of imperviousness based on land use (Cappiella & Brown, 2001) 43

IX. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTANT INVENTORIES

Higgins Lake is a high-quality, oligotrophic lake with a shoreline that is nearly all developed. On such a water body, research has shown that excessive nutrients, often attributable to the activities of homeowners, are a major pollutant. While nutrients are essential for life, excessive amounts can lead to accelerated eutrophication (premature aging) of the lake. Inventories of sites where nutrient enrichment is occurring make for a useful watershed management tool, although data generated by these inventories must be carefully interpreted and is intended only to help guide watershed management efforts.

Nonpoint source pollution is the primary threat facing the water resources of the Higgins Lake Watershed. An extensive nonpoint source inventory was conducted for the critical area within the watershed. This inventory includes an assessment of shoreline pollution, road/stream crossing impacts, road end erosion, septic systems, wells and contaminates, and Eurasian watermilfoil. The purpose of the nonpoint source management plan is to inventory pollution sources, determine the priority area of concern and develop management recommendations that can be implemented to enhance and protect the water resources of the Higgins Lake Watershed.

A. Shoreline Inventory

Because the riparian zone plays such an important role in water quality, an inventory of the shoreline can serve as a useful tool for understanding current and future water quality problems. While the owner of a small lakefront lot may feel insignificant in terms of the impact they may have, shoreline stewardship practices, one small parcel at a time, cumulatively equal a shoreline that will ultimately either help or hurt water resources.

This critical area can either be developed in such a way that it is in a near-natural state (working to filter nutrients, provide habitat and stabilize the shoreline) or be artificial (seawall with mowed, heavily fertilized grass to water’s edge). While most parcels may fall somewhere in between, developed parcels generally have shorelines that resemble the second option. Loss of natural habitat and excess nutrients work together to drastically change the natural condition of the lake, and, while nearly everyone wants to improve water resources, few take the relatively easy steps to do so.

As part of the critical area inventory for the Higgins Lake Watershed Plan an inventory of the shoreline of Higgins Lake was conducted. The inventory began in September 2001 and was completed in July 2002. Through the collection of data on all parcels of property along the shore, and the subsequent sharing of information with property owners, improved shoreline stewardship practices are more likely to be implemented.

1. Methods

The shoreline inventory was conducted on a parcel by parcel basis. Shoreline property parcels included developed and undeveloped lots, access sites, road ends, etc. Parcel numbers were assigned to each shoreline property parcel identified (See Figure 14). Some of the categories of information collected for each shoreline property parcel included: substrate of parcel, aquatic plants observed in the nearshore area, turf management, erosion, structural setback, wetland regions, greenbelts, and cladophora. Methods for the shoreline inventory were based on similar studies conducted by the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. See the field data sheet in Reference A Figure 14: Shoreline Inventory Parcel Locations for more details regarding data collection categories.

44

In a lake such as Higgins, large growths of Cladophora can indicate areas of relatively high concentrations of nutrients. While these nutrients can originate from natural sources, the source is oftentimes attributable to such human influenced activities as excessive lawn fertilization and septic systems. The Higgins Lake substrate (mostly sand versus rock) may make Cladophora a less reliable indicator than it would be for some other oligotrophic lakes in northern Michigan but significant growths are still worth noting and can be helpful for watershed management activities. It should be emphasized that lack of Cladophora growth does not mean there is not a problem – the filamentous algae is simply an indicator that is subject to such variables as bottom substrate, wind current, wave action and time of year.

Turf management, erosion status and Cladophora presence were all given a level such as light, high, etc. versus just a yes/no status. Greenbelts (or vegetated buffer strips along the shoreline) were rated on a scale of zero to 3.0 with 3.0 being an undeveloped shoreline with no disturbance of the natural vegetation and zero being ascribed to a site entirely paved or devoid of vegetation.

While the shoreline survey does not replace the need for more detailed follow-up work at some locations, it is a good starting point and a useful management tool for future watershed protection efforts. Through a confidential follow-up with property owners and an on-site visit, practical recommendations can be offered that are often simple and relatively inexpensive. This sort of educational outreach targets an audience that can have a substantial impact on water quality. In 2002 Huron Pines utilized the information collected in the shoreline inventory to implement a shoreline stewardship project where a technician met individually with property owners to discuss ways to protect their shoreline.

2. Results

The entire shoreline of Higgins Lake was inventoried including the shoreline of Treasure Island. A total of 1265 shoreline property parcels were identified and inventoried. Listed in Table 16 below are some of the findings noted in this inventory.

By using a small watercraft, such as a kayak, the shoreline technician was able to be near enough to the shoreline to effectively collect data while also doing it in a timely manner.

Table 16: Shoreline Inventory Results Number Percentage Tributaries noted 5 Parcels with Cladophora growth1 260 21% Parcels with excellent greenbelts (2.5-3.0) 64 5% Parcels with good greenbelts (2.0-2.4) 66 5% Parcels with a setback distance of less than 50 feet 353 28% Parcels with marly substrate 394 31% Parcels with high turf management (lush, green lawn)2 448 35% Parcels with a width of less than 100 feet 904 71% Parcels with aquatic plants present3 311 24%

1. Breakdown of Cladophora growth: Number Percent Light growth 124 10% Moderate growth 79 6% High growth 57 5% Total 260 21% 45

2. Breakdown of turf management status: Number Percent None 161 13% Light 371 29% Moderate 285 23% High 448 35% Total 1265 100%

3. Breakdown of aquatic plant growth: Number Percent Light 245 19% Moderate 40 3% Heavy 26 2% Total 311 24%

See Reference A for more detailed results on a per parcel basis and maps indicating greenbelt status, erosion status and Cladophora status based on the Higgins Lake shoreline inventory.

B. Road/Stream Crossing Inventory

Where a road crosses a stream it provides access and a conduit for pollution. Sedimentation is an area of concern in flowing water systems as it directly affects the diverse fauna within such a system. As part of the critical area inventory for the Higgins Lake Watershed Plan an inventory of the road/stream crossing sites was conducted. The purpose of this inventory was to identify and document all the road crossing sites on the tributaries of the Higgins Lake Watershed. A total of 17 sites were located and documented during this inventory.

1. Methods

On-site field evaluations were performed to inventory each potential crossing. A Road/Stream Crossing Field Data Form (see Reference B) was completed at each site. A series of photographs were taken of each site to document existing conditions at each crossing. Each site was visited to assess potential problems that may contribute nonpoint source pollution and impact water quality. Data collected at the crossings included detailed information about the location, road characteristics (width, shoulder, drainage, surface), culvert condition, and erosion and runoff problems. Basic stream characteristics such as width, depth, current and substrate were also recorded.

At each crossing, soil erosion was evaluated in terms of existing and potential conditions; additionally, various physical measurements were made, and each site was documented with photographs. This information was compiled into a database for data evaluation. Locations of each site by township are listed in Table 17.

Table 17: Road/Stream Crossing Locations Number of Township Crossings Beaver Creek 1 Gerrish 1* Lyon 15 *Although the Gerrish Township road/stream crossing site (Cut River) lies just outside the watershed, this area was of concern to the Steering Committee and included in the inventory.

In order to help prioritize road/stream crossings for improvement, a severity ranking was given to each site. The severity ranking was determined using the scoring worksheet noted in Reference B. However, a

46

pretreatment site assessment will need to be conducted prior to Best Management Practice installation. See Reference B for specific site findings.

2. Results

The extent of erosion identified during the road/stream crossing inventory included one site noted to have extreme erosion, one site noted to have moderate erosion, six sites noted to have minor erosion, and nine sites noted to have no current erosion. The individual road/stream crossing site locations can be identified in Figure 15. Of the 17 road/stream crossing sites inventoried only one was noted to have extreme erosion. This site is identified as site 13 and is located on West Higgins Lake Drive where the road crosses Big Creek. Sites numbers 2, 5, 8 and 17 also warranted structural remedies due to current erosion or potential erosion factors. The remaining sites have minor or no erosion and are currently stable.

Figure 15: Road/Stream Crossing Location Sites

C. Road End Erosion Inventory

There are 78 roads that terminate at the shoreline of Higgins Lake providing a conduit for pollution and increased erosion potential (see Figure 16). Sediment loading is of particular concern at these sites due to the channeling of stormwater discharge into the lake that they provide and their potential for high recreational traffic and usage.

1. Prior Inventory

In 1991 an inventory was completed of stormwater, sedimentation and road end erosion for Higgins Lake. This inventory was sponsored by the Roscommon County Resource Conservation and 47

Development Committee and a comprehensive booklet was printed in 1993 with the results of that inventory. A severity rating for each site was recorded and many structural improvements were made to the most severely degraded road ends as a result of the inventory.

2. Methods

As part of the critical area inventory for the Higgins Lake Watershed Plan an update to this original inventory was completed. Only the information subject to change was recollected for each site such as characteristics of erosion problems and recommended treatments versus a comprehensive re-inventorying process.

Each road end was evaluated as to the severity of erosion or erosion potential by gathering various data at each site (See Inventory Data Collection Sheet in Reference C). Categories such as watershed information and some road characteristics were taken from the 1991 inventory records if the data was unchanged. Photos were taken at each site and compared to the site photos from the 1991 inventory to assist in estimating problem trends.

See Figure 16 below for locations of the roads ending at Higgins Lake that were identified in this inventory. For a map indicating site numbers in relationship to location please see Reference C.

Figure 16: Road End Erosion Site Locations

Best professional judgment was used in determining the remedial measures recommended for each site. These remedial measure recommendations should not be considered the only solution to the problem at a particular road end. Alternative treatments may be equally effective in solving the erosion problem for a particular site. Treatment recommendations can be used to estimate cost; measurements and slope data will aid in design of treatment measures and consideration of alternatives. Eventual treatment will entail 48

returning to most sites for follow-up measurements, elevations, etc. to accommodate design preparation, material specifications and cost estimates.

3. Results

Measurements recorded during the field survey were later used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation and/or the gully erosion formula (see Reference C) to calculate annual erosion estimates. Resulting erosion rate data facilitated ranking each site as to severity. The sites have been ranked from most to least severe based upon sediment delivery. This rating system allows for scheduling of control measures whereby the most critical road ends can be treated first. Detailed inventory data for each road end site is listed in Reference C.

The ranking of the most severe road end erosion sites is as follows:

Table 18: Road End Erosion Ranking Sediment Load (Tons) Severity Road Name Township per year Ranking Lincoln Gerrish 20.74 1 St. Lawrence Gerrish 16.45 2 Michigan Central Park Blvd. Lyon 12.94 3 Cooke Lyon 9.58 4 Muskegon Gerrish 7.13 5 Mason Lyon 6.26 6 Ironwood Lyon 6.24 7 Bismark Lyon 6.18 8 Forest Avenue Lyon 6.06 9

D. Storm Sewers and Drains

Storm sewers and drains that discharge into a waterbody have the potential to carry nutrients and sediment with them. Higgins Lake has one major storm sewer and two major storm drains discharging directly into the lake. In 1991 an inventory of these drainageways was sponsored by the Roscommon County Resource Conservation and Development Committee. Since there have been no major changes in the status of these drainageways since the prior inventory, a re-inventory was not warranted. The information regarding the storm sewers and drains discharging to Higgins Lake was taken from the 1991 inventory results and a preliminary evaluation conducted by Christopher Johnson, area engineer.

1. County Road 202 Storm Sewer

This is an underground storm sewer serving the northern end of County Road 202, the intersection of County Road 202 and West Higgins Lake Drive, and William Street. The outlet of the sewer is on the beach just north of the intersection of Williams Street and Sam-O-Set Boulevard. The area drained by this storm sewer is partially paved and partially gravel-surfaced and is rather densely developed (both residential and commercial).

Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), sediment, trace amounts of oils, street litter, and chlorides from road salting are contributed to the lake during storm and snowmelt events. This drain normally flows only during storm and snowmelt events. The turbid discharges that occur during these events are objectionable to local residents based on comments made to MDEQ.

All runoff from the road is directed toward the shoreline, due to an inverted crown, where it flows to storm drains and down a pipe approximately 3000 feet to Higgins Lake. While solving the erosion problem, this method directs sand, salts and oils off the road directly into the lake. Following an 49 engineering survey and analysis, it may be possible to cut into the storm drain and divert the water to constructed basins and allow the runoff to infiltrate. The last 600 feet down to the lake poses a particular problem due to the concentration of houses and the difficulty in placing a basin off the side of the road. A possible location could be next to the lake on the shoreline. Inlets with infiltration tiles could also be used to increase both capacity and infiltration rates. Detailed engineering surveys and calculations, as well as land rights and property surveys, will be required to determine the feasibility of these alternatives. Other alternatives may become apparent with more information.

2. Battin Drain

This is an open ditch storm drain except for short sections in Old Point Comfort Marine property, under West Higgins Lake Drive, and approximately the last 300 feet between Magnolia Avenue and Higgins Lake. These sections consist of underground culverts. The outlet is a 24-inch concrete pipe exiting through a concrete seawall. The drain flows most of the year except winter.

There is some nutrient contribution to the lake from this drain. Leaves and other litter may be flushed down this drain and into the lake during heavy flows. The main problem is aesthetics, local residents find its tannin (tea)-colored water objectionable. The tannin color is due to the vegetation in Battin Swamp, which is where a major portion of the flow originates.

The Battin Drain appears to be the only outlet of a 200-acre swamp. Tannin-colored water with considerable suspended solids flows steadily thorough the outlet. The marina is located directly over the outlet (the pipe runs through the staging area between the main buildings). The potential of an accident and point source pollution is high. Soaps, antifreeze, gasoline and oils all have the potential of being spilled and could enter Higgins Lake within minutes, before action could be taken. A heavy-duty concrete pipe should be installed to replace the existing, damaged corrugated metal pipe. Fill could then be placed over the pipe for protection. All runoff from the marina should then be diverted to constructed basins for infiltration. The high water table could pose a construction problem. An in-depth inventory and evaluation of the site is required to determine the feasibility of these alternatives.

A berm could be placed along the north edge of the swamp to meter the water into the pipe. Slowing the flow will allow settling and infiltration of the suspended solids. The pipe could be extended beyond the marina directly to the lake. This would prevent leaves and trash from being flushed into the lake. Detailed engineering surveys and calculations, as well as land rights property surveys are required to determine the feasibility of these alternatives. Also, other alternatives may become apparent with more information.

3. Kennedy Drain

This is an open ditch storm drain except for approximately the last 200 feet, which consists of an underground 18-inch corrugated pipe. The outlet is at the top edge of the beach on Higgins Lake between two residences. The area drained by this ditch is manly wooded and very lightly developed.

Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and suspended solids are contributed to the lake when the drain flows. This drain only flows during heavy snowmelt and heavy rain events. Due to the nature of the drainage area, the water is a tannin color, which local residents find objectionable.

The Kennedy Drain drains from approximately ¼ mile east of County Road 100, through a culvert and wooded wetland and across private property into Higgins Lake. It may be possible to either fill the drain or eliminate the culvert. Possible alternatives west of the road may include infiltration basins. A detailed engineering survey is needed to determine drainage characteristics of the drain. A detailed property rights survey will also be required. Preliminary calculations estimate that a 330 ft. x 150 ft. x 5 ft. basin is needed to contain a 25-year storm event. Note that this is an estimate and that a detailed investigation and site evaluation will be required for final design. Other alternatives may become apparent with more information. 50

E. Septic Systems

The Central Michigan District Health Department covers the Roscommon County portion of the Higgins Lake Watershed while the District Health Department #10 has jurisdiction over Crawford County, Kalkaska County, and Missaukee County. The vast majority of the critical area of the watershed falls within Roscommon County so the information regarding septic systems was gathered from the Central Michigan District Health Department only.

The health department began the inspection of and permitting process for new septic systems in 1971. Prior to that time the local townships conducted this process. Over the years, the individual townships yielded their permitting powers to the health department. When these duties were transferred from the townships to the health department, all prior records were also transferred. However, site plans were not always available or were sometimes incomplete for each septic system. The health department is the permitting agency for new residential septic systems as well as new septic systems for small commercial operations. Large commercial operations are permitted through the Department of Environmental Quality. As part of the health department’s permitting process a site plan indicating the location of the septic system and drain field is completed and these records are maintained. Site plans are also completed when the health department evaluates a current system. Evaluations are done upon the request of the property owner or when the local township requires it due to addition or remodeling projects. There is no evaluation requirement of existing systems mandated by the Central Michigan District Health Department.

When a new septic system is requested the Health Department evaluates the site to ensure 50-foot isolation distances are maintained from water wells, suction lines, lakes and streams. If this isolation distance cannot be met at a particular location, a dry well may be indicated to reduce the amount of space needed for the system. If the placement of a dry well still does not meet the isolation distance requirements, then a holding tank is allowed. Holding tanks are often the only possibility for homeowners in the American Legion grounds area at the northwestern shore of Higgins Lake. Holding tanks must be pumped at regular intervals. They have a built-in alarm that sounds when the tank reaches ¾ capacity. If the alarm sounds the tank must be pumped.

If a site does not meet the drainage requirements mandated by the health department then an elevated “mound” drain system may be required. These mounds systems must still meet all isolation distance requirements. Alternative systems such as “sand filter” systems are also available to the property owner. However, the significant cost and additional maintenance of alternative systems has impeded the placement of these systems to date.

The Higgins Lake Advisory Committee is currently working with the townships and county commissioners to develop a program to inspect septic systems at the point of property transfer. This type of program is followed in many other counties throughout Michigan and the nation and has proven to be quite effective. The proposed program recommends that all septic systems within 500 feet of the Higgins lakeshore be required to be inspected at the point of sale or within a 10-year period, whichever occurs first. It also recommends pumping records to be secured, reviewed and maintained for systems within this area (see Appendix D for an example pumping log). Site plans indicating the location of systems and drain fields would also be documented during the inspection and kept on file for future reference.

51

F. Wells and Contaminates

The locations of oil and gas wells, injection wells and dry holes were received from the Department of Natural Resources. Additionally, location sites of hydrocarbon production and groundwater contaminates were also received. Activity of pumping at well locations varies. Merit Energy Company in Morristown, Michigan currently controls the active wells in this region. See Figure 17 for a map of these sites.

G. Eurasian Watermilfoil Survey

Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) is an invasive exotic species with Figure 17: Higgins Lake Watershed Well and Contaminate the potential to disrupt a lake’s ecological Sites, 1995-1998 system and interfere with recreation. It is generally thought to have first entered lakes in North America in the 1940s. Eurasian watermilfoil is a concern because it can rapidly colonize lakes and spreads easily by fragmentation. This plant can grow up to the surface of the water and form extremely dense mats, inhibiting boating and swimming. Once established, it is very difficult to remove and can be spread from lake to lake by boat traffic.

In late June/early July of 2002, Huron Pines staff conducted an inventory of Eurasian watermilfoil in Higgins Lake. The study (see Reference D) was conducted in order to identify areas of Eurasian watermilfoil growth in the lake and provide baseline information for analysis of future management options. Additional studies were conducted in 2003 and 2005; the following is an excerpt from the report Eurasian Watermilfoil in Higgins Lake:Status Report for 2005.

In general, we were surprised by how effective the bottom barrier treatment seemed to be working. The effectiveness is in large part due to the volunteer efforts of the SCUBA team which is handling the installation and maintenance of these structures. In addition, we saw quite a variation in the effectiveness of the chemical treatment at the three DNR Launch Sites on the lake. We were somewhat disappointed with the impact of the weevil treatment at the two test locations, although further study and more time are certainly needed to determine whether that method is a viable treatment for Higgins Lake. The integrated management approach, where specific treatments are tailored to the needs of each site within Higgins Lake, should be continued and closely monitored. Some growth may be slowly occurring along several of the drop-off areas in the lake. The open water sites which have not received treatment may also be slightly increasing in size; however, in both cases the growth was happening extremely slowly. The priority sites in Higgins Lake have recognized a net decrease in size from 2003 to 2005. This is due to the impact of the benthic barriers at a couple of locations and the effectiveness of the chemical treatment at the South State Park DNR Boat Launch.

Higgins is an oligotrophic lake, meaning it lacks the nutrients necessary to support large communities of aquatic plants. The lake is very deep and much of the bottom is not a potential area for plant growth, due to lack of sunlight. In total, 77 distinct locations of Eurasian watermilfoil were identified within Higgins Lake. These range in size from a grouping of two or more plants to several sites with an acre or more. Eurasian watermilfoil is present on approximately 12 acres of the lake bottom. To put it into perspective, this represents about one-tenth of one percent of the lake.

52

Many of the small plant clusters were found along the shoreline. Some large weed beds were found between he shore and the drop-off. For the most part, however, large areas of Eurasian watermilfoil were generally in long, narrow bands along the drop-off. Three notable areas of growth in shallow water are the South Higgins Lake State Park boat basin, the North Higgins Lake State Park launch site, and the Department of Natural Resources boat launch. Plant growth in all three areas was dense and numerous floating plant fragments were found near these areas.

Eurasian watermilfoil ‘hotspots’ within Higgins Lake and recommendations for treatment can be reviewed in Reference D.

53

X. POLLUTANT LOADING and LOAD REDUCTION

Pollutant loading estimates focus on the top two sources of pollutants to the Higgins Lake Watershed. These two sources include sediment and nutrients. Aquatic algae and plants require nutrients to live and grow, with the two most important nutrients typically being phosphorus and nitrogen. Thus three pollutant loading categories will be addressed: phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment.

Pollutants are contributed to a waterbody in several ways. To determine pollutant loading in the Higgins Lake Watershed the following sources will be addressed: • Stormwater Runoff • Shoreline • Road/Stream Crossing Erosion • Road End Erosion • Septic Systems • Fertilizers • New Construction

A. Total Watershed Runoff and Pollutant Loading Based on Land Use

An overall watershed runoff analysis was completed using the Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment (L-THIA) model (www.ecn.purdue.edu/runoff). The model was designed by Purdue University with cooperation from the U.S. EPA. Based on average annual runoff, soil conditions, land use type and impervious cover, the L-THIA model estimates runoff volume and depths, and expected nonpoint source pollution loadings to water bodies. The model was also used to determine the pollutant loading if maximum development occurred according to existing zoning regulations.

To determine runoff and pollutant loading for current conditions the land use figures (circa 1998) within the critical area were used. To estimate potential future loads existing zoning ordinances within the critical area were utilized, providing estimates for maximum development based on current zoning conditions. The following tables depict estimated runoff amounts and pollutant loading for phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment for current conditions and future building conditions and include the runoff amounts expected to discharge from the storm drains.

Table 19: Average Annual Runoff Results (acre-ft*) Future runoff (maximum Current conditions (based on development based on existing land use) Percent increase of Land Use current zoning regulations) runoff Runoff Runoff Acres Acres (acre-ft) (acre-ft) Residential 3,556 635 9,315 1,662 162% Commercial 73 40 567 306 665% Agriculture 53 3 117 7 133% Grass/pasture 384 3 0 0 -100% Forest 13,777 34 8,534 21 -38% Wetlands 690 0 0 0 0% Water 10,198 0 10,198 0 0% Total acres 28,731 28,731 Total annual volume 715 1,996 179% *Acre-feet=volume of water necessary to cover one acre to a depth of one foot (1 acre-ft=43,560 cu ft)

54

Tables 20 and 21 show the estimated phosphorus and nitrogen loading on a watershed scale. This information was derived from the existing land use types and projected increase in development based on current zoning conditions. The Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership prioritized nutrient loading as the highest pollutant of concern to the watershed.

Table 20: Estimate of phosphorus (P) loading to water bodies (lbs/year) Future loading (maximum Current conditions (based development based on on existing land use) Percent increase of Land Use current zoning regulations) pollutant loading Acres Runoff (lbs.) Acres Runoff (lbs.) Residential 3,556 9859,315 2,581 162% Commercial 73 34567 266 682% Agriculture 53 11117 24 118% Grass/pasture 384 1 0 0 -100% Forest 13,777 1 8,534 1 -40% Wetlands 690 0 0 0 0% Water 10,198 010,198 0 0% Total acres 28,731 28,731 Total P annual loading (lbs) 1,032 2,872 178%

Table 21: Estimate of nitrogen (N) loading to water bodies (lbs/year) Future loading (maximum Current conditions (based development based on Percent increase on existing land use) Land Use current zoning regulations) of pollutant loading Acres Runoff (lbs.) Acres Runoff (lbs.)

Residential 3,556 3,146 9315 8,242 162% Commercial 73 143567 1,115 680% Agriculture 53 37117 82 122% Grass/pasture 384 5 0 0 -100% Forest 13,777 65 8534 40 -38% Wetlands 690 0 0 0 0% Water 10,198 010198 0 0% Total acres 28,731 28,731 Total N annual loading (lbs) 3,396 9,479 179%

Sediment was identified as the second highest pollutant of concern for the Higgins Lake Watershed. Table 22 depicts sediment loading on a watershed scale based on existing land use and potential future development. Common sources of sediment include road/stream erosion, access sites/road ends, construction, stormwater runoff and shoreline erosion.

55

Table 22: Estimate of sediment loading to water bodies (lbs/year) Future loading (maximum Current conditions (based development based on on existing land use) Percent increase of Land Use current zoning regulations) pollutant loading Runoff Runoff Acres Acres (lbs.) (lbs.) Residential 3,556 70,888 9,315 185,692 162% Commercial 73 5,946 567 46,185 677% Agriculture 53 910117 2010 121% Grass/pasture 384 7 0 0 -100% Forest 13,777 93 8,534 57 -39% Wetlands 690 0 0 0 0% Water 10,198 010,198 0 0% Total acres 28,731 28,731 Total annual loading (lbs) 77,844 233,944 201%

B. Shoreline Erosion

A shoreline erosion inventory was completed in 2002 and identified parcels around the lake exhibiting erosion. Of the 1265 parcels inventoried, 25 had heavy erosion, 111 exhibited moderate erosion and 272 parcels had light erosion problems. The majority of erosion sites were caused by excessive use, failing seawalls, removal of vegetation and wave action.

The channel erosion equation or CEE (MDEQ, 1999) was utilized to estimate the amount of sediment entering Higgins Lake from the heavy and moderate erosion sites.

CEE=Length (ft) * Height (ft) * Lateral Recession Rate (ft/yr) * Soil Weight

The amount of phosphorus and nitrogen attached to the sediment is calculated using information collected by USDA-ARS researchers. The estimate starts with an overall phosphorus concentration of 0.0005 pounds of phosphorus per pound of soil and a nitrogen concentration of 0.001 pounds of nitrogen per pound of soil. Then a general soil texture is determined, and a correction factor is used to better estimate nutrient holding capacity of the soil (MDEQ, 1999). Sand is the dominant soil texture for the Higgins Lake Watershed, thus a correction factor of 0.85 was utilized.

Table 23: Shoreline Erosion Pollutant Loading Erosion Status Sediment (tons/year) Phosphorus (lb/yr) Nitrogen (lb/yr) Heavy (25 sites) 55 47 93 Moderate (111 sites) 39 33 65 Total 94 80 158

In the original 2002 shoreline inventory site specific information was not collected at each erosion site. Prior to implementation of specific shoreline Best Management Practices, each site should be visited by a technician to develop the most appropriate erosion control plan. According to the shoreline inventory we know many of the erosion sites were created by access, lack of shoreline vegetation and dilapidated seawalls.

Load reduction estimates for shoreline erosion contributing sediment were based on the severity of the erosion sites. A value of .75 was used in the Load Reduction Spreadsheet (MDEQ, 1999) for the BMP efficiency. Vegetative buffers remove 75% of sediment and resemble the suggested BMP for controlling shoreline erosion.

56

In addition, construction of steps, toe stabilization and, in some cases, removal or reconstruction of a seawall may also take place. Costs associated with the treatment of each site are estimated at approximately $2,800 for the moderate sites, which includes planting native vegetation and installing minor shoreline stabilization BMP’s. The heavily eroded sites will require higher costs and include BMP’s such as revegetation, installation of bio-logs or rock, creation of stairs and seawall removal or reconstruction. An average heavily eroded site will cost approximately $7,500. It is important to remember each site will need to be evaluated by a qualified technician prior to actual BMP recommendations and cost evaluation.

Table 24: Shoreline Erosion Pollutant Load Reductions Erosion Status Sediment Phosphorus Nitrogen (lb/yr) Cost (tons/year) reduced (lb/yr) reduced reduced Heavy (25 sites) 41 35 70 $187,500 Moderate (111 sites) 29 24 49 $310,800 Total Reduction 70 59 119 $498,300

C. Road/Stream Crossing Erosion

In 2002, a road/stream crossing erosion inventory was completed for the 17 sites located on the tributaries of the Higgins Lake Watershed. When a road crosses a stream it provides access and a direct conduit for pollution. Erosion at road/stream crossings causes sediment loading into tributaries, eventually ending in the lake. In addition, nutrients attach themselves to sediment and are deposited into a waterbody through erosion. The road/stream crossing erosion inventory for Higgins Lake estimated a total of 33 tons of sediment is delivered to Higgins Lake annually through erosion at these sites. This amount was derived utilizing the universal soil loss equation for each road/stream crossing site. See Reference B for more information.

The amount of phosphorus and nitrogen attached to the sediment is calculated using information collected by USDA-ARS researchers. The estimate starts with an overall phosphorus concentration of 0.0005 pounds of phosphorus per pound of soil and a nitrogen concentration of 0.001 pounds of nitrogen per pound of soil. Then a general soil texture is determined, and a correction factor is used to better estimate nutrient holding capacity of the soil (MDEQ, 1999). Sand is the dominant soil texture for the Higgins Lake Watershed, thus a correction factor of 0.85 was utilized.

Road/stream erosion phosphorus loading calculation:

33 tons/yr * 0.0005 lb P/lb soil * 2000 lb/ton * 0.85 = 28 lb/yr

Road/stream erosion nitrogen loading calculation:

33 tons/yr * 0.001 lb N/lb soil * 2000 lb/ton * 0.85 = 56 lb/yr

Load reduction estimates were determined based on individual BMP’s installed at each site. A total value of 88% reduction was used for BMP efficiency. This value was determined by combining revegetation (75% efficiency) with a combination of road surface BMP’s including hardening approaches and installing diversion outlets (88% efficiency). By installing BMP’s on 4 of the 17 sites (25% of sites) we estimate an overall load reduction of 65% resulting in the most load reduction for the cost.

57

Table 25: Road/Stream Crossing Pollutant Reductions Pollutant Load Site Information Pollutant Loading Best Management Practice Reduction Road Name / TSS TP TN TSS TP TN Site ID Stream Name (tons) (lbs) (lbs) Suggested BMP Cost (tons) (lbs) (lbs) Diversion outlets 6 King Road 17 9 7 15 Revegetation .25 acre $20,000 8 6 13 Unnamed Tributary Pave approaches 1000’ Diversion outlets 4 W. Higgins Lake Dr. 13 8 7 14 Revegetation .5 acre $120,000 7 6 12 Big Creek Replace structure 70’x20’ Diversion outlets 4 Heidmann Revegetate .25 acre 5 5 4 8 $50,000 4 4 7 Big Creek Install culvert 30’x6’ Pave approaches 1000’ Dead Stream Road Diversion outlet 2 11 2 2 4 $6,000 1.75 1.75 3.5 Big Creek Revegetate .25 acre Diversion outlets 16

Revegetation 1.25 acre Totals 24 20 41 $196,000 20.75 17.75 35.50 Pave approaches 2000’

Replace culvert 2

D. Road End Erosion

A road end erosion inventory was completed in 2002 for the 78 roads that terminate at the shoreline of Higgins Lake. Erosion is of particular concern at these sites due to their potential for high recreational traffic and usage. Erosion at road ends causes sediment and nutrient loading in the lake.

The road end erosion inventory for Higgins Lake estimated a total of 123 tons of sediment is delivered to Higgins Lake annually through erosion at these sites. This amount was derived utilizing the universal soil loss equation for each road end site. See Reference C for more information.

The amount of phosphorus and nitrogen attached to the sediment is calculated using information collected by USDA-ARS researchers. The estimate starts with an overall phosphorus concentration of 0.0005 pounds of phosphorus per pound of soil and a nitrogen concentration of 0.001 pounds of nitrogen per pound of soil. Then a general soil texture is determined, and a correction factor is used to better estimate nutrient holding capacity of the soil (MDEQ, 1999). Sand is the dominant soil texture for the Higgins Lake Watershed, thus a correction factor of 0.85 was utilized.

Road end erosion phosphorus loading calculation:

123 tons/yr * 0.0005 lb P/lb soil * 2000 lb/ton * 0.85 = 105 lb/yr

Road end erosion nitrogen loading calculation:

123 tons/yr * 0.001 lb N/lb soil * 2000 lb/ton * 0.85 = 209 lb/yr

Load reduction estimates were determined based on individual BMP’s installed at each site and are the same as the estimates applied to road/stream BMP’s. A total value of 88% reduction was used for BMP efficiency. This value was determined by combining revegetation (75% efficiency) with a combination of road surface BMP’s including hardening approaches and installing diversion outlets (88% efficiency).

58

Table 26: Road End Erosion Sites Pollutant Pollutant Load Site Information Loading Best Management Practice Reduction Severity Site TSS TP TN TSS TP TN Code ID Road Name tons lbs lbs Suggested BMP Cost tons lbs lbs Access mgnt. 40’ Revegetation .25 acre 1 1 Lincoln 21 18 35 Road hardening 1880 sq ft $7,500 18 16 31 Diversion outlets 4 Sediment basin 1 Rock chute 25 ft Stairway 25 ft 2 3 St. Lawrence 17 14 28 Revegetation .25 acre $6,900 15 12 25 Diversion outlets 4 Sediment basin 1 Revegetate 1 acre Erosion control 350 ft Michigan 3 55 13 11 22 Stairs (2 sets) 30 ft $32,100 11 10 19 Central Park Bank sloping 700 ft Access mgnt. 200 ft Revegetation .25 acre Stairway 10 ft 4 50 Cooke 10 8 16 $7,800 9 7 14 Rock chute 50 ft Erosion control 30 ft Revegetation .25 acre Stairway 25 ft 5 8 Muskegon 7 6 12 Road hardening 3,300 sq ft $9,100 6 5 11 Diversion outlet 4 Sediment basin 1 Revegetation .25 acre 6 69 Mason 6 5 11 $2,800 5 4 10 Rock chute 30 ft Access mgnt. 60 ft 7 54 Ironwood 6 5 11 Revegetate .25 acre $2,200 5 4 10 Erosion control 20 ft Access mgnt. 40 ft Revegetation .25 acre 8 19 Bismark 6 5 10 $2,700 5 4 9 Stairway 10 ft Rock chute 20 ft Revegetate .5 acre 9 65 Forest Avenue 6 5 10 Road hardening 900 sq ft $4,400 5 4 9 Rock chute 30 ft Access mgnt. 340 ft Revegetation 3.25 acre Stairway 100 ft Rock chute 155 ft Totals 92 77 155 Erosion control 400 ft $75,500 81 68 136 Road hardening 6080 sq ft Diversion outlets 12 Sediment basin 3 Bank sloping 700 ft

E. Septic Systems

As more development occurs within rural areas that do not have centralized water management systems, the reliance for on-site wastewater treatment (septic systems) becomes greater. There is a greater demand to build vacation and retirement homes along water bodies or convert existing waterfront part-time dwellings to permanent residences. Septic systems can be very efficient at treating wastewater if they are properly sited,

59

installed correctly and maintained regularly. However, the cumulative impact of hundreds or thousands of individual septic systems within a watershed can lead to increased eutrophication (aging) of the lakes.

Septic systems typically consist of two components: a septic tank designed to intercept and hold partially treated solids and a drainfield that disperses wastewater to surrounding soils. Septic effluent is the substance that passes through the tank to the drainfield and eventually filters through the soils. The major water quality pollutants from septic effluent are phosphorus, nitrogen and pathogenic bacteria. The soil type will greatly affect the amount of nutrients a soil can absorb from septic tank effluents and/or lawn fertilizer. Though phosphorus has a tendency to rapidly adhere to soil particles, studies indicate that areas with sandy soils are ineffective at removing phosphorus (Michigan Water Resources Commission, 1973). In addition, once soils become saturated the ability for phosphorus and nitrogen to move to ground or surface water becomes greater.

The most common shortcoming of septic systems is their inability to remove significant amounts of nutrients. Approximately only 20% of nitrogen that passes through conventional septic systems is effectively removed, although this number may be influenced by several factors including maintenance and frequency of use (Siegrist and Janssen, 1989; Gold et al., 1990). Once in the drainage field, organic nitrogen is easily converted into nitrates, which are quite soluble and easily mobilized, thus increasing the potential for ground and surface water contamination (WIDILHR, 1991). Pathogenic bacteria, parasites and viruses are also found in septic effluent. Improperly treated wastewater from septic systems can contain unhealthy concentrations of bacteria and viruses harmful to many organisms, including humans.

Pollutants not removed by septic systems can migrate into groundwater by leaching through the soils. The majority of the Higgins Lake Watershed exhibits either large areas of sandy soils that may not have adequate filtering capacity before pollutants reach ground or surface water or soils with restricted permeability and are at risk for ponding. Surface water may eventually be affected as groundwater seeps into adjacent streams, lakes, rivers and wetlands. Water bodies may also be directly affected if a nearby system fails and the effluent ponds on or just below the soil surface.

It is difficult to estimate pollutant loading from septic systems. Many factors need to be considered including soil type, age, condition, use of system, and proximity of system to ground and surface water. However, numerous studies have been conducted sampling effluent from identified septic systems. The following table was documented in the Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual published by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 2002 depicting several septic effluent studies and their associated pollutant levels. All of the studies in Table 27 documented septic effluent from residential homes.

Table 27: Characteristics of Domestic Septic Tank Effluent University of Harkin, et Ronayne, et Ayres Associates Ayres Associates Parameter Wis. (1978) al. (1979) al. (1982) (1993) (1996) # tanks sampled 7 33 8 8 1 Location Wisconsin Wisconsin Oregon Florida Florida # samples 150 140-215 56 36 3 BOD mg/La 138 132 217 141 179 COD mg/Lb 327 445 - - - TSS mg/Lc 49 87 146 161 59 TN mgN/Ld 45 82 57.1 39 66 TP mgP/Le 13 21.8 - 11 17 Oil/grease mg/L - - - 36 37 Fecal coliforms log/L 4.6 6.5 6.4 5.1-8.2 7.0

aBiological Oxygen Demand (BOD) is used to determine how much oxygen is being used by aerobic microorganisms in the water to decompose organic matter. If aerobic bacteria are using too much of the dissolved oxygen in the water, there may not be enough left over for other aquatic organisms.

60

bChemical Oxygen Demand (COD) is the quantity of oxygen used in biological and non-biological oxidation of materials in water. The higher the concentration the more oxygen the discharges demand from water bodies. cTotal Suspended Solids (TSS) is the amount of filterable solids in a water sample. dTotal Nitrogen (TN) is the organically bound nitrogen and ammonia in a water sample. eTotal Phosphorus (TP)

Utilizing geographic information systems (GIS) and the current parcel data from the Roscommon County Equalization Department, a query of all parcels located within 1000 feet of the Higgins Lake shoreline arrived at a parce; amount of 4,328. Parcel data for Crawford County were not available, but residential area is limited within 1000 feet of the shoreline in Crawford County. Assuming only 95% of the parcels have a septic system located on them the parcel amount utilized for this calculation is 4,111. The American Legion property at the north shore of Higgins Lake is listed in the GIS parcel data as 1 parcel. There are currently 418 home sites on this parcel. Therefore an adjustment to the parcel amount utilized for this calculation is as follows:

4,111 (parcels within 1000 ft. of shoreline) + 417 (American Legion parcels) = 4,528 parcels.

For the purpose of the Higgins Lake Management Plan, the figures from the Harkin et al. study Evaluation of Mound Systems for Purification of Septic Tank Effluent were utilized. As documented by the resource inventory 4,528 septic systems are located with 1000 feet of Higgins Lake. For the purpose of this study estimates will be calculated for the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus (the number one pollutant). Table 28: Septic System Pollutant Load Estimates-Residential Conventional System

Parameter Sample pollutant load # of septic systems Estimate effluent load TN mg/L 82 4,528 371,296 TP mg/L 21.8 4,528 98,710 Note: These estimates are for 1 liter/day. In most cases septic effluent going to the drain field is much more than 1 liter/day, though specific estimates were not found.

Since model estimates represent sources potentially generated, the actual amount that ultimately reaches groundwater, well or surface water is likely to be less. If the on-site treatment facility is properly sited and maintained the surrounding soils should effectively filter much of the effluent. In addition, the opportunity for nutrient uptake is greater in large watersheds with abundant wetlands, where shoreline buffers have high nutrient removal potential, and where septic system setbacks are farther from adjacent waterbodies (e.g. 75 foot setback from water compared to 50 foot setback).

Numerous studies have been conducted researching the effectiveness of conventional septic systems and alternative on-site waste treatment from reducing pollutant loads. The following table compares effectiveness of different waste treatment practices and was provided by the U.S. EPA document Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. Table 29: Conventional and Selected Alternative Septic System Effectiveness On-site wastewater Average Effectiveness (total system reductions) disposal practice TSS (%) BOD (%) TN (%) TP (%) Pathogens (logs) Conventional Septic System 72 45 28 57 3.5 Mound System NA NA 44 NA NA Anaerobic Upflow Filter 42 62 59 NA NA Intermittent Sand Filter 92 92 55 80 3.2 Recirculating Sand Filter 90 92 64 80 2.9 Water Separation System 60 42 83 30 3.0 Constructed Wetlands 80 81 90 NA 4.0 * an average household of 4 occupants was assumed

61

The following table estimates load reductions for septic effluent in Higgins Lake for conventional septic systems, intermittent sand filters, recirculating sand filters and water separation systems. Again, these figures are based on septic tank effluent, not discharge to ground or surface water. It is important to remember that the selection of septic BMP’s are site specific. In addition, existing septic systems may be effective at treating effluent.

Table 30: Septic Effluent Load Reduction Total septic Conventional Intermittent Recirculating Water Separation Parameter effluent loading Septic System Sand Filter Sand Filter System % % % reduced amount % reduced amount amount amount reduced reduced TN mg/L 515,688 28 144,393 55 283,628 64 330,040 83 428,021 TP mg/L 229,558 57 130,848 80 183,646 80 183,646 30 68,867 Overall Overall Overall Overall $Per $Per $Per $Per costs costs costs costs system system system system (millions) (millions) (millions) (millions) Costs $2,700- $12.2- $5,360- $24.3- $6,000- $27.2- $4,000- $18.1

$6,700 $30.3 $10,720 $48.5 $10,700 $48.4 $10,000 $45.3

F. Fertilizer Usage

The Higgins Lake Shoreline Inventory completed in 2002 revealed the following statistic regarding turf management. Turf management was ranked from none, which indicated a natural shoreline, to high, indicating a manicured, lush, green lawn, most likely utilizing fertilizer.

Breakdown of turf management status: Number Percent None 161 13% Light 371 29% Moderate 285 23% High 448 35% Total 1265 100%

Average setback of structure from shore: Number Percent No structure 99 8% 0-25 feet 117 10% 26-50 feet 590 48% 51-75 feet 222 18% 76-100 feet 151 12% 100 feet or more 51 4% Total 1230 100%

There were 448 shoreline properties identified as most likely utilizing fertilizer. Utilizing geographic information systems (GIS), an average lake frontage per property of 88 feet is deduced. The shoreline inventory revealed that the most common setback of structure on Higgins Lake is 26-50 feet, thus an average setback of 38 feet is assumed.

Calculation for area of lawn fertilized at the lakeshore: 448 * 88 ft * 38 ft = 1,498,112 ft2

Fertilizer applications to home lawns are usually based on applying approximately 1 pound of nitrogen per 62

1000 square feet per application (EPA, 2001). Based on the 1 lbN/1000 ft2 application if the 28:3 (Low Phosphorus Fertilizer; 28 Nitrogen: 3 Phosphorus) fertilizer is used, there would be 1lbN and 0.05 lbP/1000 ft2 of lawn.

Fertilizer phosphorus application calculation: 0.05 lb P * 1,498,112 ft2/1000 ft2 = 75 lb P/application Assuming three applications per year 75 lb P * 3 = 225 lb P/yr

Fertilizer nitrogen application calculation: 1 lb N * 1,498,112 ft2/1000 ft2 = 1498 lb N/application Assuming three applications per year 1498 lb N * 3 = 4494 lb N/yr

If a fertilizer ban was enacted by the local townships requiring residents to use a “no-phosphorus” fertilizer on their lawns it is possible to eliminate all phosphorus from this source resulting in a 225 lb P/yr reduction.

G. New Construction

New construction practices along Higgins Lake are a source of excess sediment loading and are characterized by clearing vegetation, compacting and grading soils, or filling low areas. Avoiding erosion in the first place by preserving vegetation and using proper site design is always the best choice for protecting water quality. However, in some cases it is difficult to prevent erosion; under these circumstances, erosion control practices that sediment before it is carried off site are used. Although many of these practices are effective for trapping coarse sediment, most fine, suspended sediment oftentimes enters the waterbody.

In addition to causing turbid conditions, fine sediment carries a significant load of nutrients and other pollutants that can harm water quality. That is why it is important to stabilize construction sites and prevent erosion as much as possible. Virtually all construction sites will affect water quality; however, proper erosion and sediment control can minimize these problems.

Though data were not obtained for the potential occurrence of new construction or redevelopment sites along Higgins Lake, based on current zoning there is the potential for a 21% increase in residential or commercial development in the watershed. It will be important to mitigate the effects of future construction, particularly along the shoreline, to protect the integrity of Higgins Lake.

H. Total Pollutant Loading and Reduction

Table 31 lists the total pollutant loading and Table 33 shows load reduction for shoreline erosion, road/stream crossings, road end erosion, septic system, and fertilizer use.

Table 31: Higgins Lake Watershed Pollutant Loading Estimates

Nutrient Source Sediment Phosphorus Nitrogen Tons Per Year Lbs. Per Year Lbs. Per Year Shoreline Erosion 94 80 158 Road/Stream Crossing Erosion 33 28 56 Road End Erosion 123 105 209 Septic Systems N/A 98,710 371,296 (Conventional System) Fertilizer Usage N/A 225 4494 Totals 250 99,148 376,213

63

Table 32: Higgins Lake Watershed Sediment and Nutrient Load Reduction Estimates

Nutrient Source Sediment Phosphorus Nitrogen Cost Tons Per Year Lbs. Per Year Lbs. Per Year Shoreline Erosion 70 59 119 $498,300 Road/Stream Crossing Erosion 21 18 36 $196,000 Road End Erosion 92 77 155 $75,500 Fertilizer Usage N/A 225 4494 $5,000 Totals 183 379 4804 $774,800

Pollutant load reductions for septic effluent were not included in the preceding table because load reduction is highly dependent on the system of BMP’s implemented (see Table 30).

64

XI. WATERSHED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goals for the Higgins Lake Watershed were developed by the Steering Committee to protect the designated and desired uses of the watershed. The goals are recommendations for implementation efforts within the watershed. Each goal has multiple objectives that outline how the goal can be reached. Tasks were identified indicating the steps needed to reach the objective. Implementing most objectives requires a combination of four types of activities, each with associated tasks. These include 1) implementing Best Management Practices, 2) reviewing and modifying existing projects, programs and ordinances 3) designating and implementing education and information activities, and 4) evaluating the effectiveness of planned activities.

For each objective the Steering Committee has identified the organizations that are best suited to implement the tasks, estimated timeline for completion, estimated pollutant load reduction should this objective be achieved, estimated costs for implementation, potential funding sources and signs of success to evaluate the status of implementation efforts.

Many of the objectives, especially those related to education, will be an ongoing effort. Once the objective is achieved it may be prudent to begin the tasks again.

A. Priority Method

Prioritization of the goals for the Higgins Lake Watershed was completed by the Steering Committee. Each of the 20 Steering Committee members present for the May, 2002 meeting was given a “voting sheet” to allow them the opportunity to prioritize the goals as they deemed appropriate. The voting sheets consisted of a listing of the goals and priority stickers numbered first through fifth. Upon collection of the voting sheets each goal given the priority level of first was granted five points. Goals given the priority level of second were given four points. Goals given the priority level of third were given three points. Goals given the priority level of fourth were given two points. Goals given the priority level of fifth were given one point. The points for each goal were tallied and the goals were prioritized based on the highest number of points received.

Prioritization of the objectives was also completed by the Steering Committee in a similar manner. Each Steering Committee member present for the May, 2002 meeting was given twenty stickers that they could place next to the objectives they deemed a priority. They could use all their stickers for one objective, place one sticker on twenty different objectives or place multiple stickers on multiple objectives as they saw fit. Each sticker represented a one-point value. The objectives were prioritized based on the highest number of points received. The objectives for each goal were prioritized individually. Thus there is a first, second, third, etc. objective for each individual goal.

In 2005, these goals were reviewed and presented in greater detail. Though no formal voting process took place minor updates to the goals and objectives were made. The goals are presented in priority order, the objectives under each goal is also listed in priority order.

Under each objective are the following categories: • Lead Organization(s) for ensuring this project is implemented: Group(s) responsible for each strategy • Partners Involved: Other organizations whose assistance will ensure completion • Tasks needed to execute this strategy: Sub-tasks to ensure the overall strategy is being implemented (signs of success) • Level of Effort: Specific details related to each strategy • Timeline: The schedule for completion of each objective or individual task • Water Quality Benefits: Load reduction figures where applicable, other water quality or habitat benefits that can not be quantified • Technical Assistance: Support from experts other than the lead organization needed to properly implement the strategy • Costs: Funding needed to implement each strategy • Funding Sources: The partners, programs, foundations and grants where funding might be sought 65

• Milestones: Methods to determine if the tasks are being implemented and whether they are effective at reducing nonpoint pollution • Evaluation Methods: Methods to determine if the tasks are being implemented and whether they are effective at reducing nonpoint source pollution • 2006 status: Review of projects completed during 2004-2006

B. Goals and Objectives

Goal 1. Reduce the amount of nutrients and contaminants from sources within the critical areas of the watershed.

Goal I: Objective 1. Distribute material to property owners on nutrient reduction, closing of abandoned wells, Lake*A*Syst assessments, fertilizer sources, soil testing, septic system maintenance, and greenbelts.

Lead Organization: Higgins Lake Property Owners Association Partners Involved: MSU Extension Service, Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Health Departments, Huron Pines, Higgins Lake Foundation, Higgins Lake Civic Association, Subdivision Associations, Local Newspapers, Roscommon County Community Foundation, and Local Townships. Tasks: Conduct seminars for property owners. Distribute water quality information packets to homeowners. Develop a system to track new property owners and ensure they receive water quality information. Continue Conservation Corner column in local newspapers. Involve real-estate agencies in distribution process. Conduct survey to determine the existing level of awareness and perception about basic watershed issues among property owners. Level of Effort: Approximately 1,200 riparian property owners Timeline: Bi-Annually Water Quality Benefits: 225 lbs. phosphorus reduced annually if residents stopped using phosphorus fertilizers. Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $10,000 Funding Sources: EPA Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, Clean Michigan Initiative, and Private Foundations. Milestones: One seminar completed each summer. Initial information packet mailing. Conduct one “nonpoint” mailing each summer. Establish an ongoing process for distribution of materials for new homeowners. Evaluation Method: Evaluate survey results for increased awareness. 2006 Status: In 2003 a shoreline greenbelt information card was produced and distributed. In 2005 a shoreline greenbelt information brochure was produced and distributed. In 2005 a survey of Higgins Lake riparian property owners was conducted to gauge the level of awareness regarding nonpoint source pollutants and Best Management Practices for pollutant reduction. Based on the information gained from this survey an initial information packet was mailed to over 1,000 riparian property owners. This packet contained a general contact sheet and information regarding recycling, aquatic nuisance species, septic system management, shoreline greenbelts, landscape maintenance, and stormwater management. These information packets were also distributed to the local real estate agencies to give to new Higgins Lake riparian property owners. A follow-up survey occurred 2006 to document increased awareness from this education effort.

Goal I: Objective 2. Develop sewer system/community septic systems in densely populated areas.

Lead Organization: Lyon Township Partners Involved: Gerrish Township, Beaver Creek Township, and Health Departments. Tasks: Evaluate sites to determine need and feasibility. Conduct onsite engineering visits. Secure sources of funding. Implement program. Level of Effort: 418 residential units at the American Legion Property. Timeline: 1-10 years Water Quality Benefits: Reduction of nutrient loads between 55% and 83% depending on system installed. 66

Technical Assistance: Engineering services, MDEQ Costs: $6,000,000-$11,000,000 Funding Sources: State Revolving Fund, Special Assessment, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Implement System at American Legion property. Identify additional areas of need. Evaluation Method: Sewer system installed, E-Coli monitoring in nearshore area. 2006 Status: Implementation of a sewage treatment system for the American Legion Property at the North shore of Higgins Lake is underway. Approval for State Revolving Funds has been received for the project. A special tax assessment of the legion ground residents will begin in 2006. Lyon Township is working with MDNR to acquire the land for the sewage treatment facility. Engineering plans will be complete in 2006 and construction will begin in 2008.

Goal I: Objective 3. Address concerns and options related to mandate septic system maintenance, inspection, mapping, and replacement.

Lead Organization: Local Townships Partners Involved: Health Departments, County Commissioners, Higgins Lake Property Owners Association, and Higgins Lake Civic Association. Tasks: Receive endorsement from County Commissioners. Develop a self-funded working system for inspection. Level of Effort: Three townships. Timeline: 1-3 years Water Quality Benefits: Decreased nutrient and bacteria loading to Higgins Lake Technical Assistance: Groundwater Stewardship Program Costs: $5,000 Funding Sources: Local Townships, County Commission, District Health Department, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Inspection system in place. Evaluation Method: Document number of inspections conducted each year. 2006 Status: Proposed mandatory inspection program at state level.

Goal I: Objective 4. Arrange for a shoreline technician to meet one on one with property owners to voluntarily re-establish shoreline wetland areas and shoreline greenbelts.

Lead Organization: Huron Pines Partners Involved: Crawford-Roscommon Conservation District, MSU Extension Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Kirtland Community College, and Higgins Lake Property Owners Association. Tasks: Identify potential sites for revegetation. One-on-one meetings with property owners and technicians. Involve local landscapers interested in assisting. Secure funding for staff technician. Find sources for native plant purchasing. Level of Effort: Fifty individual site visits annually. Timeline: Every 3 years Water Quality Benefits: Decreased runoff, reduced erosion, improved riparian habitat. Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $45,000 ($15,000 every 3 years) Funding Sources: EPA Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, Clean Michigan Initiative, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Five sites reestablished with shoreline greenbelts. Part-time technician hired. Fifty on site visits. Conducted survey of property owners visited for response to program. Evaluation Method: Track number of visits and greenbelts reestablished, document load reduction at reestablished sites. 2006 Status: The Higgins Lake Shoreline Stewardship Project took place during the months of April through November, 2003. A shoreline technician was hired who completed one-on-one consultations with 31 property owners around Higgins Lake. Consultations consisted of shoreline management issues including the use of shoreline greenbelts and the use of bio-technical erosion control methods.

Goal I: Objective 5. Develop shoreline greenbelt demonstration sites.

Lead Organization: Huron Pines

67

Partners Involved: Crawford-Roscommon Conservation District, Master Gardeners, MSU Extension Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Higgins Lake Watershed Council, Local Landscapers, Higgins Lake Foundation, and Higgins Lake Property Owners Association. Tasks: Evaluate potential locations for demonstration site. Site evaluation to determine appropriate Best Management Practices. Secure funding for implementation. Find sources for native plant purchasing. Work with local landscapers in construction. Publicize project to promote active participation of erosion control methods. Organize group visits to the site for local officials, homeowners, etc. Level of Effort: Reestablish 200 linear feet of native vegetation annually. Timeline: 5 years. Water Quality Benefits: Decreased runoff, reduced erosion, improved riparian habitat, increase public awareness. Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $40,000 Funding Sources: EPA Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, Clean Michigan Initiative, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Twenty demonstration sites completed. Evaluation Method: Document sites completed, take before and after photos, calculate load reduction at each site. 2006 Status: Five Higgins Lake shoreline sites were selected for greenbelt installations that begin in spring 2006. The property owners with matching funds secured from an EPA section 319 grant will cover implementation costs. Huron Pines is administering the project, Higgins Lake Landscaping constructed the greenbelts, and the Higgins Lake Foundation will be responsible for ongoing site tours of the demonstration sites. The Foundation has also begun a program where flags will be given to riparian property owners exhibiting good stewardship practices.

Goal I: Objective 6. Coordinate with businesses and property owners on the management and disposal of hazardous waste and promote hazardous waste collection locations and times.

Lead Organization: Crawford-Roscommon Conservation District Partners Involved: Crawford-Roscommon Conservation Districts, Local Townships, Chambers of Commerce, Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program, Township Fire Departments, and County Commissioners. Tasks: Conduct site visits for businesses to determine needs. Provide information through mailings, etc. regarding collection dates. Promote hazardous waste collection at local events. Level of Effort: Collect 50 lbs. of hazardous waster materials annually. Timeline: Annually Water Quality Benefits: Reduction in hazardous materials reaching the ground and surface water. Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $40,000 Funding Sources: Local Townships, County Commission, and Private Foundations. Milestones: On site visits for businesses/industry. One collection event completed per year. Evaluation Method: Document number of clean up events, track amount/type of hazardous waste that was collected. 2006 Status: Household hazardous waste collection is conducted yearly in September. Advertisement of the collection date is conducted through townships and local news publications.

Goal I: Objective 7. Develop stormwater management regulations.

Lead Organization: Higgins Lake Watershed Council Partners Involved: Road Commissions, Local Townships, Tri-Lakes Building Association, Drain Commissioners, Zoning Boards, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, County Commissioners, and Huron Pines. Tasks: Develop a model ordinance. Institute Best Management Practices for stormwater runoff areas. Improve communication with local townships on implementation of stormwater runoff Best Management Practices along with road resurfacing schedules. Develop consistent standards of implementation of Best Management Practices. Level of Effort: Three townships Timeline: 1-5 years

68

Water Quality Benefits: If all new development treated stormwater on site it is estimated that 1,840 P lb/yr; 6,083 N lb/yr; 156,100 sediment lb/year will be prevented from entering the watershed at maximum buildout. Technical Assistance: Land use planning expert Costs: $20,000 Funding Sources: EPA Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, Clean Michigan Initiative, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Implementation of stormwater runoff Best Management Practices at problem sites. Implementation of stormwater management ordinance. On site treatment practices implemented. Evaluation Method: Adoption of ordinance, conduct on site evaluations of stormwater runoff areas. 2006 Status: No progress.

Goal I: Objective 8. Replicate the United States Geological Survey’s study.

Lead Organization: Higgins Lake Watershed Council Partners Involved: United States Geological Survey, Higgins Lake Foundation, Higgins Lake Property Owners Association, and Local Townships. Tasks: Secure sources of funding for study. Organize volunteers to assist with monitoring efforts. Coordinate study area and sampling activities. Level of Effort: Lake wide survey. Timeline: 5-10 years Water Quality Benefits: Provide trend data to evaluate changes in Higgins Lake. Enable partners to know if BMP’s are reducing pollution. Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $40,000 Funding Sources: Local Townships, County Commission, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Printing of study results. Evaluation Method: Follow-up study was completed, compare results to use as an indicator of overall watershed improvement. 2006 Status: The Higgins Lake Watershed Council has organized volunteer water quality monitoring efforts beginning in 2005 in conjunction with the Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program (CLMP). They met with USGS representative, Russ Minnerick, to discuss sampling techniques to ensure results would correlate with future USGS sampling. In 2006 the local townships, Huron Pines, Higgins Lake Foundation and the Higgins Lake Property Owner Association are working with USGS to develop an in- depth study of the impact of septic systems on groundwater.

Goal I: Objective 9. Implement methods to reduce the amount of road salts, sediment, debris, etc. from entering the lake.

Lead Organization: Higgins Lake Watershed Council Partners Involved: Road Commissions, Higgins Lake Property Owners Association, and Local Townships. Tasks: Evaluate current maintenance methods at road ends and revise if necessary. Evaluate current salt calibration methods and revise if necessary. Develop guidelines for instituting catch basins, sediment traps, etc. in problem areas. Level of Effort: 78 road ends, 17 road stream crossings. Timeline: 1-5 years Water Quality Benefits: Decreased pollutants from road runoff Technical Assistance: Better Backroads Guidebook Costs: $5,000 Funding Sources: Local Townships, County Commission, Road Commission, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Conduct awareness survey. Evaluation Method: Document number of structural BMP’s installed, survey road commission to see if they are using recommended guidelines. 2006 Status: No progress.

Goal I: Objective 10. Continue water quality monitoring activities.

Lead Organization: Higgins Lake Watershed Council Partners Involved: Higgins Lake Foundation, and Local Townships. Tasks: Collection of sampling data. Submission of sampling data.

69

Develop a QAPP if necessary. Level of Effort: Lake wide, at identified “hot spots”, track phosphorus levels. Timeline: Annually Water Quality Benefits: Provides trend data used to make management decisions. Technical Assistance: USGS, Huron Pines Costs: $10,000 Funding Sources: Local Townships, County Commission, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Sampling data printed and distributed regularly for analysis. Evaluation Method: Evaluate sampling procedures to ensure protocol is being followed. This information will also be used to track changes in the watershed. 2006 Status: The Higgins Lake Watershed Council has organized volunteer water quality monitoring efforts beginning in 2005 in conjunction with the Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program (CLMP).

Goal 2. Institute responsible land use practices within the watershed.

Goal II: Objective 1. Review and comment on land use/zoning decisions.

Lead Organization: Higgins Lake Watershed Council Partners Involved: Local Townships, County Soil Erosion Officers, and County Commissioners. Tasks: Establish a committee to monitor resource management decisions. Address items of concern in written format to agency in charge. Develop potential alternatives to improve water quality. Level of Effort: Three townships. Timeline: Annually Water Quality Benefits: Decreased polluted runoff Technical Assistance: Land use planning expert Costs: $5,000 Funding Sources: Local Townships, County Commission, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Working committee established. Evaluation Method: Determine if the committee is actively addressing land use/zoning decisions. 2006 Status: No progress.

Goal II: Objective 2. Publicize local regulations and ensure that information on adopted standards is clear, concise, and available to the public.

Lead Organization: Higgins Lake Property Owners Association Partners Involved: Higgins Lake Foundation, Local Newspapers, Local Townships, Huron Pines, and Crawford-Roscommon Conservation District. Tasks: Revise water quality regulation pamphlet as needed. Printing of pamphlet. Dissemination of pamphlet to property owners. Publicize changes as they occur. Level of Effort: Approximately 1,200 riparian property owners. Timeline: Bi-annually Water Quality Benefits: Increased understanding of local regulations leading to decreased polluted runoff Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $5,000 Funding Sources: Local Townships, County Commission, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Awareness surveys. Evaluation Method: Survey landowners to gauge level of awareness. 2006 Status: No progress.

Goal II: Objective 3. Develop and propose a model ordinance to local governmental units for an effective, consistent standard for shoreline greenbelts.

Lead Organization: Higgins Lake Watershed Council Partners Involved: Local Townships, Huron Pines, and Higgins Lake Property Owners Association. Tasks: Develop a model ordinance. Present model ordinance to all townships and counties within the watershed.

70

Level of Effort: Three townships Timeline: 1 year Water Quality Benefits: Reduce polluted runoff , decrease shoreline erosion and provide wildlife habitat. Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $5,000 Funding Sources: Local Townships, County Commission, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Model ordinance applied at township level. Evaluation Method: Document number of new developments with greenbelts constructed before and after the ordinance takes effect. 2006 Status: Huron Pines met with Lyon Township Planning Commission members and provided shoreline greenbelt information. As a result, Lyon Township developed a Shoreline Overlay District in their zoning ordinance that restricts removal of shoreline vegetation. Huron Pines also provided Gerrish and Lyon Township with sample ordinances to protect water quality.

Goal II: Objective 4. Coordinate master planning efforts among local units of government.

Lead Organization: County Planning Commission. Partners Involved: Local Planning Commissions, Local Zoning Boards, and MSU Extension Service. Tasks: Address watershed management practices within master plans for all townships. Update and/or revise master plans for all townships. Promote consistency for master plans for all townships. Level of Effort: Three townships. Timeline: Annually Water Quality Benefits: Managing development will help decrease negative water quality impacts. Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $20,000 Funding Sources: MSU Extension Service, Local Townships, County Commission, and Private Foundations. Milestones: All master plans updated. All townships provide input on every master plan within the watershed. Evaluation Method: Track pre and post ordinance building and construction practices. 2006 Status: Lyon Township has updated their zoning ordinance and Gerrish Township is currently updating their plan however the final copy was unavailable at the time of this publication.

Goal II: Objective 5. Provide training for planning and zoning commissioners.

Lead Organization: MSU Extension Service Partners Involved: Local Townships, Planning Commissions, and Michigan Association of Planning Officials. Tasks: Coordinate training seminars for local planning and zoning personnel. Conduct follow-up seminars regarding new planning issues. Level of Effort: Three townships. Timeline: Bi-Annually Water Quality Benefits: Increase awareness about land use impacts on water quality leading to reduction in polluted runoff. Technical Assistance: Land use planning expert. Costs: $10,000 Funding Sources: MSU Extension Service, Local Townships, County Commission, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Completion of “Citizen Planner” program for Roscommon County. Establish an ongoing training program. Evaluation Method: Pre and post survey of participants. 2006 Status: In March 2005, Huron Pines organized a free workshop regarding land use planning was conducted. Local officials from throughout the watershed were invited and over 50 people attended the workshop. The speaker was Mark A. Wyckoff, president of the Planning and Zoning Center, Inc. Topics included laws related to zoning, zoning functions and responsibilities, site plan review, lot size and shape regulations, overlay districts, master planning process, natural resources protection zoning techniques, and decision making methods.

Goal II: Objective 6. Identify and map environmentally sensitive parcels and ecological corridors throughout the watershed and track development and conservation trends in these areas.

Lead Organization: County Equalization/GIS Departments

71

Partners Involved: Huron Pines, Northeast Michigan Council of Governments, and East Central Michigan Planning & Development Regional Commission. Tasks: Identify environmentally sensitive parcels. Utilize GIS to map these parcels. Track development in these areas. Track conservation trends in these areas. Level of Effort: Watershed scale (29,000 acres). Timeline: 3-5 years Water Quality Benefits: Protection of sensitive lands and reduced polluted runoff. Technical Assistance: Huron Pines Costs: $20,000 Funding Sources: Local Townships, County Commission, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Development of maps. Distribution of maps. Tracking process in place. Evaluation Method: Completion of database and track if the information is being used by land conservation organizations. 2006 Status: No progress.

Goal II: Objective 7. Assist landowners of environmentally sensitive parcels with the voluntary protection/easement of their property.

Lead Organization: Headwaters Land Conservancy, Higgins Lake Foundation Partners Involved: Higgins Lake Watershed Council, Higgins Lake Property Owners Association, Crawford-Roscommon Conservation District, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Huron Pines. Tasks: Identify environmentally sensitive parcels. Promote conservation easements. Work with property owners to secure easements. Level of Effort: Watershed scale (29,000 acres). Timeline: 1-5 years Water Quality Benefits: Protection of sensitive lands and reduced polluted runoff. Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $15,000 Funding Sources: EPA Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, Clean Michigan Initiative, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Three conservation easements established within the watershed. Evaluation Method: Document number of acres, lake shore, sensitive areas protected. Calculate runoff load reductions. 2006 Status: The Higgins Lake Property Owners Association conducted an information meeting in 2005 with Headwaters Land Conservancy and Higgins Lake Property Owners to discuss issues of land use Easements.

Goal II: Objective 8. Produce and distribute GIS maps to local governments.

Lead Organization: County Equalization/GIS Departments Partners Involved: Huron Pines, Northeast Michigan Council of Governments, and East Central Michigan Planning & Development Regional Commission. Tasks: Secure funding for implementation. Produce GIS maps of watershed. Distribute maps to local governments. Level of Effort: Watershed scale (29,000 acres). Timeline: 3-5 years Water Quality Benefits: Informative tool to assist with management practices Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $10,000 Funding Sources: Local Townships, County Commission, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Development of maps. Distribution of maps. Evaluation Method: Use of maps and inventories in local decision making and prioritizing land protection options. 2006 Status: Local townships received a portfolio of GIS land use information including maps and analytical data. This information was produced by the Annis Water Institute at Grand Valley State University as part of the Muskegon River Watershed land use update for 1998.

72

Goal 3. Protect habitat diversity within the watershed by monitoring and reducing aquatic nuisance species.

Goal III: Objective 1. Educate the public on steps they can take to help manage aquatic nuisance species.

Lead Organization: Higgins Lake Property Owners Association Partners Involved: Higgins Lake Civic Association, Huron Pines, Subdivision Associations, State Parks, Higgins Lake Foundation, and Michigan Sea Grant. Tasks: Obtain and/or print informational cards and/or pamphlets. Distribute information through mailings and/or on site delivery. Secure funding for implementation. Level of Effort: Watershed scale (23,000 summer residents, 673,000 visitors). Timeline: Annually Water Quality Benefits: Protection of aquatic habitat, fishery, and navigation by preventing the influx of invasive species. Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $20,000 Funding Sources: EPA Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, Clean Michigan Initiative, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Completion of awareness surveys. Evaluation Method: Survey residents and ask boaters if the information was useful. 2006 Status: In 2002 an informational card indicating ways to prevent the spread Eurasian watermilfoil was produced and distributed. In 2005 an information card indicating ways to prevent the spread Zebra mussels and Eurasian watermilfoil was produced and distributed. In 2005 an information packet was mailed to over 1,000 riparian property owners. This packet contained a general contact sheet and information regarding recycling, aquatic nuisance species, septic system management, shoreline greenbelts, landscape maintenance, and stormwater management. These information packets were also distributed to the local real estate agencies to give to new Higgins Lake riparian property owners.

Goal III: Objective 2. Continue Eurasian Watermilfoil management program.

Lead Organization: Higgins Lake Property Owners Association Partners Involved: Higgins Lake Foundation and Huron Pines. Tasks: Secure funding for implementation. Conduct inspections for aquatic nuisance species at likely “hotspots” (i.e. boat launches, marinas etc.). Coordinate treatment as needed. Inform public on treatment options. Level of Effort: Lake basin, approximately 12 acres have EWM growth at 77 locations. Timeline: Annually Water Quality Benefits: Protects designated uses including navigation, fishery and aquatic habitat by managing the impacts of EWM on the lake’s ecosystem. Technical Assistance: Divers, EnviroScience. Costs: $50,000 Funding Sources: EPA Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, Clean Michigan Initiative, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Survey results received and analyzed. Evaluation Method: Document increase or decrease in EWM occurrence. 2006 Status: In 2002 the Higgins Lake Property Owners Association implemented a multifaceted approach to Eurasian watermilfoil management included the use of benthic barriers, hand pulling, chemical treatment and, in 2004, the introduction of the milfoil eating weevil. The Department of Natural Resources is also treating milfoil at three MDNR owned access sites. The Higgins Lake Property Owners Association is implementing a boat wash program to reduce the spread of invasive species. Over the past 4 years there has been a slight reduction of Eurasian watermilfoil. In addition the Higgins Lake Foundation is coordinating with MDEQ to participate in the “Clean Boats, Clean Waters” Program.

Goal III: Objective 3. Work with riparian property owners to conduct yearly monitoring programs of aquatic nuisance species as needed (i.e. Zebra Mussels).

Lead Organization: Higgins Lake Property Owners Association Partners Involved: Higgins Lake Foundation.

73

Tasks: Record and summarize findings. Track trends. Keep abreast of new methods of treatment. Level of Effort: 1,200 riparian landowners Timeline: Annually Water Quality Benefits: Protection of aquatic habitat, fishery, and navigation by preventing the influx of invasive species. Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: Volunteer Funding Sources: No cost Milestones: Implementation of tracking system. Evaluation Method: Number of landowners monitoring invasive species, track changes over time. 2006 Status: Eurasian watermilfoil is being monitored by volunteers.

Goal 4. Protect shoreline habitats by reducing erosion.

Goal IV: Objective 1. Maintain legal summer and winter water levels for Higgins Lake.

Lead Organization: Higgins Lake Watershed Council Partners Involved: County Commissioners and Local Townships Tasks: Develop standards of procedure for dam operations. Organize volunteers to assist with dam operations. Monitor lake levels consistently. Track trends in precipitation. Install rain gage within the watershed. Institute method for obtaining lake level information in a user friendly format. Level of Effort: Lake basin (10,198 acres). Timeline: Annually Water Quality Benefits: Reduction in erosion from fluctuating lake levels. Technical Assistance: Department of Natural Resources. Costs: $20,000 Funding Sources: Local Townships, County Commission, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Consistent lake level maintenance throughout the year. Evaluation Method: Measure and track the lake fluctuations after standards are in place. 2006 Status: The Higgins Lake Watershed Council works closely with the County Commissions to monitor the lake level on an on-going basis and particularly after rainstorm events.

Goal IV: Objective 2. Implement Best Management Practices at road ends where erosion and runoff is a problem.

Lead Organization: Huron Pines Partners Involved: Road Commissions, Crawford-Roscommon Conservation District, Higgins Lake Foundation, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Local Townships, Higgins Lake Civic association, Subdivision Associations, and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Tasks: Secure funding for implementation. Determine sites for implementation. Conduct analysis of sites for appropriate treatment. Develop engineering designs for approval. Install structural improvements. Develop a schedule for future maintenance of sites. Institute signage on road ends regarding safe boat launching practices. Level of Effort: Access management 340 feet, revegetation 3.25 acres, stairway 100 feet, rock chute 155 feet, erosion control 400 feet, road hardening 6080 square feet, diversion outlets 12, sediment basins 3, bank sloping 700 feet. Timeline: 1-5 years Water Quality Benefits: Annual reduction: 81 tons of sediment, 68 lbs. phosphorus and 136 lbs. nitrogen. Technical Assistance: Engineering services. Costs: $75,500 Funding Sources: EPA Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, Clean Michigan Initiative, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Best Management Practices implemented at severe road ends. Evaluation Method: Before and after photos, calculate BMP load reduction.

74

2006 Status: No progress.

Goal IV: Objective 3. Promote shoreline bio-technical erosion control methods.

Lead Organization: Huron Pines Partners Involved: Crawford-Roscommon Conservation District, MSU Extension Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Kirtland Community College, Local Townships, State Parks, Department of Natural Resources, Road Commissions, Master Gardeners, Local Landscapers, and Higgins Lake Property Owners Association. Tasks: Find a source of matching funds as an incentive. Conduct seminars for property owners regarding methods. Conduct workshops for local service providers. Publicize “lake friendly” service providers. Distribute educational materials. Develop shoreline erosion control demonstration sites. Encourage the use of native plants. Level of Effort: 25 “heavy” sites and 111 “moderate” sites approximately 2,300 linear feet. Timeline: 1-5 years Water Quality Benefits: Annual reduction: 70 tons of sediment, 59 lbs. phosphorus and 119 lbs. nitrogen. Technical Assistance: Engineering services. Costs: $498,300 Funding Sources: EPA Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, Clean Michigan Initiative, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Completion of two seminars. Matching funds source secured. Development of three demonstration sites. Two workshops held with completion of attendance surveys. Evaluation Method: Before and after photos, calculate BMP load reductions. 2006 Status: In 2002 Huron Pines conducted a free workshop for local contractors entitled “LakeScaping to Protect Water Quality”. Speakers included Howard Wandell, MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Jeff Silagy, MDEQ Land and Management Division, and Doug Fuller, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. In 2003 Huron Pines in conjunction with the Crawford- Roscommon Conservation District and Gerrish Township implemented an erosion control demonstration project at the Gerrish Township Park on Higgins Lake. The project included reshaping the slope of the shoreline and placement of riprap and vegetation to better resist erosion at this site. In 2006 five greenbelts were planted along Higgins Lake. Interested property owners applied to be part of the program and funding for the sites were in part supplied by the MDEQ Section 319 grant, the remaining amount was provided by the property owner as match.

Goal IV: Objective 4. Update shoreline inventory as needed.

Lead Organization: Higgins Lake Property Owners Association Partners Involved: Higgins Lake Watershed Council, Higgins Lake Foundation, and Higgins Lake Civic Association. Tasks: Review past inventory. Duplicate method. Conduct inventory. Print results. Level of Effort: 21.8 shoreline miles. Timeline: Every 5 years Water Quality Benefits: Assist with monitoring and prioritizing erosion sites contributing pollution to Higgins Lake. Will serves as an evaluation tool for sites already improved. Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $5,000 Funding Sources: EPA Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, Clean Michigan Initiative, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Shoreline inventory updated. Evaluation Method: Documentation of new erosion sites, removal of repaired sites. 2006 Status: No progress.

Goal IV: Objective 5. Educate planners and local officials on using soil survey information.

Lead Organization: Natural Resources Conservation Service

75

Partners Involved: Crawford-Roscommon Conservation District and Michigan State University Extension. Tasks: Conduct training sessions on information and usage of soil survey manuals for local officials. Roscommon County Soil Survey manuals made available. Level of Effort: Three townships. Timeline: 1-5 years Water Quality Benefits: Aids in making sounds land use decisions that will reduce polluted runoff. Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $1,000 Funding Sources: EPA Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, Clean Michigan Initiative, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Provide Soil Survey Manuals to local officials. Evaluation Method: Survey participants of workshop. 2006 Status: Soil survey manuals are provided by the Crawford-Roscommon Conservation District.

Goal IV: Objective 6. Implement Best Management Practices at priority road/stream crossings where erosion and runoff is a problem.

Lead Organization: Huron Pines Partners Involved: Road Commissions, Higgins Lake Foundation, Crawford-Roscommon Conservation District, Local Townships, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Tasks: Determine sites for implementation. Conduct analysis of sites for appropriate treatment. Secure funding for implementation. Develop a schedule for future maintenance of sites. Level of Effort: Diversion outlets 16, revegetation 1,25 acres, harden approaches 2000 feet, replace culvert 2. Timeline: 1-5 years Water Quality Benefits: Annual reduction: 21 tons of sediment, 18 lbs. phosphorus and 36 lbs. nitrogen. Technical Assistance: Engineering services. Costs: $196,000 Funding Sources: EPA Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, Clean Michigan Initiative, and Private Foundations. Milestones: Best Management Practices implemented at severe road/stream crossings. Evaluation Method: Before and after photos, stream assessment, calculate BMP load reductions. 2006 Status: No progress.

Goal 5. Work to ensure the availability of high-quality recreational activities within the watershed and that they are conducted in such a way so as to not degrade the integrity of the watershed.

Goal V: Objective 1. Educate recreational users on environmentally safe methods (including education on aquatic nuisance species) for practicing recreational activities.

Lead Organization: Crawford-Roscommon Conservation District Partners Involved: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Local Marinas, Marine Patrol, Higgins Lake Foundation, Local Townships, Higgins Lake Watershed Council, and Coast Guard Auxiliary. Tasks: Distribute information to recreational users. Hold training sessions for recreational users. Publicize environmentally safe methods in local newspapers. Level of Effort: Watershed scale (23,000 summer residents, 673,000 visitors). Timeline: Annually Water Quality Benefits: Increase water awareness, foster appreciation for Higgins Lake. Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $10,000 Funding Sources: Private Foundations, Local Townships, County Commissioners. Milestones: Completion of awareness surveys. Evaluation Method: Survey residents and ask boaters if the information was useful, survey training session participants. 2006 Status: In 2002 an informational card indicating ways to prevent the spread Eurasian watermilfoil was produced and distributed. In 2005 an information card indicating ways to prevent the spread Zebra mussels and Eurasian watermilfoil was produced and distributed.

76

Goal V: Objective 2. Identify recreation concerns and make recommendations.

Lead Organization: Roscommon County Recreation Committee Partners Involved: MSU Extension Service, Local Townships, and Higgins Lake Watershed Council. Tasks: Determine stewardship needs for existing parks. Organize methods of debris disposal for recreational users (i.e. ice fisherman.) Address appropriate snowmobile access locations for Higgins Lake. Address personal watercraft pollution concerns for Higgins Lake. Address restroom facility needs for recreational users. Level of Effort: Watershed scale (29,000 acres). Timeline: 1-2 years Water Quality Benefits: Decreased debris and pollution from watercraft users. Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $10,000 Funding Sources: Private Foundations, Local Townships, County Commissioners. Milestones: Implementation of management practices. Evaluation Method: Development of a Higgins Lake recreation plan. 2006 Status: No progress.

Goal V: Objective 3. Establish a boat carrying capacity standard for Higgins Lake.

Lead Organization: Higgins Lake Property Owners Association Partners Involved: Department of Environmental Quality, MSU Extension, and Department of Natural Resources. Tasks: Research methods for determining boat carrying capacity. Secure funding for possible study. Level of Effort: Lake basin (10,198 acres). Timeline: 1-3 years Water Quality Benefits: Decreased debris and pollution from watercraft users. Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $2,000 Funding Sources: Private Foundations. Milestones: Development of a boat carrying capacity. Evaluation Method: Creation of a boat carrying capacity, regulation of boat volume on the lake. 2006 Status: No progress.

Goal V: Objective 4. Monitor and improve fisheries and aquatic habitat.

Lead Organization: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Partners Involved: Local Bait Shops, Huron Pines, Higgins Lake Property Owners Association, Higgins Lake Civic Association, and Subdivision Associations. Tasks: Habitat improvement. Continuation of fish planting program. Work with property owners on steps they can take to improve habitat. Level of Effort: Continue stocking program (approximately 15,000 brown trout, 26,000 rainbow trout, 35,000 lake trout). Timeline: Annually Water Quality Benefits: Increase the fishery and recreation designated uses. Technical Assistance: N/A Costs: $50,000 Funding Sources: Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Milestones: Productive fishery maintained. Evaluation Method: Track angler hours annually. 2006 Status: A total of 76,937 fish stocked in Higgins Lake in 2004.

77

Goal 6. Facilitate continued efforts by the Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership to review and update Plan progress and coordinate funding proposals.

Goal VI: Objective 1. Facilitate implementation of Watershed Management Plan.

Lead Organization: Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership Partners Involved: Local Townships, Higgins Lake Property Owners Association, Higgins Lake Watershed Council, Higgins Lake Civic Association, Huron Pines, Crawford-Roscommon Conservation District, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, MSU Extension, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Higgins Lake Foundation, Road Commissions, Natural Resources Conservation Service, County Commissioners, Health Departments. Tasks: Find sources of funding for carrying out the objectives of the Watershed Management Plan. Conduct ongoing meeting of the Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership Steering Committee. Level of Effort: Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership. Timeline: Biannually Water Quality Benefits: Sustainability and evaluation of management practices. Technical Assistance: Huron Pines Costs: $20,000 per year Funding Sources: Department of Environmental Quality, Clean Michigan Initiative and Section 319 Programs, Higgins Lake Foundation, Roscommon County Community Foundation, Schroeder Foundation, Wege Foundation and others. Milestones: Commitment of the Watershed Partnership to meet regularly to discuss progress. Completion of projects listed in the Management Plan; revision of the goals and objectives as necessary. Evaluation Method: Document number of tasks implemented set forth in the plan, increased meeting attendance and dollars raised. 2006 Status: Management Plan has been updated to reflect current conditions of the watershed and has met the EPA required nine elements.

C. Costs by Implementation Method

Each estimated cost was classified into the following management categories: Structural and Vegetative BMPs, Education, Land Protection, and Managerial Practices. Table 33 lists each management category, number of strategies to implement and the estimated costs.

Table 33: Costs by Implementation Method Managerial Strategy Implementation Number of Cost Objectives Structural and Vegetative BMP’s $6,814,800 6 Education $ 301,000 14 Land Protection $ 45,000 3 Managerial $ 132,000 9 TOTAL for 10 years $7,292,800 32

78

C. Implementation Schedule

One question of watershed management is “Are the strategies being implemented in a timely fashion?” Each objective and sub-task shows milestones and the expected years in which they will be implemented. Due to unforeseen circumstances, such as the availability of funding, increased project needs, the capacity of the lead organization to implement the project, the years may vary from the timeline. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation the Higgins Lake Partnership should meet once a year to review the management plan and determine whether the objectives are being implemented in a timely manner.

In order to mitigate the pollutants degrading Higgins Lake, Best Management Practices need to be in place. BMPs can be educational, vegetative, structural or managerial. Table 34 is categorized by strategy highlighting the potential BMP, number of sites or years to completion and the estimated costs of implementation.

Table 34: Potential Systems of BMPs and Estimated Costs, by Objective Objective BMP or Managerial tool Number of Estimated cost priority sites or (averaged for all # of years the sites in a category) 1.1 *E-Distribute material to property owners on nutrient reduction Bi-annually $10,000 1.2 BMP-Develop sewer system in densely populated areas Single event $6,000,000 1.3 M-Mandate septic maintenance, inspection, replacement 4,528 systems $5,000 1.4 E-Shoreline technician Every 3 years $45,000 1.5 BMP-Shoreline greenbelt demonstration sites 20 sites $40,000 1.6 E-Promote hazardous waste collection Annually $40,000 1.7 M-Develop stormwater regulations Single event $20,000 1.8 E-Replicate USGS water quality survey Single event $40,000 1.9 M-Reduce amount of road salt, etc. by proper road management Every 5 years $5,000 1.10 E-Continue water quality monitoring activities Annually $10,000 2.1 M-Review and comment on land use/zoning decisions Annually $5,000 2.2 E-Publicize local regulations Bi-annually $5,000 2.3 M-Develop model shoreline greenbelt ordinance Single event $5,000 2.4 M-Coordinate planning efforts between townships Annually $20,000 2.5 E-Provide training for planning and zoning officials Bi-annually $10,000 2.6 LP-Identify and map sensitive parcels Single event $20,000 2.7 LP-Assist landowners with voluntary land protection Annually $15,000 2.8 LP-Produce and distribute GIS maps to local governments Single event $10,000 3.1 E-Manage aquatic nuisance species Annually $20,000 3.2 E-Continue Eurasian watermilfoil management program Annually $50,000 3.3 E-Nuisance species monitoring program Annually Volunteers 4.1 M-Maintain legal lake levels Annually $20,000 4.2 BMP-Implement BMPs at road ends 9 sites $75,500 4.3 BMP-Promote shoreline bio-technical erosion control methods 136 sites $498,300 4.4 BMP-Update shoreline inventory Every 5 years $5,000 4.5 E-Educate planners on using soil survey information Single event $1,000 4.6 BMP-Implement BMPs at road stream crossings 4 sites $196,000 5.1 E-Educate recreational users on environmentally safe methods Annually $10,000 5.2 E-Identify recreation concerns Annually $10,000 5.3 M-Establish boat carrying capacity Single event $2,000 5.4 M-Monitor and improve fishery and aquatic habitat Annually $50,000 6.1 E-Facilitate implementation of watershed plan Annually $20,000 *BMP=structural or vegetative, M=Managerial, E=Educational, LP=Land Protection

79

Once objectives to reduce nonpoint source pollutants have been identified, funding sources must be sought to ensure implementation of the management plan and a timeline must be established. Table 35 highlights several different funding sources based on specific management practices. Funding sources include the Clean Michigan Initiative (CMI), EPA’s 319 Clean Waters Program, Foundations, Local Communities and others.

Table 35: Estimate Costs, Potential Funding Source and Implementation Timeline Objective Estimated cost for Potential sources of funding Implementation Timeline the next 10 years 1.1 $10,000 Foundations, CMI, 319 Annually 1.2 $6,000,000 State Revolving Fund, Special Assessment, 10 years Foundations 1.3 $5,000 Townships, County, Health Department, 1-3 years Foundations 1.4 $45,000 Foundations, 319, CMI Every 3 years 1.5 $40,000 Foundations, 319, CMI 5 years 1.6 $40,000 Townships, County, Foundations Annually 1.7 $20,000 Foundations, 319, CMI 2-3 years 1.8 $40,000 Townships, County, Foundations 2-6 years 1.9 $5,000 Great Lakes Commission, Road Commission, 1-5 years Foundations 1.10 $10,000 Townships, County, Foundations Annually 2.1 $5,000 Townships, County, Foundations Annually 2.2 $5,000 Townships, County, Foundations Bi-annually 2.3 $5,000 Townships, County, Foundations 1 year 2.4 $20,000 MSUE, Townships, County, Foundations Annually 2.5 $10,000 MSUE, Townships, County, Foundations Bi-annually 2.6 $20,000 Townships, County, Foundations 2-4 years 2.7 $15,000 Foundations, 319, CMI Annually 2.8 $10,000 Townships, County, Foundations 3-5 years 3.1 $20,000 Foundations, 319, CMI Annually 3.2 $50,000 Foundations, 319, CMI Annually 3.3 Volunteers No cost Annually 4.1 $20,000 Townships, County, Foundations Annually 4.2 $75,500 Foundations, 319, CMI 1-5 years 4.3 $498,300 Foundations, 319, CMI 1-5 years 4.4 $5,000 Foundations, 319, CMI Every 5 years 4.5 $1,000 Foundations, 319, CMI Biennial 4.6 $196,000 Foundations, 319, CMI 3-7 years 5.1 $10,000 Townships, County, Foundations Annually 5.2 $10,000 Townships, County, Foundations 1-2 years 5.3 $2,000 Foundations 1-3 years 5.4 $50,000 Michigan Department of Natural Resources Annually 6.1 $20,000 Foundations, 319, CMI Bi-annual

80

XII. INFORMATION AND EDUCATION STRATEGY

The long-term protection of Higgins Lake’s water quality will depend on the values and actions of future generations. Educating the residents and property owners of the Higgins Lake Watershed about how their actions impact water quality is a high priority. Increasing awareness and ultimately changing behaviors is a long-term strategy for protecting water quality.

An information and education (I & E) strategy is a tool that informs the public and motivates them to take action. It is a coordinated strategy tailored to both the specific water quality concerns and the people who live in the watershed.

An I & E strategy is effective because most behavioral changes that are required to minimize or eliminate pollution in the watershed will be voluntary -- rather than required by law. Before individuals will consider changing their behavior, they need to understand the concerns for the watershed and how their individual activities can help protect the quality of water in the region (Brown et al., 2000, pg. 31).

The (I & E) activities will involve a variety of approaches including installing demonstration sites, building partnerships, sponsoring seminars and distributing education materials.

A. Community Education

The identification of groups or individuals whose support or action will be needed to achieve the watershed project’s goals is one of the first steps needed to develop the (I & E) strategy. Listed in Table 36 are some of the target audiences identified for specific pollutant problems along with particular messages and delivery mechanisms for each audience.

81

Table 36: Information and Education Strategy Source/ Target Potential Pollutant Cause Audience Messages Delivery Mechanism Evaluation Use newsletter, brochures, Protect your and a model biotechnical Photographic Homeowners, Shoreline investment and water erosion control site to and survey to Sediment riparian property erosion quality for children demonstrate restoration. homeowners owners and grandchildren Meet one-on-one with with erosion property owners. Meet with road commissions to discuss Protect/improve standard designs that Photographic Road/Stream Road fishing; reduce reduce pollution and are and crossings Commissions sediment loading cost effective. Train road interviews crews through the “Better Back Roads” program. Sponsor contractor workshop on BMP’s, work Contractors, with local governments to Focus group Lakeshore Realtors, Local standardize requirements. Increase economic and development- Government Use print media to educate return evaluation construction Officials, riparians about the forms Homeowners importance of setbacks. Meet one-on-one with property owners. Meet with road Protect/improve commissions to discuss Photographic Road end Road fishing; Reduce standard designs that and erosion Commissions sediment loading reduce pollution and are interviews cost effective. Meet with local township Protect/improve Photographic Local townships officials to discuss Stormwater fishing; Reduce and officials stormwater management sediment loading interviews techniques. Sponsor seminars for landscaping companies to Landscaping learn more about “lake Marketing for lawn and lawn care friendly” property care companies, save Survey and Lawn companies, practices. Sponsor Nutrients money, and enhance evaluation maintenance homeowners, workshops for property appearance forms riparian property homeowners. Use print and values owners media to reach residents. Meet one-on-one with property owners. Sponsor seminars for riparian homeowners to Keep the water safe Survey and Lack of Riparian learn more about for swimming, reduce evaluation Greenbelts property owners developing a natural aquatic plant growth forms shoreline. Use print media to reach riparians.

82

Table 36: Information and Education Strategy Source/ Target Potential Pollutant Cause Audience Messages Delivery Mechanism Evaluation Meet one-on-one with property owners that may Keep the water safe have potential septic Septic Riparian Interview and for swimming, reduce system problems. Provide systems property owners survey aquatic plant growth assistance to address problems. Use print media to reach riparians. Meet with local township Reduce aquatic plant Photographic Local townships officials to discuss Stormwater growth, reduce and officials stormwater management nutrient loading interviews techniques. Media campaign with local We are all lakefront newspapers, radio, and TV. Toxins Stormwater Homeowners property owners (via Mail residents information Survey drains) on reducing nonpoint source pollution. Sponsor seminars for landscaping companies to learn more about “lake friendly” property Homeowners, Lawn Don’t harm fisheries practices. Sponsor Focus group riparian property maintenance and aquatic life workshops for and survey owners homeowners. Use print media to reach residents. Meet one-on-one with property owners. Sponsor seminars for riparian homeowners to Survey and Lack of Riparian Keep the water safe learn more about evaluation Greenbelts property owners for swimming developing a natural forms shoreline. Use print media to reach riparians. Urban residents, Don’t harm fisheries Use print media to reach Car care riparian Survey and aquatic life residents. residents Implement media campaign Keep the water safe Pathogens Stormwater Pet owners about proper disposal of pet Survey for swimming waste. Meet one-on-one with property owners that may have potential septic Septic Riparian Keep the water safe Interview and system problems. Provide systems property owners for swimming survey assistance to address problems. Use print media to reach riparians.

83

B. Recent Outreach Activities

Some of the information and education activities that have already taken place as part of the watershed planning efforts include:

1) Presentation of a Lakeshore and Streambank Workshop focusing on erosion control, landscaping waterfront property, local resources, laws and ordinances, nuisance control and lakeshore habitat. This workshop was designed for property owners. About 75 people attended this successful workshop. 2) Construction of a web site to inform people about watershed planning activities and to promote sound watershed management practices. 3) Development of a watershed management brochure that explains watershed management, nonpoint source pollution and addresses why watershed management is important. 4) Publication of a Conservation Corner column in the Roscommon County Herald News and the Houghton Lake Resorter to promote watershed management practices and provide education regarding a variety of environmental issues. 5) Presentation of a Lakescaping Workshop geared toward landscapers, lawn care professionals, contractors and excavators to provide information regarding lakescaping concepts and practices. About 45 people attended the workshop. 6) A guide was developed for homeowners to assist them in understanding state and local regulations for protecting water quality. The Higgins Lake Foundation printed and distributed this guide to over 3000 homeowners. 7) Bimonthly publication of the Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership newsletter entitled Ripple Effects. This newsletter focuses on current management activities taking place within the watershed. 8) Produced and distributed a brochure titled “Shoreline Greenbelts: Our Lakes’ and Streams’ Best Friends” detailing the importance of native greenbelts. 9) Conducted a riparian landowner pre and post survey to first determine the level of watershed awareness and second select appropriate literature to send. The response rate of the pre survey was 53% while the response rate of the post survey was 40%. According to the post survey, 83% of the respondents felt the educational materials were useful. 10) Direct-mailed educational packets to over 1,000 riparian landowners with discussion topics such as shoreline erosion, septic maintenance, fertilizer use and native greenbelt planting. 11) Created a “Look Before You Launch” card and “Eurasian watermilfoil” card describing the effects of invasive species to northern Michigan lakes and how to reduce the spread of species from lake to lake. 12) A Naturalization Workshop held July 29, 2005 in Roscommon County was sponsored by Huron Pines, the Roscommon County Community Foundation, and the Higgins Lake Foundation. Mr. Robert Karner, Lake Biologist from Leelenau County gave a visual presentation regarding the benefits of planting native vegetation, known as a greenbelt, along the lakeshore. 13) In 2005 the Higgins Lake Partnership and Huron Pines, with funding from the MDEQ's Section 319 Fund, sponsored a free seminar for local officials and anyone else interested in community development. Mark Wyckoff from the Planning and Zoning Center presented land use planning and zoning information with emphasis placed on preserving high-quality water resources. Some of the areas discussed were the laws related to zoning, zoning functions and responsibilities, site plan review, lot size and shape regulations, overlay districts, master planning process, natural resources protection zoning techniques and decision making methods. 14) Produced two 30-second Public Service Announcements (PSA’s) to raise awareness regarding nonpoint source pollution in Higgins Lake. The PSA’s were funded through the Section 319 Program and the Higgins Lake Foundation. 15) An educational kiosk was constructed at the South State Park boat launch. The two-sided 24” x 36” kiosk discusses the causes and effects of nonpoint source pollution and what recreational users and riparian landowners can do to protect water quality.

84

XIII. EVALUATION PROCESS

The true test of the efficacy of the Higgins Lake Watershed Management Plan will be the implementation of the Plan goals and objectives. Implementation of Watershed Plan goals and objectives for site specific activities will require an evaluation to determine the progress and effectiveness of the proposed activities. Because there is a large diversity of tasks, a variety of evaluation methods will be necessary.

Documenting changes with photographs will be used to evaluate the effectiveness and improvements for any components of the project that modify physical features (road/stream crossings, shoreline erosion, stormwater management improvements, recreational access sites, etc.). Pollutant reduction estimates will also be documented for structural BMP’s.

Because protecting the quality of the resources is a focus of this project, information and education components are very important. A variety of techniques will be used. A written evaluation form will be used for workshops, seminars or other events where people are gathered for a specific event. For riparian homeowners, interviews and surveys will be conducted after a certain number of the objectives have been implemented to see what tools were most effective (personal visits, news articles, booklets, presentations).

Evaluating the effectiveness of programs directed towards improving land use management will require a different approach. Focus groups would be most effective in learning how helpful the ordinance, programs, materials, maps and other tools created helped with changing policy and protecting water resources. Surveys may also be used to assess the progress as the land use tasks are being implemented. Photographic evidence, particularly documenting the design of new construction, will be used to evaluate the progress of specific tasks.

It is not only important to evaluate whether the goals are being implemented but determine whether or not they are protecting the water quality of Higgins Lake. Though Higgins Lake is a high-quality resource, impacts associated with development and recreational uses are beginning to show. Many water quality studies have been completed over the past 30 years measuring the conditions of the lake. As discussed earlier phosphorus is the limiting nutrient in the lake, therefore the amount of phosphorus available determines the magnitude of growth of plants and algae. In order to determine if the recommended goals of the management plan are actually protecting Higgins Lake the levels of phosphorus over the years will be used as a watershed indicator. There are ongoing volunteer monitoring programs that will track fluctuations in phosphorus levels. It is the goal of the Watershed Partnership to ensure phosphorus levels do not increase from where they are today and ideally will decrease over the years as BMP’s are implemented.

Although there have been numerous water quality studies in Higgins Lake, differences in sampling procedures and reporting make it difficult to analyze changing trends in phosphorous levels. However, previous studies conducted by MDEQ, EPA and Limno-Tech found low levels of phosphorous throughout the lake. The 1991 studies conducted by Limno-Tech found very low levels of phosphorous in the surface levels with concentrations ranging from 0.003 to 0.006 mg/L for both the spring and summer samples. There was some evidence of phosphorous release from bottom sediment, with the deepest concentrations of 0.008 mg/L in the south basin and 0.023 mg/L in the north basin (Limno-Tech, 1992).

85

Implementing various watershed goals will be effective if phosphorous levels do not increase in the coming years. Table 37 compares phosphorous loading from three different studies (Limno-Tech, 1992).

Table 37: Historical Total Phosphorous Comparisons (mg/L) Spring Data National Eutrophication STORET Limno-Tech Source Survey (EPA) Date 6-15-1972 4-23-1985 5-8-1991 Surface Water 0.004-0.008 0.005-0.018 0.001-0.004 Thermocline 0.009 0.006-0.010 0.003-0.005 Bottom Water 0.010 0.006-0.005 0.003-0.004 # of Stations 2 2 2 Late Summer Data National Eutrophication STORET STORET Limno-Tech Source Survey (EPA) Date 9-16-1972 8-29-1977 8-26-1985 8-19-1991 Surface Water <0.002-0.008 0.003, 0.003, 0.014 0.012-0.003 0.003-0.005 Thermocline 0.002-0.013 0.004, 0.006, 0.030 0.005-0.003 0.005-0.007 Bottom Water 0.004-0.007 0.049, 0.022, 0.074 0.015-0.012 0.006-0.023 # of Stations 3 3 2 2

Performing dissolved oxygen (DO) studies in addition to tracking phosphorous levels is another way to determine if the watershed goals are effective in protecting water quality. Higgins Lake currently supports a cold-water fishery and this fishery is dependent on adequate levels of dissolved oxygen in the lake. In the 1991 study conducted by Limno- Tech results showed that DO levels were maintained throughout the water column, although bottom water DO depletion reduces the concentrations near the sediments to very low levels. Dissolved oxygen levels were fairly uniform during the spring sample and ranged from 11.2-12.4 mg/L. The study also found the bottom water dissolved oxygen generally decreased over the summer and the lowest concentrations were found in the deepest basin (northwest basin) with levels consistently below 5mg/L (Limno-Tech, 1991).

Decreasing dissolved oxygen levels is a good indicator of increased nutrient inputs to the lake. As nutrients increase in a lake the presence of algae and other aquatic plants increase as well. When plant material dies it sinks to the bottom of the lake where it decomposes. Decomposition uses oxygen and thus decreases the amount of DO in the water. In order to determine if watershed goals are protecting the high water quality of Higgins Lake, dissolved oxygen levels should be monitored and should not decrease from the levels found in the 1991 survey.

In addition to the studies conducted by Limno-Tech, the US Geological Survey completed a survey titled the Effects of Residential Development on the Water Quality of Higgins Lake, Michigan 1995-1999. Results from this study indicated that the quality of lake water near shore has been affected by residential development. The concentration of chloride and turbidity near the shore increases with increased building and road density. Nitrogen concentrations have increased in near shore waters while groundwater showed higher concentrations of phosphorus, nitrogen, chloride, boron and Escherichia Coliform (E. coli) bacteria. A second study scheduled for 2007 will build upon the previous survey with more focus on the quantity and quality of groundwater input to the lake.

A. Monitoring Effectiveness of Implementation Activities

In 1992 Limno-Tech prepared a report titled Higgins Lake Clean Lakes Program Pollution Control Plan which presented water quality objectives necessary for maintaining Higgins Lake as an oligotrophic lake. Those objectives are: • Maintain average lake total phosphorous concentrations less than 0.010 mg/L, the concentration generally considered an upper boundary for high quality lakes. • Maintain dissolved oxygen in the bottom waters of the lake during late summer • Maintain or increase water clarity as measured by Secchi disk depth as compared to a long-term average of 26 feet. • Reduce near-shore algal growth as much as feasibly possible.

86

In addition to these recommendations it would be prudent to establish permanent shallow well sampling sites in order to monitor the levels of phosphorous and E. coli bacteria in the groundwater. It has been shown that residential septic use is having an impact on the lake and continuous monitoring along with implementing septic BMPs will be fundamental to preserving the health of the lake.

It is recommended that monitoring programs continue to ensure water quality is not declining. Higgins Lake is a large deep lake with two distinct basins, two inlets and one outflow. Regular monitoring of the inlets is important however the amount of water they contribute to Higgins Lake is relatively insignificant (less than 6%). Since groundwater accounts for half of Higgins Lake water budget it is very important to regularly monitor this flow. If contaminant levels from groundwater increase the Watershed Partnership will be able to modify and adapt programs to address this concern.

Table 38 shows a breakdown of water monitoring protocol recommended for Higgins Lake. Sampling locations, parameters tested and environmental targets are listed. Meeting the environmental targets will help show that implementation efforts are effective at protecting water quality.

87

Table 38: Water Quality Monitoring Protocol Type of Analysis Monitoring Site(s) Parameters Frequency Environmental Target(s) Replicate USGS • Near-shore groundwater (15 sites) Phosphorous 3 year study • Phosphorous levels at or below 0.010 mg/L water quality study • Epilimnion & Hypolimnion in North and Nitrogen • Nitrogen levels well-below 10 mg/L in groundwater South Basin during lake stratification (16 (Note: 10mg/L is level when drinking water becomes a sites) health concern) Water Chemistry • Epilimnion & Hypolimnion in North and Chlorophyll a Twice a year • No statistical increase in nutrients levels tested from South Basin during lake stratification Total suspended grab samples at all testing locations including the Cut • Big Creek Solids (TSS) River • Little Creek Dissolved Oxygen • Dissolved oxygen levels 3 mg/l or above in summer • Cut River Phosphorous sampling of bottom layer Nitrogen • TSS levels should not exceed 80 mg/l (levels over 150mg/l and water clarity drastically decreases) • Chlorophyll a levels should not exceed 1.5 parts/billion • Maintain Lake Water Quality Index above 85 (Higgins Lake is at 96 as sampled in 1998) Fecal Coliform • Near-shore groundwater E. coli Yearly • E. coli not to exceed 1 unit/100 mL for drinking • Near-shore surface water water • E. coli not to exceed 130 units/100 mL over a 30 day average for surface water • Note: Levels above 300 units/100 ml impair total body contact Hydrogen Ion 4 surface locations in each basin pH Yearly • Maintain pH levels between 8.0 and 8.7 Concentration Fish Community Lake-wide Cold-water species Yearly • Maintain current cold-water fish levels Secchi Disk 4 surface locations in each basin Water clarity Monthly • Maintain Secchi disk levels above 25 feet

Temperature Hypolimnion of North and South basin Water Temperature Yearly • Temperature should not exceed 50 degrees Fahrenheit

88

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Anoxic: Deprivation of oxygen. Mesotrophic: Trophic state between oligotrophic Best Management Practices (BMP): Structural, (nutrient poor) and eutrophic (nutrient rich) systems. vegetative and managerial practices implemented to control nonpoint source pollution. Nonpoint Source Pollution: Pollution caused when rain, snowmelt, or wind carry pollutants off the land Carlson’s Trophic Status Index: Classification and into the waterbodies. system used to classify lakes based on degree of enrichment. Carlson’s Trophic-State Index (TSI) is Nutrient Pollution: Excess nitrogen and phosphates used to evaluate nutrient concentration and its effects in streams, rivers and estuaries. on biological productivity. The TSI is a numerical scale ranging from 0-100. Lakes with index values Oligotrophic: Designation of a body of water poor in less than 40 are classified as oligotrophic (low plant nutrient minerals and organisms and usually rich productivity). in oxygen at all depths.

Chlorophyll a: A pigment in all plants that is Pathogens: Human disease causing bacteria or necessary for photosynthesis. viruses.

Critical Area: That part of the watershed that is Pollutant: Any substance of such character and in contributing a majority of the pollutants and is having such quantities that when it reaches a body of water, the most significant impacts on the waterbody. soil, or air, it contributes to the degradation or impairment of its usefulness or renders it offensive. Cultural Eutrophication: An accelerated input of plant nutrients and sediment into a waterbody that Phosphorus: A plant nutrient that is needed for promote excessive plant growth and results in processes such as growth and photosynthesis. diminished or detrimental changes in water quality. Increased levels can cause excessive growth of aquatic plants. Designated Uses: Recognized uses of surface water established by state and federal water quality Riparian: Person who lives along or hold title to the programs. shore area of a lake or bank of a river or stream.

Erosion: Detachment and movement of rocks and Riparian corridor: Area bordering streams, lakes, soil particles by gravity, wind, and water. rivers, and other water courses. These areas have high water tables and support plants requiring saturated Eutrophic: Designation of a body of water rich in soils during all or part of the year. nutrients which cause excessive growth of aquatic plants. Runoff: That portion of the precipitation or irrigation water that travels over the land surface and ends up in Eutrophication: A natural aging process where lakes surface streams or water bodies. begin to fill in with sediment and nutrient materials. Secchi disk: A circular disk that can be lowered into the water to obtain an estimate of light penetration. Fauna: The animals of a specified region or time. Sediment: Soil, sand, and minerals which can take the form of bedload, suspended, or dissolved material. Groundwater: The subsurface water supply in the saturated zone below the water table. Slope: Ground that is not flat or level; measured as Impervious: A surface through which little or no deviation from the horizontal. water will move. Impervious areas include paved parking lots and roof tops. Soil Erosion: The wearing away of land surface by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally from weather Marl: A mixture of clay, sand, and limestone in or runoff but can be intensified by land-clearing varying proportions that is soft and crumbly. Any practices related to farming, residential or industrial loose, earthy, crumbly deposit. development, road building, or timber cutting. 1

Stakeholder: Any organization, governmental entity, Tributary: A river or stream that flows into a larger or individual that has a stake in or may be affected by river or stream. a given approach to environmental regulation, pollution prevention, or energy conservation. Water Quality: The biological, chemical, and physical conditions of a waterbody, often measured by Storm Drain (Storm Sewer): A slotted opening its ability to support life. leading to an underground pipe or an open ditch that carries surface runoff. Watershed: The geographic region within which water drains into a particular river, stream or body of Stormwater: Runoff from a storm, snow melt runoff, water. Watershed boundaries are defined by the ridges and surface runoff and drainage. separating watersheds.

Succession: The slow, regular sequence of changes in Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by the regional development of communities of plants surface or groundwater and subsequently is and associated animals. characterized by a prevalence of vegetation that is adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Examples Surface Water: All water naturally open to the include swamps, bogs, fens, and marshes. atmosphere (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, streams, wetlands, impoundment, and seas).

Topographic Map: Land map that display elevation along with natural and man-made features.

Topography: The physical features of a surface area including relative elevations and the position of natural and man-made features.

2

LITERATURE CITED

Albert, Dennis A. Regional Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: A Working Map and Classification. Fourth Revision. Michigan Natural Features Inventory. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. North Central Forest Experiment Station. General Technical Report NC-178. 1995.

Ardizone, Katherine A. and Mark A. Wyckoff, FAICP. Filling the Gaps: Environmental Protection Options for Local Governments, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Coastal Management Program with financial assistance from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. June, 2003.

Boyle, Norma. Personal Interview. Gerrish Township Clerk. Roscommon, MI. April, 2002.

Brown, E., Peterson, A., Line-Robach, R., Smith, K. & Wolfson, L. Developing a Watershed Management Plan for Water Quality: An Introductory Guide. Millbrook Printing. February, 2000.

Cappiella K. & K. Brown. Impervious Cover and Land Use in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Center for Watershed Protection. Maryland, USA. 2001

Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program (CLMP). Annual Summary Report. Michigan’s Citizen Volunteer Lakes Monitoring Program. 2003.

Dale, Tomas. Newsletter of the Gahagan Nature Preserve, Inc. Marguerite Gahagan Nature Preserve. Roscommon, MI. Issue #8. Spring, 2005

Dorr, J.A. & Eschman, D. F. The Geology of Michigan. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. 1977.

Ellis, Boyd and Childs, Kenneth E. 1973. Michigan Water Resources Commission, Nutrient Movement from Septic Tanks and Lawn Fertilization. DNR Technical Bulletin No. 73-5.

Environmental Protection Agency, United States. Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin: Managing Turf Grass and Garden Fertilizer Application to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water. Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 816-F-01-029. July, 2001.

Fusilier, Wallace E. and Fusilier, Bene. Higgins Lake Water Quality and Bottom Sediments Study. Consulting Limnologists, Water Quality Investigators. Dexter, Michigan. 1998.

Gold, A.J., DeRagon, W.R., Sullivan, W.M., and Lemunyon, J.L. 1990. Nitrate-Nitrogen Losses to Groundwater from Rural and Suburban Land Uses. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 45(2): 305-310

Goldman, C.R. & Horne, A.J. Limnology. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 1983.

Grand Valley State University (GVSU). Land Use/Cover Data. Annis Water Resources Institute. Muskegon, Michigan. 1998.

Harkin, J.M., Fitzgerald, C.J., Duffy, C.P., and Kroll, D.G. 1979. Evaluation of Mound Systems for Purification of Septic Tank Effluent. Water Resources Center Tech. Rep. WIS WRC 79-50. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.

Jones, Terry E. Higgins Lake Past, Present, Future. Central Michigan University. 1991.

Kroell, Martin. MLRA Project Leader. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 501 Norway Street, Grayling, MI 49738. August, 2002.

Limno-Tech, Inc. Higgins Lake Diagnostic and Feasibility Study. Final Report. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1992.

1

Limno-Tech, Inc. 1992. Septic System Phosphorous Loadings to Higgins Lake. Higgins Lake Foundation, Higgins Lake, Michigan.

Limno-Tech, Inc. 1992. Higgins Lake Clean Lakes Program Pollution Control Plan. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Limno-Tech, Inc. 1994. Higgins Lake Septic System and Lawn Fertilizer Management Zones, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Water Division, Nonpoint Source Unit. Pollutants Controlled Calculation and Documentation for Section 319 Watersheds Training Manual. Lansing, Michigan. Revised June, 1999.

Minnerick, Russel J. Effects of Residential Development on the Water Quality of Higgins Lake 1995-1999, Michigan. U. S. Geological Survey. Lansing, Michigan. 2001. (See Appendix E.)

Nicholson-Barnes, Linda., Editor. Manual Subcommittee of the Higgins Lake Advisory Committee. The Higgins Lake Watershed A *Syst Manual. Custom Printing of Michigan, Inc. 1998.

Roscommon County Herald News. 25 Roscommon County Eagles Spotted in Survey. Sunday, March 17, 2002. Page 8A.

Schultz, Richard & Fairchild, G.W. A Water Quality Study of Higgins Lake, Michigan. Technical Report No. 12. The University of Michigan Biological Station. Douglas Lake. 1984.

Siegrist, R.L. and Janssen, P.D. 1989. Nitrogen Removal During Wastewater Infiltration and Affected by Design and Environmental Factors. Proc. 6th Northwest On-site Wastewater Treatment Short Course, pp. 304-318. Seattle, WA, 18-19 September 1989. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI

Smith, Dave. Resource Specialist for Huron Pines Resource Conservation and Development Area Council. Previously Michigan Department of Natural Resources District Fisheries Biologist. 501 Norway, Street, Grayling, MI 49738. September, 2002.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2002. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 625-R-00-008.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 840-B-92-002.

Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (WIDILHR). 1991. Onsite Nitrogen Removal Systems Research/Demonstration Project, Phase 1 Report: Nitrogen Removal from Domestic Wastewater in Unsewered Areas. Madison, WI.

2 OTHER RELEVANT LITERATURE

Beyer, A., Contant, C., & Donahue M. Seeking Signs of Success. A guided approach to more effective watershed management. Harbor House, Boyne City, Michigan. 2001.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources Spatial Data Library. USGS Land Use/Cover. http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/spatialdatalibrary. United States Geological Survey. 1983.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Fish Stocking Database. http://www.michigandnr.com/fishstock. August, 2005.

North Carolina State University (NCSU). Water Quality Group. Watersheds website. Pollutant Budget Estimation Form. http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss/dss/spread1.html. December, 2003.

Reckhow, K.H., Beaulac, M.N., and Simpson, J.T. Modeling Phosphorus Loading and Lake Response Under Uncertainty: A Manual and Compilation of Export Coefficients. EPA 440/5-80-011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. June, 1980.

Seedland, Inc., 9895 Adams Road, Wellborn, FL 32094. Fertilizer Application Rates. http://www.lawnfertilizer.com/info/lawnrates. 2004.

1

APPENDIX A

Higgins Lake Watershed Partnership Agreement

1

2 3 4 APPENDIX B

Watershed Survey Form

1

2 APPENDIX C

Typical Nonpoint Source Pollutants Impacting Michigan Waters

Nonpoint source pollutants are any of the substances listed below that can degrade the water quality by impairing the designated uses(s) of the water.

Animal manure –Manure is a source of nutrients, salts, and organic matter that can degrade water quality.

Depressed dissolved oxygen – When the oxygen dissolved in water and readily available to aquatic organisms (mg/1) is below optimal levels.

Hydrologic flow fluctuation – When the natural hydrology of the watershed changes due to increases in storms water runoff.

Metals – Toxic substances, such as mercury and lead that come from urban runoff or atmospheric deposition.

Nitrogen – An element that at certain levels can cause excessive algae and aquatic weed growth.

Organic matter – Residue from plant and animal origin (including leaves and grass clippings). In excessive amounts organic matter can lower dissolved oxygen levels.

Pathogens – Human disease causing bacteria or viruses.

Pesticides – Chemical substances used to kill pests such as weeds, insets, algae, rodents, and other undesirable agents.

Petroleum and petroleum by-products (oil and grease) – Urban pollutants that are transported by rainfall from roads, parking lots, and improper storm drains.

Phosphorus – An element that at certain levels can cause excessive algae and aquatic weed growth.

Salts – Chemical compounds from winter road deicing, septic systems, and water softener outwash.

Sediment – Soil that is transported by air and water and deposited on the stream bottom

Temperature – An elevation in water temperature that stresses fish and aquatic insects.

1

APPENDIX D

Example Pumping Log Format Developed by Casmir Snabes

1

APPENDIX E

Minnerick, Russel J., Effects of Residential Development on the Water Quality of Higgins Lake, Michigan 1995-1999. U.S. Geological Survey. Lansing, Michigan. 2001.

1

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Effects of Residential Development on the Water Quality of Higgins Lake, Michigan 1995-99

Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4055

In cooperation with Gerrish and Lyon Townships, Roscommon County, Michigan, Higgins Lake Property Association and Higgins Lake Foundation Effects of Residential Development on the Water Quality of Higgins Lake, Michigan 1995-99

By Russel J. Minnerick

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4055

Lansing, Michigan 2001 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director

For additional information write: Copies of this report can purchased from:

District Chief U.S.Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 6520 Mercantile Way, Ste. 5 Box 25286 Lansing, MI 48911-5991 Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS ����

Abstract ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Purpose and scope ...... 1 Description of the study area ...... 3 Study design ...... 3 Acknowledgments ...... 4 Study Methods...... 5 Water-quality sites ...... 6 Water elevations ...... 9 Residential density ...... 9 Water-quality characteristics ...... 10 Shallow ground water...... 10 Near-shore lake water...... 12 Inlets ...... 12 Deep basins...... 15 Effects of residential development on water quality ...... 19 Summary and conclusions ...... 26 References cited...... 27

FIGURES 1. Map showing study area and location of data collection sites at and near Higgins Lake, Roscommon, Michigan ...... 2

FIGURES 2-9 Graphs showing: 2. Relation between total phosphorus and E. Coli in ground water at sampling site 33, Higgins Lake ...... 12 3. Temperature and oxygen profiles for Higgins Lake, June 1996 to September 1996 ...... 16 4. Specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, and water temperature, during maximum stratification in late summer, North and South basins in Higgins Lake...... 17 5. Tropic-State Indices for Higgins Lake ...... 22 6. Relation between buildings per acre and (A) median dissolved chloride in near-shore Lake water, (B) turbidity in near-shore lake water, and (C) linear feet of roads per acre of study plots, Higgins Lake...... 23 7. Relation between building density and selected nutrients in lake water and ground water at near-shore sampling sites around Higgins Lake...... 24 8. Relation between buildings per acre and E. Coli bacteria in ground water at near-shore sampling sites around Higgins Lake...... 25 9. Monthly maximum and minimum stages for Higgins Lake...... 26

iii CONTENTS--Continued ���� TABLES 1. Site number and identifier, location, and type of data-collection sites, Higgins Lake...... 7 2. Building density and lineal feet of road per acre, Higgins Lake ...... 10 3. Summary of selected water quality constituents in ground water below lake bottom in Higgins Lake ...... 11 4. Summary of nutrients in the near shore lake water in Higgins Lake ...... 13 5. Median values of selected constituents collected from upstream and downstream sites on Big Creek, Higgins Lake ...... 14 6. Instaneous phosphorus loading to Higgins Lake computed at sampling sites on Big Creek ...... 15 7. Summary of water quality in the North Basin, Higgins Lake ...... 18 8. Summary of water quality in the South Basin, Higgins Lake ...... 19 9. Selected chemical characteristics of water in lakes in Grand Traverse County...... 20 10. Summary of secchi and chlorophyll a depth observations collected from the photic zone in the North Basin, Higgins Lake ...... 21 11. Summary of secchi and chlorophyll a depth observations from the photic zone in the South Basin, Higgins Lake ...... 21

iv CONVERSION FACTORS, VERTICAL DATUM, AND ABBREVATIONS For use of readers who prefer the International System of Units (SI), the conversion factors for terms used in this report are listed below.

Multiply By To obtain

Length inch (in) 2.54 centimeter foot (ft) 0.3048 meter

Area acre 4.047 square hectometer mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer square mile (m2) 2.59 square kilometer

Vo lu m e cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter acre foot 1,233.5 cubic meter

Flow cubic foot per second (ft3/sec) 2.832 liter per second

� � �������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� �������������� � � ������� ������

Sea level�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������

ABBREVIATIONS (in addition to those above) MRL, minimum reporting level LT-MDL, long term method detection level TSI, trophic-state index col/100 ml, colonies per 100 milliliters (of sample water) �S/cm, microSiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius ���������������������������������� �������������� �g, microgram mg, milligram L, liter <, less than

v ����������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������

�������������������

$%675$&7

����������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������� ����� ���������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� 3XUSRVH�DQG�VFRSH �������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ,1752'8&7,21 ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������ �

1 Little Creek 24 29 North Basin 23 25 04120478 04120481 27 Shallow Water HIGGINS LAKE Zone Big Creek Treasure Island

22 Flag Point 4 33 30 3 10 Point Detroit 32

11 28 /27 26 21

South Basin 12 “”The Cut

20 44280584411001

Higgins Lake

North

Base from U.S. Geological Survey National Aerial Photography Program,1993 and 1994. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 FEET 0 1,000 2,000 METERS

MICHIGAN

EXPLANATION 23 Lake-water-quality measurement site number and identifier Ground-water-quality measurement site number and identifier Inlet-water-quality measurement site number and identifier Lake gage

Figure 1. Study area and location of data-collection sites at and near Higgins Lake, Roscommon County, Michigan.

2 'HVFULSWLRQ�RI�WKH�VWXG\�DUHD ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� �������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������� ������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������ 6WXG\�GHVLJQ ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� � ���������������������������������� ���������������� ������������������������������������������������������ �������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������

3 ������������������������������������������������ ���� ����� ��������� ����������� ����� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������ ������������������������������������������������� ��� �������� ���� ������ ������������ ���� ��� ������������������������������������������������ ����� ����������� �������� ��� ������� ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������� ���� �� ������ �������� ��� ���� ����� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ���������� ���� ������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������� ����������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������ ������� ������ ��� ��������� ��� �������������������������������������������������� ��������� ���� ��������� ��������� ����������������������������������������������� �������� �������� �������� ����� ���� �������������������������������������������������� ������� ������� ���� ������ ���� ���� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������ ����������� ������ ��� ����� ����� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ���� ���� ����������� ����������� ����� ��� ������������������������������������������������ �������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������� ��� ������� ������� ������� ����� ������ ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������� ����������� ������������� ������� ������������������������������������������������ ������� �������� ������� �������� ���� ����������������������������������������������������� �������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������� ���� ������ �������� ������ ������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������� �������������� ��������������� �������� ���������� �� ������������ ��������� ��������� ������ $FNQRZOHGJPHQWV ���������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ����� ��� ���� ����� ������ ����� ��� ������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� �������� ������ ������ ������ ������� �� �������������������������������������������������� ����������� ������� ��� ����� �� �������������������������������������������������� ����������� ��� ������� ����������� ��� ��������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ����� �������� ��� ������ �������� ������� ���������������������������������������������

4 ���������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ���������� ���������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ��������������� 678'<�0(7+2'6 ��������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ����������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������� ��������������������������������������������������� 6SHFLILF� FRQGXFWDQFH� ��������� ���� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� � ������������������� �� ���������������������������������������������� �������� 7XUELGLW\� ������ �������� ��� �������� �������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� S+�������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� &KORURSK\OO� ��� ������������ �� ��� ���� �������������������������������������������������� ����������� ��� ��������� ���� �������� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������� ���������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� 3KRVSKRUXV� ������ ����������� �� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� 1LWURJHQ� �� ����� � ��� ��������� �� �������������������������������������������������� � � ��������� ��� ����������� ���� ������� ��� ������������������������������������������������ ���� ���� �� ����� � ��� ��������� �� ����������������������������������������������� � � ��������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� &KORULGH� ���������� ��������� �� ����������������������������������������������� ��������� ��� ����������� ���� ������� ��� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� ����������������������������� ������

%RURQ�������������������������������

5 ����������� ���� ������� ���� ���� ��� ��������������������������������������������������� ������ ��� ����� ������ ���� ��� ������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ��� ����� ���� ��������� ��� ������ ����� �������������������������������������������������� ���� ������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ���� ���� ��������� ��� �������� ��� ����� �������������������������������������������������� ����� ���� ���� ������������ ����� �� ����������������������������������������������������� ��������� ������� ������ ������� ��� ����������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ����� ���� ���� ���� ������������ ������� �������������������������������������������������� ���� ��������� ���� �������� ������ ��� �� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ���� ������ ������� ��� ����� ����� ��� �� ��������������������������������������������������� �������� ����� ��� ��������� ���� ������ �������������������������� ���� ����������� ���������� ���� ��� ���������������������������������������������� ������ ������� ��� �������� ����� ��� ��� ������������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������ ���� ��������� ��� ��� ��������� �������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� 6HFFKL� GLVF� ���� ��������� �������� ����������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ����� ��� ��������� ��� ������� ����� ��� ����������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� 'LVVROYHG� R[\JHQ� ���� ��������� ������������������������������������������� ������� �������������� ��� ������ �� ������������������������������������������������ ��������� ��� ����������� ���� ������� ��� ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ��������� ����������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� :DWHU� WHPSHUDWXUH� ������ ������� ������������������������������������������������� ���� ��� ��������� ��� �������� ������� � ������������������������������� � ���� ���� ���������� ������ ���� ����� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������� ���������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� Water-quality sites ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ��������� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������

6 ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������

�������������� ����������������������������������� ��������� ����������

�������� �� ������������������������������� � �������� �� ������������������������������������������ � � ����������������� ������������������������������

� ����������������� ��������������������������������������

� ����������������� ������������������������������

� ����������������� ��������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ������������������������������

�� ����������������� ��������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ������������������������������

�� ����������������� ��������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ������������������������������

�� ����������������� ��������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ������������������������������

�� ����������������� �������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ������������������������������

�� ����������������� �������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ������������������������������

�� ����������������� ��������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ������������������������������

�� ��������������� ������������������������������

�� ����������������� ��������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ���������������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ��������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

7 ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������

������������� ������������������������������������ ��������� ����������

�� ����������������� ��������������������������������������������

�� ����������������� �������������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ���������������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ��������������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ��������������������������������������������

�� ����������������� �������������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ������������������������������

�� ����������������� ��������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ������������������������������

�� ����������������� ��������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ������������������������������

�� ����������������� ��������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ������������������������������

�� ����������������� ��������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ������������������������������

�� ����������������� ��������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ������������������������������

�� ����������������� ��������������������������������������

�� ����������������� ���������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

8 ������������������������������������������������ �5HVLGHQWLDO�GHQVLW\ �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������ ������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ������� ��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ :DWHU�HOHYDWLRQV� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ���������� ������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������

9 �������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������

����������������������� ��������� ��������������������

� ���� �����

� ��� ����

�� ��� ����

�� ��� ����

�� ��� ����

�� ��� ��

�� ��� �����

�� ��� �����

�� ��� �����

�� ���� ����

�� ��� �����

�� ��� �����

�� ���� ����

�� ��� �����

�� ��� ����

�� ��� ����

:$7(548$/,7<�&+$5$&7(5,67,&6 ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� 6KDOORZ�JURXQG�ZDWHU ������������������������������������������������������ ����������� �������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������

10 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �����������

�������������������� ������������������������������������ ������������������������������ ��������������� ������������������������ �������������������������������������� ���������������������������

���� ������ ������� ������ ������� ������� ������ ������� ������� ������ ������� ������� �� ������� �������� ���� �� � ����� ����� ����� ����� ���� ������� ��� � �� �� � ���� ���� ���� ����� ���� ������ ��� � �� �� ���� � ���� ���� ����� ���� ����� �� � �� �� � ���� ���� ���� ����� ���� ����� �� � �� �� � ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����� �� � �� �� � ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����� ��� � �� �� � ���� ���� ���� ����� ���� ����� �� � �� �� � ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����� ��� �� �� �� � ���� ���� ���� ����� ���� ������ ���� �� �� ���� � ���� ���� ���� ���� ����� ��� � �� �� � ���� ���� ���� ����� ���� ������ �� � �� �� ���� � ���� ���� ����� ���� ����� �� � �� �� � ���� ���� ���� ����� ����� ������ �� � �� �� � ���� ���� ���� ����� ���� ����� �� �� �� �� � ���� ���� ���� ��� ����� ���� ���� �� ��

����������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ����������������������� ������ ��������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������

11 0.25

May 19, 1999 0.20

0.15 August 11, 1999

0.10 June 8, 1998

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS, 0.05 IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER PER MILLIGRAMS IN

0.00 0.1 1 10 100 1,000

E. COLI , COLONIES PER 100 MILLILITERS

Figure 2. Relation between total phosphorus and E. Coli in ground water at sampling site 33, Higgins Lake, Roscommon County, Michigan.

��������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� �������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������ ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� � ����������������������������������������������� ����������� �������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������� ���������������������� �������������������������������������������������������

12 ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������� ������������������������������������������

������������������� �������������������� ���������������������� �������������������

����� ��������� ������� ������� ������ ������� ������� ������ ������� �������� �����������

� �� ���� ����� ����� ����� ����� �����

� � ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

�� � ���� ���� ���� ���� ��������

�� � ���� �������� ���� ���� �����

�� � ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �����

�� � ���� ���� ���� ���� ��������

�� ����� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

�� � ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �����

�� � ���� �������� ���� ���� ����

�� � ���� �������� ���� ���� ����

�� ����� ���� ���� ���� ���� �����

�� � ���� �������� ���� ���� ����

�� ����� ���� ���� ���� ���� �����

�� ����� ���� ���� ����� ���� �����

�� � �������� ���� ���� ���� �����

�� � ���� ���� ����� ���� ����� ����

������������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� � �������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������ ������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� � ���������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������� ������������������������ � �������������������������������������������������������� �������������������� ����������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������� �� ��� �������������� ����������������������������������������������������� � � �� ����� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������� �������������������������� ��������������������������������� ������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������

13 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ � � ��� ������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������

���� ��������� ����������� ���������� ������� ����������� ����������� ������ � ����� ��� ��� ���������� ��������� ��������� ����� ������������ � ������� ��� � ��������� ��������� ����������� ������������ ���� �� ����������

�������� ���� ���� � ���� ����� ����� ���

�������� ���� ��� �� ��� ���� ���� ���

������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������� ������������� ���������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ����� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ����������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������ ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ����� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������

14 �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������� ����������������������������

��������������������������� �������������������� ����������� ������ ���������� ����������

������������ ����� �����

��������������� ���� ���� ������������ ���� ����

�������������� ���� ����

��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������ �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ���������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������� ����������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������

15

WATER TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES CELSIUS 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 0 EXPLANATION

DISSOLVED OXYGEN 20 June

July 40 August

60 September

80 WATER TEMPERATURE June 100 July

August

DEPTH, IN FEET, BELOW LAKE SURFACE BELOW LAKE SURFACE DEPTH, IN FEET, 120 September 140 0 2 4 6 81012 14 DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER Higgins Lake North Basin

WATER TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES CELSIUS 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 0 EXPLANATION

DISSOLVED OXYGEN 20 June

July 40 August

60 September

WATER TEMPERATURE 80 June

July 100 August

120 September DEPTH, IN FEET, BELOW LAKE SURFACE BELOW LAKE SURFACE DEPTH, IN FEET,

140 0 24 6 81012 14 DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Higgins Lake South Basin

Figure 3. Temperature and oxygen profiles for Higgins Lake, June 1996 to September 1996, Roscommon County, Michigan, June-September 1996.

16 1 1

10 South Basin 10 South Basin North Basin 20 20 North Basin

30 30

40 40

50 50

60 60 70 70 80 80 90 DEPTH BELOW LAKE SURFACE, IN FEET LAKE SURFACE, DEPTH BELOW 90 DEPTH BELOW LAKE SURFACE, IN FEET LAKE SURFACE, DEPTH BELOW 97 97 105 105 115 115

205 225 245 265 0 5 10 15

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, IN MICROGRAMS DISSOLVED OXYGEN, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER PER CENTIMETER AT 25 DEGREES CELSIUS

1 1 South Basin 10 10 North Basin 20 20

30 30

40 40

50 50

60 60

70 70

80 80 DEPTH BELOW LAKE SURFACE, IN FEET LAKE SURFACE, DEPTH BELOW 90 IN FEET LAKE SURFACE, DEPTH BELOW 90 South Basin 97 97 North Basin 105 105

115 115

7 7.5 8 8.5 9 0 10 20 30

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS WATER TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES CELSIUS

Figure 4. Specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, and water temperature during maximum stratification in late summer, North and South basins in Higgins Lake, Roscommon County, Michigan, September 4, 1996.

17 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������

��������������� �������� ������� ������� ��������� ������� ������� �������� ������� �������� ��������

��������������� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

��������������� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���

���������������� ������ ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���

����������� ���������� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����� ���� ���� � ���� ��������������

����������������� ������ ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

������������������ � � �

����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ���������������� ����������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������

18 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �

������������������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������

��������������� �������� ������ ������� ������� ������ ������� �������� ������ ������� ��������

��������������� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

��������������� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���

���������������� ������ �� �� ��� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���

��������������������� ������������������������ ���� ���� ����� ���� ���� ����� ����� ���� �����

����������������� ������ ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

������������������ � � �

��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������� ())(&76�2)�5(6,'(17,$/� ��������������������������������������������� '(9(/230(17�21�:$7(5�48$/,7< ���������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������� �������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� �����������������������������������������������

19 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������

������������ ���������� ������������� ������������ ������ ���������� ������������ ������ ������ ������

���������������������� ���� ��� ��

������������������������������ ��� ��� ��� ������������������������������������������� ���� ��� ���

�������������������������� ��� ��� ���

�������������������������� ���� ��� ���

������������������������� ���� ��� ���

��������������������������������� ��� �� ���

��������������������������� ��� ��� ���

��������������������������� ��� ��� �� ���������������������� ��� �� ��

�������������������������� ��� �� ��

������������������������� ���� �� �� ���������������������� ��� ��� ��

������������������������ ������������������ ��� ��

�������������������� ��� ��� ��

���������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������� ���������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������

20 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������

����������������������� ������ ������� ������ ������� �� ��������

����������������������������� �� ���� ��� ���

����������������������������������� �� ��� ��� ����

������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������

����������������������� ������� ������� ������ ������� ��� ��������

����������������������������� �� ���� ��� ���

����������������������������������� �� ���� ��� ����

21 TROPHIC-STATE INDEX 101000 101000 1010 2020 3030 4040 5050 6060 7070 8080 9090 1010 2020 3030 4040 5050 6060 7070 8080 9090 DEC 94 00 00 Figure 5. JUNE 95 Trophic-State IndicesforHigginsLake,RoscommonCounty, Michigan. DEC 95 Eutrophic Eutrophic JUNE 96 DEC 96 Mesotrophic Mesotrophic JUNE 97 22 DEC 97 Oligotrophic Oligotrophic JUNE 98 DEC 98 Secchi-disc depth Chlorophyll a Total phosphorus JUNE 99 DEC 99 of in Figure LI NEAR FEET OF ROADS PER near-shore roads DISSOLVED CHLORIDE IN ACRE TURBIDITY AS NTU MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 100 150 200 250 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 50 10 12 14 6 0 0 2 4 6 8 per . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Relation acre C A B l ake of water between study , 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 ( plot B ) buildings t urbidity s, BUILDINGS PER ACRE PER BUILDINGS BUILDINGS PER ACRE PER BUILDINGS BUILDINGS PER ACRE PER BUILDINGS Higgins in per 23 near-shore Lake, 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 acre Roscommon and l ( ake A ) median water 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 County , and dissolved , ( Michigan. C ) linear 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 chloride feet TOTAL NITROGEN AS NITRIT NITRITE Plus NITRATE, IN MILLIGRAM MILLIGRAMS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS INI MILLIGRAMS PER LITER Roscommon County and groundwateratnear-shoresamplingsitesaround HigginsLake, Figure 7. PER LITER 0.000. 1001 0.000. 1001 0.00. 101 0.00. 101 0.10.1 1010 0.10.1 1010 11 11 .001 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.12 0.00 0. 0.12 0.2 0.31 0.31 0.2 0.12 0. 0.0000 Relationbetweenbuildingdensityandselectednutrients inlakewater Ground water Ground water Surface water Surface Surface water Surface .2 .5 0.31 0.25 0.12 , Michigan. ULIG E ACRE PER BUILDINGSPER ACRE ULIG E ACRE PER ACRE PER BUILDINGS .103 .405 .109 .015 1.69 1.56 1.50 0.93 0.81 1.69 1.56 0.50 1.50 0.93 0.44 0.81 0.50 0.44 0.38 0.38 0.31 .804 .008 .311.50 1. 1.56 0.93 0.81 0.50 0.93 0.81 0.44 0.50 0.44 0.38 24 .50 1.56.50 1. 69 69 �� � ��� ��� �� ����� �� � ��� �� �� �� � ����� � �� �� �� ��� �� �� ����� ��� � � �� ��� � � ��� � ����� � �� � ���� � �������� � � � �� ���� � � � � � � �� � �� �� � � � ���� ���� � �� ���� � � ���� � � � � � � ��� � ��� � �� ��� � ���� � �� �� ��� �� � � � � � �������� ������� ��� �� � � �� � � � � � ����� ��� ������ �� � � ���� �� � ���� ����� �� � � ������ � ��� �� � � ��� �� � � ��� ��� �� ����� � � �� � � ���� � ��� � � �� � ������ � � � � �� ��� � � � ��� ��� � � � ������ ����� �� ���� ����� ���� ����� ��� � � � � � ���� � �� �� ��� � � � � � � � � �� � � � �� ��� ���� �� �� � �� �� �� � � �� � � � � � � ��� �� ��� �� ��� �� ��� � � � �� ��� ��� ���� ���� � � ��� ��� �� � ��� � ��� ��� �� ���� � ������ ���� � � ����� � � �� � ����� �

�� E. COLI �� � � � IN COLONIES PER � � � � �� �� �� � � � � � � ��� � �� ��� �� � � ������� � � � �� � ���� ��� � � � � � ��� at near-shor F 10 � � � � �� � � � � ��� i � ��� ��� � �� 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 � �� ���� ���� � �� gur � � ��� �� � � � � 0 � ������ �� �� ��� � ����

� 100 MILLILITERS � ���� ������� � � �� � � . � �� � � � 0 � �� �� �� � ���� ��� � � e �� �� �� �� � � � � � ������� � � ����� 8. � � � � ����� � � �� � � � �� � � � � � ������� � � � � ���� � � �� � � �� Relationbetw � � � � � � �� ���� � � ��� �� � � �� � � � � � ��� �� � � � � �� �� � e samplingsit � ����� �� � �� � � ��� � � � � � ��� � � � � �� � � � � � � ��� �� �������� �� �� � � � � �� � � � ��� � � ��� � � � � �� ��� �� �� ������ � � � �� � � �� � � � � � �� � ���� ��� � � ������� �� � � �� �� �� �� � � � � � � �� ��� � ��� � � � ��� � � �� � � �� � � � �� �� � � � �� �� � �� 0 � � �� � � � � �� ��� � . � ������� ��� �� � ����� ��� � � 5 � ��� � ������ � � � ��� ��� �� � �� een buildingsperacr � � � �� ��� � � ��� � ���� � ��� � ��� �� �� es ar � � � �� ��� � �� � ��� � � ����� � � �� �� ��� � �� � � BUILDINGS PERACRE � � ���� ��� �� � � � � �� � �� � � � ��� �� � � � ound HigginsLak � � � � �� �� ��� �� � � � � �� � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � 25 1 �� �� � �� � � �� � � � �� �� �� ����� � �� ��� � ��� � ������� � �� . � ��� 0 ����� � ���� � � � ��� � � � � � ���� � � � � �� �� �� ��� � �� �� � � ������ � � � e � � � � � �� � ����� �� � ���� �� �� �� and � ������ ��� ��� ���� � � � � � � � � �� � � e ������� � � � � ��� ��� � ��� � ��� � � , � � � Rosc � � � ��� � � � � ������ ��� � �� E. �� ��� � � � �� � � � ��� � � �� �� � � ������ � �� � � C � � �� �� � �� �� ���� � � � � � �� � � � � � � oli � � ��� � ����� � ommon C ��� ���� � � � � �� � � � � � �� ��� � � � �� � �������� � �� � � ��� � bac � ���� � � ����� � �� � � � ���� � � �� �� � � � 1 � � � �� � �� ��� � � � �� . � � � � � �� ���� �� � ����� �� � � 5 � �� ��� t �� � � � � ������ � e � �� � � � � � �� � ��� � ��� � ria ingr ��� �� �� � � � �� ���� � � �� ��� � � � �� � ���� � ��� o � � � � �� �� ���� � � � � � ��� �� � � unt ����� �� � ���� �� � ����� � �� � � ���� �� � �� � � � � � ������� � � � � ��� � � ��� ��� � � � � � � � y � � � � � � � �� , � ���� � � ound wat � � � M ���� � � � � � � � � � � � �� � ��� � ������ � � � � � � � � � ��� �� ����� �� �� ��� ���� � � � � � ichigan. �� � ��� ���� � � ��� � � ��� ����� � �� � � � ���� ��� ��� � �� � � ����� ���� � � � �� ��� �� ���� � � 2 �� ��� ��� � � � � � . ��� ��� ����� �� ��� � � ��� ��� �� � ��� 0 �� � � ��� e ������ � �� �� � � �� �� r � �� � �� ��� � � � � � � ��� �� ��� �� � �� ���� � �� � � � � ��� � � ���� ��� � � � � � � �� �� �� �� � ���� � ��� � ��� ����� � ��� � �� � � �������� �� ��� � � �� � �� ����� � � � � � �� � � ������ � � � ������� �� ��� � � � � � � �� � ��� � ���� � ���� �� � � � � ��� ���� � � � � ����� � ������� � � �� � � � � � � ��� � � � � � � �� � � �� � � ��� � �� �� � �� � � � ���� � � ���� �� �� � � ��� � � �� ����� � ���� �� ��

� �� ���� �� �� � ��� � � ��� � ���� ���� � � �� � ������ � � � �� �� �� �� � �� �� � �� ���� �� �� �� ��� � � � � � �� � � ��� � � � �� �� � � � � ��� � � ��� ��� ���� 6 ��� ������ � �� �� ��� ��� ��� � ���� � 8 � � �� � � ��� � � � ��� ��� � 00$5 � � � � ���� � � � � ��� � � � � ��� � � � � � � �� � � ����� �� � � � �� � � ��� ��� � � � STAGE , IN FEET ABOVE AN ARBITRARY DATUM �� � � � � � ��� � � �� �� � �� � � � � 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 ������� �� � � � � Dec-94 June-95 Dec-95 June-96 Dec-96 June-97 Dec-97 June-98 Dec-98 June-99 Dec-99 Dec-99 June-99 Dec-98 June-98 Dec-97 June-97 Dec-96 June-96 Dec-95 June-95 Dec-94 � � � � � � �� � �� ��� � � � � � �� Figure � � � �� � �� � �� � � ��� � < ��� � � �� ���� �� � � � �� � ����� � � �$1 � ��� � ���� � � ��������� ��� � � � � ��� � �� �� � �� ��� � � � � 9. �� � �� � � � � � � � �� ' � ��� �� � MonthlymaximumandminimumstagesforHigginsLake,RoscommonCounty � � � � � � � � � � �� � � �� ��� �&21&/86 ����� � � ������ �� � � � ��� �� ���� � � � � �� �� � ���� � � � � ���� � �� � � � � � � � �� � � � � ��� � ��� � � � � ��� � � � � Missing record �� ��� � � � �� � � � � �������� � � � � �� � � �� � ������� � � � �� �� ���� �� �� � � � � � � � �� � � � � � ��� � ��� � � � � � � � �� �� ��� ������ � ���� � � � � � � � ��� �� �� � ��� ��� � ,216 � ��� � � � �� � �� � � � � � � �� � ��� �� � � � � �� �� � � �� � � � �� � � � � � ��� � � � � ����� � ����� � � �� ��� � � � � � ��� ���� � � � � ��� � � � � �� � ���� � ��� � �� � ��� � �� � � � � � �� � � � �� ��� ��� � � ��� �� � ��� � � � � � � � ���� � � � � � �� �� �� � � � � � 26 �� �� ��� ��� �� ����� �� �� �� � ��� �� �� �� �� �� � � � � � � � ��� � � �� � � � �� � � � �� � � � � � � �� � � ��� � � ��� �� �������� � � ��� �� � ��� ���� ��� ��� �� � � ���� �� � � � �� � � �� � � � � � ��� � ��� ��� ��� ��� � ����� Maximum elevation Minimum elevation ����� � � �� � � � ��� � �� � � ��� � �� ��� � ��� � ���� � ��� � �� �� �� � ��� � ��� ��� � � ����� ���� � �� ����� � � � � �� � ���� �� � �� � ���� � �� � � ���� � ����� � � � � �� � � ���� � � ������ � � � �� � � ����� � �� � � � � � � � � ��� �� � � � � �� � �� ���� �� � � � � ��������� � �� �� �� �� � �� ��� � � �� � �� ���� � �� � �������� �� � �� �� ����� ��� ��� � �� � � � � � ��� �� � � � � �������� �������� � � � � � � � � � � � � �� �� �� �� � � ��� ���� � � � � � � � � � �� � � �� � � � ��� � , Michigan. � � � � � ���� � � � � � � � � ��� � � � �� � � � � � � � � ���� �� � �� � ��� � � �� � � � � ���� � ��� ���� � � �������� � ������ � � �� � ��� � � � ���� � � � � � � � �� ���� � � � � ���� � � ���� � � �� �� � ��� ���� � � ���������� �� � ��� � � � ���� � � ��� ����� �� � � �� � � � � � � � ��� �� � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��� � �� � � ��� � �� � � � � � � � � �� ��� ��� � � � ���� ��� � � ��� ��� ��� �� � � � � ���� � � ��� � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � �� �� � � � � �� � � � ���� � � � ��� � � � �� �� �� �� � ������������������������������������������� ���� �������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������� �������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ����� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� �����������������������������������������g/L)�� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������� ����������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� 5()(5(1&(6�&,7(' ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ��������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������

27 ����������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� �������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������� ����������������� �������������������������������������������� ������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ������������� ��������������������������������������������� �������������� ��������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������� ������������������������� ����������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������� ����������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ���������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������ ������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������� ����������� ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������

28 Nut Sw . QH aaa THE WT\TIVERSITYOF MICHIW flba A3 0 \a,

A Water Quality Study of Higgins Lake, Michigan

Technical Report No. 12

Richard Schultz and Winfield Fairchild

A WATER QUALITY STUDY OF HIGGINS LAKE, MICHIGAN

Richard Schultz Project Coordinator Biology Department Central Michigan University Kt. Pleasant, MI 48859

Dr. G. Winfield Fairchild Project Supervisor Biology Department West Chester University West Chester, PA 19383

August 198 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS I . INTRODUCTION ...... p . 2 I1 . SUMMARY ...... p . 4 I11 . HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ...... p . 5 IV. PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE LAKE AND WATERSHED ...... p . 9 V . LIMNOLOGY OF TdE NORTH AND SOUTH BASINS ...... p.12 METHODS ...... p.12 RESULTS ...... p.13 Light ...... p.13 Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen ...... p.14 Hardness. Conductivity. Chloride -and Silica ..... p.15 Carbon Dioxide. pH -and Alkalinity ...... p.17 Nitrogen ...... p.19 Phosphorus ...... p.21 Phytoplankton ...... p.23 Zooplankton ...... p.25 Sediments ...... p.26 VI. EVIDENCE FOR EUTROPHICATION IN HIGGINS LAKE ...... p.28 VII. N VS . P LIMITATION - NORTH AND SOUTH BASINS ...... p.30 VIII . A PHOSPHORUS BUDGET FOR HIGGINS LAKE ...... p.32 IV. SOURCES OF NUTRIENTS ALONG THE LAKESHORE ...... p.36 METHODS ...... p.38 RESULTS ...... p.39 Seasonal Trends in Nutrient Supply ...... p.40 Nearshore 5 Differences ...... p.41 Comparison of Nutrients and Periphyton by -Site .. p.41 x . N vs . P LIMITATION: NEARSHORE ...... p .49 METHODS ...... p.49 RESULTS ...... p.50 XI . RECOMMENDATIONS ...... p.52 FURTHER STUDY ...... p.52 WATER QUALITY IlANAGEPIENT ALTERNATIVES ...... p .52 XI1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... p.54 XI11 . LITERATURE CITED ...... p.55 XIV. TABLES ...... p.59 XV . FIGURES ...... p.7l APPENDIX A: A PHOSPHORUS BUDGET FOR HIGGINS LAKE ...... p.107 APPENDIX B: FEATURES OF THE HIGGINS LAKE SHORELINE ...... p.108 I. INTRODUCTION

Higgins Lake has long been noted for its extremely high water quality, and is presently regarded as one of the cleanest lakes in Michigan. Recently, however, property owners and lake association members have reported decreases in water clarity, the appearance of lake bottom bands of detritus, and also a very noticeable increase in algal growth near the shoreline. These are all signs of cultural eutrophication, an increase in lake productivity, often to undesirable levels, stimulated by increases in nutrients supplied to the lake. Limnologists use the terms "~li~otrophic", "mesotrophic" and "eutrophic" to roughly describe stages in the eutrophication process.

Oligotrophic lakes tend to be clear, relatively deep lakes with low biological production and high dissolved oxygen concentrations throughout the year. Eutrophic lakes in contrast are turbid water bodies with high biological productivity and low dissolved oxygen levels in the deeper water during ther~al stratification. Mesotrophic lakes show intermediate characteristics between oligotrophy and eutrophy, and often have productive warmwater fishe:.ies (NEMCOG, 1979).

A growing concern that Higgins Lake may be experiencing eutrophication, thereby decreasing the lake ' s economic and recreational value, prompted the Township Boards of Lyon and

Gerrish Townships to contact the University of Michigan

Biological Station to initiate a comprehensive water quality survey of Higgins Lake. In January of 1983, Dr. G. Winfield

Fairchild, at that time Professor of Linnology at the Station, began work on the project with the hiring of Richard Schultz, a graduate student in aquatic biology at Central Michigan

University, as project coordinator.

A large portion of this report addresses the physical, chemical, and biological conditions which characterize the present trophic state of Higgins Lake (Sections IV-VI). The data are intended as a baseline for future studies, and have also been compared with previously collected information in order to examine changes in water quality during the past decade.

Phosphorus is then identified as a major limiting nutrient in the lake, and an input-output nutrient budget model for phosphorus is summarized (Sections VII-VIII). A major concern of the research has been the impact of human recreation and development in supplying nutrients to nearshore areas of the lake, and water quality is described for 18 sites along the lakeshore (Sections

IX-X). Finally, general recommendations are made for further long term study and water quality management (Section XI). Major results of the study are briefly summarized in Section 11. 11. SUMMARY

Higgins Lake remains an oligotrophic lake of high water

quality. Both deep basins studies have high year-round dissolved

oxygen concentrations throughout the water column, deep light

penetration, and low nutrient and chlorophyll-a concentrations.

The plankton community also contains biological indicator

species, such as the calanoid copepod Senecella calanoides, which

are indicative of oligotrophy.

The North Basin of Higgins Lake has slightly higher water

quality than the South Basin, which, because of its morphometry

and location, may be particularly sensitive to eutrophication in

the future. Analysis of nitrogen: phosphorus ratios indicates

that both basins are phosphorus-limited during mid-summer.

In contrast to the deep basins, nearshore areas of Higgins

Lake have consistently high concentrations of phosphorus, and

heavy accumulations of both marl and the filamentous green alga

Cladophora glomerata at many locations. Inorganic nitrogen

(especially nitrate) is depleted to potentially limiting levels.

An in situ biostimulation experiment, conducted at one of the 18

nearshore sampling locations, provides confirmation that the

growth of algal periphyton nearshore is nitrogen-limited by mid-

summer, apparently owing to high phosphorus loading,

It is suggested that water quality be managed by reducing

human sources of phosphorus, particularly from riparian

land, and that further development of the Higgins Lake watershed

be considered carefully with regard to its impact upon nutrient

loading to the lake. 111. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Prior to the initiation of this study, a literature search was conducted of work done previously on Higgins Lake. The following studies provide a basis for the present research.

Bosserman (1969) completed an inventory of present land use in the Higgins Lake Basin and examined the effects of these uses on the quality of the lake water. He walked the shoreline, taking note of all inflowing and outflowing surface waters, and compiled basic morphometric, biological, and chemical information for the lake. From these data, Bosserman concluded that there were four basic sources of pollution to Higgins Lake: (1) drains and , (2) ice-caused erosion, (3) erosion caused by wave action, and (4) erosion caused by road ends. He suggested a number of management measures, including the use of jetties, revetments, and sea walls to protect against erosion from wind and ice and also the use of vegetative cover to deal with problems of drainage and road end erosion.

During 1971, the Student Water Publications Club of Michigan

State University conducted a survey of Higgins Lake dealing with two issues of importance to water quality. Their report discussed the drainage of Battin Swamp, from which large amounts of tannins enter the lake near Point Comfort. A number of attempts were made to fill in the drain, in part because of the fear that nutrients were being added to the lake with the tannins. It was finally decided that the County Road Commission had the legal right to maintain the drain as a means of regulating water levels in the swamp.

A second concern addressed by the study was the overuse of the two State Parks on Higgins Lake. A series of interviews with park employees revealed that the parks were frequently filled to capacity and that this overuse might lead to overloading of the parks' lagoon sewage systems, thereby causing increased sewage infiltration into groundwater feeding into the lake. As a means of combatting this problem, it was suggested that the parks restrict the number of sites available on a particular day.

The Student Water Publications Club of Michigan State

University was contacted by the Higgins Lake Board-in early 1972 and requested to collect water samples from a series of riparian wells, from within the lake itself, and from associated streams to determine bacterial densities and nutrient concentrations. Of the 20 wells tested, two were positive of coliform bacteria.

Several areas of the lake and a number of surface inflows also showed positive tests for bacteria, indicating that sewage from septic tanks may be leaking into the lake.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Ellis &

Childs, 1973) has investigated nutrient movements from septic tanks and lawn fertilization to nearby Houghton Lake. The

objectives of this study were two-fold: (1) to determine if nutrients (phosphorus and nitrates) were moving with the groundwater to Houghton Lake from septic tank systems and (2) to determine the effects of lawn fertilization on the concentration

of phosphorus in overland runoff.

In determining nutrient movement from septic tanks, 38 test wells were drilled to a depth of 22-24 feet below the water

table. Nutrient concentrations in all wells were then monitored. The study concluded that: (1) phosphates and nitrates from household septic tanks migrated through the groundwater and eventually reached Houghton Lake, and (2) the movement of nutrients with the groundwater was traceable for distances exceeding one hundred feet at several sites.

The data for lawn fertilization were derived by use of a questionnaire and through personal interviews. From these data, it was apparent that about one-half of the sites studied had been over-fertilized. It was recommended that no phosphorus fertilizer be applied to lawns surrounding the lake without prior soil testing to verify the need.

In response to accelerated shoreline development, the Lyon,

Markey, Gerrish, and Beaver Creek Township Boards contracted the

Progressive Engineering Company to initiate an engineering study regarding hazards associated with wastewater discharge within the community. The firm developed a Facilities Plan in 1976 to determine the most cost-effective method for upgrading existing wastewater treatment facilities. In conjunction with the development of this plan, a series of studies were conducted in the lake area to determine soil types, depths to the water table, and the phosphorus adsorption capacity of the soils. The

Facilities Plan concluded that: (1) due primarily to either high water tables or the density of development, some areas adjacent to Higgins Lake did not receive adequate sewage treatment from on-site treatment systems, and (2) unless corrective measures

(e.g., installation of public sanitary sewer systems) were implemented, public health hazards would continue, and a gradual degradation of the quality of nearby surface and groundwater resources could be expected.

The National Eutrophication Survey released a water quality

analysis of Higgins Lake (U.S. EPA, 1975), emphasizing

limnological measurements of the deep basins. The following

conclusions were reached: (1) Higgins Lake was an oligotrophic

lake with low mean levels of dissolved and total phosphorus,

inorganic nitrogen, chlorophyll-a, and a high Secchi disk

transparency, (2) phosphorus limitation to algal growth occurred

in September, whereas slight nitrogen limitation occurred in June and November, and (3) septic tanks contributed roughly 28% of the

total phosphorus load, with 72% coming from other non-point

sources (e.g., runoff, precipitation). The study concluded that,

although the present phosphorus loading was quite low, every

effort should be made to reduce all phosphorus inputs to ensure

continued high water quality.

Finally, Dr. Kenneth Reckhow (1980, 1983) developed a

nutrient budget model for predicting lake phosphorus

concentrations from known physical data and used Higgins Lake as

an example for this method. Reckhow predicted that Higgins Lake

should have a low phosphorus concentration, and categorized the

lake as being oligotrophic. IX. PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE LAKE AND ITS WATERSHED

Higgins Lake is located in Crawford and Roscommon Counties

(T24-25N, R3-4W) in the north central portion of northern lower

Michigan (Fig. I), five miles west of the village Roscommon. The lake is a deep, coldwater lake of Pleistocene glacial ice block origin underlain by Mississippian Period bedrock (Dorr &

Eschmann, 1970). Lakes of this nature are formed as a result of melting ice blocks left behind in an area scoured out by the glacier as it retreated (Goldman & Horne, 1983).

Piggins Lake has a maximum length of 6.33 miles, a breadth of 3.30 miles, a mean depth of 44.3 ft, and a maximum depth of

136.2 ft. The lake's surface area of 10,317 acres ranks tenth in size among Michigan's lakes and is large relative to its watershed area of 21,653 acres (Table 1).

About one-third of Higgins Lake is shoal (0-20 ft) and about one-half of the lake has depths exceeding 50 ft (Fig. 2). Figure

3, a hypsographic or depth-area curve, is a graphic representation of the relationship between the lake's surface 10 3 area and its depth. The volume of Higgins Lake is 1.99 X 10 ft 8 3 (5.64 X 10 rn ) and the lake's volume development factor (D ) is v 0.97. Lakes with D values greater than 1.0 are typically steep v sided and possess large water volumes relative to their surface area. Examples are Burt Lake (D = 1.6) and Black Lake (D = 1.5) v v (Table 2) (Gannon & Paddock, 1974). Lakes with D values less v than 1.0 frequently have extensive shoal areas, and less water volume relative to other lakes of similar surface area and depth.

Examples are Crooked Lake (D = 0.5) and Pickerel Lake (D =0.5). v v Generally, the greater the D of a lake, the more resistant it is V to eutrophication from increased nutrient loading.

The Higgins Lake shoreline measures 20.49 miles, and has a shoreline development factor (D ) of 1.44. The shoreline L development factor provides an index of the relative potential for inputs to the lake from points along the shoreline. Lakes with high D values have extensive shorelines for their size, and L are often subject to rapid eutrophication because of the consequent opportunity for nutrient inputs from riparian development. Examples of high D va.lues are seen in Lake L Charlevoix (D = 3.1, Crooked Lake (D = 3.0) and Walloon Lake L L (D =3.0) (Gannon & Paddock, 1974). TL Higgins Lake has only two major surface inputs, Big Creek and Little Creek. The lake empties into Houghton Lake through the Cut River and has a flushing rate of 9.8% of the lake's volume per year.

The watershed area of Higgins Lake is situated in the central highland region of the Lower Peninsula on the surface divide between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron drainage basins.

Landscape features of the area are intermorainic and probably originated some 11,000 years ago. The hills near the north and south shore are marginal moraines, deposits from the edge of a retreating glacier. Most of the Higgins Lake watershed is topographically flat, and represents a glacial outwash plain.

Elevations within the watershed vary from 1154 to 1300 feet above sea level (Fig. 4: after U.S.G.S., 1963). The shoreline is generally surrounded by uplands. Large wetlands exist near the

Cut River, in Battin Marsh, and in portions of the watershed drained by Big and Little Creeks. Groundwater flow is influenced by the marginal moraines and generally follows the surface contours (Fig. 5: after Mich. Water Resources Commission, 1974).

The soils in the Higgins Lake area are primarily glacial till, a mixture of gravel, sand, and clays, Soil permeability is generally high. Although five soil series are found in the watershed, three predominate and are discussed here (Fig. 6:after

USDA, 1924, 1927). The soil type immediately adjacent to much of the shoreline is of the Grayling-Rubicon series. Soils of this type exhibit a slope of 0-6%, rapid soil permeability (6-20 in/hr) and high phosphorus adsorption capacity.

A second major soil type in the watershed is the Grayling-

Montcalm series. The slope associated with this soil type is 6-

25%, indicating often considerable relief and high erosion potential. This series also has high permeability (6-20 in/hr), but lower phosphorus adsorption capacity.

The Carbondale-Roscommon series exhibits a slope of 0-2% and is often found in swamps and lowlands. The soils are highly organic and have a high moisture holding capacity. The soils have moderately high permeability (2-6 in/hr) and a high phosphorus adsorption capacity.

Coniferous and deciduous forests comprise 95.3% of the watershed (Fig. 7:after Michigan DNR, 1970). Residential areas, which make up 4.4% of the total watershed, are chiefly clustered along the lakeshore. All units are presently serviced by septic systems. Agriculture accounts for only 0.20% of the watershed and consists chiefly of pastureland. V. LIMNOLOGY OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH BASINS

METHODS

Physical, chemical and biological measurements were taken at two deepwater stations, termed the North and South basins (Fig.

8) on March 3 and July 19, 1983.

Temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles were obtained using a YSI Model 51B dissolved oxygen probe and thermistor at 5 rn intervals during the March sampling and at 1 m intervals during the July sampling. Percent saturation of dissolved oxygen was determined by nomagraph. Light transparency was determined with a standard Secchi disk. Light penetration was further quantified using a LiCor submarine photometer fitted with Weston cells and color filters during the July sampling.

Water samples were obtained with a 3 liter Kemmerer bottle.

Hardness was determined by titration (APHA, 1976). Conductivity was measured on an Industrial Instruments Model RC-16B2

Conductivity Bridge. Conductivity recordings were corrected to 0 umhos/cm at 25 . Total alkalinity was measured by titration with a mixed indicator solution of bromcresol-green methyl-red (APHA, 1975).

Determinations of pH were made using a Beckman Selectmeter. Free carbon dioxide was determined by nomagraph from the pH and alkalinity measurements. Ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, total nitrogen, orthophosphate, total phosphorus, silica, and chloride were determined calorimetrically on a Technicon Dual Channel

Autoanalyzer (APHA, 1976).

Plankton samples were obtained during the July sampling by

bottom-to-surface tows with a conical 1/4 m plankton net with 80 urn nylon mesh. Phytoplankton samples were preserved in 1%

Lugol's iodine and were examined qualitatively. Zooplankton samples were preserved in 5% buffered formalin for later enumeration. Chlorophyll-a values were determined with a Turner

Model 111 fluorometer. Values were corrected for phaeopigments

(Holm-Hansen, 1965). An Ekman grab (15 cm X 15 cm) was used to collect bottom samples, which were then dried and ignited to determine % organic matter using standard methods (APHA, 1976).

RESULTS

Light

The measurement of solar radiation is of fundamental importance to the study of freshwater ecosystems, because of its energy contribution to the lakewater and to photosynthesis, and because of its diagnostic value in interpreting lake water quality. Higgins Lake has clear, unstained water that allows good light penetration. The North and South basins had Secchi depth readings of 12 m and 10 m respectively (Fig. 9a,c).

Readings of 10-20 m are characteristic of oligotrophic lakes, while more productive lakes often exhibit considerably less transparency.

The euphotic zone, the portion of the lake where light intensity is sufficiently high that photosynthesis exceeds respiration, is usually considered to extend to a depth where light intensity equals 1%of incident light. Higgins Lake has an extensive euphotic zone extending to approximately 24 m.

Total light is attenuated exponentially in the water column

(Fig. 9a,c). Red light waves are absorbed readily by the water itself and reveal little about water quality. The comparatively deep penetration of blue light in both basins of Higgins Lake indicates relatively little algal biomass in the water column, and is thus consistent with the lake's oligotrophic status.

Green light, not used in photosynthesis, penetrates still deeper than blue light, as expected (Fig. 9b,d).

Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen

As solar radiation passes downward from the surface of a lake, much of its energy is absorbed as heat. Wind driven mixing causes the heated upper waters to redistribute downward. The result is a sigmoid curve of water temperature with depth (Fig.

10c,d). These curves show thermal stratification, with a zone of dense, cold water (the hypolimnion) beneath a zone of less dense, warmer water (the epilimnion). Separating the epilimnion from the hypolimnion is the thermocline, a zone in which water 0 temperature drops more than 1 C with each meter increase in depth.

Both basins of Higgins Lake possess an extensive hypolimnion in comparison to the epilimnion. In the North basin, the epilimnion extends to 8 m, and the thermocline occurs between 9-

14 m. The South basin's epilimnion is slightly shallower, extending only to 7 m, while the thermocline is located between

8-12 m. During winter, as is typical of lakes under ice cover, both basins display a slight inverse thernel stratification (Fig.

10a,b).

There are two major sources of oxygen to the water column:

(1) atmospheric oxygen dissolves slowly into water at the lake surface, and (2) phytoplankton contribute oxygen as a by-product of photosynthesis in the euphotic zcne. Decreases in oxygen, which may be particularly pronounced in the hypolimnion, are generally attributable to organismal respiration and the decomposition of organic matter which has settled to the bottom.

In both basins of Higgins Lake, maximum oxygen levels are found in the thermocline (Fig. 10c,d). These curves represent

"positive heterograde" oxygen profiles, and indicate high algal photosynthesis in the thermocline, with greater respiration in the hypolimnion. Summer oxygen values were generally lower in the hypolimnion of the South basin and declined to 52% saturation at the sediment-water interface.

The solubility of oxygen decreases as temperature increases.

Cold water can thus hold more gas in solution at saturation than warm water, and both basins accordingly show greater dissolved oxygen levels during the winter than in summer. Percent saturation approaches 100% throughout the entire water column during winter in both basins with the exception of the lower reaches of the South basin, where it drops to 67% (Fig. 10a,b).

Hardness, Conductivity, Chloride_aA Silica

Hardness in lakewater is defined as the total concentration of calcium and magnesium ions expressed as mg Calcium carbonate

(CaCO ) per liter. The usual classification of hardness is that 3 of Brown, Skougstad, and Fishman (1970): 0-60 = soft water, 61-

120 = moderately hard water, 121-180 = hard water, and >I80 = very hard water. Higgins Lake is thus a hardwater lake, the

South basin being slightly harder than the North basin (Fig.

llc,d). Calcium carbonate levels in the North basin are nearly uniform throughout, ranging from 120-124 mg/l. The South basin profile is more irregular. A decrease in hardness at the thermocline is attributed to the increased photosynthetic activity and the precipitation of calcium carbonate from that portion of the water column.

Calcium carbonate is also precipitated in the lake on rocks, sediments, and plant surfaces in nearshore areas of the lake as marl. Marl production increases as lake productivity increases, and noticeable accumulations of marl along portions of the shoreline of Higgins Lake (Appendix B) provide an early warning of nutrient loading to those areas.

The specific conductance of lake water is a measure of the ability of a solution to allow electrical flow, and is increased

~Lthincreasing ionic content (especially calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, carbonate and bicarbonate, sulfate, chloride).

Conductance in the North and South basins of Higgins Lake ranged from 250-277 urnhos/cm and 253-298 umhos/cm, respectively, during summer and from 231-241 umhos/cm and 210-230 umhos/un during winter (Fig. 11). These relatively high conductance values are typical of hardwater lakes, but increases in conductance over

time in a given lake can often signal changes in trophic state.

Chloride (Cl) is the major halide stored in most freshwater

algal cells, but is usually not the dominant anion in lakes.

Pollutional sources of chlorides can modify natural

concentrations greatly and include atmospheric inputs, seepage

from domestic sewage, and winter road salting. Generally,

chloride is not considered harmful to living organisms in a lake 4 until it reaches concentrations of 10 mg/l (Wetzel, 1983).

Chloride levels in both basins during summer and winter showed little variation, ranging from 3.9-6.2 mg/l.

Silica (SiO ) is an essential nutrient in lake systems 2 dominated by diatom algae, and an inverse relationship between silica and diatom densities is a frequent consequence of algal uptake (Lund, 1964; Munawar & Munawar, 1975). Compared to the high levels of other growth-stimulating nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus in water from human sources (e.g., sewage), silica loading is minor. Excessive loading of nitrogen and .phosphorus can thus cause rapid algal growth and the depletion of available silica to limiting levels. Under such conditions diatoms are frequently replaced by less desirable green and blue-green algae which do not require silica (Schelske

& Stoermer, 1971).

During winter, silica in the North basin ranged from 7.8-8.9 mg/l, while the South basin had a slightly elevated range of 8.3-

9.9 mg/l (Fig. lla,b). Both basins display gradual increases in silica levels near the bottom, largely because of the resupply of silica to the hypolimnion from the sediments. Summer silica levels in both basins are slightly reduced below winter values in both basins, presumably by algal uptake (Fig. llc, d) . Silica levels are particularly depressed at 8 m and 12 m in the North basin and at 8 m in the South basin and, like the increased oxygen levels at those depths, indicate higher diatom densities at the thermocline.

Carbon dioxide, pH and Alkalinity

The pH of most natural waters falls in the range of 4.0 to 9.0. Deviation from a neutral pH of 7.0 is caused by the presence of acids or bases, either produced by organisms within the lake or by the entry of chemicals into the lake. Hardwater lakes usually have basic pH values 07) owing to their high carbonate/bicarbonate content. Within a given lake, increases in pH often reflect increased photosynthesis, while declines often accompany increased respiration. Carbon dioxide is an end product of respiration by living organisms. It is also added to the water by the action of added acids on bicarbonates. The saturation concentration of carbon dioxide is less than 1.1 mg/l at normal temperatures and atmospheric pressure (Lind, 1979). Waters are frequently supersaturated with carbon dioxide when respiration rates are high.

The alkalinity of water represents the quantity and kinds of compounds present that collectively increase the pH. Three kinds- of ions contribute most to total alkalinity: carbonate (CO ), - - 3 bicarbonate (HCO ), and hydroxide (OH ). Carbonates and 3 bicarbonates are common to most waters while contributions by hyroxides are usually minimal.

The vertical distribution of carbon dioxide, pH and alkalinity in the water column is strongly influenced by biologically mediated reactions. Most conspicuous is the uptake of CO through photosynthesis in the euphotic zone, which reduces L both CO and alkalinity while increasing pH. In contrast, the .l L release of CO during respiration in deeper water decreases pH 2 and increases alkalinity. During the winter, CO , pH and alkalinity values in both 2 basins are uniform throughout the water column (Fig. 12a,b).

Values of CO are low in both basins, with slight increases at 2 the bottom caused by respiration in or near the sediments. The pH in both basins ranged from 8.7-8.8. Alkalinity values for both basins are also similar, ranging from 100-118 mg/l.

During summer, CO was elevated in the hypolimnion, as was 2 alkalinity (range: 110-118 mg/l), while pH values declined (Fig.

12c,d). Further increases in lake productivity can be expected to accentuate both the increase in CO and the decline in pH in 2 the hypolimnion, associated with the increased decomposition of organic matter utilized in respiration.

Nitrogen

The major forms of nitrogen usually measured in fresh water include dissolved and particulate organic nitrogen, and the inorganic nutrients ammonia and nitrate. The combined measurement of both inorganic and organic nitrogen is referred to as total nitrogen. Nitrogen is also abundant in water as the dissolved gas N , but this form can only be utilized through 2 nitrogen fixation by a small number of blue-green algae and bacteria.

Nitrate (NO ), although usually present in low 3 concentrations in natural waters, is often the most abundant inorganic form of the element. The seasonal cycle of nitrate tends to be similar in most lakes. In winter, inflow usually exceeds algal uptake, and is supplemented by nitrogen release from the sediments. In summer, nitrate uptake is usually faster than combined inputs, and concentrations in the water column therefore decline. Major sources of nitrate for lakes are river inflows, direct precipitation and groundwater.

Ammonia (NH ) is also taken up as a nutrient by 3 phytoplankton and may also be converted to nitrate by bacterial oxidation. It persists, however, as a major excretory product of aquatic organisms and the end product of the breakdown of organic nitrogen. The amount of ammonia present thus depends largely on the relative rates of these processes.

Seasonal cycles of ammonia usually follow one of two patterns depending on the trophic state of the lake. In oligotrophic lakes, ammonia persists at low levels throughout the year, and varies little with depth. In eutrophic lakes, by contrast, summer values of ammonia are usually much lower in the epilimnion than in the hypolimnion owing to the decomposition of organic matter settling to the bottom, and during winter ammonia concentrations may increase to levels exceeding 1 mg/l. The major sources of ammonia to lakes are inflowing streams, precipitation, atmospheric dust and nitrogen fixation. Sewage inputs often contain much higher levels of ammonia than of nitrate.

Nitrate concentrations ranged from 36-95 ug/l and 23-393 ug/l for the North and South basins respectively during the winter (Fig. 13a,b), and declined slightly during summer as expected (Fig. 13c,d). Ammonia levels during winter ranged from

11-21 ug/l and 12-36 ug/l for the North and South basins, respectively (Fig. 13a,b). A slight increase in ammonia was noted near the bottom in both basins, produced largely by the decomposition of organic nitrogen.

Summer values for ammonia were 6-51 ug/l and 18-66 ug/l for the North and South basins (Fig. 13c,d), and show a slight increase over winter concentrations. Hypolimnetic values were elevated in comparison to those of the epilimnion in both basins (Fig. 13c, d) . Total nitrogen during winter averaged 163 ug/l and 214 ug/l far the North and South basins (Fig. 13a,b). The North basin profile shows a gradual increase toward the bottom sediments, and an even sharper increase in total nitrogen near the bottom is seen in the South basin. Total nitrogen values during summer varied from 85-245 ug/l for the North and South basins, respectively (Fig. 13c,d). Concentrations in both basins were relatively constant in the epilimnion, with gradual increases near the sediments. Fluctuations in total nitrogen coincided, as expected, with fluctuations in nitrate and ammonia levels.

Phosphorus

Phosphorus is a common limiting nutrient in many lakes owing to its frequent geochemical scarcity. Phosphorus in natural waters is present primarily as organically bound phosphorus, inorganic polyphosphates and as inorganic orthophosphates. Of these, the form most usable as a nutrient is inorganic orthophosphate (PO ), which often constitutes a small fraction of 4 total phosphorus.

The vertical distribution of phosphorus, much like that of nitrogen, varies according to lake trophic state. Oligotrophic lakes usually show little variation in phosphorus content with depth. More productive lakes, in contrast, accumulate large amounts of phosphorus in the hypolimnion during summer stratification.

Phosphorus is added to a lake primarily through precipitation, overland runoff, groundwater, and sedbent regeneration. Most natural hydrological inputs have low phosphorus content. Residential development surrounding a kke, however, usually results in increases in phosphorus discharged to lakes in approximately direct proportion to population densities

(Weibel, 1969). Inputs of phosphorus from heavy lawn fertilization, storm sewer drainage, and sewage can all significantly elevate overall phosphorus availability.

Winter orthophosphate values in both basins of Higgins Lake are very low, with mean values of 5.3 and 6.2 ug/l for the North and South basins, respectively (Fig. 14a,b). There was little variation with depth in the South basin, while showing a slight increase at the bottom of the North basin. Total phosphorus during winter was similarly low, with mean values of 18.7 and

15.2 ug/l for the North and South basins, respectively.

Summer orthophosphate values for both basins show more than two-fold increase over winter values at all depths (Fig. 14c,d), probably owing in part to the greatly increased riparian population during summer. In the North basin the mean orthophosphate concentration increased from 5.2 ug/l in winter to a summer value of 11.3 ugh. Again, slight increases in the hypolimnion were apparent. The summer orthophosphate profile for the South basin showed pronounced increases in the hypolimnion.

Total phosphorus values during summer in the South basin likewise show at least a two-fold increase over winter concentrations, and increase substantially with depth to a maximum of 183.1 ug/l at the sediment-water interface. Increases in both orthophosphate and total phosphorus in the hypolimnion can be expected if further nutrient enrichment of the lake occurs.

Phytoplankton

Phytoplankton are algae suspended in the water column. They are the most important primary producers in most lakes, and their growth provides the principal basis for the growth of invertebrates and fish (Fig. 15). Phytoplankton species are found varying quantities according to season and lake type. The dominant algal groups in lakes of northern Michigan are the green algae (Chlorophyta), blue-green algae (Cyanophyta), diatoms

(Eacillariophyta), and golden-brown algae (Chrysophyta).

Several kinds of environmental factors interact to regulate spatial and temporal growth. As well as temperature and light, a number of organic and inorganic nutrients play critical roles in the success of algal populations. As the supply of limiting nutrients is increased, rates of algal production likewise increase. Increased phytoplankton densities progressively reduce light penetration and the depth of the euphotic zone. A point is eventually reached at which self-shading inhibits further increases in productivity in very eutrophic lakes, regardless of nutrient supply (Wetzel, 1983).

A distinct periodicity in the biomass of phytoplankton is observed in temperate lakes. Growth is greatly reduced during winter by low light and cold temperatures. Phytoplankton numbers normally peak during spring, supported by increasing temperatures and light, and by the mixing upward into the euphotic zone of nutrients from the bottom waters. The spring maximum of phytoplankton biomass is usually followed by a period of lower biomass during summer, as nutrient supplies are depleted by algal uptake, algal consumption by zooplankton increases, and many algae sink to the bottom.

In oligotrophic lakes, the phytoplankton community usually consists of cryptomonads and small green algae during winter, primarily of diatoms in spring, and of green algae during summer.

Accumulations of algae at the thermocline are typical in summer, owing to the greater density (and thus buoyancy) of colder water.

Chlorophyll-a is the primary pigment used by phytoplankton for photosynthesis. The measurement of chlorophyll-a thus serves as a convenient index of total algal biomass, and by extension, of lake trophic status. The U.S. EPA National Eutrophication

Survey (1975) has classified lakes according to the following summer chlorophyll-a concentrations: <7 ug/l = oligotrophic; 7-12 ug/l = mesotrophic; >12 ug/l = eutrophic.

Chlorophyll-a values for both basins of Higgins Lake are low, ranging from 0.90-3.78 ug/l with a mean of 2.3 ug/l ad2.4 in the North and South basins (Fig. 16c,f). These values are indicative of oligotrophic conditions. The continued presence of viable algae at considerable depth is a consequence of the good light penetration in Higgins Lake, and is again characteristic of oligotrophic waters. Although algal biomass is not unusually high at the thermocline, rates of photosynthesis and nutrient

uptake appear to be maximal, accounting for the high dissolved oxygen and low nitrate, phosphate and silica concentrations between 8-12 m.

Also depicted in Figure 16 are phaeopigment values for both

basins. Phaeopigments are produced by the decomposition of

chlorophyll-a, and thus serve as a measure of the health of the

phytoplankton community. High phaeopigment levels are often

characteristic of the decline of the spring maximum, for example,

or may indicate unusually heavy grazing by zooplankton.

Phaeopigment levels in Higgins Lake are low in most of the water

column, providing evidence of a relatively stable algal community

in the days prior to sampling. Phaeopigment values increase, as

expected, near the bottom, owing to the decomposition of algae

which have sunk out of the water column during preceding weeks.

Zooplankton

Zooplankton are microscopic invertebrates which feed on

algae or smaller zooplankton, and which in turn are utilized as

food by most fish (Fig. 15). The chief components of zooplankton

communities are protozoans, rotifers, and crustaceans

(cladocerans and copepods). Most zooplankton are about 0.5 mm to

1.0 mm in length. Zooplankton abundances range from <10

individuals per liter in very oligotrophic waters to more than 4 10 individuals per liter in eutrophic lakes.

The species composition of the zooplankton community may

also be a valuable indicator of lake trophic status (Gannon &

Stemberger, 1978). Although most species exist under a wide

range of environmental conditions, certain species are limited by

temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, and other

physicochemical factors. The species composition in a lake typically remains quite constant for many decades under natural conditions, but lakes undergoing cultural eutrophication often experience marked changes in zooplankton community composition over much shorter time intervals. Oligotrophic lakes generally display very diverse zooplankton communities with many species, and are often dominated by calanoid copepods. Eutrophic lakes usually have just a few very abundant species, especially smller rotifers, Cladocera and protozoa (Gliwicz, 1969).

The calanoid copepod Senecella calanoides, found in Higgins

Lake (Fig. 16) is an excellent indicator of classic oligotrophic conditions (Gannon & Stemberger, 1978). Senecella is a cold stenotherm, requiring cold, well oxygenated bottom waters

(Dadswell, 1974).

Another zooplankton species of interest is Kellicottia longispina, an indicator of oligotrophic-to-mesotrophic water and abundant in both basins of Higgins Lake. Overall numbers of zooplankton were low in the lake, while species diversity was high, a further indication of good water quality. Declines in species such as Senecella and Kellicottia, and further increases in Bosmina longirostris, now present in the lake and usually associated with eutrophy (Deevey 1942), nay be predicted if further eutrophication occurs in the lake.

Sediments

Deepwater (profundal) sediments consist of organic matter in various states of decomposition, particulate mineral matter,

(especially quartz) and an inorganic component of biogenic origin

(mostly diatom frustules and calcium carbonate). Two general types of sediments are usually distinguished in hardwater lakes: copropel and sapropel.

Copropel is derived primarily from settled plankton, modified extensively by bottom-dwelling invertebrates, which both consume it and contribute their feces to it. The sediments are usually grey or brown, with an organic content of less than 50% of total dry weight, as abundant oxygen in waters overlying the sediments favors the bacterial decouposition of organic materials. Grey copropels with less than 20% organic content are characteristic of oligotrophic lakes (Cole, 1979).

Sapropels in contrast are subjected to long periods of anoxia, as occurs in most deep eutrophic lakes. Sapropels are a glossy bl~ck,watery material of very high organic content, which may give off the rotten-egg odor of hydrogen sulfide and often contains the marsh gas methane.

The surficial sediments of Higgins Lake are grey copropels.

Their organic content is 18.5% and 22.8% of total dry weight in the North and South basins, respectively. The most recently deposited profundal sediments are thus consistent with the current oligotrophic status of the lake. VI. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE FOR EZTROPHICATION IN HIGGINS LAKE

Most of the data presented in Section V indicate that

Higgins Lake possesses water of very high quality. Most

parameters (e.g., high hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen, deep light

penetration, low chlorophyll-a values, the presence of the

zooplankton species Senecella calanoides) are indicative of

oligotrophic conditions. Rowever, the lake has also begun to

show human impacts. Eutrophication was much more evident in the

South basin than in the North basin, on the basis of virtually all measurements taken (Table 3). The South basin is

morphometrically smaller, with less water volume, than the North

basin, and may also receive greater amounts of organic input, as

both the prevalent wind direction and location of the surface

outflow favor the collection of organic materials in deep

portions of the southeast end of the lake. Continued monitoring

of the South basin may thus be particularly valuable because of

its sensitivity as a warning device of any further eutrophication

in the future.

A comparison of these data with data taken less than a

decade ago provide evidence of slowly deteriorating water

quality. Particularly noticeable is a gradual decline in water

quality in the South basin since 1974 and 1977, when data were

collected by the EPA at approximately the same location and time

of the season. For example, mean percent saturation of dissolved

oxygen in the hypolimnion has declined from 86.8% in 1974 to

73.5% in 1983 (Fig. 17). The South basin is also experiencing a

steady increase in the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. Total nitrogen levels have nearly doubled from a mean of 110 ug/l in

1974 to the present value of 213 ug/l (Fig. 18). Mean total phosphorus levels are increasing at almost the same rate, from

33.8 ug/l in 1974 to the present value of 53.2 ug/l (Fig. 19).

The depth profile for phosphorus in 1974 is typical of an oligotrophic lake, as concentrations remain low in the hypolimnion. During 1977 and 1983, however, phosphorus increases distinctly with depth, a pattern characteristic of more productive waters.

A number of indices have been developed in recent years to classify lakes according to trophic state. Carlson (1977) developed one such system, the Trophic State Index (TSI), based upon chlorophyll-a values, secchi depth readings, and total phosphorus concentrations. According to Carlson's system, chlorophyll-a values and Secchi disk measurements for the South basin still fall within the range of oligotrophic (0) waters while total phosphorus concentrations describe the basin as eutrophic (E) (Fig. 20). The seeming disparity in classification is due largely to the extremely high hypolimnetic total phosphorus levels found in the basin. Other northern Yiichigan lakes are also shown in Figure 20 for comparison with the South basin. VII. N VS. P LIMITATION - THE NORTH AhD SOUTH BASINS

A comparison of the nutrients nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and silica in Higgins Lake suggests that whereas both N and P reach potentially growth-limiting levels by mid-summer, silica remains sufficiently abundant that it probably does not influence overall algal productivity. A more detailed analysis of N vs. P limitation is therefore presented here.

Algal communities require approximately 15 times as much total Nitrogen (TN) as total phosphorus (TP) for normal growth, although nutritional needs are now known to vary considerably according to species (Rhee & Gotham, 1980). Whichever nutrient is in least supply relative to this 15m:1TP average need may thus be identified as the growth limiting nutrient for most algal species.

Sakamoto (1966), who measured chlorophyll-a in Japanese lakes relative to both total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations, concluded that if the (weight-to-weight) TN:TP ratio was between 10:l and 17:1, chlorophyll yield was controlled jointly by the two nutrients. Biomass was limited by TN at ratios less than 10:1, and limited by P when at ratios exceeding

17:l. Similar conclusions have been drawn by Forsberg et al.

(1978) for the phytoplankton of Swedish lakes, and by Smith

(1982) for North American lakes.

This relationship of algal growth to available Nitrogen vs.

Phosphorus is shown graphically in Figure 21 (after Tilman 1980).

Any parcel of lake water can be viewed as a point on the graph, consisting of a certain concentration of N (X-coordinate) and P (Y-coordinate). The 15:l ratio which is optimal for most algae is shown as an oblique line from the lower-left to upper-right

portion of the Figure. The algae in water represented by any

point below this optimal N:P ratio (darker, horizontal stripes) will be limited directly by phosphorus, and will experience no

additional growth regardless of how much nitrogen is added to the water. Likewise, algae in water represented by any point above

the optimal N:P ratio (lighter, vertical stripes), will

experience N-limitation and cannot respond to further additions

of P.

The concentrations of TN and TP in both basins of Higgins

Lake show that phosphorus is likely to be the growth-limiting

nutrient during mid-summer. The TN:TP ratio in the North basin

is approximately 22:1, while that of the South basin is 17:l

(Fig. 22). These ratios are likely to vary considerably with

time during mid-summer, however, as a consequence of the very low

concentrations of both nutrients.

The occurrence of P-limitation in Higgins Lake is important

in that (1) phytoplankton growth may be directly predicted by

measuring available phosphorus concentrations, (2) sources of

phosphorus (both natural and human) can be estimated with

reasonable accuracy, and (3) unlike nitrogen, phosphorus can be

I( managed" by reducing human sources of phosphorus to the lake.

The first step in such a management effort is the preparation of

a nutrient budget for phosphorus, described in the next Section. VIII. A PHOSPHORUS BUDGET FOR HIGGINS LAKE

The input of phosphorus to Higgins Lake depends both upon

(1) rates of water (hydrologic) flow from various sources to the lake, and (2) phosphorus concentrations of the water supplied from each source. Many of the conclusions which follow are documented in greater detail in Reckhow's earlier study of the lake (Reckhow, 1980, 1983), and summarized as a mathematical model in Appendix A. Reckhow's estimates are supplemented with measurements of discharge and stream nutrient content, obtained for the Cut River, Big Creek and Little Creek on March 3, May 25,

June 22, and July 19, 1983. Stream velocities were measured using a General Oceanics flowmeter and were multiplied by stream cross- sectional area to obtain discharge estimtes.

1. Only a small portion of the water that leaves Higgins

Lake via the Cut River actually reaches the lake as surface inflows through Big and Little Creeks. The two influent streams accounted for only 6-7% of total hydrologic inputs during both winter and summer 1983 (Table 4). Inputs from smaller streams, non-stream runoff, and groundwater thus constitute the bulk of the water supply, and groundwater is assumed to be the principal contributor of water to the lake.

2. Roughly 95% of the Higgins Lake watershed is forested land, which tends to retain P well compared to other land uses and contributes 43% of the total yearly loading of phosphorus to the lake. Agriculture in contrast is rare in the area and provides only 0.01% of the total phosphorus budget (Reckhow,

1980). 3. Measurements of the phosphorus content of Big and Little

Creeks during 1983 suggest that they not only supply a small portion of the lake's water each year, but contribute a relatively small portion of the phosphorus which enters the lake from the watershed as well (about 1-2%)(Table 4).

4. Numerous residential developments ring the shore'line.

Residential land contributes approximately 9% of the total phosphorus budget to Higgins Lake, primarily through lawn fertilization, increased shoreline erosion and the removal of natural vegetation which might otherwise intercept phosphorus inputs. Domestic sewage is handled through either on-site septic systems or sewage lagoons within the watershed. Domestic sewage contributions have been estimated to be approximately 17% of the total phosphorus budget, a conservative estimate in that public facilities are not included in the calculations. The U.S. EPA

(1975) suggested that as much as 28% of the phosphorus budget was attributable to domestic sewage. The combined potential for human influence from riparian land is thus judged to be at least

26%, and may be considerably higher.

5. Direct precipitation may be extremely variable both in the amounts of water supplied and in its nutrient content.

Reckhow has estimated that as much as 32% of the total phosphorus budget of Higgins Lake (=I253 kg/yr) may be supplied directly by precipitation (Reckhow, 1980). Based upon P content measured in rainfall in the Higgins Lake area during 1982 (NADP, 1983), a more conservative estimate of 496 kg/yr may be more reasonable, at least in drier years. Rain gauges were established at three sites (Alameda Beach,

Higgins Lake Shores, and Lakeside), and monitored for daily rainfall volume during June-July 1983. Mean precipitation was

1.04" and 1.24" for June and July, respectively, well below expected summer averages (Williams & Korks, 1976). Phosphorus inputs through precipitation may therefore have been proportionally lower than usual during summer 1983.

6. Of the phosphorus which enters Higgins Lake (=3933 kg/yr;

Reckhow, 1980), only a small portion actually leaves the lake via the Cut River. Roughly 354 kg/yr, or approximately 9% of total yearly inputs, was estimated to have left the lake during 1983.

The remainder of the phosphorus supplied to the lake is presumably precipitated to the sediments, either in organically bound form (e.g., algae, zooplankton feces, detritus) or adsorbed to inorganic particles (e.g., CaCO ). This result is not 3 unexpected, particularly for a deep lake with a relatively low flushing rate. As long as the bottom waters of Higgins Lake remain well oxygenated year round, most of the phosphorus which enters the sediments can be expected to remain there, and be gradually buried with time. However, if the lake continues to experience increases in nutrient enrichment and hypolimnetic oxygen levels are depleted seasonally to very low values (e.g.,

<1 mg/l), the nature of the chemical bonding of phosphorus to the sediments can be expected to change, and the sediments will then become an additional, substantial contributor to yearly phosphorus loading.

In summary, although the above estimates are subject to considerable year-to-year variation, several conclusions of importance to phosphorus management are apparent. First, phosphorus from non-residential land enters Higgins Lake largely as groundwater. More easily controlled surface sources of phosphorus (e.g., influent streams) are insignificant in their phosphorus contributions by comparison. Secondly, phosphorus inputs via direct precipitation, which may be of major importance to Higgins Lake, are impossible to control using watershed management methods, but should be monitored closely in the future using information supplied by the National Atmospheric Deposition

Program. Finally, riparian dwellings, which contribute more than

1/4 of the phosphorus budget for Higgins Lake, collectively constitute a source of nutrients over which some control may be exerted. Impacts of riparian development upon lake water quality are also likely to be most apparent along the lakeshore, and are considered in the next Section. IX. SOURCES OF NUTRIENTS ALONG THE LAKFSHORE

Nearshore sources of nutrients most likely to affect Higgins

Lake include a) contributions to surface runoff and groundwater from riparian land from the many access roads which lead to the lake, and b) domestic sewage from public and private on-site treatment systems:

a. Nutrient inputs through surface runoff from undisturbed watersheds are determined largely by the volume of precipitation, and by the slope and composition of soils near the lakeshore.

Bluffs along portions of the Higgins Lake shoreline are examples of a watershed feature with high potential for nutrient input regardless of human activity. Both the nutrient content and the flow rate of overland runoff are increased, however, by the removal of natural riparian vegetation, for example by the numerous public accesses to Higgins Lake and properties with uninterrupted views of the water. The concentrations of certain nutrients are often further increased by activities such as lawn fertilization, which typically contains large amounts of phosphate and ammonia or nitrate. Water from riparian lands may also percolate to the groundwater, and eventually reach the lake in that manner (Hasler, 1947).

b. Lakeside septic systems are likely to be major sources of nutrients to the Higgins Lake shoreline (Fig. 24). Depending on soil conditions, groundwater level and flow, septic system age and proximity of a system to the lake, and the degree of use, as much as 85% of the nitrogen and 75% of the phosphorus that enters each septic system may eventually reach the lake (NEMCCG, 1979). Septic systems located directly adjacent to the lakeshore may not be the only sources of sewage input, as septic drainfields anywhere hithin the watershed are capable of enriching groundwater which may eventually reach the lake (Ellis & Childs,

1973). Septic systems may contribute as much as 60% of the total nutrient load to lakes when surrounding soils are poor and densities of nearshore dwellings are high (Wetzel, 1983).

In order to identify nutrient loading from such sources, 18 sites along the Higgins Lake shoreline were selected for the analysis of 1) nutrient concentrations in the water and 2) algal periphyton accumulations on substrates collected at each site.

Some of the sites were selected as representative of areas with varying residential densities. Other sites were placed directly out from public access roads with varying potential for erosional runoff based upon their slope, surface type and distance to the shoreline (Table 5).

Periphyton communities, like the phytoplankton, consist of a diverse assemblage of algal species, but are found in association with rocks, sediments, pilings or other surfaces in nearshore areas of lakes. Because of their attached habit and ability to integrate short-term fluctuations in nutrient supply, periphyton have received considerable attention as biological indicators of water quality nearshore (Eminson, 1978: Collins & Weber, 1978).

Indeed, point sources of limiting nutrients are often first detected by the rich growths of algae on nearby substrates. One algal species which dominates the periphyton in Higgins Lake was given particular consideration. Cladophora glomerata is an attached filamentous green alga which has been used extensively as an indicator of nutrient loading (Neil, 1975).

Nutrients critical to periphyton growth are the same as those responsible for phytoplankton productivity: nitrate +/or ammonia, orthophosphate, silica, and occasionally micronutrients or carbon (Raschke & Weber, 1970; Goldman, 1972; Cooper & Wilhm,

1975; Collins & Weber, 1978; Weitzel, 1979). Measures of periphyton biomass and species composition may thus be used to validate nutrient measurements taken concurrently at a given site.

METHODS

A total of 72 artificial substrates were constructed from 3" clay flower pots as shown in Figure 25 (Fairchild & Lowe, 1984).

Each substrate was filled with lakewater, and four substrates were then placed at each of 18 locations around the lake (Fig.

23) during late May, 1983. Each substrate was secured at approximately 0.5 m depth by inserting its wooden dowel into the sandy lake bottom.

In addition to the 4 flower pot substrates, 4 pre-cleaned flat-surfaced rocks were placed closer to shore at each site, at a depth of 0.2 m. Water samples were also obtained (at 0.5 m depth) at each of the 18 sites on May 25, 1983 at the time of substrate installation, again when the substrates were retrieved on June 22, and a third time (at both 0.2 m and 0.5 rn depths) on

July 22. Finally, one natural substrate (usually a representative rock) was collected at each site on July 19 for comparison with the artificial (flower pot and pre-cleaned rock) substrates (Silver, 1977). The artificial substrates were retrieved after 28 days.

Known areas of substrate surface were carefully scraped into a sample jar, which was then adjusted to uniform volume with filtered lake water. Three 20 ml subsamples were then removed for the analysis of 1) chlorophyll-a and phaeopigment 2 densities, expressed as mg/m of substrate surface (Holm-Hansen, 1965), 2) Ash-free dry weight (AFDW), a measure of total accumulated organic matter and also expressed per unit surface area of substrate (APHA, 1976), and 3) algal periphyton species densities (Schultz, in prep.).

In order to determine whether the data obtained for the 18 sampling sites were representative of the lake as a whole, the entire shoreline was walked during the first week of June, 1983.

Observations included a) total numbers and locations of residences within 100 m of the shoreline, b) locations of road ends providing public access to the lake, c) sediment types nearshore, d) presence or absence of Cladophora on solid surfaces near the water's edge, e) marl accumulations on rocks and sediments, and f) locations of influent streams and drains.

These data are summarized in Appendix B, organized as mile-long segments of the shoreline.

RESULTS

Nutrient data from the sampling sites are presented in Table

6 and are analyzed in three ways. First, mean concentrations for all sites are compared by sampling date to determine seasonal trends in nutrient input. Secondly, mean nutrient levels for all nearshore sites at 20 cm depth are compared to values for the same sites at 50 cm depth further from shore, and with data from the North and South basins to determine spatial differences in nutrient availability nearshore vs. offshore. Finally, nutrient concentrations are compared by site. Algal periphyton biomass is likewise compared by site in Tables 7 and 8.

Seasonal Trends 2 Nutrient Supply

Mean nitrate concentrations were highest during the first

(May) sampling, at 184.9 (S .E. 26.9) ug/l. Nitrate availability subsequently declined rapidly (Fig. 26). The June mean was 62.8

(S.E. 11.9) ug/l, and the July means at 20 cm and 50 cm were 4.6

(S.E. 0.7) ug/l and 4.8 (S.E. 0.9) ug/l, respectively.

Ammonia concentrations followed the same trend. The highest mean value occurred during Play, at 65.7 (S.E. 8.4) ug/l, followed by a decline to 58.1 (S.E. 15.2) ug/l during June and to 40.1

(S.E. 7.1) ug/l and 16.0 (S.E. 4.1) ug/l at 20 cm and 50 cm during July.

In contrast, mean orthophosphate concentrations increased steadily (Fig. 26), from 5.5 (S.E. 0.4) ug/l during May to 17.5 (S.E. 4.1) during June and finally to 37.8 (S.E. 12.5) ug/l and

25.7 (S.E. 6.5) in July at 20 cm and 50 cm depth.

No trends in silica concentrations were observed during the study. Mean concentrations were 7.3 (S.E. 0.3) mg/l during May,

6.2 (S.E. 0.2) mg/l during June, and 7.9 (S.E. 0.1) mg/l and 7.9

(S.E. 0.1) at 20 cm and 50 un during July.

The declines in both forms of inorganic nitrogen are characteristic of algal uptake, and are expected during summer.

The concurrent increases in available phosphorus, however, indicate that phosphorus is being added to nearshore areas of

Higgins Lake in high enough quantities to exceed phosphorus removal (e.g., through algal growth or adsorption to inorganic surfaces). This has important consequences in that the form of nutrient limitation may be shifted to a nitrogen requirement for

periphyton nearshore (see Section X).

Nearshore 5Offshore Differences

Evidence of nutrient loading from riparian land is also

provided by a comparison of mean nutrient concentrations nearshore (at both 20 cm and 50 cm depths for all 18 sites) vs.

mean concentrations offshore (in the euphotic zone of the North

and South basins) (Table 9).

Nitrate concentrations are depleted to limiting levels

nearshore compared to concentrations offshore, presumably owing

to algal uptake. Ammonia concentrations are in fact higher than

nitrate values at both 20 cm and 50 cm depth. In contrast,

phosphate is most abundant nearshore, and is gradually

taken up by phytoplankton/diluted/precipitated in deeper water.

The more conservative chloride ion shows a similar trend. Silica

is notable by the absence of nearshore vs. offshore differences.

Ruman sources of nutrients, which are typically high in

nitrate, ammonia, phosphate and chloride, but usually low in

silica, may be viewed as the most probable contributors to the

nearshore vs. offshore gradients observed.

Comparison of Nutrients & Periphyton by Site

Physical features, nutrient concentrations, periphyton

accumulations and ancillary measurements are summarized here for

each of the 18 sites. 1. St. Louis Avenue: The site was chosen as an example of the Southwest portion of the lakeshore, surrounded by high residential densities. Heavy Cladophora and marl accumulations were apparent in the general area (Appendix 8: Mile 82).

Nutrient concentrations from May-July, however, were similar to the mean for all 18 stations (Table 10) and periphyton biomass was lower than average. Overall water quality was rated as moderate.

2. Minto Pointe Avenue: Artificial substrates and water samples were collected directly out from the public access provided by the road end as a location with high potential for erosional runoff. Nitrate values at the site were indeed slightly higher than average (Table lo), but other nutrient estimates were moderate. Periphyton growth was minimal on artificial substrates collected, and moderate on the natural substrate collected at the site as well (Tables 7,8). Heavy growths of Cladophora were evident just South of the access, in an area characterized by high residential densities (Appendix B:

Mile #3).

3. Maple Avenue: Efaple Avenue is subject to high erosional potential because of its considerable slope and direct access to the lakeshore (Table 5). Water samples and artificial substrates were collected directly out from the road end. Growth of

Cladophora was only moderate, perhaps owing to the low summer rainfall. Periphyton accumulations on artificial substrates were also moderate, as were nean nutrient concentrations.

4. Lone Pine Avenue: Water and artificial substrate samples were collected directly out from the road end, at a location selected for its low potential for erosional run-off. All 4 flower pot substrates at the location were vandalized, but periphyton growth on precleaned rocks and on natural substrates at the location was moderate. Kean concentrations of ammonia and particularly phosphate were unusually high. Cladophora and marl accumulations were moderate (Appendix B: Mile #4,5).

5. Battin Marsh Drain: Water samples and artificial substrates were retrieved from a location close to the Battin

Drain , in an area of obviously high tannin-stained water.

As expected, ammonia concentrations were high, owing to the decomposition of organically bound nitrogen introduced by the outfall. Other nutrient concentrations were moderate to low.

Because of the large discharge of water to the lake, Battin Drain may nonetheless be a greater source of nutrients, particularly during Spring, than is indicated by the low summer nutrient concentrations shown here. Artificial flower pot substrates at the site experienced greater than average periphyton growth, but periphyton accumulations natural surfaces were light to moderate.

6. West Avenue: Like Lone Pine Avenue, West Avenue was selected as a road end with relatively low erosional potential.

Both nitrate and chloride concentrations were higher than average, whereas ammonia and phosphate concentrations were moderate. Periphyton growth on the flower pot substrates was low, but accumulations of algae on natural surfaces nearer shore were much higher (Table 7). Cladophora was not abundant in the area, perhaps owing to a general absence of solid surfaces for attachment (Appendix B: Mile #8). 7. Newman Avenue: The road-end at Newman Avenue, like Maple

Road, has a relatively high potential for nutrient runoff.

Concentrations of nitrate, phosphate and chloride were in fact much higher than average, as were accumulations of periphyton on natural substrates nearshore. Growth of Cladophora (Appendix B:

Mile #9) was similarly very high at and just South of Newman

Avenue. The site was judged to have the poorest overall water quality of the 18 sites studied.

8. Big Creek: Rates of dishcarge to Higgins Lake by Big

Creek, and nutrient concentrations of the stream water have both been described already in this study. A sampling site was established approximately 30 m directly out into the lake from the stream to measure effects of the stream discharge in the lake itself. Like Battin Drain, the water from Big Creek is tannically stained, and ammonia concentrations were the highest of any of the 18 sampling sites as a consequence. Other nutrients were found at low concentrations, however. Periphyton accumulations on both types of artificial substrates were very high, as were periphyton densities on natural surfaces nearer the stream inflow.

9. Little Creek: The water of Little Creek not only contains fewer nutrients than that of Big Creek, but discharge is also considerably less as well (Table 5). The effect of Little Creek on water quality in Higgins Lake is therefore much less than that of Big Creek. Water samples collected approximately 40 m from the stream inflow showed lower than average nutrient levels and low to moderate periphyton growth. 10. Stuckey Avenue: Located in an area at the Northwest end of the lake, water quality at the Stuckey Avenue site is representative of effects of high riparian densities in that area. Concentrations of both nitrate and chloride were slightly higher than average, but the concentrations of other nutrients, and periphyton growth were moderate. Cladophora was not found in the area (Appendix B: Mile #lo), presumably in part because of the uniformly sandy sediments and paucity of suitable attachment sites.

11. Conference Center Creek: The tiny stream which flows into Riggins Lake through the Department of Natural Resources

Conference Center property appears to have little effect upon water quality in the lake. Nutrient values were low, and periphyton levels low to moderate, both on artificial and natural surfaces (Table 10, Appendix B: Mile #12).

12. Cedar Avenue: The Cedar Avenue site was chosen as an area with relatively few riparian dwellings. Nitrate concentrations were slightly higher than average, but the concentrations of other nutrients were generally moderate.

Artifjcial flower pot substrates were vandalized at the site, but periphyton growth on other surfaces was moderate. Accumulations of Cladophora were quite noticeable all along the shoreline near

Cedar Avenue, providing evidence of perhaps seasonally higher nutrient inputs not detected on the three water collection dates

(Appendix B: Mile #12).

13. Lansing Avenue: Both the nutrient data and periphyton growth data indicate minimal effects of the road end at Lansing

Avenue during Summer 1983. Evidence for seasonally higher nutrient concentrations closer to shore, however, is provided by both the growth of Cladophora and accumulations of marl along the

shoreline on both sides of the road end (Appendix B: Pile f12).

14. Cottage Grove Association: Access was provided through the Association property to obtain water samples and place artificial substrates at a site approximately 40 n from the shoreline. The steep bluff overlooking the lakeshore at the site undoubtedly contributes nutrients through erosion and rapid groundwater flow, but human effects are presumed to be minimal.

The site was also used for a separate study of the form of algal growth limitation nearshore (see Section X). Concentrations of phosphorus, nitrogen and chloride were slightly lower than average, while periphyton growth was low to moderate. Both

Cladophora and marl accumulations were quite evident nearer

shore, however (Appendix B: Mile #14).

15. Henry Avenue: The site at Henry Avenue was chosen to represent an area of the shoreline with high residential densities. All artificial flower pot substrates were vandalized at the site, but other substrates indicated moderate to high

growth close to shore (Appendix B: Mile #14). Nutrient concentrations did not differ greatly from average values for the

18 sites.

16. Hitchcock Avenue: Both because of its use as a public

access site and the relatively high density of adjacent riparian

dwellings, the sampling site at Bitchcock Avenue was expected to

have an higher than average potential for nutrient loading. liean

nitrate concentrations were indeed the highest of the 18 sites, though concentrations of other nutrients were moderate. Although all flower pot substrates were vandalized, periphyton growth on other surfaces was moderate, and accumulations of Cladophora were minimal (Appendix B: tale #16).

17. Gallagher Avenue: Despite relatively high residential densities near Gallagher Avenue, the- concentrations of all nutrients were slightly below mean values for the 18 sites.

Periphyton biomass was similarly low, and neither Cladophora nor heavy marl accumulations were apparent (Appendix B: Vile #17).

18. Second Avenue: Chosen as a section of lakeshore with lower densities of surrounding houses, Second Avenue showed approximately average nutrient concentrations and minimal periphyton growth on artificial substrates placed at the site.

Heavy accumulations of both marl and Cladophora were evident closer to shore, however (Appendix B: Pile #19).

Of the nutrients summarized in Table 10, the highly

"conservative" ion chloride (which experiences little biological uptake) showed the least variation between sites (Coefficient of

Variation = 16.7%). High chloride levels may indicate runoff from salted roads, domestic sewage inputs or rapid groundwater inflow. Chloride levels were highest at Newman and Studcey

Avenues.

In contrast, orthophosphate concentrations showed considerable site-to-site variation (Coefficient of Variation =

98.4%), indicative primarily of differences in supply rates.

Phosphorus concentrations are especially high in sewage and commercial fertilizers. Highest phosphorus values were noted at Lone Pine and Newman Avenues.

Ammonia concentrations were highest at the two tannically stained sites near Big Creek and Battin Drain as a consequence of the breakdown of organically bound nitrogen. Nitrate, usually the more abundant form of inorganic nitrogen in oxygenated waters and characteristic of both groundwater and surface inputs, was highest at Hitchcock and Newman Avenues.

Overall differences in water quality between sites during summer 1983 were not extreme, and were probably reduced considerably by the virtual absence of precipitation during the study (see Section VIII). Surface runoff particularly was probably greatly reduced. Our estates of the effects of nearshore sources of nutrients may therefore be judged conservative relative to most years. X. N VS. P LIMITATION - NEARSHORE

Human sources of nutrients to a lake are typically very high in phosphorus (Wetzel 1983) and may thus not only increase lake productivity by adding a limiting nutrient, but may also reduce the M:P ratio and shift the form of nutrient limitation from phosphorous to nitrogen. In a large lake, such effects are most likely to be observed first in littoral (nearshore) areas. The possibility of nitrogen limitation nearshore was tested experimentally using an in situ nutrient stimulation bioassay.

An additional 16 flower pots substrates were filled according to the following specifications: 4 pots with lakewater,

4 pots with 2% agar i 0.05M Na PO , 4 pots with 2% agar + 0,5M 2 4 NaNO , and 4 pots with 2% agar + 0.05M Na PO + 0.5M NaNO . 3 2 4 3 These substrates were placed in a grid on the Northeastern shore of Higgins Lake in front of the Cottage Grove Association property during the last week of May as shown in Figure 27. The nitrogen and phosphorus contained in the pots slowly diffused to their outer surfaces, supplementing nutrient supplies provided by the lakewater (Fairchild et al., 1984). Examination of periphyton growth on substrates containing the different nutrient treatments thus permitted the assessment of N vs. P limitation in nearshore waters. Hore specifically, algal growth stimulation on substrates with added P would indicate P limitation. Likewise, growth stimulation with added N would indicate N limitation.

Finally, joint limitation by both nutrients is indicated if algal growth is enhanced only by a combination of the two nutrients.

The substrates were collected after 28 days, as described previously, and analyzed for chlorophyll-a, AFDW and periphyton species densities.

RESULTS

Mean chlorophyll-a values for the (control) substrates 2 without added nutrients were 1.1 mg/m of flower pot surface (Fig

28a), a value quite typical of much of the littoral zone of

Higgins Lake (Table 7). Chlorophyll-a on substrates with added P 2 was 1.3 (S.E. 0.1) mg/m , a slight but not significant increase over control substrate values. In contrast, nitrogen-releasing 2 substrates had 36.8 (S. E. 2.8) mg/m chlorophyll-a, a significant

(p<.05) 33-fold increase in algal biomass over control values.

Analysis of total accumulated organic matter as AF'DIJ revealed similar trends. Agzin the control substrates showed the 2 least organic matter, with a mean value of 73.9 (S .E. 2.0) mg/m

(Fig. 28b). The effect of phosphorus addition yas again minimal, while the mean for nitrogen-releasing substrates was 347.4 (S.E. 2 17.7) mg/m , a roughly 5-fold iccrease over control levels.

Results of the nutrient addition experiment at Cottage Grove

Association are thus consistent with the changes in the relative abundances of nitrogen vs. phosphorus observed at all 18 nearshore sites in showing that phosphorus concentrations become sufficiently high by mid-summer to cause a shift to nitrogen limitation. Continued nitrogen limitation during summer can have significant consequences in its effect upon organisms in the lake, often causing excessive growth of nitrogen fixing blue- green algae, for example. The maintenance of low levels of phosphorus in nearshore waters is thus desirable. XI. RECOMMENDATIONS

Further Study

It is important that Higgins Lake be monitored frequently as a means of detecting further changes in water quality. The following kinds of measurements are suggested:

1. The entire shoreline of the lake should be walked once each summer in order to assess the abundance of Cladophora and identify areas of potential nutrient loading. Both the timing and form of data collection should be standardized.

2. Basic limnological data should be collected once each summer and winter, at 4 m intervals in both the North and South basins. Recommended measurements are temperature, dissolved oxygen and Secchi depth.

3. A more complete limnological survey, similar to the present study, is recommended roughly every 5-10 years. Such a study should not only include a limnological description of the lake itself, but also include the assessment of changes in land use within the Higgins Lake watershed.

Water Quality Management Alternative?

Several generalizations concerning future water quality management appear warranted on the basis of present data:

1. Changes in the lake are most evident nearshore and attributable largely to very localized nutrient sources.

Corrective measures of relatively low cost might include: (a) a

ban on the use of fertilizers containing phosphorus within 100

yards of the lakeshore, (b) the increased use of natural

vegetation (Greenbelts) between riparian residences and the lake to absorb nutrient inputs from overland runoff and reduce

shoreline erosion, and (c) the elimination of public access roads with particularly high potential for erosional runoff.

Phosphorus loading from residential land use is estimated to

be approximately 9% of the total phosphorus budget. Such

corrective measures would thus have rniniinal effect upon overall

water quality in the lake, but should reduce algal and macrophyte

growth nearby along the shoreline.

2. On-site sewage treatment presently contributes

approximately 17% (Reckhow, 1980) to 28% (U.S.EPA, 1975) of the

total P budget of Higgins Lake. As septic systems age and

surrounding soils lose their capacity of phosphorus retention,

and as new systems are built, contributions from domestic sewage

can be expected to increase. Alternatives to present septic

systems are expensive, but deserve consideration.

3. Higgins Lake has historically been protected by its

small, largely forested watershed. Replacement of forested land

with agricultural or residential land can be expected to increase

phosphorus loading to the groundwater, eventually leading to

increased inputs to the lake itself. Population densities in the

Higgins Lake area are expected to increase from present levels of

about 16,000 people (Williams & Works, 1976) to as many as 21,000

by the turn of the century (Fig. 29). Without careful

consideration of ways to minimize their impact, such population

increases can be expected to lead to further deterioration of

water quality in the lake. XII. ACRN0WL;EDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the Lyon and Gerrish Township

Boards for their financial support of the project. We especially thank Joan Hilleary and Otto Kraus for their help as coordinators of the research. Riparian residents Robert Meyer, Oliver Kesti, and Robert Watkins provided assistance in the collection of precipitation data. William Richardson provided both general field assistance and the analysis of water chemistry. Finally we wish to acknowledge the technical support of the University of

Michigan Biological Station, and the participation of the

Limnology class of 1983: Eric Ekcker, hme Case, Jeff Claeys,

Clell Ford, Cheng Kao, Susan Land, Sue Lincolnhol, Tracy Little,

Frank McCanna, Deb Neher, Paul Ochs, Juliana Panos, Laura Rood,

Keith Sappington, Sara Tjossem, Rob Weinmann and teaching assistant Nancy Brooks. LITERATURE CITED

American Public Health Association. 1976. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater. A.P.H.A., inc. New York. 1193 pp.

Bosserman, W.E. 1969. Maintaining the high water quality of Higgins Lake. Roscommon County Extension Office.

Brown, E., Skougstad, M,, & Fishman, M. 1970. Methods for collection and analysis of water samples for dissolved minerals and gases. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 166 pp.

Carlson, R.E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr., 22: 361-369.

Cole, G.A. 1975. Limnology. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia. 743pp.

Collins, G.B. & Weber, C.I. 1978. Phyco-periphyton (algae) as indicators of water quality. Tras. Amer. Micros. Soc., 97: 36-43.

Cooper, J.M. & Wilhm, J. 1975. Spatial and temporal variation in productivity, species diversity, and pigment diversity of periphyton in a stream receiving domestic and oil refinery effluents. Southwestern Naturalist, 16: 125-139.

Dadswell, M.J. 1974. Distribution, ecology, and postglacial dispersal of certain crustaceans and fishes in eastern North America. Nat. Mus. Nat. Sci., Publ. Zool., No. 11: 1-110.

Deevey,E.S. Jr. 1942. Studies on Connecticut lake sediments 111. Biostratonomy of Linsley Pond. Amer. J. Sci., 240: 233-264, 313-338.

Dorr, J.A. & Eschman, D.F. 1977. The Geology of Michigan. Univ. of Mich. Press, Ann Arbor.

Ellis, B. & Childs, K. 1973. Nutrient movement from septic tanks and lwan fertilization. Mich. Dept. Nat. Res., Water Res. Comm., Tech. Bull. No. 73-5.

Eminson, D.F. 1978. A comparison of diaton epiphytes, their diversity and density attached to ~~rio~h~llumspicatum L. in Norfolk dykes and broads. British Phy. J., 13: 57-64.

Fairchild, G.W. & Lowe, R.L. 1984. Nutrient-diffusing substrates as an -in situ bioassay using periphyton: Algal growth responses to combinations of N and P.Hydrobiologia (In Press).

Fairchild, G.W., Lowe, R.L. 2nd Richardson, W.B. 1984. Nutrient- diffusing substrates as an -in situ bioassay using periphyton: Algal growth responses to combinations of N and P. Ecology (In Press).

Forsberg, C. et. al. 1978. Water chemical analyses and/or algal assay? Sewage effluent and polluted lake water studies. Mitt. Int. Ver. Theor. Angew. Limnol., 21: 352-363.

Gannon, J.E. & Paddock, M.W. 1974. Investigations into ecological and sociological determinants of land use decisions-a study of inland lakes watersheds in northern Michigan. Univ. Mich. Biol. Sta., Tech. Rept. No. 1.

Gannon, J.E. & Sternberger, R. 1978. Zooplankton as indicators of water quality. Trans. Amer. Soc., 97(1): 16-35.

Gliwicz, Z.M. 1969. Studies on the feeding of pelagic zooplankton in lakes with varying trophy. Gal. Polskz, 17A: 663-708.

Goldman, C.R. 1972. The role of minor nutrients in limiting the productivity of aquatic ecosystems. in Symposium on Nutrients and Eutrophication, vol. 1, pp. 21-33. Amer. Soc. Limnol. Oceanogr.

Goldman, C.R. & Horne, A.J. 1983. Limology. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 464 pp.

Hasler, A.D. 1947. Eutrophication of lakes by domestic drainage. Ecology, 28: 383-395.

Holm-Hansen, O.C. et. al. 1965. Fluorometric determination of chlorphyll. J. Cous. Perm. Int. Explor. Mer., 30:3.

Lind, O.T. 1979. Handbook of Common Methods in Lirnnological Analyses. 2nd ed. C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, Mo. 199 pp.

Lund, J.W.G. 1964. Primary production and periodicity of phytoplankton. Verh. Int. Verein. Limnol. 15: 37-56.

Michigan Conservation Department, Institute for Fisheries Research, Division of Research, 1935-36. Lake Inventory FAap -Higgins Lake.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Forestry Division, 1970 -71. Forest Cover Map, Roscommon Co., T.23N. - R.3W. Forest Cover Map, Roscommon Co., T.24N. - R.3W. Forest Cover Map, Roscommon Co., T.24N. - R.4W. Forest Cover Map, Crawford Co., T.25N. - R.3W. Forest Cover Pap, Crawford Co., T.25N. - R.4TJ.

Michigan Water Resources Commission. 1974. Michigan inland lakes and their watersheds. 166 pp.

56 Munawar, M. & Munawar, I. 1975. Some observations on the growth of diatoms in Lake Ontario with emphasis on Melosira binderana during thermal bar conditions. Arch. Hydrobiol. 75: 490-499.

N.A.D.P. 1983. Local climatological Cata - Central Laboratory. Illinois State Water Survey.

Neil, J. 1975. Introduction, pp. 3-4. In: H. Shear and D.E. Konasewich, eds., Cladophora in the Great Lakes. Int. Joint Commission, Great Lakes Research Advisory Board, IJC Regional Office. Windsor, Ont.

N.E.M.C.O.G. 1979. A water quality survey of 48 lakes in Northeast Michigan. Northeast Michigan Council of Governments.

Raschke, R.L. & Weber, C. 1970. Use of a floating periphyton sampler for water pollution surveillance. U.S. Federal Pollution Control Administration, Division of Water Quality Research. Cincinnati, Ohio. Report No. 20: 1-20.

Reckhow, K., 1980. Modeling phosphorus loading and lake response under uncertainty: A manual and compilation of export coefficients . U. S.E. P .A. EPA-440/5-80-01 1. Reckhow, K. and Chapra, S.C. 1983. Engineering Approaches for Lake Yfnagement. Vol. 1: Data Analysis and Empirical Modeling. Butten~orthPublishers, Boston. 340p.

Rhee, G-Y. & Gotham, I.J. 1980. Optimum N:P ratios and coexistence in phytoplankton. J. Phycol. 16:486-489.

Sakamoto, M. 1966. Primary production by the phytoplankton community in some Japanese lakes and its dependence on lake depth. Arch. Hydrobiol. 62: 1-28.

Schelske, C.L. & Stoermer, E.F. 1971. Eutrophication, silica depletion, and predicted changes in algal quality in Lake Michigan. Science, 173: 423-424.

Silver, P.A. 1977. Comparison of attached diatom communities on natural and artificial substrates. J. Phycology, 13: 402- 4C6.

Smith, V.H. 1982. The nitrogen and phosphorus dependence of algal biomass in lakes: An empirical and theoretical analysis. Limnol. Oceanogr. 27(6): 1101-1112.

Student Water Publications Club, Mich. State Univ. 1971. Higgins, Houghton, James, St. Eelen Lakes study.

Student Water Publications Club, Mich. State Univ. 1972. Higgins Lake water quality study. Tilman, D. 1980. Resources: A graphical-mechanistic approach to competition and predation. Am. Nat. 116: 362-393.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1924. Soil survey of Roscomon County, Mich. Bureu of Chem & Soils, No. 27. Wash. D.C.

. 1927. Soil survey of Crawford County, Eiich. Bureu of Chem & Soils, No. 29. Wash. D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. National eutrophication survey working paper on Higgins Lake. USEFA Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1963. Topographic map of Roscommon County, Michigan.

Weibel, S.R. 1969. Urban drainage as a factor in eutrophication In Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, Correctives. Wash. D.C., National Academy of Sciences, pp. 383-403.

Weitzel, R.L. ed. 1979. Methods and Measurements of Periphyton Communities: A Review. ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 690.

Wetzel, R.G. 1983. Limnology. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia. 743 pp.

Williams & Works, 1976. Facilities plan for Lyon, bkrkey, and Gerrish Townships. Grand Rapids, Michigm.. Table 1. Physical Features of Higgins Lake, Michigan and its watershed.

(Lake Morphometry )

Maximum Length: 10.10 km (6.33 mi) Breadth.: 5.32 km (3.30 mi)

Surface Area (Ao) : 41.75 km2 (16.10 mi2) Shoreline Length (L): 32.99 km (20.49 mi) Lake Volume (V): Maximum Depth (Zm): 41.5 m (136.2 ft)

Mean Depth (2 v/A,) : 13.5 m (44.3 ft) Shoreline Development Factor (DL ~/2Ao): Volume Development Factor (Dv JV/A,. 2,) :

(Watershed Characteristics) Watershed Area (A,,): 87.63 krn2 (33.82 mi2) Length of Watershed Perimeter (b): 57.21 km (35.53 mi) Watershed Development Factor (DLW IW/2 A,,) : 1.72 Ratio of Lake Area to Watershed Area (A,/A,,) : 1: 2.10

Flushing Rate : 0.098 yr-l

Table 3. Summary comparison of water quality parameters indicating differences between the North and South basins of Higgins Lake, Michigan.

Parameter North South Secchi Depth (m) Mean Winter Hypolimnetic % saturation (5) Mean Summer 0-Phosphate ( w/1) Mean Summer Total Phosphorus (ug/l) Mean Summer Nitrate ( ugh Mean Summer Total Nitrogen (ug/l) Table 4. Major inflow and outflow streams of Higgins Lake, Michigan and their approximate nutrient loads.

Stream Str amflow Si02 NO -N Name ( m5/dav ) (kn/dav) (kg/& Big Creek Winter 8.14 X lo3 28.49 4.05 0.07 Summer 4.85 X lo3 18.08 0.08 0.04 Little Creek Winter 2.55 X lo3 11.18 1.35 0.01 Summer 4.32 X 10' 3 97 0.06 0.01 Cut River Winter 1.56 X lo5 1249.32 35-34 1.03 Summer 1.47 X lo5 1109 59 5.23 0.91 Total Inflow Winter 1.07 X lo4 39 67 5.40 0.08 Summer 5.42 X lo3 22.05 0.14 0.04 Total Outflow Winter 1.56 X lo5 1249.32 35 34 Summer 1.47 X lo5 1109 .59 5 23 Table 5. Metric features of some of the road-ends which terminate at Higgins Lake.

Location Road Tvpe j5 Slope Width (m) Hyslip Ave Sand-Gravel Chicago Sand-Gravel St. Lawrence Sand-Gravel Minto Pointe Sand-Gravel Maple Macadem-Gravel Lone Pine Macadem-Sand Magnolia Grave 1 Lincoln Gravel Bi smark Grave 1 Lyon Grave 1 East Gravel- Sand West Organic-Sand Access Site Gravel-Cement Newman Sand-Gravel Hallie Sand-Gravel Phoenix Gravel-Sand Wilson Gravel-Grass Funston Grave 1-Grass Des Moines Macadem Cooke Sand Taylor Grave 1 Thorpe Grave 1-Grass Hickory Sand-Gravel N, Park Macadern Forest Grave 1 Jackson Grave 1 Lansing Sand-Gravel Earl Grave 1 Forest-Reeves Sand-Gravel West Grave 1 Maplehurst Macadem Hitchcock Cement-Macadem Hoffman Gravel Kelly Macadem 2nd Grave 1 Lincoln Grave 1-Sand Table 6. Nearshore nutrient concentrations in Higgins Lake, Michigan

site 5-83 6-83 7-83 (20cm/50cm) 6-83 7-83 (20crn/50~~) (mdl) (m/l) tmn/l) (ma5-7 1) (ma/r) (mg/l) 1 6.46 6.16 6,01/5.00 7.33 5.87 8.19/8.03 Tahle 6. (cont. )

NO3-N NH3-N Site 5-y 6-83 7-83 (20cm/50cm) 7-83 (20cm/50cm) (UR 1) (ud1) (un/l> (UR5-7 1) (w6-7 1) w/l) Table 6. (cont. )

Site Table 7. Periphyton growth on artificial substrates as represented by chlorophyll-a and phaeopigment values for the period of May-June,l983 in Higgins Lake, Michigan at 18 sites.

Site Natural Artificial Artificial Substr2te Substrats-Pot Substrat?-Rock (mdm 1 (mdm 1 (ma/m > Chl-a Phae o Chl-a Phaeo Chl-a Phae o 1 0.10 0.06 0.29 0.00 -- -- 2 12.86 3.60 0.18 0.00 -- -- 3 14.55 1.32 0.62 0.00 -- --

3.15 ' 0.38 4 23.65 ' 18 77 -- -- 5 4.34 0.00 3.52 0.26 -- -- 6 38-34 3.40 0.58 0.05 -- -- 7 46.41 5 77 -- -- 4.57 0.55 8 44.15 27 77 9.96 1.81 30 75 8.11 9 6.37 0.00 1.12 0.00 4.46 0.32 10 4.11 1.36 0.25 0.02 -- -- 11 5.02 8.91 -- -- 3 67 0.00 12 13.43 7.91 -- -- 2.41 0.00 13 8.41 1.41 -- -- 1.56 0.16 14 15-87 2.34 1.12 0.03 -- -- 15 25.21 12.84 -- -- 5.05 0.00 16 6.40 0.15 -- -- 5.12 0.00 17 0 39 0.19 -- -- 2.25 0.00 18 26.03 5.21 0.79 0.00 2.12 0.00 Table 8. Periphyton growth on artificial substrates as represented by ash-free dry weight values for the of May-June, 1983 in Higgins Me, Michigan at 18 sites.

Site Artificial Artificial Table 9. Carparison of nutrient conctmtratiaw very close to shore (20 an depth) and further fmshore (50 an depth) on July 22, 1983 with cancentrations in the euphotic - zone of the North and South basins on July 19, 1983: x(S.E.1

20 an: 50 an:

N. & S, Basins Table 10. Mean nutrient concentrations, based upon all 3 sampling dates, for 18 nearshore sites, Higgins Lake, Michigan.

Site Figure 1. An outline of the State of lichigan indicating the location of Higgins Lake, Michigan. SCALE

Figure 2. Bathymetric map of Higgins Lake, ?v?ichigan.

\ -ins Lake

WETLANDS

0 1.0 mi

SCALE

Figure 4. Topographic map of the Higgins Lake, Michigan watershed.

74 Figure 5. Drainage patterns within the Higgins Lake, Michigan watershed. The arrows indicate the direction.of net groundwater flow. Grayling -Montcalm

Grayling -Rubicon Scale

Montcalm - Graycalm

Figure 6. Soil associations of the Higgins Lake, Michigan watershed.

7 6 LAND US€ TYPES -w#dl

ElAgricultural Scale

Figure 7. Land use types within the Higgins Lake, Michigan watershed. A - North Hole Sampling Site B - South Hole Sampling Site

Figure 8. An outline of Higgins Lake, Michigan indicating the location of the deepwater sampling stations utilized for this study. NORTH BASIN

Figure A 200 400 600 800

Figure

4

81-

16;.

20-

24- -- Figure Light profiles for Higgins Lake, Michigan. Fig- ures A & C depict Secchi depth and light att enuation, Figures B & D depict light penetration. - 79 SOUTH BASIN

Figure

Figure

Figure 9. Light profiles for Higgins We, Michigan.

80 NORTH BASIN -WINTER

40 80 l2.0 mv- I.,.,...... ,$ Figure A 4 8 12 -nluE "c u

SOUTH BASIN-WINTER

l...... f rramsuTIRI 'c n Figure B 00 mpr~ -

Figure 10. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, and per cent saturation depth profiles for Higgins Lake, Michigan. NORTH BASIN -SUMMER

4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Z wpwnrwre 'c I.,...,...,.,...d - Figure C 4 8 22 SCOWL-

l'"""'"""'~ 40 80 120 160nsm~morr-

SOUTH BASIN-SUMMER

4 8 12 S 20 24 28 g-'cu t....,,.....,,..I Figure D 4 8 I2 16 w WL u

~"'""""""~ 40 80 120 %snn.~~*r- Figure 10. ~em~eratiredissolved oxy en, and oer cent saturation depth prof~lesFor Higgins Lake, Michigan, 82 NORTH BASIN-WINTER

Figure

SOUTH BASIN-WINTER

I a- mg/i 4 8 U l6sqw~n- Figure 11. Har ess, ~ondutivit silica an@ chloride dep% profllles Eor ~i&ins~ak6, Mlchlgan. NORTH BASIN-SUMMER

80 L60 a40 ~clmaimm~rmremm b...... I..I.II..i Figure C 40 80 120 160-~==+-

SOUTH BASIN-SUMMER

%O 160 a40 320onarerrvrrr-m t ..ma...... -4 Figure D 40 80 l20 la,-m~~-

i"'""i 4 8 CL- WL I"'""I - 4 8 l2 16%~~n Figure 11. Hardness, conductivity, silica, and chloride depth profiles for Higgins Lake, Michigan. NORTH BASIN -WINTER

40 80 l2a 160 WW?.VLU b...... 3 m-- - 4 8 K Figure A * -a+ *WL -

SOUTH BASIN-WINTER

Figure

Figure 12. pH, alkalini qd free carbon.dioxide depth profiles for7ft lgglns Lake, Mlchlgan. NORTH BASIN -SUMMER

Figure C

SOUTH BASIN -SUMMER

Figure D

Figure 12, pH, glkal'nit adf ee ca bo dioxide depth profiles *or %iggms he,filcRigan. WRTH BASIN-WINTER

Figure

SOUTH BASIN - WINTER

Figure ill!

Figure 13. Armnogia, nitrate, and total nitrogen depth proflles for Hlggins Lake, Michigan. NOfTH BASIN -SUMMER

Figure

SOUTH BASIN - SUMMER

Figure

Figure 13. Ammonia, nitrate, and total nitrogen depth profiles for Hlggins Lake, Michigan. 88 NORTH BASIN- WINTER

Figure

SOUTH BASIN -WINTER

Figure

Figure 14. Orthophosphate and total phosphorus depth profiles for Hlgglns Lake, Michigan, NORTH BASIN- SUMMER

Figure C

SOUTH BASIN - SUMMER Figure D

Figure 14. Orthophosphate and total phosphorus depth profiles for Hlgglns Lake, Michigan. trout, perches, smaU mouth bass, large mouth bass, and pike.)

A smnll Fish (ie. larval and pre juvenile stages of species; small minnows, ex.

(ie. microscopic animals (ie. small-- snails &d clams such a8 Daphnin and insect larvae wonns and some crustaceans)

organic matter

Phytoplankton (algae) & Aquatic Vascular Plants

I PR v%q I I PRIMARY PROWCrKR$ I

Figure 15. Generalized food web and energy-pyramid for Higgins Lake, Michigan depicting phytoplankton as primary producers for the system. NORTH BASIN

Figure

Figure

4 -*---. - Figure 16, Zooplankton and phytoplankton depth profiles for Higgins Lake, Michigan. SOUTH BASIN

Boak Dahl). mdau Figure D 0,

Figure

--a 6 -*- - Figure 16. Zooplankton and phytoplankton depth profiles for Higgins Lake, ~ichigan. Figure

Figure B

Figure C

1983 Figure 17. Ternperawe dissolved oxy en, wd er cent saturatlon depth profzles For ~l~~iRsLake since 1974. Figure A

'.+'a- Figure we- me-

Figure C

1983 Figure 18. Ammonia, nit ate, nitrogen depth profiles for Hlggins fake s%$et?@@. 95 Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure 19. Orthophosphate and total phosphorus depth profiles for Higgins Lake, Michigan since 1974. 96 Figure 20. Predicted trophic status of Higgins Lake and several other Northern Michigan lakes based upon Carlson's index. Growth Isoclines (Essential Resources)

Figure 21. Growth isoclines associated with the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus indicating optimal algal growth at a ratio of 15:l. NORTH BASIN

Figure Figure B

SOUTH BASIN

Figure Figure

24 cimm Figure 22. Total nitrogen to total phosphorus ratio and light penetration depth profiles for Higgins Lake, Michigan. 99 1-St. Louis 2-Minto Pointe 11-conference Center Crk. 3-Maple 12-Cedar 4-Lone Pine 13-Lansing 5-Battin Marsh 14-Cottage Grove Assoc. 6-west 15-Henry 7-Newman 16-Hitchcock 8-Big Creek 17-Gallagher 9-Little Creek 18-2nd

Figure 23. An outline of Higgins We,Michigan indicating the location of the 18 nearshore sampling sites utilized for the study. INSPECTION MANHOLE

Figure 24. An example of a functioning septic system.

101 A- Rubber Stopper B - Clay flower Pot C - Plastic Petri Dish D - ~ubberStopper E -Wooden Dowel

Figure 25. Artificial substrates used at 18 sites, includ- ing road ends, residential locations, and in- fluent streams. MAY JUNE J ULY

Figure 26. Changes-in nearshore mean phosphate and nitrate concentrations during the Summer of 1983 in Higgins Lake, Michigan. 0 - LAKE WATER

Figure 27. Control grid pot placement utilized for the nearshore nutrient limitation study at the Cottage Grove Association location. Fig. 28. Chlorophyll-a and ash-free dry weight of periphyton accumulations on Flower Pot Substrates, Cottage Grove Site.

105 Figure 29. Past and projected population trends for the Higgins We, Michigan watershed,

106 APPENDIX A

Surmary of l?e&hcw's (1980) Phosphorus Rudqet -1 for ~i-s Lake.

1) The model predicts ambient concentrations of phosphorus (P) as ug/l in the lake, based upon the mathematical formulation: where qs is water loading (f/yr) L is P-loading (gm/m /yr) Vs is P settling velocity - 11.6 m/yr 2) In order to calculate L, it is necessary to obtain estimates of areal dimensions of Forested, Agricultural, and Urban land within the watershed, and multiply these values by appropriate P-loading coefficients, For Higgins Lake these were: Land Use Type Area(ha) "Most Likely" Total Yearly Export Coeff, (ka/ha/vr) Agriculture 20 .40 8.0 (0.01%) Forest 8354 .20 1671.2 (42.49%) Urban 389 90 350.7 (8.89%)

Phosphorus inputs via precipitation were estimated from rain- fall valoume and concentration. Inputs from septic tanks assumed a P-loading value of 0.6 kg/capita. An estimated 1447 residents in houses along the shoreline, expressed on a yearly basis, and a soil retention capacity of 25% were used in the computations: Source Input Calculations Total Yearly

Precipitation ( .30 kg/ha/yr) (4175 ha) 1253 (32.86%) septic Tanks

TOTAL 3933 (100.00%) 3) The total phosphorus loading estimate, when divided by lake surface asea, resulted in an areal loading estimate (L) of 0.97 gm/m /yr. This in turn allowed a prediction of 7.8 ug/l PO4-P ambient concentration in the water column. APPENDIX B

A SHORELINE SURVEY OF HIGGINS LAKE, MICHIGAN

The shoreline of Higgins Lake, Michigan was divided into a series of one mile segments and surveyed for the following: 1) Densities and locations of residences along the,shoreline 2) Type of substrate(s) 3) Presence and relative abundance of Clado~hora 4) Presence of marl The maps in this appendix may be interpreted using the following information: 1) Densities and locations of residences along the shoreline are denoted as dots along the shoreline in the appendix. 2) Substrate types are denoted by the following symbols: Sand Gravel (0-5 cm) m.. Cobble (5-20 cm) * * * Rocks (greater than 20 cm) A A A 3) Presence and abundance of Cladophora is denoted by the following symbols: I (slight growth on few rocks) A A A I1 (Slight growth on many rocks) I11 (Nonfilamentous green bands) 0 0 0 IV (Filamentous green bands) * * * 4) The presence of marl is noted in the Comments section for each segment. Also noted in the Comments section for each sement are studv sites utilized, presence and general location Gf surface watkr inflows, and the presence of detritus. TIII;E NUMBER 1

1) Much floating dead Cladophora between Lincoln and Helen Avenues. 2) Heavy marl deposits between Helen and Dunlop Avenues. WAUKEGON . ..

.. CHICAGO ..

MILE NUMBER 2

1) Some floating dead Cladophora between St. Louis and Waukegon Avenues. 2) Heavy marl deposits-between Washington and Waukegon Avenues. 3) Septic tank site - St. Louis Avenue MILE NUMBER 3

1) Intermediate marl deposits throughout entire segment, 2) Road end site - Minto Pt. Road MILE NUMBER 4

1) Heavy marl deposits between Naple Avenue and Pt. Detroit. 2) Road end site - Maple Avenue 3) Road end site - Lone Pine Avenue MILE NUMBER 5

1) Surface water inflow site - Battin Drain 2) Water greatly discolored near Battin Drain MILE NUMBER 6

1) Heavy shoreline erosion from wave action throughout entire segment. MIE3 NUMBER 7

1) Light marl deposits throughout entire segment. MICHIGAN*

MILE NUMBER 8

1) Light marl deposits throughout entire segment. 2) ~eavyshoreline detritus band between Tie and Michigan Avenues. 3) Road end site-- West Avenue PUBLIC FlSHlN

8

MILE NUMBER 9

1) Many heavily wooded lots throughout seg- ment. 2) Heavy shoreline detritus band throughout segment. 3) Intermediate marl deposits throughout segment. 4) Road end site - Newman Avenue WILSON:3

1) Light shoreline band of detritus through- out segment. 2) Septic tank site - Stuckey Avenue 3) Surface water inflow sites - Big and Little Creeks MILE NUMBER 11

1) Light detritus band throughout entire segment. 2) Eight surface water outflows located along segment. MILE NUMBER 12

1) Intermediate marl deposits throughout entire segment. 2) Light detritus band throughout entire segment. 3) Surface water inflow site - Conference Center Creek 4) Septic tank site - Cedar Avenue 5) Road end site - Lansing Avenue MILE NUMBER 13

1) Heavy marl deposits throughout entire wooded area. area has extremely steep grade. z T COTTAGE GROVE ASSOCIATION -4 OC

MIU NUMBER 14

1) Heavy marl deposits throughout entire segment. 2) Control site - Cottage Grove Association 3) Septic tank site - Hemj Avenue MILE NUMBER 15

1) Light detritus band throughout entire segment.

Z 3 0 Z Y

NEWMAN

1) Large condominium near northwest end of segment. 2) Septic tank site - Gallagher Avenue MIIE NUMBER 18

1) Light detritus barld throughout entire segment. 2) Intermediate marl deposits throughout entire segment. CHARLES +%$-aai3

1) Heavy marl deposits throughout entire segment. 2) Septic tank site - 2nd Avenue 1) Heavy marl deposits throughout entire segment. z 8 SOUTH HlGGlNS STATE PARK Uz I 4

1nL;E NUMBER 21 *-COMMENTS *** 1) Light marl deposits throughout entire segment.

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

,Q RENEW PHONE 764-1494 DATE DUE

2 3 1994 MAY 1 6 1996

I I I /

I

%!BE lmGETs;Tm 16s:- mmufSLasD Leelanau Co., Michigan

F by BRIAN T. E~AZL,ETT University a£ Michigan -Biological Station 1983

3. LAKEl PLAIN WOODS L

I Miles I

Appendix E – F&V Public Informational Meeting Presentation LYON & GERRISH TOWNSHIP PROPOSED HIGGINS LAKE PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM October 28, 2019

Presenters: Fleis & VandenBrink | John DeVol, PE; Ian Neerken, PE; Ben Kladder, PE; Bob Wilcox, PE AGENDA

▪ Project Process ▪ Evaluate need for public sanitary sewer system ▪ Alternatives explored ▪ Proposed public sanitary sewer system ▪ Financial considerations ▪ Not detailed individual costs PROCESS

General Milestone Est. Completion Public Joint Meeting with Lyon/Gerrish October 2018 SEARCH Grant Application Winter 2019 SEARCH Grant Award Spring 2019 Feasibility Study October 2019 Public Information Meeting October 2019 Townships determine to proceed and begin preparation for making a Winter 2019-2020 funding application Prepare applications for funding Spring 2020 Receive funding commitments Summer 2020 Townships determine to proceed with funding option Summer 2020 Begin engineering design Fall 2020 Advertise for bids Fall 2021 Construction Spring 2022 - Fall 2023 EVALUATE NEED PRESENTER: IAN NEERKEN, PE FLEIS & VANDENBRINK IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM Typical Septic System and connecting conditions

▪ High (shallow) water table ▪ Soil type – generally sandy, highly permeable ▪ Dense Development ▪ Proximity to lake IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM Problems with septic systems ▪ Water quality conditions ▪ Nutrient loading ▪ Average Groundwater flow into lake, >1ft/day * ▪ System life expectancy: 20yrs ▪ Continued use of septic systems ▪ Nutrients in surface water ▪ Seasonal use ▪ Expansion/replacement

* Changes in Nearshore water quality from 1995 to 2014 and associated linkages to septic systems in Higgins Lake , MSU 2014 * POLLUTANTS IDENTIFIED ▪ Phosphorus (TP and TDP)* ▪ Nutrient from septic system effluent and fertilizers

▪ Nitrogen (Nitrate NO3 and Nitrite NO2) ▪ Nutrient from septic system effluent and fertilizers ▪ E-coli ▪ A fecal colloform bacteria indictive of sewage contamination ▪ Chlorophyll (Chl)* ▪ An indicator of phytoplankton (algae) ▪ Boron (B) ▪ Found in soaps, detergents, bleach, cosmetics, etc. ▪ Other Tests: ▪ Secchi Disk (SD)* ▪ Specific Conductivity ▪ Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

* Used in calculating Trophic State Index (TSI) TROPHIC STATE INDEX (TSI)

▪ Indicator of perceived lake water quality ▪ Basic TSI Summary:

TSI Chl SD (ft) TP (ug/L) Attributes Fisheries & Recreation (ug/L) <40 <2.6 >13.1 <12 Oligotrophy – clear water Trout fisheries dominate, through year, deep cold walleye present water 40-50 7.3-2.6 13.1-6.6 12-24 Mesotrophy – moderately No oxygen at lake bottom, loss clear through most of of trout summer 50-70 56-7.3 6.6-1.6 24-96 Eutrophy – algae and Warm-water fish only, bass; aquatic plant issues, blue- dense algae and plants green algae present, green discourages swimming and water boating >70 >56 <1.6 >96 Hypereutrophy – dense Water is not suitable for algae, algal scum recreation, rough fish (carp) dominate, summer fish kills possible TROPHIC STATE INDEX TROPHIC STATES

Oligotrophic Hypereutrophic NUTRIENT SOURCES AND LOADING

Drainfield Raw Wastewater Discharge

Nitrogen 60 ppm 60 ppm

Phosphorus 10 ppm 8.1 ppm

Source: EPA Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Manual, 2002 EPA/625/R-00/08 Crites and Tchobanoglous, Small and Decentralized Wastewater Management Systems, McGraw-Hill,1998. ESTIMATED NUTRIENT LOADING

Septic Systems are estimated to account for: ▪ Over 99% of the total phosphorus load ▪ Over 97% of the total nitrogen load

Source: Higgins Lake Watershed Management Plan, Updated 2007, Huron Pines, Inc. CONTINUED USE OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS

▪ Factors that impact expansion and replacement: ▪ Small lot size (especially near lake) ▪ Distance to wells (50’ isolation around wells) ▪ Distance to surface water (50-100’ minimum required) ▪ High groundwater table (24-36” required drain field to groundwater) ▪ Shallow drinking water wells drawing from same aquifer as drain field discharge FACTORS IMPACTING SEPTIC SYSTEMS

▪ 100’ minimum distance from lake and creek ▪ Distance to wells: 50’ for residential, 75’ for commercial PRIOR LAKE STUDIES

Timeline of notable lake studies

• Maintaining the High Water Quality of Higgins Lake; (Bosserman, 1969)

• US EPA Natural Eutrophication Survey – Higgins Lake #195; (US EPA, 1975)

• A Water Quality Study of Higgins Lake, Michigan; (UofM, 1984)

• Effects of Residential Development on the Water Quality of Higgins Lake, Michigan 1995-99 (USGS, 2001)

• Changes in nearshore water quality from 1995 to 2014 and associated linkages to septic systems in Higgins Lake, MI; (MSU, Martin, Kendall, Hyndman, 2014)

• Algae and Water Chemistry Sampling Project; (UofM BS, Lowe, Kociolek, 2016)

• Higgins Lake Water Analysis (Raven Analytical - Roscommon High School Students, 2018, 2019)

• Three Prior sewer feasibility studies COMMON FINDINGS OF PRIOR STUDIES

Documentation that lake is impacted by septic systems ▪ Continually increasing nitrogen and phosphorus levels in Higgins Lake ▪ Changes in Trophic State Index indicators (Total P, blue- green algae, anoxic conditions, etc.) ▪ Septic drain field seepage is likely the largest controllable source of phosphorus loading in Higgins Lake CAMP CURNALIA – CASE STUDY ▪ Camp Curnalia wastewater collection and treatment constructed in 2009 ▪ The 2014 MSU study analyzed pre- and post- construction sampling with USGS/MSU sampling locations ▪ Results show: ▪ Significant reduction in Total Phosphorus ▪ Nitrate and Nitrite levels dropped below detection levels ▪ Boron levels exhibited significant declines ▪ Specific conductivity measurements were lowest at the Camp area of the lake

An update, with 2018 and 2019 sampling data, is expected to be released soon BENEFITS OF PROPOSED PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM ▪ Reduces risk of contamination of shallow drinking water wells ▪ Lake water quality improvements ▪ A controllable way to reduce nutrient loading impacting lake health ▪ Removal of septic systems ▪ Eliminates aging, undersized and improperly functioning septic systems ▪ Eliminates impractical control for inspection/enforcement of privately owned septic systems ▪ Eliminates performance concerns due to seasonal use BENEFITS OF PROPOSED PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM ▪ Allows the community to better manage the sustainability of Higgins Lake ▪ Helps to protect property value ALTERNATIVES EXPLORED

PRESENTER: BEN KLADDER, PE FLEIS & VANDENBRINK HIGGINS LAKE WATERSHED STUDY AREA STUDY AREA ▪ How was the Study Area identified: ▪ Potential areas influencing water quality ▪ Health and safety ▪ Areas that will benefit from community sewer due to: ▪ Isolation distances, lot size/density ▪ Poor soils (clay, excessively drained) ▪ Depth to groundwater ▪ Lot density ▪ What about State Parks? Camp Curnalia? ▪ Currently served by sewer ▪ Could unify or join ALTERNATIVES EXPLORED

▪ Preliminary Engineering Report ▪ Collection System ▪ Gravity Sewer with Low Pressure component ▪ Complete Low Pressure System

▪ Treatment Options ▪ Regional Treatment ▪ Lagoon WWTF ▪ Large earthen lagoons and rapid infiltration basins ▪ Mechanical WWTF ▪ Concrete treatment and settling tanks with rapid infiltration basins ▪ Conclusion: ▪ Low Pressure collection with Mechanical WWTF is the least costly, best solution to provide sewer service. PROPOSED PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM

PRESENTER: BEN KLADDER, PE FLEIS & VANDENBRINK EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM PROPOSED STEP COMPONENT

TO WWTP STEP component in septic tank PROPOSED SEWER SYSTEM STEP SYSTEMS STEP Advanced On-site Treatment ▪ Eliminates Drainfield ▪ Requires Drainfield ▪ Pumps to WWTP ▪ Discharges on-lot ▪ Municipal Ownership ▪ Individual Ownership ▪ Maintenance by municipality ▪ Maintenance by property owner ▪ Wastewater treated to EGLE ▪ No treatment standards standards ▪ Oversight & reporting with ▪ Affected by seasonal use EGLE ▪ No oversight, self regulated ▪ Not affected by seasonal use PROPOSED SEWER SYSTEM STEP component visibility CONSTRUCTION

Maximize this Minimize this CONSTRUCTION ▪ Utilize Trenchless Technology ▪ Directional Drilling ▪ Minimized surface disturbing earthwork PROPOSED SEWER SYSTEM ▪ Responsibility & Maintenance: ▪ Property Owner: ▪ Pipe from house to tank, ▪ Electric cost for pumping, Est. at <$1.50/month ▪ Utility: ▪ Tank, pump, pump controls and all downstream piping ▪ Utility will periodically pump tanks, operate, maintain & replace system ▪ Life of System: ▪ 75 -100 years for most infrastructure ▪ 15+ years on pumps and misc. components (built into the annual operation of system) PROPOSED TREATMENT SYSTEM

PRESENTER: BOB WILCOX, PE FLEIS & VANDENBRINK EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM Water Quality Conditions

Municipal Raw Drainfield WWTP Wastewater Discharge Treated Water Nitrogen 60 ppm 60 ppm <5 ppm Phosphorus 10 ppm 8.1 ppm <1 ppm

Source: EPA Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Manual, 2002 EPA/625/R-00/08 Crites and Tchobanoglous, Small and Decentralized Wastewater Management Systems, McGraw-Hill,1998. PROPOSED TREATMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW

▪ Designed to treat summer time flow rates

▪ Certified Operator in charge of treatment

▪ Effluent quality monitored for compliance by EGLE

▪ High quality effluent discharged to groundwater far away from the Lake ▪ Nitrogen <5 ppm ▪ Phosphorus <1 ppm ALTERNATIVE 1: REGIONAL TREATMENT SYSTEM ▪ Collection system delivers flow to an existing regional WWTF. ▪ Camp Curnalia ▪ Markey Township ▪ Village of Roscommon ▪ Significant expansion of existing facilities would be required.

Regional WWTF Locations ALTERNATIVE 2: LAGOON TREATMENT FACILITY

▪ Collection system delivers flow to large earthen basins.

▪ Large land area required.

▪ Potential for seasonal odors

▪ Higher capital costs vs Mechanical WWTF

▪ Lower operating costs vs Mechanical WWTF

Lagoon Treatment Overview PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE: MECHANICAL TREATMENT FACILITY ▪ Collection system delivers flow to concrete treatment and settling tanks

▪ Small treatment facility footprint

▪ Operational flexibility for seasonal flows

▪ Tanks can be covered to minimize odors Oxidation Ditch

Rapid Infiltration Basin Mechanical Treatment Overview PROPOSED TREATMENT SYSTEM

Pumped Flow From Preliminary Biological Collection System Treatment Treatment

Rapid Infiltration Treated Effluent Flow Clarification Basins to Groundwater

Land Application / Landfill Solids Handling POTENTIAL WWTF LOCATIONS FINANCIAL/LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

PRESENTER: JOHN DEVOL, PE FLEIS & VANDENBRINK NEXT STEPS ▪ Feasibility Study will provide conclusions as to the most cost-effective alternatives for the Townships to consider ▪ There are many funding options, including a combination of special assessments, grants, loans and participation by state and federal partners ▪ There will be several opportunities for the Townships and public to determine whether to proceed throughout the process ▪ The funding applications do not involve a commitment to continue the project LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ▪ Although there are many legal structures that could be utilized to own, operate and finance a system, the most likely will include: ▪ Creation of sewer authority ▪ Board will be appointed by townships ▪ Will own and operate the sewer system ▪ May hire staff and contractors FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS ▪ State & Federal Programs finance construction of water and sewer systems with loan and grant programs ▪ Must go through application process to know loan terms and potential grant awards ▪ USDA Rural Development ▪ EGLE SRF (State Revolving Funds) ▪ Residential Assistance Programs ▪ USDA Rural Development ▪ Loan and Grant opportunities ▪ MI Treasury Programs PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

Collection System Summary Table: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Capital Costs Net Present Annual Total Present Salvage Net Present Alternative Capital Cost Worth of OM&R OM&R Cost Worth Value Worth Cost (1) Alternative 2 - Gravity & LP Combined $101,936,000 $933,000 $16,020,000 $ 117,956,000 $36,721,000 $81,235,000 Alternative 3 - Low Pressure STEP System $82,559,000 $692,000 $11,880,000 $ 94,439,000 $39,825,700 $54,613,300 Treatment System

Summary Table: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Capital Costs Net Present Annual Total Present Salvage Net Present Alternative Capital Cost Worth of OM&R OM&R Cost Worth Value Worth Cost (1) Alternatives

Alternative 1 - Lagoon WWTP $26,840,000 $860,000 $14,770,000 $41,610,000 $2,800,000 $38,810,000

Alternative 2 - Mechanical WWTP $23,130,000 $980,000 $16,800,000 $39,930,000 $3,800,000 $36,130,000

Note: This table represents budgetary estimates for planning purposes. Further definition of the scope of the projects through preliminary and final design will provide details necessary to improve the accuracy of the costs. (1) Net Present Worth calculated using the real discount rate for a 20-year period (i = 1.5%) based on USDA guidance for FY2019. NEXT STEPS

General Milestone Est. Completion Public Information Meeting October 2019 Townships determine to proceed November 2019 Townships complete legal work in order to apply for Winter 2019 –2020 funding Prepare applications for state and federal funding Spring 2020 Receive funding commitments Summer 2020 Townships determine to proceed Summer 2020 Begin engineering design Fall 2020 Advertise for bids Fall 2021 Construction Spring 2022 - Fall 2023 QUESTIONS Appendix F – Letters of Support