Community Assessment Report - Onsite Sewage Treatment ...

Rolling ShoresCommunityAssessment ReportCommunity of Rolling ShoresFish Lake Township,Chisago County, MinnesotaWenck File #2797-01Prepared for:CHISAGO COUNTYPrepared by:WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.1800 Pioneer Creek CenterP.O. Box 249Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249(763) 479-4200September 2012I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a dulyRegistered Professional Soil Scientist and MPCA Advanced Designer/Inspector under the laws of theState of Minnesota.Peter Miller, P.S.S. Registration No. 42636I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a dulyRegistered Professional Engineer and MPCA Inspector/Designer under the laws of the State ofMinnesota.Ryan Lefers, P.E. Registration No. 47502

Table of Contents (Cont.)4.3 SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS ................................................................... 4-44.4 ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS................................ 4-54.5 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 4-65.0 Summary and Recommendations ................................................................................. 5-15.1 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 5-15.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 5-15.3 NEXT STEPS ...................................................................................................... 5-2TABLES1 Existing Well Types ……………………………………………………………………2-32 Parcel Type ……………………………………………………………………………..2-43 Potential ISTS Type by Property ..................................................................................... 3-54 Estimated Permitting Flow Rates for Alternatives .......................................................... 3-95 25-Year Capital Cost Estimates for Private ISTS Program ............................................. 4-16 25-Year Capital Cost Estimates Cluster System Alternatives ......................................... 4-27 Summary of Capital Costs ............................................................................................... 4-48 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs ...................................................................... 4-59 Present Worth Analysis (25-year) Average Costs CAR Area-Wide by Alternative ....... 4-7FIGURES1 Site Location Map2 Soils Map3 Well Location Map4 Existing SSTS Map5 Alternative 1: Likely Future ISTS Map6 Alternative 2: Cluster LISTS and ISTS Map7 Alternative 3: Cluster MSTS MapAPPENDICESA Background InformationB Parcel Data Spreadsheet and Parcel Evaluation MapsC Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) DetailD Soil BoringsE Flow CalculationsF Cost EstimatesG Chisago County LettersH Existing Community Wastewater System Easement DocumentsT:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docxii

1.0 Introduction1.1 BACKGROUNDThe Community of Rolling Shores is located in Fish Lake Township approximately five mileswest northwest of the City of Harris along the west shore of the north third of Goose Lake inChisago County, Minnesota (Figure 1). The residents are served water by individual watersupply wells. The community is currently sewered, and resident wastewater needs are met by acollection line that discharges to a community soil-based subsurface sewage treatment system(SSTS). Wenck Associates, Inc. (Wenck) was retained to assess the probable compliance statusof the existing SSTS and to provide wastewater treatment alternatives. Evaluated wastewatertreatment alternatives included individual subsurface treatment systems (ISTS) 1 and communitySSTS to collect and treat wastewater for the Community of Rolling Shores.Based on the 2000 census, there were 1,723 people in 617 households in Fish Lake Township,for an average of just under 2.8 people per household. Using this statistic, the population of theCommunity Assessment Report (CAR) area is estimated at 40, based on 14 residences at 2.8people per residence. The peak number of people living in homes in the CAR area (based onhomeowner surveys) is 52. The population in the CAR area is both year-round and seasonal innature (see Section 2.3.2 for a breakdown of season vs. full-time parcel use).This CAR was made possible through a Small Community Program Technical Assistance Grantfrom the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority. These grants are available to small unseweredcommunities so they may analyze possible solutions to wastewater problems associated withnon-complying septic systems. The Small Community Program Technical Assistance Grants are1 ISTS (a.k.a. septic system) is defined in Minnesota Rule Chapter 7080 as a type of Subsurface Sewage TreatmentSystem (SSTS) that treats and disperses wastewater.T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx1-1

designed to help communities develop the technical, managerial and financial capacity necessaryto build, operate, and maintain new SSTS.1.2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONSA timeline documenting the history of the community wastewater system was completed byChisago County prior to commencement of work on the CAR. The timeline is shown below. Ofspecial note is that the existing cluster system has been considered an Imminent Threat to PublicHealth and Safety (ITPHS) 2 since 2005.2 ITPHS is defined in 2011 MN Rules Chapter 7080.1500 Subp. 4A. “…a system that is an imminent threat to publichealth or safety is a system with a discharge of sewage or sewage effluent to the ground surface, drainage systems,ditches, or storm water drains or directly to surface water; systems that cause a reoccurring sewage backup into adwelling or other establishment; systems with electrical hazards; or sewage tanks with unsecured, damaged, or weakmaintenance hole covers.”T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx1-2

1.3 REPORT PURPOSEThis report is a planning document for possible long-term solutions for wastewater collectionand treatment within the Community of Rolling Shores. Within this report are developedconcepts and a framework to provide sanitary sewer service to the existing residences in thisarea. An ISTS and two cluster system alternatives have been developed in this report for longtermwastewater treatment infrastructure.1.4 WORK PERFORMEDTo determine the baseline for the analysis, a field investigation was completed in May 2012 toassess the existing condition of the SSTS. The analysis also evaluated future ISTS and clustersoil-based wastewater treatment options for residents. Useful background information regardingsome different ISTS specifics (i.e., drain field trench vs. mound) produced by the University ofMinnesota Onsite Sewage Treatment Program (OSTP) 3 is found in Appendix A.Building from the information gathered from a county file review and the field investigation,three alternatives were evaluated for long-term wastewater infrastructure. A fourth alternative(continued use of the existing system) was ruled out because there are no system componentsthat are in compliance-all components will require replacement (drainfield, tanks, and collectionsystem). The three Alternatives considered are:Alternative 1: Existing homes install compliant ISTSAlternative 2: Cluster Large ISTS serving select homes with remaining homes toinstall compliant ISTSAlternative 3: Cluster SSTS serving entire communityThe cost for an individual property to install a compliant ISTS on their property (CARAlternative 1) is included in Appendix B. Selected homes (6) were included in analysis of a3 University of Minnesota Onsite Sewage Treatment Program is the organization that provides the technical trainingand continuing education for individuals who design, inspect, install, and maintain ISTS in Minnesota. Additionalhomeowner information regarding ISTS can be found at their website: http://septic.umn.edu/T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx1-4

Large ISTS (LISTS) cluster system with remaining homes to install compliant ISTS on theirproperty; (Note: parcels may be added or removed from the cluster system as a project develops.)All potential wastewater generating structures (14) were selected for inclusion in analysis of acluster system to allow for calculating average costs for Alternative 3. Again, parcels may beadded or removed from the cluster system as a project develops.T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx1-5

2.0 Existing Conditions2.1 INTRODUCTIONThis section summarizes the findings of the existing condition of the cluster SSTS in the CARarea. All the properties evaluated were served by the cluster SSTS. A determination of likelySSTS compliance status was made, as well as the compliance status of individual septic tanks ateach property. In addition, a determination was made as to whether it was feasible to replace theexisting system with a combination of ISTS and/or cluster systems to provide compliantwastewater treatment.Individual parcel information was provided by Chisago County. The number of structurescurrently or historically generating wastewater identified for investigation by Chisago Countywas 14.It should be noted that although the community of Rolling Shores has a total number ofstructures generating wastewater of 14; there is potential for development of two additionalvacant parcels. The two vacant parcels are currently owned by adjoining property owners, whomay or may not have interest in building additional wastewater generating structures. It may bein their best interest to use the vacant lot for siting an ISTS.2.2 METHODSWenck was able to access all participating properties to complete a visual site inspection of anyexisting SSTS components with the intent of: documenting Imminent Threats to Public Health orT:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx2-1

Safety (ITPHS); assessing likelihood of SSTS protection of groundwater 4 ; and evaluating futureonsite ISTS options. The determination of feasibility of ISTS and/or cluster system installationrequired an evaluation of the soils. In addition to the soil survey data available (Figure 2), Wenckcompleted soil borings on properties to identify and evaluate soils throughout the CAR area(Appendix B and D).Prior to commencement of field work, Chisago County provided available pastpermitting/design/inspection records for the SSTS as well as the GIS shape file of the parcels andlocations of structures and infrastructure. Homeowner surveys were collected by the communityto gain further knowledge of the parcel occupancy status, water supply, and wastewatertreatment infrastructure. The surveys were used to evaluate seasonal and parcel specific waterusage and wastewater generation and to provide a baseline for parcel investigation andevaluation. Information gleaned from these surveys was incorporated into Appendix B. Wenckalso relied upon the Chisago County Environmental Services staff to answer questions related topast permitting efforts.Wenck began the CAR by visiting the community on May 7, 2012. Field work included sitevisits where maps were created for each individual parcel, wells were located (if possible), andtanks were located and evaluated. This initial phase was followed immediately by a secondphase of evaluation of soils and potential suitability of an area onsite at each property for a futureISTS. The soil type and existing depth to seasonally high groundwater was determined usingsoil borings in order to assess what type of ISTS would most likely be installed. The site visitsalso included a compliance assessment of the cluster SSTS and individual septic tanks to obtainthe information found in Section 2.3. At the SSTS soil treatment area, the vertical separationbetween the seasonally high groundwater and the bottom of the effluent dispersal area wasdetermined.4 Failure to protect groundwater is defined in 2011 MN Rules Chapter 7080.1500 Subp. 4B. “…a system that isfailing to protect groundwater is a system that is a seepage pit, cesspool, drywell, leaching pit, or other pit; a systemwith less than the required vertical separation distance described in items D and E; and a system not abandoned inaccordance with part 7080.2500.”T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx2-2

2.3 FINDINGSThe purpose of the site visit was to obtain:• information on source of drinking water,• the type of dwelling or wastewater generator contained within the parcel,• the likely compliance status of any SSTS components at the site, and• the most likely future ISTS to serve the dwelling.2.3.1 Drinking Water SourceThe source of drinking water for the dwellings in the CAR area is individual wells. The wellsidentified were all deep (screened at greater than 50 feet below ground surface) as opposed toshallow (screened at less than 50 feet below the ground surface or “sand point”). Depth andlocation of wells must be taken into account when considering ISTS setback requirements. Welllocations were reported on homeowner surveys and/or verified through the MinnesotaDepartment of Health County Well Index. Table 1 summarizes the makeup of the wells in theCAR Area as discovered during field reconnaissance and as reported by the County Well Index.Table 1: Existing Well TypesWell TypeNumber ofResidences Served PercentageShallow (

the type of structure existing on a parcel is the flow and strength of wastewater generated. Aseasonal residence can produce a different pattern of wastewater flow than a full-time residentialhome.Table 2: Parcel TypeUsage Pattern Number PercentageFull-time Residential 8 57%Seasonal Residential 6 43%2.3.3 SSTS TypeNo ISTS currently exist in the CAR area. The existing cluster SSTS is a drainfield locatedsouthwest of the served residences (Figure 4). Individual septic tanks served by a commoncollection line and lift station are present at each property.2.3.4 SSTS Likely Compliance StatusUpon visiting each individual parcel a determination was made regarding the potential that theindividual septic tanks and the cluster SSTS for the dwellings would be compliant or noncompliantwith Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and Chisago County ordinance. The clusterSSTS was considered non-compliant for two reasons:1. The system is ITPHS as identified from site reconnaissance. Effluent was noteddischarging from the surface of the drainfield in the northwest corner of the treatmentsite (Photo 1).2. The system fails to protect groundwater. Insufficient vertical separation exists betweenthe seasonally high groundwater and the bottom of the effluent dispersal area to allowadequate treatment of the wastewater via aerobic soil conditions before the effluententers into and mixes with the shallow groundwater at the site. In addition, the tanks thatare part of the system are not watertight; and therefore do not protect groundwater for thesame reason (insufficient vertical separation).T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx2-4

Photo 1: Wastewater effluent surfacing near the northwest corner of the treatment site.Compliance status is based on county permit information, soils data, information provided bycounty staff and property owners, and our site visit. Appendix B contains a table that shows thecompliance status of evaluated parcels.The existing drain field cannot be brought into compliance, even if the imminent health threatcondition is mitigated, because vertical separation requirements (see non-compliant reason #2,above) are not being met.2.3.5 Existing Septic Tank ComplianceEven though a property’s SSTS soil treatment area may be non-compliant, a septic tank mayexist at a property that meets current compliance requirements and could be used in a futureISTS or community cluster system. During field reconnaissance, tanks were evaluated (pumpedand inspected) for water tightness below the outlet of the tank by Chisago County EnvironmentalServices staff. No tanks were found to be water tight, all tanks are considered non-compliant andwould require replacement for use in any future SSTS (see Compliance Inspection in AppendixG.) Average costs for replacement of non-compliant tanks are accounted for in Appendix B.2.4 CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTT:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx2-5

As documented in this section, the existing wastewater treatment infrastructure creates an ITPHSwith surfacing effluent. Additionally, the SSTS fails to protect groundwater. The Community ofRolling Shores as a community currently ranks 28 th out of 349 projects on the 2012 Clean WaterRevolving Fund’s Project Priority List. It is estimated that the existing SSTS contributesannually to the environment 83 pounds of phosphorus and 4.96 x 10 13 colony forming units ofcoliform bacteria that would otherwise be removed via a compliant SSTS (Appendix A). Inaddition, a compliant mound type of SSTS for treatment of wastewater would remove anadditional ~45% more total nitrogen from the wastewater (~177 lbs/year) than the existing, noncomplaintdrainfield type of SSTS.2.5 SUMMARYOf the existing 14 properties that were evaluated and generate wastewater, all are in noncompliance.The properties are considered non-compliant due to surfacing effluent, a drainfieldthat fails to protect groundwater, and non-compliant septic tanks.T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx2-6

3.0 Alternatives Analysis3.1 INTRODUCTIONWhen considering alternatives for long term wastewater infrastructure, three components need to beevaluated. These components are:1. Collection: The means in which wastewater leaves the individual structure and is conveyed tothe primary treatment unit.2. Treatment: Removal of pathogens and nutrients in primary and secondary processes.3. Effluent Dispersal: Final distribution of treated effluent to surface waters, the ground surface,or subsurface soils.With many SSTS, the treatment and effluent dispersal components occur with the same infrastructure– a drain field removes pathogens and viruses while dispersing the effluent. The two components arebroken out separately, however, because a septic tank does provide a primary treatment mechanism.In addition, state rules require some cluster SSTS to employ additional “pre-treatment” methods priorto effluent dispersal. The following alternatives are available for long-term wastewater infrastructure:1. Existing homes install compliant ISTS (Alternative 1)2. Cluster System to serve selected homes in combination with compliant ISTS to serve the restof the community (Alternative 2)3. Cluster System to serve entire community (Alternative 3)This section discusses the alternatives and highlights advantages and disadvantages. Cost estimates forthe alternatives are discussed in Section 4.0.T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx3-1

3.2 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS (ALTERNATIVE 1)There are two possible management/ownership options for utilizing ISTS for treatment ofwastewater: community management/ownership and private management/ownership.3.2.1 Community Managed ISTS ProgramA Community Managed ISTS Program utilizing the best available onsite technologies andmanagement can be effective in protecting public health and the environment. The Townshipwould be the financial and operational vehicle to assist property owners with ISTS upgrades. TheTownship would oversee management of the systems through either employees or sub-contractsfor financial and operational services.In this scenario, once property owners upgrade their ISTS to a compliant status, all propertyowners would pay annual sewer treatment fees for ongoing operation, maintenance, pumping,and a repair reserve fund for their ISTS. The amount each pays may be proportional to therequired annual maintenance expense incurred and/or requirements of the lender. All systemtypes would require some level of annual maintenance expense; however, fees may vary basedon the system type.There are a few noted advantages to a community managed ISTS program. Individual propertyowners have fewer worries about management, as the community oversees maintenance, such astank pumping. The community has the assurance that all systems are being properly managed.Finally, because the ISTS are owned and operated by a public entity, public funding isaccessible.Disadvantages to a community managed ISTS program may include coordination and executionof property access agreements and easements for required system maintenance.T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx3-2

3.2.2 Private ISTS ProgramIn a private ISTS scenario, operation and management of ISTS would fall on the shoulders ofindividual system owners. Individual property owners would be responsible for the installation,management, and operation and maintenance of their ISTS. Upgrade and operation andmaintenance costs would be paid by the ISTS owner to the appropriate party with no Townshipinvolvement. Management decisions regarding ISTS in this scenario are made by the propertyowner, not the community. A county-issued ISTS permit would be required for each ISTS.Typical life expectancy for a properly installed and maintained ISTS is 20-30 years, but varies bysystem depending on use patterns, construction, materials, and maintenance. Costs estimated inSection 4.0 for Alternative 1 assume a private ownership structure. If funding for systemreplacement is obtained from the Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR); the funding cango directly to homeowners in the form of grant and does not require central ownership of theISTS. County funding may be available for these systems as well (according to UMN OSTPstaff).A disadvantage of private ISTS ownership may include management by individuals rather thanthe community, which can lead to poor decision making and potential environmental concernssuch as those already being experienced in the Community of Rolling Shores.3.2.3 ISTS UpgradesAll properties are estimated to be in non-compliance. This accounts for some type of imminentSSTS upgrade at 14 evaluated properties. ISTS type needed at upgrade is significant as itdirectly influences the capital costs for the upgrade as well as long term operation andmaintenance costs.Appendix B shows each property’s most likely future ISTS option. The type of future ISTSvaries based on the lot size, soils at the site, and current land use. Soil was evaluated andT:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx3-3

confirmed at all properties in the CAR area, with depths to seasonally saturated soil at each lotrecorded in Appendix B.For a dwelling that does not have a suitable area for an ISTS, the next ISTS would likely need tobe a holding tank because of the lack of space. Minnesota Rules, part 7080.2200 – 7080.2400(March 2011) define different ISTS system types; a brief summary of system types is given below:• Type 1: Standard systems including subsurface drain fields or mound systems onundisturbed soils with or without a pump system.• Type 2: Holding tanks (tank with a sealed outlet requiring regular pumping), privies, andsystems in floodplains.• Type 3: Systems installed on problem soils, disturbed soils, or soils where high groundwateris within one foot of the ground surface.• Type 4 and 5: Commonly referred to as “performance” systems. These systems offer a levelof pre-treatment through a mechanical treatment unit or media filter prior to discharge to adrain field or mound. Also included in this category are systems installed with higher soilloading rates or reduced vertical separation distance to groundwater.Type 1 systems meet all technical rule requirements, have adequate onsite soils, and are able tomeet setbacks. Type 2 systems are holding tanks that need visual and/or audible alarms to notifythe owner when pumping is required. The lack of an alarm on a holding tank or the neglect of ahomeowner not to pump the tank when full can cause an imminent health threat and fail toprotect groundwater. Type 2 systems also include systems in floodplains. A letter from ChisagoCounty is included in Appendix G documenting situations where holding tanks are permitted.Type 3 systems require county approval, but can be installed on sites where disturbed soils existor where a variance is required to install a system not meeting typical setbacks. Type 1 systemsthat do not meet compliance due to FTPG may be upgraded to a Type 4 or 5 system if theycurrently have at least one foot of vertical separation. Adding pretreatment allows wastewatereffluent to be discharged with a reduced vertical separation to seasonally saturated soilrequirement.T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx3-4

ISTS rules dictate that systems that are not considered Type 1-3 require an operating permit. Anysystem with an operating permit typically requires annual operation and maintenance of thesystems by a licensed Service Provider 5 .Table 3 and Figure 5 summarize the most likely ISTS to be at the 14 properties, assuming ahomeowner would not install a holding tank if another option exists.Table 3: Potential ISTS Type by PropertyISTS Type Number PercentageType 1 Mound 8 57%Type 2 Holding Tank 1 7%Type 3 Mound 5 36%Type 4 Pretreatment 0 0%Type 1 and 3 systems could comprise all system types needed at upgrade. These dwellings canachieve compliance with the installation of Type 1 or 3 system with three feet of verticalseparation beneath the effluent dispersal area and the seasonally saturated condition. The Type 1and 3 systems have nominal operation and maintenance expenses of septic tank pumping onaverage once every three years and components such as pump replacement, when required. Thedifference in the Type 1 and Type 3 systems is that the Type 3 systems will require specialdesign and installation procedures; increasing their overall capital cost. Average annual operatingcosts for a Type 1 or 3 system are estimated at less than $100.One property (Car ID#13 in Appendix B, PID #03.01358.17, the Vescio property at 47256Cambridge Drive) would require a Type 2 system if the community would not allow a newcompliant mound system to be installed on the community-owned lake access lot located acrossthe road to the east or if the Bomstad’s (Car ID #11, 47190 Cambridge Drive) are not interestedin sharing a mound on the Bomstad property. Type 2 (holding tanks) can become necessary onsmall lots, lots with high groundwater, lots with setback constraints, and/or lots with multiple5 Service Provider is a license category under MN Rules Chapter 7083.0780. A Service Provider can assess, adjust,and service ISTS for proper operation.T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx3-5

structures with little usable land. These lot constraints can make the installation of any systemthat discharges to the soil not permittable.Holding tanks require a higher level of oversight/management than a Type 1 or Type 3 ISTS.The hesitation for permitting holding tank systems comes from experiences where homeownerstake it upon themselves to empty the tank in an unapproved manner or do not pump the tankwhen full. Not pumping when the tank is full allows it to overflow out the top or through theseam along the top of the tank. Permitting of Type 2 systems would need to encompass theoversight and pumping frequency of holding tank systems to prevent these situations.A disadvantage to a holding tank system for a homeowner is the ongoing operational expense ofpumping the tank. A full-time residence with two bedrooms and 2-3 residents on average usesapproximately 4,000 gallons per month. With a holding tank capacity of 1,000 gallons, pumpingfrequency would be approximately four times per month. Average tank pumping costs of $170/1000 gallons (based on locally verified price) will yield an estimated annual pumping cost ofapproximately $8,160 (4 times per month*12 months per year*$170 per pump=$8,160 annually).No properties were discovered during the CAR process that would likely upgrade to a Type 4ISTS. Similar to Type 2 systems, Type 4 systems also require annual operation and maintenanceoversight and expenses, estimated at about $400 per system per year. Service Providers aretrained on ISTS technologies and have the knowledge to operate and maintain Type 4 systemsthat provide alternative treatment other than a Type 1 subsurface drain field or mound.Data presented in Table 3 indicates that 57% of parcels have adequate room and suitable soilconditions on their property to install a Type 1 ISTS for the next system. One property has aType 2 holding tank as their only feasible on-lot ISTS option if the community will not allow useof community-owned land to the east for a Type 3 mound system or the Bomstads (CAR ID #11)are not interested in sharing a mound on the Bomstad property. The holding tank will requiretank pumping on a regular basis. This is due to seasonally saturated conditions in the underlyingsoils, lot size, and location of houses and/or other permanent structures that prevent thehomeowner from installing a different system type. Type 3 systems comprise about 36% (5properties) of the next system total, and could comprise up to 43% (6 properties) if the propertyT:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx3-6

with CAR ID#13 is allowed to build across the road. Most of the Type 3 systems are classifiedas such because they will require a variance from a required setback (well, property line, surfacewater, or building) for installation or because seasonally saturated conditions are less than 12”from the ground surface on the property, requiring a mound with three feet of sand under theeffluent dispersal area.Appendix B contains a table and figures that document the likely next ISTS for the evaluatedparcels. The mound locations as shown in Appendix B figures are estimates only, and aresubject to change based on homeowner preferences and further design work.3.2.4 ISTS Alternatives Summary• Community Owned/Managed ISTS Program Alternativeo Advantages• Economy of scale for operation and maintenance expenses• Capital costs based on need• Public financingo Disadvantages• High operation and maintenance expenses for full-time residents on holdingtanks• Holding tanks pose practical limitations for future use and development of aproperty• Type 1 or Type 3 mound systems are not desirable for some residents basedon visual impact or planned property use preferences• Property access coordination and easements for ISTS maintenance• Private ISTS Program Alternativeo Advantages• Capital and operation and maintenance costs based on need• Potential lower capital costs experienced by homeowners if funding isobtained through BWSR or Chisago CountyT:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx3-7

o Disadvantages• High operation and maintenance expenses for full-time residents on holdingtanks• Holding tanks pose practical limitations for future use and development of aproperty• Type 1 or Type 3 mound systems are not desirable for some residents basedon visual impact or planned property use preferences• Individuals may choose to forgo proper operation and maintenance practicesleading to ISTS failure and environmental degradation3.3 CLUSTER SSTS (ALTERNATIVES 2&3)When a series of homes, generally less than 100, are connected to a decentralized wastewatertreatment system, it is commonly referred to as a cluster system (a.k.a. a big septic system).Cluster system ownership, operation, and management occur through a municipality, theformation of a special purpose district (District), or through private ownership. For the purposeof this report the assumption is made that any cluster system would fall under the ownership ofthe Township to qualify for public funding. Private ownership is an option but presents legalchallenges as it relates to land ownership/easements and fee collection.The CAR area parcels are included in an evaluation of a combination cluster mounds andindividual mounds (Alternative 2, Figure 6) or only cluster mounds (Alternative 3, Figure 7) toserve wastewater treatment needs in the CAR area. Table 8 highlights the estimated daily flowto the potential treatment area (calculations in Appendix E). Figures 6 and 7 show the potentialcollection line routes and potential cluster treatment area locations.T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx3-8

Table 4: Estimated Permitting Flow Rates for AlternativesTotal DailyAlternative andTreatment System TypePropertiesIncludedPermitting FlowGallons/Day* Permit Type Required**Alternative 1: ISTS 14 6,375 County ISTSAlternative 2:Cluster LISTS + ISTS 14 6,534County Large ISTS+ County ISTSAlternative 3: Cluster MSTS 14 5,930 County MSTS*The permitting flow is not the actual flow, but rather is a design flow that dictates the level of permitting effortrequired for the system. The permitting flow takes into account allowed reduction in flow for cluster systems withover 10 dwellings and increases in flow for infiltration and inflow into the collection system.**The permit type required for ISTS assumes that the individual property owners are the owners/managers of theISTS. A midsized-SSTS (MSTS) is a cluster system with a daily permitting flow between 5,000 and 10,000 gallonsper day.Using 2011 Minnesota Rules, Part 7081.0120, an average daily flow for each system orwastewater generator is estimated using a formula specified in the rule. This formula calculates aflow based on the number of bedrooms in each of the residences, the treatment system type(individual or cluster), and the total number of wastewater generating parcels included in eachsystem.To provide the analysis in this report, we have assumed an average of 3 bedrooms per residenceand a Class I dwelling status for homes included in the cluster system analysis which did not fillout a homeowner survey. Three bedroom homes have an average daily flow of 450 gpd for aClass 1 dwelling (150 gpd/bedroom). Residences indicating only one bedroom were included indesign analysis as two bedroom dwellings, as directed in 2011 Minnesota Rules, Part 7080.1860.In the future, when a design plan is created an actual flow for a selected cluster system wouldneed to be determined based on the actual number of bedrooms in each home. Design flowconsiderations for properties not included in the CAR area that desire to be included in theselected wastewater system would also be required. Design flows shown included additions forinfiltration and inflow into a collection system as well as allowed reductions in estimation ofdaily flows when the number of residential wastewater generating properties connected to acluster treatment system exceeds 10.T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx3-9

Design flows would impact permitting of any wastewater alternative. Average daily flowestimates dictate the level of treatment required and other permitting requirements. For averagedaily flows greater than 10,000 gallons per day within a ½ mile radius of each SSTS owned byone entity, permitting is completed through a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency SDS Permit.Future SSTS with an average daily flow between 5,000 and 10,000 gallons per day would bepermitted by Chisago County using Minnesota Rules Chapters 7080-7083 and would beconsidered a midsized SSTS (MSTS). In addition, SSTS with an average daily flow between2,500 and 5,000 gallons per day are considered large ISTS (LISTS). LISTS are also required tomeet MPCA design guidance, including design guidance for nitrogen reduction or bestmanagement practices. Greater permitting effort increases the overall cost of SSTS design,construction, and operation and maintenance as more research and investigation is requiredupfront and pretreatment of effluent may also be required. Table 4 also highlights permittingrequirements for individual and cluster treatment options based on average daily flows for thesystem alternatives.3.3.1 Collection SystemFour collection system methods to convey wastewater or effluent to the cluster system treatmentand dispersal sites are available:• gravity collection via septic tank effluent gravity systems (STEG);• gravity raw effluent collection to a large septic tank located near the cluster site;• grinder pump basins at each home to a low pressure force main; and• septic tank effluent pump (STEP) system at each residence to a small diameter forcemain.Based on topography and depth to groundwater of the area, pressure collection would be themost water-tight and reliable long term collection method. In addition, the cost of installing anew, water tight lift station relative to the small population of the CAR area makes pressurecollection the least expensive collection method. The two pressure options employ similartechnologies. A grinder basin sends solids to the treatment site. With a STEP system, solids areT:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx3-10

etained at all individual properties. STEP collection does not require the same level of hydraulicretention at the treatment site as solids remain at each parcel.Onsite solids retention with a STEP system requires less capital cost at the treatment site. Otheradvantages of STEP systems over grinder basins include: utilizing existing septic tanks; greaterreserve capacity during power outages or pump failures; less maintenance required on the forcemain; and longer pump life. For these reasons, the most cost effective collection of solids iswithin individual septic tanks at each residence. New tanks would need to be installed along withthe STEP system. Appendix C illustrates a typical schematic of a STEP tank.STEP systems connect to a small diameter pressurized force main installed in road right of waysand easements. The force main follows topography below frost line (6-9 feet) with air releasemanholes installed at high points in the line. Small diameter force main lines would only transfereffluent with solids management occurring at the individual septic tank. Force mains woulddischarge effluent into a stilling tank at the cluster site.The current collection system lines would need to be replaced with the recommended smalldiameter main. Infiltration and inflow into the current collection system prohibits its reuse aspart of a new system.3.3.2 Treatment and Dispersal SystemCost estimates generated for this alternative assume that the residents on the proposed clustersystems would agree to be connected to a cluster system at the same time. Project developmentwould likely re-define properties interested in connecting, which could have an impact on theestimated costs.General locations for this alternative have been identified for the potential of a cluster treatmentand dispersal system. The locations are being used for comparison purposes only to provide apreliminary cost estimate based on length of the collection system, type of dispersal system, etc.At the time of project development these locations, or different locations, would need to beT:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx3-11

further investigated. At this time the sites chosen have the best available characteristics for sizeand treatment.Property access was allowed for soil investigation on the existing cluster system site (seeAppendix H for documents related to ownership/easement of the existing cluster system site), thefarmland located adjacent to the southwest of the existing cluster site, and the Bomstad land westof the Bomstad residence (CAR ID#11). The field investigation, reviewing soil maps, andgeneral viewing of the property lead to the assumption that soils at the existing cluster systemsite and the Bomstad land would support Type 1 or 3 mound effluent dispersal systems withthree feet of vertical separation between the bottom of the rock dispersal area and redoximorphicsoil features. The existing treatment site would only support the installation of a mound thatcould handle about 3,000 gallons per day (i.e. 6 homes) and would be classified as a Type 3 largeISTS (over 2,500 gpd). The acquisition of additional land adjacent to north of the existingtreatment area (the Bomstad land) would allow for a larger mound to be installed that is capableof treating wastewater from the entire community. It is estimated that about 600 feet by 50 feetof mound area would be required to treat wastewater from all 14 properties in the CAR area.The investigated farmland was ruled out as a potential cluster treatment area due to concernswith tight soils and shallow redoximorphic soil features. Appendix B shows locations ofrecorded soil borings. Boring results are located in Appendix D.With the cluster alternative, the Township would own and operate the cluster systems, collectionsystems, and maintain the septic tanks with STEP on each property. Design of the clustersystem(s) would need to follow applicable state rules based on the size (daily flow) of all SSTSowned and operated by the Township within a ½ mile radius.3.3.3 Cluster System Summaryo Advantages• Subsidized interest rate loans and grants for cluster system construction and STEPinstallationT:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx3-12

• Lower operation and maintenance expenses for properties with a future option ofholding tanks• Dispersal of treated effluent away from surface waters• Allows for more usable land on individual lots• Increase in resale values above what a holding tank property provides• Parcel owners with adequate soils onsite for a Type 1 ISTS could be allowed tostay on individual ISTS, while parcels with higher need are allowed to connect toa cluster systemo Disadvantages• Obtaining additional land for Alternative 3 could be difficult based on landownerpreferences• More local involvement required for project development• District formation••3.4 OTHER ALTERNATIVESNo other alternatives have been investigated for treatment and dispersal of wastewater from theCommunity of Rolling Shores. However, it is expected that any mechanical or biological systemwith a new continuous surface discharge of treated wastewater to Goose Lake would be costprohibitive based on operating and maintenance costs associated with MPCA permitting anddischarge limit requirements (i.e. Phosphorus). In addition, long-range pumping of effluentthrough a new force main sewer to a nearby wastewater treatment plant would also likely be costprohibitive based on the location of the CAR area relative to an existing wastewater treatmentplant with capacity for additional wastewater treatment (costs estimate of $1.5 to $3 milliondollars assuming costs of approximately $150,000-$250,000 per mile of collection systeminstalled; depending upon factors such as topography, water crossings, etc. plus hookup fees).Construction of a pond system to meet wastewater needs is also likely cost prohibitive based onlocal soil types, available land area, and the cost of a pond system relative to the population ofthe CAR area (cost estimate of $1.5 to $2.5 million dollars).T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx3-13

3.5 SUMMARYThree alternatives are being analyzed in this CAR to provide wastewater infrastructure:Alternative 1-ISTS, Alternative 2-cluster LISTS in combination with ISTS, and Alternative 3-cluster MSTS. Each alternative has advantages and disadvantages and may be incorporatedsolely or in combination to best fit the needs of the residents. Section 4.0 incorporates theestimated costs from the alternatives.T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx3-14

4.0 Cost Comparison of AlternativesThree wastewater infrastructure alternatives have been identified within the scope of this report.Side by side comparisons of capital and operation and maintenance costs have been provided foreach alternative. This section gives cost comparisons, starting with capital costs, and ending witha present worth analysis for 25 years.4.1 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS (ALTERNATIVE 1)Table 5 reflects the average cost estimates to replace/upgrade each property with an ISTS ownedand operated by the individual homeowner.Table 5: 25 Year Capital Cost Estimates Private ISTS ProgramCAR Likely ComplianceStatus of Current ISTSISTSTreatmentSystemContingencyLegal,Eng.,AdminTotal CostEstimateAvg. Cost/ResidentialConnectionAll Parcels $ 207,500 $ 20,800 $ 23,000 $ 251,300 $ 18,000This analysis of ISTS is an average over the entire CAR Area. Individual parcel costs for ISTSupgrades would vary by parcel. Each property can locate their estimated cost in Appendix B. Thetable has been created to allow for side by side comparisons with the other alternatives in thepresent worth analysis. Capital costs by system type that were used to create the table are asfollows for a residential system (cost estimates for Type 1-3 systems based on Wenckexperience):• Type 1 Mound: $7-$12K plus tank upgrade costs ($3,800-$6,500)• Type 2: $3,800-$6,500 (new tank)• Type 3: $11-$16K plus tank upgrade costs ($3,800-$6,500)T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx4-1

What can be noted from Table 5 is there are no collection system costs as this component isalready in place at each residence. Plumbing costs such as verification and separation of sumppumps, drainage tile, foundation drains, etc. from the existing infrastructure are included in thecosts estimate. On average, this alternative has the least capital cost.4.2 CLUSTER SYSTEM (ALTERNATIVES 2 & 3)Table 6 provides the cost estimates for cluster systems with the installation of a STEP system ateach cluster residence, collection system, and a treatment/dispersal system. MSTS clustersystems may or may not require nitrogen removal as part of the treatment system dependingupon results of a hydrogeological study and nitrogen assessment. As it is not yet known (andcannot yet be determined) if nitrogen removal will be required for the proposed MSTS cluster,costs columns are included assuming both situations-without and with nitrogen removal costs.Table 6: 25-Year Capital Cost Estimates Cluster System AlternativesWastewater Treatment SystemComponent CostsAlternative 2LISTS Clusterwith NitrogenBMP + 8 ISTSCostsAlternative 3MSTS Clusterwithout NitrogenRemoval CostsAlternative 3MSTS Clusterwith NitrogenRemoval CostsCluster TreatmentSystem Costs* $ 90,000 $ 197,000 $ 180,000ISTS at Non-clusterProperties Costs $ 117,900 $ - $ -Nitrogen Removal SystemCosts $ - $ - $ 242,100Land Acquisition Costs** $ - $ 25,000 $ 25,000Collection System Costs $ 149,000 $ 248,000 $ 248,000Contingency Costs (5%)*** $ 23,900 $ 44,500 $ 67,010Legal, Engineering, andAdministration Costs $ 39,500 $ 97,900 $ 147,500Total Cost Estimate $ 420,300 $ 612,400 $ 909,610Avg. Cost/Cluster Dwelling $ 50,400 $ 43,800 $ 65,000Avg. Cost/ISTS Dwelling $ 14,800 $ - $ -Avg. Cost/All Dwellings $ 30,100 $ 43,800 $ 65,000*Cost with nitrogen BMP assumes mound SSTS over loamy or finer textured topsoil which has medium or high organic matter content. Cost withnitrogen removal assumes effluent meeting treatment Level B discharge requirements (CBOD

The replacement wastewater system Alternative 2 would qualify as an LISTS (2,500-5,000 gpd)and would likely require a nitrogen best management practice (BMP), depending upon results ofa hydrogeological investigation for nitrogen impacts to the aquifer, which is included in theLISTS cluster treatment system costs in Appendix F. A mound wastewater treatment anddispersal system placed on loamy or finer textured topsoil which has medium or high organicmatter content would qualify as a nitrogen BMP. Phosphorus standards are not applied to LISTS.Figure 6 shows the potential LISTS cluster system and collection line locations. Properties notincluded in the LISTS would continue with compliant ISTS.The replacement wastewater system Alternative 3 would qualify as a MSTS (5,000-10,000 gpd)and may require nitrogen removal technology (depending upon results of a hydrogeologicalinvestigation 6 for nitrogen impacts to the aquifer, which is included in the cluster treatmentsystem costs in Appendix F). The hydrogeological investigation (included in the costs inAppendix F) would also evaluate the potential for groundwater mounding beneath a proposedsystem. Table 6 reflects the difference in cost estimates if nitrogen removal is required. TheMSTS would not have a phosphorus standard applied by the MPCA, as it will not be placedwithin 500 feet of a surface water. Figure 7 shows the potential cluster system and collection linelocations.Treatment system costs were based on average daily flow estimates for all properties in the CARarea. Adding bedrooms to or changing the Class of residential properties would change the sizerequirement for the cluster system, as well as the overall cost and the cost per dwelling. Pricesincluded in Table 6 also take the increased cost of design due to permitting into account. Pricesassume residential strength waste from each wastewater generator.Collection system costs were based on cost estimates of force main installation on a lineal footbasis for both the mainline and laterals based on the routes shown in Figure 6 and 7.6 A Soil and Site Investigation and Preliminary Groundwater Investigation are required by MN Rules Chapters7081.150-7081.210 for all MSTS. Additionally, the MPCA’s Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems PrescriptiveDesigns and Design Guidance for Advanced Designers (Version 2.4, 9/27/2011) lays out procedures for evaluatingnitrogen impacts to an aquifer, applying to all SSTS with flows between 2,500 gpd and 10,000 gpd.T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx4-3

STEP system costs were calculated as shown in Appendix F. The cost of the collection systemtakes into account tank abandonment and new tank costs.Costs assume ownership of the MSTS or LISTS cluster system by the Township and ownershipof ISTS by a private party. The MSTS alternative assumes mound dispersal areas consisting of10 foot wide pressurized beds with a rock dispersal area. MSTS costs including the pretreatmentfor nitrogen have reduced vertical separation requirements (i.e. shorter mounds), as the effluentwill be pretreated by the nitrogen removal technology. The LISTS alternative assumes Type 3mound treatment with three feet of sand in the mound. A detailed Hydrogeological Assessmentat the proposed cluster site to determine if nitrogen removal technology will be required as partof the treatment system will be completed as part of project development. Costs for thisassessment are included within engineering cost estimates in Table 6. The cost of the MSTScluster system also takes into account constructing 1.5 times the amount of mound absorptionarea (i.e. making the mounds longer), as required by the year 2011 version of MN Rules Chapter7081.4.3 SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTSSections 4.1 – 4.2 highlight the cost estimates for each of the wastewater infrastructurealternatives. The cost estimates for each alternative assume the entire area would be served bythe alternative chosen. Table 7 is a side by side comparison of the average per unit capital costfor each of the alternatives.Table 7: Summary of Capital CostsAlternative 1ManagedISTSProgramAlternative 2LISTSCluster +ISTSAlternative 3MSTSClusterAlternative 3MSTS Clusterwith NitrogenRemovalTotal Assessed System Costs $ 251,300 $ 420,300 $ 612,400 $ 909,610Average Cost/Dwelling $ 18,000 $ 30,100 $ 43,800 $ 65,000Section 3.0 identifies the necessary components, advantages, and disadvantages of the threealternatives. While an ISTS program is the least expensive alternative on an average per unitT:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx4-4

asis, other considerations such as operational costs and limited flexibility of lots (i.e. a moundin a small yard takes up space that could be used for parking, gardening, building, etc.) must beconsidered as well.4.4 ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTSWhen comparing costs for a wastewater infrastructure alternative, all costs, capital and annualoperation and maintenance (O&M) must be considered. Table 8 provides the average annualoperation and maintenance cost estimates for each alternative.Table 8: Annual Operation and Maintenance CostsAlternative1 ManagedISTSProgramAlternative3 LISTSCluster +ISTSAlternative2A MSTSClusterAlternative 2AMSTS Clusterwith NitrogenRemovalTotal All Properties $ 1,400 $ 3,100 $ 5,800 $ 22,700Residential Average Cost for AllProperties/Year $ 100 $ 230 $ 414 $ 1,621Residential Average Cost for AllProperties/Month $ 9.00 $ 20.00 $ 35.00 $ 136.00Residential Average Cost for ISTSProperties/Month $ 9.00 $ 9.00 - -Residential Average Cost for ClusterProperties/Month - $ 32.00 $ 35.00 $ 136.00Tank pumping costs were assumed at $0.17/gallon (i.e. $170/1000 gallons). Annual operationand maintenance costs for Alternative 1 over the complete estimated 25-year life span that wasused to create the table are as follows for a residential system:• Type 1: $100• Type 2: Bedrooms/home * 50 gallons/day/bedroom * 365 days/year * $170/pump event1000 gallon holding tank capacity• Type 3: $100Alternative 1 O & M costs assume that property #13 (Figure 5) will be allowed to build a Type 3Mound on the community-owned land across the road to the east. A typical Type 1 or 3 ISTST:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx4-5

may have only a nominal $100 annual fee for maintenance, where as a holding tank system canrun into the thousands of dollars annually with full time occupancy. Alternative 2 and 3 O & Mcosts include the costs for the cluster mound systems and STEP collection system O & M (seeAppendix F) as well as the O & M for any properties on ISTS. Alternative 3 costs with nitrogenremoval technology included increase significantly over the cost of operation the MSTS withoutnitrogen removal technology.4.5 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSISAlternatives discussed in this report require different capital costs and operation and maintenancecosts. These options also realize the costs at different times during the life of the infrastructure.Certain options can require more infrastructure (capital) costs at the start of the project; whileother options experience higher maintenance costs throughout the life of the project. Also,infrastructure components have different expected life spans requiring replacement costs atvarying intervals. All of these variables can create misconceptions when trying to compare thecosts of one alternative versus another.A present worth analysis allows the direct comparison of alternatives by converting all futurecosts into present-day dollar amounts. Future expenditures including capital and operation andmaintenance are converted into present-day dollar amounts by using standard financialcalculations, an assumed time-frame for the expense to occur, and a discount rate. The timing forthe expenses was based on typical recurrences for maintenance and average life spans forinfrastructure. The discount rate is generally described as the difference between the availablerate of return on an investment and the average inflation rate. A discount rate of 4% was utilizedin this study in the conversion of future costs to a present worth. After converting future costsinto a present worth, these costs were added to initial capital costs and used in comparing thealternatives.Section 4.5 evaluated operation and maintenance costs of the alternatives, a present worthanalysis also takes inflation and debt service into account. Table 9 summarizes a present worthT:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx4-6

analysis over a 25-year period showing the average present worth costs for the entire CAR Areabased on the different cluster and ISTS scenarios proposed in the report.Table 9: Present Worth Analysis (25-year) Average Costs CAR Area-Wide by AlternativeAlternative 1Managed ISTSProgram*Alternative 2LISTS Cluster + Alternative 3 MSTSISTS*ClusterAlternative 3MSTS Clusterwith NitrogenRemovalTotal System Costs $ 251,300 $ 420,300 $ 612,400 $ 909,610Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs(25 year present worth value) $ 22,000 $ 49,000 $ 91,000 $ 355,000Estimated Total Present Worth $ 273,300 $ 469,300 $ 703,400 $ 1,264,610Estimated Total Equivalent Annual Cost(annualized over a 25-year period, 2%interest) $ 13,999 $ 24,038 $ 36,028 $ 64,774Estimated Average Equivalent AnnualCost per Property $ 1,000 $ 1,720 $ 2,580 $ 4,630Estimated Average Equivalent MonthlyCost per Property $ 83.33 $ 143.33 $ 215.00 $ 385.83* Assumes no properties on holding tanks.The estimated Total Present Worth amounts (of the alternatives cost over a 25-year period) aretallied in Table 9 in the middle row. The estimated Total Equivalent Annual Cost represents theannual cost to pay the Total Present Worth Cost over a 25-year period assuming a 2% subsidizedloan rate. The estimated Average Equivalent Annual Cost per Property is simply the total annualcost divided by the number of participating units.The Estimated Average Equivalent Annual Cost per Property shown in Table 9 is not the actualcost experienced by the property owner each year. The timing and magnitude of actual costs willvary including upfront capital costs (i.e., assessments, individual system repairs, etc.) andperiodic operation and maintenance (fees, utility bills, pump replacements, etc.). The PresentWorth Analysis serves as a method of comparison and does not reflect the timing of actualpayment. Table 9 assumes that for Alternative 1 ISTS, the future ISTS type as shown inAppendix B is the ISTS in use at the residences during the present worth analysis period. InT:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx4-7

addition, as in other tables, actual cost per unit will vary-units with more wastewater volume willface larger costs while units with lower wastewater volume will likely have lower actual costs.T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx4-8

5.0 Summary and Recommendations5.1 SUMMARYThis report documents the compliance status for the existing cluster SSTS and provides the sideby side comparison of the alternatives for long-term wastewater infrastructure for properties inthe Community of Rolling Shores (the CAR area). A summary of the findings:• The existing cluster SSTS is a non-compliant imminent health threat system that alsofails to protect groundwater• 8 of the 14 properties have the option of installing a Type 1 ISTS mound systems toreplace their current system in the future• Estimated capital costs on average per property for the CAR evaluated alternatives:o Alternative 1: ISTS = $18,000o Alternative 2: LISTS Type 3 Cluster Mound with STEP Collection Systemserving 6 properties and ISTS at remaining 8 properties = $30,100o Alternative 3: MSTS Type 3 Cluster Mound with STEP Collection System for 14properties = $43,800o Alternative 3: MSTS Cluster Subsurface Drainfield with STEP Collection Systemand Nitrogen Removal Technology for 14 properties = $65,0005.2 RECOMMENDATIONSThis report will aid in making an informed decision on what steps to take as the alternatives areconsidered. It is our recommendation that the CAR area be treated by parcel, with the followingrecommendations based on Community values:• If the Community values the lowest cost alternative, then the following recommendationsapply:T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx5-1

o All properties install compliant ISTS and explore private funding options for anyfuture upgrades.o Include all systems in a future management plan.• If the Community desires to own and manage all wastewater systems to ensureenvironmental stewardship, or if the Community desires to free up space on individuallots potentially occupied by ISTS, with consideration to cost of the overall systemapplying secondarily, then the following recommendation applies:o Further evaluate Alternatives 2 and 3, cluster treatment system options. Evaluatepotential to attain public financing to fund these options.o If Alternative 2 (Cluster LISTS serving six properties with eight properties onISTS) is desired, then:o Determine final properties for inclusion in cluster mound LISTS onexisting wastewater treatment site (can accommodate maximum flowof ~3,000 gallons per day (approximately six three-bedroom homes))o Remaining eight properties install ISTS on their own lotso If Alternative 3 (Cluster MSTS serving all properties) is desired, then:o Evaluate potential for purchasing additional lando Complete a hydrogeologic investigation to determine if nitrogenremoval technology will be required and if groundwater moundingwill affect design of a proposed MSTS.5.3 NEXT STEPSThe following describes future actions that could be taken by the Community of Rolling Shoresbased on the CAR recommendations.• Explore public financing grant options to reduce debt service for upgrades.• Explore possibility of land acquisition for cluster MSTS system (Alternative 3).• Further explore the suitability of the proposed cluster site(s) for wastewater treatment viaa Hydrogeological Assessment using soil pits, and (where applicable) borings togroundwater, and groundwater mounding assessments.T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx5-2

• Chisago County would continue to enforce the ISTS regulations of Chapter 7080. Allproperties will require an upgrade to some form of compliant SSTS in the near future.T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx5-3

Figures

Project LocationRush Lake 7.5 Minute Quadrangle (USGS: 1983)Stark 7.5 Minute Quadrangle (USGS: 1983)2,000 1,000 0 2,000Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Site Location Map.mxdDate: 6/25/2012 Time: 8:41:53 AM User: ShuJC0243ROLLING SHORESSite Location MapFeet ±AnokaCopyright:© 2011 National Geographic County Society, i-cubedEngineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comKanabecCountyIsantiCountyWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-2232Area ofDetailPineCountyChisagoCountyBurnettCountyPolkCountyJUN 2012Figure 1

Bluffton75LegendCushing204DProject BoundaryTax ParcelsSoil UnitHydric SoilSeelyeville540Cushing204BKratka726Bluffton75Blomford722WaterWTalmoon346Cushing204BEckvoll5652010 Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO)200 100 0 200Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Soils Map.mxdDate: 6/25/2012 Time: 8:37:20 AM User: ShuJC0243ROLLING SHORESSoils MapFeet ±Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comBraham169BBluffton75Wenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-2232Seelyeville540JUN 2012Figure 2

920940920920920920940930920920920!A920920920!A940920940!A920!A940940!A!A940940940!A!A930940940!A940940!A920940!A!A940!A940940940940!A2010 Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO)200 100 0 200Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Wells Map.mxdDate: 6/25/2012 Time: 8:41:11 AM User: ShuJC0243ROLLING SHORESWells MapFeet ±LegendEngineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comProject BoundaryTax Parcels!A Deep WellWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-2232!A Shallow WellWell SetbackContours920JUN 2012Figure 3

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(Existing ClusterDrainfield Location!(!(!(!(!(!(!(2010 Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO)200 100 0 200Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Existing Cluster SSTS Map.mxdDate: 7/9/2012 Time: 3:16:43 PM User: shujc0243ROLLING SHORESFeet ±Existing Cluster SSTS MapEngineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comLegendProject Boundary!( Septic Tank!( Pump Tank") Holding TankWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-2232D&U EasementTax ParcelsCollection LineJUN 2012Figure 4

13Note: CAR ID#13 will be a holdingtank or Type 3 Mound acrossthe road on community parcel.1112101098765431421412010 Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO)200 100 0 200Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Likely Future ISTS Map.mxdDate: 7/9/2012 Time: 3:01:04 PM User: shujc0243ROLLING SHORESFeet ±Likely Future ISTS MapLegendEngineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comProject BoundaryTax ParcelsLikely Future ISTS TypeType 1Wenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-2232Type 2Type 3Type 4JUN 2012Figure 5

920940920920920920940930920920920Area suitable for potentialcluster mound. Need ~600linear feet x 50 feet wideparallel to contour.!A!A940920920!A940940!A940!A!A940940940!A!A930940940!A940940!A920940!A!A940!A940940940940!ALegend2010 Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO)200 100 0 200Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Cluster SSTS Map.mxdDate: 7/9/2012 Time: 3:33:34 PM User: shujc0243ROLLING SHORESFeet ±Alternative 3: Cluster SSTS MapEngineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comProject BoundaryCollection LineArea Suitable forD&U EasementCluster MoundTax Parcels!A Deep WellWell Setback!A Shallow Well ContoursWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-2232920JUN 2012Figure 7

Appendix ABackground Information

Mound SystemsMound systems are defined in Chapter 7080.1100, Subp. 50, as “a soil treatment and dispersalsystem designed and installed such that all of the infiltrative surface is installed above grade, using cleansand between the bottom of the infiltrative surface and the original ground elevation, utilizing pressuredistribution and capped with suitable soil material to stabilize the surface and encourage vegetativegrowth.”A sewage treatment mound is nothing more than a seepage bed elevated by clean sand fill toprovide adequate separation between where sewage effluent is applied and a limiting soil layer asshown in the figure below. Mounds were developed in the early 1970s to overcome soil and siteconditions, which limit the use of trenches and beds (Converse et al., 1977). Limiting conditions includehigh water tables, shallow soil depth to bedrock, slowly permeable soil, or soil too coarse for treatment.Figure 1 - Mound System and ComponentsFigure 12.22 Mound SystemA mound system is a two-stage process involving both effluent treatment and dispersal.Treatment is accomplished predominately by physical and biochemical processes within the clean sandmaterial and native soil. The physical characteristics of the influent wastewater, influent loading ratetemperature, and the nature of the receiving fill material and in situ soil affect these processes.Physical entrapment, increased retention time, and conversion of pollutants in the effluent areimportant treatment objectives accomplished under unsaturated conditions. Pathogens contained in theeffluent are eventually deactivated through filtering, retention, and adsorption by the fill material. Inaddition, many pollutants are converted to other chemical forms by oxidation processes.The mound system addresses high water table conditions by elevating the infiltration bed toachieve the needed vertical separation. By using uniform distribution and adequate vertical separationin the selected sand media, vertical unsaturated flow is maintained, thus ensuring the maximumtreatment permitted by this technology. On sites with slowly permeable soils, the mound system helpsassure a known level of effluent treatment before effluent is discharged to the native soil. These soilsare subject to severe damage from smearing and compaction, especially during the construction ofconventional systems, which drastically reduces the permeability of the soil by destroying water-moving

pores and channels. As a result these sites present a high potential for site and soil interface damage inaddition to the need for large soil treatment systems to provide adequate infiltration area. For thesesites, mound systems provide the following advantages:• The mound effluent enters the more permeable natural topsoil over a larger area where it canmove laterally until absorbed by the less permeable subsoil.• The bio-mat that develops at the bottom of the media/sand infiltration area will not clog thefilter media as readily as it would the less permeable natural soil.• The infiltration area within the filter media is much smaller than it would be if placed in themore slowly permeable subsoil, yet the total mound area is probably larger than it would be fora conventional soil treatment system, if one could be used.Mound systems are used primarily in shallow soils overlying a restrictive layer or elevatedgroundwater table. The shallower the soil, the more attention must be paid to transporting the treatedeffluent away from the point of application. Fifteen mound systems in Wisconsin were found to have atotal nitrogen reduction of at least 55% from the pretreatment effluent to mound toe effluent (Blasingand Converse, 2004). Sufficient numbers of mounds have been installed in Minnesota and elsewhere toprove that the mound treatment system is a Type I technology. There are more than 50,000 singlefamilymounds successfully treating sewage in Minnesota.Dispersal is primarily affected by the depth of the unsaturated receiving soils, their hydraulicconductivity, land slope, and the area available for dispersal. The mound consists of sand material, anabsorption bed, and cover material. Effluent is dispersed into the absorption bed, where it flowsthrough the fill material and undergoes biological, chemical, and physical treatment. It then passes intothe underlying soil for further treatment and dispersal to the environment. Clean sand (defined by staterule) is required for mounds to effectively treat and disperse effluent.Cover material consists of material that provides erosion protection, a barrier to excessprecipitation infiltration, and allows gas exchange. The native soil serves, in combination with the fill, astreatment media, and it also disperses the treated effluent.

Below-Grade SystemsBelow-grade systems are constructed in original soil with distribution of effluent occurringbelow the soil surface. With below grade systems the soil treatment area is designed and installed suchthat the infiltrative surface is below the original ground elevation and a final cover of topsoil stabilizesthe completed installation, supports vegetative growth, and sheds runoff. It is the underlying soil thattreats the many harmful components in the effluent before it reaches surface or ground waters. The twotypes of below-grade soil treatment systems commonly used are trenches and seepage beds.Trenches have better oxygen transfer then beds and are recommended whenever the siteconditions allow although seepage beds are often more attractive due to reduced land arearequirements. In addition, the cost and time of construction, trenches are preferred because they havegreater infiltrative surface for the same bottom area, and less damage typically occurs to the infiltrativesurface during construction (Otis et al, 1977).The figure below shows minimum depths and separation requirements for trenches or seepagebeds. For systems without pretreatment, at least three feet of soil suitable for treatment should belocated below the bottom of the distribution media. The minimum depth of distribution media is sixinches, followed by a minimum soil cover of twelve inches, so that the total distance from theperiodically saturated or other limiting condition to the final grade is approximately 4.5 feet. Note thatthis total could be made up of 3.5 feet of original soil and one foot of soil (7080.2150, Subp. 3) over thedistribution media of the system.Figure 1 - Trench and Bed DepthFrom MN Rules 7080.2260 Subp. 3. If the distribution media in a trench or a bed isin contact with soil texture group 2 through 4 (medium sand, fine sand, coarse andmedium loamy sand) pressure distribution must be used.Below-Grade Systems: SpecificationsTrenches

The trench is the most common of the soil treatment systems. According to MN Rules Chapter7080.1100, Subp. 89 a trench is defined as a soil treatment and dispersal system, the absorption widthof which is 36 inches or less. Trenches are narrower than they are wide, no wider than three feet, andare laid out along the contours of the soil. A typical trench is constructed by making a level excavation18 to 36 inches wide.The method of distributing the septic tank effluent can be either pressure orgravity. There are a number of different configurations by which the trenches can be connected witheach other and with the septic tank: parallel, serial, and continual. A typical trench is constructed bymaking a level excavation 18 to 36 inches wide. A typical layout for a trench system is shown in Figure 2.Figure 2 - Typical Trench LayoutThe soil around and beneath the trench must be neither too coarse nor too fine. A coarse soilmay not adequately filter pathogens, and a fine soil may be too tight to allow water to pass through.Soils with percolation rates between 0.1 and 60 mpi or soils with a listed loading rate on Table IX inChapter 7080.2150 are suitable for treating sewage using a Type I below-grade design. Trench mediamust never be placed in contact with soils having a percolation rate faster than 0.1 mpi or soil type 1or slower than 60 mpi. For soils with percolation rates faster than 0.1 mpi and between 61 and 120mpi, Type I below-grade systems may not be used (7080.2150, Subp. 3).The trench soil treatment system consists of distribution media, covered with a minimum of 12inches of soil and a close-growing and vigorous vegetation. Many trench systems utilize a pipe andgravel distribution system where effluent passes through the pipe and is stored within the media until itcan be absorbed into the soil. Partial treatment is achieved as effluent passes through the biomat. Thebiomat also distributes effluent across the soil surfaces and maintains aerobic conditions outside thetrench.

1. Enter Number of Systems 1DRAFT - 5/30/12Septic System Improvement EstimatorCommunity of Rolling Shores2. Enter System InformationNumberSystem Location IdentifierNumber ofBedroomsExistingSystem CodeNew SystemCode1 Cluster Site45 2 20Existing System CodingNA = Not available1 = Imminent Public Health Threat2 = Imminent Public Health Threat with Managed Septic Tank3 = Failing to Protect GroundwaterNew System CodingNA =1 =2 =3 =4 =Not availableSSTS Trench or Bed with 3 feet of separationSSTS Mound or Nitrogen reducing Type IVSSTS with Alternative Local Standard < 3 feet on Type I systemsHooked up to Wastewater Treatment PlantRemoval Percentages for Systems based on Compliance Status and System TypeExisting SystemNew SystemContaminantA. IPHT NoSeptic TankB. IPHT wmanaged/Septic TankC. Failing toProtectGround- waterW. SSTS inground(3 feetof soil)X. SSTSMound or Nreducing TypeIVY. SSTS w/AlternativeLocal Standard< 3 feetZ. WWTP(dischargelimits)BOD 0 50% 75% 100% 100% 75%TSS 0 50% 75% 100% 100% 75%Fecal/E-Coli 0 0 50% 100% 100% 50%Nitrogen 0 5% 10% 25% 50% 10%Phosphorous 0 5% 50% 100% 100% 50%3. Will the systems be actively managed by a local unit of government? Yes 1

DRAFT - 5/30/12Septic System Improvement EstimatorCommunity of Rolling Shores4. Does the local unit of government have any of the following educational or trigger programs?Homeowner Education ProgramComprehensive County Inventory ProjectTarget Area Inventory Projects/TDMLProperty TransferAny Building Permit RequestYesNoNoYesYes0.02000.010.01Other:00.045. Results - The table below provides the removal of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS),Bacteria meassured as Fecal Coliform, along the the nutrients Nitrogen and Phoshorous based on the data entered above. Thetotal removal is summarized for all the systems at the bottom.NumberSystem Location IdentifierPounds ofBOD per YearPounds ofTSS per YearBacteria perYearPounds ofPhosphorusper YearPounds ofNitrogen perYear1 Cluster Site1203 1203 4.96E+13 83 197Total 1203 1203 4.96E+13 83 197

Appendix BParcel Data Spreadsheet and Parcel Evaluation Maps

CAR ID#Property Information Drainfield Status TankCompliance status StatusNon-compliantHouse (H), Cabin (C ), Business (B), Vacant (V)Well: depth of casing, cased (>50') or shallow (50 15 NA 450 *Drainfield X X Surfacing X X X $13,200 $100 1 remove trees and install surface drainage for mound8 03.01358.03 47131 Cambridge Drive C >50 10 2.00 300 *Drainfield X X Surfacing X X X X $15,800 $100 39 03.01358.13 47162 Cambridge Drive H 192 16 2.00 225 *Drainfield X X Surfacing X X X $10,400 $100 1 Class II dwelling10 03.01358.02 47187 Cambridge Drive C 112 16 3.00 300 *Drainfield X X Surfacing X X X $11,300 $100 1 Class II dwelling11 03.01358.12 47190 Cambridge Drive H 117 20 5.00 750 *Drainfield X X Surfacing X X X $18,200 $100 1 could do small cluster with 47256 Cambridge DR12 03.01358.11 47210 Cambridge Drive H 100 9 4.00 600 *Drainfield X X Surfacing X X X X $22,100 $100 3 need to remove trees for mound13 03.01358.10 47256 Cambridge Drive H 75 4 3.00 450 *Drainfield X X Surfacing X X X X $23,300 $100 3 Cost assumes future Type 3 system across road13 03.01358.10 47256 Cambridge Drive H 75 4 3.00 450 *Drainfield X X Surfacing X X X X $3,800 $8,213 2 Cost assumes Type 2 holding tank onsite14 03.01358.17 1020 470th Street H 105 8 4.00 600 *Drainfield X X Surfacing X X X X $22,100 $100 3 Type 3 with 3' sand, trees removedCost for future ISTS (including tank costs)* Include if cluster is proposed which other properties areincluded, if a well needs to be abandoned, level of riskinvolved, thoughts for vacant properties, other issues.* If a business - include the type, and specify if it has specialconsiderations

TILE OUTLET!(End Cap937.57!(SURFACING EFFLUENT937.944!(938.478Depth to Bottom 34 (in.)Groundwater at 11"938.648!@!(940.487Depth to Bottom 48 (in.)!(End Cap940.523Groundwater at 35"940.546Groundwater at 18"939.412939.333Depth to Bottom 41 (in.)Trench 12940.105Trench 11940.438Trench 10940.753SB 1938.927!>!@!(Trench 9940.803!@!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(Trench 8940.684Trench 7941.024!@940.134Depth to Bottom 42 (in.)!@940.99Depth to Bottom 42 (in.)!(!( !(!@!(Trench 6941.17Trench 5941.29Trench 2941.77Trench 3941.66Trench 4941.539941.631Depth to Bottom 40 (in.)!( !(Trench 1941.942End Cap!(!>SB 2!(End Cap942.204Soil Boring Date:___________Completed by:_____________Elevation:________________HorizonEndDepth Horizon NotesColor:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Property Address: 47190 CAMBRIDGE DR PID(S): 03.01358.18Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comWenck!. Mound1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-223250 25 0 50Feet ±!( Septic Tank!( Pump Tank") Holding Tank!> Soil Boring Well SetbackNote: All points located near center of referenced objectExisting SSTS Type:_________________ Depth of sand in mound:___________________Depth to bottom of effluent dispersal area:_______________________ Elevation:____________Depth to seasonally saturated soils from soil boring:________________ Elevation:____________Existing Separation:_______________ Existing Tank Compliance (Compliant/Noncompliant)Dispersal/Treatment area compliance status: (ITPHS, Failure to protect groundwater, Compliant)Notes:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!@Drainfield!( Other!A Deep Well!A Shallow WellFor Wenck Data Tracking only, data in blue box does not relate to ISTS compliance.Setbacks met: (yes/no) Future:____________________________________________Setback not met from tanks to: Well___ Buildings (10’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Setback met from absorption area to: Well___ Buildings (20’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Inspection Maps\03-01358-18 Blank Map.mxd

03.01358.15!>SB 1948.71503.01358.16!>SB 2940.673!>SB 3Cambridge Dr03.01358.18!(!(!A!>SB 1941.19903.01358.17!( !(Soil Boring Date:___________Completed by:_____________Elevation:________________HorizonEndDepth Horizon NotesColor:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-223260 30 0 60Feet ±Existing SSTS Type:_________________ Depth of sand in mound:___________________Depth to bottom of effluent dispersal area:_______________________ Elevation:____________Depth to seasonally saturated soils from soil boring:________________ Elevation:____________Existing Separation:_______________ Existing Tank Compliance (Compliant/Noncompliant)Dispersal/Treatment area compliance status: (ITPHS, Failure to protect groundwater, Compliant)Notes:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________470th StProperty Address: 1020 470TH ST PID(S): 03.01358.1703.01358.16Potential Future ISTS Area !> Soil Boring(Not final and not forconstruction)!@ Drainfield!. Mound!( Other!( Septic Tank!A Deep Well!( Pump Tank!A Shallow Well") Holding TankWell SetbackNote: All points located near center of referenced objectFor Wenck Data Tracking only, data in blue box does not relate to ISTS compliance.Setbacks met: (yes/no) Future:____________________________________________Setback not met from tanks to: Well___ Buildings (10’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Setback met from absorption area to: Well___ Buildings (20’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Inspection Maps\03-01358-17 Blank Map.mxd

03.01358.14!(!(!(SUMP OUTLET!A!>SB 1941.94403.01358.1503.01358.16Soil Boring Date:___________Completed by:_____________Elevation:________________HorizonEndDepth Horizon NotesColor:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Property !> Address: 47070 CAMBRIDGE DR PID(S): 03.01358.15Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-223240 20 0 40Feet ±Potential Future ISTS Area !> Soil Boring(Not final and not forconstruction)!@ Drainfield!. Mound!( Other!( Septic Tank!A Deep Well!( Pump Tank!A Shallow Well") Holding TankWell SetbackNote: All points located near center of referenced objectExisting SSTS Type:_________________ Depth of sand in mound:___________________Depth to bottom of effluent dispersal area:_______________________ Elevation:____________Depth to seasonally saturated soils from soil boring:________________ Elevation:____________Existing Separation:_______________ Existing Tank Compliance (Compliant/Noncompliant)Dispersal/Treatment area compliance status: (ITPHS, Failure to protect groundwater, Compliant)Notes:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________For Wenck Data Tracking only, data in blue box does not relate to ISTS compliance.Setbacks met: (yes/no) Future:____________________________________________Setback not met from tanks to: Well___ Buildings (10’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Setback met from absorption area to: Well___ Buildings (20’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Inspection Maps\03-01358-15 Blank Map.mxd

!(03.01358.13!(!A!>SB 1939.30703.01358.14!(!(!(03.01358.15SUMP OUTLETSoil Boring Date:___________Completed by:_____________Elevation:________________HorizonEndDepth Horizon NotesColor:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Property Address: 47104 !A CAMBRIDGE DR PID(S): 03.01358.14Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-223240 20 0 40Feet ±Potential Future ISTS Area !> Soil Boring(Not final and not forconstruction)!@ Drainfield!. Mound!( Other!( Septic Tank!A Deep Well!( Pump Tank!A Shallow Well") Holding TankWell SetbackNote: All points located near center of referenced objectExisting SSTS Type:_________________ Depth of sand in mound:___________________Depth to bottom of effluent dispersal area:_______________________ Elevation:____________Depth to seasonally saturated soils from soil boring:________________ Elevation:____________Existing Separation:_______________ Existing Tank Compliance (Compliant/Noncompliant)Dispersal/Treatment area compliance status: (ITPHS, Failure to protect groundwater, Compliant)Notes:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________For Wenck Data Tracking only, data in blue box does not relate to ISTS compliance.Setbacks met: (yes/no) Future:____________________________________________Setback not met from tanks to: Well___ Buildings (10’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Setback met from absorption area to: Well___ Buildings (20’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Inspection Maps\03-01358-14 Blank Map.mxd

!(NEW TANKS934.79703.01358.12!(!(!>SB 1937.13703.01358.13!(SUMP OUT937.678!ASEWER CLEAN OUT939.155!(!(03.01358.14Soil Boring Date:___________Completed by:_____________Elevation:________________HorizonEndDepth Horizon NotesColor:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________!AProperty Address: 47162 CAMBRIDGE DR PID(S): 03.01358.13Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-223240 20 0 40Feet ±Potential Future ISTS Area !> Soil Boring(Not final and not forconstruction)!@ Drainfield!. Mound!( Other!( Septic Tank!A Deep Well!( Pump Tank!A Shallow Well") Holding TankWell SetbackNote: All points located near center of referenced objectExisting SSTS Type:_________________ Depth of sand in mound:___________________Depth to bottom of effluent dispersal area:_______________________ Elevation:____________Depth to seasonally saturated soils from soil boring:________________ Elevation:____________Existing Separation:_______________ Existing Tank Compliance (Compliant/Noncompliant)Dispersal/Treatment area compliance status: (ITPHS, Failure to protect groundwater, Compliant)Notes:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________For Wenck Data Tracking only, data in blue box does not relate to ISTS compliance.Setbacks met: (yes/no) Future:____________________________________________Setback not met from tanks to: Well___ Buildings (10’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Setback met from absorption area to: Well___ Buildings (20’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Inspection Maps\03-01358-13 Blank Map.mxd

!>!A03.01358.11!. !.03.01358.12!>SB 1932.175!A!(NEW TANKS934.797!(!(03.01358.1803.01358.13Soil Boring Date:___________Completed by:_____________Elevation:________________HorizonEndDepth Horizon NotesColor:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Property Address: !> 47190 CAMBRIDGE DR PID(S): 03.01358.12Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-223250 25 0 50Feet ±Potential Future ISTS Area !> Soil Boring(Not final and not forconstruction)!@ Drainfield!. Mound!( Other!( Septic Tank!A Deep Well!( Pump Tank!A Shallow Well") Holding TankWell SetbackNote: All points located near center of referenced objectExisting SSTS Type:_________________ Depth of sand in mound:___________________Depth to bottom of effluent dispersal area:_______________________ Elevation:____________Depth to seasonally saturated soils from soil boring:________________ Elevation:____________Existing Separation:_______________ Existing Tank Compliance (Compliant/Noncompliant)Dispersal/Treatment area compliance status: (ITPHS, Failure to protect groundwater, Compliant)Notes:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________For Wenck Data Tracking only, data in blue box does not relate to ISTS compliance.Setbacks met: (yes/no) Future:____________________________________________Setback not met from tanks to: Well___ Buildings (10’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Setback met from absorption area to: Well___ Buildings (20’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Inspection Maps\03-01358-12 Blank Map.mxd

!A!>SB 1936.26503.01358.10!(!(!(SUMP OUTLET927.456!>SB 1935.70703.01358.11!A03.01358.12Soil Boring Date:___________Completed by:_____________Elevation:________________HorizonEndDepth Horizon NotesColor:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Property Address: 47210 CAMBRIDGE DR PID(S): 03.01358.11Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-223240 20 0 40Feet ±Potential Future ISTS Area !> Soil Boring(Not final and not forconstruction)!@ Drainfield!( Septic Tank!( Other!( Pump Tank!ADeep Well") Holding Tank!A Shallow WellWell SetbackNote: All points located near center of referenced objectExisting SSTS Type:_________________ Depth of sand in mound:___________________Depth to bottom of effluent dispersal area:_______________________ Elevation:____________Depth to seasonally saturated soils from soil boring:________________ Elevation:____________Existing Separation:_______________ Existing Tank Compliance (Compliant/Noncompliant)Dispersal/Treatment area compliance status: (ITPHS, Failure to protect groundwater, Compliant)Notes:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________For Wenck Data Tracking only, data in blue box does not relate to ISTS compliance.Setbacks met: (yes/no) Future:____________________________________________Setback not met from tanks to: Well___ Buildings (10’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Setback met from absorption area to: Well___ Buildings (20’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Inspection Maps\03-01358-11 Blank Map.mxd

03.00047.1003.00047.00!(SUMP OUT925.39703.01358.10!A!>SB 1936.265!(!(Cambridge Dr!(SUMP OUTLET927.45603.01358.11!>SB 1935.70703.01358.01!ASoil Boring Date:___________Completed by:_____________Elevation:________________HorizonEndDepth Horizon NotesColor:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________!(!(Property Address: 47256 CAMBRIDGE DR PID(S): 03.01358.10Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-223260 30 0 60Feet ±Note: All points located near center of referenced objectExisting SSTS Type:_________________ Depth of sand in mound:___________________Depth to bottom of effluent dispersal area:_______________________ Elevation:____________Depth to seasonally saturated soils from soil boring:________________ Elevation:____________Existing Separation:_______________ Existing Tank Compliance (Compliant/Noncompliant)Dispersal/Treatment area compliance status: (ITPHS, Failure to protect groundwater, Compliant)Notes:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________For Wenck Data Tracking only, data in blue box does not relate to ISTS compliance.Setbacks met: (yes/no) Future:____________________________________________Setback not met from tanks to: Well___ Buildings (10’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Setback met from absorption area to: Well___ Buildings (20’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Inspection Maps\03-01358-10 Blank Map.mxdPotential Future ISTS Area(Not final and not forconstruction)!( Septic Tank!( Pump Tank") Holding Tank!> Soil Boring!@Drainfield!( Other!A!ADeep WellShallow WellWell Setback

!(SUMP OUTLETCambridge Dr03.01358.07!A!( !( !(470th St!>SB 1938.97103.01358.08!ASUMP OUTLET923.10803.01375.07Soil Boring Date:___________Completed by:_____________Elevation:________________HorizonEndDepth Horizon NotesColor:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Property Address: 47003 CAMBRIDGE DR PID(S): 03.01358.08Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-223250 25 0 50Feet ±Potential Future ISTS Area(Not final and not forconstruction)!. Mound!( Septic Tank!( Pump Tank!> Soil Boring") Holding TankWell SetbackNote: All points located near center of referenced objectExisting SSTS Type:_________________ Depth of sand in mound:___________________Depth to bottom of effluent dispersal area:_______________________ Elevation:____________Depth to seasonally saturated soils from soil boring:________________ Elevation:____________Existing Separation:_______________ Existing Tank Compliance (Compliant/Noncompliant)Dispersal/Treatment area compliance status: (ITPHS, Failure to protect groundwater, Compliant)Notes:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!@Drainfield!( Other!A!ADeep WellShallow WellFor Wenck Data Tracking only, data in blue box does not relate to ISTS compliance.Setbacks met: (yes/no) Future:____________________________________________Setback not met from tanks to: Well___ Buildings (10’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Setback met from absorption area to: Well___ Buildings (20’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Inspection Maps\03-01358-08 Blank Map.mxd

03.01358.06!ACambridge Dr!>SB 1939.64603.01358.07!(SUMP OUTLET!A!( !( !>SB 1938.97103.01358.08Soil Boring Date:___________Completed by:_____________Elevation:________________HorizonEndDepth Horizon NotesColor:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Property Address: 47023 CAMBRIDGE DR PID(S): 03.01358.07Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-223250 25 0 50Feet ±Potential Future ISTS Area !> Soil Boring(Not final and not forconstruction)!@ Drainfield!. Mound!( Other!( Septic Tank!A Deep Well!( Pump Tank!A Shallow Well") Holding TankWell SetbackNote: All points located near center of referenced objectExisting SSTS Type:_________________ Depth of sand in mound:___________________Depth to bottom of effluent dispersal area:_______________________ Elevation:____________Depth to seasonally saturated soils from soil boring:________________ Elevation:____________Existing Separation:_______________ Existing Tank Compliance (Compliant/Noncompliant)Dispersal/Treatment area compliance status: (ITPHS, Failure to protect groundwater, Compliant)Notes:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________For Wenck Data Tracking only, data in blue box does not relate to ISTS compliance.Setbacks met: (yes/no) Future:____________________________________________Setback not met from tanks to: Well___ Buildings (10’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Setback met from absorption area to: Well___ Buildings (20’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Inspection Maps\03-01358-07 Blank Map.mxd

!A!(SUMP OUTLET03.01358.05!(CLEAN OUT939.225!(!(!>SB 1943.426!>SB 1940.372Cambridge Dr03.01358.06!A03.01358.07!>SB 1939.646Soil Boring Date:___________Completed by:_____________Elevation:________________HorizonEndDepth Horizon NotesColor:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Property Address: 47067 CAMBRIDGE DR PID(S): 03.01358.06Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-223250 25 0 50Feet ±Potential Future ISTS Area !> Soil Boring(Not final and not forconstruction)!@ Drainfield!. Mound!( Other!( Septic Tank!A Deep Well!( Pump Tank!A Shallow Well") Holding TankWell SetbackNote: All points located near center of referenced objectExisting SSTS Type:_________________ Depth of sand in mound:___________________Depth to bottom of effluent dispersal area:_______________________ Elevation:____________Depth to seasonally saturated soils from soil boring:________________ Elevation:____________Existing Separation:_______________ Existing Tank Compliance (Compliant/Noncompliant)Dispersal/Treatment area compliance status: (ITPHS, Failure to protect groundwater, Compliant)Notes:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________For Wenck Data Tracking only, data in blue box does not relate to ISTS compliance.Setbacks met: (yes/no) Future:____________________________________________Setback not met from tanks to: Well___ Buildings (10’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Setback met from absorption area to: Well___ Buildings (20’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Inspection Maps\03-01358-06 Blank Map.mxd

!A03.01358.04Cambridge Dr!A03.01358.05!(SUMP OUTLET!(CLEAN OUT939.225!(!(!>SB 1943.426SB 1940.37203.01358.06 !>Soil Boring Date:___________Completed by:_____________Elevation:________________HorizonEndDepth Horizon NotesColor:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Property Address: 47093 CAMBRIDGE DR PID(S): 03.01358.05Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-223250 25 0 50Feet ±Potential Future ISTS Area !> Soil Boring(Not final and not forconstruction)!@ Drainfield!. Mound!( Other!( Septic Tank!A Deep Well!( Pump Tank!A Shallow Well") Holding TankWell SetbackNote: All points located near center of referenced objectExisting SSTS Type:_________________ Depth of sand in mound:___________________Depth to bottom of effluent dispersal area:_______________________ Elevation:____________Depth to seasonally saturated soils from soil boring:________________ Elevation:____________Existing Separation:_______________ Existing Tank Compliance (Compliant/Noncompliant)Dispersal/Treatment area compliance status: (ITPHS, Failure to protect groundwater, Compliant)Notes:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________For Wenck Data Tracking only, data in blue box does not relate to ISTS compliance.Setbacks met: (yes/no) Future:____________________________________________Setback not met from tanks to: Well___ Buildings (10’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Setback met from absorption area to: Well___ Buildings (20’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Inspection Maps\03-01358-05 Blank Map.mxd

!ASB 1940.617!>SEWER CLEANOUT939.362!( !(!(03.01358.03!(SEWER CLEANOUTSB 1941.064!>!(STANDING WATER03.01358.04!A03.01358.05!ASoil Boring Date:___________Completed by:_____________Elevation:________________HorizonEndDepth Horizon NotesColor:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________!(Property Address: 47125 CAMBRIDGE DR PID(S): 03.01358.04Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-223250 25 0 50Feet ±Potential Future ISTS Area !> Soil Boring(Not final and not forconstruction)!@ Drainfield!. Mound!( Other!( Septic Tank!A Deep Well!( Pump Tank!A Shallow Well") Holding TankWell SetbackNote: All points located near center of referenced objectExisting SSTS Type:_________________ Depth of sand in mound:___________________Depth to bottom of effluent dispersal area:_______________________ Elevation:____________Depth to seasonally saturated soils from soil boring:________________ Elevation:____________Existing Separation:_______________ Existing Tank Compliance (Compliant/Noncompliant)Dispersal/Treatment area compliance status: (ITPHS, Failure to protect groundwater, Compliant)Notes:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________For Wenck Data Tracking only, data in blue box does not relate to ISTS compliance.Setbacks met: (yes/no) Future:____________________________________________Setback not met from tanks to: Well___ Buildings (10’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Setback met from absorption area to: Well___ Buildings (20’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Inspection Maps\03-01358-04 Blank Map.mxd

!(!>SB 1939.98903.01358.02!ASB 1940.617!>SEWER CLEANOUT939.362!( !(!(03.01358.03Soil Boring Date:___________Completed by:_____________Elevation:________________HorizonEndDepth Horizon NotesColor:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________!(SEWER CLEANOUTSB 1941.064!>!(03.01358.04STANDING WATER!AProperty Address: 47131 CAMBRIDGE DR PID(S): 03.01358.03Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-223250 25 0 50Feet ±Potential Future ISTS Area !> Soil Boring(Not final and not forconstruction)!@ Drainfield!. Mound!( Other!( Septic Tank!A Deep Well!( Pump Tank!A Shallow Well") Holding TankWell SetbackNote: All points located near center of referenced objectExisting SSTS Type:_________________ Depth of sand in mound:___________________Depth to bottom of effluent dispersal area:_______________________ Elevation:____________Depth to seasonally saturated soils from soil boring:________________ Elevation:____________Existing Separation:_______________ Existing Tank Compliance (Compliant/Noncompliant)Dispersal/Treatment area compliance status: (ITPHS, Failure to protect groundwater, Compliant)Notes:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________For Wenck Data Tracking only, data in blue box does not relate to ISTS compliance.Setbacks met: (yes/no) Future:____________________________________________Setback not met from tanks to: Well___ Buildings (10’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Setback met from absorption area to: Well___ Buildings (20’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Inspection Maps\03-01358-03 Blank Map.mxd

03.01358.01Cambridge Dr!(!(!A!(SEWER CLEANOUT939.794!>SB 1939.98903.01358.0203.01358.03Soil Boring Date:___________Completed by:_____________Elevation:________________HorizonEndDepth Horizon NotesColor:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Color:___________________Texture:_________________Notes:_________________________________________Property Address: 47187 CAMBRIDGE DR PID(S): 03.01358.02,03.01358.01Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.comWenck1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-223260 30 0 60Feet ±Potential Future ISTS Area !> Soil Boring(Not final and not forconstruction)!@ Drainfield!. Mound!( Other!( Septic Tank!A Deep Well!( Pump Tank!A Shallow Well") Holding TankWell SetbackNote: All points located near center of referenced objectExisting SSTS Type:_________________ Depth of sand in mound:___________________Depth to bottom of effluent dispersal area:_______________________ Elevation:____________Depth to seasonally saturated soils from soil boring:________________ Elevation:____________Existing Separation:_______________ Existing Tank Compliance (Compliant/Noncompliant)Dispersal/Treatment area compliance status: (ITPHS, Failure to protect groundwater, Compliant)Notes:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________For Wenck Data Tracking only, data in blue box does not relate to ISTS compliance.Setbacks met: (yes/no) Future:____________________________________________Setback not met from tanks to: Well___ Buildings (10’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Setback met from absorption area to: Well___ Buildings (20’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Inspection Maps\03-01358-02 Blank Map.mxd

!>03.01358.18470th St!>SB 4935.649SB 5938.528SB 2940.654 Soil Boring!( Other!A Deep Well!A Shallow Well") Holding TankWell SetbackNote: All points located near center of referenced objectExisting SSTS Type:_________________ Depth of sand in mound:___________________Depth to bottom of effluent dispersal area:_______________________ Elevation:____________Depth to seasonally saturated soils from soil boring:________________ Elevation:____________Existing Separation:_______________ Existing Tank Compliance (Compliant/Noncompliant)Dispersal/Treatment area compliance status: (ITPHS, Failure to protect groundwater, Compliant)Notes:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________For Wenck Data Tracking only, data in blue box does not relate to ISTS compliance.Setbacks met: (yes/no) Future:____________________________________________Setback not met from tanks to: Well___ Buildings (10’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Setback met from absorption area to: Well___ Buildings (20’)___ Property Line (10’)___ OHW (75’):___Path: L:\2797\01\mxd\Inspection Maps\03-00104-40 Blank Map.mxd

Appendix CSeptic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) Detail

Appendix DSoil Borings

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # Farm Field SB 1Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 16"Shoulder 0-2%Vegetation: NoneCushing LoamParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER12" 10 YR 4/3 Sandy Loam16" 10 YR 4/4Gravelly LoamyCoarse Sand20" 10 YR 7/3 Clay Loam 7.5 YR 6/1 and 10 YR 5/6

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # Farm Field SB 2Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water:

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # Farm Field SB 3Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 14"SS 0-2%Vegetation: NoneCushing LoamParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER14" 10 YR 4/3 Sandy Loam14" 10 YR 7/3 Clay Loam 7.5 YR 6/1 and 10 YR 5/6

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # Farm Field SB 4Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water:

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # Farm Field SB 5Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water:

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # Farm Field SB 6Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water:

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # Treatment Site SB 1Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 10"SS 2-4%Vegetation: GrassCushing LoamParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER10" 10 YR 3/2 Sandy Loam20" 10 YR 4/4 Sand Wet24" 10 YR 6/2 Clay 7.5 YR 6/1 and 10 YR 5/6

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # Treatment Site SB 2Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 14"SS 2-4%Vegetation: GrassCushing LoamParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER6" 10 YR 3/2 Sandy Loam14" 10 YR 4/4 Sand32" 10 YR 6/4 Sand 10 YR 6/2 and 7.5 YR 5/6 Moist/Wet36" 10 YR 7/2 Clay

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # CAR ID#1 SB1Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 18"SS 2-4%Vegetation: GrassBrahamParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER10" 10 YR 3/2 Loam18" 10 YR 5/3 Sandy Loam42" 10 YR 5/3Sandy loamlayered withsandWet46" Grey/blue Clay

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # CAR ID#2 SB1Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 10"Shoulder 0-2%Vegetation: GrassCushing LoamParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER10" 10 YR 3/2 Loam14" 10 YR 6/3 Clay 7.5 YR 5/6

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # CAR ID#3 SB1Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 18"Shoulder 0-2%Vegetation: GrassCushing LoamParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER10" 10 YR 3/2 Sandy Loam18" 10 YR 4/3 Sandy Loam24" 10 YR 5/3 Sandy Loam Wet/moist28" 10 YR 7/2 Clay 7.5 YR 5/6

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # CAR ID#4 SB1Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 14"Shoulder 0-2%Vegetation: GrassBlomfordParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER14" 10 YR 3/2 Sandy Loam36" 10 YR 3/4 Sand Wet42" 10 YR 5/2 Clay loam 7.5 YR 5/6 Redox

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # CAR ID#5 SB1Ryan Lefers, P.E.Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 16"Shoulder 0-2%Vegetation: GrassCushing LoamParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER10" 10 YR 3/2 Sandy Loam16" 10 YR 5/3 Loamy Sand30" 10 YR 5/3 Loamy Sand 10 YR 5/6 and 10 YR 6/2 Redox36" 10 YR 6/2 Fine Sand 10 YR 5/8 Redox

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # CAR ID#6 SB1Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 12"Shoulder 0-2%Vegetation: GrassBlomfordParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER12" 10 YR 3/2Fine SandyLoam24" 10 YR 5/3 Clay loam 10 YR 7/1 and 7.5 YR 5/6 redox

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # CAR ID#7 SB1Ryan Lefers, P.E.Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 15"Shoulder 0-2%Vegetation: GrassCushing LoamParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER10" 10 YR 3/2 Loam Moist21 10 YR 5/3 Sandy Loam 10 YR 4/6 redox at 15" Wet at 15"

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # CAR ID#8 SB1Ryan Lefers, P.E.Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 10"Shoulder 0-2%Vegetation: GrassCushing LoamParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER10" 10 YR 3/2 Loam20" 10 YR 5/3 Sandy Loam 10 YR 4/6 wet26" 10 YR 5/3 Clay Loam 10 YR 7/1 and 7.5 YR 5/6 wet

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # CAR ID#9 SB1Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 16"Shoulder 0-2%Vegetation: GrassBlomfordParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER10" 10 YR 3/216" 10 YR 3/4Fine SandyLoamCoarse SandyLoam30" 10 YR 5/3 Clay loam 10 YR 7/1 and 7.5 YR 5/6

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # CAR ID#10 SB1Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 16"Shoulder 0-2%Vegetation: GrassCushing LoamParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER10" 10 YR 3/2 Loam24" 10 YR 4/4 Clay Loam10 YR 7/1 and 7.5 YR 5/6 starting at16"

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # CAR ID#11 SB1Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 20"SS 2-4%Vegetation: GrassCushing LoamParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER12" 10 YR 3/220" 10 YR 3/4Fine SandyLoamLoamy CoarseSand30" 10 YR 5/3 Clay loam 10 YR 7/1 and 7.5 YR 5/6

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # CAR ID#12 SB1Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 9"Shoulder 0-2%Vegetation: GrassCushing LoamParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER9" 10 YR 3/2 Loam14" 10 YR 4/3 Loam Moist24" 10 YR 5/4 Clay Loam 10 YR 6/1 and 7.5 YR 5/6

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # CAR ID#13 SB1Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water:

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # CAR ID#14 SB1Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 8"Shoulder 0-2%Vegetation: GrassCushing LoamParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER8" 10 YR 3/2 Sandy Loam18" 10 YR 5/3 Clay Loam 10 YR 6/1 and 7.5 YR 5/6

Date Completed:Completed By:Project:Landscape Position:Mapped Soil Type:Soil Profile Description5/7/2012 Test Pit # CAR ID#14 SB2Peter G. Miller, P.S.S. License No. 42636Equipment: 4" Bucket AugerRolling Shores CAR Highest Known Water: 14"Shoulder 0-2%Vegetation: GrassCushing LoamParent Material: Glacial TillHORIZONDEPTHEND(INCHES)MATRIXCOLORTEXTURESTRUCTURE-CONSISTENCEREDOXIMORPHICFEATURESOTHER14" 10 YR 3/2 Sandy Loam22" 10 YR 3/3 Coarse Sand Moist28" 10 YR 6/2 Clay

Appendix EFlow Calculations

LISTS FlowEstimation:Existing Dwellingsv 12.07.02Dwelling## of Bedrooms(minimum = 2)DwellingClassification(see Table IV)7080.1860Design Flow (gpd)(See Table 1)Reduction Factor- 0.45(if applicable*)LISTS Flow perDwelling (gpd)2 3.00 I 450 1.00 4506 3.00 I 450 1.00 4508 2.00 I 300 1.00 30012 4.00 I 600 1.00 60013 3.00 I 450 1.00 45014 4.00 I 600 1.00 60015161718192021222324252627282930Total Dwelling Flow Estimate* Use 1.0 for the flow from the ten highest flow dwellings and 0.45 for remainingdwellings2850

LISTS Final Permitting FlowWorksheetv 12.07.021. Flow from Dwellings Flow from Dwellings 2850 gpdFrom either existing and newdevelopment worksheet2. Flow from OtherEstablishmentsPermitting Flow from OtherEstablishments0 gpdFrom either Measured or Estimated-OE worksheet3. Flow from CollectionSystema) Total Length of CollectionPipe:b) Diameter of Pipe(Minimum of 2 in):c) Flow from I& I inCollection System:2100 feet2.00 inches159 gpdDesign flow must include 200gallons of infiltration and inflowper inch of collection pipediameter per mile per day with aminimum pipe diameter of twoinches. Flow values can be furtherincreased if the system employstreatment devices that willinfiltrate precipitation.4. Final Permitting Flow3009 gpdSum of 1, 2 and 3c.

MSTS FlowEstimation:Existing Dwellingsv 12.07.02Dwelling## of Bedrooms(minimum = 2)DwellingClassification(see Table IV)7080.1860Design Flow (gpd)(See Table 1)Reduction Factor- 0.45(if applicable*)LISTS Flow perDwelling (gpd)1 4.00 I 600 1.00 6002 3.00 I 450 1.00 4503 3.00 I 450 1.00 4504 3.00 I 450 1.00 4505 3.00 II 300 0.45 1356 3.00 I 450 1.00 4507 3.00 I 450 1.00 4508 2.00 I 300 0.45 1359 2.00 II 225 0.45 10110 3.00 II 300 0.45 13511 5.00 I 750 1.00 75012 4.00 I 600 1.00 60013 3.00 I 450 1.00 45014 4.00 I 600 1.00 600151617181920212223242526272829Total Dwelling Flow Estimate* Use 1.0 for the flow from the ten highest flow dwellings and 0.45 for remainingdwellings5756

MSTS Final Permitting FlowWorksheetv 12.07.021. Flow from Dwellings Flow from Dwellings 5756 gpdFrom either existing and newdevelopment worksheet2. Flow from OtherEstablishmentsPermitting Flow from OtherEstablishments0 gpdFrom either Measured or Estimated-OE worksheet3. Flow from CollectionSystema) Total Length of CollectionPipe:b) Diameter of Pipe(Minimum of 2 in):c) Flow from I& I inCollection System:2300 feet2.00 inches174 gpdDesign flow must include 200gallons of infiltration and inflowper inch of collection pipediameter per mile per day with aminimum pipe diameter of twoinches. Flow values can be furtherincreased if the system employstreatment devices that willinfiltrate precipitation.4. Final Permitting Flow5930 gpdSum of 1, 2 and 3c.

Appendix FCost Analysis

ESTIMATED LISTS CLUSTER CAPITAL COSTSITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICECollectionIndividual Septic Tank (New) 9,000 gal $1.25 $11,250Individual Pump Tank (New) 6,000 gal $1.25 $7,500Individual Tank Install 15,000 gal $1.25 $18,750Individual Septic Tank (Upgrade) 0 ls $1,500.00 $0Individual Pump Tank (Upgrade) 0 ls $1,000.00 $0Individual Tank Abandonment 6 ls $500.00 $3,000STEP Pump Package 6 package $2,000.00 $12,0004" Building Sewer Replacement 600 lf $25.00 $15,0002" Forcemain Collection 2,100 lf $21.00 $44,100Air/Vacuum Release Valve 2 ea $3,500.00 $7,000Isolation valves/cleanouts 4 ea $3,000.00 $12,0002" Curb stops 6 ea $750.00 $4,5002" Stubline Collection 400 lf $21.00 $8,400Lawn Seeding/Restoration 1,525 sy $0.40 $610Mobilization 1 ls $4,400.00 $4,400Total Collection 1 ls - $148,510TreatmentHydrogeo and Design Evaluation 1 ls $4,250.00 $4,250Common Septic (Stilling) Tank 1,500 gal $1.25 $1,875Common Pump Tank 1,500 gal $1.25 $1,875Common Tank Install 3,000 gal $1.25 $3,750Common Dosing Package 1 package $3,000.00 $3,000Common Control Panel 1 unit $1,200.00 $1,200Common Distributing Valve 1 unit $2,000.00 $2,000Common Treatment (3' Mound) 1 unit $47,361.20 $47,361Electrical Install Costs 1 ls $7,500.00 $7,500Service Road 200 lf $50.00 $10,000Misc. Install Costs 1 ls $1,000.00 $1,000Clearing, grubbing, etc.; md trees/brush 0.00 ac $5,200.00 $0Site Restoration 1 ac $3,000.00 $3,000Mobilization 1 ls $2,700.00 $2,700Total Treatment 1 ls - $89,511CLUSTER TOTAL* 1 LS - $238,021CLUSTER AVERAGE/PROPERTY* 1 LS - $39,670*Does not include costs for land acquisition, legal, engineering, administration, or contingency.

ESTIMATED MSTS CLUSTER CAPITAL COSTSITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICECollectionIndividual Septic Tank (New) 21,000 gal $1.25 $26,250Individual Pump Tank (New) 14,000 gal $1.25 $17,500Individual Tank Install 35,000 gal $1.25 $43,750Individual Septic Tank (Upgrade) 0 ls $1,500.00 $0Individual Pump Tank (Upgrade) 0 ls $1,000.00 $0Individual Tank Abandonment 14 ls $500.00 $7,000STEP Pump Package 14 package $2,000.00 $28,0004" Building Sewer Replacement 1,400 lf $25.00 $35,0002" Forcemain Collection 2,500 lf $21.00 $52,500Air/Vacuum Release Valve 2 ea $3,500.00 $7,000Isolation valves/cleanouts 4 ea $3,000.00 $12,0002" Curb stops 14 ea $750.00 $10,5002" Stubline Collection 0 lf $21.00 $0Lawn Seeding/Restoration 2,315 sy $0.40 $926Mobilization 1 ls $7,300.00 $7,300Total Collection 1 ls - $247,726TreatmentHydrogeo and Design Evaluation 1 ls $9,750.00 $9,750Common Septic (Stilling) Tank 3,000 gal $1.25 $3,750Common Pump Tank 3,000 gal $1.25 $3,750Common Tank Install 6,000 gal $1.25 $7,500Common Dosing Package 1 package $3,000.00 $3,000Common Control Panel 1 unit $1,200.00 $1,200Common Distributing Valve 1 unit $2,000.00 $2,000Common Treatment (3' Mounds) 1 unit $132,414.30 $132,414Electrical Install Costs 1 ls $7,500.00 $7,500Service Road 200 lf $50.00 $10,000Misc. Install Costs 1 ls $1,000.00 $1,000Clearing, grubbing, etc.; md trees/brush 0.50 ac $5,200.00 $2,600Site Restoration 2 ac $3,000.00 $6,000Mobilization 1 ls $5,800.00 $5,800Total Treatment 1 ls - $196,264TOTAL* 1 LS - $443,990AVERAGE/PROPERTY* 1 LS - $31,714*Does not include costs for land acquisition, legal, engineering, administration, or contingency.

ESTIMATED CLUSTER MSTS CAPITAL COSTS INCLUDING NITROGEN REMOVALITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICECollectionIndividual Septic Tank (New) 21,000 gal $1.25 $26,250Individual Pump Tank (New) 14,000 gal $1.25 $17,500Individual Tank Install 35,000 gal $1.25 $43,750Individual Septic Tank (Upgrade) 0 ls $1,500.00 $0Individual Pump Tank (Upgrade) 0 ls $1,000.00 $0Individual Tank Abandonment 14 ls $500.00 $7,000STEP Pump Package 14 package $2,000.00 $28,0004" Building Sewer Replacement 1,400 lf $25.00 $35,0002" Forcemain Collection 2,500 lf $21.00 $52,500Air/Vacuum Release Valve 2 ea $3,500.00 $7,000Isolation valves/cleanouts 4 ea $3,000.00 $12,0002" Curb stops 14 ea $750.00 $10,5002" Stubline Collection 0 lf $21.00 $0Lawn Seeding/Restoration 2,315 sy $0.40 $926Mobilization 1 ls $7,300.00 $7,300Total Collection 1 ls - $247,726TreatmentHydrogeo and Design Evaluation 1 ls $9,750.00 $9,750Common Septic (Stilling) Tank 7,000 gal $1.00 $7,000Common Reactor Tank #1 500 gal $1.00 $500Common Clearwater Tank #1 3,000 gal $1.00 $3,000Common Reactor Tank #2 100 gal $1.00 $100Common Pump Tank #2 1,500 gal $1.00 $1,500Common Tanks Install 12,100 gal $1.25 $15,125Common Dosing Package 1 package $3,000.00 $3,000Common Control Panel 1 unit $1,200.00 $1,200Common Distributing Valve 1 unit $2,000.00 $2,000Amphidrome Plus Reactor 1 ls $150,000.00 $150,000Control Building 1 ls $15,000.00 $15,000Labor and Install of Amphidrome 1 ls $75,000.00 $75,000Common Treatment (1' Mounds) 1 unit $99,112.50 $99,113Electrical Install Costs 1 ls $7,500.00 $7,500Service Road 200 lf $50.00 $10,000Misc. Install Costs 1 ls $1,000.00 $1,000Clearing, grubbing, etc.; md trees/brush 0.50 ac $5,200.00 $2,600Site Restoration 2 ac $3,000.00 $6,000Mobilization 1 ls $12,300.00 $12,300Total Mound 1 ls - $179,588Total Nitrogen Removal 1 ls - $242,100Total Treatment 1 ls - $421,688TOTAL* 1 LS - $669,413AVERAGE/PROPERTY* 1 LS - $47,815*Does not include costs for land acquisition, legal, engineering, administration, or contingency.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR LISTS CLUSTER (~3000 gpd)Costs remain the same both with and without the Nitrogen BMP addedESTIMATED STEP OPERATION AND MAINTENACE COSTS FOR 3 BDR HOMEITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE/YEAR NOTESTank pumping 500 gal $0.17 $85.00 1500 gallons 1x/3 yearsElectricity (0.5 hp pump) 101 kwh $0.10 $10.13 gpd/ gallons/min /min/hr * days/year * kwhService Visit 0.5 hr $65.00 $32.50 .25 hrs 2x/yearPump Replacement 0.1 each $500.00 $50.00 1x/10 yearsTotal $177.63Contingency (10%) $17.76Final Total $195.39Total for 6 properties $1,172.35ESTIMATED OPERATION AND MAINTENACE COSTS FOR 3,000 GPD DRAINFIELDITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE/YEARTank pumping 1000 gal $0.17 $170.00 3000 gallons 1x/3 yearsElectricity (0.5 hp pump) 675 kwh $0.10 $67.53 gpd/ gallons/min /min/hr * days/year * kwhService Visit 4 hr $65.00 $260.00 2 hrs 2x/yearPump Replacement 0.2 each $500.00 $100.00 1x/5 yearsRemote Monitoring/Reporting 5.2 hr $65.00 $338.00 0.1 hrs/weekTotal $935.53Contingency (10%) $93.55Final Total $1,029.08Final Total for All $2,300.00Total/property/month $31.94

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR CLUSTER MSTS, NO NITROGEN REMOVAL TECHNOLOGYESTIMATED STEP OPERATION AND MAINTENACE COSTS FOR 3 BDR HOMEITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE/YEAR NOTESTank pumping 500 gal $0.17 $85.00 1500 gallons 1x/3 yearsElectricity (0.5 hp pump) 101 kwh $0.10 $10.13 gpd/ gallons/min /min/hr * days/year * kwhService Visit 0.5 hr $65.00 $32.50 .25 hrs 2x/yearPump Replacement 0.1 each $500.00 $50.00 1x/10 yearsTotal $177.63Contingency (10%) $17.76Final Total $195.39Total for 14 properties $2,735.48ESTIMATED OPERATION AND MAINTENACE COSTS FOR 5,000-6,000 GPD DRAINFIELDITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE/YEARTank pumping 2000 gal $0.17 $340.00 6000 gallons 1x/3 yearsElectricity (0.5 hp pump) 1351 kwh $0.10 $135.05 gpd/ gallons/min /min/hr * days/year * kwhService Visit 8 hr $65.00 $520.00 2 hrs 4x/yearPump Replacement 0.2 each $500.00 $100.00 1x/5 yearsRemote Monitoring/Reporting 26 hr $65.00 $1,690.00 0.5 hrs/weekTotal $2,785.05Contingency (10%) $278.51Final Total $3,063.56Final Total for All $5,800.00Total/property/month $34.52

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR CLUSTER MSTS WITH NITROGEN REMOVALESTIMATED STEP OPERATION AND MAINTENACE COSTS FOR 3 BDR HOMEITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE/YEAR NOTESTank pumping 500 gal $0.17 $85.00 1500 gallons 1x/3 yearsElectricity (0.5 hp pump) 101 kwh $0.10 $10.13 gpd/ gallons/min /min/hr * days/year * kwhService Visit 0.5 hr $65.00 $32.50 .25 hrs 2x/yearPump Replacement 0.1 each $500.00 $50.00 1x/10 yearsTotal $177.63Contingency (10%) $17.76Final Total $195.39Total for 14 properties $2,735.48ESTIMATED OPERATION AND MAINTENACE COSTS FOR 5,000-6,000 GPD DRAINFIELDITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE/YEAR NOTESTank pumping 2000 gal $0.17 $340.00 6,000 gallons 1x/3 yearsElectricity (0.5 hp pump) 1351 kwh $0.10 $135.05 gpd/ gallons/min /min/hr * days/year * kwhService Visit 8 hr $65.00 $520.00 2 hrs 4x/yearPump Replacement 0.2 each $500.00 $100.00 1x/5 years, 2 pumpsRemote Monitoring/Reporting 26 hr $65.00 $1,690.00 0.5 hrs/weekTotal $2,785.05Contingency (10%) $278.51Final Total $3,063.56ESTIMATED NO3 REMOVAL OPERATION AND MAINTENACE COSTSITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE/YEAR NOTESAmphidrome Power 4333 kwh $0.10 $433.30 Taken from vendor quoteSludge Disposal 12667 gal $0.17 $2,153.39 Taken from vendor quoteMethanol 167 gal $3.00 $501.00 Taken from vendor quoteAlkalinity 1 ls $170.00 $170.00 Taken from vendor quoteTelephone/Internet 12 $/month $50.00 $600.00 EstimateAmphidrome Repair Reserve 0.13 total $10,000.00 $1,250.00 Pump/Blower Replacement at 1x/8 years, 8 pumps, 2 blowersService Visit 104 hr $65.00 $6,760.00 Estimated 2 hours/week averageSampling 12 sample $100.00 $1,200.00 Sample effluent 1x/month for TN, CBOD, and TSS.Building Heating and Power 12.00 $/month $50.00 $600.00 Assumed cost of $50/monthRemote Monitoring/Reporting 26 hr $65.00 $1,690.00 0.5 hrs/weekTotal $15,357.69Contingency (10%) $1,535.77Final Total $16,893.46Final Total for All $22,700.00Total/property/month $135.12

Appendix GChisago County Letters

September 7, 2012Wenck Associates Inc.,1800 Pioneer Creek Ctr.,P.O. Box 249,Maple Plain, MN 55359-9000Re: Holding TanksDear Peter & Ryan,A request to clarify our stance on holding tanks, I believe this part of our ordinanceexplains it best.Chisago County Ordinance 10-1, Section 7. SSTS Standards,7.04 Holding Tanks - A. For dwellings, holding tanks may be allowed as replacementsfor existing non-compliant SSTS only when it can be shown conclusively that a SSTScannot be installed according to this Ordinance upon receipt of a certified statementsubmitted by a Certified Designer…..If you have any question please feel free to give us a call 651-213-8373.SincerelyKellie StrobelChisago CountyEnvironmental Services & Zoningkrstrob@co.chisago.mn.us

Compliance Inspection FormExisting Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems(SSTS)Doc Type: Compliance and EnforcementInstructions: Inspection results based on Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)requirements and attached forms – additional local requirements may also apply.Submit completed form to Local Unit of Government (LUG) and system ownerwithin 15 daysFor local tracking purposes:2012-697System StatusSystem status on date (mm/dd/yyyy): 5/7/2012Compliant – Certificate of Compliance(Valid for 3 years from report date, unless shorter timeframe outlined in Local Ordinance.)Noncompliant – Notice of Noncompliance(See Upgrade Requirements on page 3)Reason(s) for noncompliance (check all applicable)Impact on Public Health (Compliance Component #1) – Imminent threat to public health and safetyOther Compliance Conditions (Compliance Component #3) – Imminent threat to public health and safetyTank Integrity (Compliance Component #2) – Failing to protect groundwaterOther Compliance Conditions (Compliance Component #3) – Failing to protect groundwaterSoil Separation (Compliance Component #4) – Failing to protect groundwaterOperating permit/monitoring plan requirements (Compliance Component #5) – NoncompliantProperty Information Parcel ID# or Sec/Twp/Range: See CommentsProperty address: Cambridge Dr, Harris MN Reason for inspection: upgrade septic systemProperty owner: Rolling Shores Homeowners Assoc. Owner’s phone:orOwner’s representative:Representative phone:Local regulatory authority: Chisago County Regulatory authority phone: 651-213-8373Brief system description:Comments or recommendations:This is a community system with each site having there own septic tanks. A compliance inspections was performed in 2005 twhichshows the septic system was an imminent health threat and does not meet proper seperation for lake shore property. The parcelsin Rolling shores is as follows: 03.01358.01, .02, .03, .04, .05, .06, .07, .08, .10, .11, .12, .13, .14, .15, .16, .17 & .18. The tankintegrity was checked at this inspection.CertificationI hereby certify that all the necessary information has been gathered to determine the compliance status of this system. Nodetermination of future system performance has been nor can be made due to unknown conditions during system construction,possible abuse of the system, inadequate maintenance, or future water usage.Inspector name: Kellie Strobel Certification number: 6970Business name: Chisago County License number:Inspector signature: Phone number: 651-213-8373Necessary or Locally Required AttachmentsSoil boring logs System/As-built drawing Forms per local ordinanceOther information (list):www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formatswq-wwists4-31 • 1/24/12 Page 1 of 3

Property address: Cambridge Dr, Harris MN Inspector initials/Date: krs 5/7/121. Impact on Public Health – Compliance component #1 of 5Compliance criteria:System discharge sewage to theground surface.System discharge sewage to drain tileor surface waters.System cause sewage backup intodwelling or establishment.YesYesYesAny “yes” answer above indicates the system isan Imminent Threat to Public Health and Safety.Comments/Explanation:2005 compliance inspections shows leaking out of two trenches.NoNoNoVerification method(s):Searched for surface outletSearched for seeping in yard/backup in homeExcessive ponding in soil system/D-boxesHomeowner testimony (See Comments/Explanation)“Black soil” above soil dispersal systemSystem requires “emergency” pumpingPerformed dye testUnable to verify (See Comments/Explanation)Other methods not listed (See Comments/Explanation)2. Tank Integrity – Compliance component #2 of 5Compliance criteria:System consists of a seepage pit,cesspool, drywell, or leaching pit.Seepage pits meeting 7080.2550 may becompliant if allowed in local ordinance.Sewage tank(s) leak below theirdesigned operating depth.If yes, which sewage tank(s) leaks:Verification method(s):Yes No Probed tank(s) bottomYesAny “yes” answer above indicates thesystem is Failing to Protect Groundwater.Comments/Explanation:All tanks had center seams below the water levelsNoExamined construction recordsExamined Tank Integrity Form (Attach)Observed liquid level below operating depthExamined empty (pumped) tanks(s)Probed outside tank(s) for “black soil”Unable to verify (See Comments/Explanation)Other methods not listed (See Comments/Explanation)3. Other Compliance Conditions – Compliance component #3 of 5a. Maintenance hole covers are damaged, cracked, unsecured, or appear to structurally unsound. Yes* No Unknownb. Other issues (electrical hazards, etc.) to immediately and adversely impact public health or safety. Yes* No Unknown*System is an imminent threat to public health and safetyExplain:c. System is non-protective of ground water for other conditions as determined by inspector Yes* No*System is failing to protect groundwaterExplain:www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formatswq-wwists4-31 • 1/24/12 Page 2 of 3

Property address: Cambridge Dr, Harris MN Inspector initials/Date: 5/7/20124. Soil Separation – Compliance component #4 of 5Date of installation: 1980's Unknown Verification method(s):Shoreland/Wellhead protection/Food BeverageLodging?Compliance criteria:For systems built prior to April 1, 1996, andnot located in Shoreland or WellheadProtection Area or not serving a food,beverage or lodging establishment:YesYesNoNoSoil observation does not expire. Previous soilobservations by two independent parties are sufficient,unless site conditions have been altered or localrequirements differ.Conducted soil observation(s) (Attach boring logs)Two previous verifications (Attach boring logs)Not applicable (Holding tank(s), no drainfield)Drainfield has at least a two-foot verticalseparation distance from periodicallysaturated soil or bedrock.Unable to verify (See Comments/Explanation)Other (See Comments/Explanation)Non-performance systems built April 1,1996, or later or for non-performancesystems located in Shoreland or WellheadProtection Areas or serving a food,beverage, or lodging establishment:Yes No Comments/Explanation:see 2005 compliance inspectionDrainfield has a three-foot verticalseparation distance from periodicallysaturated soil or bedrock.*“Experimental”, “Other”, or “Performance”systems built under pre-2008 Rules; Type IVor V systems built under 2008 Rules (7080.2350 or 7080.2400 (Advanced InspectorLicense required)Drainfield meets the designed verticalseparation distance from periodicallysaturated soil or bedrock.Any “no” answer above indicates the system isFailing to Protect Groundwater.Yes No Indicate depths of elevationsA. Bottom of distribution media 24"B. Periodically saturated soil/bedrock 24"C. System separation 0D. Required compliance separation* 30.6*May be reduced up to 15 percent if allowed by LocalOrdinance.5. Operating Permit and Nitrogen BMP* – Compliance component #5 of 5 Not applicableIs the system operated under an Operating Permit? Yes No If “yes”, A below is requiredIs the system required to employ a Nitrogen BMP? Yes No If “yes”, B below is requiredBMP=Best Management Practice(s) specified in the system designIf the answer to both questions is “no”, this section does not need to be completed.Compliance criteriaa. Operating Permit number:Have the Operating Permit requirements been met?YesNob. Is the required nitrogen BMP in place and properly functioning? Yes NoAny “no” answer indicates Noncompliance.Upgrade Requirements (Minn. Stat. § 115.55) An imminent threat to public health and safety (ITPHS) must be upgraded, replaced, or its usediscontinued within ten months of receipt of this notice or within a shorter period if required by local ordinance. If the system is failing to protectground water, the system must be upgraded, replaced, or its use discontinued within the time required by local ordinance. If an existing systemis not failing as defined in law, and has at least two feet of design soil separation, then the system need not be upgraded, repaired, replaced, orits use discontinued, notwithstanding any local ordinance that is more strict. This provision does not apply to systems in shoreland areas,Wellhead Protection Areas, or those used in connection with food, beverage, and lodging establishments as defined in law.www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formatswq-wwists4-31 • 1/24/12 Page 3 of 3

Appendix HExisting Community Wastewater System EasementDocuments

Easement and property research findings for the Rolling Shores Associationcommunity waste water systemFrom John BilottaJune 11, 2012The following are findings from property record searches performed by John Bilottawith Chisago County. The results do not represent legally conclusions and theremay be errors in my choice of language to summarize the information I found.I searched for an easement or other property recordings related to the RSAcommunity waste water system by examing title records, property records, andrecorded plats at the Chisago County Recording Office. My search included lookingfor records for the property #030135818 where the main part of the system islocated. This parcel currently belongs to Robert Bomstad. I also completedsearches by names including Bomstad and Studt (previous owner).❒ A drainage and utility easement was registered and recorded on thesubdivision plat, dated November 1979. The easement is referred to ondrawings of the subdivision plat. Included is the drainfield site on Lot 9,Block 2 and shows easements for the collection system running between Lots4 & 5 of Block 1 and along the road-right-of-ways of all lots.❒ Other than the plat map, no other reference to the drainage and utilityeasement was made in any other property records, that I found. I could notfind documents specifying additional details of the easement attached toproperty records.❒ Staff at the recording office indicated that this is not uncommon. The countydoes not typically record ‘drainage and utility easements.’❒ Staff did indicate that examination of individual property deeds might revealsomething .(I did not do that.)❒ I did examine eight separate property recordings associated with the parcelof interest. Many had mention to a covenant or “Maintenance Agreement.”Most of these recordings made some reference to the establishment of theRSA, management of Outlot A (lake access lot), and/or the community wastewater system. The following is a brief summary of those:#165472• Is the original Maintenance Agreement• Adopts restrictive covenants which in part provides for a MaintenanceAgreement for Outlot A.• Establishes the Association.#165471• The restrictive covenant was signed Oct 25, 1979• 6 pages in length. Content related to the following:• The management and use of Outlot A

• The “...installation, maintenance, repair, and operation of the collectivesewage treatment system….”• Each numbered lot shall have numerically proportioned undivided interestin Outlot A• Outlot A shall be maintained in accordance of the MaintenanceAgreement.• Restrictive Covenants may be revised by unanimous vote of each propertyowner• Automatic continuing the covenant for another 30 years unless...(page 5)A majority vote expressing their wish to terminate within 1 year prior to theyear of termination#167478• Amended of restrictive covenants - Plat of Rolling Shore• Covenant dated Oct 25/79 recorded Nov 8/79• Main subject of recording had to do with changes in allowable animal unitsand when dwellings could be lived in.#167805• June 27, 1980, Signed July 28, 1981• All restrictive covenants were repealed (due to nonsale of the properties)except those for Outlot A (and specifications contained in the MaintenanceAgreement, which contains items related to the community waste watersystem).• “Every lot required and served by collector system shall be subject to theMaintenance Agreement...binding....to all owners.”• Agreement is perpetual and run with the land unless unanimouslyapproved by all the owners, but in no event prior to the availability andconnection to an alternate sewage collection and disposal system orsystems....• It also states that each lot shall have “an appurtenant undivided 1/20interest in and to Outlot A”• This is more or less a revised and more clearly written Associationdocument#167806• Outlot A and Lots 1-9 amended Maintenance Agreement#172827• Second Amendment to Maintenance Agreement for Lots 1-8, 1-12, andOutlot A

#210968• Signed June 27, 1988• Warranty Deed from Studt to Bomstad, lot 9 block 2 and 1/20 of Outlot A• ..subject to restrictions, covenants, reservations, and easements of record• “This warranty deed refers to and is subject to all restrictions, reservations,covenants, and easements of record, with no exceptions.”#227904• Warranty Deed from Kanneman to Bomstad• Lot 3, Block 2 & 1/20 interest to Outlot AConclusions, if any: (From John Bilotta, but may not represent legally bindingconclusions.1) A drainage and utility easement exists on the plat map for the communitydrain field site as well as for the collection system. No additional documentswere found that gave specifications to the easement.2) I do recommend someone asks Bob Bomstad and other owners (Barth, Rose)if they have any other details or documents.3) The drainfield site is owned by Bomstad however there is a drainage andutility easement on it.4) The Maintenance Agreement attached to this property (and to otherproperties) states several key findings including the following:5) The “...installation, maintenance, repair, and operation of the collectivesewage treatment system….”6) “Every lot required and served by collector system shall be subject to theMaintenance Agreement...binding....to all owners.”7) Agreement is perpetual and run with the land unless unanimously approvedby all the owners, but in no event prior to the availability and connection toan alternate sewage collection and disposal system or systems....8) Warranty Deed from Studt to Bomstad of June 1988 recognizes that thedrainfield site lot was subject to restrictions, covenants, reservations, andeasements of record “This warranty deed refers to and is subject to allrestrictions, reservations, covenants, and easements of record, with noexceptions.”