Community Assessment Report - Onsite Sewage Treatment ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

As documented in this section, the existing wastewater treatment infrastructure creates an ITPHSwith surfacing effluent. Additionally, the SSTS fails to protect groundwater. The <strong>Community</strong> 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. <strong>Treatment</strong>: 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
Page 1: Rolling ShoresCommunityAssessment R
Page 4 and 5: 1.0 Introduction1.1 BACKGROUNDThe C
Page 7 and 8: 1.3 REPORT PURPOSEThis report is a
Page 9 and 10: 2.0 Existing Conditions2.1 INTRODUC
Page 11 and 12: 2.3 FINDINGSThe purpose of the site
Page 13: Photo 1: Wastewater effluent surfac
Page 17 and 18: 3.2.2 Private ISTS ProgramIn a priv
Page 19 and 20: ISTS rules dictate that systems tha
Page 21 and 22: with CAR ID#13 is allowed to build
Page 23 and 24: Table 4: Estimated Permitting Flow
Page 25 and 26: etained at all individual propertie
Page 27 and 28: • Lower operation and maintenance
Page 29 and 30: 4.0 Cost Comparison of Alternatives
Page 31 and 32: The replacement wastewater system A
Page 33 and 34: asis, other considerations such as
Page 35 and 36: analysis over a 25-year period show
Page 37 and 38: 5.0 Summary and Recommendations5.1
Page 39 and 40: • Chisago County would continue t
Page 41 and 42: Project LocationRush Lake 7.5 Minut
Page 43 and 44: 920940920920920920940930920920920!A
Page 45: 13Note: CAR ID#13 will be a holding
Page 48 and 49: Appendix ABackground Information
Page 50 and 51: pores and channels. As a result the
Page 52 and 53: The trench is the most common of th
Page 54 and 55: DRAFT - 5/30/12Septic System Improv
Page 56 and 57: CAR ID#Property Information Drainfi
Page 58 and 59: 03.01358.15!>SB 1948.71503.01358.16
Page 60 and 61: !(03.01358.13!(!A!>SB 1939.30703.01
Page 62 and 63: !>!A03.01358.11!. !.03.01358.12!>SB
Page 64 and 65:
03.00047.1003.00047.00!(SUMP OUT925
Page 66 and 67:
03.01358.06!ACambridge Dr!>SB 1939.
Page 68 and 69:
!A03.01358.04Cambridge Dr!A03.01358
Page 70 and 71:
!(!>SB 1939.98903.01358.02!ASB 1940
Page 72 and 73:
!>03.01358.18470th St!>SB 4935.649S
Page 75 and 76:
Appendix DSoil Borings
Page 77 and 78:
Date Completed:Completed By:Project
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Appendix EFlow Calculations
Page 101 and 102:
LISTS Final Permitting FlowWorkshee
Page 103 and 104:
MSTS Final Permitting FlowWorksheet
Page 105 and 106:
ESTIMATED LISTS CLUSTER CAPITAL COS
Page 107 and 108:
ESTIMATED CLUSTER MSTS CAPITAL COST
Page 109 and 110:
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR CLUST
Page 111 and 112:
Appendix GChisago County Letters
Page 113 and 114:
Compliance Inspection FormExisting
Page 115 and 116:
Property address: Cambridge Dr, Har
Page 117 and 118:
Easement and property research find
Page 119:
#210968• Signed June 27, 1988•
show all

Community Assessment Report - Onsite Sewage Treatment ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?