Community Assessment Report - Onsite Sewage Treatment ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 the<strong>Community</strong> 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
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 and 14: Photo 1: Wastewater effluent surfac
Page 15 and 16: 3.0 Alternatives Analysis3.1 INTROD
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: etained at all individual propertie
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?