The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSeptic info � � �;. CITY of �RONO � �� ' :j"� Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay,Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices , k �� ; �Y�, � �d� ,��_� On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka � ��^��-�,,, R��Y,�,,�.. December 23 , 1987 James H. Parker, P.E. and L.S. Advance Surveying & Engineering Company 5811 Cedar Lake Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 Re: On-site System Design for Robert Posthumus Dear Mr. Parker: We are in receipt of a site evaluation report and on-site system design for the Robert Posthumus property located on Lots 58 and 59, Morse Island Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, on Big Island. We find that based on the site evaluation information submitted, your system design is not acceptable for a number of reasons. Your report is beautifully presented but contains specific errors and mistakes indicating a lack of thoroughness and a lack of understanding of proper mound sewage treatment system design. The following specific inadequacies are brought to your attention: 1. The system has been designed to fit the shape of the property boundaries and does not take into account the topography of the site. In a properly designed mound system, the longitudinal axis of the rock beds should be parallel with the contour lines. Your design indicates rock beds skewed at a 45 degree angle with contour lines. 2. Your report and design criteria indicate a 3� land slope across the mound. In fact, based on the contours presented on the site plan, the actual land slope across the mound site is 11.5� with incremental slopes between the provided contour lines ranging from 10$ to 20�. Based on the actual 11.5$ slope, your ca�culations and assumptions for basal width, for downslope and upslope dike widths, depths of sand layer, etc., are all invalid. 3. Although with a mound design the actual average perc rate is of relatively minor consequence, in this case I note that percolation hole no. 2 is not labeled on the site p1an, and you failed to indicate which percolation holes were used in obtaining the 13 MPI average. It appears that no borings and no perc holes are located within the boundaries of the mound area proposed. BUILDLNG&ZONING-473-7357 • ADMIIVISTRATION&FINANCE-473-7358 • PUBLIC WORKS-473-7359 ASSESSING . � James H. Parker, Advance Surveying & Engineering Company December 28, 1987 Page 2 of 2 4. I would note that based on the existing slopes and double rock-bed design, if the rock beds were properly oriented with the contours, the design downslope dike width would approach 30' and be extending outside of the property boundaries. Based on the proposed house Iocation, it would seem impossible to construct a properly designed mound system within the property boundaries while still leaving a suitable secondary site. I doubt whether a secondary site is feasible rec�ardless of house placement. I would also question where the well to serve this property might be located. A proposed well location was not indicated on the site plan. Regarding a related interpretive issue, I recalZ a phone discussion with Gene Mullenmeister of your staff requesting information regarding required setbacks from lakes and ponds. I recall discussing with him the fact that we require a minimum of 75' of separation from the lake and from wetlands, but that we are more concerned about the lake setback than the pond setback. I note that your proposal shows the edge of the rock bed at 65' from the pond and your nearest dike toe at approximately 50' from that pond. Upon review of City maps, it appears that this pond is a Designated Wetland area, hence the 75' setback to the toe of the dike must be maintained. The only way we would allow less than 75' from this pond is if that pond was a Type 6 or Type 7 wetland (shrub swamp or wooded swamp) with no open water. However, our maps indicate this is a �Type 3 marsh with open water. I would be happy to meet with you or your representative to discuss the on-site system possibilities for this property, and to review mound system design procedures and criteria, so that future mistakes and design errors can be avoided. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you wish to set up a meeting. It might be helpful to have the property owner present. Sincerely, �f�" ,�� `� � U Michael P. Ga ron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator MPCA Inspector Certificate #516 MPG/tln cc: Lyle Oman, Field Inspector Thomas J. Jacobs, Building Official Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Robert Posthumus, 24200 Natches, Lakeville, MN 55044 , ' l s r ��'/SC��=�i ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING C0 . 5811 Cedar Lake Road, Minneapolis, MN 55416 Phone 541 0500 December 31, 1987 f�`� � JAN - 41988 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono . Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Mike: We received your letter dated December 23 , 1987 today. We would like to clear up some misunderstandings that the letter seems to indicate. We enumerate our responses to correspond to the numbering in your letter: l. We are aware that the longitudinal axis of a typical mound system should be aligned with the contour lines on site and that is our normal practice. The underlying reason for this provision of the code is that this practice gives a maximum amount of ground surface under the mound which is in the path of downward percolating effluent (lets call that surface the "wetable interface") . The effluent from the rock bed percolates straight down from the rock bed until it reaches the sand topsoil interface and then if the underlying soil is less permeable than the sand, the effluent will have to spread out to some extent to be absorbed. Each drop of effluent which cannot be absorbed directly under the rock beds will proceed in a downhill direction (at right angles to the underlying contour lines) until the area wetted is sufficient to absorb all the effluent. One goal of a mound design is to provide the maximum "wetable interface" since if the wetted area required to absorb the effluent exceeds �he "wetable interface" provided then hydraulic failure will occur at the toe of the mound. In the rather unusual case of this double mound, the goal of providing the maximum "wetable interface" is best met by aligning the diagonal rather than the longitudinal axis of the mound with the contour lines. We enclose a diagram illustrating this relationship. This was our motivation for the proposed alignment and the fact that this better fits the boundary lines with this alignment is a fortunate coincidence. 2 . We agree that the slope under the mound is about 11. 5% as your letter indicates. We have used a Lotus 123 spreadsheet which we created to calculate mound quantities. This worksheet is based on assumptions for a conventional mound. In the unusual case of a double mound which was dictated on this site for reasons of very limited space, the worksheet is of little use in calculating mound dimensions but it does calculate pump details and rock bed areas and some other quantities correctly. We entered such data as was necessary for the spreadsheet to calculate those quantities that it could. The underlying slope was not one of these quantities so it was left as it was from the last job calculated. We then proceeded to size the mound based on space available and then used a calculator to check basal area and other "custom" aspects of this design. In retrospect, it would have been helpful if we had crossed out the portion of the form that we didn't use to avoid causing you confusion and a written record of our check of basal area and mound dimensions would have also been helpful in that regard. �„ We measure a "wetable interface" of 860 square feet :`- under our mound. The acceptance rate of the rock bed • is 1.20 gallons per day per square foot and the acceptance rate of the 13mpi underlying soil is 0.79 '� gpd/ft2 . Dividing these rates yields a 1.52 basal '`' \r width ratio and multiplying that ratio times the rock `a �� bed area of 380 square feet we obtain a required '� C "wetable interface" of 577 square feet. This provide � � �'� about a 50% overdesign but because of possible - variation in the percolation rates and steepness of y � C� some portions of the underlying site we felt that it � was no t a dvisable to reduce the size of the mound. � � � � 3 . We used all percolation test results for �� determination of the average percolation rate which were taken at a depth appropriate for that purpose. Such tests are to determine the acceptance rate of the sand soil interface and are taken at a depth of about a foot. Tests 1, 3, and 5 were taken at 14 inches and yielded rates of 21, 8, and 11 minutes per inch respectively which averaged result in a design rate of 13 mpi. The code also provides that the upper 24 inches upon which a mound is to be constructed have a percolation rate no slower than 120 minutes per inch and the maximum allowable slope is based on the percolation rate in that 24 inches. Tests 2 and 4 were taken to check that this requirement was met and that maximum slopes were not exceeded. The average of the 33 mpi rate measured in Test 2 and the 11 mpi rate measured in Test 4 is 22 mpi and where that average rate is faster than 30 mpi the code provides that up to 12% slope is allowable compared with the 11.5% that you measure from our contours. We note further that page E-8 of the On Site Sewage Treatment Manual suggests that recent research and analysis indicate that basal width and not slope is the important consideration in such designs. It would have been helpful to enumerate these tests and show calculation of the average to avoid confusion. Our draftsman plotted the location of Perc. Test No. 2 on the drawing and it is indicated by a dark dot as are the other tests but he failed to copy the label from the work drawing and we did not catch his omission upon review of the rather congested site plan. We note that during an initial site evaluation on a difficult site with limited space, the ultimate location of the treatment area may not be readily apparent. The evaluator may have to use his best estimate of where the treatment area may be located and then sample in a way that gives him an overall feel for the percolation rates on site so that he is in a position to estimate the percolation rate no matter where the treatment area may finally be placed. If after a final placement of the proposed mound area is made, the location of the tests taken and the variability of the tests are such that testing under the actual mound site might produce results so different that they would materially affect the design, then these additional tests should be taken. In this instance, to render our basal area inadequate, we would have to find percolation rates greater than 31 mpi under the mound. We didn't feel and continue to feel that this is not at all likely in light of the tests taken and thus did not test further. 4 . We have already discussed the issue of mound orientation but I might add that while we have delineated the primary and alternate sites as dividing the width of the lot half and half, in actuality, to meet the 3 to 1 slopes specified in our typical detail and to meet code, the primary mound would encroach into the alternate treatment area with its downhill slope. We note, however, that the portion of the slope that encroached into the alternate area would not deliver any effluent to that alternate area according to the design calculations and thus would not impair its ability to act as a future replacement site. We notice also that to achieve a 3 to 1 slope, the southwest slope on the end of the mound should extend further than shown and would encroach into the required 10 foot setback and perhaps a bit beyond. That boundary line is however with a street which has never been improved and used and has no prospects for improvement that we know of. Our drawings could be improved to correctly show those toe of slope conditions. Since their is no current proposal to build on the lot and the proposed home shown is only a concept at this time, no well location was shown but it probably would have been better to indicate a possible location that could have been adjusted if necessary when house location became known. Gene Mullenmeister of our office who discussed the issue of setbacks with you as you mentioned in your letter was led to believe that the City might be less concerned about a variance from the requirement for setback from the pond than from the lake and this is what has led to this proposed design. If the City is not willing to grant such a variance, then now is the time to say so. We would also like to make clear the nature of the services that we provide for our clients. Your letter leaves the impression that we somehow guarantee that for fees charged we will find an acceptable on site system design. That is not the case. There are sites on which it is not possible to design a system and meet code requirements. There are also provisions of the code which are subject to interpretation and, are in our experience, have been interpreted differently by different building officials. While we are willing to spend our best efforts to find a system that meets our clients needs and the code and for which he can secure approval, it is made clear at the outset of relations with a client that there is no guarantee that we will be successful in designing a system that will be approved. We urge them to seek written governmental approval before making decisions regarding the use or potential use of their land. Since we cannot know the minds of government officials, nor know the characteristics of a site until we evaluate it, we know of no other way to proceed. In this process we do not wish to persuade the government to put at risk the publics rights to environmental protection and the homeowner's right to expect a properly functioning disposal system nor do we wish to see the government arbitrarily deny the use and enjoyment of property rights to that same public by interpretations of the codes which are not in line with the underlying intent of the codes and which may render the site unbuildable. We continue to feel that our design represents a good response to the conditions on site but would welcome suggestions for improvement. We don't see that reorienting is necessary or desirable but would like to hear your comments on our reasoning in that regard. We do feel that we should improve the documentation of our calculations so that you can more easily follow our design calculations. We also feel that an in house check list to catch minor omissions may be useful. One possible avenue to a solution that occurs to us is that if the uphill slopes of the mound which do not receive any effluent were allowed to encroach in to the required setbacks and the width available for construction of the proposed home were reduced to 26 feet, we could move the system so that the 75 foot setback from the pond could be met. When Gene discussed these setback requirements with you, you indicated that this was not your normal practice, but we suggest it as a variance that may make more sense than violating the 75 foot setback. r We feel that a cooperative rather than a confrontational attitude is desirable between inspectors and designers and that a telephone call and a question regarding aspects of a design may lead to a pooling of ideas to solve difficult design problems or to decide that they cannot be solved. On this site and on past sites in your city, we have noticed that a lack of communication has led to misunderstanding on both of our parts and we would like to join you in an effort to improve that communication. I understand from Robert Posthumus, that he will be contacting you on Monday to set up a meeting between the three of us to resolve this matter. When and if we find a solution for the site we will update our plan accordingly. Sincerely, ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. ames H. Parker P.E. & L.S. , President inn Lic. No. 9235 PCA No. 208 c: Lyle Oman, Field Inspector Thomas J. Jacobs, Building Official Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Clarence Manke, MPCA, Operations and Training Unit ISTS Advisory Committee c/o Dr. Roger E. Machmeier Robert Posthumus • R � r � �"` ��'�''�?�� # ��'''`��4�;`��' CI'1'Y O� ORONO �. Post Office Box 66�Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices 0 o _ � � On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonku January 19, 1988 Robert Posthumus 24200 Natches Lakevil.le, MN 55044 Re: Lots 58 and 59, Morse IsXand Park - Septic Concerns Dear Mr. Posthumus: I have further reviewed the site p].an and septic system design for the property on Big Island. In addition, I have discussed various concerns about the system design and layout with Dr. Roger Machmeier of the University of Minnesota Agricultura7. Extension Service. Dr. Machmeier is a nationax Zy recognized authority on septic systems and is likely the most knowledgable individual in the State of Minnesota regarding the design of such systems for residential usage. Based on his comments and a further review of the pertinent ordinances, I would make the following comments and determinations : 1. The proposed design is not acceptable as-is because the rock beds are skewed in relation to the contours and therefore the assumptions used in creating that configuration �re not valid. Mr. Parker used a literal interpretation of the codes to create this design but it does not in my opinion fit within the design perameters general ly accepted within the industry. 2. If this system had been located in the portion of the property containing a percolation test, and if that percolation test had been equivalent to perc test #5 at 11 minutes per inch, the basal width perpendicuxar to the contour lines would be defined as approximately 25' with an additional downsl.ope area of 12' required in addition to the approximately 20' downhi7.1 area required to maintain the necessary 4:1 slope for maintenance purposes. That wou�d have put the ultimate boundaries of the system outside of your property boundaries. 3. Given that it was determined that the proposed system would not be acceptable, I then layed out the necessary constraining setbacks for this property to determine if there was any chance that the property could contain a weYl. , a residence structure and a primary and alternate drainfie].d site, given the need for mound systems due to a seasonal perched water table. The limitinq criteria are as follows: a) For the structure, setbacks on this lot are 75' from the lake, 30 ' from either side and 30 ' from the rear lot line. BUILDING&ZONING—473-7357 • ADMINISTRATtON&FINANCE—473-7358 • PUBLIC WORKS—473-7359 ASS�SSING Robert Posthumus, Lots 58 & 59, Morse Island Park January 19, 1988 Page 2 of 3 b) For the mound systems, the setbacks are 75' from the lake, 75 ' from the pond, 20 ' from any structure, 75 ' from any wel.l. c) For the well, the required setbacks are 75' from the lake, 5' f rom the property line, 3' f rom any portion of the house or overhang, 75' from any portion of the drainfield system, and 50' from the septic tanks (note that the State of Minnesota Standards a x 1 ow the we 1. I to be 5 0' f rom the shore 1 ine and 5 0' f rom any portion of the septic system or tanks). 4. Having drawn a7. 1 of those constraints onto a copy of your proposed site plan, with your proposed house I.ocation and size, in my opinion the required primary and alternative sites cannot be fitted within the property boundaries. 5. However, it is also my opinion that with a number of variances and careful site pZanning, perhaps in addition to a reduction in the size of the proposed house, this I.ot may in fact be suitable as a building site. The revisions that I see being potentia� ].y feasibYe are as foxlows : a) P7,ace the we7.1 at a location 5' from the southern side lot line and 50' from the lakeshore (this requires a conditional. use permit and variance approval from the City Council). b) Move the house nearer to the southeasterly �,ot line to a point as near as 10' from that l.ot Iine (this axso requires a variance approva�, from the City Council) . c) Reduce the footprint area of the structure so that setbacks of 20 ' from the mound systems can be maintained. The designated primary and alternate drainfieZd sites then would be on the flat portion of the top of the hil7, , and near the base of the hiXl near the lot corner as shown on the attached conceptual diagram. Based on my discussion with Dr. Machmeier, the point from which mound system setbacks are measured would be defined by the required basa7, dimensions of the mound systems (i.e. for the primary site on top of the hil.l for a 21 minute per inch perc rate and sl.opes of less than 3�, the defined edge of the treatment area is 5' outside of the rock bed, and we would sti], 1 expect to see a 10' side 2ot line setback and 20' house setback from that boundary) . Also, for the alternate site downhilx, which because of a steeper slope and faster perc rate has a def ined treatment area underneath and downhi]. 1 f rom the rock bed, we woul,d again expect that the 10' property line setback be maintained a].ong with the 20' house setback. These are axso shown on the attached diagram. This configuration would appear to meet the required setbacks from property lines and from the �.akeshore and the pond. In this configuration we would al.low addition of fill materials outside the designated treatment area up to the Iot xines (but not outside them). I' • Robert Posthumus, Lots 58 & 59, Morse IsXand Park January 19, 1988 Page 3 of 3 6. Under this configuration it might stil 1 be feasible to construct a xake home on the property without a side setback variance, but it would restrict the size of that home to approximately 1/2 of what you have proposed. It would not appear feasible to l,ocate the well a distance 75' from the lake and stil�, meet the 75' setback from sewage systems, hence under this configuration the conditionaJ, use permit to place the well in the 0-75' setback zone is still necessary. Given the above concerns, comments and determinations, if you propose to construct a lake home on this property, you would appear to have two options: A) Construct the lake home with no plumbing and I.ess than 800 s.f. in floor area, and construct an outhouse meeting all pertinent code standards. B) Apply for the necessary variances and conditional use permit to construct your residence near the lot Iine in a somewhat smaller enve�.ope than originally proposed, and locate the well 50' from the lakeshore. I will be pleased to meet with you again to discuss this property. Please feel. free to call me at 473-7357 if you hav-e any questions. �nce�el.� , ' � , / �'�� ' ��` � Michael P. G ron, Asst Plannin & Zoning Administrator MPG/tln . y \� \ SFU . 9�. \ � / � � � .. . d�6 � �g 6,!t Q 9� . \�6 _ ' �a94,a'o� ` � � ,p4p o ��a6 d �O *�o�6�6 SFs � ` Ob6 � 0'�� 9 Iob Z�% v6 W g�s 9\� �..� - � 2�6 6�6 \ 6 �T'6 �..OV6 ��6 � Z�� w £n � ----- _�00,0& q6 b 6\\ � � � ti� 'Z 01 -N 1 5 be.�� 9q6 5�6 '� , + \��;.�:."�.. 9q6 Lq6 ----- 9�6.=\ ,,�;,: 8.� � � - ; '--- 3. ��t�a 8�46 8�66-�--_,_ --""'---- — �. f"� �a o� 6v6 ; 6v6--�_ l,, 91 � �� T �j, 05 OS6 ' �'� .v �"�:'�"`"'�: �'�- *, �ti �l `° � �., : . � ;,, ; �� ,,;,�. `i w ;� � ,'� co 1.': �+�` . � � �� ar ` �� /S� �� t �,.. .�,�,� �,�� ' m � o �'- �0 d��.�'��, ''� � ��. . r i� - � �� d� oo �4, �� •dY � �;� ��,;� ; z56 � 0 0 .�0 � .�,.,. Y �� zS ,�5 �a� \� . � ��,,�� " � ;, # s'� •y�j d y� a� _ �� { � _. �" — � p"� � 2� ��,�o��d�� _i �� ... . „��:!';; . 0 5 �. �► i � y1'� � ~ # di �d3 � ;,, .,P , �`° � �,� ,�.. r �! odob �, n� �h � 5 !! � a r�.�'� r •� 7 ' '�� . �73 H �" .,-,� b `y ' a H9 � ' S : �� ...k . � b 3 d o g'�� `�� t� $ �� ',',,', � �6a��°�o N`� a �� 4 �° .:;� , � A �i oAi � , a � � \'� ,,`' ^ � 9O/ �,, v; .-� A -- - O �� ..,� ��_ I d'1 N (o �. {�� ,, �G�co v I M,� .y��. ::� i Z y� I I �; '�� f � � ( . • T� � _ e , • � aQ '� '�:�. �O ( � � � r o�, o � .. ` _- -- - O. ��€. � W a�. '�a-- � o y�� `�0 r ��tp � �-� r / r`� "` .;� '��'�,+A�' � � (T� �oa � � �O 9 £ Oc�O � � t°o � ; � w �`�1 ' fn If� � ,' `�'�.'�` /' � �� ' _ _� c '�t�b (� . y�"'r. . f _-�-_ "'oZi�L�'——�—_ , � a ",'.— -,�.�.. �5b c � � ~� � � + � e --- �� , � o .� � , ; �� A .p � js �p t41 � �9 Ot O9 �� w.`, � � w � � ybs��a°�� ' � �. A r`!? 'ss� ; , 6��a��,� a � � , ,. � � �� 9� � ,, , � � � � s N ,�' � /,6_ , � � ��'''.: D � � . i i � r? !7 A..1/IS S6 � ' �� : T- i o � .." � � 1 ' _�� VbEo � �� ., t O ; '�' " ��" s \xtoV� -- -' }Oy� j�;� S.D� �D6 � fn6 0 �bs cpg sr6�6 •� � 056�`O' -� 6 Zb6 � ---__ ' _._._� _ �8£� ef8£6�6 �6 —�_ 9b6 Sti6 �6Lm6---- �---LSc6 LE6 -i6 --.�-,- � �+ £6 "'�",.,�,.�-'''-„��?�6r 6 I Vti6 S� ��.-----.. �-9f6 S£6 6£69£6�ri6' i � £pSz�-�� 66 ££OE 6 I£6 L 6 � �` 6�6_"�:_�_"""�--^-•.. 8f 6 ,"� Z�6 ,�..._ 0 6Z6�-- �£6££6 5£6 [£6g / r46 � �� `"'`-�= --�� ''_-2£6 v�6 SE6�6_----_._�,,,,^.---._. �� '_--�- L861`g � ` aui�.�a�eM y6iy uea`y �-.�...� � f£6 a anoN �0'8Z6 =uo�fe�a �"�-� ! ---�-� \�° /3 �a�eM � u>�.'� � �------�--� � �� tt�a�au, �� -��Q � C�rv1� ��2►�� (/X�dd--%J 1y�/`� .,L�h1.�'�-• C'J-�'�Y�c'"1�J � C�l I'7 c�S �� \ ��'�-.�S �N/`� .�o? �cZ ! S � Q� M 47?--� C?�. `�=�� l� S/ `7JV'j� �� c��/7(6�� 357�4�-� ._.�'�.1(��(J� ` -�''7��, � Y) �' �� i ' J.�+ �"''��•:� �.,�" ."" ' �.1 ��': �`. � � �• � "y� �f J f. yy} `/ i � � ON SITE SYSTEM DESIGN FOR ROBERT POSTHUMUS ` ADVANCE SURVEYING & EHGINEERING C0. 5811 Cedar Lake Road, Minneapolis, MN 55416 Phone 541 0500 December 8, 1987 Robert Posthumus 24200 Natches . Lakeville, MN 55044 Dear Robert: At your request we have conducted an investigation of soil conditions on a proposed building site designated by you. The site is located at Big Island on Lake Minnetonka in Orono, Minnesota. The investigation was to determine the percolation rate of the soils on site and to check for the presence of a high water table or evidence of mottled soil that might indicate a seasonally high, fluctuating water table. The investigation consisted of exploratory soil borings to aid in identifying soil texture and water conditions. The borings were taken at the locations indicated on the attached site plan. INVESTIGATION METHODS: Percolation tests and one or more deep borings were taken at the locations indicated on the enclosed site plan. Logs of the borings and tests are attached for your installer and inspector's reference. �� RESIILTS: Because the attached boring logs reveal the presence of mottled soil and/or high water table at a high level in the borings, a conventional system will not function at the proposed site. RECOMMENDATIONB: We recommend a mound system for your site and we have attached design calculations, a bill of materials and a site plan sketch of the system. The details of the system layout are as follows: Protection - Care must be taken to avoid driving on the mound area. You should rope off the mound area to prevent construction traffic from traveling over and compacting the soil which will make the site unusable for a disposal system. Piping - A 2" pipe from the pump to the center or end of the mound will connect to a 2" manifold pipe as shown in attached detail E12 or E15 and shall be frost proofed as shown in detail F17 where less than 4 feet of cover is provided. This pipe shall be the first thing installed. Preparation - With a tractor backhoe sitting outside the mound area, the surface of the mound area shall be broken up using the teeth of the bucket. Washed sand - Deliver truck loads of washed sand outside of the mound area leaving the mound area roped off during sand delivery. The quantity of washed sand required is listed in the bill of materials. Use a track mounted tractor with bucket to lay a one foot layer of sand minimum in front of the tractor to act as a cushion for the tractor to ride on while spreading the sand over the mound area. The completed top of the sand shall be level and shall be the minimum sand layer thickness specified on the design sheet. Outside the rock bed area, slope the sand downward at a 4 horizontal to 1 vertical slope from the top of the rock bed to the existing surface. Rock bed - The dimensions of the rock bed are listed on the design sheet and the number of tons of rock are listed in the bill of materials. The clean, 3/4" to 2 1/2" rock shall be placed atop the level sand surface. Do not drive on the sand to deliver the rock. One way of delivering rock is with a "ready-mix" truck with a long enough chute but the truck must be thoroughly cleaned before loading rock so that no cement remains. Piping - When 8 inches of rock is in place, connect the manifold to the existing pump line and assemble laterals as shown in details E12 or E15 and E14 on top of the rock. The size, lengths and numbers of these laterals and perforation size and spacing are shown in the attached design and bill of material sheets. Then complete the rock placement with the remaining 4 inches of rock. Cover - Hay, a permeable plastic fabric, loamy sand backfill and topsoil shall be used to cover the system as shown in details E3 and E14 . Tanks - The capacity of the primary and secondary septic tanks and of the pumping tank are listed in the bill of materials. The grade on the house sewer should be 1 foot per 100 feet. The tank shall be equipped with a pump as specified in the bill of materials. The pump shall be actuated by a mercury float switch, as shown in attached detail F13, that will turn the pump on when 25% of the estimated daily flow plus the drainback quantity of effluent are above the lowest 18 inches in the tank and will turn the pump off when 18 inches of effluent remain in the tank. The pump will be supported on concrete block such that the top of the pump will be just below the lowest 18 inches of effluent in the tank. An alarm will be located at a conspicuous place inside the home and will warn using both light and sound when the effluent reaches 3 inches above the pump turn on level. A reserve capacity as specified, shall be provided in the tank above the alarm actuation level . The details of the pump and pumping tank are illustrated in attached detail F7 . If we may be of further assistance in evaluating this data, kindly contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. James H. Parker P.E. & L.S. Minn. Lic. No. 9235 PCA No. 208 President Attachments: Design Sheet; Bill of Materials; Details C11, C7, F17, F7, F13 , E12 , E15, E14, and E3 ; Boring Logs; Percolation Tests and Site Plan INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM DESIGN DATA FROM THE SITE: NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 3 � // � �' AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE 13 MPI v r}� .,. tI"''� LAND SLOPE ACROSS MOUND 3 $ V-�`� ELEVATION DIFFERENCE BETWEEN � LOWEST FLOOR & MOUND SITE -2 FEET , PIPING LENGTH PUMP TO MOUND 30 FEET, �,,�� `� � . .� CALCULATION QUANTITIES: y� TOTAL PERFORATIONS PER BED 36 � � C� FLOW RATE 27 GPM / �.�"'�� SOIL LOADING RATE 0.79 PD/SQFT `� ��`�� BASAL WIDTH RATIO 1.5 ,. � �t 1 { REQUIRED BASAL WIDTH 48 FEET . ,��'�' ,� �� 'j ' � MINN. DOWNSLOPE DIKE WIDTH �`� � ��` ,/�� M,� FOE 3/1 UPSLOPE WIDTH 5 f'' FOR 3/l, DOWNSLOPE WIDTH 11 FEE�. �+�>�r�,��„ �,.�►��-�y '�`��.��: � INITIAL DOWNSLOPE WIDTH 14 FEET� ° ��,�u�:°� , HEAD REQUIREMENTS 14 FEET� DRAINBACK QUANTITY 5 GALLONS'� DOSE QUANTITIY 113 GALLONS✓ MINIMUM RESERVE STORAGE 450 GALLONS ✓ DIMENSIONS OF THE DOUBLE MOUND: ROCK LAYER SIZE - 1' x 10 ' x 19 FEET'� SEPERATION BETWEEN ROCK BEDS 4 FEET '� f ;� TOTAL DOUBLE MOUND WIDTH @ r��: �;�..�,�*' , � BASE 43 FEET `�.fE�� M � HEIGHT @ DOWNSLOPE EDGE 3. 3 FEET �'t1�.•�-'E'� Cu. HEIGHT @ UPSLOPE EDGE 3 . 0 FEET ✓ MINIMUM SAND LAYER THICKNESS 1 FEET �,� `;�r��,r ' '�'" BiLL OF MATERIALS l. A PRIMARY AND A SECONDARY SEPTIC TANK WITH LIQUID CAPACITY OF 1000 GALLONS EACH. SEE DETAIL C7 ATTACHED FOR PROPER CONSTRUCTION. 2 . A PUMPING TANK OF 1000 GALLONS LIQUID CAPACITY, SEE DETAIL F7. 3 . 4" PVC HOUSE SEWER PIPE, AS REQD. , FROM HOUSE THRU PUMP TANK. 4 . 1/3 HP SUBMERSIBLE PUMP EQUIPED WITH MERCURY FLOAT SWITCH AND AUDIO AND LIGHT ALARM INSIDE HOME AS PER DETAILS F7 AND F13 & BLOCK (CAPABLE OF DELIVERING 27 GPM AT 14 FEET OF HEAD) 5. 2" PVC PRESSURE LINE — 40 FEET, 2" UNION, 3 — 2" ELBOWS, 4 — 2" TEES 2" BENDS AS REQD. IN PRES. LINE, 6 — 2" X 1. 25" RED. , 0 — 1.25" TEES, 6 — 1. 25" CAPS, ASSEMBLED AS PER DETAILS E12 (ALT. LOCATION) & E14. 6. 6 — 1. 25" PVC LATERALS 16 ' LONG WITH 1/4" PERF @ 3 ' INT. AS PER E12 (PERFORATIONS PER LATERAL INCLUDING ONE IN END CAP — 6 � 7. SAND (WASHED) — 150 TONS, 3/4" TO 2 . 5" CLEAN ROCK — 20 TONS LOAMY SAND FILL 22 TONS, TOPSOIL — 53 TONS 8 . HAY AND PERMEABLE FABRIC TO VER 51 SQUARE YARDS. E � � . , f,�`�� . ��`��,.,c��` ,.�,, .4�::. /� 1 � INSTALLATION NOTES: 1. DO NOT DRIVE ON THE PROPOSED TREATMENT AREA ! ! 2 . INSTALL PRESSURE LINE TO CENTER OF MOUND FROM PUMP TANK FIRST. 3 . USE BACKHOE TEETH TO ROUGHEN MOUND AREA WITHOUT DRIVING THEREON. (DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS WHEN SOIL IS WET ENOUGH TO ROLL INTO "WIRE") 4 . USE CRAWLER TRACTOR WITH BUCKET TO PLACE SAND TO REQUIRED SHAPE. TOP OF SAND MUST BE LEVEL, PLACE SAND IN FRONT OF TRACKS TO DRIVE ON TOP. 5. SET MERCURY FLOAT SO THAT PUM IS` BMERSED AT TURN OFF LEVEL AND SO THAT PUMP TURNS ON WHEN 19a�LLONS ARE ABOVE TURN OFF LEVEL. � 6. SET ALARM ACTIVATOR 3" ABOVE TURN ON 450 GALLONS MUST REMAIN ABOVE THIS ACTIVATOR TO THE SEPTIC TANK INLET PIPE AS A RESERVE. INSULATED VENT LOCATE THE SE�TIC TANK PI PE NEAR THE IVIAI N SOURCE OF SEWAG E .. .�;:;-.�s�`=t�t�'�'��., CLEAN ,;.� �: �.:;;��:� :��-: OUT :� - �.� ��:;:'�.t:,,��:t �, � 6" T�J I 2" Q F EARTH COVER „ . ..a. :- - ., ...;a � . .... ..,—T��-�-�..r. TO S01 L fV0 CLOSER �" � —" ��~�� TREATME[VT TNAN 10� UNIT -�� . . .� - - - - :� - -�- —_- � _ � � � V�RTICAL SIDEWALL SEPTiC TANK - Fl(VISHED GRADE �. .�, J� . -, .�, .G �^ AT „LEAST 6" TO 12" SOIL COVER \ AT ,LEAST �� 4 D(A. � D(A. �-AT LEAST I" ��'��`�� AT LEAST I" MIN. . ��..e::: - � .:,�.:-. . .-.:a'::•• f ':�a.�� . :.:,:;,-. • e � ' � � � A DIMENSIONS FOR TANKS WITH VERTICAL SIDES A *� WIDTH, W 24" MINIMUM -'' �:� LENGTH, L 2 TO 3 TIMES THE WIDTH , � B DIAMETER 60" MINIMUM � DEPTH, D 30" MINIMUM; 78" MAXIMUM C :: ,4 0.2 D °� AT LEAST B 6" MINIMUM; 0.2 D MAXIMUM 6" 3�� C 0.4 D c' AT LEAST 4 FEET - I NOTES: 1. S�,NITARY TEES AT L�AST 4 INCHES IN DIAMETER 4. MANHOLE COVERS SHALL BE LOCATID WITHIN '' . MAY BE USID IN PI.?,CE OF Bs.FFLES. 12 INCHES BUT NO CLOSER THAN 6 INCHES 2. THERE SHALL BE ONE OR MORE MANHOLES, 20" BELOW FINISHID GRADE AND COVERED WITH AT '`a. LEAST DIMENSION A2dD LOCATED WITHIN 6 FEET LEAST 6 INCHES OF EARTH. OF ALL TANK WAI,LS. 5. SEPARATION DISTANCE BET[�TEEN END OF INLET 3. AN INSPECTION PIPE OF AT LEAST 4 INCHES PIPE AND NEAREST POINT ON BAFFLE SHALL BE DI�IMETER OR A MANHOLE SHALL BE LOCATID NO LESS THAN 6 INCHES OR NO MORE THAN 12 ,� OVER BOTH THE INLET AND OUTLET DEVICES. INCHES. � THE CENTER LINE OF THE INSPECTION PIPES 6. FOR HORIZONTAL CYLINDRICAL TANKS DIMENSION � SHALL BE THE SAME AS THE CENTER LIN� OF A IS O.1�D AND DIMENSION C IS 0.35D. THE BAFFLE OPENINGS OR S�NIT_4RY TEES. -.�.: '- • '- "a... , . . .:a:� � _:4: ::P�. . .9:.- . . .. . . i � For frostp;�oofing pump discharge pipe place an envelope of materiQi with air space 4round pipe for insu lation. Use a rock envelope only with r�netal pipe. Pump discharge pipe can be Iaid inside a larger pipe. Keep discharge pipe on a grade back to pump. Allow no low spots in discharge line. Polystyrene should be at least two feet wide. . . 6ackfi 01 . Expanded Polystyrene . . . . . . . . .:;,.: :�� . . .��: .��.. . . . :��: � � Tamped Backfi I I �� . � �� • :c;. :�t, .�.,' . Fi I I Space With Foam Insulation Purr�p for Added Protection Discharge Pipe 1Nherever possible maintain a grass cover over top of trench and allow snow to remain in place. When snow cover is I ight, place 6 marsh hay Iayer on ground above � p � p�• �PIGGY BACK PLUG IN WEATHER ALARM WIRE PROOF ENCLOSURE—OR LOCATE IN HOUSE BASEMENT MANHOLE COVER SECURED POWER SUPPLY —��U TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED CONTROL WIRE ENTRY . � PUMP POWER CORD 24" MANHOLE — UNION OR OTHER : OUICK OISCONNECT FROM ...�:::a� FITTING . SEPTIC PLASTIC ROPE OR CHAIN � TANK WITH ANCHOR —�- ALARM FLOAT ON SEPARATE PIPE IS LAID ON A ELECTR I CAL C I RCU I T UNI FORM SLOPE FROM RESERVE CAPACITY . PUMP STATION UP TO �� AFTER ALARM SOUNDS SOIL TREATMENT AREA ' FOR PROPER DRAINBACK �: _ _ _ _ _ _ START LEVEL �_ _ � � � 3„ "�` � _ _ _ _ _SHUT— OFF LEVEL �_ _ T 12"- 18" MINIMUM DEPTH —PUMPABLE � � �OO O` CAPAC I TY ; - AT LEAST ":' 75 GALLONS . . � � . � Pl.�MP CONTROLS _ � � - � �.f.P�15T�R�—P��^�' ' �'�='!'�'•h�'= S��1�CN PLUGS PUMP PLUGS TO RELAY IN ELECTRODE t� FQ��Er� � ��TO POWER � INTO SWITCH WEATHER—PROOF HANGER ��Vp�:�� -�—�� S SUP�LY ENCLOSURE -----� � �� OUTSIDE OF o � �U11fiP � PUMP TANK � I r� � � . . . - t+d 6 r��.c I r POWER CORO ' POWER CORD TO TO PUMP PUMP COMES � FROM RELAY ��Sr=�L��C��irSENT I � + tlV�:G�-:�� 1 - - - - - - - < +�- - - - - - - - - - - - - - T=�-� — - - - - - - QSTART LEVEL r � i�. AGJE.�STIP�G �� A�JUSiaBLE .' . SC�E�"J R `v�IGHT '-' MERCURY I I SW ITCH FLOATS STOP LEVEL � �._.� tvtAG�'�TiC: C01'dTA�TGP. MERCURY FLOAT RELAY NGTE� ;.(Qi11G L=V�L AT LOCAT;CN 0� STOP CONTROL MUST BE ABOVE PUMP CASE � � i . . ►--� w LAYOUT OF PERFORATED PIPE LATERALS FOR PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION IN MOUND PERFORATED PLASTIC 'PIPE � ' � PERFORATIONS SPACED 30'� OR 36'� �pN sPAc1NG END ON CENTER. P3 R�FORATION � /= PERFpRAt V I EW SIZEi MAY BE /is, ��32, �6�� 0 R /a" � MANIFOLD PIPE PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF � PLASTIC PIPE � ., , 40,, �__ • —=� (ALTERNATE LOCATION -0F PIPE FROM PUMP) END CAP 40�� . �ArERAL � FOR TE� N PER A PUMP NG CHAMBER �E N�rN �F , . � MANIFOLD LOCATE� AT END OF PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MANIFOLD PI PE PIPE FROM �UMP � :� �� ,� �� ,, �; , �A1ERA� OCAT ON OF PIPE �FoRArED FROM PUMP N �F PE �EN�r � � � � � E-14 TEE TO TEE LATERAL-MANIFOLD CONSTRUCTION i, Grass Cover ; - � Topsoi I / ,i :n• .•�. : . . , �'.. • . • • • . .� . �,•:�u::'• �'�.`�� ' • Loamy Sand Backfil I . : �. �� : . . . .� . �� Hay or Straw Covered = �� ' ' �`� by Layer of Red Rosin : . � C . — �. Q. ��. . Paper (or nylon fabric) � C•: C•C'Ct'CLt• C' �,. .4 � Latera I Perforation in Cap Near � �` `� `� ` ` �� `� Crown of Pipe L 4 C �` - Tee . . ` �.� � `� � Perforations at Lateral �, Reducer � � (�anifold Invert � � '�• r�,c�� , .Tee,� . . . . , 4��`ri`G� . ' � � : ''^�._ Rock Layer .,�. . . . . . . . � =:�� :�i: . :. 12- I nch Layer of � � � Clean Sand � ' ..,: . . . . E-3 � '-��: O W �__ H J '�i;�';:�:ti�.., �3 �� ;�;�,:: :,�,;;.�;`� OW . O W ; :�%' ' ;,� N u �Q !K '• �� W J : ; ''"a W� a ��` '�� >> , ; �� O cn ,, 1! ' �\� `'� ; ; /�f .� , f � ` �� , l: ;, ., \� �, . i ; � ��,� �• "�,, , ( .��. �.,� �'.. 1 �� a. �\�, ', �� '�:.�� . .:;�t. .�: , ,�' � � \ �,�..�` � ,1.;,,. � '� � _� � 'T'. �y.. � ",�; . ti �''� ;� S:� : L.t! �c': '��.�� \ \� ��'�'�i:: : . t:�cI /� •Q `r ♦ :� , .h�i;u�:::,..M1,::.:'• S ..._/ '4, •� •:4� ��• � �;, •t :.,wi:; .�i:� � �/ : •� . . `��••...•�,,:• � Q • ' :� � \� •i�' _"�"�� .� . \. � '� --- ''•:xi:�. ,,::• r .� � , +:: :j..►�'�;.:�� /,'; �� \ ' �,�:n�:x �� ti �`�. \� +�` Logs of Soil Borin�s B-31 Location or Project Borings made by F. /t'lulle�,�.,,�e;s`�er • Date _ 11/ l--; �%7 � / Classification System: AASHO ; USDA-SCS ; Unified ; other Auger used (check two) : Hand � or Power ; Flight , or Bucket � other Depth, Boring number 1 Depth, Boring number ! in Surface elevation in S.urface elevation feet feet 0 �' '' ` � - - _,. , - 03 - - - _ ' _ ----- -� -- Ta�1 </��-y s o. ;� - -- ------ - . - �.� - .- ,- -- ---; , �-� - - 1 ` 1�� -------- -- — — _ , �ie' , � � ; � �� ti ,�� ;� -, 2 —_ ,�_.A '' � ., �- ��. , . � _ . ,�. ,. 2 — r = =- � � , , �- - , : . --�_ - y� l ,o�_� ��. ,� -�_.��. :^ - � . 3 3 !c-_ . .:� _ _' ,. � _ - -, 4 — 4 — ` . 5 — - 5 —' ,3.5-4b%r 'r t.�.�' v•�rY v; . ' iC�. 5,zr _ __--- - - - . 6 — --- ------- — 7 — 7 — 8 — 8 — - End of boring at �� feet. End of boring at �•Z� feet. Standing water table: Standing water table: R�esent at feet of depth, Present at feet of depth, hours after boring. hours after boring. Not present in boring hole �� Not present in borin; hole // Mottled soil: Mottled soil: Observed at � � feet of depth. Observed at G ..i feet of depth. Not present in boring hole Not present in boring hole Observations and co�ents: Observations and comments: Lo�s of Soil BorinQs • B-31 Location or Project Bozings made by �. /�„�lle��,,.� �� s`f' r • Date / �IIS�,�G`7 � Classification System: AASHO ; USDA-SCS � ; Unified ; othet Auger used (check [wo) : Hand ��or Power ; Flight , or Bucket �; other Depth, Boring number 3 Depth, Boring number � in Surface elevaCion in S.urface elevation feet feet � (3 la c;� � .� � � ; � 10 ��✓�. sa,�nc{. � .� ('.'!o_�4� � J"'---= �" '. � !� �,l V'�— � V'GW��\ '�o�� C4•n.�l / _� . �'I� �,c: 'r'..^!�_"n. )�i',• - ',/ �'� � 1 _ l 1 _ - � _, , � - - -- — — ----- � _ ,� ---- 2 — -- ---- ----- 2 — � i` ,_ , -_. , �_� , � ,� ��-o w,� ;,d vtd.� �oa•.�.� "-u l ci a'•�� "'-' '. ' S�t.�c� � �—�L1G"',�j\�'1il.`'�-_ G:124' r�, .� . . 3 — . 3 — . � t`"�row*� r� ��'J c%�',^�: . 4 — 4 — . i ,�,o'�.� (eI �Q aJ d �^v�C'r v�•r•� 5 — 5 — 5,Z� -- 6 _ 6 _ . � 7 — 7 — 8 — g — End of boring at 5,Z� feet. End of boring at � feet. Standing water table: � Standing water table: Riesent at feet of depth, Present at feet of depth, hours after boring. hours after boring. Not present in boring hole �. Not present in borin� hole � Mottled soil: Mottled soil: . Observed at feet of depth. Observed at Z � � feet of depth. Not present in boring hole �. Not present in boring hole Observations and co�ents: Observations and comments: Lo�s of Soil Borin�s � 8-31 Location or Project � Borings made by �� 'l�,t��ev�v,n ei SfeY • Date // �/9�87 � � T- Classification System: AASHO ; USDA-SCS t�; Unified ; other Auger used (check two) : Hand , or Power l/; Flight �or Bucket ; other Depth, Boring number S Depth, Boring number feet Surface elevation feet S.urface elevation 0 p o.� ��o.�k (o a,,.,�„� s aK�l ;� � �la.�� , O 1 I YL }� v�d�� a_'.M,.� �,A:��( J I I vc. ��c,��,.�� : `O--c:.�, ..;i ��:i,�. 1 — 1 — , I•2-3 � � � ��Yc, 1� r'u�� 5av�c!�j loav�� '� � � i � , cct��t�iy 1. � > Z _ Z _ -:�! 1 v,e r rt�.,cJ✓`_, �u/' � �0 1 o a�.�� S a�� , 2�'75 ID°'J e �'�^S� �t'e�J �"'�o� ��'�� 3 — 3 — � 4 — Z`5 1�l��' rt`/ vv.U'K �C.J' 4 — i�-��'i i ;',.!�`�'�J�-c , ,-..��---- ------- �o � , `� `f-----— y� ��:�w��n b��7,��;,d�/ loc�:�n 5 — '�o loc�w�`, Scc> �� 15-20�'70 �US'�o�r�-� w�0-K ��s 5 �.. !�°70 5.5 — Jr Jr. ' -----Yy`-'��. 1 -`-1�=c`�._an:►��1<'; __ � __ 6 — 6 — � 7 — 7 — 8 — 8 — End of boring at �'•3 feet. End of boring at �.,j feet. Standing water table: Standing water table: R�esent at feet of depth, Present at feet of depth, hours after boring. hours after boring. Not present in boring hole � Not present in borin� hole 1/� . Mottled soil: Mottled soil: . Observed at �- .� feet of depth. Observed at z • � feet of depth. Not present in boring hole Not present in boring hole � Obseryations and coamients: Observations and comments: � = B-39 ``� PERCOLATION TEST DATA SHEET \ � � i .= . Test hole location Hole number � � Date test hole was re ared P P // � �8 � 8`7 , Depth of hole bottom, inches. Diameter of hole, (p inches. Soil data from test hole: � Depth, inches Soil texture - n � �1 �: � C �'C / _ �. � lr�a�r� � � ��r, �; - �` � `►' l7 l� �!�- 1 r.-,,.,.. � .-.„ :,.-` '.-,,� - -- /...-•� :�� ,--. , Method of scratching .sidewall 2 x Z ui /;��,�'/� ; Depth of pea-sized gravel in bottom of hole, l_ inches. ' Date and hour of initial water filling //%,'y/�"7 3:�� PfYJ Depth of initial water filling, /�_� inches above hole bottom. Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours �,�--n w��,�'i<. �i iD�il n vl 4; Percolation test readings made by �, f�j,^ �� ,�y,,�P i s-}- y- on �l f ly' $7 startin at a.m. �' ` S �'Jr�{ �� . Maximum water depth above hole bottom R;' (dat�) .y,_ during test, g. �p inches. Time Percolation Time Interval, Measurement, Drop in water rate, Remarks Minutes inches level, inches minutes per inch _ ,3y Z,g:��•9 5. �! �.. .SZ ` , 3 z� � . 2(z Z1 ;y3,.s'q 5"�"v �.: ' �I• 7 .`� ZG. �:.`.� ' :� z% `�� 27_:��.�7 S`.3Z ZZ• �i I .z . O I� 8 2 � - �:�/ zi � ��.9 5,� _ 2 I, ) �-y8 , D/ Z o- � �' ZZ'. .Iq � P Z Z. Lo� �5C� ,O� - `7 ?:� � 1;U7.02_ 5. 0 � 2 I. 7 �-�-, 3 , q z Z. � Percolation rate = Z � minutes per inch. Fh . B-39 PERCOLATION TEST DATA SAEET Test hole location Hole aumber 2 Date test hale was prepared R �_, Depth of hole bottom,� inches. Diameter of hole, l� inches. � Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture — (J " �� _ � IG G I� � �� M �1 c/JI�/'rl rn ~�Z / � i 1`fO A��/?��!�✓1 / 1 f� <1'.n�`.•.,� "�1�.;. �` l l •- 7 4� r- � : � , ��' � r n ��.o r ..��.C.��,,�. . •, Method of scratchinq sidewall �Y? �� f�,�1 � �� De th of ea-sized � P P gravel in bottom of hole Z. inches. Date and hour of initial water filling /J� I � � �� ` :c�c� �J� Depth of initial water filling, ��j �inches above hole bottom. Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 0 4 hours �,,T�Nn a��c � s i,a��,n Percolation test readings made by �./v�U I(e v�M�i �-i-ei- on I/ �/9� 8� starting at /.'� 7 a:m' , Maximum water depth above hole bottom � "(date) during test, g G inches. Time Percolation Time Interval, Measurement, Drop in water rate, Remarks Minutes inches level, inches minutes per inch ', �7 Z�;I�.Z� 5.�� Z . 2 �,�U , D Z G. / z;z v:�4.�14 s.� Z�.2 •SF3 O- � 30. � 7 , Z-`� P� 7. z :3Z.9? lny Z •53' ��g O- 83 Z . 3 7 � 3 : ( :53.40 20. q� .q D• 7D . � � 3 -3� �.�"q 2 3.5 �3 � /, (� �1 7 ►-�( .z 2., �,�"Z- Zl. �0 y, �,� 7 z, �- Percolation rate = 3 3 minutes per inch. B-39 PERCOLATION TEST DATA SAEET Test hole location Hole number � Date test hole was prepared /!/I�IS 7 , Depth of hole bottom,�� inches. � Diameter of hole, �� inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture � O - Le ��a�_k ca f� �I 3 n � ; ,�Q �� ,��,,�� lor,� w�.., �a�,,�I - �3 ` 1 y -Q_� i v'P �,�n,u,�� a��:i I�n�.,,� Method of scratching sidewall _ �_�C7 W� hi,� � c. Depth of pea-sized gravel in bottom of hole, Z, inches. Date and hour of initial water filling _ 11/ IS18� 3:� �/� � Depth of initial water filling, �L.� inches above hole bottom. � Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least � 4 hours LQ u-�'�mo I�r� c-�i,:�,1.�y, Percolation test readings made by !-. /V1�.11 e�V,��r�s'{"e� on �� 1 g 7 starting at /,'54 a'm' . Maximum water depth above hole bottom ate) 'm during test, �� inches. Time Percolation Time Interval, Measurement, Drop in water rate, Remarks Minutes inches level, inches mi.nutes per . inch � `Jr'�f Zc��,y`7.S 5•rJ" � 7 Z • o �3. 50 � Z.3 �b.�vo� ��1:L.u`I Z'-3� 2.(�� .310 19. 0 3 � Z. 3 ` s� lD Z ;Sf Zz:� 7-�.? 5,Z �. Z. 7q .y _ 79 � l 3� l /�1:3/.� 3. 7 Z. 9y 2- 8 . O 3 : • ��t .�.4 D zZ. 59 , v . D .37 t� � nL ZI ; Z . Z7 �.44 21� �1- Z-q/) Z. 5 8 S Percolation rate � O minutes per inch. B-34 PERCOLATION TEST DATA SHEET Test hole location Hole number � Date test hole was prepared // / �8�g 7 , Depth of hole bottom, Z� inches, Diameter of hole, (o inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture �'�; �`n� �' �n�trnv t�a+n�� 7�� I . / � ,1!/P �;V'�) �,r)� � nn �rn�l �rt�n.i �-I �{ � . , ,r., c sf - •rn��>Y� _-�� .� �� =, ••1 ., �.�,•�. �:� c �t�c� Method of scratchinq .sidewall �. �-�_ l,,�f ,,,,, 1 � � Depth of pea-sized gravel in bottom of hole, � �, inches. Date and hour of initial water filling / / � �sc f�.-� 3 ;�p P� Depth of initial water filling, IP� � inches above hole bottom. Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hoie for at least 4 hours .q cn'�c� ✓v�u�,�� ' ��n �o vt r Percolation test readings made by E. /`'1 U ��P v�vv�ei s'�'�� on / / $7 startin at z•'OZ a.m. S .m . Maximum water depth above hole bottom (dat ) during test, ,j 8 inches. Time Percolation Time Interval, Measurement, Drop in water rate, Remarks Minutes inches level, inches minutes per inch 2-%UZ 30•. .S 5,7R 0.3 � 3.v q� Q 2;3 �7-o,,g .� ,D 3./ .(, 7 • Zd z ;��f Z3 :o .z3 � � z3. 1 , O . z9 3�. ig i �3a.��r s. z 1 J. [�� 3•va /.8 /U. .. 2 : �-►�) • S. . Z`7 z .�I 3, 3 z_ o . 9y '04 Zi : Z . 3�3 Z I . 4 f , �{Z l.q� . 9 Z Percolation rate = _ � � minutes per inch. / B-39 � PERCOLATION TEST DATA SAEET Test hole location Hole number 5 Date test hole was prepared I 1 � 1 g � f� 7 , Depth of hole bottom, /`� inches. Diameter of hole, ( _ inches. � Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture d `- �7 _ r�, i �, . :; �� n �i <a�n � r7_.. �t! / , , � � , i/F � 1^i;�� /r^�� ,��. � ,c-�� :��.�: i' Method of scratchinq .sidewall �� `� i ;rJ% y�n � � , Depth of pea-sized gravel in bottom of hole, Z, inches. Date and hour of initial water filling _ / / � /�/�y 3 ' S� �CM Depth of initial water filling, /� inches above hole bottom. Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least �F �lOL1L8 H`lA�rl VY� rr� 1/' � t �/'�rv�'I Y`. Percolation test readings made by �" /�,,�/f�h�Pi'��-P;� on �� 7 starting at Z:O�' a'm' . Maximum water depth above hole bottom (da�e) .m. during test, 8.8 inches. Time Percolation Time Interval, Measurement, Drop in water rate, Remarks Minutes inches level, inches miautes per inch 2' u 0; G, l� 3U-9 , � z. II , � Z Z-3�7 )`7%Z .In �7 . `flo 3.F�0 . 77 . ( Z;�1a Z.3:z4.�z 5, ��r Z3 .49 3.3o z , v 3: 71 Z ' .Z - G �7 z- I Z (� � �`�� 7•� 5. zz . �7 Y 2- I . �D �:oi Z -u`].99 5-37 2i � �3D 3.yv , q7 1. 0 � Percolation rate = � � minutes per inch. fr SEPTIC SYSTEM DENIAL � �� 0 0 - CITY of ORONO ,� � �, Municipal Offices �� ' G~ Street Address: Mailing Address: L`4kEsgp�'�' 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Owner RICHARD W PARSONS Phone (Home)_Work) Address 280 Bia lsland City Orono State MN Zip Site Evaluator Kevin Kloeppner State License # 208 Phone# 763-441-7509 Type of Establishment: Single Family X Multi Family Commercial Est. Gallons Per Day 300 No. Potential Bedrooms 2 Slope: 16% � Depth of Sand: Upslope: Downslope:_ Soil Sizing Factor 2.2 Perc Rates P-1 8 P-2 33 P-3 P-4 P-6 P-7 Restricting Layer Depth B-1 >66" B-2 >70" B-3 " B-4 " B-5 " B-6 " Type of Treatment System: Standard X Alternative Other Performance Pressurized Mound System At-Grade System Gravity Trenches System X Pressurized Trench System Gravity Trenches W/Lift Pressurized Bed System Holding Tank W/Alarm Septic Tank Size 1500 # of Tanks 1 Lift Tank Size Pump Brand GPM_ Head Treatment System: Minimum 660 Square Feet with 6 inches of rock below pipe Bed Mound Treatment Area THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a design approval form which must accompany the site plan. A permit must be issued to a licensed septic contractor prior to installation. NOTICE TO INSTALLERS: Any changes to the approved plans must have prior approval of the inspector (952-249-4600) Call for inspection 24 hours in advance. ALL DRAINFIELD AREAS MUST BE FENCED OFF prior to building site eYcavation and fencing must reinain in place until final site grading. Approval to pour footings will not be granted until the Inspections Department has verified the primary and alternate sites are protected. NO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OF ANY KIND is allowed within 20'of tested drainfield sites ever. ACCEPTED DENIED X By the City of Orono subject to existing regulations and the following conditions: 1) Based on soil testinQ done by U of MN Extension on May 26, 2004 it was determined that mottlin�occurs within 36 inches of the surface of the �round at borin�#2. This makes this desi�n non-compliant with State Septic Code 7080 and further testin�must be done to find a site that meets 7080. - �� ..- � ��l � �,�� . �: �.,.�r _� , . ._ By: - Matt Bolterman, On-Site Systems Manager Date Telephone(952)249-4600 • Fax(952)249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us 1 � SEPTIC SYSTEM DENIAL � �� 0 � ,� � C ITY of ORONO �, Municipal Offices �� " G~ Street Address: Mailing Address: �`9kESgp4'� 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Owner RICHARD W PARSONS Phone (Home)_Work) Address 280 Bi� Island City Orono State MN Zip Site Evaluator Kevin Kloeppner State License # 208 Phone# 763-441-7509 Type of Establishment: Single Family X Multi Family Commercial Est. Gallons Per Day 300 No. Potential Bedrooms 2 Slope: 16% Depth of Sand: Upslope: Downslope:_ Soil Sizing Factor 2.2 Perc Rates P-1 8 P-2 33 P-3 P-4 P-6 P-7 Restricting Layer Depth B-1 >66" B-2 >70" B-3 " B-4 " B-5 °' B-6 '° Type of Treatment System: Standard X Alternative Other Performance Pressurized Mound System At-Grade System Gravity Trenches System X Pressurized Trench System Gravity Trenches W/Lift Pressurized Bed System Holding Tank W/ Alarm Septic Tank Size 1500 # of Tanks 1 Lift Tank Size Pump Brand GPM_ Head Treatment System: Minimum 660 Square Feet with 6 inches of rock below pipe Bed Mound Treatment Area THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a design approval form which must accompany the site plan. A permit must be issued to a licensed septic contractor prior to installation. NOTICE TO INSTALLERS: Any changes to the approved plans must have prior approval of the inspector (952-249-4600) Call for inspection 24 hours in advance. ALL DRAINFIELD AREAS MUST BE FENCED OFF prior to building site excavation and fencing must reinain in place until final site grading. Approval to pour footings will not be granted until the Inspections Department has verified the primary and alternate sites are protected. NO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OF ANY KIND is allowed within 20'of tested drainfield sites ever. ACCEPTED DENIED X By the City of Orono subject to existing regulations and the following conditions: 1) Based on soil testing done by U of MN Extension on May 26, 2004 it was determined that mottlin�occurs within 36 inches of the surface of the �round at borin�#2. This makes this desi�n non-compliant with State Septic Code 7080 and further testin�must be done to find a site that meets 7080. r �-.- _a By: �� . , �-��,_.-�r_ �'�I � Matt Bolterman, On-Site Systems Manager Date Telephone(952)249-4600 • Fax(952)249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us �o� O , O CITY OF ORONO ��... � ,� � MunicipalOffices r� r � ' �, Street Address Mailing Address: �� G'�' 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 �i Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 �kESH�� August 16, 2007 Dear Owner of 280 BIG ISLAND: This is a friendly reminder to all Orono property owners with non-compliant, on-site septic systems: Septic System Upgrade Deadline is Fast Approaching Beginning in the mid-1990s the City began to identify those septic systems that made use of trench drainfields, a majority of which do not maintain the minimum required vertical separation above seasonal water tables. Each existing system was subjected to soil borings to determine the seasonal water table depth. When a system was identified as non-compliant, the owner was notified of the need to bring the system into compliance and given several years to complete the upgrade. The deadlines to upgrade were divided into whether or not the property was in the Shoreland District (within 1000' of a lake or within 300' of a protected tributary stream). Properties in the Shoreland District were given until December 31, 2007 to become compliant. Properties outside the Shoreland area with non-compliant systems were allowed until December 31, 2010 to conform to the septic code. The above noted property is located in the Shoreland District and needs to be updated before December 31, 2007. Don't wait until the last minute! The City is strongly recommending that property owners not wait until the deadline arrives to bring their systems into compliance. The process to upgrade your septic system can be quite lengthy. The first step in the process is to hire a site evaluator and designer to determine what type of system is required and provide the blueprint for the system installation. Secondly, the property owner must then contract with a septic system installer to have the system constructed. The installation of a septic system is very weather dependent, especially for mound systems, which can only be installed when the ground is relatively dry, i.e. typically June through September. Contractors' schedules fill up quickly, so iYs important to start your planning and design process now to ensure a timely installation. The period of time from deciding to update your septic system to the actual installation can easily exceed three to four months, or more. Please contact the Building and Zoning Department at 952-249-4600 with any questions you may have about bringing your septic system into compliance. For a list of licensed designers and installers you may go to www.ci.orono.mn.us, click on City Departments, click on Septic, then click on the link to www.pca.state.mn.us. Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us � � � � O ' I O ;;, O �'Y��l�-� CIT�'of OIE�ONO � ;��.�\�� ' � `-�' c5� �'i, ��; ��„' .::{;p Municipal Offices � � ��fi��, G~ ��`�:r�`�r1�Og� Street Address: Mailing Address: . E$II 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay; MN 55323-0066 Owner: R�,L1�.qc-c� �a('Sor�S Address: a`�o Q;q 15��,�c� Cit��Ordinance 199 requires that each existing on-site sewage treatment system in Orono be inspected every two years. The on-site sewage treatment system at the above address has been inspected and appears to fall into the categories checked below.� SYSTEM CONFORMITY (1-3): 3 1 °CODE SYSTEM° An ISTS which mzets all the location,design and construction standazds ofthe current Orono bfunicipal Code. 2 "C�i�TPLIE�T SYSTEM" An ISTS which does not meet all the location,dzsign and construction standards ofthe current Orono biunicipal Code but dozs meet the three foot separalion requirement,and which is not failing or an imminent ttueat to public heahh or safaty. 3O °NON-CONiPLIANT SYSTEM" Aprohibited ISTS;an ISTS locatzd within a dzsignated 100-year flood plain,any ISTS which may or may not meet all the localion,design,or construction standazds ofthe current Orono Municipal Code and which is failing for any reason;and any ISTS with less than three feet of unsaturated soil or sand betwzen the distribution device and the limiting soil chazacteristics. TANK CONDITION(5-10): d��'1�OJ,Se Tanl:inspection indicates: � Pumpout not nezdzd at this time. 6 Tank must be pumped out this year (city code requirzs tanks to be pumpzd out evzry 3 years. Tank was l�ct pumped ), 7 Solids accumulation in tanks is at a critical a critical lzvel. Tanks should be pumped out u soon as possibia. g Systzm is discharging to thz surfacz. Tanks must be pumped out within 48 hours to eliminate surFace discharge. I Inspection risers missing-tanks could not be inspzcted. Inspection risers(4"dia.pipe)must be installzd in each tank at nest pumpout If tanks have not bezn pumped out«ithin the lut tluee years,they should be pumpzd out now. 1� Inspection pipz is located directly over tank bagle(does not give accurate measurement of solids accumulation). Iftanks have not been pumped out wi4'un thz last thrze yeazs,they should be pumpzd out now. DRAiNFIELD CONDITION(11-14): o��ovSe 11 Draintizld is dry,no surfacing evidznt 1� Some evidence of surfacing,not crilical yet. . � . 13 Drsinfield is saturatzd and visibly discharging untrzatzd effluznt to thz surface. Contact thz City Inspector immediately.Repairs must be complzted within 90 days. 1=� Drainfield estent and condition unknown. COMNIENTS: N� ",��o. on �.�e. N�ed So .ls �,��o ��o�� ►�o�S�, b 9 1".�e�Se� sep+�.� �ontl'qLfip(` S-�-o � G�1,�� Date of Inspection Seplic System Inspector Notz: In the erent that this inspection report is used to satisfy the requirements for a moRgage or other transfzr of property,6e advised that this report does not guarantee or certify that an existing system will continue to function properly,but is merely an opinion ofthe adzquacy of the system under currecrt conditions based on the available informalion. �� `e;� — �S s-� �,�t�� ,� �� 8 �'�� x sv' ��-�,� � �,1 �� i•, �U �V � � l � � , �� C-� X .�� '?�-�`�"� �� 1� l��Cl��t�l i � � ! ��`�-- l� �Xl� I� �c� � , ,'3� I�� -� Z3� 2 2�=r� i � � � ' /