06/17/86 Special Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i i I \ { \ , \ I'S. Anne Norrh Page 3 May 14, 1986 the vhole lot IIIlIY have serious limitations. '!berefore, it -y not be possible to implement the city of l\aIlI6ey's guideline, stated on page 64 of the draft EIS, that 25\ of the lot must contain class 1 soils suitable for on-site wastewater systems for lots with high ground water tables. Moreover, there is no assurance that the drainfield will be placed on the suitable soils once such a determination is IIIlIde. It would appear that lots have already been developed on UIl6uitable soils in the northwest comer of the project site, lIhich contains a lIIlIuh (refer to Figures 26 and 27). We reCOlllllll!nd that site specific soils data be collected to determine the feasibility of each on-site system. '!bis will assure the adequate functioning of each septic system. 5. A discussion was presented at pages 67 through 69 of the draft EIS caaparing residential ground waterqualitl' on. t,tIe J\nOka sand plain to the proposed developlll!nt. If this caaparison is to be of value, the densities of hemes, types of hemes, wastewater flows including an asseslll\ll!nt of the degree of use of water-using applicances (such as washing IIIlIchines, garbage diSposals, freezers and frost-free refrigerators), and geologic 5 ground water c:onditions must be very similar to the proposed developlll!nt. . '!be final EIS should contain a discussion highlighting the differences and similarities between the two study areas and possible differences in potential impacts on nitrate-nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in the ground water. '!be staff recOllllll!nds that the sizing of the wastewater disposal systems be based on actual flaw monitoring of similar residential developaents in Moka county. Ground water i.mpact frOlll the COlIIlIIl!rcial developoent It is not possible to determine whether the proposed wastewater treatment system for the c:aIIIltrcial/light industrial developlll!nt is feasible with respect to hydraulic parameters or ground water contamination, until a site is 6 chosen, the system is laid out and a hydrogeological study is conducted. '!be final EIS must contain a further evaluation of these factors including possible mitigative measures and provide evidence for the feasibility of the system. Since the wastewater flaw is projected to be 10,800 gallons per day frOlll the I COlIIlIIl!rcial developlll!nt, a state Disposal System permit DlSt be obtained frOlll 7 the Division of water Quality. '!bis permit should be included in the list of governmental approvals required for the project in the final EIS . A hydrogeologic study will be required for the project as part of the permitting process, if not conducted during the EIS process. '!bis study must indicate whether or not drinking water quality standards (Minnesota Rules Part 7050.0220) will be met at the property boundary. If these standards cannot be complied with at the property boundary, a variance frOlll the ground water quality rules, Minnesota Rules Part 7060.0100 through 7060.0900 relating to underground waters and Minnesota Rules Part 7050.0220, would be required. All underground waters of the state, whether they are surficial, unconfined ground water or ground water located under a confining layer, are protected by these rules. -74-