The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About026-1165-26-000 (2) Wisconsin Department of Commerce SOIL EVALUATION REPORT Page of 3 Division of Safety and Buildings in accordance with Comm 85, Wis. Adm. Code County Attach complete site plan on paper not less than 8 112 x 11 inches in size. Plan must include, but not limited to: vertical and horizontal reference point (BM), direction and parcel I.D. 2 2 (p V ~ percent slope, scale or dimensions, north arrow, and location and distance to nearest road. Date b Please print all information. Re ewes Personal information you provide maybe used foi sik6lrldary purposes{P+w"y Law, s- 15.04 (1) (m)). 2 316 Property Owner Property Location _5,,1--l/4 S 02T30_ N R E (o W ate/ /r Lot # Block # Subd. Name or M# 1's Mai' Address P Owner's Property ' a Nearest Road C Village ~T CAY ZiP Code Phone Number tale ❑ ❑ ~y New Construction Us X Residential / Number of bedroom Code derived design flow rated GPD ❑ Replacement Public or mmeeraal - Describe: /1 Parent material Flood Plain elevation if applicable 't, l /r ft• General comments /~r.~~~,UY'✓ / ' Z and recommendations: S' >l~ C 9 J Boring r---F-- Boring # L~,J Pit Ground surface elev/" it. Depth to limiting factor in. mil Ica on Rate Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description Texture Structure Consistence Boundary Roots GPD/fF in. Munseli Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. I'Eff#1 'Eff#2 I 0-11 /0 31--- h'I r - ~ - -a s/ ®ng # Boring Pit Ground surface elev. ~ ft. Depth to limiting factor ~ in. Soil ADDlication Rate Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description Texture Structure Consistence Boundary Roots GPD/fF in. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. 'Eff#`1 'Eff#2 s n~/ ~✓i r Z • Effluent #1 = BOD > 30:5 220 mglL and TSS >30 1150 mg/L ' Effluent #2 = BOD < 30 mg/L and TSS < 30 mg/L CST Nance (Please Print) Signatu CST Number Bird Plumbing, Inc. Shaun Bird 226900 Address Date Evaluation Conducted Telephone Number 1008 192nd Ave, New Richmond, WI 54017- 1/~ O 715-246-4516 Parcel ID # Page of Property Owner _ F3-1 Boring # ❑ Boring Soil Application Rate Pit Ground surface elev.- Depth to limiting factor in. Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description Texture Structure Consistence Boundary Roots •Eff#1 *Eff#2 in. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. - 31 ❑ Boring in. Boring # ❑ pit Ground surface elev. ft. Depth to limiting factor Soil Application Rate El Roots GPDM Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description Texture Structure Consistence Boundary 'Eff#1 'Eff#2 in. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. Boring in. Boring # Ground surface elev. ft. Depth to limiting factor Soil ication Rate ❑ Pit Roots GPD/ff? Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description. Texture Structure Consistence Boundary 'Eff#1 'Eff#2 in. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. ' Effluent #1 = BOD, > 30:< 220 mglL and TSS >30:E 150 mglt. Effluent #2 BODs < 30 mg& and TSS 30 mg1L vider and The Department of Commerce lis an equal opportunity ternate format, please servicecontact pthe department at 608-266y3151eord TTY 608e26to access 4--8777. services or need material r i SBO.8330 (R-e(oo) Soil Test Plot Pla Project Name William Stock/Steve Dalton S Bird Address 1748 112th St. New Richmond Wi 54017 STM #226900 Lot 26 Subdivision Lundy Meadows Date 8/11/03 N 1 /2 SE 1/4S 22 T 30 N/R18 W Township Richmond ❑ Boring 0 Well PL Property Line County ST. CROIX BM or VRP Assume Elevation 100 ft. Top of Survey Iron System Elevation 94.2/94.1 *HRPSame as Benchmark Alt. BM Top of 2" Pipe @ 100.2' Scale is 1" = 40' Property unless otherwise Line noted Please note: Installer must verify all lot lines and setbacks before installation. Not enough slope to establish contours Please Note: Tested area may not be suitable for 45, B-3 desired building area. ❑ 1 °Io 329' Check system location Slope Property before excavating. Line 30 M.H.11A B-2 90' B-1 15' 142' 158 Property Line Property Line e ST. CROIX COUNTY WISCONSIN ,,,o,d►' ` w. ZONING DEPARTMENT ~ silliness r..N ST. CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1101 Carmichael Road ~ Hudson, WI 54016-7710 °-~"""-'"`~r~ Phone: (715) 386-4680 Fax (715) 386-4686 Memo to File Front Pam Quinn Date: 4/27/2004 Re: Sandy loam structure misinterpretation on subdivision soil reports Recent soil on-site determinations have brought a problem to our attention. During these on- sites, boiings were ex vated to confirm soil conditions where two conflicting soil reports had been submitted for zoni department review. The soil profiles, evaluated by myself, Dave Fogerty, and Dave Steel (all certified soil testers) differed from the original soil reports in that massive (structureless) sandy loams were encountered in horizons that were described as having e' moderate, mnium ~ubaular bloc 2 k) structure by Adam Schumaker or=, medium grariular structure (lmgr) by Shaun Bird. There apparently has been a misunderstan mg cause by handling samples of the soil during texturing versus the soil characteristics in situ. The soil, when chunks were taken out of the profile to hand texture, with pressure parted into "crumbs" that appeared at first to be subangular or granular in shape. However, these were not true peds that broke apart along planes of weakness, but fragments created by handling. The soil when observed in the horizon did not have distinct units of structure and should have been reported as "massive". Added notation: on 4/23/04 Mark Iverson (Cedar Corp. certified professional soil scientist), Shaun Bird, and myself did an evaluation of soils on Lots 6 & 9, Richmond Meadows where the original soil report described the third horizon as sandy loam, "1 mgr". On Lot 6 we checked soil profiles within a POWTS distribution cell and then excavated a test pit on Lot 9. The sandy loams in question were a weak, coarse to very coarse subangular blocky structure, where planes of weakness were just discernible when peds were parted from the profile. The peds separated with very light pressure by soil tester. Sand coatings were observed on the ped faces in the Lot 9 soils, which supported the determination that some structure existed to allow water to move through the upper portion of the sandy loam horizon. However, below the weak-structured soil we found massive (structureless) sandy loams and the boundary between these horizons was irregular, which would mean a distribution cell could encounter alternating weak and massive sandy loam. Shaun said he would amend his soil reports with a memo recommending that any sandy loams he identified as "l mgr" or "2 mgr" be assigned a lower loading rate of 0.3 gpd/ft2 (see attached memo for Whitetail Meadows) to provide a larger dispersal area. D c Page Two - Soil Memo 4/27/04 Massive sandy loams have been assigned a soil application rate of 0.2 gpd/ft2 with the code changes in Comm 83.44-2, effective as of 2/1/04. The application rates listed on the soil reports were higher due to the structure having been described as either weak or moderate, which affects the calculations for sizing of POWTS distribution cells. Obviously, one of the concerns is to make sure loading rates for the soils are not in error and allow undersized POWTS to be installed. For example, in December 2003, Lot 35 of Richmond Meadows subdivision had to have its loading rate reduced to 0.3 gpd/sq. ft. when the installer encountered massive sandy loam at the system elevation. The sandy loam horizon had been described on the soil report as "lmgr" with firm consistence. Leroy Jansky, Dept. of Commerce Regional Wastewater Specialist, has been consulted on this situation and advised the zoning department to require on-site verifications for any lots with this potential misinterpretation on the soil reports. All soil reports with sandy loam "1 or 2 mgr" as its structure will be required to use a design based on the current code's soil application rate for massive sandy loam @ 0.2 gpd/sq. ft. unless additional soil testing proves otherwise.