The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About026-1160-24-000 Wisconsin ,nmerce SOIL EVALUATION REPORT Page / of Division of Say:. in accordance with Comm 85, Wis.' Adm. Code County <'Attach complete site plan on d less than 8 1/2 x 11 inches in size. Plan must include, but not limited to: vertical . horizontal reference point (BM).'direction and Paroel /_/1.~ 2 percent slope, scale or dimensions, north arrow, and location and distance to nearest road. V / (a Reviewed y Date Please print all information. Personal information you provide may be used for secondary purposes (Privacy Law, s. 15.04 (1) (m)) Property Owner Property Locati 1':11 ri ~ Gr✓ J Govt. Lot 1 /4 S ~3T N R E( W & A vz~ 6 Property Owner's Mailing Address/ Lot # Bloclc # Subd. Name, or CSM# state Zip Code Phone Number ❑ City ❑ illage /own Nearest Road City New Construction Use Residential / Number of bedrooms Code derived design flow rate GPD ❑ Replacement ❑ Publi or commercial - Describe: - Parent material Flood Plain elevation if applicable ~~0 ft General comments S~'S~>'~ ~,e11 ~/Y~-~ J ' /~S~ ~j /~,y►~ 10 and recommendations: Boring Boring # Ul 0 Pit Ground surface elev. ft. Depth to limiting factor in. Soil Application R Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description Texture Structure Consistence Boundary Roots GPD/11? in. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. •Eff#1 'Eff#2 J r 3 J S7 r~ J- h.e "s y Z / "-5,~ S ~.s NJ 1 ^7 cvvw a~ # Boring Pit Ground surface elev.-0-kA. Depth to limiting factor 12-~ Soil Application 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 6- s 1,41 i • Effluent #1 = BOD > 30 1220 mg(L and TSS >30 Z69 L;Ri ' Effluent #2 = BOD 130 mg/- and TSS < 30 mg1L CST Name (Please Print) CST Number Bird Plumbing, Inc. Shaun Bird 226900 Address Date Evaluation Conducted Telephone Number 1008 192nd Ave, New Richmond, 54017 r 0~ 715-246-4516 4W, Property Owner - Parcel ID # Page of J Boring # ❑ Boring it Ground surface elev. ft. Depth to limiting factor 11 in. Soil Application Rate Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description Texture Stricture Consistence Boundary Roots GPD/ff in. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. 'Eff#1 'Eff#2 3 -ll 0 5 p w Z ❑ Boring # ❑ Boring ❑ Pit Ground surface elev. ft. Depth to limiting factor in. Soil lication 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 ❑ Boring # ❑ Boring ❑ Pit Ground surface elev. ft. Depth to limiting factor in. Soil Application 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 Effluent #1 = BOD.. > 30 < 220 mg/1- and TSS >30 < 150 mgA- ' Effluent #2 = BOD5 < 30 mg/L and TSS < 30 mg/L The Department of Commerce is an equal opportunity service provider and employer. If you need assistance to access services or need material in an alternate format, please contact the department at 608-266-3151 or TTY 608-264-8777. SOD-8330 (RAM) 1 Soil Test Plot Plan Project Name William Stock/Steve Dalton Sha Address 1748 112th St. New Richmond Wi 54017 C FM #226900 Lot 24 Subdivision Whitetail Meadows Date 8/15/03 S 1 /2 N W 1/4S 23 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 95.9/95.8 *HRPSame as Benchmark Alt. BM Top of 2" Pipe @ 100.2' Scale is 1 = 40 Please note: Installer must unless otherwise verify all lot lines and setbacks noted before installation. a t a 0 Please Note: Tested area may not be suitable for desired building area. Check system location before excavating. a~ a~ a r 45' B-3 Tested area has <1 % Slope and 30 thus no contours could be established 20' 90' B-1 B-2 0' *Alt. B.M. B.M. 220' Property Line t Bird Plumbing Inc. 1008 192nd Ave New Richmond WI 54017 715-246-4516 Subject: Whitetail Meadows Soil Tests To Whom it may concern: I Shaun Bird did the soil tests on this subdivision known as Whitetail Meadows in Richmond township. Aft4r a couple of installations, some of the soils were found to have a more weak structure than what was found in some of the borings. In order to protect home owners and contractors, it is my recommendation after discussing the issue with Pam Quinn from St. Croix County Zoning office that the systems be oversized using a.3 loading rate instead of the original .4 rate. On the lots that were originally sized for a.5, I recommend using a.4, not the new.6 that the state has suggested. The soils are what the tests indicate but the large areas tested did not reveal some of the weaker structures that were found upon installations. If a installer can prove otherwise, that the weaker structures do not exist, then the installer should proceed with the soils that he/she believes are present. Shaun Bird CST #226900 Z•d ds4=Tt 40 so add r ST. CROIX COUNTY bow~ WISCONSIN ZONING DEPARTMENT N N N N N / / rn~r ST. CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1101 Carmichael Road r Hudson, WI 54016-7710 Phone: (715) 386-4680 Fax (715) 386-4686 Memo to File From: 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, borings were excavated to confirm soil conditions where two conflicting soil reports had been submitted for zonil 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 either moderate, medium subangular blocky (2msbk) structure by Adam Schumaker or weak, medium granular structure (1 mgr) by Shaun Bird. There apparently has been a misunderstanding between "structure" caused 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 sandy loam lm original soil report described the third horizon as sand . OnLot6wechecked 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 r. Sand coatings were observed on the Ped faces in the Lot 9 light pressure b Y soil tester. ~ P 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 "lmgr" 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. 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. Z l