Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout026-1147-40-000 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 1/2 x 11 inches in size. Plan must CM 1'~4 include, but not limited to: vertical and horizontal reference point (BM), direction and Parcel I.D. percent slope, scale or dimensions, north arrow, and location and distance to nearest road. ~2~ y7•- ~j- QX~ Please print all information. R ' we y Date Personal information you provide may be used for secondary purposes (Privacy Law, s. 15.04 (1) (m)). KA011 Property Owner Property Location N vi Govt. Lot 1/4 JUW1/4 S 2q T30 N R I E (o W Property Owner's Mailing Address Lot # Block # Sub Name or CSM# 1~6 ~ P11AWCM HeacbuL City tate Zip Code Phone Number ❑ City ❑ Village Town Nearest Road i MN 155 1 1 (5I) 7" -Q~ c" S I59 New Construction Use: E~ Residential / Number of bedrooms Code derived design flow rate -5-0 16 0C~ GPD ❑ Replacement ❑ Public or commercial - Describe: Parent material T-" Flood Plain elevation if applicable ft. General comments S'/ 5 C'" e f t J ]O lo C76, `e✓ QS'' Yd and recommendations: 44-4 ` eV 9/-7% 'M 4-07-39 A ,W d 4f-?8`-b0 APR 2 3 2002 h1~~~tue,S~i sr. Cgc)l ZONING OFFICE F1 Boring # ❑ Boring Pit Ground surface elev. ft. Depth to limiting factor gel in. Soil Application Rate EHorizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description Texture Structure Consistence Boundary Roots GPD/ft2 in. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. •Eff#1 'Eff#2 d-f4 3l2 2 C 5 I 5 \ c5 - I 30111"66 Boring # I❑~1 Boring (ti f~f pit Ground surface elev.` ft. Depth to limiting factor 7 Z- in. Soil Application Rate Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description Texture Structure Consistence Boundary Roots GPD/ft2 in. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. •Eff#1 •Eff#2 I - 3 )h \jr-31 Z l r C 75 .51 Z I Z JA' ?A L l 5- rry~ c - 1- 2 -TW--)L /Y ~ ® rr I - -7 )1. 7, q5 ' daAro-' Effluent #1 = BODS > 30 < 220 mg/L and TSS >30 150 mg/L • Effluent #2 = BODS < 30 mg/L and TSS < 30 mg/L CST Name (Please Print) ignature CST Number CL 4- S Q Address Date Evaluation Conducted Telephone Number z// 0' 51 So oz ~oZ 7/-5 SBD-837n 7 1 f" n 10 n Parcel ID # Page of Property Owner 1-31 Boring # ❑ Boring C./f~ Pit Ground surface elev. © -f-/7• l V ft. Depth to limiting factor 80 -in. Soil Application Rate Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description TStructure Consistence Boundary Roots GPD/ft2 in. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. 'Eff#1 -Eff#2 ► -~o ~ r~3 2 - l c (v 5 3 y p - 1. Z F-1 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 GPD1ft2 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/ft2 in. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. 'Etf#1 'Eff#2 Effluent #1 = GODS > 30 < 220 mg/L and TSS >30 < 150 mg/L ' Effluent #2 = BODS < 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. SBD-8330 (R.07/00) I i ~ c PAGES OF NAME k.e ko l\ LOT# 'Y P LEGAL DESCRIPTION U[-- NtJ/ ,S T 30N R ) i- a.W SCALE: I"= yD BM I ELEVATION __)6Q. Q BM I DESCRIPTION. o~~Y, N BM 2 ELEVATION '7'9,,:;C) ~ 5 eC Z BM 2 DESCRIPTION 6 o ) SYSTEM ELEVATION (off q6.1 G Lam er QS. /O ALTERNATE ELEVATION 90 CONTOUR ELEVATION ` ,o , (plJ o ~ M v Ri s 6-3 I I z3~ ~y~ q SIGNATURE Z---- DATE S ' a 2 Acres/ ~A . `yN hBA~2.14 Acres ; a0 C4 1010( CS W) / F >2 / 117152 SgFt I G~;oe°5 08 2.69 Acres I / j NBA=2.69 Acre I 0' OD - L 6&.7 1022- a I / B34 C s~' ¢p0'. I R-2 ' 0'w ~ Lf26 ,31 `I_ ~1 08 ~ 7-1 5/ 3 9 0 I 49.92' 1K0~g~z ` 84866 SgFt 1.95 Acres d ~90 / j \ NBA=1.95 Acres 'oil \ \!o ° ti h o / M U r_ / \ 440.61 /11;1 It - - 076, s16:11 I _ i s266 00- 330 33 ! I W tb b. 09 10 1014 o I 88404 _ 2.03 Acres \ \ s of $ $ y~~o / / Z / t,BA='4.g3\cres \ _ ' ~I ` ` mI $B3 / I / / 587.4 15•E X1777 SgFt / ado 2 1 Acres ,O tl 2.11 Acores / !0 9 , I aoh'~ o I o~~ I 93888 Sgfr£ 2.16 Acres o N .33' BA=2.16 Acres a38 r / I / s~?, 3• / e / -1009- / 81676 SgFt 8 I 1.88 Acres 96094 SgFt 2.21 Acres NBA=1.69 Acres NBA=2.21 Acres -1006 c Oy • 2 %l •F ~"y / 839 ® .cA~' ,yk ry 4 ip / Acres <1 / dT 42 , ~ ' / ~ ~ ~ Awe - / .o / 1 84553 SgFt Bey 6 j ! / ~9 • / 1.94 Acres,) \ 1j 1p01~ NBA=1.74 Acres .y~~' /~ogey~ L ST. CROIX COUNTY WISCONSIN ZONING DEPARTMENT ' N memo ST. CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1101 Carmichael Road Hudson, WI 54016-7710 r - °"-may Phone: (715) 386-4680 Fax (715) 386-4686 Memo to File From: Pam Quinn Date: 4/14/2004 Re. Soil On-site Determinations for Lots 32, 37 & 43 Richmond Meadows Subd. On April 8, 2004 on-site determinations of soil conditions at the above lots was performed to evaluate conflicting soil reports submitted by Adam Schumaker and Shaun Bird. At 11:00 a.m. the weather/lighting conditions were acceptable, with temp. 50°F, clear and. These determinations were requested by the property owner, Orenzo Oevering and the plumber/permit applicant, Dave Fogerty, who were present during the test pit excavations. Additional test pits were located next to borings on the original soil reports to better compare soil conditions in the tested areas. On lot 32 (see attached description) the soil profile contained massive sandy loams at approximately 36 inches below grade, which does not conflict with the soil tester's recommendation for using an at-grade system. What it did reveal, however, is that both Adam and Shaun likely misinterpreted the structure of the sandy loams: Adam called the sandy loam horizon a "2msbk" and Shaun uses "I mgr". 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, parted easily 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". Two test pits were evaluated on Lot 37, since the sanitary permit has already been issued. Due to the current house and well location, additional tested area will be required to meet setbacks to the POWTS. A pit closest to Shaun's B2 did have a sandy horizon as reported, but only to a depth of 60", then underlain by a massive sandy loam. Unfortunately, the boundary between the sands and sandy loam horizon was very irregular, with tongues of sandy loam much closer to grade than 60". The recommended loading rate for this site would need to be lowered to adjust for varying pore space at system elevation. Lot 43 had conflicting reports, where Shaun's tested area (near the front of the lot) reported conditions allowing a conventional system and Adam's (closer to the rear of the lot) reported mottling at 32" with a mound system recommendation. Additional test pit B4 was excavated next to Shaun's B3 (see attached description) and massive sandy loams were encountered at 17 inches below grade. Weathered cobbles (break into smaller pieces upon disturbance) and oxidized iron deposits around individual gravel/cobbles were observed in the pit wall, but no mottling was identified to 68". Shaun's B3 description of sandy loam with "2mgr" structure starting at 18", then sandy loam "lmgr" from 36-110". Again, I think there was a misinterpretation of texture after a sample had been handled. 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 reports. 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 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 was described on the soil report as "l mgr" with firm consistence. The zoning department will have a note placed on all soil reports with this type of description as requiring a design using the current code's soil application rate for massive sandy loam @ 0.2 gpd/sq. ft. unless additional soil testing proves otherwise. 'I