Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout038-1203-60-000 (2) VWlsoonsIn Department of Commerce S01V 'ALUATI��RkORT Page�of ivision of Safety and Buildings ,� t In accordance with t[aRr 85, rode Attach complete site plan on paper not less than 8112 x 11 ing-Os in size.Plan must Include,but not limited to:vertical and horizontal reference i,�(BM),d1re aqd 'ZQ�� + I.D. percent slope,scale or dimensions,north arrow,and locati erid dist a est road. r f CP Please rint all informatlo :)., SS ul T" b Date Personal Information you provide a used for sewn ry purpose (Fiivrlcy Law, A�tS�'� Property Own \ i Property Loc�fro�` i *vii 1 114/ 114 T N R E Property is Akapino Add Lo Block# Subd.Name or CSM# a a - o tstg p Code one Number ❑City ❑Village Town Nearest Road 5 Y61 { ) " ew Constructlon Use�Residentiai!Number of bedrooms Code derived design flow rate GPD ❑Replacement ❑ Pubi r carom Describe: Parent material d Flood Plain elevation If applicable General commonts and asys� m J� C o � # Bong Pit Ground surface elev._ d• �—ft. Depth to limiting factor_1_�_ln. Solt icallon Rate Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description Texture Structure Consistence Boundary Roots GPD/fg In. Munsell Ou.Sz. Cont Color Gr.Sz.Sh. 'Eff#1 "Efl1#2 f 0-1 a 0 3/ ✓tom,� s l a r FIB CS 2n a la-a� o MRT OW 3 2�- 7 y n�►-� 5 t VT . 7 Z 6 FTOng# ❑ Boring Ju Pit Ground surface elev. 9_S,'7 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 I 'Eff#2 I 6-12 le . 3/ YL- S ,-► r ME va-3L'lovs, l-P 1 3610 r Y4. c Effluent#1 =BOD >30 K 220 mg[L and TSS>30< •Effluent#2=BOD .c 30 mg/L and TSS 5 30 mg1L CST Na Please Print) — — ature ;T Number - rI.GT.LG+✓ / /' �7 1116 Address W n Date Evaluation Conducte6 _ Telephone Number i Property Owner_ Parcel ID# _ _ Page --of F73 Boring 0 [1 Boring '❑ Pit Ground surface elev. !?!I ft. Depth to limiting factor In, Soll 11cadon Rate Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description Texture Stricture Consistence Boundary Roots OPOM in. Munsell Qu.Sz. Cont.Color Gr.Sz.Sh. *Sff#1 *Eff#2 -►p © 3 AFA LS 15 lrn r . FT El Boring# ❑ Boring ❑ Pit Ground surface elev. ft. Depth to limiting factor_ _in, SoU 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 Boring# [) Boring _ ❑ Pit Ground surface elev.__ ft. Depth to limiting factor in. Soil Application Rate Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description Texture Stricture Consistence Boundary Roots In. Munsell Qu.Sz. Cont.Color Gr.Sz.Sh. *Eff#1 *Eff#2 "Effluent#1 =BOD3>30 1 220 mg/L and TSS>30:5 150 mg/L *Effluent#2=BOD,130 mg/L and TS8 5 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. SBIMM(RAW) Soil Test Plot Plan AA Project Name Ronald Wohlers Sha i Address 1282 200th Ave N ew Richmond WI 54017 #226900 Lot 21 Subdivision Wohlers Estates Date 8/16/00 SW/SE 1/4 SE 1/4S 23 T 31 N/R 18 W Township Star Prairie Boring Q Well PL Property Line County ST. CROIX BM or VRP Assume Elevation 100 ft. Top of Steel Fence Post System Elevation 91 .9 *HRPSame as Benchmark Alt. BM Top of Survey Pipe @ 96.4' Forty Line 140' Property Line Alt. 108' Property Line 15' 40' -3 40' 30' 0' B-1 B-2 Site has 0% Slope and no contours Pro Town Road ST. CROIX COUNTY WISCONSIN ZONING DEPARTMENT goofiness Blur ST.CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1101 Carmichael Road Hudson,WI 54016-7710 w -- `-` — Phone: (715)386-4680 Fax(715)386-4686 Memo to File From Pam Quinn Date: 4/27/2004 Re: Sand loam structure misinterpretation on subdivision sal r Mrts � Y - O� / Recent soil on-site determinations have brought a problem to our attention. During these on- sites,Wings were excavated to confirm soil conditions where two conflicting soil reports had for zoning department review. The soil profiles,evaluated by myself,Dave been submitted g ep p 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 SchumakeN49110veak„ . '(-J ` "' 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 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 s r aeume,or`.`2a we,be assigmda,loweg loadinsawaf:0 4:, 1 (see attached memo ftVfbftdtM Metdows.)to provide a 1aWr:dispersal arpa.. Page Two—Soil Memo 4/27/04 Massive sandy loams have been assigned a soil application rate of,0.2 gpd/fl'with the ccade- chaages in Comm QaA Etive as of 2/1/04. The application rates listed g n the soil.reports were higher due to on � t ie structure having bow described'as� eididt c or moderate;wbidt' 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 vision had to have its loading rate reduced to 0.3 d/s . ft. when the installer encountered massive sand � q y loam at the system elevation. The sandy loam horizon had been described on the soil report as "1 mgr"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 eq 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.