The URL can be used to link to this page

5.b) Anderson-Erickson Wastewater System Study Meeting Date: 3/20/��. � Agenda Item: s�� City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209th St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Receive the City Engineer's study of the possible expansion of the Anderson-Erickson portion of the 201 Wastewater Treatment System. Deadline/ Timeline: The Council authorized the study at its December 20, 2011 meeting. Background: • The study was initiated in response to an application from James and Sandra Continenza for a variance to allow construction of a new home on Big Marine Lake. The new home and a home next door owned by the Continenza family would both need new sewer service. They would prefer to connect both dwellings to the City's 201 Sewer System. The deadline for review of the variance has been waived to allow time to determine if an expansion of the sewer system is feasible. • A preliminary report was given at the February 21 meeting. "I'he final report is attached. Recommendation: The Council should receive the report. If necessary, the discussion could be continued to the March 20 regular meeting. Action on the Continenza variance application could also be brought back to the Council for a decision at that time. Attachments/ • Stantec report dated March 9, 2012 Materials provided: Contact(s): Ryan Goodman, PE (651) 967-4616 Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (Anderson Erickson repori) Page 1 of 1 03/09/12 DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT AndersonJErickson System Scandia, Minnesota ,�/ V � �I1�C DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Anderson/Erickson System Scandia, Minnesota STANTEC Project Number: 193802153 Submitted by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 3717 23`� Street South Saint Cloud, MN 56301 Prepared for: The City of Scandia 14727 - 209th Street North Scandia, MN 55073 March 9, 2012 Prepared by: Clinton D. Jordahl, PG Senior Geologist Inspector Advanced Designer#7298 Reviewed by: Ryan Goodman, PE Project Manager Stanfi2C DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Anderson/Erickson System - Scandia, MN Table of Contents EXECUTIVESUMMARY........................................................................................................ E.1 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE.........................................................................................................................1 1.2 SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT...............................................................................................1 1.3 BACKGROUND.........................................................•-••--..................................................1 1.4 RECORDS REVIEWED.....................................................................................................2 2.0 COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM REVIEW...................................................3 2.1 EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM...................................................................................3 2.2 EXISITING TREATMENT SYSTEM...................................................................................3 2.3 CURRENT FLOW INFORMATION ....................................................................................4 2.4 OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................4 3.0 CAPACITY EXPANSION RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................6 3.1 EXPANSION WITHIN EXISTING DRAINFEILD AREA......................................................6 3.2 PRETREATMENT OPTIONS.............................................................................................7 3.3 ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND.............................................................................8 4.0 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................................9 4.1 MAINTENACE OF EXISTING SYSTEM ............................................................................9 4.2 SYSTEM REPAIR..............................................................................................................9 4.3 SYSTEM EXPANSION....................................................................................................10 5.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................11 FIGURES FIGURE 1: Area Map 1 &Area Map 2 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Custom Soil Survey—Washington County APPENDIX B: Soil Borings Logs and Location Map 193802153 j March 9,2012 Stanfiec DRAINFIELD EXtSTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Anderson/Erickson System - Scandia, MN Executive Summary The existing Anderson/Erickson drainfield was designed in 1986 to treat up to 6,700 gallons per day but is currently being operated with only half of the designed infiltration area and with flows consistently exceeding 7500 gallons per day during the peak summer months. Although the system appears to be hydraulically functioning (i.e. not backing up to the surface), this loading rate is significantly over that called for in the original design, and the prescriptive soil loading rates currently presumed to provide an acceptable level of nutrient and pathogen reduction. Unless there is a commitment on the part of the City to upgrade or replace the current system; we can not recommend the connection of additional homes or cabins to the system at this time. The full design capacity of 6,700 gallons per day could be realized by restoring the planned drainfield dosing functionality, which we recommend; however with summertime peak flows exceeding 7,500 gallons per day, the system is already being operated over capacity. We recommend sorne consideration be given to a longer term solution that would meet not only the immediate need, but would atso allow additional connections along the service area where the City has already installed collection pipe. Furthermore, as many as 18 of the 30 properties currently served by the system appear to be in seasonal use. Conversion of any of these properties to year-round use would increase the flow to the system without any additional connections and such property use conversion is beyond the City's ability to control. The residual drainfield area owned by the City would allow for some limited expansion of the system. Given the soil conditions on the property, an elevated bed or mound would be required. Additional capacity in the range of about 2,000 to 2,500 gallons per day appears to be achievable within the remaining area, but acquiring additional adjacent property upon which to expand the system could ultimately provide greater capacity and provide for the eventual replacement of the system. The existing drainfield could be loaded at a higher rate if the septic tank effluent were to be pretreated. This would require the installation of some type of pretreatment device such as a sand filter or proprietary registered treatment product. If the effluent were to be pretreated, it would need to be distributed by pressure pipe along the length of the trenches. Therefore additional tanks and pumps at the treatment site and some modification of the drainfield would be required. Expansion or pretreatment could increase the capacity of the system to allow daily flow rates greater than 10,000 gallons. Increasing the capacity to 10,000 gallon per day or greater would move the system from a County-permitted system to a State-permitted system. We understand that City already owns a State-permitted system and we recommend that the regulatory implications of increased capacity be considered. 193802153 E-1 March 9,2012 5tanbec DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Anderson/Erickson System — Scandia, MN 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) was engaged by the City of Scandia (City) to complete an assessment of the existing "AndersonlErickson" wastewater collection and treatment system, which serves homes and cabins generally located along the eastern shoreline of Big Marine Lake in Washington County Minnesota. 1.2 SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT Our agreement with the City included the completion of the following tasks: Task 1 —Collection and Treatment System Review . Conduct a site visit with Washington County staff to physically walk ihe drainfield site and verify the treatment system site conditions. • A review the current operations, maintenance practices, and records management. • Provide comments on operational procedures and relatively simple system repairs/upgrades that have the potential to improve the system's performance and extend the drainfield's life. • Complete hand-auger soil borings in the residual treatment area to determine it's suitabiliry for possible expansion of the soil treatment and dispersal system. . Make recommendations for soil treatment system expansion or pretreatment that would allow additional connections to the system over the defined service area. Task 2—Drainfield Expansion Recommendations . Provide recommendations on expanding the existing drainfield and/or adding pretreatment to serve all properties in the desired area to be defined by the City. Task 3— Prepare Financial Cosis of Improvements . Provide financial planning recommendations to fund system maintenance, system repair, and system expansion and replacement. 1.3 BACKGROUND In 1987,Washington County completed construction of the"Anderson/Erickson"system to provide wastewater collection and treatment for 21 dwellings on the east side of Big Marine Lake. The system was constructed utilizing grant assistance from the United States Environmental Protection Agency and State of Minnesota known as the"201" program. The cluster system includes individual septic tanks at each property, a septic tank effluent pumping system (STEP) where necessary, lateral sewer pipes, pressure and gravity sewer collection pipes, and a conventional drainfield treatment system. Property owner's responsibility and ownership extends to the septic tank. The actual septic tank and everything beyond, 193802153 1 March 9,2012 Stantec DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Anderson/Erickson System—Scandia, MN including all STEP stations, collection infrastructure, and the treatment facility itself is owned by the City. The Anderson/Erickson System was originally owned and operated by Washington County along with two other systems (the Bliss Area System and Carnelian Hills System) under a State Disposal System (SDS) permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Ownership and operational responsibility for the Anderson/Erickson and Bliss Systems was subsequently transferred to Scandia Township (now the City of Scandia), and although the Bliss system continues to be operated under an SDS permit, the Anderson/Erickson System was dropped from the MPCA's permit program early in its operational life due to the low monthly flows recorded at that time. Through a contract with the City (previously Scandia Township), Washington County has provided the basic operation and maintenance for both the Bliss and Anderson/Erickson Systems since the transfer of ownership. 1.4 RECORDS REVIEWED The following resources were used in the preparation of this plan and copies are available at the City Hall for reference: • 1989 - Portions of the Anderson/Erickson Operation and Maintenance Manual provided by Washington County (Section 1, 9 pages; and Section 3, 49 pages) . 1994— Report on Available Capacity, Carnelian Hills, Bliss and AndersoNErickson "201" Treatment and Disposal Systems prepared by Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates, Inc. (TKDA) • 2000— Update on the 1994 Report on Available Capacity, Carnelian Hills, Bliss and Anderson/Erickson "201"Treatment and Disposal Systems, TKDA • 2001 — Record Plans, 188'h - Norell - 185`h Street Improvements & Sanitary Forcemain Extension (Anderson-Erickson System), Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik, &Associates (now Stantec) . 2002 -Wastewater System Management Plan, New Scandia Township, Bonestroo (now Stantec) . 2011 —Spread sheet with system flow information for the period 4/28/04 to 10/17/11 . 2011 —Anderson-Erickson Collector System— Notes, City of Scandia Staff notes 12/1/11 • 2011 —Continenza Variance Application, Supplemental Information: Sewer System Issues, Findings and Recommendations, City of Scandia Staff Report 12/8/11 • 2011 —City Council Agenda Report, 12/13/11 . Undated—annotated parcel map identifying properties served by AndersoNErickson System provided by City staff • Undated—spread sheet listing parcels served by AndersoNErickson System provided by City staff • 2012—Wastewater Treatment and Dispersal Operating Permit, OP 0400-1, Washington County Department of Public Health and Environment . 2012—Web Soil Survey of Washington County Minnesota- accessed 1/9/12 (http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) 193802t53 2 March 9,2012 �ntCC DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Anderson/Erickson System —Scandia, MN 2.0 COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM REVIEW 2.1 EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM The original sanitary sewer collection system was intended to provide service for twenty-one homes. The system includes individual septic tanks at each home and approximately 3,390 lineal feet of sewer main to collect the effluent from the individual septic tanks. Initially four tanks were connected to the collector sewer through a 4 inch gravity connection with the remainder connected to a 1�/� to 3 inch pressure sewer main through septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) systems. Septic tank effluent is directed to a main lift station located at the south end of Norell Avenue from which it is pumped about 40 feet uphill to a large drainfield located about 500 feet east of the shore of Big Marine Lake. The lift station was equipped with dual-alternating 5 hp pumps designed to deliver 50 gallons per minute at a total head pressure of 70 feet. Design dose volume was about 529 gallons. The pressure sewer collection system was extended by 3,700 feet in 2001 during a road reconstruction project increasing the potential number of service connections to more than forty five. Five additional connections were made immediately in 2001 and four more properties have been connected since that time bringing the total number of connected properties to 30. It appears that there are about ten (10) service connections that were stubbed out in 2001 but are currently not in use. A Project Area Map (two sheets) illustrating the properties currently and potentially served by the existing collection system is attached. 2.2 EXISITING TREATMENT SYSTEM Initial treatment consisting of solids separation and anaerobic breakdown is provided by the septic tank installed at each dwelling. Final treatment of septic tank effluent is soil-based and occurs in a drainfield. The original drainfield system that was installed in 1987 is still in use. Wastewater is delivered to the drainfield drop boxes by the main lift station and trenches are sequentially loaded by gravity (i.e. serial distribution). The system is divided into three separate cells each consisting of 2,250 lineal feet of one-foot wide trench with 18 inches of rock beneath the distribution pipe. The design anticipated that only two cells would be in operation at any time with the third cell "resting". Each lineal foot of trench was assumed to provide four square feet of absorption area (one foot for the bottom and a total of three feet for the two 18- inch side walls). Based on a design flow of 6,700 gallons per day, a soil loading rate of 0.37 gallons per day was anticipated while using two drainfield cells simultaneously. The automatic valve system intended to create the alternating use and resting pattern amongst the three drainfield cells apparently failed early in the system's life (reportedly due to water infiltration in the valve manhole). Since this equipment failure, the system has been manually advanced from one zone to the next on a yearly basis. Currently each zone is used for one year then allowed to rest for two years. Although this essentially doubles the soil loading rate (one cell is used instead of two), it appears that the system continues to function hydraulically and neither surfacing nor excessive ponding in the drainfield trenches has been reported. 193802153 3 March 9,2012 $tdli�C DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Anderson/Erickson System —Scandia, MN 2.3 CURRENT FLQW INFORMATION The wastewater flow to the d�ainfield system is measured at the main lift station. Flow rates are calculated by multiplying the pumping rate by the number of hours that the pumps are actually running. It appears that pumping capacity is verified yearly by manually operating the pumps and measuring the time required to pump a known volume from the lift station. Running hours for each pump, and for those times when heavy use causes both pumps to run simultaneously, are recorded by"run time meters" (RTM) located in the pump station control panel. The RTMs are read by Washington County staff about once a month. It appears that the RTM for one of the pumps failed in June of 2008, and since then, time shown on the operating RTM is doubled and added to the RTM recording simultaneous pump operation time (if any) to determine flow for the monitoring period. Monthly flows for the period 1990 through 1995 were included in TKDA's 2000 capacity report, and a spread sheet calculating flows for the period June 2004 through October 2011 was provided by Washington County. No data was available for the period February 1996 to June 2004. The data indicates some seasonality in the use pattern, but generally a steadily increasing flow with time. For the twelve month period ending October 2011, the average daily flow was 5,582 gallons. However, the average daily flow for the period July 5 to July 19, 2011 was 7,524 gallons and flows during the heavy summer use period (June/July) have consistently been in the range of 7,000 to 8,000 gallon per day since the summer of 2006. Since these peak summer flows are actually averages calculated over monitoring periods of 14 to 32 days, the true peak daily flow is unknown but is clearly above these averages. 2.4 OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS Currently the system is operating using one cell and resting two on a yearly basis. Resting each drainfield cell for two years between uses is a good practice to prolong the life of the system, but using only one of the three cells at any given time presents some concerns with respect to hydraulic loading and the ability of the system to provide treatment. As currently operated, the system is being loaded at three#imes the design rate during heavy use periods and at two times the design rate on average. Although a copy of the original design report was not available for review, it appears unlikely that the system can provide adequate nutrient and pathogen reduction when operated at these loading rates. Restoring the zoning functionality included in the original design would mitigate this concern to some extent, but the system would still be overloaded during the heavy use periods. One of the pump RTMs has not worked since 2008. However, it appears that the lack of data recording for this pump has been adequately addressed by periodically verifying that the capacity of both pumps is similar, and multiplying the time recorded by the functioning RTM by two. Replacing the broken RTM would be fairly inexpensive; however, as an alternative, the City may wish to consider upgrading to a programmable logic controller (PLC) with supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA). Upgrading the control panel to a SCADA system or something less expensive that would at least provide data recording capability would provide much better flow data without the need for frequent visits to the site. 193802153 4 March 9,2012 Stdn�C DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Anderson/Erickson System— Scandia, MN The 2000 TKDA report noted a particularly high flow to the system in June of 1993 and correlates this spike in flow with abnormally high precipitation that month. The increased wet weather flow was attributed to infiltration and inflow (I&I) of surface and/or groundwater to the system. We did not compare precipitation data to flow data and can offer no opinion as to the extent of I&I. Nevertheless, with so little gravity collection pipe, the primary concern would appear to be sump pumps discharging to the system. With no way to measure the flow f�om any given properry, these types of connections would be difficult to detect and the City may have to rely on education of the users to help eliminate these illicit discharges. A more assertive effort could be completed by the City that would involve a sump pump inspection program. This program would identify if any cross connections are present. A cross connection is when a sump pump is connected to a sanitary sewer line instead of discharging outside the house. If cross connections are identified and the City enforces corrective matters, I/I to the overall system could potentially be reduced. The City first would want to have an ordinance in place that would assist in the inspection of private property. Sump pump inspections could be completed with existing Public Works staff or the residents could also have the option to have a MN licensed plumber complete the inspection. Sump pump inspections typically take about 15 minutes for each home. 193802153 5 March 9.2012 StanteC DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Anderson/Erickson System — Scandia, MN 3.0 CAPACITY EXPANSION RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 EXPANSION WITHIN EXISTING DRAINFEILD AREA Three hand-auger soil borings were completed within the unused portion of the drainfieid area owned by the City. Soil boring logs and a soil boring location map are attached in Appendix B. The borings indicate silt loam and loamy fine sand at the surface, which is underlain by sandy clay loam and sand. Indications of periodic saturation were encountered at depths of 25 to 48 inches. Without pretreatment, three feet of vertical separation is required between the bottom of the distribution media and periodically saturated soil, therefore any additional soil treatment area constructed in this area would need to be elevated (i.e. a mound). While any expansion of the existing system to provide additional capacity would be subject to the approval of the permitting entity, treatment for an additional 2,000 to 2,500 gallons per day should be achievable based on the soils observed and extent of this residual area. If the system "design" capacity remains below 10,000 gallons per day, Washington County would continue to administer it as a Mid-sized Sewage Treatment System (MSTS). When the system was originally designed in 1986, it was intended to treat 6,70Q gallons per day. This flow rate would be generously high applying today's design standards to the soils present at the site. Nevertheless, the County would not question the original design of the system when permitting a potential capacity expansion. Repairing the broken dosing functionality and adding a mound designed to treat an additional 2,000 or 2,500 gallons per day would bring the total system "design� flow to 8,700 or 9,200 gallons per day, leaving it within the permitting authority of the County. Nevertheless, with peak daily flows rates unknown and average daily flow rates already 7,000 to 8,000 gallons during the heavy summer use months, most of the additional "design" capacity added to the system through these repairs and modifications would be taken up by the existing flow leaving very little true capacity expansion. The County would also require a nitrogen assessment to determine if the discharge from the system will impact an aquifer. A desktop review of published data (Appendix A) suggests the area is usensitive"to aquifer impacts, therefore a nitrate reduction Best Management Practice (BMP) or pretreatment to reduce the nitrate concentration wilf likely be required (subject to the County's requirements). If the system were to be modified to exceed a design capacity of the 10,000 per day, it would be regulated as a Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (LSTS) and a SDS Permit would be required from the MPCA. The MPCA would apply its LSTS Groundwater Nitrate Nitrogen Policy which would require that a total nitrate concentration of 10 mg/L (or Iower} be maintained at the downgradient property boundary, or that the effluent be pretreated to reduce the nitrate concentration to less than 10 mg/L before it is discharged to the soil. In the case of the former, the City already has monitoring wells that might be useful in demonstrating compliance (assuming they are positioned correctly). In the case of the latter, the additional mound would probably not be necessary since the highly treated effluent could be loaded to the existing drainfield at a much higher rate (refer to Section 3.2). 193802153 6 March 9,2012 StdRfiEC DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Anderson/Erickson System —Scandia, MN If a mound were to be built on the residual area, effluent would have to be distributed to it under pressure (whether it is permitted by the County or State). This would likely require a dosing tank in the drainfield area. Assuming the system is going to be permitted by the County (the least expensive option), we would estimate $20,000 for a 10,000 gallon dosing tank installed; about$14,000 for dual dosing pumps, a simple control panel and wiring; and about$40,000 to construct the mound. Based on our discussions with the County, it appears that they would allow the existing drainfield to be dosed by gravity; therefore minimal modification to the drainfield itself would be required. However the dosing functionality originally provide by the broken valve system at the drainfield site would have to be replicated in the dosing tank and we would estimate a cost of about $5,000 to purchase and install this equipment. The dosing and resting cycle could be considered a Nitrogen BMP (subject to the County's approval) and would be built in with no additional cost. With 30% for design, permitting and contingencies, adding a mound to the exis#ing system could easily cost more than $100,000 and would add no more than about 1,200 gallons in daily capacity. 3.2 PRETREATMENT OPTIONS There are a number of potential pretreatment options available that would allow increased flow to the existing drainfield cells. Public domain technologies including single-pass and re-circulating media filters were contemplated by Bonestroo in their 2002 report and remain potential options for the City. The cost of these technologies has increased somewhat since 2002 due to labor and materials costs and regulatory requirements. There are also a number of proprietary treatment products available that are registered for use in Minnesota. These systems vary widely in initial capital costs and in the ongoing cost of operation and maintenance, but in general they employ an air blower to oxygenate effluent and encourage the colonization of aerobic bacteria on a membrane or in suspension. For the purposes of estimating costs, we assume full build-out along the collection system providing service to 45 4-bedroom houses with a total daily flow of about 15,500 gallons. This large a system would be permitted by the State. If the effluent were to be pretreated, it would need to be distributed throughout the drainfield by pressure. The existing gravity distribution system utilizes 4 inch perforated pipe and it should be possible to slide smaller pressure distribution pipe into the 4 inch pipe. Additional tanks and pumps would also be required at the treatment site. As noted above, the total cost adding pretreatment varies widely with the technology. Something in the range of$200,000 to $400,000 would be required for tanks, pumps, controls, and treatment equipment, but if nitrogen reduction to 10 mg/L is required, the equipment costs could double. Another$100,000 should be budgeted for drainfield modification, design and contingencies. The advantage of pre-treating the effluent and utilizing the existing drainfield is that most of the dispersal and groundwater monitoring infrastructure is already there, and there is no land acquisition cost. We believe this option is likely to produce the lowest overall cost to increase the capacity of the system to serve all of the properties along the existing collector pipe. A much more accurate estimate of the actual cost of this type of system modification can be provided if the City chooses to pursue this option. 193802153 7 March 9,2012 Stantec DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Anderson/Erickson System—Scandia, MN 3.3 ACQUISITION OF ADDITIlJNAL LAND Based on our own investigation and the review of available information, it appears that any soil treatment and dispersal system built on land adjacent to the existing system would have to elevated (i.e. a mound). It appears the City had some adjacent property evaluated in 2001, contemplated purchasing the property, and then decided to discontinue negotiations with the owner. Nevertheless, expansion onto adjacent property remains an option. A desktop review of suitability of the soils within reasonable reach of the existing system is included in Appendix A. It appears the best soils are north and east (across Olinda Trail) of the existing system. To provide for full build out of existing collection system, we estimate treatment for about 15,500 gallons per day would be required and the system would be permitted by the State. The State may allow the continued use of the existing drainfield if it can be demonstrated that it is adequately treating wastewater. For the purposes of discussion, we have that it is not and that the entire system would need to be replaced on nearby property. Typically the State wili require that the City provide enough land for a replacement site, and they will want to see 150% of the required treatment system built out immediately with 50% of the land held in reserve. Assuming a conventional mound loaded at 10 gallons per lineal foot per day, about 3'h acres of treatment area would be required (including the reserve area). Depending on the system geometry, mound spacing, and the slope of the land, at total of about 5 to 7 acres of land would be required to construct a replacement system. We estimate the land cost to be approximately$10,000 to$15,000 an acre; and the cost of the mounds, tanks, pumps, controls and electrical to about $370,000 including 30%for design and contingencies. In total, a replacement system on land to be acquired would probably cost about $500,000 without pre treatment to reduce nitrogen. To reduce nitrogen to less than 10 mg/L, another$250,000 in treatment equipment might be required. Without a nitrogen reduction pre-ireatment, it would likely be necessary to expand or replace the existing monitoring well network. 193802153 8 March 9,2012 Stantiec DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Anderson/Erickson System —Scandia, MN 4.0 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 MAINTENACE OF EXISTING SYSTEM No information on the City's current expenditures to maintain the system was provided for review. We understand the costs to maintain the Anderson/Erickson System are combined with the Bliss System and record keeping does not allow the maintenance costs to be easily separated between the two systems. If the system is not expanded, it will operate under a permit issued by the County. Therefore County staff will no longer be able to operate the system for the City and the City will need to hire a contractor. We understand all of the septic takes associated with system were pumped in 2011 creating a spike in maintenance costs. It is required that tanks be cleaned, or checked to determine if they need cleaning every three years. Staggering the maintenance so that one third of the tanks get pumped every year would smooth out the cost of this maintenance. Transitioning to this schedule might require delaying the pumping of some tanks (for example some seasonal users) or accelerating the pumping schedule for some other tanks until the properties can be broken out in three groups. We recommend that the City consider using the existing monitoring well and piezometer network for the purposes they were originally installed. Measuring ponding in the trenches, the groundwater mound beneath the system, and the impact (if any) that the system is having on groundwater quality is useful data. This information would validate the performance of the system, help the City to operate the system more efficiently, and identify potential deficiencies. 4.2 SYSTEM REPAIR If nothing else is going to be done to the system we recommend replacing the RTM at the lift station and repairing the automatic dosing valves in the valve box at the treatment site so the system will operate as designed. We understand that is also an electrically operated drain back valve at the main lift station that is inoperative. Replacing this valve would reduce the run time of the pumps. The RTM is probably no more than a few hundred dollars installed, but the valve equipment and wiring could easily be several thousand. We would have to review the original design documents, determine if comparable replacement equipment is available, and test the existing wiring to come up with an accurate repair estimate. Instead of replacing the RTM, the City should consider upgrading the control panel at the main lift station. Regardless of whether the treatment system is replace, upgraded, or operated as is, upgrading the control panel would provide much better data acquisition without making frequent visits to the site. We would estimate an upgraded panel at the lift station be about $12,000 installed, which would include telemetry features. Without the telemetry features the cost would roughly be half. We understand the City is currently replacing the pumps and controls for their "Downtown" system, and panel costs included in those bids should be comparable. 193802153 g March 9,2012 StanteC DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Anderson/Erickson System—Scandia, MN 4.3 SYSTEM EXPANSION With flows during the summer months already averaging 7,500 to 8,000 gallons per day over 14 to 30 day periods, it seems likely that the peak daily flow is already over 10,000 gallons per day. In our opinion, designing any upgrade for a flow less than 10,000 gallons per day would be short sighted and would be unlikely to pass regulatory scrutiny. As previously noted, expanding the system to provide additional capacity at or above 10,000 gallons per day would require a SDS Permit, and the permit fee is near►y $10,000. The costs to construct, operate, and maintain an upgraded system would depend not only on the technology used to achieve the increased capacity, but also on the permit conditions and fees imposed by the State. It is difficult to estimate those costs at this time, but annual O&M costs could easily exceed $10,000 with monthly reporting and groundwater monitoring. The approximate costs of expanding the system the serve all of the properties along the collection has been presented in the sections above. A feasibili#y study would more accurately predict these costs for the City's consideration. At#his time there are too many variables for use to accurately predict the total cost of a capacity upgrade, but it certainly appears that pre-treating effluent and utilizing the existing drainfield for disposal would produce the best value. �&M costs would depend on which technology is employed and the operating permit conditions. 193802153 10 March 9,2012 . StanfieC DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Anderson/Erickson System —Scandia, MN 5.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The Anderson/Erickson collection system has been expanded to provide potential service connections to about 15 additional properties; however the treatment system has no capacity to accept the proposed flows. Arguably the system is already being overloaded and there are numerous seasonal properties already connected to the system that could convert to year round use and further overload the system. Given the current conditions, we recommend no additional connections to the system at this time. The system was designed in 1986 in accordance with the standards applied at the time. Currently, Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and 7081 provide prescriptive standards for sewage treatment. Systems built in accordance with these standards are presumed to provide adequate sewage treatment. Systems built and/or operated outside of these guidelines are typically required to demonstrate that they provide and acceptable level of sewage treatment. Applying today's prescriptive treatment standards to the system, each of the three drainfield calls would be assumed to provide treatment for 1507 to 1809 gallons of wastewater per day, depending on whether it was bedded in silt loam or loamy fine sand. If the entire drainfield system were to be used simultaneously, it would be presumed to provide treatment for 4521 to 5427 gallons per day. Of course these prescriptive treatment standards also assume that there is also at least two feet of unsaturated soil beneath the system at all times. Given an average loading rate of 5600 gallons per day to one cell over the past year, soil saturation seems likely and treatment is in question. Monitoring wells are already present at the site, and depending on whether they were installed in meaningful locations, it might be possible to demonstrate that the system is currently treating sewage by demonstrating that it is not impacting groundwater. Conversely, sampling the wells may demonstrate that the system is negatively impacting groundwater quality thus precipitating a need for additional action. Based on our review of the information provided, it appears that the City has been contemplating the capacity of the system and possible upgrades to the system for many years. It appears that no action has been taken primarily due to financial considerations. If the goal of the City is to allow additional connections to the system and eventually reduce the number of private individual systems, financing for the improvements needs to be addressed and pursued as soon as possible to provide a plan for future demands of the residents identified within the potential service area of the system. We understand users are charged approximately$55 per month and the current hook up fee is currently$4,250. Going forward, the City may want to consider the actual value of the system to the users. For example, if someone were to build a mound system on their property to serve a 5 bedroom house, it would be more than 100 feet long, more than 45 feet wide, and cost more than $20,000 to construct. Even if that much room were available on a lot, the presence of such a dramatic landscape feature would be objectionable to most people. Therefore it seems reasonable that both new and current users pay for the actual value of the system. If the hook up and service fee are adjusted additional revenue can be generated to provide better maintenance of the system and eventually provide financing to replace the system. 193802153 11 March 9,2012 Stantec DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Anderson/Erickson System—Scandia, MN Not being able to predict the rate of future new connections or not having the time for additional funds to accumulate by a increase in the monthly service fee the City may want to look at alternative financing options to have improvements completed before future connection requests are made. Alternative financing options could be provided through the General Tax Levy or Special Assessments. Minnesota cities are required by law to hold a yearly public hearing to receive comments on the types of services proposed for the upcoming year, as well as the associated costs. These public hearings are referred to as Truth-in-Taxation hearings. The proposed budget and proposed property tax levy and their percentage increases from the current year levels are typically discussed at the hearing. The Anderson/Erickson System would therefore be addressed as part of the budget preparation process. The main advantage of using funds from the general fund is that justification of direct benefit of a particular project to a property is not required. A major disadvantage is that priorities can change rapidly and dedicated funding may prove difficult to rely on from year to year, or even be inadequate. Special assessments are an indirect form of taxation. They are a way for cities to charge certain properties for the cost of making a local improvement, or to collect certain charges that will benefit those properties. Cities may use special assessments to recover the cost of public improvements if the city has adopted an ordinance to provide for it. The amount that is charged to a particular property must be based upon the benefit that the property will receive from the improvement. Cities cannot charge an amount greater than the amount the benefit will increase the value of the properry. There are many advantages to using special assessments as a funding source. They are a means of raising money outside the general city tax resources. Special assessment bonds do not count towards statutory debt limitations. They provide a means of levying charges for public services against properties otherwise exempt from taxation. Perhaps the chief value of special assessments is that by charging the property owner for the benefit received, they prevent or minimize the possibility that a property owner will benefit from the improvement at the expense of the general taxpayer. 193802153 12 March 9,2012 . SYSTEM LAYOUT MAP Figure 1: Area Map 1 and Area Map 2 E�� ' I ♦ � o , o . ,; • yE . �� 's�.. F9i�1 • `•�* �,, �o o _y�a�zzoza0002 � . yP� pqyiD50N 10NN R y �r '"� ( �� 9AV�i ^�� * .Y• . . E ,. y, ,�,.. .230Li01� .. � �p�)2'eG140f��4 � � � �� / ��` �� ONIAL � � DAVi�50NJOHNF� ��4 �y JI� 6 _� l� � ..'3220... ---^-�aazm2��eY �nonse - � f. E � y, �SON�ONNR-"��A� NJOHVN , � � ,rg, ��no�zzoza�I�` '►.3aao� oe^j .. � !-' ��'#� � � r R AViU50 V � anouzozaxie 'r��+�`•"' �� '�� 'y�'�� oaviosonia�uu h• a , � _ �, '+'��;� �y�5'� '� � '.:n�°,� ^asso_sa�,ai7czroon� ,,,,yy 's-`.k�� ''."�•�� NENK NIIRAPNN •` �7+��j�, � � �M r � 18fi10.340322U1n001P � " �OHNSON HAHHIE�N r*�I�,� � � '•y �r�~ �859�-�092]014u0i9 ~ ""�'.�� . � y SWENSON NEIL G k � y t. + 1B5>0-5�032202aq120 � M1' • ` 6.�'n�' �. . r��i0MAR0i}iOMASJBBANdANA � � � � �_3��Y?.lil�'d0(ICl1 �. A,� �f t JAVit1SOM11.��EE �.��.� � ' S ��:..i , : � �Y Y �liN"�:� � bs,<-Qaka z� �� 2„� �� 'i Ag � ��:�,. y '�LSY.EL�IhG..OiSRENEfl�VID � � ��i ✓�� ,�a; � l •� : " � � 1 , _1 �� \ N�" �� tlAW t�03.'02<OE15 4,' �,� �EXO�UNDWyaMCBKAREM � ~ 5x.� {.:_in�:. .y / t � S�a?�p'.:.. 1 olp4!FkS.H?161b13FEPqN . e"l] .�,i .93 �• '� �yy FtkttNUhFLt t 1'HvM1WUGL � .�. ax'�� -�� .,$p.. \}` 9�'Jti)V4� �) �� ,� �SIMY RSTC�LV C9ROL'D �� '- 4 s - � Connected � °"""'�"� � '� �� xcine� ��caeru � �Z' rn Ti'v.n'i:'ias ` K , � , . 4,"._. Seasonal �,«, �o�zza�„�, .�:'-7r� iRIiZLARAYNERTRS �'�� v -.NO]2203+MA6 I� � ��- O ��'�� IEU:ILEftoY�. � � Parcel Label Format � '��-�+��_�� - �.�� ' ffJ1�ER0'/� �i �' HOUSE NUMBER--PID �- �i a n ,o .�p� ` OWNER NAME `� - �EsS �,asro av t:� �u.,m �i.,,o;.. - .'•��`T , ,,''. ;� �lc,st:s vae n•,esac�a � � �� .o . � ve�^�cdUs eFr0.�r.�a>eEia � , �u.:. e�v.;�. '� � 3 NWKAn �F 6 �A!.'�b f '.k03 I �. . �.� �pFKTMENhE H�6'JI 'Ell 18AG0-�4�1'11.31iC15 .�Y•. 'K� GARRpLWLLiA6JR9KA�HLEEN ]a0J11C�1D�1L �= '3]8'3<C3]243t000� CARROLIW«�>M1R6NAiN1EE'+ ,�.• SCMROE�ER iE�E'�8C'nF�JLO 3C)]3i]10;11 CAR*IERO�NiELRBMARYM ' � �./ 18)10..J�G3I1�;�t0�t5 . T'-4. ,CAR�IEFJAN�ElR8A1?RYM . .t� -:k03220]t0019 �% •. {� G,pTIER DANIE�R B IIARY M 2 r."-:iY..�E —Fs � �`�;'..i',r N ,� �a3+��ao�zsos�.00� g -�,.t GNI iEH DaM1iEL H 8 vAfiv v. ,I' �� __� 'r.��,. �i.��B]oaC3aG3Z � rKptNtEEN� !k.•.��.� �. µOLfBAUE0.KE�+NE `'��*,,��y�� - ' rT . ++� ' _ .Yv . + � xoizso3 onz� . � +„�, BRE121AANf[TERnBM1tARYC , .�y�,- .. 8280 3n0:f2[f ft�0 '+�;�� BREIL4ANIE�tkA81'AHYC 11� . � :u�yi��a�nooa G V I1�M'S'�Offi'E�WdRD ."Y�03]20W0005 GUINANS;OMVEUNIA1tU '�7� ! 18200�J<�32I09JOC�5 Y CASSAUYPR01'iNL � �9t9i�-]A�?2�IC000j� .! • 5�I�GAkY M .. , .. � � •. _ �d!.�. . .r , Fd9�ft �.s . ' � �y! . yQ'.. '� fl ;�"�i� ��t`"'� �. ..t.�.. � ��r'�`.�s� „y�.a..r''� �,,. �y ��. y� 31�' DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT � City of Scandia, MN Pro ect Area Ma i 3717 23rd Street S � p sr.cio�d,MN 56301 14727 209th Street North � (320)251-4553 Seandia MN 55073 �ob No. Scale Date � 193802153 lin=200 ft 2/24/2012 � ,; . ,� :�' :..�, - . _ ._� . .. � : .' i�� .�f� ,_ ,a, - . . � . {"..�-.s,rr �'"'.�, - . . i• -� , . . ..�' .�. . �_ ^.�j. , , .. '�, ,. . . . ' . . ' .. \ . , � . . . " ",1'' \ y�. i} . r'`; . � � �,� � . "'�. . . • . ., � . . . � . � .� ?I�..� ..� _ 'n. � . � . � .. . . . . . �� . . . � � � � � . 2f f 3.-• � Y� L . I LEM1L �&nM1EVOJ 4. ��' � � 'OLO AL�ENNB't�E'i4;�'. �.� 1S , „ . , OL�9''ALItHkBtltIHC ,. o- } � �" '.-.i'`•u.�' y,�e ��{•,��. . .� . ,ry.��E �:�, a�� . '`:i�.. 3L«^' � � , T I� �� E nL`.\ �.yMy�� .y� . �o a diFa�z�'�Y,�a Y ' i �r� ' � �'�' cr r E AEv�de J�'M�!'C:f � / /.�q' f s�- ��- .�aF 'l. .. Y `91 M'r 110,J.: o i w , 3�38 '� , 4 1. .. �IiGia � •.�F FF�3 ��tia" y , �� } �. y ��y� u��"` �ce c.oa+ * r.:..� _ " ��.11. � .R,_ lt.S�dL S ` '� � � �C . CFiiE4��V�A 08_AVElt1�C�,.T � �.JuO�.CC`�[� l{�. yL .�� 'ny " _ C Ci.Cf�S_" ¢ti `v� ��t'�LAIV,N":! _i t . _ �^a�1 { . 0�\GYIIE.F DAV �2� h� � I �• . �j „� .. �: � . ..�. . * '� P1 "' r .. � �1�.. � ',h�?' 39-3�C] Ot 00.. � .,,. -K� '�� ' _3 . ,� uznivH�va�o��o'-ssu�z�oo '''� rt �l. ' �4�p� .�� eyedae�.ry.KZ�ra i�mek.� / -, �r _ y�._. � �� ► � �s�r . s:. .�i� d , ° ?V � ��tJln�vN��L�`z�,,ioms y`, -�' ,Xl'�" :t-rt�T � # .�: "IIIVIIII�� llt+��l��'M'i.�'�4�"��'i��l, �I '��lli4��g;'�..�i,, ,� .',I � � �i' +� �1,� . y� . ` �„ '�' , . *,. � ,t, ,�,t.�� I� -": ,,►', � ,. .� ..�� r. '�� a '��' .�`e..� 1�'I,$ �� f . . 'r�� .:.al � -. �� _� � ��r.�� , _a�o s o im3�. � . � � .. �oeir�euaeu;, f - � t v+.��. _. ��.�� .,�� .� � � ti'�f'��'3' '�� ' �. 1 , • �� d�,.� . . , � ,� � . ��rimzzo�icrr ` � .'-�' r I � ' � " -� � . } IENZALVVJ! . �S! � � R�'` tl'� . �q',..�Y • '�: •+'3 �Y �a �w �f '�"�� a•'� `�. hR ,� ��j+ y 3 ` �� i 3� �� t �°"- - ' = r ��a ,��2, i i� i'�I�� y Z�� , '`�� I I � .� . ' •,�. i � : ~ .°��cP �� . !� �� ? 'o� " - � - {'' �P o"s�` .. . a" f: 2 I �b'' 1 � �) «,3=5�3-�2�_1�..N� ' � � � ' � 1 /�'",M`��`6 ��f LtF�s E E^(�Si- �7 n� I / /� � v,`��, 4-_ {��' � �t i� .`� �-`s� �� `�v��>� u Yo T'��ua a ��. �`� i:eira��S i �,�.uw,rc �� . '��.� � !Jf . ,...�"` ��.'�c> >';wa�asz sza,v . . _�.�,h�.�°" rrwc cr . �>�' �°d� o,� �,*��@� ; �o,� ;�� 3� .P vA,� 4 e�. � Y �2 \ o�'a � ♦ gq.::i F�i`�� Connected e`�F � \ V ', l,�`.'€ �F ., e . � r-��4�� ` .. .�.�.�:�. _.. . .... � .., �. .--,. ...� Seasonal . .,._ . . _ .. ,� � �.,o � �_� �.�.��_.�•_,��,. Parcel label Format � � HOUSE NUMBER--PID ,,.,, .�.> .,. . ,, .. ._ .. ..:. .. .. .. . . ,�.. .. , ,._:.. ..e'::. OWNER NAME DRAINFIELD EXISTING CONDITION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT � 3717 23rd Street S City of Scandia, MN Project Area Map 2 sc.cio�d,MN 56301 14727 209th Street North --� (320)251-4553 Scandia MN 55073 �ob No. Scale Date � 193802153 1 in= 200 ft 2/24/2012 I APPENDIX A CUSTOM SOIL SURVEY - WASHINGTON COUNTY USDA United States A product ofthe National Custom Soil Resource � Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for O n ' �� States Department of `J I V Agriculture and other Was h i n gto n Federal agencies, State Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment �O u �� Conservation Stations, and local � Service participants Minnesota Anderson/Erickson System .p� t . , i � '� � 1;��"�a ,�� ; �f�� i''�'� � 7. �� > � .e ys ',(�. 'J �,. ��'�� ' � ��r,�,� '�� ' f �►° ,j �� E � ��__ , _ _ �ti+. � �a ;��. �� +� f ' 4 'd ��+ 7P E� ' �� il ✓ ��T� .: s ( � � ' (j�.~' . &`�ub'�'^� . � � „•,a� ♦�� .�� ..� �i �'b f� ,� � ' '�a ,�t�k �,� �i `�� , � _ .,• • j�.� � �'' ` �. � 1�"� •� � � �! � i�,�� .s � v s �Y�3 i' t h. � ` � ♦ Ri � ..' �'4 � .11 ��"'°5 • ..� � `M� � M ��«*, {�a$ 1 A��', ` ��i14��. �,�+��, ^ � Wasfrington �y ��, ��,_,� r r x'�"�,,� a ,� r I * �*,. ��'�' � �'�•"tr':y.�'�,' �!"�'�'�" '�� MN - N�G i y��•;�*N �f •� � � • • ,� �� ; �� ' i� �.= � , . �• . �� `* r u"�`" '�';�!"' k �R • , �. / � �rs, � � �� »�c �.�"��,� `l�' •;�;��;: .7�� ,� �'`� � '� J'. �'.� �' `sr ..�% '�"�'; .� ,`" ��'� .. �� . IR'� ��I" �'I` �' `'�f • � �, �'j� •�� „� � r�`.!r'�,f , �,u„�IF� . , �^. {.�� 1, . � - 1� • • 1 . ' j March 8, 2012 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,protect,or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses.The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning,onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http %isoils usda.gov/sqi/)and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center(http //offices.sc.ego�.usda gov/locator/app? agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist(http /%soils.usda gov/contact/ state_offices/). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey orwet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil S u rvey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Soil Data Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil Data Mart is the data storage site for the official soil survey information. The U.S. Department ofAgriculture(USDA)prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation,genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal,or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 2 for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or(202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface...................................................................................................................2 SoilMap..................................................................................................................5 SoilMap................................................................................................................6 Legend..................................................................................................................7 MapUnit Legend..................................................................................................8 MapUnit Descriptions..........................................................................................8 Washington County, Minnesota......................................................................10 49—Antigo silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes.................................................10 49D—Antigo silt loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes..........................................10 120—Brill silt loam.......................................................................................11 155C—Chetek sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes....................................12 342C—Kingsley sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes..................................13 507—Poskin silt loam..................................................................................14 543—Markey muck.....................................................................................14 Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................16 Suitabilities and Limitations for Use....................................................................16 SanitaryFacilities............................................................................................16 Aquifer Assessment(MN)...........................................................................16 Septic Tank Absorption Fields—Trench (MN)...........................................20 Septic Tank Absorption Fields—At-Grade (MN).......................................25 Septic Tank Absorption Fields—Mound (MN)...........................................30 4 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 5 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map a < � m m Q < � � 513500 513600 513700 513800 513900 514000 45°13'2" 45°13'2" ,Y,� . �y� g " � � ^ � �� , 0 � #�Y �� , ��,. } �' � � F t�' , ' �� R �t� � , � ' o ,,�ti'�,� � '� � ` o ,� , � o � � I �...,n�� •':;a �' � �� o `�:. � * � � i + '� t�'� � �� '�'�" " �� • s � �'.F 1�a.�y��d �. � �p" � t .;.: . '_ �� 1' �f g� � o .� .� . f " t..� � �� a N '� a� �°" �; . • � � �� . ,T�• � a ' N r �r"4 ;� 1 �, .i} ��r �` � {?4j t, ,rp. � � ' ' `" � '�' Yi � s�� ; o � . . 4. ` O � � ' + P '� � (O � : y .A f O N •�r • �+�'�4 .. 1 �� # � � � . .° -�� , o �'�. o ��; � � : .� �r�. �, 'a��+�''` o r � � f�r+�, � _._ , _ ��. _ �. .� - �,� � �, , �:�, �,. ��w, A � � + � ' � � ��a� � �'� . � �. t � �� ..�1��"'� - , �� -y��r �g E� �' �T �� ' { F o � C� �� ' ��t�. 7�W� P�q �" o O � � '.{Y 5��'�e+k..%la��..��sr �p .2� � O N ��.+ ��f! � � _ �. �..T9'� ;:� � �� c.r,,�� P� .r �* "' �'� �� # .�� . ,r��. 4 �w `��a�� , r� . .. � +, �. M"+ � � � 't�'. • '� � � � a� i g , F � 0 `8 iI'�•�r�' ► � �ir � I� r" ( i=",. . �°� $ � . �� ,�� ,� � ,.• � _�� ` � �� '�� a�� r F W _ 9�� - � . i � k� � �.;�' ;� � '�� '.� O � � I�`�� 11..: _. . ��k ya ,:../+R�a'**�..,. Q 8 � �t_r��, � .�� '"'"-'y��."'�� `�� ,.'�.,' '�' ;� �;y:f o �'�� ,,� � •,� .. ��:��F � � - .. ... �'� �� ' � ,+ �,� ��: 5k„r - . �;�a! #° l * o +'.,.,!�.:� "�`' . . . o ti� o %.. �. �" * '�� '�'� . �r� J�* <�s i wi +� � 0 �1. .'��* � . 45°12'34" i�� + � 45°12'34" 5�3500 513600 513700 513800 513900 514000 c Map Scale�.1:4.140 d printed on A s¢e(8.5"x 11")sheet. � 'm a' < N Meters Q � � o se �o ,ao Z,a m Feet 0 150 300 600 900 w � C � d � C Cp — C � � � � � N N N N > � N 7 � y � ip � V � C � � V � � � � C N i6 C T O N V � l0 a � C �� L 'p fC ` V N U N � � _ y N U p'O c0 (n 7 r N � _ U N n �U N N � C y N N O fC E � � C V �p. O ` U N a0 N� O Q " y c�i �� m� II � Z T� V � a� y N c r� �� .. c _ L oo c F ;n y y Em � a� � �n y °� � Z � � � Eoi Q a° 3 mE `o n � ZQ � � w `� . � a� p � � c.y � E UyZ � c�j L � `nf6c ,y Q , m Um � � L yN � � orn � O �Q � � Q o m a> � 3 1O m � a�i a� e� V Q o �v v; > 0 � T II > �ot � � 0 3 0 � 3 0 � o � Tm y LL -�p � a � 'mwt � y aN E o rnc a d � Ea Z � �a o o � � �n m � L � �� co � � � y � d c o >. a �-�oa°�i u�i m � � � � � 4� � nLE Q .a � 5 � � 3 G) � N U f6 N N � J N N N L C N � O � � m� N > � Z � �— � O N � N � � m E �'� t � >,� aci 'n � �c m o'rna�i c � y � `o �La � ui aZ i. �m �� o-o m o � Z �o c �� 3 o c m = � -o Q � m L� na � y cn a� ;� � c°� `� � c� a> jo aTi � a`� o�° ..�-� 'c m � E y y � � o - m -o . ZQ m t -c � � o � °' .o E � II a� � y o c o � > >. ;� r °' Z'n � N C �7 � N f0 N `' a � y > (n N � O a�N d y � y U 7 O — Z N E f0 E f0 L (O C .- f6 = �� N � p � O L � p 7 N .0 � � ,-� w E n y �i a E v� 3 U � � v�cn o F- � � o � 0 a a� � a� U � 7 O N N � '�O/� vJ N y � d C N 0 p � U L VI N Ip � �O � y N 3 T ` n � = H � � 16 A /0 U o o � ?: H °1 "-' � o v> ' � � � LL T O � ` y � y � � O � > � O c U'� uLi O � U � in O � � � � ° J p1 � � Q . LL � Z V �� d ` � t V LL � 4 � � \ W C ' .L'' � � C 'n y O � � y a 3 � W J a � a� a Q � o �p tn C a 3 v G in � N E y d d d -- m m m � � m n v � m ° m � o � a c � � .. a°_i ... y 3 w � a�i Y. Q � W rn n d n p n � a oQ � d >, o o d � m � y � >. � Q 0 � d O 3 � � N N w � L � � O N >` N O O � Q N � � LL 3 t T y ` � C > � C IV/1 � U C C > Y � � �O C � ¢` in o m m° U U c7 c� J J f � � a � in in �n in v> in cn v� m a C q O y . � X • }{ ' � � .� y. � � ) + , , �I� � t.n � ��{ V A �+ a ► O y Q fA Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Washington County,Minnesota(MN163) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 49 Antigo silt loam,0 to 2 percent slopes 29.6 58.8% --- - -- ._--- _ --- _ _- 49D Antigo silt loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes 2.8 5.5% - --- - _ _ 120 Brill silt loam 7.6 15.0°/a - - -_ ---- - __---- 155C Chetek sandy loam,6 to 12 percent 1.4 2.8°/o slopes ___ 342C Kingsley sandy loam,6 to 12 percent 1.6 3.2% slopes __ _ __ __ _ _ ----- 507 Poskin silt loam 5.2 10.3°/a ___ - -__ — -- . _ _ 543 Markey muck 2.2 4.4°/a Totals for Area of Interest 50.3 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils.On the landscape, however,the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management.These are called contrasting,or dissimilar,components.They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each.A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. 8 Custom Soil Resource Report The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A comp/ex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas.Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha- Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Washington County, Minnesota 49—Antigo silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 700 to 1,900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 27 to 33 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 180 days Map Unit Composition Antigo and similarsoils: 90 percent Description of Antigo Setting Landform: Outwash plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material.� Loess over outwash Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage c/ass:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 1 Land capability(nonirrigated):2s Typical profile 0 to 2 inches: Silt loam 2 to 13 inches: Silt loam 13 to 26 inches: Silt loam 26 to 38 inches: Loamy sand 38 to 60 inches: Gravelly sand 49D—Antigo silt loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes Map Unit Setting E/evation: 700 to 1,900 feet Mean annual precipitation:27 to 33 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 180 days 10 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Composition Antigo and similar soi/s: 90 percent Description of Antigo Setting Landform: Pitted oufinrash plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loess over outwash Properties and qualities Slope: 12 to 18 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage c/ass:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):4e Typical profile 0 to 2 inches: Silt loam 2 to 13 inches: Silt loam 13 to 26 inches: Silt loam 26 to 38 inches: Loamy sand 38 to 60 inches: Gravelly sand 120—Brill silt loam Map Unit Setting E/evation: 800 to 1,950 feet Mean annual precipitation: 27 to 33 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period.� 135 to 180 days Map Unit Composition Brill and similar soils: 90 percent Description of Brill Setting Landform: Drainageways on outwash plains Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loess over outwash 11 Custom Soil Resource Report Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage c/ass: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 30 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 2s Typical profile 0 to 3 inches: Silt loam 3 to 11 inches: Silt loam 11 to 14 inches: Silt loam 14 to 35 inches: Silt loam 35 to 60 inches: Stratified sand to coarse sand 155C—Chetek sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Map Unit Setting E/evation: 800 to 1,950 feet Mean annual precipitation: 27 to 33 inches Mean annual airtemperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period.� 135 to 180 days Map Unit Composition Chetek and similar soils: 90 percent Description of Chetek Setting Landform: Pitted outwash plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Outwash Properties and qualities Slope:6 to 12 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Low(about 3.6 inches) 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):4e Typical profile 0 to 8 inches: Sandy loam 8 to 14 inches: Loam 14 to 19 inches: Gravelly sandy loam 19 to 60 inches: Gravelly coarse sand 342C—Kingsley sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 1,000 to 1,300 feet Mean annua/precipitation: 27 to 33 inches Mean annua/air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 180 days Map Unit Composition Kingsley and si►nilar soils: 90 percent Description of Kingsley Setting Landform: Moraines Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Till Properties and qualities Slope: 6 to 12 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.14 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 3e Typical profile 0 to 6 inches: Sandy loam 6 to 32 inches: Sandy loam 32 to 60 inches: Sandy loam 13 Custom Soil Resource Report 507—Poskin silt loam Map Unit Setting Elevation: 800 to 1,950 feet Mean annual precipitation:27 to 33 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 180 days Map Unit Composition Poskin and similar soils: 90 percent Description of Poskin Setting Landform: Drainageways on outwash plains Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material.�Alluvium over outwash Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):2w Typical profile 0 to 13 inches: Silt Ioam 13 to 28 inches: Silt loam 28 to 33 inches: Loam 33 to 60 inches: Gravelly coarse sand 543—Markey muck Map Unit Setting Elevation: 700 to 2,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 27 to 33 inches Mean annual airtemperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 180 days 14 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Composition Markey and similar soils: 85 percent Description of Markey Setting Landform: Depressions Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material.� Organic material over outwash Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: Frequent Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent Available watercapacity:Very high (about 13.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):6w Typical profile 0 to 30 inches: Muck 30 to 60 inches: Stratified sand to fine sand to loamy very fine sand 15 Soil Information for All Uses Suitabilities and Limitations for Use The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest.A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each interpretation. Sanitary Facilities Sanitary Facilities interpretations are tools designed to guide the user in site selection for the safe disposal of sewage and solid waste.Example interpretations include septic tank absorption fields, sewage lagoons, and sanitary landfills. Aquifer Assessment (MN) The Aquifer Assessment interpretation uses soil properties as a proxy to predict the presence of a sensitive surficial aquifer. Soil properties considered include the te�ure in the bottom horizon, the presence of bedrock, and the classification of organic soils (Histosols). The Aquifer Assessment interpretation is associated with the"desktop" evaluation of large individual sewage treatment systems to predict aquifer vulnerability and the potential risk of nitrogen impacting the aquifer. Regulatory requirements for large individual sewage treatment systems (flow greater than 2,500 gallons per day) are found in Minnesota Rule Chapter 7080. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Soils are assigned to rating classes based on their degree of risk. These classes are"not sensitive" (rating index of 0.00) and "sensitive" (rating index of 1.00). The components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit.The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as the one shown for the map unit.The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is given to help the user better understand the extent to which the rating applies to the map unit. 16 Custom Soil Resource Report Other components with different ratings may occur in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless the aggregated rating of the map unit, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. 17 Custom Soil Resource Report � Map—Aquifer Assessment(MN) � � � � � m � � � m 513500 513600 513700 513800 5'13900 514000 45"13'2" _ 45°13'2" o A.� �, -- , ..,. . : „, .,. ,, ';. o o . ,: � . -. �. � � 'ti a� �y ,_' � ' � 'a �.� a.�q . �,��, ;�, „ � o �"..a`�'!p ` . .. .,,., .. ; � � o o � ��. �� N #' ► �'' i�`' �� . . t�, � � - �� , *� "� �; "� r � � � o �� r�� . o � �`6. 0 p f:�M� �xi�� . � �� ..I � N �� O � 7�� '�' „�'�. � P�� ' 4 � �'M�,"� '�� , �� •�� *� _.R4' � Y-�: � �� 'Y � ., .... ... y.+ �� +► � � �7/� . ; ... , ..:. f� m M +' ,�- � � � �� a m o ',�� ,� � � ..� .;,.., .... .a o . .. �...- ..:' d � � � � ,.�. �., �� '� , i -y � � � . � M1 � ($ � � �., � � �� i 4t �'i �bn� � "�� - ° p c s �� m c . a. _ � . .. __... ..$. �.:i �l �D � di M o c �� '��. . f�� .::� �� , •� ; ,� , � ;,��. � � ' ' �` � �� o � - � �� '4.�� O '�'`„�;'� .��,,�,,,�,�;, .,�-._- � � , : �� . > '� �,,; �, .� I 1 � '�f��i� I��,! ��t � �,��., ' �� "tz�" �r� •�'��d�l�l�"��Ii I�i��l � h I�� I�i� �► � ,+r�•*• `� �""_� '�'*� wr�MMe: � k,� ti ; � ,�., � �� ..: �.' � � ' `� o , . � - �� - '"`� :�' ,., , �'`i,...,:r _ ��,:: � !'" �,�. �.� o o � �' o .� � `i � t f �'�tI ..�'�,�`r� ��"t�'. .�, � . �. �. - � , ��,� ;# � �r;,� .�.: � � ,.._ �,�.!i� I,• i�i�',� R�",�j �I li � � y a � � �`�1 — ��. � � g �� yy, 5 .. .: �.,�. o N *y�i�� . ��.0 � I�j „ . � � S ^ s S � �.: -a�,i� N g� 7 � 'h' N A �- 3� 'S.� �� II�� o .� �� t� 1 � � t :'s :�s�,� � "�'' � ` �I 1I II I( f �` � �� a . �� , � � �e{, �g� 4 O �y�' T��„'i ��rt� . �'SC'.nGs xawt'-4i�Y��. O Q R .,i.., �"�n' �� O p � .��}�. .. "' . . � � :, x +�� .vs� o � � A , . �n � � � .' � . � .,. w�y�;�' r � u' � � �aC�,,,µ� �F�, �.�. �y,�� F��' � �s��,�, �w . ',x* -�"! . , „ p^ . � � '. .. ,'..' �. �� +' �� M � o ��+� � , t +,.� o o °" , , ..., � o o ,�� {y��, �._. .+' � � ��....: <n ,!"�""'��' ��, �'',.a��p �!�'�lr '� i�., o N � � � ,�A�.� � + ,�� ! rr 45°12'34" 45°12'34" 513500 513600 513700 5�i800 513900 514000 v Map Scale�.t�4.140 d printed on A s¢e(8.5"x 11")sheet. � m � < N Meters � a, � 0 35 70 140 210 m Feet 0 150 300 600 900 o ' � I o � � � C � i l6 H1 � N � f� N O N �. E (p N N � I V � C � I� � U � � N � C d f0 �� T O f0 � � N � C U U U U � � N O C �� N N � U � � � f0 (n 7 r f0 � _ V N a I �U N N � � C y N 0 N O f0 E Z � � �,, N O_l0 N � � O � U N � N D N O I ip C (4 N N � ' ■ � I � �a m � �I d � Tr� U c r w� ~ � l() N � f0 f6 N N � � � Z � O U y Q a0 � y p �E O d C j Q � � � � � . � � N � m O ,� Z Q �`N � m .. � y a �6 � m� `� r �' � � � o � � o � Q -�o O Q � a yE3f0 m � a�i � � rn n� y ' c �. > � o o � d � 3 � Y cQ � �� na�i LL 0 N I N - N O C y � O 3 O (p L E �� N �n � � �m t � a� a N E o o�c Q d � E � Z y �I, C O N N d' � � y C O y� y T C Q O j.� C C N L � .k � L �` N � � y fp a p_ O I T � �'O N I N j � � � � � j d n._.. N Q � � N > U (0 y N 9 f4 f6 '"'1 N N > > N L y C d � �p I � p_p aN � � ZQ `y- N py O � � � � � � � ! � � C � � � �n C � L I, .L-. >'"�' p�N � l0 � ��T C � � _ • � Y N N N N � � Z �o c m� � I o c � 3� ' � Q � io L� n� pj J (/) N ` . U �"N � (n 'N, j C 7,N '� a N N «. '° m c� � a> a�im I� � � o — m � � ZQ � L� � � � y ` �C � � �� N N U� 'O aN !n N N O�ad f0 d � fC y U N '� f0 N j � p N m c m c ._ m �- da� o � o L � 'o � m LEmE � F- I � w E aN , a E cn � c> � � <ncn o � � £o � 0 a a� � a� U 7 O � N �' O � � O � 3 U d s � p m " �+ Q Q ] l0 T � C l0 Z `° y « O U L W � � N C V � N Yl '^ � � �>-, O C 2 y U V � ^ C d N 'N 'O y .,d, «� O O W Q `o f0 �'-. y m E :9 0' � � J � Yl N l� M � l0 Y/ � � YN d 'p W N O p � " m � C N .�.. (n N p a d Q UJ OI !n Z C � U V7 O � C � � J d C d � � Q � {p LL Wy � � � �, � � � � m a a o r O c � � � � � 'o N o 10 � a v� a 3 � Custom Soil Resource Report Tabies—Aquifer Assessment (MN) Aquifer Assessment(MN)—Summary by Map Unit—Washington County,Minnesota(MN163) Map unit Map unit name Rating Component name Rating reasons Acres in Percent of AOI symbol (percent) (numeric values) AOI 49 Antigo silt loam,0 Sensitive Antigo(90%) Sand and rock 29.6 58.8% to 2 percent (1.00) slopes - - --- — -_ ___ _- - — ___-- 49D Antigo silt loam, 12 Sensitive Antigo(90%) Sand and rock 2.8 5.5% to 18 percent (1.00) slopes — _ _ _ —___ _ --- -- _ _ _ _ _.__._ 120 Brill silt loam Sensitive Brill(90%) Sand and rock 7.6 15.0% (1.00) - — —- _ -- __ 155C Chetek sandy Sensitive Chetek(90%) Sand and rock 1.4 2.8°/a loam,6 to 12 (1.00) percent slopes - - -_ __ - - 342C Kingsley sandy Not sensitive Kingsley(90%) 1.6 3.2% loam,6 to 12 percent slopes — — _ _ - _ _ 507 Poskin silt loam Sensitive Poskin(90°/a) Sand and rock 5.2 10.3% (1.00) 543 Markey muck Sensitive Markey(85%) Sand and rock 2.2 4.4% (1.00) Organic soil(1.00) -- _-- _ — - - -- Totals for Area of Interest 50.3 700.0% Aquifer Assessment(MN)—Summary by Rating Value Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Sensitive 48.7 96.8% Not sensitive 1.6 3.2%a - - Totals for Area of Interest 50.3 100.0°/a Rating Options—Aquifer Assessment (MN) Aggregation Method.� Dominant Component Component Percent Cutoff:� None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Septic Tank Absorption Fields — Trench (MN) Trench septic tank absorption fields are areas in which effluent from a septic tank is distributed into the soil through perforated pipe. In this system the drain field is placed in a trench and covered with soil material.The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect absorption of the effluent,construction and maintenance of the system,and public health. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) is evaluated from a depth of 30 to 107 centimeters. Depth to saturation and depth to bedrock are evaluated from the 20 Custom Soil Resource Report surface to a depth of 203 centimeters. The frequency of ponding and flooding also is evaluated. Excessive slope may cause lateral seepage and surfacing of the effluent in downslope areas. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect this use. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. "Slightly limited" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for the specified use. "Moderately limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Good performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use.The limitations generally cannot be overcome without special design or expensive installation procedures. "Extremely limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are very unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations.The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). The components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit.The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as the one shown for the map unit.The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is given to help the user better understand the extent to which the rating applies to the map unit. Other components with different ratings may occur in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless the aggregated rating of the map unit, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. 21 Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Septic Tank Absorption Fields—Trench (MN) Q e � m m c a m m 513500 513600 513700 513800 513900 5'14000 45°13'2" . _ . _ . . 45°13'2" o ,.i - � � '�-_ � , . . ... .._ o o L � .__ o o .� ,� R'�Y*�+��--_ . .. .. . ` . � o A'M'�'"�'' p �*�'� °�j�''' � *� � � �� # � � .+�► � ��. � �, ' , � a +1��. t ��"*� o o �.`3� , � s# . � o � � � ..3� � . � .}� ,!� 4 O �, `�, �'"' �"� _ +� � � s�,�. . � �: . . , e .. . ; , ��;.`k� ,�,�,�' ��""'�r �� .. � �.. +�„, � �yk .� �� . .. O O '�� m m � � � � S � � � O � -•$:i. . N ��.. :,:..... . �� q a t§ �� . � �L�� $. � i: � � � I � �.�d 6�,.�F, �I . �.. � � � �`�� - ��• . �.. .w ,�� m o. �. - � 0 o µ �IF ``` `8� N � a � t �� • �� r � .,' r._.• � , � 1 r a� ,� o � x o o �, o r � � n o ��. �.� ��.� ��' ... , ' � o �� " �r • _+ �n �*� �� £h - *� } � � � l i�r YF�� ' R ^"q�l 44k �.� y � � � `g _ .W � � �' � � � _ ;�,' * '� ,� M ,�,� � �` �,�r Y� � :� ��,: " <�D � �r r � •�,� � o � r�"� �� ,�''��"' '�"`�,"�y� r='—�- � � a � � � � � � IW� �I� �� i ��I� ��II o ~'�Z�.-... N � .� � �I �� . �I�I I II �� q.� h '&" � a �R", ,,�.. �� , *; i� � � 1� m � � o ,T ��s� -. � � o a � � o '�. , � . � X�+ 3 � p � �'. _ Y�, o N � � a �i N ��+;�A' , '; •.�. Yo- �' � � '.. �� l�,, *�.*�`�� ` o ..�►,�' .� �� o .r . o _ 1"> � ... r � �, �.<. ,. ��'�' ;� � � +�Ir� � a� � � � � � � o 45°12'34" 45°12'34" 513500 5136W 513700 513800 513900 514000 e Map Scale�.1:4,140 rf printed on A size(8.5"x 1T')sheet. � m � a N Meters a m ^ 0 35 70 140 210 m N Feet 0 150 300 600 900 a � m n � � � = c � � x E � � ? �y � y � O � .� N � C � � V � C � j U � � N ` C (p I C >`O V � f0 � N L � f6 ` V N U N N � p C p�� y d II �U tn N lil `0 C y N � N �O f0 � Z � fp �I C U l0 �y O ` U y [O fn.a O N d fC N � C fn N y � N O x a�i I c`°i m� �° � II � Z >.M V c r� w� 'r ` '� Q� I `A � `° � °) I N N �� Z � O U E N Q 00 5 N p �� O I n C j Q O 'p � O N � N O � � �-y � E V y Z � C f�j L N � C N y a � U fC «L+ � L � !n � � � p� l6 � y Q N 6L � � Q o � m � o � il a`6i � 3 c � c Q � �� a d c >. > Y o ° � c o 0 ocD o E?`m � Z y � � � O N N � �N � N C�O �' y� � T � d O T.p C C (O � L � � � L N � � � y � d o >. a � a a�i N � � � � � � � a� � Q o' m � � :? > > d y V y N � J N N > N L� C N L � � �p n � � Z � �� O N O � N m E Q'E m d . � � m a� �6 m E °�a'>.� C t w T... � _ y . O'O � N N tn N � Z 0 C � F 7 O C � j!n � Q � � L c n� fn N ry � U >`� �(n �N., j C �N � a fG y•� � N o� � a� a�im � d o — m -o � ZQ m L-o -° � �j o c ��oE � y � a�� > >, y r� Z'a N '` C � y y ` -o a� !� a� � O'a �m f6 L fa C .N N y N N O � O L � O 7 c6 L E f0 E � F- 3 w E n y a E cn 3 c� � w v�cn o � � .� o � 0 a a� � a� U � 7 O N N � �O � � O N 3 U d a R N y Q � � l0 T N � � C '1 Z " �1 � E II O C) L W �" /� d � E v �, c c = y v v V ^ � d T `� ..�. '� d L � « � O 0 W Qm "' E R >. ' a; E m o � � � � y d L � m n w m a � � `o m J a �' o ,� SF ari o °' o o � a' m � � � m N 16 0 a : Q � �, w > � � Z � � � ; � o � _ � � � Q C jp I�L Ay L � A � � � ❑ ❑ � ❑ � � m C }+ , {\ p t � 1 ► O � O A A a w a 3 � Custom Soil Resource Report Tables—Septic Tank Absorption Fields —Trench (MN) Septic Tank Absorption Fields—Trench(MN�Summary by Map Unit—Washington County,Minnesota(MN163) Map unit Map unit name Rating Component name Rating reasons Acres in Percent of AOI symbol (percent) (numeric values) AOI 49 Antigo silt loam,0 Moderately limited Antigo(90%) Restricted percolation 29.6 58.8°/a to 2 percent (0.22) slopes Excessive percolation (0.21) — ---- — - -- --_ . — 49D Antigo silt loam, Moderately limited Antigo(90%) Slope(0.45) 2.8 5.5% 12 to 18 -- percent slopes Restricted percolation (0.22) Excessive percolation (0.21) — --- _ _ -_ _ 120 Brill silt loam Extremely limited Brill(90%) Soil saturation(1.00) 7.6 15.0% Restricted percolation (0.22) Excessive percolation (0.11) __ _ ____ --- - -- 155C Chetek sandy Moderately limited Chetek(90%) Restricted percolation 1.4 2.8% loam,6 to 12 (0.22) percent slopes — Excessive percolation (0.21) Slope(0.05) _ _ --- _ __ _ - — -_ __. 342C Kingsley sandy Moderately limited Kingsley(90%) Restricted percolation 1.6 3.2°/a loam,6 to 12 (0.35) percent slopes - Slope(0.05) ----- ---- -- 507 Poskin silt loam Extremely limited Poskin(90%) Soil saturation(1.00) 5.2 10.3% Restricted percolation (0.22) Excessive percolation (0.21) __— -- _ _ _ ___ — — - — _-- --- _ 543 Markey muck Extremely limited Markey(85°/o) Ponding(1.00) 2.2 4.4% Soil saturation(1.00) Organic soil(1.00) Excessive percolation (0.11) Restricted percolation (0.09) -- - _ -- -- __ Totals for Area of Interest 50.3 100.0% Septic Tank Absorption Fields—Trench(MN)—Summary by Rating Value Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Moderately limited 35.4 70.2% -- — -- _ ____ . _. _ - - __ Extremely limited 15.0 29.7% Totals for Area of Interest 50.3 100.0% 24 Custom Soil Resource Report Rating Options—Septic Tank Absorption Fields — Trench (MN) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff.� None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Septic Tank Absorption Fields — At-Grade (MN) "At-grade septic tank absorption fields"are areas in which effluent from a septic tank is distributed into the soil surface through perforated pipe. In this system the drain field is placed on the soil surface and covered with soil material. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect absorption of the effluent, construction and maintenance of the system, and public health. Saturated hydraulic conductivity(Ksat) is evaluated from the surface to a depth of 30 centimeters. Depth to saturation and depth to bedrock are evaluated from the surface to a depth of 203 centimeters. The frequency of ponding and flooding also is evaluated. Excessive slope may cause lateral seepage and surfacing of the effluent in downslope areas. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect this use. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good perFormance and very low maintenance can be expected. "Slightly limited" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for the specified use. "Moderately limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Good performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use.The limitations generally cannot be overcome without special design or expensive installation procedures. "Extremely limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are very unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). The components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit.The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as the one shown for the map unit.The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is given to help the user better understand the extent to which the rating applies to the map unit. Other components with different ratings may occur in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless the aggregated rating of the map unit, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from 25 Custom Soil Resource Report the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. 26 � Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Septic Tank Absorption Fields—At-Grade (MN) _ < � < m � a � � 513500 513600 5'I3700 513800 513900 514000 45°13'2" 45"13'2" o ,i -_ o o .� ,.�# . o o ..a..� ��R� � _ . , .... � � ,�' �'�!'�� ! �,��y,. '�'�` +�L � � °� ' � # ;�, t� ' � .;, �� , , � ► � � � , � � i � "�` ,��; � '� s � �� ` � s o �� * ��/ lJs _ X � o � N #� � " �� _ _ - � � � �*� �' ;J�.� �� "°: � J ,r' tw � � � �+ �*�� . o �e�w 'ti �� o m m . ► � � � '� � � , , o _ � � �� ,r r�'d�� `� .� .� .� � � � c . __-- `� .� � o _ �a I —s- „' °� t � � . . � „ � �� r � �� ..t � _--' + � , �.�,, , c: _ � ` �,� a �p^�' .� '�. o -' �+�,;; _" . o o _ � _ � ��;.� . ,-- �� x '�� o C. ��3 � � � '-- � �r� . � ��- � � f' � t �` � � ; ��ri ��, _ , �:,�` �, � o c _ � � �' # – �--� � _� : ^�, o .��' ,� s � �- - ,�1� � � �I�� > ,�; �k � � :� � o . � '�'� ' ,�"'•�. __ r- �,.., N 4�_ �� . " . a �. . d :' i ,., � i .�. � � �� ,�� "`� �� . �- �`. �' � b "� ��:��, � ., � � ' �� ..-- ' � � �� a . � � I �k.�� t ,��" � il . �'"'a; �i� w�«�«� � �t . I ii.a ; .�.�w x . o c, * � #g �. i, { r ��,LRtw� # � � ' ya4�F{.� ��, . ,n^f (�p � O 4. � .� 3r��-�. � � � � � �'�AHA��' �v.�, .� ��.�� N id � � x `«�„#, � � a� � Y,' �'r b$ "� ._�'�� , � � �re '',:�",�' ``.��.'. . . „ , P��. ^ y' � , , �,�i c . ,��.� : ° , ,� ��,�� , � � . ,�� , �l ' r, 'f k a +I� i � o o �` o o ,Le.� � _��a,�. � ... l��,..�� .��. :.�'11� 'Mi� ! o : .� � # � � m 45°12'34" � 45'12.34" 5�3500 513600 513700 513800 513900 514000 a Map Scale�.1�4.140 rf printed on A size(8.5"x 11")sheet. � m A a nf Mete�s a m � 0 35 70 140 210 m Feet 0 150 300 600 900 � � C � I d � C 00 C � � � d Il) ii j N � � > � y� � V p C N � U p� "O N � O ip C T O N V � N D M N O C L �p f0 `w N U � y w � C �£ N Q �� O-p � C > � � N —U N Q U N N p y � O f6 � Z � @ N n.�0 N � �16 C � N � y y N O X N U �� f6 � d Z TM (j C n �Y « � � � y � l0 m G7 N t�q 2 � Z � O U E N Q � w � C N O 14 � = Z Q N N O � . � � � N � � R y O f° � m� � �' L � y � � orn � o � Q� 0 Q o � � aNi � o � a�i 5 ; c � cQ ° � � aa�i LL � � � ��cuw � o �aN E o rnc a d � Ea ? � odou, d � �' � ,k� co � �� - o >,-o � c ca t � � t '` � o v, a �a o >, � � a a�i oi > > � d >m j 3 d n� v�i Q � V f6 y y '� f6 (0 J � N > H L � � d � o � E °.om > a Z � °�— °' o � om � � m E a'� L � �,a��i m� `° m E o�g'i,� c � y � o :ot'o c � aZ i, �, m �� o�o m o � Z � � � F � oc m cn -o Q m L� nQ � N in d ;� � c�i �^� � <n d � o y d �� o�o �•� � -o . m (n y ', � mC E .L.. , y N U � � aN (n T � � 'a� � Q � , � f0 y U N f0 f0 j � O y � — Z � N � f0 � � F I; � W E nu�i ' d E tn �U Fw inc% � H c°� .� `o � --- O Q N Q' � U � 7 O y N Q.' O N � O � 7 U d a � � 0 A a o ; � � `° ` 3 Z � `° in Y � � o U L W °' . �E = m � � m u, N C = � >, C 2 yl � 'p (7 ' � a '' °; ?: E avi � `° a; :: o 0 W Q o `° � E_ m �, � d � R o � � J „ � �, r � L _ � ` ; � �, � � o � � O� � C � yN, N � U a d Q (n C7 W � � (n Z C � U 7 (n � 2 C � � J Q � � N N a LL A � � � o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � o d � , n 1 � � . m j � •� tn .� m � � ¢ vi a 3 F- Custom Soil Resource Report Tables—Septic Tank Absorption Fields —At-Grade (MN) Septic Tank Absorption Fields-At-Grade(MN�Summary by Map Unit-Washington County,Minnesota(MN163) Map unit Map unit name Rating Component name Rating reasons Acres in Percent ofA01 symbol (percent) (numeric values) AOI 49 Antigo silt loam,0 Moderately limited Antigo(90%) Restricted percolation 29.6 58.8% to 2 percent (0.45) slopes __ -- -- - --- 49D Antigo silt loam, Moderately limited Antigo(90°/a) Restricted percolation 2.8 5.5% 12 to 18 (0.45) percent slopes Slope(0.45) --- - _ _-- - 120 Brill silt loam Moderately limited Brill(90%) Soil saturation(0.72) 7.6 15.0% Restricted percolation (0.45) --_. ___ _ _ ___ _ _ _- - 155C Chetek sandy Moderately limited Chetek(90%) Restricted percolation 1.4 2.8% loam,6 to 12 (0.45) percent slopes Slope(0.05) _ _-- -_ _- —_ _-- _ --- 342C Kingsley sandy Extremely limited Kingsley(90%) Restricted percolation 1.6 3.2% loam,6 to 12 (1.00) percent slopes Slope(0.05) _ _--- - _ _ - -- - --- 507 Poskin silt loam Very limited Poskin(90%) Soil saturation(0.90) 5.2 10.3°/a Restricted percolation (0.45) — - - ----- - - --- _ - -- 543 Markey muck Extremely limited Markey(85°/a) Ponding(1.00) 2.2 4.4% Soil saturation(1.00) Organic soil(1.00) --- -- __ _ - -- _ _ Totals for Area of Interest 50.3 100.0% Septic Tank Absorpiion Fields-At-Grade(MN)-Summary by Rating Value Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Moderately limited 41.3 82.1% Very limited 5.2 10.3% . __ ___ Extremely limited 3.8 7.6% Totals for Area of Interest 50.3 100.0°/a Rating Options—Septic Tank Absorption Fields —At-Grade (MN) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff.� None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher 29 Custom Soil Resource Report Septic Tank Absorption Fields — Mound (MN) "Mound septic tank absorption fields"are areas in which effluent from a septic tank is distributed into the soil surface through perforated pipe. In this system the drain field is placed above the soil surface in a mound. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect absorption of the effluent, construction and maintenance of the system, and public health. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) is evaluated from the surface to a depth of 30 centimeters. Depth to saturation and depth to bedrock are evaluated from the surface to a depth of 203 centimeters. The frequency of ponding and flooding also is evaluated. Excessive slope may cause lateral seepage and surfacing of the effluent in downslope areas. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. "Slightly limited" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for the specified use."Moderately limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Good performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without special design or expensive installation procedures. "Extremely limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are very unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations.The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). The components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit.The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as the one shown for the map unit.The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is given to help the user better understand the extent to which the rating applies to the map unit. Other components with different ratings may occur in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless the aggregated rating of the map unit, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. 30 � Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Septic Tank Absorption Fields—Mound (MN) � < � � � v a m � 513500 513600 513700 5�3800 513900 514000 45`13'2" , . _ . 45'13'2" _.,l� , * . . ..,. � o _. . � � �__y , ��#,�'ti ._ . . � o � *��< � � �:. � �� x � i � ��, �, + ��+►-.• � #' �,, �� . o .;,�, �.,� .�:' � o .�'°� _- � ..Y� ��' � �' - _- ��i�, � � � � � �,� � ! —.�--�'' *�,� ''�* ;m�."aM�+t � � P,� � J�� '� � �Y o �� `�� o m . � � ' .� � � . m ti �}# * o o �� o y"* 5 ' �(, ; _ +►� � �� -'�J �,,1 �; ;�� q� � , �� `. — � � �� a � � � o �� - � � � � � � � a �y + � h'• � � ��f �'��. ; ; {�� . � �..� .t; , � � .1�=��,,, ,rf� o e��. ' . b L O !�'�� r�'�� .�� 1� �,� ��+ � � ,"' r —�—�_ �R.. �� f; `� • � ► � '� �'� � \ ,��,.,�_ � .� .,� � � �, y�., ; v �-�-,.'t . ,�. , , '" ,� '` �� o '�^ � �°�" . �� --�-'`� � , '� ':�r '- ' ^--�,., � � , �,»` , � � � � � � � � f��` � � y� +y� k � ` •� .,�d' A" i ,M'3'"� �. I"'. � ��.�� r' O r.}. ',�^�e� � � i� �.:�'r�ito .99W.''�"➢�I� y� N � , � ��'iM �h�` �'��1 � "'�v � ff '� f � �{` � �' '� �,. �4 �4 y � . � �, � • � , ,. _ * � s,..a � .;d k I / z��''"�J � �� ,' J � i:� o r � o � r �. ��r� � . o "��:f . , � ,.�„ • •,, � �� : � � �`+' � ��'�' ,� k �Y� ►,k . FT , � y p O � �M. ►�y T � � ��a�� . a N �.• ��..�. . f � �. �� nt`�.. � O � i' � ! 45°12'34" 45"12'34" 513500 5�3600 513700 513800 513900 51400G v Map Scale�.1:4,140 if printed on A size(8.5"x 11")sheet. � m A `* N Meters a m ^ 0 35 70 140 210 m N Feet 0 150 300 600 900 V C � p' 0 �1 oD — C � � � � d � N f0 � ,I � � o Yp 3 .� N � 7 (p � f0 '�O C G7 N U p� 'O N � O N (O C >.O (6 ',, V Z N � M N � C L -p f0 m w N ��, U N y � p C m� y n U j p .0 �',, N (n 7 r (O N _ V N Z � n N d[6 N � I o O V U O r0 N� N � � ..�. I �p C (n N N d � x � f° fa� �0 � � Z j.r� U � � � .r-, "' d N C C_ L N N � � C O L � lll N c � f6 N N N 0 Z � U E N Q m 3 `� mEo a � � Q o n �o � . d O '" � o-� E I 14 U !� Z � �`N L y `° c �L •N Q �° � m w `a t a`�i u�i � � o m � o � Q � � Q I � N � 3 � fO � d a� � V Q o �-� y > � � i, ' > �ot � °� o3c � c o `° �,o-� � � � 1I � — y � O N \ N E O �� L �� Q -p 'n � � N L N fl. �1 C p_ N �p � Z � O N O ul N Q' �� N C O � �� y � a o d c o >, � a'-�oa°'i oi mL � � � @ � 3 � QayiE . � Q n U f6 y .L... y � � � J c0 y � � y L � C N � f6 � m o a� � Z � �- °> o ��-, o � � a �0 � � E c • `m � m E �EL � �,d a� � � :° `° ° rnT� � Z o cm� p � o � `° �� a Q � m tc�-� � � cn d y . c� T � cn a> � c T m '� a m �n t. � �' o� � da�im � � �'oc o '� ZQ f0 LyZ•� Cn N C C�C E '_' N N U� � d N Cn N y O�d� f0 � 7 � N (0 f0 j � O rn � _ Z N � m L 'I m cNm ._ ma� o �' o t � 'o � m LEmE � � I � w E n N a E cn � c) � � <n cn o r � �o � O n � � a> U � 7 O N N � O � � O � 7 U d s � o � � � Q R T Q � � � � 3 Z � Y � � o U t W � s d = -� °� � N N C = � >, C 2 y� '� 'O � � C Q T � �N„ � N 'O N �N„ "' p p W Q `° °' E m -'' °' E r° o � � � � y � � L � m ` « m �n � � `o m � � � Y U d Q (n a W � � V) Z C W U d fn � � C � � J Q C jp IL y t' � � �, o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � o d � ; a 1 � ` � •o v� o a � � j < m a 3 � Custom Soil Resource Report Tables—Septic Tank Absorption Fields — Mound (MN) Septic Tank Absorption Fields—Mound(MN}--Summary by Map Unit—Washington County,Minnesota(MN163) Map unit Map unit name Rating Component name Rating reasons Acres in Percent of AOI symbol (percent) (numeric values) AOI 49 Antigo silt loam,0 Slightly limited Antigo(90%) Restricted percolation 29.6 58.8% to 2 percent (0.05) slopes ___ - ---- ___ __ __ ___ _-- — -- 49D Antigo silt loam, Extremely limited Antigo(90%) Slope(1.00) 2.8 5.5% 12 to 18 percent slopes Restricted percolation (0.05) . ---- __ -- _ - _—_ 120 Brill silt loam Slightly limited Brill(90°/a) Restricted percolation 7.6 15.0% (0.05) _ - __ ____ - - - _ -- 155C Chetek sandy Very limited Chetek(90%) Slope(0.85) 1.4 2.8% loam,6 to 12 - percent slopes Restricted percolation (0.05) _— ----_ __ -- --_____ 342C Kingsley sandy Extremely limited Kingsley(90%) Restricted percolation 1.6 3.2% loam,6 to 12 (1.00) percent slopes Slope(0.85) --- - - - _- -- -- 507 Poskin silt loam Slightly limited Poskin(90%) Soil saturation(0.12) 5.2 10.3°/a Restricted percolation (0.05) _ ----____ -- _ _-- - - 543 Markey muck Extremely limited Markey(85%) Ponding(1.00) 2.2 4.4% Soil saturation(1.00) Organic soil(1.00) Totals for Area of Interest 50.3 100.0% Septic Tank Absorption Fields—Mound(MN�Summary by Rating Value Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Slightly limited 42.3 84.1% - _ _ _ ----— ---- _ __- Extremely limited 6.6 13.1% _- - ____ _ Very limited 1.4 2.8% Totals for Area of Interest 50.3 100.0% Rating Options—Septic Tank Absorption Fields — Mound (MN) Aggregation Method.� Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff.� None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher 33 APPENDIX B SOIL BORING LOGS AND LOCATION MAP f � . . , � � � ( � � , � �� r � II M � } ' I v wu� Y..� � � J ! f � I M � 4 � � r � I • � � , i � i • + I r % ,+ I ; # ..- _� ' I I o � F '�� 1 � � r: I � ',. � ( � . ' �. 'r � � ! l . a p r 'r�, + /� ��` .: t , , , .�� « � � �r��i�f / t ° � � � ��',,, �� ( I?I 0 1 � � Mx 'I ' � � �� 1 � • Q� � Q � ,,I, `!;/, � / � '/� `�` I e � • w ��I �� n n � %%,�! � �� ,p .. .. �`� � � /i /t ' "-J. � ' � • � �� i�� // ' � , 1�1 ' ��' i .` r/ � �p� z . � �;�Q , *�j� � `. .' / ` j �� S • � . , / !� f ti � � I � 0. % �% � / i �` � `� �` / � � � �' / �� W a� %,/'% ,r� f � I-- . . ! J I ) N � � �' J�' � . �� ' ' v► .ti � , � `, /� , � � � '� � � � '" ' o �� J % i � � �''• � � Q N i %; , o, , j �'`; � ( j '• � "' L � + � i I � 0 / � ¢ � , � w � � •� � � � � � . �,;` , hd- cc � � � ' fl% � � �� ;p � ; I I i 4! C��3 � � / � � • t � p„' 1-+ � � � '• .�y t � �� 1-- L�. �'` . � 1 IJ /i m � �. i a � ' . � � � � .. ' � I� a + � ` � / � , ,` t1f� � � � �-Wi . � ,7� � , , l W ;� � � `� �� , � � � 1 1 � I � '. p � •`• �� r-i . , � � 1 ` / � ca ` � '�r � ! � ! 7 'I ; r� � V X Rs ,� � � C] , jfr � % �'�`q w � , . ! � � t�- � � " �`I. � � , � :.. � . � � � �'�A t ,.�� _� ��z � �i� � tr i � - ' � i ' '� °' a , %.«� i � t i i f 1 � � �1 ' � f fi � � i f � • � � �� } � i 1 t � , � ' ' 1 � . � .� �., � i � ' � ,` � �� i� ' � .M+ ` � � .�,. . �� . � . ' r � . ,� � ... ��`�».1LRS.S.S�.��r lr�Z � - , �r ,� ' , r :, ,, '' ,�'� I � , '. �° ' ..____---- ' .: � ;` �' � , _ ,. � . , _�,- , ; ,. +, Q �»y� : • •. . . -.. .... ' ' � i � �' c N a� a� � I v N , 0 d � � �� , � I I I � �n �0 � t6 cC ' � I, �` O� . . . +I ��n C C C J i i C LL L.L lL D< Q � � � I �, � � ' u � '� � o � � I c � � ° � a � I 3 v ' i .^ � � _ -- --- . _- N �- � � E��.. �' ,� � �6 on � a' a' v �I o � � � O L � � a Y � v i � � �' �`.+ � a`� v ' a`, ' � I � V � O On N ' � � a 1 (' � � �'I� � II�� 7 �i L v p , � � Z Y � , � � w , � , . _ r� ° °' °� a; - _ c � � � t0 n i � '�., '� �., N m L p >+ � tG >+ � T � i � p � p � a � � I v � 00 � v � � L � , o o v M d � V1 � ' 0� 00 � I p. O 'i� � � y� j �I ,�. L N � 4J _.. .____ ..__._... . . . _.___ _ ' N ,; o � � 3 a O � � O O � .w+ � a 0 N � � p 1❑ V1 V I � N �I �--� "O O Q 0 � �, �I.� � II d .� � — I L . .. - _-_..�- _ 1... . . N "� � i y' �,. Q ~ � N 0 a � � ' � �a � o � .o � a�, N Y I �' I � � � v � � °' ° ° ', a°-, � ' � ° � -° ' o c I J J `` � E � I �,°� I ' � � a __ _ - � �, � -� � 0 0 N o � v �I .r � N \ L .. .. � � � � O � II � II , O O �n I �n ` � N � U � � / b � y � N I } � W � m � U +� � ... O ��.., O , � d d � � � � � r � � _- --- � L �. f- c ro � v v v 3 � L ' � � � � � � � � � N �f �O � � ' � �O U O L .-� f � � � N O r� � � �n I � N^ � X } � } } } � Li j� aJ 'C � � � I. � �,, � � � � � � I� I. ', O �/� d � � �/� y 7 N O � i^ _ � o s � , _ , � � o v � � � � � � � T � a;, � � � � o o � � � d � ° � � `` : ' _— - ° � Y N � � U v v, N � O v � � � O � � i L� I � I tC 1-1 tf] "0 � �U" � ~ f�''6 7 p , � �, t> � �,, � � C � C � W a � O O -� � � I'� rt � ' C 'J II � v�i W z � � N � � F- �„ J N ' o � z � � o � c _ I . Z .� c . _--- -- �--� a c o •� � H"'� � V � N .O V � � � � ^ a � L V N '� O � I � '' � � w a � � L � � N I� y � r6 � �- � N �M � � O � O �° � � 3 � o � U v N C N N N N UJ � UJ 41 GJ U1 � � � O N .' a R o 0 0 � A A m � °o 0 0 '° � . . 'N � . 'i J � J � C LL � lL ' J � J J — C L.L lL . LL lL � p O e- V � '.. . v . '�, � .. � - . i _-_ . . � : . . . . .. .in.�_.�� v� N N ++ GJ N G1 U/ U1 M GJ I UJ �. OJ N U/ 7 � �0 i6 v `1 v ` � R �I, N � � `1 v Y R G1 N i a=+ a=+ �+ �O N � GJ N GJ �� 7 7 y+ � l7 O O D U v N l7 O O 3 p , V U � � � � � � � � � i 7 a� a� � V1 N N Y � N N — . . C . C . � . — . . . . � . C 1C T •� �� R � T �. � 1. . .A .T 7i a 7 Y ofl on 071 Q j Y Yt� Y 011 0!1 � v�i L � O Ul N � L i O O O v v CN,� N N m C C C N l.� m � � m � � � J � C C V1 N V1 V1 . V1 N I � .. ��I '�. Q �, il �II f0 N li I �0 '�. ',. V1 U i U � . '�i �� '', ' . ' __ . . . . . J .. , . . N � � Q N Q 1A � O O � ��, '� O O '� O Y 6r d Y � Gr N � N 0 a d p v a d y d � � � W C � � C � � � U V ._ .__ _ . . . . . . . . . M . . � . N � �, . . Ifl u'1 N � � i p �� ! M ��., �"� . O ' � � '� Y 7 O i V V . O ��. � in . � �a � s z � � w, L � � � � '� U/ '�� D } a0 N a+ �I O O �I I ++ �' � O � O ' i O 'I � K � ', � � I �� G� � � I' � � � �� N L y a t F _ . . . . . . _- ._ _ . C F '— __ . . . . C V .._ O N M N � p V �O �O V C y� � N M V �D �D � � � O M � V <Y l!'1 � O M M � , � V � � V � � � � � � V � � � � � � � x r r > > r Z x r > r r r r � � O O O O O N y O O O O O �� O N a � � o � o v v _ 3 I 3 •1 � N Y � N � � v � a v � p �- o c � _ o c . � T { o o a, c E � �. o v E E c �a I � � � � � � � o �o � � `� � a`�, o o � � v E ' � � '� 'a v N C C C N C o X E � ,J., ar �n �n rt � v � � � E �n � o 'i ar N � C ocn tp � � C ' N J � . . �p C J C in ' V� � ~ J � �n � ii p � ~ �n N ' J v+ . � � C � c Z c , z '_ o v, o Y U c c +' c c R ' ' N a � O ' �O c0 ��. 00 O d � L oo N v n oo � � L `� M M �n .o ao � v •� p �n o �r, E � " � `° oM M uCOi .oOo E � a °° r, v � a � a � o O p , v O o �