Packet

W2435 Old Peshtigo Road Marinette, WI 54143 715-582-4332 www.townofpeshtigo.org 5/20/2025 Public Hearing + Monthly Regular Board Meeting Online Packet Table of Contents Page(s) Item 1-39 Agenda Items #3 & 8a: Nephthar Watchtower LLC (Jared Cox) proposal 40-41 Agenda Item #4a & 8b: Accessory Building Ordinance Amendment Proposal 42-43 Agenda Item #11: 4/15/2025 Regular Board Meeting Minutes 44 Agenda Item #12a: Fire Department Report 45 Agenda Item #12b: Constable Report 46 Agenda Item #13: Treasurer Report 47 Agenda Item #16a: Private Road Ordinance Amendment Proposal \\jsdinc\appl projects\projects\2022\2212059\02 planning\05 working documents - planning\rezoning and pdo\2025-04- 11 overview narraƟve_final.docx Nephthar Watchtower Rezoning Request and Project Overview Nephthar Watchtower is requesƟng rezoning of approximately 14.3 acres located along the west side of Coble Road from A-1 Agriculture to A- 2 Agriculture with a Residen Ɵal Planned Development Overlay (RPDO) to enable a subdivision creaƟng six residenƟal lots. Nephthar Watchtower owns a con Ɵguous 22 5-acre tract along Coble Road and Hale School Road that abuts the western boundary of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Pesh Ɵgo Harbor Wildlife Area. The tract encompasses approximately:  75 acres of upland (part wooded, part culƟvated, part fallow)  150± acres of wetlands (both wooded and open/brushy habitat) o Inclusive of 78 acres that are permanently protected/restored wetlands re-established by the Wisconsin Department of TransportaƟon (WisDOT) and managed by the WDNR. In keeping with conservaƟon subdivision design principles, the proposed subdivision clusters six modestly sized rural residenƟal lots onto a 14-acre open upland area in the northern part of the Nephthar tract. This locaƟon is intenƟonal as it maintains the integrity and func Ɵonality of the balance of the tract ( 201 acres) as a vital wildlife habitat. The proposed loƫng, street design, and RPDO standards have been purposefully designed to be consistent with the Town of Pesh Ɵgo’s Comprehensive Plan. The f uture Land Use Plan designates the site and vicinity for Recrea Ɵon ResidenƟal land uses with a general overall planned density guideline of 20 acres of open space set aside per dwelling unit. This density guideline is intended to reflect and maintain a desired “rural” character in the southern porƟon of the Town. Upon compleƟon of the proposed conservaƟon subdivision, the overall open space within the Nephthar tract will be well above this target standard. The residen Ɵal development area within the proposed subdivision will occupy approximately 12.7 acres and be organized around a 1.6-acre recreaƟon amenity (with a pond and open play area) for residents . It is accessed from a private looped street connecƟng to Coble Road. The western 24.5 acres of the subdivision encompasses a porƟon of the 78-acre WisDOT Coble Road Wetland Mi ƟgaƟon site, which is permanent open space managed by WisDOT and the WDNR. The private street will be designed and constructed to the Town of PeshƟgo’s standards and each lot will have its own well and private on-site wastewater treatment system. Nephthar is strongly commi Ʃed to crea Ɵng and sustaining the natural environment in the area and will be collaboraƟng with the WDNR to implement sound forestry, wetland, and wildlife habitat management prac Ɵces within their enƟre property. 1 Proposed Plat Adjoining Lands Total % Notes Acres Acres Acres Planned Development Overlay Area Residential 6 Lots 10.4 27% 1.5 acre minimum lot size Neighborhood Infrastructure Private Street OL1 1.2 3% Neighborhood Amenity Picnic/Pond OL2 1.6 4% Plat Conservancy 25.6 66% WDoT wetland easement OL4 24.6 Existing Drainageway OL3 1.0 Subtotal 38.8 Adjoining Lands Private Access 1.6 Conservancy (lands) 24-168.(pt) 21.4 Cultivated 24-171 WDoT wetland easement 19.8 24-173 WDoT wetland easement 20.4 24-175 (pt) WDoT wetland easement 13.9 24-175 (pt) 26.4 Wooded, outbuildings 24-180 41.4 Wooded, adjoins Peshtigo Harbor Wildlife Area 24-181 41.3 60/40 Wooded/Cultivated Subtotal 186.2 Total 225.0 Overall Density General Gross Density 37.5 acres of open space per unit (Plan area per unit) General Net Density 35.3 acres of open space per unit (Plan area less street ROW and res lots, per unit) Total Open Space 213.4 acres 95% Table 1 -- Summary Description Description Comprehensive Plan policy guidelines recommend 20 acres/unit gross density and 17 Acres/unit net density Easement extension of Coble Road for access to frmstead and ag fields Nephthar Watchtower Residential Planned Development Overlay and Adjoining Property 2 Density Minimum Lot Area 1.5 Acres, not inclusive of private street easement Lot Dimensions Per approved land division Prinicipal Building Setbacks (min. distance to bldg foundation) Hale School Road 100 Feet Coble Road 42 Feet Private Street (easement/outlot) As depicted on Land Division Outlot 3 (drainageway) 50 Feet Outlot 4 (wetland mitigation easement) 50 Feet Side lot lines 15 Feet Accessory Use and Building Setbacks Hale School Road 42 Feet Coble Road 42 Feet Private Street (easement/outlot) 42 Feet Outlot 3 (drainageway) 50 Feet Outlot 4 (wetland mitigation easement) 50 Feet Side lot lines 15 Feet Exception: Driveway Pavement 5 Feet Vehicle Storage 5 Feet, and not within "front" yard depicted on Land Division or within Coble Road Setback Lot Coverage All Structures and Impervious Surfaces 20% of lot area maximum Conventional Landscaping and Gardens 80% of lot area minimum Naturalized Landscaping encouraged 20% of lot landscaping Building Size Principal Building Per A-2 District Accessory Structures Per A-2 District Nephthar Watchtower Planned Development Overlay Development Standards 3 4 PROJECT INFORMATION NEPHTHAR WATCHTOWER DEVELOPMENT TOWN OF PESHTIGO - WISCONSIN PROJECT AREA NOT TO SCALE DRAWING INDEX NE 1/4, NW 1/4, SECTION 07, TOWNSHIP 29 NORTH, RANGE 23 EAST C0.0 TITLE SHEET C0.1 CONSTRUCTION NOTES C1.0 DEMOLITION PLAN C2.0 SITE PLAN C3.0 GRADING PLAN C4.0 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS OWNER CONTACT: JARED COX (Address) P: C: (Email) CIVIL CONSULTANT JSD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. CONTACT: PAUL PHILLIPS P.E. 3215 W LAWERNCE AVE, SUITE 6 APPLETON, WI 54914 P: 920.733.2800 paul.phillips@jsdinc.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR CONTACT: (Name) (Address) P: C: (Email) ARCHITECT / INTERIOR DESIGN REVSION ARCHITECTURE CONTACT: ROBYN OLIVER 133 GRAPE STREET PHILIDELPHIA, PA 19127 P: 215.482.1133 r.oliver@revisionarch.com PROJECT LOCATION CREATE THE VISION JSD PROJECT NO: SHEET NUMBER: SHEET TITLE: PLAN MODIFICATIONS: CLIENT: PROJECT: # Description:Date: File: \\JSDINC\appl projects\PROJECTS\2022\2212059\DWG\Civil Sheets\2212059 Con Docs.dwg Layout: C0.0 - TITLE SHEET User: alex.mayou Plotted: Apr 08, 2025 - 4:09pm Xref's: CLIENT ADDRESS: PROJECT LOCATION: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 APPLETON REGIONAL OFFICE 3215 WEST LAWRENCE STREET, SUITE 6 APPLETON, WI 54914 P. 920.733.2800 Designed By: Reviewed By: Approved By: jsdinc.com REVISION ARCHITECTURE 133 GRAPE STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19127 NEPHTHAR WATCHTOWER DEVELOPMENT COBLE ROAD PESHTIGO, WI 54157 MARINETTE COUNTY 22-12059 Toll Free (800) 242-8511 APM/KJM APM PMP TITLE SHEET C0.0 ATTACHMENTS 1 OF 1 TOPOGRAPHIC AND UTILITY MAP DATE OF ISSUE REVIEW DRAWING NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION 04-08-2025 5 CREATE THE VISION JSD PROJECT NO: SHEET NUMBER: SHEET TITLE: PLAN MODIFICATIONS: CLIENT: PROJECT: # Description:Date: File: \\JSDINC\appl projects\PROJECTS\2022\2212059\DWG\Civil Sheets\2212059 Con Docs.dwg Layout: C2.0 - SITE PLAN User: alex.mayou Plotted: Apr 08, 2025 - 4:09pm Xref's: CLIENT ADDRESS: PROJECT LOCATION: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 APPLETON REGIONAL OFFICE 3215 WEST LAWRENCE STREET, SUITE 6 APPLETON, WI 54914 P. 920.733.2800 Designed By: Reviewed By: Approved By: jsdinc.com REVISION ARCHITECTURE 133 GRAPE STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19127 NEPHTHAR WATCHTOWER DEVELOPMENT COBLE ROAD PESHTIGO, WI 54157 MARINETTE COUNTY 22-12059 Toll Free (800) 242-8511 APM/KJM APM PMP SITE PLAN C2.0 COBLE ROAD HALE SCHOOL ROAD POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION PICNIC AREA PROPOSED BUILDING 6,000 SF PROPOSED BUILDING 6,000 SF PROPOSED BUILDING 6,000 SF PROPOSED BUILDING 6,000 SF PROPOSED BUILDING 6,000 SF PROPOSED BUILDING 3,700 SF POND AREA LOT #1 LOT #2 LOT #3 LOT #6 LOT #5 LOT #4 LEGEND SITE INFORMATION BLOCK O.L. 1 O.L. 2 O.L. 4 O.L. 3 DATE OF ISSUE REVIEW DRAWING NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION 04-08-2025 6 CREATE THE VISION JSD PROJECT NO: SHEET NUMBER: SHEET TITLE: PLAN MODIFICATIONS: CLIENT: PROJECT: # Description:Date: File: \\JSDINC\appl projects\PROJECTS\2022\2212059\DWG\Civil Sheets\2212059 Con Docs.dwg Layout: C3.0 - OVERALL GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN User: alex.mayou Plotted: Apr 09, 2025 - 2:09pm Xref's: CLIENT ADDRESS: PROJECT LOCATION: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 APPLETON REGIONAL OFFICE 3215 WEST LAWRENCE STREET, SUITE 6 APPLETON, WI 54914 P. 920.733.2800 Designed By: Reviewed By: Approved By: jsdinc.com REVISION ARCHITECTURE 133 GRAPE STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19127 NEPHTHAR WATCHTOWER DEVELOPMENT COBLE ROAD PESHTIGO, WI 54157 MARINETTE COUNTY 22-12059 Toll Free (800) 242-8511 APM/KJM APM PMP AREA WELL ELEVATION=596.5 COBLE ROAD HALE SCHOOL ROAD FFE=605.50 FFE=602.00 FFE=602.00 FFE=602.00 FFE=602.00 FFE=605.50 POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POND PICNIC AREA OVERALL GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN C3.0 LEGEND LOT #1 LOT #2 LOT #3 LOT #6 LOT #5 LOT #4 O.L. 1 O.L. 4 O.L. 3 O.L. 2 DATE OF ISSUE REVIEW DRAWING NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION 04-08-2025 7 CREATE THE VISION JSD PROJECT NO: SHEET NUMBER: SHEET TITLE: PLAN MODIFICATIONS: CLIENT: PROJECT: # Description:Date: File: \\JSDINC\appl projects\PROJECTS\2022\2212059\DWG\Civil Sheets\2212059 Con Docs.dwg Layout: C4.0 - CONSTRUCTION DETAILS User: alex.mayou Plotted: Apr 08, 2025 - 4:10pm Xref's: CLIENT ADDRESS: PROJECT LOCATION: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 APPLETON REGIONAL OFFICE 3215 WEST LAWRENCE STREET, SUITE 6 APPLETON, WI 54914 P. 920.733.2800 Designed By: Reviewed By: Approved By: jsdinc.com REVISION ARCHITECTURE 133 GRAPE STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19127 NEPHTHAR WATCHTOWER DEVELOPMENT COBLE ROAD PESHTIGO, WI 54157 MARINETTE COUNTY 22-12059 Toll Free (800) 242-8511 APM/KJM APM PMP CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C4.0 CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE · · DITCH CHECK (STRAW BALES) EROSION MATTING SILT FENCE DATE OF ISSUE REVIEW DRAWING NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION 04-08-2025 8 9 www.JSDinc.com Report Date: April 8, 2025 Prepared for: Cox Family Coble Road Peshtigo, Wisconsin 54157 Prepared by: JSD Professional Services, Inc. 7402 Stone Ridge Drive, Suite 4 Weston, WI 54476 JSD Project No. 22-12059 [DRAFT] Stormwater Management Plan Report Nephthar Watchtower Development Town of Peshtigo, WI 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 1 3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA .............................................................................................................. 1 3.1 Wisconsin Administrative Code ............................................................................................. 1 4.0 ANALYSIS & DESIGN .......................................................................................................... 2 4.1 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) .............................................................................................. 2 4.2 Runoff Rate Control ............................................................................................................. 2 4.3 Infiltration ............................................................................................................................. 3 5.0 EROSION CONTROL ........................................................................................................... 4 6.0 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 4 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 – SOILS INFORMATION APPENDIX 2 – PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PLANS APPENDIX 3 – EXISTING & PROPOSED WATERSHED MAPS APPENDIX 4 – INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS (IN PROGRESS) A PPENDIX 5 – TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CALCULATONS (IN PROGRESS) A PPENDIX 6 – PEAK DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS (IN PROGRESS) A PPENDIX 7 – STORM SEWER SIZING CALCULATIONS (IN PROGRESS) A PPENDIX 8 – DRAFT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (IN P ROGRESS) Future questions and comments can be directed to: Alexander Mayou, P.E. JSD Professional Services, Inc. Project Engineer • Engineers • Surveyors • Planners Wausau Regional Office alex.mayou@jsdinc.com Stone Ridge Drive, Suite 4 Phone: 715.298.6330 Weston, WI 54476 Fax: 715.298.6326 www.jsdinc.com 11 Nephthar Watchtower – Peshtigo, Wisconsin APRIL 8, 2025 Page 1 \ \ J S D I N C \ a p p l p r o j e c t s \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 2 2 \ 2 2 1 2 0 5 9 \ 0 4 C i v i l \ S W M P \ R e p o r t \ 2 2 - 1 2 0 5 9 _ S W M P . d o c 1.0 INTRODUCTION This technical report shall serve as the stormwater management design report to support the Nephthar Watchtower residential development in the Town of Peshtigo, Marinette County, Wisconsin. The proposed residential development is a 13.78-acre project located at Cobble Road and Hale School Road. The project scope includes the land division and development of a six (6) residential single-family lots and two access points to Cobble Road. The proposed stormwater management facilities have been designed to meet all applicable stormwater management regulations for the proposed new development. The Nephthar Watchtower development will have approximately 78,656 square feet (SF) of impervious area or a 14% impervious ratio consisting of asphalt parking, driveways, and building footprints. Additional improvements include subgrade improvements, stormwater treatment facilities, and finishing grading. The anticipated construction start date of the Nephthar Watchtower Development is Summer of 2025. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS Currently, the site consists of woods and cleared land with limited dirt piles. The site is bordered to the east by Cobble Road right-of-way and Hale School Road to the north. The site is bordered to the west by lands that have been dedicated as a wetland mitigation site for use by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). This site is bordered to the south by woods and undeveloped lands. The Topographic and Utility Map can be found in the Construction Plans in Appendix 2. According to the USDA Web Soil Survey, the predominant soil types within the development are very fine and fine sands, with Wainola fine sand (49A) covering 51.9%, Deford and Cormant soils (DeCo) covering 47.7%, Shawano loamy fine sane (SfB) covering 0.50% of the site. Wainola fine sand has a hydrologic soil group (HSG) classification A/D, Deford and Cormant soils have a HSG classification of A/D, and Shawano loamy fine sand has a HSG classification A. The general soil profiles were summarized in the NCRS Web Soil Survey and can be found in Appendix 1. 3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA 3.1 Wisconsin Administrative Code WDNR – Technical Standards (NR 151 and NR 216) The Nephthar Watchtower development project will need to meet the criteria for new development under all the design codes. The project is within the Town of Peshtigo. The most stringent of the codes will be followed. Therefore, the requirements for this site include: • Reduce the total suspended solids (TSS) by 80 percent of load based on average annual rainfall assuming no re-suspension. • Maintain or reduce the 1-year and 2-year 24-hour pre-development peak runoff discharge rates respectively, or to the maximum extent practicable. • For development up to 40 percent connected imperviousness infiltrate sufficient runoff volume so that the post-development infiltration volume shall be at least 90 percent of the pre-development infiltration volume, based on average annual rainfall. • Prior to infiltration, 60% TSS reduction required for residential. 12 Nephthar Watchtower – Peshtigo, Wisconsin APRIL 8, 2025 Page 2 \ \ J S D I N C \ a p p l p r o j e c t s \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 2 2 \ 2 2 1 2 0 5 9 \ 0 4 C i v i l \ S W M P \ R e p o r t \ 2 2 - 1 2 0 5 9 _ S W M P . d o c 4.0 ANALYSIS & DESIGN The Nephthar Watchtower development stormwater facility has been designed to meet the performance standards for the WDNR. The existing site is to be cleared and grubbed prior to the installation of the stormwater facility. The proposed site stormwater facilities consist of conveyance grass lined swales. The stormwater facility is designed to meet peak discharge, TSS removal, and infiltration requirements. The storm system and swales will collect a majority of the site and will discharge into the grass lined swales and will satisfy most of the stormwater requirements for the entire site. The overflow for the bioretention basin will swale to the property to the west. Refer to Appendix 2 for construction plans. Some areas on the exterior of the site will not be draining to the bioretention basin or infiltration basin. Refer to the proposed watershed map in Appendix 3 and proposed construction drawings in Appendix 2 for further details. 4.1 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Wisconsin Administrative Code NR151.122(1) Total suspended solids performance standard BMPs shall be designed, installed and maintained to control total suspended solids carried in runoff from the post-construction site. BMPs shall be designed in accordance with Table 1., or to the maximum extent practicable as provided in sub. (3). The design shall be based on an average annual rainfall, as compared to no runoff management controls. Sediment control calculations have been performed to demonstrate the Bioretention basin, Grassed Lined Swales, and Filter Strips provides TBD% TSS reduction for the entire site. Prior to the i nfiltration basin, the filter strips and grassed swale pre-treats the runoff TBD%. Refer to A ppendix 5 for WinSLAMM calculations. 4.2 Runoff Rate Control Wisconsin Administrative Code NR151.123(1) Peak discharge performance standard By design, BMPs shall be employed to maintain or reduce the 1-year, 24-hour and the 2-year, 24- hour post-construction peak runoff discharge rates to the 1-year, 24-hour and the 2-year, 24-hour pre-development peak runoff discharge rates respectively, or to the maximum extent practicable. The runoff curve numbers in Table 2. Shall be used to represent the actual pre-development condition. 13 Nephthar Watchtower – Peshtigo, Wisconsin APRIL 8, 2025 Page 3 \ \ J S D I N C \ a p p l p r o j e c t s \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 2 2 \ 2 2 1 2 0 5 9 \ 0 4 C i v i l \ S W M P \ R e p o r t \ 2 2 - 1 2 0 5 9 _ S W M P . d o c Peak discharge calculations used HydroCAD Version 10.00-3h to account for peak discharge for the site. The HydroCAD model contained the full buildout for the project. The development is required to maintain or reduce the 1-year and 2-year 24-hour pre-development peak runoff discharge rates respectively. The stormwater management facilities have been designed to maintain the pre-development peak discharge rates for the overall site. Table 2 below shows a comparison of the pre-development peak discharge rate and post-development peak discharge rate. HydroCAD outputs for existing and proposed conditions can be found in Appendix 6. 1-year 2-year 100-year 2.09 2.38 5.22 0.00 0.02 1.20 TBD TBD TBD T BD TBD TBD TABLE 2: PRE-DEVELOPMENT VERSUS POST-DEVELOPMENT PEA K RUNOFF RATES AT WATERSHED OUTFALL Rainfall for each 24-hour storm event (inches) Difference: Post-developmnet peak discharge rates with detention vs. Pre- development peak discharge rate (cfs) Post-development peak discharge rate with detention (cfs) Pre-development peak discharge rate (cfs) Overall Site 4.3 Infiltration Wisconsin Administrative Code NR151.124(b) Infiltration For development with more than 40 percent and up to 80 percent connected imperviousness, such as medium and high density residential, multi-family development, industrial and institutional development, and office parks, infiltrate sufficient runoff volume so that the post-development infiltration volume shall be at least 75 percent of the pre-development infiltration volume, based on an average annual rainfall. However, when designing appropriate infiltration systems to meet this requirement, no more than 2 percent of the post-construction site is required as an effective infiltration area. Infiltration calculations used WinSLAMM Version 10.5 to determine total losses on-site. The TSS WinSLAMM model contained the full buildout of the project. The development will be required to meet 90% of the existing infiltration volume onsite. Prior to infiltrating, the water on site flows over filter strips and a grass lined swales to achieve the required 60% TSS reduction. See infiltration calculations in Appendix 4. The existing pre-development infiltration volume is TBD inches per year. The development through t he use of an infiltration basin achieves a post-development stay-on volume of TBD inches per year. T his results in TBD% stay-on infiltration. I nfiltration Calculations and WinSLAMM outputs can be found in Appendix 4. 14 Nephthar Watchtower – Peshtigo, Wisconsin APRIL 8, 2025 Page 4 \ \ J S D I N C \ a p p l p r o j e c t s \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 2 2 \ 2 2 1 2 0 5 9 \ 0 4 C i v i l \ S W M P \ R e p o r t \ 2 2 - 1 2 0 5 9 _ S W M P . d o c 5.0 EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures onsite will conform to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Standards, and Town of Peshtigo Ordinances. These measures include, but are not limited to; construction entrances, silt fencing, erosion matting, grading, seeding, and mulching. Preliminary construction sequencing is proposed as follows: 1. Install erosion control measures prior to any construction activities. 2. Install stone construction entrances and inlet protection on existing inlets. 3. Strip topsoil. 4. Rough grade bioretention basin and infiltration basin and install basin outlet. 5. Conduct rough grading efforts and install check dams within drainage ditches as needed. 6. Construct storm sewer. 7. Install inlet protection and any additional permanent erosion control measures. 8. Install aggregate base course and paving in parking areas. 9. Complete exterior building work. 10. Place topsoil. 11. Seed and mulch. 12. Remove temporary erosion control practices. Final construction sequencing and detailed erosion control will be submitted for review during the final plan submittal. 6.0 CONCLUSION Stormwater management facilities for the Nephthar Watchtower deveopment site have been designed in accordance with WDNR standards. The development features a bioretention basin and infiltration basin to address peak rate at maximum extent practicable, sediment control requirements, and infiltration requirements applicable to this project. Erosion control practices will be in compliance with NR151. 15 United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Marinette County , Wisconsin Natural Resources Conservation Service August 12, 2024 16 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that af fect 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 ef fects 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://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist ( http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). 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 or wet 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 Survey . Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS W eb Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (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 2 17 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's T ARGET 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 18 Contents Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Marinette County, Wisconsin.......................................................................... 13 49A—Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes...........................................13 DeCo—Deford and Cormant soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes........................... 15 SfB—Shawano loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes.............................. 17 References............................................................................................................19 4 19 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations af fecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography , geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology , landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. T o construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color , texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 20 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides suf ficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color , depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. V alues for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under dif ferent uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity . Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 21 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately . Custom Soil Resource Report 7 22 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. 8 23 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 4983310 4983380 4983450 4983520 4983590 4983660 4983730 4983800 4983870 4983310 4983380 4983450 4983520 4983590 4983660 4983730 4983800 440650 440720 440790 440860 440930 441000 441070 440650 440720 440790 440860 440930 441000 45° 0' 20'' N 87° 45' 11'' W 45° 0' 20'' N 87° 44' 51'' W 45° 0' 2'' N 87° 45' 11'' W 45° 0' 2'' N 87° 44' 51'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 16N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 40 80 160 240 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,790 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 24 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below . Soil Survey Area: Marinette County, Wisconsin Survey Area Data: Version 20, Sep 8, 2023 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger . Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 20, 2020—May 21, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably dif fers from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 25 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes 18.3 51.9% DeCo Deford and Cormant soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes 16.8 47.7% SfB Shawano loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0.2 0.5% Totals for Area of Interest 35.2 100.0% 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 af fect 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. 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 11 26 landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides suf ficient 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 dif ferences 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 af fects 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 undif ferentiated groups. A complex 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. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 27 Marinette County, Wisconsin 49A—Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2zytr Elevation: 570 to 890 feet Mean annual precipitation: 28 to 37 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 80 to 160 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Wainola and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Wainola Setting Landform: Flats Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Sandy glaciolacustrine deposits Typical profile Oa - 0 to 2 inches: highly decomposed plant material E - 2 to 12 inches: fine sand Bs1 - 12 to 18 inches: fine sand Bs2 - 18 to 27 inches: fine sand BC - 27 to 36 inches: fine sand C - 36 to 79 inches: very fine sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D Ecological site: F094BY006MI - Moist Sandy Lowland Forage suitability group: Low AWC, high water table (G095AY001WI) Other vegetative classification: Low AWC, high water table (G095AY001WI), T suga-Maianthemum-Coptis (TMC), Acer rubrum - Abies balsamea / Custom Soil Resource Report 13 28 Vaccinium angustifolium - Coptis groenlandica , Red Maple Balsam Fir/ Low Sweet Blueberry - Goldthread (ArAbVC) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Neconish Percent of map unit: 4 percent Landform: Flats Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: F094BY008MI - Sandy Upland Other vegetative classification: Pinus strobus - Acer rubrum / Vaccinium angustifolium - Polygonatum pubescens , Eastern White Pine - Red Maple / Low Sweet Blueberry - Hairy Solomon's Seal (P ArVPo), Tsuga-Maianthemum- Vaccinium (TMV), Low AWC, adequately drained (G095AY002WI) Hydric soil rating: No Deford Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Flats, depressions, drainageways Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down-slope shape: Linear, concave Across-slope shape: Linear, concave Ecological site: F094BY004MI - Wet Sandy Lowland Other vegetative classification: Low AWC, high water table (G095AY001WI), Not Assigned (wet mineral soils) (Nmin) Hydric soil rating: Yes Rousseau Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Flats Landform position (three-dimensional): Rise Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: F094BY008MI - Sandy Upland Other vegetative classification: Low AWC, adequately drained (G095AY002WI), T suga-Maianthemum-Vaccinium (TMV), Pinus strobus - Acer rubrum / Vaccinium angustifolium - Apocynum androsaemifolium , Eastern White Pine - Red Maple / Low Sweet Blueberry - Spreading Dogbane (PArVAo) Hydric soil rating: No Ingalls Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Flats Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: F094BY006MI - Moist Sandy Lowland Other vegetative classification: Low AWC, high water table (G095AY001WI), T suga-Maianthemum-Coptis (TMC), Pinus strobus - Acer rubrum / Vaccinium angustifolium - Polygonatum pubescens , Eastern White Pine - Red Maple / Low Sweet Blueberry - Hairy Solomon's Seal (PArVPo) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 14 29 DeCo—Deford and Cormant soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2xxj0 Elevation: 570 to 900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 28 to 37 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 80 to 160 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Deford and similar soils: 60 percent Cormant and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Deford Setting Landform: Depressions, drainageways, flats Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down-slope shape: Concave, linear Across-slope shape: Concave, linear Parent material: Sandy glaciolacustrine deposits Typical profile Oa - 0 to 4 inches: muck A - 4 to 6 inches: mucky fine sand C1 - 6 to 14 inches: fine sand C2 - 14 to 51 inches: fine sand Cg - 51 to 79 inches: fine sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.20 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 6 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: Frequent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D Ecological site: F094BY004MI - Wet Sandy Lowland Forage suitability group: Low AWC, high water table (G095AY001WI) Custom Soil Resource Report 15 30 Other vegetative classification: Low AWC, high water table (G095AY001WI), Not Assigned (wet mineral soils) (Nmin) Hydric soil rating: Yes Description of Cormant Setting Landform: Drainageways, depressions, flats Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down-slope shape: Linear, concave Across-slope shape: Concave, linear Parent material: Sandy glaciolacustrine deposits Typical profile A - 0 to 9 inches: mucky fine sand C1 - 9 to 18 inches: fine sand C2 - 18 to 35 inches: fine sand Cg - 35 to 79 inches: fine sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 6 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: Occasional Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D Ecological site: F090AY005WI - Wet Sandy Lowland Forage suitability group: Low AWC, high water table (G095AY001WI) Other vegetative classification: Low AWC, high water table (G095AY001WI), Not Assigned (wet mineral soils) (Nmin) Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Wainola Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Flats Landform position (three-dimensional): Rise Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: F094BY006MI - Moist Sandy Lowland Other vegetative classification: Tsuga Maianthemum Coptis - Vaccinium (TMC- V ac_1), Low AWC, high water table (G095AY001WI) Hydric soil rating: No Markey Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Depressions Custom Soil Resource Report 16 31 Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Ecological site: F090AY002WI - Mucky Swamp Other vegetative classification: Not Assigned (non-acid organic soils) (Nnor), Not suited, flooded or organics (G095A Y010WI) Hydric soil rating: Yes Brevort Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Drainageways, drainageways, depressions, depressions Down-slope shape: Linear, concave Across-slope shape: Concave Ecological site: F094BY004MI - Wet Sandy Lowland Other vegetative classification: Not Assigned (wet mineral soils) (Nmin), Mod A WC, high water table (G095AY004WI) Hydric soil rating: Yes SfB—Shawano loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: g5lc Elevation: 600 to 1,400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 28 to 37 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 80 to 160 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Shawano and similar soils: 96 percent Minor components: 4 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Shawano Setting Landform: Lake plains, outwash plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Predominantly fine sandy drift Typical profile A - 0 to 2 inches: loamy fine sand BA,Bw1,Bw2 - 2 to 26 inches: fine sand C - 26 to 60 inches: fine sand Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Excessively drained Custom Soil Resource Report 17 32 Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F094BY011MI - Dry Upland Forage suitability group: Low AWC, adequately drained (G095AY002WI) Other vegetative classification: Acer rubrum-Quercus/Vaccinium (ArQV), Pinus/ Maianthemum-V accinium (PMV), Low AWC, adequately drained (G095AY002WI) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Wainola Percent of map unit: 1 percent Ecological site: F094BY006MI - Moist Sandy Lowland Hydric soil rating: No Menahga Percent of map unit: 1 percent Ecological site: F094BY011MI - Dry Upland Hydric soil rating: No Urban land Percent of map unit: 1 percent Hydric soil rating: No Rousseau Percent of map unit: 1 percent Ecological site: F094BY008MI - Sandy Upland Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 18 33 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www .nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www .nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, W etlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. W aterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 19 34 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www .nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 20 35 Surface Water Data Viewer Service Layer Credits: Wisconsin Wetland Inventory NWI (cached): , Wetland Indicators & Soils: Surface Water Data Viewer Team, EN Basic Basemap WTM Ext: , 2020 Leaf Off: , Permits & Determinations: WI DNR Bureau of Watershed Management, Wisconsin Wetland Inventory NWI (Dynamic): Calvin Lawrence, Dennis Weise, Nina Rihn ´ Date Printed: 2/17/2025 4:24 PM Map Location Notes: Map projection: NAD 1983 HARN Wisconsin TM Legend: (some map layers may not be displayed) This map is a product generated by a DNR web mapping application. This map is for informational purposes only and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. The user is solely responsible for verifying the accuracy of information before using for any purpose. By using this product for any purpose user agrees to be bound by all disclaimers found here: https:/ /dnr.wisconsin.gov/legal . Wetland Class Points Excavated pond Wetland Class Areas Wetland Indicators Latest Leaf Off Imagery County Boundaries County and Local Roads Local Road Map: 0 200 400 Feet 0 50 100 Meters 36 © 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS 0 NORTH File: \\JSDINC\appl projects\PROJECTS\2022\2212059\DWG\2212059 SWMP.dwg Layout: EXISTING WATERSHED MAP User: alex.mayou Plotted: Apr 08, 2025 - 4:11pm Xref's: COX FAMILY DEVELOPMENT PESHTIGO, WI DATE: 04.08.2025 EXISTING WATERSHED MAP 50' 100' 22-12059 COBLE ROAD HALE SCHOOL ROAD WATERSHED INFORMATION BLOCK EX-A EX-B EX-C EX-D EX-OFF EX-OFF EX-OFF 37 © 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS 0 NORTH File: \\JSDINC\appl projects\PROJECTS\2022\2212059\DWG\2212059 SWMP.dwg Layout: PROPOSED WATERSHED MAP User: alex.mayou Plotted: Apr 08, 2025 - 4:12pm Xref's: COX FAMILY DEVELOPMENT PESHTIGO, WI DATE: 04.08.2025 PROPOSED WATERSHED MAP 50' 100' 22-12059 AREA WELL ELEVATION=596.5 COBLE ROAD HALE SCHOOL ROAD FFE=605.50 FFE=602.00 FFE=602.00 FFE=602.00 FFE=602.00 FFE=605.50 POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POTENTIAL POWTS LOCATION POND PICNIC AREA LOT #1 LOT #2 LOT #3 LOT #6 LOT #5 LOT #4 O.L. 1 O.L. 3 O.L. 4 WATERSHED INFORMATION BLOCK PR-B PR-A PR-OFF 1P 2P 3P 4P 5P 6P 7P PR-C PR-D PR-E PR-F PR-G PR-I PR-H 8P 9P 10PPR-JPR-K PR-L PR-M 11P PR-L O.L. 2 38 39 Sec. 60-63. A-2 Agricultural/Rural Residential District. (c) Permitted accessory structures and uses. (1) Two accessory buildings, such as gardening, tool and storage sheds, utility buildings, detached garage, etc., incidental to the residential use. Accessory buildings shall adhere to the following table: Up to Under 1.5 acre parcel: 1,500 square feet combined total for 2 buildings , shall not occupy more than 30 percent of the area of the required rear, side or front yard, maximum height 20 feet, side and rear yard setback minimum 15 feet from property line. 1.5 acre – 1.99 acre parcel: 2,000 square feet combined for 2 buildings, maximum height 20 feet, side and rear yard setback minimum 15 feet from property line. 2.5 2.0 acre – 3.49 acre parcel: 2,500 square feet combined total for 2 buildings, maximum height 20 feet, side and rear yard setback minimum 15 feet from property line. 3.5 acre – 4.49 acre parcel: 3,500 square feet combined total for 2 buildings, maximum height 20 feet, side yard and rear setback minimum 15 feet from property line. 4.5 acre & over parcel: may have more than 2 accessory buildings with combined total of 4,500 square feet, maximum height 20 feet, 35-foot maximum height limitation, side and rear yard setback minimum 15 feet from property line. Parcel comprising five or more acres may have multiple accessory buildings and are exempt from the maximum square footage size limitations; however, there is a 35-foot maximum height limitation. Sec. 60-64. R-1 Single-Family Residential District. (b) Permitted uses. (3) Two accessory buildings, such as gardening, tool and storage sheds, utility buildings, detached garage, etc., incidental to the residential use. Accessory buildings shall adhere to the following table: Up to Under 1.5 acre parcel: 1,500 square feet combined total for 2 buildings , shall not occupy more than 30 percent of the area of the required rear, side or front yard, maximum height 20 feet, side and rear yard setback minimum 15 feet from property line. 1.5 acre – 1.99 acre parcel: 2,000 square feet combined for 2 buildings, maximum height 20 feet, side and rear yard setback minimum 15 feet from property line. 2.5 2.0 acre – 3.49 acre parcel: 2,500 square feet combined total for 2 buildings, maximum height 20 feet, side and rear yard setback minimum 15 feet from property line. 3.5 acre – 4.49 acre parcel: 3,500 square feet combined total for 2 buildings, maximum height 20 feet, side yard and rear setback minimum 15 feet from property line. 4.5 acre & over parcel: 4,500 square feet combined total for 2 buildings, maximum height 20 feet, side and rear yard setback minimum 15 feet from property line. 40 Sec. 60-65. R-2 Two-Family/Multifamily Residential District. (b) Permitted uses. (4) Per unit, two accessory buildings, such as gardening, tool and storage sheds, detached garage, etc., incidental to the residential use. Accessory buildings shall adhere to the following table: Up to Under 1.5 acre parcel: 1,500 square feet combined total for 2 buildings , shall not occupy more than 30 percent of the area of the required rear, side or front yard, maximum height 20 feet, side and rear yard setback minimum 15 feet from property line. 1.5 acre – 1.99 acre parcel: 2,000 square feet combined for 2 buildings, maximum height 20 feet, side and rear yard setback minimum 15 feet from property line. 2.5 2.0 acre – 3.49 acre parcel: 2,500 square feet combined total for 2 buildings, maximum height 20 feet, side and rear yard setback minimum 15 feet from property line. 3.5 acre – 4.49 acre parcel: 3,500 square feet combined total for 2 buildings, maximum height 20 feet, side yard and rear setback minimum 15 feet from property line. 4.5 acre & over parcel: 4,500 square feet combined total for 2 buildings, maximum height 20 feet, side and rear yard setback minimum 15 feet from property line. 41 MEETING MINUTES Town of Peshtigo Regular Board Meeting Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 6pm Meeting in recess from Annual Town Meeting until 7:20pm. Chairperson Friday called the meeting to order at 7:20pm. 8) Roll call: All present. Chairperson Friday, Supervisor Coble, Supervisor Wortner, Supervisor Bergeson, Supervisor Joy. 9) Verification of public notice: Chairperson Friday verified. 10) Approve agenda: Unanimous consent to approve the agenda. 11) Public comment, limited to 15 minutes (in-person attendees only, limited to 3 minutes per person with no time donations from others, agenda items only), please be prepared to come forward to the table, speak clearly into the microphone, start by stating name/address & agenda item(s) to be addressed: None heard. 12) Announcements a. Clerk Okins gave a recap of the April election. No Town positions changed hands, final election numbers were perfect, Badger Books operated smoothly, and she thanked the Chief Election Inspector and all other Election Inspectors. b. Town Hall is closed Thursday, April 17 th due to construction. c. Bellin run will be held on Saturday, May 3 rd. TOP Fire Department is assisting with road closures. d. DNR and Tyco updates on the website, under the water tab. e. Chairperson Friday and Supervisor Wortner will be attending Capit ol Day on 4/30. 13) Minute approval – 3/18/2025 Regular Board Meeting: Unanimous consent to approve. 14) Reports a. Fire Department: Chief Folgert gave report. i. New Fire Truck package approval: Clarence motion to approve Chairperson Friday to sign the approval package, if it comes in at or below the presented cost of $/Second by Joy. Motion carried with 5 yes votes. b. Constable: Chairperson Friday gave report. c. Building Inspector: Chairperson Friday gave report. d. Marinette County Board: No updates. 15) Treasurer Report/Investment Report/Budget YTD vs Actual/Budget Amendments: Unanimous consent to approve Treasurer Report. a. Approve vouchers & payment of bills: Coble motion to approve/Second by Wortner. Motion carried with 5 yes votes. 16) Insurance renewal: Coble motion to approve/Second by Bergeson. Motion carried with 5 yes. 42 17) Reappointment of Dale Edlbeck & Jim Meyer to Fire Commission for 3 -year term ending 4/30/2028: Chairperson Friday motion to reappoint both members/Second by Joy. Motion carried with 5 yes. 18) Approval of Transfer of Agent - Class “B” Beer and “Class B” Liquor license for Embers 1871, LLC (Kari Bunting) from April 15, 2025 to June 30, 2025: Joy motion to approve/Second by Coble. Motion carried with 5 yes votes. 19) Capital Improvement Plan update: Chairperson Friday gave presentation of information obtained from WTA. CIP will be working on how to fund future road projects, timeline, etc. 20) Ad hoc committee updates: a. CDBG-CV – Chairperson Friday, Treasurer Maney: Chairperson Friday gave update that DOA extended the project completion to May 9, 2025. Treasurer Maney stated that Town reimbursement was submitted and should be arriving soon. i. HVAC update – Supervisors Coble & Joy: Joy updated that the boiler will be down starting Wednesday, April 16 th to swap over to new equipment. b. Ordinance/Policy Review – Chairperson Friday, Vice Chairperson Wortner: No updates. 21) Standing Committee Updates: a. Buildings & Grounds – Chairperson Coble, Vice Chairperson Bergeson: Coble gave update that the roof project is 99% complete, expected to be completed next week. Town water softener is currently not working properly, but will be repaired this week. b. Recycling Center – Chairperson Bergeson, Vice Chairperson Coble: Clerk Okins stated the Recycling RU Grant has been submitted and approved. Payment is expected in May. i. Waste Management contract renewal: Bergeson motion to approve/Second by Coble. Motion carried with 5 yes votes. c. Roads & Ditches – Chairperson Wortner, Vice Chairperson Joy i. 2025 Town road project bid opening with possible award: Sole bidder. Joy motion to accept Peshtigo Asphalt’s bid of $77,250.00 for completion of all 4 projects/Second by Wortner. Bids are accepted, but not yet awarded. Motion carried with 5 yes votes. 22) Town Board/Committee/Commission structure/restructure: Chairperson Friday motion to restructure the following/Second by Bergeson. Motion carried with 5 yes votes.: a. Remove Wortner from Ordinance Review Committee. b. Remove Joy from Roads. 23) Upcoming Meetings – Regular Board Meeting, Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at 6 p.m. 24) Adjourn: Unanimous consent to adjourn at 8:11pm. Kayla Okins, Clerk 04/17/2025 43 Town of Peshtigo Fire Department Report to the Town Board May 20, 2025 13 Calls since the April 15th, 2025 Monthly Town Board meeting: 4/16/25 W2847 STH 64, Unauthorized Trash Fire - Extinguished 4/19/25 N3407 Rehms Rd., EMS Assist 4/23/25 N2389 Shore Dr., EMS Assist – Canceled Enroute 4/23/25 W2810 County B, Electrical Fire in Garage with Downed Power Lines 4/29/25 N2756 Wilderness Trail, Fire Alarm Activation 4/29/25 N3407 Rehms Rd., EMS Assist 4/30/25 N3640 Kozuzek Rd., Grass Fire with Downed Powerlines 5/2/25 N3994 County RW, EMS Assist 5/5/25 W1660 STH 64, Vehicle Crash w/ Fuel Leak 5/14/25 N959 Pond Rd. , Unauthorized Trash Fire 5/16/25 N3407 Rehms Rd., EMS Assist – Canceled Enroute 5/16/25 STH 64 at County RW, Brush Fire – No Incident Found 5/19/25 W2848 STH 64, Dumpster and Brush Fire Apparatus and Equipment Status: • Vacuum pump on Tender 235 ruptured a main seal at last night’s fire. Will need to be repaired. • Brush 2 sustained minor body damage from backing into a tree while operating off road at a brush fire on April 30th. Insurance claim was filed. Currently awaiting repairs. • Pre-construction conference was attended at Pierce Mfg. on April 17th to review drawings and specifications for our new fire engine. Our fire commission then met on May 1st to review the final package and recommend approval of the change orders. Training: • Annual service testing of all fire hose was conducted on Monday, May 12th and 19th.h Two more evenings will be required to complete this project. Fire Prevention, Education and Community Involvement: • Free smoke alarm installation is still available to town residents upon request. Contact the Clerk’s office or email topfire@townofpeshtigo.org if interested. Fund Raising & Donations: • Our next fund-raising event is on Saturday, July 19th at The Forgotten Fire Winery where we will be cooking brats and burgers during their Summer Concert Series. Other: • We provided traffic control during the Bellin 5K Heart Run on Saturday, May 3rd. • Fire Commission met on Thursday, May 1st. Dave Buechler was elected as the chairperson and Karen Sylvester as vice-chair. • Our roster stands at 22 volunteer firefighters. We are currently accepting applications. Mike Folgert Fire Chief 44 W2435 Old Peshtigo Road Marinette, WI 54143 715-582-4332 www.townofpeshtigo.org April 2025 Constable Report 04/17 Loud dirt bike on road 0 4/19 Dogs at large 0 4/27 Dogs at large 45 Begin Deposits/Interest Withdrawals Ending Outstanding Receipts Outstanding Deposits Register Balance BMO Checking Account 7013 61,676.44 82,034.05 (85,735.80) 57,974.69 (23,343.72) 27.00 34,657.97 BMO Payroll Checking 7734 4,953.00 21,740.00 (20,879.65) 5,813.35 (3,132.16) 2,681.19 BMO Plantinum MM 6811 315,507.13 76,933.19 (65,865.25) 326,575.07 326,575.07 BANK TOTALS 382,136.57 180,707.24 (172,480.70) 390,363.11 (26,475.88) 27.00 363,914.23 PNB Checking - CDBG 8.71 - - 8.71 - - - Change Fund 215.00 - - 215.00 - - - Fire Dept Equipment 274.66 0.99 - 275.65 Fire Truck 169,385.02 611.03 169,996.05 Roads 100,370.67 362.07 - 100,732.74 Capital Outlay - Mach & Equip 254,499.86 918.07 255,417.93 Recycling 12,630.11 45.56 12,675.67 ARPA 85,574.37 308.70 85,883.07 LGIP TOTAL 622,734.69 2,246.42 - 624,981.11 - - - - BMO CD - - - - BMO CD Fire Dept. 161,995.83 - 161,995.83 - - - - TOTAL CASH & INVESTMENTS 1,167,090.80 182,953.66 (172,480.70) 1,177,563.76 (26,475.88) 27.00 1,151,114.88 Jodi Maney Treasurer toptreasurer@townofpeshtigo.org TREASURER'S REPORT April 2025 46 Sec. 44-156. Applicability. (d) Private roads. (2) After the original enactment of this section, it is the policy of the town not to allow private roads. However, pPrivate roads which provide access to no more than two lots or parcels may be permitted if first approved by the town board, following a prior recommendation from the plan commission. Suc h private roads shall meet the design requirements for town roads found in this article and must be paved prior to any consideration as a public road. 47