Elba_Twp_Appeal_Consolidated.pdf
Jonathan M Wiedman Petitioner V Township Of Elba Respondent · 26-000435-TT
Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.
Page 1
2026 Assessment and Property Classification Appeal Parcel: 29-03-009-001-01 Property: 8905 E Garfield Rd, Ashley, MI 48806 Owner: Jonathan & Kara Wiedman To: Elba Township Assessor and Board of Review Email: ELBATOWNSHIP@ELBAGRATIOT.COM Hello, I am submitting a formal appeal of both the property classification and the 2026 tentative assessed value / SEV shown on my Notice of Assessment for parcel 29-03-009-001-01 (8905 E Garfield Rd). 1) Property is vacant land and the current classification does not reflect actual characteristics This parcel is vacant land with no residence and no structures. It is approximately 107.5 acres and was split from a larger parent parcel (03-009-001-00). The northern tract includes a residence; this southern tract does not. The current classification of 402 Residential does not reflect the actual nature and utility of this tract. Request: Please review and correct the parcel’s classification to reflect its actual characteristics and typical use in the area (agricultural/forest). Also, please advise what documentation and filing steps you require to apply: Qualified Agricultural Property treatment for the open/tillable portion (where eligible), and Qualified Forest Program (QFP) treatment for the wooded portion. 2) Market value evidence: arm’s-length purchase price supports a lower SEV target I purchased this parcel in 2025 for $450,000 in an arm’s-length transaction. Using the standard approach that SEV approximates 50% of market value, this purchase price supports an SEV target of approximately $225,000. Additionally, a public record report for this same parcel shows that in Assessment Year 2024 the parcel had SEV $223,000 and a corresponding Market Value (Total) $446,000, which aligns closely with the $450,000 purchase price and the requested SEV target. Request: Please adjust the 2026 tentative SEV accordingly. The current tentative SEV shown on my notice ($302,700) is materially higher than what is supported by the purchase price and prior-year benchmark. 2A) Local SEV-per-acre comparison (uncapping aside) Although taxable values vary widely due to caps and uncapping events, SEV per acre is a useful apples-to-apples check for vacant land valuation within the same township/school district. Based on nearby parcels in Elba Township from the county parcel portal, large agricultural-class tracts commonly fall around roughly $2,340 to $2,670 SEV per acre. Several vacant parcels classified residential show materially higher SEV-per-acre levels (for example, 40–52.5 acre tracts with SEV-per-acre around $3,700 to $4,600). My parcel is 107.5 acres with a tentative SEV of $302,700, which is about $2,816 SEV per acre. This is
Page 2
closer to the agricultural-land range than the residential-land range, but still higher than the core agricultural cluster shown in the attached comparable parcel table. This supports both (1) correcting the classification to agricultural/forest consistent with use and (2) adjusting the SEV to a level supported by the arm’s-length purchase and local comparable vacant land patterns. 3) Site limitations: wetness, standing water, limited buildability and reduced market utility This tract has significant physical limitations that reduce practical building sites, reduce usable acreage, and reduce market value: I have personally observed standing water in portions of the wooded area. The open field portion is reported to become very wet in the spring, suggesting drainage limitations. To my knowledge there is no drainage tile installed on this parcel today. This property has not been farmed in a long time. I have been told by Bruce Anderson that his uncle was the last person to farm it, and that was many years ago. These conditions materially reduce the tract’s market utility for residential development and also affect agricultural productivity. 4) NRCS Web Soil Survey evidence supports wetness and “very limited” residential build suitability NRCS Web Soil Survey outputs for this tract provide objective evidence consistent with the observed wetness and limitations: Farmland Classification: Only 7.7 acres (6.9%) are classified as “Prime farmland if drained.” This indicates drainage improvement is a condition of prime status, and the tract should not be valued as prime drained cropland when no such drainage improvements are known to exist. Hydric Rating: Major map units show very high hydric indicators, consistent with saturated soil conditions and ponding. NCCPI: The NCCPI ratings for dominant soils are modest (for example, Sickles loamy sand and Kingsville loamy sand are in the ~0.4 range), supporting that this tract is not high-productivity prime cropland in its present state. Building Site Development: The building-site ratings are overwhelmingly constrained: “Dwellings without basements” is “Very limited” on 87.1% of the AOI, and “Dwellings with basements” is “Very limited” on 89.6% of the AOI. These documented soil and wetness constraints directly reduce market value and support correcting both the classification and the SEV. 5) Specific requests 1) Classification: Reclassify the parcel from 402 Residential to the appropriate agricultural/forest classification based on actual land characteristics and local patterns, and provide guidance on the correct filings to apply Qualified Agricultural and/or Qualified Forest treatment where eligible. 2) Value: Adjust the 2026 tentative SEV from $302,700 to a level supported by the arm’s-length purchase price, prior-year benchmark, local SEV-per-acre patterns, and the documented wetness/buildability limitations. Requested SEV target: $225,000. Thank you for your review and for confirming receipt of this appeal and attached exhibits. Respectfully, Jonathan M. Wiedman Phone: ____________________ Email: ____________________ Attachments / Exhibits (A–F) Exhibit A: Borrower’s Settlement Statement Exhibit B: Warranty Deed Exhibit C: Property Transfer Affidavit Exhibit D: Public Record report
Page 3
Exhibit E: Comparable parcel listing Exhibit F: NRCS Web Soil Survey outputs (Farmland Classification, Hydric Rating, NCCPI, Dwellings with and without basements)
Page 4
Exhibit A Borrower’s Settlement Statement (shows $450,000 purchase price; 04/25/2025 settlement)
Page 5
Select Title Company 6870 Grand River Ave Suite 300 Brighton, MI 48114 Phone: (810)220-1370 Fax: (810)885-5333 Settlement Date: 04/25/2025 Escrow officer/Closer: Shannon Gilbert-Hardy Order Number: 29-250332-G Borrower: Jonathan Wiedman and Kara Wiedman 1551 E Hibbard Rd. Owosso, MI 48867 Seller: The Steven L. Pingel Revocable Trust Agreement 13851 N. Hartel Rd Grand Ledge, MI 48837 Property location: VIL S. Barry Road Ashley, MI 48806 Borrower Debit Credit Financial Consideration Sale Price of Property 450,000.00 Deposit 10,000.00 Loan Amount 360,000.00 Prorations/Adjustments City/Town Taxes 168.57 04/25/25 - 06/30/25 County Taxes 2,333.80 04/25/25 - 11/30/25 Loan Charges to GreenStone Farm Credit Services, FLCA $3,304.24 Appraisal Fee - Re 1,300.00 Association Stock or Participation Certificates 1,000.00 Origination Fee 990.00 Wire Transfer Fee 7.00 Credit Report to Transunion 7.24 Escrow/Title Charges Closing Fee to Select Title Company 550.00 Lender's Title Insurance to Select Title Company 1,297.00 Coverage: 360,000.00 Premium: 1,297.00 Version: ALTA Loan Policy (7/1/2021) Prelim / Tax Cert Fee to Select Title Company 30.00 Recording Processing Fee to Select Title Company 50.00 Wire/Overnight Fee to Select Title Company 30.00 Recording Charges Recording Fees-Deed to Register of Deeds 35.00 E-Recording Fee to Simplifile 8.50 Recording Fee-Mortgage to Gratiot County Register of Deeds 30.00 Subtotals 457,827.11 370,000.00 Balance Due FROM Borrower 87,827.11 TOTALS 457,827.11 457,827.11 Borrower gh
Page 6
Select Title Company 6870 Grand River Ave Suite 300 Brighton, MI 48114 Phone: (810)220-1370 Fax: (810)885-5333 Settlement Date: 04/25/2025 Escrow officer/Closer: Shannon Gilbert-Hardy Order Number: 29-250332-G Borrower: Jonathan Wiedman and Kara Wiedman 1551 E Hibbard Rd. Owosso, MI 48867 Seller: The Steven L. Pingel Revocable Trust Agreement 13851 N. Hartel Rd Grand Ledge, MI 48837 Property location: V/L S. Barry Road Ashley, MI 48806 Seller Debit Credit Financial Consideration Sale Price of Property 450,000.00 Prorations/Adjustments City/Town Taxes 158.57 04/25/25 06/30/25 County Taxes 2,333.80 04/25/25 -11/30/25 Commissions Compliance Fee to Re/Max Platinum 495.00 Real Estate Commission to Re/Max Platinum 27,000.00 Escrow/Title Charges Closing Fee to Select Title Company 125.00 Tax Search Fee to Select Title Company 20.00 Owner's Title Insurance to Select Title Company 2,276.00 Coverage: 450,000.00 Premium: 2,276.00 Version: ALTA Owners Policy (7/1/2021) Recording Charges E-Recording Fee to Simplifile 4.25 Recording Fee-Certificate of Trust to Gratiot County Register of Deeds 30.00 Transfer Taxes to Register of Deeds 3,870.00 Subtotals 33,820.25 452,492.37 Balance Due TO Seller 418,672.12 TOTALS 452,492.37 452,492.37 Seller The Steve z. re) rust Agreement BY: £27 [rte Net 7472. Sfeven L. Pingel / NJ Jrustee CN. \N
Page 7
Exhibit B Warranty Deed (consideration / parcel reference)
Page 8
WARRANTY DEED-(Statutory Form) C.L. 1948, 565.152 M.S.A 26.571 Furnished by SELECT TITLE COMPANY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT: Steven L. Pingel, Trustee of The Steven L. Pingel Revocable Trust Agreement, dated May 4, 2023, as may be amended, Convey(s) and Warrant(s) to Jonathan Wiedman and Kara Wiedman, husband and wife, whose address is 1551 E Hibbard Rd., Owosso, MI 48867 the following described premises Situated in the Township of Elba, County of Gratiot, State of Michigan: See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Commonly known as: V/L S. Barry Road Tax No.: 03-009-001-01 For the full consideration of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($450,000.00) subject to easements, restrictions or reservations of record and the 181-13 Drain assessment which the Grantees agree to assume and pay. The property may be located within the vicinity of farmland or farm operation. Generally accepted agricultural and management practices which may generate noise, dust, odors, and other associated conditions may be used and are protected by the Michigan right to farm act. The grantor grants to the grantee the right to make division(s) under section 108 of the land division act, Act No 288 of the Public Acts of 1967. (If no number is inserted, then all division rights are granted.) Dated this To ay of Bon , 2025. Signed and Sealed: The Steven L. Pingel Revocable Trust Agreement, dated May 4, 2023, as may be amen BY: yy hdl TRySTe=_ Steven L. Pingel Trustee STATE OF MICHIGAN COUNTY OF ( AQDCHRY. SS. P ~ On this 5 ) day of Dx W\ , 2025 before me personally appeared Steven L. Pingel, Trustee of The Steven L. Pingel Revocable Trust Agreement, dated May 4, 2023, as may be amended, to me known to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. My commission expires: 9), P| Ao YRS EE
Page 9
EXHIBIT A Situated in the Township of Elba, County of Gratiot, State of Michigan: The Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, Town 9 North, Range 1 West, Township of Elba, Gratiot County, Michigan. EXCEPT a parcel of land being a part of the North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, Town 9 North, Range 1 West, Township of Elba, Gratiot County, Michigan, described as: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Section 9; thence South along the East Section line 864.73 feet: thence North 89 degrees 20' 51" West parallel with the North Section line 2644.79 feet to the North-South 1/4 line; thence North 00 degrees 00' 20" Wet along the North-South 1/4 line 864.73 feet to the North 1/4 corner; thence South 89 degrees 20' 51" East along the North Section line 2644.87 feet to the point of beginning at the Northeast corner of said Section 9.
Page 10
Exhibit C Michigan Property Transfer Affidavit (purchase price and transfer date)
Page 11
Michigan Department of Treasury ’ 2766 (Rev. 05-16) L-4260 Property Transfer Affidavit This form is issued under authority of PA, 415 of 1994. Filing is mandatory, This form must be filed whenever real estate or some types of personal property are transferred (even if you are not recording a deed). The completed Affidavit must be filed by the new owner with the assessor for the city or township where the Property is located within 45 days of the transfer. The information on this form is NOT CONFIDENTIAL. 1. Street Address of Property 2. County 3. Date of Transfer (or land contract signed) VIL S. Barry Road Gratiot April 25, 2025 4. Location of Real Estate (Check appropriate field and enter name in the space below.) 5. Purchase Price of Real Estate O City [£5] Township O vi lage $450,000.00 6. Seller's (Transferor) Name Elba The Steven L. Pingel Revocable Trust Agreement - Property Identification Number (PIN). If (8) Buyer's (Transferee) Name and Mailing Address PIN. This number ranges from 10 to 25 digits. It usually includes hyphens and sometimes includes letters. tis Jonathan Wiedman and Kara Wiedman on the property tax bill and on the assessment notice, 138) y g OL0350 | uy a =. 18 9; ere (T3rsjese) Tel you don't have a PIN, attach legal description. 03-009-001-01 Items 10-15 are optional. However, by completing them You may avoid further corresp 10. Type of Transfer. Transfers include, but are not limited to, deeds, land contracts, transfers invol list. O Land Contract 0 Lease 11. Was property purchased from a financial institution? 12. Is the transfer between rel OT ves Ono O ves 14. If you financed the purchase, did you pay market rate of interest? O Yes O No Certain types of transfers are exempt from uncapping. If you claim an exemption, your assessor may request Oo Transfer from one Spouse to the other spouse. [m} Change in ownership solely to exclude or include a spouse. [m] Transfer between certain family members *(see page 2). Transfer between certain family members of that portion of a property after the expiration or termination of a life estate or by transferor ** (see page 2) . 5 3 2 =) 5 & @ 8 5 3 3 g © Q o [7] g [+] 9 g g g 3 ° 3 [3 3s ° 3 = Transfer into a trust where the settlor or the settlor's Spouse conveys property to the trust and is also the sole benef Transfer resuf ing from a court order unless the order specifies a monetary payment. Transfer creating or ending a joint tenancy if at least o Transfer to establish or release a security interest (collatera Transfer of real estate through normal public trading of stock. Transfer between entities under common control or among members of an affiliated group. (or his/her spouse). Transfer resulting from transa O00O0ooooon [m] Other, specify: CERTIFICATION I ry Name and title, if signer is other than the owner Date Yas [ac E-mail Address | Daytime Phone Number
Page 12
Exhibit D Public Record report (107.5 acres; 2024 SEV $223,000; Market Value $446,000; split history)
Page 13
8905 E Garfield Rd, Ashley, MI 48806-9369, Gratiot County Active Listing APN: 03-009-001-01 CLIP: 3258827399 Beds N/A Full Baths N/A Half Baths N/A MLS List Price $590,000 MLS List Date 02/25/2025 Bldg Sq Ft N/A Lot Sq Ft 4,682,700 Yr Built N/A Type SFR OWNER INFORMATION Owner Name Pingel Steven L Living Trust Taxpayer Zip 48837 Owner Name 2 Taxpayer Address ZIP + 4 Code 9301 Taxpayer Address DMA No Mail Flag Taxpayer Address City & State Grand Ledge, MI Owner Occupied No COMMUNITY INSIGHTS Median Home Value $197,738 School District ASHLEY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS Median Home Value Rating 2 / 10 Family Friendly Score 76 / 100 Total Crime Risk Score (for the neig hborhood, relative to the nation) 67 / 100 Walkable Score 25 / 100 Total Incidents (1 yr) 5 Q1 Home Price Forecast $208,875 Standardized Test Rank 49 / 100 Last 2 Yr Home Appreciation 17% LOCATION INFORMATION School District Ashley Section 9 School District Name Ashley Range 01 Subdivision Quarter Census Tract 9.00 Quarter-Quarter Census Block 2 Lot # Property Zip 48806 Block Zip + 4 9369 Flood Zone Code X Property Carrier Route R021 Within 250 Feet of Multiple Flood Z one No Zoning Flood Zone Panel 26057C0350C City/Village/Township Elba Twp Flood Zone Date 10/18/2011 Township 09 TAX INFORMATION Property ID 0300900101 Winter Tax Year Assessment Year 2024 Advalorem Winter Tax Total Assessed Value $223,000 Winter Tax State Equalized Value (SEV) $223,000 Assessment Winter Tax Capped Value $74,242 Prior Summer Tax Year Taxable Value $74,242 Prior Year Summer Tax Tax Year Prior Winter Tax Year Annual Tax Prior Year Winter Tax Summer Tax Year Prior Year Tax Amount Advalorem Summer Tax Special Assessment Summer Tax Exemption(s) Assessment Summer Tax Homestead Percent Village Tax Legal Description WD L 529 P 1289 NE 1/4 SEC. 9-9-1 . ELBA TWP., GRATIOT COUNTY. EXCEPT PART OF THE N 1/2 OF T HE NE 1/4 SEC. 9-9-1. ELBA TWP., GRATIOT COUNTY, DESCRIBED A S BEGINING AT THE NE CORNER OF SEC 9; THENCE S ALONG THE E SECTION LINE 864.73 FT; THEN CE N 89 DEG. 20' 51" W PARALLE L WITH THE N SECTION LINE 2644 .79 FT TO THE NS 1/4 LINE; THEN CE N 00 DEG 00' 20" W ALONG TH E NS 1/4 LINE 864.73 FT TO THE N 1/4 CORNER; THENCE S 89 DEG 2 0' 51" E ALONG THE N SECTION LINE 2644.87 FT TO THE POB. 107. 5 ACRES MORE OR LESS SPLIT O N 10/16/2013 FROM 03-009-001-00; ASSESSMENT & TAX Assessment Year 2024 2023 2022 Property Details Courtesy of Scott Myers, Realcomp II Ltd Generated on: 02/28/25 The data within this report is compiled by CoreLogic from public and private sources. The data is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. The accuracy of the data contained herein can be independently verified by the recipient of this report with the applicable county or municipality. Page 1/4
Page 14
Assessed Value - Total $223,000 $201,800 $167,300 Assessed Value - Land Assessed Value - Improved Market Value - Total $446,000 $403,600 $334,600 Market Value - Land Market Value - Improved Exempt Building Value Exempt Land Value Exempt Total Value State Equalized Value (SEV) $223,000 Total Tax Tax Year Change ($) Change (%) Period Tax Year Tax Amount Change ($) Change (%) Administrative Fee Winter Summer Total Winter Summer Total Period Ad Valorem Tax Winter Summer Total Winter Summer Total CHARACTERISTICS # of Buildings Cooling Type Lot Frontage Heat Type Lot Depth Heat Fuel Type Acres 107.5 No. of Porches Lot Sq Ft 4,682,700 Porch Lot Shape Porch Type Basement Type Porch 1 Area Bsmt Finish No. of Patios Basement Sq Ft Patio Type Basement Rooms Sec Patio Area Finished Basement Sq Ft Patio/Deck 1 Area Unfinished Basement Area Patio/Deck 2 Area Style Garage Type Living Area Sq Ft Garage Capacity Ground Floor Area Garage Sq Ft Above Grade Sq Ft Roof Type Total Building Sq Ft Roof Shape Year Built Roof Material Stories Construction Total Units Interior Wall Total Rooms Exterior Bedrooms Floor Cover Total Baths Foundation MLS Total Baths Pool Full Baths Pool Size Half Baths Other Rooms Fireplaces Building Type Sewer Land Use - CoreLogic SFR Water Property Category Rs FEATURES Feature Type Unit Size/Qty Width Depth Year Built Property Details Courtesy of Scott Myers, Realcomp II Ltd Generated on: 02/28/25 The data within this report is compiled by CoreLogic from public and private sources. The data is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. The accuracy of the data contained herein can be independently verified by the recipient of this report with the applicable county or municipality. Page 2/4
Page 15
Feature Type Value Building Description Building Size SELL SCORE Rating N/A Value As Of N/A Sell Score N/A ESTIMATED VALUE RealAVM™ $162,700 Confidence Score 14 RealAVM™ Range $113,900 - $211,500 Forecast Standard Deviation 30 Value As Of 02/18/2025 (1) RealAVM™ is a CoreLogic® derived value and should not be used in lieu of an appraisal. (2) The Confidence Score is a measure of the extent to which sales data, property information, and comparable sales support the property valuation analysis process. The confidence score range is 50 - 100. Clear and consistent quality and quantity of data drive higher confidence scores while lower confidence scores indicate diversity in data, lower quality and quantity of data, and/or limited similarity of the subject property to comparable sales. (3) The FSD denotes confidence in an AVM estimate and uses a consistent scale and meaning to generate a standardized confidence metric. The FSD is a statistic that measures the likely range or dispersion an AVM estimate will fall within, based on the consistency of the information available to the AVM at the time of estimation. The FSD can be used to create confidence that the true value has a statistical degree of certainty. LISTING INFORMATION MLS List Number 20250012267 MLS Sold Date MLS Status Active MLS Sold Price MLS Status Date 02/25/2025 MLS List. Agent 186571-Scott Myers MLS List Date 02/25/2025 MLS List. Office RE/MAX PLATINUM - GRAND BLA NC MLS List Price $590,000 MLS Sale Agent MLS Original Price $590,000 MLS Sale Office MLS Contract Date MLS Number MLS Status MLS List Price MLS List Date MLS Orig Price MLS Sold Date MLS Sold Price MLS Listing Expiration Date MLS Listing Cancellation Date LAST MARKET SALE & SALES HISTORY Recording Date Deed Type Document Date Owner Name Pingel Steven L Living Trust Sale Price Owner Name 2 MLS Sold Price Grantor Price Per Square Foot Title Company Liber/Page Multi/Split Sale Recording Date 05/04/2023 Document Date (Sales History) 05/04/2023 Sale Price Nominal Y Grantee Pingel Steven L Living T Grantee Grantor Pingel Steven Liber/Page 161 Deed Type Quit Claim Deed MORTGAGE HISTORY Mortgage Date Mortgage Amount Mortgage Lender Mortgage Code Mortgage Type Borrower Name Property Details Courtesy of Scott Myers, Realcomp II Ltd Generated on: 02/28/25 The data within this report is compiled by CoreLogic from public and private sources. The data is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. The accuracy of the data contained herein can be independently verified by the recipient of this report with the applicable county or municipality. Page 3/4
Page 16
Borrower Name 2 Mortgage Term Mortgage Term Code Mortgage Int Rate Mortgage Int Rate Type FORECLOSURE HISTORY Document Type Default Date Foreclosure Filing Date Recording Date Document Number Book Number Page Number Default Amount Final Judgment Amount Original Doc Date Original Document Number Original Book Page Lien Type PROPERTY MAP *Lot Dimensions are Estimated Property Details Courtesy of Scott Myers, Realcomp II Ltd Generated on: 02/28/25 The data within this report is compiled by CoreLogic from public and private sources. The data is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. The accuracy of the data contained herein can be independently verified by the recipient of this report with the applicable county or municipality. Page 4/4
Page 17
Exhibit E – SEV comparison (Elba Township, School Dist 29020) Note: SEV and SEV per acre are the most comparable metrics. Taxable values can be capped and vary by ownership timing. Parcel Address Acres Class SEV Taxable SEV/acre TV/SEV 29-03-009-001-01 8905 E Garfield Rd 107.5 402 Res. 302,700 302,700 2,816 1.00 03-009-001-10 8905 E Garfield Rd 52.5 401 Res. 239,100 64,460 4,554 0.27 03-009-002-00 8418 E Garfield Rd 40 401 Res. 167,700 67,840 4,193 0.40 03-009-003-00 8160 E Garfield Rd 51 401 Res. 188,800 101,091 3,702 0.54 03-010-008-00 E Mac Arthur (9000) Rd 20 401 Res. 53,400 15,395 2,670 0.29 03-010-007-00 E Mac Arthur (9000) Rd 40 102 Ag 93,600 15,391 2,340 0.16 03-010-001-00 9001 E Garfield Rd 58 102 Ag 136,400 29,905 2,352 0.22 03-010-012-10 (blank) 80 102 Ag 189,600 67,857 2,370 0.36 03-010-009-00 9800 E Cleveland Rd 139 101 Ag 369,000 96,087 2,655 0.26 03-010-006-02 9054 E Garfield Rd 62 101 Ag 165,600 155,042 2,671 0.94 03-009-010-00 E Cleveland (8000) Rd 80 103 Ag 189,600 66,273 2,370 0.35 03-009-011-01 S Barry (7000) Rd 158.51 103 Ag 533,700 308,270 3,367 0.58 Quick takeaways • Agricultural parcels in this set cluster around roughly $2,340–$2,670 SEV per acre. • Several vacant parcels classified residential show materially higher SEV per acre (roughly $3,700–$4,600). • Subject parcel is $2,816 SEV per acre (closer to agricultural than residential, but above the core ag cluster). • TV/SEV shows why neighbors “pay less”: many are capped (low TV/SEV). The subject parcel is uncapped (TV = SEV).
Page 18
Exhibit F NRCS Web Soil Survey outputs (Farmland Classification, Hydric Rating, NCCPI, Dwellings with/without basements)
Page 19
2/28/26, 6:26 PM VC Wii moored A SEGA SE) Web Soil Survey 2 Area of Interest (AOI) Soil Map Download Soils Data Shopping Cart (Free) PDE I) View Soil Information By Use: aj uses v Printable Version| Add to Shopping Cart| Intro to Soils Soil Properties and Qualities Ecological Sites Soil Reports #| 2] clear| search| Basic Search Enter keywords Advanced Search *| | clear] search| Open All| Close All Building Site Development Corrosion of Concrete Corrosion of Steel Dwellings With Basements Dwellings Without Basements Lawns, Landscaping, and Golf Fairways Lawns, Landscaping, and Golf Fairways (MI) Local Roads and Streets Shallow Excavations Small Commercial Buildings Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems Solar Arrays, Soil-based Anchor Systems Unpaved Local Roads and Streets Construction Materials Disaster Recovery Planning Land Classifications Conservation Tree and Shrub Group [a @|2 «| 82 HE Scale| (not to scale) Warning: Soil Ratings Map may not be valid at this scale. IE = OskasBl Conservation Tree and Shrub Group OLD Ecological Classification ID Ecological Classification Name View Description View Rating https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Map unit symbol Map unit name Totals for Area of Interest - Acres in Percent of Rating AOI AOI 112.2 100.0% 13
Page 20
2/28/26, 6:26 PM Web Soil Survey View Options Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Map Map unit . . Acres in Percent of symbol Map unit name Rating AOI AOI Table AKA Arkona loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Farmland of local 2.8 2.5% Description of importance Rating . . o Rating Options Ke Kingsville loamy sand Farmland of local 30.8 27.5% i - importance (]] Detailed Description i OakaaB Oakville fine sand, Erie-Huron Lake Plain cool, 0 Not prime farmland 4.3 3.9% Advanced Options to 6 percent slopes View Description| View Rating| || PpA Pipestone-Tedrow loamy sands, 0 to 2 percent Farmland of local 26.9 24.0% Hydric Rating by Map Unit slopes importance Irrigated Capability Class PrA Pipestone-Tedrow loamy sands, loamy Farmland of local 1.5 1.4% Irrigated Capability Subclass substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes importance National Commodity Crop Productivity Index Ps Pits Not prime farmland 7.4 6.6% NH Forest Soil Group Sk Sickles loamy sand Farmland of local 30.8 27.5% Nonirrigated Capability Class importance Nonirrigated Capability Subclass ZfsaaA Ziegenfuss silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Prime farmland if 7.7 6.9% NRCS Ecological Site ID drained NRCS Ecological Site Name Totals for Area of Interest 112.2 100.0% Order of Soil Survey PFAS Attenuation in Soils PFAS Movement Classes Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifies the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. Soil Moisture Class NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlands are published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, - n 1978. Soil Moisture Subclass Soil Taxonomy Classification Soil Taxonomy Great Group Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary Soil Taxonomy Order Tie-break Rule: Lower Soil Taxonomy Particle Size or Substitute Class Soil Taxonomy Subgroup Soil Taxonomy Suborder Soil Temperature Regime Land Management Military Operations Recreational Development Sanitary Facilities Soil Health Vegetative Productivity Waste Management Water Management https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 2/3
Page 21
2/28/26, 6:26 PM Web Soil Survey FOIA | Accessibility Statement | Privacy Policy | Non-Discrimination Statement | Information Quality | USA.gov | White House https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 3/3
Page 22
2/28/26, 6:45 PM Web Soil Survey TV Unie 3 I er eb RE | ‘ > Be BOVEY ) PEE Area of Interest (AOI) Soil Map Download Soils Data Shopping Cart (Free) View Soil Information By Use: aj Uses v Printable Version| Add to Shopping Cart| Intro to Soils Soil Properties and Qualities Ecological Sites Soil Reports lof cel sore] TR AS OI 21] QI] sexe] coro CE Basic Search Enter keywords Advanced Search of 2] ear] sear Open All| Close All Building Site Development Corrosion of Concrete Corrosion of Steel Dwellings With Basements Dwellings Without Basements Lawns, Landscaping, and Golf Fairways Lawns, Landscaping, and Golf Fairways (MI) Local Roads and Streets Shallow Excavations Small Commercial Buildings Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems Solar Arrays, Soil-based Anchor Systems Unpaved Local Roads and Streets Construction Materials Disaster Recovery Planning Land Classifications Warning: Soil Ratings Map may not be valid at this scale. Conservation Tree and Shrub Group Conservation Tree and Shrub Group OLD Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Ecological Classification ID Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Ecological Classification Name Map unit Map unit name Rating Acres in Percent of Farmland Classification symbol Aor AOL Totals for Area of Interest 112.2 100.0% https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 1/5
Page 23
2/28/26, 6:45 PM View Description| View Rating] View Options Map Table Description of Rating Rating Options O Detailed Description Advanced Options View Description| View Rating] Irrigated Capability Class Irrigated Capability Subclass National Commodity Crop Productivity Index NH Forest Soil Group Web Soil Survey Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) To el Map unit name Rating Acres in Percent of AKA Arkona loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12 2.8 2.5% Ke Kingsville loamy sand 96 30.8 27.5% OakaaB Oakville fine sand, Erie-Huron Lake Plain cool, 0 to 6 percent 1 4.3 3.9% slopes PpA Pipestone-Tedrow loamy sands, 0 to 2 percent slopes 5 26.9 24.0% PrA Pipestone-Tedrow loamy sands, loamy substratum, 0 to 2 4 1.5 1.4% percent slopes Ps Pits 0 7.4 6.6% Sk Sickles loamy sand 97 30.8 27.5% ZfsaaA Ziegenfuss silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 87 7.7 6.9% Totals for Area of Interest 112.2 100.0% Nonirrigated Capability Class Nonirrigated Capability Subclass NRCS Ecological Site ID NRCS Ecological Site Name Order of Soil Survey PFAS Attenuation in Soils PFAS Movement Classes Soil Moisture Class Soil Moisture Subclass Soil Taxonomy Classification Soil Taxonomy Great Group Soil Taxonomy Order Soil Taxonomy Particle Size or Substitute Class Soil Taxonomy Subgroup Soil Taxonomy Suborder Soil Temperature Regime Land Management Construction Limitations for Haul Roads and Log Landings Drought Vulnerable Soils Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail) Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail) (MI) Fencing, Post Depth 24 Inches or Less Fencing, Post Depth 36 Inches or Less https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective components and the percentage of each component within the map unit. The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components. The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components. In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006). References: 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. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. 2/5
Page 24
2/28/26, 6:45 PM Web Soil Survey Ground Penetrating Radar Penetration 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. Harvest Equipment Operability Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Harvest Equipment Operability (MI) Mechanical Site Preparation (Deep) Aggregation Method: Percent Present Mechanical Site Preparation (Surface) Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Mechanical Site Preparation (Surface) (MI) Tie-break Rule: Lower Potential Erosion Hazard (Road or Trail) Potential for Damage by Fire Potential for Seedling Mortality Potential for Seedling Mortality (MI) Potential Windthrow Hazard (MI) Soil Rutting Hazard Soil Suitability for Industrial Hemp Suitability for Hand Planting Suitability for Haul Roads (MI) Suitability for Log Landings Suitability for Log Landings (MI) Suitability for Mechanical Planting Suitability for Roads (Natural Surface) USFS - Road Construction and Maintenance (Natural Surface) Windthrow Hazard Military Operations Recreational Development Camp Areas Camp Areas (MI) Off-Road Motorcycle Trails Paths and Trails Paths and Trails (MI) Picnic Areas Picnic Areas (MI) Playgrounds Playgrounds (MI) Sanitary Facilities Daily Cover for Landfill Sanitary Landfill (Area) Sanitary Landfill (Trench) Septic Tank Absorption Fields Sewage Lagoons https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 3/5
Page 25
2/28/26, 6:45 PM Web Soil Survey Soil-Based Residential Wastewater Disposal Ratings (V1) Soil Health Agricultural Organic Soil Subsidence Dynamic Soil Properties Response to Biochar Farm and Garden Composting Facility - Surface Fragile Soil Index Limitations for Aerobic Soil Organisms Organic Matter Depletion Soil Surface Sealing Soil Susceptibility to Compaction Surface Salt Concentration Vegetative Productivity Crop Productivity Index Forest Productivity (Cubic Feet per Acre per Year) Forest Productivity (Tree Site Index) Iowa Corn Suitability Rating CSR2 (IA) Minnesota Crop Productivity Index Range Production (Favorable Year) Range Production (Normal Year) Range Production (Unfavorable Year) Yields of Irrigated Crops (Component) Yields of Irrigated Crops (Map Unit) Yields of Non-Irrigated Crops (Component) Yields of Non-Irrigated Crops (Map Unit) Waste Management Water Management Embankments, Dikes, and Levees Excavated Ponds (Aquifer-Fed) Infiltration Systems, Deep Infiltration Systems, Shallow Irrigation, General Irrigation, Micro (Above Ground) Irrigation, Micro (Subsurface Drip) Irrigation, Sprinkler (Close Spaced Drops) Irrigation, Sprinkler (General) Irrigation, Surface (Graded) Irrigation, Surface (Level) Pond Reservoir Area (MI) Pond Reservoir Areas https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 4/5
Page 26
2/28/26, 6:45 PM Web Soil Survey Retention Systems, Lined Retention Systems, Unlined Subsurface Water Management, Outflow Quality Subsurface Water Management, System Installation Subsurface Water Management, System Performance Surface Water Management, System FOIA | Accessibility Statement | Privacy Policy | Non-Discrimination Statement | Information Quality | USA.gov | White House https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 5/5
Page 27
2/28/26, 6:31 PM Web Soil Survey # a Perel A LAUT | in 2 PEE SEIVEY> Area of Interest (AOI) Soil Map Download Soils Data Shopping Cart (Free) View Soil Information By Use: aj Uses v Printable Version| Add to Shopping Cart| Intro to Soils Soil Properties and Qualities Ecological Sites Soil Reports lof cel sore] TR AS OI 21] QI] sexe] coro CE Basic Search Enter keywords Advanced Search of 2] ear] sear Open All| Close All Building Site Development Corrosion of Concrete Corrosion of Steel Dwellings With Basements Dwellings Without Basements Lawns, Landscaping, and Golf Fairways Lawns, Landscaping, and Golf Fairways (MI) Local Roads and Streets Shallow Excavations Small Commercial Buildings 2 Zr san) Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems Solar Arrays, Soil-based Anchor Systems Unpaved Local Roads and Streets Construction Materials Disaster Recovery Planning Land Classifications Warning: Soil Ratings Map may not be valid at this scale. Conservation Tree and Shrub Group Conservation Tree and Shrub Group OLD Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Ecological Classification ID Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Ecological Classification Name Map unit Map unit name Rating Component Rating reasons Acres in Percent of Farmland Classification symbol name (percent) (numeric values) AOI AOI Hydric Rating by Map Unit Totals for Area of Interest 112.2 100.0% https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 1/3
Page 28
2/28/26, 6:31 PM Irrigated Capability Class Irrigated Capability Subclass View Description| View Rating View Options Map Table Rating Reasons Numeric Values Description of Rating Rating Options 0 Detailed Description Advanced Options Component Breakdown and View Description| View Rating NH Forest Soil Group Nonirrigated Capability Class Web Soil Survey Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Map unit . . Component Rating reasons symbol Map unit name Rating name (percent) AKA Arkona loamy sand, 0 to 2 0.527 percent slopes Ke Kingsville loamy sand 0.442 OakaaB Oakville fine sand, Erie-Huron 0.531 Lake Plain cool, 0 to 6 percent slopes PpA Pipestone-Tedrow loamy sands, 0 0.506 to 2 percent slopes PrA Pipestone-Tedrow loamy sands, 0.467 loamy substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes Ps Pits Sk Sickles loamy sand 0.399 ZfsaaA Ziegenfuss silt loam, 0 to 1 0.560 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest (numeric values) Acres in Percent of AOI AOI 2.8 2.5% 30.8 27.5% 4.3 3.9% 26.9 24.0% 1.5 1.4% 7.4 6.6% 30.8 27.5% 7.7 6.9% 112.2 100.0% Nonirrigated Capability Subclass NRCS Ecological Site ID NRCS Ecological Site Name Order of Soil Survey PFAS Attenuation in Soils PFAS Movement Classes Soil Moisture Class Soil Moisture Subclass Soil Taxonomy Classification Soil Taxonomy Great Group Soil Taxonomy Order Soil Taxonomy Particle Size or Substitute Class Soil Taxonomy Subgroup Soil Taxonomy Suborder Soil Temperature Regime Land Management Summary by Rating Value Rating 0.399 0.442 0.506 0.560 0.531 0.527 0.467 Null or Not Rated Totals for Area of Interest Summary by Rating Value Acres in AOI 30.8 30.8 26.9 7.7 4.3 2.8 1.5 7.4 112.2 Percent of AOI 27.5% 27.5% 24.0% 6.9% 3.9% 2.5% 1.4% 6.6% 100.0% Military Operations Recreational Development Sanitary Facilities Soil Health https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx AGR - Agriculture NCCPI - National Commodity Crop Productivity Index National Commodity Crop Productivity Index is a method of arraying the soils of the United States for non-irrigated commodity crop 2/3
Page 29
2/28/26, 6:31 PM Vegetative Productivity Waste Management Water Management Web Soil Survey production based on their inherent soil properties. This version features a separate index for soybeans. In the past, soybeans and corn were considered together. The rating a soil is assigned is the highest one of four basic crop group indices, which are based on the climate where the crop is typically grown. Cooler climates are represented by winter wheat, moderate climates are represented by corn and soybeans, and warmer climates are represented by cotton. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_050734.pdf) The interpretation is applicable to both heavily populated and sparsely populated areas. Ratings are for soils in their present condition. The present land use is not considered in the ratings. Ratings are based on properties and qualities to the depth normally observed during soil mapping (approximately 6 feet). Soil, site, and climate properties that influence the growth of crops are major considerations. Soil productivity is influenced by many soil properties. An ideal soil will store adequate amounts of water to nurture the crop between rains. This soil will have a near-neutral pH, will store nutrients, and lack toxic materials. The soil will have no barriers, either physical or chemical, to root growth. Water and gas transmission through the soil will be sufficient to maintain both water and oxygen at sufficient levels in the root zone. The soil will not be saturated with water during the growing season to the point that root growth is inhibited. The soil will not be subject to excessive flooding or ponding during the growing season. Slope is an important consideration because it affects erosion by water, runoff, and the operation of equipment. The climate must provide adequate water and heat to allow the desired crop to mature. A soil that differs from the ideal in any of these features will have lower inherent productivity for a particular crop. The further a soil differs from ideality in any one or all of the factors that determine inherent productivity, the lower its inherent productivity will be. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the estimated productivity which is determined by all of the soil, site, and climatic features that affect crop productivity. "High inherent productivity" indicates that the soil, site, and climate have features that are very favorable for crop production. High yields and low risk of crop failure can be expected if a high level of management is employed. "Moderately high inherent productivity" indicates that the soil has features that are generally quite favorable for crop production. Good yields and moderately low risk of crop failure can be expected. "Moderate inherent productivity" indicates that the soil has features that are generally favorable for crop production. Good yields and moderate risk of crop failure can be expected. "Moderately low inherent productivity" indicates that the soil has features that are generally not favorable for crop production. Low yields and moderately high risk of crop failure can be expected. "Low inherent productivity" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for crop production. Low yields and high risk of crop failure can be expected. Numerical ratings indicate the overall productivity of the soil. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.01. They indicate gradations between the point at which the combination of soil, site, and climate features has the greatest positive impact on inherent productivity (1.00) and the point at which the soil features are very unfavorable (0.01). The map unit 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 listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. Aggregation Method: Weighted Average Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher FOIA | Accessibility Statement | Privacy Policy | Non-Discrimination Statement | Information Quality | USA.gov | White House https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 3/3
Page 30
2/28/26, Web Soil Survey El EE SOTSBE = ) Area of Interest (AOI) Soil Map Download Soils Data Shopping Cart (Free) View Soil Information By Use: aj uses v Printable Version| Add to Shopping Cart| Intro to Soils Soil Properties and Qualities Ecological Sites Soil Reports #| 2] clear| search| Basic Search Enter keywords Advanced Search *| | clear] search| Open All| Close All Building Site Development Corrosion of Concrete Corrosion of Steel Dwellings With Basements Dwellings Without Basements Lawns, Landscaping, and Golf Fairways Lawns, Landscaping, and Golf Fairways (MI) Local Roads and Streets Shallow Excavations Small Commercial Buildings Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems Solar Arrays, Soil-based Anchor Systems Unpaved Local Roads and Streets Construction Materials Disaster Recovery Planning Land Classifications Land Management [a @|2 «| 82 HE Scale| (not to scale) i= Warning: Soil Ratings Map may not be valid at this scale. Military Operations Recreational Development Sanitary Facilities Soil Health Vegetative Productivity https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in Percent of AOI AOI Component name (percent) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating 1/6
Page 31
2/28/26, 6:14 PM Waste Management Water Management https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Web Soil Survey Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) perdu Map unit name Rating DR AkA Arkona loamy sand, 0 to 2 Somewhat Arkona (81%) percent slopes limited Ithaca (4%) Pert (3%) Ke Kingsville loamy sand Very limited Kingsville (88%) Gilford (4%) Belleville (4%) OakaaB Oakville fine sand, Erie- Not limited Oakville (90%) Huron Lake Plain cool, 0 to Metea (5%) 6 percent slopes Boyer (3%) PpA Pipestone-Tedrow loamy Very limited Pipestone (54%) sands, 0 to 2 percent slopes Wixom (3%) Belleville (2%) Rating reasons (numeric values) Depth to saturated zone (0.98) Depth to saturated zone (0.98) Shrink-swell (0.31) Depth to saturated zone (0.98) Shrink-swell (0.50) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Acres in Percent of AOI 2.8 30.8 4.3 26.9 AOI 2.5% 27.5% 3.9% 24.0% 2/6
Page 32
2/28/26, 6:14 PM https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Web Soil Survey Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Tp bar Map unit name Rating Rt Kingsville (2%) Sickles (1%) PrA Pipestone-Tedrow loamy Very limited Pipestone, loamy sands, loamy substratum, 0 substratum to 2 percent slopes (50%) Wixom (3%) Belleville (2%) Kingsville (2%) Ps Pits Not rated Pits (100%) Sk Sickles loamy sand Very limited Sickles (89%) Lenawee (2%) Rating reasons (numeric values) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Acres in Percent of AOI 1.5 7.4 30.8 AOI 1.4% 6.6% 27.5% 3/6
Page 33
2/28/26, 6:14 PM https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Web Soil Survey Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating ZfsaaA Ziegenfuss silt loam, 0 to 1 Very limited percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest Component name (percent) Toledo (2%) Wauseon (2%) Kingsville (2%) Ziegenfuss (77%) Sickles (10%) Arkona (7%) Pert (6%) Rating reasons (numeric values) Shrink-swell (0.50) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Shrink-swell (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Shrink-swell (0.91) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Shrink-swell (0.62) Acres in Percent of AOI AOI 7.7 6.9% 112.2 100.0% 4/6
Page 34
2/28/26, 6:14 PM Web Soil Survey Summary by Rating Value Summary by Rating Value Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Very limited 97.7 87.1% Not limited 4.3 3.9% Somewhat limited 2.8 2.5% Null or Not Rated 7.4 6.6% Totals for Area of Interest 112.2 100.0% ENG - Engineering Dwellings are single-family houses of three stories or less. For dwellings without basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings for dwellings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and compressibility. Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification of the soil. The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. 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. "Somewhat 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. Fair 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 major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. 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 map unit 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 listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, 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. Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 5/6
Page 35
2/28/26, 6:14 PM Web Soil Survey FOIA | Accessibility Statement | Privacy Policy | Non-Discrimination Statement | Information Quality | USA.gov | White House https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 6/6
Page 36
2/28/26, Web Soil Survey El EE SOTSBE = ) Area of Interest (AOI) Soil Map Download Soils Data Shopping Cart (Free) View Soil Information By Use: aj uses v Printable Version| Add to Shopping Cart| Intro to Soils Soil Properties and Qualities Ecological Sites Soil Reports | =| clear| search| [a @|2 «| 82 HE Scale| (not to scale) [= Basic Search Enter keywords Advanced Search *| | clear] search| Open All| Close All Building Site Development Corrosion of Concrete Corrosion of Steel View Description| View Rating View Options Map Table Component Breakdown and Rating Reasons Numeric Values Description of Rating Rating Options (J Detailed Description Warning: Soil Ratings Map may not be valid at this scale. Advanced Options Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Map unit name Ratin Component name Rating reasons Acres in Percent of p 9 (percent) (numeric values) AOI AOI 112.2 100.0% View Description | View Rating Dwellings Without Basements Map unit Lawns, Landscaping, and Golf Fairways symbol Lawns, Landscaping, and Golf Fairways (MI) Totals for Area of Interest Local Roads and Streets https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 17
Page 37
2/28/26, 6:14 PM Web Soil Survey Shallow Excavations Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Small Commercial Buildings Component name Rating reasons Acres in Percent of (percent) (numeric values) AOI AOI Map unit Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems symbol Solar Arrays, Soil-based Anchor Systems AKA Arkona loamy sand, 0 to 2 Very Arkona (81%) Depth to 2.8 2.5% Unpaved Local Roads and Streets percent slopes limited saturated zone Construction Materials (1.00) Disaster Recovery Planning Ithaca (4%) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Shrink-swell (0.38) Sanitary Facilities Sickles (4%) Ponding (1.00) Soil Health Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Shrink-swell (0.39) Wauseon (4%) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Shrink-swell (0.69) Lenawee (4%) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Shrink-swell (0.50) Pert (3%) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Shrink-swell (0.50) Ke Kingsville loamy sand Very Kingsville (88%) Ponding (1.00) 30.8 27.5% limited Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Totals for Area of Interest 112.2 100.0% Map unit name Rating Land Classifications Land Management Military Operations Recreational Development Vegetative Productivity Waste Management Water Management https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 217
Page 38
2/28/26, 6:14 PM https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Web Soil Survey Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Map unit symbol Component name (percent) Gilford (4%) Map unit name Rating Belleville (4%) Tedrow (2%) Riverdale (2%) OakaaB Oakville fine sand, Erie-Huron Not Oakville (90%) Lake Plain cool, 0 to 6 limited Metea (5%) percent slopes Boyer (3%) PpA Pipestone-Tedrow loamy Very Pipestone (54%) sands, 0 to 2 percent slopes limited Tedrow (38%) Wixom (3%) Belleville (2%) Kingsville (2%) Sickles (1%) Totals for Area of Interest Rating reasons Acres in Percent of (numeric values) AOI AOI Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) 4.3 3.9% Depth to 26.9 24.0% saturated zone (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) 112.2 100.0% 317
Page 39
2/28/26, 6:14 PM https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Web Soil Survey Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) To al Map unit name PrA Pipestone-Tedrow loamy sands, loamy substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes Ps Pits Sk Sickles loamy sand Totals for Area of Interest Component name (percent) Pipestone, loamy substratum (50%) Tedrow, loamy substratum (40%) Wixom (3%) Selfridge (3%) Belleville (2%) Kingsville (2%) Pits (100%) Sickles (89%) Arkona (2%) Rating reasons (numeric values) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Shrink-swell (0.39) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Shrink-swell (0.39) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Acres in Percent of AOL AOL 1.5 1.4% 7.4 6.6% 30.8 27.5% 112.2 100.0% 417
Page 40
2/28/26, 6:14 PM https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Web Soil Survey Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Map unit symbol Component name Map unit name Rating (percent) Lenawee (2%) Toledo (2%) Wauseon (2%) Kingsville (2%) Tedrow (1%) ZfsaaA Ziegenfuss silt loam, 0 to 1 Very Ziegenfuss (77%) percent slopes limited Sickles (10%) Totals for Area of Interest Rating reasons (numeric values) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Shrink-swell (0.50) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Shrink-swell (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Shrink-swell (0.69) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Shrink-swell (0.90) Ponding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Acres in Percent of AOI AOI 7.7 6.9% 112.2 100.0% 517
Page 41
2/28/26, 6:14 PM https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Web Soil Survey Summary by Map Unit — Gratiot County, Michigan (MI057) Component name Rating reasons Acres in Percent of (percent) (numeric values) AOI AOI Arkona (7%) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Pert (6%) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Shrink-swell (0.62) Totals for Area of Interest 112.2 100.0% Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Summary by Rating Value Summary by Rating Value Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Very limited 100.5 89.6% Not limited 4.3 3.9% Null or Not Rated 7.4 6.6% Totals for Area of Interest 112.2 100.0% ENG - Engineering Dwellings are single-family houses of three stories or less. For dwellings with basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of about 7 feet. The ratings for dwellings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and compressibility. Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification of the soil. The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. 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. "Somewhat 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. Fair 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 major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. 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 map unit 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 6/7
Page 42
2/28/26, 6:14 PM Web Soil Survey each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, 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. Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher FOIA | Accessibility Statement | Privacy Policy | Non-Discrimination Statement | Information Quality | USA.gov | White House https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 7m