HomeMy WebLinkAbout04218GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT
108 Eighth Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, Coloradof 81601
Phone (970) 945-8212
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT
PROPERTY
Owner's Name T Vit rS%Y-. Present Address
Permit 4 2 1 8
Assessor's Parcel No.
This does not constitute
a building or use permit.
£jl CJtt-j IZj3,CicCA aJa-�Xi/
Phone CL )(S S "<s IC
System Location CO 3(Q len ?10(.0Q, Ctj € uL)S, cosh L' 5prJ fic 1 r 1 () Sre P1
Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No. Jt� �J�i JC (}l) paXl-A 0 1:
SYSTEM DESIGN
Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) Other
Percolation Rate (minutes/inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other)
Required Absorption Area - See Attached
Special Setback Requirements.
Date Inspector
FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed)
Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation
System Installer
Septic Tank Capacity
Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name
Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface
Absorption Area
Absorption Area Type and/or Manufacturer or Trade Name
Adequate compliance with County and State regulations(regwremenls
Other
Date �62 Inspector ,
RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT SIT' */ 1 (dm , 6
*CONDITIONS:
1. All installation must comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter
25. Article 10 C R.S. 1973, Revised 1984.
2. This permit is valid only for connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Con-
nection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be aviolation or a
requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit.
3 Any person who constructs. alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system in a manner which involves a knowing and material
variation from the terms or specifications contained in the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense ($500 00 fine — 6
months in (ail or both).
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION
OWNER A\ d
ADDRESS S\to 1<-40,)Q. ‘.3-13Co-Anc,,), , PHONE Liss
-5gtO
CONTRACTOR
ADDRESS S\ \ PHONE (atrc- S i -t 0
PERMIT REQUEST FOR (X) NEW INSTALLATION ( ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR
Attach separate sheets or report showing entire area with respect to surrounding areas, topography of area, habitable
building, location of potable water wells, soil percolation test holes, soil profiles in test holes (See page 4).
LOCATION OF PROPOSED FACILITY:
Near what City of Town L..,wc, o d c ft •••,.6s Size of Lot S .30
d`ot6 g
Legal Description or Address `Ttj
WASTES TYPE:
ooh
O<) DWELLING
( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON-DOMESTIC WASTES
( ) OTHER—DESCRIBE
( ) TRANSIENT USE
BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE:
Number of Bedrooms
O(0 Garbage Grinder (<) Automatic Washer (X) Dishwasher
SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: ( ) WELL ( ) SPRING
( ) STREAM OR CREEK
If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: SQr-:.Jrcalf- ?Vo t 41/4C
DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: . u, » -4s
Was an effort made to connect to the Community System?
no
A site t lan is re ' uired to be submitted that indicates the followin ' MINIMUM distances:
Leach Field to Well:
Septic Tank to Well:
Leach Field to Irrigation Ditches, Stream or Water Course:
Septic System (septic tank & disposal field) to Property Lines:
100 feet
50 feet
50 feet
10 feet
YOUR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT
A SITE PLAN.
GROUND CONDITIONS:
Depth to first Ground Water Table \-4 i (9 eo k e,.L c' -,P:,(
Percent Ground Slope
2
TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED:
(1O SEPTIC TANK ( ) AERATION PLANT ( ) VAULT
( ) VAULT PRIVY ( ) COMPOSTING TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, POTABLE USE
( ) PIT PRIVY ( ) INCINERATION TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, OTHER USE
( ) CHEMICAL TOILET( ) OTHER -DESCRIBE
FINAL DISPOSAL BY:
('<) ABSORPTION TRENCH, BED OR PIT ( ) EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
( ) UNDERGROUND DISPERSAL ( ) SAND FILTER
( ) ABOVE GROUND DISPERSAL ( ) WASTEWATER POND
( ) OTHER -DESCRIBE
WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE STATE? kJo
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does the
Percolation Test)
Minutes l 3 per inch in hole No. C `i Minutes (00 per inch in hole No. 6
Minutes Go per inch in hole No. ;1 S Minutes per inch in hole No.
Name, address and telephone of RPE who made soil absorption tests: )A P (pec k.L to 10 Co \2.i 1Sy
L0 - `itis"
Name, address and telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system: a.eP- uc
'),‘SLI 'Ttax__ -Ao«.do psiLcb
(ozs-Sc37\
Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of the application is conditional upon such further mandatory and
additional tests and reports as may be required by the local health department to be made and famished by the applicant
or by the local health department for purposed of the evaluation of the application; and the issuance of the permit is
subject to such terms and conditions as deemed necessary to insure compliance with rules and regulations made,
information and reports submitted herewith and required to be submitted by the applicant are or will be represented to
be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are designed to be relied on by the local department of
health in evaluating the same for purposes of issuing the permit applied for herein. I further understand that any
falsification or misrepresentation may result in the denial of the application or revocation of any permit granted based
upon said application and in legal action for perjury as provided by law.
Signed 7c,`N Date 1 `Z(�� D(o
PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO�OUR PROPERTY!!
3
Designate North Arrow
N
—
0 I—
Q
zc
L aJ
c
}z
En
— CU CU •IDC '-
L
p O vU U na1—�_ 4� t3 E —o a .3vT. OQ yC 9 ✓ ccd eta .O\ 1 11
c c m
O J -61 z5 0 cd :d 7 a
fltfl v, ctJ e
Y h
v eaU • O
N — 0
ani O
v, v, —
L
ccO
— 011
v c
3 co
v
rd cz
U w
O
'
t
County Road (Note the Road Number and Name)
• II, JUL-17-2006 13:37 H—P GEGTECH
GeStech
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
July 17, 2006
Sherry Tardif
516 Highway 133
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
P.02'12
Hepworth—Tin/TA CieorecInr.c.i, Inc.
5020 CnuriE Road 154
Cilcnwoud Stmng:, Csr:ur-J 8i 631
Phone, 970.945.798h
faa• 47094; 54.54
email. hpgea.4hpgrorecb
Job No 106 0608
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed
Residence, Lot 6, Spring Ridge Place, Phase 1, Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Ms. Tardif:
As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study and
percolation test for foundation and septic disposal designs at the subject site. The study
was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to
you dated June 27, 2006. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the
proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this report.
Proposed Construction: The proposed residence will be a one story wood `.:arse
structure above a crawlspace or slab-on-gaade floor with an attached garage and located
on the site as shown on Figure 1. Gut depths are expected to range between about 2 to 4
feet. Foundation loadings for this type of construction are assumed to be relatively light
and typical of the proposed type of construction. The septic disposal system is proposed
to be located to the cast of the residence.
If building conditions or foundation loadings are significantly different from those
described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in
this report.
Site Conditions: The site is located near the cul-de-sac of Spring Ridge Coun.
Vegetation consists of grass and weeds. The ground surface is relatively flat with a slight
slope down to south. The ground surface in the building area is relatively Eat with a slight
slope down to the north. A shallow drainage swale is located just west of the huilding
arca.
Parker 303-841-7119 • Colorado Springs 719.633.5562 • Silvcrrhome 970-468-1989
JUL-17-2006 13:37 H—P GEOTECH
-2-
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by
excavating two exploratory pits in the building and septic disposal areas at the
approximate locations shown on Figure 1. The logs of the pits are presented on Figure 2.
The subsoils encountered, below about one foot of topsoil, consist of sandy silty clay.
Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the
sandy clay, presented on Figures 3 and 4, indicate low compressibility under existing
moisture conditions and light loading. The sample tested from Pit 1 at 3 feet indicated a
1ok' expansion potential when wetted and the sample from Pit 2 at 4 feet showed a minor
collapse potential when wetted. The laboratory test results are summarized in Table I.
No lice water was observed in the pits at the time of excavation and the soils were
slightly moist to moist.
Foundation Recommendations: Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the
exploratory pits and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend spread
footings placed on the undisturbed natural soil designed for an allowable soft hearing
pressure of 1 ,500 psf for support of the proposed residence. The soils have variable
compressibility/expansion potentia] after wetting and there could be post -construction
foundation movements on the order of 1 to1'h inches. Footings should be a rninimum
width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. Loose and disturbed soils
encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excavation should be removed and
the footing bearing level extended down to the undisturbed natural soils. Exterior
footings should be provided with adequate cover above their bearing elevations for frost
protection. Placement of footings at least 36 inches below the exterior grade is typically
used in this area. Continuous foundation wails should be reinforced top and bottom to
span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 12 feet.
Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth
pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for the on-site soil as
backfill.
Floor Slabs: The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly
loaded slab -on -grade construction with some risk of differential slab movement. To
reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated' from all
Joh No.106 0608
P.03/12
, 1
JUL-1?-2006 13:38 H -P GEOTECH
-3-
P.04/12
hearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical
movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage
cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be
established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4
inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to
facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with less than
5O% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve.
AP fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can
consist of the on-site soils devoid of vegetation and topsoil.
t]nderdrain System: Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it
bas been our experience in the area that local perched groundwater can develop during
times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can
create a perched condition. We recommend below -grade construction, such as retaining
walls and crawlspace areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup
by art underdrain system. A shallow crawlspace (less than 3 feet) should not require an
underdrain provided the exterior bacl ll is properly placed and graded.
If they installed, the drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall
backfill surrounded above the invert level with free -draining granular material. The drain
should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent
finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet or sump and pump.
Free, -draining granular material used in the undcrdrain system should contain less than
2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a
nv:xamum size of 2 inches.. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 11/2 feet deep.
Surface Drainage: The following drainage precautions should be observed during
construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed:
1) Tnundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction. Drying could increase the expansion
potential of the clay soils.
Joh No.106 0608
JUL-17-2006 13:38 H—P GEOTECH
-4-
P.05/12
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90%.of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We
recommend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved
areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in pavement and
walkway areas.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at
least 5 feet from the building.
Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on June 30, 2006 to evaluate the
feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. Three percolation holes
were dug at the locations shown on Figure 1. The test holes (nominal 12 inch diameter by
12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shallow hacichoe pits and soaked with water
ono day prior to testing. The soils exposed in the percolation holes are similar to those
exposed in the Pits land 2 shown on Figure 2 and consist of silty sandy clay. The
percolation test results are presented in Table 2. Based on the subsurface conditions
encountered and the percolation test results, the tested area should be suitable for a
conventional infiltration septic disposal system. We understand the final plat requires
that a civil engineer design the infiltration septic disposal system.
Limitations: This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no
warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted
in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pits excavated at the
locations indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in
the area. Our services do not include determining the presence, prevention or possibility
of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) develuping in the future. if the client
Job No.106 0608
JUL-17-2006 13:38 H -P GEOTECH
-5-
P.06/12
is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of practice should be
consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface
conditions identified at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions
n y not become evident until excavation is performed. if conditions encountered during
construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified at
once so re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We
are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the
project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during
cor,sttruction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to
verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design
changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations
presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation
bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical
engineer.
If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us iktow.
Respectfully Submitted,
HE]'WORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Louis E. Eller
Reviewed by:
Steven L.Pawlak,P.E.
LEElvad
attachments Figure 1 — Location of Exploratory Pits and Percolation Test Holes
Figure 2 — Logs of Exploratory Pits
Figures 3 and 4 — Swell -Consolidation Test Results
Table 1 — Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Table 2 — Per„olation Test Results
7u6 No.106 0608
P.07/12
/ /
/ / /
/ / /
/ /
/ /
7// /
/
/
/
/ / /
/ / /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
LOCATIEXPLORATORY PITS ON AND
PERCOLATION TEST HOLES
• JUL-17-2006 13:39
H -P GEOTECH
P.08/12
0
MENEM
— 10
LEGEND:
PIT 1 PIT 2
WC=10.2
00=107
WC=197
00=107
•too=97
WC=12 7
DD -98
TOPSOIL: organic sandy silty clay, firm, slightly moist, dark brown.
CLAY (CL); sandy, silty, very stiff and slightly moist to medium stiff and moist, brown.
2' Diameter hand driven liner sample.
0
5 _
10
NOTES:
1. Exploratory pits were excavated on June 30, 2006 with a backhoe.
2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan
provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory prts were not measured and the logs of exploratory pits are drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory pit locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method
used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate boundaries between
material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavating. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content (%)
DD = Dry Density (pct)
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
0)
0
106 0608
G'v:71ech
HvwoR H-PAwui[ SEQIEC1nCn.
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
Figure 2
JUL-17-2006 13:39
H -P GEDTECH
P.09/12
Compression - Expansion %
Compression %
1
0
1
2
0
1
2
3
4
Moisture Content = 10.2 percent
Dry Density = 107 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Clay
From: Pit 1 at 3 Feet
Expansion
upon
wetting
0.1
.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
100
Moisture Content = 19.7 percent
Dry Density = 107 pcf
Sample of: S ightly Sandy Silty Clay
From. Pit 1 at 6 Feet
No movement
upon
wetting
0.1
.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
100
106 0608
Gate,
HEnoWMPANWLAK G€0m 1wCAL
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 3
. JUL-17-2006 13:39
H—P GEOTECH
P.10/12
1
Compression %
V 01 Ui A W N -+ O
Moisture Content = 12.7 percent
Dry Density = 98 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Pit 2 at 4 Feet
"..
Compression
upon
wetting
0.1 1.0 10 103
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
106 0608
Gh
nwwcwrwvwwwc Gw ueu.
SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
_
Figure 4
. JUL-17-2006 13:40
Job No. 1.06 0608
Li
Z
6
O
w
-J
J
W
cc6
0
C7
rl
�p
• m
a• Nw
• 0
0
U • 5
z v_j
H -P GEOTECH
SOIL OR
9EOROCK TYPE
Sandy Clay
Slightly Sandy Silty Clay
Sandy Silty Clay II
I
�
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I I
SIRENCiI II
(PSF)
1
1
,
I
I
i
1
I
I
�
I
PERCENT -
PASSING
NO. 200
SIEVE
O
I
I
I
GRADATION
GRAVEL 1 SAND
(%) (%)
i
i
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY I
(Dc° 1
N
O
N
O
I
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
10.2
C
N
i
e
1 SAMPLE LOCATION 11
DEPTH
CO
3
4
I
P.11/12
. JUL-17-2006 13:40 H -P GEOTECH
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE 2
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
P.12/12
JOB N0. 106 0608
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER
DEPTH AT
START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER
DEPTH AT
END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN,/INCH)
P 1
38
15
5 1/4
4 1/2
3/4
4 1/2
4
j
1/2
4
3 5/8
3/8
3 5/8
3 1/4
3/8
60
3 1/4
3
j
1/4
3
I 2 3/4
1/4
2 3/4
2 1/2
1/4
P 2
44
15
Water added
5 3/4
4 1/2
.
1 1/4
1
.
23
4 1/2
3 1/2
3 1/2
2 3/4
3/4
2 3/4
2
3/4
6 1/4
5 5/8
5/8
5 5/8
4 7/8
3/4
4 7/8
4 1/4
5/8
P 3
42
15
Water added
4
2 3/8
1 5/8
1
15
2 3/8
1 3/8
1
3 1/4
2 1/4
1
2 1/4
1 1/4
j
i
1
1
1 1/4
1/4
1 1/4
1/4
1
Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on June
29, 2006. Percolation tests were conducted on June 30, 2006. The average percolation
rates were based on the last three readings of each test.
TOTAL P.12
JL 21-2006 13:03 H—P GEOTECH
P.02/04
GE:OteGi'1
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
July 2i, 2006
Sherry Tardif
516 Highway 133
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
Hepworth-Ieiviak Geotecn—.u.i, :rc
5020 Comm Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colctadc E.60
Phone. 97C-945-7988
Fax- 970.945.8554
email. hpgcognpgcnrecir.con
Job No 106 0608
Subject: Additional Percolation Testing, Proposed Residence, Lot 6, Spring Ridge
Place; Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Ms. Tardif:
As requested by you, Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical. Inc., performed additional
percolation testing at the subject site. We previously performed a subsoil study and
percolation testing at the subject site and reported our findings July 17, 2006, Job No. 106
0608.
The tested area is Located on the north side of the proposed building and slightly downhill
Throe percolation test holes were hand dug and soaked on July 19, 2006 at the locations
shown on Figure 1. The subsoils exposed in the percolation test holes were similar to the
subsoils encountered in the previous exploratory Pit 2 and consists of sandy clay.
Percolation testing was conducted on July 20, 2006, by a representative of Hepworth -
Pawla.k Geotechnical, Inc. The percolation test results varied from 12 to 60 minutes per
inch and are summarized on Table J. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered
and the percolation test results, the tested area should be suitable fora conventional
infiltration septic disposal system.
If ynu have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTEC TICAL, INC.
L Loui s E. Eller
Reviewed by: kat,
Rf.
Daniel E. Hardin, P
LEEJvad
attachments
Figure 1 —
Tablc 1 — S
�At AS AI
+ qp� lation Test Holes
ercolation Test Results
Parker 303-841.7719 • Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 • Silverthorne 970-468-1989
Jlt 21-2006 13 03
H -P GEOTECH
P. 03'04
/
/ /
/ /
/
/ /
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ / / APPROXIMATE SCALE
/ / / i " =100'
/ /
/ /
II
1
II
I1
1 '1
11
II
II
II
1I
7—a II
II
1
I I pas
1 A P 5 TEST AREA FOR
\ I I Q a THIS STUDY
1
\ 1
I PI2 PROPOSED
LOT 5 1 I BUILDING
1 1 AREA Pa
I I D
1 ■ o P2
Pa P1
DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
LOT 6
PHASE 1
PREVIOUSLY
TESTED AREA
Spa,. -.
NGAbe
FO0(1
LOT 7
106 0608
Gated,
HCPWORfMAWt AX GEOTCCHNICAL
LOCATION OF PERCOLATION TEST
HOLES
Figure 1
1
Y40.-21-2006 13:03
H -P GEOTECH
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC,
TABLE 1
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER
(INCHES) INTERVAL DEPTH AT
(MIN) START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
P 4 26 15
Water added
P 5 26
P6
15
22 15
8
P.04/04
JOS N0. 106 0608
awl
WATER DROP IN AVERAGE
DEPTH AT WATER PERCOLATION
END OF LEVE. RATE
INTERVAL (INCHES) (MIN./INCH)
(INCHES)
5 1/2 2 1/2
5 1/2
3 1/2
12
10
8 1/2
7 1/2
6 1/4
8 1/2
3 1/2 2
1 3/4 ! 3/4
10 2
8 1/2 1 1/2
7 1/2 1
6 1/4
1 1/4
5 1 1 1/4 13
7 3/4
3/4
7 3/4
7 1/4
6 7/8
7 1/4 1 1/2
6 7/8 3/8
61/2 3/8
6 1/2
6 1/4
6
5 3/4
7 1/2
6 1/4 1/4
6 1/4 1!
5 3/4 1/4
51/2 ---_— 1/4
7 1/2
7
6 1/2 1/2
6 1/2
6 1/8
5 3/4
5 1/2
6 1/8
5 3/4
5 1/2
5 1/4
3/6
5 1/4
5
5 i 1/4
4 3/4 T 1/4 60
60
Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug and soaked on July 19, 2006. Percolation tests
were conducted on July 20, 2006. The average percolation rates were based on the
last three readings of each test.
TOTAL P.04