HomeMy WebLinkAbout02726 e !
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit 272Qy
109 8th Street Suite 303 Assessor's Parcel No.
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone (303) 945 -8212 �!
This does not constitute
INDIVIDUAL. SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT : a building or use permit.
PROPERTY
Owner's Name David & Ros]in Hatch present Address 5033 ' CR 335 #65 New CaetaJene_ 984 -2016
System Location 6607 County Road 214, Peach Valley Minor Sub, tot 2, New Castle
Legal Description o Assessor's Parcel No.
SYSTEM DESIGN
I 660 Septic Tank Cfapacity (gallon) Other
I 1, 'y i,� q
I /1" I Percolation Rate (minutes /inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) 3
93 4141 fnb 4- J.efe14 tied
Required Absorption Area - See Attached _
a 5'— .?'x r T>, FIATl4ATdns ,
Special Setback Requirements: it/ p, 1. T , 4 IQ u S err 8 ., / 6 D,4 S'R' - 4"4.
Date y 2 r- 7 qu ?� Inspector /- - trer 1 eP io4 - 2 j
FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed)
Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation
System Installer a / /1g�1N s
Septic Tank Capacity /24
Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name C.0Pyi fla..
Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface 4' W S
Absorption Area
,
Absorption Area Type and /or Manufacturer or Trade Name 1 - A) F/ r 's Ta fa 56 eh- 8 T R6wC - y
Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements F
� r
Other p , / �p
Date - 4s - / , Inspector ic
RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE
•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 a violation 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 1, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine — 6
months in )ail or both).
White - APPLICANT Yellow - DEPARTMENT
•
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION
OWNER ___ _- A11 wad, • - Sr/ �/
ADDRESS ,� X 3.3 C o , i- 3 ,S.� �v N Z c d Ca57� € PHONE 917 � '/9 ✓/ '
CONTRACTOR 6 at/ 1 i % • z/,, /CI
5 53 a ,X J 335 YC& 6 PHONE F8V ✓6.
PERMIT REQUEST FOR (Sic 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 EACHHTY: �7
Near what City of Town A. ev) af.-5" / o Size of Lot aC ie 5
Legal Description or Addressna • r,2 /y
WASTES TYPE: ( DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE
( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON - DOMESTIC WASTES
( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE
BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: 5i'9 4° ifinii /y Owe 11 i a
Number of Bedrooms 3 Number of Persons .5
(X) Garbage Grinder ()() Automatic Washer ( )(5 Dishwasher
501 JRCE AND TYPE OF WATER SI JPPLY: ( ) WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK
If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: £ (2/6t�1ihZ
DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: NM
Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? NM
A site plan is required to be submitted that indicates the following MINIMIUM distances:
Leach Field to Well: 100 feet
Septic Tank to Well: 50 feet
Leach Field to Irrigation Ditches, Stream or Water Course: 50 feet
Septic System to Property Lines: 10 feet
YOUR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED
WITHOUT A SITE PLAN.
GRO! ND CONDITIONS:
Depth to first Ground Water Table
Percent Ground Slope
2
1'YPE INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED:
(X) 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?
PERCOLATION TEST REST JETS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does
the Percolation Test)
Minutes i'6 per inch in hole No. 1 Minutes /f per inch in hole NO. 3
Minutes /fr per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes per inch in hole NO. _
Name, address and telephone ofRPE who made soil absorption tests:,ij n -,'iI -PM %A, 7leCXnic4/ 2n4
5 & /f9 Chror.rrl.Coecv 4. f/(of 91 7987
Name, address and telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system:
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 furnished 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 L /i'c..r e{/ {v, gt eL Date /2 - 2-96
PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAY TO YOUR PROPERTY!!
3
N N
N
O L-,
.o -to
on A z cki
>-• z 4 TX
N • ld
O 00.)
'. W
T c • di
c G
• \I `' b
y ° `/
vi > °'
y y -o
V o c o N
U c 0
_ vi C t 4)
ej
ii: ■V ▪ 41 .. p • o 3 o ' r
c
T 3 k.
0 r, c
1 0 y 0
'0 O0 a rt
N 3 t z
L o 1_ chi' y 0 U
U
o z b TO 4')
7 Q v E o g
o Ocn o Z
>• N ti 4) �N •p .
to av c •w 0,
•• c .� . 0
y :° c E
o a • cts • — z
V O U ,
y ti w 0
o ,
N O O O O:
f) Y
F s (I)
4) U 0
z
U W
O .
0
cG
T
(t ti T c up s ` 0 C O
0 � �
0
OD .<
1
z o .
• a o �-g
A �z
.,.w,.
HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. f 5020 Road 154
(' Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970 995 -8959
November 21, 1996 i Phone 970 945-7988
! i
Dave Hatch 1
5033 County Road 335, #65
New Castle, Colorado 81647 Job No. 196 573
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed
Residence, 6607 County Road 214, Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Hatch:
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 agreemeijt for tofessional engineering services
to you dated November 9, 1996. The data obtained our recommendations based on
the proposed construction and subsurface conditions e countered are presented in this
report.
Proposed Construction: The proposed residence wil be a one story wood frame
structure over a basement level located on the site as s'liown on Fig. 1. Basement and
garage floors will be slab -on- grade. Cut depths are expected to be up to about 10 feet.
Foundation loadings for this type of construction are a sumed to be relatively light.
If building conditions or foundation loadings are sign different from those
described above, we should be notified to reevaluate tie recommendations presented in
this report.
Site Conditions: The site was v acant and vegetated ith grass, weeds and scattered
sagebrush at the time of our field work. Several pino cedar Kees are located in the
southern portion of the property: Topography on the,., slopes generally down to
the south with a moderate slope 'within the building : and a steep slope to the north
of the proposed building. There is about 5 feet of ele ration difference across the
building area. Sandstone outcrops of the Mesa Nerddt'ormation are present on the
mountain immediately to the north of the property.
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions a the site were evaluated by
excavating two exploratory pits in the proposed buildTI. area and a profile pit in the
proposed septic disposal area at the approximate locat to ns shown on Fig. 1. The logs
of the pits are presented on Fig. 2. The subsoil enc& 'tered, below about one foot of
topsoil, consist of silty sand with gravel. Results of s, ell-consolidation testing
performed on relatively undisturbed samples of silty .• s d soils, presented on Fig. 3,
indicate low compressibility under existing moisture 'auditions and light loading and a
low to moderate collapse potential (settlement under csnstant load) when wetted. The
samples showed moderate to high compressibility upo additional loading after wetting.
t p
r
E 'zYS J{. s+P, u airit. '.ru 49*- ;rT V• --
} ,
.7
Dave Hatch
November 21, 1996 •
Page 2
Results of a gradation analysis pgrformed l a
on a umple of silty sand and gravel (minus 3
inch fraction) obtained from the rite are presented on, ig. 4. The laboratory testing is
summarized on Table I. No free water was obssrved 1 the pits at the time of
excavation and the soils were slifhtly moist.
1
Foundation Recommendations :: Considering the suk.oil conditions encountered in the
exploratory pits and the nature of' the proposed ;eons ction, we recommend spread
footings placed on the undisturbe natural soil ciesignf for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 1,500 psf for support of the proposed rest,9ence. The soils tend to compress
when wetted and there could be some post - construction foundation settlement if the
bearing soils become wet. The amount of settletnentrould depend on the depth of
settlement -prone soils below foofing grade and 1 e event of wetting. Footings should
be a minimum width of 20 inches for continuouwalls,and 2 feet for columns. Topsoil
and any loose disturbed soils should be removed and a exposed foundation bearing
level moistened and compacted. Exterior footings shgWd be provided with adequate
cover above their bearing elevations for frost prptection. Placement of footings at least
36 inches below the exterior grade is typically used Oils area. Continuous foundation
walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming
an unsupported length of at least 14 feet. Fouodationwalls acting as retaining
structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth Kessure based on an equivalent
• fluid unit weight of at least 45 pcf for the on -site soil us backfill. Due to the potential
for settlement if the bearing soils become wet, we recommend that the foundation walls
be heavily reinforced to reduce distress due to settlement.
"EE
•
Floor Slabs: The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support
lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. The soils 'uld have some settlement
potential if wetted. To reduce the effects of some di ii•rential movement, floor slabs
should be separated from all bearing walls and 4olu 11'. with expalsion joints which
allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor sl b col ;'ol joints should be used to
reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The equirfinents for joint spacing and slab
reinforcement should be established by the desi ner b ed on experience and the
intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of ree- T�dning gravel should be placed
beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drains e. s material should consist of
minus 2 inch aggregate with less than 50% pass the No. 4 sieve and less than 2%
passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs shou d be mpacted to at least 95% of
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture con t near optimum. Required fill
can consist of the on -site soils devoid of vegetation, t _, soil and oversized rock.
Underdrain System: Although Free water was not encountered during our exploration, 1
it has been our experience that local perched groundwater may develop during times of
I •
H -P GEOTECH
1
}
, Dave Hatch g
November 21, 1996 I i
Page 3
p .
• heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen gro 1 + during spring runoff can create a
perched condition. We recommend below -grade col t ction, such as retaining walls
and basement areas, be protected from wetting and h ostatic pressure buildup by an
underdrain system.
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed iii the rtom of the wall backfill
surrounded above the invert level with free-draining nular material. The drain
should be placed at each level of excavation and at 1 t 1 foot below lowest adjacent
finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitab ,gravity outlet. Free - draining
granular material used in the underdrain systemIshoul contain less than 2% passing the
No. 200 sieve, Tess than 50% passing the No. 4 siev 4 d have a maximum size of
2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least > feet deep. An impervious
membrane such as 20 mil PVC should be placed ben the (Wain gravel in a trough
shape and attached to the foundation wall with bud o prevent drain water from
wetting the bearing soils. 1
I
Surface Drainage: The following drainage precautiI I should be observed during
construction and maintained at all times after the resi', nce has been completed: ,
1) Inundation of the Foundation exegvatio l and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
• 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to; ' ear optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95% of the 'l ax' 1 standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to a leas ' 1% of the maximum standard
Proctor density inllandscape areas. F -; draining wall backfill should be
capped with at least 2 feet of the on -si ='' finer graded soils to reduce
surface water infiltration. 1 r
3) The ground surface surrounding the e t rior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the fo nda ri in all dird�tions. We
recommend a minimum slope of` i 2 in ".'s in the first 10 feet in unpaved
areas and a minimum slope of 3 inche. ; 1 the first 10 feet in pavement
and walkway areas. A swale may be 1 ed uphill to direct surface
runoff around theresidence. 1
4) Roof downspouts land drains should di tbarge well beyond the limits of
all backfill. . 1
5) Landscaping which requires regular h ;‘ irrigation such as sod should
be located at least 10 feet from the building.
Percolation Testing: The results of percolatioq tests .' a presented m Table II and a log
of the profile pit is presented on Fig. 2. The percolat rn rates measured were between
16 and 18 minutes per inch. The test results and subsurface profile indicate a
conventional infiltration septic disposal system should a feasible at the tested area.
i H -P GEOTECH
MA i
., 3 ^�S° k`;�4i,' . *n sr ' " �4d��,J' , 9r +mA '
4 .r
rsvt ' a ,iii ■ rvp, �riit P�
e , t.
5 mnm.
Dave Hatch . y -. er r i ,�,
November 21, 1996 '', • 6, ,i' • f ;5 p4 , ;, i“ x., atorb, y
77, Page 4 a ' ' tri y .,ow• x �0, „a ---7._
j 4 Y,
P e$ prepared ' r wltth ' Secue n ai ly J ta` c c ept e
Limitations: This report ' n.
ort has b ' n re ared in cco t ' ' 4t
geotechnical engineering principles and ractice in 1 area,, k ''r'We make no
17,
g g� g i
P P, P � � ,« wwr�,commendations
�i �w`. .�,,.
other warranty either expressed or implied: Th col x,01 ons ande
submitted in this report are based upon the datalb ,, -4 o pits
excavated at the locations indica on Fig. 1, a p et; =.. sechtype construction, and
our experience in the area. Ourndings includ in t.r• tiop - and extrapolation of the —
subsurface conditions identified ft the explorato pi 7 ,;, d variations in the subsurface �
conditions may not become evident t until excava ion 177,[t rformed. If conditions E
encountered during constructionppear differen froiia iii ose described in this report, we e ;
should be notified at once so re- evaluation of th reco 1 endations may be made. e '.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use b •'ur client for design purposes. e
We are not responsible for technical interpretations by % others of our information. As
VI
the project evolves, we should provide continued col ' tation and field services during r construction to review and monitor the implementatio itof our recommendations, and to
verify that the recommendations have been appropria a y interpreted. Significant design i It
changes may require additional analysis or modificatio ', to the recommendations r
presented herein. We recommend on -site observation of excavations and foundation I Ir
bearing strata and testing of structural fill by aaprese tative of the geotechnical F
engineer.
If you have any questions or if we may be of f I pistance, please call our office. i '.
Sincerely,
' ORTH - PAWLAK GEOTE "` ^ C „' •
1 � �� P H AD'.:..„ tn'I
///
. S V X Q 1 r
Jordy ' . • ' a son, Jr., P.E. t i ' -9 29707 1,
I I ,y /
t
y 1 � a b I s ,`� °. a
Re ewed By t� oF��. l �N• t,
b ano j . � 1li s� %NAt. E :t , . 1 '
' Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. 9
i
JZA /kmk I
attachments 1
cc: Kurtz and Associates - Attn. :a Brian Kurtz 1 - ,
y
' _i
``c H -P GEOTECH
I ' . '' _- -_. ,1,..
• i
APPROXIMATE SCALE
I ° = 60
LOT 3 LOT 2
1
PROPOSED PIT I i
BUILDING -.
AREA , ',
• PIT 2 4
PROFILE
PIT
P•I 6 1 6 P•2 1 -
PROPOSED p P•3 1, i
SEPTIC
1 DISPOSAL
AREA
PROPERTY EASEMENT
BOUNDARY
MARKS GROUND'
+ SURFACE AT 12.6 OFFSET
STAKE, ELEV. ■ I00.0
4
ASSUMED.
196 573 I HEPW 9'
ORTH - PAWLAK ILQ_CATION OF EXPLe tATORY PITS AND I Fi 1
GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PkRCOLATION TEST. 0LES
i ,
I
PIT 1 PIT 2 i ? PROFILE PIT
ELEV. = 129' ELEV. = 125' ELEV. = 120'
0
_� 0 r r r — l
0
' -- i
• o WC =5.5'1 —
�'; �; DD �.
_ 6 5
X -- e
4 DD =106'
— -, WC=6.3 -200=25.2
♦ , i +4 =30 p
_ 10 •: - -' - 200 = 70
I 15
_ 16
LEGEND:
® TOPSOIL; sandy silt, slightly clayey, scattered gravel, IS 2" Diameter hand driven liner sample.
organics, medium, moist, brown.
_
3 SAND AND GRAVEL (SM -GM); silty, scattered cobbles, , Disturbed bulk sample.
medium dense to dense, slightly moist, brown, slightly ' _ .i.
calcareous, angular to subangular fragments of 1
siltstone/sandstone.
NOTES: '
1. Exploratory pits were excavated on November 9,1996 with a backhot
2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by paci I from features shown on
the site plan provided. r
3. Elevations of exploratory pits were measured by instrument level and refer to the #ench Mark
shown on Fig. 1. i . ,
4. The exploratory pit locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree
implied by the method used. e
6. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate
boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. r
.6. No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavating.
Fluctuations in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results: '-
WC = Water Content ( %) 1 ,
DD = Dry Density (Pcf)
+4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve.
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. PALAK 196 673 I H E WORTH - A L INC. I LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PETS I Fig. 2 I
i
3 s I
t
Iyloistu' r , = 5.5 percent
Dry Un :Weight = 95 pcf
S ample of: Silty Sand
0
rom: 2 at ntent 3 Feet
— ■ 1111
4
6
e° 8
c
o _
17
a '
E•
3 8
9
10 I
i 1
11
12
u I Q
1
13 e
1 i
i
1
0.1 1.0 1 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE - ks^
196 573 I H E WORTH CAL INC. I SWELL - CONSOEIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3 1
i
lg
'4 i
k . • .. Y4M' •+yh{,Myat6 >nW4.. k ^i. s...M ...., . �.,.
M oisture Content = 4.1 percent
pry Unit Weight = 106 pcf •
Sample of: Silty Sand
From: Pit 2 at 6 Feet
0
1
Compression
upon
2 Wallin
3
ag 4
•
c I
P. 6
•
7
8
9 '
10 e
r
itv I'.
{
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
19 6 673 I GEOTECHNICAL INC. I
SWELL - CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4
..4i1 ♦ r Yr T �... i
q ... i. ...:. � r YMIYy0111Ei4iWk......r ... �.:
1`
t I
II
!I I
I •
I YS. I U.S SFNOMO OEMS 1 Ma Walal
I CLEAR WUW OPENINGS I
11ME READINGS 14111. 7104.
/OAS 111 NR 001x110 MN. 411111. 11.111 0700 0100 000 AO •Ii ', OS *a 2r Ur Sr IM r rr r
100 .. 1 _ I 0
I
I I
M 1 10
10 I '
70 r 1 00
I
pp
10 I 10 W
1 a
a 03 w gr
i -. 1 i. to
/ 1
I
10 70
(- 1
1
30 I _ p F
. I 1
-
< 1 I►
a 1 - { 1 10)
.001 003 DOS 1100 AM ASi Ali .110 100 ace 1.151 3211 4.711 W 120 370 702 112 3W
1 12.1 4 127
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN )dIIWMET RS e t a OEAYTO AT 1 Iii r MEOW'' ITWIjI IIF 1 MMNE I 1
I
1
I n
GRAVEL 30 % SAND 44 % SILT AND CIAY 26 %
, t
UOUID UMIT % PIASTICRY IIiIDEX % ,
I.
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand with Gravel FROM: PR 1 at 8 to 10 Feet
I i
1
186673 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 6
I GEOTECHNICAL, INC. I, ;
1
I
i I
i
M
n ■
tD D
.-- 6 a
.c
Z 7d i 1 I
p c H
Li
� l i
ry
z r. ill' J
J D
Q W
U cc
y j
Z u) 1 .
V W
W E'"
O 0 t '
W —O
(7 J Q . •
Y 00 c l
Q N
F- m i N ui
J ° g N
a. 0 u.
H } 1 i `t
CC a 1
2
2 N g2 M '
e
.
11 1 M l0 r
�` ui v
I
o_
p M 03
i W
I �.
I
■ HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHisIICAL, INC.
TABLE 11
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 196 673 ;
� i
HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH DROP IN AVERAGE ;
(INCHES) INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF WATER PERCOLATION
(MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL LEVEL RATE '
(INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) (MIN./INCH)
P -1 64 1/2 10 8 1/2 18 1/4 1/4
8 1/4 ' s7 1/2 3/4
7 1/2 I 7 1/2
7 6 1/2 1/2
1
6 1/2 6 3/4 3/4
refilled 101/2 '93/4 3/4
9 3/4 9 1/4 1/2
i
9 1/4 ' ^8 1/2 3/4
81/2 7 3/4 3/4
7 3/4 7 1/4 1/2 16
P -2 64 10 11 1 /2 I 10 3/4 3/4
I
10 3/4 9 1/2 1 1/4
1
91/2 • 81/2 1 is
81/2 71/2 1
7 1/2 6 1/4 1 1/4
61/4 61/2 3/4
refilled 8 17 1/4 3/4
7 1/4 i6 3/4 1/2
6 3/4 !6 1/4 1/2 '
6 1/4 s6 3/4 1/2 18
i
P -3 58 1/4 10 10 � 9 1/2 1/2
9 1/2 18 1/4 1 1/4
I
8 1/4 7 1/2 3/4
7 1/2 s6 3/4 3/4
6 3/4 1 3/4 1
refilled 11 1/2 10 1/4 1 1/4
10 1/4 1 6 3/4 1/2 I
9 3/4 i 9 3/4
9 8 1/2 1/2
8 1/2 j R 1/2 1R
is
I
Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits 9nd soaked on November 10, 1996. The holes
were covered with insulation to protect against freezing. Percolatlonftests were conducted on November 11, 1996.