HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication- PermitGARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT
Q , 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401
"` 7 ''�� Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Permit
1
.2 1(6.1) Cite inn t1 K101
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT
Phone (970) 945-8212
Assessor's Parcel No.
3R 1-- Oct a-oo
This does not constitute
a building or use permit.
PROPERTY
Owner's Namei; A)0,0 T [- t rC , ? , Present Address 1-1- I;CPhone q (J
ai
System Location C \ 5 �' L
Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No. pti $ �_-1,t-i)),-- c
SYSTEM DESIGN
fiitliteAr 04 -5F -74o -P15 -
Septic Tank Capacity (gallon)
Percolation Rate (minutes/inch)
Required Absorption Area - See Attached
Special Setback Requirements:
Date 4, C2
Other
Number of Bedrooms (or other) /
94 x.7' 4/, Fr' �p/1:7°
Z,l
00 .w34�d rz-A/Y /l�+N��i}I'p-s az
Inspector^—
i
FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed)
Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation
System' Installer
Septic Tank Capacity
r(
Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name
Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface K St bid ../1Q(-6-
L
irc,(-={it '
r�
Absorption Area �+ - f 4 r'; ,A r7 33 iII
- c2
Absorption Area Type and/or Manufacturer or Trade Name
{L)
Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements
Other 1.)O > ? )trityt
Date L 1% - Inspector Ar: i Y%_,>`>
RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE
1 '
�ltr 4���lle
,<:f,C
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. Connection 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 jail or both).
White -APPLICANT Yellow - DEPARTMENT
GARFIELD COUNTY SEPTIC PERMIT APPLICATION
108 gib Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, Co 81601
Phone: 970-945-8212 / Fax: 970-384-3470 / Inspection Line: 970-384-5003
www Barfield -coon com
STAFF USE ONLY
Permit Fee: v IT
q3It)
Perk Fee:
ple
itCel1 Parcel No: (this information is available at t e assessors office 97494 9134)m„ i' a; r' d o -
2
Septic Permit #:
if., p
Job Address: (if an address has not n assig ed, please provide Cr, Nwy or Street Name & City) or and legal description
1/2 /y oA/.�,JJ,4 Coo ' V‘2_3
3
////
���
Lot No:
Sizepq�-��yp'
Block No: Subd/ Exemption:
/
V'T �T� Ef✓
4
Owner: (property owner)
61u4r/ar Cale 8
Mailing Address
774/7 4.PI06 CA/got J/9&
Ph:
IG3 /Ij63
Alt Ph:
''-
5
C tractor:
ii
X rol 144 40
Mailinn.Address
ca r ce 2/1 kik
Ph:
25 16
Alt Ph:
6
Engineer.
Mailing Address
Ph:
Alt Ph:
7
PERMIT REQUEST FOR: cc) New Installation ( ) Alteration ( ) Repair
8
WASTE TYPE: MDwelling ( )Transient Use ( )Commercial or industrial )Non- Domestic wastes
( )Other — Describe
9
BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: FiOne
Number of bedrooms 1 Garbage Grinder ( )Yes frxINo
10
SOURCE & TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY:
If supplied by COMMUNITY WATER, give name
()WELL ( )SPRING ( )STREAM OR CREEK ( )CISTERN
of supplier.
11
DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER
Was an effort made to connect to the Community System?
SYSTEM:
=-�'�
o
YOUR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITH OUT A SITE PLAN
12
GROUND CONDITIONS:
Depth to 15t Ground
Water Table Percent Ground Slope
13
TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM (ISM) PROPOSED:
(x)Septic Tank ( )Aeration Plant ( )Vault ( )Vault Privy ( )Composting Toilet
( )Recycling, Potable Use ( )Recycling, other use ( )Pit Privy ( )Incineration Toilet ( )Chemical Toilet
( )Other- Describe
14
FINAL DISPOSAL BY:
( )Absorption trench, Bed or Pit )Underground
( )Wastewater pond )Other-
Dispersal ( )Above Ground Dispersal ( )Evapotranspiration ( )Sand filter
Describe
15
Will effluent be discharged directly into waters of the state? ( )YES NNO
16
PERCOLATION TEST RESULT: (to be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does the Percolation Test)
L. 9.e ' Minutes per inch in hole No.1 Minutes per inch in hole
No.3
No._
M.r'/. 7 oC. ,�
KtoPor Minutes per inch in hole No.2 Minutes per inch in hole
Name, address & telephone of RPE who made
Name, address & telephone of RPE responsible
soil absorption test: 4 P Geo -ht < t,,
for design of the system:
17
Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of the application is conditional upon such further mandatory and additional test 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 des0 red 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
unders 441, any falsification or misrepresentation may result in the denial of the application or revocation of any ermit gr nted based upon said application
and leg - on forrjury gS,prQvided Try law.` 3
li IN Na -AA -4t6 q
OWNERS SIGNATURE 9 DATE
STAFF USE ONLY
Permit Fee: v IT
q3It)
Perk Fee:
ple
Total fees:
73r6b
Building Permit #:
(fan°
Septic Permit #:
if., p
Issue Date:
LI( Ga(et/
Bu'1 ng &cPlanninP D�Ph
a1/2 4k/0i 1
APPROVAL DATE
yrk 117'.6° Ciji 7U cc 4 t
A(01° 103' 2'+"E
0
EU
A0 040 S
fri
v ro 0-4 a z A
D t
Ho p
K. � n0 D -
0 rn Lit
It- V) m ou
70 _ e
O N r
0 0 W -o
S N
I-IEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
November 18, 2008
Ted and Justina Potter
P.O. Box 1505
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
t-iepwcn:b-Pawlak Geocechuical, Inc.
502.0 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: 970-945-7988
Fax: 970-945-8454
email hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
Job No.108 616A
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Testing, Proposed
Residence, Southeast of County Road 113, Shippees Draw, Garfield
County, Colorado.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Potter:
As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study and
percolation testing 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 November 3, 2008. 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 single story manufactured
structure over a walkout basement located approximately on the site as shown on Figure
1. The basement floor will be slab -on -grade. Cut depths are expected to range between
about 3 to 8 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 downhill to the south of the proposed 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 was vacant and covered with about 3 inches of snow at the
time of our field exploration. The building site is located at the toe of a southwest facing
Parker 303-841.7119 e Colorado Springs 719.633-5562 e Silverthorne 970-468-1989
-2 -
hillside with about 2 to 4 feet of elevation difference across the building footprint. There
is a very steep ridge to the east of the building area. Vegetation consists of scruboak,
brush, grass and weeds. There is a mixture of brush on the hillside to the east.
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by
excavating two exploratory pits in the building area and one profile pit in the septic
disposal area at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. The logs of the pits are
presented on Figure 2. The subsoils encountered, below about'/ foot of topsoil, consist
of medium stiff to stiff, sandy silty clay with scattered gravel and cobbles. Results of
swell -consolidation testing performed on a relatively undisturbed sample ofthe clay soils,
presented on Figure 3, indicate low compressibility under existing moisture conditions
and light loading and high compressibility upon increased loading after wetting. Results
of gradation analyses performed on samples of the gravel soils (minus 3 and 5 inch
fractions) obtained from the site are presented on Figures 4 and 5. The laboratory test
results are summarized in Table 1. No free 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 soil bearing
pressure of 1,200 psf for support of the proposed residence. The soils tend to compress
after wetting and there could be some post -construction foundation settlement. The
amount of settlement would depend on the loading conditions and the depth and extent of
wetting. The settlement would be differential between footings bearing on the clay soils
and footings bearing on the gravels. Footings should be a minimum width of 20 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 walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local
Job No.108 616A
GE(Ptech
-3 -
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, excluding
vegetation, topsoil or rock larger than about 6 inches, as backfill.
Floor Slabs: The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly
loaded slab -on -grade construction. The clay soils are compressible when loaded after
wetting and there could be some slab settlement and distress. To reduce the effects of
some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing 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 50% passing the No. 4
sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve.
All 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, topsoil and oversized rock.
Underdrain System: Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it
has been our experience in the area and where clay soils are present 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, crawlspace and basement areas, be protected from
wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system.
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
Job No.108 616A
Gec&tech
-4 -
grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining granular
material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200
sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The
drain gravel backfill should be at least 11/4 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) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
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. Free -draining wall backfill should be
capped with about 2 feet of the on-site, finer graded soils to reduce surface
water infiltration.
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) Irrigation sprinkler heads and landscaping which requires regular heavy
irrigation, such as sod, should be located at least 5 feet from foundation
walls.
Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on November 5, 2008 to evaluate
the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile pit and three
percolation holes were dug at the locations shown on Figure 1. The profile pit and
percolation holes were dug by the excavator prior to our arrival on-site. The test holes
(nominal 12 inch diameter by 12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shallow
Job No.108 616A
eatech
-5 -
backhoe pits and were soaked by the excavation with water one day prior to testing. The
soils temperature at the time of our test varied between about 42°F and 46°F. The soils
exposed in the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Pit shown on
Figure 2 and consist of about 1/2 foot of topsoil overlying sandy silty clay with scattered
gravel and cobbles to the pit depth of 7 feet. Results of a USDA gradation analyses
performed on a small diameter drive sample (minus 11/2 inch fraction) of the coarse
granular subsoils are shown on Figure 5. The sample has a USDA classification of loam
with a Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) of 0.50 gallons/square feet/day. The
percolation test results are presented in Table 2. The percolation test results indicate an
infiltration rate between 10 and 20 minutes per inch with an average of 16 minutes per
inch. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, the
tested area should be suitable for a conventional 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 express 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) developing in the future. If the client
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
may 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
construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to
Job No.108 616A
~ptech
-6 -
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 know.
Respectfully Submitted,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTEC .1�..0=.L, INC.
Jordy Z. Adamson, Jr., P.
Reviewed by:
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
JZA/vam
attachments Figure 1 — Location of Exploratory Pits and Percolation Test Holes
Figure 2 — Logs of Exploratory Pits
Figure 3 — Swell -Consolidation Test Results
Figure 4 — Gradation Test Results
Figure 5 — USDA Gradation Test Results
Table 1 — Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Table 2 — Percolation Test Results
Job No.108 616A
GG�'CPtech
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1" = 60'
c+>
o
0 0
m 4
oR / \ PROPOSED
p Z \ RESIDENCE
U 4
PIT 2
TRACT 5
TRACT 6
PIT 1
p P2
P 1 p "I PROFILE PIT
A P3
TRACT 7
PLEASANT VALLEY RANCH
108 616A
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS
AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES
Figure 1
0
_ 5
10
LEGEND:
/
so
780
eV'
4•e
1
NOTES:
PIT 1
ELEV.= 100'
WC=20.8
DD=91
PIT 2
ELEV.= 103'
1X9:9
080
a
qo°-
°q.a
+4=63
-I 200-17
PROFILE PIT
ELEV.= 99.5'
TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay, organics, roots, firm, slightly moist, dark brown.
i +4=12
-200=70
0
5 _
10
CLAY (CL); silty, sandy, with scattered gravel and cobbles, medium stiff to stiff, slightly moist to moist, brown,
subangular rock fragments, slightly calcareous.
GRAVEL (GC); clayey, sandy, with cobbles, dense, slightly moist, brown, basalt rock fragments.
GRAVEL (GM); silty, sandy, with cobbles and boulders, dense, slightly moist, Iight brown.
2" Diameter hand driven liner sample.
Disturbed bulk sample.
Practical digging refusal.
1. Exploratory pits were excavated on November 5 and 10, 2008 with a John Deere 110 backhoe.
2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan
provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory pits were measured by instrument level based on an assumed Pit 1 elevation of 100 feet.
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 (pcf)
+4 = Percent retained on the No. 4 sieve
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
108 616A
eased.,
HEPWORTH-PAW LAK GEOTECHNICAL
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
a)
LL
a
4)
0
Figure 2
I
Compression %
CO - 01 (n A W N j O
Moisture Content = 20.8 percent
Dry Density = 91 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay with Gravel
From: Pit 1 at 4 Feet
•
No movement
upon
wetting
•
•
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
108 616A
Geirt&etch
Hepworth—Pawlak Geotechnical
SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 3
:;01:1fl4P1•114 _1 BXC
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES 1 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 -IR. 7 HR
0 45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60MIN19MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1 1/2' 3" 5"6" 8" 100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600
CLAY TO SILT
GRAVEL 63 %
1
1.18
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
LIQUID LIMIT %
SAND
2.36
4.75
FINE 1 MEDIUM 1 COARSE
SAND 20 %
9.5 19.0
12.5
GRAVEL
37.5
FINE 1 COARSE
76.2
152 203
27
COBBLES
SILT AND CLAY 17 %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sandy Gravel with Cobbles FROM: Pit 2 at 5 to 6 Feet
108 616A
m h
Hepworth—Pawlak Geotechnical
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 4
0 45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60MINI9MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES 1 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
#100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/4" 11/2' 3" 516"
SIEVE ANALYSIS
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
.001
CLAY
002
.005 .009
SILT
GRAVEL 15 %
LIQUID LIMIT %
USDA SOIL TYPE: Loam
019
.037
074
150
.300
.600
1.18
2.36
4.75
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
SAND
I V. FINE 1 FINE 1 MEDIUM 1 COARSE 1". COARSE
SAND 26 %
108 616A
Gy,ly
L
d,
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
1
{
9.5 19.0
12.5
GRAVEL
37.5
SMALL 1 MEDIUM 1 LARGE
SILT 39 %
CLAY 20 %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
76.2 152 203
127
FROM: Profile Pit at 4 to 5 Feet
USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS
COBBLES
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
LAtioll IS LF*9Ir![e
Figure 5
Job No. 108 616A
z
-J w
U_
Z LU
S W
U I-
1-- >-
0
O CeLu O
0ti
J J co
Q¢5
CL
= O
c
w
2
2 U
SOIL OR
BEDROCK TYPE
Sandy Silty Clay with II
Gravel
Silty Sandy Gravel with II
Cobbles
USDA Classification - II
Loam
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(PSF)
ATTERBERG LIMITS
0x
0
z
3 0
a ""
0
Hz 0LU
V oN W
Oy
aaz
17
70
Z
0
P
g
O
z ,...9.
in
0
N000
0L,
GRAVEL
(%)
M
N
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY
(PCO
O\
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
20.8
OCATION
DEPTH
(ft)
4
'.o
2
to
2
N
a)
w
O
ti
a
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE 2
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
JOB NO. 108 616A
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
54
5
8
71/2
1/
10
71/2
71/
1/
71/
63/4
1/2
63/4
61/4
1/
61/4
53/4
1/2
53/4
51/2
1/4
51/2
43/4
3/4
P-2
44
10
61/4
6
3/4
20
6
51/4
3/4
51/4
41/2
3/4
41/2
4
1/2
4
31/2
1/2
31/2
3
1/2
3
21/2
1/2
P-3
54
10
Water added
5
41/2
1/2
17
41/2
33/4
3/4
33/4
21/2
3/4
10
9
1
9
81/2
1/2
81/2
71/z
1
71/2
71/4
1/4
7V4
63/4
1/2
Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked one day
prior to testing by the client. Percolation tests were conducted on November 5, 2006.
The average percolation rates were based on the last three readings of each test.