HomeMy WebLinkAbout03115 •
j
- GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit N2
"' ., 11/ / / 3
109 8th Street Suite 303 Assessor's Parcel No.
w Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 i
Phone (303) 945 -8212 g
This does not constitute ri 4
e, INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT � a building or use permit. i
i PROPERTY $Z€ "" Q / n` GCiting/Se x f
`"4• ./► Lliti t i Owner's Name f r 11 i Presen dres e! ow as ssat.) i a■ Phone 7 s
l
} . 1 ^ 1 n �k
t --i4 'D
1 1 System Location � W.C.('J-� 1 1/ I ��' �� ?'r/- Y7_'YVt t f ; > •
s
i
r, Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No. p
t R L EAOFf _CNaM C1 -BED (u0 G. OfS(%$*c) GG( as- Uufzit,
., Y SYSTEM DESIGN ✓ v T /� Eht C F/ C S v
; ti9 it i
I O 0 0 Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) Other -
1`
t 1 /3 i 4 P ercolation Rate (minutes/inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) r t
1 Required Absorption Area - See Attached
: II p
v t Special Setback Requirements: �
' Date Inspector # +
{V
t4
5 FINAL. SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as Installed) , y
1 Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation
i t , System Installer Vl/ A 1- ( C / <;
�2
S Septic Tank Capacit '' t
i .r
�> Cv &E c A lC `'
r : S ep ti c T a n k Manufacturer or Trade Name �; i
i 7 t 5 yT
Se Tank Access within 8" of surface
Ys
I.. (0 3 2 ( 3 CD) G 2 ocv5 or G &Nl7S rA . ,.
Absorption Area N ?.
P ; Absorption Area Type and /or Manufacturer or Trade Name (� F L 1 n n 3 G
Ni ES 1 i Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements n !.
r , 1.
!,, Other
, ' . Dale " I 1 -- Ins pector f`I U .,
h
t !A RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE r}
t f •CONDITIONS: 4
i 1. All installation must comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter eN
I ' 25, Article 10,C.R.S. 1973, Revised 1984.
f` 2. This permit Is valid only for connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Con- 1
Z nection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a violation or a ( ti
+ ; requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit.
t 3. Any person who constructs, alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system in a manner which involves a knowing and material ei
variation from the terms or specifications contained in the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense (6500.00 fine — 8 !Y
`i months In jail or both). t •
White - APPLICANT Yellow - DEPARTMENT
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION
OiINER S skA014 LL- -1 11/4t t I Se-
S •
ADDRESS 952A 3 t-PcK4 Aa a C - PHONE c GA-('S ' - 7;7 2 S ---
CONTRACTOR (k ) co � nn C4 �� �� ��
ADDRESS (I 7S no . 1 . ( . & 4 PHONE
PERMIT REQUEST FOR W 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: 3
AT Near what City of Town -,l l t-r I t Size of Lot J f .
Legal Description or Address CD CL / 5 l ,Rf2, (- 1 LA-- S
WASTES TYPE: ( DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE
( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON - DOMESTIC WASTES
( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE
BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE:
Numr of Bedrooms Number ersons Z
( Garbage Grinder ( utomatic Washer ( Dishwasher
SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: ( ) WELL ( )) SPRING ( STREAM 0,R CREEK
nn ,,
If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: l 519A2, , 1ti et
DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: '*1 Ili _La
Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? Lk (STl ✓eil
A site plan is required to be submitted that indicates the following MINIMUM 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.
GROUND CONDITIONS:
Depth to first Ground Water Table
Percent Ground Slope
2
TYPE INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED:
( EPTIC TANK ( ) AERATION PLANT ( ) VAULT
( ) " "" VAULT PRIVY ( ) COMPOSTING TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, POTABLE USE
( ) PIT PRIVY ( ) INCINERATION TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, OTHER USE
( ) . C MICAL TOILET ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE
FIN ISPOSAL 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? 0 P "
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the E neer does the
5i
Percolation Test) I-J t p� o '1 r "T '4
T "'`� L
'# 4 7 - (F S3 .
Minutes
9) per inch in hole No. 1 Minutes (fO . per inch in hole NO. 3
Minutes I per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes (� ( per inch in hole NO. _
Name, address and telephone of RPE who made soil absorption tests: t1- 'P • G IT'S ~ A r t
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 : tpli•: ;on and in legal action for perjury as provided by law. (;----
Signed r rill, 1 1 ‘ * --" q1.
Date IS
PLEASE DRAW AN • CCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!!
3
lier...: •
\ Z
\ `
APPROXIMATE SALE
\\ 1 = 6O
ED
f
\E MEN r
` - -
1
I /
\ �- '� -
/ \ / _./
/ / / \ \ p,V D O T y \ / / / " -- _ _ /
/\ OS /
/
/ / \ � � A \' t, E T - // D
/ � \, / P 1
/ / PIT 3 N PIT 2
A PROFILE FILE , / P 2 \
/ /,S,
LOT 15 g r
P IT 1 / 1
1
BUILDING
/
ENVEL
�� LOT 14
LOT
BOUNDARIES
LOT 12
•
1 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fly, 1
197 653
GEOTECHNICAL. INC. I AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES
Cann SN.LR RDWdV1 LCT6 C96 WA YV3 ZT:ST 66 /0O /CO
•
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE I1
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 197 653
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.IINCHI
P -1 59 20 11% 834 3
834 614 2/
614 5 11
water added 13 12 1 -
- 12 10% 1Y. -
18
10% 9% 1 -
P -2 52 20 9Yr 51 4
water added 111/4 10 11/4
10 9 1
9 81, 34
81/4 71 34 24
714 61 1
P -3 5111/4 20 111/4 101 %
1014 10 14
10 9% 54
9.4 9 14 /
91 9 14
60
9 8% Y
NOTE: Percolation test holes ware hand dug In the bottom of the shallow backhoe pits and soaked on November 14, 1997. The
holes were protected from freezing ovemight with rigid foam Insulation. Percolation tests were conducted on November
15, 1997.
•
600 11 SN,LK 39NVdV7 Inn £96 OLe WA ET :9T 66 /CO /CO
HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springa, CO 81601
• Fax 970 945 -8454
December 8, 1997 Phone 970 995-7988
Rick Seymour
998 Gleni Oak Lane
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Job No. 197 653
•
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed
Residence, Lot 15, Cedar Hills Ranch, Garfield County, Colorado •
•
Dear Mr. Seymour:
• As reque§td, 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 November 3, 1997. 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 two story wood frame
structure over a garden level basement. Basement and garage floors will be slab -on-
grade. Cut depths are expected to be up to about 6 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 about 30 feet
downhill to the southwest 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 at the time of our field work. The ground
surface in the building area is gently rolling with a moderately steep slope down to the
west at grades up to about 20 %. The hillside to the east of the building area becomes
' steep at grades of about 30% to 40 %. The Rosemond Ditch located about 45 feet to the
west of the building site had been piped through the development. There is about 8 feet
of elevation difference in the building area. The lot is vegetated with juniper and pinon
trees, sagebrush, grass and weeds. Large cottonwood trees are located to the west
along the previously existing open ditch. Scattered sandstone cobbles and boulders are
present on the ground surface.
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 Fig. 1. A third pit was excavated
on the north side of the leach field area but encountered shallow refusal due to hard
sandstone bedrock. The logs of the pits are presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils
encountered in the building area, below about 1/2 to 1 foot of topsoil, and nil to 1 foot
of sandy silty clay consist of relatively dense claystone fragments in a silty clay matrix.
Results of swell - consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of
the conditions of loading and wetting. One ample showed a low se
collapse pse compressibility
potential
unde
r006h SNIR a91V3V1 Mb £96 OL6 )(VA OT:ST 66 /£0 /£0
Rick Seymour
•
December 8, 1997
• Page 2
(settlement under constant load) when wetted and could be partly due to sample
disturbance. 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 2,000 psf for support of the proposed residence. The soils could tend to
compress after wetting and there could be some post - construction foundation
settlement. Footings should be a minimum 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 walls 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.
Boor Slabs: The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support
lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. 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 and weathered bedrock devoid of vegetation, topsoil and
oversized rock.
Underdrain System: Although free water was not encountered during our exploration,
it has been our experience in mountainous areas 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 basement areas, be protected from wetting and
hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system.
H -P GEOTECH
70On SN.LW anHVdV1 L£Tt C96 OL6 rid OT :9T 66 /CO /CO
Rick Seymour
December 8. 1997
• Page 3
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. 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 PA 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 12 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.
Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on November 15, 1997 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 Fig. 1. The test
holes (nominal 12 inch diameter by 12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of
shallow backhoe pits and were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The soils
exposed in the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Pit shown
on Fig. 2 and consist of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying sandy silty clay with rock
fragments. The percolation test results are presented in Table II. The percolation test
results indicate an infiltration rate between 18 and 60 minutes per inch with an average
of 34 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.
L imitations: 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 Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience
in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface
conditions identified at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions
H -P GEOTECH
•
COOP? SNZW HDHVdVI L£Tt 296 OL6 XVd TTt21 66/20/20
Rick Seymour
December 8, 1997
• Page 4
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
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.
Sincerely,
HEPWO AWLAK GEO _ INC.
wog
or V O 1pN AO AAs IO
�, 1 I
Jordy Z. Ad son Jr P.E. /
..�Q / i
Reviewed y:
r aU /
t c��•., �1.., •aCyi
tt �� "S /ONA1 E r
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
IZA /ksm
attachments
H -P GEOTECH
tee ran SNITS 9nuvavi L£Tb £98 OL8 rid ZT:ST 88 /CO /C0
\ \
• \ •
\ \
\
• APPROXIMATE SALE
\ 1' =60'
fp q
\ \ \ \ \ ` \
` C R r R pA0 ` \ \ - -- /
f.... T
f f
--- _.___ _-
I
I /
---
./ - — --- -/
� \ \ / - — /
/ \ \p�\q\M Tom �/ Q --
\ P 1
�� PIT 2
PIT 3 _
/ A PIT ® P 2 \
LOT 15 ( MI
PIT 1 / I
I
BUILDING
ENVELOPE
\ 7777
�-- LOT 14
LOT
BOUNDARIES
LOT 12
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 1
197 653 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES
g0 in SN.LR a9UVAV9 L£Tt C96 OL6 XVH ZT :ST 66 /CO /CO
•
PIT 1 PIT 2 PIT 3 PROFILE PIT
0
Y
u. . WO.e.e v mo , 5 _'
000 -' —2 71 _
I r — 2a0�e3 / N
O / —
L
e -- / 0
D — 1 \�
•k' ' --
wrre.e
00■123 —
1 0__
,_ 10
LEGEND: -
r i TOPSOIL; silty clay, slightly sandy, organics, soft to medium stiff, very moist. brown.
CLAY (CL); silty, slightly sandy, sandy with occaslonal gravel and cobbles in Profile Pit,
medium stiff to stiff, moist to slightly moist graysh brown
moist brown, possibly highly weathered clay medium
• edrock wlthd pthcsl slightly calcareous.
SANDSTONE BEDROCK; hard, dry, light yellowish brown, Wasatch Formation, p ossible displaced
I'R'O block.
I 2' Diameter hand driven liner sample.
T Backhoe refusal.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory pits were excavated on November 13, 1997 with a backhoe.
2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features
on the site plan provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory pits were not measured and 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
between material types the
ansitionstmay pit be gradual.
logs
resent the approximate
6 Fluctuations e in w water level may the time of excavating.
may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC – Water Content ( X )
OD – Dry Density ( pef )
–200 Percent passing No. 200 sieve
197 653 I H E WORTH CAL, INC. A}< I LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS I Fig. 2
1
RROp SN.LW 798VJV1 L£T4 C98 OL8 XVd ZT:gT 88/CO/C0
•
• Moisture Content = 6.6 percent
• Dry Density — 123 pcf
Sample of Sandy Silty Clay with
• Claystone Fragments
•
From: Pit 1 at 7 Feet
o �
0 1 ■■1111tH �����♦I No movemen
0
o. ■ wetting 1111111
0
3 1111111 � 1111111 � 1111111
3
1.0 10 100
0.1 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
0
1 allibailhm... Moisture Content = 8.0 percent
Dry Density = 119 pcf.
Sample of5andy Silty Clay with
111111 1�� Cla e Fragments
From: Pit 2 at t 3 3 Feet
2
t 3
c 1 , I " ram' Compression
upon
o - wetting
N
v a
a
E
0
S
6
0
7
0.1 1.0
10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
197 653 I GEOITOECHMCALA INC.
SWELL— CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS I Fig. 3
•
LOOI131 SKIN 3DNVZV1 LCT6 C06 0L6 Xtld ZT ST 66/£0/£0
z z > -
CD
C t! % g
-ce >- ! >- §
| 7E 3 0 !
| >. U. • #� Pt
. Q @ F @ 43
{$k n
/ C 2§ $ D . .
!|
Li
m ||
\ 0
I
. § ■
\ § E ' -
S _ & ||
otu e -
CO E
522 || § |2
$ § E|g
O o
/ cc |»
Q. En .§
_ |`
$ 0 ) f
t ||« 0 2 \
Iii •e N n
| .
|| .. .
_ S_ __, aTt a6OLSx a:! 66/CO/CO
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
• TABLE 11
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 197 653
• 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 - 59 20 11% 8% 3
834 6% 2/
6% 5. 11/4
water added 13 12 1
- 12 10% 11/4 -
18
101/4 9% 1 -
P2 52 20 9% 5% 4
water added 111/4 10 11/4
10 9 _ 1
9 81/4 3•
8/ 7% Y.
24
7% 6% 1
P -3 501/4 20 11% 10% %
10% 10 5
10 9% A
9% 9'% /
9% 9 %
60
9 8'/. Y.
NOTE: Percolation test holes were hand dug In the bottom of the shallow backhoe pits and soaked on November 14, 1997. The
holes were protected from freezing overnight with rigid foam insulation. Percolation tests were conducted on November
15, 1997.
600Z SN.LR SDIIVdV'I LCT6 E96 OL6 XV4 ET :ST 66 /EO /E0
\ •
` APPROXIMATE SALE
1' = 60'
Ep
/ ry
---C
1
'►
�/
/ / ^�SEMp\�
7 / 4 /
/ / / / \ \p er �-4_ T / / 0 N
/ P 1 ^�
\/ PIT 3 • PIT 0 J/
•
•
�(� PIT � �P 2
7 p
LOT 15 I /7 1 / (D / • 1 ∎T 1
1
BUILDIt•
ENVE .PE ----... S,
e 1
.� 2
LOT 14
LOT
BOUNDARIES
LOT 12
•
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fly, 1
197 653 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES
soon SNJ,W R9uv4v1 CCTV £96 OL6 XV3 ZT :ST 66 /CO /CO