No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout100 Timber Springs Dr - 194136400036INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION P.O. Box 179 - 500 Broadway • Eagle, CO 81631 Telephone: (970) 328-8755 COPY OF PERMIT MUST BE POSTED AT INSTALLATION SITE. PERMIT NO. 2173-02 BP NO. 14089 OWNER: TIMBER SPRINGS LLC PHONE: 970-926-6123 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 2458, EDWARDS, CO 81632 APPLICANT: RON AMASS PHONE: 970-390-5827 SYSTEM LOCATION: 100 TIMBER SPRINGS, EDWARDS, CO 81632 TAX PARCEL NO. 1941-364-00-036 LICENSED INSTALLER: GROUND CONTROL EXCAVATION LICENSE NO.27-02 PHONE: 970-376-6688 DESIGN ENGINEER: LKP ENGINEERING, LUIZA PETROVSKA PHONE NO. 970-926-9088 INSTALLATION HEREBY GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR A 7 BEDROOM RESIDENCE 2500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK, 2634 SQUARE FEET OF ABSORPTION AREA CREDIT, VIA 85 INFILTRATOR UNITS, AS PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: INSTALL AS PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN DATED DECEMBER 12, 2001, WITH A CLEANOUT BETWEEN THE TANK AND THE HOUSE AND INSPECTION PORTALS IN EACH TRENCH. CALL EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FOR PROFILE OBSERVATION PRIOR TO THE LEACH FIELD. BE SURE TO MAINTAIN ALL APPLICABLE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS, RAKE ALL TRENCH SURFACES TO PREVENT THE SMEAR- ING OF SOILS, AND DO NOT INSTALL IN WET WEATHER. CALL EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND THE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR FINAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO BACK FILLING ANY PART OF THE INSTALLATION, OR WITH ANY QUESTIONS. THE BUILDING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTI SEPT E S BEEN INSPECTED AND APPROVED. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE: APRIL 10, 2002 CONDITIONS: 1. ALL INSTALLATIONS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE EAGLE COUNTY INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM REGULATIONS, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GRANTED IN 25-10-104, 1973, AS AMENDED. 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 STRUCTURE NOT APPROVED BY THE ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BE A VIOLATION OF A REQUIREMENT OF THE PERMIT, AND WILL RESULT IN BOTH LEGAL ACTION AND REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. 3. CHAPTER IV, SECTION 4.03.29 REQUIRES ANY PERSON WHO CONSTRUCTS, ALTERS OR INSTALLS AN INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM TO BE LICENSED. FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM (TO BE COMPLETED BY INSPECTOR): NO SYSTEM SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM REGULATIONS UNTIL THE SYSTEM IS APPROVED PRIOR TO COVERING ANY PORTION OF THE SYSTEM. INSTALLED ABSORPTION OR DISPERSAL AREA: 2635 SQUAREFEET(VIA 85 STANDARD TNFTT.TRATn'g TTNTTS ) INSTALLED CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK: 2000 GALLONS IS LOCATED DEGREES AND FEET INCHES FROM SEE ENGINEER'S FINAL AS —BUILT DRAWING FOR SYSTEM COMPONFNT TocATTnNS COMMENTS: THE FINAL INSPECTIONS WERE DONE BY WILLIAM CARLSON OF FAm F. COTTNTY F.NVTRnNMF 1TAT HEALTH ON 4/12/02, AND THE ENGINEER ON 4/10/02 AND 8/14/02. THE ENGINEER'S FINAL CERTIFICATIO AND AS —BUILT DRAWING WERE RECEIVED ON 11/19/02 THIS SYSTEM IS LARGE FNOIJGH FOR A 7 BEDROOM RESIDENCE. ANY ITEM NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE C E P11V}T ROYAL OF SYSTEM IS MADE. ARRANGE A RE -INSPECTION WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2002 Incomplete Applications Will NOT Be Accepted (Site'Plan MUST be attached) ISDS Permit # 1_1 � J -6) Building Permit # APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICE - EAGLE COUNTY P. 0. BOX 179 EAGLE, CO 81631 Eagle (970) 328-8755, Fax (970) 328-0349, E1 Jebel (970) 927-3823 **************************************************************************** * FEE SCHEDULE * APPLICATION FEE $350.00 * THIS FEE INCLUDES THE ISDS PERMIT, SITE EVALUATION (PERCOLATION TEST, * SOIL PROFILE OBSERVATION) AND FINAL INSPECTION * ADDITIONAL FEES MAY BE CHARGED IF A REINSPECTION IS NECESSARY, OR A * PRE -CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT OR CONSULTATION IS NEEDED * REINSPECTION FEE $47.00, PRE -CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT FEE $85.00 .- * MAKE ALL__REMITTANCE PAYABLE TO: "EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER" **************************************************************************** PROPERTY OWNER: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE: 5 APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON: �c� PHONE: '510 ��,z °-% _LICENSED SYSTEMS CONTRACTOR: PHONE: COMPANY/DBA: ADDRESS: *************************************************************************** PERMIT APPLICATION IS FOR: ( NEW INSTALLATION ( ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR LOCATION OF PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM: Legal Description: L�ti Tax Parcel Number: "I- 1��' 1 �� Lot Size: Physical Address: 100 Pr BUILDIN TYPE: (Check applicable category) Residential/Single Family Number of Bedrooms. ( ) Residential/Multi-Family* Number of °js —! ( ) Commercial/Industrial* Type �- *These systems require design by a Registered Professional Engineer TYPE OF�1 TER SUPPLY: (Check applicable category) (Well ( ) Spring ( ) S f ( ) Public Name of pl er: APPLICANT SIGNATURE: Date: 6 2— AMOUNT PAID: ,� -- RECEIPT # / �� ✓ DATE: CHECK #: 3 2-Kl CASHIER: L-Mr }RIVUIlVCGlC11Vt7 IVAU tlAut 101 jLY,PjEngineering, Inc. CWjLtrJROTEC NJC kL, November 11, 2002 Mr. 1V11 ke Cole ice+ ; Inspection o1: Sepuc System insiaaRaiion n n R:..r 7s2tt Lot 8, Timber Springs 1 A0 T r+►ber Springs Drive ,['LLVYAd 4L.3, 4,�4J vtv..7.�r - -�-'-- . .- Eagle County, Colorado Project No. 1 164 - Permit No. 2173-02 Dear ;Mike: At the request of ].ion Amass, on April 10, 2002 and on August 14, 2-002, we visited the construction site on Lot 8, Timber Spidngs, 100 Timber Spriggs Drive, Eagle County, Colorado. The purpose of our site visits was to observe the installation of the septic system. They installed the system in overall compliance with the septic cyst= design, Drawing No. 01197SD-DWG, dated December 12, 2001. The system was installed as shown on the attached, as -built sketch. They installed a 2000-gallon, two -compartment, precast, concrete septic tank. A cleanout was installed between the house and the septic tank. Eighty-five, standard, infiltrator chambers were installed in trenches with serial distribution. Horizontal distance was 9 feet or more, from center to center of the trenches. Inspection ports were installed W the first and last infiltrator of each trench. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Rum- .......r„ ring, I !te 21 iuiza Petrovska, PE President •�•*� ^ Enclosure CC: Ms. Laura Fawcett, Fmgle County Environmental Health Division, £ax: 328-0349 CAWP 10-i.KP102164osi_wpd P.U. Box 2837, Edwards, CO 81632, (970) 926-9088 Tel, (970) 926-9089 Fax kin[ 1-4 4 -=Ofi Mr 3 M r-11,I f2O-'706M TM- 1=n '1 C rni IhITV M,11 I IJ1=rU TLI L-r\r GIYl711VGG1i114L7 11V1s rAur— uz i.V i()j y16-SUSS del, (970) 92{-9089 F'ax mnLJ-1l-PPIMP mnKi IaQ -�aPM Tn-P7nf-;l J= MlIKITV GKllI WE-Y31 TW onrrr,.,n f • Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone:970-945-7988 Fax:970-945-8454 hpgeo@hpgeotech.com PRELIMINARY SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT 8, TIlVIBER SPRINGS EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 101 324 AUGUST 6, 2001 PREPARED FOR: CORDILLERA ATTN: LANCE BADGER P.O. BOX 988 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 y HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. August 6, 2001 Cordillera Attn: Lance Badger P.O. Box 988 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Job No. 101 324 Subject: Report Transmittal, Prelinninary Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Lot 8, Timber Springs, Eagle County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Badger: As requested, we have conducted a preliminary subsoil study for the proposed residence at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed building area generally consist of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying stiff sandy silty clay with scattered gravel size shale fragments. Siltstone/claystone bedrock was encountered beneath the clay in Boring 1 at a depth of 15 feet to the drilled depth of.20 feet. Clayey gravel was encountered at a depth of 16 feet in Boring 2 to the drilled depth of 20 feet. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked on July 7, 2001. The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The subgrade should be evaluated for settlement/heave potential at the time of construction. The report which follows describes our exploration, summarizes our findings, and presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Jordy . 14n, Jr., P.E. RevJby: SLP JZA/ksw/djg TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ............................... 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................... 1 SITE CONDITIONS .......................................... 2 FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................... 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................... 3 PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 3 FOUNDATIONS ........................................ 3 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ..................... 4 FLOOR SLABS ........................................ 6 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM .................................. 6 SITE GRADING ........................................ 7 SURFACE DRAINAGE ................................... 7 PERCOLATION TESTING ................................. 8 LIMITATIONS ......................................... 8 FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLE FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE II - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS H-P GEOTECH PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a preliminary subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot 8, Timber Springs, Eagle County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for foundation design. The study was conducted in general accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to Cordillera dated April 17, 2001. The potential geologic impacts to the property were previously evaluated by us and the findings presented in a report dated July 20, 2001, Job No. 101324. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for planning and preliminary design. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the assumed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION At the time of our study, design plans for the residence had not been developed. The building is proposed in the building envelope shown on Fig. 1. We assume the residence will be a two to three story wood frame structure with a lower walkout basement level or crawlspace. We assume excavation for the building will have a maximum cut depth up to about 15 feet below the existing ground surface.' For the purpose of our analysis, foundation loadings for the structure were assumed to be relatively light and typical of the assumed type of construction. H-P GEOTECH -2- When building location, grading and loading information have been developed, 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 lot is located on a southeast facing hillside. The ground surface in the building envelope has a moderate to moderately steep slope down to the southeast at grades between about 8 % and 22 There is about�3�0 to 35 feet of elevation difference across the proposed building } envelope. A stream and wetlands are located to the east and southeast of the building envelope. Vegetation consists of sagebrush, grass and weeds. Evergreens are located to the west of the building envelope. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on June 6, 2001. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the general subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a track -mounted CME-45 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 2 inch I.D. spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils and hardness of the bedrock. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. H-P GEOTECH -3- SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. The subsoils generally consist of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying stiff sandy silty clay 11 with scattered gravel size shale fragments. Si tstoae/claystone bedrock was encountered beneath the clay in Boring 1 at a depth of 15 feet to the drilled depth of 20 feet. Clayey gravel was encountered at a depth of 16 feet in Boring 2 to the drilled depth of 20 feet. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density, Atterberg limits and finer than sand size gradation analyses. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the clay, presented on Fig. 4, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. One sample showed a minor expansion potential when wetted under a constant light surcharge. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked on July 7, 2001. The soils were slightly moist to moist. PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The conclusions and recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings, the geologic site assessment report and our experience in the area. The recommendations are considered suitable for planning and preliminary design. Once building location and grading plans have been developed, we should perform additional analysis as needed to develop site specific design recommendations. FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural subsoils. H-P GEOTECH -4- The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural subsoils should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. 4) 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 also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) The topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to firm natural soils. If water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete placement. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 55 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure H-P GEOTECH -5- computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site soils. Backfill should not contain vegetation, topsoil or oversized rock. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be installed to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.35. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 300 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. H-P GEOTECH FLOOR SLABS The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. The subgrade should be evaluated for settlement/heave potential at the time of 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 at least 50 % retained on 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 there are clay soils and shallow bedrock that local perched groundwater may 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 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 llh feet deep. H-P GEOTECH -7- SITE GRADING The extent of site grading needed for development of the lot is unknown at this time. It is recommended that the building be located in the middle to lower front part of the building envelope and grading be limited due to the relatively steep uphill terrain. Geotechni;cal recommendations for grading should be developed on a site specific basis for the building area. The grading criteria presented below can be used for planning and preliminary design. Cuts and fills should be limited to about 15 feet deep. Embankment fill should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20% grade. The on -site soils excluding vegetation, topsoil or oversized rock should be suitable for use in embankment fills. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. This office should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction. 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. 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 paved areas. H-P GEOTECH am Free -draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on -site soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. PERCOLATION TESTING A percolation test was conducted in the lower part of the building envelope to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. Boring 2 and one percolation hole (P-1) were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1. The percolation hole was drilled with a 6 inch diameter auger and was soaked with water one day prior to testing. The soils encountered in the percolation hole were similar to those encountered in the adjacent Boring 2 shown on Fig. 2 and consist of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying stiff sandy silty clay. Clayey gravel was encountered beneath the clay at a depth of 16 feet to the drilled depth of 20 feet. The percolation test results are presented in Table H and indicate a percolation rate of 20 minutes per inch. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, the �., should be suitable for an infiltration septic disposal system. The percolation rates throughout the disposal system area could be variable and additional tests should be conducted for design of the disposal system. MUTATIONS This study has been conducted according to 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 geologic site assessment, the exploratory borings located as shown on Fig. 1, the assumed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings 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 H-P GEOTECH report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for plarming and preliminary design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation, conduct additional evaluations and review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations. 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. Sincerely, Jordy Z. Adamson, J ., P.29707 f Reviewed by: ��F1 �► °�a�� Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. JZA/djg H-P GEOTECH PERCOLATION BORING •, \ 7400 TEST HOLE \ .. l • - ` � P-1 / 7390 ` • ~� • BORING / \ 7310 I \ 1�1 -_ 2 / 7380 BORING 11 -\ BUILDING �• • ENVELOPE 7320 7370 7330 \ `� \ STREAM/WETLANDS 7340 ��.. 7350 7360 �`y` _� -• 7370 -- 7380 -- 7390 LOT 8 PROPERTY BOUNDARY t I TRAVEL ACCESS LOT 7 APPROXIMATE SCALE 1" = 200' HEPWORTH-PAWLAK LOCATION -OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig.1 101 324 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLE BORING 1 BORING 2 ELEV.=7362' ELEV.=7338' 0 p 10 22/12 10/12 5 ol ol WC=14.9 5 DD=103 o 25/12 13/12 10 ol We -e.s ol 10 DD=109LL— a+ li ! � 0 01 29/12 8/12 ! t a 15 wC=14.3 15 0 00-114 -200=35 LL-35 :. P1=13 e- 55/12 17/12 20 20 25 25 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3. 101 324 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS - Fig. 2. GEOTECHNICAL. INC. LEGEND; TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay, organic, moist, dark brown. CLAY (CL).1 silty, sandy, with scattered gravel size shale fragments, stiff to very stiff, slightly moist to moist, light brown, slightly calcareous, low plasticity. a' GRAVEL (GC); clayey, sandy, with cobbles, medium dense, slightly moist to moist, brown. SILTSTONE—CLAYSTONE BEDROCK; weathered to hard, slightly moist, light brown. Relatively undisturbed drive sample;. 2—inch I.D. California liner sample. I22/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 22 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California sampler 12 inches. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on June 6, 2001 with a 4—inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided. Logs are drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory boring 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 boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked on July 7, 2001. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( % ) DD = Dry Density ( pcf ) —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. LL = Liquid Limit ( % ) PI = Plasticity Index ( % ) 101 324 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 I GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 3 ae c 1 0 0 m m E 2 0 U 3 101 324 Moisture Content 6.9 percent 'Sample of.- Sandy Silty Clay with Gravel From: Boring 1 at 9 Feet sion wettl 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 0.1 1.0 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Moisture Content = 14.9 percent Dry Density = 103 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay with Gravel From: Boring 2 at .4 Feet No Movement upon wetting 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 100 100 Fig. 4 U z J a U_ z 2 U W H W Y a 2J a IL ( cc 2O IL W 2 O z m O ui m Q U) J U) W ir U) w I— m O N Q m O m J LL O CQ CG G D U) N N L > O i CO > (Q v U U y +> c6 � U) N U > U N > U �co �� US (0 U) � > x F z W 2 1 O a ¢ a Z 0 to O � U U = � � ¢ z a r- O W m W Q J J M N N j LSi C.) N O 'm a i Z M o Z� a m 2 O F a O a (7 J W 0 J 0 �— M O c Z a a C Z �— W ¢ w M m F t 2 o r 2 O W m Q 0 U O J � of (i � E N 0 m -- HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE II PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 101 324 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 23 30 water added 12 '/4 7 %2 4 % 20 7 % 6 1 g % 8 1 8 -T 6 %2 j 1 '/z Note: The percolation test was performed in a 6-inch diameter auger drilled hole. The hole was soaked with water on June 7, 2001. The percolation test was conducted on June 8, 2001. The average percolation rate was based on the last two readings of the test. JOB NAME, 21 73-02 Tax #1 941-364-00-036 Lot #8, Timber Springs, TIMBER 100 Timber Springs Rd. SPRINGS LLC G l JOB NO. i "� �' g JOB FOLDER Product 278 JOB FOLDER P�ted fn UZA