Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout765 Stampede - 185529200033INDIVIDUAL 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. 1675-96 BP NO. 10983 OWNER: THOMAS HOWARD PHONE: (416) 322-3758 MAILING ADDRESS: BOX 10, SUITE 2300.20 OUEENS ST. W., TORONTO, ONTARIO, M51T3R3 APPLICANT: JOHN KRUEGER PHONE: (970) 9494814 SYSTEM LOCATION: LOT # 16. HORSE MOUNTAIN RANCH, WOLCOTT TAX PARCEL NO. 1855-292-00-033 LICENSED INSTALLER: DIG IT EXCAVATING, ROBERT STEPHENSON LICENSE NO. 8-97 DESIGN ENGINEER: _ LKP ENGINEERING, LUIZA PETROVSKA PHONE NO. 970-827-9088 INSTALLATION HEREBY GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: 1000 GALLON SEPTIC TANK 1125 SQUARE FEET OF TRENCH BOTTOM VIA 36 INFILTRATOR UNITS SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: INSTALL AS PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN DATED 6/10/97. ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL INSPECTION BUILDING CO WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT THIS CERTIFICATION. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE: JUNE 12, 1997 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 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: 1125 SQUARE FEET (VIA 36 infiltrator units) ) INSTALLED septic TANK: 1 000 GALLONS IS LOCATED DEGREES AND FEET FROM see as builts for location COMMENTS: Rnginaar final rertifiratinn rProi-iTPrl 7-15-97 ANY ITEM NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE CORRECTED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM IS MADE. ARRANGE A RE -INSPECTION WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED. / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL DATE: July 1 5 , 1997 -, (Site Plan MUST be attached) Y ISDS Permit # /6 �5 - q APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICE - EAGLE COUNTY P. O. BOX 179 EAGLE, CO 81631 328-8755/927-3823 (El Jebel) * PERMIT APPLICATION FEE $150.00 PERCOLATION TEST FEE $200.00 * MAKE ALL REMITTANCE PAYABLE TO: "EAAGLE COUNTY TREASURER" ************************************************************************** PROPERTY OWNER: MAILING ADDRESS: W ,ts 1-tow "'-'v APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON; • OWAO kRU MAILING ADDRESS: 001, t SS / Vh-c% . ut� s S"i LICENSED ISDS CONTRACTOR: Rof*-a-r S7 H�✓S�a./ COMPANY/DBA: 1X(, VT Ca�V57r.uLtfdhl ADDRESS • h PHONE: (4/b) 3Z7--37 5q; PHONE: WO W PHONE: (M *************************************************************************** PERMIT APPLICATION IS FOR: (V') New Installation ( ) Alteration ( ) Repair *************************************************************************** LOCATION OF PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM: Building Permit 9'3_(if known) N ' l4 uw '/Y 5 E (, J2 93 W✓ Legal Description: Subdivision: < L g P '� �f,F-iling:_Block• Lot N Tax Parcel Number: Cj- Z Z - D - 7j Lot Size: 06 Street Address: *************************************************************************** BUILDING TYPE: (Check applicable category) ( ) Residential/Single Family ( ) Residential/Multi-Family* ( ) Commercial/Industrial* TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY* (Check applicable category) ( ) Well ( v Spring ( ) Surface ( ) Public Name of Supplier: Number of Bedrooms Number of Bedrooms Type *These systems require design by a Registered Professional Engineer SIGNATURE: /`— Date: �/ & F� *************************************************************************** TO BE COMPLETED 5Y,THE COUNTY AMOUNT PAID: RECEIPT # : 10q 9�5, DATE:�- CHECK # : 5'1f CASHIER: Community Development Department (970) 328-8730 Fax: (970) 328-7185 TDD: (970) 328-8797 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Date: May 2, 1997 TO: Dig It Excavating FROM: Environmental Health Division Eagle County Building P.O. Box 179 500 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 RE: Issuance of Individual Sewage Disposal System Permit No. 1675-97. Tax Parcel # 1855-292-00-033. Property Location: Lot# 16, Horse Mt. Ranch, Wolcott, CO., Howard residence. Enclosed is your ISDS Permit No. 1675-97. It is valid for 120 days. The enclosed copy of the permit must be posted at the installation site. Any changes in plans or specifications invalidates the permit unless otherwise approved. Systems designed by a Registered Professional Engineer must be certified by the Engineer indicating that the system was installed as specified. Eagle County does not perform final inspections on engineer designed systems. Your TCO will not be issued until our office receives this certification. Permit specifications are minimum requirements only, and should be brought to the property owner's attention. This permit does not indicate conformance with other Eagle County requirements. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Environmental Health Division at 32& 8755. cc: files LKP Engineering, Luiza Petrovska Community Development Department (970) 328-8730 Fax: (970) 328-7185 TDD: (970) 328-8797 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Date: June 12, 1997 TO: Dig It Excavating FROM: Environmental Health Division Eagle County Building P.O. Box 179 500 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 RE: Reissuance of Individual Sewage Disposal System Permit No. 1675-97. Tax Parcel # 1855-292-00-033. Property Location: Lot #16, Horse Mountain Ranch, Wolcott, CO., Howard residence. Enclosed is your ISDS Permit No. 1675-97. It is valid for 120 days. The enclosed copy of the permit must be posted at the installation site. Any changes in plans or specifications invalidates the permit unless otherwise approved. Systems designed by a Registered Professional Engineer must be certified by the Engineer indicating that the system was installed as specified. Eagle County does not perform final inspections on engineer designed systems. Your TCO will not be issued until our office receives this certification. Permit specifications are minimum requirements only, and should be brought to the property owner's attention. This permit does not indicate conformance with other Eagle County requirements. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Environmental Health Division at 328- 8755. cc: files LKP Engineering, Luiza Petrovska RESULTS OF SOIL PERCOLATION TEST LOCATION OF PROPOSED SYSTEM: LOT: 16 BLOCK: SUBDIVISION: Horse Mountain Ranch DATE OF TEST: -June 5, 1997 PRE-SOAK F ROM : June 4, 1997 TO _7T June 5, 1997 Time Date me mate HOLE #1 23 min/inch AVERAGE MPI INCHES TIME OF FALL RATE DIAMETER 8 inches 9:49 12/16 .13.33 9.59 11/16 14.55 pEPTH 29-6/16" 10:09 _ 9/16 —9/16 17.78 TYP E OF 10:19 17..78 SOIL gravelly topsoil 10:29 9/16 17.78 WATER DEPTH 10:39 7/16 22.86 TO START 19-14/1611 10:49 7 16 HOLE #2 32 min/inch AVERAGE MPT1 INCHES TIME OF FALL RATE . DIAMETER 8 inches _9;49 , 9/16 17.78 9.59° 7/16- 22.86 DEPTH 27-7/161, 10:09 _ 6/16 26.67 TYPE pF--- `10e19-- 4/16 40.00 SOIL gravelly topsoil -10:29 �6/16 26.67 WATER DEPTH 10:39 _ 6/16 26.67 TO START 17-11/16" 10:49 5 1 32.00 HOLE #3 19 min/inch AVERAGE MPI INCHES TIME OF FALL RATE DIAMETER 8 inches 9*49 16 17.78 9: 5q 10/1 fi_ 16.00 DEPTH 28-8/16" 10*09 10� ` _ 16.00 TYPE OF _ ln•1q q/1F 17.7£i __ SOIL ar, v 1 1 r! toys, of 1 n - 9Q �$�1 F+ 20.00 _ WATER DEPTH _1n-�g ___7/1_6_ 22.86 TO START 15-3/16" 10:49 8/16 20.00� SOIL PERCOLATION RATE 30 MPI RFMA RKS : The above readings are the last seven for each percolation hole._ LOOT IOH OF` TEST BOLES : Shown on the Septic System Design Drawing Project No. 9719, dated JUne 10, 1997 Date: June 10, 1997 BY • Luiza Petrovska, PE Project No.: 9719 LKP Engineering, Inc. u r f 1 f 1 77 r oz.- =4j 7lCJ—DL l—Miuj LKY LNUiNttNiNU, 1NU H96E 02 AS--BI.%ILT SEPTIC Chit/CROTEChNICAL LOT 16, igCM?SC MOUNTAIN RANCH TALE' Nf1 14 N4 't/4 SEC, 29, T.3S, RSJW Wil PA! 1 LK-P Eling n eP.,t in O In c. fd GLE COUNTY, COLORADO 1M T£+ PRFPARM FUR: P.O. Box 1452 Avofv, CO 81620 !'�a �N(' �``��; ....._-- to, (1470) 827-9056 Fax (970) 827-9409 MR. J�It1V I�'RUli�r,�'.,R 1 KP r l Engineering, July 15, 1997 Mr. John Krueger P.O. Box 1551 Vail, CO 81658 Rost-tt° FOX Note 7671 o^? To' "*T,1!u;2q Ohroad Co -ape v. h Phone I �O eAoi/9C�eri , Phony # Fa o ' $ " !� Fax M RE: Inspection of Septic System Installation Lot 16, Horse Moimtain Ranch . NE1/4, NW1/4, Section29, T3S, R83W, 6th P.M. Eagle County, Colorado Project No. 9719 - Permit No. 16� 97 Dear John: I V'� At your request, on. July 11,1997, we visited the construction site on Lot 16, Horse Mountain Ranch, near Wolcott, Eagle County, Colorado. The purpose of our site visit was to observe the installation of the septic system. They installed the system in overall compliance with the septic system design, Drawing No. 9719SD- I.DWG, dated June 10, 1997. The system was connected to the main residence 18 feet north of the southwest building comer. They installer lJ- 0- all�nstwo compartments, precast, Concrete septic tank. Thirty-six, Standard Infiltrator Chambers were installed in three trenches, with serial distribution. In the. last infiltrator of each trench, they will inst a pm_% Horizontal distance.from_center to center of the trenches, w jijj t or mare, as shown on the as -built sketch. All piping w a _SI)R-35, 4-imp*. The soil profile in the fitneMs was consistent with the soil exposed in the profile hole. If you have any questions, pleaso do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, UP Ens 64, n Luiza Petrovska, President 0 29526 CC' Ms. Heather Savalox, Eagle County Enviroem cntal Health Division., fax: 329-7185 C:tOFF1cLNWPWIMWPD4CW71905X WPO P,0. Box 1452, Avon, Colorado 81620 • (970) 827.9088 Tel 0 (970) 827-9089 Fax Community Development Department (970) 328-8730 Fax: (970) 328-7185 TDD: (970) 328-8797 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO July 22, 1997 Thomas Howard Box 10, Suite 2300 20 Queens St. W. Toronto, Ontario M51T3R3 RE: Final of ISDS Permit No. 1675-96, Tax Parcel #1855-292-00-033. Property location: Lot # 16, Horse Mt. Ranch, Wolcott, CO. Dear Mr. Howard: Eagle County Building P.O. Box 179 500 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 This letter is to inform you that the above referenced ISDS Permit has been inspected and finalized. Enclosed is a copy to retain for your records. This permit does not indicate compliance with any other Eagle County requirements. Also enclosed is a brochure regarding the care of your septic system. Be aware that later changes to your building may require appropriate alterations of your septic system. If you have any questions regarding this permit, please contact the Eagle County Environmental Health Division at (970) 328-8755. Sincerely, r f Janet Kohl Environmental Health Department Eagle County Community Development ENCL:Information Brochure Final ISDS Permit cc: files APPROXIMATE SCALE 40 _/ L w w ` w � LOT 16 PIT 2 "�- - PIT I r j _ PROPOSED RESIDENCE { "t ■ PIT 3 w- Y l �O ti � S 1 I96 S32 HCPWOATH - PAWLAK =cr►Tcr-u�u�-a� mat- IIJOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 November 11, 1996 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 Tom Howard G Gip l 21 Lower Village Gate Toronto, Ontario Canada M5P-3L7 Job No. 1.96 532 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Lot 16, Horse Mountain Ranch, Eagle County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Howard: As requested, Hepworth-Paw1_ak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study for design of foundations at the subject site. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to you dated October 18, 1996. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this report. Assessment of potential geologic hazard impacts on the site are beyond the scope of this study. Proposed Construction: The proposed residence will be a one story wood frame structure with an attached garage located on the site as shown on Fig. 1. An apartment will be built above the garage. Ground floors will be structural over a crawlspace for the residence and slab -on -grade in the garage. Cut depths are expected to range up to about 8 feet. Foundation loadings for this type of construction are assumed to be relatively light. If building conditions or foundation loadings are significantly different from those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations presented in this report. Site Conditions: The site was vacant and covered with between about '/2 and 1 foot of snow at the time of our field work. Topography in the area is gently rolling with a ground surface slope of about 12 % down to the east in the building area. Elevation difference is about 10 feet across the proposed building area. A dry shallow drainage runs through the northern side of the proposed building. A spring is located about 60 feet downhill to the east of the building location. Vegetation consists of sagebrush, grasses and weeds. Scattered boulders comprised of vesicular basalt are present on the ground surface. Tom Howard November 11, 1996 Page 2 Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by excavating three exploratory pits at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The logs of the pits are presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered, below about 1 _foots of topsoil, consist of relatively dense clayey sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. About 5 feeDf slightly organic cla e� y silt was found above the gravel in Pit 1 excavated in the shallow drainage. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the sandy clay matrix, presented on Fig. 3, indicate low compressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading and a low expansion potential when wetted. Results of gradation analyses performed on samples of the clayey gravel (minus 3 inch fraction) obtained from the site are presented on Fig. 4. 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 gravel soil designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for support of the proposed residence. The silt soils encountered at Pit 1 should be removed from the building area. Due to the expansive clay matrix soils, the footings should be designed to impose a minimum dead load pressure of 800 psf. The subgrade should be evaluated for expansive soils at the time of excavation. Settlement/heave of footings should be on the order of 1 inch or less depending on the depth and extent of any wetting below the foundation. 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 gravel subsoils. Voids created by boulder removal should be backfilled with compacted gravel or with concrete. Exterior footings should be provided with adequate cover above their bearing elevations for frost protection. Placement of footings at least 42 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 gravelly soil as backfill, exclusive of oversized rock. H-P GEOTECH Tom Howard November 11, 1996 Page 3 Floor Slabs: The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. The clay matrix of these soils possess an expansion potential and slab heave could occur if the subgrade soils were to become wet. 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. Slab bearing partition walls should be provided with a slip joint at the bottom of the wall to allow for slab heave up to about 11/2 inches. 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 can be placed beneath interior floor 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 or imported sand and gravel, such as road base aggregate. Underdrain System: Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in mountainous areas and where clay soils are present 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 and crawispace 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 11/2 feet deep. H-P GEOTECH Tom Howard November 11, 1996 Page 4 Surface Drainage: The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed: 1) Excessive wetting or drying of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. Drying could increase the expansion potential of the clay soils. 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 at least 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. A Swale will be needed uphill to direct surface runoff around the residence. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill Limitations: This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no other 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 and to the limited depths shown on Fig. 2, 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 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. H-P GEOTECH Tom Howard November 11, 1996 Page 5 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 call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5CjGti� Jor Z. A amson, Jr., Reviewed By: C G� Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. JZA/ro attachments oc�p,OQ, h Fes/ °+0 �y ,29707 cc: Krueger Development Company - Attn: John Krueger H-P GEOTECH (i z U) J J � a U_ U) LLI Z 2 Cn C) w w E- O CD LU J /< -W Q a a LL o = rr G W :D 2 U) N c>o xL > E } O Y x > cc J U O vOi c iJ ++ CD U cu U m co E >, A ? C > f6 (B co ca m c0 co co co � (n U) U (A (n o � _ w F- Ww Z W O a ¢ i Z O N � U U X F a ' � J z a N w cc W Q d J z z O U N N W O (o W a a a Z r- N r- a Z O N Q Q cc CCD J a a — n LO n r. J } Q - = Q } N u Q M W Z n Z W 2 7 W (y� Lo ` , M l� Q O O �y' �/ c' / I, �� O Z � U r— r r' t� •"— Z o = W CII) (0 a c - N (O 0 J W J QL LtL 04 � P') j PIT 1 PIT 2 PIT 3 ELEV.=8377' ELEV.=8381' ELEV.=8370' 0 0 a a' WC=10.3 •:fie WC=13.3 �' ° ' +4=57 a o:o.:Q: WC=11.1 DD=79 *-9• '-200=26 ,� m = DD118 5 _ ' LL=41 5 'o a PI =23 WC=10.7 WC=17.5 a DD=107 °9 o -200=70 - ' 200=�17 10 10 LEGEND: TOPSOIL; slightly clayey sandy silt, occasional gravel, 2" Diameter hand driven liner sample. organics, roots, medium, slightly moist, dark brown to black. SILT (ML); clayey, sandy, scattered gravel, slightly Disturbed bulk sample. organic, medium to stiff, moist, dark grayish brown. _ SAND AND GRAVEL (SC -GC); clayey, cobbles and boulders up to 6 feet in size in Pits 1 and 2, dense, brown, subangular to Practical backhoe refusal on boulders. a o° :• slightly moist, yellowish subrounded basalt rock (claystone fragments in Pit 3 below about 4 feet.) NOTES: 1. Exploratory pits were excavated on October 21, 1996 with a backhoe. 2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory pits were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided and checked by instrument level. 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. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content (%) -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. DD = Dry Density (pcf) LL = Liquid Limit (%) +4 = Percent retained. on No. 4 sieve. PI = Plasticity Index (%) 196 532 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 2 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. A C 0 0 .N c m o. w 1 c 0 a 2 CL 1= v 3 2 0 c 0 1 c ca Q x w 0 c 0 0 1 Q E 0 U Moisture Content = 17.5 percent Dry Unit Weight = 107 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay Matrix From: Pit 1 at 6 Feet Expansion upon 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf Expansion upon Moisture Content = 11.1 percent Dry Unit Weight = 118 pcf Sample of: Sandy Gravelly Clay Matrix From: Pit 3 at 4 Feet 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf 196 532 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK SWELL- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 100 100 Fig. 3 1675-97 Tax!! 1bJJ-LyL-uu-u33 JOB NAME —Wolcott,Lot# 16, Horse Mt. HOWAU CO JOB NO.6P Lb2i4 OB LOCATION BILL TO DATE STARTED a DATE COMPLETED DATE BILLED �2ev s � TuGi TOTAL 11 . TOTAI IN Si I, u a S I kip k,��� A , 7t' Q, ZS� a7 Z_ !gOb�b' `i 9 fiv 11 / ev 'S i I1 w &_<SqA cid -rites Fi /w& 0q S ry ,q,,,_ L,64,— ► ✓1Stffew %✓17t �iYGI ! rl�7vqf,,t b--iK . JOB FOLDER Product 277 ®, NEW ENGLAND BUSINESS SERVICE, INC., GROTON, MA 01471 O JOB FOLDER