Laserfiche WebLink
(SSS§ 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6). As noted, there.are two wells on the subject property-.A domestic <br /> well in the southwe t.:cornerof Parcel A and an irrigation well that is:shown to be presently on the <br /> property-line between Parcels.A and B. The property line is.proposed-to-be changed by Mike <br /> Farley, P.L.S. to illustrate a'.10-ft setback from this irrigation well. On January 15, 2010, these two <br /> wells were sampled under EHD guidelines: . <br /> Each well was turned-on,and allowed to pumped water for 15 minutes prior to sampling to ensure <br /> ' that aquifer forrnation water.was sampled°and not stagnant well water. The domestic well was <br /> sampled from a discharge.tube next to the well head. The irrigation well was sampled from the drip <br /> line emitter next to the well.- Plastic bottles were used`for the nitrate samples, and VOC bottles with <br /> preservative were used for:the DBCP samples. The VOC bottles were filled completely so that <br /> there was no-head space.- Both samples were placed in a cooled ice chest and then transported to: <br /> A & L Agricultural Laboratories on January 15, 2010, under the Chain of Custody found in <br /> Appendix 4. Table 2 below illustrates the test results for each of the sampled wells: <br /> TABLE-2 <br /> :WELL-WATER TEST RESULTS <br /> WELL TESTED,LOCATION: NITRATE DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE <br /> AND SAMPLE ID NUMBER CONCENTRATION (DBCP)CONCENTRATION- <br /> Domestic <br /> t Domestic Well on'Proposed Parcel .A . 19 ppm as Nitrate BDL <br /> SAMPLE ID: (MCL=45 ppm) (MCL=0.2 ppb) <br /> DOMESTIC WELL <br /> MCL=MaXiinum Contaminant BDL= Below Detectable Limits <br /> Level Detection limit=0.01 pg/L <br /> Irrigation Well Currently Shown on 19 ppm as Nitrate .Not Tested in Accordance with <br /> Property Line Between.Propose'd (MCL=45 ppm) EHD Requirements <br /> Parcel,13 and C <br /> SAMPLE ID: <br /> IRRIGATION WELL <br /> {§ 7.0) CONCLUSIONS <br /> The perc test results for three of the four proposed Parcels indicate passing or acceptable <br /> permeability at the shallow depths representative of leachlines (or chambers) for Parcels A, C and <br /> D. Parcel B bad failing rates for both shallow and deep test borings. Only Parcel C had acceptable <br /> perc rates at the deeper test depths representative of sumps. <br /> Deeper perc tests were conducted at sump depth (approx. 10-12 ft)because the soil structure, <br /> consisting of a silty sand-sandy silts possessed what appeared to be sufficient permeability, while <br /> soil below the 12-14 ft depth down to 25 ft consists of a clay material. Deep perc test results reveal <br /> that the silty sand-sandy.silt material is too.dense because of the encountered cemented silts hardpan <br /> to allow acceptable permeability, except on proposed Parcel C. <br /> Page -6- <br /> Chesney Consulting <br />