SU0003962 SSNL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

May 21,2002 L, Job Number:LG02-140 Page 9 6. VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In summary, a satisfactory percolation rate was achieved on proposed Parcel No. 2. No ` other parcel obtained a satisfactory percolation rate in either a shallow percolaiton test or deep test. No ground water was encountered in any of the borings drilled on the property. The depth to ground water during Fall 1998 and Spring 1999 San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water 6. Conservation District ground-water map was about 180 feet below the ground surface. The ground water flow direction is generally toward the west ranging between 6.7 to 7.1 feet per mile. A neighboring domestic water well was tested for nitrate and DBCP. DBCP was non- detectable and Nitrate was found to be at 10 mg/L-NO3 which is well below the maximum contaminate limit 45 mg/L-NO3. `. Based on the results of this study, our office has found the soils to be suitable for a standard septic system with leach lines and see age pits for Proposed.Parcel No: 2_Proposed Parcel No.'s 1, 3, and 4 may require an en .n septic system if suitable soils are not located on other p o e property. Additional exploratory drilling and percolation testing could be performed on these parcels when the building site is determined. If additional drilling and ` percolation testing is not desired, an engineered septic system could be designed based on very low percolation rates which are unsatisfactory for a typical septic system. 4 We believe that due to the large proposed parcel sizes,heterogeneous layering of the soils encountered, and the depth to ground water, the use of the conventional septic systems or engineered septic systems on the property will not negatively impact the ground water quality of 6. the area. We recommend that the design and installation of the septic system on proposed Parcel No. 2 follow the requirements established by the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Division. A decision whether to pursue additional drilling/percolation testing or engineered design will need to be determined by the affected property owners. VIII. LIMITATIONS The conclusions of this report are based on the information provided regarding the existing and proposed development, the use of the subject property, and the site conditions as they existed at the time we excavated our test hole and performed the percolation test. It was assumed that the test hole and percolation test results are representative of the subsurface conditions in the general area. 6. 'ones i �r V