Laserfiche WebLink
061.5 Ringer Subdivision <br />Faye 6 <br />Lot 6, Block 2 <br />Peres PA61 thru PA66. Borings BA61 thru BA63. Slopes are nearly <br />level. Mottling occurred below 1.5', with actual water <br />encountered below 5.7'. (Note that soil appears saturated <br />below 2.5') Perc rates were acceptable, although t of 6 taken <br />at depth very very slow. Both primary and secondary sites should <br />use mound systems. <br />Lot 1, Block 3 <br />Peres PC11 thru PC19. Boring SC11 and BC12. This lot contains <br />an existing house, garage and barn. The existing septic system <br />is unknown and was not located during my routine inspection in <br />July 1981, although no evidence of failure was noted. A future <br />drainfield site has been tested to the south of the house. Average <br />percolation rate is 21 minutes per incI►; soil borings indicate <br />soils suited for a shallow trench or round system, with mottling <br />beginning at a depth of 5'. This is the highest elevated point <br />in the entire subdivision and appears to be the only lot possibly <br />suited for a shallow trench system. An attempt should be made <br />to locate the existing system to ensure it is within the lot <br />boundaries, although there is only a remotr, possibility that it <br />isn't. <br />Lot 2, Block 3 <br />Peres PC21 thru PC24. Coring:, DC21 and BC22. 1iii, lot contains <br />an existing hou:;c and cr.:all shed. The r,ai sting septic system is <br />unknown a-.d was not located during my i.nspec•Lion last July. No <br />evidence of systeut failure is noted. While the c;sistin�j system <br />undoubtedly consists of trcnches, soils data provided fo: a future <br />drainfield site indicatcs mottling ai. a 3.5' depth. This indicates <br />that the replacer,►,:ni . : yu%.c:n, should it ever he ncccssary, would <br />probably have to b_ a mound. Percolation rate; averaged 56 mpi. <br />It would al';o be advisable to locate the c::isting system to ensure <br />it is within '.hc now lot buundaric:;. <br />B. Discussion of Eound <br />Since the proposed Itincjcr subdivision appears to need mound systems <br />throughout, it mic-lit he worthwhile to revicu the conditions which <br />favor use of mrnu►d :;y:.te;,is ovor conventional trench :;y:;tcns. <br />As you are aware, a bi!wat Lorur; at the ruck -:;oil interface in a <br />standard trench systew. Thi;; biomat acts as a "valve" to slow <br />the downward harculation of l;cptic tank effluent to a r, to where <br />the flow is unsaturated, i.e. air in the soil pores is in contact <br />with the herculatiruj cfflucnC. Under thc;;c cs;:;cntial conditions, <br />ad(--rluate scwarje treatment will uccu! . llowcver, i►► many soils, <br />either a seasonal saturated condition or c::tremcly fine, impermeable <br />sail texture (or bc)t_h) tends to eliminutc the air/effluent. contact <br />and alsu :;cvcrcly limit!; the !;oils cal;,city to abr;orb lar�le amounts <br />of effluent. 1'o en:;ure that a sl.ai,rlard trench sy`',t-in is not <br />