The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About318 B Strohm Cir - 211107101004INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION P.O. Box 179 - 500 Broadway • Eagle, Colorado 81631 Telephone: 328-8755 YELLOW COPY OF PERMIT MUST BE POSTED AT INSTALLATION SITE. PERMIT NO. 1609 Please call for final inspection before covering any portion of installed system. 1 q ?q,�,3 OWNER: William Bradford PHONE:(97Q) MAILINGADDRESS: P.O. BOX 206 City: GVpslim State: C:C1 Zip: Al 617 APPLICANT: same PHONE: SYSTEMLOCATION: 318 Strohm Circle, Gypsum, CO TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 2111-071-01-_04 LICENSED INSTALLER: o o EIU I�.rT u��D LICENSE NO: Z;;qrX DESIGN ENGINEER OF SYSTEM: INSTALLATION HEREBY GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: GALLON SEPTIC TANK ABSORPTION AREA REQUIREMENTS: SQUARE FEET OF SEEPAGE BED SQUARE FEET OF TRENCH BOTTOM. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: Installation 1 ati on om:pl eted before nprmi t wn,; i GGrtPd Fngi neer rPrti firai—inn needed for final inspection. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE: 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 CAUSE FOR 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: 558 SQUAREFEET. Via 18 infiltrator units INSTALLED SEPTIC TANK: 1250 GALLON _60 DEGREES 12 FEETFROM _ frnm NF. rnrnpr gf 1-hp bO,,S_e SEPTIC TANK ACCESS TO WITHIN 8" OF FINAL GRADE AND PROPER MATERIAL AND ASSEMBLY X YES NO COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY/ STATE REQUIREMENTS: X YES NO ANY ITEM CHECKED NO REQUIRES CORRECTION BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM IS MADE. ARRANGE A RE -INSPECTION WHEN WORK IS CORRECTED. COMMENTS: Engineer as hni1 s rPrPit7Pd1?-17-96 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE: Ma rrh 11, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE: (RE -INSPECTION IF NECESSARY) RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS APPLICANT / AGENT: PERMIT PERCOLATION TEST FEE OWNER: RECEIPT # CHECK# (Site Plan MUST be attached) ISDS Permit APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICE - EAGLE COUNTY P. 0. 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: "EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER" PROPERTY OWNER: MAILING ADDRESS: APPLICANT/CONTACT MAILING ADDRESS: LICENSED ISDS CONTRACTOR: COMPANY/DBA: (97o ) 1,4-qv PHONE: ADDRESS: 00- a ************************************************************************* PERMIT APPLICATION IS FOR: New Installation ( ) Alteration ( ) Repair ************************************************************************** LOCATION OF PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM: Building Permit # V (if known) Legal Description: Subdivision:9i.�x-/^-� J3 Filing:lBlock: Lot No. Tax Parcel Number: _L __� j-_ - I - , p_ Lot Size: _ ni— Street Address: 3 1 � ✓Cam(-�^ . L", BUILDING TYPE: (Check applicable category) ( Residential/Single Family Number of Bedrooms_ ( ) Residential/Multi-Family* Number of Bedrooms ( ) Commercial/Industrial* Type TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (Check applicable category) Well Spring Public Name of Supplier: ) Surface -I- (X) 6 �2 . `1 *These systems require design by'a Registered Professional Engineer SIGNATURE: ' VV•-r/LG°t a� **************************** *** Date: ***************************************** TO BE COMPLETED B TCOUNTY q HE C AMOUNT PAID: (S6.UD. RECEIPT #: ��3�� DATE:�tD 1 CHECK #: Lj Io O CASHIER: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (970) 328-8755 FAX: (970) 328-8788 TOLL FREE: 800-225-6136 www.eaolecounty.us EAGLE COUNTY P.O. Box 179 500 Broadway Eagle, CO 81631 www.eaglecounty.us PERMIT APPLICATION FOR ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM OWTS PERMIT # BUILDING PERMIT # INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED (SITE PLAN MUST BE INCLUDED) FEE SCHEDULE APPLICATION FEE $800.00 MAJOR REPAIR FEE $800.00 MINOR REPAIR FEE $400.00 This fee includes the OWTS Permit, Site Evaluation (Percolation Test, or Soil Profile Observation) and Final Inspection. Additional fees may be charged if a re -inspection is necessary, or a pre -construction site visit or consultation is needed. The re -inspection fee is $135.00 Make all remittance payable to: Eagle County Treasurer. Property Owner: U rad-;Dr� Fa r ly TfUI Phone: q7O 306 250Y Mailing Address: f OX (4/01 6 y4 i i gg Co email 2 cQger�ro� ( yak rev , ro m Registered Professional Engineer: Phone: �n ( j Applicant or Contact Person: I V t I TGIF �Q p fJ I�C� �p{�Gl K70 .. Phone: W 6 2 D 0 l Licensed Systems Contractor: Company / DBA: Mailing Address: License # Phone: email Permit Application is for: New Installation Alteration 1,)� Repair Location of Proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System: Legal Description: Tax Parcel Number: - i - Q Z1- o ( - 0 0 Assessor's Link: www.eaglecounty..us/patie/ Physical Address: P) '5 1 ohm CI,rc je Building Type: Residential / Single Family Residential / Multi Family Lot Size: �-t A (- re S Number of Bedrooms: Number of Bedrooms: Commercial / Industrial* Type of Use: *These systems require design my a Registered Professional Engineer Type of Water Supply: Private Well If Public Name of Supplier: Applicant Signature: {� ************************* Office Use Only Amount Paid: Spring Surface F)- Public . **************************************************** Receipt #: Check #: Date: Community Development Department (970) 328-8730 Fax: (970) 328-7185 TDD: (970) 328-8797 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO March 13, 1997 William Bradford P.O. Box 206 Gypsum, CO 81637 RE: Final of ISDS Permit No. 1609-96, Tax Parcel #2111-071-01-004. Property location: 318 Strohm Circle, Gypsum, CO. Dear Mr. Bradford: 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, Janet Kohl Environmental Health Department Eagle County Community Development ENCL:Information Brochure Final ISDS Permit cc: files Community Development Department (970)328-8730 Fax: (970) 328-7185 TDD: (970) 328-8797, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO August 6, 1996 William Bradford P.O. Box 206 Gypsum, CO 81637 RE: Installation at the Bradford residence, 318 Strohm Circle, Gypsum, CO. Eagle County Building P.O. Box 1-9 500 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 8 163 1 -01 i9 It has come to our attention, that you have installed an Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) on the above referenced property. This particular ISDS has not yet been permitted for alteration/construction. 4.03.29, Eagle County Land Use Regulations states: "Any person who commits any of the following acts or violates any of the provisions of this Article commits a Class I Petty Offense as defined in Section 18-1-107, C.R.S. 1973 as amended: 1. Constructs, alters, installs, or permits the use of any individual sewage disposal system without first having applied for and received a permit as provided in these Regulations. Consider this your only warning. Any further violations will be turned over to the attorney's office for civil and/or criminal proceedings. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 328-8755. Sincerely, Heather Savalox Environmental Health Specialist cc: Raymond P. Merry, Environmental Health Division Manager James R. Fritze, Eagle County Attorney HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. December 28, 1994 Bill Pavlisick P. O. Box 88 Wolcott, Colorado 81655 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 303 945-8454 Phone 303 945-7988 Job No. 194 542 Subject: Subsoil Study and Percolation Test, Proposed Residence, Lot 6B, Bertrock Subdivision, 318 Strohm Circle, Gypsum, Colorado. vz Dear T � ck: As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study and percolation test for foundation and septic disposal designs at the subject site. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to you dated November 22, 1994. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this report. Proposed Construction: The proposed residence will be a single story log structure above a basement level. The footprint will be about 1600 square feet and foundation walls are proposed to be masonry block. Ground floor will be slab -on -grade. Cut depths are expected to range between about 3 to 6 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 is moderate to steep sloping down to the southeast. A driveway had been rough cut to the general building area. Cuts and fills up to about 5 feet deep had been made at the end of the driveway. The cut exposed sand, silt and bedrock fragments. Several small dry drainages cross the lot. Vegetation consists of pinon and juniper trees. Bill R v istck December 28, 4994 Page 2 Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by excavating 2 exploratory pits at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The pits had been dug prior to our arrival at the site on November 29, 1994. The logs of the pits are presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered in Pit 1 below about 3 feet of fill, consist of siltstone fragments in a silt and sand matrix to the pit depth of 7 feet. Bedrock was apparently encountered at the bottom of the pit. At Pit 2, about 3 feet of topsoil and silty sand was encountered above highly featured and broken siltstone bedrock. Results of consolidation testing performed on a relatively undisturbed sample of the silty sand, presented on Fig. 3, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. Results of a gradation analysis performed on a sample of the broken siltstone (minus 1 1/2-inch fraction) obtained from the site are presented on Fig. 4. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was observed in the pits and the soils were moist. Foundation Recommendations: Considering the surface conditions encountered in the exploratory pits and cut slope and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend spread footings placed on the undisturbed natural soil or weathered bedrock and designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf for support of the proposed residence. There could be some settlement due to the variable bearing conditions and if the bearing soils become wetted. Footings should be a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. Loose and disturbed soils and existing fill encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excavation should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the undisturbed natural soils or bedrock. The bearing surface should be mechanically compacted. 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 H-P GEOTECH Bill 1q December 28, 1994 Page 3 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 45 pcf for the on -site soil and well -broken rock fragments as backfill. Floor Slabs: The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade 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 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 and well broken bedrock 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 bedrock is shallow that local perched groundwater may develop during times of eavy-precip4 tion or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend H-P GEOTECH Bill December 28, 1994 Page 4 below grade construction, such as retaining walls 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 1 1/2 feet deep. 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. Free -draining wall backfill should be capped with about 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 H-P GEOTECH Bill PavPisiek- December 28, 1994 Page 5 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. Percolation Tests: The exploratory pits were excavated close to the general proposed septic disposal area. The profiles indicate that bedrock is relatively shallow. The percolation test results are presented in Table II and show rates of between about 11 to 30 minutes per inch. The findings indicate that the preferred disposal area would be more downhill from Pit 1 where the soil depth may be sufficient for an infiltration system. Additional subsurface profile and percolation testing will probably be needed. The system should be designed by a civil engineer. 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, 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. 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 H-P GEOTECH Bill Pav4isiek December 28, 1994 Page 6 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 soil engineer. If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. xg. Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. Reviewed By: L Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. SLP/rr Attachments H-P GEOTECH i i Not To Scale P3 45 Ft. Pit 2 P2�.30 Ft -:PM 30 Ft. P 1 e 40 Ft. o0 Pit 1 13,5 ft. Assumed } Building Area In Lot 6B \,- 7-0 o Stroh,, Cir c% i Ptl ORTH-PAWLAK -- - _- _ 194 452 14KOlMCHN"L, meLocation of Pits and Percolation Tests Fig.1 Pit 1 0 5 __, wC=5.5 +4=17 200=50 Pit 2 L_ 10 LEGEND: TOPSOIL; organic sand and silt, loose, dark brown. DRIVEWAY FILL EMBANKMENT; sand, silt and siitstone fragments, loose, red -brown. SAND (SM); silty, fine to medium grained, slightly moist, red- brown. SILT, SAND and SILTSTONE (GM); weathered rock fragments in silt and sand matrix, blocks to 2' size, moist, red -brown. WEATHERED BEDROCK; siitstone, clayey, sandy, highly fractured and broken, sandy silt matrix, moist, red -brown. 2" diameter hand driven liner sample. j Disturbed bulk sample. NOTES: - - 1 1. Exploratory pits were observed on November 29, 1994 andhadbeen dug with a backhoe. 2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features at the site (see fig. 1 for location sketch). 3. Elevations of exploratory pits were not measured and logs of the pits are drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory pit locations 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 borings at the time of observation. Fuctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = 'Hater Content DD = Dry Density (pcf) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve 10 194 452 fl ECHNICA , nc. LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 2 Moisture Content =10.3 percent Dry Unit Weight = 96 pcf Sample of. Silty Sand From: pit 2 at 2 1/2 feet a 0 U) 0 1 o 2 Compression Upon Wetting U 3 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE - kSf 194 542 �GEOTECHNICAL, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK Inc. I SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3 s v z U) Vl 6 z z W u s a HYDROMETER 02�.1..�...�...-�- a��a�aaaa\aa�� S ' aM N\ M�a�— SM N—aia�aa�aNaC==�� N��a�aaaaa�aaaaa m= a�a�a� aa�l� —a— Z- r 1011= .�aSC��CC=� was 1111111111mmila..- 0 a z Z W U a .47--- -- 2.0 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GFIAVEL COBBLE! CLAY TO SILT FINE MEDIUM 1COAnSEI FINE I COAN;iE GRAVEL 17 % SAND 33 % SILT AND CLAY 50 % LIQUID LIMIT %PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF Sandy Silt to Siltstone FROM Pit 1 at. 5 to 6 feet HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE_ ANALYSIS TIME HEADINGS U.S. SIANOAIID SERIES CLEAR SOUAHE OPENINGS 7 HR. '10 - •, 0 z a W 7 W V R a ) MEMM N- Nam jj ••— �� ME M—EM=�O��C ' -�-�Inane.-�._--tl!\NON-\aalaal\=�= �a��'��!\ N-aal��N!\. ■� DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL CLAY 70 SILT FINE I MEDIUM jCoAnsEj FINE I COARSE GRAVEL % SAND % SILT AND CLAY % LICUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF FROM 194 542 HEPWORTH-RAWLAK GRADATION TEST RESULTS mg. 4 GEOTECHVICAL, Inc. u M J Crl LJrr LU } z Z) U) ! L I o Y L N N U G7 cn cz I ca I I r i j - X W I �'1 1 cWi w w u O� 1 Gsi �I C C W .+ = LO L7 0 1 o U I i c o° a L �O" ! f W a � g m HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE II Ft:KL;ULA I IUN 1 E5 1 HESULTS JOB NO. 194 542 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 26 30 7 1/2 4 1 /4 3 1 /4 11 4 1/4 1 1/2 2 3/4 P-2 33 30 9 6 1/2 2 1 /2 17 6 1/2 5 1 1/2 5 3 1 /4 1 3/4 P-3 25 30 8 3/4 7 1/2 1 1 /4 30 7 1/2 6 1/2 1 6 1 /2 5 1 /2 1 Note: The percolation holes had been dug and soaked by client prior to our visit. Community Development Department (970) 328-8730 Fax: (970) 328-7185 TDD: (970) 328-8797 September 18, 1996 William Bradford P.O. Box 206 Gypsum, CO 81637 Dear Mr. Bradford, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Eagle County Building P.O. Box 179 500 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 This letter is being provided as a follow-up to our telephone conversations as well as the visit we had when you came to my office on September 6, 1996. Eagle County is interested in outlining a methodology through which we can resolve the issue surrounding the premature installation of your septic system which was done by a non -licensed individual. Our interest lies in gaining the information necessary to render a favorable approval of your septic system and to help insure your private wastewater system will function properly for you. The geotechnical report performed by Hepworth-Pawlak several years ago recommended a Registered Professional Engineer be consulted for proper siting of the septic system on your lot. Subsequent conversations with their company revealed that the reason for this recommendation was due to the presence of shallow bedrock over portions of the lot. - Eagle County and the State of Colorado regulations require a four foot separation from the bottom of the absorption area to bedrock. Since the system has already been installed prior to permitting, Eagle County remains willing to allow for proper certification of your system to be performed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. This will likely require a soil profile be excavated adjacent to the absorption area to determine whether or not bedrock is present within the four foot vertical setback. In addition, the engineer can evaluate the capacity of the septic tank and area of absorption installed. Should bedrock be present, it will be necessary to re -design and permit another septic system. Based on our conversations, it is Eagle County's understanding that you have retained the services of a Registered Professional Engineer for the purpose of conducting the aforementioned evaluation. Please have the individual who installed the system return the paperwork provided which can allow him to become a Licensed System's Contractor so we may issue the permit after the appropriate certifications are obtained. It is the interest of Eagle County to resolve this issue as soon as possible in order for us to opine that your new home has an adequate, permitted and approved septic system. Sincerely Raymon ry, REHS Environ6r6ntal Health Division cc: James R. Fritze, Eagle County Attorney Jeff Schroll, Gypsum Town Manager Jerry C. Law, P.E. 335 Donegan Road Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-2769 November 12, 1996 Missie Trujillo Environmental Health Specialist Eagle County Building 500 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 (970)328-8755 Reference: Bill Bradford ISDS Permit Lot 6B Bertrock Subdivision 318 Strohm Circle Gypsum, Colorado 81637 (970)524-9463 Dear Ms. Trujillo: I was asked in early October to check the design of Mr. Bradford's septic installation for compliance with Colorado State and Eagle County health regulations. I understand that he paid a "fee" early in the building process thinking that it was for a septic "permit". Summary I found the ISDS installation by Mr. Bradford to be quite impressive. He designed a system which exceeds the needs of his house (one bedroom) and allows for future bedrooms to be added, in case the house sells. The system meets, or exceeds, the County's standards for safe operation. Design Design flow: 75gpd (2pp bdrm) x 1.5 (2 bdrms) = 450gpd Design area, larger of : a. (Sq. root of perc rate) x Design flow/5 = 290.24 s.£ b. Loading rate: Design flow/1.2 = 450/1.2 = 375 s.f. c. Table 5: (165 s.f./bdrm) x 2 bdrms = 330 s.f. Design technology "Infiltrator" chambers. Each chamber is 12" high and has an area of 18.75 s.f. available, however, Eagle County only allows 15.5 s.f. to be used in calculations to provide a safety factor. A 53% factor is used by Eagle County to calculate the area of field required using "Infiltrator" technology rather than the total design area of 375 s.f shown above for a conventional leech field. 375 s.f. x 0.53 = 198.75 s.f. 198.76 s.f. / 15.5 s.f. per Infiltrator = 12.8 chambers required for a two bedroom home. Round up to 13 chambers for minimum installation requirements for a two bedroom home. Mr. Bradford installed 9 chambers in series with an additional 9 chambers, or a total of 18 chambers. Further calculations reveal that Mr. Bradford has installed an ISDS which is 1.25 Infiltrator chambers short (19.25 req'd) of being permissible for a 3 bedroom (6 people) house. Field Data Four holes were dug at 5:20 P.M.on October 16, 1996, then filled with water. The holes were dug at only 20" to 25" to better represent the soil conditions in the leech field since the field was already in place at final grade. The temperature was in the mid to high 40's. It rained almost nonstop all day long. The site was returned to on October 17, 1996. All four holes were filled with water and allowed to soak 40 minutes. The holes were filled a second time to obtain the times shown in the chart. The initial time started when the level sank to at least 15" below the surface in the 20"+ holes; the bottom 25% in other words. HOLE # TIME DEPTH TIME DEPTH Chg/time RATE A 10:44:00 16.5" 11:14:00 18.5" 2"/30:00 15.Omin/in B 10:46:00 18.25" 11:16:00 23.5" 5.25"/30:00 5.7min/in C 10:48:00 15.625" 11:18:00 19.625" 4.0"/30:00 7.5min/in D 10:50:00 15.125" 11:20:00 17.375" 2.25"/30:00 13.3min/in (15.0 + 5.7 + 7.5 + 13.3) / 4 = 10.4 minutes per inch average percolation rate. The soils engineers, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. measured rates of 11, 17, and 30 min/inch on November 29, 1994. The slower percolation rates experienced in 1994 may have been caused by a different soil type or cold temperatures. The soils report does not mention the temperature or if the holes were protected from the cold overnight. Please feel free to call or write if you have any questions about this design or the enclosed inspection. Sincerely, erry Encl.: Inspection form and as -built site plan cc: Bill Bradford ISDS Final Ins ection. Completeness Form Tank is 1200 gal. Tank Material Cohcre& ✓ Tank is located /,S- ft. and S30'Wdegrees from �nsPecfph PPe (permanent landmark) ✓ Tank is located Oft. and � Edegrees from NE co"CR 170.f15 (permanent Iandm"rk) Y Tank set level. ieS Tank lids within 8" of finished grade. �✓ Size of field 33(c, ft2 �8 units 3 w:d� lineal ft. Technology �Ti ra of t� yes Cleanout is installed in between tank and house(+ 1/100ft). �8S There is a "T".that goes down 14 inches in the inlet and outlet of.the tank. %S Inlet and outlet is sealed with tar tape, ubber gaske etc. Tank has two compartments with the,larger compartment closest to the house. Measure distance and relative direction to field. x Depth of field f t . %5 Soil interface raked. YES Inspection portals at the end of each trench. Proper distance to setbacks. ✓ ' L y 4 Other `f. s . Dro -Pro- Jwhk ��G'([ �h f"lt,4 r-ll,,,iBrS 'h 5741441levo%C?Pr in sfal/,t oh i-, S IVRc T,,hs Yes Inspection meets reauirements.- yc4 Copy form to installer's file if recommendations for improvement were suggested. ACTION TAKEN: Setbacks Well Potable House Property Lake Dry Tank Drain Water Lines line Stream Gulch Field 100 NA- 25✓ 20✓6" 10✓ 50 ti/� 25Np 10✓' 10✓ Tank 500A 10✓ 5,/�-' 10,/ 501M 101VI * 10✓ N FI1, TRiq TOR CYAM B61;�S V SE1RICS1 q 6A(# 51DE 'ERCta)4T1o1V PoLcs B�RC, D SHOWN Polo rtv -,V) 1S DS 8 R�41?Fd .R II ry . -F� !3£,-7"ROCIk 548 IViSlot) 319 SrPOH/)-) ClRe-LE 6 YPS��;, Co SY: J6RRY C. LAw P. E, OCT 2 2, /914. Jerry C. Law, P.E. December 17, 1996 335 Donegan Road Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-2769 Janet Kohl Environmental Health Specialist Eagle County Building 500 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 Reference: Bill Bradford ISDS Permit 4' Test hole results Dear Ms. Kohl: I dug the test hole 48" below the bottom of the infiltrators on November 26, 1996 to verify the soils beneath the leech field. The results observed were very similar to the original soils report by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical with a broad use of the word "bedrock". H-P used terms in their report to describe the formations as: "sand, silt and bedrock fragments", "siltstone fragments", "highly fractured and broken siltstone bedrock", "bedrock relatively shallow". The 48" hole took 39 minutes to dig, which included two short coffee sip breaks. Two rocks, 3"x8"xl2", were encountered in the top 24" which slowed progress. The photos attached were taken of the hole and cuttings to show the on -site conditions. Although the digging was somewhat tough at times, I prefer to downplay the term "bedrock" which H-P used and focus more on their descriptive words like "fragments, highly fractured, weathered, and broken". Original ground surface. 0'- Sand, silt, brown to gray, graveled siltstone. 1'- 14" layer of fractured siltstone. 2'- Bottom of Infiltrator chambers. 3'- Sand, silt, and siltstone fragments, loose, red -brown. Two stones, 3"x8"xl2", in a silt/sand matrix, fractured siltstone. Easy digging,. clayey, sandy silt gravel (-) matrix, tan. Bottom of 4' test hole, fractured siltstone, sandy clay. Weathered "bedrock": siltstone, highly fractured and broken, clayey, silty. 4'- 5'- 6'- 7'- 8'- _ aow -may. � .: �-• REo. n C:�3 D The concern over the "bedrock" mentioned in the soils report was worth investigating. However, the soil and rock in the test hole were found to be so weathered and fractured that the behavior of the digging was easier than that found in a gravel pit. It is my opinion, after observing the percolation tests, inspecting the septic installation, and digging the 48" test hole, that the Bradford septic system and leech field will provide a long service life while maintaining a high degree of safety to the surrounding environment. Per our telephone conversation at about 4:00 P.M. on November 26, 1996, this report will be delayed in sending while photos are developed of the site. y Sincerely, ��W�Q•�. 2,5044x ,Cod a®o'umscooe®peo'e �`' Jerry C. Law, P.E. cc: Bill Bradford Encl: 2 pages of Site photos } .if r z � r � • r�i,.TJ+�`S` 'ems F z 't } 3 �,,. , . .` .. Ada f,..e- 6"0�� ,.f. •, ` .} 4 5 Ai tie;;+' .•. - _ - r tty � 1 ! � e jc?.F�'r.l �i w.trµyp`'�r�+' y �'! 'r. • ql' '. : l - i ` a IV- -i.... , . 48 TEST HOLE. N' END OF FIEL Ak- G RA DATI O N OF EXCAVATION r LAYERS o"-6�8" 33.3 T' a � rar LA 900003'05"W 239.24' � o ` � O ,0 \ s o � Z O �tP 1 c v+ a cm- o a= m c • ci -s a -s � s J O ;10 �3 -\ o F 0i a CD �'9 F� N �Y \ \ o O p O <� n�c rno m ,l Q 0� y = H _j• a�• N m v� m (n m n 01-11 r- -t a c a ct n. v m p s� tPs `9i9- tS� Y tPs \ f Tl ro?marl)s O Q,` u' v r-sD < r+ • 'O to cr �frnool ut`t1 o (A A) CD ' � f�*� Ln 0 \ \\ < 0; a ro st OD� �,1 1 �� %P, s O oarr C: MOj Cn Zml 1 (7 9 C' E3 O `� O O '9 O a i ro -n , =J= con NZI cn r' 3�o� _ rn � 1 cn o 0a o O X ncmr--s O D 1 1 rt 0 ca C+ cn O c m Cl.rn. 03 09 O m )- N Tr�a �� :)-sn=a+-S n O _ CDr C0. - << fD Cr) rr O t Gl J —j o—h = w 1 a 1 .W m W 1 1 w 1 1 1� S00003'05"W 209.24' � 1 Z p cn =CD T r� o cr $ O O Nrn; i i+.. r+w i t, 111 uw a un ti�-. t_� �. t: �, I i I LL •J V J J'-iJ V�-F J'i ri U!j 1 J � V 'V • l U IN . UU 1 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Sprinos, NCO 81$Oj 970-945-7988 870-945-8464 Facsimile FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM TO: COMPANY: FAX NUMBER:' ^ `7/. . _ JOB NUMBER__ FROM: b, rJ �. DATE: -EY(2 Z5 (a NUMBER OF PAGESI (Including this page) MESSAGE: t"l The original of this transmittal will be sent by: Ordinary Mail -a Overnight Iva Fax Only IN If you experience any problems receiving this transmission, please call: 970-945-7988 SENT BY: 4-1