Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
pitkin.eh.246527301003 (2000)
Document Layout (From Most Recent to Oldest Permit) Permit Application Log Sheet/Notes & Photos Communications As -built Design Engineer Design Soil Information Water Permit & Information Second System on property Third System etc. Floor Plans Please See Building and Land Use Approvals Files for additional information. 11 Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department Permit for an Individual Sewage Disposal System 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 970-920-5070/FAX 970-920-5074 Permit# 99070 Parcel ID # 2465-273-01-003 Type of permit New(X ) Repair( ) Addition to House( ) Name of Owner Margaret Woods Street Address 0012 Sage Rim Circle Property legal description Lot 32 Sopris Mtn Ranch Basall Size of lot 35 acres Total square footage of the house Water source Private well # of bedrooms in house Caretaker unit n/a Colo 3774 # of offices, lofts & similar sized rooms in house Total square footage of the caretaker unit n/a # of bedrooms in caretaker unit n/a # of offices, lofts & similar sized rooms in caretaker unit n/a Designed for what # rooms (list) FIVE (3 Bedrooms, 1 Office, 1 Library) Permit information Designed by EO Church Mailing Address 4501 Wadsworth Boulevard Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 (303)463-9317 Perc rate 120mpi Profile hole depth over 8' Depth to groundwater or bedrock Septic tank capacity 3,000 gallons Absorption area 8400 sq ft Comments over 8' Septic permit approved per compliance with the engineer design and specifications dated August 13, 1999, with the Sept. 22, 1999 amendment to Figure 1. Any changes must be approved by this department and the design engineer ri r to them being made. Minimum horizontal distances between components of the system and physical features shall conform to the Pitkin County ISDS regulations. This department does not endorse any brand of products that may be specified by the engineer. This department will require and alarm system be installed to notify the owner if the waste disposal system fails to perform as designed. This permit for a drip irrigation system shall be recorded in real estate records for the property prior to installation. Permit approved by: Date: Z)G%/ 3,/'9 '' Plans and specifications of the proposed individual sewage disposal system have been reviewed and are considered satisfactory. Permission is hereby granted to the owner or the agent to perform the work indicated in accordance with the Pitkin County ISDS Regulation in effect at the time of issue. This permit becomes invalid 6 months from the date that the permit was issued unless system construction has commenced or an extension has been approved in writing by the Department. As -built drawings (m�-u�st(b�e included with this permit before the final approval will be issued. Installer: _ . Cf t �7 C ��� Final inspection approval:- 0 0 Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department Permit for an Individual Sewage Disposal System 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 970-920-5070 / FAX 970-920-5074 Permit # 99070 Parcel ID # 2465-273-01-003 Type of permit New(X ) Repair( ) Addition to House( ) Name of Owner Margaret Woods Street Address 0012 Sage Rim Circle Property legal description Lot 32 Sopris Mtn Ranch Basals Size of lot 35 acres Total square footage of the house Colo 3774 Water source Private well # of bedrooms in house 3 # of offices, lofts & similar sized rooms in house 2 Caretaker unit n/a Total square footage of the caretaker unit n/a # of bedrooms in caretaker unit n/a # of offices, lofts & similar sized rooms in caretaker unit n/a 1' FIVE (3 Bedrooms; 1 Office, i Library) Permit information Designed by EO Church Mailing Address 4501 Wadsworth Boulevard Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 (303)463-9317 Perc rate 120mpi Profile hole depth over 8' Depth to groundwater or bedrock Septic tank capacity 3,000 gallons Absorption area 8400 sq it Comments over 8' Septic permit approved per compliance with the engineer design and specifications dated August 13, 1999, w the Sept. 22, 1999 amendment to Figure 1. Any changes must be approved by this department and the design engineer prior to them being made. Minimum horizontal distances between components of the system and physical features shall conform to the Pitkin County ISDS regulations. This department does not endorse any brand of products that may be specified by the engineer. This department will require and alarm system be installed to notify the owner if the waste disposal system fails to perform as designed. This permit for a drip irrigation system shall be recorded in real estate records for the property prior to installation. Permit approved by: Date: Oen/ 3,,/99 cj Plans and specifications of the proposed individual sewage disposal system have been reviewed and are considered satisfactory. Permission is hereby granted to the owner or the agent to perform the work indicated in accordance with the Pitkin County ISDS Regulation in effect at the time of issue. This permit becomes invalid 6 months from the date that the permit was issued unless system construction has commenced or an extension has been approved in writing by the Department. As -built drawings must be included with this permit before the final approval will be issued. Installer: ATTENTION This Individual Sewage Disposal System is considered a DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM For information regarding the Moisture Reports, please refer to the Drip Irrigation file under W for water, then ISDS. Thank you! 0 0 ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS June 30, 2000 Margaret Woods c/o K.C. Smith Builders Inc. 6801 East Sopris Creek Road Snowmass, CO 81654 Subject: Installation Observation, Proposed Residence Parcel 32, Sopris Mountain Ranch Pitkin County, Colorado Job No. 11474 Ms. Woods, As requested, we observed the installation of the onsite wastewater system (OWS) for the subject site on June 28. The system was designed under our Job No. 11474, dated August 13, 1999. The system includes the installation of a 2000 -gallon, single -compartment, precast concrete septic tank followed by a 1000 -gallon single -compartment precast concrete septic tank with a pump in a biotube vault. Eight sections of drip irrigation drain field were installed, as indicated on Figure 1, for a total area of 8400 square feet. The pump, alarm, and biotube vault were in place at the time of our visit. The construction foreman, Don Glen, may activate pumping system at his discretion. The components of the OWS were installed in conformance with our plans and specifications. If there are questions or if we may be of further service, please call. Sincerely, CHURCH and Associates, Edwa"Church,��' ?' 172 EOC/trp 'NL_, , UNAI 2 copies sent copy to APEHD, Attn: Nancy MacKenzie copy to Stutzman Gerbaz, 30376 State Highway 82, Snowmass, CO 81654 t-' DENVER 4501 Wadsworth Boulevard Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 CASTLE ROCK 303.660.4358 J 303.463.9317 Fax: 303.463.9321 EVERGREEN 303.816.1455 LOT 32, SOPRIS MOUNTAIN RANCH PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO 8400 SF OF DRIP IRRIGATION FIELD IN 8 SECTIONS A SECTIONS - 10 FEET X 100 FEET / OC�TIlIAIP In rr rT X 100 FEET FA L JOB NO. 11474 E SCALE 1 " = 40' WELL LOCATION 160 FEET FROM �o PROPOSED / DRAIN FIELD WELL PROPOSED 5 BEDR RESIDENCE ('� / • CLEANOUT Ig o� I DISTRIBUTION VALVES / B _ l- SOPRIS MOUNTAIN ROAD OWS AS -BUILT DRAWING /ONE 2000 GALLON SI CONCRETE SEPTIC T BE l" FOLLOWED BY ON 000 GALLON SINGLE COMPART ENT PRE -CAST CONCRETE SEPT)C, WITH PUMP IN BIOTUBE VAUL . SAGE RIM CIRCLE CONTOURS PROVIDED BY K. C. SMITH BUILDERS INC FIGURE 1 ., Q - d`.p ..� ...... �Mg�rH"9 - ,� _ ,...,.,.__...... _ ... ... f .. . ,.. . i.. .�,.�...:.:. � _ ..,........ ..... .. ,. a: . ,,. ,. �. ...:':ro:. ... ... .. .. ASPEN/PITKENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMEO ISDS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS -DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Name Maggie Woods -DRIP House Size 3,774 (75 gpd, 100 gpd, or 130 gpd) 100 #of Bedrooms, Similar Rooms accessible to baths in Main Residence 5 # of Bedrooms, similar rooms w/ access to bath in ATTACHED caretaker # of Bedrooms & Similar Rooms w/ access to baths in DETTACHED caretaker Average Daily Waste Flow 750 # bedrooms X 2 people/br X 75 State Review Required? no Perc Rate 120 (T) d equals # of Perc Holes Required Design Flo w (Q) = # bedrooms X 2 people/bedroom X gpd X 1.75 Q= 1750 / U Minimum tank capacity 2188 gallons r Absorption Area (A= Q/5 X SORT) A = 3834 sq. ft. of absorption area required 247 infiltrator units without reduction A maximum 300% reduction is allowed for use of deep gravel or gravelless chambered system 2684 sq.ft. with reduction 173 infiltrator units with reduction AREA NEEDED FOR STANDARD ABSORPTION TRENCHES v � —�',/P 1278 3834 Total sq ft /3 =lineal ft of trench needed mild- ,.:...• 22 1278 lineal ftlassumed trench length of 60ft = # of 60ft trenches needed 21 # trenches minus 1 = rows of Eft wide undisturbed soil between trenches 66 22 times 3 = total width of of 60" long field needed for just the trenches 126 21 times 6' = total width of 60' long field needed just for undisturbed soil 112 width of trench +width of undisturbed soil = total width needed 192 by 60 ft is the area needed for a standard absorption field in a trench configuration with no reductions taken and ASSUMING AN AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE OF 1m SLOWER PERCOLATING SOILS WOULD REQUIRE MORE AREA. SETBACK FROM WELL SETBACK FROM POND, STREAM OR IRRIGATION DITCH # of feet = 160 # of feet = 110 SETBACK FROM DRY GULCH # of feet = 85 Remember: 8 feet of additional distance for each 100 gallons/day of design flow over 1,000 gallons/day should be added unless an RPE can verify that it is not necessary to prevent contamination. 1/20/99 ( Printed on Recycled Paper 0 0 Engineer's Submittal for Septic Permit in Pitkin County Owner's Last Name: WOODS Location: PAR 32, SOPRIS MOUNTAIN RANCH Summary of information regarding new septic system: Type of system being proposed: SEPTIC TANK AND DRIP IRRIGATION FIELD Other treatment processes being used: NONE Does the system use any mechanical parts? (Prohibited unless there is no alternative)YFS If yes, explain why there are no alternatives A PUMP IS REQUIRED DUE TO ELEVATION DIFFERENCE FROM SEPTIC TANKS TO DRAIN FIELDS AND DRAIN FIELD NEEDS TO HAVE EFFLUENT EVENLY DISTRIBUTED Does the system require any maintenance other than routine pumping? YES If yes, who will do the maintenance? CLEAN FILTER WHEN SEPTIC TANK IS PUMPED Are any reductions being proposed? NO If yes, what makes the lot and soil conditions optimal? Which of the following are on the site or within setbacks? Closest distance of septic system to each feature 100 year floodplain N/A [] well(s) >160 FEET [] irrigation ditches [] streams N/A [] ponds N/A [] other features N/A What was the profile hole depth? 8' What is the depth to groundwater? N/A What is the depth to bedrock? NL What assumptions, if any, were made in system siting and design? (Include any local, site- specific data, such as months without snow cover, ratio of evaporation to absorption, etc. that are relevant.) If there are any variations from normal design, please explain how they can be demonstrated to improve treatment and protect water quality. NONE 9 ASPEN/PITIQN EN*ONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARMNT ISDS DESIGN CALCULATIONS Owner's Name WQ.OAS , ;w rL Parcel ID House Size (sq. ft) 2000=11000'3(75 gpd,100 gpd, or 130 gpd) 100 Number of Bedrooms in Main House Number of Offices, Libraries, Studies, Similar -sized Rooms in Main House';,i;: Number of Bedrooms in Detached Caretaker unit S- _;'fir. '?o Number of Offices, Studies, Similar -sized Rooms in Caretaker Unit — '-0 (If the caretaker unit is ATTACHED, treat as if part of main house.) Average Daily Waste Flow 1000 State Review Required? no Perc Rate P, .`.';?i"'; ;"`111 0) Design Flow (Q) = # potential bedrooms X 2 people/ bedroom X gpd X 1.75 Q= 1750 Absorption Area (A= Q/5 X SQRT) A = 8400 sq. ft of absorption area required infiltrator units without reduction A maximum 30% reduction is allowed for use of deep gravel or gravelless chambered system, only if the lot size and soil conditions are optimal. If a reduction is being proposed, describe why lot size and soil conditions are optimal: A = sq.ft. with reduction N.A. infiltrator units with reduction Type of system: QAbsorption trenches []Absorption bed [] Gravelless chambers I]Dry well []Seepage Pit [X]Other - Drip Irrigation System Minimum tank capacity 2188 gallons SETBACK FROM WELL # of feet = 160 SETBACK FROM POND, STREAM OR IRRIGATION DITCH # of feet = 110 SETBACK FROM ply GjJ�C" # of feet FINAL INSPECTION BY: IU DATE: 0 August 10, 1999 0 ASPEN • _PITION FwRoNmLNTA6 Huun DuAM. W7 We have been notified that you are going to install a Drip Irrigation sewage disposal system for your property and we want to be sure that you, the property owner, understand what this means. This is an alternative method of wastewater disposal not provided for in the Pitkin County Regulations. As such, it has been declared an experimental system and the installation of a total of eighteen such systems have been approved. Attached is a copy of Resolution 1"99-34 which was adopted by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners, acting as the Pitkin County Board of Health. We request that you read the conditions of the resolution and sign the bottom of this letter stating that you understand these conditions. We have taken these precautions because Drip Irrigation is an experimental system in this area. Several hundred of these systems have been installed on the Eastern Slope. However, we do not have historical data to know how the system will perform at this altitude and in the extreme and varying weather conditions we experience. Some conditions that must be met before we can issue your septic permit are as follows: If a "water balance " method of calculating waste load is applied, a monitoring plan must be submitted to determine saturation status of soils. After installation, you must provide a written report to this Department documenting maintenance on the system for a period of five years, and submit it to this Department in January of each year. kt4- zi%)`i-g Owner Signature Date I understand Resolution #99-34 Address of Property 130 Som GAL@!A Sneer • ASMN, Cotomm 81611.1975 • PHQ?a 970 930.5070 • FAX 970920.5197 , PRmm .K.7,1Mn" AJG-25-99 WED 02:23 PM ASPEN/PITKIN ENV HEALTH FAX:970 920 5074 PAGE 4 Resolution # 99 - 1. The Pitkin County Board of Commissioners has declared in the Pitkin County Individual Sewage Disposal Syst= Regulation ation (Regulation), support for alternative methods of wastewater disposal not otherwise provided for in the Regulation. In this case such an alternative system commonly known as Drip Irrigation shall be declared "experimental" 2. The Pitkin County Board of Commissioners has declared in the Regulation that the experimental system trust be designed by a Registered Professional Engineer prior to submittal to the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department for review. 3. The Pitkin County Board of Commissioners, acting as the Pitkin County Board of Health (PCBOH) recognizes, and the Regulation states: "The Local Board of Health may not arbitrarily deny any person the right to consideration of an application for such a system and shall apply reasonable performance standards in determining whether to approve an application." NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, that the use of "Drip Irrigation" as an experimental wastewater disposal system in Pitkin County meets the conditions of the Regulation to be declared experimental, and sitting as the Pitkin County Board of Health declare approval for installation of a total of eighteen (18) such systems in the County with the following conditions: 1. Any permit for installation of a Drip Irrigation wastewater disposal system must be issued in the name(s) of the legal owners of the property invoked, must contain an accurate description of the property, and must conspicuously display the requirements in Section 4-20 of the Regulation, titled; "Experimental Systems". t • l a • 4. 1:_; LMM I 16IMN711 Resolution # 99 - 1. The Pitkin County Board of Commissioners has declared in the Pitkin County Individual Sewage Disposal Syst= Regulation ation (Regulation), support for alternative methods of wastewater disposal not otherwise provided for in the Regulation. In this case such an alternative system commonly known as Drip Irrigation shall be declared "experimental" 2. The Pitkin County Board of Commissioners has declared in the Regulation that the experimental system trust be designed by a Registered Professional Engineer prior to submittal to the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department for review. 3. The Pitkin County Board of Commissioners, acting as the Pitkin County Board of Health (PCBOH) recognizes, and the Regulation states: "The Local Board of Health may not arbitrarily deny any person the right to consideration of an application for such a system and shall apply reasonable performance standards in determining whether to approve an application." NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, that the use of "Drip Irrigation" as an experimental wastewater disposal system in Pitkin County meets the conditions of the Regulation to be declared experimental, and sitting as the Pitkin County Board of Health declare approval for installation of a total of eighteen (18) such systems in the County with the following conditions: 1. Any permit for installation of a Drip Irrigation wastewater disposal system must be issued in the name(s) of the legal owners of the property invoked, must contain an accurate description of the property, and must conspicuously display the requirements in Section 4-20 of the Regulation, titled; "Experimental Systems". A:JG-25-99 WED 02:24 PM 3 0 • ASPEN/PITKIN ENV HEALTH FAX:970 920 5074 FACE 5 2. The Pitkin County Board of Health and the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department will assume no liability in the act of issuing a permit for a Drip Irrigation wastewater disposal system, either for design or performance. 3. The permit issued for a Drip Irrigation wastewater disposal system shall be recorded in real estate records for the property served by the system. This recording is for the purpose of putting future purchasers on notice that an experimental sewage disposal system serves their property. 4. The .applicant must commit to follow the recommendations of the Aspen/PiWn Environmental Health Department (Department), and those of the Registered Professional Engineer consultant to the Department if approval is given to install the experimental system. S. As is stated in the Pitkin County ISDS Regulation, Section 4-20; The applicant must provide for a "... timely installation of a backup system of a type described in this regulation if the experimental system fails." The lot on which a Drip Irrigation system is to be installed must be large enough to accommodate a traditional Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) so that if the Drip Irrigation system fails and cannot be repaired, the owner will have room to construct a replacement system. This is consistent with previous PCBOH actions on experimental systems as found in Section 12-8.1 of the ISDS Regulation. 6. If a "water balance" method of calculating waste load is applied, the applicant must provide a monitoring plan to determine the saturation status of soils, especially in the early spring months when the leaching bed is at its peak storage. 7. The applicant must provide a written report to the Environmental Health Department documenting maintenance on the system (such as when the filters are changed and when the valve regulating field use is activated). The soil saturation data requested in condition 6 above must also be reported. The reporting must continue for a period of five (5) years, and be submitted to the Environmental Health Department in January of each year. 8. The installation of a filter after the finall septic tank to remove any material which may remain to clog the distribution line ports will be required. 9. Since Drip Irrigation is promoted as an ISDS that is suitable for poor percolating soils, it assumes the form of a modified evapotranspiration (FT) system. In some cases it may be an evaotranspiration/absorption system using both air and plant evaporation with minimal soil absorption. Section 12-6.4 of the Pitkin County ISDS Regulation requires placement of these type systems, "...in an area where there is exposure to sunshine enough days per year and hours per day to allow for adequate functioning of the system, and must take into account the number of months per year in which the area is covered with snow. ET systems may not be used in shaded north -facing areas in valleys, for example, but must be in areas that are open to sunshine and exposed to i 3 sufficient breezes." A'JG-25-99 WED 02:23 PM 1q 0 ASPEN/PITKIN ENV HEALTH 0 FAX:970 920 5074 PAGE 5 10. Pitkin County ISDS Regulation requires a water flow "peaking factor" in the design of ISDS. However, since no "daily peaking factor" is figured in the calculation of the Drip Irrigation wastewater disposal system, and this is a significant variation from the Regulation, this requirement is waived with the condition that only a total of eighteen (18) systems using this modification be allowed in Pitkin County until it can be verified that the public health of residents, and the environmental health of surface and ground water is not compromised. 11. The owner will be required to submit a final "as -built" drawing to the Environmental health Department upon completion of the installation. This drawing must be submitted by the engineer (or his/her designated representative) who provided the approved design that was the basis for permit issuance. APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 12h DAY OF March . 1999. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION IN THE ASSN TIMES ON THE 13th DAY OF March, 1999 APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, County mey BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO tes'lie J. Lamo t, Chairperson Date: RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director Environmental Health Department water&rpmr" dw MANAGER APPROVAL 5�� KM^J� S e Kon han, County Manager FAX/M E ISI O ro: eD C Ru,> -e y Phone Fax Phone 3o 3 - 3 - �f 3 2r I Date • off 99 Number of pages including cover sheet FROM: Nancy MacKenzie AsperWitkin Environmental Health Dept 130 Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Phone 970-920-5076 Fax Phone 970-920-5074 CC: IREMARKS: ❑ Urgent ❑ For your review ❑ Reply ASAP ❑ Please Comment is Maggie Woods Parcel 32/Sopris Mountain Ranch Building Permit No. 0231.1999 Re: re -submittal of septic system Contact: Susan Furr, Architect 927-2530 /LO Memo Te: Nancy MacKenzie From: Tim Petz CC: Ken Smith Date: 0922/99 Re: Maggie Woods, Parcel 32, Sopris Mountain Ranch Mrs. MacKenzie, To obtain our percolation average of 111 MPI we used pert holes P-1 through P-4 and P-8 through P- 11. These were the percolation holes in the location of our proposed system. HP Geotech recorded values of'480' and'did not pert' in 3 of the holes. We used a rate of 180 MPI in those cases, which is the most conservative value for the design of the drip irrigation system. Please replace Figure 1 with Revised Figure 1 to avoid confusion. Thanks Tim Petz Attached: Well location, Figure 1 • Page 1 a 1� LOT 32, SOPRIS MOUNTAIN RANCH PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO 8400 SF OF DRIP IRRIGATION FIELD IN 8 SECTIONS A SECTIONS - 10 FEET X 100 FEET / ❑ ecr�Tinnie +� T X 100 FEET :1 B SOPRIS MOUNTAIN ROAD WELL LOCATION 160 FEET FROM PROPOSED DRAIN FIELD PROPOSED5 ZL o` co CLEANOUT SCALE 1"=40' 2" PVC LINE ONE 2000 GALLON /COMPARTMENT PR CONCRETE SEPTIC P-9 FOLLOWED BY ONE 8 1 / SINGLE COMPART CONCRETE SEPT BIOTUBE VAUL . DISTRIBUTION•P- I VALVES / SITE PLAN, LOCATION OF PERCOLATION HOLES. AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED OWS BE 000 GALLON ENT PRE -CAST WITH PUMP IN SAGE RIM CIRCLE CONTOURS PROVIDED BY K. C. SMITH BUILDERS INC JOB NO. 11474 REVISED FIGURE 1 I Iju 0 CHRICH & Associates, Inc. & GEOLOGISTS August 13, 1999 Margaret Woods c/o K.C. Smith BUILDERS INC. 6801 Fast Sopris Creek Road Snowmass, CO 81654 Subject: Onsite Wastewater System Design, Proposed Woods Residence Parcel 32, Sopris Mountain Ranch Pitkin County, Colorado Job No. 11474 Dear Mrs. Woods, As requested, we have prepared an onsite wastewater system (OWS) design for the subject property. Percolation tests and the subsurface investigation were performed by HP Geotechnical, Inc. on April 30, 1999, Project No. 199 220. SITE CONDITIONS - The site is an approximate 35 -acre parcel located in rural Pitkin County, Colorado. The locations of the proposed residence and percolation holes are presented on Figure 1. The slope at the proposed field area is 15% to the north/northeast. The ground surface has a moderate cover of native grasses and wildflowers. The slope at the drain field area is east facing. The proposed drain field site is not in a confined drainage area and has moderate solar and wind exposure. We believe the site is suitable for use of a drip irrigation or evapotranspiration -absorption (ETA) OWS. The drain field area is proposed near an open area west of the proposed residence. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - A five4mdo nil single-family residence, between 2000 and 6000 SF of living area is proposed. The sewage loading for a five -bedroom dwelling between 2000 and 6000 SF, based on two people per bedroom, and 100 gallons per day per person is 1000 GPD per Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department (APEHD). The design sewage loading with a 1.75 peaking factor is 1750 GPD. The design loading includes a garbage grinder, dish washer and washing machine. Discharge from a water softener, spa or pool should not be directed to the OWS. The residence will be served water by a well to be located 160 feet from the proposed drain field. EXPERIMENTAL DRIP -IRRIGATION SYSTEM - The proposed drip irrigation (shallow trench) OWS has been authorized as an experimental OWS in Pitkin County. As a part of the authorization, there are conditions, which are not typical of other permits in Pitkin County. The conditions include: A. the appli- cant must commit to follow recommendations of the APEHD and the design engineer, B. a backup system design is required, C. monitoring of soil saturation and an annual report is required and must be reported for 5 years and D. the site must be reviewed for solar and wind exposure to wind. You will have to agree to the following conditions: 1. you must agree to the terms of the permit; 2. a backup design is a ETA bed design DENVER 4501 Wadsworth Boulevard Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 CASTLE ROCK 303.660.4358 4 303.463.9317 Fax: 303.463.9321 EVERGREEN 303.816.1455 • • OWS Design Job No. 1144744 Page 2 in the same area; 3. monitoring as described later in this letter will be required which will include an annual report as described in Item C; and 4. *,site has been reviewed as described under Site Conditions and found suitable for installation of a drip irrigation OWS. Eight shallow trench drip irrigation systems have been installed and are performing properly in Pitkin County, so we do not anticipate any problems with installation or performance of the OWS. There are 3500 successful drip irrigation OWS performing in Colorado. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - A subsurface investigation was performed by H -P Geotechnical which consisted of excavating eleven percolation holes and one profile hole. The conditions consisted of 2 feet of topsoil underlain to 8 feet by clayey gravel with cobbles and boulders. The H -P report is included as Appendix A. Percolation holes at depths of 32 inches to 71 inches indicated percolation rates ranging from 20 to 180 minutes per inch (MPI). We recommend designing the OWS based on the average percolation rate of.12911 L although the average percolation rate was I I I MPI in the area of the proposed drip irrigation field. The 120 MPI is recommended in part due to poor percolation found by H -P Geotech. RECOMMENDATIONS - We recommend the installation of shallow trench drip irrigation OWS as indi- cated on Figure 1. The OWS includes septic tanks and dosed shallow trench drain field. The OWS is designed on an application rate of 0.21 GAUSF/DAY and an average sewage loading of 1750 GPD. The application rate utilizes slow soil absorption. We recommend the installation of one 2000 -gallon single -compartment concrete septic tank and one 1000 - gallon single -compartment concrete septic tank with a pump in a biotube vault in the second tank. We recommend the installation of 8400 SF of drip -irrigation field in eight sections as presented on Figures I and 2. The field should be installed in six 1000 SF sections and two 1200 SF section. The drip -irrigation field configuration can be modified to fit the topography with approval of our office. The trenches should be backfilled to re-establish the original slope. We recommend the surface of the drip irrigation or ETA field be seeded after installation of the system. We recommend a native seed mix from the area available at seed stores be used. These mixes do not require irrigation and develop a growth 10 to 15 inches high. No automatic sprinkler system should be installed over the field. ;.An alternative ETAbM OWS is presented in Figures 4 through 5. We recommend installation of one 2000 - gallon single -compartment, concrete septic tank and one 1000 -gallon single -compartment concrete septic tank with an effluent pump in a biotube vault. A distribution box with flow equalizers should be installed. We recommend the installation of eight 10 feet by 100 feet ETA beds with an area of 8000 SF. We pre- pared a water balance analysis, which is presented as Table 1. The spreadsheet uses 32 inches of lake evaporation per year based on the US Department of Commerce Weather Bureau Technical Paper No. 37. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE - The owner must realize an OWS is different from public sewer service. The owner must assume responsibility for maintenance of the system. The system is relatively main- tenance free, but the owner must have the septic tanks pumped and filters cleaned (hosed off). We recommend the tank be pumped and filter cleaned every two years. There are daily considerations, such as not putting plastic or other non -biodegradable material into the system. Water use must be monitored so toilets are not allowed to run when seals malfunction. To illustrate the point, a running toilet will consume in excess of 1000 gallons per day if allowed to flow. An excess 1000 GPD loading could flood and irreparably harm the field. au) • Design Jobb No. 11474 Page 3 We caution against installation of a water softener. The hydraulic loading from the backwash of a water softener can be detrimental to OWS and a separate dry -well should be constructed for the backwash waste, if a water softener is installed. No landscaping or plastic can be used over the field, which will reduce evapotranspiration from the field. Chemically treated water from a swimming pool or spas should not be introduced into the OWS. As a part of the experimental permit, there are conditions imposed by the APEHD. The differences from other installations are the requirements for monitoring of the installation of the drip -irrigation system. These may be required because of a prior experience in Pitkin County with experimental systems. Drip -irrigation systems have been installed in Pitkin County and there have not been problems with the installation. We anticipate the annual reporting requirement for five years and is estimated to cost $175.00 per year. LIMITATIONS - A drip irrigation design requires installation by a contractor who is an experienced installer. Our investigation, layout, design and recommendations are based on data submitted. If subsurface conditions different from those described are encountered, we should evaluate the effect of the changes on the proposed OWS. If the health department makes modifications to this design, we should be contacted to evaluate the impact on the performance of our OWS design. All construction is to be in accordance with the ISDS regulations. Pipe type and size, burial requirements, septic tank construction, and other specifications, which are not depicted in our report, are to conform to the ISDS regulations. The installer of the system is to have demonstrated knowledge of the ISDS regula- tions and requirements. The OWS design includes one installation observation. Additional observations are not included in the cost of this design. If there are any questions or if we can be of further service, please call. Sincerely, CHURCH & o � :w Edward O. Church, P.E. <s- EOC/trp Appendix A: Portions of H -P report dated 3 copies sent 091 `^/� ) V LOT 32, SOPRIS MOUNTAIN RANCH PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO 8400 SF OF DRIP IRRIGATION SECTIONS A SECTIONS - 10 FEET X 100 n eCrTlnnlc _ 17 GGA X 100 L-: � 4 c� MUST PE 1,dO FEET PROk�-0SED DRAIN FIELD LDIN8 �I T / T I , SCALE 1" = 40' PROPOSED 5 BEDROOM RESIDENCE 2" PVC LINE -8 I DISTRIBUTION 'P-10 VALVES / B �— P-11 SOPRIS MOUNTAIN ROAD /o� CLEANOUT / ; •, o ----2�kfONE 2000 GALLON /COMPARTMENT PR CONCRETE SEPTIC P-9 FOLLOWED BY ONI SINGLE COMPA CONCRETE SEPT BIOTUBE VAUL . SITE PLAN, LOCATION OF PERCOLATION HOLES, AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED OWS T BE 000 GALLON BE PRE CAST WITH PUMP IN SAGE RIM CIRCLE CONTOURS PROVIDED BY K. C. SMRH BUILDERS INC JOB NO. 11474 FIGURE 1 Pi 1230 11 • 0 • TYPICAL PLAN VIEW EFFLUENT PUMP LINE WITH PRESSURE RELEASE DISTRIBUTION vel "c AT WIru ❑niNT VAL 2' BALL VAL HEADI LEVEL MANIF UNES TO B SECT 12 FEET X 100 F 6 LATERALS EAC NO. SECTION I LENGTH WIDTH LINES ... 5 6 SPECIFICATIONS AND DESIGN CALCULATIONS DESIGN CRITERIA STRUCTURE - 5 BEDROOM RESIDENCE 2000-6000 SF LOADING - 100 GPD PER PERSON Mpy TOTAL LOADING - 0 GPD 1 PERCOLATION RATE 1� PI APPLICATION RATE - 0.21 GPD/SF AREA - (Q)/R TOTAL AREA - 8333 SF PVC VENT PIPE ET )N 0 0 FYPICAL FIELD C;Kuaa �c:.7�^_N PIPES 2* PVC VENT PIPE WITH CAP AND T--1 1/4' HOLE 30' 12' 2' —�I� 2' 2' TYPICAL DETAIL OF DISTRIBUTION VALVES - N.T.S. GROUND SURFACE B' 1 2' PVC LINES TO SECTIONS THE DISTRIBUTION VALVES CONTROL FLOW OF EFFLUENT TO EACH SECTION OF THE FIELD. WE RECOMMEND THAT ONE SECTION OF THE FIELD BE CLOSED AT ALL TIMES TO ALLOW DRYING OF SEGMENTS OF THE FIELD TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF THE FIELD. THIS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY SEQUENTIALLY ROTATING THE VALVES EVERY YEAR. DRAIN FIELD SPECIFICATIONS TREATMENT UNIT SPECIFICATIONS AREA - 8400 SF TOTAL CAPACITY - 1.75 X 0 X (30 HOURS/24 HOURS) = 2188 GALLONS LINEAL FOOTAGE - 4200 LF RECOMMENDATIONS - 2000 GALLON SINGLE COMPARTMENT SEPTIC TANK NUMBER OF SECTIONS - 8 AND A 1000 GALLON ONE COMPARTMENT SEPTIC TANK WITH A PUMP IN A AREA IN EACH SECTION A - 1000 SF BIOTUBE VAULT. AREA IN EACH SECTION B - 1200 SF TRENCH WIDTH - 8 INCHES ALARM AND CONTROL PANEL TO BE LOCATED AT OWNER'S REQUEST LANDSCAPE WITH XERISCAPE GRASS TWO RISERS PER TANK FOR TANK ACCESS DRAINBACK TO TANK AND FIELD PUMP SHOULD BE SET AT 200 GALLON DOSE PUMP SPECIFICATIONS - 25 GPM AT 29.2 FEET OF HEAD SHALLOW TRENCH DETAILS JOB N0. 11474 FIGURE 2 \\ P!E\IVA §%! o \ 1-!£!£�! _ I��« ��� ■ . }i , o 9 � � ƒ9 # ƒf I� s 77 !! ƒ IE & { }\ � \~ \\ P!E\IVA o \ 1-!£!£�! I��« ��� ■ LP222g�#_ ƒ�i� }i , o |E I� s ƒ &t & { \\ LOT 32, SOPRIS MOUNTAIN RANCH PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO auc�(c c -P 517 57e-, 8000 SF OF ETA DRIAN FIELD / IN 8 BEDS. EACH BED - 10 X 100 FEET / P-4 < SOPRIS MOUNTAIN ROAD SCALE 1 " = 4-0' o� . 0J �— CLEANOUT 2" PVC LINE / NE 2000 GALLON COMPARTMENT PR I' CONCRETE SEPTIC F' FOLLOWED BY ONI i SINGLE COMPART CONCRETE SEPT BIOTUBE VAUL . FLOW SPL BASIN (OR _ 7Ptl JOB NO. 11474 L41N FIELD :7(000 GALLON (ENT PRE -CAST WITH PUMP IN SAGE RIM CIRCLE CONTOURS PROVIDED BY K. C. SMITH BUILDERS INC FIGURE 4 0 0 • • 0 0 0 TYPICAL PLAN VIEW INLET LINE FROM PUMP CHAMBER LINES TO INDMDUAL DRAIN FIELDS 4* SCH 35 SOLID PVC PIPE TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION FLOW SPLITTER BASIN OR EQUIVALENT 4' SCH 35 PERFORATED PVC PIPE INSTALLED LEVEL 4' OBSERVATION/VENT PIPE WITH CAP AND 1/4 INCH HOLE ?T + H � EVAPORATIVE 4' SCH 35 PERFORATED PVC PIPE INSTALLED LEVEL CALCULATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS DRAIN FIELD SPECIFICATIONS NUMBER OF FIELDS - B 3 DIMENSIONS - 10' X 100' TOTAL AREA - 8000 SF 3' GRAVEL - 1.5 INCH SAND - NO. 4 = 100% PASSING - NO. 40 = 50% TO 557E PASSING 6' MIN. - NO. 200 = <15% PASSING TREATMENT UNIT SPECIFICATIONS TOTAL CAPACITY - 1.75 X 0 (30 HOURS/24 HOURS) = 2188 GALLONS RECOMMENDATION - 2000 GALLON SINGLE COMPARTMENT PRE -CAST CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK TO BE FOLLOWED BY A 1000 SINGLE COMPARTMENT PRE -CAST CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK WITH A PUMP IN A BIOTUBE VAULT ALARM AND CONTROL PANEL TO BE LOCATED AT OWNER'S REQUEST TWO RISERS FOR TANK ACCESS DRAINBACK TO TANK AND FIELD PUMP SHOULD BE SET AT A 200 GALLON DOSE UPHILL DRAINAGE SWELL SEE FIGURE 3 FOR TANK DETAIL PUMP SPECIFICATIONS - 25 GPM AT 29.2 FEET HEAD 4• , GRAVEL NOTE: GRAVEL MAY BE CONTINOUS ON BOTTOM OR MOUNDED AROUND DISPERSAL PIPES ONLY WITH MINIMUM 4 INCHES OF GRAVEL COVER AROUND PIPES OR GRAVEL MAY BE REPLACED WITH CHAMBERS AND 4 INCH PERFORATED PIPE. PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE IF A CHAMBER SYSTEM DESIGN IS DESIRED �l( ETA FIELD DETAILS JOB NO. 11474 FIGURE 5 DESIGN CRITERIA STRUCTURE - 5 BEDROOM RESIDENCE - 2000-6000 SF LOADING - 100 GPD PER PERSON 10' TOTAL LOADING - 0 - 1750 GPD PERCOLATION RATE - 111 MPI AREA - SEE TABLE I AREA - 8000 SF DRAIN FIELD SPECIFICATIONS NUMBER OF FIELDS - B 3 DIMENSIONS - 10' X 100' TOTAL AREA - 8000 SF 3' GRAVEL - 1.5 INCH SAND - NO. 4 = 100% PASSING - NO. 40 = 50% TO 557E PASSING 6' MIN. - NO. 200 = <15% PASSING TREATMENT UNIT SPECIFICATIONS TOTAL CAPACITY - 1.75 X 0 (30 HOURS/24 HOURS) = 2188 GALLONS RECOMMENDATION - 2000 GALLON SINGLE COMPARTMENT PRE -CAST CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK TO BE FOLLOWED BY A 1000 SINGLE COMPARTMENT PRE -CAST CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK WITH A PUMP IN A BIOTUBE VAULT ALARM AND CONTROL PANEL TO BE LOCATED AT OWNER'S REQUEST TWO RISERS FOR TANK ACCESS DRAINBACK TO TANK AND FIELD PUMP SHOULD BE SET AT A 200 GALLON DOSE UPHILL DRAINAGE SWELL SEE FIGURE 3 FOR TANK DETAIL PUMP SPECIFICATIONS - 25 GPM AT 29.2 FEET HEAD 4• , GRAVEL NOTE: GRAVEL MAY BE CONTINOUS ON BOTTOM OR MOUNDED AROUND DISPERSAL PIPES ONLY WITH MINIMUM 4 INCHES OF GRAVEL COVER AROUND PIPES OR GRAVEL MAY BE REPLACED WITH CHAMBERS AND 4 INCH PERFORATED PIPE. PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE IF A CHAMBER SYSTEM DESIGN IS DESIRED �l( ETA FIELD DETAILS JOB NO. 11474 FIGURE 5 0 ..■...■......■■■■.■...■■■..■■..■■.■■■...■�'.■.■.■IE _• . -loll.■...■■.■..�...■■■■■.....■,...I.■, o ui o 0 o m o uj �j N O V O C mo b Q o o c{ Y o o .g a C e - loss .■■■■■■■■■.■■■.■■�.%loll■■E./■■►�■..►�■■■■.�.■■■■ o.■...■.■..■.../��.......�%■..��...►i■■N.N.I.■■Eli ■ � ■■■■■.■.■...■�Ci�■.■���.►.�■.�/III■■■■. ...■■.■.���.■■.■/i/.Ii..■�%.I.II■■■■. milli .■■■■■■.■�i■■■■■■■■N■s%..■�%INl■.Ill..■.■■l.�l.■■IN ......../..........��■..��.....�....■...... ..■.■.....Nl■lls..Il...........►�....■.......�.■.■. INIIIIIIII /■N■■■om■■ loll ■�,■. ..%.. ■ISE■.: I/1l.11l■■■NII.I Ri/N■■■N■N■■■■NN Olson NNNNI INNER %lllllll■l CL 0 ERIN ■��■■N IMNIIIIIII■III. IIII■ .N.INNIN■■ - _ ..sNE _ �II:::::::::::::: �.........■ N FAIIIFilm ,■■■. O QC loll. 0 o ui o 0 o m o uj �j N O V O C mo b Q o o c{ Y o o .g a C e m {/1 c CL 0 dl O c N O QC = leel'(HGO PUSH 71WB""0 1910L m m m m O N m m m m p' f o0 o N v Of of o N N R 3 0 I- rk 6 a O Cr. 01 mo b Q o o c{ Y o o .g a w uue e E _ {/1 CL tl dl O o.�J. N O QC = V Lj5 O Q Nw Z ❑m O 0 :_ Z !! m « U' ❑ LL rn ❑ a o o uj ❑ f- � N 9 = O 9 0 N O a a m = m x R 3 0 I- rk 6 V TABLE • WATER BUDGET ANALYSIS V' OWNER WOODS LOADING - SUBDIVISIO SOPRIS MOUNTAIN RANCH NUMBER OF BEDROOMS - JOB NO. 11474 SUBSURFACE: HP GEOTECH FIELD AREA rl J Sa4rn4 Rlm npRS mr arnn 1FWW GAL PER BEDROOMSLOADINC PRECIP. RUNOFF, 25% NET PRECIP. NET PRECIP. TOTAL LOAC ABSORPTION BEDROOM ETA GALLON: INCHES INCHES INCHES GALLONS GALLONS OCT 6000 5 30000 5.1 1.275 3.825 18921 48921 NOV 6000 5 30000 43 1.075 3.225 15953 45953 DEC 6200 5 31000 3.1 0.775 2.325 11501 42501 JAN 6200 5 31000 2.97 0.743 2.229 11019 42019 FEB 5600 5 28000 4.07 1.018 3.053 15100 43100 MAR 6200 5 31000 5.53 1.383 4.148 20516 51516 APR 6000 5 30000 3.8 0.950 2.850 14098 44098 MAY 6000 5 30000 3.08 0.770 2910 11427 41427 JUN 6000 5 30000 2.53 0.633 1.898 9386 39386 JUL 6200 5 31000 32 0.800 2.400 11872 42872 AUG 6200 5 31000 2.45 0.613 1.838 9090 40090 SEP 6000 5 30000 5.08 1.270 3.810 18847 48847 TOT 72600 0.18 363000 4521 11.303 33.908 167729 530729 Rewm 1. Absorplim dam from pemolatim use 2. Pmipiuuion and mpomtion dm from City of Asp= Warm Delwmtmt Na6ow1 Weather Service Statim ISW-050372 PER DAY PER PERSON FIELD AREA 8000 vvle ABSORPTION TO EVAPORATION RATIO IlLljllll(tU IHtVKt11l:AL ABSORPTION ET ETA ETA STORAGE STORAGE,GAL GPD'SF GPD.'SFGPD'SF GALLONS GALLONS 33585 0.18 0.050 0.23 57040 8119 ABSORPi 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 4004 0.18 0.030 021 50400 4447 0.050 0.030 0.018 0.005 0.013 0.045 0.070 0.085 46151 0.18 0.018 0.198 49104 6603 36,000 13.846 4.000 1.571 2.118 1.636 52754 0.18 0.005 0.185 45880 3861 56615 " 0.18 0.013 0.193 43232 132 56748 " 0.18 0.045 0225 55800 4284 61031 0.18 0.070 025 60000 15902 76933 0.18 0.085 0.265 65720 24293 101227 0.18 0.110 0.29 69600 30214 131440 0.18 0.120 0.3 74400 31528 162968 0.18 0.110 029 71920 31831 194799 0.18 0.090 027 64800 15953 210752 ' 2.16 0.746 2.906 7079% 177167 • THEORETICAL STORAGE GREATER THAN REQUIRED STORAGE • ABSORPTION TO EVAPORATION RATIO MOE OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUGg2.000 ABSORPi 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0. EVAPORA 0.050 0.030 0.018 0.005 0.013 0.045 0.070 0.085 0.110 0.120 0.11 RATIO 3.000 6.000 10.000 36,000 13.846 4.000 1.571 2.118 1.636 1.500 1.63 • APPENDIX A HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:970-945-8454 Hp � April 30, 1999 Jul 02 99 7:49 No. llgnvistle u14uk :.<•IIM'IgIH•Y1, Ln.. 5020 t.uulltl' Rand 154 GJ,11Mxml Sprtltp, t:llt01'allu 81601 Phone: M-945-79188 9188 Fax: 970.94548454 hpgcutthpglYlteeh.rom 006 P.01 Maggie Woods P.O. Box 6574 Snowtnass Village, Colorado 81615 Job No. 199 220 Subject Percolation Test Results, Proposed Leach Field, Parcel 32, Sopris Mountain Ranch, Pitkin County, Colorado Dear Ms. Woods: As requested, we have conducted percolation testing at the subject site to evaluate the feasibility or an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. The results of our work are presented in this report. We previously conducted a subsoil study on the site and presented our findings in a report dated March 31, 1999, Job No. 199 220. A profile pit and four shallow backhoe pits were excavated on April 26, 1999 at the locations shown on Fig. 1. Percolation test holes were hand dug (about 1 foot deep by foul in diameter) at the bottom of the shallow hackhoc pits and soaked one day prior to testing. The test holes were protected from freezing overnight with rigid foam insulation. The soils exposed in the percolation holes and profile pit consist of about 2 feet of topsoil overlying clayey gravel with cobbles and boulders to the profile pit depth of 8 feet. Groundwater was not encountered in the pits and the soils were moist. Percolation tests were performed on April 27, 1999 by a representative of Ilepworth- Pawlak Centechnical, Inc. At the time of the testing, the ground surface was free of snow and no frost was observed in the lest holes. Tbc percolation test results are summarized in Table I. The measured rates were between 30 and 120 minutes per inch with one test hole, P-3, essentially not percolating. Rased on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, a conventional infiltration septic disposal system does not appear suitable at the tested site due to the slow percolation rates. It maybe feasible to relocate the disposal area and find a suitable site. We recommend that a civil engineer design the septic disposal system. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely 1 EPWORTH-PAWLAK GF.OTFCHNICAL, INC, Jordy Z. Adamson, Jr., P.F. Rev. by: SLP JZA/ksm/rso attachments cc: Gamba & Associates - Attn: Chris Strauss 3' 07/02/99 09:33 TX/RX N0.5772 P.001 0 �V r..+Prh TFI :970-945-8454 APPROXIMATE SCALE 200' PARCEL 31 i 1 I 1 Jul 02 99 PARCEL 37 7:50 No BUILDING ENVFLOPF � r � r r P 1� /fir P 30 � J Lj P 2 P 4�1 / m PROFILE. PIT 199 22O�HEPWORTH - PAWLAK I LOCATION of PERCOLATION TEST 1401.FS I Fig. 1 I- PAWLAK I LOCATION OF PERCOLATION TEST HOI.FS I Fig. 1 I i GEOI ECHNICAL. INC. 31 07/02/99 09:33 TX/RX NO.5772 P.002 0 HepworihPawlak Geotech TEL=970-945-8454 0 Jul 02 99 0 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE PPRCnI ATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 199 220 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTIt AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHESI PROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MINANCH) P-1 37 16 11 114 103/4 112 GG 10 314 101/2 114 10 7/Z 10 114 114 101/4 10 114 10 9 314 1/4 9 314 9 1/2 1/4 9 112 9 114 114 9114 9 114 P•2 30 30 D 314 9 1/4 1/2 120 9 114 9 114 0 9 114 9 114 9 83/4 1/4 P.3 44 3o 10 314 10 112 114 Old not peen. 10 112 101/2 O 10 112 10 112 0 10 1/2 10112 0 P-4 LL 32 16 —10 9 1 30 9 0 114 314 91/4 71/4 1 7 1/4 6 1/2 3/4 0 112 6 l I 6 6 1/2 112 6 112 6 112 0 4 1l"l 112 NOTE: Porcolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits on April 26, 1999. The percolation teats were conduCted on April 27, 1999. The average percolation tests were based on the last two readings of n each test. - i I Z 07/02/99 09:33 TX/RX N0.5772 P.003 0 HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:970-94S-8454 H 0 �h May 28, 1999 Jul 02 99 7:51 No.( Itep"awluk Gvbtechnical, Inc. 50211(%' uy nmut 154 Gleawaal Spdngti C:olarnitu 81601 1-humn 970-949-7988 F'aa1 970-9454454 h pxn.<d 1lpxcouv:h.cow Maggie Woods P.O. Box 6574 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 Job No. 199 220 Subject: Additional Percolation Testing, Proposed leach Field, Parcel 32, Sopris Mountain Ranch, Pitkin County, Colorado Dear Ms. Woods: As requested, we have conducted additional percolation testing at the subject site.. The results of our work are presented in this report. We previously conducted a subsoil study and percolation lest on the site and presented our findings in reports dated March 31 and April 30, 1999, Job No. 199 220. Thrce percolation test holes (P-5, P-6 and P-7) were hand dug in an area to the north of the building envelope as shown on Pig. 1. The test holes were about 2 to 21/2 feet in diameter and about 11/z feet below the topsoil (about 3 feet total depth). The holes were dug and soaked on May 11, 1999. On May 12, 1999 the test holes had between 3117 and 8 inches of water retraining from soaking the previous day. The test results are summarized on Table I and indicitte no percolation rate. As requested, four additional backhoe pits (P-8 through P-11) were excavated on May 17, 1999 in an area to the southeast of the building envelope as shown on Vig. 1. Percolation test holes were hand dug (about 1 foot deep by 1 fan in diameter) at the bottom of the shallow backhoe pits and soaked one clay prior to resting. Percolation tests were performed on May 18, 1999 by a representative of Ilepworib- Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. The percolation test results are sununari;wd on Table 1. The percolation test results indicate a percolation rate between 20 and 480 minutes per inch. )]used on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation lest results, a conventional infiltration septic disposal system does not appear suitable at the tested 00 IDID 07/02/99 09:33 TX/RX N0.5772 P.004 1lepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:970-945-8454 Maggie Woods May 28, 1999 Page 2 Jul 02 99 • 7:51 No.006 P.05 locations due to the slow percolation rates. We recommend that a civil engineer design the septic disposal system. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call our offiu.. Sincerely, IIEPWORTII-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Jordy Z. Adamson, Jr. P.E. Rev. By: SIX JZA/sd attachments a:: Gamba & Associates - Attn: Chris Strauss H P GL07kCH 2q 07/02/99 09:33 TX/RX N0.5772 P.005 0 HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:970-945-8454 APPROXIMATE SCALE — 200' PARCEL 31 LEGEND A Percolation Test Hales. APOI 30, 1999 L\ Additional Percolation Test Holes. May 12. 1999 • Additional Percolation Test Holes. May 1B. 1999 Jul PARCEL. 32 7:51 No.006 P.06 RUILDINC ENVELOPE I P --B P L( P-3ATA P�1C 2 P-4.4Yi �/ PROFILE PIT 1-199 220 I CEO ECHNICAL. INC. I LOCATION OF PERCOLATION TEST HOLES 1-1q. 1__] 07/02/99 09:33 TX/RX NO.5772 P.006 0 Hepwor-thPawlak Geotech TEL:970-945-8454 4 • Jul 02 99 • HEPWORTH•PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 1 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS 7:52 No JOB NO. 199 220 PAGE 1 Of 2 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL INCHes) WATER DEPTH AT ENO OF INTERVAL (INCHES) DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN.ANCH) P-5 35 30 7 7 O Did not Pare 7 7 O Pa 38 30 8114 81/4 O DNd not fmra 81/4 111/4 O P•7 34 30 71/4 7 114 a old not Pero 7 114 7 114 O NOTE: Percolation test holes were hand dug from the existing ground surface and soaked on May 11, 1999. Percolation tests were conducted on May 12, 1999. The holes had between 3 112 and 8 inches of water from soaking the previous day at the time of testing. 3 ) 07/02/99 09:33 TX/RX N0.5772 P.007 N oepworthPawlak Geotech TEL=970-945-8454 4 • Jul 02 99 0 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC, TABLE I PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS 7:52 No.006 P.08 JOB NO. 199 220 PAGE 2 OF 2 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MINI WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MINANCH) P-8 66 60 6 8 0 480 8 7 314 1 /4 P-0 61 90 9112 9 1/2 120 9 a 112 112 8 112 8 7/4 114 8 114 a 114 P-10 62 16 11 1/2 10114 1 114 20 10 114 9 114 1 9 1/4 8 112 314 8 1/2 7 1/2 1 7 1/2 6 3/4 3/4 6 314 6 3/4 6 51/4 3/4 51/4 4 1/2 1 3/4 P-11 71 60 9 114 9 114 49D 9 9 0 NOTE: Percolation test holes were hand dug In the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked On May 17, 1999. The percolation tests were CondLICtOd on May 18, 1999. The average percolation rate was based On the last two readings of each test. _j / 07/02/99 09:33 TX/RX NO.5772 P.008 0 a Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department Permit for an Individual Sewage Disposal System 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 970-920-5070 / FAX 970-920-5074 �f J 1 � rrlrn D Permit # 99055 Parcel ID # 2465-273-01-003 \� O / V \V ' Type of permit New X Repair( Addition to House 01 Name of Owner Margaret Woods Street Address 0012 Sage Rim Circle Property legal description Lot 32 Size of lot 35 acres Total square footage of the house 3774 Water source # of bedrooms in house 4 # of offices, lofts & similar sized rooms in house 2 Caretaker unit Total square footage of the caretaker unit # of bedrooms in caretaker unit # of offices, lofts & similar sized rooms in caretaker unit Designed for what # rooms (list) FIVE (3 bedrooms, 1 office, 1 library) Permit information Designed by Jerome Gamba Mailing Address PO Box 1458. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Perc rate 480 Profile hole depth 8' Depth to groundwater or bedrock +8' Septic tank capacity 2188 Absorption area 7668 sq ft Septic permit approved per compliance with the engineer design and specifications dated June 17, 1999 and the following design modification to address some concems of this department. (1) The system should provide for uniform dosing, valves could be provided on each line to adjust flow and consideration should be given to alternating the dosing to each bed. (2) Observation pipes shall be installed so they extend the full depth of the sand filter. (3) A'T' shall be placed on all tank inlets. (4) A diversion ditch shall be installed to divert runoff around the beds. Bed surfaces shall be graded to deflect runoff. (5) The select backfill around the chambers shall have the capacity to wick the effluent towards the surface. (6) Before beginning installation of the system, there shall be a maintenance contract and a performance monitoring plan. The level of ponded effluent in the sand should be measured for all beds, on a quarterly basis. If excessive ponding develops in any bed(s), an adjustment of the system should be made. Any other changes must be approved by this department and the design engineer prior to them being made. Minimum horizontal distances between components of the system and physical features shall conform to the Pitkin County ISDS regulations. Permit approved by: Date: �3 �9% Plans and specifications of the p posed individual sewage disposal system have been reviewed and are considered satisfactory. Permission is hereby granted to the owner or the agent to perform the work indicated in accordance with the Pitkin County ISDS Regulation in effect at the time of issue. This permit becomes invalid 6 months from the date that the permit was issued unless system construction has commenced or an extension has been approved in writing by the Department. As -built drawings must be included with this permit before the final approval will be issued. Installer: final inspection approval: Date: ASPEN/PITK`1 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT _ APPLICATI04R INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAOSTEM 1313 d. Galena St., Aspen Colorado 81611 1� Phone 970-920-5070/Fax 970-920-5039 Name of OWNER Owners Mailing Address -- I JUN 2 1 1999 ~" HEALTH Primary Contact Person (all communication regarding this permit will go through this person) Name u Company Contact Mailing Address Business Phone: Cell Phone: Fax: S S Parcel ID # (available from assessor's office at 920.5160 or at www.aspen.com/assessor/) 5 - Z— a- - O Street address of property eS Legal Description: Lot __;�2 Block Filing Subdivision S Size of lot: 362Qrjacres. Type of proposed structure: �` �e of bldg. envelope: Total square feet of house % # of bedrooms in house 7J # of offices, lofts 8 similar sized rooms in house Caretaker Unit: Attached ( eetached ( ) Total area(sq. ft.) of caretaker unit # of bedrooms in caretaker u111lllnit # of offices, lofts and similar size rooms of caretaker unit Permit is for: New Home) Repair due to failure ( ) Remodel/Addition ( ) Emergency use( ) Water: Private well ( ) Spring ( ) Stream ( ) Community/Public Water System ( ) If community system: Name of system The fee for a ISDS application is $330 for a permit that takes 6 hours or less for the department to approve. If approval takes longer than 6 hours, a rate of $55 per hour will be charged. The maximum fee is $1000. The basic fee of 3330 is due at the time of application. The remainder, if any, will be due in two stages: first, at the time of issuance of the ISDS permit; second, before final approval of the ISDS permit. Application for an individual sewage disposal system is hereby submitted. I hereby certify that the above information is true and accurate and that I have provided true and accurate information on locations of all existing and proposed wells, contour intervals, buildings, property lines, ditches, slopes, waterlines, springs, suction or irrigation lines, drinking water cisterns, drain tiles, irrigation ditches, lakes, water courses, streams, floodplains, dry gulches, and existing septic systems. I hereby certify that any such features not shown on attached site map are not present. Issuance of the permit does not imply the approval of any other permit required for construction pursuant to Pitkin County codes. No construction may be undertaken until all approvals and permits have been obtained. The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department. Pitkin County and employees of these agencies will be held harmless should the individual sewage disposal system fail or malfunction. The permit to construct is issued on information submitted by the applicant or his/her representatives. The owner assumes full responsibility in case of failure of the system. ��:-- Signature of applicant i Date Received by T � U Receipt # Dat J 7 A July 21, 1999 Susan Furr Furr/Foss Architecture PO Box 421 ASPEN - Pmar1 Snowmass, CO 81654 ENYmmmENTAL HEALTH DEEAm mN Re: Review of Maggie Woods ISDS design by Jerome Gamba & Assoc. dated June 17, 1999 Dear Susan, You are listed as the designated 'primary contact person' on Maggie Woods' ISDS application, so I am addressing this letter to you. We have reviewed the design and also referred it to an independent engineer. Our conclusions are that the size and storage capacity of the system my be sufficient to store the effluent until it can be absorbed into the native soils. Several design modifications should be made to address some of our concerns. If the design is modified to incorporate the recommendations, we will be able to issue an ISDS permit for the design. 1. The dosing system should be revised. Effluent should gravity flow from the house into the 2500 gallon septic tank. In the event of a power failure or.pump ma;function, emergency storage is provided, or the tank could be pumped to,provide emergency storage capacity. The system should be designed for uniform dosing to distribute effluent over the sand filter area. The overall system may be.too large to pressure dose. Consideration should be given to alternating the dosing,' such that each dose is applied to a single bed. For example,.the first dose goes to bed "A", the second dose to bed "B", etc. This would require a 'high head' turbine type pump with a special valve which alternates flow between beds. If alternating dosing is not possible, the system should be designed to approximate uniform dosing. I130 Soum GALENA STEEEr • AseEH, Gowmw 81611-1975 - PHuHE 970.920.5070 • F"970.920.5197 eroe.a. R.,� r.a. 0 0 Valves should be provided on each line from the flow splitter manifold in case the flow is not being equally distributed to the beds. 2. observation pipes should be installed (4 per bed for a total of 126) so that they extend the full depth of the sand filter below the beds). This will allow for monitoring of the level of effluent within the sand below the chamber units. 3. The end section detail should be revised to be consistent with the number of chambers per row (7) shown in the plan view. 4. A "T" should be placed on all tank inlets. 5. A diversion ditch should be installed to divert runoff around the beds, and the bed surfaces should be graded to deflect runoff. 6. The select backfill should be specified to provide some "wicking" of the effluent, for evapotranspiration. 7. There should be a maintenance contract and a performance monitoring plan. For example, the level of ponded effluent in the sand below the chamber units in the beds should be measured for all beds, on a quarterly basis (perhaps more frequently during spring runoff). If excessive ponding develops in one bed, an adjustment of the system should be made. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact me at 920-5076. Sincerely, Nancy MacKenzie Environmental Health Specialist cc: Ken Smith Jerome Gamba & Assoc g:\isds\general\jgdesign.doc 90 Robert Pennington r. r Tri - R 12 Serving Chris J. wiont, M.P.H., Ph.D. EXeoulive Director -20-I9 :12:45FW :TRI-COL1M 1fl.TH � 970 920 5074:# 2/ 4 PA&A oe Paper A unty Health Department Aropohoe and Douglas Counties Nancy MacKenzie Environmental Health offic r Pitkin County Environmenta Health Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Co 81611 RE: Review of Maggie Parcel 32, Sopris Dear Ms. MacKenzie: I have reviewed the subjec Overall Design Concept The soils report indicates Percolation). The propos which provide a large Stora units and within the chambf (ET) effluent, although ,on As designed, the system wil backfill. Effluent will be dispersed by slow absorptio beds, and by a nominal amou become saturated, clogging capacity of the sand, preve: of the sand to treat effl„o, ISDS design by Jerome Gamba 6 Associates ain Ranch design and have several concerns, :nit the soils are relatively impermeable (slow design is essentially a series of sand filters. ;e capacity within the sand below the chamber Is• The system is not designed to evapotranspire incidental "ET” may occur. store effluent within the sand, chambers, and treated through the filter sand and will be. into the native soils below and around the t of ET. If the sand below the units does ay develop, which may reduce the storage t to of effluent and impair the ability In order for ET to occur, t e sand below the chambers would need to become completely saturated, need to •wick' or cl gged effluent backfill is not specified, would nt to he surface, by capillary rise. The select surface by Capillarity is o its ability , certain. y towick or raise effluent to the If not properly diverted, a Significant amount of saowmelt will infiltrate In o the runoff from storms and ground surface over the bed beds- In addition, runoff may erode the could be utilized for efflubed nt The infiltration will take up storage which surfacing. which may increase clogging and may cause Effluent Distribut PWy ytan of wo king to 50 improvtlhtPablic's health 7000 East 8011evlew Ave ue, Suite 301 ❑ Englewood, Colorado 801 1 1-1628 30312204" tl FAX 303-220-9208 'f' SENT BY:TRI-COUNTY HLTH DEPT; 7-20-90 20-I9 ;12:46PM ;TRI-COUHLTH �~ 970 920 5074;# 3/ 4 The system proposes a "gri der pump" in a wetwell, which pumps effluent up to a 2500 gallon septic t followed by a dosing tank with a siphon. The siphon delivers effluent t a "flow splitter" manifold, which sends effluent to the four separate beds. Grinder pumps have a highei initial cost, and require higher maintenance than effluent pumps. In addition, if the pump fails, sewage may back up into the house, since the grinder pump wetwell does not provide much storage. The proposed system may not distribute the effluent equally to the four separate beds. If the Rflow splitter" manifold is not installed level, or if it settles, one bed may receive more effluent than another. Typically, sand filters are designed with uniform dosing, so that effluent is applied uniformly over the entire sand filter surface. As proposed, the system will not distribute the effluent throughout the beds. Effluent will most likely bypass the "cross" portions of the bed manifolds and be discharged at the "T" ends Df manifolds. Thus, effluent will be discharged at the corners of the beds. Detail Drawings on Sheet 2 The end section of the bed shows three chambers per row, while the plan view indicates 7 chambers per r The plan view and details d not show any runoff diversion, or slope to the ground surfaces above the bads to divert runoff. The inlet to the septic tank does not have a "T". It is possible than scum mat formation may plug the inlet. The observation pipes do nor extend the full depth of the sand to allow for the level of ponding within the sand to be observed. CONCLUSIONS AND BECoIDIFMAT CONS The size and storage capaci�y of the system may be sufficient to store the effluent until it can be ab orbed into the native soils. Several design modifications should be mad to address the concerns identified above. 1. The dosing system shoukd be revised. Effluent should gravitr flow from the house into the 2500 gallon septic tank. In the event of a power failure or pump malfunction, emergency storage is provided, o the tank could be pumped to provide emergency storage capacity. The system should be designed for uniform dosing to distribute effluent over the sand filter area. Uniform dosing is achieved by using small diameter laterals, with small diameter (typically 1/4") orifices at 3 ft. - 4 ft. spacing. The overall system may be too large,to pressure dose. Consideration should be given to alt mating the dosing, such that each dose is t SENT BY:TRI-COUNTY Ffl TH DEPT 7-20-99 ;12 47PM ;TRI -COUNTY FQTH DEBT 970 920 5074;# 411 T applied to a single b d (4 total beds). For example, the first dose goes to bed "A" the second dose to bed "B" etc. This would require a "high head" turbine type pump with a special valve which alternates flow between beds. 0 enco makes this type of pump valve, however, other manufacturer's may offer similar products which would be acceptable. If alternating dosing is not possible, the system should be designed to approximate uniform ding. Valves should be provided on each line from the flow spline manifold in case the flow is not being equally distributed to the bed . Papers on uniform dosi g are available from Small Flows Clearinghouse. One is titled "Onsite astewater Disposal Distribution Networks for Subsurface Soil Absocp ion Systes, by Richard Otis, P.E, and "Wisconsin Mound mSoil bsorption System Siting, Design and Construction Manual," by Converse #d Tyler. 2. Observation pipes shou d be installed (4 per bed for a total of 16) so that they extend the f ll depth of the sand filter below the beds). This will allow for mo itoring of the level of effluent within the sand below the chamber unit . 3 4 5 6 The end section detail should be revised to be consistent with the number of chambers per row (7) shown in the plan view. A "T" should be placed on all tank inlets. A diversion ditch sh and the bed surfaces The select backfill the effluent, for e If the proposed design is incorporate the above reco require some performance m effluent in the sand below for all beds, on a quarter runoff). If excessive pon system should be made. In required. If you have any questions c 303-846-6225. Sincerely, Warren S. Brown, P.E. Public Health Engineer be installed to divert runoff around the beds, ld be graded to deflect runoff. uld be specified to provide some "wicking" of transpiration. mitted, the design should be modified to ndations. In addition, the permit should toring. For example, the level of ponded e chamber units in the beds should be measured basis (perhaps more frequently during spring g develops in one bed, an adjustment of the clition, a maintenance contract should be these comments, please contact me at MAY -10-99 02:02 PM SUS16 FURR 0 FURRiFOSS 1 t,uoo�t 5 970 5453 S/IO/qq 1ktf: NACY MAG IeFNrAg susw zuaq IRZ7.2sw P.01 - 253 MAY -10-99 02:02 PM SUSIS FURR I - . � $ MAY -10-99 02:03 PM SUS(# FURR FURRi FOSS 1 970 if 5453 .__ _ PA60 3 OF 3 Ll MARGARET WOODS • • 4 "no perc" holes of the 7 holes that did perc the average was 187 mpi �q PIPJ depth of hole in inches p1- 60 37 p2- 120 36 p3- no perc 44 p4- 30 32 ( 1-1/2 ft below topsoil) p5- no perc 35 p6- no perc 36 p7- no perc 34 p8- 480 56 p9- 120 61 p10- 20 62 p11- 480 71 4 "no perc" holes of the 7 holes that did perc the average was 187 mpi �q `. Gek�E-teCh May 28, 1999 Heoth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-945-7988 Fax: 970-945-8454 hpgeo@hpgeotech.com Maggie Woods P.O. Box 6574 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 Job No. 199 220 Subject: Additional Percolation Testing, Proposed Leach Field, Parcel 32, Sopris Mountain Ranch, Pitkin County, Colorado Dear Ms. Woods: As requested, we have conducted additional percolation testing at the subject site. The results of our work are presented in this report. We previously conducted a subsoil study and percolation test on the site and presented our findings in reports dated March 31 and April 30, 1999, Job No. 199 220. Three percolation test holes (P-5, P-6 and P-7) were hand dug in an area to the north of the building envelope as shown on Fig. 1. The test holes were about 2 to 21/2 feet in diameter and about 11/2 feet below the topsoil (about 3 feet total depth). The holes were dug and soaked on May 11, 1999. On May 12, 1999 the test holes had between 3/2 and 8 inches of water remaining from soaking the previous day. The test results are summarized on Table I and indicate no percolation rate. As requested, four additional backhoe pits (P-8 through P-11) were excavated on May 17, 1999 in an area to the southeast of the building envelope as shown on Fig. 1. Percolation test holes were hand dug (about 1 foot deep by 1 foot in diameter) at the bottom of the shallow backhoe pits and soaked one day prior to testing. Percolation tests were performed on May 18, 1999 by a representative of Hepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. The percolation test results are summarized on Table I. The percolation test results indicate a percolation rate between 20 and 480 minutes per inch. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, a conventional infiltration septic disposal system does not appear suitable at the tested �U 0 0 Maggie Woods May 28, 1999 Page 2 locations due to the slow percolation rates. We recommend that a civil engineer design the septic disposal system. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK INC. Jordy Z. Adamso❑]7r. 29771 _ Rev. By: SLP JZA/sd �G�. attachments 1 cc: Gamba & Associates - Attn: Chris Strauss H -P GEOTECH ii APPROXIMATE SCALE = 200' PARCEL 31 PARCEL 32 BUILDING ENVELOPE / I I P PP .6 PI 9 P � • I• P-8 P-1 P-10 a- 3 A& IAL ,//P — 2 ?_11 P-4`/ PROFILE PIT 1 I a o� �r tiP J= �O LEGEND ¢� �o Percolation Test Holes, April 30, 1999 Q Additional Percolation Test Holes, May 12, 1999 • Additional Percolation Test Hales, May 18, 1999 F199-220 HEPWOR TH — PAWLAK LOCATION OF PERCOLATION TEST HOLES Fig. 1 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. �Da • L HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE I PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 199 220 nw lam[ 9 11 .. 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-5 35 30 7 7 0 Did not perc 7 7 0 P-6 36 30 8 1/4 8 1/4 0 Did not perc 8 1/4 8 1/4 0 P-7 34 30 7 114 7 1/4 0 Did not Pe" 7 114 7 1/4 0 NOTE: Percolation test holes were hand dug from the existing ground surface and soaked on May 11, 1999. Percolation tests were conducted on May 12, 1999. The holes had between 3 1/2 and 8 inches of water from soaking the previous day at the time of testing. 0 • HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE I PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 199 220 nn^r 111 - 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) ,.� c �v c AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) P-8 56 60 8 8 0 480 8 73/4 =1/4 P-9 61 30 9 1/2 9 1/2 120 9 8 1/2 1/2 8 1/2 8 1/4 1/4 8 1/4 8 1/4 P-10 62 15 11 1/2 10 1/4 1 1l4 20 101/4 91/4 1 9 1/4 8 1/2 3/4 8 112 7 1/2 1 7 1/2 6 314 3/4 6 314 6 3/4 6 5 1/4 3/4 5 1/4 4 1/2 3/4 -11 71 60 9 1/4 9 1/4 :180 9 9 0 NOTE: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on May 17, 1999. The percolation tests were conducted on May 18, 1999. The average percolation rate was based on the last two readings of each test. c��ec:h April 30, 1999 Hepwarth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-945-7988 Fax: 970-945.8454 hpge @hpgeotech.com Maggie Woods P.O. Box 6574 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 Job No. 199 220 Subject: Percolation Test Results, Proposed Leach Field, Parcel 32, Sopris Mountain Ranch, Pitkin County, Colorado Dear Ms. Woods: As requested, we have conducted percolation testing at the subject site to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. The results of our work are presented in this report. We previously conducted a subsoil study on the site and presented our findings in a report dated March 31, 1999, Job No. 199 220. A profile pit and four shallow backhoe pits were excavated on April 26, 1999 at the locations shown on Fig. 1. Percolation test holes were hand dug (about 1 foot deep by foot in diameter) at the bottom of the shallow backhoe pits and soaked one day prior to testing. The test holes were protected from freezing overnight with rigid foam insulation. The soils exposed in the percolation holes and profile pit consist of about 2 feet of topsoil overlying clayey gravel with cobbles and boulders to the profile pit depth of 8 feet. Groundwater was not encountered in the pits and the soils were moist. Percolation tests were performed on April 27, 1999 by a representative of Hepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. At the time of the testing, the ground surface was free of snow and no frost was observed in the test holes. The percolation test results are summarized in Table I. The measured rates were between 30 and 120 minutes per inch with one test hole, P-3, essentially not percolating. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, a conventional infiltration septic disposal system does not appear suitable at the tested site due to the slow percolation rates. It maybe feasible to relocate the disposal area and find a suitable site. We recommend that a civil engineer design the septic disposal system. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely WLAK Jordy Z. A o , 1kW-1 I Rev. by: S P JZA/ksm/rso attachments cc: Gamba & Associates - Attn: Chris Strauss SS RECEIVED MAY - 3 11999 APPROXIMATE SCALE = 200' PARCEL 31 PARCEL 32 BUILDING ENVELOPE /14 � I � I P 1� I P 30 0 J A /P 2' P 4 `// / PROFILE PIT 199 2201 HE WORTH ICA AW CK I LOCATION OF PERCOLATION TEST HOLES I Fig. 1 0 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE PERCnI ATIn IU TFST RFC111 TC Ino Rln .. .,., .... ,. 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 37 15 11 1/4 103/4 1/2 60 10 3/4 10 1/2 1/4 10 1/2 10 114 114 101/4 10 1/4 10 93/4 1/4 93/4 9 1/2 1/4 9 1/2 9 1/4 1/4 9 1/4 9 1/4 P-2 36 ' 30 9 3/4 9 1/4 1/2 120 91/4 91/4 0 9 1/4 9 1/4 9 8314 1/4 P-3 44 30 103i4 101/2 1/4 did not perc. 10 1/2 10 1/2 0 10 1/2 10 1/2 0 10 1/2 10 1/2 0 P-4 32 15 10 9 1 30 9 8 1/4 3/4 8 1/4 7 1/4 1 7 1/4 6 1/2 3/4 6 1/2 6 1/2 6 5 1/2 1/2 5 1/2 5 1/2 5 41:2 1/2 NOTE: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits on April 26, 1999. The percolation tests were conducted on April 27, 1999. The average percolation tests were based on the last two readings of each test. c- 0 0 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. March 31, 1999 Maggie Woods P.O. Box 6574 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 Job No. 199 220 Subject: Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Parcel 32, Sopris Mountain Ranch, Pitkin County, Colorado Dear Ms. Woods: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed residence at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed building area generally consist of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying relatively dense silty sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders. About 3 feet of mixed sandy clay and gravel was encountered below the topsoil in Boring 1. The clay soils in the area tend to be expansive when wetted. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural granular subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The settlement/heave potential of the subgrade should be evaluated at the time of construction. The clay soils may need to be subexcavated. The report which follows describes our exploration, summarizes our findings, and presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Jordy Rev. bv: SLP �v 0 FAX/MEMO TO: Warren Brown Tri County Health Dept 7000 E. Belleview, Suite 301 Englewood CO 80111-1628 Phone Fax Phone 0 I Date 7/14/99 INumber of pages including cover sheet FROM: Nancy MacKenzie Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Dept 130 Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Phone 970-920-5076 Fax Phone 970-920-5074 CC: IREMARKS: ❑ Urgent ® For your review ❑ Reply ASAP ❑ Please Comment Re: Maggie Woods, ISDS design by Jerome Gamba dated june 17, 1999 Warren, I guess my main concern is that there is not 4 feet of suitable soil under the infiltrators. But do you think they have over -sized it enough so that there is enough area under the 2 feet of sand to actually absorb anything? Thanks for yo�help on this. 5'q ASPEN/PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT ISDS DESIGN CALCULATIONS M4GvA1E ~PC? Owner's Name ParoelID4 House Size (sq. ft) 4800 (75 gpd, 100 gpd, or 130 Bpd) Number of Bedrooms in Main House j� 3 Number of Offices, Libraries, Studies, Similar -sized Rooms in Main House Number of Bedrooms in Detached Caretaker unit Number of Offices, Studies, Similar -sized Rooms in Caretaker Unit (If the caretaker unit is ATTACHED, treat as if part of main house.) Average Daily Waste Flow: 1000 State Review Requill no Pere Rate (t) =- Design Flow (Q) = N potential bedrooms X 2 people/bedroom X Rd X 1.75 Q = 1750 /� Absorption Arca = A = ., rt - A = 7668.12 sq. ft. of absorption area required 495 infiltrator units without reduction \murlmum?o rWucrion i. ollowud for u.e of hep v.1 or za. 11 .chnobmc mien, only If the bt .lu and roll wndlll. m oplmLL it . reduction u being pwpowd. domribe.1, lot uzc and wit oaNitions m pa..1 ^.n reduction allowed due to soll pereolatmn rate. A = 7668.12 sq.ft. with reduction 486 infiltrator units with reduction Type of system: [X)Absorption trenches flAbsorption bed [] Gravelless chambers [)Ihywell [)Seepage Pit []Other Minimum tank capacity: 2187.6 SETBACK FROM WELL If of fed = 160 SETBACK FROM POND, STREAM OR IRRIGATION DITCH N of feet = 110 SETBACK FROM DRY GULCH 4 of fed = 85 FINAL INSPECTION BY: Page 1 of 1 60 1974141x9 � r colNan (P1c) cm ox ow) STAn A s TON VNw FXN)6IM RWD1E `7 Nrt ISYDIE F� oY wxT w (Wry cD14n TErHEA (R) wATtWrcrt co.EW rwv¢T' � (E»rou) e v11a1aW oWr wu— ISOIAIIpII vALK EJ(IDBDII 1WClE (PIC) J IICII-CDIIfIR ULTPASDIC lfVFl_ CpRRG1ER (H�IA 4%/M) wnr1�P IIFf fME PIMP a,, D (PVC) ftECE55FD � PPE CONNE[.'IgN AND GR wu � ILMD I-I/i SWFLE% flElOIKX I -I/1 OIpIMCE PPE (TC) 1/4 TIRI SfMATIDR 9111 VM1E (AC) wlNv aRDc 06CCNAEtT 1101IR HIYgLYA1L o1lAMAA1 gu (sA%IDPwcT 1-1/c 91u aNtnc vA�vE wmN arAIHaR (P�c) — 1-1/t 06UNMG£ PPE (R)- 3 cDRRiU6IL 1RINM PN1P CW a w mfrERANO 10 rFu AT IDD R TDR I.s Npq f mmtrt (nc) -9AAPL OVVuIDE Ulm& e) IMT WELL crus xDrv-mrtacr UTP. Lm CDIDWGUEII (miwA %%/Dv) 3/9-10 % 1-1/2 Ip R CD1vI FASrD*RS (S r ) IIW WET •E31. K.QSS n (PE) vAD1Dor (51A*m M OREIQ) Aq'IDIS 2JlY3JlY �P� !ACTOR/ INFLOW JCNf NILT CADYIIEf (MLR1N) ACC(PI$ ♦'JD' 00 PK POPOI CORE) OU%]( 06WN(L,T 27 In (D nA n.e Rr m 1n 24.9 g"W n In Zan Ip 1� cowlRo. PRDCPMYq 6TAf1E% is u OW BEIAFDN NP ANo Iql PAM^F m aNH1 TTAM(MI TIE BI.ID- IP aE aewg PuaHs Intemrn CORPORATION 620 PENNSYLVANIA DRIVE EXTON, PA 19341 F� oY —� MM A CDRCRE¢ ANCHOR 5 � TD PRfAfIIf TARN fAgN HIMTIING SfF %4TAIATON nSTRINCIIdNS aR 94lhST C/1LIRATI016 SHEET MI't SQF AO 11EIGI(f oP ANCHOOR. POWERSEWER MODEL RGS-1084 REV. REV. DATE DRAWN ISSUE DATE DRAWING NO. F.KOH 10-06-97 RGS1084E Ln) / © COPYRIGHT 1997 INTERON CORPORATION . PATMTS PFNOINC 1� cowlRo. PRDCPMYq 6TAf1E% is u OW BEIAFDN NP ANo Iql PAM^F m aNH1 TTAM(MI TIE BI.ID- IP aE aewg PuaHs Intemrn CORPORATION 620 PENNSYLVANIA DRIVE EXTON, PA 19341 9 Efi7oKPPE 6 "AND GISTALLID En CONTRACTOR F1C1Y oo" ORW AWAY 24' MN OR mm PER TOGO ollm m OSS er Mw Goat INTEGRAL I— F1.001TION FLANGE 36 54s POWERSEWER INSTALLATION DRAWING: MODEL RGS-1084 TM REV. I REV. DATE I DRAWN ISSUE DATE DRAWING N0. _ F.KOH 10-06-97 SURY84E 620 PENNSYLVANIA DRIVE e� aGic000 on. rnrurncG ©COPYRIGHT 1997 INTERON CORPORATION • PATENTS PENDING EXTON, PA 19341 13.1' SIfIPE PER FOOT TORAROS TANK \ ' DAM \ 4' PIPE (4.SR 00)SUPPLIED NW fff CONfTRK��OR ALLIDCLEAN amxnLL o i , 36 POURED 4pt=TOR 3Y H4IIS 1D TANK OISCFIARCE CONNECTWN: 1-1I� 3S MIN SCM !0 PZ SRGOf O C )MeNALKMI 1— / ' CONNECTION: CONNECTION AND T PW S �� FOR REOUIRflIfl rCT10NS F1C1Y oo" ORW AWAY 24' MN OR mm PER TOGO ollm m OSS er Mw Goat INTEGRAL I— F1.001TION FLANGE 36 54s POWERSEWER INSTALLATION DRAWING: MODEL RGS-1084 TM REV. I REV. DATE I DRAWN ISSUE DATE DRAWING N0. _ F.KOH 10-06-97 SURY84E 620 PENNSYLVANIA DRIVE e� aGic000 on. rnrurncG ©COPYRIGHT 1997 INTERON CORPORATION • PATENTS PENDING EXTON, PA 19341 G MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Houben, County Community Development Director FROM: Tamara Pregl, Planner A RE: Woods Minor Amendment to a Development Permit DATE: May 13, 1999 C SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the initially approved building envelope for Parcel 32, Sopris Mountain Ranch to accommodate a septic system. APPLICANT: Margaret Woods Susan Furr; Furr/Foss Architecture LOCATION: The property is referred to as Parcel 32, Sopris Mountain Ranch. ZONING/SIZE: The property is zoned RS -30 and contains approximately 35.302 acres. BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS: The subject parcel was part of a joint venture 1041 Hazard review process for approximately 32 lots in the Sopris Mountain Ranch residential area. Approval was granted to these lots pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 91-171. In 1997, pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 97-66, approval was granted for a lot line adjustment between Lots 31 & 32. In addition, 1041 Hazard Review approval was granted for Lots 31 & 32 for the relocation of the initially approved building envelopes. STAFF COMMENTS: MINOR AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: A minor amendment to any development permit is intended to change an element or condition of a development permit subject to compliance with the standards in Section 3-200-80 of the Land Use Code. These standards require that: A. The amendment must not change the use of the proposed development between residential, commercial, and tourist accommodation uses. Response: The amendment will not change the use of the proposed development. The applicant is not requesting a change in use. B. The amendment must be consistent with action taken during the review of the original development and does not constitute a new land development activity. Response: The amendment is consistent with action taking the review of the original development and the subsequent approvals. Pursuant to Resolution No. 97-66, Condition #4 reads, that "No development, including disturbance of vegetation, grading, septic systems, wells and landscaping, shall occur outside of the building envelopes...". The applicant is proposing to add approximately 13,908 square feet to the existing building envelope, which is currently 0.74 acres, for the purpose of a septic system. This kind of request is not �D3 uncommon for the Sopris Mountain Ranch areas, since for most of the lots throughout the ranch, the desirable soils are often located outside the designated building envelopes. C. The proposed activity does not: 1. Change the basic character of the approved use of land on which the activity occurs including basic visual appearance and method of operation; 2. Increase off-site impacts in the surrounding neighborhood; 3. Endanger the public health, safety or welfare; 4. Violate any Land Use Code Standard; 5. Substantially increase the need for on-site parking or utilities, or affect affordable housing generation: and 6. Increase the floor area of the use by more than two (2) percent or decrease the open space on the site by more than three (3) percent. Response: There is no change to character of use or increase of off-site impacts. The request does not have negative impacts to public health, safety or welfare, nor does the request violate any Land Use Code standards. The amendment does not increase the need for parking, utilities or affordable housing generation, nor does it increase floor. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Community Development Director approve the proposed amendment to the building for the Woods property, subject to the attached Administrative Decision. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Administrative Decision 2. Environmental Health Department � C) "I May -02-99 03.58P RocMT W_ HealthLandPlan P.02 fo: Thomas S. Dunlop, Environmental Health Department From: Betsey Kipp I K - Rocky Mountain Environmental Health & Land Planning Services Date May 2, 1999 Re: Woods Minor Amendment to a Development Permit Parcel ID 92465-273-01-003 As per your request, Rocky Mountain Environmental Health & Land Planning Services has reviewed the details of the Woods minor amendment application under the authority of the Pitkin County Land Use Code . Since it is not a requirement of the Environmental Health Department's to locate a septic system within the building envelope, and the applicant has already received 1041 approval, my comments will be brief. The applicant is requesting an expansion of a building envelope for the individual sewage disposal system s leach field The lot is a 35 -acre parcel in Sopris Mountain Ranch which has an approved building envelope of .74 acres. The owner would like to to extend the building envelope, so that there is enough room to construct a trench system for the leach field, and avoid removing as much natural vegetation as possible This application will be reviewed by the Pitkin County Community Development Director All conditions of prior approvals granted in 1995 and 1997 must be satisfied, r �' C �I�li27L�P►f.Ta��7ir/:�1'1:7►�I a � 1 .�. t 'It is the policv of she Canty to insure the availabilav of a nater supply of adequate quality quzrdsty, pressure and depaidabllm for fire pracaim and support of a proposed lend use prior to approval ofthe use The Comity shall require land uses to hook up to exiling public syslans tf e ce is available' It is unclear whether the well is in place or still needs to be drilled. The applicant should be aware that spreading the leach field out over a greater area may put the well closer to the leach field depending on the well's location. Before the Environmental Health Department can issue a septic system permit, the owner must drill the well to ensure that the well will meet the required setback distance from the septic system. Before drilling the well, the applicant should be sure that it will be possible to fit the waste water disposal system far enough away from the well. A condition of approval for this application is: the applicant must document to the Environmental Health Department that the well meets setback requirements prior to issuance of the septic system permit and the building permit. "his the policy of the County to ensure that adapute sewage tmatrn rt facilaiea are available to serve existing and new develnpmerds. Public and private sewage disposal rya and ..Wong m weh syacros shell wnsply w'ah the sewage dispasel guideline of Pitkin County's rndividuel Sewage Disposal Syvi. Regulatim " `.� J Maw -02-99 O3:58P RocMt W - HealthLandPlan 0 P.O3 Lots in Sopris Mountain Ranch have individual septic systems. A letter from Chris Strouse of Jerome Gamba & Associates, Inc. was submitted and accurately estimates a minimum leach field area of 1,897 square feet. A percolation rate of 60 minutes/inch was used for the preliminary calculations. However, the actual percolation test had not been done when the letter was written. A slower percolation rate will require that the leach field is larger, and may possibly change the owner's plans for placement and/or size of the house In addition, a trench system will require a minimum of 6 feet of undisturbed soil between each trench which increases the leach field area. It would be prudent for the owner to have the perc test done soon to make sure that the well, septic system, and house will all fit within the amended building envelope. The applicant should know that it may take from 2-6 weeks to obtain a well permit (required before septic system design). It may take some time to have soil tests performed and additional time to have the system designed. The Environmental Health Department can evaluate the site and soil tests only between April 15 and Nov. 15. The owner should carefully evaluate this schedule to make sure all steps have been taken to make the permitting process proceed as quickly as possible. The letter from Chris Strouse mentions that a 3,500- square- foot residence is planned with 5 bedrooms If the Environmental Health Department determines that the system should be designed for 5 bedrooms, the required setback from the well to the leach field is 160 lineal feet. Setback distances are also required from other physical features such as creeks, dry gulches, springs, etc. The applicant should carefully evaluate this information to ensure that the setbacks are maintained. A condition of approval for this application is: the Environmental Health Department must receive and approve a septic system application, and issue a permit for construction of the septic system, prior to issuance of a building permit. "It u the policy ofthe Cw y b preserve and prote0. 0.s presem water rewurces. To this end M1 is the policy orthe Cotamty that no land use be initiated which would adversely affect the quantity. qualify, or aw ibility fthe Cmmty's water resour¢s; or whidr would o at the eagr of cesblishedwater-dependrnt agricukural actmu '. or wti h wwW msuk in increased selnuziA m of water resources, lass of nununum stream Flows, funher dent un ofwildlite habitat or major egamdnum to reacquire or re&Lributc major water resouren. It is aLso the policy ofthe Coradv to "a m a naiuml vegot ive buffer almg its surfac waters such that the surface and Barndwat of the arca are not mwadted upon by land uses or other human activities which could cavae detencratian of water quality or inVav the natural thea t poclsus provided by meadows and w, Ul d&" The Environmental Health Department will be addressing impacts on down stream water quality. This application should not impact down stream water quality if the setbacks between the septic system and physical features comply with the Pitkin County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations The Environmental Health Department's mission is to preserve and protect the quality of Pitkin County's water resources. Since a large percentage of the population is dependent upon water from wells, elimination of groundwater pollution, and protection of aquifers and their drainage areas are of utmost importance Roofs and asphalt areas can be nonpoint sources of water discharge that can contaminate water supplies. The Environmental Health Department recommends that nonpoint sources of discharge be retained on the property of origin. To accomplish this, the owner can use landscaping, drainage patterns, detention ponds, and/or dry wells for containment of water runoff from buildings. There is no condition of approval. May -02-99 03:59P ROCMt nv.Heal%hLandPlan P.04 0 -Only that levelopment is pnmiaO which will not Contribute siptJcaNy to degadation of air quality in Pitkin County. Ihvelopmeds may not comminute an mdirea ordirest aw pollution so=c order Federal, State or Coaly regulations.' This project should not contribute significantly to degradation of air quality in Pitkin County since it consists of only a single fatuity home. There is no condition of approval. "It is the poli,, ofthe Cowry, to ensure Ihat no use a developntml of land is perntitted whiLh u in violation of the laws ofthe County. the slate of Culurado, or the t M4ed Sutra of Ametria.' Rocky Mountain Environmental Health & Land Planning Services is not aware of any issues of concern regarding other environmental health laws that the Environmental Health Department should be made aware. S SHOWN ON THIS SITE MAr, WITHIN THE SETBACK PISTANCES (INCLUDING ON -� EKTIES) THERE ARE NO WELLS. BUILDINGS, DITCHES, WATER LINES. SPRINKLER IRRIGATION LINES, DRINKING WATER CISTERNS, MAIN TILES, IRRIGATION , D5• WATEK COURSES, STREAMS. FLOODPLAINS, FLOODWAYS, DRY GULCHES, j SYSTEMS. EXISTING WELL TO THE rKOP09ED SEWER LIFT STATION 19 205 RET EX19TINO WELL TO THE rKOrOSED SErfIC TANK 15 250 FEET +/ j j � j IJ.[i KIO � dV6LR ROAD�Y 1 m 12 /OV IL r c 0 z h J� /�/ realD■ p$1T! PLAN xrz nrvrairT w e.felT��wary n�a�a •1 Y� tY Y• ilYt) nYW m r Mil®. M,■® CQlY fMID M. r tr,■1 llllll ] 41 Y4?M me4e wln wooRnm WW■,s x Gc �+« oa+w.vn NlA rw ra.nKrK«ro vsun Mr41nrw1 wix owraY MGwlir R1em m ♦.0.Mdw YWa OYM MYr r,VIM 1l MO ■!Ml...ra «a..]e. eMMDe w,elr•. u VH RImaIMWIw ro r rvm,.•.<w,n Yu4■ Mn■0®16Lm ,! T,41Y. VO4n CRYY wAI MCwfK• .141 YIAN) MC M.R11ML! f0 MK • wNA.' 41.Y OI-IY.t1,M, Wiipm. ll[. 4m TO! IIMI4ID TO wMrwo • z v rant) YMEI r■v7RGAL•1I1r To ro• t MMl U .V. NWMIIL 4D •V1C IY6D TO! Y' 4Y U). .4N TIW ROAI W W 41 W.WOm! K2 W NW Hu•.10 V1 MfATR nYr12• «rweY.Y+wI w rau)c u. NT4y Mawu YMW YL v n•« N rmi crxe M. VY If1. R1,QM M .VD MIW Y'-Y'MNL M IYMW 0 M MtLf NRr-TfYL4. .I 4L.MlPKY A.I) m l YPtD. N' IR,YT .1 .TM,pM N.R M1.W (✓.p) FKY Ml 4 f/ nnn•. •v■MYe we a•+vr ocsr N nsnm ax M DD. N1 eLLB c4RIm.T.N W m r•2 Ml A SValAY01 m..N YGx NNF w n,WA M' R'IIKGOIRAO! Nlm 401W®m N/.1R I111Wp1i 40 W.IID TO MM iTYYO •]Y LNR16 .r.AY16 .D aa,rw.r•e ro Mve Y'�n.„ n..ol 4o aneum t� Ilgmlf ifq! A yYl MfG1KM M blurt MT4{/.1KF Kf4Ll N,Y.fwKly,.W n.4O D1. w)erTTM )+n.+, r awm cmN oa //Irra,1T MrwYn N rR e)v.. .] so4m uo Yn.lKEGp4�wwoe wn,�vi•urn NrR ■l/.T.W N MnvM sYR.Y m! VIi M.mll, Re f�N R..wa ror4aso ewl n rar 1,I ( ZCMT,Nm Mfp An r /! RIF..R WT1a0 n'« MGIK NT41/.TKx /4r.wrw. eiw. cmr a nlYe+r Mrrvn vrwr N la vrKN )l ver4u R1 Wr,1M[MMATID 4.111Y•n rotM yifM MMY IpYll RC1G.r iPl1m N T, RN. M■■ WI■O M eM� Y1 .P<.R eI gym' ROG\' ul�nw�lr 4a Mm■.ae Deo1■. arrY■)nae M Ol YIN/! YYL ImM YL YWL VIRY. !! wA! 1�i�iY■an Ywmu u.vMu wu loa en/EoeYn 4' nYYm M■IIpY Y14Lrf,i1i 10.TTIN11pN 1w RIN ■l. OlrM,i\T Y4! MYL!!mrlliA M 41 rWT rYSY,■ NIR nNOR Nim1)'.f Yui. i�naanrw vm. rw•.Im Y Y, rrwnl�..Ks.+Y Gn.•.nr..R oer.ua uvrrw,la 4v Mosnw.m■m Nn nerYY. OJNw=IUOwTY YILL�AwI.rw IwRaM VM1,l/N.rWW.. lA1N l6l MY. N,fIM1M IC/W mm:fMflp lm IM11L :.J1.=TTKNmMY'. wM Nrf(APi1V VYtl. MMm NrR GY1M MAbIK nY1)rOI V.IRKM nI{ W41m 41•YGI®O Ml AG0.W! .MllmrLll■.YL f).fIYIR.W'M.4lMV.IMn►lTYY 9]. IWKOImr MtiKM R.V/l dt rMAOND.NT fLM111KTTm•/OOM wM.M,M fMYK11AlfL1Mi 4R«r R WfRf IOIYm. GYIIMW.I.L IOWfNT MRIT 4lIhrIW I.l. CCLNY TOl IL NY GLN /11C OM1 MAOI®YMl p {yYIR ViJ/{.YY m! MR MI'm. arcNltectUra po box 421 0019 muledear M eno 53 M 81664 970-927-2630 5453 fax 701-232-2887 (loin) let foss ale wean torr I wl M4Y ND GY.Wf. M14.f. MOYv w' M Ia0 YO! NNY M W .KY. fbY r<MYsIYwvDo n4)+4o Y.0 ),e.,, rK.a. ■.R.eu .wr.vi.K41•.2I! M M�ANL 6'IL)KY NO IMTIA CCNNT q:«. eaeY n.0 n w.Cl an ceslw oYam. Icuoer eooYSMR Kw 4c YNNe. m r rvnwwawm 4o Im1.wo N r■, eaw u. ocGm wmnYeror r)mm�awM 4o «HIYA R GOOYKTGn iv4+e ■M,1 s. or ew /ni-GSI ra),000.aa ras v4/e R41 r. or sw / naoY1 M nrKn edam M1 rcxnKran ro 1wrM1 YWM w1rY.TW )nnV m M AOJM a M NMrir. a, iWMY.W'L M,!•r.4Npml NTMlI K.r WM/KrYw\MY.T1L/•TW LN MOMtiM rm IGVp GgGr Vp.IV. Ya Y W4 • 4 n a'Q, io] nwce ra m sa)wlon Yr•n Muos.Y !r-..cY NrM.m 1x •,KKo IY.v■ Yr1N0 w w' n Ht w• •. pwr v wn Rx •.m. N nea nN NT41 w'o. IY GRt MO MWK11.111. liRILtlY.M . Ra.1l ..M4n �f/.r14 «41 wneN Nr41S« Ga.Olw P'■t M Rr •OWI N,■r MT. ni MT.LL 211 w.1IN W T1N(m r Yp T «lI..IY MS 1 1. r0! 41■OY La ww.emww wlle,Ywlwr4am wm.Trel al. ,VIR1 WNpB Mrp N rR Cu YV.ro INI, r9AO111.4C Tl GRY Mi411V.Y1G MIR r4R. M MCWYX 14W ] O11Y M fIM� MKl VO)R M PY14 Kw w M 1lwr. •,YY1r•M MM -w fIBMMA CN. RwRx .wn ar caKlYoo 19C. K91 ww) ru,nr iawelKe i«u/ow.swKM� ./I1Nl rpl MW! 16r MWNI, I{DYY BEIM. YO ,l./OT2 CVMW MM! a1 rlf Nvm n4«,wu Inorwn MmscT ro 1e,�.K.w 4v1R awulKY ro ),ilnuur Iewr•n.w re .-_"- m No ro TAINKY M..] -T IRfµMNi f0 M YVNMY cmc •Tr•c,c /YApMYfM R.O..M«GVY Nn R.N.IO'f G. M RI6<R f/11Y /.TK�d. ra c�Mnc�nwl"x ea arTwlw-vna+®nux�n nwm+. BUILDING PERMIT SET RESIDENCE FOR Maggie AoodS PARGPI 52 5OMS MTN RANCH PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO +oxrwYxw ■+e n.v1 Yee wYl e�! lYnV11W Y]1O yl11m MT. ■tlR 01rz - la MAY 1w. mQrWm. 1QN{Ip1 NII(Q/ O.R i Name 00 Address City, St, Zip Phone # : MAGGIE WOODS • Shelton Drilling Corp. P.O. Box 1059 Basalt, Colo. 81621 (970)927-4182 Lic. # 1095 Margaret Woods P.O. Box 6574 Snowmass Village, Co. 81615 (970)923-5541 Date : Permit # Location �e!s Sme I Depth I Type Casing ID Casing OD From -To a.0 31 Steel 6.5 7.0 0-31 L.5360 PVC 5.0 5.0 20-380 Invoice # C-1374 03/30/99 So ris Mtn Perforated Ft Estimated Static Level Total Drilled Recommended Pump Set Depth 376 Ft. Pumping 12 GPM. For Pump Installation We Recommend : Aqua Tec Pump 984MI I (Tom Platzer) Samuelson Pump 945-6309 (Raun Samuelson) J & M Pump Co 945-6159 (Rick Holub) Special Instructions c> Per Foot 360 Feet @ $ 25.90 Per Foot = $ 9.000.00 0 Feet @ $ 0.00 Per Foot = $ 0.00 Total Invoke........ $ 9,000.00 80 ft 12 gpm 140 ft 380 ft Conditlors Of Payment : Due and payable by 4/10/99 pay $ 9,000.00 PLEASE RiiisAD THE FOLLOWINGRECiOMMENDATIONS 1. " WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND A VALID PUMP TEST BE CONDUCTED BY A LICENSED PUMP INSTALLER TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL WELL PRODUCTION AND WATER QUALITY. THIS SHOULD ESTABLISH THE ACTUAL WELL PRODUCTION PARAMETERS WHICH WE CANNOT DETERMINE WHILE DRILLING, 2. On Monitoring/Observation Holes (test holes) it is the customer's responsibility to obtain the proper permit before the well Is put to beneficial use (within one year) or the State may require the hole be plugged ansr abandoned. We will be happy to assist you whenever possible In filling out the appropriate well app!matloo. 3, the landowner is ultimately responsible for the plugging and abandoning of dry holes or replaced wells, according to State Rules and Regulations. Please contact us for details and/or prices. Please tail us if you have any questions. THANK YOU COLO&kDO DIVISIOZOOF WAdV RESOi,TRCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL MSOURCES 2313 SHERMAN ST., RM. 8189 DENVER CO 80203 phone - info: (303) 886-3687 main: (303) 866-3581 ;ra,NEW 36+ ACRE RESIDENTIAL Review Instrnntinne nriar tn Mmni"nn fnrm E Water Well Permit Aplication -_ _ __-.. .__.. ._.... 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION ...w..,r= .,.0 r wu lit woun iruc ur e0 6. USE OF WELL (check aporo late entry or entries) Nana c! appl. jrt 0 A. Ordinary household purposes in up to 3 Mar a: ec woods single-family dwellings, the watering of domestic animals, and the irrigation of not more then one (1) acre of home gardens and lawns ❑ B. Livestock watering (on tort/tench/range/pasture) Muting A,.droee 7 P.O. Box 6574 `• - Village state CO. Zip eerie 81 615 Twphca. N�mbe. (lnoludc ane code) 7. WELL DATA (9 "' )'.323-5541 MAXIMUM PRODUCTION RATE OF THE WELL SHALL NOT EXCEED 15 GPM 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION CONSTRUCT A NEW WELL ON A TRACT OF E. TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL SEWAGE SYSTEM LAND OF 35 ACRES OR MORE M Septic tank ! absorption leach field ❑ Central system District nama: Vault 3. REFER TO (if applicable): Monitoring no,* seWrowledgirem s MH- ^ S ^ 8 4 Location sswsgs to be hauled to: ❑ Other (anseh copy at angineedng design) 4. LOCATION OF WELL Csunty P1tK16 Quarter/quarto NW 1/4 Quarter NW 1/4 S. PROPOSED WELL DRILLER (optional) Name Shelton Drillina Corp.1095 License number 3ecLvn Tawnahip Na, B I Re,p. Ea,IN P,inaip.lM.W;.n 34 1 8 ❑ 0 87 ❑ 0 6 10, SIGNATURE of applicant(s) or authorized agent ulatnw, "°m ecetien lines The making of false statements herein constitutes perjury in the second degree, which is punishable as a class 1 mis- t �. O h. f,a W N Q s 300 it. from ❑ E 10 w demeanor pursuant to C.R.S. 24.4-104(13)(a). I have read the statements herein, know the Contents thereof and state wa:' IocnU.,n addnesa. If Ofam,,t from applicant eddress W sppiicsble) that they are true to my knowledge. 5. TRACT ON WHICH WELL WILL BE LOCATED Must bole ekd igneture A. Tkb Date ATT., -N -ECAI. DESCRIPTION FOR 3S r ACRE TRACT OevPbitrtAnt Owner r' . •- Office Usa only DWR Map No. Name _.S0_Dris Mnuntain Ranrh t ^ . 32 Untt B ❑ nth�� DIV P A" CO S. STATE PARCEL ID# (aprlonaw 5M4. 5i4.•ai=- rL—S—`1 WD BA C. at acres in vaat o.?�yl2i' THIS WILL BE THE ONLY WELL ON THIS TRACT USE MD Form GWS -50 (12/95) -:7a APPLICA-NT COLORADO DIVN OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial 81dg., t3 herman St., Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 8663581 OARS GOP 1095 WELL PERMIT NUMBER 217367 _ DIV. 5 CNTY. 49 WD 38 bES. BASIN MD Lot: 32BIooK: Flling: Subdiv: SOPRIS MOUNTAIN RANCH APPROVED WELL LOCATION, PITKIN COUNTY MARGARET WOODS NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 34 P.O. BOX 6574 Twp 8 S Rng 87W 6th P.M. NCWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 9%17)923-5541 PERMIT TO USE AN EXISTING WELL DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 250 Ft. from NORTH Section Line 300 Ft. from WEST Section Line ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 11 Thos well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of .t --e permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner ot.a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, Jnless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction ern: romp Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(11)(A) as the only well on a tract of land of 35.2 acres described ;C+ 32, Sopris Mountain Ranch division of land, Pitkin County. 4) "he use of ground water from this well is limited to fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside 3 single 'ar-iiiv dwellings, the irrigation of not more than one (1) acre of home gardens and lawns, and the watering of domestic animals. 5) 7hc. maximum pumping rate shall not exceed 15 GPM. 61 The., return flow from the use of the well must be through an individual waste water disposal system of the ••on -Evaporative type where the water is returned to the same s•ream system in which the well is located. r) I ros wall shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit. 8) . A?proved for the installation of a pump in, and the use of, an existing well, constructed on 3/24/99, to a depth of 380 *set, under monitoring hole notice MH35784, acknowledged 3115/99. APPR NJED SAP n .,� 'e;- � Yate Engineer ' l ( 10 1999 DATE ISS -LE, 4 ' i EXPIRATION DATE MAY �01 6 0 SAMUiiLSON PUPAP CO. INC. P.O. aox 297 WATER SYSTEMS aLENWOOD SPRINGS SALES, SERVICE a INSTALLATION COLORADO SI ©02 9456309 May 17, 1999 Ren Smith Margaret Wood P.O. Box 6574 snowmass village, Co. 81615 Attn, Margaret On Mav 13, 1999 a well test was conducted on a well on the wood property on SopriS Mt. Ranch. The followlnq information was obtained; Well Depth -----------------------380'-0" Casinq Size (top) -------------- 7"(steel) Standinq water level---- ------141'-B" Total test time ----------------- 1.5 hrs. Drawdown @ 12 Spm------ ---185'-4" production is --------------------12 qpm - Hardness 1 grain/qal Iron 0.0 mq/1 OH 8.0 This teat was conducted with a 1 1/2 Hp. Goulds submetStible Model 1OLS15. The well recovered back to 154'-0 in 1D min. If you have any questions please call me Raun Samuelson at 945-6309. Sincerely; tir Raun Samuelson F qZ7-46.3 9a3-- oo;Zq Y 05/17/99 12:42 TX/RX 140,5656 P.001 E AnAIVII rnronw..etrnTolnxrJu. TNItYsr (� YYOr11AN rA7ilt{ 7YT1/tA71111 OtfERfe7 .� PA an sma P.O1 May X20-99 09: 38A • AO. 9709?3S�7L W'Id }D »� pgi F.:7E`P7 �� FRfda SNDU" j6.5 u 6 pFIpME 1 I lgt{f1YE Og7RIBOIMY EF71 . V POW ( I MN ixi Min ( �MmAff I TVECF4pumwSAMPC ^NOIF� W110MUr101T IS YCr ROKIEIci�TW&UMW WyLREMARKS. 41 � l., \ 1 jv.'..��11 { .•1.y � �iYj Il 1... .7•, �e .1. • 1lY r•.�i�:J: i�lA. � .! .... �.- 1 �1��.'1.1Lty7 r)•1� .. •�. ,r CRY STATS 1 (.C��W 70E JTni, t'n �1 tfQ.2 111 �r,''f�4. pl. '. , , LAO -MM IN NN1 3m1100M AnAIVII rnronw..etrnTolnxrJu. TNItYsr (� YYOr11AN rA7ilt{ 7YT1/tA71111 OtfERfe7 .� PA an sma L+ J ommom*VAN, m. lixts 0fti 1N7. �iilJCy /wG IO• SYrPb l�u>ti •��� G_ %L7�',rLSWYLr INSqKA 1 I lgt{f1YE Og7RIBOIMY EF71 1 NON GOMMIY Fv r I CYaN UMPLE I ) TNOOT V POW ( I MN ixi Min ( �MmAff I TVECF4pumwSAMPC ^NOIF� W110MUr101T IS YCr ROKIEIci�TW&UMW WyLREMARKS. 41 ro •.L.illTL/r! S'+f.I �Oi«1F9 CRY STATS 1 (.C��W 70E JTni, t'n �1 tfQ.2 SCE kvmu C0A?am L W IIA7TOYS. UMPLMO Owk chm AM omwoYf LAO -MM IN NN1 3m1100M YNSLfTAOLE ❑ wR TEST 05/20/99 12:34 TX/RX NO.5665 P-001 0 CALCULATION FOR LEACH FIELD SIZE PROPOSED DESIGN IS FOR A 5 BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Average Daily Sewage Flow = 5 Bedrooms X 2 persons/bedroom = 10 people = 10 persons X 100 gpd person = 1000 gpd Design Flow = Avg. Daily Flow X 1.75 - 1000 X 1.75 - 1750 gpd Minimum Septic Tank Size = 2,188 gallons USE 2500 gallon Tank THE ABSORPTION AREA (A) FOR A NORMAL GRAVEL TYPE LEACH FIELD IS CALCULATED USING THE FORMULA: A = Q x (SQUARE ROOT OF t) 5 Where: Q = MAXIMUM DAILY SEWAGE FLOW = 1750 gallons per day t =PERCOLATION RATE - 480 min/I THEREFORE: INFILTRATOR BED .. _.. A = (1750) x = 7668.12 sq. ft 1-7�4 RfJWS OF 9 UNITS LONG - TOTAL PER BED = 126 UNITS 5 _ A reduction in the size of the Leach area is allowed in Pitkin County if there area optimum soil '!` condtions in the area of the Leach field. This area does not qualify for any reductions in size. oo ` ADDITIONAL BUILDING ENVELOPE THEREFORE: - 10'-0" - - - The number of "INFILTRATOR" units or approved equal is = 7668.12 sf. / 15.5 = 495 units 0 ` ~_� Beds shall be 4 seperate beds of 7 rows and 18 units long for a total of 504 units. O o Minimum Horizontal setback distances shall conform to Pitkin County, Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations. 4" RISER PIF'€ VyV �� o VALVE BOX COVER E IA0 0 _ t r` All components of the septic system shall be installed in accordance with all Pitkin County Regulations, Colorado Department of Health and according to manufacturer specifications 0 0 / `` See attached 0 & M Manual provided by Jerome Gomba & Associates, Inc. o EX15T. BLDG ENVELOPE 0 4" 5DR 35 \ 0 0 POWER 5EWER __ 5EWER PI7z* _ _ 4 LIFT STATION— 0 \ Model N o. RG5-1084 0 0 � • ' O" I I!4" "SANIFLEX" PIPE - - 0 (200 LF) ..,, - _ _... INFILTRATOR BED - 14 ROWS OF q UNITS LONG � 21'-0". TOTAL PEPBED= 126 UNITS I __ _ -0, 0 0 4" RISER PIPE W/ VALVE BOX COVER (TypJ - �._ 0 0 0 tin<�� I� a D \ . \ . 4" 5OR 35 5EWER PIPE FLOW5PLITTER MANIFOLD ..... ...., WELL O\ ROADS~ ,,. .. ?9,• .....- ,.,.EXIST. \ mIq S ';.,.' ....., -- SEWER PIPE f ROAD R.O.W. 3 O 0 f PUBLIG UTILITY EA5EVIENT -- \ 48" DOSE CHAMBER NEW 2500 gal. • SEPTIG TANK. 50.0" / e4 LD OF POWER CABLE CONDUIT (PJC)- CONTROL CABLE CONDUITPVC) MANUAL OVERRIDE (TO 0.34 DIA) PUMP ELECTRICAL DISCONNECT & RS -232 DIAGNOSTIC 20A CIRCUIT BREAKER " CONNECTION SYSTEM STATUS & WATERTIGHT CONTROL 6 ALARM LED'S JUNCTION BOX (UL/NEMA 6) PRESSURE sewer WATERTIGHT WET WELL ACCESS / COVER (PE) ISOLATION VALVE EXTENSION HANDLE NON—CONTACT ULTRASONIC LEVEL CONTROLLER (NEMA 4X/6P) 38-8 SS COVER FASTENERS i(6 TYP.) WATERTIGHT WET WELL ACCESS COVER PADLOCK (§UPPLIED BY OTHES)— WATERTIGHT ACCESS COVER GASKET (BUNA-I STRAIN RELIEF CORD CONNECTOR VENT GROMMET (ALCRYN) ACCEPTS 2.375" OD PIPE INLET GROMMET (ALCRYN) ACCEPTS 4.50" OD PIPE (OTHER SIZES AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST) PUMP POWER CORD QUICK DISCONNECT FORK 2500 BLOWECWHE�RAOADDZ_ 14 54" 27 in HIGH LEVEL ALARM(( PUMP ON HIGH RANG i 25 in 0 �I J1 37.6 gol I ( PUMP ON LOW RANG � 20 inI 24.9 go +. 11 in PUMP OFF 23.5 gal CROSS SECTION OF INFILTRAjQft,•8ED SCALE: 1 INCH = 2 FEET - 4" PVC RISER W/ PLASTIC VALVE BOX COVER. NOTCH BOTTOM 6" OF RISER (typ) — COVER TETHER (SS) WATERTIGHT COVER GASKET (EPDM) 6" SHALLOW DRY WELL ISOLATION VALVE EXTENSION HANDLE (PVC) NON -CONTACT ULTRASONIC LEVEL CONTROLLER (NEMA 4X/6P) 52" min. PUMP LIFT CABLE BURY (VINYL COATED SS) RECESSED DISCHARGE PIPE CONNECTION AND GROMMET 1-1/4' DISCHARGE PIPE (PVC) 1/4 TURN ISOLATION BALL VALVE (PVC) 1-1/4" SANIFLEX PIPE TO 2500 GALLON SEPTIC PUMP QUICK DISCONNECT WITH HYDRAULIC DIAPHRAGM SEAL (SANTOPRENE) (NYLON) 1-1/4" BALL CHECK VALVE WITH CLEAN-OUT `-+ PUMP STANDOFFS -- 1-1/4" DISCHARGE PIPE (SS) 5 inCLEARANCE FOR " " J 2HP CENTRIFUGAL GRINDER PUMP 3" SOLIDS CAPABLE OF DELIVERING 10 GPM AT 100 FEET TDH EL SH PUMP GUIDER(PVC) GUI(BUNA-N)OE AIL CONTROL PROGRAMMING STAGGERS O A CONCRETE ArypHOR IS REQUIRED TO PREVEM TANK NOTE: PUMP ON' BETWEEN LOW AND FROM FLOATING. SEE INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS OR HIGH RANGE TO RETARD THE BUILD- BALLAST CALCULATIONS SHEET FOR SIZE AND WEIGHT UP OF GREASE ON TANK WALLS 14- OF ANCHOR. 32" POWER SEWER LIFT STATION DETAIL MODEL No. RGS-1084 (or approved equal) Availabel from Canyon Systems, Inc., (303) 987-3838 N.T.S. 4" MANIFOLD PIPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED LEVEL TO DISTRIBUTE FLOW EQUALLY TO 4" FEEDER PIPES FINISH GRADE — NATIVE BACK FILL MATERIAL 2' min 4" SCREENED BACK FILL 4" CROSS "'"� � / � 4" SDR 35 SEWER PIPE 12° min. D FROM DOSING CHAMBER 27 min. SLOPE. PVC TEE ' MASONRY SAND UG = 4.0 or less END SECTION OF INFILTRATOR BED SCALE: 1 INCH = 2 FEET 3' PVC PIPE 3"x 1 1/4' REDUCER BUSHING — 1-1/4' kh. 40 PVC PIPE FROM POWER SEEi72 LET STATION 2.00 24" CONCRETE COVER STANDARD 20' METER PIT SECTION 5' 4' PVC SEVER PIPE 3" Mz� SLOE - 29. T4, PVC 4" PVC 90' BEND Z " —CI. 6 BASE COURSE OMAPACTED TO 90% MAAMIUM MODIFIED PROCTOR DENSITY CROSS SECTION OF 2500 GAL. SEPTIC TANK N.T.S. 48" ONE PIECE DOSING CHAMBER FROM DOSING CHAMBER 4" — SDR 35 PVC TEE 4" — SDR 35 PVC ELL — 4" SDR 35 PVC SEWER PIPE 4" SDR 35 PVC SEWER PIPE r 6" � TO INFILTRATOR BEDS -v FLOW SPLITTER MANIFOLD SCALE: 1 INCH = 2 FEET 28" CONCRETE COVER — 24' —�1 I If- 6" PVC TEE 4" 2 3/4- T 20" JAI 64" 20" 18.5" FLUID DYNAMOS SIPHON; MODEL 417 r Tfn a OR APROVED EQUAL AVG. .O VMC RATE 15 - e DOSNO VOLUME = 134 anion AVG. D6Y5 PER DAY — 7 dose 6' — CI. 6 BASE COURSE 48" y MODIFIED R TO 90%D MAXIDENSITY UM MODIFIED PROCTOR DENSITY CROSS SECTION OF DOSING CHAMBER N.T.S.