HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication- PermitGARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT
109 8th Street Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone (303) 945-8212
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT
PROPERTY ^�� T��_....
Owner's Namen1�L)h M 7 r11Str,' $ present Address?obci
System Location 5050 eR 309 J tRAC--kurr C
Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No 2 73 — 364 60 -o 3 }-
SYSTEM DESIGN
Permit N12 3507
Assessor's Parcel No.
cif 73 3.4-1c
This does not constitute
a building or use permit.
Phonen5' 9" /
Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) Other
Percolation Rate (minuteslinch) Number of Bedrooms (or other)
Required Absorption Area - See Attached
Special Setback Requirements:
Date Inspector
FINAL. SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed)
Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation
System Installer
Septic Tank Capacity
Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name
Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface
Absorption Area
Absorption Area Type and/or Manufacturer or Trade Name
Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements
Other ,r
Date 'j[A�� / 2 - 2VO / Inspector c61/ir� S W[ •
/// RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE
•CONDITIONS:
1. All installation must comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter
25, Article 10 C.R.S. 1973, Revised 1984.
2. This permit is valid only for connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Con-
nection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a violation or a
requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit.
3. Any person who constructs,alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system in a manner which involves a knowing and material
variation from the terms or specifications contained in the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine — 6
months in jail or both).
White - APPLICANT Yellow - DEPARTMENT
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION
OWNER V-•vZ
ADDRESS o- e_ a ,s U altb,ciivAc Gs ukew
CONTRACTOR\ .v. e.-NCOr<'Tf pp
ADDRESS "p.i3 �v C o l�tc� PHONE ll)r='S)So
PHONE C 1 \\�J
PERMIT REQUEST FOR (J) NEW INSTALLATION
( ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR
Attach separate sheets or report showing entire area with respect to surrounding areas, topography of area, habitable
building, location of potable water wells, soil percolation test holes, soil profiles in test holes (See page 4).
LOCATION OF PROPOSED FACILITY•
�`��� Size of Lot 1 "°l A CI to
Near what City of Town n
Legal Description or Address 6,.� 36\oZ33s 9 v 't, C & ( {
WASTES TYPE: ( ) DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE
COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON-DOMESTIC WASTES
( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE
BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: Cel •SVACA.c.N
Number of Bedrooms 0 Number of Persons
( ) Garbage Grinder ( ) Automatic Washer ( ) Dishwasher
SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: ( ) WELL 4)) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK
If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier:
DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: vrAvi
Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? \o
A site plan is required to be submitted that indicates the following NIINIMUM distances:
Leach Field to Well: 100 feet
Septic Tank to Well: 50 feet
Leach Field to Irrigation Ditches, Stream or Water Course: 50 feet
Septic System to Property Lines: 10 feet
YOUR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT
A SITE PLAN.
GROUND CONDITIONS:
Depth to first Ground Water Table Q") �
Percent Ground Slope aX
2
TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED:
(J) SEPTIC TANK ( ) AERATION PLANT ( ) VAULT
( ) VAULT PRIVY ( ) COMPOSTING TO LET ( ) RECYCLING, POTABLE USE
( ) PIT PRIVY ( ) INCINERATION TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, OTHER USE
( ) CHEMICAL TOILET ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE
FINAL DISPOSAL BY:
ABSORPTION TRENCH, BED OR PIT ( ) EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
( ) UNDERGROUND DISPERSAL ( ) SAND FILTER
( ) ABOVE GROUND DISPERSAL ( ) WASTEWATER POND
( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE
WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE STATE? No
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does the
Percolation Test) `, h
Isfmutes � per inch in hole No. 1 Minutes -1 v per inch in hole NO. 3
Mmutes 4-3 n per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes , l per inch in hole NO.
Vi Name, address and telephone of RPE who made soil absorption tests: t U Cy.\e tt— St r oNko,c1Q,r@ t,rA
"5OD." C .7 T\J � .5. Cn k \ c cs‘NAT--1cfl
Name, address and te{lel� hone of RPE responsible for design of the system:
Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of the application is conditional upon such further mandatory and
additional tests and reports as may be required by the local health department to be made and furnished by the applicant
or by the local health department for purposed of the evaluation of the application; and the issuance of the permit is
subject to such terms and conditions as deemed necessary to insure compliance with rules and regulations made,
information and reports submitted herewith and required to be submitted by the applicant are or will be represented to
be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are designed to be relied on by the local department of
health in evaluating the same for purposes of issuing the permit applied for herein. I further understand that any
falsification or misrepresentation may result in the denial of the application or revocation of any permit granted based
upon said application and in legal action for perjury as provided by law.
Signed V\ Date yl ��\
PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!!
3
January 11, 2001
Phil Vaughan
Construction Management, Inc.
1038 County Road 323
Rifle, CO 81650
RE: Rulison Station — Proposed ISDS System, Grand Valley Fire Protection District, Garfield County,
Colorado
SE Job No. 20047.01
Dear Phil:
Pursuant to your request, attached herewith is a letter/report presenting our findings in regard to the design
of an Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) at the above referenced Site. This design is based on our
evaluation of the site conditions with information provided by others for use in supporting your application
to Garfield County. Our recommendations are in accordance with Garfield County and the State of
Colorado ISDS Regulations. Garfield County must permit any proposed improvement to the site. We
have reviewed the information forwarded to us, conducted a site visit, formulated an ISDS design and
created a site plan with construction details as part of our scope of work.
Conclusions:
Based on our findings we believe that the design and installation of an approved ISDS system is feasible in
accordance with the Regulations of Garfield County and the State of Colorado. We recommend that a
new 500 gallon septic tank be installed that will discharge effluent to a 93 square foot soil absorption
trench system. The soil absorption system can be installed in natural soils. The system will meet all
required setbacks and be installed within the general boundaries of the septic development envelope
indicated on the plan. Our Design is outlined below and delineated on the attached site plan.
Site Location:
The subject site is located near the Colorado River and adjacent to County Road 309 in Garfield County,
Colorado. The site is situated in Section 36, T 6 S, R 95 W of the 6`" P.M. The Site comprises
approximately 1.0 acre. The site is bounded on the West and East by undeveloped rangeland, on the north
by County Road 309 and on the South by undeveloped land.
Existing Site Conditions:
The 1.0 acre site is located on a moderately sloping range land bench above the Colorado River. The land
may have been irrigated with water from a ditch located east and south of the property. The site has a
gentle slope toward the northwest. The existing ground surface in the proposed septic envelope is on
moderately sloping ground with an approximate slope of 12%. The site is covered with grasses, sagebrush
and has a greenbelt of spruce and cottonwood trees along the southern and eastern lot boundaries.
Domestic water is supplied by an existing registered well, on the adjacent property to the southeast. No
well information is available at this time.
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313
SOPRIS ENGINEERING LLC
civil consultants
9 A.
Phil Vaughan
SE Job No. 20047.01
3/9/01
Page 2
Proposed Site Conditions:
It is our understanding that you intend to construct a 4000 S.F., one story steel frame/metal skin structure,
to be used as a volunteer fire station. The proposed improvements will include a new ISDS system to serve
a single closet fixture and a wash basin. No kitchen or laundry facilities are proposed. The new facilities
are to be generally located as shown on the plan.
Subsurface Conditions:
Attached herewith are the results of the subsurface investigation and percolation tests conducted on June 2,
2000 by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. The report is dated June 27, 2000, Job Number 199 893.
The subsoil encountered at the site consists of feet of topsoil overlying medium stiff to stiff, sandy silty
clay to the profile pit depths. Groundwater was not encountered to a depth of 8 feet in the test profile pits.
Percolation testing utilized three test holes, which yielded similar absorption rates. The fastest measured
rate was 24 minutes per inch and the slowest measured rate was 40 minutes per inch. The average
percolation rate is 32 minutes per inch and is suitable for a conventional absorption system.
Design Criteria:
Proposed structure contains only two fixtures, a toilet and wash basin. No kitchen, bathing, laundry and
boarding facilities are proposed. The design flow is calculated as follows:
The design flow equivalent for a Volunteer fire station is assumed to be similar to a church or theater.
We believe that a reasonable water usage value for this facility is 5 gpd per maximum number of firemen,
which is assumed to be equivalent to a theater or church per seat.
From the State of Colorado County I. S. D. S. Regulation;
Average daily flow (Q) = # of people x 5 gal/person/day (avg. flow)
Max. Design flow (Qd) = # of people x 5 gal/person/day x 1.5 (peaking factor) = gal/day
Maximum number of Firefighters is assumed to be 10 people.
Gallons per day for the subject facility = 5 gal/person/day
Qcl = 10*5*1.5 = 75 gal/dav
Septic Tank Design:
Per regulations
Qd = 10*5*1.5 = 75
Volume (V) of tank = Design Flow * 1.25
(30 hour retention time)
V = 75 gal/day * 1.25 = 94
Use one 500 -gallon septic tank
if a 500 -gallon tank is not available use next available size. A single chamber tank is acceptable with an
approved effluent filter vault. The tank must have appropriate access openings with risers and lids.
Phil Vaughan
SE Job No. 20047.01
3/9/01
Page 3
Percolation Test Results:
Attached with this report are the percolation test results from Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. dated
June 27, 2000. The results of percolation tests indicated the average percolation rate of 32 minutes per inch
is within acceptable ranges for conventional absorption systems as required by Garfield County
regulations. The field is sized by using the standard absorption area equation and a long-term acceptance
rate. A soil absorption trench disposal system is recommended. The maximum loading rate (MLR) for
this system is 0.4 gallons per square foot per day based on the percolation rate.
Soil Absorption System Design:
Based upon the percolation test rates, the standard absorption area equation yields:
A (SF) = 0 *(t) 1 : where A = Area; Q = flow (gal/day)
5 t = time in minutes
This design will give a recommended minimum absorption area:
A = = 75 *(32) 1 = 85 sa. ft.
5
However Qd / A = 75 gal/day = 0.88gaVsf/day
85 sf
Therefore: A = Qd / MLR = 75 gal/day = 187 sf
0.4 gal/sf/day
We recommend using a gravelless absorption trench system and reducing the area by 50%.
Therefore: A = Qd / MLR x 0.5 = 75 gal/day x (0.5) = 94 sf
0.4 gal/sf/day
We recommend using a trench system composed of 1 trench 39 feet long and 3 foot wide, containing 6
standard absorption chamber units.
Use: Minimum 94 sf of absorption trench.
An inspection port should be installed from the top of the pre -molded cut out at the midpoint of the
terminal end chamber in the trench. This will allow for checking the performance of the system over time.
c
Phil Vaughan
SE Job No. 20047.01
3/9/01
Page 4
General Notes:
1) All materials and installation practices shall conform to Garfield County and the State of Colorado
Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
2) All sewer lines and distribution lines in the system shall be 4" Schedule 40 or SDR -35 PVC unless
specified otherwise on the plans.
3) Add a two-way clean out on the service line from the proposed Building.
4) The contractor shall ensure that the concrete septic tank and sewer lines are watertight.
5) The trench area must be protected to prevent damage from vehicular or livestock traffic and must be
crowned to divert drainage runoff away from the bed.
6) The 6 absorption chambers shall be installed level in each trench, with a splash plate, placed on the
surface in the first chamber below the inlet to prevent scouring from the effluent.
7) A final cover of' soil suitable for vegetation, a minimum 10" deep, shall be placed to the finished
surface grade.
8) The absorption trenches must be sodded or covered with vegetative ground cover.
Our design and recommendations are based upon data supplied to us by others. If subsurface or site
conditions are found to be different from those presented in this report, we should be notified to evaluate
the effect it may have on the proposed ISDS. If the County Environmental Health Department requests
changes or modifications to this design, we should be contacted to evaluate the effect on the ISDS.
If you have any question or need any additional information, please call.
Sincerely,
SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC
/./S
Paul E. Rutledge
Desi
GeCPtGCiI
June 27, 2000
Grand Valley Fire Protection District
Attn: David Blair
P.O. Box 295
Parachute, Colorado 81635
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: 970-945.7988
Fax: 970.945-8454
hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
Job No. 199 893
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed
Fire Station, County Road 309, 1h Miles From I-70, Rulison, Colorado
Dear Mr. Blair:
As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study and
percolation test for foundation and septic disposal designs at the subject site. The study
was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to
The Grand Valley Fire Protection District dated October 28, 1999. The data obtained
and our recommendations based on the proposed construction and subsurface conditions
encountered are presented in this report.
Proposed Construction: The proposed fire station will be a one story steel
frame/metal skin structure with a slab -on -grade floor. Cut depths are expected to range
between about 2 to 4 feet. Foundation loadings for this type of construction are
assumed to be relatively light and typical of the proposed type of construction. The
septic disposal system is proposed to be located to the west of the fire station.
If building conditions or foundation Loadings are significantly different from those
described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in
this report.
Site Conditions: The site was vacant at the time of our field work and is located on the
north side of County Road 309. The ground surface in the building area is flat and
gently sloping down to the north. The lot is vegetated with sagebrush with spruce and
cottonwood trees scattered along the southern and eastern lot boundaries. Scattered
cobbles and boulders exist on the ground surface in the eastern portion of the site.
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by
excavating two exploratory pits in the building area and one profile pit in the septic
disposal area at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The logs of the pits are
presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered, below about ' foot of topsoil, consist
Grand Valley Fire Protection District
June 27, 2000
Page 2
of medium stiff to stiff, sandy silty clay. Results of swell -consolidation testing
performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the subsoils, presented on Figs. 3 and 4,
indicate low compressibility under existing moisture conditions and a constant light
surcharge and a low collapse potential (settlement under constant load) when wetted.
The samples were moderately to highly compressible under increased loading after
wetting. Laboratory testing is summarized on Table I. No free water was observed in
the pits at the time of excavation and the soils were slightly moist.
Foundation Recommendations: Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the
exploratory pits and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend spread
footings placed on the undisturbed natural soil designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 1,500 psf for support of the proposed fire station. The soils tend to
compress after wetting and there could be some post -construction foundation settlement.
Footings should be a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for
columns. Loose and disturbed soils encountered at the foundation bearing level within
the excavation should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the
undisturbed natural soils. Exterior footings should be provided with adequate cover
above their bearing elevations for frost protection. Placement of footings at least 36
inches below the exterior grade is typically used in this area. Continuous foundation
walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming
an unsupported length of at least 12 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining
structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent
fluid unit weight of at least 55 pcf for the on-site soil as backfill.
Floor Slabs: The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support
lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential
movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with
expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints
should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint
spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on
experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of gravel base should be
placed beneath the floor slab to provide subgrade support. This material should consist
of minus 2 inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 12%
passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 % of
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill
can consist of the on-site soils devoid of vegetation and topsoil or imported road base.
Grand Valley Fire Protection District
June 27, 2000
Page 3
Surface Drainage: The following drainage precautions should be observed during
construction and maintained at all times after the fire station has been completed:
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We
recommend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the fust 10 feet in unpaved
areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in pavement
and walkway areas.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of
all backfill.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at
least 10 feet from the building. Consideration should be given to the use
of xeriscape to limit potential wetting due to irrigation.
Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on June 16, 2000 to evaluate the
feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile pit and three
percolation holes were dug at the locations shown on Fig. 1. The test holes (nominal 12
inch diameter by 12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits
and were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The soils exposed in the
percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Pit shown on Fig. 2 and,
below about V2 foot of topsoil, consist of sandy silty clay down to the pit depth of 8
feet. No free water was observed in the pit. The percolation test results are presented
in Table II. Percolation rates ranged from 24 to 40 minutes per inch with an average of
31 minutes per inch. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the
percolation test results, the tested area should be suitable for a conventional infiltration
septic disposal system.
Limitations: This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no
warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted
in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pits excavated at the
locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in
the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface
H -P f;anrcru
Grand Valley Fire Protection District
June 27, 2000
Page 4
conditions identified at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions
may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered
during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be
notified at once so re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes.
We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As
the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during
construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to
verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design
changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations
presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation
bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical
engineer.
If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Trevor L. Knell
Reviewed by:
0.' $aaestfis
:c' 24443
,d•. 757it . 44�,
�
Cogement, Inc. - Attn: Phil Vaughan
Daniel E. Hardin, P
TLKlksm
attachments
cc: Phil Vaughan
H -P GEOTECH
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1'=50'
1000 996
996
1002 /
/
994
/
/AP 1
■' PROFILE
PIT
P 2 \
992
1
990
i
/
992
1
1
\\
\
N. \
\ \
\ \.--\ 994
\ N.
\
■r\ �~1\
PIT \ N. \ I
N.
\ \ 1
\ % 1
\ 1 I
1 I
1 PROPERTY—
/ (- BOUNDARIES
j I I
i ‘ 1 I
1002 1000 998 996
0
M
cc
199 893
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS
AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES
Fig. 1
Depth — Feet
0
5
10
LEGEND:
NOTES:
PIT 1
WC=7.4
DD=94
-200=57
PIT 2 PROFILE PIT
WD
=10.1
DD -96
-200=86
WC=6.4
DD -91
TOPSOIL; slightly gravelly sandy silt, organic, loose, slightly moist, light brown.
CLAY (CL); silty, sandy, medium stiff to stiff, slightly moist, light brown.
2' Diameter hand driven liner sample.
0
5
010,
10 —
1. Exploratory pits were excavated on. June 15, 2000 with a backhoe.
2. Locations of exploratory pits were staked in the field by Phil Vaughan Construction Management, Inc..
3. Elevations of exploratory pits were not measured and Togs of exploratory pits are drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory pit locations should be considered accurate only to the degree
implied by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate
boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavating.
Fluctuations in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content ( % )
DD = Dry Density ( pcf )
—200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
Depth — Feet
199 893
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Fig. 2
Compression %
Compression %
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Moisture Content = 7.4 percent
Dry Density = 94 pcf
Sample of: Very Sandy Silty Clay
From Pit 1 at 4 Feet
Compression
upon
wetting
5
0.1
0
1
2
3
4
10 10
APPUED PRESSURE — ksf
100
Moisture Content = 10.1 percent
Dry Density = 96 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From. Pit 2 at 2 Feet
Compression
upon
wetting
0.1
1 0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
100
199 893
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.
SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 3
Compression %
CO V Q+ Cli ?
Moisture Content = 6.4 percent
Dry Density = 91 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Pit 2 at 5 Feet
Compression
--upon
wetting
\
.
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
199 893
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 4
JOB NO. 199 893
SOIL OR
BEDROCK TYPE
Very Sandy Silty Clay
Sandy Silty Clay
Sandy Silty Clay
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
IP5F1
m
i
0
F
{w{ c K
S z
0
0 7 ii
PERCENT
PASSING
NO. 200
SIEVE
N
LO
CO
CO
F
O
I u
r
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY
(pal
0)
OD
CO
r
m
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
1%I
.t.
10.1
6.4
SAMPLE LOCATION 1
W I
o
a'
N
LC)
3
r
N
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
JOB NO. 199 893
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF i
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN./INCH)
P-1
51 %
15
water added
6 '
5
1 %
24
5
4y4
%
7
6 y,
%
6 %
5 %
%
5 34
5
A
5 '/4
L'/4
4 ,4
y1
4 %
4
34
P-2
48
15
7 '/.
6 34
%
30
6%
6
%
6
5 %
'4
5 %
5
'44
5
4%
y:
434
4%
y.
4 •%
3 %
34
P-3
48
15
8
7 3
%
40
7'%
6 %
%
6%
6'/4
f
6'/.
6
%
6
5
1
5
4%
/,
4 %
4 '/4
y4
Note: Percolation holes were hand dug in the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and soaked on
June 15, 2000. Percolation testing was performed on June 6, 2000 by a representative
of Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. The average percolation rates are based on the
final two readings of each test.
JUL 3 0 10M
GAtu
BUIL[1ING & PIpNNING
FAX Transmittal
Ta: Tim Holliday
Cala Garfield County Building Department
rn m 384 3470
lila 2-2-04
TISP a:,.2' _
UPr*aillt 20047.01
Tl7a t Paul Rutledge
Mesa Attached is the Rulison Fire Station OWS As -Built letter Per your
request
0 Original not tofollow
0 Original to tallow by mail
o Original to be delivered by messenger
o Onginal to be picked up
502 main street • suite A3 • carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • fax (970) 704-0313
SUNNIS ENGINEERING • LLC
civil consultants
,Trn ..o, n.r Or .n 4•12/0.7 /QC O
June 12, 2001
Phil Vaughan
Construction Management, Inc.
1038 County Road 323
Rifle, CO 81650
RE: Rulison Station — As -Built ISDS System, Grand Valley Fire Protection District, Garfield County,
Colorado
SE Job No, 20047.01
Dear Phil:
Pursuant to County Regulations, this letter and attached drawing provides documentation that the new
ISDS system recently installed is in general compliance witbthe permitted design. Sopris Engineering has
performed a visit to measure, inspect, and document the as built conditions of the constructed system. We
have coordinated our efforts with the contractor that built the system. The as built size and relative
location of the new ISDS system is delineated on the attached drawing.
A 1000 gallon dual compartment septic tank was installed with 4" tee baffles and an effluent filter. An
inspection port was installed on the end of the trench. The absorption field was constructed as delineated
on the site plan. The location of the field was moved approximately 60 feet to the east. The 3' x 39' bed
was installed level utilizing specified materials installed according to design. The minimum setback
distances have been maintained.
The septic tank, distribution pipe, and installation are in accordance with Garfield County Regulations, the
design presented in the Sopris Engineering Report and the design drawings, dated January 11, 2001.
Attached is an as -built drawing dated 6/12/01.
If you have any question or need any additional information, please call.
Sincerely,
SOPRIS
Yan
Proj
G, LLC
ONM.
Hoax*
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313
SOPRIS ENGINEERING LLC
9n -YA-14
MIT L9-J.IT[YI7 CT1.1SPO
civil consultants
e Ten en, OIC nr•,n 41007 OC/,n
4.
/01 RECORD.DWG
Sams ENcenumurre.
502 MAIN STREET. SUITE A3
CARBONDALE. CO 81623
(970) 704-0311
PHIL VAUGHAN CONSTRUC770N MANAGEACK
GRAND VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT
LLC.
IWIJSON FIRE STATION
AS -BUIL? ISDS
DES. PER
CK N'TN
DATE 6/12/01
FILE NO.
20047.01
SHEET 1
OF 1
nNTN11NTEN1 SINAOS
ETECI-V0L-OL6 8G'LO p�0/�E/Lo
• . ,
SCALE 1w=30'
*11/4 SPI/4
•t
e" el:.
.........•
yr
,..„.. r-___.._____„.........
• .
I
1 _. if ,
...,..-------,
/ I i
....- / I
/ Z. TrArfilaTh °- ROY MAC, asmaiii----
--- , "—I (
e tease foe .3 st--"---------.MC Wit
oar WOW PIDVOI WM
-- ./ 0,17 oeSOFINOI MIA .
I
..-----'"-- ) ------.-.-. 0 -
...--
?vs?'
iota
sesThola Oa*
20047 6/12/01 RE
MMTA77MTPNq TAAnq
ETELI-KIL-0L6
BQ 'L0 OM NE /L0