HomeMy WebLinkAbout03527j
~
t
l
' i
• ~ •
• ;·. t
' 4 ---•'
" .
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT
-109 8th Street Suite 303
Glenwood Springe, Colorado 81601
Phone'(303) 945-8212 ·
·:.:/(
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT
\ , '
rt/tJ(Dj
Permit N: 3527
Assessor's Parcel No.
This does not constitute
a building or use permit. '
I PROPERTY -·;k.A:u-225 U di1,LL s-T 7~
Owner's Name GA LB (JO ~RTlf.S Present Address id!!~ < • ·· .~''• ~ c~ Phone~Cz~C)~S~_i/~9_9'--'--{
.
'•
System Location fleCjO Hf(}H flsrl:? A.) Xtzoeft J)R,) C tYll £
Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No.-----------------------------------
SYSTEM DESIGN
______ Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) ______ Other
______ Percolation Rate (minutes/inch) 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 ___________________________________________ _
Date
I).-'!J-0/ I I. I"" ,.,.--R
------------Inspector 'f"ttf.t# \.?, r ff'? J!-1.:x.1&< If..!§
RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE
•CONDITIONS:
1. All instaUaUon must comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter
25, Arti,c\e_JO C.R.S. 1973, Revised 1984.
2. This petrhitJis 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
•
' '
i
;
>
" ;..
- - - - - ------------------------------
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGI;.DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION •
OWNER ____ ~0~£~V~.....,=.:i'i11L...L..<J•N""-'?46"""'=-='~~~~~~~~~e-l!k=.::__ _______________ _
ADDRESS ____ -z~~ .... s"---"'&~H=»<I.._( --"n-"----__,,A~~=w==->w~_,s.,,_...1c;.._.,,_c
CONTRACTOR __ =(...e""'-"/..VVf/"'-=-=~~~"-'-"~~~'=~~~='-------------------
ADDRESS ----~""-"-'"--'@?'('=i.:c?"'-'0!-=_,,c.+f="""'.!<.~'-"h'f:l""~:c:t6"'-"co"'-'8"'1-"'rr_._13
PERMIT REQUEST FOR ('><) 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:
Near what City of Town ..,. .. ..,..,st<<p Go :S:•'-'Cd
Legal Description or Address l k212 j,.( "!ft< ffifl"<t11 t2Aci::t1 E"fr'.
WASTES TYPE: (X) DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE
( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON-DOMESTIC WASTES
( ) OTHER-DESCRIBE _______________ _
BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: __ !?""""@!"'-'-''~"""'~~------------------
Number ofBedrooms ___ !I..._.~_,_ _________ _ Number of Persons---"----
(x) Dishwasher (.K) Garbage Grinder ( '9 Automatic Washer
SOURCE AND TypE OF WATER SUPPLY: (X) WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK
If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: ________________ _
DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM:_~z"--+...i:t-<;;..:•.:..!..e5"""----------
Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? __ ___..1~-----------
A site plan ls reaulred to be submitted that indicates the following MINIMUM distances:
Leach Field to Well: 100 feet
Sepdc Tank to Well: 50 feet
Leach Field to Irrlgadon Ditches, Stream or Water Course: 50 feet
Sepdc System to Property Lines: 10 feet
YQUR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT
A SIJEPLAN.
GROUND CONDITIONS:
Depth to first Ground Water Table ______________________ _
Percent Ground Slope ___________________________ _
2
TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL $YSTEM PROPOSED: • "'0 SEPTIC TANK ( ) AERATION PLANT ( ) VAULT
( ) VAULT PRIVY ( ) COMPOSTING TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, POT ABLE USE
( ) PIT PRIVY ( ) INCINERATION TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, OTHER USE
( ) CHEMICAL TOILET ( ) OTHER -DESCRIBE
~DISPOSAL BY:
~ ABSORPTION TRENCH, BED OR PIT ( ) EV APOTRANSPIRATION
( ) UNDERGROUND DISPERSAL ( ) SAND FILTER
( ) ABOVE GROUND DISPERSAL ( ) WASTEWATER POND
( ) OTHER -DESCRIBE
WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE STATE?~AP~----
PE&COLATION TEST RESULTS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, ifthe Engineer does the
Percolation Test)
Minutes ____ _,.er inch in hole No. I Minutes _____ _,.er inch in hole NO. 3
Minutes er inch in hole No. 2 Minutes per inch in hole NO. _
Name, address and telephone ofRPE who made soil absorption tests: ______________ _
Name, address and telephone ofRPE 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
fillsification 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 __ ___,~_,,..,_..""'~"""<=,.....· _____ _ Date. __ ~~,,.../':~h?=-<f>-~~r _____ _
PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!!
3
,---------------------------------------------
• • • r
L E w I N c•o N s llf R u c T I 0 N I N c .
TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: FROM:
Garfield Country Building Dept Jeff Lewin
COMPANY: DATE:
6/14/01
FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
12
PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER:
RE: YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:
High Aspen Ranch -Engineering
D URGENT D FOR REVIEW D PLEASE COMMENT D PLEASE REPLY D Pl.EASE RECYCLE
NOTES/COMMENTS:
Planning and Building,
Attached are structural engineering and perk test results for the High Aspen Ranch project at
lot #21, owned by Covington Capital/ Galago Properties.
Thank you,
Jeffrey Lewin
970 963 2000 I FX 21 t t
425 BOYD DR. CARBONDALE, CO 81623
t •JUN-13-2001 11 : 13 H-P CiEOTECH
• • • • ~eCh·
June 12, 2001
Lewin Construction
Ann: Jeff Lewin
425 Boyd Drive
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
K•pworth·l'llwlak Gootechnl<al, Inc.
5020 CoantY Rood 154
Glenwood Sprlnp, Colorado 81601
PhOPe: 970-945-7988
Fu: !1'70..,45-8454
hpgeo@hpgeotcch.com
Job No. 101 388
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed
Residence, Lot 21, High Aspen Ranch, Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Lewin:
As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Oeotcclmical, Inc. performed a subsoil study and
percolation test for foundation and septic disposal designs at the subject site. The study
was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services
to Lewin Construction dated May 18, 2001. The data ob1aincd and our
t"eCOmmendatlons based on the propbsed construction and subsurface conditions
encountefe(! are presented In this report. Hepworth -Pawlak Geotecbnlcal, Inc.
previously performed a preliminary geologic and geotecbDical engineering study for the
ranch development and reported our findings March 4, 1996, Job No. 195 531.
Proposed Constriaction: The proposed residence will be two story wood frame
construction over a walkout basement level and located on the site as shown on Fig. I.
Ground floor& are proposed to be slab-on-grade. Cut depths are expected to range
between about 4 to 8 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 south and downhill of the residence.
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 Condltloae: Lot 21 is located in the southwest portion of the ranch at an elevation
of about 8,200 feet. The ground surface in the building area is moderarely sloping
down to the southeast. The lot is vegetated with a dense aspen forest and a ground
cover of brush, grass and weeds.
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 al the approximate locations shown on Fig. I. The logs of the pits are
presented on Fig. 2. 1be subsoils encountered, below about 2 feet of topsoil, consist of
clayey sandy gravel with cobbles and small boulders. Results of swelH:oosolidation
testing pcrfonned on a relatively undisturbed sample of the finer clayey sand portion,
presented on Fig. 3, indicate low compressibility under existing moisture conditions,
light loading and when wetted and upon additional loading. Results of a gradation
P. 02/11
J~-13-2001 11:13 H-P GEOTECH
Lewin Coostruction
June 12, 2001
Page2
•
•
analysis performed on a sample of clayey gravel (minus 5 inch fraction) obtained from
the site are presented on Fig. 3. No free water was observed in the piis at the time of
excavation and the soils were slightly moist to moist. ·
Foundadon 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 nstural soil designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of2,SOO psf for support oftbe proposed residence. The soils tend to compress
after wetting and there could be some post-construction foundation settlement. Footings
should be a minimum width of 16 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 a.nd the footing bearing level exten4ed down to the
undisturbed natural soils. Exterior footings should be provided with adequate cover
above their bearing elevations for frost proteetion. Placement of footings at least 48
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 10 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 50 pcf for the on-site soil as backfill.
Floor Slabs: The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support
lightly to moderately loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some
dlffetentlal movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and
colwrms with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab
control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The
requiremeots for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the
designer based on experience a.nd the Intended slab use. A minimum 4 Inch layer of
free-draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage.
This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggre11ate with less than 50% passing the
No. 4 sieve and less than 2 % passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 % of
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optlroum. Required fill
can consist of the on-site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
Undenlrain System: Although free water was not encountered during our exploration,
It bas been our experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater can
develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during
sprin& runoff can create a perched condition. We recoinmend below-grade
construction, such as retaining walls llld basement areas, be protected from wetting and
hydrostatic pressure buildup by an undcrdrain system.
H-P GEOTECH
P.03/11
JUN-13-2001 ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------11: 13 H-P ClEOTECH
Lewin ConstrUCtion
June 12, 2001
Page3
, . P.04/11
•
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill
surrounded above the invert level with free-draiuing granular material. The drain
should be placed at each level of excavation and at lea8t l foot below lowest adjacent
finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining
granular material used In the underdrain system should contain less than 2 96 passing the
No. 200 sieve, less than 5096 passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of
2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least l '12 feet deep.
Surface Dralnaae: The following drainage precautions should be observed during
construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed:
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and onderslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backftll should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90 % of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas. Free-draining wall backtlll should be
capped with about 2 feet of the on-site, finer graded soils to reduce
surface water Infiltration.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We
recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved
areas and a mioimwn slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet In pavement
and walkway areas. A swale will be needed uphill to direct surface
runoff around the residence.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of
all backfill.
Percolation Tating: Percolation tests were conducted on May 25, 2001 to evaluate the
feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile pit and three
percolation boles were dug at the locations shown on Fig. I. 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 Protlle Pit shown on Fig. 2 and
consist of about 2 feet of topsoil overlying clayey sandy gravel with cobbles and small
boulders. The percolation test results are presented in Table 11. Based on the
subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, we recommend the
septic disposal system be designed by a civil engineer. If desired, additional percolation
tests could be performed in other parts of the lot to evaluate the feasibility of a leach
field.
H·P GEOT!CH
-------
J~-13-2001 11:14 H-P GEOTECH
Lewin Construction
June 12, 2001
Page4
J •
P.05/11
•
Limitations: This study bas 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 conclusion8 and recommendations submitted
in this report are based upon the dam obmined from the explorat.ory pits excavated at the
locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in
rhe area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface
conditions identified at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions
may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered
during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be
notified at once so re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes.
We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As
the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during
consttuetion t.o 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 sll'llCtUral fill by a representative of the geotechnlcal
engineer.
If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH -PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
_,,:! _,.,-· > .c:::1~.?"~~· ~ _.-/G.~-·-·~
Louis E. Eller ·
Reviewed by:
Daniel E. Hardin, P.
LEE/djg
attachments
H·P OEOTECH
JLl'l-13-2001 11:14
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1· -40'
8220
'8210
81115
8190
.,,"
,,.-"'
/
,/
,/
H-P GEOTECH
_. /
/
/
/ PIT 2
/
/
/
101 388 HEPWORTH-PAWL.AK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
/
/
/
•
11220
I
I
I
8215
I
/
/
/
/
/
/
,/
/
/
I
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
I
/
/
8210
I
/
/
8205
/
/
/
r:06/ff __________ _
8200
/
8195
'--"'?"-/---,,;'/
/
/
LOCA llON OF EXPl.ORA TORV PITS
AND PERCOLATION TEST HOl.ES
PROPOSED
DRIVEWAY
Fig. 1
JLA-1-13-2001 11:14 H-P GEOTECH P.07/11
PtT I PIT 2 PROflLE PIT
El.EV.• 111118' a.EV;• "220' El.EV.• 8188'
0 0
-: WC-11.2 WQ-2&7
i · -·7 00-19 ,-200-111 -2!1o-19
I -.
I 5 6 • I ! I
I
I
. -·
10 10
LEGEND:
TOPSOtL; nndy silty clay, orgQnlc, loose, molet, dork brown.
GR"VEL (GC); sandy, cloyey, with cobbles and email boulders, dense, moist, reddish brown.
2• Diameter hand driven liner sample.
Dhlturbed bulk sample.
T Proctlcal digging refvsol wlth backhoe.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory plt1 -• excawled an Moy 24. 2001 with 11 Cnl 418C bnckhoe.
2. L.ocntlnna of exploratory pltl wore meaaured approximately by poclng from fenhlea on the slte pion
pro~.
J. Dewtlona of the exploratory pit• were obtained by lnterpolatlon between contours nn the site pion
prollided. Loge are drawn to depth.
4. Tho oxplorOtory pit locations and elewtlone lhould be connldered aocurate only to the degree Implied
by the method ueed.
5. The lln• between moterlola ehown on the exploratory plt logs represent tho opproxlmote boundaries
between material twiee ond trnnelUone may be oroduol.
8. No free water was encountered In th1 pit• at the time of exoavotlng. FluctuatJone In water level moy
occur with time.
7. Lobot'otory Testing ReeuJte:
WC • Water Content ( " )
DD • Dry Denalty ( pcf )
+4 • Percent moln•d on No. 4 eleve
-200 • Percent poHlng No. 200 llleve
101 388 HEPWORTH-PAWL.AK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC. . LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS no. 2
-.!
.t:! -!
JLl'l-13-2001 11:15 H-P GEDTECH P.08/11
• •
MDisture Content a 23.7 percent
Dry Denetty • 88 pcf
Sample af: Cla~y Sand Matrix
fram: Pit 2 at 3.5 FHt
0
"
No movwnent
upon
1 --.... wetting
! ..,
.........
l 2
..... ~
3
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
101 388 HEPWORTH-PA WLA.K SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
-J~-13-2001 11•15 H-P GEOTECH
101 388
DIAMETER Of' PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
cu, ... , I • Me •
GRAVEL 67 " SAND 15 " SILT AND CLAY 18 "
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: ~:::r-Cloyey Gr'Ovel with es
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PLASTICITY INDEX
FRON: Pit 1 at 1.5 to 3.5 Feet
GRADATION lEST RESULTS
-
Fig. 4
...... """' ..... -.... TUIW. ....... ...... MOIS1UlllE DRY -"'""'"' ......,,,
"" -, , .5-3.5 11.2
2 3.5 23.7 88
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL. INC.
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
"""""'""' -"~lMIS IJ"ICC''VV41> ....... ..... ......... IJCUI) ,,,..,,. c-.... .... .... ""· -...... -· .,.....,. ..... ... , '"' "'"
67 15 18
19
JOB NO. 101 388
,,...,.. _,.,.,,.
Sandy Clayey Gravel
with Cobbles
Clayey Sand Matrix
.
-
'-< ~ ..
';'
~ .. .. .. ..
U1
=t .,,
i ::c
:" ..
~ .. ..
.
'
JUN-13-2001 11:15 H-P ClEOTECH P.11/11
• •
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC . •
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 101 3S8
HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATEROEPTH OROPIN AVERAGE
!INCHES) INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF WATER PERCOLATION
IMINI INTERVAL INTERVAL LEV!L RATE
llNCHl!SI ··llNCHESI llNCHESI IMIN./INCHI
8 8 0
9 9 0
P1 42 16 8 814 14
"' 8% 0
8% 8% 0
8% 8)!, "
8)!, 8% 0
8)!, 8)!, 0 110
8 !iY. 2l!o
Ii% Ii %
P2 37 16 B 4% %
4% 4 Ya
4 3% Ya
Water Added 6% 6 )I
II 4% %
4% 4 )!, 30
9 8% y.
8% 8 %
8 8 0
P3 •33 16 8 7% )!,
7% 7% 0
7% 714 14
714 714 0
7"' 7% 0 180
Note: Percolation tests were performed on May 26, 2001 . The last three readings of each test were used to
determine the average percolation rate.
';? fl' 66> ~·t< ~ 1tt;i,i
C\V\v G.ll'1<'1'tt'~
TOTAL P.11
--------------------------------------------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
December 5, 2001
Garfield County Building & Planning
109 Eighth Street, Third Floor
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: ISDS forLot 21; High Aspen Ranch-1690 High Aspen Drive, Garfield County, CO
HCE Job No. 2011643.59
To Whom It May Concern:
.RECE\\JEG OEC 1 7 2ail
On November 15, 200 I, High Country Engineering personnel observed the construction of the
ISDS for Lot 21; High Aspen Ranch in Garfield County, Colorado. One 1500-gallon septic tank and
96 standard Infiltrator units had been installed in a trench configuration. A grinder pump tank had
hcen inslalled within the house to pump the sewage up to the septic tank, which was located near the
upper trench. The pump had not been delivered to the site at the time of inspection. Other than that,
the installation of the system was in confonnance with the intent of the design. If you have any
questions, or need additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.
,./ /<-7 .. /zf
Roger D. Neal, P.E.
Project Manager
RDN/djw
Cc: Jeff Lewin
1517 Blake Avenue, Ste. IOI 14 lnverness Drive East, Ste. D-136
Glenwood Springs, CO 8/WP Blake Avenue, Ste. 101 Englewood, CO 80112 14 lnvcmess Drive East, Ste. fJJUfldJunction, CO 80501
phone 970 945-8676 •J_ax 970 ~~Sprin[!>. C0816llhone 303 925-0544 •fax 303 925-0547Englcwood. C9ilJ)Mt 970 858-n933 •fax 970 858-0275
Telcrhnnc (970) 945-8676 -Fa.,. (970) 945-2555 Tckphnnc (303) 925-0544 · Fa.,. (303) 925-0~47