HomeMy WebLinkAboutWALLACE BROTHERS MOUNTAIN Formerly Swiss Alp Tr BOnsite File
Wallace Brothers
Mountain
Lot ??
PID#
Formerly Swiss Alp Tr B
051
_~¢,~. MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE ~_¥/ .
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ENVIRONMEN'rAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
825 L Street- Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone 264-4720
ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM AND/OR WELL INSPECTION REPORT
NEW
[] UPGRADE
MAILING ADDRESS
LEGA
DISTANCE TO:'
Manufacturer
Liq
DISTANCE TO:
Well
DISTANCE TO: Leng~ h
No. of lines
Top of tile to finish grade0
Length
Inside length
/
NO. OF
Dwelling r?
Materlal~
Width T~J~.,
PER)~IT NO.
No. of com~.ents
Liquid depth
IF HOMEMADE:
Well Dwelling PERMIT NO.
Liquid capacity in gallons
PERMIT NO.
Material~
Nearest lot li~e~
Trench~ inches
inches
Depth
Width
Total effective absorption area
PERMIT NO.
Type of crib Crib diameter Crib depth Total effective absorption area
Well Building foundation Nearest lot llne
DISTANCE TO: Septic tank
Class Depth Driller Distance to lot line PERMIT NO.
DISTANCE TO: Building foundation Sewer line Absorption area(s)
OTHER
PIPE MAT IALS
SOl L TEST RATI N G
REMARKS
APPR~
72-013~v. 3/78)
DATE
LEGAL
RPPL ! CANT
LOCATION ~,, ~,
LEGAL 7-~c~- ~ _~,,s$ ~/~ ~/~ LOT SIZE
TYPE OF SOZL RBSORE:TION ~'¢STEM IS:
MRNIMUM NLIMBER OF ~5 = ~/~ ~AIL RATING ,:~Q FT,."BR)=
THE REQUIRED SIZE OF THE SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEM
LE~-.IG'TH:= ,,.~--,.)'-"i GRR\-'EL_ g"EPTH= ~
THE LEN.~TH DIMENSION IS THE LENGTH (IN FEET) OF TidE TRENCH OR DRAINFIELD.
THE DEP.TH OF R TRENCH OR PIT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SURFACE OF THE
GROLIND AND THE BOTTOM OF THE E,,L.R,RTION r IN FEET:).
THERE IS NO SET WIDTH FOR TRENCHES.
THE GRAVEL DEPTH IS THE MINIMUM DEPTH OF GRAVEL BETWEEN THE OUTFFILL PIPE
AND THE BOTTOM OF 'rile EXCAVATION (IN FEET).
PERMIT RPPLIC:RNT HR_ THE RE_PON_IBILITtr TO INFORM THIS
INSTALLATION INSFECTION.. OF ANY WELLS ADJACENT TO THIS
NUMBER OF RESIDENCES THAT THE [dELL WILL _ERbE.
DEPARTMENT DURING THE
PROF'ERTY AND THE
TI-4C~ ,.' 2 ) I i%I'_----.F'E CT I ~] ~'-.l'_q ~]RE REE4LI I RE[)
BRCKFILLIN6 OF ANY SYSTEM WITHOUT FINAL INSPECTION AND APPROVRL BY THIS
DEPARTMENT WILL BE SUBJECT TO PRO)SEC:UTION.
MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN A WELL AND RNY ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSRL SYSTEM IS
:t00 FEET FOR R PRIVATE WELL) OR
±50 TO 200 FEET FROM R PUBLIC WELL DEF'ENDING UPON THE T'~PE OF PUBLIC WELL
WELL LOGS ARE REQUIRED AND MUST BE RETURNED TO THE DEPARTMENT WITHIN ~0 DRYS
OF THE WELL COMPLETION.
OTHER REQUIREMENTS MAY RPPLY. SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION DIRGRRMS ARE
AVAILABLE TO INSURE PROPER INSTALLATION.
PERI"1 I T E.'~::F· I RES [:,ECEf'IBER -----:-=- ::L .- 1 :-~- }-"'~~:'
I CERTIFY THAT
l: IRM FAMILIAR WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ON-SITE SEWERS AND WELLS RS SET
FORTH BY THE MUNICIPALITY OF RNCHORAGE.
2: I WILL INSTALL THE SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COPES.
3: I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ON-SITE SEWER SYSTEM MRS' REQUIRE ENLARGEMENT IF THE
RESIDENCE IS REMODELED TO INCLUDE ML-]~E THRN ~ BEDROOMS.
RPPLICRNT
ISSUED 8 '¢ ~-~_ _~_~_ _~_~_. _ ............. D R T E _ _ _/_~_ _~_/_/_~_~ °_/__ _ V~.2
PERFORMED FOR:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
2
4-
6-
7
8
9-
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20
COMMENTS
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Pouch ~-650~ Anchorage, Alaska 9990:2 276-222~
SOILS LOG - PERCOLATION TEST
SLOPE
)r~-~'OI LS LOG
PERCOLATION
TEST
DATE PERFORMED: ~' ~)~'7- 77
SITE PLAN
'] '
ENCOUNTERED?
IF YES, AT WHAT
DEPTH?
Reading Date Gross Net Depth to Net
Time Time Water Drop
PERCOLATION RATE //~/'/~)~
{minutes/inch)
/
TEST RUN BETWEEN / FT AND -- FT
PERFORMED BY: ~
Klondi~ke Alaska Inc.
Mge 19, 0Id Gle~ Highway
P,O. Box 588A - Chugiak, Alaska 99567
Phone 688-2161
TIL WALLACE, Pres.
Serving Anchorage, Eagle River, Palmer & WasilJa
/
,[AY 5. tlAMMOND, Governor
August 27, 1975
Mr. John Gilva
Planning Department
Greater Anchorage A~ea Borough
3500 Tudor Road
Anchorage, AK 99507
Subject: Swiss Alps Subdivision - Eagle River Area
Dear Mr. Gilva:
I appreciate the opportunity I was given on August 19th to SuLn~it
testimony on the Swiss Alps Subdivision. Because the plattin~ bo~
indicated they only wanted to hear new testimony and ~ecauseb of the
time limit imposed I would like to provide ]ny remarks in greater
detail. I assume that this type information is desired as representa-
tion from the department was requested by the borough adminis~ration.
The Borough Planning Department staff did an ey-cellent job in charact-
erizing the area and the recommendations of the Department of Environ-
menfal Qualtiy were all well taken. The p['esent information provided
by the develpper and his method of development lead to the staff's
right and proper staff recommendation to deny approval.
The Swiss Alps Subdivision lies in a unique and environmentally sen-
sitive area with the alpine tundra and steep exposed mountains slopes.
The subdivision straddles the headwaters of Carol Creek and the Fire
Lake drainages and development will effect water uses as they
pe~ ~n
to water supply and aquatic life. Fire creek is an al~adromous fish
stream. Therefore it is essential to define the areas that are suitable
for developments, and to proceed with the development of the project
such a manner that the environment is protected and impacted, in the
least manner in order to protect the ,people who have existing water
uses which this project will affect and to protect tile interests of the
people of the State. Because of the unique nature of the area and the
nP.r.esent_wate,r use~s,conv£~tionat "design by bulldoze~" technique wil~
on work as nas a±ready been established by past history of the
3ect. Similar projects in similar land have been approved (and we will
pay in the future for those)~due to all the environmental factors
involved this subdivision should be the point where "planning by past
precedent" stops and careful considered decisions based on the project's
merits are made.
Now I would like to speak to specific areas that concern our Department
in the areas of responsibility charged to us by the people of the
State of Alaska.
Water Erosion anJ S~!taEion ?or the last two yea]Es violations of
the Alaska Water Quality Standards and statutes have occured in Carol
Creek. This pollution has been directly traced to Thillman Wallace's
activities in Swiss Alps Subdivision and his work on the access road.
This past year similiar violations occurred in Meadow Creek ~ecause
of f.~r. Wallace's activities on the re-alignment of Skyline Drive.
(Our concerns on the Skyline Drive project have been voiced verbally
and by letter to GAf~B Deoartment of Public Works. While some people
~ould try to separate this project from the subdivision it is diffi-
cult to see how a reasonable and logical~man could do so.) It appears
that the Public Works Department by not requiring adequate plans and
proper construction standards has allowed water and ].and pollution in
the Skyline Drive area.
It is my opinion that based on the hard evidence provided by the last
two years experience that if the usual "development by bulldozer"
of a subdivision plan that does not consider the land is pursued
then disasterious consequences will result. This will cause permanent
irrepairable damages to Carol Creek and Fire Creek and the loss of
water supplies for the Carol Creek water system and the Eagle River
Carwash.
The Department of Environmental Conservation has filed charges for the
incidents that occured this year and will continue to do so when is
our beIief based on the evidence that violations have occurred. For
this reason we strongly support the requirement of a storm drainage
plan for present construction work as well as for the completed sub-
division to present deaf, age and violation before they occur.
Sewage DisDosat Based ~n my experience, observations, and review of
the soil l~gs and topography many areas'because of soils and slope
are unsuitable for on-site sewage disposal. If these areas are utilized
for disposal of sewage using on-site systems then the pollution of
Carol Creek by pathogenic brganism resulting from human fecal contam-
ination is a foregone, conclusion. This will result most importantly
_in the contamination of the existing Carol Creek water system and sub-
ject those consumers to the whole spectrum of diseases present i~ the
intestines of humans such as typhoid, hepatitis, and other gastro-
intestinal diseases. The first installation of an on-site system in
the drainage of Carol Creek will subject the users of the present
Carol Creek water system to the disease potential cited above. No
compentent health authority would ever permit on-site sewage disposal
in the drainage serving a water supply such as the one that exists in
Carol Creek. If development is to be allowed at all in the drainage
then sewage should be either transported out of this particular drainage
disposal or.the developer should work out another source of supply such
as a well for the present consumers as a trade-off in the name of jus-
tice.
It is my opinion that if the use of on-site systems are allowed in this
drainage through the approval of a poor subdivision plan the developer
wil'l be assured of serious legal action not only for pollution of
State waters, but more importantly contamination of a public water
supply. For your informa~on and use I am enclosing a count decision
for a very similar case which graphically illusnrates the liability
that a developer incurrs when he procedes after notice that problems
will result because of his action. The Department would expect to
fully use this important legal precede~t if prevention is not possible-
thyough wise land use.
The slope .of the land is very important in sewage disposal. Too
high a slope may place such a hydraulic gradient on the sewage aS it
moves through the soil that little 'treatment is affected. The grad-
ient may become so steep that sewage surfaces on the slope itself.
Many sewage disposal system concentrated on small lots on a mountain
side provide the potential for predictable pollution of ground and
surface waters in lower elevations.
~rainagq The peaty soils of the bowl area of Swiss Alps Subdivision are
very extensive and act as a sponge for ground water retention in the
Carol Creek drainage. The undisturbed conditions of this area slows
down the discharge of water from the drainage insuring ~ significant
flow in Carol Creek at all times of the year. This is important, not
only for Carol Creek, but also to Fire Creek to which it is a major
tributary. It was very evident that the developer's presently existing
drainage efforts have caused higher levels of water in the creek than
normal. While this is good on the surface it is entirely possible
that during months of low historical precipitation that flows may'
drop to very critical levels which would not permit the water supplies
to have sufficent water and affect aquatic life in this creek and Fire
Creek. Again the developer has the very likely potential to affect the
existing water uses and he should provide acceptable substitutes to the
-two existing major users of the stream.
Also the drainage scheme will have the predictable effect of concentra-
ting the inadequately treated sewage effluents from the unsuitable
soils and conducting them'eventually to Carol Creek. This drainage to
lower the water table greatly increases the potential for fecal pollution
of Carol Creek drainage. Drainage of certain lands for residential
construction can be doubtful process even where public sewers are pro-
vided, a~ the potential for flooding of subsurface portions of stzuctures
when the drainage scheme is not sufficient to handle the subsurface
waters in years of high recharge or when the scheme fails due to plug-
ging or mechanical failures of components. Where public sewers are pro-
vided "only" damage to. structures may result and sewer flows increase.
When on-site sewage disposal system are used then failure of the systems
occur and health hazards and pollution result. Great care and expertise
is hence required both in design and construction.
Wind Erosion Due to the removal of the orginal orgahic surface soils
in portions of the subdivision, wind erosion is evident. It is extre-
mely important that careful attention be paid to require revegation on
disturbed ~ortions such as cuts, fills, and other denuded areas. If
these areas are not properly revegetated then the continued wind ero-
sion will help lay. the potential for water erosion by inhibiting the
~egetative cover. Dust problems are also very likely from this source
as well as traffic flow in the subdivision.
Something that is disturbing to me was an inference by the Platting
Board was that this subdivision should be approved because of others
like it have in the hillside area of the Anchorage Bowl. I have made
mistakes which have flowered and produced undesired results. I daily
work correcting m~stakes that have been made because of unwise land
use. People are forced to spend unreasonable sums and do very uncon-
vential and costly thiDgs to attempt secure water and provide safe
sewage disposal ~n areas that the land cat provide neifher. Often
the house is constructed and people's life savings are at stake.
Waivers of serious consequence are sought from existing laws for lots
which should not exist in the first place. My point is that at a point
in time this must be stopped and future approvals given on up to date
standards. Projects should not be approved because "ones like it have'~,
but on the basis of its merits considered against updated standards which
must from time to time change based on newer technology.
In line with the above throught one platting-board member stated "other
agencies should excerise their own jurisdiction[ That was exactly the
reason for my presence at the hearing on Swiss Alps. Irregardless of
any laws our Department may have, if unsuitable land is approved for
subdivision then punitive measures must be taken by regulatory agencies
such as DEQ and our Department instead' of preventative measures. Pre-
sently in the State, Borough Platting authorities possess the most
significant force and in truth the only real control in land use. While
there is an Alaska Pipeline and petroleum development in the Gulf of
Alaska may take place, the real impact on this State and its environment
is the population that results and how these PeoPle affect the-environ-
-ment. In the flurry over caribou and tundra %he~ef~ect of the people
on the populated areas of the state and the land, water, and air in
these areas have been largely ignored. ~We hope to prevent these pro-
blems and "exercise our jurisdiction" by providing input %o the groups
who have authority and po~er to see that impact~s--minimized an~ deve-
lopment takes place in ~ manner which protects~ our state's environment
in the areas where we live, work, and spend the majority of out'time.
We have the following specific recommendations for the Swi~s Alps
Subdivision:
1. No lot shall be less than 5~acres~ To determine the lot size
on sewage disposal capacity alone in the face of other serious environ-
mental problems is a fallacy. For an education one should review the
way 2 1/2 acre lots have been utilized in"A-he Eagle River, Birchwood,
and Chugiak area and see how much disturbance of vegetative cover has
taken place in these much less fragile areas. No five acre lot should
be resubdividable.
2. Ail five acre lots shall contain
slopes and approximately 20,000 square of
for sewage disposal.
a home site with appropriate
land of less than 25% slope
3. No On-site sewage disposal systen~s s~ould be permitted in the
Carol Creek drainage portion of the subdivision until appropriate
measures have been taken to replace the.existing Carol Creek Water
System with a.state approved system. ·
4.. A 50 foot wide publicly owned greenbelt shall be provided on
each side of the major streams .to preserve the existing high water
quality in the Carol Creek drainage.
· ' e
5. Only areas which have sultaD1 homesites with sewage disposal
areas of proper slope (C251), suitable soils, and proper distances to
bedrock and the water table shall be developed. Great care must be
taken to define bedrock areas to prevent possible "p~rching" of sewage
effluents .and consequent pollution.
6 Areas with little or no potential for ground water for water
· water. As the developer has dril].ed
supply shall be served with public
several wells in the subdivision he should be well on his way to
fining these areaS of low potential.
· 7 A detailed s~orm drainage plan prepared by a competent engineer
shall ~e prepared to cover handling of snowmelt, rainfall and draina~'e
. ' able channel liDing~ ~hall be used
runoff. In dlsturbed~ ~r~as s~s such areas-~ ~prOV~slOn shall~.b~
uct concentrated flo~ acz~ ~ ~ ~i~s and a ~aintanence p~o~e~u~
cond ~ ~ei~ned sedlmentat~O~ ~ our
for propez*3 ~
provided for their operation. This plan will require approval by
Department. This approach is required to protect the existing high
water quality in the Carol Creek ~rainage.
8. All denuded and disturbed areas shall be revegetated according
to plan approved by DEQ in conjunction with ADEC. Minimum disturbance
of vegetative cover shall be required of lot owners through appropriate
agreements.
It is felt that these eight reeow~endations are the very minimum to
properly take care of the areaS of the environment with which~.we are
charged to protect~ I do not feel these are in conflict with the
original staff recomm~endations which were well thought out and 'entirely
my considered opinion that no person should judge
valid~_ ,~It is also project ff,there investigations have been limited
the merits of this
to observation of the scar visible from the Glenn Highway and have never
set foot on the property itself. The Board Members should be encouraged
to make a site inspection before a~y decision is made. ·~
Mr. Roguska ~equested copies of some of the photos I presented at the
hearing for the record. If you will stop by our office in Room 1206,
MacKay Building and select the ones you want we will provide them at
cost.
I appreciate t~e opp°~t~tO make these comments, thank you for your
patience in reviewing them, and respectfully request they receive con-
sideration.
Sincerely,
Kyle J. Cherry,P-~. al
Regional Environment Supervisor