Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationELK SPRINGS/LOS AMIGOS RANCH FINAL PLAT ENGINEERING REPORT FILINGS 6A, 8 -PHASE 2, 9 & 10 For submittal to GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT Per GCULU 5-501 E. 4. November 2010 Prepared by SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER E N G; N E E R S SUREORS I 18 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8 160 1 970.945. 1004 970.945.5948 FAX ELK SPRINGS/LOS AMIGOS RANCH FINAL PLAT ENGINEERING REPORT FILINGS 6A, 8 -PHASE 2, 9 & 10 For submittal to GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT PREPARED BY It DAVID M. KOTZ, P.E. SGM Project #1502C-29 DOCUMENT1 L(k Springsi TABLE OF CONTEN emher 2010 1.0 Executive Summary 1 2.0 Streets, Trails, Walkways and Bikeways 1 3.0 Drainage 2 4.0 Geologic Hazards 2 5.0 Sewage Collection 2 6.0 Water Supply and Distribution 2 7.0 Soils 3 8.0 Groundwater 3 9.0 Erosion and Sediment Control 3 10.0 Public Improvement Cost Estimates 4 Appendix A Drawings - Elk Springs Filings 8 - 9 Final Plat Submittal Appendix B Drawings - Record Drawings Filings 8 and 9 Appendix C Drawings - Kingbird Drive Design Drawings Appendix D Drawings - Filing 6A Neighborhood Commercial Appendix E Engineering Information Appendix F Geologic Hazards Appendix G Soils Appendix H Public Improvements Cost Estimates s Final Plat Engineering Report November 2010 This report addresses the engineering requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution, with respect to the Final Plat application for Elk Springs (fka Los Amigos Ranch) Filings 6A, 8 — Phase 2, 9 and 10. Specific submittal requirements are identified in Article V Divisions of Land 5-501 Application Materials for Division of Land Section E. Final Plat 4.a. — h. Elk Springs has completed construction of most of the infrastructure necessary to serve the areas encompassed in these Final Plats. Filing 6A is directly accessed from CR 114. This parcel will undergo the Preliminary/Final Plan process for site specific features and any re- subdivision. As all of the other utilities are in place adjacent to the parcel, a new sanitary sewer is the only proposed construction at this time. All roads, utilities and drainage infrastructure are in place to serve Filing 8, Phase 2 and Filing 9. The Kingbird Drive cul-de-sac, serving lots 79 and 80, is the only exception to this in Filing 9. Filing 10 is a Rural Residential lot with access and utilities from CR 114. The parcel will utilize an individual well and ISDS and no public improvements are proposed. In addition to the respective Final Plats, this application includes the following engineering plan sets: • Elk Springs Filings 8 — 9 Final Plat Submittal — these are the updated Preliminary Plan drawings that Filing 8 and 9 infrastructure was constructed from. (Appendix A) • Record Drawings Filings 8 and 9 - these are surveyed record drawings of the as - constructed utilities with the Filings. (Appendix B) • Kingbird Drive — these sheets are the design drawings for the infrastructure necessary to serve the two new lots in Filing 9. (Appendix C) • Filing 6A Neighborhood Commercial — these sheets show topography and sanitary sewer design necessary to serve this parcel. (Appendix D) The subject filings underwent the Garfield County Preliminary Plan review process in 1998 and Amendment in 1999. This engineering design presented in this Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plan Filings 6 — 10 and 1999 Amendment. Applicable reports from those applications are included in the Appendices. �l With the exception of Kingbird Drive cul-de-sac, all roads associated with this application have been constructed in accordance with the Preliminary Plan approval and as shown in the plans provided. In general, the Filing 8 and 9 roads are chip sealed w/ two 11' lanes and gravel shoulders. Road grades are < 8% and were designed to fit into the natural topography with minimal disturbance. Preliminary Plan Exhibit D described roadway classification and design and is included in its entirety here as Appendix E. Separate trails, walkways and bikeways are not proposed as "hard" construction. However, the Final Plats do provide easements that allow for non -motorized travel and access to open 1 November 2010 space areas. The low density and rural nature of the development allows the roads to be safely used to access these easements. Drainage features on Elks Springs consist primarily of roadside ditches and cross culverts. The low density of the development allowed natural drainage patterns to be maintained. Runoff rates and volumes are comparatively low due to good vegetative cover and predominant Hydrologic Soil Group B soils having high infiltration capacity. Again, all public drainage infra -structure necessary for these final plats is already constructed. Refer to the Filings 8 — 9 drawings for locations, sizes, and details associated with culverts, swales, etc. The Preliminary Plan application included a detailed and comprehensive drainage report. Again, that report is included in Appendix E. Elk Springs' geology was studied extensively. Applicable reports by Lincoln DeVore, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical Inc. and CTL/Thompson Inc. from the Preliminary Plan Exhibit E are included in Appendix F. Of specific concern for this application are the faults and landslide areas in Filing 8, Phase 2. The conclusions reached are that the landslide area is ancient and now stable and the large lot size will allow residential development as contemplated in areas away from the faults. Elk Springs is served by a central wastewater collection and treatment system operated by the Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD). A network of existing gravity and low pressure sewer lines collect sewage from individual lots throughout the development and route it to the SVSD treatment facility. Such is the case for Filing 9. A new 8" gravity sanitary sewer will be constructed for Filing 6A. Individual Septic Disposal Systems will serve the Rural Residential lots of Filings 8, Phase 2 and Filing 10. These lots are very large, have suitable soils and ISDS's will provide a safe and practical means of sewage disposal. Garfield County Resolution No. 99-102 specifically approved the use of ISDS on these lots. Appendix E contains extensive discussion on the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Plan. With the exception of Filing 10, all lots will be served by the existing central water system owned by the Elk Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. and operated by the Red Canyon 2 November 2010 Water Company. That central water system consists of a well field that pumps to a chlorination facility and contact chamber before entering the transmission and distribution network. That network consists of 10", 8" and 6" waterlines linking the 320,000 gallon East Tank and the 150,000 gallon west tank. Fire protection is provided by the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. The District advised on storage capacity and hydrant layout throughout the development. Appendix E provides full details on the Water Supply Plan. Appendix G contains soil information for the project taken from the USDA National Resource Conservation District. This was submitted as Exhibit I with the 1998 Preliminary application. Soils are generally well-suited for development in the areas proposed. Appendix F provides a geotechnical analysis and provides specific recommendations. Groundwater drainage is not a problematic issue in Elk Springs. No free water was encountered in the 21 test pits ranging from 2' to 8' deep logged in the H -P Geotech Report in Appendix F. Foundation drains are recommended as a precaution against locally perched groundwater. Groundwater was not a significant issue in the construction of public improvements or residences. This report, in conjunction with the project plans contained in Appendices A — D, addresses the requirements of 4-502 (C)(4). There are no major water bodies with in the development. Existing drainage features consist of roadside ditches, swales, culverts and detention ponds. Refer to Appendices A — D plans for topography, grading and locations and sizes drainage elements. Appendix E contains drainage calculations. Snow storage areas are immediately adjacent to the road within the rights-of-way. The Kingbird Drive cul-de-sac and Filing 6A sewer construction will require clearing and grubbing and stockpiling of soil immediately adjacent to the construction within the rights-of- way. The steepest adjacent grades on Kingbird are about 7 %. The sewer construction is generally on existing grades of about 8 % while a short section will be installed on a 14% grade. There are no steep grades greater than 20 % that will be disturbed. No temporary roads are anticipated. Construction of the Kingbird Drive cul-de-sac and Filing 6A sewer line will occur in the spring, summer or fall of 2011. The construction period for each project is not expected to exceed 30 days start to finish. 3 November 2010 The Kingbird Drive cul-de-sac receives virtually no runoff from adjacent area. No specific erosion measures are proposed other than appropriate, good housekeeping measures. The minimal runoff that could leave the construction area will flow as sheet flow and be filtered across natural vegetated areas. For the Filing 6A sewer construction, erosion control and best management practices will be in place at the start of construction. As some tributary drainage area does exist, erosion Togs as shown on the plans will be installed to control any sediment laden runoff. Good housekeeping measures will be expected and additional best management practices as warranted by contractor operations will be utilized. Permanent stabilization will consist of topsoiling, seeding and mulching. The erosion logs and any other controls will be left in place until after vegetation is established. The total cost of erosion control and permanent stabilization is expected to be less than $3000. Refer to cost estimates presented in the next section of this report. Total estimated disturbed area is about 16,850 sf for the Kingbird Drive construction and about 17,000 sf for the Filing 6A sewer project. Adjacent areas at Kingbird are sage with grass. Pinyon/Juniper with grass understory is adjacent to the Filing 6A sewerline while much of the alignment is in the old CR 114 platform. Hydrologic Soil Group "B" soils predominate and have high infiltration capacity resulting in lesser amounts of runoff. These projects will not require a CDPHE Stormwater Management Plan for Construction Activities as the resulting disturbance is well less than 1 acre in each case. As such, separate signature blocks for erosion and sediment control are not provided. Public Improvement cost estimates for the Kingbird Drive cul-de-sac in Filing 9, and the extension of sewer to the Neighborhood Commercial lot in Filing 6A, together with documentation of the actual cost of completed construction in Filings 8 and 9 are included in Appendix H. 6 Final Plat Engineering Report 4 Elk Springs/Los Amigos Ranch November 2010 Appendix A Drawings Elk Springs Filings 8 — 9 Final Plat Submittal Final Plat Engineering Report Appendix A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 tt ,-.1a4..saa 1 iP3M; 1 i gilIlli g ql lkimnr: g 41111; Mfi'mw, ....„ ,k -„„,F2:::-.-z-,Z'-'")'.- t Uz•-iti; Ok. 82r -Hr -:42:1i1 2- ti''' 10,0 0.91, 0 PO, 000 1 0 /*I MN, .0, ON 01. 10 We 00.0. .0.0.000—..1110104111110111,11.%o17,06.,1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • a a 68b999 Ke96 S2b 90'1696. ]-213. as W'rW9 .17349 6/'996!61 .416 06'1889 3943 oleooI 9985,811 5.248 tl 11'9999 :AID kk ,71.5 / 'las 99) a 09'1699 6'l6'SF 91 !✓9999 PS6999 988 727 66.999 L999 r6'Gtl09 n� g —TAW— day 91' Tflaffi 6!16689 trow 6. 1.0 tag a 0 ;88 NA e9nni91 sva e2T9oe .3.w 99067991 :5943 001971 3349 01990.( 3719 790/0< 3.276 99roe191 -.s:,9 66 010[ :3343 :5917 09e 1 a 060101 rtt 3/71 l40(»! 00900 :4713 50900 sm 1090+c02. 1.90 50001'907 69'660.691-r1t xe9e >w *Oh, ns Fi 01019/ 't 6010 8fl 020[ OfO 7 Tifff 21 6 6 9(992 9'99[ 99"991 9191 flISY a 9Y/ 1147 YLT or+ [ X 391 NNW, W" nil.. one. tow +mu .L. act or to a. xart L.n. • 0< a o o sw as kAdaV101.11,.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 49 ji j1 /1 1 11 p 9 1'. s NN Azo A i5 LOS AMIGOS RANCH P. U.D. 10 a......, ..+u as w ,e'Om 1...1 T MINOR COLLECTOR 2 7 (r) / CULVERT OUTLET PROTEC770N RIPRAP DISPERSION CULVERT OUTLET PROTECTOIN c\1 $., , ' ; • ' ; i : ; • • : ; ; ; .,, ' : , • . , : . 9 0 c\) a s +15 41 t t I 1 1 0 I • T 7 •- 'v I rzzi c\ a e elohl ■ | TABLE OF BEARING' AREAS IN SO. FT CRETE REACTION BLOCK DETA/LS A A ■ . ■ \ Zh tel`\ «� q ttlg P§ §. Ng O hlgA !(! » ) ) | • !?' RANCHO LO 1 i I raj ai ••s • • • .•• •• • r •• • • • • • • • •r • /1 \\ • r.� I i „. I TYPICAL INDIVIDUAL PUMP SYSTEM u�+M� eru Kio tY di.w pY. 0,01 M re 'au .lour O 6 1 Elk Springs/Los Amigos Ranch November 2010 8 ��' K� ���������k��� k� ��=.. ...Drawings Record Drawings Filings 8 and 9 Fina Pat Engineering Report Appendix B \ X\ Af i i 3 4 j �� I ' r o }r A 1 a , 0.4 [0, An, Elk Springs/Los Amigos Ranch November 2010 Appendix C Drawings Kingbird Drive —Design Drawings 6 Final Plat Engineering Report Appendix C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NN j \ TYPICAL CROSS SECTION a .4.0, C.( 1.6 41C P.., aa1e. , Avoiretw,e..11118 0,,,rulf14,2161,1,411,, • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .2,PLAY "1311/20 ”sd •s- ••,3 3007.5 0S00 0137 F 7,3,0 fJ 01 co! Elk Springs/Los Amigos Ranch November 2010 e Final Plat Engineering Report Appendix D Drawings Filing 6A Neighborhood Commercial Appendix D • r I.!.2 k 1 Cry, 'NA 10 a .r J/1 x.11 ��l`yL'15'6ft➢615 945'/00 AN, :Tye IB' et TY 00, w ' Irma" E l 109208 !'tray 1'0091'9 01.599 161209 5' 6!➢H AMER it9B 1'90!10 9 5699 900199 S IC60 956!99 In 'lin 9Z0S 520199 e 6,9 05'91 6019E 26"0099 rr99 916949 Ofr99 9!,000 VITEN fl 7089 105619 1089 f6L619 san 21"B6l9 er 0(569 6 66/9 90"!619 96'!9 99'61(9 9619 91%49 9(6!9 99,9!9 61/9 t99lB 99x!!9 90,119 • Ix i9[9 ,f/!9 6f, 59 9 0969!0 005919 0011.!9 !!9!Y !9'60!9 TY, tl'BSl9 604,,19 a t{} O h A 8 a 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 0 A ! t "110! ki h4 cc LJ 811^ X0MV!., zoo -9. otoP.01- Ljc(S,3,14°Z 5Nrci (nq 1,8; 5_1,1 rm 0 w z 0-0.qao Elk Springs/Los Amigos Ranch November 2010 Appendix E Roadway Classification and Design Preliminary Plan Exhibit D 6 Final Plat Engineering Report Appendix E EXHIBIT D D. Engineering Information Drainage Water, Sewer and Road Report, Schmueser Gordon Meyer Drainage Calculations Water System Calculations (970) 945-1004 FAX (970) 945-5948 SGM ENGINEERS SURVEYORS SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER 118 West 6th, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 January 19, 1998 Mr. Greg Boecker, Owner's Representative Los Amigos Ranch Partnership 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Preliminary Plan Submission Los Amigos Ranch - Filings 6 to '10 Dear Greg: This letter is in support of a Preliminary Plan submission for Filings 6 to 10 of Los Amigos Ranch PUD. Specifically, certain portions of Section 4:00 Preliminary Plan of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, as further outlined below, are addressed. This Preliminary Plan will consist of 168 single-family homes located immediately north and west of existing prior filings of Los Amigos Ranch PUD. Included will be four Rural Residential lots in excess of 35 acres located generally in the southwest part of the project. 4:80 DRAINAGE PLAN Attached hereto please find Los Amigos Ranch Preliminary Plat Drainage Report. The methodology used is outlined in the attachment. The locations of drainage facilities are shown on the Drainage Master Plan Sheet LAD and the various roadway plan & profile sheets of the Preliminary Plan drawings. There are no existing water courses or lakes on this property. Tributary areas are localized in nature. Because of the large size of the lots, any increase in historic flow rates from these filings will be negligible. Downstream drainage facilities have already been sized as part of previous submittals to account for the drainage from these filings. No adverse impacts from the construction of these filings are anticipated from a drainage standpoint. 4:91 WATER SUPPLY PLAN AH of the lots proposed as part of this Preliminary Plan submission wilt be serviced by the extension and improvements of the existing central water system. In the case of the Rural Residential lots, alternative service with either individual wells or central water system extension is proposed. January 19, 1998 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 2 Existing Water System The existing system consists of two drilled wells, identified as Well No. 5 and Well No. 6, a 320,000 gallon water tank, a control/chlorination building, numerous fire hydrants and a distribution system consisting of 10", 8" and 6" piping which serves all previous filings within Los Amigos Ranch PUD. Two pressure reducing valve (PRV) stations divide the system into two pressure zones. The locations of the existing water system components are on the Preliminary Plan Master Water Plan Sheet LAU-2. Well No. 5 is a 5" steel cased well approximately 170 feet deep. The well has a static water level of 80 feet and has been test pumped in the past to a total of 110 gpm with only a four foot draw down. Estimated potential well capacity is estimated in excess of 300 gpm. Well No. 6 is a 10" steel cased well with a total depth of approximately 260 feet. This well has been test pumped in the past at 400 gpm. Current combined well yield of these two wells is approximately 510 gpm with a total potential yield in excess of 600 gpm. The control/chlorination building contains the operating controls for the system. The required 30 -minute chlorine contact time is provided by 460 feet of 24" water main within the system. The total volume contained within the piping is 10,800 gallons which provides more than 30 minutes of detention at the peak day pumping rate at build -out of the project of 233 gpm. The water system is classified as a public water supply by the Colorado Department of Health. Both the quality and bacteriological content of the water has consistently met all parameters of the State of Colorado Primary Drinking Water System. Water Requirements Table 1 enclosed herein indicates the current water requirements for Los Amigos Ranch PUD and the water requirements for Filings 6 to 10. The water system will provide both in-house domestic use and outside lawn irrigation uses. Average and peak day demands are calculated for both irrigation and non -irrigation seasons. As noted in Table 1, the water system has been sized to include the service of the Residential Rural lots, should they require service. Proposed Water System Components The proposed water system components to accommodate Filings 6-10 are shown on the Preliminary Plan Master Water Plan Sheet LAU-2. New 10", 8" and 6" transmission and distribution lines will be installed along with fire hydrants and 1" or 1 '/2" water services for each lot. A new 150,000 gallon steel water tank will be required in the western portion of the SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 January 19, 1998 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 3 project once development proceeds into Filing 9. The CYBERNET computer model was used to calculate pressures and determine required line sizes throughout the system. Fire flow demands, rather than peak hour demands, govern the design of the system. Lines were sized with the goal of providing a fire flow of at least 500 gpm at 20 psi. This was achieved in all areas. The fire hydrants were placed where they would benefit the most lots, The hydrant layout shown on LAU-2 has been done consistent with discussions with the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Due to the Targe line sizes used, pressure differences that would occur under static conditions and peak day demands are negligible. Assuming a mid -tank level, a maximum pressure of about 135 psi would be observed in the lowest portion of Filing 8. Some low pressure levels will occur on the lots in the northeast portion of the project in the vicinity of the water tank. The Water Master Plan Sheet LAU-2 indicates lots which fall above the elevation 7090/40 psi line. The significance is that, depending on where the actual homesite is situated, individual lot owners may wish to install a pump and pressure tank to obtain higher, in-house pressures. One and one-half inch diameter water services are also recommended for these lots to minimize the headloss that would occur from the water main to the house. The attached report entitled, "Los Amigos Ranch Preliminary Plat, Filings 6-10, Water System Calculations" contains a computer model schematic and results of the fire flow analysis. Again, the maximum day pressures listed were virtually the same as the maximums observed under static conditions. Separate fire flow runs are provided for an analysis of the complete system with both tanks on line and "an east tank only" scenario which excludes Filing 9. The existing 320,000 gallon east tank was over -sized to accommodate potential future filings. Considering those areas east of Filing 9 and the water demands referenced in Table 1, the minimum required tank volume can be calculated as follows: LEAST TANK Equalization 25% average total demand' 33,673 gallons Are Flow 15002 gpm x 2 hours 180,000 gallons Emergency 1 average day (domestic) 58,240 gallons Minimum required volume 271,913 gallons 1 Domestic and irrigation 2 Auburn Ridge Apartments only; 500 gpm single family lots. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 January 19, 1998 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 4 Considering the incremental storage required to serve Filing 9, the minimum size of the western tank can be calculated as follows: WEST TANK Equalization 25% Average total demand' 8,255 gallons Fire Flow 5002 gpm x 2 hours 60,000 gallons Emergency 1 average day (domestic) 13,770 gallons Minimum required volume 82,025 gallons 1 Domestic and irrigation 2 Single family Tots Rural Residential Lots For purposes of sizing the central water system, service to the four (4) Rural Residential lots was assumed to be part of the water system. Because of the size of these lots and their location relative to the remainder of the project and the water system, this plan proposes as an alternative the ability to drill an individual well on each of these lots. With respect to the history of well development in this area, we have reviewed records available from the District Engineer's Office and have talked to local well drillers familiar with groundwater conditions. Wells have been variable with respect to well depth and well yield. Generally, the wells have been completed in bedrock formations or in the alluvial layers immediately above bedrock interfaces. Well yields are generally less than 10 gpm which would indicate intermediate storage between the well and the residence may be required depending upon total well yield. We anticipate the water would be classified as "hard", but that all Colorado Primary Drinking Water Standards will be met. Depending on the degree of hardness, water softening may or may no be elected by the homeowner. With respect to fire protection for these lots, it is proposed to provide a 2000 gallon cistern with draft pipe for use by firefighting apparatus. This cistern would be located near the residence and would be sited at the time that an architectural site plan is available for the residential building construction. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 tnN Y. C wQ / cc E V) fH.. m 0 >- 4 `Y oa J {:' 4 - 4 ,':1— 44,670 gpd O t!'1 O . co O E H Ir O h - N vo 335,420 gpd = 233 gpm ti a 0) L 50,000 sf a 2.523 A-f/A = 6,300 gpd` 204,000 sf 2 2.523 A-f/A = 26,040 gpd TII Ql O0 v M M 504,000 sf a 2.523 A-f/A = 63,410 gpd 1 • Upp 0 •• u • CA Ni II CP O O to a II Boroestic (Non -Irrigation Use) Existing Users 48 units 2 200 gpd = 29.5 EORs = 7,970 gpd $ O D II 0) Cr N. Ca N N C N o, NO -a P. O O 43. N Q m v, Single-family 168 sf units a 270 gpd = 45,360 gpd Average Day = 71,960 gpd = 50 gpm Peak Day = 143,920 gpd = 100 gpm subdivision 1, Apartments N C In 0 N C v, u. Filings 6 to 10 1 m SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC 150 -day application period. 3000 square feet per residential unit. 30 equivalent residential units. 50,000 sf total acreage. 1502c1 9.pps1DWG\lec 10,000 sf total acreage. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 January 19, 1998 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 5 4:92 SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL PLAN Existing Sanitary Disposal Facilities Previously approved filings within the Los Amigos Ranch PUD are serviced by either individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) or a central wastewater treatment collection and treatment system operated by the Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD). Those portions of the PUD serviced by SVSD are properties which generally lie within the Spring Valley aquifer drainage and can be serviced by gravity collection sewerlines. The approximate boundaries of the Spring Valley aquifer have been established during prior approvals. Lots With Central Sewage System This application does not request Preliminary Plan approved for any residential or commercial lots which are within the SVSD or the western boundary of the Spring Valley aquifer. Residential Lots With ISDS Referencing the geotechnic report prepared by Hepworth-Pawlak included in this application, there have been nine percolation tests conducted throughout the filing. The percolation test results range from 11 minutes per inch to 40 minutes per inch. These percolation rates are indicative of subsurface conditions which are acceptable for ISDS to be constructed. The percolation tests were run at locations and in site soils conditions that are representative of the overall conditions throughout the project. Additionally, there are ten (10) units within the existing Los Amigos Ranch PUD which have installed and are using ISDS for sewage service. To the best of our knowledge, adequate percolation and subsurface conditions were found at all these sites and standard ISDS utilization. Environmental and Health Impacts Analysis Garfield County Sewage Disposal Regulations which, in tum, are based on the "Guidelines on individual Sewage Disposal Systems", Colorado Department of Health, set forth the conditions and regulations under which the County and the State of Colorado have determined are appropriate to the construction of ISDS. These regulations are very comprehensive with respect to site characteristics which determine the type and size of the system which can be constructed. Those regulations recognize the ability of a soil matrix to provide the necessary treatment to septic tank effluent such that, once the effluent passes through the soil matrix, the treated effluent does not pose a public health hazard or risk. The regulations further address the potential for cumulative impact of ISDS systems by specifying the minimum lot sizes that should be utilized for ISDS systems. ISDS technology recognizes that there are certain instances where there are inherent restraints to the use of ISDS's. These restraints include high groundwater table, underlying bedrock formations, inadequate percolation rate, horizontal separation from wells and water courses, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 January 19, 1998 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 6 and excessive percolation rate. Whenever any of these restraints exist, the regulations require that they be identified and that the system installed when restraints occur, be designed under the direction of a registered professional engineer in the State of Colorado. A "standard" ISDS system, typically consists of a septic tank and leach field. In order to use a standard ISDS, the underlying soil matrix should demonstrate percolation rates within acceptable defined limits and there should be identified no restraints to the installation of the system. As stated above, all systems currently installed within the Los Amigos Ranch PUD are standard systems, with acceptable percolation rates existing and no restraints to construction identified. Based upon data now available, it is anticipated that for Filings 6-10, that the majority of ISDS systems that will be installed will be standard systems. In those cases, percolation tests and profile holes will be excavated at the location and depth of the proposed leach field at each individual building site in accordance with Garfield County regulations. The results of those tests will be analyzed and the system design based on percolation rate and size of residence. It is anticipated, that any restraints that may be encountered in the area encompassed by Filings 6-10, they will be associated with shallow bedrock formations. In the event that such conditions are identified at an individual residence location, it will be necessary to construct an engineered system. The regulations require there be a minimum of four feet of soil matrix between the bottom of the leach field and the bedrock restraint. In the event there is insufficient soil matrix available, then the existing soil matrix will need to be augmented with imported materials such that the minimum four -foot depth exists. This type of construction is typically referred to as a "mound system" and is a construction technique that is standard to the industry and has been used in Garfield County where shallow restraints such as bedrock or groundwater have been encountered. The mound system is designed with the soil materials to be used for its construction as well as the size of the residence taken into account. The resulting installation, consistent with both Garfield County and State regulations, results in a system which provides for treated effluent being discharged through the bottom of the leach field. Although not anticipated, there is the possibility that under the applicable regulations the restraints on a particular building site will preclude the use of a standard or mound system using a percolation process. In these instances, it may be necessary to construct an evapotranspiration (ET) type of system. An ET system does not use percolation as a disposal means but, rather, uses evaporation and transpiration for disposal. These systems are typically lined with an impervious liner and size based on the size of the residence and background climatic conditions. Again, these systems are standard to the industry and their design and operation is well documented. It is our opinion that there is strong likelihood that a standard septic tank/leach field system can be utilized as the ISDS for these Tots. The most likely restraints to the development of a standard system would be shallow bedrock conditions. In the event any restraint is identified, it is our further opinion that an engineered system, either a mound -type system or an SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 January 19, 1998 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 7 evapotranspiration (ET) system could be constructed on the lot and satisfy all applicable regulations. Consistent with standard practices of the Environmental Health Department of Garfield County, percolation tests and a profile hole will be required on each lot at the exact location of the ISDS at the time that a building permit is requested. At that time, a final design for the ISDS will be required. Filings 6-10 comprise a total land area of approximately 75 million square feet or 1725 acres. The filings stretch for approximately 13,000 lineal feet along a line roughly parallel with the Roaring Fork drainage basin located, on average, approximately 900 to 1000 feet in elevation below the site. The overall density of ISDS on the site is approximately one system per 10 acres. This density is over 10 times less than the allowable density of one -acre lots where an ISDS and central water system provide service, as in the case of the Los Amigos Ranch PUD, and over five times less than the allowable density of two acre lots where individual lots are served with ISDS and an individual drilled well. Both the Garfield County regulations and the State Health Department regulations have been based upon accepted scientific standards of the industry which protect against any possibility of any environmental impacts affecting public safety. In conclusion, it is our opinion that ISDS can be constructed for all the proposed lots within Filings 6-10 of the Los Amigos Ranch PUD that meet applicable Garfield County and Colorado Department of Health standards of construction and design. If these systems are constructed and designed in accordance with these regulations, then there will be no adverse environmental or health impacts from the use of ISDS as proposed. Attached to this letter report is a "Management Plan For Individual Sewage Disposal Systems". As stated in the Plan, the purpose is to provide for the regular operation and maintenance of ISDS. This Plan has previously been incorporated into the covenants of Los Amigos Ranch PUD. The Plan will be included in the covenants adopted as part of the Preliminary Plan. Also attached to this letter report is a letter from Hepworth-Pawlak dated January 19, 1998, which further summarizes the field investigations performed on this site. As stated in the letter, Hepworth-Pawlak reiterates their conclusion from their original study which indicates that this site is suitable for individual septic systems while recognizing that mounding or other engineered systems may be required where a shallow bedrock restraint might be encountered. ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE Roadways within this project have been sized in accordance with current requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. Estimated service requirements are based on 10 vehicle trips per day (VPD) per individual lot. Typical road sections for the different roadway classifications are contained within the Preliminary Plan drawings. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 January 19, 1998 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 8 Roadway infrastructure as part of this filing will be as follows: ..ROAD- Ha OF , ..LOTS _ Vehicle-." Tr4s/D9y .. , (VPD)..... Garfield :County Gl.as iftcat5.on Roadway Capacity,-, VPD .ROt1 Width :(ft.) `. Lane ,Width - "-`(ft.)': Minimum Shoulder (ft.) LOS AMIGOS DRIVE Sta 22+00 to Sta 143+15.38 143 1430 Minor Collector 2500 60 12 4 Sta 143+15.38 to END 32 320 Secondary Access 600 60 11 4 WEST ROAD Sta 0+00 to Sta 29+73.64 20 200 Secondary Access 600 60 11 4 Sta 29+73.64 to END 10 100 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 ROAD B 22 220 Secondary Access 600 60 11 4 ROAD C 12 120 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 ROAD 0 9 90 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 ROAD E 10 100 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 ROAD F 4 40 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 ROAD G 4 40 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 ROAD H 3 30 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 ROAD I 4 40 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 ROAD J 4 40 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 The cul-de-sacs as shown will have an outside turning radius of 45 feet. K -turns will be 50 feet in length and will have turning radii of 50 feet. All roadway grades are less than 8% and are detailed in the Preliminary Plan drawings. Please note that several of the roadways could be designed at a semi -primitive roadway classification. The Owner has indicated that the Rural Access classification will be used for all those roadways. I trust that the above is adequate to support the Preliminary Plan Application for Filings 6-10 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 January 19, 1998 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 9 Los Amigos Ranch PUD. l will be available to provide further input and respond to any questions of any of the review agencies. i also plan to be in attendance at both the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and the Board of County Commissioners hearing to answer any additional questions. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Dean W. Presiden Gordon, P.E. DWG:Iec\1502C19.pps Attachments SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LOS AMIGOS RANCH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS A. Purpose The purpose of this Management Plan is to provide for regular operations and maintenance of the individual sewage disposal systems. The Management Plan provides a mechanism for regular pumping of septic tanks and for funding the cost thereof. This Management Plan is not intended to provide for common ownership of sewage disposal facilities, nor to provide a mechanism for funding for, or the actual construction of, replacement of individual systems. B. Responsibility of Management Plan The Management Plan shall be the responsibility of the Los Amigos Ranch Homeowners Association. The Homeowners Association shall make arrangements with a septic tank pumping company for the pumping of septic tanks on a two-year, rotating basis. C. Funding The Los Amigos Ranch Homeowners Association will collect, as part of the Association dues, sufficient funds to pay for the bi-annual pumping of septic tanks. The amount of funds collected shall be adjusted as necessary to pay for the cost of the Management Pan. D. Individual Homeowners Responsibilities 1. Provide access to the septic tank for purposes of cleaning. 2. Pump septic tank more frequently, if required, based on actual use. 3. Initially install, and subsequently replace, failed leach field systems as required, all in accordance with applicable Garfield County Health Codes. 1502C 19.isds-MP/dwg.lec SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. January 19, 1998 Greg Boecker 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 Job No. 196 617 Subject: Individual Septic Systems, Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D., County Road 114, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Boecker: As requested be Dean Gordon, we are providing clarification of our recommendations regarding individual septic systems for the proposed Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. We have received a copy of the first 4 pages of preliminary plat review letter by Wright Water Engineers to Garfield County dated January 9, 1998. We performed a preliminary geotechnical study for the project under Job No. 196 617, dated February 14, 1997. Individual Septic Systems: Percolation tests were conducted in January, 1997 to evaluate the feasibility of individual septic systems at the site. The percolation rates varied from 11 to 40 minutes per inch. The average of eleven percolation tests was about 24 minutes per inch. The tests were performed between 3 and 51/2 feet below the ground surface. All the tests were performed in the overburden soils above the basalt flow rock. Partial refusal to digging by the Case 780C rubber -tired backhoe was encountered shallower than 8 feet deep in 15 of 21 pits. The average refusal depth was 4'A feet. Whether the refusal was on intact basalt flow or on basalt boulders within the overlying basalt colluvium soils could not be determined in the relatively small backhoe pits. Based on our experience in the area and the site geology, we expect that the basalt flow is close to the refusal depths encountered in the pits. The development should be suitable for individual septic systems. Mounding or other engineered systems may be required in shallow basalt rock areas. The system designs should be based on site specific soils information. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEA 1 ,AL, INC. • 3, e E Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. 2444( �= DEH/ksm � -o•• '/ / rL • • %;SS/O NA 'iiiiiin 'k ` cc: Schmueser Gordon Meyer - Attn: Dean Gordon (970) 945-1004 SCHMUESER ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 118 West 6th. Suite 200 FAX (970) 945-5948 GORDON MEYER Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 February 27, 1998 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department Regulatory Office and Personnel 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Los Amigos Ranch Preliminary Plat Filings 6 through 10, Drainage Dear Mark: This letter transmits additional drainage information as a follow-up to our Tuesday, February 24, 1998 meeting. Recapping, Wright Water Engineers recommended in their January 9, 1998 letter that an analysis of existing conditions be conducted to facilitate an analytical comparison for downstream impacts of the development. This was based on Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, Section 9:43 which states "Where new developments create runoff in excess of historic site levels, the use of detention ditches and ponds may be required to retain up to the 100 -year storm". These calculations were included in our re -submission and showed that the low density of the project resulted in minimal increases in flood flows. Nonetheless, there was still concern expressed at our meeting over the perception of downstream property owners. While Wright Water Engineers generally agreed that the effects of the increased runoff on downstream drainage structures would be minimal, they still thought that it would be in the County's best interest to have an analysis of the structure showing that the effects of the increases were, in fact, minimal. Another option would be to provide detention and release flood flows at less than historic levels. The revised copy of Sheet LAD, the Drainage Master Plan, shows how detention storage could be incorporated into the Los Amigos Preliminary Plan. The four major points of concentration for drainage leaving the project are identified as Discharge Points 1 through 4. Tributary areas for each of these points have been identified and are shown by thick, dashed lines. Potential detention areas are shown by hatching. A thick dotted line indicates the portion of the basin tributary to the detention ponds. Detailed hydrologic and hydraulic calculations (using the methodology appropriate for larger basins), as well as a site survey, will need to be performed for each detention pond location. A trial and error procedure will be utilized to determine the optimal outlet configuration and storage volume that results in a 100 -year flow rate that is less than historic at the four discharge points, This detailed level of analysis and design would be performed prior to the Final Plat submission. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 February 27, 1998 Mr. Mark Bean Page 2 In summary, the low density of the development results in minimal flood peak increases that can be easily mitigated by standard engineering practices if the County deems this necessary. Additionally, an analysis of downstream structures could be performed which would show that the effects of these minimal flood peak increases would be unnoticeable. As a last resort,improvements could be made to downstream drainage structures. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require additional clarification on any of the items discussed. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. (V,) / David M. Kotz, P.E. DMK:iec/1502C14.1 Enclosure cc: Michael Erion (via fax: 945-9210) SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. LOS AMIGOS RANCH PRELIMINARY PLAN, FILINGS 6-10 DRAINAGE REPORT FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMISSION JANUARY 1998 Prepared by: Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. 118 West 6th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970/945-1004 cover11502C19.DRN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE NARRATIVE The Drainage Plan for the Preliminary Plan, Filings 6-10 of Los Amigos Ranch Subdivision is rather simplistic. Due to the fact that the project is located near the ridge of a hill, off-site water sheds were a small influence to the overall drainage of the project. The slope of the land from south to north also allows the drainage to be carried by roadside ditches with minor cross culverts at intersections and low points. TR -55 and Rational Method are two means of determining peak flows within a small to medium size basin. The Rational Method was chosen for this analysis due to the fact that, in this area of Colorado, it generally predicts higher flood peaks than those produced by a TR - 55 analysis. The procedure for using the Rational Method is one that utilizes a runoff coefficient, the rainfall intensity corresponding to the time of concentration of the basin, and the overall basin area in acres to calculate the flood peak in cubic feet per second. The runoff coefficients are based on land use, soil type and slope. The Soil Conservation Service Soil Study for Garfield County (Figure 1) shows that soils found within these drainage basins are classified as soil group B. The runoff coefficient for this project was calculated using a weighted formula for impervious and pervious areas as shown: Weighted C = [(0.95 * Aimpe,vtous) + (0.26 * Aporvious)l/Atotal The overall drainage plan is shown on Drawing LAD of the Preliminary Plan drawings. Many different basins (Figure 2) were identified and used in hydrologic calculations. The areas for basins extending outside the property area were determined by planimetering boundaries on 1" = 2000' USGS quadrangle maps. A 1" = 500' scale AutoCADD map was used to calculate basin areas within the property. In the case of minor basins, areas under two acres, a minimum culvert size of 18" was used. Also, ditch flows were found using a percentage of total basin flows since only parts of the basins are intercepted by roadside ditches. The remainder of this report consists of tables showing the results from hydrologic calculations performed and drainage elements to be used. Followed by spreadsheet information used to calculate times of concentration for each basin. DMK:lec11502c19.drn SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC SOIL SURVEY MAP FIGURE 1 1 1 1 I 73C 1 560 000 FEET CATTLE CREEK QUADRANGLE UNITED STATES COLORADO—GARFIELD CO. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTEF 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 306 107"15' '07°°°^E 29N •U 1 1 1 1 1: 1 1 663 9\ 1� 1 6923+ 6 , �t 6'/3. 1 . /7' r�Zoo . •,1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Los Amigos Job #1502 Basin Area # Lots Impervious Length width Road Total Pervious (Acres) Area (ftA2) (ft) (ft) Area(ft^2) Imp(Ac) Area(Ac) 1 29.74 3 15000.0 760.0 13 9880.0 0.57 29.17 2 15.04 4 20000.0 1750.0 15 26250.0 1.06 13.98 3A 12.02 5 25000,0 1500.0 15 22500.0 1.09 10.93 3B 36.47 14 70000.0 3450.0 16 55200.0 2.87 33.60 4 1.84 3 15000.0 1000.0 13 13000.0 0.71 1.13 192.0 16 3072.0 5A 18.19 3 15000.0 950.0 15 14250.0 0.67 17.52 5B 12.86 5 25000.0 2000.0 13 26000.0 1.17 11.69 5C 58.64 9 45000.0 1850.0 13 24050.0 2.08 56.56 1360.0 16 21760.0 6 131.66 18 90000.0 406.0 13 5278.0 3.37 128.28 962.0 16 15392.0 1551.0 13 20163.0 1242.0 13 16146.0 7 3.85 0 0.0 1006.0 16 16096.0 0.37 3.48 8 26.91 4 20000.0 1551.0 13 20163.0 1.21 25.70 793.0 16 12688.0 9 7.13 0 0.0 400.0 16 6400.0 0.15 6.99 10 186.18 7 35000.0 600.0 16 9600.0 1.36 184.81 1141.0 13 14833.0 11 14.45 3 15000.0 1141.0 13 14833.0 0.68 13.76 12 38.62 2 10000.0 789.0 16 12624.0 0.52 38.10 13A 23.41 2 10000.0 1000.0 16 16000.0 0.60 22.81 13B 10.19 1 5000.0 819.0 16 13104.0 0.42 9.77 14 400.96 6 30000.0 525.0 16 8400.0 1.21 399.75 1092.0 13 14196.0 15 64.53 10 50000.0 1092.0 13 14196.0 2.50 62.03 583.0 13 7579.0 2309.0 16 36944.0 16A 27.66 5 25000.0 1750.0 15 26250.0 1.18 26.48 16B 46.62 5 25000.0 1850.0 15 27750.0 1.21 45.41 17 24.47 7 35000.0 1134.0 13 14742.0 2.11 22.36 3240.0 13 42120.0 18 1.23 0 0.0 600.0 15 9000.0 0.21 1.02 19 20.20 4 20000.0 1000.0 15 15000.0 0.80 19.40 5A+5B 31.05 8 40000.0 2950.0 40250.0 1.84 29.21 5A+5B+5C 89.69 17 85000.0 6160.0 86060.0 3.93 85.77 2+3A+3B 63.53 23 115000.0 6700.0 103950.0 5.03 58.50 1+6 161.40 21 105000.0 4921.0 66859.0 3.95 157.46 15+168 111.15 15 75000.0 5834.0 86469.0 3.71 107,44 10+11 200.63 10 50000.0 2882.0 39266.0 2.05 198.58 Los Amigos Job #1502 25 -Yr Flood Peaks * ASSUMES SAME BASIN DELINEATION AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION. Basin Tc Total (min) 125yr (in/hr) A (acres) Area Imp. Area Per. (acres) (acres) Q25 (cfs) Historic` Q25 (cfs) 1 21 2.36 29.74 0.57 29.17 19.18 18.25 1.06 1.09 13.98 10.93 11.24 9.38 9.46 7.56 2 20 2.42 15.04 12.02 3A 20 2.42 3B 20 2.42 2.52 2.25 36.47 1.84 18.19 2.87 0.71 0.67 33.60 1.13 17.52 27.75 2.45 11.68 22.95 1.20 10.64 4 9 5A 23 5B 20 2.42 2.16 12.86 58.64 1.17 2.08 11.69 56.56 10.05 36.04 8.09 32.93 5C 25 6 31 1.88 131.66 3.37 128.28 68.73 64.35 7 26 2.12 2.34 3.85 26.91 0.37 1.21 3.48 25.70 2.66 18.33 2.12 16.37 8 22 9 19 2.47 7.13 0.15 6.99 4.83 4.58 10 41 1.55 186.18 1.36 184.81 76.49 75.03 11 26 2.08 14.45 0.68 13.76 8.80 7.81 12 28 2 38.62 0.52 38.10 20.80 20.08 13A 25 2.16 23.41 0.60 22.81 14.04 13.15 13B 20 2.42 10.19 0.42 9.77 7.11 6.41 14 50 1.39 400.96 1.21 399.75 146.06 144.91 15 34 1.74 64.53 2.50 62.03 32.19 29.19 16A 25 2.14 27.66 1.18 26.48 17.13 15.39 16B 26 2.1 46.62 1.21 45.41 27.21 25.45 17 20 2.43 24.47 2.11 22.36 19.00 15.46 18 10 3.26 1,23 0.21 1.02 1.51 1.04 19 20 2.42 20.20 0.80 19.40 14.05 12.71 1.84 29.21 20.18 17.44, 5A+5B 25 2.16 31.05 5A+5B+5C 30 1.92 89.69 3.93 85.77 49.98 44.77 2+3A+3B 26 2.08 63.53 5.03 58.50 41.57 34.36 1+6 31 1.88 161.40 3.95 157.46 84.01 78.89 15+16B 34 1.74 111.15 3.71 107.44 54.73 50.28 10+11 41 1.55 200.63 2.05 198.58 84.79 80.85 * ASSUMES SAME BASIN DELINEATION AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION. Drainage Element Worksheet DRAINAGE ELEMENT BASIN DESCRIPTION 1 1 24" CMP 2 2 24" CMP 3 2,3,38,4 36" CMP 3A 3A 18" CMP 4 4 18" CMP 5 5A,5B,5C 36" CMP 5A 5A 18" CMP 5B 5B 24" CMP 6 1,6 48" CMP 7 7 18" CMP 8 8 30" CMP 9 9 18" CMP 10 10,11 48" CMP 11 11 24"CMP 12 12 30" CMP 13A 13A 24" CMP 13B 13B 24" CMP 14 14 54" GMP 15 15,168 42" CMP 16A 16A 24" CMP 16B 16B 30" CMP 17 17 30" CMP 18 18 18" CMP 19 19 24" GMP * All culverts were calculated using inlet control with Hw/d < 1.5 Pipe is assumed to be Helical Corrugated Metal Pipe, with metal end sections. Quick TR -55 Ver.5.43 S/N:1240545119 Executed: 11:43:58 11-13-1996 LOSAMII.TCT SUMMARY SHEET FOR Tc or Tt COMPUTATIONS (Solved for Time using TR -55 Methods) LOS AMIGOS Subarea descr. Tc or Tt Time (hrs) Basin 1 Tc 0.35 Basin 2 Tc 0.45 Basin 3 Tc 0.49 Basin 4 Tc 0.31 Basin 5 Tc 0.41 Basin 6 Tc 0.52 Basin 7 Tc 0.43 Basin 8 Tc 0.36 Basin 9 Tc 0.31 Basin 10 Tc 0.69 Basin 11 Tc 0.44 Basin 12 Tc 0.47 Basin 13 Tc 0.41 Basin 14 Tc 0.83 Basin 15 Tc 0.57 Basin 16 Tc 0.44 Basin 17 Tc 0.34 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.43 S/N:1240545119 Executed: 11:43:58 11-13-1996 LOSAMII.TCT LOS AMIGOS Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Basin 1 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description RANGE Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.1300 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) ft 300.0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.1330 0.8 .007 * (n*L) = 0.26 hrs 0.26 T 0.5 P2 * s 0.4 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID 2 Surface (paved or unpaved)? Unpaved Flow length, L ft 900.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.0550 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) ft/s 3.7839 hrs 0.07 -- 0.07 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID ditch Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 8.00 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 16.94 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 0.472 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.0450 Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.0330 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s V - ft/s 5.8085 n Flow length, L ft 541 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.03 = 0.03 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.35 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.43 S/N:1240545119 -xecuted: 11:43:58 11-13-1996 LOSAMII.TCT LOS AMIGOS Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Basin 2 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description range Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.1300 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) ft 300.0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.1330 0.8 .007 * (n*L) T 0.5 P2 * s 0.4 hrs 0.26 = 0.26 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID 2 Surface (paved or unpaved)? Unpaved Flow length, L ft 900.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.0440 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) ft/s 3.3844 hrs 0.07 = 0.07 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID ditch Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 8.00 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 16.94 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 0.472 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.0300 Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.0330 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s V = ft/s 4.7426 n Flow length, L ft 2065 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.12 = 0.12 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.45 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.43 S/N:1240545119 "xecuted: 11:43:58 11-13-1996 LOSAMII.TCT LOS AMIGOS Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Basin 3 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description range Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.1300 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) ft 300.0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.0670 0.8 .007 * (n*L) hrs 0.34 = 0.34 T = 0.5 P2 * s 0.4 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID 2 Surface (paved or unpaved)? Flow length, L ft 0.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.0000 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) ft/s 0.0000 hrs 0.00 = 0.00 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID ditch Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 8.00 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 16.94 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 0.472 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.0540 Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.0330 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s ft/s 6.3629 V = n Flow length, L ft 3561 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.16 = 0.16 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.49 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.43 S/N:1240545119 -xecuted: 11:43:58 11-13-1996 LOSAMIl.TCT LOS AMIGOS Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Bain 4 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description range Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.1300 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) ft 300.0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.1170 T 0.8 .007 * (n*L) 0.5 P2 * s 0.4 hrs 0.27 = 0.27 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID 2 Surface (paved or unpaved)? Unpaved Flow length, L ft 500.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.1000 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) ft/s 5.1022 hrs 0.03 = 0.03 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID ditch Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 4.50 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 12.71 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 0.354 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.0387 Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.0330 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s V = ft/s 4.4458 n Flow length, L ft 187 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.01 = 0.01 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.31 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.43 xecuted: 11:43:58 S/N:1240545119 11-13-1996 LOSAMII.TCT LOS AMIGOS Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Basin 5 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description range Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.1300 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) ft 300.0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.1000 0.8 .007 * (n*L) hrs 0.29 - 0.29 T 0.5 0.4 P2 * s SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID 2 Surface (paved or unpaved)? Unpaved Flow length, L ft 800.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.0500 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) ft/s 3.6078 hrs 0.06 = 0.06 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID swale Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 8.00 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 19.94 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 0.401 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.0870 Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.0350 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s ft/s 6.8301 V = n Flow length, L ft 1500 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.06 = 0.06 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.41 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.43 S/N:1240545119 Txecuted: 11:43:58 11-13-1996 LOSAMII.TCT LOS AMIGOS Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Basin 6 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description range Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.1300 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) ft 300.0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.0800 0.8 .007 * (n*L) = 0.32 hrs 0.32 T 0.5 P2 * s 0.4 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW 2 Segment ID Surface (paved or unpaved)? Unpaved Flow length, L ft 1700.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.0710 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) ft/s 4.2992 hrs 0.11 = 0.11 CHANNEL FLOW Swale Segment ID Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 12.00 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 24.65 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 0.487 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.0760 Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.0350 V = 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s n Flow length, L T = L / (3600*V) ft/s 7.2629 ft 2500 hrs 0.10 = 0.10 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.52 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.43 S/N:1240545119 -xecuted: 11:43:58 11-13-1996 LOSAMII.TCT LOS AMIGOS Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Basin 7 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description range Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.1300 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) ft 300.0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.0500 0.8 .007 * (n*L) 0.38 hrs 0.38 - T 0.5 0.4 P2 * s SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID 2 Surface (paved or unpaved)? Unpaved Flow length, L ft 150.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.0670 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) ft/s 4.1763 where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.01 = 0.01 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID ditch Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 4.50 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 12.71 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 0.354 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.03300.0123 Manning's roughness coeff., n V 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s n Flow length, L T = L / (3600*V) ft/s 2.5064 ft 350 hrs 0.04 = 0.04 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.43 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.43 S/N:1240545119 ,xecuted: 11:43:58 . 11-13-1996 LOSAMIl.TCT LOS AMIGOS Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Basin 8 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description range Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.1300 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) ft 300.0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.1170 0.8 .007 * (n*L)0.27 hrs 0.27 T= 0.5 P2 * s 0.4 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID 2 Surface (paved or unpaved)? Unpaved Flow length, L ft 1000.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.0600 0 5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) ft/s 3.9521 where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.07 = 0.07 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID swale Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 6.00 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 15.53 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 0.386 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.0670 Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.0350 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s ft/s 5.8448 V = n Flow length, L ft 300 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.01 = 0.01 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.36 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.43 S/N:1240545119 Kecuted: 11:43:58 11-13-1996 LOSAMII.TCT LOS AMIGOS Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Basin 9 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description range Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.1300 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) ft 300.0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.1000 0.8 .007 * (n*L) _ hrs 0.29 - 0.29 T 0.5 P2 * s 0.4 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID Surface (paved or unpaved)? Flow length, L ft 0.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.0000 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) ft/s 0.0000 hrs 0.00 = 0.00 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID swale Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 2.00 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 1.92 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 1.042 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.0500 Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.0350 V 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s n Flow length, L T = L / (3600*V) ft/s 9.7819 ft 600 hrs 0.02 = 0.02 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.31 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.43 S/N:1240545119 -xecuted: 11:43:58 11-13-1996 LOSAMII.TCT LOS AMIGOS Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Basin 10 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description range Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.1300 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) ft 300.0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.0530 0.8 .007 * (n*L) 0.37 hrs 0.37 T = 0.5 0.4 P2 * s SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID 2 Surface (paved or unpaved)? Unpaved Flow length, L ft 2000.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.0500 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) ft/s 3.6078 where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.15 = 0.15 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID swale Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 14.00 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 20.43 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 0.685 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.0450 Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.0350 V 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s n Flow length, L T = L / (3600*V) ft/s 7.0194 ft 4200 hrs 0.17 = 0.17 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.69 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.43 S/N:1240545119 "'xecuted: 11:55:18 11-13-1996 LOSAMI2.TCT Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Basin 11 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description range Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.1300 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) ft 300.0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.0670 0.8 .007 * (n*L) T = 0.5 P2 * s 0.4 hrs 0.34 = 0.34 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID 2 Surface (paved or unpaved)? Unpaved Flow length, L ft 1600.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.0750 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) ft/s 4.4186 where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.10 = 0.10 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 0.00 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 0.00 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 0.000 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.0000 Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.0000 v 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s n Flow length, L T = L / (3600*V) ft/s 0.0000 ft 0 hrs 0.00 = 0.00 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.44 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.43 S/N:1240545119 'xecuted: 11:55:18 11-13-1996 LOSAMI2.TCT Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Basin 12 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description range Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.1300 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) ft 300.0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.0670 T = 0.8 .007 * (n*L) 0.5 0.4 P2 * s hrs 0.34 = 0.34 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID 2 Surface (paved or unpaved)? Unpaved Flow length, L ft 1450.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.0550 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) ft/s 3.7839 hrs 0.11 = 0.11 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID swale Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 6.00 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 15.53 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 0.386 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.0700 Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.0350 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s V = ft/s 5.9742 n Flow length, L ft 500 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.02 = 0.02 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.47 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.43 -xecuted: 11:55:18 S/N:1240545119 11-13-1996 LOSAMI2.TCT Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Basin 13 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description range Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.1300 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) ft 300.0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.0670 0.8 .007 * (n*L) 0.34 hrs 0.34 - T 0.5 P2 * s 0.4 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID 2 Surface (paved or unpaved)? Unpaved Flow length, L ft 1000.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.0600 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) ft/s 3.9521 hrs 0.07 = 0.07 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 0.00 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 0.00 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 0.000 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.0000 Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.0000 V = 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s n Flow length, L T = L / (3600*V) ft/s 0.0000 ft 0 hrs 0.00 = 0.00 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.41 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.43 S/N:1240545119 -xecuted: 11:55:18 11-13-1996 LOSAMI2.TCT Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Basin 14 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description range Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.1300 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) ft 300.0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.0500 0.8 .007 * (n*L) = 0.38 hrs 0.38 T 0.5 P2 * s 0.4 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID 2 Surface (paved or unpaved)? Unpaved Flow length, L ft 1350.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.0520 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) ft/s 3.6792 where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.10 = 0.10 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID swale Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 24.00 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 33.09 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 0.725 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.0240 Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.0350 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s ft/s 5.3239 V = n Flow length, L ft 6600 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.34 = 0.34 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.83 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.43 S/N:1240545119 11-13-1996 LOSAMI2.TCT -xecuted: 11:55:18 Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Basin 15 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description range Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.1300 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) ft 300.0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.0500 0.8 .007 * (n*L) T - hrs 0.38 = 0.38 0.5 P2 * s 0.4 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID 2 Surface (paved or unpaved)? Unpaved Flow length, L ft 2500.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.0680 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) ft/s 4.2074 where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.17 = 0.17 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID SWALE Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 8.00 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 12.94 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 0.618 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.0400 Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.0330 V 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s n Flow length, L T = L / (3600*V) ft/s 6.5520 ft 500 hrs 0.02 = 0.02 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.57 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.43 -xecuted: 11:55:18 S/N:1240545119 11-13-1996 LOSAMI2.TCT Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Basin 16 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description range Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.1300 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) ft 300.0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.0670 0.8 .007 * (n*L)0.34 hrs 0.34 = T 0.5 0.4 P2 * s SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID Surface (paved or unpaved)? Flow length, L ft 0.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.0000 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) ft/s 0.0000 where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.00 = 0.00 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID ditch Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 8.00 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 16.94 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 0.472 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.0350 Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.0330 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s V = ft/s 5.1226 n Flow length, L ft 1797 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.10 - 0.10 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.44 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.43 S/N:1240545119 ,xecuted: 11:55:18 11-13-1996 LOSAMI2.TCT Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: Basin 17 SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1 Surface description range Manning's roughness coeff., n ft 0:1300313 Flow length, L (total < or = 300) 0 Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 in 1.300 Land slope, s ft/ft 0.1330 T = 0.8 .007 * (n*L) 0.5 0.4 P2 * s hrs 0.26 = 0.26 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID Surface (paved or unpaved)? Flow length, L ft 0.0 Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.0000 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) ft/s 0.0000 where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.00 = 0.00 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID ditch Cross Sectional Flow Area, a sq.ft 4.50 Wetted perimeter, Pw ft 12.71 Hydraulic radius, r = a/Pw ft 0.354 Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.0420 Manning's roughness coeff , n 0.0330 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s V = ft/s 4.6314 n Flow length, L ft 1427 T = L / (3600*V) hrs 0.09 = 0.09 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.34 cover\1502C19,c1c LOS AMIGOS RANCH PRELIMINARY PLAT, FILINGS 6-10 WATER SYSTEM CALCULATIONS JANUARY 1998 Prepared by: Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. 118 West 6th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970/945-1004 Ntilittr, yti_ .„11**,,, 4.4, -"*Atereiti. iv ,i ----or--.. itiv,441 4.-Actippoktt 1 totirleYii± •• �r! :,,,,,,v4 �mo4#,_ 0 ET. 1 1 1 8" p // 1 1 S a N. + + MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS Number of pipes 500 Number of pumps 125 Number junction nodes 500 Flow meters 125 Boundary nodes 50 Variable storage tanks 125 Pressure switches 125 Regulating Valves 125 Items for limited output 500 limit for non-consecutive numbering 5135 Cybernet version 2.18. SN: 1132182801-500 Extended Description: UNITS SPECIFIED FLOWRATE = gallons/minute HEAD (HGL) = feet PRESSURE = psig + OUTPUT OPTION DATA OUTPUT SELECTION: ALL RESULTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE TABULATED OUTPUT SYSTEM CONFIGURATION NUMBER OF PIPES (p) = 61 NUMBER OF JUNCTION NODES (j) = 51 NUMBER OF PRIMARY LOOPS (1) = 7 NUMBER OF BOUNDARY NODES (f) = 4 NUMBER OF SUPPLY ZONES (z) = 1 ************************************* SIMULATION RESULTS ************************************* The results are obtained after 11 trials with an accuracy = 0.00008 The regulating valves required 1 adjustments. MULATION DESCRIPTION CyberNet Version 2.18. Copyright 1991,92 Haestad Methods Inc. Run Description: Basic Network Drawing: LA9-96 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 720 540 560 730 560 570 740 560 580 '50 580 590 00 580 600 770 600 610 780 600 620 790 620 630 800 620 640 810 640 650 820 650 640 830 650 660 840 -BN 660 0 JUN C T JUNCTION NUMBER 12.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.01 5.84 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.01 -3.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 6.80 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.01 -24.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.02 5.84 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.01 -45.41 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.06 4.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 -61.97 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.10 -51.76 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.07 21.89 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.06 -90.17 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.58 0.20 -90.17 0.09, 0.00 0.01 0.58 0.20 ION NODE RESULTS JUNCTION TITLE EXTERNAL DEMAND (9pm) HYDRAULIC GRADE (ft) JUNCTION ELEVATION (ft) PRESSURE HEAD (ft) JUNCTION PRESSURE (psi) 100-1 110-1 120-1 130-1 140-1 150-1 160-1 170-1 180-1 200-1 210-1 220-1 230-1 240-1 250-1 300-1 320-1 330-1 340-1 350-1 360-1 370-1 380-1 390-1 400-1 410-1 420-1 430-1 440-1 450-1 460-1 470-1 480-1 490-1 500-1 510-1 520-1 530-1 6.20 0.00 0.00 29.16 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 0.00 6.20 6.20 0.00 6.20 6.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.56 16.52 20.40 7.76 6.80 9.72 0.00 4.88 2.92 4.88 4.88 4.88 8.76 13.60 9.72 6.80 3.88 16.52 11.68 5.84 7179.68 7179.89 7179.72 7009.73 7009.63 7009.86 7009.85 7009.39 7009.21 7009.69 7009.63 6785.84 7009.64 7009.63 7179.89 7179.89 6576.93 6785.65 6576.69 6576.58 6576.52 6576.58 6576.54 6576.54 7180.92 7180.83 7180.64 7180.63 7180.63 7180.63 7180.11 7180.04 7180.30 7180.40 7180.40 7180.75 7180.38 7180.75 6908.00 6929.00 6902.00 6892.00 6872.00 6864.00 6810.00 6805.00 6740.00 6804.00 6736.00 6535.00 6738.00 6686.00 6903.00 6902.00 6350.00 6380.00 6325.00 6280.00 6245.00 6260.00 6230.00 6225.00 7176.00 7175.00 7090.00 7080.00 7090.00 7040.00 7040.00 6940.00 6940.00 7005.00 6995.00 7125.00 7073.00 7100.00 271.68 250.89 277.72 117.73 137.63 145.86 199.85 204.39 269.21 205.69 273.63 250.84 271.64 323.63 276.89 277.89 226.93 405.65 251.69 296.58 331.52 316.58 346.54 351.54 4.92 5.83 90.64 100.63 90.63 140.63 140.11 240.04 240.30 175.40 185.40 55.75 107.38 80.75 117.73 108.72 120.34 51.02 59.64 63.21 86.60 88.57 116.66 89.13 118.58 108.70 117.71 140.24 119.99 120.42 98.34 175.78 109.06 128.52 143.66 137.18 150.17 152.33 2.13 2.53 39.28 43.61 39.27 60.94 60.72 104.02 104.13 76.01 80.34 24.16 46.53 34.99 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PPELINE R E.S U L T S ,._nTUS CODE: XX -CLOSED PIPE EN -BOUNDARY NODE PU -PUMP LINE CV -CHECK VALVE RV -REGULATING VALVE TK -STORAGE TANK PIPE NODE NOS. FLOWRATE HEAD PUMP MINOR LINE HL/ NUMBER #1 #2 LOSS HEAD LOSS VELO. 1000 (gpm) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/ft) 140 120 110 -97.74 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.62 0.23 150 -RV 120 130 97.74 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.62 0.23 160 140 130 -68.58 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.12 170 150 200 45.38 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.51 0.23 280 150 160 6.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.01 190 170 140 -41.31 0.23 0.00 0.01 0.47 0.19 200 180 170 -76.76 0.13 0.00 0.04 0.49 0.15 220 140 200 -20.58 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.05 230 200 230 18.60 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.04 240 -RV 100 150 57.78 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.66 0.35 250 -RV 180 220 76.76 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.49 0.15 260 210 230 -6.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.01 270 230 240 6.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.01 310-XXPU 0 250 320-XXPU 0 250 360 110 300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 370 300 250 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 140 170 41.65 0.23 0.00 0.01 0.47 0.19 10 -RV 330 320 76.76 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.49 0.15 420 220 330 76.76 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.49 0.15 440 320 340 76.76 0.23 0.00 0.02 0.87 0.60 450 340 350 33.74 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.13 460 350 360 20.40 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.05 470 350 370 -3.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 480 370 340 -27.46 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.09 490 370 380 16.52 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.03 500 380 390 4.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 510 390 380 -4.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 520 -BN 0 400 280.68 0.05 0.00 0.03 1.15 0.55 530 400 410 149.07 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.61 0.17 540 410 420 144.19 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.59 0.16 550 420 430 14.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.01 560 430 440 4.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 570 430 450 4.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 580 420 520 126.63 0.24 0.00 0.02 0.81 0.37 590 460 110 97.74 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.62 0.23 600 460 470 40.86 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.05 610 470 100 63.98 0.28 0.00 0.09 0.73 0.43 620 470 480 -36.73 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.15 630 480 490 -66.16 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.11 640 490 500 3.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 650 490 510 -76.84 0.35 0.00 0.01 0.49 0.15 560 460 520 -147.35 0.25 0.00 0.02 0.94 0.49 70 510 520 32.40 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.12 ..80 510 530 5.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 690 510 400 -131.61 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.54 0.13 700 480 540 19.71 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.01 710 540 550 3.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 540-1 550-1 560-1 570-1 580-1 590-1 600-1 610-1 620-1 630-1 640-1 650-1 660-1 2.92 7180.28 6905.00 275.28 119.29 3.88 7180.28 6900.00 280.28 121.46 10.68 7180.28 6890.00 290.28 125.79 5.84 7180.27 6970.00 210.27 91.12 13.60 7180.28 6890.00 290.28 125.79 6.80 7180.27 6965.00 215.27 93.29 15.56 7180.33 6900.00 280.33 121.48 5.84 7180.33 6975.00 205.33 88.98 11.68 7180.46 6940.00 240.46 104.20 4.88 7180.46 6965.00 215.46 93.37 11.68 7180.63 7010.00 170.63 73.94 16.52 7180.77 7050.00 130.77 56.67 0.00 7180.90 7105.00 75.90 32.89 REGULATING VALVE REPORT VALVE POSITION CONTROLLED VALVE VALVE TYPE NODE PIPE SETTING STATUS (ft or gpm) UPSTREAM GRADE (ft) DOWNSTREAM GRADE (ft) THROUGH FLOW (gpm) PRV-1 PRV-1 PRV-1 PRV-1 100 120 180 330 240 7010.00 150 7010.00 250 6786.00 410 6577.00 THROTTLED THROTTLED THROTTLED THROTTLED MMARY OF INFLOWS AND 7179.68 7179.72 7009.21 6785.65 7009.86 7009.73 6785.84 6576.93 OUTFLOWS (+) INFLOWS INTO THE SYSTEM FROM BOUNDARY NODES (-) OUTFLOWS FROM THE SYSTEM INTO BOUNDARY NODES NET SYSTEM NET SYSTEM NET SYSTEM PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE (gpm) 520 840 INFLOW = OUTFLOW = DEMAND = 280.68 90.17 370.84 0.00 370.84 **** CYBERNET SIMULATION COMPLETED DATE: 11/25/1997 TIME: 9:29:47 57.78 97.74 76.76 76.76 Cybernet Version: 2.18 SN: 1132182801 25-11-1997 Description: TWO TANKS -- NOVEMBER 1997 r ging: LA9-96 a Flow Summary. JCT Max. Day Max. Day Zone Needed Available @Residual Min. Zone @JCT No. Demand Pressure No. Fire Flow Fire Flow Pressure Pressure No. (gpm) (psi) (gpm) (gpm) (psi) (psi) Page 1 420 2.9 39.3 1 502.9 1500.0 31.8 22.6 510 430 4.9 43.6 1 504.9 1500.0 24.7 20.4 440 440 4.9 39.3 1 504.9 1221.6 20.0 23.0 510 450 4.9 60.9 1 504.9 1373.0 20.0 22.8 510 460 8.8 60.7 1 508.8 1500.0 44.0 22.0 510 470 13.6 104.0 1 513.6 1500.0 78.8 21.8 510 480 9.7 104.1 1 509.7 1500.0 86.0 21.1 510 490 6.8 76.0 1 506.8 1500.0 58.7 20.7 510 500 3.9 80.3 1 503.9 1500.0 38.1 20.7 510 510 16.5 24.2 1 516.5 1308.9 20.0 30.8 530 520 11.7 46.5 1 511.7 1500.0 34.9 22.2 510 530 5.8 35.0 1 505.8 1199.3 20.0 20.6 510 540 2.9 119.3 1 502.9 1500.0 91.1 21.6 510 550 3.9 121.5 1 503.9 1500.0 62.2 21.6 510 560 10.7 125.8 1 510.7 1500.0 94.2 21.8 510 570 5.8 91.1 1 505.8 1086.4 20.0 22.8 510 580 13.6 125.8 1 513.6 1500.0 87.8 22.4 510 90 6.8 93.3 1 506.8 1194.5 20.0 22.9 510 00 15.6 121.5 1 515.6 1500.0 84.6 22.8 510 X10 5.8 89.0 1 505.8 1199.9 20.0 23.2 510 620 11.7 104.2 1 511.7 1500.0 74.0 23.2 510 630 4.9 93.4 1 504.9 1500.0 27.6 23.2 510 640 11.7 73.9 1 511.7 1500.0 52.7 23.5 510 650 16.5 56.7 1 516.5 1500.0 43.3 23.7 510 670 0.0 134.5 1 500.0 1500.0 100.3 23.0 510 Cybernet Version: 2.18 SN: 1132182801 25-11-1997 Description: EAST TANK ONLY -- NOVEMBER 1997 P wing: LA9-96 Flow Summary. JCT Max. Day Max. Day Zone Needed Available @Residual Min. Zone @JCT No. Demand Pressure No. Fire Flow Fire Flow Pressure Pressure No. (gPm) (psi) (gPm) (gPm) (psi) (psi) Page 1 420 2.9 39.2 1 502.9 1500.0 31.2 22.0 510 430 4.9 43.6 1 504.9 1500.0 24.2 19.8 440 440 4.9 39.2 1 504.9 1206.2 20.0 22.6 510 450 4.9 60.9 1 504.9 1363.8 20.0 22.3 510 460 8.8 60.6 1 508.8 1500.0 42.5 21.1 510 470 13.6 103.9 1 513.6 1500.0 76.0 20.7 510 480 9.7 103.9 1 509.7 1500.0 73.6 19.1 510 490 6.8 75.8 1 506.8 1500.0 49.7 18.9 510 500 3.9 80.2 1 503.9 1500.0 29.2 18.9 510 510 16.5 24.1 1 516.5 1158.2 20.0 30.8 530 520 11.7 46.5 1 511.7 1500.0 33.8 21.4 510 530 5.8 34.9 1 505.8 1164.5 20.0 20.0 510 540 2.9 119.0 1 502.9 1500.0 59.7 19.1 510 550 3.9 121.2 1 503.9 1500.0 30.8 19.1 510 560 10.7 125.5 1 510.7 1500.0 52.6 15.6 610 570 5.8 90.8 1 505.8 923.9 20.0 21.8 510 580 13.6 125.4 1 513.6 1187.2 46.8 10.0 610 90 6.8 92.9 1 506.8 874.2 20.0 22.0 510 00 15.6 121.1 1 515.6 975.0 42.5 10.0 610 610 5.8 88.6 1 505.8 752.9 20.0 22.4 510 670 0.0 134.1 1 500.0 975.0 47.4 10.0 610 970) 945-1004 FAX (970) 945-5948 5G SCIIMUESER GOROON ME YEA ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 118 West 6th. Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 June 22, 1999 Mr. Greg Boecker, Owner's Representative Los Amigos Ranch Partnership 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Application to Amend Preliminary Plan Submission Los Amigos Ranch PUD - Filings 6 thru 10 Dear Greg: This letter is in support of an Application to Amend the Preliminary Plan submission for Filings 6 to 10 of Los Amigos Ranch PUD. Specifically, certain portions of Section 4:00 Preliminary Plan of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, as further outlined below, are addressed. This Amended Preliminary Plan will consist of 178 single-family homes and a neighborhood commercial parcel located immediately north and west of existing prior filings of Los Amigos Ranch PUD. Included will be four Rural Residential lots in excess of 35 acres located generally in the southwest part of the project. 4:80 DRAINAGE PLAN Attached hereto please find Los Amigos PUD Ranch Preliminary Plat Drainage Report. The methodology used is outlined in the attachment. The locations of drainage facilities are shown on the Drainage Master Plan Sheet LAD and the various roadway plan & profile sheets of the Preliminary Plan drawings. There are no existing water courses or lakes on this property. Tributary areas are localized in nature. Drainage Master Plan Sheet LAD shows the locations of minor on-site drainage basins denoted by Basin "XX". The locations of major drainage elements required to convey stormwater are denoted by a leader with the label "DE #XX". The Drainage Master Plan &so shows information relating to the stormwater detention concept developed in conjunction with Wright Water Engineers' review of the approved Filings 6 thru 10 Preliminary Plat. The plan shows the locations of the four major discharge points for Los Amigos Ranch PUD denoted by "DP #X". Subareas indicated by heavy dashed lines are labeled "DPX.X" Cross -hatched areas within each drainage basin indicate the locations of proposed detention ponds. These ponds will attenuate the post -development flood peaks for both the 25 -year and 100 -year floods to levels below those that would occur under June 22, 1999 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 2 historic undeveloped conditions. An April 1998 report entitled "Los Amigos Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan, Filings 6 thru 10, Stormwater Detention Analysis" presented the lengthy hydrologic and detention routing calculations. Copies or this report are not included in this submission, but will be gladly furnished upon request. 4:91 WATER SUPPLY PLAN All of the lots proposed as part of this Amended Preliminary Plan submission will be serviced by the extension and improvements of the existing central water system. In the case of the Rural Residential lots, alternative service with either individual wells or central water system extension is proposed. EXISTING WATER SYSTEM The existing system consists of two drilled wells, identified as Well No. 5 and Well No. 6, a 320,000 gallon water tank, a control/chlorination building, numerous fire hydrants and a distribution system consisting of 10", 8" and 6" piping which serves all previous filings within Los Amigos Ranch PUD. Two pressure reducing valve (PRV) stations divide the system into two pressure zones. The locations of the existing water system components are on the Preliminary Plan Master Water Plan Sheet LAU-2. Well No. 5 is a 5" steel cased well approximately 240 feet deep. The well has a static water level of 80 feet and has been test pumped in the past to a total of 110 gpm with only a four foot draw down. Estimated potential well capacity is estimated in excess of 300 gpm. Well No. 6 is a 10" steel cased well with a total depth of approximately 260 feet. This well has been test pumped in the past at 400 gpm. Current combined well yield of these two wells is approximately 510 gpm with a total potential yield in excess of 600 gpm. The control/chlorination building contains the operating controls for the system. The required 30 -minute chlorine contact time is provided by 460 feet of 24" water main within the system. The total volume contained within the piping is 10,800 gallons which provides more than 30 minutes of detention at the peak day pumping rate at build -out of the project of 251 gpm. The water system is classified as a public water supply by the Colorado Department of Health. Both the quality and bacteriological content of the water has consistently met all parameters of the State of Colorado Primary Drinking Water System. WATER REQUIREMENTS Table 1 enclosed herein indicates the current water requirements for Los Amigos Ranch PUD and the water requirements for Filings 6 to 10. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC June 22, 1999 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 3 The water system will provide both in-house domestic use and outside lawn irrigation uses. Average and peak day demands are calculated for both irrigation and non -irrigation seasons. As noted in Table 1, the water system has been sized to include the service of the Residential Rural lots, should they require service. PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM COMPONENTS The proposed water system components to accommodate Filings 6-10 are shown on the Preliminary Plan Master Water Plan Sheet LAU-2. New 10", 8" and 6" transmission and distribution lines will be installed along with fire hydrants and 1" or 1 Y2 " water services for each lot. A new steel water tank will be required in the western portion of the project once development proceeds into Filing 9. The CYBERNET computer model was used to calculate pressures and determine required line sizes throughout the system. Fire flow demands, rather than peak hour demands, govern the design of the system. Lines were sized with the goal of providing a fire flow of at least 500 gpm at 20 psi. This was achieved in all areas. The fire hydrants were placed where they would benefit the most lots. The hydrant layout shown on LAU-2 has been done consistent with discussions with the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Due to the large line sizes used, pressure differences that would occur under static conditions and peak day demands are negligible. Assuming a mid -tank level, a maximum pressure of about 135 psi would be observed in the lowest portion of Filing 8. Some low pressure levels will occur on the lots in the northeast portion of the project in the vicinity of the water tank. The Water Master Plan Sheet LAU-2 indicates lots which fall above the elevation 7090/40 psi line. The significance is that, depending on where the actual homesite is situated, individual lot owners may wish to install a pump and pressure tank to obtain higher, in-house pressures. One and one-half inch diameter water services are also recommended for these lots to minimize the headloss that would occur from the water main to the house. The attached report entitled, "Los Amigos Ranch PUD Preliminary Plat, Filings 6-10, Water System Calculations" contains a computer model schematic and results of the fire flow analysis. Again, the maximum day pressures listed were virtually the same as the maximums observed under static conditions. Separate fire flow runs are provided for an analysis of the complete system with both tanks on line and "an east tank only" scenario which excludes Filing 9. The existing 320,000 gallon east tank was over -sized to accommodate potential future filings. Considering those areas east of Filing 9 (which has 60 lots) and the water demands referenced in Table 1, the minimum required tank volume can be calculated as follows: SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 June 22, 1999 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 4 Considering the incremental storage required to serve Filing 9 (60 lots), the minimum size of the western tank can be calculated as follows: EAST TANK Equalization 25% average total demand 35,449 gallons Fire Flow 15002 gpm x 2 hours 180,000 gallons Emergency 1 average day (domestic) 63,860 gallons Minimum required volume 279,309 gallons 16,200 gallons 1 Domestic and irrigation 2 Auburn Ridge Apartments only; 500 gpm single family lots. Considering the incremental storage required to serve Filing 9 (60 lots), the minimum size of the western tank can be calculated as follows: RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS For purposes of sizing the central water system, service to the four (4) Rural Residential lots was assumed to be part of the water system. Because of the size of these lots and their location relative to the remainder of the project and the water system, this plan proposes as an alternative the ability to drill an individual well on each of these lots. With respect to the history of well development in this area, we have reviewed records available from the District Engineer's Office and have tacked to local well drillers familiar with groundwater conditions. Wells have been variable with respect to well depth and well yield. Generally, the wells have been completed in bedrock formations or in the alluvial layers immediately above bedrock interfaces. Well yields are generally less than 10 gpm which would indicate intermediate storage between the well and the residence may be required depending upon total well yield. We anticipate the water would be classified as SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC WEST TANK 9,712 gallons Equalization 25% Average total demand Fire Flow 5002 gpm x 2 hours 60,000 gallons Emergency 1 average day (domestic) 16,200 gallons 85,912 gallons Minimum required volume 1 Domestic and irrigation 2 Single family Tots RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS For purposes of sizing the central water system, service to the four (4) Rural Residential lots was assumed to be part of the water system. Because of the size of these lots and their location relative to the remainder of the project and the water system, this plan proposes as an alternative the ability to drill an individual well on each of these lots. With respect to the history of well development in this area, we have reviewed records available from the District Engineer's Office and have tacked to local well drillers familiar with groundwater conditions. Wells have been variable with respect to well depth and well yield. Generally, the wells have been completed in bedrock formations or in the alluvial layers immediately above bedrock interfaces. Well yields are generally less than 10 gpm which would indicate intermediate storage between the well and the residence may be required depending upon total well yield. We anticipate the water would be classified as SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC June 22, 1999 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 5 "hard", but that all Colorado Primary Drinking Water Standards will be met. Depending on the degree of hardness, water softening may or may not be elected by the homeowner. With respect to fire protection for these lots, it is proposed to provide a 2000 gallon cistern with draft pipe for use by firefighting apparatus. This cistern would be located near the residence and would be sited at the time that an architectural site plan is available for the residential building construction. 4:92 SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL PLAN EXISTING SANITARY DISPOSAL FACILITIES Previously approved filings within the Los Amigos Ranch PUD are serviced by either individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) or a central wastewater treatment collection and treatment system operated by the Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD). Those portions of the PUD serviced by SVSD are properties which generally lie within the Spring Valley aquifer drainage and can be serviced by gravity collection sewerlines. The approximate boundaries of the Spring Valley aquifer have been established during prior approvals. CENTRAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM Residential Lots With Central Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Central wastewater treatment and collection services are provided by the Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD). The existing system consists of a gravity sewer collection system that serves both Los Amigos Ranch PUD and Colorado Mountain College (CMC), and an aerated lagoon wastewater treatment facility utilizing exfiltration basins as a disposal method for effluent. Within the Los Amigos Ranch PUD, the central sewer system presently services Auburn Ridge Apartments and 49 single-family Tots. Proposed Sewer Collection Facilities - Filings 6 thru 10 The wastewater collection system will be extended throughout Filings 6 thru 10 to provide collection of wastewater to an additional 174 single-family lots. Because of the variations in the topography over the extent of the project, the vast majority of these lots will be serviced by a low pressure sewer collection system. This system varies significantly from the traditional gravity sewer collection system typically seen in municipal wastewater collection systems. As opposed to having large diameter sewer gravity pipes discharging to central lift stations, a low pressure sewer collection system utilizes pumping units on individual lots which feed a common small diameter pressure sewer force main. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. June 22, 1999 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 6 A number of low pressure collection system alternatives have been investigated by the Owner. The equipment and design methodology as employed a -one sewer systems of Niskayuna, New York, have been used as a reference specification for the system. Attached hereto is a preliminary design for the system directly from e -one and dated May 10, 1999. Sheet LAU-3 of the plans is a plan layout of the entire system. The force mains vary in size from 11/2" to 4". The system discharges to the existing gravity collection system of the SVSD. This system is consistent with the recommendations by the County Engineer on the previous submittal for Filings 6 thru 10 and upon which the condition of approval was written requiring a low pressure sewer collection system. It is anticipated that this system will be owned and operated by either the Homeowners Association or SVSD from the point at which the connection is made to the gravity system of the SVSD. Sheet LAU-7 shows a typical pumping system that will be installed by each individual homeowner at the time individual residences are constructed. The homeowner will be required to construct a pumping system that is consistent with the design parameters for the e -one low pressure sewer system, sized in accordance with the wastewater collection requirements of each individual residence. Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities - Spring Valley Sanitation District Central treatment will continue to be provided by SVSD. The existing treatment facility is not sufficient in capacity to handle the treatment requirements of Filings 6 thru 10. SVSD is currently involved in the process of expanding the wastewater treatment facilities. An Amended Service Plan has been completed by the District and submitted to the County for review. That Amended Service Plan has been approved by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. It will serve as a basis for expansion of wastewater treatment facilities, of which Los Amigos Ranch PUD is a portion. The next step in the evaluation process is the submission of a Site Application through Garfield County to the Colorado Department of Public & Environment (CDPHE). Currently, CDPHE is undertaking a 208 Regional Water Quality Management Plan for District 11, which encompasses the Roaring Fork River Drainage Basin. This plan has been completed in draft form and will be presented before the Water Quality Control Commission in August, 1999, for final approval. SVSD is anticipating that, within a week after final approval of the 208 Regional Water Quality Management Plan, the Site Application will be completed and submitted to Garfield County for consideration prior to review by the CDPHE. Completion of construction of wastewater treatment facility expansion will be dependent on the length of approvals by the various review agencies. The potential dates for completion range from the end of the construction season of year 2000 to completion by mid -year 2001. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER. INC June 22, 1999 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 7 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS (ISDS) Residential Lots With ISDS ISDS installations are being proposed for the four (4) Rural Residential Tots shown on the Amended Preliminary Plat. Referencing the geotechnic report prepared by Hepworth-Pawlak included in this application, there have been nine percolation tests conducted throughout the filing. The percolation test results range from 11 minutes per inch to 40 minutes per inch. These percolation rates are indicative of subsurface conditions which are acceptable for ISDS to be constructed. The percolation tests were run at locations and in site soils conditions that are representative of the overall conditions throughout the project. Additionally, there are ten (10) units within the existing Los Amigos Ranch PUD which have been installed and are using ISDS for sewage service. To the best of our knowledge, adequate percolation and subsurface conditions were found at all these sites for standard ISDS utilization. Environmental and Health Impacts Analysis Garfield County Sewage Disposal Regulations which, in turn, are based on the "Guidelines on Individual Sewage Disposal Systems", Colorado Department of Health, set forth the conditions and regulations under which the County and the State of Colorado have determined are appropriate to the construction of ISDS. These regulations are very comprehensive with respect to site characteristics which determine the type and size of the system which can be constructed. Those regulations recognize the ability of a soil matrix to provide the necessary treatment to septic tank effluent such that, once the effluent passes through the soil matrix, the treated effluent does not pose a public health hazard or risk. The regulations further address the potential for cumulative impact of ISDS systems by specifying the minimum lot sizes that should be utilized for ISDS systems. ISDS technology recognizes that there are certain instances where there are inherent restraints to the use of ISDS's. These restraints include high groundwater table, underlying bedrock formations, inadequate percolation rate, horizontal separation from wells and water courses, and excessive percolation rate. Whenever any of these restraints exist, the regulations require that they be identified and that the system installed when restraints occur, be designed under the direction of a registered professional engineer in the State of Colorado. A "standard" ISDS system, typically consists of a septic tank and leach field. In order to use a standard ISDS, the underlying soil matrix should demonstrate percolation rates within acceptable defined limits and there should be identified no restraints to the installation of the system. As stated above, ail systems currently installed within the Los Amigos Ranch PUD are standard systems, with acceptable percolation rates existing and no restraints to construction identified. Based upon data now available, it is anticipated that for the four Rural SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. June 22, 1999 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 8 Residential Tots, a standard system will be installed. In each case, percolation tests and profile holes will be excavated at the location and depth of the proposed leach field at each individual building site in accordance with Garfield County regulations. The results of those tests will be analyzed and the system design based on percolation rate and size of residence. Attached to this letter report is a "Management Plan For Individual Sewage Disposal Systems". As stated in the Plan, the purpose is to provide for the regular operation and maintenance of ISDS. This Plan has previously been incorporated into the covenants of Los Amigos Ranch PUD. The Plan will be included in the covenants adopted as part of the Preliminary Plan. Also attached to this letter report is a letter from Hepworth-Pawiak dated January 19, 1998, which further summarizes the field investigations performed on this site. As stated in the letter, Hepworth-Pawiak reiterates their conclusion from their original study which indicates that this site is suitable for individual septic systems while recognizing that mounding or other engineered systems may be required where a shallow bedrock restraint might be encountered. ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE Roadways within this project have been sized in accordance with current requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. Estimated service requirements are based on 10 vehicle trips per day (VPD) per individual lot. Typical road sections for the different roadway classifications are contained within the Preliminary Plan drawings. Roadway infrastructure as part of this filing will be as follows (next page); SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. June 22, 1999 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 9 LOS AMIGOS DRIVE Sta 22+00 to Sta 143+15.38 150 1500 Minor Collector 2500 60 12 4 Sta 143+15.38 to END 29 290 Secondary Access 600 60 11 4 WEST ROAD Sta 0+00 to Sta 23+08.25 26 260 Secondary Access 600 60 11 4 Sta 23+08.25 to END ROAD B 11 110 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 16 160 Secondary Access 600 60 11 4 ROAD C 12 120 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 ROAD D 9 90 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 ROAD E 11 110 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 ROAD F 6 60 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 ROAD G 5 50 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 ROAD H 5 50 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 ROAD I 4 40 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 ROAD J 5 50 Rural Access 200 50 11 2 The cul-de-sacs as shown will have an outside turning radius of 45 feet. All roadway grades are less than 8% and are detailed in the Preliminary Plan drawings. Please note that several of the roadways could be designed at a semi -primitive roadway classification. The Owner has indicated that the Rural Access classification will be used for all those roadways. I trust that the above is adequate to support the Preliminary Plan Application for Filings 6-10 Los Amigos Ranch PUD. I will be available to provide further input and respond to any questions of any of the review agencies, 1 also plan to be in attendance at both the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and the Board of County Commissioners hearing to answer any additional questions. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC June 22, 1999 Mr. Greg Boecker Page 10 Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Dean W. President n, P.E. DWG:Iec\1502C19.ppr Attachments SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER. INC 0 a• Z a U • w Z cc 2 • W 03 O a • u) aFE oa -a CA tl �O 1 J = 29 .5 EQRs = 7,970 0 CB N nt CA 0 co 69 sf units a 270 gpd Existing Users o w C > E 7 N d 0) CO 'O 348,368 gpd = 251 gpm 534,000 sf is 2.523 A-f/A = = 100,782 gpd = 70 gpm = 201,564 gpd 178 sf units a 270 gpd = 48,060 gpd Average Day = 80,060 gpd = 56 gpm 0 f0 a Filings 6 thru 10 0 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. 1 50 -day application period. 3000 square feet per residential unit. 50,000 sf total acreage. 20 equivalent residential units. 1502c19 ppr\DWG1Iec 10,000 sf total acreage. SEWER SYSTEMS Environment One Corporation Pressure Sewer Preliminary Cost and Design Analysis For Los Amigos Ranch Colorado Prepared For: Schmueser Gordon Meyer 118 West 6th, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs CCD 81601 Tel: 970 945-1004 ,ax: 970 945-5948 Prepared By: Bruce Richardson NIa 10. 1999 1 1 1 1 1 1 - p _ 4 .- i; - -- ...• ,; ...0 .. Nc ee CN e4 e. v... vv. 4D 4D en e. CA wn ...v CD e, un v... VD es el CI\ 0 CA ts v.. e. Ch N CA Ch .et on ...v.. et 40 ru c cA 00 pn oo oo «. 00 crs yr 0 -. ch et ee er CD WOO CA 00 et es 00 CA r, vp 00 CA Tr 0 Tk rs el 4D un el el oo vl vD, oo q) e.! vs vl el vP r, el tin ul 41 un ou et el Ch! et, ett v.1 21=30007.20Mg.000tiOCD000.411.000g(:)09.2.0.9.0 a v.w ' -~J ;;' 74 .14 .1 c 6 6 ., o CD 000 CD 0D vi. CD CP 0 un vi 0 CD 6 CD 6 od CD CD CD 6 000 CD CD so CD CD un a on od en on 0 CD on CD Gd CD oo 06 ken C) cw 6 un ,$) CD 6 con 09 6 ' CD ! 6 en. E = lico ,;. p_ag .= ... r: cd:e;„„o- 2 CD len cs CD 0 .....4mcenv),4unmunirtevicFI co op 0 CD 0 wi co co CD C> CD 6 cs CD CD 6 o co CD 6 CD CD 6 ui CD ep CD CD QP CD es un un °, °° 0 en on CA CD 6 cA CA 0 on o as 0 en en on ce4 CA CD CD 0°0°0 0 on CD 6 0n0'44-4 0 m eh on Ces CD CP CD 6 0 en en Ch CD C> CD CD 0 tei vi Troow000l g 0 CD 0 M rn en on up CN CA,. S gp CP g 0 CD CD gp c> Cid e. CD 6 ken g ee a gp GP on g 0 CD g oi CP e. CR g ui on CD g CD Q un 0 ^4 S 0 hoccp1 0 v.s CA CA 0 CI CD CD! 00 01 0 01 co en) 00 ent er% chi s- ',35 2 I A -F, 1 4 :7. s t0 g t es g - 0 6000000000000000000000000000001 wi 6 c4 e. CD S 0 6 e. S 0 o e. S 0 o 41 CA 0 vi wn Cr, 0 on en CN CD cS 00 CA. 0 cs 00 CN,, 0 CD 0 on 6 wi en c. un en a% ce. -53 !,1 % 'c ... . , e.g.:. g o TT CA r4-.cAoor-r-upenup.ome.4o1*4-T-. ,c) VD 01 on ,-. m5 '00 TT C:1 h 46 V) -. T.; VI CD ori CA CA %6, - CA 6 en et ei Tr V) cr ep eA ... 00 on ei ef oq on yr er cr 0 TT 6 e. Tr cK cr, o et 7t 00 c4; es Ch cl: 000 4 os ,.... vo od on Ti t, un 6 t --‘04v) un vo. ....I en vo on un ev en t- el 4 U1 wn on cle4 est 0.1 .4. .17.1 cn cst .-; g g., d co ge) ;71 6 r: Tr '4. e4 4.... til un !::, Ti ... g 06 n c: 4 va Clei Ti SO on T. 4 VI 6 od .. ... g ... ... g cn U; 6 ol '..:,' vi .. r4 -... 4 00 cK r .6 . r, ,. ten e4 Ti re, uS 0'. 6 r4 e (., 06 en 23 en WI TiT. m "... en CAi od cp ,.... -,1 17ridiun170s-s- 7attur (ft; 10021 .d.,,,.4.0,,,,.00,-.4.,,, .0 .., l'. e.; .0 e4 ,.- e4 w, T» et 6 00 6 41 TT; V1 re -.i6 et et 6 re 41 csi T.; et 6 r. r4 U1 e-, 2.631 ,w,,,,,nmo..).4.,(0.4,-,,,,t1 un 6 ,.. e4 41 e. r4 un VD. a e. r4 '0 ..-; '0 r4 ee r4 41 T4 re r4 4D u0! c4 di •S -5N SI ., ''s cto 00 WN '0 \Owl un ,.. 335.00] 807.00 1,390.00 aac 0 \C..--.ei N .es.v .-. 0. e4e4 1r4 GP c,i 298.00] c6 000 t-:%6 -. e4o.4 .: vs en 484.0(211 1,204.00 (-4 enTrooreo .4 000 un o 4.4. r- 496.00 1 770.00 888 e4 N M od N M ..t.4 un 422.00 88881 tnr-o4ent en 4 r- vp.: 441 .. ..:,, :... 27i:4- 0'0000,,0A0'(Dese.00A* CAetN0n0•NOetChheINts Me1(4..Ne4e4Me.esile NChetetetetetetetNChetei CA0Oct0et0erNOCA000CACDOOts! NMeirne4e1CMe4Mt1e,iMMOii t - .:1A 'AA . .0.. = - - 00'0000000000 o.r0,o0,00sel00,onococc.41..rloulccr0ct00,(nc .4 t4 4 oci (-4 Q0g00000000,00000 esi on osi Ti ei en T-; r4 et' cn TT r4 ei en M vi -. r4 oi on esi Tr T.-; r4 csi en T4 r4 eu Ti ; 1 • 6: ! Z--'': •,..5,-:- L. --..s. 000.9.00000000000000000.9.000.9.00001 CV0010000000000000s,00000a00000000. en m4r4m4vpmr-olTroor4mooNm4m4e4mo14...... t f -i en et va en c: r4 et od ol on .,‘.' 4 15 -- - 2- 1;14 ci tt 4r4m4vsmc-e440oelmoor4m4aNm4c4moi4 . 2-4k. -.i 00000000000 00000.0.000a0 ..... . T. ... .4 .4 8 .4 8 -. .4 86)666.660660.00.66: ......;,-4... .44 .4 00000000,0Q00; .4 .4 v... .4 v..1 ... 1..1 vv. v... v.. .... *4 .46 g :;..'.'"dr.... -...4-0. .. lon.mmmmmmmmmmm 0 0.00000000,vc..! c tel,uslovInv)v- 350.00 1 000000.00002 0 . 'cscpco0000000 . .. . .. . 000000000000 aq666a 666666c5c:566o vIcnunun mmmmmm 350.00 350.00 000000, 1.1 onenmmmmm cowl totvl 350.00 350.00 F; , . . (..) ,. CA V) „. CN en er C' WI el ee e. e4 00 en en --t'. 0 ,-. Ch CV e. en en N - rn CA N ,. eV on N CA 00 ... m CA en et 0 * WI! re 1 0 .g S. • S alculated 41 00 VI V) r- .4 ., oo et m 4D CD •0 en e. en \ID C1 en et en vo ch en uo en e4 NI 0 '4' 2 .,..- cIN CD 00,0,0,0,0,00,00,00000,0cs00 .04vivpo000--;6-iTioi4.06 C> gp CD CD op CD CD ... 0 ... CD .. CD gp ... ... cD ... CD .4 CD v.. 0CD v.. 6c4r4 el CD IN CD .. el 0 CD 6600tolqa.06. ..4.61--:Tr0006.--.--. cV N C> CV CD e4 CD N en m m t)...2000 -..,. 000 •.E.5. (-4 m 4 on 0000.0000Q00000Q00 00000000000000000 vd oz 00 0' e5 T-. osi M etui .. Vi, -.. N ... GO -.4. 0: 6 4-4 TT C4 ou f4 000,90000 000.vtri00 '1' *1'. ei fq v5 CV c-- N 64. (-4 06 r4 a+ r4 6 ... en ell 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Ma ca 8 A. W 2.00 6.00 12 2.00 18.84 1,552.00 292.43 4,200 14.36 1.67 9.sv 3.00 4.00 3 1.50 12.07 335.00 40.44 1,050 ' 25.97 0.92 12.15 4.00 5.00 9 2.00 18.84 807.00 152.06 _ 3,150 20.72 1.16 11.221 5.00 6.00 16 3.00' 40.90 1,390.00 568.45 5,600 9.85 2.44 10.07 6.00 8.00 39 3.00 40.90 1,676.00 685.42 13,650 19.91 1.21 7.63 7.00 8.00 4 2.00 18.84 521.00 ' 98.17- 1,400 14.26 1.68 8.11 8.00 11.00 57 4.00 67.65 2,223.00 1,503.88 19,950 13.27 1.81 6.42 9.00 10.00 3 1.50 12.07 298.00 35.97 1,050 29.19 0.82 M8.54 in 0 11 00 11 3.00T 40.90 1,217.00 497.70 3,850 7.74 3.10 7.72 n O V1 0 N v'1 N V1 N O •^ N v'1 C • tl' 00 r' [t .t; 0", '0 00 00 M "t Ch M O i`• 'et N •v'1 4 ^'! N^ v'1 i et ' e1 .-4-. . M N N N -4 .-. O M N Ch ..c) M W N t, M N rt O .. C1 v1 CO 00 f W. O C O C+ CA 00 O O CA V1 0 '0 M N M N.O. N0 O V1 O N 0<o000Ovd:C+00OOv1d.O 1,. 0h eeio0ONo0v100< ... h ... 4' C^ t'N N ••'. M M N v1 1- ^'41. 0 va '0 4 ...41:'d'r-NNO M M N N 0' e-4 V100V) •..N — N ON et r, .4 et Md 0000 q. .-. -•MO en" vi.. M 1,050 3,150 4,200 o000oOcro$OOoc M •-+a... d r... VI fl0 enV)... 4/1 un C)ohun'1 en. -'1 �O CD vN1" N'01000l,v1MOt'- et CCNOMNNQ\C` VI 00 N N 0 M 4D 00 on N 0 O d; vi("4 r4 Un '(4 882.17 32.95 335.55 314.90 38.87 250.22 276.04 50.94 elvl 000v(iM0 .+ VD '0000• W. W. 484.001 00 O CVl� HO 434.00 1,341.00 583.00 782.00 459.00 1,304.00 273.00 496.00 770.00 322.00 1,328.00 1,465.00 422.00 956.00 471.00 00 NM t- '0 000vD 0 .. 00 -. 67.65 12.07 18.84 18.84 O - in C.4DCnO00000oQ0000C '0 * '0 0. w4 o0 00 N-. W. N.i 0000 -4 V) ND C --. O tV O 0 0 0 et .4 N eV 0 401 d' •" O et 1.50 4.00 3.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 v01 O �• N v01 •-• 0 N O . ‘r i M 0OO .— >0 •rir;v4v1'Ot--000'0 4 C1 o M C1 .N-. — et M .r N .... M N N .-+ 3 9 18 3 C1 M et eon ... .•- --r 18.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 20.00 20.00 22.00 22.00 31.00 fj 24.00 '76 n(1 N N N 0 M 30.00 zl011 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. nn N 0 0 0 0 "»Nd v1,,or00000"0..4 N N N N 0 N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 M 0 M LOS AMIGOS RANCH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS A. Purpose The purpose of this Management Plan is to provide for regular operations and maintenance of the individual sewage disposal systems. The Management Plan provides a mechanism for regular pumping of septic tanks and for funding the cost thereof. This Management Plan is not intended to provide for common ownership of sewage disposal facilities, nor to provide a mechanism for funding for, or the actual construction of, replacement of individual systems. B. Responsibility of Management Pian The Management Plan shall be the responsibility of the Los Amigos Ranch Homeowners Association. The Homeowners Association shall make arrangements with a septic tank pumping company for the pumping of septic tanks on a two-year, rotating basis. C. Funding The Los Amigos Ranch Homeowners Association will collect, as part of the Association dues, sufficient funds to pay for the bi-annual pumping of septic tanks. The amount of funds collected shall be adjusted as necessary to pay for the cost of the Management Pan. D. Individual Homeowners Responsibilities 1. Provide access to the septic tank for purposes of cleaning. 2. Pump septic tank more frequently, if required, based on actual use. 3. Initially install, and subsequently replace, failed leach field systems as required, all in accordance with applicable Garfield County Health Codes. t502isds.MP/dwp.Iec SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHN1CAL, INC. January 19. 1998 Greg Boecker 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 3026 Road 154 Glenwood Springs. Co 81601 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 Job No. 196 617 Subject: Individual Septic Systems. Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D., County Road 114. Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Boecker: As requested be Dean Gordon. we are providing clarification of our recommendations regarding individual septic systems for the proposed Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. We have received a copy of the first 4 pages of preliminary plat review letter by Wright Water Engineers to Garfield County dated January 9, 1998. We performed a preliminary geotechnical study for the project under Job No. 196 617. dated February 14. 1997. Individual Septic Systems: Percolation tests were conducted in January, 1997 to evaluate the feasibility of individual septic systems at the site. The percolation rates varied from 11 to 40 minutes per inch. The average of eleven percolation tests was about 24 minutes per inch. The tests were performed between 3 and 5'/2 feet below the ground surface. All the tests were performed in the overburden soils above the basalt flow rock. Partial refusal to digging by the Case 780C rubber -tired backhoe was encountered shallower than 8 feet deep in 15 of 21 pits. The average refusal depth was 41/2 feet. Whether the refusal was on intact basalt flow or on basalt boulders within the overlying basalt colluvium soils could not be determined in the relatively small backhoe pits. Based on our experience in the area and the site geology. we expect that the basalt flow is close to the refusal depths encountered in the pits. The development should be suitable for individual septic systems. Mounding or other engineered systems may be required in shallow basalt rock areas. The system designs should be based on site specific soils information. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GE9, I -,AL. INC. csp (--� E. H^.� • Daniel E. Hardin. P.E. DEH/ksm cc: ce• 24443 ° 4VS/0171AI rrnrrnililtunl���'� Schmueser Gordon Meyer - Attn: Dean Gordon EN SpirrIcTF,-Ilos Anmgos Ranch November 2010 Appendix F Geologic Hazards Preliminary Plan Exhibit E Final Plat Engineering Report Appendix F EXHIBIT E E. Geologic Evaluations. El . Preliminary Geologic Hazard Investigations, Lincoln De Vore Testing Lab, Inc. E2. Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Hepworth-Paulak Geotechnical, Inc. E.3 Geologic Hazards Evaluation CTL -Thompson, Inc. E.4 Radiation Survey, CTL -Thompson, Inc. Lincoln DeVore 1000 West Fillmore St. Colorado Springs. Colorado 00907 (303) 632-3593 Home Office Exhibit El Los Amigos Ranch P.O. Box 1506 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 ATTN: Malcom Wall February 5, 1982 Re: rile No. GS -740 Preliminary Geologic Hazards Investigation for Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D., Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Wall: Personnel of Lincoln--DeVore completed a preliminary geologic hazard site inspection on the above referenced property on September 5, 1978, in order to identify and define geologic and soils constraints which may effect the development. A set of three maps were prepared in connection with this report. The set of three maps were based on a regional study done by Lincoln-DeVore for Garfield County in 1975 under the provisions of Colorado House Bill 1041. The House 33i11 1041 mapping was amended and added to, to prepare the set of maps for this site, but the set of three maps which accompany this study must still be considered as preliminary in nature. The three maps are: Plate I - Preliminary Geologic Map; Plate 11 - Preliminary Soils Hazards Zone Map and; Plate III - Preliminary Slope Hazard, Floodway and Stability Map. The scope of this present work consisted of 1) the tracing of the Preliminary Geologic Map to a new topographic base map, and 2) the re -issuance of the original letter (dated September 14, 1978) describing the geology and hazards of the site. No addi- tional site reconnaissance was conducted. Geologically the site could be described as an upland mesa, formed by basalt flows (Tb) (see Plate 1) which were extruded during the down cutting of the Roaring Fork Valley. These flows covered the Maroon Formation (PPm) (see Plate I), a thick sequence of red interbedded sandstones, siltstones, and shales which can be seen outcropping along the southwestern edge of the site. The basalt flows also partially covered the Eagle Valley Evaporite (Pev) in the southern portion of the site. The Eagle Valley Evaporite locally consists of white to grey gypsum with widely spaced fine grained sandstones and dark grey shales. oro Spent, Colorado Puabto, Colorado Crrnd Junction, Colorado Glanwood Springs, Colorado Evantlon, Wyoming Los Amigos Ranch February 5, 1982 Page -2- The following discussion of the engineering considerations of these three formations is general in nature. The Eagle Valley Evaporite (Pev) has undergone several types of deformation which has resulted in a typical chaotic internal structure. The contortion and deformation of the incompetent materials of this formation dictates that wherever it is exposed it must be considered as potentially unstable. Other hazards associated with this formation include potential solution, hydro -- compaction and the presence of corrosive minerals. The Maroon Formation (PPm) is highly fractured and, therefore, easily eroded which provides an excellent source of material for rockfall and debris flows when exposed on steep slopes. These hazards are only present along the steep valley sides on the west and southwest boundary of the site. Soils derived from the Maroon formation may be susceptible to potential subsidence and hydrocompaction. The basalt flows (Tb), which underlie the majority of the site, are dark grey, highly fractured, vesicular basalts attaining several hunderd feet in thickness. The major hazard associated with the basalt is rockfall which is present on the steeper slo- pes below the cliff -like palisades along the Roaring Fork Valley in the west and southwest edges of the site, and along the outcrops near the eastern boundary. Another large rockfall area is present in the south central portion of the site just north of the Colorado Mountain College access road. Another slope stability problem in the presence of a moderate sized landslide (Qls) was noted at the base of the palisade bet- ween the two -major drainage gullies just north of where they intersect. This slide appears fairly old and moderately stable but, without specific analysis, should be considered potentially unstable. The palisades which occur throughout the proposed development area should be considered as potentially unstable and a minimum set- back from the edges for buildings should be established prior to construction. The basalt bedrock appears to outcrop or be present at a shallow depth throughout the majority of the site and wherever it is encountered close to the surface will affect both construction and excavation and may require blasting for removal. The shallow bedrock is highly fractured and permeable, which will affect the potential for individual septic systems and may necessitate the use of a central septic system. Amigos Ranch February 5, 1982 Page -3- Surficial deposits mapped as colluvium (Qc) have potential hazards which are dependent on the formations from which they are derived and their modes of deposition. Colluvium, derived from the maroon formation, is mainly gravity transported and will be susceptible to potential subsidence due to hydrocompaction only, whereas colluvium derived from the Eagle Valley Evaporite will be susceptible to solution, hydrocompaction and the presence of corrosive minerals. Alluvial deposits mapped as terraces (Qtl_2) consist mainly of well rounded sands and gravels and have no inherent hazards except where they overlie incompetent members of the Eagle Valley Evaporite, which could cause them to be potentially unstable. Sands and gravels also make up the deposit which surrounds the Roaring Fork River labeled (QAL). The alluvial deposit mapped as (QAL) in the eastern part of the site, however, consists mainly of sand, silt and clay deposited by stream action. Expansive clays and/or consolidating silts may be encountered in this eastern alluvial area. Another geologic feature mapped as an alluvial fan (Of) was noted just south of the site but will not affect the proposed developement. Two major gullies and several minor ones were inspected to deter- mine their potential for flooding and debris flows. The evidence indicates that significant stream flow in most of the gullies will exist only during and after torrential rains. The upper part of the drainage basins are fairly flat, cultivated, and cross the highly fractured and permeable basalt flows which tends to reduce runoff to a level far below that which would normally be expected; however, the potential for flooding within the gullies does exist and has been mapped as floodways (fw) (see Plate III). The lower part of the drainages become fairly steep and contain considerable quantities of debris. Close inspection of these gullies revealed no recent debris flow activity, and actually very little potential for debris flows. In all the areas of the proposed development which are located on the uplands, the flood hazard to those areas is almost nonexistent. There is a potential for hazards to exist for any roads and dams placed in the area of the gullies; these must be designed for the relevant peak flows and channel configurations. Site specific studies are recommended in areas of proposed construction which contain geologic hazards, at which time speci- fic mitigation procedures can be outlined. The following legend summarizes the geologic units included on the Preliminary Geologic map. Amigos Ranch February 5, 1982 Page -4- Qal Qc Qls Qt1, 2 ALLUVIUM (Quaternary) Stream deposited material. Sand and gravel along Roaring Fork River; sand, silt, and clay in eastern portion of site. COLLUVIUM (Quaternary) Gravity transported hillside deposits, including coalescing debris fans. (QC) LANDSLIDE (Quaternary) TERRACE GRAVELS (Quaternary, subscripts indicate relative age, 1 i:, younger) Old stream deposits lying above present day water levels. Tb BASALT FLOWS (Tertiary) Dark grey, olivine , basalt, hard, vesicular, columnar jointing in places, commonly fractured, weathered surfaces, brownish. PPm MAROON FORMATION (Permian - Pennsylvanian) Reddish, arkosic sandstone with siltstone, claystone, and some conglomerate and limestone, current depositional structures common. Pev EAGLE VALLEY EVAPORITE (Pennsylvanian) Gypsum and dark grey shale, and mixtures of silt and salt; chaotic internal structure, yellowish -grey weathered surfaces, susceptible to erosion and solution. This description of the geologic characteristics of the site is still applicable. If there are any questions please contact Lincoln-DeVore at any time. Respectfully submitted, LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LAB., INC. r�, By: Johh W. iminelreich, Jr. Professional Gedlog ,/), By: Mi hael T. Weaver Professoinal Geologist JWfi/11m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ — — • builatz. • / .• • • HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Exhibit E2 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOS AMIGOS RANCH P.U.D., COUNTY ROAD 114 GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 196 617 FEBRUARY 14, 1997 PREPARED FOR: GREG BOECKER 2929 COUNTY ROAD 114 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 February 14, 1997 Greg Boecker 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 Job No. 196 617 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Proposed Residential Development, Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D., County Road 114, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr Boecker: As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical study for the proposed development. It should be possible to develop the project as proposed without encountering severe constraint or hazards associated with the geology. Building sites are not recommended in the landslide area or near the faults shown on Fig. 1. Dense hard basalt is expected at relatively shallow depths and difficult excavation conditions should be expected. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory pits excavated in the general proposed development area consist of 1 to 3 feet of topsoil overlying nil to 7 feet of clay and silt. About ''A to 3 feet of basalt colluvium overlying basalt rock was encountered in most of the borings below the clay and silt. The basalt soils were not encountered in Pits 1, 7, 8, 9, 18 and 21 to the maximum depth explored, 9 feet. Groundwater was not encountered in the pits and the soils are slightly moist to moist. Spread footings placed on the natural subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psfto 3,000 psfappear suitable at the building sites. The footings may need to be designed for minimum dead load if expansive clays are encountered. The report which follows describes our investigation, summarizes our findings, and presents our recommendations suitable for planning and preliminary design. 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. 1 1 1 1 Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. Rev. By: SLP DEH/kw 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 GEOLOGIC SETTING 2 FORMATION ROCK 3 SURFICIAL DEPOSITS 4 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURES 4 FIELD EXPLORATION 5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5 GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT 6 FLOODING 6 LANDSLIDE AREA 6 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SLOPE INSTABILITY 7 GYPSUM DEFORMATION AND FAULTS 7 EARTHQUAKES 7 EXACTION DIFFICULTIES 8 PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 8 FOUNDATIONS 8 FLOOR SLABS 9 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM 9 SITE GRADING 9 SURFACE DRAINAGE 10 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE 10 PERCOLATION TESTING 11 LIMITATIONS 11 REFERENCES 13 FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS FIGURES 2 - 3 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS FIGURE 4 - LEGEND & NOTES FIGURES 5 - 1 1- SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURES 12 - 16 - GRADATION ANALYSES TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE II - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed Los Amigos Ranch development to be located east of County Road 114, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to identify the geologic and subsurface conditions and evaluate their impact on the project. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to Greg Boecker, dated December 9, 1996. A field exploration program consisting of a reconnaissance and exploratory pits was conducted to obtain information on the site and subsurface conditions. Samples obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics of the on-site soils. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for project planning and preliminary design. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed development. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development will consist of 158 lots with an average size of 3'/2 acres as shown on Fig. 1. The development will consist of single family homes. Private driveways will access the building sites. We assume the residences will be typical of the area and be 2 stories, possibly with crawlspace, shallow basements and slabs -on -grade. The development will be serviced by a central water and individual septic disposal systems. If development plans change significantly from those described, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations presented in this report. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 SITE CONDITIONS The Los Amigos Ranch PUD is located on the northeast side of the Roaring Fork River valley about miles 5 miles south of Glenwood Springs. The general topography in the area is shown on Fig.1. This study covers 158 single family lots and a 151.9 acre rural residential tract in the western part of the PUD. The Subdivision 2 area in the eastern part of the PUD has already been platted and several residences have been constructed in that area. The proposed home sites and rural residential area covered by this study are located on a rolling upland which lies about 800 feet above the Roaring Fork River valley floor. Slopes on the single family lots usually do not exceed about 10% but steeper slopes are locally present on some lots and in the rural residential tract. The steeper slopes are located along the rim of the upland and along a west trending valley which crosses through the rural residential tract where slopes between 30% and 100% are locally present. Major drainages do not cross through the property. The property is drained by several small ephemeral streams with relatively small basins. Vegetation is primarily sagebrush and junipers. GEOLOGIC SETTING The Los Amigos Ranch PUD is located on a rolling plateau to the northeast of the Roaring Fork River valley. The plateau lies about 800 feet above the valley floor and underlain by Miocene -age basalt flows. The area is on the southwestern edge of the White River Uplift which was formed during the Laramide Orogeny about 40 to 70 million years ago (Tweto and Others, 1978). Local geologic structures are the Cattle Creek Anticline, Glenwood Springs Syncline, and short, small displacement normal faults (Kirkham and Others, 1995) The faults in the area are not considered capable of producing large earthquakes (Kirkham and Rodgers, 1981). Rock formations below the basalt in the area H -P GEOTECH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 are the Maroon Formation, Eagle Valley Formation and Eagle Valley Evaporate. Surficial deposits are predominantly colluvium and a small landslide. FORMATION ROCK Basalt: The basalt below the plateau is made up of multiple flow sheets which are sometimes interbedded with tuffaceous, fluvial siltstone and sandstone, lacustrine claystone, volcanic ash and volcanic breccia. Below the plateau the basalt flow could be as thick as 160 to 200 feet. The basalt is a very hard, dense rock which is usually cut by a complex joint system. Most of the test pits excavated for this study encountered refusal in basalt at depth of less than 6 feet. The basalt in the area is about 22.4 million years old (Kirkham and Others, 1995). Maroon Formation: The Pennsylvanian and Permian -age Maroon Formation is present below the basalt in the western part of the study area. The Maroon is a maroon and grayish -red sandstone, conglomerate, and mudstone. The beds are usually cemented and hard with some non-cemented beds. The rock is usually cut by joints which gives the rock a blocky structure. Eagle Valley Formation and Eagle Valley Evaporite: These two rock units are present below the Maroon Formation in the western part of the study area and may directly underlie the basalt in the eastern part of the study area. Both rock units were deposited in a large evaporite basin during the Pennsylvanian age about 300 million years ago. The Eagle Valley Formation is a transitional unit between the coarse clastic rocks of the Maroon Formation and the mostly evaporitic rocks of the Eagle Valley Evaporite. The Eagle Valley Formation consists of gray and reddish -brown siltstone, shale, sandstone, and carbonate rocks with some local lenses of gypsum. The Eagle Valley Evaporite consists of gray and brown, gypsum, anhydrite, halite and minor potash salts interbedded with fine- grained sandstone, siltstone and claystone, thin beds of carbonate rock and conglomerate. H -P GEOTECH -4 - The bedding structure in the Eagle Valley Evaporite in most places has been highly deformed because of plastic flow of the gypsum and anhydrite SURFICIAL DEPOSITS Colluvium: In most areas the basalt and underlying sedimentary rocks are covered by colluvium. The test pits indicated that in the proposed building areas the colluvium is shallow and probably does not exceed I0 feet deep. The colluvium in these areas consists of sandy silt and clay with basalt fragments and basalt fragments in a silty sand matrix. Landslide: A small landslide was previously identified by Lincoln DeVore (1978) on the steep hillside in the eastern part of the rural residential tract, see Fig. 1. The landslide appears to be in colluvium. Evidence of recent movement was not apparent, but the area should be considered potentially unstable. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURES Folds: Regional geologic mapping shows that the north trending axis of the Cattle Creek Anticline generally parallels the axis of the Roaring Fork River valley to the south of Glenwood Springs (Kirkham and Others, 1995). The anticline is bordered on the east by the Glenwood Springs Syncline and the axis of the syncline trends through the study area. These two structures are believed to be the result of evaporite-flow intrusion from the Eagle Valley Evaporite as a result of crustal unloading associated with stream erosion along the river. Some of the deformation appears to have tilted the early Pleistocene river terraces in the area. Faults: Linear escarpments are present in the southwestern part of the study area, see Fig. 1. The escarpments appear to be faults which displace the basalt flows. This would H -P GEOTECH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -5 indicate that fault movements are younger than about 22.4 million years. The west trending valley in the rural residential tract appears to be a graben between the two faults. The faults could be associated with evaporate -flow deformation and the formation of the Cattle Creek Anticline and the Glenwood Springs Syncline. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on January 6 and 7, 1997. Twenty-one exploratory pits were excavated at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The pits were dug with a Case 780C rubber -tired backhoe. The pits were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with relatively undisturbed and disturbed sampling methods. Depths at which the samples were taken are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Pits, Figs. 2 and 3. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. Percolation testing was performed in shallow pits excavated adjacent to about half of the deeper exploratory pits described above. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Fi�,:s. 2 and 3. The subsoils consist of about 1 to 3 feet of topsoil overlying nil to 7 feet of sandy silt and clay with basalt fragments. In most of the pits, about 1/2 to 3 feet of silty sand and gravel with basalt fragments (basalt colluvium) and basalt rock was encountered underlying the silt and clay. The basalt colluvium was not encountered in Pits 1, 7,8, 9, 18 and 21. Some of the clay and silt soils were cemented, Digging in the basalt colluvium and basalt rock was difficult due to the material size and hardness and refusal to the backhoe was encountered in the deposit. H -P GEOTECH 1 d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the pits included natural moisture content, density, Atterberg limits and gradation analyses. Results of consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples, presented on Figs. 5 to 1 1, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting,. Minor expansion or collapse potential (settlement under constant load) when the samples were wetted was indicated in most of the tested samples. Results of gradation analyses performed on disturbed bulk samples (minus 5 -inch fraction) of the more granular soils are shown on Figs. 12 to 16. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavation and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist. GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT It should be possible to develop the project as proposed without encountering severe constraints or hazards associated with the geology. There are, however, some geologic conditions which should be considered in project planning as described below. FLOODING Ephemeral stream channels are present in some of the proposed single family lots and in the rural residential tract. Because of the lot sizes it should be possible to avoid potential flood areas with the building sites. It is recommenced that a hydrolo�g,ist evaluate the flood potential along the ephemeral drainages. LANDSLIDE AREA The landslide area in the eastern part of the rural residential tract may extend onto parts of three single family home sites which ]ie to the north, see Fig. 1. It is recommended that building sites not be considered on the landslide. If buildings are planned near the H -P GEOTECH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 landslide, its boundaries should be reviewed in the field to determine appropriate setbacks for buildings. CONSTRUCTION RELATED SLOPE INSTABILITY We do not expect potential problems with construction related slope instability in the proposed development areas if the landslide is avoided and construction is not considered on slopes steeper than about 30%. Recommendations for site grading are presented in the Site Grading section of this report. GYPSUM DEFORMATION AND FAULTS The folds and faults in the area may be associated with evaporite-flow deformation in the Eagle Valley Evaporite. It is uncertain if this deformation is still an active geologic process or if deformation has stopped. To our knowledge there has been no problems with gypsum deformation in western Colorado except in areas where the Eagle Valley Evaporite is near the surface and sinkholes have developed. Sinkholes are not considered to be a potential hazard because of the thick basalt and sedimentary rock cover. If broad reLtional gypsum deformation is still occurring, it is likely that the deformation is at a very slow rate and should not be a potential hazard. Differential fault creep could be localized along the faults. Because of this it is recommended that building sites not be locate in the vicinity of the faults. EARTHQUAKES The project area could experience moderately strong earthquake related ground shaking. Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground shaking should be expected during a reasonable service life for the development, but the probability for stronger ground shaking is low. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people and causes general alarm, but results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction. The faults in the study area, in our opinion, do not increase the seismic potential. All occupied H -P GEOTECH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 structures in the development should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The region is in the Unifottn Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. Ba ted on our current understanding of the earthquake hazard in this part of Colorado, we see no reason to increase the commonly accepted seismic risk zone for the area. EXACTION DIFFICULTIES Dense, hard basalt is expected to be present at most proposed building sites and along road and utility alignments. Practical backhoe refusal was encountered in most of the exploratory pits at depths of less than 6 feet. Excavations in the basalt in most areas will require ripping and blasting may be needed. PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The conclusions and recommendations presented below are based on the proposed development, subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory pits, and our experience in the area. The recommendations are suitable for planning and preliminary design but site specific studies should be conducted for individual lot development. FOUNDATIONS Bearing conditions will vary depending on the specific location of the building on the property. Based on the nature of the proposed construction spread footings bearing on the natural subsoils should be suitable at the building sites. We expect the footings can be sized for an allowable bearing pressure in the range of 1,500 psf to 3,000 psf Expansive clays encountered in building areas may need to be removed or the footings designed to impose a minimum dead load pressure on the order of 600 to 1,000 psf to limit potential heave. Nested boulders and loose matrix soils may need treatment such as enlarging footings or placing compacted fill or concrete backfill. Foundation walls should be H -P GEOTECH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -9 designed to span local anomalies and to resist lateral earth loadings when acting as retaining structures. Below grade areas and retaining walls should be protected from wetting and hydrostatic loading by use of an underdrain system. The footings should have a minimum depth of 36 inches for frost protection. FLOOR SLABS Slab -on -grade construction should be feasible for bearing on the natural soils. There could he some post construction slab movement at sites with collapsible matrix or expansive clays. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. A minimum 4 -inch thick layer of free -draining gravel should underlie basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered in the exploratory pits, it has been our experience in the area that local perched groundwater may develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. An underdrain system should be provided to protect below grade construction, such as retaining walls, craw! space and basement areas from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup. The drains should consist of drainpipe surrounded above the invert level with free -draining, granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. SITE GRADING The risk of construction induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the buildings are located in the less steep parts of the property as planned and cut and fill depths are limited. Cut depths for the building pads and driveway access should not H -P GEOTECH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 10 - exceed about 10 feet. Fills should be limited to about 10 feet deep, especially where they encroach steep downhill sloping areas. Structural fills should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20% grade. The on-site soils excluding oversized rock and topsoil should be suitable for use in embankment fills. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation, rock riprap or other means. This office should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction. SURFACE DRAINAGE The grading plan for the subdivision should consider runoff from steep uphill slopes through the project and at individual sites. Water should not be allowed to pond which could impact slope stability and foundations. To limit infiltration into the bearing soils next to buildings, exterior backfill should be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a distance of 10 feet. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill and landscape irrigation should be restricted. PAVEMENT SUBGRADE The predominant subgrade material encountered along the road alignment is slightly sandy to sandy, medium plastic clay. Based on laboratory testing and our experience, we estimate the clay subgrade has a Hveem Stabilometer "R" value of about 10 which is considered a poor subgrade for support of pavement materials. Basalt rock and highly calcareous soils will also be encountered which are considered fair subgrade conditions for pavement support. Based on our findings, the subgrade throughout the project area can be assumed to have a design 'R'. value of 10. The subgrade support of predominant rock areas encountered should be evaluated on an individual basis. The soils H -P GEOTECH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 can be frost susceptible which could increase the risk of post construction movement. The topsoil and any wet subgrade in drainage areas are unstable for pavement support. In general, the topsoil should be removed. In any soft and wet areas, subgrade improvement be partial stripping and placement of a geotextile and reinforcement mat (such as Tensar SS -1 geogrid) and additional sub -base aggregate could be used. The geotextile and reinforcement mat should be placed according to the manufacturer's specifications. The entire subgrade and any sub -base stabilized areas should be proof rolled with a heavily loaded wheel vehicle and soft deflecting areas stabilized before placing the pavement base materials. PERCOLATION TESTING Percolation tests were conducted on January 7, 8 and 9 to evaluate the feasibility of infiltration septic disposal systems at the site. The results of the percolation tests are shown on Table II. Shallow Percolation holes were dug adjacent to about half of the deeper exploratory pits at locations as shown on Fig.]. 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 adjacent exploratory pits shown on Figs 2 and 3. The percolation test rates varied from 11 to 40 minutes per inch with an overall average rate of 24 minutes per inch. Conventional infiltration septic disposal systems appear feasible for the development. Mounding or other engineered systems may be required in shallow basalt rock areas. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no other warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this H -P GEOTECH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 12 - report are based upon the data obtained from the field reconnaissance, review of published geologic reports, the exploratory pits located as shown on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for planning and preliminary design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation, conduct additional evaluations and review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations. 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 till by a representative of the soil engineer. Respectfully Submitted, AK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. and Ralph G. Mock, Engineering Geologist Reviewed By: Steven L. Pawlak, P. DEH/kw cc: Schmueser Gord H -P GEOTECH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 13 - REFERENCES Kirkham, R.M. and Others, 1995, Geologic Map of the Glenwood Springs Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File 95-3. Kirkham, R.M. and Rogers, W.P., 1981, Earthquake Potential in Colorado - A Preliminary Evaluation: Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin 43. Lincoln-DeVore, 1978, Preliminary Geologic Hazard Investigation for the Los Amigos Ranch PUD, Garfield County, Colorado: Prepared for Sundesigns, Glenwood Springs, Colorado (File No. GS -740, September 14, 1978). Tweto, and Others, 1978, Geology Map of the Leadville 1° X 2° Quadrangle, Northwestern Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Map I-999. H -P GEOTECH OPEN SPACE FL k--, 41) . : . ..... ' . - , /7'4.. . \- ‘•': \I ' 1 I•, c'•.. 1' >.,•t1/4..,,. tz, , • -. `3.6 ,-,- ‘k.s. k4./.1 ... --t. i • • ,i 1 t.il \ ts tl 'IL:::.;•-•li'l?7) ; . °i •ItiA;et, --rt V. t,ac, . t 0,...41.,,,,• . ..+...... f I i . + ..6 kp Illt,:::,7471 )) .., '11:11i'L-1* 1 --I -te\,‘A.,--11 ' - • ' '). A'4:4. L'''.% . ii . 6 ..... ;16 4.1,d `, , r ...n• '' .' N / ...I , .1 ' ' . '4 , . '-'-'-‘n 7 4•j !... / -;-4 • .,..: , L. \ ,‘, .. i7..' . ... tn - e?. 1.) .7.1 - to 1 • , / ,), 'i"?:,i,i;41.. i'. \ • ; 4, , rt / \ . t4vo.....i ,., r, , . •,.. 'Z... • •- , ' 4, / ": • l'",',1: 1_ . ,,,, , 'Th. : ., \. \-/ , 1.• " . . ...., ( 4.4 , ( -el 'N. •-. tO I. ' ts v, -SA .,. y,,,t'• .. ... : s-. • . .44 ••• , . 0 64 F. - ' • • ,i/ 1 <, 4 :, . ..7. r , ' ,•••, 6. (..; y-4...6.-- .x.... rt, si, • • . iws, ;.- . • (1) '. 11 . s . 4 -,•• 'I ...• 'k•!': ..; \o 'Z' • 1---:-..;---:, , '; 51 •••:...--- , , -.• , I i' I.'• .$ ‘ -,i!;-\-';' -; '• I... j -._11. :,.:11\`, :•:' 1 '; ‘0•`,./?*-- :- i U. !,_ , /4 • ' .7 . .., I O' / ' ;'.- t .;„( ' • 4',i... ,, /6.,1_, . , . • ,, • -." 1 /T '.1 \ \ ' 1 ). -v'..;•• .. \ — '... • 1) 1 t.11 • • , • • • f!! t•) 411 cS • V) LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS LOS AMIGOS RANCH PUD < Ct. 0 w() 0 UJLU X(I r- tO CI) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Depth - Feet Depth - Feet a It) i �on II 30 1 I'1 cst In 1 1 \\\lcc— sr CO Fry • In II up • a 0 I- N II II a II II 301 300 Tr_\17.LIA_Nz:lc ii ca �n 11 0 N # I I1 1 0 N 1- n.. 0 �ZZ i II ji 3a O co II 3a In N co N 11 d- CO 11 11 0 11 11 0 + N 0 1 I-1 1 1 \\\` E al\--__Klic 00 a o IHH1H111 1 1 1 1 I m I Depth - Feet Depth - Feet 196 617 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL. INC. LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 2 11) st a 0- 11•- 0_ _0_ 1— Depth — Feet Depth -- Feet +1]1111111, 11111111111 O 11) O 0 ao • tt) °C1:11 O II o p 11 N ( •.4 y �o '0 If 11 11 0 N N 0 1 I-� 1 i P tf) 't O 11 N + 1 -� I 0 tf) O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N Q 0 N F- 0 rn 1- a 110 (o M p d N + 1 1_'1 ZZZZZ z 1 O 00 00 (V r7 rn II 11 11 0 r7 (JpN J II o 01_a O) O M N 11 II O 110 11 0 va. N -I- I tf) N p d N +1 I --I I a • 0 In 0 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Depth — Feet Depth — Feet 196 617 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 3 LEGEND: rte/ __J T NOTES: TOPSOIL; siit and clay, sandy, organic, loose, slightly moist, dark brown. Top 2 inches frozen. CLAY (CL); silty, sandy, scattered basalt fragments, stiff to very stiff, slightly moist, brown to reddish brown. Silt (ML); sandy, slightly clayey, with basalt fragments, stiff to cemented, slightly moist, light brown to white, calcareous. CLAY AND SILT (CL—ML); sandy with basalt fragments, stiff to cemented, slightly moist, calcareous, light brown to white. GRAVEL (GM—GP); sandy, silty, with basalt cobbles and boulders overlying basalt rock, calcareous, dense, moist, light brown to white. 2" Diameter hand driven liner sample. Disturbed bulk sample. Practical backhoe refusal. Where shown above bottom of log, indicates that multiple attempts were made to advance the pit. 1. Exploratory pits were excavated on January 6 and 7, 1997 with a Case 780C rubber—tired backhoe. 2. Exploratory pits were located approximately in the field as directed by the client. 3. Elevations of the exploratory pits were not measured. Logs of exploratory pits are drawn to depth. 4. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 5. No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavating. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 6. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( % ) DD = Dry Density ( pcf ) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve LL = Liquid Limit ( % ) PI = Plastic Index ( % ) 196 617 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Moisture Content = 14.8percent Dry Unit Weight = 78 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silt From: Pit 1 at 4 Feet 11111111.11. 1 uI Compression � 1111 Ili' wetting IIII III 11 RE I In I Cr) Ill 11 III E I IIIIMI!Mill r 1 III 11 III II 11 I 11 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 196 617 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL — CONSOLIDATION RESULTS Fig. 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Compression — Expansion w tv o Moisture Content = 11.4 percent Dry Unit Weight = 96 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Pit 4 at 2.5 Feet simminillillP 411 Expansion upon wetting 0 11 11 11 1 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 196 617 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL -- CONSOLIDATION RESULTS Fig. 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Moisture Content = 15.3 percent Dry Unit Weight = 76 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silt From: Pit 4 at 3.5 Feet 4) Compression upon wetting i r 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 196 617 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL — CONSOLIDATION RESULTS Fig. 7 Moisture Content = 10.9 percent Dry Density = 84 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay From: Pit 7 at 2 Feet sill1411111 Cup7res ion 11111 wetting goli Moisture Content = 11.1 percent i ensity = 99 pcf Sample of; Sandy Clay From: Pit 5 at 1.5 Feet 4 Expansion upon wetting 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 CL X w 0 0 1 L a E v 2 se 0 y ca. E 0 v 3 1 3 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 196 617 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL - CONSOLIDATION RESULTS Fig. 8 100 1 o Fig. 9 Moisture Content = 10.9 percent Dry Dersity = 105 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From; Pit 11 at 2 Feet Expansion upon wetting 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Compression — Expansion % &e 0 0 1 3 1 0 1 2 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf ntent = 18.6 percent Dry Density = 104 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Pit 13 at 1.5 Feet movement pon ettin g 0.1 196 617 iiIPi 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL — CONSOLIDATION RESULTS Fig. 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 se Compression 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 0 11) 4 E 0 U 5 6 7 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf Moisture Content = 10.6 percent Dry Density = 73 pcf Moisture Content = 12.0 percent Dry Density = 93 pcf Sample of: Gravelly Sandy Silt Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay From: Pit 18 at 6 Feet ItFrom: Pit 17 at 2 Feet o _lk _ Compression upon wetting 1 a Compression upon wetting I 114111111 a _- 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 196 617 100 100 HEPWORTH -- PAWLAK SWELL — CONSOLIDATION RESULTS GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Moisture Content = 12.0 percent Dry Density = 93 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay From: Pit 18 at 6 Feet Compression upon wetting 1 a 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 196 617 100 100 HEPWORTH -- PAWLAK SWELL — CONSOLIDATION RESULTS GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Fig. 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 0 Q) 0 L 0 E 0 U 4 2 Moisture Content = 8.8 percent Dry Unit Weight = 105 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay and Silt From: Pit 21 at 7 Feet II 41 Compression upon wetting , 0 II 0.1 196 617 10 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf HEPWORTH — PAWLAK l SWELL — CONSOLIDATION RESULTS GEOTECHNICAL, INC. f 100 24 HR. 7 HR 46 MN. 15 MN. 100 a, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 " 'CENT PASSI e, RCENT PASSIN HYDROMETER ANALYSIS TME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE ANALYSIS CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS O 0 60 74 60 50 40 30 20 10 60 MN.10 MN. 4 MIN. 1 MN. 00 'O0 3 . 3 4' 11 r S'6' Moss. O _ .00t .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 . .600 1.16 2.36 4.75 9.5115 10.0 37.5 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SLT GRAVEL 30 % LIQUID LIMIT FINE troL 1COAFTSE 0 10 20 30 44 50 60 70 60 00 100 76.2 152 203 127 FINE OOARSE 1 SAND 45 % SILT AND CLAY 25 % PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand with Basalt Fragments FROM: Pit 1 at 8 Feet HIAROME1ER ANALYSIS TIME READINGS 24 HR. 7 HR 45 MN. 15 MN. 60 104.19 MN. 4 MIN. 1 MN. f200 100 00 90 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 .001 U.S. STANDARD SERIES eo /16 /a SEW ANALYSIS 1 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3f'6'1/2'3/4' 11 /2' 3' 5'6' r0 J 4111111111111111.9.91 L .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.16 2.36 4.75 0.512.5 10.0 DIAMETER OF PAR11CLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT FINE 196 617 GRAVEL 61 % UQUID LIMIT SAND MEDIUM .37.5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 00 100 76.2 152 203 127 atA' __ 1 COBBLES COARSE FINE I coARSE SAND 33 % SILT AND CLAY 6 % PLASTICITY INDEX Y. RCENT RETAIN t r'ERCENT RETAIN t SAMPLE OF: Cemented Silt with Basalt Fragments FROM: Pit 3 at 3.5 Feet thru 4 Feet HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS J TI READINGS RCENT PAS k r, gaitoloammtmoto 24 HR. 7 HR 46 MN. 15 MN. 100 6o 60 5o 40 20 10 0 60 141N.18 UN. 4 MIN. 1 MMI. U.S. STANDARD SE18E5 r STEW ANALYSTS CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3/6'1%2'314' 1T/2' Y 5'6' wimam . — --r.b 3 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.16 236 4.75 0.512,5 11L0 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SLT fFINE 37.5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 75.2 152 20300 127 SAND WORM (COARSE FINE GR YEL COARSE GRAVEL 26 % SAND 19 % SILT AND CLAY 55 % PLASTICITY INDEX 30 % SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silty Clay with Basalt Fragments FROM: Pit 8 at 5 Feet thru 6 Feet LIQUID LIMIT 55 % I ERCENT RETAIN ,, HYDROMETER ANALYSIS TYE READINGS 24 HR. 7 HR 45 MP& 15 MMI. 60 14114.18 MMA. 4 MIN. 1 MN. P00 100 70 60 40 10 rrs f100 U.S. STANDARD SERIES v� S1EW ANALYSIS CLEM SQUARE OPENINGS 3 1/2'3 4- 11 3' 5'6' 111.11.11111111MINM111.11.111941MLIMMILMemm"MMIlmomillin rrlirr•=irrr�M MWAirNr—I_I_N_rrrMIIIIIIII— �_!�_ ��■_a�■sll�I ��1 mosom � mommou rllrs !M—=_rr�rte. rrr�rrr�rrrrrrrrrlrrr���lr��rr�rrr� immagagnmegpoi 111111111111111111111111111111 ii-EV.II-niiiMIIMMITnrrmlrrrr rrr -111-11WEIIIIIIIIIIIIINKIIIIIIIIIITIMINIUM-11111 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 95125 14.0 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS 37.5 CLAY TO STMT 76.2 152 127 SAND METR{AN .1 -COARSE FINE--- COARSE COBBLESCOBBLESFWE GRAVEL 19 % SAND 27 % LIQUID LIMIT 48 % SILT AND CLAY 54 % PLASTICITY INDEX 23 % 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 `'ERCENT RETAIN I, SAMPLE OF: Sandy Clay and Silt with Basalt Fragments FROM: Pit 9 at 6 Feet thru 7 Feet 1 196 617 HEPWORTH INC. H — PAWLAK GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 'C T PASSIN HYDROMETER ANALYSIS 24 HR. 7 HR 46 MN. 15 MN, 100 60 78 50 50 40 30 20 10 ONE READINGS 60 MN.19 MN. 4 MOS. 1 MN. 0200 00 U.S. STANDARD SERIES PO 00� 5 iro SIEVE ANALYSIS CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 14 3 1 3.14- 11/j' r re. S AArwi T f MMM ariernormirmosarrne t a .901 .002 .005 .009 10 20 .30 40 50 50 70 50 90 .019 .037 .074 .150 .303 .600 1.16 2.36 4.75 9.512.5 16.0 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SLT GRAVEL 43 LIQUID LIMIT SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel SAID FINE I MEDAN !COARSE SAND 42 37.5 76.2 152100 203 127 �1 FINE 67N I GCOARSEL SILT AND CLAY 15 COBBLES PLASTICITY INDEX FROM: Pit 11 at 4 Feet thru 5 Fet HYORg1E1ER ANALYSIS TfaE READINGS 24 HR. 7 HR 46 MN. 15 MN. 60 MN.10 MN. 4 MIN. 1 MN. #100 100 90 50 70 50 50 40 30 20 10 0 AMA 1111111111111191111 iI6w�Aw��rl�==== SEW ANALYSIS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS • • 5 3 : 1 3 4' 11 ' 3' re e' Nib INIMMFAIN IMI�aMM AMinnMail Milli! MilS MINI AAAIAA 1201 11111101•11111WIlliWilli11111 INN 1111111MiNIN wMIMIr mow'=--wrr �a�r� ��+rMAwA1I�MAr� w.. INNEN NUM M1111111111111 ill1111w111 —AMAMwMMMi=MAAMAM1111M= wwISIMAMAMill in. ill=== AMAMMAMM� MMMI ilia MMM MINIM ill"' wl��� i�rl� MAAM�AMAAAMM�11110111•M011111•01111 illa SIIIIIIIIIIMIl NEM rw wriw AAIIMAMAMAMAA�� 11111111111111111 = r�M1 MMI MAAM = MMAA -- T ��� sMTM�wv - MMMM AI1�1��! 1111111111111 =UMW AMS �wMAwMMIMM�'.. wIr�AMiIIrwMM. 9.1111rrr= AI MMMIra =- AII—j���AIill M� Mill AAAAM MAII iIAMMAA1MEM=i �MM�IIwwNINM illIIN al swami Mr11101MAMA ��AMIAMAAAwi� wlrw MMMIwMMN A�MMMI 2.111111•1111iWA inn !Mini AAA AMARA 1111111911111111111=1: =11 INWIM NI iNNINIIiAMAI r�wlwrwwrilrj_ �� �F�wwrwnrri�l,♦rmiww AAAAM wr�Ii MMAAI �M� MMM MMMT W�'�MAMAMIMAIMMw —�� WIWI wrl�ll ��M�AMAM�w��� �w�i�` �A�IAMAAIMAIMINil AAMMAMAI-� ■ - 1111i111 MO wwrww 11111111111111111 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.16 2.36 4.75 9.51 19.0 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SLT GRAVEL 63 37.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100 762 152 203 127 a FNE � ME TCOAR, FINE CITIL COARSE COBBLES SAND 30 % SILT AND CLAY 7 Y LIQUID LIMIT SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel with Basalt Fra.ments PLASTICITY INDEX Y FROM: Pit 13 at 4 Feet thru 4.5 Feet •ERCENT RETAIN 1, ▪ ERCENT RETAIN r 196 617 HEPWORTH -- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t ' CENT PASS(. r, 'ERCENT PASSIN. HYDROMETER ANALYSIS ME READINGS F SEVE ANALYSIS 24 HR. 7 HR 45 MN. 16 MN. 60 MN.i9 MN. 4 MIN. 1 W14. /200 /100 100 90 60 70 so 50 40 30 20 10 0 J U.S. STANDARD SERIES PO /30 R 1 GEM SQUARE 0PUYINGS 6 d j4 3/8.1 Y.3/4' 11 ' Y 1 _1...1.. AMY .001 .002 .005 .009 .018 CLAY TO SLT 0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 60 go 00 .037 .074 ,150 . .600 1.16 2.36 4,75 9.512.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 152 203 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS 127 INE GRAVEL 24 % LIQUID LIMIT SAMPLE OF: Gravelly Sandy Silt MEDIUM SAND 22 % SILT AND CLAY 54 % PLASTICITY INDEX FROM: Pit 16 at 3 Feet thru 4 Feet HYORSNETER ANAL` S'S TIME READINGS 24 HR 7 HR 45 MN. 15 MN. 60 110141,19 MN. 4 MIN. 1 MN. /200 100 00 60 70 60 50 40 30 20 ID 0 .001 U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE ANALYSIS 30 '16 E CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3 . 3 4' 11 3' S"6' 6' O 6666IN11111161111111111,- r� .002 .005 .009 .018 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.38 4,75 4512510.0 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SLT 37.5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 00 100 78.2 152 203 127 FINE D 1 Mk IUM --ARSE FINE COARSE GRAVEL 10 % LIQUID UMIT SAND 41 % SILT AND CLAY 49 % PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Slightly Gravelly Sandy Silt FROM: Pit 17 at 4 Feet thru 5 Feet RCENT RETAIN It 196 617 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 15 HYDROlit RN ANALYSIS 24 14R. 7 HR 46 MN. 15 MN. 60 M84.19IN. .19 MN. 4 M 1 MN. 1� -. 6 1 3 4' 11 • 6' 100 �����ar^--���3" 5'��� imuiiiiiijwmioir��oiir —__--ri�s•I�i■���■s ■ec��lnwli� A'E :� IR•f�i—�� Frimom iiiii i�4 IR Im >_�,�..�.....�>�....■........�...�- _ ���....=.— 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ag kligAWI E. 'ERCENT PAS N e T\E READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE ANALYSIS CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3 90 50 10 .005 .009 .019 CLAY TO SILT GRAVEL 61 % LIQUID LIMIT .074 .150 - .600 1.18 236 4.75 1E5115 19.0 37.5 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS 1SAHO- 10 30 40 5D 50 70 76.2 152 20100 3 127 FINE 1 MEDIUM (COARSE (��1VE7 FINE f COARSE SAND 33 % SILT AND CLAY 6 % PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel with Basalt Fragments HYDROMETER ANALYSIS 24 HR. 7 HR 46 MN. 15 MN. 60 100 80 50 40 30 20 10 0 TIE RAADOXIS M94.19 MN. 4 MIN. 1 MN. 1200 FROM: Pit 20 at 3 Feet thru 4 Feet SEW jANALYSIS U.S. STANDARD SERIES 46 siritzwe 11/2' 3' S'0' r :rr1.1 10�1w4 0 p 11 CLEAR SAME OPENINGS .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 238 4.75 51.5125 19.0 DIAMETER OF PAR11CLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY 70 SILT FINE SAND MEDIUM [COARSE 37.5 FINE COARSE 76.2 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 100 12152 203 COSIE LES 196 617 GRAVEL 3 % LIQUID LIMIT SAMPLE OF: Sandy Clay and Silt SAND 15 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SILT AND CLAY 82 % PLASTICITY INDEX FROM: Pit 21 at 4 Feet thru 5 Feet GRADATION TEST RESULTS ial•IS > * v11ZIN Fig. 16 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 UNCONFINED i COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE IPSF) a _ Cn > -i7 C co Silty Sand with Basalt Fragments Basalt Fragments in Cemented Sandy Silt Matrix Cemented Sandy Silt with Basalt Fragments > 0 U > -p 0 @ LSandy Silt Cemented Sandy Silt with Basalt Fragments Sandy Silty Clay with Basalt Fragments Sandy Silty Clay with Basalt Fragments ATTERBERG LIMITS U X 0 0 .o Z a. 7t- 71- 0 0) 0 C, ao J 0 r. L7 s-) a) 0 0 Z Z w U us v w 2 w a O OL 1.0 N v N r CO CO coN 01 Lo Lf) 0 F a 2 0 (0 CO 0) a Q GRAVEL 0 CO CO N N NATURAL DRY DENSITY Ipc{} CO N CO 0) CO N 0) 0) c' (0 N 0) J W a Ft w_ Q 0 O z 0 _ d — CO r - e ff CO SAMPLE LOCATION DEPTH (feet) 0) N ) in :A; In CO lr) r- d, L., -)C' a ,-" N CO '[Y 7 CO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J Z J � Q ~ 0 Z w i1J U ' w w' F— O >- CD _ cc V W H YQ cc a�0 J i1.4 O = cc < CC 2 LLJ UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE (PSF) Sandy Clay and Silt Sandy Clay and Silt with Basalt Fragments !0 :J C (1) ISilty Sand and Gravel j @ CJ > C (.1) Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel with Basalt Fragments Gravelly Sandy Silt Gravelly Sandy Silt Slightly Gravelly Sandy Silt ii Sandy Silty Clay Sandy Silty Clay Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel with Basalt Fragments Sandy Clay and Silt Sandy Clay and Silt ATTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID PLASTIC LIMIT INDEX (`3b) (%) N — M N tY M F' u O w 7 c# > tt '^ p N z r) C.J rt 7 80 54 (0 49 84 I (fl CO CV co CO 0 ti 0 0 �a 0 N .. n N d' O M N N c d' M M u(0 `- V c0 N (0 NATURAL DRY DENSITY (Act) 78 (0 10.4 . M C) C) C) O NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT M C7 O U W O O O N <-- a0 ,-- -r- 8.8 SAMPLE LOCATION ua, 1 Ln r- N (0 3-4 N 4-5 CO N 6 C) r M N C4 O N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE II Job No. 196 617 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) Pit 2 36 15 water added 12 9 3 9 71/4 1% 12 101/4 11/4 101/4 81/4 11/2 81/4 7% 11/2 y 7/4 6 1Y 11 Pit 5 42 15 12 11 1 30 11 10 1 10 91/2 Y2 91/2 81/4 1/4 8% 8' '/2 8%4 7% 1/2 73/4 71/4 /2 Pit 7 54 15 12 10'/4 1% 30 101/4 91/4 1 91/4 81/2 3/4 81/2 7% 1/4 7% 71/4 1/2 71/4 61/4 %2 Pit 8 42 15 12 101/4 1% 24 101/4 9 11/4 9 81/4 1/4 81/4 7 1/4 1 71/4 61/2 1/4 6'h 6 /2 Note: Percolation test holes were dug and soaked on January 6, 1997. Tests were performed on January 7, 1997. Holes were protected from freezing with rigid foam insulation. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • i HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 11 Job No. 196 617 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) Pit 1 1 50 15 121/2 11 1 /2 11 9% 11 93/4 8% 1 8p 8 3/4 8 71/4 3/4 7'1 6% 1 24 Pit 12 42 45 15 15 15 15 13 91/2 31/2 91/2 8'1 1 17 81/2 7% 34 7 3/4 7 3/4 7 6 1 Pit 13 48 15 12 101/2 11/2 24 10'1 91/2 1 91/2 8% 3/4 8 3/4 8% /2 81/4 7% 1/2 7% 71/4 1 71 61 % 6'1 6 / Pit 14 32 water added 30 11'% 8'1 2% 16 15 81/2 71/2 1 15 71 6% 3/4 15 6% 6 3/4 10 6 53/4 % 15 101/2 91/2 1 1c 91/2 8% 7Ie NOTE: Percolation test holes were dug and soaked on January 7, 1997. Tests were performed on January 8, 1997. Holes were protected from freezing with rigid insulation. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE I JOB NO. 196 617 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) Pit 16 56 15 12% 11'/4 1 11% 11'/4 1/2 111/4 10 Y 1/2 10% 10 3/4 10 9'/ /2 91/2 9 1/2 9 8 ,/4 /a 40 NOTE: Percolation test holes were dug and soaked on January 7, 1997. Tests were performed on January 8, 1997. Holes were protected from freezing with rigid insulation. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE II Job No. 196 617 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) V t 1GG 1. `T v+ `h AVERAGE PERCOLATIO N RATE (MIN./INCH) Pit 18 66 water added water added water added 10 10 10 15 15 15 15 9 1/2 8 1'/2 8 7 1 81/4 7'/2 % 7'/2 61/4 1 8% 7 1/2 11/4 71/2 6'/4 11/4 7'/2 61/4 11/4 12 Pit 19 24 water added 10 10 10 15 15 15 15 9 8 1 30 8 71/4 3/4 71/4 6% '/2 9 81/2 1/2 8'/2 7% % 7% 71/4 1/2 71/4 6% 1/2 NOTE: Peroclation test holes were dug and soakead on January 8, 1997, Tests were performed on January 9, 1997. Holes were protected from freezing with rigid foam insulation. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Exhibit E-3 .� January 21, 1998 Mr. Greg Boeker 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Geologic Hazards Consultation Rural Residential Area, Filing No. 8 Los Amigos Ranch Garfield County, Colorado Job No. GS -2324 Gentlemen: You asked that we review reports prepared by others that address geologic hazards for the subject site and comment on potential hazards associated with a landslide and two faults identified by others. This letter is based on our review of available published geologic maps and literature, geologic reports prepared by others and our experience. The following paragraphs present our opinions and recommendations concerning the landslide area and the two faults at the subject site. The ranch is located in the southwest part of Spring Valley in Garfield County, Colorado. The Roaring Fork River Valley is below the site to the west. Colorado Mountain College, Spring Valley Campus is to the east. Glenwood Springs is approximately 6 miles to the northwest. Access is from Highway 82 to the Colorado Mountain College Road to Los Amigos Drive. The ranch can be visualized topographically as a gently rolling plateau. An approximately 40 to 60 vertical feet scarp is along the west edge of the plateau that drops down steeper slopes that slope into the Roaring Fork River Valley. Several comparatively broad and shallow drainage basins on the plateau surface converge into narrow drainages at the west edge of the plateau and drain down to the west. The ranch has been used as dry land pasture. Vegetation consists of grasses, weeds and brush with areas of pinion -juniper forest on the plateau. Larger meadows have been cleared of brush and seeded with wheat grass to provide forage. On the steeper slopes to the west, vegetation consists of pinion -juniper forest. Filing No. 8 is in the southwest part of Los Amigos Ranch below and to the CTL/THOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 234 CENTER DRIVE • GLENWO00 SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601 • (970) 945-2809 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 west of the plateau surface. The Rural Residential Area is approximately 152 acres. Plans are to construct an access road and divide the area into 3 lots. Each lot will be developed as a "homestead". Construction on each lot will likely include a single family residence, guest house, barn and associated out buildings. We reviewed a report titled "Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Proposed Residential Development Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D., County Road 114, Garfield County, Colorado" prepared by Hepworth Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., Job No. 196617, dated February 14,1997, a report titled "General and Engineering Geology and Soils, Los Amigos Ranch Subdivision, Garfield County, Colorado" prepared by Lincoln DeVore, Job No. GS -999, 2693, dated April 16, 1979 and several letter reports addressing geologic hazards at the site prepared by Lincoln DeVore. We are In general agreement with the location of the landslide and faults identified in the HP Geotech report. We have approximated the locations of the landslide and faults on the attached Figure 1. in our opinion, the landslide is an ancient feature that is stable In it's present state. For preliminary planning purposes we believe buildings can be sited on the landslide with the following constraints: 1. Building envelopes should be limited to areas with natural grades no steeper than approximately 10 percent; 2. Excavations should be limited to a maximum depth of approximately 6 feet; 3. Addition of moisture to the slide mass should be minimized. Surface drainage should be enhanced to facilitate the removal of surface run- off from the slide mass. Drainage channels where surface drainage is concentrated or conveyed across or around the landslide mass should be lined to reduce the amount of infiltration. The approximate locations of the faults is shown on Figure 1. These faults may be active. We recommend that buildings not be sited on the faults. It would be appropriate for roadways to cross the faults, however, movement of the faults could result in a need for some amount of regrading. For preliminary purposes we believe a setback of approximately 100 horizontal feet from the faults for the siting of buildings would be appropriate. We understand that building envelopes are to be sited adjacent the top of the vertical scarp along the south edge of the plateau. We recommend a minimum setback for the building envelopes equal to at least the height of the scarp at a point nearest the building envelope. The recommendations presented herein are preliminary and intended to aid the developer in developing the preliminary plat. We are in progress of completing more detailed studies to develop our final recommendations to be utilized in MR. GREG BOEKER LOS AMIGOS RANCH CTLIT GS -2345 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 developing the final plat. The recommendations could be different than these presented in this letter. In our opinion there is sufficient area on each lot shown on the preliminary plat we reviewed to allow residential development as proposed. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions, please call at your convenience. Very truly yours, CTLJTHOMPSON, INC. Wilson L. "Liv" Bowden, C.P.G. Engineering Geologist Reviewe h Manage :JM:cd 5 copies sent) MR. GREG BOEKER LOS AMIGOS RANCH CTLT GS -2345 3 N ■a M N= M M I NM M M M— I11111 MI11111 INN 1 1 Exhibit E4 r 1 1 1 1 November 21, 1997 Mr. Greg Boeker 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Radiation Survey Los Amigos Ranch Garfield County, Colorado Job No. GS -2324 1 Gentlemen: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 As requested, we performed a preliminary radiation survey at Los Amigos Ranch in Garfield County, Colorado. This letter describes the site and our survey procedure and presents the results of our radiation survey. The site is located in the southwest part of Spring Valley in Garfield County, Colorado. The Roaring Fork River Valley is below the site to the west. Colorado Mountain College, Spring Valley Campus is to the east. Glenwood Springs is approximately 6 miles to the northwest. Access is from Highway 82 to the Colorado Mountain College Road to Los Amigos Drive. The site can be visualized topographically as a gently rolling plateau. Several comparatively broad and shallow drainage basins on the plateau surface converge into narrow drainages at the west edge of the plateau and drain down to the west. The site has been used as dry land pasture. Vegetation consists of grasses, weeds and brush with areas of pinion Juniper forest on the plateau. Larger meadows have been cleared of brush and seeded with wheat grass to provide forage. On the steeper slopes to the west, vegetation consists of pinion, juniper forest. The area to be developed is located on the plateau surface. Plans are to develop 158 Tots with an average size of approximately 3.5 acres for single family residences. Much of the property will be open space. A rural residential parcel of approximately 150 acres will be in the southwest part of the development. On November 17, 1997 our engineering geologist, Mr. "Liv" Bowden visited the site and performed a radiation survey. Our survey consisted of spot checking radiation measurements at widely spaced locations across areas to be developed on the plateau. The ground surface was covered with approximately 2 to 4 inches of snow which had melted to leave small patches of bare ground. Our radiation measurements were taken at areas of bare ground to avoid the readings being lowered as a result of shielding by snow cover. The radiation measurements were taken with a Ludlum Instruments, Inc. Model No. 19 Micro -R -Meter carried at arms length (approximately 2 feet above the ground surface). We observed radiation t:l r4I1 1 111 flVI CTL/THOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS • (;11 NW( ,01 ',1'10N4 .!, 1 OI )11AI t) 71,,.x), r ,'l 94 ?809 1 [Q] County, Colorado" prepared by Hepworth Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., Job No. 196617, dated February 14, 1997, a report titled "General and Engineering Geology and Soils, Los Amigos Ranch Subdivision, Garfield County, Colorado" prepared by Lincoln DeVore, Job No. GS -999, 2693, dated April 16, 1979 and several letter reports addressing geologic hazards at the site prepared by Lincoln DeVore. We are in general agreement with the location of the landslide identified in the HP Geotech report. In our opinion, the landslide is an ancient feature that is stable in it's present state. Site specific slope stability analyses should be performed to better define the slide and its affects on (residential lot development) development. We observed potential rockfall hazards below a rock outcrop scarp along the west edge of the plateau. We qualitatively rate the degree of rockfall hazard as low to moderate. Most of the development avoids the rockfall hazard by being sited on the plateau above the hazard. A "rural residential area" is below the rock outcrop. We recommend buildings be sited beyond the rockfall hazard boundary. A site specific rockfall hazard analysis will need to be performed to establish the rockfall hazard boundary. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions, please call at your convenience. Very truly yours, CTL/THOMPSON, Wilson L,'Liv" Bowden, Profes;�+nal Geologist g, P.E. r: nch Maj+iager LB:JM:cd (3 copies sent) MR. GREG BOEKER CTLT GS -2324 1 2 1 1 Elk Springs/Los Amigos Ranch November 2010 1 Appendix G Soils 1 1 Preliminary Plan Exhibit I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Final Plat Engineering Report Appendix G 1 EXHIBIT I 1. Site Soil Designations and Descriptions, USDA Soil Conversation Service. Part 1 - Soil Survey of Aspen - Gypsum Area Part 2 - Soil Survey of Rifle Area 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ASPEN -GYPSUM AREA SOIL SURVEY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SHEET NUMBE7 20 (.78JaE AREA. COL1\00 (CAT-T1E CRE1 QUA LE) EXHIBIT 1 - PART 2 F2.89W.IR.8.13W. 7L 25 irk .71 • , • • • -rig... :.• 107' 5.04" 44 sr tt• * • • ;"*':*‘ 1 SOO 000 FE R.89W. R.88W. T 6 S. 7 S 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NONTECHNICAL SOILS DESCRIPTION REPORT Soil Information Map Soil name and description Symbol 2 :' Arle-Ansari-Rock Outcrop complex, 12 to 65 percent slopes This complex consists of soils and rock outcrop on mountain sides and sloping alluvial fans. The soils formed in alluvium derived from red -bed shale and sandstone. The Arle soil makes up about 45 percent of the complex, the Ansari soil makes uo about 35 percent, and Rock outcrop makes up about 20 percent. The Arle soil is moderately deep and well -drained. The surface layer is very stony loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil and substratum are very stony loam about 22 inches thick. Soft sandstone and shale are at a depth of 32 inches. Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity is low. Effective rooting depth is 20 to 40 inches. Runoff is rapid, and the. erosion hazard is high to very high. The Ansari soil is shallow and well drained. The surface layer is loam about 10 inches tick. The substratum is stony loam. Bedrock is hard sandstone. Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity is low. Effective rooting depth is 10 to 20 inches, Runoff is rapid, and the erosioh hazard is very high. Rock outcrop is esiiriy red sandstone. 41 Morval IOd..; 3 tc 12 Percent slope;: This deep, well -drained soil is on mesas and sides of valleys. This soli forted ir reworked alluvium derived fror basalt and sandstone. The surface layer is loam ab :.t 5 inches thick. The wooer Part of the subsoil is clay loam about 12 inches thick, and the lower part is stony clay loan about 10 inches thick. The substratum is stony loam. Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity is moderate. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches. Runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is moderate to very high. 67 ; Torriorthents-Rock Outcrop complex, Steep 1 NONTECNkICaL SOILS DESCRIPTION REPORT Soil Information 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Map Symbol Soil name and description This broadly defined unit consists of exposed sandstone and shale bedroex and stony soils that are shallow to moderately deep over sandstone end shale and stony basaltic alluvium. Torriorthents make up about FO Percent of this complex, and Rock outcrop makes up about 25 percent, The Torriorthents are or foothills and mountainsides below the Rock outcrop. Torriorthents ere very shallow to moderately deep. They are well to somewhat excessively drained. They generally are clayey to Ioar:y and contain, variable amounts of pebbles, cobbles, and stones. Permeability is slow to moderate, and water holding caoacity is very lou to low. Effective rooting depth is 1C to 40 inches. Roof` is VE:'Y ra:ld, and ero51Cn hazard is very high. Rock outcrop is mainly Mesa Verde sandstone and Wasatch ORA PR R WE FCOISE Vi g SERVICE WATER FEATURES Soil Information PAGE 11K7/9 Flooding High water tale and ponding I Map symbol ;Hydro-; Water . ; Maximum and soil nare ;ionic ": Fre•uency ; Duration ; Months ; table ; Kind of ; Months ; Ponding ; ponding ;group ' dept! ;water table; duration Beeth .I 1 2: Arse C 'Sona Ansa,.i ; 0 'Nene Rock Outcrop----; D :None 46: Mcrral 5 'Nona I Ft Ft ' )6.G )6.2 )6.. 67: Tor'•iorthent s, Seep 0 ;NNcne )6.2 Roo). Out. oo, S:ee6. 'N1ne U.S. OEPARTNENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE WATER FEAT`:,_S Endnote -- WATER FEATURES PAGE 2 CF 3 11/17/97 This report gives estimates of various soil water features. The estimates are used in land use planning that involves engineering considerations. Hydrologic soil groups are used to estimate runoff from precipitation. Soils not protected by vegetation are assigned to one of four groups. They are grouped according to the infiltration of water when the soils are thoroughly wet and receive precipitation from long -duration storms. The four hydrologic soil groups are: Group ' A'. Soils having a high infiltration rate flow r,lnoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Grouo T. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well direired soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse se lois i".. These soils ha,e a moderate rate of water transmission. Gr...._ 'C', Sc.ts heviig e slow infiltration rate w.°:e" thcrcugh:Y wet. These consist chiefly of soilha-.in.3 a later that %Anse., the downward oovemen`, of water 0' soils f moderat:lY fi:',, texture ..rs fine texture, These _oil have a _!old rate of water transmission, Gro',_ . , Soils h_ ave~'1* infiltrationrate rtic;., runoff potentia: when thoroughly. eL These consist chief'f ofays that have e high ... inY.cwe`fpotential, soils that have e permanent high vete- tatle, soils that have a ciayoan or clay layer et cr near the surface, and soil_ at _. r. �.e,nee":) imnenViGUs material. -hese soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a sol! is assigned to two hydrologic groups in this report, the first letter is for drained areas. and the second is `or undrained areas. Flooding, the terpo"ary inundation of an area, is caused by overflowing streams, by runoff from adjacent slopes, or by tides, Water standing for short periods after rainfall or snowmelt is not considered eloodirg, nor is water in swa7.ps and marshes. This reonr: gives the frecuency and dareti orof flooding and the tine of year whey. flooding is most likely. FreqJer,:), duration, and probable dates of occurrence are estimated, f"eoJe:Ly is erp"ese' a. No'e', 'Rare', 'Occasional', and 'Fr fluent •. 'Nina' me?„" that flooding ._ netpr obable; 'Rare' that it is unlikely but possible under unusi:al weather Conditions' 'Occasional'that it occurs, or the average, Once less ir 2 years; and 'Frecuent' that it occurs, s,. the av- a,e, r:re than Once i''2 ear years, Durst:'.'i: ._ exC .seed al 'Ver: brie`.' if less ttar 2 day- 'Erie' if 2 t: 7 days, Torg' if 7 to 3_: days, and 'Very tong' if ..:re than 3I _er5. The information is bee's cql evidence •:n the soil Profile, -e;Teir th:r atrata of sand, silt, or clay deposited ty floodwater, irreg,:lar decrease i' organic matter contert withL -'3._ and et e::. . �..,, hy: `itis` `. .. s^' - 1.-e not. s..`, ., to flooding. A.sc ocr__der`_ are !c,`4_ _r'C•rmat_on a;.". the ..tent and levels of f:o:c: and the -slot, each s:._ or the osmics e t: tilt:... ".olds. U.S. DEPART"ENT OF AGRICULTURE PAGE 3 OF 3 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 11/17/97 WATER FEATURES Endnote -- WATER FEATURES --Continued s Information on the extent of flooding based on soil data is less specific then that provided by detailed engineering surveys that delineate flood -prone areas at specific flood frequency levels, I 1 High water table (seasorre'.) is the highest level of a saturated zone in the soil_ in most years. The depth to a seasonal high water table applies to undrained soils. The estimates are based mainly on the evidence of a saturated zone, namely grayish colors or mottles in the soil. Indicated in this report are the depth to the seasonal high water table; the kind of water table, that is, 'Apparent', 'Artesian', or 'Perched'; and the months of the year that I the water table commonly is high. A water table that is seasonably high for !ess than 1 month is not indicated in this report. An 'Apparent' water table is a thick zone of free water in the soil. It is indicated by the level at which water • stands in ar encased borehole after adequate time is allowed for adjustment in the surrounding soil. An 'Artesian' water table exists under a hydrostatic beneath an impermeable layer. When the impermeable layer has been I penetrated tY 5 cased borehole, the water rises. The final level of the water it the cased borehole is characterized as an artesian Nater table A 'Perched' later table is water standing abct'e an unsaturated zone. ;n places an ucrer, o" 'Perched', water I tableis separated er>or a lower one b:+ a dr. Zone. Only saturote zones within depth o` e p a d p... � about6 feetE". indicated. Funding is stardiny water in a closed deDre c.oThe water is removed or.; t` ^e- peri^lat:or, trersCi~=t ic.. evaporation, a combinaticr of these processes. This report gives the depth and duration of DDrvdinS and the tine of year when Ponding is most .ike.y. Dept', duration, and probable dates of occurrence are estimated• Deoth is expressed as the depth of corded water in feet above the soil surface. D.,:ratior is exoressed as 'Very 111 brief' if less than 2 days, 'Brie`.' if 2 to 7 days. 'Ion;' if 7 tc 3O days, and 'Very long' if more than 3O days. The information is based on the elation of each soil the i historic r ea. Dr. landscape tc i5:^riC D:.".':'n; and on local information stout the extent and leve:c rf oc"c. 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE SOIL FEATURE, Soil Information PAGE 1 OF 2 11/17/97 Bedrock ; Cemented pan Subsidence ; Rist. of corrosion ! ! Potential ' Mac symbol 1 ;frost action; Uncoated and soil name ; Depth ;Hardness; Depth ; Kind ,Initial! Total ;steel Concrete 1 , 1 , , , 1 1 1 , , 1 1 In ; In ; In In ; I 1 1 { , I 1 1 2: , 1 , 1 Arle ; 20-4C ; Soft ' --- -- ;Low ;Moderate ,low 1 Ansari : 10-20 ; Hal•d ;Low ;High ;L.w 1 , 1 1 i . Rock Outcrop--- ; --- ; Soft 1 1 ;r;or2 , 1 44: , , t N:orVal ; i6Nodel'ate :ModenEts iLo i 1 ; 1 , 1 TorriarthertE, , Steen ' 4-3O d , Ha. _ - !L ow ish Low Ro:k 0utcroc 1 ' Steep --- ' So°''•'- r --- ` iga.:9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 sU,S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE SOIL FEATURES Endnote -- SOIL FEATURES PAGE 2 OF 2 11/17/97 This report gives estimates of various soil features. The estimates are used in land use planning that involves engineering Considerations. Depth to bedrock is given if bedrock is within a death of 5 feet, The depth is based on many soil borings and on observations during soil mapping. The rock is either 'Soft' or 'Hard'. If the rock is 'Soft' or fractured, excavations can be made with trenching machines, backhoes, or small rippers. If the rock is 'Hard' or massive, blasting or special equipment generally is needed for excavation. Cemented pans are cemented or indurated subsurface layers within, a depth of 5 feet, Such pans cause difficulty in excavation. Pans are classified as 'Thin' or 'Thick', A 'Thin' pan is less than 3 inches thick if continuousiy indurated or less than 18 inches thick if discontinuous or fractured. Excavations can be made by tre~^chins machines, backhoes, or small rippers, A 'Thick' par: is more than 3 inches thick if continuously indurated a. or mere than: it inches thick if discontinuous or fractured. Such a pa.", is so thick or massive that blasting or special equipment is needed in excavation. Subsidence i a}. .b__de ce is the settlement of organic soils or of saturated mineral soils of very low density. Subsidence results from e.the. desiccation and shrinkage Or oxidation of organic material or both, following drainage, Subsidence takes place g"`adua:' usually el n' s... ;Y, e^ a pE"i0� petal years.This report • subsidence,� Ea.,, shows the ezpectEd initial which usua::y is e result c drainage, totaloxidation. +,L o E, and O�c, Subsidence, which usually is a rEs::lt of OYldati0r. Not shown i:; the report is subsidence caused by an imposed surface lt•ad or b) the withdrawal ofr0 e - g 1=nd wat throughout ar extensive aree as e result of lowering the water table. Potential frost action is the likelihood Of upward or lateral Eleansi,or: of the soil setheformation .f . '� caused by forma.,o.. t. segregated ice lenses (frost heave) and the subsequent coiiaase of the soil and loss of strength on tha rocs. Frost action occurs when moisture coves into the freezing zone of the soil, Temperature, textu-e, density, content of organic matter, and depth to the water table are the most important factors considered in evaluating the potentia: for frost action. It is assumed that the soil_ is not ins.:ated by vec-tAt''r' snow and is n a'tificially drained. Silty and highly structured clayey soils that have a high water table in winterare the most susceptible to frost actions. ;dell drained, very gravelly, or very sandy soils are the least susceptible. Frost heave and low soil strength during thaaing cause damage mainly to pavements and other rigid structures. Ris of corrosion Pertains to potential soil -induced electrochemical or chemical action that dissolves 0" weakens u".coated steel or concrete. The rate of corrosion Of uncoated steel is related to such factors as soil mo'st.:'e, particle -size distribution, acidity, and electrical conductivity of the soil, The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content, texture, moisture content, and acidity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors creates a severe corrosion environment. The steel installations that intersect SCii boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible tc corrosion than steel in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer, For uncoated steel, the risk of corrosion, expressed as 'Low', 'Moderate', or 'High', is based an soil drainage class, total acidity, electrical res', -"vitt near field capacity, and electrical conductivity of the saturation extract. For concrete the .-i: Of cr"^osion is also expressed as %tw', 'Moder'ate' or acidity', and aa:curt of s'Afetes it the sat:L ation eYtra:t. It ! is based Cr SOLI text i:'r E, } U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE SANITARY FACILITIES Soil Information PAGE 1 OF 3 11':7197 (The information in this report indicates the dominant soil condition but does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation) Map symbol Septic tank Sewage lagoon ; Trench Area Daily cover and soil name ; absorption areas , sanitary sanitary for landfill fields landfill landfill 2. Arse 'Severe: :Severe: :Severe: :Severe: :PPoo!', dept to rod., ' seepage, : dePtt to rock, i slope ; depth to rock i s'Cpe : depth to rCC%', ' cl„oe, ' small stones, 5, , elope ' large stores i Slope I Ar.SB"- :Ceta,.e.!Seve"e. :Sever.: !Severe; �P'r41''. ' rv.k, . seepage, t depth td rock, ! de:`' to ro6,, , dept` tc rock. ! slope : elope s'::reslo+e .Q s.e I l'......_ .-_ Cc..e.... :Sever e:... r: .. Seve :. !`o, dept: tc nosk, p.:, t. '...t' t ,de tt tp f.c tt _l e c' .r.e . slope clime ! ..co` r t r=: :S:.e oerte slowly 'Severe. slcoe :Mode: ole. ±+Iv. C. ' large $ ^.:.e5 67: Steep ISe.:er :. ,Severe: ,Seve-t: :Severe: :Roe,,: ,fe.lt t. 1 tt t- ' ' t� ' //ss �.)�. t' rC.=f IVI e�•. �re'., mel.: t.' "Lill•) I a: pilo 1 VeP: 4. .l' !. , s'-el0e : slope r slope ! small stones, , , : Slope I 1 F:':. tcrock, Stec: ;Severe: ;Severe: 1Severe: ,Severe: ;!Poor: ' dept`: tc rock; ! depth to r'o:!., i depth to rock, ! depth tc rock, i de.t!'' to rock, U,S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE SANITARY FACILITIES Endnote -- SANITARY FACILITIES PAGE 2 OF 3 11/17/97 This report shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect septic tank absorption fields, sewage lagoons, and sanitary landfills. The limitations are considered 'Slight' if soil properties and site features generally are 1 favorable for the indicated use and limitations are minor and easily overcome; 'Moderate' if soil properties or site features are not favorable for the indicated use and special planning, design, or maintenance is needed to overcome or minimize the limitations; and 'Severe' if soil properties or site features are so unfavorable or so difficult to overcome , that special design, significant increases in construction costs, and possibly increased maintenance are required. This report also shows the suitability of the soils for use as daily cover for landfills, A rating of 'Good' indicates 1 that soil properties and site features are favorable for the use and good performance and low maintenance can be expected; 'Fair' indicates that soil properties and site features are moderately favorable for the use and pre or more sail properties or site features make the soil less desirable than the soils rated 'Good?'; an; 'Poor' indicates s that one or more soil prooe,rties or site features are unfavorable ler the use and overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design, extra maintenance, or costly alteration. SEPTIC TANK ABSORPTION FIELDS are areas in whict: effluent from a septic tank is distributed into the soil through subsurface tiles or perforated pipe. Only that part of the soil between depths of 24 to 72 inches is evaluated, The ratings are base on soil properties, site features, and observed pe-eorsaance of the Soils. Peemeab:iitY, a high water tatle, depth to bedrock or to a cemented pan, and flooding aft absn^poor of the ``fluent Large stone! and bedrock or a cemented pan interfere with installation. Unsatisfactory performance of septic. tali absorption fields, including excessively slow absorption of effluent, surfacing of effluent, and h' ' `de Seepage. car. affect pubic healtte. Groundwater can be polluted if hg":.y Permeable sand and gravel or fra:tared bedrock, is less than. 4 feet bele, the base of the atsorption field, if slope is excessive, or if the Water to le is near the surface. Thee must Pe unsaturated soil material bens `.. the absorption field to filter the effluent effectively, tan, local ordinances require that this material be of a certain thickness. SEWAGE LAGOONS are shallow ponds constructed to hold sewage while aerobi^ bacte-ia decompose the solid and liquid wastes. Lagoons should have a nearly level floor surrounded by cut sloes or embankments of compacted soil. Lagcons generally are designed to hold the sewage within a depth of 2 to ` feet. Nesrly lePervious soi: material for the lagoon floor and sides is required to minimize seepage and sor.tesinatior of ground water, This report gives ratings fpr the natural soil that makes Up the lagoon floor. The surface layer and, generally, 1 or 2 feet oe soil mate'•ial below the surfeee layer are excavated to provide material for the an e^t: The t' emb.,. km eatines are based on sail or=ape^ties, site features, and obueeved performance of the soils. Censideeed in the ratings are slope, pe"meati_litY, a high water table, depth to bedrock or tc a cemented pan, flooding, large stores, and corter.t of orgaric matter. Excessive seepage due to rapid permeability of the soil or a water table that is high enough to raise the level of sewage in the lagoon causes a lagoon tc function: unsatisfactorily. Pollution results if seepage is excessive or if floodwater oveetocs the lagoon. A high content of organic matter is detrimental to Proper functioning of the lagoon because it inhibits aerobic activity. Slope, bedrock, and cemented pans can cause construction problems, and large stones can hinder coo eaction of the lagoon floor. SANITARY LANDFILLS are areas where solid waste is disposed of by burying it in soil. There are two types of landfill, trench: and area. In a trend`; laodfi.:, the waste is placed .n a trench. It is spread, compacted, and ccveeed daily W,., a thin layer of Soil excaveted at the site. 1e an area .a.".'l. ,i i, the as is Dia^ed in successive iaYF.re t" the surface of the soil. The weste is spread, compacted, and covered d01:) wits e t^i+' layer of sill fore a source away from the lite. eeth types of landfill must be able to bear `Fae,+ vehicular traffic, Both types involve a risk of groueefeet.e- pot otic.. Ease of excavation and revegetatier need to be c'o'sidere:. The ratings it thisrPp; t are based 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE SANITARY FACILITIES Endnote -- SANITARY FACILITIES --Continued PAGE 3 OF 11/`_7/97 on soil properties, site features, and observed performance of the soils. Permeability, death to bedrock or to a cemented pan, a high water table, slope, and flooding affect both types of landfill, Texture, stones and boulders, highly organic layers. soil reaction, and content of salts and sodium affect trench type landfills. Unless otherwise stated, the ratings apply only to that part of the soil within a depth of about 6 feet. For deeper trenches, a limitation rate 'Slight' or 'Moderate' may not be valid. Onsite investigation is needed. DAILY COVER FOR LANDFILL is the soil material that is used to cover compacted solid waste in an area type sanitary Landfill. The soil material is obtained offsite, transported to the landfill, and spread over the waste. Soil texture, wetness, coarse fragments, and slope affect the ease of removing and spreading the material during wet and dry periods. Loamy or silt~ soils that are free of large stones or excess grave'_ are the best cover for 2 landfill. Clayey soils may be sticky or cloddy and are difficult to spread; sandy soils are subject to soil blowing, After soil material has been removed, the soi: material rema<r:n; in the borrow area must be thick enough over bedrock, a cemented pan, or the water table to permit revegetation. The soil material used as final cover for e landfill shoutd be suitable for plants. The surface layer generally has the best workability, more organic matter than 7 the rest of the profile, and the best potential for plants. Material from the surface layer should be stockpiled for use as the final cover 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT Soil Information PAGE 1 OF 2 11/17/97 (The information in this report indicates the dominant soil condition but does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation) Mao symbol Shallow Dwellings Dwellings Small Local roads ! Lawns and and soil name excavations without with ; commercial and streets ! landscaping basements basements buildings , , 2: Arte 'Severe: 'Severe: !Severe: `Severe: !Severe: !Severe: , slope ! slope ! slo'pe ! slope ! slope ! small stones, , , ! , ! , large stones. : slope Ansari :Severe: 'Severe: ,Severe: !Severe: !Severe: !Severe: denth to rock,! _lope, depth to rock,; sloe, ! depth to rocs:, s:,,_F slope de:t. to rw";i' ! _,.=e ' deet.`.' to re:{ ' s:ooe : deeth to rock t! . , r , Reek Out:rc:!Se:'ere: :Severe: :Severe: !Severe: 'S . de:tt'.. t? rock,! slope , depth to rock,: 5.: '' e roF`• ! ✓e , slope , slope, ! oenth to r'ctA r r , 4,11 Norval :Moderate: ;Moderate: !Moderate: '.Moderate: :Moderate: :Moderate: la-ge st.nes large stone_ . large st nes sloe, , trc t a:t!:m, ' large :totes large stone: : large stone! , 67: Terriert`ects, ' , Glee' 15evere: ,Severe: !Severe: !Sova:*: :Severe: :Severe: eve.r e: depth to roo ,: slope, ! depth to rock,: siooe, ! death to rock,; slope, ! siooe ! de,:t'' t. roc ! slope ! depth to rock : slope 1 depth to .rock :tee 'Severe: Severe: :Severe: !Severe:.See-1.: 'Severe: de.tt to rot; slooe ' 'apt" to re ! .e ` s' e ht , ; v _ . �t.Y., slc^� .Op deo � y, ! s:.:e ' s:.t.e , slope, , depth t0 n,.. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U,S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PAGE 2 OF 2 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 11/17/97 BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT Endnote -- BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT This report shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. The limitations are 'Slight", 'Moderate', or 'Severe'. The limitation: are considered 'Slight' if soil properties and site features are i generally favorable for the indicated use and limitaions are minor and easily overcome; 'Moderate' if soil properties or site features are not favorable for the indicated use and special planning, design., or maintenance is needed to overcome or minimize the limitations; and 'Severe' if soil properties or site features are so unfavorable or so difficult to overcome that special design, significant increases in construction costs, and possibly increased maintenance are required. Special feasibility studies may be required where the soil limitations are severe. SHALLOW EXCAVATIONS are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for basements, graves, utility lines, open ditches, and other purposes. The ratings are based or sail properties, site features, and observed performance o` the soils. The ease of digging, filling, and compacting is affected by the depth to bedrock, a cemented par, or a very firm dense layer; stone conterit; soil texture; and slope. The time cf the Year that excavations can be made is affected by the depth to a seasonal high water table and the susceptibility of the soil to flooding. The resistance of the excavation walls or bands to sloughing or caving is affected by soil texture and the depth to the water tette. 'NEL IN , Att S"„L. COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS are structures builtonfoundations onun t.;. The :4L S"ALL .. shallow I .1 �� rt�ed soil. T�Ie tc'aa limit is the sate as that for single-far.i:y dwellings no higher that three stories, Ratings are made for sme.:s commercial buildings without bassaents. for dwellings with basements, andt t cr dwellings without aserents. The ratings are based on stet Grocert:es, site features, and observed ot-formaroes' f the t G .`..,. A high water table, depth •: o bedrock or to e cemented Den, large Stones, slo•:e, and flooding affe.t the ease cf er:a'fation .0 and onst-uctit'. Lancsc: .'.r and grading that recuire cuts and fills ^,f more that, 5 or 6 feet are not considered. V :OCA: ROA"`. AND STREETS have an all-weather surface and carry automobile and light truck traffic all Year. They have a subgrade cf cut or fill sol: material, a base of gravel, crushed rocs., cr stabilized soil materia., and a flexible or rigid surface. Cuts and fills ere genere:lr Properties, site features, and observed performance of the soils. Deoth to bedrock 0- t0 e cemented pan, a high water table, flooding, large stones, and slope affect the ease of excavating and grading. Soil strength (as inferred trot the engineering classification of the soil;, potential, `root action potentia' and depth to a high water ` of ect the ff 5 t �, 9 table f tragi :e u.r,:rung L"aC•�ole)', -Ai '$ AND _ArN LAPIN"o require 50115 on which turf and ornamental trees and s`:r;;`_.s can be es' =avlis!l.d and maintained. The ratings are based on soil properties, site features, and observed performance of the soils. Soil reaction, a high water table, depth to bedrock or toe oerented pan, the available water caNacity in the upGnr L: inches, and the content of salts, sodium, and sulfidic materials affect Plant growth, Flooding, wetness, _dope, stoniness, and the amourt of sand, clay, or organic matter in the surface layer affect trafficability after vegetation is established. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPART"ENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS Soil Informatior. PAGE 1 OF 11/17/97 (The information in this report indicates the dominant soil condition but does not eliminate the need for onsite A investigation) Mao symbol Roadfill and soil name Sand Gravel Topsoil Are 'Poor: ;Improbable: ;Improbable: 'Poor: ! depth to rock, '. ex:ess fines : excess fines : smell stones, slope : slope Ansari ;Poor: :Improbable: :ImProbabie: 'Poor: , det•th to rock, ; excess fines , excess _ x ass ;:�:_.� de.t^. ': rock, : slope : large stones, ; s:oz,e Rock Outrrcp.._.... :,-,: .,,,�_-. 'Io -c:•a:e: Poor: r dent`• to rock, : excess fines ; excess fires ! dert!' to mock, sz.-.e ' sloce 44: Norval :rei . ;Improbable: :Im;;~o"able: :Poor: ; large stones ; excess fines : excess fines ' large stones, area reclain 67: . Torrio"thents, : . Steep !Poor: :Imorobable: 'Improbable: !Poor: depth to roc:.. ; excess fines : excess fines ' , dept`' to •. roc.., : slope : r small! stones, ' slope , Rock Outcrop, , Steel :Poor: :I 2:"5a, :e. Ir:p".'hat': e: '?CSA": ' depth to rock, ; excess fires excess ,tees depth to rock, slope , : slope . 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICU:TURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS Endnote -- CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PACE 2 OF 3 1:/17/;7 This report gives information about the soils as a source of roadfill, sand, gravel, and topsoil. The soils are rated 'Good', 'Fair', or 'Poor' as a source of roadfill and topsoil. They are rated as a 'Probable' or 'Improbable' source of sand and grave!, The ratings are based on soil properties and site features that affect the removal of the soil and its use as construction material. Normal compaction, minor processing, and other standard construction practices are assumed. Each soil is evaluated to a depth of 5 or 6 feet. Roadfill is soil material that is excavated in one place and used in road embankments in another place, Ir, this report, the soils are rated as a source of roadfill for low embankments, generally less than 6 feet high and less exacting in design than: higher embankments, The ratings are for the sol material below the surface layer to a death of 5 or 6 feet. It is assumed that soil !Byers Will be mixed during excavating and spreading. Many soils have layers of contrasting suitability within their p -::.file. The report entitled Engineering Index Properties is also avii ante and it provides detailed information about each soil layer. This inform, -tion can help determine the suitability of esoh layer for use as roadfill. The performance of soil after it is stabilized with lime or cement is not considered in the ratings. The ratings are lysed or soil properties, site `eatures, and observed Performance Of the soils. The thickness of suitable material la a meor consideration. The ease of excavation is a`fected by large stones e high wale" table and sloe. How well the soil performs _, place after it has teen compacted and drained is determined by its Strength (a= inferred from the erginee» lig clessiticati n of the soil,' any shrink -swell potential.. • po,en,.at. SGII$ rate G^JLcontai Sig 'fie rt f sand or g"ave. orb.L4 •--; have ?t least 5 4 °` j suitable material, a low shrink -s.._' o ter..Z., `e. cobbles Stonto and slopes of 15 percent or 1e5.. :ep`H t^ the Wale; table more +jr 7cFe Soils rated =air' hale more than 35 percent, silt- and clay -sized particles an, have ,. plasticity oft+lar :n They have a moderate shrink -swell potential, slopes of 15 n 25 Gee t y,. atones. -+ S5 to 3 feet. many onee s, Oepth to the water tat le is 1 Soils rated 'Poo" a ilaf': " if y nce, cmore then IC, a high shrink- a • have p .'> dW_1: pGte,".iia[, many stones, or slopes of more than 25 percent. They are wet, and the des'tt, to the water table is less than ' foot. These soils may have layers of suitable materia:, but the material is less than 3 feet thick. Sand and gravel are natural aggregates suitable for commercial use with a minimum of processin^y, Sand and grave: are used in many kinds of construction. Specifications for each use vary widely. In this report only the probability of finding material in suitable Quantity is eval;;a`ed. The suitability of the material for sceo ' purposes is not evaijated, nor are factors that affect excavation of the material, The properties used to evaluate the soil as „ source of sand or gravel are gradeticn of grain sizes (as indicated by the engineering classification of the soil) , the thickness of suitable material, and the content of rock fragments. Kinds of rook, acidity, and stratification a"e given ir, the soil series des:.riptiors. Gradation: of grain files is giver in the Engineering Index `rooerties report. A soil "neo' as a .,";'tall_ so,i,•ce has a :alien' it clean sand and •.,a.,,t1 c" a ley^ 04 sand or gra that ocntairs jr. to 12 ce ;e -t silt` ffn�_, This U.eteriy! m'Js` 5e at least 3 feet thickand z than rt + _.e5. t.,1. SC pe�ce:,.. by weight, large s. 'des. 4.' r'+'t' . et_,.r "Improbable' . fragments i sc t b .ire- s '_�' as .. .,.. er T4^!'_ CL'.: i.'_ :a (•Op.,Se � t .t. A.,.r, shale a"d SS'tc _ . _ t` t F xe 1 Br:,", gravel. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE kx NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS Endnote -- CONSTRUCTION MMATERIALS--Continued PAGE 3 OF 3 11/17/97 Topsoil is used to cover an area so that vegetation can be established and maintained. The upper 40 inches of a soil is evaluated for use as topsoil. Also evaluated is the reclamation potential of the borrow area. Flant growth is affected by toxic material end by such properties as soil reaction, available water capacity, and fertility. The ease of excavating, loading, and spreading is affected by rock fragments, slope, a water table, soil texture, and thickness of suitable material. Reclamation o' the borrow area is affected by slooe, a water table, rock fragments, bedrock, and toric material, 4 Soils rate 'Good' have friable loamy materia: to a depth of at lees` 40 inches. They are free cf stories and cobbles, have little or no gravel, and have slopes of less than 8 percent. They are IT. in content of soluble salts, are naturally fertile or resocnd well to fertilizer, and are not so wet that excavation is difficult. Solis rated 'Fair' are sardy soils, loamy soils that have a relatively high content of clay, soils that have or. 2 tc 40 inches of suitable material, soils that have an appreciable amount of gravel, stones, or soluble salts, or soils that heve slopes of E to 15 percent. The soils are not so wet that excavation is difficult. Soils rate 'PCC" ere very sandy or clayey, have les:. than 20 inches of suitable mate"`a: have a large amour'. of grael, stones, or soluble sats, have sloes of more '.`'a.' 1S percent, or have ,. seasonal water table et or near the surface. The surface layer of most soils .s generally preferred for toopsoil because cf it organic 'atter content. Organic matter greatly increaCes the absorption and retention o` m.. ..re a.d r�..yr.s for pIant gr..,... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURA'_ RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CLASSIFICATION OF THE SOILS Soil Information PAGE 1 OF 1 11/17/47 (The classification report does not include recent amendments to soil taxonomy for cation: excF,ar; activity, particle size modifier, and dual mineralogy for strongly contrasting classes. For more detailed information contact your local USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service field office 0'• state office. Soil name Family or higher taxonomic class Ansari ;LITHIC HAFL0e0ROLLS, LOAMY, MIX:. Arle :A�.:I: HAPLOGOR"LL5, LOAMY-Sl,._ETAL, MIXED Norval 'ATT IC ARGIEOROLIS, FINE -LOAMY, MIXED Torriorthents, Steep ;TORRIORTHENTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 U,S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE RANGELAND PRODUCTIVITY AND CHARACTERISTIC PLANT COMMUNITIES Soil Information PAGE 1 OF 2 11/17/97 (Only the soils that support rangeland vegetation suitable for grazing are listed. Ppt means precipitation) Total production Map symbol Range site Characteristic vegetation ;Compo - and soil name ,'Kind of year ; Dry ; ;sition ;weight Lb/acre ; ; Pct 1 1'1 1 f; 1. 1 I i Arle ;LOAMY SLOPES ;Favorable ; 1,200 ;Western wheatgrass 20 ;Normal ; 90C ;Biuetunch wheatgrass 15 ; ;Unfavorable ; 500 ;Indian ricegrass 15 ; :Gam::: oaL. IT ;Needleandthread 8 ; ; ;Tr,e mountainmahogany 7 ; ;Utah serviceberry 7 1 !Mo,n`air bio sage 5 Ansari Rook Outcrop --- i 1 1 1 1 ;'.GAMY BREAKS 'Favorable 850 ;Indian .icagress 20 ; ;Nor,.,. ' 70C ;Wester- wheat4ress I Cr:`a.oraa 500 ;Pinyon 15 ;Juniper 5 ;Needleandthread 5 ,:Mountain big sage 5 � se aiceb -y 5 u , :DEEP LGA~ IFavorab.e 1,800 :Wester:; wheatgrass 20 ,Normal 1,500 ;Needleandthread 15 ; ;Unfavorable 700 ;Basin big sagebrush 10 B1uebunch wheatgrass 10 ;Utah serviceberry 5 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE Endnote -- RANGELAND PRODUCTIVITY AND CHRACTERISTIC PLANT COMMUNITIES PAGE 2 OF 2 11/17/97 In areas that have similar climate and topography, differences in the kind and amount of vegetation produced on rangeland are closely related to the kind of soil. Effective management is based on the relationship between the soils and vegetation and water. This report shows, for each soil, the range site; the total annual production of vegetation in favorable, normal, and unfavorable years; the characteristic vegetation; and the x average percentage of each species. Only those soils that are used as rangeland or are suited to use as i rangeland are listed. An explanation of the column headings in this report follows, RANGE SITE is a distinctive kind of rangeland that produces a characteristic natural plant community that differs from natural plant communities on other range sites in kind, amount and proportion of range plants. The relationship betweeen soils and vegetation was ascertained during this survey; thus, range sites generally can be determined directly frog: the Soli (flap. Soil properties that affect moisture supply and plant nutrients have the greatest influence on the productivity of range plants. Soil reaction, salt content, and a seasonal } high water tatle are also important. TOTAL PRODUCTION is the amount of vegetation that can be expected to grow annually on well managed rangeland , that is supporting the potential natural plant community. It includes all vegetation, whether or not it is Palatable to grazing anima's, It includes the current year's growth of leaves, twigs, and fruits of woody Plants. It does not include the increase in sten: diameter of trees and shrubs. It is expressed in pounds per acre of air-dry vegetation for favorable, normal, and unfavorable years, In a favorable year, the amount and distribution of precipitation and the temperatures make growing conditions substantially better than average. In a normal year, growing conditions are about average, In an unfavorable ye'_", growing conditions are well below average, generally because of low aVailatle soil moisture. Dry weight is the total annual yield per acre of air-dry vegetation, Yields are adjusted to a common percent c` air-dry moisture content. The relationship of green veight to air-dry weight varies according to such `,acts s as exposure. amount of shade, re:e.'t rains, end unseasonable dry Periods. CHARACTEPISTIG VEGETATION The grassec f0r55. and shrubs that make Ur MOSt of the Pctent ia. natural Plan` community on each soil is fisted by common nate. Under CMSITION the expected percentage of the total ann;al production i5 given for each Species making UD the nharaCterit . veoetatisn. The anount that car, be used as forage depends on the kinds of grazing animals and on the grazing season. Rage tariaAeme:it reoui- s a knowledge of the kinOs of soil and of the potential natural plant spun'. ity. .t also requires an evaluation: of the present range condition, Range condition is determined by comparing the present plant co e.unity with the potentia'. natural plant community on a Particular range site. The mire closely the existing community resembles the potential community, the better the range condition. Range condition is an ecological rating only. The objective in range management is to control grazing so that the plants growing on a site are abo'nt tile same in kind and ar•:."t as the potential natnrai dant CO,rT..urcity that site. Such management generally resnIts i.. the Optiifi.f: production of vegetation, control of undesirable brush species, conservation of water, and control of erosion. Sometimes, however, a range condition somewhat below the potential meets grazing needs, provides wildlife habitat, and protects soil and water resources. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ! NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE WILDLIFE 'n1ASI'A' Soil Information PAGE 1 OF 3 11/17/°' Potential for habitat elements ' Potential as habitat for -- r s)fibOi i Grain i ltd i i Open-; Wood -Range { 1 ;Grasses! t 1 , r a ' , a t and soil name , and ,Grasses, herbs-, Hard- 1 Conif-,Shrubs:Wetland,Shaliow: land : land Wetland: land 1. :1 seed ; and i oeousi wood ; erous: ;plants ; water i wild- ; wild- ; wild- i Wild - r ; Crops !legumes: plants: trees ; plants; i i areas ; life life life ;life 11 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 , I 1 I 1 , 1 1 ,1 1 1 , Arle ;VERY ;VERY ;FAIR i ;FAIR VERY VERY 'POOP ;VERY ;FAIR t 1 POOP ! ;OOP. ! r POCF ; POOR : : POOR f Ansari ;VERY :VERY ;POOF ; - 'POOR !VERY !VERY ;VERY 'VERY '-"DOE ; FOR ! POOR ! ! POR ; POOR ; ROC; ' ! POOR ; 1! I Roc%' O;.crpc•!VEEY 'VERY :VERY !VERY :VERY 'VERY ;VER 'VERY :VERY ;VE=`!VERY :VERY I P`_p 1 P”tFc:R 1 pOoR F POOR , P`oR A P"•R ! POOR t POOR ' POOR ! ROOF iPOOP i, , 1 1 1 1 1 A A 44: A r , ,• 1 Norval 1-4!P lOGoO !GOOD 1 --- :FAIR ,p'.p 'POOP !GOOD --- ! POO; 'FAIR f . . y C. , cl'A.,, .F^� !VERY 1 •R IRO_, !R nG 'VELV !POOR --- 'v ' !FAIL. -OTR . ' POOR ; ; POOR , ; Steep !VERY !VERY ,VERY ,VERY :VERY !TER.!VEF'. 'V:FY :VERY ,VERY 'VERY :VERY ROC, ` ROCF. FOC= . POR POOR PDC; POOP OO; r F :CZ POOP . ROOF 1 RCOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE PAGE 2 OF 3 11/17/97 WILDLIFE HABITAT Endnote -- WILDLIFE HABITAT Soils affect the kind and amount of vegetation that is available to wildlife as food and cover. They also affect the construction of water impoundments. The kind and abundance of wildlife depend largely on the amount, and distribution of food, cover, and water. Wildlife habitat can be created or improved by planting appropriate vegetation, by maintaining the existing plant cover, or by promoting the natural establishment of desirable plants. In this report the soils are rated according to their potential for providing habitat for various kinds of wildlife. This information can be used in planning parks, wildlife refuges, nature study areas, and other developments for wildlife; in selecting soils that are suitable for establishing, improving, or maintaining specific elements of wildlife habitat; and in determining the intensity of management needed for each element of the habitat. The potentia' of the soil is rated 'Good,' 'Fair,' 'Poor,' or Very poor.' A rating of 'Good' indicates that the element or kind of habitat is easily established, improved, or maintained. Few or no limitations af`ect management, ant satisfactory results can be exoarter' A rating of 'Fair' indicates that the element or kind of habitat can be established, improved, or maintained in most places. Moderately intensive management is reouired for satis`actory results. A rating of 'Poor' indicates that limitations are severe for the designated element or kind of habitat. Habitat can be created, improved, or maintained in most places, but management is difficult and must be intensive. A rating of 'Ver' poor' indicates that restrictions for the element or kind of habitat are very severe and that unsatisfactory results can be expected. Creating, improving, or maintaining habitat is impractical or iaoossible. "he elements of w'ild'life habitat are described ir ehr following oaragraohs. GRAIN Ari:. SEED C=•^•P$ are domestic grain_ and seed -producing herbaceous plarts. Soil properties art feat;"es that efect the gro'th of grain and seed crops are depth of the roc`_ zone, texture of the surface layer, available water capacity, wetness, slope, surface stoniness, and flood ''.ezard. Soil temperature and eci. moisture are a150 coneideratlens. Examples of grain and seed crops ps pre corn, wheat, oats, sed GRASSES ANN' LESTeET a"e domestic perennial grasses and herbaceous_ Ie; r,es. Soil prooerties and features that affect t'"e g .w`:, :` ;;'e . a, g. ez depth f t, _:t Sur ` the surface layer, available water e�....,.. are d p-., o: �e zone, tet. e o. canacite, wetness. surface stoniness, flood hazard, and slope. Soil temper'at'oee and soil moictuee are consideratiene. Examples of grasses and legumes are fescue, 'ovegrass, brcmegrass, c:o•:er, and alfalfa. WILDHER8ACE US P_ANTS are native or naturally estah.st°d g"ASS"= and fOrbs; w ed_. Soil prooerties and• features that affect the growth of these giants are depth of the root zone, texture c' the surface 'aye", a'.eilable water Capacity, wetness, surface stoniness, and flood `ezard. Soil temperature and soil m;ieture are also considerations. Example: of wild heruaceevs Diaetts are blueste enr 1 t at " s and r.•, gG1d od, begga�weed, w, a :g. as., a grna. HAMND TREES and woody understory produce nuts or other fruit, buds, catkins, twigs, bark, ant foliage, Soil orooerties and features that affect the growth of hardwood trees and shrubs are depth of the root zone, available water caPeeity, and wetness. Examples of these plaits are oak, poplar, cherry, sweetgur:, apt,ie, hawthorn, dogwood, hickory, blackberry, and blueberry. Examples of fruit -producing shrubs that are suitable for planting on soils rated are Russian -olive, autus+r-olive, and crat•a.p1E. CON1FER•n. PLANTS furnish b"owse and seeds. Scil properties and features that affect the growth of coniferous trees, shrubs, and ground cover are depth of the root zone, available water capacity, and wetness. Examples of coniferous plants are pine, spruce, fir, cedar, ant juniper. SHRUBS are bushy woody plats that produce fruit, buds, twigs, ba"k, and foliage. Soil properties and features that affect the ¢nowt,h of shrubs are death of the root zone, avai elle water Cap. , salinity, an: sci: mils' re. Examples of shrub:, are moertp,nma`'Gga-y, bitterbruoh, snowberry, and big sa;eb°'us'. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE WILDLIFE HAP:TAT Endnote -- WILDLIFE HABITAT --Continued PAGE 3 OF 3 11/17/97 WETLAND PLANTS are annual and perennial wild herbaceous plants that grow on moist or wet sites. Submerged or floating aquatic plants are excluded. Soil properties and features affecting wetland plants are texture of tt,e surface layer, wetness, reaction, salinity, slope, and surface stoniness. Examples of wetland plants are smartveed, wild millet, wildrice, saltgress, cordgrass, rushes, sedges, and reeds. { SHALLOW WATER AREAS have an average depth of less than 5 feet. Some are naturally wet areas. Others are created by dams, levees, or other water -control structures. Soil properties and features affecting shallow water areas are t depth to bedrock, wetness, surface stoniness, slope, and permeability. Examples of shallow water areas are marshes, waterfowl feeding areas, and ponds. The habitat for various kinds of wildlife is described in the following paragraphs. HAETTAT FOR OPENLAND WILDLIFE consists of cropland, pasture, meadows, and areas that are overgrown: with grasses, herbs, shrubs, and vines. These areas produce grain and seed crops, grasses an:: legumes, and wild herbaceous Planta. Ti Wildlife attracted tc tt.ese areas include t"b ite :Jail, pheasant, mea',owiar' field soarro,:cc• ,.r�.,,tt' to ii: and red fox. FA5?TA- FOP WCODLANO WnDLI`E consists of areas of deciduous plants or coniferous plants or both and associated grasses. legumes. and wilt herhaceus plants. Wildlife attracted to these areas include wild turkey, ruffed grouse, woodcock, thrushes, woodpeckers, so irrels, gray fox, raccpcn, deer, and near, HAE:''A- FOE ',,ETLAK: WILDLIFE consists of open, marshy or swamoN shallcw water areas, Sore of the wildlife attracted to s!.,ch areas are ducks, geese, herons, shore ti -ds, muskrat, mink, and beaver. HA _,A' FOR RAN, .1;,, WILDL:FE consists of areas of 0.}1'l:hc and «;:.0 herbaceous G:?1,2. 14:1,'1"= c`. _..._ .. � .. . include ents•^ - die-, sage .7 tea i. l2:i. :ark t.i`.tily. U,S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF THE SOILS Soil Information PAGE 1 OF 2 11/17/97 Map symbol Depth ; Clay 1 Cation- 1 Soil ; Calcium 1 Gypsum ;Salinity; Sodium and soil name 1 ;exchange ;reaction :carbonate; ;adsorption 1 iCepa:ity ; , . ratio In ; Pct :meg/100g pH Pct Pct ;mmhos/cm: ., , , 1 . . i , , . , , , , 2: . , , . , , , Arle 0-10 ; 15-25;10.0-25,0; 6.6-7.8 ; 0-5 ;0-2 10-32 ; 10-251 5.0-15,C; 7.4-8.4 1 5-10 ; 0-2 32-36 ' ' : , , 1 1 ARSaF'. 0-10 i 1E-25410.0-25.2, 7.9-8.4 1 0-5 1 1 0-2 10-18 1 16-20110,0-15.01 7.9-8.4 : 5-10 1 1 0-2 1 --- 18-22 1 --- 1 --- 1 --- ; -- : ' , . , Rock OuYcrcc 0-60 - _,- .. 1 . . f 444 :1 4 1 Morve 0-5 ' 222-27110.0-2C.01 7.4-7.8 ' 0-5 , 5-17 . 27-34'.10.0-20.21 7.4-8.4 1 1-10 1 --- 1--- 1 --- 17-27 ! 27-34110.0-22.C! 7,4-8.4 1 5-1` , --- 27-60 . 20 5.0-1`. 7.4-6.4 :5-2. ' 0-2 , . 67: ' . Torriorthents, 1 •. Steep 0-4 ; --- ! --- ' 6.1-8.4 1 --5 1 0-2 ! 4-3D : 5-351 5.0-20,0; 6,1-8.4 ; 0-5 ; n-2 32-3• ' --- 4 , Rock Outcrop, 1 . Steer ; 0-60 ' --- ! 1 1 j 3 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PAGE 2 OF 2 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 11/17/07 CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF THE SOILS Endnote -- CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF THE SOILS This report shows estimates of some characteristics and features that affect soil behavior. These estimates are giver for the major layers of each soil in the survey area. The estimates are based on field observations and on test data for these and similar soils. CLAY as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are less than; 0,002 millimeter in diameter. In this report, the estimated clay content of each major soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The amount and kind of clay greatly affect the fertility and physical condition of the soil.. They determine the ability of the soil to adsorb cations and to retain moisture. They influence shrink -swell potential. permeability, and plasticity, the ease of soil dispersion, and other soil properties. The amount and kind of clay in a soil also affect tillage and earthmoving operations. CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC) is the total amount of cations held in e soil it such a way that they can be remove;, only by exchanging with ar•other cation in the natural soil solution. CEC is a measure of the ability of a soil to retail': cations, some of which are plant nutrients, Soils with low CEC hold few cations and may reouire more freoJent application of fertilizers than soils with high CEC, Soils with high CEC have the potential to retain cations, thus reducing the possibility of pollution " round trate', SOIL REACTION is a measure of acidity or alkalinity and is eronessed as a range in pH values. The range in pi' of each ma,:or horizon is based on marl field tests. For, many soils, V8:4es have been ve'ified by laboratory analyses. Soil reaction is important it selecting crops and other plants, in evaluating soil amendments fol fft' "'`y and stabilization and in determining the risk of corrosion. CALC1jt CARBON TE is the percentage by weight of calcium carbonate in the fine -earth material, less than 2 millimeters in size. GYPSUM is the oe"Cert=ye by eight of hydrate: cal ium sulfates millimeters or smaller in si:e, in the soil. SALINITY is 2 measure of soluble salts fn the sol. at saturation. It is exp messed as the electrical conductivity of the saturation extract, in millimhcs per centimeter at 2S degrees C. Estimates are based on field and laboratory measurements at representative sites of nonirrigated soils. The salinity of irrigated soils is affected by the Quality of the irrigation water and by the freouency of water application. Hence, the salinity of soils in individual fields car differ greatly from the value given in the report. Salinity affects the suitability of e soil for crop production, the stability of soil if used as construction material, and the potential of the soil to corrode meta: and osncnete. S0Oi,rN A SORPTION RA?;C (SW expresses the relative activity c _._iur ions .. exch,s ;e , _c.ti ns ir the soil. SAF .,e oess:.re of the amount _odi...., relative to Caloiut and magnesiJ;it the water extra':t from satu''e`.ed 5oi1 paste. RIFLE AREA SOIL SURVEY SHEET NO. 19 SOIL SURVEY OF ASPEN-GYPSUM AREA, COLORADO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AG: PART-' OF EAGLE. GARFIELD. AND P`.TKI> SOIL CONSERV ATION ' <11: ADRAN6 E. EXHIBIT I - PART 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS Soil Information. PACE 1 OF 4 11/17/97 (Entries under 'Erosion factors --I' app1Y to the entire profile. Entries under "Wind erodibility group' and 'Wind erodability index' app1Y only to the surface layer) ,Erosion factors:Wind ;Wind Map symbol ; Depth 1 Clay ; Moist ; Perinea- ;Available; Shrink- :Organic; lerodi-;erodi- } and sell nape ; ; bulk ; bility ; water ; swell ; matter; , ; ;biiity;bility ; density ! :caoad ty ;potential; ; K ; Kf : T ;group 'index I, I I 1 I I ; Pct g/:c i In/hr ; In/ir. i Pct ; ; 1 1 1 1 1 ! {: c. 1 , 1 0-1C , 15-25:1.25-1.40: 0.60_6,00 r .07_- .0• . .ow 1 2,0-4.01 0.10I 0.24I 3 8 . --- 110-32 1 1^-25;1.25-1501 0.60-6.00 I0.05-C.091.ow 10.5-1.0' 0.10! 0.32! IArle Ir t 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I . I 1 1 f I Ansari : 0-10 :! 11-2511.25-1.40; 1.60-2.00 10.i4 -0.1711c: ;2.0-4.01 0.24' 0.24' 1 1 4L 86 1`-11 ; n 6� `.n 1 i3 1 01 1 0.211 1 . 16-2C:1.25-1.401 -6. � '.0, 0-C:,: �ia ,3. C- .15; ! 1 n 1 1 I A ! -- 1 1 1 t 1 I , �z-22 , -- , , o.00-:,20 1 --- --- 1 --- i 1 1 z1 ! 1 r1 r 1 1 Rock Outcrop ----1 0-60 , --- ! - E 1 t I 44:1 ; 1 I Mcrva1 : 0-5 22-27!! 25-1.40' 1.60:-2.02 i0.13 0.16;L ow ;1.0-2. 0.28; 0.28. 5 4L 86 1 5-17 : 27-3411.25-1.4C' 1.22-0.60 10.16-0,119:Moderate ;1.5-1.0!! 0.24; 0.24! 17-27 , 27-34;1.25-3.40: 2,20-C.60 ;0,13-0.16;Modarata :0,5-1.01 0,151 0.24; ; 27-60 : 20-27;1.25-1.401 0,60-2.00 '0.10-0.13:Low ;0.0-2.51 0,24', C.43' ' 11 1 1 , 1 6 67: Torriort`..'.t' Steel: : 0-4 --_ 4-30 5-" ; "-,50' 0.61-2.10 1.0,10-2.18'1.o4; 30-34 ; --- ; --- 1 0.02-0.22 ;• --- 1 1 1 Roc Outcrop, 1 ; Steep ; 0-60 ; -- 1 1 r I , 1 ,0.5__.:' --_ ! --- 1---' ;C.0-0.5' 0.32: 0.321 I I I I I 1 1 e ! U,S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS Endnote -- PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS PAGE 2 OF 4 11/17/97 This report shows estimates of some characteristics and features that affect soil behavior. These estimates are given for the major layers of each soil in the survey area, The estimates are based on field observations and on test data for these and similar soils. CLAY as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are less than 0,002 millimeter in diameter. Jr this report, the estimated clay content of each major soil layer is given as a Percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter, The amount and kind of clay greatly affect the ferttiiity and physical condition of the soil. They determine the ability of the soil to adsorb cations and to retain moisture. They influence shrink -swell potential, permeability, Plasticity, the ease of soil dispersion, and other soil properties, The amount and >ind of clay in a soil also affect tillage and earthmoving operations. vols BULK DE";5:TY i$ the weight :f soil (ovendry)Per unit volume, Volume is neaS•Jrel when the soil is at field y:';istJre capacity, the moisture content at 1/3 bar moisture tension. height is determined alter drying the s":t at 105 degrees C. In this rFP„rt, the estimated Ec_St b.;1r. density Gs each major soil horizon is exGressed in grams per cubic centimeter of soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in Diameter. density data are used to c:'.oute String Swell ootertial, eva;latae water cac city1 t^". pore space, arcs other soil properties, The moist h ., density of a soil indicates the pore space a'vaiia.,le f�.r ware" and root_. A bu.k densiti of more than 1,6 can restrict water storage and root penetration. Moist bulk density is influenced by tech re, kind of olay, crgaric matter, and so:: structure. PER''tEAE1.:TY refer„ to the a'.'''of a `C transmit e+ tie estimates to the ;ell mat or air. T ,.i�:.a, s in-�:.a... . �F rate r' dow?'car r:Ovee;'.t of :e'er .he .';._: is sat.. cted, They are based on soil characteristics obse .._ fr the field, pr.rtic-_y. ,y structure, COr._.i and tF Pe.:cn:i..ty is conoid » ec ir: the . of ci drainage sY:te. seotic , ,.,y ` _tar f1 , ,.oret,...ti,r, where a design i"°, SFotl. a' a'.. .:Jii iE unto, and J.. .. .'i.' nest C•, water movement under saturate. ,.'d _s s`:t baba'.:c•'. AVAILA:.E CAPL ".v refers t; the o antity of Yate" that the soil i. Capatie of sto._ , 'or use 5! Plants. cac..aiti f: storage is given in inches of water Ger inch of soil fdr each major soil layer. The ca: -city varies, droe'idirg or properties that affect the rete'tior of water and the dent' of the root z:'... The 9ost im:.."tart prover..-, ere the content of or'".=r:. matte", .Cil teiturc, til' density, and soil k . 8 ",.... ., n._..;.a t l e .. water Caca::ty i3 an :R>'Or•aa•.t sa'tt t`a G`::... c` F'• `: 0.. rr c t: tc gr r, the design and management of irrigation systems. Available water capacity is not sr estimate of the ouantftY of water actually available to plants at any given time. SHRINK -SWELL :0?EN`IAa .s the potential for Vv_snc change i" a soil with a loss or gain Ps moist re. . •sail.. ehc'ce ..curs mainly tc:a;se of the interaction of clay ei1erals with water and varies with the amount and tY08 of cle minerals in the soil. The size of the load on the soil and the magnitude of the Change in _.i' moisture contort influence the amount of swat.i!rg of ,ails in plate, Laboratory rte _:'eme es of ewell_':y" of :!'?disturbed e",e Rade for tory soils, For others, swelling was estimated on the basis of theVii,_ and am.:'ntof .lay minerals in the sci: and or measuremer:tts of ei .;8+` soils, If the shrink -swell potentia. is moderate ate rated to ver? high, sh'inving and _we.__ '.ar case da7,ege to :u:.':"'^.s, rC'ar' end other strait'. -es. ,_ often needed. Shrink -swell potential cla:•`ee are based or. the r:e i :t `' a" 'Jriconfinec clod as c...star. _..r.tert. _s increased r:' d") to '..__ `.'i. ._ i5 `: the 'esti _.55 than YI ret.*Low:3 ' t. , ,.,., a ._..i:,^... .. .._ .. The classes. are a change of :FS. .h;,";t•F' ..., N.::r_'e••_.. .. 6 . _1, e"✓ ...-,' Zcre that G '''i?.. eat. :hen 9 Per e.. • Is sc.7e:1''lee ..... U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PAGE 3 OF 4 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 11/17/97 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS Endnote -- PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS --Continued ORGANIC MATTER is the plant and animal residue in the soil at various stages of decomposition. In reoort J, the estimated content of organic matter is expressed as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that i$ less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The content of organic matter in a soil can be maintained or increased by returning crop residue to the soil. Organic matter affects the available water capacity, infiltration rate, and tilth. It is a source of nitrogen and other nutrients for crops. EROSION FACTOR K indicates the susceptibility of the whole soil (including rocks and rock fragments) to sheet and rill erosion by water, Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based oriroarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter (up to 4 percent) and on soil structure and permeability. Values of K range from. 0.05 to 0.69. The higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is. to sheet and rill erosion by 'later. EROSION FACTOR Kf is like EROSION FACTOR K but it is for the fine -earth fraction of the soil. Rocks and rock fragments are not considered. EROSISN FACTOR T is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind or water that can occur without affecting, Cror productivity oven a sustained period. The rate is in tons per acre per year. MIND ERD :S:L:TY GROUPS are made up of soils that he.',e similar properties affecting their resistance to wind erosion in cultivated areas. The groups indicate the susceptibility of scil to wind erosion. Soils are grouped according to the following c+'• 'rctions: 1. Coarse sands, sands, fine sands, and very fine sands. These soils are generally not suitabie for crops. They are extremely eroiit.:e, and vegetation is difficult to estabiisy. 2. Loam) coarse sands, loamy sands, loamy fine sands, loamy very fine sands, and sapric soil material. These soils are very highly erodible. Crops can be groin if intensive measures to control wind erosion are used. 3. Coarse sandy loans, sandy loams, fine sandy loams, and very fine sandy loams. These soils are highly erodible. Crops can be grown if intensive measures to control wind erosion are used. 4L. Calcareous foams, silt loams, clay foams, and silty clay losms. These soils are erodible. Crops can be grown if intensive measures to control wind erosion are used. 4. Clays, silty clays, noncalcareous clay loans, and silty clay loamy that are more than S.`, percent clay. These soils are moderately erodible. Crops can be grown if measures to control wind erosion are used. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. OEPARTHENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS Endnote -- PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS --Continued 5. Noncalcareous loams and silt loams that are less than 20 percent clay and sandy clay loams, sandy clays, and hemic soil material, These soils are slightly erodible. Crops can be grown if measures to control wind erosion are used, 6. Noncalcareous loams and silt loams that are more than 20 Percent clay and noncalcareous clay loams that are less than 35 percent clay. These soils are very slightly erodible. Crops can he grown if ordinary measures to control wind erosion are used. 7. Sits, noncalcdreo`is silty clay loars that are less than 35 percent cloy, and fibric soil materia'. These soils are very slightly erodible. Crops can be grown if ordinary measures to control wind erosion are used. 6, Soils that are not subject to wind eresior because of coarse fragments or the surface or because of surfq.e wetness. PAGE 4 OF 4 11/17/97 The WIND ERODIBILITV INDEX is used in the wind erosior ecuati,r, 'WE0'. The index number indicates the mount o' soil lost in tons per acre pe" ye:.. The range of wire e ods:ility indey numbers is 3 to 300. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NONTECHNICAL SOILS DESCRIPTION REPORT Soil Information Map Symbol Soil name and description Almy loam, 1 to 12 percent slope_. This deep, well -drained soil is on fans and uplands. It formed in alluvium derived dominantly from calcareous redbed sandstone and shale, The surface layer is loam 8 inches thick. The upper 3 inches of the subsoil is fine sandy loam. The lower 15 inches is sandy clay loam. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches or more is fine sandy loan.:. Permeability is moderate. Available water capacity is high. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is slow to rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is slight to very high, 12 Ar1e-Ansari-Reck Outcrop comple7, 12 to 50 percent scopes This comole) „onsists of soils and rock outcrop on mountain sides and sloping alluvia' fans. The soils formed in alluvium deiced `roe red -ted share and sardstone. The Arle soil makes up abo..t 45 percent of the cormpie , the Ansari soil tial"'s v!: abo.tt 35 percent, and Fo., outcrop gates u: about 20 percent, The Ar:; $ol: is mod.rately deep and well -drained. The surface layer is ver' stony loam abo.,t 1C inches thick. .. subsoil _':d 57bstr'a:JC. 2"e very stony :o atoIt 22 inches thick. Soft sandstone and shale are at a de}•ill of 32 inches. Permeability is moderate, e' available water capacity is low. Effective rootinc depth is 2C to 40 inches Runoff is ;`ail:, a'"d the erosion hazard i$ high to very hist.. The Ansari soil is shallow and we:. drained. The surface layer is loam abort 10 irchei thiol.. The sub,tratur. is .tcnY load, Bedrock is hard sanditc-e. Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity is In. Effective rooting depth is 10 to 23 inches, Runoff is rapid, and the erosic^ he'z3",:f is very high. Rock outcrop is mainly red sandstone. Empedradc loan, 2 to 6 percent slopes 1 1 1 1 NONTECHNICAL SOILS DESCRIPTION REPORT Soil Information Map ' Symbol ; 3 , Soil name and description : This deep, well -drained soil is on terraces, fans and hills. The surface layer is loam 5 inches thick. The I ; subsoil is clay loam 35 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches or more is clay loam, : Permeability is moderate. Available water capacity is ; high. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of water erosion is slight to high. 35 ; Empedrado loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes This deep, well -drained soil is on tars and upland hills. It formed in alluvium and aeolian materials, I i The Surfa:e iaYer is loan about 8 inches thick. The subsoil is clay loam about 55 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 70 inches or more is clay loam. Permeability' is moderate. Available water , capacity is high, Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or sore, Runoff is medium to rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is high to very high. , ;j : GYPSum Land-Gypsiorthids complex, :2 to 65 percent slopes This mai. unit is oe fwountalncide slopes, hills and dissected drama es This u'•.it pees. sr s +'. i and canyon, side slopes thro ;tout the soil survey area. This unit is 65 percent Gypsum land and 25 perces` Ii 6y'psicr•tnid. , Gypsum lard consists mainly of exposed parent material: with a very high gypsum content, INo profile typifies 5ypsiorthids, but one c mcon1y , observed is moderately dee;, and well -drained. It formed in residuum and colluvium derived dominantly from nixed parent materials with a very high gypsum 9 content. The surface layer is fine sandy loam 8 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 39 inches I is fine sandy loam, Soft gypsiferous shale is below 39 : inches. Permeability is moderate. Available water : capacity is moderate, Effective rooting depth is 10 to ' 40 inches, Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is very high, S5 Norval Ica-, 6 t 25 percent slopes 1 1 1 1 1 I Maw Symbol ; F ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NONTECHNICAL SCIS DESCRIPTION REPORT Soil Information Soil name and description ; This deep, well -drained soil is on alluvial fans and mountainsides. It formed in alluvium derived dominantly from basalt, The surface layer is loam 7 inches thick, The upper 12 inches of the subsoil Is : clay loam. The lower 4 inches are loam, The : substratum to a depth of 60 inches or more is loam. Permeability is moderate. Available water capacity is moderate. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is medium to rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is high to very high. 94 Showalter-Morval complex, 5 to 15 percert sioo_s This Map unit is on alluvial fans, high terraces, ar:d valley sides. This unit is 45 percent Sho,oa;te•' Ve-y stony loam and 35 percent Norval loam. The Showalter soil is deep and well -drained. It formed in a'_luviuy derived dominantly from basalt. The s:;rface ._ covered with „ er_t sr ones. Ihe Surface 1a.+er is vera stony loan f inches thio:, The urger 3 inches of the subsoil is very cobbly clay Ica'. The lower 25 inches is very ccbbly clay. The substra`.u;• to a depth o` 60 in.ches or .* ore is very' colt.ly c:a. lc_r. Permeability is Available water capacity is moderate. Effe.:tive rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is rapid, er,d t`e hazard o` water erosion is moderate to high, The Norval soil is dee: and well -drained, :t formed in alluvium derived dcr::r.ar'iy f'om basalt. The surface :pier .s •,.a:': 7 fr.'hes thick. The upper 12 inches of is e subsoil � bsois clay loan The lower 4 inches are Icer!,. The substratum to a depth of 60 inche;m.:.re is loam. Permeability is moderate. we Available ber = we ter is moderate. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is medium to rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is high to very high. 95 Showalter-Morval complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes This mac unit is on alluvial fans, high terraces, and valley sides. This unit is 45 Percent Showalter very t s •':! loam and ZS De?`.;art Norval 'cam. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NONTECHNICAL SOILS DESCRIPTION REPORT Soil Information Map Soil name and description Symbol The Showalter soil is deep and well -drained. It formed in alluvium derived dominantly from basalt. The surface is covered with 10 to 15 percent stones, 5 Percent cobble, and 5 percent grave':, The surface : , layer is very stony loam S inches thick. The upper 3 inches of the subsoil is very cobbly clay loam, The ' lower 28 inches the o` , ` subsoil is ver? cobbly clay. The substrat;.e: to a deoth of 60 inches or more is very cobbly clay loan,. Permeability is slow. Available water capacity is moderate, Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is rapid, and thef hazard o� water erosior is high to very high, The Morval soil is deep and well -drained, It fpr -:-d in alluvium derived dominantly from basalt. The surface la)'en is loam 7 irchee thick. •' upper inches of the subsoil is clay loam, The lower 4 inches is loam, The substratum to a depth of 6:' inches Cr more is ioe`: �er,`C'�'"v it moderate, Available water cabs.:'_':!' is ttdtrete, Effectil.c roct: . depth is 6C fri`'es or, , more. ...ff is ra.`, and the hazard of water erosion is very \,.q h; ,, ,y„ 104 orriortherts-Canborthids-Rock Outcr.p r comp''P ', Percent , C .. T`•:s broadly de`:...d urit consists cf sand!t e',d shale bedrock, lose .t4''':, a 'f t'• . F"•a; are shallow to deep over sandstone and shale bedrock and stonyb s� basaltic ti .c all'. .:,;.. Tor•iorthe.;< ma:e uc. ah:,:.. 4: Perce,• c.f the conple), Cann: •t`ids mare JC Per ent and Rock outcrop ref's up .5 penP nt. The Tarriorthents are on foothills and ec.'•tainside. be.;, Rock outcrop, The moderately steep lar.t''"t'ids a'e `r lower toe slopes end concave open areas on foothillsn and mountainsides, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NONTECHNICAL. SOILS DESCRIPTION REPORT Soil Information Map ' Symbol Soil name and description Torriorthents are very shallow to moderately deep. They are well to somewhat excessively drained. They generally are clayey to loamy and contain variable amounts of pebbles, cobbles, and stones. Permeability is slow to moderate, and water holding capacity is very low to low. Effective rooting depth is 10 tc 40 inches. Runoff is very rapid, and erosion hazard is very high. The Camborthids soil is shallow to deep and well -drained. It formed „ residuum and coo11uv'iur derived dominantly from sandstone shale and basalt. The soils have a slicht increase in clay in the subsoil and gererel. are cia) loam or loan. They are normally stone free throughout the profile. Scattered basalt stones, cobbles, a',d sandstone rock fragnents coven the surface. Permeability is moderate. Available water c.aosc ity i. 1ow to moderate. Effective roc`.irc deoth :s t: 6; inches. Runoff is rapid, and the '.aca.. ,. water erosion is hic_h to very high. .'.tcCop CCCUra or Very steep slcoef, Genera dopes, cliffs, and ,Leer nest ',does. "E r .... c"oanstr sti sac i..ars, l:. .. seer:e . sloces, eFtremt , T`is 7a; ,nit ,_ on ten -ac and mcuntainsiGe slopes. This writ is 41 cercent :dll and 71 oe.cent $rownsto. The ,.,r`a::e is scattered with 5 to 17 Per.ert s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NONTECHNICAL SOILS 0ESCRIPTION REPORT Soil Information Mao Symbol Soil name and description The Tridell soil is somewhat excessively drained. It formed in alluvium and colluvium derived dominantly from basalt. The upper part of the surface layer is stony sandy loam about 2 inches thick. The lower part is very cobbly fine sandy loam about 7 inches thick, The upper 5 inches of the underlying material is very cobbly fine sandy loam. The next 11 inches are cobbly sandy loam. The next 12 inches are very stony' fine sandy loam, The lower part to a depth of 60 inches is very stony loamy sand. Permeability is moderately rapid. Availa.le water capacity is low. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is medium to -e ic, and the hazard of water erosion is very high. The Prowns`.c soil is deep and well -drained. It formed in alluviJm derived dominantly from coarse textured calcareo._ _andstcre and basalt. The surface layer is stony sandy loam 11 inches thick. The upper IS inches of the underlying materiel is very gravelly sandy loam. The next 12 inches is very gr'avel'y loamy ssnd The lower part to a depth of 60 inches is gravelly sandy loam. Perr a"ility is moderate, Available water capacity is low. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is rapid, a^d the hazard of water erosion is very 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. VEFAFF!'3NT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CCONSERVA'IO!i SERVICE WATER FEATURES Soil Information PAGE 1 OF 4 11/17/47 Flooding HigP. wa`er ta55le and ponding rssp symbol ;Hydro ' Water ' ' Marirrun: and soil name :logic ; Frequency : Duration ; Monts. ; table ; Kind of ; Months ; Ponding ; ponding ,group 1 ; ; depth ',water table; ; duration ; depth , r ; , Ip . , Almy B ,None 12; Arle C :None A:•sani n ;None Rock Outcrop' G ;fore :4; ,c. :r.resradc• P !h. Lard 1` 'Ncre O/isi,crth:d: D 'None 'None r , , r Norval r :None C :None e , =n`: 1 T0".. . encs--. )6O Ft U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE WATER FEATURES --Continued Soil Information PAGE 2 OF 4 11/17/97 Flooding High water table and ponding Map symbol Hydro-; and soil name ;logic ; Frequency ;group Water ; ; Maximum Duration ; Months ; tatle ' Kind of ; Months ; Ponding ; ponding depth ;water table; ; duration ; depth 106: : Tridell B ;None a , Brownst: ' E 'None Ft Ft 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE WATER FEATURES Endnote -- WATER FEATURES PAGE 3 OF 4 11/17/97 le This report gives estimates of various soil water features. The estimates are used in !and use planning that involves i< engineering considerations, Hydrologic soil groups are used to estimate runoff from precipitation. Soils not protected by vegetation are assigned to one of four groups. They are grouped according to the in`iltration of water when the soils are thoroughly wet and receive precipitation from long -duration storms. The four hydrologic sell groups are: Group ' A'. Soils having a high infi'.tra`_ion rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drainer sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transoiesion. Group T. Soils having _ moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet, These consist chiefly of moderate:: deer or deep, mcderately wee: drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine textlre to r:odera`,elx coarse •ekt.l'•e. These soils have a mode -ate rat; of water t,"af_ .so lc':. Grown 'C', Soils having - slow infiltration rate when th r2 , wet, These consist chiefly of soil_ havi .a layer that impedes the downward movement of wa! << .L roder.t__e fine texture eztu.e :r fine textune. -h•.e. .,.._ have a slow nate of wale" transmi se!on:, Group 'D'. :Jill having a very slow ir'._."atiUn rate `''•S` �i runoff potential) when thoroughly w?}. These ro;}5:ca chiefly cf ..aYs that have a high shrirk-swel: pctent:e1 sail_ that ha\e a permanent high .ate taco eo:s .:.at have e cieyp,',n or clay Jaye" at or neer the surface, and soils that are shallot, over nearly impervious materia:. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to two hydrologic Src•i: 5 it this report, the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrainedareas. F the Flooding, } e temporary inundation of an are.:, is caused by overflowing streams,, b:? runoff `rOC. adjacent slopes, or by tides. Water standing for short periods after rainfall or snore,eltis not considered flooding, nor is water in swarr.s and marshes. This report gives the frequency and duration cf flooding end the tide of year When flooding is most likely, Frequency, duration, and probatle dates of occu"ren.:e are estimated. Fr c<,,:.y is exp"eased as 'None', 'Rare', 'Occasional', ens' Freq'uent'. 'Nene' meant that `lo.:dir is not r h ti 'Rare that it is unlikely but Possible under un her ^ h C�3.!P; p•� t'•e u d.. '. USi:a. Wean CO"diti.^•ne, 'O:".ai•:r•�.' the` .. .mot"5, on }hr average, once cr less in 2 years; and 'Frequent' that it occurs, on the average, more than once in42 rears. Dunaticr :s e7preGsed as 'tier:, brief' if less .3i 2 d?}:; .':e'' if 2 to 7 days, _ erg' if i t: ;= Gov' erd 'Ver: ::':'a' iL r:re the- J. d:, e. -toe inforref:.r is taseJ en e'v ten:e in the soil - L.:e, roar- . . Strata of ." sand, eilt, t' dee.tsited _: floodwater, irreg.•:ar de: sese in organic matte- of .c thatere not .•h.' :t `•: ` Alst :i'r .• •'e: infortr.e`::' ac•^.t the Went end levels of flooding aro relation to tion .f each 5•.o or !ar<..:a:. .. h:>.. .. `:odds 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U,S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE WATER FEATURES Endnote -- WATER FEATURES --Continued PAGE 4 OF G 11/17/97 Information on the extent of flooding based on soil data is less specific than that provided by detailed engineering surveys that delineate flood -prone areas at spe:if.ic flood frequency levels. High water table (seasonal) is the highest level of a saturated zone in the soil in most years. The depth to a seasonal high water table apc•lies to undrained soils, The estimates are based mainly on the evidence of a saturated zone, namely grayish colors or mottles in the soil. Indicated in this report are the depth to the seasonal high water table; the kind of water table, that is, 'Apparent', 'Artesian', or 'Perched'; and the months of the year that the water table commonly is high. A water table that is seasonally high for less than 1 month is not indicated in this, report. An 'Apparent' water table is a thick zone of free water in the soil. It is indicated by the level at which water stands it an encased borehole after adequate time is allowed for adjustment it the surrounding soil. An 'Artesia':' water table exists under a hydrostatic beneath an impermeable layer, When the impermeable layer has been penetrated by a cesed bC•'ehcle, the wat.e" rises. The final level of the water in the cased borehole is characterized as an ar'tssiar water A 'Perched' wiater table is water standing above an unsaturated zone. In pia;ea an upper, or '.erched', water table is separated from a lower one by a dry zone, On:, saturated icr.es w'ith:n a deptho' at -.t feet ?"P indicated. Fc,rdirg is _larNiro net'' it a closes depresaicr. The water is removed only :y deep percolation, tr rsc.rst. . Ja evaporation, 0" a .,oat::nation of these processes, This .t es tt depth d duration of c' ondin_ the :�,a '' res when ponding is most likely, Depth, dl. ion, T ._ reppr, gives the dep�. and e1J• .. t 6. v. end c .. .. .. a . } v e th ,rat and probable dates of occurrence are estimated. Depth is expressed as the deot`' of ,co''C'eJ water n feet above the sci! surface. Duration is expressed es 'Very brief' if less than. 2 days, 'Brief' if 2 7 days ',Ores' if 7 tc 3C day= are 'Vy• c,r 't mc., th• 17 Y � to_i 1�• Y ! y' c .e,a': ... pay:. The information is based on the relation of each soil on the iandscace to historic ponding and or; local infc•rr,•atic•r, at•cut the extent and levels of ponding. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE SOIL FEATURES Soil Information PAGE 1 OF 3 11/17/9% Bedrock : Cemented Pan : Subsidence Risk of corrosion : Potential : Map symbol ; ;frost action; Uncoated ,' and soil name : Depth ;Hardness; Depth ; Kind ;Initial: Total ; steel Concrete I , I 1 ' In : ; In In Ir: 1 ', .i1 1 1 1 I 1 1 , I 1 , , , I 6 I :, 1 1 : : Almy : )60 : --- - : - ;Low ;High :tow I 1 7 1 12: 7 1 Arle 20-40 i Soft : i ,Lc :Moderate :Lo : I t : Ansari 10-20 : Hard , Low :Hi;h :Loa I , Rock Outcrop: Hard : : :.None • , 1 1 1 1 1 34: : : fmaedrade )60 : _ : : !Moderate :Hig';LCE , , 35: , , 1 EmGedrEdC--_^ ., } :t,.. --_ :r•:de;-ate !High :Low GYPSU", Laid , )3 ; 6e.t ; ;None High :Hiy`• , .C-40 Soft , :Moderate ;Hig„ ,H9-. 1 1 85: Morval , )60 I , 94: Showalter ; )6C Mara: : )6C ; .._ 1 , 95; Showalter : )60 : , Mervsl : )6C , 1 t I , 104: 'orri rthert" --. 4-3f : Hard Cambort` i . ' " ,•C ! Hs-. Reel, 2utcrop----' : Hart : i I ;Moderate ;High 'Low 1 I I I , ;Moderate ;Hi,:.: Moderate ;Moderate ;)Lig`: 'Low 1 1 , :Moderate :High :'Moderate I I ! I '.Mcderatt :Fish ;Lew I 1 :low ;High :Lew I , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE SOIL FEATURES --Continued Soil Information PAGE 2 OF 3 11/17!p7 Bedrock { Cemented Pan Subsidence ; I Risk of corrosion Potential Map symbol ' frost action; Uncoated and soil name ; Depth ;Hardness, Depth ; Kind ;Initial; Total ; i steel ; Concrete In In ; In ; In lob (con.), , Brovnsto i )60 i - -- i i i--- i ;Moderate High ;Low , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICU'_TURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE SO11. FEATURES . Endnote -- SOIL FEATURES FACE 3 Of 3 11/:7/5% This report gives estimates of various soil features. The estimates are used in land use planning that involves engineering considerations. Depth to bedrock is given if bedrock is within a depth of 5 feet, The depth is based on many soil borings and on observations during soil maooing. The rock is either 'Soft' or 'Hard'. If the rock is 'Soft' or fractured, excavations can be made with trenching machines, backhoes, or small rippers. If the rock is 'Hard' or massive, blasting or special equipment generally is needed for excavation. Cemented pans are cemented or indurated subsurface layers within a depth of 5 feet. such pans cause difficulty in excavation. Fans are classified as 'Thin' or 'Thick'. A 'Thin' pan is less than 3 inches thick if continuously indurated or less than IE inches thick if discontinuous or fractured. Excavations car be made ty trenching machines, backhoes; or smell ringers. A 'Thick' pan is more than 3 inches thick if continuously indurated or more than i£ inches thick if disco',tin:;c; or fractdred. Such a per, is so thick or massive that blasting o" special equipment is needed in excavation. Subsidence is the settlement of organic soils or of sat.lreted mineral soils of very low density. Subsidence results from either desiccation and shrinkage or oxidation of organic mate -'al, or both, following drainage. Subsidence tai..._ place gradually, usuellY over aperiod Of sevea] years. This rerol~ shows the expected 1'::tla: subsidence, whish usually is e result of drainage, and tote! subsidence, which usually is a result of oxidation. Not showr in the report is s;:' .:,, - t ..e, soil p .._ ,,.,,, c:.,_.. :! a" �.:• .. load or by the Withdrawal cf ground water throughout er extensive area as a result of lowering the water tattle. Fctential frost action is the :i e!ihccd of apL rd or. lateral expansion of the soil caused try the formation of segregated ice lenses (fr:s` heaved and the subsequent collapse cf the soil art loss of strength on thawi-r Frost c tactionoccurs wheracistare moves into the freezing zone of the Co:,. Temperature, tF,t.P; density, permeability, conte"t of organic matter, and depth to the water tatle are the most imoortant factors considered it eva!uatin;, the potential for frost action. It is assumed that the soil is not insi.:ated by vegetation, or snow and is not artif,.ia:ly drained. Silty 3?d highly structured Cl3feY soils that have e high water table in ,:inter ?"a the most susceptible to frost et ion, Well drained, very gravelly, cr very sendy sandysoils ere the least siscectih.e. Frost haae and low soli strep_`, cloning t`i3�_'; cause damage mainly to paverte.,. ars other ,;tru:turez. Risk ^`, corrosion pertains to potential sol: induced electrochemical or . _:tiltr that d'eso:ties or wea✓ors uncoated steel or Concrete. Thie rate of co"rosior of uncoated steel is related to such factors as soil moisture, particle -size distribution, acidity, and electrical conductivity of the soil, The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodiun content, texture, moisture content, and acidity of the soil. Special site examination and design may he needed if the combination cf factors creates a severe corrosion environment. The steel installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layer_ ii me"e susceptible to corrosion than steel in inetal:etio.ns t`st are er.t.reli within cr. ^,f of soil or within one soil. layer. For uncoated steel, the risk of corrosion. expressed ec _o.', 'Moderate', or 'High', is based orsc'l drainage class, totel acidity, electrical resistivity near field capacity, end electrical conf.:.ti'itY c' the saturation extract, For concrete, the risk of corrosion is also expressed as 'Low', '.ioderete', Or 'Hip`;, It is based on soil texture, acid!t , and amount of s:::fates in the saturatior extract. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE SANITARY FACILITIES Soil Information PAGE 1 OF 5 11/17/97 (The information in this report indicates the dominant soil condition but does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation) Map symbol and soil name b: K Almy 12: Arle Septic tank absorption fields ;Severe: percs slowly ;Seve^e: depth tG rock, slooe Ansari :Severe: depth to rock, aloPe Rock Outcrop ,Serer:, , dept`: to rock, ! slue iEm •edr_... 35: Emredrado Ge.."CS slowly ;Severe: ; Peres slowly 1nsui Land -----:Severe: depth to rock„ , slope Gyps.orthids-- ISeve slzsoe Sewage lagoon areas Trench sanitary landfill Area ; Daily cover sanitary ; for landfill landfill ,Severe; I seepage ;Severe: aeecage, depth to rock, slope 'Severe: seeoage, depth to rock, : slope .'Severe: depth to rocs', ' slope Moderate: slope ;Severe: slope ;Severe: depth to rock, ! slope dePth, t ' slooe ;Sli;ht 'Severe; depth to rock., slope, large stores :Severe: , depth ., C seepage, slope :Severe: depth to rock, slope Moderate: `.oe clayey :Moderate: slope, too clave! Seve°e: depth to rock, ' CyOC S Cast ;Severe: rf\' • `slooe' !Seve-e: dent.`, to rook Severe.: ' depth to rock, , slope Slight :Moderate: slope $ eve^e; ; depth to rock, :line ;Good ;Poor: ; depth to rock, shall stones, slope depth to rock. slooe :Poor: depth to rock, slooe ;Fair: t too c1ayeY ;Fair, too clayey, scope ;Poor: depth to rock, slope ;Poor: ' dept!'. to -ock. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE SANITARY FACILITIES --Continued Soil information PAGE 2 OF 5 11/17/97 Map symbol ; Septic tank Sewage lagoon ', Trench Area ; Daily cover and soil name ; absorption areas sanitary sanitary : for landfill fields ; landfill landfill , , , , £5: ' , Morval ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: :Severe: Poor: slope I slope ; slope ; slope ; slope 94: 1 ' ' 1 Showalter Severe: :Severe: ;Severe: :Moderate: :Poor: : ceres slowly, ; slope, ; too clayey, ; slope ; too clayey, large stones ; large stones : large stones ; ; large stones Norval :.Moderate: ;Severe::Moderate: !Moderate: :Fair: ; perc5 slowly, ! slope i slope ; slope ; slope , 95: e , , Showalter ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: :Severe: ;Poor: ! Deres slowly, ' slope, : slope, : slope tce clayey, slope, ; large stones : too clayey, ; ; large stones, : large stones large stores ; ! slope 4 N:rvsl 'Severe: :Severe. Severe: :Severe: :Poor: Slope ; slope ; slope : SioDe ; slope , , 104: ' ' , Torriorthents:Severe: :Severe: 'Severe: !Severe: :Poor: : depth to rock, ; depth to rock, ; depth to rock, ; slope depth to rock, slop: si ^c ; slope ; : start stones, , : Slope Camborthids ;Severe: :Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Poor: : depth to rock, ; depth to rock, ' depth to rock, ' slope : depth to rock, slope : slope ; slope slope , Rock Outcrop ;Severe: :Severe: :Severe: ;Severe: :Poor: : depth to rock, ; depth to rock, : depth to rock, ; depth to rock, : depth to rock, : slope ; slope ; slope ; slope ; slope , 106: , , Tridei. ;Severe: :Severe: :Severe. !Severe: :Poor: : PCcr filter, : seepage, ; slope, ; slope ' seepage, : slope, ; slope, , large stones ; ; targe stones, . 131e St: s : large stones slope 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U,S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE SANITARY FACILITIES --Continued Soil Information PAGE 3 OF 5 11/17197 , Map symbol Septic tank Sewage lagoon ( Trench and soil name ; absorption areas sanitary fields landfill Area Daily cover sanitary for landfill landfill 105 (con.): . , Rrovnsto ;Severe; ;Severe: :Severe: :Severe: ;r"oo^; poor filter, ; seepage, ; slope I slope ; small stones, slope : slope i ( scope 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRIC1'1TUR£ NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE SANITARY FACILITIES Endnote -- SANITARY FACILITIES PAGE 4 OF 5. 11;17/97 This report shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect septic tank absorption fields, sewage lagoons, and sanitary landfills. The limitations are considered 'Slight' if soil properties and site features generally are favorable for the indicated use and limitations are minor and easily overcome; 'Moderate' if soil propeeties or site features are not favorable for the indicated use and special planning, design, or maintenance is needed to overcome or minimize the limitations; and 'Severe' if soil properties or site features are so unfavorable or so difficult to overcome that special design, significant increases in constructior costs, and possibly increased maintenance are required. This report also shows the suitability of the soils for use as daily cover for landfills. A rating of 'Good' indicates that soil properties and site features are favorable for the use and good performarce and 1ov maintenance can be expected; 'Fair' indicates that soil properties and site features are moderately favorable for the use and one or more soil properties or site features make the soil less desirable than the soils rated 'Good'; and 'Poor' indicates that one or more soil properties or site features are unfavorable for the use and overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design, extra maintenance, or costly alteration. SEPTIC TANK ABSORPTION FIELDS are areas in which effluent from e septic tank is distributed into the soil through subsurface tiles or perforated pipe. Only that par•; of the soil betweer depths of 24 to 72 inches is evaluated. The ratines are base on soil peace"tie= site featuresobservedr ,and performance :r,mance of the 3s. Pe rmcabi.itY, a high water table, depth to bedrock or to a cemented pan, and flooding affect absorption of the effluent, Large stones and Secrecy. or _ c'enert ed uar interfere with installation. Unsatisfactory performance o, septi: tank absorption fields, inciudinc. excessively slow absorptior of effluent, su'faeirg of effluent, and hillside seepage, can affect public health. Grouncf,iater car toe pc .tel if p;i.t.' e t. sent 1 or fractured bedrock .: ,peri,+. soils oe�; ars' grave cured kis less than 4 feet below the base o` the av_crptio.n field, if s:0oe is excessive, o' if t`e water tette is rea- the sur`ai.e. There mx.stt be un$att rated soil material beneath the a` ir�r fie._ t: filter the effluent effect tsar.,. .��e:. effectively. N3r:v ;Deal ordinances .eou_re that thii material he of a ce"ta:r thickness. SEwe;: _A:VC are >hallc•: lends constricted t: hold sewage while aerobia b.asteria de noose the eclid and iiou:d wastes. Laeo'Crs st,oj.d have a nearly level floor surrounded by cut sloes or embankments of compacted 5::::. Lagoons generally are designed to hold the sewage within a depth of 2 to 5 feet. Neeriv impervious soil material for the lagoon floor and sides is rey_;ired to minir.: e see;aee and contamination of .:r:ate. This report gives ratings for the 'ateral sol. tat makes lir the lagoon floc'. The _.,`tile layer and, generally, 1 or 2 `eet of so:.t "�a e^ial below the surfs:e layer are excavated to p^ov:de material for the embankments. The ratings are based or sol: properties, site feat -area, end observed performan:e of the soils. Considered in the ratings are slope permeat' `- high water table, depth to bedrock or to a cemented pan, flooding, large stones, and content of organic matter. Excessive seepage due to rapid permeability of the soil or a water tst.le that is high enough to raise the leve: of sewage in the lagoon causes a lagoon to function unsatisfactorily. Pollution results if seepage is excessive or if floodwater overtops the lagoon. A high content of organic matter is detrimental to proper functioning of the lagoon because it inhibits aerobic activity, Slope, bedrock, and cemented pans car: cause construction problems, and large stones can hinder compaction of the lagoon floor. SAt:. sPY ;,AN `.,,.. are o. cd: where solid waste is disposed of by burying it in soil. Therey ll are two types of landfill, t 1 .., tre':t, and arse. In a trench landfill, Dasto is plated ;ra trench. It ie spread, eau. COG:uaCted, and covered daily with a thin layer of soil excavated at the site. in an area landfill, the waste is placed in successive layers 0r. the stf•.pa:e of the so_:, The waste is so"eac', compacted. and covered daily with a 'h:.. layer :f s•::1 fcemS�.l:r} e c te a:. from the site. S.• types cf landfill m,st to ogle tr bean hea.y veY..J.ar .filo. F;vth t.ye pill'^,:i. _"f" groundwater ocli,,tion. Ease o' excavation s'_ revegetetior need to be considered. ''e raft:ng is thre7n"t aYe hese: X U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE SANITARY FACILITIES Endnote -- SANITARY FACILITIES --Continued PAGE 5 OF 5 11/17/97 on soil properties, site features, and observed performance of the soils. Permeability, depth to bedrock or to a cemented pan, a high water table, slope, and flooding affect both types of landfill. Texture, stones and boulders, highly organic layers, soil reaction, and content of salts and sodium affect trench type landfills. Unless otherwise stated, the ratings apply only to that part of the soil within a depth of about 6 feet. For deeper trenches, a limitation rate 'Slight' or 'Moderate' may not be valid. Onsite investigation is needed, . DAILY COVER FOR LANDFILL is the soil materiel that is used to cover compacted solid waste in an area type sanitary landfill. The soil material is obtained offsite, transported to the landfill, and spread over the waste. Soil texture, wetness, coarse fragments, and slope affect the ease of removing and spreading the material during wet i1 and dry periods. Loamy or silty soils that are free of large stores or excess gravel are the best cover for a landfill. Clayey soils may be sticky or cloddN and are difficult to spread; sandy soils are subject to soil blo ing. After soil material has been remo'v'ed, the soil material remaining in the borrow area must be thick encu;` over bedrock, a cemented pan, or the water table to permit revegetation. The soil materiel used as final cover for a landfill should be siittatle f," plants. The surface layer generally has the best wcrkatility, more organic matter than the rest of the profile, and the best potential for plats. Material front: the surface layer should be stockpiled for use as the fine! cover. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PAGE 1 OF 4 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 11/17/57 BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT Soil Information The information in this report indicates the dominant soil condition but does not eliminate the need for onsite } investigation) Map symbol Shadow ! Dwellings and soil name ; excavations ; without basements Dwellings Small ! Local reads Lawns and with ; commercial and streets ; landscaping basements ; buildings 6: 1 A; 'Slight !Flight :Slight !Moderate:!Slight ;Slight ! slope 1 ; 12:• , 1 1 A:'le :Severe: '?eve; ;Severe: !Severe: F;Ve"e: !Severe: . e:i'De slooe slope . slopc 1 small stoslocf nes, , large store; , ; ' ; slope C Ansa.. arF; ',Severe: :Severe: 'Severe: :Severe: :Severe: ; depth to rock,; slope, ' dei,ts: to roc's.' sloe, ; depth to rock !^Pc, stone : depth t.. ,e1. ; s o._.e 1 dent. tc "opt , siooe . debt`: to roc; , Reck Out:ro= ---!Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: Sever: ;Severe: ;Severe: ; depth to roc",: slot's, ! dee`-h tc rock,: s1'3pe, ! deoth tc rock,; drot,??ty, since ! depth to rock < slope ! deptt, tc rock ! sloe : slope, 1 1 depth to rN:k 34: Erpedrado Sli;;ht ;Moderate: !Mcae-ate: :Moderate: ' ;M 4♦ �:,��_.ra e: ode `.e: ;Siig� shrink -swell , sriiii•- e.1 t r,k- '1 �`• s .. shrink-s»ell ' 'slope low stref;`.h, frost action 35: ; Em,oedrado !Moderate: !Moderate: :Moderate: !Severe: :Moderate: :Moderate: slope ; shrink -swell, ! slope, i slope ; shrink -swell, ; slope slope ! shrink -swell. ! 1 slope , Gyp:'. Lard---- !Fever?: ..eve'e: ':.ve-e: !^•,evere: !Severe: :Severe: depth to rock.,. -lope ,i;,,t: t r..+,' sl.ae! slme ' e)cess sal ; slo.E i slope ' c •, , dr ^gha yf Soot 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT --Continued Soil information PAGE 2 OF & 11/17/97 r Mac. symbol Shallow ; DwellingsDwellings Shall Local roads lawns and and soil name Excavations ; without ; with ; commercial ; and streets ; landscaping ; basements basements buildings ; 5S ' , Gycsisr`_`iids ;Severe:Sev? 'S re; :Severe: ,Severe: ,Severe: :Severe: ; depth to rock,; slope' depth h to rock „ slope : slope ; slope, slope ; S10pE ; ; ; dept's to rocs, r 1 , 85: ', , Norval ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: !Severe: :Severe: :Severe Slope ; slope ! Sic�pE : Slope ; S OGE 11 ; slope 96: r , Showalter ;Severe ': ,SevEre: ;SEve"E: !Severe: :Severe: ;Soyer large stones ! large stores , large stones ; sl')oe 1 er. t -� � , Imo ser e large stones ' , large stones ; large Stones Mon a: :Moderate: :Moderate: !Mon -ate: !Severe::Moderate: slpoe slope :iP slope, , itOdPratE: , : aps slope ` ' ' `root a:tior 95: , Showalter ;Severe: '.Severe: !Severe: !Severe, :Severe: !S ; large stones, ; slope, ; Slope ' ' tr th , Slope, i0w s,.en: „ longe stones, _.;pe ; large st re: ! iS're stones . large ;t,r^.e_ ; sic'pe ; slope . ; large stone: ; ' Norval ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: Severe: Severe: slope ! Slope ; slope ' slope : slope' a.Op.1 e , , lea: r Torriorthents;Severe: ;Severe: :Severe: ,�ev.rE: ,SevEre: , ;Severe: ,Severe: r depth to rock„ slcoe, ! depth to rock' ' SIOOC ' r.F t^ ' ,� , der,h •.: rock „ S1Gp?, ; slope ; depth to rock ; slope ; depth to rock ' slope ; depth to rock , CSC ,:—thid S ; te....E: ,, �_r :Severe: ;Severe: !Severe; 1SEVEre: :Severe: ! deo`h t: rock,`:. slope, ; dept.`: to rock,; slope, ; depth to rock,! large stones, slope . depth, to rock ! slope depth to rock slags ; s. ope,, , r , , depth to rock Rock CUtoroo -- 'Severe: !Severe' ;Severe: !Severe: :Severe: !Severe ! deer : r'c.:1,! Slope, ; dei."h to rick,! slope, . dept': `.c rock,! droughty. slope dee`h to rock ! s.. e }E;.t, t0 rccYv slope slope, ' deo"' to 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT --Continued Soil Information PAGE 3 OF 4 11/17/97 , Mai symbol : Shallow Dwellings Dwellings Small : Local roads : Lawns and and soil name excavations without : with ; commercial ; and streets ; landscaping basements ; basements : buildings : 4 106: ' , , Tridell :Severe: Severe: :Severe: :Severe: :Severe: :Severe: cutbanks cave,: slope, : slope, : slope, I slope, : slope ones : large stones large stones, : large stones large stones large s St a ' slope i , Brownsto :Severe: :Severe: :Severe: :Severe: :S • eve, :Severe: :Severe: cutbanks cutbanks. cave,: slope : slope : slope : s loge slope slope ', : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEFARTNENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT Endnote -- BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT PAGE 4 OF 4 11/17/97 This report shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. The limitations are 'Slight', 'Moderate', or 'Severe'. The limitations are conside^ed 'Slight' if soil properties and site features are generally favorable for the indicated use and limitaions are minor and easily overcome; 'Moderate' if soil properties or site features are not favorable for the indicated use and special planning, design, or maintenance is needed to overcome or minimize the limitations; and 'Severe" if soil properties or site features are so unfavorable or so difficult to overcome that special design, significant increases in construction costs, and possibly increased maintenance are required. Special feasibility studies may be required where the soil limitations are severe, SHALLOW EXCAVATIONS are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for basements, graves, utility lines, open ditches, and other Purposes. The ratings are based on soil properties, site features, and observed performance of the soils, The ease of digging, filling, and compacting is affected by the dept; to bedrock, a cemented pan, or a very firm dense layer; stone content; soil texture; and slope. The time of the Year that excavations can be made is affected by the depth to a seasonal high: water table and the sus:eptibility of the soil to flooding. The resistance of the excavation walls or bands to sloughing or cavi^c i. affected by soil texture and the depth to the water table. OWEL_IN S AND SMALL COMMERCIAL Eli.. 'NGS are Structures built on ahall:u '.ourdatic•r•5 on undisturbed soil. The load is the same es that for single-family dwellings no highe•- t*an three stories, Ratings are made for small commercial buildings without basements, for dwellings with basements, and for dwellings ai tthaut bese"'e'ts• The ratings are based or soil properties, site features, and observed performance of the s,iis. A high water table, depth to bedrock or to a cerented 'Jain, large stones slop' and flccdirg affect the ease cfst t - � -, excavation and con.,_r�c .or.. Landscaping a"d gaA:ng that . u_ e cuts _ .l:lof d':'z ttar 5 0' 6 feet sire not ,.a^S:dere',:. LOCA;. ROADS AN:: STREETS have an all-weather surface and carry automobile and light tru;k traffic all year. They have a subgrade of cut or fill soil materia;; _- base of gravel, crushed rock, or stabilized soil materia'.. end a flex;t'1e or rigid surface. Cuts and fills are generally proserties, site features, and observed performance of the soils. Depta to bedrock or to a cemented Dan, a high water table, flooding, large stones, and slope affect the ease of excavating and aradina. Sail strength las inferred from the enc ineerin9 classification of the soil? table shrink -swell -swell potent:_ frost actio ^:cent:ai, and depth tca high water t hie affeca thetraffic-supporting capacity. LAW'N`S A1.; ;,A'i;°CA":NG require soils or which turf and ornamental trees and shrubs pan be established and meintairlea. The ratings are based on soil properties, site features, and observed performance of the soils. Soil reecti;r, a high water table, depth to bedrock or to a cemented pan, the available water capacity in the upper 4 inches, and the content of salts, scdiva, and suifidic mate"ia!r e'feat plant growth. Fiocdin„ wetness, $IJpe, stoniness, and the amount of sand, clay, or organic matter in the surface layer affect trafficability after vegetation is established. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 1 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS Soil Information PAGE 1 OF 4 11/17/97 (The information in this report indicates the dominant soil: condition but does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation) Mac symbol ! Roadfill and soil name Sand Gravel Topsoil 6: ' r , Almy Good ;Improbable: ;Improbable: :Fair: • ex:ass fines : excess fines : small stones I , ! I r Anie ,Poor: ;Improbable: Improbable: 'Poor: : death to roc%, i excess fines excess fines slope I s;,s e r I Amari ;Poo:': 'Improba le: lmprobetle: Pool: death to roc,;, excess fines . etre:. fine- 1 depth to rock, .s o e , slope 1 , Rock Ou cr'o :Poor: ;iR? cbaiie' Ira rCbable: ?T: : ,PPL,' to rock, excess fines excess f1 nts depth to rock, slooe : slope r 34: , I Ekoedradc ;•'o r: ""v"obable: ;' r l ,c•.:.-. .m,• obab,e: ,,.. , shrink -swell, i excess fines excess fires : toc c'evev! 1 low strer,th , I ! el: stones , 35: , ! . Empedrado ;Fair: :Improbable: :Improbat0le: Fair. , shrink -swell, I excess fines I excess fines too claret', I low strength ' 9. I , small stones, I , ; slope Gypsum Land Poor: ;.1%,-:tat.:e: ;Improbable; Poor: dept` tc r':c: : excess fines excess fines depth to r; r 1 ! slope r t slope ! Gyps:.. thids--- :Fot+,. `InP Charlie: !''r: `obabie: !Poor. de::" to roc , er'.F_. fines , exoess fine- I depth to ruck , slcp.e r � s a?'✓ex `s s_`:".?. i excess fines r slcos • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS --Continued Soil Informatiar: PAGE 2 OF 4 11/17/97 Map symbol ; Roadfill and soil name tShowalter Morval 95: Showalter Newel IGC; Tor.. i Sand Gravel Topsoil , , , :Poor: :Improbable; ,Improbable: ;Poor: large stones ; excess fines, ; excess fines, ; too clayey, large stones ; large stones iarge stones, , ; area reclaim: ;Good ;Inarobatrle: 'Improbable: :Fair. excess fines ; excess fines ; small stones, ;slope • ;Poor: :Improbable: ;Improbable: ;Poor: large stones ; excess fines, : excess fines, ; too clayey, large stores large Stir! large Stoney, : a' -ea reclaim , r , , , , :Fair: 'iap^obabl : :Improbable: ;Poor: Slope : excess fines ' e c yc`i,,.: re• ' x lope , ,rthents1Foo,: :Improbable: :Improbable: 14]Dr„bo...E: ,Poar: death to rock, ; excess fines ; excess fires : dent'', tp rock, Slope , . i small stones, ,r , P,;nr, ,Imcrobab;e: !Tmprcbx:`?-' ;^ aenth to ,j , ! ext._. fines ! excess fires des to rook, slope i small stones,, , sl:,oe , ;Improbable: ;Improbable: :Poor: to rock, ; excess fines ; excess fines ; depth to rock, ! slope , :Improbable: ;Im.roba'sle: ;Poor: stones, , large stories ! too sar.vy, i large stones, large stones ; area reclaim, SIODE Imorobitl.. 1I,7,=.:tat.e: F ' excess fires : excess finei small st.sres, r ayes 'e,..-. , stone Cartorthid_ Rook Outcrop ---;Poor: , deott, slope IC:$: Tr -del ;Poor. largo side slope 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U,S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS Endnote -- CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PAGE 3 OF 4 11/17/97 This report gives information about the soils as .a source of roadfill, sand, gravel, and topsoil, The soils are rated 'Good', 'Fair', or 'Poor' as a source of roadfill and topsoil. They are rated as a 'Probable' or 'Improbable' source of sand and gravel, The ratings ere based on soil properties and site features that affect the removal of the soil and its use as construction material, Normal compaction, minor processing, and other standard construction practices are assumed, Each soil is evaluated to a depth of 5 or 6 feet. Roadfill is soil material that is excavated in one place and used in road embankments in another place. In this report, the soils are rated as a source of roadfill for low embankments, generally less than 6 feet high and less exacting in design than higher embankments. The ratings are for the soil materiel below the surface layer to a death of 5 or 6 feet, It is assumed that soil layers will be mixed during excavating and spreading. Many soils have layers of contrasting suitability within their profile. The report entitled Engineering Index Properties is also available and it provides detailed information about each soil layer. This information can help determine the suitability of each layer for use as roadfill. The performance of soil after it .s stabilized with lime or cement is not considered in the ratings. The ratings are based or soil properties, site featares, and observed performance of the soils, The thickness of suitable material is a major consideration. The ease of excavation is affected b) largi stones, a high waterrtable, and slope. How well the soil performs in place after it has beer, comparted and drained is determined by its strength (as inferred from the engineering classificatior of the soil) and shrir.l-swell potentia: Soils rated 'Good' contain, significant amounts of sand or gave or beth. They have at least 5 feet cf suitable xmateriel. a low shrink -swell potential, few cobbles and stones, and slopes of 15 Percent or leas. Depth to the water table is acre the~ feet Soils rated 'Fair' have more than 35 percent silt- and clay -sized particles and have a plasticity of lees than :C. They have a moderate shrink -swell potential, slopes of 15 to 25 percent, or many stones, Depth to the water table is : to 3 feet, Soils rated 'Poor' have a plasticity index of mare than 10, a high shrink -swell o tential, many stones, or slopes of more than 25 percent. They are wet, and the depth to the water table is less than 1 foot, These soils may have 1 layers of suitable material, but the material is less than 3 feet thick. Sand and gravel are natural aggregates suitable for commercial use with a minimum of processing. Sand and 3 gravel are used in many kinds of construction. Specifications for each use vary widely. In this report only the probability of finding material in suitable quantity is evaluated, The suitability of the material for specific purposes is not evaluated, nor are factors that affect excavation of the material. The properties used to evaluate the soil as a source of sand or gravel are gradation of grain sizes (as indicated by the engineering classification of the 5011); the thickness of suitable material, and the content of rock fragments. Kinds of rock, acidity, and stratification are given in the soil series descriptions. Gradation; of grain sizes is given in the Engineering Index Properties report. A soil rated as a 'Probable' source has a layer of clean sand and grave: or a layer :' sand or grave: that contains up to percent silty fines. This material must be at least 3 feet thick and less than 50 percent, by weight, large stoles All °the' e are rated as an ':e•crchatle' scu cel Coarse fragments of soft bedro k , such as shale a'd siltst Gne, ere not considered to be sand and g"ael, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S, 'EPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSTRUCTION aATERIALS Endnote -- CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS --Continued RAGE 4 OF 4 11/17/97 Topsoil is used to cover an area so that vegetation can be established and maintained, The upper 40 inches of a soil is evaluated for use as topsoil. Also evaluated is the reclamation potentia: of the borrow area, Plant growth is affected by toxic material and by such properties as soil reaction, available water capacity, and fertility. The ease of excavating, loading, and spreading is affected by rock fragments, slope, e water table, soil texture, and thickness of suitable material. Reclamation of the borrow area is affected by slope, a wat_r table, rock fragments, bedrock, an'' toxic material, Srirc rate 'Good' have friable loamy material to a depth of at least 40 inches, They are free of stones and cobbles, have little or no gravel, and have slopes of less than 8 percent. They are low ir, content of soluble salts, are naturally fertile or respond well to fertilizer, and are not sc wet that excavation is r,'•'fficall . Soils rated 'Fair'' are sandy soils, loamy sniffs that have a relatively high content of clay, soils that have oniY 20 to 60 inches of suitable material, soils that have an appreciable amount of gravel, stones, or soluble salts, or sails that have sloes of 8 to 18. percent. The soils a"'e 'Ut sc wet that ercevetior is diifficuit. Sails rate 'Rea— de; Sandy .,. !ea t!•ar20 iL.-. :s suitable material, have a large ar;o'u:n,t of gravel, stanes, or soluble salts, have slopes of mcre than IS percent, or have a seasonal water table at or near the surface, ?hc surface layer of dost sol:s is geaeraliy p"e?erred far t7csoii because of it Organic matter content. Organic matter greativ in;.reases the absorption and retentior of nn.'e+:,,•F andt for plant growth. nutrients 0. p.a grtw.-:. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CLASSIFICATION OF THE SOILS Soil Information PAGE 1 OF 1 11/17/97 (The classification report does not include recent amendments to soil taxonomy for cation exchange activity, i particle size modifier, and dual mineralogy for strongly contrasting classes, For more detailed information contact your local USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service field office or state office, Soil name Family or higher taxonomic class Almy :BOROLLIC HAPLARG•IDS, FINE -LOAMY, MIXED Ansari ;CITRIC HAPLOBOROLLS, LOAMY, MIXED Arle ;ARIIC HAPLOBOROLLS, LOAMY -SKELETAL, MIXED Brownsto 1BOROLLIC CALCiORTFInc, LOAMY -SKELETAL, MIXED Camhorthids ;CAMBORTHIOS Empedrado ;TYPIC ARGIEOROLLS, FINE -LOAMY, NIXED Gypsiorthid_ 'GYPSIORTHIOS MO~va. ;ARIOIC ARGISOPO:-.S, FINE -LOAMY, MIXED Sh kal.e- .Tv=;C ARCIBOROLLS, CLAYEY -SKELETAL, MONTMOP ._:ON;TIC %c -r.: -`heats ;TORRICRT"ENTS Tridell 'AR F Fr'LS LOAMY -SKELETAL, M 1) IO1. CA,.CI G �_�, � ;yE„ 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE t NATUR'L RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE RANGELAND PRODUCTIVITY AND CHARACTERISTIC PLAN" COMMUNITIES Soil Information 1 OF PAGE 11/17/97 (Only the soils that support rangeland vegetation suitable for grazing are listed. Ppt means precipitation) Map symbol and soil name Total production ! ' 1 ! Range site Characteristic vegetation ;Compo- ! ;Kind of year ; Dry ; ;sition ! ; ;weight ; ' ! ' ' ! I , :Lb/ac Pct r r. • I 1 , , 1 !ROLLING LOA.' ;Favorable 1,100 ;Bluebur.ch wheatgrass ! 15 !Normal 900 'Wyoming big sagebrush ! 10 !Unfavorable 650 :Sandberg bluegrass ; 10 Naedieatd,hread 10 !In'd:an ricegrns ,Bottleb^J sJ..irre.taii 5 J lA"ie-- :LOA" Y SL07ES Arsar. ;LOAMY SLOPES 1FC4:1, n ra t'ie :,GOD :Western wtlFC; tir N55 20 :Normal w iatgra.ss it. !ir�.3vCna`.e _��• ,, ._.c.''r;c:,fir a. cc c Cslabel oar 1„ 'Veedleandthread E moue t ai'lrahegany 7 Uta: se'`vicet,'rr ti 7 !Mountain b:6 sal ; 5 ,Favorable 550 'Indian rice;":_. 20 :Normal 700 :Western u`,eatgrass i 15 !Unfavorable 500 !Utah serviceberry ! 5 ' r.e•er 5 lNeedleandt';read ! 5 Mountain big sage 5 ;Rir orl ! 5 Rck Outcro'--- 0 3L: C.nt.<,�a•' •�-_ N 1 1 I 2 _ �.•a r'�_.� �OAI. Favorable :,640 Western whed`.c=•355 t, !Norm=I i 1,230 :Needleandthr`ad i 15 :Rubber. rabb'ttrus!' !Other Df rer.r_-. 4"a_Pe: 5 1 1� :a%`... 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE RANGELAND PRODUCTIVITY AND CHARACTERISTIC PLANT COMMUNITIES--Cor;tinued Soil Information. PAGE 2 OF 4 11/17/97 Map symbol and soil name Range site 35: Emped 85: Morva 9G: Total production Characteristic vegetation ;Compo - ;Kind of year ; Dry ;sition ;weight ;Lb/acre; Pct redo ;DEEP LOAM ;Favorable 1,600 ;Western wheatgrass ; 25 ; 'Normal 1,200 ;Needleandthread 15 ;Unfavorable 800 ;Mountain big sage 10 ;Rubber rabbitbrush 5 ;Other perennial grasses ; 5 , Gambel oak ; 5 , , , :DEEP LOAM ;Pave -able 1,800 ;Needleandthreed 15 , ;!Normal 1,50C ;Mountair snrwvc:'y' 10 ;Unfavorable 900 ';festers whestoress ; 10 ;Mountain tig sage 5 ;Muttongrass 5 'Prairie jur•egracs 5 Showa ter .LOAMY SLOPES '=avorsble 1,200 'Needleardthreed ;Normal 900 ;True mountainmahogany ';!Unfavcreb.e 570 ;Antelope bitterbrush 15 ;Sasi,atocn serviceber-y 10 Mountain big sage 1C ;Iridian ricegr'ess 1C ,'ixluebunch wheatgrass is ;Prairie iunegras. 1C Mora' ;DEEP LOAM ;Favorable ; 1,800 ;Needleandthread 15 95: Showalter :LOAMY SLOPES ;Normal 1,500 ;Mountain snowberry f0 !Unfavorable 900 ;Western wheatgrass 10 :Mourtair tig sage 5 ;Muttongrass 5 ,Prairie ]unegress 5 ;Favorable ; 1,200 ,:Needleanf`rread 20 ;Normal 900 ;True mourtainmahogany 15 ;Unfavorable 500 ;Antelope bitterbrush 15 .Saskatoon servicet'erry ;; ;Moa'tair big sage 10 ;Indian ricagrass 10 :'32uebunch wheate_raes 10 'prairieure J g"'o5b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U,S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE RANGELAND PRODUCTIVITY AND CHARACTERISTIC PLANT COMMUNITIES --Continued Soil Inforraticn PAGE 3 OF 4 11/17/57 Total production ; Mao symbol ; Range site ; ; Characteristic vegetation ;Compo - and soil name ;Kind of year { Dry ; ' ,sit.on ;weight ; 1 95 Icon,): t Marva'_ DEEP LOA.r, !STONY FO"TH1• 1 S ;Lb/acre; Pct I 1 1 , ;Favorable ; 1,800 ;Needleandthread ; 15 1 i.., i r 1,500 r . n1 e r :Norpal. i iMs J,,�3:•', sno:u. rrY 1. :Unfavorable 900 ;Western wheatgrass :C iM0`intai." by Sage ;Muttongrass ; 5 ;Prairie june rass5 , C Favt.rat_. ,50.0: 'Western uhea`g`'ast 20 :tiormal ' 6^0 'Wycring Lig sagebrush ' 10 ;Unfavorable ; 400 !Needleandthreed ;Utah j.:nioe- 5 !Indian r:ceg~ass 5 3ottlebe s`. sc.,. relt�:l ----- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE Endnote -- RANGELAND PRODUCTIVITY AND CNRACTERISTIC PLANT COMMUNITIES PAGE 4 Or 4 11/17/97 In areas that have similar climate and topography, differences in the kind and amount of vegetation produced on rangeland are closely related to the kind of soil, Effective management is based on the relationship between the soils and vegetation and water, This report shows., for each soil, the range site; the total annual production of vegetation in favorable, normal, and unfavorable years; the characteristic vegetation; and the average percentage of each species. Only those soils that are used as rangeland or are suited to use as rangeland are listed, An explanation of the column headings in this report follows. RANGE SITE is a distinctive kind of rangeland that produces a characteristic natural plant community that differs from natural plant communities on other range sites in kind, amount and proportion of range plants. The relationship betweeen soils and vegetation was ascertained during this survey; thus, range sites general!Y can be determined directly from the soil map, Soil properties that affect moisture supply and plant nutrients have the greatest influence or; the productivity of range olants. Soil reaction, salt content, and a seasor,al high water table are also important. TOTAL PRODnCTION is the amount of vegetation that car: be expected to grew annually on well managed rangeland that is suppo^tine the potential natural plant community. It includes all vegetation, whether or not it is palatable to grazing animals. It includes the current year's growth of leaves, twigs, and fruits of woody Plants, It does not include the increase in stem diameter of trees and shrubs. It is expressed in pounds per acre of air-dry vegetation for favorable, normal, and unfavorable years. In a favorable year, the amount and G;stribat:cr of precipitation and the tematratures male growing conditions substantially better than average, In a normal year, growing conditions are about average. In an unfavorable Year, growing conditions are well beicw average, generally be.a,.se of .Gw available soil moist:;,e. Dry weight .a the total anr;,al yield per acre of air-dry vegetation'.. Yields are adjusted to a common percent of air-dry moisture cor:ter r;i3tiOra'iC of veer weight to air-dry -vey Wei?ht varies ar,:0''C'in;, to such. factors as exposure, em.:,,Int C'` shade, recent rains, anal ,n_eesnnatle ','z neeiods. CHARACTERISTIC VEGETATION The grasses: fortis, and shrubs that rake uo most of the potential natural plant ccmmJ•'ity or eect soil is listed bi common name. Under COMPOSITION the expected percentage s" the total annual p'Cdu^tiG" is given for each species making u. the characteristic vegetation. The amount that can be used as forage depends on the kinds of grazing animals and on the grazing season. Range nanaaerent requires a knave;edge of the kinds of soli en; of the potential nat'.ral ,cant cor:,mJnity. It also rec:ires an evaluation of the present range condition. Range condition is determined by comparing the present plant community with the potential natural plant community on a particular range site. The more closely the existing community resembles the potential community, the better the range condition. Range condition is an ecological rating only. The objective in range management is to control grazing so that the plans growing on a site are about the sane in kind and amount as the potential natural plant community for : et Such management generally results in the optimum production of vegetation, control of undesirable brush species con} ervat ion of t and ,fit»,, < S ?t 7;. F , S water, 3 C? .. G erosion, Gm vl ESS �4wetr'r, a ;'a?'3E condition somewhat be,cL: the potential meets grazing needs, provides wildlife habitat, and protects soil and water resources. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PAGE 1 OF 4 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 111117/97 WILDLIFE HABITAT Soil Information Mao symbol and soil name 5: Almy 12: Arle Potential for habitat elements , Potential as habitat for-- , Grain Wild , ; Open- :1 Wood- ; ; Range- ; and ;Grasses; herba-; Hard- 1 Conif-;Shrubs;Wetland;Shallow; land ; land :Wetianc'; land ; seed ; and ; ceous. wood 1 erous!. ;Plants ; water ; wild- ; wild- 1 wild- ; wild- ; crors ;legumes; Plants; trees ; Plants; ; 1 areas ; life 1 life ; life ; life , 1 , 1 1 I I t 1 I1 I . 1 I . , , 1 , ( , ;POOR ;FAIR ;FAIR ; ; ;FAIR ;POOR ;VERY ;POOR 1 --- ;VERY ;FAIR POORi POOR ! 1 1 1 1 I , I 1 1 , 1 , 1 , , ;VERY ;VERY '.FAIR !FAIR ;VERY ;VERY ;POOR ; --- ;VERY ;FAIR POOR ' POOR 1 ; ! ! ! POCK 1• POOP ; 1 POOR i 4 � ',VERY !POR ', !POOR ;VERY ,VERY 'VERY ; --- ;VERY !POOR PO. ! ; ; POOR 1 POOP ; POOR : ; POOR 1 ;VERY ;VERY !VERY !VERY !VERY ;VERY ;V°Fy ;VERY :VERY!VERY !VERY 1 POOR ' POOP POR ; E00C FCCF. rnr.; ,PrO1 Fr,C- , PO.r 1 rR ! 0::o R e , P I .;P':... ;'O" !FATE ;FAIR VERY ;VERY !FAIR ! --- :b'E `' .FA? . POOR 1 POOR ' ' PCri? ' Ansari VERY 1 POOR Rock Oj_•'."oP',VEP 'POR 3d^ qc Gyosul tar.1 GyGSi: €4: Morval 3E: - P. ;FAIR : - ;FAIR ;VE`Y;V`R;I 1 ;FAIR --- ;VERY IRAI � ! POOR POOR 1 ! POUR ! 'VERY 'VERY !VERY 'VERY ;VERY ;VERY !VERY :VERY :VERY ;Vrr1 !VERY !V_Rv ' PvO'. <<.n POOR POOR POOR POOR PDC.? : POOR ; POOR POOR 1 POOR ; POOR I 1 1. 1 1 i 1 , 1 "thins ----'VERY 'VERY ;POOR 'POOP ;POOR ;VERY ;VERY ; ;VERY ;POOR POOR ;POOR ; ; ! ; ; POOR ' POOR ! ; POOR 1 t I / 1 , 1 1 1 , 1 . , 1 1 . 1 I i 1 , , !POOR ;=AIR ;FAIR ; - ;GOO() !VERY ;VERY ;FAIR ;VERY ;FAIR ! POOR ' POOR 1 ! POOR ; I1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . i . I , ter 'VERY !VERY FAIR --- !FAIR :FAI.. 'VERY !!VERT !POOR !FAIR 'VERY !FAI- ! POOR � °0`R. ! � POOR' ' POO` POOR ! , 1 , ROrF :FAIR :FAIR :+".. ',: ;VERY =A'. !VERY !FAIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PAGE 2 OF 4 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 11/17/97 WILDLIFE HABITAT --Continued Soil Information Map symbol and soil name 95: Showalter Norval ;POOR 104: Torriorthents;POOR Camb&thids ;POOR Potential for habitat elements Potential as habitat for -- Grain t i Wild i . 1 ; Open- ; Wood- ; ; Range- ; and ;Grasses; herba-; Hard- ; Conif-;Shrubs;Wetiand;Shallow; land ; land ;Wetland; land ; seed ; and ; ceous; wood ; erous; ;plants ; water ; wild- ; wild- ; wild- ; wild- ; crops ;legumes; plants; trees ; plants; ; areas ; life ; life ; life ; life I1 . 1 I 1 1 1 i I , I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I1 , 1 1 1 1 I , ! 1 1 + 1 , i. . 1 1 1 f I 1 ;VERY ;VERY ;FAIR ; --- ;FAIR `FAIR ;VERY ,VERY ;POOR ;FAIR ;VERY ;FAIR POOR ;POOR ; ; ; P00R ; POOR ; POOR , ;FAIR ;FAIR ; ; ;GOOD !VERY ;VERY ;FAIR ; ;VEPV ;FAIR ; POOR ; POOR ; ; ; POOR ; 1 , i i , I . 1 1 1 1 . , .1 1 1 1 ,I . 1 r 1 ;VERY ;FAIP --- ; ;POOR ;POOR 'VERY ;POOR ; ;VERY ;FAIR ; POOR 1 ; : POOR ; ; ; POOR ; 11 1 1 , , 1 1 I I I I 1 ;VERY;FAIR ; ;FAIR ;POOR ;POOR ;VERY ;POOR ;POOR ;POOR ;POOR POOR ; POOR ; ; 1 1 1 I , 1 3 I VERY ;VERY ;VERY ;VERY ;VERY :VERY :VERY ;VERY ;VERY ;VERY :VERY ; POOR ; POOR ' ROOF ; POOR ; POOR ; POOR ; POOR ; POOR ; POOR '. POOR ' POOR t 1 . ; I . 1 1 1 1 , I 1 1 , 1 , i , . 1 1 ;VERY ;VERY ;POOR --- ;VERY ;POOR ;VERY ;VERY 'VERY ;POOR ;VERY ;POOP POOR POOR ; POOR ; ; POOR ; POOR ; POOR ; POOR ; 1 I , 1 . I ; , ;VERY ;VERY ;FAIR ; ;POOR ;FAIR ;VERY ;VERY ;POOP ;FAIR :.VERY ;FAIR ', POOR ; POOR ; ; ; POOR ; POOR ; ; POOR ' 1 ; 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 Rock Outcrop ----;VERY PCGS 106: Tride'1 Brownsto 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. EPARTt+ENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE WILDLIFE HABITAT Endnote -- WILDLIFE HABITAT PAGE 3 OF b 11/17;97 Soils affect the kind and amount of vegetation that is available to wildlife as food and cover. They also affect the construction of water impoundments. The kind and abundance of wildlife depend largely on the amoont and distribution of food, cover, and water. Wildlife habitat can be created or improved by planting appropriate vegetation, by maintaining the existing plant cover, or by promoting the natural establishment of desirable plants. In this report the soils are rated according to their potential for providing habitat for various kinds of wildlife. This information can be used in planning parks, wildlife refuges, nature study areas, and other developments for wildlife; in selecting soils that are suitable for establishing, improving, or maintaining specific elements of wildlife habitat; and in determining the intensity of management needed for each element of the habitat. The potential of the soil is rated 'Good,' 'Fair,' 'Poor,' or 'Very poor.' A rating of 'Good' indicates that the element or kind of habitat is easily established, improved, or maintained. Few or no limitations affect ma'ta ement, and satisfactory results can be expected, A rating of 'Fair' indicates that the element or kind of habitat can be established, improved, or maintained in most places. Moderately intensive management is required for satisfacto"y results, A rating of 'Poor' indicates that limitations Fre severe for the designated element or kind of habitat. Habitat can be created, improved, or maintained in most places, but management is difficult and must be intensive. A rating of 'Ve-y poor' indicates that restrictions for the element or kind of habitat are very severe and that unsatisfactory results can be expected. Creating, improving, or maintaining habitat is impractical or impossible. The elements of wildlife habitat are described in the folloring paragraphs. GRAIN AND SEEN CROPS are domestic grains and seed -producing herbace^.:s oia-te. Soil p.rope+'ties and feature; that affect the growth of grain and seed crccs are derth of the root zone, texture of the surface layer, i�. ab'ai7tle water caDat_tY, +Etre :, :�JE, sur`d:. Stnr"Esand flood hazard. Soil and soil moisture are also consideratcra. Exaa.:les of grain and seed crops are corn, wheat, oats, and ba^ler, a Ai•.! S - cG1NEc d,Pi ° 5' De!En?i 9. grasses ar_d herbaceous legumes. Soil properties and feab"Esthat affect the growth of grasser yd legumes ere depth ^.fr0 a texture 4 the �. zone, ex re Of the surface layer, a:a.:at•:e water capacity, wetness, surface stv,i less, flood hazard, and sloe. S0.. tenDerature and soil moisture are also considerations. Examples of grasses and leg'.!t•ei are fescue, lovegress, bromegrass, Clover, and "alfalfa. WILD HERBACEM P;_ANTS are native ar. naturally estat'i!shed grasses and `orbs, including weed;• Cci: Pr:?erties and features that affect the growth of these plants are depth of the YtiJt ..!'° tEituro of the Si.}'`a4e vFr, available war?,". capacity: wetness, surface stoniness, and flood hazard. Soil tempe"atu-eandsoil moisture } t' ' S..' mo S,U"E are 4156 considerations. Exanoles of wild herbaceous plants are blueste • goiderrod, beggarwee , wt,eatgrass, and gra_. HAROIti:9 TREES and woody understery prod..:re n-;ts or other fruit, buds, catkins, twigs, bark, and foliage. Soil properties and features that affect the growth of hardwood trees and shrubs are depth of the root zone, aveilstie water car:•acity, and wetness. Examples of these plants are oak, poplar, cherry, sweetour, apple, hawthorn, dogwood, hickory, t':s kter'ry, and blueberry. Examples of fruit -producing shrubs that are suitable for planting on sobs rated are Russian -olive, aut,ar-olive, and crabapple, CONIFER;.JS .:ANTS furnish browse and seeds. Soil properties and features that affect the growth of crr:iferoirs trees, shrubs, and ground coke" are derth of the ro0tt zoite, availai:e water capacity, and wEtnes3. Exar^p:es 0' cor.i`erous plants are Dine, spruce, fir, cedar, and juniper. S:;F!SS are bushy woody pla t- that rrodUoE fruit, bJci a, twigs, bark, and foliage. $O1: properties and features than a fs..t the . of shouts are inti f ttt t..• - . .. f... SG. zone, available watee ca0aCitY, S?l:riity and ExypieS s1'";;t: are m:J';rtain!,,ehogar:', batt. . .s^, sn},:te-ry; arc big sagebrush. i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PAGE 4 OF 4 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 11/17/97 WILDLIFE HABITAT Endnote -- WILDLIFE HABITAT --Continued WETLAND PLANTS are annual and perennial wild herbaceous plants that grow on moist or wet sites. Submerged or floating aquatic plants are excluded. Soil properties and features affecting wetland plants are texture of the surface layer, wetness, reaction, salinity, slope, and surface stoniness. Examples of wetland plants are smartweed, wild millet, wildrice, saltgrass, cordgrass, rushes, sedges, and reeds. SHALLOW WATER AREAS have an average depth of less than 5 feet. Some are naturally wet areas. Others are created by dams, levees, or other water -control structures. Soil properties and features affecting shallow water areas are deoth to bedrock, wetness, surface stoniness, slope, and permeability. Examples of shallow water areas are marshes, waterfowl feeding areas, and ponds. The habitat for various kinds of wildlife is described in the following paragraphs. HABITAT FOR OPENLAND WILDLIFE consists of cropland, pasture, meadows, and areas that are overgrown with grasses, herbs, shrubs, and vines. These areas produce grain and seed crops, grasses and legumes, and wild herrn^eons plar.ts. Wildlife attracted to these areas include bobwhite quail, pheasant, meadowlark, field sparrow, cottontail, and red for. HABITAT FOR WOODLAND WILDLIFE consists of areas of deciduous plants or coniferous plants or both and associated grasses, ie_ur;es, and wild herbaceous plans. Wildlife attracted to these areas include wild turkey, ruffed grouse, woodcock, thrushes, wcodoecke-s, squirrels, gray fox, raccoon, deer, and `ear, HABITAT WETL4h•) :1- 71LI'E consists of e:' I se ale +.t. ope:',, a''_:y or warty shallow water areas. Some cf the wildlife o. ,:iee to such areas are ducks, geese, herons shire 'gird- mus',rat n• Y•; d to . p.• .. HABITAT include FOR RANGELAND WILDLIFE consists of areas of shrubs and wild herbaceous p13itsWildlife attracted to rangeland antelope, deer, sage grouse, meadowlark, and lark bunting. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e 1 1 1 ' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF THE SOILS Soil Information PAGE 1 Or 3 11/17/97 Map symbol and soil name Depth 1 , 1 I Clay . Cation- . Soil . Calcium Gypsum ,Salinity; Sodium ,exchange .reaction, :carbonate: :adsorption capacity . ratio 1 1 . In ; Pct ;meq/1008 ; pH . Pct Pct .mmhos/cm. ' 1 I , { 1 1 , 5: ! I I I I ' I , Almy . 0-8 . 20-25,10.0-20.0; 7.4-8.4 ; . . i 8-26 . 15-20;' 5.0-15.0. 7.4-8.4 ; . --- . . 26-60 . 20-35:10.0-M0: 7.4-9.0 : . --- . I1 1 , 1 1 1 , 1 . I . 12.i I 1 Arle . 0-10 : 15-25;10.0-25.0; 6.6-7.8 1 0-5 . 0-2 . . 10-30 . 10-25. 5.0-15,0; 7.4-1.4 : 5-10 . . 0-2 . 3G 34 ' ;' I t --- t --- , I I- I . I ' I , I . Anssri . 0-8 . 18-25':10.0-25.0. 7.9-8.4 . 0-5 . : 0-2 . 8-14 . 16-20'•10.0-i5,01 7,9-5.4 : 5-10 . . 0-2 14-18 i i --- ' � --- , . , . I Rock utcrop1 0-60 : - ' , , ( V 34: 1 1 1 1 ') 1 1 , % -l�Dtd"'odc . 0-5 . 14-27'10.0-25.0. 6.6-7.3 ' . __- . 5-14 . 27-35.15.0-30.01 6.6-7.3 . . ; --- 14-40 1 27-35.10.0-25. 6.6-7.8 I --- --- ' --- ' . 40-50 . 27-35;10.0-20.0; 7.9-8.4 1 5-10 . --- I 1 35: . t 1 t Empedradc 0-5 1 1E-27110.0-25.0. 6.6-7.3 5-14 : 27-35115.0-30.0' 6.6-7,3 . . 14-40 : 27-35:10.0-25.0: 6.6-7.8 ' . 40-60 . 27-35110.0-20.0; 7.9-8.4 5-10 I 1 ! I t 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 55: I 1 1 I 1 4 I I 1 Gypsum Land . 0-60 . --- . . 8-32 1 1 1 4 , 1 I 0yCSiorthids1 0-8 ' 10-20' 5.0-15.0. 7.4-8.4 . 0-10 '. 2-5 . 2-8 . 8-23 . 10-20: 4,0-15.0. 7,4-8.4 1 0-10 1 5-10 . 4-8 1 23-39 . 10-20. 4,0-15,0: 7.4-8.4 . 0-10 ; 7-12 1 4-8 39 43 - - ' - - --- 1; I 4 , , , 1 1 I 1 1 rya. , I 1 1 I r Mc.rva1 1 0-7 1 1P -271i0.0.-20.011 7.4-5.4 ' ' ;' 7-19 27-35.10,0-25.0. 7.4-8.4 : --- ' 0-4 19-60 1 20-271 5.0-15.01 7.4-8.4 1 15-25• ; --- . 0-4 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION S€RVICE CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF THE SOILS --Continued Soil Information PAGE 2 OF 3 11117/97 Map symbol and soil name 94: Sho,:aiter Morval Depth ; Clay ; Cation- ; Soil ; Calcium ; Gypsum ;Salinity; Sodium ;exchange ;reaction ;carbonate; ; ;adsorption ;capacity ;; ; ratio I I I I I 1 r In I Pct :meg/100g , pH I rct I Pct ,mmhos/cm; 1 i 1 I I 1 I 1 I. I r I I I I I I I I 0-8 ' 20-25;10.0-20.0; 6.6-7.8 ; ; --- ; 8-39 ; 35-45;20.0-40.C! 6.6-'..8 ! --- ; i .... ! 39-60 ; 27-35;10.0-20.0! 7.4-2.4 ; 5-10 ! ! --- I , 1 I I I i 1 5-7 ! 15-27;10.0-20.0' 7.4-8.4 ! ; --- ' _-- 7-19__ _. 27-35:10.0-25.0! 7,4-r`,.4 ! ; 0-4 !2C-2 + 1c I 0-4 19-.,! �, 7 5,0-,,,,0; ?.4-8.,4 15-25 --- -•" I � 1 1 II , I I I 0"5 20-25'10,0-20.0: 6.F-7,8 ! � ...- 8-39 ! 35-45!20.0-40.0' 6.'-7,8 ; --- ! . 39-60 , 277-35:17.0-20.0! 7.4-.4 ! 5-:0 ' I 1-7 I :5.- -23.0! 7.4-5.4 . . --- 7-19 ; 27-35:10,C-25.0', 7,4-5,1 , ...- ; .-. ; 0-4 :0.6v ! 20-271 5.C-17,., 7,4-..4 : :!-..c ! ` , T.7.ri_-therts --! 0-4 ! --- ; - ! 6.1-2,4 . 0-5 I 0-2 ! 4-30 ! 5-35 5.0-20.0'6.: F 0-5 ' 0-2 I ! 1 I I I { I I 3 I 0-4 ! ..-3C! 5.0-2C.0' 6.1-5.4 I 5-10 1 0-2 , I T- 1 -351 5. A n1 I 5-10 13-2 7-2 39-3 ; --- 1 --- --- •_- ; .__ -... 1 I I I 1 R;C5 7utcrop----; 0-60 ' 106; I t , ! 0-2 10-:51 5.:-15.0! 7,4-8,4 ' 5-15 ^ I , a-:4 L 1C'-:�, 5,0-10,0! 7,4-8.4 i 5-15 14-25 ' 5.0-15.0! 7.9-8,4 ! 5-15 ! �I ; 25;-37 1 15.1 3.0-10.C! 7,9-9,0 ! 10 ! 0-- ! 37-60 ' r -1C' 1.0-5.0 ; 7,9-9.0 I 10-20 , I 0-2 • I ; : 0-11 115-2.. ..0-15.! 7.x_5,4 ! 5-19 11-30 's5 2C' `.0 :..• 7,9-5,1 , 15-3: ! 42-6- C I I I I r I I r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U,S. irEPAR'TMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF THE SOILS Endnote -- CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF THE SOILS PAGE 3 OF 3 11/17/97 This report shows estimates of some characteristics and features that affect soil behavior. H These estimates are given for the major layers of each soil in the survey area. The estimates y, are based on field observations and on test data for these and similar soils. 4 CLAY as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are less than 0.002 millimeter in diameter. In this report, the estimated clay content of each major soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The amount and kind of clay greatly affect the fertility and physical condition of the soil. They determine the ability of the soil to adsorb cations and to retain moisture. They influence shrink -swell potential, permeability, and plasticity, the ease of soil dispersion, and other toil properties. The amount and kind of play in a soil also affect tillage and earthmoving operations CATION EXCHANGE CAFACITY (CEO; is the total amount of cations held in a soil it such can ei a t..-_. away that they be removal only by exchanging with another cation in he na,u al soil 1 sol.ti:r,, CEC is a measure of the ability of a soil to retain cations, some of which are plant nutrients. Soils with low CEC hold few cations and max recuire more freo.lent 4 applications of fertilize -c.. than = h ri::h CEC. So"._ with high CEC have the potential to retain cations, thus red1., „ the possibility of pollution of ground water. 3 SOIL PEACT:On is e n, esvre of acidity or alkeiini`; and is expressed a=.ere". inpsi values, The range in pH of each mejo'• horizon isbasedon many field tP4>= For !Canny so's, values have beef ve.ified by laboratory analyses. Soli reaction 's impart_rt in selecting c"ops end other c,iarits, in evaluating soil amendments fon ft, tility anf stabilization, and in dete"ining the risk of corrasion, CALC1Uf. CARBONATE is the percentage by weight of calcium carbonate in the fine-eartth s'ate'iel, less than 2 miliiyeters in size. GYPSUM is the percentage by weight of hydrated calcium sulfates 20 millimeters or smaller in size, in the soil. SALINITY is a measure of soluble salts in the soil: at saturation. It is expressed as the electrical conductivity of the satunaticn extract, in milimhos per centimeter at 25 degrees C. Estimates are based on field and laboratory measurements at representative of nonirrigated soils. The salinity of irrigated soils is affected by the quality of the irrigation water amd by the freoer_y 0f water apilication. Hence, the salinity of = it individual fields csr differ greatly from the value given in the report. Sa:irit affects the suitability of a soli for crop production, the stability of soil if used as construction material, and the potential of the scii tc corrode metal and concrete, k7'51SpTION .RAT:C (SAE, eY:nesse., the relative activity of sodium i^.•!',s '., exchange rea:tiers in the 5:11, SAR is a measure of the aic..nt of scd1.!C, relative t' cal iuri and r;arnc__i_,R sr' ire &: trtr .t f.. as ..^i y s:,. � . w..r a�.. .. ;1', 5.:.:: ,. _.l Neese. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF 53IL5 Soil Information PAGE 1 OF 6 11/17/97 ',Entries under 'Erosion tactors --T' apply to the entire profile. Entries under 'Wind erodibility group' and "Wild erodabiiity index' apply only to the surface layer) Map symbol and soil name 6: Almy 12: Arte An sari ' 1 ;Erosion factors;Wind ;Wind ; Depth ; Clay ; Hoist Perinea- ;Available; Shrink- ;Organic; , ;erOdi-;erodi- , 1 ; bulk ; bility ; water ; swell ; matter,' 'b ii �.litr,bilitr ; density ; ;capacity ,potential; K Kf T ;group ;index • 1 In ; Pct ; g/cc In,/hr In/in Pct f 11 , 11 1 , ; 0-8 ; 20-25;1.25-1.40; 0.60-2.00 ;0.13-0.161Lo4, 11.0-2.0; 0.26 0.28' 5 ; 6 48 ; 8-26 ; 15-20;1.35-1.50, 0.60-6.00 ;0.12-0.14;Low ;1.0-3.0; 0.2E:' 0:281. ; ' 25-60 : 20-35'1.25-1.40; 0.20-2.00 ;0.13-0.16:Low 10.0-0.51 0.24; 0.24 1 , ; - ' 0-10 15-25!1.25-1.40: 0.60-.00 10.07-O.OG;Low :2.0-4.0; 0.10; 0:24' 3 ; 8 10-30 , 10-2.511.25-1.50' 0.60-6,00 ;0.05-0.09'Lo4• ;0.5-1.0' 0.10' 0.32; ' , , , 1 1 , 0-8 ; 18-25;1.25-1.40; 0.60•-2.0C 10.14-0.171Low 12.0-4.0' 0.24' 0.24' 1 ; 41 ; 86 8-14 ; 16-2011,25-1.401 n r_-F.nr 0,:4 -O. L ;L?w •I.f-<.^ 0.25' 0.28 - : ; 0.00-0.20 , , -- , ' 1 , , ; 0-5 ; 18-27;1.25-1.40; 0.60-2.03 'O.16-0,18`Low 12.0-4.0' 0,26' 0.24 5 ' 6 1 48 ; 5-14 ; 27-3511.25-1.40; 0.20-0.60 '0,17-0.21;Moderate !2.0-4.0; 0.17' C.17; ; ; 14-40 ; 27-35;1.25-1.40; 0.20-0.60 :0.17-0,_211t!oderate ;0.5-1.0; 0,24; 0.24' ; ; 40-60 ; 27-3511,25-1.40; 0.20-0.60 ;0.17-C.21;ModeratA ;0.0-2.5: 0.24! 0,24; 1 1 '; 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 ; ; 0-5 ; 1E-27'1.25-1.40; 0.60-2.00 ;0.16-0.18:Low 12.0-4.0; 0.24; 0.24'. 5 ; 6 ; 4E ; 5-14 1 27-35;1.25-1.40; 0.20-0.60 ;Q.17-0.211Moderate ;2.0-4.0; 0.17; 0.17; ' ; 14-40 ; 27-3,.;1.25-1.40; 0.20-0,60 ;0.17-0.21'Mcderate ;0.5-1.0; 0.24; 0.24; 1 40-60 ; 27-3511.25-1.40; 0.20-0.60 10.17-0.21'Moderate ;0.0-0.5; 0.24' 0.24; , 14-1E ;7o6,. G_`.,:rC,p----; 0-60 34: 35: 0vo .;` Land Gy Dsionthids ; 0-69 ; ' 1 ; 310 1 1 ; 0-8 ; 10-2C':,35-1.50; 0.60-6.00 ;0.13-0.15:Low ;C '-1.0' 0.28: 0,28' 3. ' 3 ' 5; 1 8-23 ; 10-2,'1.25-'_.5"; 0.60-6,00 :0 C 1 00 . , 23-39 . 10-2,::',.40-:.50; 0.60-6.00 .`C.12-0.16:',' ;0.0-0.5; 0.37' 0.37; 39-43 ; --- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVA'I0N SERVICE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS --Continued Soil Information PAGE 2 OF 6 11/17/97 Map symbol : Depth ; Clay : Moist : and soil name : 85: Morva CShowalter Marva Morve ter , :Erosion factors:hind :Wind Permea- :Available: Shrink- ;Organic; :erodi-:erodi- bulk ; bility : water : swell : matter: : : ability:bilitY : den_•itY : :caPaci`.Y :potential: : K ! Kf : T :group :index ,1 I 1 , i 1 1 , , , i I , , 1 r I , I 1 r In 1 Pct : 9/cc In/hr : Inlin : ; Pct : ; . , 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 f I I 1 I 1 1 1 { 1 11 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 ; 1 I 1 , , I 1 , 1 , I : 0-7 1 15-27:1.25-1.40; 0.60-6.00 10.13-O.16:Low :1.0-2.0: 0.28: 0.28; 5 ; 6 : 48 : 7-19 ! 27-35:1.23-1.40: 0,20-0.60 :0.16-0.19:Low ;0.5-1.0: 0,24; 0.24' : 19-60 : 20-27:1.25-1.40: 0.60-2,00 '•0.13-0.16:Low ;0.5-1.0: 0.37: 0.37; f 1 1 f t 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 I I t 1 1 I 1 ! 1 I I 1 1 ! 0-8 1 20-25!1.23-:.4^; 0.60-2.00 :0,07-0,09:Low :2.0-3.0: 0.10: 0.28: 3 : 8 : : F-79 f 35-45:1.15-1.401 0.06-0 20 i"-0.:;! lode rat a :0.5-1.0: 0.p-10! 0 .::I r 24; 39-63 1 27-35;1.25-1.40 0.20-.0.60 :0.09-0.111_c•w !!0.5-. 2.101 0.24; ' 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 6-7 1 15-27:1.25-1.40 0.60-6.00 0.13-` .15:.oy 11.0-2.01 C. 2?! 0,251 5 1 1 48 -19 : 27-35:1.2.8-1,40:0.20-0.60 :0.16-0.1 _oa :0.55-1,3' •'.'.34:0.24: : ' 19-60 . 20-27:1.25-1.40: 0.60-2.00 10.13-0.16 _ow :0.5-1.0 _.37'V. .1 37, 1 1 : 0-8 1 26-25'1.25-1.40! 0.60-2.00 :0.07-0.09'Lo,„ :2.3-3.0! 0.131 0,28' i I C 3' ' 35-!:711.1E-1.01 . �- 0.06-C.20 _.0"-_,r. ..':'"!ede-ate '0.5-1.3! 5.101 0.5-..� r, .. 0.241 i9-6 ' 27-35':,25' 1.4.C, 6.20-0.60 C:09-3.11:Low :0.5-1.01 . ` I .24! 1 t 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 ' 0-? 1 15-2711.25-1.41 0.60-6.03 '6.13-0.16:Low :1.0-2.0' 0.25' 0.231 5 1 7-i. ! 27-3511.25-1.4:1 0.20-0.4: '0.16-7.1. Low 'o. -1._ .0.241 ic1- , 20-2711.25- 3.60 '1.13-0.l4.'L, :C.S - 0.37; • i 1 1 Ca.~.b:rthids Pock 106,: Tridel_ 0-4 1 --- 1 ..__ IF 5 - 4-30 : 5-3511.30-:.5C: 0.60-2.00 ;0.10-0.15:Low 13,0-3.5! 0.32 0.32' ! 30-34 ' --- ! --- : 0.00-0.20 ! ! 1 , ; 1 1 1 I 1 1 , 6 : 4€ 1 0-4 1 15-30!i.20-1.30.' 0,22-6.00 :0.06-0.101Low ;0.5-1.0! 0.15' 0.28: 2 ; 8 ; --- 1 4-30 20-351:.40-1..501 0.63-2.00 10.12-0.i6'Moderate 15.0-0.5: 0.28: ' 0,28' : : : 30-34 ' --- 1 --- ' 0.0.3.20 : --- ' --- : t , t 1 1 •1 1 a crop----: 0.60 1 7 1 I f I 1 t 1 1 I I 1 1 1 • 0-2 ' 10-1511.35-1,501 2.00-6.00 !C.07-0.10'Low 11 0-4.0! 0.24' 3 1 54 2-14 1 10-_5'1,35-1.50; 2.00-6 Q -0 01Lc :1.0-2.31 n ^1 1 : 14-25 ! 15-20'1.35-1,50: 0.60.6.00 :0.022-2.10 Lcw 10.5-1.0! 6.11 0.28' 1 ! 25-37 10-1511.33-1.H! 2.03-6.0: :3.107-0.65 10,0.0,5: 0.1C! 2' 1 IL -60 1 5-1C:1.45-:.60! 6 00-23.00!0.03-0.011Lc f. -r. 5' 1^' 3.24' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PAGE 3 OF 6 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 11/17/97 1 1 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS --Continued Soil Information :Erosion factors:Wind :Wind Map symbol Depth Clay Moist Permea Available: Shrink- :Organic: :erodi-:erodi- and soil name bulk bilitY : water swell : matter: ability:bilitY density :capacity potential: K Kf T :group :index 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 t 1 r 106 [con.): Browns to In Pct : g/cc In/hr : In/in Pct 0-11 15-20;1.35-I.50: 0.60-6,00 10.07-0.10:Low :1.0-2.01 0.15: 0.24: 3 3 86 11-30 15-20:1.35-1.501 0.60-6.00 :0.05-0.0711Low :0.5-1.0; 0.10' 0.28: 30-42 5-1011.45-1.65: 6.00-20.00:0,03-0.04:Low :0,0-0,51 0.10: 0.24: : 42-60 15-2011.35-1,501 0.60-6.00 10.07-0.101Loa :0.0-0.5' 0.17: 0.321, : I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F } 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. 'DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATI3 SERVICE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS Endnote -- PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS PAGE 4 OF 6 11/17/47 This report shows estimates of some characteristics and features that affect soil behavior, These estimates are given for the major layers of each soil in the survey area. The estimates are based on field observations and on test data for these and similar soils. CLAY as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are less than 0,002 millimeter in diameter. In this report, the estimated clay content of each major soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter, The amount and kind of clay greatly affect the fertility and physical condition of the soil. They determine the ability of the soil to adsorb cations and to retain moisture. They influence shrink -swell potential, permeability, plasticity, the ease of soil dispersion, and other soil properties. The amount and kind of clay ir, a scii also affect tillage and earthr;,cving operations. MOIST BULK DENS,TY is the weight of soil (ovendry' per unit volume, Volume is measured when the soil is at field moisture casecity, the moisture content at 1/3 bar moisture tension. Weight is determined after drying the soil at 105 deg"ees C. in this rerort, the estimated moist bulk density of each majc' ;z11 horizon is expressed ir areas pe" cubic centimeter of soil materia: that is less than 2 millimeters in diaae:. Sulk dei �.ta data 11sotc carv_te strial-swell Pote1tial, available water ceeacity t:ta: 1 pore space, and other soil properties. The moist balk density of _ soil indicates the Po -e spate aveilab•lc `'a^ water and roots, A t•..ik density Cf more tan _.E canMoist reStr' Water storage y"d r:�r., :•Fnetrat:i�':. t talk dersitr is influenced by textu~e, kind of clay, content of organic matter, and soil structure. PERI_AS:LITY ree.rs to the ability of a scil t: transmit water or air. The estimates indicate the rate of downward movement of water when the sail is saturated. They err. based 0' sail characteristics ot.erded in the field, oertieLla ly strt.:t., c:.,sit and te1,t.."e. Per6!e 5 ity n,rd e^' in :e ,y, 3.. CO,..i E:`, the desi?r: of sail d"aine>' sy,tes. septic to^i: atsOrptic�r fields, and cnnstructic ,a:,ere the rete f -Or water move":e"t under saturated conditions affects. behavior. A', .! A„L- hATE."n CAPACITY rF ars to the :,van;tits of wct.er that the soil is capable of sir. iry for use by plants. The capacity for wase^ storage is give:", in inches of water per inch of soil for each major soil sayer. The capacity varies, depending on soil properties that affect the retentio, and the F ' '� of water depth o: the root 2cr.. The matt imaortent pr coert.ies are the aantent c`: or'gaaic matter, sail teyt;ire, ba_ density, and soil staactjre. Available water capacity is an important factor in the choice of plants or Crops to be grown and in the design and management of irrigation systema. Available water cause ity is not an estimate of the Quantity of watt. actually available to plants at any given time, SPINY -SWELL POTENTIAL is the potert_ial for volume charge in a soil with a loss or gain of moisture, Volume cl'.ar?e t^curs nair.ly because of the interaction of Clay minerals with wa`e, and varies with the amount and tyae of clay minerals in the soil. The size of the load on the sail and the magnitude of t'.e change in soil moistu", P conter.t influence the amount of swelling of soils in puce. Laboratory measurements cf swelling of undisturbed clads were made for marry soil F " c l' estimated or tof t f . .. o. others, we ling was _imzte„ he basis the kir. _.�. amGG�ii^, Cie, rine''eis in the _ail and or measurements of _ =:Pilt,r c'' . If the shrink -swell Potential is rated nodeNete tt• y high, shrir,t:n; and swellir;y 08:: :ease dar-age to buildings, roads, and other 5t^utt .'es. ,..:al design is often needed, Shrink -swell potential classes are base: aa the . ae in ler' t" of a" ,..."`i".ed OC as moist',. e Content is inc-eased from air-dry to field oe a:1ty, The ,:hence is __sed r,r tie soil `ra`.tior. less the, 2 rail. iWers ir d sire.. , Tht 'Hasse. i". °Lc ' a CNef•;e c4 less t'- Dercert1 p0,^,a"aa. 3 tC per,.e.. , - t; y}.,':r.o t er C per'cert. 'Ve'i g'eP`.`.' thar, 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PAGE 5 OF 6 , NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 11/17/47 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS Endnote -- PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS --Continued ORGANIC MATTER is the plant and animal residue in the soil at various stages of decomposition. In report 3, the estimated content of organic matter is expressed as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The content of organic matter in a soil can be maintained or increased by returning crop residue to the soil. Organic matter affects the available water capacity, infiltration rate, and tilt`;. it is a source of nitrogen and other nutrients for crops. EROSION FACTOR K indicates the susceptibility of the whole soil (including rocks and rock fragments) to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor Kis one of six factors used in the Universal Soil loss Equation (USLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and crga..ic matter (up to 4 Percent and or, soil structure and permeability. Values of K rand frog 0.05 to 4•.b?. Tht higher the value, the more s;,scertible the soi'. :s to sheet and rill erosion by water. EROSION FACTOR Kf is like ERCS:o)r FACTOR K but it is for the fine -earth fraction of the soil. Rocks and rock fragments are not considered. H ST% FACTO: - an es:i.atte of the mesim1P: avera.° annual rate of sc'i. erosion ty wind or :at"" that can occur without affecting crop productivity over a sustained period. The rate is in tons per acne per year, ER3:1!,.ITY are r,e e 'tat ert ie: aar ecting their resistance to win._ in cultivated areao. The Soups indicate the susceptibility of soil to wind e-os:a^. Soils are gr?:,oec according t... the f011o.;:r dist)"diens, i. Cc,a.-e sands, sand;, fire sands, and ver fine sari,:.. These s•^_!: a -e ,ener_..ly not suitable for crc... They a"e ertrenelY erod'.Lie, diffiCUI: establish. 2. loamy Coarse sands, loary sands, loony fire sands, loan,' Very fine sands, and saor'ic soil material. These soils are very highly ercoib ie. Crops can be grown if intensive measures to control wird eros:oi; are ;(sed. 3, Coarse sandy loans, sandy foams, Fine sandy foams, and very fine sandy loans.. These soils are highly erodible, Crops can be grown, if intensive measures to control wind erosion are used, 4L, Calcareous loans, silt loans, :lay loans"s, and silty clay foams. These soils are erodible, Crops can be grow;' if intensive measurestocontrol wird erosion are used. :. Clays, Fi.`.v C:ay;. r:onCe:o e m clay ioaos, and silty clay loo _ tat a- rc. , than 75 oer.e•t .lay These e'e ns,de-ate:v e"G1:... C -ops car be grown if mees -es ty :C'•tno; wird eresicr .. ._.�. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FAOE 6 OF £ '+ NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 11/17/97 PHYSICAL PROPER'IES OF SOILS 1 Endnote -- PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS --Continued 5. Noncelcarecus loams and silt foams that are less than 20 Percent clay and sandy clay foams, sandy clays, and heiic soil material, These soils are slightly erodible. Crops can be grown if measures to control wind erosion are used. 6. Noncalcareous loar„s and silt loans that are more than 20 percent clay and noncalcareous clay foams that are less than 35 percent clay. These soils are very slightly e^odi`le. Crops can be grown if ordinary measures to control wind erosion are used. 7. Silts, rrorSaiCat e:us silty Clay idar s that are less tr.a 35 percent clay, and fib•ic soil material. These soils are very sligr.tly erodible. Crops car be grown if ordinary measures to control wind erosior• are used. 6. 5o1 s that are not subje:t to wird erosion beca.ise of Coarse fragner.ts on the surface or because of suresce wetness, ``.e l;'N" En:^"' -=:LI';' INDEX is used in the wird erosion eouation:YThe .rive, nunbe- indicates the anew'''. of soil lost in tons per acre per year. The range of w:..er'odib iity i...er nur;bers is 0 to 30C. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Elk Springs/Los Amigos Ranch November 2010 Appendix H Public Improvements Cost Estimate 6Final Plat Engineering Report Appendix H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER E N G I N E E R S i S U R V E Y O R S November 23, 2010 Larry Green, Esq. Balcomb & Green, P.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 1 1 8 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.945.1 004 970.945.5948 FAX Via E -Mail: Tarry@balcombgreen.com RE: Filings 6A, Elk Springs Subdivision SIA Cost Estimates/Certification of Public Improvements Dear Larry: This letter serves to transmit engineering cost estimates for future public improvements associated with this Final Plat application. Filing 6A This is the 5 -acre "Neighborhood Commercial" lot located north of CR 114 between the Elk Springs main entrance and Auburn Ridge Road. This parcel is being Final Platted now to facilitate sale but will again have to go thru the Garfield County Preliminary/Final Plat process prior to development or re -subdivision. Our obligation now is to provide access and utility service to the parcel. Access is facilitated by CR 114. An 8" sanitary sewer line will be constructed in the old CR 114 ROW north of the current road. A 2" steel gas line, 3-phase electric line and telephone lines are located in the Auburn Ridge Road ROW at the intersection w. CR 114 just east of the Parcel. An existing water service from the 8" line in Auburn Ridge Road is stubbed into the parcel as shown. Refer to the attached Filing 6A SIA Cost Estimate. I trust this is sufficient for your needs to document the status of the necessary infrastructure for Filing 6A, Elk Springs Subdivision. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. 1 1 1 David M. Kotz, P.E. I:\1981 \01502\C\29\Nov2010GarCoSubmittal\App H-\1 a-ElkSpringsF6almp.doc 103 WEST TOMICHI AVE. SUITE A GUNNISON, CO 81230 970.64 1 .5355 970.641 .5358 FAx 101 FOUNDERS PLACE, UNIT 102 PO Box 2155 ASPEN, CO 81 61 I 970.925.6727 970.925.41 57 FAX 2768 COMPASS DRIVE, SUITE 1 02 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 970.245.2571 970.245.2871 FAX 320 THIRD STREET MEEKER, CO 81 641 970.878.5180 970.878.4181 FAX 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Elk Springs/Los Amigos Ranch Filing 6A Subdivision Improvements Agreement Engineering Cost Estimate Filing 6A - Sanitary Sewer No. Description, ay.;Unit Price / Unit Estimate 1 Moblization 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 2 Clearing & Grubbing 0.4 AC $ 2,500.00 $ 1,000.00 2 Topsoil strip, stockpile & replace 1890 SY $ 3.00 $ 5,670.00 3 Erosion Logs (Install and maintain) 10 ea $ 200.00 $ 2,000.00 4 Class 6 Aggregate (full depth under pavement) 68 TN $ 35.00 $ 2,380.00 5 Asphalt Patching 14 TN $ 130.00 $ 1,820.00 6 8" PVC Sewer Main 846 LF $ 50.00 $ 42,300.00 7 Sewer Manholes 5 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 20,000.00 8 Sewer Drop Manhole 1 EA $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00 9 Revegetation 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 10 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Sub -Total $ 10 % contingency $ 92,670.00 9,267.00 Total $ 101,937.00 Note: This cost estimate is based on the engineer's interpretation of estimated bid quantities and prices that will be received for this project, As with any estimate, actual costs may vary due to unforeseen circumstances and market conditions. lb-ElkSpringsF6a-SIA.xls By: David M. Kotz, P.E. 11/24/10 Schmueser Gordon Meyer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHMUESER GORDON i MEYER ENGINEERSSURVEYORS November 23, 2010 Larry Green, Esq. Balcomb & Green, P.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 1 1 8 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81 601 970.945.1 004 970.945.5948 FAx Via E -Mail: larry@balcombgreen.com RE: Filing 8 — Phase 2, Elk Springs Subdivision SIA Cost Estimate/Certification of Public Improvements Dear Larry: This letter serves to transmit engineering cost estimates for future public improvements and provide documentation for the completed infrastructure associated with this Final Plat application. Filing 8- Phase 2 These are the three 35+ acre Rural Residential lots south of Filing 8 accessed by Juniper Drive. Utility construction was completed by Dow Construction as documented in the attachments to the July 25, 2007 Dean Gordon, P.E letter to you (attached). Juniper Drive was reconstructed this past summer and fall as documented by the attached invoices from GMCO and GNPeters that indicate over $200k was spent improving the road. H -P Geotech did construction testing and oversaw the work. Refer to their summary letter also attached. These lots will be served by Individual Septic Disposal Systems (ISDS) as approved by Garfield County Resolution 99-102. All other infrastructure is in place and no costs are necessary for SIA security purposes. Filing 8- Phase 2 - SIA Cost Estimate = $0 (all work completed). I have reviewed the status of previously -constructed public improvements for this project. Those improvements would generally consist of the construction of utilities and roadway improvements within Elk Springs, consistent with prior Preliminary Plan approvals and the Record Maps for water and sewer and the Preliminary Plan for roads submitted with this application for Final Plat approval for Elk Springs. Attached hereto are letters from Dean Gordon, P.E., Dow Construction, the contractor of record; H -P Geotech, referencing compaction testing and site observation; and Mr. Gary McElwee, owner's representative, who provided project management during construction. Also attached is I:\1981\01502\C\29\Nov2010GarCoSubmittal\App H-\2a-ElkSpringsF8blmp.doc 103 WEST TOMICHI AVE, SUITE A 1 01 FOUNDERS PLACE, UNIT 102 GUNNI50N, CO 81230 PO Box 2155 970.641 .5355 ASPEN, CO 8 1 61 I 970.641 .5358 FAX 970.925.6727 970.925.4157 FAX 2768 COMPASS DRIVE, SUITE 102 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 970.245.2571 970.245.2871 FAX 320 THIRD STREET MEEKER, CO 81641 970.878.5180 970.878.4181 FAX 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHMUESER !GORDON MEYER E N G I N E E R S I S U R V E T O R 9 a spreadsheet entitled "Elk Springs Production", which identifies the materials used to install the improvements. Based on the attached documents and a visual site inspection conducted by myself and Mr. McElwee, to the best of my knowledge, the previously -constructed utility and roadway infrastructure improvements within Filing 8 — Phase 2 appear to be constructed and installed in compliance with applicable construction documents. I trust this is sufficient for your needs to document the status of the necessary infrastructure for Filing 8 — Phase 2, Elk Springs Subdivision. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. David M. Kotz, P.E. I:\1981\01502\C\29\Nov2010GarCoSubmittal\App H-\2a-ElkSpringsF8blmp.doc 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 SCHMUESER GORDON 1 MEYER E N G I N E E R S 1 S U R V E Y O R S November 23, 2010 Larry Green, Esq. Balcomb & Green, P.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 1 1 8 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81 601 970.945.1 004 970.945.5948 FAX Via E -Mail: larry@balcombgreen.com RE: Filing 9, Elk Springs Subdivision SIA Cost Estimate/Certification of Public Improvements Dear Larry: This letter serves to transmit an engineering cost estimate for future public improvements and provide documentation for the completed infrastructure associated with this Final Plat application. Filing 9 This filing consists of the western most lots in Elk Springs. Again, the bulk of this construction was previously completed as documented in the attachments to Dean Gordon's July 25, 2007 letter to you. The exception is that two additional lots (79 & 80) have been added at the top of Kingbird Drive. Necessary future construction consists of widening a portion of the existing drive, extending the drive, constructing a cul-de-sac and installing utility services to the existing mains as shown on the plans. Refer to the attached Filing 9 - Kingbird Drive SIA Cost Estimate. I have reviewed the status of previously -constructed public improvements for this project. Those improvements would generally consist of the construction of utilities and roadway improvements within Elk Springs, consistent with prior Preliminary Plan approvals and the Record Maps for water and sewer and the Preliminary Plan for roads submitted with this application for Final Plat approval for Elk Springs. Attached hereto are letters from Dean Gordon, P.E., Dow Construction, the contractor of record; H -P Geotech, referencing compaction testing and site observation; and Mr. Gary McElwee, owner's representative, who provided project management during construction. Also attached is a spreadsheet entitled "Elk Springs Production", which identifies the materials used to install the improvements. Based on the attached documents and a visual site inspection conducted by myself and Mr. McElwee, to the best of my knowledge, the previously -constructed utility and roadway I:11981\01502 \C\ 29 \Nov2010GarCoSubmittal \App H-\3a-ElkSpringsF9Imp,doc 103 WEST TOMICHI AVE, SUITE A GUNNISON. CO 81230 970.64 1 .5355 970.641 .5358 FAX 101 FOUNDERS PLACE, UNIT 102 PO Box 2 155 ASPEN, CO 8 1 61 1 970.925.6727 970.925.41 57 FAX 2768 COMPASS DRIVE, SUITE 102 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 970.245,257 1 970.245.2871 FAx 320 THIRD STREET MEEKER, CO 8 164 I 970.878.5180 970.878.4181 FAX 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHMUESER GORDON I MEYER E N G I N E E R S I S U R V E Y O R S infrastructure improvements within Filing 9 appear to be constructed and installed in compliance with applicable construction documents. I trust this is sufficient for your needs to document the status of the necessary infrastructure for Filing 9, Elk Springs Subdivision. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. David M. Kotz, P.E. I:\1981\01502\C\29\Nov2010GarCoSubmittal\App H-\3a-ElkSpringsF9lmp.doc 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Elk Springs/Los Amigos Ranch Filing 9 Subdivision Improvements Agreement Engineering Cost Estimate Filing 9 - Kingbird Drive Cul-de-sac No. Description Y Unit Price / Unit Estimate 1 Moblization 1 LS $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 2 Clearing & Grubbing 0.42 AC $ 2,000.00 $ 840.00 2 Topsoil strip, stockpile & replace/dispose 2030 SY $ 2.00 $ 4,060.00 3 Subgrade Prep 2030 SY $ 1.00 $ 2,030.00 4 Class 6 Aggregate (inc. trench full depth under pavement) 830 TN $ 32.00 $ 26,560.00 5 Chip Seal 1330 SY $ 7.00 $ 9,310.00 6 LP Sewer Service 2 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 7 Water Service 2 EA $ 1,200.00 $ 2,400.00 8 Revegetation 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 9 Miscellaneous Utilities 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Sub -Total $ 10 % contingency $ 56,200.00 5,620.00 Total $ Note: This cost estimate is based on the engineer's interpretation of estimated bid quantities and prices that will be received for this project. As with any estimate, actual costs may vary due to unforeseen circumstances and market conditions. 61, 820.00 3b-ElkSpringsF9-SIA.xls By: David M. Kotz, P.E. 11/24/10 Schmueser Gordon Meyer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS ;SURVEYORS November 23, 2010 Larry Green, Esq. Balcomb & Green, P.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 RE: Filing 10, EIk Springs Subdivision SIA Cost Estimate Dear Larry: 1 1 8 WEST SIXTH STREET. SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.945.1 004 970.945.5948 FAX Via E -Mail: larry@balcombgreen.com This letter serves to transmit an engineering cost estimate for public improvements associated with this Final Plat application. Filing 10 This is the large 70+ acre Rural Residential lot in the lower and southern portion of EIk Springs. Access is provided via CR 114. This lot will utilize an individual well and ISDS. Miscellaneous utilities will be extended from the CR 114 ROW to the chosen building site at time of construction. No costs are necessary for SIA security purposes. Filing 10 - SIA Cost Estimate = $0. (No Public Infrastructure.) I trust this is sufficient for your needs to document the status of the necessary infrastructure for Filing 10, Elk Springs Subdivision. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. David M. Kotz, P.E. I:\1981\01502\C\29\Nov2010GarCoSubmittal\App H-\4a-ElkSpringsFl OImp.doc 103 WEST TOMICHI AVE, SUITE A GUNNISON, CO 91230 970.641 .5355 970.641 .5358 Fax 10 I FOUNDERS PLACE, UNIT 102 PO Box 2155 ASPEN, CO 8 1 6 1 1 970.925.6727 970.925.41 57 FAX 2768 COMPASS DRIVE, SUITE 102 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 970.245.2571 970.245.2871 FAX 320 THIRD STREET MEEKER, CO 81641 970.878.5180 970.878.4181 FAx 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER July 25, 2007 Larry Green, Esq. Balcomb & Green, P.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 ■Ilri, 'mnilliTIt ullA1,10 W&li4"iiiiLl i 11 111 Reception#: 734933 10/10/2007 01:26 12 PM Jean Alberico 10 of 17 Rec Fee.$86.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO _�I!.,.. •119 �. .•I') 1 ,L• EXHIBIT B RE: Filing 8, EIk Springs Subdivision Certification of Public Improvements Dear Larry: Via E -Mail: larry@balcombgreen.com At your request, I have reviewed the status of required public improvements for the above -referenced project. Those improvements would generally consist of the construction of utilities and roadway improvements within Filing 8, consistent with prior Preliminary Pian approvals and the Record Maps for water and sewer and the Preliminary Plan for roads submitted with the application for Final Plat approval for Elk Springs Filing No. 8. Attached hereto are letters from Dow Construction, the contractor of record; H -P Geotech, referencing• compaction testing and site observation; and Mr. Gary McElwee, owner's representative, who provided project management during construction. Also attached is a spreadsheet entitled "Elk Springs Production", which identifies the materials used to install the improvements. Based on the attached documents and a visual site inspection conducted by myself, to the best of my knowledge, all required utility and roadway infrastructure improvements have been completed within Filing 8 and appear to be constructed and installed in compliance with applicable construction documents. I trust this is sufficient for your needs to document the completion of the necessary infrastructure for Filing 8. Respectfully submitted, Dean Princip 1.0981\01502%C \29\20070725 Letter to LRG from Dean Gordon filing 8.doc 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 0111 F'iIF'riT11,13Iilittliii i,1051. «,ftl ,lil'61 ®1111 Reception#: 734933 10/10/2007 01:26:12 PM Jean Rlberico 11 of 17 Rec Fee:$86.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO DOW CONSTRUCTION, CO. INC. 8/24/44 Dean Gordon Schmueser, Gordon & Meyer 118 W_ 6t' Street Ste. 200 Glenwood Springs CO 81617 Project: Elk Springs Subdivision RE: Construction Procedures for Utility Trenches and Road Construction in Filings 5,6,7,8 & 9. After a right ofway has been flagged. we begin by the clearing of trees and brush. Then topsoil is stockpiled or placed at the side of the roadway. After clearing and grubbing a road surface was established by cutting and filling as required. Equipment utilized: Bulldozers. Excavators, Loaders, sheep foot and smooth drum rollers, water trucks, dump trucks, etc. Fills were placed in approximately 1 foot loose lifts and compacted to at least 95 % standard proctor density. The firm ofH-P Geo -tech was hired to establish water content and compactive effort needed to achieve this. Due to the rock -y environment borrow pits were established_ This was necessary to produce fines, Fines were used to establish a satisfactory road bed. The borrow pits were then used as a burn area for clearing debris and a bury pit for oversize boulders. The pits were then covered with soil and revegitated. After a roadbed had been established, utility construe -60u began. Utility trench locations were established, A bulldozer with a 42" ripper followed the alignment making a trench that was theta filled with water The water truck was equipped with a special nozzle fabricated to eject water directly into the trench, This procedure greatly enhanced the mixing of earth and water for the backfilling procedure. After the pipe and fittings were placed, the pipe was bedded in a special material free of rocks greater than 3/4" in size. A 1 foot layer of this bedding was placed and compacted. Compaction procedures were fi equenlly tested by Seo -techs to assure moisture content and soil density. After the bedding procedure was completed additional utilities were then placed and the above mentioned bedding technique was repeated. After all utilities were installed, the remainder of the trench was back lied using the same method. When the utilities have been constructed, tested, and approved by the proper experts, the road ,', f. r, , 1' 1 I e% T I n\ 1 1 Y.. 1 1 !l .-, T l. VV .-...•1 .s • .r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Reception#; 734933 10/10/2007 01:26:12 PM Jean Alberico 12 of 17 Rec Foe:$86.00 Doc Fee:0,00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO bed was reestablished. This is achieved by scarifying, watering, and rolling. All top soiling and clean up effort occur at this time. Before gravel placement begins, a proof roll test is performed in the presence ofa geo-tech or engineer. This is accomplished by observing the road surface under the wheels ofa fully loaded dump truck or water trunk if any movement is noted the area is marked and reworked until the failure is remedied. After the proof roll is approved, the gravel placement will begin. A filter fabric was placed between the sub -grade and gravel. It is placed between the sub -grade and the road base to prevent integration. The filter fabric is rolled out in front of the trucks dumping gravel. The fabric is held in place by grade stakes. The grade stakes provide alignment and elevation location. The gravel is manipulated into place by a motor grader, rollers and water trucks. The goal is to achieve smoothness, grade, slope, drainage and density to make an all weather surface. Again a geo-tecb is used to assure moisture content and density. Be assured that every effort was made to assure a quality and safe product to the best of our ability. Sincerely 1 Dow Rippy" 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 President, Dow Construction CO. Inc. Joe Lundeen Supervisor, Dow Construction CO. Inc, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111 El hiS!,i ii111,iittliviN AM1, G '14 `I#' 1firli11111 Reception#: 734933 13/of /211770 R7 e0 Fee:$86,00 DochFee:0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO GL'tech HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL September 9, 2004 Elk Springs, LLC Atten: Greg Boecker 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945.7988 Fax: 970-945-8454 hpgeohpgeotech.com Job No. 196 617-1 Subject: Final Testing and Observation Results, Filings 7, 8, and 9, Elk Springs Subdivision, County Road 114, Garfield County, Colorado ' Dear Greg: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 As requested, HP Geotech visited the site and performed in-place density testing and observed the roadways at base course grade on June 11, 2004. Six density tests were performed and all tests met the Project minimum density of 95% standard Proctor density. The base course was then dug up at the test locations to expose subgrade soil and the depth measured. Again, all locations met or exceeded the minimum required base course depth of 8 inches. During our visit the gravel roadway surface was observed for signs of instability such as rutting, and cracking. No signs of instability were noted. HP Geotech also performed compaction testing and observation during infrastructure construction. These reports have been previously submitted. Based on our test results and observations, it appears that the roadway construction should perform as intended. If you have any questions, please call this office, Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Michael Evans S.E.T. Reviewed by: SLP cc: SGM, Dean Gordon Dow Construction, Dow Rippy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RUG -17-2004 16:36 rt ec HEPWORTH-PAWL.AK GEOTECHNICAL 1111it 1.11, 701,11,VIriiVulll Thifllid141) 1.1ii 1111 Reception#: 734933 10/10/2007 01:26:12 Pit Jean Alberico 14 of 17 Rec Fee:$86.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO P.01/01 r Road 154 prings, Colorado 81650 945-7988 r eA. a r v -e45.8454 hpgeo hpgeotech.com Earthwork Observation and Testing Report Client: Los Amigos Ranch Partnership Attn: Greg Boecker 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Job No. 196 617-1 Report No. Date: 6-11-04 Page: 1 of 1 Project: Filing 7, Elk Springs Subdivision, CMC Road, Garfield County, Colorado Test No. 1 Nuclear Gau Location Los Amigos at intersection with Little Wood Lane, right of centerline 100' north of hiking trail riht of centerline 400' north of Primrose Point left of centerline • e Moisture/Densit Depth or Elev. finished grade finished grade finished rade 100' north of Primrose Point finished right of centerline rade at intersection with Gossamer finished Road left of centerline _9rade 6 at intersection with Vista Place Proctor Sample Reference: Lab No. Method finished Field Dry Density PCF 130.3 130.9 132.0 132.1 130.5 131.6 Test Results Field Moisture Content 1.5 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.6 Percent Comp. 96 96 97 97 96 1.7 97 NATURE SAVER'" FAX MEMpO 91618 owe gr i, 9to o. I From v1 w , _ tZ i Iry\P�.�� Tom 15�btin . CoiDepr. ,���J„ Co. Pone f . 2 Pnon0 it Fax 3 ,,,,..s.,1 q .9, 1 Fax/ (w " j $ _l I.JCDW 11Juvl r Min. % Comp. Req. 95 95 95 95 95 95 Lab No./ Depth eC.6 assumed/ 8"+ assumed/ 8" assumed/ 8"4- assumed/ "+assumed/ assumed/ 8"4. assumed/ 8"+ .v,c4A Dry 1 Opt Dens assumed ASTM 0-698 3/4" aggregate base course Moist 136.0 7.0 .4 TI -16 NUCLEAR (7ENSOMGTOO MET400 OF TESTING WAS USED 1N SUa$YANTIAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM 02922 AND 03017. Progress Report: All roadway base appeared to be well compacted. No signs of instability were evident. ,v Construction - Dow Rlppy Michael Evans Field Observer Reviewed By Trrr i ,- nw 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11111 h'I% Frri'VIE 1 tNN'NOV! 1I 111 Reception#: 734933 10/10/2007 01.26:12 PM Jean Alberico 15 of 17 Rec Fee:$86.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Jtt1\ 1. 1007 Lary} Green. 11sq. 1 alcunlb & Green, P.C. Attorneys s at 1.an P.O. Ura\ er 790 (;lenwood Springs. CO 81602 RE: Filing 8, Phase 1, Elk Springs Subdivision Public Infrastructure Improvements Dear Larry.. In my capacity as a member of the Architectural Review Committee and the Ranch Manager for Los Amigos Ranch LLC, I was involved and am aware of the construction of public infrastructure improvements for Filing 8, Phase I. The contractor for the improvements was DOW Construction Company, Inc. This is to certify that the public utility systems and roadway infrastructure facilities were installed in their entirety and were installed in compliance with approved construction documents. All systems have been tested and are ready for their intended use. Sincerely, Gary L McElwee Project Manager 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ®11114'iEPTAtIl,kthiniui,11hAd+1Li4X10'1 1iI'i .1111 Reception#: 734933 10/10/2007 01:26:12 PM Jean Alberico 16 of 7 Rec Fee:$86.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARF ELD COUNTY CO 12:3 PAGE x:12 ' en F., g 0 O O c� o 44 0 0 0 0 c. v 0 0 C6 0 r r d teD 0 o ori N. M 411 0 0 vi F- (A f` V* 0 O 0 O O O Yl $45,000.00 0 O Cf O CC) r 4,fl)-! 0 O u] M u) N 0 C7 O CJ O r 0 c7 O t4 OD r 0 4 N r e:4 t1, 0 t7 C) C► N N to 0 ppO N N. O rC3 C! 0 C7 S CID r 6iir 0 pO 8 O 1" V3 0 ppO O r �' 0 ppo p CO 0 O N C) N 09 $243,000.001 0 Ca O O o0 Q� 0 CA �QrA N aD to 0 CA a t -• N EA 0 o Oi i tD c49 0 Ca O 47 e-- 44 0 c5 O Q) O M4 0 0 M 10 NA 0 0 a (7 1... 69 0 0 V so 0 0 PO to (4 0 .—.l . Q I-- ll )-^ Qr 80 O o O C1 o aOO 8 O N 0 9 o 04 4% 8 i9 O O d! r w0�►N 8 09 0 C1 00 r. 8 tq 4 C M Op �L7 .0 C) O p S 6r! 0 0 O 40. Op O vat 0 0© C= 04, Nf 09 4 O 8Q O 6 4)) 0 4 O ti t� 8p C7 Qi 6N9 0 0 O 4 0 a a61 VO► 0 C G for $0.00 $40.00 0 [� 4 M 4 0 Q eA 0 O O 041 4 CD. CD 44 0 ca 40 40 4 ) A? M 0 C.D. Q� ( h 4 CO C> N { $OAD { $250.00 O CI el eH 0 0 O 440 Q u e,et� fR 0 O O 40 o v CN 0>44 0 O O 40 0 0 N� p O O6 p O O 0 0 V3 ON 0 S O pe7 0 0 COo Vi p O 4 O 1r? o t— CCI 41) p p 6 b eA 40 0 po C7 44 p 0 0 Vl 0 0 c9 g 4f C) 0 0 <A g mi 0) ,tq 0 O 0 tq Q d h 4 O 0 N 41413 4 O 44 -"' O C1 Ca O ,O 0 O O O of 0 4 O O COD 0 0 ��4yyD r 4% �p t.�} a) O � O *4) O N. N W c, d3 04 0 0 O oap, 2 0 0 COp nO 40 0 0 4 't 44 0 0 0 51 .3 tit r 0 Nj u0) V3 f 0 0 06 cq 1V 5'9 O A„ cif OA` to 0o cp ldi a 'n 0 O OOP O O O 0 N 64 O 0 t0 1O- O C) 'et .to*.... .. `-- *4 r Q O C) CD to Ni C1 o 0 Ca m'N FA O O O 0 v oC41 C3 1.47 u) 0 O ci N3 g 0 O 69 ,� o 6 h J J J Z 0 ii1 -4 W , r 3 0 OD ra ii -i *t o oD 1. CD M a '1' LLI N f" cD W vcr [lf W L6 J LL1 W LLI,, L5U� ll �i z 2 D J 3 1 _o Q a Q co 62 ,�� e- Y- 45671 N t- "1' CD m r' 1 200001 O 0 t0 c7 40 N N CV N n OA 0 O al 0 0 0 e- v 'TS' 4) In co M r r 78 1950 e-. 1-- DESCR1PT1ON MOBILIZATION m EC cid 0 132' ROADWAY PLATFORM 130' ROADWAY PLATFORM {28' ROADWAY PLATFORM ;CLASS 6 AGGRAGATE SAS FABRIC, MIRAFI 500X ;CUL-DE-SAC RRIPRAP DITCH 20210 RIPRAP DISPERSION 20211 18" Cj1.P, 20212124' 202133,x0"N C.M.P. 20214 :42" C:JA.P, e45 un cV CD CV 20216 18" METAL END SECTIONS 20217 4" METAL END SECTIONS 20218130" METAL END SECTIONS 23219 i42" METAL END SECTIONS 20220 i54" METAL END SECTIONS 20221 ?CULVERT OUTLET PROTEC 20222!8" DIP WATERLINE 20223 S° DIP WATERLINE 20224 8" VALVE --V .n CV N 0 N 2022615" FITTINGS 20227 8" FITTINGS 20226 FIRE HYDRANTASSEM. 20229ATER SERVICE, CORP S 20230 IWATER SERVICE, 1" COPD 23231 CONNECT TO EXIST SYST 20232 (WATER STORAGE TANK 20201 N N 0 cc) N N "4 N N N 0 20208 120207 a0 (O4 0 CA N 01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . -J J 1 :.71 'J . LU:J PM I IJ i L'-�Ht; f -'('',GF I I -: ®111 h411154' rillihrAiNilla liC141Phi Ii 11 Reception#' 734933 10/10/2007 01.26.12 PM Jean fllberico 17 of 17 Rec Fee:$86.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO C7 '1I C30 ro 7 ��J IA (A C3 01 CV Co CD C D C CV `- R 0 q o (O 0 O c -. e- 0) 0 O N t('1 iA $29,737.50 0 0 0 !O �' O CY 0 CI) e�-� fA s ,000 oo E 0 000000 o CO V% 0 a CO r ff3• 0 0 001 -- 4» 0 r r' 4» 0 CV CV (� *+! 0 0 OJ h. r 0! C5 i n O (t C3 8 O N IX, 69 0 O CO 00 c4 -4-- 03 AO C? Ni CV r A 0) 0 r, _, 0. 0 4 O O OD 04 V) 0 4 CJ Q N 49 0 O u) V) m 69 0 03 0 CV (Cri) CA M x- m 69 CH 0 0 C0 0 047 0) 0 0 CI 0 Nr 0 C, d 0 10 4» op r 69 et ,- 1-•' 0> 'dt- r- 0 (4 d• r r 0> 'C' . r^ C> .- r-- Cj 69 o o u) 47 v a g CD p R. N 0 C) o 4» 0 o O 6') 0 o 0© 69 0 C; O3 0. 0 C2 o O 0 V3 4* 0. o 6 W 0 ea 0 C3 0 0 0: W M CO A Cp CV 63 OH a O C 69- Ca N Ip 0 CD 0 u) 0 O ca u) el CA Q X91 n 0 IGS d r- C tti N 1.0 V4 69 V4 oNCOm � 69 o 00 C3 co tR CO oo 0 M710o C 2 on N 69 o a 0 o ptom. r 64 C3 c+03 1 V9 C5 N C7 C5 0 0 000 �? C7'cd' ) 4 $143,233.00 0 O gg, C3 C` O U, . -41 N r e`^ 69 cork A *4) (- co c) CC) CO (9 ---------- CI O O /C) C'V r ch VWQ Q Q ¢ Q 1.5 h- D Q p N 4 n a CO 'ef 00 O ti It) CO — e- co W M 0 qC3 CA (' O0 Gc0� «3 r C3 0) r u)0 I-- () -- �. 0 O Cl U7 <- T 0 0 0 C a OQ a0 ,r- I • cc rrtc. UKt .7C.Wtk RESSURE SEWER ARV/FLUSHING TERMINAL_ ARV/FLUSHING SIDEROADI ARV/FLUSHING HIGH POINj SEWER SERVICE, LINE FITI SEWER SERVICE, ' 1/4" CONNECT TO EXIST SYS. SET TRANS VAULT SET SPLICE VAULT ELECT CONDUIT PROVIDE TRENCH GAS (PROVIDE TRENCH TELE PROVIDE COMP TRENCH PROVIDE SERV TRENCH YJ CL LASTING OCK REMOVAL CO CV I. 20237 CO cm N 1 20239 20240 •a^ 0.4 O el a) 04 C4 20244 +n M m 0 120247 03 6 N 120249, 20250 20251 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNIC November 18, 2010 Elk Springs LLC Attn: Gary McElwee 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 L Project No. 110 200A Subject: Summary of Construction Observations and Materials Testing, Juniper Drive Roadway Reconstruction, Filing 8, Phase 2, Elk Springs, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. McElwee: Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. (HP Geotech) provided observation and materials testing services for subgrade and aggregate base course during construction of the above - referenced project. Our field services for the construction began on September 1, 2010 and continued on an as -requested basis through to completion of aggregate base course placement on September 21, 2010. Our services were performed under the direction of the undersigned licensed engineer registered in the State of Colorado. During construction, applicable testing and observation reports were prepared and have been distributed under separate cover. We previously performed an evaluation of the roadway subgrade and presented our findings and recommendations in a report dated July 22, 2010, under our Job Number 110200A. At the time of our September 1 site visit, the existing aggregate base course had been removed and stockpiled. The subgrade soils had reportedly been scarified about one foot deep and then re -compacted using a vibratory pad foot roller. We observed proof rolling of the subgrade using a loaded dump truck. Areas that deflected excessively were marked for repair. We recommended that the marked areas be sub -excavated at least one foot and replaced with compacted granular import or suitably conditioned and compacted on site material as necessary to provide a stable subgrade. On September 7 we observed that the marked areas had been sub -excavated as recommended, and on September 8 we observed placement of 3 inch minus aggregate base course in progress in some of the sub -excavated areas. On September 13 we observed that the previously sub -excavated areas had been backfilled and compacted. About six additional areas that reportedly exhibited excessive deflection under truck traffic had also been sub -excavated. One sample of the subgrade and one sample of the stockpiled Class 6 aggregate base course were obtained and tested for laboratory Proctor compaction, grain size distribution, and plasticity index. Laboratory test results indicated the aggregate base course was in compliance with CDOT Class 6 Elk Springs, LLC November 18, 2010 Page 2 aggregate base course specifications for the tests performed. Field compaction testing was performed on the subgrade on September 14 which indicated that the subgrade was compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698), in compliance with our recommendations. No areas of apparent excessive deflection were observed and we judged the subgrade to be suitable for placement of geogrid and aggregate base course as recommended in our previous report. On September 21, we performed field compaction testing at aggregate base course grade which indicated that the aggregate base course was compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor density, in compliance with our recommendations. Based on our observations during the construction and results of our testing, the subgrade and aggregate base course as constructed for the project were in substantial compliance with our recommendations and applicable Garfield County specifications. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWL AK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Thomas J. Westhoff, C.E.T. Reviewed by: Steven L. Pawlak, P. J>`•; `rpAAL.` Off. cc: Schmueser Gordon U� ' tz Balcomb & Green - Larry Green TJW/ksw GMCO LLC of Colorado PO. Box 1480 81650 - Phone: (970) e25-9100 Fax (970) 625-9101 E -Mail: gmco@gmcocorp,com To: Elk Springs Subdivision Gary McElwee 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 - Juniper Chip Seal 11. See Attached 09/30/2010 Invoice No. Page: 1 2454 For Job: 10104 Elk Springs Purchase Order: Quantity Price Unit Amount / 1.0000 43.215.0000 LS 43.215.00 Tax: 0.00 Invoice Totals Gross 43.215.00 Retention 0.00 Tax 0.00 TOTAL DUE 43.215.00 TV2 6n,t) tYL, Limited Liability Company of Colorado Box 1480 Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 625-9100 FAX (970) 625-9101 Elk Springs ATTN:: Gary McElwee FAX: 945-6399 9[30/2010 Elk Springs LIJC Juniper Chip Seal Apply a 3/4" Chip Seal with a prime coat of A.E.P., to approximately 7,234 SY 7,234 SY $5.00/SY 536,170.00 Apply a sccond layer of YA" Chip Seal 10 bill. 1,409 SY @ 55.00/SY Invoice total 7.045.00 543,215.00 FROM :PETERS DOUER SACRED GROUND GNPeters Const.Co.l• LC dha Carbon 8 Constructors 970-379-6212 5351 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 FAX NO. : 9709E30899 Sep. 29 2010 12: 49Prl P1. Bill To Elk springs C+ihdivision Glenwood Spgs.Colorado 970-945-6399 C/O Gary McFlwcc Invoice Date Invoice # 9/29/20) 0 26 P.O. No. Terms Project Quantity Description Rate Amount 8,340 3,250 2 388 3,300 1,150 1.050 3 2 mobil ivation- 6 picci s Remove Roadbase and Scarily-- stockpile 02,1 locations Remove fabric to landfill on site, Compaction of Sub -base Ceogrid as per Specs. Reinstall roadhase per Specs_- 60% reused assuming 40% new Square footage Option 1 (below) Exercised during Phase t Square footage Option 2 (below) Exercised during Phase! Tnickloads boulders- collected, removed, hand and machine loaded, int511 material at nesting, trucked to burn -pit Additional tonnage of 3/4 " roadhasc to make up for higher than expected loss: Part of this was wider and deeper roadway than bid, Phase 11 Sgwu'e footage- severe pumping at upper gate, 16" export/import Wfu11ass 2 in 2 lifts and compacted Phase 11 Square footage- prepared carne as Option 1 Phase 11 Square footage- prepared same tts Option 2 1 lrs.)DS0- Berm Hrs. Cat 416- access rd. Kendall 1,250.00 9,654.00 1,700,00 2,846.00 51,854.00 42,944.00 2.90 3.20 1,980,00 18.53 4.00 4.00 3.20 110.00 100.00 1,250.00 09.654.00 1,700.00 2.846.00 51,854.00 42,944.00 24,186.00 10,400.00 3,960.00 7,189,64 13,200.01) 4,600.00 3.360.00 330.00 200.00 Total Page 1 FROM :PETERS DOVER SACRED GROUND FAX NO. :8709630899 Sep. 29 2010 12:49PM P2 ONYeters Const.Co.LLC dba Carbon 8 Constructors 970-379-6212 5351 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 Bill To WI( Springs Subdivision Glenwood Mpgs.C:olor:sdo 970-945-6399 CYO Gan, McElwee Invoice Date Invoice # 9/29/2010 26 P.O. No. Terms Project Quantity Description Rate Amount Inclusions: Windrow and remove to .3 ,stockpiles. Remove fabric and dispose at landfill on site. Scarify sub -base 12" per specs. and await inspection. Compact to spec. and proof roll. Inspect. Install Tenant TX -160 tri-tucial Gcogrid. Bch -Moil salvageable madbase and compact with moisture to Spee. Install now roadbase to spec, adding moisture if necessary and final ,grade. Clean up and dee-mobilise. Water provided on site by owner. Exclusions: Testing, inspection Optionl;; (revised 9/2/10) Lower Road- $340 sq.ft. Remove. and export on site top 12' subl,t'au1e. inspection. If suitable add 12" lift Of Class 2, wer and compact with sheepsfoot compactor I pass vibration and 1 pass regular, $ 2.80/aq1 Tipper Road- 3250 sq. ft. Pothole wand locate nearby utilities. Work under superviaion of gas company employee, .Remove and windrow to dry top 12" subgrade. Scarify next. 12" to dry. Add optimal water and cornpact scarified. Add optimal water and bring to glade final 12" in 3- compacted 4" lifts with sheepsfcwt compactor, 1 pass vibrate and 1 pass regular. 3.20/sgll T&M rates apply. Rock Clause omitted from original estimate. however the first 1 1/2 truckloads exported Nc.) CHARGE Total Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . FROM :PETERS DOUER SACRED GROUND FAX NO. :9709630899 GNPcrers Const.Co.i,LC dba Carbon 8 Constructors 970-379-6212 5351 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 Bill To Elk Springs Subdivision Glenwood Spgs.C;olorulo 970-945-6399 C/0 Gary Mcl?twee Sep. 29 2010 12:50R1 P3 Invoice Date Invoice # 9/29/2010 26 Page 3 P.O. No. Terms Project Quantity Description Rate Amount Engineer estimate of 6-8" roadbase existing was incorrect. Actual was R-10°, However, contractor suspects that more than 60% orniatcriai was Salvaged. In this case there will be no charge for the excess material encountered. 1f 60% or less has been salvaged then TBt.M rales apply for the extra material and labor/machine time, Contractor Warrants that areas proof rolled and compaction tested comply with desired engineering spec'ticatinns. As our reconstruction was conducted during September of 2010 under almost optimal conditions we feel that. reasonable guarantees about the road integrity can be passed on. However, contractor spccificrtlly excluder possible future hydraulic pumping in areas not repaired and ptunping .specific to grades deeper than this contractor has repaired during the wettest ntonihs (March -June). A comprehensive snap delineating areas repaired acrd rhe type of repairs made wilt he included with final invoice. Less: Deposit willed out and Paid (Invoice II 25) •50,000.00 -50,000.00 Total $127.673.64 Page 3 FRCDM :PETERS DOVER SACRED GROUND ONPeters C:onst.C'o.LLC dba Carbon 8 Constructors 970-379-6212 5351 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 819 To FAX NO. :9709630899 Sep, 29 2010 12:50Phi P4 Elk Springs Subdivision Glenwood Spge.C'olorado 970-945-6399 C/0 C3tiy McElwee P.O. No. Invoice Date invoice # R/27/2()10 25 Terms Project Quantity Description Rate Amount Advance on Road Rebuild job Elk Springs Subdivision, Glvnwond Spgs. Coto- As of 50,000.00 8/2(1, 2010 job approx. 40% complete, 50,000.00 Total S50,0011.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LANDSCAPE PLAN, OPEN SPACE PLAN AND OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PLAN As it's Landscape Plan for the subject Final Plats, Applicant states that no landscaping or trees of 6 inch caliper or greater will be removed or added as a result of the approval of the within Final Plats. This is due primarily to the fact that virtually all of the subdivision improvements, except for the short extension of Kingbird Drive in Filing 9 and the installation of the sewer line in Filing 6A, have already been completed, and secondarily to the fact that the size and design of the Elk Springs project provides for minimal impact to existing vegetation. Removal or addition of trees and other vegetation on individual lots, as well as the maintenance thereof, is considered by the Architectural Control Committee at the time a residence is proposed for construction. Subject to the requirement to create a defensible space around each home, the location of the building envelopes on each lot and architectural guidelines of Elk Springs strongly encourage that all existing vegetation on a lot be retained to the greatest extent practicable. Upon approval of the within Final Plats, and the concurrent dedication of the open space within those Filings, there will be over 1,150 acres of open space within Elk Springs. This open space consists largely of broad areas of naturally occurring forest lands or open grassland. These open space areas are kept in their natural condition and no improvements are made, except for the designation of soft surface biking and hiking trails. The existing hiking and biking trail system within the open space in Filings 1 through 8 will be extended to the open space contained in Filing 8, Phase 2, Filing 9 and Filing 10. To the extent maintenance is required in these natural, open areas, the Elk Springs Homeowners' Association is responsible for such maintenance. There is currently a program in place for the annual treatment of all open space areas for weed control. This program will be extended to the open space areas that are being dedicated to the Homeowners' Association within the subject Final Plats. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ELK SPRINGS, FILING 6A SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT THIS ELK SPRINGS, FILING 6A SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT ("SIA") is made and entered into this day of , 20, by and between ELK SPRINGS, LLC ("Owner") and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, acting for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, as a body politic and corporate, directly or through its authorized representatives and agents ("BOCC"). Recitals 1. Owner is the owner and developer of certain real property located within Garfield County, Colorado, known as Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D., as approved by the BOCC and more particularly described in County Resolution No. 96-34, recorded as Reception No. 494584 of the Garfield County real estate records (the "PUD Approval"). 2. Preliminary plan approval was issued by the BOCC for that portion of the Los Amigos P.U.D. designated as Elk Springs Filing 6A, under the terms and conditions set forth in County Resolution No. 98-30 recorded at Reception No. 525809 in the Garfield County real estate records, as amended by Resolution 99-102, recorded at Reception No. 553278 in the Garfield County real estate records (collectively, the "Preliminary Plan Approval"). 3. Both the PUD approval and the Preliminary Plan approval contemplated development of the Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. in phases. 4. Owner has submitted to the County for its approval, the Final Plat for Elk Springs Filing 6A, a Subdivision of Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D., ("Final Plat" or "Final Plat of the Subdivision") for that portion of the property lying within the Los Amigos P.U.D. more particularly described in said Final Plat. 1 5. As a condition precedent to the approval of the Final Plat submitted to the BOCC as required by the laws of the State of Colorado and by the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, Owner wishes to enter into this SIA with the BOCC. 6. Owner has agreed to execute and deliver a letter of credit or other security in a form satisfactory to the BOCC to secure and guarantee Owner's performance under this Agreement and under the Preliminary Plan Approval and has agreed to certain restrictions and conditions regarding the sale of properties and issuance of building permits and certificates of occupancy within the subdivision, all as more fully set forth below. 7. Owner represents that at the time of recording this SIA all taxes and assessments upon all parcels of real estate described in this SIA are paid in full. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the BOCC and Owner ("Parties") agree as follows: Agreement 1. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. The BOCC hereby accepts and approves the Final Plat of the Subdivision, on the date set forth above, subject to the terms and conditions of this SIA, the PUD Approval, the Preliminary Plan Approval, and the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 and any other governmental or quasi -governmental regulations applicable to the Subdivision ("Final Plat Approval"). Recording of the Final Plat in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder shall be in accordance with this SIA and at the time prescribed herein. 2. OWNER'S PERFORMANCE AS TO SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS. a. Completion Date/Substantial Compliance. Owner has constructed and installed certain and shall cause to be constructed and installed other subdivision improvements, identified in the Exhibits defined in subparagraph 2.a.i, below ("Subdivision Improvements") at 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Owner's expense, including payment of fees required by Garfield County and/or other governmental and quasi -governmental entities with regulatory jurisdiction over the Subdivision. The Subdivision Improvements except for revegetation, shall be completed on or before the end of the first full year following execution of this SIA ("Completion Date"), in substantial compliance with the following: i. Plans marked "Approved for Construction" for all Subdivision Improvements prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer and submitted to the BOCC on , 20, such plans being summarized in the list of drawings attached to and made a part of this SIA by reference as Exhibit "A"; the estimate of cost of completion, certified by and bearing the stamp of Owner's professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado ("Owner's Engineer"), attached to and made a part of this SIA by reference as Exhibit "B", which estimate shall include an additional ten(10) percent of the total for contingencies; and all other documentation required to be submitted along with the Final Plat under pertinent sections of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 ("Final Plat Documents"). ii. All requirements of the PUD Approval and the Preliminary Plan Approval. iii. All laws, regulations, orders, resolutions and requirements of Garfield County and all special districts and any other governmental entity or quasi -governmental authority (ies) with jurisdiction. iv. The provisions of this SIA. b. Satisfaction of Subdivision Improvements Provisions. The BOCC agrees that if all Subdivision Improvements are constructed and installed in accordance with this paragraph 2; the record drawings have been submitted upon completion of the Subdivision Improvements, as detailed 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 in paragraph 3(c), below; all other requirements of this SIA have been met; and all requirements of the PUD Approval and Preliminary Plan Approval are satisfied, then the Owner shall be deemed to have satisfied all terms and conditions of the PUD Approval, the Preliminary Plan Approval, the Final Plat Documents and the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, with respect to the installation of Subdivision Improvements. 3. SECURITY FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS (EXCEPT RE - VEGETATION). a. Completed Subdivision Improvements. Exhibit B contains a certification that natural gas, 3-phase electric, telephone and water lines are already in place to the Property line or within public right of way directly adjacent to the Property. No security is required for these already existing subdivision improvements. b. Subdivision Improvements Letter of Credit for Incomplete Subdivision Improvements. As security for Owner's obligation to complete the Subdivision Improvements other than revegetation, Owner shall deliver to the BOCC, on or before the date of recording of the Final Plat of the Subdivision, a Letter of Credit in the form agreed to be acceptable to the BOCC, attached to and incorporated in this SIA by reference as Exhibit "C" ("LOC") or in a form consistent with the Uniform Commercial Code, C.R.S. § 4-1-101, et seq. and approved by the BOCC. The LOC shall be in the amount of $101,937.00, representing the full estimated cost of completing the Subdivision Improvements, which includes a 10% contingency to cover cost changes, unforeseen costs and other variables as set forth and certified by Owner's Engineer on Exhibit B, to guarantee completion of the Subdivision Improvements. The LOC shall be valid for a minimum of six (6) months beyond the Completion Date for the Subdivision Improvements set forth in Paragraph 2.a., above. The BOCC, at its sole option, may permit the Owner to substitute collateral other than a Letter of Credit, in a 4 form acceptable to the BOCC, for the purpose of securing the completion of the Subdivision Improvements subject of this Paragraph 3.b. c. LOC Requirements and Plat Recording. The LOC required by this SIA shall be issued by a state or national banking institution acceptable to the BOCC. If the institution issuing the LOC is not licensed in the State of Colorado and transacting business within the State of Colorado, the LOC shall be "confirmed" within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code, Letters of Credit, §4-5-101, et seq., C.R.S., as amended, by a bank that is licensed to do business in the State of Colorado, doing business in Colorado, and acceptable to the BOCC. The LOC shall state that presentation of drafts drawn under the LOC shall be at an office of the issuer or confirmer located in the State of Colorado. The Final Plat of the Subdivision shall not be recorded until the security, described in this paragraph 3 and the security for revegetation described in paragraph 4, below has been received and approved by the BOCC. d. Extension of LOC Expiration Date. If the Completion Date, identified in paragraph 2.a., above, is extended by a written amendment to this SIA, the time period for the validity of the LOC shall be similarly extended by the Owner. For each six (6) month extension, at the sole option of the BOCC, the face amount of the LOC shall be subject to re -certification by Owner's Engineer of the cost of completion and review by the BOCC. e. Unenforceable LOC. Should the LOC expire or become void or unenforceable for any reason, including bankruptcy of the Owner or the financial institution issuing or confirming the LOC, prior to the BOCC's approval of Owner's Engineer's certification of completion of the Subdivision Improvements, this SIA shall become void and of no force and effect and the Final Plat shall be vacated pursuant to the terms of this SIA. 5 f. Partial Releases of Security. Owner may request partial releases of the LOC, and shall do so by means of submission to the Building and Planning Department of a "Written Request for Partial Release of LOC", in the form attached to and incorporated by this reference as Exhibit D, accompanied by the Owner's Engineer's stamped certificate of partial completion of improvements. The Owner's Engineer's seal shall certify that the Subdivision Improvements have been constructed in accordance with the requirements of this SIA, including all Final Plat Documents and the Preliminary Plan Approval. Owner may also request release for a portion of the security upon proof that 1) Owner has a valid contract with a public utility company regulated by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission obligating such company to install certain utility lines; and 2) Owner has paid to the utility company the cost of installation as required by the contract. The BOCC shall authorize successive releases of portions of the face amount of the LOC as portions of the Subdivision Improvements, dealt with in this Paragraph 3, are certified as complete to the BOCC by the Owner's Engineer, requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have been met, and both the certification and satisfaction of the Preliminary Plan Approval requirements have been approved by the BOCC. g. BOCC's Investigation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon submission of the Owner's Written Request for Partial Release of LOC, along with Owner's Engineer's certificate of partial completion of improvements, the BOCC may review the certification and the Preliminary Plan Approval, and may inspect and review the Subdivision Improvements certified as complete to determine whether or not they have been constructed in compliance with relevant specifications, as follows: i. If no letter of potential deficiency is furnished to Owner by the BOCC within fifteen (15) business days of submission of Owner's Written Request for Partial 6 1 Release of LOC, accompanied by Owner's Engineer's certificate of partial completion of improvements, all Subdivision Improvements certified as complete shall be deemed approved by the BOCC, and the BOCC shall authorize release of the appropriate amount of security, provided that all requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have been satisfied. ii. If the BOCC chooses to inspect and determines that all or a portion of the Subdivision Improvements certified as complete are not in compliance with the relevant specifications or that requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have not been met, the BOCC shall furnish a letter of potential deficiency to the Owner, within fifteen (15) business days of submission of Owner's Written Request for Partial Release of LOC. iii. If a letter of potential deficiency is issued identifying a portion of the certified Subdivision Improvements as potentially deficient and there are no outstanding requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval, then all Subdivision Improvements not identified as potentially deficient shall be deemed approved by the BOCC, and the BOCC shall authorize release of the amount of security related to the Subdivision Improvements certified as complete and not identified as potentially deficient. iv. With respect to Subdivision Improvements identified as potentially deficient in a letter of potential deficiency or requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval that have not been met, the BOCC shall have thirty (30) days from the date of the letter to complete the initial investigation, begun under subparagraph 3.f.ii., above, and provide written confirmation of the deficiency(ies) to the Owner. v. If the BOCC finds that the Subdivision Improvements are complete, in compliance with the relevant specifications and that all requirements of the Preliminary Plan 7 Approval have been met, then the appropriate amount of security shall be authorized for release within ten (10) business days after completion of such investigation. h. BOCC Completion of Improvements and Other Remedies. If the BOCC finds, within the thirty (30) day period of time, defined in subparagraph 3.f.iv. above, that the Subdivision Improvements are not complete, or if the BOCC determines that the Owner will not or cannot construct any or all of the Subdivision Improvements, whether or not Owner has submitted a written request for release of LOC, or that requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have not been met, the BOCC may withdraw and employ from the LOC such funds as may be necessary to construct the Subdivision Improvements in accordance with the specifications or to satisfy the Preliminary Plan Approval requirements, up to the face amount or remaining face amount of the LOC. In such event, the BOCC shall make a written finding regarding Owner's failure to comply with this SIA or requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval prior to requesting payment from the LOC, in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008. In lieu of or in addition to drawing on the LOC, the BOCC may bring an action for injunctive relief or damages for the Owner's failure to adhere to the provisions of this SIA regarding Subdivision Improvements and satisfaction of requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval. The BOCC shall provide the Owner a reasonable time to cure any identified deficiency(ies) prior to requesting payment from the LOC or filing a civil action. 8 i. Final Release of Security. Upon completion of all Subdivision Improvements and Preliminary Plan Approval requirements, other than revegetation, Owner shall submit to the BOCC, through the Building and Planning Department: 1) record drawings bearing the stamp of Owner's Engineer certifying that all Subdivision Improvements have been constructed in accordance with the requirements of this SIA, including all Final Plat Documents and the Preliminary Plan Approval, in hard copy and digital format acceptable to the BOCC; 2) copies of instruments conveying real property and other interests which Owner is obligated to convey to the Homeowner's Association of the Subdivision or any statutory special district or other entity at the time of Final Plat Approval; and 3) a Written Request for Final Release of LOC, in the form attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit E, along with Owner's Engineer's stamp and certificate of final completion of improvements. i. The BOCC shall authorize a final release of the LOC after the Subdivision Improvements are certified as final to the BOCC by the Owner's Engineer and said final certification is approved by the BOCC. If the BOCC finds that the Subdivision Improvements are complete, in accordance with the relevant specifications, and that all requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have been met, the BOCC shall authorize release of the final amount of security, within ten (10) business days following submission of the Owner's Written Request for Final Release of LOC accompanied by the other documents required by this paragraph 3.h. ii. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon Owner's Written Request for Final Release of LOC, accompanied by Owner's Engineer's certificate of final completion of improvements, the BOCC may inspect and review the Subdivision Improvements certified as complete. If the BOCC does so review and inspect, the process contained in paragraph 3.f., above, shall be followed. 9 iii. If the BOCC finds that the Subdivision Improvements are complete, in accordance with the relevant specifications, and that all requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have been satisfied, the BOCC shall authorize final release of security within ten (10) days after completion of such investigation. iv. If the BOCC finds that the Subdivision Improvements are not complete, in accordance with the relevant specifications, and/or that requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have not been satisfied, the BOCC may complete remaining Subdivision Improvements and satisfy requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval, or institute court action in accordance with the process outlined in paragraph 3.g., above. 4. SECURITY FOR REVEGETATION. a. Revegetation LOC and Substitute Collateral. $1,000.00 of the face amount of the LOC, specified in Paragraph 3a above, shall be allocated to revegetation of disturbed areas within the Subdivision ("Revegetation LOC"), the cost for which is detailed as a subdivision improvement in Exhibit B. The Revegetation LOC shall be valid for a minimum of two (2) years following recording of the Final Plat. The BOCC, at its sole option may permit the Owner to substitute collateral other than a Letter of Credit, in a form acceptable to the BOCC, for the purpose of securing the completion of revegetation. b. Revegetation LOC General Provisions. The provisions of paragraphs 3.b., 3.c. and 3.d., above, dealing with Letter of Credit requirements, extension of expiration dates, increase in face amounts, and plat recording shall apply to the Revegetation LOC. c. Revegetation Review and Notice of Deficiency. Upon establishment of revegetation, the Owner shall request review of the revegetation work by the Garfield County Vegetation Management Department, by telephone or in writing. Such review shall be for the 10 purpose of verification of success of revegetation and reclamation in accordance with the Garfield County Weed Management Plan 2000, adopted by Resolution No. 2002-94 and recorded in the Office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder as Reception No. 580572, as amended, and the revegetation/reclamation plan titled and dated for the Subdivision submitted. If the Vegetation Management Department refuses approval and provides written notice of deficiency(ies), the Owner shall cure such deficiency(ies) by further revegetation efforts, approved by the Vegetation Management Department, as such efforts may be instituted within the two (2) years following recording of the Final Plat. d. Single Request for Release of Revegetation LOC. Following receipt of written approval of the Vegetation Management Department, the Owner may request release of the Revegetation LOC and shall do so by means of submission to the BOCC, through the Building and Planning Department, of a Written Request for Release of Revegetation LOC, in the form attached to and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit F, along with certification of completion by the Owner, or Owner's agent with knowledge, and a copy of the written approval of the Vegetation Management Department. It is specifically understood by the parties that the Revegetation LOC is not subject to successive partial releases, as authorized in paragraph 3.e., above. Further, the Revegetation LOC and the BOCC's associated rights to withdraw funds and bring a court action may survive final release of the LOC securing other Subdivision Improvements, defined in paragraph 3.a., above. e. BOCC's Completion of Revegetation and Other Remedies. If Owner's revegetation efforts are deemed by the BOCC to be unsuccessful, in the sole opinion of the BOCC upon the recommendation of the Vegetation Management Department, or if the BOCC determines that the Owner will not or cannot complete revegetation, the BOCC, in its discretion, may withdraw 11 and employ from the Revegetation LOC such funds as may be necessary to carry out the revegetation work, up to the face amount of the Revegetation LOC. In lieu of or in addition to drawing on the Revegetation LOC, the BOCC may bring an action for injunctive relief or damages for the Owner's failure to adhere to the provisions of this SIA related to revegetation. The BOCC shall provide the Owner a reasonable time to cure any identified deficiency prior to requesting payment from the Revegetation LOC or filing a civil action. 5. WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER COLLECTION. Owner certifies that Owner has heretofore installed and connected a water distribution system for potable water and fire protection. Owner shall install a wastewater collection line to the boundary of the Property in accordance with approved plans and specifications. All easements and rights of way necessary for installation, operation, service and maintenance of such water supply and distribution system and wastewater collection system shall be established as shown on the Final Plat of Elk Springs Filing 6A. Said water supply and distribution system shall be conveyed in its entirety to the Elk Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., simultaneously with the recording of the Final Plat. Said wastewater collection line shall be conveyed in its entirety to Spring Valley Sanitation District simultaneously with the recording of the Final Plat. 6. PRIVATE ROADS. All roads within the Subdivision shall be set apart and conveyed as private road rights-of-way to the Elk Springs Homeowners' Association, subject to public easements for ingress and egress by emergency service providers. The Homeowners' Association of the Subdivision shall be solely responsible for the maintenance, repair and upkeep of said private rights-of-way, including the traveled surface of the roadways and areas outside of the traveled surface. The BOCC shall not be obligated to maintain road rights-of-way within the Subdivision. Existence of private roads shall be noted on the Final Plat and deeds of conveyance of 12 the rights-of-way to the Homeowners' Association of the Subdivision shall be recorded at the time of recording the Final Plat. All offsite road improvements for the Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. have previously been satisfied. 7. PUBLIC UTILITY RIGHTS-OF-WAY. Whether or not utility easements exist elsewhere in the Subdivision, all road rights-of-way within the Subdivision shall contain easements for installation and maintenance of utilities. Public utility easements shall be depicted on the face of the Final Plat and deeded by recorded instrument to the HOA for the benefit of public utility providers. The Homeowner's Association of the Subdivision shall be solely responsible for the maintenance, repair and upkeep of said public utility easements, unless otherwise agreed to with the public utility company(ies). The BOCC shall not be obligated for the maintenance, repair and upkeep of any utility easement within the Subdivision. In the event a utility company, whether publicly or privately owned, requires conveyance of the easements depicted on the Final Plat by separate document, Owner shall execute and record the required conveyance documents. 8. CONVEYANCE OF OPEN SPACE AND ROADS. The common open space parcels and roads identified on the Final Plat of the Subdivision shall be conveyed by Owner to the Homeowner's Association at the time of Final Plat Approval. Owner shall deposit with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder executed originals of the instruments of conveyance for recordation following recording of the Final Plat and this SIA. 9. INDEMNITY. The Owner shall indemnify and hold the BOCC harmless and defend the BOCC from all claims which may arise as a result of the Owner's installation of the Subdivision Improvements including revegetation and any other agreement or obligation of Owner, related to development of the Subdivision, required pursuant to this SIA. The Owner, however, does not indemnify the BOCC for claims made asserting that the standards imposed by the BOCC are 13 improper or are the cause of the injury asserted, or from claims which may arise from the negligent acts or omissions of the BOCC or its employees. The BOCC shall notify the Owner of receipt by the BOCC of a notice of claim or a notice of intent to sue, and the BOCC shall afford the Owner the option of defending any such claim or action. Failure to notify and provide such written option to the Owner shall extinguish the BOCC's rights under this paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to constitute a waiver of governmental immunity granted to the BOCC by Colorado statutes and case law. 10. ROAD IMPACT FEE. Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Garfield County Resolution 98- 30, the Preliminary Plan Approval, the BOCC has established a Road Impact fee of Two Hundred and No/100ths Dollars ($200.00) for each lot within the Subdivision. There is 1 lot within the Final Plat. Therefore, Owner shall pay Two Hundred and No/100ths Dollars ($200.00) to the Garfield County Treasurer at or prior to the time of recording of the Final Plat. 11. FEES IN LIEU OF DEDICATION OF SCHOOL LAND. Condition 20 of the PUD Approval required Owner to convey an identified School Site Parcel to the RE -1 School District in full satisfaction of all obligations for dedication of land or payment of fees in lieu thereof for the Los Amigos Ranch PUD. Owner conveyed the School Site Parcel to the RE -1 School District by Special Warranty Deed dated May 9, 2007, recorded on May 15, 2006, at Reception No. 723310 of the Garfield County real estate records. Thus, Owner and BOCC agree that Owner has fully satisfied its obligations to the RE -1 School District and no fee is due from Owner for this Final Plat. All property within Elk Springs which was not previously within the municipal boundaries of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District was included within the District pursuant to its Resolution No. 005, Series of 2000. The Owner shall comply with all requirements of said 14 Resolution No. 005, Series of 2000 which include the obligation to pay applicable impact fees for commercial property within the Fire District. 12. SALE OF LOTS. No lots, tracts, or parcels within the Subdivision may be separately conveyed prior to recording of the Final Plat in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. 13. BUILDING PERMITS AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY. As one remedy for breach of this SIA, including failure to satisfy requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval, the BOCC may withhold issuance of building permits for any residence or other habitable structure to be constructed within the Subdivision. No certificates of occupancy shall issue for any habitable building or structure, including residences, within the Subdivision until all Subdivision Improvements, except revegetation, have been completed and are operational and all requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have been satisfied as required by this SIA. 14. CONSENT TO VACATE PLAT. In the event the Owner fails to comply with the terms of this SIA, the BOCC shall have the ability to vacate the Final Plat as it pertains to any lots for which building permits have not been issued. As to lots for which building permits have been issued, the Plat shall not be vacated and shall remain valid. In such event, the Owner shall provide the BOCC a plat, suitable for recording, showing the location by surveyed legal description of any portion of the Final Plat so vacated by action of the BOCC. If such a Plat is not signed by the BOCC and recorded, or if such Plat is not provided by the Owner, the BOCC may vacate the Final Plat, or portions thereof, by resolution. 15. ENFORCEMENT. In addition to any rights provided by Colorado statute, the withholding of building permits and certificates of occupancy, provided for in paragraph 13, above, the provisions for release of security, detailed in paragraph 3, above, and the provisions for plat 15 vacation, detailed in paragraph 14, above, it is mutually agreed by the BOCC and the Owner, that the BOCC, without making an election of remedies, and any purchaser of any lot within the Subdivision shall have the authority to bring an action in the Garfield County District Court to compel enforcement of this SIA. Nothing in this SIA, however, shall be interpreted to require the BOCC to bring an action for enforcement or to withhold permits or certificates or to withdraw unused security or to vacate the Final Plat or a portion thereof, nor shall this paragraph or any other provision of this SIA be interpreted to permit the purchaser of a lot to file an action against the BOCC. In addition, the BOCC may, but shall not be required to, pursue any of its enforcement remedies as applicable, pursuant to Article XII of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. 16. NOTICE BY RECORDATION. This SIA shall be recorded in the Office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder and shall be a covenant running with title to all lots, tracts and parcels within the Subdivision. Such recording shall constitute notice to prospective purchasers and other interested persons as to the terms and provisions of this SIA. 17. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. The obligations and rights contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the Owner and the BOCC. 18. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND NOTICE PROVISIONS. The representatives of the Owner and the BOCC, identified below, are authorized as contract administrators and notice recipients. Notices required or permitted by this SIA shall be in writing and shall be effective upon the date of delivery, or attempted delivery if delivery is refused. Delivery shall be made in person, by certified return receipt requested U.S. Mail, receipted delivery service, or facsimile transmission, addressed to the authorized representatives of the BOCC and the Owner at the address or facsimile number set forth below: 16 Owner: BOCC: Elk Springs, LLC ATTN: Gary McElwee 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Facsimile: (970) 945-6399 w/copy to: Balcomb & Green, P.C. ATTN: Lawrence R. Green, Esq. 818 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Facsimile: (970) 945-9769 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado c/o Building & Planning Dir. 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 945-8212 Fax: (970) 384-3470 19. AMENDMENT AND SUBSTITUTION OF SECURITY. This SIA may be modified, but only in writing signed by the parties hereto, as their interests then appear. Any such amendment, including, by way of example, extension of the Completion Date, substitution of the form of security, or approval of a change in the identity of the security provider/issuer, shall be considered by the BOCC at a scheduled public meeting. Before any extension of Completion Date is considered, Owner shall certify that all taxes and assessments on the real property subject to the SIA are paid in full. If such an amendment includes a change in the identity of the provider/issuer of security, due to a conveyance of the Subdivision by the Owner to a successor in interest, Owner shall provide a copy of the recorded assignment document(s) to the BOCC, along with the original security instrument. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties may change the identification of notice recipients and contract administrators and the contact information provided in paragraph 18, 17 above, in accordance with the provisions of that paragraph and without formal amendment of this SIA and without consideration at a BOCC meeting. 20. COUNTERPARTS. This SIA may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall be deemed one and the same instrument. 21. VENUE AND JURISDICTION. Venue and jurisdiction for any cause arising out of or related to this SIA shall lie with the District Court of Garfield County, Colorado, and this SIA shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Colorado. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this SIA to be effective upon the date of Final Plat Approval for the Subdivision. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Clerk to the Board STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) By: Chairman Date: OWNER ELK SPRINGS, LLC By: Gary McElwee Date: Subscribed and sworn to before me by Gary McElwee, an authorized representative of Elk Springs, LLC, Owner of the Subdivision, this day of , 2010. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHMUESER GORDON j MEYER E N G I N E E R S iSUFtVEYORS November 23, 2010 Larry Green, Esq. Balcomb & Green, P.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 1 1 8 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.945.1 004 970.945.5948 FAx Via E -Mail: Tarry@balcombgreen.com RE: Filings 6A, Elk Springs Subdivision SIA Cost Estimates/Certification of Public Improvements Dear Larry: This letter serves to transmit engineering cost estimates for future public improvements associated with this Final Plat application. Filing 6A This is the 5 -acre "Neighborhood Commercial" lot located north of CR 114 between the Elk Springs main entrance and Auburn Ridge Road. This parcel is being Final Platted now to facilitate sale but will again have to go thru the Garfield County Preliminary/Final Plat process prior to development or re -subdivision. Our obligation now is to provide access and utility service to the parcel. Access is facilitated by CR 114. An 8" sanitary sewer line will be constructed in the old CR 114 ROW north of the current road. A 2" steel gas line, 3-phase electric line and telephone lines are located in the Auburn Ridge Road ROW at the intersection w. CR 114 just east of the Parcel. An existing water service from the 8" line in Auburn Ridge Road is stubbed into the parcel as shown. Refer to the attached Filing 6A SIA Cost Estimate. I trust this is sufficient for your needs to document the status of the necessary infrastructure for Filing 6A, Elk Springs Subdivision. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. retA David M. Kotz, P.E. I:\1981\01502\C\29\Nov2010GarCoSubmittal\App H-\1 a-ElkSpringsF6almp.doc 103 WEST TOMICHI AVE, SUITE A 101 FOUNDERS PLACE, UNIT 102 GUNNISON, CO 81230 PO Box 2155 970.641 .5355 ASPEN, CO 8 1 61 I 970.641 .5358 FAx 970.925.6727 970.925.4157 FAX 2768 COMPASS DRIVE, SUITE 102 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 970.245.2571 970.245.2871 FAx 320 THIRD STREET MEEKER, CO 81641 970.878.5180 970.878.4181 FAX 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Elk Springs/Los Amigos Ranch Filing 6A Subdivision Improvements Agreement Engineering Cost Estimate Filing 6A - Sanitary Sewer No. Description gly. Unit Price / Unit Estimate 1 Moblization 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 2 Clearing & Grubbing 0.4 AC $ 2,500.00 $ 1,000.00 2 Topsoil strip, stockpile & replace 1890 SY $ 3.00 $ 5,670.00 3 Erosion Logs (Install and maintain) 10 ea $ 200.00 $ 2,000.00 4 Class 6 Aggregate (full depth under pavement) 68 TN $ 35.00 $ 2,380.00 5 Asphalt Patching 14 TN $ 130.00 $ 1,820.00 6 8" PVC Sewer Main 846 LF $ 50.00 $ 42,300.00 7 Sewer Manholes 5 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 20,000.00 8 Sewer Drop Manhole 1 EA $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00 9 Revegetation 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 10 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Sub -Total $ 10 % contingency $ 92,670.00 9,267.00 Total $ 101,937.00 Note: This cost estimate is based on the engineer's interpretation of estimated bid quantities and prices that will be received for this project. As with any estimate, actual costs may vary due to unforeseen circumstances and market conditions. lb-ElkSpringsF6a-SIA.xls By: David M. Kotz, P.E. 11/24/10 Schmueser Gordon Meyer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ELK SPRINGS, FILING 9 AND FILING 8 PHASE 2 SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT THIS ELK SPRINGS, FILING 9 AND FILING 8 PHASE 2 SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT ("SIA") is made and entered into this day of 20_ by and between ELK SPRINGS, LLC ("Owner") and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, acting for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, as a body politic and corporate, directly or through its authorized representatives and agents ("BOCC"). Recitals 1. Owner is the owner and developer of certain real property located within Garfield County, Colorado, known as Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D., as approved by the BOCC and more particularly described in County Resolution No. 96-34, recorded as Reception No. 494584 of the Garfield County real estate records (the "PUD Approval"). 2. Preliminary plan approval was issued by the BOCC for that portion of the Los Amigos P.U.D. designated as Elk Springs Filing 9 and Filing 8 Phase 2, under the terms and conditions set forth in County Resolution No. 98-30 recorded at Reception No. 525809 in the Garfield County real estate records, as amended by Resolution 99-102, recorded at Reception No. 553278 in the Garfield County real estate records (collectively, the "Preliminary Plan Approval"). 3. Both the PUD approval and the Preliminary Plan approval contemplated development of the Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. in phases. 4. Owner has submitted to the County for its approval, the Final Plat for Elk Springs Filing 9 and Filing 8 Phase 2, Subdivisions of Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D., (collectively the "Final Plats" or "Final Plats of the Subdivision") for that portion of the property lying within the Los Amigos P.U.D. more particularly described in said Final Plats. 1 5. As a condition precedent to the approval of the Final Plats submitted to the BOCC as required by the laws of the State of Colorado and by the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, Owner wishes to enter into this SIA with the BOCC. 6. Owner has agreed to execute and deliver a letter of credit or other security in a form satisfactory to the BOCC to secure and guarantee Owner's performance under this Agreement and under the Preliminary Plan Approval and has agreed to certain restrictions and conditions regarding the sale of properties and issuance of building permits and certificates of occupancy within the subdivision, all as more fully set forth below. 7. Owner represents that at the time of recording this SIA all taxes and assessments upon all parcels of real estate described in this SIA are paid in full. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the BOCC and Owner ("Parties") agree as follows: Agreement 1. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. The BOCC hereby accepts and approves the Final Plats of the Subdivision, on the date set forth above, subject to the terms and conditions of this SIA, the PUD Approval, the Preliminary Plan Approval, and the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 and any other governmental or quasi -governmental regulations applicable to the Subdivision ("Final Plat Approval"). Recording of the Final Plats in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder shall be in accordance with this SIA and at the time prescribed herein. 2. OWNER'S PERFORMANCE AS TO SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS. a. Completion Date/Substantial Compliance. Owner has constructed and installed certain and shall cause to be constructed and installed other subdivision improvements, identified in the Exhibits defined in subparagraph 2.a.i, below ("Subdivision Improvements") at 2 Owner's expense, including payment of fees required by Garfield County and/or other governmental and quasi -governmental entities with regulatory jurisdiction over the Subdivision. The Subdivision Improvements except for revegetation, shall be completed on or before the end of the first full year following execution of this SIA ("Completion Date"), in substantial compliance with the following: i. Plans marked "Approved for Construction" for all Subdivision Improvements prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer and submitted to the BOCC on , 20, such plans being summarized in the list of drawings attached to and made a part of this SIA by reference as Exhibit "A"; the estimate of cost of completion, certified by and bearing the stamp of Owner's professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado ("Owner's Engineer"), attached to and made a part of this SIA by reference as Exhibit "B", which estimate shall include an additional ten(10) percent of the total for contingencies; and all other documentation required to be submitted along with the Final Plats under pertinent sections of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 ("Final Plat Documents"). ii. All requirements of the PUD Approval and the Preliminary Plan Approval. iii. All laws, regulations, orders, resolutions and requirements of Garfield County and all special districts and any other governmental entity or quasi -governmental authority (ies) with jurisdiction. iv. The provisions of this SIA. b. Satisfaction of Subdivision Improvements Provisions. The BOCC agrees that if all Subdivision Improvements are constructed and installed in accordance with this paragraph 2; the record drawings have been submitted upon completion of the Subdivision Improvements, as detailed 3 in paragraph 3(c), below; all other requirements of this SIA have been met; and all requirements of the PUD Approval and Preliminary Plan Approval are satisfied, then the Owner shall be deemed to have satisfied all terms and conditions of the PUD Approval, the Preliminary Plan Approval, the Final Plat Documents and the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, with respect to the installation of Subdivision Improvements. 3. SECURITY FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS (EXCEPT RE- VEGETATION). a. Completed Subdivision Improvements. Exhibit B contains a Certification that the significant majority of the subdivision improvements for Elk Springs Filing 9 and all subdivision improvements for Elk Springs Filing 8 Phase 2, have been completed. The total cost to complete the subdivision improvements for Elk Springs Filing 9, and Elk Springs Filing 8, Phase 1 and Phase 2 was $1,528,845.00 plus an additional $220,888.00 to reconstruct Juniper Drive within Filing 8 Phase 2. No security for the completed subdivision improvements in Elk Springs Filing 9 and Filing 8 Phase 2 is required. b. Subdivision Improvements Letter of Credit for Incomplete Subdivision Improvements. As security for Owner's obligation to complete the Subdivision Improvements other than revegetation, Owner shall deliver to the BOCC, on or before the date of recording of the Final Plat of the Subdivision, a Letter of Credit in the form agreed to be acceptable to the BOCC, attached to and incorporated in this SIA by reference as Exhibit "C" ("LOC") or in a form consistent with the Uniform Commercial Code, C.R.S. § 4-1-101, et seq. and approved by the BOCC. The LOC shall be in the amount of $61,820.00, representing the full estimated cost of completing the Subdivision Improvements, which includes a 10% contingency to cover cost changes, unforeseen costs and other variables as set forth and certified by Owner's Engineer on Exhibit B, to guarantee completion of the 4 Subdivision Improvements. The LOC shall be valid for a minimum of six (6) months beyond the Completion Date for the Subdivision Improvements set forth in Paragraph 2.a., above. The BOCC, at its sole option, may permit the Owner to substitute collateral other than a Letter of Credit, in a form acceptable to the BOCC, for the purpose of securing the completion of the Subdivision Improvements subject of this Paragraph 3 .b. c. LOC Requirements and Plat Recording. The LOC required by this SIA shall be issued by a state or national banking institution acceptable to the BOCC. If the institution issuing the LOC is not licensed in the State of Colorado and transacting business within the State of Colorado, the LOC shall be "confirmed" within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code, Letters of Credit, §4-5-101, et seg., C.R.S., as amended, by a bank that is licensed to do business in the State of Colorado, doing business in Colorado, and acceptable to the BOCC. The LOC shall state that presentation of drafts drawn under the LOC shall be at an office of the issuer or confirmer located in the State of Colorado. The Final Plat of the Subdivision shall not be recorded until the security, described in this paragraph 3 and the security for revegetation described in paragraph 4, below has been received and approved by the BOCC. d. Extension of LOC Expiration Date. If the Completion Date, identified in paragraph 2.a., above, is extended by a written amendment to this SIA, the time period for the validity of the LOC shall be similarly extended by the Owner. For each six (6) month extension, at the sole option of the BOCC, the face amount of the LOC shall be subject to re -certification by Owner's Engineer of the cost of completion and review by the BOCC. e. Unenforceable LOC. Should the LOC expire or become void or unenforceable for any reason, including bankruptcy of the Owner or the financial institution issuing or confirming the LOC, prior to the BOCC's approval of Owner's Engineer's certification of 5 completion of the Subdivision Improvements, this SIA shall become void and of no force and effect and the Final Plat shall be vacated pursuant to the terms of this SIA. f. Partial Releases of Security. Owner may request partial releases of the LOC, and shall do so by means of submission to the Building and Planning Department of a "Written Request for Partial Release of LOC", in the form attached to and incorporated by this reference as Exhibit D, accompanied by the Owner's Engineer's stamped certificate of partial completion of improvements. The Owner's Engineer's seal shall certify that the Subdivision Improvements have been constructed in accordance with the requirements of this SIA, including all Final Plat Documents and the Preliminary Plan Approval. Owner may also request release for a portion of the security upon proof that 1) Owner has a valid contract with a public utility company regulated by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission obligating such company to install certain utility lines; and 2) Owner has paid to the utility company the cost of installation as required by the contract. The BOCC shall authorize successive releases of portions of the face amount of the LOC as portions of the Subdivision Improvements, dealt with in this Paragraph 3, are certified as complete to the BOCC by the Owner's Engineer, requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have been met, and both the certification and satisfaction of the Preliminary Plan Approval requirements have been approved by the BOCC. g. BOCC's Investigation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon submission of the Owner's Written Request for Partial Release of LOC, along with Owner's Engineer's certificate of partial completion of improvements, the BOCC may review the certification and the Preliminary Plan Approval, and may inspect and review the Subdivision Improvements certified as complete to determine whether or not they have been constructed in compliance with relevant specifications, as follows: 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i. If no letter of potential deficiency is furnished to Owner by the BOCC within fifteen (15) business days of submission of Owner's Written Request for Partial Release of LOC, accompanied by Owner's Engineer's certificate of partial completion of improvements, all Subdivision Improvements certified as complete shall be deemed approved by the BOCC, and the BOCC shall authorize release of the appropriate amount of security, provided that all requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have been satisfied. ii. If the BOCC chooses to inspect and determines that all or a portion of the Subdivision Improvements certified as complete are not in compliance with the relevant specifications or that requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have not been met, the BOCC shall furnish a letter of potential deficiency to the Owner, within fifteen (15) business days of submission of Owner's Written Request for Partial Release of LOC. iii. If a letter of potential deficiency is issued identifying a portion of the certified Subdivision Improvements as potentially deficient and there are no outstanding requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval, then all Subdivision Improvements not identified as potentially deficient shall be deemed approved by the BOCC, and the BOCC shall authorize release of the amount of security related to the Subdivision Improvements certified as complete and not identified as potentially deficient. iv. With respect to Subdivision Improvements identified as potentially deficient in a letter of potential deficiency or requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval that have not been met, the BOCC shall have thirty (30) days from the date of the letter to complete the initial investigation, begun under subparagraph 3.f.ii., above, and provide written confirmation of the deficiency(ies) to the Owner. 7 v. If the BOCC finds that the Subdivision Improvements are complete, in compliance with the relevant specifications and that all requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have been met, then the appropriate amount of security shall be authorized for release within ten (10) business days after completion of such investigation. g. BOCC Completion of Improvements and Other Remedies. If the BOCC finds, within the thirty (30) day period of time, defined in subparagraph 3.f.iv. above, that the Subdivision Improvements are not complete, or if the BOCC determines that the Owner will not or cannot construct any or all of the Subdivision Improvements, whether or not Owner has submitted a written request for release of LOC, or that requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have not been met, the BOCC may withdraw and employ from the LOC such funds as may be necessary to construct the Subdivision Improvements in accordance with the specifications or to satisfy the Preliminary Plan Approval requirements, up to the face amount or remaining face amount of the LOC. In such event, the BOCC shall make a written finding regarding Owner's failure to comply with this SIA or requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval prior to requesting payment from the LOC, in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008. In lieu of or in addition to drawing on the LOC, the BOCC may bring an action for injunctive relief or damages for the Owner's failure to adhere to the provisions of this SIA regarding Subdivision Improvements and satisfaction of requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval. The BOCC shall provide the Owner a reasonable time to cure any identified deficiency(ies) prior to requesting payment from the LOC or filing a civil action. h. Final Release of Security. Upon completion of all Subdivision Improvements and Preliminary Plan Approval requirements, other than revegetation, Owner shall submit to the BOCC, through the Building and Planning Department: 1) record drawings bearing the stamp of Owner's 8 Engineer certifying that all Subdivision Improvements have been constructed in accordance with the requirements of this SIA, including all Final Plat Documents and the Preliminary Plan Approval, in hard copy and digital format acceptable to the BOCC; 2) copies of instruments conveying real property and other interests which Owner is obligated to convey to the Homeowner's Association of the Subdivision or any statutory special district or other entity at the time of Final Plat Approval; and 3) a Written Request for Final Release of LOC, in the form attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit E, along with Owner's Engineer's stamp and certificate of final completion of improvements. i. The BOCC shall authorize a final release of the LOC after the Subdivision Improvements are certified as final to the BOCC by the Owner's Engineer and said final certification is approved by the BOCC. If the BOCC finds that the Subdivision Improvements are complete, in accordance with the relevant specifications, and that all requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have been met, the BOCC shall authorize release of the final amount of security, within ten (10) business days following submission of the Owner's Written Request for Final Release of LOC accompanied by the other documents required by this paragraph 3.h. ii. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon Owner's Written Request for Final Release of LOC, accompanied by Owner's Engineer's certificate of final completion of improvements, the BOCC may inspect and review the Subdivision Improvements certified as complete. If the BOCC does so review and inspect, the process contained in paragraph 3.f., above, shall be followed. 9 iii. If the BOCC finds that the Subdivision Improvements are complete, in accordance with the relevant specifications, and that all requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have been satisfied, the BOCC shall authorize final release of security within ten (10) days after completion of such investigation. iv. If the BOCC finds that the Subdivision Improvements are not complete, in accordance with the relevant specifications, and/or that requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have not been satisfied, the BOCC may complete remaining Subdivision Improvements and satisfy requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval, or institute court action in accordance with the process outlined in paragraph 3.g., above. 4. SECURITY FOR REVEGETATION. a. Revegetation LOC and Substitute Collateral. $500.00 of the face amount of the LOC, specified in Paragraph 3a above, shall be allocated to revegetation of disturbed areas within the Subdivision ("Revegetation LOC"), the cost for which is detailed as a subdivision improvement in Exhibit B. The Revegetation LOC shall be valid for a minimum of two (2) years following recording of the Final Plat. The BOCC, at its sole option may permit the Owner to substitute collateral other than a Letter of Credit, in a form acceptable to the BOCC, for the purpose of securing the completion of revegetation. b. Revegetation LOC General Provisions. The provisions of paragraphs 3.b., 3.c. and 3.d., above, dealing with Letter of Credit requirements, extension of expiration dates, increase in face amounts, and plat recording shall apply to the Revegetation LOC. c. Revegetation Review and Notice of Deficiency. Upon establishment of revegetation, the Owner shall request review of the revegetation work by the Garfield County Vegetation Management Department, by telephone or in writing. Such review shall be for the 10 purpose of verification of success of revegetation and reclamation in accordance with the Garfield County Weed Management Plan 2000, adopted by Resolution No. 2002-94 and recorded in the Office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder as Reception No. 580572, as amended, and the revegetation/reclamation plan titled and dated for the Subdivision submitted. If the Vegetation Management Department refuses approval and provides written notice of deficiency(ies), the Owner shall cure such deficiency(ies) by further revegetation efforts, approved by the Vegetation Management Department, as such efforts may be instituted within the two (2) years following recording of the Final Plat. d. Single Request for Release of Revegetation LOC. Following receipt of written approval of the Vegetation Management Department, the Owner may request release of the Revegetation LOC and shall do so by means of submission to the BOCC, through the Building and Planning Department, of a Written Request for Release of Revegetation LOC, in the form attached to and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit F, along with certification of completion by the Owner, or Owner's agent with knowledge, and a copy of the written approval of the Vegetation Management Department. It is specifically understood by the parties that the Revegetation LOC is not subject to successive partial releases, as authorized in paragraph 3.e., above. Further, the Revegetation LOC and the BOCC's associated rights to withdraw funds and bring a court action may survive final release of the LOC securing other Subdivision Improvements, defined in paragraph 3.a., above. e. BOCC's Completion of Revegetation and Other Remedies. If Owner's revegetation efforts are deemed by the BOCC to be unsuccessful, in the sole opinion of the BOCC upon the recommendation of the Vegetation Management Department, or if the BOCC determines that the Owner will not or cannot complete revegetation, the BOCC, in its discretion, may withdraw 11 and employ from the Revegetation LOC such funds as may be necessary to carry out the revegetation work, up to the face amount of the Revegetation LOC. In lieu of or in addition to drawing on the Revegetation LOC, the BOCC may bring an action for injunctive relief or damages for the Owner's failure to adhere to the provisions of this SIA related to revegetation. The BOCC shall provide the Owner a reasonable time to cure any identified deficiency prior to requesting payment from the Revegetation LOC or filing a civil action. 5. WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER COLLECTION. Owner certifies that Owner has heretofore installed and connected a water distribution system for potable water and fire protection and a wastewater collection system in accordance with approved plans and specifications. All easements and rights of way necessary for installation, operation, service and maintenance of such water supply and distribution system and wastewater collection system shall be established as shown on the Final Plats of the Subdivisions. Said water supply and distribution system shall be conveyed in its entirety to the Elk Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., simultaneously with the recording of the Final Plat. Said wastewater collection system shall be conveyed in its entirety to Spring Valley Sanitation District simultaneously with the recording of the Final Plats. It is specifically agreed that the three lots within Elk Springs Filing 8 Phase 2 may utilize individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS). 6. PRIVATE ROADS. All roads within the Subdivision shall be set apart and conveyed as private road rights-of-way to the Elk Springs Homeowners' Association, subject to public easements for ingress and egress by emergency service providers. The Homeowners' Association of the Subdivision shall be solely responsible for the maintenance, repair and upkeep of said private rights-of-way, including the traveled surface of the roadways and areas outside of the traveled surface. The BOCC shall not be obligated to maintain road rights-of-way within the 12 Subdivision. Existence of private roads shall be noted on the Final Plats and deeds of conveyance of the rights-of-way to the Homeowners' Association of the Subdivision shall be recorded at the time of recording the Final Plats. All offsite road improvements for the Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. have previously been satisfied. 7. PUBLIC UTILITY RIGHTS-OF-WAY. Whether or not utility easements exist elsewhere in the Subdivision, all road rights-of-way within the Subdivision shall contain easements for installation and maintenance of utilities. Public utility easements shall be depicted on the face of the Final Plat and deeded by recorded instrument to the HOA for the benefit of public utility providers. The Homeowner's Association of the Subdivision shall be solely responsible for the maintenance, repair and upkeep of said public utility easements, unless otherwise agreed to with the public utility company(ies). The BOCC shall not be obligated for the maintenance, repair and upkeep of any utility easement within the Subdivision. In the event a utility company, whether publicly or privately owned, requires conveyance of the easements depicted on the Final Plat by separate document, Owner shall execute and record the required conveyance documents. 8. CONVEYANCE OF OPEN SPACE AND ROADS. The common open space parcels and roads identified on the Final Plats of the Subdivision shall be conveyed by Owner to the Homeowner's Association at the time of Final Plat Approval. Owner shall deposit with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder executed originals of the instruments of conveyance for recordation following recording of the Final Plat and this SIA. 9. INDEMNITY. The Owner shall indemnify and hold the BOCC harmless and defend the BOCC from all claims which may arise as a result of the Owner's installation of the Subdivision Improvements including revegetation and any other agreement or obligation of Owner, related to development of the Subdivision, required pursuant to this SIA. The Owner, however, does not 13 indemnify the BOCC for claims made asserting that the standards imposed by the BOCC are improper or are the cause of the injury asserted, or from claims which may arise from the negligent acts or omissions of the BOCC or its employees. The BOCC shall notify the Owner of receipt by the BOCC of a notice of claim or a notice of intent to sue, and the BOCC shall afford the Owner the option of defending any such claim or action. Failure to notify and provide such written option to the Owner shall extinguish the BOCC's rights under this paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to constitute a waiver of governmental immunity granted to the BOCC by Colorado statutes and case law. 10. ROAD IMPACT FEE. Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Garfield County Resolution 98- 30, the Preliminary Plan Approval, the BOCC has established a Road Impact fee of Two Hundred and No/100ths Dollars ($200.00) for each residential lot within the Subdivision. There are 62 lots within Filing 9 and 3 lots within Filing 8 Phase 2. Therefore, Owner shall pay Thirteen Thousand and No/100ths Dollars ($13,000.00) to the Garfield County Treasurer at or prior to the time of recording of the Final Plats. 11. FEES IN LIEU OF DEDICATION OF SCHOOL LAND. Condition 20 of the PUD Approval required Owner to convey an identified School Site Parcel to the RE -1 School District in full satisfaction of all obligations for dedication of land or payment of fees in lieu thereof for the Los Amigos Ranch PUD. Owner conveyed the School Site Parcel to the RE -1 School District by Special Warranty Deed dated May 9, 2007, recorded on May 15, 2006, at Reception No. 723310 of the Garfield County real estate records. Thus, Owner and BOCC agree that Owner has fully satisfied its obligations to the RE -1 School District and no fee is due from Owner for these Final Plats. 14 All property within Elk Springs which was not previously within the municipal boundaries of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District was included within the District pursuant to its Resolution No. 005, Series of 2000. The Owner shall comply with all requirements of said Resolution No. 005, Series of 2000 which include the obligation to pay an impact fee of $ per lot for each of the 62 lots within the Final Plat for a total Fire District impact fee of $ prior to the recording of the Final Plat. 12. SALE OF LOTS. No lots, tracts, or parcels within the Subdivision may be separately conveyed prior to recording of the Final Plat in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. 13. BUILDING PERMITS AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY. As one remedy for breach of this SIA, including failure to satisfy requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval, the BOCC may withhold issuance of building permits for any residence or other habitable structure to be constructed within the Subdivision. No certificates of occupancy shall issue for any habitable building or structure, including residences, within the Subdivision until all Subdivision Improvements, except revegetation, have been completed and are operational and all requirements of the Preliminary Plan Approval have been satisfied as required by this SIA. 14. CONSENT TO VACATE PLAT. In the event the Owner fails to comply with the terms of this SIA, the BOCC shall have the ability to vacate the Final Plat as it pertains to any lots for which building permits have not been issued. As to lots for which building permits have been issued, the Plat shall not be vacated and shall remain valid. In such event, the Owner shall provide the BOCC a plat, suitable for recording, showing the location by surveyed legal description of any portion of the Final Plats so vacated by action of the BOCC. If such a Plat is not signed by the 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BOCC and recorded, or if such Plat is not provided by the Owner, the BOCC may vacate the Final Plat, or portions thereof, by resolution. 15. ENFORCEMENT. In addition to any rights provided by Colorado statute, the withholding of building permits and certificates of occupancy, provided for in paragraph 13, above, the provisions for release of security, detailed in paragraph 3, above, and the provisions for plat vacation, detailed in paragraph 14, above, it is mutually agreed by the BOCC and the Owner, that the BOCC, without making an election of remedies, and any purchaser of any lot within the Subdivision shall have the authority to bring an action in the Garfield County District Court to compel enforcement of this SIA. Nothing in this SIA, however, shall be interpreted to require the BOCC to bring an action for enforcement or to withhold permits or certificates or to withdraw unused security or to vacate the Final Plat or a portion thereof, nor shall this paragraph or any other provision of this SIA be interpreted to permit the purchaser of a lot to file an action against the BOCC. In addition, the BOCC may, but shall not be required to, pursue any of its enforcement remedies as applicable, pursuant to Article XII of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. 16. NOTICE BY RECORDATION. This SIA shall be recorded in the Office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder and shall be a covenant running with title to all lots, tracts and parcels within the Subdivision. Such recording shall constitute notice to prospective purchasers and other interested persons as to the terms and provisions of this SIA. 17. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. The obligations and rights contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the Owner and the BOCC. 18. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND NQTICE PROVISIONS. The representatives of the Owner and the BOCC, identified below, are authorized as contract administrators and notice recipients. Notices required or permitted by this SIA shall be in writing 16 and shall be effective upon the date of delivery, or attempted delivery if delivery is refused. Delivery shall be made in person, by certified return receipt requested U.S. Mail, receipted delivery service, or facsimile transmission, addressed to the authorized representatives of the BOCC and the Owner at the address or facsimile number set forth below: Owner: BOCC: Elk Springs, LLC ATTN: Gary McElwee 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Facsimile: (970) 945-6399 w/copy to: Balcomb & Green, P.C. ATTN: Lawrence R. Green, Esq. 818 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Facsimile: (970) 945-9769 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado c/o Building & Planning Dir. 108 8`" Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 945-8212 Fax: (970) 384-3470 19. AMENDMENT AND SUBSTITUTION OF SECURITY. This SIA may be modified, but only in writing signed by the parties hereto, as their interests then appear. Any such amendment, including, by way of example, extension of the Completion Date, substitution of the form of security, or approval of a change in the identity of the security provider/issuer, shall be considered by the BOCC at a scheduled public meeting. Before any extension of Completion Date is considered, Owner shall certify that all taxes and assessments on the real property subject to the SIA are paid in full. If such an amendment includes a change in the identity of the provider/issuer of security, due to a conveyance of the Subdivision by the Owner to a successor in interest, Owner shall 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 provide a copy of the recorded assignment document(s) to the BOCC, along with the original security instrument. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties may change the identification of notice recipients and contract administrators and the contact information provided in paragraph 18, above, in accordance with the provisions of that paragraph and without formal amendment of this SIA and without consideration at a BOCC meeting. 20. COUNTERPARTS. This SIA may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall be deemed one and the same instrument. 21. VENUE AND JURISDICTION. Venue and jurisdiction for any cause arising out of or related to this SIA shall lie with the District Court of Garfield County, Colorado, and this SIA shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Colorado. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this SIA to be effective upon the date of Final Plat Approval for the Subdivision. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Clerk to the Board By: Chairman Date: OWNER ELK SPRINGS, LLC By: Gary McElwee Date: 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) Subscribed and sworn to before me by Gary McElwee, an authorized representative of Elk Springs, LLC, Owner of the Subdivision, this day of , 2010. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public 19 SCHMUESER GORDON ` MEYER ENGINEERS6 'SURVEYORS November 23, 2010 Larry Green, Esq. Balcomb & Green, P.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 1 1 8 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8 160 1 970.945. 1004 970.945.5948 FAx Via E -Mail: tarry@balcombgreen.com RE: Filing 9, Elk Springs Subdivision SIA Cost Estimate/Certification of Public Improvements Dear Larry: This letter serves to transmit an engineering cost estimate for future public improvements and provide documentation for the completed infrastructure associated with this Final Plat application. Filing 9 This filing consists of the western most lots in Elk Springs. Again, the bulk of this construction was previously completed as documented in the attachments to Dean Gordon's July 25, 2007 letter to you. The exception is that two additional lots (79 & 80) have been added at the top of Kingbird Drive. Necessary future construction consists of widening a portion of the existing drive, extending the drive, constructing a cul-de-sac and installing utility services to the existing mains as shown on the plans. Refer to the attached Filing 9 - Kingbird Drive SIA Cost Estimate. I have reviewed the status of previously -constructed public improvements for this project. Those improvements would generally consist of the construction of utilities and roadway improvements within Elk Springs, consistent with prior Preliminary Plan approvals and the Record Maps for water and sewer and the Preliminary Plan for roads submitted with this application for Final Plat approval for Elk Springs. Attached hereto are letters from Dean Gordon, P.E., Dow Construction, the contractor of record; H -P Geotech, referencing compaction testing and site observation; and Mr. Gary McElwee, owner's representative, who provided project management during construction. Also attached is a spreadsheet entitled "Elk Springs Production", which identifies the materials used to install the improvements. Based on the attached documents and a visual site inspection conducted by myself and Mr. McElwee, to the best of my knowledge, the previously -constructed utility and roadway I:\1981\01502\C\29\Nov2010GarCoSubmittal\App H-\3a-ElkSpringsF9lmp.doc 103 WEST TOMICHI AVE, SUITE A 1 0 1 FOUNDERS PLACE, UNIT 102 GUNNISON, CO 81230 PO Box 2155 970.641 .5355 ASPEN, CO 81 61 I 970.641 .5358 FAX 970.925.6727 970.925.41 57 FAx 2768 COMPASS DRIVE, SUITE 1 02 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 970.245.257 1 970.245.2871 FAx 320 THIRD STREET MEEKER, CO 8 1 641 970.878.5180 970.878.4181 FAX 1 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS> S U R V E Y O R S 1 with applicable construction documents. infrastructure improvements within Filing 9 appear to be constructed and installed in compliance 1 I trust this is sufficient for your needs to document the status of the necessary infrastructure for Filing 9, Elk Springs Subdivision. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I:\1981 \01502\C\29\Nov2010GarCoSubmittaI pp H-\3a-ElkSpringsF9lmp.doc Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. David M. Kotz, P.E. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Elk Springs/Los Amigos Ranch Filing 9 Subdivision Improvements Agreement Engineering Cost Estimate Filing 9 - Kingbird Drive Cul-de-sac No. Description gly, Unit Price / Unit Estimate 1 Moblization 1 LS $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 2 Clearing & Grubbing 0.42 AC $ 2,000.00 $ 840.00 2 Topsoil strip, stockpile & replace/dispose 2030 SY $ 2.00 $ 4,060.00 3 Subgrade Prep 2030 SY $ 1.00 $ 2,030.00 4 Class 6 Aggregate (inc. trench full depth under pavement) 830 TN $ 32.00 $ 26,560.00 5 Chip Seal 1330 SY $ 7.00 $ 9,310.00 6 LP Sewer Service 2 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 7 Water Service 2 EA $ 1,200.00 $ 2,400.00 8 Revegetation 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 9 Miscellaneous Utilities 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Sub -Total $ 10 % contingency $ 56,200.00 5,620.00 Total $ Note: This cost estimate is based on the engineer's interpretation of estimated bid quantities and prices that will be received for this project. As with any estimate, actual costs may vary due to unforeseen circumstances and market conditions. 61,820.00 3b-ElkSpringsF9-SIA.xls By: David M. Kotz, P.E. 11/24/10 Schmueser Gordon Meyer SCFIMUESER GORDON MEYER III ftAillMILIVANI,IrCi litrikliiif6! 1111 Reception#: 734933 10/10/2007 01:26:12 PM Jean Alberico 10 of 17 Rec Fee:$86.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO EXHIBIT B July 25, 2007 Larry Green, Esq. Balcomb & Green, P.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 RE: Filing 8, EIk Springs Subdivision Certification of Public Improvements Dear Larry: Via E -Mail: tarry@balcombgreen.com At your request, I have reviewed the status of required public improvements for the above -referenced project. Those improvements would generally consist of the construction of utilities and roadway improvements within Filing 8, consistent with prior Preliminary Pian approvals and the Record Maps for water and sewer and the Preliminary Plan for roads submitted with the application for Final Plat approval for EIk Springs Filing No. 8. Attached hereto are letters from Dow Construction, the contractor of record; HP Geotech, referencing• compaction testing and site observation; and Mr. Gary McElwee, owner's representative, who provided project management during construction. Also attached is a spreadsheet entitled "Elk Springs Production", which identifies the materials used to install the improvements. Based on the attached documents and a visual site inspection conducted by myself, to the best of my knowledge, all required utility and roadway infrastructure improvements have been completed within Filing 8 and appear to be constructed and installed in compliance with applicable construction documents. I trust this is sufficient for your needs to document the completion of the necessary infrastructure for Filing 8. Respectfully submitted, Dean Princip 1:119811015021C129120070725 Letter to LRG from Dean Gordon filing 8.doc 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111 PIA. F1741111,11 11111 Reception#: 734933 10/10/2007 01:26:12 PM Jean Alberico 11 of 17 Rec Fee:$86.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO DOT CONSTRI r�.. �� i (70. INC 8/24/04 Dean Gordon Schmueser, Gordon & Meyer 118 W_ 611' Street Ste. 200 Glenwood Springs CO SI 64'7 Project: Elle Springs Subdivision RE: Construction Procedures for Utility Trenches and Road Construction in Filings 5,6,7,8 & 9. After a right of way has been flagged, we begin by the clearing of trees and brush_ Thea topsoil is stockpiled or placed at the side of the roadway. After clearing and grubbing a road surface was established by cutting and filling as required. Equipment utilized: Bulldozers_ Excavators, Loaders, sheep foot and smooth drum rollers, water trucks, dump trucks, etc. Fills were placed in approximately 1 foot loose lifts and uo►npacted to at least 95 % standard proctor density. The Oral of MP Geo -tech was hired to establish water content and comnpactive effort needed to achieve this. Due to the rocky environment borrow pits were established_ This was necessary to produce fines, Fines were used to establish a satisfactory road bed. The borrow pits were then used as a burn area for clearing debris and a bury pit for oversize boulders. The pits were then covered with soil and revregitated. After a roadbed had been established, utility cons4u4;60u began. Utility trench locations were established, A bulldozer with a 42" ripper followed the alignment making a trench that was thelia filled with water The water truck was equipped with a special nozzle fabricated to eject water directly into the trench, This procedure greatly enhanced the mixing of earth and water for the backfilling procedure. Atter the pipe and fittings were placed, the pipe was bedded in a special material free of rocks greater than 314" in size. A 1 foot layer of this bedding was placed and compacted. Compaction procedures were frequently tcstcd fey geo-techs to assure moisture content and soil density. After the bedding procedure was completed additional utilities were then placed and the above mentioned bedding technique was repeated. After all utilities were installed, the remainder of the trench was bacllled using the same method. When the utilities have been constructed, tested, and approved by the proper experts, the road 1 A ,,'l , f,f, fl , r'• ,n T 1 r, n .,, 1 n, 1!',h enAelf ..1 t,I's • , .-, .-. .r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r-4 ■iII�Y�°�1117,61111,14r«i' iiiiN hTlCIIII,l'Nii 11111 Reception#: 734933 10/10/2007 01:26:12 PM Jean Alberioo 12 of 17 Rec Fee:$86.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO bed was reestablished. This is achieved by scarifying, watering, and roiling. All top soiling and clean up effort occur at this time. Before gravel placement begins„ a proof roll test is performed in the presence of a geo-tech or engineer. This is accomplished by observing the road surface under the wheels of a fully loaded dump truck or water truck If any movement is noted the area is marked and reworked until the failure is remedied. After the proof roll is approved, the gravel placement will begin. A filter fabric was placed between the sub -grade and gravel. It is placed between the sub -grade and the road base to prevent integration. The filter fabric is rolled out in front of the trucks dumping gravel. The fabric is held in place by grade stakes. The grade stakes provide alignment and elevation location. The gravel is manipulated into place by a motor grader, rollers and water truck. The goal is to achieve smoothness, grade, slope, drainage and density to make an all weather surface. Again a geo-tech is used to assure moisture content and density. Be assured that every effort was made to assure a quality and safe product to the best of our ability. Sincerely Dow Rippy President, Dow Construction CO. Inc. Joe Lundeen Supervisor, Dow Construction CO. Inc, 1 1 1 e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111II1���iF't!�i�� Reception#: 734933 1013/of�17007 Rec Fee:$86.00 DocnFee:0 0a GARFIELD COUNTY CO GgEtech HEPWORTH • PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL September 9, 2004 Elk Springs, LLC Atten: Greg Boecker 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Subject: Dear Greg: 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-7988 Fax: 970-945-8454 hpgeo@hpgeotech.com Job No. 196 617-1 Final Testing and Observation Results, Filings 7, 8, and 9, Elk Springs Subdivision, County Road 114, Garfield County, Colorado As requested, HP Geotech visited the site and performed in-place density testing and observed the roadways at base course grade on June 11, 2004. Six density tests were performed and all tests met the Project minimum density of 95% standard Proctor density. The base course was then dug up at the test locations to expose subgrade soil and the depth measured. Again, all locations met or exceeded the minimum required base course depth of 8 inches. During our visit the gravel roadway surface was observed for signs of instability such as rutting, and cracking. No signs of instability were noted. HP Geotech also performed. compaction testing and observation during infrastructure construction. These reports have been previously submitted. Based on our test results and observations, it appears that the roadway construction should perform as intended. If you have any questions, please call this office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Michael Evans S.E.T. Reviewed by: SLP cc: SGM, Dean Gordon Dow Construction, Dow Rippy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I; assumed RUG -17-2004 16:36 1111 IFIITYMIliVliii'Mal 5Aleormi) IiiIii ®(III Receptionit: 734933 r Road 154 11-11rt � 14 of 17 R c ee: 82 PM Jean a :0.00o p(ingS, CpfOf8d0 $1650 14 of 17 Rec Fee: $86.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO X345-79Fi8 r an. a, v -e45.8454 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEO7ECHNICAl hpge0@hpgeotecti.Com Earthwork Observation and Testing Report Client: Los Amigos Ranch Partnership Attn: Greg Boecker 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Job No. 196 617-1 Date: 6-11-04 Report No. Page: 1 of 1 Project: Filing 7, Elk Springs Subdivision, CMC Road, Garfield County, Colorado Test No. Nuclear Gau Location Los Amigos at intersection with Little Wood Lane, right of centerline 100' north of hiking trail riht of centerline 400' north of Primrose Point /eft of centerline 100' north of Primrose Point right of centerline at intersection with Gossamer Road left of centerline at intersection with Vista Place Proctor Sample Reference. Lab No. Method ASTM 0-698 e Moisture/Density Test Results Field Dry Density PCF Depth or Elev. finished grade finished _grade finished grade finished _grade 130.3 130.9 132.0 132.1 130.5 131,6 Field Moisture Content % 1.5 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.6 Percent Comp. 96 96 97 97 96 1.7 97 NATURE SAVEHT" FAX MEMO 01616 vete 4. ti1 WteP. Toy(' CoiDear. �� liw A From v1Av\' uIl�ii-i Co. P1onc f . phone o , r,► 1 t — Fax r —_ C� 71S Faxd 1JCSW 11,/Uv11 ,vIca n Dry Dens Min. % Comp. Req. 95 95 96 95 95 95 Lab No./ Depth ai'tpcsse assumed/ 8"+ assumed/ 8" assumed/ 8"+ assumed/ assumed/ 8"+ assumed/ 8"+ '/4" aggregate base course 1 1 1 1 THE NUCLEAR DEN$OMLTOI( METHOD OF TESTING WAS USED IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM 02922 AND 03017. 136.0 -a opt Moist 7.0 Progress Report: Ali roadway base appeared to be well compacted. No signs of instability were evident. v Construction - Dow Rippy Michael Evans Field Observer Reviewed By ThTrli n nw 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Gary McElwee 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Ph: 970 945 6399 November 24, 2010 VIA HAND DELIVERY TO: Lawrence R. Green, Esq. Balcomb & Green, P.C. 818 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Filing 9, Elk Springs Subdivision Public Infrastructure Improvements Dear Larry: In my capacity as a member of the Architectural Review Committee and the Ranch Manager for Los Amigos Ranch LLC, I was involved and am aware of the construction of public infrastructure improvements for Filing 9. The contractor for the improvements was DOW Construction Company, Inc. This is to certify that except for the extension of Kingbird Drive and related utility services to provide access and utility service to lots 79 and 80, the public utility systems and roadway infrastructure facilities were installed in their entirety and were installed in compliance with approved construction documents. All systems have been tested and are ready for their intended use. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■II! A IV+IIi,WWW,l ilV+11:14X 1 r lil Receptionti; 734933 10/10/2007 01:26:12 PM Jean Aiberico 16 of 17 Rec Fee:$06.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO lug PAGE 1:72 1, C. t 0 0 c9 • 0 o ca C3 0 T 0 E','i C7 r r 0 CI 0 cri Is- V) oA 0 rf1 (\ to r C. o 0 C7 O try EA O a C7 O CI 0 d O 1[7 t- 0 O u] E9 III O O 0 O �? 0 O W In 0 N t- CO 0 CI 0 C7 N rfi O pp N N. 0 8 2 q O [7 EIS a 8 0 if 0 8$ I� .. ffi p 0 CD tH O In CV OJ 01 O Q O o ei O 17 V Cj O O an N cic 6% O 4 N 4, h NA E O Q al V) d u7 V) cQ.) O Cr) M 0 V u7 N 0 t? VD t. 6N9 07 t/ 0 0 O O CD > CO E S 0 aotod9tgr 0 CC EE3 8 o o ER m 8 m Q Q ai 8 CV cs! !!) (� t) ci t7 $ q� CJ o O q O CV EA O m to O 0 oof ti VD o® 0 0 CO ( 0 ar 0 Yi CD C,] o Ce EA 0 0 V► o V Ci o N 0 6 40/,H} CJ Li 6 V7 6N /) 0 O O Li a v> el 0 G W Q' u ci La (r) 0 6 U) C7 O ID O ui P: � DI N 6% 0 CI 0 O a> to a? v. ) Ea O I p ui EV N 1) 0 8 O' 0 VD M tR O cD 6 CO G 6 49 0 c? 0cr,cz. CO 8 6 N uT C+) cA to G� Ci n4 O o 0 - v- esi MT S O O t til 4.0)w G? O CI O '0 v al t- c9 IA VI S S OD ,i 0 t9 -I t C C c c03 d S 6 V? $0.0 $82,000,00 • -1 • •4 O 0 CQ Ir..- 6% 0 0 0 O N to O c; O?... r' "et V) 0 c6 ttr 1.4 M S M r r. to S O to to O 6= tR O 6 0 O 6 0 N to O O d? 0 0© V? o tR p 0 to 0 O d 0 to O 10 N tf) 0 0 Q Irl 'p ci o X(0 Di � 6.% .} C)6% Cf ch 0 O a`4p.i 0 0 cC2 O 'Kt co 0 Ci C. 19 tN t �1 1• D _ul a o M to 0 0 PO is.; T � d 0 Cp fR O 0 �� CV M O d 0 0 4» t -- EA ,. w O Ip N 0 a OD EA O 0 0 EI) C. 0 COctIDt� 0 0 ..1 44 A 0 14/ t4A 60 I-- Tr T- V) 0 CJ CO 2 CO �y QQ'� I-- m Q 6 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q o 14) Cr) x^ t-- `1) '4) N CV N roti M 0 'V' N v N N 0) 0 O 0 0 O t-- 'et IO C+) m - CD - OD 1` iMOEUUI2ATION waa:2' o r u F-0 CL a U . U .'d 0 z O U - r 22' U: sf lie" METAL END SECTIONS 24" METAL END SECTIONS 30" METAL END SECTIONS 2Uz1 2" METAL END SECTIONS ZUzO'54" METAL END SECTIONS i...1 IP- ftill uJ -} oij. n CNA N C:3, CV -I -- o 2 -1 o. Q a > �' Q > CO 14 It u) 11.1 � CO i r 1 ' NA I ER SERVICE, CORP Si NATER SERVICE, 1" COPP`' (o CO I-- 2 i O 7Q /A 11 N C\t Q N N Co 0 N r CV 0 N tN- CV 0 N CV ,- 'V' N 0 CV 0 N fV U7 CV 6 Ci7 N O N v-- N I Cr I N 1 L CNV N G7 N N N N N p C] CV N y N DI O N CV N N C1 N !��`' N O N ccryy DI O N c c(+) N N O Cr, Cl N N N I 1 N I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . -J D. +_,:J `1Ur,.277 LU`_, Y;P1ihU'-D k-':JHF'; FYoGF (I? ®III IIIA' 1117, x11 I ihrlit I 1,111=1111.114 ®1111 a - '+V iA to 0 0 O O (4) 7 [V J 0 O G 0.1 v- R 0 CJ co CO (U CA 0 c0 V' e+' C P O ITC'9 •c CQ CCVH 0 ►n f- O1 01 0 O OO 1.0 0 O 'i 0D tO ffl 0 O CI O CD tO 0 0 -7' CD CO(O to 0 0 N c0 tf 6 C7 cO N.-- 03 '- 0 V? r ,t o co CO N /Y Cy 69 0 0 10 O m 1,...(Op 4* CS u7 t-. eA 0 p O Op 0 O CV 69 0 0 V' (X/��J n0 0404 d9 l£] C7 M. N- A 0 I, (4 0 o a co 69 0 0 O r 41 0 0 Com') co 0 O CO ttvi 9 117 (V (9 CJ U 0 O ca 0 O' tC�J, S� u0 Ci9 -ii f- 0% '4- .- 0% .4' r 4 'Q' r-' A 1^ .- 69 WI O 0 v) 6 V O P t=1 O Y! K ,C) O a to Q 6 01 O O O to O C O to c9 O 6 443 0 0 e5 4* C► 0 A 4* b 0 C; C M Q a 0 0 r= (H O Coo CV 00 cv 10 Q O O e9 O N Di p �' 4» Co O C940). G 0 C G1 CJ O 4* G aq A Chi iq t... C/? O O 47 cm A+ C4 (N o 0 CO bN9 c) C; CI 0 (V 07 - m C9 Cr��n ifi O Co 0 CCij K3 O CV ui NN 240 02 L; V^ y O O 4:7 0 V> 0 10 r � (A 0 IN O 0 mr(- p er C1 O r r O CI cgiM VQ 01 -. O- '0 • N: m ' 'd e- t!1 Q [i] l.. (•i Le CA 69 O CA 41 C4 a-- ,t,I -1 r Q SAJ Q 1J 1 Q !J.! l+(� -1. 4 JI1 Q W Q 111 II :..1 .-k---1� CO „-1 41 Q -- F0 P— 0 D ,)o 0 0 0 (Y) •Q co 0) M to 0 4 el 0 2 r 0 0 r Lo 46 +ii ,- 0 a O T 0 sa 10T a r 1 c rrccaSUKG c.Wtht iESSURE SEWER Z re uJ r Z I CC d ARV/FLUSHING SIDEROAD1 ARV/FLUSHING HIGH POEN" SEWER SERVICE, LINE FIT EWIER SERVICE, 1/4" ONNECT TO EXIST SYS. ET TRANS VAULT ET SPLICE VAULT ELECT CONDUIT IPROVIOE TRENCH GAS PROVIDE TRENCH TELE PROVIDE COMP TRENCH T U Z 11.1 r Cr in to a -4 o O $LASTING ROCK REMOVAL o 'C' 9 C`) V Cy 3 0 V N 'n 4* N 0 N 20236E P- M N 0 (V (0 Ce) CV O N 1 202391 1 202401 , rY CV 0 CV N 'lY (V 0 tV r) '' N 0 CY ' 'LI- N 0 (V 10 "Q- (V 0 CV m Nr N 0 CV tom- NI' CV (7 N m 'V' CV O tV co `d' CV C) N 4 (C') (V O CV ,,--- i!) CV O CN Reception#' 734933 10/10/2007 01:26,12 PM Jean Alberico 17 of 17 Rec Fee:$86.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 6 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS! 9' U R V E Y O R 5 November 23, 2010 Larry Green, Esq. Balcomb & Green, P.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 1 1 8 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.945.1 004 970.945.5948 FAX Via E -Mail: tarry@balcombgreen.com RE: Filing 8 — Phase 2, Elk Springs Subdivision SIA Cost Estimate/Certification of Public Improvements Dear Larry: This letter serves to transmit engineering cost estimates for future public improvements and provide documentation for the completed infrastructure associated with this Final Plat application. Filing 8- Phase 2 These are the three 35+ acre Rural Residential lots south of Filing 8 accessed by Juniper Drive. Utility construction was completed by Dow Construction as documented in the attachments to the July 25, 2007 Dean Gordon, P.E letter to you (attached). Juniper Drive was reconstructed this past summer and fall as documented by the attached invoices from GMCO and GNPeters that indicate over $200k was spent improving the road. H -P Geotech did construction testing and oversaw the work. Refer to their summary letter also attached. These lots will be served by Individual Septic Disposal Systems (ISDS) as approved by Garfield County Resolution 99-102. All other infrastructure is in place and no costs are necessary for SIA security purposes. Filing 8- Phase 2 - SIA Cost Estimate = $0 (all work completed). I have reviewed the status of previously -constructed public improvements for this project. Those improvements would generally consist of the construction of utilities and roadway improvements within Elk Springs, consistent with prior Preliminary Plan approvals and the Record Maps for water and sewer and the Preliminary Plan for roads submitted with this application for Final Plat approval for Elk Springs. Attached hereto are letters from Dean Gordon, P.E., Dow Construction, the contractor of record; H -P Geotech, referencing compaction testing and site observation; and Mr. Gary McElwee, owner's representative, who provided project management during construction. Also attached is I:\1981 \01502\C\29\Nov2010GarCoSubmittal\App H-\2a-ElkSpringsF8blmp.doc 103 WEST TOMICHI AVE, SUITE A GUNNISON, CO 81 230 970.64 1 .5355 970.641 .5358 FAX 101 FOUNDERS PLACE, UNIT 1 02 PO Box 2155 ASPEN, CO 8 1 6 1 I 970.925.6727 970.925.4157 FAX 2768 COMPASS DRIVE, SUITE 102 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 970.245.2571 970.245.2871 FAx 320 THIRD STREET MEEKER. CO 81641 970.878.5180 970.878.4181 FAX SCHMUESER GORDON 1 MEYER E N G I N E E R S S U R V E Y O R 9 a spreadsheet entitled "Elk Springs Production", which identifies the materials used to install the improvements. Based on the attached documents and a visual site inspection conducted by myself and Mr. McElwee, to the best of my knowledge, the previously -constructed utility and roadway infrastructure improvements within Filing 8 — Phase 2 appear to be constructed and installed in compliance with applicable construction documents. I trust this is sufficient for your needs to document the status of the necessary infrastructure for Filing 8 — Phase 2, Elk Springs Subdivision. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. David M. Kotz, P.E. I:\1981\01502\C\29\Nov2010GarCoSubmittal\App H-\2a-ElkSpringsF8blmp.doc HEPWORTH-PAWLAK (AOTECHNiC., November 18, 2010 Elk Springs LLC Attn: Gary McElwee 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Project No. 110 200A Subject: Summary of Construction Observations and Materials Testing, Juniper Drive Roadway Reconstruction, Filing 8, Phase 2, Elk Springs, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. McElwee: Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical. Inc. (HP Geotech) provided observation and materials testing services for subgrade and aggregate base course during construction of the above - referenced project. Our field services for the construction began on September 1, 2010 and continued on an as -requested basis through to completion of aggregate base course placement on September 21, 2010. Our services were performed under the direction of the undersigned licensed engineer registered in the State of Colorado. During construction, applicable testing and observation reports were prepared and have been distributed under separate cover. We previously performed an evaluation of the roadway subgrade and presented our findings and recommendations in a report dated July 22, 201 0. under our Job Number 110200A. At the time of our September 1 site visit, the existing aggregate base course had been removed and stockpiled. The subgrade soils had reportedly been scarified about one foot deep and then re -compacted using a vibratory pad foot roller. We observed proof rolling of the subgrade using a loaded dump truck. Areas that deflected excessively were marked for repair. We recommended that the marked areas be sub -excavated at least one foot and replaced with compacted granular import or suitably conditioned and compacted on site material as necessary to provide a stable subgrade. On September 7 we observed that the marked areas had been sub -excavated as recommended, and on September 8 we observed placement of 3 inch minus aggregate base course in progress in some of the sub -excavated areas. On September 13 we observed that the previously sub -excavated areas had been backfilled and compacted. About six additional areas that reportedly exhibited excessive deflection under truck tratlic had also been sub -excavated. One sample of the subgrade and one sample ofthe stockpiled Class 6 aggregate base course were obtained and tested for laboratory Proctor compaction, grain size distribution, and plasticity index. Laboratory test results indicated the aggregate base course was in compliance with CDOT Class 6 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Elk Springs, LLC November 18, 2010 Page 2 aggregate base course specifications for the tests performed. Field compaction testing was performed on the subgrade on September 14 which indicated that the subgrade was compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698), in compliance with our recorrunendations. No areas of apparent excessive deflection were observed and we judged the subgrade to be suitable for placement of geogrid and aggregate base course as recommended in our previous report. On September 21, we performed field compaction testing at aggregate base course grade which indicated that the aggregate base course was compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor density, in compliance with our recommendations. Based on our observations during the construction and results of our testing, the subgrade and aggregate base course as constructed for the project were in substantial compliance with our recommendations and applicable Garfield County specifications. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Thomas J. Westhoff, C.E.T. Reviewed by: Steven L. Pawlak, cc: Schmueser Gordon Balcomb & Green - Larry Green TJW/ksw GMCO LLC of Colorado P.O. Box 1480 Rifle, CO 81650 - Phone: (970) 625-9100 Fax: (970) 625-9101 E -Mail: gmco@gmcocorp.com To: Elk Springs Subdivision Gary McElwee 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 - Juniper Chip Seal See Attached 09/30/2010 Invoice No. Page: 1 2454 For Job: 10104 Elk Springs Purchase Order: Quantity Price Unit Amount 1.0000 43,215.0000 LS 43,215.00 Tax: 0.00 Invoice Totals Gross 43,215.00 Retention 0.00 Tax 0.00 TOTAL DUE 43,215.00 47-1171\fo IL 1j Limited Liability Company of Colorado 1.)O. Box 1480 Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 625-9100 FAX (970) 625-9101 Elk Springs ATTN:: Gary McElwee FAX: 945-6399 9/30/2010 Elk Springs LLC Juniper Chip Sea) Apply a 3/4" Chip Seal with a prime coat of A.E.P., to approximately 7,234 SY 7,234 SY $5.00/SY 536,170.00 Apply a second layer of 3/4" Chip Seal to hill. 1,409 SY @ 55.00/SY Invoice total 5 7.045.00 543,215.00 Date Invoice # 9/29/2010 FROM :PETERS DOVER SACRED GROUND GNPeters Const.Co .1 LC dba Carbon 8 Constructors 970-379-6212 5351 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 fAX NO. :9709630899 Sep. 29 2010 12:49Prl P1, Bill To LIk Springs Subdivision Glenwood Spgs.Cnlonado 970-945-6399 CIO Gary McFlwcc Invoice 26 P.O. No. Terms Project Quantity Description Rate Amount 8,340 3,250 2 388 3,300 1,150 1,050 3 2 Mobil ization- 6 pieces ltcrnove Rnadbase and Scarify- stockpile (6,) 3 locations Remove fabric to landfill on site. Compaction of Soh -base Ceogrid as per Specs. Reinstall roadhasc per Specs.- 60% reused assuming 40% new Square footage Option t (below) Exercised during Phase t Square footage Option 2 (below) Exercised dining Phase 1 Tnickloads boulders- collected, removed, hand and machine loaded, infill material at nesting, trucked to burn -pit Additional tonnage of 3/4 " roadhasc la make up for higher than expected loss: Part of this was wider and deeper roadway than bid, Phase 11 Square footage- severe paaniping at upper gats, 16" export/import w0.1Rss 2 in 2 lifts and compacted Phase 11 Square footage- prepared same as Option 1 Phase El Square footngc- prepared same as Option 2 I irs.)D50- Berm Hrs, Cat 416- ace:ess rd. Kendall 1,250.00 9,654.00 1,700,00 2,846.00 51,854.00 42.944.00 2,90 3.20 1,980.00 18.53 4.00 4.00 3.20 110.00 100.00 1,250.00 9.654.00 1,700.00 2.846,00 51,854.00 42,944.00 24,186.00 10,400.00 3,960.00 7,189.64 13,200.00 4,600.00 3,360.00 330.00 200.110 Total Page 1 Bill To Elk Springs Subdivision Glenwood Spgs.Colorado 970-915-6390 C/0 Gary McElwee FROM :PETERS DOVER SACRED GROUND FAX NO. :9709630899 Sep. 29 2810 12:49PM P2 GN Peters Const. Co. LLC. dba Carbon 8 Constructors 970-379-6212 5351 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 Invoice Date Invoice # 9/29/2010 26 P.O. No. Terms Project Quantity Description Rate Amount Inclusions: Windrow and remove to 3 stockpiles. Remove fabric and dispose at landfill on site. Scarily sub -base 12" per specs. and await inspection. Compact to spec. and proof roll. inspect. Install Tenaar TX -I60 triaxial Gcogrid. Reinstall salvageable mrtdhase and compact with moisture to spec. Install new roadbuse lo spec, adding moisture if necessary and final grade, Clean up and de -mobilize. Water provided on site by owner. Exclusions: Testing, inspection Optionl; (revised 0/2/10) LowerRo d- 8340 sq.ft. Remove. and export on site top 12' subgrade. inspection. if suitable add 12" lila of Class 2_ wer and compact with sheepsfoot compactor 1 pass vibration and 1 pass regular. $ 2.80fig11 TTpper Road- 3250 sq. ft. Pothole and locate nearby utilities. Work under supervialnn of gas company employee. Remove and windrow to dry top 12" subgradc. Scarify next. 12" to dry. Add optimal water anti compact scarified. Add optimal water and bring to grade final 12" in 3- compacted 4" )i Els with shcepsfout compactor. 1 pass vibrate and 1 pass regular. •`ti 3.211/sqL T&M rates apply, Rock Clause ntnitted from original estimate. however the first 1 1/2 truckloads exported NO C;I3ARQE Total Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FROM :PETERS DOVER SACRED GROUND GNPeters Const,Co.LLC dba Carbon 8 Constructors 970-379-6212 5351 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 8I623 FAX NO. :9709630899 Sep. 29 2010 12:50PM P3 Bill To Elk Springs Subdivision Glenwood Spgs.Colom4o 970-045-6399 C'/O Gary McPlwce Invoice Page 3 P.O. No. Terms Project Quantity Description Rate Amount Engineer estimate of6-8" roadbasc existing was incorrect. Actual was 8-10". However, contractor suspects that more than 60% ofmatcrial was salvaged. In this case there: will Oe no charge for the excess material encot nlered.1f 60% or less has been salvaged then TBtM rates apply for the extra material and labor/machine time. Contractor Warrants that areas proof rolled and compaction tested comply with desired engineering spcuificatinns. As our reconstniction was conducted during September of 2010 under almost optimal conditions we feel that reasonable guarantees about the road integrity can be passed on. However, contractor specifically excludes possible future hydraulic pumping in arca not icpaired and pamping specific to grades deeper than Ibis contractor has repaired during the wettest months (March -June). A comprehensive tnap delineating areas repaired and the type of repairs made will he included with final invoice. Less: Deposit billed out and Paid (Invoice 4 25) j -50,000.00 -50,000.0(1 Total 5127.673.64 Page 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FROM :PETERS DOVER SACRED GROUND GNPeters Const.Co.L,LC dba Carbon 8 Constructors 970-379-6212 5351 County Roast 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 1301 To FAX NO. :9709630899 Sep. 29 2010 12:50PM P4 Elk Springs Subdivision Glenwood Spp.Colorado 970-945-6399 CI0 (iaiy McElwee Invoice Date Invoice # R/27/2V10 25 F.O. No. Terms Project Quantity Description ! Rate Amount Advtmnce nn Rod Rebuild job Elk Springs Subdivision, Glenwood Spgs. Colo- As of 50,000.00 8/26, 2010 joh approx. 40% complete, 50,000.00 Total $50.000.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Gary McElwee 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Ph: 970E 9450 6399 November 24, 2010 VIA HAND DELIVERY TO: Lawrence R. Green, Esq. Balcomb & Green, P.C. 818 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Filing 8, Phase 2, Elk Springs Subdivision Public Infrastructure Improvements Dear Larry: In my capacity as a member of the Architectural Review Committee and the Ranch Manager for Los Amigos Ranch LLC, I was involved and am aware of the construction of public infrastructure improvements for Filing 8, Phase 2. The contractor for the improvements was DOW Construction Company, Inc. This is to certify that the public utility systems and roadway infrastructure facilities were installed in their entirety and were installed in compliance with approved construction documents. All systems have been tested and are ready for their intended use. truly y OA - Gary McElwee 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LETTERS FROM UTILITY PROVIDERS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Red Canyon Water Company 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-6399 09/01/10 Fred A. Jarman Planning Director Garfield County 108 8'h St. Ste. 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Jarman, The Red Canyon Water Company, owned by the Elk Springs Homeowners Association, can and will provide water to each of the single family lots in Los Amigos Ranch (Elk Springs) Subdivision, Filing 8, Phase 11 and Filing 9 pursuant to the written water delivery agreement with each lot owner. Red Canyon Water Company has storage capacities in place to supply water to the entire subdivision at build -out. All water rights are secured and all water allotment contracts are in place through the Basalt Water Conservancy District. 13legards, Gary McEl ee Secretary/Red Canyon Water Company Red Canyon Water Company Water Facilities Inventory — as of September 1, 2010 Item 1. Well 45 - 40 hp/3 phase pump 2. Well #6 - 40 hp/3 phase pump 3. Pump house - liquid chlorination system - electrical controls - pressure regulated pump controls 4. 2 Water Tanks- 320,000 gallon capacity and 312,000 gallon capacity 5. Five Pressure Reduction Stations, each consisting of: - one high volume 6" PRV - one low flow 2" PRV 6. 3/n" Static Water Line from Water Tank to Pump house (-4300 ft) 7. 24" Chlorine Contact Line behind Pump house (-400 ft) 8. 10" Transmission Lines (1800 ft) 9. 8" Transmission Lines (7725 ft) 10. 6" Transmission Lines (-8800 ft) I I. 97 Fire hydrants 12. 4 Frost -Free Yard Hydrants 13. Curb Stops on Service Lines 14. I" Service Lines to Single Family Curb Stops 15. Service Lines to Multi -Family Curb Stops 16. Pressure Gauges on Pump house and Pressure Reduction Stations 17. Various 10", 8" and 6" valves Red Canyon Water Company 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-6399 11/19/10 Fred A. Jarman, A1CP Assistant Planning Director Garfield County 108 8th St. Ste 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Jarman, The Red Canyon Water Company, owned by the Elk Springs Homeowners Association, can and will provide water to Filing 6A, in Elk Springs Subdivision (Los Amigos Ranch Planned Unit Development). Red Canyon Water Company has storage capacities in place to supply water to the entire subdivision at build -out. All water rights are secured and all water allotment contracts are in place through the Basalt Water Conservancy District. Regards, // /- etI 'GaryL----- '� Mc 'wee Secretary/Red Canyon Water Company Karp_Neu.HaonIYonW September 8, 2010 David Kotz, P.E. Schmueser Gordon & Meyer, Inc. 118 W. 6th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Sander N. Karp James S. Neu Karl J. Hanlon Michael J. Sawyer James F. Fosnaught Anna S. Isenberg Cassia R. Furman Jennifer M. Smith T. Damien Zumbrennen Jeffrey J. Conklin Suzan M. Pritchett* *Licensed in NY and IA 201 14th Street, Suite 200 P. 0. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 www.mountainl awfirm. com James S. Neu isn@rnountainlawfirm.com Re: Spring Valley Sanitation District/Elk Springs PUD (fka Los Amigos Ranch PUD) Filing 9 Dear David: We represent Spring Valley Sanitation District (the "District"). It is my understanding that your client is preparing to develop Filing 9 of Elk Springs PUD which is to be developed with 60 single family lots (the "Property"). The District and the owner of the Property entered into that certain Pre -Inclusion and Wastewater Treatment Plant Development Agreement dated December 15, 1999 and recorded with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder as Reception No. 587475 (the "PDA") which commits capacity in the District's wastewater treatment plant for the development of the Property. The PDA also sets forth terms and conditions of the Districts provision of wastewater treatment service to the Property. It is also my understanding that all sewer facilities to serve Filing 9 have been constructed and accepted by the District. Therefore, the District has the capacity in its wastewater treatment plant and can and will serve the Property with wastewater treatment service, subject to the following conditions: 1. If any additional sewer facilities need to be constructed, a complete set of sewer construction plans must be provided to the District for its review and approval prior to construction of such facilities to be dedicated to the District; 2. The approval by the District of all required Line Extension Agreements or Line Connection Agreements as required by the District's Rules and Regulations and/or the PDA; 3. The Applicant complies with all of the terms and conditions of the PDA and the District's Rules and Regulations; and 4. Pursuant to the District's Rules and Regulations and the PDA, the Applicant shall reimburse the District for all costs incurred by the District regarding this project, including, but not limited to legal and engineering review. KARP NEU HANLON, P.C. Page2 Please let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, KARP NEU HANLON, P.C. JSN: cc: Denise Diers, SVSD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Karp.Neu_HAanITTORNEonN October 13, 2010 David Kotz, P.E. Schmueser Gordon & Meyer, Inc. 118 W. 6th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Sander N. Karp James S. Neu Karl J. Hanlon Michael J. Sawyer James F. Fosnaught Anna S. Itenberg Cassia R. Furman Jennifer M. Smith T. Damien Zumbrennen Jeffrey J. Conklin Suzan M. Pritchett' *Licensed in NY and IA 201 14th Street, Suite 200 P. 0. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 www.mountainlawfirm.com James S. Neu jsn a@mountainlawfirm.com Via E -Mail Re: Spring Valley Sanitation District/Elk Springs PUD (fka Los Amigos Ranch PUD) Filing 6 Neighborhood Commercial Parcel Dear David: We represent Spring Valley Sanitation District (the "District"). It is my understanding that your client is preparing to amend the Final Plat for Filing 6 of Elk Springs PUD with a Neighborhood Commercial parcel (the "Property"). The District and the owner of the Property entered into that certain Pre -Inclusion and Wastewater Treatment Plant Development Agreement dated December 15, 1999 and recorded with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder as Reception No. 587475 (the "PDA") which commits capacity in the District's wastewater treatment plant for the development of the Property. The PDA also sets forth terms and conditions of the Districts provision of wastewater treatment service to the Property. Therefore, the District has the capacity in its wastewater treatment plant and can and will serve the Property with wastewater treatment service, subject to the following conditions: 1. A complete set of sewer construction plans are provided to the District for its review and approval prior to construction of any facilities to be dedicated to the District; 2. The approval by the District of all required Line Extension Agreements or Line Connection Agreements as required by the District's Rules and Regulations and/or the PDA; 3. The Applicant complies with all of the terms and conditions of the PDA and the District's Rules and Regulations; and KARP NEU HANLON, P.C. Page 2 4. Pursuant to the District's Rules and Regulations and the PDA, the Applicant shall reimburse the District for all costs incurred by the District regarding this project, including, but not limited to legal and engineering review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, KARP NEU HANLON, P.C. 611 ames S. Neu JSN: cc: Denise Diers, SVSD September 1, 2010 Mr. David Kotz 1 1 8 West 6th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 3799 HIGHWAY 82 • PO. BOX 2150 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 (970) 945-5491 • FAX (970) 945-4081 RECEIVED SEP 0 3 2010 :._ RE: Elk Springs, Filing 10 Dear Mr. Kotz: The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of Holy Cross Energy. Holy Cross Energy has adequate power supply to provide electric power to the development, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations, and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate power to and within the development will be undertaken by Holy Cross Energy upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements and subject to necessary governmental approvals. Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of the electric system for this project. Sincerely, HOLY CROSS ENERGY Bob Saathoff, Engineering Department bsaathoff@holycross.com (970) 947-5401 BS:vw v\Saathoff\Kotz Service Letter 2 A Tcxtchstine Energy' Cooperative T T T 1•14.41 {± ! itiltli illi 'J1,114111.14411�11�lyd ia1 j.�+l+i 1+111) ltl !11 g11 a l 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 w1. i I +, 1. 1 11 aR�'=! 1 i = ail' !1!,it) 1111 • i' 411N 11 k' ir11 s 1 { IIIr 1q iflNirtJ'{l,itl!!ll;Yiil�l�1 eat its 1:"!111h1111114" 9 t 1.' , 1 it i s 1 • ,•s i'i. ;..., = t !h art 11 6,1111A ,1 I ar, ,. ,, i 9t, d".. s' f1,.1•i S 1 Sta t Rea 1 jr ailt i1 =i fii.,,, l•, tiliidi M. t t'l9t'111,. iIilel:g111i,`I{tj1•t .i a t1�I'l.. 11 !' 14t {'�y1t il,�., p=+' �, l S{'aj`` IiF�''jnf 1i' ti %il,,�,ii jl• �'1ii,bi Vit; I j�r!dtllical 9d;!'111t�1jljlclll�=lily F, t�, ,n;"�;I',i�I�t�`',pjl'�i �r�lll ' , llu IC ;� r<i,i t 111!!!!11, la�j;l�''j;I�';,11 x+, i!''. tA•gI Ft, ial , ! 1 �I! 1 , 1 11 ,;• r1 a ! I Ej �, r; ! !1 , y 1 1 a +�tEt.. 1,.3 R 1"r R 1 =Rr,• 1111• Q 1 ,' ,1y1 �R'!:1 5j3 ll'I•,� { F• .11'c' al; fd {• i it t jlfat� i• i'! ►,lj� E!',F 11i!'i ;+1,,;IUr{l,,11• Ili;{!1{!t ,t'-rlpi !alrliil�i ' �toogi!ii�llil3iililii liljil 1 °I! 1 October 12, 2010 Mr. David Kotz 118 West 6th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 3799 HIGHWAY 82 • P.O. BOX 2150 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 (970) 945-5491 • FAX (970) 945-4081 RE: Elk Springs, Filing 8B and 9 Dear Mr. Kotz: The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of Holy Cross Energy. Holy Cross Energy has existing power facilities located on or near the above mentioned project. These existing facilities have adequate capacity to provide electric power to the development, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations, and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate power to and within the development will be undertaken by Holy Cross Energy upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements and subject to necessary governmental approvals. Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of the electric system for this project. Sincerely, HOLY CROSS ENERGY b Bob Saathoff, Engineering Department bsaathoff@holycross.com (970) 947-5401 BS:vw Saatjpfl\Kotz A Touchstone Energy' Cooperative > -K Q) c ia z _J U W m 2 CO`-" O � = Z CO C) XE Oa 07 tCCD) W 0_Q g 5 October 12, 2010 Mr. David Kotz 118 West 6th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 3799 HIGHWAY 82 • P.O. BOX 2150 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 (970) 945-5491 • FAX (970) 945-4081 RE: Elk Springs, Filing 6 and Filing 9 (Lots 79 & 80) Dear Mr. Kotz: The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of Holy Cross Energy. Holy Cross Energy has existing power facilities located on or near the above mentioned project. These existing facilities have adequate capacity to provide electric power to the development, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations, and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate power to and within the development will be undertaken by Holy Cross Energy upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements and subject to necessary governmental approvals. Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of the electric system for this project. Sincerely, HOLY CROSS ENERGY Bob Saathoff, Engineering Department bsaathoff@holycross.com (970) 947-5401 BS:vw Saathoff\Kotz 2 A Touchstone Energy ° Cooperative )4.1> "y A -NOS 31VO dVV "11b.130 m N 473- II NI Ul_""__J ()- no) - •--z 0 p N I I M v1 a n o 0 N -(1ti�o J IPI m n z Il I1 11 11 11 1:1 11 11 N �1 u 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 tl I tl II II 11 11 11 11 11 / // 11 /1 11 11 11 11 II I! I{ 41 It 11 11 11 11 II II fl 11 11 II If 11. 11 1 1 1 1 1 HOLY CROSS 'ENERGY PRINGS, COLORADO COLORADO 34 EAGLE GRAPHICS DFPARTMENT DWG. NAME CHECKED BY DRAWN BY x x DISP. PC ot cdas August 30, 2010 From: Carla Westerman SourceGas 0096 County Rd. 160 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-928-0407 To: David M Kotz 118 W Sixth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-1004 RE: Elk Springs Filings 8B, 9, 10 Dear David: The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of SourceGas. SourceGas has existing natural gas facilities located on or near the above mentioned project. At this time it appears that these existing facilities have adequate capacity to provide natural gas service to your project, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any upgrading of our facilities necessary to deliver adequate service to and within the development will be undertaken by SourceGas upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements and subject to necessary governmental approvals. Please contact us with any questions regarding this project. Sincerely, Carla Westerman Field Coordinator ek-1 =i5 co Li Sourc6 Gas 10-11-10 From: Carla Westerman SourceGas 0096 County Rd. 160 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-928-0407 To: David M. Kotz, P.E. 118W6th Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-1004 RE: Filing 6 Neighborhood Commercial Dear David: The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of SourceGas. SourceGas has existing natural gas facilities located on or near the above mentioned project. At this time it appears that these existing facilities have adequate capacity to provide natural gas service to your project, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any upgrading of our facilities necessary to deliver adequate service to and within the development will be undertaken by SourceGas upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements and subject to necessary governmental approvals. Please contact us with any questions regarding this project. Sincerely, Carla Westerman Field Coordinator i Qwe st:-�� Spirit of Service 11/19/2010 Attn: David M. Kotz, P.E. Schmueser, Gordon & Meyer 118 West 6th St, suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 Re: EIk Springs Filing 6A 8B, 9 & 10 Qwest Communications will provide telephone facilities to EIk Springs Filings 6A, 8B, 9 & 10 as defined by the current PUC Tariffs. Jason Sharpe Senior Field Engineer 970-384-0238 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION FOR LOS AMIGOS RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO THIS SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION FOR LOS AMIGOS RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO (Supplemental Declaration) is made and declared this day of , 2010, by ELK SPRINGS, LLC a Colorado limited liability company (Declarant). RECITALS A. Declarant is the owner of certain real property situate in Garfield County, Colorado, and more particularly described in the Final Plat for Elk Springs Filing 8 Phase 2, a Subdivision of Los Amigos Ranch PUD, ("Final Plat"), filed for public record in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder, Garfield County, Colorado as Reception No. B. Declarant has previously recorded that certain Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Los Amigos Ranch Planned Unit Development, Garfield County, Colorado (Amended and Restated Declaration) on February 15, 1991 in Book 799, Page 48 of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorders' records as Reception No., 421306. C. Declarant desires to annex all those properties contained within the Final Plat pursuant to this Supplemental Declaration and thereby subject said annexed properties (hereinafter "Additional Properties") to the Amended and Restated Declaration and the additional covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth below. NOW THEREFORE, Declarant hereby makes the following declaration of annexation of the Additional Properties and declarations of additional covenants and restrictions applicable thereof: ANNEXATION OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTY 1.1 The Additional Properties contained within Elk Springs Filing 8 Phase 2, a Subdivision of Los Amigos Ranch PUD, as more particularly described on "Exhibit A" attached hereto, are hereby annexed pursuant to Article IV of the Amended and Restated Declaration. 1.2 The Additional Properties are hereby made subject to all provisions set forth in the Amended and Restated Declaration. 1.3 The Additional Properties are hereby made subject to the additional covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in this Supplemental Declaration. ADDITIONAL COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 2.1 Minimum Size of Dwellings Every residential dwelling unit constructed on a single family lot shall have a minimum foundation footprint of 2,000 square feet, exclusive of garages, porches and patios. 2.2 Irrigation Single family lots shall not irrigate more than 3,000 square feet of land. 2.3 Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. All single family lots in Elk Springs Filing 8 Phase 2, a Subdivision of Los Amigos Ranch PUD, are allowed to utilize individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) after obtaining a site specific percolation test to determine whether a standard septic system is acceptable or an engineered system is appropriate or required. Each ISDS shall be designed to minimize tree removal and changes to the natural contours of the land. 2.4 Central Water System All water rights and water facilities which comprise the domestic water delivery system for Elk Springs Filing 8 Phase 2 are owned by the Elk Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. The Association shall have the power to own, operate, maintain, repair and replace the water delivery system and to levy reasonable charges therefor pursuant to Section 4.8 of the Amended and Restated Declaration, and shall have the further power and authority to levy assessments in connection with the ownership, operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the domestic water delivery system in accordance with Article V of the Amended and Restated Declaration. 2.5 Pet Control All pets must be kept under strict owner control at all times. No more that one adult dog and no more than an aggregate of three cats and dogs may be kept on a single family lot. The Board of Elk Springs Homeowner's Association has promulgated rules and regulations regarding pet ownership and control, and may levy pet assessments for violations of said rules and regulations. By way of example, owners may be assessed for pets found roaming free of owner control, or disturbing neighbors or wildlife. Said pet assessments are enforceable as set forth in Article V., Paragraph 5.5 of the Amended and Restated Declaration. Nothing contained herein or in said rules and regulations shall limit the right of the Board to modify said rules and regulations, determine a pet is a nuisance and require it's removal from Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. Properties, nor limit the right of Elk Springs, LLC or any owner of Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. property to enforce their property rights. 2.6 Fire Protection The Additional Properties are forested with mature pinion and juniper trees. In order to reduce the danger to homes from lightning induced crown fires, all Homeowners shall create a defensible space by thinning trees within 30 feet of their homes so that the crowns of trees are at least 10 feet apart. This defensible space shall be increased as the slope of the Lot increases. For example, homes on 10% slopes should have a minimum defensible space of 35 feet uphill and to the sides and 37 feet downhill. Homes on 20% slopes need a minimum defensible space of 40 feet uphill and to the sides and 47 feet downhill. In addition, lower branches of trees within the defensible space should be pruned to eliminate ladder fuels which allow a fire to burn from ground level to lower tree branches. Dead branches, limbs, trees and debris shall be removed from the defensible space area. All dead wood within one hundred feet (100') of structures shall be removed. Roofs shall be constructed of noncombustible materials. le family dwelling unit shall be 1 one Natural gas appliances may be used appliances in each sing 2 7 Fire C WOodburning Pp limited to one Colorado Certified woodstove. within containers shall be stored w freely. ick -up, or aeernative me day it is set out for pick-up, alter toat prevent Animal Proof Trash Containersa II trash and tras CO o �i 2'8 except on the s tr enclosed builoing tored in containers that have been designed an c trash shall be s aining access to the contents of the containers. a ,d y bears and other animals from g sets its hand and seal this IN WITNESS: WHEREOF, Declarant 2010. of ELK SPRINGS, LLC A Colorado limited liability company L By Gary L. McElwee, Attorney -In -Fact for Thomas E. Neal 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) document was acknowledged before me this II F afor din GaryL. McElwee as Attorney - The above and foregoing2010, by companY� ay of for Elk Springs, LLC, a Colorado limited liability Thomas E. Neal as Manager Witness my hand and official 1 Notary Public My commission expires: My address is: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXHIBIT A LA8-PH2.TXT A tract of land situate in Section 36, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the 6th Principal Meridian and Section 6, Township 7 South, Range 88 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, Garfield County, Colorado being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the SE corner of said Section 36; Thence, S 87°20'32" w, 392.66 feet along the south line of said Section 36 to a point on the boundary of Elk Springs Filing 8, Phase 1, County of Garfield, State of Colorado; thence along said boundary the following courses: Thence, 5 87°20'32" w, 373.12 feet to a point; Thence, N 59°02'18" W, 1435.19 feet to a point; Thence, N 79°50'44" w, 460.96 feet to a point; Thence, N 79°50'44" w, 739.04 feet to a point; Thence, N 55°57'31" W, 1333.19 feet to a point; Thence, N 08°00'00" E, 655.52 feet to a point; Thence, N 89°59'23" E, 968.49 feet to a point; Thence, S 72°23'31" E, 462.28 feet to a point; Thence, 5 57°29'41" E, 50.04 feet to a point; Thence, S 30°20'55" W, 17.34 feet to a point; thence 27.96 feet along the arc of a 254.79 feet radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 6°17'16" and subtending a chord bearing S 27°12'16" W 27.95 feet; thence 49.82 feet along the arc of a 202.18 feet radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 14°07'03" and subtending a chord bearing 5 17°00'08" W 49.69 feet; thence 39.05 feet along the arc of a 202.18 feet radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 11°04'03" and subtending a chord bearing 5 04°24'35" w 38.99 feet; Thence, 5 01°07'27" E, 22.39 feet to a point; thence 76.77 feet along the arc of a 90.06 feet radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 48°50'31" and subtending a chord bearing 5 25°32'42" E 74.47 feet; Thence, S 49°57'58" E, 96.97 feet to a point; thence 278.68 feet along the arc of a 624.84 feet radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 25°33'15" and subtending a chord bearing 5 62°44'35" E 276.38 feet; Thence, S 75°31'12" E, 137.85 feet to a point; thence 276.00 feet along the arc of a 3612.81 feet radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 4°22'37" and subtending a chord bearing S 77°42'31" E 275.93 feet; Thence, 5 79°53'50" E, 648.83 feet to a point; Thence, 5 79°20'22" E, 184.61 feet to a point; Thence, S 75°00'17" E, 222.89 feet to a point; Thence, 5 05°53'40" W, 10.57 feet to a point; Thence, 5 80°41'15." E, 432.85 feet to a point; Thence, N 27°32'37" E, 218.40 feet to a point; Thence, 5 55°23'14" E, 442.68 feet to a point; Thence, 5 63°03'42" E, 655.17 feet to a point on the boundary of Elk Springs, Filing 7, County of Garfield, State of Colorado; thence along the boundary of Elk springs, Filing 7 the following courses: Thence, 5 64°48'39" E, 309.70 feet to a point; Thence, S 00°00'00" W, 759.31 feet to a point; Thence, 5 52°17'00" w, 973.14 feet to a point; Thence, N 00°08'04" E, 481.91 feet to a point; to the point of beginning, containing 5,908,933 sq. ft. or 135.65 acres more or less. Page 1 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION FOR LOS AMIGOS RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO THIS SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION FOR LOS AMIGOS RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO (Supplemental Declaration) is made and declared this day of , 2010, by ELK SPRINGS, LLC a Colorado limited liability company (Declarant). RECITALS A. Declarant is the owner of certain real property situate in Garfield County, Colorado, and more particularly described in the Final Plat for Elk Springs Filing 9, a Subdivision of Los Amigos Ranch PUD, ("Final Plat"), filed for public record in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder, Garfield County, Colorado as Reception No. B. Declarant has previously recorded that certain Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Los Amigos Ranch Planned Unit Development, Garfield County, Colorado (Amended and Restated Declaration) on February 15, 1991 in Book 799, Page 48 of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorders' records as Reception No., 421306. C. Declarant desires to annex all those properties contained within the Final Plat pursuant to this Supplemental Declaration and thereby subject said annexed properties (hereinafter "Additional Properties") to the Amended and Restated Declaration and the additional covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth below. NOW THEREFORE, Declarant hereby makes the following declaration of annexation of the Additional Properties and declarations of additional covenants and restrictions applicable thereof: ANNEXATION OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTY 1.1 The Additional Properties contained within Elk Springs Filing 9, a Subdivision of Los Amigos Ranch PUD, as more particularly described on "Exhibit A" attached hereto, are hereby annexed pursuant to Article IV of the Amended and Restated Declaration. 1.2 The Additional Properties are hereby made subject to all provisions set forth in the Amended and Restated Declaration. 1.3 The Additional Properties are hereby made subject to the additional covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in this Supplemental Declaration. ADDITIONAL COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 2.1 Minimum Size of Dwellings Every residential dwelling unit constructed on a single family lot shall have a minimum foundation footprint of 2,000 square feet, exclusive of garages, porches and patios. 2.2 Irrigation Single family lots shall not irrigate more than 3,000 square feet of land. 2.3 Central Sewer Systems All single family lots in Elk Springs Filing 9, a Subdivision of Los Amigos Ranch PUD, are within the Spring Valley Sanitation District boundaries and must connect to its central sewage treatment system for sewage treatment services. No individual sewage disposal systems are allowed. 2.4 Central Water System All water rights and water facilities which comprise the domestic water delivery system for Elk Springs Filing 9 are owned by the Elk Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. The Association shall have the power to own, operate, maintain, repair and replace the water delivery system and to levy reasonable charges therefor pursuant to Section 4.8 of the Amended and Restated Declaration, and shall have the further power and authority to levy assessments in connection with the ownership, operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the domestic water delivery system in accordance with Article V of the Amended and Restated Declaration. 2.5 Pet Control All pets must be kept under strict owner control at all times. No more that one adult dog and no more than an aggregate of three cats and dogs may be kept on a single family lot. The Board of Elk Springs Homeowner's Association has promulgated rules and regulations regarding pet ownership and control, and may levy pet assessments for violations of said rules and regulations. By way of example, owners may be assessed for pets found roaming free of owner control, or disturbing neighbors or wildlife. Said pet assessments are enforceable as set forth in Article V., Paragraph 5.5 of the Amended and Restated Declaration. Nothing contained herein or in said rules and regulations shall limit the right of the Board to modify said rules and regulations, determine a pet is a nuisance and require it's removal from Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. Properties, nor limit the right of Elk Springs, LLC or any owner of Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. property to enforce their property rights. 2.6 Fire Protection The Additional Properties are forested with mature pinion and juniper trees. In order to reduce the danger to homes from lightning induced crown fires, all Homeowners shall create a defensible space by thinning trees within 30 feet of their homes so that the crowns of trees are at least 10 feet apart. This defensible space shall be increased as the slope of the Lot increases. For example, homes on 10% slopes should have a minimum defensible space of 35 feet uphill and to the sides and 37 feet downhill. Homes on 20% slopes need a minimum defensible space of 40 feet uphill and to the sides and 47 feet downhill. In addition, lower branches of trees within the defensible space should be pruned to eliminate ladder fuels which allow a fire to burn from ground level to lower tree branches. Dead branches, limbs, trees and debris shall be removed from the defensible space area. All dead wood within one hundred feet (100') of structures shall be removed. Roofs shall be constructed of noncombustible materials. 2.7 Fireplaces Woodburning appliances in each single family dwelling unit shall be limited to one Colorado Certified woodstove. Natural gas appliances may be used freely. 2.8 Animal Proof Trash Containers All trash and trash containers shall be stored within an enclosed building except on the same day it is set out for pick-up, or alternatively, all trash shall be stored in containers that have been designed and constructed to prevent bears and other animals from gaining access to the contents of the containers. IN WITNESS: WHEREOF, Declarant sets its hand and seal this , day of , 2010. STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) ss ELK SPRINGS, LLC A Colorado limited liability company By Thomas E. Neal, Manager By Gary L. McElwee, Attorney -In -Fact The above and foregoing document was acknowledged before me this day of , 2010, by Gary L. McElwee as Attorney -In -Fact for Thomas E. Neal as Manager for Elk Springs, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. Witness my hand and official Notary Public My commission expires: My address is: 1 1 1 1 FILING9.TXT EXHIBIT A A tract of land situate in Sections 35 and 36, Township 6 South, Range 89 west, Section 31, Township 6 South, Range 88 west and Section 6, Township 7 South, Range 88 west all of the 6th Principal Meridian, Garfield County, Colorado being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the north 1/4 corner of said Section 35; Thence, 5 87°34'13" E, 2428.84 feet along the north line of said Section 35 to the northwest corner of said Section 36; Thence, S 86°11'12" E, 2455.55 feet along the north line of Section 36 to the north 1/4 corner of Section 36; Thence, 5 86°05'35" E, 2457.50 feet along the north lien of Section 36 to the northeast corner of Section 36; Thence, 5 00°53'05" w, 939.73 feet along the east line of said Section 36 to the west 1/4 corner of said Section 31; Thence, N 89°31'34" E, 537.49 feet along the east -west centerline of said Sectiion 31 to the northwest corner of Elk Springs Filing 7, county of Garfield, State of Colorado; Thence, S 00°00'00" w, 2418.00 feet along th west line of said Elk Springs Filing 7; Thence, 5 07°20'58" E, 324.69 feet along the west line of said Elk Springs Filing 7; thence 75.16 feet along the arc of a 395.00 feet radius non tangent curve to the right, having a central angle of 10°54'09" and subtending a chord bearing S 79°51'17" W 75.05 feet; Thence, S 85°18'21" w, 11.09 feet to a point; thence 203.17 feet along the arc of a 319.81 feet radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 36°23'55" and subtending a chord bearing N 76°29'41" W 199.77 feet; Thence, N 58°17'44" W, 94.36 feet to a point; thence 56.95 feet along the arc of a 181.65 feet radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 17°57'49" and subtending a chord bearing N 49°18'49" W 56.72 feet; Thence, N 40°19'55" w, 9.82 feet to a point; Thence, N 35°39'20" E, 395.71 feet to a point; Thence, N 53°42'41" W, 1155.68 feet to a point; Thence, 5 62°35'23" W, 256.70 feet to a point; thence 378.89 feet along the arc of a 505.00 feet radius non tangent curve to the left, having a central angle of 42°59'17" and subtending a chord bearing N 54°03'17' w 370.07 feet; Thence, N 75°32'55" w, 59.42 feet to a point; thence 76.84 feet along the arc of a 215.00 feet radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 20°28'34" and subtending a chord bearing N 85°47'12" w 76.43 feet; Thence, N 11°19'05" w, 30.58 feet to a point; thence 31.32 feet along the arc of a 375.00 feet radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 4°47'05" and subtending a chord bearing N 08°55'32" w 31.31 feet; Thence, N 06°32'00" w, 53.28 feet to a point; Thence, N 80°14'45" w, 52.09 feet to a point; Thence, 5 06°32'00" E, 67.89 feet to a point; thence 35.49 feet along the arc of a 425.00 feet radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 4°47'05" and subtending a chord bearing S 08°55'32" E 35.48 feet; Thence, S 11°19'05" E, 31.79 feet to a point; thence 83.18 feet along the arc of a 215.00 feet radius non tangent curve to the left, having a central angle of 22°09'59" and subtending a chord bearing 5 59°32'00" W 82.66 feet; Thence, 5 48°27'01" w, 209.55 feet to a point; thence 339.06 feet along the arc of a 630.64 feet radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 30°48'17" and subtending a chord bearing N 63°51'09" w 334.99 feet; Page 1 FILING9.TXT Thence, S 79°15'18" w, 108.16 feet to a point; Thence, N 13°29'44" E, 339.22 feet to a point; Thence, S 88°34'01" w, 835.67 feet to a point; Thence, N 86°50'26" w, 2435.84 feet to the east 1/4 corner of said Section 35; Thence, s 89°53'27" w, 2428.94 feet along the east -west centerline of said Section 35 to a point on the east line of government Lot 19 of said Section 35; Thence, N 00°08'00" w, 178.14 feet along the east line f said Lot 19 to the northeast corner of said Lot 19; Thence, N 88°07'00" w, 187.41 feet along the north line of Lot 19 to the west line of said Section 35; Thence, N 08°02'48" E, 2619.93 feet along the west line of said Section 35 to the point of beginning, containing 21,453,731 sq ft. or 492.51 acres more or less o Page 2 1