HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationGARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile:
www.garfield-county.com
'17 TAT 17
APR 2 6 2006
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING & PLANNING
970.384.3470
Subdivision Application Form
GENERAL INFORMATION
(To be completed by the applicant.)
Subdivision Name: LEY -IE MEA. b003 ESTATE S
Type of Subdivision (check one of the following types):
Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Final Plat
y Name of Property Owner (Applicant): don 6 V EOTv � S_I LLC-
)-. Address: Q. 60, Z oo Telephone: 970 261 O 4
City: GRA -Li D _J.)►JcT I O*1 State: C Zip Code:' I3Z FAX:
- Name of Owner's Representative, if any (Attorney, Planner, etc):
- Address: Telephone:
.- City: State: Zip Code: FAX:
- Name of Engineer: L0obb1DA-2lES L.-iM► T Eb, t►J C • b+EQ c 1.- ACTE2
- Address: 813 BLA k -E A J + STE. ►02 Telephone: _7o 945_ SZS1
i.- City:Gc..E.,-E.,SPGS State: Co Zip Code: I60I FAX: 970 38/f at
Name of Surveyor: 7: -r -TLE E a..JE T S aJ c..E S JEFF ToTTL..E
Address: $2_3 &Alex- ic41)E-� STE • 1'D2 Telephone: 918 97oa
_97o
City: Gt-E-4.-Ic,Jc op SPS S State: CC) Zip Code: II FAX:
- Name of Planner:
.- Address: Telephone:
.- City: State: Zip Code: FAX:
3
• •
GENERAL INFORMATION continued...
Location of Property: Section (QTownship 6 So_ Range 92- hJ •
Practical Location / Address/of Property: ►�t.�i2 L► e C. . z2.7AceCps S Pea A4 _f- pTs).0 E Lt -4_ L4 (C.2. a 1(*)
>- Current Size of Property to be Subdivided (in acres): 7h.15
Number of Tracts / Lots Created within the Proposed Subdivision:
Property Current Land Use Designation:
1. Property's Current Zone District:
2. Comprehensive Plan Map Designation: OuTcylwiG 121 euTwiL,_ SToi y AREA
2431 2Ac. PER. D.U.
Proposed Utility Service:
Proposed Water Source: Gao%) (i TER. WELLS
(See "Attachment C" to be completed with the Preliminary Plan Application)
r Proposed Method of Sewage Disposal: ISP S
Proposed Public Access VIA: Co. kb. 227 Al ► t.uE . (mal E.
Easements: Utility:
Ditch: Lou) E42. CAc-TTy bITC.�
- Total Development Area (fill in the appropriate boxes below):
(1) Residents
Units 1 trots. E'
Size (Acres)
Parkinjt Provided
Sin
35
oFF ST. EA = 14o
35
Floor Area (sq ft.):
Size (Acres)
(2) Corns
(3) Industri
N(A
4) Public f Qi
si Pu.
(5) Open Space
Area
Total
N /A
N/A
ParkingProvided:
5.o4 Q.�.w.
Base Fee:
0
'740.19
Prelim Plan - $675.00; Final Plat - $200; Plat Review Fee
2
• •
I. THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS
In order to subdivide land in Garfield County, an Applicant is required to complete the following land use
processes in the following order: 1) Sketch Plan Review Process, 2) Preliminary Plan Review Process, and
3) Final Plat Review Process. This section will briefly describe the nature of each process and provide
general direction including subdivision regulation citations to a potential applicant requesting subdivision
approval in Garfield County. All of the Garfield County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations are located for
purchase at the Planning Department and can also be found on the World Wide Web at the following
address: http://www.garfield-county.com/buildinq and o!anning/index.htm
A) The Sketch Plan Review (Section 3:00 of the Subdivision Regulations)
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Sketch Plan process is to allow an individual an opportunity to
propose a subdivision in a "sketch" format to the Planning Department and the Garfield
County Planning Commission in order to obtain a cursory review for compliance with
the County's land use review documents, regulations, and policies to identify any
issues that would need to be addressed if the proposed subdivision were to be pursued.
2. Applicability
Any individual proposing a subdivision in Garfield County is required to complete the
Sketch Plan review process as the first step in Garfield County's Subdivision process.
More specifically, Garfield County defines a subdivision (Section 2:20.48) as the
division of a lot, tract or parcel of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels or
separate interests, or the use of any parcel of land for condominiums, apartments or
other multiple -dwelling units, as further defined by Colorado state law.
3. Application / Submittal Requirements
In order to apply for a Sketch Plan Review an Applicant is responsible for reviewing
Section 3:00 of the Subdivision Regulations and providing enough information to the
Planning Department in the application to conduct a thorough review and provide the
resulting comments to the Planning Commission for their review and comments.
Specifically, Section 3:30, 3:32, and 3:40 of the Subdivision Regulations contain the
specific information required to be submitted to the Planning Department in order to
satisfy the application requirements in addition to the information requested on this
application form.
4. Process / Public Meeting
The Sketch Plan review process is considered a 1 -step process because the
application is reviewed only by the Planning Commission at a public meeting. In order
to appear before the Planning Commission, an applicant will have submitted all
required application submittal requirements mentioned above to the Planning
Department Staff. Once submitted, Staff will have 15 working days to review the
application to determine if all the required submittal information has been submitted as
required.
If Staff determines that all the required information has been submitted, a letter will be
sent to the applicant indicating the application has been deemed "technically
complete." It is at this point Staff will also indicate when the application has been
• •
scheduled to be reviewed before the Planning Commission and will request the
applicant supply additional copies to provide the Commission for their review.
If Staff determines that all the required information has not been submitted, a letter will
be sent to the applicant indicating the application does not comply with the submittal
requirements and therefore has determined the application to be "technically
incomplete." The letter will also outline the applications deficiencies so that the
applicant knows what additional information needs to be submitted. At this point, the
applicant has 6 months (180 days) to provide the necessary information to the
Planning Department to remedy the application so that it may be deemed technically
complete. If the application has not been deemed technically complete within this time,
the application will be terminated.
Once the application has been deemed technically complete and a date has been
established as to when the Planning Commission will review the application, Staff will
conduct a land use review of the application using the County's land use regulatory
documents including the Zoning Resolution, Subdivision Regulations, and the
Comprehensive Plan of 2000. In addition, Staff will also consider referral comments
provided from a variety of state and local agencies who may also review the application.
As a result, Staff will write a Memorandum on the proposed subdivision to the Planning
Commission containing the results on the land use analysis. This Memorandum will
also be furnished in advance to the applicant.
At the date and time set for the public meeting before the Planning Commission, Staff
will present the findings in the Memorandum and the applicant will be required to
present the proposed subdivision and respond to comments and questions provided by
the Planning Commission. The comments provided to the Applicant by the Planning
Department and the Planning Commission as a result of the Sketch Plan Process will
be kept on file in the Planning Department for 1 -year from the meeting date before the
Planning Commission. If an Applicant does not submit a Preliminary Plan application to
the Planning Department within the 1 -year timeframe, the Sketch Plan file will be
closed and the Applicant will need to reapply for a Sketch Plan review prior to a
Preliminary Plan review.
B) Preliminary Plan Review (Section 4:00 of the Subdivision Regulations)
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Preliminary Plan review process is to conduct a thorough review of
the many aspects that are associated with dividing land in Garfield County for the
purposes of residential, commercial, and industrial development. This is the most
intensive review step where the Building and Planning Staff, the Planning Commission,
and the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) will conduct a thorough review of all
the issues associated with the proposed subdivision against the County's regulatory
requirements. Ultimately, the purpose of this process is to identify all the major issues
in the proposed subdivision by using the County's Zoning Resolution, Subdivision
Regulations, Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as well as other state and local referral
agencies that will provide comments on any issues raised in their review. This is the
process that will either approve or deny the application request.
4
• •
2. Applicability
Any individual proposing a subdivision in Garfield County is required to complete the
Preliminary Plan review process as the second and most intensive step in Garfield
County's Subdivision process. More specifically, Garfield County defines a subdivision
as the division of a lot, tract or parcel of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels or
separate interests, or the use of any parcel of land for condominiums, apartments or
other multiple -dwelling units, as further defined by Colorado state law.
3. Application / Submittal Requirements
In order to apply for a Preliminary Plan Review, an Applicant must have already
completed the Sketch Plan review process addressed in Section 3:00 of the
Subdivision Regulations.
An applicant requesting Preliminary Plan review will be required to submit this
application form, all the required submittal information contained in Sections 4:40 to
4:94 of the Subdivision Regulations as well as address all of the applicable Design and
Improvement Standards in Section 9:00 of the Subdivision Regulations.
In addition to the substantive submittal information related to the proposed subdivision
project itself, an applicant is required to complete all the public notice requirements so
that legal public hearings can be held before the Planning Commission and the BOCC
which is addressed in Sections 4:20 — 4:31 of the Subdivision Regulations.
4. Process / Public Hearings
The Preliminary Plan review process is considered a 2 -step process because the
application is ultimately reviewed by two County decision-making entities during public
hearings: the Planning Commission who makes a recommendation to the BOCC.
In order to obtain dates for the public hearings before the Planning Commission and
the BOCC, an applicant will have submitted all required application submittal
requirements mentioned above to the Planning Department Staff. Once submitted,
Staff will have 30 working days to review the application to determine if all the required
submittal information has been submitted as required.
If Staff determines that all the required information has been submitted, a letter will be
sent to the applicant indicating the application has been deemed "technically
complete." It is at this point Staff will also indicate when the application has been
scheduled to be reviewed before the Planning Commission / BOCC. Additionally, Staff
will provide the applicant with the notice forms to be mailed, published, and posted.
If Staff determines that all the required information has not been submitted, a letter will
be sent to the applicant indicating the application does not comply with the submittal
requirements and therefore has determined the application to be "technically
incomplete." The letter will also outline the applications deficiencies so that the
5
• •
applicant knows what additional information needs to be submitted. At this point, the
applicant has 6 months (180 days) to provide the necessary information to the
Planning Department to remedy the application so that it may be deemed technically
complete. If the application has not been deemed technically complete within this time,
the application will be terminated.
Once the application has been deemed technically complete and a date has been
established as to when the Planning Commission / BOCC will review the application,
Staff will conduct a land use review of the application using the County's land use
regulatory documents including the Zoning Resolution, Subdivision Regulations, and
the Comprehensive Plan of 2000. In addition, Staff will also consider referral comments
provided from a variety of state and local agencies who may also review the application.
As a result, Staff will write a Memorandum on the proposed subdivision to the Planning
Commission / BOCC containing the results on the land use analysis. This
Memorandum will also be furnished in advance to the applicant prior to the public
hearings.
As mentioned above, Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission and
the BOCC regarding the issues raised in the analysis of the proposed subdivision. The
Applicant will first propose the subdivision to the Planning Commission who is
responsible for making a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or
denial to the BOCC. Next, the application will be reviewed by the BOCC during a
regular public hearing. The BOCC will consider the recommendations from the
Planning Staff and the Planning Commission, the information presented by the
applicant, and the public. As a result, the BOCC is the final decision-making entity
regarding the proposed subdivision and will either approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the application.
If the BOCC approves the subdivision application at the public hearing, the approval
shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of Board approval,
or conditional approval, unless an extension of not more than one (1) year is granted
by the Board prior to the expiration of the period of approval. (See the specific
information provided in Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations.) Following the
hearing, Staff will provide a resolution signed by the BOCC which memorializes the
action taken by the Board with any / all conditions which will be recorded in the Clerk
and Recorder's Office. Once an applicant has Preliminary Plan approval, they are
required to complete the third and final step in the County's Subdivision Process: Final
Plat Review.
C) Final Plat Review (Section 5:00 of the Subdivision Regulations)
1 Purpose
The purpose of the Final Plat review process is to provide the applicant with a
mechanism to prove to the County that all the conditions of approval required during
the Preliminary Plan review process have been met / addressed to the satisfaction of
the Planning Staff and the BOCC. This being the case, the chairman of the BOCC will
•
sign the Final Plat and have it recorded memorializing the subdivision approval granted
by the BOCC. This is the last step in the County's subdivision process.
2. Applicability
Any individual proposing a subdivision in Garfield County is required to complete the
Final Plat review process as the third and last step in Garfield County's Subdivision
process. More specifically, Garfield County defines a subdivision as the division of a lot,
tract or parcel of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels or separate interests, or
the use of any parcel of land for condominiums, apartments or other multiple -dwelling
units, as further defined by Colorado state law.
3. Application / Submittal Requirements
In order to apply for a Final Plat review, an Applicant must have already completed the
Preliminary Plan review process addressed in Section 4:00 of the Subdivision
Regulations.
An applicant requesting Final Plat review will be required to submit this application form,
all the required submittal information contained in Section 5:00 of the Subdivision
Regulations and responses to all the conditions of approval required as part of the
Preliminary Plan review process.
4. Process
The Final Plat review process is considered a 1 -step process because the application
is ultimately reviewed by the Building and Planning Staff and presented to the BOCC
for their signature if the application satisfies all the required submittal information to the
satisfaction of the Building and Planning Department.
If Staff determines that all the required information has been submitted, a letter will be
sent to the applicant indicating the application has been deemed "technically
complete." It is at this point Staff will also indicate when the application has been
scheduled to be presented to the BOCC for signature. (This is not a public hearing or
meeting and therefore does not require public notice.)
If Staff determines that all the required information has not been submitted, a letter will
be sent to the applicant indicating the application does not comply with the submittal
requirements and therefore has determined the application to be "technically
incomplete." The letter will also outline the applications deficiencies so that the
applicant knows what additional information needs to be submitted.
Once the application has been deemed technically complete and a date has been
established as to when the BOCC will review the Final Plat, Staff will review the
application / Final Plat in terms of adequacy to determine if all the submittal information
satisfies the Final plat requirements as well as the responses to the conditions of
approval. During this review, Staff will forward the Final Plat the County Surveyor for
review and a signature. In the event there are additional questions or clarification
issues to be addressed, the County Surveyor will generally contact the applicant to
have the plat adjusted as necessary. Once, Staff has completed the review and all
required information has been submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Department
• •
and the County Surveyor has signed the Final Plat in Mylar form, it will be scheduled at
the next BOCC meeting to be placed on the consent agenda with a request to
authorize the Chairman of the BOCC to sign the plat.
Once the Final Plat is signed, it is then recorded by the County Clerk in the Clerk and
Recorder's Office for a fee of $11 for the first sheet and $10 for each additional sheet
thereafter. This fee shall be paid by the applicant. This act of recording the signed Final
Plat represents the completion of the Garfield County Subdivision Process.
Please refer to the specific language in the Final Plat portion (Section 5:00) of the
Subdivision Regulations for specific timelines and additional responsibilities required of
the applicant to complete the Final Plat process.
Please Note: This information presented above is to be used as a
general guide for an applicant considering a subdivision in Garfield
County. It is highly recommended that an applicant either purchase
the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulations
or access them on-line at:
http://www.garfield-county.com/building and planning/index.htm
in order to ascertain all the necessary requirements for each of the
three steps including Sketch Plan Review, Preliminary Plan Review,
and Final Plat Review.
I have read the statements above and have provided the required attached information
which is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
4--18-0
o
(Signature pplic
ant/ownerr Date
Last Revised: 07/25/2005
8
1
IfI
II�
r -
m
z
v
w w wa°, uio
Z Z Z Z Z N N Z VI VI c,t z
ooggggggggg°so°
T! i s S S s z S T N]"
m OIOOm m ppOUO1p _.n0 �n
o�m$$m$i,°I ,00
V W N W A m O W N g] R] 0 0 C
Nm NUN00pN OODAbA W ^w 5 AQvi
m0
N w n o m n o o m N w `+ o n o c
"^mow w w S 0.5]
to m. NA �U � N„ e911.: A
V V m 'p m g W m N V N U_ w � °
A U A m gmi V V V U pl -.". !� p N] n Vl
UA N ID V m10 Tro E ,0 I+�1
n W W m J p
]
wrO
N N Z
o ] °
o i
,no,° o i n noon
a i°ogm m c ,o] w � ut v
n o o °nw] �_.
°a3 ma=;51
nw� � ^n
-1z
m-
^ Dt-1 1'l'd-itrn -1
• O O O 0 O D%
ZOa,w.. o �_
N M
iO ZZDZZry ,O
a 33°33 i
qtr 00'9,0,'°
B D o
0 q.jv Orli II m, D
D w N p g O i o D
= n
Q M O
w IISO£
'n L 2"' '
D�.�N'a 11
3 u:n Qa
6 Dw^�Ou
11,4V
m0
w u A b y w W
p U
U w O
o _nQ II
��Ilm0
• O N Ns
a T • u U
v O
3 8 e1s
°0n
v
ti
v
-4
8
Mm
B
Lexie Meadow Estates
SKETCH PLAN
Jim Bob Ventures, LLC
P.O. Box 2300
Grand Junction, CO 81502
970.261.0343
otm w arses
nlimited, Inc.
Consulting & Clvil Engineers
923 Cooper Avenue, Ste. 102
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
tele: 970.945.5252 for. 970.384.2833
DES.: djw
DR.: djw
NO.
DATE
REVISION
BY
C K.: pah
DATE: 3/31/06
Richard J. Murr
37659 Highways 6
New Castle, Colorado 81647
As owner of the property located in the SE1/4NE1/4 & NE1/4SE1/4 of SECT, TWN,
RNG: 6 -6S -92W of the 6th PM (at the west intersection of Ct. Rd. 227 and Ct. Rd. 216).
I hereby authorize JIM BOB VENTURES, LLC and BOUNDARIES UNLIMITED INC.
to apply for a Subdivision Approval in Garfield County.
Richard J. Murrj4 91114/02)? -,2,-06
Date
FROM :SUBWAY N AU
JIM CAGLE
BOB ADISANO
FAX NO. :9702452206
JIM BOB VENTURES L,L.0
COMMERCIAL / RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF COLMISS PROPERTIES
JIM BOB VENTURES LLC
SKYLINE BLDG. 751 HORIZON COURT
SUITE 240
GRAND JUNCTION, CO. 81506
P.O. BOX 2300
GRAND JUNCTION, CO. 81502
JIM CAGLE
DATE
ilipr. 26 2006 08:42AM P2
Jim
Bob
I HEREBY AUTHORIZE BOUNDARIES UNLIMITED, INC. TO
REPERSENT MY COMPANY AND INTERESTS IN THE APP-
LICATION & APPROVAL PROCESS WITH GARFIELD COUNTY
FOR THE LEXIE MEADOW ESTATES.
if- -2G-cCo
DATE 04-26-06
0 -mail
jimCajlrestgroup.com
Badisano a(7,aol.com.
OFFICE 970-2454174
FAX 970-245-2206
CELL. 970-261-0343
CELL. 970-261-2655
FROM :SUBWAY N AU
• FAX NO. :9702452206 •r.
26 2006 08:42AM 171
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT FORM
(Shall he submitted with application)
GARFIELD COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and C_ no 10,
(hereinafter APPLICANT) agree as follows:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for
L e x; r tejkow Ea7; Te.5 (hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Garfield County Resolution No. 98-09, as amended,
establishes a fee schedule for each type of subdivision or land use review applications, and the guidelines for
the administration of the fee structure.
3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the
application. APPLICANT agrees to make payment of the Base Fee, established for the PROJECT, and to
thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT. APPLICANT agrees to make additional
payments upon notification by the COUNTY when they are necessary as costs are incurred.
4. The Base Fee shall be in addition to and exclusive of any cost for publication or cost of
consulting service determined necessary by the Board of County Commissioners for the consideration of an
application or additional COUNTY staff time or expense not covered by the Base Fee. If actual recorded costs
exceed the initial Base Fee, APPLICANT shall pay additional billings to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY
for the processing of the PROJECT mentioned above. APPLICANT acknowledges that all billing shall be paid
prior to the final consideration by the COUNTY of any land use permit, zoning amendment, or subdivision
plan.
APPLICANT
Signature
Date: "2G•e
ceNic `)-
Print Name
Mailing Address:
GrA hyNcTf, ,
A. O. a,zq
.`e.r CG, 8'1S0�
10/2004
Page 4
SOIL SURVEY OF RIFLE AREA, COLORADO, PARTS OF GARFIELD AND MESA COUNTIES
Lexie Meadow Estates
00bi8£6
00£i8£4
0000000
00148E0
000900
0068E0
00L'8£4
009800
009'8£6
00408£0
00008£0
0000804
00118£4
0000000
006
I19
0081l8f: b
00111.000
00918£4
0011.817
M
o O O
o N
oo
N
O
CD
a>
a>
U-
O
O
CD
O
O
O
O
V
O
O
N
O
SOIL SURVEY OF RIFLE AREA, COLORADO, PARTS OF GARFIELD AND MESA COUNTIES
•
•
0.6 38.9
Soil Survey of Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Lexie Meadow Estates
Map Unit Legend Summary
Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name
54
55
Acres in AOI Percent of AO1
56
57
Potts loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 3
Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes 12.3 15.6
Potts loam, 6 to 12 percent 17.8 22.7
slopes
Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 18.0 22.9
12 percent slopes
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1.1 4/14/2006
i Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3
RIFLE AREA, COLORADO
The native vegetation on this soil, because it faces
north and east, is mainly Gambel oak, serviceberry,
snowberry, and elk sedge.
When range condition deteriorates, shrubs increase.
Properly managing grazing maintains and improves
range condition.
Elk, mule deer, coyote, and grouse find habitat on this
soil.
Use of this soil for community development and as a
source of construction material is limited by depth to
rock and steep slopes.
This soil is in capability subclass Vile, nonirrigated.
53—Parachute-Rhone loams, 5 to 30 percent
slopes. These gently sloping to steep soils are on ridge
crests and mountainsides. Elevation ranges from 7,600
to 8,600 feet. The Parachute soil formed in residuum
from sandstone or marlstone, and the Rhone soil formed
in residuum from hard, fine-grained sandstone. The aver-
age annual precipitation is about 20 inches, the average
annual air temperature is about 40 degrees F, and the
frost -free period is less than 75 days.
The Parachute soil makes up about 55 percent of the
map unit, the Rhone soil makes up about 30 percent,
and soils of minor extent make up 15 percent. The
Parachute soil is mostly on ridge crests, and the Rhone
soil is in gently sloping to moderately sloping areas on
mountainsides.
The Parachute soil is moderately deep and well
drained. Typically, the surface layer is grayish brown
loam about 5 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil
is very dark grayish brown and brown loam about 13
inches thick, and the lower part is light yellowish brown
extremely channery loam about 11 inches thick. Hard,
fractured sandstone is at a depth of 29 inches (fig. 9).
Permeability of the Parachute soil is moderate, and
available water capacity is low. Effective rooting depth is
20 to 40 inches. Surface runoff is medium, and the
erosion hazard is moderate.
The Rhone soil is deep and well drained. Typically, the
upper part of the surface layer is brown loam about 8
inches thick, and the lower part is brown sandy clay
loam about 20 inches thick. The underlying material is
brown very channery sandy clay loam about 24 inches
thick. Fractured sandstone is at a depth of 52 inches.
Permeability of the Rhone soil is moderate, and availa-
ble water capacity is moderate to high. Effective rooting
depth is 40 to 60 inches. Surface runoff is slow, and the
erosion hazard is slight.
Included with these soils in mapping are areas of Irigul
soils on ridge crests. These areas make up about 10
percent of the map unit.
These soils are used mainly for grazing and wildlife
habitat.
The native vegetation on these soils is mainly needle -
grass, elk sedge, and sagebrush.
31
When range condition deteriorates, forbs and shrubs
increase. Properly managing grazing maintains and im-
proves range condition. Seeding improves range in poor
condition where slope is less than 15 percent. Intermedi-
ate wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass, and mountain and
smooth brome are suitable for seeding. Preparing a
seedbed and drilling the seed are good practices. Re-
ducing brush on slopes of less than 15 percent improves
deteriorated range, but removing brush may damage
deer habitat.
Many deer and some snowshoe hare and blue grouse
find habitat on these soils.
Use of this soil for community development or as a
source of construction material is limited by depth to
rock and steep slopes.
This complex is in capability subclass Vle, nonirrigated.
54—Potts loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This deep,
well drained soil is on mesas, benches, and sides of
valleys. Elevation ranges from 5,000 to 7,000 feet. This
soil formed in alluvium derived from sandstone, shale, or
basalt. The average annual precipitation is about 14
inches, the average annual air temperature is about 46
degrees F, and the average frost -free period is about
120 days.
Typically, the surface layer is brown loam about 4
inches thick. The subsoil is reddish brown clay loam
about 24 inches thick. The substratum is pinkish white
loam to a depth of 60 inches.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of
Olney, Kim, and Ildefonso soils that have slopes of 1 to
3 percent. These areas make Up 10 to 15 percent of the
map unit.
Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity
is high. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more.
Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight.
This soil is used mainly for irrigated crops and hay and
for dryland farming. Alfalfa, small grains, and grass -
legume hay are grown.
This soil is usually irrigated by flooding. Drop struc-
tures in irrigation ditches, grassed waterways, and mini-
mum tillage control erosion. Irrigation water should be
carefully managed to avoid piping. Cover crops or stub-
ble mulching also help to limit erosion losses in dry -
farmed areas.
The native vegetation on this soil is mainly wheat -
grass, needleandthread, and sagebrush.
Pheasant, mourning dove, cottontail rabbit, some mule
deer, and squirrel find habitat on this soil.
Community development and recreation are limited by
low strength and shrink -swell potential. Dwellings and
roads can be designed to compensate for these limita-
tions. Community sewage systems will be needed if the
population density increases.
This soil is in capability subclasses Ille, irrigated, and
IIIc, nonirrigated.
32
55—Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes. This deep,
well drained, moderately sloping soil is on mesas, bench-
es, and sides of valleys. Elevation ranges from 5,000 to
7,000 feet. This soil formed in alluvium derived from
sandstone, shale, or basalt. The average annual precipi-
tation is about 14 inches, the average annual air tem-
perature is about 46 degrees F, and the average frost -
free period is about 120 days.
Typically, the surface layer is brown loam about 4
inches thick. The subsoil is reddish brown clay loam
about 24 inches thick. The substratum is pinkish white
loam to a depth of 60 inches.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of
Olney, Kim, and Ildefonso soils that have slopes of 3 to
6 percent. These areas make up 10 to 15 percent of the
map unit.
Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity
is high. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more.
Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is moder-
ate.
This soil is used mainly for irrigated crops and hay and
for dryland farming (fig. 10). Alfalfa, small grains, and
grass -legume hay are grown. Small areas are used for
grazing.
These soils are usually irrigated by flooding. Drop
structures in irrigation ditches, grassed waterways, and
minimum tillage prevent serious erosion. Irrigation water
should be carefully managed to avoid piping and erosion.
Cover crops or stubble mulching also help to limit ero-
sion in dryfarmed areas.
The native vegetation on this soil is mainly wheat -
grass, needleandthread, and sagebrush.
When range condition deteriorates, forbs and shrubs
increase. When the range is in poor condition, undesira-
ble weeds and annual plants are numerous. Properly
managing grazing maintains and improves range condi-
tion. Reducing brush improves the range. Seeding im-
proves range in poor condition. Crested wheatgrass,
western wheatgrass, and Russian wildrye are suitable for
seeding. Preparing a seedbed and drilling the seed are
good practices.
Pheasant, mourning dove, cottontail rabbit, some mule
deer, and squirrel find habitat on this soil.
Community development and recreation are limited by
low strength and the shrink -swell potential. Dwellings
and roads can be designed to overcome these limita-
tions. Community sewage systems will be needed if the
population density increases.
This soil is in capability subclasses Ille, irrigated, and
IVe, nonirrigated.
56—Potts loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes. This deep,
well drained, moderately sloping to rolling soil is on
mesas, benches, and sides of valleys. Elevation ranges
from 5,000 to 7,000 feet. This soil formed in alluvium
derived from sandstone, shale, or basalt. The average
annual precipitation is about 14 inches, the average
SOIL SURVEY
annual air temperature is about 46 degrees F, and the
average frost -free period is about 120 days.
Typically, the surface layer is brown loam about 4
inches thick. The subsoil is reddish brown clay loam
about 24 inches thick. The substratum is pinkish white
loam to a depth of 60 inches.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of
Kim, Olney, and Ildefonso soils that have slopes of 6 to
12 percent. These areas make up 10 to 15 percent of
the map unit.
Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity
is high. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more.
Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is
severe.
This soil is used mainly for grazing, wildlife habitat, and
some dryland farming (fig. 10). Wheat, barley, and oats
are grown.
Minimum contour tillage and stubble mulching help to
prevent excessive erosion.
The native vegetation on this soil is mainly wheat -
grass, needleandthread, and sagebrush.
When range condition deteriorates, forbs and shrubs
increase. When the range is in poor condition, undesira-
ble weeds and annual plants are numerous. Properly
managing grazing improves and maintains range condi-
tion. Reducing brush improves range. Seeding improves
range in poor condition. Crested wheatgrass, western
wheatgrass, and Russian wildrye are suitable for seed-
ing. Preparing a seedbed and drilling the seed are good
practices.
Community development and recreation are limited by
low strength, shrink -swell potential, and slope. Dwellings
and roads can be designed to overcome these limita-
tions. Community sewage systems will be needed if the
population density increases.
This soil is in capability subclass IVe, irrigated and
nonirrigated.
57—Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent
slopes. These gently sloping to rolling soils are on
mesas and sides of valleys. Elevation ranges from 5,000
to 6,500 feet. The Potts soil formed in alluvium derived
from sandstone, shale, or basalt. The Ildefonso soil
formed in very strongly calcareous, basaltic alluvium and
small amounts of eolian material. The average annual
precipitation is about 14 inches, the average annual air
temperature is about 46 degrees F, and the average
frost -free period is about 120 days.
The Potts soil makes up about 60 percent of the map
unit, and the Ildefonso soils makes up about 30 percent.
The Potts soil is on slightly concave positions, and the
Ildefonso soil is on the breaks of steeper slopes.
The Potts soil is deep and well drained. Typically, the
surface layer is brown loam about 4 inches thick. The
subsoil is reddish brown clay loam about 24 inches thick.
The substratum is pinkish white loam that extends to a
depth of 60 inches.
RIFLE AREA, COLORADO
Permeability of the Potts soil is moderate, and availa-
ble water capacity is high. Effective rooting depth is 60
inches or more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion
hazard is moderate.
The Ildefonso soil is deep and well drained. Typically,
the surface layer is brown stony loam about 8 inches
thick. The underlying material is white, calcareous very
stony loam that extends to a depth of 60 inches.
Permeability of the Ildefonso soil is moderately rapid,
and available water capacity is low. Effective rooting
depth is about 60 inches. Surface runoff is slow, and the
erosion hazard is moderate.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of
Olney and Kim soils that have slopes of 3 to 12 percent.
These areas make up 5 to 15 percent of the map unit.
These soils are used mainly for limited grazing and
wildlife habitat.
The native vegetation on the Potts soil is mainly
wheatgrass, needleandthread, and sagebrush. The
native vegetation on the Ildefonso soil is mainly pinyon
and Utah juniper and an understory of Indian ricegrass,
wheatgrass, junegrass, serviceberry, bitterbrush, and sa-
gebrush.
When the understory vegetation deteriorates, grasses
almost disappear and forbs and shrubs increase. Proper-
ly managing grazing maintains and improves range con-
dition on both soils. Seeding improves range on the
Potts soil if it is in poor condition. Crested wheatgrass,
western wheatgrass, and Russian wildrye are suitable for
seeding. Preparing a seedbed and drilling the seed are
good practices. Reducing brush on the Potts soil im-
proves the range. Properly managing the vegetation on
the Ildefonso soil maintains wood production and graz-
ing. Selectively thinning pinyon and juniper improves
grazing and provides firewood, posts, and Christmas
trees.
The Ildefonso soil is suited to production of pinyon and
Utah juniper. It can produce 9 cords of wood per acre
when trees more than 4.5 feet tall reach an average
diameter (at one foot) of 5 inches. The low available
water capacity affects survival of tree seedlings.
Mule deer, wild turkey, chukar, gray squirrel, cottontail
rabbit, and some pheasant find habitat on these soils.
Community development is limited on the Potts soil by
low strength, shrink -swell potential, and slope. Communi-
ty development is limited on the Ildefonso soil by steep
slopes.
This complex is in capability subclass Vle, nonirrigated.
58—Potts-Ildefonso complex, 12 to 25 percent
slopes. These strongly sloping to hilly soils are on
mesas, alluvial fans, and sides of valleys. Elevation
ranges from 5,000 to 6,500 feet. The Potts soil formed in
alluvium derived from sandstone, shale, or basalt. The
Ildefonso soil formed in very strongly calcareous, basaltic
alluvium and small amounts of eolian material. The aver-
age annual precipitation is about 14 inches, the average
33
annual air temperature is about 46 degrees F, and the
average frost -free period is about 120 days.
The Potts soil makes up about 60 percent of this unit,
and the Ildefonso soil makes up about 30 percent. The
Potts soil is in slightly concave positions, and the Ilde-
fonso soil is on the breaks of steeper slopes.
The Potts soil is deep and well drained. Typically, the
surface layer is brown loam about 4 inches thick. The
subsoil is reddish brown clay loam about 24 inches thick.
The substratum is pinkish white loam to a depth of 60
inches.
Permeability of the Potts soil is moderate, and availa-
ble water capacity is high. Effective rooting depth is 60
inches or more. Surface runoff is medium, and the ero-
sion hazard is moderate.
The Ildefonso soil is deep and well drained. Typically,
the surface layer is brown stony loam about 8 inches
thick. The underlying material is white, calcareous very
stony loam to a depth of 60 inches.
Permeability of the Ildefonso soil is moderately rapid,
and available water capacity is low. Effective rooting
depth is about 60 inches. Surface runoff is medium, and
the erosion hazard is moderate.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of
Morval and Lazear soils. The Morval soils are at the
higher elevations. The Lazear soils are shallow and are
on ridge crests and steep mountainsides. These areas
make up 10 to 18 percent of the map unit.
These soils are used mainly for limited grazing and
wildlife habitat.
The native vegetation on the Potts soil is mainly
wheatgrass, needleandthread, and sagebrush. The
native vegetation on the Ildefonso soil is mainly pinyon
and Utah juniper and an understory of Indian ricegrass,
wheatgrass, junegrass, serviceberry, bitterbrush, and sa-
gebrush.
When the understory vegetation deteriorates, grasses
almost disappear and forbs and shrubs increase. Proper-
ly managing grazing maintains and improves range con-
dition on both soils. Seeding improves range in poor
condition in less sloping areas of the Potts soil. Blue -
bunch wheatgrass, western wheatgrass, and need-
leandthread are suitable for seeding. Preparing the
seedbed and drilling the seed are good practices. Con-
trolling brush on the Potts soil improves range that is
producing more shrubs than are normally found in the
potential plant community. Properly managing the under -
story vegetation on the Ildefonso soil maintains wood
production and grazing. Selectively thinning pinyon and
juniper improves grazing and provides firewood, posts,
and Christmas trees.
The Ildefonso soil is suited to production of pinyon and
Utah juniper. It can produce 9 cords of wood per acre
when trees more than 4.5 feet tall reach an average
diameter (at one foot) of 5 inches. The low available
water capacity affects survival of tree seedlings.
RIFLE AREA, COLORADO
TABLE 6. --RANGELAND PRODUCTIVITY AND CHARACTERISTIC PLANT COMMUNITIES --Continued
101
Soil name and
map symbol
Range site name
Total production 1
;Kind of year I Dry ;
;weight I
Characteristic vegetation
:Compo-
Isition
45*:
Morval
146, 47
Nihill
49, 50, 51
Olney
52
Parachute
53*:
Parachute
Rhone
54, 55, 56
Potts
57*, 58*, 59*:
Potts
Deep Loam
Rolling Loam
Rolling Loam
Brushy Loam
Mountain Loam
Mountain Loam
;Rolling Loam
(Rolling Loam
See footnote at end of table.
;Favorable
;Normal
IUnfavorable
(Favorable
:Normal
:Unfavorable
:Favorable
:Normal
:Unfavorable
;
;Lb/acre;
; 1,800 ;Western wheatgrass
1,500 INeedleandthread
I 700 ;Big sagebrush
I IBluebunch wheatgrass
;Utah serviceberry
:
11,000 ;Western wheatgrass
800 IBluebunch wheatgrass
I 500 ;Big sagebrush
I INeedleandthread
; ;Indian ricegrass
I ;Low rabbitbrush
11,000 ;Western wheatgrass
1 800 IBluebunch wheatgrass
I 500 IBig sagebrush
; ;
; I
1
+
;Favorable 13,000
;Normal 12,000
IUnfavorable 11,500
;Favorable
;Normal
:Unfavorable
;Favorable
;Normal
;Unfavorable
:Favorable
;Normal
;Unfavorable
;
IFavorable
;Normal
;Unfavorable
;
1 ,800
1,500
1,200
1,800
1,500
1,200
1,000
800
500
1,000
800
500
Needleandthread
Indian ricegrass
Rabbitbrush
;Utah serviceberry
IGambel oak
:Elk sedge
:Mountain brome
Columbia needlegrass
Letterman needlegrass
Idaho fescue
;Mountain snowberry
;Big sagebrush
;Letterman needlegrass
;Columbia needlegrass
;Elk sedge
;Big sagebrush
:Idaho fescue
IBluebunch wheatgrass
IBig bluegrass
;Utah serviceberry
:Mountain snowberry
;Douglas rabbitbrush
;Letterman needlegrass
;Columbia needlegrass
;Big sagebrush
;Elk sedge
IBluebunch wheatgrass
(Idaho fescue
;Big bluegrass
;Utah serviceberry
;Mountain snowberry
:Douglas rabbitbrush
:Western wheatgrass
INeedleandthread
IBluebunch wheatgrass
;Big sagebrush
;Indian ricegrass
:Low rabbitbrush
;Squirreltail
;Western wheatgrass
INeedleandthread
IBluebunch wheatgrass
;Big sagebrush
(Indian ricegrass
;Low rabbitbrush
ISquirreltail
I Pct
1 20
1 15
10
1 10
5
20
15
15
10
10
5
20
15
15
10
10
5
15
115
1 10
110
5
5
5
5
I 5
15
1 10
10
10
15
5
15
15
I 5
I 5
15
10
110
I 10
I 5
I 5
; 5
; 5
5
; 5
i
125
1 15
1 15
1 10
10
5
5
125
15
10
110
110
I 5
5
106
• •
TABLE 7. --BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT --Continued
SOIL SURVE
Soil name and
map symbol
Shallow
excavations
Dwellings
without
basements
Dwellings
with
basements
43 ;Moderate:
Limon I too clayey.
44 ;Slight
Morval
45*:
Morval !Moderate:
I slope.
Tridell ;Severe:
I slope,
I large stones.
46 !Severe:
Nihill I cutbanks cave.
47 !Severe:
Nihill I slope,
I cutbanks cave.
48 !Severe: Severe:
Northwater I slope. I slope.
Ir ;
49 ;Slight (Slight
Olney
1 ;
50 ISlight 'Slight
Olney
Small
commercial
buildings
Local roads
and streets
;Severe: :Severe: ;Severe: :Severe:
shrink -swell. I shrink -swell. I shrink -swell. I low strength,
', I shrink -swell.
1 I ; •
;Moderate: :Moderate: ;Moderate: (Moderate:
I shrink -swell. I shrink -swell. I slope, I low strength,
shrink -swell. I shrink -swell,
' ' 1 I frost action.
I I
I I I I
I I
;Moderate: :Moderate: ;Severe: (Moderate:
shrink -swell, I shrink -swell, ; slope. I low strength,
I slope. I slope. I '
shrink -swell,
I 1 I slope.
1 I 1 I
;Severe: ;Severe:
Severe: ,Severe:
slope, I slope, I slope, I slope,
I large stones. I large stones. I large stones. I large stones.
I
;Slight
' ;Slight
1 ISlight
I I (Slight.
1 I 1 I
;Severe: ;Severe:
,Severe:
ISevere:
I ; I
slope. 1 slope. I slope. ; slope.
I I
I'
,
, r
;Severe: ISevere: !Severe:
I slope. I slope. I slope.
1
:Slight I g ;Slight ISlight.
I
I I I
I I
,
,
;Slight;Slight ISlight.
I ;
;Moderate: ;Moderate: :Severe: Moderate:
slope. slope. , slope. ; slope.
r ; I I
ISevere: ;Severe: ;Severe:
; Severe:
I slope. slope, I slope. I slope.
1 I depth to rock. I
r I 1 I
I I I
Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe:
slope. I slope, I slope. I slope.
; depth to rock. 1
1I
;Moderate: ;Moderate:
Severe: ,Moderate:
slope, ; slope, I slope. I slope,
shrink -swell. I depth to rock, ; ; frost action,
; shrink -swell. ,
� , shrink -swell.
, I
1 ,
ISlight ISlightI ISlight ;Slight.
, , I
1 , 1 1
1 1
ISlight ;Slight ;Moderate: !Slight.
I g
I I ; slope.
; I I
(Moderate: :Moderate: ;Severe: Moderate:
I slope. I slope. I slope, slope.
I
I ,
I ,
;Slight,
ISlight !Moderate: '
Slight.
�
1 I slope. 1
Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe:
large stones. I large stones. I large stones. I slope, I large stones.
large stones. ;
I ; 1
51
Olney
52
Parachute
53*:
Parachute
Rhone
54
Potts
55
Potts
56
Potts
57*:
Potts
Ildefonso
;Moderate:
! slope.
;Severe:
I slope,
I depth to rock.
;Severe:
I slope,
; depth to rock.
(Moderate:
I slope,
I depth to rock.
;Slight
;Slight
;Moderate:
I slope.
;Slight
See footnote at end of table.
• •
112 SOIL SURVEY
TABLE 8. --SANITARY FACILITIES --Continued
Soil name and
map symbol
Septic tank I Sewage lagoon I Trench ;
absorption ; areas I sanitary ;
fields ; 1 landfill ;
Area
sanitary
landfill
Daily cover
for landfill
54, 55 IModerate:
Potts I percs slowly.
56 Moderate:
Potts I slope,
I percs slowly.
57*:
Potts ;Moderate:
percs slowly.
Ildefonso ;Severe:
I slope,
I large stones.
58*:
Potts ;Severe:
I slope.
Ildefonso !Severe:
; slope,
I large stones.
59*:
Potts !Severe:
I slope.
r
Ildefonso alSevere:
I slope,
I large stones.
60 ISevere:
Rhone I depth to rock,
I slope.
61 !Severe:
Rhone I depth to rock,
I slope.
62*:
Rock outcrop.
Torriorthents.
1
63 !Severe:
Silas ; floods
64 ;Severe:
Tanna I depth to rock,
I percs slowly,
I slope.
65*.
Torrifluvents
66*:
Torriorthents.
Camborthids.
Rock outcrop.
67*:
Torriorthents.
Rock outcrop.
See footnote at end of table.
;Moderate:
I slope,
seepage.
;Severe:
I slope.
!Severe:
I slope.
!Severe:
slope,
seepage.
ISevere:
I slope.
ISevere:
I slope,
! seepage
!Severe:
I slope.
;Severe:
I slope,
I seepage
;Severe:
I slope.
ISevere:
I slope.
1
;Severe:
I floods.
;Severe:
I depth to rock,
I slope.
. i
.
;Slight (Slight ;Good.
I I t
I 1I
1 I I
! ; ;
;Slight ;Moderate: ;Fair:
; I slope. I slope.
i i I
I II
I I 1
i i I
;Slight ;Slight !Good.
I I
I I 1
i i i
;Severe: ;Moderate: ;Poor:
I large stones. I slope. I large stones.
1 11
1 I 1
; ; ;
II I
I 1 1
;Moderate: ;Severe: !Poor:
I slope. I slope. I slope.
; ! !
;Severe: ;Severe: ;Poor:
I large stones, I slope, I slope,
I seepage. I seepage. I large stones.
; I I
I II
I
!Severe: Severe: !Poor:
I slope. I slope. I slope.
11 I
I 1 I
!Severe: !Severe: !Poor:
I slope, I slope, I slope,
I large stones, I seepage. I large stones.
I seepage. ; I
II
1 I 1
(Severe: ISevere: ;Poor:
I depth to rock. I slope. I slope.
II
1 1 1
; ; ;
;Severe: ;Severe: ;Poor:
I slope, I slope. I slope.
I depth to rock. I I
! ; ;
II I
1 1 I
I I I
I I I
I
'I I
I 1 I
I I I
;Severe: !Severe: !Good.
I floods. I floods. .
i I I
;Severe: ;Severe: !Poor:
I depth to rock, I slope. ' slope,
I slope. I thin layer,
I I area reclaim.
I I I
;
1
I
118
• •
TABLE 9. --CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS --Continued
SOIL SURVEY
Soil name and
map symbol
Roadfill Sand
Gravel
Topsoil
54, 55
Potts
56
Potts
57*:
Fair:
low strength.
Fair:
low strength.
Potts :Fair:
1 low strength.
1
Ildefonso :Poor:
: large stones.
1
58*:
Potts :Fair:
I slope,
1 low strength.
Ildefonso :Poor:
1 large stones.
59*:
Potts :Poor:
I slope
1
Ildefonso :Poor:
1 slope,
1 large stones.
I
60 :Fair:
Rhone 1 slope,
: thin layer,
I low strength.
1
61 :Poor:
Rhone 1 slope.
62*:
Rock outcrop.
Torriorthents. ;
I
63 :Fair:
Silas I low strength.
1
1
64 :Poor:
Tanna I slope,
65*.
Torrifluvents
66*:
Torriorthents.
Camborthids.
Rock outcrop.
67*:
Torriorthents.
Rock outcrop.
: low strength,
I thin layer.
1
See footnote at end of table.
;Unsuited
1
;Unsuited
1
:Unsuited
1
:Unsuited
1
1
:Unsuited
1
:Unsuited
1
1
1
;Unsuited
;Unsuited
1
1
:Unsuited
1
•:Unsuited
1
1
:Unsuited
I
1
;Unsuited
1
1
1
I
:Unsuited :Fair:
I small stones.
1
;Unsuited :Fair:
1 I slope,
1 1 small stones.
1
1 1
:Unsuited
:Unsuited
:Unsuited
:
Unsuited
Unsuited
Unsuited
Unsuited
:Unsuited
I
1
I
:Unsuited
;Unsuited
1
I
I
:Fair:
small stones.
:Poor:
I large stones.
1
(Poor:
1 slope.
I
:Poor:
1 slope,
1 large stones.
:Poor:
I slope.
:Poor:
1 slope,
I large stones.
;Poor:
1 slope.
1
:Poor:
I slope.
1
1
1
:Good.
I
:Poor:
1 slope,
1 too clayey.
RIFLE AREA, COLORADO 123
TABLE 10. --WATER MANAGEMENT --Continued
! i i -iI
Soil name and ; Pond ! Embankments, I Drainage I Irrigation ; Terraces and I
map symbol ; reservoir ; dikes, and I ; I diversions !
I areas ; levees I ; ; !
Grassed
waterways
53*:
Parachute
Rhone
54, 55
Potts
56
Potts
57*:
Potts
Ildefonso
58*, 59*:
Potts
!Depth to rock, (Thin layer
I slope, 1
I seepage. ;
1
(Slope, ;Thin layer
depth to rock.;
I
1 1
;Seepage ;Piping
1
'I
I 1
;Seepage ;Piping
1 I
1 1
II
1 i
I 1
I
;Seepage ;Piping
I 1
I 1
I 1
;Seepage,
I slope. !
! !
I I
I I
I I
I 1
(Seepage ;Piping
! ;
1 I
(Seepage,
I slope.
!Slope,
! depth to
!
(Depth to rock,
; slope.
;Slope,
I depth to rock.
(Slope
I
!Slope
;Slope
!
(Large stones---ISlope,
I large
!Slope
Ildefonso ILarge stones---ISlope,
I I large stones.
! !
! !
60, 61 IThin layer Slope,
Rhone rock.! depth to
1
1
I
1
I !
i 1
I I
I 1
1 1
I I
:Slope, ;Piping ;Slope,
Silas I seepage. I I floods.
! ; !
64 ;Slope, IThin layer ;Slope,
Tanna I depth to rock.; I percs slowly,
I I I depth to rock.
1 1 I
65*. ; !
Torrifluvents ! !
Ii
1 1
66*: I I ;
Torriorthents. ! !
; ;
Camborthids. I !
! I I
Rock outcrop. I ; ;
; ;
67*: ! ; ;
Torriorthents. I !
I I !
Rock outcrop. I I
I I I
68 !Seepage (Piping (Favorable
Vale ! !
I 1 I
11 I
69 ISlope, ;Piping :Slope
Vale ! seepage. I !
! I !
70 !Slope, !Piping ISlope
Vale ! seepage. ! ;
I ! ! !
;Slope,
I droughty,
I rooting depth.
;Slope,
I rooting depth.
!Slope,
I erodes easily.
!Slope,
I erodes easily.
!Slope,
;Depth to
I slope.
rock, :Slope,
I rooting depth,
I droughty.
Slope, ISlope,
depth to rock.; rooting depth.
easily --(Erodes easily.
;Erodes
;Slope, !Slope,
erodes easily.! erodes easily.
Erodes easily --!Erodes easily.
I erodes easily.; !
! ! I
(Slope, ;Large stones, ;Slope,
stones. ! large stones, ! slope. I large stones,
I droughty. ; ; droughty.
! ! !
! ! I
I
;Slope, ;Slope, ISlope,
I erodes easily.; erodes easily.( erodes easily.
; I ;
;Slope, ;Large stones, ;Slope,
; large stones, I slope. I large stones,
I droughty. 1 ! droughty.
! ! I
;Slope, ;Slope, ;Slope,
rock.; rooting depth.; depth to rock.; rooting depth.
1
62*:
Rock outcrop.
Torriorthents.
63
I I I
I I I
I I I
I
1 1 1
! ! !
! ; !
!Slope, Favorable!!Favorable.
I floods. ; !
1 1 I
1 1 I
;Slope, ;Slope, !Slope,
I percs slowly, ; depth to rock,( erodes easily,
! rooting depth.! percs slowly. ! rooting depth.
II 1
1 1 1
1 I 1
! I !
I ; I
I 1
I I
I I
1
I 1
I !
1 I
I I
!
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I 1
I I
1 I
II
I
!Favorable ;Erodes easily :Erodes easily.
I : I
I I I
(Slope ;Erodes easily, ;Slope,
I
I
1
!Slope
I
See footnote at end of table.
! slope. 1 erodes easily.
! !
;Slope, ;Slope,
! erodes easily.! erodes easily.
! !
• •
128 SOIL SURVEY
TABLE 11. --RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT --Continued
Soil name and
map symbol
Camp areas
Picnic areas
Playgrounds ; Paths and trails
I
44 ;Slight ;Slight ;Severe: ;Slight.
Morval i i I slope. 1
; ; ! ;
45*: ; ; !
Morval ;Moderate: ;Moderate: ;Severe: :Slight.
I slope. I slope. I slope. ;
I
I I I 1
Tridell ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: !Moderate:
I slope. ; slope. I slope, I large stones.
1 1 I large stones. I
46 ;Moderate: ;Moderate: ;Severe: ;Moderate:
Nihill ; small stones. I small stones. I small stones. I small stones.
1I I I
I I I 1
47 ;Severe: !Severe: ;Severe: ;Moderate:
Nihill I slope. I slope. I slope, I slope,
! ; I small stones. I small stones.
! ! ! ;
48 ;Severe: !Severe: ;Severe: !Severe:
Northwater I slope. I slope. I slope. I slope.
; ; ; ;
49, 50 ;Moderate: ;Moderate: ;Moderate: ;Moderate:
Olney I dusty. I dusty. I slope, I dusty.
I I I dusty. I
I I I
1 1 I 1
51 !Moderate: ;Moderate: ;Severe: ;Moderate:
Olney I slope, I slope, I slope. I dusty.
I dusty. I dusty. 1 .
I II
I I r I
52 ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe:
Parachute I slope. I slope. I slope. I slope.
; ; ; ;
53*: ; ; ;
Parachute ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Moderate:
I slope. I slope. I slope. I slope.
; I ! I
Rhone ;Moderate: ;Moderate: ;Severe: ;Slight.
I slope. I slope. I slope. I
; ; ! ;
54, 55 ;Slight ;Slight ;Moderate: ;Slight.
Potts I I I slope. I
I I I
56 ;Moderate: ;Moderate: ;Severe: ;Slight.
Potts I slope. I slope. I slope. I
I ! I ;
57*: I ; ; ;
Potts ;Slight ;Slight ;Severe: ;Slight.
I I I slope. I
; ; I I
Ildefonso ;Severe: !Severe: Severe: ;Severe:
I large stones. I large stones. I slope, I large stones.
I I I large stones. .
II I
I 1 I r
58*: ; ; ; I
Potts !Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Moderate:
I slope. I slope. I slope. I slope.
; ; ; ;
Ildefonso ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe:
I slope, I slope, I slope, I large stones.
I large'stones. I large stones. I large stones. I
I
1 1 1 1
59*: ; ; ; ;
Potts ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe:
I slope. I slope. I slope. I slope.
I I I I
Ildefonso ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe:
; slope, I slope, ; slope, I slope,
I large stones. I large stones. I large stones. I large stones.
I I I I
See footnote at end of table.
• •
132 SOIL SURVEY
TABLE 12. --WILDLIFE HABITAT POTENTIALS --Continued
I Potential for habitat elements
Soil name and ;Grain ; ;Wild I I ; ! i
map symbol I and IGrasseslherba-;Hard- ;Gonif- ShrubslWetlandlShallow
;seed ! and ! ceous; wood I erous ;plants ! water
(crops Ilegumes;plants;trees ;plants I ; areas
; ! ; I ! ; ;
I I I I I ! I ;
40, 41 ;Fair (Fair (Fair ! --- ! ;Fair ;Poor ;Very ;Fair
Kim ; ; ; I ; ! poor. 1
I ; $ I ; I I I ;
42 !Poor !Poor ;Good I --- ; ;Fair ;Poor ;Very ;Fair
Lamphier I I ! ! I I I I poor. !
I I ! I ; ! : I 1
43 !Poor !Poor !Fair ! --- ; !Fair !Poor (Very !Poor
Limon I ; I II ! I poor. I
! i ! ! I ; ! !
44 !Fair ;Good ;Good I --- !Fair !Poor ;Poor !Good
Morval I I I 1 I I I I
I1 I 1 I 1 I 1
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
45*: 1 I I ! I I I I I
Morval !Fair ;Good ;Good I --- ; ;Fair ;Poor !Poor ;Good
1 1 I I I I I I
Tridell (Very IVery !Poor I --- I !Fair ;Very !Very !Poor
I poor. poor. ! ! : I
I ! poor. I poor.
1 I
{ i : 1 1
46 ;Fair Good ;Fair I --- I ;Fair !Very (Very Fair
Nihill 1 I I I I ; I poor. I poor. !
I I i 1 11 1 1
{ l i 1 1 1 I 1
47 ;Poor ;Fair ;Fair; ;Fair (Very (Very !Fair
Nihill I 1 I ! I I I poor. I poor. I
I I I I I I I
1 t I I I I i I
48 !Poor ;Poor !Good ! --- I !Fair !Very !Very !Fair
Northwater I ! ! ! I I ! poor. I poor. 1
I. I I I I I I
1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1
49, 50, 51 ;Poor ;Fair ;Fair I --- : ;Fair ;Poor IVery ;Fair
Olney ! I ; I ; ! 1 I poor. I
1 I I I
1 ; 1 I I
52 !Very ;Very ;Good I --- I !Fair !Very !Very :Poor
Parachute ; poor.; poor. I ; : i I poor. ; poor. ;
! ! ! i i ; 1 1 ;
53*: 1 I I I I ; I ; ;
Parachute (Poor :Poor !Good : --- : !Fair ;Very IVery Fair
I I I I I I I poor. I poor.
I I I I I I I
t 1 1
Rhone ;Poor ;Poor :Good I --- :Fair ;Very ;Very :Fair
I I ; 1 I ; poor. I poor. I
1
1 I 1 1 1 1
54, 55, 56 ;Poor !Poor ;Fair I --- ;Fair ;Very !Very :Poor
Potts ; ; ; ; ; I poor. 1 poor. !
II 1 I I I I
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I
57*, 58*: I II I : I ! I I
Potts ;Poor !Poor ;Fair ! --- I ;Fair IVery ;Very ;Poor
I ! I 1 I I I poor. I poor. I
I ! I ; ; 1 ; ;
Ildefonso ;Poor Poor Fair I --- I :Fair IVery !Very ;Poor
: I ! i I I ; poor. ; poor. I
II I I 1 I
I 1 1 11 1 1 i 1
59*: I I I I I I I ; I
Potts !Poor ;Poor ;Fair I --- I !Fair :Very ;Very ;Poor
I I I I I I I poor. I poor. 1
II I I I I I I
1 i I I I I 1 i 1
Ildefonso ;Very (Very ;Fair I --- 1 :Fair (Very !Very ;Poor
1 poor.; poor. I I I I ! poor. I poor. I
II I I I I I
1 I I I 1 I I I i
60 Poor;;Poor ;Good ; --- I :Fair ;Very ;Very ;Fair
Rhone ; I ; 1 I I 1 poor. I poor. 1
1 I 1I 1 I I I
1 I I : 1 I I
61 Very ;Very ;Good I --- ; (Fair ;Very !Very ;Poor
Rhone ! poor.! poor. 1 ;
I ; : ; poor. I poor. I
I I I
t 1 I 1 1 : t I
62*: ; ! ; ! I ; I ! ;
Rock outcrop. ! ; 1 ; ; ; ; ;
11 I I I I I
i 1 I 1 1 I
Torriorthents. I I ; ; I : I I
11 I I I 1 I
I 1 I 1 ; I I
Potential as habitat for --
Open- I Wood- ! ! Range-
land I land ;Wetland; land
wild- 1 wild- ; wild- I wild-
life 1 life I life I life
See footnote at end of table.
; ; ;
; 1 ;
; ;Very ;Fair.
I I poor. I
; ; ;
I (Very ;Fair.
I I poor. !
1
1 1 I
1 (Very !Fair.
; I poor. I
1 ! ;
; ;Poor ;Fair.
! ; ;
I 1I
t 1
1 I
t t
;Poor ;Fair.
11
I
(Very ;Fair.
I poor. 1
1
1 1
;Very ;Fair.
I poor. 1
11
I I
;Very ;Fair.
I poor. I
; ;
IVery ;Fair.
I poor. I
1
I
1 IVery ;Fair.
I I poor. I
1
I 1 I
: ;Very ;Fair.
I I poor. 1
I 11
I 1
: t
: ;Very ;Fair.
! poor. ;
11
I i i
: ;Very ;Good.
; I poor. I
;
I !Very ;Fair.
I I poor. I
11 1
1 I i
1 ! ;
; ;Very Fair.
1 ; poor. ;
,
1 1
; ;Very Fair.
I I poor.
1
I 1
1 1
1 1
1 IVery ;Fair.
; 1 poor. I
1
1 1
1 (Very Fair.
! I poor.
1,
1 1
1 ;Very Good.
I I poor.
I
1 1
; ;Very Good.
I poor.
I1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 I
1 1
1 1 I
1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
IFLE AREA, COLORADO 139
TABLE 13. --ENGINEERING INDEX PROPERTIES --Continued
1 Classification IFrag- 1 Percentage passing
Soil name and ;Depth; USDA texture I I Iments 1 sieve number-- :Liquid
map symbol ' : ; Unified I AASHTO ; > 3 I : : : I limit
1 : : Iinches; 4 I 10 I 40 1 200 ;
Plas-
ticity
index
arachute
In II I I Pet
- I 1
I I 1 I
I I I
I II
0-5 :Loam ICL -ML 1A-4 : 0 190-100190-100165-95
5-181Loam ICL, 1A-4, A-6 0 ;75-100175-95 170-95
4 I CL -ML, ; I I 1 I
SM -SC, I : : : 1
I I SC I I II
18-29:Very channery ;GM -GC, GM:A-1, A-2 5-30 125-40 120-30 115-30
loam, very : I I I
I channery sandy I ;
I loam. ; ; 1 : ;
29 ;Unweathered 1 I : --- : --- ; ---
bedrock. I :
I I I I I 1
I
Pct
I I I
I 1
I I
150-75 120-30
135-75 120-35
I I
hone ; 0-8 ;Loam ;CL, CL-MLIA-4, A-6 0 190-100180-95
8-28;Sandy clay loam,;CL, ;A-4, A-6 0-5 185-100175-95
I loam. I CL -ML, 1 1 , ;
I
SM -SC, I ; ; :
: ; SC I ; ; I
28-521Chan.nery sandy ;GM -GC ;A-2 ; 0-10 145-60 140-55
1 clay loam, very: i ; : ;
1 channery sandy 1 : ; ; ;
I clay loam. ; ; ; ; ;
52 ;Unweathered ; 1 --- ; --- ; --- ; ---
bedrock. ; :
I I
I I
4, 55, 56 0-4 ;Loam ;ML 1A-4 ; 0
'otts 4-281Clay loam :CL :A-6 ; 0
28-601Loam :ML ;A-4 ; 0
1 ; i
'*, 58*, 59*: ; ; ; 1
'otts ; 0-4 ;Loam ;ML ;A-4 ; 0
4-281Clay loam :CL A-6 ; 0
28-601Loam ;ML A-4 ; 0
I I
ildefonso 0-8 ;Stony loam ;SM, GM IA -1, A-2; 5-25
8-60;Very stony loam,;SM, GM ;A-1, A-2120-70
1 very gravelly ; ; ;
; sandy loam. ; ; ;
; ; ;
), 61 ; 0-8 ;Loam CL, CL-MLIA-4, A-6; 0
Rhone ; 8-28;Sandy clay loam, CL, IA -4, A-6; 0-5
; loam. ; CL -ML, ; ;
SM -SC, ; ;
; ; ; SC ; ;
128-521Channery sandy IGM-GC ;A-2 ; 0-10
clay loam, very; i ;
; 1 channery sandy I 1 ;
; ; clay loam. ; ; ;
1 52 ;Unweathered ; ;
1 1 bedrock. ; ;
1 ; ; ;
2*: ; ; ; 1
Rock outcrop. ; i ; :
; ; , ;
Torriorthents. ; ; ; 1
; ; I I ;
3 10-60;Loam ;ML IA -4 10-10
Silas ; ; ; ; ;
I
4 10-9 ;Silty clay loam ;CL ;A-6, A-7; 0-5
Tanna ; 9-24;Clay loam, clay,ICL ;A-6, A-7: 0-5
; I silty clay loam; ; ;
124-30;Very channery ;GM -GC, ;A-2 ; 0-10
; ; loam, channery I CL -ML ;
clay loam, ; ;
I ; loam. 1 I ;
30 ;Unweathered ; ; --- ;
; ; bedrock. ; ; 1
1
See footnote at end of table.
10-20
15-25
5-10
5-15
NP -10
1 : +
170-90 50-70 1 20-35 1 5-15
160-90 135-65 1 20-40 1 5-20
1 1 1 I
1 1 1 1
:
130-50 115-30 ; 20-30 1 5-10
; ;
; 1 ;
1 I
I I 1
1 I
I I I
1 1 1 ;
175-100175-100 65-90 150-70 1 25-35 NP -5
175-100175-100 70-100155-80 1 25-35 ; 10-15
175-100175-100165-90 150-70 1 25-35 ; NP -5
; ; ; I ; ;
; ; I ; ; ;
175-100175-100165-90 150-70 1 25-35 ; NP -5
;75-100175-100170-100155-80 1 25-35 1 10-15
175-100175-100165-90 150-70 1 25-35 1 NP -5
I
150-75 140-60 130-45 120-35 I
140-75 135-60 125-50 110-30 1
; ; ; ; :
; I I I I
; I ; ; ;
190-100180-95 170-90 150-70 ;
185-100175-95 160-90 135-65 ;
; I I ; ;
; : I I I
I I I
;45-60 140-55 130-50 115-30 1
1
I I I 1 I
I
; 1 ; 1 1
I ; ;
I I I
I--- I --- I
I I I;
1 I I 1
1
; 1 I ; ;
I ; I 1 :
I ; : I ;
I I I I
; 1 I I
190-100180-100175-95 155-80 1
; ; I ;
; I I 1 ;
;90-100;90-100;90-100;85-95 I
190-100190-100180-95 175-90 1
I I I 1 I
40-10030-95 25-80 20-70 1
II I I
I I I I
I I I I
1 I 1 1
1 I ;
I 1 1
I 1 I I
20-25 I NP -5
20-25 ' NP -5
20-35 ' 5-15
20-40 5-20
20-30 5-10
20-25 NP -5
35-45 15-20
35-45 15-25
25-30 5-10
RIFLE AREA, COLORADO 147
corrosion
L0)
m
0)
.-1
a
CO
1)
High water
TABLE 15. --SOIL
;Concrete
44 4.,
CO CO CO CO
L L L L
a) a) a) 0)
•0 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 •0 -0 3 3
o o o o o O O O O O O O O O O O O
x a a r a a a a a a a a a x 2 a a
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- ------ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- ---- -- --
1 I I I 1 I I I I
'0 1 1 1 1 U 0) 1 1 0) a) 0) 0) o 1 1 1 N
a) .-C 1 1 I I .)-, .)-, 1 1 J -D N 4-) 1) 4) 1 1 1 1)
i-) 0) 1 1 1 1 CO N 1 1 CO CO CO CO (0 1 I 1 CO
CO O) 1 1 1 I L L I 1 L L L L L I 1 1 L
O 1) .0 .0 .0 .0 0) 0) 2 C a) a) m a) o .0 .0 .0 0
U CO 130 CO O0 m V V OD OO •0 •0 •O 1:1 •0 OO DO OO •0
0 •.1 •.1 •.1 •.i 0 0 •.i r/ 0 0 0 0 0 •.-1 •.i •.1 O
O 2 2 = 2 z z 2 2 z z z z z 2 2 2 E
1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1
.-1 I I I 1 I I I I 1
co 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1
•.-1 4) C U) o a) a) U 0) 0) a) 0) 0) 0)
4(0 0 4-, .0 4' y -0 4 -0 4) 4) a) y
C O •.'1 03 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
U) L 1) L L L L L L L L L L L
1) w U a) U) 0) U) U) 0) U) U) U a) U)
o (a -o 3 •0 3 13 "O •0 V -0 3 •0 •0 •O 3 3 3 •0
a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 o O 0 0 0
2 a X a E C) X C E a 2 E f a a a 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- -----
s-
a)
-
Hardness
1-)
Duration
✓ a) o m
1 .O .0 A 1 1 .0
1 CO CU CO I 1 CO
1 V O. C. a 1 1 C.
L C. a C. C.
CO •.( •.i •.4 •.i
2 CC CG C a
0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O SO O 7 7 ,O O O O ,O
VD SO SO SO SO 1.0 VD VD 1 ,O 1 1 1 VD VD sC, 1
A A A A A A A A O A O O O A A A O
7 N N 7 7
O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VD ,o � SO ,o SSD SO SO SO SO VD SO VD SO
n • n n n n
A A A n n n A A A A A A
O a) a) a) a) a) 0) 0) 4) 0) a) a) 0 a) N N 0)
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
1 0
0 •.•1
S. DO
•o 0 0 C.) 00 m 0 C 00 m CO C) CO m CO 0, CO w CO CO
>, .-i L
2 OO
V
C:
m .4
0
0) a
E E
CO >,
C N
.i O.
o E
Cn
L
L E
rn7 ox
C CO co
O > >
Ei ••
•.1 O * 0
(,')a 7s CCIE
7 7 7
*
rn
L in
a) 0) U sO
1•, Ch 1) 1) Ill
CO 7 a *
.-1 3 .0 2 Co
1- r1 .0 O • >, U U 0 CP CO In 0)
•.1 1) CI1 0) CO CO C C11 4.) 4-5
2 L C L •• L 0 4-) •• 4.)
•••.i O ^.-1 CO * CO .0 ^ 0 * 0
VO :Z CX) z O, O CV Cl.. CC D. C0 7 CL 1- C).
7 7 7 to to to to
Ildefonso
v
o C
0
�2
O 00
stD
Torriorthents.
See footnote at
•
CTLITHOMPSON
April 10, 2006
J and L Development, LLC
P.O. Box 2300
Grand Junction, CO 81502
Attention: Mr. Jim Cagle
Subject: Radiation Survey
Lexie Meadow Estates
Garfield County, Colorado
Project No. GS4725-210
As requested, we performed a radiation survey of the proposed Lexie Meadow
Estates in Garfield County, Colorado. This letter describes the site and our survey
procedure, and discusses the results of our radiation survey.
Lexie Meadow Estates is planned on a parcel located west of County Road 227
(Miller Lane) about 3 miles northwest of Silt, Colorado. The site is an approximately
80 -acre parcel that is bordered by County Road 227 on the east. County Road 216
(Antonelli Lane) intersects County Road 227 east of the property. Ground surface on
most of the site slopes to the southwest at grades of approximately 5 percent. A
wetlands area is present at the southwest corner of the site. The site appears to have
been used for agricultural purposes, primarily cattle grazing. The north portion of the
site had been tilled using a tractor prior to our site visit. No vegetation was present
on this portion of the site. Vegetation on the site consisted primarily of grasses,
weeds and brush.
On April 6, 2006, our staff engineer, Mr. Edward R. White, visited the site and
performed a radiation survey. Our survey consisted of driving an ATV along lines the
length of the site in a north -south direction. Lines were spaced approximately 30 to
50 feet apart. We observed radiation measurements that were taken with a Ludlum
Instruments, Inc. Model No. 19 Micro -R -Meter carried at arms length (approximately 2
feet above the ground surface). Radiation readings were observed by continuously
glancing back and forth from the Micro -R -Meter to the line of travel. We observed
radiation measurements averaging between 8 and 15 microroentgens per hour. Some
areas had readings as low as 2 microroentgens per hour and as high as 18
microroentgens per hour.
234 Center Drive I Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone: 970-945-2809 Fax: 970-945-7411
In our opinion, these readings are parcel normal background radiation for the
area in Garfield County near the parcel and do not indicate contamination.
Excavations at individual sites will expose the subsoils and could yield different
radiation readings. It may be appropriate to perform a radiation survey of the
completed foundation excavations for buildings at individual locations on the
property. The owner may want to consider installing a gravel layer below floor slabs
that is incorporated into a foundation drain and a "stand pipe" added to the
foundation drain that could be retro -fitted with a fan to mitigate possible radon gas if
warranted by future readings.
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 I THOMPSON, INC.
Edwar• R. White, E.I.
Staff Engineer
Reviewed b17
John lylechling, P.E.
Branch Manager
ERW:JM:cd
(5 copies sent)
J AND L DEVELOPMENT, LLC
LEXIE MEADOW ESTATES
PROJECT NO. GS4725-210
S:1GS04725.000121013. Letters\GS04725 210 LI.doc
2
MEMORANDUM
To: Richard Wheeler
From: Steve Anthony
Re: Comments on the Lexie Meadows Sketch Plan
Date: July 13, 2006
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Sketch Plan. My comments are as follows:
1. Noxious Weeds
• Inventory and mapping -The applicant shall map and inventory the property for County Listed
Noxious Weeds
• Weed Management -The applicant has provided a weed management plan for the inventoried
noxious weeds. Weeds likely to be in the project area are Russian knapweed, tamarisk, Russian
olive and whitetop.
• Common area weed management -The applicant needs to address weed management in
common areas including road rights of way. Issues to address are monitoring, treatment,
and funding.
• Covenants -If the subdivision will have covenants this is an opportunity to encourage weed control
with new property owners, and to let them know that they are legally obligated to manage county
listed noxious weeds.
2. Revegetation
The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted
on May 7, 2001) calls for the following:
• Plant material list.
• Planting schedule.
• A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes).
• A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat.
Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of acres,
to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information
will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation.
The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished
according to the attached Reclamation Standards. The Board of County Commissioners will
designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security.
3. Soil Plan
The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that
includes:
Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.
A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a
period of 90 days or more.
July 05, 2006
RECEIVED
JUL 0 7 2006
GARFIELD COVIN I +,.
BUILDING & PLANNING
Mr. Richard Wheeler
Garfield County Planning
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
•
MOUNTAIN CROSS
ENGINEERING, INC.
CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN
RE: Review of Sketch Plan Submittal for Lexie Meadow Estates
Dear Richard:
This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Sketch Plan submittal
of Lexie Meadow Estates. Only the following comment was generated:
1. The neighbors well will be in potential conflict with the individual sewage disposal
systems (ISDS) for Lots SF:22 and SF:21. These lots should have percolation tests
performed and building envelopes defined at the time of Preliminary Plan to verify
suitability of soils and setbacks of the ISDS from the well.
Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc.
1 r
Chris Hale, PE
826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.com
• STATE OPICOLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
www.water.state.co.us
JUN 232006
June 20, 2006
Richard Wheeler
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Lexie Meadow Estates Sketch Plan
Section 6, T6S, R92W, 6th PM
W. Division 5, W. District 39
Bill Owens
Governor
Russell George
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
Dear Richard:
Review of the above-mentioned Sketch Plan indicates that the water supply plan is under
development. Our experience has been that such plans are usually incomplete at the time of
sketch plan submittal. Also note that CRS 30-28-136(1) requires distribution of a complete
preliminary plan submission to referral agencies.
In compliance with the statutes, we will defer comments until the preliminary plan is filed.
If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact me for
assistance.
CJL/Lexie Meadow Estates.doc
Sincerely,
Cynthia J. ove
Water Resources Engineer
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer
James Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 39
D
D
3
EXHIBIT
1101/ MP
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Date Sent: June 16, 2006
Comments Due: July 5, 2006
Name of application: Lexie Meadow Estates
Sent to: Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept.
--------------------------
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the
Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form
may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as
necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
Garfield County Building & Planning
Staff contact: Richard Wheeler
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department requests that a full
traffic study be done on Cr. 227. We would also request that the possibility of aligning
the entrance with Antonelli lane be considered.
All entrances to Cr. 227 shall have stop signs installed. The stop signs and installation
shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). All
entrances to Cr. 227 shall be permitted by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department.
The driveway access permit (s) will have conditions specific to the location of the
entrances.
All equipment and material used in the construction of the project shall abide by Garfield
County Road & Bridge Department's oversize/overweight regulations.
Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept
By: Jake B. Mall Date June 22, 2006
EXHIBIT
April 26, 2006
BOUNDARIES
UNLIMITED INC.
Civil & Consulting Engineers
Garfield County
Building and Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
•
Re: Lexie Meadow Estates Sketch Plan and Supplemental Information
To Whom It May Concern:
On behalf of the owners of the proposed Lexie Meadow Estates, please find enclosed an application
for Sketch Plan Approval. We have also addressed the concerns listed in the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations Section 3:40 for Sketch Plan Supplemental Information.
Enclosed is an Application Form, a Letter of Authorization, and an Agreement for Payment Form.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
A. Source and Amount of Water Supply
The potable water for the proposed subdivision is anticipated to be supplied through the use of new
groundwater wells developed and augmented through an Area A West Divide Water Conservancy
District contract. The amount of potable water requested will be for 35 single family homes.
A separate irrigation water system will also be developed from Silt Project Water Rights which are
currently used to irrigate the property. This system will be used for irrigation of lawns and
landscaping.
B. Proposed Type of Sewage Disposal
There are no sewage treatment facilities or collection mains adjacent to, or near the proposed
subdivision. Therefore, each lot will utilize an Individual Sewage Disposal System which will be
designed by a Colorado registered professional engineer.
C. USDA Soil Conservation Service soil designations, with interpretation tables attached.
Information from the SCS Soil Survey of Rifle Area, Colorado (Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties)
has been attached. The site has predominantly four soils type: Potts loam (1 to 3 percent slopes),
Potts loam (3 to 6 percent slopes), Potts loam (6 to 12 percent slopes), and Potts-Ildefonso complex (3
to 12 percent slopes). Included in the attachment are several of the implementation tables from the
Soil Survey.
823 Blake Avenue Suite 102 Glenwood Springs Colorado 81601 Ph: 970.945.5252 Fax: 970.384.2833
• •
D. Statement assessing the impact of the proposed subdivision on lakes, streams and topography of
the site.
The development is intended to remain rural in nature. Lower Cactus Valley Ditch does run through
the Southwest corner of the property but is not anticipated to be affected. Roadside ditches will be
implemented to mitigate storm runoff. The site is located well upstream from the Colorado River, and
has the railroad and Highway 6 between the site and the river. Sediment controls will be implemented
to reduce the impact of the development.
E. Statement assessing potential radiation hazards to the site.
Please refer to the attached letter from CTL Thompson, Inc. dated April 10, 2006
F. Evidence that all lots and parcels created by the subdivision will have access to a public right-of-
way, in conformance with the Colorado State Highway Access Code and applicable County
Regulations.
The site is currently accessed from County Road 227, (Miller Lane), which borders the East property
boundary. County Road 216 (Antonelli Lane) intersects CR 227 to the east approximately halfway in-
between the property. A single subdivision road will connect all proposed lots to the CR227 public
right-of-way.
G. Anticipated Source of electricity, natural gas, telephone and cable TV. services.
Electricity and natural gas are anticipated to be provided by Xcel Energy.
Telephone is anticipated to be provided by Qwest.
No Cable TV is known to be adjacent to the Site. Satellite systems are anticipated.
Sincerely,
Deric Walter, P.E.
BOUNDARIES UNLIMITED INC.
Consulting and Civil Engineers
Encl.
Cc: Jim Cagle
Tom Zancanella
Richard Curr