Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application• • IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN WATER DIVISION NO. STATE OF COLORADO Case No. W-3404 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ') FOR WATER RIGHTS OF ) COLORADO COUNTRY PANORAMA RANCHES, ) a Colorado limited partnership, ) IN GARFIELD COUNTY ) STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION COMES NOW the Objector Loyal E. Leavenworth and submits this Statement of.Opposition in the above referenced case. 1. Name of Objector: Loyal E. Leavenworth Address of Objector: P. 0. Box 1388 1011 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH 303-945-9300 2. Name of ditch or other structure: Panorama Ranches Well Nos. 1, 2, and 3. 3. State facts why application for water rights should not be granted or why it should be granted only in part or on certain conditions: A. Upon information and belief, these wells are located in the Cattle Creek watershed, contrary to the allegation in the Application that these wells are located in the Roaring Fork River watershed. B. The granting of the Application will injure the vested rights of Objector. C. The conditions of approval set forth on Permit Nos. 22437-F, 22438-F, and 22439-F require that the water be used for household and fire protection purposes only and not for irrigation; applicant lacks feasible plans to comply with said conditions of approval. D. The conditions of approval set forth on Permit Nos. 22437-F, 22438-F, and 22439-F necessitate that this application for water rights be subject to recon- sideration on the question on injury to vested water rights for such period after the entry of judgment as is necessary or desirable to preclude or remedy any such injury. E. No unappropriated water exists in the watershed during the irrigation season. F. Upon information and belief, applicant does not intend to include these wells in a plan for augmentation, to the injury of vested water rights, including those of Objector. G. Objector reserves the right to assert additional grounds for opposition based upon facts or information which become hereafter known to Objector through discovery or otherwise. Respectfully submitted this /Zq day of October, 1977. f. LOY •`i E. LEA : NWORTH , #6696 P. • Box 138 1011 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH 303-945-9300 t • STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield ) ) SS. LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH, being first duly sown, upon oath, deposes and says that he has read the foregoing STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION, knows the contents thereof, and that the same are true to the best of his knowledge and belief. 1977. Subscribed and sworn to re me this day of October, My Commission expires April 24, 1979. Notary public 1 • CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION was placed in the United States mails at Glenwood Springs, Colorado, first class, postage prepaid, on the lay of October, 1977, addressed as follows: Jon R. Mulford, Esq. Attorney for Applicant 600 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 2014 BLAKE AVENUE GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENW❑OD SPRINGS, COL❑RAD❑ 81601 August 11, 1977 The following adjacent landowners have no certified mailing receipts in the file: Michael & Kathleen Strang Box 60 Carbondale, Colorado Robert and Mary Donlon 0010 Fender Lane Carbondale, Colorado 3. Skyhigh Enterprises 5532 Royal Crest Dallas, Texas 4. Loretta Sumer c/o George Sumer 19 Rector Street New York, N.Y. J 5. James Salter 500 N. St. Aspen, Colorado PHONE 945-8212 or c/0 Safeway Stores Box 5927 Term Annex Denver, Colorado The following adjacent landowners have a certified mailing receipt in the file: 1. Jack Ludwig 5532 Royal Crest Dallas, Texas 2. Bellow Pozen Salter c/o Salter Box 2738 Aspen, Colorado 3. Richard Hunt 407 Coachman Lane Houston, Texas 4. E.W. Baker and John Prosser Suite 1011 600 Cherry Blvd. Denver, Colorado 5. Elizabeth and Thornton B. Penfield III New Orleans, LA. 6. Elizabeth and Thornton Penfield 1204 170 Road Carbondale, Colorado 7. Gary McNulty Box 200 Carbondale, Colorado 8. Robert Scarrow 204 8th Box 460 Glenwood Springs J • 1 August 8, 1977 GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GLENWOOD, SPRINGS, COLORADO RE: PANORAMA RANCHES Ladies and Gentlemen: It seems appropriate to respond first to the recommendation for denial made by Planning Department Director Robert Witkowski. The density is Mr. Witkowski's first target. The project was approved in its sketch plan stage by the Board of Commissioners of Garfield County for 65 residential lots. Because of considerations for deer migration and habitat, I voluntarily reduced that density to 53 lots, which range from five to thirty-eight acres in size. The overall land -to -residence density is approximately eight acres. In addition to 55 acres of dedicated open space, another 27 acres have been reserved for riding trails and deer migration routes. It is also pointed out that under the Zoning Ordinance of Garfield County, the land we have designated as Panorama Ranches permits one residence for each two acres. It is called to your attention that for the years 1975, 1976 and 1977, the Garfield County Tax Assessor has taxed the land as residential even though no residences have been built there. What that means in dollars and cents is that the taxes levied are some 30 times greater than that levied on similar Garfield County land taxed as agricultural. And I respectfully call attention to the State of Colorado's Zoning Law -- the enabling ordinance providing the parameters for the zoning laws of each municipality and county within the state -- which declares that "property owners have the right to rely upon existing zoning regulations where there has been no material change in the character of the neighborhood which may require rezoning in the public interest." I submit that after an owner of land has acted in reliance of the law -- has, in fact, in that reliance incurred some $130,000 in costs over and above the price and carrying costs of the land itself -- as is the case of Panorama Ranches, then such a last minute recommendation by a public servant that the law be reversed, modified or ignored to validate his own philosophical opinion represents, I believe, a deplorable pisplacement of bureaucratic authority. • • 2 I use the phrase "philosophical opinion" because Mr. Witkowski's recommendation for denial is based neither on technical shortcomings nor geographic analysis. Rather, it is an attempt to justify his General Land Use Policy recommendation of last March 7th in which he concludes -- again, I believe, without the benefit of technical or geographic analysis -- that the Missouri Heights area should remain basically rural in character. The fallacy there, of course, is that the Missouri Heights area, by choice of the people, is not basically rural in character. In the approximately nine square mile area known as Missouri Heights, which is roughly that area between the rim overlooking the Roaring Fork valley on the South to Cattle Creek on the North, and the El Jebel road in Eagle County on the East to just beyond Road 100 in Garfield County on the West, there now exist more than 100 residences. More are building every day. There are at least another 100 approved sites in the area on which construction has not begun. My point is that the "settlement pattern" which Mr. Witkowski says must be defined already is established; it needs no further definition. Now, the reasons why that settlement pattern already has been established have been ignored by Mr. Witkowski. Let's explore them: 1. Land for homes can be developed there without robbing the county, the state or the nation of productive farmland. Tillable lands already have been extended beyond the blessing of available irrigation water, as this and other dry years have painfully demonstrated. The marginal lands, the lands claimed by sage and cactus, can be and have been reclaimed for the shelter of people, most of whom are seeking their Constitutionally guaranteed "Place in the Sun" away from urban congestion. 2. The area affords an alternative for those who find residential development in the rich river bottomlands both visually disturbing and ecologically wasteful. 3. The area already is served by a network of well-maintained secondary roads, much of which has been asphalt -paved. 4. Many more hours of sunlight are availabe to Missouri Heights residents than to those living anywhere else in the Roaring Fork, Crystal and Frying Pan River valleys. In these energy -short times -- becoming more critial day by day -- the potential for solar -heated homes is not only attractive from the standpoint of comfort but may well become an economic necessity. • • 3 5. Residents of the area enjoy views -- which can never be obstructed -- as beautiful as anywhere in Colorado. 6. The quality of domestic well water is superior -- as proved by impartial governmental study -- to that of any found in the Roaring Fork Valley area. 7. The area is free from fears of flood or geologic hazard, and the danger of being wiped out by forest fire is minimal. 8. All subdivisions developed or planned for the Missouri Heights area have central water systems monitored and treated to eliminate any possibility of surface pollution. The source of that water -- and this is important -- is protected from pollution by from 200 to 350 feet of compacted rock materials constituting a purifying filtering system beyond the current capabilites of man to duplicate. Those, then are the principal reasons why the "settlement pattern" for Missouri Heights already has been established. Now, Mr. Witkowski mentions the "proliferation" of individual sewage disposal systems. Of all the countries of the world, only America has this "phobia" concerning human waste. The majority of nations use human waste for fertilizer to grow the crops they eat -- and we eat through the import-export process. But here in America we stand aghast at the specter of human waste, even after it has been treated and processed through the best systems that our technology has been able to devise. At the same time, we pay no attention to the defecations of hundreds of thousands of dogs, birds, cattle, horses, deer, and all of the myriad other fauna that is continuously washed into our water sources. But one speck of human waste makes us hysterical. Up until just a few years ago, the some 300 houses and businesses of Basalt all were on individual septic systems. For the most part these were on lots with an area of less than 3,000 square feet and were in porous sand and river rock near the banks of the Frying Pan and Roaring Fork Rivers. They existed for some 75 years. Yet, downstream, neither Carbondale nor Glenwood Springs was afflicted with typhoid epidemics. I do not mean to be facetious. I mentioned earlier nature's filtration system on Missouri Heights, the effectiveness of which man has not been able to duplicate. I will leave it to my hydrological engineer, Ed Weakley, to respond to any technical questions in that regard. But I will call the Commissions's attention to a letter from the Garfield County Environmental Health Department which refers to the individual sewage disposal systems proposed for Panorama Ranches as "not only acceptable under State and County • • 4 regulations, but substantially better than required." A copy of that letter is included herewith as Exhibit "A". Therefore, I request that the Commission weigh the merit of Mr. Witkowski's comments regarding individual sewage disposal systems on the scales of "reasonableness." I find it difficult to respond to opinion -- as I am sure any respondent would -- when that opinion is advanced unsupported by fact or reason. At the technical review hearing last month I went into considerable detail to respond to Mr. Witkowski': unsupported opinions and his philosophies concerning his objections to Panorama Ranches. I detailed the distances and conditions of the roads serving the area -- roads which must be maintained and improved despite the present pitifully inadequate agricultural tax base to pay for that. I presented traffic counts and the logical extension of traffic studies prepared by one of Colorado's most renowned traffic engineering firms to arrive at a practical capacity of 500 cars per hour for Road 100. This ignored the possible practical capacity for the other four arterials which converge near Panorama Ranches. Yet, the only response from Mr. Witkowski is that he does not believe it. Surely, even Mr. Witkowski should agree that the roads have some practical capacity, that they will, indeed, permit some automotive traffic. For the sake of argument, let's reduce the figure for Road 100 to a practical capacity of only 100 cars per hour, or 2400 cars per day. Then let's use the results of most demographic studies concluding that each family will make two round—trips per day. Now let's assume there is an instant buildout of 53 homes at Panorama Ranches and another 100 instant homes elsewhere, plus the 100 already there, and assume further that all of them use Road 100. At four trips per day per household we arrive at 1,012 car trips per day -- still room for 1,388 more trips, or more than twice that imaginary buildout, all forced to use just one of five access routes. Now, I admire a man who will stand by his convictions, unless those convictions are really only delusions. I am not going to further tire the Commission nor the audience with a reiteration of my rather lengthy presentation of July 11th responding to the same objections of Mr. Witkowski that I am responding to here tonight. But to refresh your memories, or replace any copies that may have been misplaced and to supply copies for those not in attendance at the July meeting, I will re—distribute the documents to each of you. • • 5 I find Mr. Witkowski's recommendation to deny on the grounds that the State of Colorado is incapable of enforcing its own water use restrictions as being ill-considered. The State Water Resources Division has restricted water from the domestic system of Panorama Ranches to in-house use only. That is a gravely onerous restriction. I am acutely aware that it will greatly hinder the sale of lots, that it will greatly reduce their price in comparison with lots of similar size which do not carry that restriction. But for a public servant to recommend an action which would cause the financial ruin of a fellow human being on his tenuous personal opinion that other public servants lack the capability of enforcing their own edict, is, to me, the epitome of irresponsibility. I conclude by submitting that I have provided for the fulfillment of every requirement for Preliminary Plat approval. I have done so well within the parameters defined by State and County Zoning regulations. I,therefore, respectfully request the Commission to grant that approval so that we both may get on with our business. John Wix 2014 SLAM AVENUE . ,..1.1.. \II I II l\I 111ip 41) ENVIRONME.NiAL PROTE CTI GLENWOOD S►NtNGS. COIORA00 Rtf,')1 January 8, 1976 Mr. Hugh L. Graham SCARROW a WAL KE R 240 Eighth Streit Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Graham: Having reviewed your plans and specifications for the I.S.D.S. systems proposed for thi Panorama Ranches Subdivision, I find them to be not only acceptable under State and County regulations, but substantially better than required. PHONE 04S Tris As I explained to you initially, the majority of the sites will legally qualify for standard septic tank leach field systems; however, I am pleased to note that you have taken substantial additional precautions to avoid any possible reasonable concerns about potential pollution. Your plans for conditions A-E typify the best available practice for sewage disposal under those circumstances, and very clearly set forth the specific engineered safeguards which will be required in each of the five proposed situa- tions. Therefore, these pl in Panorama Ranches prov provided that individual I.S.D.S. Permit for one If we can be of any this office. LLK/tls ons and specifications are hereby approved for installation ided the subdivision meets all other requirements and conditions be determined prior to the issuance of an of your five proposed systems. additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact cc: Robert Witkowski W. C. Milner John Wix ✓ Planning £ Zoning Soil Conservation Sprvjfo Very truly yours, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT Lamont L. Kinkade, R.P.S. Director EXHIBIT "!1" s IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WATER DIVISION NO. 5 STATE OF COLORADO Case No. W-3404 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGITS OF COLORADO COUNTRY PANORAMA RANCHES, A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IN GARFIELD COUNTY. 1 6 1977 AMENDED APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHT . (Underground or Well) 1. Name of applicant: Colorado Country Panorama Ranches, a Colorado limited partnership. Address of applicant: % Jon K. M::1 ord, Lawyer 600 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone number of applicant: 925-3730 2. Name or number of wells, if any, Panorama Ranches Wells No. 1, 2 and 3. 3. Legal description of location of wells: Well No. 1: 2570 feet south of the north section line and 310 feet east of the west section line of Section 16, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. Well No. 2: 1868 feet south of the north section line and 1350 feet west of the east section line of Section 17, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. Well No. 3: 3815 feet south of the north section line and 895 feet west of the east section line of Section 17, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. 4. These wells are located in the watershed of the Roaring Fork River and shall be limited to Production from the Basaltic lava flows. 1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WATER DIVISION NO. 5 STATE OF COLORADO Case No. W-3404 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGITS OF COLORADO COUNTRY PANORAMA RANCHES, A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IN GARFIELD COUNT. AMENDED APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHT1 . (Underground or Well) 6 1977 ('L,1;1311111 Name of applicant: Colorado Country Panorama Ranches, a Colorado limited partnership: Address of applicant: % Jon K. Milford, Lawyer 600 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone number of applicant: 925-3730 2. Name or number of wells, if any, Panorama Ranches Wells No. 1, 2 and 3. 3. Legal description of location of wells: Well No. 1: 2570 feet south of the north section line and 310 feet east of the west section line of Section 16, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. Well No. 2: 1868 feet south of the north section line and 1350 feet west of the east section line of Section 17, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. Well No. 3: 3815 feet south of the north section line and 895 feet west of the east section line of Section 17, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. 4. These wells are located in the watershed of the Roaring Fork River and shall be limited to oroduction from the Basaltic lava flows. 5. Depth of well: 350 feet each. 6. A. Date of initiation of the appropriation: December 15, 1976. B. Date water first applied' to beneficial use: Expected July 1977. C. How appropriation was initiated: By survey and well permit application. 7. Amount of water claimed in gallons per minute of time: 50 gallons for each well, lir._t_d to average annual appropriation from the three wells combined of 48 acre feet. A. Portion absolute: 0 ctm B. Portion conditional: 50 gom for each well. 8. Use or proposed use of water: :_ous_hold use and fire protection only. 9. Number of well as registered in State Engineer's Office or, if a new well, attach copy of the permit or order of denial: Permit Nos. 22437-F, 22438-F ?n_ 22439-F (permits attached). tl J• K. Mulford, No. 4 A'—or ey for Applican 600 ast Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 (Telephone) (303) 925-8780 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF ?_TKIN John Wix, being first duly s::orn, upon oath, deposes and says that he is President of the Ccrporate General Partner (Thunder River Realty Company) of Colorado Country Panorama Ranches, a Colorado limited partnership and that he has read the foregoing application, knows the c:: gents thereof, and that the same are true. John Wix Subscribed and sworn to before me this 'day of July, 1977. Witness my hand and official seal. ?).• Ccmrn cion exp res Fe!O. lOr, i98T :!y commission expires: Notary "k;obi (SEAL) - 2 - IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WATER DIVISION NO. 5 STATE OF COLORADO Case No. W-3404 HE MATTER OF THE 'CATION FOR WATER S OF DO COUNTRY PANOP. A __LNC_:ES, A COLORADO LIMITED P:'_ -"; JRSHIP IN GARFIELD 1. AMENDED N _._ DED APPLICATION FOR WATER WIGHT (Undergro _ n d or Well) Name of applicant: Colorado Country Panorama Ranches, a Colorado limited partnership. Address of applicant: % Jon K. Mulford, Layer 600 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone number of applicant: 925-8780 2. Name or number of wells, if any, Panorama Ranches Wells No. 1, 2 and 3. 3. Legal description of location of wells: Well No. 1: 2570 feet south of the north section line and 310 feet east of the west section line of Section 16, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.n. Well No. 2: 1868 feet south of the north section line and 1350 feet west of the east section line of Section 17, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. Well No. 3: 3815 feet south of the north section line and 895 feet west of the east section line of Section 17, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. These wells are located in the watershed of the Roaring Fork River and shall be limited to production from the Basaltic lava flows. 1 Depth of well: 350 feet each. 6. A. Date of initiation of the appropriation: December 15, 1976. B. Date water first applied to beneficial use: Expected July 1977. C. How appropriation was initiates: By survey and well permit application. 7. Amount of water claimed in gallons rer minute of time: 50 gallons for each well, limited tc average annual appropriation from the three wells c=bin_ed of 48 acre feet. A. Portion absolute: 0 gpri B. Portion conditional: 50 gpm for each well. 8. Use or proposed use of water: Household use and fire protection only. 9. Number of well as registered in State Engineer's Office or, if a new well, attach copy of the permit or order of denial: Permit Nos. 22437-F, 22438-F and 2.2439-F (permits attached). AC Jo, K. Mulford, No. 42 Aty for Applicant �. 600 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 (Telephone) (303) 925-8780 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN John Wix, being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says that he is President of the Corporate General Partner (Thunder River Realty Company) of Colorado Country Panorama Ranches, a Colorado limited partnership and that he has read the foregoing application, knows the contents thereof, and that the same are true. John Wix Subscribed and sworn to before :ie this July, 1977. (SEAL) Witness my hand and official seal. _ My Commission exp -:`res re& 10, 798T My commission expires: . day Notary Public ,} 2 - PJ Application must be complete where applicable. Type or print in BLACK INK. NO overstrikes or erasures unless initialed. COLORADO DIVISION ;)i- WATER RESOURCES 300 Coobine Bldg., 1845 She! an St., Denver, Condo PERMIT APPLICATION FORM ( x) A PERMIT TO USE GROUND WATER ( ) A PERMIT TO 0C.,%STRUCT A WELL FOR: ( ) A PERMIT TO INSTALL A PUMP 80203 REPLACEMENT FOR NO. )OTHER WATER COURT CAE_ NO. ccIt2,511 403 c ) APPLICANT - mailing address NAME COLORADO COUNTRY LTD. STREET Box 219 CITY Basalt, Colorado 81621 (State) TELEPHONE NO. 303 - 927-3511 (Zip) (2) LOCATION OF PROPOSED WELL County Garfield SW '/ of the NW / Section Tvvp. 7 S Rng. 87 N.St • E,Vp 11 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: DO NOT WRITE jr, THIS COLUMN ls':.f/o Receipt No. '75 6 6 / 3a::1 Dist. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of the permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court, action. _) APPLICATION FOR A DECREE FOR I.1" -:ES AF.PROPRIATI( :,:.;ST &. rADE TO THE DISTRICT COUR IN AND FOR 6 =ER DIVISION NO, 5, STATE OF CCL..RADO, PRIOR Ti. TIE USE OF TI -EES WELL. THIS APPRC"; AL IS SUBJECT (3) WATER USE AND WELL DATA Proposed maximum pumping rate (gpm) 50 Average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated (acre-feet): TIE TERMS OF SAID DECREE. 2) CIR: D .WATE:i PRODUCTION FROM T TES WELL SELL -7M-772-.7; TO THE PASALTIC IAVA FLOWS, .7)7R0-V73 FOR HOUSEHOLD USE Mil' AND NOT TO BE 1GW Ab'' ' D FOR IRRIGATION -- --.-._.7,ER.C. E P. E'. 11A L AYYRoPRIATI:, OF THIS ;TELL Cl_7:3=: WITH THOSE OF WELL PERMIT .iOS. 2.243S -F '-' .2A931 -F$ AL NOT EXCE±1J )+8 ACRE-FEET. None Number of acres to be irrigated: Proposed total depth (feet): 350 5) THE PU•IFIt G RATE OF THIS WELL ti :AT.T. BE LIIa.t..: - 50 GALLONS P MINUTE OR TIL ACITIAL YIEID OF :HE AQUIFER, WHICHEVER IS LESS, 6) A T_C 3 TEM PUMPING TEST SILALI, BE COEDUC'1'_:D T( �E_ i I Z AQUID'ER CHARACTERISTICS; ALL IN OR•ATIC ' IL-;!) DURING AND FOLLOWING CONTSTRUCTION OF TIT' 2; T L SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO TIIE DTr � SION OF WATER SOURCE S 7) TOTALIZING FLOW PETER MUST BE _:;STALLED Oii TII<: i =:_J DISCHARGE WI-1E7T THE WATER IS I-TLFT TO BENEFICE"•- . DIVERSION RECORDS SHALL BE ET B•LITTr;U, UPON .:.E.Or_EST, TO THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES. APPLICATION APPROVED (CONT. c:i ATTACHED SNF Aquifer ground water is to be obtained from: Pliestocene Basal Flows Owner's well designation W 1 GROUNDWATER TO BE USED FOR: ) HOUSEHOLD USE ONLY - no irrigation (0) ) DOMESTIC (1) ( ) INDUSTRIAL (5) LIVESTOCK (2) ( ) IRRIGATION (6) xl COMMERCIAL(4)( ) MUNICIPAL (8) OTHER (9) A /7-i'C ie'o7 C 7iOA) DETAIL THE USE ON BACK IN (11) 2, f (4) DRILLER Name Licensed Street City (State) (Zip) Telephone No Lic. No PERMIT NUMBER __2243i - F DATE ISSUED MAY 261977 EXPIRATION DATE MAY 2 f 1978 BY_ Lt L D. COUNTY R AppIics-r:or. must be ccr^o;ete where appl,c;.oie. Type or pint BLACK INK. No =.-rstri:kes or er=;, =s unless 300 Columbine Bldg., 1845 Shennan St., Denver, Colorado 80203 • PERMIT APPLICATION FORM • ( x) A PERMIT TO USE GROUND WATER ( ) A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL FOR: ( ) A PERMIT TO INSTALL A PUMP REPLACEMENT FOR NO I OTHER ;'TATER COURT CASE NO '12 R CE1'JE.0 (1) APPLICANT - mailing address NA ., COLORADO COUNTRY LTD. STREET Box 219 CITY Colorado 81671 TELE=-_ (State) (Zip) E N0. 303 - 927-3511 (2) LOCATION OF PROPOSED WELL Cour:-v Gari ield NE IT, of the SE ;� Section 17 Twp. % S ring.87 _-- W . 6 P.M. N,Ss __.v'++ (3) WATER USE AND WELL DATA Propos-ed maximum pumping rate (gpm) 50 Avera a -.Taal amount of ground water %L to be t.: .00riated (acre-feet): 4b'iia,i• .24- _'`�"t�1bp( Nurnt--r of acres to be irrigated: None Proposed total depth (feet): 350 Aqui s- c-ound water is to be obtained from: P1 ir-oce e Basa? _F1 owa Owner's designation W 3 GROUND WATER TO BE USED FOR: ( )'-' _:SEHOLD USE ONLY - no irrigation (0) ( ) DO'.'ES T IC (1) ( ) INDUSTRIAL (5) ( ) L:-. ESTOCK (2) ( ) IRRIGATION (6) (x I C:. ..ERCIAL (4) ( ) MUNICIPAL (8) _-7 THE USE ON BACK IN (11) %'`,4S ' (4) DR`LLER Na,,, Licensed Strep: City (State) (Zip) Te)ep"- cn,, No Lic. No. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: DO NOT WR)TE IN THIS COLUMN Z. 5 - Receipt No. Basin Dist. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of the permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 1) APPLICATION FOR A DECREE FOB THIS APPROPRIA- TION MUST BE Mi -IDE =0 TrE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WATER DIVISION NO. 5, STATE OF COLORADO ,PRI C TO THE USE OF THIS ;ALL. TEES APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE TERY3 OF SAID DECREE, 2) GROUND WATER PRODUCTION FROM THIS WELL SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE 2ASALTIC LAVA FLOWS 3) APPROVED FOR HC' SE HOLD USE ONLY AND NOT TO BF. USED FOR IRRIGATION" . I.) THE AVERAGE ANNEAL APPROPRIATION OF THIS WELD COMBIL ' WITH THOSE OF IIELL PERMIT NOS. 2.2i 37-F AI1iD2 'i31 -F SHALL NOT EXCEED 48 ACRE-FEET. 5) THE HIPPING RATE OF Tht S WELL SHALL BE LIT -)ETI- TO 50 GALLONS PER `� IiUTE OR THE ACTUAL YIELD OF THE AQUIFER, WHICHEVER IS LESS. 6) A LONG TERM FUI'•? G TEST SHALL RF; CONDUCTED TO DETER/ 111 AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS; ALL INFO R: ATION OBTAINED DUR.=':G AND FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTIOT. OF THE WELL SHALL 3E SUB/JUTTED TO THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES. 7) TOTALIZING FLO: 2.ETER 1.111ST BE IITSTAT,Tda:T) ON THE WELL DISCHARGE ;THEN THE WATER IS PUT TO BENEFICIAL USE. D VuttSI0N RECORDS SHALL BE SUB - PJIITTED, UPON REQUEST TO THE DIV. OF WATER RESOD'-= APPLICATION APPROVED CONT. ON ATTACHED SHEET ) PERMIT NUMBER 22438-F DATE ISSUED MAY 2 6 1977 EXPIRATION DATE MAY 26 1978 BY I.D.^� (1 COUNTY �-3 •\i4 a-5- /5 Application must be complete Where applicable. Type or print in BLACK INK. No overstrikes or erasures unless initialed. ORADO DIVISION OF WATER RES#CES 300 ibine Bldg., 1845 Sh':rman St., Denver, C do 80203 PERMIT APPLICATION FORM Ix 1 A PERMIT TO USE GROU''J'.'IATER (' ) A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A'‘%ELL FOR: ( ) A PERMIT TO INSTALL A PUMP .14.752 ( ) REPLACEMENT FOR NO ( ) OTHER VIATER COURT CASE NO. (1) APPLICANT- mailing address NAME COLORADO COUNTRY LTD. STREET Box 219 CITY Basal t Col nrac o _$1621 (State) (Zip) TELEPHONE NO. 303 — 927-3511 (2) LOCATION OF PROPOSED WELL County Garfield SE Y. of the NE 1/4, Section 17 Twp. 7 S Rng. 87 W 6 P.M . , :.5, it•vr (3) WATER USE AND WELL DATA Proposed maximum pumping rate (gpm) 50 Average annual amount of ground ovate rGW �� to be appropriated (acre-feet): - �` Number of acres to be irrigated: None Proposed total depth (feet): 3.50 Aquifer ground water is to be obtained from: Pliestocene Basal Flows Owner's well designation W 2. y��'. GROUND WATER TO BE USED FOR: ( ) HOUSEHOLD USE ONLY - no irrigation (0) ( ) DOMESTIC (1) ( ) INDUSTRIAL (5) ) LIVESTOCK (2) ( ) IRRIGATION (6) ( x) COMMERCIAL (4) ( ) MUNICIPAL (8) �/-7---,:::,----� ) OTHER (9) c%T 2-c-2 is%/1 .-;.?.,'...5DETAIL THE USE ON BACK IN (11) (4) DRILLER Name Licensed Street City (State) (Zip) Telephone No Lic. No. FOR OFF :;E USE ONLY: DO NOT WRITE IN THIS COL1.2.4,..1N $ Receipt 1: D. Basin Dist. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL This •,ei1 shall be used in such a way as to cause no rr3terial injury to existing water rights. The. issuar•.;e of the permit does not assure the applicant that ro injury will occur to another vested water right sr oreclude another owner of a vested water right -Trom seeking relief in a civil court action. L) ADPL_CAT_0_N FOR A DECREE FOR THIS APPRr PRIATI. .LUST BE •.ADE TO T1 DISTRICT COURT IN MD FOR FIAT) ! D:7 S:0:i �f0. 5, STATE OF COLORADO, I-RIOR TTi-E USE OF THIS WELL. TITS APPROVAL IS S BJECT THE T-11.77.'_.`..3 OF SAID DECREE. ) CSR.:'' j _:_D PRODUCTION FR0:4 THIS WELL SHALL BE LLTI = D TO TIE BASALTIC IAV_A FLOWS. 3) APP7.2 =D FOR HOUSEHOLD USE ONLY AND N0= TO BE JSEll ) TLE -;E ANNUAL APPROPRIATION OF TES WE'LL: 02113I3; - `T OSE OF WELL PF__:R IT NOS. 2.2'137-F ND2z43,F __:=__L NOT EXCEED 1t8 ACRE—FEET. 5) TIS RATE' OF THIS t•IELL SHALL BE LDIITY r0 50 NS PER 1.ENUTE OR TIE ACTUAL YIELD OF Ae_=FD, 7.TFTCHE ER IS LESS. 5) A LC_ . iEF 4 PUI,DING TEST SFALL BE CON ICCri a DETE 2=:2. A ;....,7311PER CHARACTERISTICS; ALT, IN..ORMILT= OLTA.II7 D R N` G AND FOLLOI,'ING CONSTRUCTION; OF TF GTELL SF.ALL 3E SI(TBMITTED TO THE DIVISION CF WA'1EP RE SOUR : 5 . 7) TO' ---'11 R G FLOT,1 METER MUST BE INSTATLTON TI' 1ELL D=EC _'-SCF WHEN THE WATER IS PUT TO 3y+Er'IC-1 USE . _ _ . -F.1=Ou RECORDS SHALL RF SUBMITTE , U-101, REQUEST, TO Ty DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES. APPLICATION APPROVED(CONT. ON ATTACIED SIIEET PERMIT '!UMBER ��22439-F DATE ISSUED MAY 2.6 1977 EXPIRATION DATE MAY 2 R 1978 BY COUNTY Jon K. Mulford, Lawyer • i 11 JUL2 6 1977 i ii 600 East Hopkins • Aspen, Colorado 81611 t ;i (303) 925-8780 , ' + GAAi Y.y: 'Wr:4 July 22, 1977 Mr. Bob Witkowski Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Panorama Ranches Subdivision Dear Bob: Enclosed find four (4) copies of the Amended Digest of Protective Covenants for Panorama Ranches Sub- division, revised July 20, 1977. Changes have been made with regard to fences and dogs at the request of the Division of Wildlife, and with regard to limitations on in-house domestic water usage in conformance with the well permits issued by the Division of Water Resources. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely yours, cc: John Wix Ray Baldwin (Scarrow & Walker) Enclosures • AMENDED DIGEST OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR PANORAMA RANCHES A SUBDIVISION -JUL g B 1977 14,4 4.1 PL; NN ui' Colorado Country PANORAMA ESTATES, a Colorado limited partnership, being th digest holder of lands hereinafter described, hereby sets:forth this of the Protective Covenants to be established for the benefit of said lands and the owner or owners thereof. These covenants attach to the following described real property, To Wit: PANORAMA RANCHES, according to the plat thereof, consisting of 55 lots ranging in size from five to thirty-eight acres, located in the Ell, NA-. of Section 17, and the W1/2W1/2 of Section 16, Township 7 Sc mina 1. residenti dwelling appropria and utili 2. containin uth, Range 87 West of the 6th: P.M..as shown on the Preli- ry Plat of Panorama Ranches. The property is intended to be developed for single family al purposes only. No more than one detached single family shall be erected upon any one building site, excepting such to accessory buildings as a private garage, barn, corral, kennel ty building. The words "lot" and "building site" shall mean a tract of land g no less than five acres. 3. No structures of any sort shall be constructed closer than 25' 4. tent, sh shall be to any lot line. No structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, ck, garage, barn or any other outbuildings of any description used on any lot as a residence except on a temporary basis Revised July 20, 197 Ank • not exceeding six (6) months while construction of the dwelli ig• is.in progress. 5. There shall not be permitted or maintained upon any lot or any part thereof, any trade, business or industry, except for trades, crafts or professions practiced indoors and which.do not creaze.-excessive • noise or pollution, unless such useages are proscribed by the zoning_ regulation of Garfield County. 6. The minimum size of any residence erected shall not be_less than 1,000 square feet measured on the outside walls not including open porches, garages or carports. 7. The keeping of livestock and poultry shall be permitted subject to fencing as hereinafter provided and shall be limited to a maximum of one horse or cow or calf, or four sheep, or two goats per each two acres and a maximum of 12 in number of poultry per lot, provided that said animals or poultry are well kept and provided for and do not become a lth hazard or nuisance to the neighborhood. 8. Canines may be kept provided they are housed in enclosed kennels only. No dog shall be permitted to run at -large whether accompanied by a person or not, and all dogs shall be kept on leash unless otherwise confined. Any canine tresspassing on another's lot may be disposed of with impunity. 9. No barbed wire fencing may be erected within Panorama Ranches Subdivision. Boundary or corral fencing must be pole or split rail. Woven wire for containing sheep or goats may be installed on the interior side of any pole or split rail fence. Kennels or poultry pens must be constructed of chain link fence (2) • or poultry wire respectively. No kennel or poultry shall be constructed closer than 50' from any lot line, nor shall the size exceed 3,600 square feet enclosed, with a minimum length of any one side to be 50'. No fence shall be more than 42" in height. Corrals shall be two -acres maximum size. 10. No inoperable vehicles shall be left in the open on any lot • or in any common area. All lots and common areas shall be kept clear and free of rubbish and trash. 11. An Architectural Control Aurhority shall be established by the Owner through its general partner, Thunder River Realty Co., and said Authority shall be responsible for approving or disapproving any structures or excavations on the. lands including the placement thereof. The Authority shall transfer its controlling position to a Homeowners Association to be been conveye:21 d. 1,m4r i 42.1 established at the time 30% of the lots have 12. Irrigation ditches may not be disturbed, except for bridges - culverts which do not impede the water flow, and the rights of water owners to cross over any land for the purpose of caring and maintaining said ditches shall run with the land. No construction shall be permitted within 25 feet of the centerline of any irrigation ditch. 13. Notwithstanding the proscription of commercial useage, the Owner or its agent may establish a model home or sales office on any lot or elsewhere on the land for the purpose of selling lots or homes. 14. An easement 25 feet minimum in width shall be reserved on all subdivision boundary lines. 15. All extensions of utility, power, light, phone and TV line shall he subject to approval of the Architectural Authority and shall be either underground or overhead, or a combination of the two, as the Authority may determine, in a manner conducive to both asthetic quality and -inflation control. 16. At least five percent of all lands within the subdivision shall be reserved through ed restrictions as open area,•Ie maintenance of which shall be insured by specific obligations in the deed of each lot and in the Protective Covenants of the subdivison. 17. Roads and streets within the subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with the specifications of Garfield County, and dedicated thereto upon approval and acceptance by said County. 18. Irrigation Rights, 'consisting. of approximately 85 shares of ater designated for Irrigation Company, irrigation and domestic use.from the Missouri Heights. shall be retained by the Owner and subsequently • transferred to the Homeowners Association.. The water pertaining thereto shall be used for irrigation of •reen belt-, •omon areas and within the subdivision which h 19. Signs shall b y have been irrigated. per parcel measuring no more than 6" x 18" showing the owner's name and property address. "For Sale" signs no larger than 18" x 36" may be placed on a property for sale. 20. All sewage disposal facilities shall be installed and constructed according to specifications and standards of the State of Colorado and the County of Garfield. 21. Lot owners shall provide culverts where driveways cross road • ditches and irrigation ditches. The minimum size culvert shall be 18" in diameter. 22. All unsightly facilities and equipment shall be enclosed within a solid structure or screened from view. 23. PANORAMA RANCHES MUTUAL WATER COMPANY: A Homeowner's Association, a nonprofit corporation, will be created to further the interests of the property owners at Panorarna Ranches and to assume the responsibility of architectural control upon delegation of such authority by Owner. A Mutual Water Company will he created to regulate, manage and maintain the supply of domestic water. in Panorama Ranches. Owner shall be required to obtain from the Company all domestic water. No domestic water shall .be (4) shall be limited to in-house use only. No water from any other source shall be used within the residence without the written consent of the Board of Directors being first obtained. , The water shall be delivered to each.lot through a water distribution system with the regulation of flow of xJater:obtained either by the sizing.of line to each lot or the metering of the water de -- livered, or a combination of both. Charges for such water shall be sufficient to pay the cost of obtaining the water from the well head source, distributing the same, maintaining the distribution system and providing a capital reserve for reconstruction of the system. as necessary._ The. owners of all parcels shall be members and shall be required to maintain membership in such Association and Water Company and shall be entitled to one (1) vote for each parcel owned and shall be required to pay assessments levied by the;, Company which assessments shall be prorated equally among the parcels. If the owner or owners of any parcel fail, after demand, to pay any assessment levied by the Mutual Water Company or Homeowners' Association, then the Mutual Water Company, Homeowners' Association or Panorama Ranches, whichever incurred such costs, shall have a lien, from and after the time of notice of such failure to pay is recorded in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of Garfield Counties, Colorado, against the parcel of such owner or owners for the amount due and not paid, plus interest from the date of demand for payment at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, plus all costs and expense of collecting the unpaid amount, including reasonable attorney's fees. The Mutual Water Company shall be verged in the future with the Homeowners' Association. 24. Approval of Structures: No structure shall be placed upon or permitted to remain upon any parcel, or altered in any way which will change its exterior appearance without the prior approval, in writing, of the Owner or its assign. (5) 25. Structure Exterior: The exterior portions of all buildings shall be natural or stained wood, stucco, natural rock, brick, or -such other material as may be approved by the Architectural Committee. -26. Procedure for Approval of Structures: Panorama Ranches may impose reasonable requirements with respect to information to be furnished and the form and manner of presenting the same in order to obtain approval for any structure, including; but not limited to, all landscaping. For all primary structures, exterior design and elevation plans shall be submitted to Owner which shall show location of all existing and proposed: structures on the parcel; all parcel lines; shall indicate materials and_colors to be: used; and shall be accompanied by samples of materials and colors to be used, upon request. Plans shall be submitted in duplicate. 27. Criteria for Architectural Control: Owner shall have complete discretion in determining whether to approve or disapprove structures. This discretion shall be exercised with at least the following objectives in mind:. a. To direct the positioning, elevation, profile and surface treatment of all structures so as to minimize their obstruction or diminution of quality of the principal views from each lot. b. Preserve or enhance existing features of natural beauty such as trees, shrubs, topography and undefined openness or transition between areas. c. Promote the design or structures so that their setting, form and surface treatment harmonizes with the natural setting and with other structures on adjacent property. (6) 4° d.. Promote the use of new landscape materials that are indigenous to or existing in the area and which have low maintenance effort requirements so that natural and landscaped areas are not sharply contrasted, and well- maintained and poorly -maintained areas are not sharply contrasted. e. Promote the use of structural materials that have minimum maintenance requirements so as to assure a better appearing area under all conditions. f. Promote the design and construction of improvements that incorporate the best visual, functional and material quality elements possible so that each parcel will serve its owner better and enhance the value of adjacent property by its presence. Consider the long-term future effect of decisions on the g. nature of improvements allowed in the area. 28. Approval or Disapproval: Any structure shall be deemed and considered disapproved unless approval is expressly given and is evidenced in writing executed by Owner. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Owner fails to approve a structure and does not expressly indicate disapproval or affirmatively impose additional requirements or request additional infor- mation be furnished, either verbally or in writing, within fifteen (15) days after a -written request for written approval, the structure shall be deemed approved. In addition, as to any bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer for value and without notice, any structure which has been complete or installed for one hundred twenty (120) days shall be deemed to have been approved unless Owner shall have recorded an instrument in writing indicating disapproval in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County, Colorado, prior to the date on which such bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer became such for value. 29. Prompt Completion of Structures: Construction or installation f. any. structure -shall proceed promptly and diligently after approval by Owner. Unless the time is extended by Owner in writing, failure to complete the structure within one (1) year after the date of approval shall constitute an automatic revocation of the approval and any partially completed or in- - stalled structure shall not .then be thereafter permitted to remain on the property for a period longer than three .(3) months after the Owner requests removal of the partially constructed or installed structure. 30. Right of Inspection: Owner and its duly appointed agents or em- ployees may enter upon any property at any reasonable time or -times for inspection of any structure. 31. Protection of Encumbrances: No violation or breach of any restriction, covenant or condition contained in these protective covenants and no action to -enforce the same shall defeat, render invalid or impair the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust taken in good faith for value or the title or interest of the holder thereof or the title acquired by any purchaser upon foreclosure of any such mortgage or deed of trust. Any such purchaser shall, however, take title subject to those protective covenants which occurred prior to such foreclosure which shall not be deemed breaches or violation hereof. 32. Severability: Each of the covenants, restrictions and conditions contained in these restrictions shall be deemed independant and separate and the invalidation of any one shall not affect the validity and continued effect of any other. Colorado Country PA":0 NNEA ESTATES by its General Partner, Thunder River }realty Co. John C ix, President odietzrit 41/ s' LTD. July 11, 1977 Planning Commission and Planning Department Garfield County Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Ladies and Gentlemen: In his letter of June 28, 1977, to the Planning Commission Mr. Robert Witkowski has indicated a number of categories for your attention regarding Panorama Ranches. This letter will attempt to address those. 1. RURAL LOCATION: Panorama Ranches is located 4.2 miles north of Catherine Store on Highway 82 via County Road 100, designated "Arterial" on the County Maps. County Road 100 is asphalt surface from Highway 82 for 2.5 miles to its intersection with road 102 and is an improved gravelled road for the 1.7 miles from that point to the turnoff to Panorama Ranches. Just two-tenths of one mile south of the Panorama and Road 100 inter- section is the Road 103 and Road 100 intersection. It is just 4.5 miles from the Panorama Road to the four-laned section of Highway 82 between the Ranch at Roaring Fork and the Carbondale Highway 133 intersection. Two and four -tenths miles of Road 103 has been asphalted. Seven tenths of one mile north of the Panorama and Road 100 intersection is the intersection with County Road 113, also designated arterial. That dis- tance to four-laned Highway 82 at Cattle Creek is 7.2 miles. From the Panorama road to Highway 82 via Road 114 past Colorado Mountain College the distance is 10.5 miles. If one elects Road 102 into Eagle County and El Jebel at Highway 82 the distance from the Panorama - 100 Road intersection is 7.7 miles. Two and seven - tenths miles of that route is asphalt surfaced. The shortest route to public schools is just over seven miles from the westerly edge of Panorama Ranches, and from that point to convenience shopping and gasoline, just 5.2 miles. Glenwood Springs lies 16 road miles west of Panorama; Carbondale lies 7.4 miles southwest; Basalt is southeast 11.8 miles. .JX 488 r7ft Rif -LF HOUSE 83/.625,268 I E CO UFPD 8168 Colorado West's only computerized property selection .;VvGu SPP' Planning Commission ^r Planning Department Garfiledinty • Page 2 All the roads enumerated are suited to serve the various needs of the inhabitants of Panorama Ranches. All are dedicated county roads. All are adequately surfaced and drained. They are utilized daily by school buses, mail delivery vehicles and residents of the area, and otherwise meet every test of main arterial off-highway county roads within Garfield County. Given the various routes to and from Panorama Ranches and the relative short distances to all services and conveniences, it is submitted that the location of Panorama Ranches is more fairly categorized as(suburban than rural 2. IMPACT ON ROAD 100: County Road 100 leading to Missouri Heights from the Catherine Store on State Highway 82 now serves an average daily vehicle trip usage of approximately 72. This is based upon an actual traffic count performed from 6 A.M. on January 30, 1975, to midnight of February 2, 1975 at the Highway 82 intersection and attached hereto as Exhibit "A". It is submitted that traffic has increased only minimally since that date. The maximum hourly traffic flow noted by this study was 27 cars between 4 P.M. and 5 P.M. of January 30th. A similar traffic flow registered during the same periods of each of the working days monitored establishes the hours of 7 A.M. to 10 A. M. and 4 P. M. to 7 P.M. as the peak periods for travel on County Road 100. This road has a 'practical' capacity, i.e., one based upon a level of comfort and convenience, of at least 500 cars per hour. That figure has been calculated by taking one-quarter of the normal practical capacity of a two-lane paved highway which is 2,000 passenger cars per hour. These conclusions are based upon the Regional Transportation Plan prepared for the City of Aspen in 1973 by Alan M. Vorhees & Associates of Denver. I have attached the substantiating excerpt of that report as Exhibit "AA". This established that County Road 100 is being used, even during its peak traffic period, at less than five percent of its practical capacity. An extension of the principle of practical capacity over a period of 24 hours demonstrates the road is being used at only one percent of its daily practical capacity. This under -utilization translates into a tremendous annual waste to Garfield County which must, despite almost static revenue from a fixed tax base for the area, maintain and improve this arterial road. The road according to the 1973 zoning map of Garfield County, serves 19 families. My own actual count indicates that it possibly serves 32 families. Equating thepeak-use periods to those 32 families to the practical capacity of the road demonstrates that 640 families could conveniently be served by this arterial. That assumes, of course, that none of those families would enter or exit on Roads 103,113,114 or 102. If they did -- and it seems a reasonable assumption that they would -- then Road 100 could serve a commensurately greater number of families in the area. Planning Commission Planning Department Garfield anty Page 3 It can be seen, then, that far from causing congestion upon existing county thoroughfares, the eventual buildout to 53 families at Panorama Ranches could only help alleviate the problem of existing waste caused by the under -usage of county roads. And resulting taxes would greatly help in their maintenance and improvement. Attached as Exhibit "B" is a letter from the State Department of Highways to the Garfield County Planning Commission addressing the impact of both the King's Row and Panorama Subdivisions on Roads 100,102 and 103 which states: "In our opinion the affected county roads are adequate to handle the present traffic plus the added volume which will be introduced by the two subdivisions in question." 3. PERCOLATION RATES: The Commission's attention is directed to two documents. The first -- Exhibit "C" attached -- is a letter from the Garfield County Environmental Health Department which refers to the individual sewage disposal systems proposed as "not only acceptable under State and County regulations, but substantially better than required." The second -- Exhibit "D" -- is a comparative analysis and explanation of the actual percolation test sites. In that letter to the Garfield County Department of Health and Environmental and Protection, Engineer Larry Graham point out that each of the problem sites indicating slower percolation than one inch in sixty seconds is paired with another nearby with results faster than one inch in sixty seconds. The discrepancy -- and the answers to environmental health -- is found in the depths of the tests. This gives the Department of Health the guide- lines it will need at the time each individual system is applied for. This should also satisfy the pollution fears expressed by Richard Cerise of the Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District. It is pointed out that experts generally agree that the cost of a central sewage system in lots greater than one half acre in size is both impractical from a service point of view and extremely costly even on level terrain. It is estimated that financing such a system at Panorama would add between $12,000 and $15,000 to the cost of each lot. 4. LOT SIZES AND AREA CHARACTER CHANGE: The 420 acres of Panorama Ranches provides 7.92 acres for each homesite. No lot is less than five acres in size. The private location of Panorama Ranches assures neighboring land owners of minimal visual impact. The land is virtually worthless as agricultural land due less to the small area cleared for production that to the scarcity of irrigation water. Possibly 50 homes on parcels of similar and smaller sizes have been built within a three mile radius of Panorama Ranches over the past ten years, thus creating a gradual change in the area from large farms to small farms. This alter.• ation of character will no doubt continue due to the desirability of the Missouri Heights area for residences Planning Commission lie Planning Department Garfield Ilpnty • Page 4 It is, therefore, submitted that the character change will be generally imperceptible. 5. DRAINAGE SYSTEM: There is absolutely no problem in designing a drainage system on the 100 year storm basis and that will be done. 6. SCHOOL DEDICATION: We feel it is of greater practical value to the school district to be paid the cash value of the 1.06 acres recommended by Superintendent Nicholas Massaro. We will also provide the bus shelter recommended by Mr. Massaro. 7. WATER STORAGE and FIRE PROTECTION: The water storage system was changed from that of multiple small storage— p►t Pressure tanks to a large storage tank because of the constraint placed upon he number of wells to be drilled. A 100,000 gallon storage tank with gravity pressure, possibly augmented by an air pressure system or pressure pump at its site, will provide sufficient domestic storage for more than four days under peak normal demand. When the Technical Review Committee first reviewed the Preliminary Plans on February 3, 1976, it opined that a GT rate fire_storage tank could be Milt in a central location of the subdivision for easy access by rural fire fighting equipment. This could be filled with irrigation water augmented during the fall and winter by well—water. Those are the guidelines we intend to follow 8. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH: While the State Health Department approves the individual sewage disposal systems, it recommends a water district under Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes rather than a mutual water company. My attorney, Jon Mulford, will explain the advantages and disadvantages of the' two methods. I), fe, 2 /Pt \ C. 9. COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE: This Division has recommended that the dog control provisions in the proposed Protective Covenants be extended to provide leash control of dogs and also limit the size and height of corrals. The Covenants will be changed to accommodate those recommendations. I believe it is appropriate to point out other advantages of Panorama Ranches. (a) Tax Base: A stated purpose of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution is "protection of the tax base". I submit that Panorama Ranches not only will protect the tax base, but will augment it. The taxes assessed on Panorama Ranches for 1974 totalled approximately $200.00. When the land was given sketch plan approval into 65 building lots, the Planning Commission aw Planning Department Garfield Winty • Page 5 the 1975 tax bill jumped to $6,905.92 and in 1976, after submission of the preliminary plat, the tax bill jumped to $826 . Again, when homes have been constructed on those lots, the expected revenue will reasonably be an additional $54,000 per year based on the current mill levy. (b). No land will be removed from agriculture. (c). Needed housing will be provided away from the green productive and scenic valley floor corridor. (d). Virtually all lots are South facing for maximum usage of solar energy and maximum savings of scarce fossil fuels. (e). Extra large lots and extensive open spaces maximize the zoning objective of preserving light and air. (f). Water quality, as shown by the Ground Water and Geologic Resources Map for the Roaring Fork and Crystal Valleys is infinitely better on Missouri Heights than any other area in the Roaring Fork Valley. Tha you for your attention. Sincerely, r John Wix Agent, Panorama Ranches JW/ jm - niihjne t. i Tr.rri.c r•.,n►t or • i0,1r,I r'nt.t.)•%nr, a.rl'1 1.,'r.':111„ (;,, - „ltl Comity ! rtati TOO fc.i•U nP (;11,11r'`rinr ntn lk Date: 'Tq�l'/ !Tour 3d'/ \i • �..).R, . ,1111 11 ...ffiii ! 11 77.r. !$LI 1111 LIL Ill a . r, . ,tai , PM/ 1 IiIl PILIPL 11 "a.r. 1l1LI211 11 rt.,. 111 ► 11)11 Ill I1 ^ .::. , 11 ,) Ix, r I 1 '. ..:,.., 2p. -:. NJ 11 _11 114.1J Il 11 MI 1 ' 1{L+I 1IIL !hJ l 111 /b.1 likl 1111_ tql i._ 1] .� mi. I11 A.:: 11I 1 11 N111 p.r:. !114 ,IJ 1!) p-' , II::: /1 E. 11_4421 /1 0/it' . h :'tl e'- -17-:"51,11'.^ //op ,-:- 12..-:-.51,11'..^ 1 (r:r^1..•.t. t.a!,�.: �i • _.. , ,. �i._� ria' �!1!i� ;1O b't .:i C?.C� F1�t'_L(,1 -' 1,.:f!, ,Q `^C an1 e, I' T( TAL____IO;; Tr 11.1,: /473 THOX'r,i. Jot TF C XL:T. /.. Tot,' of earn Total nf cars ento Yi.ssou,A onto i 1.`: amour]. ilo`i:hts. JO 1Ioio t:. __/21____ Ped Y:,.rk^ is traffic to and _"rnm Tro:,:c1 Co:17tructio-i Co. locat^d ,mile north of I outn R2 en Cart r,1.' Cori:►t; T.a. 1.00. Count taken L Anthony F. ?,.tnano Jr. Janette L. 3auaino ''onnic K. !Van hate: (t( ��- 24- ) Subject; Traffic count of vehicles entering and leaving Garfield County Road 100 North of Catherine Store. Date: )az' -N �n�5��',-'11),1y Hour Vehicles Entering Vehicles Leaving TOTAL TROXEL Total of cars onto fissouri Heights. // TOTAL, /42 T7?OXCL / / Total of cars onto nissouri Heights. /CV Red Earke is traffic to and from Troxel Construction Co. located mile north of Route 82 on Garfield County hd. 100. Count taken by: f? Anthony P. Baudino Jr. Janette L. Baudino Bonnie X. No Witnessed by: Date: '(x Subject; Bate: -L' Hour Traffic count of vehicles entering and leaving Garfield County Load I00 North of Catherino Store. Vehicles Petering Vehicles Leaving Earl. 1/ 7a.aa_ f`':'A. r 1'11 Pam. 0 /7.1,1 1, 9:1 M_ Ac h"e 1111 1Q --0..z1"--2---------------------- /1/1 1I a 'n ., N 11 11 22. 3r 111 11 p— m. J r111 1// 111 2+m. tiL /1/ 17)'1 1 34..n._ tRI IV 1111 th7 111 4- p_*1_ NI 11/1 5 p:m. /N,/ ?;/ N/ // 1/l/ IC p.n.. 11/ // 7 p -a. , / / F p._ m. // // / // 10 r"_ Ill.' / / �ol" 234"t1/ -/ // .-alt o //1 TOTAL T GX:1., 1/ Total of cars onto Missouri Heights. 7. TOTAL 2'7 T1((Ai;L / Total of cars onto t:icnouri Hei[Mtr. 7.Y Ned Larks is traffic to and from Troxel Construction Co. located 4mile north of Route 82 on Garfield County t.d. 100. Count taken by: Anthony 1'. Haudino Jr. Janette L. Rauch r,o Bonnie X. No !atnessed by: 1Jate: 7`! J Subject; Traffic count of 'I:icles onLerinand loaving Un 'old County hoad 100 North of Catherine S tot , i`ate:....r- Z_,i /01,'y) Hour Vehicles Entering • Vehicles Leaving I, _ ,/V'�� - /// 7a -m. /// , NJ /1// 9.a_m. /1/1 1/11 Jo a -m,. 1 , MI 1 11 A m: _ I It -11 1 1411111 1111 - 111 ? A.z. , 1 111 3 r ,.. jtu 1 ,+1.. 1't11 ? p -n. 1 WI 1 1:4_,,,z„,..,1 I I A.,,,,,i- ., 1l 12414114,0 2-Didn t -fr ,4'L v [' T, /;, IT A.7 -p j /--- /v/7fD i 7 42;c0 /7'P47Tf F,f"i - ,- / %7S, TOTAL TRUXI;L — Total of cars onto t!issouri Heights. 7/ TUTU 7 'i.'tiUXEL / Total of cars onto I icsouri 1 Heights. .75 J'ed k arks is traffic to and frena Yroxel Conatri ction Co. located tinily north of houte C2 on Garfield County ►:d. 100. Count taken by:i/_ - Anthony 1'. liaudino Jr. - - , ---Y. _. Janette L. Laudino Donnie N. I:ola7, J rZ Oitnessed by: ` ate : � 1 t 1Ji 1:. ,aj 45,7144A-'. , ' • �:.. . "rte. _Ta:*�1 .v. �,T•s1q. - 1 -t iri ie. r ,• . • -11 : i..•! r • 1; the Nell Ski Lift vs 2. Present Roadww Tits roads► malar • dfsersittir. Broadly speaking, the capacity is a function of location (urban. rural). design (design speed. alignment, horizontal and verticle curves, etc.), width and number of lanes, roadway surface rye+ ��•� �• and condition, auds;i two- city or,..?'. 2.000 ;mitre Citpfteity The capacity of any roadway can be determined given sufficient inventory data, but it is a major, time con- suming.task to determine the exact capacities of a • • tfn trEi it 41 CZ, of. ar....wm................w.S.0111141116166.. large road network. In Aspen, the range of caps, values for all major roadways in the urbanized :,r• and all roadways in the outlying portions of I'itkr:, County were estimated. The results of this anak are shown in Figure 2-2. An inspection of this TIT tration compared to Figure 2-1, the 1371 traffic volume map indicates the degree to which present roadways are utilized. For example Route 82 b. t Main Street and Sardy Airport operates at a level ceeding its practical capacity during peak period..• the year. This means that during these periods, traffic congestion is common at many locations to! one or more hours of the day. base upo4 . Capacity docs not become anab, value until "Level of Service D" is reached wher.,.. traffic flow is so great as to be nearly unstable, drivers have little freedom to manuever and coni and convenience are low. When traffic volumes attempt to exceed this level, traffic flow become unstable_, stoppages occur. and volumes actually below capacity. IPA* 1441%1( the pi. r e " . Thus. when a roadway is oper, at or near its capacity for a given land use situate it is obvious that additional development depend -r: upon that roadway for access will cause traffic fl along it to break down unless improvements are T. to increase its capacity. In the Aspen area, nearly all of the paved two-lan•• highways connecting activity centers have peak -p• r traffic volumes which either exceed, meet. or ne meet their practical capacity. As a result. major decisions must be made relative to (1) land use w: generates the travel. (2) roadway improvements t • increase the capacity or (3) means of achieving n.. efficient use of existing roadways through such m• • (a) increasing car-pooling and decreasing the frequency of travel (b) use of alternative travel modes such as trait bicycle and walking. as: R. Future Travel In order to make reasonable and effective plans f• future transportation facilities in the Roaring For Valley. it is necessary to have the best possible mates of future travel and trip making requirem, As mentioned previously. the magnitude of travel • a function of the land use pattern and the trip mal. • habits of people. To enable an estimate of possil future (1980) travel in the Roaring Fork Valley. ' ventional traffic forecasting techniques were toll - utilizing estimates of future land use. Briefly sun ,..rte,,..w•.'- : .•._w ..r••iq...wwwwrs•... to STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS CHAS. E. SHUMATE DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS E. N. HAASE CHIEF ENGINEER r _ _ P.9:`, BO)C 21:07 t. LIFLB 241975 GARFiELD CO. PLANNER' • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR STATE OF COLORADO 1 DISTRICT 3 R. A. PROSENCE DISTRICT ENGINEER 6 SO. 9TH ST. • GRAND JUNCTION, COLO. 81501 • (303) 242.2862 Mr. Larry Schmueser County Planner Garfield County Planning Dept. 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Schmueser: February 21, 1975 Garfield County This letter will serve as amplification of our discussion on February 19, 1975, concerning the two proposed sub -divisions in Garfield County, namely Kings Row and Panorama Ranches, and their impact on the transport- ation corridor- in the area, We would like to emphasize that the conjectures offered in this cor- respondence were solicited and are advisory in nature only and are not intended as presumptive interjection by the State of Colorado into local affairs. In our opinion the affected county roads are adequate to handle the present traffic plus the added volume which will be introduced by the two sub -divisions in question. We are basing this assumption on an estimated 500 vehicle trips per day generated by the 113 proposed lots. The major portion of these trips will utilize three county roads, specifically County Roads 100, 102, & 103. Comparing the relationship of these roads with SH 82 we offer: Co. Road 100 & SH 82 (Commonly referred to as "Catherine Store" intersection) It is quite probable that by the time traffic conditions become critical at this location we will have a four -lane highway through this area. (Estimated in four or five years.) CO. Road 102 & SH 82 (Commonly referred to as "El Jebel" intersection)._ This intersection was recently improved with acceleration and deceler- ation lanes and should be adequate to handle the additional traffic until expanded to a four lane facility. continued • • -2- CO. Road 103 and SH 82 This intersection is on the four -lane portion of SH 82. An exclusive left turn lane is provided on SH 82. No accel-decel lanes are present and they may have to be added in future years if the additional traffic intro- duced at this point warrants the expenditure. It is also reasonable to assume that as greater demands are placed on the county road system, in this area, several factors will have to be considered and commitments made to improve the serviceability of the system. For example, additional paving will be required to provide dust -proof sur- faces, possible restabilization and reconstruction of existing roads if deterioration occurrs with the increased traffic especially heavy construction equipment. All roads should be speed zoned and proper traffic control devices installed to provide for an orderly and safe traffic flow on the system. Widening projects will almost be a certainty as the flow -density increases. We hope the above comments prove useful in your endeavor to provide an efficient and safe road system and if we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Very truly yours, R. A. PROSENCE DISTRICT ENGINEER BY f,% 2 J7 DAVID B. CAMPBELL' DISTRICT SAFETY & TRAFFIC ENGINEER DBC:lmw CC: Prosence-Leonard Bovee T. Arnold Hanson file Planning Commission and Planning Department of Garfield County Glenwood Springs, Colorado RE: Panorama Ranches Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is to give a brief review and bring you up to date on the developments concerning the above -captioned subdivision: 1. Sketch Plan approval was awarded the subdivision February 4, 1975 for, 65 lots. 2. Scarrow & Walker Surveyors began the extensive work needed for the preliminary plat in July, 1975. 3. The initial presentation of preliminary plans was made to the Garfield County Planning Department January 2, 1976 for 53 lots. 4. The Technical Review Committee of the Planning Department reviewed the plans on February 3, 1976 and stipulated, among other requirements, that a water system and water tank for fire protection would need to be installed. It was determined that the fire protection tank could be located separately from the domestic water system. 5. The Garfield County Health Department approved the soils for individual evapo-aeriation disposal systems; January 8, 1976. 6. The hydrology report prepared by the Lincoln-DeVore Testing Laboratory of Colorado Springs incorrectly stated that the ground water under Panorama Ranches was tributary to or charged by Cattle Creek. This created a long delay with the Colorado Water Resources Division in the granting of well permits, a delay which was finally resolved after the engineering firm of D'Appolonia proved to the satisfaction of the Division that the subdivision would have little or no influence on Cattle Creek. 7. Permits for the water wells needed were granted May 26, 1977. The Wells will be drilled just as quickly as a qualified well -driller can be found for the drilling. Thank you for your attention. Sincerel 2 John Wix Agent for Panorama Ranches Colorado West's only computerized property selection RICHARD D. LAMM Governor DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street - Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Administration (303) 892-3581 Ground Water (303) 892-3587 July 8, 1977 Mr. Robert A. Witkowski, Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Panorama Ranches Subdivision Dear Mr. Witkowski: C.J. KUIPER State Engineer This is to acknowledge receipt of additional information concerning the above referenced subdivision. This office has determined that unappropriated water is available and three well permits have been approved for the development. However, the permits are conditional upon the developer obtaining a decree for the wells and they are subject to the terms of the decree. Therefore, we would recommend approval of Panorama Ranches subject to the terms and conditions of the decree and permits. An important condition of the permits is that the ground water can be used for household purposes only with no irrigation allowed. Protective covenants to this effect should be provided by the developer. Very ruly yours, JAD/GDV/pjl cc: Lee Enewold, Div. Eng. Ralph Stallman Land Use Commission Jeris A. Danielson puty State Engineer Jon K. Mulford, Lawyer 600 East Hopkins • Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-8780 June 6, 1977 Mr. Robert Witkowski Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Colorado Country's Panorama Ranches Dear Bob: Pursuant to our telephone conversation of June 2, 1977, I enclose copies of the three well permits issued May 26, 1977 by the Division of Water Resources. The total appropriation for the three wells will be 50 gallons per minute, limited to an annual flow of 48 acre feet. The well permits show the proposed locations of the wells. A 100,000 gallon storage tank will be constructed at a high point on the property, and all 52 proposed subdivision lots will be serviced from the one storage tank. Our engineers calculate that the water available under these permits will be adequate for in-house use (no irrigation) as well as a fire protection reserve. Irrigation would be from the existing Missouri Heights Reservoir rights which the developer now owns. I will be talking with Larry Mincer and Neil Mincer, who represent the protestants in Water Case No. 2968, which involves a plan of augmentation filed last year. As long as they are satisfied that their clients rights will not be injured by the three new wells approved by the Division of Water Resources, we will enter into a stipulation to dismiss the pending augmentation plan proceedings. I will be filing new water rights applications on the three wells shortly, and will provide copies to you. If you will arrange for an informal plan review session with the Planning Commission early in July and notify me of the • Mr. Robert Witkowski Page Two June 6, 1977 date, we would like to move forward with the preliminary plat requirements for Colorado Country's Panorama Ranches. Sinc=rely y 411( K. Mulford cc: John Wix Ed Weakley (D'Appollonia Engineers) Jon K. Mulford, Lawyer 600 East Hopkins • Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-8780 June 5, 1977 Mr. Bob Witkowski Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Bob: Thank you for the copy of your memo of June 28, 1977 with regard to Panorama Ranches Subdivision. _ 197' .rt You indicated in your memorandum to the Planning Commission members that the additional information regarding water supply, submitted by the developer, has been forwarded to the State Engineers' office for comment. I would just like to point out that only after extensive negotiation and dis- cussions between our Hydrologist, Ed Weakley of D-Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Denver, Colorado, and representatives of the Division of Water Resources, were well permits issued. Applications for water rights for the three proposed wells have been filed with the Water Court at Glenwood Springs. Mr. Weakley will be available at the July 11 meeting to answer further questions about the proposed water system. Most of the other matters mentioned in your report of June 28th, 1977 have been considered previously by the developer, and we will be happy to review them again with the Planning Commission. Sincerely yours, cc: John Wix RICHARD D. LAMM GOVERNOR 64( Irn ryE p ^sem' COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Q 3 1976 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES GARHELO CO. PLANNER 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING — 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER. COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 892-2611 December 9, 1976 Mr. Robert A. Witkowski Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Witkowski: RE: PANORAMA RANCHES, PRELIMINARY PLAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HN W. ROLD Director Since our letter of September 27, 1976, we have received from Scarrow and Walker a plat of the Panorama Ranches development at the same scale as the geologic and engineering investigation prepared by Lincoln-DeVore Testing Laboratory. A direct comparison of this plat with the physical conditions of the site as depicted by Lincoln-DeVore has aided the review of this project considerably. In general it appears that the placement of roads and lots is reasonable from a geologic point of view. There are, however, some lots where access to good building sites may be difficult. These lots include lots 3 and 4 on Buckpoint Road, lot 8 on Panorama Drive, lots 4, 5, and 14 on Basalt Mountain Drive, and lot 7 on Panorama Drive. Drainage is potentially a problem throughout much of the subdivision. It appears that no easements have been provided for drainage through lots. Some of these drainages appear to end in a debris fan where the steeper slopes suddenly decrease. A drainage study should include the potential for incorporated sediment and debris in waters during intense rainfall and the many small drainages that traverse lots which may limit suitable building sites. Expansive soils and variable permeability will be a concern throughout the subdivision. All buildings and sewage disposal systems should be engineered and designed by qualified soils and structural engineers Lo avoid future damage and costly maintenance. The conclusions and recommendations beginning on page 41 of Lincoln-DeVore's report outline the potential problems of this site. We again recommend that these conclusions and suggestions be adhered to by the developer so as to insure a successful development from a geologic point of view. We appreciate the effort made by the developer to supply us with the plat at the same scale as the geologic study and hope that the developer and future consultants on the project will make use of this very practical tool. In conclusion, there appears to be no geologic reason why this subdivision should not be approved assuming that the above comments and recommendations are adhered to by the developer and future lot owners. If we can be of further assistance, please call us. Sincerely, David C. Shelton DCS/jp Engineering Geologist GEOLOGY CC: Land Use Commission STORY OF THE PAST . . . KEY TO THE FUTURE RICHARD D. LAMM GOVERNOR COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING — 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER. COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 892-2611 September 27, 1976 Mr. Robert A. Witkowski Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 9_ SJ- Dear Mr. Witkowski: RE: PANORAMA RANCHES, PRELIMINARY PLAT JOHN W. ROLD Director As you will recall when we first received this subdivision in January of this year, I called you concerning the scale of the geologic map versus the scale of the preliminary plat. My concern was that the two maps are at different scales making review of the plat quite difficult as it pertains to geologic conditions. My hope was that the consultants for the project would have reduced the plat to a similar scale to analyize it for themselves, and thus it might be available to me. At that time you said that other problems were delaying the project, and that there was no need to review it at that time. On September 14, 1976 we received an additional request for review of the subdivision. Unfortunately, we still do not have a plat at the same scale as the very detailed and excellent geologic and engineering mapping done by Lincoln-DeVore Testing Laboratory. It seems incredible that the owner and developer should pay for such an excellent, detailed analysis of the physical properties of the land in question and not use that detailed analysis in the preparation of their plat. Unless some other method of comparison was used, it would appear that by far the easiest way to use that engineering geologic information would be to have maps at the same scale. As a result of this situation,we have reviewed the plat as best we can. As previously mentioned, the geologic report for Panorama Ranches is of great detail and excellent quality. The analysis indicates surface and subsurface conditions which would have an important influence on the development of the subdivision. The text prepared by Lincoln-DeVore Testing Laboratory describes in great detail exactly how each of these geologic conditions found on the property could affect foundations, sewage disposal, and other construction factors. It does appear that if their recommendations are adhered to, this subdivision is feasible from a geologic point of view. It must be realized, however, that due to the variable conditions, some being adverse to normal types of construction, close monitoring of the development will be required for a successful project. The conclusions and recommendations beginning on page 41 of their report outline those potential problems. We recommend for the sake of the county, the developer, the eventual consumer, and ourselves that a plat be prepared at the same scale as the geologic information so all may benefit from a direct comparison to ensure the best placement of roads, houses, and individual sewage disposal systems. GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST . . . KEY TO THE FUTURE • • Mr. Robert A. Witkowski Page 2 September 27, 1976 In conclusion, it does appear that this proposed area is feasible for development from a geologic point of view if all the recommendations in the Lincoln-DeVore report are adhered to by the county and the developer. The plat may need to be adjusted and building sites designated after close comparison of the geology to the proposed plat. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office. Sincerely, i David C. Shelton Engineering Geologist cc: Lincoln-DeVore Testing Laboratory Land Use Commission Scarrow and Walker, Inc. DCS/jp ROBERT D. SCARROW L.S. PRES. ROBERT A. WAMSLEY L.S., VICE PRES. & MGR. LARRY GRAHAM, P.E. VICE PRESIDENT TOM WALKER L.S. CONSULTANT RAYMOND L. BALDWIN, C.E. FRANK W. HARRINGTON DENNIS O. BRADLEY, MGR. RIFLE eScatZOW and ' VYCtLf tt, J, Reg. Engineers and Land Surreyors 204 8th Street - Office Glenwood Springs, Colo. 81601 Extension Office 328 East Avenue • Rifle, Colo. 81650 November 23, 1976 Colorado Geological Survey Department of Natural Resources 715 State Centennial Building 1313 Sherman St. Denver, Colorado 80203 Att: Mr. David.C. Shelton Engineering Geologist Re: Panorama Ranches Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Shelton: ELECTROTAPE CLARY COMPUTER WILD THEODOLITE ZIESS LEVEL INSTRUMENT RENTALS NOV 2 4 1976 GARFIELD cO.. PLANNER. Enclosed please find a mylar of the above referenced project at a 1" to 250' scale being consistent with the Lincoln-DeVore Testing Laboratory geological study maps. This follows up your request by your September 27, 1976 letter to Garfield County Planner, Bob Witkowski. We apologize for the delay but we did have a difficult time in coming up with an acceptable mylar.. We hope that this will aid you in your further evaluations and should you have any questions please contact us. Very truly yours, Robert A. Wamsley L.S. 7972 cc: Mr. John Wix Mr. Robert A. Witkowski ✓ Lincoln-DeVore Testing Laboratory RAW/ ctnm Glenwood Springs • Box 460 • Phone 945-5574 Rifle • Box 1478 • Phone 625-2740 c DISTRICTS OE • AMERICA/, AU G 1. % 1976 ik 40 Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District GARFIELD. CO: PLANER Pb. Box 1302 - Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 August 10, 1976 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission 2014 Blake Av. Glenwoos Springs, Co 81601 Gentlemen; Thank you for the opportunity to review the Panorama Ranches Subdivision. In general, this is a well prepared and well planned subdivision. The lots are distributed over the entire property. Wildlife has been taken into account both by planning for movement corriders through the property and by the con- venant allowing dogs only if they are housed in enclosed kennels. The water supply will be a couununity system. These are just a few of the subdivisions good points. However, there are several items we would like to comment on. The convenants would allow livestock at the rate of one horse, cow and/or calf, or two goats per two acres of property. This is no where near enough land to support any of these animals for more than a month. Livestock will have to be fed the year around in addition to the very limited grazing. The use of adequate size culverts in the roads is discussed. We hope that the developer will heed the report. One gross error, which could cast doubt on the entire planning report, state that: "Prominent amoung animal species present are mule deer and pronghorn antelope." It is the feeling of this board that pronghorn antelope are not found in the wild in that area. Soils on which building is planned are as follows: X25D & X14E X22F & X22E Shrink -swell - High Permeability - Moderate to Slow - Permeability increases below 30". - Shrink -swell - Low Permeability - Moderately Rapid - Could cause a gound pollution hazard. 70C, 70D, & - Shrink -swell - Moderate 70E Permeability Moderate 52V & AC - Shrink -swell - Low Permeability - Moderate to Moderately Rapid (cont.) -�I Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District (cont.) P.O. Box 1302 - Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 August 10, 1976 Because of the possible high permeability on some soils and the shrink - swell on others, we would strenuously recommend a community sewage system. In the high permeability soils there is a chance of ground water pollution. On tight high shrink -swell sods there is a chance of the effluent surfacing. Both of these factors make individual, ground -absorbed sewage systems unde- sirable. With proper engineering of foundations there should be nc problems with building on the shrink -swell soils. If you have any questions or would like further information please contact us. Sincerely, ✓fT dile � �t2t Richard Cerise Mt. Sopris SCD Secretary RC/lp "'r. Jon•' Muff Mrd Boo 8069 Aspen, CO 81'6l1. • Re: '�,norama Estates, T lan of .fir c:rmentation, W-2968 Dear Mr. Mulford: This letter is in regard te the ih rm referenced elan of auee •..iation 'for -which you requested tomperery e, eev.-.11 frog' thts office. I hrvc re- viewed the plan of neementatl'7e reel f',,, ,neteeint nuhrnittcd witl- the plan and the following ttem.e need further r'lncirir ation: 1. The plan of aue.rnenti tion rnpot es to augment the Roaring cork River with velr:^r. ,t.)red in Spring 1'ark Reservoir for depletions ru ;'u11''1117 frcrn five non-exempt domestic wells cer' tr,q '71 forntly dreellings. It is not clear why the blare l,otenc:tr to augment the Roaring Fork River which is not ()we -appropriated tit the point of expected depletion, and emits any augmentation of Cattle Creek. 2. Well permits have not beP r, pro er1y submitted to our Ground Water Section for :ire ev:-1i1uation of the potential for material Injury to water c ljhts on both the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creel-. The permits were submtttcd in February of this year hut were returned because they were not properly cage -repleted. The developer has not resubmitted the five permits for an evaluation which would determine 1,vlinthe.r• the permits could be issued. Until this determinaticn is, rna i , a need fora plan of augmentation gannet be tt144;;rrtai:yed. If the use of the wells would. affect renter rights -en cattle Creel., then ij I A I Mr. Jon K. Mull, -2-- • July 29, 1976 a plan of augr.a;.tation raf,tst be developed to augment Cattle Creek which is ovor_appropriated. 3. I would also point out that CRS 1973, 3%-92-30503) requires that the finding of the State Engineer which granted or denied the well permit must be considered by the Water Court. In that no findings have been made due to the lac- of '.' e -w, er applications, the plan of augmentation may be in error. This office will cease the review of the plan of augmentation until s:ho nbacro itcma have been clarified.. "lea a feel free to contact me at any time to discuss the above. TAD"HDS:mvf cc: L. Enewold, Div, Eng. Division Wa to r Court Very t nily yours, Dr. Jeeris A. Danielson 1!eputl, State Engineer IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WATER DIVISION NO. 5 STATE OF COLORADO Case No. W- IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION) FOR WATER RIGHTS OF COLORADO COUNTRY PANORAMA ESTATES, A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, IN) THE COLORADO RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES: INVOLVING CATTLE ) CREEK AND THE ROARING FORK RIVER) IN GARFIELD COUNTY. 1. CARMEL!) CO. PLANNER` APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN OF AUGMENTATION, INCLUDING EXCHANGE AND FOR CHANGES IN WATER RIGHT REQUIRED FOR OPERATION OF THE PLAN. NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Colorado Country Panorama Ranches, a Colorado Limited Partnership, c/o John Wix P. O. Box 1052 Basalt, Colorado 81621 2. NAME OF DITCH OR OTHER STRUCTURE: Spring Park Reservoir (sometimes known as Missouri Heights Reservoir) and unnamed distribution ditches from said reservoir. 3. PRESENT POINT OF DIVERSION: ". . . an enlargement of the Mountain Meadow Ditch No. 149CC, from its headgate down to a point about 14 miles therefrom or 4 mile from said reservoir; then southerly about 4 mile through original cons- truction ditch or extension, to said reservoir; the headgate of said enlargement of said ditch being on the south bank of Cattle Creek, in Water District No. 38, at a point, whence the southwest corner of Section One, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M., bears South 86°50' West 1,837 feet." 4. INFORMATION CONCERNING DECREE: By decree dated September 27, 1918, the District Court of Garfield County, Colorado, granted a reservoir water storage right, for irrigation, from Cattle Creek, through an enlargement of the Meadow Mountain Ditch No. 149CC and extension therefrom for 2,823 acre feet, and said appropriation was given reservoir priority No. 12A in Water District No. 38 as of December 28, 1911. Applicant will apply for water rights and well permits for new domestic use wells as described hereafter. • • 5. WATER RIGHTS SUBJECT TO PLAN: 2.39 acre feet out of reservoir priority No. 12A described above. 6. PROPOSED PLAN: GENERAL Applicant proposes to provide a water supply for a subdivision located in an area known as Missouri Heights in Garfield County, Colorado, consisting of 53 lots restricted to single-family residential use. Applicant has applied or will apply for water rights for five wells to be known as Panorama Ranches Wells No. 1 through 5, each of which well will serve some of the lots in the subdivision. Subdivision lot purchasers will be restricted to "in-house" use only of the well water, and will be required by restrictive covenants to employ non -evapotranspiration sewage return. Applicant proposes to replace in the Roaring Fork River drainage, by exchange, consumptive use in the subdivision through such wells, by removing from irrigation certain of applicant's lands and terminating irrigation use of certain water under an earlier priority owned by the Missouri Heights Irrigation Company, in which applicant owns shares, thus balancing the domestic consumptive use with that of the lands removed from irrigation. To the extent domestic use depletions do not precisely correspond with the time of the occurrence of the historic irrigation depletion, applicant proposes to keep in storage in the existing reservoir a portion of the water which would be available under the priority and make releases to assure no loss to the river. Applicant will convey title to the water rights involved to a home owners association for the benefit of the owners of the subdivision lots. The home owners association will have the right to enforce applicant's obligation to remove the lands from irrigation and to call for releases to compensate the stream as required in the event of a call by the division engineer. DETAILED EXPLANATION The following information is given with respect to the subdivision involved in the proposed plan: The subdivision is located on approximately 415 acres in Sections 16 and 17, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M., Garfield County, Colorado. The lots will range in size from 5 acres to 44 acres each. An application for platting approval has been filed with the Garfield County Commissioners and preliminary approval is pending. Applicant proposes to record protective covenants and restrictions regarding the lands to be platted which - 2 - state, • in part, "In-house use only of water from the domestic distribution systems obtaining their water from Panorama Ranches Wells 1 through 5 shall be allowed within the subdivision, subject to changes in the water augmentation program for the subdivision providing additional water for domestic pursuits. No water from the domestic water distribution systems served by wells shall be used for lawn watering, irrigation, gardening, or any other use outside the single-family dwelling." The protective covenants and the subdivision plat shall additionally require that there shall be no evapotranspiration sewage treatment units within the subdivision, unless a change in the water augmentation program for the subdivision shall be first approved and implemented to compensate therefor. USE OF WATER RIGHT Subdivision Consumptive Use: The consumptive use of the five wells within the subdivision was determined by using the following criteria established by Scarrow & Walker, professional engineers, and the Lincoln-DeVore Testing Laboratory, consulting geologists: Where a well is used to divert water for household purposes only from stream system alluvium and the sewage return is through a non -evaporative system (usually septic tanks and leaching fields or other systems approved by the environmental health department of Garfield County), 90% of the water diverted through the well and used in the household returns to the stream system. The return flow from the use of the five wells will be returned to the same stream system in which the well is located (see April 15, 1976, supplemental geology report) . An average family composed of 32 persons each requiring 115 gallons per person per day for a 365 -day year uses in the household 146,912.5 gallons per year. Such an average family's annual average consumptive use is 14,691 gallons per year. This single-family average unit consumptive use figure multiplied by 53 lots and converted to acre feet equals an average annual consumptive use of 2.39 acre feet. Historic Consumptive Use: Applicant and his predecessors have historically irrigated approximately 60 acres of pasture land within the proposed subdivision. This pasture land has been irrigated in part by use of applicant's shares in the Missouri Heights Irrigation Company. - 3 - • • Applicant owns 83 shares in the company, each share being the equivalent of approximately 1.0 cfs for a 17 -day irrigating season. The amount of water consumptively used in the irrigation of pasture in this area may be as much as 2.7 acre- feet of water per acre per year according to the Soil Conservation Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Total consumptive use for irrigating 60 acres of pasture would be 162 acre- feet per year, of which 33.7 acre-feet is obtained from the Spring Park Reservoir right. The subdivision roads and the single-family dwellings to be constructed in the subdivision will remove approximately 2.0 acres of land historically irrigated as pasture land from irrigation, which will reduce the average consumptive irrigation usage on applicant's lands by 5.4 acre-feet per year. The consumptive use of the domestic subdivision is only 2.39 acre-feet. Since applicant owns 83 shares equal to 33.7 acre-feet consumptively used for irrigation, each share is equivalent to 0.48 acre-feet consumptive use. Applicant will cease diverting and making use of 11.25 shares of its interest in the Spring Park Reservoir. The water which has been consumptively used on said 2.0 acres of pasture land more than compensates the river for the water to be consumptively used in the subdivision. The home owners association shall hold 11.25 shares of the Spring Park Reservoir in irrevocable and perpetual trust for the benefit of the lot owners in the subdivision. It shall have the legal rights now owned by the applicant to deal with the Reservoir Company, enforce the covenants and restrictions requiring in-house use only of the well water, and to otherwise enforce the provisions of the augment- ation. plan. DECREE It is proposed that the decree provide that applicant shall permanently terminate the irrigation of 2.0 acres consisting of subdivision roads and building sites for single-family dwellings, and shall cease to call for and use for irrigation water equivalent to 2.6 shares of interest in the Missouri Heights Reservoir Company, and that the Court find that a water supply can be developed through five community wells without adversely affecting other water rights in the Cattle Creek, Roaring Fork River and Colorado River water sheds, so long as sewage returns are through a non -evapotranspiration method complying with the requirements of the State Engineer for the issuance of permits to drill "Household Use Only" wells. 4 • • WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Court enter an appropriate Order with respect to the proposed plan of augmentation including exchange and for change in water right. Jon ` 4ulford tto+ ney at Law East Hopkins, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone: (303) 925-6382 • JON K. MULFORD LAWYER P.O. BOX 8069 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ASPEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 600 EAST HOPKINS May 21, 1976 Dr. Jeris A. Danielson Deputy State Engineer Division of Water Resources 300 Columbine Building 1845 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 V'Mr. Robert A. Witkowski, Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Colorado Country's Panorama Ranches, a subdivision in Garfield County, Colorado. Dear Dr. Danielson and Mr. Witkowski: MAY 2 4. 1976 GARFIELD CO ER1303L PNs I represent the developer of Colorado Country's Panorama Ranches. This letter is in response to Dr. Danielson's letter to Mr. Witkowski of February 13, 1976, with regard to the water supply for the proposed subdivision. We have considered Dr. Danielson's comments, and have discussed this matter at some length with Lee Enewold of the Division Engineer's office, Larry Graham of the engineering firm of Scarrow and Walker of Glenwood Springs, Richard N. Morris of The Lincoln- DeVore Testing Laboratory (geologist and hydrologist), officials of the Missouri Heights Reservoir Company and others. We have considered two possible proposals for a plan of augmentation, and have obtained further data and analysis from the engineering and geology consultants. It is our conclusion at this point that a fairly simply plan of augmentation should assure a dependable water supply for the subdivision and also prevent injury to other vested water rights. Our proposed plan is attached to this letter. The plan indicates that the acreage which will be removed from Dr. Jeris A. Danielson Mr. Robert A. Witkowski May 21, 1976 Page Two irrigation by virtue of the construction of subdivision roads and single-family dwellings on lands historically irrigated will free more than enough senior water out of the developer's Spring Park Reservoir shares to compensate the stream system for the - consumptive use within the subdivision of 53 lots. Developer proposes to make the Spring Park Reservoir water previously used for irrigation of the developed lands available,to compensate the stream at any time compensation is called for in administering the stream system. The water rights in Spring Park Reservoir to be used to compensate the stream will not be called out for irrigation purposes but will be retained in storage to be used as compensating water when required. At this time we request temporary approval of the enclosed plan of augmentation by the Division of Water Resources, and preliminary plat approval by Mr. Witkowski's office and the Garfield County Commissioners. Accompanying the proposed plan of augmentation, you will find a copy of the receipt for filing fees in the Water Court for Division No. 5; a topographical map showing the location of the five proposed wells, the Spring Park Reservoir and the ditches dis- tributing water therefrom; copies of the water right decrees for Spring Park Reservoir; and proof of ownership of shares in the Reservoir Company. Also, enclosed is a letter to me from The Lincoln-DeVore Testing Laboratory dated April 15, 1976, containing a more detailed discussion of the source of the well water and the movement of water underground between Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River, which report indicates that water from the wells would in no case return to Cattle Creek but would be tributary to the Roaring Fork River. The plan of augmentation would make water available from the Spring Park Reservoir to compensate the Roaring Fork River drainage. The developer, his engineers and geologists, and myself, all stand ready to meet with you at any time and to provide additional information about the plan of augmentation should you request it. JKM/lr Attachments and enclosures cc: Mr. John Wix Since -1 y is Mulford c ROBERT D. SCARROW L.S. PRES . ROBERT A. WAMSLEY L.S., VICE PRES. & MGR. LARRY GRAHAM, P.E. VICE PRESIDENT TOM WALKER L.S. CONSULTANT RAYMOND L. BALDWIN, C.E. FRANK W. HARRINGTON DENNIS O. BRADLEY, MGR. RIFLE •a-Dcattow and (1/Paget, Ina. Reg. Engineers and Land Surveyors 204 8th Street - Office Glenwood Springs, Colo. 81601 Extension Office 328 East Avenue • Rifle, Colo. 81650 Garfield County Department of Health and Environmental Protection 2014 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Att: Mr. Ed Feld Acting Director Dear Mr. Feld: May 5, 1976 1 Subject: Panorama Ranches Percolation Tests and Sanitary Waste Disposal Systems Details ELECTROTAPE CLARY COMPUTER WILD THEODOLITE ZIESS LEVEL INSTRUMENT RENTALS Enclosed please find a print of Sheet 6 (Sanitary Wastes Disposal Systems Details) of the Preliminary Plan of Panorama Ranches reflecting revisions as per our meeting of April 30 and subsequent conversations. Should you see the need for additional information or changes please contact me so same can be accomplished prior to our Public Hearing on the project. I have also reviewed the percolation test and deep soil log results to determine if additional tests are necessary. With the exception of Test Numbers 13A and 13B you will note that the other readings slower than one inch in sixty minutes are paired with a test at or very near the same location but at a greater depth and with results faster than one inch in sixty minutes. This occurs at the follow- ing Test Numbered areas: 14A and 14B, 16A and 16B, 17A and 17B, 30A and 30B, and 31A and 31B. One additional exception is Test Number 44 but please note that it is in an area reserved for Common Open Space on which no disposal system would be required. The reason for this variation in percolation rates is quite obvious. As you go deeper into the soils they become less consolidated due to the action of weather, irrigation, and use, they contain a lesser percentage of clay exhibiting poor permeability and a greater percentage of sand, silt and gravel exhibiting more rapid percolation. The above analysis is one of the reasons behind the proposed 2 -level bed as shown in Condition A on the plans. It is also useful information to you for the appli- cation and approval of each individual system. Beds or trenches at a depth less than 36" may in some areas have percolation rates which would result in system problems. However if bed or trench depths in these areas were held at a minimum depth of 48"-54" you would expect good results. Glenwood Springs • Box 460 • Phone 945-5574 Rifle • Box 1478 • Phone 625-2740 • • Page 2 Mr. Feld May 5, 1976 With respect to the one apparent problem area, in the vicinity of Test Numbers 13A and 13B, I would suggest that we re-perc this area. I would like however to do so at some time after approval so I could utilize equipment (backhoe) on-site for the excavation. I would hope we could work around that area to save time and money. I feel certain we will find good soils in the close proximity of the current tests without any difficulty. Thank you for your time, review and cooperation. Please give me a call should you have additional questions Very truly yours,67 Hugh L. Graham P.E. & L.S. 13404 cc: Mr. John Wix • • THE LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY MEMBER: A.S.T.M. A. S. C. E. CEC ACI Soil Testing Foundation Evaluation Materials Tests Concrete Batch Design Asphalt Mix Design Geologic Interpretation Groundwater Hydrology by Registered Professional Engineers Geologists Colorado Springs, Colorado Pueblo, Colorado Rock Springs, Wyoming . Glenwood Springs Montrose Gunnison, Colorado George D. Morris, P.E. 1000 W. Fillmoro Colorado Springs, Colorado 303-632-3593 April 15, 1976 Mr. Jon K. Mulford 600 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Groundwater Supply - Panorama Ranches, Garfield County, Colo. Dear Mr. Mulford; At your request, we have reviewed our comments concerning the groundwater supply available to the proposed Panorama Ranches subdivision in view of the legal requirements of a plan for augmentation. This letter is being sent to present additional evidence relating to that groundwater supply, to clarify our assessment of the subsurface hydrology, and to present recommendations for any further investigations. To briefly summarize the statements made in our original report, it is our opinion that the bulk of the groundwater present beneath the proposed subdivision lies within the lower parts of the basalt lava flows (as the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite is virtually impermeable) and that the water itself is derived from the drainage area of Cattle Creek, to the north. It appears that the water leaves Cattle Creek at the points where that stream abuts the basalt, and that the groundwater, once it has entered the basalt, is lost to Cattle Creek, flowing instead into the Roaring Fork River. There are several lines of geologic evidence leading to the above conclusions. .There is the fact that Cattle Creek and its tributaries flow through a set of relatively broad valleys filled with alluvial deposits in the area to the north and east of the proposed subdivision. This :>uggests that there is a considerable amount of groundwater associated with the underflow of the creeks within this valley - fill alluvium. At the point where Cattle Creek enters its RECEIVED Panorama Ranches• April 15, 1976 Page -2- canyon 2- canyon and makes an abrupt right-angle turn to the west, however, the creekbed is cut directly into the basalt and very little alluvium is present. The groundwater within the alluvium in the upper reaches of the Cattle Creek basin must either be lost through evapotrans- piration, enter the surface flow of the creek, or flow into the permeable basalt in response to gravity. As there is little evidence of greatly increased evapotranspiration or streamflow in this area, it must be presumed that the groundwater enters the basalt. This conclusion is supported by the presence of a spring at the base of the basalt layer near the southeast corner of a very large landslide along the north side of the Cattle Creek Canyon in Section 7, Town- ship 7 South, Range 87 West. Given the location of this spring at the contact between the basalt and the Eagle Valley Evaporite and the alignment of the creek upstream from this point, it appears quite likely that the flow to the spring runs through the "spur" of basalt which forms the right angle bend of Cattle Creek and is derived ultimately from the saturated alluvium near the junction of Cattle Creek and Cou1+er Creek. The existence of the large landslide itself can be attributed to the solution of gypsum by groundwater flowing along this same path. Evidence for the similarfflow of ground- water through the basalt to the south (i.e. under the Panorama Ranches area) includes such factors as the very favorable gradient (about 140 feet per mile) which exists between the base of the basalt at the point where Cattle Creek crosses the contact and the base of the basalt at its outcrop above the Roaring Fork north of the Catherine Store, the inferred high porosity and permeability of the vesicular basalt, and the presence of large-scale subsidence features on the basalt plateau to the south of the proposed sub- division, which imply the existence of groundwater flow along the basalt -gypsum contact. There is also the presence of springs and seeps along the base of the basalt north of the Catherine Store, such as Crystal Spring in Section 24, which appear in the area in which southward -flowing groundwater would be expected to reach the ground surface. Finally, there is the fact that most of the basalt is covered by varying thicknesses of almost impermeable, caliche - impregnated residual clayey soils, and that it is difficult to account for the known fairly large quantities of water present in the basalt on the basis of percolation of water through these soils. It is our opinion that the groundwater underneath the proposed subdivision is derived primarily from the groundwater underflow of Cattle Creek in the vicinity of Sections 5 and 8 to the north of the proposed subdivision (where Cattle Creek enters the canyon in the basalt) and secondarily from groundwater in the alluvium of the valley of Cattle Creek in Sections 4, 9, 10 and 11 to the northeast of the proposed subdivision. Groundwater inflow from the Missouri Heights (or Spring Park) Reservoir may also play a minor role, and becomes more important to the south and southeast of the Subdivision. Panorama Ranch. April 15, 1976 Page -3- From the above discussion, it can be seen that once the water enters the basalt to the south of Cattle Creek, it is lost to the Cattle Creek basin and is no longer available to water users within the Cattle Creek drainage. From that point, the flow of the groundwater is to the south into the Roaring Fork, and the groundwater must be considered as tributary to the Roaring Fork. Therefore, a plan of augmentation which would release water to the Roaring Fork River at a point near to, or upstream from, the Catherine Store should prove satisfactory. Alternately, a plan for augmentation could be devised which would involve the recharge of the aquifer via a recharge well at the subdivision site itself. The advantage to this latter plan is, of course, that recharges would be made directly to the same aquifer supplying the subdivision water, and that the question of to which stream the groundwater is tributary would become academic. This latter alternative would require further investigative work; notably, the logging and pump - testing of a well tapping the aquifer. This would establish the location and physical nature of the precise zone from which water is to be withdrawn and permit a determination of the hydraulic properties of that zone. This information could then be used both for location and design of the water supply wells and for the design of the recharge system. It is our hope that this letter supplies the information which you require. Should questions arise or further information be desired, please feel free to contact the Laboratory at any time. Very truly yours, LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LAB. Richard N. Morris, Geologist Joseph R. Infascelli, Prof. Geologist RNM/ s am cc: John Wix - Thunder River Realty Scarrow & Walker Glenwood Spgs. LDTL • U 1•N ftC N 9 • V \. I ry CO I�.-= - • A�4 / 12 / _.- • 0 I .y ./ 1 l••. \ i co: -t:'..\.;-'-----'7'\'' \ .. !r.... ...... . ...."--\,\k. 0 ' „ _ . 4.. ‘. . .-. \.- \''' , • \ -� ; 1 0 i/ • t ;zn •r (, •••••• _ _: '•� t�. YrTh • f• - \ )- -c 0 • 1' �i. STATE OF COLORADO, ) ( ss. COUNTY OF .GARFIELD. ) ii THE DISTRICT COURT. In the matter of the application of ) The Carbondale Reservoir and Irriga- ) tion Company, a corporation, for an ) adjudication of its priority of right ) to the use of water from Cattle Creel:, for storage in the Spring Park Reser- ) voir, for irrigation, in Water Dis- ) ,tom trict No. 38, ) 0 and ) ) In the matter of the application of ) /The Carbondale Reservoir and Irri- gation ) Company, a corporation, for an ) adjudication of its priority of right to the use of water from Cattle Creek, ) through the Spring Park Reservoir ) Intake Ditch, the Spring Park Reter- ) voir and the Spring Park Reservoir ) Outlet Ditch, all used as one system ) for carriage of nater for irrigation, ) in Water District No. 38. FII;DINGS AND DECREE. The above entitled matter having been duly set for hearing on September 23rd, 1918, was duly continued to this day; and now on this 27th day of September, A. D. 1918, the above entitled matter coming on regularly to be heard by the Court, the petitioner appearing by H. R. Holmes, its Vice President and General Manager, and by Edward T. Taylor and Charles W. Taylor, its attorneys, and it appearing to the Court, that due notice of this proceeding has been regularly given by publication and posting of notice in accordance with the order of the Court herein and as the law provides, and the Court having heard the testimony of the petitioner, and being now fully advised in the premises, doth find: That the petitioner, The Carbondale Reservoir and Irrigation Company, a corporation, is the claimant of the 4 ,/7 Spring Park Reservoir; that said reservoir is situate in Sections 11, 14, 15, 22, and 23, in Township 7, S., R. 87 W. 6th P. M. , in Eagle County, Colorado, the initial point of survey thereof, beginning at Station 0, whence the 11. i7. Cor. Section 22, Tp. 7 S., R. 87 W. 6th P. M. , bears N. 63° 10' W. 3681 feet; that the source of supply of storage water for said reservoir is from Cattle Creek; the Intake or Feeder Ditch to said reservoir is through an enlargement of the Mountain Meadow Ditch No. 149 'CC, from its headgate down to a point about 1-1/4 miles therefrom or 104 mile from said reser- voir; thence southerly about 1/4 mile through original con- struction ditch or extension, to said reservoir; the headgate of said enlargement of said ditch being on the south bank of Cattle Creek, in Water District No. 38, at a point, whence the S. W. Cor. Sec. 1, Tp. 7 S., R. 87 I. 6th P. LI. bears S. 86° 50' W. 1837 feet; the inlet to said reservoir from said Intake Ditch is at the High Plater or 20 foot Contour line of said reservoir, at the S. W. Cor. of Sec. 11, Tp. 7 S., R. 87 W. 6th P. I:i.; the dam of said reservoir is on the southerly side thereof; the height of said dam is 27 feet; depth of water in said reservoir at the dam at high water line, which is the 20 foot contour line, of said reservoir, is 20 feet; length of dam is 1664 feet; width of dam on top is 12 feet, width on bottom 133-1/2 feet; height of dam above high water line 7 feet; said dam is constructed of earth and clay; the spillway of said reservoir is at the easterly end of the dam and has ample capabity to carry off all excess waters; the capacity of said reservoir is 2823 acre feet, with water storage capacity of 122,987,250 cubic feet of water; the outlet from said reser- voir is at the dam through a pipe controlled by valve and stem with scale showing depth of water and amount of water released • from or flowing into said reservoir; the waters from said reservoir flow through the Spring Park Reservoir Outlet -"Ditch in a southerly, southwesterly and northwesterly directions, on its course intercepting the east and west laterals of the I.lountain Ideadow Ditch, and a portion of said waters are used through said laterals, as well as through and from said Outlet Ditch and its laterals all for irrigation; that there are about 5000 acres under said reservoir and subject; to irrigation from the storage waters therein, of which amount of land, 2,000 acres has been irrigated thereunder and therefrom; that the work of construction of said reservoir was commenced on December 28th, 1911, and the same was completed to a water storage capacity of 122,987,250 cubic feet of water, and is entitled to Reservoir Priority I;o. 12 A in said Water District Ido. 38, as of the said 28th day of December, 1911. That said petitioner is also the claimant of a direct irrigation right from the high, flood or freshet waters of said Cattle Creek, and when said waters are available, the said waters so used for direct irrigation being used from said creek through an enlargement of the i:ountaiii i.ieadow Ditch No. 149 CC from its headgate doral to a point 1-14 miles therefrom and its extension, thence about 1/4 mile to said Spring park Reservoir, and thence through the waters stored in said reser- voir the same being used as a carrier of water to the outlet from said reservoir, thence through the Spring Park Reservoir Outlet Ditch, which intercepts the east and west laterals of the said I:Iountain Meadow Ditch, and a portion of the said waters are used through said laterals as well as through said Outlet Ditch and its other laterals all used as a water carriage system for direct irrigation; the headgate of said irrigation system is at a point on the south bank of Cattle Creek, whence the S.W. Corner of Section 1, Tp. 7 S., R. 87 W. 6th P. I.i. bears S. 86° 5DT W. 1037 feet; that there is about 5093 acres of good irrigable lands under and subject to irrigation from Cattle Creek through said irrigation system, of which amount of land, 2,030 acres have been practically irrigated by direct irrigation thereunder and thereby; that the eater carriage capacity of said direct irrigation system from said creek, and the use thereof made, is sufficient to entitle the same to an appropriation of the high waters, flood waters or freshet waters of said creek of forty cubic feet of water per second of time; that the said irrigation system; used as afore- said for direct irrigation, is entitled to be numbered 159 A, with Priority Ido. 231 A, in said Water District No. 38, as of the said 28th day of December, 1911. IT IS THEREFORE CONSIDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED By the Court: That the Spring Park Reservoir, be, and the same is hereby granted a reservoir water storage right, for irrigation, from Cattle Creek, through an enlargement of the Mountain I ;ieadow Ditch No. .149 DC and Extension therefrom as herein above found, for 2823 acre feet, or water storage capacity in said reservoir up to 122,987,250 cubic feet of water, with right to use said storage water therefrom through the Spring Park Reservoir Outlet Ditch and laterals therefrom; that said appropriation is hereby given Reservoir Priority No. 12 A in said Water District No. 38, as of the said 28th day of December, A. D. 1911; provided, however, that such storage of water in said reservoir be made at such time or times, as the unappropriated waters of said creek are not needed for immediate use for direct irrigation and for domestic use of others having such rights. IT 1S FURTHER CONSIDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECD EMD By the Court: That the Enlargement of the Mountain Meadow Ditch No. 149 CC, from its headgate down and the ex- tension thereof and therefrom as herein found to the Spring Park Reservoir, and through the Spring Park Reservoir used as a carrier of water, and thence through the Spring Park Reservoir Outlet Ditch, all used as a water carrier system, for direct irrigation, be, and the same is hereby numbered 159 A, with Priority No. 231 A, in said 'later District :C.o. 38, aS of the said 28th day of December, A. D. 1911; and that there be allowed to flow from said creek into said 'enlargement of the Mountain Meadow Ditch and extension thereof and there- from to said reservoir and through said reservoir as a carrier of said waters, and thence through said Outlet Ditch and later- al ditches used therefrom, all used as an irrigation system for the carriage of water, for the use and benefit of the petitioner or its assigns, for direct irrigation, 40 cubic feet of water Der second of time. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED ESD Dy the Court: That these findings and this decree shall be subject to the same general conditions and provisions as are contained in the general decree of this Court, made and entered on the llth day of May, A. D. 1889, in and for said Water District No. 38, and shall also be subject to all prior decreed and vested rights, as provided by law. IT IS PU2TIIER ORDEIN'D: That the petitioner pay the costs of this proceeding. JOHN T. Str[ HATE , Judge. S TA TE OF C O LORt1DO , ) COUTITY OF GARFIELD. I, Chas. H. King, Clerk of the District Court, within and for the County of Garfield, in the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, complete and true copy of that certain decree duly made and entered in and by said District Court, in said entitled cause, on the Twenty- seventh day of September, A. D. 1918. IITNESS Hy hand and the Seal of said District Court, at the Court House in the City of Glenwood Springs, in said County and State, this Fifth day of October, A. D. 191s. Dist rict.(urt) r ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL OAS COMPANY, INC. P.O. BOX 700 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 • (303) 945-8614 February 23, 1976 Mr. Robert A. Witkowski, Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Ftr32 9 rib GARFkLLU Lu. Re: Comments on Panorama Ranches Preliminary Plan Dear Mr. Witkowski: Per our discussion on February 3, 1976, I am submitting this follow-up letter stating Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company, Inc. has no objection to the above proposed subdivision as it affects and crosses our 4" Eagle - Gypsum natural gas transmission line. It is our contention that the terms of our original right-of-way easements through this area are and will still remain in effect. The most important terms state that no "building or other improvement shall be built or constructed over or across said right- of-way and easement", and further provides us "ingress and egress over and across said lands and other lands of the Grantor(s) to and from said right-of-way and easement" primarily for patrolling, repairs, and maintenance. As long as the subdivision plat correctly reflects our easement and right-of-way and the same is addressed by covenant, we feel the prospective lot buyers will be advised of the situation. Presently, we are under a restricted gas service hookup status that works as follows: Individual service line applications are filed as received and are subject to review on a quarterly basis by Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company's Executive Committee. To date qualified applicants have been released for hookup. In the case of a subdivision not piped by the developer, there is, of course, little chance for an individual to receive gas service. I hope this response will be useful and constructive in your plat processing. I do apologize for being so late in replying, and ask you to feel free in asking any further questions regarding the above matter. Very truly yours, u( ' /\ / ✓�, C t G7r 0. L Larry M. Hutson Engineering Department 4::') LMH/bf • • COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE • DENVER, COLORADO 80220 • PHONE 388-6111 Edward G. Dreyfus, M.D., M.P.H.,Executive Director February 20, 1976 Mr. Robert A. Witkowski E B 2 "L7;1 Director Plauuiing Department GAI;FriLLD CC, PLANNER Garfield County 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Your letter of January 21, 1976 "on.cerning Panorama Ranches Preliminary Plan Dear Mr. Witkowski: First, delay in responding to your above letter is regretted, but the review took longer than expected. The Health Department has the following comments on the proposed plan: 1. The water system proposed appears to be acceptable provided the water is disinfected prior to stor- ing and that no water users be tapped into the water main between the wells and the storage tank. 2. A mutual water company for the operation of the proposed water system is proposed. The Department strongly recommends that the developer create a water district under Title 32, Article 4, C.R.S. 1973, which would provide better flexibility in the operation of the district and provide easier financing for the district. It has been the experience of this Department that the mutual water companies tend to have difficulties in main- taining the systems in accordance with state standards, providing potable water of proper quality to the users. 3. The provisions for individual sewage disposal systems appear logical. The Department concurs with the recommendations for individual systems provided the Garfield County Sewage Disposal Regulations are strictly adhered to. Sincerely yours EBP/vg E. B. Pugsley, Ph.D. cc: R. D.Siek Engineering and Sani`Eation� Division RICHARD D. LAMM Governor I FEBr-r,, 0 1976 GARFIELD CO. PLANNER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Department of Natural Resources 300 Columbine Building 1845 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Administration (303) 892-3581 Ground Water (303) 892-3587 February 13, 1976 Mr. Robert A. Witkowski, Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Panorama Ranches Dear Mr. Witkowski: This is to acknowledge receipt of preliminary plan material for the above referenced subdivision. As requested, I have reviewed the water supply information and the following comments are presented for your consideration: 1. The annual water requirement of 27.05 acre feet is estimated on the basis of 115 gallons per person per day; however, there is no discussion on how this value was determined. The type of water uses expected and the estimated requirements for these uses should be provided. 2. The water supply plan proposes to use five new wells drilled into the basalt formation which underlies the subdivision. The developer submitted applications for well permits for these wells and these applications were denied because Cattle Creek is over appropriated during a portion of each year. In order to provide a dependable water supply, the developer will have to provide a plan of augmentation using an existing senior water right to prevent injury to other vested water rights. 3. The recommendation of the developer's engineer con- cerning a pump test of a well within the subdivision should be followed. C.J. KUIPER State Engineer • Mr. Robert A. Witkowski -2- Feb. 13, 1976 Due to the lack of a dependable water supply, I do not recommend approval of the subdivision. If additional information is provided which addresses the above, I would be most happy to consider it upon your re- quest. Very truly yours, JAD/HDS:mvg cc: L. Enewold, Div. Eng. R. Stallman Land Use Comm. a/Kat-tA-z-z-e-z-- Jeris A. Danielson uty State Engineer STATE OF COLORADO Richard D. Lamm. Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE Jack R. Grieb, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 (825-1192) FEB y 1 1915 GARFIELD CO. PLANNER February 9, 1976 Mr. Robert A. Witowski, Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Witowski: Enclosed please find this Division's comments and recommendations on the Panorama Ranches Subdivision. We appreciate your providing us with the necessary documents and the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. Sincerely yours, J7'' ack R. Gib Director.._____,/ JRG:cs Enclosure cc: Scarrow & Walker, Inc. John Wix Sam Caudill Division of Wildlife Personnel G. Rogers M. Smith R. A dams L. Green DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris Sherman, Executive Director • WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Jean K. Tool, Chairman Jay K. Childress, Vice Chairman • Vernon C. Williams, Secretary • Sam Caudill, Member • Roger Clark, Member Thomas Farley, Member • Dean Hull, Member • Dean Suttle, Member COMMENTS AIVERMWOMME1�� �A TIONS ON PANORAMA RA NC HES PREi:�1VtNA RY PLA N GARFIELD COUNTY 1/ Documents relative to the Panorama Ranches Subdivision, including a set of preliminary planning maps dated December 30, 1975; Engineer's Summary and Digest of Protective Covenants for Panorama Ranches, prepared by Scarrow and Walker, Inc., Glenwood Springs, Colorado; and an engineering report on soils, geology and hydrology prepared by The Lincoln-DeVore Testing Labratory, Colorado Springs, Colorado, have been reviewed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Additionally, personnel from this Division have made an on-site inspection of the location for this subdivision, which is situated in portions of Sections 16 and 17, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P. M. , Garfield County. The site for this subdivision is in an important big game migration area so identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and approved by the Colorado Wildlife Commission in official Action No. OA -3336 at its meeting, on Nov- ember 10 and 11, 1969, as required by Colorado Statutes (C. R. S. 1963 62-3-2 and 62-3-4). It is also likely that this site will be among those iden- tified and recommended for designation as significant wildlife habitat pursuant to H. B. 1041 (Session Laws of 1974) by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Consequently, comments and recommendations contained herein should not be construed as an endorsement of this subdivision. This Division is certain that this subdivision will result in a net loss of wildlife habitat and will produce both on- and off-site adverse impacts on wildlife. Therefore, the Division's comments and recommendations are only intended to offer guidance in minimizing these adverse impacts. How severe the impacts of this subdivision will be on the wildlife resources of Garfield and neighboring Eagle County will depend on two factors: (1) The extent to which this Division's recommendations are implemented; and (2) the number of similar subdivisions which may be later approved in this general area. While wide-ranging wildlife species may find the proposed subdivision tolerable, additional subdivisions here could completely eliminate this area as a viable range for these species. MAP PORTFOLIO The Colorado Division of Wildlife appreciates alterations of the platted lots and open space made by the developer to accommodate wildlife in general and deer in particular. Alterations in lot design and roads on the north end of this proposed development should facilitate the movement of deer through this area. 1/ Presented to Garfield County Planning Department by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, February 9, 1976. • • Concessions made to allow deer movements through the interior of this subdivision, although commendable, may prove to be meaningless. This Division has no evidence that corridors as narrow as 100 feet will be utilized. The likelihood of such corridors being used by deer could be enhanced by imposing the following restrictions: 1. No dog shall be permitted within 25 feet of those properties bordering on migration corridors or dedicated open space. 2. Exterior lighting shall be so placed on both public and private property or so shielded as to not illuminate migration corridors or dedicated open space during periods of deer use. 3. No motor vehicles shall be permitted within the corridors or dedicated open space. 4. No pumps, compressors or other mechanical equipment producing noise disturbing to deer shall be operated in areas adjacent to corridors and'dedicated open space during periods of deer use. 5. Vegetation within corridors and dedicated open space shall remain in natural condition. Burning, the use of herbicides and grazing by domestic livestock shall be prohibited. 6. No structure shall be erected which could impair the free move- ment of deer through the corridors or dedicated open space. Considering the size of lots in this subdivision, there is a good possibility that deer may migrate through these lots. To facilitate such movements, all boundary fences should be limited to rail or pole fences of not more than 42 inches in height. Wire fences may be of any height provided such structures are limited to lot interiors and are not placed closer than 25 feet to property boundaries. ENGINEER'S SUMMARY AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS Water wells and pumps are mentioned on Page 4. These should be situated as far away as possible from deer migration corridors and dedicated open space or have the pumps enclosed in noise -proof enclosures. No statement is made on Page 5 as to the location of power transmission lines. If these are situated above ground, some possibility exist for electrocution of raptorial birds, i. e. , hawks and eagles, and proper preventative measures should be taken to avoid such risk. 2 • • Protective covenants for this subdivision are paginated separately from the foregoing portions of this document. Unfortunately, protective covenants are intended solely for the benefit of the landowners and, there- fore, offer little if any protection for wildlife which is the property of the state. To overcome this shortcoming it is strongly suggested that any covenants relative to wildlife, including those pertaining to canines, be made a condition of any permit or other authorization to proceed issued by the county. Covenant No. 8 relative to canines should be further restricted by including the following: Canines must be on a leash held in a human hand while not in kennels. The responsibility for control of free -ranging canines other than those commonly considered wild rest with the developer or the home owners association. The following amendments to Covenant No. 9 should be made: ... corral fencing must be pole or split rail NOT OVER 42 INCHES IN HEIGHT. CORRALS SHALL NOT BE LARGER THAN 2 ACRES. Omissions that should be included in the covenants include these: No arti- ficial feeding or salting of wildlife shall occur except for feeding of song birds. No motor vehicles shall be used within areas designated as common open space, natural areas or conservation easements. Landscaping is discussed on Page 7. Either here or elsewhere it should be mentioned that any landscaping done in identified big game migration areas as identified by the Division of Wildlife is done at the owner's risk. In other words, the Division of Wildlife can't be held legally responsible for damage to any crops or landscaping caused by wildlife within this area. A map showing the location of this subdivision is within a wildlife migration area is attached hereto. GEOLOGY, SOILS & HYDROLOGY REPORT Erosion susceptability is mentioned on Pages ii and 16. It is because of this susceptability to erosion and the adverse effects of increased sedimenta- tion on trout streams that a maximum horse corral size of 2 acres was mentioned elsewhere. The legal description appearing on Page ii omits any mention of subdivision lands situated in Section 16. The use of weather records for Glenwood Springs to indicate conditions on the subdivision site are extremely misleading (Page 2). For example, mean monthly low temperatures at similar elevations on the Fryingpan are as much as 200 F lower than those described for January. Contrary to the statement on Page 2, the pronghorn antelope is not among the local fauna. 3 O 133HS) 3 '1 9 bUi • 3 • i Y H 2 1- w w x 9) VILDLILE MIGRATION AREA MAP „�„3NIl HJjVW recOired by C.R.S. 1963, 62-3-2 and 62-3-4 Prepared as (S.L. 1969) Certified effective Jenu:;ry 1, 1970 APPROVED EY THE GAME, FICH AND PARKS COMM.•":ICCIOfJ THROUGH OFFICIAL A,C T iON NC. CA.;335, CONTAiN`D CN PAGE 6028, fv11NU I ES FOR MEETING OF NOVE:v1DER 1C-11, 1569. February 3, 1976 Bob Witkowski Garfield Co. Planner'' 2014 Blake Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Witkowski: FEB ' 4 1976 GARFIELD CO. PLANNER Thank you for the opportunity to review the plan for the Panorama :states Subdivision. In general, we feel this is a well planned subdivision. The de- veloper has shown concern for wildlife. We are not sure that his scheme of corridors for migration will work, but the covenant re- stricting dogs will help protect the game. Another covenant restricts livestock. It should be kept in mind that in that area on the non -irrigated lands, 1 cow or horse will require 5 to 7 acres for 1 month of grazing. Livestock will have to be fed the year round. Soils in the area vary, but on much of the area the soils have a moderately rapid permeability. These soils may have a pollution potential. Other soils have a heavy clay layer which may not readily absorb effluent. In these areas the effluent could sur- face. Because of these problems, our board feels that the de- veloper should be .required to put in a community sewage system. We feel that a system set up similar to the proposed water system would be better maintained than the individual systems would be, Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Richard Cerise, Secretary Pit. Sopris SCD RC/sn D T, r 71f-7\ b \�' GARFiELU O. PLANNER q?Aoicainty Yellexl Wiled ge_d NICHOLAS R. MASSARO, Superintendent DWIGHT L. HELM, Assistant Superintendent TOM E. EMMONS, Director of Business P.O. Box 820 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945-6558 February 3, 1976 Mr. Robert A. Witkowski, Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Panorama Ranches Dear Mr. Witkowski: The Board of Education of Roaring Fork School District RE -1 is recommending the donation of one acre of land for each fifty homesites or dollar value of said dona- tion to be deposited with the Garfield County Commis- sioners to be used by the school district for the pur- chase of future school sites. Fifty-three units would represent 1.06 acres or dollar value thereof. We are concerned as a district in the layout of the roads and how it affects future bus transportation. We would suggest that the subdivider be asked to provide some kind of a bus shelter at the south inter- section of Panorama Drive and Elk Range Road. Sincerely yours, 2)7°-----4-44— Nicholas c>�4-44—Nicholas R. Massaro NRM/mlw Inc. •Wulting Engineers • Land Surveycrs 204 8th St. • Glenwood Springs, Colo. 81601 • 303-9458664 144 West 41h St. • Rifle, Colo. 81650 • 303-625-2740 GARFIELD COUNTY COLORADO .A parcel of land situated in the W101, Section 16, and the E2 and the ElINW1/4, Section 17, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, said parcel being described as follows: Beginning at the North One Quarter Corner of said Section 17; thence S. 88°27'08" E. 2628.30 feet along the common line between Sections 17 and 8 to the Section Corner common to Sections 8, 9, 16, and 17- thence S. 88°34'23" E. 1389.68 feet along the common line between Sections 16 and 9 to the Northeast corner of the W1W1 of said Section 16; thence S. 00°25'34" E. 5262.56 feet along the East line of the W1/2W2 of said Section 16, to the Southeast corner of the W1W1 of said Section 16; thence N. 89°46'51" W. 1351.40 feet along the common line between Sections 16 and 21 to the Section corner common to Sections 16,17, 20, and 21; thence N. 89°29'18" W. 1968.72 feet along the common line between Sections 17 and 20 to a point; thence N. 00°16'37" E,975.42 feet to a point; thence N. 70°00'00" E. 451.11 feet to a point; thence N. 03°17'17" E. 1119.55 feet to a point; thence N. 64°36'35" E. 76.55 feet to a point; thence N. 69° 34'25" E. 49.64 feet to a point; thence S. 86°04'40" E. 48.55 feet to a point in the Westerly right-of-way line of a 60 foot road to be dedicated to Garfield County; thence along the Westerly and Southerly right-of-way line of said road the following courses: N. 43°13'58" W. 170.47 feet; thence 185.01 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 1006.40 feet, the chord of which bears: N. 37°57'59" W. 184.75 feet; thence 306.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 974.20 feet, the chord of which bears: N. 41°43'00" W. 305.36 feet; thence N. 50°54'00" W. 7.16 feet; thence 333.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 265.73 feet, the chord of which bears: N. 14°46'00" W. 312.14 feet; thence 170.94 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 184.77 feet, the chord of which bears: N. 47° 42'15" E. 164.91 feet; thence 459.16 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 370.98 feet, the chord of which bears: N. 38°45'02" E. 430.41 feet; thence N. 03°17'33" E. 71.85 feet; thence 175.84 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 1305.71 feet, the chord of which bears: S. 82°03'29" W. 175.71 feet; thence S. 78°12'00" W. 686.87 feet; thence 178.61 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 447.52 feet, the chord of which bears: S. 89°38'00" W. 177.42 feet; thence 78.87 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 230.68 feet, the chord of which bears: N. 88°43'39" W. 78.48 feet; thence S. 81°28'43" W. 67.84 feet; thence 88.40 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 699.09 feet, the chord of which bears: S. 77°51'22" W. 88.34 feet; thence S. 74°14'00" W. 15.54 feet; thence 47.46 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 49.92 feet, the chord of which bears: S. 47°00'00" W. 45.69 feet; thence 182.79 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 152.89 feet, the chord of which bears: S. 54°01'00" W. 172.09 feet; thence 117.81 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 946.24 feet, the chord of which bears: N. 88°10'00" W 117.73 feet; thence 136.57 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 121.00 feet, the chord of which bears: N. 52°16'00" W. 129.43 feet; thence 120.56 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 201.39 feet, the chord of which bears: N. 02°47'00" W. 118.77 feet; thence 146.47 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a Robert A. Wc,msley Cary S. Berschauer Dennis 0. Bradley LeRoy E. Tobler Martin S. Oldford Raymond 1. Baldwin Robert D. Scarrow - Special Consultant 7456 West 5th A.e. Denver, Colo. 80226 303/232.6050 ,rr -67Ati4)_ t • Garfield County Colorado Page 2 of 2 radius of 268.40 Xeet, the chord of which bears: N. 30°00'00" E. 144.66 feet; thence 74.73 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 104.09 feet, the chord of which bears: N. 25°04'00" E. 73.13 feet; thence N. 04°30'00" E. 8.97 feet; thence 205.71 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 392.88 feet, the chord of which bears: N. 10°30'00" W. 203.37 feet; thence N. 25°30'00" W. 14.84 feet; thence 167.73 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 1337.41 feet, the chord of which bears: N. 21°54'26" W. 167.62 feet; thence N. 18°18'52" W. 170.36 feet; thence 75.09 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 77.08 feet, the chord of which bears: N. 46°13'26" W. 72.16 feet; thence across said road N. 16°06'10" E. 62.26 feet to a point on the Easterly side of said road; thence N. 58°09'19" E. 579.73 feet to a point; thence N. 00°11'40" W. 709.50 feet, more or less to the point of beginning. The above described parcel of land contains 419.88 acres, more or less. SCARROW AND WALKER/KKBNA, INC. 204 8TH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO SCARROW & WALKER / K.K.B.N.A., Inc. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HL'mL.TH Water Pollution Control Commission 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Adopted: February 9, 1971 Effective Date: May 1, 1971 RULES FOR SITE LOCATION APPROVAL OF SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS I. AUTHORITY: A. Chapter 66-28-1, 5(e), 8 and 13, CRS 1963 (1967 Suppl.) as amended by Colorado Session Laws 1970. B. Chapter 66-28-13 of the law provides that the Commission must approve all domestic waste treatment facility site locations. C. Chapter 66-2-6 requires organized local, county, and district health departments to enforce the rules and regulations of the Water Pollu- tion Control Commission. II. DECLARATION OF POLICY: Inasmuch as a septic tank is a facility for domestic sewage treatment& and as such is a potential source of water pollution, the Colorado Water Pollution Control Commission declares the following policy which shall be considered in reviewing site location applications: A. The septic tank -absorption system sewage treatment method depends upon the soil for bacterial removal after solids from raw sewage are partially decomposed and settled within the tank. The absorption system is therefore the key part of the treatment system and not merely a point of liquid disposal. Soil capacity for removing bacteria and virus is poorly understood but experience has shown that its capacity is limited. Therefore, ample area and volume of soil treatment space should be allowed in order to provide a factor of safety. B. Septic tank systems in areas where residence density is low can give acceptable service if they are properly designed, carefully construc- ted and maintained. Even in such situations, absorption systems must be at a considerable distance from the domestic water supply wells, springs or surface streams. Since the distance that pollution will travel underground depends upon numerous factors including character- istics of the subsoil formations and the quantity of sewage discharges, it is not practical to specify minimum distances that would be rea- sonable in all localities. Ordinarily, the greater the distance, the greater will be the safety provided. 1 COLORADO WATER POLLUTION C NTROL COMMISSION Rules For Site Location Approval of Septic Tank Systems i. C. Where residency density is high, the septic tank system cannot be certain to function safely because of the limited soil volume and area available to each absorption system. In such situations, a central treatment facility is a necessity if risk to public health is to be eliminated. D. Current housing trends toward satellite subdivisions, recreation area lodges, mobile home parks, and other concentrations of people in areas not served by central treatment facilities, place unreason- able demands upon the septic tank treatment method. It is clearly unsuitable for such service and other more positive treatment methods are required. Good planning dictates that account be taken of immed- iate disposal method. Every effort should be made to secure public sewer extensions. Where connection to an existing public sewer is not physically or economically feasible and when a considerable number of residences are to be served, consideration should be given next to the construction of a central collection system and treatment plant. The use of septic tanks is the least desirable of several alternatives. If septic tank -absorption systems are used initially, provision should be made for a future central collection and treatment system. Builders and others interested in land development should investigate sewage disposal aspects prior to land acquisition. E. The following table taken from Environmental Health Planning Guide, U.S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare, Public Health Service, compares the economic justification of public sewerage service with various population densities: Population Density Equivalent Lot Size Over 5,000 persons Less than 1/2 acre per square mile 2,500 - 5,000 persons 1/2 to 1 acre per square mile 1,000 - 2,500 persons 1 to 2 acres per square mile Less than 1,000 persons Over 2 acres per square mile Service Economic Justification Public sewerage is justified Public sewerage justified Public sewerage mally justified Public sewerage justified is normally is not nor - is rarely Local characteristics such as topography and subsoil conditions may alter the criteria of the above table which are based on research results for average soil and topographic conditions. 2 ** ** ** The following relied Engineer's Summary by Scar ow111 end Walker, Geology Report by Lincoln DeVore, and a Preliminary Plan of Panorama Ranches Colorado Department of Health 4210 East llth Denver, Colorado 80220 Colorado Geological Survey Department of Natural Resources 254 Columbine Bldg. 1845 Sherman Denver, Colorado 80203 Division of Water Resources Office of the State Engineer Department of Natural Resources 300 Columbine Bldg. 1845 Sherman Denver, Colorado 80203 * Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District P.O. Box 1302 Glenwood Springs ** Division of Wildlife Department of Natural Resources 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 * The Holy Cross Electrical Association 1301 Grand Glenwood Springs * Roaring Fork School District RE -1 P.O. Box 820 Glenwood * Garfield County Health Department ** * Delivered by Hand ** Delivered by Mail (Certified) On Sept. 21st, 1976, another set of the above stated materials was sent to Colorado Geological Survey per their request of letter received 9-20-76. by Certified Mail. 2014 BLAKE AVENUE GARFIELD COUNTY • DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 PHONE 945-7255 January 8, 1976 Mr. Hugh L. Graham SCARROW & WALKER 240 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Graham: Having reviewed your plans and specifications for the I.S.D.S. systems proposed for the Panorama Ranches Subdivision, I find them to be not only acceptable under State and County regulations, but substantially better than required. As I explained to you initially, the majority of the sites will legally qualify for standard septic tank leach field systems; however, I am pleased to note that you have taken substantial additional precautions to avoid any possible reasonable concerns about potential pollution. Your plans for conditions A-E typify the best available practice for sewage disposal under those circumstances, and very clearly set forth the specific engineered safeguards which will be required in each of the five proposed situa- tions. Therefore, these plans and specifications are hereby approvea for installation in Panorama Ranches provided the subdivision meets all other requirements and provided that individual conditions be determined prior to the issuance of an I.S.D.S. Permit for one of your five proposed systems. If we can be of any additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT ,;//,��� Lamont L. Kinkade, R.P.S. Director LLK/tls cc: Robert Witkowski W. C. Milner John Wix Planning & Zoningi— Soil Conservation Service REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT Robert Witkowski nirector of Planning xarfield County Planninq Commission Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Tear Sir: GARFIELD CO. PLAICER '3E1 3E3E 1E1 IV 30 30 3E:1_ 3' AL LA 15r. BOX 1052 303/927-3942 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 January 2, 1976 The enclosed check for .2,200.00 is for the subdivision review fee for the preliminary plan of Panorama Ranches, the plats and required supplemental data of which were delivered to you this date by Mr. Larry Graham, engineer. The fee was computed at 2100.00 plus .5.00 for each of the 1120 acres within the subdivision. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely - John T^rix, President xc: Larry Graham, Scarrow Rc Associates, Glenwood Springs 1'% PANORAMA RANCHES January 24, 1975 Obvious soil erosion problems presently visible. Access onto County Road 100 from development. • RANORAMA RANCHES January 24, 1975 Sign showing lots for sale 6,to 30 acres at Gate of proposed development. 1 THE LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY MEMBER A.S.T.M. A. S. C. E. CEC ACI 1Soil Testing 1 Foundation Evaluation 1 Materials Tests .on trete 1tch Design Asphalt Mix IDesign Geologic Interpretation 'Groundwater Hydrology 1 by Registered Professional Engineers 'Geologists Colorado Springs, Colorado Pueblo, Colorado Rock Springs, Wyoming len wood Springs 1 1 1 Montrose Gunnison. Colorado George D. Morris, HE. 1000 W. Fillmorn Colorado Springs, Colorado 303-632-3593 December Mr. John Wix Thunder River Realty Post Office Box 1052 Basalt, Colorado 81621 Dear Mr. Wix; Transmitted P;,I> .ewa_ :'i ..re .ports concerning the characteristics of a proposed v<<Ibdiv sion in Garfield County, Colorado, to be known as Panorama Ranches. Included is a general and engineering geology and hydrogeology report, prepared in accordance with the provisions of Colorado Senate Bill 35 (30-28-133 C R.S. 1973 et seq.; and the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, and a soils engineering report which contains detailed information concerning on-site soils and specific design recommendations. Very truly yours, THE LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY ichard N. Morris Geologist Joseph R. Infasc 11i, Prof, Geologist Mi3'iael T. Weaver, Geologist Kenneth L^. Myets Geolo, cal ngineer Cid eo •e Morris, P. E. State of Colorado 2051 LDTL Job No, 13013, GS -178 ABSTRACT: Personnel of this Laboratory have com- pleted investigations of a proposed subdivision in Garfield County, Colorado, to be known as PANORAMA RANCHES. This property may be described as portions of the E 2NW4 as well as the E2 of Section 17, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M., and contains about 454 acres. We are informed that the tct is to be divided into between 50 and 60 lots of not less than 5 acres each. The property is to be used for single-family residential purposes, with group well water supply systems and individual sewage disposal systems. The investigations were to determine the geological, hydrogeologica.., and soils characteristics of the proposed subdivision as they relat to the planning and development of the site This report was authorized by Mr. John Wix of Thunder River Realty. Geologically, the site lies on a basalt plateau which overlies soluble rocks of the Eagle Valley Evaporite, and which is, in turn, overlain by prehistoric slope failure and stream wash deposits. The geology presents no serious engineering problems, although some minor problems do exist in some restricted areas. These include minor slope instability, swelling soils, steep slopes, shallow rock, and erosion susceptibility. This entire part of Colorado also is subject to a certain degree of seismic risk. Although available information about groundwater characteristics in the basalt aquifer is inadequate, there is in all probability suffi- cient groundwater to supply the subdivision without materially damaging existing wells. Some work apparently needs to be done to establish the legal use of the groundwater on this site. Sewage may successfully be disposed of in individual septic systems. In most areas these may be conventional septic tanks and leaching although some areas may require forced -aeration tanks and evapo- transprration fields. It is assumed that the great majority of the structures to be Located on this site will consist of single- family residential units of one to three stories having foundation loads of light to moderate magnitude It is apparent from sampling and testing results that a shallow foundation system will be suitab) for all single-family residential structures. Depending upon the exact magnitude and nature of the loads involved and the properties of the foundation soils, the shallow foundation system could consist of either a spread footing foundation, a narrow or no footing foun- dation or a voided stem wall design for bearing walls in conjunction with isolated spread footing pads under columns. Foundation pres- sures should be balanced to within, plus or minus, 500 psf for bearing walls and, plus or minus, 300 psf for columns. All foun- dations should be located a minimum depth of 4.5 feet, or greater ii I, GENERAL & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY & HYDROGEOLOGY INTRODUCTION: Personnel of the Laboratory have completed an investigation of the proposed Panorama Ranches subdivision for the purpose of determining the geologic and hydrogc logic properties of the tract as they affect engineering and environmental considers ions. The methods employed in this investigation included field mappin ., inspection of test borings and test pits, interpretation of laboratory tests, air photo interpretation, and a review of the geologic literature. Physiographically, the proposed subdivision lies within the valley of the Roaring Fork River; to be more specific, it is on a plateau -like feature which is north of, and about 1000 feet higher than, the river itself. Although the rather deep, incised channel of Cattle Creek is found less than 1/2 mile northwest of the proposed subdivision, the entire tract drains to the west and south into an unnamed intermittent stream which runs into the Roaring Fork, more than 3 miles to the south. Landforms within the subdivision include a relatively flat central valley; a basalt plateau terrane, including low hills and a few steep knobs, in the southern part of the property; and a region of moderately high and relatively smooth hills to the north and east. Slopes range from as little as 2% to as much as 14% in the valley, from as little as 6% to as much as 35% 36 in the basalt hills, and from as little as 5% to as much as 26% in the northern hills. -1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Weather records dating back to before the First World War are available for Glenwood Springs. Mean monthly temperatures range from an average low of about 25°F in January to an average high of about 71°F in August. Mean monthly precipitation figures are quite uniform throughout the year, ranging from about 1.2 inches in June and November to about 1.8 inches in January and 1.9 inches in April, for an average annual total of about 18 inches. In the vicinity of the proposed subdivision, temperatures are expected to be somewhat lower, and precipitation somewhat higher, than in Glenwood Springs. Published estimates of precipitation in the subdivision area indicate mean annual precipitation of about 20 inches, of which about 60% falls primarily as snow between October and April, with the remainder falling primarily as rain between May and September. Vegetation on the site consists largely of big sage- brush (Artemisia tridentata) and various varieties of native grasses and herbaceous plants. Prominent among the animal species present are mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)and pronghorn "antelope" (Antilocapra americana). This land has previously been used for grazing purposes. -2- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GENERAL GEOLOGY: The proposed Panorama Ranches subdivision lies in a geologic setting characterized by a sequence of relatively young (Cenezoic) basaltic lava flows overlying a thick interval of rather old (Paleozoic) evaporite rocks, composed principally of gypsum. This combination of resistant basalt cap and underlying water-soluble gypsum has resulted in many interesting structural features of the site, including mass subsidence, natural stream diversion, and dis- tortion of the basalt surface. In very recent times, the subdivision area was subjected to the deposition of stream alluvium and the accumulation of a large pile of mudflow and erosional debris derived from volcanic highlands to the east. For the purposes of this report, the Eagle Valley Evaporite formation will be considered the ultimate bedrock underlying the site. This formation was deposited during the middle Pennsylvanian period (approximately 295 to 280 million years before the present), when this part of Colorado was a shallow arm of a sea lying between two ancient highland areas - the Frontrange uplift to the northeast, and the Uncompaghre uplift to the southwest. At that time, this part of the world apparently was subject to an arid or semiarid climate; this climate, when combined with the shallow and somewhat isolated nature of the sea arm in the Eagle Basin (as it is termed), was conducive to the precipitation of large quaitities of evaporite minerals within the sea. These minerals included halite (rock salt), gypsum, and anhydrite (dessicated gypsum). Furthermore, -3- the occasional heavy downpours of rain characteristic of this sort of climate - prehistoric cloudbursts - resulted into the influx of large quantities of mud into the sea at intervals. There thus developed a bed of alternating layers of water-soluble minerals and mudstones at the bottom of the ancient sea. With the passage of time, the Eagle Basin deepened as a result of both tectonic forces (internal forces tending to alter and warp the earth's crust) and local subsidence of the crust under the load of the accumulating evaporites and other sediments. This ultimately resulted in the deposition of a considerable thickness of the Eagle Valley Evaporite in central Colorado. As the period of Eagle Valley deposition ended, the Pennsylvanian sea gradually disappeared as it was filled in by vast quantities of sediment eroded from the two uplifts. This process, obviously, also led to the ultimate disappearance of the uplifts as topographic highlands° For most of the next 210 million years, the area was a low relief surface existing near sea level. Climatic conditions varied from desert -like to tropical over time; the entire region was also under water again for roughly the last 20 million years of the longer interval. By approximately 70 million years ago (in the late Cretaceous period), the last of the seas was withdrawing, leaving behind a thickness of sedimentary rock some 15,000 feet thick which covered the old uplifts and the former Eagle Basin. -4- At that time, there occurred the rapid series of uplifts and mountain -building processes known as the Laramide orogeny. Within the space of a few million years there arose the ancestors of the modern Southern Rocky Mountains. Although erosion soon caused these Laramide mountains to disappear under their own debris, their structural roots remained. The Southern Rockies existed as a series of gentle highlands at an elevation of around 6000 feet above sea level for nearly 50 million years; during this period the area was subjected to numerous climatic changes, episodes of erosion and deposition, and considerable volcanic activity. Beginning about 10 million years ago, however, the Southern Rockies were again uplifted to form what would evolve into the present-day mountains. Concurrently, there was established what is essentially the modern Colorado River system, including the Roaring Fork River. These streams rapidly eroded their,present valleys into the mountains, and all subsequent geologic history has involved little more than modifications of the physiography established at this time. With the cutting of the Roaring Fork valley, the Eagle Valley Evaporite was once again exposed at the ground surface. It is a characteristic of evaporite formations that they are subject to plastic flow under load. That is, they will very slowly flow like a viscous liquid when they are placed under pressure° As long as the Eagle Valley Evaporite was confined under the fairly uniform loading of the thick sedimentary rock beds, it was unable to deform appreciably° When valley -cutting processes -5- unloaded portions of the Evaporate, h.wever, it began to "squeeze" out from beneath the heavier hills and mountains, the valleys. As a result of this movement valleys, great bulges, or diapirs, of gypsum, formed in the valleys, pushing the valley floors upwards. This pro- cess was aided by chemical changes within the evaporite minerals which tended to cause them to expand in volume. The largest such diapir, the so-called Cattle Creek Anticline, has its crest in the Roaring Fork valley about 6-1/2 miles west of the proposed subdivision. Uplift in the diapir has tended to counteract the effects of erosion in the river bed, so that the Roaring Fork valley is now only about 1000 feet deeper than it was 8 million years ago. This should be compared to the nearly 2000 feet of valley cutting which occurred in the preceding 2 million years. A pronounced degree of volcanic activity also took place in the Roaring Fork Valley at about this same time. Active volcanism had characterized this part of Colorado since about 24 million years before the present; however, the activity in the immediate area of the proposed subdivision is considerably younger. About 8-3/4 million years ago, a series of basaltic eruptions rapidly of and slowly flow towards Evaporite towards the halite, and mudstone built a sizeable shield volcano 6-1/2 miles to the southeast of of eruptions was followed about (now known as Basalt Mountain) about Panorama Ranches. This sequence 1/2 million years later by another series of basalt flow which poured Roaring Fork itself. onto the valley floor of the The proposed subdivision rests upon the plateau formed by these flows, which directly overlie the Eagle Valley -6- Evaporite on the east flank of the Cattle Creek Anticline. Although other small-scale volcanic episodes have occurred in this part of Colorado since the time of the low-level Roaring Fork flows (indeed, minor activity has continued until very recent times), none of these affect the proposed subdivision. Also associated with the uplift of the Southern Rocky Mountains are extensive folding and faulting of rock beds. The dominant structural feature of the area is the Grand Hogback monocline (upward fold in the rock beds) which can be seen as a succession of high, parallel ridges beginning about 7 miles southwest of the site. This marks the upward folding of the sedi- mentary rocks where they went over the rising Sawatch Range during the Laramide orogeny. The succession of sedimentary formations exposed in the Grand Hogback is encountered again some 7 miles to the east of the site, in the vicinity of Red Table Mountain, This repetition is the result of vertical movement along the major Red Table Mountain Fault, which is to be found approximately 3 miles east of the proposed subdivision. This fault, together with the sizeable Castle Creek Fault system (which joins the Red Table Moun- tain Fault northwest of the town of Basalt), constitute a major structural feature along which awesome displacements and deformation have occurred in the geologic past. The two faults are believed to be relatively inactive at the present time, although some movement is probably occurring in parts of the Castle Creek system in the Aspen area. -7- The modern landscape of the subdivision itself is a product of events which have occurred within the last 1 to 3 million years. This period includes the Pleistocene glacial periods (or "Ice Ages"), in which the Southern Rockies possessed a climate which was at once both cooler and damper than at present. At the beginning of this period of time, the basalt flows probably formed the valley bottom, with the Roaring Fork River itself flowing northward in a more -or -less incised channel. Floodplain and valley - fill deposits, consisting of layers of sand and gravel topped by other layers of silt and clay, had been deposited as a thin veneer over the fiat basalt surfaces by the Roaring Fork and its tributaries; this depositional process had begun immediately after the formation of the lava flows and continued at varying rates through the Pleisto- cene and into modern times. It is theorized that, at that time, Cattle Creek flowed to the south through the site of the proposed subdivision, and that another, smaller stream occupied the lower parts of the alignment now held by Cattle Creek° This theory is supported by the fact that Cattle Creek now makes an abrupt 90° bend (from southward to westward) into its current canyon at a point just north of the subdivision, and by the fact that the small intermittent stream which now drains the subdivision area seems to occupy a paleochannel which must have been formed by a rather larger, southward flowing stream at some time in the past. In the early Pleistocene, extensive land - sliding and erosion occurred on the slopes of Basalt Mountain. Part -8- of this activity involved the accumulation of extensive debris flow and mudflow deposits west of the mountain, extending across the area around the present-day Missouri Heights Reservoir and into the sub- division itself, The badly eroded remains of these deposits now form the hills in the northern and eastern parts of the subdivision. The presence of weathered and rounded cobbles of Dakota and Maroon sandstones suggest that deposition of materials transported by Cattle Creek also occurred in the lower parts of this debris flow/ mudflow landform. It appears that the old channel of Cattle Creek was eventually dammed by the flows, forming a small lake; furthermore, numerous small ponds were formed on the rough topography of the flows themselves. The larger body of water accumulated some alluvial deposits derived from Cattle Creek, while both the lake and the smaller ponds received quantities of air -borne ash derived from the local volcanic activity which was still ongoing in the area, After a relatively short period of time, the Cattle Creek drainage was "captured" by the smaller, westward -flowing stream, assuming its present-day course, Many of the physiographic features of the area are related to the peculiar interaction of the basalt and the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite, As a rule, the basalt tends to be rather porous: water can flow through it fairly easily, and it is, in fact, a significant local aquifer (bed supplying water to wells), When groundwater within the basalt comes into contact with the underlying soluble evaporites, some of the Eagle Valley material -9- dissolves and is carried away by the water. This leaves a void or cavity immediately under the basalt. Typically, the basalt mass will then slowly subside, or break and deform downwards, until the void is filled. This results in the formation of a hummocky, hill- and-depression (or "broken-dinnerware") surface on the basaIt. Such topography is very easily distinguishable along the abandoned pale- valley of Cattle Creek south of the proposed subdivision. Addition- ally, the field investigations carried out for this project indicate that a similar depression may exist beneath the recent debris flow/ mudflow deposit in the northern part of the subdivision itself, although the information obtained is far from conclusive in this regard. If such a depression does exist at this point, it is pro- bable that subsidence was accelerated by the effect of the additional weight of the flow deposit. It seems likely that solution along the line of the paleovalley was induced by the underflow of groundwater associated with Cattle Creek during the time in which the valley was occupied by that stream. It also is possible that the solution process is continuing at a very slow rate by means of groundwater which leaves the Cattle Creek underflow near the right-angle bend north of the subdivision and continues underground along the old alignment. There is evidence that subsurface water movement of this type has played an important role in the development of the Cattle Creek canyon just to the northwest of the proposed subdivision. The Panorama Ranches area has undergone only a little change since the Pleistocene. After the mudflow -10- deposition and stream diversion/subsidence processes had left their main mark upon the terrain, it remained only for the processes of erosion and associated minor deposition of sediments to bring the land to its current geological condition. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY: From the standpoint of engineering geology, there are no truly major problems or hazards associated with the proposed Panorama Ranches subdivision. A number of less -serious geologic problems do exist at various points within the tract; these should be given consideration in the design and planning of the development. Included among these minor hazards are such things as minor slope instability, some swelling soils, locally steep slopes and shallow bedrock, and susceptibility to accelerated erosion. These hazards are discussed in some detail in this section of the report; additionally, detailed information on soils characteristics is given in the accompanying soils report. Although the geologic history of the pro- posed subdivision contains ample evidence of past instability of slopes (specifically, the large mass of debris flow and mudflow material mapped in the north part of the site), the investigations conducted by the Laboratory indicate that, under present-day con- ditions, almost all slopes within the subdivision may be considered as being relatively stable. The old mudflows and debris flows occurred under climatic conditions which were rather cooler and much damper -11- than those which currently prevail. Additionally, they originated high on the steep slopes of a mountain composed of inherently unstable volcanic rocks. At the present time, these materials appear to be well consolidated, adequately drained, and quite stable. The stability of these materails, together with many of the other soils on the site, is greatly enhanced by the presence of caliche in the lower soil hori- zons. Caliche is a deposit of calcium carbonate which has been formed in the soil by the evaporation of groundwater containing that mineral. At many places within the subdivision, the caliche zones have the appearance and characteristics of a weak, massive limestone bed. In general, it can be said that no problems will be experienced with instability on natural slopes. Additionally, low cut slopes (such as those constructed for light building foundations) will not require any specific design precautions. Medium to high cut slopes, although not expected to demonstrate any marked instability, should be reviewed by a qualified engineer prior to construction. An exception to the general statements just made regarding slope stability is the deposit of high -plasticity clay found near the center of the subdivision. An existing road cut in this soil currently exhibits some small, flow -like slope failures, this despite the fact that the cut slope is laid back to a moderate angle. The characteristics of this clay are described in the soils :report, and will not be repeated here. The general statement will be made, however, that even low cuts having gentle to moderate slopes may be susceptible to failure by flowage in this soil. Cuts should, -12- t: crefore, be avoided in these zones. it should also be mentioned that this soil, although encountered in only one area during this investigation, probably represents clay derived from volcanic ash deposited in ponds or marshes, and that other small pockets may exist on the site. The material can be recognized by its red -brown appear- ance, extreme fineness of grain, "greasy" feel, and very high plasti- city (i.e. it can be easily molded by the fingers). If more of this material is encountered, it should be treated with the same care as the original deposit. Reference has been made in the "General Geology" section of this report to the existence of mass subsidence in the area due to the solution of evaporite minerals underlying the basalt by groundwater. It is our opinion that the solution and subsidence is an ongoing process, and that it is probably currently taking place beneath the subdivision itself. Since this is, however, a mass subsidence phenomenon, it is highly unlikely that it will cause any problems whatever for the proposed development. A rather large aLea is subsiding at a relatively uniform, slow rate, and there is none of the rapid differential movement which is damaging to man- made structures. There will, in all probability, be no noticeable effects accruing from the subsidence, and it need not be considered in either design or planning. Sudden collapse or sinkhole activity is not at all likely in this area. Certain areas within the proposed sub- division contain soils with varying degrees of shrink -swell potential. -13- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The clay minerals within these soils have a tendency to take up water, and to expand in volume when they do so. This expansion can have damaging effects on homes, sidewalks, and other structures, particularly on lightly loaded structures. Differential expansion within the soils can cause cracking and shifting in both structural and non-structural members. Swelling soils are found in many parts of Colorado, and several techniques have been developed for dealing with the problem of avoiding damage in structures placed upon these soils. If the proper design precautions are taken, there is no reason why the presence of these swelling soils should impose any particular limitation on design of *,.he property. Detailed information and design recommendations for these soils are given in the soils report. It is recommended that the buyers of lots within the proposed subdivision be made aware of this soils information (as well as with the remainder of this report) and that some program of inspection and approval be instituted to insure that the foundations for any buildings constructed within the subdivision are properly designed and built so as to prevent damage to the structure. It is also recommended that, if the subdivision roads are to be paved with asphalt, concrete, or some other relatively rigid pavement, some type of subgrade test (such as the Hveem-Carmany test) be performed on the various affected soil types to determine the proper design thicknesses of pavement for a stable roadway, Finally, in those areas in which soil expansion is likely to :de signi- ficant, particular attention should be given to the control of lawn and garden irrigation, septic system effluents, storm runoff, and all -14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 other factors which would tend to introduce water into the soil near building foundations. Generally speaking, the areas in which these expansive soils occur are rather limited, and are delineated on the hazards and soils maps accompanying this report° Limited areas within the subdivision are characterized by relatively steep slopes and shallow depths to bedrock. Steep slopes and shallow rock are considered as problems not because they represent severe land use constraints, but rather because they tend to aggravate difficulties in the actual construction and main- tenance of buildings and other man-made commonly associated with such things as slope instability (including minor soil features. Steep slopes are increased susceptibility to creep of surface soils), a tendency towards higher erosion rates, and drainage problems (both surface and subsurface). In this last regard, particular notice should be given to septic system leaching fields, in which percolation of effluent sometimes proceeds imperfectly on steep slopes. r some- what arbitrary value of 20% slope has been used to define the steep slopes shown on the hazards map attached to this report. Shallow bedrock principally affects excavation for foundations, utility lines, and the like; it: also affects the performance of septic system leaching fields. For the purposes of this report, the cutoff level of 10 feet to rock (established by Colorado law for leaching fields) is used to define shallow bedrock. In a few cases, the bedrock in question is basalt; in most cases, however, the most extensive and tightly -cemented caliche beds are considered to be the "rock". It is -15- usually possible to excavate the caliche beds with some effort by the use of light power equipment (i.e. smaller-size backhoes and the like) ; heavier equipment may remove the caliche with correspondingly greater ease. The basalt may sometimes be cut by medium- to heavy-duty equip— ment, but often requires blasting. This is especially true as exca- vation proceeds below the uppermost weathered zone of the rock. In no case do the slopes and rock elevations encountered within this pro- posed subdivision stand as an absolute restriction upon the development of residential lots, Homes can indeed be built in these areas; indeed, these locations are often deemed most desirable from aesthetic c.-i- siderations, It must be emphasized, however, that homes and facilities constructed in these zones may require special design as well as con- siderable care .in both construction and maintenance, and that they will generally be more expensive than comparable structures in other zones. The last geologic hazard of real consequence involves the accelerated and uncontrolled erosion of soils from the site. Such erosion can occur in two forms: sheet erosion (caused by wind, mainly, and secondarily, by sheetwash storm runoff and splashing of raindrops), and gully erosion (caused by running water concentrated into channels) Accelerated sheet erosion is usually induced when the land is stripped of its natural vegetative cover and thereby ex- posed to the elements. Both the prevention and the cure are obvious. Areas within the subdivision should not be cleared unnecessarily, and surface disturbance by such things as construction machinery (for example) should be kept to an absolute minimum. Areas which are -16- courage deposition of sediment; (b) grading gully walls to a stable angle to prevent excessive slumping and erosion; (c) contourir slopes immediately above the gully head and walls to decrease the quantity of water entering the gully; and (d) planting both temporary and permanent ground cover vegetation within the gully to complete the stabilization process. Check dam construction materials should be brush, branches, and miscellaneous debris native to the area; revegetation plantings should always be composed of native species, It must be remembered that revegetation of any type of disturbed ground in this environment will require several years, some effort, and a certain amount of applied water. It is recommended that the subdivision covenants be written to require revegetation, and that landowners be actively encouraged to seek the assistance of such agencies as the Soil Conservation Service and the Colorado State University Extension Services Other geologic factors of concern in sub- division planning are as follows: --F°LOODWAYS. There are no streams of any size passing either through or adjacent to the proposed subdivision. All surface drainage is via gullies, swales, and small valleys, none of which drains a significant area or possesses a continuously flowing stream. Con- sequently, flood hazards are minimal. As long as the common-sense precaution is taken of keeping structures out of the gullies and valley bottoms proper, there will be no true danger due to flooding on the site. This, of course, does not eliminate the necessity of -18- planning and constructing appropriate subdivision and lot drainage systems, greenbelts, and the like. --RADIATION HAZARDS. There does not appear to be any measurable radiation hazard associated with this proposed subdivision and its surroundings. No deposits of radioactive minerals have ever been prospected in this area, and neither the Eagle Valley Evaporite nor the various volcanic and volcanic -derived material would be expected to contain such minerals. Most radioactive minerals in this part of Colorado are associated with localized deposits in the Entrada and Morrison Formations, the closest such known deposit being located some 34 miles to the northwest, near Rifle. Rocks of both formations do outcrop in the headwaters of Cattle Creek, some 9 miles to the east, and there is a possibility that alluvial deposits derived in part from them may be present within the subdivision. However, con- sidering the low probability of a radioactive zone being present in the rocks themselves, and the wide dispersion and dilution of the alluvium derived from them, the probability of significant radiation, hazard is vanishingly small. --SEISMIC RISK. As mentioned in the "General Geology" section of this report, the subdivision area is influenced by both the Red Table Mountain and the Castle Creek fault systems; additionally, there are numerous small faults throughout the Roaring Fork drainage as well as many large faults in the White River Uplift north of Glenwood Springs. All of these faults are considered as being rela- tively inactive, there being no known instances of large-scale -19- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 movement Along them within at least the last 10,000 years or so. There is thus very little chance of a major earthquake taking place in the foreseeable future. However, there is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that minor movement is presently occurring along some of these faults. This evidence consists mainly of a continuing record of mild earth tremors, centering around the White River Uplift to the north, and the Aspen area (Elk Mountains) to the south. Mine observations within the Aspen mining district in the last century suggested that measurable creep was taking place along some faults of the Castle Creek system. The area is, thus, not entirely free from seismic activity. Judging by the historical record, shocks with Modified Mercalli intensities as high as VI or VII (roughly equivalent to Richter magnitude 5) may be anticipated within the expected life of the subdivision. This type of shock lies on the borderline of being slightly damaging to structures. It must be emphasized that this hazard is a regional one, and pertains to this entire part of western Colorado. The hazard is in no way peculiar to, or more serious within, the subdivision areae In the absence of more precise information concerning potential ground accelerations, it is recom- mended that all structures built on this subdivision be designed in accordance with the provisions of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code for seismic risk zone 2. --MINERAL RESOURCES. It is our opinion that no economic mineral resources are to be found on, under, or near the proposed subdivision, The Eagle Valley Evaporite contains large quantities of gypsum and -20- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 some other industrial minerals; however, the deposits are much too impure to be profitably worked at the present time. If, at some time in the future, deposits similar in grade to the Eagle Valley Evaporite were to become economic, the subdivision area would be one of the last to be mined, due to the substantial thickness of basaltic and unconsolidated overburden which is found here. The basalt itself is of no known economic value. Certain of the surface deposits contain quantities of sand and gravel. However, the material is quite "dirty", and is probably unacceptable as to quality due to the high proportion of soft and reactive sedimentary and basaltic aggre- gates within it. There does not appear to be any deposit on the site which could be profitably extracted within the life of the subdivision. -21- HYDROGEOLOGY & WATER SUPPLY: The Laboratory has been informed that for purposes of water supply, the proposed subdivision will be divided into groups of several houses, and that each group will be served by a well and storage tank. All water will be derived from the basalt aquifer, and it is our opinion that this aquifer can adequately supply the needs of the proposed subdivision. The wells planned for the site will fall under the system of water rights and appropriations established by Colorado law, and steps must be taken to establish the legal utilization of the water. As explained to Laboratory personnel, it is planned to drill one well for every group of (approximately) 5 to 7 houses, and to equip each well with a pressure tank from which those houses will be supplied with domestic water. This implies that as many as ten wells will be constructed within the subdivision. Using the FHA rule -of -thumb that a typical residence requires a one gallon -per -minute well, it can be seen that the proposed wells will each have to consistently produce 5 to 7 gallons per minute. As neither the overlying surficial deposits or the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite are of any value as aquifers, all water for the proposed subdivision will have to be takenfrom the basalt flows. This basalt aquifer is currently tapped by 12 recorded wells in Section 17 and the adjoining sections; these wells are listed on the next page. -22- SUMMARY OF WELLS LOCATED NEAR THE PANORAMA RANCHES SUBDIVISION: (Data taken from well records of Colo. Wtr. Cons. Board) Depth Depth Yield of well to water (ft.) (ft.) (gpm) Owner/Permit No./Location Delbert Lawrence 5-23-048977 15 SE4SW4 Sec. 7, T7S, R87W 345 Mike Strang 5-23-031600 SW4SW4 Seco 17, T7S, R87W John Macky 5-23-036583 NW4NE4 Sec. 18, T7S, R87W Edna V. Vesterby 5-23-037300 NW4NE4 Sec. 18, T7S, R87W Shelagh Murphy 5-23-068903 NW4NW4 Sec. 18, T7S, R87W D. Sanders 5-23-012969 NW4NW4 Seco 18, T7S, R87W Fred R. Jones, Jr. 5-23-006622 SE4SW4 Sec. 18, T7S, R87W Bob Schenck 5-23-023996 NW4NW4 Seco 19, T7S, R87W W.E. McCormick 5-23-005323 SE4NW4 Seco 19, T7S, R87W Courtland Barnes 5-23-017473 5W4SW4 Sec. 19, T7S, R87W Jeff Platt 5-23-041657 NE4NE4 Sec. 20, T7S, 87W Vurl Fender 5-23-031601 SW4SW4 Sec. 20, T7S, R87W _91- 160 242 115 20 136 10 245 156 10 290 190 15 188 156 20 195 180 20 120 70 10 222 174 30 192 92 10 127 100 25 270 210 10 cleared or disturbed should Le either built upon, paved, or re --- vegetated as soon as possible. Gully erosion may be initiated by the same causes as sheet erosion; additionally, it may be started in existing drainage ways below road crossing by the use of undersized culverts or bridges. In many cases, an attempt is made to route water in natural drainage ways through hydraulic structures of small cross- sectional area by .increasing the velocity of flow to compensate for the decreased area. However, it is known that the erosive power of running water increases by a factor of about 4 every time the velocity of flow is doubled. This often can result in the formation of a large gully immediately downstream from any such undersized structure within a very short period of time° The use of small -section culverts should thus be strongly discouraged, particularly on the more erodible soils. As a rule, those soils most susceptible to erosion will be silts and fine sands. Erodibility decreases both as soils become more coarse-grained (sands and gravels) due to increasing particle mass, and as soils become finer -grained (clays) due to increasing interparticle cohesion. Within this subdivision, Soil Types NO. 3 through 6 (as defined in the soils report) appear to be the highly erodible soils. Some large gullies have already begun on the site, probably as a combined result of climatic changes and poor grazing practices within the last centruy. These gullies, as well as any new ones which may form should be stabilized by (a) constructing small check dams in the gully bottoms to decrease flow velocities and en- -17- 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 courage deposition of sediment; (b) grading gully walls to a stable angle to prevent excessive slumping and erosion; (c) contouring slopes immediately above the gully head and walls to decrease the quantity of water entering the gully: and (d) planting both temporary and permanent ground cover vegetation within the gully to complete the stabilization process. Check dam construction materials should be brush, branches, and miscellaneous debris native to the area; revegetation plantings should always be composed of native species, It must be remembered that revegetation of any type of disturbed ground in this environment will require several years, some effort, and a certain amount of applied water. It is recommended that the subdivision covenants be written to require revegetation, and that landowners be actively encouraged to seek the assistance of such agencies as the Soil Conservation Service and the Colorado State University Extension Service, Other geologic factors of concern in sub- division planning are as follows: --FL,OODWAYS0 There are no streams of any size passing either through or adjacent to the proposed subdivision. All surface drainage is via gullies, swales, and small valleys, none of which drains a significant area or possesses a continuously flowing stream. Con- sequently, flood hazards are minimal. As long as the common-sense precaution is taken of keeping structures out of the gullies and valley bottoms proper, there will be no true danger due to flooding on the site. This, of course, does not eliminate the necessity of -18- planning and constructing appropriate subdivision and lot drainage systems, greenbelts, and the like, —RADIATION HAZARDS. There does not appear to be any measurable radiation hazard associated with this proposed subdivision and its surroundings, No deposits of radioactive minerals have ever been prospected in this area, and neither the Eagle Valley Evaporite nor the various volcanic and volcanic -derived material would be expected to contain such minerals, Most radioactive minerals in this part of Colorado are associated with localized deposits in the Entrada and Morrison Formations, the closest such known deposit being located some 34 miles to the northwest, near Rifle. Rocks of both formations do outcrop in the headwaters of Cattle Creek, some 9 miles to the east, and there is a possibility that alluvial deposits derived in part from them may be present within the subdivision. However, con- sidering the low probability of a radioactive zone being present in the rocks themselves, and the wide dispersion and dilution of the alluvium derived from them, the probability of significant radiation hazard is vanishingly small. --SEISMIC RISK. As mentioned in the "General Geology" section of this report, the subdivision area is influenced by both the Red Table Mountain and the Castle Creek fault systems; additionally, there are numerous small faults throughout the Roaring Fork drainage as well as many large faults in the White River Uplift north of Glenwood Springs. All of these faults are considered as being rela- tively inactive, there being no known instances of large-scale -19- movement Along them within at least the last 10,000 years or so. There is thus very little chance of a major earthquake taking place in the foreseeable future. However, there is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that minor movement is presently occurring along some of these faults. This evidence consists mainly of a continuing record of mild earth tremors, centering around the White River Uplift to the north, and the Aspen area (Elk Mountains) to the south. Mine observations within the Aspen mining district in the last century suggested that measurable creep was taking place along some faults of the Castle Creek system. The area is, thus, not entirely free from seismic activity. Judging by the historical record, shocks with Modified Mercalli intensities as high as VI or VII (roughly equivalent to Richter magnitude 5) may be anticipated within the expected life of the subdivision. This type of shock lies on the borderline of being slightly damaging to structures. It must be emphasized that this hazard is a regional one, and pertains to this entire part of western Colorado. The hazard is in no way peculiar to, or more serious within, the subdivision area. In the absence of more precise information concerning potentialground accelerations, it is recom- mended that all structures built on this subdivision be designed in accordance with the provisions of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code for seismic risk zone 2. --.MINERAL RESOURCES. It is our opinion that no economic mineral resources are to be found on, under, or near the proposed subdivision. The Eagle Valley Evaporite contains large quantities of gypsum and -20- some other industrial minerals; however, the deposits are much too impure to be profitably worked at the present time. If, at some time in the future, deposits similar in grade to the Eagle Valley Evaporite were to become economic, the subdivision area would be one of the last to be mined, due to the substantial thickness of basaltic and unconsolidated overburden which is found here. The basalt itself is of no known economic value. Certain of the surface deposits contain quantities of sand and gravel. However, the material is quite "dirty", and is probably unacceptable as to quality due to the high proportion of soft and reactive sedimentary and basaltic aggre- gates within it. There does not appear to be any deposit on the site which could be profitably extracted within the life of the subdivision. HYDROGEOLOGY & WATER SUPPLY: The Laboratory has been informed that for purposes of water supply, the proposed subdivision will be divided into groups of several houses, and that each group will be served by a well and storage tank, All water will be derived from the basalt aquifer, and it is our opinion that this aquifer can adequately supply the needs of the proposed subdivision. The wells planned for the site will fall under the system of water rights and appropriations established by Colorado law, and steps must be taken to establish the legal utilization of the water. As explained to Laboratory personnel, it is planned to drill one well for every group of (approximately) 5 to 7 houses, and to equip each well with a pressure tank from which those houses will be supplied with domestic water. This implies that as many as ten wells will be constructed within the subdivision. Using the FHA rule -of -thumb that a typical residence requires a one gallon -per -minute well, it can be seen that the proposed wells will each have to consistently produce 5 to 7 gallons per minute. As neither the overlying surficial deposits or the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite are of any value as aquifers, all water for the proposed subdivision will have to be taken from the basalt flows. This basalt aquifer is currently tapped by 12 recorded wells in Section 17 and the adjoining sections; these wells are listed on the next page. -22- SUMMARY OF WELLS LOCATED NEAR THE PANORAMA RANCHES SUBDIVISION: (Data taken from well records of Colo. Wtr. Cons. Board) Depth Depth Yield of well to water Owner/Permit No./Location (ft.) (ft.) (gpm) Delbert Lawrence 5-23-048977 SE4SW4 Sec. 7, T7S, R87W 345 15 Mike Strang 5-23-031600 SW4SW4 Sec. 17 , T7S, R87W John Macky 5-23-036583 NW4NE4 Sec. 18, T7S, R87W Edna V. Vesterby 5-23-037300 NW4NE4 Sec. 18, T7S, R87W Shelagh Murphy 5-23-068903 NW4NW4 Seco 18, T7S, R87W D. Sanders 5-23-012969 NW4NW4 Seco 18, T7S, R87W Fred R. Jones, Jr. 5-23-006622 SE4SW4 Seco 18, T7S, R87W Bob Schenok 5-23-023996 NW4NW4 Sec. 19, T7S, R87W W.E. McCormick 5-23-005323 SE4NW4 Seco 19, T7S, R87W Courtland Barnes 5-23-017473 SW4SW4 Sec. 19, T7S, R87W Jeff Platt 5-23-041657 NE4NE4 Sec. 20, T7S, 87W Vurl Fender 5-23-031601 SW4SW4 Sec. 20, T7S, R87W 160 115 20 242 136 10 245 156 10 290 190 15 188 156 20 195 180 20 120 70 10 222 174 30 192 92 10 127 100 25 270 210 10 This data seems to indicate the top of the water table is at approxi- mately elevation 7000-7100 feet, and that reported yields in those wells closest to the subdivision are in the range of 20-25 gallons per minute. Very little is actually known about the hydraulic properties of the basalt aquifer. The only test data available in the area consists of the driller's completion reports required by the Colorado Water Conservation Board for all wells. Figures given in these reports often represent no more than the drill- er's estimate of yields and drawdowns, are seldom based on adequate tests, and are prone to be highly variable in reliability. The basalt aquifer is believed to be vesicular (filled with voids and bubbles within the rock) and thus full of interconnected passageways through which water can flow. This lends the rock a very high perme- ability, and permits rapid recharge of the aquifer. Permeability is also enhanced by the presence of boundary zones between flows along which water can flow. Most of the groundwater underlying the subdivision is believed to be derived from Cattle Creek to the north, to flow along a subsurface zone roughly analogous to the paleo- channel of Cattle Creek, and to reach the ground surface along the base of the basalt along the north side of the Roaring Fork valley near the Catherine store. It is possible that the water is under some subartesian pressure. Data for a test well located in the SW4SE4 of Section 21 showed a rise in water level from 300 feet to 240 feet, indicating subartesian characteristics. Further test data -24- from this well indicated that it could be pumped continuously with only a very slight drawdown at a rate of 26 gallons per minute, This result tends to substantiate the assumption of a high permeability for the basalt, Due to the lack of accurate, comprehensive hydraulic data, it is extremely difficult to make any quantitative statements regarding the actual recharge rate and quantities, expected drawdowns, and safe pumping rates. We feel safe in stating that there is sufficient water available to supply the requirements of the pro- posed subdivision, and that withdrawal of the water will not materially damage existing wells in the area. Assuming that 60 homes will be built, that all homes will be occupied year-round by an average of 3,5 persons, and that each person will use an average of 115 gallons of water per day for all purposes, the total annual water requirement of the subdivision will be 8,814,750 gallons, or 27.05 acre-feet. This is equivalent to the yield of a single well pumping 16,8 gallons per minute continuously for that year. Given the admittedly meager data available, it still seems evident that the aquifer can produce this much water without significant damage. No water sample has been made available to the Laboratory for testing as of this writing, However, tests run on a sample from the test well in Section 21 established that the water there met State Health Department standards and was, in fact, of excellent quality, The groundwater underlying Panorama Ranches is not expected to differ greatly in this regard, Due to the depth of the aquifer and to the presence of dry, low- -25- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 permeability surface deposits, pollution of the groundwater supply as a result of surface development is not considered to be a serious problem° No information has been supplied to us relating to the water rights possessed by the developer or the legal arrangements being made to permit use of groundwater on this site. As the proposed wells will each serve several households, they do not fall within the category of "exempt wells" defined in 37-92-602 C.R.S. 1973 et sego, and they will therefore fall under the normal system of groundwater adjudication and use under the doctrine of prior appropriation° It is desirable that each of the proposed wells be so adjudicated so as to establish a water right and a priority date. This, however, will not be enough. As these water rights will necessarily be junior to almost all other rights in the basin, they will be subject to call in all but the wettest years; indeed, it is likely that the State Engineer will not even grant a well permit for a right with such a junior status. It will probably be necessary for the developer to purchase a reliable water right and, using this right, file either an application for a plan of augmentation or an application for a change of water right with the Water Court for Water Division 5o This process will require the services of an attorney skilled in the practice of water law. As these proceedings can be time-consuming, it is advised that the procedure be commenced at the earliest opportunity - if it has not already been started. -26- The importance of maintaining a reliable water supply for all housing units within the subdivision is such that more accurate information is needed before well locations can be selected. We would highly recommend that one or more standard pump- ing/drawdown tests be conducted within the aquifer before development of the groundwater resource is begun. These tests, which involve the drilling, pumping, and monitoring of a test well and one or several observation wells, will provide information on the depths, allowable pumping rates, and drawdown characteristic of wells in this aquifer. The information can then be used to make informed recommendations as to well locations and well operating procedures. It will be highly desirable, from both the standpoint of water law administration and the standpoint of actual groundwater supply, to minimize the consumptive use of ground- water. It is not recommended that the water be used for such things as lawn irrigation (not including irrigation necessary for revegeta- tion of disturbed areas with native plants) or for other non- domestic uses° Furthermore, it is recommended that septic systems on the site return water to the subsurface whenever practical. SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Information supplied to us states that individual sewage disposal systems are proposed for each residence within the subdivision. Such systems are acceptable for use on this site° The Laboratory recommends that forced -aeration systems be used throughout the subdivision, although conventional septic tanks may safely be used in many parts of the tract. Percolation rates are generally slow, although most fall within the limits of acceptability established by the State; standard leaching fields can thus be used over most of the site. Areas with very slow perco- lation rates should be either avoided or adapted to evapotranspiration disposal fields. As is usual with subdivisions of this type, sewage disposal will be accomplished via individual septic systems. We feel that systems of this type may generally be used with safety on this site. Certain limitations will govern the selection of sites for conventional septic tanks and leaching fields. Among these limitations, established by regulation of the State Health Department, are (a) no rock should be found within a depth of 4 feet from the surface; (b) the percolation rate shall not be slower than 60 minutes per inch; and (c) the ground slope shall not exceed 30%. Areas not meeting these standards are identified on the attached hazards map. These areas can be avoided as disposal zones; alternately, evapotranspiration fields can be designed for use within. It should be remembered that evapotranspiration fields will increase the consumptive use of water within the subdivision, -28- Given the depth to the top of the water table and the presence of poorly -permeable surface soils over most of the site, there appears to be very little probability of ground- water pollution arising from sewage disposal systems on this site. It is our opinion that the only locations in which the problem may even remotely exist are the areas in which basalt lies at shallow depths. These are the areas mapped as being basaltic on the geologic map. The possibility of groundwater pollution may be virtually eliminated by the use of forced -aeration treatment tanks instead of the more common septic tank. Forced -aeration tanks provide actual biological treatment to wastes, and produce a high-quality effluent. We would recommend that this type of tank be used at all points within the subdivision; however, conventional septic tanks may be safely used in all parts of the subdivision possessing an adequate soil cover, i.e. all except the basaltic area° fl. SOILS & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING FIELD INVESTIGATION: Fourteen borings were made on the site, located as shown on the soils maps and geologic maps, Borings were advanced by the use of a power -driven, continuous auger, oring No. 1 was drilled to a total depth of 11 feet, Borings No. 5 and 13 were drilled to a depth of 20 feet 7 Boring No. 6 to a depth of 22 feet; Borings No, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11 and 14 to a depth of 25 feet; Borings No, 9 and 12 to a depth of 30 feet, and Boring No. 8 to a depth of 60 feet, Split spoon samples were obtained in all borings beginning at a depth of 3.5 feet and continuing at 5 -foot intervals, or staggered as deemed necessary by our field representative during drilling, until termination of the boring, 2.5 inch, thin-wall, Ihelby tube samples were obtained in a number of the borings to pro- vide undisturbed samples for further laboratory testing. Four test pits were logged by personnel of the Laboratory yielding bulk samples which provided further data on the subsurface soils, A large number of test pits were dug by Scarrow and Walker, Engineers, for the pur- pose of performing percolation tests. These test pits also yielded some data on the subsurface profile. The logs of these test pits have not been included in this report, but are available upon, request. In general, the materials encountered were somewhat erratic, both vertically and horizontally. The southernmost portion of the site contains largely low plasticity silts consisting of caliche deposits which overlie most portion of the site contains the basalt bedrock, The northern- mudflow deposits consisting of silty sands and gravels, also including caliche deposits. In the lowlands -30- of the west central portion of the site is an area containing pre- dominantly low plasticity silts and clays and a small area of high plasticity clays. No free water was encountered in any of the borings on site. Field logs are available for inspection upon request, from our office. LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM: Moisture content (ASTM D 2216) was obtained in the laboratory for all samples. A grain size analysis (ASTM D 422) and determination of the Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 423) were performed on a number of samples for purposes of classification. Swell tests were performed in order to evaluate the swell potential of the various materials. Unconfined compression tests (ASTM D 2166) were performed in order to estimate the shear strength of the various soils. Con- solidation tests (ASTM D 2435) were performed to evaluate the long term consolidation characteristics. A chemical analysis of some of the soils was performed in order to estimate the sulfate content. Results of the Standard Penetration tests (ASTM D 1586) obtained in the field were used as a measure of consistency and relative density of the soils upon which the design of shallow footings for bearing capacity and settlement is based. The results of these Standard Penetration tests are shown on the engineer's logs to the right of each sample point together with the moisture content at that point and the soil type number. -31- DESCRIPTION OF STRATA: As shown by the boring logs, the soils strata can be grouped into nine basic types of material, SOIL TYPE NO. 1: This material is classified as a silty gravel, reddish brown to white in color. It is an alluvial material and may sometimes contain pieces of Dakota Sandstone and Maroon formation, not commonly found in the immediate vicinity of the site. This soil was found to have an allowable bearing capacity of 4000 psf or more and no significant expansive properties. It is abundant in the northernmost portion of the site and, although it may be found at depths less than 5 feet below the ground surface, it is most commonly found at a depthgreater than 5 feet below the present ground surface. SOIL TYPE N0, 2: This material is classified as a clayey sand with approximately 20% gravel, It is also alluvial in nature. It has an allowable bearing capacity of 3500 psf. Clay content of this soil makes it somewhat expansive. A swell test performed on a remolded sample of this material indicated a 3,5% change in height against a pressure of 900 psf with a 16% increase in moisture content. There- fore, a minimum dead load foundation pressure of 900 psf should be maintained for all foundations located on this soil. SOIL TYPE NO. 3: This material is classified as a silty sand, reddish brown in color. It has a typical allowable bearing capacity of 3000 psf and no significant expansive properties. SOIL TYPE NO, 4: This material is also classified as a silty sand. It is very similar to Soil Type No, 3 with a slightly different -32- gradation being predominantly fine grained sand. It has an allowable bearing capacity of 3900 psf and no significant expansive properties. However, it is generally located at such a depth as to not signifi- cantly affect the performance of any shallow foundation systems on this site° SOIL TYPE NO. 5: This material is classified as a sandy, low plasticity silt, red brown or tan to white in color. This soil type is commonly associated with the caliche material discussed as Soil Type No. 7, Its allowable bearing capacity is somewhat variable, ranging from 2500 psf in the vicinity of Test Borings No. 2, 3, 4 and 11 to 4000 psf in the vicinity of Test Borings Noo 1 and 10. It has a very slight tendency toward long term consolidation (1.78% change in height at 4000 psf load). Swell tests performed on a remolded sample of this material indicated a 206% change in height against a pressure of 650 psf with a 12,5% increase in moisture content. Therefore, a minimum dead load foundation pressure of 650 psf should be maintained for all foundations located on this soil. The sulfate content of this soil is extremely high - on the order of 109,000 milligrams/liter. Therefore, this soil type is apt to be highly corrosive to both concrete and reinforcing steel. SOIL TYPE NO, 6: This material is borderline between a low plasticity clay and a low plasticity silt containing some sand, usually dark brown in color. The allowable bearing capacity of this material is also somewhat variable, ranging from 2000 psf in the vicinity of Test Borings No. 8 and 13 to 4000 psf in the vicinity of -33- Test Borings No. 2, 7 and 9. A swell test performed on a remolded sample of this material indicated a 703% change in height against a pressure of 1880 psf with a 39.3% increase in moisture content. It has only a very slight tendency toward long term consolidation (1031% at a 4000 psf load). Sulfate content of this soil is (+) 51,000 mg/1, SOIL TYPE NO. 7: This material is commonly referred to as caliche and consists of an evaporate type deposit of calcium carbonate which commonly forms in the near surface soil horizon in arid or semi- arid climates, It is typically white in color and, when in great concentrations, may actually appear as a relatively dense rock -like material. Caliche is most commonly found in the upper 5 feet of the soil profile. On this site, however, caliche has been encountered at depths of up to 15 to 20 feet. This would indicate that the caliche material has at one time been buried by mudflows or landslides. SOIL TYPE NO, 8: This material is classified as a low plasticity clay, light red brown in color. It has an allowable bearing capacity of 5000 psf. Swell tests performed on a remolded sample of this material indicate. a 3,1% change in height against a pressure of 800 psf with a 14.6% increase in moisture content. Therefore, a minimum dead load foundation pressure of 800 psf should be maintained for all foundations located on this soil. SOIL TYPE NO, 9: This material is classified as a high plasticity clay, brown to yellow in color and often mottled in appearance. It has an allowable bearing capacity of 4500 psf. Swell tests performed on a remolded sample of this material indicate a 906% change in -34- height against a pressure of 2500 psf with a 13.6% increase in moisture content. Therefore, a minimum dead load foundation pressure of 2500 psf should be maintained for all foundations located on this soil. The shear strength of this soil is somewhat sensitive to disturbance or remolding. A sensitivity of 1.23 was found for this material. Sensitivity is defined as the undisturbed shear strength divided by the remolded shear strength. Most of the silty gravels and sands found on site (Soil Types No. 1 through 4) are probably some combination of alluvial, mudflow, and colluvial soils, transported to the site from some topographically higher location and deposited upon the weathering basalt. ThO:silt and clay sized soils (Soil Types No, 5, 6, 8 and 9) have also been transported to their present position. However, it is believed that these soil types represent products of the weathering of the basalt in and around the site. The caliche material (Soil Type No. 7) is,as described previously, an evaporite material derived from the leaching of carbonate materials from the soils at some depth and the subsequent deposition of this carbonate material in the near surface soils. FOUNDATIONS AND OTHER ENGINEERING WORKS: At the time of writing this report, the precise location and nature of the structures to be placed on this site are not known. It is assumed, however, that the majority of the structures to be constructed on this site will consist of single family residential units of one to three stories. Consequently, foundation loads should be low to moderate. It is apparent from the soils data obtained during the course of this investigation that a shallow foundation system should prove adequate for the majority of the structures on this site, This shallow foundation system should consist of continuous wall footings beneath bearing walls and iso- lated spread footings beneath columns or other points of concentrated loading. In many instances, due to the presence of expansive soils on this site, the use of footings may be eliminated or a voided stem wall design required. In any case, all foundations should be designed in accordance with maximum and minimum foundation pressures for the appropriate soil type. The soils encountered on this site are somewhat erratic and may change rapidly, both vertically and laterally, on this site. A soils map has been prepared at depths of 5 feet and 10 feet below the present ground surface in order to give planners a general indication of the soil type which might be encountered at a given depth on this site. The general engineering properties of each soil type arq listed in the section, Description of Strata, Due to the nature of the deposition of these materials, the engineering -36- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 properties of a given soil type may also vary widely across the site. The soils maps and descriptions should be used largely as a preliminary guide. The soil types encountered and their engineering properties should be verified for each individual homesite. In some areas, this may be accomplished by means of visual inspection of the foundation excavation, depending upon the proximity of the given site to existing borings and test data. In other cases, addi- tional drilling and testing may be required. Few problems related to the soils on this site are anticipated if recommendations are followed. All samples tested in consolidation showed very little tendency toward consoli- dation under load. Therefore, settlement is not anticipated to be a problem. No large areas of recent instability were noted in slopes on this site with the exception of the area containing the high plasticity clays. A fairly large slump was noted in a road cut in this material. This instability may be attributed, in part, to a slight sensitivity to remolding or reworking. Unconfined compression testing performed on a sample from Test Boring No. 6 at a depth of 9 feet indicated a sensitivity of 1.23. It is believed that other portions of this deposit might exhibit even greater sensitivity. Due to this characteristic, any earthwork performed in this material should be undertaken with caution as a reduction in shear strength is likely to result. Cut slopes in the high plasticity clay should be avoided. Large cuts into the toe of slopes in any material should be avoided on this site. Any major cut or fill activity should be reviewed by an engineer. -37- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 All of the clays found on site are expan- sive to varying degrees. In general, single family residential structures located on soils having expansion pressures less than 800 psf may perform satisfactorily with a narrow footing or no footing (stem wall on grade) type of foundation design, depending upon the exact magnitude and nature of the loads involved. Those located on soil types having expansion pressures in excess of 800 psf may require a voided stem wall design for satisfactory performance. Positive control of surface and subsurface drainage is of extreme importance to all structures located on expansive soils. Gullying is prominent on some portions of the site and, therefore, erosion control could be a potential pro- blem, particularly in the silts and fine sands. Riprap or other channel linings may be necessary in some areas to control the progress of erosion. The Eagle Valley Evaporite formation underlies the site at depth. This formation is subject to solution- ing and is known to develop sink structures, several of which have been mapped in the area immediately adjacent to the site. Although no positive evidence of the existence of sinks has been observed on this site, it is conceivable that some portions of the site may be affected by subsidence in caverns at some depth. It is not possible, at this time, to establish if ground movements of this type are now occurring, or to predict, with any certainty, their occurrence in the future. By and large, however, most of the subsidence would -38- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 appear to he a long term, massive subsidence affecting very large areas rather than the localized formation of sinks. This general massive subsidence typically results in very little differential movement and therefore, tends to be less damaging than the more intense, localized type. In the southernmost portion of the site, the basalt bedrock lies very close to the ground surface, often at a depth of 10 to 15 feet or less. Above the intact, competent basalt is often a layer of highly fractured basalt cobbles and boulders from 2 to 7 feet in thickness. For this reason, excavations in the southernmost portion of the site to a depth in excess of 5 feet may encounter some difficulty in this zone of fractured basalt. Excavations to a depth in excess of 10 feet may actually require blasting in some cases. In the event that it becomes necessary to accept any very large, concentrated foundation loads on this site, a deep foundation system consisting of either driven piles or drilled piers may be found more appropriate than a shallow foundation. Choice of the type of deep foundation system should be made on the merits of each individual case and on such factors as the availability of equipment. The basalt bedrock would serve as a suitable bearing stratum and, as mentioned previously, may be found very near the surface in the southernmost portion of the site. However, as one moves north, the basalt becomes considerably deeper and, in some cases, may be entirely absent. Some of the deeper zones in the -39- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 silty gravels found in the northern portions of the site may also provide suitable bearing for drilled piers having allowable end bearing capacities on the order of 13,000 psfo The allowable end bearing capacity of the basalt bedrock has not been determined at this time. However, this value can be obtained in the event that it becomes necessary. The individual capacities obtained for driven piles depends on a number of factors including the magnitude and nature of the applied loads, the type of pile chosen, the characteristics of the soil and/or rock, and the type of driving equipment used. Therefore, no specific recommendations regarding a pile foundation will be made at this time. -40- CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS A. Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology: I, The proposed Panorama Ranches subdivision lies within Section 17 of Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. in Garfield County, Colorado, and includes about 454 acres. Bedrock throughout the subdivision is a lava flow of basalt which overlies soluble rocks of the Eagle Valley. Evaporite. The basalt is overlain by stream deposits and old debris flow/mudflow deposits. Topography in the area has since been modified by erosion and both solution and movement within the Evaporite rocks. II. Only a few geologic hazards occur on the site, and none of these are sufficiently serious to preclude the practical development of the site, An area of highly plastic clay soils near the center of the subdivision is subject to instability in cut slopes; other soils within the subdivision are relatively stable. Swelling soils are found at places within the tract; these are discussed in detail in the soils report. Hazards due to slope instability and swelling soils can be minimized by avoidance or careful design and control of drain- age. Some areas within the subdivision contain steep slopes and shallow bedrock (or caliche deposits). These areas can be developed, but only with careful design and at a greater expense; particular problems may be experienced with septic systems in these areas. Certain soils in the property are susceptible to erosion of both the sheet and gully type. Certain precautions and remedial measures, described in the body of the report, may have to be taken, There do not appear to be significant hazards related to flooding or -41- radiation; likewise, there are no known economic mineral deposits on or near the site which would affect, or be affected by, subdivision development. The entire region within which the proposed subdivision lies is subject to a seismic risk comparable to that specified in the Uniform Building Code for seismic risk zone 2. III. The proposed subdivision is to be supplied with water by a number of wells and storage tanks, each of which will support a number of houses. Although little is known about the hydraulic characteris- tics of the basalt aquifer which will supply water, an analysis of local well records and a computation of the estimated needs of the subdivision suggests that the required water is available and can be supplied without significant damage to existing wells. In order to actually use groundwater on the site in the planned manner, certain legal steps need to be taken to establish a good right to the water and to convert it to use on the site. It is recommended that pumping tests be run within the subdivision before plans are finalized so that water availability and well locations may be properly planned. Some water conservation measures should be encounraged on the property. IV. Sewage disposal will be accomplished by means of individual septic systems. Conventional septic tanks and leaching fields can be used over much of the site. Forced -aeration tanks are recommended as substitutes for the conventional tanks over the entire property, although they are not actually necessary except in areas in which basalt lies at shallow depth, Areas with very slow percolation rates or other leaching field limitations should either be avoided or should be developed with evapotranspiration disposal fields. -42- B. Soils & Foundations: Based upon our analysis of the soil con- ditions and project characteristics previously outlined, the following recommendations are made. If the project characteristics change from those assumed herein, our recommendations may require some modification. I. A shallow foundation system will be suitable for the majority of the structures proposed for this site. Depending upon the exiact magnitude and nature of the loads involved and the engin- eering properties of the foundation soils, this shallow foundation system may consist of either a spread footing foundation, a narrow or no footing foundation, or a voided stem wall type of foundation. A general description of the soil types to be found on this site may be obtained from the soils maps included in this report. These maps pertain to depths of 5 feet and 10 feet, respectively, below the present ground surface. Descriptions found on these soils map may be correlated with engineering properties listed in the section, "Description of Strata". All foundations should be designed in accordance with the maximum and minimum foundation pressures for the appropriate soil type. Due to the large area covered by the 14 test borings drilled on site and the great distance separating some of the borings, additional drilling and testing should be per- formed to verify soil properties in some areas. Foundation pressures should, in general, be balanced to within, plus or minus, 500 psf -43- for bearing walls and, plus or minus, 300 psf for isolated columns. A11 foundations should be located at a depth of 4.5 feet, or greater, as required by local building codes, below the ground surface for frost protection. la) Any topsoil or debris should be removed from the construction area prior to beginning construction of the foundation. In addition, should any pockets of debris or organic material be encountered during excavation of the footings, this material should be removed and replaced with backfill compacted to 95% of maximum Proctor density, ASTM D-698. Ib) Floor slabs have extremely low contact pressures and are capable of being moved even by soils with relatively low expansive pressures° The best performing floor type for use on expansive soils is a structural floor and crawl space, This provides room enough for the soil to expand and move without affecting the floor If floor slabs are used, however, they should be constructed so as to act independently of bearing walls and columns and be permitted to float freely. On fine grained soils, a gravel bed of 4 to 6 inches in thickness may be used as a capillary break. The gravel should not contain a large amount of fines° This gravel bed should be pro- vided with a free drainage outlet to the surface and should not be allowed to trap water beneath the floor slab. If the floor slab lies below the exterior grade, a vapor barrier is recommended above the capillary break and beneath the floor. slab. -44- lc) Adequate drainage must be provided in the foundation area both during and after construction to prevent the ponding of water above foundation materials. The ground surface around the structures should be graded such that surface water is carried quickly away from the structures. The overall drainage should be designed such that runoff from one structure does not move into the area immediately around another structure. Minimum gradient is dependent upon the surface landscaping. Bare or paved areas should have a minimum gradient of 2% for a distance of 10 feet from the structures. Landscaped areas should have a minimum gradient of 5% in the 10 feet around the structures. Roof drains should be carried across backfilled areas and discharged well away from the structures. Depending upon the topography and soil types associated with a given site, a subsurface peripheral drain may be required. This drain should be provided with a free drainage outlet to the surface or, if this is not possible, a sump and pump system will be required. ld) Backfill around the proposed structures and in utility trenches should be compacted to at least 90% of maximum Proctor density. The native soils may be used for this purpose. The more plastic clays should be used as an impermeable cap to prevent the infiltration of surface water through backfilled areas and into the foundation soils. Material should be placed in lifts not to exceed 6 inches compacted thickness and at a moisture content approximately equal to the optimum Proctor moisture content, plus or minus 2%. -45- In areas where the foundation will rest on backfill, the soil should be compacted to 95% of maximum Proctor density. Backfill should be compacted to the density required by mechanical means. No backfill on this site should be ponded, puddled, flooded, or jetted. le) The open footing excavation should be inspected prior to the placement of concrete to verify what soil types have been encountered and to determine their engineering properties, to determine whether or not a subsurface peripheral drain will be required, and to establish that no soft spots or debris are present in the foundation area, 1f) Foundation stem walls should be designed as grade beams capable of spanning at least 10 feet. Reinforcing should be placed at both top and bottom of the grade beam and balanced between the top and bottom. If foundation walls are to retain soil to a depth in excess of 4 feet, they should contain vertical reinforcing designed on the basis of an equivalent hydrostatic pressure of 40 pcf for silts and clays, 45 pcf for sands and 55 pcf for silty gravel. lg) The sulfate content of the soils on this site is extremely high making the soils very corrosive to both concrete and reinforcing steel. Therefore, it is recommended that either Type V or Type 11 Modified Cement be used in all concrete in contact with the soils on this site. Under no circumstances should calcium chloride ever be used in Type II Cement. -46 II. Cut slopes in the zone containing high plasticity clays should be avoided. Large cuts in the toe of slopes of any material should also be avoided. Any major cut or fill activity should be reviewed by an engineer. III. Some difficulty with excavation may be encountered on this site, particularly in the southern portions of the site, due to the close proximity of the bedrock to the surface. Excavation at the southernmost end of the site in excess of 5 feet in depth is likely to encounter the competent basalt requiring blasting for removal. This situation improves as one moves further to the north. IV If it becomes necessary to accept very large, concentrated foun- dation loads, a deep foundation system consisting of driven piles or drilled piers may be required. However, it is at this time assumed that loads of such a magnitude will be the exception rather than the rule, and no specific recommendations regarding deep foundation systems will be made. However, recommendations pertaining to the use of a deep foundation system can be provided upon request. V. It is extremely important, due to the nature of data obtained by the random sampling of such a variable and nonhomogeneous material as soil, that we be informed of any changes in the subsurface con- ditions from those assumed and outlined in the body of this report. Construction personnel should be made familiar with the content of this report and instructed to report any of these differences immediately when encountered. -47- BIBLIOGRAPHY BASS, N.W., & NORTHROP, S.A., 1963, Geology of Glenwood Springs quadrangle and vicinity, northwestern Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull, 1142-J, 74 p. BERNHART, A.P., 1973, Treatment and disposal of waste water from homes by soil infiltration and evapo-transpiration: Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 173 p. COOKE, R.U., & DOORNKAMP, J.C., 1974, Geomorphology in environmental management --an introduction: Oxford, Eng., Clarendon, 413 p. FISCHER, R.P,, 1960, Vanadium -uranium deposits of the Rifle Creek area, Garfield County, Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1101, 52 p. IORNS, W.V. et al., 1964, Water resources of the upper Colorado River basin --basic data U.S. Geol. Survey Prof, Paper 442, LARSON, E.E., OZIMA, M., & BRADLEY, W,C., 1975, Late Cenezoic basic volcanism in northwestern Colorado and its implications concerning tectonism and the origin of the Colorado River system: Geol. Soc. Amer, Mem. 144, P. 155-178. MALLORY, W.W., 1971, The Eagle Valley Evaporite, northwest Colorado - a regional synthesis: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1311-E, 37 p. MARGOLIN, M., 1975, The earth manual: Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 190 p. OLANDER, H.C., LAMM, N. & FLORQUIST, B.A., 1974, Roaring Fork and Crystal valleys --an environmental and engineering geology study: Colo. Geol. Survey Env. Geol. 8, 65 p. RADOSEVICH, G.E., & ALLEN, P., 1975, Colorado water quality control and adminstration laws and regulations: Fort Collins, Colorado State University. RADOSEVICH, G.E., HAMBURG, D.H., & SWICK, L.L., 1975, Colorado water laws: Fort Collins, Colorado State University. SIMON, R.B., 1972, Seismicity, in Geologic atlas of the Rocky Mountain region: Rocky Mtn. Assoc. Geol., p. 48-51. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 1964, Mineral and water resources of Colorado: U.S. 88th Congress, 2d Session, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 302 p. -48- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Test Hole No Top Elevat on 2 ITopsoil 1 -^1L, Sandy Lt. Br. to - White V. Calc. 5 4-V Stiff w/ • Caliche SM, V. Soft I Loyer 5M, White V. Colc w/ 10 --Reces of • Basalt Refusal on 4 -Basalt at 11' 15 wUJ X20 0 n. w 4- 25 -.- 30 ?5 1. 35/12 wo- 16.9 7. ® low 16/12 wo-15.0"/o 0 CL/ML, Son Lt. Br, to Dk. Br. Calc. Stringers CL, Lt. Tan to Dk. Br. Calc. Stringers w/ o few Small Pieces of Basalt ST 15/12 - 21.7 7. mod. SM, Red -Br. w/ Basaltic Grovel ML, Sandy Red -8r. to - Tan w/ Pieces of Basalt & Caliche CL, Red -8 w/ some Grovel Size Basalt Pieces ST 18/12. 0-l6.6% ® rnod -1,;9 23/ 12 o- 8.6 O mod. 20/ 12 - 22.6% ® mod. 18/12 wo- 18.8% ® mod. -high f 1 1. DRILLING LOGS Topsail CL, w,/ Sand & Lt. Covet Basalt Rock Soft ML, Sondy White to Lt. Ton V. Calc. w/ Lt. Sand & Gravel (P,eces of Bosalt}&c w/ Coliche • 0 00 26/12 wo-14.9% • low 5 ST 15/12 4.00-4-0.1% ® mod -14 27/12 wo- 2707 Coarse Rocks' bJ or Gavel r�. (Basalt) Stiffer w/No Rocks CL/ML, Sandy V. Dense Red. -Br. w/ Strippers & Pocke}s of White Calc. W4 x11 47/12 o- 30.611 © 1ew-yno+4 37/12 cuo-29.4 mod. LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS -PUEBLO, COLORADO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Teti, Hole No Top Elevation 4 5 6 CL, Red -Br. w/ %/h. to Calc. Strin9trs • C L, w/ Lt. 10 Sand & Grovel• >./1 (Basolt) 15 ML, Sandy White to Lt Ton w/ Caliche SC Grove!, lClayey& w/ Pieces of Basalt & -.Maroon 5S. CL, Rtd.-Br. w/ Little or ,._No Rock 25 SC w/Grovel 30 35 40 18/12 w0- 11.6 w ® tow 22/12 we -15.6 low -mod. 17/12 ,- 23.8% low -mod.''• 44/12 �-21.7% Oow- mod. r 0- /ow -mod4 4 SM, Grovel, Sandy, Dam Wen- Graded, Pr adorn. Bosolt & Maroon S5. An9ulori Coarse, Dense GM, An9ulor to Subrovndcd 0 0 0 0 1°. • • • • • • GM,V Dense, • Difficult to Drill • • • • e 0 0 • 0 50/9 ,O low 111:,49-/91.21% Olow -mod. Oi •1 of of q50/9 we-5.3is Olow -mod. •l 0, •1 0 • • ti 0 •s Note: This mote opitars to be debris fon & mudflow motl. from Basalt Mtn. Grovel & cobbles on I 5urfoca arc subanplor to well-rounded. GM D 0 O 0 0 0 s CH, Med. 8r.) Waxy CH, Color Chon'es to Yellow & SI. Silty Basalt w � d • e d 0 0 0 O De fa O0 ST 13/12 28.1% 18.5110' ST 18/12 w,- 23.0% Omed-l.i r 33/12. Wo 20.0% ° low -,nod 20 22' Refusal - Note This hole just west 25 of slump 4'0ilurc in multicolor cloys. 1 30 1 35 -4 40 DRILLING LOGS LINCOLN-DeVORETESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS -PUEBLO, COLORADO 1 1 1 1 1 1 Test Hole No. Top Elevation 5 CL/ML, Sand Dk. Br., Lt. ....CIA lc. Strtnye Lt. Sand & Gravel SI. Inc. Graysl 7 �- SC w/ Gravel 10 ••- 15 1 -CL, Silty, Med.- Br. , V. Little Sand & ►- Gravel w Z20 25 30 35 40 CL, Little or No Grovel 1 11/12 wo- 14.4 ti © mod. 12/12 we- 21.7 O mod -high 17/12 coo -23.4% Omod:1139h -- inc. high l t i CL/ML, Sond Dk. Br., Lt. Cale. String 8 CL, Lt. Red -Br CL, Tnc.. L+. Gravel of Maroon SS. it, Basalt CL w/ Lt. Gravel CL/ML, Sand Dk. Br., No Grave) 8/12 -17.1% low -mod. 6/12 Luo -19 8 "nod-hi 9h 18/12 W�- 15.0% Sl rnod. 1 t cont. above 8 cont. CL/ML, Sandy Dk. Br. CL/ML,Sandy,' Inc. in Lt. Gravel oT Maroon S5. & Basalt CL/M L, Sandy Soft, Wet, Br. } i 45 50 - mod. -hi 55 - mod -hi 60 -j DRILLING LOGS LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS -PUEBLO, COLORADO 1 1 1 1 1 1 Test Hole No Top Elevor.cn CL/ML, Sond Lt Sand & Grove 5 t i.GM, Lr Tan -to L' Sr, w/ Some Bard 10 15 4- 20 � - i_CLim L, Sand � T - Lt. Br., I p Lt. Grovel 25 & sand 1 1- 1 30 r f- .).51 40 1 0 O 0 � 0 O 0 O 0 0 o 0 l• O 0 'o C 0 • .00 0 0 CI 0 o 0 0 O o 0 O 0 ;0 ♦0 '0 0 o s o O 0 0 GM w/ Finer 0 0 • Grovel (2"i -3u1: 0 rinex SSS 1 1 i• e (o • ,a o 0 e 0 0 O 0 O O • e e 0 13/)2 wo-277% I> v. /ow 4. (hole coved to within r S of suriacej low 0-- low 1 ML, Sandy Red .- Br. w/ White Calc. Strin3ers r3c Caliche GM, Lt. Red. Ta n GM, Fairly Dense Rcd.- Br. IO 0 0 0 O 0 e 0 0 o o O 0 O 0 0 0 e 01 0 e 0f 0 0 e I0 0 • 10 �a to 10 :o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 of 0 0 28/12 e- `,'.8% •:O v. low i t et o + 129/12 w0-3.5% oIO v low 0, 0 e. 01 • 30/3 (on roc O wo ^ I o •I0 0 I 1. 1 -f- 1- 1 i DRILLING LOGS ML, Sandy Red -Br. w/ Ca IC. Stnnseri Sc Colicht w/• L or No .Rock Caliche Layer CL, Red-Br.,I No Gravel t II CL w/ V Lt. Gravel !Sc Sand CL, Red -B 24/12 •-10.4% Iow S 19/12 0-10.4% low 18/12 o— 11,7• Iow -low 25 -1 30 35 - 40 -1 LINCOLN DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS -PUEBLO, COLORADO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 40 Test Hole No. Top Elevation 12 GM, Red. -.,0 . Wh C Jaye. • 5 fAn9q{uor io 0 Well-rounded • � VIat o Pebbles o .O • 0 1 0 4- 15 w Z20 a 25 l GM vr/ argeY Grovel 30 f 35 4- •0 GM, Softer or Small Size Gravel cic/or Sond 0 • 0 0 0 e i 0 1 35/(0 (on roc4 coo -3.5% O low (hole coved in s1. inc. -clow-mod 1. r low -mod r 13 CL/ML,Sand w/ Lt. Grave Dk. Br. 6/12. CL/ML,Sandy wo-10.3% w/More Cloy'. ' © low -mod & Less Gravel 0 O • GM w/Grevely 0 • & Sand • e • • 0 17/12 . • wo-5.0' • e 4001 low -mod CL/MLSaedZ*4 Dk Br. w/ Lt. Grovel r / DRILLING LOGS 15/12. 7.9% © low -mod • 4 • 4 GM, C.Io., S. n dy, Any.i l.r �• 14e1/-ro.nded Red. -Br. SMw/Fner Gravel , Sand 14 W a o e • 0 • e 0 0 e 0 o • O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 • e O 0 O 0 0 O { WIM 128/12 76% Qj Iow S • • • • 0 • • 29/12 we- 6.8% O low • 20 Sow-rn0d 25 . 30 una .00 35 40 LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS -PUEBLO, COLORADO Test Hole No Top Elevation TP4 TP8 ML, Sandy, Red. -Br. Trace Roots & Cloy CL/ML Sandy, Red. -8r. ML, Sandy, of 10 Tan & Red-Bry 5I. Plastic 0 v. dry wet o - moist Owo -inoist Note: Water table is ficticeous 15 & was not encountered. TP►+ is downi+.Il from adjacent draino9e. ditch next to ►c4r9e cottonwood trees. W 20 w 25 30 35 40 i t 1 t T I 1 DRILLING LOGS ML, Sandy Red - Br ./ Trace Roots Caliche 0 Basalt Rk. Fra. 0 9 �4� cu.- dry wo-- V. dry Note Extreme y difficult to excavate. 4 • f 4 f f 1.........".""""T"... LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS -PUEBLO, COLORADO 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1 1 1 1 Tes! Hole No Top E:evat on z20 25 TP29 ._,.,..,1•11..d.S. amnia 4•111111•••••••-411.1e TP30 Tops., 1, Red 8r,' L,ttle C -Med Sand it Fine + Gravel,Tr.ca Clay & Roots ML, Sandy w! 'talc. Str,n ers' $c Some Cine Gravel in .lent. Pockets & ,n SmpL SM,Tan GM, Red -Br Cs-F,ne 40 1 •e • .10 • • 0 r o v. dry o dry wo ^ dry Note: Test Pit caved of 13', { 1 Topsoil, Red - F. Sandy Silt CL/ML,Sandy, Red -Br. w/S°o1 Maroon Derive Grovel Coliche_ ,o GM, Gray Grav, 0 & Cobble. w/ Fine Sand, 5,11-4.,& Trace Clay a' ML, Red -Br., Calc. w/ Trace., Clay & w/C0ktq Stringers I Throughout 1• ° • • • e • 4 1 wo - dry Wo dry oiry 1 DRILLING LOGS LINCOLN-D,VOkE ('ESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS—PUEBLO, COLORADO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Soil Sanip GM Project PANORAMA RANCHES Sa.mpc i.ocati TJJ1t14 5 ' GRAVE_ 1\1 Test N.. _3013, QSL118 Date 11/26V75 Test Ly RB amen. •.••••• .•••••••••••••••••••••.••-••••••• SL,i Ti • (.*T4AY vommr...1 TI.1 1 F. C Plass-Ac 1.00 T T 5 r... -+--- t 4 j: I ' '---•• • 17..7T TFli' :t -i ---f-- t --- Mr t 1 i -- i ---1;1 + ;-+-1--- ---4-it t + -1 ' it 4_1-74_ +._-- ,--i 1- 1 , • * i , ' . .. t . ; - - ;----- f .- • --I ' i I 1 1M.. :4 Es , 1-----4.--i---,,-- - - -,,--a.„-.r..._......_............,,,,_ , ,...4.. , • .....__4_._...._.; , - - - -- !4, - 4, • ---. -4-- - i: I ' , . . . .1,, I 70 i. ___________..4._:„......„_ , __.____' ....,... 1 , . ti ' i ' ' : • : r•-`,-- t - - 1 i.,..e 60 • i 1.11 4 t ' , „.. ,4J- i : 4rf i , . J.; : , , „ : i , ' ' . 4 . — , 1"-*- ÷- --"1 : ' , 50!.4 f _ , -4...1„.... ;. —4 i.___L4 • i -±( - P.!. .',.... i ! • i - ... t. .4 ; . ..._ 4. .. ,.. . . . • .. .._i i E-:- 4c: •-?4'-'--• IL _. _ _____) L ...... - , 1 :• - - . : ;. • ".- - -4---4- -4.- — --... 1.4 4- • ! ...4 . : 4.. !:e: i , I - • 1 ' ' • ,1 i 1 r, ) '' ti i til,:;' •,. 1 30 — 1 • t • • ; • -4- --- -; ......_ - • li I.•••• t C:4 20 . . 1 i 1 1 4--- i , . i- J i , 10.....,—. 4 , 0 upii 1 • 100 I ,4- 4s.,; Sample. 1 Spec. in: lc Gravit:1 _2169 Moisture Cont-?- 7.6% Effc'ifeSi7e _ ameter (*IQ; I 440 4t20 040 Cm 44-,200 .a:x- NamlomMMIErr -oar 2_,T;hsreSiz 2 1 1/2' %.221s ting 3/4 - 1/2" 3/8" 4 (N JL 450 20 75 F:: ne s WALL) 7.. 2424 0.8 '• 90.6 93 3 53.8 44.3 32.0 29.8 24.2 19.7 17.6 0 15.7 10', 12.3 20C 10.5 020C, BEA! 1.';r 4 000 PPal (E !NG LA3( ''.ATORY GRAIN SIZE _A NALYSI S COL(.12 7) S PR 1- S COLO2A.i.)0 f 1 .M.einang. MINMftAli ..4•RMS .4,1•0*, Soil Sample SC with 20% gravel pro j c PANORAMA RANCHES Sample Locatio., T.H. #7 10' 100 9 8 7 6 50 40 30 Test No. 13013, GS 178 Date 11/14/75 Test by SS GRAVEL Coarse Fina SAND Co. ) Medium 1 _Fine SILT TO CLAY Nonplz:stic to Plastic 20 10 0 �t 100 I I I 0 12/2" T/41"e8" 1 D amef .er- (481 I 04 *10 *20 #40 #100 #200 - Sieve No. LI; Sample No. 2 .U31 Specific Gravity 2 66 Moisture Content 21.7% Effective Size --- Cu 69.0 Cc 1.18 Fineness Modulus 10 cf, BEAF INr 3 5 0 0 pri Sieve Size % Passing 1 1/.)- 1- 3/4 ' /•2,'1„3/4:• 100.0 91.4 91.4 1/2" 90.0 3/8" 87.9 4 10 20 40 100 200 0200 S ul'etc 80.5 74 4 66.4 58.2 42.7 32.1 19.2 PPm GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABO:ZATORY COLORADO COLORADO SPRINGS, �N } fi �- - LI i ___ - _ .�.� -'.:ttr 1 , 1 "1 '�l 1 . i I 1 ,.l 20 10 0 �t 100 I I I 0 12/2" T/41"e8" 1 D amef .er- (481 I 04 *10 *20 #40 #100 #200 - Sieve No. LI; Sample No. 2 .U31 Specific Gravity 2 66 Moisture Content 21.7% Effective Size --- Cu 69.0 Cc 1.18 Fineness Modulus 10 cf, BEAF INr 3 5 0 0 pri Sieve Size % Passing 1 1/.)- 1- 3/4 ' /•2,'1„3/4:• 100.0 91.4 91.4 1/2" 90.0 3/8" 87.9 4 10 20 40 100 200 0200 S ul'etc 80.5 74 4 66.4 58.2 42.7 32.1 19.2 PPm GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABO:ZATORY COLORADO COLORADO SPRINGS, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '0 4a Soil Sample SM Project PANORAMA RANCHES Sample Location T.H. #1 @ 9' 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 i0 2 10 0 100 I I t .0 I 11/2» 3/4" i " #4 GRAVEL Coarse _Fine SAND Co. 1 Medium 1 Fine Test No. 13013, GS 178 Date Tast by SS 11/14/75 SILT TO CLAY Nonplastic to Plastic - 11111 fi 1 Sample No. 3 Specific Gravity --- Moisture Content__ Effective Size,_,. Cu Cc D4ame .er- (n n) I 410 *20 04O 4*100 #200 - Sieve No. 15.0% 200.0 1.1 Firen�ss Modulus L. P.I. N P BEAFil:r 3000 psf Sieve Size % Passing 1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2 3/6" 4 10 20 40 100 200 0200 Sulfates 100.0 90.3 78.7 64.9 52.7 43.5 32.2 27.5 16.5 PPm GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABO2ATORY COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO "::101111111111=111111= :11. 1 ( : F... - .. -----�' - 111 -,-Ii-s- 4 - min , ; ___,. ' 111 11111111, - t 't L L. II - - f -r -t- - + t ,, 4- 1- 4 Al_ _ 4. _ ., .„, - - . *i.; r 1� ►iiliBin! . I 4 ii 1 Sample No. 3 Specific Gravity --- Moisture Content__ Effective Size,_,. Cu Cc D4ame .er- (n n) I 410 *20 04O 4*100 #200 - Sieve No. 15.0% 200.0 1.1 Firen�ss Modulus L. P.I. N P BEAFil:r 3000 psf Sieve Size % Passing 1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2 3/6" 4 10 20 40 100 200 0200 Sulfates 100.0 90.3 78.7 64.9 52.7 43.5 32.2 27.5 16.5 PPm GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABO2ATORY COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO 1 1 1 Soil Sample SM Project PANORAMA RANCHES Sample Location. T.H. #2 @ 14' 10 9 8 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Test No. 13013, GS 178 Date 11/14/75 Test by SS IGRAVEL SAND SILT TO CLAY I Coarse Ffine Co. Mediu:; 1 Fine Nonplastic to Plastic 1 iia uuu1� -- t+ } I_ — — �1��I �1�1�11 II 0 it H t --.;tER - i i ---.'-i 4,1_y a "MI n1 MI --11111111Htf-111111 ii IIi -- — i 1, ' ' ' �►q; NMIMil -_- ', :_ -_- _ 111111111111 ; ; �; t iiniii - llhIiIii■—i 111 i� j i ■� } - —■ 100 ( I 5.0 1(c) D ame . L�1 .0( er- 1Y2" '4" ' 3" #.4 #10 ##20 4440 #100 #200 - Sieve No. 1 Sample No. Specific Gravity Moisture Content 8.6/ Effective Size --- Cu Cc 6.2 0.57 Fineness Modulus L.:-.-_.___% NP _- q_; REAR Thn 3900 p& f r �M 1...GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Sieve Size % Passing 1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2 " 100.0 3/8" 4 98.9 95.9 10 20 40 100 200 85.7 78.3 72.0 49.5 30.6 0200 S ulfste3 ppm LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO SUMMARY SHEET Soil Semple MI-,, sandy Tcst No. Location PANORAMAS RANCHES Dole Boring No._ 11 Depth 5' Sample Nc. 5 Test by 13913, GS 178 11/14/75 Notur.: CTonlunt (w) 10.4 Specific Gr ,lily (Os) 2.62 SS 1 In Place Density :r.) pcf SIEVE ANAL1";N: Sieve No. 1 1,"2" 1" 3/4" 1'`2" 4 10 20 40 100 200 I'(tss i na 100.0 98.2 93.7 82.3 64.7 55.4 HYDROMETER ANALY iS: Groin size (mrn) . 0200 41.2 . 0050 24.7 Pla_tic Lttrit P.L Liy'i:1 Line. !. L. Plasticit;. I ,c < P.I.. Shrinkc:p„ Lirr.it Flo ! ?,; Snrtr . o itis" Vo!un;eh i .. Lint.aI S,,rr' 32.2 41.1. 0' 8_. 9 27.3 0/0 0/0 MOISTURE t JSi': ASTM METHOD Optirnun, ;.'Y ist.;rt. Contant - w° cm Mr:;rrnJm Dr, De: -;rti -Td pcf California Bt. aiinn Rc.tio (ov) ce Swell• 1 Days 2,6 c', Swell n5:i,st 650 :,sf \Vo gain 12.5 % BEARINC: Houvd Penetromet'_r 2590 Unconfined Comp; ,scion (qu) Plate Bec-ing• Incises Settkrry nt Consolic: -Hr1.T''; under4000 psf psf * psf psf K (-fit 2 J Vold Rctt.T Sulfates 109,000 ppm. * .1 4000 psf in vicinity of TH/1 & #10 SOLI_ Ar LYS!S LINCOLN-GeVGrcE 1ESTIr4G LABORATORY COLOR 11 _) SPki; !GS, COLORADO Soil Sample CL/ML1 sandy SUMMARY SHEET Test NI-. 13')13 , GS 178 Location PANORAMA RANCHES Date 11/14/ 75 Boring No. 7 Depth 5 ' 6 ?est by SS Sample No. Noturai G'Tcte C_ nennt (w) 14.4 % Specific Gravii7 (Gs) 2.58 In PI -ice Density (r:,) pcf SIEVE AN,LYSlc,: Sieve No. 1 1/2° 111 ° Pc ;sing 3/4" 100.0 4 97.1 10 94.2 20 89.9 40 83.3 100 69.5 200 61.5 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS. Grain size (rnm) .0")00 40.0 _0050 23,3 Pla.tio ii:. i} I' 19.7 LiquJt_' Lire` 1- t.. 26.E Pla tacit", !,,dw P.Z. 6.9 0,'- SHrinK: N'- i +5.3 Nov/. icIE Shrink :2r 1O ^c Vclumr.'r - r -..,,,V,,. 0 Lineal Hi..; ik ,g.' oC MOIST! R, DENSITY: ASTM METHOD Optirruhr P:'r,+*tura CPntent - w0 04, rc• t CalifcrrTh Rs.,,ri;�r_: R :tio (JO.- c".,Swell• 1 Dcys 7.3 S'.ell ag-.';,5t188005Wo gain 39.30 B ARING- trcrr,e`cr r,,) 2000 Psf * Uncanfinv_: Cr,mpression (qu) psf Plate Cie ri psf inches Sctrie,n=•mt Ccn,^Ii:ot; ;1,31`, urder4000 psf K (or 20-:. VoiJ Sulfar,.!s 51,000 *4000 psf in vicinity of TH #2, 47 & ei= 9 LINCOLN-u..'1-ir, E_ T; STING LABORATORY COLORt,i.)::,�r.-!fJGS, COLORADO Soil Sample CFI Locution PANORAMA RRNCHES SUMMARY SHEET Test No. 13013 GS 178 pts 11/14/75 Boring No. 6 Depth 5' Scruple No. 9 Test Ly ss Natural Water Content (w) 2R 1 % Specific Gravity (G:) 2.64 In Place Dersit (r..) Pcf SIEVE ANALYSIS: Sieve No. % Passing 1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 4 100.0 1C 99.8 20 99.8 40 99. 8 100 99.6 200 99.1 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS: Grain size (rnm) . 0200 . 0050 82.9 67.9 PInstic i . 7t P.L 24. 5 010 LrgU:ci L .11. L. ;6.3 °' Plastic': ,de, P.I. 31.8 To 5 S ' r�ri•i�_: <. �i pit 12 °o FI Shrin Li peal g`_ MQISTLI?; D ' IT'r': ASTM METHOD Optimum /./r isture Mcxi • urs r)ri Dr'r Cul'►forr,ia Bi i ng Swe l l Swell :;,CJins�25OO BEARING: Content - w° i ty -Td pcf Rctro9 DGS'= °° p -f 'No gain 13.6010 House) Pei:etrometer (av) 4590 Unconfined Compression (cu) 41qC PI 'e Bean 6• psf Inches S•-t+ler, -nt under4000 psf psf psf K (at 2 SL: I?UtcS SOI!_ ANALYSIS N LINCOLN -Di \-GRE T•=STING LABORATORY COLO&U) SPRINGS, COLORADO SUMMARY SHEET Soil Sample Caliche "f(st No. 13013, GS 178 ES Dute 11/2 5/75 PANORAMA RANCHES Boring No._ 11_ —__,Depth 7' Sample No._ __ _ _ _ 7 Test by ___RB Natural 44t -'el Criter.t (N) -- Specific Gr -,,vi!,,, (GO 2.62 In P1,7ce D^n. t ('� , ), -- _pcf SIEVE ANALY� IS: Sieve No. ,c. Pia srng 1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 4 L 10 94.9 20 84.4 40 100 200 100.0 73.5 53.5 45.9 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS: Grain size (mm` . 0200 27.9 . 0050 16.2 Plastic Lin it r .L . 28.6 °o Liq,liJ liirit L. L._ 29.0 % Plastic'ty Index E.1 0.4 °0 Sh r? 'U')" Limit F_r r l .low 11I•.:,.:.• Shr*-4:0:1: Raiu Voiu;nYliC CL :,7g. 04O Lineal Sh. H.k;ge 0/0 tv1OIST1._ L DF.:N`-I• Y: ASTM METHOD Optim:.rn ' isfur- Content - wo °l° Maxirlur-. Di • Dnrity -Td pcf r Califorli Et .:ir',c� Ratio (av) 00 Swe I I: Days Swell ag7:ns} p<f Vic gain °o BEARING: Housel Pe ietrometel (av) psf Unconfine 1 Comp ression (qu) Psf Plate Bearing. psf Incnes Settlement Consolidc.:t,cy under psf PLRtA'ALi K !at Void V•�i. _ Sulfates pain . LINCOLN-DeVURL TING LABORATORY COLORA )O 5F'F IGS, COLORADO?