Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationCtJVD A119 Cerise Ranch Sketch Plan 8/27/99 RECEIVED AUG 2 71999 August 17, 1999 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Office 109 8th St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, C0 81601 Re: Cerise Ranch land use application Dear Mark: Please consider this letter an application for the subdivision sketch plan for the property known as the Cerise Ranch west of the Dakota subdivision. The: legal description of the subject property is included in the submittal document. The application is submitted on behalf of the Mumbert Cerise Family Co. Limited Partnership, owner of the property, and the agent for the applicant, Wintergreen Homes Limited Liability Company, the equitable owner pursuant to the purchase agreements dated January 23, 1997 and May 21, 1998 between Wintergreen Homes Limited Liability Company and the Mumbert Cerise Family Co. Limited Partnership. Deeds for the property and the purchase agreements are included in the submittal appendix. Respectfully, by: by: Owner Mumbert Cerise Family Co. Limited Partnership Dennis Cerise Agent for the Applica . t Wintergreen Hom Art Kleinstein cerise RANCH lity Company • • cerise RANCH Legal Description motomallettoppoomagesoftio comprehensive plan amendment planned unit development and sketch plan • litter -Mountain • Engineering Ltd. • • LEGAL DESCRIPTION CERISE RANCH A parcel of land located in a portion of Government Lots 1, 3, 14 and 15 of Section 33, and in a portion of Government Lots 2, 7, 8, 20, and 21 of Section 32, and the SW 1/4 SE '/4 of Section 29, al in Township 7 South, Range 87 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Garfield County, Colorado and in the SW 1/4 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 of Section 33, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, 6"' Principal Meridian, Garfield and Eagle County, Colorado, and being more particularly described as follows: The True Point of Beginning being the northwest corner of said Section 33; thence S. 89° 14'35" E., along the north line of said Section 33 a distance of 1371.19 feet to a point; said point being the west 1/16 corner of Section 28, said Township and Range, and of said Section 33; thence S. 89°14'54" E., continuing along the north line of said Section 33 a distance of 1371.88 feet to a point; said point being the north 1/4 corner of said Section 33; thence S. 01°40'33" W., along the north -south centerline of said Section 33 a distance of 664.14 feet to a point; said point being the northwest corner of the SW 1/4 NW 'A NE 'A of said Section 33; thence S. 89°14'55" E., along the north line of said SW 1/4 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 a distance of 686.80 feet to a point; said point being the northeast corner of said SW 1/4 NW 'A NE 'A; thence S. 01°40'52" W., along the east line of said SW 1/4 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 a distance of 663.00 feet to a point; said point being the southeast corner of said SW 'A NW 'A NE 1/4; thence N. 89°20'38" W., along the south line of said SW 1/4 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 a distance of 686.76 feet to a point; said point being the southwest corner of SW 1/4 NW 1/4 NE 1/4; thence N. 89°20'16" W., a distance of 739.11 feet to a point; thence. S. 02°39'57" W., a distance of 1147.79 feet to a point; said point being on the north right of way line of U.S. Highway 82 and on a curve to the left having a radius of 2964.79 feet; thence 383.72 feet along said curve and the north right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 82 through a central angle of 7°24'56", having a cord bearing and distance of N. 75°42'50" W., 383.45 feet to a point; thence. N. 80°48'50" W., along the north right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 82 a distance of 213.65 feet to a point; thence N. 81°31'13" W., along the north right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 82 a distance of 2415.28 feet to a point of curvature of a curve to the right having a radius of 11,359.16 feet; thence 512.48 feet along said curve and the north right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 82 through a central angle of 2°35'06", having a chord bearing and distance of N. 80°13'40" W., 512.44 feet to a point; thence N. 79°35'30" W., along the north right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 82 a distance of 872.27' feet to a point; thence S. 79°15'50" W., along the north right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 82, a distance of 53.85 feet to a point; thence N. 78°56'10" W., along the north right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 82 a distance of 295.38 feet to a point; thence N. 02°27'10" E., along the east line of a parcel of land described in Book 637 at Page 200 a distance of 273.18 feet to a point; said point being the northeast corner of said parcel of land; thence N. 78°56'08" W., along the north line of said parcel a distance of 550.72 feet to a point; said point being the northwest corner of said parcel; thence 8392 Continental Divide Road, Suite #107 • Littleton, CO 80127 • Phone: 303/948-6220 • Fax: 303/948-6526 77 Metcalf Road, #200 • Box 978 • Avon, Colorado 81620 • Phone: 303/949-5072 • From Denver Direct: 893-1531 S. 02°27'10" W., along the west line of said parcel a distance of 273.18 feet to a point; • said point being on the north right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 82; thence N. 78°56'10" W., along the north right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 82 a distance of 65.35 feet to a point; said point being on the west line of said Government Lot 7; thence N. 03°07' 11" E., along the west line of said Lot 7 a distance of 1061.81 feet to a point; said point being the northwest corner of said Lot 7; thence S. 81°17'42" E., along the north line of said Lot 7 a distance of 652.09 feet to a point; said point being on the north -south centerline of said Section 32; thence N. 01°41'13" E., along said north -south centerline of said Section 32 a distance of 693.38 feet to a point; said point being the 1/4 corner common to said Sections 29 and 32; thence N. 03°14' 16" E., along the north -south centerline of said Section 29 also being the west line of said SW 1/4 SE 1/4 of said Section 29 a distance of 1368.86 feet to a point; said point being the south -center 1/16 corner of said Section 29; thence S. 89°17'20" E., along the north line of said SW 1/4 SE 1/4 a distance of 1359.72 feet to a point; said point being the southeast 1/6 of said Section 29; thence S. 04°42'48" W., along the east line of said SW 1/4 SE 1/4 a distance of 1378.02 feet to a point; said point being the East 1/16 corner of said Section 29 and Section 32; thence S. 88°58'50" E., along the north line of said Section 32 a distance of 1323.90 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Said parcel of land contains 314.412 acres, more or less. • \\\\NII c \ a �lhlslat Duane D y; kttgei•; pA �Z 0 p 7=7"-, 2662 Cit),„:V7/l9e Inter -M6 ta"taEAnirlsz inp \\ PO Box 97* -//e. IIII�1;\��\��`� Avon, CO 816 Y (970) 949-5072 97-0025 • • Declaration Creating Covenants, conditions • and Restrictions • cerise RANCH comprehensive plan amendment planned unit development and sketch plan August 27, 1999 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mark: Attached please find 15 copies of the Cerise Ranch Sketch Plan application for approval of a residential development on a 304 acre parcel of land in the Roaring Fork Valley near El Jebel, Colorado. Previously sent to Garfield County was a check for $825.00, in payment to the Planning Office and referral agencies as review fees for a previous version of this application. Please use this check for this current application. Should you have any questions or need any additional information during the period of staff review of the project, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your assistance while the application was being prepared and for your continuing attention to this project. Sincerely, The Land Studio ‚4.' by: Dougl.( J atte cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN • • SUBDIVISION NAME: Sketch Plan X Preliminary Plan Final Plat SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM GARFIELD COUNTY Cerise Ranch OWNER : Wintergreen Homes, Art Kleinstein . High Country Engineering, Inc. / ENGINEER/PLANNER/SURVEYOR: The Land Studio, Inc. / High Country Engineering, Inc. LOCATION: Sections 29 & 32 Township 7S Range 87W WATER SOURCE: On site wells SEWAGE DISPOSAL METHOD: ISDS PUBLIC ACCESS VIA: Highway 82 EXISTING ZONING: Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density .(A/R/RD) EASEMENTS: Utility Miscellaneous utility easements Ditch Irrigation ditches TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA: (1) Residential Number Acres Single Family 67 125.6 Duplex 0 0 Multi -Family 0 0 Mobile Home 0 0 (2) Commercial Floor Area Acres (3) Industrial 0 sq.ft. 0 0 sq.ft. 0 (4) Public/Quasi-Public 0 (5) Open Space /Common Area 188.8 TOTAL: PARKING SPACES: Residential 268 • Commercial 0 Industrial 0 314.4 • • Cerise Ranch Sketch Plan Application August 27, 1999 Prepared by: The Land Studio 100 Elk Run Drive Basalt, CO 81621 phone: 970-927-3680 fax: 970-927-4261 Prepared for: Wintergreen Homes P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 phone: 303-322-4119 fax: 303-322-4320 cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN • • • Owner/Consultant List Client/Owner Wintergreen Homes Art Kleinstein P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 phone: 303-322-4119 fax: 303-322-4320 Land Planner The Land Studio, Inc. Doug Pratte 1002 Lauren Lane P.O. Box 107 Basalt, CO 81621 phone: 970-927-3690 fax: 970-927-4261 Attorney Balcomb and Green P.C. 818 Colorado Avenue P.O. Box 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 phone: 970-945-6546 fax: 970-945-8902 Geotechnical Engineer CTL/Thompson, Inc Liv Bowden 234 Center Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 phone: 970-945-2809 fax: 970-945-7411 Civil Engineer High Country Engineering Joe Hope 923 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 phone: 970-945-8676 fax: 970-945-2555 Wetlands, Vegetation, and Wildlife Consultant Ecological and Environmental Consulting, LLC Andrew Antipas P.O. Box 2467 Basalt, CO 81621 phone: 970-963-8297 cell: 970-948-3446 Traffic Engineering Consultant Leigh, Scott, and Cleary, Inc. Phil Scott 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 phone: 303-333-1105 fax: 303-333-1107 Drainage Engineering Consultant Zancanella and Associates, Inc. Tom Zancanella P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 phone: 970-945-5700 fax: 970-945-1253 cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN • • • March 26, 1998 Mr. Art Kleinstein c/o The Land Studio 123 Emma Road, Suite 204A Basalt, CO 81621 Attention: Ms. Julie Pratte Subject: Preliminary Geologic Hazard Evaluation and USDA Soil Conservation Service Data For Cerise Ranch Garfield & Eagle Counties, Colorado Job No. GS -2309 Gentlemen: This letter presents the results of our Preliminary Geologic Hazard Evaluation and a compilation of USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) data for Sketch Plan Submittal for the subject site. The following paragraphs describe geologic conditions and potential geologic hazards and discusses their possible influence on the planned development. A map indicating the approximate boundaries of SCS soil units and explanations are attached as Appendix A. Site Conditions Cerise Ranch is an approximately 300 acre parcel located in the Roaring Fork River Valley. The majority of the site is in Garfield County with a small portion at the east end being in Eagle County. Catherine Store is approximately 1 mile to the west. Highway 82 is along the south property boundary with the Roaring Fork River beyond to the south. The Dakota, Eagle Dakota and Soderberg Subdivisions are adjacent to the southeast, east and northeast, respectively. Agricultural land is on property to the west. Land to the north has not been built on. A residence and agricultural operation with several barns, sheds and outbuildings is located on the northwest part of the property. The Roaring Fork River Valley trends from the east, down to the west in the vicinity of the property. The site is situated on the north side of the valley floor and lower slopes of the valley sides. Ground surfaces drop steeply from the north down to the south on the valley sides, decreasing in steepness at the edge of the valley and flattening on the valley floor. A small pond is on the east part of the property. Several irrigation ditches cross the property from east to west. Vegetation on the valley floor and edges consists of irrigated pasture grasses and weeds. On the slopes above the valley, vegetation consists of pinion and juniper trees and sparse weeds and brush. CTL/THOIVMPSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 234 CENTER DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 0 (970) 945-2809 • • Site Development At this writing development plans are conceptual. We understand the developer intends to develop the property for single family residential use. We anticipate infrastructure will include roadways and utilities. Buildings will likely be 1 or 2 story wood frame residences with or without basements. Geologic Setting In our opinion, no geologic conditions or potential geologic hazards exist that will preclude development of the site. The property is underlain by bedrock consisting of the Pennsylvanian aged Eagle Valley Evaporite. Bedrock is exposed on the slopes above the valley floor. Quaternary aged colluvial deposits overlay the bedrock and thicken on the lower slopes towards the edge of the valley floor forming a colluvial wedge. On the valley floor bedrock is covered with Quaternary aged terrace gravels deposited by the Roaring Fork River. Three alluvial fans coalesce along the north side of the valley floor covering the terrace gravels. A map of interpreted geologic units is shown on the Surficial Geologic Conditions Map, Figure 1. The Eagle Valley Evaporite consists of gypsum, anhidrite, halite and other evaporite minerals with interbedded siltstone and sandstone. The evaporite minerals have undergone plastic flow deformation due to overburden loading that has caused highly distorted and swirled bedrock orientation resulting in a highly varied heterogeneous geologic unit. Potential Geologic Hazards We identified several potential geologic hazards at the site that need to be considered when planning the development. Some of the geologic hazards can be mitigated by avoidance and others will need proactive mitigation. In our opinion, all of the potential geologic hazards can be mitigated using engineering and construction methods considered normal for this type of development in the locale. In our opinion, the geologic conditions and potential geologic hazards are similar to and no greater than those of other developments in the area (e.g. Aspen -Glen, River Valley Ranch, etc.). Conditions at this site are typical of mountainous terrain. Potential geologic hazards include ground subsidence (sink holes), debris/mud flows and potentially unstable slopes. Evidence of potential ground subsidence was observed in the east part of the property. Evaporite minerals in the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite are prone to being dissolved and removed by circulating ground water forming "solution cavities". Overburden soils cave into the solution cavities. When caving propagates to the ground surface, a sink hole can form or an irregular rolling surface topography can develop. The presence of the evaporite minerals is random due to the highly variable nature of the geologic unit. We observed two well defined sink holes as well as areas of irregular surface topography in the subsidence area. In our opinion, the MR. ART KLEINSTEIN CERISE RANCH JOB NO. GS -2309 7 • • • subsidence mechanism is strongly influenced by historic flood irrigation of the property and the presence of a pond in one of the sinkholes. Development of the site with the proposed golf course and residential construction will eliminate flood irrigation and sprinkler irrigation will greatly reduce the amount of circulating ground water and, therefore, reduce ground subsidence. Although the degree of risk of damage to structures cannot be completely eliminated we believe that structures sited outside of the identified subsidence area will perform satisfactorily and are at no greater risk than structures in other developments in the area in a similar geologic environment. The two alluvial fans to the north are essentially dormant since their source basins have been pirated by the drainage feeding the southern most alluvial fan. The southern most alluvial fan appears to be an active geomorphic feature. Potential debris/mud flow hazards are associated with the southern most alluvial fan. Our field observations indicate that the debris fan presents a moderate potential hazard. In our opinion, the two alluvial fans to the north do not have source basins of sufficient size to result in a significant debris/mud flow hazard. Mitigation can be achieved by anticipating sediment loading 40 to 50 percent in developing the site drainage plan. Site drainage structures need to be designed such that blockage and overflow do not occur. If further quantification of the magnitude of potential debris flows is needed a drainage basin hydrologic analysis could be performed and included as part of the Preliminary Plan Submittal. A drain basin hydrologic analysis is beyond the scope of this report. The slopes in the north part of the property are steep. The slopes are underlain by the bedrock of the Eagle Valley Evaporite with a mantle of residual and colluvial soils. Excavation into slopes steeper than approximately 30 percent is likely feasible, however, the slopes should be considered potentially unstable. We did not observe any evidence of slope instability at the site. In our opinion, excavation into slopes steeper than 30 percent should be addressed by a geotechnical engineer on an individual basis. Potential geologic hazards are delineated on Figure 2. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you require any further service or have questions, please call. Very truly yours, CTL/THOMPSON, INC Wilson Liv Professional Ge LB:JM:cd (3 copies sent) MR. ART KLEINSTEIN CERISE RANCH JOB NO. GS -2309 ech ing, an h Manage 3 • • 1 . STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP Wintergreen Homes is the equitable owner pursuant to the purchase agreements dated January 23, 1997 and May 21, 1998 between Wintergreen Homes Limited Liability Company and Mumbert Cerise Family Co. Limited Partnership. The purchase agreements have been prepared by Basalt Realty. 2 . INTRODUCTION TO THE CERISE RANCH SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION A. Document Introduction The Cerise Ranch resides in the Roaring Fork Valley west of the Dakota subdivision and contiguous to Colorado State Highway 82. It has been owned and operated by the Cerise family since 1916. Since that time the agricultural operations have included cow production, horse pasture, potato production, and hay production for the feeding of livestock. Wintergreen Homes intends to purchase the property and currently holds an option to purchase it. Wintergreen Homes recognizes the importance of the Cerise Ranch to the area and will strive in this application to create a rural residential subdivision per the Garfield County Agricultural / Residential / Rural Density (A/R/RD).zone district and retain the open agricultural lands that run along Highway 82. This document contains the required submittals for a subdivision sketch plan for the Cerise Ranch. cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN • • 6 B. Vicinity Map 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS A. General Cerise Ranch is an approximately 300 acre parcel located west of the Dakota Subdivision along Highway 82 in the Roaring Fork River Valley. The majority of the site is in Garfield County with a small portion at the east end being in Eagle County. The site is situated on the north side of the valley floor and lower slopes of the valley sides. Vegetation on the valley floor and edges consists of irrigated pasture grasses and weeds. On th slopes above the valley, vegetation consists of pinion and juniper trees and sparse weeds and brush. B. Zoning The existing zoning at Cerise Ranch is Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density (A/R/RD). cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN + 7 + 11_</flAilhh + existing conditions/topography CERISE RANCH comprehensive plan amendment planned unit development sketch plan July 23, 1998 0 200 400 800 1200 + + tltejANDstudio 123 emmi rad. .suite 204a basalt vlorado 81621 phone (970) 927-3690 fax (970) 927-4261 north + 7 _____, _ ,------- / r .. __ _ - ....,,,,,- , _____ ---„;----_-___________ ,........... ,______ v., ...._ . =______ ,...__.0,• ,_„,„___,_„....„----,,PAP___.------_Aki __,_________,_,____, -- 010 Y --cam.-. \ -. ,.,., 1 f 0 + + • + + + + 1- z 0 U 0 W 1 Ir C7 W J c7 w • agricultural meadows and wetland areas existing dakota duplexes existing ranch buildings and residence existing ranch entrance at highway 82 agricultural meadows and wetland areas to be preserved existing blue creek location colorado state highway 82 existing agricultural meadows Cerise Ranch • existing conditions april, 1998 photographs + i slope analysis legend slopes 40% and greater (95 acres) slopes less than 40% + + + CERISE RANCH comprehensive plan amendment planned unit development sketch plan July 23, 1998 0 200 400 800 1200 1 theDstudio 123 mina road. suite 204a basalt. colorado 81621 phone (970) 927-3690 fax (970) 927-4261 north + oi a_ mos MEM / i rat -tie . af* i r ��' • 1 1 >- 0 Z 0 • • 13 database, important wildlife habitat in the vicinity of Cerise ranch include Elk and Mule Deer migration corridors and winter range. The DoW would discourage the disturbance or impacts to oak/serviceberry plant communities, and at the same time favor the institution of covenants which would protect wildlife activities in the vicinity of Cerise Ranch. 1. Montane Shrublands and Herbaceous Rangeland Montane shrubland range in elevation from 5500' to 10,000'(Mutel and Emerick, 1992). Dominated vegetation usually consists of Gambel oak, serviceberry, greasewood, mountain mahogany, rabbitbush, and big sagebrush. These species can be found on the south facing hillside within the project area and are important winter range for elk and mule deer. 2. Wetlands and Riparian Ecosystems Wetland and Riparian communities are found throughout the montane forest communities ranging from 5,500' to 11,000' and are a critical link in maintaining the health or surrounding plant communities and wildlife. Typical vegetation consists of cottonwood, willows, alder, and birch, Plus, there is a wide variety of herbaceous species usually dominated by sedge and rush species. Wetlands provide water, food, and cover for ally types of wildlife. In addition, wetlands protect water quality by filtering runoff before it reaches the rivers or streams. Wetlands also act as a sponge during high flows, absorbing water and then slowly releasing it back to the stream after storm events or spring snow melt. Because of the western slopes semi -arid climate water is an important limiting resource. Therefore, the protection of wetland communities is critical to the long cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN • • • term survival of most of the animals found here. Typically, the Army Corps of engineers requires 2:1 mitigation for impacts to wetland communities on the west slope. 3. Study Methodology 14 A land use and land cover classification system developed by the US Geological Survey (Anderson et al., 1976) was utilized to label ranch uses and plant community types. A 1990 aerial photograph acquired from the Natural Resource Conservation Service was used as the study base map. Numerous field visits were used to determine the aerial signature of the various plant communities in the study area. The approximate boundaries between the communities were sketched onto the base (figure 2). Aquatic and Wetlands Consultants, Inc. and Andrew Antipas Ecological and Environmental Consulting, LLC have delineated wetlands in the study area and will provide a delineation report under separate cover. However, approximate wetland areas are shown in Figure 2 for preliminary planning purposes. 4. Results Three types of plant communities/ ecosystems were identified within the Cerise ranch study area. They include oak/serviceberry shrubland, herbaceous pastureland, and wetland/riparian communities. Figure 2 illustrates existing land uses and the location of the plant communities throughout the study area. The wetland types found within the study area include emergent and wet meadows. Based on the preliminary sketch plan no wetlands would be impacted. Development would occur on the herbaceous pasturelands. However, if design plans change, impacts to wetlands will require cerise R ANCH SKETCH PLAN 1. Developed land 11 residential 12 commercial 13 gads Cerise Ranch Land Uses 3. Rangeland 5. Water 32 shrub and brush rangeland 51 streams (violet lines) (brown line delineates boundary) 52 irrigation ditches (green lines) 2. Agricultural land 4. Forest land 6. Wetland 21 crops and pasture none present 61 wetland meadow 62 cattail marsh • FIGURE 2 r • 15 Section 404 permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers prior to construction. A more complete discussion of the wetland resource in the study area is available under a separate cover. Oak/serviceberry shrublands are typically found on south facing slopes and are important winter habitat for elk and mule deer because they do not hold snow during the winter. Avoiding this community type will be valuable in preserving winter habitat for the native big game species. The herbaceous pasturelands have been created by agricultural activities in the valley. Historically, oak/serviceberry covered the pasture areas as well, but were removed when the valley was homesteaded. Much of the pasturelands on the Cerise Ranch have been flood irrigated for may years and it appears that some of the poor draining and low lying areas have become wetlands. It is also possible that the construction of the 4 lane portions of highway 82 may have lead to the present drainage condition and wetland formation. cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN 17 4. 0 CONFORMANCE TO GARFIELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A. General The proposed development will be sensitive to existing natural features, existing agricultural open space, need for quality housing, logical use of current public transportation and proximity to other neighborhoods and their amenities. The following is a breakdown of the Goals and Objectives as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. It is the goal of this development to address and meet each of those items within the confines of the Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density (A/R/RD) zone district. B. Public Participation Through the course of preparing this application to Garfield County for subdivision of this property, much public input has been given regarding the density and type of residential units suitable for this site. A low density plan has been developed as a result of this input averaging 1 lot per 4.5 acres. C. Housing The proposed housing is in a location adjacent to existing residential development and can be linked by a trails system to the adjoining pedestrian easements established at the Dakota project. The housing has been located on the stretch of property along the base of the hill. All efforts have been made to preserve open space along the Highway maintaining the visual quality of the current agricultural open space for both the residents of this development and travelers up and down the valley. This section of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan also focuses on providing a diversity of housing types to achieve multiple levels of affordability. This plan proposes to allow one accessory dwelling unit per lot. These units can be rented cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN • • 18 which will make the primary mortgage more affordable and allow rental products within the project. D. Transportation The location of the proposed housing is easily accessible by the existing RFTA bus system and this project proposes to put in a bus stop at the intersection of the primary project entrance and Highway 82. With public transportation currently moving up and down Highway 82, residents of the development will be able to access the existing bus line easily via pedestrian trails from the residential portions of the project to the bus stop. As well, pedestrian connections will be made to the Dakota Project with potential accesses the trail systems at Blue Lake if agreements can be worked out with neighboring properties. This will encourage use of trails to get to the regional transit center in El Jebel via that trail system. The proposed development will contain a primary and emergency access drive to insure that clear access is provided to the project at all times. Cul de sacs have been minimized in the plan to provide alternative routes to all project areas from a collector street leading to all or driveways. This street will not be connected to any other existing developments therefor limiting traffic to only those going to and from the project. A Traffic Study of the impacts to Highway 82 has been included in this submittal. See the appendix to review this report. E. Recreation and Open Space The proposed Development seeks to preserve the visual corridor along Highway 82. With that objective in mind, the majority of the development has been placed 900 to 1,600 ft. away from the Highway at the base of the hill. 90 acres of land will be used in common by the homeowners as agricultural open space. Additionally, 99 acres of hillside open space has been preserved. cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN 19 F. Agriculture ? Development has been clustered outside of the 11/prime agriculture areas at the base of the slope in an effort to preserve the agricultural uses on the site. As mentioned above 91 acres of agricultural land will be preserved with this plan. G. Water and Sewer Services A common water system with wells and a storage facility are proposed for this project. Individual sewage disposal systems will be used to treat waste water for the project. It is assumed that the ISDS systems will be engineered to meet the soils conditions and all requirements specified by the Colorado Department of Health. H. Natural Environment The development submittal proposes to cluster housing in a manner that allows areas of remaining open space to he preserved. As proposed in the following Comprehensive Plan Proposed Land Use Districts Map, 90 acres of agricultural open space will be preserved as well as 99 acres of hillside open space. Residential development has been pulled to the toe of the slope, and wetlands have also been identified and preserved. cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN s 5 . 0 SKETCH PLAN A. Land Use Summary 1. Common Areas Agricultural Open Space Hillside Open Space 2. Developed Areas 90 acres 99 acres 2 acre minimum single family lots 115 acres and roadways. 3. Total project acreage 304 acres 4. Number of single family 67 building envelopes w/a.d.u.s 5. Average lot size (density) 4.5 acres 6. Minimum lot size+ 2 acres 7. Maximum lot size+ 10.2 acres 8. Road R.O.W. 50 feet 9. Minimum Front Yard Setback* 25 feet 10. Minimum Side Yard Setback* 15 feet + All lots contain at least one acre of land that is less than 40% slope. * Building envelopes have been defined for all lots. 20 cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN • 21 B. Utility Summary 1. Water A common water system with wells, a storage facility located in the draw above the existing ranch house, and distribution lines is proposed for this project. 2. Sewage Disposal Individual sewage disposal systems will be used to treat waste water for the project. It is assumed that the ISDS systems will be engineered to meet the soils conditions on site and all requirements specified by Garfield County and the Colorado Department of Health. 3. Public Utilities Letters from Holy Cross, KN Energy, TCI Cable and US West have been included in this document stating services from these companies are available. Please see appendix. cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN • !%P pedestrian circulatio, /transit pedestrian trail connection 1-7 z down valley transit stop up valley transit stop land use designations 2 acre min. s.f. lots & roads (115 acres) s.f. building envelopes w/a.d.u.s (67 total) hillside open space (98.6 acres) agricultural open space (90.2 acres) nt a Water • tank location VOI/Feip;", slope analysis slopes 40% and greater (95 acres) slopes less than 40% surficial hydrology wetlands (26 acres) blue creek irrigation ditch north spring 100 year flood plain (63 acres) C 9 ISE RANCH SKETCH PLAN CONCEPT north August 17, 1999 0 200 400 Client/Owner Wintergreen Homes Art Kleinstein P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 phone: 303.322-4119 fax: 303.322.4320 Land Planner The Land Studio, Inc. Doug Pratte 1002 Lauren Lane P.O. Box 107 Basalt, CO 81621 phone: 970.927.3690 fax: 970.927.4261 800 1200 92.1 acres common area inside oen spac JI 2.2 5 I(54 2.1 Civil Engineer High Country Engineering Joe Hope 923 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 phone: 970-945-8676 fax: 970-945-2555 acres iii 2,5 - 8 ;common area hillside open space 2.6 ac. 1, //; j 12.9 acres common area gricultural open space 77.3 acres common area gricultural open spac 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 • emergency access - easement t0 highway 82 1 1 1 1 1 �'�1IIIIli • 23 10. Appendix cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN • 24 cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN • • cerise RANCH Wildlife and Vegetation Report comprehensive plan amendment planned unit development and sketch plan 6/13/98 ►ncurew Anupas tcoiogicai Environmental Consulting, LLC Doug Pratte The Land Studio 100 Elk Run Drive, Suite 122 Basalt, CO 81621 Dear Doug, The following is my review of natural resources for the proposed Cerise ranch PUD. Executive Summary Slope aspect and altitude have a powerful influence over the distribution of plant communities in the Rocky Mountains. These two limiting factors also influence available moisture, length of the growing season, and effective day length. The Anderson Land Use and Land Cover Classification system developed by the US Geological Survey was utill7ed to map the Cerise Ranch land uses and plant community types. An aerial photograph acquired from the Natural Resource Conservation Service was used as the study base map (approximately 1 inch = 600 feet). Land uses were determined in the field and transferred to the base map. Three types of plant communities/ecosystems were identified within the Cerise ranch study area. They include oak/serviceberry shrubland, herbaceous pasture lands, and wetland communities. Based on the preliminary Cerise ranch sketch plan, the majority of the proposed development would occur on herbaceous pasturelands near the toe -of -slope that delineates the boundary between the two upland plant communities. Preliminary review of wildlife resources, for the sketch plan phase, consisted of reviewing the Colorado Division of Wildlife's GIS wildlife database, and meeting with Kevin Wright and Rick Adams the DoW District Wildlife Managers. Based on the database, important wildlife habitat in the vicinity of Cerise ranch include Elk and Mule Deer migration corridors and winter range. The DoW would discourage the disturbance or impacts to oar:/serviceberry plant communities, and at the same time favor the institution of covenants which would protect wildlife activities in the vicinity of Cerise ranch. Introduction This report describes the variety and distribution of plant communities present at the Cerise ranch, which is an active cattle ranch located in Garfield County, Colorado (Figure 1). The results of this investigation will be utilized during the early planning stages of the planned united development (PUD) in order to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive natural resources. The proposed project is to develop a diverse conununity consisting of a variety of single family homes, townhomes, condominiums, and an elementary school site for the Roaring Fork School District. Descriptions of Mountain Ecosystems There are many factors that drive the distribution of ecosystems across the landscape. The term ecosystem refers to a unique assemblage of living organisms and their surrounding physical environment. The living and non -living therefore function as a single interacting unit (Mutel and Emerick, 1992). The term community refers to the living component of the ecosystem. Therefore, conununity boundaries in the Rocky Mountains help define ecosystem boundaries. PO Box 2467 Basalt CO 81621 970-963-8297 aantipas@sopris.net • In the Rocky Mountains, slope aspect and altitude have a powerful influence over the distribution of plant communities. These two limiting factors also influence available moisture, length of the growing season, and effective day length. The following are brief descriptions of the community types identified In the vicinity of the base area of the Cerise ranch. Montane Shrublands and Herbaceous Rangeland Montane shrublands range in elevation from 5,500' to 10,000' (Mutel and Emerick, 1992). Dominated vegetation usually consists of Gambel oak, serviceberiy, greasewood, mountain mahogany, rabbitbush, and big sagebrush. These species can be found on the south facing hillside within the project area and are important winter range for elk and mule deer. Wetlands and Riparian Ecosystems Wetland and Riparian communities are found throughout the montane forest communities ranging from 5,500' to 11,000' and are a critical link in maintaining the health of surrounding plant communities and wildlife. Typical vegetation consists of cottonwood, willows, alder, and birch. Plus, there is a wide variety of herbaceous species usually dominated by sedge and rush species. Wetlands provide water, food, and cover for all types of wildlife. In addition, wetlands protect water quality by filtering runoff before it reaches the rivers or streams. Wetlands also act as a sponge during high flows, absorbing water and then slowly releasing it back to the stream after storm events or spring snow melt. Because of the western slopes serol -arid climate water is an important limiting resource. Therefore, the protection of wetland communities is critical to the long term survival of most of the animals found here. Typically, the Army Corps of engineers requires 2:1 mitigation for impacts to wetland communities on the west slope. Study Methodology A land use and land cover classification system developed by the US Geological Survey (Anderson et al., 1976) was utilized to label ranch land uses and plant community types. A 1990 aerial photograph acquired from the Natural Resource Conservation Service was used as the study base map (approximately 1 inch = 600 feet). Numerous field visits were used to determine the aerial signature of the various plant communities in the study area. The approximate boundaries between the communities were sketched onto the base (Figure 2). Aquatic and Wetlands Consultants, Inc. and Andrew Antipas Ecological and Environmental Consulting, LLC have delineated wetlands in the study area and will provide a delineation report under separate cover. However, approximate wetland areas are shown in Figure 2 for preliminary planning purposes. Results Three types of plant communities/ecosystems were identified within the Cerise ranch study area. They include oak/serviceberry shrubland, herbaceous pastureland, and wetland/riparian communities. Figure/2 illustrates existing land uses and the location of the plant communities throughout the study area. The wetland types found within the study area include emergent and wet meadows. Based on the preliminary sketch plan no wetlands would be impacted. Development would occur on the herbaceous pasturelands. However, if design plans change, impacts to wetlands will require Section 404 permits issued by the Arniy Corps of Engineers prior to construction. A more complete discussion of the wetland resource in the study area is available under a separate cover. 2 • Oak/serviceberry shrublands are typically found on south facing slopes and are important winter habitat for elk and mule deer because they do not hold snow during the winter. Avoiding this community type will be valuable in preserving winter habitat for the native big game species. The herbaceous pasturelands have been created by agricultural activities in the valley. Historically, oak/serviceberry covered the pasture areas as well, but were removed when the . valley was homesteaded. Much of the pasturelands on the Cerise ranch have been flood irrigated for many years and it appears that some of the poor draining and low lying areas have become wetlands. It is also possible that the construction of the 4 lane portions of highway 82 may have lead to the present drainage condition and wetland formation. A meeting was held with Kevin Wright and Rick Adams of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DoW) on May 26, 1998 to review and discuss the proposed development. Based on this meetings with the DoW, the proposed development will have impacts to elk and mule deer winter range. An increase in humans and their pets have the potential to disturb the elk and mule deer during the winter when food supplies and the animals energy reserves are low. In addition, the DoW has been monitoring the movements and activity of a female mountain lion and her cubs. The DoW intends to leave the mountain lions alone and educate the community to their presence. The DoW recommend limiting the number of pets in the development. Dogs and cats should be restrict to kennels or kept in doors and not allowed to run free. A complete discussion of the DoW recommended wildlife mitigation strategies are included in the meeting summary, which is included in the appendix. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (DoW) GIS database was reviewed and a summary form is also in the appendix. The database indicated that big game species such black bear, elk, and mule deer have important habitat in and adjacent to the study area. Conclusions Plant and wildlife communities are closely linked and make up the living portions of ecosystems. Therefore, impacts to plant communities will have a corresponding affect on wildlife. If the development plan can avoid impacting the oak/sagebrush habitat, impose pet restrictions, and institute a residential education program we will have addressed the Division of Wildlife's concerns. Please call me with your questions and comments or if you need additional information. Very Truly yours, Andrew Antipas Literature Cited Anderson, J. R., R. Anderson, E. E. Hardy, J. T. Roach, and R. E. Witmer. 1976. A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data. U. S. Geological Survey, Alexandria, Virginia. 28 pages. Mutel, C.F. and J.C. Ernerick. 1992. From Grassland to Glacier. 2nd Edition. Johnson Books, Boulder. Garfield County Planning DepartmeritSIS Resources Rob Hykys, GIS Analyst, garcopin@rof.net 970-945-8212, FAX: 970-945-7785 6/1/98 11.18 AM • COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE DATA (1:24K), one contiguous county -wide coverage. UTM meters, -4,000 km y -shift. 1998 (By agreement with CDOW, digital source data can not be shared.) • Wildlife habitat lies: Entirely Partly Within 1 Out in Area in Area Mile of Area Bald Eagle Active Nest Site Bald Eagle Winter Range Black Bear Overall Range Black Bear Human Conflict Black Bear Fall Concentration Area _ _ ✓' Black Bear Summer Concentration Area Bighom Migration Patterns Bighorn Overall Range Bighorn Winter Range Bighorn Winter Concentration Area Bighorn Summer Range Bighorn Production Area Boreal Toad Canada Goose Brood Concentration Area Canada Goose Feeding Area _ _ _ Canada Goose Production Area Canada Goose Wintering Area Canada Goose Winter Concentration Area _ _ o Chukar Colo River Cuthroat Trout _ _ _ _✓' Elk Migration Corridors Elk Winter Range Elk Winter Concentration Area — 1/' Elk Severe Winter Range Elk Overall Range _ EIk Summer Range _ ✓ _ _ Elk Summer Concentration Area Elk Production Area Golden Eagle Nest Site Golden Eagle Nest Unknown Status Great Blue Heron Nesting Area Kitfox Potential Habitat _ t.--- Kitfox Field Sightings _ Lynx Mule Deer Migration Patterns Mule Deer Winter Range Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area Mule Deer Severe Winter Range _ ✓ ____ _ Mule Deer Overall Range Mule Deer Summer Range Mule Deer Resident Population Area Mule Deer Hi hway Crossing — _ Native Fish (3 SPc5') — ✓ Osprey Active Nest Site Peregrine Falcon Active Nest Peregrine Falcon Nesting Area — _ _G • • Wildlife habitat lies: Entirely Partly Within 1 Out in Area in Area Mile of Area Perearine Falcon Miaratory Hunting Habitat Pronghom Antelope Overall Range Pronghorn Antelope Winter Range Pronghorn Antelope Winter Concentration Area Ptarmigan Potential Habitat Raptors Razorback Sucker River Otter Overall Range Sage Grouse Brood Area Sage Grouse Overall Range Sage Grouse Production Area Sage Grouse Winter Area Wild Turkey Overall Range Wild Turkey Production Area Wild Turkey Winter Range Wild Turkey Winter Concentration Area Wild Turkey Roosting Sites Willow Flycatcher Potential Significant Habitat Wolverine Possible Sighting 2 Andrew Antipas .ecological ei Environmental Consulting, LLC Meeting Summary -Meeting Date: 5/26/98 Project: Preliminary Planning for the Cerise Ranch Participants: Rick Adams, CO Division of Wildlife Kevin Wright, CO Division of Wildlife Doug Pratte', The Land Studio Andy Antipas, Ecological & Environmental Consulting, LLC Prepared by: Andy Antipas on 6/1/98 The meeting began at approximately 3:00 PM at the Park and Ride adjacent to Catherine's Store along Highway 82. Mr. Pratte reviewed the project sketch plan and discussed the need for a waste water treatment plant near the Roaring Fork River. Mr. Wright explained that the Cerise property falls under Mr. Adams jurisdiction and all future correspondence should be directed to him. The Division of Wildlife concerns were as follows: • Eliminating or severely restricting dogs in this area is critical. Dogs should be limited to one per household. When outside, dogs should be leashed or in a kennel. Kennels should have a roof to insure containment of the dogs and to keep wildlife out. Pet owners who allow there dogs to run free should be fined and fines should double with each offense. • Cats should be kept in doors or kenneled because of their threat to song bird populations. Free -ranging house cats will prey on songbirds and small mammals. • Homeowner association covenants should included clauses which prevent wildlife protection measures from being changed without permission of the DoW. • Dead wildlife (deer) removal is the responsibility of the homeowner. Winter kills and highway injured animals will be a common in the project area. • There should be no perimeter fencing which would interfere with wildlife movements. Fencing between the homes and open space should consist of 30 inches of mesh with a barbed kick • wire at the top or an alternate approved by the DoW. • Down lighting should be utilized in the development to protect evening wildlife activities. • Preserve a wildlife corridor so the deer have access to the open space. • The proposed development will be adjacent to active mountain lion home range. A female lion and her cubs have been observed in Missouri Heights and the hillside adjacent to the Cerise ranch. Homeowners should be aware of this and the DoW has no plans to remove the lions from the area. • Hay piles must be enclosed in order to discourage feeding by deer and elk in the open space. PO Box 2467 Basalt CO 81621 970-963..8297 aantipastesopris.net • • • • The 40 plus acre parcel above Richard Cerise's house is a migration corridor for elk and deer and should be kept as open space. The construction of a water storage tank would not significantly impact the area for animal migration. • Areas that are disturbed need to be revegetated as soon as possible to reduce soil erosion. Many of the gullies along the hillside will run with water during storm events. • An environmental education program which included brochures and interpretive signs throughout the proposed village will help property owners minimize impacts to wildlife and visa versa. • • Sagebrush/scrub oak plant communities should be avoided because they are valuable winter habitat for elk and deer. The sketch plan illustrated home sites above the northern most irrigation ditch which contains sagebrush and gambel oaks. If would be best for wildlife if these homesites could be moved below the irrigation ditch. • During construction of the development, construction workers should not be allowed to bring dogs to the site. Typically, these dogs are unsupervised for most of the day. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:20 PM. Andrew Antipas Ecological & Environmental Consulting will proceed on this report. Any discrepancy should be brought to his attention in writing within seven (7) days of the report preparation date. • • • cerise RANCH Geotechnical Report comprehensive plan amendment planned unit development and sketch plan • MR. ART KLEINSTEIN CERISE RANCH JOB NO. GS -2309 APPENDIX A SCS DATA Eg • • CERISE RANCH GARFIELD (Sc EAGLE COUNTIES, COLORADO Job No. GS -2309 SCS SOIL UNITS MAP go Scale: 1"=1000' Fig. A-1 • • Table of Contents Cerise Ranch Sketch Plan Application 1. Statement of Ownership 5 2. Introduction to the Cerise Ranch 5 A. Document Introduction 5 B. Vicinity Map 6 3. Existing Site Conditions 6 A. General 6 B. Zoning 6 C. Existing Conditions/Topography Map 7 D. Existing Conditions Photos 8 E. Climate 9 F. Slope Analysis Map 11 G. Preliminary Geotechnical/Soils Investigation 12 H. Vegetation/Wildlife 12 I. Plant Communities Map 16 4. Conformance to Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 17 A. General 17 B. Public Participation 17 C. Housing 17 D. Transportation 18 E. Recreation and Open Space 18 F. Agriculture 19 G. Water and Sewer Services 19 H. Natural Environment 19 5. Sketch Plan 20 A. Land Use Summary 20 B. Utility Summary 21 C. Sketch Plan Map 22 6. Appendix 23 cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN • • 12 G. Preliminary Geotechnical/Soils Investigation The property is underlain by bedrock consisting of the Pennsylvanian aged Eagle Valley Evaporite and is exposed on the slopes above the valley floor. Quaternary aged colluvial deposits overlay the bedrock and thicken on the lower slopes towards the edge of the valley floor forming a colluvial wedge. On the valley floor bedrock is covered with Quaternary aged terrace gravels deposited by the Roaring Fork River. Three alluvial fans coalesce along the north side of the valley floor covering the terrace gravels. It is the opinion of CTL/Thompson that all of the potential geologic hazards can be mitigated using engineering and construction methods considered normal for this type of development in the locale. In their opinion, the geologic conditions and potential geologic hazards are similar to and no greater than those of other developments in the area (e.g. Aspen - Glen, River Valley Ranch, etc.). Conditions at this site are typical of mountainous terrain. For the complete Geotechnical report see appendix. H. Vegetation/Wildlife Three types of plant communities/ecosystems were identified within the cerise Ranch study area. They include oak/serviceberry shrubland, herbaceous pasture lands, and wetland communities. Based on the preliminary Cerise ranch sketch plan, the majority of the proposed development would occur on herbaceous pasturelands near the toe -of -slope that delineates the boundary between the two upland plant communities. Preliminary review of wildlife resources, for the sketch plan phase, consisted of reviewing the Colorado Division of Wildlife's GIS wildlife database, and meeting with Kevin Wright and Rick Adams the DoW District Wildlife Managers. Based on the cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN • E. Climate General Climactic Considerations The climate of the area surrounding the Cerise T f 3 '''Ranch Area is typical of a continental mountain region characterized by low average relative humidity, high solar insolation, and cool average annual temperatures. The entire central/southern Rocky Mountain region is dominated by relatively dry air masses. Storms which originate over the Pacific Ocean that follow the prevailing winds from the west, lose much of their moisture over other mountain ranges west of this site. Storms from the north, embedded in continental polar air, also carry relatively little moisture due to their continental origin. These northerly storms are most frequent in the late winter/early springtime months. Tropical gulf air masses seldom penetrate west of the Continental Divide at this latitude and provide very little effect to this region. Site Specific Climactic Considerations The nearest reporting meteorological station with any records of consequence is Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Data for Glenwood Springs is usually used for this site, although extremes of temperature, annual rainfall and total snowfall may vary from Glenwood's deep canyon locations to Cerise Ranch over twenty air miles away. Glenwood Springs temperature data is tabulated in Table 1 average annual Month Elevation temperature Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jly Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (feet) (°F) (yrs) (Degrees, Fahrenheit) 5823 47.7 41 24 30 38 47 56 64 71 69 61 50 36 26 Table 2 outlines temperature data in its relationship to plant growth, an important aspect of vegetation and revegetation management. cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN • 10 Growing Season Approximate growing degree days Length of period Average date of 32°F 32°F 28°F Last in First in Years of Base 50°F Base 40°F threshold threshold spring fall data 2180 4200 143 171 14 -May 4 -Oct 29 The prevailing wintertime winds are from a westerly/northwesterly direction and as is characteristic of higher mountainous altitudes, wind velocities during air mass/frontal movements can produce effects of snow transport, drifts and cornice buildup. Control measures are highly desirable to optimize specific site potentials. Spring melt and runoff requires attention to waterbars and ditches to prevent erosion. Likewise, late summer dryness present a potential fire hazard which must be a consideration during pre -season work. cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN Total yearly precipitation Total yearly Days snowfall per year with precipitation equal to or exceeding Length of Length of Length of Elevation Amount record Amount record 0.1" 0.5" 1.0" record (feet) (inches) (years) (inches) (years) (days) (years) 5823 7.5 41 67 35 48 6 1 18 The prevailing wintertime winds are from a westerly/northwesterly direction and as is characteristic of higher mountainous altitudes, wind velocities during air mass/frontal movements can produce effects of snow transport, drifts and cornice buildup. Control measures are highly desirable to optimize specific site potentials. Spring melt and runoff requires attention to waterbars and ditches to prevent erosion. Likewise, late summer dryness present a potential fire hazard which must be a consideration during pre -season work. cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN • TABLE 12. --CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS (Some terms that describe restrictive soil features are defined in the Glossary. See text for definitions of "good," "fair," and other terms. Absence of an entry indicates that the soil was not rated. The information in this table indicates the dominant soil condition but does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation) Soil name and map symbol Roadfill Sand Gravel Topsoil Rock outcrop. 13*: Atencio Azeltine Good Good Probable Probable Probable Probable 38 (Good (Improbable: Evanston 1 1 excess fines. 55*: Gypsum land. Gypsiorthids • 69 • Kilgore Rock outcrop. 106*: Tridell Brownsto 114, 115 Yamo Poor: area reclaim, slope. Fair: wetness. Poor: slope. Poor: slope. Good Improbable: excess fines. Improbable: (Improbable: excess fines. 1 excess fines. Poor: small stones, area reclaim. Poor: too sandy, small stones, area reclaim. Good. Poor: area reclaim, slope. Probable Probable Improbable: (Improbable: excess fines. I excess fines. Improbable: (Improbable: excess fines. I excess fines. Improbable: (Improbable: excess fines. I excess fines. Poor: small stones, area reclaim. Poor: small stones, slope. Poor: small stones, area reclaim, slope. Poor: small stones. * See description of the map unit for composition and behavior characteristics of the map unit. TABLE 14. --ENGINEERING INDEX PROPERTIES (The symbol < means less than; > means more than. Absence of an entry indicates that data were not estimated) I I 1 Classification IFrag- I Percentage passing I Soil name and IDepthl USDA texture I Iments 1 sieve number-- ILiquid 1 Plas- map limit I ticity symbol I 1 I Unified 1 AAS13T0 I> 3 1 Iinchesl 4 10 40 200 1 1 index 1 I Rock outcrop. 13*: Atencio Azeltine 38, 39 Evanston 55*: Gypsum land. Gypsiorthids---- 69 0-10 Sandy loam 10-24 Gravelly sandy clay loam, sandy 'clay loam, gravelly sandy loam. 24-30 Gravelly sandy clay loam, gravelly sandy loam. 30-60 Extremely cobbly sand, very gravelly sand. 0-9 Gravelly sandy loam. 9-16 Gravelly sandy loam, gravelly loam. 16-60 Extremely gravelly sand. 0-141Loam 14-311Loam, 31-601Loam 1 Kilgore SM SC SM -SC, GM -GC SP, GP, SP -SM, GP -GM SM, SM -SC, GM, GM -GC GM -GC, SM -SC, GC, SC GP IML clay loam ICL ICL -ML 0-8 Fine sandy loam IML, SM, I CL -ML, I SM -SC 8-23 Fine sandy loam, IML, SM, loam. 1 CL -ML, 1 SM -SC 23-39 Fine sandy loam, IML, SM loam. A-2 A-2, A-6 A-2 A-1 A-2, A-4 A-2, A-4, A-6 A-1 IA -4 1A-6 1A-4 '1 0-5 75-100175-100 50-65 20-30 0-5 65-90 150-90 35-65 25-45 1 1 5-10 50-80 150-75 40-65 15-30 1 1 1 20-60 40-60 135-55 10-35 0-10 1 1 0-5 60-85 150-75 40-65 25-40 1 0-5 60-85 150-75 40-65 25-50 1 1 15-30 25-40 120-35 10-20 0-5 0 195-100195-100170-85 150-70 0 195-100195-100170-90 150-70 0 195-100195-100165-85 150-60 1 I I 1 1 � I I 31-4, 31-2 1 0-5 100 190-100150-90 1 I I I 31-4, 31-2 1 0-5 100 190-100150-90 1 1 I 1 A-4, 31-2 1 0-5 100 190-100150-80 1 i 39 Weathered bedrock — i ' --- - -- --- - 0-4 (Silt loam ICL IA -6 1 0 195-100190-95 175-90 4-25ISilt loam, loam, 1CL-ML, CL IA -6, A-4 I 0 195-100185-95 175-90 1 clay loam. I 1 1 1 1 I 25-29IVery gravelly ISM, GM IA -1 110-15 50-60 130-45 120-30 1 sandy loam, veryl I 1 I 1 I gravelly coarse 1 1 1 1 1 sandy loam. I I 1 1 1 29-60IVery gravelly IGP, GP -GM, A-1 1.10-30 135-55 130-50 115-35 1 0-15 NP 1 loamy sand, veryl GM, SP 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 gravelly sand. I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 15-20 1 NP -5 20-30 110-15 15-25 1 5-10 NP 20-30 I NP -10 25-35 1 5-15 NP 30-35 5-10 25-35 10-15 20-30 5-10 25-65 20-35 NP -10 25-60 20-35 NP -10 15-60 20-35 NP -10 170-80 30-35 10-15 170-80 25-40 5-20 110-20 15-20 NP -5 See footnote at end of table. TABLE 14. --ENGINEERING INDEX PROPERTIES --Continued ,I 1 1 Classification IFrag- I Percentage passing 1 1 Soil name and 'IDepthl USDA texture 1 1 Invents 1 sieve number-- ILiquid 1 Plae- I Unified 1 AASHTO I> 3 1 1 I 1 limit 1 ticity map symbol i 1 I )inches) 4 1 10 40 1 200 1 1 index Rock outcrop. 106*: Tridell Brownsto 0-2 2-37 37-60 0-11 11-30 30-60 1 1 Stony sandy loam ICL -ML, I SM -SC Very cobbly fine IGM, GM -GC sandy loam, extremely gravelly sandy 1 loam, very stony) fine sandy loam.1 Very gravelly IGP A-1 30-45 35-45 30-40 20-30 0-5 1 NP sand, extremely I gravelly sand, 1 extremely cobblyl sand. 1 1 Stony sandy loam IGM-GC, A-4, A-2 30-45 60-70 55-65 45-55 25-45 1 25-30 5-10 1 SM -SC Very gravelly IGM A-1 15-35 50-60 45-55 25-35 15-25 I NP sandy loam, veryl cobbly sandy 1 loam. Very gravelly IGM, SM, A-1 10-20 50-65 45-60 25-35 10-20 1 NP loamy sand, 1 GP -GM, gravelly sandy I SP -SM loam, very gravelly sandy I loam. 1 IML, CL -ML 1A-4 0 180-100175-100160-90 150-65 1 15-25 NP -10 ICL -ML, CL 1A-4, A-6 0 180-100175-100160-90 150-75 120-30 5-15 1CL-ML, CL 1A-4, A-6 1 0-5 180-100175-100160-90 150-75 1 20-30 5-15 1 -_ 1 • 1 1 i i L.._ A-4, A-2 A-1, A-2 20-30 35-50 75-95 45-55 70-90 40-50 60-80 30-40 30-60 1 20-30 5-10 15-30 115-30 NP -10 114, 115, 116---- 0-8 (Loam 18-14ILoam, clay loam 114-601Loam, clay loam Yamo * See description of the map unit for composition and behavior characteristics of the map unit. • 13—Atencio-Azeltine complex, 3 to 6 percent "lopes. This map unit is on alluvial fans and terraces. he native vegetation is mainly grasses and shrubs. Elevation is 5,900 to 6,500 feet. The average annual precipitation is 15 to 18 inches, the average annual air temperature is 44 to 46 degrees F, and the average frost-free period is 105 to 120 days. This unit is about 60 percent Atencio sandy loam and 30 percent Azeltine gravelly sandy loam. Included in this unit are small areas of soils that are similar to the Atencio and Azeltine soils but are finer textured. Also included are small areas of gravel bars. Included areas make up about 10 percent of the total acreage. The Atencio soil is deep and well drained. It formed in alluvium derived dominantly from sandstone and shale. Typically, the surface layer is reddish gray sandy loam about 6 inches thick. The next layer is sandy loam about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is about 10 inches of sandy clay loam over about 4 inches of gravelly sandy loam. The upper 6 inches of the substratum is gravelly sandy loam. The lower part to a depth of 60 inches is very gravelly sand. The soil is noncalcareous to a depth of 20 inches and calcareous below that depth. In some areas the surface layer is gravelly or cobbly. Permeability is moderate to a depth of 30 inches in like Atencio soil and rapid below this depth. Available later capacity is low. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of water erosion is slight. The Azeltine soil is deep and well drained. It formed in alluvium derived dominantly from sandstone and shale. Typically, the surface layer is reddish gray gravelly sandy loam about 9 inches thick. The upper 7 inches of the substratum is gravelly loam. The lower part to a depth of 60 inches is extremely gravelly sand. The soil is calcareous throughout. In some areas the surface layer is cobbly loam or sandy loam. Permeability is rapid or very rapid below a depth of 16 inches in the Azeltine soil. Available water capacity is low. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of water erosion is slight. This unit is used mainly for irrigated hay or pasture. It also is used for crops, urban development, wildlife habitat, or rangeland. If this unit is used for hay and pasture, the main limitations are the low available water capacity and small stones. Grasses and legumes grow well if adequate fertilizer is used. Good management helps to maintain optimum vigor and quality of forage plants. Irecause these soils are droughty, applications of rigation water should be light and frequent. Irrigation water can be applied by corrugation, sprinkler, and flooding methods. If properly managed, the unit can produce 4 tons of irrigated grass hay per acre annually. This unit is moderately well suited to irrigated crops. If furrow or corrugation irrigation systems are used, runs should be on the contour or across the slope. If properly managed, the unit can produce 70 bushels of barley per acre annually. The potential plant community on this unit is mainly western wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, needleandthread, big sagebrush, and Douglas rabbitbrush. Nevada bluegrass, prairie junegrass, and bottlebrush squirreltail also are included. The average annual production of air- dry vegetation is about 800 pounds per acre. Suitable management practices include proper grazing use and a planned grazing system. If the quality of range vegetation has seriously deteriorated, seeding is needed. The main limitations are cobbles and stones. For successful seeding, a seedbed should be prepared and the seed drilled. Brush management improves deteriorated areas of range that are producing more woody shrubs than were present in the potential plant community. If this unit is used for homesite development, the main limitation is small stones. Population growth has resulted in increased construction of homes in areas of this unit. Topsoil can be stockpiled and used to reclaim areas disturbed during construction. The gravel and cobbles in disturbed areas should be removed if the site is landscaped, particularly in areas used for lawns. If the density of housing is moderate or high, community sewage systems are needed to prevent the contamination of water supplies resulting from seepage from onsite sewage disposal systems. This map unit is in capability subclass IVe, irrigated, and VIe, nonirrigated. It is in the Rolling Loam range site. 38—Evanston loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on alluvial fans, terraces, and valley sides. It formed in alluvium derived dominantly from material of mixed mineralogy. Elevation is 6,500 to 8,000 feet. The average annual precipitation is 13 to 15 inches, the average annual air temperature is 42 to 46 degrees F, and the average frost -free period is 80 to 90 days. Typically, the surface layer is brown loam about 14 inches thick. The subsoil is clay loam about 17 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches or more is loam. Included in this unit are small areas of Tridell, Uracca, and Forelle soils. Also included are small areas of soils that are similar to the Evanston soil but have more stones. Included areas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage. Permeability is moderate in the Evanston soil. eAvailable water capacity is high. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of water erosion is slight. This unit is used mainly as rangeland. It also is used for pasture, crops, or wildlife habitat. A few areas also are used for homesite development. The potential plant community on this unit is mainly bluebunch wheatgrass, western wheatgrass, muttongrass, Douglas rabbitbrush, and mountain big sagebrush. Utah serviceberry, mountain snowberry, prairie junegrass, and Ross sedge commonly are also included. The average annual production of air-dry vegetation is about 1,500 pounds per acre. If the range condition deteriorates, mountain big sagebrush, Douglas rabbitbrush, cheatgrass, and annual weeds increase in abundance. Suitable management practices include proper grazing use and a planned grazing system. Brush management improves deteriorated areas of range that are producing more woody shrubs than were present in the potential plant community. This soil responds well to applications of fertilizer, to range seeding, and to proper grazing use. If the quality of range vegetation has seriously deteriorated, seeding is needed. This unit is well suited to hay and pasture. It has few A seedbed should be prepared on the *limitations. contour or across the slope where practical. Applications of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer improve growth of forage plants. If properly managed, the unit can produce 5 tons of irrigated grass hay per acre annually. This unit is well suited to irrigated crops. If properly managed, it can produce 90 bushels of barley per acre annually. This unit is suited to homesite development. The main limitation is the shrink -swell potential. The effects of shrinking and swelling can be minimized by prewetting foundation areas. Population growth has resulted in increased construction of homes in areas of this unit. This map unit is in capability subclass IVe, irrigated and nonirrigated. It is in the Deep Loam range site. 55—Gypsum land-Gypsiorthids complex, 12 to 65 percent slopes. This map unit is on mountainsides, on hills, and along dissected drainageways (fig. 5). It is on hills and canyon side slopes throughout the survey area. This unit is about 65 percent Gypsum land and 20 opercent Gypsiorthids. Included in this unit are small areas of Torriorthents and Camborthids. Included areas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage. The Gypsum land consists mainly of exposed parent material that has a very high content of gypsum. The Gypsiorthids are shallow and moderately deep and well drained. They formed in residuum and colluvium derived dominantly from mixed material with a very high content of gypsum. Slope is 12 to 50 percent. No single profile of these soils is typical, but one commonly observed in the survey area has a surface layer of very pale brown fine sandy loam about 8 inches thick. The substratum is fine sandy loam. Soft, gypsiferous shale is at a depth of about 39 inches. Permeability is moderate in the Gypsiorthids. Available water capacity is low or moderate. The effective rooting depth is 10 to 40 inches. Runoff is very rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is slight to severe on the steeper slopes. This unit is used as wildlife habitat. The native vegetation on the Gypsiorthids is sparse grasses, forbs, and Utah juniper. The Gypsum land supports very little native vegetation. This unit is poorly suited to homesite development. The main limitations are the slope, the hazard of erosion, piping, and low soil strength during wet periods. This map unit is in capability class VIII. No range site is assigned. 69—Kilgore silt loam. This deep, poorly drained soil is on alluvial valley floors, flood plains, low terraces, and alluvial fans. It formed in alluvium derived dominantly from mixed sources. Elevation is 6,000 to 9,800 feet. The average annual precipitation is 18 to 20 inches, the average annual air temperature is 38 to 40 degrees F, and the average frost -free period is 70 to 95 days. Typically, the surface layer is very dark grayish brown silt loam about 4 inches thick. The upper 21 inches of the substratum is silt loam. The next 4 inches is very gravelly sandy loam. The lower part to a depth of 60 inches is very gravelly loamy sand. Included in this unit are small areas of Atencio, Azeltine, Showalter, Morval, and Empedrado soils. Included areas make up about 10 percent of the total acreage. Permeability is moderately slow in the Kilgore soil. Available water capacity is low. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of water erosion is slight or moderate on the steeper slopes. A high water table is at a depth of 1 to 3 feet. The soil is occasionally flooded for very brief periods in spring and summer. This unit is used as hayland, pasture, or rangeland. It s well suited to hay and pasture. Wetness limits the choice of suitable forage plants and the period of cutting or grazing and increases the risk of winterkill. Grazing when the soil is wet results in compaction of the surface layer, poor tilth, and excessive runoff. Applications of nitrogen fertilizer improve the growth of forage plants. If properly managed, the unit can produce 3.5 tons of irrigated grass hay per acre annually. The potential plant community on this unit is mainly tufted hairgrass, Nebraska sedge, slender wheatgrass, ovalhead sedge, and willow. Other plants that characterize this site are western yarrow, Rocky Mountain iris, and shrubby cinquefoil. The average annual production of air-dry vegetation is about 3,000 pounds per acre. If the range condition deteriorates, willow, iris, and shrubby cinquefoil increase in abundance. If the condition of the range further deteriorates, Kentucky bluegrass and Canada thistle increase in abundance. This unit is poorly suited to homesite development. The main limitations are seepage, the wetness, the frost action potential, and the flooding. A drainage system is needed if roads and building foundations are onstructed. This map unit is in capability subclass Vw, irrigated and nonirrigated. It is in the Mountain Meadow range site. 106—Tridell-Brownsto stony sandy loams, 12 to 50 percent slopes, extremely stony. This map unit is on terraces and mountainsides. Elevation is 6,400 to 7,700 feet. The average annual precipitation is 12 to 14 inches, the average annual air temperature is 42 to 44 degrees F, and the average frost -free period is 85 to 105 days. This unit is about 45 percent Tridell soil and 35 percent Brownsto soil. About 5 to 10 percent of the surface is covered with stones. Included in this unit are small areas of Forelle and Evanston soils in the less sloping cleared areas. Also included are small areas of basalt Rock outcrop and soils that are similar to the Tridell soil but have Tess gravel and fewer stones. Included areas make up about 20 percent of the total acreage. • The Tridell soil is deep and somewhat excessively drained. It formed in alluvium and colluvium derived dominantly from sandstone and basalt. Typically, the upper part of the surface layer is grayish brown stony sandy loam about 2 inches thick. The lower part is grayish brown very cobbly fine sandy loam about 7 inches thick. The upper 5 inches of the substratum is very cobbly fine sandy loam. The next part is cobbly sandy loam about 11 inches thick. Below this is 12 inches of very stony fine sandy loam. The lower part of the substratum to a depth of 60 inches is very stony loamy sand. Hard basalt is commonly below a depth of about 60 inches. The soil is calcareous throughout. A thin layer of partially decomposed needles, twigs, and leaves is on the surface in many places. Permeability is moderately rapid in the Tridell soil. Available water capacity is low. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. The Brownsto soil is deep and well drained. It formed in alluvium derived dominantly from coarse textured, calcareous sandstone and basalt. Typically, the upper part of the surface layer is light brownish gray stony sandy loam about 4 inches thick. The lower part is light brownish gray stony sandy loam about 7 inches thick. The upper 19 inches of the substratum is very gravelly sandy loam. The next 12 inches is very gravelly loamy sand. The lower part to a depth of 60 inches is gravelly construction. The gravel and cobbles in disturbed areas should be removed if the site is landscaped, particularly in areas used for lawns. Areas adjacent to hillsides are occasionally affected by runoff, which may be accompanied by the movement of rock debris. Population growth has resulted in increased construction of homes in areas of this unit. This map unit is in capability subclass Vile, nonirrigated. The Tridell soil is in the Pinyon -Juniper woodland site, and the Brownsto soil is in the Stony Foothills range site. 114—Yamo loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes. This deep, *ell drained soil is on fans and toe slopes. It formed in alluvium derived dominantly from sandstone, shale, and gypsum. Elevation is 6,200 to 7,500 feet. The average annual precipitation is 10 to 14 inches, the average annual air temperature is 40 to 44 degrees F, and the average frost -free period is 85 to 105 days. Typically, the surface layer is light brownish gray loam about 8 inches thick. The subsoil is loam about 6 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches or more is loam. Thin strata of material that ranges from gravelly clay loam to sand are common below a depth of 40 inches. Included in this unit are small areas of Forelle and Mussel soils and areas of Gypsiorthids. Also included are small areas of soils that are similar to the Yamo soil but have a more alkaline subsoil and support greasewood vegetation. Included areas make up about 20 percent of the total acreage. Permeability is moderate in the Yamo soil. Available water capacity is high. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of water erosion is slight. This unit is used mainly for rangeland, hay, pasture, or irrigated crops. It also is used for homesite development. WThe potential plant community on this unit is mainly estern wheatgrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, prairie junegrass, Wyoming big sagebrush, and Douglas rabbitbrush. Other plants that characterize this site are needleandthread, bottlebrush squirreltail, and Sandberg bluegrass. The average annual production of air-dry vegetation is about 800 pounds per acre. If the range condition deteriorates, Wyoming big sagebrush, Douglas rabbitbrush, cheatgrass, and annual weeds increase in abundance. If the quality of range vegetation has seriously deteriorated, seeding is needed. The plants selected for seeding should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock, wildlife, or both. For successful seeding, a seedbed should be prepared and the seed drilled. This unit is well suited to hay and pasture. Proper grazing practices, weed control, and fertilizer are needed to ensure maximum quality of forage. Irrigation water can be applied by corrugation and sprinkler methods. Leveling helps to ensure the uniform application of water. In some places sinkholes or pipes may develop because of the content of gypsum in the soil. If properly managed, the unit can produce 4 tons of irrigated grass hay per acre annually. • This unit is well suited to irrigated crops. It is limited mainly by content of gypsum and the susceptibility to piping and sinkholes. Sprinkler irrigation can be used, but water should be applied slowly to minimize runoff. Pipe, ditch lining, or drop structures in irrigation ditches facilitate irrigation and help to control erosion. Returning crop residue to the soil or regularly adding other organic material improves fertility, reduces crusting, and increases the water intake rate. Crops respond well to applications of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer. Crops suitable for this soil include alfalfa and small grains. This unit is suited to homesite development. The shrink -swell potential is a limitation. It can be minimized by prewetting the foundation area. Areas adjacent to hillsides are occasionally affected by runoff, which may be accompanied by the movement of rock debris. Population growth has resulted in increased • construction of homes in areas of this soil. This map unit is in capability subclass IVe, irrigated and nonirrigated. It is in the Rolling Loam range site. 115—Yamo loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on fans and toe slopes. It formed in colluvium derived dominantly from sandstone, shale, and gypsum. Elevation is 6,200 to 7,500 feet. The average annual precipitation is 10 to 14 inches, the average annual air temperature is 40 to 44 degrees F, and the average frost -free period is 85 to 105 days. Typically, the surface layer is light brownish gray loam about 8 inches thick. The subsoil is loam about 6 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches or more is loam. Thin strata of material that ranges from gravelly clay loam to sand are common below a depth of 40 inches. Included in this unit are small areas of Forelle and Mussel soils and small areas of Gypsiorthids. Also included are small areas of soils that are similar to the Yamo soil but have a more alkaline subsoil and support some greasewood vegetation. Included areas make up about 20 percent of the total acreage. Permeability is moderate in the Yamo soil. Available water capacity is high. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of water erosion is slight. This unit is used mainly as rangeland, hayland, or pasture. It also is used for homesite development. The potential plant community on this unit is mainly western wheatgrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, prairie junegrass, Wyoming big sagebrush, and Douglas rabbitbrush. Other plants that characterize this site are needleandthread, bottlebrush squirreltail, and Sandberg bluegrass. The average annual production of air-dry vegetation is about 800 pounds per •cre. If the range condition deteriorates, Wyoming big sagebrush, Douglas rabbitbrush, cheatgrass, and annual weeds increase in abundance. Range seeding may be needed if the range is in poor condition. For successful seeding, a seedbed should be prepared and the seed drilled. The plants selected for seeding should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock, wildlife, or both. This unit is suited to homesite development. The main limitation is the slope in the steeper areas. The shrink -swell potential is also a limitation. It can be minimized by prewetting the foundation area. Areas adjacent to hillsides are occasionally affected by runoff, which may be accompanied by the movement of rock debris. This map unit is in capability subclass IVe, irrigated and nonirrigated. It is in the Rolling Loam range site. • • IG.1 3/25/98 CO • SW 7/4 SE 1/4 • SECT/ON 29 SECTION 29 SECTION 28 Soec &,AG 21.40/1,M044 744. Ha . LOT Qaf LOT ., \1 . ' `ms' ISS \.� N"fir V'v ` \. tg \ LEGEND: Qtg Qcf Qaf Pev Quaternary aged terrace gravels Quaternary aged colluvium Quaternary aged alluvial fan Quaternary aged Eagle Valley Formation Indicates approximate unit boundary geologic C). Cl• • i TICLC OIKO)I SV82VV451040 0 100 200 300 6C0 SCALE: 1" = 300' CERISE RANCH GARFIELD & EAGLE COUNTIES, COLORADO SURFICIAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS MAP CTL/THOMPSON, INC. 77 CONSULTING ENGINEERS v. CWT. MM . nnwrc Wnbgi 00,.+..00 - (970) 90.41/9 0 Sf: CID 06(5: 3/25/00 25-2300 CHECKED 52: LB REVISED: 00/00/00 7)5. 1 • • • GS-2309 FIG.2 3/25/98 CD SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Ili .or Dbf CO' 2 '\_ 1 \ \\ SECTION 29 SECTION 29 I s � SECTION 28 SOOERRERC SC OIWSON MING NO. 4 \ i \ PST_ .;*\\S, �.�_' -- tea::•-`-_�,' � . �` i� LEGEND: Sub Pus Dbf1 2 j. j � -� y 13:- i v _, .' a >1 /I S b -^ / � 1 '\/ I �� /1 Iwo ✓I F ��t �� �.,r Sueom. Potential subsidence hazard area Potentially unstable slopes Potential debris flow hazard. Numeral indicates relative degree of risk. 2 is higher risk than 1 Indicates approximate geologic hazard boundary. mar OAKOTTA SarDIV7S (irs) 0 100 200 300 6CC SCALE: 1" = 300" CERISE RANCH GARFIELD & EAGLE COUNTIES, COLORADO POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS CTL/THOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS CUM gas • mc..wooc sag., cognmo • (ems; ws-aeas DRAWN GO: CLD W'E: 3/25/90 0S-2309 CHECKED BO: LB REVISED: 00/00/00 ng. • • • cerise RANCH Traffic Impact Analysis comprehensive plan amendment planned unit development and sketch plan COl/NTf�i� G/NEE//NG CERISE RANCH PUD TRAFFIC STUDY PREPARED FOR: WINTERGREEN HOMES P.O. BOX 978 AVON. CO 81620 (970) 322 - 4119 PREPARED BY: HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. 923 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 (970) 945-8676 AUGUST 27, 1999 JOB NUMBER 99054.01 923 COOPER AVENUE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 Telephone (970) 945-8676 • Fax (970) 945-2555 • • • CERISE RANCH PUD TRAFFIC STUDY INTRODUCTION This traffic study for the Cerise Ranch addresses the capacity, geometric, and traffic control requirements associated with a proposed residential development located north of State Highway 82 (SH 82) just west of the Garfield/Eagle County Line, in Garfield County, Colorado. Please refer to Figure 1 for the vicinity map. EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES The site is currently vacant and is being used for agricultural uses. The developer is proposing developing the site into a residential community of 67 units, and 67 accessory dwelling units. SITE ACCESS Access is proposed from SH 82. The development proposes one access point onto SH 82, please see Figure 1 for an approximate location of the access point. The existing SH 82 is a four -lane, 65 mph, east/west roadway, with turning lanes provided at the major intersections. SURROUNDING LAND USES The surrounding land uses are as follows. SH 82 borders the project along the entire South boundary. Dakota Subdivision is adjacent on the east boundary and the remaining boundary is surrounded by hillside and and open agricultural space. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation was estimated using the Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition. Table 1 shows the daily and peak hour trip generation for this development. A trip is defined as a one way vehicle movement from the origin to destination. The origin or destination of a generated trip would be within the site area. For the purpose of this study, the data in Table 1 is grouped into land uses for the project. • ,t ��f �?7.' Vii'% • �� - f 1111# ( RI r; "s V r` a\ ''''`•k RANCH SITE %//,��, • ; - .6289J / / ////3,/- - - i sit ii._\._ ' --' _ . . 7, .1 /// ,. - /7 6284 Catherine j - i 1 . , 1/ ly/e, 04/0/ d e>1111111;117 �=,^�` , _.--�.,�.�-''--'.',.1== ca E •� i tr .. .�'..-'� . ry ,. : _ ,.:' -...... '�--� -%J- • \ I SE ~ACCESS POI ,�i�b `` \ R Or RP!'° 4 i S' & - �'`+.' :� itl- 321 //: 3 3 �: ' F &85 S'+:`' L / .~� ��R 'C-..... O.%`.'`� •---- �/ UIford r '�� v •.. -. y �-'}� / _. !� f '°4 1. i/ -V� •k f f ', 1111 n _ � -hti Jf ' - ,. r/ 1te— 1 i vi 1I� .. UI ,„/ , z % _ .. +.i f , ((( '�•.---- - r w _./ •,� �_ te� ! i ;. - - --�._..-•'". t IIs. r Fz. tr--ter fi•/" { I VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 cuvrmY HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. ,.,O„�„s 923 COOPER AVENUE WINTERGREEN HOMES GARFIELD COUNTY CERISE RANCH - 2000' GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 TRAFFIC STUDY DES. SOE CK JDH FILE N0. SHEET 1 (970) 945-8676 - Traffic PRELIMINARY DR. EPT DATE 8-27-99 99054.01 OF • • LAND USE TOTAL UNITS TRIP GENERATION AM PEAK PM PEAK AVERAGE TRIPS TRIPS TRIPS TRIPS WEEKDAY TRIPS IN OUT IN OUT SINGLE FAMILY 67 640 13 38 44 24 UNITS ACCESSORY 67 421 15 21 22 20 DWELLING UNITS (APARTMENTS) TOTAL 134 1061 28 59 66 44 TABLE 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION The overall directional distribution of the site -generated traffic was based upon the existing travel patterns in the area and in consideration of trip attractions and productions in this area. Traffic distribution was based upon traffic counts taken on SH 82 on October 21, 1997 by Counter Measures, Inc. and turning movement traffic counts at the intersection of SH 82 and the Dakota Subdivision access. The counts taken indicate an approximate distribution of 60% East and 40 % West. This distribution was applied to the proposed Cerise Ranch intersection with SH 82. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT Twenty-four hour traffic counts with AM and PM peaks were taken on SH 82. Count data is provided in Appendix A. The traffic data is displayed graphically in Figures 2 - 4. Table 2 shows the level of service analysis results using the twenty-four hour traffic counts, AM and PM peaks for the proposed Cerise Ranch intersection. The analysis was performed using the "Highway Capacity Software" which is based on the equations and data contained within the "Highway Capacity Manual". Printouts of the software analysis results are provided in the Appendix B. The intersection using today's traffic is operating at a LOS A and will continue to operate at LOS A except for the PM peak. The PM peak using 2015 traffic will operate at a LOS B. The model used assumed that a left turn deceleration lane would be installed on the eastbound lane of SH 82. A left turn acceleration lane would also be installed for this lane, although the addition of the lane would not affect the level of service. • • • LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY CERISE RANCH SUBDIVISION A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Intersection Level of Delay Service Delay Service (Seconds) (Seconds) Cerise Ranch Existing + 0.8 A 1.4 A Intersection Site Traffic 2015 + Site 4.0 A 9.7 B Traffic TABLE 2 Acceptable operation is defined as level of service D or better. Level of Service classifications are defined as follows: Level of Service A - describes primarily free flow operation at average travel speeds usually about 90 percent of the free flow average speed. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Stopped delay at intersection is minimal. Level of Service B - represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds usually about 70 percent of the free flow speed. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not generally subjected to appreciable tension. Level of Service C - represents stable operations. However, ability to maneuver and change lanes in mid block locations may be more restricted than in LOS B, and longer queues and/or adverse signal coordination may contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the average free flow speed. Motorists will e4xperience an appreciable tension while driving. Level of Service D - borders on a range which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in approach delay and, hence, decrease in speed. This may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or some combination of these. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of free flow speed. Level of Service E - is characterized by significant approach delays and average travel speeds on one-third free flow speed or lower. Such operations are caused by some combination or adverse progression, high signal density, extensive queuing at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing. Level of Service F - characterizes flow at extremely low speeds below one-third to one-quarter of the free flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical locations, with high approach delays resulting. Adverse progression is frequently a contributor to this condition. • Definitions were paraphrased from the "Highway Capacity Manual". • • Trip Assignment Combining the results of the trip distribution and trip generation develops trip assignment. Due to the nature of the project, only short range trip assignments were performed. It is most likely that this project will be completely developed prior to the typical long term (20 years) period. Therefore, the roadways within the project should be developed to handle complete build out of the project at this time. Figure 4 shows the fully developed peak hour traffic for the intersection. The traffic generated by the site combined with the existing traffic determines the total traffic at the intersection. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS Table 2 shows the level of service for each of the intersections based on a complete build out of the project. Computer printouts are provided in Appendix B. RECOMMENDATIONS This study analyzed the traffic generated by the proposed Cerise Ranch Subdivision and its impacts on the proposed and existing transportation infrastructure. The internal intersections within the Cerise Ranch Subdivision will not have enough traffic to require any significant traffic controls. As can be seen from Table 2 that the Cerise Ranch / Hwy 82 intersection will be operating at above acceptable standards as an unsignalized intersection. Signalizing this intersection is not necessary at this time, unless traffic is significantly increased on SH 82. With the addition of the left turn acceleration and deceleration lanes the safety of the intersection will be improved to allow safe turns into and out of the proposed subdivision. In conclusion, the proposed intersection with SH 82 does not significantly impact the flow of traffic on SH 82. The most difficult movement from the intersection will be the left turn onto the eastbound lane of SH 82. The addition of turn lanes will not affect the level of service for the intersection, but should provide a more safe transition onto SH 82. /CIO W STATE HIGHWAY 82 j DAKOTA SUBDIVISION INTERSECTION DAILY TRAFFIC EXISTING CONDITIONS DAKOTA SUBDIVISION ENTRANCE 1 (9) 8 (6) LEGEND 7 _ A.M. PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC (3) P.M. PEAK- HOUR TRAFFIC STATE HIGHWAY 82 255 (1,132) T rn 6 (8) 1,123 (484) 0) N T N t �t AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC ON SH 82 = 18,250 FIGURE 2 H GH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. 923 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 (970) 945-8676 Traffic WINTERGREEN HOMES GARFIELD COUNTY CERISE RANCH TRAFFIC STUDY PRELIM ARY DES. SOE CK. JOH DR. EPT DATE 8-27-99 FILE NO. 99054.01 SHEET 1 OF STATE HIGHWAY 82 CERISE RANCH INTERSECTION DIRECTIONAL PERCENTAGE PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC CERISE RANCH ENTRANCE 28 (66) 59 (44) — o N co N i 17 24 (18) PROJECT AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC PERCENTAGE OF PROJECT TRAFFIC LEGEND 7 _ A.M. PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC (3) P.M. PEAK- HOUR TRAFFIC EXISTING PLUS PROJECT N Lo GENERATED TRAFFIC 80 A.M. PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC 59) P.M. PEAK- HOUR TRAFFIC • STATE HIGHWAY 82 1 N 35 (26) C0 r FIGURE 3 Aeel awrrrY HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. 923 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 (970) 945-8676 Traffic WINTERGREEN HOMES GARFIELD COUNTY CERISE RANCH TRAFFIC STUDY PRELIMINARY DES. SOE CK. JDH DR. EPT DATE 8-27-99 FILE NO. 99054.01 SHEET OF STATE HIGHWAY 82 CERISE RANCH INTERSECTION 2015 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC AND PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC CERISE RANCH ENTRANCE 28 (66) 24 (18) NOTE: 2015 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC IS EXISTING TRAFFIC TIMES 1.6 GROWTH FACTOR SHOWN IN THE CDOT TRAFFIC DATA REPORT. i l 17 (40) 1 LEGEND 7 _ A.M. PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC (3) P.M. PEAK- HOUR TRAFFIC O V O MN CO 2015 TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT /q GENERATED TRAFFIC y 280\ _ A.M. PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC j 159; P.M. PEAK- HOUR TRAFFIC STATE HIGHWAY 82 -2015- TRAFFIC 35 (26) -2015- TRAFFIC M� W r FIGURE 4 HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. 923 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 (970) 945-8676 Traffic WINTERGREEN HOMES GARFIELD COUNTY CERISE RANCH TRAFFIC STUDY PREUMNARY DES. SOE CK. JDH DR. EPT DATE 8-27-99 ALE NO. 99054.01 SHEET OF • APPENDIX A • s • • Ceriseam.out Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name CERISEAM.HCO Streets: (N -S) Cerise Ranch (E -W) Hwy 82 Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst Eric Tuin Date of Analysis 8/26/99 Other Information Level of Service for AM Peak Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound L TRLT R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 2 0 0 1< 1 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 11 1135 280 17 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%) 0 0 0 0 CV's (%) 0 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Northbound L T R 0 0 0 0 Southbound L T R 1 0 1 35 24 .95 .95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 280 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 999 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 999 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.97 Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 297 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1238 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1238 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.99 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1434 156 0.99 Page 1 1111 Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) • • Ceriseam.out 0.99 0.99 154 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay Delay LOS By App SB L 41 154 31.8 E 20.4 SB R 28 999 3.7 A EB L 13 1238 2.9 A 0.0 Intersection Delay = 0.8 Page 2 • • Cerisepm.out Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name CERISEPM.HCO Streets: (N -S) Cerise Ranch (E -W) Hwy 82 Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst Eric Tuin Date of Analysis 8/26/99 Other Information Level of Service for PM Peak Hour Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (%) SU/RV's (%) CV's (%) PCE's Eastbound L T R 1 2 0 26 519 .95 .95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1.1 Westbound L T R 0 1< 1 N 1178 40 .95 .95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1.1 Northbound L T R 0 0 0 0 Southbound L T R 1 0 1 26 18 .95 .95 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1178 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 350 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 350 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.94 Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1218 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 450 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 450 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.93 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB 40 Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1743 104 0.93 Page 1 • • • Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Cerisepm.out 0.93 0.93 97 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 *************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay Delay LOS By App SB L 30 97 53.5 F 52.5 SE R 21 350 10.9 C EB L 30 450 8.6 B 0.4 Intersection Delay = 1.4 Page 2 • • • Cer2015a.out Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 File Name CER2015A.HCO Streets: (N -S) Cerise Ranch (E -W) Hwy 82 Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst Eric Tuin Date of Analysis 8/26/99 Other Information 2015 AM PEAK TRAFFIC Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection Eastbound L T R No. Lanes 1 2 0 Stop/Yield N Volumes 11 1809 PHF .95 .95 Grade 0 MC's (%) 0 0 SU/RV's (%) 0 0 CV's (%) 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 Westbound Northbound 1 Southbound L T R L T RI L T R 0 1< 1 0 0 01 1 0 1 N I 437 17 I 35 24 .95 .95 1 .95 .95 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1.1 1.1 1 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: 437 832 832 0.97 Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 454 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1042 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1042 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.99 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 2266 52 0.99 Page 1 IIIAdjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) • • Cer2015a.out 0.99 0.99 51 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App SB L 41 51 259.2 F 155.6 SB R 28 832 4.5 A EB L 13 1042 3.5 A 0.0 Intersection Delay 4.0 Page 2 • • Cer2015p.out Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name CER2015P.HC0 Streets: (N -S) Cerise Ranch (E -W) Hwy 82 Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst Eric Tuin Date of Analysis 8/26/99 Other Information 2015 PM PEAK TRAFFIC Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 2 0 0 1< 1 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 26 815 1861 40 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%) 0 0 0 0 CV's (%) 0 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Northbound L T R 0 0 0 0 Southbound L T R 1 0 1 26 18 .95 .95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1861 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 158 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 158 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.87 Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1901 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 213 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 213 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.86 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4111 Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 2722 28 0.00 Page 1 • • • Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Cer2015p.out 0.00 0.00 0 C Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App SB L 30 0 * F 601.7 SB R 21 158 26.3 D EB L 30 213 19.7 C 0.6 Intersection Delay = 9.7 * The calculated delay was greater than 999.9 sec. Page 2 • APPENDIX B • • Site Code : 8 M -S Street: DAKOTA SUBDIVISION ACCESS E-.eet: SH -82 Counter Measures Movements by: Prieary PAGE: 1 FILE: DAK0SH82 DATE: 10/21/97 Time Begin From North Fro* East From South From West Vehicle RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total 6:30 6:45 HR TOTAL 7:00 AM 7:15 7:30 7:45 HR TOTAL 8:00 AM 8:15 2 0 1 1 46 3 0 0 0 0 271 4 328 0 0 3 4 46 0 0 0 0 0 351 1 405 2 0 4 5 92 3 0 0 0 0 622 5 733 1 4 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 5 8 0 48 4 80 0 89 1 102 5 319 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 0 328 0 0 0 0 253 0 341 0 0 0 0 241 0 333 0 0 0 0 256 0 364 0 0 0 0 1028 0 1366 4:00 PM 2 0 5 4:15 0 0 0 4:30 0 0 1 4:45 0 0 2 VAL 2 0 8 JO PM 0 0 2 5:15 2 0 2 5:30 0 0 1 5:45 1 0 3 HR TOTAL 3 0 8 Break 13 223 0 0 0 0 1 268 0 0 0 0 4 279 0 0 0 0 2 292 0 0 0 0 20 1062 0 0 0 0 2 295 0 0 0 0 1 285 0 0 0 0 1 283 0 0 0 0 2 275 0 0 0 0 6 1138 0 0 0 0 0 116 0 359 0 104 1 374 0 98 0 382 0 100 2 398 0 418 3 1513 0 116 3 418 0 121 2 413 0 103 2 390 0 144 2 427 0 484 9 1648 DAY TOTAL 14 0 29 37 2815 3 0 0 0 0 2958 17 Site Code : 8 N -S Street: DAKOTA SUBDIVISION ACCESS E -y reet: SN -82 Counter Measures Moveaents by: Priory PAGE: 1 FILE: DAKOSH82 DATE: 10/21/97 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ...... VOLUMES FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total .... PERCENTS ... Right Thru Left North 7:00 AM 0.70 East 7:30 AM 0.90 South 7:30 AM 0.00 West 6:30 AM 0.82 North East South West 6 0 8 14 43 0 57 2 395 0 397 1 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1153 5 1158 0 %100 0 Entire Intersection 6:45 AM 0.75 6 0 6 12 50 0 50 0.76 8 263 0 271 3 97 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.80 0 1123 1 1124 0 %100 0 DAKOTA SUBDIVISION_ ACCESS. 1 1 6 I 12 1123 1124 N S r 8 271 263 L 0 SH -82 Site Code : 8 N -S Street: DAKOTA SUBDIVISION ACCESS E -W treet: SH -82 Counter Measures Moveients by: Priaary PAGE: 1 FILE: DAKOSH82 DATE: 10/21/97 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 5:00 PM 0.69 3 0 8 11 27 0 73 East 4:45 PM 0.98 6 1155 0 1161 1 99 0 South 4:45 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West 5:00 PM 0.84 0 484 9 493 0 98 2 North East South West Entire Intersection 0.69 3 0 8 11 0.96 6 1138 0 1144 0.00 0 0 ` 0 0 0.84 0 484 9 493 27 0 73 1 99 0 0 0 0 0 98 2 DAKOTA SUBDIVISION ACCESS 3 0 L 11 1 484 493 r 6 1144 1138 L 0 0 DAKOTA SUBDIVISION ACCESS Counter Measures *** Weekly Summary for week of October 19, 1997 *** Page 1 r�vr���sr�k*K1Ic*************************************************** Data File : M1097001.PRN Lane(s) : 1 Station : 000000002019Westbound st Direction : Web Identification : 000000002019 DDireirect' : WestoundEAGLE City/Town Location : SH -82 W/0 DAKOTA SUBDIVISION ACCESS ******************************************************************************* 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wkday Daily Time Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Avg. Avg. 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 W00 00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 24:00 31 21 13 19 24 48 154. 358 429 415 440 459 517 491 568 822 1153 1161 941 324 382 163 232 160 163 103 128 70 80 31 22 21 15 13 9 19 14 24 17 48 34 154 110 358 256 429 306 415 296 440 314 459 328 517 369 491 351 568 406 822 587 1153 824 1161 829 941 672 353 252 198 141 162 115 116 83 75 54 Totals 820 9049 8967 6405 ******************************************************************************* % Avg Wkday Avg Day AM Peak Hr AM Count PM Peak Hr PM Count 9.1 100.9 12.8 141.3 12:00 459 20:00 18:00 324 1161 *********:********************************************************************* • Counter Measures *** Weekly Summary for week of October 19, 1997 *** Page 8 **************************************************************************** Mata File : M1097005.PRN Lane(s) : 1 Station : 000000002010 Identification : 000000002010 Direction : Eastbound City/Town County : GARFIELD/EAGLE Location : SH -82 W/0 DAKOTA SUBDIVISION ACCESS ******************************************************************************* 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wkday Daily Time Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Avg. Avg. 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 Aik:00 (WOO �7:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 24:00 22 11 12 28 40 233 1181 1118 858 597 502 470 464 440 465 463 466 519 516 595 451 445 279 342 235 224 170 203 99 113 45 58 22 16 11 8 12 9 28 20 40 29= 233 166 1181. 844 1118 799` 858 613 597 426 502 359 470 336 464 331 440 314 465 332 463 331 493 352 556 397 448 320 311 222 230 164 187 133 106 76 52 37 Totals 2261 9403 9284 6631 **************************************************************** ************* % Avg Wkday % Avg Day AM Peak Hr AM Count 24.4 101.3 34.1 141.8 07:00 1181 PM Peak Hr 18:00 18:00. PM Count 516 595 ******************************************************************************* • • • • cerise RANCH Utility Company Service Letter comprehensive plan amendment planned unit development and sketch plan HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, 1 3799 HIGHWAY 82 P.O. DRAWER 2150 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81602 October 7 1997 Ms. Julie Pratte The Land Studio 100 El!: Run Drive, Suite 122 Basalt, Colorado 81621 RE: Cerise Ranch, West of El Jebel \C. Dear Julie: The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. has existing power facilities located on or near the above mentioned project. These existing facilities have adequate capacity to provide electric power to the development, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations, and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate power to and within the development will be undertaken by Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. upon cornpletion of appropriate contractual agreements, Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of the electric system for this project. Sincerely, HOLY ECTRIC ASSOCI • ."L7 Jeffrey £anke, Staking ngineer JAF:rjm n L. Jun -19-9B 10:20am From-USWEST FIELD ENG GJT 9702444349 T-345 P.01/01 F-430 2524 Blichmann Ave. Grand Junction, CO 81 505 June 19, 1998 The Land Studio 100 Elk Run Dr, Suite 122 Basalt, CO 81621 Re: Cerise Ranch Project COMMUN/CATIONS 0 U S West Communications will provide telephone service to the Cerise Ranch Project as required by tariffs filed through the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Please call me with any questions or concerns. l can be reached on 970-244-4308. Sincerely, Gary L. Gibson Field Engineer GLG/cjs • • • into tomorrow. TCI Cablevision of Central Colorado, Inc. To: Julie Land Studio Re: Cerise Ranch CATV Serviceability Diemoz Subdivision Serviceability For the Diemoz subdivision serviceability will present no foreseeable difficulties, as the cable runs straight through the proposed subdivision. However if any lines poles or other TCI facility need to be moved costs for such move will be borne by the developer. For the Cerise Ranch subdivision service is available with the following conditions. As TCI will require a trunk cable to service a subdivision of the size pro- posed,the connection will need to be made at a point near Hwy.82 behind the multi -family units currently being built at the corner of Dakota Dr. and Dakota Meadows Rd. Provisions for an easement will be needed as will trench- ing from this point into the proposed subdivision. If you have any questions or comments regarding these matters please call Bob Fisher or Terry Harrington at 925-4098. Thanks, TErry Harrington 201 Aspen Airport Business Center Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-4098 Fax: (970) 925-4106 An Equal Opportunity Employer • • • K N Energy, Inc. Northeast Region 0096 County Rd. 160 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 1-800-563-0012 June 19, 1998 Julie Pratte The Land Studio Re: Cerise Ranch 350 - 400 homes, school site. Dear Julie, This letter is to verify that we have received a request from your office on the ability to serve the Cerise Ranch. We have found the preliminary designs are acceptable for our needs and we are capable of providing this project with gas service based on these designs. Should you have any further questions, feel free to contact me at 928 - 0408. Thank you for your interest in our product natural gas. cerel aff hreeve • Property Owners within • 300 feet • cerise R ARCH comprehensive plan amendment planned unit development and sketch plan «city», «state» «post code» Julie Augur O. Box 4389 spen, Co 81612 Carol York 0203 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Marguerite Travis 181 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Dakota Meadows Homeowners John & Regecca Henschel Clay Crossland Association P.O. Box 6783 PO Box SS 2227 Emma Rd Snowmass Village, CO 81612 Basalt, CO 81621 Basalt, CO 81621 Robert & Helen Haines 21 Dakota Court Carbondale, CO 81623 James Horn P.O. Box 5 518 Snowmass Village, CO. 81615 James Reed P.O. Box 1931 Basalt, CO 81621 Don Kriz Dakota Meadow Homeowners Garrett & Doretta Reuss 120 Virginia Rd. Association 167 Dakota Meadows Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P.O. Box 5000 Carbondale, CO 81623 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Ken Kriz P.O. 2104 •Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Mike & Patricia Ann Steele 17 Dakota Ct. Carbondale, CO 81623 Peter Virtue P.O. Box 9695 Aspen, CO 81612 Lynni Hutton 0210 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Paul & Drista Klees P.O. Box 12258 Aspen, CO 81612 Christine Douglas 1631 Via Estrella Pamona, CA 91768 Betsy & Maxwell Berry 183 Dakota Meadows Dr Carbondale, CO 81623 Scott & Patricia Hankinson 0195 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Sandra Hargrave 0197 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Janice & Leslie Klahn 112 Ash Rd Basalt, CO 81621 Maryann Teri P.O. Box 4451 Aspen, CO 81612 Donald & Denise Bluekamp 0073 Dakota Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Virginia Cerise P.O. Box 2118 Basalt, Co 81621 Dakota Partners, LLC 352A Beaver Dam Cir Vail, CO 81657 Blue Lake Owner's Association 0189 J W DR Carbondale, CO 81623 0 Gary & Ester Skibowski Norman Steepe & Linda Joseph & Linda Edwards 7496 Maceday Lake Road Jackson 14 Fender LN Waterford, MI 48329 0204 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Carbondale, CO 81623 Richard Starr dO.Box 2317 salt, CO 81621 Badlands Development, LLC P.O. Box 11980 Aspen, CO 81612 Roland and Marta Parker P.O. Box 5086 Aspen, CO 81612 Wayne and Lois Vagneur 60 Flying Fish Road Carbondale, CO 81623 Bruce and Diane Bauldridge 17450 Hwy. 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 James Longstreth P.O. Box 28029 EI Jebel, CO 81628 Molly Levitt Timmothy Appel! Donald Rafael and Cheryl P.O. Box 414740 17283 Hwy 82 Howard Kansas City, MO 64141-4740 Carbondale, CO 81623 17696 Hwy 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 rederic and Frances Davies P.O. Box K Aspen, CO 81 61 2-241 2 John Fish Jr. P.O. Box 8250 •Madison , WI 53708-8250 Bradley & Teresa Faber 174 Flying Fish Road Carbondale, CO 81623 Michael Palmer 138 Flying Fish Road Carbondale, CO 81623 Horace Work P.O. Box 6929 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Betty and Jerry McCarthy P.O. Box 5133 Snowmass Billage, CO 81645 • Wayne Rudd 132 Park Ave Basalt, CO 81621 BArt Lipori & Judith McGee P.O. Box 2485 Aspen, CO 81612 William Horst and Cindy Jo 17335 Hwy 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Ruth Hake 17353 Hwy 82 Carbondale, Co 81623 Susan Nicholson 17365 Hwy 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Terry Allen 17377 Hwy 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Patricia Zordell 17395 Hwy 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Jack and Eloise Ilgen 17352 Hwy 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Stanley and Billie Zelnick 17698 Hwy 82 Carbondlae, CO 81623 Alpine Anima! Hospital 17776 Hwy 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Robert and Gloria Arnold 2542 Emma Road Basalt, CO 81621 Kenneth McMechen P.O. Box B El Jebel, CO 81628 Mumbert Cerise Family 17072 Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Dennis and Patricia Cerise 16724 Hwy 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 • • • cerise RANCH Wetlands Investigation comprehensive plan amendment planned unit development and sketch plan 7/24/98 Andrew Antipas Ecological & Environmental Consulting, LT Mr. Doug Pratte The Land Studio 100 Elk Run Drive, Suite 122 Basalt, CO 81621 Reference: Wetland Investigation and Delineation of the Cerise Ranch Dear Doug, A wetland investigation and delineation was completed at the Cerise Ranch (Figure 1) on October 10, 1997 by Aquatic and Wetland Consultants (AWC), and on April 29, 1998 by Andrew Antipas Ecological & Environmental Consulting, LLC. AWC's wetland report is attached as an appendix to this report. • Executive Summary Approximately 26 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the limits of the project area (Figure 2). In addition to vegetated wetlands Blue Creek and North Spring are considered "Waters of the United States" and fall under the Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. Impacts to wetlands and Waters of the United States will require permits from the Army Corps of Engineers prior to disturbance. All of the vegetated wetlands are found east of the ranch access drive off of CO Highway 82. Vegetated wetlands were dominated by a variety of herbaceous species including redtop (Agrostis alba), water sedge (Carex aquatilis), beaked sedge (Carex utriculata), baltic rush (Juncus balticus), and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Flowing from east to west, Blue Creek was channelized many years ago and vegetation is burned from the channel each spring. Eventually, the creek crosses under CO Highway 82 where it flows into the Roaring Fork River. North Spring flows from a drainage basin north of Richard Cerise's home, and most of the water from the spring is diverted into the ranches • sprinkler system. Any remaining water finds it's way to a series of irrigation ditches on the west side of the ranch. PO Box 2467 Basalt CO 81621 970-963-8297 aantipas@sopris.net • Introduction Wetlands are typically defined as areas that under normal circumstances support hydrophytic vegetation, have hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is the regulatory agency that has jurisdiction over wetlands. The ACOE reviews wetland delineations, issues permits, and insures that Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is adhered to. It is the responsibility of the Project Sponsor to determine if wetlands are present and to acquire the necessary permits from the ACOE if impacts are unavoidable. Methods The routine criteria as described in the Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) was used to identify and delineate the wetland. The 1987 manual utilizes the three parameters of vegetation, soils, and hydrology to identify and delineate wetlands, and requires that these parameters be determined during the growing season. Classification of wetlands follows Cowardin et al. (1979). • Weber's Colorado Flora of the Western Slope (1987) was the primary taxonomic reference, and plant species nomenclature and wetland indicator status follow Reed (1988) for the intermountain region (Region 8). Dominant plants species at each sample location were determined by visual estimation within a 30 foot radius plot. Hydrophytic species are those with an indicator status of OBL (obligate wetland), FACW (facultative wetland), or FAC (facultative). Species listed as FACU (facultative upland) or UPL (obligate upland) generally do not occur in wetlands. Some species are not considered to be reliable indicators of wetland or upland conditions; these are marked NI (no indicator). All soil characteristics reported here reflect field determined conditions in the B horizon or the greatest depth above an impermeable layer. The Soil Survey of Aspen -Gypsum Area (1992) and the regional hydric soil list were also utilized during the investigation. Field Data Sheets are attached to this letter. Results • Vegetated wetlands were identified by AWC and verified by Andrew Antipas Ecological & Environmental Consulting on the portion of the ranch y 200 acres in east of the highway access drive. This between the highwayland the hillside • size. The pastures which are located contain approximately 26 acres of wetlands. Flagged wetlands were surveyed and transferred to project mapping for planning purposes. For specific details of these vegetated wetlands (including wetland data sheets) please refer to AWC's report which is appended to this letter. Andrew Antipas Ecological & Environmental Consulting investigated the area west of the ranch access drive which is approximately 100 acres in size. No vegetative wetlands were identified. Pastures west of the access drive were dominated by clover, timothy, and orchard grass. Soil conditions did not meet the wetland criteria and test pits did not reveal a seasonally high water table. An" upland" sheet is attached to this letter. However, the top -of -bank for Blue Creek and North Spring were flagged as "Waters of the United States". These data points were surveyed and transferred to project mapping. Vegetation along Blue Creek is burned annually and when this investigation was completed no vegetation was present. Dominant vegetation along North Spring consisted of a mixture of upland and wetland woody species including Gambel oak, serviceberry, alder, cottonwood and willow species. The woody vegetation encloses much of the spring from direct sunlight, and as mentioned previously, water from the spring is collected in a holding tank for the ranch sprinkler system. Summary Seasonally saturated palustrine emergent wetlands are present within the Cerise Ranch study area. These wetlands are hydrologically connected to Blue Creek and may be the result of 100 years of flood irrigation on the ranch. Blue Creek and North Spring are "Waters of the United States" and fall under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. If it is determined that the proposed project will disturb wetlands a Department of the Army Section 404 permits and State water quality certificate (Section 401) will be needed. Therefore, it is recommended that a pre -application conference be held with the Army Corps of Engineers to review the proposed project prior to submitting the permit application. Wetland impacts of less than 1/3 of an acre are usually covered by Army Corps Nationwide permits. Nationwide permits are usually issued within 60 days. If impacts are greater than 1/3 of an acre "Individual Permits" are usually required. The review period for individual Permits is usually 6 • to 9 months and sometimes more. Functional Analysis Wetland functions enhance our quality of life. The ability of a wetland to perform certain functions often determine the value of that wetland to society. Unfortunately, these values do not always correspond to what is best from an ecological perspective. Examples of wetland functions include: primary production, organic export, sediment deposition, nutrient/toxicant retention, and water storage. Adequate scientific evaluation of wetland functions is a time-consuming and complex process. However, it is possible to infer certain functions based on the visibly apparent characteristics of a wetland. The wetlands identified in this report are hydrologically connected Blue Creek and adjacent irrigation ditches which criss-cross the study site. The wetlands on the Cerise Ranch are positioned to filter sheet flow during rain storms and spring snow melt which exceed the banks of Blue Creek. This filtering removes sediment and nutrients, reducing soil erosion and • enhances water quality of neighboring streams and rivers. The wetlands are in a slight depression and may contribute to groundwater recharge which maintaining water levels in the drainage of Blue Creek, which is connected to the Roaring Fork and Colorado River Drainage. Maintaining water levels is critical to protecting wildlife habitat. The cumulative worth of all wetlands and their contribution to the regional environment cannot be overstated. However, it is apparent that this area has been regularly disturbed for over 100 years as a result agriculture activities. Wetlands identified in this report, have a moderate to high value to wildlife and society. If you have any questions or require additional information please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for the opportunity to provide ecological consulting services to this project. Very truly yours, 411 Andrew Antipa , - anager • Literature Cited Alstatt, D.K., and D. Moreland. 1992. Soil Survey of Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 260pp + appendices. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-79/31, 103 pp. Environmental Laboratory. 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Kollmorgen Corporation. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Corporation. New Windsor, NY. Reed, P.., Jr., 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Intermountain (Region 8). US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report. • Webber, WW., 1987. Colorado Flora: Western Slope. Colorado Associated University Press. Boulder, Colorado. 530pp. • • • • Project Location Map Scale 1" = 2.5 miles Map taken from The Roads of Colorado, Shearer Publishing Company, 1996 Figure 1 Z d la nuigat,ar(s): - A 1 / n r� nos bu f fet/Stc t P r, s c &-1 Yt c G s..pie ID: Sty Cv cow:6a2r-i -2 Semple Location CDeacriptive): ?A S -1--(1g- e S w t75.7 - Dam 5 Dam 2 — 9 � s—/ Township: 6"F —t ACce:;5 pit 7ver- Oath Maury Wetland Dem/Clem Guidance Mammal• 1989Tade a1 Interagsoer Method X 19E7 Carve ontogineers Method Has the MIA Came, Sorb, or Hydrology Been Disturbed? Tai X No De Normal Endromasastal Conditions Preraa at this Sample Localise? Yek Is the area a potential problem area? Yr No Describe Dist encs / Problematic Feature: T)ri S,i427'A - LAv\o i s" "Loon r2/t9 Go( -10) use:AC CA`ir ANT VEGETATION 0 6201-✓- o1d e(a" L DC7 (lt c Ferteasage OBL, FACW, or FAC species (excluding FAC-) Resells of FAC-ae trsl Test v1 ac. 4so„ _Pilv ,a1 c 9rit. p(�N Cvr-, Vevy W SUS (al /A c O Tan:comic -Tr PLANT SPECIES IND. Sr. SIR FLANT SPECIis -- IND. ST. STR. Mottle Abundance/Contrast MI he h 6. Corckt-,c' 0-s0 i 1.1k o+i, I, s low rcA-c— li EINE P -C J vier 7. - -7 ,V.,,-,41- •11/ ' i li_ f1--, Lad c (avow 1. h.6" Yh 5. 41" -o, - IL - VIP r 1, io. t,'s%t, L DC7 (lt c Ferteasage OBL, FACW, or FAC species (excluding FAC-) Resells of FAC-ae trsl Test v1 ac. 4so„ _Pilv ,a1 c 9rit. p(�N Cvr-, Vevy W SUS (al /A c O Tan:comic -Tr Horizon / Depth -- -Matrix Color (moist) Mottle Color (moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast 0 — 11 l0 `l (L LI/3 Mapping milt rated on a local hydric soil list? Sufic epipedon present? Sauk Odor? Gleyed or Low -Chrome colon? Mapped Serial/Phase Confirmed is Said? Mapping writ bested as the national hydric sad list? SesgIDande Coocredans? High Organic A- ora * is Sandy Si?or Organic Stream / Spick Horizon? Acpsic/bic regime? Ratautn cP(L �(�1ZY 2CCLy ru/ OD"(�f5 l %c // L✓ 710 rNDiCA-7- tS�`lT� HYDROLOGY Depth of ground surface inundation arches) Primary Indicators: Observed Iauudatica Saturated in Upper 12 inches Water Marks Drift Lino Sediment Dusts Wetland Drainage Pattern Depth to Free Standing Wass is Soil Pit (orches) Srnn,iary Jnriiestors (2 or more required): Oxidize'd Rhisuspheres within 12 inches Water stained Learn FAC -.e al Teat Hydr oiotic Bold Dna (site specific) Ci416"14_5 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Hydrapttyde Vegetation Present? Hydric Spas Present? Wetland Hydrology Prtseat? Adam comments: Yes Yes Yes No Is this sample location within s wetland' Yes No Nom_ No Wetland Clamfi«rinn• AQUATIC AND WETLAND COMPANY • Consulting • Construction • Nurseries • Treatment Systems • • 31 March 1998 Mr. Doug Pratte The Land Studio 123 Emma Road, Suite 204-A Basalt, CO RE: Wetland Delineation, Cerise Ranch, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Pratte: This letter report summarizes the field findings of a wetland delineation performed on a parcel of land known as Cerise Ranch,1 between the dates of October 7-9, 1997, by Aquatic and Wetland Company (AWC). The delineation was performed on behalf of Wintergreen Homes, the prospective buyer (Jeff Spanel, Wintergreen Homes, 77 Metcalf Road Box 978 Avon, Colorado, (970)949-4120). INTRODUCTION Cerise Ranch is located in Township 7 South, Range 87 West, Sections 32 and 33 (Latitude 39° 24' 20" N, Longitude 107° 07' 45' W), Garfield County, Colorado. The property is accessed by traveling State Highway 82 south from Carbondale toward Aspen. Approximately 1.25 miles past the town of Catherine, (intersection of County Road 100 and State Highway 82) a dirt/gravel farm lane accesses the property off Highway 82 to the north. SITE CONDITIONS The property is located in Roaring Fork valley. The valley floor lies at an elevation of 6348 feet MSL and rises steeply to the north to an elevation of 6600 feet MSL. The flat valley floor of the property has been flood irrigated and used for pasture and hay over the past 30 years (personal conversation with farm manager). Several irrigation ditches bisect the property from east to west and are used to flood the southern half of the property. The historic flood irrigation of the area and seasonal high groundwater table has contributed to the wetland conditions within low-lying areas of the property. DESIGN BUILD m GROW 1655 Walnut • Suite 205 • ffoulder, Colorado 80302 • (303) 442-5770/442-8133 FAX S METHODOLOGY The delineation was conducted using the methodology enumerated in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Enviromnental Laboratory 1987). The three parameters of hydric soils, signs of hydrology and dominance of hydrophytic vegetation were utilized to identify, flag and map all jurisdictional wetlands. 1 • RESULTS Soils The soil types mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) occurring within the area of concern are listed below (SCS 1980): (38) Evanston loam (55) Gypsum land-Gypsiorthids complex (114) Yamo loam (115) Yamo loam These soil types are not listed as hydric on the Colorado List of Hydric Soils. Vegetation The dominant vegetation species of the jurisdictional wetlands, observed along the delineated boundary, are listed below: TABLE 1. DOMINANT WETLAND VEGETATION Scientific Name Common Name Rg. 8 Indicator Agrostis alba redtop FACW Carex aquatilis water sedge OBL Carex utriculata beaked sedge OBL Eleocharis palustris creeping spikerush OBL Juncus balticus Baltic rush FACW Hordeum jubatum fox -tail barley FAC Lemna minor lesser duckweed OBL Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass OBL Salix exigua sandbar willow OBL Vegetation characteristic of the upland sections of the pasture area consisted of; timothy (Phleum pratense), orchard grass, clover (Trifolium spp), thistle (Cirsium spp), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Dominate vegetation of the northern limits of the property are typical of a dry, steep, foothills zone scrub -shrub community consisting of; big sagebrush (Seriphidium triderlatum), mountain rabbitbush (Chrysothamnus parryi affinis) plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulerum) and scrub oak (Quercuus gambelii). • • • Hydrology The nearly level southern 2/3 of the property are the topographic low area of the property which appears to accumulated the flood irrigation water, seasonal runoff and precipitation. Blue Creek bisects the property (wetland DA) from east to west and supplies natural base flow and irrigation to the area. The creek has been channelized and is experiencing bank erosion and down cutting. Several irrigation ditches (labeled as, DB, DC and DD on the wetland map) are used to flood irrigate the pasture during the growing season. The flood irrigation appears to be the main source of hydrology to the wetlands. Seasonal high water table and/or runoff may contribute to the sustaining hydrology, but to .what amount is unclear. To determine the hydrologic source of the wetlands AWC would recommend further groundwater study. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION The jurisdictional boundaries marked in the field by AWC delineate the limits of the following wetland systems: TABLE 2. JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND HABITAT ID Al -A4 B1 -B7 B100 -B115 C1-C7 D1 -D5 E1 -E6 E100 -E108 F1 -F9 G1 -G6 G100 -G105 H1 -H4 I1 -I5 J1 -J6 K1 -K8 L1 -L8 01-09 P1 -P3 DA1-DA30 DA100-DA129 Classification PEM PEM PEM PEM PEM PEM PEM Description isolated roadside depression roadside/irrigation ditch PEM PO/PEM PEM PEM PEM PEM PEM Waters of US/PEM depression/ receives irrigation flow depression/ receives irrigation flow depression/ receives irrigation flow depression/ receives irrigation flow depression/ receives irrigation flow depression/ receives irrigation flow small pond depression/ receives irrigation flow depression/ receives irrigation flow depression/ receives irrigation flow depression/ receives irrigation flow depression/ receives irrigation flow natural flow (Blue Creek)/ channelized • TABLE 3. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND HABITAT ID Classification Description DB 1 -DB 16 irrigation ditch confined to channel DB 100 -DB 106 DC1-DC-8 irrigation ditch confined to channel DC100-DC106 N1 -N12 irrigation ditch confined to channel Classifications of wetland and waters types are in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Classification system for wetlands and deep water habitats (Cowardin et. al. 1979). AWC identified and delineated 13 wetland habitat units within the site boundaries. Although these wetlands receive irrigation water, they are considered jurisdictional until the extent of irrigation supplied hydrology is determined. The jurisdictional boundaries were marked in the field with sequentially numbered flagging. The boundaries were then surveyed by Inter - Mountain Engineering and plotted on the enclosed map entitled, Wetland Map (xx/xx/xx). Three non jurisdictional wetlands were also identifiedo Non-jurisdictional confined to el tllechannel deased on termination the channels clearly used for irrigation, wetland characteristics channel contains water control structures. • If you have any further questions or require further information please feel free to call me. Sincerely, AQUATIC AND WETLAND COMPANY _..._....._ ! ;rte /'�- David J. Blauch Wetland Ecologist cc: file Enclosures: Figure 1. Site Location Source: Leon,CO. Quadrangle 7.5 minute series, USGS 81961, Photorevised 1987 Carbondale, CO. Quadrangle 7.5 minute series, USGS • 81961, revised 1987 • Field Data Sheets (8) LITERATURE CITED Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep water habitats of the United States. (FWS/OBS-79/31) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987 Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. May 1992. Soil Survey of Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C. G:\awc\projects\10-97070\jd7070.doc • • • n 16284 31 SITE LOCATION 11 °R1V: • • '3g I •• b 6385 y • 0 D i _— l ter • 6815 • Y 6 6428 4?/; • ;4• El�Je( bLt _J /7734'88.. flf• Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Leon & Carbondale Colorado Scale: 1" = 2,000' Leon } 11;\ X432 ll. AQUATIC AND WETLAND COMPANY Cerise Ranch Garfield County, Colorado Project No: 10-97070 Date: -January 1998 Figure 1 Site Location AQUATIC & WETLAND CONSULTANTS S TTLA D DETER.ME`iATION - DATA SHIET Field Investigator(s) g'iMcP/F-v,e- Date: io/&/97 Plot I#: DA / ProJect/Iocatlon: G; -.m /14w<</ ANY C#: /J-9?070 *RAA R Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Are the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology significantly disturbed (Atypical) es L the arta a potential Problem Area (seasonal, prairie pothole, etc_)' Type of Community/Zone: VEGETATION - Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. PA.3/3-5 2rvN(1,0,3r02 /1 eVi t 2 61,..l.> ,s D)/"t 4- 3. 4. S. 6. •/, or dominant species that are OBL, FACT and/or FAC: lacy=ice *RE.N ARIiS: V"y ce,ve ' t A l- 0410 I�AIoO-0AI;c1 SOES Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Matrix Color Mottle Color/Abundance Texture Hydric Solt Indicators: _Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _Low-Chroma and Mottles _Sulfldic Odor _Concretions_ Histic Eplpedon _High Organic Content (sandy) _Organic Streaking (sandy) * REMARKS: CQ 4b/c —5'//y /o•W,•-i ''.1•.)( / *AMM AARAAkAMMARkRRMA***AMMM HYDROLOGY b the ground surface Inundated? 'Qe No Surface water depth: �- la 4. L the soli saturated? Yes No Depth to Saturation: Depth to free-standing water In pit: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: .Inundated _ Oxidized Root Channels In upper 12 Inches _Saturated In Upper 12Incbes _"Water -stained Leaves _WaterMarks /1 /, /1,,, . 1ce .-P-1,,,Drift Lin es - - i SedimentDeposltes/Vy" °•e"r/0w. ******RARAR*****MMkk* R k A A k Mkk M R A M** R A R* k M k•A* M A M R A* AAR k MMM A A A A M M R R** R R R** R A AR A A **** **A MkkMR A MAk JURISDICTIONAL DETER:MI-NATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? G No *Remarks/Rationale: ; 's eY4 Hydric Soils Present? Yes( [/. S, — sir, a�rp,.viStM+ • Wetland Hydrology Present? No L the plant community a n'etland? Ye7No SA' V'/4rreS V S . r cd iso ?-11 -•'44-7 1 *Remarks are continued on the back of the data sheet 1 ask N/cofo.,vc� �N1 AQUATIC 8&_ WETLAND CONSULTANTS WETLAND DETERMLNATION - DATA SKEET Field Investigator(s) l—Zl;',:..` . r Project/Location: 2 Date: l o b4 7 Plot ##: 0 / - 0 AWG#: tc,-97O7e, Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site' Are the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology significantly disturbed etc.)? (tpical) L the area al a potential Problem Area (seasonal, P po VEGETATION Type of Community/Zone: OE /Y1 Dominant Plant Species 1. ,Q 2. Ga',. -ex 3. j cwc ha/,/,•' 4. S, 6. *RE MARKS : Stratum % of dominant species that are OBL, FACW and/or FAC: i_70 % Indicator Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Matrix Color 0-I Ytf 21/ SOLLS Mottle Color/Abundance Texture c1 �a a •^-,c- <l,'T h1 5�„ c%x M •:•"•,-4 i t e Hydric Soil Indlcators: Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _✓Low-Chroma and Mottles _Sulfldlc Odor _ Concretions _ Hlstic Epipedon _High Organic Content (sandy) _Organic Streaking (sandy) * REMARKS: L the ground surface Inundated? Yes igo L the soil saturated? TO No Depth to free-standing water In pit: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: _Inundated _Oxidized Root Channels In upper 12 inches "'Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _Water -stained Leaves HYDROLOGY Surface water depth: Depth to Saturation: I D '/ _ Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposltes *REMARKS: JURISDICTIONAL DETER`IDNATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No • Hydric Soils Present? No Wetland Hydrology Present? ( No L the plant community a wetland? No *Remarks/Rationale: IJIe� 14- Y• .,,r L -q oil •,4/1.1/11‘i ...� �>ri iii( -;e ^' •44 :if'F/•'J pis �r� co- CO—S•C!QrQA tcT,dnld ` 5..; o, Jed o•`'Ii 6,, clow * Remarks are continued on the back of the data sheet 1,'# c(,4c4 .Jrv4 1 ntoyeP.) �� w • AQUATIC & WETLAND CONSULTANTS WETLAND DETERMLNATIOti - DATA SHEET Field Investigator(') 13//tw/ /GYre ProjeetfLocation: (X .,-,`se /-4A/c. ht - **kbit Date:J2 Z Plot /it C� 1- % AWC: w—`l7�7 a Do Normal Circ u ms tan c is exist on th e site? Are the vegetation, colts, And/or hydrology significantly disturbed isu(Atypical) L the area a potential Problem Area (seasonal, P pothole, Type of Community/Zone: Dominant Plant Species 1. i ,c.uc 631�,,� 2 Iba 3. C.a. -/ ,' LIT 4 s. 6. *REMARKS: DEM VEGETATION - No No Yeso Stratum N /f */. of dominant species that are OBL,FACW and/or FAC: 1Gv Profile Descriptlon: Depth (inches) Matrix Color I iaY41 511 1oY(z. 2/) SOILS Mottle Color/Abundance h./ ffir, n ,,.,{ � f" Texture s•// cl ./ c Hydric Soil Indicators: _Gleyed or Lon'-Cbroma Colors Low -Ch roma and Mottles _Sullidic Odor _ Concretions _ HlstIc Eplpedon _High Organic Content (sandy) _Organic Streaking (sandy) * RE MARKS HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface Inundated? Ycs Surface eater depth: L the soli saturated? e No Depth to Saturation: / o" Depth to free-standing nater In pit: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: SecondaryIndicsators: Oxidized Root Channels In upper 12 inches Water -stained Leaves Primary Indicators: Inundated .Saturrted in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks rift Linen *REMARKS: C,?-' ;� s _Sediment Deposltes '1~ 1Y' *k**A********AR*AAA*******AA*******RA********R******A******kk*AA*k*Ak*******A** A*Ak*Ak A* A A *** k** JURISDICTIONAL DETERIIL-NATION — S c Ut d f t --( ,,e n.) ? �a C (1C4 01,4*C:5 C"' ve r.e HydropbytIc Vegetation Present? Hydric Solis Present? • Wetland Hydrology Present? is the plant community a n'etland' '1 e No No *RemarkcsfRatlonale: Cc.. No; No *Remarks are continued on the back of the data sheet • AQUATIC &: WETLAND CONSULTANTS WETLAND If? ETER\t1`+ATI0 N - DATA SHEET Date: ro Piot k: 61- -4106- Field 1oS FJeld Investlgator(s) v(7 A�'Cl: Project/Location: C�..� � i2 �+�c. No Yes -0 *k►/R Do Norval Circumstan cts cab t on the site? Are the vegetation, toils, andlor hydrology significantlydbtured (Atypical) L the area a potential Problem Area (seasonal, prairie pothole, VEGETATION T) -pe of Community/Zone: ( pal DominantStratum Plant Species _t 1. (av,eY' ?�,i�a1r 1, r tu1i H 4. J 6. *REMARKS: iA or dominant species that are OBL, FACW andlorFAC:��A Prorde Description: Depth (Inches) Matrix Color ' yf L/ 7 -24 Hydric Soil /Gleyed orLow-Chroma Colors Concretions _High Organic Content (sandy) * RE i` LARKS : S O ILS Mottle Color/Abundance s/4// Texture Indicators: toss.-Chromi and Mottles _Sulfidic Odor Histic Eplpedon _Organic Streaking (sandy) Is the ground surface inundated?? Yes 116 L the soli saturated? Y No Depth to free-standing water In pit: Wetland Hydrology indicators: HYDROLOGY Surface water depth: Depth to Saturation: I g' Primary Indicators: Inundated _Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposltes ***RAR***k k*k***R*** *RR** * * RAR**kkk* *RR*AR*A*R*RARAR6 A AA*RR**RRRR*** * R R R AAAAl k****** ****k***** JURISDICTIONAL DETER::IL- ATION Secondary Indicators: Oxidized Root Channel In upper 12 Inches Water -stained Leaves *REMARKS ;' Hydropb)tic Vegetation Present? c No Hydric Solis Present? 7 No • tiVetland Hydrology Present? No Is the plant community a wetland?' ho *Real arkstRatlonale: Cows%� ter. —pro a; 0,fr,�k oo we-/ 1, ti e ti ad( i,44 -le or nvc CA e“ cif . ,.SCLC aAJJ *Remarks xre continued on the back of the data sheet • AQUATIC & WETLAND CONSULTANTS WETLAND DETERMINATION - DATA SHEET Field Investigator(s) Project/Location: = Date• o! a7 Plot is //7- //:-/ AWG#: c -?707G%' Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site' significantly disturbed (Atypical) Are the vegetation, sons, and/or hydrology sign ralrtl thine, etc(A L the area a potential Problem Area (seasonal, p pothole., /),- Type of Community/Zone: r ' VEGETATION No No Yu Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1,4, N °64.— 2 11,c1-,,' 3. 4. S 6. "RE MARKS : % of dominant species that are OBL, FACW and/or FAC: Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Matrix Color Yr. ? �` Hydric Sou _ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Concretions _High Organic Content (sandy) * REMARKS: Mottle Color/Abundance Texture Indicators: ,,ow-Chroma and Mottles /=Sulfidic Odor Hlstic Epipedon _Organic Streaking (sandy) HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface Inundated? (a No Surface water depth: L the toll saturated' ( No Depth to Saturation: t) Depth to free-standing water In pit: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: Inundat.ed _Oxidized Root Channels In upper 12 inches _Saturated In Upper 12 Inches _Water -stained Leaves _Water Marks Drift Lines "REMARKS: Sediment Deposita JURLS D ICTIO NAL DETERMINATION Hydroph}tic Vegetation Present? 6;2s No *Remarks/Rationale: Hydric Solis Present? No Wetland Hydrology Present? '4�.,�No L the plant community a wetland' t� No " Remarks are continued on the back of the data sheet AQUATIC &: WETLAND CONSULTANTS WETLAND DETER'sIE ATION - DATA SKEET Field Investigators) (2A -1..c• project/Lo.catIoa: Ge%•'se AA••1 Date:. r8 '% d Plot #: K r, Do Normal Circ umstan nes e.tht on the site? Are the vegetation, tolls, and/or hydrology stynln {i disturb )?ed typical) L the arra a potential Problem Area (seasonal. prairie Type of Community/Zone: VEGETATION �l rfrll esNO No 1'cs Dominant Plant Species Stratum 3. /i . 4. 6. !REMARKS: is or dominant species that art OBL, FACS' and/or FAC: Indicator c�hc SODS Profile Description: Depth (inches) Matrix Color Mottle Color/Abundance Texture Hydric Soil Indicators: ✓Gleyed or Low-Cbroma Colors Low-ChtEpima and Mottles _Sulf'idic Odor _ Concretions _High Organic Content (sandy) _Organic Streaking (sandy) * REtti1ARKS: HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface Inundated?? Yes s;o Surface water depth: , Is the loll saturated? rYcs.)No Depth to Saturation: Depth to free-standing water In pit: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indlcaton: Secondary Indicators: Inundated _ Oxidized Root Channels in upper 12 Inches 'Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _Water -stained Leaves Water Marks D rift Lin ei _Sediment Deposltes AAAAAAAA RA A R RA A AA A*AAAAAAARAAAAAR R AR AR k AAk RAAAAAAAAAAA*AAR**Rkkkk AR R A A AA Ak*AI A A kk RRA A k AA AA A A kk JURISDICTIOtiAL DETER�IENATION Hydropb)tIC Vegetation Present.' s No "R e m a rks/R atlonale: 7.^ zi Hydric Solis Present? es No A'I s6/X.rc4.7'4 '•',• • \Vetiind Hydrology Present?.`/01) No is the plant commun(ty a wetland? No 113,-9 VP.) *Remarks are continued on the back of the data sheet y,71. e' 14r'0 AQUATIC (Si. WETLAND CONSULTANTS WETLAND DETERMLNATIO;i - DATA 5HIET Date: l017/1i % Piot P: Oh 09 AWC4:1 Field Inve.stigator(s) g1,4-veM• Pro1ed./Location: �.A « pAA)G`l *A•IR Do NonilCircumstances eats on the sitz? Are .he vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology significantly disturbed (Atypical) L the arca a potential Problem Area (seasonal, prairie pothole, etc)? No �� No Type of Com.munity/Zone: PC, /4/1 Dominant Plant Species 1. C s VEGETATIO`I ONICNE 2., ha /4, el..., 3. ,1/4:1 4. 6. 'REhLARKS: Stratum 'A of dominant species that Are 023L,FAM and/orFAC: Indicator profile Description: Depth (inches) Matrix Color SODS Mottle Color/Abundance Texture Hydric Soil Indicator-:: _Gleyed orLoR•-Chroma Colors _ Low -Cis roma And Mottles _Sulfidic Odor _ Concretions _ Histic Eplpedon _Hlgb Organic Content (sandy) _Organic Streaking (sandy) * REi,LARKS: HYDROLOGY Xs the ground surface inundated?? Yesa Surface water depth: b the so[1 saturated? Yei (f'ro) Depth to Saturation: Depth to free-standing water in pit: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: Inundated (0z1d1zed Root Channels In upper 12 incbes _Saturated La Upper 12Inch es Water -stained Leaves Water Maris rDrift Lines *REhIARI: 1 • • cerise RANCH Drainage Basin Analysis comprehensive plan amendment planned unit development and sketch plan P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Z/INC414ELL4 4140 455O04TES, INC. ENG1flEERIPIG CONSULT4t4T5 July 27, 1998 Mr. Doug Pratt Land Studio 100 Elk Run Drive, Unit 122 Basalt, CO 81621 RE: Cerise Ranch PUD Dear Doug: (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax At your request, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. has prepared the attached drainage basin analysis for the Cerise Ranch PUD to be located on the north side of Highway 82 and west of the Dakota and Blue Lake Subdivisions in Sections 32 and 33, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. • Figure 1 attached is a basin map and vicinity map for the proposed Cerise Ranch. Figure 1 shows that there are five drainage basins that are tributary to the Cerise Ranch property. Basin No. I is Blue Creek which consists of approximately 10.6 square miles. Basin No. II, designated as Ranch Draw, is actually an unnamed tributary of approximately 2.4 square miles. Basin No, III is approximately 63 acres. Basin No. IV, 108 acres and Basin No. V, 40.9 acres. Table 1 defines the physical parameters of the five basins tributary to Cerise Ranch including the water course length, starting and ending elevations, hydrological soil types, and the time of concentrations used in the SCSTR 55 method for estimating flood flows. The largest area, the Blue Creek basin, was analyzed using the TR55 SCS program along with the 24 hour duration, 100 year storm event which resulted in approximately two inches of precipitation. The calculations sheets attached (Appendix A) show the summary of the calculations for each of the drainage basins. These preliminary calculations were prepared to provide preliminary flow estimates that could be used for planning purposes at the Sketch Pian level of submission for Garfield County. As the development plan is refined, the flows from these basins will be analyzed in more detail and estimates will be prepared to evaluate both pre -development and post development conditions. • In the case of the Blue Creek flows, we have simulated the estimated 100 year storm event through the existing topography using HEC RAS to determine the 100 year flood event elevations. No channel modification have been considered at this time. Figure 2 • shows the 100 year flood plain from the Blue Creek flows. Conclusion Both the figures, 1 and 2, are presented at this time so that these potential flood flows can be taken into account at the Sketch Plan PUD level of submittal to Garfield County. As soon as a final development sketch plan is prepared it will be necessary to calculate the pre and post development discharge hydo graphs for both the existing and proposed conditions. These curves will show the change in volume of run off from the existing conditions to the post development conditions. mentoconditThis ons will match predevelopment drainage storage to insure that post develop conditions from the Cerise Ranch site. If you have any questions, please call our office at (970) 945-5700. Very truly yours, • Zancanella & Associates, Inc. 71 V3O��.e ��9 c c°� cw Gli Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E. cc: Art Kleinstein N: \97000's197426\prattdrainage.wpd • • • APPENDIX A • CALCULATIONS GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.000Project : Cerise Ranch User: Dm Date: 07-16-98 Checked: County : Garfield State: Co Date: Subtitle: Blue Creek Watershed (run A) Data: Drainage Area 10.6 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number : 67 Time of Concentration: 1.50 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia/P Ratio Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs/sgmi/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 100 2.4 0.41 0.32 175 1.00 587 GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.000Project : Cerise Ranch User: DM Date: 07-16-98 County Garfield State: CO Checked: Date: Subtitle: Blue Creek Watershed Data: Drainage Area 10.6 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 68 Time of Concentration: 1.50 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area •NONE 1. Storm Number 1 1 1 I • 1 Frequency (yrs) I 100 I 1 I I • • CERISE RANCH P.U.D WATERSHED DATA Table 1 Watershed Watershed Area(1) Watercourse Length, L Elevation start end change, H Hydrologic Soil Group(2) Soil Number CN(3) Time to Concentration(4) Q100 -year Flood Flow(f_). (cfs) Name Designation (sq.ft) (acres) (sq.mi) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (hr) Blue Creek 1 295586503 6785.7 10.60 40015 8120 6390 1730 B/C+ 67-70 1.50 720 Ranch Draw II 67967606 1560.3 2.44 1560 7360 6400 960 B 70 0.04 325 Unnamed Trib. III 2737456 62.8 0.10 2572 7005 6390 615 D 89 0.09 138 Unnamed Trib. IV 4712152 108.2 0.17 4473 7185 6390 795 B 80 0.19 106 Unnamed Trib. V 1783419 40.9 0.06 2148 7020 6390 630 D 89 0.08 83 NOTES: (1) Watershed Area, Watercourse Length and Elevations were taken from USGS Quadrangles. (2) Hydrologic Soil Groups were determined from the Soil Conservation Service's 'Soil Survey of Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado. (3) Soil Number, CN, were determined from Table2-2, pg. 2-5 in "Peak Flows in Colorado", SCS 1980. (4) Time to Concentration, tc, were determined using: tc = (121.15)/7700(H^.038). SCS 1972. (5) 100 -year Flood Flow calculated using SCS TR -55 Tabular Method. 7/27/981:52 PM watershed data.xls SCSTR 55 RESULTS • 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia/P Ratio Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs/sqmi/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 2.4 0.39 0.35 184 1.00 674 GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.000Project : Cerise Ranch User: DM Date: 07-16-98 County : Garfield State: CO Checked: Date: Subtitle: Blue Creek Watershed Data: Drainage Area 10.6 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 69 Time of Concentration: 1.50 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia/P Ratio Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs/sqmi/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 100 2.4 0.37 0.38 192 1.00 766 GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00 OProject : Cerise Ranch User: DM • • GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00LProject : Cerise Ranch User: DM Date: 07-16-98 County : Garfield State: CO Checked: Date: Subtitle: Watershed II Data: Drainage Area 2.43 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 70 Time of Concentration: 0.67 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia/P Ratio Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs/sgmi/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 100 2.4 0.36 0.41 328 1.00 325 GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00DProject : Cerise Ranch User: DM Date: 07-16-98 County : Garfield State: CO Checked: Date: Subtitle: Watershed III Data: Drainage Area .1 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 89 Time of Concentration: 0.10 Hours Rainfall Type I1 Pond and Swamp Area •NONE 1 Storm Number 1 1 I I Frequency (yrs) 1 100 1 Page 1 Ia/P Ratio Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs/sgmi/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 0.36 0.41 181 1.00 783 • • • Date: 07-16-98 County : Garfield State: CO Checked: Date: Subtitle: Blue Creek Watershed (run B) Data: Drainage Area 10.6 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 70 Time of Concentration: 1.50 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia/P Ratio Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs/sqmi/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 100 2.4 0.36 0.41 200 1.00 865 GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00 ❑Project : Cerise Ranch User: DM Date: 07-16-98 County : Garfield State: CO Checked: Date: Subtitle: Blue Creek Watershed (run c) Data: Drainage Area 10.6 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 70 Time of Concentration: 1.75 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number 1 1 1 Frequency (yrs) 1 100 1 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) 1 2.4 • • • 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia/P Ratio Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs/sqmi/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 2.4 0.10 1.37 1009 1.00 138 GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.000Project : Cerise Ranch PUD User: DM Date: 07-27-98 County : Garfield State: CO Checked: Date: Subtitle: Watershed IV Data: Drainage Area .17 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 80 Time of Concentration: 0.19 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area •NONE Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia/P Ratio Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs/sqmi/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 100 2.4 0.21 0.82 761 1.00 106 GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00 OProject : Cerise Ranch User: DM Page 2 • • Date: 07-16-98 State: CO Checked: County : Garfield Date: Subtitle: Watershed V Data: Drainage Area ▪ . .006 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 9 Time of Concentration: 0.10 Hours Rainfall Type • II NONE Pond and Swamp Area : Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia/P Ratio Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs/sgmi/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 100 2.4 0.10 1.37 1009 1.00 83 Page 3 • HEC RAS RESULTS • • • no improvements Plan: Plan 04 7/20/98 Riv Sta = 25 to 1 PF#: 1 35.13 35.60 0. • • -RAS Plan: Plan 04 Reach: blue creek 7/20/98 River Sta. Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (fibs) (sq ft) (ft) 25 720.00 65.00 69.91 69.91 71.28 0.011226 11.36 96.34 48.39 0.90 24 720.00 65.00 67.71 67.71 68.33 0.015180 8.91 127.88 102.86 0.95 23 720.00 63.00 66.75 66.75 67.08 0.007527 6.79 215.09 304.35 0.62 22 ' 720.00 63.00 65.78 65.88 0.002947 3.98 293.69 226.97 0.42 21 720.00 63.00 65.44 65.44 65.83 0.014201 8.02 167.46 192.45 0.91 20 720.00 59.00 61.76 61.76 62.24 0.013063 8.36 152.56 143.54 0.89 19 720.00 57.00 58.83 58.83 59.13 0.017527 7.34 179.28 261.74 0.96 18 720.00 49.00 52.52 52.52 52.71 0.005507 6.37 329.53 580.83 0.60 17 720.00 47.00 49.02 49.27 0.015029 7.28 216.41 381.28 0.90 16 720.00 45.00 49.18 49.18 0.000055 0.71 1809.90 1097.05 0.06 15 720.00 45.00 49.18 49.18 0.000038 0.59 1994.57 1019.20 0.05 14 720.00 43.00 49.18 49.18 0.000056 0.94 1591.02 795.37 0.07 13 720.00 43.00 49.18 47.05 49.18 0.000064 1.00 1518.28 780.55 0.61 12.5 Culvert 12 720.00 43.00 47.12 47.12 47.44 0.006964 6.96 234.87 326.98 0.61 11 720.00 43.00 46.28 46.95 0.012549 9.19 132.82 120.07 0.89 10 720.00 43.00 45.59 45.59 46.07 0.017007 7.97 140.65 137.09 0.88 9 720.00 43.00 44.49 44.49 44.70 0.022171 6.28 211.31 455.56 0.91 8 720.00 40.00 43.18 43.18 43.50 0.008916 7.59 222.10 301.51 0.75 7 470.00 39.00 42.31 42.31 42.53 0.006844 5.96 192.82 358.71 0.58 6 470.00 39.00 40.48 40.48 40.67 0.025907 6.06 143.20 362.08 0.88 5 470.00 39.00 39.95 39.95 40.14 0.026882 4.60 133.88 357.83 0.84 4 470.00 39.00 38.95 38.95 39.19 0.030762 118.49 249.41 0.00 3 470.00 39.00 38.08 38.08 38.30 0.032234 126.82 306.14 0.00 2 470.00 37.00 36.53 36.53 36.76 0.030898 123.12 275.40 0.00 470.001 35.00 35.47 • • no improvements Plan: Plan 04 7/20/98 75- 70 5- 70 — 65 — 60 — 55 — 0 m w 50 — 45 — 40 — 35 6 30 0 blue creek r 1000 2000 3000 Main Channel Distance (ft) 4000 EG 1 WS 1 Invert 5000 6000 • 7. a 1'7 2 2 R 8 8 8 8 1.1 R 8 d . 8 8 d a 19 1', a 8 d H 3 a 3 8 8 3 3 2 8 Iq fir , r I " I 8 _ 8 112 3 9 • T ww +3 0 1.1 1'i Ig 1.3 Iv) ...q.,,3 a 01) • ij P I•i -a 11111 9 9 3 -a -a fill�1���i1 -a -a Hill1111 iii ni nii R 9 9 9S 7 l•1 _a a n R . Iq _a -a R C Y w ucn 8 1.1 1Il,lIllll1llll1 4 S . !•1 II IIIIIIII • F. Ran: Planes 7/1795 1.1 14 l; VIII II r1 �il 11 II lr r41111111111111 I3 R a B A F 1.1 a 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia/P Ratio Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs/sqmi/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 2.4 0.39 0.35 184 1.00 674 GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00EProject : Cerise Ranch User: DM Date: 07-16-98 County : Garfield State: CO Checked: Date: Subtitle: Blue Creek Watershed Data: Drainage Area •▪ 10.6 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number •• 69 Time of Concentration: 1.50 Hours Rainfall Type ▪ II Pond and Swamp Area •• NONE Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia/P Ratio Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs/sqmi/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 100 2.4 0.37 0.38 192 1.00 766 Version 2.00 ❑Project : Cerise Ranch GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD User: DM GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.000Project : Cerise Ranch User: DM Date: 07-16-98 State: CO Checked: : Garfield County Date: Subtitle: Watershed II Data: Drainage Area 2.43 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number : 70 Time of Concentration: 0.67 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia/P Ratio Runoff (in). Unit Peak Discharge (cfs/sgiui/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 100 2.4 0.36 0.41 328 1.00 325 GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.000Project : Cerise Ranch User: DM Date: 07-16-98 State: CO Checked: County : Garfield Date: Subtitle: Watershed III. Data: Drainage Area .1 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 89 Time of Concentration: 0.10 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number I 1 I 1 I 1 Frequency (yrs) I 100 I Page 1 Ia/P Ratio Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs/sqmi/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 0.36 0.41 181 1.00 783 • Date: 07-16-98 County : Garfield State: CO Checked: Date: Subtitle: Blue Creek Watershed (run B). Data: Drainage Area 10.6 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 70 Time'of Concentration: 1.50 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp. Area NONE Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia/P Ratio Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs/sgmi/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 100 2.4 0.36 0.41 200 1.00 865 GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00 OProject : Cerise Ranch User: DM Date: 07-16-98 County : Garfield State: CO Checked: Date: Subtitle: Blue Creek Watershed (run c) Data: Drainage Area 10.6 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 70 Time of Concentration: 1.75 Hours Rainfall. Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number 1 1 1 Frequency (yrs) 1 100 '1 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) 1 2.4 m z D D < ty m N x rn • • • • • 1 rJ : tic,, - � ' 111j'1" �,;) `1(j , ` \\, yw'T+'. .� i''l \1`°/ r� Y„ L 11 1:�)If'^'''�v . ` Yye .%' +1 '1 j; fL�.,,.tiX_ I I'� ' 1 r,,: jP�,(.,..r I Ill `/ /;r�.: r 1�. 1 {4{i;e I y��\ .`n +{4,,, eb rt`* rYf a n� �/!•�/ {i n y� rrc,r/ j"�.y. . �. l r\ 1 ,,' •yea^L fk Qp { Ib {! \ \\ ( c;l ! /. �)• `'�%+`+rt'�'Je m •, - ..% fl { ���` ��jil' f y?:1tj\i(. u r. / r (!� \ !..If' y \��,,` ,, �., y. \ i/ I .�/ :� :•i., ` (,,,t � C� l r��� N /� it\v✓,*\{�°(,, /� F.._. '�.,. � t`y, tee �����.- r �[ If r lf� %r j:,--------1'\\ `\ ,L r\s 1 ..\ \�\ 1, .I `' `• \ { \ \/' \, I 1 I ,r '\ 1 ' 1 e I /r' / ✓� p -\y<3';-.,..-�\ l., f { ! * ��� o�_. ,,,.�,1,�� � ter/ / / / \ I 1 . l `•1 j pr 'F ..r---1 , ! I i r 1 1 I a ,.1 'r , 'V R\\ 9r �•. til - ' I•' r 4 �_. 1 `—. _ , I 11.. . "`, ~ ,\ rf'... r !" �F...--...-..�-."',� d £'t ,o^`' 1 ..r bt _,,�"\, , x,y '� 1 i , , -•��� /. � r/ N «t \- �Y,/"' I d0 . ' r•r ®.� i /// r / �� .._ \ ` /J r j ti r , 1 r '__�..•\ /. ; , �, !,,- _\,:?-/ 4-i I Jr(rli! %1 1' �_ J\ ! I t 1' bV "; �','d.", ��� 1,..„:„,,I. 1 )) %, 1.r.15 ` l'�+�. P l �I! f... I ( , 1r \ ,' r lr ecff r/st )) S r 3111 ,..5 '. / I�:t t+i t ,I II y i� (/ f .. 17j")) 0::, 1 0 '1 J ,.,� 1 / \•• �': j, 1�.-. Y• ,'J y'� �. rf/ /� ` /��'•f,��'' t \ 14f. f r! £k lt� (,(,`, • f , '~ % . / �: - _. .>„ /. \�` i r /ir�\' c{ )" ... ',� 'I ., _ _. .� 1 • L, • ��1;,'\ \IPI f Y I �SrJ �,� •£`J ..n1�\,;• r.�` / �, \ � \ e \' .r •r I r%7_••••°`�:S�l. .� (lei ' .. //. /-\y• // �I'.ys...tt�/I�`�;.^y'_'\ �� \'• .-t"� `, W .. -•t 'Y( \ �1 rr� _/`��y (. .. \ ; ,,, ` t\/ e,„\.',,,,, \1'\ , -�_\-\,( ). ,.�" OfA•1.,..... ,�t/-/(,rye OJi.r ,, _�a , ."), t , 'S rt 11 if IL41Y` r dl r(•((Jr JJ � t\V > >.L:Tfrrn �.. �" �,,�'/ j L/I»(., :-Ada.-\ ;' , � % y5 m G ti ` fl � {%/ ^rte>pz+ v� / J' _ r)rr /i / Ir I VIA �S'j{'/ x,� r •7,yv/. }�`��'7xrY`!iog'Y� !' ,�i / R:YfF1 K( .i rc /1 J X)`fr.:I.1'Y/d/ r Y ' r, I r, r ,.. _,,1,:. -... J r yg/ v _fir h , -:. k. Y j' ° _:ITli /,� ' � ' 4/ ! �i / '� \ 1 `� i , 4 1 1 i .ar^D 1 •. ) !) Oa(�1 'lw I - ( 101 S.0.o. r `w'•1 l i PQ.'�,,.w^ )-• U. % .... — 1 +, Y ...Yfi'� Y \i�!` 4 ., _.,• , /r S�.✓- 1 t\ -'•^a= ...\ X j I .� . }'�� / ..� ; t•, \ , / �b r .,~'I y III—tea. '/�1 / ' / *I�,r rr,,\/ / / / f ' C rr� fi+%�9'� \y r1 , �,. _(/ I i �4 $ %y1}/.�aJ�A /�/ C ::SI ° ly(, '/ t k ,3 ' rctit,sf,u �/ ,r \r'� I 1 : y 1 ` r j ✓{/rel r S ,r It p VtS�Y sV, u t p. �.'r' %1 I f �, 7 t ...._ \I ` ` / O _,r 1 '''�/ / t_ ,+ / .! / It O Ie.. 6 ^rla a T i CY 4 ./ C L7 f�Y a�'/V r Yk}'- !i`',r S,v>a � �' f�Ji�� res l. '£ f �'/f r,�yk���\�,{ !Elk/evil ( /i, , .fj i-" '--- % /j //. ,/i ------ /j' 7, 2 r'/J i surficial hydrology legend wetlands (26 acres) blue creek irrigation ditch north spring 100 year flood plain (63 acres) CERISE RANCH comprehensive plan amendment planned unit development sketch plan July 23, 1998 0 200 400 800 1200 the LAND.caldi0 123 emma road. suite 204a basalt Colorado 81621 phone (970) 9.27-3690 fax (970) 927-4261 north f / J 0 • ›- 0 0 U U U W J 0 W Water and Waste Water • • loAltreftvmor-,w4.11rw,'1"r''''!•—""14106,,,,mlormtwriTigergvormAv",... cerise RANCH SKETCH PLAN P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, •CO 81602 /`<\. Mr. Doug Pratte Land Studio P. O. Box 107 Basalt, CO 81621 Z4NC4NELL4 4141D 4S5OCI4TES, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULT414TS August 25, 1999 RE: Cerise Ranch Subdivision Sketch Plan Water Supply Investigations Dear Doug: (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax At your request we have reviewed the proposed sketch plan for the Cerise Ranch Subdivision dated August 18, 1999. We have also reviewed the Basalt Water Conservancy District maps for the proposed Cerise Ranch Subdivision. The Cerise Ranch Subdivision is proposed to be located in the Catherine Store area just east of Carbondale, Colorado. The attached Basalt Water Conservancy District map shows that the Cerise Ranch Subdivision is located in Area A of the Basalt District. Being located in Area A of • the Basalt District will allow the subdivision to be served by the Basalt District Temporary Substitute Plan. In addition, the subdivision can be carried through the Basalt District Batch Augmentation Plan when it is adjudicated at the next opportunity. For the purposes of this review, we have evaluated the proposed Cerise Ranch Subdivision in two potential configurations. Both configurations would contain 67 lots. The first would be comprised of 67 lots with 67 single family residences, one on each lot. We have assumed in all cases that each unit on the lot would have on average 3.5 people per unit and would use 100 gallons per person per day. We have also assumed that each lot would have an individual sewage disposal system and would consume 15% of the water diverted. In addition, each unit would have on average 3000 square feet of lawn and garden with an application efficiency of 70%. Table 1A presents the diversion and consumptive use for the above mentioned proposed configuration for the Cerise Ranch Subdivision. In addition, we have prepared Table 1 B, which includes one single family residence and one ADU per lot and a total of 3000 square feet per lot, 1500 square feet for each unit in Table 1 B. As can be seen from the tables, the subdivision will divert on average under the worse case scenario, which is shown in Table 1 B, 66.6 AF and will consumptively use 17.7 AF. The peak month of June would require a continuous diversion of approximately 57.0 gallons per minute. As we stated previously, the subdivision is located within Area A of the Basalt District and will be eligible for the Basalt District Temporary Exchange Plan • approved by Garfield County and the Colorado Division of Water Resources until such time as the permanent augmentation plan moves through Court. We have reviewed the local geology for the possibility of water available in the Cerise Ranch Subdivision area. We estimate the Roaring Fork River alluvium is approximately 40 or more feet thick in this location. It is our opinion that water should be obtainable within the Roaring Fork River alluvium or adjacent quaternary terrace. The Cerise Ranch Subdivision proposes to construct test wells and to fully evaluate the water supply for the proposed Cerise Ranch Subdivision. The test drilling program will be completed prior to the submission of the preliminary plan. In addition pump testing of the wells will be completed with a minimum continuous testing period of 72 hours on one well. Water tests will also be collected for quality analysis at an independent laboratory. Water quality tests will be performed based on Colorado Department of Health community water supply requirements. Supplemental irrigation will be supplied to the subdivision through the Harris and Reed Ditch out of the Roaring Fork River and the Highline Ditch out of Blue Creek that have served the property. Based on the above information, we believe that a water supply plan can be developed to serve the Cerise Ranch Subdivision. If you have any questions please call our office at (970) 945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella & Associates, Inc. eANIThomas A. Zancanella, P.E. Attachments cc: Art Kleinstein N: \97000's\97426\proposalpratte.wpd • w D T ". A ;a w, -7• fin• .- f�• ) ARREi -60-UNTy"/ ;RE CgUrirtf e 411,1 l _ rT yN - Tr' ,� ,faL% i, • _rte • • • Table 1-A Cerise Ranch Subdivision Estimated Water Requirements Water Use Inputs It of EOR's (lhouse/1ADU per lot) # persons/residence # gallons/person/clay Percent Consumed Lawn Irrigation Application Efficiency Crop Irrig reqmnt (CIR) 57.0 units 3.5 cap/unit 100 gpcd 15% 3000 sq-ft/unit 70% 2.13 ft *of Commercial Units # persons/unit # gallons/person/day Percent Consumed Lawn Irrigation Application Efficiency Crop Irrig reqmnt (CIR) 0.0 3.5 100 gpcd 15% 2500 sq-ft/unit 7096 2.13 ft Pond Surface Area Annual Net Evaporation Irrigated Open Space Application Efficiency CrOp !mg reqmnt (CIR) 0 acres 0 R 0 acres 70% 2.13 ft • 25 -Aug -99 Zancanella 8 ASSOC..Inc. Water Resmeces Engineers Glenwood Spnngs CO Jcoi 974_6 cords[ 1:3 Month (1) Domestic In-house (acct) ...........(2) Commercial In-house (ac -ft) (3) DomtComm Irrigation (ac4t) (4) Open Space Irrigation (ac4t) (5) Pond Evap. (ac -ft) (6) Total (ac -ft) (7) Average Flow (gpm) (9) Domestic In-house (ac4t) (9) Commercial In-house (ac -ft) (10) Dom\Comm Irrigation (ac -ft) (11) Open Space Irrigation (ac -it) (12) Pond Evap. (ac -ft) (13) Total (ac -ft) (14) Average Flow (gpm) January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual 1.90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 13.8 0.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.1 1.71 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 13.8 0.26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.1 1.90 0.0 0.0 ,0.0 0.0 1.9 13.8 0.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.1 1.84 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.4 17.8 0.28 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.9 1.90 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 4.1 30.1 0.28 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 13.5 1.84 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 4.6 34.7 0.28 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.2 16.7 1.90 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 4.5 33.2 0.28 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.1 15.6 1.90 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.6 26.5 0.28 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 11.0 1.84 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 3.3 25.0 0.28 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 9.9 1.90 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.4 17.9 0.28 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 4.9 1.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 13.8 0.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.1 1.90 22.34 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 34.3 13.8 21.20 0.28 3.35 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 11.7 2.1 7.22 25 -Aug -99 Zancanella 8 ASSOC..Inc. Water Resmeces Engineers Glenwood Spnngs CO Jcoi 974_6 cords[ 1:3 • • Table 1-B Cerise Ranch Subdivision Estimated Water Requirements Water Use Inputs *of EOR's (lhouse/1ADU per lot) 134.0 units !< persons/residence 3.5 cap/unit S gallons/persoNday 100 gpcd Percent Consumed 15% Lawn Imgation 1500 sq-ft/unit Application Efficiency 70% Crop Img reqmnt (CIR) 2.13 ft k of Commercial Ung it persons/unit a gallons/persoNday Percent Consumed Lawn Irngation Application Efficiency Crop !mg regmnt (CIR) 0.0 3.5 100 geed 15% 2500 sq-Nunit 70% 2.13 ft Water Use Calculations Pond Surface Area Annual Net Evaporation Irrigated Open Space Application Efficiency Crop Ing regmnt (CIR) 0 acres 0 ft 0 acres 70% 2.13 ft • Month (1) Domestic In-house (ac -ft) (2) Commercial In-house (ac -ft) (3) DomlComm IMgatlon (act) (4) Open Space Irrigation (ac -ft) (8) Pond Evap. (ac -ft) (6) (7) Average Total Flow (ac -ft) (9Pm) (8) Domestic In-house (ac -ft) (9) Commercial In-house (ac -ft) (10) Dom1Comm Irrigation (ac -ft) (11) Open Space Irrigation (ac -ft) (12) Pond Evap. (ac -ft) (13) Total (ac -ft) (14) Average Flow (9Pm) January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual 4.46 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 32.6 0.67 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.7 4.9 4.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 32.6 0.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.9 446 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45 32.6 0.67 00 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.7 4.9 4.32 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 4.9 37.2 0.65 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 8.2 4.46 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 7.1 51.7 0.67 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.5 18.3 4.32 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 7.6 57.0 0.65 0.0 23 0.0 0.0 2.9 22.0 446 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 7.6 55.3 0.67 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 20.8 4.46 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 47.5 0.67 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.1 15.3 4.32 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 6.1 45.7 0.65 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.9 14.0 4.46 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 5.1 37.3 0.67 0.0 05 0.0 0.0 1.1 8.2 4.32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 32.6 0.65 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.9 4.46 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 32.6 0.67 52.53 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 86.8 41.20 7.88 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 17.7 4.9 10.93 25 -Aug -99 ZancanNa & Assoc.. Inc. Water Resources Engineers Glenwood Spnngs. CO Jobe 97x26 egruse 123 • • WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM The Subdivision's domestic water needs will be served by community wells, which will pump to a 300,000 gallon storage tank. This tank will provide the domestic and fire flow needs for the proposed community. Fire flow is provided at 1000 gpm for two hours, (120,000 gal) with an additional (120,000) gallon backup as well as 60,000 gallons for domestic use. Water lines will be sized to provide adequate flows throughout the subdivision. WASTEWATER TREATMENT Sewage disposal will be by individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS), typically septic tanks and leach fields for each dwelling. Sizing and design of systems will be in accordance with Garfield County and Colorado State regulations in effect at the time of construction. The existing ranch residence is currently being serviced without problems by an individual sewage disposal system. Additionally review of the SCS soil information gives some indication that the areas proposed for development will be capable of supporting ISDS systems. Although a more detailed analysis, including percolation tests soil borings and profile holes will be provided at the Preliminary Plan stage, it does appear based on the findings, that conventional nonengineered individual sewage disposal systems will be suitable for a majority of the development proposed. There may be some areas where an engineered system will be required, due to localized conditions. Responsibility for construction, operation and maintenance of individual sewage disposal systems will rest with the individual lot owners, who should maintain the systems in accordance with Garfield County Health Department regulations. The Homeowner's Association will require that the septic tank be pumped every three years. Should the welfare of adjacent homeowners be affected by failure of an individual owner to properly maintain an individual sewage disposal system, the Homeowner's Association will have the authority to enforce maintenance of any individual system.