HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.0 Engineering ReportPreliminary Engineering Report
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB PUD
GARFIELD COUNTY, CO
November 17, 2017
RICHARD GOULDING, P.E.
RFE Project # 2017-13
ROARING FORK
pp ENGINEERING
Prepared by
Richard Goulding, P.E.
Roaring Fork Engineering
592 Highway 133
Carbondale, CO
Aspen Valley Polo Club
Preliminary Engineering Report
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Site Location 1
1.2 Site Description 1
1.3 Objectives 1
2.0 Site Design 2
2.1 Geotech 2
2.2 Roadways and Parking 2
2.3 Grading and Drainage 3
2.4 Hydrology and Hydraulics 3
2.5 Erosion Control and SWMP 4
3.0 Utility Design 5
3.1 Zone Districts 1 & 2 — Domestic Water Supply 5
3.1.1 Zone District 1 Demand and Storage 5
3.1.2 Zone District 2 Demand and Storage 6
3.2 Zone Districts 1 & 2 — Raw Water Supply 6
3.3 Fire Protection Water Supply 7
3.4 Zone Districts 1 & 2 — Wastewater Treatment 7
3.4.1 Zone District 1 Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) 7
3.4.2 North Septic Field 8
3.4.3 South Septic Field 9
3.4.4 East Septic Field 9
3.4.5 Zone District 2 Wastewater Treatment System 9
3.5 Electric Service 10
3.6 Cable 10
3.7 Telephone 10
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A — Geotech
Exhibit B — Soil Profiles
Exhibit C — NOAA Rainfall Data
Exhibit D — Septic Field and Tank Sizing
Exhibit E — Water Demand Calculations
Exhibit F — Well Water Quality and Pump Test Information
Aspen Valley Polo Club
Preliminary Engineering Report
Aspen Valley Polo Club iii
Preliminary Engineering Report
1.0 Introduction
This preliminary report presented by Roaring Fork Engineering (RFE) will address the initial steps taken
to ensure the feasibility of the proposed Aspen Valley Polo Club development. This includes the layout of
roadways, structures, utilities, raw waterways and drainage features to ensure the site is sustainable and
functions correctly.
1.1 Site Location
The proposed development is located south of the Highway 82, north of the Roaring Fork River, between
Catherine Store Road and Valley Road. The property is accessed off of the Highway 82 Frontage Road
about 0.62 miles east of Catherine Store Road. The legal description of the property is Section: 31,
Township: 7, Range: 87 A tract of land in lots 8, 9 & 10 of section 31 and lots 5 &13 in section 32 in
Garfield County, Colorado. The parcel is a total of 100.44 acres.
1.2 Site Description
The northern edge line of the property runs along the Frontage Road right-of-way, and the south property
line runs next to and down the center of the Roaring Fork River. To the east of the property is the Waldorf
School and to the west is the Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision.
The property currently has one access off of the frontage road that leads to a modular home, old ranch
home, The McClure Cabin, a green house, a barn, and some wooden sheds. The property has been used
for grazing cattle and other agricultural activities, such as a tree nursery. Scrub oak and large cotton
woods are also present onsite. A 50' wide gas line easement runs from east to west across the center of
the property, almost dividing it in half. A lateral from the Basin Ditch enters the site at the northeast
corner of the property and is dispersed throughout the livestock fields for flood irrigation. The tail water
appears to infiltrate and not leave the site. The Middle Ditch enters the site, from the east and runs across
the southern third of the property and exits into the Blue Creek Subdivision. Toward the middle of the site
the grade drops down to the wet lands and ditches to the south. From there, the slopes continue down to
the south to meet the Roaring Fork River.
The development is currently proposing two full size polo fields, five barns with ADUs, a club house and
four small cabins. The McClure Cabin will be relocated on the site. The northeastern irrigation ditch will
be piped and utilized for irrigation. A well will be drilled for a domestic source of water and septic fields
will be utilized for wastewater treatment. Electrical services will be routed from new transformers
connected to the existing surrounding system. Communication lines will also stem from exiting pedestals
and junctions. New pedestals will be added as necessary. Gas lines will stem from the transmission line
within the road.
1.3 Objectives
Generate earthmoving quantities to help balance the site. Analyze soil types to determine and maximize
the amount of suitable and reusable material available to avoid unnecessary disturbance and excess
export. Design proposed structures and roadways in accordance with local codes and design criteria.
Satisfy fire and emergency vehicle access requirements. Provide an efficient and cost-effective utility plan
meeting all County regulations and standards. Provide the client with the desired amenities given the site
and regulation constraints.
Aspen Valley Polo Club 1
Preliminary Engineering Report
2.0 Site Design
2.1 Geotech
In January of 2008, a Geotechnical report was produced by HP Geotech. This site was deemed to be in
the western Colorado evaporite region within the Carbondale collapse center. The report indicates that
this create a long term settling or subsidence rate between 0.5 and 1.6 inches every 100 years.
HP Geotech also delineated 7 different river terraces across the site stepping down to the Roaring Fork
River. Most of the development will take place on the upper terrace out of the wetlands. The delineation
of the terraces can be seen within the attached Geotech report.
The soil profile determined by the field exploration shows 0.5 to 3 feet of topsoil overlaying 2 feet of silty
sand in Pit 1 and relatively dense, silty sandy gravel containing cobbles and boulders in the remaining
pits. This is said to be alluvial deposits. Logs of these exploratory pits and their locations can be found
within the Geotech Report. 12 pits were dug with a trackhoe with most depths ranging between 8 and 10
feet deep. The report also states that, judging from Colorado State Engineer's well records, this river
alluvium that consists of rounded gravel -to boulder size rocks in a relatively clean matrix extends to
depths of 40 to 50 feet.
Free water was encountered in some of the pits and groundwater has been known to elevate during
seasonal runoff and times of heavy irrigation. Below grade areas should have an underdrain system and
water proofing.
Roaring Fork Engineering also excavated six profile pits on September 12, 2017. The six holes were dug
within the proposed locations of the three septic fields. Two profile pits per field. The excavations yielded
similar results as the geotechnical investigation by HP Geotech, with top soil overlaying alluvial glacial
silty sandy gravels and cobbles.
2.2 Roadways and Parking
Two access points are proposed off the Highway 82 Frontage Road. The distance between these entrances
was based on comments from the Colorado Department of Transportation. The west entrance makes its
way south between the two proposed polo fields. Passing the barns and cabins while providing access to
their respective parking areas. The access then wraps around the east polo field and club house just south
of the west polo field to meet the roadway from the east entrance. An asphalt parking lot is proposed for
the club house, while gravel roads and parking lots will be provided for the barns and cabins. This road
will provide the main circulation through the property.
HP Geotech's report from 2008 recommends a minimum cross-section of 3 inches of asphalt pavement on
8 inches of Class 6 aggregate base course. Onsite conditions may vary, so additional sub -grade
preparation or replacement may be necessary. Additional thicknesses may also be desired based on the
engineer's judgement.
A meeting was held on September 14, 2017 with Bill Gavette, confirming the preliminary looped layout
of the access was adequate and meets the requirements put forth by the Carbondale and Rural Fire
Protection District. Horse and pedestrian trails will parallel and cross this main roadway connecting the
Aspen Valley Polo Club 2
Preliminary Engineering Report
clubhouse, barns, cabins and fields. Traffic calming and signage will be used at crossings to promote a
safe and inviting environment for visitors, members and residence. These roadways and walkways will
be maintained by the Aspen Valley Polo Club.
2.3 Grading and Drainage
The existing topography of the site slopes from the northeast to the southwest following the valley floor,
which slopes at about 2% to the southwest. The property is made up of several river terraces stepping
down to the river toward the south. The escarpments range from 6 to 20 feet high and have steeper slopes
between them of about 50% to 70%. These terraces lie between 4 and 46 feet above the river. As the
grades drop southward, wetlands start to appear along with small ditches and water ways. To the north
side of the property, a tree nursery has been planted.
The major grading features of the site are the two full size polo fields. These fields will be sloped from
the northeast to the southwest following the natural grade. This will limit import and export numbers
while providing positive drainage. One field will sit in the northeast corner of the property, just west of
the east entrance. This field run east to west, while another field to the west will run north to south.
Roadways running between the fields and structures will be crowned and drain into sloped grass lined
swales or ditches. These swale and ditches will convey runoff to the localized depressions via storm inlets
and piping when necessary. No curb and gutter is proposed at this time.
Snow storage will be take place mostly within the road side swales. The clubhouse parking lot will be
plowed to the south where the vegetated pervious landscape areas will provide storage. The barns to the
west and the interconnecting road will be pushed to the side where grass areas can be utilized.
2.4 Hydrology and Hydraulics
Peak Flows were calculated for the 10 -year storm event Rainfall intensity was calculated using a Time of
Concentration (Ta) determined by the overland flow time. Given below.
0.395(1.1 — C) Lo
Td =50.33
0
Runoff Coefficients (C), is a function of the Soil Group (in this case B) and the percentage of impervious
area within each sub basin were developed. Lo is the overland flow length, while So is the overland slope.
NOAA rainfall data was used to determine the 1 -hour Rainfall depth (Pi) of the 10 -year peak rainfall
event. The 10 -year, 1 -hour rainfall depth is 0.77 inches. This rain fall data can be found in the exhibits.
The Rainfall Intensity I was determined by the following equation.
I = 88.8P1/(10+Ta )1.052
The Runoff Coefficient (C) was then multiplied by the Rainfall Intensity (I) and the acreage of each
Major Basin (A) to determine the peak discharge for the Basin.
QP CIA
Aspen Valley Polo Club 3
Preliminary Engineering Report
Qp Peak Discharge (cfs)
A= Area (Acres)
I= Rainfall intensity (inches per hour)
C= Runoff Coefficient (Unitless)
The area of disturbance was split into three separate basins and there will be three separate storm drains
discharging to the south.
Basin 1 is the western most basin. This encompasses the west polo field and all but one barn. This basin
is 20.47 acres. The peak flow was determined to be 1.92 cfs originating from this basin for a 10 -year
storm. A storm drain running down the west property line will ultimately collect this runoff.
Basin 2 is just east of basin one. It is made up of half of the west polo field and the cabin area. The
western access road is also within this basin. This basin is 15.79 acres and produces 2.04 cfs of runoff.
Basin 3 is the eastern most basin which handles the rest of the disturbed area. This area is the western half
of the west polo field, the west entrance road and the clubhouse. This basin is 7.75 acres and will produce
a peak flow of 2.00 cfs.
Localized depressions will be the main form of retention to provide water quality and promote
infiltration. Inlet structures, piping, swales, depression and overflow structures will convey runoff through
the site. Larger depressions will be used for retention. Overflows will flow toward the lower wet lands to
the south. The amount of impervious area generated by the development will determine the size of these
depressions, pipes and structures. The ultimate receiving waters will be Blue Creek or the Roaring Fork
River.
Structures and roof areas will count toward the impervious area and be fitted with gutters and downspout
if necessary. These downspouts should discharge well beyond the limits of backfill. Positive drainage
away from the structure will direct run off to the proposed low points for collection. Ponding will not be
allowed next to buildings. Irrigated landscaping should also be kept away from structural foundations.
The main trunk storm drains will be no less than 12 inches in diameter provide adequate capacity for peak
flows. A full drainage report will be presented with the building permit.
2.5 Erosion Control and SWMP
The area of disturbance is well over an acre, so a Storm Water Management Plan will need to be in place.
A Storm Water Discharge Permit Application will need to be filed with the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment.
Best Management Practices will be used to mitigate sediment transport and erosion due to storm events.
Sediment will be kept out of the neighboring wetlands and Roaring Fork River during construction
activities. Temporary BMPs will consist of, but are not limited to, silt fence, erosion logs, check dams,
storm inlet and drain protection, temporary sediment traps and depressions, berming and surface
roughening.
These BMPs will be maintained and improved during construction and will not be removed until
vegetation has been established. Permanent BMPs will be the storm water retention depressions that will
Aspen Valley Polo Club 4
Preliminary Engineering Report
be regularly maintained. Storm sewer inlet sumps will also act as sediment traps that will need to be
cleaned out periodically. Storm water will also be routed over and through vegetated areas, when feasible,
to provide another level of water quality treatment. This will promote infiltration and filter out pollutants
and sediment.
3.0 Utility Design
Local utility providers will be used for communications, gas and electricity. These providers will be
contacted for will serve letters and be coordinated with during design for layout recommendations and
specifications. Domestic water will be supplied from a well. Wastewater will be treated onsite with septic
fields.
3.1 Zone Districts 1 & 2 - Domestic Water Supply
A new well permit was procured from the Colorado Division of Water Resources, and a new well was
drilled just west of the proposed club house. Water Storage tanks, potable pumps and a chlorine injection
system will be used to store the desired volume, provide contact time and disinfection, and provide
pressure to the structures.
As indicated potable water for Zone Districts 1 and 2 will be supplied by this new well. A pump test was
performed on the well and water quality samples were taken over a 24 hour period for testing. The pump
test indicated the well can supply approximately 50-60 gallons per minute (gpm). 50 gpm was used in the
water supply analysis since it was more conservative. This level of production is enough to meet the water
demands and storage for both Zone Districts 1 and 2. According to the Well Water Quality Analysis
memo written by Resource Engineering, the results indicate the well water meets the basic EPA primary
and secondary drinking water standards. Radionuclide testing results are still pending. If the results
indicate the need to treat for radionuclides, the system will be designed, permitted and construction
according to the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) standards. The report and
pump test information is provided in the exhibits.
The Owner may choose to install a water softener to treat the hard water. The water softener discharge
would be sent to a drywell and not the septic systems. The Owners will also install a sodium hypochlorite
injection system to provide disinfection and maintain a chlorine concentration in accordance with local
and state requirements. Chlorine contact time would be provided using the buried potable water tank. As
previously discussed, no other treatment is needed or being considered at this time. If treatment was
needed in the future it would be designed, permitted and constructed according to the CDPHE standards.
3.1.1 Zone District 1 Demand and Storage
Zone District 1 demands include five horse barns, one maintenance barn, four cabins and a clubhouse.
Irrigation demands for the polo fields, barns and clubhouses will be met using the properties existing raw
water rights from the Basin ditch. If water from this ditch is turned off for repairs or some other
emergency, irrigation water would be supplied from the Middle Ditch or Lower Ditch through existing
water rights.
The average daily demand (ADD) for Zone District 1 is approximately 12,000 gallons or 8 gpm. The
maximum day demand (MDD) is expected to be twice the ADD, which is 24,000 gallons or 17 gpm. A
centralized potable water system that includes an underground water storage tank, potable water pumps
Aspen Valley Polo Club 5
Preliminary Engineering Report
and hydropneumatic tanks will supply water to Zone District 1. The water storage tank will be filled by
the onsite well when the water level reaches a predetermined set point. At a 25 gpm pump rate (half of
the total well output of 60 gpm), the well is capable of replenishing the ADD in approximately 8 hours
and the MDD in 16 hours. This indicates the well pumping rate is adequate to serve Zone District 1.
Demand and storage calculations are provided in the exhibits.
The minimum storage volume that will be provided is equal to the total average daily demand (12,000
gallons) and the required fire flow (1,000 gallons). This ensures the ADD and fire flow can be met even
if there is a well pump failure, well pipe break, etc.
Only some of the water (less than 6,000 gallons) that will be used in Zone District 1 will be sent to the
septic systems. The other water will be directed to drywells or is land -applied (hose bibs, etc) as
indicated in the notes and calculations provided in the exhibits.
3.1.2 Zone District 2 Demand and Storage
Zone District 2 demands include up to 42 dwelling units, a community center and a green house.
Irrigation demands for Zone District 2 will be met using the property's existing raw water rights. The
average daily demand for Zone District 2 is approximately 15,000 gallons or 11 gpm. The maximum day
demand is expected to be twice the average daily demand, which is 30,000 gallons.
Zones District 2's potable water system will most likely mirror that of Zone District 1. It will likely have
a centralized potable water system that includes an underground water storage tank, potable water pumps
and hydropneumatic tanks. The water storage tank would be filled by the onsite well when the water
level reaches a predetermined set point. At a 25 gpm pump rate (half of the total well output), the well is
capable of replenishing the ADD in approximately 10 hours and the MDD in 20 hours. This indicates the
well pumping rate is adequate to serve Zone District 2. Demand and storage calculations are provided in
the exhibits.
The minimum storage volume that will be provided is equal to the total average daily demand and any
future fire flow requirements. This ensures the ADD and fire flow can be met even if there is a well
pump failure, well pipe break, etc.
3.2 Zone Districts 1 & 2 - Raw Water Supply
The raw water supply for Zone District 1 will come from the Basin Ditch lateral that enters the site near
the north-east property corner. A diversion structure will direct flows into a proposed piping system
leading to the northern most proposed pond. This pond is hydraulically connected to the other two
proposed ponds on the site. One pond is proposed just north of the cabins, one between the two barns just
west of that and one pond to the south. These ponds will be connected to a centralized pump vault for the
irrigation system. All ponds will have the same surface elevations and draw down equally when the
irrigation pump is turned on. The total volume of all ponds is 3.22 acre -ft.
A collection system such as a slotted manhole may be used on the Middle ditch for emergency irrigation
needs in Zone District 1. The collection system would be used to filter out debris and sediment from the
ditch. A pump would be placed in the manhole as needed and direct flow to the new ponds. This
emergency raw water irrigation system would only be used if the Basin ditch was offline.
Aspen Valley Polo Club 6
Preliminary Engineering Report
Zone District 2's irrigation demands will most likely be met using the water rights associated with the
Middle Ditch. Storage ponds and/or a collection system, such as the emergency intake used for Zone
District 1, could be used to supply water to District 2. A centralized pump system is envisioned at this
time.
3.3 Fire Protection Water Supply
RFE met with Bill Gavette of the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District to discuss the life safety
of the development. The barns with additional dwelling units (ADUs) will require sprinkler systems
within the ADUs as well as fire separation from the barns. The potable water system will provide the
required fire flow of 50 gallons at 50 psi for 20 minutes or 1,000 gallons. Water required to meet fire
demands will be maintained in the water storage tank at all times. If the club house is under 5,000 square
feet or 100 occupants it will not require sprinklers but if it exceeds either it will need to be sprinkled.
Required fire flows and volume will be calculated and utilized to determine the final design. The intent is
to keep the club house under 5,000 square feet.
Dry hydrants will be placed around the site and connected to the onsite ponds for fire suppression. Bill
Gavette indicated this would be acceptable.
3.4 Zone Districts 1 & 2 - Wastewater Treatment
3.4.1 Zone District 1 Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS)
As previously discussed in the domestic water section not all of the water used in Zone District 1 is
directed to the OWTSs. All of the water, approximately 5,500 gallons, from the barn ADUs and
bathrooms and the clubhouse will be sent to the onsite systems for treatment. Approximately 3,900
gallons will be directed to drywells onsite for infiltration. This includes water from horse washing,
additional washing machine in each barn (ADU washing machine water is sent to the OWTSs), sinks and
some of the hose bib water. No chemicals or hazardous material will be placed into the drywells from
any of the previously mentioned sources that could contaminate the groundwater. Approximately 2,600
gallons will be land applied (hose bibs, etc.) or consumed by the horses.
Three septic fields will be used in Zone District 1 to mitigate the development's wastewater and will be
designed in accordance with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Regulation 43
and Garfield County regulations. As stated in section 2.1 of this report, RFE performed a tactile and
visual investigation by digging two profile pits per field. Soil profile information are attached in the
exhibits depicting RFE's findings. This investigation combined with the gradation test from the 2008 HP
Geotech report indicates that the alluvial layer below the top soil is Soil Type 1. Septic tanks will be used
to bring the effluent to Treatment Level 1 (TL1). Quick 4 Plus infiltration chambers will be utilized along
with pressure dosed systems. This results in a Long -Term Acceptance Rate (LATR) of 0.8. Garfield
County requires 75 gallons per person per day and two people per bedroom. The minimum septic tank
size was determined using section 43.9 -B1 -a Design Criteria and Components, Septic Tanks, Sizing
Requirements, Table 9-1 within the Garfield County On-site Wastewater Treatment System Regulations.
For four bedrooms the tank size is 1250 gallons. For each additional bedroom add 250 gallons of capacity
to the Septic tanks will bring the effluent to Treatment Level 1 (TL1) before it is pumped to the soil
treatment areas (STA). The required STA was determined by section 43.10 of the Garfield County On-
site Wastewater Treatment System Regulations.
Aspen Valley Polo Club 7
Preliminary Engineering Report
3.4.2 North Septic Field
The north septic field treats the waste water from the maintenance barn and horse barns 3, 4, and 5. The
maintenance barn has two units with two bedrooms each totaling four bedrooms. The Horse Barns will
have one dwelling unit with two bedrooms per barn. The total number of bedrooms for this system will be
ten (10).
- 10 Bedrooms = 1,500 gallons per day
The maintenance barn and horse barns will have extra bathrooms/lavatories for employees. The horse
barns were estimated to have five people using the bathroom three times a day. The maintenance barn was
estimated to have eight people using the bathroom times a day. The water use per bathroom visit is 2
gallons.
- Maintenance Barn = 8 people * 3 uses * 2 gallons = 48 gallons per day
- Horse Barn = 5 people * 3 uses * 2 gallons = 30 gallons per day
- 3 Horse Barns + 1 Maintenance Barn = 138 gallons per day
Total flows =1638 gallons per day
These flows match the quantities presented within the potable domestic water demand report. The
minimum tank size for this system is 2750 gallons. One, 2000 -gallon tank with two compartments will be
connected to another 1000 -gallon two compartment tank. The second 1000 -gallon will be flipped around
so the large chamber will house the pump.
The STA for north system will be a pressure dosed sand mound, in a bed configuration, with low profile
Quick 4 infiltrators. The water table was observed at 24 inches deep in this area. It was also determined
that in this area there is about 12 inches of top soil overlaying the natural Type 1 soil. Due to the high
ground water, the 1 -foot top soil layer will be removed and replaced with onsite Type 1 soil for fill. This
soil will be mined onsite and be free of organics and top soil. Then a 2 -foot layer of sand will then be
added above the replaced layer. This will elevate the bottom of the chambers to 4 -feet above the ground
water level. With the implementation of the 2 -foot layer of sand an LTAR of 1.0 will be used.
The filtering material used in the sand filter must be clean, coarse sand, all passing a screen sized between
0.25 and 0.60 mm. The uniformity coefficient must be 4.0 or less. Material meeting ASTM 33 for
concrete sand, with one percent or less fines passing a 200 -mesh sieve maybe used.
Using the design flow of 1638 gallons per day and the LTAR of 1.0 gallons per day per square foot, it
was determined that the STA is 1147 square feet. This area calculation takes into account the reduction
factors applied for the application of Quick 4 infiltrator chambers (0.7 reduction).
This field will require a minimum of 92 Quick 4 Plus infiltrators. They will be configured in a bed
formation of 4 rows of 24 infiltrators each. This does not exceed the maximum width of 12- feet for a bed
configuration. The well setback for this size field is 152 feet. The pond set back is 100 feet
Aspen Valley Polo Club 8
Preliminary Engineering Report
3.4.3 South Septic Field
The south septic field will treat wastewater from Horse Barns 1 and 2 along with the four cabins. Each
horse barn has two bedrooms while the cabins have two bedrooms each. The total number of bedrooms
for the south septic field is 12.
- 12 Bedrooms = 1800 gallons per day
Each Horse barn will have an extra bathroom. The flows are depicted below.
- 2 Horse Barn bathrooms = 2 barns * 5 people * 3 uses * 2 gallons = 60 gallons per day
Total Flow = 1860 gallons per day
The minimum septic tank size for this system is 3250 gallons.
Using this design flow, the STA for a trenched field, with chambers, comes out to be 1302 square feet.
This will require a minimum of 104 Quick 4 Plus infiltrators. They will be configured in four rows of 26
infiltrators. The well setback for this size field is 169 feet. The pond set back is 100 feet.
3.4.4 East Septic Field
The east septic field is responsible for treating the wastewater generated by the club house. According to
Table 6-2 of the Garfield County On-site Waste Water Treatment System Regulations, each member
generates 30 gallons of wastewater per day. The club house is expected to host events so the septic field
size was maximized to provide capacity for up to 66 members. If this number is expected to be exceeded
portable toilets will be brought in.
Total Flow = 2000 gallons per day
For non-residential applications, a septic tank shall be sized to permit detention of incoming wastewater
design flows for a minimum of 48 hours. This results in a minimum septic tank size of 4,000 gallons.
Using this design flow, the STA comes out to be 1,400 square feet. This will require a minimum of 112
infiltrators. This field will have four rows of 28 infiltrators. The well setback for this field is currently 180
feet. The pond set back is 100 feet.
A full onsite waste water treatment report will be present with the building permit. Calculations for the
sizing above can be found in the exhibits.
3.4.5 Zone District 2 Wastewater Treatment System
Zone District 2 would either treat its wastewater using OWTS's, if the lot sizes were large enough, or use
a centralized wastewater collection and treatment facility. If OWTS's were used they would be designed
according to Garfield County requirements. Any centralized collection and treatment system would be
permitted through the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and adhere to all of their
applicable standards/requirements.
Aspen Valley Polo Club 9
Preliminary Engineering Report
3.5 Electric Service
Holy Cross Energy will be the service provider for electric. Three new transformers will be set to provide
enough power to the development. A splice vault will also be added. Holy Cross and RFE will coordinate
with the location of the new transformer and lines.
3.6 Cable
Cable will be looped through the property in the proposed utility easement. Tie-ins will occur at nearby
communication vaults. The addition of communication vaults will be necessary onsite. Available data
companies are Comcast and Century Link.
3.7 Telephone
Currently there are telephone lines running along the existing Highway 82 frontage road. A new line will
be coordinated and installed with the service provider.
Aspen Valley Polo Club 10
Preliminary Engineering Report
Exhibit A
Gtech
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: 970-945-7988
Fax: 970-945-8454
email: hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
PROPOSED TCI LANE RANCH SUBDIVISION
HIGHWAY 82 AND EAST OF COUNTY ROAD 100
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 106 0920
MARCH 14, 2008
PREPARED FOR:
TCI LANE RANCH, LLC
CIO NOBLE DESIGN STUDIO
ATTN: JON FREDERICKS, ASLA
19351 HIGHWAY 82
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
Parker 303-841-7119 • Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 • Silverthorne 970-468-1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS - 1 -
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING - 2 -
PROJECT SITE GEOLOGY - 3 -
RIVER TERRACES AND DEPOSITS - 4 -
EAGLE VALLEY EVAPORITE - 4 -
GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT - 5 -
RIVER FLOODING - 5 -
SINKHOLES - 5 -
EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS - 6 -
RADIATION POTENTIAL - 7 -
FIELD EXPLORATION - 8 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 8 -
PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 8 -
FOUNDATIONS - 9 -
BELOW GRADE CONSTRUCTION - 9 -
FLOOR SLABS - 9 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 10 -
PAVEMENT SECTION - 10 -
LIMITATIONS - 10 -
REFERENCES - 12 -
FIGURE 1 - PROJECT SITE LOCATION
FIGURE 2 - GEOLOGICALLY YOUNG FAULTS AND LARGER HISTORIC
EARTHQUAKES
FIGURE 3 - WESTERN COLORADO EVAPORITE REGION
FIGURE 4 - PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY MAP
FIGURE 5 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS
FIGURE 6 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
FIGURE 7 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 8 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURES 9, 10, 11 & 12 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed
residential subdivision at TCI Lane Ranch located north of the Roaring Fork River and
east of the Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is
shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the geologic and subsurface
conditions and their potential impact on the project. The study was conducted in
accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to TCI Lane Ranch,
LLC, dated December 20, 2007. We previously conducted percolation testing for a septic
system design on the property and presented our findings in a report dated October 31,
2006, Job No. 106 0920.
A field exploration program consisting of a reconnaissance and exploratory pits was
conducted to obtain information on the site and subsurface conditions. Samples of the
subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine
their classification, compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The
results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop
recommendations for project planning and preliminary design. This report summarizes
the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions and recommendations
based on the proposed development and subsurface conditions encountered.
SITE CONDITIONS
The TCI Lane Ranch covers about 100 acres and is located in the Roaring Fork River
valley about three and one-half miles upstream of Carbondale, see Figure 1. The
property lies to the north of the river and is entirely on the nearly level valley floor. The
valley floor has an average slope of about 2 percent down to the west. It is made up of
several river terrace levels that are separated by low escarpments. The escarpments are
typically about 6 to 20 feet high and have slopes of about 50 to 70 percent. The terrace
surfaces lie between about 4 to 46 feet above the river. The Frontage Road for Highway
82 is located along the northern property line. Parts of the southern property line are in
Job No. 106 0920
Gtech
-2 -
the Roaring Fork River channel. The Blue Creek Subdivision borders the property on the
west and rural homes and agricultural land are located on the properties to the east. At
the time of this study several houses and ranch buildings were located in the east -central
part of the TCI Lane Ranch. Much of the ranch is irrigated hay fields and pasture which
are located mostly on the higher terrace surfaces. Cottonwood trees, other trees and brush
are typical of the vegetation on the lower terraces. Poorly drained wetlands are also
present on the lower terraces.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development at the TCI Lane Ranch will be mostly a residential
subdivision as shown on Figure 4. A plant nursery will be located in the northwestern
part of the property. The lowest terraces along the river will not be developed and
undeveloped ground will remain along Highway 82. Eighty-nine residential lots are
proposed. Other development facilities will include a network of streets, a community
park and other community facilities.
If development plans change significantly from those described, we should be notified to
re-evaluate the recommendations presented in this report.
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING
The project site is in the Southern Rocky Mountains to the west of the Rio Grande rift and
to the east of the Colorado Plateau, see Figure 2. The site is in the western Colorado
evaporite region and is in the Carbondale collapse center, see Figure 3. The Carbondale
collapse center is the western of two regional evaporite collapse centers in western
Colorado. It is an irregular-shaped, northwest trending region between the White River
uplift and Piceance basin. It covers about 460 square miles. As much as 4,000 feet of
regional subsidence is believed to have occurred during the past 10 million years in the
vicinity of Carbondale as a result of dissolution and flowage of evaporite from beneath
the regions (Kirkham and Others, 2002). The evaporite is mostly in the Eagle Valley
Evaporite with some in the Eagle Valley Formation. The Eagle Valley Evaporite is the
near surface formation rock below the surficial soil deposits at the project site. It crops
Job No. 106 0920
Gtech
-3 -
out on the steep valley side to the south of the river, see Figure 4. Much of the evaporite
related subsidence in the Carbondale collapse center appears to have occurred within the
past 3 million years which also corresponds to high incision rates along the Roaring Fork,
Colorado and Eagle Rivers (Kunk and Others, 2002). This indicates that long-term
subsidence rates have been very slow, between about 0.5 and 1.6 inches per 100 years. It
is uncertain if regional evaporite subsidence is still occurring or if it is currently inactive.
If still active these regional deformations because of their very slow rates should not have
a significant impact on the propose development at the TCI Lane Ranch.
Geologically young faults related to evaporite tectonics are present in the Carbondale
collapse center but considering the nature of evaporite tectonics, these fault are not
considered capable of generating large earthquakes. The closest geologically young
faults that are less than about 15,000 years old and considered capable of generating large
earthquakes are located in the Rio Grande rift to the east of the project site, see Figure 2.
The northern section of the Williams Fork Mountains fault zone Q50 is located about 60
miles to the northeast and the southern section of the Sawatch fault zone Q56b is located
about 60 miles to the southeast. At these distances large earthquakes on these two
geologically young fault zones should not produce strong ground shaking at the project
site that is greater than the ground shaking shown on the U. S. Geological Survey 2002
National Seismic Hazards Maps (Frankel and Others, 2002).
PROJECT SITE GEOLOGY
The geology in the project area is shown on Figure 4. This map is based on our field
observations and is a modification of the regional geology map by Kirkham and
Widmann (1997). Near surface formation rock is the middle Pennsylvanian -age, Eagle
Valley Evaporite. This regional rock formation was deposited in the central Colorado
trough during the Ancestral Rocky Mountain orogeny about 300 million years ago. At
the project site the evaporite is covered by a series of Roaring Fork River terraces and
deposits that are associated with cyclic periods of deposition and erosion related to glacial
and interglacial climatic fluctuations during about the past 35 thousand years.
Job No. 106 0920
Ge Ptech
4
RIVER TERRACES AND DEPOSITS
Remnants of seven river terrace levels (Qtl through Qt7) are present at the project site.
The lower four terraces are probably related to post -Pinedale climatic fluctuations during
the past 15 thousand years. Terrace Qt 1 lies within 4 feet of the river. Terrace Qt2 lies
about 6 feet above the river, terrace Qt3 lies about 12 feet above the river and terrace Qt4
is about 22 feet above the river. The Qtl terraces are small river bank terraces and
channel bar deposits. The Qt2 terraces are old abandoned river channels that lie below
the Qt3 terrace surface. The three higher terraces are probably associated with the late
Pleistocene -age, Pinedale glaciations between about 15 and 35 thousand years ago.
Terrace Qt5 lies about 38 feet above the river, terrace Qt6 lies about 40 feet above the
river and terrace Qt 7 lies about 46 feet above the river.
Our exploratory pits show that the alluvial deposits below terrace levels Qt3 through Qt7
are similar. They consist of a thin, less than 1 -foot thick to 3 -foot thick, topsoil formed in
soft, silty clay over -bank deposits. The over -bank deposits overlie river alluvium that
consists of rounded gravel- to boulder -size rocks in a relatively clean sand matrix. The
river alluvium extended to the bottom of the exploratory pits that were excavated to
depths of around 9 feet. Judging from water well records in the Colorado State
Engineer's data base the river alluvium is probably in the range of 40 to 50 feet deep in
the project area.
EAGLE VALLEY EVAPORITE
The Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the Roaring Fork River alluvium in the project area
and as discussed above may extend to depths of 40 to 50 feet below the terrace surfaces.
The Eagle Valley Evaporite is a sequence of evaporite rocks consisting of massive to
laminated gypsum, anhydrite, and halite interbedded with light-colored mudstone, fine-
grained sandstone, thin limestone and dolomite beds and black shale (Kirkham and
Widmann, 1997). The evaporite minerals are relatively soluble in circulating ground
water and subsurface solution voids and related surface sinkholes are locally present in
these rocks throughout the western Colorado evaporite region where the evaporite is near
Job No. 106 0920
-5 -
the surface, see Figure 3. Sinkholes were not observed at the project site during our field
work but the snow cover at that time may have obscured sinkholes if present.
GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT
Geologic conditions that could present an unusually high risk to the proposed
development were not identified by this study but there are geologic conditions that
should be considered in the project planning and design. These conditions, their potential
risks and possible mitigations to reduce the risks are discussed below. Geotechnical
engineering design considerations are presented in the Preliminary Design
Recommendations section of this report.
RIVER FLOODING
The low lying terraces along the Roaring Fork River may be subject to periodic flooding
during high river flows. The hydrologic study conducted for the project storm water
management plan design should evaluate the potential for river flooding and possible
methods to protect project facilities from an appropriate design flood on the river.
SINKHOLES
Geologically young sinkholes are present in the western Colorado evaporite region
mostly in areas where the Eagle Valley Formation and Eagle Valley Evaporite are
shallow, see Figure 3. In this region a few sinkholes have collapsed at the ground surface
with little or no warning during historic times. This indicates that infrequent sinkhole
formation is still an active geologic process in the region. Evidence of sinkholes was not
observed at the project site during our field reconnaissance or aerial photographs review
but could have been obscured by the snow cover. A field review to look for sinkholes in
the proposed building area should be made after the site is clear of snow cover. Although
geologically active in the region , the likelihood that a sinkhole will development during a
reasonable exposure time at the project area is considered to be low. This inference is
Job No. 106 0920
Gtech
-6 -
based on the large extent of sinkhole prone areas in the region in comparison to the small
number of sinkholes that have developed in historic times.
Because of the complex nature of the evaporite related sinkholes, it will not be possible to
avoid all sinkhole risk at the project site. If conditions indicative of sinkhole related
problems are encountered during site specific soil and foundation studies for the houses
and other movement sensitive faculties, an alternative building site should be considered
or the feasibility of mitigation evaluated. Mitigation measures could include: (1) a rigid
mat foundation, (2) stabilization by grouting, (3) stabilization by excavation and
backfilling, (4) a deep foundation system or (5) structural bridging. Water features
should not be considered close to building sites, unless evaluated on a site specific basis.
The home owners could purchase special insurance to reduce their potential risks.
Prospective owners should be advised of the sinkhole potential, since early detection of
building distress and timely remedial actions are important in reducing the cost of
building repair should an undetected subsurface void start to develop into a sinkhole after
construction.
EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS
Historic earthquakes within 150 miles of the project site have typically been moderately
strong with magnitudes of M 5.5 and less and maximum Modified Mercalli Intensities of
VI and less, see Figure 2. The largest historic earthquake in the project region occurred in
1882. It was located in the northern Front Range about 115 miles to the northeast of the
project site and had a estimated magnitude of about M 6.2 and a maximum intensity of
VII. Historic ground shaking at the project site associated with the 1882 and the other
larger historic earthquakes in the region does not appear to have exceeded Modified
Mercalli Intensity VI (Kirkham and Rogers, 1985). Modified Mercalli Intensity VI
ground shaking should be expected during a reasonable exposure time for the houses and
other project facilities , but the probability of stronger ground shaking is low. Intensity
VI ground shaking is felt by most people and causes general alarm, but results in
negligible damage to structures of good design and construction.
Job No. 106 0920
GeCPtech
-7 -
The houses and other facilities subject to earthquake damage should be designed to
withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse
under stronger ground shaking. For firm rock sites with shear wave velocities of 2,500
fps in the upper 100 feet, the U. S. Geological Survey 2002 National Seismic Hazard
Maps indicate that a peak ground acceleration of 0.06g has a 10% exceedence probability
for a 50 year exposure time and a peak ground acceleration of 0.23g has a 2% exceedence
probability for a 50 year exposure time at the project site (Frankel and Others, 2002).
This corresponds to a statistical recurrence time of about 500 years and 2,500 years,
respectively. The soil profiles at the building sites should be considered as Class C, firm
rock sites as described in the 2006 International Building Code unless site specific shear
wave velocity studies show otherwise.
RADIATION POTENTIAL
Regional studies by the Colorado Geological Survey indicate that the closest radioactive
mineral occurrences to the project site are greater that twenty miles from the site
(Nelson -Moore and Others, 1978). Radioactive mineral occurrences are present in the
Aspen-Lenado mining district to the southeast and on the southwest flank of the White
River uplift to the northwest. Regional studies by the U. S. Geological Survey (Dubiel,
1993) for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicate that the project site
is in a moderate radon gas potential zone. The 1993 EPA regional radon study considered
data from (1) indoor radon surveys, (2) aerial radioactivity surveys, (3) the general
geology, (4) soil permeability estimates, and (5) regional architectural practices. It is not
possible to accurately assess future radon concentrations in buildings before they are
constructed. Accurate tests of radon concentrations can only be made when the buildings
have been completed. Because of this, new buildings in moderate to high radon areas are
often designed with provisions for ventilation of the lower enclosed areas should post
construction testing show unacceptable radon concentrations.
Job No. 106 0920
GecPtech
-8 -
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on January 10 and 15, 2008. Twelve
exploratory pits were excavated at the locations shown on Figure 5 to evaluate the
subsurface conditions. The pits were dug with a trackhoe and were logged by a
representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were
taken with relatively undisturbed and disturbed sampling methods. Depths at which the
samples were taken are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Pits, Figure 6. The samples
were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 6.
The subsoils consist of about 1/2 to 3 feet of organic topsoil overlying 2 feet of silty sand
in Pit 1 and relatively dense, silty sandy gravel containing cobbles and boulders in the
remaining pits. Pit 3 contained a lens of slightly gravelly sand from 4 to 5'A feet.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the pits included natural moisture
content and density and gradation analyses. Results of swell -consolidation testing
performed on a relatively undisturbed sample, presented on Figure 8, indicate moderate
compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. Results of gradation analyses
performed on large disturbed samples (minus 3 to 5 inch fraction) of the natural coarse
granular soils are shown on Figures 9 through 12. The laboratory testing is summarized
in Table I.
No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavation and the subsoils were
slightly moist.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations presented below are based on the proposed
development, subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory pit, and our
experience in the area. The recommendations are suitable for planning and preliminary
design but site specific studies should be conducted for individual lot development.
Job No. 106 0920
Ge&ech
9
FOUNDATIONS
Bearing conditions will vary depending on the specific location of the building on the
property. Based on the nature of the proposed construction, spread footings bearing on
the natural granular soils should be suitable at the building sites. We expect the footings
can be sized for an allowable bearing pressure in the range of 1,500 psf to 3,000 psf.
Compressible silty sands encountered in building areas may need to be removed or the
footings designed accordingly as part of the site specific lot study. Nested boulders and
loose matrix soils may need treatment such as enlarging footings or placing compacted
structural fill. Foundation walls should be designed to span local anomalies and to resist
lateral earth loadings when acting as retaining structures. The footings should have a
minimum depth of 36 inches for frost protection.
BELOW GRADE CONSTRUCTION
Free water was encountered in some of the exploratory pits and it has been our experience
in the area that the water level can rise and local perched groundwater can develop during
times of seasonal runoff and heavy irrigation. In general, all below grade areas should be
protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by use of an underdrain system.
We recommend that slab -on -grade floors be placed near to above existing grade and
crawlspaces be kept shallow. Basement levels may not be feasible in the lower lying
areas with a shallow groundwater level. Potential groundwater impacts on proposed
development should be evaluated as part of the site specific building study.
FLOOR SLABS
Slab -on -grade construction should be feasible for bearing on the natural granular soils
below the topsoil. There could be some post construction slab settlement at sites with
compressible silts and sands. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor
slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints.
Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. A
Job No. 106 0920
Ge gtech
-10 -
minimum 4 inch thick layer of free -draining gravel should underlie building slabs to
break capillary water rise and facilitate drainage.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The grading plan for the subdivision should consider runoff through the project and at
individual sites. Water should not be allowed to pond next to buildings. To limit
infiltration into the bearing soils next to buildings, exterior backfill should be well
compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a distance of at least 10
feet. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill
and landscape irrigation should be restricted.
PAVEMENT SECTION
The near surface soils encountered in the exploratory pits below the topsoil typically
consisted of silty sandy gravel. The pavement section for the site access roads can be
taken as 3 inches of asphalt pavement on 8 inches of Class 6 aggregate base course for
preliminary design purposes. The subgrade should be evaluated for pavement support at
the time of construction. Subexcavation of the topsoil and fine-grained soils and
replacement with coarse granular subbase material may be needed to achieve a stable
subgrade in some areas.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering
principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or
implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon
the data obtained from the field reconnaissance, review of published geologic reports, the
exploratory pits located as shown on Figure 5 and to the depths shown on Figure 6, the
proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our consulting services do
not include determining the presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological
contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC,
then a professional in this special field of practice should be consulted. Our findings
Job No. 106 0920
Glertech
include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified and the
exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until
excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different
from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the
recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for planning and
preliminary design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by
others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued
consultation, conduct additional evaluations and review and monitor the implementation
of our recommendations. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or
modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site
observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a
representative ofthe geotechnical engineer.
Respectfully Submitted,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Scott W. Richards, E.I.
Reviewed by:
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
SWR/vad
Job No. 106 0920
Gtech
- 12 -
REFERENCES
Dubiel, R. F., 1993, Preliminary Geologic Radon Potential Assessment of Colorado in
Geologic Radon Potential EPA Region 8, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming: U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 93-
292-H.
Frankel, A. D. and Others, 2002, Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National
Seismic Hazard Maps: U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 02-420.
Kirkham, R. M. and Rogers, W. P., 1985, Colorado Earthquake Data and Interpretations
1867 to 1985: Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin 46.
Kirkham, R. M. and Widmann, B. L., 1997, Geology Map of the Carbondale Quadrangle,
Garfield County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File 97-3.
Kirkham, R. M. and Scott, R. B., 2002, Introduction to Late Cenozoic Evaporite
Tectonism and Volcanism in West -Central, Colorado, in Kirkham R. M., Scott, R.
Job No. 106 0920
GecPtech
0
3000 ft.
Scale: 1 in. = 3000 ft.
Contour Interval = 40 ft.
106 0920
GCCPtech
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
TCI Lane Ranch Project
Project Site Location
IFigure 1
Intermountain
Seismic Belt
1984
M 5.1
Wyoming
WY
Basin
150 miles
Laramie Mtn.
1984
M 5.5
VI
WY.
•
Middle R
1977
M 5.0
U
ky
Colorado
Rangely
Intermountain
88 Seismic Belt
5.5
Moab
UT.
1
Rio Blanco
(Explosion)
1973
M
M 5.7 AIE
Grand Junction
Plateau
CO.
0
Cortez
Lily Park
1871
VI
Rulison
Axial Basin
1891
VI
Craig
Meeker
Rifle
(Explosion)
1969
M 5.3
Delta❑
S. Grand
Hogback.
1994444
VI
Steam
Spring
N
0
C▪ D
Glenwood
Springs
Montrose ❑
Q20
Ridgeway
1913
VI
Eagle
•
Project
Site espen
O
Cimarron Ridge Gunnison
1960 ❑
M 5.5
Lake City 'mow
1955
VI to
Pagosa Springs
Durango Dulce
1966
M 5.1
VII
Walden
050
056b
Salida
9} Q67
0▪ —
• Q69a
N. Front ' ange
1882
M 6.2
VII
Golden
Q69b
s9
9c
069e
Fort
Collins
Loveland
`Rocky Mtn. Arsen. l
1952 to 1967
VI to VII
M 3.2 to M 5.3
CC
Great
reeley
Denver
❑Parker
a
tie
Rock
Colorad • Sp.
•
Pueblo
0
Walsenburg
0
❑Trinidad
Explanation:
Post -Glacial Faults:
'\•-•. Fault younger than about 15,000 years.
Larger Historic Earthquakes:
OEarthquakes with maximum intensity greater than VI
or magnitude greater than M 5.0 from 1867 to
present.
Nuclear Explosion:
Large underground nuclear explosion for natural gas
reservoir enhancement.
Historic Seismic Zones:
Areas with historically high seismic activity.
M Local, surface wave or body wave magnitude
VI Modified Mercalli intensity
References:
Widmann and Others (1998)
U. S. Geological Survey Earthquake Catalogs
0
50 mi.
Scale: 1 in. = 50 mi.
106 0920
G ech
HEPWORTH—PAWI.AK GEOTECHNICAL
TCI Lane Ranch Project
Geologically Young Faults and Larger Historic Earthquakes
Figure 2
Gy. ' E
we=a.
OW
w00
a
7-6>
Sawatch Range Anticline
d N
w
C C
4 OCo
ro
> EO
o ma -
UJ
LL w
ro m
To o
to »
c)
0
References:
e
106 0920
G ec 1
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
TCI Lane Ranch Project
Western Colorado Evaporite Region
Figure 3
Qt7
Qf
Blue Creek Ranch
lJ
4-
Qt3
sssa .rrr
�, cf
Qt2
Explanation:
Man -Placed Fill
First Post -Glacial Terrace
Second Post -Glacial Terrace
Third Post -Glacial Terrace
Fourth Post Glacial Terrace
Alluvial Fans
of
Qt1
Qt2
Qt3
Qt4
Qf
c/EPee
Qt5 - 7
Qc/IPee
Pinedale Outwash Terraces:
5 - lowest, 6 - intermediate, 7- highest
Colluvium over Eagle Valley Evaporite
Contact:
Approximate boundary of map units.
P1
• Exploratory Pits:
Approximate locations.
0 400 ft.
I �
Scale: 1 in. = 400 ft.
Contour Interval: 10ft. and 40 ft.
March 2008
Modified from Kirkham and Widmann (1997)
106 0920
Gtech
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
TCI Lane Ranch Development
Project Area Geology Map
Figure 4
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1" = 300'
\,LOT=O 1 LOT 379ILrOT 36/
„4"-\\\r 0,101 III I; 1 NURSERY PARCEL
\. II 11
' ^\\ 7 47`\ VJ `JILL/ I 1
Lor 4z\,�\ ����"
k.
' I
E/07 43/ YLI fT 36� 7 ' !` - ` 7
.� L_ I DoT J ' 1
/ . Lp 7
. OT 44, / Ld ! ; fr ihT 26
/ I G--,— f--: LET 13--/�
// L07 a5I E07 34�
L- -_' ^\'\ /; 077
-A ' OT 35, V
—1 o. \• ) (VT 15
'07'3
} 1LOT 460
I L�
,LOT 47
I ` J
--1
\LOT 48'
\` 0T (LOT s ) ; 1La9�
`(LOT 59) (01 56/ i7 \---T.--- --
_�� ` / . \ // I LOT 50\
I CLOT sol ` ,�r,� r--\
i \\-_J ISO,, ` �.` ( LOT '7,
1 1,-'-'"l
LOT 67� ��•I
I ` I I 1
7 /r�� LLOJ53
/I /LOT 62�
L �J ri1` -
\ yOT 63)
� i
ss pireoT 6_41
r�
LOT 66� -f� r:07
`� ILOT 9�
I r:0 477 LTJ
_ / 1 r r,
IJ I
�EOT 65 / i/ -�-J I � I
C----:7 f" 9
�T1LOT 81
rf� I_=J
o7 i7
&or
\_-�// LOT67 [ -1
LLo_T J ts P-3
_,1 \
Or j.\..1 ��/ Lir 6af''� °�ffi L�r ` sl \✓ Approximate location of
or 70` /= �,/^� =�
'NI previous percolation test
\--c......\ �o=�, r E4 10/30/2006
\>� ...-.1
LET ja
ILOT 74'
K_.
I`i_7r 75 >-L ai0i14176' TiiL'Ta
j 00773,
-- J/L J I L-JIILL _i
_
106 0920
Gaf.�ech
Hepworth—Powlok Geotechnical
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS
FIGURE 5
Depth - Feet
cu
a)
LL
_C
0
Depth - Feet
0
5
10
_0
5
10
5
PIT 1
ELEV.=
HT 5
PIT 9
WC=8.9
DD= 96
-200=41
-7
111
PIT 2
ELEV.=
• ••
•
• *
. •
401,c1:
•°: 040•C +4=66
- 200=2
PIT 6
PIT 10
- +4=73
- 200=2
- +4=54
-200=5
PIT 3
ELEV.=
• t;:o
PIT 7
PIT 11
:;6•:°s:.•
1 +4=15
-200=2
PIT 4
ELEV.=
•
•
PIT 8
0
Sol- •
PIT 12
a. •
- 1 +4=69
-200 = 2
- 1 +4=61
- - -200=3
- 3 +4=68
-200=1
0
5
10
0
5
10
0
5
10 10
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3.
Depth - Feet
Depth — Feet
Depth - Feet
106 0920
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
Figure 6
LEGEND:
TOPSOIL; organic silty clay, soft, moist, dark brown.
SAND (SM -SP ); silty, trace gravels, loose, slightly moist, brown.
GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GM -GP); with boulders, clean sand, dense to very dense, slightly moist, light
brown to brown, subrounded rock.
El 2" Diameter hand driven liner sample.
Disturbed bulk sample.
- _ J
Free water in pit at time of excavating.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory pits were excavated on January 15, 2008 with a track excavator.
2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan
provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory pits were not measured and the logs of exploratory pits are drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory pit locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method
used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate boundaries between
material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. Water level readings shown on the logs were made at the time and under the conditions indicated. Fluctuations in
water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content (%)
DD = Dry Density (pcf)
+4 = Percent retained on the No. 4 sieve
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
106 0920
Hepworth—Powlak Geotechnical
LEGEND AND NOTES
Figure 7
Compression
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Moisture Content = 8.9 percent
Dry Density = 96 pcf
Sample of: Silty Sand
From: Pit 1 at 2 % Feet
Compression
upon
wetting
0.1
106 0920
1.0
Hepworth—Pawlak Geotechnical
10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
100
Figure 8
▪ RCENT RETAIN 1
45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60MIN19MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/4° 1 1/2" 3" 51'6' 8"
0 100
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS i U.S. STANDARD SERIES 1 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
001 .002 .005 .009 .019 037 .074 .150 300 600 1.18 2.36
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT
FINE
GRAVEL 66 °/O
LIQUID LIMIT 0/0
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Gravel
SAND
MEDIUM J COARSE
4.75
9.5 12.5 19.0
FINE
GRAVEL
37.5 76.2 152 203
127
COARSE
COBBLES
SAND 32 % SILT AND CLAY 2 %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
FROM: Pit 2at8to8y Feet
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS l SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS I U.S. STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 MIN. 15 MIN. 60MIN19MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1 1/2" 3" 5"6" 8"
0 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
00
23
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.51
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
{
CLAY TO SILT
FINE
SAND
MEDIUM 1 COARSE
FINE
{
1
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
19.0 37.5 76.2 12152 203
GRAVEL
COARSE
COBBLES
GRAVEL 15 % SAND 83 % SILT AND CLAY 2 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Gravel FROM: Pit 3 at 5 to 5 % Feet
106 0920
1"I
Hepworth—Pawlak Geotechnical
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
▪ ENT PASSIN _
"ERCENT PASSINC
Figure 9
• �i�►��L�_1QxE
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES 1 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
45 MIN. 15HMIN. 60MIN19MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1 1/2' 3" 5"6" 8"
100
0 f
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
.001 .002 305 009 .019 .037 074 .150 300 .600 1.15 2.36
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
1
CLAY TO SILT
GRAVEL 69 %
LIQUID LIMIT %
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Gravel
24 HR.
45 MIN
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS
7 HR
15 MIN. 60MIN19MIN 4 MIN. 1 MIN.
#200
FINE
#100
SAND
MEDIUM 1 COARSE
4.75
9.5 12.5 19.0
GRAVEL
37.5 76.2 152 203
127
[INC 1 COARSE
SAND 29 % SILT AND CLAY 2
PLASTICITY INDEX %
FROM: pit 4at8Y to9Feet
SIEVE ANALYSIS
U.S. STANDARD SERIES 1 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
8"
COBBLES
0�0
#50 #30 #16 #8 #4
3/8" 3/4" 1 1/2" 3" 5" 6"
1
001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150
CLAY TO SILT
1
.300 600 1.18 2.36 4.759.512 519.0 37.5
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
FINE
SAND
1 MEDIUM 1 COARSE
GRAVEL
FINE 1 COARSE
90
89
70
so
30
40
30
30
10
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
76.2 12752 203
GRAVEL 73 % SAND 25 % SILT AND CLAY 2
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Gravel FROM: Pit 6 at 8 Y2 to 9 Feet
COBBLES
EN:101r�rMAIM..1.1K0
NaltiNgallaXIMMIC
106 0920
1—I
Hepworth—Pawlok Geotechnical
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 10
'ER ENT RETAIN ID
_' O ii:i i►t i
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
45 MIN. 15HMIN. 60MIN19MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1 1/2' 3' 5"6" 8"
0 100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.38
CLAY TO SILT
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
FINE
SAND
MEDIUM 1 COARSE
4.75
9.5 12.5 19.0
GRAVEL
37.5 76.2 152 203
127
FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 61 % SAND 36 % SILT AND CLAY 3
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Gravel FROM: Pit 8 at 7 /2 to 8 / Feet
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 LIR.
I. 5 HR MIN. N 4MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1 1/2" 3" 5"6" 8"
45 M 15 60MIN]9MI 100
0
COBBLES
SIEVE ANALYSIS
03
80
70
6D
50
40
30
20
ID
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512 519.0 37.5 76.2 12752 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT
GRAVEL 54 %
LIQUID LIMIT %
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Gravel with Cobble
FINE
SAND
1 MEDIUM I COARSE
GRAVEL
FINE I COARSE
SAND 41 % SILT AND CLAY 5
PLASTICITY INDEX %
FROM: Pit 10 at 6 % to 7 Feet
COBBLES
a/0
IIIMITMEILVASIELO
'ER ENT PA 1 0
106 0920
Hepworth—Pawlak Geotechnical
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 11
PERCENT RETAINED
SIEVE ANALYSIS
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES 1 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HR. 7 H
0 45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60MIN19MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1 1/2" 3" 5"6" 8" 100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
001 .002 005 .009 019 .037 .074 .150
300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9 5 19.0 37.5 76.2 152 203
12.5 127
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
FINE
MEDIUM 1 COARSE
FINE 1 COARSE
COBBLES
GRAVEL 68 %
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Gravel
SAND 31 %
SILT AND CLAY 1 %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
FROM: Pit 12 at 7)/2 to 8 Feet
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PERCENT PASSING
106 0920
Hepworth—Pawlak Geotechnical
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 12
U
z
J
U
z
2
U
W
0
W
J
d
0
W
Job No. 106 0920
7-1
LU
J
CO
SOIL OR
BEDROCK TYPE
Silty sand
Sandy gravel
Gravelly sand
Sandy gravel
Sandy gravel
Sandy gravel
Sandy gravel
Sandy gravel
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(PSF)
ATTERBERG LIMITS
LIQUID PLASTIC
LIMIT INDEX
(%) (%)
Hyo
Z Z 0 W
U CO w
O Ul
a.aZ
N
N
N
N
cn
N
.--i
L GRADATION
0
< o
NN'1
000
N
N
M
41
_
cn
GRAVEL
(%)
,,o
SI
rn
cn
r-
,---
d-
o0
DQ a
<W
0
01
NATURAL
MOISTUR
E
CONTEN
T
(%)
8.9
N
N
I SAMPLE LOCATION
DEPTH
(ft)
N
00
1
00
5-51h
81 -9
ON
00
71/2 - 81/2
00
c_
—1
N
Cr)
d-
00
CO
CNI
Exhibit B
EAST SEPTIC FIELD
PROFILE PIT /
LEGEND
TOPSOIL
SANDY GRAVEL WITH COBBLES
EAST SEPTIC FIELD
PROFILE PIT 2
NO TES
0
1. SOIL PROFILE PITS / 2 FOR THE
EASTERN SEPTIC FIELD WERE OBSERVED
ON SEPTEMBER /2, 201Z
2. L OCA TIONS OF SOIL PROFILE PITS SHOWN
ON THE FOL L OWING EXHIBIT ARE
APPROXIMATE.
3. LINES BETWEEN THE MATERIALS SHOWN
ON THE PROFILE PIT REPRESENT THE
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE
MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS
MAY BE GRADUAL.
1. NO FREE WATER WAS ENCOUNTERED IN
EITHER SOIL PROFILE PITS.
PROFILE PIT LOG
PROJECT: ASPEN VALLEY POLO
PROJECT NO.: 2017-13
DATE: XX/XX/XXXX
DRAWN BY: VJT
ROAR/NG FORK ENGINEERING
592 HIGHWAY 933
CARBONDALE COLORADO, 81623
PH (970) 340-4130 F (866) 876-5873
i
SOUTH SEPTIC FIELD
PROFILE PIT /
LEGEND
TOPSOIL
SANDY GRAVEL WITH COBBLES
SOUTH SEPTIC FIELD
PROFILE PIT 2
NO TES
1. SOIL PROFILE PITS / 2 FOR THE
SOUTHERN SEPTIC FIELD WERE OBSERVED
ON SEPTEMBER /4 201Z
2. L OCA TIONS OF SOIL PROFILE PITS SHOWN
ON THE FOL L O WING EXHIBIT ARE
APPROXIMATE.
3. LINES BETWEEN THE MATERIALS SHOWN
ON THE PROFILE PIT REPRESENT THE
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE
MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS
MAY BE GRADUAL .
Q NO FREE WATER WAS ENCOUNTERED IN
EITHER SOIL PROFILE PITS.
PROFILE PIT LOG
PROJECT: ASPEN VALLEY POLO
PROJECT NO.: 2017-13
DATE: 9/12/2017
DRAWN BY: VJT
ROAR/NG FORK ENGINEERING
592 HIGHWAY 933
CARBONDALE COLORADO, 81623
PH (970) 340-4130 F (866) 876-5873
NORTH SEPTIC FIELD
PROFILE PIT /
LEGEND
TOPSOIL
SANDY GRAVEL WITH COBBLES
iC
NORTH SEPTIC FIELD
PROFILE PIT 2
NO TES
1. SOIL PROFILE PITS / 2 FOR THE
NORTHERN SEPTIC FIELD WERE OBSERVED
ON SEPTEMBER /2, 20/ Z
2. L OCA TIONS OF SOIL PROFILE PITS SHOWN
ON THE FOL L OWING EXHIBIT ARE
APPROXIMATE.
3. LINES BETWEEN THE MATERIALS SHOWN
ON THE PROFILE PIT REPRESENT THE
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE
MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS
MAY BE GRADUAL.
Q NO FREE WATER WAS ENCOUNTERED IN
EITHER SOIL PROFILE PITS.
PROFILE PIT LOG
PROJECT: ASPEN VALLEY POLO
PROJECT NO.: 2017-13
DATE: XX/XX/XXXX
DRAWN BY: VJT
ROAR/NG FORK ENGINEERING
592 HIGHWAY 933
CARBONDALE COLORADO, 81623
PH (970) 340-4130 F (866) 876-5873
Exhibit C
Precipitation Frequency Data Server https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds printpage.html?lat=39.4041&...
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2
Location name: Carbondale, Colorado, USA*
Latitude: 39.4041°, Longitude: -107.1428°
Elevation: 6313.16 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale
Unruh, Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin
NOAH, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland
PF_tabular 1 PF graphical 1 Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS -based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1
Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2
5 10 25 50 100
200 500 1000
5 -min
0.109
(0.087-0.139)
0.160
(0.128-0.205)
0.241
(0.192-0.309)
0.304
(0.241-0.393)
0.386
(0.290-0.514)
0.446
(0.328-0.606)
0.502
(0.355-0.705)
0.556
(0.375-0.808)
0.621
(0.402-0.937)
0.667
(0.422-1.03)
10 -min 0.159
(0.128-0.204)
0.235
(0.188-0.300)
0.352
(0.281-0.453)
0.445
(0.352-0.575)
0.566
(0.425-0.753)
0.653
(0.480-0.888)
0.735
(0.520-1.03)
0.814
(0.549-1.18)
0.910
(0.589-1.37)
0.977
(0.618-1.52)
15 -min 0.194 0.286
(0.156-0.249) (0.229-0.366)
0.430 0.543 0.690
(0.342-0.552) (0.430-0.701) (0.518-0.919)
0.796 0.897
(0.585-1.08) (0.634-1.26)
0.992 1.11 1.19
(0.670-1.44) (0.718-1.67) (0.754-1.85)
30 -min 0.261 0.371
(0.209-0.333) (0.296-0.475)
0.542 0.675 0.847
(0.432-0.696) (0.535-0.873) (0.636-1.13)
0.970 1.08
(0.712-1.32) (0.767-1.52)
1.19 1.32 1.41
(0.804-1.73) (0.854-1.99) (0.891-2.19)
60 -min 0.344 0.457
(0.276-0.441) (0.366-0.586)
0.634 0.772 0.950 1.08 1.20
(0.505-0.814) (0.611-0.998) (0.715-1.26) (0.793-1.47) (0.848-1.68)
1.31 1.45 1.54
(0.886-1.91) (0.937-2.18) (0.976-2.39)
2 -hr
0.428
(0.347-0.542)
0.544
(0.440-0.689)
0.726
(0.584-0.921)
0.868
(0.694-1.11)
1.05
(0.802-1.38)
1.19
(0.883-1.59)
1.31
(0.939-1.82)
1.43
(0.977-2.05)
1.58
(1.03-2.34)
1.68
(1.07-2.56)
3 -hr
0.503
(0.409-0.631)
0.608
(0.495-0.764)
0.776
(0.628-0.978)
0.909
(0.732-1.15)
1.09
(0.834-1.42)
1.21
(0.911-1.62)
1.34
(0.967-1.84)
1.46
(1.00-2.08)
1.61
(1.06-2.38)
1.72
(1.10-2.60)
6 -hr
0.662
(0.544-0.820)
0.751
(0.617-0.932)
0.900
(0.737-1.12)
1.03
(0.835-1.29)
1.21
(0.945-1.57)
1.35
(1.03-1.79)
1.49
(1.10-2.04)
1.64
(1.15-2.33)
1.84
(1.24-2.71)
2.00
(1.30-2.99)
12 -hr
0.832
(0.692-1.02)
0.942
(0.782-1.16)
1.13
(0.935-1.39)
1.30
(1.06-1.60)
1.53
(1.22-1.98)
1.72
(1.33-2.27)
1.92
(1.43-2.61)
2.13
(1.51-2.99)
2.43
(1.65-3.52)
2.66
(1.75-3.92)
24 -hr
1.01
(0.848-1.22)
1.16
(0.970-1.40)
1.41
(1.18-1.71)
1.63
(1.35-1.99)
1.95
(1.56-2.49)
2.21
(1.72-2.87)
2.48
(1.86-3.32)
2.77
(1.98-3.83)
3.16
(2.17-4.53)
3.48
(2.31-5.06)
2 -day
1.20
(1.02-1.44)
1.38
(1.17-1.65)
1.68
(1.42-2.02)
1.95
(1.64-2.35)
2.34
(1.90-2.95)
2.65
(2.10-3.40)
2.99
(2.27-3.94)
3.34
(2.42-4.55)
3.83
(2.65-5.40)
4.22
(2.83-6.04)
3 -day
1.34
(1.15-1.59)
1.53
(1.31-1.82)
1.87
(1.59-2.22)
2.16
(1.82-2.58)
2.58
(2.10-3.22)
2.92
(2.32-3.71)
3.27
(2.50-4.28)
3.65
(2.65-4.93)
4.16
(2.90-5.81)
4.57
(3.09-6.49)
4 -day
1.46
(1.25-1.72)
1.66
(1.43-1.96)
2.01
(1.72-2.38)
2.32
(1.97-2.76)
2.75
(2.26-3.42)
3.10
(2.48-3.92)
3.47
(2.66-4.51)
3.85
(2.82-5.17)
4.38
(3.06-6.07)
4.79
(3.25-6.75)
7 -day
1.75
(1.51-2.04)
1.97
(1.70-2.30)
2.35
(2.02-2.75)
2.67
(2.28-3.14)
3.13
(2.58-3.83)
3.49
(2.81-4.34)
3.86
(2.99-4.95)
4.25
(3.14-5.63)
4.79
(3.38-6.55)
5.20
(3.56-7.24)
10 -day
2.00
(1.74-2.31)
2.23
(1.94-2.59)
2.63
(2.28-3.06)
2.97
(2.56-3.47)
3.45
(2.86-4.18)
3.83
(3.09-4.72)
4.21
(3.28-5.35)
4.61
(3.42-6.06)
5.16
(3.66-7.00)
5.58
(3.84-7.71)
20 -day
2.69
(2.37-3.08)
2.99
(2.63-3.42)
3.48
(3.05-3.99)
3.89
(3.38-4.48)
4.46
(3.74-5.32)
4.90
(4.00-5.95)
5.35
(4.20-6.69)
5.81
(4.35-7.50)
6.42
(4.61-8.57)
6.90
(4.80-9.38)
30 -day
3.28
(2.91-3.71)
3.64
(3.22-4.13)
4.22
(3.73-4.81)
4.71
(4.13-5.39)
5.37
(4.53-6.35)
5.88
(4.84-7.07)
6.39
(5.05-7.91)
6.90
(5.20-8.82)
7.58
(5.46-10.00)
8.08
(5.66-10.9)
45 -day
4.02
(3.59-4.52)
4.48
(4.00-5.04)
5.22
(4.63-5.89)
5.81
(5.13-6.60)
6.61
(5.60-7.72)
7.20
(5.95-8.57)
7.78
(6.18-9.52)
8.35
(6.33-10.5)
9.08
(6.58-11.8)
9.61
(6.78-12.8)
60 -day
4.66
(4.18-5.21)
5.22
(4.67-5.84)
6.09
(5.44-6.84)
6.79
(6.02-7.66)
7.70
(6.55-8.92)
8.37
(6.94-9.88)
9.01
(7.18-10.9)
9.62
(7.31-12.0)
10.4
(7.56-13.4)
10.9
(7.74-14.5)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).
Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates
(for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds
are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.
Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.
Back to Top
PF graphical
1 of 4 10/9/2017, 1:38 pm
Precipitation Frequency Data Server
Precipitation depth {int
Precipitation depth tin}
10
6
4
0
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=39.4041 &...
PDS -based depth -duration -frequency (DDF) curves
Latitude: 39.4041°, Longitude: -107.1428°
e e
E E
• O i
c_
O
L L L L 1—
.Q L L . • . .
r1 N
Duration
ri
r4 rr 0 rr
0
r0 rq r0 fa
O 0 LPI 0
EN f 7 V
5 10 25 50 100 200
NOM Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2
2 of 4
Average recurrence interval (years)
500 1000
Created (GMT): Mon 6ct 9 19:36:15 2017
Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
Average recurrence
interval
(years}
1
2
5
10
25
50
100
200
500
1000
Duration
5 -min
10 -min
15 -min
30 -mm
— 50 -min
2 -hr
— 3-nr
— 6 -hr
— 12 -hr
24 -hr
2 -day
3 -day
4 -day
7 -day
10 -day
20 -day
30 -day
45 -day
60 -day
10/9/2017, 1:38 pm
Precipitation Frequency Data Server https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds printpage.html?lat=39.4041&...
Large scale terrain
Large scale map
Large scale aerial
3 of 4 10/9/2017, 1:38 pm
Precipitation Frequency Data Server https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds printpage.html?lat=39.4041&...
Back to Top
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: HDSC.Questions@noaa.gov
Disclaimer
4 of 4 10/9/2017, 1:38 pm
Exhibit D
STA CALCULATOR
North Septic Field Sizing
Enter Design Flow
Select LTAR
Effluent Application Reduction Factor
1638
1
0.7
FOR TL1 w / CHAMBER DISTRIBUTION MEDIA
BED STA
1147
Number of Chambers Needed
92
South Septic Field Sizing
Enter Design Flow (gpd)
Select LTAR
Effluent Application Reduction Factor
1860
0.8
0.56
FOR TL1 w / CHAMBER DISTRIBUTION MEDIA
Trenched STA
1302
Number of Chambers Needed
104
East Septic Field Sizing
Enter Design Flow (gpd)
Select LTAR
Effluent Application Reduction Factor
2000
0.8
0.56
FOR TL1 w / CHAMBER DISTRIBUTION MEDIA
Trenched S T A
1400
Number of Chambers Needed
112
gpd
gpd/sf
Chamber
gpd
gpd/sf
Pressure Dosed and Chambers
sf
gpd
gpd/sf
Pressure Dosed and Chambers
sf
Enter Number of Bedrooms (including office(s), ADU, etc.)
Enter Additional Flow
Flow Per Person
Minimum Tank Size
SETBACK
Enter Number of Bedrooms (including office(s), ADU, etc.)
Enter Additional Flow
Flow Per Person
Minimum Tank Size
SETBACK
Numbre of Club Members
Enter Additional Flow
Flow Per Person
Minimum Tank Size
SETBACK
10
138
75
2750
151.04
12
60
75
3250
168.8
12
60
75
4000
180
gpd
gpd
gallons
ft
gpd
gpd
gallons
ft
gpd
gpd
gallons
ft
Exhibit E
ppROARING FORK
ENGINEERING
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB
WATER DEMAND CALCULATIONS - ZONE 1
Job Name: Aspen Polo Club
Water System
Job Number: 2017-13
Date: 11/15/2017
By: AMR
Line Parameter
Value Unit Notes
HORSE BARNS DAILY WATER DEMAND
ADU Daily Demand (2 bedrooms)
Persons per ADU
Number of ADUs/Barn
Number of Bams
ADU Water Demand
Number of Bathrooms per Barn
Water Use per Bathroom Visit
Number of Employees/Riders per Barn
Number of Uses per Day/Person
Number of Bams
Bathroom Water Demand
Number of Washing Machines per Barn
Water Use per Washer Cycle
Number of Bams
Number of Uses per Day
Washer Water Demand
Number of Slop Sinks per Barn
Water Use per Sink Visit
Number of Bams
Number of Uses per Day/Person
Average Use Time
Slop Sink Water Demand
Number of Horses per Barn
Water Use per Horse
Number of Bams
Horse Water Demand
Number of 1/2" Hose Bibs/Bam
Water Use per Hose Bib
Number of Bams
Number of Uses per Day
Average Use Time
Hose Bib Water Demand
Number of Horse Washings
Water Use per Horse Wash
Number of Bams
Number of Uses per Day
Horse Washing Water Demand
75 gpcd
4 persons
1 adu
5 bams
1,500 gpd Water is sent to septic field
2 bathrooms
2 gpu
5 people 5 riders per barn (3 employees covered in ADU calcs)
3 uses
5 bams
150 gpd Water is sent to septic field
1 washer
31 gpu Washer - Speed Queen (AWN412)
5 bams
3 uses Blankets (24) get washed once per week (over 7 days)
471 gpd Water is sent to drywell
1 sink
3 gpm Faucet is restricted to 2.5 gpm (Federal Plumbing Standards)
5 bams
8 uses
4 minutes
400 gpd Water is sent to drywell
24 horses
11 gpd Horse drink 5-11 gallons per day typically
5 bams
1,320 gpd Drinking water for horses
4 hose bibs
8 gpm
5 bams
2 uses
4 minutes
1,280 gpd Water is sent to drywell/land applied (50/50)
1 horse wash
75 gpu 20 minutes is normal to bathe a horse & 75 gallons per horse
5 bams
5 uses Horses (24) get washed once per week (over 5 days)
1,875 gpd Water is sent to drywell
Polo Field Water Demand Calcs_20171115 - Projected Flows_Ph1 Current Page 1 of 3
ppROARING FORK
ENGINEERING
MAINTENANCE BARN DAILY WNW DEMAND
ADU Daily Demand (2 bedrooms)
Persons per ADU
Number of ADUs/Bam
Number of Bams
ADU Water Demand
Number of Bathrooms per Barn
Water Use per Bathroom Visit
Number of Employees per Barn
Number of Uses per Day/Person
Bathroom Water Demand
Number of 1/2" Hose Bibs
Water Use per Hose Bib
Number of Bams
Number of Uses per Day
Average Use Time
Hose Bib Water Demand
CABIN DAILY WATER DEMAND
Per Cabin Daily Demand (2 bedrooms)
Persons per Cabin
Total Number of Cabins
Cabin Water Demand
1SE DAILY WATER DEMAN
Clubhouse Daily Demand (members)
Number of Members
Number of Guests (using amenities/facilities)
Clubhouse Member Water Demand
Clubhouse Daily Demand (employee)
Number of Employees
Clubhouse Employee Water Demand
Clubhouse Event Guests Daily Demand
Number of Event Guests (not using amenities/facilities
Clubhouse Event Guests Water Demand
Clubhouse Laundry Demand
Number of Washing Machines
Number of Washes per Day
Clubhouse Washing Machine Water Demand
Number of 1/2" Hose Bibs
Water Use per Hose Bib
Number of Uses per Day
Average Use Time
Hose Bib Water Demand
Job Name: Aspen Polo Club
Water System
Job Number: 2017-13
Date: 11/15/2017
By: AMR
75 gpcd
4.0 persons
2 adu
1 bam
600 gpd Water is sent to septic field
1 bathrooms
2 gpu
8 people
3 uses
48 gpd Water is sent to septic field
3 hose bibs
8 gpm
5 bams
2 uses
4 minutes
960 gpd Water is sent to drywell/land applied (50/50)
75 gpcd
4.0 persons
4 cabins
1,200 gpd
30 gpd/member
50 members
10 guests
1,800 gpd
Water is sent to septic field
CDPHE Regulation 43
Water is sent to septic field
20 gpd/employee CDPHE Regulation 43
5 employee
100 gpd Water is sent to septic field
0 gpd/member Events will be catered. Bottled water and porta johns will be provided
90 guests
0 gpd
20 gpd/machine
1 machine
4 washes
80 gpd
3 hose bibs
8 gpm
2 uses
4 minutes
192 gpd
CDPHE Regulation 43
Water is sent to septic field
Water is land applied
Polo Field Water Demand Calcs_20171115 - Projected Flows_Ph1 Current Page 2 of 3
ppROARING FORK
ENGINEERING
Job Name: Aspen Polo Club
Water System
Job Number: 2017-13
Date: 11/15/2017
By: AMR
TOTAL DAILY WATER DEMAND
Average Horse Barn Daily Demand 6,996 gpd
Volume of Water Sent to Septic System 1,650 gpd Includes flow from ADUs and bathrooms
Volume Sent to Drywell 3,386 gpd Water from sinks, hose bibs and horse washings
Volume Land Applied 1,960 gpd Drinking water for horses
Average Maintenance Barn Daily Demand 1,608 gpd
Volume of Water Sent to Septic System 648 gpd Includes flow from ADUs and bathrooms
Volume Sent to Drywell 480 gpd Water from hose bibs
Volume Land Applied 480 gpd
Average Cabin Daily Demand 1,200 gpd
Volume of Water Sent to Septic System 1,200 gpd
Average Clubhouse Daily Demand 2,172 gpd
Volume of Water Sent to Septic System 1,980 gpd
Volume Land Applied 192 gpd Water from hose bibs
Total Average Daily Water Demand 11,976 gpd
Total Volume of Water Sent to Septic System 5,478 gpd
Total Volume Sent to Drywell 3,866 gpd
Total Volume Land Applied 2,632 gpd
WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM DESI
Well Flowrate 30 gpm Well output is 60 gpm (split between Zones)
Average Daily Demand 11,976 gpd
Water Tank Size for Storage (minimum recommended 11,976 gal
Water Tank Size for 2 Days of Storage 23,952 gal
Maximum Daily Demand Ratio 2 unitless
Maximum Daily Demand 23,952 gpd
17 gpm
Peaking Hour Factor 7 unitless Based on population (small system)
Peak Hour Demand 58.2 gpm
3,493 gal Peak flow one hour volume
Fire Flow 50 gpm Per Carbondale Fire Chief
Minimum Fire Flow Duration 20 min
Minimum Pressure 50.0 psi
Minimum Fire Flow Volume 1,000 gal
Peak Hour Demand 58.2 gpm
Max Day Demand + Required Fire Flow 66.6 gpm
Distribution Pump Size 70.0 gpm Greater of peak hour demand and max day plus required fire flow
User Defined Pump Size 70.0 gpm
Number of Pumps 2 One for redundancy, two pumps minimum
CALCULATE WELL PUMP RUNTIME
Well Flowrate
Average Daily Demand Well Pump Runtime
Maximum Daily Demand Well Pump Runtime
25 gpm
8.0 hrs/day
16.0 hrs/day
Sustained yield = 50-60 qpm. 50 gpm used since worse care (split between Zones)
Polo Field Water Demand Calcs_20171115 - Projected Flows_Ph1 Current Page 3 of 3
ge ROARING FORK
ENGINEERING
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB
WATER DEMAND CALCULATIONS - ZONE 2
Job Name: Aspen Polo Club
Water System
Job Number: 2017-13
Date: 11/15/2017
By: AMR
Line Parameter
Value Unit Notes
RESIDENTIAL AVERAGE DAILY WATER DEMAND
Daily Demand per House
Number of Houses
Single Family Home Average Daily Water Demand
350 gpd
42 homes
14,700 gpd
COMMUNITY CENTER RESIDENTIAL AVERAGE DAILY WATER DEMAND
Number of Users
Daily Demand per User
Community Water Demand
GREEN HOUSE AVERAGE DAILY WATER DEMAND
Number of Slop Sinks
Water Use per Sink Visit
Number of Uses per Day
Average Use Time
Slop Sink Water Demand
50 users
10 gpd
500 gpd
1 sink
3 gpm
8 uses
4 minutes
80 gpd
Metcalf and Eddy
Average Residential Daily Demand
Average Community Center Daily Demand
Average Green House Daily Demand
Total Average Daily Water Demand
14,700 gpd
10 gpm
500 gpd
0 gpm
80 gpd
0 gpm
15,280 gpd
11 gpm
WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM DESIGN = Well Flowrate 30 gpm
Average Daily Demand 15,280 gpd
Water Tank Size for Storage (minimum recommender 15,280 gal
Water Tank Size for 2 Days of Storage 30,560 gal
Maximum Daily Demand Ratio 2 unitless
Maximum Daily Demand 30,560 gpd
21 gpm
Peaking Hour Factor 5 unitless
Peak Hour Demand 53.1 gpm
3,183 gal
Distribution Pump Size 60 gpm
Number of Pumps 2
CALCULATE WELL PUMP RUNTIME
Well Flowrate
Average Daily Demand Well Pump Runtime
Maximum Daily Demand Well Pump Runtime
25.0 gpm
10.2 hrs/day
20.4 hrs/day
Well output is 60 gpm (split between Zones)
Peak flow one hour volume
One for redundancy, two pumps minimum
Sustained yield = 50-60 gpm. 50 gpm used since worse care (split between Zones
Polo Field Water Demand Calcs_20171115 - Projected Flows_Ph2_No ADUs Page 1 of 1
Exhibit F
r"'RESOURCE
P EN 3 I N EE R i N 3 INJC,
Craig Corona, Esq.
Corona Water Law
420 East Main Street, Suite 210B
Aspen, CO 81611
cc@craigcoronalaw.com
Via Email
November 15, 2017
RE: Aspen Polo Partners, LLP — Water Demand and Supply for Proposed Land Use
Application
Craig:
At your request, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) has completed the 24-hour Pump
Test at the well recently drilled on the Aspen Polo Partners, LLP property located east of
Catherine Store Road in Garfield County (Parcel No. 239131100033). The purpose of the
pump test was to demonstrate that adequate potable groundwater exists at a reasonable depth
for the proposed project and to provide an estimate of the expected long-term yield of the well.
This memorandum summarized the opinion and findings of RESOURCE regarding the
adequacy of the physical water supply for the Aspen Polo Partners development.
WATER DEMAND
Roaring Fork Engineering (RFE) recently completed water demand calculations for the
proposed development and are included as Attachment A. Demands are calculated for Zone
1 and Zone 2. Zone 1 includes five (5) Horse Barns with ADUs, a maintenance barn, four (4)
cabins, and a clubhouse. The total average daily demand for Zone 1 is approximately 12,000
gallons per day (gpd) with a peak day demand of 24,000 gpd (16.7 gpm). Zone 2 includes 42
single family dwellings at 350 gpd each for a total of 14,700 gpd with a peak day demand of
30,560 gpd (21.2 gpm). Therefore, the total peak day demand is 37.9 gpm. The development
will include storage to meet peak hour demands.
The property also has hay and pasture fields that are irrigated with senior irrigation water rights.
These lands will continue to be irrigated consistent with historic practices.
WATER SUPPLY
Well Construction
The well (Permit No. 307221) was constructed on October 27, 2017, by Shelton Drilling
Company. The well is constructed in cobbles, boulders, and clay in the first 20 feet and
cobbles, sand, and gravel in for the next 18 feet. The remainder of the well is constructed in
the Eagle Valley Evaporites. The total depth of the well is 41 feet and it is constructed with 7 -
inch diameter steel surface casing with perforated steel casing installed in the water producing
Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
809 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81 801 • (970) 945-9777
Fax (970) 945-1137
Craig Corona, Esq. November 15, 2017
Aspen Polo Partners, LLP — Water Demand and Supply Page 2
zone from 23 feet to 38 feet.' At the time of the well construction, static water level was 13 feet
from TOC and the well produced 60 gpm during a 2 hour pumping test.
The permitted and actual location for the well is the SE 1/4 of the NE '/o, of Section 31, Township
7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. at a point 2,078 feet from the north section line and
257 from the east section line. The UTM coordinates (Zone 13) are Northing: 4363850,
Easting: 315417.
Pumping Test
A 24-hour pumping test was conducted by Samuelson Pump Company and RESOURCE on
October 31, 2017 for the well. During the pump test, the pump intake depth was set at 41 feet
from top of casing (TOC). The purpose of the test was to determine the long-term yield of the
well and its adequacy to serve the existing and proposed uses. The pump test was initiated at
11:OOam at and initial static water level of 13.8 feet and a flow rate of 16.6 gpm as shown on
Figure 1. There was no significant drawdown at this flow rate; therefore, at 11:20am the flow
rate was adjusted to 61 gpm. The well stabilized at the higher flow rate after approximately 5
hours of pumping. The well had a maximum total drawdown of 11.45 feet as shown on Figure
2. The final water level at the end of the pumping part of the test was 10.81 feet, leaving
approximately 30 feet of water above the pump intake. Over the 24-hour pumping period
approximately 86,907 gallons was pumped.
Analysis
Figures 1 and 2 show the water level in the well dropping slightly and stabilizing in first twenty
minutes and then stabilizing at a depth of approximately 15.88 feet. Based on the minimal
drawdown, the flow rate was increased to 61 gpm (based on 2 -hour test during well drilling).
After reaching the maximum drawdown of 11.45 feet after 7.1 hours of pumping, the water level
appears to have slightly recharged (approximately 6 -inches) during the remainder of the 24-
hour pumping period. This could be due to the natural diurnal fluctuation of the aquifer or there
may have been some recharge of the aquifer from the pump discharge. However, given that
the well is constructed in some clay for the first 20 feet and the quick recovery of the well, it
does not appear there is any significant influence from the water discharged on the ground
surface.
Figure 3 depicts the water level recovery in the well in the 75 minutes after pumping ceased. T
represents the total time since the pumping test started and T' represents the time since
pumping stopped. The well reaches complete recovery at T/T' greater than 2 (48 hours / 24
hours), which means the well recovered faster than the rate at which the well was pumped.
This indicates that, at the time of the test, the well completely recharged at a rate equal to or
more than the 60 gpm average pumping rate. In addition, the well produced more water (86,907
gallons) during the 24-hour pumping period, than the maximum day demand (54,560 gpd or
37.9 gpm).
1
The total length of the well is 42 feet with approximately 1 foot of the casing above the ground surface.
RESOURCE
Craig Corona, Esq. November 15, 2017
Aspen Polo Partners, LLP — Water Demand and Supply Page 3
The yield of the well appears to be 60 gpm during based on the pumping and recovery data
achieved during the 24 hour test. Given the potential for some of the pump discharge to
recharge the aquifer during the test, RESOURCE conservatively estimates the long term yield
to the well to in the 50 to 60 gpm range.
CONCLUSION
The results from the pumping test indicate that the well has an adequate yield to serve the
proposed development for domestic and commercial uses. The maximum daily demand for
Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the proposed development is 37.9 gpm, while the long term yield of the
well is estimated to be between 50 to 60 gpm. We recommend that Aspen Polo Partners, LLP
consider developing a second well on the property for redundancy.
If you have any question please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.
Eric F. Mangeot, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
EFM/1428-3.0; Attachments
RESOURCE
Figure 1
Aspen Polo Partners, New Well Pumping Test 11/31/2017
Depth from TOC (feet)
Average Pumping Rate = 60 gpm
Depth from TOC (feet)
1 Top of Casing
10
Pumping Time (minutes)
100 1000
10 -
20
30
1 I I I I
i i i i i
i i i i i i
i i i i i i
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
i i i i i i
Static Water Level = 13.80 ft.J
65
I I 1 1
i
1i
?. _.-.-.-T_.-.-1_.-..
1 1
1
1 I I1
I
I I
1
I
1,420 Minutes @ 61 gpm
i — 60
I
55
1 1
i i i 1
1 1 1
1 1 — 50
I 1
1 1
1 1
• •
I I I 1 I I
I I
i i i! i! i
1 1 1
!
1
i i
1 1 i
40 -
20 Minutes @ 16.6 gpm
Notes:
1) Initial Water Level: 13.80 ft. below Top of Well Casing
2) Final Water Level: 25.25 ft. below Top of Well Casing
3) Well Depth: 41 ft. from Top of Well Casing
4) Pump Intake Depth: 40 ft. from Top of Well Casing
1428-3.0
rt
1 1 1
1 1
4 -i
I
HRESOURCE
i E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C.
909 Colorado avenue Glenwood springs. GO 81001
Voice. 1970 945.5777 • Web. www.resource-eng.com
45
40
— 35 .
cc
— 30 0
1 1 25
— 20
4 -4- 4- I-
i i I I j
I — 15
i i
............................_...1..._.1 -...i..._.._..._..._.........
1 1 I 1 10
• Depth of Water from TOC —Static Water Level
• Manual Measurements Flow Rate
11/15/2017
Prepared by DNR
Drawdown (feet)
1
10
20
30
40
1428-3.0
Figure 2
Aspen Polo Partners, New Well Pumping Test 11/31/2017
Drawdown (feet)
Pumping Time (minutes)
100 1000
1,420 Minutes @ 61 gpm
i 1 i
i 1 ,
--1-- 4 --[ --- --',-- :
1 1
1 1 .
•
•
1 1 .
•
•
•
•
4
, i 1
-----11 --- -4- -1-- -1-- --1-- --- .
1 1
1 1 1
1 1
1
1 1
Max drawdown after 7.1 Hours
(426 Minutes) of pumping = 11.45 ft
20 Minutes @ 16.6 gpm
Average Pumping Rate = 60 gpm
I I
65
— 60
— 55
50
45
— 40 a
co
a)
— 35 (13
— 30 LI
25
• Drawdown -Flow Rate
• •
L -RESOURCE
ENGINEERING,INC.
909L
Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs. GO 81001
Voice. (970) 945.5777 • Web. www.resource-eng.com
20
15
— 10
11/15/2017
Prepared By DNR
Recovery (feet)
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1428-3.0
Figure 3
Aspen Polo Partners, New Well Pumping Test 11/31/2017
Recovery Analysis (feet)
T/T' (minutes)
20
200 2000
T T T ••• •••••, r i i T 1 T
: ._.._.._..._.._ .4_
•: t
Full Recovery
-- T I r:- 4 -, - r T - -r T k-
/ r 1 -: .. r .7:- .� T . T I.
@ 75 Minutes ._ _
- 1.. 1.._..._ _...�..._ 4 ._._.
H._.._..- t._._.._.._. t._ -1 -I._.._ ..._..t.._ -4 t._.:-.
r..._......_.. r.._._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..T.._.._.._.._.. ._.._.._...1._.._.._1_.._..T.._...7.._..T.._-h-
.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..__—.._.._.._..—- .._.._.._._.._...._.....__T.._._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..__�.._.._.._.._..._. .._..__�._.._.._1_..__T.._.. �.._..I.._.L.
1 1 i i 1 i i i i
A.._.._.._...._.._... .4_ 4_ f .._. .i
.+ + + f .i +▪ .._.._.._.. _.._.._._.._...._...._..+.._._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..�▪ .._.._.._.._.. - ._.._ _.._. _ _.._..+.._..1.._..+.._. .
t+ f t.._.._.._...._.._.._._.._...._...._..t.._._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..�.._.._.._.._.. ._.._. _.._. _ _.._a.._...._..-4- 1--
1 1
T ---T-1
4.-::-::I::-..Y=::I::-.
7711
I
1
.._.._.._...._.._..y.._.._..r.._..T.._..+.._;_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._i
7 41
`::-::::-::T::-:I-::-::-::-::-::-::-::-::-::-::-::C::-::-::-::-::A:-::-::-::
.L 1 I_ f i 4.._.._.._.... i i.. 4 .._. l- 4 .l - 1
+ 4 ! ! 1 4._.._.._.... 1 1 .- 4- ! - ! ! 4 1 4
+ -I +- I- 4 -4._.._._.... .+ 4 + 4- -{ -44 + + -+ + .-.
1 1 1 1 1
!
;.._.._.._.. 4.._.._...._.._..+.._..+.._..+.._;_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..
1.4 4 1 1 �. 4 114
4
4 .4 4 + + 4 ▪ 4. ( + 4-
+ + + + +
1 71-11
1._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._▪ _7.._.._.._ ._.._...._...._.._.._1
1 1
1.._.._.._.J.._.._.._._.._..1.._..1.._..1.._.
+ +
End of Pump Test ! T.._ .._..T.._.1
Recovery Begins1.._...._..i.._.
1
Aquifer recovered 100%
•••:RESOURCE
ENGINEERING,INC.
909 Colorado Avenue I Glenwood springs. GO 91601
Voice: (970) 945.9777 - Web. www.resourubng. coin
• Residual Drawdown (Feet)
11/15/2017
Prepared By DNR
RESOURCE
E h G I E E R i G, I NJ C: ,
Craig Corona, Esq.
Corona Water Law
420 East Main Street, Suite 210B
Aspen, CO 81611
cc@craigcoronalaw.com
Via Email
RE: Aspen Polo Partners, LLP — Well Water Quality Analysis
Craig:
November 20, 2017
At your request, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) analyzed the water quality of a new well
recently drilled on the Aspen Polo Partners, LLP property located east of Catherine Store Road in Garfield
County (Parcel No. 239131100033). This letter report presents the technical analysis of the water quality.
WATER QUALITY
Raw water samples were obtained from the well by RESOURCE on October 31, 2017 during a twenty four
(24) hour pump test being conducted by Samuelson Pump Company (Samuelson). A temporary pump
was installed by Samuelson during the pump test. Samples were taken from a spigot connected to the
temporary discharge pipeline. The samples were shipped by overnight delivery under proper chain of
custody to Colorado Analytical Laboratories, Inc. (results attached). In accordance with the criteria
established by the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, the well was tested for inorganic
compounds including metals, coliform, alkalinity, corrosivity, hardness, pH, total dissolved solids, and
radionuclides.
The attached results indicate that the well water meets the basic EPA primary and secondary drinking
water standards. Water hardness was measured at 316.4 mg/L as CaCO3 and is considered very hard
(>200 mg/L as CaCO3). This requires softening for household or commercial use. Hard water can cause
scale to build up in boilers, water heaters, and on water fixtures, and lessen effectiveness of soaps.
Hardness is typically treated if greater than 200 mg/L.
CONCLUSION
The laboratory results for the water quality analysis indicate that the water meets all primary and
secondary drinking water standards. The water was found to be very hard and will require softening for
household and commercial use.
Please contact us if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.
Daniel Roper
Water Resources Planner
EFM/1428-3.0; Attachments
Eric F. Mangeot, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
809 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81 801 (970) 945-6777 Fax (970) 945-1137
fivkl� Colorado
• :Analytical
LABORATORIES, INC.
Report To: Eric Mangeot
Company: Resource Engineering, Inc.
909 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Analytical Results
TASK NO: 171101018
Bill To: Melody Morris
Company: Resource Engineering, Inc.
909 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Task No.: 171101018
Client PO: 1428-3.0
Client Project: GarCo Well Test Parameters
Date Received: 11/1/17
Date Reported: 11/6/17
Matrix: Water - Drinking
Customer Sample ID
1428-3.0 Well App
Sample Date/Time: 10/31/17 1:03 PM
Lab Number: 171101018-01
Test
Result
Method
ML
Date Analyzed I Analyzed By
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate Nitrogen
Nitrite Nitrogen
Specific Conductance
Sulfate
Total
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
Total Hardness
Uranium
Zinc
5.2 mg/L
0.29 mg/L
0.20 mgIL
< 0.03 mg/L
623 umhos/cm @ 25c
162.6 mg/L
< 0.0006
< 0.0001
101.7
0.0394
0.139
0.0007
15.18
0.0257
5.4
0.1
mgIL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
units
316.4 mg/L as CaCO3
0.0017 mg/L
0.040 mg/L
Abbreviations/ References:
ML = Minimum Level = LRL = RL
mg/L = Milligrams Per Liter or PPM
ug/L = Micrograms Per Liter or PPB
mpn/100 mis = Most Probable Number Index/ 100 mis
Date Analyzed = Date Test Completed
EPA 300.0
EPA 300.0
EPA 300.0
EPA 300.0
EPA 120.1
EPA 300.0
EPA 200.8
EPA 200.8
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.8
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.8
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.8
EPA 200.7
Calculation
SM 2340-B
EPA 200.8
EPA 200.8
0.1 mg/L
0.09 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
0.03 mg/L
5 umhos/cm @ 25c
0.1 mg/L
0.0006 mg/L
0.0001 mg/L
0.1 mg/L
0.0008 mg/L
0.005 mg/L
0.0001 mg/L
0.02 mg/L
0.0008 mg/L
0.1 mg/L
0.1 units
0.1 mg/L as CaCO3
0.0002 mg/L
0.001 mg/L
11/3/17
11/3/17
11/6/17
11/3/17
11/6/17
11/3/17
11/6/17
11/3/17
11/6/17
11/6/17
11/6/17
11/3/17
11/3/17
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
MBN
SEA
DBM
DBM
MBN
DBM
MBN
DBM
MBN
DBM
MBN
MBN
MBN
DBM
DBM
4,Cif--4'--------
DATA APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY
240 South Main Street / Brighton, CO 80601-0507 / 303-659-2313
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 507 / Brighton, CO 80601-0507 / Fax: 303-659-2315
Page 1 of 2
171101018
1/1
litt Colorado
• :Analytical
LABORATORIES, INC.
Report To: Eric Mangeot
Company: Resource Engineering, Inc.
909 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Analytical Results
TASK NO: 171101018
Bill To: Melody Morris
Company: Resource Engineering, Inc.
909 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Task No.: 171101018
Client PO: 1428-3.0
Client Project: GarCo Well Test Parameters
Date Received: 11/1/17
Date Reported: 11/6/17
Matrix: Water - Drinking
Customer Sample ID
1428-3.0 Well App
Sample Date/Time: 10/31/17 1:03 PM
Lab Number: 171101018-01
Test
Result
Method
ML
Date Analyzed
Analyzed By
Bicarbonate
Calcium as CaCO3
Carbonate
Langelier Index
pH
Temperature
Total Alkalinity
Total Dissolved Solids
154.5 mg/L as CaCO3
253.9 mg/L
< 0.1 mg/L as CaCO3
0.20 units
7.45 units
20 °C
154.5 mg/L as CaCO3
358 mg/L
Abbreviations/ References:
ML = Minimum Level = LRL = RL
mg/L = Milligrams Per Liter or PPM
ug/L = Micrograms Per Liter or PPB
mpn/100 mis = Most Probable Number Index/ 100 mis
Date Analyzed = Date Test Completed
SM 2320-B
SM 3111-B
SM 2320-B
SM 2330-B
SM 4500 -H -B
SM 4500 -H -B
SM 2320-B
SM 2540-C
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
1
0.1
5
11/3/17
11/6/17
11/3/17
11/6/17
11/1/17
11/1/17
11/3/17
11/6/17
VDB
MBN
VDB
SAN
MBN
MBN
VDB
ISG
DATA APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY
240 South Main Street / Brighton, CO 80601-0507 / 303-659-2313
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 507 / Brighton, CO 80601-0507 / Fax: 303-659-2315
Page 1 of 2
171101018
Colorado
• Analytical
LABORATORIES, INC.
Report To: Eric Mangeot
Company: Resource Engineering, Inc.
909 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Analytical Results
TASK NO: 171101018
Bill To:Melody Morris
Company: Resource Engineering, Inc.
909 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Task No.: 171101018
Client PO: 1428-3.0
Client Project: GarCo Well Test Parameters
Date Received: 11/1/17
Date Reported: 11/6/17
Matrix: Water - Drinking
Lab Number
Customer Sample ID
Sample Date/Time I Test
Result
Method
Date Analyzed
171101018-01B 1428-3.0 Well App
10/31/17 1:03 PM
Total Coliform
E -Coli
Abbreviations/ References:
Absent = Cobform Not Detected
Present = Coliform Detected - Chlorination Recommended
Date Analyzed = Date Test Completed
SM = "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater", APHA, 19th Edition, 1995
Absent
Absent
SM 9223
SM 9223
11/2/17
11/2/17
DATA APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY
240 South Main Street / Brighton, CO 80601-0507 / 303-659-2313
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 507 / Brighton, CO 80601-0507 / Fax: 303-659-2315
Page 1 of 2
171101018
-Hazen Research. Inc.
4601 Indiana Street
-IAZEN Golden, CO 80403 USA
Tel: (303) 279-4501
Fax: (303) 278-1528
Customer ID: 20040H
Account ID: Z01034
ANALYTICAL REPORT
Stuart Nielson
Colorado Analytical Laboratories, Inc.
Lab Control ID: K12017
Received: Nov 02, 2017
Reported: Nov 08, 2017
Purchase Order No.
None Received
Lab Sample ID
Customer Sample ID
K12017-001
171101020-01 - 1428 - 3.0 Well App
sampled on 10/31/17 @ 1303 by Eric Mangeot
Precision* Detection Analysis
Parameter Units Code
Result +/- Limit Method Date / Time Analyst
Gross Alpha
pCi/L
T
3.6
3.3
2.1
SM 7110 B
11/6/17 @ 0650
AN
Gross Beta
pCi/L
T
5.4
2.7
2.3
SM 7110 B
11/6/17 @ 0650
AN
Certification ID's: CO/EPA 0000008; CT PH -0152; KS E-10265; NJ C0008; NYSELAP (NELAC Certified) 11417;
RI LA000284; WI 998376610, TX T104704256-15-6
*Variability of the radioactive decay process (counting error) at the 95% confidence level, 1.96 sigma.
Codes: (T) = Total (D) = Dissolved (S) = Suspended (R) = Total Residual (AR) = As Received < = Less Than
File: K12017 R1. pdf
An Employee -Owned Company Page 2 of 5
Drinking Water Chain of Custody
7
es
State Form / Project Information
PWSID:
System Name:
tn
1
Q
II
U
e
V
Compliance Samples: Yes 0 No Ml
Send Forms to State: Yes 0 No rift
Bill To Information (If different from report to)
Company Name: �� EN(,
Contact Name: !"'V1".1�
Address: clect /: vb, Alte-
6 5 ! N6,
City State Zip
Phone: i / S/— re)1 1 Fax: 1 (S/', `.S1
I
9T
W"`
1MM
e
C
a
Report To Information (.� ,�,
Company Name: FEc 77VZ u""t'ki.-1043
ERI. 4a` r -
Contact Name: lid
Address:9tC CtoLC
6l3e1WO() . cA Sib''
City State Zip
r
I
7(7"
at
V
f
V
C
ii
-z
-z
,AT
Si
Py
i
�'
'
a
LL
r
i
V.
..{
E
i
4.0
6
E
:n
ozaBe
Subcontract Analyses
wn!uein
Seals Present Yes 0 No 0 Ileadspace Yes 0 No 0
Temp Li °C /Ice \i Sample Pres Yes@ No ❑
Received By: Date/Time':
uope 1
8ZZ wn!PEN
9ZZ wn!PE21
elaJegd!V ssa0
X
PHASE 1, 11, V Drinking Water Analyses (check analysis)
(2IP"3) PCZ Afl VAnS
(a!al!O) DOa `DO.L
xapu!'8ue3nim
14.
sa!uegJoul
X
ap!ion!d
x
1 Date/Time:
a1! 1!N
a[
C'/S Info:
Delivered Via: �� C/S C'hargt�
aleil!K
?c
aaddoO/pea1
x
sSVVH Z'ZSS
Relinquished By:
sINHLL Z'7Z5
lenb!a Z.675
IIeg1OPu3 I'87S
alesond,CfD L7S
salewegm l' HS
lsad-s3OS Z'SZS
Received By: Date/Time:
"It1I-1
SDOA Z'7ZS
•
Instructions:
gUe7V\
sap!alcpaH 7'5 I S
saDd/slsad SOS
dDua/fla3 11705
V/d u OJijoj Imo'
X
Tt
'3
171101018 .
ARF
Date I Time Client Sample ID / EP Code
4
V
1
to
Date/Time:
V6/41
Relinquished By:
ckt
i
r•
Drinking Water Chain of Custody
a
1
as
L
.145
4.5
O
N
Lakewood Lab
0
r.
4
• 00 M
A O N • In
N
p 00 f'91
f V7 C
3 in
5 Mo
.0 etl
N Gtr
www.coloradolab.com
State Form / Project Information
PWSID:
System Name:
System Address:
City: State: Zip:
t
°e
0
v
Compliance Samples: Yes ❑ No
Send Forms to State: Yes ❑ No
Bill To Information (If different from report to)
Company Name: Same As Report To
Contact Name:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
P
w
a
0
a.
'3
w
z
oo..
Report To Information
Company Name: Colorado Analytical
Contact Name: Stuart Nielson
Address:
240 S. Main St.
City: Brighton State: CO Zip: 80601
Phone:303-659-2313 Fax:303-659-2315
0
U
.6
mi
O
1 1
O
8
�
V
0
O
Vi
E
.
E
W
Sampler Name: Eric Mangeot
?
c
0
Seals Present Yes ❑ No 0 Headspace Yes 0 No ❑
Temp. °C /Ice Sample Pres. Yes 0 No 0
E
t
a
uop1I
❑❑❑
■
❑❑❑
■
❑❑
8ZZmn!PEN❑❑•
•❑•❑•❑❑
9ZZ mn!PB11
■
❑
•
❑
❑
■
■
■
❑
❑
EtaB/ggdld ssoa0
./
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Received By:
■❑❑■❑❑■❑❑❑
(alai!3) KZ An `VAns
■
❑
■
■
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
(alar!O) OOQ `OOI
■
❑
■
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
xopuI luvintI`d
•
❑
•
•
❑
N
❑
■
❑
❑
soivaiouI
1
❑
..
❑
1
•
I
❑
1
Date/Time:
apponl3■■••00••00
al!at!N
•❑•
•❑❑•❑❑❑
C/S Info:
Delivered Via: C/S Charge 0
aNJ!N
I❑❑•❑❑•❑❑❑
Jaddo3/PEa'I
II❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
sSddH Z.ZSS
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
Relinquished By:
SIAIH.L.LZ'VZS
•
U❑
NI
U❑
U
I❑❑
tEnb!Q Z'617S
•
•
❑
•
❑
❑
•
U
❑
❑
11E41oPu3 I'8VS
■
■
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
alusogd,C10 LVS
•
❑
❑
❑
❑
0
0
0
0
❑
so mugaED 1'I£S
■
■
❑
IN
1
❑
❑
■
•
❑
tsad-SOOS VSZS
•
•
❑
•
❑
❑
•
•
❑
❑
Date/Time:
Ii/Z/t7
12-30
SOOA Z'VZS
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
I tructions:Please RUSH 5-7 Business Days
saP!algaaH V'S I S
•
•
❑
•
❑
•
❑
•
❑
❑
SSDd/SISad SOS
•
•
•
•
•
•
❑
•
•
❑
dDBQ/SQ3I'VOS
❑
•
•
•
❑
❑
❑
•
•
❑
a
0
4.
V/d mlo3!loD IE1od.
❑
•
•
•
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
J
V/d
41110 Saldums
(mow)
auuolyD IsnPtsm
siau!stuo3}o •or.
Task Number
Client Sample ID / EP Code
171101020-01 1428 - 3.0 Well App
Dateffime•
4/6/1/14k
,i/A //
Relinquished By:
Time
^1
O
os
Q
r
M
O