Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.eh.264506401001 (1997) Main HouseASPEN IN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTrat NT APPLlCA; FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL TEM 130 S. Galena St., Aspen Colorado 81611 Phone 970-920-5070/Fax 970-920-5039 ermit # t." i Parcel ID # Permit For: New Installation �,< Repair O Remodel O Emergency }Use( I Name of OWNER Li=ve boP- Street Address owner's Mailing Address G Legal Description: Lot D ,Block Subdivision r C EA7— HA Size of lot: 3o acres Type of proposed structure: P�Lt�e Size of bldg. envelope: 22 Q S Total area/livinq space (sq. ft):4� ¢# of Bedrooms, offices and similar size rooms: Caretaker Unit ( )Attached ( )Detached ( ) Total area/living space of caretaker unit(sq ft) ( ) # of Bedrooms offices and similar size rooms Primary Contact Person In 114.-— Contact Mailing Address oox ),?/D J3�� 516 2 n�,�i-- Ph— • /esL/�/7 56,37 /6 � [ Cell Phone: Fax: 1, ` ✓ Water:( n ate well ( )Spring ( )Stream ( ) Community/Public (Name of Is Proof of Adequate Water Attached ( Required) ? (!f res ( ) No ( A water quality test and well pump test or approval letter from community system) Has this project been approved by Pitkin County ? ( ) Yes ( ) No Is a copy of the floor plan attached ( Required ) ? (-I-Yes ( ) No Is a copy of the site plan attached (Required) ? (r yes ( ) No Application for an individual sewage disposal system is hereby submitted. I hereby certify that the above information is true and accurate and that I have provided true and accurate information on locations of all existing and proposed wells, contour intervals, buildings, property lines, ditches, slopes, waterlines, springs, suction or irrigation lines, drinking water cisterns, drain tiles, irrigation ditches, lakes, water courses, streams, floodplains, dry gulches, and existing septic systems. I acknowledge that any false or incomplete information will invalidate the application and a ubsequent permit. Issuance of the permit does not imply the approval of any other permit required for construction pursuant to Pitkin County codes. No construction y nd aken until all approvals and permits have been obtained. The owner assumes all responsibilities in case of failure or inadequacy of this system. Signature of applicant Date ---------------------------------------------- Ford-eyartrtient-ase below----------------------------------- ----- PERMIT FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM Design Criteria of system to be Installed Any Changes must De suornmea ano appruveu in wnun 3 feet Perc Rate 0 min per inch . Profile Hole Depth Septic tank capacity: ( 7 Sy gallons Absorption area: /.2 S- sq. ft. /.25'3 so r1% �� p+� d yrGt�-e.� Dt , _J-C j jl �r l /ra {vim /r�n�i�{.�.�o�" W r Yc 3 a �G7 r a du c t,? ti rn��SU� J'S US nlX[ C/-1 r h l /� rc��Jr� vr� [ rs ( 1 fele c/I ✓CYr� i,� D %7 S(� �� J l� v; t b 1CP ca r -ea - An inspection is required prior to backfill of any component of the distribution system. Design by Engineer Required ? ( ) Yes (L -)r< All plans and specifications of the engineer must be followed. Any changes must be approved by the Asnen/Pitkin Envirommntal Healt Depart-jn writing arid the engineer must certify the final installation to the Environmental Health Department in writing. Permit approval by: Date Plans and specifications of the proposed individual sewage disposal system have been reviewed and are considered satisfactory. Permission is hereby granted to the owner or the agent to perform the work indicated in accordance with the Pitkin County ISDS Regulation in effect at the time of issue. This permit becomes invalid 6 months from the date that the permit was issued unless system construction has commenced or an extension has been approved in writing by the Department. As -Built draam��t b� included with this permit before the final approval will be issued. Installer: (,�9P-VpalZ2 0+72�1` 19q N111 Receipt # bK Site Plan Well Permit and Soils Test Z A -7— Date received - V Floor Plan Water Quality Test or 2 Date Info Complete Received by Comm Dev Approval D/'-- Water System Letter Final Insp ReaVs ep �. Final Inspection Approval: Date:! APEHD IO/% Appe&x Iit xa S 11 A T'4 i,rgpecbox rk-5 ►� Vi •2GuoQ.. 9,-.) \,vim w i 00 1r sue, l aA-C ndt . LoLtnt4� a-+ 144A.o H rt, • MbaAd Q b,;;o N Mn GL ZIOLL.t r( O u.r► t , Qy� �1�cufvt� . yo50lz,�> �� u ►� tt� i8 ones is ,Ln�Ts cryncACt L d-LOVI L bL t G -k box �c> 4k e- ta4uk- H • �-1 �ULr,,. Cx br- V Gdci fia bc- Yr, a.r Guest . 9 144 "ate L�C>cj . 09-08-1957 07:57AM FROM THC Cabinet d a 6 a� J �vn s S � 6 �K > `t TO El 9205197 P.03 s s � 6 fio S sc a s S. e � N S d f) p 6 y 2 X 4w Q o� � d 6L y 2 S O 6 T � D r ati 0 09-00-1997 07:57RM FROM THC Cabinet . :L.APE SHIP TO CONCRETE INCORPORATED 4 2-4 ,a,lav;acturets of Precast Concrete Products 4- u J1 Also Distributor of Related IMMS 288M U.S: Hwy- 6 Rifle. Colorado 81650 ,:"hone (970) 625-1112 Fax (970) 625-1110 1-800-400-1132 l 71 ✓ ' WEIGHT i ;TcM ! Shipped / TO 0 12 9205197 P.04 0 I1r. N ►^Zj- 11 iz � ll �f 11- s 1�'r� Gd✓ t' A N,,,LCvIt,In L ( 5�, r1 0')1 �l1? L. 4` 5 T �� I l -+e tit 1C� , . 1 ✓��f C I� 1 y>ti I'll Cl DESCRIPTION WARR%-.`YTY ON ABOVE-LISTF-D MATERIAL (INCLUDING NEW MACHINES, PARTS & SUPPLIES) IS LIMITED TO THAT AS PROVIDED 13Y THE. MANUFACTURER. COPIES OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. ✓FIT'S iGWT—UFIESSTOMER, 1S IONA- 11JRIE NOTICE ESS IF PAID BY .............. 40 DISCOUNT AFTER THIS DATE. THIS IS A :;ASH DISCOUNT AND MUST SE PAID ON TIME I°O TAKE DISCOUNT. THANK YOU b4 73- Please pay on invoice. Statement will be sent on request only. STATE TAX COUNTY TAX TOTAL UNIT PRICE I EXTENSION A FINANCE CHARGE OF 1'/2% PER MONTH (WHICH IS AN ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE OF 18%) wu , oc Anncn Tn Ar , Ar.eV)) WT RA, A?JrCC TWAT CYRCDfI 90 DAYS. ^-^•� TOTAL P.04 09-08-9.99? 0?:5?AM FROM THC Cabinet TO 9205197 P.02 OB NABENMANN CONSTRUCTION, INC. r.o. Boa 121u 230 Park Avc. B malt,CO 162: one970-927-3031 Fax 970-92" 117'2 Sept. 8, 1997 TO. Aspen,Titkla %iiviionniental Health Dept. ATTN-. Mary Y' 1 ON" Pal P auerson Todd Habermann Construction P, Sewer and leach field system for Light job Lot D, McCabe Ranch Mazy, As per our telephone conversation on Sept_ 5, 1997, the following solutions and conclusions have been implemented: 1. Outlet "T" on septic tank has been raised to within 1" of top of tank. 2. "T" diffuser has been added in distribution box to prevent straight through flow, 3. A drawing is enclosed to describe how cleanouts and entire system is arranged. 4_ THC has opted to leave the six extra Bio -Diffusers in place, even though we realize that there will be no credit for runs over 100', but we would still like this to be a matter of record. 5. Caps have been installed on all inspection port risers_ 6. Well head distance is approximately 650' to the south and east of the leach field. 1f there are any fuu.er questions or comments, please feel free to call. Thanks for your help and patience in this matter. Pat Patterson Todd Habermann Construction er+ Nancy Mackenzie From: Nancy Mackenzie Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 3:46 PM To: Vicki Monge; Jim Austin Subject: 1501 Rose Spur - Tract D McCabe Ranch - Light I just talked to Jeff McCollum the architect with CCY. He will be submitting to you in another week. so hope this info isn't too soon for you. 1) the Breakfast Room Addition to the existing house - the septic system is sized for the remodel and it doesn't interfer with any of the components of the septic system. 2) The Barn/CDU - he will need to sign a waiver because we will need to issue a septic permit for this Nancy 11/1)1 i1)nnI� ja4t U-4 each W ncC j t.) S J� Q ao `, � IAO- ` Printed on Recycled Paper Aspen,-itkin Environmental Health Departs__-nt Fireplace/Woodstove Permit $ 30.00 Fee lofl Parcel ID # of Property (available from Assessor, 920-5160) Tax Schedule #&K ll3 Legal Description o roperty tnmy Name of Owner of Property Owner's Mailing Address Street Address of Property 6�c Owner's Phone Number Structure Type: Single Family -E]___ Duplex ❑ Apartment ❑ Commercial ❑ Condo/Townhouse ❑ Other ❑ If this is a remodel or addition to an existing structure: List the fireplaces, woodstoves, gas log sets, gas appliances or other devices you already have: Tvne of device # you alreadv have room Will device remain? gas log fireplace has fireplace appliance certified woodstove woodburning fireplace uncertified woodstove other device For new construction, remodels or additions List the fireplaces, woodstoves, gas log sets, gas appliances or other devices that will be installed. Type of device room woodburning fireplace l gas log fireplace - - *0_55;- 36 z. c certified woodstove G-� make & model number: certified woodstove make & model number: other device make & model number: gas fireplace appliance make/model #(attach spec sheet): gas fireplace appliance make/model #(attach spec sheet): gas fireplace appliance make/model #(attach spec sheet): gas fireplace appliance make/model #(attach spec sheet): gas fireplace appliance make/model #(attach spec sheet): gas fireplace appliance make/model #(attach spec sheet): gas fireplace appliance make/model #(attach spec sheet): gas fireplace appliance make/model #(attach spec sheet): Signature of Applicant Date / Z � — Receipt # "I Env Health Dept. Approval Dat i Date Paid"114P Printed on Recycled Paper 2/97 4' DWA Lee Cassin, Pitkin County Environmental Health Department Larry Doble, Pitkin County Building Department Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 October 1, 1997 Dear Lee and Larry - Thank -you for meeting with me this morning when I dropped into your offices. Per our discussions, we determined that it is acceptable to the Pitkin County Environmental Health and Building Departments to install a Travis Industries Fireplace Xtrordinair Elite 36 Z.C. in a bedroom in Pitkin County as a Phase II EPA certified woodstove, a Department Certified Device. In the particular Instance of the Light Residence, in the McCabe Ranch Subdivision, Pitkin County zone district RS -30, the house is allowed one Fireplace, two Department Certified Devices, and as many Decorative Gas Appliances as one could want. Currently, a permit has been issued for the one (traditional woodburning) Fireplace in the project. You should receive a permit application for a Department Certified Device, the above mentioned woodstove, for installation in the Master Bedroom, from Todd Habermann Construction soon. If you do not agree with what I have stated above, please notify me within a week of receipt of this letter. I would appreciate it if a copy of this letter would be put in the project file. Thank -you both for your clarification about this fireplace. r Regards - Renee Dake Wilson U ( fQ cc: Ed Cortez, Todd Habermann Construction John Zotcavage, Roaring Fork Hearth Larry Yaw, Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects ' c0- o Renee Dake Wilson, Architect PO Box 10673 - Aspen, CO 81612 - 970.920.1388 - 970.920.7723 fax - rdake @ rof.net Q HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 HEPWORTH-P'AWLAx Gw,)'n;rY1N1(:'AL, JNC. March 26, 1997 Todd Haberman Construction Attn: Todd Haberman P.O. Box 1210 Basalt, Colorado 81621 Mar 26 97 16:07 Mo.008 P.02 5020 Read 154 Clenwuod Springs, CO 816M Fax 970 945.8454 Mune 970 445-7988 Job No. 197 191 Subject: Additional Subsoil and Percolation Testing, Proposed Light Residence, Lot D, McCabe Ranch, Pitkin County, Colorado Dear Mr. Haberman: As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed additional subsoil and percolation testing for foundation and septic disposal designs at the subject site. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to you dated March 17, 1997. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this report. We previously conducted a subsoil study for design of foundation at the subject site and presented our findings in a report dated December 20, 1995 Job No. 195 532. Proposed ComAruction: The proposed residence will be a two story wood frame structure with a partial basement/partial crawlspace located within the building envelope shown on lyig 1. Basement and garage floors will be slab -on -grade. Cut depths are expected to be up about 10 feet. Foundation loadings for this type of construction are assumed to be relatively light and typical of the proposed type of construction. The septic disposal system is proposed to be located about 100 feet west of the building envelope. If building conditions or foundation loadings are significantly different from those described above, we should he notified to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in this report. Site Conditions. Tice site was vacant and tieing used as irrigated pasture at the time of our field work. About 21h feet of snow was present on the property. Grass and snow had been removed from the building area prior to our site visit. 'rho ground surface in the building area is gently rolling with a slight slope down to the northwest. An existing dry irrigation ditch crosses the building area from north to south. A heavy growth of scruboak and sagebrush is present on the northwestern portion of the building envelope. HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Mar 26 97 16:08 No.008 P.03 • Todd Haberman Construction March 26, 1997 Page 2 Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were further evaluated by excavating three exploratory pits in the building area and one profile pit in the septic disposal area at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The togs of the pits are presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered, below about 1 to 2 feet of topsoil, consist of nil to 21.A. feet of sandy silty clay overlying relatively dense silty sandy gravel. The soils are similar to those found in the previous study to the maximum depth explored of 25 feet. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed sample of the upper clay soils, presented on Fig. 3, indicate low compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. Results of a gradation analysis performed on a sample of the gravels (minus 3 inch fraction) obtained from the site are presented on Fig. 4. No free water was observed in the pits at the time of excavation and Cie soils were slightly moist to moist. Water was previously encountered in Boring 2 at about 23 feet deep. Foundation Recommendations: Considering the subsoil conditions encountered ill the exploratory pits, the previous subsoil study and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend spread footings placed un the undisturbed natural gravels below the clays and designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 psf for support of the proposed residence. The upper clay soils could be expansive when wetted and should be subexcavated beneath foundation areas to reduce the potential for building movement and distress. Outbuildings on the lot could be designed to hear on the clay soils as recommended in our previous report. Footings should be a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. Loose and disturbed soils and existing fill encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excavation should be removed and the looting bearing level extended down to the undisturbed natural soils. F_.x.terior footings should be provided with adequate cover above their bearing elevations for frost protection. Placement of footings at least 42 inches below the exterior ,grade is typically used in this area. Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 45 pef for the on-site soils as backfill. Floor Slabs: The statural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. The upper clay soils have an expansion H -P GEOTECH I HepworthPawlak Geatech TEL 3 r945-8454 Mar 26 97 16:09 No.008 P.04 0 Todd Ilaberman Construction March 26, 1997 Page 3 potential which could result in slab distress if the subsoils become wetted. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns witli expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. 'Phis material should consist of minus 2 itich aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2%<, passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of ffioc7r slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-site gravels devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. Underdraln System: Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Froren ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below -grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawlspace and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free -draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining granular 3naterial used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 11/2 feet deep. Surface Drainage: The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed - 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. Drying could increase the expansion potential of the clay soils. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture acid H -P GFOTECH HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Mar 26 97 16:10 No.008 P.05 O Todd Haberman Construction March 26, 1997 Page 4 compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. Free -draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on-site, finer graded sc}its to rcducle surface water infiltration. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in pavement and walkway areas. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on March 18, 1997 to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile pit and three percolation holes were dug at the locations shown on Fig. 1. The test holes (nominal 12 inch diatneter by 12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The test holes were protected from freezing with insulation overnight, The soils exposed in the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Pit shown on Fig. 2 and consist of one foot of topsoil overlying silty sand and gravel with cobbles and small boulders. At the time of the tests, the temperature of the soils in the test holes was about 40° F and no frost was observed. The percolation test results are presented in Table 11. The average percolation rate is about 20 minutes per inch. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the.percolation test results, the tested area should be suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system. Limitations; This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pits excavated at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the previous subsoil study, the proposed type of Construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is H -P GEOTECH HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:503-945-8454 Mar 26 97 16:10 No.008 P.06 a Todd Haberman Construction March 26, 1997 Page 5 performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified at once so re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We arc not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Signifieant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend onsite observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWL AK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 0;z Jr., P.E. l ° 29707 , r' S/Nal. Daniel E. Hardin P.E. J7A/kw attachments H•P GeOTECH Hepwort.hPaw I ak. Geot.ech TEL :303-945-8454 APPROXIMATE SCALE 1« AP3 apt i PROFILE p i A PIT Mar 26 97 16:11 No -008 P.07 13ENCH MARK: GROUND AT CENTERLINE OF SUILDINO ENVELOPE; ELEV. = 100.0', ASSUMED. BORING 1 O PT 2 ' � 1 � � 1 1 BUILDING APPROXIMATE EDGE DF FNPIT 1 ■ 1 TREES/MU SH BORING 2 t I f PPT 3 ■ 1 LEGEND: ■ EXPLORATORY PIT FOR THIS STUDY. O EXPLORAMRY BORING DRILLED FOR PREVIOUS .STUDY DATED 12/20/95, JOB NO. 195 532 IRRIGA71ON DI TU !ES 197 131 �CE7E1r MICAL. ZINC, ANDAPERC�OL.ATION EXPLORATORY FIg. 1 HepworthPawlak: Geot.ech TEE�03-945-8454 Mar 26 97 16:11 No .008 P.08 - -AE& -4% LEGEND; TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay, organic, stiff, moist. black. CLAY (CL); silty, sandy, scattered gravel in Pits 7 and 2. stiff, moist, medium brown, slightly calcareous. r' GRAVEL (GM); silty, sandy, with cobbles, (small boulders in Pit 2 and Profile Pit) yrs dense, slightly metst to moist, light brown. subrounded rock. �i 2" Diameter hand driven Ilner sample. Disturbed bulk sample. .NOTES: 1. Exploratory pits ware excavated an March 17, 1997 with a trackhoe. 2 Locations of exploratory pita were measured approximately by pacing from features on the site pion provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory pits were moasured by instrument level and refer to the Bench Mark shown an Fig. 1. 4. The exploratory pit locations and elewtions should be considered occruate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown an the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate boundaries between .material t)pes and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free winter was encountered in the pita at the time of excavating, Fluctuations In water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC - Water Content ( S ) DD = Dry Density ( pct ) +4 = Percent retained on No, 4 aieve 200 - Percent passing No, 200 sleet 197 191 HE WORHNIC PA INC.MLCOS OF EXPLORATORY PiTS � Fig. 2 PIT 1 PiT 2 PIT 3 PROFILE PIT ELEV. = 100.0' ELEV. = 96.6' ELEV. - 1DIX ELEV. = 100.2' 0 0 Wb.17.9 � OD -104 �; `•oeWCo8 2 v S i CL 1 Wr--7 3 _ 1 +4-48 14 10 LEGEND; TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay, organic, stiff, moist. black. CLAY (CL); silty, sandy, scattered gravel in Pits 7 and 2. stiff, moist, medium brown, slightly calcareous. r' GRAVEL (GM); silty, sandy, with cobbles, (small boulders in Pit 2 and Profile Pit) yrs dense, slightly metst to moist, light brown. subrounded rock. �i 2" Diameter hand driven Ilner sample. Disturbed bulk sample. .NOTES: 1. Exploratory pits ware excavated an March 17, 1997 with a trackhoe. 2 Locations of exploratory pita were measured approximately by pacing from features on the site pion provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory pits were moasured by instrument level and refer to the Bench Mark shown an Fig. 1. 4. The exploratory pit locations and elewtions should be considered occruate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown an the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate boundaries between .material t)pes and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free winter was encountered in the pita at the time of excavating, Fluctuations In water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC - Water Content ( S ) DD = Dry Density ( pct ) +4 = Percent retained on No, 4 aieve 200 - Percent passing No, 200 sleet 197 191 HE WORHNIC PA INC.MLCOS OF EXPLORATORY PiTS � Fig. 2 HepworthPawlak Geot.ech TEL:303-945-8454 Mar 26 97 16:12 No.008 P.09 .. a 1 be 197 191 GEOTECIANICAL, INC I SWELL -- CONSOLIDATION RESULTS Fig, 3 HepworthPawlak Geot.ech TEL:303-945-8454 ct� n 0 z co 0 Mar 26 97 16:13 No -008 P.11 4 V V) uj a U LU � +-- N D � w L �cc ~a �r a Q oc ac o ¢ a � w z � Mar 26 97 16:13 No -008 P.11 HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Mar 26 97 16:15 No.008 P.12 0 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE II JOB NO. 197 191 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH PROP IN AVERAGE (INCHES) INTERVAL AT START of AT END OF WATER PERCOLATION (MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL LEVEL. RATE (INCHES) (INCHES} {INCHES) (MIN./FNCII) P-1 46 15 $ 7 1 7 6 A 6Y, 6�i yZ water added 7 a 7 Ya 20 7v< s % 614 27 P-2 42 15 9 8 1 g 7 7 7 6 1 20 6 5 1 water added g , E7% 17Fr 7Ya 1 T3 P-3 42 15 $,�, 6% 2 5 a/, 1 refill aA7� 'fir 7 !4 7 'k A 20 7'fi Bx 174 78 MOTE: Parcolatlan test holes were hand in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on March 17, 1997. Tho holes were with Insulation to Protect against freezing overnight. Percolation test holes were conducted covered on March 18, 1997. q 1 11 P GEOTECHNICAL, 0 HEI WORTH-PAWt,Ak GEOTECH, IC , INC. 5020 Road 151 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 December 20, 1995 1.,\ 970945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Jody . damson, Jr., .E. R v. By: DEH JZA/ro cc: Design Workshop, Inc - Attn: Richard Shaw Schmueser Gordon Meyer - Attn: Dean Gordon Jim and Diane Light c/o Design Workshop, Inc. Attn: Richard Shaw 120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Job No. 195 532 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Light Residence and Barn, Tract D, McCabe Creek Ranch, East Sopris Creek, Pitkin County, Colorado. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Light: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for design of foundations at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed building areas consist of about 1/2 foot of topsoil and between 2 1/2 to 14 feet of stiff sandy clay overlying relatively dense silty sandy gravel with scattered cobbles. In Boring 2, a 4 feet thick layer of clay was encountered in the gravel at a depth of 15 feet. Groundwater was encountered in Boring 2 at a depth of about 23 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater was not encountered in the other borings to the drilled r depths of 11 1/2 to 22 feet. The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural gravels below the clays and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. Spread footings used for the barn bearing on the clay soils should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Due to the expansion potential of the clays, the barn footings should also be designed for a minimum dead load pressure of 600 psf. The report which follows describes our investigation, summarizes our findings, and presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Jody . damson, Jr., .E. R v. By: DEH JZA/ro cc: Design Workshop, Inc - Attn: Richard Shaw Schmueser Gordon Meyer - Attn: Dean Gordon c TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY .............................. 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .................................. 1 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................... 2 FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................... 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................... 3 FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS 3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 4 FOUNDATIONS........................................ 4 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ..................... 5 FLOORSLABS ........................................ 6 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ................................. 8 SITEGRADING.......................................8 SURFACE DRAINAGE..................................9 LIMITATIONS ............................................. 9 FIGURE I - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 5 - GRADATION ANALYSES TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence and barn to be located on Tract D, McCabe Creek Ranch, East Sopris Creek, Pitkin County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to Jim and Diane Light, dated October 25, 1995. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine compressibility or swell characteristics and classification of the on-site soils. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed residence will be a 4,000 square feet, 2 -story wood frame structure. Ground floor will be structural over a crawlspace. A nearby barn will be about 1,000 square feet. Grading for the structures are assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 4 to 6 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. If building loadings, location or grading plans are significantly different from those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report. 14 -2- SITE CONDITIONS At the time of our field work, the site was vacant pasture land vegetated with grasses, weeds, sagebrush and scrub oak. The topography in the area is hilly with the residential building envelope located at the southern base of a small knoll. Elevation difference across the building envelope is about 17 feet. The barn envelope is located on the southeast side of the small knoll and northeast of the residential building envelope. Elevation difference across the barn area is about 8 feet. I FIELD EXPLORATION IN The field exploration for the project was conducted on December 4, 1995. Two exploratory borings were drilled in the proposed residence building envelope and one boring in the barn envelope at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 -inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a truck -mounted Longyear BK-51HD drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1 3/8 -inch and 2 -inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. H -P GEOTECH -3 - SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface profiles encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. Below about '/z foot of topsoil, the subsoils consist of 2 1/2 to 14 feet of stiff sandy clay overlying relatively dense silty sandy gravel with scattered cobbles. At a depth of about 15 feet in Boring 2, a 4 feet thick layer of sandy clay was encountered in the gravel. The clay subsoils in this area can possess a low expansion potential when wetted. Drilling refusal was encountered in the gravel deposit in Boring 1 at a depth of 11 '/z feet. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained during the field exploration included moisture content, density and gradation analyses. Swell -consolidation testing was performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the clay subsoils. The swell -consolidation test results, presented on Fig. 4, indicate low compressibility under light to moderate surcharge loadings and a slight expansion potential when wetted under a constant light surcharge. Gradation analyses performed on the minus 1 '/z -inch fraction of the gravel subsoils are presented on Fig. 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. Groundwater was encountered in Boring 2 at a depth of 23 feet during drilling. No free water was encountered in Borings 1 and 3. The subsoils were generally moist. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The subsoils encountered within probable excavation depth for the proposed residence consist mainly of dense silty sandy gravel which should provide adequate support for the residential building loads. The upper clay soils could be expansive when wetted and should be subexcavated beneath foundation areas to reduce the potential for building movement and distress. In the barn areas, where the clay soils are relatively thick, the footings should also be designed with a minimum dead load. H -P GEOTECH -4- The surface and subsurface drainage precautions contained in this report should be taken to reduce the potential for wetting of the bearing soils. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. The construction criteria should be considered when preparing project documents. 1) Footings bearing on the dense gravel soils can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. Footings placed on the undisturbed clay soils can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The footings should also be designed for a minimum dead load pressure of 600 psf. In order to satisfy the minimum dead load pressure under lightly loaded areas, it may be necessary to concentrate loads by using a grade beam and pad system. Wall -on - grade construction is not recommended at this site to achieve the minimum dead load. designed 2) Based on experience, we expect settlement or heave of footings and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch. There could be some additional movement for foundations bearing on the clay soils if the soils become wet. 3) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for isolated pads. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies and limit the risk of differential movement. One method of analysis is to design the foundation wall to span an unsupported length of at least 12 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist H -P GEOTECH a lateral earth pressure as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below the exterior grade is typically used in this area. 6) Prior to the footing construction, any existing fill, topsoil and loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to competent bearing soils. Precautions should be taken to prevent disturbance of the moist clay bearing soils during excavation. If water seepage is encountered in the excavation, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete placement. 7) A representative of the soil engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a I lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 50 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils. The clay soil and oversized rock should not be included in the backfill material. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the H -P GEOTECH walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. 1 Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected even if the material is placed correctly and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. Backfill should consist of predominately granular soil with a maximum size of 6 inches and less than 35% passing the No. 200 sieve. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.35. Passive pressure against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 300 pcf . The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a granular material compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS Floor slabs present a problem where expansive materials are present near floor slab elevation because sufficient dead load cannot be maintained to resist the uplift H -P GEOTECH P1 -7- �3 pressure generated should the subgrade soils become wet and expand. The only positive method is to construct a structural floor above a well ventilated crawl space. In the residence area, it should be possible to remove the expansive clay from below any slab areas. If there are slabs proposed for the barn area, we believe slab -on -grade construction may be considered, provided the risk of distress resulting from slab heave is accepted by the owner. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, nonstructural floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. Slab reinforcement and control joints should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 -inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed immediately beneath basement level slabs -on -grade. This material should consist of minus 2 -inch -' aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. The free -draining gravel will aid in drainage below the slabs. Required fill beneath slabs can consist of the on-site gravelly soils or a suitable imported granular material, excluding topsoil and oversized rocks. We do not recommend use of the on-site clays for underslab fill. The fill should be spread in thin horizontal lifts, adjusted to at or above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. All vegetation, topsoil and loose or disturbed soil should be removed prior to fill placement. The above recommendations will not prevent slab heave if the expansive soils underlying slabs -on -grade become wet. However, the recommendations will reduce the effects if slab heave occurs. All plumbing lines should be pressure tested before backfilling to help reduce the potential for wetting. is CJ 0 H -P GEOTECH -8- UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Free water was encountered during our exploration in Boring 2 at a depth of about 23 feet. Our experience in the area and where clay soils are present indicates that local perched groundwater may develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below grade construction such as retaining walls and crawl space areas be protected from wetting by an underdrain system. The drain should also act to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind foundation walls. In shallow crawl space areas, the underdrain may not be needed. If an underdrain is installed, it should consist of a drainpipe surrounded by free - draining granular material placed at the bottom of the wall backfill. The drain lines should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade, and sloped at a minimum 1 % grade to a_suitable gravity outlet. Free - draining granular material used in the drain system should consist of minus 2 -inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. The drain gravel should be at least 1 '/z feet deep. SITE GRADING The risk of construction induced slope instability at the site appears low since cut and fill depths are assumed to be limited. We assume the cut depth for the crawlspace will not exceed about 6 feet. Fills will likely be limited to about 4 to 6 feet deep in the downhill part of the lot. Embankment fills should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to 95% standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20% grade. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The H -P GEOTECH risk of slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. This office should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the structures have been completed: 1) Excessive wetting or drying of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. Drying could increase the expansion potential of the soils. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 % of the _maximum standard Proctor- density -in pavement areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. Free - draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 to 3 feet of the on-site soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no other warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations H -P GEOTECH MICE submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear to be different from those described in this report, we should be notified at once so reevaluation of the recommendations may be made. 'This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have -been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications of the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. Sincerely, RTH-PAWLAK G Jordk Z. Jkd�mson, Jr., Rei iewed By: Daniel E. Hardin, P. JZA/ro H -P GEOTECH APPR@.XIMATE SCALE t = 40' BARN ENVELOPE - T RACT D BORING 3 r' "OP OF :NOLL h RESIDENCE BUILDING ENVELOP r r r r r ' r ' r ' r � 1� BORING 2 • • BORING I a ,l 1 � 1100 35 532 I C; PWOCRTH- AWLAK ILOCATIONLOF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. I 7720 7715 7710 7705 c 0 :J 7700 s 7695 7690 Boring 1 Elev.=7711' 11/12 4C=20.7 )D= 97 -200=79 16/4,15/0 WC= 5.4 +4= 27 -200= 21 +6/6,30/1 Boring 2 Flev.=7711' 24/12 34/12 WC= 14.E DD= 1 15 71/1.2 WC= 6.9 +4=40 -200= 20 15/0 9/12 22/6,30/1 7685 l l Residence Building Envelope r, ICV .= r ! iv ` I 7720 20/12 7715 44/12 7710 29/12 WC= 17.7 DD= 1 1 1 7705 y i 40/4,10/0 ro 7700 15/0 75y5 Barn Envelope 7690 195 532 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK Logs of Exploratory Borings (.FnTFCHNICAL. Inc. 7685 Fig. 2 a i LEGEND: TOPSOIL; sandy clay, roots, slightly gravelly in Boring 1, medium stiff, N very moist to wet, dark brown and grayish brown. CLAY (CL); sandy, stiff to very stiff, moist, light brown to brown. GRAVEL (GP -GM); sandy, silty, scattered cobbles, dense to very dense, slightly moist to wet, light brown. Rounded rock. hRelatively undisturbed drive sample; 2 -inch I.D. California liner sample. Drive sample: standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 -inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586. 24/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 24 blows of a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. Free water level in boring measured at the time of drilling. Borings 1 and 3 were dry. Practical rig refusal. NOTES: I. Exploratory borings were drilled on December 4, 1995 with a 4 -inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided. 4. The exploratory boring 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 boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. Water level reading shown on the log was made at the time of drilling. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC=Water Content N DD=Dry Density (pcf) +4 --Percent retained on No. 4 sieve -200=Percent passing No. 200 sieve 195 532 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK Legend and Notes GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. g ig. 3 f;r El a DIN N re. 1 0.1 i.0 APO' -.:E:) PRESSURE — ksf Moisture Content = 17.7 percent Ory Unit weignt = 1 1 1 oct Samole of: Sandy Clay From: Boring 3 @ 10 Feet Moisture C nt = 14.3 percent Dry unit w•,.,ot = 115 Pct Samole ot: Sandy Clay : Boring 2 @ 4 Feet L • i I I I � I fII i I i I I I� II I i I I I I i Expansion Upon Wetting I I I Expansion Upon Wetting II 0.1 i.0 APO' -.:E:) PRESSURE — ksf Moisture Content = 17.7 percent Ory Unit weignt = 1 1 1 oct Samole of: Sandy Clay From: Boring 3 @ 10 Feet I, I , • i I I I � I fII i I i I I I� I i I I I I Expansion Upon Wetting I I I II a HYDROMETEn ANA .IS SIEVE AI (SIS I IME IIEAUIN(:S U.S. 51ANUAIIU SEIufS I CLEA11 SUUAIIL UVENIHU i _ fn — - - - D DIAMETEn OF PAnTICLE IN MILLIMFTE(:S SANI1 GIIAVEI CLAY TO SILT COBBLES FINE MEDIUM CUAfISE FINE CCIA/l'i[ GRAVEL 27 % SAND 52 :I. SILT AND CLAY 21 X LIQUID LIMIT vPLASTICITY INO;-X % SAMPLEOF Silty Gravelly Sand FROM Boring 1 @ 4 and 9 Feet Combined HYDnOMETER ANAI.YSIS - SIEVF ANALYSIS IIMt NEAUINGli U.S. UTANUAfIU SF:nICS CLEAR SOUAlIE OPENINGS jc NN. 7 Nn. - - ---- -..... .... .... •ten ..� '10. v a- r.- rw- T � S -r r•• OIAMETEn OF PAnTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SANO GnAVEI CLAY TO SILT FINE MEDIUM COAnSE FINE COAnSE COBBLES GRAVEL 40 % SAND 4 0 s SILT AND CLAY 20 % x LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLEOF Silty Sand and Gravel FROM Boring 2 @ 9 Feet a i K z U R a 7 195 5321 GEOTECHNICAL,WORTWL K I GRAOATfON TEST RESULTS I Fig. 5 N M Ln LO G) O Z m O U Z Q U TZ ..L U w F— O w 0 Q J Q a. S O a. w 2 w J m F— F— D U) w La F-' V 1 w F— LO fF- CL O co J T— I I I I us C co C� O J U � � 0 r c W m C > -0 co _CO U c U c U CO U R c c U) cn cn U)c) W a W = a 4 � U F = O tl U tl q W t J z a O us us I-. J J r r o tzWia : > N W a Q) r C40 V O p tN z O O W K N 0 J 7 C tl v LO �- r p z a Q) r r- W W f- c'7 r� tl z o _ N ~ r "O C) m z cr 70_C a r o �E `f °' r - o U W J SSa tl 2 o `— cV C') m P. 03 HAP-03-97 MON SNOWKASS CORPORATION FAX NO. 9709233129 S EXHIBIT D-H20 HATER USE mGREEHENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entex'ed into 1:hi.s __ day of 199_, by anti between HARRY ANTHONY COLLINS, '1'RIISTEFs of, Tnr HARRY ANTHONY t:01,I,1Ns ANiI JU1)TT11 ALLEN COLLINS REVOCABLE TRUST AGIIEF.MP.N'P and :TAMES W. LIGHT AND DIANNE. G. r.1tGHT ("PURCHASER" ) . W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Seller has entered int:o a Contract to Huy and Sall Real, Estate dated September __, 1994 (hereinafter the "Contract" with Purchaser as Purchaser for the sale of Tract D, McCabe Rancho Pitkin Courrty, Colorado (hereinafter "tire Property" or "Tract I)") ; and WHEREAS, Seller is the owrne r of the water rights appttrtenarit to the Property; and WI]EREAS, this Agreemeltt is being entered into pursuant to and to fully accomplish the purposes expressed within the Contract-. 140W, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideraUion, the stafficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the part.i.es agree as follows: l.. Gxant_q - License. Sttl)ject to the terms and vondi.tions set forth herein and subject to seasonal shortages of water, administrative curtailment and ditch failures, Seller hereby licenses to Purchaser that gttantity of water historically delivered to and used trpoet the property from Seiler' s interest in t1le Green Meadow Ditch No. 3011, 1'riori_t:y No. 33A wat©r right snore particularly described in Vxlti.bit "A" beret -o. Seller warrants than said water rights and the rights applicable to the water wall. referred to in Paragraph 6 are adequate for the uses and purpo€es contemplated by this Aclreentent•. So a.ortg as Parehaser is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, Seller ahall not revoke tkie license granted hereby. 1.1. I.imi.ta_t•_ions on license. The parties understand avid agree that this Agreement grants unto Purchaser a license avid does not consti.tut'e an ass.ignment or aonveyanae of the Bubject- Water rights. The parties further agree that only that portion of the Property historically irrigated within the preceding ten (10) years shall be irrigated hereunder, it bei ng the .i.'ntent of the parties that: no new land shall be brought into irrigation by Purchaser and that no enlargement of water flistori.cally consumptively used shall. occur by purchaser. Purchaser acknowledges that: the delivery of said water is farther subject to irri.gatiotr practices which may HAR-03� 997 ON 09:11 AM SNOWMASS CORPORATION FAX NO. 9709233129 P. 04 cause the delivery of said water to be intermittent and not necessarily available to Hie properL-y on a daily or regular basis. Purchaser shall have the right to construct one pond on Tract D, of, a size acid in a location approved by Seller, which approval shall not: be unreasonably withheld if such pond(s) complies with any augmentation plan or court.: decree with respect to tale water rights Tefcr_rr%ci to in Exhibit A. Purchaser may fill said pond with irrigation runoff from Lite above described waiver righLa for up Lo .20 atlj--er feet- of Water. Xuvuhaner. shall, upon request by Seller, provide easement;rr for: water in -flow and ouL---flow with reepeuL to Said Pond. 2. AdrninisL-raLlon. Seller;, shall have the right to administer a.l.1. it-rigaii_ olll px'ac:ti.rr ,.4 oil tile Prop)er.'ty Lo rnai.11tai.lr previous ljal:or.ia agri.ctr,l.tural. ltses of Lhe Properly. All of irrigating and administering irrigation practices on the property t�lral.l be paid to Seller by purchaser.. Upon its writL-en consent, Seller lnay clnlegate Fi)E-1a Irrigal-i-on aclininistraL'ion to Pu7ruhasor who n1)rll 1, 1_1lnri l)ny for iI l c on(,n itnFi v-iil[.ed Llknrnwi th. IteclucL i,c)t,i,tl.. Wall. x_ _ l,i:c,citnt3 i. .111 Lhe event: Purchaser_ 1,Hdelegated p itr ishan(. La Paragraph 2, grips, ilrlci Purchaser C:ei sen to ii t: is}nLe land historically irrigated lrpon 'Lilo Proper.Ly for a period of three conneutiL,i.yve yeara or in the evnill: i. -1--.cabin offirdencies are modifled which would result in 1_enq water,- hoi.trg consumptively used upon the parcels for a period of three consearrl.1ve years Unit hisL-oricaily occurring during the pr.ecedbig ten (!U) years to this Agreement, then that quantity of waiver not so utilized shall, upon seller's sale determination and discretion, cease to be licensed hereunder. 4. AU;Ioeation of Other Costs. The parties understand and agree thateach pa17LY shall pay (.heir proportionate share of all_ t ho fol.low.i nq cusLa .i naurred for the ellLi.re X7 .1} McCabe 12111-rcli (coils iFrt.i.rlg of the ;J.11. McCabe TracLrs su})cli.vi si.ru, grid Min mucab" Ranch hased 111)on historically irrigated area by Llle suh:jr:c:l: wi)i_er, rl.rlllt -4, (.)f .11.1 ditch and water right-- operation, maa.nl:enrrnc a and rel�1ncenler11. expellers 11aHed up)nrl 0111L 11T.'Op011-Li.eyrl of 1.1 nxpoll ens aril fee's Which Lhei r i.tr 1 --he di_t_c,lt anct W.11ver. 77.i.ght S l.icenoed hereunder_ benrs Ln Lite tc31_ol. exp)ellsen .i klourrr.'nd between Lite point of dive>~si.on acrd the p oi.rtt from wh i.crli said water enters the Property. 5. Pgy_tpp!tL csf Lxpietlse._a and Ter.minatioll. Expenses and costs incurred piirsuanL to Pa.ragrap bs 2 and 4, supra, shall bcr paid by p'r.jralraser within L1ri.rLy (.30) clays of presentment lay Seller. said billing shall include. a 7reasonabj,e deso i.p)ti.otl aircl/oX: i1,eML7.a1.i ot1 of charges. In the event. ally party fa,i.l.H tr) p)ay its Share wi.Lhin said period, interest on the lrtrpa.i d bal.alIC0 shall. acsrx:ue FAt -2- .sir. .mow MAR -03-97 MON 69:11 AM SNOWMASS CORPORATION FAX NO. 9709233129 P. 05 eighteen percent per annum (18%) from the date of presentment, In the event the non-paying party shall fail, to pay such sums within six (6) months, Seller may elect to terminate this Agreement, as to the defaulting party and seek a judgment to collect the same, including a reasonable attorneys fee, in addition to any other remedy at law or in equity. 6. Domestic Water well. In addition to the i.rri,gat.i on rights licensed under this Agr.•eeinenL, kux,'chaeer shall have the right to tap into the existing well located on Tract C without paying any form of tap fee, Said ayaLam shall provide sufficient water for domestic, in house uses, each with one primary residence and one caretaker residence, barn and associated outbuildings and for the irrigation of up to 10,000 square feet of lawn and garden areas an Tract D. The well shall be available to serve similar uses on Tracts B and C and in no event shall said well serve more than three tracts (including Tract D). Seller shall install a submersible pump prior to Purchaser's need for the well. water. Purchaser shall be responsible for construction of a water line from the well to ]Purchaser's residence and\or outbuildings, and any in house storage and pressure tank. Seller represents that the well. has been tent -ed and will yield an adequate water supply, however., sell.e7r, expressly disclaims any obligation or warranty of the future performance of maid well.. A copy of the well t:es34 report in attaahed heretri, at Wil.bit S. Purchaser acknowledges that Purchaser underst,anrls Lhat: Lhe well. in s Ub ject to naLttr-al changes in water levels, quality and flows and that Purchaser is not relying on Seller in any respect for future water supply Lo the Property. 6.1. payment of Costs. Purchaser shall pay its share of all costs of maintenance, repair, replacement, relocation and operation, including utility costs, and all other costs associated with said well. Purchaser's share of such costa shall be pro -rata, among 'Tracts B, C and D, based on number of Lraczt.or which use water from the well. Said payments shall lie paid within thirty (30) days after Purchaser receives a billing therefor from either Seller, any other t=ract owner or the providers of services for the well. 7. validiv. Hy signing this Agreement, the parties acknowledge and represent to one another that- all procedures necessary to validly contract and execute this Agreement have been performed and that the persons signing for each party have been duly authorized so to do. 8. Binding Effect:. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall_ inure to L- a benefit of the heirs, ouccessor.s and assigns of t.hP parties liere t:o and sba.11, be deemed a covenant: running with the land (Property) and binding upon any successor Lo title hereto. -3- MAR -03-97 MON OM2 AM SKOWMASS CORPORATION FAX NO. 9709233129 P. 06 • The rights allocated to Tract p under this agreement shall only be assigned in connection with a sake of Tract p and in a manner which complies with any augmentation plan or court decree with respect to the water rights referred to in Exhibit A. 9. Survival. The terms hereof shall survive closing on any conveyance pursuant to the real estate contract previously referred to between Purchaser and Seller. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed This Agreement, in triplicate originals, on the day and year first above written. SIGNATURES ON NEXT PASS -4- flAR-03-97 MON 09"12 AM SNOWMASS CORPORATION FAX NO. 9709233129 P, 07 SELLER: HARRY ANTHONY COLLINS, TRUSTEE OF THE HARRY ANTHONY COLLINS AND JUDITH ALLEN COLLINS REVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT Sy: (Title) Date PURCHASER: JAMBS W. LYG11T i—)TANKE —G. T.TG-fl - COUNTY OF PITKIN } ) se. STATE OF COLORADO } The foxegoi.ng instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 149_, by James W. Light and Dianne C. Light. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: -5- Notary viiblic nAR-03-97�09:12 AM SNOWMASSSS CORPORATION FAX NO. 9709233129 Q COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) sa. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ? The foregoing instrument wao aclanowl.edged before me this day o f , 199_, by HARRY ANTHONY COLLINS, TRUSTEE OF THE HARRY ANTHONY COLLINS AND JUDITH ALLEN COLLINS REVOCABLE '.RUST AGREEMENT. Witness my Band and official Beal. My commission expires: 1■j*11Q\t-6.h20 rrv{sed 9/18/98 —6— Notary Public MAR -07-97 MON 09:12 AM SNOWMASS CORPORATION FAX NO. 9799233129 P. 09 t Q EXH1$XT "A" GREEN MEADOW DITCH Seller's interest in and to a claimed 75% undivided interest in the Green Meadow Ditch, the same being Ditch No. 30A with Priority No. 33A (in Old Water District No. 38) originally decreed in C.A. No. 921, Garfield County District Court for a total of 17.44 e.f.s. (for 100% interest), on June 2, 1902, with an appropriation date of May 24, 1082, from Capitol Creek, excluding an express exception of 1.0 c.f.s. therefrom reserved from Seller's title by that certain Warranty Deed dated Decembex.11,, 295.9, recorded at Reception No. 109523, Pitkin County Records, on April 14, 1960. -7- MAR -03i-97 MON 0� 9�M SNOWMASS CORPORATION FAX NO. 9709233129 WOMEN R E S R E— Mason tar>• ��■ ' ■rMON 6 N 0 1 N E E R f N o 1 N c Mr. Dan Smith MGCabe Ranch PO Bax 79 Snowmass CO 81864 HE; Ttact D Well Constmetlon and Pump Test Report Door don: ® P.e2 Aubust 29, 1994 'The -Tract D well was construotud In .tuft' 1994 by Collins Drilling. A 24 hour hump test was conducted and water quality testing was conducted. The preliminary conclusion Is that the wall Is capable of providing an adequate quantity ul high quality domestic water for the four lots in the McCabe Ranch Low impact Subdivision. A lata) winter pump test is recommended to evaluate aquifer characteristics at the seasonal low water table_ WELL CONSTRUCTION The well was consumted by cable toot drilling mathnds to a total depth of 54 feet (see Figure 1) through boulders, sand and gravel and line sand. Shale was encountered at 62 feet and drilling ceased at 54 feet. Subsequently the lower 2 feet of tho holm was grouted. Eight inch plain steel casing extends from 1.8 feet above the ground Surface is installed kis a depth of 32 feet. The ac:reien assembly consists of 10 feet of 13 inch diameter No. So slat (0.08 Incl) slot width) stalydess steel telescoping wall screen with a 6 foot riser pipe and a 5 foot tailplp% The somen is set between 37 f eel and 47 feet. The No. 80 slot screen was chosen based on a gralit size analysis of the formation Conducted by the acrean :supplier. PUMP TESTING A 24 scour pusnp test was conducted by Collins Drilling and Ptimp Service can July 26th And 2001, Tile well was pumped at 25 nallons per minuto (gpm) for 10 minutes and then hicressed to 65 upm. i he rate was held at 65 gpen through the and of this tont. The well oxh''bited rnlsihiiat drawdown Arid as shown an Rpure 2 Indicating efficient wail construction and hlnh aquifer trensmissivity (ability to transmit water). At the start of the teat the static water level was 10.67 feet below the top of the well ansing (9 feet below ground surface), In the first minute of pumping the well drawdown 2.78 feet uteri rernained fairly steady through 10 minutes, drawing down only an additional o.cla feet to 2.83 faint, Based on the minimal drawdown at 26 gpm the pumping rate was increased to 66 gpm at 10 minutes. Inoreasing the pumping rate increased the drawdown to 4.21 feet at 11 minutes. After 11 minutes drawdown slowly increased and reached a maximum of 5.00 feet at 360 minutes. From 360 minutes to the and of the lost at 1440 minutes the drawdown decreased steadily. The decrease is attributed to ground water reGharga caused by irrigation of tho brass -hey pasture abova the well which was started sometime during the pump asst. P. D Gonmulting Eng1r100-1 FirKJ 1 iyrJral�� Baan 909 Colorado Avenge 9 Glenwaad 5prlrigs, C(7 61601 2 [31331945-6777 t1 Fax [3031945-1'137 MAR -03-97 MON 09:13 AM Mr, Man Smith Page 2 SNOWMASSS CO PORATION FAX NO. 9709233129 P, 11 �^4 a] August 29, 1094 The drawdown data suggests, with adequate recharge to the aquifer, the well la rsapablft of a sustained pumping rate of 65 gpm. The maximum drawdown of 5 fact observed prior to the irrigation induced recharge represents approximately 25% of the available dramidown assuming the well can be drawn down to the top of, the riser pipe (drawdown — 22 feet). Extrapolating the conditions that exi&led between 10 and 360 minutes suggests that drawdown would increase to approximateiy 8.17 feet attar about 70 days of pumping at 65 gpin and to approximately 5.24 feet after about 700 days. Fxtrapototing die data in this manner should only be turd as an indication of the posslhla safe yield of the wall_ in the case of tho TrOUL D Well the aquifer recharge chtrriactorlstios are a very Important factor. Tho safe yield of ilia well may be less than ee gprn In the late wintar whon there Is no Irrigation arid minimal natural recharge. Baywid 880 minutes as eflown on Figure 2, the drawdown decreased sloadlly indicating p0sitive ranharpo of the well. That is, water wuis flowing into the aorto of depression around the wall at a rate {beater than it was being pumped. As msntlaned above this is attributed to irrigation that was started on the grass -hay pasturn above the well sometime during the pump test. The exact time irrigation storied is not known but the recharga influence was first cletactod at approximately 6;00 Fun on July 2bth, S hours Into the pumii test. This indicates that irrigation recharpA has a near instantaneouq impart on the water levels In the was and may play a significant role in the long term onto yield of the well. The data indicates that the well will yield 65 gpm if there Is adequate recharge. However, lata winter conditions (February or Marcit} may be significantly different. A tang period of non -irrigation plus minimal noturut recharge In the winter 911auld drop the water table to its seasonal low by February or March. We reeommand that the water level In the wait be monitored oaoasionally throughout the fall and winter of 1994195 and a acsc.ond pump test conducted In Asbrva(y or March 1995. Beset! on ulmervatluns (eon Smith, 1964) that the seepage face in the draw adjacent to the well does not fluctuato 9ignirlearitly summer to winter suggests that ilia well should safely produce 65 gpm In the winter. A pump test Is necessary to ccuifirm this. Tito potential deakand on the well to summarized In the llesource Brtginaerinp, Inc. report entitled McCabe Rench Water Right Pran /o/ Arrprrrerrtatibm Five Residential Legs, dated Decembar 22, 1982. Assuming all four Iota of tho Iow impact subdivision are supplied from the Tract D Well the annunI demand would average 3 gpm. In the stammer when tha well is us$d for Irrigation tltid avorago dartrand 19 Qxpectad to be approximatoly 7 gpm. 7111s Supports the opinicti dirt, given odoquuto wollarge, ilia woll is capable of mooting the potential dornnnd placed on It. WATER QUALITY A water qunfity Rarni718 was obtained near the completion of the pump test and subrnitted to tatand Junction I-Bbotatorlas far analysis on July 26th. A "Stendar+d State Analysis' WAS conducted which provides information an most regulated constituents. P.83 H RESOURCE iuiil,voii•een�wa ,wo MAR -03-97 MON 09:13 AM SNOWMASS CORPORATION FAX NO. 9709233129 P. 12 P. 04 Mr. Dvr► Smith August 29, 1994 Page 3 Teats were not conduatod for postleldoa, herbioidee, volatile orunnic chemical (VOC'a), synthotia organic cherrtirei (SOC'e) or rodloactivitY. While we would expect negative reaults on tlutrta tests war recommend that they be Conducted whets a aeeoond pump test is conducted. The water quality telsults (attached) suggest excellent water quality with the exception of hardness. The water is moderately bard. Althouuh the hardness does not impose a health risk water softening may be desired to minirnizo mineral buildup and extend the life of plumbing fixtures. Further, reverse osmosis treatment far drinking water would be desirable to aliminate the conalltuents essooiated withhardnass and the salts that arcs added during water softening. Turbidity was 1.25 NTU, slightly above the rpfluiated limit for surfavo water suppfit►s. Turbidity, a rrtaaseure of ttto cinrity of water, is not rollulated for ground avatar sourcae. A measurement of 1.28 NTU Indionlos very clean water lot wWc;h no additional treatment (filtratiorll Is wnrrsnted. Additiruinlly, high turbidity Is oxpontad In now wolls nixi typically docKwums after a period of production. Sine there In IrnmediaLo reoherge from the upgeadient Irriflated guess -hay pasturae, host msnagement precticea (eMP) need to be followed to prevent contomination of the ground water. 13MP'st Include developing and implementing {guidelines for careftil s$lection elle application of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. For example, ovar fertilization could resuit in elevated nitrate levels. Another example of to BMP would be guidelines for lot owners regarding disposal of household chernivals suellas cleaning agents, svivents, oil and pas. Otto additional water quality issue is potential that the well is a ground water source under itto irlfluence of surface water. That is, microscopic surface organisms are migrating tivottgh the aquifer to lite well screen from the surface. Under the Safe Drinking Water Art, a well lags than 100 feet deep is corisidared a surface source unless proven otherwise by the owner. This is done by conducting a microscopic partICU1 to analysis teat which detects the presehlce of surface microorganisms. A positive trial, concluding taus Influence of surface water, indleates that tiltratian Is re"mmendod, We recommend that a particulate analysistest be canduotad during the height of runott next year or during the lrrloation season. These time periods represent ilia hfpltetst probability of positive results. Thus, a negative test I% an excellent indicator that theta is not surface iniluence and ileo well con be considered a true ground water source_ A detailed discussion of potential treatment reeltilrements for the McCabe Minch water systems and ilia reguintory environment is presented in Dean Goldon's lattrar to lJorry Collins dated September 28, 1892, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS • The well is 52 feat deep and is completed in sends end gravels. • The well is Screened from 37 to 47 feet with S inch nominal, telescopic, $taE mlo;ss steel, No. 80 slant well screen. "c"wtW RE S0 URGE •www MAR -03-97 MON 09:14 AM SNOWMASS CORPORATION r-, FA}{NO�ia9233129 Q Mr. Don Smith Auguat 20,1004 page 4 0 The well was pumped at 66 gpm and is oapable of sustaining 65 gpm Ywiti, adequate aquifer recharge conditions, • Irrigation recharge of the aquifet above the well is nearly instantaneous and has o eignificont Ittlpact on watat IevBIs in the well. • A secand pump test should be conducted In lata winter coincident with the saes -anal low water table to provide an estimato of wall viald undo du%rw4ilv^v... P. 13' P_0!5