HomeMy WebLinkAbout20010078.tiff 1 rrt 29 FM tit53 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT. 3540
C
`D FAX (970) 304-6498 WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
O 1555 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
December 28, 2000
Banks and Gesso, LLC
Mr. Paul Banks
720 Kipling St.
Dear Mr Banks,
This letter is in response to your submittals for USR-1243, for Golden's Andesite Mining
Company. The following is a list of the Conditions of approval and their status at this time.
Prior to Recording the Plat:
2.A. You have indicated that you will obtain a ISDS permit and construct the system prior
to mining the site. This condition was placed on the Special Use Permit by the Weld
County Department of Public Health and Environment. Please submit evidence from
the Department of Public Health and Environment that you have met this
requirement to their satisfaction.
2.B. Staff will ensure that this is included on the final mylar plat.
2.C. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that this has not been completed.
2.D. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that this has not been completed.
2.E. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that this has not been completed.
2.F. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that this has not been completed.
2.G. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that this has not been completed.
2.H. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that this has not been completed.
2.1. Completed.
2.J. Completed.
2001-0078
1- - Or
2.K. Completed.
2.L. Not adequate. The plat does not show the reconfiguration required by 2.M. Further,
cottonwood trees will be acceptable provided that they are "Cottonless" and you
submit a written verification from an arborist that states the trees do not produce
cotton.
2.M. The Condition of Approval as written on the approved resolution reads "The
applicant shall submit a revised plan to the Weld County Department of Planning
Services for review and approval. The plan shall indicate areas for the existence of
the well developed riparian forest on the east portion of the property. Also, the final
ponds shall be reconfigured to obtain a more natural and appealing appearance for
future residents of the area." Although the ponds have been reconfigured and are
more appealing, the well developed reparian forest has not been retained. Planning
Staff will not accept an alternative proposal from that which was approved by the
Weld County Board of County Commissioners.
2.N. Please submit a finalized copy of the draft.
Please contact me if you have submitted any information that was not included.
Sheri Lockman
Planner Il
Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP
December 14, 2000 Weid County planning Dept
Lit , 15 2000
Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board
Division of Minerals and Geology E�'`��ss.• EI VE
1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 D
Denver, Colorado 80203
Re: Lewis Farm Sand & Gravel Mine
SE/4 of Section 13, TIN, R67W, Weld County
To Whom It May Concern:
This law firm represents HS Resources, Inc. ("HSR"). HSR has received correspondence
from Banks and Gesso, LLC, consultants for Applicant, Aggregate Industries, West Central
Region, Inc., indicating that the proposed gravel mine is located within 200 feet of certain natural
gas facilities, two oil wells and associated pipelines owned by HSR and located on the above
captioned lands. Please review the enclosed Notice of Right to Use Surface of Lands describing
HSR's leasehold intersts, a plat depicting the allowable future drillsite locations under the
applicable rules of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, as well as a copy of the
plat furnished to HSR by Banks and Gesso, LLC.
At this time, HSR and the surface owner have not executed a surface use agreement
covering the proposed gravel mine. HSR requests that any permit approved by your agency
adequately accommodate HSR's rights or be contingent upon the execution of a surface use
DGS-W P-iManage341375,I
Dustin M.Ammons 303 892 7488 dustin.ammonsSideslaw.com
1550 Seventeenth Street Suite 500 Denver, Colorado 80202 • 303 892 9400 • fax 303 893 1379
do
December 14, 2000
Page 2
agreement between Aggregate Industries or their assigns and HSR which addressed the existing
wells in Section 13, and HSR's rights for future development in Section 13.
Very truly yours,
frik/4)711,1fri
Dustin M. Ammons
for
DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP
DMA/jw
Enclosures
cc: Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
R.M.L. Properties Investors, LLC
9145 E. Cannon Ave., Ste. 206
Denver, Colorado 80237
J. Wason of HS Resources
(without attachments)
111111111111111111111111 IIII 11111 IIII'' 11I 1111111111111
2714959 08/19/1999 11:58A Weld county CO
1 of 2 R 10.00 D 0.00 JA Sukl Taukamoto
n NOTICE OF RIGIITTO USE SURFACE OF LANDS
f�
'HIE UNDERSIGNED, James P. Wason, as Denver Basin Land Supervisor, of I IS RISSO(JRCES,
INC., a Delaware corporation ("I ISR"), whose address is 1999 Broadway, Suite 3600, Denver, Colorado
80202, on behalf of IISR, states as follows:
IISR is the owner of or has the right to an undivided interest in those certain Oil and Gas Leases
described on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, such leases recorded in the records of the
office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder, as may be amended, (hereinafter referred to as the "Oil and
Gas Leases").
The undersigned is familiar with the terms and conditions of the Oil and Gas Leases and hereby
confirms such as a valid and subsisting Oil and Gas Leases which have been extended beyond their
primary term by the actual drilling and production from a well or wells capable of producing oil and/or
natural gas on lands covered by the Oil and Gas Leases or lands which have been pooled or unitized
therewith.
IISR, its agents, employees, designees, co-owners, successors and assigns hold certain rights to use
and access the surface of the lands described below for the purpose of, among other things, DRILLING Olt
COMPLETION OPERATIONS OR CONTINUING ACTIVITIES FOR THE PRODUCTION OR
TRANSPORTATION OF OIL, GAS, OR OTHER HYDROCARBONS OR PRODUCTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE FOREGOING INCLUDING,BUT NOT !wimp to, SURFACE USE, INGRESS TO, EGRESS
FROM, AND CONSTRUC'T'ION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, REPLACEMENT, AND MONITORING OF
WELLS, LOCATIONS, EQUIPMENT, MUD ANI) RESERVE Pm, WELLHEAD EQUIPMENT,
SEPARATORS, TANK BATTERIES, PIPELINES, GATHERING LINES, FLOWLINES, PIPELINE
INTERCONNECTIONS, AND ANY AND ALL OTHER REASONABLE OR CUSTOMARY USES OF
LAND RELATED TO SAID OPERATIONS OR ACTIVITIES. ALL OF SUCH SURFACE USES ARE
SUBJECT TO THE TERMS SET FORTH IN THE OIL AND GAS LEASES, AT LOCATIONS
DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT"A" .
NOTICE is hereby provided to all interested parties, including any surface owners, their heirs, assigns
and successors-in-interest that I ISR has an ongoing right to use the surface of the lands described above liar
any use allowed by the Oil and Gas Leases now or at sonic future date. This notice is intended to remain in
force for as long as the Oil and Gas Leases, or any extension or renewal thereof remains in effect as to the
above described lands or any portion thereof. I lowever, nothing herein contained shall be construed to limit
the rights or enlarge the obligations of I ISR or any other party owning an interest in said lands or Oil and Gas
Leases. Further, this notice shall not be construed to modify or disclaim any interest I ISR or any other party
may have in any other valid lease or leases which along with the Oil and Gas Leases may form a part of a
pooled or unitized area for an existing well or which may become part of a future spacing unit or pooled area
or may actually cover an interest in the specific lands herein described.
I IS RESOURCES,
Z_
13y:
.lame. Was n
Del Basin
STATE OF COLORADO Land Supervisor
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER jSS
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this`1" day of August, 1999, by James P.
Wason, as Denver Basin Land Supervisor of I IS Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
N arry Pu tic
My Commission expires: 1-14,1W
W
I:/Group/Land/Pormsmotice of Right to Use Surface of Lands.ctoc
N 03
JEla
.4,a line
io=
in 10130
ze
EXHIBIT "A" 0111100
m�—
Attached hereto and made a part hereof the Notice of Right to Use Surface of Lands m e
INS
mew
Weld County, Colorado Sy
�
cur
aa—
Lease Number Lessor Name Lessee Name Lease Date Description Recording Information r„a�
x:SP
CO-1612 George W. Kiefer and T. S. Pace March 23, 1970- Township 1 North. Range 67 West. 6th P.M. Book 624 Reception 1545813 r '
O
Ida K. Kiefer Section 13: SE/4, S/2SW/4 t
ice =
3 cn
O K M
r —
O on
CO-1614 Donald Rosenbrock T. S. Pace March 27, 1970 Township 1 North. Ranee 67 West. 6th P.M. Book 624 Reception 1545844 0=
Section 13: N/2SW/4
sis
CO-1941 The &eat Western Sugar Amoco Production June 3, 1981 Township 1 North. Ranee 67 West. 6th P.M. Book 947 Reception 1869481
Company Company Section 13: Tract in the S/2 of Section 13
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT B
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
GREATER WATTENBERG AREA
Special Well Location Rule
318 A
320 Acre Spacing Unit
400' $ 400'CI $v
800' "❑ 800' fl
g g 920'
4N
T
a 1 1 400' x 400'
Sec. IS - T N - R ec'7W
800' x 800'
1009 Ft
Scab
w t .
▪ Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117
■■ Lakewood, Colorado 80215
(303)274-4277
Fax (303) 274-8329
www.banksandgesso.com
.old County PI:inningD0pr.
October 13, 2000 OC = 1 9 2000
Ms. Sherri Lockman
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Subject: USR#1243, Lewis Farm Sand and Gravel Mine,
Aggregate Industries, Inc.
Dear Sherri:
The Weld County Board of County Commissioners approved the above referenced Use
by Special Review (USR) on November 3, 1999. Since that time there has been some
ownership changes by the applicant and we have been working on the Conditions of
Approval necessary to record the USR plat. I apologize for the delay however quite a bit
of progress has been made. This letter transmits many of the required plans and
documents. Please place these in the case file until we can submit the remainder of the
required items and the mylars for recordation.
BCC Resolution Item No. 2.A.
Attached is an Individual Sewage Disposal System design. The applicant will obtain a
permit and construct the system prior to mining on the site.
BCC Resolution Item No 2.B.
Attached is a copy of the Extraction Plan Map showing a minimum 20-foot setback from
surrounding properties.
BCC Resolution Item No. 2.1.
Attached is a dust abatement plan that has been submitted to the Weld County
Department of Public Health and Environment.
BCC Resolution Item No. 2.J.
Attached is a copy of the approved Flood Hazard Development Permit.
BCC Resolution Item No. 2.K.
Attached is Traffic Impact Study (prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.).
Copies of this report have been submitted to the Colorado Department of Transportation
and to the Weld County Department of Public Works.
BCC Resolution Item No. 2.L.
Attached is a Landscaping and Buffering Plan (which was previously submitted to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services).
BCC Resolution Item No. 2.M.
Attached are revised reclamation plans. The riparian forest issue has been addressed
by increasing the number of new cottonwood trees in the landscaping plan. The
shorelines of the ponds have been adjusted to create a more natural appearance, also
the acreage of reconstructed wetlands has been increased.
BCC Resolution Item No. 2.N.
Attached are ground water monitoring and recharge plans.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
S erely,
Paul Banks
PB/kj
Attachments
Cc: Norm Roche, Aggregate Industries, Inc.
LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.
1889 York Street
Denver, CO 80206
(303)333-1105
FAX(303)333-1107
E-mail: Isc@lscden.com
Web Site: http://www.Iscden.co
TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
August 14, 2000
Mr. Tug Martin
Banks 86 Gesso, LLC
720 Kipling Street, Suite 117
Lakewood, CO 80215
Re: Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel
Weld County, Colorado
(LSC # 000940)
Dear Tug:
We are pleased to submit our report of the traffic impacts of the proposed Lewis Farms Sand
and Gravel facility in Weld County, Colorado. This study first provides a summary of existing
and planned future roadway and traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed site. It then
provides estimates of the amount and directional distribution of traffic that will be generated
by the proposed operation as well as estimates of existing plus project-generated traffic
volumes on the surrounding road system. In light of the 20-year life of the operation,
estimates of Year 2020 background and total traffic are also provided. Finally, the impacts of
the project's generated traffic are evaluated and recommendations are made regarding roadway
improvements.
Site Location and Proposed Use
According to a scale drawing provided by Banks and Gesso, the project site is proposed to be
about 160 acres in size. The site is located northwest of the City of Brighton, Colorado, and
immediately north of Weld County Road (WCR) 8 between State Highway (SH) 85 on the east
and WCR 23 on the west. All access is planned at a single access point onto WCR 8, about
three-quarter mile west of SH 85. Activity at the site is proposed to include the mining of sand
and gravel and is expected to occur over a 20-year project life.
Existing Roadway Characteristics
Figure 1, enclosed,illustrates the site location relative to the nearby roadway system.Figure 1
also illustrates the existing lane geometry and traffic control at the intersection of WCR 8 with
SH 85. West of SH 85 in the vicinity of the site, WCR 8 is a local county road that is paved
from SH 85 to approximately one-quarter west of SH 85. From that point west to WCR 23,
WCR 8 is a gravel road. Photos 1 and 2 show pictures the approaches on WCR 8.
Mr. Tug Martin Page 2 August 14, 2000
i/rcr
4A
Photo 1 -WCR 8 looking east toward SH 85. Photo 2-WCR 8 looking west toward 8H 85.
In the vicinity of the site, SH 85 is a four-lane divided principal arterial which is posted with
a 65 mph speed limit. At its intersection with WCR 8, it has two through lanes, an exclusive
left-turn lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane on both the northbound and southbound
approaches. Acceleration lanes are also provided for the eastbound to southbound and west-
bound to northbound traffic entering SH 85. Photos 3 and 4 show pictures of the approaches
on SH 85.
Future Roadway Characteristics
Photo 4-8H 85 looking south.
Photo 3-SH 85 looking north.
According to a study performed by Felsburg, Holt, and Ullevig entitled US 85 Access Control
Plan 1-76 to WCR 80, published in December, 1999, some of the movements at the intersection
of SH 85 with WCR 8 will be restricted in the medium range future. It is assumed that by Year
2020, eastbound and westbound through and left-turn movements will be restricted at this
intersection. In light of these future plans, Year 2020 intersection capacity analyses were
performed on the assumption that these restrictions would be in place.
Mr. Tug Martin Page 3 August 14, 2000
Existing and Future Background Traffic
Figure 1 also illustrates existing peak-hour intersection turning movement traffic volumes in
the vicinity of the proposed Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel Mine. Figure 1 also shows the truck
percentages for the eastbound approach of WCR 8 and both approaches of SH 85. The truck
percentages for SH 85 were obtained from CDOT data, while the truck percentages for WCR
8 were obtained from actual traffic counts. These traffic counts were conducted in July 2000
by Counter Measures, Inc. Printouts of all count data are contained in Appendix A.
1996 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) data indicates that the 20-year growth
factor for SH 85 in the vicinity of this site is 2.0. Additionally, at the direction of Weld County,
the growth factor for WCR 8 was assumed to be the same as that for SH 85 because it is in the
same area. These growth factors were applied to the appropriate existing turn movement
volumes and are illustrated on Figure 2 as Year 2020 background volumes. The background
heavy vehicle volumes are also shown and were based on the heavy vehicle estimates
described in the first paragraph of this section. The background traffic is the future traffic
volume on the area roadways without the expected traffic generated by the site and forms the
basis for evaluating the impacts that traffic generated by the proposed Lewis Farms Sand and
Gravel Mine will have on the surrounding roadway system.
Estimated Traffic Generation
Based on information supplied by the applicant, the following average daily traffic generation
activities are projected:
• Tractor trailers or tandems: 80 round-trips;
• Employees, sales people and other visitors: 15 round-trips.
Based on these estimates, the Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel Mine is projected to generate a
total of 190 vehicle-trips,or 95 vehicles entering and 95 vehicles exiting the site during a work
day. It is assumed that peak-hour activity as a percentage of total weekday activity is the
same as that published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the 1997 edition of Trip
Generation as they apply to "light industrial" land uses. As a result, 13 percent (13 entering
and 12 exiting vehicles) are projected during the morning peak-hour and 14 percent (14
entering and 13 exiting vehicles) are projected during the evening peak-hour. Of the entering
vehicles in the morning and exiting vehicles in the evening,it is assumed that 11 of these trips
will be made by employees. Table 1 provides a summary of the expected traffic generation of
the proposed Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel Mine.
Mr. Tug Martin Page 4 August 14, 2000
Table 1
Trip Generation Estimates(1)
Lewis Farms Sand & Gravel
August 2000
Summary of Vehicle-Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
Trip Description Daily In Out In Out
Haul Trucks 160 2 12 14 2
Light Vehicles 30 11 0 0 11
Total Trips 190 13 12 14 13
Notes:
(1) Daily trip generation estimates obtained from Banks&Gesso, LLC.
Estimated Traffic Distribution and Assignment
Based on estimates from Banks and Gesso, LLC, 100 percent of the traffic generated by the
Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel Mine would be oriented to and from the east on WCR 8. At the
intersection of WCR 8 and SH 85,five percent of the traffic would travel to and from the north
on SH 85 and 95 percent would travel to and from the south on SH 85. These traffic
distribution estimates are shown on Figure 3. Application of these percentages to the peak-
hour generation estimates of Table 1 yields the intersection traffic assignments also shown on
Figure 3. Figure 3 also shows the total passenger car equivalents (based on an equivalent of
three passenger cars per heavy vehicle)for the movements affected by the trip distribution and
assignment.
Due to the planned restriction of the eastbound and westbound through and left-turn move-
ments at this intersection, the estimated traffic distribution for Year 2020 is somewhat
changed. One-hundred percent of the project-generated traffic will still travel to and from the
east on WCR 8. However, due to the right-turn-only restriction on the eastbound and west-
bound approaches, 100 percent of the exiting trips will travel to the south on SH 85. With
entering trips to the site, five percent will travel in from the north and 95 percent will travel
from the south. These distribution estimates are shown on Figure 4 as well as the resulting
trip assignment.
Finally, Figures 5 and 6 illustrate existing plus project-generated and 2020 total traffic
volumes which are the combination of background (Figures 1 and 2) and project-generated
Mr. Tug Martin Page 5 August 14, 2000
(Figures 3 and 4) traffic. Again, passenger car equivalents are indicated for movements
affected by the proposed Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel Mine.
Capacity Analyses
In order to assess the impacts of the proposed Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel Mine, related
capacity analyses have been performed which compare existing and future background traffic
operating conditions (Figures 1 and 6) with those reflecting the addition of project-generated
traffic(Figures 9 and 10). The methodology used is that presented in the current edition of the
nationally accepted Highwau Capacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board
of the National Academy of Sciences. The concept of Level of Service (LOS) is used as a basis
for computing combinations of roadway operation conditions. By definition,six different Levels
of Service are used (A, B, C, D, E, and F) with"A"being a relatively free-flow condition and"E"
representing the "capacity" of a given intersection or traffic movement.
The capacity analyses assume the present roadway geometry for the short term (existing and
existing plus project-generated) scenario and the anticipated eastbound and westbound
through and left-turn restrictions at WCR 8 and SH 85 for the long term (2020 background
traffic and 2020 total traffic). Table 2 summarizes the results of our LOS analyses. Computer
printouts containing output from the HCS 3.2 software (which uses the Highwau Capacitu
Manual methods) are included in Appendix B.
Short Term Traffic Impacts
At the intersection of SH 85 with WCR 8,the westbound approach operates at LOS"E" during
the existing morning peak period. With the addition of project-generated traffic, the west-
bound approach will continue to operate at LOS"E"during the morning peak period with only
a slight increase in delay. Considering the fact that in both the existing and existing plus
project-generated scenarios,some of the light vehicles on the side streets would probably make
a two-stage left-turn onto SH 85, the Level of Service may be better than indicated.
Additionally, the westbound right-turn movement has an acceleration lane onto SH 85 and,
subsequently, the delay for this movement may be reduced. The eastbound movement
operates at LOS "C" or better for both peak periods under the short term scenario.
For all time periods under the short term scenario,the northbound and southbound left-turns
both operate at LOS "B" or better with or without the addition of project-generated traffic.
At the intersection of WCR 8 with the site access, all movements operate at LOS "A" with or
without the addition of project-generated traffic.
2020 Traffic Impacts
Under the 2020 background traffic scenario, the southbound left-turn and westbound right-
turn both operate at LOS "F" during the PM peak. With the addition of project-generated
traffic, these same movements continue to operate at LOS "F" with no increase in delay (they
are not affected by the project generated traffic). With the addition of project-generated traffic,
Mr. Tug Martin Page 6 August 14, 2000
the Level of Service for the eastbound right-turn deteriorates from "D" to "F" during the
morning peak. However, right-turns are the only movements allowed on the eastbound and
westbound approach and both movements have an acceleration lane to turn onto SH 85.
Therefore, there may be very little delay for vehicles other than stopping at the Stop sign.
Considering this, the eastbound and westbound approaches act somewhat like a merge onto
a freeway. Utilizing the HCS 3.2 software for analyzing a freeway merge and making some
assumptions about the ramp, results of the analysis indicate that the merge area, during the
morning and evening peak, would operate at LOS "D" or better with or without the addition
of project-generated traffic.
At the intersection of WCR 8 with the site access, all movements operate at LOS "A" with or
without the addition of project-generated traffic.
Figure 7 shows the average daily impacts due to the project-generated traffic including the
daily number of heavy vehicles generated by the proposed Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel Mine.
The average daily impacts are minimal, indicating that by Year 2020, it is estimated that the
project-generated traffic will be accountable for less than 0.5 percent of the daily traffic on
SH 85. The project generated traffic will account for about 31 percent of the traffic on WCR 8.
Although this percentage appears to be large, the total daily traffic is projected to be relatively
low and so the impact can still be considered small.
Truck Impacts on Pavement Condition
The destructive effect of repeated wheel loads is the major factor which contributes to the
deterioration of roadway pavements. Since both the magnitude of the load and the number
of repetitions are important, provision is made in pavement design procedures to allow for the
effects of the number and weight of all axle loads expected during the design period. CDOT
uses pavement design procedures which convert traffic data to 18 Kip equivalent single-axle
load applications (18K ESAL). 18 Kip or 18,000 lbs is the maximum legal load allowed on a
single axle. CDOT uses the following load equivalency factors for flexible pavement design:
— passenger vehicle: 0.003
- single-unit trucks: 0.249
- combination trucks: 1.087
The latter category includes most of the concrete trucks, dump trucks, and tractor trailer
combinations that would be hauling materials to and from the Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel
Mine.
18k ESAL's have been calculated for the Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel Mine on WCR 8 using
the CDOT load equivalency factors and assumptions regarding the breakdown of traffic into
the various vehicle classifications. Based on these assumptions, the Lewis Farms Sand and
Gravel Mine will generate about 228,500 ESAL's over the life of the project. The total number
of ESAL's (background plus project generated ESAL's) over the life of the project is a 135
percent increase over the background ESAL's. Over the life of the project,the traffic generated
Mr. Tug Martin Page 7 August 14, 2000
by the Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel Mine will account for approximately 57 percent of the
total ESAL's. The results of the ESAL analysis are contained in Table 3.
Recommendations
The SH 85/WRC 8 intersection currently has right- and left-turn deceleration lanes. The
Colorado State Highway Access Code sets forth the deceleration and taper lengths based on
the speed and classification of the highway while the storage length is based on the number
of vehicles using the deceleration lane. Based on these requirements, the following
recommendations are made regarding the intersection of SH 85 with WCR 8:
1. Based on the highest traffic volumes that will use the northbound left- and south-
bound right-turn deceleration lanes as well as the eastbound to southbound right-
turn acceleration lane,the lengths required by Access Code standards are calculated
to be as follows:
Northbound left-turn taper length - 275 feet;
Northbound left-turn deceleration and storage length - 575 feet;
Southbound right-turn taper length - 275 feet,
Southbound right-turn deceleration length - 525 feet;
Eastbound to southbound right-turn acceleration length - 1,105 feet;
Eastbound to southbound right-turn acceleration taper length - 275 feet.
It is recommended that the existing turn lanes at the SH 85/WRC 8 intersection be
extended If needed to meet these standards.
2. WCR 8 should be paved from the existing end of pavement near the South Platte
River bridge to the site access according to Weld County specifications. It is
proposed that this be done on a cost sharing basis with Weld County according to
the projected traffic usage by the Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel Mine. As stated
above, the number of ESAL's that the Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel Mine will
account for over the life of the project is approximately 57 percent. Additionally, it
is proposed that the Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel Mine negotiate a maintenance
agreement for the maintenance and upkeep of the pavement from the site access to
SH 85 over the life of the mine.
Conclusions
Based upon the foregoing analyses, the following conclusions can be made concerning the
traffic impacts of the proposed Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel Mine:
1. The Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel Mine is expected to generate a total of 160 heavy
vehicle-trips and 30 passenger vehicle/pickup trips on an average work day. During
the morning peak-hour, about 13 entering and 12 exiting vehicles (two entering and
12 exiting heavy vehicles) will be generated while during the evening peak-hour, 14
Mr. Tug Martin Page 8 August 14, 2000
entering and 13 exiting vehicles (14 entering and two exiting heavy vehicles) will be
generated.
2. One-hundred percent of the proposed vehicle activity is expected to be oriented to
and from the east on WCR 8. At the intersection of WCR 8 and SH 85, five percent
of the traffic would travel to and from the north on SH 85 and 95 percent would
travel to and from the south on SH 85. Due to the planned restriction of the east-
bound and westbound through and left-turn movements at this intersection in Year
2020, 100 percent of the exiting trips will travel to the south on SH 85 while 95
percent of the entering trips will travel from the south and five percent of the entering
trips will travel from the north.
3. At the intersection of SH 85 with WCR 8, the westbound approach operates at LOS
"E" during the existing morning peak period. With the addition of project-generated
traffic, the westbound approach will continue to operate at LOS "E" during the
morning peak period with only a slight increase in delay. Some of the left-turning
vehicles would also make a"two-stage"left-turn. This, combined with the presence
of a minor to major street right-turn acceleration lane would most likely serve to
reduce delay at the intersection of SH 85 with WCR 8. In Year 2020, because the
minor street approaches are restricted to right-turns-only, the eastbound and west-
bound approaches act somewhat like a merge onto a freeway. Under these
conditions, a merge analysis indicates that the Levels of Service in the merge area
would be LOS "D" or better.
Under the future traffic conditions, the southbound left-turn level of service is LOS
"F" with or without the addition of project generated traffic. All other movements at
both intersections (WCR 8/SH 85,WCR 8/site access) not mentioned in this and the
previous paragraph perform at LOS "D" or better with or without the addition of
project-generated traffic during both time periods under existing and future traffic
conditions.
4. The Lewis Farms Gravel Mine will result in a 135 percent increase in 18k ESAL's on
WCR 8 east of the site access.
5. The traffic impacts of the Lewis Farms Gravel Mine can be accommodated by the
existing roadway system with the improvements recommended herein.
Mr. Tug Martin Page 9 August 14, 2000
We trust that this information will assist you with further planning for the proposed develop-
ment of the Lewis Farms Gravel Mine. Please call if we can be of further assistance.
Respectfully submitted,
LSC Transportation Consultants, Incc ,s3'
� �,pO kE�:S1F''..'
`c�s9 RJ.gRit ?
e fie Y
BY: 14982 ri;>Y
Alex J. Arin ello, P.E. •.j a
AJA/GSS/wc 45.
.• IOW `���`
a-
Enclosures: Tables 2 and 3
Figures 1-7
Traffic Counts
Capacity Analyses
F:\PROJECTS\2000\000940\F-LFSG.wpd
Table 2
Intersection Levels of Service Analysis
Lewis Farm Sand and Gravel
Weld County, Colorado
August, 2000
Existing Existing Plus 2020 2020
Traffic Project-Generated Traffic Background Traffic Total Traffic
Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of
Traffic Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service
Intersection Location Control AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
WCR 8/US 85 Unsignalized
NBL B A B B D B D C
SBL A B A B B F B F
EB LTR B B C B
EB R D C F C
WB LTR B E B E
WB R C F C F
Critical Movement 13.6 44.6 15.8 47.7 30.7 151.2 65.8 151.2
Delay(sec/veh)
WCR 8/site access Unsignalized
SB LR - - A A - - A A
Critical Movement - - 9.6 9.7 - - 9.7 8.9
Delay(sec/veh)
Table 3
EDLA Analysis
Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel Mine
Weld County, Colorado
Background traffic Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel Mine Traffic
Vehicle Class Percentage(3)
(4) (5) (6) (4) (5) (5)
Passenger Single-Unit Combination Passenger Single-Unit Combination
Growth WCR 8 Vehicles Trucks Unit Trucks (7) (8) WRC 20.5 Vehicles Trucks Unit Trucks (7) (8)
Year Rate(1) ADT(2) 31.0% 63.0°/ 6.0% ESAL EDLA ADT(9) 16.0% 0.0% 84.0% ESAL EDLA
0 0
2000 161 50 101 10 5,595 15 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2001 1.035 167 52 105 10 5,791 16 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2002 1.035 172 53 109 10 5,993 16 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2003 1.035 179 55 112 11 6,203 17 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2004 1.035 185 57 116 11 6,420 18 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2005 1.035 191 59 120 11 6,645 18 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2006 1.035 198 61 125 12 6,877 19 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2007 1.035 205 63 129 12 7,118 20 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2008 1.035 212 66 134 13 7,387 20 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2009 1.035 219 88 138 13 7,625 21 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2010 1.035 227 70 143 14 7,892 22 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2011 1.035 235 73 148 14 8,168 22 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2012 1.035 243 75 153 15 8,454 23 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2013 1.035 252 78 159 15 8,750 24 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2014 1.035 261 81 164 18 9,056 25 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2015 1.035 270 84 170 18 9,373 26 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2016 1.035 279 87 176 17 9,701 27 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2017 1.035 289 90 182 17 10,041 28 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2018 1.035 299 93 188 18 10,392 28 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2019 1.035 310 96 195 19 10,756 29 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
2020 1.035 320 99 202 19 11,132 30 190 30 0 160 10,881 30
169,349 228,506
(1) Assumes a 20 year growth factor of 2.0
(2) Average daily traffic on WCR 8
(3) Percentage of ADT by vehicle class
(4) Passenger vehicles
(5) Single-unit trucks
(8) Combination units with gross weight less than 18,000 lbs per axle(moving vans,concrete trucks,heavy rigs)
Note:Average number of axles on combination units assumed to be 4.
(7) ESAL:Equivalent 18,000 lb axle loadings:(load equivalency factor x number of vehicles per day in each class)x 250 working days
(8) EDAL:Equivalent average daily 18,000 lb axle loadings
I L �
�I' CR 10 A N
N 7 U F/ /
N // o '7% U
/SITE(
Not To Scale %//A F161
61
CR e
6%
TWT
+ +
�111r-� �7%
19,760
CR s
1,189
3 7831 5
CR 4 1/2 a 1 Ji1.17 12
N 1 j
L10 2
3
�--- -1 F47 F47 3
8 gI> 76'4
4 antra 17
K._
5 577 73
\ 380
N
Figure 1
LEGEND: 2
26 _ AM Peak—Hour Traffic Site Location, Existing Traffic,
31 - PM Peak—Hour Traffic Traffic Controls and Lane Geometry
7% = Heavy Vehicle Percentage August, 2000
17,840 = Average Daily Traffic Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel (LSC #000940)
CR 10
41 o N
All ‘7,
CO
CC
11" •
U
re
�/�
/SITE I h
Not To Scale %//�
CR 8
CR 6
i ( 2,378
6 1,526
—2— 10
( CR4 1/2 J L.
1 122
L60
N
rn 12 121) N 1611_ f�Z8
16 ,c) C 0
a 1,7;), ,,,146
2,720
N
LEGEND: / Figure 2
Existing Traffic (Existing Heavy re N
Volume Vehicle Volumes u Year 2020
13(1) _ AM AM / Background Traffic
73(5) Existing Traffic Existing Heavy
Volume Vehicle Volume August, 2000
PM \ PM 17,840 = Average Daily Traffic Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel (LSC #000940)
CR 10
15% '<:'4 :
r -
'Ill lc;
N V
re
U in
/SITE <
Nat To Scale %
CR e
1/1
100%
1/7
1/3 J
1/1 J
95% — 11/77
1 12/16 iyi
12/16
7/79
CR 6
." —
/
\ CR 4 1/2
112/36 N
17/17
L. PI
N
7/1 ¢
\l— 14/427 V\\
NI
n Figure 3
LEGEND: AM Project—Generated N
AM Project— Passenger Car Estimated Trip Distribution
Generated/ Equivalents
12/36 = Traffic and Assignment
13/17 PM Project— PM Project—Generated
Generated Passenger Car - Percent Directional August, 2000
=
Traffic Equivalents 85% Distribution Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel (LSC #000940)
r
CR 10
15% N
Cl
CC
CO
N J a
U Ce
U F/ 2
/SITE/
Not To Scale %//�
CR a
100% 1/1
/3 f
100%i 95% 12/38 fl
13/17
12/18
13/39
C36
CR 4 1/2
CV
13/17
PI
N
17/17 z
\\ \` 14/42 U
\ i
n Figure 4
Cl
LEGEND: AM Project—GeneratedAM Project—/ cr
Year 2020 Estimated Trip
AM Project— Passenger Car
Generated Equivalents
12/36 = Traffic Distribution and Assignment
13/17 PM Project— PM Project—Generated
Generated Passenger Car — = Percent Directional August, 2000
Traffic Equivalents 65% Distribution Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel (LSC #000940)
CR 10
n CC
co N
PO 8:
if •
N V
re
U /SITE�I
Not To Scale %
CR e
CR 6
12/38
13/17 / 4/4 17 39
1/3 I1III ''5
14/42 \ CR 4 1/2 2/2 2/4 J t . 7 12
N 1 J 1 _�10 2
gy 9 pq
14/38 -`� �47 3
N 18/2° Ih 3 17
a 12/18 577 73
18/44 1,380
N
AM Existing Figure 5
AM Existing Plus n 9
Plus Project— N
LEGEND: Generated Project—Generated • Lt
Traffic Passenger Car Equivalents Existing Plus
12/36 = PM Existing PM Existing Plus Project-Generated Traffic
t3/17 Plus Project/
Generated Project—Generated August, 2000
Traffic Passenger Car Equivalents Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel (LSC #000940)
IF
CR 10
C,
N K
a
ce
N U V7/// hn
m
ISIITE/ �
Not To Scale %//�
CR 9
CR 6
12/36
13/17 7/7 2,378
2._( 1,526 10
14/42 CR 4 1/2 3/5 JI y34 122
L
CV
12 2/14
ifi 18/20 in 21/47
el 29/35 6
U 13/17 1,154146
23/51 2,720f2
\ i
AM Total / el Figure 6
LEGEND: AM Total
rt
Traffic Passenger Car Equivalents Q Year 2020
12/36 = Total Traffic
13/17 PM Total / PM Total
Traffic Passenger Car Equivalents August, 2000
9 q Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel (LSC #000940)
CR 10
N --Li CC
o N C
wit _
.„.,
�/� m =C N
SITE
Not To Scale ///�
CR 8
z
190(160)/610/5,000 /
190(160)/44,400/48,000
CR 6
( CR 4 1/2
N
n
N,
U
\\ i
n Figure 7
N
LEGEND: cc
Daily Year 2020 Average
Project— Daily Project— 2020 Projected Total Roadway Daily 'Traffic Impacts
190(150)/460/5,000 = Generated Generated
Traffic Heavy Vehicles Daily Traffic Capacity August, 2000
Lewis Farms Sand and Gravel (LSC #000940)
Counter Measures
Site Code : 20 PAGE: 1
I/S STREET: OS-85 PILE: US85CR8
I/V STREET: VELD COUNTY RD 8
Move'ents by: Vehicles DATE: 7/12/00
fine Pre' North Pro' East Pro' South Pro' Vest Vehicle
Begin RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total
6:30 0 310 0 4 1 15 0 146 0 0 0 0 476
6:45 2 309 2 3 0 13 1 156 0 1 0 0 493
IR TOTAL 2 619 2 1 1 28 7 302 0 1 0 0 969
7:00 AM 0 257 2 3 1 12 2 115 0 0 1 0 393
7:15 1 313 1 2 0 7 4 160 0 2 0 0 490
7:30 1 291 1 5 0 11 6 143 3 0 0 0 461
7:45 0 262 3 1 1 10 4 147 0 0 1 0 429
RR TOTAL 2 1123 7 11 2 40 16 565 3 2 2 0 1773
8:00 AM 0 216 3 0 0 4 8 122 4 1 5 0 363
8:15 0 208 3 3 0 6 6 130 1 0 1 0 358
Break
4:00 PM 1 177 2 1 0 6 17 273 1 1 0 0 479
4:15 0 168 1 4 0 8 15 301 2 0 1 0 500
4:30 0 173 4 3 0 6 25 289 1 0 0 0 501
4:45 0 203 4 1 0 3 9 324 2 1 0 0 547
HR TOTAL 1 721 11 9 0 23 66 1187 6 2 1 0 2027
5:00 PM 1 191 3 1 0 2 16 334 0 2 1 0 551
5:15 0 197 6 5 2 1 10 370 2 0 0 0 593
5:30 0 181 4 1 1 13 24 337 2 1 0 1 565
5:45 0 194 4 3 0 1 23 319 1 1 2 0 548
HR TOTAL 1 763 17 10 3 17 73 1360 5 4 3 1 2257
DAY TOTAL 6 3650 43 40 6 118 176 3666 19 10 12 1 7747
Counter Measures
Site Code : 20 PAGE: 1
I'S STREET: US-85 FILE: US85CR8
I/W STREET: WELD COUNTY RD 8
• Movelents by: Vehicles DATE: 7/12/00
PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM
DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ...
FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left
North 6:30 AM 0.95 3 1189 5 1197 0 99 0
Bast 6:30 AM 0.76 12 2 47 61 20 3 77
South 7:15 AN 0.92 22 572 7 601 4 95 1
West 7:15 AM 0.38 3 6 0 9 33 67 0
Entire Intersection
North 6:30 AM 0.95 3 1189 5 1197 0 99 0
East 0.76 12 2 47 61 20 3 77
South 0.90 13 577 0 590 2 98 0
West 0.50 3 1 0 4 15 25 0
II II II
US-85 I;".• I W+N
E
II i:`ii:t' .:Y:i::-.::...:.::1:-..:...:.•.......-...:..:....-.:..........:...:.!..:..k-.:..:
S
--------------
0 3 11189 I 5 II f3 € :2::':2 :3:`.;:y:::t;: I
1197 r- 12
5
I
....,.:ii WELD COUNTY RD 8 61 2
0 -, I 17
1 4 WELD COUNTY RD 8 ?it.;:iig
::•:::19:x:..
3 J �. 590 :;f C r,0 •..il.:K4
I,•cr.¢•.13•:3 9 •... }µr II 0 1 577 I 13 0
....
I I I Iloll II
US-85
Counter Measures
Site Code : 20 PAGE: 1
N/S STREET: OS-85 FILE: US85CR8
6/11 STREET: WELD COUNTY RD 8
• Movenents by: Vehicles DATE: 7/12/00
PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM
DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ...
FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left
North 4:45 PM 0.95 1 772 17 790 0 98 2
East 4:00 PM 0.67 9 0 23 32 28 0 72
South 5:00 PM 0.94 73 1360 5 1438 5 95 0
West 5:00 PM 0.67 4 3 1 8 50 38 12
Entire Intersection
North 5:00 PM 0.96 1 763 17 781 0 98 2
East 0.50 10 3 17 30 33 10 57
South 0.94 73 1360 5 1438 5 95 0
West 0.67 4 3 1 8 50 38 12
ii I ii
US-85 II : W- E
I .:..::.: S
IIIMi
k1371 :m. ::i.I ::II
1 I 763 I 17 II}:::' :• S$:f:.`:S::f:S::f::ti::
781 r 10
9�
.cC WELD COUNTY RD 8 30 3
1 -1 I 17
I
2 8 WELD COUNTY RD 8 g.,
4 r- 1438
I: _S . 7a:1::3::`;? 5 11360 I 73
::.:' .::::: :::::::***. I I I
jj':� :�:: : :: s: II I I
I _'._ :: il US-85 11
pi to 59 f Ll�.2 i„ss
ID
I*±t1n
71( s11� '
LJ1 ' I 1 t
„9/
ti� ,Z/ k- ------___.
f--
letfirrn
g ^'/`//j' y ,4-' nrl 7 f ai/
a yThf_S ad O,y
V
t n 1 / � Ik 7
to /I
r tire-7' Z(r �2/ 21 2 21
S
In
is •s ."7—)15111C 510
r
Counter Measures
Volume by Vehicle Type Report Page 1
*******************************************************************************
Data File : D0710001 .PRN
Station : 000000071018
Identification : 000000071018 Interval : 60 minutes
Start date : Jul 10 , 00 Start time : 16:00
Stop date : Jul 12 , 00 Stop time 08:27
City/Town • County : WELD
Location : CR-8 W/O US-85
*******************************************************************************
Lanes 1-1 are Westbound
Mon - Jul 10, 00
Vehicle Type Cycle Cars 2a-4T Buses 2A-SU to-SU 4A-SU 4A-ST 5A-ST 6A-ST SA-MT 6A-MT 7A-MT None Other Total
17:00 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
18:00 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
19:00 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
20:00 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
21:00 0 2 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
22:00 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
23:00 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
24:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tue - Jul 11, 00
01:00 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
02:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
06:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
07:00 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
08:00 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
09:00 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
10:00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
11:00 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
12:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
13:00 0 3 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
14:00 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
15:00 0 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
16:00 0 5 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
24 Hr Totals 0 C.23 , e'49 0 1Z 1_ 0 4' Ll ,6 0 0 0 0 0 91
Percentages 0.0 25.3 53.8 0.0 13.2 2.2 0.0 4.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
usesstmsttttttlsessetttitttlittttststssulttttittttlttittlt*tttttttslittemestll#ltllttktttilllltltmessumsttttitt#ttt;tt
Counter Measures
Volume by Vehicle Type Report Page 1
*******************************************************************************
Data File = D0710002 .PRN
Station : 000000071024
Identification : 000000071024 Interval : 60 minutes
Start date : Jul 10 , 00 Start time : 16:00
Stop date : Jul 12 , 00 Stop time : 08: 29
City/Town • County : WELD
Location : CR-8 W/O US-85
*******************************************************************************
Lanes 1-1 are Eastbound
Mon - Jul 10, 00
Vehicle Type Cycle Cars 2a-4T Buses 2A-SU 3A-SU 4A-SU 4A-ST 5A-ST 6A-ST 5A-MT 6A-MT 7A-MT None Other Total
17:00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
18:00 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
19:00 0 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
20:00 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
21:00 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
22:00 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Tue - Jul 11, 00
01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
03:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
06:00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
07:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
08:00 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
09:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
10:00 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
11:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
12:00 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
13:00 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
14:00 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
15:00 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
16:00 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
24 Hr Totals 0 /\27~ 36 0 5> C 2 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70
Percentages 0.0 38:6' `(51.4 0.0 7.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ififiitiii₹#₹#₹i*iYiiSiff###Yi####1###**₹₹₹**ifiiik#fYiY*ikY#Y₹YIY₹YiiiiiikkikkiYi#f#Y#kk*#*f###₹₹##Y₹#Y₹YYYYiY#ifY#kf#k####k*#*#₹i
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Intersection:
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Project No. : LSC 000940
Date: 07/25/2000exst+pgAMpeak
East/West Street: WCR 8
North/South Street: LSFG site access
Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) : 0 .25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6
L T R I L T R
Volume 0 6 6 13
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 6 6 14
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- -- --
Median Type None
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 1 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12
L T R I L T R
Volume 12 0
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 13 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 100 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists? No
Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 0
Configuration LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12
Lane Config LT I I LR
v (vph) 0 13
C (m) (vph) 1609 796
v/c 0.00 0. 02
95% queue length 0. 00 0.00
Control Delay 7 .2 9. 6
LOS A A
Approach Delay 9. 6
Approach LOS A
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Intersection: WCR 8/LFSG site access
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Project No. : LSC 000940
Date: 07/25/2000exst+pgPMpeak
East/West Street: WCR 8
North/South Street: LSFG site access
Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6
L T R I L T R
Volume 0 8 9 14
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 8 10 15
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- -- --
Median Type None
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 1 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12
L T R I L T R
Volume 13 0
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 14 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 100 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists? No
Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 0
Configuration LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12
Lane Config LT I I LR
v (vph) 0 14
C (m) (vph) 1603 788
v/c 0. 00 0.02
95% queue length 0 . 00 0.00
Control Delay 7 .2 9.7
LOS A A
Approach Delay 9.7
Approach LOS A
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Intersection: US 85/WCR 8
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Project No. : LSC 000940
Date: 07/25/2000exstAMpeak
East/West Street: WCR 8
North/South Street: US 85
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0. 25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6
T R L L T R
Volume 0 577 13 5 1189 3
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 641 14 5 1251 3
Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 -- -- 7 -- --
Median Type None
RT Channelized? No No
Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1
Configuration L T R L T R
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12
L T R I L T R
Volume 47 2 12 0 1 3
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 61 2 15 0 2 6
Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 3 6 6 6
Percent Grade (%) 0 4
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists? Yes Yes
Storage 1 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Config L L LTR LTR
v (vph) 0 5 78 8
C(m) (vph) 524 895 496 548
v/c 0 .00 0 . 01 0. 16 0.01
95% queue length 0 .00 0. 00 0. 57 0.00
Control Delay 11.9 9. 0 13 .6 11.7
LOS B A B B
Approach Delay 13 . 6 11.7
Approach LOS B B
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Intersection: US 85/WCR 8
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Project No. : LSC 000940
Date: 07/25/2000exst+pgAMpeak
East/West Street: WCR 8
North/South Street: US 85
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0 .25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R I L T R
Volume 12 577 13 5 1189 4
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 13 641 14 5 1251 4
Percent Heavy Vehicles 17 -- -- 7 -- --
Median Type None
RT Channelized? No No
Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1
Configuration L T R L T R
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12
L T R I L T R
Volume 47 2 12 1 1 14
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 61 2 15 2 2 28
Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 3 100 6 79
Percent Grade (k) 0 4
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists? Yes Yes
Storage 1 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12
Lane Config L L LTR LTR
v (vph) 13 5 78 32
C(m) (vph) 475 895 476 365
v/c 0. 03 0. 01 0.16 0. 09
95t queue length 0. 00 0.00 0.60 0.20
Control Delay 12 .8 9.0 14 . 0 15.8
LOS B A B C
Approach Delay 14 . 0 15.8
Approach LOS B C
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Intersection: US 85/WCR 8
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Project No. : LSC 000940
Date: 07/25/2000exstPMpeak
East/West Street: WCR 8
North/South Street: US 85
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 5 1360 73 17 763 1
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 1446 77 17 794 1
Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 -- -- 7 -- --
Median Type None
RT Channelized? No No
Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1
Configuration L T R L T R
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12
L T R I L T R
Volume 17 3 10 1 3 4
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 6 20 1 4 5
Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 3 6 6 6
Percent Grade (%) 0 4
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists? Yes Yes
Storage 1 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12
Lane Config L L LTR LTR
v (vph) 5 17 60 10
C(m) (vph) 791 410 149 679
v/c 0. 01 0.04 0.40 0. 01
95% queue length 0. 00 0.00 1.60 0. 00
Control Delay 9. 6 14 .2 44 . 6 10.4
LOS A B E B
Approach Delay 44 . 6 10.4
Approach LOS E B
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Intersection: US 85/WCR 8
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Project No. : LSC 000940
Date: 07/25/2000exst+pgPMpeak
East/West Street: WCR 8
North/South Street: US 85
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 5 6
L T R Ili T R
Volume 18 1360 73 17 763 2
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 19 1446 77 17 794 2
Percent Heavy Vehicles 72 -- -- 7 -- --
Median Type None
RT Channelized? No No
Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1
Configuration L T R L T R
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12
L T R I L T R
Volume 17 3 10 2 3 16
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 6 20 2 4 23
Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 3 6 6 13
Percent Grade (1) 0 4
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists? Yes Yes
Storage 1 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 I 7 8 9 I 10 11 12
Lane Config L L LTR LTR
v (vph) 19 17 60 29
C(m) (vph) 492 410 142 654
v/c 0. 04 0.04 0.42 0. 04
95% queue length 0. 00 0. 00 1. 68 0.00
Control Delay 12. 6 14 .2 47.7 10.8
LOS B B E B
Approach Delay 47. 7 10.8
Approach LOS E B
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 . 2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Intersection: WCR 8/LSFG site access
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Project No. : LSC 000940
Date: 08/11/2000 (20totalAM)
East/West Street : WCR 8
North/South Street: LFSG site access
Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) : 0 .25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R I L T R
Volume 0 12 12 13
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 13 13 14
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- -- --
Median Type None
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 1 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 12 0
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 13 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 100 0
Percent Grade (1) 0 0
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists? No
Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 0
Configuration LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Config LT LR
v (vph) 0 13
C(m) (vph) 1600 780
v/c 0 . 00 0. 02
95% queue length 0 . 00 0. 00
Control Delay 7.3 9. 7
LOS A A
Approach Delay 9. 7
Approach LOS A
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Intersection: WCR 8/LSFG site access
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Project No. : LSC 000940
Date: 08/11/2000 (20totalPM)
East/West Street: WCR 8
North/South Street: LFSG site access
Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) : 0 .25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 16 18 14
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 17 20 15
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- -- --
Median Type None
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 1 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 13 0
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 14 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists? No
Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 0
Configuration LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 I 10 11 12
Lane Config LT LR
v (vph) 0 14
C(m) (vph) 1589 933
v/c 0 .00 0. 02
95% queue length 0 .00 0.00
Control Delay 7 .3 8 .9
LOS A A
Approach Delay 8 . 9
Approach LOS A
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 . 2
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 . 2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Intersection: US 85/WCR 8
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Project No. : LSC 000940
Date: 08/11/2000 (20backAM)
East/West Street : WCR 8
North/South Street :
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 1 1154 26 10 2378 6
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 1282 28 10 2503 6
Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 -- -- 7 -- --
Median Type None
RT Channelized? No No
Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1
Configuration L T R L T R
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12
L T R I L T R
Volume 122 9
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 160 18
Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 6
Percent Grade (%) 0 4
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
RT Channelized? No No
Lanes 1 1
Configuration R R
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12
Lane Config L L R R
v (vph) 1 10 160 18
C(m) (vph) 164 498 415 158
v/c 0. 01 0 . 02 0 .39 0 . 11
95% queue length 0. 00 0. 00 1.85 0 .30
Control Delay 27 . 1 12 .4 19 . 0 30. 7
LOS D B C D
Approach Delay 19 . 0 30.7
Approach LOS C D
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Intersection: US 85/WCR 8
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Project No. : LSC 000940
Date: 08/11/2000 (20totalAM)
East/West Street: WCR 8
North/South Street: US 85
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 13 1154 26 10 2378 7
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 14 1282 28 10 2503 7
Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 -- -- 7 -- --
Median Type None
RT Channelized? No No
Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1
Configuration L T R L T R
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12
L T R I L T R
Volume 122 21
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 160 42
Percent Heavy Vehicles 62
Percent Grade (%) 0 4
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
RT Channelized? No No
Lanes 1 1
Configuration R R
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 I 10 11 12
Lane Config L L R R
v (vph) 14 10 160 42
C(m) (vph) 145 498 415 99
v/c 0. 10 0 . 02 0 . 39 0 .42
95% queue length 0.21 0 . 00 1. 85 1.51
Control Delay 32 .5 12 .4 19. 0 65.8
LOS D B C F
Approach Delay 19 . 0 65. 8
Approach LOS C F
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Intersection: US 85/WCR 8
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Project No. : LSC 000940
Date: 08/11/2000 (20backPM)
East/West Street: WCR 8
North/South Street: US 85
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street : Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R I L T R
Volume 10 2720 146 34 1526 2
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 2893 155 35 1589 2
Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 -- -- 7 -- --
Median Type None
RT Channelized? No No
Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1
Configuration L T R L T R
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 16
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 120 23
Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 6
Percent Grade (%) 0 4
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
RT Channelized? No No
Lanes 1 1
Configuration R R
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 I 10 11 12
Lane Config L L R R
v (vph) 10 35 120 23
C(m) (vph) 386 99 120 322
v/c 0 . 03 0 .35 1. 00 0 . 07
95% queue length 0. 00 1.20 5.52 0 . 12
Control Delay 14 . 6 60 . 0 151. 2 17. 0
LOS B F F C
Approach Delay 151.2 17 .0
Approach LOS F C
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Intersection: US 85/WCR 8
Analyst : Grant Sanders
Project No. : LSC 000940
Date: 08/11/2000 (20totalPM)
East/West Street: WCR 8
North/South Street: US 85
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0 . 25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 23 2720 146 34 1526 3
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 24 2893 155 35 1589 3
Percent Heavy Vehicles 61 -- -- 7 -- --
Median Type None
RT Channelized? No No
Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1
Configuration L T R L T R
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 60 29
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 120 43
Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 10
Percent Grade (%) 0 4
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
RT Channelized? No No
Lanes 1 1
Configuration R R
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Config L L R R
v (vph) 24 35 120 43
C(m) (vph) 213 99 120 314
v/c 0 .11 0. 35 1. 00 0 . 14
95% queue length 0 .31 1.20 5 .52 0.44
Control Delay 24 .0 60 . 0 151.2 18 .3
LOS C F F C
Approach Delay 151.2 18 . 3
Approach LOS F C
HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2
HCS: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 3 .2
Alex J. Ariniello
Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc.
1889 York Street, Denver, CO 8020
Phone: (303) 333-1105 Fax: (303) 333-1107
E-mail: lscden®ecentral .com
MERGE ANALYSIS
Location: US 85/WCR 8 (eb to sb rt turn)
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Analysis Time Period: Year 2020 Backgrnd Traffic AM
Date Performed: 08/11/2000
FREEWAY-RAMP COMPONENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Analysis Merge
Freeway Data:
Number of Lanes in Freeway 2
Free-Flow Speed on Freeway 70 . 0 mph
Volume on Freeway 2378 vph
On Ramp Data:
Side of Freeway Right
Number of Lanes in Ramp 1
Free-Flow Speed on Ramp 35. 0 mph
Volume on Ramp 9 vph
Length of First Accel/Decel Lane 200 ft
Length of Second Accel/Decel Lane ft
Adjacent Ramp Data if one exists:
Does adjacent ramp exist? No
Volume on Adjacent Ramp vph
Position of Adjacent Ramp
Type of Adjacent Ramp
Distance to Adjacent Ramp ft
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT
Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent
Ramp
Terrain Type Level Level Level
Grade % "s °s
Length mi mi mi
Volume, V (vph) 2378 9 vph
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0. 95 0.50
Peak 15-min Volume, v15 626 5 v
Trucks and Buses 7 6 %
Trucks and Buses PCE, ET 1. 5 1. 5
Recreational Vehicles 0 0 %
Recreational Vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2
Heavy Vehicle Adjustment, fHV 0. 966 0 . 971
Driver Population Adjustment, fP 1. 00 1. 00
Adjusted Flow Rate, vp 2591 19 pcph
ANALYSIS and RESULTS of MERGE AREAS
Estimation of Flow entering Lanes 1 and 2 :
Proportion of Freeway Vehicles
in Lanes 1 and 2, P = 1. 000 Using Equation 1
FM
Flow in Lanes 1 and 2, v = v (P ) = 2591 pcph
12 F FM
Capacity Checks:
Actual Maximum LOS F?
v 2610 4800 No
FO
v 2610 4600 No
R12
Level of Service Operation (if not LOS F) :
Density, D = 5 .475 + 0. 00734 v + 0. 0078 v - 0 . 00627 L = 25- pc/mi/ln
R R 12 A
Level of Service for Ramp-Freeway Junction Areas of Influence C
Speed in Ramp Influence Area, S 59 . 9 mph
R
HCS: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 3 .2
Alex J. Ariniello
Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc.
1889 York Street, Denver, CO 8020
Phone: (303) 333-1105 Fax: (303) 333-1107
E-mail: lscden@ecentral.com
MERGE ANALYSIS
Location: US 85/WCR 8 (eb to sb rt turn)
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Analysis Time Period: Year 2020 Total Traffic AM
Date Performed: 08/11/2000
FREEWAY-RAMP COMPONENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Analysis Merge
Freeway Data:
Number of Lanes in Freeway 2
Free-Flow Speed on Freeway 70 . 0 mph
Volume on Freeway 2378 vph
On Ramp Data:
Side of Freeway Right
Number of Lanes in Ramp 1
Free-Flow Speed on Ramp 35. 0 mph
Volume on Ramp 21 vph
Length of First Accel/Decel Lane 200 ft
Length of Second Accel/Decel Lane ft
Adjacent Ramp Data if one exists:
Does adjacent ramp exist? No
Volume on Adjacent Ramp vph
Position of Adjacent Ramp
Type of Adjacent Ramp
Distance to Adjacent Ramp ft
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT
Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent
Ramp
Terrain Type Level Level Level
Grade
Length mi mi mi
Volume, V (vph) 2378 21 vph
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0. 95 0 .50
Peak 15-min Volume, v15 626 11 v
Trucks and Buses 7 25
Trucks and Buses PCE, ET 1. 5 2 . 3
Recreational Vehicles 0 0
Recreational Vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2
Heavy Vehicle Adjustment, fHV 0. 966 0 . 760
Driver Population Adjustment, fP 1. 00 1. 00
Adjusted Flow Rate, vp 2591 55 pcph
ANALYSIS and RESULTS of MERGE AREAS
Estimation of Flow entering Lanes 1 and 2 :
Proportion of Freeway Vehicles
in Lanes 1 and 2, P = 1.000 Using Equation 1
FM
Flow in Lanes 1 and 2, v = v (P ) = 2591 pcph
12 F FM
Capacity Checks:
Actual Maximum LOS F?
v 2646 4800 No
FO
v 2646 4600 No
R12
Level of Service Operation (if not LOS F) :
Density, D = 5 .475 + 0 . 00734 v + 0 . 0078 v - 0 . 00627 L = 25- pc/mi/ln
R R 12 A
Level of Service for Ramp-Freeway Junction Areas of Influence C
Speed in Ramp Influence Area, S 59 . 9 mph
R
HCS: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 3 . 2
Alex J. Ariniello
Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc.
1889 York Street, Denver, CO 8020
Phone: (303) 333-1105 Fax: (303) 333-1107
E-mail: lscden@ecentral .com
MERGE ANALYSIS
Location: US 85/WCR 8 (eb to sb rt turn)
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Analysis Time Period: 2020 bkgrnd traffic PM
Date Performed: 08/11/2000
FREEWAY-RAMP COMPONENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Analysis Merge
Freeway Data:
Number of Lanes in Freeway 2
Free-Flow Speed on Freeway 70 . 0 mph
Volume on Freeway 1526 vph
On Ramp Data:
Side of Freeway Right
Number of Lanes in Ramp 1
Free-Flow Speed on Ramp 35 . 0 mph
Volume on Ramp 16 vph
Length of First Accel/Decel Lane 200 ft
Length of Second Accel/Decel Lane ft
Adjacent Ramp Data if one exists:
Does adjacent ramp exist? No
Volume on Adjacent Ramp vph
Position of Adjacent Ramp
Type of Adjacent Ramp
Distance to Adjacent Ramp ft
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT
Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent
Ramp
Terrain Type Level Level Level
Grade
Length mi mi mi
Volume, V (vph) 1526 16 vph
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0. 96 0 .67
Peak 15-min Volume, v15 397 6 v
Trucks and Buses 7 6
Trucks and Buses PCE, ET 1. 5 1.5
Recreational Vehicles 0 0 %
Recreational Vehicle PCE, ER 1. 2 1.2
Heavy Vehicle Adjustment, fHV 0. 966 0 . 971
Driver Population Adjustment, fP 1. 00 1. 00
Adjusted Flow Rate, vp 1645 25 pcph
ANALYSIS and RESULTS of MERGE AREAS
Estimation of Flow entering Lanes 1 and 2 :
Proportion of Freeway Vehicles
in Lanes 1 and 2, P = 1.000 Using Equation 1
FM
Flow in Lanes 1 and 2, v = v (P ) = 1645 pcph
12 F FM
Capacity Checks :
Actual Maximum LOS F?
v 1670 4800 No
FO
v 1670 4600 No
R12
Level of Service Operation (if not LOS F) :
Density, D = 5 .475 + 0 . 00734 v + 0 . 0078 v - 0 . 00627 L = 17+ pc/mi/ln
R R 12 A
Level of Service for Ramp-Freeway Junction Areas of Influence B
Speed in Ramp Influence Area, S 60 . 8 mph
R
HCS: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 3 .2
Alex J. Ariniello
Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc.
1889 York Street, Denver, CO 8020
Phone: (303) 333-1105 Fax: (303) 333-1107
E-mail : lscden@ecentral. com
MERGE ANALYSIS
Location: US 85/WCR 8 (eb to sb rt turn)
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Analysis Time Period: 2020 total traffic PM
Date Performed: 08/11/2000
FREEWAY-RAMP COMPONENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Analysis Merge
Freeway Data:
Number of Lanes in Freeway 2
Free-Flow Speed on Freeway 70 . 0 mph
Volume on Freeway 1526 vph
On Ramp Data:
Side of Freeway Right
Number of Lanes in Ramp 1
Free-Flow Speed on Ramp 35. 0 mph
Volume on Ramp 29 vph
Length of First Accel/Decel Lane 200 ft
Length of Second Accel/Decel Lane ft
Adjacent Ramp Data if one exists:
Does adjacent ramp exist? No
Volume on Adjacent Ramp vph
Position of Adjacent Ramp
Type of Adjacent Ramp
Distance to Adjacent Ramp ft
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT
Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent
Ramp
Terrain Type Level Level Level
Grade
Length mi mi mi
Volume, V (vph) 1526 29 vph
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0. 96 0 .67
Peak 15-min Volume, v15 397 11 v
Trucks and Buses 7 13
Trucks and Buses PCE, ET 1. 5 1. 5
Recreational Vehicles 0 0
Recreational Vehicle PCE, ER 1. 2 1.2
Heavy Vehicle Adjustment, fHV 0. 966 0 . 939
Driver Population Adjustment, fP 1. 00 1. 00
Adjusted Flow Rate, vp 1645 46 pcph
ANALYSIS and RESULTS of MERGE AREAS
Estimation of Flow entering Lanes 1 and 2 :
Proportion of Freeway Vehicles
in Lanes 1 and 2, P = 1.000 Using Equation 1
FM
Flow in Lanes 1 and 2, v = v (P ) = 1645 pcph
12 F FM
Capacity Checks:
Actual Maximum LOS F?
v 1691 4800 No
FO
v 1691 4600 No
R12
Level of Service Operation (if not LOS F) :
Density, D = 5.475 + 0 . 00734 v + 0 . 0078 v - 0 . 00627 L = 17+ pc/mi/ln
R R 12 A
Level of Service for Ramp-Freeway Junction Areas of Influence B
Speed in Ramp Influence Area, S 60. 8 mph
R
HCS: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 3 .2
Alex J. Ariniello
Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc.
1889 York Street, Denver, CO 8020
Phone: (303) 333-1105 Fax: (303) 333-1107
E-mail: lscden®ecentral.com
MERGE ANALYSIS
Location: US 85/WCR 8 (wb to nb rt turn)
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Analysis Time Period: Year 2020 Bkgrnd Traffic AM
Date Performed: 08/11/2000
FREEWAY-RAMP COMPONENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Analysis Merge
Freeway Data:
Number of Lanes in Freeway 2
Free-Flow Speed on Freeway 70 . 0 mph
Volume on Freeway 1154 vph
On Ramp Data:
Side of Freeway Right
Number of Lanes in Ramp 1
Free-Flow Speed on Ramp 35 . 0 mph
Volume on Ramp 122 vph
Length of First Accel/Decel Lane 200 ft
Length of Second Accel/Decel Lane ft
Adjacent Ramp Data if one exists:
Does adjacent ramp exist? No
Volume on Adjacent Ramp vph
Position of Adjacent Ramp
Type of Adjacent Ramp
Distance to Adjacent Ramp ft
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT
Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent
Ramp
Terrain Type Level Level Level
Grade es
Length mi mi mi
Volume, V (vph) 1154 122 vph
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0 . 90 0 .76
Peak 15-min Volume, v15 321 40 v
Trucks and Buses 7 3
Trucks and Buses PCE, ET 1. 5 1.5
Recreational Vehicles 0 0
Recreational Vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2
Heavy Vehicle Adjustment, fHV 0. 966 0 . 985
Driver Population Adjustment, fP 1. 00 1. 00
Adjusted Flow Rate, vp 1327 163 pcph
ANALYSIS and RESULTS of MERGE AREAS
Estimation of Flow entering Lanes 1 and 2 :
Proportion of Freeway Vehicles
in Lanes 1 and 2, P = 1. 000 Using Equation 1
FM
Flow in Lanes 1 and 2, v = v (P ) = 1327 pcph
12 F FM
Capacity Checks :
Actual Maximum LOS F?
v 1490 4800 No
FO
v 1490 4600 No
R12
Level of Service Operation (if not LOS F) :
Density, D = 5 .475 + 0. 00734 v + 0. 0078 v - 0 . 00627 L = 16- pc/mi/ln
R R 12 A
Level of Service for Ramp-Freeway Junction Areas of Influence B
Speed in Ramp Influence Area, S 60 . 9 mph
R
HCS: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 3 .2
Alex J. Ariniello
Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc.
1889 York Street, Denver, CO 8020
Phone: (303) 333-1105 Fax: (303) 333-1107
E-mail: lscden@ecentral.com
MERGE ANALYSIS
Location: US 85/WCR 8 (wb to nb rt turn)
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Analysis Time Period: Year 2020 Total Traffic AM
Date Performed: 08/11/2000
FREEWAY-RAMP COMPONENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Analysis Merge
Freeway Data:
Number of Lanes in Freeway 2
Free-Flow Speed on Freeway 70 . 0 mph
Volume on Freeway 1154 vph
On Ramp Data:
Side of Freeway Right
Number of Lanes in Ramp 1
Free-Flow Speed on Ramp 35. 0 mph
Volume on Ramp 122 vph
Length of First Accel/Decel Lane 200 ft
Length of Second Accel/Decel Lane ft
Adjacent Ramp Data if one exists:
Does adjacent ramp exist? No
Volume on Adjacent Ramp vph
Position of Adjacent Ramp
Type of Adjacent Ramp
Distance to Adjacent Ramp ft
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT
Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent
Ramp
Terrain Type Level Level Level
Grade
Length mi mi mi
Volume, V (vph) 1154 122 vph
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0. 90 0.76
Peak 15-min Volume, v15 321 40 v
Trucks and Buses 7 3 %
Trucks and Buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5
Recreational Vehicles 0 0 %
Recreational Vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2
Heavy Vehicle Adjustment, fHV 0. 966 0 . 985
Driver Population Adjustment, fP 1. 00 1. 00
Adjusted Flow Rate, vp 1327 163 pcph
ANALYSIS and RESULTS of MERGE AREAS
Estimation of Flow entering Lanes 1 and 2 :
HCS: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 3 .2
Alex J. Ariniello
Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc.
1889 York Street, Denver, CO 8020
Phone: (303) 333-1105 Fax: (303) 333-1107
E-mail: lscden@ecentral.com
MERGE ANALYSIS
Location: US 85/WCR 8 (wb to nb rt turn)
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Analysis Time Period: 2020 bkgrnd traffic PM
Date Performed: 08/11/2000
FREEWAY-RAMP COMPONENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Analysis Merge
Freeway Data:
Number of Lanes in Freeway 2
Free-Flow Speed on Freeway 70. 0 mph
Volume on Freeway 2720 vph
On Ramp Data:
Side of Freeway Right
Number of Lanes in Ramp 1
Free-Flow Speed on Ramp 35 . 0 mph
Volume on Ramp 60 vph
Length of First Accel/Decel Lane 200 ft
Length of Second Accel/Decel Lane ft
Adjacent Ramp Data if one exists:
Does adjacent ramp exist? No
Volume on Adjacent Ramp vph
Position of Adjacent Ramp
Type of Adjacent Ramp
Distance to Adjacent Ramp ft
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT
Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent
Ramp
Terrain Type Level Level Level
Grade
Length mi mi mi
Volume, V (vph) 2720 60 vph
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0 . 94 0 .50
Peak 15-min Volume, v15 723 30 v
Trucks and Buses 7 6
Trucks and Buses PCE, ET 1. 5 1. 5
Recreational Vehicles 0 0
Recreational Vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1. 2
Heavy Vehicle Adjustment, fHV 0. 966 0 . 971
Driver Population Adjustment, fP 1. 00 1. 00
Adjusted Flow Rate, vp 2995 124 pcph
ANALYSIS and RESULTS of MERGE AREAS
Estimation of Flow entering Lanes 1 and 2 :
Proportion of Freeway Vehicles
in Lanes 1 and 2, P = 1.000 Using Equation 1
FM
Flow in Lanes 1 and 2, v = v (P ) = 2995 pcph
12 F FM
Capacity Checks :
Actual Maximum LOS F?
v 3119 4800 No
FO
v 3119 4600 No
R12
Level of Service Operation (if not LOS F) :
Density, D = 5 .475 + 0. 00734 v + 0 . 0078 v - 0 . 00627 L = 28+ pc/mi/ln
R R 12 A
Level of Service for Ramp-Freeway Junction Areas of Influence D
Speed in Ramp Influence Area, S 58 . 9 mph
R
HCS: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 3 .2
Alex J. Ariniello
Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc.
1889 York Street, Denver, CO 8020
Phone: (303) 333-1105 Fax: (303) 333-1107
E-mail: lscden®ecentral.com
MERGE ANALYSIS
Location: US 85/WCR 8 (wb to nb rt turn)
Analyst: Grant Sanders
Analysis Time Period: 2020 total traffic PM
Date Performed: 08/11/2000
FREEWAY-RAMP COMPONENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Analysis Merge
Freeway Data:
Number of Lanes in Freeway 2
Free-Flow Speed on Freeway 70 . 0 mph
Volume on Freeway 2720 vph
On Ramp Data:
Side of Freeway Right
Number of Lanes in Ramp 1
Free-Flow Speed on Ramp 35 . 0 mph
Volume on Ramp 60 vph
Length of First Accel/Decel Lane 200 ft
Length of Second Accel/Decel Lane ft
Adjacent Ramp Data if one exists:
Does adjacent ramp exist? No
Volume on Adjacent Ramp vph
Position of Adjacent Ramp
Type of Adjacent Ramp
Distance to Adjacent Ramp ft
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT
Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent
Ramp
Terrain Type Level Level Level
Grade
Length mi mi mi
Volume, V (vph) 2720 60 vph
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0. 94 0 . 50
Peak 15-min Volume, v15 723 30 v
Trucks and Buses 7 6
Trucks and Buses PCE, ET 1.5 1. 5
Recreational Vehicles 0 0
Recreational Vehicle PCE, ER 1. 2 1.2
Heavy Vehicle Adjustment, fHV 0. 966 0 . 971
Driver Population Adjustment, fP 1. 00 1. 00
Adjusted Flow Rate, vp 2995 124 pcph
ANALYSIS and RESULTS of MERGE AREAS
Estimation of Flow entering Lanes 1 and 2 :
Proportion of Freeway Vehicles
in Lanes 1 and 2, P = 1. 000 Using Equation 1
FM
Flow in Lanes 1 and 2, v = v (P ) = 2995 pcph
12 F FM
Capacity Checks:
Actual Maximum LOS F?
v 3119 4800 No
FO
v 3119 4600 No
R12
Level of Service Operation (if not LOS F) :
Density, D = 5 .475 + 0.00734 v + 0 . 0078 v - 0 . 00627 L = 28+ pc/mi/ln
R R 12 A
Level of Service for Ramp-Freeway Junction Areas of Influence D
Speed in Ramp Influence Area, S 58 . 9 mph
R
Proportion of Freeway Vehicles
in Lanes 1 and 2, P = 1. 000 Using Equation 1
FM
Flow in Lanes 1 and 2, v = v (P ) = 1327 pcph
12 F FM
Capacity Checks:
Actual Maximum LOS F?
v 1490 4800 No
FO
v 1490 4600 No
R12
Level of Service Operation (if not LOS F) :
Density, D = 5 .475 + 0 . 00734 v + 0 . 0078 v - 0 . 00627 L = 16- pc/mi/ln
R R 12 A
Level of Service for Ramp-Freeway Junction Areas of Influence B
Speed in Ramp Influence Area, S 60. 9 mph
R
W �. Department of Planning Services
O Flood Hazard Development Permit
COLORADO Administrative Review
Applicant: Lewis Farm/Golden's Andesite Case Number. FHDP-347 Planner. S Lockman
Mining company
Legal Description: SE4 Section 13, Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, CO
Parcel Identification Number: 1469 13 000011 and 043
Firm Map Number. 080266 0983 C
Permit is approved -The plans and materials submitted in support of the proposed development are
in compliance with the applicable floodplain management standards in the Weld County Zoning
Ordinance.
Permit is conditionally approved. Provided the conditions of approval are met, the plans and
X materials submitted in support of proposed development will comply with the applicable floodplain
management standards in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance.
Permit is denied. The proposed development is not in conformance with applicable floodplain
management standards in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance(explanation attached).
Variance is required. The proposed development will require approval of a variance by the Board of
Adjustment is the applicant wishes to proceed with construction. Please call the Department of Planning
Services to discuss the appropriate application materials needed to apply for a variance.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Installation of utilities shall comply with the conditions listed in the Flood Hazard Development Permit
Certificate.
2. Construction shall comply with all requirements/conditions of the Weld County Building Code.
3. The lowest floor elevation of structures without a basement shall be considered to be the elevation,
above mean sea level, of the top of the foundation of the structure. The lowest floor elevation of
structures with a basement shall be considered to be the elevation,above mean sea level,of the floor
of the basement of the structure. The lowest floor elevation of a mobile home shall be considered
to be the elevation, above mean sea level, of the top of the mobile home pad, as described in the
Lowest Floor definition in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance.
4. Prior to release of the Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit an as-built elevation
certificate signed and stamped by a registered Colorado Professional Engineer.
5. The site shall maintain compliance with Section 26 and 53 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as
well as the Development Standards for USR-1243.
/anti October 7. 1999
Sheri Lockman, Planner
Date
DUST ABATEMENT PLAN FOR MINING AND PROCESSING ACTIVITIES-
LEWIS FARM SAND AND GRAVEL MINE
USR #1243, AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES, INC.
The following particulate emissions control measures shall be used by the applicant for
compliance purposes on the activities covered by the Air Pollution Emission Notice
Permit application filed with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
The site will be subject to the following emission guidelines:
a. Mining and Processing Activities —Visible emissions will not exceed 20%, no
off-property transport of visible emissions.
b. Haul Roads—No off-property transport of visible emissions shall apply to on-site
haul roads, the nuisance guidelines shall apply to off-site haul roads.
c. Haul Trucks — No off-property transport of visible emissions except that when
operating off the property of the owner or operator, the applicable guidelines shall
be no off vehicle transport of visible emissions.
Control Measures
1. Adequate soil moisture shall be maintained in topsoil and overburden to control
emissions during removal. Watering shall be implemented if necessary.
2. Topsoil and overburden stockpiles remaining for one year or longer shall be
vegetated with a temporary seed mix.
3. Emissions from material handling (i.e. removal, loading, and hauling) shall be
controlled by watering at all times unless natural moisture is sufficient to control
dust emissions.
4. Vehicle speed on unpaved roads and disturbed areas shall not exceed a
maximum of 15 mph and speed limit signs indicating such shall be posted on
site.
5. Vehicle speed on haul roads and service roads shall be restricted to 15 mph and
speed limit signs indicating such shall be posted on site.
6. Unpaved haul roads shall be watered or treated with a chemical dust
suppressant as often as necessary in order to control fugitive particulate
emissions such that the above guidelines are met.
7. Reclamation shall be concurrent with mining so as to minimize the total disturbed
areas at any one.
8. Material stockpiles shall be watered as necessary to control fugitive particulate
emissions. Aggregate materials shall be sprayed with water, as necessary,
during loading of material onto stockpiles.
9. Plant entryway and truck service road areas shall be graveled. Watering and/or
chemical dust suppressants shall be implemented to ensure emissions
compliance.
CHURCH & Associates, Inc.
ENGINEERS&GEOLOGISTS
July 3, 2000
Banks & Gesso, LLC
Attn: Stan Peters
720 Kipling, Suite 117
Lakewood, CO 80215
Subject: Percolation Test and OWS Design, Proposed Office and Scale House
11717 County Road 8, A Parcel in the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 1 North,
Range 67 West of the 66i PM, Weld County, Colorado
Job No. 12691-L
Dear Mr. Peters,
As requested, we have investigated subsurface conditions at the subject site. The purpose of our
investigation was to evaluate site conditions and to design an onsite wastewater system (OWS).
SITE CONDITIONS
The site is a 160+-acre parcel located in a rural area south of Fort Lupton in Weld County, Colorado.
An office/scale house for a gravel pit operation is proposed for the site. The location of the proposed
office/scale house, profile and percolation holes are presented on Figure 1. The building site is
located in a relatively flat, horse pasture. We understand that construction may not proceed for 5
years, and the proposed building locations may change.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
It is proposed that the office/scale house is to service up to 10 employees with two toilets and two
lavatories. In accordance with the Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) regulations, the
sewage load for "day workers at offices" is 15 gallons per person per day (G/P/D) or a total average
of 150 gallons per day (GPD). The peak sewage loading is 225 GPD using a 1.5 peaking factor. It is
anticipated that some walk-in traffic will utilize the facilities. We propose to increase the design
average flows by 40%to 210 GPD and peak sewage loading to 315 GPD in anticipation of additional
use. The scale house office will be served water by a local municipal water district.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions were investigated by drilling a profile boring and six percolation holes at the
locations indicated on Figure 1. Subsurface conditions at Profile 1 consist of approximately 12 inches
of topsoil underlain by a silt/clay mixture with sand to a depth of 7 feet over gravelly sand to a
maximum depth explored of 10 feet. Free water was encountered at 3.8 feet at the time of drilling.
Percolation test results indicate percolation rates of 120, 60, 120, 120, 240 and 240 minutes per inch
(MPI)with a nominal average of 150 MPI.
DENVER 4501 Wadsworth Boulevard Wheat Ridge,CO 80033
303.463.9317 Fax:303.463.9321
OWS Design
Job No. 12691-L
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of our investigation indicate an OWS can be installed at the location presented on Figure
2 with the use of a septic tank and a mounded, low pressure drip irrigation drain field. The OWS
design is based on an average sewage load of 150 GPD and an application rate of 0.19 gallons per
day per square foot (SF). The application rate is based on evapotranspiration and absorption. A 1500-
gallon, two-compartment, precast concrete septic tank with a pump in a Biotube® pump vault in the
second compartment has been designated for the site. Following the tank the distribution valves lead
to 2400 square feet (SF) of mounded, low pressure drip irrigation drain fields in four sections. The
bottom of the drainfield shall be located at least 4 feet above the groundwater level, which was 3.8
feet below the existing surface. The OWS should be constructed similar to Figures 2 through 5.
Four inches of the topsoil should be removed and the surface scarified 4" prior to placement of fill
materials. A minimum of 8" of the on-site silt/clay soil should be used to raise the grade underneath
the drain field to replace the stripped topsoil and provide a 4 foot separation from the groundwater. A
minimum of 12" of additional fill will be required to raise the grade to the top of the drain field.
Granular material shall not be used for the fill. The fill will also be required around the perimeter of
the drain field to create slopes no steeper than 3h:Iv. The fill should be well compacted and have
similar percolation rates as the underlying soils after compaction. Additional tests should be
conducted in the new fill to verify that the percolation rates are suitable. Removal and/or
recompaction of the fill, or selection of other fill materials may be necessary in the event that the
percolation rates in the new fill vary substantially from those presented in this report.
We recommend the OWS be constructed to handle the additional loading if the owner is anticipating
additional employees or plumbing facilities other than those presented in this report. The installation
of a properly sized OWS to serve future build-out can be cost effective. The proposed drainfield is
designed to service up to 10 employees and additional walk-in traffic. Our office should be contacted
to make recommendations if additional employees or additional plumbing facilities are anticipated.
We recommend a water meter be installed to monitor all flows to interior fixtures. It is important to
establish the amount of water actually being discharged to the OWS. If there is a leaking toilet or
fixture, it can be detected. The meter or meters should be placed to establish flow to the OWS and not to
exterior irrigation. A staff person should be designated to record meter readings monthly.
The surface of the field should be seeded after installation of the system. We recommend using a seed
mix such as "Foothills, Pasture, or Prairie" mixes which are available at seed stores. These mixes do
not require irrigation and develop a growth 10 to 15 inches high. No automatic sprinkler system
should be installed over the field.
INSTALLATION OBSERVATIONS
The installation of the OWS is to be observed by the design engineer. Additional percolation tests are
required to determine the percolation rates of the new fill material prior to placement of the drain
field pipes. Three observations are required: an excavation observation after removal of 4 inches of
topsoil and prior to placement of fill; an observation of fill placement at the time of percolation
testing of the fill; and a final observation after installation and prior to backfill. At the time of the
third observation, the septic tank is to be installed with risers on the tanks, and inlet and outlet
connections properly bedded. The drain field is to be ready for backfill with dispersal pipes in place.
OWS Design
Job No. 12691-L
Page 3
Other components such as distribution valves, effluent filters or pumping systems, as applicable will
be observed at that time.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The owner must realize an OWS is different from public sewer service. The owner must assume
responsibility for maintenance of the system. The system is relatively maintenance free, but the
owner must have the septic tanks pumped. The septic tanks should be pumped every two years and
the effluent filter be cleaned (hosed off) after pumping or as needed. There are daily considerations,
such as not putting plastic or other non-biodegradable material into the OWS. Water use must be
monitored so toilets are not allowed to run when seals malfunction. To illustrate the point, a mal-
functioning toilet can consume in excess of 1000 GPD. An excess 1000 GPD loading could flood and
irreparably harm the OWS.
We caution against the installation of a water softener. The chemical and hydraulic loading from the
backwash of a water softener is detrimental to the OWS and a separate dry well should be constructed
for the backwash brine. No landscaping or plastic can be used over the field, which will reduce the
performance of the field. Chemically treated water from a swimming pool or spa should not be
introduced into the OWS. Livestock should be kept off the field at all times.
LIMITATIONS
A low pressure drip irrigation system requires installation by a contractor who is experienced in its
installation. Our investigation, layout, design, and recommendations are based on data submitted. If
conditions considerably different from those described in this report are encountered, we should be
called to observe the conditions. If proposed construction or locations are changed, we should be
notified to evaluate the effect of the changes on the OWS. Our office should be contacted prior to any
modifications to this design to evaluate the effect of the modification.
All construction is to be in accordance with the ISDS regulations. Pipe type and size, burial
requirements, septic tank construction, and other specifications that are not depicted in our report are
to conform to the requirements of the ISDS regulations. The installer of the system is to be approved
by the county health department, and is to have demonstrated knowledge of the ISDS regulations and
requirements.
The OWS design requires installation observations. Observations are not included in the cost of this
design and will be billed per our Professional Service Agreement. If there are any questions or we
can be of further service, please call. The project manager for this project is Thomas W. Finley.
Sincerely,
..
CHURCH & Associates
Joseph C. Kordziel, P.E. o 9894
JCK/twf '°1.'••
3 copies sent Ica°OA-
11717 COUNTY ROAD 8 FENCE CORNER SCALE
' BASIS OF 1° = 200'
A PARCEL IN THE SE 1/4 : HOLE LOCATIONS
OF SECTION 13, T 1 N,
R 67 W, OF THE 6TH PM •
WELD COUNTY, •
CORRALS
COLORADO
P-I P-7JI�
-
P 4. .P-3
P5�P6
PROFILE I
CORRALS
CORRALS
CD C1]
ORALS•
R1SHED ANDS '"
1;1
BARN ',
FARM w
HOUSE
LU
w
0
•
o
a
w
w
THE LOCATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
SHOWN HEREIN; AND THE WELL AND/OR DRAIN FIELD LOCATIONS ;
STAKED AT THE SITE; ARE NOT THE RESULT OF A PROPERTY ; •
SURVEY. IMPROVEMENT LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS ;
THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFINE PROPERTY •
:
BOUNDARIES AND ENSURE ALL ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE •
LOCATED WITHIN THE RATTED SITE AND OUT OF INAPPROPRIATE • •
•
EASEMENTS. ALL SEPARATION DISTANCES ARE TO BE VERIFIED •
PRIOR TO EXCAVATION.
•
•
•
•
•
•
mos am ism ism •Ne
COUNTY ROAD 8
SITE PLAN
JOB NO. 12691-L FIGURE 1
11717 COUNTY ROAD 8 SCALE
A PARCEL IN THE SE 1/4 SECTION 13, 1" = 100'
T1 N, R67W OF THE 6TH PM
WELD COUNTY COLORADO
FENCE CORNER BASIS
OF OWS LOCATIONS
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
PROPOSED OFFICE & SCALE HOUSE
L.,1
1500-GALLON TWO COMPARTMENT a
PRECAST CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK N
WITH PUMP IN BIOTUEE® PUMP
VAULT IN SECOND COMPARTMENT — CLE4NOUT .................................................... .............. ..
PROPOSED 2400.SQUARE.FOOT....--...-
DISTRIBUTION VALVES WITH MOUNDED DRIP IRRIGATION
AIR RELEASE @ HIGH POINT �—DRAINFIELD IN FOUR SECTIONS
A AAA
CORRALS
•
•
•
THE LOCATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN HEREIN; AND THE WELL AND/OR DRAIN FIELD
LOCATIONS STAKED AT THE SITE; ARE NOT THE RESULT OF A PROPERTY SURVEY. IMPROVEMENT LOCATIONS ARE
APPROXIMATE. IT IS THE PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFINE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AND ENSURE ALL
ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE PLATTED SITE AND OUT OF INAPPROPRIATE EASEMENTS. ALL
SEPARATION DISTANCES ARE TO BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO EXCAVATION.
PROPOSED LOCATION OF
OF OWS
JOB NO. 12691-L FIGURE 2
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
EFFLUENT PUMP LINE WITH PRESSURE NO. SECTION LENGTH WIDTH LINES
� ---- RELEASE VALVE AT HIGH POINT 4 A 100 6 3
BETWEEN PUMP AND VALVES
2" CLASS 200 PVC PIPE WITH I/4" HOLES ON 8" CENTERS
DISTRIBUTION - (HOLES FACE DOWNWARD)
VALVES ' 2" PVC
2" BALL VALVES INSTALL DISPERSAL LINES LEVEL i VENT PIPE
2' SPACING
HEADER --''`..
GRAVITY FLOW
MINIMUM I/8" / I' 2' SPACING
LEVEL -
MANIFOLD l r ,1
> SECTION
y
I 100' 1
DISPERSAL
LINE
TYPICAL MOUNDED FIELD 2" PVC
VENTCROSS-SECTION WITH PIPE
CAP CAP AND
1/4" HOLE
>< 4TJTThwTF >
Ik .,'r IDi , rjf fr /rr Ol''✓ IQ ,,,ciclr ,/ r ��
r - r, r / reef , .4, : , 'I r ". % "" /""--s-1
! r" r l r .f .F r !.r„/,.,, EL,,,ill.+/✓ t?r�/r'�./! 1.f�/ / 6 f FI x �?-
.C-2 1 y z 8" DISPERSAL
GROUND SURFACE REMOVE 4", SCARIFY 4" LINE
-MIN. 8" APPROVED, COMPACTED FILL
REQUIRED UNDER DRAIN FIELD
SPECIFICATIONS AND DESIGN CALCULATIONS
TREATMENT UNIT DISTRIBUTION FIELD
I. 1500 GALLON TWO COMPARTMENT PRE-CAST I. 10 DAY WORKERS
CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK WITH A PUMP IN A 2. SEWAGE LOADING = Q = 150 GPD
BIOTUBE VAULT IN THE SECOND CHAMBER 3. PERCOLATION RATE = 150 MPI
2. PUMP: SEE DETAIL 4. APPLICATION RATE = R = 0.19 GAL/SF/DAY
3. ALARM/CONTROL PANEL LOCATION AT 5. AREA = (Q/R) X 1.5 X 1.6 X 0.75 X 1.17 = 1663 SF
OWNER'S REQUEST INCREASE MIN. 40% FOR WALK-IN TRAFFIC = 2328 SF
4. RISERS: TWO TO SURFACE 6. PROPOSED FIELD AREA = 2400 SF
5. PRESSURE RELEASE VALVE AT HIGH POINT 7. LINEAL FEET = 1200 MINIMUM
6. DRAWBACK TO SEPTIC TANK AND FIELD 8. TRENCH WIDTH = 8 INCHES
9. LANDSCAPING IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
OWNER
MOUNDED TRENCH DETAILS
JOB NO. 12691-L FIGURE 3
CHURCH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Effluent Pumping System O 8
Orenco Systems®
Notes: 1. Install Pressure Relief Valve At High Point in pump line. Incorporated
2. Audible/Visual Alarm In building. Alarm Level 3 Inches Above
On Float Level Of Tank To Be Installed On Dedicated Circuit
3. One 1500 Gallon Two Compartment Precast Concrete Fiberglass Gasketed Lid with
Septic Tank. Stainless Steel Bolts
4. Risers to surface: two Conduit Seal
584 PVC PVC Riser with Grommet(s)
Slope Ground Conduit to Splice Box (bond to tank adapter with
Away f from Riser Into Panel 4i recommended adhesive)
SIRPVC Splice Box with Cord Grips
Height Varies Discharge Assembly
18' Minimum Flexible Hose
Effluent Discharge
Inlet Tee
Tank Adapter (cast or bolted)
Alarm Level Control Float
Lauid Level v s-� Assembly MFEPR
On/Off �` j S Redundant Off W/Norm
' Set for '!I) Check Valve (optional)
50 gallon Vault Inlet Ports
doses { „
/ Weep Flow Inducer
Hole Effluent Pump
(30 gpm at 15 feet of head)
Filter Cartridge
�/ Drain Port
\ Biotube® Pump Vault
SVf1248-24EFl
Disclosure: The owners of Church & Associates, Inc. also own S.C.G.
Enterprises, Inc. which distributes Orenco Systems Inc. products
Patents # 4,439,323 & 5,492,635
Foreign Patents Pending EDW—TD-3
O 1997, Orenco Systems, Inc. Rev. 1.0 (2/98)
Job No. 12691—L Figure 4
•
THE DISTRIBUTION VALVES CONTROLTHE FLOW OF EFFLUENT TO EACH SECTION OF THE FIELD. WE
RECOMMEND THAT ONE SECTION OF THE FIELD BE CLOSED AT ALL TIMES TO ALLOW DRYING OF
SEGMENTS OF THE FIELD TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF THE FIELD. THIS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY
SEQUENTIALLY ROTATING THE VALVES EVERY SIX MONTHS.
TYPICAL DETAIL OF DISTRIBUTION VALVES l
2" PVC LINE FROM PUMP CHAMBER
® ® 2" LINES TO SECTIONS ®
l l l
90 DEGREE
"TEE" !� ELBOWA 2" BALL VALVE
DISTRIBUTION VALVE DETAIL
JOB NO. 12691 -L FIGURE 5
•. TABLE I-PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
PROPERTY OWNER: BANKS&GESSO
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 11717
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:A PARCEL IN THE SE 1/4 SECTION 13,T 1 N,R 67 W
COUNTY: WELD SIZE OF PROPERTY: 160+ACRES
DIAMETER OF HOLES: 5 INCHES DATE HOLES EXCAVATED: 6/2/00
SOIL SURFACE SCRAPED: YES DATE/TIME OF PRESOAK: 6/5/00 9:00 A.M.
AMOUNT OF PRESOAK: 3 GAL/HOLE DATE/TIME OF PERC TEST: 6/6/00 9:00 A.M.
DEPTH DEPTH PERC
PERC DEPTH MINUTES START END CHANGE RATE
HOLE (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (MPI)
1 12 30 3.75 4.50 0.75
30 4.50 4.75 0.25
30 4.75 5.00 0.25
30 5.00 5.25 0.25
30 5.25 5.75 0.50
30 5.75 6 00 0.25
30 6.00 6.25 0.25
30 6.25 6.50 0.25 120
2 18 30 7.50 8.50 1.00
30 8.50 9.00 0.50
30 9.00 9.75 0.75
30 9.75 10.25 0.50
30 10.25 11.00 0.75
30 11.00 11.50 0.50
30 11.50 12.00 0.50
30 12.00 12.50 0.50 60
3 14 30 3.50 4.00 0.50
30 4.00 4.50 0.50
30 4.50 4.75 0.25
30 4.75 5.00 0.25
30 5.00 5.25 0.25
30 5.25 5.75 0.50
30 5.75 6.00 0.25
30 6.00 6.25 0.25 120
4 18 30 6.00 6.50 0.50
30 6.50 7.00 0.50
30 7.00 7.50 0.50
30 7.50 7.75 0.25
30 7.75 8.25 0.50
30 8.25 8.50 0.25
•
30 8.50 8.75 0.25
30 8.75 9.00 0.25 120
JOB NO. 12691-L
TABLE I- PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS,cont.
DEPTH DEPTH PERC
PERC DEPTH MINUTES START END CHANGE RATE
HOLE (inches) (Inches)(Inches) (Inches) (MPI)
5 11 30 2.75 3.50 0.75
30 3.50 4.00 0.50
30 4.00 4.25 0.25
30 4.25 4.50 0.25
30 4.50 4.63 0.13
30 4.63 4.75 0.13
30 4.75 4.88 0.13
30 4.88 5.00 0.13 240
6 25 30 7.50 7.75 0.25
30 7.75 8.00 0.25
30 8.00 8.25 0.25
30 8.25 8.50 0.25
30 8.50 8.63 0.13
30 ' 8.63 8.75 0.13
30 8.75 8.88 0.13
30 8.88 9.00 0.13 240
Average percolation rate= 150 MPI
Profile: 0'- 1' TOPSOIL
1'to 7' SILT/CLAY,sandy, med. stiff, v. moist to wet, dk.brown to black
7'to 10' SAND, gravelly, loose,wet, brown
Moisture Content: 31.1% @ 3' LL=50, PI=24, CH
Groundwater level: 3.8'
JOB NO. 12691-L
,Yald County Planning Dept.
APR 10 2000
E. Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling �s, Yte�,17r
■. Lakewood, 1
(303) 274-4277
Fax (303) 274-8329
www.banksandgesso.com
April 4, 2000
Sheri Lockman
Weld County Department of Planning Services
Administrative Offices
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Subject: Status of Use by Special Review No.1243,
Lewis Farm Sand and Gravel Mine,
Aggregate Industries, Inc.
Dear Sheri:
Thank you for the phone call on April 3, 2000. We are aware that the Use by
Special Review Plat needs to be recorded and that certain conditions must be
met prior to the recordation. Our client, Aggregate Industries, Inc., is pursuing
these conditions.
As you may know, Aggregate Industries, Inc. acquired Golden's Andesite Mining
Co. and some ownership issues are being sorted out. We will keep you informed
as to the status of compliance with the permit conditions and will hopefully be
able to record the plat shortly.
Please let me know if this is acceptable to you and if you have any questions
please call.
Sipserely,(/J�\
Paul Banks
PB/kj
Cc: Norm Roche, Aggregate Industries, Inc.
Mike Refer, Aggregate Industries, Inc.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND RECHARGE PLANS
LEWIS FARM SAND AND GRAVEL MINE
USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT NO. 1243
AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES, INC.
Groundwater Monitoring
1. Applicant will install eight groundwater observation wells on the project
site at the locations shown on the attached map. These wells will provide a
baseline of groundwater depths/elevations in the area before mining, and
during de-watering operations.
2. Applicant will begin monthly groundwater measurements of these wells after
installation, and continue until the end of the r` e Lion process.
3. Applicant agrees to measure the shallow `)Ils 'n the 600-foot zone of
influence indicated on the attached map a nt t, t e well owners
permission, assuming reasonable access asurealtaysically exists
at each well facility. °, T
4. Applicant will also monitor the water elevation of the,-small lake on the Norden
property, just south of WCR 8, near these t est cortpf of the mine.
5. Groundwater records will be maintai ""d in t qk site office, and will be
available for public review during no`�al b me ours.
ttt
Potential Recharge Program
1. Based on the ground eastit:t tints, the Applicant agrees to notify the
well owners shcuin on the�> shed nfaof significant groundwater drops due
to mining thaty affect the Otformance of that well. The intent is to notify
the neighbotadvance of a pahtial problem, and begin working together
on a solution.'
2. The Applicant ad' s,to mitig tithe temporary effects of the de-watering
operations on the sJbg ct w l, using reasonable and cost-effective methods.
3. Mitigation techniques maW Jude providing potable water if required for a
household well, construction of a recharge facility and conveying water to it,
or altering the mining and reclamation sequence in that particular area of the
site. Since the solutions tend to be unique to each well location, the
Applicant prefers to reserve some flexibility in selecting the mitigation
technique to be implemented.
W ; ,Ax
-:4'
._ _
,!.4
• •
re,x,,,, )t
Iii
C s O. �
w
G '
m a N 1 rAi •
®pe N ^kJ
,•It
a
;
if ¢ r
',lb....
.�a. /" °
7 f
II
141 4
5.
t
‘,�: tw. Banks and Gesso, LLC Exhibit 6-2: Proposed Monitoring Well
fir--.fM 720 Kipling, Suite 117 Locations and Existing Water Wells
i= ' `".----:--"------- _.;_ eilill Lakewood, CO 80215 Aggregate lnensUies,West Cemral Regiaa,Inc.
j Lewis Farm Sand and Gravel Mine 518/00
24p 6 MEMORANDUM
TO: Donald Carroll DATE: October 24, 2000
FROM: Diane M. Houghtaling, Traffic Engineer \\
SUBJECT: Lewis Farm Sand &Gravel Mine, USR-1243
•
COLORADO
I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study for this gravel mine and have the following comments.
The intersection of SIT 85 and WCR 8 has had several accidents in recent years. The addition of a
gravel mining operation on such an intersection could place the traveling public in more danger. To
mitigate the effect of the heavy vehicles the acceleration/deceleration lanes must be reconfigured to
meet the requirements of the State Highway Access Code.
The report recommends improvements to the acceleration/deceleration lanes, however the lengths
are not adequate. The developer might also consider a free right-turn lane on the eastbound leg of
WCR 8.
Hello