HomeMy WebLinkAbout20032459.tiff IRRIGATION prod
EXHIBIT(../)
/ .7 T�2\
PRov&RrT 1 ® I
V--eoeoeR • BP-2
/
'� ./ O O
// r '" -
rP3 lj
1
/ I n 5 4
N \ 1 / //
i �r� !�� ❑
2 :I ® •1 .\ ❑ S
I \ WC!"4WD APCA \ BP-G \\' 3
ce
QI T0.5
� i s 1 i / 9
/
I l i' / /
Ij / / O I
/ / , , rP-9
OIL TAW crYP.1t r
' . 0 I O
0 :! i P® �
— —. .—...—IRRIGATION croft
WCLD COUNTY ROAD 18
LCGCND
400 "0O 200 100 0 400 ace
APPROX/MAre LOGAr/ON or
s rc5r PORING PR/LLCD ON AROLUN CON5ULTlNG
MAY 14 820,/999 GRAVCL STUDY
7 APPROXIMArC LOCATION OF WCLT)COUNTY ROAD5/8 8 2'S
PAGKMOCPlr5 CXCAVArro WCI-D COUNTY,COLORADO
1 MAY 14,/999 FAGURC I:CORING LOCATON PLAN
Project Nono9en C5/ Project No. 22994081
Drown By. �,CB lierraton $Cote' F•400'
Cnecxetl Br Cam-y ^-'^
II` Deleeuw FOR aeNeRAL is rrIONONLY,M0I0 RI CEB 5-19-99 Longna
N0 ucNDCDFORCON9TRI,GTcwNRF09M Ro CHS 4-22-98 Approved Br C5W 1 2003-2459 ,//
LOG OF TEST BORING NO. TB-2 Page 1 of 1
OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
Rollin Consulting
slTlpgorthwest corner of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 PROJECT
Weld County, Colorado Proposed Gravel Pit
SAMPLES TESTS
a _ ZO & Y a i g- Z o
g DESCRIPTION F• µi CW G y
ti Sy` v� C U inu
0 Approx. Surface Elev.: Grade ft. c 0 Z c- o. ro 2 M M 4
'da a 0.5\TOPSOJI _
D.&4 -
d
aa;a 1
n 6`e SP SS 6/12
::0.0 5
0 A:1 _
°0.0. —
CQ._1 _
Q° 10 SS 5/12
Dd.d _
,9.,:;? _
-
QB.o
ape —
e. ° — SS 20/12
Q4 15 a- '.a —
c Q.v —
.O ,
r ai:e LAND WITH GRAVEL, slightly silty, more -
°a: ° and larger gravel with increasing depth, —_
oa9 rusty brown, orange, moist to wet, loose —
Q d 20=
: . to dense. _
cQ.e _
go.:.:
SS 31/12
a a 25 _
O:e _
1:0'd —
:o
O.e. _
°a o 30-
D'Q:d
33.0 =
W35.0 CLAYSTONF, silty, moderate plasticity, 35—
gray, slighlty moist. /
BOTTOM OF BORING
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES
BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
.---. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 5-14-99
WL 4 5/14/99 3' s 5/21/99 3' BORING COMPLETED 5-14-99
WI a ir err acon RIG Mobile B-57 FOREMAN DJD
WL APPROVED ESW JOB a 22995081
LOG OF TEST BORING NO. TB-3 Page 1 of 1
.+-. OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
Rollin Consulting
slTl 4orthwest corner of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 PROJECT
Weld County, Colorado Proposed Gravel Pit
SAMPLES TESTS
(L 8
O O GWK
tQ7 y tr7
U DESCRIPTION F. Z [[[S V E
W
a gl r 6s 3 lip inj d� e
Approx. Surface Elev.: Grade ft. o z F a m 2 CI ,' o u cn .h S g.
0.5\TOPSOIi —
SCL-CH SS 5/12
LEAN TO FAT CLAY WITH SAND,Silty
j Sand lenses, with gravel below 5', gray _
brown, rust, moist to wet, medium stiff —
S"""" 10.0 to very soft. 10 _ SS� 1/12
P.a.. _
oQt —
P'Q'i -
°' '` - SP SS 14/12
e4c 15 _
a,g. —
"^ OQ.i
ua::p4. —
—
Q'Q!d —
°P.o` SAND WITH GRAVE." , slightly silty, more 20-7
oac and larger gravel with increasing depth, _
�`' brown,rusty orange, wet, medium —
p.Q:ig _
°Q:q° dense.
p.5d 25 — SS 25/12
!lb./a"' —
—
D' .,d _
o ': c —
o d.a 30.0 —
2)., 30
30.5 CLAYSTONE, silty, moderate plasticity, _
t gray, slightly moist.
BOTTOM OF BORING
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES
BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 5-14-99 5/14/99 3' Y 5/21/99 3'WL 4 BORING COMPLETED 5-14-99
WL a err acon RIG Mobile B-57 FOREMAN DJD
WL APPROVED ESW JOB# 22995081
LOG OF TEST BORING NO. TB-7 Page 1 of 1
OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
Rollin Consulting
SlTNorthwest corner of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 PROJECT
Weld County, Colorado Proposed Gravel Pit
SAMPLES QQ TESTS
Oo - O * WZg p
U DESCRIPTION y? rN� F' �,'
a m N m h , o z zI'+
2 51 u g Iti zs o >. zo Q E
u Approx. Surface Elev.: Grade ft. o o z am x cg ut 9 g
2.5 A" 0.5
\LEAN TO FAT CLAY WITH SAND, silty, — SP
Q s+ \ dark gray brown, moist to wet. I -
n0._a
°B e 5 — SP SS 14/12
a :4 _
''.6....:07 -
—
Q. —
pQ.e� —
'nQ 4 10 SS 24/12
O .q —
Q 4. —
OO. —
Q:e —
n.4.r —
SAND WITH GRAVEL , slightly silty, more SS 39/12
4.:.o. gh Y 15 -
[d. a
o. and larger gravel with increasing depth,
..Q o,o —_
rusty brown, orange, wet, medium dense —
_
to dense. —
D :p
o.Q.e.'--c 20—
—
v.4.:4 —
c. •a —
44./
'4---
26.0 25 —
CLAYST0NE, silty, moderate plasticity, -
30.0 gray, slightly moist.
r 30-
BOTTOM OF BORING
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES
BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
'� WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 5-14-99 1WL 4 5/14/99 2' = 5/21/99 2' BORING COMPLETED 5-14-99
WL s err acon RIG Mobile B-57 FOREMAN DJD
WL APPROVED ESW JOB# 22995081
LOG OF TEST BORING NO. TB-8 Page 1 of 1
OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
Rollin Consulting
sITlpVorthwest corner of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 PROJECT
Weld County, Colorado Proposed Gravel Pit
SAMPLES TESTS
a' J
0 Z * E wz ,2
Ica
S DESCRIPTION b FAE'w Z . c pa
u 54 a 3 As u2 < E
0 Approx. Surface Elev.: Grade ft. c 0 z Ai S 2 8g E°u s i g
j 7 0.5 \TOPSOA —
—
% 3.0 LEAN TO FAT CLAY WITH SAND, silty,y _ Sp
o :.a \ dark gray brown, moist to wet. / _
D,'Q•:e 5 — SP SS 19/12
4:?: c
0'0:
.14-° _
u. .v
f.:5,::vd
-v p:
10 SS 24/12
G 'V —
R O. —
0'Qd _
°o o -
°'6'' 15 SS 31/12
:a o. —
a.O:d —
u. o
p.o; —
a4'.d _
?o e. SAND WITH GRAVEL, slightly silty, more —
4'a`? and larger gravel with increasing depth, 20=
. c
:a'" rusty brown, orange,wet, medium dense _
O.Q,d —
o.a to dense. —
?a as 25 - SS 39/12
0,'i6'1 =
O'e _
(94.*? _
o. .v —
O e, _
n e
.:0 30=
,a.e -
n a. _
!" _0'ti —
?'p:' 34.0 =
694 35.0 CLAYSTON$, silty, moderate plasticity, 35—
gray, slightly moist to moist. f
BOTTOM OF BORING
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES
BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 5-20-99
WL 2 5/20/99 2.5' 1 5/21/99 2.5' BORING COMPLETED 5-20-99
WL n err acon RIG Mobile B-57 FOREMAN DJD
WL APPROVED ESW JOB# 22995081
LOG OF TEST BORING NO. TB-9 Page 1 of 1
r OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
Rollin Consulting
slT$lorthwest corner of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 PROJECT
Weld County, Colorado Proposed Gravel Pit
SAMPLES TESTS
a' Zg
DESCRIPTION gE- W yy X o O s
iig
o Approx. Surface Elev.: Grade ft. c z m m 2 c g' o u to 3 t g
' 0.5\TOPSOi —
3.5 LEAN TO FAT CLAY WITH SAND, silty CE-CH
dark gray brown, moist to wet. —
SP SS 5/12
?d` 5 _
o. . L
4-o:
46 _
—
�Oe -
Q 10 — SS 17/12
pQ.a
aa:ti -
p c _
-O'o
q.Q:z 15 — SS 29/12
oe
4.4: -
n Qa SAND WITH GRAVFI , slightly silty, more -
.oa
it4':i and larger gravel with increasing depth, 20—
,e2:,?; rusty brown, orange, wet, loose to -
4.6 i medium dense. -
0 c _
D4 ' — SS 21/12
°d:a 25
--: o
.40.-: -
—
.P.".6'd
o :v -
O:e. -
.1:-0: 30=
a 7,..4:‘ 33.0 -
35.0 SJ,AYSTONF, silty, moderate plasticity, -
gray, slightly moist to moist.
/
35—
BOTTOM OF BORING
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES
BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: INS1TU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
�� WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 5-14-99
WL S7 5/14/99 2' Y 5/21/99 2' BORING COMPLETED 5-14-99
WL G err acon RIG_ Mobile B-57 FOREMAN DJD
WL APPROVED ESW JOB# 22995081
LOG OF TEST BORING NO. TB-4 Page 1 of 1
OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
Rollin Consulting
sITgyorthwest corner of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 PROJECT
Weld County, Colorado Proposed Gravel Pit
SAMPLES rr TESTS
DESCRIPTION ' ry �+ C)DESCRIPTION
pp�� m y
0 Approx. Surface Elev.: Grade ft. c a z m i 8g at I! i b
��(4
0.5. \TOPSOIL / cg-CH-
\J FAN TO FAT CLAY W1TA SAND, dark L -SM
4.0 l rusty brown, very moist. $
-.d ac. SILTY SAND, slightly clayey, gray,pink / 5 - SP SS 5/12
4 brown, rust, moist to wet. —
-_
' :
Q e: _
-
.O
10 - SS 7/12
Q.4
0QY _
b-:.v _
;Q 4. -
<o SS 32/12
°b ' 15
o:. c —
:4 —
—
. Qa
d ..j
20—
ert .
'd: :4 SAND WITH GRAVF.J , slightly silty, _
Q: _
'4' :o slightly more and larger gravel with —
:0:c?. _
4:! increasing depth, rusty brown, orange, 25—
°0 0' wet, loose to dense.
4:M _
..: l
—
idi:e _
Q:ci
-0: 30=
C. .c
O.o: -
4.! _
.Q'ti —
.a.a 35=
:fri:A _
o: —
Q4 —
pQe —
-:.. 40.0 -
BOTTOM OF BORING 40
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES
BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
r WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 5-14-99
WL 4 5/14/99 3' t 5/21/99 V BORING COMPLETED 5-14-99
WL n lierracon RIG Mobile B-57 FOREMAN DJD
WL APPROVED ESW JOB ft 22995081
LOG OF TEST BORING NO. TB-5 Page 1 of 1
r OWNER/CLIENT I ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
Rollin Consulting
slTQtorthwest corner of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 PROJECT
Weld County, Colorado Proposed Gravel Pit
SAMPLES TESTS
4
t7 .] z be >, a W
UDESCRIPTION SQ Z id ti F o V l
0 Approx. Surface Elev.: Grade ft. a z o, m o .. u h nil y lYY
}},, ' 0.5 TOPSOIL
c 2.0'J,EAN CLAY WITH SAHD, silty, dark CL-CH
' e brown, rusty, moist to very moist. _
5 — SP SS 14/12
-9.4.? _
o .v -
O:o, -
Q:o -
0, _
°O " SS 21/12
a:4 10 _
e SS 32/12
4.1.4.:.4 SAND WITH GRAVEL, more and larger 15 _
°p.4° gravel with increasing depth,rusty -
. _e brown, orange, wet, medium dense to —
.0 e: dense. —
a.'O:a
o.'..
O..e. 20—
:0.4;1
ro.. —
0c _
5...0,=..
0 _
4';6':4 SS 39/12
d. : t 25
27.0 -
SS 50/6
30.0 et'AYSTONE, silty, moderate plasticity,
gray, slighlty moist to moist,hard. /--- 30-
BOTTOM OF BORING
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES
BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSTTION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 5-20-99
WL 2 5/20/99 2' I 5/21/99 2' BORING COMPLETED 5-20-99
WL s [err a c O n RIG Mobile B-57 FOREMAN DJD
WL APPROVED ESW JOB a 22995081
LOG OF TEST BORING NO. TB-6 Page 1 of 1
,^ OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
Rollin Consulting
slTINorthwest corner of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 PROJECT
Weld County, Colorado Proposed Gravel Pit
SAMPLES TESTS
U DESCRIPTION P Z
2 W y g 4 W.7 >Q ZO1 7 < E.
o Approx. Surface Elev.: Grade ft. c o z a m 2 o g o u ti @ 3 g
f' 0.5 \TOPSOTT -
3.0 LEAN TO FAT CLAY WITH SANT), silty, _
°O;;! \ dark brown, gray brown, moist to wet. -
-
:0:6:, 5 — SP SS 4/12
0.•.. ;Y -
o. .v —
:Y7:v, —
4: —
°o.�:` 10 - SS 26/12
Loo _
?a?. =
19Q:4 _
a
0.o -
_
.0:6:i
Q:. .< 15 — SS 24/12
Oo _
O-0:Y —
' .U, 00
aQ:a _
;- ••• SAND WITH GRAVEL, slighlty silty, more —
it6.:e and larger gravel with increased depth, 20—
o
a:", rusty brown, orange,wet,loose to
v6'e medium dense. -
n d _
" 'a
.0d. 25—
D4.Y
.go...". -
0 46 < —
o. .o
-04:` 30=
—
a:4 =
°0:° 34.0 i -
l- 35.0 rT,AYSTONF, silty, moderate plasticity, 35—
' gray, slightly moist. '
BOTTOM OF BORING
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES
BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: NSITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 54499
WL 1� 4 5/14/99 3' = 5/21/99 3' 1rerracon RIG BORING COMPLETED FOREMAN
° Mobile W57 um
WL APPROVED ESW JOB II 22995081
■
■� ■ Eric L. Brocke, P.E.
Transportation Engineering & Planning
Memorandum
Ta: Mr. ICen Rollin. RoLLin Consulting
l
Mr. Drew 5cheLtinga.Veld County Engineer ;
from: Eric L Bracke.P.E.
Pate: November 3.2002
RE.: NCO.At#1 Traffic Impact Analysis
The NCCI Pit Number 1 is a proposed aggregate mining operation located on the
northwest quadrant of Weld County Road 18 and Weld County Road 25. The site is
located several miles northwest of Fort Lupton. The location of the site is displayed in
Figure 1.
This TIS follows the established guidelines for typical traffic impact studies as
appropriate to the proposed project. The following key steps were undertaken as part of
this study:
• Obtain current traffic and roadway data in the immediate area of the site.
• Evaluate current traffic operations to establish a base condition.
• Determine site generated traffic volumes and distribute this traffic to the adjacent
street system.
• Project roadway traffic volumes for the first, fifth, and twenty year of operation of
the NCCI pit.
• Evaluate traffic operations with the short-term and long-term project
development.
• Identify areas of potential deficiencies.
• Recommend measures to mitigate the impact of the site generated traffic and
growth in background traffic as appropriate.
Prior to the commencement of this TIS, discussions were held with the CDOT Access
Management Unit of Region IV and with the Weld County Engineer. It was determined
that the only key intersection that was required to be evaluated was the intersection of US
85 and WCR 18.
EXHIBIT
■ ■
2718 Granada Hills Drive* Fort Collins, CO 80525 * Phone(970) 225-0601
■
.____L L4,1,,,,
,
pill \
—._._ ..;__..ate,--
— r
iiiii '72T.
i,,
_pmt... - - --- ._.. .....,, iati26;.. i. --m;
i r,i,
s A» ... ; AY.�,� ;;,ia,,
i ...._ i
a
I.�.._.... __.'_,:,../9,i..;._14112_.
ill • -•• .- 01 t --_ 4: .,�1...._.
t h�
il
52•: Hwy 52 Hwy 52 P'; .� 4:,i—I I4w S2 6Y Hwy 52
1
,9 21 23 B3 .
®2000 AicroSOR endlcr to S s Al jj reserved. y, 1 n t2
Figure I: Site Location
r
2
Existing Conditions
The current site is currently in agricultural use and is consistent with the existing land
uses of the area. The terrain is considered flat from a traffic engineering perspective.
The location is approximately 1 mile west of US 85.
WCR 18 is a paved roadway with a 30-foot cross-section, painted edge line, and a double
yellow centerline. There is no posted speed limit on WCR 18. The pavement appears to
be recently constructed and in excellent condition.
US 85 is classified as an Expressway under the State Highway Access Category
Assignment Schedule dated October 21, 1999. The roadway has a four-lane cross-
section, center grass median, and a posted speed of 65 mph. The pavement appears to be
in fair to good condition. At the intersection of WCR 18,there are auxiliary lanes in place
for the left and right turns and acceleration lanes for north and southbound merging from
the minor street. The auxiliary lanes that are of importance to this project include:
• SB right turn deceleration lane — approximately 1200 feet in length of
which 800 feet is full lane width.
• NB right turn lane- approximately 500 feet in length, which includes 242
feet of full lane width storage.
• SB acceleration lane—approximately 1400 feet
Recent peak hour turning movements were conducted at the key intersection in
November 2002. The peak hour counts included the morning (7:00-9:00) and the
afternoon (4:00-6:00). No bicycle or pedestrian activity was observed during the count
periods. No capacity related problems such as long queues or delays were observed. The
existing peak hour traffic volumes are displayed in Figure 2 and the raw count data is
found in Appendix A.
r
3
c() .' a'
L I4/t9
- 4/3
41 1 .e" 7/16
= \VCIZ 18
�5 ..► site
50/50 S Nrn
fifi
t
North
co
Figure 2: Current Peak Liour Turning Movements
AM/PM
4
Operational Analysis
The key intersection was evaluated and the peak hour operation is displayed in Table 1.
Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. The analysis of the intersection is based
unsignalized intersection techniques of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000
HCM). Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the conditions
of traffic flow, ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at
LOS F. During the peak hours, the current operation of the intersection is considered
acceptable.
Table I- Existing Operations. November 2002
UO85 and\VCR18
Lane Group AM PM
LOS(delay seconds) LOS (delay seconds)
1B LT C(169) C(21.6)
EB 12. 15(117) ,(109)
E6 Approach 13(124) (3(13.9)
\\/5. LT 0(153) P(25.1)
\V6 R A(99) 6(12.4)
\\/5 Approach 6(123 C(20.1)
N� L A(95) 3 (11.1)
56 L A(85) 6(132
5
Trip Generation and Trip Distribution
Site generated traffic is normally estimated using the standard generation rates and
procedures consistent with those presented in Trip Generation, 6`n Edition. A trip is
defined as a one-way vehicle movement from an origin to a destination. However, ITE
does not have any trip generation studies for mining activities. In discussions with the
developer of the project, it was estimated that the site would average 60 trucks per day
(120 trips) and for conservative purposes, it is assumed that there will be 20 employees.
It is also assumed that there will similar characteristics of heavy industrial trip generation.
Based on these assumptions, the following trip generation is estimated.
• Daily—200 trips
• AM In-21 Trips
• AM out—9 trips
• PM in—21 trips
• PM out—9 trips
Discussions with the developer indicate that 10%of the trips will head west towards I-25
and the remaining 90% will head east towards US 85. At the US 85 intersection it is
assumed that there will be an even distribution between north and south. The site-
generated trips are shown in Figure 3 on the following page.
r
6
c2,
�... 0/0
!1J 1 14 r 0/0
\VCIZ 18
5/10 - qtr
0/0
5/10
000
t
North
CO
Figure 3 bite Generated Traffic
AM/PM
Total Traffic Projections
The site-generated traffic was then added to the existing traffic to determine the total
traffic for the existing condition. Traffic projections for the first year of operation (2003),
the fifth year (2007), and the twentieth year (2022) were increased by 1.5% per year to
account for the growth in background traffic. Figure 4, 5, and 6 display the total traffic
projections for the morning and afternoon peak hours for the years 2003, 2007, and 2022,
respectively.
Rio
`�• r\ L 4/19
11. t ;/16 \VCR.18
9/18
4/12
56/61 Z
m °�
I
North
co
Figure 4 Year 2003 Total Traffic
AM/PM
8
N
u)
0 - i 15/21
"g 4en AM
1 5 h r 7/17
1 W0R18
lo/t9 1 I I.
59/65 cv
voce
I
North
N
co
so
Figure 5 Year 2007 TotaL Traffic
AM/PM
9
rn
18/25
rn N1 5/i7
044 r 9/2
moT \vC 18
12/23 i t r
5/16
72/78 ..Z (0
� q
0\
t
North
CO
Figure 6 Year 2022 TotaL Traffic
,4M/PM
10
Traffic Impact Analysis
Capacity Analyses were performed at the key intersection for both the morning and
afternoon peak hours for each of the analysis years. The results of the analysis are
displayed in Table 2 and 3 shown below. All of the critical movements continue to
operate at acceptable levels of service. In the long-range future (2022) the critical
movements of the east and westbound left turn, move into LOS E, which is typical for
this type of facility. The delay and queue lengths at these critical movements are not
considered excessive.
Table 2-Capacity Analysis Years 2003,2007 8 2022
LlO 85 and\VCR.18
Lane croup
2003 2007 2022
AM PM AM PM AM PM
n LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS
GB LT C075) C(221) C(185) C(2 As) C(23J) E(35.9)
Lb P_ b(118) 6(11.0) b(121) 6(113) b(13.6) 6(124)
E6 Approach 6(129) 6 047) 6(15.3) C(15.7) C(I54) ' C 202)
\V6 LT C(58) D(261) C(165) D(294) C(19.9) L(/160)
\v51Z A(99) E.(12d) 6(101) 6(129) 6(10.6) 6 05)
\V6 Approach 6(125) C(207) 6(029) C(229) 6(I47) D(33.6)
ND L A(96) 6012) A(9.8) 6(115) B(107) 6(126)
$6L A(85) 6(133) A(8.6) 603.9) A(90) 016.1)
r
11
Table 3-Average Queue Length-AnaLysis Years 2003.2007 5 2022
Uo 85 and\VCR 6
Lane crow
2003 2007 2022
AM PM am PM AM PM
feet feet feet feet feet feet
D LT 4 2 4 0 7 26
L R 9 8 9 9 0 13
\V6 LT 3 14 3 7 5 32
\VBR 2 3 2 4 2 5
NsL i 6 2 6 2 9
36L I 4 i 4 2 6
Conclusion
This Transportation Impact Study assessed the impacts of the proposed NCCI Pit #1 in
Weld County, Colorado for the short and long term upon the street system in the vicinity
of the proposed development. The findings of the study are as follows:
-* The intersection of US85/WCR18 currently operates under acceptable
levels of service.
—> The project is expected to generate approximately 200 trip ends per day.
-* From a traffic engineering perspective, the project is feasible.
—> Impacts to the State and local street system are minimal. Sufficient
capacity exists to handle the new traffic.
--> In the short and long-term, the key intersection will operate acceptably,
including the critical movements.
—> The auxiliary lanes and radii at the intersection meet CDOT standards
- A traffic signal at the intersection is not likely to be warranted in the 20-
year future.
12
APPENDIX A
Eric L. Bracke, P.E.
Traffic Impact Study
NCCI Aggregate
November 2002
14467 NCR 9
th/South Street: Us Highway 85 Wellington, CO File Name : US 85 and CF
t/West Street: County Rd 18 970-568-3203 Site Code :00000085
e:AM Start Date : 10/31/2002
3ther:Cloudy Page No : 1
i-. Groups Printed-Unshifted
US Highway 85 County Rd 18 US Highway 85 County Rd 18
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
art Time Righ Thru Left Ped App. Righ Thru Left Ped App. Righ Thru Left Ped App. Righ Thai Left Ped App.
s Total t s Total t s Total t s Total To
Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
7:00 AM 2 177 3 0 182 6 3 2 0 11 2 110 10 0 122 12 1 1 0 14 3:
7:15 AM 4 184 3 0 191 4 0 0 0 4 1 115 8 0 124 12 0 1 0 13 3:
7:30 AM 4 218 5 0 227 1 0 2 0 3 1 129 8 0 138 14 1 0 0 15 31
7:45 AM 2 169 2 0 173 3 1 3 0 7 3 113 5 0 121 12 2 2 0 16 3'
Total 12 748 13 0 773 14 4 7 0 25 7 467 31 0 505 50 4 4 0 58 131
3:00 AM 2 150 3 0 155 4 1 0 0 5 1 91 2 0 94 11 0 3 0 14 21
3:15 AM 3 145 5 0 153 0 3 4 0 7 0 75 3 0 78 8 1 2 0 11 2•
3:30 AM 2 111 6 0 119 2 0 2 0 4 3 75 8 0 86 8 1 2 0 11 2:
3:45 AM 2 111 2 0 115 2 1 6 0 9 1 99 5 0 105 8 0 1 0 9 2:
Total 9 517 16 0 542 8 5 12 0 25 5 340 18 0 363 35 2 8 0 45 9"
nd Total 21 1 29 0 1315 22 9 19 0 50 12 807 49 0 868 85 6 12 0 103 23:
pprch% 1.6 96.2 2.2 0.0 44.0 18.0 38.0 0.0 1.4 93.0 5.6 0.0 82.5 5.8 11.7 0.0
Total% 0.9 54.2 1.2 0.0 56.3 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.1 0.5 34.5 2.1 0.0 37.2 3.6 0.3 0.5 0.0 4.4
US Highway 85
Oe84411 13151 I In Total61
1 1211 12651 291 01
ht Thlru Left Peds
I IY
om O
(g — North — O
v a ti �2 — c
� c� 10r31/20027:00:00 AM — —°I�'7
— m s 10/31/2002 8:45:00 AM o 23
g — fY + �5 is —
On om Unshitee
Q o
mw
T FD
Left Thru Right Peds
1 491 8071 121 01
1
13891 I 6691 1 22371
Out In Total
US HIohwav 85
•
• 14467 NCR 9
th/South Street: Us Highway 85 Wellington, CO File Name : US 85 and CF
t/West Street:County Rd 18 970-568-3203 Site Code : 00000085
e: PM Start Date : 10/31/2002
3ther:Cioudy Page No : 1
Groups Printed-Unshifted
' ' I US Highway 85 County Rd 18 US Highway 85 County Rd 18 I
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
art Time
Righ IThru Left Ped I App. Righ I Thru I Left I Ped App. Righ Thru I Left Ped App. Righ I Thru Left Ped I APP. h
t I s l Total t i i s Total t s i Total t I s I Total To
Factor! 1.0 I 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1.0 I 1.o I 1.0 1.o I 1.o I 1.0 1 1.o 1 to I 1.0 I
4:00 PM 1 119 2 0 122 4 3 2 0 9 9 228 9 0 246 12 2 3 0 17 3t
4:15 PM 1 162 4 0 167 2 2 3 0 7 2 257 12 0 271 17 1 0 0 18 41
4:30 PM 0 172 6 0 178 3 0 2 0 5 7 223 12 0 242 12 5 2 0 19 I 4
4:45 PM 2 165 4 0 171 l 2 2 6 0 10 7 253 4 0 264 13 1 2 0 16 I 41
Total 4 618 16 0 6381 11 7 13 0 31 25 961 37 0 10231, 54 9 7 0 701, 171
5:00 PM 0 141 3 0 144 5 0 2 0 7 3 235 10 0 248 I 10 1 1 0 12 4'
5:15 PM 1 130 6 0 137 9 1 6 0 16 6 216 8 0 230 1 15 5 3 0 23 41
5:30 PM 2 125 1 0 128 4 1 0 0 5 3 219 8 0 230 9 2 3 0 14 a
5:45 PM 2 113 1 0 116 5 1 5 0 11 3 178 12 0 193 I 9 0 0 0 9 3:
Total 5 509 11 0 525 1 23 3 13 0 39 ! 15 848 38 0 901 I 43 8 7 0 58 I 15:
nd Total 9 11 27 0 1163 34 10 26 0 70 40 180 75 0 1924 I 97 17 14 0 128 321
pprch% 0.8 96.9 2.3 0.0 48.6 14.3 37.1 0.0 2.1 94.0 3.9 0.0 75.8 13.3 10.9 0.0
Total% 0.3 34.3 0.8 0.0 35.4 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 2.1 1.2 55.1 2.3 0.0 58.6 3.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 3.9 I
US Highway 85
Out In Total
I 18571 1 11631 r��
I
1 i
I 91 11271 271 01
Right Th1ru Left Pees
pot-,.
N Q } -
FN `� t ��_- >en O
m North -i -
t-1 c c
� - F 20
y - 10/31/20024:00:00 PM - 5'2
- m= 1031/2002 5:45:00 PM a0 2
gw tt i . - m
O 5 at Unabted is
-— o
OT.
a mo v-
I-I T r
Left Thru Right Peds
I 751 _18091 O 0
I 12501 1 19241 I 31741
Out In Total
US Highway 85
r
APPENDIX B
Eric L. Bracke, RE
Traffic Impact Study
NEC!Aggregate
November2002
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: WCR 18 & US 85 11/2/2002
N ! 4\ t t ` 1 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4 P 4 r 'i tt r 1 tt r
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 4 4 50 7 4 14 3 467 7 13 748 12
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate(veh/h) 4 4 54 8 4 15 3 508 8 14 813 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed(ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type Raised Raised
Median storage veh) 2 2
vC, conflicting volume 1104 1355 407 951 1355 254 813 508
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 841 841 514 514
vC2,stage 2 conf vol 262 514 437 841
tC, single(s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC,2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 99 99 91 98 99 98 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 303 322 594 390 323 746 810 1053
Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4
Volume Total 9 54 12 15 3 254 254 8 14 407 407 13
Volume Left 4 0 8 0 3 0 0 0 14 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 54 0 15 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 13
cSH 312 594 363 746 810 1700 1700 1700 1053 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.01
Queue Length (ft) 2 8 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Control Delay(s) 16.9 11.7 15.3 9.9 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C B C A A A
Approach Delay(s) 12.4 12.3 0.1 0.1
Approach LOS B B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.2% ICU Level of Service A
NCCI Aggregate 11/2/2002 AM existing Synchro 5 Report
Eric L. Bracke, P.E. Page 1
7ORTCOCO-ST51
\
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: WCR 18 & US 85 11/2/2002
f —• r4.— k4\ t , ' 41
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4 r 4 1r 'I ti r 1 ft r
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume(veh/h) 8 12 50 16 13 19 34 937 23 19 608 3
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 9 13 54 17 14 21 37 1018 25 21 661 3
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed(ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type Raised Raised
Median storage veh) 2 2
vC, conflicting volume 1292 1795 330 1471 1795 509 661 1018
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 702 702 1092 1092 0 0
vC2,stage 2 conf vol 590 1092 378 702 0 0
tC, single(s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC,2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 3.1 3.1
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 97 94 92 91 94 96 94 96
cM capacity(veh/h) 277 219 665 199 226 509 628 460
Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4
Volume Total 22 54 32 21 37 509 509 25 21 330 330 3
Volume Left 9 0 17 0 37 0 0 0 21 0 0 0
Volume RigM 0 54 0 21 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 3
cSH 239 665 210 509 628 1700 1700 1700 460 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.08 0.15 0.04 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.01 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.00
Queue Length(ft) 7 7 13 3 5 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
Control Delay(s) 21.6 10.9 25.1 12.4 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS CBDBB B
Approach Delay(s) 13.9 20.1 0.4 0.4
Approach LOS B C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.8% ICU Level of Service A
NCCI Aggregate 11/2/2002 PM existing Synchro 5 Report
Eric L. Bracke, P.E. Page 1
FORTCOCO-ST51
APPENDIX C
Eric L. f3t-acke, RE
Traffic Impact Study
NEC!Aggregate
November 2002
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: WCR 18 & US 85 11/3/2002
f —. l I 4- 4%- 4\ t , \ 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4 F 4 r rl ft r 'f 'If r
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 9 4 55 7 4 14 13 467 7 13 748 22
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate(veh/h) 10 4 60 8 4 15 14 513 8 14 821 24
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed(fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type Raised Raised
Median storage veh) 2 2
vC, conflicting volume 1137 1391 411 983 1391 256 821 513
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 850 850 541 541
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 287 541 441 850
tC, single(s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC,2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free% 97 99 90 98 99 98 98 99
cM capacity(veh/h) 297 315 590 371 309 743 804 1049
Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4
Volume Total 14 60 12 15 14 256 256 8 14 411 411 24
Volume Left 10 0 8 0 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 60 0 15 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 24
cSH 302 590 346 743 804 1700 1700 1700 1049 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.01
Queue Length (ft) 4 9 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 17.5 11.8 15.8 9.9 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C B C A A A
Approach Delay(s) 12.9 12.5 0.3 0.1
Approach LOS B B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.8% ICU Level of Service A
NCCI Aggregate 11/2/2002 AM 2003 w traffic Synchro 5 Report
Eric L. Bracke, P.E. Page 1
FORTCOCO-ST51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: WCR 18 & US 85 11/3/2002
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r P} r t? r
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume(veh/h) 18 12 60 16 13 19 39 937 23 19 608 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate(veh/h) 20 13 66 18 14 21 43 1029 25 21 667 9
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type Raised Raised
Median storage veh) 2 2
vC, conflicting volume 1316 1823 334 1496 1823 514 667 1029
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 709 709 1114 1114 0 0
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 607 1114 382 709 0 0
tC, single(s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC,2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 3.1 3.1
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 93 94 90 91 93 96 93 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 269 212 662 190 218 505 624 456
Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4
Volume Total 33 66 32 21 43 514 514 25 21 334 334 9
Volume Left 20 0 18 0 43 0 0 0 21 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 66 0 21 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 9
cSH 243 662 202 505 624 1700 1700 1700 456 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.10 0.16 0.04 0.07 0.30 0.30 0.01 0.05 0.20 0.20 0.01
Queue Length(ft) 12 8 14 3 6 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
Control Delay(s) 22.1 11.0 26.1 12.4 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS CBDBB B
Approach Delay(s) 14.7 20.7 0.4 0.4
Approach LOS B C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service A
NCCI Aggregate 11/2/2002 PM 2003 w/traffic Synchro 5 Report
Eric L. Bracke, P.E. Page 1
FORTCOCO-ST51
APPENDIX D
Eric L. Bracke,
Tra`/7c Impact Study
NCCI Aggregate
November 2002
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: WCR 18 & US 85 11/3/2002
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r ff r R tt r
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 9 4 55 7 4 14 13 467 7 13 748 22
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate(veh/h) 10 5 64 8 5 16 15 543 8 15 870 26
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type Raised Raised
Median storage veh) 2 2
vC, conflicting volume 1204 1474 435 1041 1474 272 870 543
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 900 900 573 573
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 304 573 468 900
tC, single(s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage(s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free% 96 98 89 98 98 98 98 99
cM capacity(veh/h) 276 297 569 350 291 726 770 1022
Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4
Volume Total 15 64 13 16 15 272 272 8 15 435 435 26
Volume Left 10 0 8 0 15 0 0 0 15 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 64 0 16 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 26
cSH 282 569 326 726 770 1700 1700 1700 1022 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.11 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.26 0.26 0.02
Queue Length (ft) 4 9 3 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Control Delay(s) 18.5 12.1 16.5 10.1 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS CBCB A A
Approach Delay (s) 13.3 12.9 0.3 0.1
Approach LOS B B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3% ICU Level of Service A
NCCI Aggregate 11/2/2002 AM 2007 w traffic Synchro 5 Report
Eric L. Bracke, P.E. Page 1
FORTCOCO-ST51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: WCR 18 & US 85 11/3/2002
.- i 7 / ~ 4 1 T P ` d
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4 l+ 4 r ' 'M r iii tat r
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume(veh/h) 18 12 60 16 13 19 39 937 23 19 608 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 21 14 70 19 15 22 46 1100 27 22 714 9
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed(fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type Raised Raised
Median storage veh) 2 2
vC, conflicting volume 1408 1950 357 1600 1950 550 714 1100
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 758 758 1192 1192 0 0
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 649 1192 409 758 0 0
tC, single(s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage(s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 3.1 3.1
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free% 91 93 89 89 92 95 92 95
cM capacity(veh/h) 245 191 640 169 198 479 600 429
Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4
Volume Total 35 70 34 22 46 550 550 27 22 357 357 9
Volume Left 21 0 19 0 46 0 0 0 22 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 70 0 22 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 9
cSH 220 640 181 479 600 1700 1700 1700 429 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.11 0.19 0.05 0.08 0.32 0.32 0.02 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.01
Queue Length(ft) 14 9 17 4 6 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
Control Delay(s) 24.5 11.3 29.4 12.9 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS CBDBB B
Approach Delay(s) 15.7 22.9 0.4 0.4
Approach LOS C C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.1% ICU Level of Service A
NCCI Aggregate 11/2/2002 PM 2007 w/traffic Synchro 5 Report
Eric L. Bracke, P.E. Page 1
FORTCOCO-ST51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: WCR 18 & US 85 11/3/2002
f —• 1 f '- 1 t r ti 4d
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4 r 4r M ft P vi tt it
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 9 4 55 7 4 14 13 467 7 13 748 22
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 13 6 78 10 6 20 18 660 10 18 1057 31
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type Raised Raised
Median storage veh) 2 2
vC, conflicting volume 1463 1790 528 1265 1790 330 1057 660
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1094 1094 697 697
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 370 697 568 1094
tC, single(s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage(s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5
tF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free% 94 98 84 96 98 97 97 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 210 237 495 277 229 666 655 924
Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4
r Volume Total 18 78 16 20 18 330 330 10 18 528 528 31
Volume Left 13 0 10 0 18 0 0 0 18 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 78 0 20 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 31
cSH 218 495 258 666 655 1700 1700 1700 924 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.16 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.31 0.02
Queue Length(ft) 7 14 5 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
Control Delay(s) 23.1 13.6 19.9 10.6 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS CBCBB A
Approach Delay(s) 15.4 14.7 0.3 0.1
Approach LOS C B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.4% ICU Level of Service A
r
NCCI Aggregate 11/2/2002 AM 2022 w traffic Synchro 5 Report
Eric L. Bracke, P.E. Page 1
FORTCOCO-ST51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: WCR 18 & US 85 11/3/2002
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r 1 ft r Its r
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 18 12 60 16 13 19 39 937 23 19 608 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 25 17 85 23 18 27 55 1324 32 27 859 11
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type Raised Raised
Median storage veh) 2 2
vC, conflicting volume 1694 2347 430 1926 2347 662 859 1324
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 913 913 1434 1434 0 0
vC2,stage 2 conf vol 781 1434 492 913 0 0
tC, single(s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 3.1 3.1
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free% 86 87 85 81 87 93 90 92
cM capacity(veh/h) 179 134 574 116 145 404 529 352
Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4
Volume Total 42 85 41 27 55 662 662 32 27 430 430 11
Volume Left 25 0 23 0 55 0 0 0 27 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 85 0 27 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 11
cSH 158 574 128 404 529 1700 1700 1700 352 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.27 0.15 0.32 0.07 0.10 0.39 0.39 0.02 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.01
Queue Length(ft) 26 13 32 5 9 0 0 0 6 0 0 0
Control Delay(s) 35.9 12.4 46.0 14.5 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS E B EBB C
Approach Delay(s) 20.2 33.6 0.5 0.5
Approach LOS C D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.3% ICU Level of Service A
r
NCCI Aggregate 11/2/2002 PM 2022 w/traffic Synchro 5 Report
Eric L. Bracke, P.E. Page 1
FORTCOCOST51
ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. RIC
Premiere Building
825 Delaware Ave.,Suite 500
Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 772-5282
Metro (303) 665-6283
FAX(303) 665-6959
(first initial, last name)Olong.rmcco.com
January 10,2002
Mr.Ken Rollin
Rollin Consulting
840 Eagle Drive
Eaton,CO 80615
Re: Northern Colorado Constructors,Inc.(NCCI)Pit No. 1 Substitute Water Supply Plan
Dear Ken:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the current status of the above referenced project. We have
completed a majority of the substitute water supply plan(SWSP),with the exception than we have not yet
determined or established a replacement water supply. The estimated annual mining depletions resulting
from the mining operations at NCCI Pit No. 1 will initially be about 14.27 acre-feet per year. NCCI
purchased three(3) shares of Lupton Meadows Ditch(Cert.No. 0632)that were historically used at the
mining site. The historical return flow obligation associated with this water is estimated to be 2.86 acre-
feet per year and the estimated farm headgate delivery is estimated to be 6.33 acre-feet per year.
Therefore,the net result of mining operations and use of three shares of Lupton Meadows Ditch for
replacement is a deficit of 10.80 acre-feet per year(see Table 6 for calculations).
An additional 10 shares of Lupton Meadows Ditch(Cert.No. 0646)were purchased by NCCI for
purposes of providing replacement water for the mining operations at Pit No. 1. Unfortunately,we have
been unable to identify that lands where these 10 shares were historically applied. We believe that in
order for the State'to accept this water as a replacement source for the substitute water supply plan,we
must identify the lands that were historically irrigated by the shares and prove dry-up of those lands. We
contacted the ditch company in an effort to identify the historically irrigated land associated with the 10
shares owned by NCCI. We were informed that the shares might have originated from a block of shares
that have been owned by the ditch company but have no historical use. The ditch company reportedly
sold these shares to generate revenue for the Coal Ridge Waste Dam improvements. If this is indeed the
source of the 10 shares owned by NCCI,the shares may be very difficult to use for anything other than
irrigation.
Unless historically irrigated lands can be identified,we recommend obtaining a two-year lease for 12.0
acre-feet of replacement water annually(10.80 acre-feet plus transit losses). We believe that a lease may
be obtained at the rate of$150 to$250 per acre-foot per year, or about$1,800 to $3,000 per year.
EXHIBIT
CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING • PLANNING
Rnc
Mr.Ken Rollin
January 10,2002
Page 2
Please let us know how to pursue the replacement water requirements. I anticipate that we could obtain a
lease contract for the replacement water and complete this plan within the next month.
Sincerely,
ROCKYMOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS,INC./6.Douglas C. Seely,P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
DCS:ds
G:\2614 006.mmc'Status_Rep1.doc
^ Table 1
EVAPORATIVE LOSSES
NCCI Pit No. 1
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Percent of Gross Average Effective Net Net Water Surface
Month Annual Evaporation Precipitation Precipitation Evaporation Evaporation for
Evaporation 0.62
acres
(inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (acre-feet)
January 3.0% 1.32 0.45 0.31 1.01 0.05
February 3.5% 1.54 0.39 0.27 1.27 0.07
March 5.5% 2.42 1.04 0.73 1.69 0.09
April 9.0% 3.96 1.48 1.04 2.92 0.15
May 12.0% 5.28 2.11 1.47 3.81 0.20
June 14.5% 6.38 1.62 1.13 5.25 0.27
July 15.0% 6.60 1.44 1.01 5.59 0.29
August 13.5% 5.94 1.37 0.96 4.98 0.26
September 10.0% 4.40 1.16 0.81 3.59 0.19
October 7.0% 3.08 0.84 0.59 2.49 0.13
November 4.0% 1.76 0.69 0.48 1.28 0.07
December 3.0% 1.32 0.42 0.29 1.03 0.05
Total 100.0% 44.00 13.00 9.10 34.90 1.82
Notes:
(1) From SW for elevations below 6,500 feet.
(2) Percent of Annual Evaporation•44•.
(3) From NOM Climatological Data Annual Summary,Colorado 1998.
(4) Column(3)•70%
(5) Column(2)-Column(4)
(6) Column(5)/12•0.62 acres(0.62 acres includes dewatering trench,collection basin,and recycle pond)
r
43-2614_006.mmc\NCCI ash.xis
Rocky Mountain Consultants,Inc. 1/1W02 Table 1
r--. Table 2
OPERATIONAL LOSSES
NCCI Pit No. 1
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Percent of Amount of Water Lost Water Used Sub-Total Total Evaporative Lagged
Month Annual Aggregate With Mined for Dust Operational and Operational Stream
Aggregate Production Aggregate Control Losses Losses Depletions
Production
(tons) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet)
January 3.3% 11,667 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.39 1.15
February 3.3% 11,667 0.34 0.24 0.58 0.65 1.06
March 10.0% 35,000 1.03 0.24 1.27 1.36 1.02
April 10.0% 35,000 1.03 0.24 1.27 1.42 1.08
May 10.0% 35,000 1.03 0.24 1.27 1.47 1.14
June 10.0% 35,000 1.03 0.24 1.27 1.54 1.19
July 10.0% 35,000 1.03 0.24 1.27 1.56 1.23
August 10.0% 35,000 1.03 0.24 1.27 1.53 1.27
September 10.0% 35,000 1.03 0.24 1.27 1.46 1.29
October 10.0% 35,000 1.03 0.24 1.27 1.40 1.30
November 10.0% 35,000 1.03 0.00 1.03 1.10 1.30
December 3.3% 11,667 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.39 1.25
Total 100.0% 350,000 10.30 2.16 - 12.45 14.27 14.27
Notes:
/^ (1) From NCCI
(2) Column(1)•350,000 tons per year
(3) Column(2)•2000•4%/62.4/43,560
(4) Based on 6000 gallons per day,Mon-Sat,Feb-Oct.
(5) Column(3)+Column(4)
(6) Column(5)+Table 1,Column(6)
(7) Column(5)losses lagged to stream,T-140,000 gpd/h,S-0.2,X-4,500 ft,W-10,600 It.
/^
43-2614_006.mmc1NCCI 301.xls
Rocky Mountain Consultants,Inc. 1/10/02 Table 2
,--- Table 3
•
LUPTON-MEADOWS DITCH
NCCI Pit No. 1
(all values In acre-feet)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec , Total
1950 567 1,279 2,389 2,007 1,573 1,489 1,440 10,744
1951 1,780 2,718 2,957 1,684 1,411 459 11,009
1952 176 1,884 3,437 2,665 1,883 1,485 1,469 12,998
1953 1,775 2,757 2,053 1,979 1,477 1,398 11,439
1954 594 1,525 1,479 1,573 1,566 1,487 1,341 9,566
1955 279 1,700 1,525 1,524 1,671 1,289 877 8,864
1956 526 1,973 2,495 1,568 1,548 1,390 1,439 0 10,939
1957 222 1,729 2,775 2,054 1,287 482 8,549
1958 33 753 2,309 1,756 1,577 1,329 994 0 8,750
1959 1,365 2,565 2,024 1,837 1,215 9,006
1960 633 968 2,785 2,498 1,646 1,413 441 10,384
1961 72 1,253 1,265 2,019 2,520 809 145 8,085
1962 258 2,465 1,853 2,267 1,725 1,457 1,187 11,212
1963 478 1,515 1,324 1,546 1,723 1,331 947 8,863
1964 222 1,551 1,553 1,715 1,876 1,448 1,338 399 10,103
1965 633 1,522 776 2,306 2,288 1,020 166 8,712
1966 823 1,592 1,563 1,640 1,707 1,198 304 8,827
1967 32 1,087 1,185 304 1,136 1,802 1,465 574 7,584
1968 626 1,489 2,092 2,069 2,095 1,600 398 10,369
1969 804 1,080 1,010 2,801 2,224 1,494 184 9,597
1970 1,806 1,302 2,743 2,645 1,010 9,505
1971 149 1,018 2,846 2,834 1,978 780 9,604
1972 1,113 1,459 1,325 2,240 1,651 439 426 8,654
1973 129 1,805 2,844 2,336 877 7,991
1974 56 1,893 1,948 2,343 2,005 765 177 9,186
1975 272 1,457 1,277 2,698 2,082 1,082 394 9,262
1976 908 1,387 2,009 2,191 2,431 934 28 9,886
1977 186 805 1,899 1,772 1,460 1,603 1,399 888 49 10,061
1978 925 706 1,940 2,389 1,758 1,414 728 9,861
1979 877 1,423 3,117 1,521 1,204 977 9,118
1980 274 2,218 2,665 2,317 1,250 701 9,424
1981 420 1,059 1,097 1,738 1,743 1,337 572 7,965
1982 1,014 1,206 1,224 2,194 2,168 904 169 8,878
1983 280 446 1,879 2,408 1,112 666 67 6,858
1984 977 1,920 2,862 1,815 992 49 8,616
1985 922 736 2,389 2,265 2,453 1,413 10,179
1986 169 307 1,434 1,997 3,069 2,464 1,488 85 11,012
1987 331 1,559 2,209 2,237 2,153 1,338 97 9,925
1988 410 1,863 2,321 2,426 2,103 1,144 790 406 11,464
1989 735 2,115 1,497 2,337 2,334 740 80 9,839
1990 177 1,882 2,061 2,551 2,224 1,135 104 10,135
1991 974 1,682 1,770 3,031 2,637 1,254 215 11,563
1992 369 1,975 1,947 2,712 1,818 1,070 471 118 10,480
1993 194 1,672 1,863 2,729 1,832 1,119 351 9,761
1994 701 1,978 2,354 1,827 1,962 1,287 319 10,428
1995 661 520 597 2,099 2,926 1,120 42 7,964
1996 41 743 1,877 1,780 2,409 1,999 894 74 9,816
1997 414 1,633 1,273 2,811 1,381 1,155 167 8,834
1998 59 433 1,732 2,107 2,502 1,822 1,021 123 9,798
1999 211 324 396 1,259 2,591 1,676 962 7,419
Average 0 0 14 423 1,367 1,798 2,294 1,984 1,195 485 21 0 9,582
NCCI Pro-Rata. 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.31 1.00 1.32 1.69 1.46 0.88 0.36 0.02 0.00 7.04
NCCI Shares- 3.0
Total Shares- 4084
Note: Lupton-Meadows ditch diversions calculated as 52.12%of the Lupton-Bottom total headgate diversion.
Rocky Mountain Consultants,Inc. <}3614 006.mmdNCCI 3M.xis
/10/02
Table 3
Table 4
POTENTIAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF IRRIGATION WATER
NCCI Pit No. 1
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Pasture Pasture Groundwater Irrigation
Month Grass 11 Contribution Potential
acres 36% CU
(in) (acre-ft) (acre-feet) (acre-ft)
January 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
February 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
March 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
April 1.02 0.94 0.34 0.60
May 2.05 1.88 0.68 1.20
June 3.99 3.66 1.32 2.34
July 5.20 4.77 1.72 3.05
August 4.42 4.06 1.46 2.60
September 2.55 2.33 0.84 1.49
October 0.93 0.85 0.31 0.54
November 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
December 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 20.16 18.48 6.65 11.83
Notes:
(1) From Blaney-Criddle Consumptive use analysis
(2) Column(1)/12• 11 acres
(3) Column(2)•36%
(4) Column(2)-Column(3)
r
43-2614_006.m m c\NCCI 3 sh.x l s
Rocky Mountain Consultants,Inc. 1/10/02 Table 4
) ) )
Table 5
HISTORIC IRRIGATION ANALYSIS
NCCI Pit No. 1
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Farm Available Potential Actual Historic Return Flows Total Historic
Month Headgate for Crop Consumptive Consumptive Irrigation Surface Deep Deep Historic Net
Deliveries Consumption Use Use Excess Runoff Percolation Percolation Return Stream
of Irrigation @ 20% @ 80% Flows Depletions
Water (unlagged) (lagged) (lagged)
(acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet)
January 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 -0.12
February 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 -0.11
March 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.10 -0.09
April 0.28 0.15 0.60 0.15 0.13 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.16
May 0.90 0.50 1.20 0.50 0.41 0.08 0.33 0.13 0.22 0.69
June 1.19 0.65 2.34 0.65 0.53 0.11 0.43 0.20 031 0.88
July 1.52 0.83 3.05 0.83 0.68 0.14 0.55 0.27 0.41 1.11
August 1.31 0.72 2.60 0.72 0.59 0.12 0.47 0.32 0.44 0.87
September 0.79 0.43 1.49 0.43 0.36 0.07 0.28 0.32 0.39 0.40
October 0.32 0.18 0.54 0.18 0.14 0.03 0.12 0.27 0.30 0.02
November 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.21 0.21 -0.19
December 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 -0.15
Total 6.33 3.48 11.83 3.47 2.86 0.57 2.29 2.29 2.86 3.47
Notes:
(1) Pro-rata river headgate diversion for 3 shares,less 10%ditch loss
(21 Column 11)•55%maximum efficiency
131 From Table 4,Column(4)
(41 Lesser of Column 12)and Column(3)
151 Column(I)-Column(4)
(6) 20%'Column(5)
(7) 80%•Column(5)
181 Output from Stream Depletion Model
(9) Column(6) + Column(8)
(10) Column(11-Column(91
43-2614_006.mmc'NCCI 3 sh.xl s
Rocky Mountain Consultants,Inc. 1/10/02 Table 5
Table 6
REPLACEMENT OBLIGATIONS
NCCI Pit No. 1
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Replacement Obligations Farm Total Unmet
Month Lagged Historical Total Headgate Replacement
Month Mining Return Flow Replacement Deliveries Obligations
Depletions Obligations Obligations
(acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet)
January 1.15 0.12 1.27 0.00 1.27
February 1.06 0.11 1.16 0.00 1.16
March 1.02 0.10 1.12 0.01 1.11
April 1.08 0.12 1.20 0.28 0.92
May 1.14 0.22 1.35 0.90 0.45
June 1.19 0.31 1.50 1.19 0.31
July 1.23 0.41 1.64 1.52 0.12
August 1.27 0.44 1.70 1.31 0.39
September 1.29 0.39 1.68 0.79 0.89
October 1.30 0.30 1.59 0.32 1.27
November 1.30 0.21 1.50 0.01 1.49
December 1.25 0.15 1.41 0.00 1.41
Total 14.27 2.86 17.13 6.33 10.80
Notes:
(1) From Table 2,Column(7)
(2) From Table 5,Column(9)
(3) Column(1) + Column(2)
(4) From Table 5,Column (1)
(5) Maximum of Column(3)-Column(4)and zero.
n
4 3-2 614_006.m m c\N CC 13 s h.x I s
Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. 1/10/02 Table 6
Robert L. Airhart
Janet R. Airhart
8593 WCR 25
Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621
303-857-9392
Dec, 3 moo Z
gv V).Sp" d fLw..1Nrh✓lr katt/rCES
Weld County ClorktotheBoard PoHatJe (qoo ) 3S-3-Coo Or £f.T, ) S`iO
c -eo <abL;5l 6—AX C9']13) ) oy -6'f4S
sss-Nt E-
re: Proposed Gravel Mining Operation L-P,12 EC L EY C 0) o f 17 43/
NCCI Pit
SEli4 ° / — 1 ±SEIr Sec24 T2N Rii7W' � r4$t �VLAw.n6. Y{: U SP{This proposed gravel pit mine adjoins our property. Our proximity to the mine has caused several areas of concern.
These include water quality,water quantity,noise impact, air quality impact,wildlife habitat protection and road
impact.
We have several alluvial wells within 500' of the proposed pit mine. We would like to see a certified Hvdroloeical
Engineer's recommendation as to how best to preserve both the quality and quantity of water in our drinking and
stock wells We also own water rights(20 cfs)from Little Dry Creek and 2 springs. The water quality and quantity
from these sources also needs to be preserved.
We are also highly concerned at how the lowering of the ground water level will affect our sub-irrigated pastures,
hayfields,trees and wildlife habitat.
The proposed plan shows air and sound abatement being addressed by building berms on the South and East sides of
the mine. We live North and West of the site. How do they propose to address the Noise and Dust in our direction?
We also need stated(in writing!)that they will NOT pursue use of our property for egress, degress,maintenance,
service, construction,utility or any other reason as we have witnessed at other pit mines in our area.
We are also concerned about where the planned entrance/exit of the site is. The old wooden bridge on WCR 18 is
certainly not up to this type of heavy traffic.
uJE 7 $2.e ict QonJee, ,,vea A6O 4.4.7— k10—S o ; op tea A-770ki
N r X1-7" ?/nit& /l/0 I S E- Du S ? )_10.9.41.7ftS "Al/' v i /3 A-n- T /o /✓ QA.C
Sincerely, Pc I) A 0 73L e M r
Robert and Janet Airhart
!? S, CO 4 7S/lkli` S .$ X1'1 71-1"0,"
Ze /nit e -7-to 6y mss /Re-era`
b (n)okKE/ r6sr ss
EXHIBIT ,�/ '/
L 54,3 O
I • ]
39
Hello