HomeMy WebLinkAbout921517.tiff APPENDIX L
SOIL LOSS CALCULATIONS
9 1517
920389
POTENTIAL SOIL LOSS CALCULATIONS
The estimates of potential soil loss which could occur from the landfill sides and top were
calculated using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). This equation has been
developed by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
based on observations, tests, and measurements over many years on many different types of
soils and land uses. The RUSLE uses factors including climate, land slope, length of slopes,
land use and land management to estimate potential erosion. RUSLE has been computerized
by the Agricultural Research Service branch of the SCS; their computer model was used for
the calculation of potential soil loss at this site.
The basic force for erosion is provided by water flowing over or through a soil. Water flow
can result from precipitation or snow melt; erosion from a given surface increases with
increasing quantity and velocity of water flow. Both the quantity and velocity of water flow
over a land surface can be affected by the slope of the land, the length of the slope, the
vegetation or other cover over the soil, and variations in the cover over the soil. These
factors are included in the RUSLE as shown below.
RUSLE - A = R(K)(LS)(C)(P)
where A = Soil Loss in Tons per Acre per Year
R = Precipitation or Snowmelt Index
K = Erosional Index for a specific soil
LS = Land-Slope Factor
C = Crop Factor
P = Land Management Factor
The SCS has developed numbers for many of the areas, soils, and land uses and
managements. The references at the end of this Appendix and Plate 15 (Final Site Contours)
of this document were used to determine values for use in the RUSLE. The cited soil survey
and Technical Note are specific to Colorado. The other two documents contain information
on a number of states, including Colorado.
Site Conditions and Parameters
Values for the parameters of the RUSLE were estimated for this site using the references
shown at the end of this Appendix and site-specific information from the D&O. A brief
discussion of each of the factors is provided on the following page.
9-11389
"R" Factor
"R" for this site was taken from Reference 4, the Universal Soil Loss Equation
Technical Note 50. The values was taken from Figure 1, a map of R values for the
State of Colorado. For the portion of Weld County where the landfill is located, "R"
was estimated to be 40.
"K" Factor
"K" for this site was estimated using a subroutine within the RUSLE program. The
subroutine uses the standard "K" value for a soil as estimated by the SCS, and then
modifies the value based on climate conditions. The SCS Soil Maps indicate the
proposed landfill to be within the Valent and Osgood soil series. It is assumed that
these soils will be replaced over the finished landfill cover. For this soil, the RUSLE
program estimated a "K" value of 0.15.
"LS" Factor
There are several slope length and gradient conditions used to estimate soil loss from
the landfill cover. The cover was divided into five sections, including the top of the
cover, and the north, south, east and west sides. Several gradients and slope lengths
were calculated within each section using the final contours drawn on Plate 6. The
"LS" factors were calculated using a subroutine within the RUSLE computer
program, and were avenged to obtain a representative IS factor for each section.
"LS" factors for each of the different sections are shown on Table G-1 of this
Appendix.
"C" Factor
The cover factor for this landfill was estimated using Figure 7 in Reference 4. The
percent land cover, a major component of the factor, was estimated to be 80 percent.
A range cover percentage of 80 percent assumes there is no grazing on the cover after
revegetation, and that the cover is well maintained. This estimate was based on
discussions with Mr. Leonard Jurgens of the SCS. Mr. Jurgens is in the Range
Community division of the SCS. Other components of the subroutine, such as root
mass and above-ground biomass, were estimated based on information within the
subroutine. For this site, it is estimated that grasses are an average of one foot tall,
and that above ground biomass equal approximately 2,000 lbs per acre. These
parameters result in a "C" value of 0.021.
"P" Factor
The land management factor for this site was assumed to be 1.0, based on up and
920359
down hill grading without regard to slope. Based on Reference 1, a lesser value
could have been used. After several years, however, the effect of the management
practice to be used at this site (contour seeding) will be less than estimated in
Reference 1. The use of 1.0 for the value of "P" was believed to provide a slightly
conservative estimate of potential soil loss.
Calculation of Potential Erosion Rates
Estimates of soil loss are provided for several conditions which will exist on the reclaimed
cover over the landfill. The slope length and gradient conditions will be different at various
locations on the reclaimed cover. Finished cover slope lengths and gradients are measured
from final contours on Plate 6, and are the primary variable in the RUSLE equation for soil
loss. Respectively, the minimum and maximum length-slope (LS) factors resulted from a 3%
gradient over 450 ft to a 14% gradient for a slope length of 500 ft.
The final cover was divided into five sections, the four sides and top, and estimates of soil
loss calculated for each section.
Several lengths and slopes were calculated within each section, then a weighted average was
calculated to obtain a representative LS factors. Within each of the five sections, LS factors
were calculated for the following conditions as a minimum:
- The maximum length of any slope within the section (length seldomly exceeded 1000
feet);
- The maximum gradient of any slope within the section; and
- The slope with the maximum combined length and gradient.
The weighted avenging of the LS factors are intended to provide relatively accurate
estimates of total soil loss within each section. For other parameters in the equation,
conservative estimates were used. The soil losses estimated for each of the five sections can
be added to provide an estimate of overall soil loss from the finished landfill cover.
Slope lengths and gradients which will exist on the cover over the new addition were
determined based on Plate 6 of the D&O. Soil losses for these slopes are shown on Table G-
1.
- On the top of the cover, the representative "LS" factor is 0.27. The Universal Soil
Loss Equation calculates out to 0.024 tons/acre/year. The estimated area of the top
of the cap is 150 acres. The resulting annual soil loss is 7,200 pounds of soil.
Assuming a 90 pound per cubic foot soil volume, this results in a depth of 0.0001
inches from the top of the cover.
9.20389
- On the west side of the cover, the representative "LS" factor is 2.20. The Universal
Soil Loss Equation calculates out to 0.20 tons/acre/year from the west side of the
cover. The estimated area of the west side is 200 acres. The resulting annual soil
loss is 80,000 pounds of soil, or a depth of 0.001 inches from the west side of the
cover.
- On the south side of the cover, the representative "LS" factor is 1.58. The Universal
Soil Loss Equation calculates out to 0.14 tons/acre/year from the south side of the
cover. The estimated area of the west side is 125 acres. The resulting annual soil
loss is 35,000 pounds of soil, or a depth of 0.001 inches from the south side of the
cover.
- On the east side of the cover, the representative "LS" factor is 2.12. The Universal
Soil Loss Equation calculates out to 0.20 tons/acre/year from the east side of the
cover. The estimated area of the west side is 150 acres. The resulting annual soil
loss is 60,000 pounds of soil, or a depth of 0.001 inches from the east side of the
cover.
- On the north side of the cover, the representative "LS" factor is 1.92. The Universal
Soil Loss Equation calculates out to 0.17 tons/acre/year from the north side of the
cover. The estimated area of the west side is 125 acres. The resulting annual soil
loss is 43,000 pounds of soil, or a depth of 0.001 inches from the east side of the
cover.
In summary, values calculated using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation reveal that
0.001 inches of soil are estimated to be lost from sides of the landfill cover annually. From
the top, only 0.0001 inches of soil are anticipated to be lost annually.
TABLE G-1
ESTIMATED SOIL LOSSES FROM TUE COVER
Location R R LS C P A
(Ton/ac/yr)
Top of Cover 40 0.15 0.27 0.015 1.00 =0.024
West Side 40 0.15 2.20 0.015 1.00 =0.20
South Side 40 0.15 1.58 0.015 1.00 =0.14
East Side 40 0.15 2.12 0.015 1.00 =0.20
North Side 40 0.15 1.92 0.015 1.00 =0.17
320289
References
1. US Environmental Protection Agency and USDA Soil Conservation Service;
Preliminary Guidance for Estimating Erosion on Areas Disturbed by Surface Mining
Activities in the Interior Western United States; July, 1977.
2. USDA Soil Conservation Service; Agriculture Handbook Number 537, Predicting
Rainfall Erosion Losses, A Guide to Conservation Planning; US Government Printing
Office; Washington, D.C.; December, 1978.
3. USDA Soil Conservation Service; Soil Survey of Weld County, Colorado, Southern
Part; US Government Printing Office; Denver, Colorado; 19##
4. USDA Soil Conservation Service; Universal Soil Loss Equation, Technical Note 50;
January, 1977.
5. USDA Soil Conservation Service; Predicting Soil Erosion by Water - A Guide to
Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (Computer
Program); 1989.
902,89
APPENDIX M
EMERGENCY CONTACT PHONE NUMBERS
9'i:0 283
EMERGENCY CONTACT PHONE NUMBERS
FIRE:
Emergency Phone 911
Keensburg Volunteer Fire Station 732-4203
Keensburg, Colorado
POLICE:
Emergency Phone 911
Weld County Sheriff Dispatch Center 356-4000
or 1-800-289-9353
MEDICAL:
Emergency Phone 911
Longmont United 651-5111
Longmont, Colorado
920389
APPENDIX N
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE RECOMMENDATION
920389
WEST GREELEY SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
4302 WEST 9TH STREET ROAD
GREELEY, COLORADO 80634
(303) 356-6506
January 30, 1992
Ms Judith Plambeck
Industrial Compliance
1746 Cole Blvd., Bldg. 21 #300
Golden, CO 80401
RE: Revegetation report for the purposed landfill north of Keenesburg.
Dear Ms Plambeck,
Enclosed you will find a seeding recommendation which conforms with USDA
Standards and Specifications for critical area treatments. The following
are recommendations concerning reclamation of the area:
The top 8-12 inches of soil should be removed and stockpiled for use in
reclaiming the area. If this stockpile is to exist for more than one year,
it should be seeded to a cover crop to reduce wind erosion and prevent weed
infestation.
During reclamation all contours should be shaped to maintain existing
drainage patterns as much as possible. Slopes should be 4/1 or less.
After the area has been reseeded, 3000-4000 lbs/acre of weed free native
grass hay should be used as mulch. This mulch should be crimped into place
to a depth of 3"-4". This will help prevent erosion while the grass is
germinating.
The Weld County Soil Survey states that, in the area of the purposed
landfill, "The chief limiting feature is the rapid permeability in the
substratum, which causes a hazard of groundwater contamination from
seepage. " We trust that this issue will be addressed in your application
to the Mined Land Reclamation Division.
If I can be of further assistance please contact me at 356-6506.
Sincerely,
/ / ^
;z1, ;>z( /) /6,
(
Dwayne K. Newman
Resource Conservationist
cc:SCD File 9.'7:132139
_ - is - ' - , Lmp .
ti:S -EEC
- FATE _'I t_. T s _.A• N_F n r See r. r v 1•j 1_{n
'R.RT E I' .. LAN'vE... _ 'E".:-
��n .:t^: A s '� i'��t'�iT'•>'�.T OF ti.��R wE!v. * : none
F - e . .� •_ t'A: _.67
1 . 0 irrigate
l :
ir' r ' get'. 1. .
4IN No . : }f . a.;-i._ .
Pract . No . . Range Site : ?: I:
'rs _t . Name : Range Seeding
3$e d=.a d Prep . •-_ =f:i.. 7 :-i g D f =:'•-a i i i,i: :
jyn _hed- Dates : Nov . 1 - April 3C
kppr . Dates- !lid-June ?,1r:.i:d_ Drill - xi ..
= irn Seedbed-e # _ f:?.des . -
Stubb1e- u`" i i 1 Ty p Saris
InterEeed- Dr . 1 Spacing- 6-1 `t.
Other - F 1 an t "C : g depth- 1 /4-1 /2
=ertil zer : Weed Control :
Pound= actual per acre ( •.r_ • ) -late_ . _>c. needed
Nitrc";en : as needed Mowing-
Phosphate : as needed Chemical - t.**
Potassium: es needed Type 3."i N.i'1or't- 1.:. su l _ chem. rep .
Mulch :
Kind- weed free native grass ha.' .
Arrcur t- '^s00-40)00 ( bs c )
How Applied- N/A
How Anchored-crimped
Anc ' depth-2"-4"
( 7 )
SEEDING PLANNED : ( 3 ) ( 4 . ( 5 : ( 6 ) TOTAL FS
1 ) ( r ) PLR/ACRE % OF .P!_ RAT_ P'_.ANNED REQUIRED
VARIETY SPECIES & 10.0% t+nTXTURE PER A0RE ACRE_ FOR SEFf:INt2
-
Arriba Western Whtgr . 16.0 10 1 . 6•' 1 . 0 1 . 6 .
Blackwell 3witchgress 4 . 5 �5 l . l . l . n 1 . 1
ao=t•{Grs Pr? irie=.andreed 6 . 5 3 i . 5 . t 2 . 0
Elide Sand bluestem 16 . 0 2u - . 20 1 . 0 3 . 2
Line Yi . Indian'?r . 10 . 0 15 1.F0 1 . 0 1 . 5
•
REMARKS: -Above rates are for drilled seeding . If broadcast ; double
amounts shown in column five ( 5 ) .
If seed `:fii ;} ure is pre-:: i (:.n dedi calibrate_ it:;r3te drill based on 1' u is ed
seeding rate for the dominant species in the mix .
All amounts shown are per acre .
•
920389
APPENDIX 0
WATER AVAILABILITY AND WELL PERMIT
97:0389
lnoustriai Con,prrance
1746 Cole Blvd.. Bldg. 21 #300 Golden. CO 80401 303277-1400 FAX 303277 1405
May 27, 1992
IC Project # 2-3888
Mr. John Schurer
Colorado Division of Water Resources
300 Columbine Building
1345 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Subject: Water Requirements for Proposed East Weld Sanitary Landfill
Dear John:
Thanks for the expeditious review of the proposed East Weld Sanitary Landfill permit
documents. This letter is in response to your comments regarding the amount and source of
water required for site operations.
As you know, Waste Services Company (WSC) is working on an agreement with Coors
Energy to use water from the existing well at the Keenesburg Mine for facility operations.
The estimated annualized average daily usage of water at the site is expected to be
approximately 25,000 gallons. Peak daily usage of water (estimated at 100,000 gallons per
day) will occur during the summer months when base liner and final construction occurs and
when water needed for dust control is greatest. The following table indicates peak daily
gallonage and usage:
ESTIMATED PEAK DAILY WATER USAGE
LINER CONSTRUCTION 50,000 gallons per day
DUST CONTROL 20,000 gallons per day
FINAL COVER 20,000 gallons per day
MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES 10.000 gallons per day
TOTAL ESTIMATED PEAK DAILY USAGE 100,000 gallons per day
The average daily water usage is much less than the peak daily water usage because liner
and final cover construction activities typically take place only during the summer months.
The Coors well is permitted to allow a yield of up to 100 gallons per minute of water. This
equates to a daily rate of 144,000 gallons per day. The maximum annual water volume that
is available for use according to the permit is 167 acre-feet (or 54,417,117 gallons per
year). Therefore, if WSDC were to use 25,000 gallons per day each day, the total water
required will be 9,125,000 gallons per year which is well within the bounds of the well
Dedicated to solving your environmental problems. 920389
A Subsidiary of SP Environmental Systems. Inc.-t
permit. This number is very conservative because it assumes an average daily usage for
each day of the year. Actually, the site will be open only 6 days per week.
Please let me know if this adequately answers your concerns. We will forward the
paperwork for the rights to use the Coors well when it is available.
Sincerely,
INDUSTRIAL COMPLIANCE Reviewed by:
1/7
Curtis J. Ahrendsen Michael H. Stewart, P.E., C.P.G.
Director Corporate Technical Director
Engineering Division
PDS/CJA/MHS
cc: Ms. Lanell Swanson, Weld County
Mr. Brad Keimes, Waste Services
920383
Form No. OFFICE Or STATE ENGINEE=,.
GWs-25 COLORADO DIVI: N OF WATER RESOURCES
818 Centennial BId3 1313 Sherman St.. Denver. Coloraoo 10263
(303) 866-3581 LIC
WELL PERMIT NUMBER 041 481 - __
1 62 1
APPLICANT DIV. CNTY. _ WD DES. BASIN _ MD
Lot: Block: Filing: Subdiv:
APPROVED WELL LOCATION
COUNTY WELD
SE SW
WASTE SERVICES COMAPANY 1/4 1/4 Section 35
PO BOX 3365 Twp 3 N , Range 64 W 6thpM
GREELEY CO 80633
DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES
303/356-6600 10 Ft. from South Section Line
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL 1650 Ft. from West Section Line
ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of the
permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another
owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action.
2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Rules
2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well
Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 17.
Approved pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(4) and the findings of the State Engineer dated August 14, 1992.
4) The maximum pumping rate shall not exceed 70 GPM.
5) The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceed 28 acre-feet.
6) The entire length of the hole shall be geophysically logged as required by the Statewide Nontributary Ground Water
Rules prior to installing casing.
7) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit.
8) Production is limited to the Laramie-Fox Hills Aquifer which is located 445 feet below land surface and extends to
a depth of 785 feet. Plain casing must be installed and sealed to prevent the withdrawal of ground water from other
aquifers and the movement of ground water between aquifers.
9) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on the well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of
all diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division
Engineer upon request.
10) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court
case number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these
markings.
11) Pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(9)(b) and the Denver Basin Rules, no more than 98% of the nontributary ground water
withdrawn annually shall be consumed and the well owner shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the
State Engineer that no more than 98% of the water withdrawn will be consumed. g)
• `° SPY
APIVED: • ✓ ' %
03410 U` e Engineer AIr is 10Q2 BY jii1 �\~(�O_ r
Receipt No. DATE ISSUED �- "� EXPIRATION DATES �7via
JoV� '_�
FINDINGS OF THE STATE ENGINEER
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL IN WATER
DIVISION NO. 1, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
APPLICANT : WASTE SERVICES COMPANY
AQUIFER: LARAMIE-FOX HILLS
PERMIT NO.: R t*%c - F
In compliance with C.R.S. 37-90-137(1) and the Statewide Nontributary Ground Water
Rules, Waste Services Company, P.O. Box 3365, Greeley, CO 80633, (hereinafter "applicant")
submitted an application for a permit to construct a well. Based on information provided by the
applicant and records of the Division of Water Resources, the State Engineer finds as follows:
1. The application was last received complete by the State Engineer on July 31, 1992.
2. The applicant proposes to construct the well in the SE1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 35,
Township 3 North, Range 64 West, 6th Principal Meridian.
3. The proposed well is located outside the boundaries of a designated ground water basin.
4. The applicant proposes to apply the water withdrawn from the well to the following
beneficial uses: Dust control, construction,revegetation and other uses in a sanitary landfill.
5. The proposed maximum pumping rate of the well is 70 gallons per minute, and the
requested average annual amount of ground water to be withdrawn is 28 acre-feet.
6. The applicant is under contract to purchase the land on which the well will be constructed.
7. The proposed well would withdraw ground water from the Laramie-Fox Hills Aquifer
(hereinafter"aquifer),which, according to the Denver Basin Rules, is located 445 feet to 785
feet below land surface at the location of the proposed well.
8. The location of the proposed well is more than 600 feet from any existing well completed
in the aquifer.
9. According to a sworn statement, the applicant owns, or has consent to withdraw ground
water underlying 4,640 acres of land as further described in said statement, which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
10. Withdrawal of ground water from the aquifer underlying the land claimed by the applicant
will not, within one hundred years, deplete the flow of a natural stream at an annual rate
greater than one-tenth of one percent of the annual rate of withdrawal and therefore the
ground water is nontributary ground water as defined in C.R.S. 37-90-103(10.5).
11. In considering whether the requested permit shall be approved the provisions of C.R.S.
37-90-137(4) and the Denver Basin Rules shall apply. Withdrawals shall be allowed on the
basis of an aquifer's life of 100 years, C.R.S. 37-90-137(4)(b)(I).
920:99
Applicant: Waste Servi, Company
Aquifer: Laramie-Fox Hills
Permit No.:
12. The quantity of water in the aquifer, exclusive of artificial recharge, underlying the 4,640
acres of land described in Exhibit A is 115,536 acre-feet. This determination was based on
the following as specified in the Denver Basin Rules:
a. The average specific yield of the saturated aquifer materials underlying the land under
consideration is 17 percent.
b. The average thickness of the saturated aquifer materials underlying the land under
consideration is 166 feet.
13. A review of the records in the State Engineer's office has not disclosed that there are any
existing wells or other water rights claiming or withdrawing ground water from the aquifer
underlying the land claimed by the applicant.
14. No application for nontributary underground water rights for the proposed well is pending
in the Division 1 Water Court.
Based on the above, the State Engineer finds that there is water available for withdrawal
by the proposed well and no material injury to vested water rights would result from the issuance
of the requested permit subject to the following conditions:
a. The allowed average annual amount of water to be withdrawn from the aquifer by the
well shall not exceed 28 acre-feet- (the quantity of water which has been requested by the
applicant).
b. The well shall be constructed no more than 200 feet from the location specified on the
permit application.
c. The applicant shall submit geophysical and lithologic logs after the construction of the
well. The geophysical logs shall be obtained from the hole before the casings are
installed.
d. The maximum pumping rate of the well shall not exceed 70 gallons per minute.
e. A totalizing flow meter must be installed on the well and maintained in good working
order. Permanent records of all diversions must be maintained by the well owner
(recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon request.
f. Production is limited to the Laramie-Fox Hills Aquifer. The well must be constructed
with plain, non-perforated casing properly grouted so as to prevent intermingling of water
between aquifers.
g. Pursuant to C.R.S. 37-90-137(9)(b) and the Denver Basin Rules, no more than 98% of
the nontributary ground water withdrawn annually shall be consumed and the applicant
shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the State Engineer that no more than
98% of the water withdrawn will be consumed.
920:19
Applicant: Waste Servic..s Company Page
Aquifer: Laramie-Fox Hills
Permit No.: 1 4}$t -F
h. The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with appropriate well permit
numbers, name of the aquifer, and court case numbers. He shall take necessary means
and precautions to preserve these markings.
Dated this I LAM"-day of R c�ti,.S , 19 9 .
71/14€ .
Hal D. Simpson
tate Engineer
By: w u CTS
Purushottam Dass, Ph.D., P.E.
Supervising Professional Engineer
Prepared by: GRG
3041 F.grg/Form #0546o.mrg
921)3 89
CWS-3B (Apr_1 :g37) FO!., _ILLS
�.
PERMR
ITNO. : 44-14-SAD - F
gicCEIVED
r Can iov,00 :t JUL 31'92
DIVISION OF WA'Z SOUR= gT
STA$7E i
NCNTRIBLTARY GROUND WAT^ZA CONS:`iT LANDOWNERSHIP STAT
I (We)Guttersen & ComnanV
(Name•
whose sailing address is P .O . Box 528 _
Street)
Kersey , Colorado 80.644
(City) (Strata) (fl? jzuc.
claim and say that I (we) as (are) the owners) of the following :iescriben
property consisting of 4640 aces in the County of Weld
State of Colorado:
•
(L4Sa$r PROPERTY LEGAL DBZC2IP'_"I0R)
SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
•
and that I (we) have granted written consent to others to withdraw groL.o
rater free the Laramie Fox-HislcatSfer as evidenced by the attac ets c:uv_
of a deed or other document recorded in the County or Countiee io wait:
the land is located, and that said grand water has not been conveyed Jr
reserved to another, nor has =sat been given to withdrawal by •-.ni+_her
except as indicated in the attached deed or other recorded document.
Further, I (we) claim and say that I (re) have read the statements made
herein; !maw the contents hereof; and that the same are true to ay ',our
own knowledge.
Guttersen & Company
By: General Partner -- --,
Michael Guttersen (Signature) Carr
Signs ure) . D
INSTRUCTION
Please type er pr`a't meetly in Wad: ink. Thin form may be reercnuced b7
photocopy or word proceeaing mean.
1312 Sherman St.st 3th Floor Denvnc Colorado 302C3 26F1-1f31
9. ;'p 289
TRAY EXHIBIT A, PAGE 2 OF 2 ANY
APPLICANT: WASTE SERVICES CO.
AQUIFER: LARAMIE-FOX HILLS
Commitment No. : 8030C :PERMIT NO. : 2}{ti$t - F RECEIVED
LEGAL DESCRIPTION 431,92
STATE :"G:.-«r'
C;,O
TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 64 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.
Section 26: S1/2 and NW1/4
Section 27 : All
Section 34 : All
Section 35: All
County of Weld, State of Colorado.
TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 64 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.
Section 2: All
Section 3 : All
Section 10: All
Section 11: N1/2
County of Weld, State of Colorado.
Page 2
970289
EAST WELD SANITARY LANDFILL
SITE ACCESS STUDY
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
MAY 1992
Prepared for:
Waste Services Company
P .O. Box 3365
Greeley, CO 80633
Prepared by :
MATTHEW J. DELICH, P .E.
3413 Banyan Avenue
Loveland, CO 80538
Phone : 303-669-2061
9701'39
I . INTRODUCTION
Waste Services Company proposes to construct and operate a
sanitary landfill facility in southeastern Weld County, Colorado .
The site is approximately 5 miles north of I-76 Interchange #39 as
shown in Figure 1 . The surrounding area is an undulating arid
prairie used predominantly for grazing .
There is one existing facility within one mile of the proposed
landfill . It consists of the inactive Keenesburg Coal Mine and the
active Coors Ash Disposal Operation.
Roadways
The proposed facility will be accessed from a private road,
which is an extension of Weld County Road 59 (CR 59) . Both the
private road and CR 59 were paved to serve the coal mine and the
ash disposal facility . Figure 2 shows access roads to the proposed
facility . Traffic will access the facility from I-76 via CR 57 1/2
to CR 18 to CR 59 . This is the current route of the ash disposal
trucks and the past route of the coal trucks when the mine was in
operation.
I-76 is an interstate highway in northeastern Colorado,
connecting Denver and I-80 in Nebraska . There is a diamond
interchange #39, connecting to the north end of CR 57 1/2 (Market
Street in Keenesburg) . CR 57 1/2 has one 12 foot lane in each
direction with 3-4 foot shoulders . There is stop sign control on
the interstate ramps . CR 57 1/2 intersects with CR 18 at a T
intersection. There is stop sign control on CR 57 1/2 . The west
leg of CR 18 is not paved . The east leg of CR 18 is paved. It has
one 12 foot lane in each direction with 0-1 foot shoulders . At
approximately 0 . 35 miles east of CR 57 1/2, CR 18 turns to the
northeast . For approximately 0 . 3 miles , it parallels the westbound
lanes of I-76 . The I-76 westbound travel lanes are 30+ feet from
CR 18 . I-76 and CR 18 are separated by a drainage ditch .
CR 59 turns to a due north direction approximately 0 . 65 miles
east of CR 57 1/2 . CR 59 has one 12 foot lane in each direction
with 0-1 foot shoulders . The gate to the private land (Coors Ash
Disposal Facility and the proposed facility) is approximately 1 . 8
miles from the intersection of CR 18 and CR 59 . The private road
continues to the north with the same cross section. The access to
the proposed facility will be approximately 2 miles north of the
gate .
Vertical and horizontal alignment limits the passing
opportunities along this road. The no passing zones comprise 53
percent of the road as measured from centerline striping.
1
9 0,;39
Traffic Volumes
According to Weld County Engineering Department information,
the average daily traffic (ADT) on CR 59 is between 50-70 vehicles
per day (vpd) . This occurs at the south end of CR 59 just prior
to the horizontal curve to CR 18 . A windshield survey of the road
indicated that there were 5 dwelling units along CR 59. This
dwelling unit count and the estimate of ash trucks corroborates the
ADT on CR 59 .
Assuming a conservatively high design (peak) hour factor of
0 . 15 applied to 70 vpd, results in an hourly volume of 11 . Using
the 11 vehicle per hour (vph) , the operation of CR 18/CR 59 is at
level of service A. Level of service A is the highest quality of
traffic service, when motorists are able to drive at their desired
speed. Without enforcement, this would result in speeds
approaching 60 mph on two lane highways . Passing demand is well
below the passing capacity, and almost no platoons of three or more
vehicles are observed . A description of level of service for two
lane highways is shown in Appendix A. This level of service was
calculated using the following adjustment factors :
- Directional split - 60/40
- Lane width - 12 '
- Shoulder width - 0 '
- Design speed - 50 mph
- Percent trucks - 50%
Figure 3 illustrates where the current hourly traffic falls in
relation to the thresholds for each level of service category . It
can be seen that there is significant reserve capacity within the
level of service A category. On rural highways , acceptable
operation is defined as level of service C or better.
Traffic counts were not available at the CR 57 1/2/I-76 ramp
intersection. Using traffic counts at other similar intersections ,
the operation at the stop sign controlled intersection is at level
of service A. Level of service A at stop sign controlled
intersections is defined as little or no delay . A description of
level of service at stop sign controlled intersections is provided
in Appendix A. There is much reserve capacity available within the
level of service A category at this intersection.
II . PROPOSAL
The proposed facility is expected to operate Monday through
Saturday in a typical week. This facility will serve the
geographic region of southern Weld County, including the
communities of Ft. Lupton, Keenesburg, Prospect Valley, Roggen,
Hudson, and Lochbuie . In addition to this primary local service
area, the facility will also serve portions of the Denver
metropolitan area, including the new Denver International Airport.
2
9• - 39
,_ ) tr ‘4379,s, , I. \ . S\ I 1 i
�\ (k �‘ � (ll� . t IN )imm ) k €
V ,� ' ' ) ;E�a§ field 1 f 1 c�„ `)r_ ccp L p 1
r
. J . A--\c\\\ m---\-\\ ) lit
tl I 1, i�
J e 2 -
_/ ( \ ----\ \ ,7C- - \(-
Si
,...\"-.::\ ‘\\ )
0V\ , j0-211".1" \ :
c''\Jl
0/I
J \ V I e n
il
°.m- ic oNoO4 , GG
0
r �-�,
s
V .- \ \\i 7
.r°°. 13
i. s 14
I
R
\ \...
� i
wM.21\ � 2 )� h2N �.) 24 ,ij
it goo cli..)(\liti)ccicc---em . AA ' ;1
1 3 /za
of
9 �,
-
.n( ein burg
� )91 d 9`9
�,.._�. & 4 '-- -<17:k i �1_
1i -
ACCESS ROADS Fi ur _ 2
A
11
I
ILASILOS BI LOS C I LOS D I LOS E ILOS F
0 6 9
* •2:1 *(y� *Ogt *A( e
yh bb
* THRESHOLD VOLUMES FOR EACH LEVEL
OF SERVICE (LOS) CATEGORY (VPH)
- EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (VPH)
VPH - VEHICLES PER HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC -
LEVEL OF SERVICE Figure 3
Any waste from the Denver area will be transferred to the facility
using tractor/trailer trucks .
Trip Generation
It is expected that the traffic volume will average 100
vehicles per operating day. This results in 200 vehicle trip ends
per day. Of the 100 vpd, 40 will be tractor/trailer transfer
trucks , 10 will be conventional refuse trucks (single units) , and
50 will be other vehicles (cars , pickup trucks , light trucks,
etc . ) . This will result in 50 percent truck population of the
expected site generated traffic . For analysis purposes , it was
assumed that 20 percent of the daily site generated traffic would
occur in the peak hour. This results in a conservatively high
traffic volume used for the analyses . These projected traffic
levels and vehicle mix are not significantly different than that
if both the coal mine and ash disposal facility were in operation.
Trip Distribution
All traffic would enter the site via CR 59, CR 18, and CR 57
1/2 . Most traffic ( >95 percent) would access CR 57 1/2 via I-76
from the west.
Traffic Assignment
Using the trip generation and trip distribution discussed
above, traffic was assigned to the area road network. Figure 4
shows the peak hour (analysis hour) traffic with full operation of
the facility and the existing background traffic . Background
traffic is defined as traffic that is on the area roads, but is not
related to the proposed facility. In this case, background traffic
consists of area residents and the existing traffic to/from the
Coors Ash Disposal Facility. Background traffic was not increased
since there are no development pressures or utilities in the
vicinity of CR 59 .
III . TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Traffic volumes will increase on CR 59 with the operation of
the proposed facility. With the operation of the proposed
facility, daily traffic will increase from 50 - 70 vpd to 150 - 170
vpd. Figure 5 shows the level of service thresholds for CR 18 and
CR 59, and where the projected peak hour traffic falls in relation
to these thresholds . The projected 51 vph during the peak hour
will still fall in the level of service A category. This
represents free flow conditions . Individual users are virtually
unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream.
3
920283
N
SITE
L..
1n
cc
0
ADT = 270
Peak Hour = 51 vehicles
Co. Rd. 18
N
` - 1
6
0
v
EXPECTED TRAFFIC
WITH PROPOSED LANDFILL Figure 4
320y:
51
LOS LOS B LOS C LOS D LOSE LOS F
* �6 \b �� `3 ba
* THRESHOLD VOLUMES FOR EACH LEVEL
OF SERVICE (LOS) CATEGORY (VPH)
- EXISTING + PROJECTED PEAK
TRAFFIC VOLUMES (VPH)
VPH - VEHICLES PER HOUR
EXISTING PLUS PROJECTED TRAFFIC
( 100 vpd) - LEVEL OF SERVICE Figure 5
920389
Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic
stream is extremely high . The general level of comfort and
convenience provided to the motorist or passenger is excellent .
Operation at the CR 57 1/2/ramp intersection and all intersections
between it and the site will be at level of service A for all
movements .
The threshold volume between level of service C and level of
service D is 392 vehicles per hour, using the prevailing roadway
conditions . As mentioned earlier, acceptable operation for rural
highways is defined as level of service C or better. Therefore ,
by definition, the maximum acceptable volume on CR 18 and CR 59 is
391 (392 minus 1 ) vehicles per hour . Figure 6 shows the
relationship between the projected peak hour traffic and this
threshold volume . The facility will operate from approximately
6 : 30 AM to 6 : 00 PM per operating day . The peak hour will likely
occur during the 2-3 hour period on either side of midday . Figure
6 shows a theoretical curve of the projected traffic during
operation of the facility with the peak occurring at midday. The
51 vehicles per hour projection is only 13 percent of the threshold
volume . In actuality, the arrivals and departures at the facility
would be random, and would not likely exceed this conservative peak
hour estimate . It is concluded that there is significant excess
capacity before the unacceptable operational threshold would be
reached.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based upon the information and analyses contained in this
report, the following is concluded:
- Current operation on the area roadways and at the area
intersections is acceptable . Operation is at level of service A,
which is the highest level of operation defined.
- It is expected that the facility will generate 200 vehicle
trip ends per day . Half of these are expected to be trucks . All
traffic will access the proposed landfill via CR 18 and CR 59 .
- With full operation of the proposed facility, operation on
the area roadways and at the area intersections remains at the
level of service A category.
- The projected peak traffic volume comprises only 13 percent
of the acceptable threshold traffic volume . There will be
significant excess capacity on the area roadways with full
operation of the facility.
- From a traffic operations perspective, no improvements are
required on any of the area roadways .
4
92,O289
450 -
LEVEL OF SERVICE D
400 -
391
LEVEL OF SERVICE C
= 350 - OR BETTER
a (level of service C is deemed
> acceptable for rural highways)
W
M 300 -
J
O
>
}
U. 250 - U
Q 0
C U
J- 200 - co
Q W
U
� W
O 150 -
100 -
PROJECTED
PEAK HOUR
50 - VOLUME - 51 13% OF 391
6 7 8 9 10 11 Noon 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
AM PM
HOUR OF THE DAY
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTION
RELATED TO LEVEL- OF SERVICE C
THRESHOLD VOLUME Figgr oesta
9'2 239
APPENDIX A
9: ;0289
TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS 8-5
II. METHODOLOGY
LEVELS OF SERVICE Table 8-2 gives level-of-service criteria for specific grade seg-
ments. These criteria relate the average travel speed of upgrade
As noted previously,level-of-service criteria for two-lane high- vehicles to level of service. Operations on sustained two-lane
ways address both mobility and accessibility concerns. The pri- grades are substantially different from extended segments of
mary measure of service quality is percent time delay,with speed general terrain. The speed of upgrade vehicles is seriously im-
and capacity utilization used as secondary measures. Level-of- pacted, as the formation of platoons behind slow-moving ve-
service criteria are defined for peak 15-min flow periods, and hides intensifies and passing maneuvers generally become more
are intended for application to segments of significant length. difficult. Further, unlike general terrain segments, where the
Level-of-service criteria for general terrain segments are given approximate average travel speed at which capacity occurs can
in Tablet]. For each level of service, the percent time delay be identified, the capacity speed for a specific grade depends on
is shown.Average travel speed is also shown,with values varying the steepness and length of the grade and volume. Because of
slightly by type of terrain. The body of the table includes max- this, estimation of capacity is complex. Thus, Table 8-2 defines
imum values of v/c ratio-for the various terrain categories and separate level-of-service criteria for specific grade segments. In
levels of service A through F. The v/c ratios shown in Table addition,this chapter includes special computational procedures
8-1 are somewhat different from those used in other chapters. for sustained grades on two-lane highways.
For two-lane highways, the values given represent the ratio of Downgrade operations are not specifically addressed by these
flow rate to"ideal capacity,"where ideal capacity is 2,800 pcph procedures. Downgrade operations on gentle grades (less than
for a level terrain segment with ideal geometries and 0 percent 3 percent)are generally comparable to those on a level roadway.
no passing zones. Two-lane highways are quite complex, and On more severe grades,downgrade operations are about midway
capacities vary depending on terrain and the degree of passing between those experienced on a level roadway and those ex-
restrictions. To simplify computational procedures, v/c ratios perienced on an upgrade of equivalent traffic and roadway char-
are given in terms of the constant "ideal capacity" of 2,800 acteristics. The principal concern on steep downgrades is the
pcph, total in both directions of flow. potential for "runaway" trucks.
The level-of-service criteria of Table 8-1 are for extended The highest quality of traffic service occurs when motorists
segments of'two-lane rural highways where efficient mobility is are able to drive at their desired speed. Without strict enforce-
the primary objective of the facility. Where speeds have been ment, this highest quality, representative of level-of-service A,
restricted by an agency, such as through a town or village, the would result in average speeds approaching 60 mph on two-
percentage of time delay and capacity utilization are the only lane.highways.The passing frequency required to maintain these
meaningful indicators of level of service. speeds has not reached a demanding level. Passing demand is
TABLE 8-I. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR GENERAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENTS
v/c RATIO'
LEVEL TERRAIN ROLLING TERRAIN MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN
PERCENT
TIME Aypb PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES b AVO
PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES
N PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES AVO
LOS DELAY -SPEED 0 20 40 60 80 100 SPEED 0 20 40 60 80 100 SPEED 0 20 40 60 80 100
A 5 30 ≥ 58 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 ≥ 57 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 ≥ 56 0.14 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.01
B 5 45 ≥ 55 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.16 ≥ 54 0.26 0.23 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.13 ≥ 54 0.25 0.20 file 0.13 0.12 0.10
C 560 ≥ 52 0.43 0.39 0:36 0.34 0.33 0.32 ≥ 51 0.42 -0.39 0.35 0.32 0.30 .0.28 ≥ 49 0.39 0.33 -0.28 0.23 0.20 0.16
D 5 75 ≥ 50 0.64 0.62 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.57 ≥49 0.62 0.57 0.52 0.48 0.46 .0.43 ≥ 45 0.58 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.37 033
E > 75 ≥ 45 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ≥40 0.97 .0.94 0.92 a91 0.90 .0.90 ≥ 35 0.91 0.87 0.84 0.82 0.80 •0.78
F 100 <45 <40 < 35
'Ratio of flow rate to an ideal capacity of 2,800 pcph in both directions.
b Average travel speed of all vehicles(in mph)for highways with design speed ≥ 60 mph;for highways with lower design speeds,reduce speed by 4 mph for each 10-
mph reduction in design speed below 60 mph;assumes that speed is not restricted to lower values by-regulation.
92 0233
8.6 RURAL HIGHWAYS
TABLE 8-2. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SPECIFIC GRADES Passing is virtually impossible under level-of-service E condi-
tions, and platooning becomes intense when slower vehicles or
LEVEL OF ' AVERAGE UPGRADE other interruptions are encountered.
SERVICE SPEED(MPH) The highest volume attainable under level-of-service E defines
A Z 55 the capacity of the highway. Under ideal conditions, capacity
B 2 50 is 2,800 pcph, total in both directions. For other conditions,
c Z 45 capacity is lower. Note that the v/c ratios of Table 8-1 are not
D 240 all 1.00 at capacity. This is because the ratios are relative to
B ≥ 25-40' "ideal capacity" as discussed. Operating conditions at capacity
F < 25-40'
are unstable and difficult to predict. Traffic operations are sal-
'The exact speed at which capacity occurs varies with the percentage and dom observed near capacity on rural highways, primarily be-
length-of grade,traffic compositions,and volume;computational procedures are cause of a lack of demand.
provided to and that-value.
Capacity of two-lane highways is affected by the directional
split of traffic. As directional split moves away from the 50/
50 "ideal" condition, total two-way capacity is reduced, as
well below passing capacity, and almost no platoons of three or follows:
more vehicles are observed. Driven would be delayed no more
than 30 percent of the time by slow-moving vehicles. A maxi- Directional Total Ratio of Capacity to
mum flow rate of 420 pcph, total in both directions, may be Split Capacity(pcph) Ideal Capacity
achieved under ideal conditions. 50/50 2,800 1.00
Level-of-service B characterizes the region of traffic flow 60/40 2,650 0.94
wherein speeds of 55 mph or slightly higher are expected on 70/30 2,300 0'89
level terrain.Passing demand needed to maintain desired speeds 80/20 2,300 0.83
90/10 2,100 0.75
becomes significant and approximately equals the passing ca- 100/0 2,000 0.71
pacity at the lower boundary of level-of-service B. Drivers are
delayed up to 45 percent of the time on the average. Service For short lengths of two-lane road,such as tunnels or bridges,
flow rates of 750 pcph,total in both directions,can be achieved opposing traffic interactions may have only a minor effect on
under ideal conditions. Above this flow rate, the number of capacity.The capacity in each direction may approximate that
platoons forming in the traffic stream begins to increase dra- of a fully loaded single lane, given appropriate adjustments for
matically. the lane width and shoulder width(5).
Further increases in flow characterize level-of-service C re- As with other highway types, level-of-service F represents
suiting in noticeable increases in platoon formation,platoon size, heavily congested flow with traffic demand exceeding capacity.
and frequency of passing impediment. Average speed still ex- Volumes are lower than capacity,and speeds are below capacity
ceeds 52 mph on level terrain,even though unrestricted passing speed. Level-of-service E is seldom attained over extended sec-
demand exceeds passing capacity. At higher volume levels, tions on level terrain as more than a transient condition; most
chaining of platoons and significant reductions in passing ca- often,perturbations in traffic flow as level E is approached cause
pacity begin to occur. While traffic flow is stable,it is becoming a rapid transition to level-of-service F.
susceptible to congestion due to turning traffic and slow-moving
vehicles. Percent time delays are up to 60 percent. A service
flow rate of up to 1,200 pcph, total in both directions, can be
accommodated under ideal conditions.
Unstable traffic flow is approached as traffic flows enter level-
of-service D. The two opposing traffic streams essentially begin C
to operate separately at higher volume levels,as passing becomes
extremely difficult. Passing demand is very high, while passing
capacity approaches zero.Mean platoon sizes of 5 to 10 vehicles o
are common,although speeds of 50 mph can still be maintained h
under ideal conditions. The fraction of no passing zones along a
the roadway section usually has little influence on passing.Turn- o
ing vehicles and/or roadside distractions cause major shock- at
waves in the traffic stream. The percentage of time motorists n
are delayed approaches 75 percent.Maximum service flow rates k
of 1,800 pcph,total in both directions,can be maintained under at
ideal conditions.This is the highest flow rate that can be main- a:
tained for any length of time over an extended section of level
terrain without a high probability of breakdown. P1
Level-of-service E is defined as traffic flow conditions on two- of
lane highways having a percent time delay of greater than 75 al
percent.Under ideal conditions,speeds will drop below 50 mph. le
Average travel speeds on highways with less than ideal condi- a
tions will be slower, as low as 25 mph on sustained upgrades. et
Level of Service Criteria
for
Unsignalized Intersections
Level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections are stated
in very general terms, and are related to general delay ranges .
Analysis for a stop or yield controlled intersection results in
solutions for the capacity of each lane on the minor approaches .
The level of service criteria are then based on the reserve, or
unused, capacity of the lane in question, expressed in passenger
cars per hour (PCPH) .
Reserve Capacity Level of Expected Delay to
(PCPH) Service Minor Street Traffic
>400 A Little or no delay
300-399 B Short traffic delays
200-299 C Average traffic delays
100-199 D Long traffic delays
0-99 E Very long traffic delays
" p "
" When demand volume exceeds the capcity of the lane, extreme
delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe
congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection.
This condition usually warrants improvement to the intersection.
Reference: Highway Capacity Manual . Special Report 209,
Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council , Washington, D.C . 1985 .
Presented to
Weld County Planning Commission
October 6 , 1992
Waste Services Company is pleased to provide this overview
of evidence presented orally in support of the issuance by
the Weld County Planning Commission of a recommendation for
approval of the East Weld Sanitary Landfill .
Introduction:
Waste Services Company is requesting permission to construct
and operate a sanitary landfill in southeastern Weld County.
The proposed Facility will be known as the "East Weld
Sanitary Landfill" (the "Facility") .
The Facility has been located and designed to be compatible
with surrounding agricultural and heavy industrial land
uses . It will be carefully constructed, operated and
maintained to assure the protection of the surrounding
environment and area inhabitants .
9.` •..' 9
Site Location:
1 . The Facility will be located approximately 5 miles
north of Interstate-76 off a private road that extends
3 1/2 miles north of Weld County Road 59 . (Please see
Fig. 2 . 1)
2 . The nearest couauunity, the town of Keenesburg, is
approximately 4 miles from the site. The Facility will
not be visible from the town of Keenesburg.
3 . The nearest residence to the Facility is approximately
2 miles away. The Facility will not be visible from
this residence .
4 . The Facility is away from any public thoroughfares by
a distance of more than 3 miles .
5 . The Facility is uniquely isolated within a vast area
located in the Agricultural Zoning District. (Please
see Weld Co . Regional Land Use Satellite Image)
w
J
f OQ V 'o
O U K a 4$ Ft
U
° N o a'-e .,� g ?
> i —
4-
o ■ w W >n8;$gawg Y N
O a a w tame 1 ' a 4-
UI IQ $ U -_ 8J As
O U lb. EE di I
O
o �]„p.
o N „ I • e
l'^ —
Z; VIII 6�6Ii�^I.'IcnI I h � s S` Q /6�� 1 1 T" r t
I
-1 �� x� 1 -:.� 4 a m —glil z-
i'�
II L /r I • e,p /� 4t 1- V i 't •�fttkJ i w :I�.
11"I. l ; 114' .- , 4 I �Y -:
)y�y, � { Eb
, PQ& . o�° i - Q 1� �f
® d g s
m
1 c.
\, H L
■,�� ► � ���■i 1® � , i ti
��1■ �G� ■_■■'I
_ fir + i�*� �� --r-a + cb
21
l
t �Z V 7 _i ® y _
•
"1- r '�/ , 11 1 •
. A_ • v et � �-
7h��
)a t t 5Ir� t•f•1 • Ir ♦ rn p, u a H-e V r
I
•
E ►' pr
�� �__Lyy• ° �� ° ° � �
•
rt
e.
i ' ppt- o`'O p V�oN'i i ' o a m j� E. V.`1��{ � —�K
O
461: 2
o d
�/ �p
p4 y _ .. ' t 7 Io'Sa 1!,� OY��.��I 9^e ?4,I:411...'-° a kxol- 1MM
WELD COUNTY REGIONAL LAND USE SA'II .I I I I I': IMAGE
4141 • ♦ ' 1. R,,t, • }:y S &R_j, ,,'.1141 t_ '+• �',a/ ilits t1,. st,' V4)
.t. •, r 41 wl• #1' rose .vt . ,✓-
,
•:- 4 r ,. * r ` 41,41 L 'r• ' 41 11`} IL'.
' 1 A..' 4141 . ♦ 1J �+
' � •, ' it
.4 r'j 311 :°p et—••a � �`; •, *
1y / . ♦ ' yt{� r 1141 A . .i/i'd
i.,a-A . tideKF'^te‘kt N• ' - µ a • i. x' ,.
♦ "' IPS *1�"^.' f.�'+ ?Sal , Ma
.1. , 11• �Y * yam. �a'i ;1/4 1111 MY •�,IP I _ ._ . • _sC +4141 • *" ‘
4 Y `s. t 0. r L`.• •
r , '/ 1
1.
y. N. V, 's A v Ui l► 1 l e4j .' '•
4141 - r I.h a `I� fie -y: c ' :. . ••i 416„.-4. •
4 ' '' R ,:` ,• r+ . ,rte
E \ ,1./
- i 1u , w F J
,. ♦ .
•y i� ® eigaittX11) >--
I-, ee . 'h
.
al
� lei"e
* 11.41. t +� c •r
41441 r 1 • 1 �'. 'g r. ,v, iii,,,,
:...
St Nisi p 3
A. ,- t`
'j• -. - 4141 1 ' 1�'' 1 . 1-0 -0ft,p.
0 a •� -• ore. e` , �_" k,,, --us 7 N
1 +a♦
j e f'
id ir
Y ' 1 ,ccyy :Ill 4Air 7
1 r• tP 4111 ' . _ V =:.e.w'J6"01 4111
. .\ _ ` .-. _il-me iik—
r ; ,
4141 / i
z. �1 4141
e
a, 1 ,.
is
n Ly s,
ii 1)atc: OLtoher i. Ie)e)I
hi'.' . a.."..r
Site Layout and Surrounding Land Uses :
1 . To assure compatibility with surrounding land uses , the
isolated location of the Facility has been enhanced
through the addition of extensive buffer areas . (Please
see Site Layout and Area Land Uses photo)
2 . The actual sanitary landfill area of the Facility
consisting of 700 acres will be surrounded by a total
of 3 , 940 acres of primary and secondary buffer areas .
3 . Within this 4 , 640 acre isolated land area , the actual
daily working face of the sanitary landfill will be
less than 1 acre in size .
4 . The only land uses within two miles of the Facility are
the closed Keenesburg dump , an open pit coal mine under
reclamation, an ash waste disposal facility , high
voltage electrical transmission lines , oil and gas
production facilities and dry land grazing. The
Facility will be compatible with these surrounding land
uses . (Please see Photos # 1-8)
5 . The Facility will share the existing major
infrastructure supporting the adjacent reclamation of
the Keenesburg Coal Mine and ongoing operation of the
Coors Ash Disposal Site .
�w® _89
Ul
w
Q iti I.
O O K 4i o it
w !Jid. j
wU In x t �'3��U K a 0 cL0 ,C
O .'II 00 4R {
O pr
O N wtnZ
--E VE — r in it J L
1� 1 I � r E F I I� � •
9 J
Ls,T °° Ipir-
± I gV. r _44 04 11---='t a� N r `1 r 1. / r�„, _ 10 °
���� �/ �� Sr;III __— —i-Sw a 't r
H7 -I—I—I I 1 ' / 1 ry}s� P _
_ ??yy gyp' r� / ( p L34�yYi t tY,� , 1, 1( ..o.-
\�4'town r
■ �� �I J 1: 'N c4 _ 4 I /
J1C> � C �x 7` s
�ki
7 ,
r!'-VMtS,
. > }Ar.. 3 ,�'.� , m
g ''C14r iii tj �. C1 \\ ij r\ % IS'3•
� � �lt ' i � = 4•
y ,
itol 1 • V�1 rei,,'�A_1 PI I •
• xwe o��
U'
fie`v jrttIJ!ijTa
o € / V'. ����iiiat" al e L '
a ia 1 ;:p � v� �_
JY` , 1
� _ o i[N':� 17I '...' RL 1\i'7 " r � py ^ (
r.
o� ) x O hi) i . �t® xa
� c9 �ili, o
44
r i vi e8 r 4
�/� �fir. • �'
1R r ���). 41 • '18 )a � pA� � � l� 4'c}� �� . r � Er
9:f0289
WELD COUNTY REGION-jAL LAND USE S-VI'I':I I I I. IMAGE
1 �,. ,,tea p e��. q� 5r. Y
1., , far] ',[t ,w W Iiiiiir .� . ,+fir .. 7
,,,. ,
E i ); t^,�
IYYCTt.•;t, ' 'ter . µ'•. ,, L. /1 i�/ •
� • vs. sees . y
ill a
r f • .r1 • .tom
-$ aa,• .: R f ik ' ,! +5••
1 a 1 w ,tyre• f• v , .<<
Ss., ' 1,
' rzzA�:. • I'
'•
r " fir
j yyx.t. i Mt • .. \1 �� 1 • = ,.it. • 5 1 s
A{
• f �.As
•• r 1 • .•. 114 talk 1". `:`I11 n±*
i l .
.ay i �! 1
* r - , ' trat.' �c{ rah
ts, ,cia
r: I• ` 1 ' , 1, r. 1
. or•.,�7�‘'' ' t _ �s 1I\ t,7' 1t� • 1- ,rt•• ishssaii„...) r'• .' s,d ,-, iv I, • i
, .
.. .
I , „L. ,; , ,
. , ,. :. . i .i.. . ;,•_ 4,..
i"... 4
.
j l'
•
‘3a.
4
V • III II. I)atc: Orl,ilhcr 5, 11191
3714.0
383
Environmental Safeguards :
1 . The environment surrounding the Facility will be
protected through a combination of optimum natural
conditions and proven engineered safeguards .
2 . A complete site investigation was conducted to assess
site specific geologic and hydraulic conditions . The
investigation included:
• Fifty soil borings , of which 44 were completed as
piezometers to assess groundwater conditions at
the site .
Three groundwater monitoring wells to determine
background groundwater quality.
• Thirteen test pits to evaluate engineering
properties of soils .
• Geotechnical testing of site materials .
3 . The favorable natural geology found beneath the
Facility, including the claystone bedrock, will help
assure the protection of the environment .
4 . Any natural groundwater occurring beneath the site is
at a depth and/or of a type that will further assure
its protection.
5 . In addition to the favorable natural conditions
existing at the Facility, the semi-arid climate of the
region limits any potential for landfill liquids .
6 . To enhance the natural characteristics of
the site , numerous engineered environmental safeguards
will be built into the Facility. They include :
* A three foot compacted clay liner system.
• A landfill liquids collection, detection and
removal system.
• Proper daily and intermediate cover.
• A 3 1/2 foot final cover system, including a
compacted clay cap and revegetation.
• A comprehensive groundwater monitoring system and
program.
A landfill gas monitoring system.
9:a13.1'33
7 . The combination of favorable naturally existing
conditions with the use of proven engineered safeguards
will assure the protection of the environment by the
Facility.
8 . The Facility has been investigated and designed to meet
or exceed the Federal Subtitle D Solid Waste Disposal
Facility Criteria. These criteria include :
* location restrictions ;
• operating criteria;
• design criteria ;
groundwater monitoring and corrective action;
• closure and post-closure care ; and
• financial assurance.
All of these criteria will apply to solid waste
facilities in operation on or after October 9 , 1993 .
Operational Safeguards :
1 . The Facility will prevent the creation of any nuisance
conditions , such as odors , fires , insect breeding ,
windblown debris , rodents and dust conditions .
2 . The application of proper cover at the end of each
operating day will eliminate odors , and any potential
habitats for insects or rodents .
3 . Windblown debris will be controlled by cover ,
screening , fencing , limiting the size of the filling
area , and closure , if necessary, during windy periods .
4 . All incoming loads will be screened at the Facility to
prevent the disposal of unacceptable wastes , which
include but are not limited to bulk liquids and
hazardous wastes .
Design Features :
1 . The design of the Facility has been adapted to the
existing topographic and environmental features of the
area.
2 . The topographic form of the Facility will feature
the same undulating slopes and knolls occurring
naturally in the area and will be less than elevations
of natural land forms found in the immediate vicinity.
Access :
1 . Though the location of the Facility is remote , it is
conveniently accessible from a combination of private,
county and state paved roadways . The access route
consists of Interstate-76 , portions of Weld County
Roads 57 1/2 , 18 , and 59 and a private paved road.
(Please see Fig. 2 -- Access Roads)
2 . The entrance to the Facility will be from the private
asphalt roadway that extends 3 1/2 miles north of the
end of Weld County Road 59 .
3 . Expected traffic to and from the Facility will be
similar in types and less in volume to traffic
historically using the access route . It is projected
to be approximately 100 vehicles per day.
4 . A "Site Access Study" of the proposed access route ,
prepared by Matthew J . Delich, P.E . , May 1992 , found
the following conclusions :
* Current operation on the area roadways and at the
area intersections is acceptable . Operation is at
level of service A, which is the highest level of
operation defined.
• With full operation of the proposed facility,
operation on the area roadways and at the area
intersections remains at the level of service A
category. Level of service A category is the
highest quality of traffic service, when motorists
are able to drive at their desired speed.
* The projected peak traffic volume comprises only
13 percent of the acceptable threshold traffic
volume . There will be significant excess capacity
on the area roadways with full operation of the
facility. (Please see Figure 6 -- Peak Hour
Traffic Projection)
• From a traffic operations perspective , no
improvements are required on any of the area
roadways .
5 . The private paved roadway was constructed and has been
maintained exclusively for the traffic associated with
the adjacent coal mine and ash disposal facility.
(Please see Photo /1 9)
6 . All vehicles traveling to and from the Facility will be
monitored to assure that loads are securely covered.
(Please see Photo li 10 )
791,:‘,7)::39
..
ACCESS ROADS Figure 2
450 -
LEVEL OF SERVICE D
400 -
- 391
LEVEL OF SERVICE C
= 350 - OR BETTER
11 (level of service C is deemed
acceptable for rural highways)
W
2 300 -
D
J
O
U >-
- 250 - H
Q
CC
♦- U
�- 200 - co
Q
O
I W
0 150
F.
100 -
PROJECTED
PEAK HOUR
50 - jOTE5i113T
-
76 7
AM PM
HOUR OF THE DAY
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTION
RELATED TO LEVEL OF SERVICE C
THRESHOLD VOLUME Figure 6
90 ' 9
Service Area and Role :
1 . The Facility will be part of a comprehensive waste
management system consisting of recycling , collection,
transfer and disposal components . This system will
function within -both local and regional service areas .
2 . The primary local service area of the Facility is a
geographic portion of Weld County known as the
Southeast Service Area, one of four distinct solid
waste service areas of Weld County.
3 . The Southeast Service Area, with a radius of 15 miles ,
comprises approximately 700 square miles . It is
without a convenient sanitary landfill capability, due
to the closure of all other landfills within the
Service Area . (Please see Solid Waste Service Areas
map)
4 . The regional service area of the Facility will consist
of portions of the Denver metropolitan area, including
the new Denver International Airport. Usage of the
Facility from this service area will generally be via a
recycling and transfer facility.
5 . The Facility will enable the expansion and development
of various proven recycling capabilities within its
service area, as economic and environmental realities
allow. Presently, effective recycling capabilities
are in place throughout the entire service area of the
Facility. They include residential curbside recycling
and industrial recycling programs . (Please see
Photos # 11-14 )
6 . The Facility has been designed to provide its local and
regional service areas with a useful life of
approximately 35 years . This useful life is comparable
• to the capacities available in the other geographic
service areas of Weld County.
3,0239
i Y
�d . r lug I
r _
'' , , y J' '-y�. '�[) , � 'J .w.. n� r,Z r� i �
7�$ s t IiC c v. 1. JZ �� i 1`t .I f 1 + +�, ti'^ ••�.1
4 1, Cl i y(Qy� '_ « ' I ,� 'I i `_"T I
Yf. 1 l tt / • C , 4 ° � .w -f I 1 I.ix"--"""
� ' f I 1 l
µ 1
,y.�k. � AN-07t -1-IL
11 �' L a 1 ,`f Ir \/ rirV 5 I ' 1_
5 ` v° � "I(tH
L �� � 1 _,— _ i t I
1 7" �� -ar,- 'i ! d. ,. t t
• n e xY Cw ��; i I s -b.,
��[ �� f 1! i�w � I r
(\-., ,.2 '� I ' y,.L',.....-_ 1—' ."���III W '+y _ ,{r .., 1 L 4 a,itx Pnwn3v¢ .1 �o _I
�i.." 1T .,. ��..� f
I, l.,a=+r�17 v+" > * - I
v Prki Mf,v4 �5 . �'Y{ '' _ . 1 ,. 1 ,r.
j M J I 1V5o \ ' s a ;� 1 1 1.1
c RF
�► Wqc
L,,„. �I z P �L t T �l �f �. Qo •.r r 1 i 1 7 _ I �3I
a 4t A �_ ))� �.7r1 '', r wa' ..o. ,-..n, �� �� ah
� 1 n II �'11"'�.�, tit _- i w wIy ,
�. o �r tea,,. n*� 1� . Vf 1 t, I_� 1 r� I
"e"gmoe V I s
. ' ` " �� 4 / fl r 1 if,. F ,.
•
Rte., L. i avEr 8 4. I .� �b SI ' 7 '. , 1 1 r t
alE �yf� �� "'� r P"'+7 J� �0 T Y ; _ ' *f. {I II.t-- +„' r
,4Y'f �� r• � � Ia �t� �� ���1�'H'� T'.,„ II �� 1- }r ®�,kls l� v...
�� ;•
;4144
I _ +A��Yyy
rM ,' 7 T.
I t J. - . `
iti ra � ' �5 l � Id1V/E
1 I IAI
1 - .t._ /1.-�. Fsl
f FA .tk t t t d 1
µ+' `l � 1 �l yl Y ���7� PI EMI :I I, I w -� 11 •G FBI Y
�; t 1q Wit J w :EI4• m' / 'may 1 ). ,2 i �I -2 l-
3+-+ f J�,- - 7 i / t11111.
b �ar'Jb. °y1y3S ��dT @1 i �� �'
ER OR
'• 1411( . 3 1` -I E L S;F Nf,11-� SAN ii A �lliN0 �,
r "' I ■ P '1 a ; IN Q i r
�. ,. i Zvi.�r.�N.Cr 9lV�s -t-
f 9 1� .- E l `L f 1 (f 1 ? - 4 ( ��
�, `,I y'�P� � r� y �.� i S_ r. i r- -'-`L,A SCI r�
1 'l lY ppl aljff ■ I �YI f 11 {I \ I (-S} SG L Y ppy Ilf�e,
n'".. '� to Y ire_I-- k. .S °7 ' Jt ' e r 9 s '° I
90283
Economic Benefits :
1 . The Facility will assist economic growth and
development within its local and regional service
areas . It will provide the fundamental long-term waste
management capability essential to existing and future
commerce and industry, including for the new Denver
International Airport and the growth it is expected to
stimulate .
2 . The Facility will not cause any costs to be borne by
Weld County. The county solid waste surcharge
collected by Weld County will fully cover any costs
related to the Facility.
3 . The Facility, in addition to economically meeting the
fundamental waste management needs of its service area.
will provide significant employment opportunities .
Existing jobs in the Keenesburg area will be retained
and new jobs will be created as part of the integrated
mine reclamation, ash disposal site and Facility
operation.
4 . By continuing the utilization of the existing major
buildings and improvements associated with the
Keenesburg Coal Mine and Coors Ash Disposal Site , the
Facility will enhance the value and consequently, the
related property tax benefits of those assets .
5 . The various economic benefits of the Facility were
recognized and affirmed by the Greeley/Weld Economic
Development Action Partnership , which voted unanimously
to support its permitting. (Please see EDAP letter
of support dated May 21 , 1992)
9 :,"
Hello