The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About940251.tiff RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT #1038 FOR AN INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT FOR A NATURAL GAS PROCESSING FACILITY - SNYDER OIL CORPORATION, C/O SWANSON AND MORRIS WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 23rd day of March, 1994, at the hour of 10:00 a.m. in the Chambers of the Board for the purpose of hearing the application of Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris, 518 17th Street, Suite 780, Denver, Colorado 80202, for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit #1038 for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) Zone District for a natural gas processing facility on the following described real estate, to-wit: Part of the SE* of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, said applicant was represented by Alfred R. Cuykendall and Doug Swanson, and WHEREAS, Section 24.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance provides standards for review of said Special Review Permit, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard all of the testimony and statements of those present, studied the request of the applicant and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission and all of the exhibits and evidence presented in this matter and, having been fully informed, finds that this request shall be approved for the following reasons: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 24.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 2. It is the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: a. The proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan's Agricultural goals and policies and is provided for as a Use by Special Review. b. The uses which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses which include oil and gas production, dryland crops, and high tension power lines. The uses which would be permitted will be compatible with the future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the Agricultural Zone District. 940251 PL0951 /91-0(161de : PL; ,c.• swypp,e/s4.4-,)1 Pit) SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT #1038 - SNYDER OIL CORPORATION, C/O SWANSON AND MORRIS PAGE 2 c. No overlay districts affect the site. d. Special Review Permit Development Standards will provide adequate protection for the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application of Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris, for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit #1038 for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) Zone District for a natural gas processing facility on the hereinabove described parcel of land be, and hereby is, granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review Permit shall be adopted and placed on the Special Review plat prior to recording the plat. The plat shall be delivered to the Department of Planning Services and be ready for recording in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 15 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. 3. Prior to recording the plat: a. The permitted area shall be clearly delineated on the plot plan. b. The property description on the submitted plot and vicinity plans shall describe only the area to be permitted. c. The plot plan shall be amended to show only two accesses onto Weld County Road 34. d. The plot plan shall be amended to include the spillage retention berm around the tank batteries. e. The plot plan shall be amended to include the permanent detention facilities. 4. Prior to the release of building permits: a. The applicant shall submit evidence that a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, has been submitted for construction activities on the site which disturb more than five acres. 940251 SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT #1038 - SNYDER OIL CORPORATION, C/O SWANSON AND MORRIS PAGE 3 b. An Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N. ) and Emissions Permit application shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health, for emissions of hazardous or odorous air pollutants and criteria as listed in the Emissions Permit. 5. Prior to the release of building permits for an on-site scale, the applicant shall enter into a road maintenance or improvements agreement, which shall include a haul route, with the Board of County Commissioners. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 23rd day of March, A.D. , 1994. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Weld County Clerk to the Board u - 11 101.16- 1 n n H. Webster, Ch irman (((\}}}//BY: ie, L� Deputy Jerk to the Board Dale I'. Hall, Pro-T APPROVED AS TO FORM: eoe . Baxter unty Attorney onstance L. Harbe t J Barbara J. Kirk`neyer 940251 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SNYDER OIL CORPORATION, C/O SWANSON & MORRIS USR #1038 1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit is for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) Zone District for an oil and gas processing facility as submitted in the application materials on file and subject to the Development Standards stated herein. 2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 90 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 3. No more than two access points shall be permitted into the site from Weld County Road 34. 4. All liquid and solid wastes shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination. 5. An Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N. ) and Emissions Permit shall be obtained from the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health, for emissions of hazardous or odorous air pollutants and criteria as listed in the Emissions Permit. 6. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. 7. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed of in a manner that controls fugitive dust, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. 8. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on this site. 9. The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the industrial limit of 80 db(A) , as measured according to 25-12-102, Colorado Revised Statutes. 10. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed facility and shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. 11. The septic system shall be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. 12. A spillage retention berm shall be installed around the tank batteries. The volume retained by the spillage berm shall be greater than the volume of the largest tank inside the berm. 13. All potentially hazardous chemicals shall be stored and handled in a safe manner, according to 25-8-205.5, Colorado Revised Statutes. 940251 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - SNYDER OIL CORPORATION, C/O SWANSON AND MORRIS PAGE 2 14. An Individual Sewage Disposal System Permit shall be finalized and approved by an Environmental Protection Specialist within one year of the application date. 15. All construction activities that disturb more than five acres shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division. 16. An ET5 class muffler shall be installed on all compressors located at this site. 17. Fisher Whisper Trim units shall be placed in front of all compressors to help reduce noise levels. 18. All construction on the property shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Weld County Building Code Ordinance. 19. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 20. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 21. Personnel from the Weld County Health Department and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County Regulations. 22. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown herein and governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Major changes from the plans or Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 23. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. 940251 HEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 94-30 RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR AN INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT FOR A NATURAL GAS PROCESSING FACILITY - SNYDER OIL CORPORATION, C/O SWANSON AND MORRIS A public hearing was conducted on March 23, 1994, at 10:00 a.m. , with the following present: Commissioner W. H. Webster, Chairman Commissioner Dale K. Hall, Pro-Tem Commissioner George E. Baxter Commissioner Constance L. Harbert Commissioner Barbara J. Kirkmeyer Also present: Acting Clerk to the Board, Shelly Miller Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison Planning Department representative, Greg Thompson The following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated March 7, 1994, and duly published March 10, 1994, in the Windsor Beacon, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris, for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) Zone District for a natural gas processing facility. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, made this a matter of record. Greg Thompson, Planning Department representative, entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written and indicated the applicant submitted information on March 22, 1994, concerning a revised plat, which is different than the plat reviewed by the Planning Commission. He explained the applicant has rearranged the site and added numerous items and equipment; therefore, the Board needs to decide whether the revised plat is a substantial change from what the Planning Commission reviewed. Mr. Morrison clarified, by Ordinance which relies on State statute, the question is whether the Board has enough information from the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow a decision to be made. If the plat has been changed too much and the Planning Commission's recommendation is of no value, the matter should be referred back to the Planning Commission. In response to the Board, Mr. Thompson reiterated additional equipment and storage had been added to the plat, as well as the site being rearranged. He stated, after speaking with Barry Kramer, Planning Department, the additions would be mandatory for processing and generally the intent had not been compromised by the additions. Commissioner Baxter questioned why the equipment was added rather than on the original plat if it was necessary. Mr. Morrison referred to Exhibit G, a Summary and Reasons for Change submitted by the applicant's representative, Alfred Cuykendall, Plant Superintendent. After reviewing said Exhibit G, Mr. Thompson responded to a question from Commissioner Kirkmeyer stating silt fences or straw bales would be required to maintain silt and sedimentation on the site, and in addition, there will be a six-foot chain-link fence. He also stated the nearest residence is about one-half mile to the north/northeast and confirmed Condition of Approval #5 had been met prior to scheduling this hearing before the Board. After discussion, the Board concurred to allow the applicant's representatives to supplement the written explanation. Doug Swanson, technical representative for the applicant, asked the Board if the original plat, which was reviewed by the Planning Commission, could be considered today if the changes were not allowed. After explanation from Mr. Morrison, the Board concurred the original plat could be considered today. Mr. Cuykendall explained the additions to the plot plan were necessary because the original plan was done without a lot of preliminary engineering and revisions were necessary to keep advised of continuing engineering concerning what the site needs to contain. He further explained more detailed engineering was required on the plot plan, which added equipment necessary to do a prudent job. Mr. Cuykendall clarified the changes are not beyond the auspices of the facility and confirmed they will better the efficiency and environmental and safety requirements. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Cuykendall said the scale is proposed for potential happenings, and 940251 ere : ga RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - SNYDER OIL CORPORATION, C/O SWANSON AND MORRIS PAGE 2 to further questions from the Board, Mr. Cuykendall indicated the items were not added to satisfy Conditions of Approval, but to improve the facility. Mr. Morrison noted there was one piece of correspondence received concerning specific equipment. Mr. Thompson clarified there was no other correspondence received, except from Ed Backstrom, surrounding property owner, and his primary concern was noise, which the applicant indicated should not increase. Mr. Thompson confirmed that he had enough time to respond to the changes after talking with the applicant and Mr. Kramer. Commissioner Baxter indicated his only concern is that maybe the additions were done to circumvent the amendment process, which he feels is not really the case; however, he is puzzled with the additions. Commissioner Harbert stated if the additions will improve the facility, it may have been poorly planned from the beginning, which is a concern. Mr. Cuykendall said the early plans were more conceptual; however, the engineering is now in place, and he assured the Board the equipment operates quietly. Mr. Thompson indicated concern as to whether the scale would increase truck traffic and reiterated it was not associated with the original plan. Mr. Cuykendall explained the short- term plan for transportation is through a pipeline; however, the long-term plan includes a local scale and small building in case the pipeline could not withstand the volume. The product would then be hauled out on a short-term basis, which should not increase traffic and they would inform Weld County of their long-term intentions at that time. Commissioner Harbert suggested adding a Condition of Approval requiring an agreement for Weld County Road 34 once the scale is installed. Commissioner Baxter agreed and suggested the matter be heard today rather than referred back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Harbert moved to include the changes in the Special Review Permit to be heard today and not to refer said matter back to the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hall and carried unanimously. Mr. Backstrom said Snyder has cooperated with him and stated his only concern is increased traffic. He indicated most traffic would access Weld County Road 29, which is a very dusty and sandy road that washes easily. Mr. Backstrom requested Weld County Roads 29 and 34 be included in a road agreement. Mr. Cuykendall confirmed that all Conditions of Approval and Development Standards were acceptable. Commissioner Kirkmeyer reiterated the need for an additional Condition concerning a road maintenance agreement for Weld County Roads 34 and 29, and Commissioner Harbert suggested establishment of a haul route. After discussion, Mr. Cuykendall indicated in the beginning there would only be pickup traffic from their operators and potentially one truckload of condensate per day; however, if the scale is installed to sell propane, the traffic would increase to approximately five truckloads per day. He agreed with Mr. Backstrom that most traffic would be going south on Road 29 to Road 32 rather than west on Road 34 or north on Road 29. Mr. Cuykendall said access is available off Road 34 onto the Highway, but Road 32 is paved to the Highway. Commissioner Harbert suggested when the scale is installed an agreement be worked out with Engineering. After further discussion, Mr. Thompson suggested a haul route be established prior to releasing building permits for the scale, and Commissioner Kirkmeyer suggested the haul route be included in the agreement. Mr. Morrison read the following suggested language into the record for Condition of Approval #4c: "Prior to the release of building permits for an on-site scale, the applicant shall enter into a road maintenance or improvements agreement, which shall include a haul route, with the Board of County Commissioners. " Mr. Cuykendall consented to said Condition, and Mr. Thompson recommended Condition of Approval #3e be added, pursuant to a memo from Don Carroll, Engineering Department, as follows: "Prior to recording the plat, the plot plan shall be amended to include the permanent detention facilities." Bill Delap of KLH Engineering, also representing the applicant, indicated he talked with Mr. Carroll and confirmed the drainage plans would be on the final plat. Commissioner Harbert moved to approve the request of Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris, for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) Zone District for a natural gas processing facility, based on the recommendations of the Planning staff and the Planning Commission, with the additional Conditions of Approval as recommended by staff, and the remaining Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as entered into the record. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hall, and it carried unanimously. (Clerk to the Board's note: The abovementioned Condition of Approval #4c is actually Condition of Approval #5 in the Board of County Commissioners Resolution. ) 940251 RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - SNYDER OIL CORPORATION, C/O SWANSON AND MORRIS PAGE 3 This Certification was approved on the 28th day of March, 1994. APPROVED: ATTEST: Aaa4447 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO)) Weld County Clerk to the Board ! By: Q �� K ( .{.Q Qc, Webster, hai an Deputy C&3erk to the Board Da a , Pr -Tem TAPE #94-15 Geopg E. Baxter DOCKET #94-30 4/15an,r7 di onstance L. Harbert, PL0951 g 4 jfiaLleit--1 arbara J. Kir eyer 940251 ATTENDANCE RECORD frQ HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS a3 DAY OF `rn///L.dA,J 1994: DOCKET 0 Use ,„aft .ue.tJ dxl (npE-z2,tc,on� DOCKET 0 d DOCKET II DOCKET II PLEASE write or print your name legibly, your address and the DOCKET II (as listed above) or the name of the applicant of the hearing you are attending. NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING Lurrosi �4i I.X.1 alli 1.303 Al .1.uJr 2 AOC Sav nizyc ,tc` 4/4-.X gbhi.1✓ Pcv' 7 •� &3 (Lt pc t__,4 g - t 1 (4- s &s s,1 pc2 01 7 G w %ct 940231 NOT I C E The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, on March 23, 1994, conditionally approved a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for the property and purpose described below. Conditional approval of this plan creates a vested property right pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S. , as amended, for a period of three years. APPLICANT: Snyder Oil Corporation c/o Swanson & Morris 518 17th Street, Suite 780 Denver, Colorado 80202 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE! of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado TYPE AND INTENSITY OF APPROVED USE: Special Review Permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) Zone District for a natural gas processing facility SIZE OF PARCEL: 20 acres, more or less Failure to abide by the terms and conditions of approval will result in a forfeiture of the vested property right. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: DONALD D. WARDEN CLERK TO THE BOARD BY: SHELLY K. MILLER DEPUTY CLERK TO THE BOARD PUBLISHED: March 31, 1994, in the Windsor Beacon 940251 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO Ss - N0T1 COUNTY OF WELD The issio or of Weld iI I, ROGER A. LIPKER, of said County of Weld, being duly The Bard O of Weld County,Colorado.on March sworn,say that I am publisher of ? 1994, candltlonally *Droved a Site Specific. la reiopm•nt Plan and WINDSOR BEACON olal ROVIIW Permit M rr property and purple Mcrroae basalt., a weekly newspaper having a general circulation in said °COMItlonal approval other` Pe, Wm creates a vim* County and State, published in the town of WINDSOR, in •ty�" � said County and State; and that the notice, of which the ,thmended,to a peril/apt annexed is a true copy, has been published in said weekly e years. for / successive weeks, that the notice was PucANT:snyder 041 published in the regular and entire issue of every number of elf-Swenwn&Morrie the paper during the period and time of publication, and in 9M 17th Street,Suite NM the newspaper proper and not in a supplement, and that °""°r'Colorado °aado B°2°. the first publication of said notice was in said paper bearing ti3AL DESCRIPTION/PSI the date of the ^elthrime ssva a Beare 3/ day of /ti A.D., 19 626/ and the e S 3N0M.Radar of We 81h P.M.** last publication bearing the date of the coopdo Iday of A.D., 19 and that T'IPE AND I"T^PN.PSRppvV�Ep the said WINDSOR BEACON has been published tliEspecislRevwwtwWel continuously and uninterruptedly for the period of 5 °"Industrial use SSA consecutive weeks, in said County and State, prior to the ygncuuurap Zone SOS far a natural Sea.Promlelle date of first publication of said notice, and the same is a way newspaper within the meaning of an Act to regulate printing WE OF PARCEL:20 of legal notices and advertisements, approved May 18, epeorless 1931, and all prior acts so far as in force. failure to abide by Mlfs ///////f lad conditions sultIn of /✓I/ 6 _ *result pr a fort *vested propertyj-d , "DARD OF COST* rP ISHER MMISSI0NERS ELD COUNTY, OpIAD0 Subscribed and sworn to before me this �'�� day of {Y DONALD D.WARDEN -1" 19 `/ CLERK TO THE BOARD . �/p pL1 � SY: SHELLYK.MILLER AL-1.41/ ��W1�2 yrw DUTY CLERK TO THE NOTARY PUBLIC som ;,. My commission expires v -, /9 7 Z 940251 NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, First Floor, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit are requested to attend and may be heard. Should the applicant or any interested party desire the presence of a court reporter to make a record of the proceedings, in addition to the taped record which will be kept during the hearing, the Clerk to the Board shall be advised in writing of such action at least five days prior to the hearing. The cost of engaging a court reporter shall be borne by the requesting party. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Commission may be examined in the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado. DOCKET NO: 94-30 APPLICANT: Snyder Oil Corporation c/o Swanson and Morris 518 17th Street, Suite 780 Denver, Colorado 80202 DATE: March 23, 1994 TIME: 10:00 a.m. REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) Zone District for a natural gas processing facility LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE* of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 29 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: DONALD D. WARDEN WELD COUNTY CLERK TO THE BOARD BY: Linda M. Dodge DEPUTY CLERK TO THE BOARD DATED: March 7, 1994 PUBLISHED: March 10, 1994, in the Windsor Beacon Ex�ihi f J 940251 NOTICE Pass to b Meg laws of the State ott'khradoaM the Weld County Zoning Ordnance,a pubic hearing WI be held Ingle Chatters of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION County, Colorado, Weld Canny Centennial Street First Flew,Flew,at 110th Greeley,Colorado,at the STATE OF COLORADO time specified. All paper SS ' in war manner interested In COUNTY OF WELD the Slte Spode Development Plan end Sperequested Review Permit w I, ROGER A. LIPKER, of said County of Weld, being duly to attend stn mobs heard. sworn,say that I am publisher of ISO the applicant sad iaareted party desire p WINDSOR BEACON gsitce d a wolf repair rem dlhep n addhronyyb a weekly newspaper having a general circulation in said L ord which viig the heat' County and State, published in the town of WINDSOR, in e Board Nsbt said County and State; and that the notice, of which the WO WOO et We five annexed is a true copy, has been published in said weekly vs hawing.p °tt repealer for / successive weeks, that the notice was opening Wad be borne by the published in the regular and entire issue of every number of WSW Party. the paper during the period and time of publication, and in %tIT ALSO maps KNOWN the newspaper proper and not in a supplement, and that le let and so tee fled by the Weld Corny the first publication of said notice was in said paper bearing Peening Commission nay the date of the be ramrodthe office /O d of fit.44.-c4_ A.D., 19 and the b e Clerk to the Board d Nog Commissioner, last publication bearing the date of the baeie�in the Weld 1 _ of A.D., 19_ and that nod In Center, Cday tea Third Floor,Grimly, the said WINDSOR BEACON has been published Colwad°' continuously and uninterruptedly for the period of 5 co:KET NO:94.30 APPLI consecutive weeks, in said County and State, prior to the CANT' date of first publication of said notice, and the same is a Snyder Oil Corporation newspaper within the meaning of an Act to regulate printing do Swanson and Mon is 51817th Street,Suite T80 of legal notices and advertisements, approved May 18, Denver,Colorado 80202 19314c / anddall prior acts so far as in force. TOTE:Mar0h.m.1994TIME:10410a.m. REQUEST:A Site Specific Development Plan andR Special Review Permit for an mduehiel tor in pyirne A �L 'Agricueuratl Zorr,OWION Subscribed and sworn to before/me this ?tat day of for a natural ynpidp4l�, µr/�- /J 194"`7 for a fin_ dkG�Al -4 .C�-e'/� , / -14-- nom tN NOTARY PUBLIC tatfiopaliinawraetyle My commission expires / -2, 1 C?A, . tit-eitiFnd W d Odder :. RSOUNTY CON-. COUNTY, COL- D.WARDEN MTp � Y�CLERK TO CLpERK TO THE DA1R)i'ardi 7,190$ i 940?51 I CERTIFICATE OF MAILING The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Hearing, Docket 1194-30 was placed in the United States mail, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following property owners. DATED this ft-it day of , 1994. -1729122)7 / Deputy Clerk to the Board/7 John Eisenach and A.D. Preston Platteville Limited Partnership 13676 WCR 36 1801 Broadway, Suite 1050 Platteville, CO 80651 Denver, CO 80202 Tuttle Investment Co. , Ltd. Amoco Production Company 12735 WCR 34 PO Box 800 Platteville, CO 80651 Denver, CO 80201 T.E. and Anne E. Backstrom Snyder Oil Corporation 14230 WCR 36 c/o Swanson and Morris Platteville, CO 80651 518 17th Street, Suite 780 Denver, Colorado 80202 Public Service Company of Colorado 1400 Glenarm Denver, CO 80302 Olen D. Presley and Frank H. Presley 721 Front Range Road Littleton, CO 80120 State of Colorado 1313 Sherman 11600 Denver, CO 80207 John Leonard Estate of Mirth Leonard 922 Collyer Street Longmont, CO 80501 Arthur E. and Evelyn Ostermiller 4705 WCR 46 Berthoud, CO 80513 Charles Terry Edwards 5793 Via Peralta Pleasanton, CA 94566 94 0.2:51 Yov ' i r' 1 - a. I Ir 04 rti ± J m H SJ �®r '�:'GC1 IX sa — if tattElLt1 I: O ��¢� `e "�.,�.t. e OZ_QW^Z r "1.10.`6:-12 0 DattiD K .¢' dWCph'. c 11 _ -4m O) m Z — h !.' i a s,4-3 L Z o —I _ w - a) ii 4J r d ..i N 0 N • m O Ei (NI .-1 . o ] A ro .-+• vo it v - 0) ria)• . „, ns ��:a W gc 'wit Qw M N CD H VD CO 88i 8 81ll '80 i , _ -,-, 940231 Ait*; mEmoRAnDUm Clerk to the Board March 24, 1994 To Date Greg Thompson, Current Planner COLORADO From USR-1038, Snyder Oil Company Subject: Please include the enclosed Board of County Commissioners Sign Posting Certificate in the above-mentioned case file. (),Sc /1138 did nskace 940251 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE APPLICANT SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST 10�DAYS BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR CASE # (�5� /O. 73 THE SIGN WAS POSTED BY: 1.1) /�5 4. 6104//sat NAME OF PERSON POSTING SIGN SIGNAT E APPLICANT STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME THIS 9 DAY OF A.t''c h/ , 19 q• 2 . SEAL 1:12NOT PU IC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES -5-- 29- LAST DAL TO POST SIGN IS : 3 - J3 , 1974. PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVIC S' q BEFORE THE DATE OF THE HEARING. 0 MAR 1 n 1994 ( f� SUM Snyder Oil Corporation 3939 SOCO Parkway Evans,Colorado 80620 (303)330-2200 (303)442-6025 Weld County Commissioners 914 10th St . Greeley, CO 80631 Honorable Commissioners : Summary The plant site and USR application is to build a gas processing plant . We have included on our plot plan all the equipment as we know it today, as well as any future that we thought might occur . We changed the plot and added some vessels due to some site specific conditions we have identified. The lube oil storage and other tankage we added to the original plot were an afterthought we felt made sense to add, due to our desire to eliminate barrel handling. None of these changes to our plot plan in any way change the basic intent of the processing plant . The equipment we install in the plant is intended to process gas in a safe and environmentally sound matter, as well as comply with the rules and regulations we are bound by law to follow. j EXHIBIT 1 70 940251 REASONS FOR CHANGE When we started the application for the USR with Weld County, we had a concept of what was needed for a gas plant based on standard practices necessary, i . e . compression and processing facilities, etc, but had not done specific site engineering for this facility. As we have begun doing the detail engineering, we have discovered some conditions that require us to have additional equipment in the form of vessels to handle and contain liquids that are more site specific than what our original concept required. We are not changing the scope of what was originally submitted, only the methods of accomplishing the desired results . We are constrained by our recent experience to add more capacity to the liquid holding vessels on the front end of this plant . We also would like to convey our needs to incorporate other regulatory compliance issues to the county, and the possibility of future changes that may occur due to this need. One requirement that we have under the Process Safety Management (OSHA 1910) is that we do Hazards analysis on our plant from concept to final product . Any operational Hazards or process Hazards that we identify may require us to modify our facility, a part of the facility or some of the equipment in the facility. Unfortunately, we will probably still be in the evolution stage up to the point just prior to startup of the plant based on what these procedures require . Another requirement that Snyder Oil Corp. has that impacts us is that we will follow all environmental and safety regulations both to the letter and the intent of the law. From the environmental side, we will have used engine oil from the compressors . We also wish to minimize the use of 55 gallon drums as much as possible. This is beneficial from the standpoint of the disposal of drums . We would like to buy our engine oil in bulk, then dispose of the used oil into a bulk tank for hauling to a recycling facility. This is the reason we have added oil tanks to the Plot plan. The intent of Snyder Oil Corporation is to build a gas processing plant . The goals we have for building this facility are to do the things required for noise abatement, containment of spills, stormwater runoff, etc, as dictated by Weld County, best practices and requirements under A.P . I . and A.N. S . I . specifications . We have ordered coolers with slower than normal fan tip speed to reduce noise, the highest Dba noise suppression engine mufflers and all valves with high pressure drop to include whisper trim for noise suppression. None of the changes in storage or vessels we have submitted on our plot plan will impact noise abatement . This facility is intended to process gas, and there are no plans to build other than a gas plant . We will build into the plant all of the equipment necessary to meet the specific conditions of this site, as well as what is necessary to make it a safe, prudent, environmentally sound operation. This may continue to cause some changes in our plot, but does not change the basic plant concept . 940251 We have intended to keep the County abreast of all our changes prior to, and even subsequent of our Planning and Commissioners meetings, so that you are all aware of our project, and we will continue to do so until we have a final plant built . We also have intended all along to provide a final as built plot for your records . Should you have any questions, call me at 592-8500 and I will be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Al Cuykendall Plant Superintendent strJ 940251 From : SWANSON 8 MORRIS, Lill. PHONE No. : 8253229 Mar.21 1994 2:27Ph1 P01 Swanson Morris,ac Oil and Gas Properties March 21, 1994 Weld County Department of Planning IL MAR 2 2 1994 i1400 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 t'ianoina Attn: Greg Thompson Re: USR 1038 Snyder O11 Corporation • Dear Greg: Attached please find a revised copy of the plot plan for the referenced USR. Please note -, that changes were made moving the product storage from the southeast corner to the southwest corner of the site and the office (ruin the southwest corner to the southeast corner of the site. We have also added liquids handling equipment including a Pipeline Slug Catcher, Suction Scrubber, and Condensation Stabilizer. These vessels will be connected to the inlet pipeline to handle liquids in the system while the gas stream continues for processing. A Load Shack to house controls tar truck loading and a possible future scale site have also been added. I have asked our Consulting Engineers, KLH-NUL Engineering, Inc. to address how the addition of this equipment and the relocation of Office/Product Storage would effect on- site drainage. This will be faxed to you under separate cover. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, S • & LLC Douglas A. Swanson 41017th Street ♦ Suite 1180 ♦ Denver,Colorado 80202 Cm)S25-7243 ♦ fax(303)6253229 MAR 21 '94 14:23 B253229 PAGE.001 CKf� �.f�ttF 00d 6461-e- 940251 TEL : Mar 21 ,94 18 :03 No .009 P .02 KLH Engineering Group KLH Engineering Group Greeley, Inc. a subsidiary of KLH Engineering Group, Inc. March 21, 1994 C h 4� MAR 2 1 WY4 Weld County Department of Planning �I 1400 N. 17th Ave. ^"°°°' plan Greeley, CO 80631 nino Attn: Greg Thompson Re: USR-1038 Snyder Oil Corporation Dear Mr. Thompson: At the request of Doug Swanson we have looked at the effect on drainage of the added equipment for the above mentioned site. From our calculations it appears that approximately 14,000 square feet of impervious area and 11,000 square feet of additional gravel drives have been added to the site. However, it also appears that approximately 26,000 square feet of equipment will be surrounded by containment berms which will not allow runoff from these areas. Those containment berms were not taken into account during our original runoff calculations. Therefore the net result of the additional equipment to the runoff of the site should be negligible. If you have any questions please let me know. Sincerely, KLH ENGINEERING GROUP GREELEY, INC. Steve A. Butherus cc: Doug Swanson 822 Seventh Street,Suite 5,Greeley,Colorado 80631 (303)351-0550 FAX(303)351-0579 ea MAR 21 '94 17:02 PAGE.002 940251 From SWANS0N 8 MORRIS, LTD. PHONE No. : 8253229 Mar.21 1994 2:28PM P02 • r I s, �� . r j'; JPl� �Sv lv411• , [� r i !„ A 'l r r f �!:> I4 tv •Ylu�iJii4'_,� ,I 3 .05%00.00 N •00'on /t n. ;'•:141. \ ` O .....x�.,. N 4. /� I tttiv • Ii F cr� 1 ; ." c Sa•c3 i I 0FFiP I I I ax nY t�l I. .1 I ' ! :"k . �'� N Y1 J�� 4'. �. �` I • r 5411 la y i I\ F� fill ! s. ! Q4 ;Y7Y,,e•Y.t'I�O ><•! fi i ' 0. \ I i Y: h" .YIe..a )•Jt' 1'".1� .Q f66 ?C �'1^`"'IffIII .•i;t�'..:.t'.. :;. .�F'.. `�%5r�'�•, ,fi 'Y' �t O 1 Iis I iY,,s M1:a. ?, ; r.r:kr •`, ,r 'h • • 4•x,'4, 1 o5 trnk ( 1h jl5.q.. /t 14 a ro t�` h giP / x / Q.•j• tI `V , O t�J a! t P'1 ,0 ,i is r i . 1:4 , KR ' la' sfi'l ti i 1.,0 b ' " i .1 . •',..:'::::::gilifilStt r• . ` �!°_ !P RI x i •• r•�4,i., Sri ia4 t .S+( •ii lq " ' " i li 0 ...:?....2i : ',:,...:!.., c'.., :i.,,:':,•-•;,;,.: ....yt4:::,, •�pz Za# dd rSBJ 7R �f\ C7 ( I y'L J lb.. t f r�� 4 • fit. r • • g a \, L!C. 0 1. www O I , .f '�Y1 � J• .`Y,•��fl=;tl,.•.tsW a'a�! L171 0 III ! '' ", re ..rtti 'y d f ��uh.. a ii:i a ° ,• • '•. • ... :. - ....., •';/;:•,,q.;.•:••:.:57•1'..-et, 4A, CP "41 a a , � W 1.1 EAc_......j: . CO ss ray + a I • i .•' 1Ji 4R�+ y4 �'•fj:• I; . i. 3 .00.00.00 N .00'000 ( ytt�yrt� $r!* .i3 „�rV,•td'1' � ',t•� ;y' .j j !• ,I ' }4,F� a � ra^Y'k Are ��i ,J psl. MA- � t'OP4 ti II k y��4 � (�<<; ��.. aGH a �•, 9 IlII'• ,~J�J F� I 11...7.14 R.�'.'.. n. ..r: A{:F• it 1 \ i III I, . irit r1: �tP •� r-�... . �I y V I ' j•1 {`t�vytm �+'r(:tni wi-cf#6- HIM lf : • : ' ;:...3..i',1•;•'•.;..:J�` C.]UC5LJ L=.l f" � 1_ I I y.. r .w .."-r�}�`, , tg 5t.r..:t• t Lei f •Y1 h.: I I I 1 ;::.1, ,:;•:. •....•I •l al.h.`:"::'.•,r.., .•i 4'153 ZO' d £00' ON 6P:6 P6' TZ Jew 253229 PAGE.002 MAR 21 '94 14:23 940251 :riThitra„ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (303)353-3845, EXT. 3540 WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE iDe GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO Date: December 17, 1993 CASE NUMBER: USR-1038 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for a natural gas processing facility. The parcel of land is described as part of the SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is northwest of the intersection of Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 29. This application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the application and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by December 31, 1993, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Greg Thompson, Current Planner, if you have any questions about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3 . X We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5 . ' / Signed: to the enclosed letter. Signed: e-✓&A r/�st-Ffi Agency: ,4JJ Ur 6/L-c-2es . Date: FC744i 0 MAR 0 3 191994 111 �i%��f 940251 ,►pig Fr", MEMORAnDUM ' Clerk to the Board March 3, 1994 To Date COLORADO Greg Thompson, Current Planner �� COLORADO From USR-1038 Subject: Enclosed is a referral response which was received for the abovementioned case. Please include the referral with the case file. • - . . ? V 94 0251. SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 18, 1994 Page 7 The Chairperson asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Richard Kimmel - yes; Bill O'Hare - yes; Juliette Kroekel - yes; Ron Sommer - yes; Marie Koolstra - yes; Tom Rulon - yes; Judy Yamaguchi - yes. Motion passed unanimously. CASE NUMBER: USR-1038 APPLICANT: Snyder Oil Corp. , c/o Swanson and Morris REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for a natural gas processing facility. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 29. Doug Swanson, representative, Snyder Oil Corporation, explained the site will consist of 20 acres and be surrounded by a buffer zone. The reason for the plan will enable them to keep up with the increases in the oil and gas production in Weld County. The closest residence to the proposal is about 1/2 mile away and noise concerns have been addressed in the Development Standards. The Chairperson asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Richard Kimmel moved Case Number USR-1038, Snyder Oil Corporation, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commission' s recommendation for approval, with an amendment to Condition of Approval #5. Bill O'Hare seconded the motion. The Chairperson asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Richard Kimmel - yes; Bill O'Hare - yes; Juliette Kroekel - yes; Ron Sommer - yes; Marie Koolstra - yes; Tom Rulon - yes; Judy Yamaguchi - yes. Motion passed unanimously. CASE NUMBER: Second AM SUP-369 APPLICANT: Weld County Board of County Commissioners REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and an Amended Special Review permit for offices and a gravel pit in the A (Agricultural) zone district. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: - Part of the SW4 and part of the SE4 of Section 31, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Adjacent to North 11th Avenue and north of the Cache La Poudre River approximately 1/2 mile south of Weld County Road 64. `//.6 f-C- 940251 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Richard Kimmel that the following resolution with the amendment to Condition of Approval Number 5b, be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for: CASE NUMBER: USR-1038 - APPLICANT: Snyder Oil Corporation c/o Swanson & Morris i ADDRESS: 518 17th Street, Suite 780, Denver, Colorado 80202 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review permit for- an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for a -naturll gas processing facility. LJ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 29 be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 24.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: The proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan' s Agricultural goals and policies and is provided for as a use by special review. - The uses which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses which include oil and gas production, dryland crops, and high tension power lines. The uses which would be permitted will be compatible with the future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the Agricultural zone district. - No overlay districts affect the site. Special Review Permit Development Standards will provide adequate protection for the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and County. This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities. The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: EXhik, 6 940Z51 RESOLUTION, USR-1038 Snyder Oil Corporation c/o Swanson & Morris Page 2 1. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review permit shall be adopted and placed on the Special Review plat prior to recording the plat. The plat shall be delivered to the Department of Planning Services and be ready for recording in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's office within 15 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. 3. Prior to recording the plat: a. The permitted area shall be clearly delineated on the plot plan. b. The property description on the submitted plot and vicinity plans shall describe only the area to be permitted. c. The plot plan shall be amended to show only two accesses onto Weld County Road 34. d. The plot plan shall be amended to include the spillage retention berm around the tank batteries. 4. Prior to the release of building permits: a. The applicant shall submit evidence that a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division has been submitted for construction activities on the site which disturb more than five acres. b. An Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N. ) and Emissions Permit application shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health for emissions of hazardous or odorous air pollutants and criteria as listed in the Emissions Permit. 5. Prior to scheduling a hearing with the Board of County Commissioners: a. The applicant shall submit information to the Department of Planning Services addressing a stormwater retention facility to handle on-site drainage. The drainage plan shall be approved by the Weld County Engineering Department. b. The applicant shall submit information indicating an adequate legal water supply has been obtained for the site. 940251 RESOLUTION, USR-1038 Snyder Oil Corporation c/o Swanson & Morris Page 2 Motion seconded by Bill O'Hare. VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Richard Kimmel Bill O'Hare Juliette Kroekel Marie Koolstra Ron Sommer Tom Rulon Judy Yamaguchi The Chairperson declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Sharyn Ruff, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on January 18, 1994. Dated the 18th a ry, 1994. Sharyn F. uff Secretary 940;1:51 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson & Morris USR-1038 1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review permit is for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for an oil and gas processing facility as submitted in the application materials on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. 2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 90 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 3. No more than two access points shall be permitted into the site from Weld County Road 34. 4. All liquid and solid wastes shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination. 5. An Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N. ) and Emissions Permit shall be obtained from the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health for emissions of hazardous or odorous air pollutants and criteria as listed in the Emissions Permit. 6. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. 7. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed of in a manner that controls fugitive dust, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. 8. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on this site. 9. The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the industrial limit of 80 db(A) , as measured according to 25-12-102, Colorado Revised Statutes. 10. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed facility and shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. 11. The septic system shall be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. 12. A spillage retention berm shall be installed around the tank batteries. The volume retained by the spillage berm shall be greater than the volume of the largest tank inside the berm. 13. All potentially hazardous chemicals shall be stored and handled in a safe manner, according to 25-8-205.5, Colorado Revised Statutes. 14. Individual Sewage Disposal System permit shall be finalized and approved by an Environmental Protection Specialist within one year of the application date. 15. All construction activities that disturb more than five acres shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division. 94o;n1 • DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-1038 Snyder Oil Corporation c/o Swanson & Morris Page 2 16. An ET5 class muffler shall be installed on all compressors located at this site. 17. Fisher Whisper Trim units shall be placed in front of all compressors to help reduce noise levels. 18. All construction on the property shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Weld County Building Code Ordinance. 19. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 20. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 21. Personnel from the Weld County Health Department and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations. 22. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Major changes from the plans or Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 23. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. 940;!51 4 INVENTORY OF ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION Applicant: Snyder Oil Corporation Case Number: USR-1038 c/o Swanson and Morris Submitted or Prepared Prior to Hearine At Hearing 1. Application 25 pages X 2. 1 Application plat 2 pages X 3. DPS referral summary sheet and letter X 4. DPS letter to applicant X 5. DPS Recommendation X 6. DPS Surrounding Property Owner/Mineral Owner Mailing list, letter and certificate. X 7. 3 DPS Maps Prepared by Planning Technician X 8. DPS Notice of Hearing X 9. DPS Case File Summary Sheet X 10. DPS Field Check X 11. Planning Commission member field check dated December 29, 1993 X 12. Weld County Engineering Department referral response dated December 29, 1993 X 13. Weld County Health Department referral response dated December 29, 1993 X 14. Town of Platteville referral response dated December 21, 1993 X 15. Weld County Office of Emergency Management referral response dated December 21, 1993 X 16. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission referral response dated December 28, 1993 X 17. Colorado Division of Water Resources referral response dated January 6, 1994 X 18. Memo dated January 13, 1994 from Greg Thompson, Current Planner to Don Carroll, Engineering X 19. Affidavit of Publication in Windsor Beacon dated December 27, 1993 X 20. Stormwater Management Plan and accompanying plat dated January 13, 1994 X g21/2/27/714- 940251 Snyder Oil Corporation c/o Swanson and Morris USR-1038 Page 2 21. Platte Valley Soil Conservation District referral response dated January 7, 1994 X 22. Planning Commission Resolution dated January 18, 1994 X 23. Information dated January 10, 1994 submitted by Ed Backstrom X 24. 3 page fax received February 25, 1994 which contains a copy of a letter from Central Weld County Water District and a copy of a well permit X 25. Memo dated February 23, 1994 from Don Carroll, Engineering to Greg Thompson, Current Planner indicating stormwater drainage plans are adequate X 26. Memo dated February 16, 1994 from Greg Thompson, Current Planner to Don Carroll, Engineering concerning stormwater management plan X 27. Letter and calculations dated February 14, 1994 from KLH Engineering X 28. Application for cistern permit dated February 11, 1994 X 29. Letter dated February 10, 1994 from Greg Thompson, Current Planner to applicant, requesting additional information X 30. Memo from Don Carroll, Engineering to Greg Thompson Current Planner dated February 8, 1994 concerning stormwater management plan X I hereby certify that the 30 items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing. I further certify that these items were forwarded to the Clerk to the Board's office on February 28, 1994. Greg c s� C rent Planner STATE OF COLORADO ) ) COUNTY OF WELD ) aa� o ,r_L SUB,SQRIBEUjAND.JORN TO BEFORE ME THIS a8 day of 19 qt - •.. C' ( S EAt i L % C> ./ 'T' 5 ;` NOTAR PUBLIC _ Pt My C6xdf"itofiggn'Fxrpires a � ig95• 'i.. ,,,uu," 940;'51 ' FXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL Case as" / 3K cS'2�i2trDe /( /2o, `rte ,`n66n°G7neir-r� Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description 10d/e. /2412/c/e-r, J Q% S/iia.4341 O di/7in,s-Y02 ' tB. P.414/7/2//:;1 1:02291,2"53/6-X- /Edda/7/3-74-176-60n Me/ & c. &P/"C 767)/s £on �/7V71L y� t Lcr7f2_9 4 D. 0:7 --r6 t 6erard 4/6717(t; Z/Z7 gig ifiy 44W-di ,(ean-c 34 E. AZt9/Pirt4 5elA Trvn o f t%r6-St- IAA/ c. Plait P-Pa,.� 3/VF. SiWeVnarit Tnii/ 4:6) (3 pn/pi) c ,r 3/2/ arc P( n J n 12 G. L 3i)C7 bat H. I. J. K. L. M. N. 0. P. Q. R. S. T. U. V. W. X. Y. Z. 940251 January 10, 1994 To: Greg Thompson, Weld Current Planner From: Ed Backstrom, Property Owner Subject: Comments Regarding the Snyder Oil Company Natural Gas Processing Plant (SOCO) (Your Notice Dated December 17, 1993, Case Number Reference USR-103.8) Three concerns (points) came to mind regarding the proposed plant due to its proximity to my home: 1. Noncondensible and hydrocarbon gas emissions 2. Drainage of storm and snowmelt water off the site onto the highly erodible adjacent fields 3. Noise After reviewing your file on the SOCO application, I arranged a meeting with Messrs. Doug Swanson, Swanson and Morris (representing SOCO) ; and Phil Poettman, SOCO's design engineer for the project. We discussed the three points above. Mr. Poettman said that regarding point No. 1, there will be no planned venting of either noncondensible gases or hydrocarbons from any of the processes. The normal fugitive emissions from leaks, valves, etc. , would be expected and should be of little concern to the surrounding property owners. Regarding point No. 2, SOCO does not plan to pave the project area and thus the runoff damage should not be appreciably greater than it is currently. Point No. 3 is a matter of severe concern. We discussed SOCO's plans and I presented information I had gathered regarding noise in residential and rural/residential settings. A copy of the information is enclosed along with a reference sheet identifying the appropriate material in the enclosure. After reviewing this material , Mr. Swanson and Mr. Poettman suggested we visit existing plants and take noise readings so we could look at the problem. We met at SOCO's Roggen Plant with Mr. Al Kuykendall , Plant Manager. This plant has no mufflers on the compressors and is quite noisy. Measurements were taken at different distances from the plant using a standard calibrated dBA meter provided by Mr. Kuykendall . Reading and estimated distances from the plant are: Plant fence 72 dBA 1/4 mile ± 48 dBA 1/2 mile ± <40 dBA 940251 2 At the 48 dBA, we agreed that the noise level was clearly unacceptable for a rural/residential setting and the sub-40 dBA was acceptable but clearly noticeable. We next went to SOCO's Enterprise Compressor Station and repeated the measurements. Results are as follows: 100 yards from units 75 dBA 0.25 mile 50 dBA 0.3 mile 53 dBA 0.4 mile 45 dBA 0.5 mile 45 dBA These results are somewhat higher than expected but a generator not connected with the plant contributed significantly to the noise level . In addition, the horsepower rating on this plant is some 30 percent higher than that expected for the plant to be built. The noise level was still objectionable at the 0.5-mile mark. Mr. Poettman brought forward manufacturer's data on mufflers which he could apply to the new plant. The data showed noise levels could be reduced by more than 20 dBA's using the ET5 class mufflers. Fisher Whisper Trim units could also be placed in front of the compressors further reducing the noise levels. We agreed that SOCO would install the ET5 class muffler and the Fisher Whisper Trim units and, consequently, I would support construction of the plant at the planned location. This modification appears to be sufficient to reduce noise levels to the 35- to 40-dBA indicated as acceptable in the enclosures. Based on the above, I feel that SOCO is making a good faith effort to address in the plant design possible excessive noise levels. It is obvious that the final noise levels from the plant cannot be determined prior to construction and operation and I do feel that if the foregoing measures are inadequate that SOCO should take further measures which might be required to reduce the levels at my property line. Messrs. Swanson and Poettman have reviewed this letter prior to my submitting it to you. toe 6 Enclosure cc: Doug Swanson, Swanson and Morris Phil Poettman, Snyder Oil Company 9402:51 jr C;". Ili MEMORAnDum 0 1994 '& I41 rou,ty Plannin41.-et, Greg Thompson To Planning Date February 8, 1994 COLORADO From Donald Carroll, Public Works (Engineering) Subject: Snyder Oil Corp. USR-1038 I have reviewed the storm-water management plan provided by the plant superintendent and have the following comments: The drawing on the plat is indicating drainage avenues to a silt fence or possibly straw bales to retain sedimentation. The applicant is talking about regrading the site, both during and after construction. Are the straw bales or silt fence a permanent or temporary storm-water detention area? The applicant should provide calculations as for the U.S.R. requirements under Sec. 24.5.1.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. I would also like to see the access limited to two points on the mylar prior to recording the plat. cc: Commissioner Kirkmeyer File USR-1038 mgregl6.pds 940;:51 i 4,..---tTh DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (303) 353-3845, EXT. 3540 • WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES - '" ':� 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 p s COLORADO February 10, 1994 Doug Swanson Swanson and Morris 518 17th Street, Suite 780 Denver, CO 80202 Subject: USR-1038, located in part of the SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. Snyder Oil Corporation Stormwater Management Plan. Dear Doug: Enclosed, is the Weld County Engineering Departments response concerning the proposed storm-water management plan. Please provide calculations as listed under Section 24. 5.1.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. I have included a copy of this section of the ordinance to assist in generating the required calculations. Additionally, indicate whether the proposed straw bales or silt fence is a permanent or temporary storm-water detention area. Please provide the information to me, so I can forward the information to the Engineering Department. By providing the information to the Department of Planning Services, the case file will have a record of the information which is received. Should any questions arise concerning what is required, please call or write. Sin erely, / , J Greg Thompson Current Planner Enclosures 940;',51 APPLICATION FOR IN91- • II Tz// AL SYSTEM No. CCI-??/f WELD COUNTY ALTH DEPARTM / New f! ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 1516 Hospital Road, Greeley, CO 80631 Repair 353-0540 EXT. 270 'O et. acc BP OWNER Cu C/[- eeRP ADDRESS /6 ac See [14y, /./Milifie PHONE3 ADDRESS OF PROPOSED SYSTEM LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SITE: PT SO S 5? ,T r 3 SUBDIVISION /VP- LOT , BLOCK , FILING USE TYPE:. RESIDENTIAL iiJ...J flits (gee£55.d4 9LAAIT�NSTITUTION COMMERCIAL✓ u�OTHER SERVICES: PERSONS V BATHROOMSrem_e+ LOT SIZE /60 ker-ES BEDROOMS PIA- BASEMENT PLUMBING PM- WATER SUPPLYISITRI2_ /IAUL1�, TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL REQUESTED: Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of this application is conditional upon further mandatory and additional tests and reports as may be required by the Weld County Health Department to be made and furnished by the applicant or by the Weld County Health Department for purposes of the evaluation of the application; and the issuance of the permit is subject to such terms and conditions as deemed necessary to insure compliance with rules and regulations adopted under Article 10, Title 25, CRS 1973, as amended. The applicant certifies that the proposed system wilt not be located within 400 feet of a com- munity sewage system.The undersigned hereby certifies that all statements made, information and reports submitted here- with and required to be submitted by the applicant are, or will be, represented to be true and correct to the best of my knowl- edge and belief, and are designed to be relied on by the Weld County Health Department in evaluating the same for purposes of issuing the permit applied for herein. I further understand that any falsification or misrepresentation may result in the denial of the application or revocation of any permit granted based upon said application and in legal a tion for perjury as provided by law. Application fee bt� _ ��^GJ� a2�i1/ g/ Recd by ia{ Date62/1i It Owner/A`geOwner/AgentSignature Date FOR DEPT. PERCOLATION RATE /)//t- WATER TABLE DEPTH USE ONLY SOIL TYPE ft/44" PERCENT GROUND SLOPE AIM- REQUIRES ENGINEER DESIGN ( )YES( ) No nJ/AI' ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ • • * * • ♦.♦I ♦ • ♦ • * • * • * • • • * ♦ ♦ • • • * * • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ * C 1 ST£R PU INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT From the application information supplied and the on-site soil percolation data, the following minimum installation specifi- cations are required: / SEPTIC TANK /8 C GALLONS, ABSORPTION TRENCH P14 SQ. FT. Or ABSORPTION BED N/A- SQ. FT. In addition, this Permit is subject to the following additional terms and conditions: This Permit is granted temporarily to allow construction to commence. This Permit may be revoked or suspended by the Weld County Health Department for reasons set forth in the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations, including failure to meet any term or condition imposed thereon during temporary or final approval. The issuance of this Permit does not constitute assumption by the Department or its employees of liability for the failure or inadequacy of the sewage disposal system. Env/ onmental pecialist�G ate This Permit is not transferrable and shall become void if s9/4A c nstructior} as not commenced within one year of its issuance. Before issuing final approval of this Permit the Weld County Health Department reserves the right to impose additional terms and conditions required to meet our regulations on a continuing basis. Final Permit approval is contingent upon the final in- spection of the completed system by the Weld County Health Department. SYSTEM CONTRACTOR . FINAL INSPECTION SYSTEM ENGINEER APPROVAL • Environmental Specialist Date The issuance of this Permit does not imply compliance with other state, county or local regulatory or building requirements, nor shall it act to certify that the subject system will operate in compliance with applicable state, county and local regulations adopted pursuant to Article 10, Title 25, CRS 1973, as amended, except for the purposes of establishing final approval of an installed system for issuance of a local occupancy permit pursuant to CRS 1973 25-10-111 (2). Original-Applicant: Copy-WCHD WCHD—EHS February, 1981 -- ./5(c �lr� 9YVe A. KLH Engineering Group KLH Engineering Group Greeley, Inc. a subsidiary of KLH Engineering Group, Inc. February 14 , 1994 in @,F,p5..NIll Mr. Greg Thompson FEB 15 1994 Current Planner Weld County Administrative Offices n€ ypInng 1400 North 17th Avenue ni Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Greg: RE: USE-1038, PART OF THE SE1/4 , SEC 8, T3N, R66W, WELD COUNTY SNYDER OIL CORPORATION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN This letter is in response to the inquiries to Doug Swanson regarding the subject stormwater management plan. The silt fences or straw bales are temporary detention measures for the excavations and preliminary grading during the construction phase. Permanent detention facilities will be included in the final grading at the end of construction on the north and west sides of the site. These will be sized to percolate runoff into the ground so that all sediment will be retained on the twenty (20) acre site. Calculations for these storage areas are attached. We are also modifying the site plan to reflect only two (2) access points from County Road No. 34, as mentioned in Mr. Donald Carroll's memorandum. Sincerely, KLH-NUL ENGINEERING, INC. Bill J. Delap, PE BJD: jc cc: Doug Swanson, Swanson & Morris Al Cuykendall, Snyder Oil Corp enc.s 822 Seventh Street, Suite 5, Greeley, Colorado 80631 (303) 351-0550 FAX (303) 351-0579 940231 JNi/iF/L O,, • West EureRPn/.;e 6A, Pz4tir - 1 floJtc7 PIA 730 ,/ z//i/iy T PAnuAL,E t. Acct.). AreA DRe1fru/n/G 70 C.-&J7 AREA = 7 / 3 ACRE) f IeRMe A(Zlc/7r Scic T}PE;, pc.uey Lognj' SAND 6.0 - to '1/4/t. VALE.IT 54443 6,0 - to %//,c Vo&.a Lo4My .5 coup 6.0 - 2.0 frAlk AccocJ. /lun,oFF Tc PeRcoc.A7€ /.u)a 6e�t.....)b F/+CM DeTerrT,o•u FACIuTy , $i - I, 13,1.P..b£, an-IAAov£MEu/T CP" An4 13v1C01N61 l STR'3C7'JP4 0.90 o.79A` 6nAVF(.. Znlv£, 0., 6c, 0,78 A,_ Ur DAuctoPet) CS. l° S.%6 A� Co,,,POI'.p n1/4,. .: ( 90)(79) i- (.6o)69Y) i (.1,0)(S.96) 7, 13 noo : o.3J C A L c u cg76 DETEAIT/o4 PEW/J.766 gici : (71,/ )(, >) I _ 1,, blir AsSVInr 660 ' LciAl F. x /0 w/p %n6"cH' QO�T It 6600 SF x it 'AA. = 6604, crAft r no c-54e-, Tr! ju7,A4)7j Feou /•v lhcwE In , 1Aa.v.mE OAT' STc'PA0_ (r,,.') ( 'HP. ) CcF,) Ccf) Ccs) (cc) /0 6. IL /Y. `/ 11;629 //oc 7s O Zc cl, /1... 9.7 /// 6/8 ,?.1.OO °/y/8 3J 3, z3 7, s /3,663 J3o4 /c)i 363 YD 1..66 6.3 jrs Dot `/YJ' /z.t 60L So 1 ,31 S.% /6/ 2?6 CS0., /01786 -...e- 60 1„oy Y. 3 /7/153' 66n /01641s eo /,6s , 88� /00 / (// ll, 000 /t0 /,ty /3/ 2ov NEED /(0 5S$ c< 5(oiAC 11�D ay.; 66° ' x /J I 1-41040 ,3773.-t ) 940251. t ARE Ai Oil timw'Vc To t3 j1:111 Alit c 2o - 7. / 3 / P7 Acnc, . PR.>P:a;;≤1J IMAJ1ouEMfv73 AaFq T3Q)L01N6.5 ANA 0. 10 1.`IYH� 6RAU£1 0,60 /,39A� U•uL uP ePet 0. 20. /O.O9Ac CoMP %17e Goy = (90)(/. %14 4- 66(3)(1,3s) * (.2o)CW. a") /z, 87 6. . = 0. 3L CALcutA7E" pc7ENTlQN P59 Qvu z (. at) ( 1z,an)T = 9,,a r, Ay1/4p-,c 1320 fT X lo ' Pcoub Ao7TeM 40.r : / �, 2JJ bA x , Cr/ = / 3,boa gym = 2.10 c%,.,. • Time JMTfwr77 Fww J N W w^+C 1^+ t/1° f, a r (m's) ('7n) (cfs-) Cc.%) Ccf-) (cc /O c. 12. 251 /C, /VI 1tn-> /2)915 to (//L /).0 20, J69 /S``169 3.13 /3.J 2 , 9Sy 6600 /), bS% Yo 2.66 /O. 9 1G) 3‘aZ BkOa /7, SQL Co 2.31 9.5 2Q,.SS2 //, °o' !7 SS1 •C 6a Z.o`/ 8'-`/ 3ajtS7 13,to� 17 on tSc !. 6s J7,6Oa 22, 0'4'3 /1O y Z6, `lO-O NEE° /7 SSl Coe JTMAa.c j;A 5D ON /310 X lo& 1e^'A J3or1o"t 940251 mEmoRAnDum VP Aim Don Carroll, Engineering February 16 , 1994 { e' To Date_ �.;. Greg Thompson, Current Planner /1.- COLORADO From USR-1038, part of the SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the SubSect. 6th P.-M. , Weld County, Colorado, Snyder Oil Corp. Stvrrpwator Uaragari nt per. Please review the enclosed information and offer a recommendation on whether this plan is sufficient. 940'51 mEmoRAnDum Greg Thompson To Planning ''pp Dace February 23. 1994 COLORADO From Donald Carroll 1J subject: Snyder Oil USR - 1038 I have reviewed the letter and the calculations supplied to me by KLH Engineering Group that I had requested. I find no conflict with the calculations submitted. I would like to have the drainage ponds placed on the mylar prior to recording. cc: Commissioner Kirkmeyer File USR-1038 10F157.97,9 FEB 2 1994 ♦'11MyL PLATTE VALLEY 60 South 27th Avenue SOIL CONSERVATION Brighton, CO 80601 DISTRICT 659-7004 January 7, 1994 Weld County Colorado Department of Planning Services 1400 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE : Case Number USR-1038 The following is in response to the "Use by Special Review Application of Snyder Oil Corporation" , part of SE 1/4 of NW of Section 4 , Township 3 North, Range 66 West, Weld County, Colorado, 20 acres + or - . After further review, it appears that impacts may be minimal in nature . The correspondence that we have received has addressed many critical issues that must be taken into account . The applicant has considered environmental impacts that could have less than favorable impacts . The applicant appears to be aware of onsite and offsite impacts that the proposed operation could yield. The application has taken into account any neighbors which could be impacted by this constructed facility. The concerns of those neighbors cannot be adequately addressed by our office . Therefore, we can recommend the following only as consideration in the development of this site . Our office would recommend that caution be used in the installation of the septic system on this site . The excessive permeability in the substratum can cause contamination of the ground water supply from septic tank leach fields . This contamination therefore could lead to contamination of existing and constructed wells both irrigation and domestic . Surface runoff is slow and erosion hazard is low on this soil type . If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, Bob Warner Board of Supervisors enclosure otC IVz Jj JAN 2 4 1994 11 'void en mnv Planning 9402:31 ?if (07----÷ << ,,,e, „io DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303) 353-3845, EXT. 3540 WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE g� e GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO Date: December 17 , 1993 CASE NUMBER: USR-1038 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for a natural gas processing facility. The parcel of land is described as part of the SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is northwest of the intersection of Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 29 . This application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the application and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by December 31, 1993, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Greg Thompson, Current Planner, if you have any questions about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3. 1J( We have reviewed the request and/find no conflicts with our interests. jee a. l` cCe 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Signed: Agency: Date: 940251 soil survey of x� Weld County, Colorado Southern Part ' United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station 94,0tzTii i WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 31 attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- lmanaging livestock grazing and reseeding where needed. tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of This soil has good potential for urban development. The vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation only limiting feature is the moderately rapid permeability may be needed at the time of planting and during dry in the substratum, which causes a hazard of ground water periods. Trees that are best suited and have good survival i contamination from sewage lagoons. The loamy sand sur- are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa face layer is a limitation for recreational development. pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The Once established, the lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberi- Capability subclass IIIe irrigated, IVe nonirrigated; an peashrub. Sandy Plains range site. Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The 45—Olney loamy sand, 3 to 5 percent slopes. This is a cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked deep, well drained soil on plains at elevations of 4,600 to pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can 5,200 feet. It formed in mixed outwash deposits. Included be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape in mapping are small areas of soils that have sandstone cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- and shale within a depth of 60 inches and some small tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- leveled areas. ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- Typically the surface layer of this Olney soil is grayish land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be brown loamy sand about 7 inches thick. The subsoil is ye1- attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, lowish brown and very pale brown sandy clay loam about managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. 14 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches is This soil has good potential for urban development. The very pale brown, calcareous fine sandy loam. only limiting feature is the moderately rapid permeability Permeability and available water capacity are in the substratum, which causes a hazard of ground water moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or contamination from sewage lagoons. The loamy sand sur- more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard if face layer is a limitation for recreational development. low. Once established, the lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. In irrigated areas this soil is suited to the crops com- Capability subclass fife irrigated, VI nonirrigated; Sandy monly grown in the area. Perennial grasses and alfalfa or Plains range site. close grown crops should be grown at least 50 percent of 46—Olney fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. the time. Close grown crops and pasture can be irrigated This is a deep, well drained soil on smooth plains at eleva- with contour ditches and corrugations. Furrows, contour tions of 4,600 to 5,200 feet. It formed in mixed outwash furrows, and cross slope furrows are suitable for row deposits. Included in mapping are small areas of soils that crops. Sprinkler irrigation is also desirable. Keeping til- have a dark surface layer and some small leveled areas. lage to a minimum and utilizing crop residue help to con- Typically the surface layer of this Olney soil is grayish trol erosion. Maintaining fertility and organic matter con- brown fine sandy loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil tent is important. Crops respond to barnyard manure and is yellowish brown and very pale brown sandy clay loam commercial fertilizer. about 15 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 The potential native vegetation on this range site is inches is very pale brown, calcareous fine sandy loam. dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue Permeability and available water capacity are grama. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grama, moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre in favora- low. ble years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As range This soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, is suited to all crops commonly grown in the area, includ- and switchgrass decrease and blue grama, sand dropseed, ing corn, sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade and onions. An example of a suitable cropping system is 3 the site as range condition becomes poorer. to 4 years of alfalfa followed by corn, corn for silage, Management of vegetation on this soil should be based sugar beets, small grain, or beans. Few conservation prac- on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- tices are needed to maintain top yields. tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats rigation is the most common. Barnyard manure and com- grama, blue grama, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested mercial fertilizer are needed for top yields. wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in be seeded into clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of spring has proven most successful. vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally may be needed at the time of planting and during dry suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in periods. Trees that are best suited and have good survival 7 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 45 range condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, The potential vegetation is dominated by sand switchgrass, sand reedgrass, sideoats grama, and little bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats grama, bluestem decrease, forage production drops, and sand needleandthread, little bluestem, and blue grama. Poten- sage increases. Undesirable weeds and annuals invade tial production ranges from 2,500 pounds per acre in and "blowout" conditions can occur as range condition favorable years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As becomes poorer. range condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, g Management of vegetation on this soil should be based switchgrass, sand reedgrass, sideoats grama, and little on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- bluestem decrease, forage production drops, and sand tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. sage increases. Undesirable weeds and annuals invade Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, indiangrass, switchgrass, and "blowout" conditions can occur as range condition sideoats grama, little bluestem, and blue grama are suita- becomes poorer. ble for seeding. Because this soil is susceptible to soil Management of vegetation on this soil should be based blowing, it should be seeded using an interseeder, or the on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- r seed should be drilled into a firm, clean sorghum stubble. tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. Seeding early in spring has proven most successful. Brush Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, indiangrass, switchgrass, } management also can help in improving deteriorated side-oats grama, little bluestem, and blue grama are suita-range. ble for seeding. Because this soil is susceptible to soil Windbreaks and environmental plantings are fairly well blowing, it should be seeded using an interseeder or the suited to this soil. Blowing sand and the moderate availa- seed should be drilled into a firm, clean sorghum stubble. ble water capacity are the principal hazards in establish- Seeding early in spring has proven most successful. Brush ing trees and shrubs. The soil is so loose that trees should management can also help in improving deteriorated be planted in shallow furrows, maintaining vegetation range. between the rows. Supplemental irrigation is needed to Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally insure survival. Trees that are best suited and have good not suited to this soil. Onsite investigation is needed to survival are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, determine if plantings are feasible. ponderosa pine, and Siberian elm. The shrubs best suited Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. Ran- are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberian peashrub. geland wildlife, for example, the Wildlife is an im ortant P pronghorn antelope, can P secondary use of this soil. The be attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can This soil has fair potential for urban development. The be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape chief limiting soil features are the rapid permeability and cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- the susceptibility to soil blowing. Septic tank absorption tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- fields function properly, but in places the sandy sub- ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- stratum does not properly filter the leachate. Sewage land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be lagoons must be sealed. Once established, lawns, shrubs, attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, and trees grow well. Capability subclass VIe irrigated, managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. VIe nonirrigated; Deep Sand range site. This soil has fair potential for urban development. The 71—Valent-Loup complex, 0 to 9 percent slopes. This primary limiting soil features are the rapid permeability level to moderately sloping map unit occupies hills, ridges, and the susceptibility to soil blowing. Septic tank absorp- and depression or pothole-like areas in the sandhills at • tion fields function properly, but in places the sandy sub- elevations of 4,670 to 4,700 feet. The Valent soil makes up stratum does not properly filter the leachate. Sewage about 60 percent of the unit, the Loup soil about 35 per- lagoons must be sealed. Once established, the lawns, cent. About 5 percent is dune sand. The Valent soil occu- shrubs, and trees grow well. Capability subclass IVe ir- pies the hills and ridges and the Loup soil the depressions rigated, VIe nonirrigated; Deep Sand range site. or potholes. 70—Valent sand, 3 to 9 percent slopes. This is a deep, The Valent soil is deep and excessively drained. It excessively drained soil on plains at elevations of 4,650 to formed in eolian deposits. Typically the surface layer is 5,100 feet. It formed in eolian deposits. Included in brown sand about 8 inches thick. The underlying material mapping are small areas of soils that have lime within a to a depth of 60 inches is brown sand. depth of 40 inches. Also included are small areas of soils Permeability is rapid. Available water capacity is that have sandstone between 40 and 60 inches. moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or Typically the surface layer of the Valent soil is brown more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is sand about 6 inches thick. The underlying material to a low. depth of 60 inches is brown sand. The Loup soil is deep and poorly drained. It formed in Permeability is rapid. Available water capacity is sandy alluvium. Typically the surface layer is very dark moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or grayish brown, mottled loamy sand about 16 inches thick. more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is The underlying material to a depth of 60 inches is light low. brownish gray, mottled loamy sand and sandy loam. 9s,e. .b From : SWANSON & MORRIS, LTD. PHONE No. : 8253229 Feb.25 1994 9:38AM P01 Swanson a Morris,LLC Oil and Gas Properties • Facitnila cover sheet Date:"/l, raj Get `T.ids of /-3s/- al7$ 4/ic; a� � Company Name: _04 /Gr/�t lr/11,1r4t", "^�-+: 8 2 J 1994 ta Number of pages: _3 nnike (including this one) Flom . Sasce-CDrl/ I Comments: • CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION BY ERROR PLEASE CONTACT OUR COMPANY AT THE NUMBER LISTED BELOW TO ARRANGE FOR THE DOCUMENT TO BE RETURNED IMMEDIATLY. 41017th Strad ♦ Suitell80 ♦ Denver,Colorado80202 (303)825.7243 ♦ fax1303)825.3229 FEB 25 '94 09:34 8253229 PAGE.001 940;'. 1 From : SWANSON & MORRIS, LTD. PHONE No. : 8253229 Feb.25 1994 9:38AM P02 aWe CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT February 23, 1994 Douglas Swanson Rt• � ), Swanson Morris I] l_ r_�J I.T/ 410 17th Street, Ste 1180 Denver, CO 80202 II FEB 2 5 i99� • RE: Water Service Request -p ° ter,• «,planning Ostermiller Property Dear Mr. Swanson: This letter is in response to your request for water service to serve the property described as follows: Part SE 1/4 SW 14 SE 1/4 Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. The estimated costs of the 5/8" Tap and extension of Central Weld County Water District's 2" water main approximately 5,280 feet are as follows: Tap fee- 5/8" $ 3,500.00 Line Extension Fee 28,150.00 Capital Improvement Fee Rebate (2.000.00) Tow Due $29,650.00 Before proceeding with the meter set, the above "Total Due" will have to be paid in advance, and the appropriate documentation completed for your application for water service, The District requires a 30 day notice for a tap installation. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Sincerely, CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ohn W. General Manager JWZ/caa Form No. •OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER `GWS COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES • ens CvMennlal bldg.,1313 Sherman St.Denver,Colorado 0020a rl aseasat LIC WELL PERMIT NUMBER 176285 _ APPLICANT DIV. I CNTY, 62 WO 2 DES. BASIN MD Lot. Sloek: Filing: Subdiv: • APPROVED WELL LOCATION WELD COUNTY SNYDER OIL CORPORATION SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Section 8 1025 BROADWAY STE 2200 TWp 3 N RANGE 66 W 6th P.M. DENVER CO 80202 DISTANCES FROM SECTION UNES (303)592-850D 1270 Ft, from South Section Line PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL 1270 Ft. from East Section Line ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT jI CONDmONS OF APPROVAL 91(1)")>- EXTRA PAGE. 001 ISSUt 7 OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WAT' 'IGHT CONDn1ONS 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 noun action. 2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance wkh the Water Wel Construction and Pump Installation Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance hat been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 17. 3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37.92-602(3)(b)(t)and the policy of the State Engineer dated 4/9/85 for appropriation of ground water tributary to the South Platte River system. 4) The use of ground water from this well is limited to drinking and eentiary facilities as described in CRS 37-92602(1)(c),for a commercial business(a natural gas processing fade. Water from this well shall not be used for lawn or landscape krigation or for any other purpose outside the business building structure. 5) Production from this well is restricted to the Laramie-Fox Hiss aquifer,which corresponds to the Interval between 95 feet and 405 lest below ground surface. Plain casing shall be installed and sealed to prevent production from other zones. 6) The m admum pumping rate shall not exceed 15 GPM. 7) The maximum annual amount of ground water to be withdrawn shall not exceed 1/3 acre-foot(108,600 gallons). 8) Approved as the only well on a eke d 40 acres described es the E 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4,and the W 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4, all In Sec.8,Twp.3N, Rag.66W,6th P.M.,Weld County. 9) The return flow from the use of the well must be through an Indvidual waste water disposal system of the non-evaporative type where the water is returned to the same stream system In which the well is located. The matdmum consumptive use of ground water shall not exceed 10 percent, 10) A totalizing flow meter must be Installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of ell diversions must be maintained by the well owner(recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon request. 11) Thls well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit. Note: To Insure a maximum productive life of this well,perforated casing should be set through the entire producing Interval of the approved zone or aquifer lndloated above. OWNS //6/,f opy APPROVED fI JWB Bleb(N1 Receipt No. 0364144 DATE ISSUED FEB 17 1994 EXPIRATION DATE FEB 1 7 1996 FEB 25 '94 0 35 8253229 PAGE.002 9 •IJ)�.�I DITORTIO�r J5I_ FEB 2 " 19y, 5 ct v'Ianninn 9402:51 / GI G2 cr ?- j3 D- I/ 1)-33 940251 O° ccA ti °ti \� � vc, IC ice/ G00O Co ��p0 0 • o• eat.c � • 'S-V.4(; 49. GO 4 INFORMATION ON LEVELS OF ��'c'� yv ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE 44� c;C'l °4 REQUISITE TO PROTECT �eS4`s� PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE25• WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY • MARCH 1974• PREPARED BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL { This document has been approved for general availability. It does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. REPRODUCED BY NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE U.S.DEPARTMENT Of COMMERCE 94 ;'3 01. SPRINGFIELD.VA. 22151 Appendix D NOISE INTERFERENCE WITH HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND RESULTING OVERALL ANNOYANCE/HEALTH EFFECTS Environmental noise may interfere with a broad range of human activities in a way which degrades public health and welfare. Such activities include: 1. Speech Communication in Conversation and Teaching. 2. Telephone Communication. 3. Listening to TV and Radio Broadcasts. 4. Listening to Music. 5. Concentration During Mental Activities. 6. Relaxation. 7. Sleep. Interference with listening situations (items 1-4) can be directly quantified in terms of the absolute level of the environmental noise and its characteristics. The amount of inter- ference in non-listening situations(e.g.,)is often dependent upon factors other than the physical characteristics of the noise. These may include attitude towards the source of an identifiable noise, familiarity with the noise, characteristics of the exposed individual, and the intrusiveness of the noise. The combination of the various interference effects results in an overall degradation of total well-being. Maximum noise levels that do not affect human well-being must be de- rived from the body of information on human behavioral response to various noise en- vironments. SPEECH INTERFERENCE Speech communication has long been recognized as an important requirement of any human society. It is one of the chief distinctions between humans and other species. Inter- ference with speech communication disturbs normal domestic or educational activities, creates an undesirable living environment, and can sometimes be a source of extreme an- noyance. Continued long-term annoyance is considered to affect individual as well as pub- lic health and welfare in a variety of ways. Noise can disturb speech communication in situations encountered at work,in vehicles, at home, and in other settings. Of chief concern for the purposes of this report, is the effect D-1 -eta • 940', 1 of noise on face-to-face conversation indoors and outdoors, telephone use, and radio or tele- vision enjoyment. The extent to which environmental noise affects speech communication depends on the location (whether indoors or outdoors), the amount of noise attenuation provided by the exterior walls when indoors(including windows and doors), and the vocal effort of the talkers. Certainly, it is possible to maintain communication in the face of intruding noise if the voice level is raised, but in an ideal environment, one should not have to increase the voice level above that which is comfortable in order to communicate easily. Research since the late 1920's has made great progress in quantitatively characterizing the effects of noise on speech perception. A review of that work is contained in references D-1 and D-2, and it is summarized here as the basis for the maximum environmental noise- levels compatible with public health and welfare identified in Section 4 of this report. The chief effect of intruding noise on speech is to mask the speech sounds and thus reduce intelligibility. The important contributants to intelligibility in speech sounds cover a range in frequency from about 200 to 6000 Hz, and at each frequency a dynamic level range of about 30 dB. The intelligibility of speech will be nearly perfect if all these con- tributions are available to a listener for his understanding. To the extent that intruding noise masks out or covers some of these contributions, the intelligibility deteriorates more rapidly the higher the noise level,particularly if the noise frequencies coincide with the important speech frequencies. It is no accident, from an evolutionary point of view, that the hearing of humans is most sensitive in the frequency range most important for the understanding of speech. Therefore, it is not mere coincidence that the A-weighting,designed to reflect the frequency sensitivity of the human ear, should also be useful as a measure of the speech interference potential of intruding noise. A-weighting gives greatest weight to those components of the noise that lie in the frequency range where most of the speech information resides, and, thus, yields higher readings (A-weighted levels) for noises in most of the 200 to 6000 Hz range than does the overall sound pressure level. A-weighted sound levels will be used throughout this appendix unless otherwise noted. The principal results of relevant speech research can be utilized for practical applica- tion to provide the levels of noise that will produce varying degrees of masking as a function of average noise level and the distance between talkers and listeners. Other factors such as the talker's enunciation, the familiarity of the listener with the talker's language, the lis- tener's motivation and, of course, the normality of the listener's hearing also influence intelligibility. This value is consistent with the upper end of the range of levels of steady state sound recommended by prior authors in Table D-10(to be discussed later) as D-2 940;1:rl "acceptable" for design purposes for homes, hotels, motels, small offices, and similar spaces where speech communication is an expected and important human activity. Indoor Speech Interference Due to Steady Noise The effects of masking northally-voiced speech indoors are summarized in Figure D-1, which assumes the existence of a reverberant field in the room. This reverberant field is the result of reflections from the walls and other boundaries of the room. These reflections en- hance speech sounds so that the decrease of speech level with distance found outdoors oc- curs only for spaces close to the talker indoors. At distances greater than 1.1 meters from the talker, the level of the speech is more or less constant throughout the room. The dis- tance from the talker at which the level of the speech decreases to a constant level in the reverberant part of the room is a function of the acoustic absorption in the room. The greater the absorption, the greater the distance over which the speech will decrease and the lower the level in the reverberant field for a given vocal effort. The absorption in a home loo ` 00% 91% 95% J 00 J (= 60 — z z 40 — • re C T. 20 — 0 I 1 I I 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 STEADY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LFVFL IN dB (re 20 micropaerals) FATE: Assures 300 cabins absorption typical of living 'tun:, and bedmoas and is valid for distances greater than ore ureter. Figure D-1. Normal Voice Sentence Intelligibility as a Function of the Steady Background Sound Level in an Indoor Situation°-F,0-2,&oa D-3 940 a1 will vary with the type and amount of furnishings, carpets, drapes and other absorbent materials. It is generally least in bathrooms and kitchens and greatest in living rooms, with typical values ranging between 150 and 450 sabins. A typical value for living rooms and bedrooms is 300 sabins. For this value of absorption, the distance to the reverberant field from the talker is slightly greater than one meter, as stated above. As shown in Figure D-1,the maximum sound level that will permit relaxed conversa- tion with 100% sentence intelligibility_throughout the room (talker-listener separation greater than approximately 1.1 meter) is 45 dB. Outdoor Speech Interference Due to Steady Noise The sound level of speech outdoors generally continues to decrease with increasing distance between talker and listener with the absence of reflecting walls which provide the reverberance found indoors. Figure D-2 presents the distances between talker and listener for satisfactory outdoor conversations, in different steady background noise levels (A- weighted), for three degrees of vocal effort. This presentation depends on the fact that the voice level at the listener's ear(outdoors)decreases at a predictable rate as the distance between talker and listener is increased. In a steady background noise there comes a point, as the talker and listener increase their separation,where the decreasing speech signal is masked by the noise. The levels for normal and raised-voice"satisfactory conversation" plotted in the fig- ure do not permit perfect sentence intelligibility at the indicated distances;instead, the sentence intelligibility at each distance is 95 percent, meaning that 95 percent of the key words in a group of sentences would be correctly understood. Ninety-five percent sentence intelligibility usually permits reliable communication because of the redundancy in normal conversation. That is,in normal conversation,some unheard words can be inferred if they occur in particular, familiar contexts. Moreover, the vocabulary is often restricted,which also helps understanding. Therefore,95 percent intelligibility is satisfactory for most situ- ations. The levels given in Figure D-2 for relaxed conversation permit 100% speech intelligi- bility when communicating in a normal voice. This situation represents an ideal environ- ment for speech communication and is considered necessary for acceptable conversation in the indoor environment. However,it does not define the situation outdoors where 95% intelligibility is adequate, and communication outdoors generally takes place between people who are walking or standing relatively close together,about 1 or 2 meters. More- over, these levels appear to be consistent with the need for speech privacy. ( D-4 91O;51 70 eo Be °r „ 1111111 ry° e / ° r 10y\°E S �°n ^ r r firon, ° I a o so -'o�aI _ - .-1 vy, I_ 5J lk' 1 4.49'6 • ,n E se P°[. GGI I 1 I a /c1 I 77o p 71 a /57.77 25 Nj 20 4 6 .0 I IS 2 3 1 6 8 10 IS 20 Communlwlinp Dlgenc° In MCNr, Figure D-2. Maximum Distances Outdoors Over Which Conversation is Considered to be Satisfactorily Intelligible in Steady Noise.0-1,0-2 The data for normal and raised voice of Figure D-2 are tabulated for convenience below: Table D-1 STEADY A-WEIGHTED NOISE LEVELS THAT ALLOW COMMUNICATION WITH 95 PERCENT SENTENCE INTELLIGIBILITY OVER VARIOUS DISTANCES OUTDOORS FOR DIFFERENT VOICE LEVELS 0-2 VOICE LEVEL COMMUNICATION DISTANCE (meters) 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 Normal Voice (dB) 72 66 60 56 54 52 Raised Voice (dB) 78 72 66 62 60 58 D-5 940.7.51 If the noise levels in Figure D-2 and Table D-1 are exceeded, the speaker and listener must either move closer together or expect reduced intelligibility. For example, consider a con- versation at a distance of 3 meters in a steady background noise of 56 dB using normal voice levels. If this background level is increased from 56 to 66 dB, the speakers will either need to move from 3 to 1 meter separation to maintain the same intelligibility, or alternatively, to raise their voices well above the raised-voice effort. If they remain 3 meters apart with- out raising their voices, the intelligibility would drop from 95 to 65 percent. Speech Interference in the Presence of fluctuating Sound Levels The data in Figures D-1 and D-2 are based on tests involving steady, continuous sound. It might be questioned whether these results would apply to sounds which have fluctuating levels. For example, when intermittent noise intrusions, such as those from aircraft flyovers or truck passbys, are superimposed on a steady noise background, the equivalent sound level is greater than the level of the background alone. If the sound levels of Figure D-1 and D-2 are interpreted as equivalent sound levels,it could be argued that these values could be slightly increased (by an amount depending on the statistics of the noise), be- cause most of the time the background noise level is actually lower than the equivalent sound level. The amount of this difference has been calculated for the cases of urban noise and aircraft noise statistics shown in Figure D-3. The data in this figure°'3 include a wide range of urban sites with different noise levels and an example of aircraft noise at a site near a major airport. In each case the speech intelligibility was calculated from the standard sen- tence intelligibility curve°-° for various values of Leq, first with steady noise and then with the two specific fluctuating noises of Figure D-3. The calculation consisted of determining the incremental contribution to sentence intelligibility for each level (at approximately 2 dB increments) and its associated percentage of time occurrence. The incremental con- tributions were then summed to obtain the total value of intelligibility in each case. The results,shown in Table D-2,demonstrate that, for 95 percent sentence intelligi- bility, normal vocal effort, and 2 meter separation between talker and listener outdoors, the maximum Leq value associated with continuous noise is less than the maximum value for an environmental noise whose magnitude varies with time. It is therefore concluded that almost all time-varying environmental noises with the same Leq would lead, averaged over long time periods, to better intelligibility than the intelligibility for the same Leq values of continuous noise. Alternatively, for a fixed Leq value, the percentage of interference with speech (de- fined as 100 minus the percentage sentence intelligibility) is greater for steady noise than D-6 940 1 30- 20 10` Range of Urban Noise,Somples— II�• from Community Noise Study (Excluding Aircraft Noise) 'I�i��ill��illl o w 4 dB 0 Fig -10 `■.'' -20 Example of Aircraft Noise Near Major Airport -30 - -40 - 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 Percent of Time 1.5 Value will be Exceeded Figure D-3. Cumulative Distribution of Typical Community Noises During the Daytime Relative to the Equivalent Sound Level.O 39 Table D-2 • MAXIMUM EQUIVALENT SOUND LEVELS THAT ALLOW 95 PERCENT SENTENCE INTELLIGIBILITY AT A DISTANCE OF 2 METERS USING NORMAL VOICE EFFORT OUTDOORS (From Figures D-2 and D-3) Noise Type Leg in decibels Steady 60 Urban Community Noise 60+ Aircraft Noise 65 D-7 940251 for almost all types of environmental noise whose magnitude varies with time. The relation- ship between Ldn and the maximum percentage sentence interference (i.e., for continuous noise)is given in Figure D-4. 100 80• - U z 2 60 OUTDOORS Z (NORMAL VOICE W - LEVEL AND 40 2 METERS (> SEPARATION) 20 INDOORS (15 dB attenuation 0 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 OUTDOOR DAY NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL,Lan,IN DECIBELS (re 20 micropascals) NOTE: Percentage interference equals minus percent i;- ee intelligibility, and Ldn is bast,' n Ld + 3. D-3 Figure D-4. Maximum Percentage Interference with Sentences as a Function of the Day-Night Average Noise Level. The extreme example of a fluctuating noise is a series of noise pulses of constant level that are of sufficient magnitude relative to the background to control the equivalent sound level. For example, there could be a case where the background noise during the off-cycle is assumed negligible,so that when the noise pulses are not present,the speech intelligibility is 100 percent. Table D-3 shows how the percentage interference with sentence intelligi- bility varies as a function of the level and on-time for a cycled steady noise whose level and duration are always adjusted to yield a fixed value for the equivalent sound level. Two . situations are envisaged: indoors, relaxed conversation, Leq= 45 dB, leading to 100 per- cent sentence intelligibility in the steady, continuous noise;and outdoors, normal voice effort at 2 meters separation, Leg= 60 dB,leading to 95 percent sentence intelligibility in the steady, continuous noise. D-8 940251 Table D-3 PERCENTAGE INTERFERENCE WITH SENTENCE INTELLIGIBILITY IN THE PRESENCE OF A STEADY INTRUDING NOISE CYCLED ON AND OFF PERIODICALLY IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAINTAIN CONSTANT EQUIVALENT SOUND LEVEL, AS A FUNCTION OF THE MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL AND DURATION 13-39 (Assumes 100%intelligibility during the off-cycle) Percent A-Weighted level Duration of interfer- Average of intruding intruding ence if percent noise during noise as intruding interfer- "on-cycle," percent of noise were ence in Situation decibels total time continuous cycled noise INDOORS Relaxed conversa- 45 100 0 0 tion, background 50 32 0.5 0.16 Leg= 45 dB, 55 10 1 0.10 100%intelligibility 60 3 2 0.06 if background noise 65 1 6 0.06 were continuous 70 0.3 40 0.12 at 45 dB 75 0.1 100 0.10 80 0.03 100 0.03 OUTDOORS Normal voice at 2 60 100 5 5.0 meters, background 65 32 7.7 2.5 70 10 53 5.3 Leq= 60 dB, 95%intelligibility 75. 3 100 3.0 if background 80 1 100 1.0 noise were con- . tinuous at 60 dB D-9 940':1 The combination of level in the first column and duration in the second column are such as to maintain constant Leq for each situation, 45 dB indoors and 60 dB outdoors. The third column gives the percent interference with sentence intelligibility that would apply if the noise were steady and continuous with the level indicated in column 1. The fourth column gives the percent interference for the cycled noise in each case. The results for this extreme case indicate that no matter how extreme the noise fluc- tuation for the indoor case, on the average there is negligible speech interference for Leg =- 45 dB. On the other hand, with Leq = 60 dB outdoors, the average speech interference tends to decrease as the fluctuations of the noise become more extreme. However, it should be recognized that if the duration of the intruding noise were to take place in one continu- ous period, and if its percentage interference (column 3) were equal to 100, then it would blot out all communication for the duration of its "on-cycle". The following sections relating to activity interference, annoyance, and community reaction utilize equivalent sound level with a nighttime weighting(Ldn) which is discussed more fully in Appendix A. However, for the speech interference effects of noise, a similar measure without the nighttime weighting(Leq) has been employed. To allow comparison between the various effects stated above, some relationships are necessary to allow at least approximate conversion from Leg to Ldn. For indoor levels such as those described in Appendix A for various lifestyles, levels during the day are at least 10 dB higher than those during the night. Thus Leq is virtually the same as Ldn for normal indoor situations. For an outdoor Ldn of 55 dB or less, day time levels(Ld) are generally 8 dB higher than the nighttime levels (Ln). For this situation, Ldn is still quite close to Leq during the day. The correction is less than one dB. For levels greater than Ldn 65 dB, the nighttime levels are generally only 4 dB less than during the day time. For these cases, Ldn is 3 dB higher than Leg during the day. For values of Ldn between 55 and 65, further interpolation is necessary using Figure A-7. ACTIVITY INTERFERENCE Activity interference due to noise is not new. The recent EPA document concerning public health and welfare criteria for noise n-5 mentions an ordinance enacted 2500 years ago by the ancient Greek community of Sybaris, banning metal works and the keeping of D-10 9407,131 i roosters within the city to protect against noise that interfered with speech and might dis- turb sleep. History contains other examples indicating speech and sleep interference due to various types of noises, ranging from wagon noise to the noise of blacksmiths. More recently, surveys have been conducted which further demonstrate that noise does interfere with various types of activity. For example, Figures D-5 and D-6, based on research done in England, give activity interference reported by the people who were disturbed by aircraft noise for various types of activities as a function of the approximate Ldn associated with noise from aircraft flyovers D14 (for explanation of the term Ldn see Appendix A). Thus, for an outside Ldn of approximately 55 dB, over 50%of the people who were dis- turbed reported some interference with TV sound, and 45%reported some interference with conversation. At the same level. about 45%reported that noise occasionally woke them up, while 30%claimed it sometimes disturbed their relaxation. The figures also indicate that at higher noise levels, greater percentages of people who were disturbed have reported activity interference. 70 a 1 13 1 60 yadB O 50 I $ KEY w40 O 1 Startles m . 2 Keeps From o Going to Sleep o 3 Wakes Up O 20 4 Disturbs Rest a or Relaxation 10 30 401 SD 60 70 80 y-� Approximate Outside Day-Night Equivalent Sound Level (Ldn) in • AdB • Figure D-5. Percentage of People Disturbed by Aircraft Noise for Various Types of Reasons Concerned With Rest And Sleep 0-6 Dli • 940;151 I 5 .n 70 _ 1 11 7 60 u KEY I n 50 .6 r 5 Interferes with _ N Sound 6 6 Causes TV - 0 40 5 ` Picture Flicker c 7 7 House Vibrates u 30 8 Interferes with - su d 8 Conversation 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Approximate Outside Day-Night Equivalent Sound Level (Ldn) in dB Figure D-6. Percentage of People Disturbed by Aircraft Noise for Various Types of Reasons Concerned with Domestic Factors°-6 Later research in the USA D-1 provides the information on activity interference shown in Table D-4. This table gives the activity disturbance percentages of those who reported that they were extremely disturbed by the noise,which accounts in part for the low per- centage values. It was reported that the daily activities of 98.6%of those questioned (about 4000 people) were disrupted one or more times by aircraft noise. More activities are mentioned in Table D-4 than in the previous tables. For example,telephone use, read- ing, listening to tapes and records, and eating were reported to have been disturbed by noise. A study performed in the Netherlands°'s gives further evidence that activity interfer- ence is associated with noise (see Table D-5). The data were taken in the urban/suburban areas in the vicinity of the Amsterdam Airport where the Ldn ranged from 45 to 85 dB. Activity interference is shown by percentage of people interviewed who have been fre- quently or sometimes disrupted in various activities. Also reported are the estimated tolertance limits for various portions of the exposed population. Thus, in an area where D-12 i- 9407,51. it Table D-4 • PERCENT OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO WERE EXTREMELY DISTURBED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE*, BY ACTIVITY DISTURBED°'' Activity Percent TV/Radio reception 20.6 Conversation 14.5 Telephone 13.8 Relaxing outside 12.5 Relaxing inside 10.7 Listening to records/tapes 9.1 Sleep 7.7 Reading 6.3 Eating 3.5 *Percent scoring 4 or 5 on a 1-5 scale. noise produces "predominantly moderate nuisance," the "tolerance limit" is reached for one- third of the population. Thirty-one percent report being sometimes disturbed by noise dur- ing conversation, and 21%report being sometimes disturbed by noise during sleep;occupa- tional disturbance was reported by 12%. (The judgment of"admissibility" with respect to well-being in Table D-5 is the result of the referenced study and not a conclusion of this report.) A recent study 1:69 in the USA found that 46%of the 1200 respondents were annoyed by surface vehicle noise at some time. Activities which were reported disturbed are indi- cated by percentages shown in Table D-6. Here we see that sleeping is the activity most disturbed by surface vehicle noise, followed in order by listening to TV,radio or recordings; mental activity, such as reading, writing or thinking;driving;conversing;resting and walking. From the studies reported here, it is clear that noise does indeed interfere with various" activities in our everyday lives. Unfortunately, most of the studies do not provide activity interference as a function of noise exposure. However, the activity which is most sensitive to noise in most of the studies is speech communication (including listening to TV),which can be directly related to the level of the intruding noise. D-13 9,10;',31 Table D-5 PERCENTAGE OF PERSONS INTERROGATED WHO FEEL THAT THEY HAVE FREQUENTLY, (F)OR SOMETIMES, (S) BEEN DISTURBED IN CONVERSATION, • RADIO LISTENING, TELEVISION, OCCUPATIONS, SLEEP; FEEL AFRAID, AND OF PERSONS IN WHOSE EXPERIENCE ON THESE OCCASIONS THE HOUSE VIBRATES. AT MEAN VALUE OF THE NUISANCE SCORES n-8 Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance of of Radio of of Mean Conversation Listening Television Occupations Afraid Nuisance Score + F* S* F S F S F S YES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 12 2 4 6 10 1 3 25 ' 2 16 24 5 8 12 18 3 7 48 3 27 31 10 15 20 23 7 12 66 4 39 35 18 22 31 25 11 19 78 5 56 37 27 30 42 26 19 28 91 6 67 31 38 36 57 26 34 39 94 7 83 17 56 44 72 28 55 45 100 *F denotes"frequently" S denotes"sometimes" D-I4 94.0251 Table D-5 (Continued) Admissibility from point of view of physical, mental and social well being, House Disturbance Nuisance in regard to which the stress is laid Vibrates of Sleep Felt on disturbance of sleep, disturbance YES F S Subjectively of conversation and feeling afraid 0 0 0. No nuisance 21 3 7 Slight nuisance Admissible Slight to Admissible; the tolerance limit is 41 6 14 moderate reached for about one-fifth of the nuisance population. Predominantly Limit of admissibility;the tolerance 56 12 21 moderate limit is reached for about one-third nuisance of the population. Predominantly Inadmissible;the tolerance limit is 72 20 28 serious exceeded for about half of the nuisance population. Inadmissible;the tolerance limit is Serious 83 31 33 nuisance exceeded for about two-thirds of the nui population. 92 44 42 Intolerable Absolutely inadmissible 100 72 28 Intolerable Absolutely inadmissible D-15 9402,51 Table D-6 ACTIVITIES OF RESPONDENTS DISTURBED BY SURFACE VEHICLE NOISE (All Situations: Respondent's Usual Activity)D-9 Percentage No. of of Total Category Situations Situations Driving 47 7 Walking 16 2 Talking with people present 42 6 Working at home 12 2 Reading, writing, thinking 80 12 Sleeping 155 22 Other 13 2 Not relevant 179 26 Listening to TV, radio,records 92 13 Resting(awake) 35 5 Not ascertained 22 3 Total" 693 100 COMMUNITY REACTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE There are two methods of indirectly assessing the cumulative effects of environmental noise on people. These are examining the reactions of individuals or groups of individuals to specific intruding noises, either (a) with respect to actions taken (complaints, suits, etc.), or (b) in terms of responses made to social survey questionnaires. The first category, involv- ing overt action by individuals or groups, is summarized in this section, and key data regard- ing the second category, involving responses indicating annoyance, is summarized in the. next section. In the last 25 years, many new types of noise sources have been introduced into suburban and urban residential communities. These sources, such a jet aircraft, urban D-16 940?o 9ri freeways, new industrial plants, and homeowner equipment, have created numerous com- munity problems with environmental noise. These problems have provided significant data and insight relating to community reaction and annoyance and stimulated the development of several indices for measurement of the magnitude of intruding noises. Various U.S. Governmental agencies began to investigate the relationships between aircraft noise and its effect on people in communities in the early 1950's. This early research resulted in the proposal of a model by Bolt, Rosenblith and Stevens D-10 for relating aircraft noise intrusion and the probable community reaction. This model, first published by the Air Force, accounted for the following seven factors: 1. Magnitude of the noise with a frequency weighting relating to human response. 2. Duration of the intruding noise. 3. Time of year (windows open or closed). 4. Time of day noise occurs. 5. Outdoor noise level in community when the intruding noise is not present. 6. History of prior exposure to the noise source and attitude toward its owner 7. Existence of pure-tone or impulsive character in the noise. Correction for these factors were initially made in 5 dB intervals since the magnitudes of many of the corrections were based solely on the intuition of the authors, and it was considered difficult to assess the response to any greater degree of accuracy.D-11-13 This model was incorporated in the first Air Force Land Use Planning GuideD-14 in 1957 and was later simplified for ease of application by the Air Force and the Federal Aviation Adminis- tration. Recently the day-night sound level has been derived for a series of 55 community noise problems D-3 to relate the normalized measured Ldn with the observed community reaction. The normalization procedure followed the Bolt, Rosenblith and Stevens method with a few minor modifications. The correction factors which were added to the measured Ldn to obtain the normalized Ldn are given in Table D-7. The distribution of the cases among the various noise sources having impact on the community are listed in Table D-8. The results are summarized in Figure 13-7. The "no reaction" response in Figure D-7 corresponds to a normalized outdoor day- night sound level which ranges between 50 and 61 dB with a mean of 55 dB. This mean value is 5 dB below the value that was utilized for categorizing the day-night sound level for a "residential urban community," which is the baseline category for the data in the figure. Consequently, from these results, it appears that no community reaction to an intruding noise is expected, on the average,when the normalized day-night sound level of an identifiable intruding noise is approximately 5 dB less than the day-night sound level D-17 940;'.51 Table D-7 CORRECTIONS TO BE ADDED TO THE MEASURED DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL (Ldn) OF INTRUDING NOISE TO OBTAIN NORMALIZED Ldno-3 Amount of Correctio to be Added to Measured Type of Ldn in dB Correction Description 0 Seasonal Summer (or year-round operation) —5 Correction Winter only(or windows always closed) Correction Quiet suburban or rural community (remote from large +10 for Outdoor cities and from industrial activity and trucking)Noise Level Normal suburban community (not located near industrial +5 Measured in activity) Absence of Urban residential community (not immediately adjacent to 0 Intruding heavily traveled roads and industrial areas) Noise _5 Noisy urban residential community (near relatively busy roads or industrial areas) Very noisy urban residential community —10 +5 Correction No prior experience with the intruding noise for Previous Community has had some previous exposure to intruding 0 Exposure & noise but little effort is being made to control the noise. Community This correction may also be applied in a situation where Attitudes the community has not been exposed to the noise previously,but the people are aware that bona fide efforts are being made to control the noise. Community has had considerable previous exposure to the —5 intruding noise and the noise maker's relations with the community are good Community aware that operation causing noise is very —10 necessary and it will not continue indefinitely.This correction can be applied for an operation of limited duration and under emergency circumstances. 0 Pure Tone No pure tone or impulsive character +5 or Impulse Pure tone or impulsive character present D-18 940';1 Table D-8 NUMBER OF COMMUNITY NOISE REACTION CASES AS A FUNCTION OF NOISE SOURCE TYPE AND REACTION CATEGORY Community Reaction Categories Vigorous Wide No Reaction Threats of Spread or Sporadic Total Type of Source Legal Action Complaints Complaints Cases Transportation vehicles, including: Aircraft operations 6 2 4 12 Local traffic 3 3 Freeway 1 1 Rail 1 1 Auto race track 2 2 Total Transportation 9 3 7 19 Other single-event or 5 intermittent operations, including circuit breaker testing, target shooting, rocket testing and body shop Steady state neighborhood 1 4 2 7. sources,including transformer substations, residential air conditioning Steady state industrial 7 7 10 24 operations, including • blowers, general manufacturing, chemical, oil refineries, et cetera Total Cases 22 14 19 55 D-19 94.0;"C•1 COMMUNITY REACTION ..• VIGOROUS ACTION _ • SEVERAL THREATS OF LEGAL ACTION - ,••_ OR STRONG APPEALS TO LOCAL OFFICIALS TO STOP NOISE WIDESPREAD COMPLAINTS - , OR SINGLE THREAT • • • • OF LEGAL ACTION DATA NORMALIZED TO: • RESIDENTIAL URBAN RESIDUAL NOISE SPORADIC _ • • • • , SOME PRIOR EXPOSURE COMPLAINTS WINDOWS PARTIALLY OPEN NO PURE TONE OR IMPLUSES NO REACTION ALTHOUGH NOISE IS - • : • • GENERALLY NOTICEABLE 40 50 60 70 80 90 NORMALIZED OUTDOOR DAY/NIGHT SOUND LEVEL OF INTRUDING NOISE IN d8 Figure D-7. Community Reaction to Intensive Noises of Many Types as a Function of the Normalized Outdoor Day Night Sound Level of the Intruding Noise o-3 that exists in the absence of the identifiable intruding noise. This conclusion is not surpris- ing;it simply suggests that people tend to judge the magnitude of an intrusion with reference to the noise environment that exists without the presence of the intruding noise source. The data in Figure D-7 indicate that widespread complaints may be expected when the normalized value of the outdoor day-night sound level of the intruding noise exceeds that existing without the intruding noise by approximately 5 dB, and vigorous community reaction may be expected when the excess approaches 20 dB. The standard deviation of these data is 3.3 dB about their means and an envelope of±5 dB encloses approximately 90 percent of the cases. Hence, this relationship between the normalized outdoor day-night sound level and community reaction appears to be a reasonably accurate and useful tool in assessing the probable reaction of a community to an intruding noise and in obtaining one type of measure of the impact of an intruding noise on a community. The methodology applied to arrive at the correlation between normalized Ldn and community complaint behavior illustrated in Figure D-7 is probably the best available at D-20 • 940;?,51 present to predict the most likely community reaction in the U.S. Unfortunately, readiness to complain and to take action is not necessarily an early indicator of interference with activities and annoyance that the noise creates. The fact that correction for the normal background noise level without intruding noise results in better correlation of the data points might be interpreted to mean that urban communities have adapted to somewhat higher residual noise levels that are not perceived as interfering or annoying. On the other • hand, it is more likely that the higher threshold for complaining is caused by the feeling that higher residual noise is unavoidable in an urban community and that complaining about "normal" noise would be useless. For the present analysis, it might therefore be more useful to look at the same data without any corrections for background noise, attitude, and other subjective attributes of the intruding noise. Figure D-8 gives these data for the same 55 cases. The increase in spread of the data is apparent in comparing Figures D-7 and D-8, and the standard deviation of the data about the mean value for each reaction is increased from 3.3 dB for the normalized data to 7.9 dB. The mean value of the outdoor day-night sound level associated with "no reaction" is 55 dB;with vigorous reaction, 72 dB;and, for the three intermediate degrees of reaction, 62 dB. COMMUNITY REACTION .•.. VIGOROUS ACTION _ SEVERAL THREATS • • , OF LEGAL ACTION - • ••• • • • • OR STRONG APPEALS TO LOCAL OFFICIALS TO STOP NOISE WIDESPREAD COMPLAINTS • , OR SINGLE THREAT — • • ••• • • • • • •• OF LEGAL ACTION • SPORADIC — • •. • • • COMPLAINTS NO REACTION •• •• ALTHOUGH NOISE IS . •• • •• • GENERALLY NOTICEABLE I I I I I I I I I I I 40 50 60 70 80 90 OUTDOOR DAY NIGHT SOUND LEVEL OF INTRUDING NOISE IN dB RE 20 MICROPASCALS Figure D-8. Community Reaction to Intensive Noises of Many Types As A Function of the Outdoor Day/Night Sound Level of the Intruding Noise D-3 D-21 940-`i I There is no evidence in these 55 cases of even sporadic complaints if the Ldn is less than 50 dB. ANNOYANCE Annoyance discussed in this report is limited to the long-term integrated adverse responses of people to environmental noise. Studies of annoyance in this context are largely based on the results of sociological surveys. Such surveys have been conducted among residents of a number of countries including the United States.n-6,D.1,D-I5,D-16 The short-term annoyance reaction to individual noise events, which can be studied in the field as well as in the laboratory, is not explicitly considered, since only the accumu- lating effects of repeated annoyance by environmental stimuli can lead to environmental effects on public health and welfare. Although it is known that the long-term annoyance reaction to a certain environment can be influenced to some extent by the experience of recent individual annoying events, the sociological surveys are designed to reflect, as much as possible, the integrated response to living in a certain environment and not the response to isolated events. The results of sociological surveys are generally stated in terms of the percentage of respondents expressing differing degrees of disturbance or dissatisfaction due to the noisi- ness of their environments. Some of the surveys go into a complex procedure to construct a scale of annoyance. Others report responses to the direct question of"how annoying is the noise?" Each social survey is related to some kind of measurement of the noise levels (mostly from aircraft operations) to which the survey respondents are exposed, enabling correlation between annoyance and outdoor noise levels in residential areas. The results of social surveys show that individual responses vary widely for the same noise level. Borsky °-17 has shown that these variances are reduced substantially when groups of individuals having similar attitudes about "fear" of aircraft crashes and "mis- feasance" of authorities are considered. Moreover, by averaging responses over entire sur- veys, almost identical functional relationships between human response and noise levels are obtained for the whole surveyed population as are obtained for the groups of individuals having neutral attitudinal responses. Therefore, in deriving a generalized relationship be- tween reported annoyance and day-night sound level, it seems reasonable to use the average overall group responses, recognizing that individuals may vary considerably from the average, both positively and negatively depending upon their particular attitudinal biases. In most cases, the average group response can also be interpreted as the average individual's response during his life period. That is to say, each individual changes his attitudinal biases accord- , ing to various factors and personal experiences not necessarily connected to the noise or D-2 2 n r even to the environment in general, which lead to fluctuations of each individual's attitude. The average group response does, to some extent, express the individual's response aver- aged over longer periods of his life. Therefore, this response reflects the effects most likely to affect his health over a longer time period. A comparison of the results of three of the most prominent social surveys around air- resented in the following paragraphs. These are the first and second surveys p are p around London's Heathrow Airport,o-6,n-1s and the Tracor study °-' around eight major airports in the United States. The noise level data reported for each survey were converted to outdoor day-night sound levels for the purpose of this analysis. In addition, data are presented from a survey of response to motor vehicles in U.S. urban areas.D-18 { First London-Heathrow Survey The first survey of about 2,000 residents in the vicinity of Heathrow airport was con- ducted in 1961 and reported in 1963.¢6 The survey was conducted to obtain responses of residents exposed to a wide range of aircraft flyover noise. A number of questions were used in the interviews to derive measures of degrees of reported annoyance. Two results of this survey are considered here. A general summary of the data, aggregating all responses on a category scale of annoy- ance ranging from"not at all" to "very much annoying," is.plotted as a function of approx- imate Ldn in Figure D-9. This figure presents a relationship between word descriptors and day-night sound level. • Among the respondents in every noise level category, a certain percentage were classi- fied in the"highly annoyed" category. This percentage of each group is plotted as a func- tion of approximate Ldn on Figure D-10. Comparison of the data on the two figures reveals that, while the average over the population would fit a word classification of"little annoyed" at an Ldn value of approxi- mately 60 dB, more than 20%of the population would still be highly annoyed at this Ldn value. In addition to the derivation of overall annoyance scales, this study examined the attitude-of the people towards their area and their desire to move as a function of both noise level and several other factors. The results are summarized in Figs. D-11 and D-12. They indicate that when the approximate Ldn exceeded 66-68 dB, aircraft noise became the reason most often cited by those who either "liked their area less now than in the past" or"wanted to move". Further, the data indicate that aircraft noise was of little importance, D-23 9402,701. W v Z 1 1 Q O z VERY < MUCH 4 - O • �l w / MODERATE 3 - O Z LITTLE 2 • - - O Z O NOT AT 1us ALL ALL O Q w a 1 I 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Approximate Day-Night Average Sound Level, Ldn - dB Figure D-9. Average Degree of Annoyance as a Function of the Approximate Day-Night Noise Level — Results of First London Heathrow Survey D-39 from o-6 compared to other environmental factors, when the approximate Ldn was below 53 dB and was of average importance as a factor when the approximate Ldn was 60 dB. Results of Second London Survey and Tracor Surveys In 1967, a second surveyo-ls was taken around-Heathrow Airport in the same general area as the first survey. While refinements were attempted over the first survey, the results were generally the same. In 1971, the results of an intensive three year program under NASA sponsorship which studies eight air carrier airports in the United States were reported by Tracor. -7 Since each of these efforts is discussed in detail in the references,only an analysis of their combined results is considered here. Borskyo-17 used the data from these studies to correlate annoyance with noise exposure level for people having different atti- tudinal characteristics and different degrees of annoyance. D-24 80 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Y o Z < 0 20— • / I I I I I I7 55 70 5 80 045 50 60 65 Approximate Day-Night Average Sound Level,in Lan Figure D-10. Percentage Highly Annoyed as Function of Approximate Day-Night Noise Level — Results of First London Heathrow Surveyo-39 from o-& Utilizing Borsky's data for"moderate" responses to the attitudes of"fear" and "mis- feasance", the relationship between percent highly annoyed and noise exposure level is plotted on Figure D-13. Again, noise levels have been converted to approximate Ldn values. It is worth noting that more than 7500 respondents are included in the data sets from which the computations were derived. The comparison between the results shown on Figures D-10 and D-13 is striking in the near identity of the two regression lines—indistinguishable at any reasonable level of statistical confidence. The importance of these two sets of data lies in the stability of the results even though the data were acquired 6 to 9 years apart, at nine different airports in two different countries. This complete agreement led to the proposal of an average curve for the nominal relationship between sound level and percentage of people annoyed, which- has been coordinated among and used by various U.S.Government agencies,D-19 applied in the studies of ICAO's coordinating committee on aircraft noise; and verified by a recent analysis of British, French and Dutch survey results conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 620 According to the OECD work, D-25 • 9407:51 80 _ r I I L KEY mo 70 .1 1 - CL 1 Aircraft Noise o La a v 60 2 Other Noise w I 3 Area Dirtier/ ▪ - 5'0 3 i — 3 Influx of Overcrowded 0 4 4 �� 40 12 Undesirable „I- I People v_ 2 4 5 Want Change/ • a, 30 I I { r- I I Been Here Too - L Y .. Long C..• -J 20 5 I � 1 i J 40 50 60 70 Approximate Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) in dB Figure D-11. Percentage of People Liking Their Area Less Now than in the Past for Various Reasons o-6 a) 0 f . o I-- 5 a;• 35 C o 2 — KEY I 1 To Go Where °' 30 t I-- Climate is Better v 1 2 To Go To .Better tea, I I 3 Living Accommodation r 12 To Get Away From F 25 ' Smoke/Dirt/Smells a 3 I I 4 To Be Nearer Work A I '— I I 5 To Get Away From . as c 5 4 Aircraft Noise • 20 1 1 l l I , I i i • i 5 n. 40 50 60 70 Approximate Dav-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) in dB Figure D-12. Percentage of People Giving Particular Reasons for Wanting to Move D-6 D-26 940.51 BO I I I I • 60 — • o — � 40 T / 20 _ y I I I 0 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Approximate Day-Night Average Sound LevelS.dn in dB. Figure D-13. Combined Results—British and U.S. Surveyso'17 the percentage of annoyed people cansbe predicted as follows: Percentage of annoyed people= 2 (Ldn- 50). The results of the Tracor Study 67 also give a relationship between the number of people who indicate in a social survey that they are highly annoyed and the number of people who indicate that they have ever complained about the noise to any one in author- ity. The results, presented in Figure D-14, indicate that.when 1%of the people complain, 17%report being highly annoyed;and when 10%of the people complain, 43%are highly annoyed. Judgement of Noisiness at Urban Residential Sites In 1972, a study of urban noise was conducted primarily to evaluate motor vehicle noise for the Automobile Manufacturers Association.D-9 As part of this survey, 20 different urban-suburban residential locations not in the vicinity of airports were studied in Boston, Detroit, and Los Angeles. Noise measurements were acquired and a social survey of 1200 D-27 9 9410::31:51 70 • 7. 60 50 / / • 7) 40 f 0 % Highly Annoyed = 12.3 %C+ 4.3 > • /�� cn 30 i 2 • 20 -7 / r = 0.98 Sy/X = 3.? 10 k 0 0 5 10 15 20 2.5 Percent Complainants (C) Figure D-14. Percentage of Highly Annoyed As A Function of Percent of Complainants E" D-28 940"' 1 respondents was conducted. Part of the survey was directed towards obtaining the respond- ents'judgement, on a category scale, of the exterior noisiness at their places of residence. The averaged judged noisiness values per site are plotted on Figure D-15 as a function of measured Ldn values. The significance of these"non-aircraft" data is the comparison they permit with other survey data acquired exclusively around airports. Intercomparison of these data with previous data indicate that for an Ldn value of 60 dB, the site would be judged"quite" noisy. The average annoyance for a group would be classed as"little," but about 25%of the people would still claim to be highly annoyed. VERY r NOISY S I I I I I • 4 • • •% • • s • 0 2 Z NOT AT 1 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 ALL Measured Day-Night Average Sound Level cLdn, in dB Figure D-15. Judged Noisiness at Automobile Manufacturers Association Survey Sites I:" When all respondents, irrespective of exposure site, were asked whether they were annoyed by motor vehicle noise, 53%were not annoyed, while 46%were, with an average intensity of annoyance of 4.2 on a scale where 3 stood for"quite annoying," 4 for"defi- nitely annoying" and 5 "strongly annoying." Of the 46%of respondents who stated they were annoyed by motor vehicle noise, 77% experienced annoying noises while in their homes, 12%while in transit, and only 5%at work. D-29 • A 94113 l This indication, that the principle annoyance with environmental noise occurs in the residential situation is further confirmed in the results of the London City Noise Survey D-18 summarized in Table D-9. Summary of Annoyance Survey Results The relationships among percent complainants and percent highly annoyed (Figure • D-14) together with the combined results of the two Heathrow surveys and the Tracor survey (Figures D-10 and D-13) have been combined in Figure D-16 to produce a general summary relationship between day-night sound level, percent complainants and percent j highly annoyed. Also included in the figure is a scale of the relative importance of aircraft noise as a factor in disliking an area or wanting to move (Figures D-11 and D-12) and the average values of the three main community noise reaction categories (Figure D-7). The results indicate that below an outdoor day-night sound level of 55 dB, less than I; 1%of the households would be expected to complain,although 17%of the people may respond as highly annoyed when questioned in a social survey. "No reaction" would be expected in the average community,and noise would be the least important factor in atti- u; tude towards neighborhood. When the outdoor Ldn is 60 dB, approximately 2%of the households might be expected to complain, although 23%of the people may respond as highly annoyed when questioned, and some reaction would be expected from an average j� community. If the levels increase over 65 dB, more than 5% may be expected to complain, and over 33%would respond as highly annoyed. Increasingly, vigorous community reaction could be expected, and noise becomes the dominant factor in disliking an area. Table D-9 PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO WERE EVER DISTURBED BY NOISE AT HOME, OUTDOORS AND AT WORK IN LONDON CITY SURVEY° 18 At Home Outside At Work Disturbed from time to time 56 27 20 Notice but not disturbed 41 64 70 Do not notice 3 9 10 D-30 I 9110:-,._y1 Relative Importance of Aircraft As A - Factor in Disliking Area or Wanti0-7ng D-11, D-12 and 0-13 Move (Heathrow 1st Study) 0-10, FAS-I IN^G=ASING MOST 1 I.. 60 r 20 • ow z 4r z o c �O� VIGOROUS Z n. PG, ACTION Y O '2- J a 4%5* — 50 o x a „00� � w z 10 COMPLAINTS AND O lil a 0 PPC' THREATS OF 40 i a Ii. LEGAL ACTION cc NONE 30 0- 20 0 50 55 60 65 70 75 60 OUTDOOR DAY/NIGHT SOUND SA LEVEL(Ldn)IN dB IRE 20 MICRO- Figure D-I 6. Summary of Annoyance Survey and Community Reaction Results It is important to keep in mind that the annoyance/tolerance limits obtained from the social survey results have been found to be based on relatively well defined health and wel- fare criteria: the disturbance of essential daily activities.o-19 VARIOUS PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACCEPTABLE SOUND LEVELS . Recommended values for acceptable sound levels in various types of spaces have been suggested by a number of authors over the past two decades. These recommendations generally have taken into consideration such factors as speech intelligibility and subjective judgements by space occupants. However, the final values recommended were largely the result of judgements on the part of the authors, which in the case of acoustical consultants, have been motivated by the need for design values which will be on the"safe" side. One of the earliest publications providing recommended values in modem terminology was that D-31 1 9402,51 of Knudsen and Harris a21 in 1950. It is of interest to quote from the text to understand the reasoning used to develop the recommended levels: Acceptable Noise Levels in Buildings The highest level of noise within a building that neither disturbs its occupants nor impairs its acoustics is called the acceptable noise level. It depends, to a large extent, on the nature of the noise and on the type and customary use of the building. The time fluctuation of the noise is one of the most important factors in determining its toler- ability. For example, a bedroom with an average noise level of 35 dB, with no instantaneous peak levels substantially higher, would be much more conducive to sleep than would be a room with an average noise level of only 25 dB but in which the stillness is pierced by an occasional shriek. Furthermore, levels that are annoying to one person are un- noticed by another. It is therefore impossible to specify precise values within which the noise levels should fall in order to be acceptable. It is useful, however, to know the range of average noise levels that are acceptable under average conditions. A compilation of such levels for various types of rooms in which noise conditions are likely to be a significant problem is given in [Table D-10.*] The recommended acceptable noise levels in this table are empirical values based on the experience of the authors and others they have consulted. Local conditions or cost considerations may make it impractical to meet the high standards inherent in these relatively low noise levels. In more than 80 percent of the rooms of some of the types listed, the prevalent average noise levels exceed the recommended acceptable levels. However, it should be understood that the acceptance of higher noise levels incurs a risk of impaired acoustics of of the com- fort of the individuals in the room. Since 1950 recommendations by a number of authors, as well as national standards, have been presented. Eighteen of.fhese recommendations are tabulated in Table D-10.an through o-ag It is encouraging to note the consistency displayed,although many_ of the later recommendations may be based on the recommendations of the earlier authors. SUMMARY OF NOISE INTERFERENCE WITH HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND RESULTING HEALTH/WELFARE EFFECTS The primary effect of noise on human health and welfare due to interference with • ! activity comes from its effect on speech communication. *These values are given in the first column of Table fl-10. 1132 94S y1 • I I I I Ez- a_ • m n O G° o o ' <^ on „ or ,,,< «.. a0 .— w - sa .,,en F. tea≥ Q 7,- c rq e � < o n tn Lt. _v n —, „C .-.vv e v r.rn. Qi 6 _9 n - v v. ......a....;. P • n 1 c -ri_a <J TT 10 '-- d . Z P.-- =-.1 r.nn.r. a c≤ nn n r._ a Y �° _ W 9 O , A w saga co -a tu F., O x' m< c A N o - m a w Tf e O x F. Z a- 4.44 6444,, nn - _ p n-.n.,.. n., A YoP ' oA0 A Z v �goa o e am . .. W it." < aP T�T d�; g ' u W 9 j 00 p o n < '<$ a n �tr �d tU i; = a n r. n e e n r t“ of nn �� 2P R e t ne '<nn n an - p o g =e_.roo =r a _ -g nnnn < C Ymo .n,n.n „ _ r o n C E _ S -� 2 O _ E 2 = e�_ _ 4 5 O o f i Ee°5 s Eo�- c 2 E° m _ a 8 O < `Ww J= - nai= . p m__ £ '' = ' � > cp 2Y . ] < -3 7` o G o�> r-� Sz,Rzz mmU .y E9S `no cC- c JS 0L• Sd, _U <Uli4C Z f p Z I Reproduced from D-33 best available copy. ..„ij I 9440751 The levels that interfere with human activities which do not involve active listening cannot be quantified relative to the level of a desired sound. Rather, the level of an intrud- ing sound that will cause an interference depends upon its relation to the level of the other background sounds in the environment and the state of the human auditor, e.g., the degree • of concentration when endeavoring to accomplish a mental task, or the depth of sleep, etc. The levels of environmental noise that are associated with annoyance depend upon local conditions and attitudes. They cannot be clearly identified in terms of the national public health and welfare. The only levels which can be so identified are the levels which are required to assure that speech communication in the home and outdoors is adequate in terms of public health and welfare. Lower levels may be desirable and appropriate for specific local situations. The level identified for the protection of speech communication is 45 dB within the home. Allowing for the 15 dB reductionin sound level between outdoors and indoors, this level becomes an outdoor day-night sound level of 60 dB (re 20 micropascals) for residen- tial areas. For outdoor voice communication, the outdoor day-night level of 60 dB allows normal conversation at distances up to 2 meters with 95%sentence intelligibility. Although speech interference has been identified as the primary interference of noise with human activities, and as one of the primary reasons for adverse community reactions to noise and long-term annoyance, a margin of safety of 5 dB is applied to the maximum outdoor level to give adequate weight to all of these other adverse effects. Therefore, the outdoor day-night sound level identified for residential areas is a day- night sound level of 55 dB. The associated interior day-night sound level within a typical home which results from outdoors is 15 dB less, or 40 dB. The expected indoor daytime level for a typical neighbor- hood which has an outdoor day-night sound level of 55 dB is approximately 40 dB, whereas the nighttime level is approximately 32 dB (see Figure A-7). This latter value is consistent with the limited available sleep criteria.D-5 Additionally, these resulting indoor levels are consistent with the background levels inside the home and which have been recommended by acoustical consultants as "acceptable" for many years (Table D-10). The effects associated with an outdoor day-night sound level of 55 dB are summarized in Table D-11. The summary shows: • 1. Satisfactory outdoor average sentence intelligibility may be expected for normal voice conversations over distances of up to 3.5 meters; D-34 9/1if3441 Table D-I 1 SUMMARY OF HUMAN EFFECTS IN TERMS OF SPEECH COMMUNICATION, COMMUNITY REACTION, COMPLAINTS, ANNOYANCE AND ATTITUDE TOWARDS AREA ASSOCIATED WITH AN OUTDOOR DAY/NIGHT SOUND LEVEL OF 55 dB re 20 MICROPASCALS Type of Effect Magnitude of Effect Speech — Indoors 100%sentence intelligibility (average) with a 5 dB margin of safety — Outdoors 100% sentence intelligibility (average) at 0.35 meters 99% sentence intelligibility (average) at 1.0 meters 95%sentence intelligibility (average) at 3.5 meters Average Community Reaction None, 7 dB below level of significant "complaints and threats of legal action" and at least 16 dB below "vigorous action" (attitudes and other non-level related factors may affect this result) • Complaints 1%dependent on attitude and other non-level related factors Annoyance 17%dependent on attitude and other non-acoustical factors Attitudes Toward Area Noise essentially least important of various factors • D-35 i 9fl 0251 2. Depending on attitude and other non-acoustical factors, the average expected i'"S community reaction is "none" although 1%may complain and 17% indicate ' "highly annoyed" when responding to social survey questions; and 3. Noise is the least important factor governing attitude towards the area. Identification of a level which is 5 dB higher than the 55 dB identified above would significantly increase the severity of the average community reaction, as well as the expected j percentage of complaints and annoyance. Conversely,identification of a level 5 dB lower :, t than the 55 dB identified above would reduce the indoor levels resulting from outdoor ['! noise well below the normal background indoors. It would decrease speech privacy out- 'i doors to marginal distance. Little change in annoyance would be made since at levels t'“i below the identified level, individual attitude and life style, as well as local conditions, are +l more important factors in controlling the resulting magnitude of the level of the intruding 1/4 ,;.. noise. i. ?', : In conclusion, a Ldn level of 55 dB is identified as outdoor level in residential areas compatible with the protection of public health and welfare. The level of 55 dB is identi- ' E fied as maximum level compatible with adequate speech communication indoors and out- I I ? doors. With respect to complaints and long term annoyance this level is clearly a maximum l�'Iii satisfying the large majority of the population(see Table D-11). However, specific local I situations, attitudes, and conditions may make lower levels desirable for some locations. ;f t A noise environment not annoying some percentage of the population cannot be identified It; at the present time by specifying noise level alone. ttil 4h. •.i' F'I Lit 11 1 t p:. U lkit I I1 t,1 il D-36 r ill 940 y1 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX D D-1 "Effects of Noise on People," Environmental Protection Agency,NTID 300.7, December 1971. D-2 Webster, J. C., "Effects of Noise on Speech Intelligibility", Noise as a Public Health Hazard, American Speech and Hearing Association,No.4, February 1969. D-3 Eldred, K. M., "Community Noise," Environmental Protection Agency NTID 300.3, December 1971. D-4 "Method for the Calculation of the Articulation Index," American National Stand- ards Institute,ANSI 53.5-1969, New York. D-5 "Public Health and Welfare Criteria for Noise," Environmental Protection Agency, 550/9-73-002, July 27, 1973. D-6 "Noise-Final Report," H.M.S.O., Cmnd. 2056, London, July 1963. D-7 Connor,W. K. and Patterson,H. P., "Community Reaction to Aircraft Noise Around Smaller City Airports", NASA CR-2104, August 1972. D-8 Bitter, C., "Noise Nuisance Due to Aircraft," Institut Vour Gezondheidstechniek TNO, 1968. D-9 Bolt Beranek and Newman,Inc., "Survey of Annoyance from Motor Vehicle Noise," Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., Report 2112, June 1971. D-10 Rosenblith, W. A.,Stevens, K.N.,and the Staff of Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., "Noise and Man,"Handbook of Acoustic Noise Control, Vol. 2,WADC TR-52-204, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center, 1953. D-11 Stevens, K. N., Rosenblith,W. A., and Bolt,R. H., "A Comminity's Reaction to Noise: Can It Be Forecast?" Noise Control, 1:63-71, 1955. D-12 Stevens, K. N., and Baruch, J. J., "Community Noise and City Planning," Handbook of Noise Control, Chapter 35, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1957. • D-I3 Parrack,H.O., "Community Reaction to Noise," Handbook of Noise Control, Chapter 36, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1957. D-37 9407,51 D-14 Stevens, K. N. and Pietrasanta, A. C., and the Staff of Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., "Procedures for Estimating Noise Exposure and Resulting Community Reac- ill bons from Air Base Operation," WADC TN-57-10, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, r.to Ohio: Wright Air Development Center, 1957. D-15 "Second Survey of Aircraft Noise Annoyance Around London (Heathrow) Airport," H.M.S.O., London, 1971. D-16 Bitter, C., "Noise Nuisance Due to Aircraft," Collogue sur la definition des exigences $ I humain a 1'egard du bruit,Paris, November 1968. kl D-17 Borsky, P. N., "A New Field-Laboratory Methodology for Assessing Human Re- sponse to Noise," NASA CR-2221, March 1973. D-18 "Noise in Towns,"NOISE, Chapter IV, 22-31, Presented to Parliament by the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science by Committee on the Problem of Noise, July 1963;H.M.S.O., London, Reprinted 1966. D-19 "Safeer, Harvey B., "Community Response to Noise Relative to Percent of Popula- S tion Highly Annoyed by Noise," US Department of Transportation,Office of Noise Abatement TM 72-1, June 6, 1972. D-20 "Social and Economic Impact of Aircraft Noise," Sector Group on the Urban En- vironment,Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, April 1973. �II �. D-21 Knudsen, E. O. and Harris,C. M.,Acoustical Designing in Architecture, New York: J. Wiley and Sons, 1950. ;la D-22 Beranek, L., Reynolds, J. L, and Wilson, K. E., "Apparatus and Procedures for Predicting Ventilation System Noise," JASA, v. 25, no. 2: 313, 1953. D-23 Beranek, L., "Revised Criteria for Noise in Buildings,"Noise Control, v. 3, no. 1, 1957. D-24 Lawrence, A.,Acoustics in Buildings, Australian Building Science Series 1, p 70, 1962. • D-25 Kosten, C. W. and van Os., G. J., "Community Reaction Criteria for External Noises," National Physical Laboratory Symposium No. 12, London, H.M.S.O. 1962. r�?I D-38 940.1 D-26 ASHRAE;Guide and Data Book, Systems and Equipment, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, p 379, 1967. D-27 Denisov, E. I., "New Health Norms on Noise", Institut Gigiyeny Truda i Profza- bolevaniy AMN SSSR, Moscow, v. 14, no. 5:47, 1970. D-28 Kryter, K., The Effects of Noise on Man, Academic Press, p 459, 1970. D-29 "Noises in Tokyo", Report on the Tokyo Conference on Environmental Protection, November 8-11, 1971. D-30 "Sanitary Norms for Permissible Noise in Living Quarters and Public Buildings and in Residential Construction Areas," Main Sanitary-Epidemiological Administration, USSR, 1971. D-31 Beranek, L.,Noise and Vibration Control, p 585, McGraw-Hill, 1971. D-32 Doelle, L.,Environmental Acoustics, p 186, McGraw-Hill, 1972. D-33 Woods, R. I., "Noise Control in Mechanical Services," Published jointly by Sound Attenuators Ltd and Sound Research Laboratories Ltd, 1972. D-34 Rettinger, M.,Acoustic Design and Noise Control, New York: p 158,Chemical Publ. Co., Inc., 1973. D-35 eden National Board of Urban Planning, Samhallsplannering och Vagtrafikbuller, Stockholm: 1971. • D-36 Schweizerischer Ingenieur-and Architekten- Verein, Empfehlung fuer Schallschutz im Wohnnungsbau, SIA No. 181, Zuerich, 1970. D-37 The Czech Ministry of Health; Richtlinien fuer Gesundheitsschutz gegen unguenstige Wirkung von Laerm;Vorschriften der Hygiene, Band 28, 1967, Prague: Staatsverlag fuer Medizinische Literatur 1967. D-38 Der Bundesminister des Innen, Inventar der in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland geltenden oder geplanten Rechts-und Verwaltungsvorschriften ueber die Laermbe- kaempfung. Bonn April 30, 1973. D-39 "Impact Characterization of Noise Including Implications of Identifying and Achieving Levels of Cumulative Noise Exposure." EPA Document NTID 73.4, July 27, 1973. D-39 910,751 ' 1 t, _ INDUSTRIAL NOISE ••.. T. _. . ..• „.„„..„.„.•.. . . . • . :: . .,....•,.. .:•_":"... .:",...... ,.: ,. _ ....... ., . .......„..:::.::::„.„.„... . .. ... ., . ... .. . .... v:„.:.. :: „..: •.... .:4i .:!::.: .. . ... ._ .•_ . .. ::.:..:.. - ---i-::. - - NUL : . econd : Edition ..r . ...::...........:.::::::. . . ::.�::i_...:::_.:E;:Lv'r� .:..:�:m .P::r:_i:::.:�- .:i.:....:'�'.- _ -- .�I.iii .:'�ii��oii�:::��::::sir::'v=_:s>i�:':::::F�'-•i:6.:t'» .:_ .. ___ .. .:::i;::F^=+�-4'.. _._-14A,Ri9iz l•'�:ie,-•v_:vTn..r..,x-:ryve:!.:.r6y.;ce. .. _ .. :i,r.. .mmz._;. ::-c..v.._r:.<...₹::z__c.�.i z..l.i,--...I.L:: c.:q.:.... .:..l:....:.:.:".Y}... _::... _.� v'�+ie-�� ..r.—lti: .__ 0.—f F..._...._.._...:.::r:u!nl�:li.e'.IJ.Lrinn FF_r 3':_.., _ -:w :�W��-�-. •5'- >=!F°4'5id,',_i_.eip�;:?a�:e_::::_oe.clnq::.-.="'..i. =,.Ec_____ ••;.t- 6A:r 7_�... I._144.70 .;', ,71 I : �., r : ,., T .gin.. - = 1_.::1.:_;;-,:,: -2..::"!;';'-'-'4 • .._..: versa- -::4 ___ - - ' ..: ...:_._;.,.>_....:�:.: -s-s_:.Ir-^ra�=_.yi'�§"r:ll::::'::c:-. ....::.:_.:r:_4;�..y::,.=-_ ,__._ ._:_ ..:f.;:f _. ._ -::_ .. .. ... - - - _r::::r:.firaktiac'fiL:6c,a:::::itik:iar._l::14.;.12€:;ai''_,y;timeiEgoci _ :144..._. ..... . .... ....... .._ ..,... ......_.:rr ..r,+=1 .w.hr. . ... . ..:..-.._..._....: ... ... .:.... �.... ._ fir..,.,... - - - " —' -' - __ -- a gie ....:.:. :.... _ _ . ....:cv_..x.L..:�:_.:.._-_9Y.rrJrT ,�.^.!T..��:if "_ ! __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ .. .....�....._...:.:c-v::-=:err.: v.:a'-....... .: . --.::.::.__.r ..._:a--....c. J ;e _: 1. _ . _.. vr.... _:F`fu... ..___..--..:._ .;..::F...__:.. < __ ___ _'_ - __- - _ over,• .3ie ^M1y.__ _- .. vi,;.:=:file'. . .,._.: ...r, .... '' ': : _ _ _ ___- _ - __ _ _ ____--_ __ r. 1§ii'e'1""'6sr -2•-ate:... ... .. • . .. ...:.. Chapter 7 Effects of Noise on Man This chapter describes the manner in which Hearing loss caused by sudden trauma is acoustic energy impairs the ear. It also offers usually referred to as "acoustic trauma," which may criteria indicative of noisy environments likely to occur following a single sudden sound, such as a cause hearing loss. By comparing these criteria pistol shot, or a blow to the head. The mechanism with measurements taken in the field, the hygienist of acoustic trauma is very involved, and little is will be better able to determine the need and known about how the character of the trauma, the extent of hearing conservation measures. individual's susceptibility to it, and the protective While the hygienist is primarily concerned acoustic reflex mechanism of his middle ear muscles with the effects of noise upon hearing, he is fre- influence the probability of his sustaining it. quently called upon to correct other problems io ' created by noise. For that reason, this chapter in- (Normal)0 eludes practical information on interference with x speech communication and annoyance caused by o excessive noise. wa 20 Leff Ear %—{— a t I I - v AUDITORY EFFECTS OF NOISE EXPOSURE p 40 That noise exposure of sufficient magnitude > E 60 RghtEar will produce a sensori-neural hearing loss has been y b acknowledged for well over a hundred years. How- o. - ever, the subject has been given intensive study 'o d ao only in recent years. In spite of this recent, con- I° - - centrated effort, much remains to be learned about the relations of hearing loss to noise exposure. 00 Intense, sudden noise (blast, explosion) may 250 500 1000 2000 4000 6000 produce severe damage to the structures of the Frequency in Cycles per second middle and the inner ear. The eardrum may be ruptured and the continuity of the ossicular chain Figure 7.1—Audiogram showing conductive hearing may be destroyed. Damage of this kind is un- loss caused by an explosion. doubtedly caused by the sudden increase and de- crease of pressure produced by the passage of the PATHOLOGY OF NOISE-INDUCED wave front of the blast. HEARING LOSS These sudden high pressure fronts may dis- - locate the basilar membrane and Organ of Corti. Noise levels less than those causing acoustic If tears of the eardrum are not too large, and none trauma can also produce hearing loss if the ex- of the membrane is avulsed, most perforations will posure is of sufficient intensity and duration. A heal, provided infection in the middle ear cavity change in the hair cell response results, but the does not ensue. If the ossicular chain remains in- exact pathology is not well understood. A study of tact and the eardrum heals, little or no conductive these effects on animals has shown what appears hearing loss will result. On the other hand, it is a to be a degenerative process in the hair cell itself. rare ear that will survive this type of insult without Changes usually begin in the basal turn of the some sensori-neural involvement. cochlea and proceed upward toward the helico- The sensori-neural effects of sudden trauma trema. Before these effects can be assigned to the usually do not stabilize until several months. human ear, microscopic studies are essential. But During this time, the auditory threshold level may it seems relatively safe to assume that the human increase or decrease, making it necessary to defer ear responds to noise exposure in much the same assessing the permanent effects until after six to way the animal ear does. eight months. Figure 7.1 illustrates the type of Recent psycho-acoustic studies have indicated audiogram frequently found in cases with a history that recruitment usually occurs only in the presence of sudden intense auditory trauma. of hair-cell pathology. It has been well established 49 94(P, 1 50 INDUSTRIAL NOISE MIANUAI. tl that'recruitment usually exists in ears with noise- dicate differences in susceptibility to damage from induced threshold shifts. Therefore, it appears that excessive noise exposure during the first years of these threshold shifts involve inner ear impairment. exposure, but eventually the quartiles come to- Although it would be difficult to describe the exact gether, whereupon the so-called "tough cars" finally nature of die change at this time, it could be stated catch up to the "tender ears: with certainty that noise-induced changes are re- The determination of susceptibility to noise stricted to the receptor mechanism of the inner car, exposure presents a high quality complex problem. and that the middle ear and central pathways are Considerable time has been devoted to a search in no way affected. Once the hair cell in the inner for a satisfactory susceptibility test, but, to date, ear is damaged, there is no way to reverse the none exists except periodic measurements of hear- process. ing. A study' of hearing in industrial workers The effects of overexposure to steady noise shows that the distribution of hearing loss caused result in a slowly progressive increase in the audi- by noise-exposure follows a normal statistical curve. tory threshold. The usual case first shows the A few individuals are highly susceptible, but equal- 'I neatest increase at 4000 cps, but it may be found ly few are only slightly susceptible. Therefore it j a anywhere between 2000 and 6000 cps. The increase would be difficult to devise a "yes or no" test on -1 in threshold level then spreads to the adjacent fre- the basis of such a study. A successful and prac- quencies. Intensive studies of permanent and tem- tical test would have to divide people into non- porary threshold shift have shown that, if the ex- susceptible and susceptible groups, but, at present, posure remains constant, the threshold shift at 4 Ice such a division appears unlikely because suscep- reaches a maximum level in about ten years with tibility is not a "yes or no" phenomenon. the usual industrial exposures. Unfortunately this is not true for the frequencies below 3000 cps, at PRESBYCUSIS least under the conditions imposed by most indus- trial noises. At these frequencies, no maximum is There is a need to differentiate between loss reached, and the threshold levels continue to rise as of auditory sensitivity caused by exposure to noise long as the exposure continues. from that due to the customary effects of advancing Much of the information pertinent to this age. No satisfactory means of separating the two problem has been obtained through studies of tem- etiologies exists, although certain audiologic tech- _ porary threshold shift (TTS).' These studies have niques are being applied. For example, to deter- shown that specific exposure levels and spectra will mine the auditory impairment caused by noise, the produce TTS's of predictable amounts at predict- appropriate number of decibels assumed to be the able frequencies. The frequency of the auditory average loss by presbycusis (e.g., see Figure 6.5) is shift depends almost exclusively upon the fre- sometimes subtracted from the decibels of hearing I quency characteristics of the noise and usually level at each frequency. I occurs at approximately one-half to one octave I above the exposure frequency. Studies have also THE BASES OF HEARING CONSERVATION shown that the temporary changes in auditory 'I threshold are related to permanent threshold shifts. CRITERIA Of considerable interest is the manner in As Eldredge' points out, to devise a practical Iwhich permanent threshold changes occur as a re- hcarin conservation criterion for a highly mech- suit of continuous noise exposure. This is shown in g anized and consequently noisy civilization is a very Figures 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5.2 The maximum ' !4 change in hearing level at 4 kc develops after about complex problem. To develop good criteria not ten years' exposure. If the exposure continues, very only requires technical knowledge, but also an little further loss occurs other than that caused by understanding of the needs of the total community. aging (presbycusis). An examination of the figures Technical, social, economic, and political considera- 1 supports this statement but very definitely shows bons and all other germane factors should be ex- ; I that, at least in these data, it is not true for fre- mined, after which arbitrary decisions involving quencies below 3000 cps. Preliminary studies of compromises must be made. A discussion of several j the effects of noise exposure on hearing thresholds of these factors follows. at 1 and 2 Ice indicate that a given exposure pro- Before proposing criteria for hearing con- • duces considerably less increase in hearing titres- servation, one must define certain often-used but hold level at the lower frequencies, and the max- ill-defined terms. The term "damage risk," for ex- imal change does not occur during the usual work ample:acing,o hat is course, l atnt by hearingdamage? what?OSpe g e to h or i life. In Figures 7.2 to 7.5• the quartile groups in- pure tones? High or low frequencies or the can- r,- . Is 954).:?,.'5. 1 ;ti EFFECTS OF NOISE ON MAN 51 I I I I I I I I I I 0- •_________ o- ♦ r - • s•-----'"---......„. \ to_ ♦\ \\\ a ; -o \ \ •�--✓� \"\ \\\ 20- \ - 20- \\ - \ \\ \/MEDIAN - _ \ \\ r 9 30- \ e 30- \ - \ /IQ, \ • \ \ i \r 0 40- � • - 0 40- - 4 YR ON JOB /'/D3 10.6 YR ON JOB \ i N.O \\/ 2 N•92 \ MEDIAN 50- • - SO- - B HR EXPOSURE 1044 OHO EEP09URE/DAY 77 OA 104 0/. 104 \ 03 60- oBA 6"12 12-24 24-48 - 60- �A6-Q 12-24 24-48 ♦/ - 94 95 98 94 95 98 I I I I I I I I ' I I 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 FREQUENCY IN CPS FREQUENCY IN CPS Figure 7.2—Noise-induced permanent thresh- Figure 7.3—Noise-induced permanent thresh- old shift after four years on the job. old shift after fen years on the job. I I I I I I I I I I __—__ — o— — \v • •\ 10— \ p — •\\ — ♦ — 20— \ \ I 20— \\ \ \\ \ 1 �, — 0 30— \ \\ -' . 30— • \\ \ \ \ \\ • \ 40— ♦ — u 40— \. — \• 2U YR ON JOB \ 330 YR ON JOB '\ \\ • T N.0 \\ \\.,/, \\ %/QI X.20 • •\ ;/01 50- \�i 50- . \ / - BNR EXPOSURE/DAY \ \ �• B RR EXPOSURE/OAT \'�• \ % • ♦/MEDIAN DA 104 \ •/MEDIAN Ds 434 \ \ 60— 6-12 12-24 24_48 03 60 064 6-12 12-24 24-48 \♦ 03 — On il IN94 95 98 i♦ 94 95 98 ..• y, \♦— I I I I I I I I 1 I 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 1000 2000 3000 9000 6000 FREQUENCY IN CPS FREQUENCY IN CPS Figure 7.4—Noise-induced permanent thresh- Figure 7.5—Noise-induced permanent thresh- old shift after twenty-one years on the job. old shift after thirty-three years on the job. 94x0.r!:y1 52 INDUSTRIAL NOISE MANUAL plete audible spectrum? How much hearing loss for extended periods of time without danger of in- for pure tones, or speech, constitutes damage? And curring permanent hearing loss, and above which what forms of speech are most important to the there may be risk of permanent damage of varying situation, words or sentences? How much loss of degree. Initial attempts to relate hearing loss to a hearing constitutes impairment? How is impair- single over-all level obtained with sound-level ment to be defined? And what is meant by risk? meters have been made by several individuals. Risk to whom and how many? Must the criteria Both domestic and foreign literature abound in be based on conserving all hearing in every person? these estimates of a single figure by which safe Obviously the answers to many of the above exposure could be designated. In no instance have questions must be arbitrary. Consequently, both these guesses been satisfactorily validated. management and labor must be prepared to ac- cept a certain amount of risk. After all, just mere Kryter (1950) existence assumes some risk. What then can be Kryter' proposed one of the early criteria that used as a criterion for risk in a hearing conservation program? considered frequency. Basing his conclusions part- ly upon the data presented by Fletcher," Kryter There is general agreement that the inability to hear and understand everyday speech constitutes estimated a maximum safe intensity level based upon the "critical-band concept," which he de- the best measure of auditory impairment. Com- mon experience supports this assumption. Few scribes as follows: people complain of a hearing impairment until they If an extremely wide band of masking noise is taken at the minimum intensity required to mask a pure tone have difficulty hearing conversational speech. As- located at the middle of the frequency range, the band of suming that the most important single factor re- noise can he symetrically reduced in width towards the tone lated to auditory function is the part it plays in without lowering the masking effectiveness until the "critical communication, prevention of impairment of hear- band width" is reached. It is usually assumed that the energy in the narrowed band now equals the energy in the in b for s Peech should be the ultimate goal pure tone. Speech ranges in frequency from 300-4000 The assumption was then made that the cps. But to obtain excellent sentence intelligibility, "critical band" concept also applied to the deafen- frequencies above 2000 cps need not be heard, for ing effect of noise. On the basis of published data everyday speech contains much redundancy. In- on industrial hearing loss and laboratory evidence, vestigation a 5 shows that when the average hearing Kryter estimated that 86 dB re 0.0002 microbar for le vel, at 500 through 2000 cps, is 15 dB or less, any band of frequencies of less-than-critical band- speech intelligibility is excellent."'.° Hearing fm-width is safe over an extended period of time. pairment, then, can be said to exist when the aver- age of the hearing levels at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hardy cps exceeds 15 dB. On the basis of these facts, noise-exposure criteria can be proposed to prevent Some question has been raised concerning "impairment." Kryter's criterion in that it does not take into ac- The next question is, can or should criteria be count the manner in which the hair cells in the proposed to prevent impairment in everyone ex- inner ear are stimulated relative to the nature of posed to noise? Living organisms respond differ- the stimulating sound. Hardy" states that the fre- ently to noxious stimulants, and criteria that would quency-sensitivity curve of the ear and the manner prevent impairment in the highly susceptible per- in which the ear perceives loudness play an im- son may be too extreme for another. Consequently, portant role in determining how sound may damage some reasonable amount of risk must be accepted. hearing. For broad-band noise he has derived a Criteria should therefore be based on statistical series of equal sensation curves plotted in octave concepts. The criteria should be adequate if they bands. state that, within biological probability, no signifi- On the basis of a large sample of industrial cant impairment will occur. If certain administra- noises and investigation of the nature of industrial tive bodies wish to assume more or less than the hearing losses, Hardy concludes that: probable risk, more or less restrictive criteria may If the noise level does not exceed 50 sones in any he used. octave band, prolonged intermittent exposure will not result in hearing damage. On the other hand, if a worker works EXISTING HEARING CONSERVATION consistently in an environment which exceeds the 100 sones curve in any octave hand, it appears that there is a strong CRITERIA possibility that hearing damage will result after a long period of time. The difference between these two limits is Various levels of noise have been proposed as approximately 9 d13. maximum safe levels below which men may work These values are shown in Figure 7.6. 9,10751 I EFFECTS OF NOISE ON MAN 53 Rosenblith and Stevens The manner of handling these data involved selecting the octave bands that appeared to be In 1953 Rosenblith and Stevens'" published most intimately related to increasing hearing loss their criteria, which were based primarily on at each of the test frequencies 500, 1000, and 2000 Kryter's concepts. Two criteria were presented— cps. From inspection of this relationship, trend one for continuous spectrum noise, the other for curves were drawn to represent the best estimate narrow-band noise. It was intended that adherence of net hearing loss anticipated from continuous ex- to these criteria would result in no statistical dif- posure to steady noises within stated limits. ferences in hearing thresholds for pure tones be- Comparisons were then made between esti- t\Veen noise-exposed populations and those not ex- mated hearing loss predicted from these trend posed to noise. The criteria appear in Figure 7.7. curves and measured hearing loss among a group of workers exposed to various noise spectra. The 130 predicted and measured values were in good agree- 20o ment. Further details of this comprehensive study w 20 S°is'44? may he found in the Z24-X-2 report. -J -Et 110 •- SONeZ s OO?. 0 ��\\ PeR Le)CCoc e.6% < 20 Ew 122 100 \\ S.y \`\\ rAyE. . m a no 3 SON • N `E `AN � \��` W O 110 OQ Oo 90 `--rAVE_=\\\` W V z c AND J 'Pr a eo N100 70 CO 0 o W O O 0: 0 90 60 L OVER-315 75 150 300 600 1200 2400 4800 Q. ` N€G41GIQ RISKN ALL 15 150 300 600 1200 2400 4800 9600 0 ce ------- 1..„OCTAVE BANDS W CPS Z n 80 PURE TONE Figure 7.6—Equal sensation curves for broad band 0 75 10 300 600 1200 2400 q O 150 ISO0 600 1200 2400 4800 noise in octave bands. OCTAVE BAND-cps Rosenblith and Stevens point out that their Figure 7.7—Damage risk graph, after Rosenblith octave band criteria contours should not be taken and Stevens. too literally and suggest that they be zoned. The AFR 160-3 zone hounded by contours 10 dB higher would re- sult in significant increases in hearing loss. The In 1956, a "program to minimize the unde- criteria levels were considered to be safe for life- sirable effects of noise on Air Force personnel" be- time exposures. They were also considered as ten- came effective as Air Force Regulation 160-3.12 tative, subject to the revision of subsequent re- The regulation called for a comprehensive program, search. the provisions of which included criteria, audio- metric examination, and personnel protection. In Standards Association (Z24-X-2) this chapter only the criteria provisions were con- American sidered. These criteria represented a practical ap- An exploratory committee (Z24-X-2) of the plication of the best available information at that American Standards Association investigated the time, the Rosenblith and Stevens values. feasibility of establishing standards for undesirable The limits specified by AFR 160-3 for life- and injurious noise levels. Having surveyed all time exposures to broad-band noise included four available data, their conclusion was that the data octave bands: 300-600, 600-1200, 1200-2400, and could not he sufficiently validated to warrant draw- 2400-4800. It was assumed that if a noise did not ing up such standards. Nevertheless, their report," exceed the specified criterion level in these bands, published in 1954, provides a valuable detailed the low frequency components of the noise very study of 200 audiograms of men and women who likely would be harmless also. The risk of hearing had worked in an environment of known noise that impairment was stated to be slight if the octave- had remained relatively unchanged over a period band level did not exceed 85 dB, but to be execs- of 44 years. sive at 95 dB. On this basis, hearing protection was 940.`x..,'1 54 1NDUSIRIAI. NOISE MANUAL recommended at the 85 dB band level and manda- illustrates the equal energy concept, generally tory at 95 dB. thought to be overly conservative. The developers of these criteria realized that AFR 160-3 considered pure tone or narrow- Air Force personnel were more likely to receive band noises more damaging than broad-band short exposures to high noise levels than continuous noises. Criteria for narrow-band noises were set at lifetime exposures to broad-band noise. On this 10 dB below the measured octave-band levels for basis they found it necessary to devise criteria for wide-hand noises. Recent studies indicate that this 140 HEARING CONSERVATION CRITERIA FOR BROAD BAND NOISE LEVELS PERSONS EX OSED APPROXIIMATELY DAILY FOR ABOUT A2 RE RECOMMENDED 25 YEARS) FOR 130 , FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE HEARING o OF SPEECH Z a DAILY EXPOSURE pDcc120 TIME , MIN. W --- 1 >- I10 -I N �-- 5 UJ CC o --- 15 - �0100 CO \_-- 50 - W r _it _-- 500 - 80 NOTE FOR R THAN THOSE SHOWN, HEARING ECO SERVATIONLS 1O DB EPROCEDU ES ARE MANDATORY 70 20 75 150 300 600 1200 2400 4800 . 75 300 4800 10,000 BAND - CYCLES PER SECOND FREQUENCY Figure 7.8—Broad-band noise level criteria for hearing preservation illustrating the equal energy concept. the more usual intermittent noise exposures. The concept is also conservative.'" Finally AFR 160-3 proposed criteria for brief exposures are based on set a maximum limit for the over-all noise level the equal energy concept. This concept assumed reaching the ear. Regardless of duration, no noise that equal quantities of acoustic energy are equally exposure was to exceed 135 dB. injurious regardless of how they are distributed in time. The Air Force used a nomograph to calculate Ky1in the equivalent exposure times (i.e., the time of a In 1960 Kylin published his study of noise exposure of eight hours' duration equivalent ar and eKylin t threshold shifts caused tem- in by energy to the short duration noise exposure). porary P Again, values for recommended and mandatory exposure to steady state noise.'n He could not protection were specified. Figure 7.8 covers a "demonstrate definitely that a relation exists be- greater frequency range than the Air Force Criteria tween the temporary and the permanent loss of but contains the essential elements of it. It also hearing." However, he feels that "it is inconceivable 940? 1 EFFECTS OF NOISE ON MAN 55 not to assume a dose relationship between the is permissible, the temporary threshold level that it two, produces at 2000 cps measured two minutes after Kylin's field studies showed that exposures to the end of a continuous five-hour exposure, should over-all levels between 80-84 dB did not result in be compared with the threshold level that has been any elevated thresholds in relation to a control OCTAVE BAND LEVEL L group. Long-term exposures to over-all levels of [de r.,zxlds Na.,9 Cam' ne 5 C 84-89 dB produced statistically significant eleva- h r�i d� tions in thresholds above 3000 cps. Exposures to 140 130 95-99 dB and 100-104 dB levels affected the thresh- 12 IA tour it"'1'"t'l olds at all frequencies tested. 130 — 1 .1 I15 ,125 1304/11421444111 ISO Noise Rating Numbers ii 120 '► ��! 120 25 ''The most recent and comprehensive criteria 10 -115 120 at this time are those currently under consideration —% __ -110 110 115 for adoption by the International Organization for 105 no Standardization (ISO)."' The criteria are based on 65 "noise rating curves" that represent specific noise 100 100 105 spectra. Much of the data that follow are taken 7si •s 100 directly from ISO/TC 43 (Secretariat-139, August 70 _ - 90 95 15)61). BO 6�� The following propositions form a basis for e5 90 the use of Noise Rating Numbers for hearing con- 60 B55 ' 85 nervation purposes. Some of them are well sup- 5. 5 80 ported by experimental data, others are reasonable J D 5 generalizations widely accepted but less firmly 70 •4 75 U9 established. Some justify the use of specific num- d 70 35 hers as indices for noise exposures. Some deal 60 - 60 6s with the time factor or noise exposure, others with n:\ I 55 the relations of temporary threshold shift to hear- z� 60 ing impairment and the need of hearing conserva- 50 '�50' 55 15 t1011. 10 I •45 50 Sounds of frequencies of 1000 cps and above w 5 40 45 oiN-4 d8 cause more threshold shift than sound of fee- N o \\' 0 oat, ay goo quencies below 1000 cps at the same sound pres- OliewaS I 1 40 sure levels. -- 30 35 0044641-417 Permanent noise-induced threshold shift is 30dr `' 8A 30 `�Y��i! greatest for frequencies above the dominant ex- 53911,20 : 0 posure frequencies. Continuous noise exposures I • . • ,15 1 4 cause more temporary threshold shift than inter- 25 20 tau 4.g0 144,4, mittent exposures of the same total exposure time. 1O �1 - 0 5 a 7 q/ 00 AA It is generally believed that the same rule appliesi N'Iiii o to permanent noise-induced threshold shift, al- 0 s r_ , ,^ though the evidence is less direct. Limits for noise µ+let, exposures for intermittent and short-term exposure o should, therefore, differ from limits established for _ 10 625 250 1000 4000 7•t i 1,2- long-term continuous exposures. - 125 500 2000 6000 Hz Hearing conservation is directed chiefly / )• (o 2- M 1DF REGUENCIES OF OCTAVE BANDS toward conservation of hearing for audible fre- quencies that are of primary importance to hearing Figure 7.9—ISO noise rating curves. and understanding of everyday speech. It is gen- erally agreed that the corresponding audiometric selected as -'just permissible.' The selection of this frequencies are 500, 1000, and 2000 cps. just permissible threshold level depends upon a Habitual noise exposure does not produce prior decision as to what constitutes significant permanent threshold shift without also producing permanent impairment of hearing. The selection a temporary threshold shift at the end of each day's may he different for different purposes or under exposure. To determine uvhether a particular noise different administrative jurisdictions. 940?.1 56 INDUSTRIAL NOISE MANUAL For rating purposes noise exposures are con- the N (solid contours) that the noise would have veniently divided into three general types: con- if it were on continuously. Each of these contours tinuously on for five hours or more out of an eight- is the locus of combinations of 'on-time" and "off- hour workday; continuously on for less than five time" that, for the noise it represents, yields an N hours out of an eight-hour workday;.and intermit- of 85. tently on during an eight-hour workday. The man- A useful application of Figure 7.11 is to find ner in which each type of exposure is rated is de- the minimum recovery period or "off-time" that is scribed below. When exposure to broad-band noise is habit- i i till I I 1 111 1 I ual and the noise is continuous during the working day (five or more hours), the noise rating of the e° noise in question is obtained by comparing the 20 levels measured at octave bands whose mid-fre- "5quencies are 500, 1000, and 2000 cps with the i^ .° curves given in Figure 7.9. The highest curve c' ° which is exceeded by the average of these bands i a t °, W gives the Noise Rating Number (N). (In the ISO p o '° ° document,e tables re provided that enable the &: —I� ° users to obtain the rating number with greater N. I >° I zz° accuracy.) $ i 1ii For continuous exposures (five or more hours W ,E_zuo..yEEo PCR 1 L *r° • =ooa_. L t so per day) N 85 is suggested as a limit for conserva- ,° °' lion of hearing because exposure to such a noise for �i i 1 °° ten years may be expected to result in a negligible • ' i 1 . loss in hearing for speech for an average individual. ° z 5 10 20 50 IOD 200 500 Such a level, from the point of view of industrial E%P°°VCE •'ME 'N M'"u'E° conservation of hearing is selected as "just permis- Figure 7.10—Noise rating numbers for short term sible," but a somewhat more or less rigorous noise exposure. criterion may be appropriate in other situations or jurisdictions. necessary in each cycle of exposure to bring the In habitual exposure to continuous broad- noise rating of a given noise down to 85. The typical "on-time" or expected duration of the noise band noise sustained for less than five hours per exposure is estimated in minutes. Figure 7.10 is day, the noise rating number of the noise in ques- entered on the abscissa with this duration, and the tion is determined by the use of Figure 7.10. intersection gives the "off-time" in each cycle re- Rating numbers may be determined if the quired to bring the noise rating of the noise-ex- exposure time is known. For example, if it is posure down to 85. Thus a ten-minute burst of known that an exposure will be of 50 minutes' noise with a noise rating of 105 should be followed duration—the N is 95 because 50 minutes and N 95 by 50 minutes "off-time." Eight such cycles can intercept at 12 dB Temporary Threshold Shift occur in an eight-hour working day. A ten-minute (TTS). It is suggested that 12 dB TTS at 2000 cps burst of noise with a noise rating of 100, however, be used as a criterion to determine the noise rating, need be followed by "off-periods" of only eight but regardless of the amount of TTS chosen, Figure minutes. 7.10 can still be used for rating short-term (less If the "on-time" and the "off-time" are both than five hours) noise exposures. If the permissible predetermined by the nature of the operation, TTS at 2000 cps is 12 dB, the permissible exposure Figure 7.11 can be used to find how great the time as a function of N may be ascertained by rating of the noise can be and still give a noise determining where the N line intercepts 12 dB rating of only 85, when it is made intermittent TTS. according to that schedule. For example, repeated When habitual exposure is to broad-band twenty-minute exposures, each of which is fol- noise that is intermittently on during the working lowed by a recovery period of two or more hours day, the permissible N of the noise in question may (right-hand scale of ordinates), to a noise with a be obtained by the use of Figure 7.11. This figure rating of 100 will be equivalent to continuous ex- shows the relationship between the duration of posure to noise with a rating of 85. noise bursts (abscissa), the "off-time" between Frequently because of lack of apparatus or noise bursts (ordinate), the number of such cycles time, an approximate method of measurement may of noise and relative quiet (broken contours), and be desirable. For instance, it may he desirable to 940M, 1 EFFECTS OF NOISE ON MAN 57 5 1O 15 20 25 480 48.0 - T II r -- 400 4`Ov - PERMITTED EXPOSURE - - - - CYCLES PER DAY - Z -200 200 - 3 -IOD 100 - - 130 80 - 5 - - 60 60 - -_ w - 7 , - 40 3 115 2 110 _ 1 105 1O —_ w20 — 100 NOISE RATING 20 \ -...., — NUMBER (N) f- 15 0 1 ID - \ N 20\ 45 s a - \ N. \ - 25\ N. — 6 G — \ 30 \ \ N \ N. — 4 i — 4lOI525 0 30 tt ONuTIME IN MINUTES Figure 7.11—Noise rafing numbers for intermittent noise exposure. Note: The curves of Figure 7.11 are based on ex- 500 and 1000 cps should be well within normal limits. periments in which the on and off intervals of exposure to (For sharply sloping spectra the permanent hearing levels noises of various sound pressure levels (measured in the may differ somewhat from the above pattern but the degree 600-1200 cps bands) were varied to produce the same of over-all impairment should be about the same.) Hearing Temporary Threshold Shift that the same noise at the 85 for speech (word discrimination) should be within normal dB level produced in a five-hour continuous exposure. The limits. Such a result, from the point of view of hearing 85 dB rating was chosen as the reference value in this ex- conservation in industrial situations, is often considered to periment because habitual exposure to such a noise for ten be "just allowable,' but a somewhat more or less rigorous years may be expected to result in a threshold hearing level standard may be appropriate in other situations or jurisdic- for 2000 of about 12 dB and a well marked dip at 4000 tions. • cps in the audiogram, while hearing levels for frequencies 940.151 5S INDUSfRIAI, NOISE MANUAL. determine whether various locations need detailed on the Rosenblith and Stevens criteria. Approxi- noise studies before initiating hearing conservation matcly 900 men with up to 30 years' noise exposure measures. For this purpose, one of two estimating were studied. The investigations found that men criteria may he used. Whenever the noise in ques- exposed greater than 10% of their working time in tion is loud enough to make conversation difficult noises above the contour represented by 95 dB,/ when shouting loudly at a distance of approximate- octave band eventually suffered significant impair- ly one foot from the listener's ear, detailed studies ment (i.e., average threshold level greater than 15 of the noise should be made. Measure the noise in dB at 500, 1000, and 2000 cps). Those who were question with a standard sound level meter, weigh- subjected to levels greater than 85 dB/octave band ing curve A, fast response. Whenever the reading for more than 10% of their workday, but less than minus 4 dB exceeds the appropriate noise rating 10% of their time to levels above 95 dB/octave number deduced from Figure 7.9, detailed studies band, did not suffer impairment. However they of the noise should he made. slid sustain some elevation of hearing thresholds above 2000 cps. Kryter (1963) U.S:P.H.S. In 1963 Kryter felt justified in proposing dam- age risk criteria based on extrapolated data of The U. S. Public Health Service examined temporary fatigue studies.' The levels he pro- the relationship between noise levels and hearing posed for long-term continuous exposures were noise exposure off the job."' This was a acuity in a controlled population that had no sig- nificantsimilar to those on the ISO's 85 dB curve and the six-year study of 2000 employees of the Federal Rosenblith-Stevens 85 dB contour. His criterion for impairment of speech on which his family of Prison Industries at four federal penitentiaries. curves is based is somewhat more conservative than The durations of the employees' noise exposures were as high as five years. The resulting data sup- that adopted by the American Medical Associa- tion: On the basis of his experiments, Kryter feels ported the Rosenblith and Stevens criterion for that there is speech impairment when the threshold exposure to continuous noise; they indicated that levels exceed 10 dB at 1000 cps, 15 dB at 2000 cps, more stringent criterion is not required for nar- and 20 dB at 3000 cps or above. row-band noise (recent investigations also indi- cate this);" they also supported the Subcommittee on Noise recommendation of instituting hearing AAOO Subcommittee on Noise conservation measures when noise levels reach octave-band levels of 85 dB. The Subcommittee on Noise of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology proposes "guidelines for establishing standards for THE RISK OF IMPAIRMENT preventing significant noise-induced hearing loss From data gathered by the Subcommittee on in the majority of exposed persons."" These are the Noise Research Center, one can see how the risk of standards proposed by the International Organiza- mpaired hearing increases as the levels of the lion for Standardization. noise exposures increase. This is shown by Figures 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, and 7.15. The levels of the noise ex- CRITERIA VALIDATION INVESTIGATIONS posures are averages of the three octave bands 600-1200, 1200-2400, and 2400-4800. The cor- The previously cited criteria include the most responding hearing threshold levels are averages influential, most reliable and most used guides up of the levels found at 500, 1000, and 2000 cps. to the present time. Several organizations have When hearing impairment is calculated by a meth- tested the validity of these criteria through sta- od using these three frequencies, such as that de- tistical studies of the hearing levels of populations veloped by the American Academy of Ophthal- exposed to various noise spectra. The results of mology and Otolaryngology"' and adopted by the some of the work of the Subcommittee on Noise American Medical Association,` the degree of risk have already been noted. Two of the more recent associated with high noise levels can be estimated investigations are also worthy of mention. by reference to the figures. The data clearly show that continuous noise exposures above 85 dB in the three important bands (600-4800 cps) will in- Dow Chemical Company crease the percentage of ears with various amounts The noise spectra profiles used by Schneider, of impairment above that seen in the non-noisy et al., of the Dow Chemical Company'" were based occupation group. EFFECTS Oi' NOISE ON MAN 59 MEAN HEARING LEVEL AT 500, 1000, 2000 CPS MEAN HEAPING LEVEL AT 500,'000, 2000 CPS AS A FUNCTION OF PERCENTILE AS A FUNCTION Of PERCENTILE I I I 1 I I 1 1 -10 __ -10 8 0 \Q 0 N SIZE it \a N 26 991 • sz9 g 0 0 10 884 0 \` 183 NON-NOISE GROUP \. 517 zSIL 68 w` < _ 0 • 2O (MEAN of OCTAVE N• 0 20 BANDS 600-140U, A`760 _ 0 355 IZOC-2400,2400- n 30 g g 4806 CPS) 30 4 i — 40 8 40 0 0 0 MEAN AGE a AGE GROUP W 50 •--• 28 T 50 •—• 20-29 — s H 33 x H 30-39 z 47 7 7 60 F 60 O—O 50-59 I 1 1 1 I I 1 10 30 50 70 90 10 30 50 70 90 PERCENTILE PERCENTILE Figure 7.12—Mean hearing level at 500, 1000, and Figure 7.13000 Menhearing level t 5 0 0 1 110 00, and 2000 cps as a function of percentile. P as a function of e. WHAT CRITERIA TO USE? MEAN HEARING LEVEL AT 500,1000,2000 CPS With a considerable number of criteria avail- AS A FUNCTION OF PERCENTILE able, which one is the industrial hygienist to I I I choose for his particular purpose? For continuous exposures to steady state noise there is little dis- 0 agreement as to what constitutes .harmful levels. i. The levels can be best described by reference to the Rosenblith and Stevens contours. The levels o 0 0�_ of concern lie between the 85 and 95 dB/octave R �o N SIZE band contours. Certainly continuous exposure to 2 IO SIL 94 \ 9s levels above this region represents a high risk and should not be tolerated. It is improbable that 2 20 (MEAN OF OCTAVE • • 6 BANDS 600-1200, • 297 levels below the 85 dB/octave band contour will zoo-zaoo,zaoo- `. cause hearing impairment and, for maximum '< 3O 4800 CPS) •\ safety, the hygienist may select this level for his W o 211 criteria. At least he should select this as the 40 minimum environmental level that requires sur- W MEAN AGE veillance of the employees. Environmental levels z 50 •--+ 25 063 between 85 and 95 dB/octave band contours may 4 — a 36 be tolerated without the need for ear protection for ----• 47 60 o—o 59 all those exposed, but audiometry should be used to monitor the employee's hearing in order to de- tect the noise-sensitive individuals. At a practical 10 30 50 70 90 compromise between maximum safety and mini- PERCENTILE mum risk, 90 dB/octave band might be selected as Fi ure 7.14—Mean hearing level at 500, 1000, and the level at which ear protection is deemed manda- g 2000 cps as a function of percentile. tory. The above values cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as magic numbers. ,1 I 9402,51 60 INDUSTRIAL NOISE MANUAL Selection of the level within the 10 dB-wide band should be treated as temporary benchmarks and 1 at which ear protection is mandatory depends on be used with considerable judgment. the individual situation and requires good judg- ment. However, in no case should continuous ex- CRITERIA FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES posures to levels in the 95 dB/octave band con- Although there is common agreement about tour be tolerated without ear protection. the need for criteria, there is considerable dis- Much more difficult will be the selection of agreement about the suitability of criteria levels. mandatory protection levels for intermittent, short This is especially true of criteria used for regula- duration, and impact noises. Although the equal- tory purposes. The inadequacies in our present energy concept based on the Rosenblith and store of knowledge are only partly to blame for Stevens criteria (see Figure 7.8) can be used for this. More often, differences in approaches to the these exposures, it must be realized that the sug- problem are responsible for the disagreement. A gested levels are presently thought to be overly criterion may be set at a level intended to provide conservative. Today, perhaps the best available minimum risk, maximum safety or somewhere be- criteria for noise exposures of less than five hours tween those extremes. The community, the user of daily are those suggested by the ISO (Figures 7.10 the criterion and the person to be protected may, and 7.11). The suggested criteria levels are those and probably do, have different ideas about where that cause a 12 dB temporary threshold shift. Be- this level should be. It therefore becomes apparent cause there is still much to be learned about the that an equitable criterion for regulatory purposes relationships between temporary and permanent must be a product of compromise. In view of this, threshold shifts the criteria for brief exposures can- it is important that the purposes of such criteria not be expected to have the same reliability as take into consideration all of the factors involved. those for continuous exposures. Until more is These factors have been discussed previously in known about short-time exposures, the criteria this chapter. NON NOISE GROUP SIL 88 SIL 94 50 50 (MEAN OF OCTAVE ( MEAN OF OCTAVE BANDS 600-1200, BAND 400, 0 S 600-12 1200- 2400,2400- 4800 CPS) 4800 CPS) 40u ) 40 a w w is a O w 30 Ui w 30 a a a _ o- � 20 I- 20 li z w w cc 0 cc w a. a. a 10 0 %///V / 25 36 47 20- 29 30-39 40- 49 28 33 47 AGE GROUP MEAN AGE MEAN AGE Figure 7.15—Per cent impaired ears as a function of age. 94.07:51 EFFECTS OF NOISE ON MAN 61 BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS OF NOISE measurement of the noise is essential, but this alone does not indicate the annoyance value of the noise. The behavioral effects of noise are ascorn- very Other factors bearing directly on the matt-of � plex and ill-defined as the noise itself. The very noyance are: u.ct" definition, "noise is unwanted sound," reflects the ,i complexity of the situation. It is readily apparent I. Nature of the community,residential or that the definition of noise is based on human he- industrial. 2. Time of day and prevailing activity of havior. However, when one tries to single out any particular behavioral relation and support it with residents—noises which appear acceptable 4.4 experimental evidence or experience, one soon during the working weekday may be ob- finds that very little valid evidence exists. Much jectionable during the evening or on a has been said about the effect of noise on perform- weekend. ance, efficiency, mental effort, and stress but no 3. Community acceptance—annoyance may v really quantified data describing these effects are be affected by relationship of noise source � - ¢ available. (industrial, military, recreational, etc.) to Carpenter"' has described a few studies community welfare. which seem to show that workers make more 4. Noise background—annoyance of a par- - mistakes when doing certain kinds of jobs while ticular noise may be related to the cus- Ane aka in noise. Experiments to determine efficiency in tomary ambient noise in the environment. and out of noise are as yet inconclusive. The be- 5. Initial effects—the introduction of a new' e havioral effects of noise are not readily apparent noise into a community may be initially and infinitely more research on this particular as- objectionable, with subsequent diminution pect is necessary. of complaints. A categorical statement that noise exposure 6. Geography and climate—noises may be v'' has no ill effects on human behavior cannot be more objectionable under conditions yrsofreLt made at this time, but it is probably safe to say that where people are outdoors a large portion the behavioral effects of noise do not present a gen- of the time. / I,,,, _ ' eral health problem. Some of the body's stimulus receptors such as those of touch (kinetic and vibra- Stevens, Rosenblith, and Bolt tory) and body functions such as respiration, circu- lation and balance show effects that vary with in- The first application of the above mentioned tensity and frequency of noise, particularly if the factors toward a practical means of predicting the frequencies are below 100 cps or if the intensities degree of community annoyance to noises was de- range above 130 dB. In general however the noise veloped by Stevens, Rosenblith, and Bolt. Their exposures encountered in industrial processes do prediction was based on a "noise level rank" ob- not produce bodily changes hazardous to man. tamed by an octave hand analysis of the noise be- ing evaluated. The other factors mentioned above. COMMUNITY REACTIONS TO NOISE each assigned a numerical value, were added to the "noise level rank" to give a "composite noise The problem of noise and its relation to an- rating." The range of community response was noyance is of increasing general importance. Con- predicted according to the severity of the noise cern over the annoying aspects of noise is often ex- exposure. This system was a result of actual studies pressed in the daily press. The effects of noise on of several communities. the social community have produced problems that are common to industrialized countries throughout the world. ISO Noise Rating Numbers In any attempt to make a systematic study More recently an ISO task group has recom- of the effects of noise on the community, one is mended a scheme to estimate a community's re- confronted with an extremely complex problem spouse to noise. Their recommended scheme is which has no easy solution. Progress is hampereds milaronce to that of Stevens. et al. The most signifi- not only by the complexity of the various inter- cant changes from the earlier scheme are minor relations of human motivations, but also by lack differences in the slopes of the noise level rank'' of adequate means of measuring the effects of noise and -noise rating number curves. Because of on a ••. •• itv. their similarities. only the later work is discussed in detail. These "noise rating curers- are the same Annoyance criteria as those used for hearing conservation and speech ev-. , . . ave emerged from a considera- communication criteria. The ISO method of esti- tion of the community noise problem. Physical mating a community's reaction to noise is included 9402 yl 62 INDUSTRIAL NOISE MANUAL here. The method is based on the best available TABLE 7.1 CORRECTION TO NOISE RATING NUMBER judgments and experience to date. (Primarily Applicable to Residential Cases) Determine the level for each of the eight / octave bands. The N for annoyance of the noise Influencing c Possible Conditions CorreUncorrected ctinsN / is the highest of these numbers (Figure 7.9). Ap- Factor 5 ply corrections where necessary as shown in Table Noise Spectrum Pure tone components Character Wide band noise 0 ' 7.1, to determine the "corrected noise rating aill number." The public reaction to the noise can be Peak Factor Impulsive estimated by referring to Table 7.2. The acoustic Nonimpulsive adequacy of a room can be judged by referring to Repetitive Continuous exposure Table 7.3. Character to one-per-minute 1 t% Where detailed measurements are not avail- (About 3410-60 exposures per hour minute noise 1-10 exposures per hour —10 able for one reason or another, approximations may duration 4-20 exposures per day —15 be made by using the "A" scale on a standard sound assumed) 1-4 exposures per day —20 1 exposure per day —25 level meter. The meter reading minus 8 dB may be taken as a rough indication of N. Adjustment to No previous conditioning 0 In some cases the above may prove Exposure Considerable previous procedure conditioning —5 unsatisfactory and it may be necessary to measure Extreme conditioning —10 the background noise in the absence of the al- T me of Day Only during daytime legedly annoying noise. When the background and Season At night +-5 57;41noise is exceeded by the complained-of noise, after Winter appropriate correction, by 10 dB or more in any Summer 0 octave band the noise may be considered annoying. Allowance Neighborhood die) + Conditions Suburban • 0 For example: A residential area with widely for Local Rural �S separated homes would be rated as low as N 30. G or Residential —5 � On the other hand a heavily industrialized area (urban) would be rated as high as N 55 without complaints. Urban near light IL ari industry —10 Higher levels are more acceptable in industrial Industrial area J ;� areas than in residential areas, probably because of (heavy industry) —15 �Y higher background noise. eA1 Hence the rating method must be composite TABLE 7.2 PUBLIC REACTION TO NOISE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS � 0-33 and include allowances for various influencing fac- !A'(rY' tors such as noise level, spectrum, time distribution Corrected Noise Rating Estimated Public Reaction neez,,",___, of the noise, background noise, season of the year, Number �7 "� time of day or night, and previous noise experi- No observed reaction /28 ence. Obviously the suggested corrections are only spora is complaints 5 Ws am s approximations that are more or less arbitrary, but 50-60 Threats of community action they should serve as a framework upon which to Above 65 Vigorous community action gather experience and information. TABLE 7.3 SUGGESTED NOISE RATING NUMBERS FOR ACOUSTIC INTERFERENCE WITH SPEECH ADEQUACY OF Rooms COMMUNICATION Noise Rating Number Example for Type of Room Methods for rating noise as regards speech 20-30 Bedroom, hospital room, television studio, living room, theatre, church, communication have been available for some time. cinema, concert hall, small office, One of the earliest ratings is the Speech Interfer- reading room, conference room,lec- ence Level, more popularly known as SIL. An ture room 30-40 Larger office, business store, depart- SIL is based on octave band measurements of a ment store, meeting room, quiet noise and is the average of the three bands, 600- restaurant 1200, 1200-2400 and 2400-4800 range ran cps.s. The of 40-50 Larger restaurant, secretarial office (with typewriter), gymnasiums 600-4800 cps covers the most important frequency 50-60 Larger typing halls components of speech. 70-80 Workshops SIL and LL criteria study by him and his associates, the SIL criteria have been modified and expanded.25 The meaning Speech Interference Levels were introduced of SIL in terms of the degrees of interference with by Beranek in 1947 and, in the course of continued speech communication is shown in Table 7.4. By 940:2.1 EFFECTS OF NOISE ON MAN 63 means of this table we can estimate the maximum to characterize any measured noise spectrum for noise allowable to permit speech to be intelligible speech intelligibility. Beranek25 has combined under the conditions stated. Further practical ap- these factors in his family of Noise Criteria (NC) TABLE 7.4 curves, shown in Figure 7.19. The curves are sloped SPEECH INTERFERENCE LEVEL CRITERIA such that the LL of any particular curve exceeds __________ --__ the SIL by 22 dB and the loudness contribution of Distance Voice Level each band is approximately equal. in feet Normal Raised Very Loud Shouting Although not illustrated, Beranek also pro- ' 0.5 71 77 83 89 1.0 65 71 77 83 vides an alternate set of curves that may be used 2.0 59 65 71 77 3.0 55 61 67 73 4.0 53 59 65 71 SPEECH INTERFERENCE LEVEL RANGES FOR TELEPHONE USE 5.0 51 57 63 69 SA➢sPAtTORY I oF'FICULT DIFFICULT I UNSATISFAcToRY INTOLERABLY 6.0 49 55 61 67 NOISY SUMMARY GRAPH 12.0 43 49 55 61 -- — _. VERY NOISY -- plications of these criteria are shown in Figures 7.16 A and 7.17. m NDisr These figures also show Loudness Level (LL) .� Ls criteria. There is good agreement in subjective w — __ — T,o I O I TMODERATELr .._t t D _ -1 evaluations when the numerical value of the LL is : x0i5Y sE` / DIRECTION OF DECREASED CCEPmmuTr 22 dB above the SIL. The LL can be calculated FAVORABLE 7 TOO 5fLRELATIYE from octave band measurements and by the use of ENVIRONM ACOUSTICAL STENOGRAPHIC ASS Figure 7.18 which is based on Stevens'work.'" Sub- — A `E E"`I"EE"'"` — DRAFTING OFFICES jective tests indicate that if the LL of a particular o ET I I JO i0 50 60 70 BO 90 100 SIL IN DECIBELS OR LOUDNESS LEVEL IN PHONS SPEECH INTERFERENCE LEVEL RANGES FOR TELEPHONE USE: SATISFACTORY I SLIGHTLY DIFFICULT I UNSATISFACTORY Figure 7.17—The relation of the subjective noise rat- INTOLERABLY NOISY SUMMARY GRAPH I ings to SIL and loudness level for stenographic and —` i— large engineering drafting rooms. For a favorable Hot'; — R'`` acoustical environment for those office personnel who I -_ _. E` _i must converse "often" to "very often" at 3' to 4' dis- 6ell C._ tance, the SIL should be below 55 dB. For the noise °'_ DIRECTION Of to have a balanced spectrum, the LL should not exceed NOISY R 'i - SES . ACCEPTABILITY —5` OF LL the SIL by more than 22 units. Office personnel's MODERATELY _ TO SIL ratings of ease of telephone use (at the top of the O NOISY graph) are related to the SIL (bottom scale on the FAVORABLE C L QUIET ENVIRONMENTgraph). FOR EYECUT,VE OFFICES VERY if practical considerations do not allow the NC "DIET ,3 40 50 60 70 00 90 I o criteria to be met. Tables 7.5, 7.6 show recommend- s,L IN DECIBELS OR LOUDNESS LEVEL IN PHONS ccl office and room criteria based on the NC curves. Figure 7.16—The relation of the subjective noise rat- Of possible interest to the users of such criteria is ings of executive office personnel to SIL and loudness Kryteis" discussion of the basis and usefulness of level. For a favorable acoustical environment for these and other criteria. executive office personnel who must converse "often" to "very often" at 8' to 10' distance, the SIL should ISO Noise Rating Numbers be below 40 dB. For the noise to have a balanced spectrum, the LL should not exceed the SIL by more More recently, the ISO has proposed speech than about 22 units. Office personnel's ratings of ease communication criteria based on the Noise Rating of telephone use (at the top of the graph) are related Number of the ambient noise. As we have seen to the SIL (bottom scale on the graph). earlier, it is intended that this number also be used as a means of evaluating damage risk and annoy- environment exceeds the SIL by more than 22 dB ance. The speech interference criteria based on the there are likely to be complaints, even if the SIL curves of Figure 7.9 are shown in Tables 7.7, 7.8. criteria are not exceeded. To determine if speech will be intelligible at Beranek's NC curves specified distances with existing ambient levels, refer to Table 7.7. To determine if telephone corn- From the above it can be seen that both loud- nnmication will be satisfactory, refer to Table 7.8. ness level and speech interference level are needed It will be noted that these criteria are quite similar - 94417,51 INDUSTRIAL NOISE., MANUAL 64 — 75 150 300 600 1200 2400 4800 4800600 PHONS—SONES 75 150 300 600 1200 2400 130 500 120 200 150 300 00 500 130 250 250 400 150 200 L00 00 300 100 00 300 150 150 150 300 120 250 4 110 70 100 50 200 200 Q 60 100 200 0 50 70 100 100 150 150 pa Q', 40 60 70 150 U 100 50 70 70 110 60 100 3° 40 60 60 60 100 100 50 50 50 50 70 O 20 30 40 40 4° 40 60 70 100 60 70 O 30 50 60 O90 15 20 30 30 50 0 30 40 50 40 10 15 2p 40 W 20 20 20 3° 90 30 CC 80 ip IS 15 15 30 N 15 J 5 20 20 40 W q 10 10 10 10 IS 80 15 v 70 3 5 IS W 2 4 10 Q 10 3 5 l0 Z 1 2 4 5 5 5 70 60 3 4 4 J 4 5 W 5 3 3 5 5 W 1 z 3 4 60 4 J 4 50 2 z 2 2 3 3 O .5 3 Z .1 1 cI 03 •2 2 2 50 2 1 40 .s 1 I 1 W 1 J 41 C) 40 1 O 30 .2 .5 .s 1 .5 •4 .4 .1 .4 .3 •3 .5 .6 30 .5 - 75 150 300 600 20 1200 2400 4800 PHONS-SONES 75 150 300 600 1200 2400 4800 9600 OCTAVE PASS BAND IN CYCLES PER SECOND Figure 7.I8—Nomograms relating SPL calculated as follows: convert the sound in octave bands loudness le elsin the ei d level, phons, eight octave bands to sones by means of the appropriate column above and sum loudness in sones: Sis the loudness of the loudest bands The sones f the in total noise is given by S,=S„,+0.3 (25—S„,) where sones is converted to loudness level in phons by means of the nomogram at the right. 9413 ' ►1 EFFECTS OF NOISE ON MAN 65 TABLE 7.5 TA0I.E 7.7 RECOMMENDED NOISE CRITERIA FOR ROOMS NOISE RATING NuMUEIts FOR INTELLIGIBILITY O1' SPEECH ..__ _ __-_ ------.. _ -- COMMUNICATION Type of Space Recommended — — - Noise Noise Distance at Which Distance at Which Criterion Rating Everyday Speech of Everyday Speech of Curve of Fig. 7.19 Number Conversational Voice Raised Voice Level Is _ Level Is Considered Considered To Be In- Broadcast studios NC 15-20 To Be Intelligible (in telligible (in feet). Concert halls NC 15-20 feet). Legitimate theatres (500 seats, no amplification) - NC 20-25 40 23 46 Music rooms NC 25 45 13 26 Schoolrooms (no amplification) NC 25 50 7.4 15 TV studios NC 25 55 4.1 8.2 Apartments and hotels NC 25-30 60 2.3 4.6 Assembly halls (amplification) NC 25-30 65 1.3 2.6 Homes (sleeping areas) NC 25-35 70 0.74 1.5 Motion picture theatres NC 30 75 0.41 0.82 Hospitals NC 30 80 0.23 0.46 Churches NC 30 85 — 0.26 Courtrooms NC 30 Libraries NC 30 Restaurants NC 45 Coliseums for sports only (amplification) NC 50 TABLE 7.8 QUALITY OF TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION FOR VARIOUS NOISE RATING NUMBERS Noise Rating Quality of Telephone Communication Noise levels should be measured in vacant rooms. Each Number noise criterion curve is a code for specifying permissible sound-pressure levels in eight octave bands. It is intended 50 Satisfactory that in no one frequency band should the specified level 60 Slightly difficult be exceeded. Ventilating systems should be operating and 70 Difficult outside noise sources, traffic conditions, etc., should be Above 75 Unsatisfactory normal when measurements are made. TABLE 7.6 RECOMMENDED NOISE CRITERIA FOR OFFICES Noise measurements made for the purpose of judging the satisfactoriness of the noise in an office by comparison with these criteria should be performed with the office in normal operation, but with no one talking at the particular desk or conference table where speech communication is desired (i.e., where the measurement is being made). Background noise with the office unoccupied should be lower, say by 5 to 10 units. NC Curve of Fig.7.19 Communication Environment Typical Applications NC-20 to NC-30 Very quiet office—telephone use satisfactory— Executive offices and conference suitable for large conferences. rooms for 50 people. NC-30 to NC-35 "Quiet" office; satisfactory for conferences at a Private or semi-private offices, recep- 15-f t table; normal voice 10 to 30 ft; telephone tion rooms, and small conference use satisfactory. rooms for 20 people. NC-35 to NC-40 Satisfactory for conferences at a 6- to 8-ft table; Medium-sized offices and industrial telephone use satisfactory; normal voice 6 to business offices. 12 ft. NC-40 to NC-50 Satisfactory for conferences at a 4- to 5-ft table; Large engineering and drafting rooms, telephone use occasionally slightly difficult; etc. normal voice 3 to 6 ft; raised voice 6 to 12 ft. NC-50 to NC-55 Unsatisfactory for conferences of more than two Secretarial areas (typing), accounting or three people; telephone use slightly difficult; areas (business machines), blue- normal voice 1 to 2 ft; raised voice 3 to 6 ft. print rooms, etc. Above NC-55 "Very noisy"; office environment unsatisfactory; Not recommended for any type of telephone use difficult. office. 940''51 66 INDUSTRIAL NOISE MANUAL to Beranek. The main differences are in levels at minus 8 dB is less than the specified N, no further 600 cps and below. measurements are necessary. To use Table 7.7, measure the over-all sound pressure and the level of the octave bands whose approximate mean frequencies are 500, 1000 and REFERENCES 2000 cps. The average of these three values is N. 90 1. W. D. Ward, A. Glorig, and D. L. Sklar, "Temporary Threshold Shift from Octave Band N C CURVES Noise: Applications to Damage-Risk Criteria." �• J. Acoust. Soc. Ant. 31, 522-528 (Apr. 1959); _ '� - - _ _ a _ _ = — — J. C. Nixon, A. Glorig, "Noise-Induced Perma- re _ _ _ - rent Threshold Shift at 2000 cps and 4000 cps." 5 70 i_`��_1�-�= _ — I. Acoust. Soc. Am. 33, 904-908 (July 1961). 0 — _ _ — 2. A. Glorig, W. D. Ward, and J. Nixon, "Damage o ��,, _Nc60= = Risk Criteria and Noise Induced Hearing Loss." o e0 - — - - Arch. Otolaryngol. 74, 413-423 (Oct. 1961). _ — _ = 3. A. Summerfield, A. Glorig, and D. E. Wheeler, 03 o -"cue= _ - "Is There a Suitable Industrial Test of Sus- w __ - _ _ ceptibility to Noise-Induced Hearing Loss?" — Noise Control 4, No. 1, 40-46 (Jan. 1958). cr 40 '_sa - _ _ = 4. Donald H. Eldredge, "The Problems of Criteria (I) _ - _ _ for Noise Exposure." Armed Forces-NRC Com- "cam_ = - mittee on Hearing and Bio-Acoustics. Office of cc a 30 Naval Research,Contract No.NONR 2300 (05) z = _ _ — (Oct. 1960). o -N°-Z°=_ - = 5. "Principles for Evaluating Hearing Loss: Coun- 20 _\_ F cil on Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation," APPROXIMATE THRESHOLD _ OF HEARING FOR - — — — J. Am. Med. Assoc. 157, 1408-1409 (1955). CONTINUOUS NOISE - 10 - _ = 6. "Predicting Hearing Loss for Speech from 20 75 150 300 600 1200 2400 4800 Pure Tone Audio rams," Laryngoscope IXVIX, 75 150 300 600 1200 2400 4800 10000 g No. 1, 1-15 (Jan. 1957). Figure 7.19—Criterion curves for use with Tables 7.5 7. Karl D. Kryter, "The Effects of Noise on Man," and 7.6 in determining the permissible (or desirable) Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, SPL's in eight octave bands. Each NC curve has a Monograph Suppl. 1, (1950). loudness level in phons that is 22 units greater than 8 H. Fletcher, "A Method of Calculating Hear- the SIL in decibels (expressed by the NC number of the curve). These curves are recommended for specifi- ing Loss for Speech from an Audiogram," J. cations wherever a favorable relation between the low- Acoust. Soc. Am. 22, 1-5 (1950). frequency and the high-frequency portion of the spec- 9. H. C. Hardy, "Tentative Estimate of a Hearing trum is desired. Damage Risk Criterion for Steady State Noise," 1. Acoust. Soc. Am. 24, 756-761 (1952). Enter Column 1 of Table 7.7 at the appropriate N, 10. W. A. Rosenblith, K. N. Stevens, and staff of then read the distances at which speech will be in- Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc., "Handbook of telligible in Columns 2 and 3. Acoustic Noise Control," Vol. II, Noise and To determine the quality of telephone con- Man. U.S.A.F., W.A.D.C. Tech. Rep. No. 52- versation, follow the same procedure using Table 204 (1953). 7.8. 11. The Relations of Hearing Loss to Noise Ex- If it is impractical to measure the octave band levels, one of two methods of approximation may posture, a report by Exploratory Subcommittee Z24-X-2 of the American Standards Association be made. While carrying on a normal conversation in Z24 Sectional Committee on Acoustics, Vibra- the specified area, increase the distance between tion and Mechanical Shock (1954). the speaker and the listener. If speech is intelligi- 12. Mr Force Regulations No. 160-3, Medical He, at the required distance, no further measure- Service, Dept. of the Air Force, Washington, ments are necessary. I). C. (Oct. 29, 1956). Measure the ambient level with a sound level 13. L. L. Beranek, Ed., p. 522, Noise Reduction, meter using the "A" scale. If the meter reading McGraw-1 fill Book Co., Inc. (1960). 9^(17'" i EFFECTS OF NOISE: ON MAN 67 14. W. Spieth and \-V. F. Trittipoe, "Intensity and Acuity in a Controlled Population," U. S. Dept. Duration of Noise Exposure and Temporary of IIcalth, Education, and Welfare, Public Threshold Shifts," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 30, 710- Health Service Pub. No. 850 (1961). 713 (1958). 21. W. D. Ward, "Damage Risk Criteria for Line 15. 13. Kylin, "Temporary Threshold Shift and Spectra," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 34, No. 10, 1610- Auditory Trauma Following Exposure to 1619 (Oct. 1962). Steady-State Noise," Acta Oto-Laryngol, 51, 22. Guide for the Evaluation of hearing Impair- No. 6, Suppl. 152 (1960). ment, Trans. Am. Acad. Ophthalmol. Otolaryn- 16. -Rating Noise with Respect to Hearing Con- gol., 236-238 (Mar.-Apr. 1959). nervation, Speech Communication, and Annoy- 23. Carpenter, "Effects of Noise on Performance ance," International Organization for Standardi- and Productivity," Conference on "The Con- ration. ISO Tech. Comm. 43, Acoustics (Secre- trol of Noise," National Physical Laboratories, tariat-139), (Aug. 1961). Teddington, England (June 1961). 17. K. D. Kryter, "Exposure to Steady State Noise 24. K. N. Stevens, W. A. Rosenblith, and R. H. and Impairment of Hearing," J. Acoust. Soc. Bolt, "A Community's Reaction to Noise; Can Am. 35, No. 10, 1515-1525 (Oct. 1963). it be Forecast?" Noise Control 1, No. 1, 63-71 18. "Guide for Conservation of Hearing in In- (Jan. 1955). dustry," prepared by Subcommittee on Noise, 25. L. L. Beranek, "Revised Criteria for Noise In American Academy of Ophthalmology and Buildings," Noise Control 3, No. 1, 19-27 (Jan. Otolaryngology (Revised 1964). 1957). 19. E. J. Schneider, J. E. Peterson, H. R. Hoyle, E. H. Ode, and B. 13. Holder, "Correlation of 26. S. S. Stevens, "Calculation of the Loudness of Industrial Noise Exposures with Audiometric Complex Noise," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 28, 807 Findings," AIHA Journal 22, 245-251 (Aug. (Sept. 1956). 1961). 27. K. D. Kryter, "Noise Control Criteria for Build- 20. C. D. Yaffe and H. H. Jones, "Noise and Hear- ings," Noise Control 3, No. 6, 14-20 (Nov. ing: Relationship of Industrial Noise to Hearing 1957). 940251 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO SS COUNTY OF WELD An YWtrlal use In the A ftt-'iiural) zone I, KEITH HANSEN, of said County of Weld, being duly deldMAra natural gas sworn,say that I am publisher of PleahMliry, LOCATION: Northwest WINDSOR BEACON of the intersection of end Wald County Road /1 O I lifR!IC Weld County Road 34 MAIM and weekly newspaper having a general circulation in said 28. County and State, published in the town of WINDSOR, The Weld County in said County and State; and that the notice, of which Planning Commission SIZE:20 acres.more or the annexed is a true copy, has been published in said will hold a public hearing less. on Tuesday, January weekly for / _successive weeks, that the notice 18. 1994,at.fa9n pa. The public hearing will was published in the regular and entire issue of every for the purpose of be held in the Weld number of the paper during the period and time of considering aa Site County Commissioners' Rom, Fit publication, and in the newspaper proper and not in a Specific Development Hearing Room, First Plan and a Special Floor,..Weld County supplement, and that the first publication of said notice Review permit for the Centennial Center,015 was in said paper bearing the date of the property described Tenth Streit Greeley, ,f� below. Approval of the Colorado. Comments or �j.3/" da - request may create a oblections related to the Y of � ^"'y`-c'� , A.D., 19�� and vested property right above request should the last publication bearing the date of the pursuant to Colorado be submitted in writing Lac to the.Weld County Department of Planning day of A.D., 19_ and APPLICANT:Snyder oil Services, 1400 N. 17th that the said WINDSOR BEACON has been published Corporation, ao Avenue, Greeley, continuously and uninterruptedly for the period of 5 Swanson and Morris Colorado 80631, consecutive weeks,in said County and State, prior to the befor LEGAL DE pfeselsdre the atabovadam date of first publication of said notice,and the same is a DESCRIPTION: Presented at the-public Part of the SE4 of hearing on January 78, newspaper within the meaning of an Act to regulate Section 8,T9N, R66W 1994. printing of legal notices an advertisements, approved of the 8th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado. Copies of the May 18, 1931,and all prior cts ar as in force. app8ealdn we available l TYPE AND INTENSITY for Public Inspection in e OP PROPOSED USE: the Department of Planning Services,1400 N. 17th Avenue, r. P LISHER 4. Greeley, Colorado 80891 • Phone - 353- Subscri d and sworn to before me this�/ day • 383845,Eatsneten 3540. of �e -(c..a.r 19 ...5 Judy Yamaguchi,Cilicper so j- , - o (n ty Planning R/u+-L T r Omillifpn NOTARY PUBLIC►AIS! In the My commission expires �Ir- P y �. /99'9 ' . WINS/capon en CCII Ileeettaheat 1184. o CEIVE JAN 1 0 1994 11 ti Weld County Planning 940:7,51 Alt MEMORAf1DUfn WIlD Don Carroll, Engineering January 13 , 1994 To Date Greg Thompson, Current Planner COLORADO From USR-1038 $ubject: Enclosed, please find a proposed Stormwater Management Plan for the proposed Snyder Oil Company natural gas processing facility located just east of Platteville. Please review this plan and offer any recommendations which are necessary. If possible, could you respond by the Planning Commission hearing scheduled on January 18, 1994 at 1:30 p.m. 9410?,51 STATE OF COLORADO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER oFco�\ Division of Water Resources a Department of Natural Resources he � 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Ian," Denver,Colorado 80203 Phone(303)866-3581 Roy Romer FAX(303)866-3589 Governor January 6, 1994 Ken Salazar Executive Director Hal D.Simpson Mr. Greg Thompson State Engineer Weld County Department of Planning Services 910 10Th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Snyder Oil Special Review Natural Gas Processing, USR-1038 SW1/4 Sec. 8, T3N, R66W, 6THPM W. Division 1, W. District 2 Dear Mr. Thompson: We have reviewed the above referenced application to operate a natural gas processing facility on a 20 acre parcel. No information was provided on the projected number of employees or water requirements. The water supply is to be from individual on lot wells. A preliminary review under Senate Bill 5 rules indicates that there is NO non tributary water available for appropriation underlying this property. We may be able to issue a permit for an exempt commercial well for this lot, after the county approves the split, if the following conditions can be met: A. The applicant can document that no other water supply is available. B. The lot was recorded with the county prior to their adoption of Senate Bill 35 rules or will be created as a first split from a pre Senate Bill 5 parcel. C. The proposed well would be the only well exempted under Section 37-92-602, located on the lot. D. Water use is limited to drinking and sanitary purposes inside one commercial business. No outside uses such as landscape irrigation are allowed. Use of the well for fighting a fire in the commercial business is allowed. E. The well pumping flow rate does not exceed 15 gallons per minute. F. Annual diversions will not exceed 1/3 acre foot of water. G. The applicant must document that the total water requirements for the business use will not exceed the amount of water available (1/3 acre foot). H. The return flow is to the same stream system as the well is located in. _ o JAN 1 1 1994 'iinld County Planning 9'?.07„:;i Mr. Greg Thompson January 6, 1994 Page 2 I. Consumptive use does not exceed 10 percent. This is usually governed by the waste water treatment system. The typical septic and leach field system is considered to not exceed 10 percent consumptive use. J. A continuous recording flow meter must be installed on the well and annual readings recorded. This information must be available to the Division Engineer upon request. We have no objection to the proposal and can recommend approval contingent upon the applicant obtaining the required well permit. If you have any questions in this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, jativt) John Schurer, P.E. Senior Water Resource Engineer JS/snyder cc: Alan Berryman, Division Engineer Water Supply Branch 940 11 6t DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)353-3845, EXT. 3540 WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 • COLORADO Date: December 17, 1993 CASE NUMBER: USR-1038 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for a natural gas processing facility. The parcel of land is described as part of the SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is northwest of the intersection of Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 29. This application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the application and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by December 31, 1993, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Greg Thompson, Current Planner, if you have any questions about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3. ?‹ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5. Please refer to the enclosed letter. DI �� Signed: lt+-yy y.'11r""�1c a Agency: CoL�.R D Dim 'E Ce✓s. CoMn. hh t7t7 Date: U;..,1: .. , . ) U �� JAN 0 4 !,?,!ll94 'bn'la 940:1,..:DT"/Planning • (( 61111( avaiH4r ^ �(� EPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 0 PHONE(303)353-3845, EXT. 3540 pD WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES DEC 2 3 1993 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE ik. GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 Weld County Planning COLORADO Date: December 17 , 1993 CASE NUMBER: USR-1038 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for a natural gas processing facility. The parcel of land is described as part of the SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is northwest of the intersection of Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 29. This application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the application and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by December 31, 1993, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Greg Thompson, Current Planner, if you have any questions about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3. )G We n have s. ewed the request a/ /94.�find /ec „yrSesewith_7%Z- interests. Cv✓rpo�' //// 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Signed: �Coo y Agency: lVGS/©1/2/4-1 Date: /L -t/ &doe- _ 940731. tvtl DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES (Hi PHONE(303)353.3845, EXT. 3540• WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO Date: December 17 , 1993 CASE NUMBER: USR-1038 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for a natural gas processing facility. The parcel of land is described as part of the SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is northwest of the intersection of Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 29 . This application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the application and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by December 31, 1993, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Greg Thompson, Current Planner, if you have any questions about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons . 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3. We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our / interests. 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Signed: Agency: tin, of PancolAa 7)7'. . Date: a-0.493 0)_05-0N i \t DEC 2 7 1993 ' "geld County Plenni �sau•-iii 3 u 1993 , EmORAnDUm Wille�� Thompson guntyPlannin- Weld County Planning December 29, 1993 To Date COLORADO Jeffrey L. Stoll, Director, Environmental Health From J Case Number: USR-1038 Name: Snyder Oil Corporation Subject: PT SE4 Section 08, Township 03 North, Range 66 West Environmental Protection Services has reviewed this proposal; the following conditions are recommended to be part of any approval: 1. All liquid and solid wastes shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination. 2. An Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N.) and Emissions Permit application must be submitted to the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health for emissions of criteria, hazardous or odorous air pollutants. 3. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. 4. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. 5. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on this site. 6. The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the industrial limit of 80 db(A) , as measured according to 25-12-102, Colorado Revised Statutes. 7. An individual sewage disposal system, is required for the proposed facility and shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. 8. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. 9. A spillage retention berm shall be required around the tank battery. The volume retained by the spillage berm should be greater than the volume of the largest tank inside the berm. 10. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be stored and handled in a safe manner. Reference 25-8-205.5 Colorado Water Quality Control Act and Rules and Regulations thereof. 9,10t11. Case Number: USR-1038 Name: Snyder Oil Corporation December 29, 1993 Page 2 11. Individual Sewage Disposal System permit must be finalized and approved by an Environmental Protection Specialist within one (1) year of the application date. 12. All construction activities that disturb more than five (5) acres will be required to obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division. JLS/kh-2704 mEmORAnDum Vi`,k Greg Thompson To Greg Date ner•emhar 29 1993 COLORADO From Ronald Carrell PrS Subject•. Snyder Oil Corporation USR - 1038 I have reviewed the application located on WCR 34 and WCR 39 and have the following comments: 1. I would like to see the access limited to two access points at this facility with 18" CMP culverts if needed at both accesses. 2. The applicant is indicating no storm water facility is need as the soils will take care of all storm water. A USR requires under Sec. 24. 5.1.5.1 of the "Design Standards for Use by Special Review" storm water detention facilities should be provided on site which are designed to retain the storm water runoff from the fully developed site from a 100-year storm. The drainage facility should be designed to retain and release water at a quantity and rate not to exceed the quantity and rate of a 5-year storm falling on an undeveloped site. 3. A sketch plan drainage report should be submitted with a sketch plan application submittal. The sketch plan drainage report should be provided by a registered professional engineer licensed in Colorado. The report should provide calculations and a signature by the same engineer. 4. The applicant is indicating the traffic will consist of mostly passenger vehicles and pickups--approximately four per day; and approximately six tractor-trailer combos per day. I checked the ADT count on this particular road. We are showing 96 vehicles per day. That was in front of the facility on WCR 34. I have also checked the county on WCR 29 which is the next road to the east. On WCR 29, between WCR 32 and WCR 46, I have a count of 57 vehicles per day. cc: Commissioner Baxter File USR-1038 DEC VE DEC 3 0 1993 11 mgreg6.pds 'Meld County Planning 940731 Kist DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)353-3845, EXT.3540 I 9 WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N.17TH AVENUE • GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO RECEIVED DEC 2 D 1993 Date: December 17, 1993 CASE NUMBER: USR-1038 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for a natural gas processing facility. The parcel of land is described as part of the SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is northwest of the intersection of Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 29. This application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the application and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by December 31, 1993, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Greg Thompson, Current Planner, if you have any questions about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3. We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5. Please refer to the enclosed letter. ) J Signed: Agency: aftel -vr! f�"/��//// G — Date: /� fi- %3 / 940774 FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER: USR-1038 DATE OF INSPECTION: /a/a9/9-3 APPLICANT'S NAME: Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris CURRENT PLANNER: Greg Thompson REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for a natural gas processing facility. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 29. LAND USE: N /J- Gyp E fy�I ' UULn S 7/ %l.p;,,., W� %iLn. ZONING: N A (Agricultural) E A (Agricultural) S A (Agricultural) W A (Agricultural) CO ENTS: n.V` w 3`I-' L34 SeenwV viviiiimArive.,n.e.tersse WCE mat- 3 we-e. 3a is raved yond wr. R a--9 l a ; �I � # adval Ant e` ' - . /My*S- Mso, W J' l( k rt. 4 p ter( fir, 1 k7J nun; oe 4, cr e n. a d olds 12i 4d ? -JAN 0 4 1994 � f= Weld Coady Masi* �■ 9407,51 FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER: USR-1038 DATE OF INSPECTION: December 22, 1993 APPLICANT'S NAME: Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for a natural gas processing facility. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 29. LAND USE: N Dryland crops, oil and gas production, high tension power lines E Dryland crops, oil and gas production S Dryland crops, oil and gas production W Dryland corps, oil and gas production ZONING: N A (Agricultural) E A (Agricultural) S A (Agricultural) W A (Agricultural) COMMENTS: The ground generally slopes away from proposed site to the north, east and west. The site is served by Weld County Road 34 which is a gravel road. On the day of the field check, there was approximately 2 inches of snow covering the ground. Greg ThOps1S Current Planner 94051 LAND-USE APPLICATION SUMMARY SHEET Date: January 18, 1994 CASE NUMBER: USR-1038 NAME: Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris ADDRESS: 518 17th Street, Suite 780, Denver, Colorado 80202 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for a natural gas processing facility. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 29. SIZE OF PARCEL: 20 acres, more or less. POSSIBLE ISSUES SUMMARIZED FROM APPLICATION MATERIALS: The criteria for review of this Special Review permit is listed in Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. The Department of Planning Services' staff has received responses from the following agencies: 1. Weld County Engineering Department 2. Weld County Health Department 3. Town of Platteville 4. Weld County Office of Emergency Management 5. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission The Department of Planning Services' staff has not received referral responses from: 1. Colorado Division of Water Resources 2. Platteville Fire Protection District 3. Public Service Company 4. Town of Gilcrest 5. Brighton Soil Conservation District One surrounding property owner has verbally expressed concern about the proposed facility. (1‘... I, VI DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)353.3845, EXT. 3540 IN I i p WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 C. N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEYEY, COLORADO 80631631 COLORADO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Weld County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, January 18, 1994, at 1:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for the property described below. Approval of the request may create a vested property right pursuant to Colorado Law. APPLICANT: Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. TYPE AND INTENSITY OF PROPOSED USE: An industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for a natural gas processing facility. LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 29. SIZE: 20 acres, more or less. The public hearing will be held in the Weld County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First Floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado. Comments or objections related to the above request should be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services, 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631, before the above date or presented at the public hearing on January 18, 1994. Copies of the application are available for public inspection in the Department of Planning Services, 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631 - Phone - 353-3845, Extension 3540. Judy Yamaguchi, Chairperson Weld County Planning Commission To be published in the Windsor Beacon To be published o e (1) t by December 23, 1993. Received by: 964 - I�////'')-- Date: (€17-/k7 94107,7A I ., rr • f �� G .� o0 1 ��: w I i•Il .� GI, NEsi r ,I 9� • •r sa o U . I ® � e n ,e a q �D v 5. .io •_ •• •• ❑ /{�� °. SP is �_ � ic \ ii [ r' Ilr y o I . . > .4'Y/7 1•• IraflG ou¢ N j zI � i▪ -• r .� `{ • N`• -1-..�szn u . . rr .,�.. • z5 H� S�Lni TEJLcE �s g• z ''''I---- — . zo r' )1 �� s• °` ._ L` H. I ss ,f� �._ ar 1� n . 3, .cam as 3. o 3. t.r I , 1 y r H r▪ . • ___ _ � _ _ — -- 1 i b a 4 • ^�i 1 I F •u r v . 0 • - - 'll i R xr z �. ` x� zz zf u Qicvwi..wn...,. o• - RINCNE 5 _ F �� _.._ - — _.. __.. _\\ e _ GGG tru • n z. • . z• • . �� z °j n a 30 '��• [ ' r0 k4 ,° .� , p •111 • �� B y • y1/4.�_ • • i/. �.x • If •o�C 5\l< Ss coTo p Sz • a ae ea 76 1� .f I'! OPT LUPT0N�J.: r 7 F, • y Is • \3 i4/FA• • .. TJI° pl 0 ,r • •' •'. • • '1 I • ❑ `• •n5•' .. rlt�, L2 r _srr. I. • ,• •ire Fr°♦%f� • ) I • .., • — _•� ,\ /�_ _ _r•• • , r . •• • !2 area• Sr P. '• I. /< •Y I I NUDloN • e p re N C G (� • • A> .� •of I 9 NY `'N ii 1�' : ▪ ro u •I• K, _ �.• �• or , • .. �•�. r 4 "F_ • _ - _ -._rte_. _I _ • —p b Y � � nes J. i C I S •ni 1 •� 1 s �. 1 t • � I . N. 7 .9'i a° • •v • e o{f `A •.II��, J/ ^ ..^T. O •: 1 ' J • REF 0 / •'P e -' .K li li o1. e•"a :�l• .z 1 ' O • } ° a•J/ e zr I ` ■� ; 012 ,gh q • \\ C - - • ii 1 •nF wnr iFNBF�iG ( 39 • O ['y I Mr r•J • J o{ l — "'W • \ •f 7 ' kk 11�� 14 f Y .rr I _ ..� FF _ . i4l•� X111 /, l•" S �l I• • I• . I rr 4v 2rt :R;L I� • tit " p� zr [� z. f �0d eo I I� r � n �• • I•� a 7 .rN 9 •y m ' • &I.: I. I • _ m•. 1.--I•a �' ' . 11-1 -•2 a• 5. T . A y• I• 5 •>, '• as _� � ygi /// 1 4 I i" 5. � n N a. a . I � IjI 1�_ : a .I �•is •ii•a . t E rt r1. 7 I ,.a.. • n !l I. LINEN c :y z _ ( I .H.r 7 W R.66 W ••' R.65 W. ..._._. .. ..i "° ',•• C 0 u N T Y M• . d a N\ X22 o \ 14]86 4]88 tl 7 4]94 Yo _ a]9 _ _ _478.5 — 4] 1 C // / -\) \� l /0 1� 4] / �EVAPIS- _.N. 1 / \ U I/_ �npB6 482 .4832 \4]92 1. �]9l q]9 is 7 a I 1f I 7—> j N., / 1.� ,, 5 \ ,� \\ `\ �J c 4790 U 4]92 / �J �A / I l I I,g / ) AA m _ 0hl$]9] 0 04]99 4]99.. J II \ _ — I> —_ 1 -- �C a' •�� 479 G hl A� \I 0 a80/ • 9900 A� - 41-9°° •- \ —.f BM �[ \ A A v,7 1h, i G2 ae V v 4 )( t I v o I 1 1 1 MrzPe 0] 62 Qeo .e 4s - f 4893 - 4 s T' i t \ 1.806 - �� -h_ � I� f _ l � � � x`g92� I�t ��i Jr �• M y .9„, , ) l � y' Ii L affi5N '� v 1 �` L ,--I 41 ‘ �� •tt2V1110 •• , I 1 fl 1 ,, A i ,// / / 50 .• 1�ii H � 821 ' � y I / s__ 1 0 1 V i '' I x4996 A \I _ A t„ m 7� �m C I , ,X499, 0 30 g.°" 29 28 Site d 1� I Port NS .� rr4 1 9 i iii j�' _ I. , 3 , , ire 14 ikait_ 1 ,, a n nn , . i. a .... -.-- .z , §,LxL jury }it;. P e: i Yj' I ,4715 spa; ' iW4j , _ dit C i t tt r�` � . . an r S f a i . ..41,-;., t. $ *b #1F 'F );,'� ... il M.. §. ^,. S t CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that I have placed a true and correct copy of the surrounding property owners and owners and lessees of minerals in accordance with the notification requirements of Weld County in Case Number USR-1038 for Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris in the United States Mail, postage prepaid First Class Mail by letter as addressed on the attached list. this 20th day of December 1993. ji\-a)-ttihr ‘ "K) 94(x' 1 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND/OR SUBSURFACE ESTATE/MINERAL/INTEREST OWNERS Snyder Oil Corporation USR-1038 John Eisenach and A.D. Preston 13676 Weld County Road 36 Platteville, CO 80651 Tuttle Investment Company, Ltd. 12735 Weld County Road 34 Platteville, CO 80651 T.E. and Anne E. Backstrom 14230 Weld County Road 36 Platteville, CO 80651 Public Service Company of Colorado 1400 Glenarm Denver, CO 80302 Olen D. Presley and Frank H. Presley 721 Front Range Road Littleton, CO 80120 State of Colorado 1313 Sherman #600 Denver, CO 800000207 John Leonard Estate of Mirth Leonard 922 Collyer Street Longmont, CO 80501 Arthur E. and Evelyn Ostermiller 4705 Weld County Road 46 Berthoud, CO 80513 Charles Terry Edwards 5793 Via Peralta Pleasanton, CA 94566 Platteville Limited Partnership 1801 Broadway, Suite 1050 Denver, CO 80202 Amoco Production Company P.O. Box 800 Denver, CO 80201 9407,31 Att 'k DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)353-3845, EXT.3540 ' WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 C. N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631631 COLORADO DATE: December 17, 1993 TO: SURROUNDING PROPERTY/MINERAL OWNERS CASE NUMBER: USR-1038 There will be a Public Hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 18, 1994, at 1:30 p.m. , in the County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First Floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado concerning the request of: NAME: Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris FOR: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for a natural gas processing facility. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 29. Your property is within five-hundred (500) feet of the property on which this request has been made or you may have an interest in the minerals located under the property under consideration. For additional information write or telephone Greg Thompson, Current Planner. Comments or objections related to the above request should be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services, 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631, on or before the date of public hearing. DATE: January 18, 1994 CASE NUMBER: USR-1038 APPLICANT: Snyder Oil Corporation c/o Swanson & Morris ADDRESS: 518 17th Street, Suite 780, Denver, Colorado 80202 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for a natural gas processing facility. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 29 THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 24.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: The proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan's Agricultural goals and policies and is provided for as a use by special review. The uses which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses which include oil and gas production, dryland crops, and high tension power lines. The uses which would be permitted will be compatible with the future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the Agricultural zone district. No overlay districts affect the site. Special Review Permit Development Standards will provide adequate protection for the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and County. This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities. The Department of Planning Services' staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: 1. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review permit shall be adopted and placed on the Special Review plat prior to recording the plat. The plat shall be delivered to the Department of Planning Services and be ready for recording in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's office within 15 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 940?,51 RECOMMENDATION, USR-1038 Snyder Oil Corporation c/o Swanson & Morris Page 2 2. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. 3. Prior to recording the plat: a. The permitted area shall be clearly delineated on the plot plan. b. The property description on the submitted plot and vicinity plans shall describe only the area to be permitted. c. The plot plan shall be amended to show only two accesses onto Weld County Road 34. d. The plot plan shall be amended to include the spillage retention berm around the tank batteries. 4. Prior to the release of building permits: a. The applicant shall submit evidence that a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division has been submitted for construction activities on the site which disturb more than five acres. b. An Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N. ) and Emissions Permit application shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health for emissions of hazardous or odorous air pollutants and criteria as listed in the Emissions Permit. 5. Prior to scheduling a hearing with the Board of County Commissioners: a. The applicant shall submit information to the Department of Planning Services addressing a stormwater retention facility to handle on-site drainage. The drainage plan shall be approved by the Weld County Engineering Department. b. A well permit shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services which indicates a legal water supply has been obtained for the site. 940251 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson & Morris USR-1038 1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review permit is for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for an oil and gas processing facility as submitted in the application materials on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. 2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 90 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 3. No more than two access points shall be permitted into the site from Weld County Road 34. 4. All liquid and solid wastes shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination. 5. An Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N. ) and Emissions Permit shall be obtained from the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health for emissions of hazardous or odorous air pollutants and criteria as listed in the Emissions Permit. 6. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. 7. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed of in a manner that controls fugitive dust, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. 8. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on this site. 9. The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the industrial limit of 80 db(A) , as measured according to 25-12-102, Colorado Revised Statutes. 10. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed facility and shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. 11. The septic system shall be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. 12. A spillage retention berm shall be installed around the tank batteries. The volume retained by the spillage berm shall be greater than the volume of the largest tank inside the berm. 13. All potentially hazardous chemicals shall be stored and handled in a safe manner, according to 25-8-205.5, Colorado Revised Statutes. 14. Individual Sewage Disposal System permit shall be finalized and approved by an Environmental Protection Specialist within one year of the application date. 15. All construction activities that disturb more than five acres shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division. 940251 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USR-1038 Snyder Oil Corporation c/o Swanson & Morris Page 2 16. ET5 class muffler shall be installed on all compressors located at this site. 17. Fisher Whisper Trim units shall be placed in front of all compressors to help reduce noise levels. 18. All construction on the property shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Weld County Building Code Ordinance. 19. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 20. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 21. Personnel from the Weld County Health Department and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations. 22. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Major changes from the plans or Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 23. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. 940251 • c1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (303)353-3845, EXT. 3540 gigWELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES ® 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 • COLORADO December 17, 1993 Snyder Oil Corporation c/o Swanson and Morris 518 17th Street, Suite 780 Denver, CO 80202 Subject: USR-1038 - Request for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for a natural gas processing facility on a parcel of land described as part of the SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Swanson: The application for Snyder Oil Corporation and related materials for the request described above are complete and in order at the present time. I have scheduled a meeting with the Weld County Planning Commission for January 18, 1994, at 1:30 p.m. This meeting will take place in the County Commissioners' Hearing Room, first floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. It is recommended that you and/or a representative be in attendance to answer any questions the Planning Commission members might have with respect to your application. It is the policy of Weld County to refer an application of this nature to any town or municipality lying within three miles of the property in question or if the property under consideration is located within the comprehensive planning area of a town or municipality. Therefore, our office has forwarded a copy of the submitted materials to the Towns of Gilcrest and Platteville Planning Commissions for their review and comments. Please call Linda Smith, in Gilcrest, at 737-2426, and Robert Thorson, in Platteville, at 785-2245, for further details regarding the date, time, and place of these meetings. It is recommended that you and/or a representative be in attendance at the Gilcrest and Platteville Planning Commission Meetings to answer any questions the Commission members may have with respect to your application. It is the responsibility of an applicant to see that a sign is posted on the property under consideration at least 10 days preceding the hearing date. Sometime prior to January 5, 1994, you or a representative should call me to obtain a sign to be posted on the site no later than January 7, 1994. The sign shall be posted adjacent to and visible from a publicly maintained road right-of-way. In the event the property under consideration is not adjacent to a publicly maintained road right-of-way, the applicant shall post one sign in the most prominent place on the property and post a second sign at the point at which the driveway (access drive) intersects a publicly maintained road right-of-way. Your sign posting certificate must be returned to the Department of Planning Services' office on or before the date of the hearing. 940251 Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Snyder and Morris December 17, 1993 Page 2 The Department of Planning Services' staff will make a recommendation concerning this application to the Weld County Planning Commission. This recommendation will be available twenty-four (24) hours before the scheduled hearing. It is the responsibility of the applicant to call the Department of Planning Services' office before the Planning Commission hearing to make arrangements to obtain the recommendation. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call me. Res ectfully, Greg T ompson Current Planner GT/sfr 940251 ra, p1( DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES "lige PHONE (303)353-3845, EXT. 3540 WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO Date: December 17 , 1993 CASE NUMBER: USR-1038 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for an industrial use in the A (Agricultural) zone district for a natural gas processing facility. The parcel of land is described as part of the SE4 of Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is northwest of the intersection of Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 29. This application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the application and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by December 31, 1993, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Greg Thompson, Current Planner, if you have any questions about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that it does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3. We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Signed: Agency: Date: 940251 REFERRAL LIST NAME: Snyder Oil Corporation, c/o Swanson and Morris CASE NUMBER: USR-1038 REFERRALS SENT: December 17, 1993 REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: December 31, 1993 COUNTY TOWNS and CITIES Attorney _Ault X Health Department _Brighton Extension Service _Broomfield X Emergency Management Office _Dacono Sheriff's Office Eaton X Engineering Erie _Housing Authority _Evans Airport Authority _Firestone _Building Inspection _Fort Lupton _Frederick STATE _Garden City X Division of Water Resources X Gilcrest _Geological Survey _Greeley Department of Health _Grover Department of Transportation _Hudson Historical Society _Johnstown Water Conservation Board _Keenesburg X Oil and Gas Conservation Commission _Kersey La Salle FIRE DISTRICTS Lochbuie _Ault F-1 _Longmont _Berthoud F-2 Mead Briggsdale F-24 Milliken _Brighton F-3 New Raymer _Eaton F-4 _Northglenn _Fort Lupton F-5 Nunn Galeton F-6 Pierce _Hudson F-7 X Platteville Johnstown F-8 _Severance La Salle F-9 _Thornton _Mountain View F-10 _Windsor Milliken F-11 _Nunn F-12 COUNTIES Pawnee F-22 Adams X Platteville F-13 Boulder Platte Valley F-14 Larimer Poudre Valley F-15 Raymer F-2 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Southeast Weld F-16 US Army Corps of Engineers Windsor/Severance F-17 _USDA-APHIS Veterinary Service _Wiggins F-18 Federal Aviation Administration Western Hills F-20 Federal Communication Commission OTHER SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS _Central Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. X Brighton _Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. _Fort Collins Tri-Area Planning Commission _Greeley X Public Service Company Longmont West Adams COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBER X Judy Yamaguchi 940251 US BY SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION Department of Planning Services, 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631 Phone - 353-3845 - Ext. 3540. Case Number Date Received Application Checked By Mylar Plat Submitted Application Fee Receipt Number Recording Fee Receipt Number TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (please print or type, except for necessary signature) I (we) , the undersigned, hereby request a hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission and Weld County Board of County Commissioners concerning the proposed Use by Special Review Permit on the following described unincorporated area of Weld County, Colorado: SESWSE, LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT AREA: . WSRSR Section R T 3 N, R 66 W LEGAL DESCRIPTION of contiguous property owned which Special Review Permit is proposed: RF.1 /4 Section 8 T 3 N, R 66 W Property Address (if available) PRESENT ZONE Agricultural OVERLAY ZONES TOTAL ACREAGE 20 Acres DEC 1 7 1993 PROPOSED LAND USE Natural Gas Processing Facility EXISTING LAND USE Agricultural Wad CMS Plait* SURFACE FEE (PROPERTY OWNERS) a AREA PROPOSED FOR THE USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT: Name: Ostemiller Farms_ r/o Arthur E. Ostermiller I Address: 4705 WCR 46 City: Berthoud CO Zip: 80513 Home Telephone: 532-2511 Business Telephone: • Name: Address: City: Zip: Home Telephone: Business Telephone: APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (if different than above) : Name: Snyiar nil rnrpnratinn r/n Swanson h Mnrris Address: 51R 17th St. . Ste. 780 City: Denver . CO Zip: 80202 Home Telephone: Business Telephone: 825-7243 List the owner(s) and/or lessees of mineral rights on or under the subject properties of record. Name: See Attached Schedule Address: City: Zip: Name: Address: City: Zip: I hereby depose and state under the penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. COUNTY OF Weld ) STATE OF COLORADO ) Signen, at e: Owner or Authorized Agent Subscribed and sworn to before me this /{ '�i/ day of /�4 CE/»4�2 19 �/7 NOTARY 4L IC �/,9IJ My commission expires /L "/(- r6 /6,zSeeed:OL'lfii'� �GyvC,Q� C.ci 940251 A) The basic process raw Natural Gas undergoes at this facility upon delivery by the pipeline is as follows: 1) compression (in compression building) 2) Dehydration (in Cryo Skid) 3) Refrigeration (in Cryo Skid) allows liquids to be separated from residue gas stream. 4) Expansion/Demethanization from which residue gas stream delivered into pipeline to be sold to end user markets. 5) The Demethanized liquids are fractionated into propane and butane which is stored in tanks and sold via trucks or pipeline. 940251 SUM December 3 , 1993 Snyder Oil Corporation 1625 Broadway Suite 2200 Denver,CO 80202 303/592-8500 Fax 303/592-8600 Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th St. Greeley, CO 80631 Attn: Greg Thompson D RE: Application for Use By Special Review West Enterprise Gas Processing Plant DEC I3 1993 LI Ladies and Gentlemen: Weld County Planning Snyder Oil Corporation hereby respectfully requests the Special Use Permit attached be approved. This new facility will increase the processing capacity of our Company and thereby keep pace with the high volume of gas wells currently being brought on line in Weld County. This new facility will include the following: 1) Office Building 2) Maintenance Shop 3) A compressor building which will house approximately six 2000 horsepower compression units and two 1000 horsepower refrigeration units. 4) Product storage tank battery consisting of eight 300 gallon tanks for crude oil/ condensate. 5) One Cyrogenic Skid/ with possible future addition of second skid. 6) Three Fractionation Towers. Existing Use on Surrounding Properties. Land use on surrounding properties is primarily agricultural . Distance to Residential Structures. The closest residential structures to the use area are as follows: North: .8 mile Northeast: . 5 mile West: .5 mile South: 1 mile East: 2 miles 940251 Weld County December 3 , 1993 Page 2 Maximum Number of Users , Patrons , etc. This will not be a public facility, access will be limited to necessary vendors or contractors and employees. In addition to light car traffic from employees, contractors ADD vendors, approximately six tractor trailer "tanker type" trucks per day would utilize this facility. Number of Employees, shifts, and Hours of Operation. 4 employees (daylight shift only between the hours of 7a.m. and 6p.m. ) . Automated to run unattended. This is our preliminary plan. We may need to modify our plan as the facility needs dictate. Water Source None necessary for use, however a water well will be drilled for use in landscaping, safety systems and sanitary facilities. Access Route Weld County Roads 29 and 34 Vehicular Traffic Mainly passenger vehicles, pickup trucks, - approximately 4 per day. Tractor Trailer combinations (up to 80000 lbs GVW) 6 per day. Sewage Facilities We will install septic tanks and leaching fields for 2 bathrooms Fire Protection Measures The plant is located East of Platteville - Platteville Fire Protection District. We will have in place a protocol with the Platteville Fire Department in the form of an Emergency Response Plan similar to the one attached hereto for our Roggen Gas processing facility. In addition, we will have on site Fire extinguishers of suitable size and classification to fight potential fires. Animals No animals on use site. Waste and Storage Storage capacities for pressurized natural gas liquids is approximately 5,700 barrels stored in 8-300 gallon tanks. Storage for crude oil/ condensate is approximately 2400 barrels stored in 8-300 gallon tanks. 940251 Weld County December 3 , 1993 Page 3 Storm Water Retention facilities None necessary as soil should take all storm water (see soil report) . Removal and Disposal of Debris and Wastes Production water from oil wells is removed by truck on an as needed basis and disposed of in water disposal sites approved by the State of Colorado Oil and Gas Commission. Junk and debris is removed on an annual basis and disposed of in an approved landfill . Erosion Control Measured Approximately 40% of the site will be rock, gravel, road base or power plant bottom ash. Remainder is occasionally cultivated to prevent wind erosion. Reclamation Procedures If no other alternative uses for the facility we would disassemble buildings and equipment (including concrete foundations) and remove from site. Site would then be returned to its original conditions and grade. Construction and Start-up Timetable Construction will begin approximately 4-1-94 . Start-up sometime between 6-1-94 and 8-1-94. Weld County Comprehensive Plan The addition of this gas processing facility will increase our ability to meet the high processing demands created by the large number of gas wells currently being completed and put on line in Weld County. This is consistent with Item 7 of the Agricultural Goals of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan: "develop policies and regulations to permit development of oil, gas, . . . .on agricultural lands". The special review area is located in an area dominated by irrigated farming, dry land farming and grazing. Because of the relatively small size of the site to the grazing capacity of the area, the impact of the proposed use on agricultural development would be insignificant. Further the SRA is a compatible use of the land within the vicinity since the area has a number of producing oil and gas wells with associated production equipment which requires daily attention. In the short term, the approved amended SRA would increase the assessed value of the property, thereby increasing revenue to the county. More importantly, it will contribute to the present and future development of Weld County's mineral resources. This will, in turn increase the future tax revenues to the county. As mentioned previously, the 940251 Weld County December 3 , 1993 Page 4 development of the county's mineral resources is consistent with Goal 7 of the plan. This property is not in an incorporated area and is zoned agricultural (mainly farming operations) . No farming operations on the use area. This approximate 20 acre tract out of the total 124 acre parcel has been removed from livestock grazing. There is adequate protection of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the county as we will submit an Emergency Response plan that complies with SARA Title III, Community's Right to Know. The permitted use will be compatible with adjacent land use of either farming or livestock grazing. The permitted use will be compatible with the future development of the surrounding area as oil and gas production is inherent and prevalent in this area of Weld County and this facility is in place to process gas from wells in Weld County. Geologic floodplane and airport overlay: The area subject to Special review is not located in a geological hazard, floodplane, or Weld County Airport overlay district area. Noise The SRA is to have a noise level measured twenty-five (25) feet from the property line of less than 80 decibels which will comply with the industrial standard. Soil Report Soil variety underlying the USR in the SE4 of Sec. 8 in Township 3N-Range 66W, is Olney loamy sand, 1%-5% slopes, IIIe irrigated, IVe & VI non-irrigated. Also, Valent sand, 3%-9% slopes, VIe irrigated, VIe non-irrigated and Vona loamy sand, 3%-5% slopes, IVe irrigated, IVe non-irrigated. Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water capacity is moderate. Surface runoff is very slow, and the erosion hazard is low when properly controlled by limited cropping or graveling or natural mowed vegetation. See attached soil survey. 940251 Weld County December 3 , 1993 Page 5 In the event that more information is required about this request for Use by Special Review please call myself or Doug Swanson ( 303) 825-7243 . Sincerely, Snyder Oil Corporation By: Senio Vice President 940251 AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS SURFACE ESTATE Application No. Subject Property SEQ of Section 8 in Township 3 North, Range 66 West STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names, addresses, and the corresponding Parcel Identification Number assigned by the Weld County Assessor of the owners' of property (the surface estate) within five hundred feet of the property under consideration This list was compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor, or an ownership update from a title or abstract company or attorney, derived from such records, or from the records of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. The list compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor shall have been assembled within thirty days of the application's submission date. rry V. Thompson The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rdday December , 1993 , by Jerry W. Thompson WITNESS my hand and official seal. MY Commission expires: Notary Public My Commission Expires: S1s (qq7 940251 ROGGEN GAS PROCESSING CO . TEL No . 30384953 Dec 06 , 93 9 : 24 P . 12 Roggen Gas Processing Plant Rev. No. o Emergency Planning & Response Date: October 19. 1993 Subject : Plant Shutdown Procedure Next Review Date : Authorized By : DRAFT /REVIEW Page 4 of 6 6. FUEL GAS A. Fuel gas for the Depropanizer heater and hot oil heater may be shut off at the heaters themselves or the fractionator fuel meter run may be shut in. 1. This will shut down both heaters plus the glycol reboiler. B. Ethane injection for heater fuel makeup must also be shut off C. Fuel gas for the dehydration regeneration may be shut off at the Randall, Russell and Petrofac regeneration heaters independently. A 2" valve at the Regen Heater fuel meter run may be closed to shut off both the Russell and Randall regeneration heaters . The Petrofac regen heater may be shut in downstream of the maxon valve. 7. ELECTRICAL A. There are four Motor Control Centers presently at Roggen. 1. Three Motor Control Centers are located just West of the Operators office. 2. The fourth is on the South end of the office Complex. (inside) B. To stop all Electric Current to the Process area and also the office, the main breaker should be tripped on each of the Motor Control Centers. • C. For a Controlled Plant Shutdown, Each Motor can be shut down as needed to provide for proper cool down of product thru- put. 940251. ROGGEN GAS PROCESSING CO . TEL No . 30384953£ Dec 06 ,93 9 : 25 P . 13 • Roggen Gas Processing Plant Rev. No. 0 Emergency Planning & Response Date: October 19, 1993 Subject : Plant Shutdown Procedure Next Review Date : Authorized By : DRAFT /REVIEW Page 5 of 6 FOR AN EMERGENCY PLANT'SHUTDOWN THE FOLLOWING IS SUGGESTED: I. EMERGENCY PLANT SHUTDOWN A. In an emergency situation where the need to shutdown all gas compression in the main engine building, residue buildings,plus shut in all three cyoggni/ p1 nts is required, push the big red plant shutdown button i trt- 4 '�" e++- R,w+'. 4 9 Sfs{+4ns '`zt ,a4.4. B. In an emergency were the need is for a zone of the plant to be shut in use the appropriate emergency shut in button. C. Alternent manual shut off valves for both Russell and Randall skid fuel make up valves are located on the overhead Pipe rack between the Russell and Randall Regen Cooler fans above the old Gas to Gas Exchanger. Then the shut off to Residue Recompression fuel, may be done either individually on each unit or the main suction header valve may be shut off This 8" valve is located by the free water knockout D. Shut off fuel to both Hot Oil Heater and Depropanizer heater. 1. This may be done at the heaters themselves, or the fractionator fuel meter run may be shut in. 2. Ethane injection for heater fuel make-up must also be shut off E. Shut off fuel for the dehydration Heaters. 1. This can be done independently at the heaters themselves or the 2"ball valve at the Regen Heater fuel meter run may be closed along with the 1" valve upstream of the maxon valve. F. Shut off Electrical current at all four Motor Control Centers. 1. This can be done by tripping the Main Breaker at each of the four Motor Control Centers. a. Three of these centers are located just West of the Main Operators office, b. The fourth Motor Control Center is located at the South End of the Main office Building. C- 940251 ROGGEN GAS PROCESSING CO . TEL No . 30384953` Dec 06 ,93 9 : 25 P . 14 • Roggen Gas Processing Plant Rev. No. 0 Emergency Planning & Response Date: October 19, 1993 Subject : Plant Shutdown Procedure Next Review Date : Authorized By : DRAFT /REVIEW Page 6 of 6 2. NOTIFICATION OF FIELD PERSONNEL A. In the advent of a Plant Shutdown, where the inlet gas must be shut in immediately. 1. Call Pipeline Superintendent (Bart Brook-man) a. Home Phone # 678-8693 b. Radio #170 mobile 0905 cellular 381-3859 c. Pager #457-5820 2. Call Plant Superintendent (Al Cuykendall) a. Home Phone #849-5335 b. Radio #150 mobile 09341015 cellular 829-5245 c. Pager # 457-5214 3. Call Plant Supervisor Mike Henderson a. Home Phone # 457-8501 b. Radio # 157 mobile 09201634 cellular 381-3652 c. Pager # 392-2613 3. PRODUCER NOTIFICATION A. Current listing of all producers is kept on file at the Roggen office. The pipeline department Superintendent and Measurement tech can best inform all producers, in case of an emergency. • 940251 ROGGEN GAS PROCESSING CO . TEL No . 30384953t Dec 06 . 93 9 : 26 P . 15 Roggen Gas Processing Plant Rev. No. 0 Emergency Planning & Response Date: October 19, 1993 fr Subject : Emergency Evacuation Procedures Next Review Date Authorized By : DRAFT /REVIEW Page 1 of 1 • EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURES Roggen Plant Personnel are to escape from the area affected through the nearest exit. Due to the variety of areas personnel may be located during normal work, constant awareness of the nearest exit must be maintained. If the entire plant must be evacuated, the supervisor or senior employee on duty will be responsible for all employees on duty to be notified and accounted for during and after evacuation. Should visitors I contractors or other people be present, the employee whose presence they are in shall be responsible to evacuate them and to report to the senior supervisor or employee of their presence and status of evacuation. ( The two driveway gates on the South line of the plant shall be used, and all vehicles shall be driven in an orderly, safe manner during evacuation. all evacuated personnel and visitors shall meet at the corner of WCR 18 and 73 for a final count and confirmation of evacuation. In the case of a class 1 emergency the Roggen Fire Department has the responsibility to give notice of evacuation to all persons within a one mile radius of the Plant. Plant re-entry shall not occur until it has been found safe, by being free of any spills, releases, etc., and no longer poses a threat to human health, safety or the environment thereof. 10)t 44- itzt, p Pr ,Arbi940251 s 3ca Snyder Oil Corporation 1625 Broadway October 1 , 1993 Suite 2200 Denver,CO 80202 303/592-8500 Ostermiller Farms, Inc. Fax303/592-8600 4705 Weld County Road 46 Berthoud, CO 80513 RE: Option to Purchase Real Estate Dear Mr. & Mrs. Ostermiller: This letter shall set forth an agreement between Snyder Oil Corporation ("SOCO") and Ostermiller Farms, Inc. ("Ostermiller's") : 1. "Ostermiller's" own a parcel of Real Estate more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto ( "Option Lands") . 2. "Ostermiller's" herby grant "SOCO" an exclusive One Hundred Eighty (180) day Option to purchase the "Option Lands" referred to in paragraph 1. 3. In the event this Option is exercised the contract to govern said purchase and sale is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" . 4. As consideration for this Option "SOCO" hereby tenders to "Ostermiller's" the amount of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) which shall apply to the total purchase price of the "Option Lands" and shall be considered Earnest Money under paragraph 3(a) of Exhibit "B" attached hereto. These Monies shall not be refundable to "SOCO" in the event this Option is not exercised. 5. This Option will be considered exercised in the event "Ostermiller's" are notified in writing by certified mail on or before 5:00 P.M. April 1, 1994. The actual date of notification shall be the Exercise Date and shall become the effective date of the Contract to buy and sell real estate attached hereto as Exhibit "B" 940251 Ostermiller Farms, Inc. October 1, 1993 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this Option please contact Doug Swanson with Swanson & Morris, Ltd. (303) 825-7243. Sincerely, S yder Oil Corporation BY: Aggjeeyi and Accepted this G day of ( f • , 1993 . Ostermiller Farms, Inc. // BY: 'LI�T-CfiO.� (il,�YnneLl Arthur E. Ostermiller, President 940251 EXHIBIT "A" Attached to and made a part of that certain Option to Purchase Real Estate dated October 1, 1993 between Snyder Oil Corporation and Ostermiller Farms, Inc. Option Lands: Township 3 North. Range 66 West Section 8: SE/4, less and except the East 300 feet and the North 300 feet of said quarter section. 940251 urir u w uldL certa.Ln opLion to Purchase Real 1 scale: dated October 1 , 1993 between Snyder Oil Corporation and Ostermiller Fe s , Inc. * This date shall be the to d i t d Da te determined The printed portions of this form approved by the Exercise pursuant Colorado Real Estate Commission(CBS3.5.89) Paragraph 5 of Option to Purchase Real Estate to which this Agreement l THIS IS A LEGAL INSTRUMENT.IF NOT UNDERSTOOD,LEGAL,TAX OR OTHER COUNSEL SHOULD BE CONSULTED BEFORE SIGNING. is attached as Exhibit "B" . VACANT LAND/FARM AND RANCH CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE Seller's remedy Liquidated Damages or Specific Performance(Section 16) ** ,19 I. PARTIES AND PROPERTY. Snyder Oil Corporation. (SOCO) , 1625 Broadway Denver. CO 80202 Ste. 2200 ,purchaser(s)(Purchaser],(as joint tenants/tenants in common) agrees to buy,and the undersigned seller(s)(Seller],agrees to sell,on the terms and conditions set forth in this contract,the following described real estate in the County of Weld ,Colorado,to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto. • known as No. (Street Addrur,City,State,Zip) • together with all interest of Seller in vacated streets and alleys adjacent thereto,all easements and other appurtenances thereto,all improvements thereon and all attached fixtures thereon,except as herein excluded,and called the Property. 2. INCLUSIONS. The purchase price includes the following items #r#r plumbing,ventilating,and air conditioning fixtures,TV antennas,water softeners,smoke/frrehurglaralarms,se , nsr a telephone lephone wiring and connecting blocks/jacks,plants,mirrors,floor coverings,intercom systems,b , = 'tehertt p lances,and sprinkler systems and controls;(b)if on the Property whether attached or not on the date of t ' an vacuum systems(including accessories),storm windows,storm doors,window and porch shades • , ' s, screens, curtain rods, drapery rods, fireplace inserts, fireplace screens, fireplace grates, heating stoves, d Water Rights.Purchase pri ce) g p ce to include the following water rights: NONE • (e)Growing Crops.With respect to the growing crops Seller and Purchaser agree as follows: Seller shall retain 100% of the 1993 winter wheat harvest. In the event Purchaser damages any of Sellers crop prior to harvest Purchaser shall pay Seller Surface Damages in the amount of $100 . 00 per acre for the amount of damaged acreage. The above-described included items(Inclusions)are to be conveyed to Purchaser by Seller by bill of sale, deed or other applicable legal instrument(s).at the closing,free and clear of all taxes,liens and encumbrances,except as provided in section 10. The following attached fixtures are excluded from this sale: N/A 3. PURCHASE PRICE AND TERMS. The purchase price shall be$ .62 . 000 . 00 ,payable in U.S.dollars by Purchaser as follows(complete the applicable terms below): (a)Earnest Money. delivered to Seller $ 2 , f t)1) nn in the form of check, previously ,as earnest money deposit and part payment of the purchase price,payable to and held by Seller ,-b.,,k..,,; L,.,A.,,S t,,,3t (b)Cash at Closing.6 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 s a net of to be paid by Purchaser at closing in cash,electronic transfer funds,certified check,savings and loan teller's check,or cashier's check.Subject to the provisions of section 4,if the existing loan balance at the time of closing shall be different from the loan balance in section 3, the adjustment shall be made in cash at closing or paid as follows: Luau. The new loan to Purchaser shall be amortized over a period of years at approximately$ per including principal and interest not to exceed %per annum, y Purchaser's lender, a deposit of of the estimated annual real estate taxes,property in remnim,and mortgage insurance premium. !! If the loan is an adjustable interest rate or graduated payment loan,the payments a rate initially shall not exceed the figures set forth above. Loan discount points,if any,shall be paid to lender at closin t exceed %of the total loan amount. The first(I,2,etc.) loan discount • paid by and the balance,if any,shall be • Purchaser sha ' y a loan origination fee not to exceed %of the loan amount and Purchaser's loan costs.Cost of any appraisal for ses to be obtained after this date shall be paid by ..,&K, lion asrcquircd by lender. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON EXERCISE OF PURCHASERS OPTION TO PURCHASE REAL ESTATE AS Ini ' als O Nu.CBS3.5-89. VACANT LAND/FARM AND RANCH CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL.ESTATE S Bradford Publishing,1743 Wane St.,Denver,CO 80202-(303)292-2500-3.91 9402511 n 1 �� a 1 • I (d)Assumption - $ per including principal,interest presently at % r II I annum,and including escrow for the following as indicated: 0 real estate taxes, 0 property insurance premium, 0 mortgage insurance pre m, and .Purchas grees to pay a loan transfer fee not to exceed$ .At the time of assumption,the new interest rate shall not exceed % per annum and the new payment shall not exceed$ plus escrow,if any. i PY ''I, Seller 0 shall 0 shall not be released from liability on said loan.If applicable,compliance with the requirements for release f liability shall be'evidenced by delivery at closing of appropriate letter from lender.Cost payable for release of liability shall be paid by II in an amount not to exceed$ F (e)Seller or Private Third-Party Financing. $ by Purchaser executing a promissory note payable to: on the note for as indicated:(check one box) ❑ Right-to-Cure NTD 82-11-83 0 No Right-to-Cure NTD 81-11-83 0 IIll secured by a(1st,2nd,etc.) deed of trust encumbering the Property,using the form as indi ed:(check one box) ❑Strict Due-on-Sale(TD 72.11.83) 0 Creditworthy(TD 73-11-83) 0 Assumable—Not due on sal D 74-11-83) The promissory note shall be amortized on the basis of years,payable at$ per including principal and interest at the rate of %per annum.Payments shall com nce the day each succeeding shall be due on If not sooner paid,the balance of principal and accrued interest shall be due and payable after closing.Payments 0 shall 0 shall not be increased by of esti ed annual real estate taxes,and ❑shall ❑shall not I'.. be increased by of estimated annual property insurance premium. The loan shall also contain the following terms as indicated:If any payment is not re ived within calendar days after its due date,a late [crest on lender disburseme sunder the deed of trust shall be charge of %of such payment shall be due.In ' per annum.Default interest rate shall be %per annum. Purchaser may prepay without a penalty except 4. FINANCING CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS. (a)Loan plication(s). If Purchaser is to pay all or part of the purchase price as set forth in section 3 by obtaining a new loan or if an existing loan is not to eased at closing,Purchaser,if required by such lender,shall make written application within calendar days from acceptance of this c tract.Purchaser shall cooperate with Seller and lender to obtain loan approval, diligently and timely pursue same in good faith,execute all docume and furnish all information and documents required by the lender,and,subject to section 3,timely pay the costs of obtaining such loan or lender c sent. (b)Loan Approval. If Purchaser is to pay all or part ofth rchase price by obtaining a new loan as specified in section 3,this contract is conditional ore ,19—.If not so approved by said date,this contract shall upon lender's approval of the new loan on or bef time of closing section s(Good Funds)at the esrequired in closing, 'n te.If the loan is so approved,but such proceeds a not available to Purchaser terms a pp shall be extended one time for calendard (not to exceed(5)five).If sufficient funds are not then available,this contract shall terminate. (c)Existing-Loan Review. If an existing I is not to be released at closing,Seller shall provide copies of the loan documents(including note, deed of trust, modifications)to Purchaser wi ' calendar days from acceptance of this contract.This contract is conditional upon Pur- chasers review and approval of the provisions such loan documents.Purchaserconsents to the provisions of such loan documents if no written objection days from Pur chaser's receipt of such documents.If the lender's I within calendar P is received by Seller or Listing Company m Purchaser approval of a transfer of the Property is quired,this contract is conditional upon Purchaser's obtaining such approval without change in the terms of such loan,except as set forth in section 3. lender's approval is not obtained on or before , 19 ,this contract shall be terminated on su date.If Seller is to be released from liability under such existing loan and Purchaser does not obtain such compliance as set forth in section 3,this c ract may be terminated at Seller's option. . (d)Assumption Bolan If Purchaser is to pay all or part of the purchase price by assuming an existing loan and if the actual principal balance of I the existing loan at the d of closing is less than the amount in section 3 by more than$ ,then Purchaser may terminate this III contract effective upo receipt by Seller or Listing Company of Purchaser's written notice of termination. (e)Credit Info ation. If Purchaser is to pay all or part of the purchase price by executing a promissory note in favor of Seller or if an existing loan I I is not to be rele' ed at closing,this contract is conditional upon Seller's approval of Purchaser's financial ability and creditworthiness,which approval shall be at Se r's sole and absolute discretion.In such case:(1)Purchaser shall supply to Seller on or before i9 N. ,at Purchaser's expense,information and documents concerning Purchaser's financial,employment and credit condition;(2)Purchaser conse t: hat Seller may verify Purchaser's financial ability and creditworthiness;(3)any such information and documents received by Seller shall be held by S er in confidence,and not released to others except to protect Seller's interest in this transaction;(4)if Seller does not provide written notice of Se er's disapproval to Purchaser on or before 19 ,then Seller waives this condition.If Seller does I ,,,.;.L....;.t,,,.„st,.....dd: ..Nr...,“Ib.P,...1,e..,....es,b„f...c aid int.,the.,t.,nt.a..t.hall n..,,,L:oa.. 5. GOOD FUNDS. All payments required at closing shall be made in funds which comply with all applicable Colorado laws. , 6. NOT ASSIGNABLE. This contract shall not be assignable by Purchaser without Seller's prior written consent.Except as so restricted,this contract shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the heirs,personal represen tins,successors and assigns of the arti s a{ sppa{{ obtai 7. EVIDENCE OF TITLE. SSPoershail fnrnishtcrPurohas 4,fl 1 ' 9�h�tiarre9fti�n�hMnS�erRfforowners fine msurancepRicy in an amount equal to the purchase price ortheeger .oiee7 an abstract of title certified to a current date,on or before 15 days after** ' 19 . If a title insurance commitment is furnished,Purchaser may require-ef-Caller that copies of instruments(or abstracts of instruments) furnished to Purchaser..t S.11..t,.. _...n..This requirement the title insuranc e commitment also be r ' listed in the schedule of exceptions(Exceptions)in Idesignated county or coun ties. The title insurance recorder of the shall pertain only to instruments shown of record in the office of the clerk and 8 Documents). furnished pursuant to this section 7,constitute the title docu ments(Title ) instruments together with any copies or abstracts of li commitment, P5 '' Purchaser must request✓Ieller-te-furnish copies or abstracts of instruments listed in the schedule of exceptions no later than calendar days after Purchaser's receipt of the title insurance commitment.If Sells:furnishes a title insuranes commitment,Seller will have the title insurance policy- delivered to Purchaser as sot.:G3 practicable after closing and pay the premium at cloning— 8. TITLE. (a) Title Review. Purchaser shall have the right to inspect the Title Documents or abstract. Written notice by Purchaser of unmerchantability of title or of any other unsatisfactory tide condition shown by the Title Documents or abstract shall be signed by or on behalf of Purchaser and given to Seller or Listing Company on or before—calendar days after Purchaser's receipt of Title Documents or abstract,or within five(5)calendar days after receipt by Purchaser of any Title Document(s)or endorsement(s)adding new Exception(s)to the title commitment together with a copy of the Title Document adding new Exception(s)to title.If Seller or Listing Company does not receive Purchaser's notice by the date(s) E . specified above.Purchaser shall be deemed to have accepted the condition of title as disclosed by the Title Documents as satisfactory. I' 940251 • (b)Matters Not Shown by the Public Records. Seller shall deliver to Purchaser,on or before the date set forth in section 7,true copies of all lease(s)and survey(s)in Seller's possession pertaining to the Property and shall disclose to Purchaser all easements,liens or other title matters not shown by the public records of which Seller has actual knowledge.Purchase shall have the right to inspect the Property to determine if any third party(s)has any right in the Property not shown by the public records(such as an unrecorded easement,unrecorded lease,or boundary line discrepancy).Written notice of any unsatisfactory condition(s)disclosed by Seller orrevealed by such inspectionshal*bsigned by or on behalf of Purchaser and given to Seller or Listing Company on or before Twenty—Five ( 75 ) dayis fromffSeller or Listing Company does not receive Purchaser's notice by ii said date,Purchaser shall be deemed to have accepted title subject to such rights,if any,of third parties of which Purchaser has actual knowledge. (c)Right to Cure. If Seller or Listing Company receives notice of unmerchantability of title or any other unsatisfactory title condition(s)as provided in subsection(a)or(b)above,Seller shall use reasonable effort to correct said unsatisfactory title condition(s)prior to the date of closing.If Seller fails to correct said unsatisfactory title condition(s)on or before the date of closing,this contract shall then terminate,subject to section 17;provided,however, I Purchaser may,by written notice received by Seller or Listing Company on or before closing,waive objection to said unsatisfactory title condition(s). 9. DATE OF CLOSING, The date of closing shall be Thirty ( 3 I0 ) dagr s f r omy mutual agreement at an earlier date. The hour and place of closing shall be as designated by Mutual Agreement by Purchaser and Seller 10. TRANSFER OF TITLE. Subject to tender or payment on closing as required herein and compliance by Purchaser with the other terms and I provisions hereof,Seller shall execute and deliver agood and sufficient Warranty deed to Purchaser, on closing,conveying the Property free and clear of all taxes except the general taxes for the year of closing,actjgeix ;free and clear of ail liens for special improvements installed as of the date of Purchaser's signature hereon,whether assessed or not;except distribution utility easements,including cable TV;except those matters reflected by the Title Documents accepted by Purchaser in accordance with subsection 8(a);except those rights,if any,of third parties in the Property not shown by the I public records in accordance with subsection 8(b);and subject to building and zoning regulations. 11. PAYMENT OF ENCUMBRANCES, Any encumbrance required to be paid shall be paid at or before the time of settlement from the proceeds it of this transaction or from any other source. otherwise provided herein,Purchaser and Seller shall sign and complete all customary or uired mg. eras for real estate closing and settlement services shat and shall be paid at closing by 13. PRORATIONS, General taxes for the year of closing,based on the most recent levy and the most recent assessment,rents,water and sewer , charges,owner's association dues,and interest on continuing loan(s),if any,and shall be prorated to date of closing. An y sales,use and transfer tax that may accrue because of this transaction shall be paid by Purchaser 14. POSSESSION. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Purchaser as follows: Immediately upon closing subject to the following lease(s)or tenancy(s): • N/A j If Seller, after closing, fails to deliver possession on the date herein specified, Seller shall be subject to eviction and shall be additionally liable to I Purchaser for 10 0 of$ • U payment per day from the date of agreed possession until possession is delivered. 15. CONDITION OF AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. The Property and Inclusions shall be conveyed in their present condition,ordinary wear and tear excepted. In the event the Property shall be damaged by fire or other casualty prior to time of closing, in an amount of not more than ten percent of the total purchase price,Seller shall be obligated to repair the same before the date of closing.In the event such damage is not repaired within said time or if the damages exceed such sum,this contract may be terminated at the option of Purchaser.Should Purchaser elect to carry out this contract despite such damage, Purchaser shall be entitled to credit for all the insurance proceeds resulting from such damage to the Property and Inclusions,not exceeding,however,the total purchase price.Should any Inclusion(s)or service(s)fail or be damaged between the date of this contract and the date of closing or the date of possession,whichever shall be earlier,then Seller shall be liable for the repair or replacement of such Inclusion(s) or service(s) with a unit of similar size, age and quality,or an equivalent credit, less any insurance proceeds received by Purchaser covering such repair or replacement.The risk of loss for any damage to growing crops,by fire or other casualty,shall be borne by the party entitled to the growing crops, if any,as provided in section 2 and such party shall be entitled to such insurance proceeds or benefits for the growing crops,if any. 16. TIME OF ESSENCE/REMEDIES. Time is of the essence hereof.If any note or check received as earnest money hereunder or any other payment due hereunder is not paid,honored or tendered when due,or if any other obligation hereunder is not performed or waived as herein provided, ' there shall be the following remedies: (a) IF PURCHASER IS IN DEFAULT: IF THE BOX IN SUBSECTION(I)IS CHECKED,SPIT Fdt'S REMEDIES SHALL BE AS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION(I) [SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE]. IF SAID BOX IS NOT CHECKED, SELLER'S REMEDIES SHALL BE AS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION(2)[LIQUIDATED DAMAGES). C(D Specific Performance. Seller may elect to treat this contract as cancelled,in which case all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be forfeited and retained ' • on behalf of Seller,and Seller may recover such damages as may be proper,or Seller may elect to treat this contract as being in full force and effect and Seller shall have the right to specific performance or damages,or both. (2)Liquidated Damages. All payments and things of value received hereunder shall be forfeited by Purchaser and retained on behalf of Seller and both parties shall thereafter be released from all obligations hereunder. It is agreed that such payments and things of value are LIQUIDATED DAMAGES and(except as j provided in subsection(c))are SFt I PR'S SOLE AND ONLY REMEDY for Purchaser's failure to perform the obligations of this contract.Seller I expressly waives the remedies of specific performance and additional damages. (b) IF SELLER IS IN DEFAULT: Purchaser may elect to treat this contract as cancelled,in which case all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned and Purchaser may recover such damages as may be proper,or Purchaser may elect to treat this contract as being in full force and effect and Purchaser shall have the right to specific performance or damages,or both. (c) COSTS AND EXPENSES. Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding,in the event of any litigation or arbitration arising out of this contract,the court shall award to the prevailing party all reasonable costs and expense,including attorney fees. • controversy regarding the earnest money and things of value held by broker or closing agent,unless m c tons are received by the holder of the earnest money and things of value,broker or closin a r to take any action but may await any proceeding,or at broker's or j • closing agent's options , y nterplead all parties and deposit any moneys or things of value into a court of competent jurisdiction and • I?q, 940251 18. INSPECTION. Purchaser or any designee,shall have the right to have inspection(s)of the physical condition of the Property and Inclusions. at Purchaser's expense. If written notice of any unsatisfactory condition, signed by Purchaser, is not received by Seller or Listing Company on orbefore Fifteen ( 15 ) days from ** .19 ,the physical condition of the Property and Inclusions shall be deemed to be satisfactory to Purchaser.If written notice of any unsatisfactory condition,signed by Purchaser,is given to Seller or Listing Company as set forth above in this section, and if Purchaser and Seller have not reached a written agreement in settlement thereof on or before Twenty-Five ( 25 ) dq s frQPIthl4 contract shall then terminate,subject to section 17.Purchaser is responsible and shall pay for any damage which occurs to the Property and Inclusions as a result of such inspection. 19. AGENCY DISCLOSURE. TI..Iist:ngb elta.e and its sales agents(Listing Company)represent Seller.The Listing Company owes duties of trust,loyalty and confidence to Seller on t e the Listing Company has a duty to treat Purchaser honestly,the Listing Company is Seller's agent and is acting on behalf of Se not Purchaser. BY SIGNING BELOW, PURCHASER ACKNOWLEDGES PRIOR TIMELY NOTICE BY LISTING OR SELLIN ANY THAT LISTING COMPANY IS SELLER'S AGENT. The selling broker, and its sales agents(Selling Company)represent: [IF THE BOX IN SU ON(b)IS CHECKED, SELLING COMPANY REPRESENTS PURCHASER ONLY, AS SET FORTH IN SUB CHECKED,SELLING COMPANY REPRESENTS SEL AS SET FOR IF THIN SUBSECTION( (b) IS NOT SUBSECTION (a)Seller. The Selling Company owes duti ust,loyalty and confidence to Seller only.While the Selling Company has a duty to treat Purchaser honestly,the Selling Company i r agent and is acting on behalf of Seller and not Purchaser,BY SIGNING BELOW, PURCHASER ACKNOWLEDGES PRIOR TI TICE BY SELLING COMPANY THAT SELLING COMPANY IS SELLER'S AGENT. El (b) (b)Purch . the box is checked:The Selling Company a duty to treat Seller.honestly, owes duties Purchaser the Selling Company is acting on behalf of Purchaser and not Seller.SELLER ANDLISTING COMPANY 20. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: Seller shall reserve all oil and gas rights including Rights of Ingress and Egress . Seller reserves a twenty year Option on an annual basis to enter into a Farm Lease with Purchaser to cultivate whatever lands ( if any) that are designated by Purchaser to be agricultural. Said Lease shall be in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "C" . This Farm Lease Option shall terminate at any time Purchaser no longer desires the land to be cultivated. 21. RECOMMENDATION OF LEGAL COUNSEL. By signing this document,Purchaser and Seller acknowledge that the Selling Company or the Listing Company has recommended that Purchaser and Seller obtain the advice of their own legal counsel regarding examination of title and this contract. 22.TERMINATION. In the event this contract is terminated,all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned and the parties shall be relieved of all obligations hereunder,subject to section I7. 23.NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE/COUNTERPARTS. If this proposal is accepted by Seller in writing and Purchaser receives notice of such acceptance on or before 19 this document shall become a contract between Seller and Purchaser. A copy of this document may be executed by each party,separately,and when each party has executed a copy thereof,such copies taken together shall be deemed to be a full and complete contract between the parties. Snyder Oil Corporation Purchaser Dale Purchaser Date Purchaser's Address 1625 Broadway, qtr.. 2200 Denver, CO. 80202 ITO BE COMPLETED BY SELLER AND LISTING COMPANY] 24. ACCEPTANCE/COMMISSION. Seller accepts the above proposal this day of • 19 as agreed upon between Seller and Listing Company for services in this aransac' payments and things of value received hereunder,such payments an weep :sting Company and Seller,one-half thereof to Listing Company,but not to Os,te filler F rm x. c A eat• /� Gcn.� ,7 . /D/aI ie yam c � (. ,Ir(,r �� /%(0/(3 Seller a set er Seller's Address The undersigned Selling Company acknowledges receipt of the earnest money deposit specified in section 3 and both Selling Company and Listing Company confirm the respective agency disclosure set forth in section 19. Selling Company By: Islgnaure) Pam Address Listing Company . By: (Signature) Duty Address 940251 EXHIBIT attached to and made a Art of P. e2 that certain Option to Purchase Real Estate dated October 1, 1993 between Snyder Oil Corporation and Ostermiller Farms, Inc. FARM LEASE AGREEMENT This Farm Lease Agreement is made as of this day of 1993 , by and between SNYDER OIL CORPORATION, (SOCO1 , 1625 Broadway, Denver. CO 80202 (Lessor) , and OSTERMILLER FARMS, INC. , or its assigns. 4705 Weld County Road 46, Berthoud, CO 80513 , (Lessee) . 1. The Lessor, in consideration of the covenants hereinafter set forth, does hereby lease to the Lessee the following described premises (hereinafter called the Farm) : Township 3 North, Range 66 West Section 8 : SE 1/4 , less and except the East 300 feet and the North 300 feet of said quarter section, Weld County, Colorado, except the SOCO plant site to be established at a later date. 2 . Lease Term. The lease term is from the first (1st) day of , 1994 , to the first day of 2014. This lease will be terminable on an annual basis by Lessor on or before June 1 of each year in whole or in part for that portion of the property which is not going to be used for farming purposes. For example, if Lessor wishes to expand the use of its facility to a use for any purpose other than agriculturally related activities it may cancel the lease as to that portion of the property. In the event the expansion occurs during the term of the lease the liquidated damages provision for that portion of the property removed from farming shall be $100 . 00 per acre for that year. This farm lease shall terminate at such time as lessor no longer desires the farm to be cultivated. 3 . Rent and Leases. Upon delivery to an elevator within ten (10) miles of the Farm, the Lessor shall be credited by the elevator for one-third (I/3rd) and the Lessee shall receive two- thirds (2/3rds) of all crops grown on the Farm during the lease year. Delivery of Lessor's portion beyond ten (10) miles from the Farm shall be at Lessor's expense. During the term of this lease each party shall bear the risks of loss of crops, in whole or in part, in proportion to their respective rental incomes. 4 . Expenses. The Lessor and Lessee shall share the expenses as follows: Description Lessor Lessee Seed n/a 3/3 1 940251 F . Commercial Fertilizer 1/3 2/3 Lime and Trace Minerals 1/3 2/3 Weed Control _ 113 2/3 Pest Control chemicals 1/3 2/3 Spraying (Weed or Pest) 1/3 2/3 Fuel for Equipment n/a 3/3 Gas for Grain Drying n/a n/a Electricity n/a n/a Combining 1/3 2/3 Crop Insurance n/a n/a (each party will insure their portion of the crops at their election) building Insurance n/a n/a Other n/a n/a Lessor and Lessee shall pay their respective shares of the expenses set forth in this paragraph within one (1) month after harvest except Lessor's expenses in excess of $500. 00 shall be paid within sixty (60) days after being invoiced. 5. Machinery Equipment and Labor. Lessee shall furnish the machinery, equipment and labor to raise and harvest the crops as i specified by Lessor pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 10. 6. Use. The Lessee shall use the Farm only for the production of agricultural products, farm and wildlife conservation programs, which will require Lessor's prior approval . The Farm shall be operated by the Lessee in a manner consistent with customary and prudent agricultural practices in the area and in conformance with applicable statutes. Any breach of this paragraph is cause for termination of this least within thirty (30) days after harvest. 7 . Improvements. All improvements, additions and repairs of every kind and character whatever placed upon the Farm shall become a part of the Farm, may not be removed by the Lessee at the termination of this lease, and the Lessee shall have no claim whatever against the Lessor for the cost or value of such improvements, additions and repairs or for any labor performed in installing them. 8. Default. If any rentals payable or expenses payable by Lessee to Lessor or to party directed by Lessor shall be and remain unpaid for more than twenty-one (21) days after written notice, or if Lessee shall violate or default in the performance of any of the other covenants, agreements, stipulations or conditions herein and such violation shall continue for a period of twenty-one (21) days after written notice by the Lessor to the Lesse/o£ such violation 2 / 910251 F . 14 or default, then without prejudice to any other remedies which the Lessor might have, it shall be optional for the Lessor to declare this Lease forfeited and said term ended, and to re-enter the Farm with or without process of law, using such force as may be necessary. 9. Condemnation. If all or any part of the Farm shall be conveyed to or taken by any authority having the power of condemnation or eminent domain, then at the time of such conveyance, or taking, the term of this lease shall terminate as to the part so conveyed or taken. All amounts paid for such conveyance or awarded for such taking shall belong to and be part of the property of the Lessor. 10. Access to Premises. The Lessee agrees to permit the Lessor and any person authorized by the Lessor to enter upon the Farm for any purpose related to the management of the Farm, and to permit any person to whom the Lessor may lease the Farm or any part thereof for a term commencing after the term of this lease, to enter at any time for agricultural purposes upon any ground from which the crop has been harvested. 11. Entire Agreement. All agreements of the parties with reference to the Lessor and Lessee relationship between Lessee and Lessor are incorporated in this agreement. 12. Notice. All communications, notices, elections, demands and requests for prior approval of any kind which either party may be required or desire to give or serve upon the other party, shall be made in writing and sent by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following address: To Lessor: Snyder Oil Corporation 1625 Broadway Denver, CO 80202 To Lessee: Ostermiller Farms, Inc. 4705 Weld County Road 46 Berthoud, CO 80513 Any such notice shall be presumed to have been received by the addressee two business days after posting in the United States mail. A change of address may be presumed received as provided above. Until further written notice is received the Lessor's representative is Al Cuykendall . 13 . Miscellaneous. The covenants herein shall extend to and be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the parties to this lease. If there be more than 3 940251 P. O5 one Lessor or Lessee, the word "Lessor" or "Lessee" whenever used herein shall respectively be construed to mean Lessors or Lessees, and the necessary grammatical plural changes shall in all cases be assumed as though in each case fully expressed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this instrument to be executed on the date first above written in their respective capacities as Lessor and Lessee. Ostermiller Farms, Inc. Snyder Oil Corporation By: By: Title: Title: Lessee Lessor By: By: Secretary Secretary ( S E A L ) ( S E A L ) STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was executed and acknowledged before me by and Snyder Oil Corporation, this day of 19 WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: Notary Public 4 940251 F . “t [+t. STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was executed and acknowledged before me by and Ostermiller Farms, Inc. , this day of 19 WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: Notary Public 5 940251 AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS MINERALS AND/OR SUBSURFACE ESTATE Application No. Subject Property SEa of Section 8 in Township 3 North, Range 66 West STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss COUNTY OF WELD ) THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names and addresses of all mineral owners and lessees of mineral owners on or under the parcel of land under as their names appear upon the records in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder' s Office or from an ownership update from a title or abstract company or an attorney. dre-129C J rr W. Thompso The foregoing instrument was subscribed 777777 and sworn to before me this 3rd day of December , 19 93 . WITNESS my hand and official seal.My Commission Expires: ./J1It7y Notary Public 940251 MINERAL AND LEASEHOLD OWNERS Arthur E. Ostermiller and Evelyn Ostermiller 4705 WCR 46 Berthoud, CO 80513 Charles Terry Edwards 5793 Via Peralta Pleasanton, CA 94566 Platteville Limited Partnership 1801 Broadway, Suite 1050 Denver, CO 80202 Consisting of: HS Resources, Inc. KN Production Co. Elk Exploration, Inc. Amoco Production Company P.O. Box 800 Denver, Co 80201 940251 NAMES OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET Please print or type NAME ADDRESS, TOWN/CITY, ASSESSOR' S PARCEL STATE AND ZIP CODE IDENTIFICATION 1/ John Eisenach (1) 13676 WCR 36 , Platteville. 121108000021 A.D. Preston (1) CO 80651 Tuttle Investment Company 12735 WCR 34 , Platteville . 121108000022 Ltd. CO 80651 121117000018 T.E. & Anne E. Backstrom 14230 WCR 36 , Platteville, 121109000012 CO 80651 121109000011 Public Service Company 1400 Glenarm, Denver 121108000018 of Colorado CO 80302 121108000020 121109000006 Olen D. Presley ( 60% ) 721 Front Range Road 121109000007 Frank H. Presley ( 40% ) Littleton, CO 80120 State of Colorado 1313 Sherman #600 , Denver 121116000001 CO 80207 John Leonard (1) 922 Collver Street 121117000017 Estate of Mirth Leonard (1) Longmont, CO 80501 940251 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WEST ENTERPRISE GAS PROCESSING PLANT WELD COUNTY, COLORADO SNYDER OIL CORPORATION 1. SITE DESCRIPTION West Enterprise Gas Processing Plant site is located in the SE1/4 of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 66 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado. Construction activity, presently planned from April to August of 1994 , will take place on approximately 20 acres; however, Snyder Oil Corporation will own all of the Southeast Quarter. The construction activities will consist of the installation of gas compressor and process facilities including product storage tanks and graveled roadway access. It is estimated that approximately 40% of the completed site will be non-vegetated areas of materials such as gravel. Other excavation will be for gas compressor and processing buildings, skids, storage tanks, and piping. The site drainage will be generally to the North, and the site and surrounding area is currently 100% in winter wheat. The only potential pollution sources are the products in the storage tanks; however, any leakage or spillage will be contained by retention dikes. The soil is Olney, Valent, and Vona loamy sand which has moderately rapid permeability and absorbs normal runoff very quickly. (See attached soils sheets (5) ) . The receiving water for any runoff discharge would potentially be the Platteville Ditch; however, given the moisture history, soil type, and land contour between the site and ditch, it is highly improbable that there will be any significant discharge from the 20 acre site. Certainly, none would ever reach the ditch. There should be no significant non-stormwater components of discharge since the potential pollutants will be contained by diking. Any possible discharge from re-grading of the site will be detained as required by Snyder Oil Corporation, both during and after construction. It is expected that the area in the SE1/4 surrounding the 20-acre site will continue to be dryland farmed in the future. 940251 2 . SITE MAP The exhibit shown labeled "Stormwater Management Plan Drawing" shows existing contours, planned site installations, and the principal drainage avenues both during and after construction including erosion control locations during construction before re-vegetation. There are no asphalt or concrete batch plants, or springs, streams, wetlands, or other surface waters involved. The property is not within boundaries of the 100-year flood plain. 3 . BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION Erosion and sediment controls: Structural practices to minimize erosion and sedimentation transport will include silt fences or straw bales, and roadway ditches for flows to the North and West within the 20 acre site. Non-structural practices will include re-vegetation of approximately 60% of the site that is not occupied by buildings, other structures, or gravel equivalent. Materials handling and spill prevention: It is not anticipated that significant materials that would be handled at the site would contribute pollutants to any runoff during the construction phase, with the possible exception of construction equipment fueling. Both this construction equipment fueling and lubricant and chemical charging of compressors and process equipment during start-up will be closely monitored by Snyder Oil Corporation inspectors, and any accidental spillage will receive immediate response and cleanup by qualified personnel. 4 . FINAL STABILIZATION AND LONG TERM STORMWATER MANAGEMENT No other measures are deemed necessary during construction than described above. After construction and start-up the same procedures for monitoring by Snyder Oil Corporation operation and maintenance personnel will be utilized to mitigate any accidental spillage and required cleanup. 5. OTHER CONTROLS Gas and oil well production water from drain down tanks will be removed by vacuum trucks and disposed of in water disposal sites approved by the State Oil and Gas Commission. Other debris and junk will be removed on an annual basis and disposed of in an approved landfill. 940251 6. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE See (4) above. Snyder Oil Corporation operation and and settlement control measures, and other maintenance personnel will be responsible for maintainingthe Plan in good and effective operating vegetation, erosion, pro ctive m identified nditionormwater Management Submitted, SNYDER OIL CORPORATION AL CUYKEN LL plant Superintendent and Duly Authorized Representative of Robert J. Clark, Senior Vice-President Dated: 940251 _� _ �� ; _ ..�� i.R '1 7th/� ix. —__ -___ _ -1 N n ' / n 4.0 n °' _}- ^ P r 1f in IL C et A. in n S '�!. ,1 > 3sr - z ,N O w k s !) oI. +, - , o fy .1 _ .4. rn ,fr v'• a O 1Y O N { 1 }} ' _..-- a zi c, f .3� 4' V N N R n � T n F' r ' r n . . i en + 4.rirr, , v., ,Lhri m r.i.++ al♦ • T aR - •___r_ 4F '0 d S i• T f FT.y • e p 1 CO n r•-• / r ry. N r , . ; • a • j f • t v, 4, ,,,�, ..p. —{ n n w WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 45 range condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, The potential vegetation is dominated by sand switchgrass, sand reedgrass, sideoats grama, and little bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats grarna, bluestem decrease, forage production drops, and sand needleandthread, little bluestem, and blue grama. Potc-n- sage increases. Undesirable weeds and annuals invade tial production ranges from 3,5151 pounds per acre in and "blowout" conditions can occur as range condition favorable years to I,ts00 pounds in unfavorable years. As bewtnes poorer. range condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem., Management of vegetation on this soil should be based switchgrass, sand reedgrass, sideoats grama, and little on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- bluestem decrease, forage production drops, and sand don. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. sage increases. Undesirable weeds and annuals invade Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, indiangrass, switchgrass, and "blowout" conditions can occur as range condition sideoats grama, little bluestem, and blue grama are suita- becomes poorer. ble for seeding. Because this soil is susceptible to soil Management of vegetation on this soil should be based blowing, it should be seeded using an interseeder, or the on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- seed should be drilled into a firm, clean sorghum stubble. Lion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. Seeding early in spring has proven most successful. Brush Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, indiangrass, switchgrass, management also can help in improving deteriorated side-oats grama, little bluestem, and blue grama are suita- range. ble for seeding. Because this soil is susceptible to soil Windbreaks and environmental plantings are fairly well blowing, it should be seeded using an interseeder or the suited to this soil. Blowing sand and the moderate availa- seed should be drilled into a firm, clean sorghum stubble. ble water capacity are the principal hazards in establish- Seeding early in spring has proven most successful. Brush ing trees and shrubs. The soil is so loose that trees should management can also help in improving deteriorated be planted in shallow furrows, maintaining vegetation range. between the rows. Supplemental irrigation is needed to Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally insure survival. Trees that are best suited and have good not suited to this soil. Onsite investigation is needed to survival are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, determine if plantings are feasible. ponderosa pine, and Siberian elm. The shrubs best suited Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. Ran- are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberian peashrub. geland wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The be attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can This soil has fair potential for urban development. The be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape chief limiting soil features are the rapid permeability and cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- the susceptibility to soil blowing. Septic tank absorption tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- fields function properly, but in places the sandy sub- ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- stratum does not properly filter the leachate. Sewage land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be lagoons must be sealed. Once established, lawns, shrubs, attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, and trees grow well. Capability subclass Vie irrigated, managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. Vle nonirrigated; Deep Sand range site. This soil has fair potential for urban development. The 7l—Valent-Loup complex, 0 to 9 percent slopes. This primary limiting soil features are the rapid permeability level to moderately sloping map unit occupies hills, ridges, and the susceptibility to soil blowing. Septic tank absorp- and depression or pothole-like areas in the sandhills at Lion fields function properly, but in places the sandy sub- elevations of 4,670 to 4,700 feet. The Valent soil makes up stratum does not properly filter the leachate. Sewage about 60 percent of the unit, the Loup soil about 35 per- lagoons must be sealed. Once established, the lawns, cent. About 5 percent is dune sand. The Valent soil occu- shrubs, and trees grow well. Capability subclass IVe ir- pies the hills and ridges and the Loup soil the depressions rigated, Vle nonirrigated; Deep Sand range site. or potholes. 70—Valent sand, 3 to 9 percent slopes. This is a deep, The Valent soil is deep and excessively drained. It excessively drained soil on plains at elevations of 4,650 to formed in eolian deposits. Typically the surface layer is 5,100 feet. It formed in eolian deposits. Included in brown sand about 8 inches thick. The underlying material mapping are small areas of soils that have lime within a to a depth of 60 inches is brown sand. depth of 40 inches. Also included are small areas of soils Permeability is rapid. Available water capacity is that have sandstone between 40 and 60 inches. moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or Typically the surface layer of the Valent soil is brown more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is sand about 6 inches thick. The underlying material to a tow. The Loupsoil is deep and poorly drained. It formed in depth of 60 inches is brown sand. p y Permeability is rapid. Available water capacity is sandy alluvium. Typically the surface layer is very dark moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or grayish brown, mottled loamy sand about 16 inches thick. more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is The underlying material to a depth of 60 inches is light low- brownish gray, mottled loamy sand and sandy loam. 940251 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 47 be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected cover. For pheasants. undisturbed nesting cover is essen- should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- be seeded into a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be merit, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be spring has proven most successful. attracted by developing live.st,•s k watering facilities, Windbreaks and environment-I plantings are fairly well managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. suited to this soil. Blow ing sand and low available ++cater This soil has good potential for urban and recreational capacity are the principal hazards le establishing tree. development. Once established, the lawns, shrubs, and and shrubs. The soil is so louse that trees should be trees grow well. The chief limiting soil feature is the phased in shallow furrows and vegetation rrraintaintll rapid permeability in the substratum, which causes a between the rows. Supplemental irrigation may be needed hazard of ground water contamination from sewage to insure survival. Trees that are best suited and have lagoons. In places recreational development is limited by good survival are Rocky Mountain juniper, western the susceptibility to soil blowing. Capability subclass Ille redcedar, ponderosa pine, and Siberian elm. The shrubs irrigated, IVe nonirrigated; Sturdy Plains range site. best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siboriata 73—Vona loamy sand, 3 to 5 percent slopes. This is a peashrnb. Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The deep, somewhat excessively drained soil on plains and high terraces at elevations of 4,6011 to 5,900 feet. It cropland areas provide favorable habitat fur ring-necked formed in eolian or alluvial deposits. Included in mapping pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species cal' are some leveled areas. Also included are small areas of be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape soils that have a loamy substratum and some areas of cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- soils tnat are noncalcareous to a depth of 60 inches. tial and should be included in plans fur habitat develop- neon, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- Typically the surface layer of this Vona soil is grayish land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be brown. The upper 6 inches is loamy sand and the lower 5 inches is fine sandy loam. The subsoil is brown and light attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. yellowish brown tine sandy loam about l-0 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches is sandy loam. This soil has good potential for urban and recreational development. Once established, the lawns, shrubs, and Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water trees grow well. The primary limiting soil feature is th.- capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth is fi) inches or more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion rapid permeability in the substratum, which causes a hazard is low. hazard of ground water contamination from sewage This soil is suited to limited cropping. Intensive lagoons. In places recreational development is limited by the susceptibility to soil blowing. Capability subclass I Ve cropping is hazardous because of soil blowing. The irrigated, Vle nonirrigated; Sandy Plains range site. cropping system should be limited to such close grown 74—Vona loamy sand, 5 to 9 percent slopes. This is a crops as alfalfa, wheat, and barley. The soil is also suited deep, somewhat excessively drained soil on plains at to irrigated pasture. A suitable cropping system is 3 to 4 elevations of 4,600 to 5,200 feet. It formed in eolian years of alfalfa followed by 2 years of corn and small deposits. Included in mapping are small areas of soils that grain and alfalfa seeded with a nurse crop. have a loamy substratum and areas of soils that are non- Closely spaced contour ditches or sprinklers can be calcareous to a depth of 60 inches. used in irrigating close grown crops. Contour furrows or Typically the surface layer is grayish brown. The upper spinklers should be used for new crops. Application of 6 inches is loamy sand and the lower 4 inches is fine barnyard manure and commercial fertilizer helps to main- sandy, loam. The subsoil is brown and light yellowish thin good production. brown fine sandy loam about 12 inches thick. The sub- The potential native vegetation on this range site is stratum to a depth of 60 inches is loamy sand. dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water grama. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grarna, capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential inches or more. Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre in favora- hazard is low. ble years to 1,1.00 pounds in unfavorable years. As range The potential native vegetation on this range site is condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue and switchgrass decrease and blue grama, sand dropseed, grama. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grama, and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential the site as range condition becomes poorer. production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre in favora- Management of vegetation can this soil should be based ble years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As range on taking halt' and leaving half of the total annual produc- condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, then. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. and switchgrass decrease and I ltie grama, sand dropseed. Sand bluestern, sand reedgrass. switchgrass, sideoats and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade grama, blue grama, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested the site as range condition becomes poorer. • 940251 90 SOIL SURVEY Permeability is moderately slow. Available water In irrigated areas this soil is suited to the crops corn- capacity is high. The effective rooting depth is GO inches monly grown in the area. Perennial grasses and alfalfa or or more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is close grown crops should be grown at least 50 percent of law. the time. Contour ditches and corrugations can be used in In irrigated areas this soil is suited to the crops coin- irrigating crops and pasture. Furrows, contour furrows, monk grown in the area. Perennial grasses and alfalfa or and cross slope furrows are suitable for row crops. Sprin- close grown crops should be grown at least 50 percent of kler irrigation is also desirable. Keeping tillage to a the time. Contour ditches and corrugations can be used in minimum and utilizing crop residue help to control cro- irrigating close grown crops and pasture. Furrows, con- sion. Maintaining fertility is important. Crops respond to tour furrows, and cross slope furrows are suitable for row applications of phosphorus and nitrogen. crops. Sprinkler irrigation is also desirable. Keeping til- In nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat, lage to a minimum and utilizing crop residue help to con- barley, and sorghum. Most of the the acreage is planted trol erosion. Maintaining fertility is important. Crops to winter wheat. The predicted average yield is 20 respond to applications of phosphorus and nitrogen. bushels per acre. The soil is usually summer (allowed in in nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat, alternate years to allow moisture accumulation. Generally barley. and sorghum. Most of the acreage is planted to precipitation is too low for beneficial use of fertilizer. winter wheat. The predicted average yield is 28 bushels Stubble mulch farming, striperopping, and minimum til- per acre. The soil is summer fallowed in alternate years lage are needed to control soil blowing and water erosion. to allow moisture accumulation. Generally precipitation is Terracing also may be needed to control water erosion. too low for beneficial use of fertilizer. The potential native vegetation on this range site is Stubble mulch farming. striperopping, and minimum til- dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue lage are needed to control soil blowing. grama. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grama, Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre in favora- establishing trees and shrubs, can he controlled by cul- ble years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As range tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation and switchgrass decrease and blue grama, sand dropseed, may be needed at the time of planting and (luring dry and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade periods. Trees that are best suited and have good survival the site as range condition becomes poorer. are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa Management of vegetation on this soil should be based pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberi- tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. an peashrub. Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. grama, blue grama, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested Ring-necked pheasant. mourning dove, and many non- wheatgrasswheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected game species can be attracted by establishing areas for should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can nesting and escape cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting be seeded into a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be cover is essential and should be included in plans drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in for habitat development, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. spring has proven most successful. Few areas of this Nunn soil are in major growth and Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally urbanized centers. The sandy surface layer, the moderate suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in shrink-swell potential in the subsoil, and the hazard of establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- rare flooding along Box Elder Creek are the chief limit- tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of ing features for development. Capability subclass Iile ir- vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation Heated, I ye nonirrigated. may be needed at the time of planting and during dry 11—Diner loamy sand, I to 3 percent slopes. This is a Periods. Trees that are hest suited and have good survival deep, well drained soil on smooth plains at elevations of are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa 1!l00 to 5.200 feet. it formed in mixed outwash deposits. pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The Included in mapping are some small leveled areas. shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberi- Typically the surface layer is grayish brown loamy sand an peashrub. about 9 inches thick. The subsoil is yellowish brown and Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The very pale brown sandy clay loam about 15 inches thick. cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked The substratum to a depth of 60 inches is very pale pheasant and mourning (love. Many nongame species can brown. calcareous fine sandy loam. be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape Permeability and available water capacity are cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- low. land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be 940251 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 31 attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cal- managing livestock grazing and reseeding where needed. tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of This soil has good pot a nt dal for urban development. The vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation only limiting feature is the moderately rapid permeability may be needed at the time of planting and during dry in the substratum, which causes a hazard of ground water periods. 'frees that are best suited and have good sure al contamination from sewage lagoons. The loamy sand stir- are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern relct-dun p„omen,.., face layer is a limitation for recreational development. pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and backberry. The Once established, the lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. shrubs best suited are sk unkbush sumac, lilac, and Si bcri Capability subclass I1le irrigated, I Ve nonirrigated; an peashrub. Sandy Plains range site. Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The 45—Olney loamy sand, 3 to 5 percent slopes. This is a cropland areas provide favorable habitat fur ring-necked deep, well drained soil on plains at elevations of 4,600 to pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species cam, 5,20N) feet. It formed in mixed outwash deposits. Included be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape in mapping are small areas of soils that have sandstone cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is escn and shale within a depth of 60 inches and some small tial and should be included in plans for habitat dexclop- leveled areas. ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- Typically the surface layer of this Olney soil is grayish land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, wan be brown loamy sand about 7 inches thick. The subsoil is yet- attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, lowish brown and very pale brown sandy clay loam about managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. 14 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches is This soil has good potential fur urban development. The very pale brown, calcareous fine sandy loam. only limiting feature is the moderately rapid permeability Permeability and available water capacity are in the substratum, which causes a hazard of ground water malerate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or contamination from sewage lagoons. The loamy sand sur- more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard if face layer is a limitation for recreational development. low. Once established, the lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. In irrigated areas this soil is suited to the crops coo- Capability subclass llle irrigated, VI nonirrigated; Sandy monly grown in the area. Perennial grasses and alfalfa or Plains range site. close grown crops should be grown at least 50 percent of 46—Olney fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. the time. Close grown crops and pasture can be irrigated This is a deep, well drained soil on smooth plains at cle%a- with contour ditches and corrugations. Furrows, contour tions of 4,600 to 5,200 feet. It formed in mixed out%ash furrows, and cross slope furrows are suitable for row deposits. Included in mapping are small areas of soils that crops. Sprinkler irrigation is also desirable. Keeping til- have a dark surface layer and some small leveled areas. lage to a minimum and utilizing crop residue help to con- Typically the surface layer of this Olney soil is grayish trol erosion. Maintaining fertility and organic matter con- brown fine sandy loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil tent is important. Crops respond to barnyard manure and is yellowish brown and very pale brown sandy clay luau commercial fertilizer. about 15 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of no The potential native vegetation on this range site is inches is very pale brown, calcareous fine sandy loam. dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue Permeability and available water capacity are grama. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grama, moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard 6 production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre in favors- low. ble years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As range This soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, is suited to all crops commonly grown in the area, Melud and switchgrass decrease and blue grama, sand dropseed, ing corn, sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes. and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade and onions. An example of a suitable cropping system is :t the site as range condition becomes poorer. to 4 years of alfalfa followed by corn, corn fur silage, Management of vegetation on this soil should be based sugar beets, small grain, or beans. Few conservation prac- on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- tices are needed to maintain top yields. tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow it Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, sn itchgrass, sideoats rigation is the most common. Barnyard manure and con- gruna, blue grama, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested mercial fertilizer are needed for top yields. w heutgrass are suitable fur seeding. The grass selected Windbreaks and environmental plantings are gcncrall' should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard o, be seeded into clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be establish iug trees and shrubs, can be cuntul led drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a ship „1 spring has proven must successful. vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally may be needed at the time of planting and during dry suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in periods. Trees that are best suited and have good sum i%al 910251. Hello